Obama's New Ad: "Change We Can Believe In"

Comments (20)

Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 22, 2007 10:47 AM:

I buy the part of the message where Clinton is the stick stuck in the mud . . . I just can't buy the part where Obama is the agent of change.

NCSteve wrote on October 22, 2007 10:48 AM:

Actually, as I recall, their dispute on this point is now down to whether "I" means "we."

Hillary said "I" will meet with them without conditions and then, when Edwards and Obama pointed out that when Obama said that, her spokesperson de jour said that when she said "I," she was of course speaking of her administration, not her personally.

What strikes me as remarkable about this imbroglio is that in the face of this classically Clintonian parsorama, the MSM (and TPM) basically nodded sagely and said, "okay, that's fair enough, no gaffe here. After all, she's running a Highly Disciplined, Perfect Campaign and, thus, is not capable of gaffing, thus this cannot be a gaffe."

It would be nice if this was because the MSM has learned its lesson and is looking for substance rather than not engaging in the egregious "gotcha" games it played on John Kerry, Al Gore and even Bill never got. However, that's not what's happening here. What's happening is that Hillary now gets the MSM benefit of the doubt previously reserved for Republicans. Note that Obama didn't get that same benefit of the same doubt on the remark that was originally at the heart of the dispute.

Think about it. In one of the gameshows we call debates now, with a minute or two in which to answer, Obama said yes, I'd be willing to meet with the Evil Dictators without preconditions. After the debate Obama himself (not some spokesperson) pointed out that obviously you wouldn't do the meeting unless and until after the diplomatic spade work had been done. Nonetheless, the clarification is ignored and he's tagged as "naive" and accused of a "gaffe" that shows his inexperience by the MSM.

Hillary, however, at a campaign stop, after a full opportunity to absorb her programming and without any pressure from the format, says "I would meet them" and then, when her opponents (not the MSM) point out that that's a position she'd previously condemned, her campaign says "I" = "we" and everyone in the MSM is like "oh, okay. No story here."

I'm not saying its pro-Hillary bias per se in the MSM. Instead, I think MSM'ers and bloggers alike have absorbed the "perfect campaign" and "disciplined, gaffe-proof campaigner" narrative to the point that any cognitive dissonance caused by gaffes on her part is either ignored away or even transformed into some new example of her savviness and her campaign's perfection.

horizonr wrote on October 22, 2007 10:58 AM:

Actually, the Obama campaign debuted that tagline -- "Change we can believe in" -- on 19 September, at the end of the "Believe" ad.

elrapierwit wrote on October 22, 2007 11:08 AM:

NC Steve,
I totally agree.

I also believe that the MSM is glossing over Hillary's 'gaffes' so that they do not have egg on their faces about her 'invincibility'...the MSM creates and bolsters the 'invincibility' by simply ignoring gaffes, flat out flip flops, as well as the brewing financial scandals with Hsu, earmarks, lobbyists funds and the WJClinton Library donors.

The biggest issues they have been most complicit in doing this are Hillary's...so called 'experienced' (which Guiliani skewered quite well) along with her constantly vacillating foreign policy positions, as well as all of the negative's of WJClintons administrations not being mentioned while allowing Hillary to cloak herself in the strengths of the administrations.

Bottomline, we are simply getting exceptionally biased coverage of Hillary and this is a huge failure of the press. The reason we have freedom of the press is because they are suppose to inform the people in this democracy which enables them to make informed choices and vote for good governance.

An uninformed electorate is unable to elect a good government and have a sustained democracy that is representative of the people.

Jeremy wrote on October 22, 2007 11:12 AM:

I still don't know what Hillary's position on the Bush policy of demanding preconditions is. She's been all over the place on that. I would have thought that the disciplined thing to do would be to stick to a strong and clear message of breaking with the Bush policy and renewing direct diplomatic engagement like Obama has done.

Jeremy wrote on October 22, 2007 11:14 AM:

elrapierwit, The press knows that if Hillary is held accountable for failing the American people in the run up to the Iraq War then they might be next. Imagine all those out of work pundits if suddenly credibility was assessed on the basis of one's track record of sound judgment.

NCSteve wrote on October 22, 2007 11:16 AM:

Btw, "Bill never got" was the result of an incomplete edit to the sentence, not some obscure insult.

Anonymous wrote on October 22, 2007 11:17 AM:

I like the line, "America is back."

Jane wrote on October 22, 2007 11:51 AM:

Obama has been doing the parsing because he has to.

At the debate, when asked if he would meet with the various 'enemies' without preconditions he answered with a simple yes. This set him up for the the obvious reproach that this would give other regimes an opportunity to use him for propaganda if all they had to do was to ask for his presence. Talking just to be talking is not useful.

Clinton, who answered later, said well I'd talk to them but only after my administration had down the spade work to see that it made sense.

Obama later tried to back away from his statement well of course my administration would have to prepare the ground. He also twisted Clinton's answer so as to make it look that she was advocating 'preconditions.'

So Obama comes off as a brash kid making categorical statements while Clinton comes off as tough but cautious.

elrapierwit wrote on October 22, 2007 11:54 AM:

That is so true Jeremy.

Afterall, they are still using all the neo-con pundits who got the entire Iraq war wrong including the case they made for WMD and Al-Q being in Iraq. That Bill Kristol, and Mort along with Brit Hume's daily panel...all those folks got it Wrong WRONG WRONG!!! Yet we still have to listen to their pronouncements about what is going to occur next.

The entire GOP makes me sick keeping around and listening to incompetent folks, with a track record of misjudgment...like 'good job Brownie'...they simply have no shame and obviously are blind idealogues in the face of the biggest foreign policy debacle in our history.

UGH!!! continued catering to such piss poor performance..just singes my buns!

DonnaG wrote on October 22, 2007 12:02 PM:

Anyone else wondering about the absence at EC of even a mention, let alone actual reporting on the latest Zogby poll? Some 9,000+ likely voters polled, a moe of 1%, and 50% said they would never vote for Hillary, up from 46% last spring. Richardson and Obama did best in that poll, while Hillary did worse than any candidate of either party.

elrapierwit wrote on October 22, 2007 12:03 PM:

Sorry Jane

Clinton comes off as a duplicious and decietful. A person who will equivocate to America's detriment when it comes to foreign policy. The American Indians had a well know phrase for this 'speaks with forked tongue'

Obama comes across as a straight talker who understands that strong nations need strong leaders. and that more importantly, Americans have a right to know and understand what the principles are that guide their leaders when making decisions. Obama is clear he will negotiate from a position of strength and never be fearful to engage our enemies out of fear of being used for propaganda. That is what strong leaders do.

They are not timorous like Hillary who has made the mistake already of being used for propaganda purposes as a First Lady when she kissed Arafat's wife.

Hillary's character is such that her experience is simply another word for what she got by making mistakes.

The sad part is she doesn't learn from them. Which is why she voted for Kyl-Lieberman.

Hillary lacks the kind of experience essential to good leadership and which is grounded in a track record of good judgment. Which is why she flip flops, so often. She needs a poll to take a stance. Hillary has had no experience reflective of good leadership, her experience is limited to a track record of continued mistakes.

Not the kind of experience to believe in or rely on.

Obama does not parse words...Hillary parses HIS words.

KJ wrote on October 22, 2007 12:18 PM:

Thanks Jane for that helpful primer on Senator Obama's proclivity to parse statements. Since you are being helpful, can you help us with the following:

*How "I" means "my administration", but only to the the extent used by Senator Clinton to avoid contradicting previous statements?

*How it is irresponsible for a president to ever take an option off the table when it comes to Iran, except where Senator Clinton says that it should be off the table, but then subsequently reiterates that no option is off the table with respect to Iran?

*How Senator Clinton's belated support of the Webb Amendment some seven months after it was introduced does not underscore (i) that she too is worried that KLA may be used by the Bush Administration to support attacking Iran and (ii) the extent to which her decisions are driven by political considerations more than prinicipal (remember, he introduced the Amendment a month after she argued on the floor of the Senate that Bush need congressional authorization for an attack on Iran)?

*How her vote on the 2002 AUMF wasn't based on political calculations, but her long consideration of the issues--typified by her failing to read the NIE which demonstrated the weakness of the Administration's argument? Extra-credit: How the 2002 AUMF was not to authorize war with Iraq, but diplomacy?

Thanks in advance for the help.

Jeremy wrote on October 22, 2007 12:35 PM:

Jane. . . I think that there was more to Obama's answer than "yes". I realize that's when Hillary stopped listening (some conversation we're having), but he actually went on to specifically talk about initiating diplomatic efforts first.

corinne wrote on October 22, 2007 12:35 PM:

Obama is clear he will negotiate from a position of strength and never be fearful to engage our enemies out of fear of being used for propaganda. That is what strong leaders do.

The same Barack Obama who boldly waited for Chris Dodd to take the lead on retroactive immunity for law-breaking telcos? Yeah.

Obama's far from bold. His "position of strength" is halfway between any two parties who happen to differ on any subject.

pacc wrote on October 22, 2007 12:55 PM:

O-Bomb-A's camaign has been tanking ever since his bomb Pakistan remarks, his naive comments about negotiating with dictators, and his loose cannon, big-mouth wife's trashy comments about Hillary Clinton's marriage.

America is now rejecting O-Bomb-A's campaign by landslide margins and state-by-state, we're seeing his campaign fizzling out with an equally resounding no.

Voters see Hillary Clinton as the real agent of change. So what do we get...? A weasly little ad that won't make a squat of difference. You blew it Barry. You weren't ready for the national stage, and it shows.

With this latest ad I'm not torn. I guess I'll have to start calling him Barack Oblahblah (with a nod to Progressive Review). Goodbye Barry, so glad to see you go.

KJ wrote on October 22, 2007 12:56 PM:

Corinne:

Senator Dodd deserves kudos for being the first to speak out against the retroactive immunity, but your statement about Senator Obama "waiting" for Senator Dodd to take leadership is false. Senator Dodd was the only presidential candidate in the Senate that day (Senator Clinton was in DC, but wasn't in the Senate). Senator Obama was in Nevada (Reno and Las Vegas) and put out a statement shortly after the Las Vegas event.

And for the record, Senator Dodd hasn't done anything but communicate what he will do if the FISA bill leaves the committee with the retroactive immunity provisions intact.

NCSteve wrote on October 22, 2007 1:13 PM:

Oh, and Corrine? Speaking of throwing stones, how's that glass house workin' out for you? At this point, Hillary's silence on this issue is thunderous, especially given how bloated with telecom contributions her campaign is.

Keith wrote on October 22, 2007 1:17 PM:

Pacc:

Please provide a quote substantiating

1. Your claim that Senator Obama advocated "boming Pakistan".

2. That Michelle Obama made trashy comments about Senator Clinton's marriage.

And not your misinterpretation of his or her statement. An actual quote from both of them supporting your statements.

Thanks.

Anonymous wrote on October 22, 2007 5:33 PM:

Change we can believe in? I hope it's not a Donnie McClurkin reference...

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)