It’s 3 a.m. Do you know where your President is?

The Hillary Clinton campaign has a new attack ad designed to scare the hell out of anyone considering voting for Barack Obama.

(You can view related videos below)

"It's 3 am and your children are safely asleep, but there’s a phone in the White House that’s ringing. Soemthing’s happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call. Who do you want answering the phone?"

We see that Hillary is still in her pants suit and "I'm burning the midnight oil" reading glasses at her desk at three in the morning to take the call. God knows where Obama would be.

The message is clear: Vote for Obama and the terrorists win.

Obama responded in a speech today.

"We've had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer."

The same theme was echoed in an Obama campaign ad responding to the Clinton 3 a.m. phone call spot.

If this sounds familiar, you have a good memory. Walter Mondale used a similar ad against Gary Hart in 1984.

Forget hope. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

A few days ago Clinton criticized Obama mimicking Karl Rove, the man George W. Bush called the architect of his winning election campaigns.

“Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics that are right out of Karl Rove's playbook. This is wrong and every Democrat should be outraged."

Who’s using tactics from the Rove playbook now?

Clinton Campaign Strategy Version 4.5: New AND Improved?

Expect Hillary Clinton’s campaign in search of a strategy to crank the compare and contrast ads from slow simmer to full boil if she wins in Wisconsin today, or loses by a small margin (5 points or less).

The ads are tame so far by modern political standards, but the pressure has been slowly increasing. There’s none of the usual harsh black and white images or ominous music and voice over of the typical attack ad, but Clinton has been trying to draw more clear contrasts between herself and Obama on core democratic issues like health care and the mortgage foreclosure crisis.

Also, he’s a scaredy-cat because he wouldn’t debate her in Wisconsin.

“Maybe he’d prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions,” the ad charges.

So far the ads Clinton is running in Texas and Ohio are more about why you should vote for her rather than why you should vote against him. Reminiscent of John Edwards’ impassioned populist message, Clinton promises real solutions to difficult problems faced by ordinary voters. She feels our pain and promises to help.

Conventional wisdom in the commentariat (at least those who are well paid to pontificate) seems to be that this is a risky tactic. I have heard and read many of political analysts say that this paints Hillary into a pessimistic corner, her equivalent of Eeyore’s Gloomy Place. It often appears that American voters want cheerful bromides and simple solutions to complex problems. Remember “Morning in America?”

Maybe so. Difficult to go wrong underestimating the level of intellectual engagement among voters on big issues. After all, a huge majority of us bought the Reagan promise that we could cut taxes, increase spending and balance the budget, than shrugged off huge deficits under the heading of “two out of three isn’t bad.”

Hillary’s current strategy does show some possible chances of developing traction with voters, especially down on their luck manufacturing economy workers in Wisconsin and Ohio. If Hillary can reframe the debate from hope versus business as usual to words versus action, she might break through the inspiring rhetoric that so far has enveloped Obaba in a shield that’s been virtually impervious to criticism.

“He asks “What can you do for your country?”

She asks "What can your country do for you?”

Hillary is calling Obama’s implicit message of a return to Camelot and raising him that fundamental and often more compelling issue for many voters facing a tough economy: “What’s in it for me?”

If it works, she’ll hit him hard with it on TV and in the debates before Texas and Ohio voters cast their ballots. If it doesn’t, be glad you're not part of her campaign brain trust trying to figure out how to pull the rip cord to stop the free fall of the once inevitable front runner. If they haven’t run out of ideas yet, they’re getting very close.

Hillary’s New Campaign Ad: Obama is Scared of Me

Hillary updated her facebook page today:

“In Case You Missed It: Hillary accepted an invitation to debate Sen. Obama in Wisconsin, but Sen. Obama refuses to debate Hillary in Wisconsin.”

You can view the new TV commercial below. Pretty timid by attack ad standards, but the underlying message is she’s tougher and he’s afraid to fight.

Another posting to her facebook page tries to convince us that despite what we’ve read and seen and heard,the campaign has not hit dire straights:

“As history shows, the Democratic nomination goes to the candidate who wins the most delegates – not the candidate who wins the most states.

“In 1992, Bill Clinton lost a string of primaries before clinching the nomination. He ceded Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maryland, Arizona, Washington, Utah, Colorado, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont and South Dakota.

“Similarly, in 1984, Walter Mondale also lost a series of major primaries before winning the nomination, including New Hampshire, Vermont, Florida, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Indiana, Virginia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Colorado, Ohio, and California.

“And in 1976, Jimmy Carter lost twenty-three states before winning the nomination, including: Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, West Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama, Illinois, Mississippi, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, and Utah.”

So just because you’re losing, it doesn’t make you a loser.