Barack Obama stepped into the world of infomercial gurus like Carlton Sheets and Donald Trump on Tuesday, when he simulcast a 30-minute paid-program on seven networks. Wednesday, the Associated Press reported that approximately 33.6 million people watched, according to Nielsen Media Research. Various television media outlets reported that the Obama campaign laid out anywhere from $4 million to $8 million for this opportunity to close the sale with voters.
We last saw a presidential candidate use this advertising format in 1996, when Ross Perot aired his attempt to educate Americans about his policies using pie-charts, graphs and straight Texas-talk.
There was no comparison between the production quality of Perot’s simple show and that of Obama. Obama’s program glowed with Hollywood sophistication, opening with golden wheat fields and a multitude of faces from all walks-of-life, while the ever-soothing voice of Barack Obama spoke of hope, optimism and strength. The testimonials were heartfelt, as genuine people told their stories of being down on their luck and needing someone who understands to save them before it is too late.
The slow pace bordered on boring, and offered no new details to encourage the undecided voters, who were seeking a defining moment that would tip the scales for Obama and win their vote on Election Day. If you have the attention of more than 33 million viewers, shouldn’t you take that chance to tell us something that we have not already heard?
Americans are impassioned, intelligent people. We are used to being sold. That is why infomercials work! We commit to sit in front of our television set as a captive audience, affording us the opportunity to decide for ourselves whether the infomercial guru is a snake-oil salesman or the real deal.
If a voter is undecided a week before the election, why not provide “specifics” of how you will cut spending to get funds to pay for healthcare, education, energy development and job creation. Voters want and deserve to know specifics: no more talking points.
Will we ever have full disclosure on the associations with Ayers, Khalidi and ACORN? The LA Times refuses to release a tape that places Obama at a party honoring Khalidi, where disparaging remarks were made about Israel. The story was published in April 2008. Why would Obama want to leave the impression that he has something to hide? Or does he?
Overall, at a cost of less than twenty-five cents per viewer, the Obama infomercial could be considered a media win for Obama. On substance, it definitely fell short. Compassion for the testimonials is a good thing, but you only have to look as far as Fox News for a story about Joe Cook, an army vet injured in Iraq, who posted a two-minute ad on YouTube that incorporates more compassion and passion than Obama’s full half-hour. Although, the ad is titled “Dear Mr. Obama,” it is an endorsement for McCain that has received almost 12 million hits. And, it didn’t cost McCain one penny!
Friday, October 31, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Flat Tax or Flat Line?
With the final debate finished, and just over two weeks left for the Presidential candidates to pander to undecided or waffling voters, is there one topic that could create a major upset in the polls to push John McCain into the White House? As I was skimming through different blog sites today, I came across an article on The Huffington Post, the liberal blog, which caught my eye.
The headline, John McCain’s Flat Tax October Surprise by Chris Kelly, a somewhat controversial writer, offered the promise of a great read only to disappoint once I found that Mr. Kelly had elected to hypnotize with unfounded and unsubstantiated reasoning for why McCain would change his tax policy at this time to the Flat Tax, or why Kelly thinks it would not work. He randomly submits that John McCain has “one more trick up his sleeve” and is going to pitch the Flat Tax to voters in October.
While throwing out insulting phrases such as “planning our terror” and “Vice President Miss Wasilla,” he gives two weak reasons that he “thinks” John McCain would implement this plan now: 1) Joe the Plumber hates the idea of progressive taxation and 2) Obama possibly would repeal the Bush tax cuts if he is elected, causing poor Joe to have to pay higher taxes if he is lucky enough to win the lottery.
Kelly cited an article in the Wall Street Journal co-authored by Jack Kemp which talks about the Flat Tax as a possible solution to the banking crisis as “crazy talk” backed up by more of his fluffy metaphors. He goes on to state that the Flat Tax won’t work, and simply offers his thought that it would be “really, really, really stupid.” He makes the assumption that it would be a “game changer” for the McCain campaign, suggesting that it would “really shake things up.” Finally, he ends with the ultimate compliment to McCain: “Wouldn’t it be a maverick thing to do?”
The article left me wanting to know more about the Flat Tax. Not that I found the article all that interesting, but the subject does intrigue me. Apparently, Mr. Kelly doesn’t have access to the internet to find actual facts of what the Flat Tax “really, really” is, or he surely would have built a brief case for Tax Reform by briefly comparing the McCain plan to the Obama plan and proffering why the Flat Tax would be better or worse than both, or mentioning that other Presidential hopefuls have been proponents of the Flat Tax.
After all, a political piece should enlighten the reader and encourage her to return to the blog to find out what juicy tidbits the writer has tomorrow. I suppose that political writing is a bit like penmanship. Some writers have a steady, flowing hand. Others have a fine style of writing. Kelly reads more like chicken scratch. I imagine that even his liberal audience found this piece fell dead.
The headline, John McCain’s Flat Tax October Surprise by Chris Kelly, a somewhat controversial writer, offered the promise of a great read only to disappoint once I found that Mr. Kelly had elected to hypnotize with unfounded and unsubstantiated reasoning for why McCain would change his tax policy at this time to the Flat Tax, or why Kelly thinks it would not work. He randomly submits that John McCain has “one more trick up his sleeve” and is going to pitch the Flat Tax to voters in October.
While throwing out insulting phrases such as “planning our terror” and “Vice President Miss Wasilla,” he gives two weak reasons that he “thinks” John McCain would implement this plan now: 1) Joe the Plumber hates the idea of progressive taxation and 2) Obama possibly would repeal the Bush tax cuts if he is elected, causing poor Joe to have to pay higher taxes if he is lucky enough to win the lottery.
Kelly cited an article in the Wall Street Journal co-authored by Jack Kemp which talks about the Flat Tax as a possible solution to the banking crisis as “crazy talk” backed up by more of his fluffy metaphors. He goes on to state that the Flat Tax won’t work, and simply offers his thought that it would be “really, really, really stupid.” He makes the assumption that it would be a “game changer” for the McCain campaign, suggesting that it would “really shake things up.” Finally, he ends with the ultimate compliment to McCain: “Wouldn’t it be a maverick thing to do?”
The article left me wanting to know more about the Flat Tax. Not that I found the article all that interesting, but the subject does intrigue me. Apparently, Mr. Kelly doesn’t have access to the internet to find actual facts of what the Flat Tax “really, really” is, or he surely would have built a brief case for Tax Reform by briefly comparing the McCain plan to the Obama plan and proffering why the Flat Tax would be better or worse than both, or mentioning that other Presidential hopefuls have been proponents of the Flat Tax.
After all, a political piece should enlighten the reader and encourage her to return to the blog to find out what juicy tidbits the writer has tomorrow. I suppose that political writing is a bit like penmanship. Some writers have a steady, flowing hand. Others have a fine style of writing. Kelly reads more like chicken scratch. I imagine that even his liberal audience found this piece fell dead.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Palin Delivers
After watching the Vice-Presidential debate last night, I watched MSNBC, FOXNews, CNN, CBS and ABC to get the run-down on “how she did.” Most commentators were generous in handing Sarah Palin a pass for no blunders. MSNBC, of course, showed the usual bias and was basically hard-pressed to find complimentary language beyond the suggestions of cartoonish or folksy. FOXNews channel generally showed more enthusiasm for Ms. Plain, while offering differing views from staunch Democratic pundants.
This morning, I turned to The New York Times online to read the op-ed by columnist, David Brooks. (The Palin Rebound, Oct. 3, 2008). Mr. Brooks leans to the Conservative, so I believed he would offer a fair assessment of the debate.
He set the stage for an expectant audience of nail-biting Republicans, who sounded more like nervous relatives than supporters, each hoping that Palin could fly under the radar with no glaring mistakes. After describing Palin’s demeanor as characteristic of a “straight-talking mom from regular America,” he shares her verbal colloquialisms and declares that “…in heaven Norman Rockwell is smiling.”
Mr. Brooks injects that she is not much better than George W. Bush when it comes to the command of the English language, but the conclusion is clearly drawn that Palin is getting no closer to the Bush administration than that. Although she is no match for Biden’s knowledge from years of experience, he surmises that by the end of the debate Republicans were no longer hiding behind the couch. They were instead standing on the couch!
I think that Mr. Brooks showed a fair assessment of the facts. As a Republican, I must admit that I, too, was holding my breath. Not that I believed going into the debate that she isn’t qualified to be Vice-President, rather that she might not be hard-skinned enough to play the contact sport that politics in Washington, DC, has become. After the debate, I was reminded of a man from the 1800’s named Abraham Lincoln, who stepped into the political limelight when he debated Stephen Douglas seven times for the U.S. Senate. He was also the underdog in those debates, but in the end he answered the question on the minds of many. Was he someone who could lead? Clearly he was, even though he lost that race. In fact, two years later he was elected President of the United States of America.
So, Republicans be proud. Democrats beware. This is just the beginning of Sarah Palin!
This morning, I turned to The New York Times online to read the op-ed by columnist, David Brooks. (The Palin Rebound, Oct. 3, 2008). Mr. Brooks leans to the Conservative, so I believed he would offer a fair assessment of the debate.
He set the stage for an expectant audience of nail-biting Republicans, who sounded more like nervous relatives than supporters, each hoping that Palin could fly under the radar with no glaring mistakes. After describing Palin’s demeanor as characteristic of a “straight-talking mom from regular America,” he shares her verbal colloquialisms and declares that “…in heaven Norman Rockwell is smiling.”
Mr. Brooks injects that she is not much better than George W. Bush when it comes to the command of the English language, but the conclusion is clearly drawn that Palin is getting no closer to the Bush administration than that. Although she is no match for Biden’s knowledge from years of experience, he surmises that by the end of the debate Republicans were no longer hiding behind the couch. They were instead standing on the couch!
I think that Mr. Brooks showed a fair assessment of the facts. As a Republican, I must admit that I, too, was holding my breath. Not that I believed going into the debate that she isn’t qualified to be Vice-President, rather that she might not be hard-skinned enough to play the contact sport that politics in Washington, DC, has become. After the debate, I was reminded of a man from the 1800’s named Abraham Lincoln, who stepped into the political limelight when he debated Stephen Douglas seven times for the U.S. Senate. He was also the underdog in those debates, but in the end he answered the question on the minds of many. Was he someone who could lead? Clearly he was, even though he lost that race. In fact, two years later he was elected President of the United States of America.
So, Republicans be proud. Democrats beware. This is just the beginning of Sarah Palin!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)