An interesting Reaction to Hillary Clinton's new Phone ringing at 3 a.m. Ad

Does it bring people together or move them apart? Guess and then take a look.


Posted in * Economics, Politics, US Presidential Election 2008

15 comments on “An interesting Reaction to Hillary Clinton's new Phone ringing at 3 a.m. Ad

  1. Sarah1 says:

    I guessed — “it moves them farther apart . . . and that’s a good thing — precisely what a good ad is supposed to do, which is differentiate one’s product from its competitor’s”.

  2. Eclipse says:

    Can I answer “none of the above”?

    I don’t get what in the world the survey is trying to imply. That Hillary supporters liked her ad and non-Hillary supporters didn’t? Is this amazing?

  3. chips says:

    The ad had a negative impact on undecideds which is not what a good ad is supposed to do. Newsbusters did a spoof on the ad – said the answer was simple “John McCain”. Lets just say the dems are taking national security less seriously this year than even their usual low bar – they have not forgiven Hilliary for her war vote.

  4. Cennydd says:

    This ad is disingenous at best, since Hillary Clinton is no friend of the military…….and never has been.

  5. Philip Snyder says:

    I think that McCain should run this same ad (with “I’m Hillary Clinton and I approve this message”) in the General Election. Based on experience in foreign policy and in the military and with the military, McCain beats Hillary or Obama hands down.

    Sleeping in the same building with the President and accompanying him on trips overseas that ended 8 years ago doesn’t give you foreign policy experience.

    Phil Snyder

  6. Jim K says:

    Assuming for purposes of discussion that Hillary is the Democrat nominee, the most likely way this ad will reappear is as a joke: it’s 0300, the phone rings six times, she answers it fully dressed, makeup and jewelry in place, etc. and yells: “Bill, you b–d! Where the H–l are you? I’ve got a Cabinet meeting in a few hours!”

  7. Philip Snyder says:

    It’s interesting that the undecideds and Obama supporters dipped rapidly when the “I’m Hillary Clinton” bit came at the end.

    Phil Snyder

  8. Irenaeus says:

    “the Democrat nominee”

    When will this redneck word-twisting end?

  9. Irenaeus says:

    Following up on #8, it’s the “Democratic Party” and the nominee of that party is the “Democratic nominee.”

    You don’t have to agree with the names. Not all of us are convinced that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are committed to the “republican” form of government but we can still acknowledge that they belong to the “Republican Party.”

    “Democrat Party” is a deliberately insulting gibe popularized by the likes of George Wallace.

  10. Jim K says:

    Irenaeus: “a Media Matters for America review* of the Nexis database for the last three months found a number of examples of media figures, including news reporters, using the word “Democrat” as an adjective. For instance, on the August 13 broadcast of CBS’ Face the Nation, guest host and CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley used “Democrat” as an adjective four times, referring to both the “Democrat Party” and the “Democrat primary,” during an interview with Connecticut Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont.

    Additionally, Media Matters’ review found similar use of the word “Democrat” as an adjective by the following reporters and media figures:

    CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley, on the August 8 edition of CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360.
    CNN national correspondent Bob Franken, on the May 26 edition of CNN’s American Morning.
    New York Times senior writer Robin Toner, in a May 31 article.
    Wall Street Journal reporter Theo Francis, in an August 11 article (subscription required).
    Chicago Tribune business columnist Bill Barnhart, in an August 15 column.
    AP writer Peter Jackson, in a May 16 article.
    AP writer Tom Raum, in a June 16 article.
    *(democrat party or democrat primary or democrat candidate or democrat strategy or democrat strategist or democrat response or democrat lawmaker or democrat congress! or democrat representative or democrat senat! or democrat member or democrat caucus or democrat house or democrat proposal or democrat bill or democrat politic! or democrat plan or democrat legislat! or democrat tactic or democrat ploy or democrat statement or democrat press or democrat release or democrat claim or democrat agenda or democrat talking point or democrat nomin!) and date(geq (5/16/06) and leq (8/16/06))

    From the August 13 broadcast of CBS’ Face the Nation:

    PELLEY: On Tuesday, it looked like a pretty good idea to run against the war in a Democrat primary; then, Wednesday, the plot came up that was revealed of the bombing of — potential bombing of airliners into the United States.


    PELLEY: I should mention that we invited Senator [Joseph I.] Lieberman to be on the broadcast. Even though you defeated him in the Democrat primary, he’s decided to run as an independent in the general election, but Senator Lieberman is attending the wedding of his daughter this weekend, and it’s undoubtedly a more pleasant thing to do than be on Face the Nation.


    PELLEY: Our CBS News polling in your race showed that among Democrats in Connecticut, more than 80 percent said the war was important to them in — in their vote. Now, that’s one state, and just the Democrat Party. The question is: Do you think an anti-war candidate can win the presidency in 2008?


    PELLEY: Running as a — as an anti-war candidate in Connecticut, in the Democrat primary — again, a very small slice of the national pie — what lesson should the Democratic Party take from your victory when looking at the nation as a whole?

    From the August 8 edition of CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360:

    ANDERSON COOPER (host): Candy Crowley joins me now from Connecticut, also Amy Walter, the senior editor of The Cook Political Report.

    Candy, let me start off with you. If that’s true, if there are a lot of people in Connecticut feeling that Joe Lieberman had sort of focused too much on the national effort — no longer represented their interests — that does not bode well for him running as an independent.

    CROWLEY: Well, it doesn’t, except for that they’ve made this choice very deliberately. They looked at the numbers, and what they saw was that there is huge support among Connecticut Republicans and independents. And remember that independents, those that are not affiliated with either Democrat or Republican parties — this is the largest party in Connecticut.

    So, they looked at those numbers. They saw how he polled with those people, and they made a very deliberate choice a couple of weeks ago, knowing that this was going to be his best route to return to the U.S. Senate.

    From the May 26 edition of CNN’s American Morning:

    FRANKEN: The plot really thickens on this one. This has to do with the uproar of congressional leaders over an FBI raid into a Democrat Congressman, William Jefferson [LA], who has been implicated in the scandal — one of the scandals that’s been going on on Capitol Hill. They’re saying that this is a violation of the constitution.

    And what [House Speaker J. Dennis] Hastert [R-IL] is saying is, is that the leaks about his being part of another investigation are really part, to quote his interview with WGN Radio in Chicago: “This is one of the leaks,” he says, “that come out to try to intimidate people and we’re just not going to be intimidated on it.”

    From Toner’s May 31 New York Times article:

    One reason for Democratic optimism here is the possibility of a wounded Republican nominee emerging from a bitter (and relatively late) primary. Mr. Ford’s major opponent in the Democrat primary withdrew recently, giving him the luxury of running a general election campaign — raising money and running advertising, most recently on the price of gasoline.

    From Francis’ August 11 Wall Street Journal article:

    During the bidding, political tensions are mostly muted, though in 1998 Ms. Harris dubbed the baby possum she won for $100 “Sandra” after her opponent for secretary of state, Sandra Mortham. This year, Republican and Democrat candidates stood together as the auction approached, eyeing the nearby cage of possums, including a big, one-eyed male that the handlers called “fierce.”

    From Barnhart’s August 15 Chicago Tribune article:

    The prospect of a Democrat Party takeover of the U.S. House in the fall election bothers conservatives; the thought of more than two more years of George W. Bush depresses liberals.

    From Raum’s June 16 AP article:

    One set of numbers Bush will not give and which Democrats and some Republicans are pressing for the hardest is the timing and size of a U.S. troop withdrawal. Telegraphing such a timetable would be “bad policy,” Bush says.

    Democrat Party chief Howard Dean, however, says, “The reality is that our troops and their families still have no strategy from this president to get the job done in Iraq and get them home.”

    From Jackson’s May 16 AP article:

    The Republican and Democrat candidates for Pennsylvania governor Republican former Pittsburgh Steelers star Lynn Swann and Gov. Ed Rendell, respectively are unopposed in the primary. If elected, Swann would become the state’s first black governor.”
    If these be rednecks, then who would not be?

    Would you happier if we referred to members of the Democrat party as “Democratics?”

    The issue here, leaving partisanship out, if you can, is the co-opting of a word that should be left with its original meaning and not dragooned into the service of an agenda. A more recent example than the theft of “democratic” to identify a party that is anything but (witness the circus being played out in Florida and Michigan) is the total corruption of the term “gay.”

  11. wildfire says:

    When will this redneck word-twisting end?

    a) Sixth grade or 16, whichever comes first
    b) When Starbucks starts selling fair-trade Mountain Dew
    c) When the Episcopals buy the Astrodome for a new cathedral and make Joel Osteen the bishop
    d) When the Democrat party of the people carries Kansas, Idaho and Texas, but not Berkeley, Cambridge and Manhattan

  12. Words Matter says:

    I think they tore down the Astrodome.

  13. libraryjim says:

    If TEC wants to buy it, the plan would be:
    But only a small portion of the ‘dome was torn down, representing less then 2% of the entire ‘dome, and even less when you consider all the domed stadiums still standing. So it’s just a small minority in the scheme of things, allowing us to fully use it as our definitions of ‘remaining’ defines it.


  14. libraryjim says:

    sorry, I know it was off topic, but it was too good to keep to myself. 🙂

  15. Words Matter says:

    Off topic or not, if was good. Of course, I’m not an elf… :cheese: