Obama Releases New Ad Hitting Hard On McCain's Lobbyist Ties
By Nicole Belle Sunday Sep 14, 2008 2:00pm
Barack Obama asks Americans to envision a McCain White House with all its lobbyists ties and how it will play to special interests. George Lakoff wonders if enough Americans even know what a lobbyist is.
[An earlier Obama ad] correctly observes that McCain's campaign is loaded with "lobbyists." But most of the people the ad is trying to reach don't know just what a "lobbyist" is. McCain is saying he is fighting against the Washington power structure. A lobbyist is a "member of the Washington power structure." If you use such a phrase, you can point out that McCain campaign itself is part of the Washington power structure, the old-boy network.
Login or Register to post comments.
Beautiful!
George Lakoff was one of my professors. I learned so much from his class.
McCain represents change. Change for the worst.
Well.. let's assume they don't know what a 'lobbyist' is.
You'd still get the impression: "Someone being paid to do ... something ... for oil and credit card companies"
Which isn't that far off the mark :)
Great response to McCain's ridiculous claim that only he and Palin can bring about the needed change in DC. This one hits him right between the eyes.
And so it begins.
Weaseldog @ 3:
He represents Chump Change.
phantom @ 2:
I envy you - his books on linguistics are brilliant.
Why is it that Democrats have such a hard time explaining their position and what is wrong with the other guy?
The only thing I can think of is that the Rebpublicans have mastered the art of talking to the fools. Things that you would think everyone knows, simple facts that are out there for everyone to see. But the Republican's art of misdirection works not only on the lowest common denominator but even to the smarter people who should know better, and it remains a slim minority that actually knows what is going on and the apathetic general public just keeps bringing us down.
sorry, the line should have been: Things that you would think everyone knows, simple facts that are out there for everyone to see yet you ask around and most people don't have a clue.
Obama on McCain's lobbyists:
"if you think those lobbyists are working day and night for John McCain just to put themselves out of business, well then I've got a bridge to sell you up in Alaska."
As I said, Obama's better than his opposite number. Just don't expect him to deliver on every promise he gives. That way lies disappointment.
I think most people know what a lobbyist is. It's not enough to swing this election, but it eats away at the myth of McCain and Palin. There's been a lot of that eating away in the past few days and it needs to continue.
Obama is going to lose this election. I'll tell you why....
Liberals can't seem to get their minds around the fact that MOST voters vote on an EMOTIONAL basis, not a rational basis. The same morons who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 because he "loves Jesus" (in spite of the fact that their kids' teeth are rotting out of their head because they have no insurance and they are living in a trailer) will vote for McCain because "he's an American hero, he's 'strong'", or some similar type of bullshit.
Also, Palin appeals to Republican women because she's been successful based on how she looks, and she appeals to Republican men because they want to fuck her.
Finally, we can all assume that Obama is 4-6 points BELOW where he's currently polling due to the hidden racism of too many white voters.
This is the bottom line, folks. Yes, Obama SHOULD be 15-20 points ahead due to the lousy economy and the fact that neocon foreign policies have bred hatred toward the US abroad. However, thinking this way necessitates foresight and REASON--something the majority of voters lack.
Go ahead and call this attitude "arrogant." I don't give a shit. Democracy might be "the worst form of government, except for all the others " (Churchill's statement, I believe), but its major flaw is it allows stupid people to decide the type of government I have to live under. I'm getting sick of it.
Van @ 14:
So? Van?
What would you put in its place?
People knowing what a lobbyist is doesn't matter; what they already think a lobbyist is is good enough.
If the last 7 1/2 years have proven anything it's that Americans ARE that stupid. Hell, they voted for Dipshit McChimpy... TWICE!
My advice to Obama? Use smaller words.
Obama released another ad today that basically calls McCain out on his lies and the deceptive things he has said and done. I wish I could provide a link to it, but I've only seen it on tv.
As for lobbyist, even if many Americans don't know exactly what they do, they know that their involvement in this administration has not been for the betterment of the average family.
"Obama and Biden were marketed (honestly) as realizations of the American Dream, living hope that it is still possible"
While McCain is a realization of The American Wet Dream: Marry a hot blond with 200 million dollars.
Yes, I realize "hot" is subjective, but it fit the comedic paradigm.
"So? Van?
What would you put in its place?"
A country, or 'state' in this context, is simply a group of people within a certain geographical area who share a broad consensus on a certain system of government. Once this consensus breaks down, the state no longer exists.
Break the US up. Give the South back to the rednecks and build a wall from El Paso along the Confederate border areas to the Atlantic. Let 'em have their fucking racist government, but keep them the hell away from the rest of us.
Here's something that Republican strategists know that Democratic strategists haven't learned yet regarding words like "lobbyist"; everyday American citizens don't need to know exactly what the word means, they just need to know that it's very, very bad. You think the average Joe American knows the intricacies of being a "trial lawyer"? Of course not... but they're to be despised! Same goes for socialism, the NAACP, "special interests", etc. Stop thinking about educating the public, Dems, and think about winning. Lobbyists = bad, lobbyists = corruption, lobbyists = Jack Abramoff.
McCain has Phil Gramm as a senior financial advisor, and relies on his economic advise.
The same Phil Gramm that fought and lobbied for financial market de-regulation that resulted in the current market melt-down.
The same Phil Gramm that tells us that we're a bunch of whiners.
That's not change we can believe in, my friends!
Van @ 20:
Figures. Come along, say something that requires a lot of thought, come up with an idea that makes no sense whatsoever.
That's not smashing the system, that's dividing and still keeping the system intact. Funny, every time the Chinese did that in 100-200 years some enterprising busybody re-united them. You said you're sick of democracy. What. Comes. In. Its. Place?
Van @ 14:
Van, you are venting against the wrong people. If the MSM would report news instead of trying to entertain, perhaps the voters wouldn't be ignorant of the facts.
I might also add that McCain voters don't care that he's lying about lobbyists because, after all, "all politicians lie." In their minds, "I'm just not voting for the Black guy! I don't care if McCain is a liar and Palin is a moron. Better them then the Black dude!"
tx @ 11:
Good one!
The Connecticut Forum has it's first event September 27 and it's all about The Presidency! Featured guests include Elizabeth Edwards, Matthew Dowd, and Joseph Ellis, they will be discussing and debating the 2008 presidential candidates and campaigns. Be prepared for an unscripted, provocative evening at the Bushnell Theater in Hartford...come join us!
Van, I live in Wisconsin, and there are THOUSANDS of moron/redneck/Jesus-loves-NASCAR Republicans around. I know lots of progressive, intelligent well-educated thinkers in/from Texas and other Southen states. Re-secession wouldn't change much.
I totally agree - think about this: If you don't know who you're voting for already, you have a head like a melon full of jell-o. Everyone who has THOUGHT about the issues and KNOWS who they're voting for this November, isn't going to be convinced one way or the other by a political ad. Therefore political ads are aimed DIRECTLY at, essentially, IDIOTS.
THEREFORE:
using a word like "lobbyist" might be a little obtuse for a political ad. You need to define it first - say something like, "do you know what a lobbyist is? It's a person who bribes Washington politicians with fancy words, money and gifts, in order to get certain laws passed. John McCain's entire campaign staff is lobbyists, which means John McCain is LYING to you when he says he's a Washington outsider."
something like that. just define the word in simple, if inflammatory, terms.
Man, if I were the guy does ALL these political ad voice overs, I would annoy my friends with it so much.
"First he said he was bringing Guinness for the poker game. Then he said it was Heinekin. Now Jason Johnson shows up at the door and what does he have? Coors Light.
Jason Johnson. We just can't afford to trust him anymore."
Lobbyist get paid to ask Congress to favor ' Fill in the Blank' ...Enron, Halliburton, etc
I'd like one of these Ads to end with:
"change, may a$$."
;)
Van @ 25:
Big Claim. Very broad. Provide sources. Preferably ones that show rank-and-file conservatives that believe this, not the hierarchy.
I hear this claim all the time. Surely, if it is stated, there must be proof that Joe Sixpack vote for Hillary over Obama because of sheer racism as opposed to her populist, concise message as opposed to Obama's paragraph-long statements in answer to questions that only require three words to answer them. Surely, there must be some evidence that McCain voters don't go to McCain because he saw how she appealed to the rank-and-file Dems and is copying her idea?
For the record, I leaned more towards Hillary in the primaries than Obama. Especially in the last bit of it.
Furthermore, Van, where is the mass support for secession? It didn't exist in 1860, and after Sherman and his buddies turned large areas of the South into wastelands, it sure ain't gonna show up now.
CatAtomic @ 30:
Aaaah dude! That would be awesome!
"It didn’t exist in 1860"
Uh huh.....:-(
Great ad! Of course it will be all over the media like the mindless lipstick and good touch/bad touch "controversies," right? Hopefully, this ad is indicative of an aggressive stretch run.
I'm having trouble processing this... it's a political ad and it isn't about some insult or vague "character" issue? Is this legal?
"Big Claim. Very broad. Provide sources..."
The source will be revealed when McCain wins. Bet on it.
Perhaps the disaster we've experienced in recent years is attributable in part to the fact that those who would do the best job of governing spend their time studying problems, and figuring ways to solve them, while those who actually win elections are those who study the average voter's fears, and figuring ways to exploit them.
And Joe Biden isn't?!!!!!!
Joe Biden, they call him Mr. Plastic, after the credit card Corporations in Delaware.
Just saying…
Van @ 39:
Bullshit. That's not what I asked you. You claim this now. Provide sources for current events. If you make this claim and have no evidence, you revise. the. damn. claim.
Dahgrostab'ph-r-i @ 9:
because we spend all our time refuting the lies of the right. it makes us sound whiney and ineffective. the logical (albeit incorrect) conclusion is that these scoundrels can't possibly be lying as much as the Dems say they are!
Anyone who has not made up their mind by now probably will vote on a whim rather than the facts. You never know what word or phrase might get their attention. Maybe it's someone who is lost in space on many of the issues, but for some reason they do know about lobbyist and this ad just might get their attention.
McCain is just whistling a happy tune as he totters on. He doesn't have a clue what the American voters are looking for except someone to keep them safe from the "terrorists". He may be surprised to discover that fear of home foreclosure has pushed the fear of terrorism into the backseat. People have heard of the great depression and they know what that was all about. Only an idiot would want to follow a man who represents all that is wrong with their lives today. I know, I know, we do have a certain population of idiots in our country.
"What. Comes. In. Its. Place?"
Google "participatory economics" to find out more. This is too complex an issue to be discussed on a blog.
who the fuck is making these ads????
the music is wrong
the voice over guy puts you to sleep
the music needed to be over the top scary and the voice needs to be female
goddamit, i aint a media specialist, but i know what hits me in the gut, and that is just a straight informational ad....and boring
why not remake the ads using mccain in his own words
there will be more wars and less jobs...this i can promise you my friends
McCain's biggest weakness is the apathy and demoralization of his base. Obama's best strategy is to ignore him and Palin completely, offering himself and Biden and the solutions to America's problems to the independents and undecideds and NOT do anything that will encourage McCain's base to get out and vote.
John McCain's Health Records Must Be Released
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/98752/john_mccain%27s_health_records...
Hey Obama Campaign, Have You Seen This?
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/98581/hey_obama_campaign%2C_have_you...
Warning: The second is rather graphic and upsetting.
McCANE thinks the unfettered crony capitalist fundamentals are sound. 'We the people' sounds too socialistic.
General Pavel Rennenkampf Xocoyoztin @ 33:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/05/04/publiceye/entry2761854.shtml
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701240010
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/MSNBC_Analyst_Rove_Obama_attack_almost_011...
#16 grimc Says: People knowing what a lobbyist is doesn’t matter; what they already think a lobbyist is is good enough.
-------
You can't be serious.
Van @ 45:
Oh, shit. Another great, shiny socialist ideal. Yeah, that works so well on a big scale.
That's also economics. You're talking politics. Answer the damn question. What replaces the POLITICAL system. First, you refused to answer. Then, you give an answer in a separate sphere of a modern state. Please answer my actual question instead of evading me, I'm starting to think you have no goddamn idea what you want in place of the current 21st Century system.
General Pavel Rennenkampf Xocoyoztin @ 42:
Ah General...he's cloned troll of dennis...just parroting talking points without understanding them.
"Bullshit. That’s not what I asked you"
Google "Bradley Effect". Look it up on Wikipedia. All the evidence based on past elections is there.
Is the Coast Clear?--- @ 50:
Only the first even approximates what I asked for. I asked for Joe Sixpack and Betty Winebox. You give me the leaders.
Answer my damned question. The Obama comments closing I already knew about. The sources you provided are not current events, and two of them are not what I asked for.
I think it is a good strategy to show the lobbyist influence, moving into the WH, and not simply being a temporary campaign strategy. For some people, you have to connect ALL the dots.
"Another great, shiny socialist ideal"...
Lay off the ad hominem attacks. Read about it and become informed.
General Pavel Rennenkampf Xocoyoztin @ 15:
I tend to agree with Van. When it come to the presidency, and in elections generally, voters are looking for an ethos. They're looking for someone not necessarily who is "one of them," but for someone who gets them, and whom they get. Someone with whom they're comfortable. Someone whom they trust. Someone who is perceived as having integrity and being strong and trustworthy, but who disagrees with voters on issues, will win over someone who is perceived as not getting them, not being trustworthy and being weak, but who agrees with them on the issues.
As for what we should put in democracy's place, well, that's not really a fair question for Van, since he was quoting the, "democracy's the worst government except for all the others" notion. That quote is a nod to the fact that no matter it's faults, there's nothing better to put in its place.
But I'll tell ya, the FOUNDING FATHERS DISAGREED. They were TERRIFIED of democracy. They weren't so much afraid of "stupid voters," but tyranny of the majority, and the people's proven inability to govern themselves in a manner that benefited "the people" as a whole.
So, they drafted our Constitution. Our government is supposed to be a republic, not a democracy. And republican governments are not merely representative democracies. They are governments deliberately set up so that "the people" are sovereign, but do not directly rule, and which governing is split up among competing branches. They're governments in which "the people" have no legitimate reason to obey tyrannical laws -- or any laws, really, unless that law has stood the test of being passed by representatives of the people, willingness to be enforced by a, executive separate from those representatives, and adjudged to be consistent with the Constitutional bases upon which the nation rests. If the law can't survive all that, among competing branches of government, the law should not survive, no matter how big a majority of stupid people want it.
The history of America has been to "democratize" our "republic." Whigs vs. Democrats. Elites vs. Common Man. Have the Senate elected directly by the people. We've expanded suffrage continually. Etc.
A lot of that is fantastic. And necessary. But now the big thing is to attack "activist judges." It's a further democratization, saying that the ultimate principle of our nation is "democracy." It's not. Our principles are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for all persons created equal. With a pure democracy, you don't get that.
There are plenty of things we can do now to amend our Constitution to restore our republic while keeping the good democratic gains we have made. But pure democracy is not something I think is wise.
Well, the Republican ticket has helped to liberate my inner drunk. If Obama wins, I might just open a 43 year old bottle of Lonach Scotch Whisky. If McCain wins it's a bottle of Aqua Velva strained through a loaf of wonder bread.
Great answer, Karen! I couldn't have said it better. Thanks.
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:vCeoy9XL50QJ:www.splcenter.org/blog...
http://www.capveterans.com/the_year_2007/id59.html
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c3e_1214819199
#55
Here a slam to your damn question----
Bamm---Got you----
If the people needing to be reached don't know what a lobbyist is, a simple explanation will be required in all future references to lobbyists:
"People the the rich, the privileged and the corporations hire to bribe the elected officials whom you thought you could trust".
or
"People who work for companies that monied interests hire for the specific purpose of corrupting your government".
Lobbying is bribary. It has not yet been made illegal, because lobbyists have bribed the people who write the laws".
or, by analogy,
"Lobbyists are like drug pushers, who get you hooked on drugs and then end up owning you. Corporations, the rich and the privileged hire lobbyists to corrupt the people you voted for. They get them hooked on money and vices, and end up owning them. <em.You pay for it when your corrupted congressmen, senators, presidents or government officials see to the needs of the lobbyists who own them, instead upholding the trusts you placed in them."
Or something along that line.
maybe it's my obvious bias but i believe sarah palin is
voicing words in her speech today that she has NEVER
literally spoken.
Obama is to change as in different policies to help Americans.
McCain is to change as in what will be left in your bank accounts when he's done.
Will the media talk about it for days and give Obama free airtime like they do with so many of McCain's ads? I doubt it.
Karen @ 58:
Yeah, and the Founders were almost uniformly slaveowners. Slavery, while still in existence today, is at least illegal according to every government around the globe. That's change. The last time a major movement in the US wanted to fully restrict the popular vote, that was in my part of the country, the Confederacy and its leaders.
Those assholes ensured the death of hundreds of thousands of our boys and turned a previously prosperous part of the country into a Third-World shithole. Fuck Aristocracy! This Southerners says: No more Confederacies!
I also think that idea comes dangerously close to actual fascist thinking. If the common man cannot speak for himself, and people must speak for them, and those people are not accountable, that's the kind of thinking that inspired Mussolini and Hitler to create their horrors. No to restricting the right of the masses to speak! No to the Domination!
constituent @ 63:
I think she's been doing that a lot.
What should really offend people is not that she isn't "experienced." What should offend people is that she thinks that she can learn everything she needs to know about the world in a crash course in the two months leading up to the election. That right there shows you she lacks the judgment to lead.
Dahgrostab'ph-r-i @ 9:
they don't... democrats are rather eloquent... the problem is entrenched and insular stupidity... breaking through that barrier in order to make someone receptive to facts is where the challenge lies..
Obama ad idea:
A regular, middle-age (40-55 yo) checks into his/hers 401K account. Sees a rapid decline, especially after today, of course.
Link McCain to the current market melt-down. (Less regulation???? You're kidding, right, because this is what happens when regulations get lessened!!0
Push people into checking what's in their 401K accounts right now. Then ask the question:
Can YOU afford more of the same????
I can't....
The problem is not the people. The problem is the media. There is not a liberal media. The media fails to inform us of the facts. The media thinks we merely want to be entertained. The media is losing investors. If the media would inform us, perhaps they would get more viewers or readers because we do want to know the facts. Because we want to be more knowledgeable about the facts the media might get more revenue. If they have more revenue they might even get more investors.
Van @ 57:
I've heard that sort of thinking before. It greatly inspired Lenin, and his beloved ideal of creating a Russia with a participatory economy. I'm sure the millions of starving Ukrainians in their charnel house villages were quite comforted by the thought that by starving they were participating in the economy.
Is the Coast Clear?--- @ 61:
Not quite. You've shown examples of individuals.
Now, show great numbers of these people. I can find any number of kooks, especially when a black man is running. What I have not seen is mass effect of these kooks on millions of Americans.
CMINCA @ 48:
Man, That second Video is Really Powerful. That YouTube link should be all over the Net. We should be sending it to everyone we know, it is probably the most powerful Video i have seen to tell how bad a Choice Mccain would be.
Karen @ 67:
it's interesting to hear sarah palin criticize obama's tax
proposals..........when she herself raised taxes on oil
co. profits...i guess that's okay.
General Pavel Rennenkampf Xocoyoztin @ 12:
thanks for the cautionary note... but that's just another way of saying beware, i'm here to demoralize you... the issues are nothing less than a study in contrasts... obama not delivering on every promise he gives is still a exceedingly superior alternative to a scenario of mcliar providing a 10% promise fulfillment ratio... the choice is simple... either you want to continue to drive the country into ruin under a corporate oligarchy or you want someone who believes in the fundamental principle of "we the people"...
General Pavel Rennenkampf Xocoyoztin @ 66
You should lose this round based on Godwin's Law.
If you think discussing the founders' views of republican governments -- where THE PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGN -- vs. purely democratic governments is the kind of talk that leads to "restricting the right of the masses to speak," you're not thinking very deeply.
The founders had plenty of horrible, disgusting flaws. I did not invoke them, and argue based on their authority. I invoked their arguments about protecting EQUALITY AND LIBERTY from TYRANNICAL MAJORITIES.
Frankly, General, the first amendment's guarantee of free speech is an INHERENTLY UNDEMOCRATIC guarantee. It PREVENTS MAJORITIES, no matter how big, from interfering with any individual's right to speak.
And a lot of the rights you enjoy were not given to you by majorities of the people. They've been upheld by what the right wing now thinks are tyrannical governments.
Spare me your chants about Hitler. We've got the loud legion of theocrats here to deal with, who can EASILY get a majority of the votes in many, many states!
View THIS and pass it on to as many as you can.
Ron @ 70:
Wasn't it Poppy Bush that cooked up that term the "Liberal Media". I think it was about the same time he started calling liberals the "L-word".
shaggles @ 65:
Tragic, isn't it...
Obama is the more intelligent, articulate, compelling, younger, stronger, and dammit just has a better strategy than McCain...
Still decks is stacked not in our favor as far as the media attention is concerned....
Why?
Also would any person of color that has the general skill level, aptitude, or competence of this GOP Prez ticket would be even remotely considered?