It ain’t quite Willie Horton. We’ll have to wait for the general before we see anything close to that. But this ad is definitely in that ballpark.
Now, I’m still not supporting either Clinton or Obama in the primaries (though I’ll settle for whichever of them the Democrats nominate). But this doesn’t make me feel any better about Clinton.
This makes me feel slightly better about Obama.
But Jasmyne gets to the heart of the matter as far as I’m concerned.
More importantly, I’m interested in being in a position where the phone isn’t ringing at 3 a.m. because some country decided to bomb us because of our foreign policies. Think about that. There’s a reason why our country is so hated and it isn’t because of you or me.
After you’ve been been a grown-up for a while, there are a few things you just know. One of them is that a phone ringing at three o’clock in the morning is almost never good news. Who answers it doesn’t change the fact that it’s ringing because something awful and probably unfixable has happened somewhere, probably to somebody near and dear to you.
However you deal with it after picking up the phone is a matter of doing what you have to do, and making what choices you have to make—getting time off from work, buying an emergency plane ticket, etc. But you’d really rather not have to make those choices in the first place. It would be better if the phone just didn’t ring at three o’clock in the morning.
In most instances, you can’t do anything to prevent that. But if the phone that’s ringing is in the White House, bringing news of a terrorist attack? Well, maybe there’s something we can do to prevent that phone from ringing. (Since we can’t take it off the hook, or change the number. And we’ve seen from this administration what happens when the ringing phone is ignored, over and over again.)
Why isn’t that being considered? Why isn’t that part of the debate. Why do both candidates assume the phone will be ringing? How about being in a position where the phone isn’t ringing as 3 a.m. because somebody decided to bomb us for something 90% of Americans probably wouldn’t know about anyway, but would believe whatever somebody standing behind a presidential seal tells them to?
That might be called the “Don’t start none, won’t be none,” approach to foreign policy.
Now, wouldn’t that be something?