Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Avian Souls | Where's Joe? »

Thursday, October 30, 2008

The Closer

posted by on October 30 at 9:01 AM

Two new television spots from Obama, one negative and one positive, as he ends the race by drowning McCain in ad buys:

Via Ben Smith.

RSS icon Comments


That first one could only be considered "negative" if any of it weren't true. Also, nicely produced. He's getting his money's worth.

The second was very nice. Does he have Aaron Sorken working for him?

Posted by monkey | October 30, 2008 9:03 AM

Git it, Obama!!! YESS

Posted by Non | October 30, 2008 9:13 AM

Dubya's in my rear-view mirror! Aaaauggh!!

Posted by cdc | October 30, 2008 9:15 AM

i don't really like the first one. kinda hokey. the second one is very good.

Posted by konstantconsumer | October 30, 2008 9:15 AM

I thought the closer was the monumental collapse of Palin's mandate in the GOP?

Posted by AJ | October 30, 2008 9:18 AM

@1--True. I don't think that first ad can be classified as negative b/c it isn't actually lying or personally attacking McCain.

Posted by Balt-O-Matt | October 30, 2008 9:18 AM

Please, please, please, please, please, please elect Obama. Please.

Posted by Betsy Ross | October 30, 2008 9:21 AM

Since McSame is so strapped for cash, I'm doing my part to help him out:

Posted by erniebee | October 30, 2008 9:27 AM

Ma'am? We've tracked the source of the call--


Posted by NapoleonXIV | October 30, 2008 9:30 AM

Am I alone in finding it creepy that Obama revels in the endorsements of Buffett and Powell? I know a lot of undecideds think those two are great guys, and that should be all I care about, getting him elected. But the expediency twists my panties and I'm reminded Obama's not that, um, liberal.

Posted by tomasyalba | October 30, 2008 9:30 AM

@1, @6 - I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a negative ad is one that tells you why you shouldn't vote for my opponent, while a positive ad says why you should vote for me.

Sure, many negative ads do include lies, personal attacks, poo flinging, scary swarthy dudes, etc, but I don't think they're a part of the definition. Maybe "attack ad" could be that subset of negative ads that have all this good stuff?

Posted by cdc | October 30, 2008 9:33 AM

@10 - I'm not creeped out by Obama touting these endorsements at all. Powell is well-respected by the average independent/republican. To have someone with military and foreign policy cred endorse him gives the sense that he is stronger in those areas.

Buffet's endorsements does a similar thing, but with the economy. It also may help with the people who will have their taxes raised under Obama -- if Buffet believes economic growth will be stronger under Obama, then a higher tax rate may not matter, since these folks will be making more.

Posted by Julie in Chicago | October 30, 2008 9:54 AM

Show both of these ads 125 times a day in Ohio, Florida, NC, Virginia and Missouri everyday until Wednesday.

Show them until they become the air the public breathes!

Posted by Krizpie Kreme | October 30, 2008 10:01 AM

it's like this ok?

Your basic liberal candidate in the USA tps out at about 40% of the vote. So if you run and are a proud card carrying member of the ACLU who if asked what would you do if your wife was raped and killed you give the standard ACLU answer in response "I would check my emotions, be a ball-less man and seek proper legal process with no death penalty" you will fucking LOSE.

If instead you run on economics and make a COALITION of liberals and independents (including both of the moderate educated stripe and the dogpatcher rural white working class reagan democrats yes many fo them mildly racist stripe) then you WIN.

THEN, YOU HAVE TO GET SHIT PASSED LIKE HEALTH CARE AND MAKING THE ECONOMY WORK FOR EVERYONE so that those sorta ignorant, maleable, swing voters who succumb, usually to GOPster lies and cultural issues BECOME SOLID DEMOCRATS FOR LIFE.


In other words, you can't storm some castles head on you may have to circle around back and gain entry through a strategem or a weakly garded flank or side dorr and then win in the end.

The end goal is fully liberal.

Even I assume that Obama's favoring the FISA thingy is just tactics. It's like gay equality -- many gay political leaders say ayup, don't push for marriage equality right now, it's totally ok for Obama to say he's not pushing for gay marriage right now, yes we need to get the right people in office make progress on civil unions etc. and in the LONGER RUN we will get full equality.

IOW be a bit wiser about power, building coalitions, and winning in the long run instead of losing in the short run.

Another example. If you are a black dude and run for president and focus on unitying the nation and get a bunch of cracker-y whites to vote for you due to yoru connecting with them on an economic level then you actually deliver the goods

this will make them less racist

so no it isn't dumb or racist or pandering to put them into your infomercial

and win

and succeed

and unite us all in liberalism. Oh wait we're not clling it that anymore we're calling it comon sense solutions the gov.t only should do what we can't do alone as individuals. Fine. Let's just get it done OK?

Unidad vos.--

Posted by PC | October 30, 2008 10:13 AM

Someone make PC stop using "ayup."

Posted by sw | October 30, 2008 10:24 AM

@15. I don't even know what that word means.

Posted by Julie in Chicago | October 30, 2008 10:33 AM

Sorry, I forgot to say "please." I know better than this.

Posted by sw | October 30, 2008 10:45 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.