Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 22, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Record CO2 Levels Fuel Urgent Calls for Emissions Cuts




A Chronicle of Echoes


Truthdig Bazaar
Elsewhere, California

Elsewhere, California

By Dana Johnson
$15.95

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Clinton’s ‘Red Phone’ Ad

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 29, 2008
Clinton ad
youtube.com

Looming danger: A still from Clinton’s ad, which Obama said was designed to “play on people’s fears.” Later, his campaign released its own “red phone” spot.

In the waning days before the crucial electoral contests in Ohio and Texas, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has released targeted advertising emphasizing her readiness to handle the most dangerous security threats to the nation and suggesting that she would be better prepared than Barack Obama to pick up the dreaded “red phone.” That prompted Obama’s team to come up with, yup, a red phone ad of its own.


The New York Times:

“It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep,” says a narrator as threatening music surges over dark black-and-white images.

There’s a world crisis and the White House phone is ringing. “Your vote will decide who answers that call,” the narrator says. “Whether it’s someone who already knows the world’s leaders, knows the military—someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.”

It ends with a photo of Mrs. Clinton wearing glasses and picking up the phone.
Mr. Obama, responding to the ad during a stop in Houston, said it raised “a perfectly legitimate question.”

But, he said: “We’ve seen these ads before. They’re the kind that play on people’s fears to try to scare up votes.”

Later the Obama campaign released a new ad to respond directly to the one from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. It says in part: “It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone ringing in the White House. Something’s happening in the world. When that call gets answered, shouldn’t the president be the one—the only one—who had judgment and courage to oppose the Iraq war from the start.”

Read more

Watch Clinton’s ad:

Watch Obama’s response:

 

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By slewis, March 10, 2008 at 11:26 pm Link to this comment

I am responding to your comment on the videos about Hillary Clinton and her history of repeated lies as well as Election Felony.

I have heard both sides of these facts since they unfolded back in 1999. They were front page news. These videos represent facts that actually took place during that time. It is not one sided and nothing has been omitted or exaggerated.  There was an actual trial held in CA, presided by a judge appointed by the Clintons. Is there any wonder why she was not convicted? 

I am a fair person and I never make decision based on one side of a story.  These events span from 1999 – 2005. Where were you? It is no secret.  These events were made public and the cover up was documented.  What amazes me is that Clinton supporters such as yourself would rather try to discredit an innocent person just as the Clintons did to Peter Paul to evade justice, rather then admit the truth.  Hillary was caught one tape thanking Peter Paul for his donations when she was running for the Senate, yet she later lied that she had any knowledge of them, but I guess that was one sided as well. There’s no way around it. That was a crime and she broke the law. She committed an ELECTION FELONY.

I am a person of integrity and if I were to serve as a juror in court, I would make a decision based on all of the evidence from both sides.  The sad thing about Clinton supporters is that even when you know both sides and all of the facts are in, you still let the guilty go free.  No my friend, its people like you and the Clintons that the world need to not only pity…but fear.

Peace, Truth & Facts to you!

Report this

By slewis, March 10, 2008 at 10:25 pm Link to this comment

I have heard both sides of these facts since they unfolded back in 1999. They were front page news. These videos represent facts that actually took place during that time. It is not one sided and nothing has been omitted or exaggerated.  There was an actual trial held in CA, presided by a judge appointed by the Clintons. Is there any wonder why she was not convicted?  I am a fair person and I never make decision based on one side of a story.  These events span from 1999 – 2005. Where were you? It is no secret.  These events were made public and the cover up was documented.  What amazes me is that Clinton supporters such as yourself would rather try to discredit an innocent person just as the Clintons did to Peter Paul to evade justice, rather then admit the truth.  Hillary was caught one tape thanking Peter Paul for his donations when she was running for the Senate, yet she later lied that she had any knowledge of them, but I guess that was one sided as well. There’s no way around it. That was a crime and she broke the law. She committed an ELECTION FELONY.

I am a person of integrity and if I were to serve as a juror in court, I would make a decision based on all of the evidence from both sides.  The sad thing about Clinton supporters is that even when you know both sides and all of the facts are in, you still let the guilty go free.  No my friend, its people like you and the Clintons that the world need to not only pity…but fear.

Peace, Truth & Facts to you!

Report this

By S. Lewis, March 10, 2008 at 9:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have heard both sides of these facts since they unfolded back in 1999. They were front page news. These videos represent facts that actually took place during that time. It is not one sided and nothing has been omitted or exaggerated.  There was an actual trial held in CA, presided by a judge appointed by the Clintons. Is there any wonder why she was not convicted?  I am a fair person and I never make decision based on one side of a story.  These events span from 1999 – 2005. Where were you? It is no secret.  These events were made public and the cover up was documented.  What amazes me is that Clinton supporters such as yourself would rather try to discredit an innocent person just as the Clintons did to Peter Paul to evade justice, rather then admit the truth.  Hillary was caught one tape thanking Peter Paul for his donations when she was running for the Senate, yet she later lied that she had any knowledge of them, but I guess that was one sided as well. There’s no way around it. That was a crime and she broke the law. She committed an ELECTION FELONY.

I am a person of integrity and if I were to serve as a juror in court, I would make a decision based on all of the evidence from both sides.  The sad thing about Clinton supporters is that even when you know both sides and all of the facts are in, you still let the guilty go free.  No my friend, its people like you and the Clintons that the world need to not only pity…but fear.

Peace to you!

Report this

By S. Lewis, March 10, 2008 at 8:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

These facts have already been documented. They happened. She is a lier and have been caught in lie after lie. I have heard the other side, so have half the world. It has been documented that she lied and it was covered up. It a FACT that she lied about any knowledge of the donations she received from Peter Paul, when he had her on tape, thanking him. It is a FACT that she committed ELECTION FELONY AND IT WAS COVERED UP BECAUSE THE CASE WAS HANDLED BY A JUDGE APPOINTED BY THE CLINTONS. This is not one sided as you would like people to think. I know all of her supporters such as yourself, would like to sweep all of her dirty deeds under the rug and continue to cover it up as you all have done in the past, but NO MORE COVERING UP FOR HER. SHE WILL BE EXPOSED FOR THE LIER AND SLEEZE SHE IS.  And if I were to ever serve on the jury, believe me, I would be a person of integrity and not dismiss criminal behavior as you Clinton supporters has done for her time after time.

Report this

By Maani, March 10, 2008 at 6:57 pm Link to this comment

S. Lewis:

I watched both parts of this video.  The problem of course is that you are only getting one side of the story - and many claims that may or may not be true.  And if we were to listen ONLY to plaintiffs and their lawyers, we might as well shut down the justice system entirely.  Yet that is what you seem fully prepared to do.

A legal case - ANY case - has two sides.  And no matter how powerful one side may seem when it is presented, it is neither fair nor accurate to simply presume that everything you are being told by one side is actually true.  BOTH sides will make their case look as good as they can for a jury: yet BOTH sides will also engage in exaggeration, omission and spin in order to do so.

I can only hope that you never serve as a juror in court, because you seem far too apt to believe the FIRST side of the story without ever even hearing the other side.

Peace.

Report this

By S. Lewis, March 10, 2008 at 3:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary has committed election felonies in the past, yet escaped going to jail via cover ups! The proof is in the pudding. Look at the evidence for yourself.
Can someone please tell me what qualifications does Hillary Clinton have? Where did she get all of this so called experience? By being the first lady?  The only thing I know from history that she has experience in, is being a Liar. Has everyone forgotten what Hillary and Bill did to Stan Lee and Peter Paul back in 1999? How soon we forget just how sleazy that are. Well here’s the documentation for those what are interested in knowing the REAL TRUTH about how vicious they can be. Should they be above the law? She is a criminal and she should be behind bars, but I guess she can thank those who helped cover up her dirty deeds that she’s not. Look at the Facts for yourself and refresh your memory. Is this who you really want for president? Someone who will stop at nothing even if it means discrediting innocent people to protect herself? Well I don’t know about you, but I deserve better from my New Commander in Chief.

The Shocking Video Hillary Does NOT Want You To See! (1of2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw

The Shocking Video Hillary Does NOT Want You To See! (2of2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 10, 2008 at 8:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

” That said, it may well be that she is being “coached” in this regard.  At least, it certainly sounded that way”

Sort-of-like the way your ubiquitous “Peace” sounds.

Report this

By Maani, March 10, 2008 at 6:20 am Link to this comment

Ironically (maybe), the girl in the ad has just come out for Obama (she apparently just turned 18).  That said, it may well be that she is being “coached” in this regard.  At least, it certainly sounded that way when she appeared on a morning show to talk about it; she did not sound genuine, and the language she used sounded an awful lot like a “script” that she memorized.

Peace.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 5, 2008 at 9:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“...its not left versus right, its rich versus poor, and the rich are always going to win because the bulk of Americans (sic) can’t see past the wool that has been in front of their eyes for quite some time now.”

....and I for one wouldn’t mind if the wool came from Montana sheep, and was processed in Lawrence Massachusetts, But the wool now comes from China, like everything else.

Our political establishment are self-serving fifth columnists selling us out for money and power.  You can put a woman’s face on it, an old man’s or a brown pigment but the intentions are the same!

Report this

By Langx, March 4, 2008 at 12:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The only phone call Hillary will be answering is a phone call from some intern looking for Bill Clinton.

It’s 3am
The phone is ringing in the WH.

Hillary: Hello

Intern: Is Bill there.

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, March 3, 2008 at 7:26 pm Link to this comment

Aw, c’mon, Maani, this is demagougery in its purest form and you know damn well it is.  A person has to be from Mars not to understand the intent of this ad.  That call sure as hell isn’t from a drunk who dialed the wrong number for a cab.

Report this

By Maani, March 3, 2008 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment

Sue:

Thanks for that.  The following three cites (from different sources) are instructive:

“‘I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq…although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence.’...In fact, Obama’s…voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton’s.  Over the [past] two years…the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against.  Just last week, in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Obama conceded that his position on the war is not the “polar opposite” of Clinton’s.”

“When you trash talk your opponent in politics, it’s always a good idea to have the facts on your side.  Unfortunately, Sen. Barack Obama…clearly didn’t have the facts properly lined up when he talked smack against Sen. Hillary Clinton over her vote to authorize the Iraq War in 2002.  Obama was trying to raise doubts about Clinton’s foreign-policy experience by reminding voters that she didn’t read the classified NIE on Iraq before the crucial 2000 vote, suggesting that if she had read it, she might have also voted against the war vote, just like Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who Obama identified as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time.  The problem is that Rockefeller…voted for the war authorization. So Obama got that wrong.  Obama was also incorrect in identifying Rockefeller as the intelligence committee chair at the time. The committee was chaired in Oct. 2002 by Sen. Bob Graham…”

“As Senator Hillary Clinton continues to take heat for her vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq, her presidential rival…has used his long-running opposition to the war as a cornerstone of his campaign…But a review of Obama’s record during his 26 months in Congress reveals that he has taken a more nuanced and cautious position on the war than the full-bore opposition.  Campaigning for the Illinois Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama scolded Bush for invading Iraq and vowed he would ‘unequivocally’ vote against an additional $87 billion to pay for it. Yet since taking office in January 2005, he has voted for four separate war appropriations, totaling more than $300 billion.  Last June, Obama voted no to Senator John F. Kerry’s proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July 2007…And last week, he voted for a Republican-sponsored resolution that stated the Senate would not cut off funding for troops in Iraq.  Though liberals want Congress to stop funding the war in order to end it, Obama has indicated that he will vote for the latest $95.5 billion Iraq appropriation when it comes before the Senate this spring. As a Senate contender in October 2003, with the Senate on the verge of approving the $87 billion war budget, Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times that approving additional funds ‘enables the Bush administration to continue on a flawed policy without being accountable to the American people’ or to the troops. A few weeks later, at a Democratic forum outside Chicago, Obama said that he would have ‘unequivocally’ voted against the $87 billion ‘because, at a certain point, we have to say ‘no’ to George Bush’...Nevertheless, Obama had muted some of his strident criticism of the war even before arriving in Washington. In 2004, Obama defended pro war votes by Kerry and Edwards, that year’s Democratic presidential ticket; although he thought the invasion was wrong, ‘there is room for disagreement,’ he said.”

Apparently, room for disagreement with Kerry and Edwards, but not with Clinton.  What a hypocrite.

Peace.

Report this

By laughoutloud, March 3, 2008 at 1:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

i find it surprising that so many people here on this thread are so supportive of this ludacris advertising.  did karl rove volunteer his services to both clinton and obama?

this is a precursor to them being able to say that since there seems to be an inevidable threat, we would be better to fight the would be bad guys on their own turf before they come over and unleash fury on american soil.

be serious americans, please.  do you not find it odd that whenever you step foot into an airport, the ‘threat level’ is at orange?  is it ever yellow? or green? its always orange.

how, with all the security at airports now, does one think that there is a remote possibility of an attack?  people of persian descent are continually molested at airports for what?  that we can feel a sense of security? 

these tactics being used by both hillary and obama are dissapointing to say the least.  it is a move straight out of the bush admin playbook.

it only goes to show that the majority of people in the US still have no idea that there is essentially no difference in the policies of the democrats as compared to the republicans.  policy in washington is affected by those with money, thats it. 

i was initially impressed by obama, however skeptical, but he’s shown his true colors.  for those of you that are still holding out for change if the dems take the white house, don’t get your hopes up, unless of course, you’re wealthy.

its not left versus right, its rich versus poor, and the rich are always going to win because the bulk of americans can’t see past the wool that has been in front of their eyes for quite some time now. 

wake up americans, get smart with economics and realize the gravity of situation your country is in.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 3, 2008 at 1:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By Maani, March 3 at 10:11 am #

“There is an awful lot of “spin” going on in this thread.”


So stop spinning… The folks who created this little piece of “Bush-fear” called it “the red phone ad” that is the way it was reported on CNN, Fox, and in my local paper.

Report this

By Sue Cook, March 3, 2008 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment

It’s nice to see some brilliant controversial good ole fashion politicing going on for the Clinton campaign for a change.

Obama has really got to come up with something different in his comebacks that Hillary “answered the phone incorrectly by voting for a war that he wanted nothing to do with”.  That’s the samo samo type response he’s been doing since day one of the campaign.

The fact is that that is old news, Hillary knows she
voted for the war and so does everybody else in the whole world by now.

It’s time to move on and make up for past mistakes and take on current situations and make them right.
And that is what she is trying to do.

Another fact, Obama was not there when the vote took place, he may have not agreed with it, but we don’t know how he would have voted placed in time and situation with his fellow colleagues doing what they thought right at the time.  Actually being there placed everyone in a quick, hard decision making situation.  A totally different environment.

By not being there, it’s easy for him to say that I would not have voted for it.  He really don’t know that for sure.

The fact is, he was not there (when he could have been this time) when a vote was on calling the Iranian National Guard terrorists.  Hillary also voted in favor of that, but you don’t see him bragging too much about that vote, or mentioning it period!  It’s easier to simply not show up for a vote that you don’t want to be held accountable for at a later time.

What all this means?  Barack (the chosen one) is not all that holy either!

Report this

By Maani, March 3, 2008 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

There is an awful lot of “spin” going on in this thread.  So let’s look at the ad itself:

1.  “It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe asleep. But there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing.”

It does NOT say “red” phone.  Nor does it even suggest that it is some sort of “Bat-phone.”  It simply says “a phone.”  It merely intimates that the call is important and MAY affect the safety of you and your children.

2.  “Something’s happening in the world.”

“Something.” Could be ANYTHING.  There is NO suggestion that it is a terrorist attack, or an imminent threat, or even something requiring urgent or critical response.

3.  “Your vote will decide who answers that call, whether it’s someone who already knows the world’s leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.”

None of this strikes me as “scare tactic.”  It IS a dangerous world (and the U.S. is, of course, HUGELY complicit in making it that way), and, personally, I, and many others I know, DO want someone who “aleady knows the world’s leaders,” which Hillary does and Obama does not.

The Obamamaniacs here can spin this any way they like.  However, the ad is both accurate and powerful.

Peace.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 3, 2008 at 11:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

wasn’t it Hill-the-corporate whore who dissed Token for Plagiarism?

The “Red Phone Ad” is almost identical to the ad Walter Mondale ran in 1984….. It didn’t do much for him either!

Report this

By Deb King, March 3, 2008 at 10:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Hillary’s taking credit for her white house stay as foreign affairs experience, how about the most infamous red phone call that led to the Blackhawk down incident?

That’s scary.

Report this

By Robert, March 3, 2008 at 9:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why hasn’t someone in the press asked both these candidates what they would have said when the red phone rang this weekend telling the president that Israel was bombing Gaza and children’s body parts were being found in the streets?

Report this

By boosie, March 3, 2008 at 8:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The phone rang six times before Hil answered. B got it on the fourth ring. He wins this round.

This comment brought to you by a sleep-deprived parent/grandparent who expects red phones to be answered on the very first ring, thank you.

Report this

By nakabinsiki, March 2, 2008 at 10:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ches mois:

Wishful thinking!. Did you notice that Obama won more votes than all Republican candidates combined in Virginia, Wisconsin, South Carolina? Your claim that Obama will not win a general election has absolutely no basis in fact. It is part of the old politics that thinks that American people will be more swayed by negative politics-What Bill Clinton called “the politics of personal destruction”-and not the politics of hope and renewal that Obama represents. You may be sadly disappointed. I think the majority of Americans are waking up. While no one can guarantee what the future holds, there are strong intimations that it would not be business as usual come November.

Report this

By ocjim, March 2, 2008 at 8:39 pm Link to this comment

I like Obama’s quick response to such political ads. It only reminds me of the incompetence and the timidity of Kerry in dealing with the swift boat smears. If he would have exhibited the same rapid response as Obama, we would not be saddled with a mediocre and incompetent president now.

What is more troublesome is the effectiveness of the spurious internet campaign to associate Obama with the Islam religion. This was exhibited on 60 Minutes when a man in Ohio was affected by it.

Report this

By Hammo, March 2, 2008 at 7:59 pm Link to this comment

Obama’s team seems to be responding well and quickly to both Clinton’s and McCain’s strategies.

Ohio looks to be the main battleground. What are Ohioans feeling and thinking?

Check out the article ...

“Obama faces Ohio hearts and minds”

AmericanChronicle.com
February 28, 2008

http://americanchronicle.com/articles/53747

Report this

By VillageElder, March 2, 2008 at 7:31 pm Link to this comment

These are birds of a feather.  DLC support and party line.  These candidates will not be looking out for your interests.  They will be supporting the corporatist agenda.  This support will be in the guise of helping the middle class and poor.  Watch how the money flows.

Cluster bombs, reducing food stamps, pumping money into corporate and oligarch coffers—all in a days work.

Report this

By Maani, March 2, 2008 at 1:11 pm Link to this comment

troublesum:

“Red Phone??  Hillary needs a pair of red shoes, a little dog, and some high winds.”

Yes, but don’t forget: Dorothy DID kill the wicked witch!

Peace.

Report this

By Sharon Ash, March 2, 2008 at 12:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, at least I think we can count on her not to answer with “Whazzup, ya’all?”

Report this

By troublesum, March 2, 2008 at 11:34 am Link to this comment

Red Phone??  Hillary needs a pair of red shoes, a little dog, and some high winds.

Report this

By lib in texas, March 2, 2008 at 8:44 am Link to this comment

DAMMIT, Bush had only been elected by those who thought Bush was thee one.  Ignored all the lies and blindly voted him in.  If you remember 80% of the nation was behind bush’s attack on Irag.  Now we have the same situation everyone blindly following the promised one. Seems to me OBAMA has the exact same credentials as GWB in 2000.

Report this

By lib in texas, March 2, 2008 at 8:29 am Link to this comment

kdnc, I ask the very same questions of Osama Hussein Obama and GIVE ME A BREAK.

Report this

By lib in texas, March 2, 2008 at 8:21 am Link to this comment

dahlgren, its both !!!!

Report this

By lib in texas, March 2, 2008 at 8:08 am Link to this comment

Margaret, If you had looked up the Islamic law on this, then you wouldn’t have to write the uninformed weak piece you just wrote.
Obama’s African father was a muslim whether he practiced or not making his son Muslim.  Its not the Muslim part, it is the lies the Obamaites keep telling that he is not Muslim. His campaign is the one that thinks the Muslims part is something to hide.
Where do you come from? I have cousins living in other parts of the world, but I know them ALL.

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, March 2, 2008 at 6:19 am Link to this comment

Our presidential candidates this year are all very “experienced.”

They have a lot of “experience” starting totally unnecessary wars cooked up on flimsy or non-existent evidence.

They have a lot of “experience” killing thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of foreigners, in this ego-boosting adventures.

They have a lot of “experience” spending far more money than we have.

A lot of “experience” crashing the dollar to all-time lows against the Euro, the Yen, and even the Peso.

A lot of “experience” overseeing education systems that, in twelve years of instruction, fail to teach students basic reading, writing, and math.

Yup, that’s what we need from a president. Lots of “experience.”

Report this

By cyrena, March 2, 2008 at 4:43 am Link to this comment

CaptRon…

What an EXCELLENT post! Yes…I do indeed know who you mean!

And ya know, for some of us, this doesn’t even come as hindsight. Well, maybe I shouldn’t sound so smug, because admittedly, I think MOST of us were stunned by 9/11.

BUT..once we got over the shock, and had a chance to sort of start thinking things over, we DID KNOW, as did Barack Obama, that launching that war, (the one where george promised that we would ‘lose lives’) was NOT the thing to do. Long before it came to that, we knew it was NOT the thing to do.

So did he. THAT IS THE JUDGMENT AND STRENGTH OF CHARACTER THAT WE NEED. We need LEADERSHIP that begins with pragmatic and cautious judgment. We need someone who can utilize the of the whole.

Then, as you say…the red phone would never need by used….

Report this

By Expat, March 2, 2008 at 4:34 am Link to this comment

Gee, just what this country needs; a dem straight out of Bushes playbook.  Haven’t we had enough fear for the last 7 years?  Hillary is bouncing off of the walls of the rubber room.  Desperation isn’t pretty.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 2, 2008 at 2:36 am Link to this comment

Israeli minister threatens “holocaust” as public demand ceasefire talks http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9354.shtml

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 1, 2008 at 11:30 pm Link to this comment

We’ve come up to a kind of “red phone” moment with Israel this week already.

Let’s see who has the ability to tackle it now - and how…......

Report this

By CaptRon, March 1, 2008 at 11:26 pm Link to this comment

I realize this strays a little from the subject, or does it? Can you remember when Bush was on TV after the 9/11 disaster. He advised that the U.S. was attacking Iraq in search of the “cowards” that committed this crime, and that they would pay. Yes, I know these are not exactly the words he used, but he did say that “lives would be lost”, ” many lives would be lost without mistake”, but it was necessary in the pursuit of keeping America safe. Judgement. Now many of us know better how bad this judgement was. Hindsight for sure, but many of us were far too silent as this took place. McCain wasn’t, and Hillary wasn’t, and Obama wasn’t. Yet only one had foresight or at least the courage not to be silent, just in the minority. Afterall he was a minority of sorts. This alone makes up my mind for who would have better “judgement” should the Red Phone ring. He gives the edge to humanity and that possibility that diplomacy is cheaper and less destructive for all. I would stand with this type of leader without ever having to watch over my shoulder as to whether or not he had my back. To me, he’s more a human being than a politician, and maybe, just maybe, that Red Phone would never have to be used. I’m sure by now you know that I don’t mean McHillary.

Report this

By chez mois, March 1, 2008 at 9:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Oh guess what Democrats; your biggest problem is that Obama will NOT win in a general election:

“Obama presents not just an inherently flawed candidacy, but a kamikaze leftist candidate, whose out-of-step views will not last the duration of a general election without full exposure, and whose mawkish storytelling can’t carry him to the White House without some serious good fortune.”

http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/the_top_ten_reasons_republicans_shouldn_t_fear_barack_obama_in_november

Report this

By Renman, March 1, 2008 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The red phone hasn’t been around since the Soviet Union fell.  Almost twenty years ago.  This is clearly a scare feature for Hillary, harkening back to the Red Menace.  Really lame and full of crap ...

Report this

By SteveL, March 1, 2008 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment

Let’s see.  Red phone rings.  Do we want someone to get us into another $3 trillion war that McCain wants to extend for a 100 years?  Do we want someone who sends cluster bombs and land-mines to countries so children can be killed and maimed by these hideous devices? Or just maybe we want some one that will take the country in a different direction?

Report this

By Maani, March 1, 2008 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment

Louise:

“Well of course if it’s too much trouble…then by all means don’t bother.  Besides, it could be risky. You might learn something!”

Your sarcasm is not appreciated.  You know darn well what I was getting at and why.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, March 1, 2008 at 2:56 pm Link to this comment

Chris:

Okay, let us take this literally.  You gave just two examples to prove Hillary’s lack of “wisdom”: her votes on the Iraq war resolution and the Iranian Guard resolution.

Give me two examples of Obama’s “wisdom.”  And if you are simply going to give me the opposites of the above, keep in mind that he was a no-show for the vote on the Iranian Guard.  As well, while he did not vote for the war resolution (since he wasn’t even in the Senate yet), keep in mind that he DID vote to continue funding that war once he got there.  So he may not have “helped drive the bus into the ditch”, but he damn well didn’t do anything to help get it out.

As well, let’s look at the other side of this; i.e., examples of Hillary’s wisdom, strength of character and courage in, for example, daring to essentially call General Petraeus a “liar” to his face during the hearings on the surge; going to Beijing to give a speech on the rights of women and refusing to tone down her rhetoric despite the Chinese government’s repeated requests that she do so; taking a SERIOUSLY unpopular political position by being the first to call for investigations into what became known as Gulf War Syndrome, and then pressing for additional medical benefits from those suffering from it; and, if we are going to talk about “learning” from experience and “becoming wiser for it,” that she learned from her error re the 1993 health insurance debacle and not only continued pressing for health insurance in a more open and transparent way, but sponsored and passed legislation in the meantime (SCHIP) that covered millions of uninsured children.

Now.  Give me some of examples of Obama’s wisdom, strength of character and courage to match these.

Peace.

Report this

By Louise, March 1, 2008 at 2:04 pm Link to this comment

“That’s all well and good, but I should not HAVE to go there to see it when it says quite clearly above “Watch Clinton’s Ad” - and then doesn’t provide it.”

***

Well of course if it’s too much trouble ... then by all means don’t bother.

Besides, it could be risky. wink
You might learn something!

Report this

By cyrena, March 1, 2008 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment

I think Louise already responded to this Maani. I saw the video/commercial/whatever it is…

So, tell us what you think it is that you came across as an excellent piece on my stupidity, blah, blah, blah…

Never mind Maani, nobody can figure out what the hell you’re talking about.

Anyway, I DID see the commercial for Hillary. OK? I’m sorry you didn’t, but I did.

I was momentarily goosebumped about it, as soon as I saw TX TV ad. My interpretation was that it was an ad cut/made/designed specifically for Texas, and while that’s not the least bit of a surprise, (Texas has their own ‘different’ EVERYTHING) I was still thinking that it would be OK if I just held my nose.

So, I watched it.

So, who’s actually too dumb to open their eyes here Maani?

Take the meds Maani, take the meds.

Meantime, since Hillary is on the Senate Armed Forces Committee, do you suppose she was in on the decision to send those latest THREE WARSHIPS to the Mediterranean early this week?

Now Maani, just sort of for the hell of it…what do you suppose would happen if we really were attacked here at home? I mean, even though I still don’t believe that Islamic terrorists are after us, we’ve spent the last 7 years either attacking or threatening to attack, a large portion of the planet.

So, based on that, do you supposed, having attacked all of these other countries, (with Hillary’s approval and occasionally with Israels help…like the recent attack on Syria) that at some point in time, some person or country that has been on the receiving end of that, might consider a little revenge type action?

And, if that sounds at all feasible to you, WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO ‘DEFEND’ US? We don’t have a military here at home to do this defense type activity, because we don’t have a Department of Defense anymore. We only have a Department of OFFENSE, which means that all of our armed forces, are off OFFENDING the rest of the world.

Now that’s not necessarily because they wanna be. I don’t think that’s what they thought they were signing up for. Still…another THREE WARSHIPS full of sailors in approaching the Mediterranean right about now.

And nope…my phone isn’t ringing Maani…it’s your conditions. Audio hallucinations maybe.

Report this

By chris m, March 1, 2008 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The question really is, who’s going to have the wisdom, strength, going forward to make the decisions that have to be made?” asked Mr. Penn in this NYT piece. My answer to this very relevant question is as follows:

1.  Mrs. Clinton has not given us any evidence that she has wisdom – think of her Iraq war authorization vote and “yes” vote on Kyle-Lieberman Act.
2.  The commander-in–chief must have a strength of character and courage “to make decisions that have to be made” even if his/her decision may be detrimental to his/her political ambition. It does not take any courage or strength of character to wave superior weapons and shriek at the top of his/her vice “you do what I say, or else”. It takes far more courage, strength, integrity and audacity to sit down face to face with his/her adversaries and strike out compromise which is acceptable to both.
3.  Experience is meaningless unless it shows that person learned from it and became wiser for it.

Given the choice between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, based on the above observation, Mr. Obama is my answer to Mr. Penn’s question.

Report this

By Maani, March 1, 2008 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment

Louise:

“You can see the ad on last nights ‘Bill Moyer’s journal.”

That’s all well and good, but I should not HAVE to go there to see it when it says quite clearly above “Watch Clinton’s Ad” - and then doesn’t provide it.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, March 1, 2008 at 11:05 am Link to this comment

MMC:

While there is littlke or no point in going over old ground, I do want to comment on this:

“How is the shape of the military since she has been on the Senate Armed Forces Committee?  How is the condition of our troops?  How is the treatment and conditions of our veterans?  How come our generals are saying that the military is broken?  How are the Senate Armed Forces Committee oversight hearings going?  How has Hillary contributed to the National Security?  On her watch she has failed our troops.”

This is the kind “scurrilous” comment that Cyrena often accuses me of making.  In point of fact, Hillary has done quite a bit, and attempted to do more, for our troops than just about anyone - though each time I have pointed it out, you simply turn it back on me by suggesting that, based on her vote for the IRaq raw resolution, it is either “too little, too late” or is simply “making up for” that vote.  So why bother asking if all you are going to do is use it to continue pressing your obsessive point?

That said, Hillary was one of the first to speak out against multiple tours for the troops, since it was making our military less effective.  She spoke out early against using National Guard units overseas. She co-sponsored the legislation to give the troops better gear and more armored vehicles.  And she has done more for the vets than anyone else in Congress (she has the support of the VFW), including pushing legislation to get more medical benefits for them, and voting to add funding for the VA hospitals.

There is more, but those are the things I remember off the top of my head.

Okay.  Now you can go ahead and spin this around, since that it what you do.

Peace.

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 1, 2008 at 10:33 am Link to this comment

Yes, the red phone is a relic of the Cold War.  But in the sense that its being used to describe this ad, it relates to a similar commercial produced by Walter Mondale which was called “The Red Phone” ad.

Report this

By Louise, March 1, 2008 at 10:06 am Link to this comment

You can see the add on last nights “Bill Moyer’s journal”:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html

Lots’a other stuff there too. From both sides. Sometimes you just gotta look! And I know what is meant by the red phone. Guess it’s an age thing. Also this may not have been a good idea from the perspective of appealing to the kids. Not just because of the “red phone” they know what that means, but because of a negative connotation that comes with mom always running off to her job first! Leaving the kids to figure out what to eat for breakfast and where’s the lunch money.

May seem petty, but not for the “latch-key kids” who get a bad image from that “answer the phone” first thing.

For the first time in history ... thanks to the net ...kids who still cant vote are watching and trying to influence their grown-ups. Be interesting to see how much of an impact that “first” makes. I’m sure somebody is tracking it.

I know ... lots’a firsts there ... sorry about that.

Report this

By Margaret Currey, March 1, 2008 at 9:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

in response to lib in texas, march 1st at 7:17.

You can be baptised any religion that your parents have but you can be any religion that you want, I was a Roman Catholic but changed at age 23.

I doubt that Obama was born a Muslim his mother was not a muslim, and his father never practiced religion and his father had no impact on his sons life as he left when Obama was two.

Why are people hung up on his middle name, one does not go by a middle name, if anything the middle name is just an initial.

Got to get over the muslim thing, this guy is not a plant for the other side, I mean get real the man was born in the United States and except for a short four years was in another country.

He was raised by white people his grandparents were white people, of course he has brothers and sisters elswhere but I doubt that he knows them, like if you are 50 miles from your cousins you do not really know your cousins.

I just hope people ignore these crazy things like taking the oath on the Koran and turning his back when the National Anthem is played, not hardly likely for a U.S. Senator.

There was only one person who took the oath on the Koran and he was from Michigan and he told everyone he was a muslim.

I bid you peace

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 1, 2008 at 9:33 am Link to this comment

Obama’s “The real threat” re Al Qaeda has long been non-existent too, Maani. It is now a fabrication designed solely to keep the war on terror rolling for the benefit of the military-industrial complex….

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, March 1, 2008 at 9:26 am Link to this comment

Isn’t the “red phone” from the cold war, created to give a direct line between the Soviets and the US in order to verify a nuclear attack?  I think it was a real thing and pre-dates Mondale/Hart.

That’s as I remember it, though I could be wrong.

Report this

By Maani, March 1, 2008 at 8:47 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

Doug is correct: the original video is nowhewre to be found on LieDig, despite the line above that says “Watch Clinton’s ad.”  It is one thing to have Obama’s response to the ad.  It is quite another to delete Clinton’s original add but show the Obama camp’s “response” ad.

As well, LieDig refers to it as a “red phone” ad when there is no “red” phone at all - and neither LieDig nor the original Times article explains what is meant by that phrase.  That is at best shoddy journalism, and at worst deliberately misleading.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, March 1, 2008 at 8:41 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

“I specifically remember the LARGEST ANTI-WAR rally, that took place on Feb 15th, 2003. It was BEFORE the invasion against Iraq was launched…The rough estimate (since it was a WORLD WIDE protest action) was like 15 million people.”

Actually, it was at least DOUBLE that.  Protests took place in 60 cities in over 20 countries over a two-day period, and total estimates ranged from 25-35 million.  Notable among these protests were the 20,000 who took to the streets in Israel - Jews and Palestinians marching side-by-side against the invasion; a rare solidarity as they protested a “common enemy.”

All in all, it was the single largest protest in history - and it was essentially against the policies of two PEOPLE: Bush and Blair.

Peace.

Report this

By lib in texas, March 1, 2008 at 8:17 am Link to this comment

According to Islmic law osama hussein obama was born
a muslm.

Report this

By dammit, March 1, 2008 at 6:53 am Link to this comment

Bush said it. How could you believe it?  Many wiser, honest people were telling us the truth.  If you believed him then, maybe you should listen to those who didn’t now.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 1, 2008 at 5:56 am Link to this comment

You seem to like to dull your ‘pain’ with your continued sexist attacks - because that IS all that they really are, MMC, uhh…... get a life!

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 1, 2008 at 5:53 am Link to this comment

By cyrena, March 1: “BTW Chalmers, Truthdig hasn’t replaced the Hillary commercial on the ringing phone, (cleverly or not). It’s there. I watched it….

I just came across what I think is an excellent piece on the stupidity, laziness and dishonesty of the blogger calling herself ‘cyrena’ (again, uhh).


The second video down the page titled “Watch Obama’s response:”, it is actually The Ring’s “Obama Response” advertisement. It is exactly the same length as the Hillary Clinton “RInging” ad an it starts with it and then runs some text messages over it.

I can’t make it plainer than that for those too dumb to be bothered to open their eyes. The phone really is ringing for you, though, cyrena. You are also quite offensively mannerless…......

Report this

By cyrena, March 1, 2008 at 4:12 am Link to this comment

Well, you didn’t see him there chez mois?

Oh wait…this was yet ANOTHER anti-war rally, that the press never covers. Humm, I missed this one myself, but I’ve certainly put my time in on ALL of the others.

I specifically remember the LARGEST ANTI-WAR rally, that took place on Feb 15th, 2003. It was BEFORE the invasion against Iraq was launched, though of course we know that Dick Bush already had the troops either standing by, (in Kuwait) or en route.

Still, I do remember that one…and all of the others since. The rough estimate, (since it was a WORLD WIDE protest action) was like 15 million people. But, who knows.

Anyway. Obama was THERE…whadda ya know! Been at several since.

So, maybe he was at this one too, and you just missed him.

And, how do we know that ‘hope is not enough’ when we haven’t had any until very recently?

Meantime, check the sign-up sheets. If Maxine Waters was there, you should have asked her where Hillary was. She’s a big time Hillary supporter..which seemed a little odd until we discovered that Hillary was a big time Maxine Water’s supporter. (lots of ‘campaign and other aid).

Seems paradoxical now, that Maxine Waters would be so ‘anti-War’, (and she HAS always given me that impression) and yet still support the warmongering Hillary.

What’s up with that anyway?

Ah..it’s gotta be the politics, eh? Money always helps too.

Maxine says we don’t NEED any hope, and that we just need HELP!

I’m for getting the hope, which then allows us to help ourselves, seeing as nobody else has put out much of EITHER, in the past decade or so.

Yup…give us some hope, and we’ll simply get collective selves together, and HELP ourselves.

And, no…we won’t put the hope in a jar for Christs sake. That’s like putting food in the cabinet and putting a lock on it, and throwing away the key. How stupid is that?

Lotta good it does in a jar. Is THAT where you’ve been trying to find it? No wonder you’re so cynical.

Report this

By cyrena, March 1, 2008 at 3:58 am Link to this comment

I just came across what I think is an excellent piece on the ‘experience’ question.
My own first response to the title was (of course) “Depends on how one measures experience.” Much ink has been spilled over the topic in recent months. If only, if only, if ONLY…we’d had these conversations 8 years ago.
But, we didn’t, and so now is as good a time as any, (better late than never) to do that.
The article does in fact address my own initial response.
Here are a couple of excerpts, and the link is at the bottom.
Does Experience Matter in a President?
Thursday, Feb. 28, 2008 By DAVID VON DREHLE


“Experience never exists in isolation; it is always a factor that coexists with temperament, training, background, spiritual outlook and a host of other factors,” says presidential historian Richard Norton Smith. “Character is your magic word, it seems to me — not just what they’ve done but how they’ve done it and what they’ve learned from doing it.”

When Americans pass over the best-credentialed candidates because their heart or their gut leads them elsewhere, they are only reflecting a visceral understanding that the presidency involves tests unlike all others. They are, perhaps, seeking the ineffable quality the writer Katherine Anne Porter had in mind when she defined experience as “the truth that finally overtakes you.” An ideal President is both ruthless and compassionate, visionary and pragmatic, cunning and honest, patient and bold, combining the eloquence of a psalmist with the timing of a jungle cat. Not exactly the sort of data you can find on a résumé.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717926,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

BTW Chalmers,

Truthdig hasn’t replaced the Hillary commercial on the ringing phone, (cleverly or not). It’s there. I watched it.

I don’t think it would be an appropriate commercial for Obama though, since the guy is a whole lot younger than she is, and just not likely to need as much sleep. (at least that seems to be the case now.) Some folks just seem to need more than others.

So, a commercial with Hillary sleeping might be realistic enough.

For Obama, he’s more than likely to be AWAKE anyway, if the phone rings. OTOH, scaring up scenes of ‘red phone calls’ in the middle of the night, is just so passé and ‘war on terror’ like stuff.

I think we’re tired of it all. At least I am. But if all it takes is being close to the red phone in case it rings, I’m just not so sure that would be my overriding concern.

My own phone is pink, and I hate when it rings. No way to tell if somebody is calling to tell me that I’ve just been awarded a pallet of gold, or that the water heater has busted.

Maybe Hillary should have a secretary screen her calls. That’s what I would do if I was the president.

Report this

By dahlgren, March 1, 2008 at 1:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

i don’t see Clinton’s ad in this post. Is this part of the anti-Clinton media conspiracy or just a colossal f*ckup from truthdig?

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, February 29, 2008 at 10:51 pm Link to this comment

Re NYT’s article and The Caucus blog I mentioned…...

The commercial concluded, “In a dangerous world, it’s judgment that matters.”

Mrs. Clinton followed the ad with a blistering indictment of Mr. Obama’s qualifications to serve as commander in chief, saying he had been “missing in action” at several important moments…. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/us/politics/29cnd-campaign.html?_r=1&hp;=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1204348932-JyL60ss0LWrUFF756mo+lA

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, February 29, 2008 at 10:46 pm Link to this comment

Quote Barack Obama: ”...I stood up and said the war in Iraq would be unwise… I will never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes…”

Well, first of all Truthdig has cleverly replaced Hillary Clinton’s “The phone is ringing” ad with Barack Obama’s “Response” ad as a way of running that ad free for him. That is a covert campaign contribution, not a blog comment.

At least the NY Times’ The Caucus political blog had the decency to run both candidates’ ads instead of just Obama’s and then a video clip of his comments about Hillary’s ad, uhh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M70emIFxETs&eurl=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/clintons-national-security-ad/

So then, answer the question - who do you want answering the phone? Do you want someone who said “I don’t oppose all wars” and believes in “the crucible of the sword” as a righteous path to redemption?

Do you want someone who is out using the excuse of avaenging the deaths of 3,000 people in 9/11 to rape and pillage oil-rich countries in the M.East for the next 1,000 years (actually only until the oil runs out, uhh) as well as kill a million people including wome and children from a decade of sanctions-imposed starvation jsut as GWB did?

Do you want someone who is willing to take the USA’s self-created war OF terror to Pakistan and kill as many innocent villagers there as well as long as it helps provide jobs for the military-industrial complex back home? Because that IS where Al Qaeda IS based in Karachi and in Islamabad according to the words of Benazir Bhutto last December -and you can thus work out who is really funding them!!!

Report this

By jackpine savage, February 29, 2008 at 10:27 pm Link to this comment

The “red phone” is a reference to an ad run by Walter Mondale against Gary Hart.  This ad is also being compared to LBJ’s “daisy” ad.  The “red phone” has nothing to do with 9/11.

Report this

By rylly, February 29, 2008 at 8:58 pm Link to this comment

Its getting so serious, Hillary is almost ready for her own “another Pearl Harbor” like George got with his 9/11.  To prove she is at the ready, isn’t she going to have to show us just how damn powerful and warlike she is?
Is she going to be another one of those “I’ll keep you safe, and I’ll keep the country safe…” every week on TV with another alert?  Oh brother!

She has too many right-wing-play-book angles at work and its a turn off.  She’s ‘fighting’ when she should be ‘leading’.  She still has too many ‘advisers’ and none of them are helping.

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, February 29, 2008 at 7:21 pm Link to this comment

I don’t recall a red phone.  I thought word came to W while he was reading—yup, reading—to children and he just sat there, unresponsive. 

Seems to me we should elect a president who will work with friends and enemies to make the world less volatile and treat the depart. of defense as that instead of a department of war and imperialism.

American people don’t have to put up with this s**t, so why do we?

Report this

By kdnc, February 29, 2008 at 7:06 pm Link to this comment

Her ad says she “knows” the military. Ridiculous and an insult to our soldiers and thinking americans everywhere. Exactly how is it that she “knows” the military? Is it because she voted to send our soldiers to die for oil? Did she ever serve in the military? Has she ever been in any way involved in any successful military endeavor? Being a member of some committee does not in any way, anywhere, to any reasonable person qualify one to “know” the military. This is disrespectful arrogance. And by the way, exactly how has she been “tested” and proven that she is ready to lead in a dangerous world? Please, give me a break.

Report this

By ripley, February 29, 2008 at 6:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

when most , after recieving the information bush gave them not what was actually recieved from intel , voted to go to war what exactly made him doubt what bush was saying to vote against ?? 

and why has he voted to fund the war since?

Report this

By chez mois, February 29, 2008 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So far, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., have proposed competing resolutions that either call for a troop withdrawal within six months, cap the number of troops in Iraq at pre-surge levels or prohibit funding for more troops.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2518.html

Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. John Conyers, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Navy Seaman Jonathan Hutto, Bob Watada & Others Call for End to Iraq War at Anti-War Rally in Washington

Anti-war protesters filled the streets of Washington on Saturday in one of the largest protests since the invasion of Iraq. Veterans and military families joined lawmakers, peace groups and celebrities to urge Congress and President Bush to bring the troops home now. Protest organizers United For Peace and Justice estimated 500,000 took part in the demonstration. In California, smaller rallies were held in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Sacramento. In Washington, marchers converged on the National Mall for a two-hour rally. The crowd included people who came on 300 buses from 40 states.

WHERE WAS MR. ANTI-WAR OBAMA????
WHERE IS OBAMA WHEN HOPE IS NOT ENOUGH????

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.