Fortune, via CNN Money describes how the Obama campaign have displayed a mastery of the internet which is helping them to outmanoevre the Clinton campaign:
Fortune: Who is using media more effectively in the Democratic primary – Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?
Rishad Tobaccowala (chief innovation officer of the media buying division of Publicis, the French advertising giant) : Definitely, Obama. He is a digital candidate while she is the analog candidate. Don’t misunderstand me. They both primarily use traditional media. In fact, he’s outspent her in traditional media. But his Web site is amazing. It’s completely and continually updated. It feels alive and energetic.
His campaign also actively uses e-mail to keep you totally informed. Like if Obama is debating live, they say go watch him. They also created these challenges – when Clinton donated $5 million to her campaign, the Obama campaign sent out a note saying we have to match this quickly. In 24 hours, people donated $8 million to Obama.
There’s a petition here for a real referendum on Europe.
Full marks to Nick Clegg for going on the offensive on this one – particularly with the MORI poll which shows 2:1 in favour of our approach versus the Tories’ sham policy.
I fully respect the stance of those like James Graham who want a referendum on the Lisbon treaty while accepting that it is not a (or the) constitution (see James’s excellent graphic).
However, the party is quite right to continue to emphasise that the only real referendum on Europe is an in/out plebiscite. A referendum on the Lisbon treaty would be a complete sham which would lead us, several years later (no doubt after much painful debate), to the need for a proper in/out referendum anyway.
Hillary Clinton is reported as ‘going for Obama’s jugular’ with her campaign ad about children sleeping and a call to the White House at 3m (watch it here).
If anything the video shows up her own lack of experience.
It implies that she is someone who “already knows the world’s leaders”. Well, she couldn’t pronounce the new Russian leader’s name last week and said “Whatever” after she failed to do so. And it implies she has already “been tested”. No, she hasn’t. She hasn’t actually held a single executive post.
The one time you could perhaps argue that she has been tested was on the vote to give Bush the powers to go to war. She made the wrong call. That wasn’t a decision to be made in the middle of the night. She had plenty of time to think about it.
The Obama campaign have shown themselves extremely adept at quick rebuttals and quite rightly, they have replied to the Clinton attack ad with their own “children sleeping” ad (do the campaigns keep stock footage of babies sleeping ready to launch on the US populace at a moment’s notice?).
This was why, no doubt, Rahm Emmanuel said he would “hide under his desk” if Obama and Clinton took each other on.
Has anyone else noticed the remarkable resemblance between the new Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev and Dolly the sheep?
Are their respective methods of conception related?
I think we should be told…
Dmitry and Dolly – how they are related
Dolly’s mum = Microscope
Dolly = Boris Johnson
Dolly Parton = Boris Yeltsin
Premier Dmitry Kisov (from Dr Strangelove) = Peter Sellers
Natalia Brezhnev = Ras Putin (Geddit?!!!)
Vladimir Putin = Microscope
Dmitry Medvedev = Russian Electorate