Help Me, Security Moms! You're My Only Hope!

David Weigel | February 29, 2008

In October 2004, as John Kerry marched forth on his quest to blow the election, pollster Mark Penn put forth a theory for why the Democrats weren't locking in middle-aged women who went for Al Gore and Bill Clinton.

These modern moms work, have kids and live in the suburbs. They are not concerned about party labels, Vietnam service records or the National Guard. They are voting on the basis of what they think will be best for the future of their families. Forty-seven percent of these voters believe security is the most important issue -- a reversal from late May, when 50 percent said the economy was most important and only 28 percent named security. It is not too late to turn them around again.

These women were labelled "security moms," and Penn's party spent a long chunk of 2005 and 2006 fretting about how to win them. It was thought that Hillary Clinton, the first frontrunning female candidate for the White House who had cast all the "right" votes on foreign policy, and whose pollster happened to be Mark Penn, had cracked the code. But then Barack Obama started winning elections. Clinton is closing out her Texas campaign with this ad:

It's 3:00 a.m. and your children are asleep. There's a phone in the White House, and it's ringing. Something is happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call. Whether someone knows the world's leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead. It's 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?

I was expecting it to cut to video of Samuel L. Jackson, but no: It cuts to Hillary Clinton. As was quickly pointed out, this gambit violates one of the lines Bill Clinton used in 2004, trying to convince people that George W. Bush was playing unfair. It cuts against polling on this issue, too. In Wisconsin, 51 percent of voters claimed that Obama was the "most qualified" candidate for commander-in-chief. Only 3 percent of the voters who said that went for Clinton; 15 percent of the people who bought Clinton's argument went for Obama anyway. Most amusingly, Clinton's ad was put together by the brains who cut this ad for Walter Mondale.

The most awesome, powerful responsibility in the world lies in the hand that picks up this phone. The idea of an unsure, unsteady, untested hand is something to really think about. This is the issues of our times. On March 20, vote as if the future of the world is at stake. Mondale. This president will know what he's doing, and that's the difference between Gary Hart and Walter Mondale.

It's hard to imagine the ensuing Mondale presidency without that ad making it all possible.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|2.29.08 @ 1:18PM|#

Heck, I thought we were about to learn that was a McCain ad.

|2.29.08 @ 1:27PM|#

I'll bet Hillary wouldn't say "motherfucking" even once, no matter how late the call.

LarryA|2.29.08 @ 1:28PM|#

I wonder how many of these "security moms" have loved ones somwhere who are likely to be the subject of that 3:00 AM call.

They're question isn't about who they want answering, but who'll be giving orders.

Hillary does indeed know the military. And they know her.

LarryA|2.29.08 @ 1:29PM|#

Dang. I even previewed and fixed it wrong. "Their"

|2.29.08 @ 1:29PM|#

It's such a mommy ad, too.

The Republican version would show an office building, people on a sidewalk, and an EXTERIOR shot of the home.

Earlier, I had read of her using "the kitchen sink" against Obama. Apparently that doesn't include contesting and suing over the reults in Texas, which is forthcoming.

Hugo Chavez in a pant-suit.

|2.29.08 @ 1:35PM|#

They won't actually sue. They just want to make sure everyone realized that Texas, like Maine, Georgia, South Carolina, Washington DC, Washington State, and Minnesota, DOESN'T MATTER.

ed|2.29.08 @ 1:38PM|#

Hillary Clinton, in bed, at 3 in the morning.
Now that's scary.

Jennifer|2.29.08 @ 1:47PM|#

Whether someone knows the world's leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead.

Hmm. The implication here is that Hillary KNOWS all these important people, and has been "tested" and has experience, unlike that clueless Obama. But that makes no sense, since Obama has senatorial experience just as Hillary does. Unless--no, surely she's not trying to imply that the eight years she spent boinking (or possibly not-boinking) a former president makes her somehow more qualified that a candidate who can't honestly claim to be a former First Lady? No, impossible, she's running on her own merits and accomplishments, and who her husband is or used to be has nothing to do with it, right?

|2.29.08 @ 1:49PM|#

Oh, come on. I find her "experience" argument overstates things, too, but she didn't spend eight years just picking out china and drapes and boinking Bill. She was a top-tier White House aid and operative.

Seer|2.29.08 @ 1:51PM|#

The ad isn't terrible, it's the theory that security moms are important this cycle that's terrible.

It's also funny seeing a Clinton trying to talk about knowing the military.

Jennifer|2.29.08 @ 1:51PM|#

She was a top-tier White House aid and operative.

A position she no doubt held because she was the most qualified member of the candidate pool -- no, make that because she was the one chosen by the voters -- no, dammit, somebody help me out here with an excuse that doesn't boil down to "because of her own merits, not because of the guy she married."

Jennifer|2.29.08 @ 1:52PM|#

I mean that DOES boil down to--oh, fuck it, I'm tired today and the coffee IS NOT working. Y'all know what I meant.

Ben|2.29.08 @ 1:52PM|#

Joe's right. Some of those 8 years were surely spent seeing if she could make Monica "disappear" and if the CIA could secretly neuter Bill without his knowledge.

|2.29.08 @ 1:57PM|#

A position she no doubt held because she was the most qualified member of the candidate pool -- no, make that because she was the one chosen by the voters -- no, dammit, somebody help me out here with an excuse that doesn't boil down to "because of her own merits, not because of the guy she married."

Obviously, you are correct that she got that position because of nepotism, but so did Warren Christopher and Jim Baker. So did Bobby Kennedy. And in all four cases, the experience they gained "counts," regardless of how they got the job.

|2.29.08 @ 1:59PM|#

Maybe Obama's success has nothing to do with policy positions.

Maybe it's as simple as that fact that the guy's a great speaker who seems (notice I said 'seems') fresh and untainted by years of political compromising...while Clinton seems increasingly shrewish, calculating, defensive and destined to provide Americans with 4 to 8 years of idiotic pointless scandals.

|2.29.08 @ 2:01PM|#

"she didn't spend eight years just picking out china and drapes and boinking Bill. She was a top-tier White House aid and operative."

Well we know she didn't spend those 8 years boinking Bill, but her operations in the White House consisted of her failed health care scheme, her firing of the travel office, her digging up dirt on Republicans by looking at their FBI files, engaging in fund raising scandals, covering up scandals, and stealing furniture. Just the kind of experience we need in a president.

Jennifer|2.29.08 @ 2:03PM|#

And in all four cases, the experience they gained "counts," regardless of how they got the job.

Except they didn't try to portray themselves as rugged individualists who got where they are today solely on their own merits. I see nothing necessarily wrong with a woman using her husband's connections to get a good job she'd be qualified for anyway, but turning around and trying to portray herself as some wonderful independent feminist role model on top of that is bullshit.

"Yes, little one, when you grow up you, too, can be a powerful, strong, independent feminist woman! All you need to do is go to college, study, work hard and get an MRS degree granted by a future president."

|2.29.08 @ 2:05PM|#

Come on, bookworm, you can at least take a stab at thinking objectively about even those politicians you don't like.

It takes a little effort, but it's not THAT hard.

No, bookworm, the entirety of Hillary Clinton's participaton in her husband's administration does NOT consist of the "scandals" you've seen reported in conservative media outlets.

|2.29.08 @ 2:06PM|#

So basically, Jennnifer, your backing off the claim that she doesn't have experience, and arguing instead that she isn't a role model for feminist success.

I can buy that. It's a much better argument.

Insecurity Mom|2.29.08 @ 2:06PM|#

She should be home, baking cookies.

|2.29.08 @ 2:08PM|#

Except they didn't try to portray themselves as rugged individualists who got where they are today solely on their own merits.

I haven't seen her doing that, and I've been following the primary pretty closely.

You know, I've even seen her refer to her husband's presidency once. Maybe twice.

Jennifer|2.29.08 @ 2:09PM|#

So basically, Jennnifer, your backing off the claim that she doesn't have experience, and arguing instead that she isn't a role model for feminist success.

Not "backing off" any claim at all. Read my original comment again, especially the part about "she's running on her own merits and accomplishments, and who her husband is or used to be has nothing to do with it."

|2.29.08 @ 2:13PM|#

You mean this one, Jennifer:

Hmm. The implication here is that Hillary KNOWS all these important people, and has been "tested" and has experience, unlike that clueless Obama. But that makes no sense, since Obama has senatorial experience just as Hillary does. Unless--no, surely she's not trying to imply that the eight years she spent boinking (or possibly not-boinking) a former president makes her somehow more qualified that a candidate who can't honestly claim to be a former First Lady?

Call me crazy, but that looks an awful lot like a claim that she has no right to claim that her time as First Lady counts as experience, because she was just "boinking (or possibly not boinking)" Bill.

If that wasn't what you meant, OK, but that's how it reads.

|2.29.08 @ 2:14PM|#

"No, bookworm, the entirety of Hillary Clinton's participaton in her husband's administration does NOT consist of the "scandals" you've seen reported in conservative media outlets."

I've also read about these scandals from liberal souces as well.

Since she claims to be the co-president, why won't she release the documentation of it? She even tried to blame the Bush Administration for withholding that information.

|2.29.08 @ 2:15PM|#

Maybe it's the part where you say she's claiming to have experience, tell us "but that makes no sense," and then explain why the time she spent in the White House doesn't actually count as experience.

|2.29.08 @ 2:16PM|#

Ah talking points.

Whatever, bookworm. Travel office. White House files. Release the documents.

You're not even trying for fairness, you're just spinning.

|2.29.08 @ 2:19PM|#

~~Hugo Chavez~~Joe Lieberman in a pant-suit.

|2.29.08 @ 2:20PM|#

Except by osmosis and some limited involvement in policy discussions, she has no more experience than Obama. In fact, a good deal of the time after the healthcare fiasco, she was intentionally recast as more of the traditional first lady. I don't doubt she had opinions and influence, but that's true of most spouses of politicians, I'm sure. Am I supposed to vote for Laura Bush for her sixteen years of political experience, too? It's a joke, and the fact that she hasn't been laughed at for making the claims is sad. Back when we were slightly less stupid, Richardson would've been the nominee, despite his poor campaigning style. It would've been too embarrassing to put up such obvious neophytes.

joe, join me for a flashback moment of unity. We both thought Warner had an excellent chance of being the nominee. Why did he drop out? I can't figure it out, unless it's just a personal reluctance to deal with the crap.

I don't mean to pick on you, Jennifer. You make a fair point. I just don't think it goes to the claims made in the ad about her being experienced.

|2.29.08 @ 2:22PM|#

Pro Lib,

In fact, a good deal of the time after the healthcare fiasco, she was intentionally recast as more of the traditional first lady.

That was a change in her media profile, not here substantive role. Which was much larger than that of Laura Bush.

I think Mark Warner bought into the Hilllary Inevitability hype.

Taktix®|2.29.08 @ 2:26PM|#

Whatever, bookworm. Travel office. White House files. Release the documents.

You're not even trying for fairness, you're just spinning.

joe,

So you're denying these things happened?

And what exactly did Hillary accomplish?

|2.29.08 @ 2:26PM|#

All Hillary's experience in government is of the variety "I need to run your life"

|2.29.08 @ 2:28PM|#

This is purely anecdotal, but the staffers I knew made it sound like she really did get out of active involvement. I don't question that she and Bill talked policy, and I certainly see her as more involved than most first ladies. Still, that's not the same thing as experience. If for no other reason than the total lack of accountability and visibility. She can claim to have had nothing to do with the negative stuff and everything to do with the positive stuff. That's useless to us voters. She probably couldn't even be involved at all in security matters--without an appointed or elected office, I doubt she legally could see or hear about certain matters.

That might be it for Warner. Too bad for him, because he would've had an excellent shot at the whole shebang.

|2.29.08 @ 2:29PM|#

Warren,

I'd Like to Pillage.

"In fact, a good deal of the time after the healthcare fiasco, she was intentionally recast as more of the traditional first lady."

That was basically what Dick Morris said. He said that after the health care fiasco, she just spent her time doing typical first lady duties like public relations and redecorating and stuff. He should know, he was there. He said she didn't really get involved again until the Monica scandal and then only as an operative in trying to coverup the scandal.

Taktix,

The bit about Hillary, herself, personally, digging up information about Republican opponents from FBI files is fabrication. The rest are shorthand for scandals that were overhyped.

And what exactly did Hillary accomplish? White House advisors don't generally accomplish things, but advise the president. But off the top of my head, she was the driving force behind SCHIP.

Taktix®|2.29.08 @ 2:31PM|#

That was basically what Dick Morris said.

Not what one would call a terribly credible source. I'm not sure what happened between the Clintons and Morris, but Morris has had it out for them ever since he left...

|2.29.08 @ 2:32PM|#

Pro Lib,

Still, that's not the same thing as experience. It's experience of a sort, and a different sort than that of a dinners-and-drapes first lady. Would you question whether George Stephanopolous had any White House experience? I equate hers to a Councillor to the President, or Special Assistant to the President.

Ronnie|2.29.08 @ 2:32PM|#

It's hard to imagine the ensuing Mondale presidency . . . .

Where's the beef?

That was basically what Dick Morris said.

OK then.

Taktix®|2.29.08 @ 2:33PM|#

joe,

Fair enough. I may not agree with SCHIP, but it can be considered an accomplishment.

Still Hugo Chavez in a pant-suit.

|2.29.08 @ 2:34PM|#

"She can claim to have had nothing to do with the negative stuff and everything to do with the positive stuff. That's useless to us voters."

If she had anything to do with anything positive, she should reveal the evidence to us and not expect us to take her word for it. By not reveiling the documentation, we have to assume she's lieing about her involvement or that she's covering up something scandalous.

|2.29.08 @ 2:35PM|#

We have to assme she was lying about her role creating SCHIP?

Why is that, exactly, bookworm?

|2.29.08 @ 2:38PM|#

I think maybe we're confusing "experienced" with "accomplished". yes she had "experience" in the white house, what that means other than that she was there, i dont know. What i want to know is what she "accomplished" while in the white house, what specifically about those 8 years does she deserve credit/blame for?

|2.29.08 @ 2:39PM|#

damn, you all beat me to it...

Taktix®|2.29.08 @ 2:39PM|#

If she had anything to do with anything positive, she should reveal the evidence to us and not expect us to take her word for it. By not reveiling the documentation, we have to assume she's lieing about her involvement or that she's covering up something scandalous.

bookworm,

I wouldn't contribute this to malice as much as to her sucktitude at campaigning. For an example, look at her during the last debate. At a time when she needs to appear calm, collected and confident, she's squawking like a chicken with a whithered taint...

|2.29.08 @ 2:41PM|#

White House advisors don't generally accomplish things, but advise the president.

Jeez, if that's the standard even Chelsea has "experience", and even Barbara Bush was a White House "advisor"...

|2.29.08 @ 2:42PM|#

Traditionally, political advisers without much direct experience (as cabinet heads or in elected office) don't run for president. There's a difference between throwing out some advice and having to make the big decisions. Yeah, I think that discounts her claims to experience. I have plenty of advice and ideas about what the president should do, too.

I have to say that I'm shocked at how badly she's running her campaign. Bill's the brains in that family, in my opinion. At least politically speaking.

|2.29.08 @ 2:43PM|#

Is it only the after-midnight calls that we have to worry about the next president answering, or is it all of them? Is it just when our kids are sleeping? I'm confused, who's calling?

Anyone else upset that we have 3 senators running? Not a position well known for making tough decisive executive actions...

Taktix®|2.29.08 @ 2:45PM|#

Anyone else upset that we have 3 senators running? Not a position well known for making tough decisive executive actions...

By that definition, I am overjoyed. Too bad I'm not actually overjoyed...

|2.29.08 @ 2:46PM|#

Senators are fine. I'm voting for Marcus Tullius Cicero.

|2.29.08 @ 2:48PM|#

I think it's funny they thought to throw in: and your children are asleep.

"Wait, it's 3:00 AM and my kids are asleep, is something happening in the world? Yes? Okay you've got my attention..."

|2.29.08 @ 2:51PM|#

Shane,

Jeez, if that's the standard even Chelsea has "experience", and even Barbara Bush was a White House "advisor"...

That is simply not true. Just because she is a woman who is in the President's family does NOT mean that her role was the same as a traditional first lady.

Nobody claimed that she spent those 8 years exactly like Barbara Bush or Betty Ford three years ago. She was the terrifying Co-President, controlling the world from behind the scenes. And now that it's convenient to say the opposite, that all goes by the boards, and she spent 8 years picking carpets and twirling Bill's hair.

I don't get it - is she the wicked political operative running oppo research and digging through FBI files, or is she the reincarnation of Mamie Eisenhower? Cuz she couldn't be both.

Pro Lib,

Pro Libertate | February 29, 2008, 2:42pm | #

Traditionally, political advisers without much direct experience (as cabinet heads or in elected office) don't run for president. No, the usually do something like, oh, SERVE IN THE SENATE first. And then their resume lists Senator at the top, and then their experience in the administration below that.

|2.29.08 @ 2:52PM|#

Curse you people for making me defend Hillary Clinton!

I even voted against her!

|2.29.08 @ 2:53PM|#

Hillary is just as qualified as everyone else in this race to be President.

Sadly, that is about as comforting as saying, "Michael Jackson is qualified to be a babysitter."

|2.29.08 @ 2:58PM|#

boinking

I wonder, when was the last time Bill and Hillary actually had sex?

svf|2.29.08 @ 2:59PM|#

Hillary, meet your running mate... Mr. Tom Tancredo.

One nation, under fear...

|2.29.08 @ 2:59PM|#

Oh, joe, one term in the Senate? Please. Not enough. Long-term tenure in Congress would be okay; better would be a cabinet position or governor on top of the time in Congress. It's not like she's blowing us away with new ideas that might make us overlook her failings, either.

|2.29.08 @ 3:00PM|#

OMG, Warty. First McCain and the lobbyist, and now that.

*Kennedy and Jackie. Kennedy and Jackie. I'm in my Happy Place. I'm in my Happy Place*

Taktix®|2.29.08 @ 3:02PM|#

Does anyone have a calculator I can borrow? Preferably one with trig functions?

I'm just trying to count the number of strawmen in joe's 2:51 post.

|2.29.08 @ 3:03PM|#

Pro Lib,

As I wrote, I find her claims to be the "experience" candidate to be overblown. She would probably rank between Bill and Dubya, who were both relatively inexperienced by most measures.

I'm just saying, he time in the White House DOES count as relevant experience for the job, even if her career to date doesn't add up to a great deal of experience.

Um, joe, you don't have to defend her.

|2.29.08 @ 3:04PM|#

"I don't get it - is she the wicked political operative running oppo research and digging through FBI files, or is she the reincarnation of Mamie Eisenhower? Cuz she couldn't be both."

She was the wicked political operative in 1993 and 1994 and then the Mamie Eisenhower from 1995 through 1998 and then reverted back to her role as the wicked political operative in 1999 and 2000 so it was half and half.

|2.29.08 @ 3:05PM|#

I was expecting it to cut to video of Samuel L. Jackson

I was expecting it to cut to a video of Bill Clinton in a half-open bathrobe with a slice of cold pizza reaching for the phone while a Secret Service agent tries to tackle him.

Kind of like the Al Gore SNL oval office bit.

|2.29.08 @ 3:11PM|#

JFK and Jackie O is your happy place, joe? I don't know the right adjective to use to describe my reaction to that.

|2.29.08 @ 3:12PM|#

I wouldn't say that Senator Clinton's time in association with Governor/President Clinton doesn't count at all, but she makes it sound like she was, well, Al Gore. That's my problem. It's relevant, but not compelling.

|2.29.08 @ 3:20PM|#

"I think maybe we're confusing "experienced" with "accomplished". yes she had "experience" in the white house, what that means other than that she was there, i dont know. What i want to know is what she "accomplished" while in the white house, what specifically about those 8 years does she deserve credit/blame for?"

And those accomplishments are something she won't reveal. Could it be because there aren't any? She also has no accomplishments in the Senate. She is not responsible for any major legislation. If she can't pass any major legislation out of 7 years, how can we expect her to accomplish anything as president? She's just another overrated politician.

By that definition, I am overjoyed. Too bad I'm not actually overjoyed...

It's just that Senators are kind of known to put their political career above the office and for backdoor shenanigans. At least Governors are called to account for what they've done while in office, Senators just say the right words, make the right deals and enjoy a lifetime of incumbency, there's no real no real pressure for them to account for themselves other than bringing home the bacon.

Russ 2000|2.29.08 @ 3:22PM|#

The implication here is that Hillary KNOWS all these important people,

Then obviously the ad was cut before the last debate.

|2.29.08 @ 3:23PM|#

She was the terrifying Co-President, controlling the world from behind the scenes. And now that it's convenient to say the opposite, that all goes by the boards, and she spent 8 years picking carpets and twirling Bill's hair.

I don't think i've said that, what i've asked is what did accomplish as "co-president", what can we hold her accountable for in order to grant her credit or blame? If the answer is nothing then it doesn't matter if she "advised" her husband or not, her list of accomplishments while in the white is no more substantial than any other presidential family member.

Russ 2000|2.29.08 @ 3:27PM|#

Jeez, if that's the standard even Chelsea has "experience", and even Barbara Bush was a White House "advisor"...

For that matter, any WH press secretary or telephone operator would meet the same standard.

Russ 2000|2.29.08 @ 3:28PM|#

Anyone else upset that we have 3 senators running? Not a position well known for making tough decisive executive actions...

A point in favor of all three candidates, IMO.

ed|2.29.08 @ 3:29PM|#

I wonder, when was the last time Bill and Hillary actually had sex?

How old is Chelsea? Add nine months.

Rakune|2.29.08 @ 3:30PM|#

George W. Bush in a pnat suit - fits a little better.

|2.29.08 @ 3:30PM|#

"The bit about Hillary, herself, personally, digging up information about Republican opponents from FBI files is fabrication."

It was Livingstone who obtained the files. It was Hillary who hired Livingstone. My guess is that Hillary was directly involved in Filegate.

Taktix®|2.29.08 @ 3:30PM|#

The implication here is that Hillary KNOWS all these important people,

So Hillary is the Eric Dondero of presidential politics?

Russ 2000|2.29.08 @ 3:31PM|#

She is not responsible for any major legislation.

Damn, now I'm thinking maybe HRC wouldn't be so bad after all.

Russ 2000|2.29.08 @ 3:33PM|#

Don't must of us here want the Seinfeld candidate? "The presidency about nothing"

|2.29.08 @ 3:36PM|#

"I wonder, when was the last time Bill and Hillary actually had sex?"

"How old is Chelsea? Add nine months."

There are two stories about that. One is that Chelsea's father is really Webb Hubbell. The other story is that the Clintons needed to project a family image so they needed to have a child. The story goes that Bill had to get drunk and then went up to the she-bear's cave. The maid reported that the room was in shambles the next morning. Apparently, Hillary put up a big fight.

|2.29.08 @ 3:39PM|#

I'm just saying, he time in the White House DOES count as relevant experience for the job,

And the question remains, how and why? Being in the White House doesn't prepare you to head the executive branch from the White House, it just just means she's familiar with the building floorplan.

You think Bill would come out with something like "You know, Hillary came up with the strategy to change Senator X's vote on the Welfare Reform Bill. Then she met with him and his people and got the job done."
Aside from having to prove it, why oh why isn't there anyone making credible claims for any accomplishments??

|2.29.08 @ 3:53PM|#

"Being in the White House doesn't prepare you to head the executive branch from the White House"

If it did, then Socks would be qualified to be president.

|2.29.08 @ 3:54PM|#

So Hillary is the Eric Dondero of presidential politics?

Mein Gott, that's it--HRC and ED are the same.

nameless joe baiter|2.29.08 @ 4:02PM|#

joe | February 29, 2008, 2:52pm | #
Curse you people for making me defend Hillary Clinton!

I even voted against her!

Nobody's making you defend her joe - it's been your choice all along... and by the way, keep voting against her if you get another opportunity.

peachy | February 29, 2008, 3:03pm | #
Um, joe, you don't have to defend her.

Unless of course it is just your usual conditioned response to prove you are right.

|2.29.08 @ 5:17PM|#

These kinds of ads will be so much more effective when they are run by McCain and the Swift Boaters in the general election.

"Can you trust Barack HUSSEIN Obama?"

|2.29.08 @ 5:24PM|#

I understand his actual birth name was Barack Saddam Hussein Osama.

|2.29.08 @ 5:32PM|#

Pro-

Strange thing is, they probably will add the "Saddam" in there for good effort whether or not its true.

"Allah akbar! Thank you for calling the White House; how may I direct your call?"

|2.29.08 @ 5:36PM|#

We're all sitting here so rational, pooh-poohing these crazy claims, but when Obama pulls out a sword at his inauguration and says, "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammad is His Prophet!" and declares the Caliphate, well, then we'll look foolish.

Jennifer|2.29.08 @ 5:43PM|#

If the question of who to vote for boils down to "Who do we want answering the phone at 3 a.m." I'm thinking a 46-year-old like Obama would be a better choice than a 60-year-old like Hillary. Old people get awfully cranky when their sleep is disrupted, and tired cranky people don't make very good decisions.

|2.29.08 @ 5:51PM|#

Jennifer | February 29, 2008, 5:43pm | #
If the question of who to vote for boils down to "Who do we want answering the phone at 3 a.m." I'm thinking a 46-year-old like Obama would be a better choice than a 60-year-old like Hillary. Old people get awfully cranky when their sleep is disrupted, and tired cranky people don't make very good decisions.

Yeah, I've been thinking along the same lines... I'm 60 and today I'm tired and cranky, and it's still daylight!

What about John McCain - he's already cranky - and waaaay over 60!

Sandy|2.29.08 @ 6:07PM|#

A suitable video response has been posted to Hillary's question. You have to watch it all the way through.

|2.29.08 @ 6:15PM|#

Didn't her husband fail to answer a call saying we had Obama bin Laden?

Jennifer|2.29.08 @ 6:36PM|#

What about John McCain - he's already cranky - and waaaay over 60!

But he never said anything about manning the phones in the middle of the night. That's what his staff is for.

I'm still not voting for him, though.

Jennifer|2.29.08 @ 6:42PM|#

By the way, I notice Hillary answered the phone in full makeup. Did she put it on before answering the phone, or does she keep her makeup on when she goes to bed? If the latter, I definitely want to know who makes that incredible smudgeproof lipstick of hers.

BakedPenguin|2.29.08 @ 6:49PM|#

I definitely want to know who makes that incredible smudgeproof lipstick of hers.

It's actually the blood of small children taken at night from a village.

...not that I have something against her or anything...

Rakune|2.29.08 @ 6:58PM|#

Ignatius Reilly on a pogo stick, everybody knows Levy Pants.
What I mean is that HRC and GWB share the same delusion; they both believe what is best for them is best for me.

Rakune | February 29, 2008, 3:30pm
George W. Bush in a pnat suit - fits a little better.

Hillary answering the phone at|2.29.08 @ 9:03PM|#

Hello? Bill? What the &^%$ have you been up to this . . . oh, sorry, President Musharraf, I was expecting someone else . . . you lost a nuclear *what*? Have you checked under the sofa cushions? . . . Al stole it? Al who? . . . Oh, Al Quaeda, of course . . . are you sure it was them? . . . And they're threatening to explode it *where*? . . . Well, screw Salt Lake City, they never voted for me anyway . . . Why don't you call someone who gives a &^%(?

|2.29.08 @ 9:22PM|#

Lost in the comments and the post is the fact that Mondale used scare tactics to defeat Gary Hart.

Hart helped hang himself with his Donna Rice dare to the media and an incredibly stupid answer to a question in a debate about what to do with a hijacked airline.

But, overall, if he had been elected, the US military, and all of us taxpayers, as well as the people of Iraq, would have been much better off.

Hart has been an advocate for a more constitutional, decentralized military for a long time now. His friend and ally, William Lind, the foremost exponent of 4th generation war theory, has helped him on this attempt.

You can go to Amazon.com and get his book "Minuteman" for free (pay shipping).

It outlines his beliefs. Unfortunately, it was written just before 9-11, when "everything changed".

But everything would have changed for the better if Hart had beaten Mondale and Reagan.

|3.1.08 @ 8:32AM|#

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

|3.1.08 @ 10:06AM|#

Hart helped hang himself with his Donna Rice dare to the media and an incredibly stupid answer to a question in a debate about what to do with a hijacked airline.

As I recall, Hart also was an early voice against lobbyists' influence on the government.

|3.1.08 @ 10:30AM|#

I've already named one of Hillary's accomplishments while she was in the White House, SCHIP. (Actually, it was just called CHIP when she was heading up the initiative.) Exactly one commenter has been able to acknowledge this piece of evidence that refutes people's Hillary bashing, so on the whole, we're ahead of the curve.

Pro Libertate | February 29, 2008, 3:12pm | #

I wouldn't say that Senator Clinton's time in association with Governor/President Clinton doesn't count at all, but she makes it sound like she was, well, Al Gore. That's my problem. It's relevant, but not compelling.

I'd say that's about right. If she was in a contest with Biden or Dodd and they were hammering experience, her background would be enough to let her hold her own, and refute the charge that she's too green. But as an affirmative argument for her candidacy, it comes up a bit short.

It was Livingstone who obtained the files. It was Hillary who hired Livingstone. My guess is that Hillary was directly involved in Filegate.

Do you have any idea how many people work at the White House, bookworm? BTW, there was an investigation, and no evidence that she was involved was uncovered. You know, by the people who looked at the evidence, and didn't just "guess."

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements