A few weeks ago, Rick Davis said that the election would not be decided on issues but on character, and the McCain campaign is staying true to its word. Within hours of Obama’s ad attacking McCain’s position on education issues, the GOP was out with an ad accusing the Illinois Senator of wanting children to “[learn] about sex before learning to read.”
So McCain’s latest ad blasts Obama for wanting to teach children about sex in Kindergarten. The Obama campaign has called McCain’s “perverse” and questioned McCain’s honor; “last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why,” said the campaign. And for the past few hours, Drudge has been headlining Obama’s “you can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig” and accompanying that quote with a picture of Sarah Palin.
It does feel like the campaign took a turn over the past 12 hours and descended into the gutter. But it’s still September 10th, and the race has plenty of time to sink further.
Before going any further, a minimal amount of fact checking seems necessary. First of all, let’s look at Obama’s lipstick comment, which led McCain campaign’s to accuse him of sexism. Former Gov. Swift said, ” “Calling a very prominent female governor a pig is not what we want.” Hoping to make this go viral, the McCain campaign has produced a web ad that prefaces Obama’s quote with “Obama on Palin.” But it is entirely disingenuous to put a picture of Palin next to Obama’s comments, as if Obama was calling the Alaska Governor a pig. Whatever one says about Obama’s insensitivity, he was not talking about Palin but about McCain. The expression was meant to refer to McCain’s argument that he is no Bush Republican. Said Obama:
John McCain says he is change to… That’s not change, that’s just calling something the same thing something different. You can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still gonna stink.
Could Obama have chosen his words better? Sure. Palin did appropriate the “pitbull with lipstick” expression in her acceptance speech, and Obama’s comments echo back to that. [Update, since a commenter takes this sentence as my contradicting myself: All I mean by echo is that Obama's words remind us of what Palin said and that Obama should have foreseen that Drudge would run with it if he did not strike an expression he is known to use from his vocabulary. The word "echo" in no way implies that Obama was referring to Palin. If this isn't clear, we might as well say that Palin was copying Obama by using the word lipstick in her speech months he did.]
But for Drudge, Swift and McCain to say that Obama referred to Palin as a “pig” is a fabrication. It makes no sense given the context, little sense considering the fact that Obama has used that expression before, and risky sense considering McCain used the same exact expression to describe Hillary Clinton’s health care proposal (”I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig”) and on at least two other occasions. The Obama campaign was quick to point out this hypocrisy: “This phony lecture on gender sensitivity is the height of cynicism and lays bare the increasingly dishonorable campaign John McCain has chosen to run.”
Similarly, McCain’s ad on Kindergarten sex-ed is a series of stunningly transparent distortions. Obama’s one accomplishment was “legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners,” says the ad. (1) It is ridiculous to claim that this was one of Obama’s “accomplishments” when the bill did not pass and Obama wasn’t even one of the sponsors. (2) the bill in question was only meant to be applied to existing sex-ed programs, did not add any new program and certainly did not mandate any kindergarten class from offering any kind of sex-ed. (3) The ad makes Kindergarten sex-ed seem like an insane concept bordering on pedophilia when it can consist of simple things like telling children to not trust strangers.
We still have to see whether the McCain campaign goes ahead and airs the ad (Update: They will, in 7 Midwestern states!), but this is the type of provocative attack that is sure to generate attention and put an opponent on the defensive, drowning whatever policy message they had for the day. And how can one respond to ads like this one? How can one issue a response when the topic at hand is children and sex?
The more Obama spends time defending himself, the less time he has attacking McCain’s ties with Bush and the more the election becomes a referendum on his alleged radicalism, leftism and now apparently loose morals. The more Obama defends himself, the more he fulfills Davis’s prophecy that this election will be decided by questions of character.
Furthermore, how do you respond to an ad when its main charge is so obviously not supported by facts? This goes back to the Bridge to Nowhere discussion. When even the AP and the Wall Street Journal have issued articles denouncing McCain and Palin’s statements on the topic as false and when McCain and Palin seem to not care at all and keep repeating the same assertions, what is the next step? An incredulous Post article describes this strategy of “staying on message even when that message has been publicly discredited” and points out that this commitment to transparent distortions is proving very effective in at least one area - taxes. The press can remind readers that claims are lies, the Obama campaign can continue to blast the GOP ticket, but will it matter? At would point would voters notice?
This sequence is also a reminder that the election ultimately remains about Barack Obama and John McCain. However much the conversation over the past two weeks has shifted to Palin and however much the GOP is banking its change strategy on the Alaska Governor, there is only so much attention Palin will be able to occupy in the next two months. Obama and McCain are mainly attacking each other, and ads like this will contribute to re-focusing the debate on the presidential nominees. And there are three presidential debates that will be watched by tens of millions of viewers - two of which will take place long after Biden and Palin are done with their sole encounter.
Palin has already changed some of the election’s fundamentals. She has lifted the spirits of Republican activists, she has given new life to the McCain campaign and she is drawing huge crowds the McCain campaign is not used to. She could very well prove to be a more consequential pick than we are used to, and accusations of sexism could still fuel a female backlash against Obama. But as the general election’s rhetoric amplifies, it is important to remember that those who are still undecided are more likely to be moved by the names at the top of the ticket.
Update: Obama offers an unapologetic response, attacks the media and McCain for being unwilling to discuss serious issues.
I know negative ads rarely backfire, but the SexEd ad is one that could. Obama could use it to make it look like John McCain is trying prevent people from teaching children to protect themselves from sexual predators.
You know, there was the prospect at the beginning of this contest that with McCain and Obama we might actually have a discussion about the real and serious issues that face us as a nation today.
Looks like the McCain camp has spiked that idea, big time. I think it’s because if they make the campaign about Palin, they win. But if they make it about issues that matter, they lose.
Understandable, but a long-term loser for the nation. So much for “country first.”
Joe: You took the words out of my mouth or keyboard. I was just about to post the same thing. Instead of whining about how the ad is unfare put out an ad calling McCain a friend of sexual predators and let him go defend his position.
“Palin did appropriate the “pitbull with lipstick” expression in her acceptance speech, and Obama’s comments echo back to that”
Sorry Taniel, but you agree that Obama’s comments “echo back to that” how can you argument that his comments were not intended as a reference to Palin? Seems to me you’d make a better witness for the prosecution than for the defense in this case
Cindy,
That Obama’s comment can be taken as an echo of what Palin said only means that Obama’s words remind us of what Palin said, not at all that Obama was referring to Palin - especially when you consider this is an expression he is known to use and that McCain used about Hillary (another woman). It is also meant to say that Obama should have thought about striking the expression out of his vocabulary because he should have foreseen that Drudge would run with it, but I mean by that this was a political mistake if anything.
I think that with the ad, voters will start questioning McCain’s character and, worse considering that he is a Vietnam vet, honor. Ultimately, recalling the nasty attacks of George Bush’s campaign, voters will start more closely linking McCain to Bush and see Palin more as a risky gamble meant to help McCain peel away some of Obama’s supporters. McCain will fail with his attacks if he calims to be the change candidate.
Anon: I’d like to believe the same. But I’m becoming skeptical as to what extent how manly people really vote on anything but personality at this point, and I just can’t say I know whether these attacks will actually work, ridiculous as they are.
Not like it hasn’t always been this way. The election in 1800 between Adams and Jefferson was filled with personal attacks, probably just as bad as today. It’s just frustrating that even with the huge issues and decisions we face as a nation that the sideshows takes precedence. Hard to see how we’re going to solve our problems this way.
And it’s especially appalling coming from the alleged “country first” crowd.
This election is scaring me to death. There is now a real chance that McCain will win. And if he does, then the likelihood that Roe v. Wade will be overturned in the next 4-6 years. I am not disputing that McCain is qualified to be POTUS. But Palin scares me. If she should somehow become president, we are all going to see culture wars that will make the GWB years look mild by comparison.
Why does McCain call himself a reformer if his rhetoric is so sleazy and partisan? Why not reform the political campaign itself, and make this a campaign about ISSUES not personalities or innuendos?
I agree that the lipstick reference does echo back to Palin. The reaction from Obama’s audience definitely indicates that they made the connection back to Palin too. The Obama defense of “McCain said the same thing about Hillary” is a weak comparison because Palin is closely associated with a very specific Lipstick comment, while Hillary and other women simply are not. Not to mention that Obama made the comment only week to the day after Palin’s now famous one-liner. Was it an unintentional association? Perhaps, but it looks awfully suspicious.
As far as the sex-ed ad is concerned, it was probably created to distract from Obama’s education speech (where he basically co-ops Republican ideas). Is the kindergarten sex-ed being taken out of context? Yeah, but given that Obama and Democrats took McCain out of context for the “100 year war” and “sound economy” ads, I don’t have much sympathy. And the claims of “sleaze” and “dishonor” being directed at McCain after what Obama and his supporters have thrown at Palin over the last two weeks is hypocritical, to say the least.
Is the kindergarten sex-ed being taken out of context? Yeah, but given that Obama and Democrats took McCain out of context for the “100 year war” and “sound economy” ads, I don’t have much sympathy.
So what is the appropriate response for those who say “country first”? Is it to try to point out the deception so we can actually decide on issues, or is it to counter deception with deception in order to get elected no matter what?
I agree that the “100 years” remark was taken out of context. And when the DNC started running the ad a few months ago, I wrote them and told them to stop. I said there was plenty to criticize McCain on about his Iraq policy without resorting to such tactics and making Americans more cynical about politics than they already are. And maybe I’ve missed something by not living in a battleground state, but I haven’t seen that line used since then.
So are McCain supporters willing to write the McCain campaign to tell them to stop taking Obama’s words out of context so we can really discuss the issues? Or is “country first” really “we can say anything as long as it helps us win”?
the claims of “sleaze” and “dishonor” being directed at McCain after what Obama and his supporters have thrown at Palin over the last two weeks is hypocritical, to say the least.
Perhaps we differ in our perceptions here, but it was the Obama campaign who said family issues were off limits. It seems to me that the response by Democratic surrogates is far more tame that it could have been. The Democrats don’t control the tabloids and magazines. And there is nothing wrong with pointing out that Palin was for the earmark funding before she was against it (and still kept all the bridge money), that she has no foreign policy experience, etc. And since the McCain campaign’s main selling points was “experience,” it’s not unfair to call his selection cynical. (Again, I refer to Michael Kinsley’s Slate piece, http://www.slate.com/id/2199029/) That’s not to say it won’t be effective, though.
Biden keeps asking where the “change” is on the McCain-Palin ticket. I believe I asked the same on a previous thread without receiving a response. Consequently, I don’t see how it is hypocritical to say that their adoption of the “change” meme with very little policy to back it up is anything other than more cynicism. If Republicans represent change on health care, the economy, and foreign policy, let’s have the debate. And if people don’t want change, or prefer one over the other, I’d love to have them decide on that basis regardless of the result. But if we continue to vote on personality over substance, we’ll continue to deserve what we get.
So by all means let’s have a debate on the issues. And let’s encourage our parties and candidates to do so, instead of just spiraling down into the “well, they did it too” justification of one irrelevant distraction and low tactic after another.
Help me out. What was the substantive campaign issue that caused Hillary Clinton to lose nearly all her black support to a new candidate who had a far lesser record?
Times up. As shown by Barack’s near 100 % support, even among Hillary’s black colleagues, it seems many people often support candidates with whom they identify irrespective of the details of the sharp issues focused on by the intelligentsia. As I observed early on to some derision (because I did not have “poll numbers” to prove it) Palin may be a candidate whom millions in this country will identify with. E. J. Dionne when he was with NYT provided facts that exposed Biden as an intellectual lightweight something that great staff, which he has, cannot hide. ( Read about it if you are under 30 or can’t remember 1987 news. ) Because Obama did not the maturity to get over his differences with Hillary, and pick her over vanity Joe, it looks like he has an excellent chance of losing a sure election. Yes, my opinions are not “poll tested”, they are simply thoughts, but I travel often, read much more than I write, and listen much more than I talk, so there is a little behind them. Most interesting election since 1972.
What was the substantive campaign issue that caused Hillary Clinton to lose nearly all her black support to a new candidate who had a far lesser record?
I can’t dispute that identity politics plays a role in our country. I don’t think that’s a good thing (see my earlier posts regarding issues). But I also have to say that on a purely non-identity basis, some of us looked at Clinton’s record and did not find it impressive.
it seems many people often support candidates with whom they identify irrespective of the details of the sharp issues focused on by the intelligentsia.
As a member of the intelligentsia, should I be offended? And is it a good thing or a bad thing that people vote this way? Is it something we should cater to, or try to change?
E. J. Dionne when he was with NYT provided facts that exposed Biden as an intellectual lightweight something that great staff, which he has, cannot hide. ( Read about it if you are under 30 or can’t remember 1987 news. )
So Biden hasn’t learned anything in 20 years? I’ve heard him talk about foreign policy, about health care policy….he doesn’t come off as a lightweight.
Because Obama did not the maturity to get over his differences with Hillary, and pick her over vanity Joe, it looks like he has an excellent chance of losing a sure election.
There were good reasons to choose Clinton, and good reasons not to choose her. We all know the arguments, and reasonable people can differ on the matter. But even if he picked her, I doubt that the election would have been a “sure” thing. I don’t see much evidence to claim that things would be in a substantially different place than they are now.