You don't know Obama: "I'm skinny, but I'm tough."

As of late, Obama has been verbally ripping apart these establishment democratic talking points that accuse him of being inexperience and soft.  While speaking at a house party in Concord, New Hampshire this Monday, he hammered home the strength of his campaign and his strong desire to fight on the behalf of Democrats.

The Boston Globe reported on the event in an article yesterday entitled Obama says strength lies in number of donors.  The article highlights what Obama chose to emphasize about his record breaking fundraising numbers:

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama on Monday resisted the temptation to talk about his whopping $31 million fundraising quarter -- for six minutes.

"It's a wonderful thing only because of this: It's a wonderful thing because we've got 250,000 people who have donated to our campaign," the Illinois senator said at a campaign rally. "People said we couldn't compete, by trusting in the American people, but we can. There are a quarter million people who want to see a new health care system out there. There are a quarter million people who want to turn the page on our energy policy. There are at least a quarter million people who are ready to see this war in Iraq brought to an end."

He clearly recognizes the that bigger accomplishment to come out of this record breaking fundraising quarter was the sheer amount of donors that invested in his campaign.  I was one of them and I admire how humble he is about the amount.  Even Hillary Clinton chimed in on his whopping 31 million by saying, "I think his campaign did a terrific job."

What was most interesting is how he linked both, his large donor base and the rigors of the primary campaign to his general election viability.

"I'm raising twice as much money as any of the Republicans, which means that if they come at me with an attack ad, I'll have two ads -- with truth -- on television," Obama said. "They come at me with two ads, I'll have four Obama 'truth ads.' The Truth Squad will be out. We're going to take that seriously...I'm skinny, but I'm tough."

Obama said he could prove that toughness against a rival campaign during the primary.

"If I win the nomination against Hillary Clinton, then I must be pretty tough. I'm just being realistic. They don't play. They're very serious about winning, as are, I think, all of my very worthy competitors," Obama said.

Obama notes in the above quote that he is raising twice as much money as the highest Republican candidate Giuliani (Jonathan Singer has a front post on the money amounts, Dems Hold Massive Lead in Just Q2 Primary Dollars Raised, Too) thus pointing out that he could fight back their attacks twice as hard.

During the past several months, the questions about substance got answered as the Obama campaign unleashed a range of bold proposals covering everything from universal healthcare to presidential ethics reform.  Now he is finally pulling the wool off his ability to fight for progressive values.  Obama has clearly set a high standard for how to run a campaign and I am certain that I speak for all supporters when I say that we are happy to be a part of it.

"There are some things worth fighting for and if people disagree and we can't persuade them then we just got to beat them."

- Barack Obama, AFSCME Presidential Forum '07


Poll
How you percieve Obama?
bold progressive fighter with substance
no substance
just too inexperience
I like him but . . .
I love him but I just don't think he can win
no views

Votes: 65
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


talking is cheap (1.50 / 2)


"I'm raising twice as much money as any of the Republicans, which means that if they come at me with an attack ad, I'll have two ads -- with truth -- on television," Obama said. "They come at me with two ads, I'll have four Obama 'truth ads.' The Truth Squad will be out. We're going to take that seriously...I'm skinny, but I'm tough."

Talking is cheap. How much did Kerry raise in general election? Those money was more than enough for him to fight effectively. Unfortunately, he was swiftboated in no time.

We often hear these macho 'fight back' slogans by various candidates. Unfortunately, I just don't buy it.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 09:37:24 PM EST

Okay? (3.00 / 1)

So you buy Hillary's?

I'm sold on Obama's.


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 09:50:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay? (3.00 / 0)

I recommend you to always post the first comment after posting your diary :)


by NuevoLiberal on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 04:00:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh? (none / 0)

I use to do that on dailykos because tips was standard practice but I was unsure if you did it on MyDD.   Thanks for the heads up.


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:25:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

prepare a related comment (none / 0)

ahead of time and post it to prevent hijacking of your diaries :)


by NuevoLiberal on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 05:01:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks. (none / 0)


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 09:31:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't know who you are but . . . (none / 0)

I take serious your racially derogatory screen name and remarks.  Totally in bad taste.


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 10:04:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know who you are but . . . (none / 0)

You are terrible!!!
Why don't you take a break and watch this OneCorps video. :)

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=G3ydew 5OcVY


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 10:38:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know who you are but . . . (none / 0)

This comment was in response to someone called "coonsforclinton".  The comment has now been hidden or deleted so my comment looks silly without the original comment.


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:28:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

areyouready, to leave this sight? (3.00 / 3)

I am just getting back and here you are again, masquerading from masaoda, kostner, carolinehanz...and now you are back, AGAIN..ughhh

You bring nothing to the conversation, absolutely, nothing.  I know you are into HRC, but you do her great disservice with your petty responses and diaries, to boot.  

Write something about your candidate of substance, that will make all of us "think, and reconsider" her, instead of the continually attack piece and posts on everything that is OBAMA.  Makes one wonder, who you really are, but more importantly, what is your motive?


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:07:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: areyouready, to leave this sight? (none / 0)

Are there any Hillary supporters who present her stand in an informative manner?  Bebe is the only one I can think of.  No offense if you're a Clinton supporter but it seems that there aren't many who aren't here just criticize the other canidates.  It doesn't leave one with a very good impression of the candidate.


No Quacks, please.
by noquacks on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:34:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: areyouready, to leave this sight? (3.00 / 0)

Wrong!

Bebe represents a warped and distorted view of AA Support for Hillary. Bebe does not speak for this African American female and she is WRONG and uniformed in her assertions about Hillaries so called strong support among AA women. It's not as strong as she thinks. I don't fault her for that. She is a low information voter and she doesn't have all the facts, but she's wrong nonetheless.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 01:51:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: areyouready, to leave this sight? (3.00 / 0)

Yes, it's apparent that bebe lacks a certain sophistication in her thinking. I do think she means well, just not working out for her.


by bode78 on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:02:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: areyouready, to leave this sight? (none / 0)

It's embarrassing when low information, uneducated Blacks post on Blogs presenting themselves as the authority on all of us. I mean, if they're going to do that, at the very least , they could use spellcheck. I don't mind them writing at all. Just don't enclude ALL Blacks in your "ignit analeesus".LOL.

Ya know?


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:08:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe if you took time to read my post (none / 0)

you would see i explicitly stated I was speaking for all african americans and It was just my opinion.Unfortunately your statements actually shows your ignorance.You don't know me and you have no knowledge of my education or the amount of information I possess,but then again I bet you are proud of yourself.


by bebe on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:17:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe if you took time to read my post (none / 0)

I read you post and your COMMENTS. They contradict each other in that respect.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 08:50:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I guess you are dissapointed that I am (none / 0)

AA and not supporting Obama right,the same kinda of thinking the Obama candidacy itself rejects,or if you can explain why I lack a certain sophistication in my thinking then you can let me know


by bebe on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:20:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess you are dissapointed that I am (none / 0)

No,

I happened to have read that crap you wrote earlier. Don't even try to front me. You have NO CLUE what you are taking about regarding Barack Obama and you base all your opinions on pure unadulturated BULLSHET strait from the Clinton Plantation!


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:23:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You sound a little disturbed (none / 0)


by bebe on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:25:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You sound a little disturbed (none / 0)

Yes,

Because I think you knew better and I think you are purposely writing things as ignorant sounding as you can. "AA this and becos that". WTF? Yes, that pisses me off. Especially when you pretend you speak for us all as Blacks. It doesn't make you more authentic Black to talk like you are still on the Plantation. It just makes you look ingorant and it makes everyone else think you are ignorant. It's not cool. So, if you want to keep sharing your "ignit analeesuss" on why you are bending over for the Clintons, then go ahead, but don't you EVER presume to speak for us all and I don't just mean us all as in Blacks. I mean us all, as in African American WOMEN! Hillary does NOT have our voting block locked up at all. Just the complete opposite! Tell ya what. I'll make it easy on you. The next time you want to "drop some knowledge" on everyone regarding the Black Vote and Hillary, you might want to use the words OLD STUBBORN STUCK-ON THE PLATATION BLACK PEOPLE! Then you would be more accurate!

Okay?


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:40:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess you are dissapointed that I am (none / 0)

Bebe,Hillary support among AA voters is shifting to Obama...By caucus night, you would be the only one standing with Hillary's team.

South Carolina is basicly Obama's nation...If the AA votes in S.C is starting to rethink strongly about their support for Hillary, then she's done.


by JaeHood on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 05:54:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey I said Obama should win South Carolina (none / 0)

and I pointed out that I wanted him to win there.I also pointed out that a lot of AA will move to Obama once he can prove he can win and start talking about their issues.


by bebe on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:48:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: areyouready, to leave this sight? (none / 0)

But her diary was excellent.  Who she supports is only one aspect; that diary had a lot of great stuff in it which I have never heard discussed here before, by a myriad of posters.  She was the catalyst, that must count for something.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 03:31:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: areyouready, to leave this sight? (none / 0)

I meant that bebe is honest and doesn't seek to hurt other people when she writes.  She writes it like she sees it and when she's writing her opinion, she states it as such and doesn't confuse it with fact.


No Quacks, please.
by noquacks on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:35:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: areyouready, to leave this sight? (none / 0)

I'm sure Eve felt the same way in the Garden of Eden when she told Adam about her new friend.

What some fruit?


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 04:41:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One wonders (none / 0)

what make a person who has been banned three times come back again and again and again. If people don't want you on their site then why bother?

It doesn't seem healthy.

I don't know the rule for banning on MyDD but I would think that if you are banned then you are banned as an individual and not just as a screen name. Alas, masaoda/kostner/carolinehanz/areyouready  should be banned again.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:50:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: talking is cheap (none / 0)

which is why I am confident Edwards has more than enough financial and human resources to go the distance. The donor numbers are deceptive IMO. I know several friends and colleagues who paid to see Obama speak who have no intention of voting for him but wanted to see what the hype was about. They are still listed as donors though.

Be that as it may, I would be pumping the donor theme if I were BHO also.


by Ocean Stater on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:17:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: talking is cheap (none / 0)

can u detail Obama's money tricks?


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:19:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: talking is cheap (none / 0)

Where did I say he was playing tricks? Nowhere. I was making a valid point that anyone who paid money to see him is listed as a donor regardless of where their vote is going. That's all.


by Ocean Stater on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:28:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: talking is cheap (3.00 / 1)

you could say the same for Edwards and Hillary....I know a friend that paid to see Edwards speak in Cali, but has no intention on voting for him.The most important stats for Obama is donors that keep donating again...He's by far ahead of Edwards and Hillary in that category, so if you're trying to say Edwards probably have a more stable donors base, then you are completely wrong.


by JaeHood on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 05:58:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: talking is cheap (3.00 / 1)

Once again. That is not what I said. I am not trying to say Edwards has a more stable donor base. The ONLY thing I really was trying to say was that the 250,000 is slightly deceiving.

I came to MyDD because on Kos the majority of the Obama supporters there are completely irrational and  have tunnel vision regarding their candidate but I guess that occurs everywhere.


by Ocean Stater on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:48:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: talking is cheap (3.00 / 1)

And I was also saying that I think Edwards has more than enough to last the duration of the campaign. I checked my initial post and I didn't want to seem like I forgot I said that.


by Ocean Stater on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:19:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: talking is cheap (none / 0)

that will come.


by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 01:29:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: talking is cheap (none / 0)

Does that also apply to JE's 15 dollar fund raisers?


by parahammer on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 05:37:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: talking is cheap (none / 0)

das y massa clinton gonna git her neck slit ruight?

ass!


by rapcetera on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 03:49:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: talking is cheap (none / 0)

kerry didn't raise a dime for his general election, he accepted public financing.  that was one of his problems -- he didn't want to respond to the swift-boat attacks at a time when bush still had primary money to spend and he could only spend down his general election money...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 06:06:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Great work (none / 0)

Another great job!


by bode78 on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 10:10:32 PM EST

Thanks (none / 0)


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 10:28:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You have to be impressed with (none / 0)

Obama's fundraising,beating Hillary with that much is impressive.I am just continuosly shocked why this groundswell doesn't translate in the polls,are these polls wrong.


by bebe on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:42:13 AM EST

at same point i think those polls will tighten (none / 0)

but hillary will still win,although in a much closer race than expected


by bebe on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:43:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: at same point i think those polls will tighten (none / 0)

Hillary is going lose in Iowa if for no other reason than the 15% rule.

After that, it's go to be a wide open race.


by Sam I Am on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 10:47:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You have to be impressed with (none / 0)

Patience.  Neither too late nor too soon.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 03:35:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You have to be impressed with (none / 0)

Let me explain succinctly. I'd estimate that 20 - 35% (if not more) of Obama's support is coming from first time voters or more accurately folks who are inspired by him to get involved in the democratic process, meaning voters who are not traditional democratic voters, young voters, indies, repubs etc..

These people are not being polled at all.  If these new voters who are donating to Obama get inspired enough to Vote for him come election day, then WATCH OUT...all the polls will be deemed useless!

There is a disconnect for a good reason. All the polling models will have to be redesigned.

I'm an Indie AA in Maryland, but I'm switching to the Dem party just to vote Obama, I've never donated to any campaign prior to this year, but I've raised over $2000 for Obama, just on inspiration alone. And there are a LOT of us out here. And I know I'm not being polled! so i think y'all are in for a shock come election day.

Obama's the real anti-bush!

I love Bill, but Hillary ain't Bill, the charisma and empathy don't transfer.


by rapcetera on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 03:56:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You have to be impressed with (none / 0)

Pollster should start polling people that have recently registered..I'm talking about the new voter that just turned 18,or the voter that was inactive for the pas decades but because of Obama,is now planning to re-activate him/herself...Or the old voter that never bothered registering to vote.

You are 100% right...Today's polls aren't taking into account those voters and they should try to.

Now, i dont know how many of those folks will show up for Obama, but Obama sure have a number of them supporting him...Look at the Obama'sMyspace/facebook/youtube forums and read all the posts where people are saying they've just turned 18 and will vote for Obama..while others that never registered are also saying the same.


by JaeHood on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 06:05:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You have to be impressed with (none / 0)

since you'll be lucky to get 25% of them to vote, probably won't tell you much.  we're going to know soon enough if these potentially activated voters take the time to go vote...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 06:08:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You have to be impressed with (none / 0)

>>> I've raised over $2000 for Obama, just on inspiration alone

Exactly!  people are donating to "inspiration" and "hope" - influenced by the media.
The anti-union media isn't about to hype a Labor candidate - but will mock him 24/7.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:45:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You have to be impressed with (none / 0)

now you know how dan quayle's supporters feel...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 06:09:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm Sorry John (3.00 / 0)

Such a beautiful piece of work being trolled by a bunch of dumb ignoramouses who are the Liberal equivilant to George Bush's Dillusional Base. They have the same blind loyalty and obsession over a NAME. They don't know what the hell position their candidate has on the issues. All they have are poll numbers and they think that's an effective strategy because they are just not that politically savvy. They state all their opinions as facts. They post outdated material in the comments section. They intentionally use poor grammer just to annoy the rest of us.They display complete and utter ignorance in their posts.

Do not let them run you away. Your work here is superb!


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:02:25 AM EST

Re: I'm Sorry John (none / 0)

I fear for the day on MyDD when someone starts posting under the name "bitchesforbarack".


by Sam I Am on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 10:52:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Sorry John (none / 0)

Well, I'd welcome their votes.


by bode78 on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 01:36:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Sorry John (none / 0)

>>>>They don't know what the hell position their candidate has on the issues.

Yes - like the diary yesterday by an Obama supporter claiming he couldn't vote for Edwards because of his war vote.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/7/3/16293 /91810

But the diarist was completely unaware that Obama has voted to FUND the war - INDEFINITELY. And even voted against Kerry's bill in June 2006 for redeployment - while Edwards had been calling for redeployment since late 2005.
Just before he announced for prez - Obama sponsored a bill in Jan. 2007 for redeployment.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:56:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Sorry John (none / 0)

edwards supported the war, obama didn't.  it speaks to judgment.  obama was right, edwards was wrong.  it's a simple as that, and nothing changes that...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 06:11:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

when is he going to get tough with Hillary? (none / 0)

I don't understand Obama's advertising strategy. Several other candidates went on the air much sooner. Now he is running his soft bio ads, when he could have been running those a month or two ago and been hitting Hillary hard now.

He knew he was going to raise plenty of money. As much as he would like to run a purely positive campaign, he has to know that he needs to land some punches in order to overtake Hillary, especially in NH. I can't understand why he wasn't up on the air there sooner, given how strong his fundraising has been all year.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:10:19 AM EST

Re: when is he going to get tough with Hillary? (3.00 / 0)

This reminds me of certain Mets fans who continue to question Omar Minaya's every move when he completely turned around the franchise in two short years.  Obama just set the all time record for most donators in a single quarter.  I think he may just know what he's doing.


by Doug Dilg on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:17:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

INTRODUCTION (none / 0)

I know you don't understand this which explains the impatience, but many of the American people do NOT yet know who Barack Obama is. So, for the last time..... He is introducong himself to the American people, therefore the "Softer ads in Iowa". He's not going to present himself as [Barack Obama,the Wild Negro Who's Pissed Off At The White Hillary Washington DC. Establishment  Vote For This Angry Brutha! He's About To Switch It Up Yo!]

He will NOT kick her ass till the Fall.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:20:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You somehow claim to be educated (none / 0)

and sophisticated ,somehow your writing doesn't show that.Obama the "wild negro" , that is ridiculous.


by bebe on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:24:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You somehow claim to be educated (none / 0)

OMG,

Now, you're pretending you are too stupid to unserstand scarcasm? GFY. You are a total fake. You are not that flipping stupid. Bye Troll. Get a LIFE!


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:45:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe if all you have posted weren't (none / 0)

ignorant we would have been able to know the difference between your real writing and when you are writing sensibly.


by bebe on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 03:09:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: INTRODUCTION (none / 0)

I don't think he will have to, if he can gradually dispel the notion of inevitability she will commence to attack him, eventually.  She is her own worst enemy, with too much sycophantic and expensive advice.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 03:41:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: INTRODUCTION (none / 0)

Why does Hillary have to attack Obama? She's the one leading him comfortably in national and state polls.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 06:08:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: INTRODUCTION (none / 0)

Hillary's aggregate polling percentages have declined slightly since she announced, although her lead over Obama has remained steady.  Given her high name recognition her current position probably represents about the best she can expect, and it seems to be ever so slowly slipping.  My comment is based on this apparent leakage as an existing factor.

If Obama arrests or reverses his slight aggregate decline, which I am assuming will occur in the wake of his organisational efforts and the collapse, at least partially, of the inevitability meme, every point he gains will be at her expense.  If she can't grow support elsewhere she will have to fight him for it.  Obama, on the other hand, seems to have some natural growth remaining as he builds his name recognition to her levels and his campaign gains credibility and stature.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 09:03:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: INTRODUCTION (none / 0)

I don't think inevitability is what Hillary has going for her. If she did, it was in the fundraising department, and that edge was gone a long time ago.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 09:24:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: INTRODUCTION (none / 0)

I agree she lost her edge in fundraising at the end of Q1, but it has only just been acknowledged in the media.  Inevitability or no my premise is that Obama has more natural growth and that Hillary has peaked.  I don't think she was planning to run a 23 month campaign until Obama suddenly emerged as a potential candidate.  Exposure in a protracted campaign has always been a risk factor for her, given her impressive pre-election position.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 09:35:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: INTRODUCTION (none / 0)

Exposure in a protracted campaign has always been a risk factor for her, given her impressive pre-election position.

So why don't you think she prepared for a more protracted campaign?


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 10:13:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: INTRODUCTION (none / 0)

Until the advent of Obama it was unnecessary, she was comfortably the frontrunner without declaring and could have hung back quite a while without that status diminishing.  And it didn't seem like she needed the extra time to raise money as her fundraising capability was assured.  The shorter period of exposure would have minimised the risk of some unexpected campaign event affecting her chances and she could have waited longer to tailor her policies to emerging trends in public opinion, like on Iraq.  I am assuming that her strategy considered the very positive national polling results she was getting were the best she could expect to sustain before a primary victory and that they might likely sag with a longer campaign.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 10:35:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: INTRODUCTION (none / 0)

well said Shawn


by rapcetera on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:27:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: INTRODUCTION (none / 0)

To put it simply I think she expected to come out late with that $10M she had stashed away from her  senatorial campaign, smother Edwards and fight the general election  as a traditional battle of attrition.  Obama threw a spanner in the works which has only gotten worse and now she has a real fight on her hands for the nomination.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:29:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: INTRODUCTION (none / 0)

It does appear that Clinton is having some difficulty raising money. Terry McAuliffe was telling everyone, at the end of Q1, how
many more phone calls Obama had made -- which, of course, was his way of spinning how much harder Obama had to work just
to stay even. But if Clinton's $27M figure holds, it's important to remember that she will have gotten $27M only on the backs of
the $3M Indian-American event and the $1M Buffett event in the last two weeks of the quarter.

I have it anecdotally from a top Democratic fundraising consultant in New York that it has been increasingly difficult to fill tables
for Clinton's high-dollar events, and that many of those who do pony up the $2300+ are doing it not because they especially support
Clinton but because (1) they can't yet risk being on her (or Bill's) bad side and because (2) these high-end lunches and dinners are
business networking opportunities. Word is that, more than for any other candidate, high-ticket Clinton events are just part of the
cost of doing business.

Bottom line is, an increasing amount of Clinton's high-end support stops at the foie gras. And the kind of people who can afford
to drop $4600 for a candidate they don't even support will not think twice about dropping it again for a candidate they do.


by horizonr on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:02:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: INTRODUCTION (none / 0)

That's very interesting.  I have not seen any suggestion of that in the media, though they certainly did a volte-face on inevitability recently with Obama's Q2 result.

If it's true she must be very bloody unimpressed with the way things are panning out.  I interpret her use of Bill in Iowa as a sign of some perceived weakness by her strategists.  I assume, for a variety of reasons, she would much prefer to campaign with as little actual involvement from him as possible.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:15:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: INTRODUCTION (none / 0)

Too, I think the cascade of (otherwise unnecessarily) early endorsements, especially toward the end of Q2, could be
a direct response to their fund-raising difficulties -- an effort to keep the juggernaut meme alive by other means.


by horizonr on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:32:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: INTRODUCTION (none / 0)

Yeah, it is starting to look a little wobbly in places.  It seems to me they have already started tacking away from the new Hillary and back into familiar good old days territory.  She can't have it both ways, the candidate for change and the inheritor of the Clinton legacy, with all that implies.  Tough choices for Hillary, really.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:49:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: INTRODUCTION (none / 0)

Pushing Clinton nostalgia is risky for at least a couple of reasons. Although seven years of Bush has made a lot of people
misty for Bill Clinton, the Clinton campaign can't really use that without being conspicuously silent about aspects of
Bill Clinton's politics and administration that we'd rather not replicate. This creates an opening for Obama -- when he
says "it's time to turn the page," he's not talking about just George Bush.

But there's also a very fine line between Clinton nostalgia and Clinton fatigue. To pick up on one of your earlier points,
I think the longer that Hillary Clinton is out there and the stronger Obama gets, the more likely it is that she will start
to overreach. There already are signs of this in the Sopranos video and this latest HillCam project, both of which are
efforts to blend the "brand new Hillary" and "good ol' Bill" messages. I can't help but wonder how much more of this
stuff people will swallow, before they start asking: Is this really presidential?

Clinton supporters are fond of telling us that the more people see her, the more they like her. But becoming more
familiar with Clinton is not the same as liking her. It's entirely possible -- even probable -- that, when people are
exposed to Clinton, her negatives to go down. But what she needs is for her positives to go up. And, as we all
know, the wrong kind of familiarity eventually just breeds contempt.


by horizonr on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:19:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: INTRODUCTION (none / 0)

I agree and would add that they are being way too clever with commercial branding tactics for their own good.  We may not be the best informed electorate on the planet but most of us are pretty sophisticated when it comes to people trying to sell us a bill of goods; OK for car insurance, not good for presidential campaigns where integrity is part of the product.

If she fired half of her staff and started speaking from her heart she would do much better.  And I would faint from disbelief.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:26:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he could have started introducing himself (none / 0)

sooner, when others were already running ads.

He was raising money hand over fist while letting Clinton consolidate a lead in NH. I understand the concept of not peaking too soon, but I think Obama should have started running his bio ads sooner.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 09:43:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he could have started introducing himself (none / 0)

He's been doing it since the day he announced. We have , a fairly large nation, you know.

http://origin.barackobama.com/tv/


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 09:49:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he could have started introducing himself (none / 0)

Ooops.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid416308493/bclid416343960/bctid1078683729


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 09:49:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he could have started introducing himself (none / 0)

Screw it. Tried to make it easy for ya.
Go to the site. Click on Barack T.V.
"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 09:51:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

lol. (none / 0)


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:40:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lol. (none / 0)

;p


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:45:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he could have started introducing himself (none / 0)

Peaking too soon is a myth. You want to get as much support as you can at all times.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 10:16:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he could have started introducing himself (none / 0)

I respectfully disagree. There is such a thing as peaking to soon. I believe that Barack is doing the right thing, roll the ads out gently, in time his name recg will go up. He has to peak 2-3 weeks prior to the caucus's. The polls WILL tighten-up for sure, Iowan's are smart voters and the money Obama has raised will serve him very well in ramping up organization in Iowa. You wait till the thousands of Obama volunteers from Western Illinois and around the country (I plan on volunteering myself and I live 6 states away) descend on Iowa, you wait...

meanwhile read this: http://livinginsmallsizes.com/2007/07/03 obama-2008


by rapcetera on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:36:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he could have started introducing himself (none / 0)

I'll be waiting a long time...


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:48:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he could have started introducing himself (none / 0)

lol!


by rapcetera on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: when is he going to get tough with Hillary? (none / 0)

I agree with that...The summertime is the worse time to run ads because everyone is probably out of town...He would have been better of running those ads 2-3 months ago and get the same kind of boost that Romney has received.


by JaeHood on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 06:15:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: when is he going to get tough with Hillary? (none / 0)

Well, not only is he running ads, he's THERE in IOWA. The Clinton's are not the only ones. The reason why the Media is showing the Clinton's is because an ex president is there. That's it. If Hillary was there on her own, they would be focused on both her and Obama or just Obama . She is a flake without her husband and that sets the Women's Rights Movement back about 100 years.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 08:56:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: when is he going to get tough with Hillary? (none / 0)

hmmm, last presidential cycle, august was considered too early to advertise.  obama's already overcome huge obstacles to make it to the senate, i think he'll probably trust his plan until he sees that it's not working.  i don't know what metrics you're using, but core support for hillary, obama and edwards all seem to be in the same range.  soft supporters aren't really paying attention, even in iowa ("can't we just have the summer in peace," one iowan said at his front door)...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 06:15:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You know you are funny (none / 0)

you are a clown,you crack me up


by bebe on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:34:38 AM EST

Re: coons (none / 0)

LOL!!! you're an Ass!!!


by rapcetera on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 04:01:16 AM EST

Re: You don't know Obama: (none / 0)

jeeze...I support Edwards but this Obama bashing is ah..ah..stoopid..

Obama is making it clear he won't allow "swiftboating" to go unchallenged. I for one am glad to hear that..
Last winter when Howard decided to jump in  American politics attacking Obama...Obama immediately responded..

I support Edwards because his vision is more clearly established. But I also understand the appeal of Obama. It is the same appeal Carter offered us after Nixon..


"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud" ...Arlo Guthrie
by DenverD on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 10:34:38 AM EST

yea (none / 0)

I'm sure that David Alexrod and Plouffe just love to hear Obama saying he's going to be out-buying 2x's the TV ads that anyone else is doing out there-- money , 15% commission, lining their pockets.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:06:07 AM EST

Re: yea (none / 0)

True that!


by rapcetera on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:38:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yea (none / 0)

Have you read Crashing the Gate?


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:48:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yea (none / 0)

Not yet, why?


by rapcetera on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:15:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yea (none / 0)

That makes sense, because it seems like you missed the point of Jerome's comment. It wasn't a compliment.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:18:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yea (none / 0)

Um no Smart Ass, I got his point completely. I knew it wasn't a complement, I was agreeing with Jerome. Because I'm an Obama supporter doesn't mean that I like the way that politics is so money driven in this country. I too felt the same way when I read Barack's comments on responding to swiftboating with TV Ad's, I thought Axelrod and co would be smiling all the way to the bank. Not right, but that's the game right.

I don't need to read Crashing the Gate to understand  the monetary vices that comes with the political game.....

you got next...


by rapcetera on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:32:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yea (none / 0)

The criticism is pretty childish.  Making money off of media buys in advertising is a respectable business.  There is nothing sinister about that.  Jerome's comments are entirely personal, there is nothing ideological to them.  They are personal attacks on people he doesn't like.  


by Doug Dilg on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:37:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yea (none / 0)

There's nothing wrong with making money in advertising, political or otherwise. There's a great deal wrong with consultants who negotiate contracts that give them more money based on how much more they manage to spend, not on their success.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:48:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yea (none / 0)

Yeah I noticed he abhors  everything Obama


by rapcetera on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 01:05:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yea (none / 0)

sorry, folks, but i share his concerns.  media consultants have done unusually well in the industry as they have greatly exaggerated their influence on voter's decisions.  the fact that they make so much money on the contributions of so many small democratic donors, many of whom have had to sacrifice to make that donation, makes their excessive fees morally reprehensible.

i'm all for the flat-fee model.  i don't care what the rest of their industry does, this is politics and the people who do politics shouldn't do it for love of money...
 


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 06:25:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, it's not necessarily the game (none / 0)

Republican media consultants often receive a flat fee, rather than a cut of the total media buy. It removes the incentive to overspend on TV ad buys, and because of that, the scarcer dollars usually go ads with instant impact.

But I apologize for assuming that you thought it was a compliment.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:44:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, it's not necessarily the game (none / 0)

I doubt very much that Jerome knows the specifics of the financial arrangement between Plouffe/Axelrod and Obama.


by Doug Dilg on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:46:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, it's not necessarily the game (none / 0)

I also apologize for being a little rude there.

But quick question? do republican candidates work strictly with republican media consultants? what if the media consultant agrees to work for a democratic candidate? would the dem candidate then pay the flat fee too? or would the republican consultant switch from flat to commission because he's working for a dem? what gives?


by rapcetera on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:59:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, it's not necessarily the game (none / 0)

Sure, Democrats can pay flat fees; few and far between of those that do though. The notable exception, surprisingly, is Hilary Clinton in 2000. If Barack Obama or John Edwards opts to give millions of their people-powered dollars to add to the 15% media commission take, and Clinton does the smart thing and pays a flat fee, heads will explode (including mine).


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 01:13:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, it's not necessarily the game (none / 0)

So I take it the deal structures aren't publicly known (for now at least). I'll keep an eye out for that tho. Interesting....


by rapcetera on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 01:18:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not accurate. (none / 0)

First off, the 15% commission is usually on a set amount of money, often the first 1 million spent, and then goes down on a sliding scale as more money is spent.  That's how it works.  There is nothing inherent in the Flat Fee scenario that makes it necessarily better or worse.  The entire advertising world exists on a markup basis and it is not a corrupting influence in the decisions made.  You always balance it with doing a good job for your client or you don't stay in business very long.


by Doug Dilg on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:49:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not accurate. (none / 0)

You don't know what you are talking about, it's obvious. I grabbed 15% out of the air, usually, it's a set percentage lower than that for presidentials, but regardless, thats not the point.

This is a tremendous problem within the Democratic party, it's how Bob Shrum walked away with making millions of dollars last cycle while Kerry's campaign skipped out of competing in MO the last month. It's why Bush had an advantage of $8M less in payments to the media firms in '04, compared with Kerry's campaign, even while Bush placed more ($222M compared to $150M) ads.

The cabal of media consultants the Democrats have is allowed a practice that puts their own self-interest above the candidates and campaigns in regards to financial management. In the campaigns I've been a part of and watched closely, those that are the worst are the ones where a Campaign Manager is a partner of the media firm (or placed in the position by the media firm).

You most clearly show you are pulling shit out of your ass though, when you speak that "the entire advertising world exists on a markup basis" today. 90% of all product advertising done today is commission free.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 06:39:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not accurate. (none / 0)

Excuse me, I've been in advertising for the past 20 years.  Clearly you don't believe anyone who questions you so maybe you should read this article from Public Integrity.org about consultants, which quotes Axelrod directly.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/consultan ts/report.aspx?aid=535

Are you the one responsible for sending me the warning "Get lost, you shill" and then cutting off my ability to post?  Is posting things from my personal experience backed up by quotes by consultants on a reputable website reason for being banned?  Since MyDD has everyone's emails it would be nice if perhaps there was a discussion first or a chance to offer an explanation for people clearly not out to harm this site but who just might have a different point of view.  


by DD2 on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:08:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not accurate. (none / 0)

Interesting comments from the article:-

"Take the Obama campaign, for example. Its reports show a grand total of $6.2 million paid to media consultant Axelrod's firm, now known as AKP Message & Media. The firm didn't keep all of the money; $5.7 million was used to buy airtime from television stations. Another $409,000 went for production costs. Only $80,500 was itemized as consultant fees to AKP. But that is just part of the picture, because an undisclosed percentage of the millions spent on airtime was returned to AKP in commissions.

Axelrod wouldn't reveal precisely how he negotiates his commissions, saying that he worries that disclosure would give candidates the edge in future negotiations.

"I don't want them competing with each other," he says.

But he does acknowledge that generally his charge for the first $1 million in billings is 15 percent, with the rate rapidly descending after that."


by rapcetera on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 10:04:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not accurate. (none / 0)

Apparently Axelrod pulled that out of my ass before saying it.


by DD2 on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 10:16:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not accurate. (none / 0)

"You most clearly show you are pulling shit out of your ass though, when you speak that "the entire advertising world exists on a markup basis" today.

This is the comment where you went and stuck your head.

The "90% of all product advertising done today is commission free" comes from  Joe Cappo, The Future of Advertising.  


by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 12:26:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not accurate. (none / 0)

I would love to see that quote.   Perhaps I should have said most instead of the entire, but really, does that go to the level of being banned or even to bring up mention of going up one's ass?  


by DD2 on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 12:40:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not accurate. (none / 0)

You were banned for coming back after already being banned.


by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 08:37:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not accurate. (none / 0)

Thanks for the link, it seemed balanced and was certainly informative.  I can see that this is an issue which warrants further discussion among activists, supporters and professionals as it directly impacts the objectives, resources and integrity of campaigns, especially 'people-powered' ones.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 10:15:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not accurate. (none / 0)

It is not the issue Jerome is making it out to be.  In that $409,000 of production costs I can almost guarantee you there was markup involved by the production company which did the spot.  The airlines which the candidates travel on, the hotels where they stay, the venues where they speak, the printing shops making the posters, are all making money.  Why would the vendors involved in advertising, from the production company to the creative agency, to the media consultant, to the ad buyers not make money?  Where is the difference?


by DD2 on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 10:22:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not accurate. (none / 0)

I appreciate your perspective on this and it helps balance the other point of view presented here, thanks.  I don't see this as a huge issue but it's important to keep in mind that the relationship between candidates and consultants has an influence on our political process.  It should be at least partially transparent to insure the integrity of the campaign.  As for the incestuous relationship among consultants and politicians I am consistently amazed at the connections and welcome insights into this, though not those framed as attacks, as often happens.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 10:53:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not accurate. (none / 0)

Shaun, I'll reply with this indentation instead of going further.  The only way to change things will be with campaign finance reform.  I run a commercial production company.  From time to time companies do produce Public Service Announcements where everyone works for free or fairly close to it.  Now, the way I support Obama right now, I would be more than willing to produce a spot as a PSA, but I don't know how many others would, or perhaps more importantly if it is even legal under the present system.  Just as Senators have to pay charter plane companies the going commercial rate, there may be a restriction as to how much a deal you can give beyond what would be considered normal business practices.  Perhaps someone knows.


by DD2 on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:05:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not accurate. (none / 0)

How is CFR the solution to consultant problems?  That's just nuts.

The solution is simple, and if Obama were interested in actual political reform, he'd show it with his campaign by paying his campaign manager and media consultant by retainer instead of by commission.

It's ridiculous to pay a commission, and there's no way to defend it.


by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 12:33:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nuts? (none / 0)

If I produce a commercial for a candidate and I hire a cameraman for $4500/day for 2 days and he does it for free.  Hasn't he in effect donated $9000 to the campaign just as he gets a $9000 tax deduction if he does a PSA for a non-profit?  Are you sure that the present Campaign Finance reforms even allow that.

If Obama guarantees Axelrod a $100,000 flat fee for work which under a sliding scale commission structure would end being $80,000 exactly where is the ridiculousness?  Your vehement objections are completely irrational and just highlight your prejudice in this area.  Why you have that is not clear but it is clear it is personal.  Cappo's quote about product advertising, is clearly being taken out of context, because as someone who produces commercials, I can tell you every production company charges markup and every agency charges their client markup on their ad budget which varies from client to client.  If in fact, product advertising is now done without markup in many areas, it is because the agencies are making up that money in other places. Quite frankly, your comments here are immature.


by DD2 on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 12:50:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nuts? (none / 0)

Then why (and how) do Republicans pay their consultants flat fee?


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 04:42:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nuts? (none / 0)

The Republicans do it because it takes out the  conflict of interest and makes sure there are not absorbent fees paid to the media consultants.


by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 08:39:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nuts? (none / 0)

One more thing:

You always balance it with doing a good job for your client or you don't stay in business very long.

This isn't true when you look at political consultants. Bob Shrum has never won a race, for example, and he's managed to stay in business a looong time. It's true that some things are beyond a campaign's control, but the extra millions that went to Shrum on his commission could have helped a lot in places like Missouri or Ohio.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 05:14:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nuts? (none / 0)

Your condescending attitude shows a high level of ignorance.

There are many campaigns that have taken the clear conflict of interest out of the equation while paying all of those costs.  Ask Steve Eichenbaum or Bill Hillsman or Mandy Greenwald.

Cappo's statement are backed up by fact. Read the book.

It's simple, the campaign still pays those costs, but they also don't get put in the position of being scammed by the gravy train at the same time. There are campaigns that are done, usually when the candidate is smart, that pay a flat fee.

It's not personal against Axelrod, you should read the book, where we call out multiple others, including Trippi's former parters, for their Dean ads. Given what I read about him in that article you pasted, I have little doubt he is a liar and fleeced Obama's senate campaign with needless ads (everyone knows that he would have been able to monitor if Keyes went up with ads and didn't need to purchase them).

I don't know what business you are in, but I work in political campaigns, and see all this every cycle.

Obama is being a hypocrite here, and I plan on following up on this with greater exposure-- if he wants to make a big deal out of government transparency, he can start with his own campaign.


by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 08:56:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nuts? (none / 0)

My condescending attitude? Well that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.   You should check out your own posts, your childish banning of me for having a different opinion than you with the line Get lost you shill.  That's real adult.  And what are you saying, you wrote the book with Cappo?  Like that will make me want to go out and plunk down money.  I produce ads for a living, have so for many years.  Before that produced films and distributed films. What do you do? You say you work in political campaigns. In what capacity?

You have the possibility of a good website here.  You should take it a little more seriously.  I am not the enemy, I am a friend who will not vote for your candidate.  But in terms of the integrity of this site, I am a friend.


by DD2 on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 01:49:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

not necessarily... (none / 0)

i wouldn't say often.  george bush forced his media consultant to take a flat fee for the work and it's an arrangement that has made it's way into republican thinking.  but there are still gop media consultants who would never work off of such an arrangement.


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 06:27:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yea (none / 0)

Well, ever stop to think that a saturation strategy might actually be effective? Of course, you wouldn't want it to be effective because of your vendetta against Obama.


by bode78 on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 06:40:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yea (none / 0)

I'm neutral in the race; but you might consider that your being in love with Obama tends to cloud your sense of how a campaign wastes money on their media consultants.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 06:50:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yea (none / 0)

You're neutral towards anyone but Obama. Look, it's not a crime, but it is the truth.


by bode78 on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 06:53:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here, here. (none / 0)

I think Jerome has a serious bias against Obama and most of his pieces written about Obama prove it.


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 09:04:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Real Change (3.00 / 0)

Looks like Obama is starting to sharpen his rhetoric:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/07/04/AR2007070400939. html


by rapcetera on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:06:52 PM EST

Re: Real Change (3.00 / 0)

Good.

Barack Obama knows what's really up. He's not campaigning against Hillary because both she and he know that Hillary is a weak and soggy old flake and Obama would crush her. So, instead she sends her hubby out after him to attack him. Bill Clinton doesn't waste anytime on any of the others. He knows who his wife's real threat is. So, I am glad that Obama is going after Bill Clinton. I was waiting for that. Finally.

It's time to move past the old and into the new


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 04:51:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed. (none / 0)


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 06:17:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Real Change (none / 0)

Exactly, American needs to be done with this power couple.


by bode78 on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 06:32:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Real Change (none / 0)

Hmmm, it's nice to see Obama getting a little tougher, but that's hardly sharp rhetoric.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 08:58:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"I'm skinny, but I'm tough." ?? (none / 0)

Thats right up their with his I got game nonsense.   Seriously, who he is he appealing to these days?


by dpANDREWS on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 07:26:25 AM EST

By the way (2.00 / 1)

I think we have all seen those pics of Barry in the swim trunks.  Skinny doesn't come to mind.  He is sort of flabby.


by dpANDREWS on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 07:29:33 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.