The Big Rock Candy Mountain Candidate
The HopeChangeObama Brand Hits a Snag
By Ben Domenech Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama is like Jesus but cooler | Branding | Millennials | Obamafiles — Comments (50) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
For years, I’ve had conversations with friends in politics that all conclude with something like this: “We’re never going to fix the Republican brand until we get our leadership to start recognizing that what a brand is, and that candidates need to sell themselves not by looking at other candidates, but by looking at Nike.”
Yesterday, Barack Obama’s audacious brand continues to triumph. Marketed with dazzling skill to the high end consumer and the conformist college-age Millennial, it enables Obama to make a much broader appeal as a unifying force, in spite of his narrow policy views. He’s the iPhone of politics, sleek, sexy, and pop culture, and even as only 2.5 percent of the market, last year, everyone – even the nonpolitical – know the brand instantly. As Patrick Ruffini noted in his own analysis of Obama: The Brand – “The end result is that great brands are fungible. They can be all things to all people. The branding approach liberates Obama to be the candidate of the MoveOn wing and of national unity. That’s not a criticism. It is a compliment.”
Last night, though, we also started to see a few chinks in this HopeChangeObama brand. See, while the benefits of marketing a candidate like anything in a box are enormous, it’s a dangerous game to play.
Read on
Consumer brands are more recognizable, they are more unifying, and they have a broader appeal. But when the American people are increasingly voting based on a desire for authenticity, it still matters what’s actually inside the box you’re selling. If you promise people tea and cake, and it turns out to be death, well, they’re not exactly going to be saying omg ponies! And if your brand is a new entry into the marketplace, and you don’t have a lot of built-up goodwill and gravitas, well, you can be rebranded by your opponents before you know it.
The signs that the Big Rock Candy Mountain candidate gave off last night were not the signs of a brand that has staying power. The Clinton campaign has essentially goaded him into giving longer, more typically political speeches – laundry lists of programs and bureaucratic expansions that make him sound like a typical politician, not a candidate of HopeChange. It leads to scenes like this, the sort of promises that can win you a Democratic primary in Wisconsin hands down, but will come back to bite you in a general election:
"We can restore a sense of economic fairness in this country. I believe in capitalism, but when you've got CEOs making more in 10 minutes than ordinary Americans make in a year, that's not right. I want a $10 billion package to prevent foreclosures, and a mortgage deduction for those who don't itemize."
"Yyyesss!"
"We shouldn't raise the minimum wage every 10 years, we should raise it every year, to keep up with inflation. If you work in this country, you should not be poor."
"Amen!"
As Thomas put it: “Those folks on the other side attack the ‘failed policies of the last eight years.’ As a cure, they offer the failed policies of the last century.” The Obamanation doesn’t seem to recognize this yet, but the promises made now just aren’t going to play the same way in a general election.
Robert Samuelson’s column on the “Obama Delusion” in the Post is getting a lot of linkage today, and it deserves it; while naturally inclined to like Obama, he still sees a broad distance between brand and reality (emphasis mine):
Political candidates routinely indulge in exaggeration, pandering, inconsistency and self-serving obscuration. Clinton and McCain do. The reason for holding Obama to a higher standard is that it's his standard and also his campaign's central theme. He has run on the vague promise of "change," but on issue after issue -- immigration, the economy, global warming -- he has offered boilerplate policies that evade the underlying causes of the stalemates. These issues remain contentious because they involve real conflicts or differences of opinion.
The contrast between his broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the media -- preoccupied with the political "horse race" -- have treated his invocation of "change" as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan. He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't.
If you think that’s the sort of thing that McCain – Mr. Straight Talk, an old brand, a slow brand, but one built on decades of action to back it up – isn’t going to be able to peel back in a drawn out general, well, you’re fooling yourself. But even if he has to do it without the help of the MSM, without further investigation of what Obama really offers beneath all that packaging, it can be done. As Jennifer Rubin notes:
Obama showed a little leg last night and to the relief of the McCain camp showed himself to be a rather ordinary liberal. It sounds trite to recite the litany, but the list of his policy proposals was trite: tax the rich, roll back trade agreements, spend more money, do something (I couldn’t tell what) about lobbyists, and give everyone in America an affordable college education (you might get some Republican takers if you started taxing educational institutions with billion dollar endowments), all while providing universal healthcare. On foreign policy you will find no Joe Biden realism, let alone any Scoop Jackson muscular defense strategy. (He did seem rather enthusiastic about using funds we will save from retreating from Iraq to build roads and provide broadband service in Houston, though.)
This is good news for McCain on two fronts. First, it helps solve, if not totally obliterate, his problem with rallying the base. If conservatives cannot get revved up to oppose a platform that looks like something Ted Kennedy cooked up (come to think of it…) then nothing will rally them. Second, this will enhance McCain’s ability to snag independents. (When you throw in Obama’s positions on everything from partial birth abortion to gun control the task becomes that much easier.)
McCain will, of course, need to fight through the throngs of media boosters and shout over the “Yes, we can” chants. But if the only thing innovative about Obama is stylistic, then McCain may not be such a long shot after all. (He can only hope Obama gives a rambling, self-indulgent mess of a speech after every victory between now and June.)
There’s a meme that’s emerged over the past few months that Obama is – despite resting in age between the runoff of the Baby Boom and the first Gen Xers – the first true candidate of the Millennial generation. The label fits, in large part: Millennials are a responsible bunch, but they still have a mess of conflicts – they say they hate materialism yet spend scads of money, they’re socially conscious but don’t have long memories, and they’re the most secular and the most evangelical generation on record at the same time. Their personal lives are extremely conservative: they drink and use drugs at much lower rates than any generation since the 1950s, and they share those straitlaced conservative attitudes toward sex (the abstinence figures and pregnancy rates are just astounding, and a plurality of them are pro-life), but they’re solidly on the left on the environment and the size of government. They’re optimists, trusting of most authority, and passionate about civic duty.
Yet there’s something else here, too, something that the left should realize is a bigger concern than the political horserace of the moment – this voting bloc is massive, young, and fickle. They’ll turn on a dime after seeing some paparazzi photos and a segment on TMZ. One day you’re Hannah Montana, the next you’re Britney Spears. Just imagine how they would’ve reacted to Dukakis in the tank, with 6 million hits on YouTube, and you get the idea.
Be warned, lefties. Empty promises may sway the Millennials for this election, but putting all your audacious hopes of Great Society Redux in one basket with Obama must have the intended result: once you get the candidate out of the box, regardless of how good the branding is, it still has to work. The past two Democrat administrations have been trainwrecks, and now you’re trusting a guy with no executive experience and a team of political has-beens to achieve glorious HopeChange with a bar set in the stratosphere.
When it comes to the future of conservatism, perhaps the best result for this election and for our future would be the Old Man beating the Kid. The lesson for the left: Even when you packaged it with flowers and puppies and a bright pink bow, you still couldn’t sell McGovernism to the American people. But even if Obama wins, he has to deliver – and it now appears like, after all that sturm und drung, all he’s bringing to the table is a bunch of old failed ideas. The Millennials are too young to remember the welfare state – but they’ll remember what happens next.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Wednesday Open Thread — Comments (29) »
The Big Rock Candy Mountain Candidate 50 Comments (0 topical, 50 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Haven't seen you round these parts lately, was wondering if you had left us..
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
some major overhaul that I had been putting off for too long. Finally pulled the trigger and went offline last week for a few days. Didn't realize how addicted I had become to news online until it was gone! So I avoided the TV most of the time and managed to hold myself to just sneering at the news anchors when faced with them. Got my machine back last Friday and have been re-installing things ever since. Well, that and letting my 3-year old granddaughter get her fill of Strawberry Shortcake games on the 'puter. After listening to the too-sweet voices of Straw. Shortcake and My Little Ponies ad nauseum, I find that I am remarkably well-prepared to stave off any attraction to Obambi and Co.!
Other than that, I needed some time to wrap my attitude around Johnny Mac as the candidate without whining about it. Quite honestly, comparing him to O or H--he comes off pretty well!
I went through it certainly, and if it came down to Fred, Rudy and Mitt I think I might have done a happy dance. As it is, I'm just happy we didn't end up with the Slick Huckster.
Oh, and I'll take your Strawberry Shortcake and raise you Sesame Street! :-) I've taken to singing some of the songs at work because I can't get them out of my head......
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
"ladybug Picnic" and "Rubber Ducky" in my hand--what are you holding? :-)
As to either Rudy, Fred, or Mitt--seems like an age ago, doesn't it?
Among them "put down the ducky", "Elmo's Blanket", "Do the rubber Duck", "Elmo's world",and the entire soundtrack to Elmo in Grouchland :;smiles:: I believe that's a full house. And indeed, that does seem like eons ago when we were takling Rudy, Fred and Mitt.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
can't help thinking of "Bob, the Builder" everytime I hear Obama say, "Yes, we can." Unlike Bob, though, Obama doesn't strike me as a guy who knows how to wield a hammer very effectively.
Oblivious to the real world, singing the alphabet and counting not really paying attention to whats going on.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
It's true! Only a buck! Here it is.
The original last verse of that song, by the way, is quite profane and was excerpted. You can read it on Wikipedia. The rest of the changes are just as dramatic.
in November if what they are counting on to rally support for McCain is a showing of how undesirable Obama might be. Calling for people to vote anti-anything has shown to be a losing proposition. Kerry ran as the non-Bush last election, and lost for it. If the best offering McCain has come November is that he's not Obama, it will be a landslide.
"not being Obama." He's a bear on defense, has promised to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, has promised to nominate conservative judges, has stated that he knows he has to seal our border before proceeding with any plans for legalization--in short, he is a grown-up with a long career in politics and a record of accomplishments to show for it. Not that I'm crazy about a lot of those accomplishments, but the man knows how to get things done in the real world, not just promise fanciful things to impressionable young folks or aging and unrealistic hippies.
My mothers a lifelong Democrat, and I tried to explain to her why I could not pull the lever for Obama. Hopeandchangehopeandchangehopeandchange is all he says, but its the same old liberal message of George McGovern in a fancy new biracial package.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
sticking point for many Dems when it comes to both of their candidates. Too many people by now have had family members or friends and neighbors participate in this fight and the history of the past 6+ years is too rife with attacks and incidents in a myriad of places to just sweep it under the rug.
But she does think McCain is a war hero. My parents are socially conservative Catholics, but union Democrats, so really I think its more that then anything else.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
conservative Catholics, then how do they square Obama's vote on partial birth abortion? Even pro-choice people have drawn the line at that one--not all, but many. But I suppose if those of us who were enraged by McCain's illegal immigration deal last summer can set that aside and vote for the man, then those in the Dem party can overlook the things they don't agree on as well and vote.
I still find it really difficult to think that we have over 300 million people in this country and the three candidates who are running make a large majority of the country have to hold their noses to vote.
I was able to convince them of Mitt, but McCains been no sale. They were Hillary! Democrats but all the nastiness from the Clintons in the primaries turned them onto Obama.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
to convince myself of a number of things after Fred bit the dust, but they all bit the dust, too. So off we we will all go to the polls in November, holding our noses and trying not to gag, while doing our civic duties as best we can.
In a situation such as this, both sides have more in common than we might ordinarily suppose.
I moved to Mitt while hoping Fred would prove me wrong and make a race out of it, and I was going to get on the Rudy bandwagon if he ended up winning FL and Super Tuesday.
At this point, I'm just hoping it's not McCain-Huckabee, because I honestly cannot stomach that ticket. I really really might stay home if that is McCain's VP.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
hard to think that McCain would pick Huck for Veep when Huck is making is that much more difficult and expensive for McCain to tie up the nomination.
Well, Jeebus, I just heard that the Teamsters Union is endorsing Obama--although I guess I shouldn't be surprised by now.
but those policies are not the ones that are exciting people (especially the base), obviously. This article was about how the not-Obama strategy could be a catalyst in generating much needed enthusiasm (which you have to admit Obama supporters have in spades). My argument was simply that it is critical that McCain find a way to use his policies, rhetoric, or something as a means to generate some excitement from within, rather than depending largely on that excitement coming from an anti-Obama vote.
starting to wear a little thin on Obama. Even the mainstream media is starting to question it a little. (What I find amusing about them is that I sense they would be overjoyed to crow about Hillary's defeat, but only if they could be certain of it. They sure don't want to crow prematurely and spend the next four years being denied access if it works out that way. She'll make them cry, you know.)
As for the base, they aren't suicidal enough to look at the other side, compare whatever socialist candidate is offered up, and then pull the lever for the left. And, yeah, I know a lot of folks have made the threat to either do that or stay home, but feelings die down after a while and common sense sets in. Besides, there are many on the other side who aren't thrilled with either of their choices. In the south, many traditional Dems are still racist enough to not vote for a black man, and Hillary makes them just shake their heads in disgust. They are as apt to vote for McCain or stay home as any on our side have threatened to do.
is the big thing for Obama-ites. Their challenge is to translate enthusiasm today into enthusiasm in November. That's a long way away. Interesting take on the media, by the way. I don't totally agree, but there's probably a nugget of truth there. I tend to think that they more and more are shying away from calling anyone inevitable in light of their premature anointing of Rudy and Hillary.
As for the base, they absolutely will not pull the lever for the Democratic candidate any more than the Democratic base will for McCain. But in some of these swing states, it doesn't take a lot of people staying home, or more importantly, extra first time voters showing up on the other side (as seen with Obama in a lot of places) to swing things the other way. Republicans are in more trouble on these fronts than you think.
Counting on the racist Democratic voters to swing things back is I suspect a losing proposition.
with the electorate, txaggie. We've had the WH for almost 8 years, lost the House and Senate due to not being conservative, and have been involved in a war for almost the entire stretch of Bush's terms. I don't discount any of that in political calculations. But I also don't discount the fact that there are many in the electorate who love this country warts and all and who want it to survive and thrive against the threat of radical Islam.
And the Dems have no game plan for our survival as a sovereign nation.
I think Democrats do indeed have a plan. It's drastically different than many on the right care for, but it's there. I'm a firm believer that most everyone on both sides of the aisle wants what's best for the country they love (warts and all). They just have very different ideas how to get there.
One of the things I've hated about the recent years about politics is this general attitude that Democrats hate America and want to bring it down from within. It's polarizing to no end, in a way Bill Clinton could never have divided. And that attitude of polarization is something I believe that the electorate has put on the shoulders of Republicans, just the way that burden was squarely on Democrats 8 years ago. It's not part of "the issues" per se, but it's pushed a lot of people in the past towards the other side.
You don't need to excite people with your positions, only convince people that it is their best interests to support your positions. It depends on the packaging and strategy employed. While oneusually cannot run merely as the anti-candidate, a blend of pointing out the truth about Obama's policies and consequences of said policies can make the alternative far more attractive.
For example, Obama wanting to cut and run before his hand is off the Bible has ramifications. Spell out what those are (chaos, breeding ground for al qaeda, loss of respect for might of nation, encouraging further action in other parts of the world, etc.) and contrast that with the benefits of the alternate vision. (i.e. "After succeeding in Iraq and Afghanistan, this is what will benefit the US and rest of the world.") This can be contrasted for each of the points in this article (while most are pro-abortion, most are actually against late-term and partial birth abortion). Frame the cost and results of the liberal policies (monetary, quality, societal) in a way that cuts through the high-mindedness.
People don't have to be excited to be motivated.
Excitement is a HUGE factor in motivating people to vote...regardless of who they disagree with. It's been shown time and time again that the more passionate your supporters are, the more likely they are to get out and vote. Incidentally, your point of contrasting with opposing views is exactly what needs to happen. That is what turns an anti-Obama vote into an Obama-alternative vote. The last part, though, is that the enthusiasm level needs to at least resemble the Obama camp.
But I must disagree with you partially, as I can never completely agree with an Aggie anyway ;-) (Hook Em) There will be a large chunk of Blue Dogs that can be picked off with Obama's far left liberal record. While it is not necessarily an anti-Obama campaign, wehave to go negative on his liberal record in order to damage him at all. We are not going to outshine hopeandchange-we have to out wonk him, and expose him for the empty suit he is.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
We can't all be Aggies! I believe that going negative on Obama is really the only way Republicans stand a chance this election, but it's not enough. It's exactly the same thing as Kerry last election. Democrats banked it all on the anti-Bush vote, and while there were a lot of people that agreed that they didn't like Bush, they were not passionate about Kerry as the alternative. Force people to make a choice, and the vote may have gone quite differently. But the only ones that counted were those who cared enough to get to the polls, and in that measure, Kerry lost handily.
And I think that's the biggest contrast we have-McCain is for winning the War and ending Islamic fascism, or you have Obama who will pull out and leave us a feeble and weak country, ripe for another attack. And no my friend, we can't all be aggies-some of us have higher goals for ourselves ;-)
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
for Republicans. The tide has turned so far against the war that you face the daunting specter of fighting the wall of people that see things differently. It would be like running on a pro-flag burning platform. Even if you were right (NOT saying you would be!), it wouldn't matter much in light of the sea of people who THINK you are wrong.
Where do you come up with THAT?! You hear little about the war in Iraq anymore because it is going so well and the body counts are no longer of use to the MSM to beat like a drum. Anyone at this point talking about surrendering or withdrawing the troops sounds like the ultimate fool--well, that would accurately describe Pelosi and her brethren, but who else with even a scintilla of sense would say that the war in Iraq has been a failure?
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Scads (yes, I said scads) of polls showing the large majorities think that the war was a mistake, or not worth it, or favor pulling out either immediately or within one year. And that is even further amplified if you take the opinion of Republicans out of the equation. The rest of the country is indeed against the war.
THAT is where I came up with that.
you can look at what was accomplished by the Dems who were swept into Congress on a "mandate to end the war." They failed abysmally because Americans don't yearn for defeat. Ask yourself if all those scads of polls mean a blessed thing in the face of reality--we're still in Iraq, we're still winning, and is still looks like a success. The Haditha "massacre" was proven to be a lie, FatJack Murtha has outed himself as a liar of the first rank, and Pelosi, Reid, et al have approval ratings even lower than the President's.
So much for polls.
I have my own thoughts independent from polls, as you do. But those polls are reflective of the feelings of the electorate. Like I said before, you can argue that those people are wrong, and you have, but that doesn't necessarily change what people think. I'm not so much looking for reality of the situation in Iraq in the polls as I am looking for the reality of people's opinions.
we were involved in a very unpopular war in Southeast Asia. The Dems ran a candidate who promised, like Obama, to bring the boys home as soon as he was elected. Their candidate, McGovern, lost to Richard Nixon by a landslide. 23% difference between the two in the general election.
The idea that we should surrender is Iraq is a losing issue. The Dems and the media sold the idea that we were losing, the lives of our servicemen were wasted, which made the effort unpopular. That has changed, though still unreported by said Dems and media.
War will likely never be popular (which is good), but most people accept it readily when they know it is necessary. The acceptability of the war will be determined in the next months. Violence and military casualties are way, way down, which will increase the acceptance of the war.
If things continue to improve between now and November, if the Iraqis continue to make political progress, the opposition to the war will decline. If the radicals continue to slime the military a la Berkeley, the anti-war effort will suffer. If al Sadr can be convinced that we will kill him completely dead if he causes trouble, Iraq will remain stable. It is likely that by November, American troops will play a very small role in Iraq even though we are still there. We will be over the horizon, but a horizon that is still in Iraq.
America is not so defeatist as Obama, CodePink and Moveon. We want the effort to mean something, but we support the sacrifice of our troops. The Dems know this, which is why Bush has gotten every spending bill for Iraq through a hostile Congress. If it was actually so unpopular, the Dems would have made all sorts of political hay to stop the war. It ain't and they didn't.
is not necessarily indicative of support for the war. I could easily favor removing the troops ASAP, but at the same time support funding them while they are there. Many do, as evidenced by poll after poll.
I'm speaking more not to argue that we should leave or Democrats are correct (or wrong). I'm really not saying this to advocate either position. But as a political reality, advocating an unpopular position is a losing issue. It's possible that the war suddenly becomes popular between now and Nov., but unlikely. Just being realistic.
So he can't even claim that he "supported the troops" while opposing the war.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I think the Blue Dogs can definitely be picked up. I know at least one who was ready to vote for McCain even when it still looked like a toss up between Hillary and Obama. My father is a Democrat, and I asked him a couple of weeks ago who he was voting for in the primary (he lives in Ohio), and he said he wouldn't vote for either Hillary or Obama. He told me the only candidate from either party he likes is McCain.
Now, my father's been a Democrat all his life, and he is still a registered Democrat, but he voted for Bush twice in the general election after voting for Clinton twice. Why? I know it sounds cheesy, but I think it's the "who would you rather sit down and have a beer with" factor. My dad couldn't stand Gore or Kerry. I think the reason was that neither was the kind of "working man's man" that the Democratic party used to be famous for--the Union men, the blue collar folks. Gore was a policy wonk that sounded like a boring college professor, and Kerry was a rich liberal from the Northeast. Obama isn't any better. He's a liberal activist community "organizer" with a Harvard degree who speaks in poetic platitudes. And the almost cult-level status among college liberals and the Hollywood types coupled with the pseudo-messiah language makes it even worse.
In my view, the slick, Hollywood-packaged Obama should lose big time to the more down-to-earth war hero McCain among Blue Dog Democrats like my dad, especially in states like Ohio, West Virginia, and maybe even Pennsylvania and Michigan. I don't think it has anything to do with racism, as an earlier post alluded to. I think it has to do with Obama being a liberal elitist. The Union gentleman who introduced Hillary before her speech in Texas knew what he was doing when he talked about the latte-drinking Prius drivers who are supporting Obama. That intro was the perfect attack on Obama to appeal to the Blue Dog Democrats. If Hillary was smart, she'd start making the same points. Heck, she might even win over my dad if she did--it worked for her husband.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
socialist. It is standard issue class warfare, and of course his policies are nothing more than income redistribution. (his jobs plan is a great example of that)
I don't know what his so called brand is but he needs to be defined by his policies not his speeches. If his speeches become the story of the election we will get crushed. If his policies become the story then he has no shot.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
Good job. We have to point out the other side's weaknesses. It is the only way to derail to the Hopechangeexpress™.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
"I can resonate with him because my mother's also battling cancer," Tipton told me. "She's doing really bad. She just had radiation. She's on Medicare, but that limits her ability to get quality care. The innovative treatments, they won't pay for."
Mmmmm hmmmm. So the answer is to get even MORE government involvement in health care decisions?
Even if/when the 'magic' wears off, his typical leftist laundry list-protectionism, taxing the stuffing out of the rich and oil companies, etc. will be enough to win.
The key, I think, is to tie him to the policies of the late 70's. People need to be asked if they were doing well when the rich paid 70% taxes.
The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.
Obama is the candidate of the PAST. His policies are relics from the failed platforms of the 1970s. Protectionism, overregulation, high levels of taxation, energy shortages, etc. McCain should immediately call out Obama as the candidate of the past.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
You folks are lame - please sign up to go fight in Iraq and stop wasting energy writing and commenting on this silly stuff
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Odds are you're either a) a liberal (in which case why reference a war you oppose?), b) somebody using the chickenhawk argument to belittle those you disagree with (could still be Type A, but don't assume that we all are somehow war pigs. I would serve my country if asked, but there's something to do with a military physical that tends to disqualify me), or c) a troll who wishes to agitate people.
Either way, why should we pay you any heed with this non sequitur? Last I checked, Obama didn't fight in Iraq or serve in the military either. So we're even... other than that bit about my not wanting to humiliate the armed forces again with a McGovernite retreat strategy.
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk
and wanted to know my opinion of Obambi & Co.--I am emailing her your post as it quite succinctly answers all her questions. Well done and very timely. Thanks!