The Tiresome “Race Card” Debate
It’s the topic de jeur: Is McCain playing the race card by trying to scare voters from a black candidate? Or is Obama playing the race card by bringing up a mythical smear campaign to win sympathy?
My take follows this excerpt:
Senator John McCain’s campaign accused Barack Obama of playing “the race card’’ on Thursday, citing his remarks that Republicans would try to scare voters by pointing out he “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.’’
“Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck,’’ Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, said in a statement. “It’s divisive, negative, shameful and wrong.’’
Mr. Davis was alluding to comments that Mr. Obama made Wednesday in Missouri when he reacted to the increasingly negative tone, and negative ads that have been coming his way from the McCain campaign in recent days.
“So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me,’’ Mr. Obama said Wednesday in Springfield, Mo., in remarks that he echoed throughout the day. “You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky. That’s essentially the argument they’re making.’’
Mr. Obama has made similar statements about the lines of attack against him before, and was even more direct last month when he said: “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’’
The McCain campaign’s decision to make the charge now that Mr. Obama was playing the “race card” comes as it has adopted a far more aggressive, negative posture towards Mr. Obama in recent days, trying to tar him as arrogant, out of touch and unprepared for the presidency with a series of statements by Mr. McCain and a series of negative ads – some of which have been condemned as misleading.
Mr. McCain said Thursday that he agreed with Mr. Davis’s statement. “I agree with it, and I’m disappointed that Senator Obama would say the things he’s saying,” Mr. McCain said on his campaign bus here, according to The Associated Press.
Robert Gibbs, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said: “This is a race about big challenges — a slumping economy, a broken foreign policy, and an energy crisis for everyone but the oil companies. Barack Obama in no way believes that the McCain campaign is using race as an issue, but he does believe they’re using the same old low-road politics to distract voters from the real issues in this campaign, and those are the issues he’ll continue to talk about.”
Who’s most at fault here? The campaign of John McCain needs to tone down the ‘race card’ rhetoric – because it’s very hard to make the case that Obama is wrong – there ARE Republicans out there pushing all kinds of scurrilous rumors in concerted viral e-mail campaigns, up to and including insinuations that Obama is the Anti-Christ (I kid you not). Racism is not overt in many of these attacks, but it is surely implied.
Yet Obama is not coming off smelling like a rose, either. His campaign is, in a pattern we have become QUITE familiar with, trying to have it both ways. They say “we’re not accusing McCain, directly, just Republicans”, but who is buying that? Just as the attacks against Obama make heavy use of racist implications without saying anything overtly racist, Obama’s campaign doesn’t have to say “John McCain” to make the connection between his campaign and the racists. Who is the “they” in “we know what kind of campaign they are going to run”? It’s not a mystery…
Also embedded in this debate is the old controversy of how much responsibility a candidate shoulders when his supporters make outrageous accusations. And the answer, in this day and age when anyone with the slightest bit of Internet savvy can broadcast worldwide, is not much. If the McCain camp were shown to be connected in any way, even tangentially, to these smear campaigns, that would be one thing…but I’ve seen no such proof.
Bottom line: BOTH camps need to get off this topic and quit wasting breath on this foolishness. We’ve got a real world of problems out there…race will play a part in this campaign, inevitably, but these dueling accusations of ‘race card’ will only feed the flames…
I’m not sure if McCain can fairly be accused of using race as a weapon, but his campaign seems to be coming off the rails. Saying that Obama would prefer to lose a war than lose a campaign (without any evidence, of course) is tantamount to calling him a traitor. Running a campaign ad accusing Obama of ignoring the troops to go to the gym — whose “gym” footage was actually Obama playing basketball with troops in Kuwait a few days earlier — would make Lee Atwater proud. Connecting Obama with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears because (gasp!) they are all celebrities is ludicrous. (Let’s forget that McCain was a strong supporter of noted celebrity Arnold Swarzenegger when he ran for Governor).
If you were to use the way a candidate runs his campaign as a template for how he would run an administration, does the McCain campaign give you any confidence in his ability to be an effective President?
Hey, I’m not a big fan of how the campaign is going, either. I’ll touch on that more in another post soon…
But for now, just to be responsive, I think going negative is a big mistake…
Obama is right. He’s giving the list of the attacks people are using, attacking patriotism, name, race, “celebrity status”, religion, and all these other character assassinations. He’s reassuring people that these are unreasonable fears… Honestly, I think if he says nothing about these things, he lets it fester in people who are slightly swayed by it and so feel a bit uncomfortable about Obama for bad reasons. If he doesn’t address it, it raise doubts and lets the attacks spread more than they otherwise would.
He’s not saying “vote for me because I’m half black” or anything like this. He’s saying don’t be scared or swayed by these tactics.
Let me say first that I don’t like the ad.
But…I don’t have a problem with negative ads, and I really don’t think this one is particularly negative.
But…there are only two people in this campaign season that I’ve heard mention Barack Obama’s race. Geraldine Ferraro (once) and Barack Obama (at pretty much every single speech). Who’s playing the race card? It’s quite obvious. So obvious that it’s hard to believe that we even have to have a conversation about it.
Even a Hardball Panel (yes, Hardball!) was unanimous on this topic.
No, I don’t like the ad because it paints Obama as an unstoppable force and McCain as a tiny little flea pecking at him. People like to back a winner and this ad makes Obama look like a winner and McCain like a loser.
McCain’s done much better with other recent ads. The “Love” one and “Pump” were wonderful. And July has been, without a doubt, the best month of his campaign so far (which is, unfortunately, setting the bar pretty low). He currently trails nationally by 2.5 points and had his first poll showing him leading nationally. This, despite the King’s world tour and the fawning media coverage. The biggest downside to July for him is that FL is now back in play. He should’ve sown up FL by now. Given it’s demographics, he should be leading in FL by 5, and a double digit lead would not be surprising.
And, House Democrats have given him the greatest gift of all. The price of gas is the #1 issue in this campaign season, and they adjourned without doing anything about gas prices. And not a single Republican voted in favor of adjournment.
Every Republican running for House nationwide will spend the next five weeks campaigning on the high price of gas and telling their constituents that Democrats don’t want to help them. This will absolutely hurt Obama. And hurts his leadership creds too. He should’ve been on Pelosi and Reid telling them that if they want a Democrat in the White House that they need to at least make the appearance of doing something. Since they didn’t, either he didn’t tell them, or they ignored him. Either way, he’s no leader.
Perfect time to go negative.
McCain is the one with an established national image. It wil take more than a few ads to shake that image.
Obama is the one whose image is still in flux. If McCain can establish an image of Obama that hurts Obama, great.
As for the ad, what does the foaming howls of outrage tell you about the effectiveness of the ad?
I tend to agree with Bob. Established wisdom (you can debate the correctness of established wisdom anytime) is that it’s best to go negative against “the new kid on the block” as early as possible. That way you define him before he can define himself.
“Barack Obama in no way believes that the McCain campaign is using race as an issue, but he does believe they’re using the same old low-road politics to distract voters from the real issues in this campaign, and those are the issues he’ll continue to talk about.”
Funny how it’s just perfectly ok with you guys that an approved McCain message has Obama intertwined with Britney and Paris. Nothing to see here. I guess it’s only fair with all those Obama ads where he has McCain hand in hand with George W. Bush. Seriously, I don’t know how you can possibly take issue with any response to such a ridiculous string of ads. How should Obama respond to this crap, Mark? Just pretend the ridiculousness doesn’t exist? Screw that. The proper response should be to point and say “that’s pretty ridiculous”.
Going negative seems to be working. Lets be realistic. The straight talk express was a one way ticket to the big adios. I would rather see McCain run with a wholesome campaign, but hes not going to win without constantly pointing out Obamas flaws. God knows no one else will critisize him, so I say lay it on until the left is filled with discontent. Not to mention it seems to be the only way McCain can get the national medias attention.
If McCain wants to criticize Obama, or engage him on the issues, then have at it. Comparing him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton is just plain dumb. Might was well have an ad comparing McCain to George Wilson (of Dennis the Menace fame).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDTJDv4hevU&eurl=http://www.crooksandliars.com/
He must have just pulled the “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills” out of his butt.
Seriously, Mark, how is it you can find ANY fault with Obama’s response? What doesn’t smell right to you? Where did you quote this from: “we’re not accusing McCain, directly, just Republicans”?
I didn’t realize this as I didn’t care at all about the OJ thing when I was 14 years old, but “playing the race card from the bottom of the deck” is further evidence that the McCain camp can go screw themselves:
http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/say-what-john-mccain-barack-obama-and-the-race-card/
I don’t think there is any argument that could sway me at this point. It’s sick.
Which issues would those be?
The gas tax holiday?
Kicking Russia out of the G8?
War with Iran?
McCain’s super sekrit plan to balance the budget in 4 years, while fighting two wars, and introducing $300 billion/year in new tax cuts?
Pursuing Bin Laden “to the gates of Hell”, but not into Pakistan (a sovereign country!)?
…
We could go on and on.
On second thought, it seem positively sober, compared to trying to engage him on policy matters.
More seriously, I think the proper response to the Spears/Hilton ad is not moral outrage, but merciless ridicule. If that’s the best the McCain campaign can come up with, he doesn’t deserve to even carry Arizona.
Mike, a little context, my friend. Here’s one quote:
“Barack Obama in no way believes that the McCain campaign is using race as an issue”.
Here’s another:
“We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”
Thus, my own quote:
They say “we’re not accusing McCain, directly, just Republicans”, but who is buying that? Just as the attacks against Obama make heavy use of racist implications without saying anything overtly racist, Obama’s campaign doesn’t have to say “John McCain” to make the connection between his campaign and the racists. Who is the “they” in “we know what kind of campaign they are going to run”? It’s not a mystery…
It’s all in the post above, so don’t get all indignant on me…anyone can make the connections, it’s not a deep puzzle…
Jacques, you’re obviously having a great time mocking McCain, so I hate to be the skunk at the garden party, but you realize I could play a similar game with Obama:
Which issues?
The lifelong commitment to campaign finance reform he threw overboard with no remorse?
The promise to filibuster the FISA bill that he didn’t keep?
The different messages on gun control he delivers to different audiences depending on which way the wind is blowing?
The gimmicky 2nd stimulus package of $1000 in emergency rebates he just proposed, financed by a windfall profits tax on the evil oil corporations?
His sudden conviction that, of course, the surge would work, even though he denied it would have any positive effect at the time?
Ridicule is an easy game to play when politicians are the targets…
Flip-flops are legitimate things to criticise (I’m hard-pressed, at the moment, to think of an issue McCain hasn’t flip-flopped on). Bad policies are legitimate things to criticise (though, when we get down to brass tacks, we may well disagree on what constitutes “bad” policy).
Manifestly stupid proposals, however, are simply things to ridicule.
And I tried to stick to things which he’s said on multiple occasions (or in carefully prepared remarks), not gaffes delivered about fact-finding missions to the “Iraq-Pakistan border” or when he is simply unprepared.
mike,
Nice article here. You seem to be living on a smaller and smaller island, defending his response. To paraphrase LBJ, “When I’ve lost Hardball, I’ve lost the war.”
Jacques, only your first two examples are manifestly stupid. All the others have merit, at least in discussion.
Now, if we want to talk about manifestly stupid:
Universal Healthcare (failed everywhere else in the world, so let’s give it a shot here, because Government is always better than the private sector at doing things)
Opposition to the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act. I keep wondering what his campaign has planned for that. McCain won’t touch it, but some 527 is going to eventually launch an ad saying that Obama is in favor of infanticide. Yes, it’s an exaggeration, but that won’t stop it from being effective. If I were the Obama camp, I’d have a response ad already in the can for that one and a speech already written.
The faux seal was manifestly stupid as well.
Increasing capital gains tax in interest of “fairness” despite the fact that it lowers revenue, and even his own party says so.
Continued statements that he’d still refuse to support the surge in Iraq even if “he knew then what he knows now”
“This is not the Reverend Wright I knew.” (ok, maybe that one’s not manifestly stupid–it’s more than likely an outright lie)
And, as for debating on the issues, as I recall, the McCain camp asked for several fairly unstructured debates, and Obama declined, asking for more structure and at the same time complaining that the McCain plan was too structured. That’s not only manifestly stupid, but also flies in the face of “engage him on the issues”.
He’s also run several “issues” ads, my favorite being “Pump”, but they haven’t gotten nearly the attention as “Celeb” (and “The One”, which I like much better), and let’s face it, right now, more than anything McCain needs some attention. All of the media’s focus is on Obama.
I would also add that McCain offered to debate Obama on the issues, but Obama refused to do so without his precious teleprompter.
McCain’s first ad promoted him as “the American President which America has been waiting for.” McCain is no more American than Obama is — but the clear implication is that a middle aged white guy named McCain is somehow more “American” than a black guy with an African name.
The McCain ad with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton — who of course have absolutely nothing to do with Obama — is reminiscent of the GOP ad against Harold Ford, where a slutty looking blond woman is asking Ford to “call me.”
In your view, do these ads play the race card? Should Obama react to them — or just ignore them?
The McCain ad with Spears and Hilton was indeed stupid – but it was not racial, it was based on Obama’s celebrity status (remember, I said it was stupid). Every ad that features a white woman and a black man is not racist by definition. Let’s get real here…we live in a world where white and black people work together, live together, date each other, and marry one another. Let’s not go crying ‘wolf’ here…
In my view, the ad is more than stupid: there is a subliminal message in the McCain ad that a black man with two white women is over-reaching his status and violating a hidden taboo. It’s subtle and deniable, but my guess is that it was very intentional.
You could say that blacks and whites work together and date each other, and the fact that the ad has a black man and two blonds is just coincidence. To me, that would be like arguing that the fact that Willie Horton was black was also coincidental.
Do you think the ad against Ford played the race card? If so, how is it different from McCain’s ad?
The fact that Britney and Paris are celebrities is irrelevant — so is Arnold Swarzenegger, who had McCain as his state chairman — and so is Tiger Woods, Bono, Simon Cowell, and lots of others. Britney and Paris have absolutely nothing to do with Obama — why have these two in the ad?
Miscegenation was illegal in many states, and the symbol of a black man and white women can still be radioactive. Given the history of attack ads created by Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, and their followers, I find it hard to believe that the fact that images of Britney and Paris were juxtaposed with Obama is mere coincidence.
Ridiculous…Peter, I just could not agree with you less.
Seriously.
I mean, there is no way I could agree with you less.
Paris and Britney were in the ads because they are the reigning ‘tabloid queens’. The ad was not subtle at all, it was blatant, and the blatant message was that Obama is all flash and no substance.
You’re barking down this racism trail where it is not warranted…
I always welcome your comments, but I’ve got nothing further to say on this, because I find it, frankly, embarrassing to even consider the absurd implications of your accusation. You truly HAVE played the race card, here…and you are, in effect, calling McCain a racist. Do you truly believe that?
I don’t know how else to read your comment…or do you not think that McCain sees his own ads?
I sincerely hope we can move in a more productive direction than the sorry one this conversation has taken…
And you referred to the celebrity ad in the #1 comment above without finding anything racist about it…what changed between now and then? Could it be that you have been (gasp!) influenced by reading about this absurd accusation elsewhere?…Admit it, what NY Times columnist featured the Harold Ford analogy? Or are you going to make me go look it up myself?…(I’m betting it was Bob Herbert or Frank Rich)…
Oh, what do you know – it WAS Bob Herbert
Herbert says “rising above his station” and you say “overreaching his status”…but otherwise, remarkably similar sentiments…
I read Herbert’s column this morning and I agreed with it. I didn’t make the connection to the Harold Ford ad, and I forgot about the “true American” ad. As a pasty faced white guy, I’m perhaps less sensitive to these things than Herbert would be.
So here’s a question: what is the first black man / blond woman couple which comes to your mind?
Britney and Paris may be tabloid queens, but Obama has not been in rehab, abused his kids, lost custody of those kids, been divorced, appeared in a porn video, or done any of the other thingsn which these two have done. There is no logical connection between Obama and the other two, so it’s legitimate to ask why they were included.
I don’t think it’s arguable that race played a role in the Willie Horton ad or the anti-Harold Ford ad. Just as you can’t argue with a straight face that it’s coincidental that Willie Horton was black — white guys commit crimes on furlough also — I find it hard to believe that of all the celebrities in the world, these two would be chosen. Horton was chosen because he was a scary looking black guy. The Paris Hilton lookalike in the Ford ad was chosen because she was a pale skinned blond whispering to the dark skinned Ford. Do you disagree?
To my mind, the only difference between the other two ads and McCain’s is one of degree.
And why is McCain the “American President?” Who else besides Americans can run for the Presidency?
As for the black man and white woman: the first couple which came to my mind was the Simpsons (O.J. and Nicole, not Homer and Marge). Right or wrong, that’s what came to mind. Maybe for you too. There is something different about a black man and white woman that is a potent symbol (do you think Obama would have a chance to be President if he had a white wife?) and I find it impossible to believe that Britney and Paris were chosen because the McCain campaign was trying to make the point that Obama is a frivolous, drug abusing, child abusing porn actor.
As for whether McCain is a racist: I have no idea, and I would presume not. He is, however, responsible for the content of his ads. Just as the ad which falsely suggested that Obama was snubbing the troops reflects poorly on him, the ad which connects Obama to Paris and Britney also reflects poorly on him.
Peter, you’re missing the point: it was a stupid ad. Agreed. But the point was that he was merely a celebrity. That’s the NAME of the ad. It suggests he does not have the gravitas to lead, despite his popularity.
If you want to see racism every time a white person appears next to a black person, be my guest. It’s a quick way to going crazy with bitterness. But it is obvious to ANYONE that the reason that Paris Hilton and Britney Spears were chosen is because they are the epitome of celebrities who are famous despite not really being particularly good at anything, NOT BECAUSE THEY HAPPEN TO BE WHITE.
You say why those two? What other two? Maybe Lindsey Lohan…but it’s obvious why Tiger Woods (or for that matter, Denzel Washington or Will Smith, probably the three most famous black celebrities at the moment) was not chosen – because they are associated with achievement, not tabloid headlines. It had nothing to do with race. The LAST thing McCain’s ad wanted to do was show someone famous for achieving something…that would have defeated the whole purpose!
Now, if you want to make the point that the ad was insulting because it put Senator Obama, a man of some accomplishment, next to two idiot party girls, I’ll be right there with you…
If this were an English election, they probably would have chosen Amy Winehouse and Kate Moss…
The Washington Post has a roundtable of experts, associated with both Republican and Democratic campaigns, talking about the ad. Not a one sees the racial overtones you and Herbert profess to see…
Finally, Obama himself did not see the ad as racist:
1) Paris Hilton is “not really … particularly good at anything?” You never saw the video?
2) While you may be shocked — shocked! — that there are (perceived) racial undertones in a GOP attack ad, given the history of inflammatory ads from the Republicans and their surrogates, I think that the burden of proof is legitimately on them. Harold Ford ran a strong campaign and may have lost the election because of the attack ad. Max Cleland probably lost because of the phony equivalence of him and bin Laden. Don’t get me started on the Swift Boaters.
There is plenty of ambiguity here, which makes the accusation of racism deniable. However, in addition to the content of the ad, you have to look at the modus operandi of the organization which put it out. In my view, the suggestion that the two were included because they are dim-witted bimbos who just happen to be white and blond is hardly believable given the recent history of Republican campaigning. I think you may be a little credulous here.
3) I think it is to Obama’s advantage to respond as he did, as it puts him above the fray. I don’t think he reacted publicly when McCain accused him of wanting to lose a war for political benefit. That doesn’t exculpate the McCain campaign for either ad — but it does make Obama look cool and graceful, while McCain comes off as an angry old man.
Guilty until proven innocent, eh? Glad you’re keeping an open mind and not portraying the GOP with a broad-based smear or anything…
[soapbox]
Forget it Mark, you’ll never convince them. They’ve drunk the Kool-Aid already. Anyone that disagrees with Obama about anything or criticizes him in any way is racist. That point has been made over and over by members of the Obama campaign and Obama’s surrogates. And, more than once, by “The One” himself.
And, it’s typical Democratic fear-mongering and smearing. All Republicans are a) dumb, b) racist, c) want to steal your social security, d) will take the country to war. This has been the modus operandi for dealing with Republican candidates for the last 30 years at least. Democratic campaigns are the politics of fear and smear, never of ideas.
As for Obama’s response being “above the fray”, you’ve got to be kidding me. He has lowered this whole debate by continuing to inject race in it where it didn’t exist previously.
[/soapbox]
Sorry for my rant there, but Peter’s statement about “recent history of Republican campaigning” sent me over the edge. How Democrats can continue to get away with pretending Republican candidates are the ones trying to scare people and are the ones with dirty tricks is beyond me. It’s a ludicrous statement and doesn’t even stand up under 30 seconds of research.
As for the reason behind the ad, McCain wins hands down on issues and experience, every time the two are debated in any seriousness. However, he can’t get the attention of the media or the citizenry talking about ideas and issues and experience. As I said before, what he needs most right now is attention. And these ads are getting attention, finally.
And remember, I don’t like the ad. I think it’s dumb. I also don’t think it’s a winner of an ad for him for a variety of reasons. Now, “The One”, his latest, I like. It’s “Celeb” done right if you ask me.
And Max Cleland and the Swiftboaters have absolutely nothing to do with this…for cryin’ out loud, stay on topic.
\Or should I bring up MoveOn.org and its General ‘Betray-Us’ ad? It’s just as relevant…that is to say, not at all…
Ok, reading that now…and having taken a few deep breaths, I apologize for the over-the-top hyperbole. while I stand by me general statements, I went too far, and it was wrong to use words like “always” and “never”. There are good clean Democratic campaigns and there are good clean Republican ones too.
Ah, hell, if you haven’t gone over the top commenting on a blog, you’d be the first one!…
True, but I just wanted to back down on the hyperbole before I (deservedly) got called on it and made to look foolish.
Max Cleland, Willie Horton, the Swift Boaters, Harold Ford, and (arguably) Spears/Hilton all have this in common: they use inflammatory images and symbols to defeat Democrats, none of whom were remotely guilty of what they were accused of. No thinking person believes that Max Cleland is a terrorist or Barack Obama is a bimbo.
When an organization repeatedly demonizes its opponents with false and incendiary advertising, then it does not deserve the presumption of innocence. Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, and Roger Ailes have shaped the way Republicans fight political campaigns. To dismiss this and insist that there are no racial overtones is a very credulous outlook.
The General Betray-us ad was not part of a political campaign, and aside from the headline, the body of the ad was factual and substantiated.
I don’t claim that all Democrats are angels or that there are no elbows in politics. My guess is that Nixon should have won in 1960, but lost the election because of Mayor Daley’s chicanery. However, just because you are not a virgin does not mean you are a whore. I don’t think that Democrats conduct campaigns with anywhere near the amount of venom and dirty politics which Republicans now use. I’ve named four examples of dirty political advertising (with Hilton/Spears arguably a fifth) by Republicans. I challenge you to name a single Democratic ad in the past twenty years resembling any of these ads.
Wow, the Betray-us ad was not backed from big Democratic money and it was factual!
And the moon is made of cheese and the tooth fairy is knocking at my door and George Soros is nonpartisan and John McCain wants to fight a hundred-year war in Iraq and he doesn’t care what the price of gas is and…and…and…
Ah, hell…
Look, if you want to get on a high horse and go off on some wild goose chase that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, you’ll have to find someone else to humor you. The point was the ‘race card’, and the campaign is this one.
You can’t win on the facts so you throw up all kinds of dust and smoke…sorry, Peter, as I said, I consider you a friend of this blog, but you’re off on a rant that is WAY off topic…
Back on topic, here’s Clarence Page:
If you didn’t notice, much like my original post, Page is saying both sides are out of line here…
Sorry for post #40…it’s getting late and I’m getting cranky. I just don’t want to fight every campaign of the last 20 years, I’m trying to focus on this one…but I’ll give you one attack ad, as a peace offering(?): LBJ and the “Daisy” ad…now, how are you gonna trump THAT?…
You can’t claim Swift Boat for the Republicans and then disallow MoveOn.Org. That’s beyond hypocritical.
Despite that, the real problem with the Swift Boat ads was that they were effective. That’s why Dems hate them. They didn’t say anything that wasn’t true, and said little that weren’t Kerry’s own words.
Also, if you want to take this off-topic, I’ll add that the MSM are the press agents for the Democratic party, so, if you get Swift Boat, not only do I get MoveOn.Org, I also get “Rathergate”.
But I’m finished posting and even following this thread. Now, if the thread gets back to Obama and his race card tactics, give me a call.
1) The Daisy Chain ad was absolutely beyond the pale. So was Mayor Daley having 321 dead Indians vote for Kennedy in alphabetical order. But that’s ancient history. Daisy Chain was 44 years ago. Hence the unanswered challenge in post 39: name a Democratic attack ad in the last twenty years which resembles Max Cleland, Willie Horton, et. al.
2) The Swift Boat ad was created to influence an election. The ad was about John Kerry. The Betray-us ad was created to influence public opinion and had nothing to do with an election. Patreus was not running for anything and the administration he serves is a lame duck.
3) There is no wild goose chase here. You cannot simply dismiss the fact that in close elections, the Republican Party has a history of putting out attack ads which are vicious, venomous, and untruthful. To give them the presumption of innocence and assume that their ads come with the best of intentions is ludicrous.
It is difficult to think of any two people more dissimilar than Barack Obama and Paris Hilton. It is also difficult to imagine that the McCain campaign thought they were hitting pay dirt by convincing the American people that Obama is a dim-witted airhead. If that was really their intention, there are plenty of others they could choose from (Tom Cruise, Ryan Seacrest, Justin Timberlake, Snoop Dogg…) However, they chose Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Given the way the GOP operates, to suggest that it’s all in good fun and it’s pure coincidence that these two were picked is an absurdity too gross to be insisted upon.
Re Daisy Chain: even Rove, Ailes, and Atwater couldn’t hold a candle to LBJ for dirty campaigns. Johnson once won an election by spreading rumors that his opponent had sex with pigs. His campaign manager said “Lyndon, you can’t do that: you know that he’s not a pig f—–!”
Johnson replied: “I know that, I just want to see him deny it.”
Wow am I late to this one. I’m going to side with Mark a little here. I don’t see anything overtly racist about the ad, and I actually think it’s giving the McCain campaign too much credit to believe that they’re smart enough to pull off something that subtle. Pace Jacques, it’s becoming patently clear that John McCain doesn’t even deserve to win Arizona. He’s running a flailing, idiotic campaign that insists on comparing Obama to Britney Spears – and it’s because he hasn’t got anything better to say. He can’t campaign on issues because he’s either wrong or out of the mainstream on virtually every single one, so what’s left? Embarrassing himself, apparently.
I don’t think the ad is overtly racist either. However, people who make ads for a living know how to use symbols and images to communicate a subliminal message. That’s what advertising is all about. The hot babe in the car ad has nothing to do with how the car drives: she is there to provide the subliminal message that if you buy the car, you’ll do better with women. Given the explosive nature of race, it is inconceivable that those who created the ad did not know that there would be a subliminal message which would resonate with some of its viewership.
While Obama was speaking to hundreds of thousands in Europe — foreigners waving American flags, not burning them! cheering an American politician, not demonstrating against him! what a concept! — McCain was in the cheese section of a supermarket, looking confused. His campaign tried to blunt the success of Obama’s trip by saying that he snubbed the troops. That fell flat when it turned out to be demonstrably false. Then they compared him to Britney Spears, and their new ad compares him to the Messiah. This really is pretty embarrassing for McCain. After all, he’s running for the President of the United States. Obama is right: is this the best he can do?
If my fundamental concern was what the European public thought, I would move to Europe. There’s nothing wrong with being well-liked in Europe, but that’s not the job of the President. His job is to do what he thinks is in the best interest of HIS country. Sometimes our interests will merge with those of other nations, often they won’t. No U.S. president in a time of war has ever been popular with Europeans – save on those occasions when he is hauling their own weak butts out of the fire, a favor that is seldom properly remembered, save among certain areas of France such as the cemetery at Normandy…
Ugh, then you go and throw away all my good will by playing the OMG FRANCES ARE SOES WEEEEK card. Come on, Mark. That kind of silly, blustering neocon crap is beneath everyone here. Let Sean Hannity take care of it.
1) I think there is a definite correlation between American national interest and being respected throughout the world. If we want intelligence from foreign governments to fight terrorism, flexibility from central banks to fight inflation, global agreement on acts to help the environment, or cooperation to fight rogue states like Iran, we cannot do it when the rest of the world is resentful and suspicious of us.
If we have another terrorist attack, or the dollar crashes, or Iran closes the straits of Hormuz, you can bet that we will be asking other countries for their help. The response we get will be much better if we ask from a position of strength and respect than if we go to them hat in hand.
2) I saw a film clip from 2002 where John McCain blamed the anthrax attacks on (you guessed it) Iraq. Needless to say, there was not a scintilla of evidence connecting Iraq to anthrax, and we now know that it was homegrown terrorism. However, in the rush to the war which McCain enthusiastically supported, he made wild and unfounded accusations to whip up sentiment for war. He now tells us that we should vote for him because of his superior judgment. Maybe he should play the race card — it might be the only card he’s got.