Freakin' Awesome Obama Music Video

Wow. Anyone going to make one of these for Mitt?

By Ericka Andersen Posted in Comments (82) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I don't care if you are the biggest Obama hater out there -- you WILL think this video is cool. Obama's "Yes we can" speech in New Hampshire was historically memorable. This video cements the inspiration found in his words. He may be full of hopeful air but if you take the speech in a more personal way, it can certainly rustle something good in your heart.

The video is not sponsored by Obama but a collabaration of celebrities who support him -- singing the words to the "Yes we can" speech. The song is released by, a Black Eyed Peas' singer, and director Jesse Dylan, son of Bob Dylan.

The others featured in the video, including Scarlett Johanson, John Legend, Kate Walsh and Kareem Adbul Jabbar(among others), sing the words to the speech as Obama's voice is filtered through at the same time. The way they sync the words together is chilling. The ultra-coolness of this video will likely persuade at least a few undecided, non-investigative type of voters to swing for Obama. I hope we see something of equal awesomeness from Republicans sometime soon.

« BREAKING: Bank Collapses. Feds cite Sen. Chuck Schumer as "immediate cause" of collapseComments (14) | The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - a previewComments (7) »
Freakin' Awesome Obama Music Video 82 Comments (0 topical, 82 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Shrill? (Shaking head sadly)

Masterful, political poetry.

The old black and white ones that were rife with androgyny and had no real point.

And, poetry? All I hear from Obama is shouting.

Maybe it's time to get the hearing aids tuned-up.

Read some of the other comments here. I've never heard so many people (from across the political spectrum) respond to a speaker the way they do to Obama. Friends, relatives, and strangers mostly say "WOW!" That includes people who would never vote for him.

Maybe you're missing something. Then again, tastes do vary.

I have spent the last 16 years wonder what the appeal of bill Clinton was. It turns out he was just appealing to those he appealed to.

This video has very pretty people and a very innocuous message that can't be refuted. For those that don't demand solutions ,experience a track record its compelling.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

but definitely annoying and out of sync. I couldn't get through more than 45 seconds of it.

For celebrities in a music video I prefer this:

Now that's slick.
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

ESPECIALLY if it were to get airplay on MTV (sorry, MTV2, since MTV doesn't do music anymore) right before the election, would be a strong motivator to the kids to get out and vote. They want to feel like they're making a difference, and Obama seems to have that dynamic down pat. He's like Gary Hart in 84 and 88. They don't know what he's for, but they know that they like it.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

DISCLAIMER: I am loosly affiliated as a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. All viewpoints expressed are my own, not the campaign's.

They don't know what he's for, but they know that they like it.

Fits most "moderates" to a T.

Romney/Pace 2008

This appeals to people who prefer to emote instead of think when it comes to politics.

Which I believe is well more than half of the people out there who vote. Think and consider the issues... are you kidding? Lets face it, to the unthinking, the Republican candidates are uncool, boring, uninspirational, rich, white guys. Heck, as a conservative I find them boring and uninspirational. Alas, we must focus on getting a 1994-esque congress.

Give credit where due with Obama. I dont agree with him on much of anything, but I must admit I like the guy. I dont feel the gut-wrenching, sickness and dread at the words "President Obama" that the words "President Clinton" invoke.

Obama is the only thing that wail force me to vote for johnny Mc.

He is the clasic empty suit , but has a extreemly far left history. He makes "Prof Harold Hill " look like a horrid salesman.

Hillary might be worth a vote just for stopping the obama train if she can.

The only upside to him is 2011 and 2012 will make 79 and 80 look like glory days.

Obama would be that failure...

Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

I have often said when talking at work and school with friends that an Obama Presidency would be tolerable because of one thing; the progression of race dialog in the nation. He would do a lot of healing...unless.....

Some think the Clinton machine has put enough animosity between blacks and latinos that latinos will overwhelmingly support Hillary. I don't know what will happen, but this video was made to woo the latinos (si se pueda)

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

tc I guess you are easily amused. This is updated 60's bull !!

Yeah, all that nonsense in the 60s about civil rights was just "bull." Waste of time. A distraction from the really important things.

Seems people here aren't getting it. It is slick! Of course it is intended to appeal to people in the gut instead of the head. But it does a darn good job of that, and that's the point. Obviously the content is lacking. Add those kind of production values to a Mitt Romney or John McCain video and we'd really be getting somewhere.

Hillary won't do and neither will McCain. If by some chance he doesn't get the nomination, I think we'll see an Independent run. RonPaul will ofcourse run; he's having too much fun to quit. Heck, maybe even Huckabee will run on a Salvation ticket.

But Obama is probably the only one with as much crossover appeal to win against the parties. 2008 is a phenomenal year.

You can disagree with almost every word Barack Obama says. I certainly do. But I think you have to have your head buried in the sand to deny that his speech(es) and this video are going to be powerful to some people.

I think much of America, as a whole, doesn't necessarily vote on the issues. If you look at exit polls, where McCain wins the pro-choice crowd in Florida and Edwards wins the pro war(!) crowd in Carolina, it seems obvious to me that people vote from their gut and not necessarily their heads, Which is something a powerful speaker than lacks in substance like Obama can use to his advantage.

McCain needs to make a video like this.

McCain is a false hope for conservatives. Romney is a much better leaders, speaker, and uniter.

But in case you are not, calling McCain a democrat does not get anyone anywhere close to a real conversation.
And the dishonesty of the statement is very annoying.

I'm thinking polka music, and maybe McCain doing the chicken dance.

I don't see Web 2.0 flashy edited young and hip music videos.

You guys don't see the big issue in the McCain/Obama matchup we may be heading to. It's not just the 2008 election; it's young people selecting their political "brand" which they tend to stick with even if it makes no ideological or personal sense. (Note for example the Boomer generation, where a lot went Democratic back in the day and have never considered changing, even the ones who know better and have every personal reason to want lower taxes and less government).

If Obama makes the YouTube generation go Democratic, it's going to be a problem for a long while.

This just makes my skin crawl - an empty, meaningless hoseanna to noble-sounding platitudes that mean nothing and do nothing but distract and shut off critical thinking. Reminds me of the hysteric ultra-radical sixties propaganda used to excuse just about any left-wing atrocity or absurd power grab.

When a candidate does nothing but go for the gut, he's hiding some revolting ideas in my book.

Yep, and I guess "It's morning again in America" was just a way to hide Ronald Reagan's diabolical right-wing atrocities. No wait, it was an appeal to critical thinking. No wait...

No question about it, the message "Yes we can" is obviously just a way to excuse every left-wing atrocity imaginable. I'll bet if we slow the video down it's filled with subliminal messages.

I'd laugh, but it's too sad.

...that it's mourning again in America.

video by samc


Obama has much in common as a politician with Ronald Reagan. Despite what someone said here that he is a manufactured pol. that isn't the case. To be a truly great politician and not just an average one here's what has to happen. The messenger, the rhetoric and the image must be in sync. It's the authenticity of the complete package that sets Reagan and Obama heads and tails above everyone else.

I must admit that I am loving watching Obama outclass the Clintons at every level. He gets the 1st tier Kennedys, she gets the 2nd tier. He gets Oprah, she gets Ugly Betty. He writes a real book- "Dreams from My Father", she writes(or did she?) "It Takes a Village". She is a capable lawyer, he's the president of the Harvard Law Review. She has a disfunctional marriage, he has the perfect family. She will probably win this nomination by pulling some dirty tricks with the Michigan and Florida delegates, but this guy is going to be a thorn in the side of the Clintons for years to come.

And like "Morning in America" this video is perfect.

I think you're right about the Reagan comparison. I also think there are more Reagan parallels. The Obama-Clinton race reminds me of Reagan-Ford in 1976. Reagan as the idealistic outsider versus the establishment selection of Ford. I'd guess Obama loses to Clinton in 2008, but he'll be the presumptive nominee in 2012 if Clinton loses to McCain.

Also like Reagan, I'm afraid Obama could make real changes in substantive policy in Washington simply because, like Reagan was, he's such an excellent communicator and has the likeability factor. If Clinton becomes president, it will be partisan warfare for four years with nothing much accomplished (a good thing). If Obama becomes president, I'm afraid he'll be successful in pushing his far left liberal policies and make a lasting impact the way Reagan did and Bill Clinton never could. Obama seems like a good guy but the country has much more to fear from an Obama presidency than a Clinton presidency.

...who also was able to articulate what his political philosophy was, how it was relevant, and - most importantly - why it would be attractive to his audience. He was also an experienced politician by the time he achieved true national prominence in 1976, with two successful gubernatorial campaigns under his belt. Throughout it all he was his own man who wrote his own speeches and spoke his own thoughts.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, is a reasonably glib speaker (which means that he doesn't use the word "umm" much) who is in the middle of his first national office mostly because Jack Ryan liked to take Seven of Nine to sex clubs when Seven of Nine didn't particularly feel like going.

Please recalibrate accordingly.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

speaker, but he nothing substantial to say - except "hope". I guess sometimes, that is enough for some.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

He makes liberals feel good about themselves while doing absolutely nothing for them. They feel euphoric, virtuoso, relevant and just plain meaningful. They snuggle up to him and purr like kittens in a bail of catnip.

Soldiers' Angels

Ericka, if you want the candidate of your choice to win, you'd better hope that some of the people posting on this video don't get anywhere near that candidate's campaign.

Hatred for Democrats and liberals and Obama and Hillary aren't substitutes for sound campaign strategy, which needs to be both substantive and inspirational.

From some of the comments here, I get the impression that a winning campaign ad would be McCain or Romney reading from "The Wealth of Nations."

Reagan's most effective ad was undoubtedly "It's morning again in America," an incredibly sappy, emotional appeal to non-critical thinking. Reagan didn't win on issues (polls showed that most voters disagreed with him on most issues).

Red State is supporting Obama?

Maybe you should change the name of your blog.

There's no problem saying or supporting whoever you want. You can be a reach-out-and-feel-good-for-Democrats blog, but you oughta change the name and do a redirect to keep old traffic to find your new site.

Obama has the most liberal voting record out of all the candidates. So the reply that Obama may be a crossover candidate (ie, the usual 'Redstate is conservative, not Republican' thing) is Hollywood.

Which, well, that's what Red State should be reading into a slick video. Nothing more.

Commenting favorably on a video or speech is not support for a candidate.

A video is being critiqued.
It is as beautiful as the candidate it supports is empty.

Of course the video is lacking substantive content. That's a silly criticism of it. Every campaign need emotional as well as intellectual content. On an emotional level, I found the video powerful. I suspect some here are both politically and musically tone deaf.

An inspirational video.

I may disagree with his politics but I'd be lying if I said Barack Obama doesn't make me proud to be an American.

History is all that will help us with the future

A speech like this reminds me that someone doesn't have to continuously say "God Bless America" to make me feel patriotic That gives me goosebumps.

I have to say, as part of the MTV generation, this hits home with me & many other people my age. The difference is, I won't vote for him because of his political views, but I have spoken to many other young Republicans who will.

I found the video annoying, not moving--I was expecting much more, given that I am already impressed by Obama.

Obama is not without his weaknesses, but he's a good speaker, rallies the crowd, and actually comes across as a nice guy. As to the electability issue, I think either McCain or Romney could beat Clinton (though McCain has an edge), but Obama would likely beat either, and possibly by a significant margin.

If he doesn't win this go-around, expect him to be around again.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

You are right that the video is well-done. Artistically it is almost brilliant. It might have been genuinely brilliant if it hadn't been polluted with celebrities mooning for the camera. For what it is, a solid appeal to emotion, it was well done.

"I hope we see something of equal awesomeness from Republicans sometime soon."

Heh. Not really likely. As you can see from the comments, it wouldn't work that well anyway.

The left has so bogarted inspiration it's practically a dirty word around these parts. Elmidd is right that Reagan made great use of soaring oratory. Can't seem to get anyone on the right side interested in that anymore.


"As you can see from the comments, it wouldn't work that well anyway."

Absentee, it might not work for many here at Redstate, but it could work for either party, assuming it's done well and it fits the candidate. Recently, I've noticed some commentary here that recognizes that Redstate is not representative of the majority of the Republican Party. It reflects an important element of the the Party, but if most Republicans were in agreement with most Redstaters, we'd probably be talking about Thompson's primary victories -- or at least his neck-and-neck battle with another front runner.

On the other hand, the inspiration has to match the candidate. Reagan acted from a script that fit his talents; Obama sings a song that resonates with his voice. However, if Clinton gets the nomination, I can't imagine anything like this working for her. The same goes for McCain or Romney. Some candidates have it, some don't. Listen to either Clinton or McCain and try to imagine their delivery fitting into a video like this. For them the vehicle will have to be very different. Somewhere out there, there may be someone with the imagination to create something for those other candidates, but I suspect the presidential campaign (McCain/Clinton?) will please the naysayers here -- lots of accusatory droning filled with half-truths, distortions, misdirection, and threadbare political boilerplate, and no music or poetry or art.

In the end, a great ad can set a tone for a campaign that is memorable and persuasive. It amazes me that people don't realize that being a great president is not simply about having the right policies; it's about making people hope, care, believe, and aspire.

No matter what anyone thinks of their policies, FDR, JFK, and RR uplifted and inspired people. And while political opponents from opposite camps wail about how undeserving the other party's president is of his acclaim, each probably owes whatever success he had as much to style as substance. (I can hear it now: JFK and FDR? Yes. RR? Never!!!)

"The left has so bogarted inspiration it's practically a dirty word around these parts."

If that's true, it's self-defeating.

Everyone seems to pine for another Reagan - you know, someone who makes them proud to be an American. That's a quality that Obama, say what you will about his policies, possesses in unbelievable amounts. I don't know if I could vote for McCain in the general anyways, but I have no clue how a matchup of any of our guys against him will go. I said upthread that he's like Gary Hart in that nobody knows what he stands for, but they know that they like it. Truth is, though, that Gary Hart didn't have that quality of crossover appeal. Obama does.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

DISCLAIMER: I am loosly affiliated as a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. All viewpoints expressed are my own, not the campaign's.

"If that's true, it's self-defeating."

I completely agree. I've been saying that here for months. The country right now wants inspiration. Our candidates failed to bring it to the primaries. Thus the mixed campaign results. No one wants to hear this, but when I saw Thompson and McCain, I saw one guy who wasn't inspiring anyone, and one guy who was, especiall veterans. That's when I saw the writing on the wall.
People at Redstate are often dismissive of such things, but at their peril. Such things swing elections.


INSPIRE anyone? This is what the video is about; feeling GOOD about a political figure. That's the beginning and its GREAT marketing.

Our antidote is Bobby Jindal. He is BO with a LOT OF EXPERIENCE.

This video combines two of our nation's biggest embarrassments: Our idiotic Washington politicians and our idiotic Hollywood celebrities.

appeal to middle-aged Republicans.

I think this is evidence of what the Republicans face in this election cycle. This man will probably beat Hillary. He will also beat any Republican. I have worked in the campaigns of every Republican Presidential race since the 70's. I have worked in Senate/Governor races for Jesse Helms, John East, Lauch Faircloth, Ollie North, John Warner, Jeb Bush, Charlie Crist, Mel Martinez, and George Allen. I am a grunt..I have worked the phones, the neighborhoods, the polls and I, a conservative Republican, would vote for this man. I find both parties are corrupt to the core. The Republican party is now selecting a man, John McCain, that destroyed every thing many of us worked hard for - the selection of Conservative Judges with his Gang of 14 for his own reasons (I believe it was revenge against Bush for beating him in 2000). I will not vote for Hillary, but I will vote for this man. I expect him to do everything a Democrat will do in office...but maybe the Republican party will grow a backbone and actually fight for conservative values, limited government, and learn to communicate those values. We have a lot of work to do in this Party..because this man will be President in the near future.

“Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” - Ronald Reagan

...of the United States of America.

Obligatory statement, yes, and Tuesday will clarify, also yes. :)


PS, and the real reason for the comment: I hear that the strike is about to end; feel free to do a blog entry when it does.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

of Hillary's Kool-aid, which the Dems will drink. Obama is just a placebo. Maybe they'll wash down the placebo with Kool-aid: Clinton/Obama'08.

Boomers are not ready for a president who is younger than they are. I'm going with age and treachery, although I can't fault Obama for trying to sieze the moment. In four years, his shine will have worn off, the Senate will have stolen his soul, the short American attention span will have moved on, and he'll be just another guy running for president again.

This doesn't mena he won't eventually win, just not this time.

...are mostly about AGE and not as much about sex and race.

if doing so makes them feel younger. Sort of the same way they date or marry younger people.

Never underestimate the will of the Boomer generation to deny aging.

If Obama makes people feel that voting for him will make them seem young and hip, he will draw plenty of boomers who haven't quite come to grips with the notion that they are no longer college aged.

Boomers vote for their constituency and belief (usually from past beliefs). That holds true for both Democrats and Republicans. It's the youngsters that will eventually out-vote the oldsters and force change.

The only way Boomers feel young is by chasing the young girls... No connection to politics.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

of many Boomers makes them think they will all live to be 100. This only enhances their sense of entitlement to government control for a long time to come. They may say nice things about Obama, but I'm sure they find it annoying that someone who was about 6 years old during the Summer of Love is hijacking all of the icons who inspired them.

Besides, even Boomers have to wince at a candidate who actually says, "We can save the planet" in a campaign commercial. For a generation wich has spent the last 40 years saying rhe exact opposite, this must sound gallingly naive at best, or the height of hubris at worst.

...I do think we're about to hear something.

What will be REALLY interesting is what they've worked out on internet streaming AFTER the DGA deal. It'd be nice, for once, to expose the DGA as the roll-over suckers who allways force us to take it in the shorts.

republicans just arent good at being hip and cool.

never gonna happen.

When I was a teenager growing up in the 80s, Republicans were the cool ones. It would be nice to get that inspiration back. It can happen again, but it will take a charismatic leader.

[quote]I hope we see something of equal awesomeness from Republicans sometime soon.[/quote]

Hmmm, from who and for who? Maybe a collection of country music artists, toby keith, etc? There's a problem with that though because Obama has inspired these artists to go out there on their own and produce this, this is something from their heart.

Manufactured material is never quite as good or effective. I doubt any of McCain's speeches make people want to get out there and do good things for him.

if he hadn't already announced LOUDLY that he plans to vote Democrat.

He's pro-soldier and anti-Bush in pretty equal measure.

he is our president. he would represent what is actually good, and hopeful, about our people...

Independent Forever

Hmm by hunter

You like the idea of declaring defeat in a war we are winning, turning on our allies, punishing our industries, and raising our taxes?

having the judgment to not send our troops into a war that truly distracted our country from fighting al-queda, of lifting up a people, a world to see the best our country has (not dividing and creating more anti-american sentiment than any time in our nation's history, and I like the idea of fiscal responsibility (we have to pay for this war, this mistake; the most expensive one in our country's history and the biggest strategic blunder in foreign policy history). I don't like raising taxes

wrong door -- dKos is on the LEFT!

Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

...standards for education here. A 1,000 word essay comparing the costs of the GWOT with those of the American Civil War and World War II (please factor in damages done to the American South for the former, and correct for inflation in both) should start things along nicely. Write it up, send it in, and we'll think about turning your account back on.

Although you may want to also research the causes of the first and second phases of the Persian Gulf War in advance. I suspect that your teachers fell down on the job in teaching you about that, too.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

get you anywhere this time around. Karl Rove was framing the win/lose argument on the Iraq war in 2004 and helped Bush squeek out a victory. Most people know now that invading Iraq was the opposite of helpful in the fight against terrorists.

Our allies in the Iraq endeavor have mostly packed up and gone home.

I don't know what industries Obama is on supposed to punish, but I can think of a couple: Kellog Brown & Root, and Blackwater.

If you earn over $250,000 per year, yes your taxes will go back to the same level they were before Bush cut them.

We scored the first popular majority vote in twenty sixteen years. We also increased our majorities in Congress*.

I'd address your other points, except that I was raised not to criticize a man's religion unless absolutely necessary.


*And promptly urinated them away, but that's a different story. It's just not one having anything to do with the war, given the way that professional Democratic politicians scurry away from any sort of confrontation on it: and I repeat my invitation to anybody who truly believes that the antiwar movement's got both the people and justice on its side to come over here and prove it.

If they think that they're hard enough.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I would agree with the notion that the Republicans squeaked out a victory in 2004.

It is true that it was the first majority vote for one guy in 16 years, but that means that there were three elections with no majorities; think about those three. Two had a major third party candidate take a lot of votes, and one was uber-close. So I do not think that the fact that Pres. Bush got a majority is such a huge accomplishment so much as it is a statement on recent elections.

Second, I believe that it was the closest re-election of a President in history, or at least in a long time.* Usually something pretty big has to happen for a sitting President to lose an election, and a President that people generally like will usually win comfortably unless something intercedes. Think about every re-election dating back to World War 2; the only really close one was Truman in 1948, and a lot of people hated Truman. In the 20th Century, only 5 guys lost re-election (I think). Two were in 3-way races (Bush and Taft), Ford lost after Watergate, Jimmy Carter lost for a bunch of reasons, and Herbert Hoover lost during the Depression.

As for Congress, I think that most people on either side you could have asked in 2004 would have defined victory for their side as getting the White House. So if Pres. Bush "squeaked out victory" (which I think he did), then so did the Republican party. Had, for example, Bush lost and the R's gained seats in Congress, it would still be considered a loss for the Republicans.

I do think that the anti-war side has both the people and justice on its side, but I don't think an assertion like that can be proven, and if it can be I am not the one to do it. By that we have the people, I mean that I think we have more support than the "stay as long as it takes" crowd. I say that because of polls I am reading on this website. I especially am looking at a NBC/WSJ poll in December 2007 asking if it is better to withdraw most troops by 2009 or stay till Iraq is stable; it is 57-40 for withdraw. And below that, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll is asking more, same, less, or none troops; none is the highest at 39. While this is not a majority, it seems that the "leave ASAP" bloc is the largest single bloc. I am sure that yall can show some polls that are evidence to the contrary, but it is certainly not a crazy assertion I have made here.

As for the justice part, I mean that I think leaving is the right thing to do. But I somehow think I am in the minority here. Just a hunch...

*I did some quick looking on Wikipedia, and the only other similarly close such races I found were in 1948, 1912, and 1812, when James Madison narrowly defeated DeWitt Clinton. I may have missed something, however. Anyway, Bush's re-election margin was smaller than all of the margins in those races.

...come and take it. We've had the invitation open for the last year, but you guys keep running away. It's very sad.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

... and pabulum to the so-called "moderate middle" voter.

Ericka is right. And elmidd, from his username and posts, is exactly that type of voter (albeit a lot less afflicted with their traditional total and complete ignorance), so his insight here is something we should not ignore.

Saying things like "hope", "bipartisanship", "listen to both sides", "get things done" draws "middlers" like bees to honey.

This sort of thing works wonders for getting them on your side. "Moderates" and Independents are really all about style - so long as you attach "bipartisanship" and some pizazz to it, you can sell a 70% tax rate to a "moderate."

McCain still stands a chance though. But it's going to be seriously tough sailing.

Romney/Pace 2008

and posts, is exactly that type of voter (albeit a lot less afflicted with their traditional total and complete ignorance), so his insight here is something we should not ignore."

Judge my posts as you will, but the user name is based on a first and last name, not ideological considerations. Thank goodness my parents didn't name me Theodore Librowski.

You should note that my posts are not about how I'll vote or why I'll support one candidate over another. They're about the effectiveness of this video and other masterfully wrought emotional appeals (especially Reagan's). Pretending that Ronald Reagan won on substance is, in my pabulum-loving opinion, dangerous, if it affects, as I think it does here, the judgment of people who want to win an election.

(A small "stylistic" note of some substance: I think "total and complete" qualifies as a redundancy or at least overkill.)

As for style and substance, I've always been much more swayed by substance, without pretending that millions of American voters (left, right, and center) aren't making their decisions based more on either style or a misunderstanding of substance. But I can't ignore style, because it matters so much. In 2000, if Gore had had Obama's style, he probably would have won in a landslide.

"Saying things like "hope", "bipartisanship", "listen to both sides", "get things done" draws "middlers" like bees to honey."

Interesting. Yet, it hasn't worked for the current president, because the message doesn't fit the messenger, and, if one listens carefully to the latest SotUA, President Bush's calls for working together were followed by promises of vetoes if the Democrats didn't pass bills worded more or less exactly as
he demands.

In 2000 Candidate Bush was all about bipartisanship and hope. Enough so that, apparently, he attracted a sufficient number of middlers to eke out a win (in the Electoral College, if not the popular vote). However, although Bush won on style, he's now an extraordinarily unpopular president. Why? Is he unpopular because of his style? Or is it because of his substance? Either way, it ought to catch the attention of Redstaters. If it's because of style, then maybe more attention should be paid. If it's because of substance, then the antennae should be humming, because it could mean that someone in the (maybe not totally and completely) ignorant middle is paying attention to substance.

"McCain still stands a chance though."

I couldn't agree more (from my perch way out here on the extreme, ignorant middle wing). McCain should be able to contend and even win, especially against Clinton, in part because many voters -- especially those in the unwashed middle -- will cast their ballots for McCain despite disagreeing with the substance of his campaign. But that happens all the time. I've read an analysis that reported that in '68 many Eugene McCarthy supporters switched to George Wallace after McCarthy dropped out. Substantive twins! Mattpat11 notes above that "McCain wins the pro-choice crowd in Florida and Edwards wins the pro war(!) crowd in Carolina..." in exit polling.

Wishing there were more and more honest substance in a campaign is both understandable and reasonable. But ignoring the effectiveness of this video, while criticizing it on substantive grounds or because one doesn't like Obama or celebrities is likely to be counterproductive.

Criticizing it on stylistic grounds is fine, as long as one realizes the difference between one's own taste and that of others.

By the way, you don't need to convince me that all substance and no style makes Jack an electoral loser - I actually think that in this electoral/media environment, an all style and no substance candidate can beat one with a fair combination of the two so long as he has friendly media to carry his water.

Romney/Pace 2008

McCain: Bomb Bomb Iran

Romney: Who Let the Dogs Out


This kind of spirit takes time to cultivate. Reagan got it. One strange, elfish Republican somehow managed turn it on this year, and in spite of unpalatable positions, got to be a top fundraiser. But I'm not even allowed to say his name, so good luck keeping that enthusiasm in the party when he's gone.

McCain is a Democrat. Most would prefer to let a real Democrat govern than McCain. Romney or bust!

Uhh, I think he is referring to Pon Raul, if you get what I am saying...

I'd venture a guess that that kind of reasoning has never won an election.

Obama is still an empty suit, but this video is really nice.

If only he weren't a Democrat. Just holding views such as the successful should support the unsuccessful and that the government should be a nanny state make him unelectable. Not to mention his views on the GWOT, which would devastate our effort. If democrats did not make a political platform built around appealing to the lazy and slothful in this country! Not to mention a complete acceptance of Feminism and it's anti-social stances on gender roles, right to life, and traditional marriage. The fact that he holds these views leaves me a little sad, cause the guy is really likable.

Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now.

-White Goodman

I agree he's got charisma that none of the other candidates have. However, he is wrong on every issue. On many issues he is to the left of Hillary. If only he were a conservative, I would back him even with his incredible lack of experience.

This type of thinking -- Obama is so great even though I disagree with him on every issue as he is solidly far-left on every issue -- is what could get him elected if he wins the primary.

So yeah, go ahead, let media bias and his lofty, yet empty rhetoric dupe you into voting for him. That it would be a disaster for the Sup Court, the war effort, taxes, spending, immigration, the Second Amendment, property rights, marriage and other social issues doesn't really matter because the guy is inspirational!

Ericka, your too cool, young and hip for much of this crowd and yes I'm pandering. Nothing wrong with pandering to the young conservative babes is there?

Redstate readers aren't exactly the target demographic of this piece, but it's very interesting to see people's responses.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service