The more I think about Obama's purchase of primetime airwaves in the week before the election, the more I dislike the idea. At the various points in the primary and general election campaign where Obama has perceived to have gotten "overexposure", there's been a backlash. After the Iowa caucus victory, Hillary Clinton surprised everyone by winning in New Hampshire five days later, at least partly due as a protest against the surge in hype about Obama. After Obama's successful tour of the Middle East and speech in Germany, the voting public was easy prey to the McCain campaign's demagoguery of Obama being "the world's biggest celebrity". This primetime TV infomercial buy ultimately feeds into the same David vs. Goliath narrative from the McCain campaign and has serious potential of backfiring.
Could I be all wrong about this? Sure. Obama's favorables have gone up due to widespread face time with the public during the debates. And the infomercials could prove to be very compelling, so it's a definite possibility that the gambit could yield positive returns.
Nonetheless, my gut tells me this could go down as one of the biggest mistakes in American political history, since it simultaneously puts Obama into the "overexposure" danger zone that has been an Achille's heel in the past and turns McCain into the underdog, railing against Moneybags Obama buying his way into your living room and interrupting your World Series games.
So how should Obama spend his glut of money instead? Why not put out traditional campaign ads in red states (and some blue states)? There's currently talk of Obama potentially running ads in Kentucky. Go for it. And run ads in Tennessee too while you're at it. And Arkansas. And even Oklahoma. Wouldn't this be a less risky way of accomplishing the same thing Obama is doing with the national primetime ad buy?