Well, if it associates him in the public mind with stupid, pretty, drug-addled sluts . . . that’s quite a voting bloc right there, isn’t it?
Is McCain running his own campaign or not? He hired these people, he’s approving these ads, he’s pushing these attacks in interviews and pressers. Like many of his so-called beliefs, running a respectable campaign went out the window as soon as he saw it was a loser for him. The man desperately wants to be president.
Haven’t negative adds by and large ALWAYS worked? If i remember right even Hillary started doing better after going negative, no matter how much she was condemned for it on the boards and by the DNC. The Britney/Paris add is pretty ridiculous though so that one might not really help, i wonder what the Hiltons who donated the maximum amount to McCain think of him using their daughter as an insult.
I could very well be wrong, but no, I don’t have the impression that McCain is running his own campaign. My feeling is he’s being handled, and yes, to a higher degree than politicians are normally handled.
I imagine a bullpen session between McCain and his crew going something like this:
JM: My friends, I know you’re all working hard, and want to win this thing as much as I do, believe me, but I think we need to start focusing on preparing for the debates, and getting Obama to commit to some dates here.
Crew: John, we’re freaking dying here. Our ploy to denigrate Obama for not going to Iraq backfired…
JM: …well, see, my friends, that’s what I m…
Crew: …John! We have to up the ante here, okay? We want to run a series of ads promoting Obama’s negatives, you know, let the public know the real Obama, ratchet up the fear quotient…
JM: …but…
Crew: A subliminal reference to his race perhaps, even though that can get a little dicey for…
JM: …What!? wait a minute…
Crew: John, we’re not getting traction here. We need to go full bore now. The gloves need to come off.
JM: My friends…
Crew: John, we all respect you, you know that, but the public needs to know how great you really are. How best to do that than to knock Obama off his pedestal publicly?
JM: Now listen, I said I wanted to run a campaign on the issues only…
Crew: John, the issue is we’re losing. Now, one of the ideas is to run an ad ridiculing Obama’s popularity. We can include shots of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton to tie…
JM: Brit who? And what does France have to do with this?
Crew: John, just let us handle things, okay? We won’t let you down.
JM: Uh…
Crew: Oh, and it’s okay to use your approval recording for the ads, right? Thanks John!
JM: Um…
Her first major negative roll-out was in Wisconsin where she was tromped by margins larger than anyone expected. Her second was in Ohio & Texas. Ignoring the technical tie in TX, she only won Texas by a few percent when it should have been a pretty easy state (not saying the ads hurt, just that they didn’t seem to help much). Ohio and Pennsylvania were uphill for Obama no matter what and I don’t think we can just attribute the ads to her wins.
I’m not saying negative ads can’t work, I just don’t think the Clinton campaign is the best example of proving they work.
Conventional wisdom is that they hurt the target, but also hurt the candidate who is going negative.
Well… If a candidate has personal flaws or weaknesses, it’s perfectly valid to bring them up. I don’t know how you avoid the label of ‘going negative’ when you point out that your opponent is lacking in some way. I don’t see why that should be off the table.
Obama has a thin resume and little experience at the national level. He has no education in economics or military strategy, no experience in the military, and is relatively young.
These are valid things to bring up in a campaign.
McCain is old, and brings a risk of dying in office or having his brain deteriorate. He’s spent 20 years in a Washington bubble. He has almost no executive experience. These are also valid things to bring up in a campaign.
I would argue that both candidates should be ‘going negative’ to some degree, because there SHOULD be a debate about their relative personal strengths and weaknesses.
What distresses me is not the negative campaigning, but the horrible lack of substance in general in most presidential campaigns, including this one. The level of debate just sucks in general. McCain and Obama should be called up to spell our their policies in detail and answer hard questions about them. This never seems to happen. The media is increasingly focused on ‘process’ analysis - who’s leading, and why? Did this trip hurt? Was that photo-op a bad idea? Just like the last election, they’re covering this one like it’s a sporting event, rather than a choice for the direction of a country.
I wish there was some real innovation in media coverage. For example, instead of having the candidates answer questions, how about telling them to assemble their economic advisors, who are going to debate the other side’s economic advisers? Put their best people up against each other and let them pick apart each other’s plans.
Instead of questions in the debates coming from political pundits or reader write-ins, how about letting each side submit a few questions for the other? They can be constrained to be not personal, maybe have an independent panel decide whether the questions are ‘push questions’ of the ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’ type. But if a campaign thinks the other side has a real policy weakness that matters, how about allowing them to put the question in a debate?
I like the idea of making both candidates sit across from each other and just talk to each other for an hour on TV. Let’s see them think on their feet. Let’s find out how good they really are at debate. Let’s see how deep their knowledge is not just by how well they can produce a sound bite, but how much depth they exhibit by the types of questions they ask the other candidate.
This would be a useful insight into how they will be able to manage foreign leaders or leaders of Congress. A large part of the Presidency is just sitting down with someone and convincing them that your point of view is correct. Let’s see them actually do that against each other.
Presidential campaigns are becoming far too controlled and managed by the campaigns themselves. It’s amazing that the U.S. presidential campaign can go on for two freaking years, and by the end it’s still hard to tell what the candidates really believe, how much they really know, and what they’d do once in office. It’s politics for the Oprah generation.
His taste in tea or lettuce is not.
Haven’t seen the pro-McCain ad but the description reminds me of the “revolving door” “anti”-Dukakis ad. Half the people are gonna think “what a stupid Pro-McCain ad”, the other half are gonna think “what a stupid pro-Obama ad”.
Where I work, we have a government relations team. A person from that team recently spoke to my department and he said that negative ads are not intended to persuade people to vote for the attacking candidate, but to keep people from voting at all. And that it works.
The “Celeb” ad is just another (admittedly, more extreme) take on the “Obama is all style and no substance” theme that has been used by Obama’s opponents back to the primary. The ad itself is ridiculous, but I think the theme has traction and that the McCain campaign will be hammering it again and again, in various different ways, from now until November.
Anecdote: my Republican mother-in-law literally said just a few days about Obama: “Where’s the substance?” I said: “Well, have you read his positions on his website?” No. “Have you read The Audacity of Hope”? No. “Well, I guess it is somewhat difficult to see any substance if you haven’t bothered to look.”
I suspect this is a campaign theme that will be effective among the lazy. Unfortunately, I also suspect that there are a lot of people who fall into that category.
But, I’m hopeful, not enough to matter.
My take is that the presidential debates became basically useless as anything but a runway fashion show once the campaigns decided that they didn’t like actually answering substantive questions and shut the League of Women Voters out of the whole thing. The League is adamantly non-partisan and has an excellent reputation as a neutral party. The campaigns decided they’d rather answer softball questions in a candidate-friendly format and basically said “We’re not dealing with you” in the mid-80s.
Yah, okay. Obama can bring up McCain’s age or possible onset of dementia only if he wants to lose. McCain’s flipfloppery, however, is a valid campaign issue, which Obama has been good at addressing.
You might also remind her Obama was a constitutional-law prof. That’s pretty substantial. Almost as good as being an economist.
I would really like to see the Obama campaign play up the “Bush 3” aspect of McCain’s new post-maverick politics.
I don’t know about you guys, but when I hear Barack Obama speak in front of hundreds of thousands of people, I immediately think of a couple of dumb blonde sluts. Either that or Adolf Hitler.
Yes, I agree, but ultimately the voters are responsible for this. The candidates are bargaining to be YOUR representative, and you should be telling them what you need to know to make your decision.
The real problem is partisanship and a 2-party system. When you have so much of each side willing to unquestionably back ‘their’ guy, you give the candidates far too much leeway.
Even if you like Obama or McCain and want to vote for them, you should still be able to say, “Hey, you know I’d like to vote for you, but come on… That was a sucky, non-substantive answer. You’re going to have to do a lot better than that to get my vote.”
Another problem is the media itself. They’re just horrible at their jobs. Maybe the media needs fewer J-school grads, and more specialist journalists who have good educations in various subjects and focus on reporting them. They do that with science reporting to some degree, but when it comes to politics, the ‘hard questions’ are being asked by idiots who wouldn’t know a substantive question if it bit them in the ass.
And comparing him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton was a perfectly reasonable way of doing it. Gotcha.
I assume you won’t object if some lefty 527 runs ads comparing McCain to some street crazy who has shouted conversations with invisible beings on street corners.
It’s really not that hard to find out. Both candidates have websites which give their stands on issues.
However, you’re going to find out very little about their stands by reading the mainstream press, or watching TV news/talk. The generation that still gets their information that way is going to be woefully underinformed. I have absorbed far more information about where the candidates - both of them - stand by reading lefty blogs. (Can’t speak for righty blogs.) For all the bit and bull about how newspapers report, and blogs just give opinions, I find it to be just the opposite with respect to the candidate’s positions on issues during a campaign.