Axelrod's Creations. His words for Obama, Patrick and Edwards

This is just getting hysterical now.  Totally manufactured candidates.  Prescripted speeches and themes that David Axelrod keeps reusing for candidates that fit his formula.

"He's the one who wrote those ads, framed that shot and came up with the "Yes We Can" tag line. "I don't bring these messages to candidates," Axelrod says when I point out the similarities. "I look for candidates who exemplify and reflect those messages."

David Axelrod went from John Edwards 2004 Presidential Campaign to Deval Patrick's Governor Election of Massachussetts in 2006, and then on to Barack Obama's Presidential run.

Just Words, just not Obama's, Part Three
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqutz5ASD SA

David Axelrod of AKP Message & Media in Chicago, former political reporter for Chicago's Sun Tribune.

"Even though he lives 1,000 miles from the notoriously clubby world of political consulting, Axelrod has become one of its most successful and respected practitioners. Mark McKinnon, who produced George W. Bush's ads in the last cycle and now works for John McCain, calls Axelrod "the best media guy out there who doesn't have a ring." With his quick wit and knack for soundbites ("The Icon gets hoisted," Axelrod said of the media's treatment of star candidates, "and then it becomes a piñata"), the onetime Chicago Tribune political writer is a favorite of reporters seeking quotes. Charming as he can be with journalists, those who have worked with him say, he can be "aggressive" and "extremely difficult" in the trenches of a campaign."

Indeed, he isn't kidding.  Marketing and selling of his words.  Did he copyright them?  How embarrassing.  Even more reason why you better look at the person's record and experience, because the words used really mean nothing to the ones saying them, except of course as their means to win their prize.  Only, this isn't a game, it's for the Presidency of the United States.  

Just Words, just not Obama's, Part Two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgctsiois Jg

Just Words, just not Obama's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M6x1H08a Fc

It's time for solutions, not sound bites.

Tags: AKP Message & Media, Barack Obama, David axelrod, Deval Patrick, John Edwards, Just words, president, Solutions, sound bites, speeches, video, videos (all tags)

Comments

67 Comments

Re: Axelrod's Creations. His words for Obama, Pat

You want to diss Axelrod, who is running a winning campaign, but you don't mention Mark Penn?

Ok.

by MGarvey 2008-02-21 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Axelrod's Creations. His words for Obama, Pat

Uh, duh, Axelrod is doing this, it has nothing to do with Penn.

by LindaSFNM 2008-02-21 09:29AM | 0 recs
it's the writer's strike

that made him use old speeches? Who gets paid more, the actor or the writer?  

by anna shane 2008-02-21 09:58AM | 0 recs
This isn't about Penn...

This is about the Obama campaign's media strategy. Their canned lines and slick marketing may work now... But what happens when the GOP starts attacking? Slick marketing isn't enough. Team Obama will also need to know how to fight back when the right attacks and the media abandons them. Are they ready?

by atdleft 2008-02-21 09:40AM | 0 recs
In one word...

...yes.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-21 09:41AM | 0 recs
Yes...as long as he has a lots of time...

to respond.

It took a day to respond to Michelle's blooper.

It takes days to respond to questions explaining his vote or his position (if he had showed up to vote).

It took months to respond with Hillary's, er I mean, the Big BO's economic plan.

If that's ready, I'm scaredy.

by Shazone 2008-02-21 10:02AM | 0 recs
Faith in action

defined as the belief in the presence of things unseen.

by Trickster 2008-02-21 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: This isn't about Penn...

Some interesting observations: not all of which I agree with completely, but that's OK.

Mr. Bush has trashed the country to such an extent that the next President is going to have a horror show on his or her hands. So for the Democratic Party, this election is like having a free play in football. Win or lose, the Democratic Party has proven that it is the U.S. political party willing to pioneer in nominating a woman or an African American.

As for a dialog on race, that prospect has been completely shut down. It's become a subject that is verboten for one side to discuss, thus becoming a monologue. Any suggestions, or do we wait for the general election? 'Cause you know the Rs will find all sorts of ways to bring up the issue.

by jabney 2008-02-21 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Axelrod's Creations. His words for Obama, Pat

perhaps we should all vote for Axelrod?  I mean.. let's just cut out the middle-men, okay?  Mark Penn isn't doing a ventriloquist act with his candidate, as Axelrod is is famous for.  It's one thing to run a campaing, it's quite another to run a CANDIDATE.  

Guess the Obama fans can't see the irony in a candidate that uses rehashed and canned words to make about point about how important WORDS are!  Then, when he's busted for rehashing the canned speeches he says that the words "aren't a big deal."  It's the best political comedy in years...  'my words meant something when I said them, because I was talking about how important words are! Okay, but then words aren't such a big deal'  Hmmmm... I was for words before I was against them.  yeah.

by Catriley sez 2008-02-21 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Axelrod's Creations. His words for Obama, Pat

Axelrod might help with messaging but the fact is that Barack Obama writes most of his speeches himself, which is quite rare for politicians.  Bill Clinton wrote many of his speeches, as did Al Gore.  I don't know what Hillary does.   But the point is, Obama is not just reading from a teleprompter.   To become president of Harvard Law Review, you need to know a little bit about writing.  

by gobacktotexas 2008-02-21 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Haaaaarvard

To write for the Harvard Law Review, you'd also think he'd know a little something about plagiarism. Apparently not.

by KnowVox 2008-02-21 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: plagiarism

Maybe you're on to something there, bucko.  Why don't you do a lexis-nexis search of Obama's law review articles, and I'm sure you will find they were all in fact written by someone else.  

by gobacktotexas 2008-02-21 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: plagiarism

Yep, I'm on to something. Today's US News & World Report picked up even more "borrowing"

http://tinyurl.com/2wshcw

by KnowVox 2008-02-21 01:47PM | 0 recs
Law Review Articles

I don't have lexis-nexis, but as far as I can tell, Obama did not write any law review articles. None of the standard reference bios of him that I have seen indicate that he wrote any law review articles.

What makes you think that he did?

by freemansfarm 2008-02-21 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Axelrod's Creations. His words for Obama, Pat

You'd think, but Law Review Editors positions are attained by political maneuvering within an enclosed clique, not really writing ability. Believe me, I speak from experience on this. It proves that he is deft at maneuvering people to support him, not that he is a brilliant writer.

But believe me, it's mostly a political position. Most Editors delegate much of the actual editing work to the underlings.

by dr benway 2008-02-21 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Axelrod's Creations. His words for Obama, Pat

Obama wrote two non-ghostwritten books.

Read them and you will know that he is, if nothing else, a brilliant wordsmith.

by Korha 2008-02-21 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Axelrod's Creations. His words for Obama, Pat

I think his oratory and rhetorical skills are more impressive than his writing. But I'm sure he adjusted his tone to a mass audience in the books. In any event, you'll get no argument from me that the man is brilliant.

It wasn't my point to suggest otherwise. My point was to debunk the "Harvard Law Review Editor" as the ultimate trump card. It's more revelatory about his political skills than his writing acumen. This isn't diminishing Obama in any way, just telling you my up-close-and-personal experience with top-tier Law Reviews.

by dr benway 2008-02-21 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Axelrod's Creations. His words for Obama, Pat

Okay, I gotcha.

by Korha 2008-02-21 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Axelrod's Creations. His words for Obama, Pat

Look at the role he didn't play when he was at Harvard Law: The entire student body - both blacks and whites - was in an uproar over Harvard's lack of African American students and lack of an African American tenured professor or even one on a tenured track. He stood on the side
lines and ended up the compromise candidate for the law review.

Leadership on this issue should have been a top of priority for ANY progressive Democrat, regardless of race.

He's been slinking in the sidelines and voting "present" his entire career. That's not LEADERSHIP. --KnowVox

by KnowVox 2008-02-21 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: This is silly

I went to Boalt, graduated in '06.

You have taken offense very unnecessarily. I wasn't in any way impugning his intelligence. I just don't find this line of argument convincing when extolling his presidential resume because I know what Law Reviews are like. From my perspective, it doesn't mean that much; many others who have served on them would agree if they are not interviewing for a job when asked.

I know you're angered when anyone expresses any opinions contrary to the Obama orthodoxy, but I was explaining why my own first-hand experience is relevant. Yours is as well of course. If you want to further question my credentials on this issue, you are welcomed to privately.

by dr benway 2008-02-21 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Two Works of Fiction

Obama has admitted that characters in his books are "created" and are "composites" of people, not actual people. He's admitted that places and events are often fictionalized to add to the drama.

The guy's a fake. A con. An empty suit.

by Tennessean 2008-02-21 02:15PM | 0 recs
You need to read the book

You need to read the book. Some of the minor characters are composites of others, and many characters had their names changed to protect their privacy. Some events were moved in the timeline to expedite the narrative. Obama admits all this up front in the preface.

But there is nothing in the book that is made up. All the significant facts in the book have been corroborated by outside news sources.

Again, you need to read the book.

by Korha 2008-02-21 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: You need to read the book

Ed: This applies to Dreams from my Father only, Obama's critically acclaimed autobiography. Of course, there is nothing in The Audacity of Hope that is even thinly touched up.

by Korha 2008-02-21 03:36PM | 0 recs
Oh, please...

You say that now, but what happens if Axelrod meets McCain's team and the entire right-wing attack machine this fall. Can Axelrod's slick media strategy be enough when the GOP throws everything INCLUDING the kitchen sink at Obama? Stop thinking short-term and start thinking about November.

by atdleft 2008-02-21 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, please...

McCain will be easy compared to the Clinton machine. Obama will march through him like an M1-Abrams through a wall of tissue paper.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-21 09:40AM | 0 recs
I don't think so.

Don't fool yourself. You're not just dealing with McCain. You're dealing with the entire right-wing attack machine that will do whatever it can to destroy Obama. And remember that McCain is a media darling, so they won't give Obama an easy time then like they have against Hillary in the primary now.

And no, I'm not just saying this as a Hillary supporter. I'm saying this as a DEMOCRAT who wants our party to win. If Obama's the nominee, I'll support him. But still, he'll make this so much easier for us if he & his team get beyond the canned lines and the Axelrod media strategy, and start preparing for the Republican onslaught.

by atdleft 2008-02-21 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think so.

He's more ready than she is. If you think she won't face the same thing then you're out of your mind. And no, she's never stood up to anything like what either of them will face in the GE. She's stood beside her husband while he faced it, but she's never faced it as the candidate.

And Obama's faced more of that kind of nastiness in the primary than Hillary has, though I understand that as a Clinton supporter you probably don't see that the same way.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-21 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think so.

He's faced more nastiness in the primary than she has? Are you kidding?

by americanincanada 2008-02-21 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think so.

Did it sound like a joke?

Is he black enough?
Is he a magic negro?
Is he really, secretely, a muslim?
Did he go to a madrassas?
Naive and irresponsible?
Rezko?

Hillary has had it easy.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-21 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think so.

Has anyone outside of the blogosphere even heard any of these attacks?

by Inky 2008-02-21 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think so.

i get told all the time that Obama is a muslim by people.  Of course I spend a good 15 minutes telling them that is flat out lies.

by SocialDem 2008-02-21 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think so.

You're right about that one--I skipped over it when I read the list the first time. I personally wish he were a muslim--I'd be more enthusiastic about voting for him and I'd find it easier to buy into the premise that his candidacy truly signals that America has transcended its xenophobia.

by Inky 2008-02-21 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think so.

you are insane.

see a head doc quick.

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 12:30PM | 0 recs
The lunatics have taken over the asylum...

...and are now giving psychiatric advice.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-22 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think so.

What? Try googling to see who has been given a free pass in the media in this primary. In all non-partisan studies he not only gets more good press than any other candidate on either side, he gets more press in general. Huckabee, for some reason, gets the next amount of press/good press, then on down to McCain, then Edwards. HIllary is at the bottom of the list -- repeatedly found to get almost 79% negative coverage, and less coverage in general.

You're being obstuse on purpose. One need only look at Yahoo.com (which attracts millions and millions of hits daily) to see at least 4 or 5 Obama headlines per day, ALL positive, and all mostly pulled from AP's Nedra Pickler, Beth Fouhy, Mike Espo, and Ron Fournier, also AFP and Reuters. It's the same on Comcast.net, and all the other news pages people use for their home page.  If you are really sincere, which you're probably not, then you would google the words:  Nedra Pickler and Obama.  That'll give you a good taste of his coverage.

Now.. you have to ask yourself.  Hmmmm.. WHY is it that during this primary  and John Kerry, during the General Elections, and fawned over George Bush, are fawning all over Obama?   Did they suddenly fall madly in love with him? Did they get that tingly feeling that Chris Matthews got?  Oh.. or is it because the media has ALWAYS helped to push the weaker candidate against the GOP election machine?  

The media is sitting on the stuff they've already found out about Obama, and waiting until it's too late to unleash it.  You'll see....

by Catriley sez 2008-02-21 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think so.

For some reason the words "Al Gore" disappeared from sentence. It's "Al Gore and John Kerry".

by Catriley sez 2008-02-21 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think so.

Now that's funny, but can we come back to the Real World?

All stats, even from last years show differently.

Obama has not had ANY scrutiny.  These reused speeches and Michelle Obama's "for the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country..." Are excellent examples.  And this is when it's between only 2 people.

The media has been pushing him for over a year.

And being he only has these re used words, and his little experience, I'd have to say, he truly is....as he put it in his Harpers Interivew "Barack Obama Inc, the Making of a Washington Machine"......a "blank slate".  Nothing there and except offering to be the next Reagan puppet for the Corporations.  He'll be a mix of Reagan and Dubya, inexperienced, good talker, who wants to be a Uniter and bring the Corporations to the table to make our policy.  Oh gooodie....wippeeeee!  Let's celebrate, fascism is here to stay.  And now that he's talking about possibly privatizing Social Security and now, with his interview in Wisconsin, privatizing school, we can kiss any resemblence of America good bye.

by LindaSFNM 2008-02-21 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think so.

All stats, even from last years show differently.

Please elaborate. What "stats" are you referring to?

And BTW, he has more experience then Hillary Clinton. You can keep claiming otherwise, and I suppose it depends on what exactly you mean by "experience," but he has more campaign experience and more experience in elected office. She has more experience being a corporate lawyer and being first lady.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-21 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think so.

Any studies of media coverage...even last year.

Example, here:
Yes, I was wrong on all fronts.  But, in a stunning set of numbers, Barack Obama not only gets coverage, he recieve the most highest favorable coverage of the candidates.  Again, not that we haven't noticed, but to see the numbers in reality, really crystalizes who the Corporate Media favors and unfairly gives coverage or not.

Now, take that in comparison to even when Governor Howard Dean's coverage was considered more favorable before they turned on him.  

"Also of little surprise is the network turn against Governor Howard Dean. In the first two weeks of January, Dean commanded a relative high positive in network news coverage of his campaign with more than 26 percent of all news statements considered positive; less than 16 percent was considered negative. By the final week, Dean's news image had changed. Negative press statements had risen one percentage point, while his positive coverage fell ten points from more than 26 percent at the beginning of the month, to 16 percent in the final week."

So these numbers show an incredible amount positive media coverage for one candidate.  

Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband.

And the media's coverage?

In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign. That is nearly four times the number of stories about the personal backgrounds of the candidates (17%) or the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals (15%). And just 1% of stories examined the candidates’ records or past public performance, the study found.

This clearly shows the media is pushing the candidate and their campaigns, not based on policy or their record versus their campaign speeches.

When you see this, it can only leave you with the question of why?  What are they hoping to do?  Select the Primary winners and then do the same for the General election?  Hide the issues until there it is too late to choose?  Shouldn't they avoid the question and provide fair coverage for all and discuss the issues the VOTERS TELL THEM THEY CARE ABOUT?

You'll see the charts here:
http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

by LindaSFNM 2008-02-21 11:01AM | 0 recs
Hmmm...

Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband.

Interesting, but it hardly proves your point. Conservative talk radio hosts aren't exactly the MSM, but I would be happy to agree that she probably gets more negative attention from those types than Obama does.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-21 11:10AM | 0 recs
Ah! Here we go...

http://www.journalism.org/node/8196

And a good deal of her negative coverage can be attributed to a media platform that has been taking on the Clinton family since they moved into the White House in 1993. Nearly 20% of the nearly 300 Clinton stories examined in this report aired on conservative talk radio, a genre that many observers believe found its voice and primary target after Bill Clinton's 1992 election. In this campaign, conservative talkers in the early months have a new target. Nearly nine-out-of-ten Clinton segments in conservative talk (86%) were clearly negative in tone.

That pretty well explains it...

by Mystylplx 2008-02-21 11:18AM | 0 recs
Wow.

You realize that means that almost 60 of the 300 media stories examined in that study (regarding Hillary Clinton) came from conservative talk radio?

Who's zoomin' who? That's an absurd study. Looks like they set out to prove a point and proved the point they set out to prove.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-21 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, please...

I am going to save your comment, and keep it on my desktop.. maybe even cut it out and put it on my calendar for.. say.. November 1st. Then if your idol gets the nod, and is summarily trounced by the GOP attack machine and the oh-so fickle press, I can look back on your bravado and lmao.

by Catriley sez 2008-02-21 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, please...

You do that. Just so long as you're equally willing to laugh at yourself when you're proven wrong.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-22 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Axelrod's Creations.

What it means is that Obama is nothing more than anactor saying the lines someone scripted for him.

by americanincanada 2008-02-21 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Axelrod's Creations.

Explains his praise for Reagan. He really does want to be the next Reagan. Ugggh!

by LakersFan 2008-02-21 12:15PM | 0 recs
WE ARE FACING DEFEAT

If our nominee is one who sells words for inspiration, and then we find out more and more that it's not his words but his handlers' words, then it's easy for the Republicans to "bamboozle" him as an EMPTY VESSEL for BORROWED WORDS.

This smells like defeat.  I'll vote for whoever ends up as the Dem nominee, but I have a bad feeling about this.

by Sieglinde 2008-02-21 09:45AM | 0 recs
Isn't this like Movie The Candidate

Yes, you're right.  And, thank you.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068334/

by LindaSFNM 2008-02-21 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Axelrod's Creations

I was over at Politico and under a story about McCain a poster brought up a You Tube appearance by someone named Sinclair that has over 400,000
hits. Sinclair says some damning stuff about Obama and is undergoing a lie detector test paid for($10,000) by an outside group. He now has a lawyer. It is not a nice story.

by bJ Chicago 2008-02-21 11:11AM | 0 recs
Elections vs Governing

A number of posters on this site have repeatedly claimed that Obama would be the better president because of his more successful campaign.  hahaha  Reminds me that, with that kind of logic, W should have been a brilliant president.  W raised tons and tons of money, carved deeply into traditionally Dem voting blocs, and coopted some dem issues.  

Guess governing and campaigning are two very different things after all.

by newhorizon 2008-02-21 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Elections vs Governing

Hey, I wasn't saying W was a good president, just that using campaigning as a measure of governing wasn't very valid.

by newhorizon 2008-02-21 06:26PM | 0 recs
Look at Obama and realize now before it's too late

What you see is not what you'll get.

When you want to make an acquaintance with someone at a party?  What do you do?  You spend time with that person.  You spoke to him, hear his story. You won't form an opinion of a person at the first meeting.  You gotta know him better spend more time with him.  

Two weeks later, you found out that what he told you was not entirely his opinion after all.  Hmm......you normally have a flag up in your head.  Why did he let me to believe that 2 weeks ago then?  What was his motive?   This situation applies to any normal human relationship.  If you still blindly believe the guy after you found out what he told you is not entirely true, you will find yourself handing him your pocket soon.

by JoeySky18 2008-02-21 12:04PM | 0 recs
Who is Axelrod really?

I mean: what interests does he represent? What does he want?

He does seem to be the svengali here, but there seems to be a dearth of information about what his endgame is.

Any thoughts?

by dr benway 2008-02-21 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Who is Axelrod really?

Well.. for people like Axelrod it's partially ego, it's the money, and it's the ultimate setup Rove got. If Obama wins (which is a total longshot against McCain once they talk about National security), then be sure that Axelrod will take Rove's old office.  

THAT is what people like Axelrod want. POWER.

by Catriley sez 2008-02-21 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Who is Axelrod really?

But who is Axelrod's Axelrod?

by dr benway 2008-02-21 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Axelrod's Creations. His words for Obama, Pat

formula: 

Find a candidate with a great personal story- intelligence- good and lofty aspirations.

by ExperienceCounts 2008-02-21 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Axelrod's Creations. His words for Obama, Pat

. Market them as outsiders using hope and change to define them. Uniters not dividers if you will.



by ExperienceCounts 2008-02-21 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Axelrod's Creations. His words for Obama, Pat

.Axelrod's campaign with Deval Patrick in Massachusetts proved effective- a win for a candidate of aspirations but limited experience. The catch for Axelrod is that the proof is in this pudding-

by ExperienceCounts 2008-02-21 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Deval Patrick's limited experience?????

Those accomplishments don't seem to have prepared him so well with dealing with being Governor and handling the Boston press and the Massachusetts legislature, though. It's been kind of amazing to see someone with that kind of moral authority (the Civil Rights stuff you cite) end up trying to sell the notion of Massachusetts relying on casinos to provide job opportunities for its citizens.

by Alice in Florida 2008-02-21 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Deval Patrick's limited experience?????

He has not been a good governor thus far- He had no experience in governing-Any one who lives in Ma will tell you-he may eventually be good but like I said-he couldn't even bring his state to Obama-even with both Senators-how's that for being a uniter.

by ExperienceCounts 2008-02-21 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Axelrod's Creations. His words for Obama, Pat

- the hopes and dreams of a successful campaign have been shattered by the inability to follow through. "How does a campaign framed on these themes endure? The answer is simple-they do not.

by ExperienceCounts 2008-02-21 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Axelrod's Creations. His words for Obama, Pat

. Nobody followed Deval's lead in this election (even though he was joined by Ted Kennedy & John Kerry) so that romantic notion that we are bringing in so many new people and that they are energized by the "new" politics and provide a staunch and strong political force moving in one direction is just nonsense."

by ExperienceCounts 2008-02-21 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Axelrod's Creations. His words for Obama, Pat

Obama lost Massachusetts by 15!  Axelrod-the wizard behind the curtain-Maybe he's more qualified to be President than his acolytes!

by ExperienceCounts 2008-02-21 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Axelrod's Creations. His words for Obama, Pat

There is something very unseemly about a dumpy Jewish dude with a bad 'stache ventriloquizing in eerily precise ways for two African American candidates.

Oh well, pay no attention to that dumpy Jewish man w/ a bad 'stache behind the curtain! Nothing to see there. Stay focused on the sexy giant talking head on the screen in front of you.

Oh, I almost forgot, you're a racist. As am I.

by dr benway 2008-02-21 01:28PM | 0 recs
Huh?

It's not clear to me what the point of this diary is. Of course Axelrod is doing something for Obama--he better be for all the money the campaign is paying him.

But it's obviously false to say that Axelrod is creating Obama's message for him. Unlike any other national politician in America living today, Barack Obama has written two non-ghostwritten books. The first one was written fifteen years ago before he even entered the political arena. Both of them accurately capture Obama's authentic self.

You can know a couple of relevant things from reading Dreams from my Father and The Audacity of Hope. The first is that Obama is a master wordsmith and a brilliant writer. The second is that everything written in those books are entirely consonant with Obama's political image and the message of his current presidential campaign. As further evidence, both the famous 2004 DNC speech and his presidential announcement speech were written by Obama himself.

Obviously David Axelrod, as a competent consultant, helped out. But fundamentally Obama's brand is his own creation and his message springs directly from his own life experiences.

by Korha 2008-02-21 01:41PM | 0 recs
Axelrod's Creations: Obama's Exelon Bribe:

No matter what you all say above, the fact is Exelon paid bribe (called lobbyist money in other words) to Obama via Axelrod. $230,000!!! For changing the language in the bill to favor Exelon instead of common people in Chicago.

Who is blind? Those who ignore such reality:-)

by Sandeep 2008-02-21 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Axelrod's Creations. His words for Obama, Pat

I just can't believe some people. The attacks on Obama on this site have been so low lately. I usually tell myself I will not respond to any of them. But it's been bugging the hell out of me and I'm sure many pro-Clinton people on this site can relate because of what they witnessed at dkos. So my patience has reached a limit tonight and I'm responding to an asshole diary. Obviously, I am also discomforted by so many of the attack diaries on Hillary. It makes me want to barf all over my computer. Neither of these candidates deserves to be attacked in such low, baseless ways. They are both much better than that.

I understand that there are some legitimate concerns from some Hillary folks about Obama's inexperience in Washington. Fine. I can't wait until you are pleasantly surprised. I know that will take time, however. I know that there are concerns about how he will do in the general election. I can't wait until you are pleasantly surprised when Obama beats McCain. I cannot convince someone to feel how I feel or see what I see, but I am confident in Obama and believe time will alleviate those valid concerns. Listen, I support any voter who does research. I support voters working so hard for their candidates. I support all these positive pro-Hillary diaries because I like seeing this excitement created by our wonderful candidates. I sincerely believe that you will see Obama is a good, strong candidate and will make a great president. If Hillary becomes nominee I will be really upset that Obama lost, but I would not be upset that she is the candidate. I'd be out waving a Hillary flag. But that's just me.

But this low brow stuff is just bad news all around. Are you deranged enough to think of this ridiculously intelligent man is a puppet? Are you honestly deranged enough to believe Michelle Obama has never been proud of her country? Are you so out of touch that you think millions of people in this country are glossy-eyed cultists, and only you and your friends know the "truth" and what is real? Do you think anyone is falling for the feigned sincerity of a discussion about whether Obama is a Muslim and/or killed his mother? God, gag me with a spoon! It's Rush Limbaugh bullshit! It's idiotic, it's like dumbass mean kids in junior high writing about each other on bathroom walls. It's bad for the party, it's bad for the country, it's bad for human beings! Your candidate is FAR more admirable then this crap. And my candidate is much better than garbage like the idiot heckler going after Bill.

And on that note, I also want to state that many of the Obama supporters I know do not hate Hillary, in any way. The Obama folks in my circles are proud of the Clinton administration and proud of the Clintons. I look up to Hillary as a woman. In fact, she has for so long been the woman I most admire in the country. I happen to prefer Obama. I wont go into my reasons here.

I love discussing this primary. I loved mydd and dailykos after they provided me a nice cozy liberal place during the 2004 elections. Does anyone know where in the web you can go to have an intelligent discourse (I promise no comments like this one from me)? A place that the dumbasses from both sides don't know about yet?

P.S. the anger in this comment is not directed at most of the Hillary supporters, who are awesome and completely sane. So most of you can disregard this here ranting and raving.

by cecilybecily 2008-02-21 09:13PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads