Wednesday, 12 March 2008

It's 3 a.m. and Hillary is Still Making Bad Decisions

All styles are good except the tiresome kind.
Voltaire

There's been so many spoofs on Hillary Clinton's 3 a.m. ad that I was scared to attempt one myself. This CNN news story sums up the situation pretty well. If you wan't to find any of the parodies, just try a youtube search with the words "Hillary" and "3am". There's alot of them, so you might stumble onto quite a few bad ones before your quest is rewarded with some quality comedy.

I'm still not sure on the main point - who I'd want answering the phone at 3 a.m. in the White House. Probably a unfortunate secretary who's been stuck with the night shift (and hopefully a pot full of coffee). There's one thing I am sure about, though. I would want the President to be fast asleep. He/she has probably got a pretty (fucking) busy day coming up.

However, if disaster did strike and Hillary got herself elected, I sure as hell wouldn't want her to be up in the middle of the night (pants-suit and all), answering phones. The ad was, of course, ridiculous, and little miss Clinton knows that now. What's interesting, though, is that she apparently didn't when she approved it. You know how the candidates have to approve every ad they run with that silly "I'm..., and I approve this message". How could she not have realized how dumb (and let's not forget patronising) this ad was. It's almost become a theme of the campaign - the fact that Obama can just sit back and wait for Hillary to do something stupid that brings him more votes.

Because while Barack's got Obama-girl, Hillary has got her husband and his mildly racist comments. While Obama has got the "Yes, we can"-song, Hillary has the "3 a.m."-ad. What she needs to do is just shut up and continue to model the pants-suit collection. It may at least get the menopause-vote back...

I'm Mcmoogol, and I approve this message.

Add to Technorati Favorites

3 comments:

Dan said...

That photo is hilarious enough without adding speech and animation!

mcmoogol said...

Haha, I contemplated adding "Oops, I did again..."-caption. But felt it might be redundant :-)

Dan said...

Good call, less is best in this case!