Obama overkill?

When I learned of this up-coming spot some weeks back, my initial thought was 'too much' and probably 'unneccessary'. After three Prez. debates and wall-to-wall ads since Labor Day, this could well be over-exposure:

No votes yet

And he's quite willing to spend it. Maybe he has raised so much money that he's running out of places to put it, or maybe this represents a new strategy, kind of like a full-court press. Personally, I will not be watching, as I am up to my bicuspids in work, and I watched the debates, so I am maxed out on campaign rhetoric.

OK, maybe I'll have it on just in case Obama says something interesting. OK, OK: I know what will really happen, which is that one of the Obamamaniacs in my house will have it on, and - as a political addict - I will gravitate toward the television set as though it were a ready-to-shoot heroin needle and I was a shaking junkie, and I will watch the damned thing, cursing myself for wasting a half-hour of my time on a poilitical info-mercial.

At least Obama is an entertaining speaker; maybe the calming, soothing effects of his feel-good rhetoric will lift me away to a happier place, a place where people walk hand-in-hand into the sunset, plucking ripe peaches from trees and where his transformative politics will help me forget I have a mountain of midterms and papers to grade, which I should have been doing instead of watching the Obama ad.


the money spent on this should have been funneled to key, select Senate races. I can't believe this spot will push Obama's polling numbers any higher, it may cost him support actually. What can he possibly say that has not already been said in previous debates/ads?

The number of undecideds is down to just a few percent, and they will probably flip a coin the day of the election. Obama will not sway any Rpublicans with this ploy, and his diehard supporters do not need additional speeches.

Maybe the Obama camp is worried of a repeat of 2004, where Kerry led until the last week, or maybe they are trying to dull any of the so-called "Bradley effect". I agree that Obama could help out his party more by pumpng money into a few Senate races that might give the Dems the Magic 60.


The problem is he might come off as over confident and wind up with blow back over the whole “is divided government” better argument.

I still know quite a few “I don’t like either one” people. At least the ones I know won’t break McCain, but they are still winnable for Obama.

the "Bradley Effect." I believe there is a strong chance of this happening. On the other hand looking at the electoral map, even with the "Bradley Effect," its hard to find a path for McCain to the Whitehouse. For Obama there seems to be many.


I suspect that this will be a factor, and perhaps to the tune of 1-2 percent of people who say they intend to vote for Obama. This will likely be somewhat reduced by Republicans who are embarassed to say that they are voting for Obama, but the net effect will probably be significant (i.e., 0.5 to 1 percent).

Of course, if Obama maintains what appears to be a 5 to 6 point national polling advantage (plus some overwhelming numbers in battleground states like Virginia and Pennsylvania), this will not cost him the election.

I also think the Bradley effect would be greater in a "normal" year, one without so much economic angst. The fear of job loss, retirement savings erosion, and the coming post-bailout inflation probably trump any lingering fears some mildly racist white folks might have about Obama being a darker-skinned radical or a closet Muslim.


Maybe the money spent on the infomercial should have been "spread around" to some families who didn't make their house payments last month.

I wonder how many Democrats who are losing their homes donated to this expensive 30 minute lie-fest.

Barak is laughing at you while he picks your pockets.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

You mean people who donated to Obama to get him elected vs the people who donated to McCain to not get him elected?

Mine is money well spent...

can be used to help people with foreclosed homes. Speaking of spreading the wealth around, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today and yesterday. There was a lady on who owned a business who was not doing well financially. Rush brought her a new car. Isn't that spreading the wealth around?

The city is looking for people to man the Salvation Army kettles. When you put money in the kettles should we not do that because that is essentially "spreading the wealth around"?

YES! YES! YES! Purnhrt, you RIGHT! That IS spreading the wealth around. BUT there is a BIG difference. When I buy a goat every Christmas for a family in Haiti (which my family sacrifices gifts to do), when I give to the United Way, when I tithe at church, when I buy Thanksgiving dinners for the Cherry Street Mission, or even buy a $5 book at Kohls for some children's charity, I am spreading my OWN wealth around. The difference is that I decide where my money goes, NOT the government!

I am not "wealthy" in the McCain sense at all..I don't mind telling you that my family income is under $85,000. I have kids in private school....but we work VERY hard to live within our means, AND still help others year-round. We are all called to care for one another as HUMANS and neighbors. I don't get an iPod and my kids won't get an Xbox 360, but we make sure to sponsor a family at Christmas, donate to causes, etc... I am by no means alone.

Obama on the other hand,..well, his charitable donations are in question:For the years 200-2004, he and his wife gave a 1% of their income to charity. In the years since, they have given 6%. I know A LOT of everyday "Joe the plumbers" who give 10% without wincing.


You are confusing the charity and generosity of Americans with an imposed redistribution of wealth imposed, regulated, and managed by the federal government. That actually discourages charity because what people will give freely in the spirit of human kindness, they resent having taking from them involuntarily.

Besides, despite all of the scandals surrounding some of the nation's largest charities, I would trust them to be more efficient in properly redistributing the wealth contributed through generosity than the ineffective, inefficient federal government that takes from working people, uses a bulk of the funds to pay for the bureaucracy, and then redistributes it in the form of congressional pork.

Watch as taxes go up on the wealthiest Americans and charitable giving goes down.

It's great to see local events covered in this way. What did you use to liveblog the rally? I can't imagine a laptop would be very practical is situations like this.


"Show me a man who lives alone and has a perpetually dirty kitchen, and
five times out of nine I'll show you an exceptional man." -Charles

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.