Has anyone else noticed that Barack Obama’s speeches, especially the one he just finished, are getting eerily similar to Deval Patrick’s campaign speeches? I mean, there was always lots of similarity, but it’s really getting dramatic.
To wit: his new tag line (which I don’t recall hearing so emphatically before) is “Yes we can.”
Remind you of anything?
Please share widely!
Couple things I loved about his speech:
<
p>1. He nailed the “Yes we can” better than Deval ever did.
2. He bled his speech over into the 11:00 hour, which got him on TV and must have pissed off the Clinton peeps.
<
p>This was a reality check for Obama’s peeps. I think it’ll be a good wake up call for the whole operation, from the fundraising to the organizing. They’ll need to step it up going forward if they want to pull this off.
<
p>If Edwards drops out it’s Obama’s to lose.
that he’s staying in. So no free ride for anyone.
Time for him to pony up his own hefty bankroll, or get out.
Well the tage line was succesful for Patrick and I hope it is the same for Obama. I was a Dodd supporter before he dropped out and now I’m rooting for Barack.
<
p>However, the most memorable lines from the speech for me was Obama’s referral to a New American Majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. He is the only candidate on our side that has the potential to create such a thing – that’s one of the reason I’m supporting him now.
“I’ve found my voice.” Very clever – makes her seem much more real. She was plastic and fake, but it took nearly losing to realize she must be herself. Obama is making Clinton a better campaigner.
This new, the “reinvented” Hillary is just campaign theatrics.
<
p>From sixteen years of observation, I’d say she is a thoroughly unlikable person, vindictive, and capable of almost anything.
<
p>I believe her husband has some ethical boundaries, whereas Ms. Clinton has none.
That’s one of the funnier things I’ve seen on BMG lately. “Sixteen years” of reading about someone in the papers qualifies you to make a complete psychological analysis?
<
p>Hilarious.
Since her set up was so horrible in Des Moines, they must have realized this is a better visual. Must be all the MassDems up there.
<
p>But not only is she copying his visual, she’s also using the “change” signs. Well, Barack has already moved past that word, recognizing that it jumped the shark when Mitt started saying that he was an agent for change.
<
p>Now it’s “Yes we can.” Let’s see how long it is before her people steal that idea.
With “hope” and “change” being the key words that resonate with voters this year, maybe someone ought to adopt the slogan “I hope I can change.” Perhaps a republican.
đŸ™‚
<
p>Or for the Democrats, after their tax increases “I hope you can survive on spare change.”
Obama’s talking about what he wants his campaign to be, and Hillary is talking about what she wants her campaign to do. You takes your choice.
<
p>(And I’m sorry, but I don’t need yet another governor playing presidential politics out of state. Please tell me he isn’t going to Nevada.)
Governors in this state are tiring of dealing with the legislature.
Attorney General Deval L. Patrick, then we’d have two years of Acting Governor Murray.
“…we’re in it for the long haul…”
<
p>”…so tomorrow we’re going to roll up our sleeves…”
<
p>Did someone slip her concession speech into the prompter? Those lines sound like loser lines.
<
p>By the way, can anyone tell who I’m rooting for?
I’m sure she could have used that and probably would have used that for the concession speech, but frankly it is a long haul. At this point either Clinton or Obama could win SC, but it really doesn’t matter because either of them could do really well on Super-Duper Tuesday, too. It’s gonna be a long haul.
They’ll use her “comeback” and her “found my voice” lines in the media tomorrow, no one will remember anything else.
<
p>That, and the best victory since the Sox were down 3-0 ….
to get the job done? The speech lines “we’re in it for the long haul” and “we’re going to roll up our sleeves” were in her speech for all her volunteers, like me, who gave up a significant amount of time to work for her up in New Hampshire. She knows she will need all of us to do it again in the coming months. Have you ever volunteered on a presidential campaign? If you had, I think you would understand why the lines were in her victory speech.
very pathetic. Why are you already reaching for things, Obama is not ready to drop out of the race because of NH. Still a long way to go. Talk about going from one extreme to another. Settle down.
No one suggested that Obama was giving up. The suggestion was that Clinton’s speach sounded a bit more like a “gee, I just came in second but I’m going to redouble my efforts and press on” type of deal. I agree.
<
p>What’s more, Obama’s speach sounded a lot more like a victory speach.
<
p>My take? Fully intentional by both campaigns.
<
p>Obama is trying to project the aura of a winner who is rolling to victory and Clinton is trying to play on the underdog vibe that seems to have served her well in NH. If she manages to pull off another win in NV, it will be interesting to see how the two speaches evolve (though, I don’t imagine you’d see much of a change in Obama’s–he’s got to stick with “I’m a winner” to play well in SC).
“The loser lines” is reaching just a bit. While I did say that Obama is not dropping out of the race. You took it wrong. He is obviously not dropping out, that would be stupid. The point is the immediate overreaching, it shows nervousness. Not by the campaign, just the poster.
Obama felt he didn’t need to prepare a concession speech.
Sabutai,
<
p>I say this with only love in my heart, but come on! Obama’s not a neophyte. Having two speaches is SOP.
I guess he learned that if you repeat the same thing over and over you shouldnt expect a different result …
Deval’s “Together We Can” line actually echoed Obama’s “Yes We Can”. Obama used the “Yes We Can” line during his 2004 Senate race.
The slogan worked better in 2004, though, as he ran some great ads which went something like “They said we couldn’t extend health care coverage to children, but we did. They said we couldn’t reform our criminal system, but we did. They said we couldn’t pass tough ethics reform, but we did that too. I’m Barack Obama, and I’m running for senate to say ‘Yes we can.'”
<
p>Sadly, given the lame performance of the Democratic congress these past few years, he can’t tick off a list of great accomplishments.
…was Obama’s tag line in his 2004 senate race.
<
p>Deval then borrowed it with a minimal tweak.
forget the new slogan – I want to hear what he stands for? so far I have no clue – other than he stands for change!
60 dense pages of detailed prescriptions: The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama’s Campaign for America. Let us know what you think!
He hasn’t talked about it on the campaign trail. All he’s said so far is that he’s for “change”. That’s nice. But he needs to debate the specifics and let the people know. What I liked about the NH vote is that now maybe we can get into more substance. What I also want to see is him defending his positions on issues not defending the “change” theme which is all he’s done so far. I like him, but he’s given me nothing to show that he’ll fight for his positions and convince voters why his are the best. I want to see him go toe to toe with Hillary and really debate the issues. Could happen, hopefully the next debate will be worthwhile.
a) given all the Deval people in Obama’s campaign and
b) given the fact that Deval’s speeches were way better than Obama’s. Seriously, I think Deval’s speeches spoiled me, because I watch Obama’s speeches and think “that’s it?” It’s not that they were bad, it’s just that Deval’s were so good.
When Clinton said “just words,” at the final debate, and then Obama talked about how words could inspire and words were important, I half expected the “just words” echo from Deval’s campaign.
Obama’s campaign theme song after the speech. Oops.
Well, at least, Obama’s musical directors refrained from playing the “Tell me Lies, Tell me Sweet Little Lies” by Fleetwood Mac that I heard being played in the background at Edwards’s NH Headquarters last night:).
David…I posted this last Dec 7th:
“Is there an echo in the air? (0.00 / 0)
David, that was an interesting comparison…but one section you quoted :
” At a Sept. 7 debate, Patrick said: “I have no obligations, no debts to the political establishment on Beacon Hill. If you want the same old same old, the politics of money and connections, I’m not your guy. But if what you want is the politics of hope and a change of culture on Beacon Hill, I am your guy, and I want your vote.” When he won the Democratic primary Sept. 19, he exulted, “Let them hear that on Beacon Hill.” He has since aired a television commercial linking Healey to “the failed politics of Beacon Hill.”…
<
p>Change the words “Beacon Hill” to “Washington DC”…and the name “Healey” to “Hillary”…and it sure bears a striking resemblance to the rhetoric of the presidential primaries…my concern is that Obama’s campaign is just a national version of Patrick’s effort here in Massachusetts…long on rhetoric, short on specific action plans…it makes one nervous to anticipate an Obama Presidency…long on hope, short on action.”
<
p>This is another David Axelrod production…same playbook, same script with minor alterations…He did it for Obama in US Senate race, it worked….He took the show on the road to Massachusetts for Patrick, it worked…and now he’s going on a national road show…
thank you, by the way!