Only the Clinton campaign would think mom would be checking on the kids at 3:00 am still dressed in her snazzy business suit.

I thought it was a bit creepy of that person to be looking in on your kids sleeping at 3am. I wasn't sure if it was supposed to be a psycho babysitter, the older sibling named Pat, or a really young doppelgänger of Hillary.

The real question is whether your daughter is safe from Bill Clinton.

Jason, get real. You don't think the ad is "effective." I mean, seriously: Are you now more convinced, having seen it, that children asleep in some randomly selected suburban home will be safer under a Hillary Clinton (or even McCain) administration than under an Obama administration? I don't think you're that big a sucker. What you mean to say, I gather, is that you think American voters in general are suckers. It's "effective" because they're so easily manipulated, you think, right?

I guess on that we differ. It seems to me that with the possible exception of the first post-9/11 elections (2002 and 2004), which weren't good tests because Democrats didn't present themselves as clear alternatives to the incumbents -- especially on security issues -- voters just don't respond to the claim that it's a horribly dangerous world and one candidate is more experienced. It's too easy an argument to turn back against the candidate making it -- as in, "Yeah, thanks for all the EXPERIENCE of helping get us into our current mess."

Plus, to voters, ALL serious national candidates are professionals at this stuff; I think it's a rare case where they imagine that Candidate X is significantly "less qualified" to handle crises because he's met only 20 foreign leaders in person while another candidate has met 50. An argument like that strikes me as a last-ditch confession of having nothing better -- clearly so in Hillary's case, and I think it will turn out to work against McCain too unless Obama opts for the proven Dem/loser strategy of basically conceding the point.

It seems kind of specious  for Hillary to claim knowledge of the world's leaders as a result of having dinner with them when her husband was in the White House.  I seriously doubt that her role was all that substantive in terms of negotiating with world leaders when she was First Lady.  The whole concept of experience and readiness built through osmosis is a tough sell.

Wow, Jason, you're right: what a strange ad for Clinton. ( See below .) The narrator tells us, twice

I think this could go down as one of the political ad classics on par with Lyndon Johnson's "mushroom cloud" ad in 1964 (against Goldwater) and the Bush 1's Willy Horton ad against Dukakis.  

It puts Obama  in a tough position.  If he responds, he legitimizes the point.  But he ignores the fear-mongering at his peril.  

Clinton has been shameless, but devilishly effective.

What's most disturbing about this is the disclaimer at the end where Hillary Clinton approves this message.  However you may criticize Clinton she is certainly a reasonably intelligent woman, so we know that when she gave her stamp of approval to this fear mongering message she knew exactly what she was doing.  Preying on the weak minded and most vulnerable members of our society, who apparently form the majority of Clinton's base, seems to be the only approach Clinton's advisers have any faith in.

Vote for Hillary Clinton America, or terrible things will happen to your children.

Once again I expect these kind of despicable tactics from Republicans, but when Democrats adopt them, than they become indistinguishable from Republicans.

The more I watch this ad, the stranger it is.  Who is that person entering the room at 3 am all dressed up?  Why is HRC dressed nicely at 3 am?  Okay, I know its just a hastily made ad, but . . .

Hmm. didn't Bill Kristol say a couple of days ago that she should use fear?

Oddly dated execution. Since the Ventura election in Minnesota there's been much more whimsy and self-effacing humor in political ads. For example, Al Franken is currently running a witty and charming spot against Coleman. It seems to be working, he's gaining on Coleman.

This ad from Grunwald feels rather amateurish, a bit like a low-budget effort from Brink's Home Security. The casting, lighting, editing, and music are all a bit off.

If ever there was a category that justified consumer-generated advertising, it would be politics. Using old school marketing techniques in such a lackluster manner doesn't help her image of being a bit tired, a bit old school herself.

fougauseu:

Totally. This is stock footage from Brinks.

Daisy!

Notice how this ad makes you not think. What, do we want our president starting a war after being woke up at 3 AM? And doesn't the ad's logic apply just as well to a crisis at noon? But 3 AM makes for spooky atmospherics, and this ad is meant to scare people. It's hard to imagine what scenario Clinton might have in mind here.

This is why we love America.

"IT'S THREE AM"....The question in this campaign ad is: Who's going to answer the White House phone when it rings at 3 am? Jason Zengerle comments:I actually thought this commercial was pretty effective — right up until the very end...

"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."

-Obama in response

"Now, one of Clinton's laws of politics is this. If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is try get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."

--Bill Clinton in 2004 (via DailyKos)

LXSherman: "Clinton has been shameless, but devilishly effective."

Yes. Just look at the string of successes she's achieved in this past, crucial month. She's obviously devilishly effective.

Hey, sure, I know who I want defending me in a 3am shit-hit-the-fan crisis. I want the woman in the pants suit who weeps about how hard her CAMPAIGN is. . .

Sen. Jay. Rockefeller, chairman of senate intelligence committee, today:

“As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am all too aware that the threats we face are unconventional. They are sophisticated. They are constantly changing and adapting. And they are very serious. What matters most in the Oval Office is sound judgment and decisive action. It’s about getting it right on crucial national security questions the first time – and every time.

“The indisputable fact is Barack Obama was right about Iraq when many of us were wrong. It was a tough call and the single greatest national security question, and mistake, of our time. Today, we remain a country at war, and countless mistakes over the last six and a half years have made us less safe. The stakes have never been higher, and that is why we must take a stand."

Hhmmmmmmm...

YouTube video. Added: 1 month ago.

"White House - 3 AM

Who do you want to answer the phone?"

www.youtube.com/watch

Voicemail for President!

Obama Responds: I Will Never Use "Threat Of Terrorism To Scare Up Votes"

tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../obama_respnds_i_will_never_use.php

Clinton thinks fear-mongering will work because it's always worked on her.  "Vote against the Iraq war?  But then the Republicans will depict me as soft on national security!"  Oops, turns out the right thing to do also ended up being the popular thing to do.  Serves her right.