Campaign Diaries

Let’s face it, negative ads often work and candidates who believe otherwise learn that the hard way (see Kerry, John). The McCain campaign’s attacks on Obama’s character, suspicious rhetoric and celebrity-like lack of substance allowed the GOP to take control of the race’s coverage for the first time in months - but even their Rezko ad paled in comparison to the swift-boating standard. And with reports indicating that no credible independent groups were emerging in 2008 as they did in 2004, it appeared like we would get through the summer without Swift Boat-style efforts to tarnish the candidates.

Four days ago, however, a group called the American Issues Project released an ad linking Obama to William Ayers and announced they would put $3 million behind it in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Michigan. It was still a question mark as to whether they would actually follow through, and whether they had that much money, but that question was answered today. The group, funded by wealthy conservatives, indeed made that large an ad buy - guaranteeing that plenty of voters in all those states will hear that Obama has ties with a former member of a terrorist group.

When an ad goes into swift-boating territory, it becomes difficult to predict what impact it might have - at which point will it cross the line after which attacks backfire? 2004 showed that line is pretty hard to cross, especially when an attack feeds a pre-existing narrative, however unfair and baseless that narrative is. The storyline the AIP ad pushes (that Obama is an enigma whose true allegiances and principles are unknown) is one that has been floated for months, and this ad clearly has the potential to be damaging.

(Note: Another ad, released by the Black Republican PAC, is now airing in some Ohio markets accusing Obama of “infanticide.” It is unclear how big this ad buy is - until we get an indication that it is a big buy this doesn’t necessarily deserve more attention, but it confirms that GOP-leaning groups are dialing up their attacks.)

The Obama campaign immediately went on the war path to push back on the ad’s message. They have two different strategies. First, unveil the response ad that will start airing on Monday:

In 2004, John Kerry waited too long a time before answering the Swift Boat ads. By the time he finally organized a push-back, it was too late to convince the electorate that what they had been hearing for weeks was baseless. This year, the Obama campaign is wasting no time to point out two basic fact-checking information: (1) That Obama was eight years old when the attack the ad references occurred and (2) Obama has “denounced” the “crimes” of “radical” Bill Ayers.

What is very interesting is that Obama’s ad attributes the attack to John McCain - even though it is an independent expenditure that has not been coordinated with his campaign. This is a way to tie McCain with the increasing negativity of the campaign and make him suffer whatever backlash the AIP’s spot receives. And the McCain campaign made as surprising a choice - to embrace the AIP’s charge and respond to Obama’s response by pushing the Ayers attack. Said McCain’s spokesperson:

“The fact that Barack Obama chose to launch his political career at the home of an unrepentant terrorist raises more questions about Senator Obama’s judgment than any TV ad ever could. And the fact that he’s launching his own Convention by defending his long association with a man who says he didn’t bomb enough U.S. targets tells us more about Barack Obama than any of tonight’s speeches will.”

As far as I can remember, Bush never embraced the swift-boat ads this closely, as he was content to let independent groups demolish Kerry’s reputation over the summer. But the McCain campaign has just indicated that Ayers is fair game, and prepare to hear much more about it in the next few weeks.

Obama’s second strategy could be even more effective - if it succeeds. The campaign is working to get the ad off the airwaves. As Ben Smith reports, they have filed a complaint with the Department of Justice claiming that the ad directly advocates against Obama’s candidacy, something independent groups cannot do if they want to escape spending limits. The campaign is organizing its supporters to send in thousands of letters to TV stations pressuring them to not air the ad. Finally, the campaign is pointing out that there is no evidence that Ayers is connected to the Capitol bombing and that networks could be opening themselves up to slander. CNN, Fox News and some local affiliates are not airing the ad, though other networks (and Sinclair’s networks) are.

Overall, Democrats have reason to both worry and be reassured. On the one hand, Republican-leaning independent groups are better funded and more determined to tarnish the Illinois Senator than was believed a few months ago. On the other hand, the Obama campaign’s strategy to deal with such attacks is more aggressive one than John Kerry’s was four years ago.