It was followed immediately by attack ads from McCain. I think people are going to notice the contrast. Only one of these campaigns is providing a positive plan, a positive message.
Very well done. Very neutral, it almost felt like a documentary type feel instead of a political ad. Production values were through the roof as well, it was very well put together.
I don't know if it's going to convince anyone to vote for Obama or if it's going to convince people to GOTV, but it will dominate the conversation tomorrow.
Is it just me or does it feel like the health care policy section got cut? There's that incredible emotional story about the need for health care and then it cuts to Barack Obama and he talks about... green jobs and getting out of Iraq? Huh?
I saw only the end of it (got home from work about 7:25), and it was followed immediately by a McCain attack add. The contrast was almost unbelieveable. The end of Obama's 30 minutes, I think, would make it very hard for anyone to swallow the bilge that the McCain campaign threw up there. By contrast, it makes Obama look presidential and McCain look mean and desperate.
It was well made. It hit all the right notes. I especially enjoyed the narration. Maybe Obama should narrate all future Ken Burns documentaries.
I watched McCain afterwards at Larry King and he seemed very small and petty. All negative and talking about how Obama instead of talking about his own programs.
I think he's a genius. He's making it almost impossible not to support him, if you are not some crazed partisan. The thought, passion, and dedication he has put into this campaign is unlike anything I've ever seen.
And to follow it up with a midnight rally with Clinton - great touch.
I already got a text from a friend of mine who was wavering - she's fired up and ready to go now!
The contrasts with McCain, both in policy, physical presence and just about any other measure you can think of couldn't be more stark, all as a plus for Obama.
Pitch perfect from start to finish. He looked presidential and safe...dare I say, compared to McCain's wild swings back and forth, he looked...conservative.
Awesome, very honest and reassuring. Then seeing McCain shortly after with another hate-filled attack ad made me certain of who I want to lead this country. We need a steady, calm hand on the wheel, my friends.
Perfect.
Watching the post-segment commentary on Fox was fun. The contributors kept hitting that Obama is good in scripted situations. If that's the great retort, then Obama certainly did well.
Barak's campaign has been a series of high points followed by even higher points. I thought the 70,000 in Portland in the primaries couldn't be topped, but I was sure underestimating.
Has there ever been a campaign so motivating, so well managed and so consistent?
The job tonight was to reassure those who might have been scared or unnerved by the constant McCain/GOP scare and hate tactics. Obama made the opposition look very small and petty.
Bill Clinton said it correctly at the joint appearance: if you want to see a superb executive manager in action, just look at Obama's campaign.
Also on the joint appearance, Obama was hitting some pretty hard neo-populist themes. He seems to be gravitating slightly to the left on economic issues in response to the rising anger of the working/middle class.
Obama as narrator was smartly done and important to the coherence of the ad. It was all about 'I know you because I am like you'. He's saying: I can talk about the working mother and the white guy who has invested his life in Ford and the black guy who works to pay his wife's prescription costs, and not just as a distant observer.
(Obama was the narrator for the audiobook of Dreams from my Father, so he's attuned to it.)
Has McCain engaged with the American people? I mean, really? Do you get the sense from his events, from his ads, that he has a connection with the day-to-day workings of most families, or whether he's basically saying 'give me what I deserve, you little jerks'?
The message: I am part of America. You decide whether John McCain is. The implication -- and frankly, you can derive this more from McCain's own ads -- is that McCain represents a ruling class that doesn't engage with people's lives -- hence Joe The Caricature -- and doesn't understand them.
I thought it was too bad that all the "real people" vignettes were so downbeat. That seemed so cliche "whiny Liberal" (and I'm a liberal). Would have been nice to see a happy, successful entrepreneur, for example, with Obama saying, "We want to keep making this kind of opportunity possible..."
The problem with this guy is that he is UN-TRUTHFUL. It's so easy for him to look straight at the camera, and lie to the american people, that it really scares me. We all know Bush never had a fair shake at this. I've seen people blame him for anything and everything ever since he was elected. Nobody's perfect OK. If you disagree with him (as i have in some areas) that's your right. But he's our president. ALL OF US. We're all Americans. I beg you to take a second look at Obama before u vote for him. Don't just let him ride the wave into the most difficult and important job in the world. We have seen the results of this way of thinking before, and it was a disaster. Please people
Yeah J, god knows George Bush never got a fair shake of things.
Seriously, were you even alive in the early part of this decade when the media went ape-shit on everyone who dare say Bush lied? When they bent over backwards under the assumption that Bush was always right? Bush got a 4 year honeymoon, and you're over there whining about it.
Nobody gives a damn what people like you think. You had your chance, and you destroyed the country. When did Bush ever act like he was everyone's President?
You said "Bush is a president for ALL OF US". He sure has a funny way of showing it. Tell that to all the American families who have lost love ones to a senseless, unjustified war. Tell that to the millions of jobless and homeless people. Bush has been a president for the wealthy and powerful. He is certainly not a president for ALL OF US!
ok now Ive watched it.
@j
You are a close-minded twit. Where in that video is any lie? You question his biography? You question the proposals he outlines that have been the same for almost all of his 20 month candidacy? You question his knowledge of the government when hes been a university teacher of the constitution?
I very rarely personally name call in a post. But I am ever so tired of the close minded in this country holding control of the coutry through half-truthes, fear, empty questions, and insinuations. J never specified any particular lie, only stated that Barrack was being untruthful, with no evidence, no example, no truth of his own.
I have been inspired by Barrack to do better by my own country. In my own shop I dont just accept the bigoted remarks of the people when they try to pawn off their conservative talking points. ..and in traditional customer service thinking that is very difficult. But we can no longer let politeness override our responsibility to be citizens of this country.
That video was very well done, and reassures me even more that Barrack is the right choice. The only inspiring choice we've had for a very long time.
I thought it was a powerful, minimum very effective reminder of Obama's 'Communicator' skills. I knew he was a very good writer, a great orator, and now I know he's also a born narrator. It felt more like a mini-documentary than an infomercial, esp. just listening to his voice relate those true stories. And I think overall it was a lucid production (which in itself is a huge plus given the histrionics on the other side or politics in general)--it was quite moving to see the families talk about and deal with their hardships candidly without breaking down in tears. It relates back to Obama's point that people aren't looking for handouts, pity, just some help getting back on their feet and where they can't help themselves no matter how hard they try. In the end, it was a very effective encapsulation of what Obama's campaign is about and has been about. It struck me as ironic that for all the accusations or criticisms that he comes across as 'elitist,' he's more in tune with the people and the needs in these times than anyone else in the media, the administration or the Republicans.
Obama makes Reagan look like Barney Fife trying to explain how he locked himself into jail.
Obama's got mad skills, alright, but don't forget, he's not having to throw curve balls.
He's not a Rhodes scholar pretending to be a kinda-like hick. He's not a Yankee blueblood trying to be a Texas cowboy, or a Vietnam veteran trying to pretend to be against a war he was for in the first place.
True enough, it isn't easy to get the pitch as spot on has Obama's got it. But it isn't really that hard to just tell it like it is.
And his ideas? Tuition tax credits, green jobs spending and middle class tax cuts --very ordinary. Nothing wrong with ordinary -- just sayin' if you want to look for why his message is so clear, and so powerful, look at who he is and what his politics are, i.e. no curveballs.
I thought it was an interesting choice to have him speaking from an office that so obviously evokes images of the Oval Office. It was kinda like the Barack "Presidential Seal" after the primaries.
On the one hand it could make people think he's being presumptuous and deciding that this thing is over. On the other hand it does make him appear more presidential. I would've thought that they'd rather play it safe and not open themselves up to criticism for treating the presidency as his already. I'm sure they focus grouped this thing to death, so their decision was based on some real info...just a slightly surprising one to me.
Obama 1. "Spread the Wealth" -- yet he average around 1% of his income donated to charities - tight wad! He has an aunt and uncle in the US who are living in poverty -- taking care of his own family!
"Tax Fairness". After his "tax cuts" about 49% of the people will be effectively off the income tax rolls. With a very minor economic shift we will wind up with the MAJORITY of people (non payers)controlling the vote on how the taxes paid by the MINORITY of the population (tax payers)is spent. Please explain how that is fair or moral for the long term?
On the one hand it could make people think he's being presumptuous and deciding that this thing is over.
Americans like the "presumptuous" person who acts like he's already the successful person he says he will be. No one votes for a guy they think will "grow" into the office. They vote for the guy they think already belongs there.
Obama 1....
Tom, sell your disingenuous copy-and-paste talking points somewhere else. Don't insult our intelligence.
Tyro - Neither disingenuous nor cut-and-pasted. The man talks about helping the less fortunate but doesn't seem to believe it sufficiently to act personally on it --- it would appear that it is he who is disingenuous.
Under the Obama plan it is quite likely that more than 50% of the people will have no tax liability. If that leaves the minority with a tax liability, what is it that you see as fair with that arrangement?
I have no intention of challenging your intelligence, I will leave that to you.
"Tax Fairness". After his "tax cuts" about 49% of the people will be effectively off the income tax rolls. With a very minor economic shift we will wind up with the MAJORITY of people (non payers)controlling the vote on how the taxes paid by the MINORITY of the population (tax payers)is spent. Please explain how that is fair or moral for the long term?
Tom, everyone pays taxes. Everyone. Don't be stupid.
Under the Obama plan it is quite likely that more than 50% of the people will have no tax liability. If that leaves the minority with a tax liability, what is it that you see as fair with that arrangement?
You see raising taxes on the poor as the solution. I see broad-based economic growth that moves people at the bottom into a higher tax bracket as the solution.
Under the Obama plan it is quite likely that more than 50% of the people will have no tax liability.
Since you know that this isn't true, why are you insulting my intelligence by making that claim and pretending I'm going to believe it? You're just pasting a bunch of talking points fed by right-wingers in a last desperate gasp to attack Obama.
It's a matter of historical record that in the early 80s, payroll taxes were raised on the middle class to pay for upper-bracket income tax cuts. The Republicans have been acting like angry monsters at the prospect of providing some tax relief for these middle income taxpayers of the sort Obama has proposed, and it's a disgusting act of dishonesty to claim that they don't pay taxes or are somehow getting something for nothing. Obama's a better man with better policies surrounded by better people. That's why people are voting for him, and that's why there's no reason to vote for McCain. Trying to drum up a bunch of hostile class resentment against Obama's policy isn't only a bad strategy, it's a dishonest resort of bad people.
Do any of you actually think Obama's numbers add up?
I know you like the idea of him, he moves you, and he has mad skills.
Do you actually believe he can go through the budget line by line and find enough things to cut to pay for everything? What do you think he will cut?
Do you believe he can make the federal health insurance available, keep insurers from denying coverage, AND lower insurance premiums by $2500/family?
Do you believe he can expand the military, increase activity in Afghanistan, keep residual (how many?) forces in Iraq, build roads, invest in green jobs, give cash back to low-income workers, AND have an education initiative on just the few increases he mentions?
How do you think he will make sure everyone can afford college, or that teachers (local hires) will get paid more?
Do you all believe what he says, do you think he literally plans to do all of it, or do you just like the thinking behind it?
A also noticed the non sequitor of going from the arthritis story into talking about energy. He did get back to health care a little later, but I felt that the health care part needed to be stronger. However, they may also figure (rightly) that viewership would increase later in the half-hour.
All in all, very effective. I hope some of its target audience saw it.
This is as sickeningly saccharin as Reagan’s “morning in America”! Vomit.
The parts where he talked about his father, and his mother dying of cancer got to me.
Here is a guy, Obama who can’t even bring himself to bash his father, who ran out on him and his mother, in anyway. It is not his father but the government who should have cared for his mom. My God being positive can be taken to the absurd.
@j
But he's our president.
Come on Bush is slimy lying politician. He ain’t my president in the sense that use the cliché!
@soullite You had your chance, and you destroyed the country.
This is not a destroyed country. Things are pretty good for most of us. Things could be better if we did not invade Afghanistan in Iraq and if we did not have our banks failing but still a great place to live. Go to Africa, Latina America of north Korea and then come back and tell us that the USA is a destroyed country.
@Tom
The income tax is not the only federal tax and infact it is only about half of the Feds tax revenues.
1. Rebecca people who have car payments and mortgage payments are not poor so why are we worried about them.
2. What tax breaks to companies that “Ship jobs over seas”. I hate that phrase “Ship jobs over seas”, it conjures up a picture of ships leaving ports loaded with machines.
3. Today’s challenges are not as great as any American period except perhaps the post USSR 1990s.
4. Does Larry have any family?
5. The whole “dependence on foreign” oil thing is a joke for so many reasons.
6. Education - we cannot all graduate from college else the degree becomes worth less. To quote Robin Hanson “schooling is not about education”. Education is free it is credentials that cost money.
7. He loves his wife an daughters, how nice. Irrelevant.
8. Talking about Joe Biden he uses that over used cliché he never forgot where he cam for, gag.
This was down right painful to watch. My overall view of it is sappy, sappy, sappy! Yuk, yuk, yuk. This reminds me that everyone says that they hate negative ads but the positive stuff is far worse and even more devoid of useful information.
Obama should stick to bashing McCain, it is much easier to take and there are plenty of things to bash McCain for.
The whole the level of political discourse in America is sickening. This was sickening but far less sickening than the republican’s William Ayers stuff and racial and anti Muslim and terrorism fear mongering.
Plain Stupidity. Seems like someone desperately wants the White House and more than likely for personal reasons. Wow! Look at me I am the 1st African American President. EGO EGO EGO my friend, EGO first, Country LAST.
Tyro- Please take the time to go to the IRS web site and look at the tax filing statistics. Available data only runs through 2006 but gets the point across well enough. If you believe that things have gotten worse for the bottom earners, then expect 2007 / 2008 data to be worse.
While the data presented does not provide statistics at the same level of granularity I many of the 'evil' conservatives have been quoting, I think you will see that it supports the basic premise.
Keep in mind that the statistics only show people who filed tax returns --- presumably to get refunds. I could not find any information to show how many people never even filed returns. What ever that number is, it only goes to further support my point.
Considering this data, factor in Obama's various credits. It would appear that number of people with zero (or near zero --
This is as sickeningly saccharin as Reagan’s “morning in America”! Vomit.... This was down right painful to watch. My overall view of it is sappy, sappy, sappy
Please keep in mind that Americans, and particularly undecided voters, live in a hermetically sealed irony free zone. They love that stuff.
Campaigns aren't about sucking up to you. In all likelihood, you've already made up your mind. It's about getting people who are on the fence to trust that Obama is a safe choice.
Also, floccina, I find it really disturbing that you equate the "sickening" nature of dishonest muslim-baiting and terrorist-baiting with the "sickening" act of creating a feel-good infomercial about a candidate's plan for America. The fact that you equate the two just lends legitimacy to the other side's despiscable acts.
Also, floccina, I find it really disturbing that you equate the "sickening" nature of dishonest muslim-baiting and terrorist-baiting with the "sickening" act of creating a feel-good infomercial about a candidate's plan for America. The fact that you equate the two just lends legitimacy to the other side's despiscable acts.
Tyro where did I equate them. I said that the dishonest Muslim-baiting and terrorist-baiting is worse. Obama's ad may be sickeningly sweet but the McCain crap is dangerous and frightening and brings out the crazies and plays on people paranoia. Did I say that I hate politicians?
"The income tax is not the only federal tax and infact it is only about half of the Feds tax revenues."
True enough. The other top contributors being the payroll tax (Social Security) and corporate taxes. My point was that as a greater % of the voting population has a zero (or near zero) tax liability, they have no ‘skin in the game’. Why wouldn’t they want more welfare programs, federal subsidized this and that --- it isn’t coming out of their pocket --- at least not that they can tell.
The fact that many people think a windfall energy tax is a good idea speaks to the near sightedness of so many. Do people actually think that businesses pay taxes ? Do they not understand that taxes are a cost of doing business and are just passed along to the end consumer? I suspect the answer to that is a resounding NO. European governments adopted the VAT method of taxing because it can be ‘hidden’ in the cost of products rather than put in your face as a xx% tax. I could be in favor of the dumb windfall tax --- energy cost ---as a percentage of my income--- is very small. Increased energy costs because of this tax wouldn’t even show up on my radar screen. Now the guy at the other end of the income scale….
The Obama plan, with its refundable tax credits, will be paying back more to many taxpayers than they paid in. The argument in favor of this might be that they did pay in the payroll tax. Does that mean that they are getting a refund of their payroll tax? Has any one stood up and said that x million workers will no longer have to pay their ‘fair share’ of their Social Security intergenerational commitment? Does anyone see the impact of that?
What do you think he will cut? $10 billion/month in Iraq, for starters.
He won't cut all of that, because he plans to keep residual forces there. Plus he plans to start spending more in Afghanistan.
Aside from that, he says he plans to eliminate "programs that don't work". That is above and beyond his Iraq policy, so you can't point to Iraq to fulfill that promise.
So what programs do you think he will cut to pay for the programs and tax cuts he will add?
What do you think of his claim that he will save $2,500 per family in insurance costs?
Has any one stood up and said that x million workers will no longer have to pay their ‘fair share’ of their Social Security intergenerational commitment?
No, because the middle class has been paying more than their fair share of their Social Security intergenerational commitment, causing SS to run a surplus for the express purpose of covering up the true size of the deficit in order to bankroll tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers. Reagan and now McCain with his campaign against Obama has been engaging in an insidious form of class warfare which boosted taxes on the lower and middle classes to subsidize the tax cuts on the rich and then howling with outrage when a Democrat tries to refund it. Their complaints represent nothing but a defense of the privilege of the rich and a demand that everyone else pick up the slack with their stagnant wages. Americans know this, which is why they're supporting Obama. Why McCain thinks he can go to western Pennsylvania and get support from people for whom McCain/Bush/Reagan tax policies have harmed -- and specifically set out to harm -- is anyone's guess. It always seems to me that Obama and Clinton before him were always in much better touch with the plight of the average taxpayer than McCain and Bush, neither of whom seems to understand how the tax code works.
The infomercial drew a smaller audience than any of the debates.
But if that audience was heavily made up of undecided voters, then it's a win for Obama. I didn't watch the infomercial live, and I don't think Obama really cared: my vote's already in the bag for him. It's like how in the debate that Obama didn't seem like an aggressive opponent against McCain-- he realized that his job wasn't to play to the press and the partisans-- his job was to convince voters on the fence that he's a safe choice.
But if that audience was heavily made up of undecided voters, then it's a win for Obama.
That's a different argument, though, than saying voters love this stuff.
Maybe it was a win for Obama if people watched it. Maybe not. People didn't flock to it. Perhaps because they were afraid of the treacly platitudes and faux numbers that some seem to think voters want.
People are either committed McCainers and probably didn't waste their half hour watching it. Or they are committed Obamers and it made no difference if the watched it. That leaves the undecided. How one can be undecided at this point is beyond me. And if they are swayed --- one way or the other --- by an infomercial, then God help us all.
In the furious, frantic, desperate turmoil of petty distractions, the "infomercial" was a call to remember the real stakes in this election.
As many others have noticed, the contrasting leadership philosophy is striking. Steve Benen at Washington Monthly said it well:
Watching a McCain speech yesterday afternoon and then Obama's program last night, I had this urge to pose questions to voters: which candidate cares more about substance? Which has a vision of where the country needs to go? Which treats voters with respect? Which appeals more to voters' best instincts? Which is willing to engage those with whom he disagrees? Which candidate wants America to feel proud, and which wants Americans to be afraid?
And if they are swayed --- one way or the other --- by an infomercial, then God help us all.
Let me say you're a bit late to the ballgame if you're just showing up now to complain about voter behavior and what stimulates the g-spot of the body politic. Seriously, where was your outrage when Americans were acting as though Bush was in some way a competent or charismatic leader you'd want to see elected to higher office? It's a bit disingenuous to work up some self-righteousness NOW just because a Democrat is up in the polls aided by his personal charisma and compelling story and goals. I can't help but not take that outrage very seriously, especially when Obama is probably one of the few extraordinarily intelligent, well informed presidential candidates we've had the pleasure to vote for.
And kaybeel, I think a brief sampling of our pop culture indicates that Americans love all that treacly stuff. Obama's infomercial fits in well to that genre of Americana.
"My point was that as a greater % of the voting population has a zero (or near zero) tax liability, they have no 'skin in the game'. Why wouldn't they want more welfare programs, federal subsidized this and that --- it isn't coming out of their pocket --- at least not that they can tell."
Wealthy Republicans cheerfully voted for Bush because they expected, rightly, that they wouldn't have to pay for Bush's spending. Government spending would have been lower if Gore had been elected, but Bush simply borrowed the money, so current taxpayers had no "skin in the game," to use your phrase.
Of course, Bush's spending will have to be paid for eventually, but the idea is that it will be paid for by people who haven't been born year, or at least who are currently too young to vote.
I wish Al Gore had become president in 2000 and we were now looking at a balanced budget. But he wasn't, and we aren't.
So as I see it, your underlying premise is wrong. Regardless of who wins this election, there will be tax cuts--the only question is whose taxes get cut by how much. I think that that is a done deal, no matter how much money the Federal government spends.
Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
COMMENTS (62)
Seen it all before because I pay attention. Undecideds, no clue. I wonder if this will sway.
Posted by: kay | October 29, 2008 10:41 PM
It was followed immediately by attack ads from McCain. I think people are going to notice the contrast. Only one of these campaigns is providing a positive plan, a positive message.
Posted by: Jake | October 29, 2008 10:46 PM
Very well done. Very neutral, it almost felt like a documentary type feel instead of a political ad. Production values were through the roof as well, it was very well put together.
I don't know if it's going to convince anyone to vote for Obama or if it's going to convince people to GOTV, but it will dominate the conversation tomorrow.
Posted by: Alex | October 29, 2008 10:54 PM
Is it just me or does it feel like the health care policy section got cut? There's that incredible emotional story about the need for health care and then it cuts to Barack Obama and he talks about... green jobs and getting out of Iraq? Huh?
Posted by: Aaorn Swartz | October 29, 2008 11:09 PM
Re: Infomercial - it was Bambi vs. McNasty and the Barracuda ... and Bambi won! Cool!
Posted by: JKL | October 29, 2008 11:34 PM
Re: Infomercial - It was Bambi vs. McNasty and the Barracuda, and Bambi won! Cool!
Posted by: JKL | October 29, 2008 11:36 PM
Loved it.
Posted by: Inlandia | October 29, 2008 11:42 PM
The education bit, around 16-17 mins is really getting me like I haven't felt since I first saw this guy.
Posted by: domino | October 29, 2008 11:44 PM
Class act. Makes me wish I was an American.
Posted by: domino | October 29, 2008 11:56 PM
I saw only the end of it (got home from work about 7:25), and it was followed immediately by a McCain attack add. The contrast was almost unbelieveable. The end of Obama's 30 minutes, I think, would make it very hard for anyone to swallow the bilge that the McCain campaign threw up there. By contrast, it makes Obama look presidential and McCain look mean and desperate.
Posted by: Donald A. Coffin | October 30, 2008 12:00 AM
It was well made. It hit all the right notes. I especially enjoyed the narration. Maybe Obama should narrate all future Ken Burns documentaries.
I watched McCain afterwards at Larry King and he seemed very small and petty. All negative and talking about how Obama instead of talking about his own programs.
Posted by: Farah | October 30, 2008 12:03 AM
loved it, I feel sure he will be the new president!!.
Posted by: joanna | October 30, 2008 12:22 AM
Reminded me of a Frontline episode and the Country Boys mini-series. I thought that it was very well done and money well spent.
Posted by: Blissios | October 30, 2008 12:25 AM
I think he's a genius. He's making it almost impossible not to support him, if you are not some crazed partisan. The thought, passion, and dedication he has put into this campaign is unlike anything I've ever seen.
And to follow it up with a midnight rally with Clinton - great touch.
I already got a text from a friend of mine who was wavering - she's fired up and ready to go now!
Posted by: IVA | October 30, 2008 12:27 AM
I think it was really great.
Posted by: Bridget | October 30, 2008 12:32 AM
Very disappointing. There was absolutely no forensic science, and we never did learn who the murderer was.
Posted by: Royko | October 30, 2008 12:43 AM
It was designed to elicit emotion, I knew that going in, and I still let myself go.
The parts where he talked about his father, and his mother dying of cancer got to me.
Posted by: DRR | October 30, 2008 1:08 AM
The contrasts with McCain, both in policy, physical presence and just about any other measure you can think of couldn't be more stark, all as a plus for Obama.
Pitch perfect from start to finish. He looked presidential and safe...dare I say, compared to McCain's wild swings back and forth, he looked...conservative.
Posted by: Monica Wolf | October 30, 2008 1:21 AM
Awesome, very honest and reassuring. Then seeing McCain shortly after with another hate-filled attack ad made me certain of who I want to lead this country. We need a steady, calm hand on the wheel, my friends.
Posted by: john baker | October 30, 2008 1:34 AM
Perfect.
Watching the post-segment commentary on Fox was fun. The contributors kept hitting that Obama is good in scripted situations. If that's the great retort, then Obama certainly did well.
Posted by: Lenny Teytelman | October 30, 2008 1:44 AM
Barak's campaign has been a series of high points followed by even higher points. I thought the 70,000 in Portland in the primaries couldn't be topped, but I was sure underestimating.
Has there ever been a campaign so motivating, so well managed and so consistent?
The job tonight was to reassure those who might have been scared or unnerved by the constant McCain/GOP scare and hate tactics. Obama made the opposition look very small and petty.
Bill Clinton said it correctly at the joint appearance: if you want to see a superb executive manager in action, just look at Obama's campaign.
Also on the joint appearance, Obama was hitting some pretty hard neo-populist themes. He seems to be gravitating slightly to the left on economic issues in response to the rising anger of the working/middle class.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | October 30, 2008 2:16 AM
Obama as narrator was smartly done and important to the coherence of the ad. It was all about 'I know you because I am like you'. He's saying: I can talk about the working mother and the white guy who has invested his life in Ford and the black guy who works to pay his wife's prescription costs, and not just as a distant observer.
(Obama was the narrator for the audiobook of Dreams from my Father, so he's attuned to it.)
Has McCain engaged with the American people? I mean, really? Do you get the sense from his events, from his ads, that he has a connection with the day-to-day workings of most families, or whether he's basically saying 'give me what I deserve, you little jerks'?
The message: I am part of America. You decide whether John McCain is. The implication -- and frankly, you can derive this more from McCain's own ads -- is that McCain represents a ruling class that doesn't engage with people's lives -- hence Joe The Caricature -- and doesn't understand them.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | October 30, 2008 2:50 AM
I thought it was too bad that all the "real people" vignettes were so downbeat. That seemed so cliche "whiny Liberal" (and I'm a liberal). Would have been nice to see a happy, successful entrepreneur, for example, with Obama saying, "We want to keep making this kind of opportunity possible..."
Posted by: Maud | October 30, 2008 3:50 AM
Oh gawd.
He knows what's wrong.
Posted by: Kira | October 30, 2008 4:45 AM
I just got off work so havent watched it yet. But 6 hours without a repu'gnant anonymous poster planting a scripted negative comment?
Obviously this ad has shocked the conservative machine and left it stunned until tomorrow.
Posted by: david b | October 30, 2008 4:58 AM
The problem with this guy is that he is UN-TRUTHFUL. It's so easy for him to look straight at the camera, and lie to the american people, that it really scares me. We all know Bush never had a fair shake at this. I've seen people blame him for anything and everything ever since he was elected. Nobody's perfect OK. If you disagree with him (as i have in some areas) that's your right. But he's our president. ALL OF US. We're all Americans. I beg you to take a second look at Obama before u vote for him. Don't just let him ride the wave into the most difficult and important job in the world. We have seen the results of this way of thinking before, and it was a disaster. Please people
Posted by: J | October 30, 2008 5:22 AM
Yeah J, god knows George Bush never got a fair shake of things.
Seriously, were you even alive in the early part of this decade when the media went ape-shit on everyone who dare say Bush lied? When they bent over backwards under the assumption that Bush was always right? Bush got a 4 year honeymoon, and you're over there whining about it.
Nobody gives a damn what people like you think. You had your chance, and you destroyed the country. When did Bush ever act like he was everyone's President?
Posted by: soullite | October 30, 2008 5:37 AM
J --
You said "Bush is a president for ALL OF US". He sure has a funny way of showing it. Tell that to all the American families who have lost love ones to a senseless, unjustified war. Tell that to the millions of jobless and homeless people. Bush has been a president for the wealthy and powerful. He is certainly not a president for ALL OF US!
Posted by: CathyL | October 30, 2008 5:42 AM
heh.. I thought my post would bring them out. :p
Posted by: david b | October 30, 2008 5:47 AM
ok now Ive watched it.
@j
You are a close-minded twit. Where in that video is any lie? You question his biography? You question the proposals he outlines that have been the same for almost all of his 20 month candidacy? You question his knowledge of the government when hes been a university teacher of the constitution?
I very rarely personally name call in a post. But I am ever so tired of the close minded in this country holding control of the coutry through half-truthes, fear, empty questions, and insinuations. J never specified any particular lie, only stated that Barrack was being untruthful, with no evidence, no example, no truth of his own.
I have been inspired by Barrack to do better by my own country. In my own shop I dont just accept the bigoted remarks of the people when they try to pawn off their conservative talking points. ..and in traditional customer service thinking that is very difficult. But we can no longer let politeness override our responsibility to be citizens of this country.
That video was very well done, and reassures me even more that Barrack is the right choice. The only inspiring choice we've had for a very long time.
Thanks for publishing the link EK.
Posted by: david b | October 30, 2008 6:22 AM
There's not much that Barack Obama does that I don't like. So yeah, I like this a lot.
And no, to answer that question I hear coming up the street, I have not forgotten FISA.
Posted by: Apphouse50 | October 30, 2008 6:23 AM
I thought it was a powerful, minimum very effective reminder of Obama's 'Communicator' skills. I knew he was a very good writer, a great orator, and now I know he's also a born narrator. It felt more like a mini-documentary than an infomercial, esp. just listening to his voice relate those true stories. And I think overall it was a lucid production (which in itself is a huge plus given the histrionics on the other side or politics in general)--it was quite moving to see the families talk about and deal with their hardships candidly without breaking down in tears. It relates back to Obama's point that people aren't looking for handouts, pity, just some help getting back on their feet and where they can't help themselves no matter how hard they try. In the end, it was a very effective encapsulation of what Obama's campaign is about and has been about. It struck me as ironic that for all the accusations or criticisms that he comes across as 'elitist,' he's more in tune with the people and the needs in these times than anyone else in the media, the administration or the Republicans.
Posted by: scherra | October 30, 2008 6:50 AM
The Great Communicator, indeed.
The perfect pitch, the fluidity, the ease...
Obama makes Reagan look like Barney Fife trying to explain how he locked himself into jail.
Obama's got mad skills, alright, but don't forget, he's not having to throw curve balls.
He's not a Rhodes scholar pretending to be a kinda-like hick. He's not a Yankee blueblood trying to be a Texas cowboy, or a Vietnam veteran trying to pretend to be against a war he was for in the first place.
True enough, it isn't easy to get the pitch as spot on has Obama's got it. But it isn't really that hard to just tell it like it is.
And his ideas? Tuition tax credits, green jobs spending and middle class tax cuts --very ordinary. Nothing wrong with ordinary -- just sayin' if you want to look for why his message is so clear, and so powerful, look at who he is and what his politics are, i.e. no curveballs.
Posted by: bunkerbuster | October 30, 2008 7:46 AM
I thought it was an interesting choice to have him speaking from an office that so obviously evokes images of the Oval Office. It was kinda like the Barack "Presidential Seal" after the primaries.
On the one hand it could make people think he's being presumptuous and deciding that this thing is over. On the other hand it does make him appear more presidential. I would've thought that they'd rather play it safe and not open themselves up to criticism for treating the presidency as his already. I'm sure they focus grouped this thing to death, so their decision was based on some real info...just a slightly surprising one to me.
Posted by: Matt | October 30, 2008 7:49 AM
Obama 1. "Spread the Wealth" -- yet he average around 1% of his income donated to charities - tight wad! He has an aunt and uncle in the US who are living in poverty -- taking care of his own family!
"Tax Fairness". After his "tax cuts" about 49% of the people will be effectively off the income tax rolls. With a very minor economic shift we will wind up with the MAJORITY of people (non payers)controlling the vote on how the taxes paid by the MINORITY of the population (tax payers)is spent. Please explain how that is fair or moral for the long term?
Posted by: Tom | October 30, 2008 8:40 AM
On the one hand it could make people think he's being presumptuous and deciding that this thing is over.
Americans like the "presumptuous" person who acts like he's already the successful person he says he will be. No one votes for a guy they think will "grow" into the office. They vote for the guy they think already belongs there.
Obama 1....
Tom, sell your disingenuous copy-and-paste talking points somewhere else. Don't insult our intelligence.
Posted by: Tyro | October 30, 2008 9:07 AM
Tyro - Neither disingenuous nor cut-and-pasted. The man talks about helping the less fortunate but doesn't seem to believe it sufficiently to act personally on it --- it would appear that it is he who is disingenuous.
Under the Obama plan it is quite likely that more than 50% of the people will have no tax liability. If that leaves the minority with a tax liability, what is it that you see as fair with that arrangement?
I have no intention of challenging your intelligence, I will leave that to you.
Posted by: Tom | October 30, 2008 10:17 AM
"Tax Fairness". After his "tax cuts" about 49% of the people will be effectively off the income tax rolls. With a very minor economic shift we will wind up with the MAJORITY of people (non payers)controlling the vote on how the taxes paid by the MINORITY of the population (tax payers)is spent. Please explain how that is fair or moral for the long term?
Tom, everyone pays taxes. Everyone. Don't be stupid.
Posted by: Scott de B. | October 30, 2008 10:19 AM
Under the Obama plan it is quite likely that more than 50% of the people will have no tax liability. If that leaves the minority with a tax liability, what is it that you see as fair with that arrangement?
You see raising taxes on the poor as the solution. I see broad-based economic growth that moves people at the bottom into a higher tax bracket as the solution.
Posted by: Scott de B. | October 30, 2008 10:23 AM
Under the Obama plan it is quite likely that more than 50% of the people will have no tax liability.
Since you know that this isn't true, why are you insulting my intelligence by making that claim and pretending I'm going to believe it? You're just pasting a bunch of talking points fed by right-wingers in a last desperate gasp to attack Obama.
It's a matter of historical record that in the early 80s, payroll taxes were raised on the middle class to pay for upper-bracket income tax cuts. The Republicans have been acting like angry monsters at the prospect of providing some tax relief for these middle income taxpayers of the sort Obama has proposed, and it's a disgusting act of dishonesty to claim that they don't pay taxes or are somehow getting something for nothing. Obama's a better man with better policies surrounded by better people. That's why people are voting for him, and that's why there's no reason to vote for McCain. Trying to drum up a bunch of hostile class resentment against Obama's policy isn't only a bad strategy, it's a dishonest resort of bad people.
Posted by: Tyro | October 30, 2008 10:24 AM
Do any of you actually think Obama's numbers add up?
I know you like the idea of him, he moves you, and he has mad skills.
Do you actually believe he can go through the budget line by line and find enough things to cut to pay for everything? What do you think he will cut?
Do you believe he can make the federal health insurance available, keep insurers from denying coverage, AND lower insurance premiums by $2500/family?
Do you believe he can expand the military, increase activity in Afghanistan, keep residual (how many?) forces in Iraq, build roads, invest in green jobs, give cash back to low-income workers, AND have an education initiative on just the few increases he mentions?
How do you think he will make sure everyone can afford college, or that teachers (local hires) will get paid more?
Do you all believe what he says, do you think he literally plans to do all of it, or do you just like the thinking behind it?
Posted by: kaybeel | October 30, 2008 10:42 AM
A also noticed the non sequitor of going from the arthritis story into talking about energy. He did get back to health care a little later, but I felt that the health care part needed to be stronger. However, they may also figure (rightly) that viewership would increase later in the half-hour.
All in all, very effective. I hope some of its target audience saw it.
Posted by: Virginia | October 30, 2008 10:49 AM
This is as sickeningly saccharin as Reagan’s “morning in America”! Vomit.
The parts where he talked about his father, and his mother dying of cancer got to me.
Here is a guy, Obama who can’t even bring himself to bash his father, who ran out on him and his mother, in anyway. It is not his father but the government who should have cared for his mom. My God being positive can be taken to the absurd.
@j
But he's our president.
Come on Bush is slimy lying politician. He ain’t my president in the sense that use the cliché!
@soullite
You had your chance, and you destroyed the country.
This is not a destroyed country. Things are pretty good for most of us. Things could be better if we did not invade Afghanistan in Iraq and if we did not have our banks failing but still a great place to live. Go to Africa, Latina America of north Korea and then come back and tell us that the USA is a destroyed country.
@Tom
The income tax is not the only federal tax and infact it is only about half of the Feds tax revenues.
Posted by: floccina | October 30, 2008 11:03 AM
Notes on the infomercial
1. Rebecca people who have car payments and mortgage payments are not poor so why are we worried about them.
2. What tax breaks to companies that “Ship jobs over seas”. I hate that phrase “Ship jobs over seas”, it conjures up a picture of ships leaving ports loaded with machines.
3. Today’s challenges are not as great as any American period except perhaps the post USSR 1990s.
4. Does Larry have any family?
5. The whole “dependence on foreign” oil thing is a joke for so many reasons.
6. Education - we cannot all graduate from college else the degree becomes worth less. To quote Robin Hanson “schooling is not about education”. Education is free it is credentials that cost money.
7. He loves his wife an daughters, how nice. Irrelevant.
8. Talking about Joe Biden he uses that over used cliché he never forgot where he cam for, gag.
This was down right painful to watch. My overall view of it is sappy, sappy, sappy! Yuk, yuk, yuk. This reminds me that everyone says that they hate negative ads but the positive stuff is far worse and even more devoid of useful information.
Obama should stick to bashing McCain, it is much easier to take and there are plenty of things to bash McCain for.
The whole the level of political discourse in America is sickening. This was sickening but far less sickening than the republican’s William Ayers stuff and racial and anti Muslim and terrorism fear mongering.
I hate politicians.
Posted by: floccina | October 30, 2008 11:06 AM
Plain Stupidity. Seems like someone desperately wants the White House and more than likely for personal reasons. Wow! Look at me I am the 1st African American President. EGO EGO EGO my friend, EGO first, Country LAST.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen | October 30, 2008 11:12 AM
Tyro- Please take the time to go to the IRS web site and look at the tax filing statistics. Available data only runs through 2006 but gets the point across well enough. If you believe that things have gotten worse for the bottom earners, then expect 2007 / 2008 data to be worse.
While the data presented does not provide statistics at the same level of granularity I many of the 'evil' conservatives have been quoting, I think you will see that it supports the basic premise.
Keep in mind that the statistics only show people who filed tax returns --- presumably to get refunds. I could not find any information to show how many people never even filed returns. What ever that number is, it only goes to further support my point.
Considering this data, factor in Obama's various credits. It would appear that number of people with zero (or near zero --
Posted by: Tom | October 30, 2008 11:42 AM
This is as sickeningly saccharin as Reagan’s “morning in America”! Vomit.... This was down right painful to watch. My overall view of it is sappy, sappy, sappy
Please keep in mind that Americans, and particularly undecided voters, live in a hermetically sealed irony free zone. They love that stuff.
Campaigns aren't about sucking up to you. In all likelihood, you've already made up your mind. It's about getting people who are on the fence to trust that Obama is a safe choice.
Also, floccina, I find it really disturbing that you equate the "sickening" nature of dishonest muslim-baiting and terrorist-baiting with the "sickening" act of creating a feel-good infomercial about a candidate's plan for America. The fact that you equate the two just lends legitimacy to the other side's despiscable acts.
Posted by: Tyro | October 30, 2008 11:42 AM
Also, floccina, I find it really disturbing that you equate the "sickening" nature of dishonest muslim-baiting and terrorist-baiting with the "sickening" act of creating a feel-good infomercial about a candidate's plan for America. The fact that you equate the two just lends legitimacy to the other side's despiscable acts.
Tyro where did I equate them. I said that the dishonest Muslim-baiting and terrorist-baiting is worse. Obama's ad may be sickeningly sweet but the McCain crap is dangerous and frightening and brings out the crazies and plays on people paranoia. Did I say that I hate politicians?
Posted by: floccina | October 30, 2008 12:05 PM
So.....do any of you believe Obama's numbers?
What do you think he will cut?
Posted by: kaybeel | October 30, 2008 12:09 PM
@ floccina
"The income tax is not the only federal tax and infact it is only about half of the Feds tax revenues."
True enough. The other top contributors being the payroll tax (Social Security) and corporate taxes. My point was that as a greater % of the voting population has a zero (or near zero) tax liability, they have no ‘skin in the game’. Why wouldn’t they want more welfare programs, federal subsidized this and that --- it isn’t coming out of their pocket --- at least not that they can tell.
The fact that many people think a windfall energy tax is a good idea speaks to the near sightedness of so many. Do people actually think that businesses pay taxes ? Do they not understand that taxes are a cost of doing business and are just passed along to the end consumer? I suspect the answer to that is a resounding NO. European governments adopted the VAT method of taxing because it can be ‘hidden’ in the cost of products rather than put in your face as a xx% tax. I could be in favor of the dumb windfall tax --- energy cost ---as a percentage of my income--- is very small. Increased energy costs because of this tax wouldn’t even show up on my radar screen. Now the guy at the other end of the income scale….
The Obama plan, with its refundable tax credits, will be paying back more to many taxpayers than they paid in. The argument in favor of this might be that they did pay in the payroll tax. Does that mean that they are getting a refund of their payroll tax? Has any one stood up and said that x million workers will no longer have to pay their ‘fair share’ of their Social Security intergenerational commitment? Does anyone see the impact of that?
Posted by: Tom | October 30, 2008 12:20 PM
What do you think he will cut?
$10 billion/month in Iraq, for starters.
Posted by: Brautigan | October 30, 2008 12:25 PM
Did I say that I hate politicians?
You did, but much what you complain about is the fault of voters, who love this sort of treacly stuff.
Posted by: Tyro | October 30, 2008 12:43 PM
What do you think he will cut?
$10 billion/month in Iraq, for starters.
He won't cut all of that, because he plans to keep residual forces there. Plus he plans to start spending more in Afghanistan.
Aside from that, he says he plans to eliminate "programs that don't work". That is above and beyond his Iraq policy, so you can't point to Iraq to fulfill that promise.
So what programs do you think he will cut to pay for the programs and tax cuts he will add?
What do you think of his claim that he will save $2,500 per family in insurance costs?
Posted by: kaybeel | October 30, 2008 12:52 PM
You did, but much what you complain about is the fault of voters, who love this sort of treacly stuff
I'm not sure you are right about that. The infomercial drew a smaller audience than any of the debates.
Posted by: kaybeel | October 30, 2008 12:56 PM
Has any one stood up and said that x million workers will no longer have to pay their ‘fair share’ of their Social Security intergenerational commitment?
No, because the middle class has been paying more than their fair share of their Social Security intergenerational commitment, causing SS to run a surplus for the express purpose of covering up the true size of the deficit in order to bankroll tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers. Reagan and now McCain with his campaign against Obama has been engaging in an insidious form of class warfare which boosted taxes on the lower and middle classes to subsidize the tax cuts on the rich and then howling with outrage when a Democrat tries to refund it. Their complaints represent nothing but a defense of the privilege of the rich and a demand that everyone else pick up the slack with their stagnant wages. Americans know this, which is why they're supporting Obama. Why McCain thinks he can go to western Pennsylvania and get support from people for whom McCain/Bush/Reagan tax policies have harmed -- and specifically set out to harm -- is anyone's guess. It always seems to me that Obama and Clinton before him were always in much better touch with the plight of the average taxpayer than McCain and Bush, neither of whom seems to understand how the tax code works.
Posted by: Tyro | October 30, 2008 1:06 PM
The infomercial drew a smaller audience than any of the debates.
But if that audience was heavily made up of undecided voters, then it's a win for Obama. I didn't watch the infomercial live, and I don't think Obama really cared: my vote's already in the bag for him. It's like how in the debate that Obama didn't seem like an aggressive opponent against McCain-- he realized that his job wasn't to play to the press and the partisans-- his job was to convince voters on the fence that he's a safe choice.
Posted by: Tyro | October 30, 2008 1:18 PM
@ Royko: Very disappointing. There was absolutely no forensic science, and we never did learn who the murderer was.
***Spoiler Alert***
BUSH did it; McCAIN was arrested as his accomplice.
Posted by: Kali | October 30, 2008 1:26 PM
But if that audience was heavily made up of undecided voters, then it's a win for Obama.
That's a different argument, though, than saying voters love this stuff.
Maybe it was a win for Obama if people watched it. Maybe not. People didn't flock to it. Perhaps because they were afraid of the treacly platitudes and faux numbers that some seem to think voters want.
Posted by: kaybeel | October 30, 2008 1:27 PM
As for the infomercial --
People are either committed McCainers and probably didn't waste their half hour watching it. Or they are committed Obamers and it made no difference if the watched it. That leaves the undecided. How one can be undecided at this point is beyond me. And if they are swayed --- one way or the other --- by an infomercial, then God help us all.
Posted by: Tom | October 30, 2008 1:38 PM
In the furious, frantic, desperate turmoil of petty distractions, the "infomercial" was a call to remember the real stakes in this election.
As many others have noticed, the contrasting leadership philosophy is striking. Steve Benen at Washington Monthly said it well:
Watching a McCain speech yesterday afternoon and then Obama's program last night, I had this urge to pose questions to voters: which candidate cares more about substance? Which has a vision of where the country needs to go? Which treats voters with respect? Which appeals more to voters' best instincts? Which is willing to engage those with whom he disagrees? Which candidate wants America to feel proud, and which wants Americans to be afraid?
Which candidate is big and which is small?
Posted by: Kali | October 30, 2008 2:01 PM
And if they are swayed --- one way or the other --- by an infomercial, then God help us all.
Let me say you're a bit late to the ballgame if you're just showing up now to complain about voter behavior and what stimulates the g-spot of the body politic. Seriously, where was your outrage when Americans were acting as though Bush was in some way a competent or charismatic leader you'd want to see elected to higher office? It's a bit disingenuous to work up some self-righteousness NOW just because a Democrat is up in the polls aided by his personal charisma and compelling story and goals. I can't help but not take that outrage very seriously, especially when Obama is probably one of the few extraordinarily intelligent, well informed presidential candidates we've had the pleasure to vote for.
And kaybeel, I think a brief sampling of our pop culture indicates that Americans love all that treacly stuff. Obama's infomercial fits in well to that genre of Americana.
Posted by: Tyro | October 30, 2008 2:22 PM
Wealthy Republicans cheerfully voted for Bush because they expected, rightly, that they wouldn't have to pay for Bush's spending. Government spending would have been lower if Gore had been elected, but Bush simply borrowed the money, so current taxpayers had no "skin in the game," to use your phrase.
Of course, Bush's spending will have to be paid for eventually, but the idea is that it will be paid for by people who haven't been born year, or at least who are currently too young to vote.
I wish Al Gore had become president in 2000 and we were now looking at a balanced budget. But he wasn't, and we aren't.
So as I see it, your underlying premise is wrong. Regardless of who wins this election, there will be tax cuts--the only question is whose taxes get cut by how much. I think that that is a done deal, no matter how much money the Federal government spends.
Posted by: Kenneth Almquist | October 31, 2008 4:41 AM