Chipotle grand opening
Althea Harper on 'Runway'
Miami U gets H1N1 vaccine
Home > Blogs > Ohio politics > Archives > 2008 > February > 27 > Entry
Eye on Ohio: “Quiet” ad for Obama
Obama ad talks about energy
THE AD: “Quiet,” 30 seconds.
WHERE TO SEE IT: Began airing Wednesday, Feb. 27, on Ohio television stations.
SCRIPT:
I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message. I don’t accept that we should be still sending $800 million dollars a day, part of it to hostile nations because of our addiction to foreign oil, and in the bargain we’re melting the polar ice caps. I went to Detroit to insist that we have to increase fuel efficiency standards. Now, I have to admit, the room got kind of quiet. We can’t just tell people what they want to hear. We need to tell them what they need to hear. We need to tell them the truth.
VIDEO:
The ad flashes a black and white picture of Obama, then cuts to him talking, clad in a dress shirt and red and white tie, to a medium-sized crowd. It shows a close-up of a woman in the crowd, then flashes back to Obama before cutting to a screen that lists components of Obama’s energy plan: Reduce carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050; invest $150 billion in clean energy and create a Green Job Corps. Then it cuts back to Obama addressing the crowd. It closes by displaying a blue screen urging people to vote Tuesday and giving them information about early voting.
ANALYSIS:
This ad is really about two things: Sure, it’s about global warming and energy - issues that don’t really poll high in the Buckeye State - but it also aims to paint Obama as a tough-talker who is willing to tell uncomfortable truths - something that appeals to supporters of front-running Republican candidate Sen. John McCain, ironically. Obama’s energy and global warming position is not that disparate from Sen. Hillary Clinton’s - both call for a cap-and-trade system that would cut carbon emissions by 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. Both have also called for additional investment in clean energy technologies, though Obama calls for a $150 billion investment over 10 years while Clinton calls for a $50 billion strategic energy fund to invest in alternative energy.
Both also call for increasing fuel economy standards, albeit by slightly different standards. And both would aim for 25 percent of electricity being used in the U.S. to come from renewable sources by 2025.
Jessica Wehrman is a reporter at The Dayton Daily News.
Permalink | Comments (7) | Categories: Eye on Ohio
Comments
By r
March 1, 2008 5:14 PM | Link to this
Why isn’t anyone addressing the reality behind the plagiarism issue. Senator Clinton had a comprehensive “plan” before Mr. Obama put his hat in the ring. When asked of Mr. Obama what his “plan” was he conjured up speech patterns and “lines”. After being asked about his plan enough times, he casually adopted Hillarys “plan” to shut people up. Now it appears to be his plan! The author of this “plan” is the competent person to carry it out. This is telltale of the difference between the candidates. One borrowed the others “plan” but has little else to offer to ALL Americans. It is clear that Mr. Obamas intimidation tactics has affected everyone involved in this race including super-delegates that are being forced to back Mr. Obama. With a race running so close, how is it that he has the Audacity to ask Senator Clinton to pack it up? This is more intimidation tactics and it doesn’t pass the smell test. Is he trying to hurry her out of the race before everything begins to unravel and the “empty screen” begins to get clouded. It sounds like what we’ve been through already with the previous election heist. http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/1 The truths are leaking out about this relative unknown. Senator Clinton has the right values, she listens, she is smart, she is qualified and she will create change the likes of which we have never seen before. The world will respect us once again and we will respect our government once again, because we will have a president who will lead us in the right direction. It is dirty politics for Obama to blame the Hillary campaign for everything it is guilty of. Aren’t we sick of being snow-balled?By alice
February 29, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this
As frustrating as it is to see all the conservatives putting out so much incorrect info on Obama to prey on the people’s ignorance about Muslims (even though he is Christian) and push their bigoted ideas, I am confident that voter turnout will prove that Ohioans (most) will not buy into it like they did with the fear campaign of ‘04. The only resources they can site are ones like Daily Kos and The New Republic (about as reliable as MoveOn.org or any other far left media) ALWAYS referencing his middle name, imagining conspiracies with radical islamists and connections with terrorists only proves how narrow-minded and manipulative these conservatives are and the voters will prove it on March 4th. Go Barack (and go Hill if Barack doesn’t get it).By RG
February 28, 2008 7:36 PM | Link to this
sjl, better go back and check your sources, much of what you commented on has turned out to be misinformation, nice try tho, YES WE CAN—soon to be, YES WE DID !By sjl
February 28, 2008 6:47 PM | Link to this
I wonder if obama would even be in the running if the public new about his sleazy and corrupt tactics. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304 The New Republic Race Man by Sean Wilentz How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton. Post Date Wednesday, February 27, 2008 “While promoting Obama as a “post-racial” figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics. “ “A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the “race card” were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students.” “Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama’s supposedly uplifting campaign”By sjl
February 28, 2008 6:47 PM | Link to this
I wonder if obama would even be in the running if the public new about his sleazy and corrupt tactics. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304 The New Republic Race Man by Sean Wilentz How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton. Post Date Wednesday, February 27, 2008 “While promoting Obama as a “post-racial” figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics. “ “A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the “race card” were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students.” “Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama’s supposedly uplifting campaign”By sjl
February 28, 2008 6:45 PM | Link to this
I wonder if obama would even be in the running if the public new about his sleazy and corrupt tactics. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304 The New Republic Race Man by Sean Wilentz How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton. Post Date Wednesday, February 27, 2008 “While promoting Obama as a “post-racial” figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics. “ “A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the “race card” were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students.” “Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama’s supposedly uplifting campaign”By Lydial
February 27, 2008 10:34 PM | Link to this
If you have the time, I suggest you go to “I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype” http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633. It is a provides a comparison between the senatorial records of Clinton and Obama. The article points out that both care about the same issues and have obviously worked together on a lot of legislation, whatever Clinton’s campaign may imply. She is a frequent co-sponsor on his bills, and he on hers. They are both completely competent senators, but it is extremely difficult for any one to get anything through Congress these days. Clinton has a solid record in the Senate. Obama has introduce bills on health care, energy, Iran, voting, veterans, global warming, campaign finance and lobbyists, Blackwater, global poverty, nuclear proliferation, and education. The difference is in their scope and approach. Obama and Clinton both introduce energy legislation in Congress. The author of the article pointed out that Obama had introduce four bills on energy including • S.1151 : A bill to provide incentives to the auto industry to accelerate efforts to develop more energy-efficient vehicles to lessen dependence on oil; •S.115 : A bill to suspend royalty relief, to repeal certain provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry; and •S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes. The author was only able to locate one bill that was introduce by Clinton and addressed the same issue, S.701 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a temporary oil profit fee and to use the proceeds of the fee collected to provide a Strategic Energy Fund and expand certain energy tax incentives, and for other purposes. Obama’s bill wanted to “repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry”. Clinton saw the answer in a “temporary oil profit fee” and to “expand certain energy tax incentives” for alternative energy. Obama’s alternative energy bill (S.133) was co-sponsored by Harkin, Lugar and Salazar. Clinton’s bill had no co-sponsors. Both of their bills were good bills. The article has a list of their other bills. They are really close in substance, the difference is in style. Enough from me, give the article a read.