The DNC released today their first ad attacking McCain. The ad hits him on the economy. It is pretty effective in portraying McCain as out of touch with America and what is happening to our economy. The ad is below. However, I think the strategy is flawed. Karl Rove's philosophy for attacking candidates had been to dismantle their biggest strength (see: John Kerry and Vietnam) and then leave them with nothing. McCain's experience with regard to foreign affairs is unquestionably his strength. The war in Iraq still highly unpopular and McCain has been explicit in his support of the war so why not go after him about that? The other possibility is that DNC doesn't want to show their best cards yet, we will see...Either way, it is good to see that the DNC isn't sitting and twiddling their thumbs while Obama and Clinton rip each other apart...
Showing posts with label Attack Ads. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Attack Ads. Show all posts
Monday, April 21, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Obama's momentum takes a "bitter" turn
Predictably, Hillary Clinton swiftly released an attack ad seeking to capitalize on Barack Obama's recent gaffe:
In the days leading up to the Pennsylvania primary, we can be sure that Clinton will continue to make an issue of Obama's poorly phrased comments, using the incident to increase her advantage among rural voters. The timing of this error is terrible for Obama.
The Bosnia story was especially harmful to Clinton because it highlighted a key weakness of her candidacy: voters' hesitation to trust her considering her reputation for manipulating facts to her own benefit. Similarly, the "bitter" comments by Obama bring his shortcomings as a candidate into sharp focus, namely, notions that he is an elitist "latte liberal" who fails to connect with the working class just as John Kerry did. Further, Obama has been an optimistic candidate whose campaign is fueled by small donations from "regular" people; these comments seem to patronize average Americans, even striking a cynical note with the "cling" part.
What's worse, this fiasco fits into an unfortunate pattern for Obama: first his wife's comments about being proud of America for "the first time," then his pastor's comments damning America, and now comments by Obama himself seem to raise doubts about his attitude toward America. Especially in a matchup with a war hero, even a hint of a lack of patriotism is not something Obama can afford to have stick to his candidacy. It is somewhat ironic that the candidate of hope finds himself blasted for being negative about his country.
Personally, I think the argument Obama was trying to make is reasonable, but as a presidential candidate, he should have known better than to use such phrasing that would open him up to attacks. He should have avoided making negative, almost stereotypical generalizations about entire groups of people, and instead emphasized broader terms ("frustration"), focusing on sympathy and solutions for small-town Americans. It must be difficult not to slip up when speaking constantly, but Obama must know that any misstep will be exploited by his opponents to his detriment.
In the days leading up to the Pennsylvania primary, we can be sure that Clinton will continue to make an issue of Obama's poorly phrased comments, using the incident to increase her advantage among rural voters. The timing of this error is terrible for Obama.
The Bosnia story was especially harmful to Clinton because it highlighted a key weakness of her candidacy: voters' hesitation to trust her considering her reputation for manipulating facts to her own benefit. Similarly, the "bitter" comments by Obama bring his shortcomings as a candidate into sharp focus, namely, notions that he is an elitist "latte liberal" who fails to connect with the working class just as John Kerry did. Further, Obama has been an optimistic candidate whose campaign is fueled by small donations from "regular" people; these comments seem to patronize average Americans, even striking a cynical note with the "cling" part.
What's worse, this fiasco fits into an unfortunate pattern for Obama: first his wife's comments about being proud of America for "the first time," then his pastor's comments damning America, and now comments by Obama himself seem to raise doubts about his attitude toward America. Especially in a matchup with a war hero, even a hint of a lack of patriotism is not something Obama can afford to have stick to his candidacy. It is somewhat ironic that the candidate of hope finds himself blasted for being negative about his country.
Personally, I think the argument Obama was trying to make is reasonable, but as a presidential candidate, he should have known better than to use such phrasing that would open him up to attacks. He should have avoided making negative, almost stereotypical generalizations about entire groups of people, and instead emphasized broader terms ("frustration"), focusing on sympathy and solutions for small-town Americans. It must be difficult not to slip up when speaking constantly, but Obama must know that any misstep will be exploited by his opponents to his detriment.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Fundraising Trouble for Anti-McCain Group
An article posted Sunday on Politico discussed the trouble Democrats have had thus far in trying to raise money for anti-John McCain advertising.
Democrats set up the fundraising group "Fund for America" in order to change how "independent" attack ads are executed, as the party wanted to create a more permanent organization dedicated to supporting their candidates and trashing the other side. Therefore, instead of a 527 group, which became well-known as a category in 2004 for the impact "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" had in questioning John Kerry's Vietnam War service, this new Democratic group was created as a 501(c)(4) charity. This status allows the group to exist beyond this one election cycle, and it allows money they raise to carry over as well. "Fund for America," therefore, was set up as a central organization designed to raise as much money as possible for a concerted Democratic attack strategy against the Republicans, which will then be executed by the group "Campaign to Defend America." "Campaign to Defend America" will create and air the majority of "independent" Democratic attack ads in this election cycle, and their hope was to begin their efforts early on this year with a strong anti-John McCain push.
As the article mentions, everyone in politics and political advertising knows how crucial it is to define your opponent first before they get a chance to define themselves on their own terms. Painting McCain as a man tied too much to the policies of President Bush or the failed planning of the Iraq war might be effective campaign strategies later on this year and would make great campaign ads. The problem, however, has been that Democratic donors, for the most part, have been slow to come around to the idea that they need to be pouring their money into this group and its efforts this early on.
Democratic campaign donors, for the time being, are still transfixed on the race for their party's nomination, and therefore most money is still being poured into the efforts of either Clinton or Obama. The article mentions that there is growing frustration in the party that donors are not realizing the need to begin focusing on John McCain now, as the Democratic race appears to be somewhat heading toward a conclusion and McCain's polling is stronger than ever. Now is the time to begin attacking his character and record, the "Campaign to Defend America" argues, but the public and the big party donors have not yet turned their attention fully to the general election just yet. As one donor's representative stated, "We know we're going to have a good Democratic nominee — it's time for Democrats to turn their attention to John McCain."
Democrats wanted to "drop the hammer" on John McCain right from the get go after he became the presumptive Republican nominee, as many regretted their handling of political ads in 2004, when the Republicans were much better at quickly and forcefully defining the opposition. But with fundraising efforts decidedly "mixed" thus far for this central Democratic attack group, they have only been able to create one prominent advertisement, entitled "McSame," and were able to air it in only a few relatively-inexpensive markets. They have begun testing their messages and potential ads among swing voters and focus groups, but their efforts have been limited much more so than they expected by a lack of sufficient funding from the party.
Democrats are having a hard time looking too far ahead beyond the current Clinton-Obama match up, it seems, despite the need to begin running against Republican John McCain. Anti-McCain research and message testing may be adequate for the time being, but with McCain polling about even with both Democratic candidates and his nomination competition entirely out of the way, McCain may begin to open a real lead over his opposition in the coming weeks as he stresses his strengths, values, and personal history. If Democrats want to win in November, they need to start supporting the "Fund for America" and "Campaign to Defend America" now, as their long term success may depend on how well they begin the general election debate.
Democrats set up the fundraising group "Fund for America" in order to change how "independent" attack ads are executed, as the party wanted to create a more permanent organization dedicated to supporting their candidates and trashing the other side. Therefore, instead of a 527 group, which became well-known as a category in 2004 for the impact "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" had in questioning John Kerry's Vietnam War service, this new Democratic group was created as a 501(c)(4) charity. This status allows the group to exist beyond this one election cycle, and it allows money they raise to carry over as well. "Fund for America," therefore, was set up as a central organization designed to raise as much money as possible for a concerted Democratic attack strategy against the Republicans, which will then be executed by the group "Campaign to Defend America." "Campaign to Defend America" will create and air the majority of "independent" Democratic attack ads in this election cycle, and their hope was to begin their efforts early on this year with a strong anti-John McCain push.
As the article mentions, everyone in politics and political advertising knows how crucial it is to define your opponent first before they get a chance to define themselves on their own terms. Painting McCain as a man tied too much to the policies of President Bush or the failed planning of the Iraq war might be effective campaign strategies later on this year and would make great campaign ads. The problem, however, has been that Democratic donors, for the most part, have been slow to come around to the idea that they need to be pouring their money into this group and its efforts this early on.
Democratic campaign donors, for the time being, are still transfixed on the race for their party's nomination, and therefore most money is still being poured into the efforts of either Clinton or Obama. The article mentions that there is growing frustration in the party that donors are not realizing the need to begin focusing on John McCain now, as the Democratic race appears to be somewhat heading toward a conclusion and McCain's polling is stronger than ever. Now is the time to begin attacking his character and record, the "Campaign to Defend America" argues, but the public and the big party donors have not yet turned their attention fully to the general election just yet. As one donor's representative stated, "We know we're going to have a good Democratic nominee — it's time for Democrats to turn their attention to John McCain."
Democrats wanted to "drop the hammer" on John McCain right from the get go after he became the presumptive Republican nominee, as many regretted their handling of political ads in 2004, when the Republicans were much better at quickly and forcefully defining the opposition. But with fundraising efforts decidedly "mixed" thus far for this central Democratic attack group, they have only been able to create one prominent advertisement, entitled "McSame," and were able to air it in only a few relatively-inexpensive markets. They have begun testing their messages and potential ads among swing voters and focus groups, but their efforts have been limited much more so than they expected by a lack of sufficient funding from the party.
Democrats are having a hard time looking too far ahead beyond the current Clinton-Obama match up, it seems, despite the need to begin running against Republican John McCain. Anti-McCain research and message testing may be adequate for the time being, but with McCain polling about even with both Democratic candidates and his nomination competition entirely out of the way, McCain may begin to open a real lead over his opposition in the coming weeks as he stresses his strengths, values, and personal history. If Democrats want to win in November, they need to start supporting the "Fund for America" and "Campaign to Defend America" now, as their long term success may depend on how well they begin the general election debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
