Letters to the Editor
-
Restating the obvious
Each time Hillary Clinton does an ad she seems to come out stronger and more self-assured. Interestingly, her messages on the economy and national security have remained grounded throughout the campaign in spite of style and delivery issues that have moderated over the course of her campaign and that in some instances have not served her well.
What strikes me about Obama's ad is its monotone continuation of the theme to "change Washington," even in light of the significance of trade and national security issues to Texas and Ohio voters.
I have said elsewhere on Salon that it will be concerns of middle-class voters that will decide the nominee in these two states and probably in states still to hold primaries and caucuses.
If Obama's "change Washington" ad indicates the "heart" of his campaign I don't believe it will be enough, primarily because it is becoming a well-worn tire and is losing its traction as the economy continues to slide toward recession.
-
Change how?
the problem with Obama's "change" ad is the same problem with the idea all along--"how"? It's the question that rarely gets asked and so far hasn't been answered. How is he going to bring about this new change? It cracks me up to read his supporters on here post about how if Hillary is President the republicans will do everything they can to prevent her doing anything because they "hate" her. Which of course implies that because Obama is so likable the republicans will just go along with him on everything? Of course not. And whether or not republicans "hate" Hillary, they aren't a party of personality. Like the dems, they are a party that believes in certain core ideas and believes in them strongly. So what is Obama going to do to ensure that large number of republicans vote for his Supreme Court nominee? Is he going to nominate someone more conservative? More moderate? What is he going to do to ensure Republicans vote for bills dealing with choice? With raising taxes? With civil unions/gay marriage? What will he do to ensure Republicans never filibuster in the Senate? Never hold up a nomination? He keeps saying he knows "change is hard" but has never said what he'll do to deal with that difficulty. He needs to answer that very basic question.
-
Obamas Latest 2 Ads
Ad #1
I gave a speech on Iraq 5 years ago.
The End.
Vote for me.
----------------
Ad #2
Change and Hope.
The End.
Vote for me.
-
@billcap
the problem with Obama's "change" ad is the same problem with the idea all along--"how"? It's the question that rarely gets asked and so far hasn't been answered.
I think the only problem here is that some people think "change" can be so neatly defined. One of the problems of politics is that issues are always far more complicated than the media and even the politicians make it seem. Voters often ask these "how" questions expecting a 12-step plan or some solid number they can latch onto, but it is not that simple. A politician could be dishonest and pretend to know the future and give specifics, but that's really just giving the voters some candy without any interest in truth. Change is such a nebulous concept that even saying what it means specifically is virtually impossible, so demanding concrete answers is a bit much to ask.
That said, Obama has provided some specifics. He is willing to (and has historically) reached across the aisle to work with serious conservatives to find useful compromise. HIs personal nature (which is there for all to see) is also very relaxed and non-confrontational. He can clearly be aggressive when needed, but he maintains an emotional calm that keeps even pointed criticism civil in a way I haven't seen a candidate do in a while. Finally, he has a true grassroots following. He has over one million individual contributers to his primary campaign.
How is he going to bring about this new change? It cracks me up to read his supporters on here post about how if Hillary is President the republicans will do everything they can to prevent her doing anything because they "hate" her. Which of course implies that because Obama is so likable the republicans will just go along with him on everything? Of course not. And whether or not republicans "hate" Hillary, they aren't a party of personality. Like the dems, they are a party that believes in certain core ideas and believes in them strongly. So what is Obama going to do to ensure that large number of republicans vote for his Supreme Court nominee? Is he going to nominate someone more conservative? More moderate? What is he going to do to ensure Republicans vote for bills dealing with choice? With raising taxes? With civil unions/gay marriage? What will he do to ensure Republicans never filibuster in the Senate? Never hold up a nomination? He keeps saying he knows "change is hard" but has never said what he'll do to deal with that difficulty. He needs to answer that very basic question. This makes him far less beholden to a few big donors (like PACs and lobbyists) and far more reliant on keeping the average citizen happy. That's quite a change in and of itself.
-
Hillary's Ohio ad - all white
I notice that, in Hillary's Ohio ad, the only people speaking are white.
Hmmmmm. Are whites the only ones suffering from the downturn in Ohio?
Even corporations are using ads which show diversity.
-
Stewsburntmonkey
"I think the only problem here is that some people think "change" can be so neatly defined. One of the problems of politics is that issues are always far more complicated than the media and even the politicians make it seem. Voters often ask these "how" questions expecting a 12-step plan or some solid number they can latch onto, but it is not that simple Change is such a nebulous concept that even saying what it means specifically is virtually impossible, so demanding concrete answers is a bit much to ask. "
I'm sorry, but that seems a bit of like a copout to me. You can't make "change" the number one focus of your campaign (and nobody can argue that is not the number one focus) and not enunciate how you will effect it differently. I recognize politics is complicated, which is why I'm saying "things will change" is overly simplistic. You (generic you) can't give me a number or 12 point plan, I'm fine with that. But you have to at least address the issue. And if you can't define it or how you will achieve it, then he by making it his linchpin he makes himself no better than the political system he criticizes if he makes a slogan out of something he can't define or say how he'll achieve. It becomes the "candy" you reference. And he is concrete when he says things will be less partisan, there will be more cooperation. But he loses the concrete when one wonder how. How will he ensure more cooperation? You mention compromise and that is exactly my question--what will he compromise on? Where? To what extent? I don't think it unfair to ask for specifics on those questions.
"He is willing to (and has historically) reached across the aisle to work with serious conservatives to find useful compromise"
I agree with this and like it about him, but it makes him no different than many in politics. Hillary has worked across the aisle, including with people who prosecuted her husband--hard to imagine a wider aisle than that. McCain has worked across the aisle. Trent Lott, Kennedy, Biden, etc. This willingness to work across the aisle doesn't make him special or unique.
"HIs personal nature is also very relaxed and non-confrontational"
Again, I'd agree, but nobody really thinks, for instance, that were he to nominate a "super-liberal" to the Supreme Court that the republicans won't oppose it because Obama is "relaxed" do they? Or if he were to propose allowing gay marriage that it would slide right into law without confrontation because he himself is "non-confrontational"? People aren't partisan because they woke up in a bad mood, they're partisan because they have very passionate beliefs about certain things.
"Finally, he has a true grassroots following. He has over one million individual contributers to his primary campaign.This makes him far less beholden to a few big donors (like PACs and lobbyists) and far more reliant on keeping the average citizen happy. That's quite a change in and of itself."
I think you put much more weight on this than I do. First, any President is reliant upon voters (average citizens) until his second term. And one million contributors is nice, but pales in comparison to actual voters or the "base" that Presidents play often play to. And again, I'm not sure how this translates into legislation. What will his one million contributors allow him to do differently to ease passage of minimum wage laws without republican opposition?
I say all of this as someone who likes Obama and has financially supported him. But the etherealness of much of his campaign's focus is a bit unnerving. I appreciate your serious response--I hope you'll take another shot at it because I'd be interested in what you say.