9 Comments Add your own

• 1. Optimistic1  |  September 17th, 2008 at 11:51 am

  Very impressive Ad, he is looking and sounding Presidential. I would be very interested in hearing specifics on how he believes he can change Washington as I have watched every President in my lifetime to some extent believe the same thing going in only to find it does not make sense for them to swim upstream so they cave in. The whole establishment needs to get rocked IMHO. Sen Obama taking in lobbyist cash (Which maybe he must do) is not a very good start and doesn’t coincide with this Ad.

• 2. Billybeermonicagar  |  September 17th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

  Read a short article from The Weekly Standard by Fred Kagan called “No oil for Blood”. It describes why we are not rebuilding in Iraq using their Oil money.

• 3. Uncle Bouncy  |  September 17th, 2008 at 1:15 pm

  Change:

  Media Notes
  Obama Aired More Negative Ads Last Week

  Updated 12:55 p.m.
  By Howard Kurtz
  Despite perceptions that John McCain has spent more time on the attack, Barack Obama aired more negative advertising last week than did the Arizona senator, says a new study released today.

  Seventy-seven percent of the Illinois Democrat’s commercials were negative during the week after the Republican convention, compared to 56 percent of the spots run by McCain.

  Ken Goldstein, who directed the study by the Wisconsin Advertising Project, based at the University of Wisconsin, says the pattern was a reversal from earlier months in which McCain’s advertising was consistently more negative than Obama’s.

  “It suggests that the Sarah Palin pick and the newfound aggressiveness by MCain got into Obama’s head a little bit,” Goldstein says. “He was under great pressure to show some spine, be aggressive, fire back.”

  The study found Obama limiting his television buys to 17 states and McCain airing spots in 15. For all the talk of an expanded electoral map, both campaigns are concentrating their resources in the traditional battlegrounds, with just over half the money spent in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana, Minnesota and Pennsylvania.

  “Shockingly, this race is going to come down to swing voters in the same swing states that decided the last two elections,” Goldstein says.

  All told, the study says, the campaigns poured $15 million into the ad wars last week — they were virtually even in total spending — but the figures revealed an important distinction. Obama, who has rejected public financing in favor of private fundraising, paid for 97 percent of his spots.

  McCain, who is limited to an $84-million federal subsidy, financed 43 percent of his commercials, with the rest airing in conjunction with the Republican National Committee.

  These “hybrid” spots allow McCain to retain control while the party foots much of the bill.

  Obama spent the most money last week, $1.3 million, on Florida ads, nearly matched by the $1 million McCain spent there. McCain’s most expensive state was traditionally Democratic Pennsylvania, where he spent $1.6 million to Obama’s $948,000.

  Obama was still on the air in Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, North Dakota and Montana, all states won by President Bush in the last two elections.

  Interest-group advertising was marginal at $187,000, although that is expected to ramp up in the coming weeks. Three pro-Obama groups aired commercials — the Service Employees International Union, Defenders of Wildlife and Planned Parenthood — while Vets for Freedom ran spots on McCain’s behalf.

• 4. Pat Cunningham  |  September 17th, 2008 at 1:23 pm

  Your point, Bouncy?

• 5. DingDong  |  September 17th, 2008 at 3:10 pm

  My god I almost laughed. I finally understand. Obama is judged mostly by what he says, which is just about anything to get elected. The others in this race get judged on what they have done, be it politically or personally. You want to help Americans, drill for some oil. It will not take 10 years. Was this made right after he went to Barbara\\\’s house for dinner, I am sure these people are hurting.

• 6. equalityrkfd=  |  September 17th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

  “You want to help Americans, drill for some oil”? Really, Ithought most of the oild drilled here in the US is sold overseas, how does that help us?

• 7. DingDong  |  September 17th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

  Supply and Demand. Also, we need more refineries.

• 8. Mr. Baseball  |  September 17th, 2008 at 9:18 pm

  Obama should be running more of these ads. Also, Thomas Friedman had an excellent column in Sunday’s New York Times on how simply drilling for more oil will not solve our energy problems and is actually counterproductive if that’s our top priority.

• 9. Craig Knauss  |  September 18th, 2008 at 8:50 am

  “Also, we need more refineries.” Figured that out, did you? Good job. You are aware that the oil we produce in Alaska is sold to the Japanese? And you are aware that we are NOT suffering an actual shortage of oil, only a manipulated one to raise prices? Have you seen any gas lines whatsoever? And are you aware that in Norway, for example, they produce more oil than they consume and their gas prices are much higher than ours? Supply and demand? Yeah, right.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed