I've often wondered why we can't produce ads that people would enjoy seeing...ads that would make them feel good about America and our candidate.
Voters are getting sick of all the negativity. It's time to go positive. Here are some ideas for some ads:
"The Obama I Know" -- Testimonials from People Who Know Obama
"The America I Love" -- Obama Talks About What's Right in America, What He Loves About Our Country.
Please, please, please. Enough with the petty attacks. Be bigger than them.
Specifically, Congress must demand the following:1) Amend the Bankruptcy law to allow judges to modify terms of mortgages on primary residences.2) Obtain equity for taxpayers commensurate with the enterprise value at the time of bailout of any institution selling securities to the government as part of the program authorized by the bailout legislation.3) Demand that any executive of a firm receiving bailout assistance amend his employment agreements to cap his or her total annual compensation to not more than $400,000 during the term of the bailout program.4) Demand ongoing GAO oversight and reporting of the details of the bailout.5) Demand that conflicts of interest and corruption in the bailout must be punishable under applicable laws in the normal course.If these terms are not met, urge your representatives to vote against the bailout legislation.
This has traditionally been a very conservative congressional district in Northern California. Obama is a long shot to win it, but Charlie Brown has a very good chance to win the congressional seat for the Democrats. He came close last time against the incumbant Doolittle, and this year he has a fundraising advantage against a carpetbagger opponent.
The best way to help Obama in this district is to help Charlie Brown win it. Of course, we can work for Obama, too, but we should direct an equal amount of our energy enthusiasm and organiation toward helping Charlie Brown. The greater the congressional advantage for the Democrats next year, the more it will help President Obama enact his agenda.
And I just sent him another $250.
Here's what a friend of mine has to say about Obama's move to the center:
Will Obama give me everything I want? Hell no. And that is not just about Obama. Our very system of Constitutional checks and balances, and our Constitutional protections against the Tyranny of the Majority, makes my "not getting everything I want" not only the inevitable outcome, but the desirable one as well. If he were to strike out, like our last two Presidents often did, on a "My way or the highway" policy of legislative failure, then I would expect, and support, the minority interests of the GOP to be protected by filibuster or any other tactics at their disposal to ensure that failure. But using his intelligence, pragmatism, and genuine decency, I expect that with an Obama administration I may get most of what I need, if not everything I want. Which will be the result of moderate and centrist positions based on negotiation and accommodation of opposing ideas that builds enough support among all interests to be passed into law. And while the grabby children who grew up to be grabby adults among us will scream "liar" and "turncoat" at these practical accomplishments....I will be satisfied. And that is as much as our Constitution can lead me to expect. I am free to pursue happiness...not have it ladled out by an elected Santa Claus. And if Obama occasionally reminds the left that every solution is not a Government one, that some issues of family, and morality, and race are also matters of personal responsibility...so much the better.
A friend of mine wrote this about Obama's whining supporters recently:
If you didn't expect him to move towards the center for the general election you were not thinking clearly. Here is the next shock: He will move further towards the center once elected. Only idealogues and fanatics march off the cliffs of dogma. I sent my money to a pragmatist, not Jeanne d'Arc. If some of you thought you were getting the Maid of Orleans, I am sorry for your confusion. When he changes a position, and can not give a rational explanation why, I will be disappointed. Until then, I will assume I am dealing with an adult man who can modify his position based on the changing facts on the ground.He has been speaking to the military, and most recently to Colin Powell. If he has a new perspective on the situation [in Iraq], I would expect him to explain it. Fair enough.I have had enough this past seven years of "Sometimes wrong but never in doubt." I value being right over being dogmatic. And pouting, playing with your food, holding your breath, and throwing a snit screaming "But Uncle Obama....you promised" is childish.School's out. Grow up. We have adult problems to solve in this Country.
If you didn't expect him to move towards the center for the general election you were not thinking clearly. Here is the next shock: He will move further towards the center once elected.
Only idealogues and fanatics march off the cliffs of dogma. I sent my money to a pragmatist, not Jeanne d'Arc. If some of you thought you were getting the Maid of Orleans, I am sorry for your confusion.
When he changes a position, and can not give a rational explanation why, I will be disappointed. Until then, I will assume I am dealing with an adult man who can modify his position based on the changing facts on the ground.
He has been speaking to the military, and most recently to Colin Powell. If he has a new perspective on the situation [in Iraq], I would expect him to explain it. Fair enough.
I have had enough this past seven years of "Sometimes wrong but never in doubt." I value being right over being dogmatic. And pouting, playing with your food, holding your breath, and throwing a snit screaming "But Uncle Obama....you promised" is childish.
School's out. Grow up. We have adult problems to solve in this Country.
Barack Obama's support of an overhaul of domestic-spying laws last week was the latest in a string of statements suggesting the Democratic presidential candidate is tacking toward the center to compete with John McCain.
On foreign policy, national security, tax issues and even local politics, Sen. Obama has made some decisions lately that belie his ranking by the nonpartisan National Journal as the U.S.'s "most liberal" senator.
During the primaries, he ran to the left of Sen. Hillary Clinton, securing the nomination in part by shoring up a base that included self-identified liberals and Internet activists who helped fill his campaign war chest.
Some of those supporters are irked by Sen. Obama's latest moves, but the general-election season will put increased pressure on both candidates to attract moderate and independent voters.
The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, conducted in early June, showed that 58% of voters perceive Sen. Obama as a liberal and 24% view him as a moderate. In contrast, 34% view Sen. McCain as a moderate and 48% see him as a conservative.
To be sure, the predominant view among party leaders is that a turn toward the center is smart politics, and that Sen. Obama's willingness to buck the left wing on issues such as the spy bill signals he is maneuvering to fight Sen. McCain directly for voters in the middle of the political spectrum.
"I applaud it," a senior Democratic lawmaker said. "By standing up to MoveOn.org and the ACLU, he's showing, I think, maybe the first example of demonstrating his ability to move to the center. He's got to make the center comfortable with him. He can't win if the center isn't comfortable."
Sen. Obama's press office didn't respond to requests for comment.
The shift has met with some protest from the activist left. The liberal MoveOn.org, which endorsed Sen. Obama, is petitioning its members to call his campaign to object to his support of the spy bill. The group notes that he previously vowed to support a filibuster of the legislation because of immunity provisions for telephone companies that helped the government carry out its surveillance program.
Popular liberal blogs criticized the senator after he announced his support of the bill Friday. "There's an element of distrust now," Matt Stoller, a liberal activist and co-founder of the blog OpenLeft.com, said Monday at an Internet politics conference in New York.
Mr. Stoller said that Sen. Obama's position on the spy bill may not alienate the majority of his supporters, but the issue gives activists "a strong reason not to trust him or give him the benefit of the doubt."
Similarly, Sen. Obama's decision to opt out of the public-financing system for the general election was a blow to leading liberal Democrats who have championed campaign-finance reform and public financing. "This is not a good decision," Sen. Russ Feingold (D., Wis.), said in a statement Thursday.
On taxes, Sen. Obama told The Wall Street Journal in a recent interview that he would consider cuts to the corporate tax rate as part of an effort to simplify the tax system, a position also advocated by Sen. McCain.
Sen. Obama's shift toward the center is particularly apparent in foreign policy. In a recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, he offered such ardent support for Israel that he had to backtrack just a few days later. Sen. Obama, working to woo Jewish voters, told the lobbying group that he supported Israel retaining control of an "undivided" Jerusalem. The comment so infuriated many Arab leaders that he was forced to issue a clarification that he didn't oppose Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over the future of the city.
He also used the AIPAC speech to tweak one of his most controversial positions -- a stated willingness to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- and outline a hard-line position on Iran that is basically interchangeable with Sen. McCain's.
In his remarks, Sen. Obama said a possible meeting with Mr. Ahmadinejad would take place "at a time and place of my choosing, if and only if it can advance the interests of the United States" -- and only after earlier talks between lower-ranking American and Iranian officials. He also vowed to "do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon -- everything."
On Iraq, meanwhile, Sen. Obama has been making clear that he favors shrinking the U.S. military presence there, as opposed to trying to quickly eliminate it through an immediate withdrawal.
He favors withdrawing one or two "combat" brigades a month, but the designation is vague enough that it could allow a President Obama to leave potentially significant numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said he had been prepared to lobby Sen. Obama against withdrawing forces too precipitously, only to find that the senator's thinking was not that far from his own.
Mr. Zebari said that he had a lengthy telephone call last week with Sen. Obama and that he came away "reassured" that Sen. Obama wouldn't take steps to jeopardize Iraq's recent security gains. He said Sen. Obama told him he would "consult very closely with the Iraqi government and with the military commanders in the field" before ordering any withdrawals. "He will not take any drastic decisions, or reckless actions," Mr. Zebari said.
Sen. Obama's center tilt comes as Republicans have increased their efforts to paint him as a liberal -- a word that has been demagogued to where Democrats now mostly prefer the term progressive to describe their views.
In recent interviews and speeches, Sen. McCain has drawn parallels between his rival's energy policies and those of former President Jimmy Carter, who conservatives criticize for tax increases and heavy regulation.
Politically, Sen. Obama also endorsed Georgia's Rep. John Barrow, a conservative white Southern Democrat, against a liberal African-American woman, state Sen. Regina Thomas, in the July 15 primary. The move raised eyebrows, because party leaders generally don't get involved in intraparty skirmishes. While Ms. Thomas may have more appeal among Democratic primary voters, Mr. Barrow is widely viewed as in a better position to win in this swing district.
The endorsement also stoked anger on the left.
"It is up to us to create a progressive check on Obama, and we might just have our first opportunity," OpenLeft.com wrote regarding Sen. Obama's nod, agitating for Ms. Thomas to score a primary upset.
Source: The Wall Street Journal
I've been a big supporter of Sen. Obama's campaign. My wife and I have contributed to the hilt.
Now that the primary is over, I'd like to see some of that moderation of reaching across the aisle and bringing America together that Sen. Obama used to talk about so much.
So far, it seems he's turning out to be a fairly orthodox liberal, which is a bit of a disappointment.
Personally, I'd probably be a Republican if they weren't a bunch of war mongering, gay bashing, borrow-and-spend anti-environmentalists. So I've been supporting Obama in the hope that he can help the Democratic Party take back the middle by mixing a little fiscal responsibility with social liberalism.
I'm in a tax bracket that will be hurt by some of Obama's tax cut roll-backs, but I'm fine with that. This great country has been good to me. I only hope he will be a champion of capitalism, fair markets and global economic engagement.
PS -- I'd like to see Sen. Obama talk more about what's right with America, about it's great achievements and it's great promise and potential. It seems like he devotes a lot of his oratorical skill to describing what's wrong with America. God knows there's plenty wrong, but there's a lot right, too, and I think he should focus more on that.
The "outrageous profits" that oil companies are making are an invitation to tens of thousands of innovative entrepreneurs to invent alternatives that will divert those profits to themselves. The riches of Rome were the only invitation the Vandals needed.The problem with Obama's windfall profits tax is the government is going to take away the profits that are themselves the incentive for others to develop alternatives. The government is going to take those profits and give them to industries it deems more worthy. You know what that means. Yes, the people who make corn ethanol are going to get a lot more money, whether corn ethanol is a good idea or not, because that's where the political juice is.
Sure, other technologies will get a little money, too, but politics will decide where it goes, and it almost cerntainly won't go to the most worthy individuals or technolgies, only the most politically well connected. I don't care how politically pure Obama is, Congress still controls the purse strings and Congress is still all about pork.
This is why it is better to let the market sort these things out. Let investors and consumers decide where the best returns on their investments are, and then let the successful competing technologies take the profits away from the oil companies. This is not to say that the government should not play a role in funding early research at universities, etc., but it should not have its fat political thumb on the scale in the process that determines which alternatives ultimately take hold in the market.
The windfall profits tax is a dumb idea that makes Obama sound like he's channeling Jimmy Carter. By all means, take away the oil company subsidies! Change laws to allow net metering, which will help alternatives. Investigate market manipulation and price fixing. But this notion of a windfall profits tax is populist pandering run amok.
The market will fix high oil prices. People are driving less and buying more efficient cars. This is what will bring about the change we seek.
For a long time, Obama was able to stay on his game. Hillary (and Bill) tried various things to knock him off it, but he stayed on it' and they kept having to react to him. Every time they did, it diminished them.
Gradually the dynamic shifted. Now Obama is reacting to Hillary, and it is diminishing him. It's gotten to where he is running around the rust belt trying to out-pander her. To hear them talk, everything is wrong with America, and the government is going to fix it, if people will just vote for one or the other of them.
What happened to hope? Hillary made fun of hope and Obama stopped talking about it.
What happened to optimism? What happened to the American spirit and the greatness of the American people? Why isn't Obama talking about those things? Why is he talking about "bitter" Americans? Why is he talking about what the government is going to do to fix high gas prices and food costs? Why is he talking about what the government will do to save people from foreclosures? The government can't fix these problems. Why is he talking about what the government will do instead of what the American people need to do?
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Americans want to be challenged and led, not coddled and pandered to. They want to be respected, not treated like helpless, needy children.
Americans will suck it up and deal with those problems, just as they always have, and the problems will be turned into opportunities, and they will fix themselves if we have sound leadership that doesn't muck it up. The economy will adjust, supply and demand will balance. Life will go on.
Capitalism is an amazing system. America has a dynamic economy. Our people are determined and resourceful. We can deal with the current crises. We've had some really bad leadership. Obama has the potential to be the great leader we need, but he doesn't sound like it when he goes into pander mode.
It's time to get back on message. It's time to lead. It's time to talk about hope again. It's time to challenge Americans. It's time to challenge us to work together to solve our problems. It's time to encourage people to have faith in the potential of America and Americans to adapt and prosper in a new global economy.
Look, I'm supporting Obama to the hilt financially. I've gone out and worked for the campaign. So I'm not sniping or trying to hurt this campaign. I want Obama to win. I'm just a little disconcerted about how the campaign seems to have shifted from hope, optimism, personal responsibility and a government that doesn't stack the deck against you to the sky is falling and the government will make everything better if I'm elected.
Democrats must choose ObamaPublished: April 20 2008 18:59 | Last updated: April 20 2008 18:59...Mr Obama has fought a brilliant campaign, out-organising his opponent, raising more money, and convincing undecided Democrats as well as the country at large that he was more likeable, more straightforward and more worthy of trust.On form, he is a spell-binding orator and holds arena-sized audiences in thrall. He is given to airy exhortations, it is true, but genuinely seeks consensus and has cross-party appeal.Mrs Clinton’s campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate’s fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise.In fact, the campaigns have underlined the contenders’ respective strengths and weaknesses.Mr Obama’s consistent and relaxed demeanour attested to his coolness (in both senses, his swooning young admirers would add); it seemed to affirm his authenticity. In contrast, Mrs Clinton’s hyperactive advisers dressed her in a new personality each day, sometimes several in the course of an interview. They wheeled out Bill Clinton, to remind people of the 1990s, then reeled him back, to help them forget.Too many course corrections, not enough course....The Democratic party has waited an awfully long time for a politician like Barack Obama. Enough already.
Democrats must choose Obama
Published: April 20 2008 18:59 | Last updated: April 20 2008 18:59
Mr Obama has fought a brilliant campaign, out-organising his opponent, raising more money, and convincing undecided Democrats as well as the country at large that he was more likeable, more straightforward and more worthy of trust.
On form, he is a spell-binding orator and holds arena-sized audiences in thrall. He is given to airy exhortations, it is true, but genuinely seeks consensus and has cross-party appeal.
Mrs Clinton’s campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.
Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.
How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate’s fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise.
In fact, the campaigns have underlined the contenders’ respective strengths and weaknesses.
Mr Obama’s consistent and relaxed demeanour attested to his coolness (in both senses, his swooning young admirers would add); it seemed to affirm his authenticity. In contrast, Mrs Clinton’s hyperactive advisers dressed her in a new personality each day, sometimes several in the course of an interview. They wheeled out Bill Clinton, to remind people of the 1990s, then reeled him back, to help them forget.
Too many course corrections, not enough course.
The Democratic party has waited an awfully long time for a politician like Barack Obama. Enough already.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/19c88b7c-0f00-11dd-9646-0000779fd2ac.html
I'd like to say thank you to all who have worked so hard these last few weeks in Texas and Ohio -- to those who worked the precincts and called and did so many things -- to help the campaign move forward so brilliantly to close big gaps in the polls.
I especially want to thank Barack for his tireless efforts. He is a wonderful stardard-bearer. He reminds us every day that this campaign isn't about him, it's about us and our dreams for America.
I am so proud to be part of this campaign because of Barack and the uplifting race he is running, but also because of all of you who have made it possible. Thanks to him and to you, I am more hopeful and positive about American than I have been in quite some time.
Now, let us hope for the best from the good people of Ohio and Texas tomorrow.
Thank you one and all.
Dear Sen. Obama:
Something risks being lost in all the frenetic campaigning. Your credibility.
To hear you speak at some of these rallies, there is no problem so big, so complex or so systemic that "we" cannot fix it with a little hope here and a little reaching across the aisle there.
But really, what are "we" going to do about Medicare, Social Security, deficits, taxes, jobs going overseas, stagnant wages, unaffordable health care, nuclear proliferation, terrorist threats, civil liberties, home foreclosures, crime, an Iraqi civil war, immigration and the cost of gas, food and education? More to the point, how are "we" going to pay for it? Every politician since the dawn of time has promised to "do something" about such things. Yet here we are.
I'm not here to criticize your plans for lacking specifics. We both know a plan isn't worth the paper it's printed on because the legislative process will change it anyway. No, I don't care about the plans or the "specifics" so much. What bothers me are promises written like bad checks.
It's one thing to offer hope -- and this you do wonderfully -- but not to speak of shared sacrifice, difficult choices, hard work and personal responsibiity is to sound more like a fairy godmother than a leader for difficult times. Do you have it in you to tell that frightened worker or homeowner that there may not be anything the government can (or should) do to relieve his plight? Can you tell him he, not the government, is the change he has been waiting for?
I support you. You've inspired me. You've given me more hope than I've had for a long time. I think you have good political instincts. I trust your innate decency. Yet I can't help feeling that some of your talks have promised more by way of government solutions than you or our government have to give. I realize that all politicians do this to a certain extent. You've got to win the election first.
But part of your appeal is that you are not a typical politician. Promising to fix everything without demanding shared sacrifice is the old politics. Promising to stick it to the righ guy is the old politics. I didn't line up behind you because I wanted the government to solve all my problems or give me something I don't have.
I backed you because I think you will be honest enough to talk to me like an adult. I backed you because I thought you could best mobilize us to make difficult choices for the good of our country and our countrymen. I still believe that. I promise, I'll still love you in the morning if you tell me honestly about the difficulties we will face together. In a way, it's more comforting to me to know that you know what are the challenges. How can I hope if I don't feel like your assessment of our situation is grounded in realism?
Thank you for running such a hopeful and positive campaign. You've made me proud to be your supporter. You'll make me even prouder if you challenge us to ponder some of the difficult choices we must confront if we are to heal this great nation together.
Yours in Hope
![[Barack Obama]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/HC-GJ670_Obama_20070404185338.gif)
![[Graph]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-AR031_OBAMA_20080623204429.gif)
![[Obama]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-BR809_Obama__20080623181757.jpg)
