New Obama Ad: He Can Bring The Country Together
Barack Obama has a new ad in Iowa, touting his endorsements from local newspapers — specifically their declarations that he is the candidate who can bring the whole country together:
Ben Smith noted that the ad is "less of the populist anger you get from Edwards, or the policy detail of Hillary's latest ad, and back to what's perhaps the heart of his appeal: His identity and capacity to inspire."
Comments (49)
BluePuppy wrote on December 29, 2007 6:05 PM:Check out the new Joe Conason piece in Salon.com http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/29/obama_europe/
This man is all flash and no substance. Hillary's lead continues to be confirmed.
DemAC wrote on December 29, 2007 6:12 PM:At the same time the Washington Post editorializes on the candidates’ responses to the Bhutto murder:
“One candidate, Democrat John Edwards, passed with flying colors. Another, Republican Mike Huckabee, flunked abysmally. Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain were serious and substantive; Republicans Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani were thin. And Barack Obama -- the Democratic candidate who claims to represent a new, more elevated brand of politics -- committed an ugly foul.”
“Mr. Obama committed his foul -- a far-fetched attempt to connect the killing of Ms. Bhutto with Ms. Clinton's vote on the war in Iraq.”
DemAC wrote on December 29, 2007 6:42 PM:The good folks over at Corrente aren’t exactly buying into the “He Can Bring The Country Together” storyline.
Also available at DailyKos.
Ni Daye wrote on December 29, 2007 6:50 PM:Yea, Mr. Obama, talk is cheap. You think the republicans will kneel down in front of you because of your chrisma, your call for hope, and your smooth talk. have you any experience to support your claim that you can bring people together? Oh, nope, who needs experience after all? We just need to believe whatever flows out of your mouth, including your salivi.
NCSteve wrote on December 29, 2007 6:50 PM:DemAC and BluePuppy,
Don't forget to include Charles Krauthammer on the random list of people who agree with you you seem to be compiling in response to this 30 second ad. He's on your side too.
DemAC wrote on December 29, 2007 6:53 PM:You know, NCSteve, the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend…
Imelda Blahnik wrote on December 29, 2007 7:01 PM:Well, David Broder and David Brooks seem to like Obama, and that's good enough for me!!!
/snark
Hillary bin Laden wrote on December 29, 2007 7:09 PM:Oh the ever hopeful Hillary crowd. You thought you owned this primary season and how ugly you have become when you found out that the committed Democrats are making their list and checking it twice....
The pro-Obama crowd is pushing for two things (1) Obama and (2) Not Hillary. If Obama fouls out early, Edwards will get the boost. Edwards is more of a Democrat anyway, but we have one eye on the general election. Doesn't Hillary know how to lose gracefully? Things are looking down for her, maybe it is time she packed up and went home.
DemAC wrote on December 29, 2007 7:26 PM:Taylor Marsh has dark forebodings regarding those attack robo-calls from Obama and “Dr. Bob”.
Apparently not so much “hope” or “change” or “bringing the country together” in these attack calls; but rather the same tired old lines that Dr Krugman and others have refuted again and again.
blackstar wrote on December 29, 2007 7:52 PM:you guys really have this whole trolling thing down to a science. its the same half-dozen Hillary supporters in every thread about Obama or Hillary bringing up the same points, no matter how thoroughly they've already been addressed.
didn't TPM do an article a few days ago about a semi-professional troll which outlined him doing EXACTLY what you few continue to do?
DTM wrote on December 29, 2007 8:00 PM:This is indeed Obama's core message, one that does not just go back to the beginning of this campaign, nor even to his speech at the 2004 Convention, but in fact back to the beginning of his political career in the Illinois Senate.
Ni Daye wrote on December 29, 2007 8:32 PM:Talking about good judgement---
Obama lovers, I have a couple questions for you. the man smoked cocaine. Was that a good judgement? Oh, yea, he was young so he should be forgiven. What about his challenge of Lanny Davis? that's a good judgement? What about his relationship with that sleazy real estate developer? Yea, it is such a good judgement. Finally, what about his keeping smoking to his 4th decade in this world? Even George Bush had the good sense to quit drinking after reaching his 40's. you know why his family calls him stinky? he smokes so he always smells stinky!!! Does this man not know smoking is bad for him? What kind of judgement is that? Tell me about it
BluePuppy wrote on December 29, 2007 9:17 PM:I don't how many of you have read Mark Penn's Microtrends, but his main thesis is that the elites are obsessed with personality while working Americans understand and are concerned about issues. It's truly a brilliant book, and it dovetails well with this campaign. Hussien's (Hillary bin Laden broke the agreement with that name)big appeal is his personality but so little of what he talks about is substantive. He's a part of Washington yet denounces it. He's a uniter but would have to work with the same Washington politicians he's been denouncing. His campaign has the feel of a Huey Lewis song: it sounds good but leaves you feeling empty. Hillary, on the hand, has been a committed activist since Hussien was in a madrassa. She worked for the Children's Defense fund, Arkansas schools, for the women's movement, for McGovern & on Nixon's impeachment. She truly embodies the best of the progressive movement of that 40 years.
hello_world wrote on December 29, 2007 10:16 PM:You mean, the same Mark Penn of "can we trust the scary black man who may or may not sell drugs to your teenage daughter" Mark Penn? No, I don't read his Talking Points, sorry. I just wait for them to get reported by CNN. Then I wait for people like you to recycle the Republican ones.
Obama is a new dynamic that many people seem to be still struggling to understand. He has dared to challenge Clinton's hammerlock on the Democratic party, and he hasn't been afraid to honestly and directly talk to people, even when it might not win him any immediate political gains. He doesn’t make points by tossing out red meat to the bass, instead choosing to articulate his ideas in direct ways that play to people’s fears and prejudices nor are they too nuanced to be communicated easily.
Simply put, he’s the real deal. Some times are just right for certain people, and I’m convinced that this is Obama’s time.
hello_world wrote on December 29, 2007 10:19 PM:That should have read, "instead choosing to articulate his ideas in direct ways that don'tplay to people’s fears or prejudices nor are they too nuanced to be communicated easily
Ni Daye wrote on December 29, 2007 10:25 PM:hello_world
--- You are delusional! go to see a doctor immediately!
DTM wrote on December 29, 2007 11:01 PM:I'm not at all convinced some of these people really are Clinton supporters (they seem more like classic internet trolls).
Orwell's Intuition wrote on December 29, 2007 11:07 PM:Yes, we're all going to get together, join hands and sing Kumbaya. Jeez.
Ni Daye wrote on December 29, 2007 11:15 PM:DTM wrote on December 29, 2007 11:01 PM:
---It appears you are a classic troll. Is Michael A another name for you? Do you have a life or you are getting paid by Mubarack Hussein Osama ?
DTM wrote on December 29, 2007 11:21 PM:"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting other users into responding emotionally."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
anon wrote on December 29, 2007 11:36 PM:When you are fighting for the future of the nation you need to fight not reconcile with those who are attempting to destroy the republic and make the Constitution a quaint document of the past.
Big Tent Democrat writes:
"I am on record that Obama's talk on change is pure nonsense. I am confident now that Mark Schmitt is right, that this is just a schtick. The problem is in politics, schticks matter and limit what you can do."
But Lambert has said it best in detail. It is very well written and definitely worth your time. Go here:
http://www.correntewire.com/obama_stump_speech_strategy_of_conciliation_considered_harmful
Ni Daye said:
Obama lovers, I have a couple questions for you. the man smoked cocaine. Was that a good judgement?
I forgive you for not knowing but one does not smoke cocaine. He calls it bad judgement, I think. I am more ambivalent personally. It is an experience.
What about his challenge of Lanny Davis? that's a good judgement?
Yes.
What about his relationship with that sleazy real estate developer?
Bad judgement, although "relationship" is an incorrectly loaded word.
Finally, what about his keeping smoking to his 4th decade in this world?Addiction.
you know why his family calls him stinky? he smokes so he always smells stinky!!!
I am in awe of this argument.
Conversely, Ni Daye, do you think his Iraq stance was good judgement? His Kyl-Lieberman stance?
What about his Iraq War De-escalation stance? His lobbying reform stance? His health insurance expansion in Illinois stance? His government transparency stance?
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 30, 2007 1:50 AM:Personal attacks and bullshit aside, Obama still is the guy that said the human rights were worth standing up for and Clinton did not even address it.
twc wrote on December 30, 2007 2:12 AM:"Since Hussien [sic] was in a madrassa."
Nifty sleazy double-slur, Blue Puppy!
Do they pay you extra for that?
Good God, we're being asked to vote for the political Oprah!
Forget "experience" or "judgment" (see: inflammatory Pakistan rhetoric, in which Obama vowed to deploy US troops to that powder keg of a country and threatened to invade it if Musharraf failed to root out terrorirsts). We have man, born of a black Kenyan and a white American, whose grandmother lives in a hut somewhere in Kenya so that means he is an international relations expert ready to lead the United States! Why? Because we believe it to be true!
I swear, The Obama crazies consider any semblance of criticism against their Dear Leader, no matter how legitimate, to be the work of Clinton. Before you ask: I am not a Hillary supporter. Edwards, Biden, or Dodd will do for me.
Obama has proven to be a most foolish candidate with regards to Pakistan, which was the final straw for me. He's no different than Clinton on Iraq: same voting record, same policies. He co-sponsored S970, which used the same language to denounce the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists. And he's a corporate hack who has a history of being friendly with corrupt Chicago politicians (You seriously think an honest, ethical savior can come out of Chicago politics? Ha!).
Michael A wrote on December 30, 2007 9:14 AM:Ok Ni Daye, why are my posts intended to bait you emotionally? I post facts in response to clinton II lovers endless spin and distortions? How is that baiting? I want to make sure the truth is exposed and all you clinton II lovers want to do is get people to follow in lock step to the coronation. You don't want people to focus on clinton II's non-experience or the fact that she gave the king a blank check to launch a war that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent americans and iraqis. You just want people to buy into the fluff and vote for her. For the life of me, I really don't understand why. It doesn't make sense.
Ovah Dahill wrote on December 30, 2007 11:04 AM:Actually, I aim more at satire than "troll." I really don't care what Hillary's supporters think, by being her supporters they have already demonstrated some shortcomings in this department. I prefer to think I get read by one or two people who might be at the margins. Satire is strictly aimed at helping them realize how foolish it would be to make the wrong decision.
woody, tokin librul wrote on December 30, 2007 11:22 AM:I do not know what, exactly, Mr. Obama would 'unify', as president--or even as nominee--but I suspect it would not be "the country."
No, he's not my choice.
Was Hillary's instant big payoff from a tiny Futures market investment a sign of her experience and good judgment?
White Water scandal.
Bimbo Eruptions.
Did not know that her husband was enjoying Lewdinski Cigars under her own roof.
Voted to give Bush the Green Light to invade Iraq, without even bothering to read the Intel reports first.
Let her brothers live in the White House, which they used to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars from drug dealers who were trying to purchase pardons from her husband.
I am looking forward to her giving her Inaugural Blue Stained Address.
And on and on.
Nominate and elect Hillary and you will have a steady eight year diet of the same old Clintons' psycho drama.
Time for a change. We do not need to devour that old vomit.
Vote for someone who made it on there own, and not because of who they were quasi-married to.
Liam wrote on December 30, 2007 11:39 AM:edit:
made it on their own.
lambert strether wrote on December 30, 2007 1:52 PM:Somebody should immediately ask Obama whether he supports Bloomberg's call, along with some Broderite Villagers and Dem 80s retreads, for "a government of national unity."
The voters in Iowa really deserve to know an answer on this, so they know who they're voting for.
What concerns me is that Obama's "unity" rhetoric dovetails almost too neatly with the "government of national unity" meme.
And then there's the mysterious breakfast Obama had in early December with [drumroll] Bloomberg. We all wondered what was up with that, and now maybe we know.
Not to mention that he wants Republicans in his cabinet.
Obama could put this question to rest very simply by saying that he expects to run, as a Democrat, in 2008, and that, in a democratic society, the results of national elections give the nation the unity it needs. (Since the people are sovereign, right?)
bm wrote on December 30, 2007 2:18 PM:Hillary and her supporters suck and are becoming increasingly obnoxious.
I will never vote for her and her racist smearing campaign
Go Bama
Liam wrote on December 30, 2007 2:22 PM:Obama could put this question to rest very simply by saying that he expects to run, as a Democrat, in 2008, and that, in a democratic society, the results of national elections give the nation the unity it needs. (Since the people are sovereign, right?)
So you accept that Shrub's win in 2004 gave "the nation the unity it needs".
Right? Or are you just full of it!
bm wrote on December 30, 2007 2:22 PM:Liam is always right
lambert strether wrote on December 30, 2007 2:47 PM:Yes, liam, "the results of national elections" did just that.
As is well known, Bush v. Gore, combined with other flaws in the election, negated the actual results.
Thanks for your concern.
brewmn wrote on December 30, 2007 3:01 PM:"Somebody should immediately ask Obama whether he supports Bloomberg's call, along with some Broderite Villagers and Dem 80s retreads, for "a government of national unity.""
Why? Because you said so? And who hell are you anyway?
His references to unity are not the same as pleas for bipartisanship and his appeals are to ordinary Americans, not to the elites in either party. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with democracy.
pacc wrote on December 30, 2007 7:17 PM:O-Bomb-A is a total fraud.
He claims he can bring America together, but when it was in his own political interest, he got down in the dirty gutter to play the worst of the politics of division, pitting gay Americans against black Americans.
O-Bomb-A's big mouth, trashy wife is also a race baiter.
We don't need this sort in the White House.
Sue wrote on December 30, 2007 7:47 PM:Okay Obama lovers can your "bring us together" guy just go to Washington and get the requisite number of Republicans to cross over and override Bush's veto of SCHIP? Can he? Will he? If he is such a uniter and he is the chosen one and he is the only one who can get things done, I want him to get that legislation passed. Oh I forgot, Obama doesn't spend anytime in Washington and he wasn't going to run for President when he was elected to the Senate and he only voted present because it was the "way things are done" in Illinois and it is always someone else's fault. What a loser.
Davidson wrote on December 30, 2007 8:18 PM:Why do you assume these fools are from the Hillary campaign rather than mere idiots? If anything, they're purposely trying to be inflammatory, which hurts her (BluePuppy is most obvious. C'mon!). I doubt they're actually supporters. If anything, they're GOP. I campaigned for a Democrat in South Carolina and the GOP did the same thing against our candidate--and some people bought it.
And let's be honest: Obama supporters are rabid as well. Every legitimate criticism of their God-like savior is a result of some Clinton conspiracy.
This "Can't we all get along?" theme from Obama is not a ploy. This is actually him. That's what bothers me. People need to vote based on voting record (Obama's is the same as Clinton's on Iraq), rhetoric, and policy. This "feelings" vote crowd is disturbing. Also bothersome: Obama's outrageous Pakistan rhetoric this August, in which he threatened to invade the damn country (The War We Need to Win). Why no "liberal" blogs, including TPM, mention that is odd.
Davidson wrote on December 30, 2007 8:21 PM:Oh, and before anyone speculates: I'm an Edwards supporter, although I'm also leaning towards Biden.
cope wrote on December 30, 2007 8:36 PM:Okay, for those of you confused about how Obama plans to unite the country, it's not going to be by asking "pretty please" to the old Washington powerbrokers. The strategy is to go over their heads to the people. Everyone in Washington has a constituency. Pull the rugs out from them and they are impotent. It's been done before. It works and Obama has the skills to pull it off.
Davidson wrote on December 30, 2007 10:51 PM:cope,
When has he ever done this? When has he showed such leadership in pushing substantial legislation against firm opposition?
brewmn wrote on December 30, 2007 11:13 PM:"O-Bomb-A's big mouth, trashy wife is also a race baiter."
Well's she's certainly baited you, you racist piece of shit.
Bupalos wrote on December 30, 2007 11:25 PM:I tend to agree that it is pretty unlikely that most of the "Clinton supporters" on here are actually Clinton supporters. It's a little too rabid.
Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Clinton
It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush? Why does that sound so god awful sleazy?
How about it takes a nation of idiots to elect two familes to rule them for three decades.
pacc wrote on December 30, 2007 11:31 PM:brewmn wrote on December 30, 2007 11:13 PM:
"O-Bomb-A's big mouth, trashy wife is also a race baiter."
Well's she's certainly baited you, you racist piece of shit.
Dear brewmn:
Your comments appear to be irrational.
O-Bomb-A's "trashy wife" refers to Michelle O-Bomb-A's trash talk about the Clinton's past marital problems (Bill's sexual misconduct). This sort of trashy talk might work on the street corner. but it is not the sort we will accept in the White House. Sorry.
And, yes, with big-mouth Michelle's comments about how South Carolina's black Democrats need to rise above doubt and fear to vote for the black candidate in the race is race baiting. Sorry to call it out, but the double-standard long accorded minority politics will no longer apply.
The truth is, the O-bomb-A campaign is a dirty little operation in support of a smarmy candidate that we know little about.
Here's something I read on another site:
We don’t know anything about this guy. Suppose that what Obama learned, as a privileged American living abroad in a very poor country, was to charm and lie his way through life, to tell people what they want to hear, to believe the compliments that came his way and developed a narcissistic world view. A world view that informed him that all that mattered was himself and what he wants and that no one else matters as long as he gets what he wants. Suppose.brewmn wrote on December 30, 2007 11:55 PM:
"(Obama's[voting record] is the same as Clinton's on Iraq)"
Except that she (and Edwards) voted to start the war and Obama publicly and eloquently opposed it at the time.
How do you expect to ever be taken seriously when you lie so shamelesly?
brewmn wrote on December 30, 2007 11:59 PM:"The truth is, the O-bomb-A campaign is a dirty little operation in support of a smarmy candidate that we know little about."
No, the truth is that you are a dirty little liar and racist. And don't bother responding, bcause I will not engage you and your lies and racist smears any further.
AJM wrote on December 31, 2007 8:13 AM:I learned all I needed to know about both Obama's judgement and his ablity to unite us and the direction he wants to take us when I learned that he gave a glowing speech FOR Lieberman at the Connecticut State dinner before the primary.
Liam wrote on December 31, 2007 11:16 AM:Yes, liam, "the results of national elections" did just that.
As is well known, Bush v. Gore, combined with other flaws in the election, negated the actual results.
Thanks for your concern.
Pure doublespeak from you. You claim that it did but it did not. Thanks for confirming that you are just full of it.
