Hmmmmm....

I think 2 minutes is too long. I think 1:30 would have been perfect.

But still, it sort of gives him the last word, and a sense of authority. It's a nice appeal, it's positive, it's consistent with the message of his entire campaign.

Will it sway voters?

A very long ad. I liked it and found it very persuasive. It was a lot like the "closing days" ad in Iowa, which evidently worked to good effect. That said, my only (minor) criticism is that I think that his Iraq war opposition is a stronger issue for him than "ending lobbyist influence"; as such, he should have mentioned that first, because, given how long it runs, I could easily see people walking away midway through the ad.

And isn't that the true message, America? Who ever ultimately wins this presidential campaign, is too much to hope that the status quo will be furthermore hastened? That someone will actually have the balls to focus on the concerns of the people living here without jeapordizing our status internationally? That the time has come for a more cohesive existence with the world in general?

I find this election parade very interesting, and I'm amazed at level of involvement and interest nationally of this campaign.

I'm a Barack supporter, who appreciates his candor and even-toned stature throughout this contest. I would like the opportunity to put his word to the test, day one, that he will strive to unite this multi-cultural, progressive nation of the U.S. of A.

words words, lets see the substance.

I'm not swayed. Sorry folks, we had GWB for 7 years who won us with words and look at the mess we're in.

the new guy is TELLS us it'll be ok with him. Why should I trust him? Because HE says so?

try again...

One of the purposes of an ad like this, it would seem, is to dispel his "otherness." Crazy as it seems to those of us following the race for over a year now, the Muslim and unpatriotic memes only survive because there are still people who haven't actually heard from Obama, only heard about him.

But the more people see him, the more they like him, and thus we get two minutes of him talking to the camera, rather than pictures of sleeping children.

Great ad. Not negative, didn't go after HRC, very presidential.

Hmmm, VERY VERY VERY different when compared with HRC's ads that center around bashing Obama and creating doubt when there's no doubt to be had.

Now, for the love of God, PLEASE release fundraising totals for February!!!!!!!!!

Ah yes and during the news broadcasts voters will learn that Obama lied about his NAFTA plans, lied about what was told the Canadian government, then called his surrogate Goolsbee a liar, all in the process of causing a dustup with Canada, our friend, ally, and trading partner.
Obama is obviously not ready for prime time even if his bots do buy the TV time for him.

awesome, dude!


(he says, pretending he's not really 59) But Obama "makes me feel so young, so songs to be sung"

It all comes down to whether our country has good enough karma to deserve a president like this.

I agee, a preview of a SOTU.

However, I'm already sold on Obama.

Who knows what the fence sitters will think.

But what a marked contrast to the orgy of fear and smear that is Hillary Clinton.

Doesn't get more presidential than that.

Classy, positive and well reasoned.

A solid closing argument to the Texas voters. I think 2 minutes is perfect, just long enough to be more than a soundbite, but not too long that it risks becoming irritating. I also love that it is a positive ad, keeping with Obama's overall message. As usual, his campaign has been on the ball, and consistent, while Hillary has struggled to find an image that suits her. I don't expect a "sympathy surge" tomorrow.

Kinda nice of Hillary to insist Obama repudiate Farrakhan instead of simply rejecting him. Otherwise, we would not be able to draw distinction between McCain's position on Hagee and Obama's on Farrakhan. HRC can be such a nag sometimes.

I believe the Clinton team recognizes she cannot with with pledged delegates. The strategy is to keep it close enough so that a brokered convention is needed, and then they are going to war over superdelegates and MI/FL.

Small wins by Hillary tomorrow will just drag this thing out. Someone pointed out that a big win in VT would net Obama enough delegates to offset a small win by Hillary in OH. So VT could be a sleeper here.

The argument the Clinton camp is making is that if Obama cannot win either of the two big states he cannot win the general, and they have a very good point there.

My guess is that if Obama walks away tomorrow with net 50+ delegates over the four states, AND wins OH or TX, she has to give up. On the other hand, nothing can force Obama out after Tuesday unless she polls something like 65-35% over the 4 states.

Advantage: Obama

Snoozer. I think most voters have remotes now. I see folks channel scanning within the first 20 seconds. But the Obamaphiles will love it.

It is a speech full of nonspecific promises and empty rhetoric. Combine this with the ad I saw here in Texas yesterday where he promised to fix the world and solve all of our problems and you are really diving deep into the all-hat-no-cattle quadrant of how Texans see people.

A great ad. This is not the time to talk about cutting taxes etc. It's time to talk about working together and respecting each other. I guess I'm a fool, but I think it can be done. Once he's POTUS, he can put people in powerful slots who DESERVE to be there, and the loony obstructionists can be kicked to the curb. If the Republicans make nice, they can play too....with supervision, of course.

Those who've made up their minds already will tune it out. But those who are still on the fence will pay attention, and this will win a lot of those votes. In a race this tight, a serious ad with a serious and positive message like this might just swing it.

He's putting the same ad up in Ohio too, in all markets.

Outstanding. Well-written, well-spoken, well-presented. Very presidential. And a great contrast with the whininess and hysteria of the Hillary campaign.

Hopefully, voters who see this ad will decide that they can't imagine anyone else addressing them from the Oval Office over the next eight years.

GWB used these words, I'm a uniter not a divider.
[are we?]

Obama uses the same words, I will heal the country.
[Can he? what evidence is there?][don't believe the hype folks]

Clinton says, theres a rough road ahead, I ask for your support. This pops in my mind [were we better off when the Clintons were custodians of the country?]

Ask yourself that and then get back to me.

The latest polls says Clinton is resillient and holding her own following negative press from day one. Obama has 2 weeks under the microscope and he's showing it in the polls.

"but rather who can turn IA, MO, CO, VA, FL, OH and NM...blue"

Exactly how I see it too.

For me, as a voter and as a viewer of this particular spot I have a hard time believing what he is saying for some fairly specific reasons. I want to believe him and what he is saying, but here's a guy who is saying he wants to take the nation in a fundamentally different direction but who doesn't seem to have any real problem with the way things fundamentally work in Washington or in America. His nonspecific statements opposing division, lobbyists and the influence of special interests doesn't indicate that there are some forces out there that actually are bad and some people out in the nation who are good and whose needs are not being me because of more than partisan squabbling. I'm kind of left at the end of the ad thinking, "well okay, so what is it you're gonna do?".

From my point of view, there's just not any real sense of how he's going to go about changing anything either fundamentally or otherwise. Fundamentally changing things about how our government works necessarily means we're going to be rewriting some ground rules, changing the lay of the land, etc... and that there are going to be some winners and losers. But he never says how the rules will be changed, let alone which rules, and he never indicates anyone will have to be disappointed as a result of this fundamental change. Doesn't seem very realistic to me. It comes off as hollow, empty rhetoric IMO. Perhaps others find it effective, but I just don't and I can't see it being terribly effective with others though I'm perfectly prepared to believe it might be effective with some people.

It's a good ad. I don't believe him, but it is really good.

You said 'the status quo will be hastened' Heh.

Otherwise I agree with you totally.

I get it, you are a Hillary supporter. I can tell that because you have nothing positive to say about your candidate except that she isn't my candidate. Enough already!

Clinton isn't going to win over Obama supporters and Obama won't win over any die-hard Clinton supporters at this late date. There are some undecideds who will either fall for the negative ads from Clinton or get behind the positive ads from Obama. That's it.

BTW: If you look at a graph of the polls, Obama began his steep climb at the time they stopped including Gore in the polls. Then he tipped up a bit more when Edwards dropped off. It appears that supporters of the former candidates are getting behind Obama more than Clinton.

Thumbs up.

Hillary's desperation is palpable, and the turn toward attack ads and fear tactics is cynical and ugly. Unfortunately, they still seem to work.

I'm glad Obama isn't going for it and is staying on message. He looks for the best in himself and those around him. This is why he will win.

Maybe, but something that's struck me about Obama is that he does come across ... presidential, and when he starts talking, you may not agree, but you do listen. It's like channel surfing and seeing 15 seconds of something on the Food Network, and then realizing that you somehow got sucked into watching the whole show from that 15 seconds.

I agree with the Bill Clinton approach posted earlier in the comments, when given a choice between a positive and negative campaign, it seems more appropriate to go with the positive.