Political ads and analysis of the status of the US Presidential campaigns

[Achilles]

Because it's interesting to talk about these things and hear each other's thoughts on it, and because we're not trying to sell newspapers or gain market share with viewers, so we might turn up something unique in the discussion that those who do this for a living might miss, ignore, or suppress.

I agree with every point you make here, however none of it addresses what I posted.

 

Yes, some of it's opinion.

Please help me understand which part of your opinion I should be considering fact.

 

They should do more of it.

And what would "more" look like? Where is the quota coming from? Who is setting the bar?

 

It becomes his pay grade when he appoints justices to the Supreme Court.

That's appointing Supreme Court Justices, which is something completely different.

 

My understanding was his message early on was 'bring them home now.' I remember him saying when he was elected he'd bring the troops home as soon as he got in office. Granted, it's been a year so I may not have that 100% right.

Bring them home from Iraq, yes. Permanently? I don't know, but talk of redeployment to Afghanistan doesn't strike me as being inconsistent with getting them out of Iraq. I also don't see anything inconsistent with wanting something now and talking about how one will do make it happen once they are in a position to do so.

Well, no one can make everyone happy all the time, but he just needs to be careful with the presentation of the message.

I think that's probably sound advice for all politicians. I'm still trying to understand why you feel it applies to Obama specifically in this cycle. It still seems like we're at the "gut-feeling" part and I suspect that I'm going to have to settle for that answer.

 

If Bush is bringing troops home, it takes some of the wind out of the sails of the anti-war plank.

I guess I'm just not seeing why "It's a good start that should have happened a long time ago, but we will not rest until..." wouldn't be effective. Followed up with "I told ya so" afterwards or something.

 

Bush approved 8,000 to come home later this year. That's less than 1/3 of the soldiers we sent for "The Surge", so I know that we still have a long way to go.

 

Well, maybe Obama should point that out and take advantage of that.

The email wasn't to boycott the program. The email advised people to call into WGN to tell the radio station not to air the program. That's different from a boycott.

And this...

Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse.

...is different from "telling them not to air the program".

 

Obama did absolutely nothing to prevent the show from airing, so claims that he attempted to "suppress" negative press seem a little far-fetched to me. Perhaps you have other examples though that are much clearer?

 

Thanks for your post.

[Sexy Babe]

McCain's old school attitude shows - by his not learning how to use a personal computer. Yes, he probably has more important things to do or his staff can answer emails for him.

 

But the point is that he doesn't bother to keep in touch with the modern generation, he's part of the old school. All over the world, modern politicians have learnt to use the computer. Even the Prime Minister of Singapore, who's very old school, was determined enough to learn how to use the computer.

 

Yes, use of the computer does not help in foreign policy. But the point again is more of his attitude and bias. The internet generation are vocal, savy, appreciate quick thinking and decision making. Sticking to old ways of doing things (like someone said about a dictation machine) - doesn't cut it.

 

Old school is also bad because the US economy and all its ills are not gonna to drastically changed for the better without someone with new ideas, thinking, new paradigm shift, nimble enough to change tack when necessary.

 

I still say that Obama is the Man for Change! He's young but will be savy and nimble enough to overcome the steep learning curve that he is bound to face. In this new global generation, McCain's experience counts for nothing because the experience will not be relevant.

[Jae Onasi]

If the guy can't type without difficulty because his arms/fingers/shoulders don't work well, why would he choose a piece of technology that works worse for him just because it happens to be the latest and greatest? That's like saying you're not hip because you don't have a cutting edge CPU and video card in your rig. It's not like he hasn't seen one--there are plenty in his office and his wife types some stuff for him on her laptop. Both men are going to have staff doing their net research for them and their typing for them. The daily emails I get from the Obama campaign are all written by his staff, not Obama. Are you going to nail Obama for dictating statements to his staff instead of typing them himself to send to me and everyone else wanting to hear from and about him?

 

I don't care what technology either men use to get their information and do their job, as long as they are able to get good information quickly and can get the job done efficiently. I expect both men to concern themselves with issues like the war, healthcare, the financial crisis, education, energy, and other things far more important than photoshopping custom commandos or IMing 4chan links to their buddies.

 

I agree with every point you make here, however none of it addresses what I posted.

Ah--you're asking me why my opinion should persuade. That wasn't particularly my intent. I don't have the same resources that those working in the field have access to, so the best any of us can do is voice opinions and ideas, and I enjoy hearing what other people have to say about this issue.

Please help me understand which part of your opinion I should be considering fact.

I'm trying to remember to use 'I think' in opinion statements--had that beaten out of me in HS English because the English teacher said "Your paper already states what you think. Saying 'I think' is redundant."

 

And what would "more" look like? Where is the quota coming from? Who is setting the bar?

What does 'more' look like? Anything 'more' than what they were doing at that point is 'more'.

The bar is very simple: winning the election. Anything that doesn't allow them to accomplish that needs to be ditched and anything that helps that needs to be enhanced.

 

That's appointing Supreme Court Justices, which is something completely different.

Why is it different? He's going to appoint Justices that will have a direct say on any abortion cases that come to the Supreme court. That is at his pay grade level.

 

I guess I'm just not seeing why "It's a good start that should have happened a long time ago, but we will not rest until..." wouldn't be effective. Followed up with "I told ya so" afterwards or something.

Well, he could do that too--hadn't thought about that option.

 

 

Bring them home from Iraq, yes.

Sorry--I did mean just Iraq. Afghanistan is a different situation.

Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime,

...is different from "telling them not to air the program".

Please explain to me how this could be construed as anything other than telling WGN not to air the program with Kurtz. Furthermore, the email never said to boycott the program--it told people specifically to call WGN about the program.

 

Obama did absolutely nothing to prevent the show from airing, so claims that he attempted to "suppress" negative press seem a little far-fetched to me. Perhaps you have other examples though that are much clearer?

I was speaking specifically about what was in the Tribune article, (NB--the link isn't pointing to the article I'd originally quoted, apparently--I'll try to see if I can get that fixed because I couldn't find it readily.)

If you had heard all calls that came in that night and the next day after the show had already aired, you'd have heard callers telling WGN they shouldn't air or have aired the show. You might be able to pull up podcasts of the shows both that night and the next day so you can hear what I heard--I'll see if I can get specific links for you on that.

If Obama supporters are calling radio and TV stations to tell them not to air programs or ads that might be negative to him, what would you call it, other than suppression? To be fair, I think Obama himself would express disappointment about any smears, but I don't think he'd tell people not to air air something just because it opposes him. He certainly has a right and possibly even a responsibility to pursue appropriate legal action on slander or libel. However, people are going to assume, rightly or wrongly, that Obama condones the activity of his campaigners on this kind of thing if he doesn't clarify that internally with his team and possibly publicly.

[Achilles]

Ah--you're asking me why my opinion should persuade. That wasn't particularly my intent. I don't have the same resources that those working in the field have access to, so the best any of us can do is voice opinions and ideas, and I enjoy hearing what other people have to say about this issue.

Intent or no, you put forth the comment that his campaign was making mistakes that put his run at risk, but have not offered concrete examples.

 

We tend to evaluate the positions that people hold based on their reasons for doing so. I've asked you for your reasons and thus far the response seems to be that you don't have any.

 

I'm trying to remember to use 'I think' in opinion statements--had that beaten out of me in HS English because the English teacher said "Your paper already states what you think. Saying 'I think' is redundant."

Yes, it is amazing how some teachers shape our thinking.

 

I am not sure how this is applicable to what we're discussing though. Back in post #23 you made an assertion (which I am lead to believe is your opinion, pending sources which make it fact). In post #24, I pointed out that it is opinion. In post #25, you stated that only some of it was. In post #26, I asked for clarification on which part was not.

 

If you would like to retract the comments made in post #25, then we can both acknowledge that it is opinion and move on. Otherwise, I'll still be left wondering which part is fact and what your high school english teacher has to do with any of this.

 

What does 'more' look like? Anything 'more' than what they were doing at that point is 'more'.

That's not specific, Jae. They could spend 24 hours a day doing this and your only direction is "more". Isn't it up to them to decide what their message is, how often it's repeated (by them), etc? It is their campaign after all.

 

The bar is very simple: winning the election. Anything that doesn't allow them to accomplish that needs to be ditched and anything that helps that needs to be enhanced.

This may or may not be true, however I think Senator Obama has stated more than once that he will not follow the "do/say anything to win" way of doing things. In this, I think your bar and his differ.

 

Why is it different? He's going to appoint Justices that will have a direct say on any abortion cases that come to the Supreme court. That is at his pay grade level.

Yes, appointing judges will be his job. Being a judge is will not be. I hope that helps to clarify.

 

Furthermore, it shouldn't be a judge's decision either. It should be left to medical profession to decide.

 

Well, he could do that too--hadn't thought about that option.

Fair enough

 

Sorry--I did mean just Iraq. Afghanistan is a different situation.

Cool

 

Please explain to me how this could be construed as anything other than telling WGN not to air the program with Kurtz.

Tell you what, since you're the one put forth the assertion that that is what the message is, how about you provide your argument for that instead of shifting the burden of proof to me. The message says X. If you think it says Y, that's fine, but that's on you to argue.

 

Furthermore, the email never said to boycott the program--it told people specifically to call WGN about the program.

Which still does not constitute "suppression".

 

I was speaking specifically about what was in the Tribune article, (NB--the link isn't pointing to the article I'd originally quoted, apparently--I'll try to see if I can get that fixed because I couldn't find it readily.)

If you had heard all calls that came in that night and the next day after the show had already aired, you'd have heard callers telling WGN they shouldn't air or have aired the show.

I'm not understanding how the actions of individuals are related to the action of Senator Obama. How many callers? What percentage of total calls aired did this make up? What instructions were given to the screeners? You may think I'm nitpicking, however I think you're jumping to conclusions based on part of the story (which happened to be within the control of at least one party which may or may not have had an agenda).

 

You might be able to pull up podcasts of the shows both that night and the next day so you can hear what I heard--I'll see if I can get specific links for you on that.

I look forward to seeing the link(s).

 

If Obama supporters are calling radio and TV stations to tell them not to air programs or ads that might be negative to him, what would you call it, other than suppression?

Assuming that all my above questions can be answered satisfactorily, that still doesn't explain how Obama's campaign is suppressing "negative press".

 

Jae, in the interest of understanding your point, I asked for other examples. Thus far you've opted to remain focused on this one. Do you have other examples or not?

 

To be fair, I think Obama himself would express disappointment about any smears, but I don't think he'd tell people not to air air something just because it opposes him.

Oh, ok. So his campaign isn't suppressing negative press (per your assertion in post #23) after all? Done and done, then.

 

He certainly has a right and possibly even a responsibility to pursue appropriate legal action on slander or libel. However, people are going to assume, rightly or wrongly, that Obama condones the activity of his campaigners on this kind of thing if he doesn't clarify that internally with his team and possibly publicly.

Again, this seems to be largely based upon interpreting message X as message Y. If you interpret message X as message Y, then all of these things are probably very valid concerns. If you interpret message X and message X however...

 

Thanks for the response, Jae.

[Yar-El]

I have not formed an opinion about these, but I wanted to place some fresh ads or ad fall out news. I will comment on them later. I just want to get them out there.

 

New York Times: Dubious Claims in Obama’s Ads Against McCain, Despite Vow of Truth

 

CBS: Obama's Attack On McCain's Age Immature

 

Biden Calls Obama Attack Ad “Terrible”

 

McCain's Cancer Past Propels PAC Attack Ad

 

These are just the new ads and ad articles.

 

-----

 

Out of all the ads that could have occured, the one that got me steamed was the attack on McCain's melanoma. Obama himself is not connected to the ad, but Howard Dean is connected to the group.

 

Original article: Liberal PACs Ready Attack Ad on McCain’s Health

 

"Hope and Change" is a group lead by Howard Dean's brother. I'm a little lost for words. I know that politics can bring out the darkness. We have seen several punches from each side, but there is something to be said about this ad. What I don't understand is why has Obama kept quite.

[Jae Onasi]

Intent or no, you put forth the comment that his campaign was making mistakes that put his run at risk, but have not offered concrete examples.

Getting distracted by Palin instead of focusing on McCain, and more importantly the issues that are most important to voters. It appears they've since corrected that. Overreacting--or surrogates overreacting--to negative comments about Obama, as happened in two WGN incidents and the 527 Ayers ads. Flippantly saying "it's above my pay grade" (which he also corrected), when he should have just been up front about his abortion stance. Biden saying Roosevelt spoke to America on TV after the stock market crash in '29 (!) and saying Hillary Clinton is more qualified than he is to be VP. Saying our energy crisis could be substantially improved if we just maintained proper tire pressure (would certainly use less gas, but hardly an adequate answer). Any one of these things by themselves is pretty small. String them together with the fact that Obama has a much smaller edge in the polls than I thought he should have at this point, and it makes me uneasy.

 

Yes, it is amazing how some teachers shape our thinking.

It's not that big of a deal, just a particular aspect of my writing style that I thought I'd clarify so you're aware in the future. I've generally assumed pretty much everything in this forum is someone's opinion, except for something like science/medical studies, specific facts, or something like that.

If you would like to retract the comments made in post #25, then we can both acknowledge that it is opinion and move on. Otherwise, I'll still be left wondering which part is fact and what your high school english teacher has to do with any of this.

See above. HS teacher has no other relevance other than clarifying where I'm at in communication style.

That's not specific, Jae.

Did you ask for specifics? No.

They could spend 24 hours a day doing this and your only direction is "more".

The amount needed to have an impact on American voters, then. I don't know how much that would have to be, but it seems to me when they've focused on those issues in the primaries and once he'd secured the votes needed for the nomination, he gained ground.

Isn't it up to them to decide what their message is, how often it's repeated (by them), etc? It is their campaign after all.

Of course it is, not that I think they'd ever care about what I, or pretty much anyone else here, is saying on a Star Wars forum.

 

This may or may not be true, however I think Senator Obama has stated more than once that he will not follow the "do/say anything to win" way of doing things. In this, I think your bar and his differ.

I should have specified "within the confines of ethical behavior" then. I never meant to imply that they should ever do something unethical to get ahead. I sure hope they won't, though I've found that to be a generally naive hope in most major-level elections, and Obama's campaign is generally a refreshing change.

 

Yes, appointing judges will be his job. Being a judge is will not be. I hope that helps to clarify.

It doesn't negate the influence he would have indirectly.

 

Furthermore, it shouldn't be a judge's decision either. It should be left to medical profession to decide.

Well, it's a judicial/political matter anyway, we have to deal with that. I don't know if it will ever be a purely medical issue.

 

Tell you what, since you're the one put forth the assertion that that is what the message is, how about you provide your argument for that instead of shifting the burden of proof to me.

You're not answering my question. The email itself said: ""Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse...It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves,"

 

What's the logical conclusion an average reader would draw from that? Boycott the program? No, because boycott wasn't mentioned directly or even implied with that. The logical conclusion a reader would draw from that is to call WGN and say "Don't give airtime to Kurtz because it's wrong", and that's what I heard from a lot of callers that next morning--WGN was wrong for airing Kurtz and should never have aired him in the first place.

 

What other possible option is there than that this was an effort to get Kurtz off the air? I'm not seeing another option, but if you've thought of one that works better, great, please tell me, because that would certainly alter the conclusion I made on that. That's what I'm trying to ask you here.

 

Which still does not constitute "suppression".

See above.

 

I'm not understanding how the actions of individuals are related to the action of Senator Obama. How many callers? What percentage of total calls aired did this make up? What instructions were given to the screeners? You may think I'm nitpicking, however I think you're jumping to conclusions based on part of the story (which happened to be within the control of at least one party which may or may not have had an agenda).

Those are all valid questions, and Milt Rosenberg is quite conservative so I might expect some bias against pro-Obama callers if I didn't know Rosenberg was generally fair-minded. However, WGN in general is a little left of center, with the Kathy/Judy show in the morning being quite liberal, but I still heard the same type of calls regardless of the political spectrum of the program hosts. Obviously WGN's stance was 'we have the right, in a country that values free speech, to air what we want and we're not going to let anyone pressure us to not put someone on the air just because they don't like the guest'. Again though, what kind of reaction can we expect from a sensationalist "stop the smears!!oneone!!!1111!!!" email?

 

I look forward to seeing the link(s).

Kurtz interview (from this page):

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

 

Part 6 is where the calls begin.

 

John Williams speaks to Zack Christensen (Extension 720 producer) about the enormous response to Rosenberg's show. I can't pull up the podcasts for the Spike O'Dell and Kathy and Judy shows the morning after the Kurtz interview where there were also many callers. I can pursue contacting WGN if you're really interested.

 

The Freddosso interview

 

 

 

Assuming that all my above questions can be answered satisfactorily, that still doesn't explain how Obama's campaign is suppressing "negative press".

The Obama Action Wire is linked directly from Obama's own site (Fight the Smears page), and is coming from the campaign itself.

 

Jae, in the interest of understanding your point, I asked for other examples. Thus far you've opted to remain focused on this one. Do you have other examples or not?

An episode with another WGN guest.

AP article about the Obama campaign wanting to block negative ads and asking the Dept. of Justice to intervene.

 

Oh, ok. So his campaign isn't suppressing negative press (per your assertion in post #23) after all? Done and done, then.

Depends I guess on how you define 'suppressing negative press', but it looks like the Obama Action Wire section of his campaign is pursuing this with some recklessness that doesn't seem to me to be characteristic of Obama himself. I could never see Obama being so sensationalist, and I think he needs to do something to tone down what looks to me to be a loose cannon.

 

Oh--I forgot about finding you a link showing record contributions for McCain in August, and here it is.. Obama also had a record month and had made a ton of money as you noted also. McCain has indeed opted for public money which limits contributions to him, but the RNC is receiving a ton of donations, as is the DNC, and both of those groups will be funding campaign needs.

 

Thanks for the response, Jae.

I appreciate the time you've taken too.