Obama Reacts To "Red Phone"

According to CBS News's Maria Gavrilovic, who is on the trail with Obama:

"We’ve seen these ads before. They’re the kind that play on peoples’ fears to scare up votes." "Well it won’t work this time. Because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is – what kind of judgment will you make when you answer? We’ve had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer."

Comments

Perfect response.

Only Obama can teach some basic lessons of being a president to war mongers like McCain-Bush.

McCain, Bush, Hillary are the past and we need to look forward to the future.

Posted by Tamora | February 29, 2008 11:51 AM

This guy is so good he makes it seem easy (which, obviously, it's not). I hope a whole generation of young leaders learns from him.

Posted by Howard B. | February 29, 2008 12:16 PM

"Now, one of Clinton's laws of politics is this. If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is try get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."

- Bill Clinton, October 25, 2004

Posted by dwbh | February 29, 2008 12:28 PM

Wow, dwbh...how'd you find that so quick (bows down)...I'm not worthy!! Good work!

Posted by Jorge | February 29, 2008 1:01 PM

This whole week watching Obama counter-punch I've been flashing back on this picture of him in his office, under a picture of Ali standing over George Foreman.

I'm starting to think of that whole Obamabi thing as a kind of rope-a-dope.

Posted by Dirk | February 29, 2008 1:06 PM

The red phone ad does capture the basic facet or concern about Obama: is he ready? Is it too much of a roll of the dice? This is not a new point Hillary is making.
Clinton in 92 wasn't ready. His transition went badly. He couldn't get his nominees picked or in place. He got sandbagged his first second in the door. It took a while to grow into the job.
We know this about him. We know his presidency almost failed in the early going.
Hillary having had the ringside seat through that period, having had a west wing office through that time understands the job and its traps far better than Obama does: we know that too.
This ad is powerful and Obama will call it fearmongering but it is the kind of ad that quite ably refocus people's chief concerns and help Hillary win strongly in two important states.

Posted by Michael C. | February 29, 2008 1:15 PM

Obama is a broken record.

Literally, his only argument on foreign policy is about a speech he made 6 years ago.

That's not enough.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 1:24 PM

Obama's response is great.

I can't help but think, that as Atrios said, the ad would have be more effective if it had wolves in it.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | February 29, 2008 1:39 PM

Obama is a broken record.
Literally, his only argument on foreign policy is about a speech he made 6 years ago.
That's not enough.
Posted by Tim K

He's gotten away with it because every high-priced advisor she has has said she cannot state the obvious.

Barack, without any information you just voted the liberal line. You were told along with 5 other State Reps to give antiwar speeches to help your reelection in 6 intensely liberal Districts of Chicago to help your chances. You were told to do that by Jewish Hard Left Activist Jan Schakowsky, who, of course, preceeded you as State Senator in your District as she chased every Lefty cause under the sun.
You were smart enough to do her bidding and join with the Hard Left centers of Cambridge Mass, Moscow Russia, Oxford England, Berkeley, and several other Blue Bastion university towns or metro areas in denouncing the War. Like in those areas, your speech required no courage. You were just bolstering your reelection chances and doing as Schakowsky demanded to keep her lines open to big buck benefactors on the Hard Left.

In fact, Obama, we have it from texts of several politicians in the States that many of you were presented with the basic speech and talking points of what several dozen of you Lefties were supposed to say to condemn the "Rush" to war. And your judgement is basically just your silver tongue being applied to other peoples canned speech you were supposed to read.

Get real Barack. I may be Hillary Clinton and maybe I spent too much time learning how things work and quashing Bimbo eruptions and screwing a few minor things up as I gained experience - but I was authentic enough not to practice in front of a mirror that "great, soaring oratory of the next MLK" for years, and years.

Hillary couldn't make that point without screwing her Base and the moveon.org anti-Americans.

The Republicans can.

Posted by chris ford | February 29, 2008 1:53 PM

Chris, that's bullshit and you know it. It wasn't an "anti-war speech" it was a speech against the merits of this particular war. And everything he said was proven right. He wasn't arguing against the use of American force as a matter of principle, like a pacifist. He was arguing that it has been shown, throughout history, at attempts of Western powers to occupy the Middle East have always ended in disaster. He was arguing that we did not have a clearly defined mission or any standard by which we judge "success" - too few people were asking the question "sure we can depose Saddam in a month, but what then?" He did. It was incredibly naive thinking on the part of the Bush administration that we'd march in there and be greeted like heroes like it was freakin' Holland, and in no time we'd have a self-governing and self-sufficient democratic state up and running. That may still be possible, at some point, although there's nothing to guarantee that the Iraqis don't freely elect an Islamic government (in which case the whole effort would have worked out real well for us, huh?). But it may only be possible once we're gone, ironically enough, because as long as we are there our presence provides a rallying cry for extremists and terror groups. He nailed this as well, in his speeches and interviews before the war - that the overthrow would create a power vacuum and that the logical people to supplant Saddam's power were radical clerics and terrorist militias. He said it would lead to sectarian violence between Sunni, Shia and Kurds (who would fight for independence). He said the big winner would be Iran. He was right on all counts.

The fact is that Obama, partly as a result of a mature view of the world and empathy for other cultures, and partly as a simple product of his age and generation, has a much more responsible view of the role of America in the world. For one thing, you cannot fight a war to "win hearts and minds". The whole concept is impossible. The army exists to fight wars, with an objective of destroying targets or taking territory. Nation-building is not an appropriate use of the American military to anybody but neo-conservative ideologues, and Senator Clinton voted along with them.

This was not a tactical error, it was a strategic error, and to this day Senator Obama is the only one that truly understands that and why that is. Senator Clinton's opposition to the war now, by contrast, is based solely on the fact that most Democratic voters now favor ending the war. She cast a vote that was popular at the time back then, she's campaigning on a promise that is popular now.

Posted by TH | February 29, 2008 2:06 PM

The other day, one of the Hillary supporters said that she was supporting Hillary for her principles.Is this the principle a leader should have???by this reason, this should prompt outrage from the people.As the same mentality that went into this ad gave us Iraq strike without reading the NIE(national intelligence estimate), patriot act, wiretapping, gitmo tortures and waterboarding, Abu Gharaib atrocities,...etc.Now the next and only big step that goes by Hillary's fear measure and scare tactics is deporting people who look like Arabs or like Barack in the Somali garb back to their countries.The next fear-based logical step in this direction-hispanics should fear blacks, asians should fear blacks, white should fear hispanics,whites should fear blacks, suburban blacks should fear inner city blacks........All should fear Africans and Persians and Arabs.How peachy world would be then, isn't it and how safe????

DISGUSTING, that 's the word for this ad.

Posted by soms | February 29, 2008 2:14 PM

Obama's passing all his tests this week. Everyone else is flunking out.

Posted by DJ&Chip | February 29, 2008 2:37 PM

Before the day is out, the She-weasel will blame some unnamed staffer for this "regretable ad". The spin will shift away from the stupidity of the ad while her flying monkey toadies search for anything that may stick to Obama. Failing a sucessful hunt for dirt it will be up to Slippery Ickes and her Gal Maggie to make up something.
The last days of the Clinton Duoacracy are totally Nixonian!
Keep hoping for that Rhode Island Landslide Shrillary!

Posted by remus | February 29, 2008 3:03 PM

TH:

That's disingenuous. Obama is clearly portraying himself as the candidate of anti-war. He panders to the left-wing base by constantly pointing out his speech against the Iraq war in 2002, and his promise to unconditionally meet with rogue leaders.

This was not a tactical error, it was a strategic error, and to this day Senator Obama is the only one that truly understands that and why that is

That's just about the most striking example of hyperbole I've heard in awhile. And considering I've been reading a lot from Obama supporters lately, that's saying a lot.

Let's face it, Obama and the people who were critical of the decision to invade Iraq were correct. He was hardly the only one. Most of the people who were against the war were the same people who are almost always against the war. Many of these people were also against the war in Afghanistan and Kosovo and Bosnia and the list goes on. So this time they were right... but that's not necessarily just a case of superior foresight or judgment. Sometimes you just get lucky. If you say the same thing long enough you're bound to be right.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 3:09 PM

I was feeling pretty bad and hopeless after watching this ad. I posted the following thought on Huffington post. I was glad that people rallied around me and it was reassuring to say the least.
Here's the post-
I am an Indian American liberal woman who looks like an Arab. I lost all hope today. I had pinned all my hopes and my children's on the democratic party. I thought they would never appeal to the worst demons in people's minds which by way of this ad she has.Live in fear, they are saying. I'm sure I'll be getting more than a dirty look from my neighbor after this.I am shattered.

Posted by nuana | February 29, 2008 3:30 PM

Why does it take Hillary six rings to answer the phone? And why she is dressed in a suit at 3 a.m.?

It seems to me that if you are up, reading or whatever, still dressed in a suit, that you could answer the phone in less than six rings. (I bet Obama could answer it in 4.)

But if you were asleep, I could understand the 6 rings. But, then, what's with the suit? Does she sleep in the suit?

I am not sure i want to entrust national security to somebody who stays awake all night, dressed in a suit. Or alternatively, somebody who sleeps in a suit. I want a president who understands appropriate sleep and sleepwear.

Posted by TKD | February 29, 2008 3:49 PM

This is tanking now but when McCain runs a slightly modified version of the same ad in October it will destroy Obama.

Come on, this kind of garbage has had its day. That day is over.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | February 29, 2008 4:44 PM