Comments on: Clinton’s “Daisy” Ad Foreshadows GOP Problems In November

By: Zython

Zython — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 08:51:08 +0000

In the Bush White House, that phone would never be ringing at 3 in the morning. I’m not sure when, possibly before 9-11, they cut Bush out of the loop in crisis situations.

To be fair, that was probably for the best.

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:21:26 +0000

In the Bush White House, that phone would never be ringing at 3 in the morning. I’m not sure when, possibly before 9-11, they cut Bush out of the loop in crisis situations.

By: ignatz

ignatz — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 00:29:43 +0000

The real problem with Hillary’s ad is that it asks “Who do you want to answer the phone?” and DOESN’T ANSWER IT. The question is left open.

So Obama made his own ad and ANSWERED the question.

It’s hard to believe that a professional ad writer made such an obvious mistake.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:37:48 +0000

Johnson wasn't the first to slam Goldwater as trigger happy. His GOP rivals for the nomination did also (read about it here. And his running mate, William Miller was even more pugnacious than Goldwater.

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:52:05 +0000

Goldwater advocated the use of tactical nuclear weapons. That was and is lunacy. For instance he said “Let’s lob a nuclear bomb into the men’s room at the Kremlin.”

The Johnson people created the ad knowing it would be provocative. There was an outcry for its severity after they ran it, but that was more or less exactly the effect they intended.

You would do well to actually read a history book.

By: duros62

duros62 — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:45:14 +0000

No one ever gets elected on a platform of “If you elect me, I’ll start a war!”

Somebody to CC this to John McCain.

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:40:46 +0000

Ok, Reinhard, what exactly was the “lunacy Goldwater was pushing” if you’re such an expert?

By: Reinhard

Reinhard — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:29:20 +0000

Of course Goldwater wasn’t “pushing” for war, just like Bush’s cronies weren’t “pushing” for a war in Iraq. No one ever gets elected on a platform of “If you elect me, I’ll start a war!” Not even Hitler. It’s always on the platform of “I will keep you safe!” “Safe” defined as, “if anyone so much as looks at us cross-eyed, I’ll bomb them back to the stone age!”

So ignore the fact that Hitler spoke of a peasceful Germany while writing that all of Germans’ problems were the fault of meddling Jews and inferior nations. Ignore the doctrines of massive retaliation arguing that any activity deemed threatening by any Communist nation, no matter how slight, should result in the nuclear annihilation of the entire Soviet State. And yes, ignore the fact that half of Bush’s foreign policy advisers were signatories on absurdist theoretical tracts arguing that if only a good enough pretext for the removal of Saddam could be found we could make the mideast flow with milk and oil.

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:12:22 +0000

I realize that my comment doesn’t have much to do with the gist of your entry and I actually agree with most of it, but the ‘Daisy’ ad didn’t produce any kind of ‘contrast’ because Goldwater was not pushing for a nuclear war.

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:00:12 +0000

and unlike this generic ad produced a stark contrast between LBJ and the lunacy of what Goldwater was pushing.

Do you ever actually read any history books? The ad was so inflammatory and absurd that it was pulled almost immediately because LBJ was roundly criticized for airing it without anything to support such idiocy. By you writing, “the lunacy of what Goldwater was pushing”, you reveal yourself to be truly ignorant, actually buying into the notion that Goldwater actually wanted to start a nuclear war.

Sheesh.