In The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote, “I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” That proved to be an asset throughout the Democratic primaries; but we have been seeing in the general election that a blank screen is also something on which people can project their biggest fears.
I was initially skeptical that the “celebrity” ads were a winning strategy for the GOP, but as soon as the McCain campaign showed its determination to air ads after ads pushing that theme, I realized that they could be effective because they played into the central fear voters have about Obama - that they do not know enough about him to take the risk of electing him. And it is the fact that Obama still represents a mystery (no doubt partly because of his race and biography) that explains why the GOP is playing on so many narratives at the same time, many of which appear to contradict each other.
Obama as a Britney-like celebrity would seem to rule out his being a Manchurian candidate intent on destroying America or his being a radical black liberationist looking to upset white America; and if he is just a naive spirit, can Obama also be a corrupted politician, seasoned in the establishment machine? If it were running against a more defined candidate, the McCain campaign would be committing political malpractice by pushing so many contradicting themes that none would be likely to stick. But the situation is different against Obama: their argument is not necessarily that Obama is Britney, nor that he is a radical anarchist or a corrupt politician, but simply that there is no way of knowing (”What do you know about Barack Obama?” asked yesterday’s Ayers ad), that Obama is too much of a risk.
The GOP argument comes to this: Until voters know for sure that he isn’t a terrorist and until they know for sure he isn’t a vapid pop sensation and until they know for sure that he isn’t a cross of Malcolm X and Jeremiah Wright, they should go for McCain, with whom they have had a trusting relationship for a long time.
At what point does the McCain campaign overplay its hand? Today, the McCain campaign unveiled yet another version of its celebrity ad, and this one makes me scratch my head even more than previous ones:
“Celebrities don’t have to worry about family budgets,” a female announcer says with the familiar background noise of supporters chanting “O-ba-ma.” And she continues: “But we sure do.” Coming a day after McCain’s comments on houses, is this really where McCain wants to take the debate right now? And is the ad’s use of the pronoun “we” not going to make him even more vulnerable to reports about the number of houses he owns - especially as it comes in a message McCain has sponsored?
It is true that the houses story does not reinforce a prior impression voters have of McCain, thus limiting its impact; but McCain is trying to make himself look like part of the middle-class (as opposed to the wealthy/elitist/aragula-loving Obama), so reports about his wealth could make him look like a fraud. (Not to mention that Obama’s ad on houses might also be playing on McCain’s age with statements like “he lost track,” and that’s another topic on which McCain is vulnerable.)
By making the election about character, they are opening the Arizona Senator to also be attacked - something Kerry did not really do against Bush in 2004. The houses fiasco was a debacle for the McCain campaign, as it was the sort of gaffe that the non-political press covers extensively since it allows them to do what they have to do (cover politics) but keep an entertainment angle. Marc Ambinder notes that local nightly news all over the country had a segment about McCain’s gaffe last night, for instance this one in Raleigh-Durham. We will see how far Democrats are able to push this, but their coordination yesterday was very impressive: Within hours, the Obama campaign had released an ad, surrogates had been mobilized and the episode had been integrated to Obama’s stump speech.
And however strong McCain’s Rezko ad was (it certainly has the potential of being effective), having both Tony Rezko and William Ayers reintroduced in the political conversation on August 21st, right before Obama’s VP pick and the Democratic nomination, could not be what the McCain campaign was envisioning. Yes, Rezko will be in the news for a long time since his sentencing will take place on October 28th (talk about bad timing for Obama), but these are attacks the GOP was keeping stored somewhere to launch larger attacks at a time they would have better control of the message. They can certainly push Rezko/Ayers more, but given that both stories were rehashed in the Democratic primary the press will start treating them as old news at some point.
Update: The Obama campaign has released a second ad exploiting McCain’s houses comments. It is very similar to the one released yesterday (it still uses McCain’s quotes that the economy is strong, and refers to his $5 millions comments), but it attacks McCain much more directly for being rich himself and for being out of touch (it calls him a “country club Republican”). The ad also uses footage of McCain in a golf cart with Bush senior, in what is both a reference to his wealth (golf cart, leisurely) and most certainly to his age:
It’s still unclear where the ad will run, and whether Obama is getting a bigger buy than the national cable he went for yesterday. So the election has now become a contest on which candidate is richer - with McCain’s ad saying Obama did not have a tight budget and Obama’s saying that the economy is strong for people like McCain. But the Republican will not win this game because, well, McCain is much wealthier and Obama does not have eight houses. Note that Obama uses the pronoun “you,” which leaves him less open to the criticism of being a fraud, whereas the pronoun “we” in McCain’s ad is what I found particularly offensive.
It doesn’t seem like George W. Bush is getting much air time this summer. One of Obama’s advantages, along with any Democrat, is Bush’s unpopularity. Obama should stick with the argument that electing McCain would be the same as giving Bush a third term. I think this argument, along with a plan to solve our energy crisis, will give Obama the extra push across the finish line.
McCain has done a great job in the last 6 weeks on getting his campaign running on all 8 cylinders. I thought that he would fade in the polls, but he has proven me wrong time and again. I only hope that Obama can lift his message to the people in time to end McCain’s momentum.
As Pat Buchanan says when will McCain close the deal. He has outspent Obama, had 4 weeks of good press with Obama on the defensive, had the drilling issue and some Clinton melodrama and yet he can do no better than tie (and in most polls is 1-3% behind).
After the convention and VP picks, assuming no problems for Obama, Obama will be able to outspend McCain, his ground operation will come into its own and any naivety about McCain and his campaign will have gone. This will most likely lead to an increased lead for Obama.
The main point of the Obama ads isn`t to say McCain is very wealthy (certainly in there) but the main point is to paint his as out of touch. Taken with his comments about the economy doing well, $5million plus being rich etc they do build a picture of an out of touch person - being 72 also does not help remove that doubt.
We’ve got energy issues, economy issues, health care issues, foreign policy issues, and the candidates are talking about…the house or houses their opponent lives in?
It’s ridiculous. What kind of a house you live in says nothing about your policies or leadership. FDR lived in a humongeous house, with several other houses. He did more for the non-wealthy than any president in US history.
In response to the reporter’s question, McCain should have said “What does where I happen to live have to do with my policies?” Obama should say that whether or not McCain knows how many houses he or his wife own, McCain doesn’t have an economic plan that adds up (or a health care plan at all).
But instead we get the same old same old, from two candidates that some had hoped would really engage on the issues. So much for the high road.
And the press, the press–why aren’t more in the press excoriating their colleagues for amplifying these irrelevancies instead of asking what they have to do with the hard decisions we should be facing as a nation?
And people wonder why our politics is such a constant disappointment.