blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 05:30 am
@DontTreadOnMe,
The Bush administration got one thing right...effective public relations/marketing techniques. Very early in the development of these (modern) techniques (20's, 30's) advertising was referred to by the burgeoning industry itself as 'propaganda'...the terms were essentially interchangeable (it wasn't until the events surrounding WW2 that 'propaganda' gained the almost completely negative connotation is has now).

They used high production-value sets and filming, tightly controlled information, used 'positioning' effectively (constant backdrops of patriotic soldiers, flags everywhere, aircraft carrier stunts, etc). As Dilulio told Suskind, the WH had little concern for policy matters but was run with politics and marketing as the overarching focus of activity.

And the first simple fact of things is that this strategy seduced many and proved electorally workable, at least until the lack of that other - policy - brought them into the disrepute we see presently. The second simple fact is that the Obama people clearly understand this. Thus the 30 minute piece we saw.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 06:40 am
@revel,
Thanks revel, I've been curious about that (how many people watched).
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 01:33 pm
Hetzberg gets it right (a common occurence)..
Quote:
His Finest Half Hour
Like “W.,” which I’ll get to in due course, last night’s Obama infomercial was a good deal better than I expected: excellent production values (take a bow, Davis “An Inconvenient Truth” Guggenheim), astute choices of families to represent the problems Obama proposes to address, a ratio of fluff to substance that was on the high side but still within the parameters of civic responsibility, a good selection of talking heads (including the C.E.O. of Google, whose support of Obama was news to me), not-bad Ken Burns-y music, and, of course, a dulcet-toned narrator. (Obama could make an excellent living as a voice-over artist.)

There was some preemptive criticism from Republicans and commentators to the effect that it was presumptuous of Obama to use his bulging bank account to commandeer a whole half hour of television time on three broadcast networks plus several basic-cable ones. He should wait till he’s actually President before he struts around making “addresses to the nation.” He was overdoing the pretend stuff, like when his campaign experimented with that faux Presidential seal. And so on.

Actually, back in the days when there was no Internet, no national newspapers, no nothing except three networks and a maximum of four unaffiliated television stations in any given market, buying a big block of TV time within a few days of the election was routine. The first political advertisement on the new medium ran in 1952, when Adlai Stevenson bought a half hour on CBS, displacing “I Love Lucy.” Bad idea. (To make matters worse, Adlai’s speech ran long, so he was cut off in mid-sentence. Embarrassing.)

What about the supposedly outrageous expense?

Well, according to TVweek.com, the Obama campaign spent $775,000 for the half hour on NBC and $961,000 for the half hour on CBS. That makes a total for those two networks of $1,736,000.

Obama’s half hour was the equivalent of sixty thirty-second commercials. The average price of a thirty-second prime-time ad on NBC is $102,928. On CBS it’s $116,729. Therefore, to buy a half hour in thirty-second increments"the usual procedure, at which no one bats an eye"on both networks would cost…let’s see…$13,179,420.

Thirteen million dollars. With enough left over for an extra thirty-second spot plus carfare. Compared to a million seven.

Am I wrong in thinking that this was a bargain? Or even that it might even be regarded as evidence that an Obama Administration might be able to rein in the budget by increasing efficiency and getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse?

Most good-government types agree that the thirty-second-spot approach makes for deplorable distortions. Almost as many agree that granting candidates extended blocks of uninterrupted TV time would be a lot better. Like the Obama campaign’s success in financing a campaign from millions of small contributors who can’t be suspected of trying to buy access, its decision to put on a half-hour presentation of its policy proposals approximates an important goal of reformers"and does it through the “private sector” rather than through government action. Remind me: who’s the conservative in this election?

One more thing about last night. Like Sarah Palin’s wardrobe, the Barack Obama Show was sharp, beautifully designed, and one hundred per cent positive.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 04:20 pm
@nicole415,
Quote:
Over 250k will lose their Bush tax cut. Of course, these are generalities.



You do realize that unless the tax cuts are made permanent, EVERYONE will lose their Bush tax cuts in the year 2010.

ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 04:26 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:

You do realize that unless the tax cuts are made permanent, EVERYONE will lose their Bush tax cuts in the year 2010.


And everyone's share of the national debt will go down...

That's the point.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 04:32 pm
@ebrown p,
Well- doesn't any debt go down when you pay some of it off?
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 04:40 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Well- doesn't any debt go down when you pay some of it off?
novel idea, unfortunately Bush/Mccain never heard of it.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 04:46 pm
@spendius,
That depends.

Ar the payments being applied to the principal or the interest?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 05:08 pm
@spendius,
You and MM are missing the point.

Would you rather pay for Bush tax cuts, or would you rather pay down the debt?

(... or would you rather cut more money from educating our kids)
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 05:11 pm
@ebrown p,
I would rather keep as much of my money in my pocket as is possible.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 05:35 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

I would rather keep as much of my money in my pocket as is possible.
and I would rather have safe streets, clean drinking water, workable sewers, effective fire departments, national security, good education.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 06:14 pm
@dyslexia,
Quote:
and I would rather have safe streets, clean drinking water, workable sewers, effective fire departments, national security, good education.


And we have free medical care for anybody who needs it as well. And I mean anybody. And they send us the money to buy the beer with as well. They even put out advice on how to make sure you don't fail to claim anything you're entitled to.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 12:44 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

I would rather keep as much of my money in my pocket as is possible.
and I would rather have safe streets, clean drinking water, workable sewers, effective fire departments, national security, good education.


and everyone that benefits from these things should be happy to invest in their country. instead of paying the tax weasels to sniff out every single loophole and iffy deduction.

the trickle down economy of the last 28 years has been a bridge to nowhere for the vast majority of american citizens.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Nov, 2008 12:09 am
@DontTreadOnMe,
Quote:
instead of paying the tax weasels to sniff out every single loophole and iffy deduction.


If the deductions are allowed by the IRS, and if they are legal, why are you complaining?
Taking every deduction you are legally entitled to is not wrong, no matter how you feel about them personally.
0 Replies
 
Willow Dear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Nov, 2008 01:32 pm
@ebrown p,
How does everyone's share of the debt go down if our taxes all go down or up?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 2 Nov, 2008 02:13 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

I would rather have safe streets, clean drinking water, workable sewers, effective fire departments, national security, good education.


None of these points are addressed by Obama's tax and spend plan...
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Nov, 2008 05:36 pm
@H2O MAN,
Kevin, I really feel sorry for you. You sound so desperate.

T
K
O
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 2 Nov, 2008 05:39 pm
@Diest TKO,
The only sound you are hearing are voices in your head.

Get well soon.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 09:12 am
What Fun.... Sarah Palin falls for joke & thinks she is talking to the president of France. Dumber than a rock and proves it!

912,222 views in just a couple days......... give it another round for the final day before election day!

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=QbEwKcs-7Hc
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 10:51 am
@Magginkat,
LOL.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama 30-minute ad
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/24/2019 at 02:53:45