Subscribe by RSS
Seems that Obama isn’t taking a liking to McCain labeling him as a celebrity. At least, his campaign has aired two ads responding to McCain’s comparison of Obama to Parish Hilton and Britney Spears.
Story from Yahoo News:
HARRISBURG, Pa. - In a presidential campaign freighted with war, recession and energy woes, a jibe featuring Paris Hilton, of all things, seems to have struck a nerve in Democrat Barack Obama.
For the second time in two weeks, he aired a TV ad Monday rebutting Republican John McCain’s claim that Obama is little more than a celebrity, like the blonde hotel heiress.
The first time, Obama dismissed the assertion as “baloney.” On Monday, Obama took a different tack with a commercial that says McCain, not he, is “Washington’s biggest celebrity.”
The back-and-forth may seem as frothy as a boardwalk milkshake in mid-August. But it suggests McCain is making some headway in trying to fight the campaign on his terms.
For weeks, Obama has tried to frame the election largely as a referendum on President Bush, using every chance to tie McCain to the unpopular incumbent. McCain has tried to make it about Obama by arousing concerns about the first-term senator’s experience and depth.
McCain has aired a series of TV ads that showed far more images of Obama than himself, a somewhat risky approach. All of them tried to turn Obama’s crowd-pleasing talents against him.
A July commercial blaming Obama for high gasoline prices — which the watchdog group FactCheck.org called “a tank full of nonsense” — portrayed crowds chanting Obama’s name. A subsequent ad mixed images of Obama on his recent European trip with video clips of pop figures Hilton and Britney Spears.
Obama is “the biggest celebrity in the world,” the announcer said. “But is he ready to lead?”
Even some Republican strategists questioned whether the strategy was smart or dignified. And Hilton herself produced a video poking fun at McCain that drew large Internet viewership. But Obama’s latest ad suggests the “celebrity” taunt has some sting, and efforts to dismiss it as silly have not been effective.
It was a funny ad and I think the Obama campaign worries that the label might stick with middle America.
(3 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5)
Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
Loading ...
They waited long enough to answer the attacks, so I don’t think they are sweating more than enough about it.
What amazes me is that McCain is really putting so much money and effort into these negatives ads, as opposed to positive ones, that are the majority of ones made by the Obama camp.
For example, according to Politico’s Jhonatan Martin, McCain’s ad touting his maverick credentials and proclaming the country to be worse off now than it was four years ago only aired six times on a single day last week, according to the Campaign Media Analaysis Group (CMAG).
“Maverick” was broadcast in swing states on August 5th and has not been up again as of Friday, said CMAG’s Evan Tracey.
Instead, McCain had an attack ad against Obama up in heavy rotation, Tracey said. “Family,” released last week, continues with the theme of painting the Democrat as a mere celebrity, flashing pictures of Obama at his Berlin rally before claiming he wants to raise taxes and increase the size of government.
When McCain’s campaign released the maverick ad, they declined to offer any details about where it would air — a hint that it was largely a play for free media coverage.
The disparity between the ad touting McCain as a populist who has taken on Washington interests and that continuing their assault on Obama as celebrity offers a window onto the campaign’s priorities and preferred message. There are few indicators as unmistakable as how a campaign chooses to spend its money on pricey media buys.
Apparently, McCain is more concerned with painting Obama as a bad president than painting himself as a good one. Is the “Republican Attack Machine” in works here? Probably. I just don’t know how good that is for McCain.
“It was a funny ad and I think the Obama campaign worries that the label might stick with middle America.”
I think it might stick with more than just middle America.
I think it’s a stretch to say that Obama himself is worried about the ads based solely on the recent turn of events. Firing off a response painting McCain as a celebrity seems somewhat of a given in a presidential campaign.
Still, Obama is touchy about strange things. He felt insulted by a parody done by the New Yorker of him and the fist bump thing.
I don’t know, Grey, he’s portrayed as being a micro manager. It might bother him a great deal. Remember when he did that interview saying “back off of my wife”. It was almost a threat. And like you say, the parody, and the fist bump thing, and the statement by Bush that offended him (that didn’t even mention him). Who knows with Obama.
“Back off of my wife”?
Wow, Babs, I would like you to give me a link to that.
Except the micro-manager thing, I thought for a moment you were talking about McCain there. He is the one the media portrays as having anger management issues. Of course, media portrayals aren’t the whole thing, you know that
That’s true- it could very well be that Obama is sitting in his campaign office seething about the portrayal. I only say that I think it’s a bit of jump because almost every story I see paints Obama as being offended by McCain’s ad, but the evidence given to support that depiction is shallow at best.
When Obama comes out and makes a statement that he’s offended by the New Yorker’s parody, then he’s offended. When he comes out and tells everyone to back off his wife, he’s apparently irritated by it. When a campaign ad is launched to counter McCain’s statement, however strong the response may be, it’s not as apparent that he’s offended.
Personally I think Obama isn’t making an open statement because it would make him look bad, but that’s just an assumption. I’m a big stickler when it comes to the thin line between fact and assumption.
On a sidenote, I’m making this observation based on what I see in online news articles I’ve been seeing, not based on this article itself.
Am I the only one who kind of admires the fact that Obama gets protective about his family? A person ought to stand up for the ones he loves, especially if those loved ones are only being criticized because they’re standing at his side. If his daughters become the focus of negative press, I’m sure he’ll have something to say about that too.
No Indi,
Obama’s wife is criticized because of the stupid things she has said and the way she carries herself in front of the public eye. This has been discussed extensively in previous articles, so don’t get all forgetfull about it.
I’m afraid I must have missed those extensive articles, because the few criticisms I’ve heard or read against her seem to be mostly inflated and a little bit silly to me. But in any case, you weren’t speaking toward my point.
I wasn’t addressing whether or not Mrs. Obama deserves her media scrutiny. I was defending Barack Obama’s protectiveness of his wife - who would never have attracted so much judgment from the public if she weren’t standing at his side. Barack ought to be supportive and protective of her, in fact I suspect he took some sort of vow to that effect. McCain has also said that he thinks wives should be off limits. So really it’s just those darned paparazzi who disagree…
Indi, the thing with Obama is that he probably was fully conscious of the fact that standing up for his wife would be viewed as noble. This is just an assumption on my part, but personally, from knowledge of his background and the choices he has made throughout his campaign thus far I would place my bet that Obama’s defense of his wife was just as much, if not more, an attempt to appear noble and family oriented as opposed some form of simple and upright virtue.
I believe this to be the case because of similar choices he made such as his actions concerning his home church and Reverend Wright. When this issue drew heat, he gave an impassioned and well-thought out speech as an explanation of why he was a member there. However, when the issue continued to draw heat, he quietly withdrew his membership at the said church despite his strong convictions and admirable reasons to be there. Thus, as passionately and fervently as he tried to justify his membership at his church, he still held political practicality and the public eye over his values. And this is but one of several cases in which he has acted in a manner contrary to the beliefs he claims to vehemently uphold.
And I have little doubt that, when it comes to his wife, his rather forceful defense of her is just as much an act to strengthen his own political image as a family man as it is an act of raw concern for his wife’s integrity.
Still, if I am right and this is true, then one must admire Obama’s shrewdness, even if one is dubious in regards to his integrity. Many of the great presidents of the past were remembered not because they were upright and pure but because they were able to convince the public that they were men of virtue and integrity (Lincoln being the prime example of this). In the same way, Obama’s actual honesty and integrity may be subject to question, but one can’t deny that he is a very shrewd, crafty man.
I think it would be naive to think that any major politician isn’t extremely conscious of his/her words or how they may be perceived. Even for your average person like myself, I’ve said and done things in the hopes that friends or family will think better of me for it a great many times.
Like everyone else, politicians must also want to impress their friends and families, and everyone close to them, but they have to think much deeper than that too. Most all of them have insanely large egos (as you must have to run for a major political office) and they care greatly about what their lasting public image may look like. They want to be truly impressive in order to impress themselves. I’m sure many of them probably feel the burden and honor of being a public role model (despite the scandals uncovered here and there).
And then of course as all their handlers must emphasize, image is everything. Surely there are always uncountable calculations about what image should be projected, when, how, and to whom.
Now, if you feel confident that when you hear a Obama’s words you can pinpoint where his motivation lies among those mentioned above (or perhaps some unmentioned one) then you’re more shrewd than I. But for me, that’s too much guesswork. If he’s speaking and acting like a positive role model, I certainly won’t criticize him for that.
In the case of Trinity, I can’t speculate on his true feelings or participation in the church. But two successive priests there made negative headlines for him, and here’s one truth that is clear to me: had he not withdrawn his membership after the 2nd scandal, the media’s cameras would be plentiful in the church every sunday for a very long time after, looking for the next incident to revive the Trinity scandal. Does that sound like it could be continually disruptive and destructive to his church? It does to me.
I’m not saying I’m certain those were a part of his considerations, but I don’t see it his withdrawn membership as clear evidence of any character flaw.
I think what you’ve failed to consider about many of the past political figures who are shrewd, crafty, and projected an image of honor and integrity is that those men probably all believed fiercely in that image of themselves, even when they didn’t act in keeping with that image. People are very good about believing great things about themselves, despite evidence to the contrary. So what you may view as an inauthentic political image is probably not so detached from the real person as you think.
Grey
“However, when the issue continued to draw heat, he quietly withdrew his membership at the said church despite his strong convictions and admirable reasons to be there. Thus, as passionately and fervently as he tried to justify his membership at his church, he still held political practicality and the public eye over his values”
Wrong. You are getting him confused with McCain. The same issue didn’t continue to draw heat. As things stood Obama did not denounce anyone. But it is when Rev Wright came back in a few public interviews saying HE will be coming after him once he gets in office and when Wright said that Obama was being disingenuous when he denounced his statements. THAT is when he threw Wright under the bus. McCain threw the two guys who he sought under the bus when they didn’t do anything in addition to what he already knew. With them it was the same issue drawing more heat.
Jeremy I haven’t seen these extensive discussions either.
But I do know about the Michelle statements like Indi said were blown way out of proportion. Especially when McCain made similar statements but no one covered it.
http://blog.myspace.com/i.....B270720171
You will see video in the blog above where Fox edited out when McCain made similar statements but still ran with Michelle.
Indi you must have been typing that at the same time I was.
Obama’s campaign would have been better just laughing at the ads and making out McCain is just being childish and jealous of Obama’s more popular stances, then the ads would have appeared worthless.
Wow, I typed up a large response that just got deleted.
Oh well- I’ll just leave it at this.
Indi, I’m completely willing to admit that a majority of the argument is founded upon conjecture and interpretation of events. From following his actions, I can’t help but believe that a majority of what Obama does is pandering to public image, and I can’t help but view his remarks concerning his wife in a similar light. I don’t think that this is wrong in any way- if anything, I respect him more because it shows a certain type of shrewdness, a quality present in a great majority of our past successful presidents.
I differ when it comes to these great political men actually believing their own image though. The main reasons:
1. Our great presidents almost mythologized themselves in the public eye- they would have to have been insane to believe what the public believed them to be.
2. The images they painted of themselves were all sunshine and rainbows. A majority of these presidents dealt with dark and morally questionable choices, so it’s unlikely that they had simple beliefs concerning the nature of morality, as their images might suggest. Presidents of true integrity who fully practice what they preach aren’t as immortalized in history- look at Grover Cleveland.
Dreadsen,
I wasn’t actually bringing up Rev Wright himself, I was talking about his leaving his church. These are two very different issues.
Rev Wright was a bit of a loose cannon, and it makes perfect sense why he did what he did. However, in terms of leaving his church, well. I listened to his speech on race a fair share of times and what he says with regards to the church is nothing but positive. I won’t regurgitate what he said, but the point is that all he said about the church pretty much glowed in positive- he was completely proud of the church and the role it played in his community.
And he withdrew his membership there. Why? In truth, it came at somewhat of an arbitrary time, a good deal after the Rev Wright controversy. He quietly withdrew his membership there, despite how much he admired and loved it, despite the impact he claimed it had on his life.
It could be that, as Indi suggested, it had to do with the wellbeing of the church itself. At that point it becomes conjecture once again, and personally I don’t find that explanation as congruous from what I’ve seen of Obama throughout the election.
I’ll close with saying this with regards to this topic- I listened to his speech on race quite a few times, and, after listening to it and watching his response to the events that followed, something seems off.
He withdrew his membership 20 years to late.
O.S.
Not like seeing that madness and making a knowing, willing conscious decision to recruit someone 5 times worse.
Grey
Let me get this straight. Your impression is Obama gave his race speech. And after that nothing significant happened which should have caused him to withdraw him membership?
Hey, sometimes the truth hurts. We should all consider carefully what our choice will be in the upcoming election.