Obama Picks Up Big Media Guy Margolis
Barack Obama picks up a big media get: The addition of Jim Margolis and firm GMMB to the campaign media team.
From Obama's release: “This is more than a campaign for president,” said Margolis. “It’s about a fundamental change in our politics. Senator Obama represents the best of America and we’re excited to join David Axelrod, AKP&D Message and Media and thousands of people across the nation in bringing change to Washington."
Margolis has worked for the DCCC and his firm played a key role in Bill Clinton's 1992 Presidential campaign.
Advertisement
I think we are going to see that Obama has picked up even more momentum from this debate. He was very Presidential last night. Many in the Democratic field are not interested in retaliating swiftly to terror acts given the disasterous consequences of that type of 'bring it on' judgement these past 5 years.
Also many democrats do not beleive in the concept of a GWOT. Many are designating that as 'fearmongering language' used by the GOP to keep America in a perpetual state of war and orange, green and yellow alerts. All of which is mentally exhausting to be in a combative state..
Obama's response's last night on Iraq and the use of the military are going to build even greater momentum for him, I believe.
The fundamental discouse of American politics is being transformed by Barack, Margolis will simply amplify that message.
All of this is refreshing.
It is almost as if our collective American psyche has been underseige and we are beginning to get fresh air, and see the daylight after cowering in fear for a loong 7 years.
Obama '08
April 27, 2007 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That debate had so many idiotic questions geared to Republican talking points. The Democrats have got to be sharper at stopping those "What would you feel if your wife, Kitty Dukakis, was raped and murdered?" questions when they negotiate with the organization sponsoring debates. The GWOT, two American cities attacked, who is your moral leader, "partial birth abortion" questions were clearly meant to inject Republican talking points into the Democratic debate.
I think Hillary made a mistake with the "I'd retaliate" answer. Who does she want to bomb?
April 27, 2007 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree with you more Karen, those questions were unbelievably biased. I especially disliked that 'notion that Repubs are better on national security' based on Giuiliani's remarks that Williams tossed at Clinton.
That raise your hands if you ever had a gun in your home was a doozy also. Nothing but red state pandering.
And that was really nasty how Willians took Barack's remarks about the Palestinians out of context in terms of them suffering more..geez, and then prodding him to say Israel was an important ally...was he being painted as anti-Israel or what? Barack also got that stupid Confederate Flag flying over the statehouse as well.
I thought Hillary got a free pass, she didn't answer one foreign policy question, other than to say "I agree with Barack, he has it right on the Iraq plan"....so she piggybacks on his Iraq plan answer then says she believes America is looking for a change later. Attempting to cloak herself in his entire campaign theme.
I thought these debates were being sponsored by the DCCC...shouldn't they be able to have input on the questions or are we simply at the mercy of the media that only knows how to use GOP talking points.
I am curious as to how Fox news is spinning the debate.
April 27, 2007 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
With the singular exception of the "partial birth abortion" question, I thought the questions were great. It gave the candidates the ability to confront criticism.
Not a single one of the candidates got the right answer to the chimera of partial birth abortion. There is no such thing. The incendiary language has become a part of the language that is every bit as ugly and even more commonplace than Don Imus' blasphemy.
In that instance the questioner should have been confronted. Not one dared to do so if they even knew the answer.
Best, Terry
April 27, 2007 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can only think of one time when the tables got turned on a Republican like that and it wasn't a debate: Dan Quayle being asked about his then 10 year old daughter being pregnant because she was raped. Can you think of any that happened at a debate? It'll be interesting to see whether the questioning at the Republican debate forces them to cuddle up to Bush or criticize him at all. My guess is that the questioning will be phrased to allow them to attack Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
April 28, 2007 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the "ally" that can't be expected to send any troops to help us in Iraq.
April 28, 2007 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
How nice.
Before the holy rollers took over - that includes the Clintons - abortion even won elections outright. Doug Wilder was supposed to have won the governorship of Virginia largely on the basis of abortion that he had been worned to leave alone in a very conservative state.
When the right-to-life extremists changed the terms of the debate - "partial birth abortion" might as well be "crushing heads of little babies operation" - all questions of morality were overcome by incendiary language.
It is precisely very young girls who are the victims of incest for which late term abortions are requested as well as dire emergencies. Gruesome talk replaces all rational debate and a Brian Williams to Justice Kennedy feels free to use an obscenity in public that is far worse than the language the hapless Don Imus uttered.
The Clintons have been on the right side of the abortion debate but bible pounding hasn't been exactly helpful. Bill Clinton started the prayer breakfasts as best I can recall. His family values type also introduced other things into the public domain from the locker room while "don't ask, don't tell" is irony without a good punchline considering everything.
Best, Terry
April 28, 2007 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree with you about Bill Clinton. "Safe, legal and rare" is an insulting phrase. No politician dares say someone should be safe, legal and RARE in their exercise of second amendment Constitutional rights even! IMO, human nature is never going to be perfectable to where abortion would be rare; it wasn't rare when it was illegal. Theres something dishonest, cruel and nasty about Clinton's "safe, legal and rare," IMO.
On the religious politicians stuff (crap, IMO), my brother thinks that if Bush had been perceived as a "success" with his tax cuts, wars, wiretapping, etc. all we would hear from the news media is how important it is to have politicians who are religious and all we'd have from the politicians is them telling us how religious they are.
But since Bush is such a disaster, we're going to hear less about "faith." Already saw that in the debate, IMO, with Edwards long pause on that moral leader (dumb) question. A few years ago, any pol would have been eager to say "Jesus," even, just like Bush. Clinton was a big bad actor on that one, too, with the humongous Bible he carried to church and giving interviews about his faith. Bush just took it up a notch from Clinton.
April 28, 2007 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
This story seems kind of inverted. Jim Margolis and his GMMB are one of the largest media firms in DC, and are aggressively pursuing clients like Obama every day of the week as they line up their '08 slate. The "get" here was theirs, and would seem to say something negative about the reach and capability of AKP&D, the Axelrod firm. (I'm sure Jim will take it as a compliment that you think it's a privilege for Obama to have hired him.)
There are also exclusivity issues involved. Sen. Clinton uses primarily Mandy Grunwald -- who used to be a partner in the same firm when it was "GMMG" -- a smaller more boutique approach, which precludes working with Margolis. Your story would have it that hiring GMMB is like Obama landing a sought-after fundraiser. They simply had to come to terms which means Obama agreed to let the firm book (and commission) a large part of his Ad time...
The other thing this development implies is that Obama is turning to a big, old-school DC media firm -- the very one that represented Bill Clinton, and in '06 a very large percentage of Dem. candidates both first time and incumbent -- to help him get elected. They are a great and successful firm, but it's another example of how in many ways he's just like every other candidate when it comes down to it. A few years back the firm was acquired by a major international PR firm, and now does work on gambling initiatives and all manner of corporate PR and "crisis communications."
It's up to your readers to determine whether working with a firm with deep beltway ties makes him more part of the 'evil machine' that many seem ready to accuse Senator Clinton of at the drop of every hat. I'm imagining they won't, but it seems like a relevant aspect of this story that's been glossed over here.
April 29, 2007 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm...this is an odd way to spin this story. As long as they aren't working with Bob Shrum, I don't think most people care which media consultants are working for which campaign.
I think it's referred to as a "get" b/c Margolis has had a lot of success lately, so some of the other candidates would have liked to have him on their team.
April 30, 2007 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink