Video: Obama answers Hillary’s “Daisy” ad

posted at 6:50 pm on February 29, 2008 by Allahpundit

A companion piece to his predictable whine this afternoon that it’s fearmongering to wonder whether a guy whose “judgment” seems always to lead to negotiation without precondition no matter how repulsive the actor is willing to use force if the situation requires. One of the left’s savviest rhetorical ploys the last few years is to rule ads like Hillary’s out of bounds, as if even to suggest that someone willing to meet personally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez might be squeamish in the face of aggression is some sort of breach of campaign politesse. Oddly enough, they’re willing to extrapolate from McCain’s “100 years” comment that he is and will be a crazed hawk in any and all situations; to conclude the opposite about the Messiah, that he’s a wilting peacenik who’ll sell the country away, is naturally the height of unfairness. Even more oddly, Hillary and he are similar enough on policy matters that the same worries should surround her as a prospective C-in-C — and yet my sense is they don’t. Could it be that His Holiness is actually being judged on his pronouncements as opposed to some knee-jerk wingnut tendency to dismiss all liberals as irretrievably soft on terror?

Here’s the first predictable parody ad, too. Weak tea, in my opinion, but “Strangelove” fans may enjoy it.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Obama, wrong about Iraq NOW.

Chakra Hammer on February 29, 2008 at 6:55 PM

It seems to me, that Obama`s only foreign policy experience amounts to not voting for the war when he wasn`t able to. That`s the only answer I hear when he`s challanged on his experience.

ThePrez on February 29, 2008 at 6:56 PM

So when the phone rings in an Obama White House it will be to alert him to the news that a Caliphate has been succesfully installed in Iraq, according to plan?

Buy Danish on February 29, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Hahahaha, this is shaping up to be hilarious.

I wonder if the Christians in Iraq who Bush has left hanging “high and dry” to appease the Islamics of the country think his “swift” judgment and his “tough stance” on negotiating is so great? I wonder if Bush and McCain will have “preconditions” when they talk to the new rulers of Pakistan (who want to sit down with the terrorist)…since they will be our “new friends” (after they threw Musharaf under the bus).

I don’t agree with anything Obama stands for, but the fear mongering…yes fear mongering from the “moderate” Republicans is just as repulsive and growing old big time.

TOPV on February 29, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Sure hope Clinton can win Texas ?? and Ohio. No that is hard road but its sure nice hearing Obama start talking and putting foot in mouth. Could see 2 month of this being very interesting

tblot on February 29, 2008 at 6:58 PM

Hillary’s add was very good. Obama coming back with this junk looks defensive with a splash of panic. If she runs this add stong in Texas in Teusday. It might just work.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 29, 2008 at 6:58 PM

Doesn’t Obama have a friend that tried to blow up the Pentagon? I find that to be kind of unique.

ninjapirate on February 29, 2008 at 6:58 PM

At 3 AM he’ll order pizza. Who’s he kidding.

Texyank on February 29, 2008 at 6:59 PM

BTW, the only thing most people think Hillary will be looking for at 3AM is…”Where’s Bill?”

TOPV on February 29, 2008 at 6:59 PM

Of the day he bombed the Pentagon, Ayers says, “Everything was absolutely ideal. … The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.”

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2169

ninjapirate on February 29, 2008 at 6:59 PM

Whereas Clinton is still hammering away

WACO, Texas (CNN) — Hillary Clinton attempted to raise the stakes of the upcoming March 4 primaries Friday by forcefully calling into question Barack Obama’s qualifications to become commander-in-chief.

At a rally in Waco, with more than two dozen military veterans and flag officers standing behind her, Clinton criticized Obama for being “missing in action” during key security decisions in the Senate and claimed that he had “no responsibility” when he gave an anti-war speech in 2002 as an Illinois state senator.

Her comments coincided with a new campaign ad released in Texas that asks voters who they want to answer the phone in the White House at 3 a.m. when “there’s something happening in the world.”

Obama criticized the ad earlier Friday, saying it was an attempt to “scare up votes.”

Clinton disputed that notion in her speech Friday, saying, “Well I don’t think people in Texas scare all that easily.”

William Amos on February 29, 2008 at 7:02 PM

I’d rather face Obama because I think the Clinton’s have experience in painting an old candidate as well, old. I’m not sure if Obama has it in him to slime the Mav. However, just for entertainment purposes, I’d love to see Hillary win both states even by small margins. Then she’d play the momentum card and this whole thing will go to the convention and pit dem v. dem. Then Farakhan and Sharpton would probably seize control of the floor with a sit in or something, there would be chaos, it would be great.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 29, 2008 at 7:06 PM

The Obama ad is a FEAR BOMB.

petefrt on February 29, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Obama, wrong about Iraq NOW.

Chakra Hammer on February 29, 2008 at 6:55 PM

And wrong about Iraq then, You cannot “contain” a threat that could possibly give WMD’s to terrorists, or let some material flow across their borders..

How can you be 100% certain when we cannot keep materials and people out of the United States?

Chakra Hammer on February 29, 2008 at 7:09 PM

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 29, 2008 at 7:06 PM

Dittos. Whatever it takes to sustain the fight to the convention floor.

petefrt on February 29, 2008 at 7:09 PM

At 3 AM he’ll order pizza. Who’s he kidding.

Texyank on February 29, 2008 at 6:59 PM

At 3 AM he would be with Larry Sinclair. >:}

Chakra Hammer on February 29, 2008 at 7:10 PM

Muffley: Capable Of Being Just As Sorry As You Are.

Oh, now that is good…..LOL

The Ugly American on February 29, 2008 at 7:14 PM

Pansy.

Jaibones on February 29, 2008 at 7:15 PM

Are you kidding?

At 3:00AM, if B.O. is President, and ever gets that kind of call, you know exactly what he will do…..”

“Call the lawyers! CALL THE LAWYERS!!!!!!”

Seven Percent Solution on February 29, 2008 at 7:18 PM

How is it that people (Liberals more than most) cannot grasp the fact that Afghanistan and Iraq were two very different missions?

One was a response to the 9/11 attack. A response to Al Queda and the Taliban government of Afghanistan who harbored and enabled them.

The other was a response to 17 or 18 ignored UN resolutions by Iraq. A response to their continued attacks upon coalition aircraft after the treaty of the Gulf War was signed and agreed upon. A response to Saddam Hussein’s attempted assasination a former President of the United States.

Anything a country does requires opportunity and willingness–and yes, 9/11 gave the U.S. and our allies both of those things as we decided what to do about Saddam.

How hard is that comprehend? How dumb does Barack have to be to think that the War on Terror was the reason we invaded Iraq? It was a part, and in my mind, a minor part.

Barack displays nothing but his lack of understanding and ability to lead.

Hey Barry Hussein, should we just scrap the U.N. since you don’t believe in upholding its resolutions? Well if so, then at least we have point we agree upon; but something tells me you don’t.

Montana on February 29, 2008 at 7:18 PM

oh no, Saddam had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism—> http://husseinandterror.com/

Dollayo on February 29, 2008 at 7:21 PM

I don’t agree with anything Obama stands for, but the fear mongering…yes fear mongering from the “moderate” Republicans is just as repulsive and growing old big time.

TOPV on February 29, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Well the “fear mongering” worked against Reagan and helped to insure his defeat didn’t it?

Oh, wait now.

MB4 on February 29, 2008 at 7:21 PM

Weak tea indeed. Basically, the parody ad says that Obama has never shown any strength or conviction whatsoever in the protection of this nation. “My capitulation to the nutroots over and over again makes me good C in C material.” I don’t think so.

Dude, when the phone rings, and you learn the bad guys have been killing innocent Americans again, are you gonna kick some ass? It’s a real simple yes or no question.

Rational Thought on February 29, 2008 at 7:22 PM

So he’s using his vote to NOT take it to our enemies as a reason to vote for him when our enemies strike?

Dumb.

Besides, copying a political ad seems a tad desperate. His internal polls (and Hillary’s) must show him VERY weak in this area.

SouthernGent on February 29, 2008 at 7:23 PM

Well the “fear mongering” worked against Reagan and helped to insure his defeat didn’t it?

Oh, wait now.

MB4 on February 29, 2008 at 7:21 PM

Well Jimmy Carter argued that Reagan wasnt safe because he had a talk with Ami Carter about “nuclear proliferation”

Hadly a slam dunk.

William Amos on February 29, 2008 at 7:26 PM

oh no, Saddam had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism—> http://husseinandterror.com/

Dollayo on February 29, 2008 at 7:21 PM

Bravo!

Seven Percent Solution on February 29, 2008 at 7:27 PM

yeah right.
he “understood” that threat is Al Qaeda in Afg and not in Iraq. Like there’s a difference.

On the other hand if Al Qaeda would go into Iraq *after* we leave, he would send troops back. Didn’t he just say that the problem is Al Qaeda in Afg and not Al Qaeda in Iraq?

I just can’t understand how can he get away with all these clueless lies.

aso on February 29, 2008 at 7:31 PM

oh no, Saddam had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism—> http://husseinandterror.com/

Dollayo on February 29, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Bravo!

Seven Percent Solution on February 29, 2008 at 7:27 PM

DITTOs!!

Califemme on February 29, 2008 at 7:36 PM

William Amos on February 29, 2008 at 7:26 PM

In 1980 the Democrats thought Reagan was their dream candidate, an aging, pro-military ex-actor who only flaky Californians would elect. Once the wounded Carter got into the general election he calculated that Reagan’s image as a hair-trigger proponent of American military intervention would be enough to make cautious Americans unwilling to take a chance. He figured wrong.

Reagan used his skills to tell the voters that the portrait of him Carter was drawing, that of a weapons-prone right-winger, equally heedless of the threat of nuclear war and the aspirations of women and minorities, was a political caricature.

And once the voters decided that he didn’t fit that portrait, enough of them turned away from the ineffectual Carter to give Reagan a 50-41 victory.

Flip side of the coin, deja vu all over again?

MB4 on February 29, 2008 at 7:37 PM

He’s got to be kidding! That ad is horrible. Are we supposed to assume that since his holiness was wise enough to not go into Iraq in the first place that the phone will NEVER ring at 3:00am?

I can just see him coaching a professional sports team. “Hey, we’re behind in the fourth quarter, but we still have a chance to win. What should we do Coach Obama?”

“Well, we wouldn’t be in this fix if we hadn’t punted in the first quarter. I was against it then and it looks like I may be right.”

“Yes coach, but we are about to take the lead. We just need some guidance from you”

“I’ve said my piece. May hope be with you.”

MagicalPat on February 29, 2008 at 7:38 PM

Obama is “Stuck on Stupid” or stuck on the past..

Chakra Hammer on February 29, 2008 at 7:39 PM

The argument doesnt hold water because in 1980 America was seen as too weak. Weak leadership caused people to be willing to accept someone different thanbefore.

It could be argued that Bush has weak leadership but in times of war America rarely selects a democrat. Its always when america is doing really well we take a chance on elected democrats.

William Amos on February 29, 2008 at 7:41 PM

Will add I dont think McCain can win just by bashing Obama either. He has to have something to offer the American people as well as just experience.

William Amos on February 29, 2008 at 7:44 PM

Obama shouldn’t have responded to the ad. He’s got everything going for him right now. He in the end made this a story with a response. I think he knows that if she squeaks out Texas and Ohio then it it totally a new ball game. Also, I believe the states left on the shedule may favor Billary. If and when she wins Texas and Ohio, the next day and the first minute she’ll have her people start trying to ratify Michigan and Florida. Bank it.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 29, 2008 at 7:48 PM

It could be argued that Bush has weak leadership but in times of war America rarely selects a democrat. Its always when america is doing really well we take a chance on elected democrats.

William Amos on February 29, 2008 at 7:41 PM

America is not at war. A relative handful of Americans are at war, while the rest of America is out shopping or watching TV or “blogging”.

America was not doing so well when Carter was elected.

The economy is going downhill. Guess who is going to take the wrap for that. Semi-incumbent Juan McCain who has been in the Senate for the last hundred years +/- or the neebie Obama.

MB4 on February 29, 2008 at 7:57 PM

Will add I dont think McCain can win just by bashing Obama either. He has to have something to offer the American people as well as just experience.

William Amos on February 29, 2008 at 7:44 PM

You are starting to come around. There may be hope for you after all.

Not too much for Juan McCain though.

MB4 on February 29, 2008 at 8:00 PM

Obama, wrong about Iraq then, Wrong about Iraq Now.

He cannot be trusted.

Chakra Hammer on February 29, 2008 at 8:00 PM

Ringgggg.

Ringgggg.

“Yes?”

“President Obama! We’re under attack! Swarm attack by enemy ICBM’s!

We need your authority Mr. President. We need the codes!

We are under attack!”

“General, do nothing. Let’s hope they change their minds.”

or

“I hope I have a clean pair to change in to…”

catmman on February 29, 2008 at 8:00 PM

Enjoy!

Mortis on February 29, 2008 at 8:04 PM

The phrasing on that Obama ad is strange isnt it?

Obama joins Lugar?

Meaning: He’s a follower, not a leader.

How is this a positive?

lorien1973 on February 29, 2008 at 8:07 PM

Just to clarify – when I said this:

So when the phone rings in an Obama White House it will be to alert him to the news that a Caliphate has been succesfully installed in Iraq, according to plan?

I didn’t mean to imply that it was Obama’s plan. Just that it was Bin Laden’s plan and it’s all been out there for all of us to see since his 1996 and 1998 Fatwas, so if he succeeded it would be according to plan.

Buy Danish on February 29, 2008 at 8:15 PM

oh no, Saddam had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism—> http://husseinandterror.com/

Dollayo on February 29, 2008 at 7:21 PM

Never said he didn’t. But his ties to terror were neither the primary reason to go to war with him, nor were they the strongest.

Saddam used terrorists as communists use American liberals. Same agenda; different ideologies.

Montana on February 29, 2008 at 8:17 PM

#1 – It’s lame.
#2 – It’s not true. Obama was not against the war from the beginning. In 2004, Obama said that there wasn’t much of a difference between him and President Bush in regards to Iraq.

SoulGlo on February 29, 2008 at 8:21 PM

Obama: he’ll surrender at any hour.

profitsbeard on February 29, 2008 at 8:43 PM

In 1980 the Democrats thought Reagan was their dream candidate, an aging, pro-military ex-actor who only flaky Californians would elect. Once the wounded Carter got into the general election he calculated that Reagan’s image as a hair-trigger proponent of American military intervention would be enough to make cautious Americans unwilling to take a chance. He figured wrong.

Reagan used his skills to tell the voters that the portrait of him Carter was drawing, that of a weapons-prone right-winger, equally heedless of the threat of nuclear war and the aspirations of women and minorities, was a political caricature.

And once the voters decided that he didn’t fit that portrait, enough of them turned away from the ineffectual Carter to give Reagan a 50-41 victory.

Flip side of the coin, deja vu all over again?

MB4 on February 29, 2008 at 7:37 PM

The Obama comparisons to Reagan are not going to hold up. First, Reagan had spent 8 years as chief executive of this nation’s largest state — a state larger than many countries. He was an experienced leader. Second, Reagan was able to convince the country that the “Evil Empire” was a very serious threat. I think convincing the country that Islamic extremism is a very real threat will be an easier sell. And third, Reagan was a PATRIOT. He loved his country and had genuine faith in the goodness, generosity, and work ethic of his fellow citizens. He loved America and he really respected the American people. Whatever you think of McCain, he, too, is a candidate who wants to be president of a nation he loves. Obama and, increasingly, his wife have a very different message. They scold us, criticize our desire to be prosperous, and stand above us dripping with hypocritical moral vanity. It is already growing tedious and will only grow more so.

Rational Thought on February 29, 2008 at 8:53 PM

I had to run this post through MS Word’s readability engine. Congrats, AP, you hit grade level 16.1. I thought it only went up to 11.

km on February 29, 2008 at 9:05 PM

Obama being against the war from the start concerns me. The fact that he opposed it, the President and even the normal libtards in the face of OVERWHELMING intelligence from multiple countries which suggested WMD was present and operational, puts him in the recklessly stupid or aiding the enemy category.

Alden Pyle on February 29, 2008 at 10:24 PM

I was just listening to Alan Colmes radio replay on XM and a black caller playing the race card, “America is not ready for a black President”

Then comparing Obama to MLK.. then Colmes asks him if America has “Progressed” since then the caller said “NOT AT ALL.., NOT AT ALL..”

OMG, as if you don’t vote for Obama you are a racist!

nevermind that he’s a dolt, only speaks in platitudes and has no business being in a position of executive power at a time of war.. >_

Chakra Hammer on March 1, 2008 at 2:23 AM

Obama’s claim to fame seems to be that he opposed the war 6 years ago which is all well and good but what does he plan to do now?

He has no idea. Empty suit.

Ares on March 1, 2008 at 5:35 AM

There has to be a mole in the Clinton campaign…how in the world does the BHO campaign put together a rebuttal ad so quickly?

nyrofan on March 1, 2008 at 5:16 PM