so, BHO is now demanding that every ad Hillary runs has her in pink fluffy dresses and she has to talk in a lisp? After all he can't be havin' wit that thar wimmin's talking like she er a man or nutting lik that!

God forbid anyone acknowledges that there are bad people in the world that must be dealt with.  This does not jibe well with the Kumbaya message, does it?

It seems like alot of her ardent supporters have no problem with our prospective politicians using FEAR PROPAGANDA to mislead the American public.

hmmm  I wonder who has used that card before.

Absolutely despicable.

If you are a voter swayed by Fear Propaganda (especially the really cheesy kinds that use cheap stock footage from the early 90's)  than please please please DO NOT VOTE DEMOCRATIC we don't support the RNC philosophy you subscribe to.
You obviously voted for Bush in 2004, McCain is promising 100 more years of war and fear and politicians running ruffshot over their constituents.

How do you "merely reference bin Ladin"? I my mind it's just as bad as throwing out images of the burning towers. That's what she was invoking make no mistake about it.

It's the old "vote for me or get attacked" repug. terror card.

The ad itself may not be intended to scare people, but theres no difference in the tactics that it employs.

It says look at all the scary shit in the world. Obama isn't ready for it, Clinton is. The ad is meant to remind people of scary things so they will go back to who they are comfortable with.

Yes, this is the fear card. Maybe your okay with it, that's fine. But it is the same as what Bush did. Its the same tactic, use bad guys to scare people.

people are too partisan the question is what do the undecideds think of the ad?

if they don't see a problem there is no problem

if they see it as fear mongering, then it doesn't matter what her supporters say since she has their vote already. remember this ad is suppose to convince people to go vote for her.

Osama bin Laden is "hardly provocative or fear-inducing" according to Todd Beeton.

Um, yeah. That bin Laden fellow is a regular teddy bear. Gives me the warm fuzzies.

Why should I feel safe about the prospect of an Obama presidency when one remarkably tame ad brings this kind of reaction?

Do not Obama supporters see that constantly whining about how "badly" they've been treated (a joke, of course, given the MSM's obvious pro-Obama slant) makes him look very weak?

Do they not realize they're telegraphing what they think are their own weaknesses by these hysterical overreactions?

Hey Todd, your candidate lost.

Quit the fake earnest hand-wringing "I just don't think this ad does..." stuff. Yes you just happen to push this latest thing through the exact same frame as every other tiny little nugget of news.

We know how to read. Put down the water, you've carried it long enough. Let's look towards November and see if we can avoid reinforcing every single bogus republican talking point in the interim.

Obama, Osama, whatever....

It's a "look back at history and what the president has had to deal with" ad - I don't see it as playing the terror card. Overly aggresive Obama supporters love to blow things out of proportion because they are so singleminded.

Obama camp is upset about that commercial???  You barely saw bin Laden.  I think the Obama camp is getting hysterical now.  They thought Obama was going to coast through this primary, but Hillary just won't go away.

Obama's actions and speeches over the last weekend have convinced me that Obama is NOT ready for the Presidency.  And McCain is too old and mean.  So there is only ONE candidate left who can actually make real change.

Looking forward to saying "Madame President Hillary Clinton"

Its another national security/Obama isn't prepared to be POTUS ad.  Shocking.  (snark)  

Sure, there's something mildly ugly about implying another Democrat isn't prepared to address national security issues, but this is the only argument she really has.  My bet is that the ad doesn't really change much, but we'll see.  In the meant time, I'm waiting for the complilation on youtube comparing Rudy's primary ads with Hillary's.  The similarities keep growing...    

  I agree that it doesn't cross "the line."  I just think it's a stupid ad.  I don't think this will work like it did in Texas.

  The problem here is that Hillary has switched to innuendo and character attacks.  "Bush's third term" is an attack on lousy McCain policy.  It annoys me that Hillary is double-teaming Obama with right-wing media character attacks.  She's becoming what I thought she had despised.

oh my god.  I suppose I should also be scared of Pearl Harbor & FDR too.  After all, it is in her clip.

get a grip on reality people.  She is showing HISTORY here and making her case.  Just like Obama does.

she didn't show OBL for the full duration of the clip - I found the "out of gas" signs to be more compelling.  

are the Obama supporters stating that we should not be concerned about OBL and get rid of the guy - finally?  Fight the war properly?

ah....who really cares..
this is not going to change the dynamics of tomorrows 3%-6% Clinton landslide.
This is not going to fill the Clinton coffers..
This is not going to change the fact the NC debate has been canceled.

This is not a precursor of what Sen. Clinton would use against McCain because she will not be our nominee.

She will not have the money(especially after tomorrow) to run that many ads in the remaining primaries.
However...it was a clever move as it will probably be played on reg news and cable giving it free exposure.

No matter what gambits the Clinton campaign uses or how they are perceived by her supporters or detracters...the game is already over.  

I actually think it is a good spot against McBush.

tap yer toes

When I first saw the ad I was offended, but it almost is a parody of itself and the entire genre of "ooooh scary."  It is so over the top in how it piles it on.

What does bothers me about it, however, is it almost trivializes those events using real, historical footage in this manner.  To me it shows a lack of respect from the geniuses who made it.

Todd,

To put it simply, "You're wrong." Anyone viewing that ad who comes away thinking it was some kind of benign advocacy of Hillary Clinton's readiness, has not been paying attention to the Bush/Rove playbook since 2000. It's who they are; it's what they do, and to see one of out candidates engage in the same kind of fear tactics, subtle though it may be, both discourages and disappoints me. As Democrats, we ought to fight hard and be tough against REPUBLICANS. Doing this to fellow Democrats stinks and will cost us dearly in November.

"But is Clinton really being as exploitative of people's fears as Bush was in 2004?"

The best apology for Hillary is that she's not as bad as Bush?

She's doing it because she's unable to run on anything positive.  

Therefore by running a negative campaign against hope she becomes the fear-mongering, cynical candidate.  Like it or not, it will work conversely.  It's the easiest and most rational conclusion.

If the guy can't handle the fact that beating bin Laden is a legitimate political issue facing the next president, then he has no business running for the office.

It is alarming how quickly Obama wilts when the attacks hit him. He puts in another lousy debate performance, but this time since he was a focus of the badgering questions suddenly ABC has gone beyond the pale. He can't handle scrutiny, and he apparently can't handle seeing bin Laden on TV.

I agree that the ad is a mild form, but it is still accurately described as playing the "politics of fear," which is the well-documented Republican trump card played in every election and Congressional showdown (Protect America Act, anyone?) since 2001.

And for you to equate that with the "fear" that any rational person might have of an effective Bush third term is extraordinarily disingenuous. That "fear" is the deep concern with continuing on the wrong political and economic track, not an actual fear for the country's safety.

Democrats do invoke that fear, when they say that Bush's actions have left America "less safe." But that's as far as any Dem goes, and I doubt they will be cutting ads portraying McCain as a wimp, which is exactly what this ad wants you to think Obama is.

its no worse than Obama trying to pin Clinton and every other Democratic rep in Congress as the reason Osama is still out there.

We New Yorkers tend to pillory anyone who uses bin Laden in a cheap ad to scare people, but as far as the possibilities go, this is relatively weak tea. It's in poor taste, yes, it weakens our argumentative position vis-a-vis the other side, yes, it even makes newfound rightwing slant even more obvious. But a huge scandal? No, not really.

But that's worked in the past so the question is, do you do what's right or what works? And the ad does go the the question of readiness, reminding those of us who don't support Clinton that she was ready for us to invade Iraq.  

Plays into her message perfectly...not exploitative in any way...

I've noted the Obama reaction gets more screechy and shrill the closer Hillary hits home...

By that measure this ad is a bulls eye...

you should read the PoliticalBetting site in the United Kingdom which has been following the race

http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/ar chives/2008/04/21/hillary-plays-the-bin- laden-card/#comments

that the candidate who spent the first 3/4 of primary season complaining about being picked on is now saying, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."

"If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen?"

I'll bet this phrase was constructed exactly in the hope that some stupid sexist Obama supporter somewhere in the periphery of his campaign makes some stupid sexist remark about women and kitchens.

I just hope nobody's stupid enough to take the bait.

"Obama breaks promise to have positive campaign;
degrades into putdowns and jabs against Clinton

UPDATE #3 | With one day to go before a crucial U.S. presidential vote, Democrats Barack Obama has stepped-up his
attacks against Hillary Clinton after promising to run a positive and upbeat campaign."

Well, we can all agree that Obama is not using a different kind of politics or a different kind of politician.

If Obama cannot stand up to an ad like this, what will he do in the fall vs. McCain?

That said, this ad (and the Obama ad posted in comments) doesn't sway me either way. I like the Hillary health care and economic ads, which I find more moving.

As I wrote in a diary on this ad, I don't see anything wrong with it. She has been leading with "experience" this entire campaign and this ad is kind of the culmination of that pitch.

Sure, it's borderline scaremongering, but it seems to be on message for what she has been pushing since Iowa.

I don't see why this ad is a big deal. I would expect McCain to run a similar ad against Obama based on the same claim of "experience."

As usual, the counter from Obama should be "judgment."

And he should add, "There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before Hillary Clinton voted to support the invasion of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks."

His response ad was okay, but I would have focused, laser-like, on her war vote.

I am wondering if Pennsylvanians will see this as desperation more than anything else.

She left out the snipers! She's pulling her punches.

But is Clinton really being as exploitative of people's fears as Bush was in 2004?

All of the Obama blogs are pushing it as a "terrorize the citizens" tactic.
It's an Obama thing.  

I wonder if all those people pronouncing Hillary is terrorizing people have doors and windows on their houses without locks.  Isn't using locks a sign of living in terror?  
Isn't joining the military a sign of believing in using terror?  Kos was in the militay so wasn't he pushing that meme?  

I guess this ad is good if you think the War in Iraq is making us safe, or that we need a nuclear umbrella in the Middle East.  

As an Obama supporter, I don't think this ad is a problem at all.  It's not like it focuses entirely on Bin Laden.  I don't think it's that bad.  

On another note, I wonder why Hillary makes the reference to being in the kitchen when she got so up in arms about Obama's "tea with ambassadors" statement?  I know it probably isn't intentional, but what a weird choice of quotes.

Has anyone commented that this ad is laughably stupid? Invoking Truman? Exploiting bin Laden? That  music? If ads like this are why she's in the red, there should be some angry donors.

Another Media manufactured frenzy about nothing. Obama should be winning by huge margins with all the ass kissing the media gives him, not to mention the more than 2-1 spending advantage.

Well, once again Obama concedes the national security argument. Screeching that an ad is "scary" does nothing to convince voters that you are anything but clueless.

As an Obama supporter, I found the campaign's response pretty disappointing.

I don't think of this as playing on people's fears.

I do think the campaign should have said something more like - that's right - who do you trust?  And then make his judgment argument.

I assume they have internal polling on the 3 a.m. ad, though, and that the political types insisted that this was the response that would work best.

We'll see.

Ok, I am done being nice.  Hillary, if you don't get 60% or more in PA, then get the fuck out of the race.  Immediately.  Say whatever you want, - that you still think you could win, but for the good of the Democratic Party you will step aside.

I like you and Bill a lot, but you are going to make it much more difficult for Obama to win the General.  You had your chance, but you chose a big state strategy and it failed.  

Ads like this one and the 3 am ad seem to think that there is something magical about Hillary.  Now if this were about 2 candidates where one could tout his great military experience, 4 languages, many years in the senate or as governor, versus someone with virtually no experience, then okay, they have something.  If it were someone like Kerry able to say I got As in law school and went on to.....while Texas law school in his father's home state, while his father was vp wouldn't even take him in... okay that would make sense of this, too.  But as I'm watching either of those ads, I'm not saying to myself --- oh, man, you are so right, Hillary would be much better at these things than Obama.  And that's because neither has any relevant greater experience.  So I'm left with the movie star approach --- who would make me feel better on a superficial level shaking hands with diplomats, etc.  And beautiful, tall, eloquent Obama wins hands down.  Have they really tested these ads?

It's similar to the 3AM ad. But the typical answer for the end would be John McCain. If you're selling to someone that puts national security first then McCain is the answer. He's been working that turf for his entire political life.

You can make the case that it differentiates her from Obama but for me, Obama is a better answer than HRC. She hasn't displayed the skills and judgement that I'd want to see handling such a crisis. His campaign has been executed like a military campaign. He's made better decisions on staffing and strategy.

So, the ads don't seem to work for me... let's see what they do to the polls and the election results. Maybe they work for independents and undecideds but I think it's politically tone-deaf for a democratic primary. Against McCain it's insane.

Please... McCain could've released the same ad and everyone on here would be erupting that the Republicans were trying to scare voters into voting for them again.

Warranted or not, using Bin Laden in a campaign commercial will automatically trigger those responses.

There's a difference between saying terrorism is a real threat and I'm the candidate better equipped to handle it and what Bush et al. did which was to say, not only am I better equipped, but the democrats will surrender to the terrorists, your children will be raped/killed/bombed/beheaded--not necessarily in that order--and liberals are traitors, gays are deviants, and Jane Fonda drinks the blood of the unborn.

that the ad does not mention, or even refer to Obama? To qualify as an attack ad, I would think it would have to - you know - attack the opponent. Kind of like this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cWvHbOoG3tI

Now THAT's an attack ad - the entire thing is all about attacking the opposing candidate, in the most over-the-top and hyperbolic fashion. You don't even find out who the ad is "for" until the very end.

was getting at.  The answer is Harry Truman!

If we had Harry Truman as president with all his questionably profound platitudes we could finally get Osama bin laden.  Although I'm still not sure why Hillary has been campaigning for Harry Truman.