Feb 29 2008

Obama Too Easily Spooked

Published by at 8:24 pm under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions

We all know the political talking heads (left and right), the media elites and all the pols and political consultants in DC are some place else than America. They don’t get the country and they don’t understand how things resonate. They have been stumped by this year’s election path and will continue to be if today is any indication. For today the entire political class has gone off the deep end over a single ad from Hillary Clinton:

Two things are just stunning in the reactions to this. First off is how the media and Obama supporters call this fear mongering! It is just another variant on “who do you want in the oval office in times of dire emergency?” It actually is very well done and tasteful. It simply asks the viewer to think seriously about a serious aspect of voting. I don’t get why this ad scares people. It is just not scary.

But what Obama has done in response is the big failure. Instead of saying “yes, this is a serious discussion and this is why I can step up”. Instead Obama went out and cried “foul” as if he was actually spooked by the topic! The sign of a novice is to pretend there is nothing serious about the threats to America and trying to change the subject. Here is Obama’s amateur response:

But, he said: “We’ve seen these ads before. They’re the kind that play on people’s fears to try to scare up votes.”

After 9-11 the entire question of who has the experience and temperament to handle a crisis is not about fear or anxiety. It is a simple and pragmatic question. The true joke about this is, as Hillary asks a good question and Obama quakes in his boots, is the one who looks good when you think about the question is one John McCain. When the question is who should answer the phone most people think McCain without any hesitation.

But the big story seems to be that the news media seems to be detecting a problem with Barack. I still say he peaked way too early and he has never shown any ability to handle a crisis. And as one poll noted most of people agree that he has not explained his positions enough. Their over reaction to this Hillary ad, making it sound so negative and scary exposed their efforts to shield Barack from hard issues that expose is blatant weaknesses. He is a naive, liberal, one-term junior Senator. He has no proven experience outside giving good speeches.

Obama should never have cowered in the face of the ad. He tried to look as if it was a sad nuisance, but the fact is he did not pull it off. Instead he looked like he was whining about how it is unfair of people to ask whether he has what it takes to be President. If he can’t take a question, how can he handle the real crisis when it comes? Is he going to act is if it is all a sad nuisance and unfair to him and his place in history?

16 responses so far

16 Responses to “Obama Too Easily Spooked”

  1. ChenZhen says:

    There is a way to talk about counter terrorism (a concept that I prefer over “War on Terror”) without shamefully appealing to people’s fears and emotions. We all saw 9/11, so it’s not as if you have to convince people that the threat exists. It can be done by convincing people that your position is rational and effective.

    “Fearmongering” is when you use visuals of scary people with scary music and overtones and tell them to vote for you or else, without providing much for rationale to support it. Hillary’s ad didn’t go quite this far IMHO, but it was definitely choosing the emotion-evoking visuals over substance. The ad was designed to play on the parental instinct to protect one’s children, and I suppose it’s debatable whether that could constitute playing on fear (as in, “I fear for the future and well-being of my children”). Then again, it could be argued that every issue from the economy (losing your job) to the environment (the future of humanity) could be playing on “fear”.

    Anyway, as I stated on my blog, I’m not sure if Obama reacted to it because of the ad itself or the hype that surrounded it. Others have criticised him for being slow to respond to this type of thing, so I guess it’s a damned if you do/don’t scenario. Absent a rebuttal, however, there would be those who would assume that Obama had conceded the point (however small or significant), and that would make him look weak or otherwise reflect negatively on him. Again, damned if you do/don’t. In this case, I think his response was very tactful.

  2. Sara says:

    My reaction to the ad was, “what is Hillary doing making ads for John McCain?”

  3. lurker9876 says:

    Don’t have a problem with that. It’s a good move for McCain. All the more to force people see what a fluke Obama is.

    Hope AJ’s right about this. The question is whether most of the people will have early buyer’s remorse.

    Hope he’s a one term senator. Same with Kieth Ellison.

  4. kathie says:

    MSM is so protective of Obama it’s pathetic on their part.

  5. WWS says:

    I’m rather surprised that Obama came out with a strong anti-Iraq war ad in response. It’s playing regularly here in the Texas market.

  6. ChenZhen says:

    There is a way to talk about counter terrorism (a concept that I prefer over “War on Terror”) without shamefully appealing to people’s fears and emotions. We all saw 9/11, so it’s not as if you have to convince people that the threat exists. It can be done by convincing people that your position is rational and effective.

    “Fearmongering” is when you use visuals of scary people with scary music and overtones and tell them to vote for you or else, without providing much for rationale to support it. Hillary’s ad didn’t go quite this far IMHO, but it was definitely choosing the emotion-evoking visuals over substance. The ad was designed to play on the parental instinct to protect one’s children, and I suppose it’s debatable whether that could constitute playing on fear (as in, “I fear for the future and well-being of my children”). Then again, it could be argued that every issue from the economy (losing your job) to the environment (the future of humanity) could be playing on “fear”.

    Anyway, as I stated on my blog, I’m not sure if Obama reacted to it because of the ad itself or the hype that surrounded it. Others have criticised him for being slow to respond to this type of thing, so I guess it’s a damned if you do/don’t scenario. Absent a rebuttal, however, there would be those who would assume that Obama had conceded the point (however small or significant), and that would make him look weak or otherwise reflect negatively on him. Again, damned if you do/don’t. In this case, I think his response was very tactful.

  7. crosspatch says:

    Sara:

    Yeah, I agree. What would be really funny would be for John McCain to take this ad and after Hillary says she approves it have McCain appear and say something like “And I am John McCain and I also approve …
    ” It would be hilarious.

  8. crosspatch says:

    And how much ya wanna bet that Hillary endorses McCain if Obama wins the nomination?

  9. BarbaraS says:

    She won’t do that. Althought she is mean enought to do so there is always 2012. Some people say this is her only chance but she is at least ten years younger than MCain. If she loses she will run again. She will never give up. Of course, if Obasma wins the presidency we might not have a country any more. If Mark Steyn is right and only the South survives she would never win there. These people hate her more than Bill. She is too abrasive for their tastes.

  10. kathie says:

    Old lady’s don’t run for president!

  11. Terrye says:

    Yes, Obama came out with an anti Iraq war ad, but if it is the ad I saw he put some pro Afghanistan war stuff in it. That is so absurd, all those war packages they have voted against include funding for Afghanistan as well. They were too busy trying to make life difficult for George W. Bush to give a damn about either war.

    Hillary’s ad is a clear reference to a terrorist attack and it is a good ad. There is nothing wrong with that. Answering that phone is part of the job.

    Barack and his followers seem to think the job of the president is to motivational speaker in chief. And of course it is not that at all.

    Fred Barnes made that point on Brit Hume last night, he liked the ad and he thinks it can work well for McCain too.

  12. WWS says:

    Looking at the media this weekend the thing that surprises me the most is how much more money Obama has to spend than Hillary. Full page Obama print ads are running in every major paper, Obama TV spots are running regularly on every local station – and yet you never see Hillary’s. I think I am seeing or hearing 20 Obama ads (radio included) for every 1 by Hillary. What I wonder is whether he is really that much better financed, or is his campaign simply that much better run? Several reports indicate that Hillary never thought she would have to run a serious primary campaign in Texas, so she and her campaign made no plans at all before 2 weeks ago. Don’t know if that’s true, but it sure looks that way – and it’s kind of amazing that the Clintons, those supposed geniuses of campaigning, have run this campaign so poorly.

  13. owl says:

    WWS
    Big Money. It’s what caught my attention when they ran the Voice after the 2004 election. Who runs an unknown Voice so many times in my TX market immediately……..after? He certainly did not have all those zillions of small donors at that point.

  14. owl says:

    I loved this ad even if it came from Hillary. Crosspatch, I am still laughing thinking about McCain doing that.

    Obama’s world is taking it to UN and letting that bunch of international terrorist decide our fate. Let’s just sit and hold hands while they blow us up. Rather like the 90′s.

    Hillary SNL hit and this is the only damage she has laid on him.

  15. crosspatch says:

    Hillary isn’t going to run in 2012, 2012 was SUPPOSED to be Obama’s run. He was supposed to age in the Senate for a bit and dry out behind the ears before running. Now it looks like the Democrats might be shooting themselves in the foot. They could be in a position where neither Clinton nor Obama can run in 2012.

    But maybe they want it that way. I don’t think either party wants control of the White House right now. As the boomer retire, this country is in for a world of hurt and I don’t think either party wants to be standing there holding that bag.

  16. crosspatch says:

    Oh, and I still think Hoping for Change would make a great sign for a panhandler.