• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Answering That 3:00 A.M. Phone Call

Mike

Well-known member
I don't usually do "POLLS", but here goes one:

42% Want McCain to Answer 3:00 a.m. Phone Call
Friday, March 07, 2008

Before Hillary Clinton was declared the winner in Texas, most American voters had read, seen, or heard about her 3:00 a.m. telephone commercial. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 43% had seen at least part of the commercial which was played incessantly on news networks and other outlets for days. Another 16% had heard something about it and the overwhelming majority (81%) correctly identified Hillary Clinton as the candidate whose campaign ran the commercial (see the commercial).

The commercial was credited as one factor enabling Clinton to turn her campaign around in Texas last week. But, 42% of all voters said the person they’d most want to answer the phone was John McCain. Among all voters, 25% picked Clinton and another 25% named Obama as the person they’d want in the White House when a foreign policy crisis call arrived.

Among Democrats, 46% said they’d like Clinton to take that call while 36% named Obama.

Among Republicans, 79% named McCain while neither Democrat reached double digits.

Among unaffiliated voters, 39% said McCain would be their top choice to handle such a crisis. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of unaffiliateds said they thought Obama was the best to handle the call while 18% named Clinton.

Among men, 51% preferred McCain, 21% Obama, and 19% Clinton. Women were evenly divided—33% for McCain and 30% for each of the Democrats.

As for which of the three would be the worst to have in the White House when a foreign policy crisis broke out, 36% named Obama, 28% McCain, and 25% Clinton. Men were evenly divided as to whether Clinton or Obama would be the worst. Women were evenly divided as to whether Obama or McCain would be the worst.

An Obama foreign policy advisor said that neither Democrat was prepared to take that call (see video), a comment that John McCain was quite happy to endorse.

Crosstabs available for Premium Members only.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge™ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
I wonder why they left the phone ring 6 times in that commercial before ANYONE picks up???

You'd thought their PR person would have picked up on that!!
 

Steve

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
I wonder why they left the phone ring 6 times in that commercial before ANYONE picks up???

You'd thought their PR person would have picked up on that!!

That seemed to be the biggest "gaff" of the whole commercial..

has there been a Saturday night Live skit on it yet?

a few Skit ideas..
Some poor country is getting blown off the map.. as a last act of desperation they call.. Hillery.. and while the poor counties leader is getting blown to smithereens no one answers... :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Steve said:
a few Skit ideas..
Some poor country is getting blown off the map.. as a last act of desperation they call.. Hillery.. and while the poor counties leader is getting blown to smithereens no one answers... :roll:

You mean like "Bill" did/did not?
____________________________________________________

US chose to ignore Rwandan genocideClassified papers show Clinton was aware of 'final solution' to eliminate Tutsis
Rory Carroll in Johannesburg The Guardian, Wednesday March 31 2004 Article historyAbout this articleClose This article appeared in the Guardian on Wednesday March 31 2004 . It was last updated at 16:59 on April 01 2004. President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time.
Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene.

Intelligence reports obtained using the US Freedom of Information Act show the cabinet and almost certainly the president had been told of a planned "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis" before the slaughter reached its peak.

It took Hutu death squads three months from April 6 to murder an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus and at each stage accurate, detailed reports were reaching Washington's top policymakers.

The documents undermine claims by Mr Clinton and his senior officials that they did not fully appreciate the scale and speed of the killings.

"It's powerful proof that they knew," said Alison des Forges, a Human Rights Watch researcher and authority on the genocide.

The National Security Archive, an independent non-governmental research institute based in Washington DC, went to court to obtain the material.

It discovered that the CIA's national intelligence daily, a secret briefing circulated to Mr Clinton, the then vice-president, Al Gore, and hundreds of senior officials, included almost daily reports on Rwanda. One, dated April 23, said rebels would continue fighting to "stop the genocide, which ... is spreading south".

Three days later the state department's intelligence briefing for former secretary of state Warren Christopher and other officials noted "genocide and partition" and reported declarations of a "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis".

However, the administration did not publicly use the word genocide until May 25 and even then diluted its impact by saying "acts of genocide".

Ms Des Forges said: "They feared this word would generate public opinion which would demand some sort of action and they didn't want to act. It was a very pragmatic determination."

The administration did not want to repeat the fiasco of US intervention in Somalia, where US troops became sucked into fighting. It also felt the US had no interests in Rwanda, a small central African country with no minerals or strategic value.

William Ferroggiaro, of the National Security Archive, said the system had worked. "Diplomats, intelligence agencies, defence and military officials - even aid workers - provided timely information up the chain," he said.

"That the Clinton administration decided against intervention at any level was not for lack of knowledge of what was happening in Rwanda."

Many analysts and historians fault Washington and other western capitals not just for failing to support the token force of overwhelmed UN peacekeepers but for failing to speak out more forcefully during the slaughter.

Some of the Hutu extremists orchestrating events might have heeded such warnings, they have suggested.

Mr Clinton has apologised for those failures but the declassified documents undermine his defence of ignorance. "The level of US intelligence is really amazing," said Mr Ferroggiaro. "A vast array of information was available."

On a visit to the Rwandan capital, Kigali, in 1998 Mr Clinton apologised for not acting quickly enough or immediately calling the crimes genocide.

In what was widely seen as an attempt to diminish his responsibility, he said: "It may seem strange to you here, especially the many of you who lost members of your family, but all over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror."

A spokesperson for the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation in New York said the allegations would be relayed to the former president.


Contact usClose Report errors or inaccuracies: [email protected]
Letters for publication should be sent to: [email protected]
 

Steve

Well-known member
people don't matter to the democrats.. only voting blocs..

look at how many were killed in South-eastern Asia Vietnam.. Cambodia.. because Democrats don't care about other people..

The 1975 Communist victory in Indochina led to horrors that engulfed the region. The victorious Khmer Rouge killed one to two million of their fellow Cambodians in a genocidal, ideological rampage. In Vietnam and Laos, cruel gulags and “re-education” camps enforced repression. Millions of people fled, mostly by boat, with thousands dying in the attempt.

The defeat had a lasting and significant strategic impact. Leonid Brezhnev trumpeted that the global “correlation of forces” had shifted in favor of “socialism,” and the Soviets went on a geopolitical offensive in the third world for a decade. Their invasion of Afghanistan was one result.

yea,... the democrats might eventually answer the phone,.. but unless you're a voting bloc the democrats can pander to, they won't help.. they might even tell you they are on the fed do not call list..
 
Top