Ok. This isn't a 'sky is falling' diary. Despite the worry from some corners of Kos, I still like our chances this fall for many of the reasons outlined in this recommended diary that makes a sound argument for Obama's ground game strategy. However, I took a look at Obama's latest attack ads over at Open Left, and I came away a little puzzled.
First let me say this: I'm glad he's airing strong ads, and I'd say many of these ads won't hurt his chances. Also, I was just reading a news blog wherein someone posted a comment that Obama was wise to bet on the economy, and to tie McCain to Big Oil which he does in at least a couple of the ads. I certainly have no quarrel with that line of reasoning. Nonetheless, I still came away with a nagging feeling that there was something missing in these ads. Then, as I was slicing jalapenos for my pizza, it hit me: the problem with these ads, although they're definitely effective, is that they're too issue oriented.
People have diaried the attack ads before but Sullivan does a nice job of talking about the hows and whys.
Does his analysis make sense with what people are seeing around the country?
I live in Oregon where we see very little advertising on the national race. I have read about the DHL ad in Ohio, the Yucca Mountain ad in nevada, and others.
When I grew up, my father owned a computer consulting firm. On each of his business cards was his firm's slogan. In that slogan is an idea that many people, especially in today's age of high speed internet and rapid response blogging, fail to understand. It's a simple idea.
There is time to do it right.
It's a slogan that reasonably explained my father's idea about his work. He believed that it is better to spend more time on a project and get it right than try to push something non-functional, bug-ridden, etc. onto a customer. It has had the effect of maintaining an incredibly dedicated customer base to his company.
Note that this slogan does not imply there is an infinity of time to get the job done. It implies that you can rush and put in a patch job that makes a bigger mess of things in the long run, or you can work solidly and get the job done right the first time. You can overreact to an issue and hack something together that deals with it in the short term, or you can lay out a plan of action and follow through on it and have a fix that lasts longterm.
So what does this have to do with political strategy?
Here is a new video from the Obama Campaign that tends to get records straight by debunking the lies in the McCain attack ads.
In this one, the Deputy Economic Policy Director of the Obama campaign explains step by step Senator Obama's propositions on taxes while showing how the McCain campaign makes it sound like it is bad for low income families, seniors, and small businesses.
(Notice that the show an elderly black woman when you hear senior in the ad)
Today Michael Carmichael wrote about problems the Democratic Party has encountered in August in the past. I love history, and I immediately liked most of the article. I thought the idea of Colin Powell as Vice President was interesting, although I question the logic that dictates how much Powell would bring to the ticket. I am not qualified to judge Carmichael's statements, however.
Unfortunately Carmichael also discussed the daily popular voting polls in his article. He referred to the General Election campaign as a "dead even horse race." This struck me as irresponsible, and not just because today's polls have Obama coming in at five to six points ahead of Mr. Wrinkly. More significantly I just read an article seconds before called "Electoral Math Charts Updated" by Chris Weigant. Electoral votes, the ones that count, show Obama with a big lead right now. ChrisWeigant.com provides daily updates on this.
John McCain has been getting away with a lot of crap, partly because political reporters -- the people he calls "my base" -- don't want to ask him rude questions. But just in case one of them were to wake up one morning feeling cranky (or professional), I've put together a list of questions for McCain, to be asked in the same hectoring tone that reporters use when demanding that Obama explain why he hasn't learned to love The Surge.
Since it seems unlikely that reporters will actually use them, I commend them to the attention of attendees at town hall meetings, and for use if the public is asked to submit questions for the debates this fall.
Don't you think you were presumptuous when you claimed to be "the American president Americans have been waiting for"? Weren't George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, the two Roosevelts, JFK, and Ronald Reagan "American presidents"?
Why did your campaign make an attack video poking fun at the idea of Barack Obama on the $100 bill, and, having done so, how could you attack Sen. Obama again for saying that you would try to point out that he didn't look like the pictures on the currency?
Please add your questions in comments; I'm going to keep updating this list until November.
John McCain has become so enamored of the surge in Iraq, which he has trademarked and owns exclusive rights to (and which did not lead to the Anbar Awakening), that it is now his answer to everything. Last week he proposed a surge in our cities to keep the population under control. He honestly believes that America needs armed government thugs on every corner. Now he proposes an "Economic Surge." John McCain says, "We'll fight those pesky market indicators with our own, better equipped market indicators. We will bring war to every aspect of life in the United States. We're going to have a Straight Surge to fight the Gays. We're going to have a Religious Surge to fight every person who believes in the wrong things. By God, we will definitely have a White Surge to combat the uppity Illinois Senator. And thanks to Viagra, I will have a surge in my pants too." (paraphrased)
Good for MSNBC! I was thinking of this as part of a response for the Obama campaign to the "celebrity" nonsense, but this morning I saw that MSNBC said it already:
As with the Britney-Paris ad, it calls Obama "the biggest celebrity in the world" (despite McCain's own appearances in "24" and "Wedding Crashers" and a TV movie about him), and it also hits Obama on taxes and spending.
Many people are beginning to show signs of nervousness as a result of last weeks soft response by the Obama team. Many of those people are Democratic Strategist. Even Governor Rendall said he telephoned the Obama people to tell them they were not responding strong enough to McCain's attacks. But, others question whether Obama should forcefully attack McCain for fear that it may hurt Obama's brand of "new politics". What do you think?
FactCheck.org has run this today, which cites the most recent Obama ad as inaccurate.
According to the piece:
Obama released a TV spot saying McCain's campaign got $2 million from "Big Oil" while McCain proposed "another $4 billion in tax breaks" for the industry.
The truth is that McCain's campaign has received $1.33 million from individuals employed in the oil and gas industry, not $2 million. Obama himself has received nearly $400,000, according to the most authoritative figures available. We find the $2 million figure is based on a mistaken calculation.
Fact Check goes on to state that the Obama camp is misrepresenting McCain’s tax breaks as being specifically for oil companies.
We've all seen the ads. You know the ones, John McCain bashing Barack Obama for being inexperienced, blaming him for high gas prices, accusing him of being - gasp! - popular. You know, this one. We've seen those ads, we've heard the analysis on TV and in print, we've even written our own outrage here and elsewhere. It seems that the biggest beef we have is that these ads (this one in particular) seems vaguely racist to a lot of us. I don't know that they were particularly racist. They idea behind this ad is that Barack Obama is similar to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton: he's a vapid celebrity that's famous for being famous. The fact that anyone can make such a comparison with a straight face to a man who was president of the Harvard Law Review and professor of Constitutional Law at University of Chicago Law School proves not that that man is a racist trying to inflame fears of "the other" or that "the black man is coming for your pretty white daugher," but that that man is attempting to trivialize the very office he seeks to hold.
In the last two weeks or so, the McCain campaign has pissed through millions of dollars launching asinine attack adds in several states presumably in an attempt to "define" Obama and neutralize any post-trip "bump" that he might have received. To a certain extent, these attacks have been effective in knocking Obama off-message. Clearly, the McCain campaign wants to talk about anything but the issues. Lacking in original ideas and actual solutions, they are running as fast as they can to paper over the fact that they represent little more than a Bush third term.
I agree with this article that the attack ads have been effective in seizing the attention of voters and the media, taking the D/Obama campaign off message -- and creating a general atmosphere of doubt about Obama that will make it exceedingly difficult for the Obama campaign to regain and maintain message and momentum.
I'm frustrated with lack of hard-hitting ads on McCain. The "Pocket's" a good start. But, I think there's sort of general cynicism that every pol's in someone's pocket, so it becomes a "six of one, half dozen of the other" choice in voter's minds. I don't think it's an issue that will resonate with voters. McCain's image as a "straight talking, honorable man" (even in the face of so much contrary evidence) inoculates him from this attack.
I'd like to see some hard hitting attacks on McCain's voting record. This is a way to educate people that McCain is largely getting by on good press and an image that is no longer accurate (if EVER was).
But absent Obama's desire, or will (?) to do this, I'm curious why, aside from the Move On "Alex" ad, we've seen so few independent 527s launching any campaigns.
I have run across this well-produced, grass-roots response to "Celebrity" ad.
This year’s biggest summer blockbuster may never be seen in the theatre. This year the prize for most hyped movie of the summer goes to campaign attack ads or....ATTACK OF MCCAIN: AD WARS 08! Featuring an all-star cast that includes Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Charlton Heston and of course this summer’s biggest celeb...THE CHOSEN ONE! OBAMA!!!!!
My dad is a Vietnam veteran. He was in Vietnam on Admiral McCain's ship when John McCain crashed. My dad has a lot of respect for Admiral McCain and that respect passed on to John McCain. No matter how many times I have tried to tell him that John McCain is not who he thinks he is, he has continued to think he is the bee's knees.
Well, today hell must have frozen over. Why? Because my dad actually said, "I don't like that new attack ad that McCain is running against Obama."
