In August 2004, the Swift Boat ads hit John Kerry shortly after the end of his convention. Constrained by public financing limit (he had the same amount to spend as his opponent over a much longer period), Kerry thought he could get away without airing responses. The rest is history. This year, Barack Obama has no such problem and it only took him a few hours to release his response ad to McCain’s “celeb” spot:
The ad’s first part hits McCain for taking the low road and using the “same old politics” by using quotes from media outlets blasting McCain’s attacks as “baloney,” “not true,” “baseless.” (Obama used a very similar tactic against Hillary Clinton in the primary.) The ad uses Obama’s ultimate come-back: an image of McCain and Bush. The second part highlights proposals of Obama’s energy plan - an answer to the charges in McCain’s “celeb” ad that Obama had no plain to get the US out of “foreign oil.”
This is certainly not the harshest of responses, but against John McCain in particular it has the potential to be powerful. For a candidate to accuse his opponent of engaging in misleading attacks can be a useful counter, but it rarely constitutes an attack in and of itself because few politicians cultivate “honesty” as a central part of their image. McCain, on the other hand, presents himself as a “straight-talker” - and that perception of him as a maverick who has himself been a victim of slimy politics has long driven his popularity. For Obama to convince voters that McCain is now engaging in nasty attacks of his own could undermine the very core of McCain’s appeal.
Today, McCain stood by his ad: “All I can say is we’re proud of that commercial,” he said. The danger for him is that his campaign will be increasingly compared to that of George Bush, whereas he was supposed to be a different type of politician. That McCain’s increasingly negative rhetoric coincides with the rise of Steve Schmidt (a former protege of Karl Rove) makes for a ready media narrative. The New York Times’s blurb for its article on McCain’s “celeb” ad is: “Veterans of President Bush’s 2004 bid are coordinating an effort to create a negative narrative about Barack Obama.
In fact, the media’s reaction to McCain’s “celeb” ad is probably stronger than McCain expected. It is one thing for the New York Times to issue an editorial blasting him; it is quite another when local papers across the country to do so Here is the lede of the St. Petersburg Times’s editorial: “The Straight Talk Express has taken a nasty turn into the gutter. Sen. John McCain has resorted to lies and distortions in what sounds like an increasingly desperate attempt to slow down Sen. Barack Obama.” (The Times endorsed Kerry in 2004.) Or this “ad watch” published by a group of Ohio papers (The Plain Dealer, the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Columbus Dispatch, … ), some of whom endorsed Bush. This group gives the ad a “zero” on a “truthfulness rating.”
Seeking to drive this point home and ruin McCain’s image as a “straight talker,” groups supporting Obama are stepping up their attacks on the Republican nominee - particularly on the issue of energy, which has become quite the focus of this year’s election. For instance, MoveOn has just released a new ad, with a $150,000 buy, with a middle-age man complaining that McCain has abandoned his “principled” stance to endorse electoral “gimmicks” like offshore drilling (The Sierra Club is airing its own “six figure” ad in New Hampshire, Colorado and Ohio, also hitting McCain for his ties to Big Oil; you can view it here.):
None of this is to say that the ad will not be effective at furthering the narrative of an unexperienced Obama who lacks substance. In 2004, most commentators slammed the Swift Boat ads; but by airing their claims over and over again, the media introduced those themes in the public debate and Kerry never recovered. Hints of such a pattern emerged over the past few days: It has now been revealed that McCain barely put any cash behind last week’s ad accusing Obama of having canceled his visits to German troops and relayed on media coverage to get the message out.
Of course, we won’t know for a while how effective any of this is; perhaps will we look back in a few weeks, once we know how the elections proceeded and what themes ended up mattering. All I am saying is that the media’s dismissing McCain’s ad does not mean that it will not achieve its goal. Ever since Obama came back from his international trip, McCain’s claims about his rival - that he thrives on media coverage, that he does not care about the troops, that he lacks substance - have been driving the political discussion, leading people to talk about these issues and focusing the election on Obama’s biography and experience.
This conversation took an uglier turn today as the two campaigns fell in an argument over who was playing the race card. Some suggested that the McCain campaign’s use of two blond women is a racial tactic (a la Ford-Corker). Obama said yesterday, “What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me… You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.” The McCain campaign issued a blistering response, accusing Obama of playing “the race card.” This is something neither campaign wants to tackle too closely. McCain would be hurt by suggestions that he is engaging in racial tactics but Obama would be as hurt if white downscale voters (the group Obama had trouble with in the primary) come to think they are being accused of racist reactions.
Good analysis although I would say Obama is repsonding much better than Kerry did. I think they have learnt to some extent the lessons of 2004 (as have the media). It helps that he has money too!
In 2004 Bush etc got away with slurring Kerry and with no push back for weeks - Obama is pushing back strongly within a few days. The narrative is now of a nasty, non-straight talking McCain and this will run until next week when the Olympics may freeze news. Therefore the last thing people remember before the conventions could be “nasty, misleading’ McCain. Maybe not the best strategy for McCain - he may have won a few days tactical advantage at a great cost to his image. As you say time will tell.
One would have to be truly naive to think the “race card” (however you define it) will not be played in this election. I don’t think either party has sunk anywhere near the Ford-Corker race yet but they will. I expect the really offensive stuff too appear in late October when it will be too close to the election to rebuke effectively. A 527 or someone like the Tennessee Republican Party will dump a few mild overtly racist ads on line or in a small local buy and the media will go crazy; all the while replaying the ads every 5 minutes.
I really hope I’m wrong on this, but most recent past elections with black candidates have been marred by this tactic. Unfortunately it works.
The race card has been played in this election, by Clinton and now by Obama.
So the press is acting as the attack dogs for the Obama campaign against McCain. That used to be somewhat confined to the NYT, but now its spread far and wide and the polls prove the the public knows it. That’s why the Obama response ad will fall flat. Citing quotes from the media that loves him means zip, but highlighting how Obama is a media creation is quite powerful.
TJ - you are obviously a McCain supporter. You forget that McCain himself called the media his base back in 2000 and 2004. I suppose he flip-flopped on that (as on so many other things) and now attacks the media.
Obama is the elected Senator from Illinois so unless you say millions of American citizens are fools then Obama has substance. I notice Obama did better in the Illinois Democratic primary than McCain did in the Arizona GOP primary, umm maybe McCain’s own constituents don`t really like him.
McCain played the race card first with the Britney Spears/Obama ad - I haven`t heard McCain say anything positive or say what he would do - other than be Bush’s third term. You should consider that.
One thing (of many) that Kerry failed to do against Bush was go after his credibility when his ads or statements were purposely misleading or just wrong. Obama should hit back hard.
And he can do so without getting dirty himself. All he has to do is show how McCain said this and he’s wrong, he said that and he’s wrong, and he’s saying all these wrong things because he has nothing to offer on real issues that face Americans today. If McCain is going to run this kind of campaign, his “maverick” label will be replaced by a “misleader” label–but only if responses are swift and sure.
Funny you brought up Kerry’s name–it came up several times yesterday at a fair in Mississippi. I heard the speeches by both Wicker and Musgrove about their stances. Wicker brought up the name “Liberal Kerry” more than once. The funny thing about it was that Musgrove spoke first, and said that Wicker would try to point out that electing Musgrove would be a victory for the liberals like John Kerry and Obama. Then Wicker spoke and pretty much said what Musgrove said he would.
The Mississippi Senate race may become the nastiest race this year. These guys were former roommates. This reminds me of the 1992 US senate race between Sanford and Faircloth who were both very close in the early sixties.
Sorry to change the subject on you, but I wanted to post these comments.
dsimon - I agree with you. Obama has hit back not just with the ad but also in his comments in Iowa. If he repeats the comments and I like you idea of replacing maverick with misleader. The sort of thing the GOP would do!
Guy - Obviously you know little of how Obama got into the Senate. He was elected because the leading Democrat and Republican candidates were each caught in scandle regarding their divorce papers and had to drop out. Alan Keyes ended-up running for GOP. Even YOU could have beat Alan Keyes.
The race card has been played multiple times by Obama claiming that the McCain camp will use his race against him. The problem, and obvious Obama lie, is that it has not happened.
FYI…the Paris/Britney ad isn’t racist and you know it, though your faux-racist claims are now typical of the Obama campaign, and working class voters don’t like it. That’s why Obama’s polls are falling.
the Paris/Britney ad isn’t racist and you know it
I agree that it isn’t racist. I do think it’s tremendously irresponsible. What’s the point of the ad: that whoever is popular can’t be trusted? That Obama has the brainpower of Paris or Britney? Please.
It’s pure unsupported innuendo. It brings no factual material to the table to consider leadership ability. I thought McCain was better than that. And others may feel the same way: the ad may turn off as many swing voters as it attracts.
Some people have been disappointed with Obama’s perceived prevarications recently, saying “he’s just another politician after all.” But ads like these really may harm McCain’s reputation for integrity, making him the “just another politician.” Perhaps he thinks that it’s worth sacrificing his strength to go after what may be Obama’s perceived weakness. If so, I think he’s going to get the short end of that deal.
Upon further reflection, I’m not so sure the ad isn’t racist. I’ll revise my comment to say that it isn’t overtly racist; it’s hard to get more apparently brainless than Brittney and Paris. But I can’t say for sure that the ad’s creators weren’t also taking advantage of the additional subcontext that might play in certain parts of the country.
The most ridiculous part of this whole thing is that McCain said he’s proud of the ad. That’s a sad comment on his campaign.
The Paris/Britney ad was a dog-whistle ad. One person would look at it, and see a moderately lame comparison to a couple birdbrained socialites. Another person from a different part of the country sees a black guy linked to a couple oversexed blond women. The art of campaign advertising is building a narrative in the voter’s mind no matter who the actual target of the ad is. Similar to the notorious anti-Harold Ford “Call Me” ad, it hit a nerve that some voters will see, and many others wont. The one’s that didn’t got another message, the ones that did were the “dog-whistle demographic” of the ad.
The one thing that we can all agree on was it was an ad that oozed with the disrespect that the McCain camp clearly has for Obama. I’m not going to get into John McCain’s head to try to figure out why he has so little qualm disrespecting his opponents when he had claimed to want a clean, honorable, and issue based campaign, but he’s chosen to go this route.
This reminds me of his primary battle with Romney, where he “disliked” his rival so intensely and didn’t hesitate to outright distort Ronmey’s record and his words. I just wonder how much longer the press will stay in his corner when we’ve reached this point already 3 months before the election.
Another faux-racist accusation, proving my point.
The message of the ad was that Obama is a media created and sustained celeb, just like Paris and Britney. No substance, just fame.
Since its true, making that point doesn’t diminish McCain, but it does deflate Obama, and pisses off all his fans in the press, hence the reactionary faux-racist claims.
TJ, clearly you are a heavily invested McCain supporter, so I won’t argue with you to long. I’ll just say that if you think that any type of advertisement is only attempting to push one message to their target audience, then you haven’t studied media and advertising very closely. All effective ads work on multiple levels. Political ads are even more layered and nuanced, and often attempt to multiple messages to a wide variety of potential voters. After all, you’re trying to sell personalities mixed with abstract ideas, and the stakes are high.
Now, I’ll take you at face value when you say that you don’t see any racial component to the ad. But you’re either being naive with little understanding of the fault lines of racial politics, or you’re being intentionally obtuse by refusing to acknowledge that there are people in this country who would see the image of a younger, good looking black male with two hypersexualized white women, and let that seep into their subconcious. There’s a reason they didn’t use Tom Cruise and Oprah Winfrey in the ad.
I’ll grant you it was relatively tame this time around, but with the mounting push to label Obama “presumptuous” and “arrogant” for doing the exact same things that McCain himself has done in the very recent past, it was increasingly clear that they were approaching a line. Like I said earlier, the ad reeked more of disrespect than outright racism to me, but often in my own personal experience, one follows the other. If you let someone creep up to and cross a line at will, you might as well go home. So Obama addressed it as he has throughout this election.
So Obama pushed back and McCain claims that it’s Obama using race. I’m not surprised, this was going to happen at some point. This is probably a conversation that we need to have before the country is truly ready to be lead by an African American. Get it all out there on the table to deal with. Doesn’t make it any easier, but it’s something that we all need to deal with.
So, again TJ. I respect that you say that you didn’t see it. Understand that this has nothing to do with whether it was there. Everyday spent talking about race instead of the economy is a good day for John McCain, but we’ll undoubtedly have a few more days like this ahead of us.
The message of the ad was that Obama is a media created and sustained celeb, just like Paris and Britney. No substance, just fame.
Since its true…
I don’t think Paris or Britney were editors in chief of the Harvard Law Review, or taught constitutional law, or served in their state legislatures, or just impressed many of the world’s leaders on a recent tour.
It’s the commercial that lacks substance by making the comparison to two apparent airheads. What facts did the commercial bring to the viewer’s attention to back up its insinuations? None.
If McCain wants to ask if Obama is ready to lead, he can talk to the camera and raise this legitimate issue. But comparing him to two empty pop-culture stars is really beneath him. The fact that he says he’s “proud” of the ad only makes it worse.
McCain’s strongest asset was his straight-talk brand. But if he wants to have the “say anything to get elected” brand instead, I won’t stop him.