The ad was transparently stupid, at least what I've heard of it, since I haven't seen it. Pick your battles, because such an ad is not going to make a difference at all, but wasting energy on it might end up making a difference.

To a certain extent, the best reaction to self-serving stupidity is sometimes just scorn, ridicule and sarcasm, because people respond to that too and tend to remember negative information more than positive, so just make fun of the man and his campaign when they do the stupid, and try to distract people, point out that motivation, in a subtle way most of the time.

We got sidetracked on race because "reporters" have been taking Obama's comments about the dollar-bill ad from last June and pretending they're about the "Celebrity" ad.

It's confusing 'cause they're stupid.
.

I don't think he means to ignore it... he means we should be mocking McCain mercilessly for what a pathetic ad he put out. Laugh at his camps clear desperation. Do the "All you got is Paris Hilton? WTF?"

You dont have to attack by trying to rebut the charge made against you. You can just attack. Instead of responding to the ad, just attack McCain for being old or for being crazy for having bad skin or whatever.

If I were Obama I would say that I am not accusing Mr. McCain of racism, but must point out that historically such tactics have been used to put fear in the minds of the majority voters that if they are not careful black males will start dating their daughters .

Obama has an ad out on McCain's love fest with oil money, saw it on DKos today.

Any ads like that, showing McCain connected to Bush, Big Oil, etcl, run 'em all the time.

jedreport.com has good stuff too.

..

Of course I mean point out that McCain and his campaign are trying to distract people, not that we want to.

A powerful connection one can make is to continually point out when someone is "blowing smoke", and frame it in the sense they are profoundly "unserious" and don't respect the intelligence or integrity of the audience.

In McCain's case, it's easier than in most cases, at least so far with his campaign, what with the Paris Hilton commercial or his history of singing "bomb bomb iran", you line up a bunch of his ridiculous moments, and ask voters if this man is really a statesman who is serious enough to lead this country?

Then you fold in his flip-flopping on the same issues that he criticized Obama (like making foreign appearances), along with obvious prostituting of his platform to get money from oil and other interests, and you've got a slam dunk with the heartland, because Americans are generally a suspicious lot, don't trust politicians all that much, and John McCain should clearly be painted as a politician, not a maverick, especially because a Republican presidential politician following Bush will not win this election.

Let's listen to Senator McCain discuss race.

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/08/what-happened.html

There is a lot of advice floating out there and a lot of it is contradictory, so I am never sure what to do.

Here is what I have heard about the problem with liberals in the arena of politics:

1. We look down on our competition as stupid and / or laugh at them..
2. We don't fight back. We roll over too easily.

Which is it?

The fact is, the Paris / Britney ad IS dog whistle politics. It IS stupid. It SHOULD be laughed at.

If anything, we liberals spend too much hand-wringing over process and articles like the other listed above. Mayhaps we should just say what we believe. And I think that ad was stupid, as are the people who are convinced by it. They deserve their 5 dollar a gallon gas.

just attack McCain for being old or for being crazy for having bad skin or whatever.

And by all means, do not forget the yellow teeth and fusty, old-man smell.

whoa! mebbe I should start from the bottom up.

8-(

..

This always strikes me as such a foolish piece of liberal "wisdom":

"one of the lessons that liberals learned from the 2004 election is that laughing it off is never the right reaction. No matter the subject, the right response is to hit back often and hard, and the oftener and harder the better."

This presumably is based on the myth that the swift boat veterans "lied" about Kerry and his failure to "hit back often and hard" somehow cost the election. The most effective of what Kerry was "accused of" by the swift boat veterans was his own words on video tape. How was he going to to hit back against them?

The reason Kerry lost was that he was a flawed and unlikeable candidate who ran a mediocre campaign.

The real "wisdom" about elections is that each one is different with different candidates that call for specialized approaches. Obama badly needs to show some humor and humility. The celebrity and the one ads were perfect opportunities for him to do so. Years ago, FDR reacted with humor to various attackes. Truman was mostly a fighter, although he had somem humor. Kennedy was a witty guy. Clinton was not a hit back often and hard type of guy; he was a boob and weave (and deceive) guy.

In any event, Kevin's enthusiasm for the hit back hard and often approach is based on a flawed view of one election and hardly should be considered wisdom for the next campaign. I think Kevin is a little sensitive because of his "dog whistle" analysis of the Hilton/Spears ad.

Somerby didn't say "laugh it off", as in to ignore the add. He said "laugh at it", as in to ridicule it. I think there is a difference.

Face it- many Americans are stupid. I think Obama has to change the dynamic. Look Mccain is a very old, cranky, unhinged, confused, hot-tempered old, old man-who voted with Bush as often as possible, and who is loosing him marbles. He is directly responsible for everything bad in America.

Thats the message that needs to get out, so Americans can get the point.

It is important not to rate the political effectiveness of the response to the ad according to how well that response was rated by the pundits and the polls.

People may not want to entertain the idea that McCain is trying to find a way to put down Obama for being uppity and enjoying high times with white women. They may react badly to being confronted with that idea.

But once that's said, it will be out there, and the pushback will constrain the McCain campaign going forward.

Plus, this being chess, not checkers, the strength of this gambit has to be measured in terms of what it allows Obama to do next.

I would say that having been portrayed as a celebrity, he is in a great position to show a lot of his wonky side, which will now come off as regular, because serious.

Had the McCain campaign portrayed him as more of a French Revolutionary theorist type, they would have boxed him in better, imho.

Like McCain should make fun of Paris Hilton! His wife, Cindy, is just a haggard old version of Paris - a spoiled, rich, bleach blonde bimbo who has never done an honest day's work in her life!

Brian: What makes you think I'm an enthusiast for the "hit back hard and often" school? As I said in the post, I'm not at all sure this is the right strategy. But I'm open to argument.

He is right in terms of race. Throwing Britney and Paris up on the screen was obviously race-baiting, and it achieved the desired reaction. And progressives can talk about race and the intentions of the ad, but lets face it, white America simply doesn't care and rolls its eyes when these discussions happen.

Paris Hilton is a 27-year-old heiress to a hotel chain fortune.

When Cindy Hensley married John McCain she was a 25-year-old heiress to a beer distributorship fortune.

Obama is a star. McCain is a starf----r.

Despite Obama's having a great two weeks abroad, McCain won the week. How did we get here? To answer that question we have to go back to a strategic mistake that Obama made a few months ago. It was then that David Brook wanted to start an organization as a counterbalance to the swiftboaters that were going to show up. Obama sent the signal that donors should not give to these types of organizations. He wanted to control the message and take the high road.

That might work if the media called out the swiftboaters, didn’t play McCain’s commercials endlessly in a loop, and Americans had time to research who was telling the truth. But Gore was the exaggerating liar who was taking money from the Chinese Buddhist while selling them state secrets. John Kerry was French effete flip flopper who created his own injuries in Vietnam while hating the troops. And now Obama is the uppity scary Muslim/radical black Christian, who is responsible for high oil prices, and who dissed the troops because he could not take cameras with him. Now Obama is on the defensive about playing the race card-exactly the headline McCain wanted. A week ago, everyone was talking about Obama's trip. Now Letterman has a top 10 list about Obama's arrogance. John McCain won the week.

Interestingly enough, McCain hasn’t really spent much money on the negative ads. The media has run them for free while discussing them-just like they did with Kerry. The GOP uses the same playbook every four years. If they were a football team, they would never score a touchdown. Kerry complained about Bush taking the low road. Obama is complaining about the low road. Nobody cares about their whining. Negative ads work.

Does Obama really expect the media to bail him out? Did he not watch the media pile on to Kerry and Gore? Which bring me back to the main point- he wants to run a positive campaign. Good for him. He should run a positive campaign. But he should have let the 527's raise money, so they could have run their ads, the media would be talking about them, and Obama could disavow them. Like McCain does.

JOHN MCCAIN-CRANKY OLD UNSTABLE CONFUSED CRAZY OLD MAN- HE WOULD BLOW THE WORLD UP. The media would be talking about that ad for about a month, while half of Americans would assume it is true. Obama would denounce it. It would get played on an endless loop, while the few liberals on TV could subtlety keep the narrative alive. The GOP would be apoplectic, as would members of the media. But so what? It would be "out there". The media will not run Obama’s boring fact based ads in a loop. Negative ads are sexy. Don’t get mad at me; I didn’t write the rules, but I understand them.

Now Obama is stuck with running positive ads using facts, while McCain, seeing how successful the negative ads have been this week, is cutting another round of negative ads. History has shown how that strategy plays out.

Laughing it off is no solution, but the ad was a clever one, a kind of found-object designed to make conservatives laugh at Obama and liberals get steamed.

Assuming a position of strength and treating it with loud contempt would be a good response. And some sort of mocking counterresponse:

"McCain wants this contest to be about who's more like Britney Spears. Well, I'm the young guy in the race, so there's that. But just like Britney Spears, McCain has no plan to bring American troops out of Iraq. And just like Britney Spears, McCain has no understanding of economics. And just like Britney Spears, John McCain is a strong supporter of George Bush. So if it's a question who's more like Britney Spears, that's a debate I'm happy to have."

Here's what I do when the McCain camp does something that makes me mad...

I go to the Obama web site and donate $25.

Then I go to the McCain Web site "contact us" page, and tell them what I just did and why.

Does it have any impact? I dunno. But it makes me feel a LOT better.

The blogosphere is not responsible for the continued emphasis of this McCain advertisement by mainstream media.

I don't think anyone, including Somerby, is suggesting that we should "laugh it off," as in having no reaction to it. I think one correct approach would be to laugh at it, laugh hard, and make fun of McCain for using such a juvenile approach. That would not be "laughing it off."

However, there are better approaches and what absolutely amazes me is the total inability of Obama's campaign to capitalize on McCain's weaknesses and use its own dogwhistles. Such as, "Our troops are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan and John McCain is obsessing over a young heiress." Am I the only one who's reminded of a younger version of Cindy Lou McCain every time I see Paris Hilton?
____________________________________________

Yes, a big opening was missed here.

"We're here to talk about the economy. And John McCain wants to talk about Britney Spears.

"We're ready to sit down with Prime Minister al-Maliki, to talk about a timetable for bringing our troops home with honor. But John McCain prefers to talk about Paris Hilton.

"And when we get together to talk about providing healthcare to America's working families, what do you think John McCain's going to want to talk about? He'll probably want to talk about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.

"We're talking about the things that matter to real people. And John McCain wants to talk about the things that matter to People magazine.

"Who do you think is the real leader?"

There is no defense in politics. There's only offense.

Think about it: do you ever remember Rove on defense?

You have to keep the other guy on his heels so he never has the chance to attack you.

Kevin. I watched on Morning Joe as they played McCain's add six times. They showed Obama's once and barely talked about it. If the media were consistent, I could see Obama taking the high road

Uh, Kevin, re the lessons of 2004: There is a big difference between mocking an attack (what Somerby proposes) and ignoring it, hoping it will go away (what failed in 2004).

The accusations in 2000 that Al Gore was a compulsive, serial exaggerator who imagined that he had invented the Internet, and who wore "earth tones" to reinvent himself on the advice of a radical feminist because he didn't know who he was -- surely all that was necessary was for Democrats to point out that such foolishness showed the GOP was trying to distract the voters, and those claims would have vanished from the public discourse!

The accusations in 2004 that John Kerry had deliberated faked his war wounds and fabricated the events that earned his medals, and that he was an out-of-touch elitist snob because he played show tunes on the guitar -- surely all that was necessary was for Democrats to point out that such foolishness showed the GOP was trying to distract the voters, and those claims would have vanished from the public discourse!

Obama is a star. McCain is a starf----r.

If Obama were a blonde woman, McCain would dump his wife.
.

Look y'all. There's a reason it is called "the race card." You can only play it once. McCain played it. It was played, and called out for what it was, at the cost of a short-term hit to Obama for calling it like he saw it. Soon it will be played out, because notice has been served that if the Rethugs stay in that suit, they will be trumped.

I do hope Obama prevails. That said I'm of the opinion his "face on money" remark can be construed as alluding to race. Why the outrage with McCain for pointing that out? It's not disingenuous or convoluted to read such a meaning into what he said. What about Obama's face sets him apart from previous presidents? You know, the most obvious aspect or trait? I'll wait..........hmmm.......it's black? Bingo! Oh, you have another difference he was possibly alluding to? OK, let's hear it? Sometimes silence speaks volumes. Obama gave McCain an opening and we on the left want to bitch about what a craven opportunist McCain is. It's like Hillary said, we're in the general now and it's hardball, get used to it. Obama better get his pistol out of the damned holster. Often keeping your powder dry just leaves you with a lot of damned dry powder once the battle is lost.

The Rove McCainiacs have tried to finagle the perfect judo toss. They've tried to equate anything with a racial component from the Obama camp into a racist component.(c.f. the dollar bill comment.) That's where the outrage and reaction should be. Kerry has medals and Bush is a coward: fault the medals. Etc. The left should hit back there and hard. The Rove/McCain team is getting ready for a perfect firestorm of raceracerace and they need to pay for it upfront.

There is a difference between hitting back early and often to a blatantly false campaign like the Swift Boat, it's another to over-react to a more subtle and nuanced ad campaign.

I think Somerby's right - most Americans will read about the "dog whistle racism" of the ad, and think, "WTF are they talking about?". It plays right into the GOP's painting of liberals as conspiracy theorists and whiners. It was best left alone, at least the racial component.

A better response would have been to throw the "celebrity" angle right back at McInsane - Obama should have come right out and said, "It's funny that my opponent would try to paint me as a celebrity. After all, it wasn't me who guest-hosted SNL, as my opponent did. it wasn't me who announced his candidacy on Letterman, as my opponent did..." That angle would have shown a sense of humor and taken McInsane's ludicrous claim, and bared its idiocy for all to see.

I would like to reiterate that if Obama has Kerry as a surrogate to defend him on MTP, as he did yesterday, he is in deep shit.

Pleading for niceness from the GOP, or very emphatically pointing out to the voters that the Repubs are running a mean campaign in the hopes that the electorate will see the thuggery for what it is, is a loser from the start as a campaign strategy.

No one on the left is in the mood for that these days.

I dunno, Somerby is in the mood for mocking McCain. And I am too. I think it's a very effective way to hit back at McCain, especially for viral video, etc. Also, it's completely consistent with hitting back hard and often (I suppose your gloss "laughing it off" isn't consistent with hard and often, but those are your words, not Somerby's). Mockery certainly worked for McCain in the primaries (remember Romney's varmint gun?).

There is no defense in politics. There's only offense.

How true. And how sad that Obama is already on the defensive, and I see no indication his campaign has any plans to change its game. I hope I'm wrong, but I've been around a long time and I still can't figure out why Dukakis never attacked Bush I on his connection to Iran/Contra, why Gore never attacked Bush II on the dismal job he did in Texas, and Kerry never attacked Bush II on... well, just name it. I have this nasty, nagging feeling that in November we'll be looking back trying to understand how President McCain managed to turn Obama into an American-hating girlie-man.

It's not hard to imagine the GOP ads if Obama had collaborated with the enemy to make a propaganda video, if he had singlehandedly crashed 3 -4 warplanes, if he wore $500 shoes, if he had cheated on his first wife, if he were pals with Warren Beaty, if he was one of the richest men in the world, if he had admitted not knowing anything about economics, if his stuff was made up of lobbyists, if he was one of the Keating 5, etc., etc.

McCain is as flawed as any recent GOP candidate, and the Democrat would rather pander to the pundits by staying above it all -- which, of course is not only ineffective but it's pointless since even those in the MSM who are willing to criticize GOP lies, feel congenitally compelled to preface any comment with "both sides do it."

____________________________________________

Kevin:

Sorry. I misread your post to say that you endorsed the "hit back hard and often" approach, but you thought this case might have been an exception to the rule.

The thing I like about you is your honesty (such as, that the windfall profits tax is a dumb idea) and your relative open mindedness for a partisan. So I was surprised that you appeared to adopt the hit back hard and often approach, instead of an individualized assessment of each situation. I think democrats are traumatized by their 2000 and 2004 losses, which along with the more aggressive tone of the left wing blogosphere, has caused democrats to think they need to hit back hard and often. Maybe it will work in terms of planting the seed of the "republican attack machine," but it all seems phony and off putting to me.

I suppose we need to be prepared for Obama to act indignant about something down the road. We have not yet seen that, and we also have not really seen him throw a punch, so it will interesting to see how he does. He does not seem to be a natural on either score.

I don't know what Obama's line would have been in response to the McCain ad, but it seemed like a great opportunity for him to say something funny that would have been repreated over and over and helped the perception of him. I think Obama really is a pretty thin skinned guy and is not naturally funny, but he is smart and he should be able to come up with something humorous.

Democrats need to use mockery more effectively. They elevate the GOP candidates needlessly. People don't want to be associated with a weak candidate and McCain can only be strong if Obama responds to him as a strong candidate.

I thought that the race angle of the Celeb ad required a response. The Obama campaign should study the movie Blazing Saddles. They will find inspiration for response ads that will generate an Obama landslide.

There's always this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB7tClTaQbg

probably counterproductive, but it was the first thing I thought of when I heard of the Hilton/Spears ad.

Exactly. How many salt of the earth guys where $500 shoes, own 11 homes, have no mortgages, ride around in a private jet, have a credit cards with 500K in debt?

Hit back with stuff like this

Laugh it off and make the point at the same time.

Why is that back in 2000 and 2004 we had poll after poll on a daily basis Bush v Gore Bush v Kerry. This time around there doesn't seem to be as many polls.Why does it seem every poll that is done has Obama and Mcain neck and neck but when you look at there questions they don't really ask which one you like better.They have some goofy questions like Who do you think would be or do or handle better.??? Why not who would you vote for Nov.4 My bet Obama wins by 30pts.

If every time you try to have a reasoned discussion with someone they kick you in the balls, eventually, you have to kick them in the balls.

I would love to give more credit to the acuity of the American public, but what proof is there that it exists? With a compliant media in place, the high road will...not...work.

Sad, but true.

Brian,

acting indignant only makes you appear whiney and weak. He should have said that the add was dumb, and that his being popular means that people like his message, as opposed to Mccain and Bush who are not that popular Only Republicans think that being unpopular is a positive attribute.

Well-articulated responses to such cheesy political bait are, more often than not, wasted on your target audience of ignorant hicks and bible thumpers, which is your opponent's base yard of voters who might otherwise be inclined to favor the antagonist.

The key here is to forget the notion that they're ever going to vote for you, which therefore allows you to cease pandering. What you want to do is instead totally discourage them about their own candidate's abilities and prospects, to the point where a good portion of them might begin to consider staying home on Election Day as a viable option.

The most effective means for dealing with such political rubbish like the juvenile Britney/Paris comparisons, is to indeed laugh it off contemptuously -- in effect, sneer to your opponent's base voters that their designated guinea shouldn't bring a knife to a gunfight.

The second key here is your follow-through in such close-quartered sparring, a concept which our D.C. Democrats have repeatedly and resolutely failed to understand. They lack that wicked one-two counterpunch that quickly changes the subject to a matter of their own choosing, and puts their opponent on the defensive.

Then, should the opponent at any time begin to stagger back on his heels for whatever reason, I never see the Beltway Dems moving in looking for the knock-out. Rather, like John Kerry, they're perfectly content with scoring points on an occasional standing eight-count.

Oh, and one other thing -- the Dems should never, ever agree to the mainstream media's control of the time-clock and bell.

I have to disagree with Kevin. The problem wasn't laughing at them, it was ignoring them.

In 2004, Kerry should have mocked Bush and the republicans for the stupid attacks, but instead he kept pretending they didn't exist.

Jeez, most you people are completely unhinged. The Britney/Paris ad was not a "dog whistle" ad. And the attempts by pundits to make it so are backfiring badly on your preferred candidate.

The ad was mocking Obama's celebrity/rock star status in comparison to his actual resume of political accomplishments. I don't think the ad was a particularly good one- it's message doesn't hit hard enough, and it just isn't very memorable on it's own merits. However, Obama's supporters have somehow managed to make the ad memorable and effective through the sheer stupidity of their overreaction. With friends like this, Obama doesn't need enemies.

The ad should have been ignored, and if you don't want to ignore it completely, then mock how weak it actually was. Too late for this cycle, however.

I do hope Obama prevails. That said I'm of the opinion his "face on money" remark can be construed as alluding to race. Why the outrage with McCain for pointing that out?

Because Obama was responding to this ad that McCain started running back in June that mocked the idea of Obama's face on the dollar bills.

That's what people keep "forgetting" to mention: Obama was responding to what McCain's campaign said about his face on the dollar bill. And yet the media ran around like it was something new and unique that Obama came up with all on his own.

So the outrage is that McCain brought it up first and then pretended he hadn't, and his pals in the media ran with it.

If these weren't such desperate times I'd actually be enjoying the jawing going on in leftist blogs and the inane "discussions" of MSM pundits...after the despicable display of smearing and manipulating the remarks of Hillary Clinton throughout the primaries...here's where DEMS are...with a candidate that is being chewed up (just as predicted) with little ability or desire to hit back hard...(I give him that in that he'd like to do things differently - but THIS election was about HAVING TO WIN so there weren't REPUGS in the WH for awhile)...had DEMS not been so DUMB they could have had Hillary (and, yes, Bill) AND OBAMA!!! Then as he seasoned he could have slipped in and made his CHANGES...right now the change needs to be from Democrat to Republican...there's a good chance it won't happen AGAIN!!!!!!! Oh, be real, I'm old so I am kinda enjoying it...

What Dems always forget that the way to hit back hard is to change the terms of debate. It IS wrong to whine that the Britney/Paris ad is unfair or racist. The right way to respond is to turn the response into a new narrative, something like: "Since Senator McCain brings up the issue of preparedness for office, let's talk about who was wrong about Iraq, and who has been wrong about the economy. Let's talk about who wants to change Washington and who is desparately clinging to President Bush's apron strings. Senator Obama's ready to lead with a program of meaningful change. Senator McCain has been wrong on the decisions he has made and has been flip-flopping on everything else."

Whatever you do, don't fucking whine. Don't talk about the other guys ads, don't complain they're unfair.

Just hit back hard - define your own reality fur chrissakes. That's what's working for McCain and democratic whining about McCains reality just plays into McCains hands.

Ignore the ol'e dude on his terms, hit back on your own terms.

Always playing the defence makes Obama look weak, and since nobody likes to play with a loser, he loses. And if you guys let McCain get away with this and end up as preznit-elect on November 5th ...

Yeah, I know, the so-called Liberal Media is at work. But so what? Are they going to play more into Obamas hand just because he's playing it nicely and whining? Nope. So what's to lose? Nothing.

And get them Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain cranked up and running.

Because Obama was responding to this ad that McCain started running back in June that mocked the idea of Obama's face on the dollar bills.

That's what people keep "forgetting" to mention

Which people are you referring to? I never heard Obama or his people say that once. They are to blame. I only heard it through the blogs.

One of the ironies here is that the entire press corps knows that it is McCain who has actively courted and sought celebrity for decades now... I remember a Michael Kinsley column from a few years ago discussing his days as co-host of Crossfire. He mentioned (as I recall) that it was well-known that McCain would show up in the studio within minutes to discuss any topic... I'm very curious why the press – which obviously knows this - hasn't written about it.

Meanwhile, Obama was teaching con law and trying to get into the state legislature.

These lies can only be spread if the press corps helps them along...

You know, I never found fart jokes funny. And the McCain has now devolved to just that level. Not surprisingly the press is eating it up. Soon it will get old.

My opinion, just keep our eyes on the ball... and hammer it home. If we respond, it should be to the gaffes, not the jokes.

Might-as-well-be Republican bumper sticker:
PARIS HILTON NEEDS
ANOTHER TAX CUT

Britney Spears said, of George W. Bush in 2003,
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in the decisions he makes and be faithfull to what happens."

Paris and Britney are not just blonde air-head bimbettes, they are REPUBLICAN blonde air-head bimbettes. That's the angle I'd be playing.

-- TP

the correct response is to fight back with labels and define mccain for what he is(a hollow shell of the former maverick turned political hack for powerful wealthy special interest and what those ads do is play us for chumps and suckers shifting focus from policy to personal insults to shape opinions of voters who choose bush n chenney last 2 elections. more of the same mccain.

Mnemosyne, you can't depend on the viewing audience to connect two possibly disparate messages. Viewing McCain's ad I have to say you're in apples and oranges territory. The McCain ad makes no reference to fearing Obama vis-a-vis his being different from previous presidents. If that was the connection Obama was hoping his audience would make he was straining in his attempt. It is more along the line of the "presumptuous" attack, claiming Obama feels equal to established past leaders or cultural icons to the point of replacing them in terms of historical importance. Also, in rebutting an ad Obama shouldn't assume his audience has seen what it is he feels needs rebutting. The ad you link to certainly hasn't achieved "Willie Horton" status in the electorate's mind. Why obliquely reference it? Again, Obama muffed it and made a difficult situation worse.

I have to say you misrepresented what Bob said. He said that liberals should be "laughing at the ad and saying it showed that McCain is a fly-weight"

To me that is clearly hitting back hard.

What's needed is a mascot to carry the motto "McCain thinks you're stupid"

some guy who looks like a doughy pantload who runs around waving tire gauges & yelling about drilling & calls Obama presumptuous & falls in mudpuddles.

Might-as-well-be Republican bumper sticker:
PARIS HILTON NEEDS
ANOTHER TAX CUT

Good response: "I dont know why Spears and Paris are in the ad. Shouldn't they be in an ad about McCain since they are the ones who would be getting his tax cut?"

Despite 8 years of Republican miserable & pathetic screw-ups, Obama is virtually tied with McCain.

Democrats have become experts at picking weak candidates who will gaurantee a lost.

The best response would be very hard-hitting scorn and derision. Not laughing it off as inconsequential, and not seeming to be whining about it, but ridiculing them (not complaining, and not "shaming") for trivializing the debate in such serious times. (One complains about another who is more powerful; one ridicules another who is less powerful. "Shaming" just comes across as impotent finger-wagging.)

i like that mccain thinks your stupid

I think the correct response is something along the following lines:

In Europe and the U.S., hundreds of thousands of people are excited about Barack Obama's candidacy. They are not excited because he's a pop star or celebrity, but because his candidacy promises an end to 8 years of corrupt, incompetent, morally bankrupt leadership.

John McCain, on the other hand, offers a continuation of the failed Bush presidency. No wonder nobody's cheering for him.

[And if we want to be snarky, throw in a comment about how McCain's ad is so much sour grapes, like the unpopular kid at school mocking the cool kids table, because he knows he'll never get to sit there, even though he really really wants to]

Yeah, it's a good idea to "laugh it off," but only if you hit back, hard, with the laugh.

"Ha, ha ha. There they go again. The Republicrats are so idea-free that all they can do is use a young woman's substance abuse problems as a joke. I'm sure if they had any real ideas, they'd use them, but since they don't, they have to rely on these lame, lame attack ads. They can't even tell a joke successfully."

Seems the more appropriate response would be to go after McCain's supposed strength...his so called integrity. He promised to run a respectful campaign and reneged on that promise when faced with the clear possibility of losing and losing big. As long as the press corps continues to dissociate McCain's actions from his principles, Obama will face a structural disadvantage (other than race) because McCain will be able to use every dirty trick available, while the press soothes the public, letting them know that this "is not the real McCain" or "he was forced to do this". The man is a hypocrite and a dissembler...why not call him directly on it without prefacing what a great hero and virtuous soul he is?

Somerby's "laugh at" is, as others noted upthread, different from Kevin's comparison with the 2004 campaign's fatal error of "laughing it off."

The first response involves ridicule, which can be devastatingly effective, while the second response requires minimization, which is almost always a mistake.

But a lot of things were happening last week on the dog-whistle front. I myself was most preoccupied by Milbank's fateful leap to a "presumptuous" Obama, which struck me as a more malicious and threatening proto-meme than the one about Obama as a celebutante president wannabe, or the more pernicious interpetation about race-baiting in the paired images of Obama and Spears-Hilton.

So I guess I think Somerby is right about general lefty blog overreaction to the race-baiting thing.

But Somerby did not mention that the Obama campaign responded much along Somerby-recommended lines: the weary smile, the mocking joke that took it back to McCain. Besides, undecided voters aren't really tracking lefty blog linguistic analysis of obscure political terms and tactics, are they?

As for OCD lefty blog discussions about dog-whistles, I enjoy them myself and believe they can be useful. The problem is (and this was evident as we digging terriers and baying beagles and retrieving labradors in the blog commentariat sought to read elaborate whistles devised specifically for sheep-obsessed border collies), we need more facts about whistles (code) from the collies and less speculation from regular dogs not steeped in code.

Speaking of border collies, Gergen nailed the "uppity" code on ABC. And Jake Tapper did indeed (h/t to TPM reader cited by Josh) look "pole-axed," watching Gergen patiently explain a pernicious thing to the nation. It was funny as hell.

paxr55 was right to give a tip o the hat to Gergen.

He's a rare thing -- an honest Republican.

The summer of 2008 is beginning to look a lot like the summer 2004. The same Republican tactics, the same craven press, and the same ignorant American people. Obama is going to lose this one and I predict the Democrats are not going to get the gains in the Congress they are expecting. I agree with an earlier poster that had no name in the posting that McCain has won the media battle the past couple of weeks despite Obama's world tour.
Add to all this the fake soldier's first hand account of Obama's Afghanistan visit that is all over the internet. I've received this fake smear letter four times in the past ten days. Three times I've replied "to all" pointing out the story was false and that the US Army was refuting it. Why do I think most people who received this smear letter, don't even know it's false? It's not looking good at all.

The sad thing is, I briefly thought with all the massive problems facing this country and the world, there would be a different campaign this time, boy was I ever wrong.

The end of the US is nigh.

Buck up, John, f'r godssake. Only the haters and the know-nothings believe that fake soldier email crap. And they're outnumbered by sensible Nebraskans described in the Sunday NYT by Dan Barry after he attended a family reunion. This family, he says, is a reliable election bellwether: "In the Hills of Nebraska, Change Is on the Horizon."

I laugh at these ads because I think ultimately they are counterproductive for McCain. But the left blogosphere as a whole is getting it's response right, by engaging people in a discussion about what the symbology means. The discussion helps vaccinate the electorate as a whole against Republican poison.

My suspicion is that all this hullaballoo is going over most people's heads, making them wonder why the chattering classes are so easily vexed, and "what's the big deal?". But that's how a vaccinated electorate is going to act.

Good job, left blogosphere!

I disagree with a lot of the pessimism I'm reading here. I think Obama is a pretty good campaigner and I can see what he's doing with McCain. By "taking the high road," Obama is undermining McCain's brand as an honorable guy and a straight talker. I don't think Alexrod wants to work the race angle, but they have been beating on McCain for his cynical, substance-free campaign for a while. This stuff takes time to seep into the public and media consciousness, just as it took time to undermine Clinton's "inevitability" mantra.

Obama was never going to win this election in a landslide - there are too many committed Republicans out there who will never vote for any Democrat. But I think he is succeeding in re-branding McCain as a man who lacks integrity, a flip flopper, and a Bush clone. Once he has softened up McCain's image, Obama can begin attacking harder, since his target will no longer be a saint in the public or media's eyes.

The main thing people underestimate is Obama's discipline. He will continue to hit McCain on these issues again and again and again. Just as he has gone right at McCain on foreign policy again and again and again. Repetition and discipline ain't sexy, but it works.

To echo owenz there is a lot of time and messaging remaining. I haven't read recent tallies of Obama's media expenditures. Earlier talk of a $300,000,000 war chest makes me think in the latter stages of the campaign McCain is going to suffer a deluge of counter advertising. It'll be like trying to drink from a firehose.

Also, those who never stop complaining about the vapid media need to realize Obama is running against a Karl Rove-led campaign. Rove's campaigns are quite intentionally designed to take advantage of the media's love of petty catfights, non-stories, and cultural insecurities. A Rove-led campaign almost competely abandons substantive debate in favor of fun, sleazy, dishonest attacks. In other words, Obama vs. McCain looks a lot like the NY Times vs. the NY Post gossip pages.

Rove-style campaigns have been losing all over the country for the last two years, so it can certainly be defeated. Perhaps more importantly, McCain is not very well suited to run a sustained, Rove-style campaign because his brand involves his supposed integrity and straight talk. Victory for Obama will involve using the Rovian tactics of McCain's campaign to undermine McCain the man. In other words: jujitsu.

Each "Britney/Paris" style ad hurts Obama, but it also undermines McCain's core brand (integrity) and makes him vulnerable to criticism that he is just another cynical, empty, Bush Republican. Such ads are pretty addictive for a struggling campaign like McCain's, since they grab headlines and allow him to "dominate the newscycle." But they are empty calories, since they eat away at McCain's reputation as a decent guy.

The blogosphere is not responsible for the continued emphasis of this McCain advertisement by mainstream media.

Brojo is exactly right. This is extraordinary navel gazing. The very idea that the blogosphere, let alone the liberal blogosphere (whatever that comprises), is influencing the events of this campaign is simply preposterous.

The Obama campaign never said anything about dog whistles. But Obama was perfectly correct when he noted that the Republican strategy has been to portray him as something other, something foreign, something to be feared. It's simply indisputable that Obama has had to fight a host of viral smears, among which have been deliberately false claims about his religion & ideology. (Nice to know that Marxism is alive & well is in the fevered imaginations of Republicans.) And lest we forget, you need look no further than the most recent Texas Republican State convention for a booth that was selling pins reading, "If Obama is President... will we still call it The White House?"

The southern strategy is alive and well in the modern Republican Party. McCain's only chance for victory in November is based on the strategy of whipping up racist & xenophobic fears among suggestible voters. And his campaign staff & their surrogates are working overtime on exactly that.

RE my suggestion:

As others have noted, in each case I suggested "laughing it off," then going after McCain (preferably, going after him hard) for misdirecting the public with such fly-weight distractions. (Obama did a bit of that, but it got swlalowed up in other matters.) Of course, our candidates are at a disadvantage, because the liberal world hasn't developed a vocabulary for this over the past many years. We haven't helped voters understand how typical this sort of silly distraction is.

They WANT people thinking of Spears and Hilton whenever they think of Obama. That's the association they're after. To the extent that we insist he isn't like Spears and Hilton--to the extent we discuss that association so we can say how racist it is--to that extent, we drive the association they want into voters' minds.

Meanwhile, high-fallutin' discourse about dog-whistles will strike most voters as nuts. This is no longer the Democratic primary. We're not speaking to liberals any more. We're speaking to unaligned "centrists."

"Somehow we will never see one without thinking of the other." That was Cheney, at the 2000 convention, saying he wanted voters thinking of Clinton whenever they looked at Gore. Today, the McCain camp wants you thinking of Spears and Hilton whenever you look at Obama. The more we call attention to that ad's (fleeting) imagery, the more that wish gets achieved.

I'd like to see Dems and libs ridicule McCain for daring to offer such pap and distraction at such difficult, perilous times. You laugh that crap off--and then you attack the person who brought such bull-roar into the discourse. I would have thought my meaning was fairly clear. But I'm always happy to suggest aggressive action--aimed at the people who make a joke of our floundering discourse.

Also, in rebutting an ad Obama shouldn't assume his audience has seen what it is he feels needs rebutting. The ad you link to certainly hasn't achieved "Willie Horton" status in the electorate's mind. Why obliquely reference it?

Obama didn't do a press release about it -- he referenced it during a stump speech. Why are you assuming that it wasn't an audience that had seen the ad just because you hadn't seen it?

Frankly, it sounds like it's something that went into his speech when the ad was current and never came back out, and the McCain campaign exploited it when they got caught dogwhistling with the Britney/Paris ad.

Again, these are the same Republicans who thought it was incredibly funny to mock Purple Heart recipients at their convention, so it's not like I expect to see taste or conscience from them at any point in this election. It would be kind of nice if their tame lapdogs in the press would actually bother to report things like that McCain brought the "dollar bill" issue up first, but I know that's not going to happen either.

It's hard for me to blame Obama when the Republicans and the press are conspiring to lie and mislead the public at every possible juncture. Every once in a while someone will let a piece of the slip, like when David Gergen finally said that, yes, "presumptuous" is code for "uppity," but the press just pretends it never happened.

Welcome to the Soviet Union, where the press only tells you what the government wants you to hear. Thanks, Republicans! I guess all of your "hatred" of Communism was just envy that they got to do what you'd only dreamed of being allowed to do.

Its simple. Please repeat after me:

McCain is Bush!

McCain is Bush!

McCain is Bush!

McCain is Bush!

McCain is Bush!

Keep repeating this until Nov.

Old man McCain is sooooo old, if he were a car, it would be time to roll back his odometer.

Ooops.

My NYT link above will treat the click-throughers to a nice story on windpower in Nebraska, not to a very nice essay at the back of the Magazine on a family reunion and a straw poll that favored Obama by three--and this red-state family of Republicans has correctly called elections since 1988.

The Obama campaign should have a bunch of negative and nasty ads saved up for quick response.

Obama scored a coup in Iraq, when Maliki endorsed OObama's withdrawal timeline. McCian and even Bush ended shifting their positions in response.

Out of desperation McCain went way nasty to change the subject. Obama's resdoponse should have been to go equally nasty to bring attention right back to McCain's flip-flop.

Obama's response ad should have:
Shown repeat clips of McCain endorsing Bush policy in Iran.

Shown the 1995 footage of McCain saying we should have 'fought to win' in Vietnam.

Shown McCain agreeing a timetable is a good idea and then denying he used the word.

Shown a couple of bumbling and confused recent McCain moments on camera.

Nasty enough? Obama should then, on camera:

Called McCain well-meaning but incompetent. Makes the wrong call over and over.

Ask if we want a president who is re-fighting the Vietnam War, who is more inclined to bomb Iran than to talk with them, whose only response to nay situation is to send in troops.

The ad should be carefully calibrated to be every bit as nasty as McCain's ad, but should be about real policy, unlike McCain's ad. The ad has to go just a bit over the line (as did McCain's) to get foam at the mouth howls of protest from the right. This guarantees a lot of coverage, where Obama can says he is 'proud' of the ad, because unlike some Paris Hilton Britney Spears pastiche it is about an issue Americans really care about, whether we get out of Iraq in a reasonble time frame, considering events on the ground or is staying 100 years OK final embarassing McCain clip.

Beyond flipping attention back to Iraq, the ad lets the McCain camp know Obama will fight dirty if pressed, but it sticks to Obama's promise to cencentrate on issues that matter to Americans.

This

There is no defense in politics. There's only offense.

Amen. And offense does not mean hitting back at every attack along the same lines expressed in the attack.

The Obama campaign seems to think that every attack ad needs to be answered literally -- in kind. If McCain says Obama is a celebrity, that doesn't mean that Obama needs to say that he is not a celebrity -- or that McCain is one too. That's nonsense.

Obama needs to pick McCain's most vulnerable weaknesses and pound those aggressively, regardless what attacks McCain engages in.

Stay on the attack message with a coherent set of themes: He's Bush incarnate, a lying flip-flopper, bought and paid for by greedy corporate interests.

Don't relentlessly answer McCain's ads in kind. That's not offense!

Laughing it off isn't the right reaction, but most of the pundits and McCain's campaign drove the race talk.

They did this by mentioning race, which the ad didn't mention directly. Then they talked about the race card without ever defining what in the hell that is. Finally, McCain claimed that Obama played this card by saying he doesn't look like the other 43 presidents.

First, I'm not sure that Obama can even play the race card, it is kind of like going nello.

Kevin, you've misunderstood what Somerby was saying, which also proves his point about how cluelessly libs try to fight these elections. Somerby wasn't suggesting it be "laughed off" as in brushed aside, ignored, left unremarked upon or unchallenged; he was suggesting it be laughed off as in mocked and ridiculed. Which IS hitting back hard. Just not dumbly.

McCain is angling for the Stupid Vote. Obama needs to call him out for playing the 'stupid card'.

"McCain thinks that making the oil companies RICHER is going to cut the price of your gas. Does that sound smart to YOU?"

"McCain thinks that letting Paris Hilton inherit her daddy's money tax-free is good for YOU. Really?!?"

Obama will naturally lose those voters who are bound and determined to be stupid, if he takes this approach. But if the Stupid Vote is a majority voting block, we're up the creek anyway.

-- TP

Dems need an ad that flips the "popular does not equal leadership" theme. Perhaps a couple shots of him in the Haus of Fudge (whatever) laid over the speech he gave on Obama's acceptance night. Add in the pundits criticism of that speech. Counter Moses Heston with Yosemite Sam and the slinky blonds with a couple of the Golden Girls.
"He can't draw a crowd and he's trigger happy....but can he lead?" And we'll just claim innocently the Golden Girl reference has nothing to do with age.

The so called liberal blogosphere reaction will be summed up as: "The boy who cried wolf" or worse, "Liberals play the race card."

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.

These are very serious charges. With outrageous claims, bring outrageous evidence. Not cries of dogwhistles and then claims that people who can't hear them are stupid.

Frankly, we deserve to be burned by backlash.

Another idea - strike back sadly tut-tutting:

"How far has John McCain sunk? From Hanoi Hilton to Paris Hilton ..."

Of course Obama needs a surrogate to do this, since he's so high-minded (except when it comes to upholding Democratic principles on FISA or the environment.)

Actually, I think Obama's response ad responded to it perfectly well by doing both at once. {Paraphrasing]: "The country's going to hell, and THIS is what he wants to spend all his time talking about?"

But Bob's post gets at a critical point: one of the lessons that liberals learned from the 2004 election is that laughing it off is never the right reaction.

No no no. That is absolutely false, and Somerby is right on. Kerry screwed up because he wouldn't take a *serious* attack (Swift Boat bilge) seriously, not from laughing off something that really was silly. Get the point?

Speaking of Nixonland: Pat Buchanan is a must-see pundit on these dog-whistles--just to see how it's done, Nixon style.

Buchanan just now on MSNBC's David Gregory show tied the Obama campaign--with his usual dishonest glee--directly to the most lurid fulminations of the lefty blogosphere. He was clearly channeling precisely the 2000 Buchananite-Cheney tactic Somerby cited above:

"Somehow we will never see one without thinking of the other." That was Cheney, at the 2000 convention, saying he wanted voters thinking of Clinton whenever they looked at Gore. Today, the McCain camp wants you thinking of Spears and Hilton whenever you look at Obama. The more we call attention to that ad's (fleeting) imagery, the more that wish gets achieved. [emphasis mine]

Gene Robinson didn't take the obvious bait, with his "headline" portion of the show, and attempted to distance himself from the tomfoolery. But he knew Buchanan had gotten away with a whopper.

I'm getting really frustrated - WHEN is the Obama campaign going to start calling out McCain for the out-of-touch elitist that he is? Instead they whine about McCain being an "honorable man doing dishonorable things." Gimme a break! McCain's a Republican - dishonorable is what they DO!

The Brittany ad was basically stupid. But the way the Democrats responded was equally stupid, if not more so. Whining about it was just playing into McCain's hands. Doesn't Obama have someone who respond on a minute's notice with a countersalvo? Not tit-for-tat (that would also be playing into McCain's hands), but something that would smash right back at the old fart.

So McCain's people did a Moses ad. I thought it was funny myself. Aren't there enough incriminating clips of McCain that Obama could put out a montage ten times as devastating, as well as ten times funnier?

Come on. Given that master of disaster K. Rove's statement that Obama was like that guy at the country club with a beautiful date, and a martini--the McCain ad furthers that same kind of slur/slander appeal to the republican base: Paris Hilton, Brittany Spears, and Barack Obama side by side.
Sorry, but this is way too reminiscent of the televised ad that cost Harold Ford the election in Tennessee. That ad had a blonde femme fatale cooing, "Call me, Harold."
No, it all fits in.
It cannot be ignored. It has significant overtones. It appeals to something base in humanity--and that is why the base is called the base.

Just like Romney referred today to Barack Obama as an internet date, as someone attractive.
Oh, this is a pattern for McCain.
It is ugly, it is just like Bush/Rove campaigns.

I am late to the party, so maybe another commenter said what I said already.

No worries, no one said it as badly as you did, so all is good.

And well said paxr55--I am so sick of Pat Buchanan aggressively asserting his preferences, and MSNBC allowing him ample choices to gleefully do so as he attacks Democrats. I can't stand watching him--and he is so loud/dictatorial--and those hands pound and move to make his points.
I think on Gregory's show the guests are on satellite delay, and that might be why some don't bite. Rachel Maddow never misses, and good for us.
Buchanan said Barack exhibited rage following the McCain ad--and Gregory changed the subject to Obama's supposed arrogance. I think Gregory is in the bag for republicans so he gets to stay on the air. As a point of fact, since he apologized to the Bushies at a white house press conference, he has presented as neutered, in my opinion

"No matter the subject, the right response is to hit back often and hard, and the oftener and harder the better."

Didn't Obama promise he was going to do that? I haven't seen any evidence of it. This campaign is beginning to look dismayingly like the Kerry campaign in 2004. Not only does the Obama campaign not hit back, they roll over and submissively expose their belly.

This is absolutely sickening.

I call bullshit on Andrea Mitchell saying on tonight's Hardball Show that McCain really does not like this type of campaign ad handling--blaming his people, saying he is misled.
I disagree. McCain is getting way too much credit, this aggressive little nay-sayer--and there's MSNBC still mischaracterizing him like he is above it all, and not involved at all in these ads or negative campaigns against Obama. Then Mitchell ends by observing that McCain's campaign may have accomplished something by likening Obama to a lightweight, similar to Kerry wind-surfing.
I think there is a campaign even on MSNBC to elect Senile McCain

The Paris/Brittany ad hit the bullseye, so the best strategy would have been for Obama-ites to ignore it. Getting mad and drawing attention to it was the worst reaction.

Obama is an empty suit and a lib-media-made celebrity. What we have today is an unknown Illinois state senator and buddy of Antoin Rezko leapfrogging all the dues ususally paid and RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! He did this through incredible luck: 1. His main senate primary opponent self-destructing, 2. His main senate election opponent self-destructing, and 3. The lib media promoting him on the basis of one speech! The lib media always goes ape shit over black skin, be it the welfare queen Carol Mosely-Braun, Colin Powell, or whatnot melanin.

Luther--you prefer that stumbling, bumbling confused McCain, who has to have that rascal Joe LIEberman whisper reality contact into his ear about the facts in Iraq? That tragic flip-flopping disingenous war-president wannabe -McCain?
That power hungry, intoxicated man with delusions of grandeur and imperial regalness now linked to lies about antrax back in 2002? That guy?

P.S. Luther--you sound like a racist.

Obama is an empty suit and a lib-media-made celebrity. What we have today is an unknown Illinois state senator and buddy of Antoin Rezko leapfrogging all the dues ususally paid and RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

But, Luther, Rezko is such best buddies with Karl Rove that Karl and Dennis Hastert promised to try and get the US attorney prosecuting his case fired.

Are you saying that Rove and Hastert are such bad company that Obama should automatically be under suspicion for having any dealings at all with one of the Illinois Republican Party's very good friends?

Want more Bush? Elect McCain

By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON -- In his bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain is moving to the right.

The Arizona Republican, who failed to win the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, is the most visible Republican on television, outside the White House, and seems to never pass up an opportunity to appear on Sunday talk shows.

All this appears to be part of his effort to transform his image as a maverick independent so that he can make his pitch to the conservative Republican base that will vote in the party's primaries and caucuses two years hence.

McCain's focus is on Southern states where he will have to show his dedication to the conservatives who dominate the GOP. He was scheduled to be the main speaker at the Lincoln Day dinner in Lakeland, Fla., on Saturday. Later this spring, he will deliver the commencement address at Liberty University at Lynchburg, Va., the school founded by evangelical leader Jerry Falwell.

Falwell has indicated there are still some bridges to mend with McCain, who had called Falwell "an agent of intolerance" in his first bid for the presidency in 2000.

Although Falwell has not endorsed McCain, he has said that the senator "could be the GOP's best hope" if Sen. Hillary Clinton is nominated to head the Democratic ticket in 2008.

Falwell also says McCain is in the process of "healing the breach with evangelical groups."

Asked to explain his change of attitude toward the evangelist on "Meet the Press" Sunday, McCain said: "I believe that the Christian right has a major role to play in the Republican Party. One reason (that) is so is because they're so active and their followers are. And I believe they have a right to be part of our party."

McCain also has gone out of his way to cozy up to President Bush after their bitter rift in the 2000 presidential campaign. McCain has said he does not look back in anger at old political battles. That's wise -- he's going to need Bush's backing in a presidential bid.

McCain also has taken other stands that should put him in good with Southern conservatives. Hailing from a military family -- his father and grandfather were admirals in the Navy -- he is a strong supporter of the invasion and occupation of Iraq and believes the number of U.S. troops there should be beefed up.

He is against abortion rights and gun-control laws and believes students should be taught the religion-oriented "intelligent design" theory of creation as well as the theory of scientific evolution.

His painful experience as a POW during the Vietnam War led him to buck the White House on the question of using torture to interrogate detainees and prisoners of war. Despite White House opposition, he triumphed with a 90-9 Senate vote on his anti-torture amendment to the defense appropriations bill.

Well, almost.

In signing the bill, the president issued a statement that under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, he did not have to abide by the anti-torture amendment. This is a dubious claim of presidential power that should be challenged.

McCain's political record is not entirely pristine. He was a member of the so-called Keating Five -- five senators linked to Charles Keating in the savings and loan scandals in 1991. But a special investigator found that McCain had not been substantially involved in influence peddling but criticized him and three others for "questionable conduct."

That searing experience may explain why McCain has been an avid advocate of campaign finance reform.

With his "hail fellow well met" persona and tendency to jaw with the media and pundits in the back of the campaign bus, he has created the impression in some quarters that he is a "moderate."

Forget it. His voting record speaks for itself.

McCain is working hard to prove his staunch conservative credentials as he woos the far right in his party.

If he wins the presidency, the country can expect a continuation of Bush's aggressive foreign policy and ultra-right domestic programs.

Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com.

I think the histrionic reaction is hilarious, the claims it's racist even funnier, and the whole thing a pretty good indication the ad hit a nerve. Paris Hilton is famous for no reason. She is entirely superficial. She has no record and no accomplishments. Even people who like her can't name a single thing she's ever done. Yet we see her everywhere. The media can't stop talking about her and gushing over her every move. Hey, sounds like Barry to me.

Yet we see her everywhere.

Um, no, you don't. Much to her chagrin, she hasn't been on anyone's radar. Unless you're watching constant loops of McCain ads. Actually, *you* probably are.

Paris Hilton is famous for no reason. She is entirely superficial. She has no record and no accomplishments.

She's also the daughter of two major Republican Party contributors who have personally contributed to McCain's campaign.

You'd think that McCain would have remembered that before he used their daughter in a campaign commercial, but I guess it doesn't matter who you trample over on your way to the top.

Any one see David Gergen, Harvard Professor and a CNN Senior Political Analyst, discuss this very issue on Sunday?

As related to Barack Obama:

"There has been a very intentional effort to paint him as somebody outside the mainstream, other, 'he's not one of us,'" said Gergen, who has worked with both Democrat and Republican administrations. "I think the McCain campaign has been scrupulous about not directly saying it, but it's the subtext of this campaign. Everybody knows that. There are certain kinds of signals. As a native of the south, I can tell you, when you see this Charlton Heston ad, 'The One,' that's code for, 'he's uppity, he ought to stay in his place.' Everybody gets that who is from a southern background. We all understand that. When McCain comes out and starts talking about affirmative action, 'I'm against quotas,' we get what that's about."

I have great respect for David Gergen, and found this comment both striking and relevant.

Old man McCain is sooooo old, he's got hieroglyphics on his driver's license...

I got a laugh for ya, mhr-tard.

Your kinds ass is grass, even if y'all wear all that Davy Crockett gear y'all bought to look tough...

That was me above...

The right reaction would be for Obama to not even mention the ad's central premise of "celebrity" but just to say, "I can understand why Senator McCain wants to talk about Britney Spears and Paris Hilton - it's because he doesn't have any ideas to talk about, and he sure doesn't want to remind you that he wants to continue the failed Bush policies of the past 8 years, because he knows you don't agree with them. So he wants to distract you. The truth of the matter is, John McCain supports George Bush's tax policies and wants to continue them...those are the same tax policies that gave you back a few hundred dollars, one time, which you've put into your gas tank and buying your groceries ten times over in these past few years...those same tax policies give the Britneys and the Parises tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars back each year, so they can afford to buy a few more designer handbags. So if John McCain wants to talk about who's really been a friend to Britney and Paris, that's a conversation I'm looking forward to having with him. Because those are his priorities. That's what he suggests is "leadership". So, you know, I just look at this stuff and I gotta shake my head...because here we are, with thousands of families losing homes, with thousands of people losing jobs, with all of us paying more for food and transportation, with a lot of us not able to get healthcare, with a war costing us trillions of dollars...and John McCain wants to talk about Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? You gotta be kidding me."

Why "Pat" you are so rwetarded and cwever! "Pat!" But not so clever as to realize Conservative is the new pile of shit?

Aw, what's wrong, Pat? Get caught short on weak-ass mama jokes? You're slipping.

I mean really? What would a conservative do if it weren't sending big brother(the American people) to fight for 'em? If they were forced to fight, we'd have to re-start up the pooper scooper unions...GO FIGHTING 2nd O-Put!

Reading these comments tends to confirm that it was a pretty good ad, and much better than it originally seemed, because no one really came up with a very effective response to it.

I saw Gergen's comment that the follow up ad about "the one" being a reference to an uppity black man. It surprised me a bit, but I suppose if you want to paint Obama as arrogant or cocky, it inevitably can be characterized as calling him uppity in the racially offensive connotation. But I doubt that is the objective of the ad - anyone who would tend to see Obama as an uppity black guy probably would vote for McCain anyway. I thought the theme of the add was a celebrity without accomplishment against an experienced and accomplished leader.

I think McCain's best move would be to take a one term pledge in his acceptance speech for both him and his vp choice - saying they will not devote one second to politics if the American people honor tham with election as president and vp. Normal voters would like that. It would relieve concern about age. People would think that Obama can try again in four years. It would allow McCain to assume the much talked about "change" mantel. I think it probably would be worth about 3 to 5 points in the election and likely ensure McCain's election. Plus, it would be smart for McCain because second terms typically are almost nothing but trouble for a president.

Reading Brian's comment tends to confirm to me that it was a pretty retarded ad, but much better than one of them "radioactive" wingnuts would have done...

Sorry, I don't have time to read all the comments here. But I have to point out that Clinton won in 1992 by ferociously counterattacking. Check out this August 1992 column describing the winning tactics as they were in progress...

NY Times Column by Michael Kelly

Pat ain't slipn', junebug, she's taking a nap. Fighting ain't what they do best...

I thought Obama knew how to hit back hard. He ought to know that Rethugs don't play fair. If he can't hit back hard at Rove/McSame, how is he going to hit back hard at the likes of Putin/Ahmedinajad (sp?) etc?

Come on Obama, get your shit together or handover the mantle to Hillary.

rational? suck on the past somewhere else.

Elmo, you got it all wrong. I supported Obama all along and am disappointed he is letting McSame over power him.

I thought Obama was smart enough to fight back against Rovian tactics and am disappointed. Don't be so sensitive to criticism of Obama. He got my vote in the caucus and I want to see him fight back.

My bad, but don't make the mistake of calling me "sensitive" again. I might cry ;)

I ain't no fool, beating these fucktards into the ground is only way to sway the ignorant. Period.

Ok, I won't call you sensitive :-)

I saw this poll that came out today, apparently the second of its kind today, where McSame is nominally ahead of Obama in the polls. Read: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/207053.php. Hence my frustration and concern out of fear that we will lose yet another election to the politics of fear and hate.

Obama has to hit back hard. McSame has so many faults and negatives. Don't let him set the agenda.

Good, because I'm kinda partial to "that little red sum-bitch...get 'em!"

From mediaresearch.com--something from the venerable Jack Cafferty of CNN, another person
I admire for his candor:

"CNN commentator Jack Cafferty, on Thursday's The Situation Room, found racist overtones to the recent McCain campaign ad comparing the hype surrounding vapid celebrities like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears to the hype surrounding Barack Obama:
"I think it's very much playing the race card to put a highly educated, articulate, middle-aged black family man into a television commercial with two blonde bimbo airheads with a combined I.Q. of a box of cereal.
And if you have any doubts about what I'm talking about, it's the same kind of thing that was done to Harold Ford down in Tennessee in 2006 and it stinks. It's more subtle, but it stinks just the same."
Cafferty was referring to the spot the RNC ran against Harold Ford in the 2006 Tennessee Senate race which made light of how Ford appeared at Super Bowl party thrown by Playboy magazine in 2005.
In the ad, an attractive young blonde joked about how she met Ford at the Playboy bash, and asked him to call her. Liberals reacted harshly to the supposed racist insinuation made by the ad.
The NAACP condemned it as a "a powerful innuendo that plays to pre-existing prejudices about African-American men and white women."

So it pleased me to see Cafferty call out McCain on this b.s.

Also, it is noteworthy that later, when asked by reporter Diane Sawyer if he would continue to use such ads, the ever-manipulative, and not-above the-fray John McCain said "I kind of enjoy them."

As a famous philosopher said, " the malicious have a dark happiness."

Laughing it off, when an attack's subtext is no laughing matter, is a political loser. But so is taking excessive umbrance. The best response to stuff like this is, "Is this the best they've got?" which is what Obama did once he got off the looks funny/dollar-bill riff.

The best followup to "Is this the best they've got?" is counter-ridicule - a greatest-hits compilation of McCain's flip-flops, flubs and flummery. There's plenty to choose from.

(h/t Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe on "flummery," a word that deserves revival.)

Lotsa snappy comments. No accomplishment list. Ladies and gentlemen, your Obama voter!

I keep getting banned for being a psycho, but rather than just walking away, I make the effort to post under new IPs to share my important message that only losers hang out at this blog.

When something different is called for

Yeah, I think it was to re-project this old style Karl Rove game right back onto McCain with accusations about jealousy and envy.

Sort of like I did here with a cartoon at my website.

I think McCain wishes he were youthful enough to compete in the same way. Age does unfortunately have it's problems and with McCain, age is at the very core of his problems.

This Spears/Hilton ad wants to deflect the advantages of youth and charisma – youth is something that McCain doesn't possess any longer, in fact his age is a truly a liability, a weakness, because McCain does often times forget very important facts, and McCain isn’t able to generate substantial motivation in the crowds that he meets in these small town-hall meetings.

Obama should showcase McCain's deficits, which are very real. Show McCain forgetting important facts, show McCain arguing with someone at his townhall meeting, like McCain did with that man that asked about withdraw from Iraq – whereby McCain said “why not stay in a Iraq for a 100 years� (McCain actually got very mad at that man) so it shows McCain has a temper problem too.

Why would McCain show that Spears/Hilton ad? Because McCain has no celebity status, no youth, no memory, and no charisma.

Just a postscript in the event no one has wandered over to Digby, who has been on fire writing about this topic. She cites a "prophetic 2007 essay" by Nixonland author Pearlstein on FNB ("f*gg*t, n****r, b*tch) politics. Pearlstein spells out the noxious abbreviation in his essay. Here's a snippet, establishing the striking visuals from a Nixon ad:

It reminds me of a Nixon masterpiece. The visuals for the Republican presidential candidate's most pathbreaking commercials in 1968 featured only mood-setting stills. The one that began with Nixon intoning, "It is time for an honest look at the problem of order in the United States," flashed pictures of burned-out buildings--no black rioters, just the consequences of what rampaging blacks did. Then, finally, on a rubble-strewn street, a close-up of a mannequin that, if you weren't paying attention, could scan subconsciously as a naked white woman lying helpless in the middle of the street: Birth of a Nation time.

More to Somerby's original point, and to Kevin's OP, Pearlstein noted the haplessness of the classic liberal response:

The genius of FNB politics is that it can make those who diagnose it sound like barking moonbats. Sometimes you have a case. Sometimes, you're just being paranoid (Matt Drudge says "Dems rumble in Hollywood jungle; Clinton-Obama throwdown"--Aha! Jungle!--and "Obama team takes a Lincoln Bedroom shot). And it's often only in retrospect that the game seems truly deliberate. In 1952, Nixon used the word "traitor" to describe Dean Acheson, Adlai Stevenson, and Harry Truman. Outrageous!, Democrats responded. Whatever do you mean?, Nixon said in wounded tones, claiming he'd been misunderstood; he only meant they were "traitors to the high principles in which many of the nation's Democrats believe." Today, it's obvious that he meant to suggest, you know, the crime of treason.

The bonus: His charge also revealed liberals as shrieking and hypersensitive. That's the problem with FNB politics, and Reagan showed it better than anyone. He used to make jokes: About Africans, "When they have a man for lunch, they really have him for lunch." So, when gubernatorial candidate Pat Brown distributed a pamphlet ("Ronald Reagan, Extremist Collaborator--An Expose") of such quotations in 1966, it backfired. Reagan was making a joke! Why are these liberals so humorless?

Ann Coulter would probably call herself a Ronald Reagan conservative, and she is. FNB politics, in its gentler, embryonic form, was part of Reagan's conservatism. Now that everything noble in conservative has been travestied, it's all they have left.

McCain himself should be mocked, while ignoring specific ads. Are you McKidding? The McCain campaign has nothing good to say about John McCain. I don't think the man even likes himself.

I was rushing out the door and couldn't properly cite Digby, who has been writing IMHO so astutely about this whole thing--and also manages to spell Perlstein correctly.

Here's the link to her great post.

These are separable suggestions:
1. Laugh at the ad.
2. Counter-punch with "This ad shows McCain is a lightweight".

#2 has a little going for it, but neither seem quite right to me. McCain's ad mocked Obama. It was a schoolyard taunt, the tough simple guy going after the smarty pants pretty boy. Responding with scorn and contempt for its childishness (#1), or pointing out that it makes McCain an unserious candidate (#2) is exactly what a smarty pants pretty boy would do.

So I'd prefer:

3. Self-effacing humor to show you can roll with it, that you're not the nerd who will splutter back about how stupid and childish his attacker is.

Or even better:

4. Hit back really really hard on a different topic. Meet the schoolyard taunt with a smash in the mouth.

Count me in with the crowd that says its time to unleash some old school Chicago politics on McCain. After the last few weeks, no one can say he doesn't have it coming.

Brian: This always strikes me as such a foolish piece of liberal "wisdom":

"I think it's kinda stupid." - Roberta McCain response to her son's "Celebrity" attack ad against Obama 7/31/08

seriously, I prefer the point rather than [url=http://www.bawwgt.com/game/?id=17]maple story power leveling[/url]

seriously, I prefer the point rather than [url=http://www.bawwgt.com]power leveling[/url]

Good Day. How could you be a Great Man if history brought you no Great Events, or brought you to them at the wrong time, too young, too old?
I am from Cuba and now teach English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "The airline directly before purchasing a ticket for."

Thank you very much 8). Naia.

Give please. My home is not a place, it is people.
I am from Senegal and also now am reading in English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Allergy society of south africa allsa immunotherapy, desensitization in patients with severe summer hay fever uncontrolled by anti allergic drugs.Anti allergy medication oral this combination medication is used to why were you taking anti allergy medication."

With best wishes :P, Carlotta.

Hello. All the world's a cage. Help me! Help to find sites on the: Payday loan. I found only this - payday loan online. Anti allergic and anti anaphylactic activity of picroliv a standardized. Pearl herb tea is made of high quality fresh water pearl. Waiting for a reply :eek:, Anastay from Barbuda.