August 04, 2008

8/4: About Those Ads...

John McCain's recent spate of attack ads continues to dominate the attention of the political blogosphere. Many liberal bloggers (along with the New York Times editorial board) see a racial subtext in McCain's "Celeb" ad, which compares Barack Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. They're also critical of McCain's "The One" ad, which compares Obama to Jesus and Moses. Liberal bloggers believe that McCain's negative ads reveal him to be "a bitter old man" who makes personality-based attacks in order to avoid talking about the issues. However, some liberal bloggers are worried that McCain's ads are hurting Obama.

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are delighted by McCain's negative ads. They believe that this election is rapidly becoming a referendum on Obama and that McCain is doing what he needs to do to win. They see Obama's evaporating lead in the Rasmussen daily tracking poll as evidence that McCain's negative ads have been effective. Dean Barnett writes:

"This will remain a dreadful year for Republicans, and the McCain campaign will have the unhappy task of running into a stiff headwind all season. But this campaign at its heart remains Obama vs. Not Obama. And Not Obama is developing momentum."

MCCAIN: Playing Dirty?

Liberal bloggers continue to argue that McCain's "Celeb" ad has racial undertones, and they're angry that the McCain campaign accused Obama of playing the "race card" when they believe that McCain was the one who injected race into the campaign:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I'm amused to hear the McCain camp's deep sense of 'grievance' over any suggestion that McCain is running a xenophobic and often race-tinged campaign against Barack Obama. It's amazing how you can be pushing a message that your opponent is in league with foreign terrorists and comparing him to twenty-something white women best known for their 'behind the music' episodes and so many people can get the wrong idea."
• digby: "I think the Britney ad worked on a number of levels, the racial aspect being the most subtle and easily dismissed. I can understand why most people didn't see it as racist. That is, after all, the whole point of dogwhistles. [...] I have no doubt that the campaign has learned the proper lesson from all this. McCain and his nasty surrogates can dogwhistle themselves hoarse all the way to November and nobody can call them on it. If the 'liberal' media does, they will be portrayed as in the tank for Obama and part of the problem. It's a brilliant inoculation. Indeed, it may be such a thorough inoculation that it means that Obama is now in a bit of a straitjacket, having to second guess all criticism of McCain to ensure that it can't be taken as 'racist.' [...] So, Obama is going to have to be a modern day Jackie Robinson and stoically endure the more subtle forms of racial ugliness that the right throws at him without ever fighting back or even mentioning that it is happening."
• BooMan: "The Republicans are playing on something visceral and subconscious. Just as the the makers of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner intentionally chose a liberal white family to demonstrate that racism lingers longest and deepest on the subject of sexuality. I'll work with them, live with them, drink with them, play with them, but I don't want my daughter dating, let alone marrying, them. [...] But just because we can't change people's hearts and make them race-blind doesn't mean we have any right to exploit those feelings for political gain. And that is what the Republicans do, and have done, ever since they adopted the Southern Strategy and betrayed their legacy as the party of Lincoln. Mention any of this and...RACE CARD!! comes flying back in your face."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "[One] reason the McCain campaign is so excited to accuse Obama of 'playing the race card' is that one of Obama's strengths is that he is not perceived by the wider American public as the aggrieved black man -- he is no Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. By claiming Obama is playing the race card (however absurd the charge), they can turn him into the angry black man. It really is shameless and disgusting, and while I had seen no racial component to the Britney ad earlier, I can understand where [Bob] Herbert is coming from now. I just didn't see it before."

MCCAIN II: Race Matters

Several liberal bloggers believe that the Obama camp must be careful about how it responds to the McCain camp's "race card" charge:

• Open Left's Mike Lux: "I am convinced that the genius of the infamous Harold Ford 'call me' ad wasn't the subliminal white women/black man stuff, but that it got such a negative reaction from civil rights leaders and white liberals to an ad that just seemed to working class TN voters as just a funny ad. The initial run of the ad for a few days did nothing bad to Ford's poll numbers, but the reactions to the ad in the week following the initial run did. This is what makes the strategy for McCain so good, and the reaction from our side so tricky. I don't think the answer is the response from Obama manager David Plouffe, which was just to say 'No, we're not' when McCain and [his adviser] Rick Davis accused Obama of playing the race card. I think the reaction has to be both less defensive and more aggressive."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "The race card stuff consciously feeds white resentment. When tireless civil rights hero Rick Davis says how outraged he is about the 'race card,' it's intended to reinforce the view (among some white people) that they are punished because some evil minority will claim 'racism' when they shouldn't. If it weren't for this frightening monster ready to cry 'racism' at the drop of a hat, then their children would get into Harvard, or they'd already be promoted, or their kids would get better financial aid, or they'd pay less taxes, or whatever. Rather than try to overcome this division, the honorable John McCain is stoking the fires. And I think that gives you a pretty decent indication of what a McCain presidency will look like."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "[Obama] has to extricate himself from an ongoing racial competition between blacks and whites, where the prosperity of one is seen as detrimental to the other. [...] In a dispute about race, the McCain campaign knows it will end up with the larger half. For the most part, most white people's experience with race isn't one of racial discrimination. [...] What white people can relate to is the fear of being unjustly accused of racism. [...] This is why the campaign needs to avoid dealing with race in the context of his rivalry with McCain whenever possible."

MCCAIN III: Let's Not Read Too Much Into This

Not every liberal blogger believes that McCain's "Celeb" ad has racial undertones:

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "I think the McCain campaign's 'Celebrity' ad and the whole line about Barack Obama being too arrogant or something are pretty ridiculous, but it's a bit puzzling to me to see liberals expressing the view that these are some kind of crypto-racist lines of attack. Given that Obama's black, and America's history, I think it's always going to be possible to read some kind of racial subtext into attacks on him. But both of these are lines of argument you could easily imagine being deployed against a white candidate and, indeed, they're fundamentally similar to arguments Republicans regularly make against Democrats. Beyond that, trying to sniff out racial subtexts in these kind of things strikes me as overwhelmingly likely to prove problematic. People really don't like to be called racists."
• Oliver Willis: "I have to confess, I don't think the overtones in the Paris Hilton/Britney Spears ad from McCain was about race. I think some on my side of the aisle are reading too much into this -- the McCain people just aren't smart enough to be that subtle."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "I emphatically do not buy that the ad has racial undertones."

Conservative blogger John Hinderaker also denies that the ad has racial undertones: "The New York Times editorial board predictably weighed in on Obama's behalf, calling the Celeb ad a 'racially tinged attack.' How can this be, since the ad never mentions race, and has nothing to do with race? [...] Does the Times seriously believe that any ad that contains images of both a white woman and a black candidate is racist? (Don't white women often appear in Obama's own ads?) That strikes me as a very weird position, which perhaps reveals more about the Times editorialists than about campaign advertising."

MCCAIN IV: Obama The Antichrist?

Liberal bloggers are harshly criticizing McCain's latest attack ad, "The One", which compares Obama to both Jesus and Moses and declares that Obama "has annointed himself, ready to carry the burdens of the world." Some liberal bloggers see this ad as an example of dog-whistle politics designed to anger evangelical Christians:

• Sadly, No!'s Gavin M.: "The McCain campaign has apparently decided to spread the notion among Evangelicals that Barack Obama is the Antichrist."
• Crooks and Liars' John Amato : "This is typical for the McCain campaign. Dog-whistle politics is a common tactic by [Karl] Rove and Lee Atwater. It's in play now right before your eyes and this time it's targeted at evangelicals."

Other liberal bloggers think McCain is embarrassing himself with this barrage of negative ads:

• Balloon Juice's Michael D.: "Remember the attack line Conservatives used, Bush Derangement Syndrome? Can we start an Obama Derangement Syndrome meme? McCain's ads have not focused one iota on what McCain will do as president -- except prolong a war and make tax cuts permanent (which I am totally for -- in peacetime.) They're completely focused on Barack Obama and how popular he is. It's quite funny when you think about it. McCain is grasping, big time."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I am absolutely no judge of these things, but I think this new McCain video truly jumps the shark. [...] It has been reported for a while (though alas I can't find it now) that the McCain campaign refers to Obama as 'the One', with contempt. I don't think that putting your most contemptuous, peevish impulses out there for all the world to see is a winning strategy, myself."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "John McCain is a bitter old man. There, I said it. Really, it is getting difficult to think of McCain is any other way. McCain complains about feeling 'left out'. He doesn't like new food. He doesn't like young celebrities. He is sensitive about his age. The dude is just bitter. [...] I'm not sure what happened to John McCain to make him so bitter, given that he is a U.S. Senator and worth several hundred million dollars, but he is bitter nonetheless. Electing him would be a demonstration that we as a nation are bitter toward the world, toward the civil rights movement, and toward youth culture. In other words, it would be pretty much the same stuff that conservatives have run on for decades. This time, let's put that out in the open, and stop beating around the bush on it."

MCCAIN V: Bravo, McCain Campaign!

Conservative bloggers continue to praise McCain's recent batch of negative ads:

• NRO's Rich Lowry: "Who would have thought it? The McCain campaign is now running more effectively viral ads than the Obama campaign. The Landstuhl ad, which I didn't like (because of the factual problem) stoked a week's worth of debate that was harmful to Obama. The 'Celeb' ad has dominated cable chat and had 1.2 million YouTube hits the last time I looked. Now, there's this brilliant 'The One' ad [which] will, I'm sure, be a YouTube sensation because it's so fun to watch. None of these ads need to have -- nor have they had, as far as I can tell -- a big broadcast run to be effective."
• The Next Right's Josh Kahn: "Overall, even though I share a lot of [ex-McCain strategist Mike] Murphy's concerns (and the one Marc Ambinder's anonymous strategist outlines) I've been heartened by [McCain's] new strategy. The campaign's recent moves have shown a willingness to take some risks and have successfully injected the campaign's message back into the press. That's a critical change from the last few months and if they start taking some risky plays to build up McCain himself we'll have a real chance to win this thing."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "The bottom line for McCain is this: Either he will have to endure being called a racist by journalists like Bob Herbert, or he will need to resign himself to sitting back and politely allowing Barack Obama to win the election."

OBAMA: Why, Barack, Why?

Although he previously opposed efforts to expand offshore drilling, Obama said on Friday that "he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling" if it were necessary to pass a comprehensive energy policy that would promote fuel efficiency and develop alternative energy sources:

"'My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,' Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

'If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage -- I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done.'"

Many liberal bloggers are criticizing Obama for shifting his stance on expanded offshore drilling:

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Obama said he might support more drilling if it were paired with comprehensive energy conservation measures and alternative energy development. So what's the headline? Obama shifts, says he may back offshore drilling. I'm sure the Republicans are going to praise Obama for his flexible stance now that he's decided to push a compromise with their oh so practical agenda. There's no way they will use this to push the idea that he's unprincipled. They wouldn't dare set up a web site called http://www.bothwaysbarack.com. Awesome. And awesome position that he's put [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi in, who has refused to allow a vote on drilling in the House."
• Bowers: "If Obama's poll numbers don't drop next week, and if the actual legislation that passes into law does so despite significant conservative Republican opposition, then I guess this won't be a terrible move. Until that time, however, it smacks to me of a major political mistake that will result in destructive legislation while adding credence to the attacks that Obama isn't leading, and is too easily persuaded by the political winds. We get bad legislation, and Obama's chances of winning the election are damaged. That does indeed strike me as a major error."
• digby: "That was quick. The Republicans stage a little hissy fit and to anyone not paying close attention it appears that they got instant results. [...] Obviously, Obama changed his position because of public opposition to the ban and because he thinks he could use it get Republicans to sign on to other legislation as he says. It's an election year. But I would suspect they will extract another 100 pounds of environmental flesh before they do. That's how they operate."

A few liberal bloggers think Obama made the right decision:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "It's a good move by Obama. It's not great that he's been on the record opposing it for the last couple of months, and that's why he dumped this now, but I think there's momentum enough for just the type of comprehensive plan that Obama is talking about, to take shape in Congress in September (or at least for electioning on). Better he flip now and be on the right side of the issue going forward, than continue being in the wrong with a losing message. It's been clear for nearly a month that drilling was providing an opening for the Republicans. And what's become obvious to me in the last few days is that they were framing it as a patriotic issue, with Obama advocating 'Foreign Oil' for the US -- that was the real kicker in the 'Celeb' ad. Republicans are fired up about this issue. I watched a McCain crowd jump to its feet in a standing ovation at his town hall in support for it today. They've framed it as a patriotic duty and it has serious legs. Pelosi can suck it up and actually do something to save the planet instead of just talking about it. Democrats can now take the opening by saying, 'yea, we'll compromise' and then make the bill a real long-term energy solution."
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "I think this is a smart move by Obama. More off-short drilling is environmentally risky; as a supply policy it's delusional and if done alone only locks us into an untenable future. But conditioning it in the framework of strict environmental protection, rather than immediate price/supply relief, and as part of a transition to something else, is where the debate needed to be."

OBAMA II: Flip-Flop Alert!

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about Obama's decision to change his position on expanded offshore drilling:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Now that Barack Obama has said that he is open to offshore drilling, one wonders what will be the next policy issue on which he will flip-flop for the judges. [...] Incidentally, I really hope that people don't buy Obama's claim that he is compromising on offshore drilling only as a part of trying to facilitate the passage of a broader energy package. We don't know what the particulars of such a package will be and it is more than a little bit silly to claim that a reversal on offshore drilling is necessary to pass such a package given that the legislative bidding on this issue has not even begun. More likely, Obama looked at the overwhelming support offshore drilling has in the polls and decided 'There go the people. I must follow them for I wish to be their leader.' Assuming, of course, that he does not believe he currently is the leader."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Obama once again reveals himself as a traditional politician, one that will swing like a weathervane in order to get elected. The only quality remarkable about Obama is his shamelessness in policy reversals, expecting everyone to ignore his obvious change in stance as Obama pretends that he has always supported what he used to oppose."
• The Next Right's Soren Dayton: "Barack Obama's flip-flop on offshore oil drilling is a major strategic victory for House and Senate Republicans. The Democratic plan was to reup the Congressional ban on offshore oil drilling as part of a long-term continuing resolution. [Sen. Maj. Leader Harry] Reid had originally promised a vote on offshore drilling, but has backed off that promise now that it has become a potent issue. Now it is time to drive this issue home as a clearly branded Republican issue. The longer the fight goes on, the more it paints Democrats into a terrible corner. And there is a synergy between high energy costs and broader economic insecurity that will likely be the driving issue in November."

Conservative bloggers are also criticizing Obama's explanation for his shift:

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Obama invokes the politics of an overall 'energy package' in order gain room to maneuver. Drilling for oil offshore is either a good idea or bad idea. If it's a good idea, then there is no reason why lifting the ban needs to be 'part of an overaching' 'really thoughtful' energy package. If it's a bad idea, then Obama should not consent to it, and certainly should not signal his willingness to do so. But to Obama, in all likelihood, off-shore drilling is neither a good idea nor a bad idea; it's just a suddenly thorny political issue."
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "Although the shift leaves him open to charges of flip-flopping, Obama is probably trying to take one of the Republicans' best issues off the table, the way Bill Clinton did in the 1996 campaign by finally signing welfare reform. But after signing the reform bill, Clinton didn't leave much room for Bob Dole to get to his right on welfare. Obama's tepid position on drilling still leaves plenty of room for John McCain to get to his right. And in 1996, the new welfare reform law was a reality. This is just a campaign promise that differs from past promises."

OBAMA III: Duckin' The Debates?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama for refusing to accept McCain's challenge to participate in a series of joint town hall meetings in addition to the three debates proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates:

• Morrissey: "This news will surprise no one that has followed the number of gaffes Obama makes when speaking off the cuff. When the press finally got embarrassed by their fawning attitude and asked him tough questions in the Pennsylvania debate, Obama folded like a cheap suit against Hillary -- and immediately stopped appearing in debates. He has provided an almost endless series of gaffes when speaking extemporaneously, and obviously wants no part of McCain in this format."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Supporters of Senator Obama have to be deeply disturbed by Obama's decision to duck Senator McCain's invitation to change American political debate via a series of one-on-one townhall meetings across the U.S. Here was a chance to genuinely reinvent how presidential elections are conducted -- to raise the conversation and empower voters, and Obama ran away. So much for the Obama rhetoric of change and a new era: Obama's a machine pol afraid to get too far from [adviser David] Axelrod's script. The big duck is an admission by Obama that the scars from his late primary season debate battles with Hillary still smart."
• Yousefzadeh: "Gee, I thought that the old, enfeebled, elderly and Methuselah-resembling John McCain wouldn't stand a sand castle's chance in an earthquake again the young, vigorous, rhetorically masterful Barack Obama. [...] Front runners don't like debating, of course, but again, it was my understanding that Barack Obama would clean John McCain's rhetorical clock in any debate between the two. Strange then that Obama doesn't take advantage of an opportunity to engage in a little clock-cleaning."

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES: Draft Clark: The Sequel

Matt Stoller and Aaron Ament have launched a campaign urging Obama to choose Gen. Wesley Clark as his running mate (or at least put Clark on his VP short list). Stoller explains:

"Before the idiot DC villagers threw a hissy fit about Clark, he was on the short list for VP. Is it realistic to see him back on that list? Well really, it's up to Obama. Choosing Clark would be a clear demonstration that Obama intends to significantly shift the political debate in the country and that he refuses to allow old school bitchy sniping from DC insiders to dominate our national political discourse. What Clark said -- that McCain has no experience in national security decision-making -- is absolutely true, and it's a point that needs emphasis repeatedly and effectively by someone who can deliver it.

Clark has a 34 year service record, has won a war, commanded troops all over the world, and nearly died of his injuries in Vietnam. He has run for President and been a surrogate for hundreds of Democrats all over the country, including Ned Lamont. He was against the war in Iraq, and knows the military bureaucracy inside and out. This is someone who would make an insanely good Vice President, and someone who has deep connections to the newly formed progressive communities that emerged from 2002-2006. Senator Obama would do well to choose Clark as his running mate."

Many liberal bloggers support Stoller's campaign:

• digby: "I think now would be the perfect moment to reject the faux-outrage culture of the Village and pick somebody who isn't afraid to call McCain out on foreign policy and military affairs. Steve Schmidt will send everyone in DC a case of smelling salts and a personal fainting couch, but unless Obama figures out a way to signal that he's getting off the hissy fit express, this campaign is going to be torturous. And we know one thing: capitulating to it doesn't work. They just up the ante."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Obviously the choice of running mate is highly personal and not something in which any outside organization can have much sway. I don't expect this effort to make much difference in Obama's selection process. But highlighting General Clark and the tremendous service he's given not only his party, but the nation, is more than a worthwhile cause, particulary when the story makes it to the traditional media."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Wes Clark was my guy in 2004 but after what I perceived to be a lackluster campaign (although I still voted for him in CA after he had dropped out) I was actually glad he didn't run in 2008. But now that it's clear that neither [Hillary] Clinton nor [VA Sen. Jim] Webb will be VP, and after Clark's refreshing display of backbone when dealing with the Face The Nation flap (not to mention the lackluster supposed remaining shortlist), I'm enthusiastically on board with Clark as Obama's VP."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The McCain Surge

Hot Air's Allahpundit notes that McCain leads Obama for the first time in the Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll. Allahpundit attributes McCain's rise to his recent spate of negative ads:

"It has to be the ads. Like Barnett says, the election is essentially Obama versus Not Obama. It's hard to pump Not Obama up but not that hard to deflate Obama, especially if the lion's share of unaffiliateds are centrist conservatives disaffected with the GOP and taking a hard look at the Democrat. For more on that, see Nate Silver's op-ed today about the electorate's leftward shift, producing a 'median voter' this year who's more receptive than usual to a true-blue liberal but held in place for the time being by the appeal of McCain's own centrist maverick-iness. The strategy behind the ads, I take it, is first to demystify Obama by making him faintly ridiculous and then (hopefully) to take David Freddoso's advice and frame him as a politics-as-usual machine Democrat considerably further left than even that new left-ish median voter. (If you're wondering how Obama plans to counter, guess.) Makes sense, except...a 15-point swing, from dead even [among unaffiliated voters] to 52/37, thanks to nothing more than a couple of goofs comparing him to Paris Hilton and Charlton Heston in 'The Ten Commandments'? I just don't buy it. Maybe that dishonest 'troops' ad had more effect than anyone thought."

LEST WE FORGET: World's Worst Person Decides To Go Into Marketing

From The Onion:

"NEW YORK -- Twenty-three-year-old Louis Deenan, undeniably the most detestable, loathsome individual ever to walk the earth, willfully decided Monday to devote his miserable life and all of its awful ambitions to the field of marketing. 'I think it's the career path that will best utilize my networking skills and my ability to think outside the box,' said Deenan, whose smug, gloating tone and shit-eating smile just make you want to punch his goddamn teeth in. 'So I'm definitely thinking marketing. Either that, or PR.' Deenan's mother refused to comment on why she didn't abort the despicable pile of human excrement when she had the chance."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at August 4, 2008 02:27 PM