Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

David Axelrod, brilliant consultant

I've been a consultant, so I know: The only way to really make money is to sell the same work twice, because selling it the second time is almost pure profit.

Deval Patrick was an Axelrod client; Obama is Deval Patrick 2.0.

So, when Obama repeats Deval Patrick's speeches word for word, that's not really "plagiarism" at all.

It's just that David Axelrod, brilliant consultant, sold two clients the same script.

Good research project there for someone, finding out how many times Axelrod worked the same trick with other clients, and how much of that shows up in Obama's oratory.

NOTE Riverdaughter also explains how to break your Kos addiction.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Voodoo Chile's picture
Submitted by Voodoo Chile on

I think that most Americans don't realize that politicians don't write their own speeches. Oh, they know about speechwriters. they see them on TV, fictional and news programs. But somehow the connection is never made that politicians don't write their own speeches.

This is why you have otherwise rational liberals crying, hands outstretched when Obama delivers a speech written for him by paid professionals.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Just a week or so ago, Obama was sending a thrill up Tweety's leg, now he's humiliating his supporters on national television by asking him to name just one Obama accomplishment (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19...).

Now, either this is just Tweety being Tweety, which is to say an asshole. Or the media worm is starting to turn now that that evil witch has been defeated.

BTW, Tweety isn't even being original here, Hannity has been pulling this schtick for some time so expect to see video like this if Obama is the nominee. It's actually pretty effective, especially by Fox standards of smears. I mean, even I laughed when Hannity asked an Obama supporter to name one accomplishment and the supporter responded with "he's inspirational."

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

There’s a truism in stock investing; by the time the media recognizes a stock is heading for trouble, the peak has already passed; this is called a "trailing indicator."

NBC Nightline has a piece on tonight entitled Obamania: The Cult of Obama with suitable handwringing about what it all means and, kid you not, whether or not this is healthy for the country and the fans.

“We see this all the time, movie stars, rock stars, people love them and their popularity is off the charts and then it’s gone, and everybody is sick of them and you never hear about them again. It’s a long time until November.” [paraphrased, but close]

On the other hand, there are also stock price indicators known as “negative barometers,” signs that should be taken as meaning the exact opposite of what they claim. In that light, BoBo’s new take that Obama mania is fading and that he wouldn’t be worth a damn as president anyway could mean that Barak is headed for not just a big win in the primary but a 538-0 sweep in the general and his face on Mt. Rushmore - BoBo not being right about much and wrong big time about a lot.

Whatever, if I knew how to pick stocks I’d have someone writing these comments for me, but it does seem as though the take-down of Obama has begun; now we’ll see what he’s made of.

And per BDBlue above, when you have to go back to your time in the Illinois senate for an accomplishment, it is going to sound a little thin. Not that McCain is bursting with legislative accomplishments either but one is infinitely more than zero and thanks to Feingold it was bipartisan.

dday's picture
Submitted by dday on

Axelrod ran Obama's 2004 Senate campaign on the same themes (at least in the Democratic primary), so Deval Patrick was Obama 2.0, making Obama, Obama 3.0.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Not to undermine Obama, consider this constructive - and concerned - criticism, he and his representatives are going to have to come up with a better answer than stunned silence and change the subject.

Maybe something like "he hasn't been able to do anything, the system is so screwed up nobody can get anything done and that's what we're trying to change." Dunno, but something; dead air is never good.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

That belongs on the front page... and it will be in a moment.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

or do much of anything other than babble in front of cameras and shake hands with rich people who give them money and go on trips that corporations and foreigners pay for...

some of them are honestly wonky. actually, both HRC and BHO are pretty wonky, when you get right down to it. but now, both are focused on "being" what they are told by their consultants. so yes, metametameta: BHO v3.1 has begun (the .1 being "now playing defense," given what BIO and VL are saying).

hypnot's picture
Submitted by hypnot on

Lambert, maybe your title says it all: Obama's consultant(s) is brilliant, and Clinton's aren't. And maybe it points to the only big question left: Are McCain's consultants also not brilliant?

I have been disheartened by the lack of substance in the consultant-driven conflict between Clinton and Obama. The departure of the other Democratic candidates cheapened the debate. Did either one address substantive criticisms of positions, or have the final stages of the Democratic contest devolved into posing and sniping? Gotcha! vs. No you didn't! Maybe that's how the presidential election will play out, too.

I get the feeling that Clinton is fading, along with any leverage at all to Build a Better Obama. Once his consultants become confident that he can begin to focus on beating McCain in November, how far to the right will he pander?

I recognize that this is how the game is played. I recognize that it's how the (Bill) Clinton consultants played it the first time around. I also recognize that it's effective politics, but ineffectual policy.

Parts of the world--parts of the United States--are burning or drowning. Anyone have some suggestions on how to work with who we're going to get to get where we need to go?