Clinton Panders To Fear Once Agan

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M70emIFxETs]

Hillary Clinton resorts to pandering to fear once again in the above ad. The text is:

“It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the White House, and it’s ringing. Something’s happened in the world.

Your vote will decide who answers the 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 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?”

If we want to vote for politicians who can evoke fear, we might as well stick with the Republicans who are experts on this tactic.

This isn’t the first time Clinton has resorted to this. For example, after losing in Iowa she flew into New Hampshire to give this warning: “We have people who are plotting against us right now, getting ready to repeat the atrocity of Sept 11. We know it, I see the intelligence reports.”

Hillary Clinton is also the one who used the 9/11 attack to justify voting to go to war in Iraq:

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year’s terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

If that’s how she looks at the world, I’d rather have Barack Obama answering that phone call when something’s happening in the world.

Update: Obama Responds to Fear with Judgment

Update II: Obama and Bill Clinton Respond to Clinton Ad

Be Sociable, Share!

3 Comments

  1. 1
    Chuck says:

    I dunno, both Hillary and Barak say that they want to withdraw from Iraq. I think Hillary is trying to cash in on her husband’s rather, ahem, hawkish record. She sees a weak spot in Barak and is going in for the kill.

    Not that I believe what anyone says to get elected….

    Bush in 2000 criticized Clinton’s intervention in the Balkans and said he wouldn’t get involved in “nation building” if elected. Now we are embarked on two of the largest projects of that kind in modern history.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    It is all speculative as to what they will do should they be elected with regards to Iraq. Besides, there are no good options now.

    The real difference between them was on their views before the war. Clinton supported the war while Obama opposed it. That’s one good reason to favor Obama’s judgment in a crisis over Clinton’s.

  3. 3
    Chuck says:

    I voted for Obama in the primary; and I voted for Bush in ’04. Iraq was the swing state for me then; as it is now. I hope that Obama’s good judgement will serve him well in his first national security meeting as president. If I were to give him advice, I would say that we have a moral obligation to protect the Iraqi people and promote reconciliation. We became responsible for Iraq when Bush 1 did not topple Saddam in ’91; setting the stage for the current predicament.

4 Trackbacks

Leave a comment