Update: And it’s now John McCain’s turn, as the Republican released a second version of his “celeb” ad this morning. Once again, the ad (watch it here) starts with the line “He’s the biggest celebrity in the world” and goes on to the question “But is he ready to help your family?” The ad concludes in the same chilling voice as the previous spot: “Higher taxes, more government spending, fewer taxes.” This time, there are no pictures of Spears and Hilton. Note that the ad’s second half features McCain’s own plan - something the previous two attack ads didn’t do.
The fact that McCain is releasing this second version 5 days after the first one suggests they are satisfied with the reactions they got and that internal polling is showing that attacking Obama’s inexperience is working. If we leave aside the use of the word “celebrity,” after all, the “is he ready to lead” attack has always been Obama’s obvious vulnerability. And Jonathan Martin notes that McCain’s “original maverick” ad does not look like it will show that much on TV; if true, that would confirm that McCain wants to keep the campaign as focused on Obama as possible, even at the expense of airing any positive ad.
Original post: And the ad wars continue - this is the fourth straight post today devoted to them. Just this morning, I noted that Obama’s “national priority” ad was a step in the right direction in terms of hitting McCain where he is most vulnerable - his party label. But I added that it was hard to shake off the impression that Obama did not seem particularly committed to getting the spotlight off of himself and putting it on his opponent.
A few hours later and within a single day of McCain’s “original maverick” spot, Obama’s campaign answered those doubts by releasing its first buzz-generating negative ad and its first attack that does not look to be a defensive reaction. This is Obama’s harshest attack ad yet, and it’s the first time he is using McCain’s own words against him:
The ad starts with images from McCain’s ad: “He’s the original maverick.” “Really?” asks an announcer, as a clip of McCain from 2003 is shown: “The president and I agree on most issues. There was a recent study that showed that I voted with the president over ninety percent of the time.” As if that was not enough to damn McCain in an election year in which Bush has been transformed into the ultimate pariah, an announcer goes on to list Bush’s policies McCain has supported: “John McCain supports Bush’s tax cuts for millionaires, but nothing for a hundred million households. He’s for billions in new oil company giveaways, while gas prices soar. And for tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.” Then comes the punchline: “The original maverick? Or just more of the same?”
It is hard for the GOP to cry foul when the ad’s most damning part is a lengthy clip of McCain. We have known for a long time that Republicans were worried about McCain’s careless statements throughout the spring, and the Obama campaign has many more it can use: 100 years, “bomb Iran” and withdrawal being “not so important.” In those cases, at least, Republicans could argue that Obama was distorting McCain’s meaning - and there certainly is a legitimate argument they can make about “100 years” and “not so important.” But there isn’t much McCain can say to diffuse the meaning of this particular statement, made at a time the Arizona Senator was trying to demonstrate the sincerity of his attachment to the President.
Over the past two months, and despite the fact that letting the election be a referendum on his person looks to be the only way he could lose the election, Obama did not do much to force McCain to share the spotlight - quite the contrary. And many Democrats were getting worried that Obama effectively shutting down most 527s and independent groups would leave no one to make use of McCain’s statements. Now, Obama, apparently spurred by the “celeb ad” and the urgency of moving on from the week-end’s race conversation, seems to be willing to go there.
Now, it is McCain who looks to be on the defensive - and the political conversation now shifts to his association to President Bush. His campaign released a statement tonight in response to Paris Hilton’s afternoon release: “It sounds like Paris Hilton supports John McCain’s ‘all of the above’ approach to America’s energy crisis - including both alternatives and drilling. Paris Hilton might not be as big a celebrity as Barack Obama, but she obviously has a better energy plan.” While the last statement is a somewhat humorous zing, what does it say about the McCain campaign’s anxiety level that they felt the need to put out an answer to Paris Hilton?
The Olympics will probably put a temporary stop to the mounting rhetoric, but both campaigns have plenty of tricks up their sleeve for the next three months. Over the past two weeks, Obama and McCain showed their were not afraid of being aggressive. With far fewer independent groups than they were four years ago, the campaigns might have to take on a lot of the negative work that was left to 527s in 2004.
That clip is from 2003. Obama has nothing better to use? McCain didn’t vote for Bush’s energy bill, Obama did. McCain isn’t like other Republicans and Democrats have to fish old clips to justify that McCain=Bush. Voters aren’t buying it and that’s why McCain will win.
Come on, Pat - he’s a great supporter 5 years ago, but now he’s a maverick who’s heading for the hills at the sound of W’s name?
This site is for incisive commentary and analysis of poll data, not just mouthing ritualistic slogans for our favorite candidates. There are plenty of other places for that sort of thing.
There is more recent material they could use - like in March 2008 when McCain had lunch with Bush and had a press conference in the Rose Garden. McCain for too long has tried to have it both ways - Maverick to appeal to Independents etc and solid Conservative when he needs GOP votes in the primary.
The timing for Obama is excellent because this will generate buzz and will consume the next couple of days media and then on Friday the Olympics start - I don`t agree everything will be drowned out by them but the last full media cyles before them will be McCain on the defensive and that will be remembered by people until the conventions/VP picks.
There is plenty of video footage of Obama that can be used by the McCain camp, and they won’t have to go back 5 years to get it.
Remember Obama’s answer to the debate question about responding to a nuclear attack?…making sure first responded are properly funded.
Remember Obama’s debate position on the surge?…it won’t work and hasn’t worked.
Not only does the McCain camp have Obama on the defense over energy, they can always put him on defense over military issues as well.
I would like the Obama campaign go after McCain more on simple facts.
McCain supports offshore drilling even though our own government says it won’t lower gas prices. Where’s the “straight talk” on that?
McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts because they were biased towards the wealthy and were not offset by spending cuts; now he supports keeping them.
McCain says democratic tax plans would devastate the economy, even though most people’s taxes would not go up and no one’s tax rates would be higher than under Clinton–and we all remember how devastated the economy was in those days.
McCain now says he wouldn’t even vote for his own immigration bill.
I liked the 2000 McCain when he actually told people some hard facts. This McCain seems like he’ll say whatever it takes to win, even if it means pushing bad policies.
(Hey, there’s a 30 second ad right there!)
TJ - there are even more instances of McCain not living up to his image. You don`t get to be in the senate for over 20 years and be 71 without having plenty of material on you.
If he gets too dirty all some 527 has to do is educta ethe public that McCain left his seriously ill first wife in the hospital and hooked up with a rich heiress (who he wants to go into a topless beauty contest - how Presidental!). So McCain needs to tread lightly.
TJ, the surge has not worked on a political level yet. Also if you criticise Obama for the judgement on the surge he was right about the war unless McCain and the neo-cons. How many people have died and how much money has been spent to go after none existent WMD’s?
Taniel - it is revealing that McCain wants to keep the spotlight on Obama. It would indicate he thinks he cannot win on his ideas or policy. Pretty damning for someone to want to be President and they are elected solely because you scare people about your opponent.
Obama is at last putting McCain in the spotlight - he is after all the original celebrity politican and when people realise how his has flipped position and what his current positions are then he will not win.
dsimon has an important point. McCain made it clear that his original opposition to the tax cuts was based on its lack of equity. Now, he’s cork-screwed around to saying that it was linked to his concern about deficit spending, and that once it’s balanced by more radical cuts in social spending (defense being sacrosanct), he’s become a fervent supply-sider.
Here’s what’s tricky about it. Dems have convinced themselves that voters will be up in arms over anything that tilts towards the rich when the rank and file are hurting. That has been consistently unproductive. The GOP has turned those charges aside with their ‘class warfare’ mantra.
So IMO the emphasis has to be on McCain’s malleability (to be polite) and his bonding with the Bush administration rather than on the perceived unfairness of the cuts. The one exception to that would be a focus on tax breaks for the oil companies at the time of windfall profits and astronomical energy prices.
McCain’s recent descent into unfounded negative and sneering attacks may well prove timely in that the Obama campaign will now take McCain more seriously. McCains campaign from when he won the nomination back in March to early July was ill disciplined in message and was poorly organised (including basics like appearing infront of a green screen etc). McCain’s campaign has improved and now Obama’s campaign will take that into account. Better now for Obama to take McCain seriously than in October.
Now, he’s cork-screwed around to saying that it was linked to his concern about deficit spending, and that once it’s balanced by more radical cuts in social spending (defense being sacrosanct), he’s become a fervent supply-sider.
And like most supply-siders, he’s failed to tell us what he’d cut to pay for not only extending the Bush tax cuts but the many other tax breaks he wants to enact. Democrats have failed to hit hard on this point before: people have to balance their earnings and spending, so why shouldn’t politicians have to do the same thing?
They should say that massive tax cuts with no spending cuts is neither conservative nor liberal; it’s just irresponsible.
Mike - My point is that there is plenty of video footage for both sides to run, so McCain won’t have any problems finding damaging clips of Obama.
To your point…if a liberal 527 group were to do that, you know that would be followed by a conservative 527 running ads with Reverend Wright damning America, Michelle’s “first pride” comment, Obama’s “bitter” comment, and so on… such a strategy would hurt both candidates, but Obama could actually come off more damaged by it than McCain.
Guy - the surge has obviously worked from a security standpoint, and political progress has been much slower to occur, but has and is happening. The point being that a majority of the public has already accepted (as proven by all polls) that the surge was a success. When posed with the question during his recent trip to Iraq, Obama stated that despite all the positives that came from the surge, he would still vote against it. That clouds his claim of superior military judgement over McCain. If you combine that deficiency with his initial anti-war stance, Obama could try to claim that his judgment is as good as McCain’s, but that’s not exactly a convincing argument for votes.
I agree that Obama muffed the question of the surge, and the only explanation that I can come up with is his reputed stubbornness. He’d rather be consistent and wrong than concede he initially couched his opposition on the likelihood it would increase and not decrease violence.
He was wrong on that. The surge demonstrably did suppress violence. That however is not end-game. The rationale for throwing more troops in was to give Iraqis the chance to cut a political deal and firm up the state infrastructure. That hasn’t happened and in fact the Kurds are now rolling marbles under the Arabs’ feet over Kirkuk.
The underlying issue is whether we’re prepping to get out, and how close the Iraqis are to taking over the main responsibility - or whether we’re in for a long-term occupation as part of a broader strategy to neutralize Iranian influence.
This isn’t exactly a mainstream issue when broached that way, but people who were justifiably exercised over this snipe hunt in the first place should reflect on what it means for McCain to surround himself with neocons like Lieberman and Graham. This isn’t just about helping Iraqis regain a civil life - it’s about control of strategic energy sources and holding a gun to the Iranians’ heads. The trouble is, they’re probably better at that game than we are. And ironically any stable and independent Iraqi government will almost certainly establish a close working relationship with the Iranians.