Campaign Diaries

Following McCain’s “original maverick” ad released this morning, the Obama campaign quickly fired back with an ad of its own, using McCain’s ties with President Bush, the lobbyists working on his campaign and Palin’s distortions on the bridge to nowhere to accuse the GOP ticket of being “no mavericks” and “more of the same:”

Overall, I am not sold on the ad’s visuals, as it seems more obvious than usual to me that the ad was produced in a few hours. And I am not sure how much a voter who does not follow every news of the campaign trail will get of that image of Palin and the “Nowhere Alaska” tee-shirt at first viewing, nor why the Obama campaign chose to attack her for flip-flopping rather than lying (after all, it is disputable that Palin can be said to have ever opposed the bridge, since she did so when it did not matter anymore, so why are Democrats granting that she “opposed” it at some point?).

However, the ad’s particular points and its overall strategy are strong, and exactly what Obama should now hit the GOP ticket on. August was mostly about Obama, the fall looks like it will mostly be about McCain and Palin. Obama welcomes that given the risks of letting his persona define voters’ choice and is moving to define McCain and Palin before they get a chance to redefine themselves. For instance, this is to my knowledge the first time the Obama campaign is using the lobbying ties of McCain aides in an ad,  a useful angle of attack that paints McCain as a creature of the establishment - the very thing he is trying to avoid.

Here, we go back to our discussion of risks of McCain’s abandoning the experience argument to argue that he represents more “change.” I discussed this in detail on Saturday, pointing out the obvious: the electorate associates that word with Obama, not with McCain, and McCain might eventually regret making the election entirely about that word when there is still little evidence that the electorate feels better about McCain’s party label or ties with Bush. Today’s CBS poll shows that 65% of respondents associate the word change with Obama, versus 47% that associate it with McCain.

Today’s ad exchange highlights why McCain might be in a danger zone here. Throughout the summer, he attacked Obama and forced the Democrat on the defensive, forcing him to argue on terrain on which McCain was stronger (readiness, experience). Now, McCain’s ad forced Obama to air a response ad… on the topic on which Democrats loves airing ads in the first place!

In other words, Obama’s defensive ad is exactly what Obama’s offensive ad would look like.

Another important consideration in this ad is the Obama campaign’s choice to take on Palin and the bridge to nowhere. In a sense, this was not a surprise. In fact, it was stunning to see the GOP use that argument to tout Palin’s reformist credentials given how much the press discredited Palin’s “thanks but no thanks” claim when she made it in her introductory address and then in her acceptance speech. The Obama campaign immediately fired a statement calling the ad a “lie” and Obama accused his opponents of “stretching the bounds of spin.” Even the AP came out with a fact-checking article.

McCain weighed in to explain Palin’s change of heart was based on a sudden understanding of the problem with earmarks: “The fact is that Gov. Palin learned that earmarks are bad and she did say, we don’t need our bridge to nowhere.” Not only does this resemble a Romney-like explanation (an incoherent link between a supposed revelation on one issue and a change of heart on another), but Marc Ambinder links to a video of Palin this past July in which she says she only opposed the bridge when she saw “the writing on the wall.”

Yet, the Democrats’ choice to take on Palin is a change of strategy, as the Obama campaign was reported to be planning to keep its focus on McCain and leave Palin alone. Under most circumstances, it would seem foolish for a campaign to waste time attacking the opposition’s vice-presidential nominee. But this is not a normal situation. And the McCain campaign itself was baiting Obama to go on the attack against its running-mate by repeating a thoroughly debunked claim this morning.

Palin is proving to be such a sensation and she is attracting so much attention that the McCain campaign is betting its entire campaign strategy on her right now. As I explained this morning, McCain’s attempt at wrestling the change mantle away from Obama only has a chance at succeeding because he has Palin by his side, and McCain is trying to bask in the glory of her reformist credentials. It might be a huge risk for Obama to bring Palin up in an ad and draw more attention to her, but he might have little choice at this point, especially when the McCain campaign is using claims like her opposition to the bridge to nowhere. (The Obama campaign can also move to exploit Palin’s first gaffe today as she complained Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had cost way too much to taxpayers.)

That Obama has little choice but to respond to Palin certainly does not mean that such attacks don’t come with significant risks. By her taking, Democrats give McCain’s Palin strategy a fighting chance by making the Alaska Governor a burning issue on the campaign, pitting her directly against Obama, and leading voters to consider her as a potential agent of change. If McCain wants to win on a change ticket, he needs Palin to remain an issue over the next few weeks. He needs voters to ask themselves “Do McCain-Palin represent change?” rather than simply whether McCain does.