« Bush At Record Low In Poll Taken After Petraeus Show | Home | Report: Johanns Running For Senate »

New Obama Ad: "The Cynics In Washington Roll Their Eyes"

Barack Obama promotes his outsider image in his latest TV ad in Iowa:

"Every time I speak about my hope for America, the cynics in Washington roll their eyes," he says. "You see, they don't believe we can actually change politics and bring an end to decades of division and deadlock. They don't believe we can limit the power of lobbyists who block our progress, or that we can trust the American people with the truth."

"And that’s why we face the same problems and hear the same promises every four years."


57 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

To be up front and honest, I am leaning toward supporting Barack Obama for President in 2008. Why you may ask? Out of all the other candidates (Democrat and Republican), I feel he would be the best person for the job during this time in our history.

While all the candidates claim that they are the ones that can bring the country back together, Senator Obama comes off as being the one that would actually enjoy doing just that.

Why do I say that? During Sundays Democratic Debate, Senator Obama was bombarded with criticism over the lack of experience he’s had. Senator Obama didn’t avoid the questions; he didn’t change the subject as so many politicians do, he responded instead, with a little humor, "To prepare for this debate, I rode in the bumper cars at the state fair." This one statement reminded me so much of a typical Ronald Reagan response, the kind that would always bring a smile to our enemies face.

Contesting the idea that he's not ready to be president, he used facts, he said: "Nobody had more experience than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and many of the people on this stage that authorized this war" in Iraq. He added a bit later, "The thing I wish had happened (with respect to Iraq) was that all the people on this stage had asked questions before they authorized us getting in."

The words that were sort of the tipping point for me were, "It is my belief that we need a fundamental change if we're going to dig ourselves out of the hole that George Bush has placed us in. And that's going to require the kind of aggressive diplomacy preparation, yes, but aggressive diplomacy, the personal diplomacy of the next president to transform how the world sees us. That is ultimately going to make us safer," Obama said.

At no other time during this or any other debate have I heard, even one of the other candidates, Democrat or Republican, be concerned about how the World sees us. This man cares about America and her reputation.

America’s future depends on how others view her; with respect of course, but also, a bit of envy.

At this moment in time, out of all the candidates running for President, Senator Obama’s got my vote.

user-pic
To be up front and honest, I am leaning toward supporting Barack Obama for President in 2008. Why you may ask? Out of all the other candidates (Democrat and Republican), I feel he would be the best person for the job during this time in our history.
Laudable, but the simple fact is Sen. Barack Obama will not be elected president in 2008 in the United States of America. There is no formula by which Obama overcomes (1) his relative lack of experience (the Repub smear machine will have field day with it, making swift-boating look tame in comparison), and, (2) in much of the deep the South, his race is non-starter... Sad but inescapably facts.

Edwards would have a better shot at winning the presidency than Obama. HRC is the Dems' best bet for winning the presidency this time around, like her personally or not...

user-pic

On experience, all Obama has to say (and he is saying it now) is observe how "experienced" the Bush team was that got us into Iraq.

Let's not forget the "experienced" Hillary Clinton voted to give Bush the authorization for Iraq.

user-pic

And you don't think the Repub smear machine isn't going to go after Hillary AND Edwards? What experience has Edwards had? Stock market? Six years in Senate? At least Obama's been government for a lot longer then 6 years. Hillary's husband's PAST 'affairs' and impeachment, will be the ballgame for Repubs as soon as she is nominated (if she is).

At least Obama has better judgment then either of them. He didn't want this war in Iraq. They did.

Besides - I think American's if reminded of what I just said about Hillary - will decide they want t fresh face in Washington - no more Bush's, no more Clintons.

user-pic

This ad is very good, but I'll admit I'm biased toward Obama. That being said, coonsey, it would be great if you could add to what seems to be a familiar post. What did you think of the ad?

Dcshungu, what experience do you believe the Republican candidate will have that would enable a smear campaign? Or is your point that Bush's own evasion of service in Vietnam was irrelevant to the swift-boat campaign against Kerry? Are we supposed to roll over before the attack even begins, or support the candidate we believe is best qualified?

As to your second point, same as the above. Should we cowtow to the deep South, if it's to our own detriment?

user-pic

dcshungu, I'd like to see this time machine of yours that's giving you that kind of certainty. Obama is an extremely shrewd politician, much moreso than anyone has given him credit for, and this has worked to his advantage. Additionally, I'm pretty sure that anyone who wouldn't vote for Obama solely because of his race, wouldn't be voting Democrat in the first place.

user-pic

dcshungu, get real, we aren't winning the deep south no matter who we nominate. If people won't vote for a black man, do you really think they will vote for a woman? Polls actually show that more people would vote for a black man. Regardless, no Dem is winning there. Hillary sure ain't, and neither is John Edwards, who wouldn't have been re-elected to his Senate seat in North Carolina.

Who has more relevant experience on the GOP side? A mayor? A one-term governor who was powerless against a Dem legislature? An lazy Senator turned actor?

Hillary or Edwards will get swift-boated as well, and fairly or not, many people have already formed low opinions of Hillary from her husband's presidency. That's the problem with nominating her, she brings out the GOP base and causes problems for us down-ticket as well. Ask Red state Dems.

Not to mention that she is hardly a good spokesperson for our progressive values. She won't lead on important issues; she will triangulate like her husband and give away the store in compromises. She'll be better than any Republican, don't get me wrong, and I'll happily vote for her, but she is just not the best option.

user-pic

dcshungu, what Kool-aid are you possibly drinking to believe that ANY Democrat will carry a deep South state in a general election? The best any of the Democrats can hope for is that Republican voters do not turn out in these states for the general election--then, maybe (and it's a very big maybe) the South could go Democrat.

And I'm tired of the CW that America "can't do anything--they said that about JFK (too inexperienced and a Catholic would "never" be elected). It happened.

It's time for that sort of move ahead in politics. I support Obama because he's the best person for the job; we need a real change.

user-pic

Barak, Realists everywhere are rolling their eyes at this kumbaya silliness.

user-pic

I thought the ad was great. Obama sounds so optimistic and authentic.

My only concern was what's with the lighting? He is in partial shadow for most of it. Is that on purpose? Seems odd to me.

user-pic

I am not at all sure Obama can't put a state or two from the deep South onto the Blue side of Big Timmah Russert's whiteboard. I've said it before. The South still has more than its fair share or hard core racist morons, but most of the racism has quietly transmuted itself into mere prejudice of varying levels of intensity.

The difference between racism and prejudice doesn't necessarily make much practical difference to a black person applying for a job or trying to drive through town without getting pulled over, but it makes a lot of difference in how these people evaluate Obama. An incredible number of them simply don't see his race as having anything to do with whether they'd vote for him.

The psychology behind it is not necessarily healthy. For example, for a lot of white people, I think voting for Obama would be a source of self-validation for their own mistaken belief that they're not prejudiced, but, hell, a vote's a vote and its still progress of a sort.

Here in NC, I don't think its enough. In the deep(er) South, where the ratio of blacks to white is a lot higher, you've got to move a lot fewer whites to win the state.

The joker in the deck is the Muslim Sleeper Agent slander. The hardcore Baptists have all heard it and most of them believe it.
.

user-pic

TexasDem - I repeat my column because I've gotten a lot of good responses to it. I felt it needed repeated.

As for the Commercial - it needs to be ran across America.

His points were very good. 20 years of experience, opposed the war before it started, talking TO you instead of selling one's self. Asking you to believe it's possible.

Can you imagine once he's President, how Optimistic and visionary he will appear to American's during prime time speeches? He's a good speaker. He reminds me so much of Clinton it's shocking sometimes.

I go by a person's experience, judgement, intelligence and their approach when speaking to me. I try and imagine what it would feel like watching and hearing this man/woman on almost a daily basis because of news reports. An example would be Guiliani. I can't stand watching him speak. His eyes bulge out every once in awhile - freaks you out. Edwards - his eye's twitch when he's nervous. Hillary's eyes also look funny.

Sorry but appearance does count.

Obama passes the whole course in my view.

user-pic

The messages of hope, enthusiasm, and change are wonderful but why in the heck is he walking in this commercial? His swaying back and forth gives me motion sickness. They need to have better production than this or the message becomes lost.

and by the way, what makes Hillary so experienced? Seriously, how does being married to Bill Clinton equate to experience? She has been Senator for 2 years more, failed at leading healthcare reform, and what else? Anything? She seems like the least experienced of any of the Dem candidates.

user-pic

I have always liked Obama a lot and if he wins the nomination, I'll gladly support him in every way. That said, my first choice in this race is Hillary.

I think that she is the only one that is already "vetted" by the Republican slime machine. They have gone after since the early 90s and go after her on right wing talk radio every minute of every program day. I was driving through downstate Illinois yesterday and Dennis Prager and whatever goof was filling in for Michael Reagan were both getting digs in at her whenever possible.

Neal Boortz was actually having doing a poll on "Who would you vote for if Obama and Hillary were your only possible choices?"

Guess what, every knuckle-dragger that phoned in wiped the drool from their chin and started with "Well, it guess I'd just have to sit this one out." (inducing a big laugh from both host and caller as though they were the first one to knit this witticism.

There is nothing any of them can do or say that could make Hillary look any worse in their eyes, they'd never vote for Obama or Edwards or any Dem anyway, and so with Hillary, what you see in the polls is what you ('re going to) get.

I also feel her "negatives" will start to get better as people actually see her against one of the Republican pols and as women (the largest single voting bloc) start to get excited by the prospect of a woman in the White House.

user-pic

If you want a candidate who is going to fight Republicans tooth and nail for everything, trying desperately to win the culture wars of the 60s and 70s then vote for any of the other candidates.

If you want a candidate who'll win without playing their games, who has the smarts to reclaim Reagan Democrats, religious voters who are tired of being marginalized and being tarred with James Dobson's vision, and inspire people to do what's right for the country and the world then vote for Obama.

What other candidate has the courage to go to Detroit and tell car company execs they have to wean themselves off gashogs? What other candidate has gone to Wall St. and told them they have to mitigate their greed for the good of the country?

user-pic

I've been talking about this for sometime now, but maybe Obama's different focus groups and consultant polls say something different. Most Democratic primary voters blame Bush and the Republicans for most of our current woes. Rightly or wrongly. When Obama blames the "cynics", he can easily be construed as taking aim at a lot of Dems. It also--and this is what bugs me--puts the blame of "partisanship" equally amongst Dems and Republicans, when in fact Dems have tried many times to compromise on good faith but were taken advantage of for doing so. They have also turned the Senate into a de facto 60 vote body mainly to thwart a Dem romp in '08. And Obama, perhaps unintentially, is giving them a lot of help by making their shenanigans "bipartisan".

The whole cynicism thing also reaks of "with us or against us". If you don't agree with him, its almost as if he's calling you cynical.

Again, his consultants--if they are worth anything--probably have polls and focus groups to refute what I just said, but I don't see this having any influence on people beyond the already converted.

user-pic

GQMartinez:

As the saying goes, if the shoe fits....

user-pic

Come this time in 2008, a lot of our soldiers will most likely be home or moved to a safer location in nearby nations. The GOP will make sure of it. Why do you think Bush and the Generals are NOW saying we need to start withdrawing? Gives them the appearance of 'starting to now' and it helps them get a few out each month, eventually getting bulk out before Election day.

With that in mind, need I remind you folks that the Democratic Convention is held in Aug of 08? Republican's is held in Sept. THEY get the last LOOK by Americans.

I can see the headlines now - THEY DID IT - GOP is Withdrawing Bulk of Troops.

Also don't forget that SOMETHING will happen to take the limelight away from the Dem's during their convention - always does. Rove sees to that.

user-pic

No nauseating saccharine music, no psuedo-authoritative voice-over. Just a straight forward, honest appeal that clearly contrasts Obama with his rivals.
Please stick to this format Senator Obama -- it will serve you well.

user-pic

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/whos_winning_rural_hearts_and_minds_and_dollars/C37/L37/

Rural America Gave More Money To Obama Than To Any Other Presidential Candidate

h/t sagereader
www.thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com

user-pic

I think the ad is great and very much the real Obama.

I for one will not vote out of fear this election. I will vote for the person I think can best lead this country.

Go Obama!

user-pic

If you look at experience in terms of actual accomplishments, Obama has a lot more experience actually getting things done than either Hillary or Edwards. He passed the first ethics reform in Springfield in 20+ years and got
CAFE increases through the US Senate for the first time in 20+ years, for example. Obama has a track record of accomplishment and all his opponents can do is point out that he's younger and hasn't been around DC as long as they have.

Obama has made a legislative career out of open government reforms. Hillary's health care task force provided the closed door model that Cheney followed on energy. The contrast could not be starker. This election isn't just about making the right judgments individually, though Obama has proven capable of doing that. It's also about how we make judgments collectively in a democracy. Whether it be the back room deals with lobbyists or failing to read the NIE and giving Bush a blank check for war no matter what the inspectors found (or didn't find), our decision making process is broken. There's one candidate with the experience and track record that proves his capability to accomplish change so that we can start to make better judgments. There's a lot at stake. Let's hope democratic primary voters don't just do what they're told they're supposed to by the DC insiders.

user-pic

Coonsey, I don't see how you can possibly think the GOP has any plans at all of moving the bulk of our troops out of Iraq by November 08. You've simply got that entirely wrong.

But, with respect to the ad it's okay as far as it goes and therein lies the real test and challenge for Obama. I like him, I'll vote for him if he's the nominee, but his lack of vision other than "bringing us all together" does nothing for me. I know many will like this and call it a slice of his "vision" and so forth, but I don't agree with that. He doesn't ever say anything more to the general public than what is in that 30 second spot and clearly that's what he wants them to hear. The truth is though that these are generalities, bromides and throwaway lines and that's it. It's difficult to disagree with most of what he says, but is he really saying anything at all? I don't think he is. He's certainly not building a case for any agenda or set of priorities he might claim a mandate for if he is elected.

You don't get sworn in and then proclaim you have a mandate to "bring us together". There has to be a platform you ran on that is specific.

None of his proposals on any subject, as far as I am aware, are much different from anyone else's. He's just another Democrat running who makes broad statements about general topics and it comes across well. He has a great presence and ability to atract people but that isn't enough if he's to succeed in bringing any meaningful change to DC. And frankly, I don't think most Democrats give two shits about whether or not the atmosphere in DC is one way or another. What Democrats see as change are concrete actions that will bring about the sorts of policies and programs they want to see. They don't care if our side gets a long with the Republicans or not---especially after what the Republicans have done since 2000.

The one thing I can and do take exception with is his continual theme of bringing everyone together and how working with the Republicans is something he's good at. We all want a relatively united country but under very different terms than we've known in recent years and that would not include the typical capitulation of Democrats to gain the votes of a few Republicans just so they can claim bipartisanship on a particular measure.

I am not necessarily impressed by any elected official at the federal level who advertises how well he/she works with the Republicans. I know that's something you need as a legislator to some degree but it isn't an endearing quality for me in a President--at least insofar as that is something he/she leads with. That smacks of the same old compromise-and-capitulate-in-advance politics Congressional Democrats are now sadly famous for. We don't need any more of that than we already have IMHO.

The Republicans right now are weaker than they have been at any point since 1974 and he's talking about making sure everyone gets along better and cooperates with one another as a top priority? I don't think that's what most Democrats want to see and I sure don't think it is what most voters generally want to see at this time. They want the Reublicans out and they don't like the namby pamby cooperation act the Democrats have so foolishly engaged in since last November.

It's time for the Democrats to dominate the scene in Washington and stop bringing everyone together for these compromises with Republicans! Sure they can come along for the ride if they wish, but if things go well at all next year we shouldn't NEED their cooperation any longer, certainly not on much.

If Obama wants first, to beat Hillary out for the nomination and second, to win the Presidency he is going to have to start standing for something more than this bland bowl of mush and he's going to have to make clear that he will oppose the reactionary Republicans in Congress and not be either beholden or deferential to them if he wins. Otherwise, all he really represents is yet another centrist candidacy that will neither achieve what little it promises nor do anything to improve life for the regular people of the country let alone the poor.

I'd like to see him be more than just another centrist candidate. I'd like someone who doesn't think it's good politics to not be too much of a Democrat. That's the impression I get from this kind of ad.

user-pic

To answer a previous posters comment, I believe that the beginning of the commercial had Obama standing in the shadows was a metaphor. As the commercial and his message switched from talking about how "insiders" are leery of change into talking about how he, with the will of the people, can bring about change, he started walking into the light. Basically, as stated above, it was a metaphor. The metaphor of bringing policy from being decided in the dark to the light where everyone can see it. Will the metaphor work, we shall see.

colonpowwow, I don't want a candidate "vetted" by Republicans. Republicans haven't even begun to attack her in earnest and her negatives are in the mid 40's. Even if she wins, which is likely but only by a close margin, down ticket races will be affected all through the country. Not just in "Red States."

"Blue States" have areas that are "Red" too. Here in Washington, for instance, we overwhelmingly vote Democratic as a state. But on the East side of the mountains, there is a different story. There are districts that are ready to switch but having Hillary Clinton on the ticket would make it much harder. The WA-08, on the west side even, is an excellent example. There her negatives are in the 60s' to 70's. The local Republicans are already trying to tie her with Hillary for that reason. You think that is going to make Darcy Burner's race to unseat Dave Reichert any easier?

gqmartinez, do you really think that independent voters (the ones that actually swing general elections) think that divisive partisanship is solely on the Republicans? Clinton's campaign is constantly alluding that she will return that partisanship right back at them. The majority of Americans don't want that. They want someone that will rise above the partisanship, not just sling mud back at them.

user-pic

oleeb, people don't want to trade one party drunk on power for another party doing the same. They are willing to give Democrats the dominant majority for now, but that will change if they start acting like the Republicans by being drunk on their new found power.

To quell the hysterical responses, being drunk on power is not the same as ramming through popular legislation that the minority party objects too. It is the excesses like Ted Stevens practices. It is the open dishonesty of people like Boehner. It is the corruption of people like Delay and Doc Hastings.

user-pic

Somebody said it right....

It's the GENERAL ELECTION we must THINK about when voting during our primary. Not how well one Democrat stands out compared to another Democrat.

Who has the best chance to Beat the GOP next year?

If I'm right, and I think I am (we will have around 75,000 troops in Iraq by Nov 2008) - GOP will be able to say something like this, "Mission Is Almost Complete. If we had pulled last year as some Dems wanted - there would have been many more deaths on both sides."

Americans will be less angry because not so many troops (over 170,000) currently) are over there. They will tend to lean right again - thinking...maybe they were right?

Mark my words.

Right now the best thing going to Dems is this war and the hate for it. We all recognize that I'm sure. If the war is doing much better, troops are coming home slowly but surely....then what?

Health Care and (illegal) Immigration will be the next big thing.

Who has those things under control?

user-pic

Worth noting --

Obama's screen time ends with him saying:

"This is Barack Obama. I approve this message to ask you to believe -- not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. I'm asking you to believe in yours."

But this is not where the ad ends -- and it's not where the messaging ends. The screen quickly goes to a solid color field superimposed with an equally simple line of text:

"Change we can believe in."

This line reminds viewers that, at the end of the day, Obama is asking voters to believe that he is the one with the "ability to bring about real change in Washington."

But the line also harbors an extraordinarily deft subtext:

"You can't believe in Hillary Clinton or the 'change' she's trying to sell you."

This is a subtle warning that Obama is preparing to bring his game.

Expect to start seeing this line everywhere Obama is.

user-pic

horizonr

Very good comments.

And I love these too...

"This is Barack Obama. I approve this message to ask you to believe -- not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. I'm asking you to believe in yours."

user-pic

Michael Caine,

Who said anything about being like the Republicans but you? Beside that, given the track record how could anyone assume the meek Democrats would ever drink from a bottle of power let alone become drunk from it? Get real. The point is to be Democrats and be resolute about it and not depend on pleasing the God damned enemy party for passing legislation!

I am sick of the surrender in advance practices of Congressional Democraats and I know I'm not the only one. Much of the reason we don't have national health care, better education, a sound foreign policy that isn't based upon dreams of empire, and a whole lot of other things we don't have in America is because of decades of Democrats who were unwilling to be strong and stand up for what they believe in.

My point about the whole theme of bring us all together and working with the Republicans is that Obama's talk of change doesn't articulate anything beyond this sort of sad record of failure the Democrats have established in DC. If he means something beyond that, when will we hear about it? Cooperation with or working with the Republicans doesn't give me any confidence that meaningful change is part of the mix. They are kind of polar opposites.

I think his intentions are good, but I'm in no way convinced he's doing anything in this ad other than what he thinks he needs to do for getting elected. And he's no more guilty than the next person with respect to doing what he needs to to get elected. I'm just not convinced that he represents anymore change than the next guy either, but he wants people to believe that. Without being clear that he's going to stand up to the Republicans (and not just their allies in the lobbying community) how are we supposed to take this talk of change as anything other than empty, well meaning but ulitmately worthless rhetoric? I just don't see any evidence to lead me to a different conclusion is all. None of this constitutes advocating Democrats become drunk with power.

user-pic

I happen to agree with Obama about lobbyists having too much influence in WDC. Hillary does not. Edwards does agree. There's a difference.

I also agree with Obama getting with Lugar and getting money in the budget to secure nuclear materials. I think that adds to our security. What did Edwads do about this? What did Hillary do about this? Oh, right, can't find anything.

I also liked that he stood before an auto union and said vehicles needed to get 45 mpg. That's not pandering in my book.

I also liked when the Aussie PM said Obama would be a disaster as Prez because of Obama's opposition to the surge. Remember that one? Obama said if Howard was so gung-ho then he could add more Aussie troops to Iraq instead of taking them out.

I also like that Obama is willing to meet with other leaders--unlike Hillary who has to wait a year. I like that Obama says Americans need to push Congress for healthcare and other reforms and that he will ask us to do that. That is desperately needed to move legislation along.

And if Bush pulls out troops before the election, I imagine the Democratic controlled Congress will be claiming credit for the pressure they exerted to get the troops out.

Obama wants change and so do I. This ad supports that.

user-pic

colonpowwow,

You've articulated one of the main differences between Hillary's supporters and her opponents within the party.

You say you "feel her 'negatives' will start to get better as people actually see her against one of the Republican pols and as women (the largest single voting bloc) start to get excited by the prospect of a woman in the White House."

This belief is one that makes a lot of Obama's supporters smack their heads and say "geez, and they call us naive?"

If anyone really thinks people who don't like Hillary have merely had insufficient exposure to her, and I've got to wonder at what point she set up her own personal Kool-Ade factory. It is relatively easy to change a positive into a negative, but it is virtually impossible to change a hard negative into a positive and the vast majority of her negatives are very, very intense.

Have you ever even met a real Hillary hater? Not just a merely dislike her but will vote for her, like me, but a real live Hillary hater? There is nothing bad you can say about her that they won't believe and there is nothing good that you can say about her that they won't simply perceive as just one more sign of her intrinsic badness.

user-pic

stlounick

Everyone, even Hillary, believes lobbyists should have less influence. That's not much of a visionary or courageous or even fresh idea in my view. I didn't notice Obama saying how he might actually disconnect lobbyists from their influence. If you did, let me know.

Nobody thinks more money for securing nuclear materials is bad. I've never heard any criticism of it. Each of the candidates has a "things I've accomplished list" that some or others didn't do themselves. So what?

Telling union members who have absolutely no say in how many miles cars get per gallon is not a milestone achievement. I'd rather find out when Obama told Bush to go fuck himself by voting against further funds for the war and I don't think that's on your list or in his ad. I think it's great he opposed the war pre-invasion, but as a Senator he has voted over and over for more war by voting for more funds. I realize he isn't the only one but he could have done more for "real" change on that score but chose not to.

Nothing you cite other than a general reference about lobbysits has anything to do with Obama's ad. It's fluff as I see it. But whatever it is, it's not a prescription for change and doesn't even portend change other than rhetorically.

It's cool to like Obama and good for you in supporting him, but just because you like him does not equal a convincing argument that he has any plan or real intention or realistic chance to actually change the way Washington works. And when you think about it, Washington pretty much loves the guy. Why? Cause he hasn't really caused any waves. Another reason for healthy skepticism about his change theme. I like him too, but I'm not buying the "I'm the real candidate for change" business. He's just another candidate for President who isn't Hillary as far as I can tell.

user-pic

oleeb, you're ignoring Obama's actual accomplishments to frame his statements in a negative light. This isn't about capitulating to Republicans. It's about looking for opportunities to build consensus on progressive issues. It's how he achieved the first ethics reform in 20+ years in Springfield. In DC he worked with Coburn on ethics and sunshine legislation. Coburn is wrong about a lot of things, more than I can begin to list, but Coburn is passionate about ethics and lobbying reform. Obama saw that as an opportunity. We need leadership that is progressive and pragmatic. Partisan warfare makes great red meat, but this country faces too many problems that require consensus problem-solving. Leadership is more than pandering to liberal bloggers and I'll take Obama's record of accomplishing progressive goals over gimmicks like Edwards "plan" to unconstitutionally take away Congress's health benefits. Obama is every bit as progressive as Edwards, but far more the realist and with the legislative record to prove his effectiveness.

user-pic

anonyone: "I didn't notice Obama saying how he might actually disconnect lobbyists from their influence."

His plan for further reform is widely available on the web. Here's just one article I found with the very simple google search "Obama ethics reform". This isn't an issue that Obama discovered this campaign season, btw. It's something he's built his entire career as a legislator on. Obama has a record of legislation on ethics reform from Springfield to DC. If you think another candidate is stronger then make that point, but pretending that Obama doesn't have a substantive record or hasn't made substantive proposals is unconvincing.

user-pic

anonyone: "Everyone, even Hillary, believes lobbyists should have less influence." Prove that Hillary actually believes that with any actions she has taken.

Hillary says she's not influenced by the money--easy to say. Acting on it? Hillary is missing in action.

user-pic

Hi ...
Im trying to find any information about soma tabs
that my doc order to me ...
Im found this:
"Soma is the brand name for Carisoprodol. It is a skeletal muscle
relaxant that is centally acting. It also causes CNS depression which can
cause dizziness, drowsiness ect. It is better used in acute conditions vs.
chronic. The usual dosage is 350mg 4 times per day. It aids in mucsle
spasms too. You should be resting more and physical therapy possibly if
your Dr. orders it.From what I know about it , it is an average type of
relaxant, similiar to robaxin, skellaxin etc. Srongers meds used for
muscular spasms would be like valium or benzo's. It does not have any
aspirin properties in it. "
If this information correct?
Also i need a place to buy it. Is someone can recommend online\offline shop
that have overnight delivery?
Im looked at internet and found this site with online shops but i dunno if they are fake or not.
Any help?
Ty!

user-pic

buy cod soma http://buysoma4.informe.com/blog >buy a soma [url=http://buysoma4.informe.com/blog]buy a soma[/url]

user-pic

watson soma buy http://buy-soma1.beeplog.de >soma buy perscription [url=http://buy-soma1.beeplog.de]soma buy perscription[/url]

user-pic

compound buy soma http://buysoma.forumi.bg >onlinea0 soma buy [url=http://buysoma.forumi.bg]onlinea0 soma buy[/url]

user-pic
user-pic
user-pic
user-pic
user-pic
user-pic
user-pic
user-pic
user-pic
user-pic
user-pic
user-pic

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address