Hey!
THE VIDEO YOU ARE TRYING TO WATCH IS CURRENTLY UNAVAILABLE.The hell.
PLEASE CHECK BACK SOON.
What is it with the Obama people?
ADDED: I still get the "unavailable" message in Safari, but I can get it to play in Firefox, so I'll go ahead and embed it:
It's a very tepid ad. But mainly, it just seems that they weren't ready to hit the ground running with new material.
पोस्ट्स
६१ टिप्पण्या:
Obama in fact fought to keep mooseburger off the menus in Chicago.
An ad revision was needed.
Their script writer is furiously searching the thesaurus to find an acceptable synonym for "sweetie."
The ad runs fine for me.
The irony is that the ad, claiming McCain is more of the same, is more of the same.
That suggests to me that they were completely unprepared for this eventuality, and have been unable to quickly come up with an effective response.
For a campaign that bragged to reporters before McCain's selection was made that they were well-prepared to immediately respond to any of his imaginable potential picks, they seem to have been caught flat-footed. Lack of imagination, I guess. Inability to "think outside the box" perhaps. Stuck in the rut of "politics-as-usual" thinking most likely. Make no mistake, they'll come up with something, in time, and it will be good, too. Obama's third attempt to answer is usually a good one. It will probably be a hallmark of his presidency. If Regis Philbin has nothing better to do, he should attend press conferences at the White House so someone with gravitas can ask the important question, "Is that your Final Answer?"
The video worked for me.
The ad, not so much.
I get it.
Palin is clean, articulate and inspires hope but America still sucks and everyone we love is dying.
Our Great Nation mourns.
BLEEEECH!
Bush hatred is not a good premise, is all.
What's the accent of the woman? Like that'll play to anybody that matters.
From the ad: "Votes with George Bush, 90% of the time."
I wasn't aware of the fact that George Bush votes. Is that how the government runs? I thought the Senate, and the House, votes.
This ad has it and I have heard in Sen Obama's acceptance speech that "McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time". What does this mean?
Bush doesn't get to vote in the Senate and hardly any votes in the Senate become bills for the President to sign or veto. So this seems like a pretty meaningless stat.
allens,
Great minds & etc...
No need for ads against her specifically. It's about McCain.
Besides, when she opens her mouth, women and women's rights organizations can tear her down. It'll be about creationism, no abortion in cases of incest and rape, and abuse of executive power, i.e., Trooper-Gate.
Senator Obama voted "present" a lot when he was in the Illinois General Assembly. Wonder what that meant. Oh, it meant he got to collect his per diem for attending. Wonder if he was actually there or if someone else voted "present" on his behalf. LOL!
Bush hatred is pretty much all they've got. Continually riffing on it is going to get louder and louder until it becomes an Obama chant.
This ad really shows the hash that Obama has made of his own core message.
Obama is all about change, so he proves that by picking one of the most entrenched members of the Senate?
And Sara Palin is a complete chnage, but Obama says that it is "more of the same?"
Are the Obama guys having trouble thinking clearly with all the smoke in the back room?
This ad seems tired, almost sleepy, which doesn't go well with how Obama has been branded. There's also too much Bush in it. That makes it appear as though they don't have much to say about McCain, so they've made an anti-Bush ad instead.
I agree with others who've said that the 90% stat is puzzling. My first thought was, "What has Bush been voting on?"
YAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWN.
The "McCain = Bush" characterizatin is already getting tired. Say it once or twice for effect and it works. Keep repeating it over and over and it just sounds like you're confused about who you're running against.
Obama's campaign is running ads in Denver. They target an audience they presume has been taught that discrimination is a very bad thing and so have forfeited the ability to discriminate between the differences between McCain and Bush. They hammer away wearisomely at that single theme. Can America take more of the same? Can America take more of the same? Can America take more of the same? Can America take more of th ...
*mute*
It seems that "I'm not Bush" is his only message. I think most voters have noticed that O isn't Bush already. And it hasn't really done the trick for him.
Palin is going to be hard for Biden to counter. In the debate between the Beauty Queen and the Old Windbag, I think she'll do quite well. People want a change and she certainly looks like one. People want reform and she looks more like that, too, that him. McCain's problem is making himself look like one too.
The "McCain = Bush" characterizatin is already getting tired.
I bet! You'll get tossed from a McCain event if you bring that sign in. I doubt you would if you brought a McCain=Reagan" sign though.
Mooseburger. That's funny.
I bet it's tough. I'd mix in a bunch of stuff, bread crumbs, olive oil, Lee & Perrins, that sort of thing.
Then, here's the funny part, I'd stick two fronds of dill tops out the sides of the patty like moose antlers. And a daub of catsup in the center for a moose clown nose.
Here's the funny part:
Of that 90% the Dems like to claim, how mush was actually Bush following John McCain?
Example: Bush said he didn't like the McCain-Feingold Finance Bill, but Bush signed it anyway.
McCain Leading Bush.
Seems I remember the Dems going apeshit with joy over McCain-Feingold. But that's in the 90% they complain about.
Democrats: tomorrow's losers for Today!
How about McCain=Herbert Hoover?
Hey, the Democrats got a LOT of mileage out of that one.
About 50 years' worth, as I recall.
Now they've got George Bush, but the Worst President EVAR!!! theme just doesn't have the staying power of of those iconic bread lines
Then there's <*insert Democrat here*>=Jimmy Carter.
Republicans are running on empty with that one, but Obama gives it one last gasp.
My own fave? Something, not to flatter myself, that I think George Washington would relate to.
Political Parties=Spawn of Satan.
Dems put the Carter before the horse this time around.
*whew*
When I saw "mooseburger" I got nervous. Thought someone was gunning for me...
Pro-Palin ad already out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwcbBbVNIsI&eurl=http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/
"Votes with George Bush, 90% of the time."
I think the McCain campaign will let this play out for a few more weeks, then run ads showing how Obama voted with liberals 97% of the time.
It seems they can't run an ad, answer a question or respond to events on the ground without screwing it up.
Oh, and the ad is dull. Their only hope is that the message slips in subliminally while the commercial itself puts people to sleep.
What an ineffective ad. It sounded so morose and lightweight.
Wow, that ad was just an admission that they think John McCain made a great VP choice! It said nothing bad about her, and said just said while this may be his running mate, he's still in line with Bush. That might as well have been an endorsement of Palin.
I think the ad can be summarized as follows:
Well, he made an interesting choice for VP,nothing to say about that, but...here's well-focus-grouped talking point a, b, c.
As to the , "McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time" line, here is FactCheck's take on that:
"It's true that McCain's voting support for Bush policies has averaged slightly above 89 percent since Bush took office, according to Congressional Quarterly’s vote studies. But it has ebbed and flowed. It reached a low of 77 percent in 2005. Last year it was 95 percent. By comparison, Obama's own record of supporting Bush policies has averaged slightly under 41 percent since the senator took office. However, Obama's voting record is no less partisan than McCain's. He has voted in line with his party an average of nearly 97 percent of the time. The truth is that neither candidate can claim a strong record of "breaking with his party" if Senate votes are the measure."
...in fact, I don't think I've ever seen a worse political ad. I can't even think of an ad that was self-defeating on this level.
It said nothing bad about her, and said just said while this may be his running mate, he's still in line with Bush.
Conventional wisdom says that the Obama campaign should ignore Palin and let the media go negative on her...keeps Obama's hands clean.
Actually, the one way it could be interpreted as critical of the running mate choice is if you think it's dismissing her as a sort of trophy VP, which might be the subtext. Bush is his true running mate; she's just a trophy bride. It's a sexist idea, though, so the ad only could work if it relies on the viewer projecting sexist ideas onto the image of McCain and Palin together. And it doesn't help that the Obama campaign refers to her as a "former mayor" instead of a governor. I can't remember that ever being done to a male politician. But Obama got a free ride from the media on Hillary, maybe he thinks he can do the same with Palin when his campaign ignores her accomplishments. Not saying he can't be critical of her, but I've never seen a campaign not be willing to refer to their opponent according to their current office.
By the way, I'm very enthusiastic about Sarah Palin, and I am confident that that's a winning ticket. She completely transforms the whole race. It's much more interesting with her in the mix.
Is it just me or is McCain's campaign more nimble than Obama's campaign is at this stage. Their first response to the announcement of Palin as McCain's choice as VP was kind of pathetic.
I would guess that they where expecting McCain to pick one of the various establishment white dudes -- a Republican Biden -- and had their ad strategy aimed at that. The Palin pick caught them off guard.
Not saying he can't be critical of her, but I've never seen a campaign not be willing to refer to their opponent according to their current office.
Interestingly, conservatives critical of the nomination use the same technique of not recogizing her current office. David Frum at NRO yesterday:
But question: If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency?
Translation: Go back to your little hick town, sweetie.
I, as a BHO supporter, never liked it when folks kept claiming he was attacked because of his race--we can't read people's minds, we don't know their motives.
It's funny to see Palin supporters claiming sexism.
Lame.
Especially lame is boy Althouse who says BHO is endorsing Palin and BHO is being sexist against Palin. Shameful logic--a weak, empty mind.
It's funny to see Palin supporters claiming sexism.
Wouldn't you say it is unusual to refer to a politician by an office they last held in 2002?
It would be equivalent to referring to Obama as an untested Illinois State Senator.
I suppose it could be the dreaded anti-Alaskanism.
Christopher: then your mother and probably you dad as well--taught you to think
you should, in turn thank them
as a parent I only wish to raise childen who can think
It's funny to see Palin supporters claiming sexism.
Heh. When the media starts talking about poor little Trig not having a mother, I think the "sexism" tag fits pretty well.
There's a public identification of the media with Obama. I think was it a whopping 69% who see the media as trying to help Obama? We can assume the remaining 31% are Obama supporters who think the media is just calling it like it is, with the halos and what-not.
I don't see Obama leveling sexist attacks, but I know his supporters will. (It's already begun.) And he will be tarred with it. Rope-a-dope.
Hey, McCain just amended his campaign slogan:
Country First*
*Except when making the most important decision a president has to make
Blake,
Who cares what people think? How about the facts.
BHO get's more coverage.
BHO get's a much higher percentage of negative coverage (and this only includes the big mainstream media programs, i.e. not the real vitriol shows on Fox, or the second half of Special Report with the "round table" segments where BHO is constantly torn apart with manipulation, half truths, and lies.)
So these two facts, taken together, mean that BHO gets a lot more negative coverage, and that's a FACT.
Why do folks perceive something other than reality? Maybe this is the result of the nonstop conservative-victim cry babies.
Now the conservatives can start non-fact based crying about sexism. What an accomplishment.
*Except when making the most important decision a president has to make
That's an amusing thing to believe -- that the choice of VP is the most important choice a President has to make.
So obviously we should be judging Palin not by her managerial skills, foreign policy knowledge, honesty, etc. We should be judging her based on her ability to choose a new vice president in the event that McCain dies! How has this issue escaped the media's attention???
Now the conservatives can start non-fact based crying about sexism. What an accomplishment.
I think we all know that Obama and his hordes of faceless minions aren't motivated by sexism.
"_______'s ideas are all wrong for America. John McCain has once again shown that he just doesn't get it, that he stands for business as usual. __________ is completely unfit to be President in the event that McCain dies. Furthermore, _________ has a proven record of dishonesty and corruption."
The script you were going to follow was already written. All you had to do was quickly scribble in the name and commence bleating.
The problem you've got is with the millions of Democratic women who equate "criticism of a woman" with "sexism". They're the reason we're poking fun at your "sexist" attacks. Of course the attacks aren't really sexist; they're just insincere and riddled with lies.
"Especially lame is boy Althouse who says BHO is endorsing Palin and BHO is being sexist against Palin. Shameful logic--a weak, empty mind."
1jpb, if you have read my comment more carefully you would know that I said the ad is either an endorsement of Palin or it's assuming that we are projecting a sexist idea onto her. Only if the sexist subtext is there is this not an endorsement.
BHO get's a much higher percentage of negative coverage (and this only includes the big mainstream media programs,
That's an odd way of stating things to your advantage. If Obama is mentioned 100 times and McCain 20, and within those samples, Obama was mentioned negatively 11 times and McCain was mentioned negatively 9, it is true that Obama's percentage of negative coverage is higher, but it is not true that his overall coverage is more negative. It is significantly less negative and positive mentions occur significantly more often.
Of course the attacks aren't really sexist; they're just insincere and riddled with lies.
That's become such a given that it is somewhat startling when someone points out the obvious. ;-)
Randy,
Your "figures" are invented. You obviously don't know about the relevant research.
Is inventing stuff fun? I'd like to try that:
6+89=3.4
It doesn't do anything for me. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Who cares what people think?
People who want to get elected?
Or was that a rhetorical question.
Look, when I see pictures of McCain with halos appearing on major magazines, I'll entertain the notion that the media isn't in the tank for Obama.
If you're arguing that the massive, fawning coverage hurts Obama as well as helps him, sure, agreed, no question.
The media was in the tank for Clinton, too, but ultimately they've got to feed the beast.
Why do folks perceive something other than reality? Maybe this is the result of the nonstop conservative-victim cry babies.
Seriously? Even people IN the media are "perceiving" it.
You can try to tell people it's all in their head--I think the Reps tried that with the economy, right?--but you've got a problem if that's not true.
Are you telling me I'm imagining the halo around Barack in the Rolling Stone, Time, GQ et al?
Did I imagine Chris Matthews talking about the thrill going up his leg?
You can breakdown quantity all you like, but you'll never, never, NEVER see worshipful prose in the MSM written about McCain--unless it's from when he was opposing Bush.
I don't think "these aren't the droids you're looking for" is going to work here.
This is bad. They really pulled the ad already?
I mean, weren't the campaign at the very LEAST keeping track of the Top 10 possible Veeps? Don't they read the chatter?
She was ahead of Hailey Barbour at this point, so come on now.
Contrast the reaction with Team McCain's almost instantaneous videos showing Biden bad mouthing Obama's experience.
Maybe Biden was more of a cert pick, but you can bet they had videos for the lesser candidates too.
Cheers,
Victoria
Blake,
I've had the impression that you had a technical background so presumably you know that actual data trumps anecdotes about tingling.
There is no debate. We have data. The big news outlets that live off of spectrum (even excluding radio, where conservatives are mostly unchallenged) are more negative toward BHO.
Do you want to discuss why folks mistakenly feel that conservatives are at a disadvantage, when they aren't? That's an interesting question. My theory is that it's all of the conservative crying and whimpering about the media.
And regarding pop culture and print trying to make money by selling what folks want: are you suggesting a fairness doctrine? Conservatism is starting to make me sick. And, y'all can't even see what you've become.
Fairness doctrine for Rolling Stone--ridiculous. And, just how do you intend to justify such a remedy. Are we to say that all printed material is owned by the people (like EM spectrum?) So the government is to take complete control of everything in our lives and then distribute it so that folks must read things against their will. We must all read NR and the Spectator--Have you seen their covers, are they satisfactory for you? And, does "the culture warrior" need more help with book sales, too many liberal best sellers?
No you don't want such changes, you just want to cry about Rolling Stone and the other products of our free market society. Ironic. Insincere. Unconsidered. Stupid.
You like data vs. anecdotes?
Covers with halos for Obama: 3
Covers with halos for McCain: 0
You want to scan all the magazine covers from the last six months and find me a halo around McCain?
Besides, it's foolish to argue that because we can't put a number on the degree of sycophancy, that it doesn't exist. (And we could, of course, but I surely don't have the time or interest and I presume you don't either.)
But you're mistaken: I think the media bias hurts Obama hugely.
And, seriously, dude, take it down a notch. The "Fairness Doctrine" was a blight on this country's history; I have no wish to see it return. Your fevered imaginations of me desiring "fairness" are just plain creepy.
The current system works pretty well, because everyone knows who's biased. (OK, there are those who cling to the notion that the MSM is unbiased, but they're mostly those who believe what the MSM is peddling, so, no real loss there.)
But I not going to reject the huge mass of evidence showing adoration of Obama just because nobody's bothered to bag-and-tag it.
The guy who ought to be objecting is Obama. Nobody could live up to the expectations created for him. Worst thing that could happen to him, IMO, is to be elected.
There's none so fanatic as a fanatic turned from another cause. And that's what he'd end up facing: Former true believers.
blake,
You continue to argue for the fairness doctrine for print media.
What exactly is your point? People buy magazines with BHO on the cover. OK. What's the problem? Folks don't buy magazines with McCain on the cover. What's the remedy? Force people to buy magazines that have McCain with a halo.
Your logic is deeply flawed.
Do you get all hot and bothered because talk radio is almost totally conservative? In radio folks are taking advantage of the public's resource of EM spectrum, with government regulation. Do you want to balance this?
Do you get all hot and bothered because of the popularity of conservative books? Do you want to balance this?
Should we make churches more balanced too?
Should KO and Mathews be locked up?
What, other than magazines, do you want to change in our society? Is everything else perfect, you just get upset by magazine covers? Have you ever stopped and asked yourself why you don't possess a comprehensive and fact based understanding of media in our society? Why are you so concerned about a few particular things here and there?
The professional conservatives have trained you to worry about "liberal bias." The professional conservatives have made you incapable of noticing the influence of the professional conservatives. But, ironically, you are a living example of their power. You're too busy fretting about trivial halos and a magazine rack. You're too busy thinking up ridiculous scenarios about messiahs because you can't fully distinguish between the real world and the narratives you learn from professional conservatives. Your mind has been cluttered.
The "Fairness Doctrine" was a blight on this country's history; I have no wish to see it return.
To say nothing of the fact that there are usually a whole lot of viewpoints on an issue. You can't legislate equal time for them all even if doing so was required.
Consider, for example, a Democrat making a speech about the need for affirmative action programs to increase the number of blacks with college degrees. You might say "well, we'll let an opposing speaker talk about an alternative plan of race-blind college admissions. But that's just one opposing view. There are numerous others, each with millions -- even tens or hundreds of millions -- of supporters. You can't force stations to give JUST the "race-blind" guy a chance to speak and call that "fair".
I'm overthinking this, of course. What Democrats really mean when they talk about the fairness doctrine is "whenever anyone -- Republican, Green, Libertarian, or independent -- says anything the Democratic Party disagrees with, the Democratic Party must be given airtime to present its view, with failure to grant such airtime resulting in fines, imprisonment, or loss of license". It's that sort of attitude that makes it easy to see how fascism evolved from the *last* wave of "progressivism".
1jpb,
lol
It's evocative that you think my observations would naturally result in my advocating legislation but my position on laws mirrors my position on drugs: I'm against them, even to the point of stupidity.
Frankly, I think things are fine right now--but that includes the right (of both sides) to bitch about what they're seeing. Even though I don't have a side, I still have the right to call it like I see it.
And here is what I see. Show me the same for McCain.
Anyway, you're way more heated about this than I am. It's a fact of life for me, and for a lot of people like me. I realized 16 years ago (November), when I read the day before the election how the economy was tanking, and then the next day--after Clinton's election--how the economy magically rebounded that very instant.
It wasn't "conservatives"--which I am not--who trained me to be concerned about liberal media bias, it was liberals. I don't know what "professional conservatives" you imagine are influencing me.
See, I didn't vote for W. I disagree with just about everything he did. But I've been watching the press demonize him for years while beating themselves up about "being soft" on him. The bias is absurd.
I see conservative bias as well, and bias that's neither liberal nor conservative, but simply self-serving.
You want to argue that it doesn't exist, fine. I'd say it was rude to have you impose your narrative on me but it's really just surreal and kind of comical because it's so far off the mark.
I think you're a little caught up in this. We should head over to Troopers place for linguini....
Rev,
This is something I suspect you and I (and others who aren't partisan) feel acutely.
My side is almost never represented by "both sides" of an argument.
"Fairness" just means the entrenched powers get their say.
Blake,
Your link is a right wing talking point, it doesn't point to the greater truth of media and influence in our society, it does the opposite, it diverts attention from the greater truth. I know you got this from the right wing, even though you are incapable of knowing this yourself. Your mind is cluttered.
You uncritically repeat what you've been told. You don't see the influence of the right wing in our society, but you are their product. You are a repeater of their words, but you can't see their influence because they made you think their words are yours. You repeat silliness about the Clinton election as you claim that the media tricked America into voting for Clinton. I have frequently said the same thing myself. I could not believe that Clinton won, it made no sense. The professional conservatives had taught me that he was going to destroy our economy and our way of life. Then, they explained to me and you that the non-right wing media was the problem, the enemy. But, I can learn. I've seen the professional conservatives manipulate and lie to me one too many times. You still have more to learn.
1jpb,
If I may paraphrase Trooper York: Dude, you're starting to freak me out.
You're parodying a Troofer now, right?
I give you observations--"I saw planes crashing into buildings"--and you give me back "That's what THEY told you."
I read articles in news magazines. I saw them change. Hell, while the media was pounding on Bush 41 for his "no new taxes" thing--which, with Perot, is what really cost him the election--I saw four different speeches from Clinton where he talked about taxing the rich, using wildly different numbers for what constitutes "rich", and it all went uncommented on.
I didn't imagine Dan Rather saying, "If we could be one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been in the White House, we’d take it right now and walk away winners.”
But, see, the difference between me and you is that I don't think I'm the only one capable of observing this and factoring it into his thinking.
I don't consider data that doesn't support my conclusions to be "clutter". In fact, I try--it can't be science but it's in admiration of it--to seek out data that challenges how I think.
And, by the way, that's a particularly creepy cultish tone to take. "Free your mind and you will see things my way...."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा