No You Can't

by hilzoy

Yet another excellent takeoff of will.i.am's "Yes We Can" video. The McCain version I flagged earlier was pretty good, but I think this one might be even better. (h/t The Field.)

Comments

[EarBucket]

Eh. Too on the nose. I found the John McCain version much funnier, maybe because it took me about thirty seconds to decide whether it was actually from his campaign or not.

[low-tech cyclist]

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

[Gary Farber]

Oh, gee, Jonah Goldberg is on C-SPAN2 right now, explaining all the connections between Mussolini and socialism.

He speaks admirably fast.

[Gary Farber]

Incidentally, this piece on Obama's early days told me some things I didn't know. And this video interview with his half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, is also interesting.

[von]

The McCain parody actually points to Obama's weakness: If there is a signicant terrorist attack between now and the election, McCain's "straight talk" may be more effective that Obama's "yes we can."* (For the strategic D voters out there, this may be a reason to prefer Hillary.)

*In such an event, it will come down to Obama's inexperience vs. whether McCain has put enough distance between himself and George Bush via his repeated past criticisms of the president and the war.

[Trips]

Jeebus, that was good. "It was decreed by the bankers and landowners as they marched westward..."

I guess I should give up now, though a case could be made that Ear is right and the thing is down too pat. Suppose that is to be expected if the guy's from SNL, but you know, they're tapping into the will of the minority, so it must be good for something.

At the risk of linking some of my own video work, I'll take the plunge and offer this frame-for-frame remix of Clinton's first Wisconsin ad from two days ago, put online about 8 hours after I saw hers. It's lameish, the accent is junk, but it was fun to dork around with.

- I now see how wonkie wonkie could miss entering his or her name twice. Damn you typepad.

[john miller]

"The McCain parody actually points to Obama's weakness: If there is a signicant terrorist attack between now and the election, McCain's "straight talk" may be more effective that Obama's "yes we can."* "

Not necessarily. All Obama has to do is point out that McCain supported everything Bush did to fight terror and it obviously didn't work. So, "No, he can't."

[Batocchio]

Good stuff! It's like a two minute, sillier version of A Very British Coup.

[Deborah]

Von: "If there is a signicant terrorist attack between now and the election, McCain's "straight talk" may be more effective that Obama's "yes we can."*"

McCain's military experience and reputation for toughness on defense will be more effective than Clinton's finger-in-the-wind approach, as well. You can't beat McCain by being McCain light. (She voted for the war and still supported it while he criticized tactics and urged a surge in 2005.)

[yoyo]

Ascots are so great.

[von]

Not necessarily. All Obama has to do is point out that McCain supported everything Bush did to fight terror and it obviously didn't work. So, "No, he can't."

Please keep believing that it's this simple. Although I'm very sympathetic to Obama, I am supporting McCain.

McCain's military experience and reputation for toughness on defense will be more effective than Clinton's finger-in-the-wind approach, as well. You can't beat McCain by being McCain light. (She voted for the war and still supported it while he criticized tactics and urged a surge in 2005.)

No, but she neutralizes McCain's greatest advantage to a certain extent. Hillary does not stand accused of being naive or not tough enough, charges that, fair or not, stick better to Obama.

[wonkie]

Obama is planning to change the conversation. I can't remember the quote but n one of his recent speeches he took the mcCain positiooon, stated that it was wronge and then reframed the terrorism issue.

Hillary's probelm isn't how to get Republican votes. It's how to get independet votes. Independents like a politician who seems to be sincerely committed to a set of prinnciples and who seems to act consistantly on those principles. hillary has been all over the place on Iraq and has been unwilling to hanestly address her cahnges of position. This makes her look worse than r-lite to independets. It makes her look insincere. That's the realproblem with her candidacy and that's why thereis a significant risk that she will lose . Hillary will repeat 04 for us except that I don't thinnk she can do as well as Kerry.

[john miller]

von, there is a difference between perceived strength and actual strength.

Since all the policies that McCain has supported have basically been failures, and the policies that Obama specially but also to some degree Clinton have proposed are arguably far more effective in keeping the country safer and, more improtantly, likely to increase international cooperation, I think the strength is in reality on the side of the democrats.

Particulalrly since most polls the last few years also show that the electorate in general thinks the same way.

[someotherdude]

von, there is a difference between perceived strength and actual strength.

No, usually the "perception" is the most important. Ask any nation who handed the keys over to the right-wing nationalists over the social democrats.

Germany, Italy, France...Western democracies, for many years, trust right-wing nationalists to protect them from evil outsiders. Actually being safe is less important than “feeling” safe.

[Anarch]

Please keep believing that it's this simple.

Ironic, given the simple-mindedness of the argument.

[I mean, seriously, we're pulling out the "Republicans are big tough manly men!" schtick again? Yeesh.]