McCain's attack ads: Food for Thought
When Paris Hilton attacks back, your own mother (McCain's) calls them pathetic, and the general consensus is that they're a bit juvenile and silly....they're working. What does that say about the voting public? That they're seeing the debatable substance (meaning only about half of the content said as fact has been found to be actual facts) that takes place at the end of the ad's or that as much as North American's love the tabloids they don't enjoy their presidential candidates being almost at that level of celebrity? Or is it they've forgotten that Sen. McCain is the one who has appeared in multiple movies, on SNL multiple times, and had to scrap his reference to him being a celebrity on his own campaign web site before he ran the ads? Most likely it has to do with Sen. McCain being substance and being frank with the country even while being a celebrity. The Obama campaign could try to do a counter ad showing Sen. McCain in all of his cameos but they simply wouldn't have the same effect. Obama's people are in a bind on this one because he just doesn't have the connection with the country that McCain does, he isn't allowed the same free passes that Mr. McCain is allowed.
Take the time Sen. McCain had to be corrected by Sen. Lieberman or the Pakistan border misstep. When both mistakes were made even Democrats admitted the reason those weren't turn into political attacks is because everyone knows Mr. McCain understands what is going on in the Middle East and one misstatement doesn't mean he has forgotten everything he knew about our situation over there.
In no way is this a fair double standard but it is reality and 20 years from now, whether Mr. Obama wins or not in November, he'll be afforded the same "courtesy". The McCain brand has a long standing foot hold in this country’s eyes, his "favorable view" ratings have probably never dipped below 50% and that is hard to accomplish.
Posts
2 comments:
"When Paris Hilton attacks back, your own mother (McCain's) calls them pathetic, and the general consensus is that they're a bit juvenile and silly....they're working. What does that say about the voting public? That they're seeing the debatable substance (meaning only about half of the content said as fact has been found to be actual facts) that takes place at the end of the ad's or that as much as North American's love the tabloids they don't enjoy their presidential candidates being almost at that level of celebrity? "
What is says about the AMerican public is that they see the substance of McCain over the course of years and then see the vacuosness of Obama, this new guy..they see the media loves him, gets big crowds but where is the substance? and so mccain is brilliantly filling in those blanks for the american people. Also, what it demonstrates is that Obama's Berlin speech was in effect a gift to the McCain campaign as it allowed them to have a symbol for their narrative of Obama... thats he's young, inexperiences, and there is no substance behind the grandiose rhetoric.
Their is substance, the McCain campaign doesn't want it to be seen. Every candidate has substance. The actual question is what IS the substance of each candidate, not whether their is substance at all.
Post a Comment