San Antonio College students' network for the 2008 election
Obama vs. Clinton 3 am ads
Mother Knows Best
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BvyF351RS8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M70emIFxETs&NR=1
We’ve all heard the news about Hillary Clinton’s infamous “3 am” ad. This ad got its fair share of circulation right before the Texas primaries. This was to be the knock out punch to sway voters in the way of Hillary Clinton. The ad depicted small children sleeping innocently in their beds, and the nurturing parents that would come in to check on them in the middle of the night. Then, an ominous voice over places the viewer in a scenario -
It’s 3am and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the White
House and its ringing. Something is happening in the world. Your vote will decide who
answers that call. Whether it is someone who already knows the world’s leaders,
knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. It’s three
am and you children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering that phone?
(Williams/Barnes)
It went on to show an image of Hillary Clinton wearing glasses and in a business suite, at three am., protecting America, while the innocents slept. The ad worked well, and delivered one of the first major hits to Barack Obama’s campaign. The talk of the ad lasted for quite some time, with all the news that surrounded it. We all remember Cassie Knowles; the little girl that was depicted sleeping in the beginning of the ad. She is now seventeen, and an avid Obama supporter.
Interestingly enough, not many people have seen Barack Obama’s counter ad. It is interesting in the way that it starts out almost identically as does Hillary Clinton’s. The ad begins with the same depictions, a small girl sleeping, the front view of an upper, middle class, suburban house, and a voice over putting the viewer in the same scenario: “It’s three am and your children are asleep. There’s a phone in the White House, and it’s ringing.” There is a subtle difference in that the voice is not as ominous as the voice in the Clinton ad. The ad goes on to show black and white images of Barack Obama meeting with soldiers, speaking to congregations of people, and regal head shots of the candidate. These images are accompanied by favorable quotes from statesman, news headlines, and Barack Obama himself. The voice over encourages the viewers to think about what “qualifications” make, not only for a good leader, but for a good president. Though the two ads are similar in symbolism and objectives, the effectiveness of the ads are greatly dependent how the candidates choose to tap into the metaphors of protecting ones family.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are fighting to be the Democratic nominee in the 2008 Presidential election; because they are both Democrats, their approach to the American people can be seen often with great parallels. George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive linguistics at the University of California in Berkeley, presented an idea that the nation of America can be viewed as a family. The Republican Party can be viewed as the strict father, the Democratic Party can be viewed as the nurturant mother, and the American people are the children whose duty it is for the “mother” and “father” to protect. Lakoff summed up his views on how Democrats protect their children when he wrote:
Protection is a form of caring, and protection from external dangers takes up a
significant part of the nurturant parent’s attention. The world is filled with evils that can
harm a child, and it is the nurturant parent’s duty to be ward them off…..Protection of
innocent and helpless children from such evils is a major part of a nurturant parent’s
job.
Lakoff’s theory was confirmed in both political ads. America is the new born baby asleep in the crib, while the candidates symbolize the nurturant parents coming in to check on them late at night.
Where both ads fell short, was their appeal to the Republican Party, or “father figure’s” of American politics. There is no implied idea of “tough love” or heavy handed consequences of our actions. While both ads seem to lack appeal to the “Father Party”, they each have their own separate obstacles to conquer.
Barack Obama is not the conventional candidate. Though he is qualified, smart, and ready to bring change to the American people, his campaign still faces many hurdles to overcome. He is one of the youngest men to ever run for President of the United States – and, he is of mixed race. The issue of race has been one of the leading issues in Barack Obama’s fight for the Presidency, and until recently, was an issue rarely talked about openly. George Lakoff had this to say about multiculturalism in politics:
From the perspective of these metaphors, multiculturalism is immoral, since it permits
alternative views of what counts as moral behavior. Multiculturalism thus violates the
binary good-evil distinction made by Moral Strength. It violates the well-defined moral
paths and boundaries of Moral Bounds. Its multiple authorities violate any unitary
Moral Authority. And the multiplicity of standards violates Moral Wholeness.
It is because of views such as these, the Obama campaign must not only prove the Senators ability to lead the American people, but simultaneously break through walls of negative stereo types that America has too often just walked around.
While the opposing campaign was doing this, the Clinton ad went on to find itself confronted with allegations of racist connotations, deliberate or not, subtly planted in the minds of Americans on the eve of a major primary election. Orlando Patterson, an author and professor of sociology at the University of Harvard, sent this editorial to the New York Times after seeing the Clinton ad for the first time:
I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery, and
when I saw the Clinton ad’s central image — innocent sleeping children and a mother
in the middle of the night at risk of mortal danger…. The danger implicit in the phone
ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man,
someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat.
So though proven statistically to be affective, her famous “3 am ad” was met with mixed reviews from the American public.
When Barack Obama accused the Clinton campaign of using “scare tactics” and “negative advertising” to scare up votes, Hillary Clinton responded by stating: “Senator Obama says that if we talk about national security in this campaign we are trying to scare people. …The American people aren’t afraid of the challenges and dangers we face in the world” (Snow, Harper). Negative advertising in politics is a classic advertising tactic used to portray the opposition in a bad light. Michael Grunwald, a staff writer at the Washington Post interviewed Shanto Iyengar, a professor of political advertising at Stanford University. When Gunwald asked Iyengar his thoughts on negative advertising, Iyengar had this to say: "When the news is bad, the ads tend to be negative, … and the more negative the ad, the more likely it is to get free media coverage. So there's a big incentive to go to the extremes." Though the dangers Senator Clinton spoke of are very real, the negative advertising left some Americans with a bad taste in their mouths for Hillary Clinton.
Political advertisements, no matter what the tactics, have proven time and time again to be extremely effective. No amount of mud slinging, media coverage, or political speculation a political advertisement produces, nothing can change the final outcome. Both candidates are presenting a solution to the downward spiral the Bush administration has led this country into. Not only through the mockery it has made of this country’s political system, but also through the lies and scare tactics it expects America to buy into. The next President of the Unites States of America needs to be ready to protect our country, and her inhabitants, like a mother lion to her cubs. Lakoff’s “Nation-as-Family” metaphor could not be more appropriate or necessary than it is today. The country has found itself in financial, economic, and political instability. America needs a leader that will understand that “Security is about human life and dignity. We need to stop talking narrowly about national security and start talking broadly about human security. This is a critical step for moving beyond the cold war mentality that defines security as being about military threats with military solutions.” (Brewer)
Works Cited
Brewer, Joe. "Shifting the Climate of Security." Rockridge Institute. 15 May 2007. 01 Apr.
2008 .
Grunwald, Michael. "The Year of Playing Dirtier." Washingtonpost.Com. 07 Oct. 2007. 31
Mar. 2008 .
Lakoff, George. "Metaphor, Morality, and Politics,." Social Research 62 (1995): 9+.
Patterson, Orlando. "The Red Phone in Black and White." Editorial. The New York Times 11
Mar. 2008, Online ed. .
Snow, Kate, and Eloise Harper. "Clinton Response to Obama's Accusation of Scare Tactics."
ABCNews.Com. 29 Feb. 2008. 31 Mar. 2008 .
Williams, Juan, and Fred Barnes. "Transcript: Hillary Clinton Vs. Barack Obama on Super
Tuesday II; John McCain Goes After Obama on Iraq." FoxNews.Com. 04 Mar. 2008. 07
Apr. 2008 .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BvyF351RS8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M70emIFxETs&NR=1
We’ve all heard the news about Hillary Clinton’s infamous “3 am” ad. This ad got its fair share of circulation right before the Texas primaries. This was to be the knock out punch to sway voters in the way of Hillary Clinton. The ad depicted small children sleeping innocently in their beds, and the nurturing parents that would come in to check on them in the middle of the night. Then, an ominous voice over places the viewer in a scenario -
It’s 3am and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the White
House and its ringing. Something is happening in the world. Your vote will decide who
answers that call. Whether it is someone who already knows the world’s leaders,
knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. It’s three
am and you children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering that phone?
(Williams/Barnes)
It went on to show an image of Hillary Clinton wearing glasses and in a business suite, at three am., protecting America, while the innocents slept. The ad worked well, and delivered one of the first major hits to Barack Obama’s campaign. The talk of the ad lasted for quite some time, with all the news that surrounded it. We all remember Cassie Knowles; the little girl that was depicted sleeping in the beginning of the ad. She is now seventeen, and an avid Obama supporter.
Interestingly enough, not many people have seen Barack Obama’s counter ad. It is interesting in the way that it starts out almost identically as does Hillary Clinton’s. The ad begins with the same depictions, a small girl sleeping, the front view of an upper, middle class, suburban house, and a voice over putting the viewer in the same scenario: “It’s three am and your children are asleep. There’s a phone in the White House, and it’s ringing.” There is a subtle difference in that the voice is not as ominous as the voice in the Clinton ad. The ad goes on to show black and white images of Barack Obama meeting with soldiers, speaking to congregations of people, and regal head shots of the candidate. These images are accompanied by favorable quotes from statesman, news headlines, and Barack Obama himself. The voice over encourages the viewers to think about what “qualifications” make, not only for a good leader, but for a good president. Though the two ads are similar in symbolism and objectives, the effectiveness of the ads are greatly dependent how the candidates choose to tap into the metaphors of protecting ones family.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are fighting to be the Democratic nominee in the 2008 Presidential election; because they are both Democrats, their approach to the American people can be seen often with great parallels. George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive linguistics at the University of California in Berkeley, presented an idea that the nation of America can be viewed as a family. The Republican Party can be viewed as the strict father, the Democratic Party can be viewed as the nurturant mother, and the American people are the children whose duty it is for the “mother” and “father” to protect. Lakoff summed up his views on how Democrats protect their children when he wrote:
Protection is a form of caring, and protection from external dangers takes up a
significant part of the nurturant parent’s attention. The world is filled with evils that can
harm a child, and it is the nurturant parent’s duty to be ward them off…..Protection of
innocent and helpless children from such evils is a major part of a nurturant parent’s
job.
Lakoff’s theory was confirmed in both political ads. America is the new born baby asleep in the crib, while the candidates symbolize the nurturant parents coming in to check on them late at night.
Where both ads fell short, was their appeal to the Republican Party, or “father figure’s” of American politics. There is no implied idea of “tough love” or heavy handed consequences of our actions. While both ads seem to lack appeal to the “Father Party”, they each have their own separate obstacles to conquer.
Barack Obama is not the conventional candidate. Though he is qualified, smart, and ready to bring change to the American people, his campaign still faces many hurdles to overcome. He is one of the youngest men to ever run for President of the United States – and, he is of mixed race. The issue of race has been one of the leading issues in Barack Obama’s fight for the Presidency, and until recently, was an issue rarely talked about openly. George Lakoff had this to say about multiculturalism in politics:
From the perspective of these metaphors, multiculturalism is immoral, since it permits
alternative views of what counts as moral behavior. Multiculturalism thus violates the
binary good-evil distinction made by Moral Strength. It violates the well-defined moral
paths and boundaries of Moral Bounds. Its multiple authorities violate any unitary
Moral Authority. And the multiplicity of standards violates Moral Wholeness.
It is because of views such as these, the Obama campaign must not only prove the Senators ability to lead the American people, but simultaneously break through walls of negative stereo types that America has too often just walked around.
While the opposing campaign was doing this, the Clinton ad went on to find itself confronted with allegations of racist connotations, deliberate or not, subtly planted in the minds of Americans on the eve of a major primary election. Orlando Patterson, an author and professor of sociology at the University of Harvard, sent this editorial to the New York Times after seeing the Clinton ad for the first time:
I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery, and
when I saw the Clinton ad’s central image — innocent sleeping children and a mother
in the middle of the night at risk of mortal danger…. The danger implicit in the phone
ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man,
someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat.
So though proven statistically to be affective, her famous “3 am ad” was met with mixed reviews from the American public.
When Barack Obama accused the Clinton campaign of using “scare tactics” and “negative advertising” to scare up votes, Hillary Clinton responded by stating: “Senator Obama says that if we talk about national security in this campaign we are trying to scare people. …The American people aren’t afraid of the challenges and dangers we face in the world” (Snow, Harper). Negative advertising in politics is a classic advertising tactic used to portray the opposition in a bad light. Michael Grunwald, a staff writer at the Washington Post interviewed Shanto Iyengar, a professor of political advertising at Stanford University. When Gunwald asked Iyengar his thoughts on negative advertising, Iyengar had this to say: "When the news is bad, the ads tend to be negative, … and the more negative the ad, the more likely it is to get free media coverage. So there's a big incentive to go to the extremes." Though the dangers Senator Clinton spoke of are very real, the negative advertising left some Americans with a bad taste in their mouths for Hillary Clinton.
Political advertisements, no matter what the tactics, have proven time and time again to be extremely effective. No amount of mud slinging, media coverage, or political speculation a political advertisement produces, nothing can change the final outcome. Both candidates are presenting a solution to the downward spiral the Bush administration has led this country into. Not only through the mockery it has made of this country’s political system, but also through the lies and scare tactics it expects America to buy into. The next President of the Unites States of America needs to be ready to protect our country, and her inhabitants, like a mother lion to her cubs. Lakoff’s “Nation-as-Family” metaphor could not be more appropriate or necessary than it is today. The country has found itself in financial, economic, and political instability. America needs a leader that will understand that “Security is about human life and dignity. We need to stop talking narrowly about national security and start talking broadly about human security. This is a critical step for moving beyond the cold war mentality that defines security as being about military threats with military solutions.” (Brewer)
Works Cited
Brewer, Joe. "Shifting the Climate of Security." Rockridge Institute. 15 May 2007. 01 Apr.
2008 .
Grunwald, Michael. "The Year of Playing Dirtier." Washingtonpost.Com. 07 Oct. 2007. 31
Mar. 2008 .
Lakoff, George. "Metaphor, Morality, and Politics,." Social Research 62 (1995): 9+.
Patterson, Orlando. "The Red Phone in Black and White." Editorial. The New York Times 11
Mar. 2008, Online ed. .
Snow, Kate, and Eloise Harper. "Clinton Response to Obama's Accusation of Scare Tactics."
ABCNews.Com. 29 Feb. 2008. 31 Mar. 2008 .
Williams, Juan, and Fred Barnes. "Transcript: Hillary Clinton Vs. Barack Obama on Super
Tuesday II; John McCain Goes After Obama on Iraq." FoxNews.Com. 04 Mar. 2008. 07
Apr. 2008 .
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Vanessa Valdez on
-
I thought this paper was very interesting. I have never seen the Obama video. It is very similar to the Hillary Clinton 3 am video. Then I found it interesting that the girl that was in the clinton video is now a true supporter of Obama. That was very surprising. I like the way you compare and contrast Hillary and Obama throughtout your paper. It helps me get a clear picture of what you are trying to say. It was also interesting that you explained that Barack is a very good candidate, but according to George Lakoff, he is not morally fit to be president because of his multicultural race. That was interesting to know. It has been a true controversy about race and Obama being a candidate for president. I was hearing the radio a while back and a lady called to the radio station and said, "it will be a war if hillary or obama because president. Hillary is a women and obama is black! They will be assainated the first day of their presidency." I couldn't believe there was people out there so racist. That was surprising.
-
Permalink Reply by Kimberly Valenzuela on -
After reading your paper and seeing the video, I feel that your paper was very good. I think it was very informative and makes you think about how the nation views some things. I think it's ridiculous that the Clinton video lead to so much drama. I really like how you included both links to both videos, as well as analyzed both. Your right about how people are going to face parallels when making a decision for who to vote for. They both had convincing arguements during the democratic debate, and I know it's going to be very difficult when choosing a candidate.
-
Permalink Reply by Clay Calderon on
-
I liked this essay. Very interesting. I myself did the 3am phone call ad also. I like yours because you didnt show any bias in your writtings. You did some for Hillary and did some for Barack. I found the Orlando Patterson interview with MSNBC's Hardball and used that in my essay. I feel reassured that you also quoted Orlando.
-
Permalink Reply by Hilary Franceschini on -
I really liked how you compared both “3 A.M.” ads. You show how they are different, but how the symbolism is a lot alike. You use some GREAT Lakoff quotes to explain each one of your points. I also like the paragraph were you quote a professor when he says why someone would go through extremes for advertising- chances of free media coverage. Even though the paragraph was short, I thought the section on how the video fell short on conservatives (appealing to the Strict Father Model) was important. The video I did had a lot of emphasis on Republican and Independent voters supporting Obama, but this one seemed to miss the opportunity to reach out to them. Its good how you put positive and negative aspects on both Obama and Clinton campaigns and talked about issues they both bring to the table.
-
Permalink Reply by Teresa Sorola on -
Oh, good insight, about the lack of appeal to independent voters. Yeah I had a hard time looking for ways to incorporate the lack of strict father appeal in the paper, but I felt that it had to be mentioned. I'm glad I didn't show bias toward any particular candidate. I'm an Obama supporter, and knew that if it was apparent in my paper, the ideas presented would not reach as many people as it could.
-
Permalink Reply by Mila on
-
This is a very interesting paper, i would say more like an analysis of both candidates form the Democratic party. I heard that Hilary's ad 3 a.m. was the critical factor in Texas primaries, but honestly i was not aware of that i would say "dirty" game that they both play in order to get their votes. I liked your insight about picking basically the same video but adapted to each of them individually. I think that both Obama and Hillary need to ddecide between themself who will be the nominee and if one of them will be the chosen presiden, then the other one will be the vice president. Insted of sdpending so much money on their promotions and marketing campaigns.
-
Permalink Reply by anewsome1 on
-
I think this was a very well written essay. I really like the way you included both videos into your essay. I think it helps the reader to see both views and creates an unbiased paper. I also found this paper very insightful and covered both Hillary and Obama very well. I think there was a lot of good information in this paper i never knew about the controversy over the Hillary 3 am video. I think your concluding paragraph was a very good final paragraph and summed up the paper and your opinions very well. You analyzed both candidates and their videos very well and I think your Lackoff supports provided a good basis for your paper. It was very enjoyable to read and has really made me think deeper into both videos.
-
Permalink Reply by Teresa Sorola on
-
The final paragraph I knew had to leave the reader with some sort final thought. I also thought that if I reminded the readers about the mess ups the bush administration has made, it may persuade them to vote democratically. This paper was a bit difficult to write and I was worried about the flow of the paper and if the readers would be able to follow my thought line. It became more of a comparison paper and I think it worked out well.
-
Permalink Reply by Zaira on
-
I really like the way you compared both of the 3am ads, you gave some very detailed descriptions of the slight differences there was in the videos. I personally found it abit hard to try to adapt to both of the videos, so I give you props on being able to do that. I like how you integrated Lackoff's opinion in how Obama would not be fit to be president because of his race. I'm not entirely in agreement with this but I like how you integrated into your writing. You made it very clear and easy to understand what you are trying to get across. I realy like you r writing it was great. Plus, I'm a strong Obama follower. Good job!
-
Permalink Reply by Teresa Sorola on
-
The idea that Obama would not be fit to be president because of his race IS absurd. The Lakoff quotes were to prove the point that a lot of the ideas of the Republican party are narrow, outdated, and just plain wrong. Thanks for the props! OBAMA '08!!
-
Permalink Reply by Charles A. Fimple on
-
This paper was very interesting in that it compared the Clinton Campaign commercial and the Obama Campaign commercial. Hillary Clinton is reflecting the nurturanant parent model providing protection to her children which is the US citizens from dangers. This commercial is intended to a parent to identify with her and vote for Clinton that will protect our children as well as the nation. On the other hand, Obama presents his commercial to reflect morality as accountability because he never changed his position on the war. In addition, the commercial presented some other policies that Obama stood up for which lets the public to draw a conclusion that the nation is a family. Obama experience and accountability suites him well for the presidential candidacy. Its very interesting that he made a commercial that replied to Clintons same commercial which reflects the morality as accountability or account for books in Lakoffs publication.
-
Permalink Reply by bingram3 on
-
This essay sheds light to the controversy between the two political ads in a way that is un-bias and thoroughly researched. I thought that you did a very good job touching on Lackoff's opinions, and used very appropriate quotes from other sources. I thought that it was very interesting that you chose to use both of the ads in your essay, because you focused in on the different tactics used by both canidates. It allows readers to actually get a better understanding by being able to view and compare both political ads, as well your analysis. Well said!
About
Badge
© 2010 Created by Lennie Irvin on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
