Calendar
Retailers
Stack & Reach
Custom Geometry Calculator (beta)
More To Come...
MAIN
INDEX
RULES &
LEGEND
LOG
IN
Search
this forum
this category
all forums
for
All words
Any words
Whole Phrase
(
options
)
Newsletter Signup
Slowtwitch Forums
:
Lavender Room
:
Obama’s stealth ad campaign
Tri Forum
Classifieds
Lavender Room
Jobs
The Womens
Print Thread
parkito
Aug 15, 08 11:08
Post #1 of 20 (618 views)
Obama’s stealth ad campaign
Can't Post
Well, this is interesting. Who'd a'thunk it?
***
Obama’s stealth ad campaign
: Over the past week, we've gotten our hands on a number of negative TV ads Obama's been running against McCain in key states like Ohio and Michigan. This is in addition to the tough spot, uncovered by Politico
[
*** UPDATE ***
Actually the spot was uncovered by the
Washington Times' Christina Bellantoni
, who reported on it yesterday and was linked to by Politico]
, that Obama's airing in Indiana. Clearly, the Obama campaign isn't interested in telling the media about every single McCain attack ad they’re running. Perhaps this is because Obama's brand can't afford to be tarnished too much if he's seen as constantly running negative TV ads. So the campaign simply puts them on the air in key markets, doesn't tell the press about them, and layers those ads with positive ones being run nationally during the Olympics. Also, by not releasing to the media, it forces the McCain camp to wait a day or two before they see the ad. McCain's camp is much more comfortable unveiling their negative ads, perhaps because they want the free press that comes with them. But make no mistake, Obama’s running plenty of negative TV ads, particularly in the industrial Midwestern states. In fact, one of Obama's biggest candidate strengths -- which doesn't get the attention it deserves -- is that he plays political hardball as well as his opponents; he just sometimes does it under the radar.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...8/08/15/1268145.aspx
Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (
James Bryant Conant
)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (
Doug Stern
)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (
William Shakespeare
)
Mike Lamb
Aug 15, 08 13:38
Post #2 of 20 (579 views)
Re: Obama’s stealth ad campaign [parkito]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Did you watch/read the script of the ad they are calling an "attack" ad?
f/k/a mclamb6
vitus979
Aug 15, 08 13:44
Post #3 of 20 (576 views)
Re: Obama’s stealth ad campaign [Mike Lamb]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
What's it say?
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Mike Lamb
Aug 15, 08 13:49
Post #4 of 20 (572 views)
Re: Obama’s stealth ad campaign [vitus979]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
The transcript is basically:
Quotes from McCain talking about how the economy wasn't doing too bad (with dates) intermingled with quotes from average Joe's about struggling to make ends meet on basic items. It closes by saying something to the effect that how can McCain fix the economy if he doesn't think it's broken.
f/k/a mclamb6
vitus979
Aug 15, 08 14:00
Post #5 of 20 (566 views)
Re: Obama’s stealth ad campaign [Mike Lamb]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Okay. I don't find it objectionable, but it seems clearly negative. From what I gather, on a par with the negative ads McCain is running against Obama.
Not seeing the issue here. I don't care if Obama runs these in select markets and doesn't brag about it generally, and I'm not buying that the ads aren't negative, if that's what you're saying.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Mike Lamb
Aug 15, 08 14:21
Post #6 of 20 (559 views)
Re: Obama’s stealth ad campaign [vitus979]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
It's not particularly negative and although it doesn't address a particular policy, which is unfortunate. It at least tends towards policy issues versus an attack on popularity....
f/k/a mclamb6
vitus979
Aug 15, 08 14:27
Post #7 of 20 (555 views)
Re: Obama’s stealth ad campaign [Mike Lamb]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Please. Your negative ads are better than the other guy's negative ads? Give me a break. They're equally substantive- not very, but enough- and equally negative- not terribly, but negative.
What I find most interesting (interesting here being an incredibly relative term) about any of the ads is how plain jain Obama's national ad is. It's straight boilerplate political campaign promise stuff. Pure vanilla. I think it might reflect his strategy of not taking any risks, and playing the clock out.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Mike Lamb
Aug 15, 08 14:43
Post #8 of 20 (553 views)
Re: Obama’s stealth ad campaign [vitus979]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Let's assume that a candidate puts out an ad that factually/accurately portrays the opposition policy recommendations and then points out the flaws in that position. Would you consider that a "negative" and/or "attack" ad?
f/k/a mclamb6
vitus979
Aug 15, 08 14:48
Post #9 of 20 (551 views)
Re: Obama’s stealth ad campaign [Mike Lamb]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Yeah, it's a negative attack ad. You can either run a positive ad about yourself, or you can run a negative ad about your opponent. You can either run an ad to promote yourself, or you can run an ad attacking your opponent.
Give me a break, Mike. It's not very hard hitting, it's not unfair, but yes, it's a negative ad. The very same thing is true of McCain's ad about Obama.
Seriously, one MattinSF is enough. I like him and all, but he can carry the load by himself.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Mike Lamb
Aug 15, 08 15:03
Post #10 of 20 (544 views)
Re: Obama’s stealth ad campaign [vitus979]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Honestly, for me, a policy dispute is not an "attack" ad. There are legitimate points of difference that should be examined and a commercial about those differences, even if focused on the opposition is not an "attack" or even "negative"--assuming of course, it's an accurate portrayal of the policy/flaws.
f/k/a mclamb6
vitus979
Aug 15, 08 15:08
Post #11 of 20 (541 views)
Re: Obama’s stealth ad campaign [Mike Lamb]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Sigh. Whatever.
Funny, then, how the Obama campaign is keeping so quiet about these particular ads.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
dave_w
Aug 15, 08 15:57
Post #12 of 20 (525 views)
Re: Obama’s stealth ad campaign [parkito]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Good post, as it always is valid to show when a candidate's actions don't follow the rhetoric. On the broader subject, I agree with most of this Mort Kondracke column from today's JWR:
Contrary to all the flak he's taking for it, Sen. John McCain has every right to "go negative" on Sen. Barack Obama — but he'd better firm up his positive message, too.
McCain has been making a case that lower corporate taxes will create "jobs for America" and that "all of the above," including nuclear power and offshore drilling, is the way to go on energy. But he's still short of enunciating a comprehensive vision to compete with Obama's.
Meantime, his jabbing at Obama's "celebrity," and using images of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears in TV ads, was juvenile. But it was scarcely "racist" or "Rovian," as many critics charged.
It has become standard among Democrats to accuse Republicans of "smearing" or "sliming" their candidates whenever the GOP goes negative.
"Willy Horton," "Swift Boat" and "Karl Rove" are shorthand for Democratic accusations, and the words alone are widely accepted as proof of GOP dirty tricks.
Republicans certainly did exploit 1988 Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis' furlough of convicted murderer Willie Horton, but it is a fact that Horton committed rape and assault after his release, reinforcing doubts about Dukakis' stance on crime.
In 2004, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did have a legitimate beef against Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who, as an antiwar veteran, once charged that atrocities were routinely committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam.
And while somebody surely inspired underhanded attacks on McCain in South Carolina in 2000, on Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., in 2002 and on 2006 Tennessee Senate candidate Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D), no one has ever established that Rove, political guru to George W. Bush, was responsible.
In fact, of all the negative ads run in recent elections, the worst actually was run against Bush in 2000, in which the NAACP charged that the then-Texas governor's veto of a hate crimes bill was tantamount to condoning a racist murder.
In this year's election, neither McCain nor Obama has been anywhere near as raw — and, hopefully, won't be. Each has hit below the belt, though.
McCain charged that Obama "would lose a war to win an election."
Obama's policies would have lost the Iraq War, but McCain can't prove they were politically motivated.
McCain charged that during Obama's trip to Europe, he chose to play basketball rather than visit wounded troops, whereas the circumstances of Obama's choice are actually complicated and murky.
Meantime, Obama falsely charged that McCain wanted to conduct a "100 years war" in Iraq and that Republicans would use race as an issue against him, which McCain has never done.
The fact is that Obama's fitness to be chief executive and commander in chief is probably the major question in the minds of swing voters — and McCain has every right to reinforce their doubts.
Obama's youth, inexperience, judgment, values and consistency are all legitimate targets for Republicans, and, obviously, so are his policies.
Questions about Obama's fitness are certainly what's keeping the 2008 race close, despite overwhelming voter hunger for "change" and disapproval of Republicans, President Bush and the status quo.
If voters decide — maybe after seeing McCain and Obama in televised debates — that Obama passes the fitness test, my guess is that he could win the election by a hefty margin. So McCain can't be blamed for raising as many doubts as he can about Obama.
There are plenty to exploit. To the extent that "celebrity" was a substitute for "elitism," even that may be legitimate, although Hilton and Spears are scarcely symbols of snobbery.
More serious — and also legitimately bashed by McCain — are Obama's opposition to the Iraq surge and refusal to credit its success, his broken promise on accepting public funding for the general election campaign and his energy and economic policies.
A serious debate is now under way — and, but for Obama, it could be going on face to face — about whether to foster energy independence through "all of the above," including drilling and nuclear, or mainly through development of alternative fuels and conservation, as Obama proposes.
Another debate is under way over whether the middle class is better off getting tax cuts, rebates and jobs created by government subsidies and directives, as Obama proposes, or by having business create jobs after getting tax cuts.
When Obama talks about the future, he soars. He talks about creating "a new economy for the 21st century — new energy, new jobs, new hope for America's families." He calls on the average voter to participate in "the complete transformation of our economy" and acknowledges that sacrifice will be part of it.
The vision is easily attacked as grandiose and unrealistic. But McCain still needs to enunciate a rival vision. Presidential votes are always bets on the future, and McCain needs to give the electorate something to bet on, not just bet against.
JWR contributor Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill. Send your comments by clicking
here.
"It's all about self-esteem"
Mike Lamb
Aug 15, 08 16:07
Post #13 of 20 (520 views)
Re: Obama’s stealth ad campaign [vitus979]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I believe that I stated it was negative...I believe I also stated that it was unfortunate that he didn't address policy directly with the ad.
f/k/a mclamb6
vitus979
Aug 15, 08 16:09
Post #14 of 20 (517 views)
Re: Obama’s stealth ad campaign [Mike Lamb]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I believe that I stated it was negative
The closest you got was saying "it's not particularly negative . . . "
I'll take it.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
ChiTownJack
Aug 15, 08 16:14
Post #15 of 20 (517 views)
Re: Obama’s stealth ad campaign [parkito]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
how is this a stealth ad if the campaign posted it on youtube 3 days ago at the campaign's youtube account...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyqe7Kjb0Nw
it was posted to Youtube on the 12th and someone from the washington Times published an article on the 13th....
not very stealthy....
dave_w
Aug 15, 08 16:29
Post #16 of 20 (511 views)
Re: Obama’s stealth ad campaign [ChiTownJack]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Hmmm, not widely covered though, I'd guess because it does not fit the Obama narrative that McCain is the only one going negative. (the Times is DC's right leaning paper, so it makes sense that they would pick up on it)
"It's all about self-esteem"
parkito
Aug 15, 08 17:25
Post #17 of 20 (499 views)
Re: Obama’s stealth ad campaign [Mike Lamb]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I believe that I stated it was negative...I believe I also stated that it was unfortunate that he didn't address policy directly with the ad.
A little negative or a lot negative isn't really that important to me. I think the bigger point is this is another example that Obama's theme of Change is more lip service than anything else. It seems every time there is a choice and a chance to emphasize the new path of Change, Obama reverts to standard tactics. Not hat there is anything wrong with that, it's just not consistent with what he talks about in person.
The fact that they release the ads on the QT rather than trumpeting them to the media is also a little eyebrow raising.
Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (
James Bryant Conant
)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (
Doug Stern
)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (
William Shakespeare
)
trio_jeepy
Aug 15, 08 19:52
Post #18 of 20 (479 views)
Re: Obama’s stealth ad campaign [parkito]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I don't know why you consider it so disquieting. A TV or radio ad is by definition a public act so I fail to see how it can be considered stealthy. It's only in context of McCain releasing his ads to the press, even if they're just web ads, which is obviously a money saving tactic, that it sounds suspicious.
You can argue that he's trying to have it both ways, I guess. I think it probably has a lot to do with being highly granular in terms of their messaging. This means that their ads don't get the same kind of national attention, but they're also not supposed to, because they're targeted at very specific audiences.
As for whether he's capable of bare knuckle tactics, I would point to the New Yorker article where Obama himself pointed out that you don't come out of Chicago politics without knowing how to fight. So the babe in the woods perception might be naive in itself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"
parkito
Aug 15, 08 20:01
Post #19 of 20 (476 views)
Re: Obama’s stealth ad campaign [trio_jeepy]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I don't know why you consider it so disquieting. A TV or radio ad is by definition a public act so I fail to see how it can be considered stealthy.
Only because it can easily be seen as supporting a two sided campaign, the official side, Change and non-negative, and the other side, politics as usual.
Again, if it were Hillary or just about any other candidate including Republicans, I don't think it would be a big deal. Obama's campaign has painted itself as above the old politics. I find that contradictory.
So the babe in the woods perception might be naive in itself.
I think that is the last perception that I would have. I'm thinking that not only did he defeat Hillary, that he might have given Slick Willie a run for his money as well. Not that I knew any of this in January, mind you.
Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (
James Bryant Conant
)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (
Doug Stern
)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (
William Shakespeare
)
Monk
Aug 15, 08 21:42
Post #20 of 20 (469 views)
Re: Obama’s stealth ad campaign [vitus979]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I don't care about attack ads. Its intellectually dishonest ones that bother me. Stuff like "Why does Barack Obama want thousands of babies killed?" and it is about his pro-choice position. That shit drives me nuts.
Print Thread
MAIN
RULES &
LOG
