« Dems Poised To Defy History With Big Gains In House | Home | Poll: Clinton Ahead By Ten Points In Pennsylvania »
New Obama Ad In Pennsylvania: "I Want To Put An End To The Game Playing"
Obama goes up in Pennsylvania with yet another ad, this one featuring him promising to take on the special interests -- the pharmaceutical industry, in this case -- and "put an end to the game playing" in D.C.
The spot, like his others in Pennsylvania, shows him talking sense to a small roomful of nodding voters rather than rallying big arenas with uplifting oratory, in keeping with his emphasis on more intimate campaign events in the state...
Advertisement
I really like this ad.
For me, some ads work and some really don't. I think the best ads are the ones that have Obama speaking directly into the camera, and I am frustrated that he has so many ads where he's speaking to a crowd, or where an announcer is speaking over images. I don't think they work as well.
I think the ads like "Mother" where he discusses his health care plan, are the absolute BEST. I also love the biography spot where he talks about his life that's currently up in Pennsylvania.
But this one is good.
April 9, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I personally like this ad a lot, because it's not contrived it is very natural. I like that he is speaking to a group of people and it's not some stupid announcer trying to convey his message over imagery.
This kind of ad goes directly towards that "cares about people like me" likability factor. I also think it comes across less like a ad and more like a glimpse into what he has to offer.
April 9, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are odd shots like the woman looking away from his eye contact. Why use that shot? And it comes off like he's not totally comfortable in that situation (but who would, standing in the middle of a cramped room?). Plus the message gets slightly garbled.
Still, the overall tack of smallness and intimacy and showing older and working class voters: Positive.
April 9, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, he will.
Well, he finally followed Clinton's lead again on boycotting the opening ceremonies.
Way late but Brown is on board too.
Clinton shows remarkable leadership especially getting out of Iraq.
April 9, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
source?
Not that I don't believe you.
April 9, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're out of Iraq already? Talk about burying the lede...
April 9, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad that "remarkable leadership" wasn't around when she voted to authorize the war in Iraq, or when she failed to pass healthcare reform, or when she rallied for NAFTA despite her supposed private reservations.
April 9, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of game playing:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/09/clinton.iraq/index.html
Sen. Hillary Clinton on Wednesday argued that she is the only presidential candidate capable of ending the war in Iraq.
"One candidate will continue the war and keep the troops in Iraq indefinitely. One candidate only says he will end the war," she said while campaigning in Pennsylvania.
"And one candidate is ready, willing and able to end the war and to rebuild our military while honoring our soldiers and our veterans."
April 9, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very nice ad.
April 9, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice ad.
Quick and to the point.
April 9, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was also puzzled by that woman looking away. Surely they could have found a more engaged, responsive participant in that small crowd. Nonetheless, the ad works for me.
April 9, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's OK, so vague though. "I want to put an end to the game plan". Eh? What does that even mean? Whatever you want it to. I want to hear from Obama exactly what he wants to replace it with.
April 9, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Putting an end to the game should've been obvious from the ad. He quotes a specific story, and essentially says that in his administration, this kind of thing will not happen. While I admit that I don't know what particular restrictions he'll place on lobbyist influence, I admire the fact that he's even willing to try. You don't hear word one about that from Clinton or McCain.
April 9, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eh? It's a centrepiece of all three of their campaigns!
April 9, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not even close. Clinton and McCain are in too deep with lobbyists to even bring up the issue credibly.
April 9, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a completely subjective statement, based on your beliefs rather than facts. Initially you said:
"You don't hear word one about that from Clinton or McCain."
And now it's that the words they do say don't count because "they're in too deep".
I don't think there's any evidence, based on their voting records, that Obama votes more against special interests than Clinton and/or McCain.
Arguments can probably be made for and against all three of them. I'd say that Obama has a history stretching back to Illinois of siding with energy companies in legislature, you've probably got counter examples for the others.
April 10, 2008 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this is a 30-second clip. He's somewhat limited on how much detail he can give…
April 10, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
In a two minute TV ad?
April 9, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
April 9, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
To my surprise (and disappointment) I think that's a disastrous ad.
The reaction shots of people in the audience are terrible (including the woman rightly mentioned above as avoiding his eye). The nodding heads are obviously not nodding to what we are hearing him say at the time. And the important printed text is given over an equally important voice-over, so that if you catch one you miss the other (or in my case the first time, miss both from trying to follow both).
Really inept, and possibly damaging.
April 9, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with you almost completely.
I think your concerns about the supposedly inattentive woman are much ado about...well, very little. Yes, it'd have been nice if they had another reaction shot, but as a professional filmmaker, I know that it's virtually impossible to get everything you want while filming a live event that you're seeking to present as authentic. These people are not actors. They're voters, and they're not likely to be receptive to some cameraman interrupting the candidate they've come to hear in order to get a better reaction.
Also, there's only one other reax shot in the whole piece where you see a close-up - the gentleman nodding as the Black woman sitting next to him has her gaze affixed on Barack. He's nodding just fine; relax.
And the only thing Obama says during the full-screens is:
"Imagine that. That's an example of the same game-playing in Washington."
That's all he says, and even if that was missed while reading the text, the audience still gets the gist when they hear the payoff line at the end.
Remember, commercials are not designed necessarily to be seen just once. They're made so that when you see them over and over, they resonate. That specific - and true - story will resonate with PA voters, and all the minutiae won't matter a bit.
April 9, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I may make a statement about the woman looking away...Some people just have problems making eye contact with people of authority. As I was growing up, I would often avoid eye contact with my pops, even when we were just having casual conversation, and he asked me why one day. I told him I felt awkward staring into someones eyes. I no longer have that issue, but some people just never get over that.
April 9, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good example. She does seem hesitant to look directly at Barack while he speaks in her direction. And we also have to keep in mind that this may be a lot better than whatever they have on the cutting room floor (not that there is such a thing anymore, but you get me).
April 9, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very effective. The structure of the ad - intimate environment, attentive listeners, and a story that encapsulates what's wrong with Washington's lobbyist-driven legislative practices - is perfect for the message that he needs to get across in PA. As a longtime PA resident, I think this will resonate with the working-class folks here, especially those for whom health care is a primary concern. Also, he stays above the Clinton fray and doesn't allow her to steer the policy conversation in the campaign. He needs to drive this point home during the 4/16 debate, also.
April 9, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet another ad?
Hmm. Call me crazy, but I'm beginning to suspect this Obama fellow is running some sort of campaign.
April 9, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sorry ,I misheard on David Gregory's pathetic new show so looked it up.
"As Chicago Bids for Games, Obama Ducks Olympics Criticism".
I guess he is pro China.
My bad.
April 9, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on. How can fruitful, meaningful dialogue happen when you go making trollish statements like that?
Bush not being at that ceremony wouldn't save one life in Darfur or end the strife in Tibet. How is it leadership when you advocate empty gestures that won't get anything accomplished?
Just because Obama's for making real change and not advocating empty gestures because it's politically convenient doesn't mean he's "pro-China", guy. Saying that proves you're just here to try to get under people's skin, not engage in meaningful debate.
April 9, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That simply isn't true. If an international consensus emerges of foreign leaders boycotting the opening ceremony, you'd better believe China will be spurred into action.
April 9, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll agree to disagree there.
April 9, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Judging by your post, I think the more obvious interpretation is that he's pro-Chicago.
April 9, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife: I sincierly hope Clintons are paying you for your non-stop, religously inundated responses on every blog, every day.
This has to be your fulltime job.
I don't think any of us equals the time, the effort you invest every day, every hour, every minute...you're mankind's candidate to compete with genuine spam.
April 9, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. This cat HAS to be getting paid by the post.
April 9, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't even notice who met whose eyes -
O well -
April 9, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the eye obsession is a guy thing.
April 9, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I noticed the eyes thing too. I didnt think twice until I entered this thread. Now wait until the all knowing pundits get ahold of it, and do their projection....Because of that, I think their will be some fall out.
April 9, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
WTF is that ad about?
He does absolutely nothing to make the case why the bill is bad, he just prays upon working people's resentment that someone got a well-payed position in the industry. There may be a very good and rational reason the bill was written the way it was. Instead, he promotes derision and contempt. If he can't wxplain why it is a bad bill then he should have done the ad at all.
His is the politics of divisiveness and class warfare.
April 9, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conflict of interest is not a complex notion. Even if you don't grasp it, these simple working class people did.
April 9, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did not make the case there was a conflict of interest. Just because he took a job in the industry does not mean he is not doing good work or earning his salary. And it also does not mean that the bill did not save taxpayers millions.
this is a simplistic message meant to fan the flames of class warfare pure and simple.
April 9, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
And just to clarify, the "tell" that this was a class warfare statement was his need to state that the person got $2 million.
If he had just said "got a job in the Pharma industry" he would not get a reaction. It was the $2 million that was his point and that is class warfare.
April 9, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Class warfare? Sheesh, the right wingers have a hard time pretending to be Hillary supporters today.
Call him a "Socialist" and be done with it?
April 9, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
On second viewing, I disagree that the lady looking away is bad for the ad. It's subtle (too subtle?) but it's like she's looking down in contemplation. She does meet his eyes for a second, but then looks down as if he said something profound and she's taking it in. The ad is more about people listening and then saying "yeah, that's right Barack". You even have the murmur of the crowd in agreement.
I liked it better upon second viewing though, as the first time left me cold. Also, we're seeing it on a tiny computer window, and I'd be curious what it looks like on a TV set with louder sound and larger images.
April 9, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad that "remarkable leadership" wasn't around when she voted to authorize the war in Iraq, or when she failed to pass healthcare reform, or when she rallied for NAFTA despite her supposed private reservations.
April 9, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
i liked it better the second time around. i think the lady looking away is more "i got bigger problems than one candidate or one campaign." sort of dismantling the rockstar meme. maybe i'm overthinking this.
April 9, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
O man thanks for that - biggest laugh I've had today.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!
April 9, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but she showed remarkable leadership on the flag burning amendment and on blaming video games and rap lyrics for all our problems.
April 9, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good ad.
Offtopic: gotalife? Please, getalife. No one should be politicizing the Olympic Games with stupid and pointless boycotts. The very meaning of the games to to temporarily suspend politics and come together with people of other races cultures, and religions to celebrate being human. The politics will still be there to disagree over when the Olympics events are over. But the athletes should not be punished for their countries political differences and they should not be prevented from taking those actions between individuals that are msot likely to preserve and promote peace and international understanding.
April 9, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
fogu2 warning about class warfare...
Just please, God, let me be in a different class from him.
Listen, you trolls don't know about the SECRET legislative plans Obama has.
They bear no resemblance to his publicly stated positions!
And one of them says we get to confiscate the property of right-wing blog trolls.
But don't worry. You get a farm in Zimbabwe in return for it.
April 9, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I get to bogart your joint.
Dark Star into The Other One into Going Down The Road is not a global strategy.
April 9, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should anyone have confidence that Obama will keep any of his promises or be an effective governor? What has the guy done?
Well, as a U.S. senator (and with Dick Durbin's help), he got the government to change the name of a post office in East St. Louis. Impressive.
Oh, and he championed a "relief" bill for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The law doesn't actually do anything, of course; but, it has a name that looks important. And since style seems more important to Obama than substance, his effort here is pretty much par for the course.
I just don't understand what people see in Obama. I've tried and tried to find a reason to vote for him. But there's simply nothing in his record that gives me confidence in him as potential president. Obama just seems to be all fluff and politics. Where's the earnestness? Where's the real, lasting commitment to anything other than his own political ambitions?
April 9, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I'd ask you to start here:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
Take a look at Obama's policy stands and proposals. That's part of what got me. Quite simply, I agree with most of his proposals.
Also, read his books. I found in them a man of faith that isn't afraid to live by those principles, and as an avid church-goer and Bible reader, I appreciate that. He also understands that matters of faith should not intrude on policy, and I agree with that.
As for his accomplishments, I believe a candidate's passed bills - you left out the ethics bill, and everything he'd done in his career previous to the U.S. Senate - are not the sum of the person, and not nearly enough to judge whether or not he or she is qualified for the Presidency. Experience in the Senate has never been a qualification for President.
But I also agree with how the spirit in which he'll try to get things done. I believe that Senator Obama is a civil servant, first and foremost. This is a guy who's earned my vote with the manner in which he approaches the job, and I sincerely believe that he, more than any other candidate, is posed to bring folks together - citizens, politicians, everyone - and help repair the considerable damage Bush has done to America's rep abroad.
And not to get negative, but if you're looking for a "real, lasting commitment to anything other than" political ambitions, the last candidate you should look to is Hillary Clinton. Obama is different not because he says he is, but because he's shown he is. I encourage you not to shut the door on him.
April 9, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take a look at Obama's policy stands and proposals.
I've looked at them. His proposals are basically the same as Hillary's. There are few major differences. And where there are differences, Hillary's proposals come out on top, in my opinion.
you left out the ethics bill
I left it out for the simple reason that while Obama sponsored an ethics bill, he neither sponsored nor co-sponsored the bill that actually became law.
I really can't credit the rest of your argument because it's just not substantive. You're right to say that Senate experience is not a prerequisite for the presidency. But that's just an empty comment. There is, of course, no prescribed course of experiences that qualifies one for office. A hardworking public servant can come to the presidency through any number of paths. But for me to feel comfortable in casting a vote for the man or woman that's applying for the most important job in the world, I need to see evidence that the person not only talks the talk but actually walks the walk. I've not seen that from Obama.
And frankly I've had my fill of egomaniacal upstarts with thin resumes that promise, after so many years of acrimony, to bring unity to Washington. I wasn't impressed when George Bush made that ridiculous claim in 2000. And I'm not impressed now that Obama is making it today.
April 10, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm sorry that I didn't make the case effectively, and that we disagree on some main points. I hope still that you'll consider getting past your issues concerning experience and simply consider who will do the best job at the end of the day.
I'm actually encouraged by the fact that you prefer Senator Clinton's proposals. When Senator Obama is the nominee - as I strongly believe he will be - I hope you'll remember that Senator Obama's policy proposals are much closer to what you're looking for than Senator McCain's would be. Comparing Obama to Bush is so far off base, it's not funny. Egomaniacal upstart? I've yet to see anything in Senator Obama's presentation that says, "it's all about me". I can't say that for Senator Clinton. I hope you'll think this over and reconsider.
April 10, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
simply consider who will do the best job at the end of the day.
That's exactly what I've done. I simply have no confidence that Obama can actually do the job well. He has not demonstrated that he's up to the task.
I hope you'll remember that Senator Obama's policy proposals are much closer to what you're looking for
If I were the kind of person that takes campaign promises and platforms at face value, I might be tempted to vote for Obama. But I strongly believe that politicians say whatever they need to say in a given moment to get votes. What evidence do I have to support the idea that what Obama says on the stump is what he would do if elected? None.
I pay a lot less attention to what a politician says than I do to what he does.
Comparing Obama to Bush is so far off base, it's not funny.
I'm comparing their styles. Both came to the presidential race with very thin resumes. Both built campaigns that focus(ed) on personality rather than on substance. Both made promises that they could change the tone in Washington. On that last point, the only difference is that George Bush actually did have a pretty impressive record of cross-party cooperation. The same cannot be said of Mr. Obama.
April 10, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems that there simply is nothing Obama, by the standards you've established here, can do to bolster his case with you.
I feel yours is a very cynical, yet sadly, realistic approach to politics. I believe that things can be different. I believe this candidate is different, and not because he's said so. I've followed his career since he ran for the State Senate in Illinois, as I'm sure you have. He's given me reason to believe in him. I hope that he gives you a reason soon, but it seems as though you'll be voting for someone else. I regret that that is the case.
April 10, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have nothing against Obama as a person.
But the problem is that I have seen no reason whatever to be for him as a candidate. He just doesn't have a record that I can take confidence in. As I noted earlier, his biggest accomplishment as senator has been to rename a post office.
By way of analogy, could you imagine a bank giving a huge, unsecured loan to a young man with an untested business plan and a thin credit history? It would be absolutely insane. The bank would be putting its profits -- and its depositors' assets -- in jeopardy. It would be a terrible risk. And that's the way I look at Barack Obama: as a terrible risk.
The presidency is the most important job in the world. And we're facing some of the most serious problems in our history. That's why I just can't give my vote to someone when he hasn't provided me with any real basis for confidence in his abilities.
April 10, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
So I assume you're for McCain, then? Nothing personal; just asking. Because Clinton's record is just about as thin as Obama's.
April 10, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great advert for a small ad!
Now can we talk about O's electoral strategy, now that he is loosing NY and NJ to McCain?
Just asking...
April 9, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama were a socialist, I might find some level of enthusiasm for him. Instead I am told to find hope in the mediocracy of lukewarm Republican. If only Clinton weren't a fascist plutocrat in search of war powers to exercise against flesh and blood Americans in the name of her corporate conspiritors.
April 9, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, it is "Obama is a Republican" week this week? I get confused. Just yesterday someone yammered about how he was too far to the left of Clinton.
April 9, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, I think Republican is slightly to the left of Fascist, so Richard might agree with that statement.
April 10, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love the ad. I like that he added the obligatory "...and I approve this message" before the ad itself. That leaves the final point ringing in your ears.
April 9, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always found that to be a smart thing to do.
April 9, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Merkel of Germany, Brown, the playboy from France, love his new wife, Pelosi and Clinton are on board to boycott China.
There is no fight in Obama but Clinton:
"Clinton Uses ‘100-Year’ Remark to Fault McCain"
That is what I am talking about.
April 9, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, because it's not like Obama's hasn't been criticizing McCain repeatedly for the "100-years" comment over the last few weeks.
Oh, wait.
April 9, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm glad to hope that I'm wrong and that all the people who find it effective are right.
Unfortunately, since I still find it clumsy, I can only hope that millions of others react in a different way.
April 9, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, does anybody know what this means?
Michelle Obama: "I'm A Big Fan Of Accessories. I'm Married To One"
What is she talking about?
April 9, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a joke. Thought you'd be acquainted with the concept, being one yourself.
April 9, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a joke?
Nobody gets it.
Please explain.
April 9, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's joking about him being arm candy. Maybe not the best thing to say then, as it obviously went over some heads. However, I've heard that said before, and it's a joke. BFD.
April 9, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Obama talks about his very first job:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/04/09/obama.first.job.cnn
April 9, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, this person, gotalife, doesn't have a clue???
But, hey, he/she is right on about Hillary's leadership!
FIRST FIRST LADY to come under criminal investigation
FIRST FIRST LADY to almost be indicted acccording to one of the special prosecutors
DRUG DEALER Jorge Cabrera gave enough to the Democrats to have his picture taken with both Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. . . Cabrera was arrested in January 1996 inside a cigar warehouse near here in Dade County, where more than 500 pounds of cocaine had been hidden. He and several accomplices were charged with having smuggled 3,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States through the Keys
In 2000, Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign returned $22,000 in soft money to a businesswoman linked to a Democratic campaign contribution from a drug smuggler in Havana.
Dodging sniper rounds (with her daughter in tow), withstanding countless affairs, and multiple shady deals...I could go on!
YEP! That's what I'm talkin' about! That is Leadership...
...we can do without!
April 9, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Cabrera was probably good for Obama. He probably snorted some of that coke.
April 9, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dick move.
April 9, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cocaine, do you really want to go there?
Didn't think so.
April 9, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another dick move.
April 9, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good catch...Scientific! Appreciate the assist!
fogu2,
What happened to meaningful dialogue and debate? Or is that beyond your intellectual capabilities?
April 9, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the latter, homie. Happy to help.
April 9, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm here in PA, but I clearly don't watch anywhere near enough television. I like the ad, it's simple, it's easy to get the point. It makes my job easier when I'm wearing my Obama button and someone asks me why I'm voting for him.
Just before Obama says "imagine that" you can hear that he's repeating it, that someone in the audience said it first and he's giving it back to the whole group. *That's* my favorite part and also the part that I think will resonate on further hearings (for those people that do watch lots of TV and see these things a zillion times). To me it says that he's listening to his audience, even when he's talking.
Now, there's an ad that I *have* seen late at night on the weekends -- made me sit up and put my glasses back on to see if it was official or not. Seems to be, but I can't find it anywhere. Has music and not an annoying voice-over. I just wish that I could see it once when I was paying attention.
April 9, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talk about over analyzing. It is a good ad, made a simple point, and a very valid one.
I was also glad to see that Powell backed Obama on the Wright issue. Well done sir.
April 9, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Kinda sorta black solidarity. Fo shizzle.
April 9, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally! I mean, heaven forbid that we Black people have any opinions about someone that wasn't related to our skin color, you racist motherfucker.
April 10, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice. The real character of the Obama supporter is finally coming out. You can only put on the fake "we are the world" 'tude on for so long. This is IMO a perfect example of what lies just below the surface in most of your ilk.
April 10, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Was that really the best you can do?
That we call out racist comments when we see them? I'd be proud to belong to that group any day of the week than be on the side of the fence you sit on. Any day.
Besides, this has nothing to do with me supporting Obama. Would you like all Hillary supporters associated with your brand of casual racism? And dude, you don't know me at all. I never go into the "we are the world" bit - I support Obama because I feel he's the best candidate. If you want to support someone else because you're a cynical bore in addition to being, yes, a racist motherfucker, then be my guest.
April 10, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Kinda sorta black solidarity. Fo shizzle.
That was just so wrong. I cannot believe you attribute that to race. He also disagreed with Obama on the Olympics and China. Shame on you.
April 10, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice. The real character of the Obama supporter is finally coming out. You can only put on the fake "we are the world" 'tude on for so long. This is IMO a perfect example of what lies just below the surface in most of your ilk.
Posted by fogu2
This response is in regards to fogu2's remark. Just to clear the air.
April 10, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
independentmeans wrote:
"I was also glad to see that Powell backed Obama on the Wright issue. Well done sir."
Funny. Your comment focused only of the Wright issue. Now all of a sudden other stuff seems important.
Face it, support for Obama in the black community is based on skin color. To deny it is just a farce. He did not have the "black experience". His policies are largely identical to Clinton.
So really a huge percentage of blacks are just voting for skin color. It is not I that is making it racial, it's those that are voting almost solely on the basis of skin color that are.
April 10, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Make your racist assumptions all you want. Yes, they're racist. You make it sound as if we as Black people are unable or even unlikely to actually make an educated decision about whom to vote for. And it's stupid to think the Wright thing is all about race - the controversy seemed to swirl around his criticism of America more than anything else. (In fact, I think that while Obama's speech about race was a landmark one, it should've been about patriotism instead.)
There was a time when Clinton enjoyed a majority of Black support, you do realize. Things change, and it has nothing to do with whether or not he "had the 'Black experience'." (Like you'd even know what that is. If he didn't go through it before, he sure as hell is now.)
I'm done dealing with your racism. No need to call any more attention to it; it stands evident for all to see.
April 10, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/04/karl_roves_awkward_moment.html
Congrats Josh!
April 10, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, if I were black, damn straight I would vote for Obama. Just like I am white, damn straight I am voting for Obama, who is HALF WHITE. Your point is rude and insulting to Obama - the man.
April 10, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, I wasn't commenting or criticizing Obama at all. My comments were critical of his supporters. You may not believe it but I don't have that bad an opinion of Obama..yet. I just think he's not ready and the more he exposes his naive weaknesses the less I think he will ever be a viable candidate.
April 10, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you so afraid to admit the truth?
Scientific wrote:
"And it's stupid to think the Wright thing is all about race"
That is exactly what it is about. Obama knew it which is why he gave his unconvincing speech about....race.
Why are you so afraid to admit the truth?
April 10, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, I'm Black. I think I know my own truth, thank you very much; I don't need you trying to supply it. Somehow, I find the idea that you know what Black Obama supporters are thinking to be laughable. It's obvious that he wanted to take the opportunity to broaden the dialogue about race, and he did so. The fact you'd find it unconvincing is unsurprising.
April 10, 2008 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Somehow, I find the idea that you know what Black Obama supporters are thinking to be laughable."
Ah, but you know what Black Obama supporters are thinking?
And that would be because.....because....because.....lemme guess....
you're Black!
Thanks for proving my point that it's all about race for Black Obama supporters like you.
April 10, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just curious: if all policy comparisons between Obama and Clinton are effectively a wash, i.e., no daylight between them, why shouldn't an ethnic similarity between the candidate and the voters be a valid criterion for making a choice?
April 10, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
These small group discussion ads need more black people. This is the second one I saw and I can count 2 to 3 black people in the room. I understand we are trying to appeal to the working class of PA, but black people should be represented in these ads.
I was not going to bring it up, but after hearing about the event person saying, "I need more white people" seated behind Michelle, I think we need to address it.
I am a Barack Obama supporter since Feb. 2007 by the way.
April 10, 2008 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the town in which the ad was shot had very few Black people. Lots of towns in PA like that. He's had plenty of Black people in his ads before this, but now it's an issue? I respect your view, but I have to disagree. He's filming an ad at a live town hall event - it's not like they can put out a casting call. The only Black person I care about seeing in the ads is Obama himself.
As for the "I need more white people" event person quote, things like that are said all the time. People are always strategically placed on the stages at big events like that. The fact someone overheard it and tried to make it an issue seems a little silly.
April 10, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was not aware it was an actual event. I thought it was a casting call.
April 10, 2008 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
And back to the topic of the thread.
Was it "playing the game" when Michelle Obama miraculously got a huge salary raise after Barack was elected tot he Senate?
Hypocrisy pure and simple.
Obama the Deceiver. At it again.
April 10, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink