McCain's Negative Ads

[August1991]

The TV ads have been getting most of the attention. In one, two blondes famous for their ridiculous antics, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, briefly flash on the screen just before Mr Obama’s face appears, and an announcer intones “He's the biggest celebrity in the world.” Another ad asserts—falsely, according to those closest to the events described—that Mr Obama skipped a visit to wounded soldiers because he could not bring the press along.

In other ads, Mr McCain’s attacks make substantial charges that are false, or wildly exaggerated. One says Mr Obama plans to tax electricity, when he has instead said he would like to tax “dirty energy” like coal and natural gas. Another claims that Mr Obama is responsible for the current record oil prices, which would make him a powerful man indeed.

The Economist

I once asked a famous commercial advertiser why he didn't attack his big rival, a competing laundry detergent -- say that it "ruins your washing machine!" or "causes hives!"

His answer: "Because I might gain temporary market advantage, but I'd devalue the whole category. Sooner or later, people would stop buying soap."

Washington Post

IMV, this is a good start but eventually McCain is going to go after McCain's far left opinions, background and friends. I don't think that white Americans are foolish enough to vote for a radical simply out of some misplaced sense of guilt. Race has nothing to do with this. Political opinions are the entire story.

I also think that McCain will have to go negative. While negative debase the product category overall, it hurts McCain much less than Obama. McCain's the default candidate because he's closest to the mainstream.

IMV, this is a good, sophisticated opening salvo. I'm surprised Obama's reaction has been so heavy handed.

[peter_puck]

The Economist

Washington Post

IMV, this is a good start but eventually McCain is going to go after McCain's far left opinions, background and friends.

I don't know. The Republicans have described every Democrat since Carter as being the countries biggest Liberal. I sort of looses its sting.

Obama does have an uber Liberal past (unlike the others) but they have tried, and it has failed to stick.

I don't think that white Americans are foolish enough to vote for a radical simply out of some misplaced sense of guilt.

I think they are voting because they feel they have just had one of the most incompetent and corrupt governments in modern US history. Go take a looking at the beating they took in the last congressional elections. That was an ass whooping. THe presidential election on the other hand is close.

I also think that McCain will have to go negative. While negative debase the product category overall, it hurts McCain much less than Obama. McCain's the default candidate because he's closest to the mainstream.

I don't agree with that. McCain is one of the most honest, respected politicians right now (among the independents). If he goes negative he looks like Bush, and everyone is fed up with Bush. I think his best bet is to go with the town hall debates. Obama gives very good speaches, but I don't think its proven he can debate.

McCain is a very experienced candidate while Obama is a bit of a celebrity. It is hard to show this in a 30 second attack add, but it may be easier in a debate.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't know. The Republicans have described every Democrat since Carter as being the countries biggest Liberal. I sort of looses its sting.

Obama does have an uber Liberal past (unlike the others) but they have tried, and it has failed to stick.

False...Bill Clinton was no liberal.

I think they are voting because they feel they have just had one of the most incompetent and corrupt governments in modern US history. Go take a looking at the beating they took in the last congressional elections. That was an ass whooping. THe presidential election on the other hand is close.

This doesn't make any sense. The "government" includes representatives from both major parties and independents.

I don't agree with that. McCain is one of the most honest, respected politicians right now (among the independents). If he goes negative he looks like Bush, and everyone is fed up with Bush. I think his best bet is to go with the town hall debates. Obama gives very good speaches, but I don't think its proven he can debate.

So why did McCain lose to Bush in 2000?

McCain is a very experienced candidate while Obama is a bit of a celebrity. It is hard to show this in a 30 second attack add, but it may be easier in a debate.

Right...that's how Bush beat Gore and Kerry!

[CANADIEN]

It is one thing to portray Obama as a celebrity and point to his lack of political experience. It is another thing to compare him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, and the McCain campaign is the one that will suffer the most if they go down that ridiculous route.

[maldon_road]

I don't agree with that. McCain is one of the most honest, respected politicians right now (among the independents). If he goes negative he looks like Bush, and everyone is fed up with Bush. I think his best bet is to go with the town hall debates. Obama gives very good speaches, but I don't think its proven he can debate.

McCain is a very experienced candidate while Obama is a bit of a celebrity. It is hard to show this in a 30 second attack add, but it may be easier in a debate.

This is what is going to make the debates so interesting. Will it be the young hotshot vs the tired old man or will McCain make Obama look reckless and inexperienced? (Note: unlikely reckless since Obama is doing the things all candidates do after securing the nomination - moving to the center).

[HisSelf]

When the right gets desperate it hauls out the nukes.

[Guest American Woman]

It is one thing to portray Obama as a celebrity and point to his lack of political experience. It is another thing to compare him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, and the McCain campaign is the one that will suffer the most if they go down that ridiculous route.

I agree with you completely. More and more, I'm losing respect for McCain. I mean, come on. There's no basis what-so-ever for the attempted comparison to Britney and Paris.

But as far as Obama being a celebrity, he can't help how well received he is. He'd be a fool to tone it down just so he couldn't be accused of being a celebrity. Furthermore, I think McCain and his supporters would be more than happy to have a bit of that reception/celebrity status themselves; but since that's not going to happen, they attack Obama for it. McCain better be careful or he's going to end up making himself look like an old fuddy-duddy while making Obama come across as vibrant.

[August1991]

I agree with you completely. More and more, I'm losing respect for McCain. I mean, come on. There's no basis what-so-ever for the attempted comparison to Britney and Paris.

But as far as Obama being a celebrity, he can't help how well received he is. He'd be a fool to tone it down just so he couldn't be accused of being a celebrity. Furthermore, I think McCain and his supporters would be more than happy to have a bit of that reception/celebrity status themselves; but since that's not going to happen, they attack Obama for it. McCain better be careful or he's going to end up making himself look like an old fuddy-duddy while making Obama come across as vibrant.

If Obama wants the votes of Europeans and young Americans who watch MTV, he can have them. And those are the kinds of people attracted by this type of "celebrity hype".

McCain is correct to draw reference to this aspect of Obama and the ads do it the right way. So far in the campaign, Obama's statements are largely bland, kitschy, Hollywood generalities: "We are the world".

What to make of Obama's response that this is |playing the race card"? WTF?

----

I also think that negative ads will hurt Obama more than they will McCain. All McCain has to do is turn the MOR voters away from a radical like Obama.

Keep in mind that Obama will get at least 40% of votes cast, and those 40% are among the most vocal and noisy in American society. There's a vast silent middle who pay attention but keep their opinions to themselves.

[jdobbin]

I also think that negative ads will hurt Obama more than they will McCain. All McCain has to do is turn the MOR voters away from a radical like Obama.

At the moment, it looks like McCain is not making much traction from this attack policy. Some Republicans are suggesting he go even more negative and employ Karl Rove to do the job.

The most recent poll of polls for Sunday has Obama at 47% and McCain at 44% which is the same as it has been for months.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/poll.of.polls.chart/

Edited August 3, 2008 by jdobbin

[Guest American Woman]

If Obama wants the votes of Europeans and young Americans who watch MTV, he can have them.

Really? And you think McCain feels that way?-- that he disdains the young people's vote, and Obama can have those votes? I hightly doubt it. In fact, if he does feel that way, he's a fool.

And those are the kinds of people attracted by this type of "celebrity hype".

There is no "celebrity hype" coming from Obama. As I said, Obama may be getting the attention of a celebrity, but that's because of his popularity. You really think a presidential candidate should try to stay out of the limelight? Should try to hold back on the response he generates?

As I said, McCain is not getting that kind of reaction, and no one who isn't in denial can say that McCain would 'tone it down' if he were able to generate that level of support, attention, and crowds. But since he isn't getting it, he has to criticize it, and as I said, more and more I'm losing respect for him and it sounds as if many others are, too.

McCain is correct to draw So far in the campaign, Obama's statements are largely bland, kitschy, Hollywood generalities: "We are the world".

From what I'm reading, you're in the minority if you think he's "correct to draw reference to this aspect of Obama and the ads do it the right way." Even Republicans are criticizing the ads.

As for the "bland, kitschy, Hollywood generalities," what could be more "general" than ads doing nothing more than attacking Obama's "celebrity status?" What does that tell us about McCain's platform? Absolutely nothing. Then there's the ad accusing Obama of being responsible for high gas prices. To quote you, "WTF?" Obama is responsible for high gas prices? A junior senator, as some here are so fond of pointing out, is responsible for the high gas prices? I saw those ads and I couldn't believe how stupid and off-the-wall they are. McCain must be hoping that the majority of Americans are mud dumb stupid if he thinks we're buying that. Obama would have to have a helluva lot of power and influence to be responsible for the high gas prices.

What to make of Obama's response that this is |playing the race card"? WTF?

Source, please. The only accusations I've seen in this campaign regarding "playing the race card" has been McCain accusing Obama of doing it. I've read Obama's reactions to the ads and none of them say McCain is playing the race card.

It is ironic, though, given all the celebrities out there, that McCain made the choices that he did-- especially in light of the fact that celebrities like Tiger Woods are 'bigger celebrities' news wise than Spears and Hilton. Comparing him to such a celebrity wouldn't be a bad thing, though, would it?

I also think that negative ads will hurt Obama more than they will McCain. All McCain has to do is turn the MOR voters away from a radical like Obama.

I think you're in the minority of you think the these ads will hurt Obama more than McCain, and I think McCain must be feeling desperate to be stooping to ads such as the Spears/Hilton and high gas prices ads. As for "a radical like Obama," if "so far in the campaign, Obama's statements are largely bland, kitschy, Hollywood generalities: 'We are the world,'" please explain to me why you are claiming he is such a radical? Seems to me he'd have to be making some strong statements in order for you to make such a claim.

Keep in mind that Obama will get at least 40% of votes cast, and those 40% are among the most vocal and noisy in American society. There's a vast silent middle who pay attention but keep their opinions to themselves.

Yes, I've noticed how quiet the people in American society who make up the "at least 40% of the votes cast" that you claim McCain will also get are. That "vast silent middle who pay attention but keep their opinions to themselves" would include both Democrats and Republicans who are more center than radical. But keep convincing yourself that the McCain supporters are just a quiet bunch.

[peter_puck]

False...Bill Clinton was no liberal.

No, he wasn't, what I was saying was that he was attacked as one by the Republicans. Its like the little boy who cried wolf. Obama is the liberal wolf, but since they have described every else like that, nobody is listening this time around.

So why did McCain lose to Bush in 2000?

I think I have covered this. McCain was a victim of very dirty politic by the Bush camp. Grassroots organizations like "Environmentalists against McCain" popped up out of nowhere . Huge money went into negative ads. Huge push polls implied McCain had a black child out of wedlock and his wife was a hardcore drug user.

Right...that's how Bush beat Gore and Kerry!

Bush and his style of politics is like these telemarketers that rip of senior citizens. They may work once or twice, but eventually that overly trusting senior wises up. Like the senior who buys the $5000 air cleaner, they got ripped off last time and are not going to trust the next person who tries to sell like that.

Besides, John McCain has got so much going for him, he does not need to sell himself by saying "at least I am not as bad as that Obama guy".

This is sort of the reverse of the last two campaigns. Last time Bush was the lightweight, so he had to rely on negative ads instead of debates. This time its the other way around. McCain should try for debates instead of negative ads.

[peter_puck]

At the moment, it looks like McCain is not making much traction from this attack policy. Some Republicans are suggesting he go even more negative and employ Karl Rove to do the job.

The most recent poll of polls for Sunday has Obama at 47% and McCain at 44% which is the same as it has been for months.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/poll.of.polls.chart/

I don't think 47-44 is that bad at this point. If you consider all the ill will to the Republican party and the current president, I think he is doing real well. He is within striking distance for the debates.

Imagine if this was Bush vs Obama, it would not even be close.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, he wasn't, what I was saying was that he was attacked as one by the Republicans. Its like the little boy who cried wolf. Obama is the liberal wolf, but since they have described every else like that, nobody is listening this time around.

No, you said they were described by Republicans as the "countries biggest liberal" (sic). President Clinton was not so described in the wake of welfare reform amd military adventures abroad. He was openly despised by the "biggest liberals" for having sold out, and fought mightily with Senator Kennedy over his moderate positions.

I think I have covered this. McCain was a victim of very dirty politic by the Bush camp. Grassroots organizations like "Environmentalists against McCain" popped up out of nowhere . Huge money went into negative ads. Huge push polls implied McCain had a black child out of wedlock and his wife was a hardcore drug user.

Oh, in other words, Senator McCain lost key primary elections and failed to get the party nomination.

Bush and his style of politics is like these telemarketers that rip of senior citizens. They may work once or twice, but eventually that overly trusting senior wises up. Like the senior who buys the $5000 air cleaner, they got ripped off last time and are not going to trust the next person who tries to sell like that.

Nonsense...it was the seniors and "family values" crowd that kicked Senator Kerry to the curb. "Style of politics" is a wonderful lament for losers.

Besides, John McCain has got so much going for him, he does not need to sell himself by saying "at least I am not as bad as that Obama guy".

Senator McCain also has negatives; he must do whatever is necessary to figuratively put Senator Obama in a M1A2 heavy tank pretending to be CinC shouting "Yes We Can!".

This is sort of the reverse of the last two campaigns. Last time Bush was the lightweight, so he had to rely on negative ads instead of debates. This time its the other way around. McCain should try for debates instead of negative ads.

By you own admission, negative campaign ads work. Debates are for suckers.

[peter_puck]

No, you said they were described by Republicans as the "countries biggest liberal" (sic). President Clinton was not so described in the wake of welfare reform amd military adventures abroad. He was openly despised by the "biggest liberals" for having sold out, and fought mightily with Senator Kennedy over his moderate positions.

I was talking about his first campaign when he was so described by TFB (trust fund baby)'s father. Clinton, who was a bit of a liberal prior to the campaign, shifted to the centre during his term in office, but when he was unknown, the elder Bush tried to tar him as a liberal.

Senator McCain also has negatives; he must do whatever is necessary to figuratively put Senator Obama in a M1A2 heavy tank pretending to be CinC shouting "Yes We Can!".

Yes, that is exactly what McCain must do, put Obama in the tank. The problem is that Obama is not going to hop in the tank - he is very well scripted. The only way to unscript him is in these debates.

By you own admission, negative campaign ads work. Debates are for suckers.

I think the word is "worked". Lots of people believed those swift boat ads, now they are a little more cynical.

Go look at the last race for the Senate and House. It was probably one of the worst, but how did the Republicans do ? Many of the negative ads backfired. The media responded quicker.

McCain has a reputation as being honest. He has way more experience than Bush. He is the only reason Obama is not running away with this. I think he has to play to those values.

On the other hand, if it did really go negative, I think McCain is more vulnerable. His support of some of Bush's ideas (even though he probably hates Bush more than I do), his Keating five problems and his years in Washington could make a really good target.

[bush_cheney2004]

I was talking about his first campaign when he was so described by TFB (trust fund baby)'s father. Clinton, who was a bit of a liberal prior to the campaign, shifted to the centre during his term in office, but when he was unknown, the elder Bush tried to tar him as a liberal.

That's not how I recall it at all.....Clinton was attacked on "character" issues and lack of foreign policy experience. He was a moderate who prevailed against the true liberals of his own party, with famous battles to show for it.

Yes, that is exactly what McCain must do, put Obama in the tank. The problem is that Obama is not going to hop in the tank - he is very well scripted. The only way to unscript him is in these debates.

The "standard" debate format has also become scripted and less valuable. The candidate with the fewest mistakes "wins", whatever that means.

I think the word is "worked". Lots of people believed those swift boat ads, now they are a little more cynical.

Go look at the last race for the Senate and House. It was probably one of the worst, but how did the Republicans do ? Many of the negative ads backfired. The media responded quicker.

Doesn't matter...negative ads and October surprises are just part of the political process.

McCain has a reputation as being honest. He has way more experience than Bush. He is the only reason Obama is not running away with this. I think he has to play to those values.

I don't care how he plays it....Bush won with Rove's strategy...that's all that counts.

On the other hand, if it did really go negative, I think McCain is more vulnerable. His support of some of Bush's ideas (even though he probably hates Bush more than I do), his Keating five problems and his years in Washington could make a really good target.

One Reverend Wright is worth five Keating Fives.

[Guest American Woman]

I just saw the "celebrity" ad for the first time last night. Seems not only is Obama a celebrity, "he's the biggest celebrity in the world!"

[Shady]

I liked the Moses ad much better. Because, afterall, he's the Messiah.

"... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama" - Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire.

January 7, 2008

YouTube

Edited August 6, 2008 by Shady

[Guest American Woman]

omg. I hope that's just a YouTube thing and not something we're going to be subjected to on television. If that ad is for real, McCain is truly losing it. You realize Obama was joking when he said that, right? Even the people on the sidelines watching him are laughing. If this ad airs, I'm guessing most people will be able to see that for themselves-- and almost feel pity for McCain.

[GostHacked]

omg. I hope that's just a YouTube thing and not something we're going to be subjected to on television. If that ad is for real, McCain is truly losing it. You realize Obama was joking when he said that, right? Even the people on the sidelines watching him are laughing. If this ad airs, I'm guessing most people will be able to see that for themselves-- and almost feel pity for McCain.

Paris Hilton's response video is even better.

'I am not a celebrity, I am not a politician.... I am just hot.'

Flawless.

[Guest American Woman]

Paris Hilton's response video is even better.

'I am not a celebrity, I am not a politician.... I am just hot.'

Flawless.

I missed that one. But then, I'm no Paris Hilton fan so I guess it's just as well.

I think McCain is making a mockery out of this election. I'm serious when I say I wonder if he's losing it.

[bush_cheney2004]

omg. I hope that's just a YouTube thing and not something we're going to be subjected to on television. If that ad is for real, McCain is truly losing it. You realize Obama was joking when he said that, right? Even the people on the sidelines watching him are laughing. If this ad airs, I'm guessing most people will be able to see that for themselves-- and almost feel pity for McCain.

Yep...so much pity that Senator McCain has now pulled statistically even with Senator Obama for those who sweat such things.

[GostHacked]

I missed that one. But then, I'm no Paris Hilton fan so I guess it's just as well.

I think McCain is making a mockery out of this election. I'm serious when I say I wonder if he's losing it.

I caught it on CNN about an hour ago. They were talking about McCain on Blitzer's segment. They showed the McCain ad, which I have seen online elsewhere, and then Hilton's response. I had a pretty good laugh.

The McCain ad is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2ayxzwU6co

Hilton's is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4BXHRJiuI8 this is the extended version I did not see on CNN .. hilarious.

[Guest American Woman]

I caught it on CNN about an hour ago. They were talking about McCain on Blitzer's segment. They showed the McCain ad, which I have seen online elsewhere, and then Hilton's response. I had a pretty good laugh.

The McCain ad is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2ayxzwU6co

Hilton's is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4BXHRJiuI8 this is the extended version I did not see on CNN .. hilarious.

I like the beginning of the spoof-ad when McCain's photo is interspersed with the Golden Girls' and Yoda's.

An announcer calls him "the oldest celebrity in the world, like super-old, old enough to remember when dancing was a sin and beer was served in a bucket," and asks, "but is he ready to lead?" Hilton's spoof also intersperses images of McCain and Yoda from Star Wars and the cast of television's "The Golden Girls." link

I have to say, though, I agree with Hilton's mother: Hilton's mother, who with her husband donated $4,600 to McCain's campaign earlier in the year, has said McCain's ad is "a complete waste of the country's time and attention at the very moment when millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs."

Edited August 7, 2008 by American Woman

[Moonlight Graham]

The Hilton/Spears ad is utter trash. I was suprised the 1st time i saw it on TV that McCain actually endorsed this pile of rubbish. He should be ashamed of this ad. Yet another politician who will throw his credibility out the window for some votes.

[Guest American Woman]

Every single McCain ad I've seen has been about Obama; Obama is going to do this, that, or the other thing or Obama did this, that, or the other thing-- and then ends with 'McCain for President.' I have not seen one ad saying what McCain is going to do.