Well, who do you think Obama needs to appeal to right now? He's presumably got all the bitter and partisan voters already (for them, the only thing that really matters is GOTV). Whereas it's the 7% or so of voters who have swung back and forth between Obama and McCain over the last few weeks (evidenced by the convention bounces which, by today's Gallup poll, seem entirely gone). So who do you think he should be targeting in his ads?

I don't know.  The strategy of doing spots that feature Obama addressing matters of interest to voters could work -- it strikes me as being a little like Eisehower's approach in 1952 of presenting a series of ads where he answered questions posed by "ordinary voters" in a folksy way.  Neither folksiness nor hero-worshippy faux voters (also a feature of Eisenhower's ads) would work for Obama, and a thirty-second bite might be too short (two minutes, on the other hand, may be a bit too long), but the idea of putting Obama in front of voters so they can hear and see him ain't a bad one at all.  If he becomes familiar and can present a soothing, reassuring presence on a regular basis, I think it could make all the difference in the world to certain potential voters.

If voters were really looking for "bitter partisanship" right now then Barack Obama would be nothing more than a little known Jr. Senator from Illinois.  Like it or not, think it effective or not, genuine or not, this has been Obama's calling card since July of 2004.  Vague anti-partisanship and calls for unity are what put Obama on the map and delivered him the nomination.

We can quibble all we want with the message and/or philosophy itself, but shouldn't the past 4 years of American political history disabuse us of any notion that Barack Obama simply needs to up the partisan rancor to find political success?

No harm sticking it to the Left at this stage.

I think it's a good ad, gets him above the recent partisan lipstick pig noise before McCain. I suspect people are tuned into the election now and are coming out of that first phase of lipstick pig interest into a more nuanced view. I also suspect they are sick of the media coverage and want to hear a bit about the issues.

Good ad, well timed.

Excellent post. "A new spirit of unity and shared responsibility" is about as exciting, in tagline terms, as TNR's all-time winner for most broing headline ("Worthwhile Canadian Initiative" - Flora Lewis).

Obama needs some populist lines that crystallize matters with bumper-sticker concision-- as Churchill said, the short words are better, and the old words best of all. Health insurance "that no one can take away." Help for families  that "work hard and play by the rules." Make abortion "safe legal and rare" etc.

2008 version: Help pups not yups, working moms not rich childless feminists, and above all, * * * class, not race * * *. If he wants to be bold, he can hammer McCain on illegal immigration. (Now _there's_ a target-rich environment.)

This isn't really that hard, is it?

well, it's not entirely successful, you're right. The outworn ideas line made me cringe too, but... that's his classic pitch to the independents. Not really necessary at this crisis moment, but there it is. It could have been softened by saying "outworn ideas on both sides." He has been pounding the "failed Republican philosophy" in the past 3 days. Would that have worked at the end here? I think it would have been out of place.

In general, his gut instinct is to be less partisan, not more. We're going to have to live or die with that.

I agree with Todd Beeton at MyDD on this though: "The ad definitely passes the "do I want this guy in my living room for 8 years" test and projects Obama as caring, knowledgeable and competent, three things America is desperate for in a president."

I tend to agree with Matt, there's a reason politicians pivot to the center as the election nears. The more of the center that Obama can stake out, the better. McCain tried this with his convention speech and Maverick line...

Very wise ad.  For better or worse, Americans need to feel comfortable with a candidate.  That means they need a candidate to speak to them right in their own living rooms, looking straight into their eyes.  Americans crave connection and familiarity (as clearly problematic as that craving is).  Obama needs to do more to establish this familiarity in the intimate nature of just such an ad as this.  Remember, for a large swath of the American electorate, elections aren't about rational issues -- they're about emotional connection.  It'd be a better world if that weren't the case, but sadly it is -- at least for many.

I think the whole point behind this ad is that it presents Obama as a reasonable, thoughtful person who isn't advocating any of the radical things the republicans accuse him of. Someone else on TNR.com - I forget who - said that there have been so many ads and counter-ads flying around swing states that voters are getting lost in a "fog of war." This is like an antidote to all that. Not that I don't think Obama shouldn't be trying to zing McCain on a regular basis, but a well-timed ad like this one could convince undecided voters that Obama has the right stuff.

Partisan is okay, even necessary, but bitter is bad.

Anyway, I saw this add during the Eagles game Monday night, and I thought it was extremely good and effective. (I also thought it was much shorter than it felt watching it again just now, which is probably a good thing.) I have to agree with Ambinder's analysis.

Also, to me, "outworn ideas of the left" is more a reference to a Vietnam-colored perception on the use of American force in general and handling of the Iraq war in general.

Feel free to disagree?  OK, I do---strongly.

If this sort of thing was ALL that Obama was doing, I would agree.  But it's not.  This ad, timed with the current crisis on Wall Street, PLUS the 30 second attack spots, are just right.

In addition, Obama is getting a lot of free negative-McCain media right now.  McCain and company are shooting themselves in their collective foot at the moment.  Why pile on?  THAT might cause a sympathetic backlash.  Rather, the appearance of a calm but forceful Obama, one who simultaneously and credibly condemns "Washington" (= Republicans) while speaking of bipartisanship, can only help.

Now, if all we get are two-minute messages for the next two weeks, I'll agree.

I want to see what Obama will say, live or in an ad, to lessen the impact of the run-on collision with McCain's blizzard of Wright/Ayers/Rezko ads that are coming to a...well, you name it, venue nearest you. No release dates set yet, but those will be entirely under McCain's (Schmidt's) campaign's control. Get your protective eyeglasses and face masks while they're still in stock. It's gonna be a rough ride.

Re the visuals, man, do his eyes and face look tired. Looks about ten years older than he did at the beginning of the year.

If he was trying to deflate the "celeb"-charisma charge, he's certainly succeeded.

" What's So Awful About Bitter and Partisan? "

It's called bait and switch.  Remind me again, why did you support Obama in primaries if you don't mind

Bitter and Partisan? It seems that Obama is a garden variety Democratic politician with the record of  blizzard of Wright/Ayers/Rezko  connections and without any record of outstanding achievements. Is there a good reason for him not Biden to be the Presidential candidate? Let's just admit the 49% of Democratic voters and majority  superdelegates were fools.  

So, how did MCain suddenly turn from "an authentic maverick who made stands on principle" to the mindboggling liar, panderer, and toady of Bush that he now is?  Maybe he was possessed by an evil alien?

I think the real explanation is obvious: McCain feels no shame about even the most fundamental lie because of his literally limitless self-righteousness -- which has always been his defining characteristic. He thinks that saying absolutely anything to get into the White House is justified, because he'll be so Noble while he's there.  And once he's there he will, of course, excuse absolutely any willfully halfwitted thing he does on the same grounds.

McCain's new ad signs off with the crack, "I've taken on tougher guys than this before."

I think the real explanation is obvious: Obama  feels no shame about even the most fundamental lie because of his literally limitless self-righteousness -- which has always been his defining characteristic. He thinks that saying absolutely anything to get into the White House is justified, because he'll be so Noble while he's there.  And once he's there he will, of course, excuse absolutely any willfully halfwitted thing he does on the same grounds.

here comes a time in each election cycle when even well-meaning partisans start believing their own press releases.  The campaigns and the grassroots start looking for long past or far-off whiffs of corruption that might somehow be attached to the opposition candidate, policy positions that can be twisted into something that sounds bad, tenuous connections to controversial figures, and slips of the tongue that can be taken out of context and magnified into endorsements of rape, incest, and genocide.  If the candidate is already in office, they aver that a failure to psychically foresee some issue and act upon it were the same thing as gross malfeasance.  They claim to believe that the lies their candidate tells are true, or at least an understandable concession to an easily swayed electorate, while the lies the opposition tells clearly render him unfit for that office.  What's worse, I think they really do believe this.

We have clearly reached that point in this campaign.

meganmcardle.theatlantic.com

I agree with Davisbanimal. This is a good ad. It's reassuring, substantive, and pleasant. The Bush-Clinton-Bush years have lowered the tone of political discourse, and many people are fed up about this. Who will "reform"  Washington politics? The Original Maverick? You mean that guy who all but calls Obama a pedophile and lies all the time? No, not him. The very pleasantness of this ad is its best tactic. If this election is about petty things, McCain might just win. If Obama can make this election serious, it's a cake walk.

Great article Jonathan...and I agree with ALL your points.

Before coming to this site I left a comment about the ad at another ProgBlog site saying almost exactly the same thing about the ad...and his line about "worn out ideas of the left...and right" made me angry too...

It's much the same equivalency arguments we're getting from the Corporate Media, and we don't need it from our Dem presidential candidate!

And why are our "nice" Dem candidates always driven to say how wonderful McKrusty is before they proceed to criticize him...this is entirely UNECESSARY!

Thanks again!

"You mean that guy who all but calls Obama a pedophile"

You mean, Obama  can make his supporters lose their mind. Yes he can. This is the change we can believe in.

If this election is about petty things like who was right about the surge, McCain might just win. If Obama can make this election serious, like McCain's houses, shoes and keyboard typing skills  it's a cake walk.

I don't know if it's a good ad or not.

But I know it's better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees. Unlike his opponent, Obama has not yet seen fit to kneel.

Haven't really noticed you before Jacobt. Are you feeling all right? You've got some strange foam all over your mouth.

Hey, jacobt1, is calling out your opponent for streaming lying, not this or that lie, but lying as medium for disinformation, the so-called "big lie" which in McCain's case is his positive message: "Things are fine, life is getting better and better," coupled with "Viva El Revolución." With simultaneous messages like these, who needs reason and good will.

Also, will you please summarize in as few words as possible, of which lies Obama stands indicted. I don't say he hasn't used well-worn vague and unrealistic solutions, promises, and exaggerations of McCain's transgressions. But, he didn't promise to transform electoral politics with a wave of his magic wand.

"If this election is about petty things like who was right about the surge, McCain might just win."

Being right about the surge is petty if it disguises that someone was wrong about the larger war.  At a time when the Taliban are threatening to return in larger numbers to Afghanistan, and can threaten Kabul, the Republican obsession with the surge is entirely set up to pretend that there is no issue anymore about the invasion/occupation of Iraq itself.

tomeg,

1. 100 year wars.

2. Forgot # of houses

3. Can't send email.

Also, will you please summarize in as few words as possible, of which lies McCain  stands indicted. I don't say he hasn't used well-worn vague and unrealistic solutions, promises, and exaggerations of Obama's transgressions. But, he didn't promise to transform electoral politics with a wave of his magic wand.

ironyroad,

It's kind of ironic. Iraq was supposed to be the winning issue for Obama. Not anymore.

The ad is good enough but bad timing. The financial meltdown doesn't exactly call for calm and perspective as your message. The voters he needs to appeal to now are deeply worried along with pretty much everybody else. They want, and need, to hear that it's time to go global because that is the arena where solutions will come from, not the Federal Reserve alone or Congress. It is time for leadership and right action, politics for the moment be damned. Right action is needed pronto moreover, not starting in January. Whichever candidate catches the ball will run the farthest.

McCain, incidentally, is similarly singing the wrong tune, and Obama should leapfrog him, tacking internationalist. Calling for an immediate, even emergency huddle of the  Bernankes of the world would be dramatic, and probably the best first thing to be done.

Exactly William Y.  

Obama can walk away from this election with his head held high, he can look his wife, daughters and allies in the eye and respect himself.  In this ad, he exudes decency and that's exactly the way he wants it.  It says: this campaign is still being run on my terms. Unike my opponent, I say what I mean.  I'm tired of so much filth in our political discouse and I'm walking the walk.

This is an ad by a man at peace with himself and who he is.  He trusts himself and he trusts you too.  It is a polite version of: what you see is what you get.

Oh jacobt1, come on, grow up. I immediately forgot McCain's forgetting the # of his houses, but you have to admit it was an embarrassing moment that did happen. Likewise 100 year wars, though I have to say I'm still confused what McCain meant to say if there wasn't a grain of truth there. Better he should have said "I don't know but I can promise you we'll leave as soon as the job is done." Like Biden, he should watch his mouth at unguarded moments like that.

I can't send email either. Whoops, sorry, that was a lie, I meant to say "I can't send this g*ddam email, G-d Bless America."

Jacob, to answer your last question, I haven't a thing to say. I don't either McCain or Obama possesses a magic wand to disappear electoral politics, which in a way was my point.

"immediately forgot McCain's forgetting the # of his houses, "

You forgot, however this was the central theme of the Democratic convention. The lie was the central theme of the Obama convention.

You forgot, however [McCain's forgetting the # of his houses] was the *central theme of the Democratic convention*. The lie was the *central theme of the Obama convention.*

If you *really believe that* you're much more delusional and paranoid than I ever thought. Yikes.

"It's kind of ironic. Iraq was supposed to be the winning issue for Obama. Not anymore."

We don't know for certain what people are thinking.  But anyone who thinks (a) that Iraq's all now under control or (b) that Obama didn't realize that things might change is a fool.

Tomeg, of course jacobt1 is  paranoid. What else is new?

tomeg,

When facts are not  your friends, it's time for insults.

Of course, the lie was the central theme of the Obama convention. However, it doesn't bother me.

He does what politicians do

www.swamppolitics.com/.../wright_on_obama_hes_a_politici.html

Thx, sleepy...I think?!

I can't believe you are still responding to these illiterate Jacomments.

For some fun, here's Palin on Hannity:

"HANNITY: Senator Barack Obama yesterday was attacking Senator McCain for saying that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. Do you believe that the fundamentals of our economy are strong?

PALIN: Well, it was an unfair attack on the verbiage that Senator McCain chose to use. The fundamentals that he was having to explain afterwards, he means the work force, he means ingenuity of the American people. And of course, that is strong, that is the foundation of our economy. So that was an unfair attack based on verbiage that John McCain used. Certainly, it is a mess, though."

"verbiage", yeah.

I know I should stop responding to jacob, but I can't help myself for some reason.

In what sense is saying that McCain forgot how many houses he owned a lie?  He was asked directly and couldn't answer.  Is your objection to the term "forgot"?  I had assumed that he probably knew at *some* point how many houses he owned, which would indeed make that forgetting.  If you're arguing that he never knew in the first place, that interpretation doesn't exactly paint him in a much better light.

"Also, will you please summarize in as few words as possible, of which lies McCain  stands indicted."

Off the top of my head:

1. Alaska being responsible for 20% of the country's domestic energy supply (which they corrected with another falsehood, saying it was 20% of oil and natural gas)

2. Sarah Palin knowing more about energy than anyone in the United States

3. Obama wanting to teach kids about sex before they learn to read

4. Claiming that Palin refused earmarks

5. Saying that Obama has voted to raise taxes on families making as little as $42,000

6. "Thanks, but no thanks"

for a more complete list, see www.mccainpedia.org/.../Count_the_Lies

What struck me about that ad were two things: 1. his extremely midwestern voice. 2. his plea to "read my plan". That is: his plan is longer than he can stuff into a two minute ad. This counters the Mr. Empty Fluff meme. Boring is good. Boring = competent, and people want that now.

Alan,

"He was asked directly and couldn't answer.  "

He could he didn't want to answer, because some of rental condos were not owned by him or his wife.

He wanted to give a detailed answer. It was obvious.

"Obama wanting to teach kids about sex before they learn to read"

This is what the bill says.

"Sarah Palin knowing more about energy than anyone in the United States"

This can't be lie. This statement is not a fact.

If this is a lie, than nobody lies more than Obama. Don't you remember Obama's favorite language construction,, Nobody ... than me ?  He uses in almost all debates.

5. Saying that Obama has voted to raise taxes on families making as little as $42,000

I'm sure he did. Some low income families could have stocks and dividents. I'm sure this statement is technically true.

6. "Thanks, but no thanks"

This is not a fact. It can't be lie.

blogs.abcnews.com/.../from-the-fact-1.html

here are some real factual problems with this ad, which is titled “Dos Caras,” or two faces.

First of all, tying Sen. McCain – especially on the issue of immigration reform – to Limbaugh is unfair.

Limbaugh opposed McCain on that issue. Vociferously. And in a larger sense, it’s unfair to link McCain to Limbaugh on a host of issues since Limbaugh, as any even occasional listener of his knows, doesn’t particularly care for McCain.

Second, the quotes of Limbaugh’s are out of context.

Railing against NAFTA in 1993, Limbaugh said, "If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs NAFTA is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."

Not one of his most eloquent moments, to be sure, but his larger point was that NAFTA would mean that unskilled stupid Mexicans would be doing the jobs of unskilled stupid Americans.

I agree with the basic thrust of this article. When the Obama campaign focuses on theme rather than substance, it risks having its theme co-opted, which is what the McCain campaign is, with some success, attempting to do.

"This can't be lie. This statement is not a fact."

I thought Jacob couldn't out perform himself but he keeps on surprising us all.

Sorry, Jacob, but McCain not knowing how many houses he owns was not the "central theme" of the DNC.  It was the central joke.  There's a difference.

You could as easily say that the "central theme" of the RNC was that Obama was once a community organizer.  Even I will concede that, as much as the Republicans tried to make hay out of that, it wasn't their "central theme."

And no, teaching kindergartners about condoms and reproduction was not "in the bill."

"And no, teaching kindergartners about condoms and reproduction was not "in the bill."

It was just a joke.

And jacob once again reminds me why it's not worth responding to him if you have an interest in rational argument.

I took the phrase "outworn ideas of the left and right" to mean "outworn ideas of what it is to be on the left or the right" rather than "the left and right's ideas."  I wouldn't think he'd take a shot at his own political orientation.  I saw it as a shot against dogmatic partisanship.

Teplukhin, do you take issue with Canada? You list "Canadian intiative" as one of TNR's most boring headlines ever.  The other day you referred to another poster as an "unemployed trial lawyer from Canada."

psantillana, yes, despite Obama's international (to Republicans, elitist and exotic) upbringing, his accent ends up being fairly Chicago-inflected.  I like it in the sense that it doesn't grate like a s. suburban sec'y, but it's present enough to remind me of "home."

satyendra - "The other day you referred to another poster as an "unemployed trial lawyer from Canada"

I did not. I consider that attack a smear for which its intended recipient deserves an apology. I don't have anyt. against Canada. "Worthwhile Initiative" was an inside joke among TNR's staff for years. I think it dates from teh Michael Kinsley era

Palin, quoted out of context:

"Certainly, it is a mess, though."

Palin, quoted in context:

"So that was an unfair attack based on verbiage that John McCain used. Certainly, it is a mess, though."

Is it ever...

That "unemployed trial lawyer" comment was made only this week, but there have been so many postings that I couldn't remember where to search to verify authorship.  Apologies if I've wrongly attributed it to you.

Satyendra: it was Eos and it was directed at me.  Eos also considered Jacob "eloquent", which is enough to actually doubt whether Eos can read, so his jibe at me did not mean anything at all.  In any event, much like anything else s/he rights, there were several factual errors in that "unemployed trial lawyer in Canada" insult - not that there is anything at all wrong with being unemployed, a trial lawyer, or in Canada ... and any way, only an elitist, and a Repug at that, would look down his/her knows at people who are unemployed :-).

Thanks for remembering though.  Tep a one-note Johnny and drives me up the wall, but he is a decent fellow and not given to ad hominems.  At least, not more than I am ...

Tomeg: :-)

Alan: I told you so ...

Single: Jacomments have a habit of out-absurding Ionesco at his most hallucinatory moments.

icarusr, you're right!  Jacob is Ionesco's character in "Rhinoceros," who alone doesn't turn into a Rhino when everyone else does. He's just being a non-conformist to the tnr crowd! You've hit it! I now have a framework to put jacob's comments into.

Okay, dramaturgy hat: off.

williamyard said it all, in re: kneeling.

Icarusr, well, at least I remembered it was directed at you, but didn't want to take the risk, regardless of how small (the slight was pretty ridiculous) of reinsulting you by repeating it.  Besides which repeating it would only make it true, right :)

That's why I didn't remember who leveled it, because it was from Eos.  I tend not to read its posts because they're only Republican pablum.  Nothing insightful there.  I'll read some other conservative posters here because while I don't agree with them at least they show some thought.

Sat: you can repeat it as often as you like; I'll still be a lawyer and a Canadian, and it won't make me unemployed or a "trial lawyer" :-).  No worries.

Bigfish: Except that Jacomments are copy-paste of everyone else's posts; it's as it he DID turn into a Rhino but refused to admit it.

Incidentally, have you seen the latest gem from our foreign policy expert, Johnny Mac?  Apparently, he confused Zapatero with some Latin American henchman:

"Late Wednesday night, news made its way from the other side of the Atlantic that John McCain, in an interview with a Spanish outlet, had made a series of bizarre responses to a question regarding that country's prime minister.

"Would you be willing to meet with the head of our government, Mr. Zapatero?" the questioner asked, in an exchange now being reported by several Spanish outlets.

McCain proceeded to launch into what appeared to be a boilerplate declaration about Mexico and Latin America -- but not Spain -- pressing the need to stand up to world leaders who want to harm America.

"I will meet with those leaders who are our friends and who want to work with us cooperatively," according to one translation. The reporter repeated the question two more times, apparently trying to clarify, but McCain referred again to Latin America.

Finally, the questioner said, "Okay, but I'm talking about Europe - the president of Spain, would you meet with him?" The Senator offered only a slight variance to his initial comment. "I will reunite with any leader that has the same principles and philosophy that we do: human rights, democracy, and liberty. And I will confront those that don't [have them].""

(Over at HuffPo.)

This is not the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, but of a country that was one of the Coalition of the Willing and Zapatero specifically is the one who pulled out of Iraq; to not know of him or Spain just boggles the mind.

AlanSP said

"And jacob once again reminds me why it's not worth responding to him if you have an interest in rational argument"

Obama supporters don't believe that not supporting Obama is "rational"

I like hearing Obama talk about what he's going to do - at last. Despite following this campaign pretty closely from across the Atlantic for the past year, I had heard no concrete proposals on economic policy until the convention acceptance speech. I think part of the reason why voters are more likely to express concern about Obama's lack of experience is because Obama is not only less familiar to voters at a `feeling` level, but also because there's been a lot of `how I'm going to do things` but far too little `here's what I'm going to do.`

Talking about a mode of governing is aspirational; talking about concrete actions suggests that Mr Obama is ready to act.

This financial crisis requires a clear response with specific proposals for action in order to reassure people. As Mr Obama said, this is a serious, serious situation, voters recognise this, and a strategy that focuses on explaining how we are going to get out of this mess will only emphasise the triviality and incompetence of Republican responses.

I also think - at the risk of alienating some stakeholders - Mr Obama needs to unveil the core team that will lead the response to the financial and economic crisis, further emphasising the `ready from day one` character of the Democrat response to the economy.

Mr. Obama needs to address what I bump into among wealthy people who feel if he gets elected, he will take away their money and give it to somone who doesn't work.  It doesn't help when Mr. Obama says something to the effect that helping people, wth their education for example,  is the American Way.  That's interpreted as "compulsory generosity."   When I confront friends who are concerned about the rise in their taxes, I ask them if they would prefer lower taxes or a strong economy.  They agree that they are much better off in a strong economy.  Mr. Obama needs to make that link, the link that the funds from higher taxes will be used to rebuild the economy.  Education of as many as possible may be the ticket for us to compete globally in a world where manufactiuring jobs are going to leave for the lowest bidder.  Or, it may be helpful to note that when thousands are losing their jobs, the economy will be helped in those areas of the country by unemployment payments, as opposed to sending $600.00 payments to everyone under a certain income level.   The link between taxation and an improved economy as opposed to a weaker economy is the answer.  When Clinton raised taxes, we were fine.  We tried lower taxes and look what we got.

Obama needs to start firing away, as in promising to fire the Chairman of the SEC. When lines start to form outside of banks, who do you think, in your wildest imaginations, will take on the role of "The Man on the Horse"?  Obama MUST stop directing people to his website for his "ideas".  He must shout them out. Please, no more Dukakis Moments.

Barack Obama's campaign sent out a more nuanced message today via their email list that addresses some of Jonathan Cohn's concerns - see my write up at  www.wurfwhile.com/.../obama-targeting-economic-message