President Obama advertisement on Newsvine.com

Newsvine is first and foremost a business.

I sometimes think it is intentional, to attract attention.

Glad someone else gets it!

I sometimes think it is intentional, to attract attention.

Take this article for example - what are the underlying themes? First and foremost, Obama's campaign is engaging in more of that Democratic wasteful spending. And second, they are preaching to the choir, reinforcing the echo chamber.

All of this neatly framed between slices of concern for his campaign.

bondi,

Take this article for example - what are the underlying themes? First and foremost, Obama's campaign is engaging in more of that Democratic wasteful spending.

As you are not, obviously, an Obama supporter and would never donate to him; what do you care about where the reelection campaign spends it's money?

This point is moot, at best, and at worst, it is the very definition of the "near hateful rhetoric" that is "intentional, to attract attention".

As you are not, obviously, an Obama supporter and would never donate to him; what do you care about where the reelection campaign spends it's money?

Quite wrong on that count. Not sure where you were going with the comment though. My point was merely to point out that this article is rather substanceless and is appears to be just some concern trolling.

My bad, upon second consideration, perhaps you are just cynical.

Although, how you could be an "Obama supporter" and say

Obama's campaign is engaging in more of that Democratic wasteful spending. And second, they are preaching to the choir, reinforcing the echo chamber.

All of this neatly framed between slices of concern for his campaign.

is beyond me!!

Does anyone really believe that once we know who the Republican nominee is, we won't be seeing ads for them also, here??

That just shows home dumb the average voter is... that by spending on ads and crap especially at the historic levels Obama did.. to a tune of 1 billion dollars.. that would influence your decision on who to vote for. Unfortunately... it works on so many people.

Perhaps not dumb but lack of research or news diversity. Especially in Rural areas. That was why there was so much buyer's remorse in Wisconsin, they bought a pig in a poke.

Does anyone really believe that once we know who the Republican nominee is, we won't be seeing ads for them also, here??

All depends on the ad content provider - most PPC campaigns offer ways to exclude URLs or ranges of URLs. If you were Rach-co, and had a business building economical cars, you legitimately wouldn't want to be serving up Ford ads on your website, as an example - so they would go in your exclusion or block list. In this case, it's probably context-driven so whatever "search term" was most used in the article is probably the context that's driving ad presentation.

If that key term was "Obama", and the President Obama campaign bid $5 per click when the keyword "Obama" is driving the ad being served, and a lesser funded Republican challenger only bids $1 per click when the keyword "Obama" is driving content - well, you're not going to be seeing that lesser Republican's ads very often. This, to me, is one of the things nobody ever talks about with regard to incumbency being such a sgnificant advantage...our President has plans to raise and blow $1B+ on this election cycle. We're all going to be seeing a @!$%#load of those Obama "O"s...

Newsvine could certainly make a business decision and exclude certain ad content altogether. I'm honestly not so sure which way they will (or should) go...lol.

Given that Newsvine is owned by MSNBC and MSNBC does not discriminate in who pays for what ads, I suspect you'll be seeing the GOP candidates here pretty soon as well.

Brian:

I'd vote that people talk less about Newsvine and more about the things that Newsvine was built to discuss.

Cough. Cough.

Brian,

Well said, but I was glad when this "news" was posted that it was treated with a lack of vitriol by the "author".

Regards

Allegory,

Another point well explained. Sometimes, like back when I was in business, you have to 'hit the ball and then drag the rookie'.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Regards

Barbara,

It's funny, I read your comment and thought, "that's the kind of metaphor we'd use in Texas."

Then I read your name.

Cheers,

(From a fellow Houstonian)

Woohoo! Another neighbor!

Is it presumptuous to send a FR based on that?

Nope, don't think so.

Tex,

You are the empirical evidence that disproves your theory. QED

fernando,

I know that you were not asking me, however...

It is well known political suicide for an incumbent President to be Primaried by his party.

Other than that, you will have to figure out for yourself, who you wish to vote for. The Republicans are trotting out their sideshow, so as far as the Democrats: The I'm In button would give you enough information to make an informed decision.

Regards

One other question, is there another Democrat that you would vote for if there was an option?

fernando - There can be no other option. To have another option would be an admission by those on the Left that Obama has failed. Considering the majority of Liberal comments I have been reading on the vine, I have found a few that suggested Hillary would be an option, which logic should dictate that if there are a few, there are more.

As the adage goes, where there is smoke, there is fire. It also suggests there may be some on the Left that would like an option but won't admit it because of their staunch support of someone that is not a Right-winger, no matter what his job performance has been. Believe it or not, I have also read comments by some Right-wingers that think Hillary would be a good choice also, imagine that!

Do I detect a break in the ranks? The next 15 months of comments will tell.

Virgil,

Your argument is adventitious at best, and apocryphal at worst. In reality, I believe that it is just your most fervent hope.

Please cite, in the history of Presidential Elections since Jefferson, WHEN has any party primaried an incumbent President.

Oh, and personally, to make this a really good and competitive election I would like to see Jon Huntsman take the Republican Primary.

Oh, and personally, to make this a really good and competitive election I would like to see Jon Huntsman take the Republican Primary.

Seconded!

Oh, and personally, to make this a really good and competitive election I would like to see Jon Huntsman take the Republican Primary

Barbara and Rachel--hate to burst your bubble but that ain't ever gonna happen. Ever never ever. He failed to get the memo that running the left of Mitt Romney was some how a good idear in the GOP.

No burst bubble here...I know he's too normal and intelligent for what they call Republicans today.

As someone with more liberal tendencies, I would have to take a closer look at Huntsmen. Seems to be someone to at least consider and dust off my scorecard to see how he compares to Obama. With the latest leaders I won't even bother doing research, I already know they are way into fringe right.

Rygar,

At least with Huntsman it would be a more intelligent discourse about the real issues. And that would be good for everybody.

Duh, it's called good marketing

Joanna - proving once and for all that newsvine is a bastian of liberal bias, no? I am presonally tired ALREADY of seeing the Obama 2012 advertising practically 24/7 on newsvine but hey....they wanna pay they get to play. He's wasting his money everytime I see one of those ads. That makes me feel better. Just a little.

proving once and for all that newsvine is a bastian of liberal bias, no?

You give me too much credit! I think there's a healthy number of healthy-minded conservatives on Newsvine with a small dose of the obtuse-minded. But I'm betting you're more welcome here than I am on Townhall.

That makes me feel better. Just a little.

Oh-oh....we're going to need a lot of those moments, we've only just begun this campaign.

He's wasting his money everytime I see one of those ads.

Actually, if they're traditional "pay-per-click" type ads (and the vast majority of ad content on the Internet still follows this model last I checked), no transaction fee is associated with displaying the ad - it's only when someone takes an action and clicks on said piece of marketing material (and goes to the corresponding link) that a "charge" would be incurred...sigh

Both comments voted up, Joanna.

I did not vote your comment voting Joanna's comments up, Barbara. Thanks.

proving once and for all that newsvine is a bastian of liberal bias, no?

Wow, did Spiff ever see that coming.

You give me too much credit

Joanna 11.2--oh, don't sell yourself short! Actually my comment meant that with the genius of "Obama in 2012" marketing folks determining that Newsvine of all places is the place for them to advertise (it seems like 24/7) then that supports my assertion of liberal bias at NV. If it's good enough for the Obama marketing team to so deem it it's good enough for me! And:

Oh-oh....we're going to need a lot of those moments, we've only just begun this campaign

Ain't that the truth!

Rob, #11.5 ????

Drawing a line and daring me to cross it????

Telling me you didn't vote me up should what?? Hurt my feelings???

Please

I've seen ads from BP here, I think Newsvine takes ads from whomever pays....

Drawing a line and daring me to cross it????

No, honestly, I was attempting to point out how basically useless a post that merely describes actions that I had just performed or not performed (that are also plainly visible) was...because of course 11.5 was a completely useless post in the overall context of the issue we're discussing.

I think Newsvine takes ads from whomever pays....

You're right mike, just look at the recently added advertising space sandwiched between comment blocks. In fact at the time I'm writing this post there is another ad for Obama just below. Newsvine requires revenues, and I don't fault them for it, but why the Obama campaign sees fit to place advertising in a venue that is already a free globally sized billboard for his re-election, I wonder why they're paying for it. Or maybe MSNBC and Newsvine are doing it for free?

Virgil

I don't believe the democratic party is completelyhappy with Obama(At least i'm not), there even has been talk on holding a primary, so they know they can't ignore his base, so it makes sense to advertise here. They might attract some of the independents.....

Newsvine and MSNBC are corporations, I don't think they do anything for free.....

So, far the only person I would look at from the GOP would be Gary Johnson, the only reason I know him because I live in New Mexico and he did a decentjob as Governor, he was term limited out... but I think he is considered a RINO, so he isn't considered seriously.

there even has been talk on holding a primary

I REALLY hope this happens. The American public need choices. Obama won't want that in fear of diluting the votes in his favor. Obama should do the honorable thing and step down. He dosen't know wtf he is doing.

there even has been talk on holding a primary

it won't happen--they tried that when kennedy challenged carter and they were bitter enemies to the end...carter was about in the same place as O is now ironically.... hilary is the only one that could do it, and she'll put party over country anyway... O has alot of money from bankers, corps and unions backing him, his promise to raise 1 billion for the dem coffers has their mouths watering....

Obama should do the honorable thing and step down.

LOL SR--obama admit he isn't worshipped and that he failed..not gonna happen.!!!

and she'll put party over country anyway.

That's the problem right there. To many people putting party OVER the good of the country.

O has alot of money from bankers, corps and unions backing him, his promise to raise 1 billion for the dem coffers has their mouths watering....

It's kind of a disgusting amount of money really. O broke fund raising records... having over 3 times the amount of money McCain had because he broke a campaign promise. Proof that money CAN buy an election. 1 billion dollars all for one man. It kind of makes you speechless in a way. Think of what 1 billion dollars could do........

I really think there needs to be limits on campaign funds as much as I'm against tings like that. The sad reality is.. unless your rich or get millions to a billion dollars... you don't stand a chance at running for office. The same goes if you don't join up with the 2 big parties. D or R. Things need to change. More Independents need to get elected and shake things up. I think we need a viable 3rd party if not for to get the Democrats and Republicans in check. I think the average American is pretty fed up with both nowadays.

mike - Enjoyed your post.

I really think there needs to be limits on campaign funds as much as I'm against tings like that

personally i think that public/gov financing is the way to go--NO private donors..that would take some of the corp/ union donation corruption out of it...

not sure how you would divide it up $--- for primaries, $---for elections, etc...

I really think there needs to be limits on campaign funds as much as I'm against tings like that

Where have you been, SR? Sorry, McCain-Feingold is gutted thanks to the Supreme Court allowing first amendment rights for corporations. You think Obama's warchest is big, just wait, we haven't seen nothing yet! 2012 will be the year corporations buy the presidency.

2012 will be the year corporations buy the presidency.

I will be damn surprised if the Republicans raise as much money as Obama does. Obama currently has the most money raised and spent in any Presidential election in the history of this nation. Hell he just got a 1.2 million dollar campaign bus that is a lap of luxury.

Rob,

If you are still tracking this thread, I believe I should respond to #11.10 even though it is OT.

I stated in 11.4 that I 'voted up' Joanna's comments, because they (votes up) are anonymous and I agreed with her. THAT is not either useless or off topic.

Would you say to every viner that ANY comment that states "I agree" is useless?

What confused me was why you would take the effort to make comment #11.5 and further to take the additional effort make a statement in another post, that discredits your own post:

because of course 11.5 was a completely useless post in the overall context of the issue we're discussing.

It seems rather self-defeating, no?

Phew! I'm glad we're done with that. Circumlocution was never my speciality.

Would you say to every viner that ANY comment that states "I agree" is useless?

If there was an "I agree" button on this website, and someone pressed that button and then felt a need to let the world know via a comment that they had pressed the "I Agree" button - absolutely, unequivocally, without a doubt, 100%, I would categorically define that comment as completely and totally useless.

No mas

Now that is a patent Lie.You democratics are trying to sell something that republicans are not buying,for that reluctance to see things in your enlightened(sarc)veiw democrats and far left liberals call us names in a variety of ways.

You all are becoming like the little boy who called wolf to many times.People are so used to your hateful and untrue statements that they do not listen anymore,reason will always trump rhetoric and you people are fresh out of reason.

Ah; what is the lie exactly? You might want to point out what you're complaining about. If you mean name calling, cons do a pretty good job.

Now that is a patent Lie

What parts? Oh, I get it, call me names and then leave the room...which is precisely what I pointed out in my earlier post.

So, how about you point out what it is you don't like Obama's policies and a counterpoint, or are we just going to stand around asking ourselves who is calling who names more often?

Because while we're dawdling about debating who is more vitriolic, the economy sucks, there are no jobs, and apparently no way out.

Everything that comes out of a liberals mouth

Everything that comes out of a liberals mouth

Yeah, that's not a gross generalization at all. Since you believe that, that means everything the liberals say is automatically wrong, even when we're right.

Here's something coming out of a liberals mouth: Obama wins reelection in 2012.

I'll be laughing as the conservatives cry.