Stop Blaming The Mediawhores. They've Been That Way For Years. If Obama's Team Can't Deal

[KittyWampus]

with the current environment, they are at fault.

If Obama's team comes up with ads that don't get attention on the news shows, it's up to them to come up with ads that will.

When McCain's ad attacked Obama for not visiting the troops, it succeeded by getting played on news shows.

If Obama's team had released an ad demanding McCain apologize for using the troops as a political football, it would have been strong enough to get airplay too.

When McCain released his ad saying Obama would rather lose in Iraq to win an election, Obama should have said Republicans would rather have a terror attack to drive up their numbers for an election (they're on record saying this).

[polichick]

1. They've played the media well in terms of big events to cover...

...now they need to get busy on some GREAT ADS!

[redqueen]

2. Quick, call Obama's campaign office and tell them you can do a better job than his campaign.

I'm sure they'd love to hear all your expertise, since you're so much more capable of running a successful presidential campaign.

:eyes:

[Whisp]

15. lots of uber advisors lately, eh?

big media manipulating election results?
DEAL WITH IT, GET OVER IT, thats the way it is.

great message, there.

[ErinBerin84]

3. I'll blame them both for now.

I was hoping that the Obama camp was holding back from the ads bc they were overseas last week, but where the HELL are they?

[Skwmom]

4. Get a clue. McCain attack ads get played b/c McCain is the corporate

candidate (not because it was some great newsworthy ad). It was supposed to be a corporate Democrat vs a corporate Republican but Obama messed up those plans.

I'll never forget Feingold for criticizing Obama for not accepting public financing. He might be a nice guy, but he doesn't seem to have figured out that campaign finance reform is a joke and only serves to give the corporate media more power. McCain is receiving millions in free ads and other press (running the McCain ads are only the tip of the iceberg).

[islandmkl]

6. exactly...m.c.johnny spends a few dollars, runs an ad in 2 or 3 places...

the msm pick it up, show it a bazillion times, discuss it beyond length...

and they want obama to spend some of his millions with them to counter the ad...


this isn't by accident...obama knows better than get in a pissing contest...apparently some of us want wetter legs....

[KittyWampus]

11. No, Obama runs an ad that WARRANTS SAME ATTENTION. His current ads don't deserve

attention. They aren't "hot" enough.

[Skwmom]

18. It's far MORE than mere ads. Have you listened to the stupid talking heads?

Their hiring criteria has been "will do anything for money and fame" and preferably stupid (though intelligence is okay as long as they will sell their soul and this country for a buck).

[KittyWampus]

8. YOU get a clue. Reality exists. The Mediawhores are what they are. And unless ads are released

that somehow or other demand attention, Obama will have no chance.

[ProSense]

12. Don't you have to pay for ads?

You keep referring to the "mediawhores." Are you expecting Obama to get the same leverage for his ads that the media affords McCain?

If not, how many ads should Obama run, in how many markets and how often?

[KittyWampus]

16. Did McCain pay for his ad? And yes, Obama MUST make ads that demand attention from Mediawhores

If he had cut an ad demanding McCain apologize it would have gotten air time. Because it would have been confrontational and true.

[ProSense]

22. McCain made an ad buy in two markets and the news media ran his ad non-stop for four days.

You know the "mediawhores" are not going to do that.

Demand attention?

[Skwmom]

23. They aren't just running McCain adds b/c they warrant attention.

Another lame, ridiculous excuse for why the media is doing their best to get McCain elected. And its FAR MORE than the ads. The daily manipulation and propaganda put out by the so called corporate owned media is mind boggling.

This excuse is as stupid as the "they want a horse race" excuse.

[JackORoses]

5. You are a Reactionary... you get hit, you want to hit back immediately

Obama is a Strategist...he gets hit, he turns the opponents momentum against them to their ultimate detriment. Like Political Judo.

So who should we trust?

Obama, the man who just defeated the Clintons?

or you, an anonymous poster on a messageboard?

I'm sticking with my man, Barack.

Let's see who made the right call in November. ;)

[scheming daemons]

7. Good post.... +1

[KittyWampus]

10. No, a reactionary hits back BLINDLY. Furthermore, since Mediawhores are in full on suck mode

right now, unless something is done from Obama's side that demands attention, he's not going to get it.

[WeDidIt]

9. Because cryingshame knows soooo much more than the guy

who defeated the most well known and well connected political family in history.

[KittyWampus]

13. Let's be honest. Obama was lucky Clinton's campaign sucked & ignored caucuses until it was too late

[WeDidIt]

14. No, Obama formulated strategy. So did Clinton

Clinton planned to win it early just like most primary seasons before this one.

Obama planned for the long haul.

Obama had the better strategy.

Obama has the better strategy now, and if he doesn't, he's already lost it.

[KittyWampus]

17. and Obama was lucky Clinton's initial strategy sucked.

[WeDidIt]

20. There was no "luck" involved.

Not one iota.

[depakid]

26. You have got to be kidding me- Obama's been one of the luckiest politicans I have ever seen

Which really is a good thing, provided that his luck holds out.

Pretty much every step of the way in his career, he's gotten breaks that a billionaire couldn't buy.

Now, he's basically been handed the election on a silver platter by the McCain campaign- question is, will he take it? Or go down in flames like previous Dems who've played the high road game and lost.

[politicasista]

28. Right. Obama used...

Dean's 50 state strategy and has many people who were from Kerry's campaign in 04 working for him now. They clearly outmanuvered the Clinton team in terms of fundraising and grassroots organization.


There was no luck in that.

[scheming daemons]

19. Yes... 2 million donors was a matter of "luck"

[BeyondGeography]

21. Right, and they would have been a well-oiled machine for the General

Bill wouldn't be losing his temper every other day, Hillary wouldn't be making up stories about being shot at, her staff wouldn't be feuding with each other anymore at the first sign of trouble and the money problems would have just magically disappeared by now. :smoke:

[snooper2]

24. Please make me stop

laughing :rofl:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

25. WHERE ARE THE FUCKING DEMOCRATS?!?!?!?!??

Here's my thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I'm not really blaming Obama, but he hasn't really gone on the offense. However, even if he did, the M$M would spin that to his disadvantage. I'm not sure what the answer is. If no matter what he does--good or bad--the press spins as something negative, I don't know what Obama can do to combat that. Regardless of how much money, organization or support Obama has, if the M$M has a history of helping Republicans such that their take on things has a substantial impact on public opinion that translates into skewed polls, I don't know what can be done to turn that around.

I know that we can write letters and turn off the T.V., but what about the low information voters which are a majority of the American electorate? How do we persuade them when they refuse to even admit that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction? How to we convince them that they've been lied to because the T.V. told them otherwise? Again, I'm not sure how much we or anyone else can do to influence public opinion such that people stop voting against their own best interests.

[JoFerret]

27. Where's the "war room" approach

that Clinton used in 1992 and the Obama campaign used in the primary?