Obama ad: “Changing World”
posted at 5:35 pm on July 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Barack Obama’s campaign released his latest ad, which true to form, says almost nothing about Obama’s policies. It does mention a few hot-button issues in foreign policy, such as nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and oil prices, and manages to work in one legislative accomplishment — and wildly overstates it. Otherwise, it’s little more than a laundry list of issues without any hint as to how Obama would address them:
Announcer: 40 years ago it was missile silos and the Cold War. Today, it’s cyber attacks…loose nukes…oil money funding terrorism.
Barack Obama understands our changing world.
On the Foreign Relations Committee, he co-sponsored a law to lock down loose nuclear weapons. As president, he’ll rebuild our alliances to take out terrorist networks… And fast-track alternatives so we stop spending billions on oil from hostile nations.
New leadership for a changing world.
Obama VO: I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.
He understands our changing world? Obama doesn’t even acknowledge the change in Iraq since his last visit there in January 2006. How exactly does Obama explain his lack of acknowledgment of that change? So far, the only explanation we’ve seen is the Orwellian re-write of history on his website.
Obama did co-sponsor the bill he references in this ad — along with 25 other Senators. It gives no indication that Obama did any work other than attaching his name to it. Further, despite what Obama’s website states, it was not called the Lugar-Obama Bill. And, in fact, it never even came to a vote; the bill died in 2006 after being reported out of committee. If that’s the only work to which Obama can point on foreign policy, it’s so thin as to suggest anorexia.
This ad says nothing, and even for a notoriously ambiguous campaign manages to make no commitments at all. Obama promises new leadership, but the only example he gives us is one of a follower on a failed project. And on the one hot issue of the moment — oil prices funding hostile regimes — Obama wants to block the US from producing its own oil, a solution that would actually address the issue. It’s a complete swing and a miss, and more than a touch vapid even for the Hope and Change Campaign. (via Political Machine)
Update: There was another version of the “Lugar-Obama bill” that did make it into law, but it addressed conventional weapons, mostly either shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles and IEDs. It piggybacked onto the Lugar-Nunn initiative of the early 90s. Even Obama’s press release emphasizes that this bill focused on conventional weapons:
The Lugar-Obama initiative would energize the U.S. program against unsecured, lightweight anti-aircraft missiles and other conventional weapons. There may be as many as 750,000 man-portable air defense systems in arsenals worldwide, and the State Department estimates that more than 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by such weapons since the 1970s. In addition, loose stocks of small arms and other weapons help fuel civil wars in Africa and elsewhere and provide the means for attacks on peacekeepers and aid workers seeking to stabilize war-torn societies. In Iraq, unsecured stockpiles of artillery shells and ammunition have been reconfigured into improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that have become an effective weapon for insurgents.
S.2566 went nowhere, as a Thomas search will reveal (the URLs are dynamic and don’t provide good links). Calling this version a “loose nukes” bill overstates it significantly.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Uh, don’t we have current alliances doing this? Maybe he prefers us to have “different allies”.
CP on July 16, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Hahahahaha
Squid Shark on July 16, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Dear bho, please keep talking. Even better get the wife out for a chat to the public.
L
letget on July 16, 2008 at 5:45 PM
Loose Nukes?
That makes me want to VOTE For McCAIN!
Chakra Hammer on July 16, 2008 at 5:47 PM
“A law to lock down loose [nuclear] weapons”?? American law supersedes Russian law? I’ll be damned! (All we really have to do is get SCOTUS to say it is, and the rest is history!)
Weebork on July 16, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Actually, he barely understands his own world since the policy positions and personnel change so frequently that he needs a crib sheet just to keep track. “If it’s Tuesday, I must be pro-FISA, anti-Israel, and in favor of a unilateral surrender in Iraq.”
Cicero43 on July 16, 2008 at 5:48 PM
if Nukes are on the loose who do you trust?
McCain or Obama?
Chakra Hammer on July 16, 2008 at 5:49 PM
RACISTS!
wccawa on July 16, 2008 at 5:52 PM
He’s gonna rebuild our alliances???
That’s quite an insult to our Allies.
“Uh, let me explain what I meant by that … uh, these aren’t the Allies I once knew … no, wait, um, these aren’t the ads I once approved … I did? Oh, ah, well then you’re a racist for questioning me on this!”
Tony737 on July 16, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Ooops! Stupid ‘em’ button!
Tony737 on July 16, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Loose Nukes?
That makes me want to VOTE For McCAIN! – Chakra
Damn right, this makes any sensible person run to straight to Mac.
Tony737 on July 16, 2008 at 5:55 PM
It depends. As the Anti-Christ, does Obama have super powers? You know, stuff like heat rays or something to vaporize the loose nukes?
And making empty-headed libs drool doesn’t count unless they can drool through the casings, rendering the nukes inoperable….
Master Shake on July 16, 2008 at 5:56 PM
You mean to say (in the same sentence, no less) that a certain position of his is
1) representative of the extreme of one specific ideology;
2) very ambivalent.
freevillage on July 16, 2008 at 5:56 PM
More like a half-serious bunt and a miss.
Meric1837 on July 16, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Total Imports of Petroleum(Top 15 Countries)
Country – Thousand Barrels per Day
CANADA-2,432
SAUDI ARABIA-1,427
MEXICO-1,604
VENEZUELA-1,354
NIGERIA-1,100
ALGERIA-723
IRAQ-458
ANGOLA-596
RUSSIA-421
VIRGIN ISLANDS-340
BRAZIL-218
COLOMBIA-114
KUWAIT-190
UNITED KINGDOM-306
NORWAY-167
————————
Is Canada going to send terrorists to kill us?
Saudi Arabia. They are not “hostile” towards us. 19 of their citizens took part in the 9/11 terror attacks. They were citizens, not the government. How will Oil money from Saudi Arabia fund attacks against us? If there is proof, I’d like to see it.
Mexico. Are their citizens who are coming here illegally getting money from mexico’s oil companies to make the trip?
Venezuela. Their president called Bush el Diablo, and accused him of leaving a sulfur cloud at the podium. Maybe it was the chili.
Iraq. Not hostile anymore.
Russia. Maybe they hate us. Haven’t done much more than vote against our interests in the UN.
- Where is IRAN- with an “N” on that list, You know – the country that is the number one exporter of terrorism inthe world. They seem to be missing on that list.
Maybe Barack Obama is talking about the HOSTILE NATION of NORWAY.
wise_man on July 16, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Ed-
Can you explain this for us:
My understanding was that it was called Obama-Luger but that it only added IEDs and MANPADS to the existing Luger-Nunn act of the early 90′s, which was focused on nuclear proliferation.
Chuck Schick on July 16, 2008 at 6:00 PM
The most economical, readily available and applicable alternative to foreign oil is domestic oil. It is here now in abundance, is cheaper than what we are importing, and can be available decades before any other plausible alternative source of energy will be able to pick up the slack.
We should be drilling and tapping our own resources, but the Democrats, including Barack Obama, are preventing us from doing so. This is the reason we have $4 gas. If the Democrats had not stopped the development of ANWR in 1996, we would have that oil available right now, and would not be at the mercy of foreign suppliers.
gridlock2 on July 16, 2008 at 6:09 PM
“It wouldn’t do any good, because it wouldn’t produce any oil – for TEN YEARS!”
wise_man on July 16, 2008 at 6:13 PM
At the 15-second point in this ad, are we to believe that BO is walking by a big ol’ pile of loose nukes? Does anybody know what really is in this picture?
Rhinoboy on July 16, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Uh, please explain how an American law would help keep NON US made weapons out of the hands of our enemies?
Are we going to embargo Russia? or China?
Romeo13 on July 16, 2008 at 6:22 PM
While I was watching the lovely windmills in his ad, the wind here was blowing nicely. Then it stopped. America’s energy future.
pedestrian on July 16, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Well to be fair, when your record is rice-paper thin you have to be sure to point out that at least the paper has lines.
The most powerful position on earth taken by a man who accomplishments consist of being a community organizer and attaching his name to a bill that was sure to pass.
Wow, such brave accomplishments.
Bishop on July 16, 2008 at 6:38 PM
He’s already President. Why else show a photo of him walking out of the White House?
gabriel sutherland on July 16, 2008 at 6:39 PM
Obama’s going to “fast-track” alternatives to oil? Oh boy, that will surely solve all our energy problems! If Obama just tells everybody to hurry up and develop some alternative sources of fuel quickly, they’ll do it — because the lure of massive wealth certainly wouldn’t motivate anybody to do that otherwise, right? But having Obama say “get on it” will be all that’s necessary.
AZCoyote on July 16, 2008 at 6:42 PM
He’s turned the presidential race into American Idol. (The person who sings best never wins)
Ortzinator on July 16, 2008 at 6:50 PM
So the law to lock down loose nuclear weapons concentrated on conventional weapons, and the bill that would have controlled loose nukes didn’t pass. Earth to Constitutional Law Professor: A “bill” isn’t a “law” until it gets a majority vote in Congress and is signed by the President.
By the way, how would a “loose nukes” law prevent North Korea from enriching uranium in Syria, or Pakistan from exporting nuclear material to Iran or Libya? Does the U.S. Navy have to board every ship sailing between these countries to check for loose nukes?
Steve Z on July 16, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Wow, oil money funding terrorists? I had no idea.
Maybe Obama will open up our own country to drilling, we can keep our own money here and create new jobs, we can research alternatives to fossil fuels and make it a goal to be oil free by 2020.
Naw, I think its better to go the route we have all these years. Keep funds flowing into the middle east, accuse those who support domestic drilling as being shills for Big Oil while those who think dropping $300 million into black and white propaganda commercials are really fighting the good fight.
The other evening I got into a discussion with some flat earth environmentalists at an Emergency Room. They were spouting all the typical liberal Marxist nonsense. They said that all those who are coming out defending domestic drilling were just shills for big oil. I asked them who are the shills for Big Environmentalism? They drew a blank look. I asked them with the commercials that Gore just put out, it cost $300 million dollars. Gore put up $10 million of his own money, who dropped the other $290 million? I said no one drops that kind of cash without expecting a return. I asked if the money would have been better spent giving that amount to a R&D lab to research alternatives and help get us to a fossil free future? They had no answer. I asked them if they thought that maybe Gore tried, but researchers who will work for $300 million dollar grants are too hard to come by now a days?
Crickets.
Troubling indeed.
RobertInAustin on July 16, 2008 at 7:09 PM
They had no answer. – Rob
That seems to be a common tactic for lefties when presented with tough questions, and you totally fell for it. They’re so damn smart that they fooled you by not even having an answer. Such nuance! Man, those libs sure are clever!
Tony737 on July 16, 2008 at 8:55 PM
I wonder if Obama knows which office he’s running for…? Or is his Marxism intended to be global, at American taxpayer expense?
byteshredder on July 16, 2008 at 9:05 PM
I think you’ve all misunderstood him, again. What he really means is that he will stop any US nukes from being loosed. See? It’s all in the wording/rewording.
OldEnglish on July 16, 2008 at 10:42 PM
I’m confused.
You say that…
(1)
But, according to the Lugar website, Obama was a co-sponser, as Lugar calls it the Lugar Obama bill.
(2)
But, again, according to the Lugar website,…
Bush signs Lugar-Obama into Law
I’m the last guy who wants to see O’Bummer credited with anything he doesn’t deserve, but we conservatives have to use accurate information. If you have anything I’ve missed, please let me know.
Personally, I think this is a cynical attempt by O’Bomber to appear to do something that gives him an aura of credibility, but I seriously doubt he did any significant work on it, or contributed any more than his presence for what amounts to a photo-op for him.
yonaton on August 4, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Oh, wait, I see I didn’t catch the update at the bottom. And, it is as you say, conventional weapons, not nukes that are dealt with. So, as usual, Obie is playing this for all it’s worth. Let other people do the work and take the credit, … your “typical” Leftist.
yonaton on August 4, 2008 at 5:09 PM