David Esrati stump speech for Senator Obama at 10 Wilmington Place

I spoke today at 10 Wilmington Place to Seniors for Obama.

The speech was to about 30 seniors- the Dayton Daily News was there with cameras and video- but lost interest once I began to speak. There was a slight mix-up at the beginning- where the cameras were rolling. I’ll bet the negative part makes it into the paper.

This speech focuses on change – and how it can only happen if we have candidates like Senator Obama who can raise money from the voters- without having to depend on Special Interests, PACs and lobbyists. I also said it was great that Ohio has a chance to make a difference in the primary- for the first time in a long time.

Take a listen- it’s about 12 minutes.


If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! If you wish to support this blog and independent journalism in Dayton, consider donating. All of the effort that goes into writing posts and creating videos comes directly out of my pocket, so any amount helps!

Leave a Reply

11 Comments on "David Esrati stump speech for Senator Obama at 10 Wilmington Place"

Notify of
Drexel Dave

Is it supposed to sound like The Chipmunks, or is that just streaming funkabilities?

David Esrati
David Esrati

I guess I just sound like a chipmunk- or it’s your equipment-
sorry Drexel.


We’ve all seen him in his squirrel suit…
Now he’s going after the chipmunk demographic.



I’m delighted to hear your attack on ads for prescription drugs. I have to lay out some nine pills every morning to treat my various ailments. Only the baby aspirin does not require a prescription from a physician; all the rest do.
So what good does it do the pill manufacturers to urge me to ask my doctor about XYZ or all the other nostrums that are being peddled daily on the evening newscasts? It’s an insult to my doctor for me to say, “Doctor, I’m supposed to ask you about XYZ?”
(All he can say in response is that I don’t have to waste my money on XYZ because one of the pills he has prescribed does exactly what XYZ is supposed to do.)

David Esrati
David Esrati

You can see the DDN article about this session here: http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/02/22/ddn022308obamaevent.html
And Dad, I’ve always wondered about Direct to consumer drug ads- they seem like not only a very inefficient way to reach a market, but also seem to circumvent the most important people in the delivery of health care- the Doctor.
Long ago I dated a drug rep- she had an entire bedroom filled with trash and trinkets to give to doctors with the product name on it- which also seemed like an inefficient way to deliver health care. It’s no wonder we have such a health care crisis in this country.


Mr. E, it apparently does a lot of good for the pill manufacturers to encourage the end consumer to ask the doctor. The stories that I’ve read indicate that doctors see a huge number of people coming in and asking about this sympton or that one. Sometimes these ads are for conditions that no one was talking about 5 years ago. Case in point – Cymbalta for Restless Leg Syndrome. Who’d ever heard of that before the commercial? I actually had a guy at one of my clients in ATL that has this and was diagnosed about 7 or 8 years ago. But when I heard about this, my response was “that’s about the weirdest thing I ever heard of.” Now his affliction has it’s own commercial! And if you have weird tingling pains in your legs and can’t sleep, maybe you’ve just diagnosed something yourself that for some reason you’ve never before discussed with your doctor. I don’t necessarily think that the doctor is being circumvented because you still need to confer with him/her before getting the drugs.

I have to wonder what has a worse effect on our economy and our country – drug ads or personal injury attorney ads that encourage us to sue our neighbor even if their dog doesn’t actually bite us.

And David, with regards to you dating a drug rep – CONGRATULATIONS!! I’ve never seen a female drug rep that wasn’t an absolute babe!! You are my new idol! ;)

David Esrati
David Esrati

Uh, Juan- you were eating lunch with me when I met her- at Truffles cafe in Cross Pointe Center- many years ago.
With the Internet making it easy to look up medical conditions- the need to BROADcast messages to all is an inefficient way to reach consumers.
Sort of like TV spots for politicians- not enough info- and less than half of the country votes (that’s eligible). Imagine if we just sent a nice magazine to all registered voters each election cycle- or better yet- a PDF with links to multi-media- instead of spending $2 billion on soundbites?

Well, David – women just seem to flock to you so I just can’t remember them all!!! Two comments relating to yours – First, not everyone has the skills or inclination to look up thier symptoms on the internet. Furthermore, even if they could look them up, many people lack the skills to interpret what they find there. Second – You comment comparing medical advertising and political advertising is actually pretty interesting (well, I shouldn’t say it’s actually kind of interesting since that implies that most of your comments are not interesting!). The reason that drug companies and politicians spend so much money on 30 second spots is because they work! And that’s because the average person has the attention span that only allows them to barely concentrate on something for 30 seconds. The “average” person is lazy when it comes to things like their health and politics. That’s why everyone is looking for the magic pill or surgery to take care of excess weight instead of dealing with it using diet and exercise (says the guy that’s lost 9 pounds in the last two weeks by cutting back just a little!!). And they don’t really want to research where their candidates stand on issues that are important to them. The election turns into a populartiy contest where people like Obama (who is articulate, warm, sympathetic and likeable) can completely blow away a person like HR Clinton (who, it’s been speculated, will be sworn in as Rodham as to not be confused with “the other Clinton”) as the public engages in voting for “prom queen”. I wholeheartedly agree with you (damn! Hell is freezing over again!!) that it would be great if there were many fewer ads and more pieces of information available to the voter. But the simple fact is that the huge majority of voters would not thumb through the magazie if it was delivered to them. Now, before everyone starts getting on my back about my “average voter” comment, let me just say that most of the people that frequent this website are NOT average. They care… Read more »

My job involves conducting research on new drugs prior to approval by the FDA. Advertising may be expensive, but it’s nothing compared to the expense of the R&D needed to bring a new drug to market. That costs so much that there is a whole class of unapproved “orphan” drugs—treatments that aren’t available because the disease isn’t prevalent enough for the drug company to recoup its cost. So when you choose your ailments, pick common ones like heartburn or erectile dysfunction, or we we might not be able to offer you anything.

I can see both sides of the argument about drug commercials. The patient can advocate for himself better if he’s informed. But the drug ads I’ve seen aren’t all that informative. Some of them don’t even mention what the drug is for. They just show someone walking on the beach and then say “Ask your doctor about ______.” Exactly what is that drug supposed to treat? Jellyfish stings?

Also, patients can take the whole armchair quarterbacking thing a bit too far. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I’d be concerned about a doctor who writes a scrip on demand, but it happens. I know someone who, just last week, approached a doctor and asked for a particular antibiotic by name and walked away with it, no exam, no questions asked.

That’s probably not good. I’m feeling much better though. :-)

As for the trash and trinkets, some health systems have recently banned them to eliminate bias. Maybe the drug companies will get the message.

David Esrati
David Esrati

Juan- and in the near future- there won’t be anymore “broadcasting”- forcing you to watch anything at any specific time- making the ability to mass market almost anything based on a totally different equation: earned attention.
There will be a lot of arguments about privacy and about freedom, but the reality is- broadcast is no longer a cost effective medium, it’s just the last one left.
With cell phones becoming the new data-tether, they may take on new uses- such as health monitoring, and be able to directly suggest when and what options you should be interested in. If we spent more money on R&D and actual heath care, instead of health insurance and health care marketing – we may not have so many unhealthy people.


If people (myself included) would get off their lard-asses, eat better and excercise more, we may not have so many unhealthy people!

Pam – Glad you’re feeling better. Hopefully you’re sleeping OK without the noise of dwarfs whistleing while they’re working! ;)