New Obama Ad Hits McCain As "Big Spender"
The Obama campaign goes up with this new spot in swing states firing back at John McCain's contention that Obama is the big tax-and-spender in the race. The ad says McCain is the real big spender, what with his multi-trillion-dollar tax handouts to the rich and the insurance companies:
"So as we borrow from China to fund his spending spree, ask yourself: Can we afford John McCain?"
Unlike the McCain campaign, which has blamed Obama repeatedly for the bailout implosion even as it calls for bipartisan cooperation to deal with the crisis, the Obama camp has actually refrained from blaming McCain for the collapse. Instead, the Obama campaign has confined its attacks on McCain over the economy to a more general critique, such as the one in this ad.
The mention of Chinese debt-holders seems designed to resonate with people's sense of economic nationalism, which is probably running higher amid the very deep sense of worry that people have about the credit crisis.
Starts with Obama's approval. Ends with a question. Once again, Obama wants the voter to think.
I like the chats with Obama better... but this is a good question for your low info voter?
October 1, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't mean that to end with a question mark. Though the ad ended that way: Can we afford John mcCain?
October 1, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the intent is to make voters question if they can trust McCain. The real question being posed by ads now is intended to dogpile on the fact that they see voter trust moving in Obama's direction in the polls. So sure, end with questions instead of statements, espically since McCain himself and espically Palin are so unavailable for questions and aren't really offering answers. I mean, really, "Do You Trust John McCain?"
October 1, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice ad. Some might balk at the economic nationalism angle, but I think it is important that economically independent (not owe money to countries that don't have our interest at the top of their list) just as we need to be energy independent.
October 1, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pitch perfect. For the folks who are *really, really* afraid - as in elderly and retired - of the economic fallout that is sure to come, this taps into their cold war responses.
October 1, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
My mom is elderly and retired. Setting aside the fact that hell will freeze over before she'll vote for a Democrat, she's way more afraid of "socialism" than of money owed to China. I'm not sure if Fox Faux has been beating the socialism drum, or all Democrats are socialists (or maybe Commie dupes), but that is the biggest item on her mind.
October 1, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're arguing an apple against my banana, IMO. Your mom - and mine as well - wouldn't vote for Obama if he personally made a large deposit into their retirement accounts.
Politics is always about persuading the persuadable, doing the doable. To hell with effing the ineffable, no politics can address such things.
October 1, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're saying the ineffable can go eff themselves?
October 1, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol... precisely.
October 1, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny. My mom is elderly and retired, and hell will freeze over before she'll vote for a republican.
October 1, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
no way to help the ignorant unless they help themselves.
"wont vote for a dem. till hell freezes over",
and we can reach her with logic????????????
October 1, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who was the last Republican pres to submit a balanced budget?
October 1, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
that would be nixon
October 1, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
ouch!!! that one bites...
October 1, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This ad made me laugh because it was like "back at yah"!
The fact that the Obama team has taken an attack from the GOP and returned the fire back at them with the same attack is extremely promising.
I wouldn't be surprised when the GOP/McCain camp starts running ads with Wright/Ayers/Rezko saying can you trust Obama because of his associations that the Obama campaign returns a similar ad back on McCain/Palin using KeatingFive/McCain lobbyists who lobbied on behalf of countries who want to destroy America/Alaska Independence Party who's founder damned America and say can you trust this team because of their deeds and associations.
That's probably why Obama has been keeping it's powder dry on the Keating Five and the AIP.
October 1, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This ad made me laugh because it was like "back at yah"!
The fact that the Obama team has taken an attack from the GOP and returned the fire back at them with the same attack is extremely promising.
I wouldn't be surprised when the GOP/McCain camp starts running ads with Wright/Ayers/Rezko saying can you trust Obama because of his associations that the Obama campaign returns a similar ad back on McCain/Palin using KeatingFive/McCain lobbyists who lobbied on behalf of countries who want to destroy America/Alaska Independence Party who's founder damned America and say can you trust this team because of their deeds and associations.
That's probably why Obama has been keeping it's powder dry on the Keating Five and the AIP.
October 1, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today a new 527 released an ad tying Obama with Wright, Ayers and Resko:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/Conservative_judicial_group_drops_Rezko_Ayers_and_yes_Wright_on_Obama.html
October 1, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty shitty ad.
October 1, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the same thing I thought when I saw it.
It's dull and offers nothing new. It will backfire.
October 1, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing is with those ads, they're all over the map. It feels scatter-shot to link a guy to Wright, Ayers, and Rezko because well, look how completely different all three of those people are. The whole "he's risky" thing feels very weak because there's never been a consensus on why he's risky - they just throw a bunch of different, contradicting smears around haphazardly.
October 1, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree with you.
October 1, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are saying that the Muslim/Christian-Terrorist/Pacifist Wimp-Most Cunning Man Ever/Intellectual Lightweight portrayal of Obama is not logically consistent enough to sway voters?
October 1, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Whatever that question means...
October 1, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a good ad. It works more as a complement of the 2 minute ads with Obama directly talking to voters. The China aspect could work with swing voters and of course, the Social Security issue is front and center in states like Florida.
In other news today: Another McCain gaffe...
Transcript from an interview at NPR:
"But the point is that if he had agreed to the town hall meetings that I asked him to do all around the country, like Jack Kennedy and Barry Goldwater had once agreed to do..."
It's not true and the fact is he said this before (in June) and MSNBC fact checked on this already:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/04/1110876.aspx
John McCain: Another day, another gaffe, another lie.
October 1, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The two ads work together.
October 1, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look on the bright side everyone. I mean, after 12 years of Republican governance, it only took us eight years of Clinton to save up enough to buy another, even more idiotic Republican. I'm sure that after Obama's second term we'll be able to afford a Republican president who makes George W. Bush look like a particle physicist.
Robert
October 1, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a little worried about the Chinese xenophobia that is arising in this country. Our relationship is very complex but at the end of the day our economic interest mean that China is by far our biggest partner in the world.
China is our rival like the other guy on your office team gunning for the same promotion is your rival - you might be going for a larger piece of the pie but you both eat from the same pie and make the pie together. I know it is easy to have cognitive dissonance about China but we are going to majorly shoot ourselves in the foot if we don't start becoming realist about the nature of our relationship with them.
October 1, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck. I want some pie.
October 1, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your analogy holds true only if that guy is your bookie and your on a bad losing streak.
October 1, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol... a good analogy.
October 1, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I am worried about pissing off the Chinese. If they stop buying our (junk) bonds, we're really in deep shit. But I don't think this level of jingoism here will threaten that, any more than their jingoism will stop WalMart from buying their stuff.
The sooner we dig ourselves out of this hole, the more secure we'll be.
October 1, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the Chinese could really care less about our nationalism. They very much understand the need to influence nationalism at home as they constantly do that themselves. They care about 1. their own internal politics over how the world sees them. 2. whether we buy their stuff. If 1 and 2 are met they are good.
October 1, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely put.
October 1, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's putting it a bit too mildly. China is like the the other guy on your office team who is gunning for your parking spot, the password to your project files, your job, your paycheck, your wife, and your goddamned tee off time at golf course. And trust me on this - don't eat that fucking pie.
October 1, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me ad that you might also think the other guy in your office is a jerk who treats his family badly.
October 1, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol... it was a good post, and this comment improves it.
October 1, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh man! Good for you, Obama! Way to turn things right back at McCain!
One thing that I find so brilliant about Obama's campaign is the ability to turn Conservative talking points against the Republicans, but do it in a way that he's not pandering or triangulating to the right. That's one thing Bill Clinton, for all his brilliance back in '92, wasn't able to do.
October 1, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Former McCain campaign supervisor,Mike Murphy, takes a swipe at McCain's campaign strategy.
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/des_moines_register.html
October 1, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was my favorite from the comments section:
October 1, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that's some quality snark!
October 1, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good ad. Would have been even better if he stuck in the $10 billion a month going down the rathole that is Iraq.
October 1, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant ad. As I mentioned in the other thread detailing McCain's "big spender" ad, McCain's ad never mentioned any specific numbers. It urged us to be worried by Obama's "higher taxes" or his "increased spending" without ever mentioning how much higher. We were supposed to be scared by the abstract idea of taxes, rather than any particular tax, and abstractions do not scare people as much as concrete particulars. Obama's ad has real numbers (and big ones at that; "trillion" is a menacing number). Meanwhile the flourish about "borrowing from China" at the end is a stroke of brilliance which I am sure Steve Schmidt is presently kicking himself for not thinking of first.
October 1, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that Palin appears in the ad. That's not an accident.
October 1, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
correction: "Note . . ."
October 1, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
A couple of weeks ago, it made sense to ignore the Airhead Bimbo and just go after McSame.
It's still not worth it to say anything about her, but she's become so much of an albatross that just reminding people she's there is enough.
October 1, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
OT - I was just at HuffPo. Ok, I'm convinced. Palin will win the debate with her "glittering but upbeat generalities" and this will turn the tide and McLame-Painful will win the election.
October 1, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, please chillax!
Everything will be alright!
October 1, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
This would be understandable except there are stairs, not a curtain to cut through!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/01/mccain-gets-lost-on-stage_n_130868.html
October 1, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously hilarious. If he wasn't such an a-hole, I might feel sorry for him.
October 1, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out the clips from the McCain meeting with the Editorial Board of the Des Moines Register.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/01/mccain-gets-testy-with-de_n_130801.html
He gets real testy when called out on some of his false ads. At the end of the first clip even even sinks to waving the POW flag - again.
October 1, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And he lied, lied, and lied again without even blinking. He is just one piece of work. I had no idea before this election he was so devious and dishonest.
October 1, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And he lied, lied, and lied again without even blinking. He is just one piece of work. I had no idea before this election he was so devious and dishonest.
I so agree with you. McCain, for me, used to be the guy I would pull out of the hat when challenged to name a Republican I didn't loathe.
October 1, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I find interesting is the dramatic shift that has occurred. If anyone remembers, pre-convention, this election was all about a referendum on Obama. People were saying they were voting against Obama when voting for McCain.
With McCain's huge problems,ie, 7 houses, deregulation king, Palin airhead problem, lobbyist problem, social security, the focus has shifted onto John McCain now.
This election has become a referendum against McCain now.
Just my opinion.
October 1, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I find interesting is the dramatic shift that has occurred. If anyone remembers, pre-convention, this election was all about a referendum on Obama. People were saying they were voting against Obama when voting for McCain.
With McCain's huge problems,ie, 7 houses, deregulation king, Palin airhead problem, lobbyist problem, social security, the focus has shifted onto John McCain now.
This election has become a referendum against McCain now.
Just my opinion.
October 1, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. I remember seeing some anonymous quote from a Republican sage who said M can win only if the campaign is all about Obama.
October 1, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about them doing an ad that touts the amount of deficit laden budgets that McCain has voted for in his 26 years in Congress. I am sure the amount would be staggering and you can tied him directly to them by his own vote.
For instance, he very likely voted to pass all the Reagan-Bush deficit budgets of the 80's and early 90's and he has certainly supported Bush's budget busting budgets of the last 8 years.
October 1, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
thera p u talking about low uneducated info voters like fogu2,lalo35,sfc wallace and dumbbilc right!!!!
October 1, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone studied the number of times an Obama ad begins with his endorsement, versus the equivalent for McCain?
My impression is that an Obama ad is far more likely to begin this way, and that this might convey integrity (standing in front of one's words) more than a tagline after a drive-by attack ad.
October 1, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
keep underestimating the Obama team.
thats all i ask.
October 1, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink