But Are They Ready to Lead?
Barack Obama recently responded to John McCain’s “Celeb” ad suggesting that Obama was too a huge celebrity but not ready to lead.
While I think the ad is effective in pointing out the hypocrisy of McCain calling him a celebrity, it’s still a character attack, and I think the old adage “two wrongs don’t make a right” applies here.
Meanwhile, John McCain isn’t backing down from the “he’s a celebrity” brand of ads.
For me, McCain’s insistence on keeping to the celebrity argument is the same as Barack Obama keeping on repeating the “100 years” statement.
Just so you know the point of the ad was never to criticize Obama for being a celebrity. Thus, no hypocrisy.
Nonetheless its an effective counter to his ad, its just not honest, since Obama receives large amounts of money from lobbyists also. It would be easily to make a counter ad that points out Obama has ties to lobbyists , if anyone wanted to.
I completely agree with Michael Merritt on this!
I think McCain’s first "Celeb" and "One" ad, was very effective, because it showed that Obama had nothing but his celebrity status.
The response to it, the Obama ad, was effective only in the footage of him hugging George W. Bush and only of the part where they point out that "billions of dollars for drug and oil companies" even if it isn’t true, it was still an effective lie.
However, for Obama to do the same type of ad… "Celebrity" status on McCain, shows that Obama has completely lost his edge, rather his campaign of video creators don’t really know how to counter attack ads.
McCain should take advantage of this Obama ad weakness… And find something completely new to attack Obama on. Something that sticks very well, like his policies on Economy, and/or his voting record on Iraq or something else that they can pinpoint and attack that is clearly WRONG.
"Clearly WRONG" to whom?
This is the error that anti-Obama critics keep making over and over and over. They preach only to the already converted and they remain blind, often willfully, to what voters who are actually persuadable might think.
Continued attacks which demean Obama supporters by casting them as cultists or idiots will only backfire. Sooner or later, Obama’s critics are going to have to do the WORK (nasty word, I know) to engage with SUBSTANTIAL disagreements. Or else they will only continue to dominate their own echo chamber.
What I mean by "Clearly Wrong" is something that perhaps Obama has voted on, that may not be explainable except by something that is perceived as wrong by even the Liberals.
Everyone has closets, especially senators. If you can find something on Obama, where he voted for something that clearly shouldn’t have been voted on, such as lower troop funding for soldiers in Iraq, which was one of those points that McCain’s campaign found.
No one is saying Obama supporters are cultists or idiots. McCain only needs to make the point that Obama is not as good as people think he is, and he needs to find evidence to support that. Examples, arguments, and proof of him not being who he claims he is (a good democratic senator), would work.
Something substantial that would stick.
Obama is known for flip-flopping based on opinion polls rather than circumstances. This could be something that McCain ads can focus on.
Jason,
I don’t support that line of criticism from anti-Obama people, but I don’t think it would necessarily backfire. I could think of people re-examining their own views and Obama’s views and saying to themselves, and I don’t want to be an Obama cultist. You’re assuming that everyone would take the criticism of cultishness around Obama personally and lash out against it.
Of course they take it personally, since it is usually presented as a sweeping, no-exceptions stereotype that often goes out of its way to avoid engaging the actual views of actually present Obama supporters whenever possible.
Jonathan, they’ve both been skewing each other’s records, whether it’s tax breaks for oil companies or raising taxes on people above $40,000 a year.
I don’t think attacking back on character (becuase anyone attack based on character is usually wrong to do so) mean he’s gone off the deep end. It’s just that he’s found himself in a corner where if he doesn’t attack back he’ll be perceived as unwilling to fight back.
Yet, I think a point can be made based solely on issues, and without skewing the facts, for which both candidates have a bad track record.
Yet, the ads coming from both are not solely character based anymore, so that shows some promise.