Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama

[edit]

Based on a suggestion on Talk:Barack Obama, a new baby Wikiproject has been formed:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama

Please check it out, watchlist it, join and sign up. Let's get some GAs and FAs going out of this! :) rootology (C)(T) 20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image File:Obama logomark.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayers section

[edit]

How does the Ayers section violate WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUEWEIGHT? There was nothing in the section that was not adapted from the main article about the Obama-Ayers controversy and the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article; the section cited all the same reliable sources, and the opposition's campaign is certainly not a "fringe" viewpoint in an article about a presidential campaign.

I added the section after Skydiver99 suggested in an edit comment that some background was needed on Obama's mention of the controversy at the counter-smear site, since the mention of that only cited the counter-smear site itself. There are similar mentions of campaign controversies in articles about other presidential campaigns; the article on Clinton's 1992 campaign, for example, mentions the controversies over Gennifer Flowers and allegations of "draft-dodging," while the article on Bush's 2004 campaign has a section listing several controversies that arose during that campaign.

ᛟ ListenerXTalkerX 02:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is something of a skeleton article, which briefly notes and links to more detailed articles on various subjects. Many big subjects, like entire presidential debates, are simply linked to. I personally think that the proposed section is about 1/3-1/2 too long, but nothing deadly. In my personal opinion, what gives it undue weight is to create an entire new section called "campaign controversies" with this as a subheading and entry. One problem is that it wasn't really a controversy. It was a campaign tactic (many would say a smear) by various Obama opponents. The "Chronicle" section is a much better place to put it. Although it was injected into the campaign 2-3 times during the primaries, here we can choose the place where it had the most coverage, probably near the very end of the election. Otherwise we could create a section about strategies used against Obama but that would be a bit awkward too. Let's hash it out here and think of how to cover it. I'm not adverse to expanding the coverage a little, to a sentence or three, if we can keep it factual. Keep in mind we're just describing what it is, then linking to the main article on it if people want to know more. Wikidemon (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this:
ᛟ ListenerXTalkerX 03:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If no one has any objections or suggestions for changes, I will insert this as a subsection in the "Chronicle" section, as was suggested. ᛟ ListenerXTalkerX 18:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where would you put it? Brothejr (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following chronological order, after "Vice Presidential selection." ᛟ ListenerXTalkerX 18:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. The passage is reasonably neutrally written and if we need to we can work on it as the time passes. After taking a closer look at the article and sections that Newross has pointed out, I'm changing what I said and I agree with Newross. There are already links in the article pointing to the controversies and they are already neutrally written. I now don't think we need to add anything more about this to the article. Maybe the proposer of this addition might want to move it over to the McCain-Palin campaign article to better improve coverage over there. Brothejr (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not fine with that. Wrong article. The passage is entirely about the McCain-Palin campaign. This is the Obama-Biden campaign article. There is a wikilink to the "Bill Ayers presidential election controversy" article in the "Fight The Smears" website subsection of this article for Skydiver99 (talk | contribs) to find more background. Newross (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute that the mention should be removed for those reasons; the activities of the opposition's campaign are not off-limits in a campaign article, especially if the campaign makes a pointed response, as happened in this case.
Besides the examples of Clinton and Bush that I cited above, I note that in the article on the John Kerry campaign, there is a mention of the "truth test" controversy, which seems to have been made an issue solely by the Bush campaign. If that is acceptable in that place, then it is not acceptable to remove this simply because it is only about the opposition's campaign.
The McCain article's coverage of the controversy is already sufficient; that is where I got most of the material for this mention. ᛟ ListenerXTalkerX 15:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ayers is mentioned once, stating it was a smear. This is clearly POV since 1) not just republicans brought up the subject. Clinton and George Stephenopoulos both had issues with it, and 2) it is covered extensively in the CNN article that I cited. Removing that information is blatant POV. THe referrence and the comments should stay. Bytebear (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN article is irrelevant to the counter-smear website, and the bulleted list is now classified as "issues brought up." ᛟ ListenerXTalkerX 17:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THe CNN article is completely relevant. It is a total counter to the "smear" accusation. It is verifiable and a reliable source. You cannot have one person say X and not counter it. That is POV. This article, and specifically the quote from it, go directly to the issue on the page. Bytebear (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several people believe that we need a bit more background on the Ayers controversy here. I am trying to put a short section in about it. But it does not belong in the section about the counter-smear website, since that is simply reporting on what that website says — not judging its accuracy. As Newross pointed out, people who want more information can go to the main controversy article from the link in the bulleted point. ᛟ ListenerXTalkerX 18:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The section doesn't cover the issue correctly. The Obama website is accurate too, but it simply downplays the relationship. Ayers did not "pal" around with Obama. But they were clearly political allies for several years on various boards. They did know each other. Obama did endorse Ayers' book on education reform. We need balance, as clearly Obama is downplaying the relationship, and McCain/Palin was upplaying it. But I think CNN got it right, and their relationship was worthy of investigation dunring the campaign to a lot more people than right wingers. It was an issue in the primaries, and Clinton was right there with the Republicans in questioning it. We need to not discourage omition of pertenant information here. Ayers was big enough that Obama had to address it, and we need to understand why it was big, how big it was, and what Obama did to counter it. Notice, even on Obama's website he admits to working with Ayers on education reform, and only denies a personal relationship, not a political one. Bytebear (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, how much of this article should focus on the primaries? is there a separate article on that? is the organizaion chronological, or issues based? It seems to be a little of both right now. Bytebear (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN article is not a representative source, as you will see discussed at length in the talk page history of the various articles. There was no significant relationship, and no reliable source to my knowledge has ever suggested there is. Correctly covering it means depicting how in a campaign Obama's opponents tried to create a campaign issue out of an unremarkable series of professional encounters, but did not succeed in gaining much interest other than the partisan press, blogosphere, etc. Wikidemon (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is your position concerning Newross's reasons for removing the Ayers subsection? ᛟ ListenerXTalkerX 19:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand it. Every action by one campaign creates an equal and opposite reaction by the other. True that the McCain / Palin campaign picked up the issue and used it, but that means that the Obama / Biden campaign bore it, and dealt with it. Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In looking at the article, I'm wondering if the problem isn't that the proposed addition of Ayers is too large, but rather that this article as a whole is lacking? Coverage of the campaign really just stops at the selection of Biden as VP. That's probably the most important 2.5 months of the entire campaign and aside from brief mentions in the opinion polling and fundraising sections there isn't any mention of what happened in that time frame except the debates. Newsweek's "Secrets of the 2008 Campaign" series is one example of a pretty good post-mortem on the campaign, so maybe if the article was expanded to include some of the post-mortem analysis from RS, Ayers could be covered in more than a bullet point. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the entire article is fairly incomplete, and stale. The primaries article is in far less finished state than this one. It's odd that we're focusing on a single issue that people are claiming to be a matter of POV. If people simply wanted to improve the article rather than fight POV wars there are a lot of uncontroversial improvements they could make.Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just a quick comment: How is CNN not a representative source? That sounds bias to me. And I also believe that "significant relationship" is a subjective assessment. We are not to judge what kind of relationship they had. But that they had a relationship in indesputable. Bytebear (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Significant relationship is objective, although the word choice varies - all the reliable sources reported that the relationship was not significant. That single CNN piece is the only reliable source out of hundreds that suggested that any of this was Obama's doing (although all it said is that he was slow to reveal his contacts with Ayers, not that the contacts themselves were anything remarkable). Even within the CNN news organization that is one version of an evolving block of text, which was updated over a course of several days and in other versions did not contain the passage you wish to quote. Other CNN stories did not say it at all, and merely reported that the connection was insignificant. So you could say it is cherry picked. The word "relationship" has two senses, so using it is misleading. One of them refers to the systematic interaction between two things, or lack thereof. For example, what is the relationship between left-handedness and smoking? The relationship is unknown but studies have suggested.... The second sense implies a significant or non-trivial connection, above a threshold. Do person X and Y have a relationship? It is certainly disputable, and not established, that Obama and Ayers have a relationship in that sense. That is why we are careful to use terms like "alleged relationship" or "relationship, if any", or "extent of connection", so that we do not use terms that assume a conclusion on one side of the issue.Wikidemon (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, those are weasel words. There was a political relationship. That is undeniable. What the significance of that relationship is subjective. Some sources say it wasn't much, others say it was more. The CNN article is clearly the latter. They worked on boards together. Obama's board gave Ayers programs money. That is a relationship. Please don't argue the implications over the facts. Bytebear (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what political relationship? The CNN article that you are citing often does not mention a political relationship. If anything, in the further fact check article connected to the main one, they mention there was nothing or very little here in the first place. Now on the other hand, all this "political relationship, something major, etc" sounds more like syntheses and original research. If an editor was trying to be NPOV about the situation, then they would invariably shy away from making more of this then what the sources say and would also stay away from implying more then there is. Brothejr (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the Annenburg project and the Woods fund were not political organizations? Bytebear (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, that is nether here nor there as it is irrelevant to the discussion. Serving on the board together does not imply a deep or even shallow friendship. Now if there was a reliable source that said that Obama would go over to Ayer's house for hamburgers or that really great Chicago style stuffed deep dish often and then went out bowling together, then that would be a different story. But being on a board with someone does not imply a friendship. Even the CNN article says that they only really met at the board meetings and that one campaign get together with the senator. Brothejr (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it irrelivant to the discussion, or does it prove your position wrong. Now you have shifted gears to a "shallow friendship" but that's not what I am suggesting. I said a poltical relationship. Nice strawman, though. I also like you technique of downplaying "that one campaign get together" which was where Obama was introduced as a protoge of Alice Palmer and it was in Bill Ayers home. I agree that meeting is no smoking gun, but it was probably where the two first met.Bytebear (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it. Every known contact point between Ayers and Obama is documented, and already in the Ayers/Obama campaign controversy article. Listing those contacts here is misplaced because those contacts were not about the campaign. If you're trying to argue that Wikipedia should imply that there was an association between Obama and Ayers that amounted to anything, that's a waste. None of the reliable sources have seen it, and I cannot foresee that there would be consensus to say so. Listing them here to try to make the connection ourselves is synthesis. If the question is how to describe the McCain camp's (and blogosphere / pundit / etc) campaign tactic of trying to tie Obama to Ayers (and Clinton's, during the primary), there's a reasonable discussion to be had on how best to present it. Also, please don't get testy - if things get uncivil we should just close the debate. The meeting in Ayers' home is not shown by reliable sources to be meaningful either, no reliable source claiming that it was more than just another stop on the political rounds, and it certainly has nothing to do with the presidential campaign. Wikidemon (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THe statement "Wikipedia should imply that there was an association between Obama and Ayers that amounted to anything, that's a waste." is the falicy of your argument. No one has said to do that. But Obama did make it an issue when he addressed it formally in his campaign. That is why it should be covered. Do not make this about fringe conclusions. It isn't about that. It's about verifiable facts. and the facts point to a poltical relationship and one that Obama downplayed in the election. Yes the other side up played it, but the truth of the matter lies somewhere in between. We need to cover reliable sources who agree to that. Bytebear (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were arguing that there was a notable relationship and that we should say so or list the points of contact. If the proposal is to mention that Obama responded to the allegations, that's doable, although I don't know how enlightening a campaign denial is. I suppose it is okay to mention that it was one of the topics addressed in fightthesmears.com. The facts do not point to a political relationship of any note, nor do the sources say they do, quite the opposite. It's not our job to discern what facts point to, either - doing so in an article is WP:SYNTH. Most of the sources say the anti-Obama campaigners played the relationship up to the point of deception. We have a single partial source that said Obama played it down without saying that there was anything there to play down. Wikidemon (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if the proposal is mentioning that Obama responded to the smear, then that's fine. However, if it is to suggest there was some kind of political relationship between the two, no ref's back that up and it would be syntheses to say that. Brothejr (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need to stay neutral. We cannot judge whether it was a smear or not. Obama says it was. Some mainstream sources say it was, others say it wasn't. Clearly those making the accusations think it wasn't a smear. But we as wikipedians cannot make any kind of judgement call on the matter. But we cannot ignore those independent sources like CNN who said Obama was downplaying the issue. To omit them would be POV, regardless of what we personally think about the matter. (By the way, CNN is just the best example on the matter. There are many more. FOX News alone - and yes, they qualify as a reliable source, even if you don't agree with them.) Here's a statement from the NYTimes "A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63" [1] Bytebear (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a smear, per the reliable sources. They used a variety of terms to say that the claim was deceptive. Those making the accusations did not care whether it was true or not - it was a calculated political move. A politician playing down something that is untrue is hardly notable. Wikidemon (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about the specific claim "Obama downplayed his relationship with Ayers" Nothing more. That is reliable and verifiable. What exactly is "untrue" about Obama an Ayers political relationship? you need to supply specific sources and quotes to back up your position. And you cannot eliminate one fact because you don't agree with another fact. You must present all sides for NPOV. Bytebear (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are quoting that article out of context. The sentence right after the one you quoted is, "But the two men do not appear to have been close." The entire article talks about a series of chance encounters, while the opposition's claims were that they were close associates. ᛟ ListenerXTalkerX 17:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if true, a politician downplaying a smear like this is usually not notable. As I have repeatedly pointed out, though, this is a cherry picked source, and the only one of all of them that poses it that way.Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that were true?!? Wikiepdia isn't subjective. your personal opinion is moot. Even if it were true means it is included, because Wikipedia is about presenting facts. Please check your personal opinion at the door. Look, present the statement that their relationship appeared not to be close, but they did have a poltical relationship that Obama attempted to downplay. Present ALL thefacts, Don't cherry pick the facts you like. Bytebear (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the patronizing accusations and concentrate on your proposals, if any, for improving articles. Are we done here? It looks like discussion has been had.Wikidemon (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. ᛟ ListenerXTalkerX 18:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not done until the article has been removed of POV. To presnent that Obama has a website discounting Ayers with no mention of Ayers other than that is POV. I am proposing we add from reputable sources (CNN and NYTimes) facts about obama's claims, namely that he has downplayed his relationshop with Ayers. I don't think that is too much to ask. As it is, the presentation of Ayers right now is clearly POV. Bytebear (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, he downplayed a smear what is notable about that? There already is a mention of his downplaying the smear with the "Fight the Smears" section. Anything else beyond that is just playing politics. Let it rest. Brothejr (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not judge whether it was a "smear" or not. We just present what others have said. Do you have any reputable source that says it was a smear? Bytebear (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yea that same article you are hanging your whole argument on. Brothejr (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, where in the article does it say "smear." I must have missed that. But didn't it also say that Obama's denials are also false? Hmm.. seems the truth is somewhere in between. But the article doesn't reflect that. Get it? Bytebear (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I don't think you get it. There is no "truth in between" here. The article says there was nothing to this, if anything if you click on the inner link, you will even see CNN's fact check which states that there is nothing to this smear. Continuing on this discussion/argument is simply a form of disruption. Brothejr (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get it. But you seem to be defining "smear" and the accusations differently than me. If I say Obama and Ayers had a poltical relationship, then that is a verifiable fact. If I say they "palled around together" that is a smear. So which are you defending. It really sounds like you are just trying to supress information you don't like. Present ALL the facts. You are in direct violation of POV. That should never be accepted. would you like me to bring in an arbitrator? I certainly woudn't mind. Bytebear (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, because the only person here who is still pushing the issue and not listening to anyone else, is you. Everyone has continually, repeatedly, patiently explained it to you over and over, but you persist to ignore our comments. If, you take it to mediation, RfC, AN/I, arbcom, CSI, NYPD Blue, house, or the FBI they will all tell you the same thing. Let it go. Brothejr (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors do not define consensus. There are clearly not enough people here. Bring in some moderators. I can too if you like. Let's do it. Bytebear (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has already been too much disruptive process trying to deal with poorly conceived suggestions for coatracking Bill Ayers mentions into Obama-related articles. I would not favor a rehash of this. It does not have consensus and it is unlikely to get consensus, not to mention that it is being proposed in a way that at best is misleading, and at worst is simply untrue and contradicts the sources.Wikidemon (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, Bytebear's opposition to closing the discussion is noted. If nobody else has a solid objection (and at some point even if they do) we should close this discussion down as a rejected proposal - I'll do that myself eventually if nobody else does. Wikidemon (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the article presents Obama's position on Ayers (which it does), you must present all relvent information about it including CNN and NYTimes conculsions that Obama is downplaying the relationship. That is NPOV. It isn't misleading at all. But the current article's coverage of Ayers is totally misleading. Bytebear (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bill Ayers was the centerpiece and primary focus of the McCain-Palin campaign for two or three weeks in October 2008 at their rallies,[2] in their television, radio and web ads,[3] in their television and radio interviews,[4] and in their robocalls,[5] until they shifted to Joe the Plumber and accusations that Barack Obama was a socialist.
    • Every action by one campaign does not create an equal and opposite reaction by the other.
      • In this case, the Obama-Biden campaign kept their primary focus on the economy and continued to advocate "change" from what they called failed Bush-McCain policies. They did not talk about Ayers at their rallies, in television and radio interviews, or robocalls; they only referred to McCain-Palin smears (but not Ayers by name) in a couple of TV and web ads about the McCain-Palin campaign attempting to change the subject from the economy,[6][7] and one similar, geographically-targeted, brief radio ad that mentioned Ayers by name.[8]
      • It was the McCain-Palin campaign that had to bear and deal with mainstream fact-check organizations like FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com finding its candidates' statements and campaign ads false and misleading and pants on fire! false and malicious, and bear and deal with angry and racist supporters at their campaign rallies.[9][10]
  • Obama's first documented meeting with Bill Ayers was when the principal co-authors of Chicago's winning $49.2 million Annenberg Challenge grant proposal, Bill Ayers and Anne Hallett (the former executive director of the Wieboldt Foundation[11]—whom Obama had known for almost a decade), attended the first Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board of Directors meeting at noon on Wednesday, March 15, 1995, at the headquarters of the Spencer Foundation on the 28th floor of the 900 North Michigan building, to brief the board on the grant proposal they had developed with many other Chicago school reform leaders and Chicago foundations in the course of a year-long negotiation with Vartan Gregorian and the Annenberg Foundation.
  • Far from "downplaying" Obama's contacts with Ayers, the Obama-Biden campaign exaggerated them by incorrectly saying Obama and Ayers served together on two foundation boards:
    • Ayers did not serve on the Board of Directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
      • Ayers and Hallett, the principal co-authors of Chicago's winning $49.2 million Annenberg Challenge grant proposal, did attend some early Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board of Directors meetings:
        • Ayers attended four and Hallett attended three of the first five Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board of Directors meetings in the three months from March–June 1995, before the June 22, 1995 press conference in which the Chicago Annenberg Challenge announced the members of its Board of Directors and Chicago School Reform Collaborative and said that RFPs had been sent to all 550 Chicago public schools and to numerous community agencies.
        • Ayers and Hallett also attended as guests a February 1996 executive committee meeting of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board of Directors and a September 1997 meeting of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board of Directors.
    • Obama's and Ayers' nine years each of service on the Board of Directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago overlapped for three years (December 1999–December 2002), from which journalists have calculated that Obama and Ayers may have attended twelve quarterly half-day board meetings over three years (though Obama did not receive any compensation for serving on the board in 2001 or 2002).
  • Obama did not launch his political career in Bill Ayers' living room; he launched it at the Ramada Inn Lakeshore on September 19, 1995.

Newross (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't caught that McCain article - a busy bee indeed. I'll correct the changes over there so that they do not: (1) claim that there was a "relationship" between Obama and Ayers, (2) add a source that is unneeded and tangential, and (3) incorrectly report that the matter first appeared during the Democratic debate. Wikidemon (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Newross, I put that if as you say the Ayers controversy has nothing to do with the Obama campaign, then neither has Audiogate anything to do with the George W. Bush campaign or the truth test anything to do with the Kerry campaign; in both cases a candidate's opponents made a big deal out of something and the campaign itself maintained a relative silence. But those controversies obviously are relevant topics as they have been a part of those articles for quite some time. ᛟ ListenerXTalkerX 15:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "controversies" in the "Campaign controversies" sections of the George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004 and John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004 articles are not "obviously relevant topics" simply because "they have been a part of those articles for quite some time." Those "controversies" have been a part of those articles for quite some time because no one seems to care about the poor quality of those articles. Newross (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typefaces

[edit]
  • Typefaces
  • The signature campaign typeface was Gotham, typically using capital letters with occasional use of the script Snell Roundhand. Gotham was designed in 2000 by Jonathan Hoefler and Tobias Frere-Jones, originally for GQ magazine. Prior to Gotham, the campaign used the typeface Gill Sans in upper case and lower case.[57]

While there is apparently a source for this (if we can track down the articl in the merged NYT/IHT archives), this appears excessively trivial. While campaign songs, artwork, radio and TV commercials are frequently commented on and believed to have relevance, I don't see what importance the choice of typeface has. I'd be inclined to delete it. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general I'd agree with you that fonts aren't particularly notable, but the Obama campaign's use of Gotham did attract a fair amount of comment. I've added a link to an article from the LA Times discussing the reaction to the font. It would probably be good to explain in the article why the choice of typeface was considered interesting; I'll try and add something to that effect when I get the time.VoluntarySlave (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

[edit]

Is it worth noting that the campaign itself won a number of awards, including a Grand Prix in two categories at the Cannes Lions, the highest prize attainable in the advertising/marketing industry? (see this piece in Campaign magazine for some coverage on this aspect.) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poster

[edit]

I have added back the Hope poster. I hope all agree.--Dstern1 (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Powell

[edit]

Doesn't necessarily have to be a big section, or even have it's own section, but it's worth mentioning considering its effects on the campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.133.229.226 (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Nice very nice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.157.188 (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ratio of voters to adult population

[edit]

Democracy can be measured in many ways. One way is the ratio of voters to the adult population. Remember, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that everyone can edit. How democratic! If one person has concluded that they own a page then Wikipedia becomes autocratic.

Id447 (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that everyone can edit", it also has policies and guidelines. Please familiarize yourself with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If using a calculator to do division is original research, then elementary school is the new college. Your doing a great job of failing to address the real issue here. Let me know what your real objections are. Then we might have a chance of having a dialogue instead of a edit war.
Id447 (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using a calculator to do division is not original research. Inserting the result into an article with the implication that it means anything useful is. The issue is that there are no reliable sources that have published these computations and given them any context for relevance. One of the things Wikipedia is not would be a random collection of factoids. Popping a figure into individual articles is especially useless. If there are any sources that maintain such percentages are relevant – and there probably are someplace – an article such as "Voter participation in U.S. Presidential elections" could present historical figures for comparison in a useful tabular form. Additionally, raw computations based on census figures are somewhat misleading, since they include in the population figures people ineligible to vote, including prisoners and (I believe) residents who are foreign nationals. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we can

[edit]

Listen to "Weed Plant" from the band "Fishbone", then you'll know where the slogan is from. "Yes you can", but i understood "Yes We Can" smoke Marihuana... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.143.81.217 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

citation problem

[edit]

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia so I might be wrong but one of the cited sources doesn't have a hyperlink. Can someone take a look at it? Thank you! Xenos,M. and W. Lance Bennett."THE DISCONNECTION IN ONLINE POLITICS: The Youth Political Sphere and US Election Sites, 2002–2004." Information, Communication, and Society 10 (2007): 443–64. --0riK (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama_2008_presidential_campaign&oldid=1241033994"