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 Justine_GN on -
i did pick the same video about HILLARY with you, and ever see the similar one about OBAMA. Your essay let me have a new thought and view about both these candidates through the voice of the speaker.
I did not pay attention to it, and now i can figure out how important it is. It plays a major role to attract the viewers agree or disagree with the video's content. Using good quotes is one of the important things that makes your essay beautifully. But in my opinion, even though Lakoff said Democrats symbolizes for nurturant family, you can also use the symbol of strict father in this case. I think both of these ads also want to show the management's power of 2 candidates. I am really intersted in your comparision and analysis. Good job! ^______^
-
Permalink Reply by Johanna Estrada on -
It was a really long essay but with lot of information. I like it it was very intresting with good topics on the two politics.It was also very informative and makes you reflect on stuff that you have not think about it it was just a great work from you by just sceeming throw it show a lot og organizing the ingormation of the two candidtes also on the way you did the analyzing of your two videos how you put the information together. I never had se those videos but they were really intresting.
About
Badge
© 2010 Created by Lennie Irvin on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
