Skip to main content

You may not like the McCain strategy, but this ad is going to leave a mark

I can foresee a lot of scrambling by leading Democrats trying to explain this one away.



What John McCain is doing--as unlovely as the execution of the strategy may appear to political wonks and insiders of both parties--is going right past the money and the pseudo-wonkish seriousness of the Obama campaign to make ads that people will remember, whether they like them or not.

And for the first time he's throwing Barack Obama seriously off stride with them.

Obama is responding rather than initiating.

The strategy is an old one: throw rapid-fire shit at a wall and see what sticks, but it is nonetheless effective.

The fact that Paris Hilton and company made a video response actually plays into McCain's hands. Why? Because it doesn't make him look stupid to middle-class America, it looks like he finally got their attention.

Remember: McCain is the guy they wrote off as road kill last year, and he's got a lot of experience in not losing.

And while everybody's watching the hand waving the Paris Hilton doll, the other hand is making all the rounds on conservative talk radio shoring up the base by taking credit for giving the liberal elite fits.

Ironically, the one Democrat who'd know how to play this game back at him is Hillary Clinton.

Disclaimer: this is not a campaign ad nor an endorsement for Senator John McCain, whose stance of preemptive war alone keeps him from getting my vote. It is merely an observation about campaign process.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Agree that this ad is not helpful, but the most damaging part is Hillary's comment.

The one Dem message that is coming through is: This is not the McCain of 2000. He's changed.

BTW, I think Dems have already put out their counter ad.
Anonymous said…
Here is what I think. We have looked at election data for 8 months now, and we are bored.

A brand new issue needs to appear, and appear soon.

The lack of a new issue, is why we even talk back and forth about a campaign ad. Obviously there are much more important things to discuss than effective ads, (like health-care) but most of America has heard it argued back and forth before.....

But give us something new............
and our short attention spans will refocus, renewed with vigor.

Bottom line, we need a new issue.
Delaware Watch said…
I think the Paris Hilton ad hurt McCain because:

1. It made her look smarter than him.
2. She drew a lot of attention to his age.
3. The McCain campaign ACTUALLY said her view accords w/ theirs, undermining the original point of the ad that it's Obama, not McCain, that belongs to realm of superficiality.

On the last point, the Obama campaign missed an opportunity to respond to point out that it's John McCain that has the Paris Hilton view on energy policy.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...