 |
|
||
|
|
|
 It’s an Air WarPosted on Feb 4, 2008There’s a reason campaigns are more expensive than ever: commercials. Although they try, the candidates can’t be in every Super Tuesday state at the same time, and the most effective way of reaching millions of people in one state is the same for politicians as it is for Tylenol. Even Barack Obama, who has bet big on his grass-roots organization, spent around $4 million on ads in the last week of January. But Hillary Clinton is no slouch, and her organization is said to be more focused on mass-market campaigns than knocking on doors. Clinton spent about $3.5 million in the same time frame as Obama, and they both put most of it into California. The Republicans, though strapped for cash, also know the value of advertising. Romney has unleashed a salvo in California, which is supposed to be McCain country, and it just might be having an effect.
Advertisement CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
RFK and the Civil Rights Movement
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
We just got faster!
Our site is growing, and we’ve upgraded our servers to bring you a better, faster Truthdig experience.
We’re thrilled with our improvement — but it’s added a lot to our costs. Please help us to keep things snappy and make sure you have instant access to thousands of in-depth Truthdig articles, interviews, videos and cartoons.
Please chip in today with a gift to keep us moving forward. Then check out the site for yourself!
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2010 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By DennisD, February 5, 2008 at 1:32 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“It’s An Air War” - No, it’s a money war and we the people will be the losers.
Take the money out of politics and we might just get some semblance of our republic back.
Right now it’s like watching the World Poker Tour - whoever has the biggest pot of money, wins. Then its payoff time for the big “contributors”. The payoff for the voter is that four years from now you get to do it over again to simulate the democratic process.
Whoopee! What a $y$tem.
Report thisBy Maani, February 4, 2008 at 8:51 pm #
Felicity:
We can certainly agree to disagree. But I wonder if we would even be having this conversation if Obama were not running.
What I mean is, you note that “Things in this country have reached the point where the people, you and I, are all that can save this republic. Bush is a disaster, a blight on the landscape, and hes still in office. Congress has kept him there. We have allowed it.”
I fully agree. In fact, let’s say that Bush represented a 5 on a scale of 10 when he first took office, and now rates a 1. What I believe is happening is the following. If Obama were not running, Hillary would most likely be seen as at least a 7, if not more. But Obama has been able (in my opinion mostly via rhetoric with too little substance) to LOOK like the 7, or even 8, thus making Hillary look more like a 5 or 6. That is, it is a “relative” perception.
However, I do not believe that Obama is THAT MUCH better (if better at all) than Hillary in ANY regard vis-a-vis actual policy, position, etc.
It seems to be that, as you suggest, most people are seeing things currently from such a low that Obama’s admittedly inspiring rhetoric makes him SEEM so much higher on the “better than Bush” scale than Hillary.
And my concern is that if he wins the nomination, he will not survive the GOP attack machine (certainly any better than Hillary), and if he does and is elected president, his supporters will find that he is only human, only a politician, and only able to effect as much change as ANY president is ever able to effect.
Peace.
Report thisBy john from ojai, February 4, 2008 at 6:21 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
No candidate can win a presidential election without selling out to the special interests who provide the money for TV advertising. It doesn’t have to be this way. The airwaves belong to the public and are only licensed to networks for purposes that are supposed to include the public good.We could require the networks to provide free airtime to legitimate candidates.
Report thisAs it currently stands, the six media conglomerates and the complicit national commitees like DNC control the tv debates and other presentations in a way that enhances their bottom line businesses of media, military supply, and nuclear energy. If you don’t “play ball” with these power brokers you are marginalized with minimum debate time or exclusion.Please contact congress and push for media reform. If we could break up the media we could get courageous candidates of the people, like Dennis Kucinich, instead of the “guns for hire” that we have now.
By felicity, February 4, 2008 at 6:20 pm #
Manni
Sometimes and sometimes not. Things in this country have reached the point where the people, you and I, are all that can save this republic.
Bush is a disaster, a blight on the landscape, and he’s still in office. Congress has kept him there. We have allowed it.
It comes down to who is best suited to move us to the streets, to put fire in the belly of the people to storm the bastille to demand a voice in the workings of government which, afterall, functions to serve us, not itself.
Hillary, perhaps through no fault of her own, does not fit the bill.
Finally, think about old George W., not a brilliant military strategist by a long shot but he managed to get a bunch of disgruntled rag-tag soldiers to stick with him through terrible suffering for what seemed like a hopeless cause.
Obama can pull it off. Hillary can’t even if she would want to. Whether Obama’s willing to is anybody’s guess, but he’s all we’ve got right now.
Report thisBy Maani, February 4, 2008 at 4:01 pm #
Felicity:
Setting aside Hillary specifically for a moment, are you suggesting that people should reject a perfectly good candidate simply because there is a broad-based VISCERAL (as opposed to fact-based) dislike of that person? Is that a good rational for depriving the country of a good candidate?
Getting back to Hillary specifically, I reject the notion that she is quite as divisive as the (complicit) media would have us believe (this is not to suggest that she isn’t divisive). I also reject the notion that, once in office, whatever divisiveness DOES exist would remain at the fever pitch it is during the primaries or the general campaign, or would affect her ability to work. I additionally reject the notion that the visceral dislike of Hillary will affect her ability to work specifically with Congress, most members of which she continues to have very good working relationships with - on both sides of the aisle. I further reject the notion that Bill will somehow be a “co-president,” since (i) Hillary does not WANT him to be, and (ii) he has at least two, and possibly three, time-consuming positions that would largely keep him out of the White House.
What I believe will happen if Hillary becomes president is that she will do an excellent job DESPITE all the pre-election bashing and vitriol, and that she will accomplish good things FOR THE PEOPLE, DESPITE themselves.
Peace.
Report thisBy felicity, February 4, 2008 at 3:22 pm #
“So we can expect” was a REPLY to Maani.
Report thisBy felicity, February 4, 2008 at 3:16 pm #
a conflict-ridden repeat of their first two terms in office should they be re-elected? Whether the animosity directed toward them is deserved or not, it’s not going to magically disappear if they’re back in office.
Really the only good thing about the ‘90’s was a healthy economy (which had almost nothing to do with the Clintons.) There’s bound to be a Ken Starr clone waiting in the wings, a wronged woman waiting for her 15 minutes of fame…In the mean time, the Clintons, like during their first terms will be kept too busy dodging bullets to get anything accomplished toward cleaning up this mess of a country.
Report thisBy Maani, February 4, 2008 at 1:48 pm #
Finally! A voice of reason. From Stanley Fish’s column today:
In the January issue of GQ, Jason Horowitz describes the world of Hillary haters, many of whom he has interviewed. Horowitz finds that the hostile characterizations of Clinton do not add up to a coherent account of her hatefulness. She is vilified for being a feminist and for not being one, for being an extreme leftist and for being a warmongering hawk, for being godless and for being frighteningly fundamentalist, for being the victim of her husbands peccadilloes and for enabling them. She is, Horowitz concludes, an empty vessel into which [her detractors] can pour everything they detest....This is not to say that there are no rational, well-considered reasons for opposing Clintons candidacy. You may dislike her policies…You may not be able to get past her vote to authorize the Iraq war. You may think her personality unsuited to the tasks of inspiring and uniting the American people. You may believe that if this is truly a change election, she is not the one to bring about real change…But the people and groups Horowitz surveys have brought criticism of Clinton to what sportswriters call the next level, in this case to the level of personal vituperation unconnected to, and often unconcerned with, the facts…Everyone blames her for what her husband does or for what he doesnt do…If she answers questions aggressively, she is shrill. If she moderates her tone, shes just play-acting. If she cries, shes faking. If she doesnt, shes too masculine. If she dresses conservatively, shes dowdy. If she doesnt, shes inappropriately provocative…Horowitz observes that there is an inexhaustible fertile market of Clinton hostility, but that the search for a unifying theory of what drives Hillarys most fanatical opponents is a futile one. The reason is that nothing drives it; it is that most sought-after thing, a self-replenishing, perpetual-energy machine…Compared to this, the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry was a model of objectivity.
Report thisAmen!
By jacksmith, February 4, 2008 at 1:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Bottom Line:
Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! “Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care” free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See: http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm
HR 676:
For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills.
But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress twice.
But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!
We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.
I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven’t forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it’s her.
Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton’s are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.
The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton’s are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.
As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.
My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all… You are doing great!
Report thisBy CLINTON 2008, February 4, 2008 at 10:48 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
ITS FUNNY TO SEE OBAMA following Teddy around like hired help, Kennedys are used to servants. Obama continues to cry and whine and loose ALL non-black voters in record numbers! Each primary his non-black support is dwindling. And of course his black support is rising, but that what we expected with Michelle obama stumping with her continued racial comments and attacks on non-black voters, which the media isnt telling. Obama has proven that he has divided the voters among race and now with OLD crazy man Ted his theory of change doesnt appear to be true since he is running behind the old establishment (Ted Kennedy) like a butler, before that Oprah lead him by the nose, He is just a political BOBBLE HEAD and should be ignored
Report thisWE COMPLETELY SUPPORT SENATOR AND TWO TIME FIRST LADY HILLARY CLINTON! Who has graciously with stood all the biased media attacks on a white woman, (which is disgusting) the media fighting obamas battles for him because he has no substance and merit! she is HANDS DOWN the stronger candidate WHO IS ABLE AND PROVEN SHE CAN FIGHT THE BATTLES AND WILL GET THINGS DONE FOR ALL AMERCIANS NOT JUST BLACK VOTERS ( like obama camp)! Who else on earth has tolerated the unbelievable lies and attacks and spins then Hillary and still she fights on for the middle class, she takes her licks and keeps going un like obama who keeps hiding behind the likes of oprah and now old crazy guy teddy. Who cares what caroline says. She now has clout? for what?
TED KENNEDY IS NO ROLE MODEL! http://www.ytedk.com/
Kennedys have been less than desirable and full of legal scandals in the last 25 years, relatives accused of murders, rapes etc and that give the Kennedy name clout? Don’t think so… Ted Kennedy is now headed for a disgraceful end. The Massachusetts senator has been caught in a sneaky plot to kill a clean-energy project in Nantucket Sound. Seems he doesn’t want to see wind turbines from his waterfront estate. “Don’t you realize—that’s where I sail!” he famously said.
Kennedy was unable to answer this question The death of Mary Jo Kopechne forced Kennedy to withdraw from the 1972 presidential contest. In 1979 Kennedy made another attempt to become the Democratic Party presidential won 10 presidential primaries but he eventually withdrew from the race when it became clear that the public was still concerned about the events on Chappaquiddick Island. Instead of reporting the accident Edward Kennedy returned to the party. According to a statement issued by Kennedy on 25th July, 1969: “instead of looking directly for a telephone number for an undetermined time, walked back to the party was and requested the help of cousins Joseph Gargan and Paul Markham, Kennedy did not inform the police of the accident while he was at the hotel until 9am the accident happened at midnight.