Do you approve of a Democratic candidate featuring Osama bin Laden in an advertisement?

[Occam Bandage]

Poll question: Do you approve of a Democratic candidate featuring Osama bin Laden in an advertisement?

Simple question.

[endarkenment]

1. No thanks, I've had 7 years of this bullshit from the republicans.

I really do not need it from a purported Democratic party candidate.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

9. That is my response, as well....

I hated it when Bush & Co. did it, why on earth wouldn't I hate it if a Dem uses it?

[DrDan]

2. sure would like to see taking-the-high-road pay off in more votes

I also am tired of these kkkarl rove tactics.

[bobbert]

3. Well, don't forget that

Obama and Osama are just one letter off, so he is probably be an undercover muslim living in the US waiting to fly a plane into a Jonesville curch. We need to remind people of that.

[DrDan]

6. you forgot - his middle name is Hussein - more proof

[HockeyMom]

4. Sounds like a page out of Karl Rove's Playbook

[demokatgurrl]

5. No, that is definitely a Republican tactic. n/t

[OhioBlue]

7. No - I'm sick of the fear mongering BS. n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. I... Hermann Wilhelm Göring... approve this message

"All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country"

[slackmaster]

10. That depends entirely on what role OBL plays in the ad

An effigy of OBL as a target being fired upon by a machinegun-toting Democratic nominee would suit me just fine.

[Shae]

11. The ad mainly says

how important it is in the world to day for someone like Hillary to be coronated -- I mean nominated.

[slackmaster]

24. The OP is referring to an actual ad, not a hypothetical one?

I don't watch much teevee.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Here is the ad:

http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDap46WOCmA

People should view it themselves and decide whether it is an ad that features Osama bin Ladin.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. I voted Yes

This is pretty much a duplicate of another thread so I've said this before. Before I actually viewd the ad I thought at the very least Obama's picture would be thrown in after Bin Ladin's given the level of upset being expressed toward this ad. I think your OP is misleading, this ad does NOT feature Osama bin Ladin. His name is never mentioned, his picture is on screen for less than two seconds as part of a series of pictures associated with about 10 of America's major crisis points since WWII. You have pictures the Cuban Missle Crisis, gas rationing in the 70's, Bin Ladin marching with a gun, people stranded by midwestern floods and Hurricane Katrina, etc. etc.

Osama's photo is part of a collage of threats and challenges faced by America since Pearl Harbor, both natural and man made. The voice over says "you have to be ready for everything" and "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen". It's fucking true. Both Clinton and Obama are running for President of the United States, it's not an easy job. It is open to debate whether Clinton or Obama is better prepared to deal with emergencies should they happen, but to scream TERRA TERRA TERRA! over this ad is stupid. Things do go wrong in the world. Every President tends to get hit with a major crisis, if not two or three. It is a legitimate aspect of the "job interview" who will be able to handle an unexpected crisis better. This was not a focus on Bin Ladin, and after 911 to not include some reference to terrorism in the context of the broad range of challenges America has faced would have been foolish and dishonest.

This was not not fake raising of the security color code, and it wasn't a picture of Obama morphing into Osama either. It starts with Pearl Harbor and 911 was the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Obama wasn't attacked once in this ad, he wasn't even mentioned. Security issues are real even if they do often get overblown. I just got off a plane the other day and you still have to put your tiny toothpaste tubes in quart sized plastic bags.

If this ad was what you described in your OP I most likely would have voted No.

[H2O Man]

14. Gracious.

"Obama's photo is part of a collage of threats and challenges faced by America since Pearl Harbor ...."

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Sure got a blush out of my white ass face

It is embarrassing. I did my best to explain below.

[H2O Man]

19. Coming from you,

I knew that it was a simple error. I do, however, think the commercial is questionable.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Thanks H2O Man

It's an indirect swipe at Obama no doubt, calling his experience and seasoning into doubt. Negative, yes, even though Obama was not mentioned. Obama has been calling Clinton's character into doubt of late also. I think both candidates have already been harsher at times than the content of this particular ad.

[Occam Bandage]

15. "Obama's photo is part of a collage of threats and challenges faced by America since Pearl Harbor"

So you'd say it was effective, then.
---------

Snark aside, you're saying, no, it's okay because it does not feature Osama bin Laden's head morphing into Barack Obama's.

Never mind that the core of the ad is the same as the core of the Republican 9/11-exploiting ads: vote for me, because the other candidate will not fight the bad guys, and thus will let you and your children die. It doesn't show Osama bin Laden's head morphing into Barack Obama's. It isn't calling Barack Obama a terrorist; it's only suggesting that he will allow terrorists to kill you. So we're golden.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I'm sleep deprived.

And need to throw myself on the mercy of the court. Just had a really rough work week out of town.

It's a funny thing, I rarely even think of Osama anymore. The only association at work in me is that my mind is unconsciously used to typing "Obama" whenever I am on a message board nowadays and it actually takes concentration to remember to type Osama instead.

It wasn't only bad guys. It was natural catastrophies also. It was any and all kinds of national emergencies, icluding a range of bad guys. The person who gets elected President will most likely be in office for 8 years. The odds are very high that there will be one or more national emergencies during that time period. There has been one or more wars in every Administration since FDR with the exception of Ford and Carter. It is not fantasy fear mongering to talk about what a President is likely to face, espeeially when all the examples are real ones from the past.

[Occam Bandage]

23. Fearmongering need not be fantasy. Osama bin Laden is a "real threat," sure.

He was an even bigger threat in 2002. He was a legitimate issue. 9/11 was only a year removed. Images of the Twin Towers falling were actual examples of a legitimate issue. Iraq appeared, to most observers, to be at least mildly threatening in 2002--and either way, it certainly had become an issue that needed to be resolved one way or another. And yet the Republican campaign of 2002 was dirty because of the way it abused legitimate issues. The existence of a legitimate issue does not excuse an illegitimate claim about that issue.

The problem I have with it--and the problem I think others have with it, too--is that it is the same message as the 2002 Republican campaign: Vote for X, because the other guy just might let you die. And it's a message that's pervasive in modern politics. But it's a message that is fundamentally dishonest and takes away from actual debate. She is not claiming that Barack Obama, say, has an Iraq plan that might destabilize the country. She is claiming that he is weak and will not be able--or, perhaps, willing--to defend America against deadly threats.

That is the difference between confronting a legitimate issue and fearmongering. And that is why Hillary Clinton's latest ad is, to me, offensive.




Addendum: Yes, there are other images, too. We latch on to the bin-Laden photograph not because it is especially offensive, but because it is a token representing a message familiar to us from the 2002 and 2004 Republican campaigns. Back then, it was "Democrats are weak and will let bin Laden kill you." Now, it is "Barack Obama is weak and will let bin Laden, or perhaps some new threat, kill you." The bin-Laden photograph is not the center issue. Rather, the message and contexts are the same as previous ads we found offensive--and that is what we are outraged about.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. A prolonged primary campaign is hard on all of us

High stakes primaries aren't all that common when you get down to it, and more often than not they are lop sided when all is said and done. This is an exception, the sides are closely matched and it is going on for a very long time, watching Democrats fighting each other pretty fiercely before they can go at the Republican.

Many Clinton supporters are outraged at all the attempts to portray Hillary Clinton as in league with the Republican Party, and Obama has been pouring salt into every character wound Clinton has, calling into question whether she has the moral integrity to lead our nation; "She will say or do anything for Power". From a typical Obama supporter perspective that is fighting fair because "you" feel her integrity is subject to question, so the outrage felt by Clinton supporters tends to be one sided.

Many Obama supporters are outraged at all the attempts to portray Barack Obama as too unseasoned and untested to trust as our next Commander in Chief, and Clinton has been raising that question as often as she can, implying that he isn't ready to be President, which is the matter that this ad alludes to. From a typical Clinton supporter perspective, Obama rushed his run for President, he is still green and the subject is a fair one to raise, so the outrage felt by Obama supporters tends to be one sided.

I don't think Clinton is in anyway claiming Obama is not willing to defend America against deadly threats, I do think she is asking voters to consider whether he is the one best able to do so, yes, and clearly she argues that sbe is better prepared than he for that aspect of being President. Obama argues that he is a more trustworthy leader than Clinton is. They are both harsh comparisons to draw but both are fair topics for voters to consider when selecting who they want to support for President.

[GoldieAZ49]

27. I agree, and voted yes also

America faces very real threats and we need a decision maker. Obama does not have the judgement for such a job.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. Say Obama gets the nomination...

and in the GE, runs an ad featuring Osama, and asking why he's still free 7 years after 9/11?

Would you disapprove of that?

[IndependentDem]

20. hmmm, thats a good question.

I guess it would depend on how it was done.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

26. Do you approve of a Democrat using it against a fellow Dem in any context? nt

[MonkeyFunk]

29. I think it's really really naive

to think terrorism wouldn't be brought up in this election.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

30. I think it's really naive

For Hillary to make an ad like that and believe that McCain will not make the EXACT same ad to attack her, successfully.

Hillary's not naive, so that leaves her supporters. She is destroying our party and you are deluding yourselves.

[MonkeyFunk]

31. Nah

what's naive is you guys getting the vapors every time your candidate's opponent doesn't fellate him in an ad.

This has been a very clean campaign by historical standards. The outrage over every little thing is just silly.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

33. Your comment is kinda gross, MonkeyFunk.

And I don't think you know squat about political campaigns, either.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. You're certainly allowed

to have your ignorant opinion.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

36. I see I've struck a nerve.

You don't know crap about politics, other than keyboard commando stuff like DU.

Go to hillaryclintonforum.net. You'll find lots of sympathetic company.

[TragedyandHope]

21. Shame on you Hillary

[rucky]

28. Low Class move! n/t

[NorthCarolina]

32. Pure Republican tactic....no Democrat should use the Obama/Fear tactic

but then again, Hillary is DLC which is basically a Republican, so I guess one could argue that She in particular can use such tactics.

[BobTheSubgenius]

35. not "no".....HELL NO!

This is a reasonable analog of Godwin's Law, I think.