Here’s what the kitchen sink looks like.
On the air in Texas starting today, “Children,” the Clinton’s campaign latest ad (above), is fear-mongering at its finest. The indigo light of the moon falls on the cherubic faces of slumbering children. “It’s 3:00 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep,” says a deep male voice. Before you can ask why he’s spying on your children, goddammit, a phone rings. Who calls at 3:00 a.m.? you think. Is Uncle Levon drunk again? But the voice quickly explains that you are mistaken. “There’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing. Something’s happening in the world.” Whatever this something is, it must be bad, or else it would have the decency to wait until regular business hours. Then comes the twist:
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 3:00 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?
As the voice delivers its final line, an image of Hillary Clinton in smart-lady glasses appears on screen. If you are wondering why she let phone ring six times before answering such an important call, stop it. As you can see, Clinton is obviously prepared to protect your children from certain death. Why else would she still be wearing a pantsuit at 3:00 in the morning?
Clearly, “Children” is absurd. Despite what Clinton may claim, there’s no reason to suspect she’d keep America any safer than Barack Obama. Simply living in the White House does not make you a foreign-policy expert (just ask President Nancy Reagan). Clinton did not have security clearance. She did not attend national security meetings. She did not negotiate treaties. Instead, her policy focus were decidedly domestic, and her heartiest effort–health care–was a failure. As a senator, she has sat on the Armed Services Committee longer than Obama has sat the Foreign Relations Committee, but the difference in tenure hardly qualifies her to be Commander-in-Chief. And it’s not particularly difficult to argue that whatever security cred Clinton does have comes from casting votes early in her Senate career that were meant to keep Republicans from calling her “liberal” or dovish–like, for example, her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. If she responds to pressure with decisions like that, critics would say, do we really want her answering the phone?
But, absurd as they are, ads like “Children” work. Which is why politicians keep making them. Clinton’s new spot is a seamless blend of two devious Democratic classics–Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 masterpiece “Daisy,” which also employs the “vote for me or this adorable child gets it” line of reasoning, and Walter Mondale’s similarly telephonic 1984 sequel “Red Phone.” (Fun fact: “Red Phone” and “Children” share a creator, Texas ad whiz Roy Spence). The point isn’t to establish Clinton as a credible Commander-in-Chief; the only proof provided–“she knows the world’s leaders” and “knows the military”–is laughably vague. It’s to prey on voters’ existing insecurities about Obama, who’s even less “experienced” than Clinton (for whatever that’s worth)–and to be extreme enough to earn a lot of free media exposure. Over at the Atlantic, Marc Ambinder writes that “this is [Clinton’s] best argument,” yet wonders why “it’s taken her 13 months to make it so explicitly.” “Argument” is a stretch. But I agree that it’s her last best bet–and that’s precisely because there are only 72 hours left before D-Day. The hope for Clinton is that the short notice will give voters plenty of time to succumb to their fears–and not quite enough to stop and think.
UPDATE, 1:50 p.m.: In response, Obama (predictably) plays the judgment card:
“We’ve seen these ads before. They’re the kind that play on peoples’ fears to scare up votes.” “Well it won’t work this time. Because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is – what kind of judgment will you make when you answer? We’ve had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer.”
UPDATE, 7:30 p.m.: Asked today “what foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary’s career where she’s been tested by crisis?,” Clinton’s “usually verbose team of Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinsten” responded with silence. After a long pause, they answered that “she’s been endorsed by many high ranking members of the uniformed military.” Rest easy, children.
