Monday, April 21, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
The Barack-Obama-is-the-next-JFK theme
has basically vanished since Teddy K’s endorsement didn’t do Obama much
good in Massachusetts.
But, ever-so-subtly, Hillary Clinton could be reviving the comparison—only this
time, she’s invoking JFK’s naivete to hurt Obama.
Case
in point: Look at her latest Pennsylvania attack ad.
The narrator introduces the spot by growling, “It’s the toughest job in the
world.” Cue the hyper-fast montage of historic headlines and images: Black Thursday,
Pearl Harbor,
the Berlin
Crisis*, Fidel Castro,
the oil crisis, the fall of the Berlin Wall,
Osama Bin Laden, and
Hurricane Katrina.
The ad wraps up with another montage of our modern-day plagues, a quote by
Harry Truman, and a rhetorical question—“Who do you think has what it
takes?”—that’s answered a split-second later with an image of Hillary. (The ad,
by the way, is the most watched News and Politics video on YouTube today. Ninth
most watched in France, 22nd
most viewed in Russia, and
66th most in Canada.
You may not realize it, but you need to know these things.)
It’s
in the initial montage—when it covers the Berlin Crisis*—that we see JFK.
*Corrections,
April 22, 2008: Originally, the post incorrectly stated that a
headline Hillary Clinton used in a recent ad hinted at JFK's handling of the
Vietnam War. It actually referred to the Berlin Crisis. The post made invalid
conclusions based on the error. Those conclusions have been removed from the
post.
-
sponsorship
How’s this for rapid response:
11: 15 a.m.: Clinton campaign
e-mails: “NEW AD: Clinton Campaign Unveils New Ad Asking
Voters, ‘Who Do You Think Has What it Takes?’ ” [Watch it here.]
4:49 p.m.: Obama campaign e-mails: “AD RESPONSE TO CLINTON
FEAR AD” [Watch it here.]
Five-and-a-half hours: All it takes to digest, produce,
edit, and hit back with a counter-spot. So this is that 21st Century campaign I've been hearing all about. Obama spokesman Bill Burton says the ad will be airing in Pennsylvania.
-
sponsorship
Via Ben Smith, here’s a great video of Gov. Ed Rendell berating talking to college students who support Obama.
It’s almost pointless to note Rendell going off-message—it happens every time he opens his mouth. But this time, he’s essentially repeating Obama’s line about all three candidates being pretty darned good. Here’s Rendell in the video:
John McCain is an exceptional person. I think we’ve got three exceptional people running for president. … Don’t be sad, be happy. This is a good field.
To be fair, Clinton critized Obama for saying McCain was "better than Bush," not for praising him. (She has had kind words for McCain in the past, too, but only to further emphasize Obama's impotence.) But Rendell isn't making her case any easier. In Democrat-land, McCain is Bush, period.
Update 5:20 p.m.: Forgot to mention two other instances of dangerous Rendellian honesty. Around the 1:30 mark, Rendell manages to praise both Gov. Deval Patrick and Ronald Reagan. Rendell says he believes Patrick's argument that "words can move people." Oops. Also, he thinks Reagan "was an effective president." Double oops! Of course, he's making the larger point that rhetoric isn't enough—you have to back it up with action. But as we've learned, context is no defense!
-
sponsorship
In case you're curious, Pennsylvania polls close at 8 p.m. tomorrow. Just in time for American Idol.
-
sponsorship
Last week we discussed how the case of Kentucky Rep. Geoff Davis, who referred to Barack Obama as “that boy,” might serve as a cautionary tale for John McCain. If McCain’s age becomes an issue in the general—and it no doubt will—we figure it’s not inconceivable that the word boy could inadvertently slip out.
Apparently we were onto something. Here’s McCain adviser and long-time confidant Mark Salter responding to Sunday’s Washington Post piece on McCain’s temperament:
… I told [the piece’s author, Michael Leahy] that McCain hadn't lost his temper at all. McCain routinely refers to people and colleagues as "boy." He does to me, to Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, and almost everybody. It's like saying hey, buddy. He means nothing by it. Renzi was relatively new to Congress, and got upset when McCain refered to him in this completely innocuous way. … [Emphasis added]
I doubt the “buddy” defense would hold much water if Obama was on the receiving end.
-
sponsorship
The Clinton campaign has released what it calls its "closing argument" ad: "Kitchen." The formula is familiar—a montage of scary images over an ominous drumbeat, followed by uplifting music and a picture of Hillary. The question: “Who do you think has what it takes?” Obama’s camp calls it a “fear ad” and cites a 2004 speech by Bill Clinton in which he said you should vote for the candidate who appeals to your hopes, not your fears. But Clinton spokesman Geoff Garin said in a conference call today that it’s “entirely a positive ad.”
So which is it, positive or negative?
Depends what dictionary you’re using. You could define a “negative” ad as one that 1) contrasts the two candidates on the issues, like health care, 2) impugns the opponent’s character, like charging that Clinton will “say anything to get elected,” or 3) just feels like a downer, like Clinton’s “Freefall” ad about the economy.
Both candidates have run all three types of ads (except for Obama, who hasn’t used the third type yet, but whose “bitter” comment pegged him for a week as Mr. Negative), and both have used all three definitions to characterize their opponents' ads as negative.
In fact, at this point in the race, it’s hard to imagine either candidate running an ad that can’t be viewed as negative. If Obama ran an ad rehashing the hope/change message of mid-2007, it would feel stale. If Clinton plugged her own health care plan without implicitly mentioning that Obama’s would not cover an estimated 15 million people, it would almost be neglectful. The race has reached the point where negativity—according to one definition or another—isn’t just inevitable, it’s necessary to help voters figure out which candidate they prefer. It also creates an arms-race situation where the first candidate to back down looks weak.
Hence the irony of each candidate slamming the other for being too negative. We’ve already reached the point where they’re attacking each other for attacking each other for attacking each other. At what point does the race become so meta that it collapses under the weight of its own internal logic, and Wolf Blitzer's head explodes?
-
sponsorship
Despite a flurry of negative ads from both sides,
Hillary Clinton's Pennsylvania
lead holds steady. So with no clear ups or downs, we're leaving her chances of
winning the nomination at 9.9 percent.
If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything
at all. Both Clinton and Barack Obama chucked that philosophy out the window
long ago, but this weekend marked the nastiness apex, as Clinton
aired an attack
ad responding to an attack ad by Obama responding to an attack ad
by Clinton.
(Followed by Clinton's
"closing
argument" ad.) The ads mostly rehashed old battles over lobbyist money
and health care but with renewed vigor. Neither candidate comes out on top, but
the mudslinging hurts Obama more since it undermines his entire "new
politics" message. He claims Clinton's
attacks have forced him to throw elbows, but in our experience, "she hit
me first" stopped being a valid excuse after second grade. …
Read more at the Hillary Deathwatch.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?