A Few Ways Barack Obama Can Show There's Some Product Behind All That Marketing.
"The best way to kill a bad product is with good advertising." That's one of the oldest maxims in the ad business, an industry I have spent my career in, usually online but with a fair amount of traditional branding experience as well.
Simply what it means is that good advertising will get consumers to look at a product, to give it a try, drive its trial numbers up if you will. However, consumers are pretty smart folk and eventually, they will decide for themselves if the product matches the hype.
Some products succeed on the strength of their product with little or no advertising. But most products are a blend of marketing and product.
Barack Obama is heavy on the marketing and light on the product. Essentially, he talks about hope and change but far too much of his campaign, how they operate and how they act, speaks of old D.C. politics and business as usual.
Let's take one moment: the ridiculous vote in the U.S. Senate to condemn MoveOn. Barack was in the building but didn't vote. He no-showed. Sounds to me like D.C. business as usual. Hide in your office so you don't have to take a stand -- he's played this game before with critical votes. Not much hope or change in that stance.
If you look at what has happened to Barack since he announced, you'll see what I mean. Before he went and raised tens of millions of dollars, spent it and raised more, he actually was closer to Hillary in the national polls than he is now. Kudos to Pollster.com for a great organization of polling, click here and go back to May. Barack the unknown is in better shape than Barack the known. The long primary calendar has not been his friend.
Important to note here: what Hillary has done is prove that her product is better than her marketing, or to be more specific, the negative branding of her 'competition.' She did this the only way she could, one voter, one district, one county, one state at a time. The more people see her, the more they like her. And then there's Barack.
So what would you do if you were running Barack's campaign and wanted to prove conclusively that you were actually about Hope and Change and not just about talking about Hope and Change? Here are a few starter thoughts that will make sense to anyone outside of the beltway.
RESIGN FROM THE SENATE
Well, if D.C. is part of the problem, how about being part of the solution instead of keeping a back-up as remaining part of the problem? Everyone accepts that Senators run for the White House and keep their 'day' job.
But if you wanted to prove you were in this to win, Barack, resign. And focus.
JETTISON THE CONSULTANTS WHO REMIND ME OF EDWARDS 2004.
Remember all the complaints about John Edwards in 2004? Pretty face, all about the talk and not much walk, et cetera? Would it come as a shock to learn that Obama has some of those same consultants in 2007? Nope.
STOP RAISING MONEY. OR, AT LEAST, TELL ME WHERE THE LEFTOVER MONEY WILL GO.
You have plenty of money. You will have extra money win or lose. What charity is that going to go to? Or are you going to stash $20 million away for 'future' races? Show me you understand it's not your money, or your email list and I'll believe you're different.
OR ACCEPT DONATIONS OF $100 OR LESS.
You say you're about the people, well, the people think $100 is a lot and that it's insane for anyone to give a candidate $2,300. So take only $100 or less per person.
NATIONALIZE THE RACE.
I love Iowa. But the illusion of Iowa's power is really just a self-fulfilling prophecy and this time around, it won't really matter as much because the bump anyone will get from winning Iowa will be short-lived because so many primaries happen so soon after Iowa -- unlike 2004 where there was six weeks from Iowa to Super Tuesday.
BETTER YET, CONCEDE IOWA.
You don't have to win Iowa if you stop campaigning there. Chances are Hillary or Edwards will win, so take your show on the road.
AND, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO SWING FOR THE FENCES, CALL UP AL GORE.
You have the money, and the field operations, and a Gore-Obama ticket would be something to see. Al's going to have a good week hopefully, with the Nobel Prize thing and all. So call him up.
Tell him that he knows all about the vice presidency and you want to be his vice president.
Trust me, with the path you're on now, you have nothing to lose.
Follow James Boyce on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jamesboyce
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This article and countless others like it which come from people who really should get there facts straight before they post, are why Hillary is leading in the polls. o.k. you like Hillary Clinton. We all get that, but before you try to make Barack Obama look bad at least do your research. Tell the truth. Oh wait, not even the evening news can do that anymore if it doesn't get ratings.
Obama is an empty suit into which his supporter project their own hopes and desires.
He has not accomplished any important legislation in either Illinois or in the Senate.
His speeches and issue positions lack any specificity and are just generalities and platitudes.
Whenever a supporter of his posts, the comment says more about them than it does about Obama.
I'll have to get you for copy right infringement.
I think your first line was my idea. Stop copying me!!!
I did not see that you wrote that Obama was an empty suit. I guess it is becoming apparent to all that there is nothing there.
Please listen and learn something. This man is real.
http://vid
Boyce is unreal. How can he ask the one man with the best platform and the best political organization in Iowa to concede the state? It is because he has been bought and paid for by the HRC camp. What a shame...
See James Boyce's Profile
Have not been bought and paid for by HRC Camp, have plenty of friends over there, but they haven't sent me a penny.
By the way, a top field operative from 2004 told me that Obama's field operation in Iowa is the worst he's ever seen, just an fyi.
Have you seen other opinions?
Sure, but if experience is the criteria that matters, Biden has more than 34 years in the Senate with a long record of socially progressive legislation and foreign relations expertise.
Obama's appeal is that he is new. We have a long, mediocre record of choosing candidates because they were "new" to Washington. With a couple of exceptions, they got "old".
I'd be comfortable seeing Obama lead a small, stable country like Canada, but not a powerful, dangerous and deeply divided country like the US.
Let's take one moment: the ridiculous vote in the U.S. Senate to condemn MoveOn. Barack was in the building but didn't vote. He no-showed. Sounds to me like D.C. business as usual. Hide in your office so you don't have to take a stand -- he's played this game before with critical votes.
You seriously believe that vote was CRITICAL?
I guess that explains a lot actually.
Obama stated (that evening)sp
Yes that vote was critical. Voting against it showed solidarity to organizations which have been truly fighting causes for Liberals. Voting against it was a slap in the right wing's face. Voting against it showed you were a true Liberal and Progressive and not just part of the ranting herd. Voting against it would have shown that one has substance and is not just talk, hot air and fluff!
I understand that a lot of comments here emanate from sheer ignorance. But MoveOn and ACLU are organizations that actually do something rather than just babble incoherence!
To support such organizations is fundamental to a Liberal/Pr
How can you think such vote was important?
He stated the reason why he would not vote on the floor and he did not go hide in his office, you need to get that straight.
It was not worth any Senators time and I APPLAUD his no-vote.
senselessA
I read on another post that you really did hate Obama--now I see that you have broadened your Trolling horizons from just Hillary specific blogs to stalking Mr. Obama around the blogoshphere!!!
Really, have you no shame at all?
I know you are paid by the GOP to push hillary at all costs--She is, after all Dubya's own choice--but there is already a backlash forming to your senseless and ignorant rants, so be prepared to be very lonely--and for those checks to stop coming from Rove.
Why did you call him "Barack Hussein"?
Are you making fun of his name?
Do you think people are dumb enough to have a negative impression of him because you used his middle name?
Are you dumber than a toaster?
the ridiculous vote in the U.S. Senate to condemn MoveOn. Barack was in the building but didn't vote. He no-showed. Sounds to me like D.C. business as usual.
This tells us about the author what we need to know. Voting on senseless political distractions isn't political as usual?
Boyce's basic argument reminds me of people who say John Edwards doesn't really care about the poor because he gets expensive haircuts, or Al Gore doesn't care about the environment because they saw one of his cousins in an SUV two years ago.
It's the fallacy of holding a candidate to such an unreasonably high standard that truly no positive change ever will come about. The Clintons get away with this by proclaiming themselves "free market moderates.
Obama gets hit from both sides. The "not mainstream enough" side and the Boyce side of "quit the Senate." Quit the Senate? He's not running for Most Conscientious Person In America-- Obama is running for President, a job held by a few flawed people.
Thanks MichaelJames for cool-headedly dressing Mr. Boyce down. I found the hair standing on my neck and getting heated up to blast him but then read your response and found no need to go after him. Mr. Boyce and the rest of the talking heads have been urging Obama to make mistakes which they would quickly turn around and hung around his neck. They have not challenged HRC for the lies, doubletalk, contractions and the corruption. they just keep praising her for running a cautious campaign as if not making a mistake is a strategy for winning a race. One needs substance eventually!
Thanks! If only you had done it first, I might've had time for other things at lunch today! You are absolutely correct about the free pass Hillary has gotten to date.
The really insidious thing is that so many people don't do much in the way of digging for information and the media doesn't do a good job of reporting substance (it's all about the horse race). Thus, when some people come to hear a Hillary speech or hear her in a debate, she can sound good. Let's face it, she knows how to pander to an audience.
The problem is that her rhetoric so often directly contradicts a previous position or statement. If you don't pay attention over the long haul, you go to one of her speeches and say "gee, she seemed smart and said a lot of things I really agreed with." In the absence of anyone challenging that and illustrating her "say one thing/do another" approach, she gets a lot of people to lean her way or swallow the experience fallacy and support her.
Example:
Hillary eventually getting endorsed by Magic Johnson and to have previously spoken out about HIV/AIDS funding before a largely African American audience at the June 28 debate at Howard University when “…Hillary led the effort to gut provisions in the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006 (S. 2823) which would have fixed the increasingly unfair and outdated formulas that hurt African Americans, particularly in the rural South. The bipartisan remedy to this problem, which would have ensured funding would follow the caseload instead of short-changing African Americans, had been supported by 19 of the 20 Senators on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee…” Hillary was the lone “no” vote.
http://www
Stuff like this, is why so many people dislike her so intensely. Once you see enough of this sort of thing, you don't care if she speaks out in favor of the sun rising or nice weather, you just don't trust her.
Part 4:
AND, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO SWING FOR THE FENCES, CALL UP AL GORE.
Barack has said you don’t run to be in second place. He has the right experience, the right character and the right judgment to make a great president and we need him now. Not in 4 years, not in 8 years, not in 12+ years, but right now.
In the event that Gore won the nomination, I would be happy to see Barack in the VP spot, but, other than wishful thinking on the part of Gore supporters, I’m not seeing any signs of Gore preparing to enter the race and time is running out. Perhaps if no one wins enough delegates and there is a brokered convention, Gore could be called on at that point, but that seems a bit farfetched at this point.
I do think that, if they were confident that Gore would siphon off more support for Clinton than for Obama, then it would be a very smart thing to do and it would definitely help to eliminate the inevitability nonsense.
I found this buried somewhere on this Board: similar sentiments and needs to be highlighted:
http://www
"He has the right experience, the right character and the right judgment to make a great president and we need him now" ... sounds good, now please elaborate, especially on the "right experience" ...
Part 3:
NATIONALIZE THE RACE.
The short amount of time between Iowa and the other states actually makes Iowa even more important. The undecideds in later states, even if only subconsciously, will take Iowa’s results into account as they make their decision. Barack is already setting up his campaign offices in the states that vote on and after Feb. 5. If Barack can do well in the early states, it will help to quell the Clinton inevitability fallacy. Also, a strong showing in Iowa will help Barack win the black vote in later states because once black voters realize that white people are supporting Barack, they will be more likely to vote for him since a lot of the people who are holding back are doing so because they think America isn’t ready. They want to and once they see it is possible, Barack will dominate that portion of the electorate.
BETTER YET, CONCEDE IOWA.
Obama has the most campaign offices and the most grassroots support. At the Harkin steak fry, Hillary’s team may have put up more signs, but reports I’ve seen say that about half the crowd consisted of Obama supporters. Pulling out now would have wasted all the efforts to date and also serve no purpose other than to be flagged as a sign of desperation. Conceding Iowa is a terrible idea, especially since Barack is going to win Iowa.
"Obama has the most campaign offices and the most grassroots support" ... true and that is James' point! He is desperate to win in Iowa for if he does not, it's over for Barack Hussein! No wonder he is stumbling in all the States ...
Senseless--
See-it's happening already--3 of your posts have elicited absolutely no response..
How will you explain that down at the RNC???
I disagree that it would be completely over for him if he does not win Iowa. As long as Clinton does not win big, he should be fine.
Granted, a poor showing in Iowa would make winning a much tougher task, but he's got the money and organization to make it all the way through and, once candidates without the finances start dropping out, the anti-Hillary vote should start to accrue to Obama.
Part 2:
STOP RAISING MONEY. OR, AT LEAST, TELL ME WHERE THE LEFTOVER MONEY WILL GO.
Barack is the superior candidate on every substantive issue. The main problem he has is that he is not well-known on the national scene since most people never heard of him prior to his keynote speech in 2004. He will need money and lots of it to get his message out, especially once it becomes time to run costly TV ads for superduper Tuesday. Ceasing fundraising would be a tactical mistake. If he does find himself with a need to dispose of leftover campaign cash, it is legitimate to wonder what would be done, but if he gets to the end of the process and still has money left over, that implies that he didn’t try hard enough or left something on the table. I don’t think he’s going to do that.
OR ACCEPT DONATIONS OF $100 OR LESS.
Barack already accepts small donations and has the most small-dollar contributors of any candidate. Limiting donations to only $100 or less would hinder his ability to compete with Clinton. I’m sure if Hillary would also set the same $100 limit, Barack would be happy to do it because he would blow her out of the water in fundraising if that were the case. He already leads the overall fundraising race and that is without transferring $10 million from a previous campaign as Hillary did.
"Barack is the superior candidate on every substantive issue" ... again, sounds good! But please elaborate ...
... and he does fudge his donor numbers, you know that right? If someone buys a keychain, he/she is listed as a "donor"?!
I found myself disagreeing on virtually everything, so I thought I'd issue a rebuttal, which is being split into more than one post due to the space constraints. Part 1:
RESIGN FROM THE SENATE
Barack started off as a community organizer. After a while, he realized that he needed to understand the law to be in a better position to help. After a while, he realized that he needed to be a lawmaker to make an even bigger difference, so he became a state senator, then US Senator. Barack understands that the system itself is not necessarily the problem and does not need to be scrapped, rather it’s the lack of transparency, the influence of monied interests and the political game playing that focuses on wedge issues to maintain power instead of working to solve problems. Until Barack can be the one setting the agenda and using the bully pulpit of the Presidency to change things in a more forceful way, he might as well retain the influence he does currently have and, to the degree possible, help mitigate the negative effects of the problems he is campaigning against.
JETTISON THE CONSULTANTS WHO REMIND ME OF EDWARDS 2004.
If you could prove that the only reason that those people worked for Edwards was that they are attracted only to candidates with no substance, you might have a point, but your line of reasoning as currently constituted doesn’t make a lot of sense. Also, the average voter has no idea who the consultants are or who they used to work for, so making a big deal out of something that no one really cares about doesn’t seem likely to be of very much help in boosting Obama’s prospects for the Presidency.
"Also, the average voter has no idea who the consultants are or who they used to work for, so making a big deal out of something that no one really cares ...": you miss James' point. He is not mentioning the consultants vis-a-vis voters but pertaining to his fluffed candidacy ...
1) Hillary is the ultimate Queen o' fluff!
2) She is an empty suit who tries to fill her suit with her husbands achievement(s).
3) The ultimate flip flopper.
4) She flip to the left and flop to the right and hope to land in the center.
That's your kind of talk SensiAmeri, hope you enjoyed my creativity.
Michael--
I noted, as usual, that as soon as someone posts FACTS regarding anyone who is not Hillary, as you have done about Obama, above, regarding his activism, and background, that suddenly the silence from the Troll is deafening!!!
Who was it who said, "just keep repeating the lie..." or words to that effect and enough morons will believe you.
Well, hell it's worked for almost 8 years. But I think, given the writing by folks like you on this and other boards that the intelligence quotient is a little higher than the Troll is used to working with.
So don't expect a direct response that challenges or rebuts your position.
And in future, jsut do what most are doing now and ignore SenselessAmeriscum
Thanks for the tip!
Sometimes I guess I just can't resist counterbalancing the idiocy, whether it's born of ignorence or trollfullness. Plus, the first comment I saw seemed like honest discussion for the most part and I was on a bit of a roll today.
Nationalize the race?
Obama already has! He has organizations and events in California, Missouri, Maryland, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Virginia, Minnesota, New Mexico, Alabama, Kansas, Idaho, Utah, Tennessee and Ohio.
He's got the money and the organization to compete full-on even if he doesn't win Iowa. It's Clinton who is putting most of hers eggs in Iowa. She's counting on Iowa and New Hampshire wins to discourage any other candidate's supporters before we even get to the 21 Feb 5 states.
It's like God to your lips James! I have mentioned the same sentiments again and again on this board much to the chagrin of his wide-eyed followers!
Just look at his track record. Won the IL Senate race in a weak primary and then an opponent who jumped in the last moment and one who is also a known right wing nutcase! ALL his votes on the war have been identical to Hillary's. Since he has become a Senator he has spent more time writing books and selling an image and hobnobbing with the media elite ...
I have always maintained that he is a paper tiger stuffed with fluff! Thanks for ascertaining this obvious fact and revealing the hot air that has beeen Barack Hussein's candidacy so far ...
You again?
In the primary to which you are referring, he won with 53% of the vote in a field of, what, seven candidates? Hynes had 24%, and Hull finished with 10%. "He decisively won all of the heavily white Chicago collar counties and even captured nearly one in four Democratic votes outside the Chicago region, though he barely campaigned there..." (see pages 244-245 of Obama - From Promise to Power) I'm sorry, but winning by that big of a margin against a veteran politician like Hynes, millionnaire Blair Hull and the others is a fairly impressive task, regardless of what you think of the virtues of his primary opponents.
People are still trying to figure out why the Republicans ran Keyes against him, but he was doing well against Jack Ryan before the scandal broke. The fact that no GOP candidates actually from Illinois were interested in taking Barack on, thus forcing them to look to an outsider, is also telling.
I covered the record of accomplishment in a previous post, so you are completely incorrect about the paper tiger claptrap.
Hillary's votes have been remarkably similar to Barack's because she is triangulating and trying to blur any distinctions between the two of them. If she can convince enough people of the erroneous proposition that she has more experience, she should win.
I like Obama, I really, really like him. That said, I also really, really liked Howard Dean in 2004.
I'm concerned that Obama's campaign, like Dean's, fills town halls with enthusiastic audiences, but which may not deliver actual primary votes...
Dean is no Obama.
"It's Clinton who is putting most of hers eggs in Iowa" ... pay more attention Lisa. Barack Hussein now virtually lives in Iowa. Edwards wrapped up his organization in Nevada and most parts of the South West and moved it to Iowa
It's not Hillary but BHO and Edwards who are putting all their eggs in the Iowa basket. Hillary will make an ommelette out of those "eggs"!!!
you misspelled omelette..
Etymology: French omelette, alteration of Middle French amelette, alemette, alteration of alemelle thin plate, ultimately from Latin lamella, diminutive of lamina
: beaten eggs cooked without stirring until set and served folded in half.
Just thought you should know. LOL
Here's a an enduring image for you: Hilary is a tough broad and Osama is a whimpy guy.
This public image has been already so firmly fixed that no amount of Obama's campaign window dressing will change that.
It's a done deal: Hillary will be the Democratic nominee.
Even Obama knows it in his heart of hearts.
Perhaps the next time, eh pal.
Right on! Keep writing ML, we need more people like you on this Board!
He should resign from the Senate?????? Are you kidding me? That is my biggest problem with Edwards. If he really wanted to work for change, like he tries to portray himself, why didn't he stay in the Sanate where he could do some good????
My biggest problem with Edwards too, and I hate that people still call him Senator!
Edwards did not stay in the Senate because he ran away! He would not even have won in his own State and that too for a Senatorial bid ...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
