How funny - the shoe comment from Obama's side gets a 'how silly is this' post, while the McCain side's 'Obama is Britany' gets 'how valid is this'?

There is no relevant information in this ad whatsoever. I'm glad Obama basically took them time to laugh at it, and is otherwise disregarding.

Aren't those basically the same two questions, Steph?

This is incredibly silly and superficial, especially for a campaign that's attempting to attack Obama on issues of substance. Considering the barrage of negative media-bait ads they've put out, it's pretty obvious that the McCain camp is very, very worried.

Adopting the Rove playbook is making this once respectable and admirable man--who not long ago spoke of having a civil and respectful campaign--look uglier and uglier by the day, while still not promoting much that's positive about him as a candidate.

McCain really has nothing to add to this debate, does he? The country is in economic ruins and he's name calling. Bush III indeed.

I find this ad manipulative and hypocritical. The GOP must really think Americans are a bunch of fools.

1. Does the GOP think we will forget two of their biggest Golden Boys' resumes? That would be Reagan and Schwarzenegger. At least, Obama doesn't have such a lengthy imdb.com web page.

2. Since when is popularity a NEGATIVE thing or a HINDRANCE in any sort of campaign. They have nothing else to talk about, so they make negative campaign ads about how POPULAR the other candidate is. Pathetic...

3. The current president has hurt our reputation in the world so significantly, it's embarrassing. I agree that our priority isn't to be popular in the world, but to be hated? And now the GOP is using Obama's popularity amongst our ALLIES as a weak point.

It's pathetic and devastating, and I hope that the American people see this ad for what it is.

That ad is so stupid and juvenile and I laughed out loud when they showed McCain's face at the end. I mean what's their point? That Obama seems to be popular among youth or the same people who read US Weekly. Considering how many people by those glossies, he seems to be insulting a large amount of potential voters.

It's not like he isn't going to need those votes.

I love that the Repugs keep saying 'People really like Obama! Who would vote for someone like that?'

I've never heard anyone say that. I guess we hang out in different circles.

McCain has a lot to add to the debate, which is why I wish he wasn't running so many attack ads. His policies differ vastly from Bush's.

I love being ignored.

Wrong thread, sorry.

That does seem to be the green-eyed subtext of a lot of recent attacks, especially during and after Obama's trip to Europe and the Middle East.

I can see attacking Obama's popularity backfiring. Going after his popularity suggests that people are wrong for liking him, and by equating him with Britney and Paris, this latest ad suggests that people like him only for the shallow, superficial reasons they might like Britney and Paris. That's pretty insulting and not likely to switch an Obama voter over to the other side.

lil, you clearly hang out in circles of civilized and thoughtful conservatives, and those would be the ones who would disdain these kinds of tactics anyway

And who would dare ignore you?

As a marketer, I've noticed a trend in McCain's campaign advertising whereby this and other ads feature people in the background chanting "Obama, Obama, Obama" over and over again. McCain's name is mentioned once or twice, though.

You'd seriously think these ads were for Obama if you were flipping around or were only half-listening in the other room.

Not a smart audio strategy on the part of McCain's marketing team, if you ask me.

It's not likely to switch an Obama voter, but that's not the point of political ads. Ads, negative or positive, aren't aimed at those who have already decided.

Again, just to make myself clear, I don't like this ad either and wish he would start highlighting his strengths, because there are a lot of them.

Hasn't this already been a post?

"It's not likely to switch an Obama voter, but that's not the point of political ads. Ads, negative or positive, aren't aimed at those who have already decided."

That's true, good point.

Thanks, Jude!

Yeah, the ignoring thing was joke that I meant to type on an im. I was way off there. I should even have said wrong thread, I should have said completely wrong place!

Deanna, I'm guessing you haven't seen the positive McCain ads? There's one that starts out about his time in the service then summarizes his political career then briefly talks about his plans. Obama's not even mentioned in it. It packs a lot into 30 seconds!

"Does the GOP think we will forget two of their biggest Golden Boys' resumes? That would be Reagan and Schwarzenegger. At least, Obama doesn't have such a lengthy imdb.com web page."

GOOD POINT!

meh... most people i know would never be swayed by a commercial. we've already made up our minds.

Wow, Harmony AND Yesteryear speak!

You know, from McCain's side, the negative ads issue and the not-enough-media-coverage problem are feeding into each other and creating an unfortunate influence on his campaign.

I think we were talking about this on another thread, how attack ads like this actually have fairly minimal buys, but get picked up by the media and watched on the Internet, and thus get a lot more play than the positive ads like the one you mention. That's one factor.

The other factor is the McCain campaign's contention that he isn't getting enough press coverage in relation to Obama. (Which I do think is true--though I'll leave the advantages and disadvantages of that for another day.)

The campaign mostly gets coverage and widespread attention when it puts out outrageous attack ads like this--much more coverage than a positive ad would get. So, does that become a self-fulfilling cycle? Going negative gets them more coverage, so then they go negative some more...

The unfortunate thing is that I really think there's a chance that that will sink the campaign.

Well here we go once again an ad that celebrates ignorance rather than the truth. Everyone seems to be focused on the comparison of star quality at the beginning of the ad which surprisingly enough doesn't bother me. He is a star because people have made him a star that's their prerogative. However, what get’s me are the lies in the second half of the ad. Sen. McCain should be ashamed of him self for approving the ad it's ridiculous.

What lies?

It's unfortunate in McCain's campaign? Yet BO's is the one losing steam.

More foreign oil, I'm guessing? I guess that could either be argued as true or untrue, since no one really knows with 100% certainty how long it will take to develop new technology and make it available to the masses. So yeah, we probably will need more foreign oil in the future, no matter who is elected. And he will raise taxes. Not for everyone, but it's not a lie to say that there will be higher taxes under Obama. Again, it's not the greatest ad ever by far and I don't really like it at all, but I would call those statements more generalities than lies. As Jill pointed out the other day, there is a difference between not telling the whole story and lying.

That being said, it did bother me when Obama's campaign released a statement saying that the Obama campaign is investing nothing in new energies. That is a lie, to me. I guess both campaigns are playing dirty.

If Obama wins, I hope we get a Simple Life 6: Inside the Beltway staring BFFs Barack & Paris.

So McCain's folks are trying to say that Obama is just full of hot air and no substance. It's probably better for both camps to stick with the facts, otherwise you get into this tit-for-tat crap and it's pretty childish.

Hopefully voters will do their research and find that Obama will do a lot of good for this country with what he is proposing.

Yes, I do say "unfortunate" for McCain's campaign, considering that recent polls show that Obama would have 284 electoral votes if the election was held today and McCain would have only 147. And none of the negativity has been able to put McCain in the lead in daily polling.

Of course polls are not particularly reliable, and fluctuate by the day, but the relentless negativity of the McCain campaign smacks of desperation.

I miss the McCain of 2000.

I agree, Jude. Don't get me wrong, I obviously want McCain to win, but I am not so disillusioned to think that he is going to.

I would have seriously considered voted for him in 2000 if the Bush team hadn't destroyed him in the primaries. I think that's one of the reasons I dislike negative campaigning so much--I've seen what it can do to (in my opinion) vastly more substantial and qualified candidates.

It's the "more foreign oil" statement that is deviously misleading and IMO a lie. Now if they were to say "continued dependence on foreign oil" that would be a true statement and a very intelligent attack line. Because the fact of the matter is although our dependence for foreign oil would be less under the Sen. Osama’s plan the fact of the matter is we would still depend on foreign oil.

LOL! McCain's camp wants Obama's magnetism bad.

As for taxes hey as long as their reasonable and for a genuine purpose sure, we need to pay for what we're ansking them to do.

Right, I just didn't know if you were referring to the ad saying there would be higher taxes under Obama as a lie. Of course, it doesn't tell the whole story, but I wouldn't call it a lie.

i haven't read all of the responses yet, but i think that this kind of tactic will hurt mccain in the same way it hurt hillary if he doesn't turn it down a notch or two. people eventually began looking at hillary's campaign as 'do or say anything to win' and these kinds of ads, where nothing is really being said, run the risk of doing that.

i also agree with the person who said focusing on obama so much in a mccain ad, from a marketing perspective makes the ad seem like it would be an obama ad if you weren't paying attention...and how many of us fully pay attention when the tv is on? i certainly multitask when watching tv.

CNN has just released a new poll showing that 4 out of 10 people now believe McCain is attacking Obama unfairly.

Oh, and good comparison to the Clinton/Obama primary war, jenintx.

I'm surprised it's only 4 out of 10. I would have thought that would have fallen more along party lines and been 5 out of 10.

Anyway, I really do have to work, which I keep saying in every thread before coming back to Citizen!

"I'm surprised it's only 4 out of 10. I would have thought that would have fallen more along party lines and been 5 out of 10."

And this is where sexism comes in (mind you I am not a Hillary supporter) but people saw her as a scheming, conniving witch and that lead to her being unfair, while the same tactics are used by men (all men, all sides) are seen as just politics.

What? All men?
Where do you work Lilkimbo?

What do you mean about all men? I'm confused. (I'm not trying to be rude in the least, I am seriously asking.) Also, did I reference anything about where I work/what comment is that in reference to? (Again, I really am confused and do not mean that question rudely at all.)

Oh my bad..all men was refering to Zeze's comment that we were connivers, and unfair and what not...never mind.

I did want to know what is your profession lilkimbo?

Duh, I didn't even pay attention to zeze's comment right there and just figured the whole comment was directed toward me. Sorry!

And I help manage political action committees.

Sorry about that. I hope no one thought I was referring to prostitution or anything, because I said all men..... and asked where do you work. I meant to refer it to Zeze, in a friendly way.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't think you were referring to prostitution or anything, I was just puzzled. Thanks for clarifying, though!

Fo Show, haha...I wasn't saying all men are unfair, what I meant by "all men" was that it does not matter what political party as long as it is a man using these tactics they will not be seen as "dirty, treacheries, unfair, or evil" while a woman (again no matter what party) will be seen as such b/c society does not accept women playing these political games but calls them "old fashioned politics" when male politicians do it.

...hope that clears it up, I would never say all men are connivers (only most)

i think this is a dirty trick aimed at less intelligent and less informed people, and i miss the mccain of 2000 too! he should get a new publicity team. but i'm team obama anyways~

I think that some people just see pictures and hear words and get confused/influenced. i believe this because a lot of people voted for g.w. bush. And some people who vote may even be senile to varying degrees. what a VERY rude trick! and by the way mccain, although not young and attractive like obama, is kind of a celebrity too. It seems like he has been on the Daily show soooo many times ever since the year 2000.

This ad is just plan ridiculous. I have no words.