Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Shakedown Street, Japan
    Posts
    30,280
    vCash
    1500

    Will the DHL story help Obama clinch Ohio?

    Obama Camp To Hit McCain Hard In Ohio On Job-Killing Deal
    By Eric Kleefeld - August 8, 2008, 6:24PM

    The Obama campaign signaled today that they'll be making a major issue of job losses in the big swing state of Ohio -- and aggressively tying John McCain and his campaign manager Rick Davis directly to the problems hurting voters there.

    Earlier today the Obama campaign released a radio ad to run in the Cincinnati area, regarding the closure of a DHL facility in Wilmington. "It was McCain who used his influence in the Senate to help foreign-owned DHL buy a U.S. company and gain control over the jobs that are now on the chopping block in Ohio," the ad said.

    The issue at hand involves Davis' work back in 2003, when he successfully lobbied Congress -- winning McCain's support -- to approve a buyout of Airborne Express by DHL. Five years later, DHL is planning to shut down the old Airborne Express hub in Wilmington, which would lead to the loss of 8,000 jobs.

    On a conference call with reporters earlier today, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe made it clear that he thinks this issue will be haunting McCain's efforts to win this state: "His appearances in Ohio were completely overshadowed by this. And by November 4 in the Cincinnati and Dayton markets this is something that is going to be known by every voter in this area."

    Plouffe also sees an opening to chip away at John McCain's clean image. "He was there a month ago in this community and was asked a question about this DHL issue and did not say one word about his role in this or the role of his campaign manager," Plouffe said. "That is the furthest thing from straight talk that we can imagine."

    The McCain campaign has been trying to portray Obama as "grand" and out of touch with working folks because he's a "celebrity." The Obama campaign has its response: McCain's own campaign manager profited directly off lobbying that led to a job-killing deal in your state. Which will carry the day?
    tpm


    Of course, I don't know the answer to the last question there, but it does seem to me like this is a pretty powerful case for the Obama camp to make in terms of him having a better real life impact on improving the employment situation in Ohio (and elsewhere).

    It also, from a strategic point of view, seems sensible to be focusing on major local issues in swing states. If Obama loses some suburban/rural blue state voters due to the celebrity ad, but wins in Ohio, his net loss is zero, and his net gain is moving that much closer to an electoral victory.
    I blog basketball at Roundball Mining Company///Twitter: @denbutsu

    Atheists Of PSD

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    I don't know the answer to the question. It may.

    But, to beat a dead horse, that ad seems pretty negative.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Shakedown Street, Japan
    Posts
    30,280
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    I don't know the answer to the question. It may.

    But, to beat a dead horse, that ad seems pretty negative.
    Well, if it's a fact that McCain's campaign manager took money from DHL to directly help them make a deal that would eventually cost an Ohio town 8,000 jobs, and the Obama campaign wants to present that information to the people of Ohio, can you tell me how they could do that in a "positive" way?

    I think you use a much broader definition of "negative campaigning" than is conventionally used. You seem to take it to mean the presentation of anything by one candidate about another - including facts - that the other candidate might construe as negative.


    But let me give you an example of where I'd draw the distinction, which is a narrower definition:

    If, for example, John McCain releases an ad that says, "Before, Obama was opposed to all offshore drilling, but now he's saying he's open to considering it", I would absolutely NOT consider that "negative campaigning". It's an accurate description of a policy shift that Obama did in fact make.

    On the other hand, I would consider the "baby Alex" commercial negative campaigning, because it essentially makes a false assertion that McCain wants that baby to join the military in 18 years so he can ship him off to Iraq, and it uses distortion and drama to give it an additional emotional impact. (Hillary's red phone commercial falls into this same category).

    I'd also say it's negative campaigning when McCain puts "Obama will raise your taxes" in his commercials, when in fact unless "you" are in the top 5% income bracket (which is obviously not who those commercials are targeting), then it's not true.
    I blog basketball at Roundball Mining Company///Twitter: @denbutsu

    Atheists Of PSD

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO / SIUe
    Posts
    35,041
    vCash
    1500
    Well, if they do that out here it'll probably tilt Missouri to them. McCain's wife is the CEO of Hensley -- who were the major stockholders of Anheuser-Busch. When they sold out to In Bev, that essentially signed the pink slips for thousands of workers in St. Louis. Not only that, but all of A-B's charitable work is about to get axed as well -- meaning the St. Louis Zoo, U.S. Grant's Farm, the St. Louis Science Center, the St. Louis Art Museum, etc. are all going to lose their major donor.

    People here are very angry with the deal. But I don't think many of them realize that McCain's wife made a boatload of money off the deal.
    Member of the Owlluminati

    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison
    "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
    2011 Knicks Salary Cap Information

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Columbia, MO
    Posts
    674
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ari1013 View Post
    Well, if they do that out here it'll probably tilt Missouri to them. McCain's wife is the CEO of Hensley -- who were the major stockholders of Anheuser-Busch. When they sold out to In Bev, that essentially signed the pink slips for thousands of workers in St. Louis. Not only that, but all of A-B's charitable work is about to get axed as well -- meaning the St. Louis Zoo, U.S. Grant's Farm, the St. Louis Science Center, the St. Louis Art Museum, etc. are all going to lose their major donor.

    People here are very angry with the deal. But I don't think many of them realize that McCain's wife made a boatload of money off the deal.
    McCain has no business even being close in this election. American voters are incredibly dumb.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    19,946
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by DenButsu View Post
    Well, if it's a fact that McCain's campaign manager took money from DHL to directly help them make a deal that would eventually cost an Ohio town 8,000 jobs, and the Obama campaign wants to present that information to the people of Ohio, can you tell me how they could do that in a "positive" way?

    I think you use a much broader definition of "negative campaigning" than is conventionally used. You seem to take it to mean the presentation of anything by one candidate about another - including facts - that the other candidate might construe as negative.


    But let me give you an example of where I'd draw the distinction, which is a narrower definition:

    If, for example, John McCain releases an ad that says, "Before, Obama was opposed to all offshore drilling, but now he's saying he's open to considering it", I would absolutely NOT consider that "negative campaigning". It's an accurate description of a policy shift that Obama did in fact make.

    On the other hand, I would consider the "baby Alex" commercial negative campaigning, because it essentially makes a false assertion that McCain wants that baby to join the military in 18 years so he can ship him off to Iraq, and it uses distortion and drama to give it an additional emotional impact. (Hillary's red phone commercial falls into this same category).

    I'd also say it's negative campaigning when McCain puts "Obama will raise your taxes" in his commercials, when in fact unless "you" are in the top 5% income bracket (which is obviously not who those commercials are targeting), then it's not true.
    i thought baby alex was symbolic. it's supposed to remind you of your kid. but yes very negative nonetheless. it shouldve been baby alex killing iraqis.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO / SIUe
    Posts
    35,041
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by BG7 View Post
    McCain has no business even being close in this election. American voters are incredibly dumb.
    Ignorant is a better description. Most Americans really just have no idea what's going on around them and rely on a few 30-second soundbites for their info.
    Member of the Owlluminati

    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison
    "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
    2011 Knicks Salary Cap Information

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •