Jeralyn of Talkleft:
He doesn’t need to do this. We all know who he is and that he stands for hope and change and bringing a new kind of politics to Washington.
She’s objecting to an idea floated for Sen. Obama to run ads during the Olympics. But the problem with what Jeralyn is saying here is that it is the view of someone who has extensively, thoroughly followed this process since before the candidates even formally announced their exploratory committees.
But what most political junkies like us sometimes don’t realize is that the average American hasn’t paid any attention to this stuff. Oh, they may have noticed that Obama and McCain have secured their respective nominations, but they aren’t paying attention. They don’t know who the candidates are, where they stand on the issues, etc. The vast majority of the population is too busy living their lives to pay attention to politics.
The next five months Obama and McCain will spend a lot of time and money introducing themselves to people, and even with that money spent, most people will not pay attention until late October.
So no, most people don’t know who Sen. Obama is, what he stands for and where he comes from. That’s why he’s running ads like this and is smartly using his fiscal advantage to define himself in the public eye rather than have others do it for him like what happened to Sen. Kerry.
(This also explains to some on the left why Sen. Obama isn’t making a big deal out of the FISA fight. It is important as hell, but most people simply don’t care. The people who are following the race will wonder why a candidate is talking about some obscure federal law when gas is approaching $5/gallon)
I’ll have to check back and see if Jeralyn ever said about or to Hillary something like: “Hillary, don’t spend money introducing yourself to the voters.”
I’ll bet one can’t find Jeralyn telling Hillary not to define herself.
Marketing 101, indeed.
It’s a long campaign. Candidates have to introduce themselves. Obama should be doing it, and he is.
Well though at one point I had a concentration in marketing, don’t ask me squat about media exposure. But there is such a thing as overexposure. I am not qualified to tell if Obama is there yet, but he might be.
The guy is apparently a money machine and that’s mostly good. It may actually turn into a not so good thing if he, like me, lets money burn a hole in his pocket.
On the other hand, and more seriously, if Barack Obama doesn’t speak out vociferously against this FISA bill, I think he’ll be setting a horrible precedent for his Presidency. I ain’t a political analyst, but it seems that right now of any time is when he should be making a stand against this initiative. The Supreme Court just handed Bush a habeaus set back. Bush’s popularity is at an all time low. We’ve heard reports recently of how the intelligence was skewed. Taguba says Abu Ghraib was torture.
If Obama can’t use some of his political capital now to speak up against warrantless wiretapping, and if we can’t make a winning argument against immunity, well fuck it, we don’t deserve to win.
Perhaps he should define himself in some ads where he is admonishing Pelosi and Hoyer and speaking to the American Public about why giving the telecom’s immunity is a terrible idea.
If he doesn’t speak out now about FISA, why should anyone have any confidence he will ever find the right time to speak out against anything else?
What is it you want him to say? People have a habit of being wrapped up in their own issue they figure its at the forefront of everyone else’s mind. It isn’t.
people have a habit of being wrapped up in their own issue
I know you’re a big Obama fan, but this is an important bill and the criticism of Obama is legitimate.
He should be rallying the capitulating Democrats in Congress to reject any compromise on FISA. We’re not talking about minor legislation – this would legitimize illegal behavior and give un-Constitutional powers to the Administration. They have the numbers to defeat bad legislation desired by the Administration if they stay united. Being leader of the party, Obama should be uniting them. If he’s unwilling to stand up when it matters, all the talk about change sounds like more talk, no action.
“But there is such a thing as overexposure. I am not qualified to tell if Obama is there yet, but he might be.”
No. Not even close.
Think of it this way, there was a poll done early in 2005 where people were asked, ‘What happens on May 19, 2005.’ The majority of people were able to say that was the release date of the final Star Wars movie. They weren’t asked, ‘When is the final Star Wars movie being released?’ but they still gave that answer more than any other. Even then, George Lucas still spend tens of millions of dollars on advertising.
If Star Wars wasn’t overexposed by that point, then neither is Obama.
This ad is not perfect, as it tries to appeal to too many people and may alienate some. However, it is a strong introduction for Obama and will hurt McCain’s chances of trying to define Obama as an out-of-touch-liberal-elite-from-Massachusetts-and-San-Francisco.
I have no doubt later ads will touch on policy.
If Obama continues these ads WHEN HE IS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA then that would be overexposure.
The common wisdom, repeated by the MSM, is that Obama is the new kid and McCain is known to everybody. But I question that: McCain was knocked out of the primary process early before, and all most voters associate with him is “conservative,” “maverick,” and some kind of vague heroism in Viet Nam.
Of course they’re not at all familiar with the “new” McCain, the one who’s allied himself so closely with Bush’s policies.
This is an opportunity for Obama, not just to familiarize himself with the general electorate, but to help brand the new, real McCain. Both jobs, I would submit, are equally important, and equally important to be done early in the process. Like now.
Obama should run ads during the Olympics. Many people will be watching, so that’s one good reason. Plus, when do white Americans cheer for black Americans more than when they’re watching the Olympics?
Future conservative blog meme: Barack unfairly associates himself with Olympic champions, and NBC is biased.
“This is an opportunity for Obama, not just to familiarize himself with the general electorate, but to help brand the new, real McCain. Both jobs, I would submit, are equally important, and equally important to be done early in the process. Like now.”
Hell yeah. However, I think this is a job best left to surrogates, as to not get Obama involved. You know the press is going to attack Obama for ‘going negative’ if he mentions McCain less than maverick voting record.
I agree with this statement, and I suggest it explains why the U.S.– at least as a representative republic– is currently circling the drain. What’s the point in having a freaking democracy if no one is paying attention to politics? Let’s just appoint the next corporate-approved stiff President-for-Life and be done with the pretense.
Jeralyn has become a concern troll. It is tiresome.
I’m puzzled by Jeralyn’s post, and no part more than her last line:
What is supposed to be “sacred” about advertising during the Olympics? Why is an ad selling french fries OK, but an ad promoting a candidacy not OK?
“He doesn’t need to do this. We all know who he is…”
What nonsense. We all know who McDonalds, Coke, Pepsi and Burger King are too. that doesn’t stop them from advertising. If they didn’t have to (and it didn’t work), they wouldn’t do it.
The Olympics are NOT sacred. They are an international, profit-driven, business enterprise. It is more about money than some Utopian expression of harmony amongst the world’s athletes. And sporting events have already been politicized. Recall Rush Limbaugh and Dennis Miller’s short-lived anchoring roles on Monday Night Football. And the last Super Bowl had a Fox News political program inserted at half time to promote their cable network.
Reach and frequency are the foundation of all advertising campaigns. It’s not different for political candidates than it is for cereal. Why do you think they call them “campaigns”?
Oliver:
Read Marcy about why the FISA thing is a big deal:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/06/20/a-letter-to-the-next-president-of-the-united-states/
Are you comfortable with a gutting of the 4th Amendment? You know about Hoover tapping MLK Jr.’s phones and stuff of that nature?
Shorter JeralynHe doesn’t need to do this. I don’t want to see his big, fat non-Hillary face on my teevee.
Oliver Willis: People have a habit of being wrapped up in their own issue they figure its at the forefront of everyone else’s mind. It isn’t.
Perhaps it should be. We’re talking about authorizing the government to spy on us, about the law being whatever the President says it is, about it being OK for the President and corporations to break the law.
If this is taking a back seat to $4 gas it shouldn’t be. And Obama’s speaking out on it would certainly help move it to the forefront of people’s minds.
Oliver:
Are you implying that people can’t multi-task?
If Obama continues these ads WHEN HE IS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA then that would be overexposure.
Yes, well I definitely agree with this.
I think he could and should make a strong speech concerning FISA. I think that as part of his statement (if I understand correctly) that when elected he will work to restore the civil liberties that have been trashed in the past 8 years, he will work to stop warrantless wiretapping, and so he thinks passing this bill now, is wrong. I think he can say that passing this bill now is wrong, that letting the old bill lapse will do nothing to harm security and he can explain why.
I think he can use his coattails and I suspect he’s going to have some big ones, to help leverage the house. And his campaign stash.
I find “troll” and especially “concern troll” completely useless labels. Mostly used to dehumanize and delegitimatize people who dissent and perfectly reasonable arguments.
They are mostly made when no real argument can be made, and they are made to silence and punish and establish the groupthink.
And so I find they say much more about the person who makes them then its target.
If you disagree with Jeralyn you can say so and make an actual point. Otherwise before calling people you disagree with names, perhaps you should just pick another thread to comment in.
“I find ‘troll’ and especially ‘concern troll’ completely useless labels. Mostly used to dehumanize and delegitimatize people who dissent and perfectly reasonable arguments.”
I think they are used mainly because these people exist. I see a lot of right wing people trying to offer the left advice that is clearly wrong.
In this case, only one person used the term troll, and that was after Jeralyn’s argument was picked apart.
“The people who are following the race will wonder why a candidate is talking about some obscure federal law when gas is approaching $5/gallon”
That sounds an awful lot like “Getting elected is more important than making a stand”, which is the Democratic attitude that got us to this point.
“What is it you want him to say?”
George Bush and John McCain are trying to protect phone companies that have been illegally spying on their customers.
“People have a habit of being wrapped up in their own issue they figure its at the forefront of everyone else’s mind. It isn’t.”
Of course it isn’t; if it were, this abomination wouldn’t have passed the House. It’s passing because it flew under the radar and most of the public doesn’t even know what happened.
Obama could use his position to call attention to the issue. He’s behaving like a politician.
I like Obama too, but you’re acting like he’s above criticism.
I didn’t say he was above criticism. What I am saying is that a lot of people get their heads way into debates like FISA and no matter the importance, it goes over the head of the average citizen.
Jerry writes “I find “troll” and especially “concern troll” completely useless labels. Mostly used to dehumanize and delegitimatize people who dissent and perfectly reasonable arguments.”
You may have noticed that I have on occasion spent time commenting at her site and that I had frequently attempted to engage her on substantive issues — such as the fact that she was repeatedly attacking Obama as weak on civil liberties issues while he has a higher lifetime rating from the ACLU than Hillary Clinton (to cite just one example of where she had tended to misrepresent Obama’s position on issues). When this was pointed out, she said she would check on it, and would make a correction if necessary. This is a point of fact, it can be checked in about 30 seconds. Nothing was forthcoming. Oh, and remember when Hillary came out with that fairly tasteless remark about RFK and assasination, and anything can change late in a campaign etc. Jeralyn posted that this was a topic that was not allowed and she “simply wouldn’t tolerate criticism of Hillary on this point”. (By the way, I get it that Hillary did not mean to say what some people were implying, but I also get the fact that this kind of careless speaking is something you have to consider when choosing the standard bearer for your party).
I might as well have been pissing into a windstorm. I supported Obama and that made me sexist, and that was really all there was too it.
Obama is not above criticism. And you may well think I am a jerk, and frankly I couldn’t care less. I can tell you that if you are not currently FOR the candidate of the Democratic party, I can only assume that you are for the GOP candidate, a corrupt, ignorant, dangerous, and angry man. There is nothing about Jeralyin’s recent posting that suggests to me that she has embraced the Democratic nominee in any real way. Until I see some change, I will call her a concern troll and worse.
She still grieving. Maybe by September…
Just to point out, Obama sent out an e-mail opposing the new FISA bill. So that’s one less complaint that can be leveled against him.
C.S.Strowbridge:
He is only against the immunity part. He isn’t gonna try and really block it though. Besides, Pelosi, Jane Harman and “Jello” Jay Rockefeller are all complicit in the torure of the Bush Administration. They were given a briefing by the CIA a few years ago and said nothing. Also, isn’t easier to stop a law at the beginning than to repeal it later? Or are they counting on Republicans to vote in their own interest next year?
Just to point out, Obama sent out an e-mail opposing the new FISA bill. So that’s one less complaint that can be leveled against him.
I’d still like to see him take a stand in a more high-profile manner.
I was really excited to vote for Bill Clinton the first time. And then he lost me when he continued to allow the persecution of gays in the military. Despite promises, he showed he’d cave on taking a stand about as fast as any other politician.
I’m even more excited about the prospect of a President Obama. But he’ll lose me fast if he doesn’t do something about this.
Just to point out, Obama sent out an e-mail opposing the new FISA bill. So that’s one less complaint that can be leveled against him.
Are you kidding me? I don’t want an empty gesture in the Senate, on the campaign trail, or in the White House!
Worse, of all the senate, WHO is a Constitutional Law Professor? If he thinks this is no big deal, he should make that case. If he thinks this is a big deal, I want him to make a stand that has meaning.
Ba’al, there is a difference between stating an actual argument and name calling. A post that says simply, so and so is a concern troll is worse than useless.
Frankly, I learn far more from the “trolls” and how people respond to them then I do from the “rah rah” comments. The trolls are needed and healthy for the community.
Are you kidding me? I don’t want an empty gesture in the Senate, on the campaign trail, or in the White House!
Well, what else can he do except vote no? This whole thing is buried within another appropriations bill, so if you vote against this, you vote against something you would otherwise approve of. You can’t win, the way it’s written.
“I’d still like to see him take a stand in a more high-profile manner.”
Same here, but it is better than nothing. Better than McCain, that’s for sure.
Well, what else can he do except vote no?
Yeah. Senators have no other way to express their views or communicate with the public except by raising their hand in the Senate chamber and saying “yea” or “nay”. Oh, if only they were able to say something other than just those two words!
This whole thing is buried within another appropriations bill, so if you vote against this, you vote against something you would otherwise approve of. You can’t win, the way it’s written.
I call Bullshit. You’re effectively saying things can’t change. That there is no way to ever improve the system. And, where Obama in particular is concerned, that isn’t an excuse that should be accepted.
He has a huge megaphone these days. He could certainly use it to say this bill is crap and that the people elected specifically to oppose and rein in the president should not cave because they think opposing and reining in the least popular president ever would be unpopular.
He could do more, far more, to stop this right now and, frankly, a strongly worded letter just isn’t it.
I don’t disagree, Sean. Things can change and they will. It would be nice to see a line-item nay vote, such as a line-item veto so that congress can vote on specifics of a bill instead of as a whole.