Obama Considering Olympic Games Ads on NBC

Is there such a thing as overexposure? Barack Obama ads are everywhere on the internet. They'll be coming to tv in 18 states and who knows how many radio stations.

Now, Obama is considering taking out ads on NBC for the Olympic Games.

At some point, aren't voters likely to feel the ads are intrusive? Or at least start rolling their eyes?

I'm getting angry that every time I click on a news site, his face is staring at me from the top banner ad or some other prominent space on the site.

He doesn't need to do this. We all know who he is and that he stands for hope and change and bringing a new kind of politics to Washington.

Monks on the mountainside of Tibet know Obama's name and his face and his message. Toddlers could pick him out of a photo lineup. We get it. He's the Democratic nominee for President. He wants our vote. He has my vote.

Does this ad barrage bother anyone else? The last thing I want to see during the Olympic Games is ads for Barack Obama or any politician. Please, can we just have McDonalds, Coke, Pepsi and Burger King? Is nothing sacred?

< The Futile Fence | Brian Williams Will Be Temporary Host on Meet the Press >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:49:46 PM EST
    Intrusive;  making an unwelcome manifestation with disruptive or adverse effect.

    Oddly enough (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by phat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:53:39 PM EST
    The poli sci research shows that TV ads are the best educational tool candidates have at their disposal.

    If you want to teach people about any issue or any candidate, TV really does the trick.

    What this says about our culture and where it's headed is another story. But candidates are kind of stuck with this right now.

    I would suspect these ads would be a mix of an introduction and persuasion piece. Yes, overexposure may be a risk, but the research shows that this is the best way to educate voters about anything.

    Maybe you should blame Sesame Street?

    Depends if it's the same ad (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:24:06 PM EST
    over and over and over and over again.  Leading up to the NH primary, he had some sort of big ad buy that reached me here in Vermont via satellite, but it was the same durn ad just about every single commercial break for weeks.

    You can educate the public with political commercials, sure, but they have to have some sort of content, and if you run the same contentless one with the frequency he ran them here, I find it hard to believe there isn't an eventual backlash.  Or maybe it only makes those of us who dislike the candidate madder and doesn't annoy folks who are still shopping.

    With so many people using Tivo or DVR these days, too, I wonder how that affects the ad penetration.


    Swift Boat Veterans For Truth (none / 0) (#62)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:46:58 PM EST
    The swift boaters produced, I believe, only four distinct ads (and a few editted variations) and played them non-stop for months on end.  These were probably the most effective political advertisements of the modern age.  TV ads work.  For good or ill, they work, and you'll see a lot of them.

    I honestly have to wonder if the real problem with these ads is the whose face is on them, and not the actual repetition...


    Not even remotely comparable (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:00:40 AM EST
    First, as you yourself say, there were four different ads.  Obama's here were one ad, over and over and over and over and over and over...

    Secondly, the Swiftboat ads were pretty compelling and had information to convey that was new to people and rather scandalous. (Leaving aside the fact that they were false, which we know but a lot of other people didn't.)

    That's a totally different thing from soft-focus, essentially contentless "image" ads, which is all Obama's run so far.


    Swift Boat ads didn't play often, but (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by catfish on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:23:51 AM EST
    they got a lot of EARNED MEDIA. They were a news event that was covered incessantly.

    I never saw a Swift-Boat ad (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by massdem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:54:02 AM EST
    I only saw the recaps on the news shows - and there were too many of them! - if it hadn't been for shows on MSNBC or CNN, I never would have seen one. Maybe because I live in MA - maybe they didn't buy any airtime here (or maybe I don't watch enough TV).

    Supposedly something like 1/3 of (none / 0) (#76)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:01:52 AM EST
    Tivo and dvr owners watch ads, or a good number of ads.

    Why on earth I'll never understand.  My guess is during the Olympics the numbers would be higher because it's live sports.  Or, maybe not live this year because of the time diff, but a lot of people watch even recorded Olympics same as they do when it's live.  Not me -- when I was studying for the bar I'd record the games all day then watch them late at night after knocking off studying for the day.  I could watch about 6-8 hours of coverage in about an hour and a half that way, ff'ing through commercials, insipid personal vignettes, insipid commentary, and the things that didn't interest me.  Very, very efficient.

    That being said, NO!  Stay out of the Olympics.  Keep the bread & circuses separate from politics.  I'm already tired of the campaigns (yes I know posting here daily would indicate otherwise -- so sue me!) and I'd like a break for a couple of measly weeks.  Thank you in advance Mr. Obama.


    No question, TV ads work (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:56:38 PM EST
    There's a reason Coke and Pepsi still spend a fortune on them.

    The orange-ade people spent a fortune on him (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by imhotep on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:05:58 PM EST
    so he's using it!
    BTW - Did you catch Krugman's reference to his vote on the energy bill?  
    La la la - I can't hear you they'll say.

    Bud-Wise-er (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:14:37 PM EST
    Bring on the dancing horses. Love those commercials.

    He could get creative, sure, but he has (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:17:02 PM EST
    to be careful. I expect to see lots of shots with Obama at his desk, scribbling something. (Standard political fare.)

    Yeah so where are those notes? (none / 0) (#155)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:24:33 AM EST
    LOL, just kidding.

    And the Dalmatian! :-D (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:41:43 PM EST
    not everybody knows him (none / 0) (#13)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:02:54 PM EST
    there are plenty of people that still think he's muslim, for example

    Lots of people are vaguely aware of him, but there are a whole lot of folks that don't really pay attention too much until after Labor day.

    For me -- I'd love to see an ad that simply compares and contrasts where he stands and where McCain stands: on climate change, privatization of social security, abortion, etc etc.  Help get the point across that, no, McCain isn't a maverick and would mostly be a continuation of Bush's policies.

    Educating the voter -- and there are still plenty of uneducated voters -- is the best way to make sure we don't get four more years of a RW GOP presidency.


    Sure (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:06:47 PM EST
    I think we've been bombarded, but some people only have a thin gruel of understanding about him.

    Like me... (none / 0) (#24)
    by miriam on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:13:36 PM EST
    I've been paying attention, but I still know very little about him.  I do know what he looks like, so as far as the Olympics, I'd say an ad is overkill...unless he's competing for the marathon (in which case, I think he'll lose).  He seems more like the hundred-yard dash type to me.

    For a candidate, better to be cursed with money. . (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:15:34 PM EST
    Actually (none / 0) (#30)
    by phat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:17:54 PM EST
    He's built like a distance runner, not a sprinter.

    He'd probably be a good marathon runner.


    I was speaking metaphorically... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by miriam on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:29:17 PM EST
    in that I don't think he can go the distance politically.  The dash, yes---the long haul, questionable.  He appears to bore easily, like the 8-year-old Little Leaguer building a dirt castle in center field as a ball wings past him.

    That kid was me (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by catfish on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:26:14 AM EST
    how did you know?

    I did all of these as a young man. (none / 0) (#64)
    by phat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:47:57 PM EST
    Outfielder, sprinter, long-distance and even mid-distance.

    Of course this is belaboring a not quite apt metaphor, but the 1600 is probably the best choice.

    It's grueling and painful. You keep pace until that last turn and if you can high-kick for the last sprint, making sure you've got reserves, you win.

    He's not a bored outfielder and he's not a sprinter.

    He's a mid-distance man, all the way.

    That's what Kerry was supposed to be, but he didn't keep pace and really had no kick at the end.

    He was a bad finisher, despite his reputation.

    Just a fun metaphorical excercise I throw out there. I should be a pundit.


    I vote for High Jumper (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by cymro on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:51:32 AM EST
    They can't compete at any distance above a short sprint, and their skill is in harnessing all their energy into a few explosive efforts. They don't actually compete head-to-head with their opponents, they focus on their own performance. They win by setting the bar low enough to get over, and then counting on their opponents to make mistakes. Success involves twisting oneself to face in the opposite direction, clearing the bar backwards, and landing upside down in the pit.

    See any analogies?


    Bores Easily (none / 0) (#168)
    by creeper on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:03:06 AM EST
    Or like the guy we have in the White House now?  

    The more time goes by the more similarities I see.


    For some reason, I don't like that phrase... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:26:31 AM EST
    ...."educating the voter." I watch TV along with everyone else and I don't need to be educated. I do like to be informed.

    But (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by D Jessup on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:54:10 PM EST
    he is just a corporate product.

    Yes he is! (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by talex on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:40:23 PM EST
    And Jeralyn asked this: "Please, can we just have McDonalds, Coke, Pepsi and Burger King?"

    Of course we can...

    With Obama in them.


    I drove by a Pepsi logo (none / 0) (#96)
    by catfish on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:27:18 AM EST
    the other day and did an irritable double-take, thinking it was his logo. His ads are everywhere.

    I thought it looked like the McGovern (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:25:47 AM EST

    Check this out... (5.00 / 8) (#120)
    by Dawn Davenport on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:28:06 AM EST
    ...now the marketing has come full circle.

    You needed to include a spew alert! (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by FemB4dem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:31:39 AM EST
    This is so funny, and so warped, in so many ways.  God bless america.

    lol!~ perfect. (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:09:16 AM EST
    He is in all ways ... (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:45:16 AM EST
    the Pepsi Generation candidate.

    I want NO political advertising (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:55:27 PM EST
    during sport events. Period. I'm not watching sports to be reminded of politics, but to forget politics.

    Actually, that may be a bad move for Obama on the politics of China front. . . .

    It's the 'P!ss 'em Off Some More' outreach (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:56:34 PM EST
    D@mn, I was looking forward to the Olympics as an Obama-free zone.

    I don't want politicians swanning at sports events either unless as a regular spectator: box or bleacher bum, don't care.

    Ex rectum: I'm pretty hardcore about global human rights and franchise being my Number One Issue, but you know who I'd love to have "disappeared" in a heartbeat? That #)*%# cellphone waving guy behind home plate.

    I do, however, LOVE the postgame clowns, eg, making armpit-farts behind the postgame reporter who's delivering the game stats live on the 11pm news.


    nycstray (none / 0) (#142)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:53:40 AM EST
    I'm with you. We all need a break from politics now and then and sports are the perfect opportunity.

    I wonder how many people will conclude that Obama reduced their enjoyment of the Olympics.

    This is all too sickening.


    I guess he did not feel the need to (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Leisa on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:58:45 PM EST
    advertise in Colorado during the primary?

    He did in Texas, and I wondered if I was the only one that felt hounded by his overexposed ads... All that I felt at the time was, not another *$#!

    IMHO, his advertising has been overkill, and I have noticed it on the web for months now.  So to me, this is not something new.

    I have felt brow beaten by Obama's campaign for awhile now.

    Yes. The ads were played (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by LoisInCo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:01:28 PM EST
    ad nauseum in Colorado. And they are starting up again. Ugh.

    His ads in Texas (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by RalphB on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:09:26 PM EST
    absolutely drove me around the bend.  I finally stopped watching TV because of them.  He blanketed the airwaves and I'll bet it lost him votes.  :-)

    Apologies in advance (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:59:43 PM EST
    Sorry.  I suppose there will never be a billy beane of politics.

    Edgar08 (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Leisa on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:06:40 PM EST
    I appreciate how you have consistently, humorously, and gently reminded us and guided us with your opinions...

    I am thinking that I will write in Edgar08 on my ballot in November...  


    Oh we're out here (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by phat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:26:51 PM EST
    There are plenty of Billy-ball fans in politics today.

    Obama is not my favorite candidate, (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by thereyougo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:01:37 PM EST
    that said, I have been bombarded with his 'message' for months. Bottom line, like
    SOME ads (except TL's, btw, nice shoe ads there Jeralyn), it goes on ignore.  

    He thinks few have heard of him, he's got 500 mil to burn in 2 months till he's made the official candidate. Spare me.

    I'm reading about his fence mending with the Congressional Black Caucus today.  The Hill has a nice summary about it, he got sharp with some on the CBC that says he's got some fence mending within the party. He should worry about THAT. Little by little with this type of development I'm finding out Obama is morphing into an arrogant divider. Eew. spare me. and he hasn't even gotten nominated

    Where is this 500 million coming from? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:14:53 PM EST

    It ain't (3.66 / 3) (#143)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:03:09 AM EST
    comin from folks sendin in 20 here, 50 or a 100 there.

    He's bought and paid for with an expected return on the invested dollar.


    who knows? thats what was in the news (none / 0) (#67)
    by thereyougo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:50:23 PM EST
    today when he said to opt out of public funds.

    and Hillary is telling her donors to give him $ so.
    they're working together apparently.


    I believe (none / 0) (#79)
    by suisser on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:07:06 AM EST
    that the figure I heard was more like $250 million.
    From where? Now that's a question I have pondered for a while...

    I would guess (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:14:33 AM EST
    ... from the same folks who donated to his primary campaign.  He had over 1.5 million different on-line donors?  If they can average $125, then that's already $188 million.  Add to that some of HRC's donors . . . it adds up.

    I have no idea (none / 0) (#102)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:32:39 AM EST
    but it was on ABC news online.  Let me see if I can find the exact quote.

    Rick Klein's article (none / 0) (#103)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:36:26 AM EST
    on ABCNews says 500 million to be spent in the last two months of the campaign:

    With the possibility of spending perhaps $500 million just in the final two months of the campaign, Obama will be the first major-party candidate to enjoy a spending edge in the general election in more than 30 years.

    Ahhhhhh, how many donors does he have??  


    Is it really true that voters know a lot (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by MarkL on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:04:57 PM EST
    about him?
    I'm skeptical. I mean, how many people thought that GHWB was running in 2000? I know I met a few of those.
    People that paid attention to the primaries know something about Obama, but that's not so many.

    In my "small" circle (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:32:14 AM EST
    of people in PA, FL, MI, Ga and Tn......everyone knows who he is.

    And everyone knows something different about him. Today a man told me he was about change and can't wait until he gets elected to get rid of old Washington. That's it. Change.

    I haven't talked to anyone who does not know him.


    Projection (none / 0) (#145)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:08:03 AM EST
    "Today a man told me he was about change and can't wait until he gets elected to get rid of old Washington".

    And that's just what this is; projection.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:07:17 PM EST
    It'll (none / 0) (#144)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:05:24 AM EST
    still be crappy if he gunks up the Olympics with his ads.

    There oughta be a law.


    Well, probably a big chunk of the (none / 0) (#65)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:49:07 PM EST
    35 million or so Dems who voted in the primaries know him.  Throw in some of the people who voted on the Republican side, and a couple random thousand for the blogworld.  Assuming decent overlap between primary voters and GE voters (I actually don't know any numbers on that), that's a pretty decent amount.

    I think because of the long primary and big contest between him and Clinton, a whole lotta folks paid attention to the election earlier than usual this year.


    They never paid more than a dime (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:54:06 PM EST
    to show them. The news networks played the ads for free. They were produced by Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm. Only one Republican shop is nastier IMO, Santorum's shop, Brabender Cox.

    So.. will it be hope and change plus (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by MarkL on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:06:22 PM EST
    you get a toy for the kids if you vote Obama?

    I was promised a pony (5.00 / 8) (#32)
    by nellre on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:19:56 PM EST
    Where's the pony?

    Go see Echaton! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:25:27 PM EST
    He's the unity pony expert.  

    I just spit coffee in my lap (none / 0) (#178)
    by stxabuela on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:05:25 AM EST
    (o/t warning) About 25 years ago, I was teaching "Never get in a car with a stranger" to my oldest daughter.  Standard questions--and what if he says he'll give you candy?  No.  What about a puppy?  No.  What about a pony?  YES, she said.  NO, I said firmly.  "But Mom," she whined, "I really want a pony, and you won't get me one!"  The family still laughs about that.  

    Probably will be (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by RalphB on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:23:44 PM EST
    vote for Obama, he won't pander.  By the way, want a tax cut?  :-)

    The "middle class" tax (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:37:55 AM EST
    cut as a pander.....Who was first with that idea....Clinton or Obama?

    Remember, it was Bill proposing a middle class tax cut in 1992, and Tsongas calling him a "pander bear."....And who was proposing a cut in the gas tax to help low income and middle class folks.....

    See, it is a great idea if Hillary or Bill prosposes it...but pandering if Obama does it.

    And, Obama has been proposing a middle class tax cut for months and months.....along with higher taxes for those making above 250k.


    Good (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:46:14 AM EST
    I hope he can get it done the way Bill did.

    "Want a Tax Cut?" (none / 0) (#170)
    by creeper on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:12:48 AM EST
    No.  We're already far enough in the red.  I just want the rich to start paying their share.

    Not Really (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:10:49 PM EST
    If anyone is bothered by political ads on television, I might suggest turning the television off until November 4th.

    Oh, and no they don't bother me any more than Geico, Vitamin Water, Burger King's King, or the lady that says she has time in a bottle. And for those that happen to live in a swing state, be happy they are pumping the money into your state's economy.

    There are far worse things, you might have to constantly listen to John McCain start every sentence with "my friends...".

    I think he has a ton of money (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by LoisInCo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:11:50 PM EST
    and will spend it like a drunken sailor in a house of easy virtue. And I think McCain will point it out quite effectively.

    Instead of spending lavishly on (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by shoephone on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:21:23 PM EST
    biographical ads, he should make a major speech on how corrupt and unconstitutional the Hoyer-Rockefeller FISA legislation is. I might actually respect him if he did. Funny how a guy who lectured on constitutional law barely mentions constitutional matters during the campaign.

    I know, I know. I'm so picky.

    I think you are confused (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by talex on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:51:14 PM EST
    The major speech Obama is working on is on how corrupt and unconstitutional McCain-Feingold is.

    Actually I think Obama needs to make (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by MarkL on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:52:15 PM EST
    an angry speech in which he denounces himself for saying that he's just a politician (re: Nafta)

    Nah (none / 0) (#78)
    by talex on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:03:28 AM EST
    Don't you know...

    He misspoke when he said that.

    And really - was it him or Wright who said he was a just another politician?

    I guess he still agrees with Wright after all. ;)


    He's going to make a speech about how he's (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:11:32 AM EST
    ... going to bring home the men's syncro swim GOLD!

    Hey, if he can get the men to (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:15:05 AM EST
    swim nude, I will vote for him!

    And if he can get the synchro women to swim ... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:45:28 AM EST
    ... without starfish shaped noseplugs that take up most of their faces, he just might get my vote too!

    If he wasn't just burning cash to show off, he should target boxing events: big pan-Asian and Latino payoff and fanatical Cuban and Cuban-American viewership.

    Also, though "demonstration sports" were suspended awhile back, there will be full contact Wushu, which is genuinely thrilling to watch. (It's like martial arts AND gymnastics.) I predict it will be the sleeper hit of the games if you get the right feed.


    You are not picky (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:39:57 AM EST
    I thought he would expound on the new SC case on habeas corpus.  That would have been a good opportunity for him to distinguish himself from McCain.  Instead, in essence he said, "I agree with the decision."  I expected so much more.  

    I assume (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:23:23 PM EST
    that any political ad during the Olympics will be pleasant and non-partisan.

    "I'm Barack Obama and I salute our (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:25:18 PM EST
    brave American athletets."  Followed by a shot of. . .Michael Jordan slapping his back?

    Ah, MJ (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:39:46 AM EST
    If only Barack could film a commercial shooting hoops with MJ....Now, that would be a commercial to watch on t.v.

    Would never happen. (none / 0) (#179)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:10:15 AM EST
    MJ is decidedly apolitical.  He's received a lot of criticism for that.  People wanted him supporting opponents of Jesse Helms and he always refused--his famous quote being republicans buy sneakers too, IIRC.

    yup (none / 0) (#185)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:54:54 AM EST
    Hee! those monks... n/t (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:41:06 PM EST

    I saw my first Obama Ad! (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by SamJohnson on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:57:10 PM EST

    I had actually never seen an Obama ad before. I never bothered to go to his website. (n.b. That was very facebook like scary infantilism going on IMHO). I received a donation request that overlapped all the function keys of my browser and I swore that regardless of how clever those technowizards can be, that overtaking my program was wrong and I was not going to donate. I was very pissed off.

    I already have my home phone number on an internet based answering system. I can't make calls out and I don't even have the phone plugged in. It was the only way to avoid being called by 200 people a week asking for money, mewl, mewl, mewl. The law regarding spam has to be changed so that political campaigns can not just keep sending mail or calling with impunity. Best $20 a month investment I have ever made.

    Obama should just do radio for a couple of weeks. He could probably get a deal that ATMs printed out an ad with a receipt for a transaction. No olympics. I want to see athletes, preferably naked (or wrapped in a Tibetan flag!) encouraging people to be more active.

    I also think that it would be a brilliant political move to show Obama in swim trunks at the beach or playing bball during the 4th of July weekend. Wanna wager the viewers will love that?

    Thanks Jeralyn. (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Gabriele Droz on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:01:58 AM EST


    I'm tuned out (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by OxyCon on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:37:15 AM EST
    During the Pennsylvania Primaries, there was no safe channel for me to watch without listening to Obama's BS during every single commercial break. So for the first time in my life, I turned the television off and have left it off ever since, except for the few sporting events that interest me. My television goes days without ever being turned on and I'm so loving it. No more MessNBC or CNN for me. I do not need to listen to some idiot pundit's biased opinions any longer. Screw them. I've even written some of them (Jack Cafferty) thank you notes for the part they are playing in saving the planet from Global Warming and saving me some bucks. If I didn't have children living at home, I would definitely cancel my cable, but the kids have to have their MTV and South Park.

    Obama ran non stop ads during the CA Primary (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by SoCalLiberal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:13:22 AM EST
    And the ads were pretty bad too.  He also spent untold millions on Spanish language ads promising driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants.  It didn't quite work out for him.  Just having the money isn't neccesarily enough.

    Hopefully he won't spend much in our states (none / 0) (#135)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:16:15 AM EST
    after all, he assumes he has them locked up. I might go ballistic if I start seeing a flood of his ads. Oy.

    Yeah, I have been thinking about ways (none / 0) (#146)
    by SoCalLiberal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:12:55 AM EST
    in which California could go red.  But it seems to me that it's not going to happen in this cycle.  If only because, people out here really hate Bush, people out here tend to be liberal, and McCain's campaign is really tone deaf.  Pushing torture?  Pushing off shore drilling?  That's really not going to win over Californians.  

    Bush lost the state by 1.2 million votes.  That was in spite of being the incumbent and doing very well in the Inland Empire and Central Valley. The way a Republican can win out here is if that Republicans runs to the center if not left and is able to cut down the margins in traditionally big Democratic counties (Los Angeles, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, even Alameda).  Now there are of course a lot of angry Hillary voters out there but Kerry's margin in 2004 is so big that even if Obama takes a hit out here (and I suspect he could), he'll still carry the state comfortably.  McCain's push for offshore drilling is going to be terribly unpopular.  


    Tee Hee (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:39:55 AM EST
    I'm not in a battleground state. Hee. Hee. Hee. But I'm seeing a lot of Charlie Brown ads on the web. I hope it's working. We kicked in a few bucks, and will give more, but this is going to be a tough race. He's going up a well-financed big name Republican carpetbagger in an extremely right wing district. He could take it though - Brown is anything but a liberal. He's a no-nonsense military lt. colonel (retired) whose son is fighting in Iraq. He has run twice in opposition to Doolittle. He gives 5% of all contributions to Veterans causes (Doolittle skimmed more than that off as a finder's fee for his wife).  

    I know I've taken this way off topic, but I'm hoping that disaffected Obama supporter's might throw a few bucks Brown's way the next time they see an ad.

    Whenever anyone says "Charlie Brown," (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by FemB4dem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:59:02 AM EST
    I always think of the round-headed kid with his dog, Snoopy.  Apropos Obama, my husband, who is in the great mass of undecided voters, told me when we listened to Obama's "victory" speech (the one that is going to stop the oceans from rising and heal the earth), that all Obama's stuff sounds so much the same to him, that he never really hears it anymore.  Instead, he thinks of Obama-speak like the adults in the Charlie Brown shows, who the kids hear as "Wah, wah, wah."  He doesn't blog, surf the web much at all, or watch much politics on TV.  He did, however, see a ton of Obama ads during the primaries for our state and neighboring states.

    So, the idea of so many commercials makes me laugh. May Obama truly saturate the airwaves -- I suspect he'll create more bitter voters, and many more who will just tune him out.  Only time will tell whether money will work in the GE, as it did not in the later primaries.  


    Jeralyn, He May Have YOUR Vote (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by creeper on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:43:25 AM EST
    but there a millions of votes he needs that he doesn't have.  He knows it and this is his chosen method of claiming them.

    But this strikes me as nothing less than browbeating those of us who do not support him.  There's no evident attempt to unify the party--only an endless drumbeat of "Vote For Obama".

    Sort of a drop-of-water-on-stone campaign.

    I hope he does run these ads... (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:55:33 AM EST
    because he's going to turn off a whole lot of people.

    The GOP will have a field day with the "Obama is politicizing the Olympics" theme, talking about what the Olympics represent -- a time when the nations of the world put aside their political differences, blah, blah, blah -- and here comes Obama, trying to buy the Olympic audience....

    I think "crass" nicely sums up the idea of political ads during the Olympics, and the GOP will get as much (if not more) mileage out of criticizing Obama for the ads as Obama gets for placing them -- and the GOP won't have to spend a dime....


    you hope? (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:04:52 AM EST
    you really want McCain to win that badly, eh?

    nope... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:33:20 AM EST
    I want hillary as the nominee.

    exposing Obama for the narcissistic opportunist that he is during the Oylmpic games would crive his negatives way up.... and should make SDs reconsider their support for Obama.

    I don't want either McCain or Obama in the White House... right now, I might wind up voting for continued control of Congress through 2012, and a Democratic president in 2012.... which means a vote against Obama.  But it will be a vote for the future -- because with either McCaon or Obama, the next four years are going to be one big clusterf**k.


    huh? (none / 0) (#182)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:52:38 AM EST
    As far as the nominee goes -- I think the train's already left the station.  The next president will be either Obama or McCain, and pretty much whatever you do (including staying home for the election) will probably help one or the other.

    Secondly, why in the world is someone a "narcissistic opportunist" to merely inquire about TV ads for one of the most watched shows during August.  (And, note, McCain inquired also).  Any responsible candidate needs to explore all TV advertising options.

    And, thirdly, while some people really object to the following observation, it's part of the political reality: John Paul Stevens will be close to 89 when the next Prez takes office.  Obama was one of only 22 Dem senators to vote against Roberts.  McCain promises to nominate RW judges to the Court.  

    Further, aside from SCOTUS, McCain will enjoy wielding his veto pen, stopping any sensible Dem legislation.  Call me clueless, but I just don't get how anybody who is center or anywhere left of center could even contemplate a McCain presidency.

    On the other hand, if you loved what's been done to our country -- at home and it's perception abroad -- over the last eight years, then, heck, four more years would just be peachy, wouldn't it?


    McCain, too? (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:58:37 AM EST
    I finally read the article that Jeralyn pointed us to.  It said that both Obama and McCain have inquired about ads during the Olympics.  I think that bit of information would have been useful and should not have been omitted.

    I don't think (none / 0) (#138)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:36:45 AM EST
    McCain can afford the ads.  Olympic minutes don't come cheap.

    Is nothing sacred? (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:34:22 AM EST
    My God Jeralyn didn't you get the message?  

    Nothing's sacred; we have to have change and hope and unity.  I would think an Obama supporter would accept this as the new way, the new tradition.  You know, like those May Day portraits in Red Square. Not a moment without the Chairman.

    I was tired of Obama commercials (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by stefystef on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:07:19 AM EST
    back during the SUPER BOWL in January.

    Obama is just going to bombard people with his face, but I think that's a bad idea.  People will get tired of looking at him by August.

    Remember, Obama outspent Hillary at least 2 to 1 (in some places 4 to 1) and he didn't win the popular vote and he got the delegate count due to archaric delegate distribution rules.

    I guess I have another reason to boycott the Olympics.

    We'd rather being talking about substance (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Nike on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:39:48 AM EST
    rather than marketing and political drama (Michelle's new look, Obama's Olympic ads, the VP selection committtee political drama, etc...). Unfortunately, this campaign and this candidate seems to be ALL about marketing.  I wish we could talk about what he is doing about FISA, but, as BTD is posting on the thread above this, Obama is NOT doing anything there. So, without matters of substance, what's left is style as substance.

    If Obama stays silent (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:29:30 AM EST
    on FISA, that's legitimate criticism, and I'll join that.  But to criticize him for merely inquiring about ads during the Olympics -- when McCain also inquired about ads -- well, that seems like some folks are straining too hard to criticize him.

    Can you take an honest look and see that it looks that way?


    Morning Discussions Must Be Venting Time (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:52:01 AM EST
    Sorry folks, political campaign commercials are part of life. I had non-stop Bush commercials the last two presidential election cycles and lived through it. I can certainly survive non-stop commercials by both Obama and McCain this year. At least the Dems will have a face in Florida this time around.

    And whoever had the idea of a commercial with Obama shooting hoops with MJ, that would be classic...nothing but net. But it would would never happen. Madison Avenue marketing faces never take sides in public.

    Nothing is sacred (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:36:50 AM EST

    because he's nothing but a brand name.  He sold himself to the unwitting public and a little less than half of the voters bought it.

    We turn off the tee vee everytime we see (4.67 / 12) (#7)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:56:53 PM EST
    his face.  And every time we see him on tape/interview, the sound goes off...just like we do with GWB when he appears on the tube.

    It's truly sickening.

    No offense Jeralyn.. (3.42 / 7) (#39)
    by Artoo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:24:14 PM EST
    I think you're absolutely wrong. We political junkies get sick of these things because we've been overexposed to these folks, but Joe Six Pack watching the Olympics with his family probably still thinks Obama's related to Osama.

    Olympics ad demographics are intriguing (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:28:31 PM EST
    and pretty upscale.  Few Joe Sixpacks watch, it seems.

    So the demographics make me question this ad buy -- as Obama already is supposed to have cornered all of the latte-sipping, book-reading, hybrid car owners.


    White Republican men mebbe. (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:30:59 PM EST
    I bet I know who watches the men's (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by MarkL on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:33:08 PM EST

    Hey, leave the gay Republican jokes to me! (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:40:26 PM EST
    really? (none / 0) (#53)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:34:05 PM EST
    is that true about the demographics?  Is that true about all the Olympic sports?  I.e., 100-yard dash, basketball finals, etc.?

    (I don't know, which is why I'm asking -- I never thought about it before)


    So sez an ad pro I know (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:14:13 AM EST
    who successfully placed ads in the Olympics last time for something like a life insurance company -- not group insurance but for wealthy self-employed.  Y'know, the "creative class."  

    Obama's biggest challenge (3.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:51:22 PM EST
    is to figure out how best to employ his massive warchest. My hope is that the primaries taught him the strengths and limits of TV advertising.

    In any case, to uncharacteristically agree with David Brooks, I think Obama is a smooth enough operator to pull this off.

    The DNC is broke and Obama is (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by hairspray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:17:08 PM EST
    flush with money.  What is wrong with this picture?

    I'll take "'Howard Dean has lost his touch' (5.00 / 10) (#31)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:19:22 PM EST
    for $500, Alex"

    I got a Howard Dean plea for money... (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:23:41 PM EST
    today.  I can't wait to mail it back to him in his postage paid envelope taped to a brick with "Go Cheney yourself" printed in big bold black letters on his return.

    Ahhhhh. That will feelk great!


    18 million people (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:29:26 PM EST
    turned off the spigot for the DNC.

    I was looking at that site for bundlers for Obama. Wow, housewives, $200k. And 14 lobbyist bundlers. When you scroll through it, the lowest amount it around $25k up to half a mil. And there are lots of donors. So I doubt he got the big bucks from the $5 & dimers.

    Now, back to the topic. No, I do not want to see tons of Obama ads during the Olympics. And if I was an advertiser I would not want him or McCain there. People will leave the room, mute the TV's, etc. Then the real advisements will not be seen. It is bad enough what we will go through in Sept and Oct. I think we need a little just astonished enjoyment now watching things we wish we could do. Michael Phelps has the longest arms. The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. RIP Jim McKay.


    To be honest (none / 0) (#33)
    by phat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:21:01 PM EST
    It seems that this candidate is actually doing what he can for down-ticket races.

    There's something going on here and he's taking advantage of it.

    The movers and shakers in his local campaign where I live are quite dedicated to getting other Democrats elected.

    I didn't expect this, to be honest, but it seems to be happening.


    The movers and shakers wanted (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by hairspray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:53:54 PM EST
    not just any Democrat.Why else would they push a 2 year senator?

    Oddly enough (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by phat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:29:17 AM EST
    I'm talking about his volunteers.

    Granted, the party players played their games, but the people on the ground are pretty loyal.

    I didn't expect that.


    Obama's money (none / 0) (#86)
    by SoCalLiberal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:15:14 AM EST
    It seems to me that Obama tends to waste a lot of money.  But advertizing during the Olympics might be a smart move.  I say this because people generally feel good about the country when they watch the Olympics.  Inserting positive Obama ads into this period will boost Obama's positives.

    BTD, if Obama can raise half a BILLION $$ (none / 0) (#42)
    by zyx on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:25:36 PM EST
    what, exactly, do you expect him to do with it?

    Oops. I mean Jeralyn. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by zyx on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:26:48 PM EST
    Sorry. I'm tired and today I found out that a friend has Stage 4 cancer. Not getting the smaller things right.

    How much money does Obama have (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MarkL on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:32:15 PM EST

    Too much (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by KC4847 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:42:42 PM EST
    money if he's, as Jeralyn points out, plastering his face everywhere.  It does seem a bit too much.  However, it'd be nice if he put out an ad against the FISA bill.  Then I could understand a little overexposure.

    Dunno--BUT (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by zyx on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:45:58 PM EST
    One commenter I heard recently pointed out that if he did take the public financing money, he'd have a lot more time to spend with voters, talking to voters about things that voters care about. I guess that all that money doesn't really just pour in as people happen to see that "contribute now!" button on their computer, just happenstance-like, every few seconds, regularly, happily, easily, reliably. Poor Obama will have to spend a LOT of time with DONORS between now and November because of this decision--whisking up in his limo, going into a nice hotel or splendid mansion, talking about those bitter, clingy people, and all that kind of thing. The donors are small groups and are going to vote for him already, and it will be a big drain on his time and energy.

    But he made the choice. Maybe he'll get a really good campaigner for his Veep choice--but that's not the way to play this game.

    Guess Axelrod thinks it's a great idea to buy lots of ads. Hey, he won the nomination, so he must know everything.


    Nah (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:49:21 PM EST
    Let's just put it this way: the big Hillary donors will produce $15M for him in the blink of an eye. AND he gets to retap his donors for $2,300 again. Even if the little people stopped giving him money now he'd remain way competitive.

    His April burn rate was concerning, but he spent more money on PA TV than any political candidate ever has.


    Yes, and the result of that (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by suisser on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:09:45 AM EST
    PA spending spree... "Priceless"

    Lol (none / 0) (#87)
    by SoCalLiberal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:16:02 AM EST
    the result of that spending spree (none / 0) (#92)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:20:31 AM EST
    ... might be what we see in the polls today.  According to Pollster.com he's widening a nice gap between him and McCain.

    Dunno--if you go to one of those (none / 0) (#80)
    by zyx on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:07:08 AM EST
    $2300/plate fundraisers, where you get to get your picture taken with the candidate, and everyone is dressed up? If I entered the numbers in my calculator right, to raise $15 million, that would be 6500 donors. I think that would be a lot of events--how many days until the November election? And how many other things to do in those days? And they need to raise gazillions more than a measly fifteen--that won't saturate those hopey-changey states like Idaho and Kansas.

    Trust me, mostly $2,300 donors (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:16:18 AM EST
    don't get to those fundraisers. Not at this level. You've got to be a bundler. (Or, at this point, you play games by giving a big check to one of the state committees).

    Do you really think the big Hillary donors (none / 0) (#90)
    by SoCalLiberal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:18:14 AM EST
    are going to do that?

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:18:44 AM EST
    I'm really not so sure about that..... (none / 0) (#132)
    by SoCalLiberal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:10:37 AM EST
    There are a lot of hard feelings that are still lingering and not going to be given up easily.  Patti Solis Doyle's hire really doesn't help things.

    Also, Obama might want to spend time courting Clinton's small donors, the internet donors.  


    I think most will (none / 0) (#93)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:23:25 AM EST
    either for altruistic reasons (four years of McCain would be a nightmare -- oh, and did we mention that the two oldest Justices on the Sup Ct are liberals); or for selfish reasons (it's always good to donate to the likely winner).

    Bottom line is that HRC and Obama overlapped 95% of the issues . . . I would expect to see that most of the supporters of one would support the other.  Especially when the opponent is someone like McSame, errr, I mean, McCain.


    Yawn... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by suisser on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:32:23 AM EST
    If I hear one more SCOTUS threat I'll vomit.
    Yes, some HRC supporters will fund Obama, many will not. Only time will tell and I know which camp I'm in.

    You mean like this one? (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:04:59 AM EST
    "Look, Diane," Obama said, according to a participant who attended the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) meeting. "John McCain, if he's elected, is going to pick a Supreme Court that will roll back every gain women have made in the last 50 years."


    {passes the bucket}


    It's been proven to fail in the past (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:02:28 AM EST
    Instead of telling voters what he'll do for them, he points to what McCain will do to hurt them.

    As long as he keeps making the point that "nothing at all" > McCain, then we can assume he will do nothing at all.  And yes, it will be better than McCain.  I guess.

    Sometimes I'm not so sure.


    Well, seeing as he seems to have a disconnect (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:43:12 AM EST
    about speaking towards womens' issues, the strong arm/we'll fall in line for the SC approach is coming off as offensive to me. He can wave that coat hanger in my face all he wants, sorry, not biting. I'm not a one issue voter. I have many things I'm extremely pissed off about right now that he's not addressing or is flipping on (as I expected). Nothing at all is NOT the answer.

    Me neither (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:48:59 AM EST
    Besides.  Everyone knows McCain's just being a pol when he tells the fundies what they want to hear.

    I don't believe he'll do it.

    The man Obama wants me to be afraid of isn't even there.

    Pols are pols.


    it's not a threat... (none / 0) (#116)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:24:01 AM EST
    ...it's part of the reality.  Take a look at the habeas corpus case.  It was 5-4.  Then take a look at what McCain says on his web site about he wants to do with the Supreme Court (that is what should make you want to vomit).  This stuff matters.  However uncomfortable it might be to contemplate it, the reality is that John Paul Stevens will be close to 89 when the next Prez is inaugurated.

    You may not care who nominates the next Justice, but I do.


    Ever hear of the Senate? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:07:22 AM EST
    just asking, because you seem to assume that the President gets to put justices on the court himself.

    And face it... if we get Obama in there, Congress and the WH will both wind up in GOP hands for at least eight years...

    if you really cared who nominates the next justice, you shouldn't have been supporting Obama for the past six months...


    You'd be surprised how many folks (none / 0) (#134)
    by SoCalLiberal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:15:53 AM EST
    will be unaltruistic.  And the justifications that people will come up with for McCain.

    but some are saying the opposite (none / 0) (#89)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:18:10 AM EST
    they are saying that this time it's different because of Obama's internet support.  Here's from a politico.com story today:

    American Enterprise Institute scholar Norm Ornstein says that if Obama's online moneymaking operation continues apace, it would free him in the White House from the endless procession of reelection campaign obligations, thereby allowing him greater time to spend pressing his agenda.

    Not exactly on-point, but you get the drift.  If he ends up with 3 times the money that McCain will have to spend, we'll all benefit, because he will force McCain to play defense in states like Virginia, and, further, it will help down-ticket candidates.


    Get Out Your Calculators (none / 0) (#60)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:45:52 PM EST
    What he has now isn't all that important, but I can promise you by November both he and McCain will have spent every penny to which they have access...and the Dems will have far more money at their disposal because big business contributes to those they think are going to win. It's why the GOP was flush with money in the past and why the Dems will be loaded this season.

    Donate It To The Wm J. Clinton Foundation :-) (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:47:06 PM EST
    for the HIV/Aids initiative.

    he's sold his soul to highest bidder, had to (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by thereyougo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:00:02 AM EST
    with that kind of war chest -- it buys access. Same old same old.

    Im waiting for his cult to defend all this stuff, his opting out of public funding, not saying anything on the fisa capitulation.

    I want to hear them  call him the change candidate with a straight face. Well, you can say he has changed maybe thats what he means. my bad


    opting out of public financing was smart (none / 0) (#97)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:28:53 AM EST
    Why compete with one arm tied behind your back?  What good would that do anybody?  (Well, other than those who want to see the GOP rule the WH for four more years).

    Further, he has a rather large swath of small donors.  That's grass-roots democracy, isn't it?

    It's not money per se that corrupts politics, it's large individual money that is exchanged for influence that is the problem.  1.5 million donors who averaged $150 (or whatever it was) is not a problem -- it's a big bundler who bundles a ton of money and wants favorable tax breaks.


    DC Wonk (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:59:25 AM EST
    you've just made thereyougo's point.

    You walked right into it.


    I guess this means... (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:10:32 AM EST
    Well, DC Wonk now admits that Obama is corrupted by money..

    I mean, when you show up for $28,500 a plate dinners...


    Political advertising is (none / 0) (#101)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:32:31 AM EST
    governed by the FCC.  Since I've never seen political ads appearing during sporting events (like the Olympics, the Super Bowl, etc.) I wonder if NBC would even be allowed to take his ads?  

    Here's the FCC rules:  Statutes and Rules on Candidate Appearances & Advertising

    and here.

    Secondly, imagine they took his ad $$$$.  Say he wants to run a 1 minute spot during the women's floor exercise gymnastics final (which is hugely popular).  McCain would have to be offered an equivalent spot.  Plus, one advertisement would come BEFORE the other one and would create problems with favoritism.  There is no way to run both ads simultaneously.

    Anyway, I see running candidate ads during the Olympics as being highly problematic -- for NBC.    

    Fox refused to sell ads to politicians (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by FemB4dem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:05:57 AM EST
    during the Superbowl, citing FCC rules:


    But then, do the Rules apply to Obama?


    Perish the thought (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:03:42 AM EST
    "But then, do the Rules apply to Obama?"

    Because, after all, he's change and hope and unity and bipartisanship. A new paradigm ain't subject to no stinkin rules.


    There is also this FCC rule too (none / 0) (#117)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:25:08 AM EST
    Equal Time Rule

    The Ad Age story sounds like some hotshot salesperson thought this would be a good idea without checking any higher than his sales manager.  Or the candidate knows it's a "no go" but is looking for the free publicity.  


    The rule that Fox cited (none / 0) (#121)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:29:11 AM EST
    was "that a network can reasonably refuse to sell political time in "unique, one-time-only" broadcasts where equal ad time can't be offered to all candidates"

    Given that the Olympics runs over two weeks (and the Super Bowl was just 3-4 hours) and, further, at the time of the Super Bowl (right before Super Tuesday) there were more than two major candidates running -- it's possible that the rule won't apply for the Olympics.


    Equal Ad Time (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:44:59 AM EST
    goes further than "each guy gets a minute."  They have to be comparable minutes.  

    In newspaper lingo, if you can only run Obama's ad in the main news section but you are going to have to run McCain's ad in the Lifestyle section - those are not comparable slots.  A lot of people will never even read the Lifestyle section and it pulls much lower in surveys (unless you are trying to reach women).  If Obama gets to be on page 3 and McCain is on page 5; the next time they run McCain has to be on page 3 and Obama on page 5.  

    Anyway, because the rules are so technical and must be followed (it's not an optional thing), most large media outfits have one person who handles political advertising.  Also, running ads in any large media outlet is extremely expensive (Obama is looking at spending millions, which wouldn't be unusual for any advertiser).  In smaller, local media buys, the candidates probably wouldn't be so fussy about the fairness issues.      


    There was ads during the Super Bowl (none / 0) (#164)
    by stefystef on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:23:58 AM EST
    I remember turning the channel.

    The CW is that money buys ads (none / 0) (#154)
    by MissBrainerd on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:20:47 AM EST
    and ads buy election wins.  

    but the world does know who he is because people are spreading the news that America might do something radical like elect a Black man with interntaional roots as President.  Getting the world back on our side is my favorite thing about President Obama.

    Since it's NBC, won't the announcers be wearing (none / 0) (#160)
    by kempis on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:00:44 AM EST
    big Obama buttons anyway? I'd think a big ad buy would be redundant. ;)

    Seriously, I ALWAYS am sick of political ads well before any election finally happens. I think politicians should use gimmicks like used car salesmen; their ads would be much more entertaining.

    That said, a big buy during the Olympics makes sense. A lot of people who don't read blogs and watch cable news will be watching the Olympics, especially those baby boomers he wants to make inroads with.

    now you know that's not true! (none / 0) (#175)
    by cpinva on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:45:43 AM EST
    He doesn't need to do this. We all know who he is and that he stands for hope and change and bringing a new kind of politics to Washington.

    Monks on the mountainside of Tibet know Obama's name and his face and his message. Toddlers could pick him out of a photo lineup. We get it. He's the Democratic nominee for President. He wants our vote. He has my vote.

    if you'll recall, his campaign repeatedly stated that primary losses were due to either:

    a. racist white people who didn't vote for him.

    b. complete lack of name recognition.

    so he clearly needs to keep running those ads, to sear his name and image into our brains, like a red-hot branding iron!

    TL supports Obama (none / 0) (#183)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:54:01 AM EST
    but does not worship him, swoon for him, or engage in Stalinist-like purges of those who dare critcize him.  There are hundreds of sites that do, if that's what you prefer.

    Support does not mean no criticism is allowed.  Jeralyn and BTD have both criticized him when they thought he was making a mistake or could have done better.

    You should have a look at this post where Jeralyn clarifies site policy with regard to discussions of the candidates.

    Short Answer (none / 0) (#186)
    by Randinho on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:55:58 AM EST
    Does this ad barrage bother anyone else?