Election 2008: So is Barrack Obama finished?
Comments
-
Okay, so there's a new will.i.a.m.n.o.p.q.r (or however he spells it) video out for guess who.
I liked the first one of these, but I have to say...I do find this one less compelling, even downright cheesy and lame at times.
It has its moments and I certainly get the gist of what they were going for, but the celebrity thing is now played out and tired, in my opinion. Almost says more about Hollywood's self-infatuation than anything else, doing very little to connect me with the message.
So Will.i.am, if you are out there and listening, please leave this approach with the Scientologists where it apparently belongs.
If you do more of these, please focus on everyday people and what they have to say, not just celebrities that want to see themselves on camera and attach themselves to the new hotness.
Cuz that becomes a big turn-off, real fast.
Kthxbye. -
I liked it well enough and can see how it would have a positive impact on the demographic to which it is aimed - young people of all races who want to be engaged with our political process. It a perfectly directed and edited piece of viral marketing - very au courant.
-
Livetotravel wrote: I liked it well enough and can see how it would have a positive impact on the demographic to which it is aimed - young people of all races who want to be engaged with our political process. It a perfectly directed and edited piece of viral marketing - very au courant.
Those were the very well-known and oft-mentioned strengths of the first one, but somehow this one failed to make the same impression (on me, anyway).
Don't get me wrong...it did have its moments (some of the stronger personalities chosen, overall production and post-production values, use of catchy lyrical hooks pulled from Obama's actual speeches, complementary underlay of Obama's voice from those speeches and other points).
But then again there were also several Keanu-esque moments in this one that were not present in the last one, where eye-candy airheads made airhead-ish statements akin to the usual Miss America world peace cliches. (Jessica Alba, Ryan Philippe, pretty-boy boss guy from Pretty Betty etc. I am looking at you on this one).
Those weaker headliner performances will make this one easy fodder for parody and lampooning of the whole Obama message, only reinforcing critics' claims of all of this being empty, merely stylish rhetoric.
I'm all for well-placed, strategic influencers as effective acquisition leads, but by all means, please pick some that
have at least some claim to intellect or other notable achievements. Real examples of smart celebrity activists, not just empty accessories of schwinnnng.
(heh, on that note, perhaps this piece was directed at schwinnnng voters?
)
Anyhow, as I mentioned above, I got the gist of what they were going for. I was totally sold on the first one. (thx for posting it, Carny)
I just don't think that some of the choices made here executed that very well (especially relative to the first one), which may actually serve the exact opposite aims of what was intended.
Viral is only half the picture. Viral *and* not accidentally working against you is more the point. (case and point Hillary's latest "Red Phone" ad...) -
we are the world
we are the childrennnnn.....
cannot unsee -
Heh
-
What the hell was that? Japanese celebrity impersonators who can't sing? Poor Cyndi Lauper probably thought she died and went to hell.
-
obama's pastor supports farakhan. obama is also on friendly terms with a man that bombed a nypd station, the capitol building, and the pentagon. and his middle name is hussein. just sayin.
this message brought to you by sean hannity. -
Barrack Obma fundraising e-mail wrote: Our projections show the most likely outcome of yesterday's elections will be that Hillary Clinton gained 187 delegates, and we gained 183.
That's a net gain of 4 delegates out of more than 370 delegates available from all the states that voted.
For comparison, that's less than half our net gain of 9 delegates from the District of Columbia alone. It's also less than our net gain of 8 from Nebraska, or 12 from Washington State. And it's considerably less than our net gain of 33 delegates from Georgia.
The task for the Clinton campaign yesterday was clear. In order to have a plausible path to the nomination, they needed to score huge delegate victories and cut into our lead.
They failed.
It's clear, though, that Senator Clinton wants to continue an increasingly desperate, increasingly negative -- and increasingly expensive -- campaign to tear us down.
That's her decision. But it's not stopping John McCain, who clinched the Republican nomination last night, from going on the offensive. He's already made news attacking Barack, and that will only become more frequent in the coming days. -
Democrats Obama Clinton
Total Delegates 1570 1465
Pledged Delegates 1366 1222
Popular Vote 12,989,809 12,403,583
Popular Vote (w/FL) 13,566,023 13,274,569
National Average 46.2% 44.8%
Current Polls:
Pennsylvania 37.0% 46.0%
North Carolina 47.3% 38.0%
If it stays this way and Clinton gets the nomination - the election will have been stolen
Source of numbers above: http://realclearpolitics.com/
The ultimate political junkie web site
-
If the vote remains split regardless of the nominee, McCain will win the presidency because supporters of both camps will not vote for the other candidate. Expect Nader to play a role after all and the longer this thing lingers, the better it is for the GOP...
I have a suspicion (overheard at Starbucks) that many would rather vote for Nader than let the other democratic candidate win. And a vote for Nader could be cast without guilt because of his actual political causes and stands...
Oddly, he now represents a real (anti) "choice" with a split liberal/ democratic voter. It wouldn't surprise me if Nader gets more than 3 - 5% of the liberal vote if he sticks around - just for spite. Liberals can be the most spiteful group ever. Not to mention the folks in the GOP who hate McCain...
Say it with me...President John McCain.... -
Me thinks you're right - and in my scenario of stolen election young people and African-Americans would feel they just got royally screwed and would abandon the Democratic Party in droves.
Solution: They run together.
Let's hope cooler heads prevail and ego dissipates. -
Livetotravel wrote: Me thinks you're right - and in my scenario of stolen election young people and African-Americans would feel they just got royally screwed and would abandon the Democratic Party in droves.
word.
Solution: They run together.
Let's hope cooler heads prevail and ego dissipates.
That would make them almost unstoppable in 2008...
Who is on top?
Can't see Hillary taking the VP spot, but I could be wrong.
Obama has no reason to take VP - he is mathematically ahead so far.
Would African-Americans accept Obama being VP after everything? -
i think mccain, as i've said before, will be tough to beat.
BUT, i find it hard to believe the democrats will remain "split" past the convention. in fact, i don't think they're as split now as the media likes to make out. most people i talk to -- including a friend working for one of the campaigns, traveling to state after state, etc -- like both hillary and obama, even if they prefer one or the other.
yeah, things are a bit testy out there now, but i expect unity in the end, from the voters and the candidates.
i'd really like a joint ticket. besides the fact that i really like both of them, it seems like the natural way to deal with the huge support each has been getting. i don't see any of the other big dem names bringing in the numbers either of them would contribute as vp. hillary needs the youth/progressive vote; obama needs the hispanic and blue collar vote. and they do agree on practically everything.
c'mon. it'd be awesome. think blades of glory, only with less glitter. -
Well I don't think that Obama has done anything to turn off Clinton voters other than out-campaigning her. Surely they can't blame him for what they perceive as unfair treatment by the media...
Obama supporters, on the other hand, have had to watch the Clinton campaign take an extremely ugly turn over the last few weeks. Those kind of negative attacks do threaten the cohesion of Democratic voters. -
for a guy who's famous for choosing the right word, obama has chosen some that enrage the clinton fans of my acquaintance.
"whining" comes to mind, although the phrase that reduced a VERY chill friend of mine to outright yelling was "likable enough".
i'm not saying it's insurmountable by any means, but there is a smugness that's pretty irksome sometimes.
but as i've said here before, clinton's campaign has done things that fail to build the beloved community, too. :evil:
i wish they'd stop it. i never realized how frustrating it would be to like two candidates. i've never been in this position before. -
sweet tea wrote: ..."whining" comes to mind...
Indeed.
-
can you give me the cliff's notes? i hate watching tv.
-
sweet tea wrote: for a guy who's famous for choosing the right word, obama has chosen some that enrage the clinton fans of my acquaintance.
I agree - but am disheartened to hear that your Clinton fan friends aren't outraged at Ms Clinton's mocking performance of Obama's sincere call for unity and a new direction. Her little stage performance was certainly taking the high road - not.
"whining" comes to mind, although the phrase that reduced a VERY chill friend of mine to outright yelling was "likable enough".
i'm not saying it's insurmountable by any means, but there is a smugness that's pretty irksome sometimes.
but as i've said here before, clinton's campaign has done things that fail to build the beloved community, too. :evil:
i wish they'd stop it. i never realized how frustrating it would be to like two candidates. i've never been in this position before.
Anyway - it's all bound to get dirtier - Howard Wolfson - the Clinton paid assassin - started it tonight with accusations and innuendo about Obama and Rezko. -
yes, hillary plays dirty and obama is squeaky clean
gimme a break -
Carnivore wrote: Well I don't think that Obama has done anything to turn off Clinton voters other than out-campaigning her. Surely they can't blame him for what they perceive as unfair treatment by the media...
This pretty much seems to be what I'm hearing out there. Of course, YMMV.
Obama supporters, on the other hand, have had to watch the Clinton campaign take an extremely ugly turn over the last few weeks. Those kind of negative attacks do threaten the cohesion of Democratic voters. -
MichaelKeys wrote: [quote=Carnivore]Well I don't think that Obama has done anything to turn off Clinton voters other than out-campaigning her. Surely they can't blame him for what they perceive as unfair treatment by the media...
This pretty much seems to be what I'm hearing out there. Of course, YMMV.
Obama supporters, on the other hand, have had to watch the Clinton campaign take an extremely ugly turn over the last few weeks. Those kind of negative attacks do threaten the cohesion of Democratic voters.
wait, you mean his stance on health care doesn't piss you off? it's the kind of thing that makes me realize that if I ever want the kind of career I crave, I'm going to have to move to europe or somewhere south of the border so I can get affordable health care.
oh. and let's not forget the nafta snafoo on the eve of TEXAS and OHIO. who fucked that up, eh? -
alafairnadia wrote: [quote=MichaelKeys][quote=Carnivore]Well I don't think that Obama has done anything to turn off Clinton voters other than out-campaigning her. Surely they can't blame him for what they perceive as unfair treatment by the media...
This pretty much seems to be what I'm hearing out there. Of course, YMMV.
Obama supporters, on the other hand, have had to watch the Clinton campaign take an extremely ugly turn over the last few weeks. Those kind of negative attacks do threaten the cohesion of Democratic voters.
wait, you mean his stance on health care doesn't piss you off? it's the kind of thing that makes me realize that if I ever want the kind of career I crave, I'm going to have to move to europe or somewhere south of the border so I can get affordable health care.
oh. and let's not forget the nafta snafoo on the eve of TEXAS and OHIO. who fucked that up, eh?
Obama's health-care plan pisses you off? That's strange. Just because Hillary says her plan will cover everyone doesn't automatically mean Euro-style health-care. Obama's plan seems more plausible to implement in the short term, and more experts back his plan as the best to lower health care costs. The idea of universal health-care is all Dems goal. The big difference to me, it seems, is that Obama's plan approaches that goal with more practical applications, where as Clinton's is more all-or-nothing rhetoric to demonstrate she's a fighter. The tangible differences are negligable, actually. -
what izisharp said - and every serious economic policy wonk in the country has reitierated ad naseum.
I defy you to find any substantive difference in the Obama and Clinton policies on anything. What separates them is Clinton's top down authoritative, old-school, fear -mongering, machine party politics approach and Obama's bottom, up, inclusive, new school, hopeful approach.
And I also probably don't need to remind you that Bill Clinton had "no experience" either.
I thought we were all against hating the other person!!!
And I know I needn't remind anyone of this - March 4th changed nothing, thanks mostly to the DNC's weird awarding of delegates proportionately - here's the actual results - if both decide to go to the convention and future primaries yield similar results , Obama still leads - then it's up to super delegates and maybe revote in Mich and Florida - or Clinton's and Dean stealing the election for Hil to satisfy Dem hierarchical needs!
Obama Clinton
March 4
Ohio 66 75
Rhode Island 8 13
Texas 61 65 (less caucus delegates)
Vermont 9 6 -
What separates them is Clinton's top down authoritative, old-school, fear -mongering, machine party politics approach and Obama's bottom, up, inclusive, new school, hopeful approach.
hahaha. i see you buy into all of the negative generalizations about clinton and all the positive ones about obama. you even site one (hopeful) that obama himself introduced! bravo!
march 4th didnt do anything...except give hillary 2 huge wins and bring her back into the race. -
mr. met wrote: hahaha. i see you buy into all of the negative generalizations about clinton and all the positive ones about obama. you even site one (hopeful) that obama himself introduced! bravo!
C'mon, Mr. Met. That "generalization" is beginning to manifest in front of our eyes as we speak. How can you ignore what's gone down since "i'm HONORED to be here with Barack Obama"???
march 4th didnt do anything...except give hillary 2 huge wins and bring her back into the race.
Speaking of media generalizations, isn't it funny that Hillary's March 4th victories, which indeed have kept her in the race, came in states in which she held HUGE leads just weeks ago? It's not like she came back, it's not like she took Obama voters from him, she merely held on til the clock ran out. Yet the media and folks like you look at March 4th as some sort of incredible turnaround. Media spin goes both ways, ya feel me? -
It's also worth noting the following:
1) Many in Texas and Ohio said they liked both candidates.
--> translation: it doesn't matter which one runs against McCain in Texas or OH, the party faithful will still outnumber McCain voters in huge numbers. Either will beat McCain in these states, not just Hillary.
2) Hillary can't win anywhere that's *not* already a blue state, whereas Obama has huge groundswell of crossover votes in red states.
So please, let's dismiss this idea of who can win the battleground states.
Obama's numbers are already well above McCain's numbers in all these states, red or blue, before the rest of the party swings in behind him.
If you ask me, the real battleground involves blue *and* red states, especially stripping away the ones that McCain is counting on to fill out his numbers, which increasingly drift toward Obama as McCain is being pushed farther right into the party fold.
Clinton simply does not have this broader appeal, to take states from McCain not just lead and trickle out a win in an already heavily Dem-voting state (that has huge voting numbers for Obama also). -
Yet the media and folks like you look at March 4th as some sort of incredible turnaround. Media spin goes both ways, ya feel me?
sure, but it was a turnaround in the sense that she ended a losing streak.
and wasn't hillary winning almost everywhere a few months ago...and obama turned it around and started kicking ass. these wins stopped that trend, no? i could be wrong. -
What's got me a bit worried is that, according to CNN last night, if either Clinton or Obama were to capture every single state left--from what I understand Obama would still lead, albeit by a very slight margin--neither one would have the allotted amount of delegates necessary to capture the nomination. That's just another big mess waiting to happen.
-
mr. met wrote:
Sure, she ended a losing streak, but she didn't gain anything. It looks like it's too late for momentum to make much difference. The fact is Obama moved up but couldn't get over the top in Ohio and TX.Yet the media and folks like you look at March 4th as some sort of incredible turnaround. Media spin goes both ways, ya feel me?
sure, but it was a turnaround in the sense that she ended a losing streak.
and wasn't hillary winning almost everywhere a few months ago...and obama turned it around and started kicking ass. these wins stopped that trend, no? i could be wrong.
A real guage of if Hillary accomplished a turnaround, instead of just slowing down Obama's surge, will be if she can win Wyoming and Mississippi before the PA primary, or the Oregon or NC primaries afterwards. And if Hillary can't hold PA, she should be out like shout. -
it's exactly the kind of mess superdelegates were intended to address, actually.
i'm just hoping they can all sit down in some smoky backroom and broker a joint ticket.
i'm cool with either one in either position, and i think a lot of voters also like both of them, though they have opinions about which name should come first.
i just want us to stop wearing ourselves out on the plains while mccain watches from the hills. not cool.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds