Who you gonna call Hillary?

By TODD BUTKOVICH

Guest Columnist


It’s 3 a.m. in the White House, sometime in early 2009. The phone rings, and on the other end is news of the start of some world crisis. North Korea or Iran announcing the launch of nuclear missiles. Prime Minister Putin declaring the start of Cold War II: Atomic Bugaloo.  


Or worse, it’s Canada, just calling to chat.


This is the scenario presented by Hillary Clinton’s campaign in a commercial that was aired non-stop in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont, playing on voter concerns prior to these states’ primary elections on Tuesday.


It’s the kind of thing Michiganians and Floridians missed out on when the Democrats refused to acknowledge we were holding elections, as these rebel states moved their primaries. Instead all we got was an ad where Mitt Romney pretended he’d been in a factory before.


In one of the trillions of rallies Hillary held going into March 4 (most likely in Texas or Ohio), she claimed that her opponent Barack Obama did not have the experience necessary to handle that hypothetical phone call. She declared that she would be better suited to handle such a call, and even credited Republican nominee John McCain with being able to take that call. Of course he can — there’s a pretty good chance he’d be up anyway to use the bathroom. Yes, John McCain is old.


Now, I’ve never received a phone call at 3 a.m., but I have been called at 3 p.m., and I believe I can safely assume that the mechanics of the telephone are the same. 


It rings, you pick it up, then start talking. There, I have the experience necessary to be president.


Of course, I’m not sure I’d want to deal with a world leader rude enough to start World War III at such an inconvenient hour. I don’t know about you, but I’m not ready for the end of the world until at least 7 a.m. (8 a.m. on the weekends).


Anyway, when the results of the four contests were tallied by the cable news feeding frenzy, it was revealed that Senator Clinton had reversed her month-long slump by winning Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island. 


Of course, winning Rhode Island only requires about 14 votes.


It seems that after scolding the Republicans for using scare tactics to win elections in 2002 and 2004 (where, among other threats, they ran ads informing us that wolves were after our children and no doubt working as a splinter group of al Qaeda), Hillary has finally realized the age-old truth: people will vote for whoever terrifies them the most.


Consider: In 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson’s campaign sponsored a commercial declaring that a vote for his opponent, Barry Goldwater, was a vote for a five-year-old girl to be obliterated by a hydrogen bomb. 


In the 1950s, victory was guaranteed to any candidate who screamed “Communist!” while pointing to his opponent. 


In 1864, Abe Lincoln threatened his loss of the presidency would ensure a Southern victory in the Civil War. That’s right, if it were not for Abe, we’d all be speaking with accents now. 


All this no doubt goes back to the day voters were urged to re-elect the “mayor who kept the witches out of Salem.” SPAN>


But in this case, the voters have spoken: In a national emergency, we need a leader who can cry on command. 


So until Barack Obama can terrify the hell out of you, Hillary may have just regained her lock on the party’s nomination. 


Love them or fear them, scare

tactics work. 


So the next time you’re awakened by the telephone at 3 a.m., pause and ask yourself how you would respond if it were Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the line instead of your drunkest friend.


And if it’s Canada, just let it go to voicemail.