Clinton?s ?Daisy? Ad?

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
i vaguely remember johnson's ad...but i do remember it was pretty effective portraying goldwater as a war monger...

Susan Davis reports on the presidential race.

Sen. Hillary Clinton?s campaign has launched one of the most provocative television ads this presidential election campaign, and already it is drawing comparisons to President Lyndon Johnson?s controversial ?Daisy? ad in the 1964 campaign that suggested his opponent, Barry Goldwater, would lead the U.S. into nuclear war.


Senior Clinton aides disputed such suggestions today, with senior strategist Mark Penn saying the two ads are ?not at all? alike. Communications director Howard Wolfson said the Daisy ad was apocalyptic and that Clinton is rather asking about national security credentials, which a campaign would be ?derelict? not to do.

Clinton?s national security ad, ?Children,? is running in Texas, and asks voters who they would rather have in the White House when crisis strikes.

?It?s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep but there?s a phone in the White House and it?s ringing,? the announcer says as images of sleeping children are shown. ?Something?s happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call. Whether it?s someone who already knows the world?s leaders, knows the military ? someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. It?s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?? The ad then cuts to a picture of Clinton working at night.

While the ad makes no mention of rival Sen. Barack Obama, it is meant to underscore Clinton?s case that she is more experienced than the Illinois senator.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe panned the ad in a conference call with reporters this morning. ?She had her red-phone moment in 2002,? he said, referencing Clinton?s initial support of the invasion of Iraq. ?And she and George Bush and John McCain made the wrong decision.?

The red-phone reference regards a 1984 ad run by Walter Mondale?s campaign against Democratic opponent Gary Hart.

Plouffe countered that if the ad forces voters to question which candidate has better judgment, it will help Obama. ?We think this ad will not be successful at all,? he said.

The Obama campaign is relaunching their own national security ad, ?Gulf,? that features retired Gen. Merrill A. ?Tony? McPeak touting Obama?s judgment. The Clinton campaign was quick to note that the general had to apologize earlier this month for suggesting Clinton is prone to ?crying fits.? The campaign disassociated themselves from the remarks.

?The question is not ?Can you wake up and answer the phone?? because that?s pretty easy, the question is ?What do you do after you wake up??? McPeak told reporters today.
 
Last edited:

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
btw....if people were to be unbiased & not politically loyal to their parties, they would want mccain to be the one to answer the phone in the middle of the night....

he is head & shoulders above the democratic candidates in experience that this election should be no contest.....

and i'm not saying that mccain is the best person to be president, but i am saying that he is the most qualified of the 3 remaining candidates.....no contest...
 

gjn23

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 20, 2002
9,319
45
48
54
So. Cal
btw....if people were to be unbiased & not politically loyal to their parties, they would want mccain to be the one to answer the phone in the middle of the night....

he is head & shoulders above the democratic candidates in experience that this election should be no contest.....

and i'm not saying that mccain is the best person to be president, but i am saying that he is the most qualified of the 3 remaining candidates.....no contest...

as a registered rep and more on the conservative end (more liberatarian actually) and formerly from arizona...i for one dont really care for john mccain

that said

when one looks at his 2 competitors it's unbelieveably clear that he is the FAR SUPERIOR choice for President......and it's not even close.

yet, i'm afraid that the country is made up of american idol like viewers who read US weekly (not U.S. Weekly) who are mezmorized into obamination and will vote for this guy, despite him being a socialist.......not to mention that his cheerleaders, the us press, hasnt and probably wont let policy matter in this election.
 

bjfinste

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 14, 2001
5,462
18
0
AZ
btw....if people were to be unbiased & not politically loyal to their parties, they would want mccain to be the one to answer the phone in the middle of the night....

he is head & shoulders above the democratic candidates in experience that this election should be no contest.....

and i'm not saying that mccain is the best person to be president, but i am saying that he is the most qualified of the 3 remaining candidates.....no contest...

No, I wouldn't. He'd be the last one.

No, he's not. Laughable.

Bullshit. Why, because he was a POW? I liked him in 2004 -- a lot. The last 3-4 years, though, he's shown he's just another good ol' boy, bought-and-sold DC politician.


I think I'm gonna bow out of here for the most part. Most of these posts in here make me want to bang my head against the wall these days. I honestly don't know what is wrong with the wiring in some of your heads (and I'm sure some think the same about me). This stuff just isn't worth getting pissed about anymore, let along letting it affect how I think about guys I otherwise like.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
I think I'm gonna bow out of here for the most part. Most of these posts in here make me want to bang my head against the wall these days. I honestly don't know what is wrong with the wiring in some of your heads (and I'm sure some think the same about me). This stuff just isn't worth getting pissed about anymore, let along letting it affect how I think about guys I otherwise like.

there is no reason to get upset or angry at people you disagree with, as long as people are respectable towards one another....that's what politics are all about.....expressing points of view...
 
Last edited:

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,859
665
113
50
TX
No, I wouldn't. He'd be the last one.

No, he's not. Laughable.

Bullshit. Why, because he was a POW? I liked him in 2004 -- a lot. The last 3-4 years, though, he's shown he's just another good ol' boy, bought-and-sold DC politician.


I think I'm gonna bow out of here for the most part. Most of these posts in here make me want to bang my head against the wall these days. I honestly don't know what is wrong with the wiring in some of your heads (and I'm sure some think the same about me). This stuff just isn't worth getting pissed about anymore, let along letting it affect how I think about guys I otherwise like.



:sadwave: :argue: :s1: Obama and Hitlary are the anti-christ McCain is a liberal conservative:shrug: or so he says. I would vote for McCain way before Hitlary or Hussein Obama

My question is why does the right not have a legitimate candidate? We all have to endure McCain who scratches Ted KEnnedys back and has many views of the lefty socialists. He is still the lesser of the evils.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
It's stupid. Or she wants folks to act as if they don't know how our government works. Maybe there are that many slow ones around. I hope not.
 

gjn23

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 20, 2002
9,319
45
48
54
So. Cal
I've been saying that for months now. Add the democratic party to your statement too. Ridiculous how poor the choices are on both sides. :nono:

these are probably the worst choices ive seen since carter vs ford (maybe even worse)

3 bad candidates but mccain is by far the lesser of three evils.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top