I agree. You can't win a stupid name-calling contest with the McCain campaign, even when you're right and they're wrong. It's playing right into their hands, and feeding the Village idiots in the media the kind of crap they love.

Obama's at his best when he talks to us as if we're adults. That's a large part of what won him the primaries, IMO. To toss that off now for a few easy comebacks would be foolish.

Tell us what you really think. Don't hold back.

I think the ad is kinda cute. Unlike the McCain ads it doesn't lie. The celebrity angle is tempered by the word Washington. Anyway one of the criticisms of Democrats is that we are just too soft and too willing to take anything that is dumped on us. I say take a few swings at the old guy.

As to McCain's ad campaign, my wife subscribes to factcheck.org and they have told her that McCain's ads are one lie after another. As a result they turn her stomach every time she sees one. Sadly most people don't subscribe to factcheck.org. A lot of folks believe that Obama is going to raise their taxes and steal their jobs. They also believe that McCain is in favor of alternative energy.

Let it run as part of Obama's mix.

Sorry, I liked it; it makes most of the points you thought should be made, but doesn't come off as overly dark.

the point isn't that McCain is a generic celebrity, but a Washington Celebrity.

Surrounded by Lobbyists and embraced by W. Bush.

And he is erratic, switching back and forth.

So it's an introduction of the very themes you're saying McCain should be attacked on.

It uses the word "celebrity" so the press will go in it's usual frenzy, but uses it in the phrase "Washington Celebrity" to make the larger point.

Attack ads only work when (a) they have a grain of truth to get them started and (b) they're seen as attacks that genuinely represent what the attackers think — even if what they think is stupid, unfair, and revolting.

I'm missing the part about how this ad doesn't fit.

The 'celebrity' thing isn't what the ad's about; it's just there to get people's attention. What the ad's about is that McCain's part of the problem - cozying up to Bush and lobbyists, and handing out favors to the lobbyists' interests.

Does that have a grain of truth? As big as the world. Does it genuinely represent what we think? Absolutely.

More generally, this kind of attack (McCain is a celebrity too! McCain is the real elitist! McCain wears $500 shoes!) fails because everyone knows that liberals aren't serious about it. We're just being cute.

You aren't (obviously) involved in the ad, so the use of "we" here is improper and appears only to be geared toward giving your insulting (and false) characterization of the unseriousness of the ad credibility by painting yourself as an insider with respect to it. "Liberals" aren't a hive mind, and you present no reason whatsoever to believe that the people behind this ad don't mean it, and much less than people know that they don't mean it.

Attack ads only work when (a) they have a grain of truth to get them started and (b) they're seen as attacks that genuinely represent what the attackers think

I don't see any evidence that either of these is necessary to make an attack ad work.

Conversely, nobody believes that liberals really care about McCain's shoes or his appearances on Saturday Night Live.

The ad is attacking McCain's intellectually dishonest hypocrisy, and therefore undermining the credibility of the idea that his attacks are serious.

You may not care about that, but its certainly no less plausible (and, I would say, far more) that the actual liberals involved in the Obama campaign do than it is that conservatives believe the McCain attacks that you claim might plausibly represent their real beliefs.

What makes this especially frustrating is that if the Obama campaign wants to go on the attack, there are plenty of sincere ways to do it.

If you want to point to real substantive problems with McCain, you don't need to make irrational, unjustified attacks on the Obama campaign to do that. But the fact that the "celebrity!" attack which has been at the center of every McCain ad (and most McCain campaign communications) since Obama's Europe trip is hypocritical, insincere, and empty is clearly a sincere, on point charge by the Obama campaign.

I like the ad. While it purports to be answering McCain on the celebrity issue, it lays the ground for the attack that I think will matter: McCain is a Bush Republican who favors corporations and kisses up to their lobbyists. "No Third Term" should be the mantra. The Bush-hugs make the case visually.

Sometimes you put up a really not too smart post. Not often. But this is one of those times. All that column space for this? Okay. Maybe a walk around the block, or a latte, will help settle you down.

There's a lot of important stuff going on right now. This ad is not part of that.

Of course the ad is dumb! It's aimed at dumb, undecided voters who don't follow the campaign.

It's a great jiujitsu ad.

I am not in love with the ad, but I approve of its messages. The most important of these is that this Democratic candidate will fight back.

Something has to be done to punch through the wall of 'never talk about this' that the corporate press/media uses to protect McCain from straight-forward policy opposition and from his own deceptions and mistakes.

The kind of attacks that you call 'sincere' will never never never work unless and until the press/media protection is disabled.

I liked it. I thought it was a good rebuttal. It wasn't overly serious and it pointed out that McCain is the one who is actually running around enjoying his fame. And it showed him on "The View." His biker buddies are going to be busting his balls on that one for months.

So now Kevin's making
"irrational, unjustified attacks on the Obama campaign"
???

They said you guys had thin skin...but, oy.

The main problem is that it conflates two sets of issues.
1. The "celebrity" theme -- who really cares? whether we like it or not, sucking up to vacuous TV personalities is part of what a politician has to do these days at the national level. I can think of a zillion reasons for not liking McSham, but that's not one of them.
2. The other theme -- McSham as a creature of the Washington establishment -- is serious, and gets to the heart of why we don't want him in office.
IMO conflating the two issues diminishes the importance of #2. And that's a mistake.

I'd address Kevin's criticisms but they don't make any sense to me. Is the point that good ads have to be sincere? We're trying to win an election here, not get the Great Pumpkin to show up.

And they genuinely think he's the antichrist too, right? Or because that ad fails your criteria, are you predicting it won't be effective?

Agree with Theristes, and adding the celebrity part of it absolutely guarantees that that is the part that the media will focus on. It will become a "both sides are exactly the same" story, with Obama looking like a weak me-too guy who couldn't even come up with an original line of attack. Adding the celebrity line immediately means that no other part of the message, no matter how important, will get the slightest bit of attention.

As Kevin wrote, there are numerous lines of attack against McCain. Personally, I like the McCain = Bush line of attack. It's simple, gets to the heart of the matter, is hard to counter given the evidence, and also strikes directly at the very core of McCain's strength--his reputation as a maverick. It's easy to work in the flip-flopper stuff as an adjunct point. But the KISS principle applies here. BE consisntent and simple and keep hammering that point, over and over.

The amazing thing is the adds are both true.

First off.... loved this ad. Anything that has Bush kissing McCain is a great ad. Second, it points to the hypocrisy of McCain and his celebrity fixation (too bad they didn't include his spot in The Wedding Crashers). Third, it does address the large segment of non-latte drinnking voters who do respond to these types of ads. Fourth and finally, it's about time that Dems smacked back.... who gives a rat's you know what that it wasn't of a 'higher plane' or of a CSPAN issues oriented level..... that's the typical Dukakis-Adlai Stephenson mindset that causes Dems to lose and lose and lose every election.

You know what I thought watching that attack ad: John McCain sure likes George Bush. That is what stayed with me through the whole thing. Just like watching the Obama ad the only thing that stayed with me was the idea the McCain folks think he's an idiot who shouldn't be near the senate much less the White House.

It isn't about celebrity, any more than McCain's ad was about celebrity. It was all about hitting McCain with George Bush without having a bunch of articales talking up how, yeah but he's a maverick. It's juvenile, but the press is juvenile. They'll cover it going hee, hee, hee tit for tat! And laughing and having a glad old time pontificating on how the race has gotten so low brow, all the while loving it. Meanwhile, everyone else gets the McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time and McCain loves George Bush message just fine. And unlike McCain's ads: turn the sound off and you're left with John McCain having a good time and loving George Bush.

Not John McCain speaking to thousands and looking presidential.

It's pitch perfect. It's fun for the press. Most folks won't think about it but will remember the McCain-Bush tie. All in all: a win, win, win. And a good response to counter the celebrity push the McCain camp has launched and the press loves so much they note it in every paragraph.

This actually reasurred me. It serves notice to camp McCain: we're tying you to George Bush by November. And if you distance yourself or repuidiate him during the convention we're calling you out as a Washington Politician who flipflops and reinvents himself, doing anything to win.

The Obama camp will go brutal IMO if they have to do this. They're going to count to to 270 the best way they can. And the Ohio and Nevada ads running show they're going to go state by state, working this whole thing.

I liked it. IMO it says only good things about the campaign that they had the discipline to not get knocked off their game, and now when most people see McCain as the one who went negative first they went negative too in a light hearted way with a cleaner message.

They out Roved the Rove boys IMO.

That ad works on a lot of levels: the same ones the celebrity ad hit and with far more consistant messaging.

The ad is dumb only if you're paying attention and care about the issues.

For the rest of us, it might be somewhat effective, as it kind of immunizes against the 'celebrity' charge.

In other words, you kind of think, 'Now they're both calling each other celebrities, what a crock--let's get past the celebrity issue and on to something else!'

The tone of the ad seems to fit in with Obama's "Can you believe these guys..." remarks of last week. McCain deserves a little mockery.

It's not targeted at you Kevin or any partisan political junkie. It's targeted at indies and undecideds who vote once every four years. The kind who don't remember they saw McCain on Leno. They'll say wait a minute, they're right, this guy has been all over the teevee for years, how can he criticize Obama for being a star? You want people to believe John McCain is full of shit and running a dishonest campaign? Point out the hypocrisy.

I have to come down on the side of those who like the ad. And the reason is exactly as Kevin points out in his post: it says "nyah, nyah, nyah." Sure it is juvenille, but it also does something very important. It acts to neutralize the GOP attacks. If you show how easy it is to turn the argument -- any argument -- on its head, you end up demonstrating the weakness of the argument in the first place, rather than suggesting that you are not playing fair. It reminds me of how Abbie Hoffman wore a t-shirt with the American flag when he testified before Congress. The very act was immature and taunting, but that was exactly the point.

As to whether Obama should actually be going negative in the first place, that is another issue and I'm of two minds. Sadly, I'm afraid the practical side of me must prevail in this case and leave the idealistic side of me behind. We've simply got to win.

I think it's a very good spot. I work in communications, FWIW.

KD:

Nobody's going to buy the celebrity/elitist/Ferragamo shoes nonsense that the liberal blogosphere has been pushing except as evidence that we're in our dotage too.

WTF?

Attack ads, it seems to me, are a lot like propaganda as described by Auden: "Propaganda is the use of magic by those who no longer believe in it against those who do." But I think Kevin's right that the attackers have to believe a bit of the message, even if the means are propaganda-like. If it's all in fun, with a wink and a nod, it's Penn and Teller -- great magic, perhaps, but with some comedy as fixative rather than portent and mystery.

Remember, if Hillary had won we'd have ads up now charging McCain with being a communist because he spent all those years in North Vietnam, and challenging Putin to a duel at thirty-paces.

Generally, I don't think the Obama campaign should let the McCain campaign set all the topics of discussion. McCain attacks, they respond. This time, they counter-attacked along the same lines. I'd like to see the Obama camp hit harder on their own front, push their own memes, take control of the discussion and run with it.

On the other hand, the McCain camp has been so inept at controlling the debate that letting them run the show hasn't really been all that detrimental, as far as I can tell.

If your candidate rises above the petty attacks and only talks about substantive issues, then he's elitist and aloof.

A campaign has to accomplish two things, make your guy/policies look good, and make the other side out to be a bunch of losers.

Distasteful to an elitest and aloof guy such as yourself, eh?

What makes this especially frustrating is that if the Obama campaign wants to go on the attack, there are plenty of sincere ways to do it.

Kevin--While I think there are better ways for Obama to spend his money than this ad, I think that you missed something pretty important here. The fact is the ad is essentially calling McCain a hypocrite. (I.e. McCain is calling Obama a celebrity, while he himself is celebrity too.) I suspect that Obama's campaign sincerely considers John McCain a hypocrite.

I agree with most everyone here that Kevin's idea that attack ads only work when the attackers are sincere is possibly the dumbest argument he has ever made. If Kevin really believes that the people who put together attack ads sincerely think that 1) John Kerry was never wounded in Vietnam, 2) Al Gore thought he had invented the internet, 3) Bill Clinton was the most profoundly corrupt politician ever to occupy the White House, 4) Barak Obama thinks he's the messiah and is the world's biggest celebrity, then I have a single family house in Port St. Lucie, FL that I'd like to sell him for $1 million.

What it takes to make a negative attack effective is not to believe it yourself, but to be extremely disciplined about repeating the attack with a straight face and having a bunch of party loyalists make the same attack too. It's not about sincerity. It is about sociopathic levels of cynicism.

Obama's at his best when he talks to us as if we're adults.

True, but a large share of the electorate has the reasoning ability of children (Exhibit A: the election of most any Republican). I think the ad works.

The "celebrity" angle is just a hook to try to get the MSM interested and in the mood to give the ad the same kind of free airtime they've given McCain's. The real content is McCain = Bush. Which is exactly the message they need to be getting out 24/7.

I'd say it's a pretty good effort.

Sadly, history strongly suggests that any candidate who runs a purely issue-based, positive campaign is pretty much guaranteed to lose. We have lots of campaigns which claim to be issues-based and positive, but very few which even approach such standards, in part as a recognition of this observation.

Kevin, you missed the crucial point. This ad not only takes on the Celebrity ad, while embracing the McCain=Bush Three claim, it makes people laugh. The use of the parallel shots of McCain wobbling from left to right was brilliant, funny and sticks in the mind. People can laugh at McCain without feeling mean-spirited, which is more effective in the long-term. As for issues, it is an issue that McCain claims to be experienced and bi-partisan, when he is, in fact, neither. The ad sets up nicely just what McCain really is, and does it with style. Excellent piece of work.

Pretty lonely on that high road, isn't it Kevin?

In considering the message, one must consider the recipient. Not a good track record there.

Most ads make me want to vomit, in varying degrees of projectileness. If it seems that it is juvenile, pointless, and embarrassing, that is because it is. Welcome to American Presidential politics. We reek from what we sow.

Well it looks like the McCain camp has responded to Obama's attack ad by airing a new "Fan Club" attack ad. It's got lots of young girls swooning over him - one even saying his eyes are dreamy.

Actually Kevin, attack ads almost always work. The only question is to what degree. Which, of course, is why there are so many of them DESPITE the almost universally expressed opinion that voters hate them, are tired of the negativity, want to hear about issues, etc. etc.

The ad is excellent in every way, geared as it is to the typical voter. Kevin usually has pretty good judgment, but man, is he dead flat wrong about this. Obama's people hit it right on the money.

The ad successfully turns the "celebrity" meme against McCain, simply showing through footage that he's been about the biggest publicity hound in Washington, but its political thrust is to use this meme to reinforce the contrast between McCain's tired old Washington politics and Barack's outsider change appeal. And, Kevin, where in the ad is there any mention of $500 Ferragamo shoes? I've watched it three times and missed it all three times!

The ad would have been much more effective as a real spoof, not just a lame copy of it.

OW

I have watched the McCain ad several times. I think it is a generational attack ad. It basically says young people are fools for supporting Obama. In short, it doesn't insult Obama as much as it does his supporters. That isn't the way most attack ads work. I guess he is appealing to the grandpa Simpson demographic.

Kevin,

How much money have you lost overestimating the intelligence of the American people this election cycle?

Great post by Kevin, another demonstration of his combination of honesty and political acumen. It is a dumb ad.

My guess is that this is just an internet ad seeking some free publicity. However, I would disagree with one aspect of Kevin's analysis. He says:

"Attack ads only work when (a) they have a grain of truth to get them started and (b) they're seen as attacks that genuinely represent what the attackers think.. ."

I don't see where Kevin gets the second point. I don't think viewers attempt to assess whether the ad genuinely represents what the sponsoring candidate thinks. I believe the second part of the test is whether the ads reflect what the targeted viewer genuinely thinks or can be persuaded to think. Isn't it obvious that the ad must do that in order to be effective?

The main reason the ad is dumb is because it's so painfully juvenile: you called us a celebrity, so we're going to call you a celebrity! Nyah nyah nyah.

I don't think it's necessarily juvenile or that there is necessarily anything wrong with it. Politics between the Democrats and the Republicans isn't a cocktail party discussion between two old, sincerely fond friends in front of some of their other friends. It's a battle over power. When McCain uses these kinds of techniques on Barack, he opens himself up to having these techniques that Dems are reluctant to use in the first place turned back on them: techniques that have proven to make a big difference for the Republicans, even when their substantive policies are terrible. By absolutely refusing to use these tactics, we are abandoning our voice with a large segment of the population that those kinds of statements actually appeal to. That's just dumb. You may not personally like the behavior, but Barack's battle isn't a battle to behave in a way that would be impeccable in any context, it's a battle to win over the enemy to gain power. Anyway, even though the Republicans go overboard with it, it's also going overboard in the opposite direction to pretend that there is nothing at all worthwhile to a voter's concern that a Presidential candidate is too egotistical or spends too much money on things like shoes. They are, after all, running for the most powerful officially/publicly recognized political position in the world. The trick I think is to not go overboard answering those concerns, or to turn our politics into a politics of hoopla and bluster, where the best liar will win and policy will be forgotten-- that does not serve freedom (because likely the Republicans have a lot more chance of winning elections if that is what the norm of the political discourse of the country becomes).

No Kevin, you are so wrong because the ad puts down McCain's *hypocrisy* about the celebrity/elitism thing. You and other well-meaning but milquetoast style liberals in the vein of the ineffably ineffectual Bob Shrum* think we should always bumble along in a nerdy fashion, always looking prim and proper lest we mimic the sweaty earnestness of our opponents etc. Well, that dorky attitude just doesn't work. Whether the secondary critique is exactly in tune with the first point is not really that important, just try to get that you have to hit back at everything the other guys put out, regardless of endless prissy turning over of whether the response is really our message blah blah ...

* "Although he has been part of many non-presidential Democratic campaign victories, he has never advised a winning presidential campaign."

"Rope-a-dope", Kevin. Never ever forget that this summer is about rope-a-dope. Hit just enough to cause the opponent to move, but do not go for the knockout until he is tired. "Tired", of course, is when John is stuck with his $81m and Obama really starts laying on the cash and the hits.

Haven't you found it just a bit strange that Obama really hasn't flooded everyone with constant requests for funds - even though we know he is foregoing matching funds? Why? Wait till the fall, when you'll be hearing requests every day, and seeing the punches thrown as a result. McCain just doesn't understand what he has coming.....

It should be clear to anyone paying attention, that John McCain is a mentally unstable, war-mongering, knuckle dragging neanderthal. McCain is too clueless to become the leader of the free world.

I say go even lower. Paint McCain as the Manchurian Candidate. What evil, ticking time-bomb did the Viet Cong plant, deep in his psyche? That's what voters should be worried about.

Some bad news for Obama from New York magazine's cover story:

"In October, Obama’s former pastor, Wright, will publish a new book and hit the road to promote it, an occasion that might well place the topic of Obama’s blackness (along with his patriotism and his candor about what he heard in the pews in all those years at Trinity Church) squarely at the center of the national debate."

Isn't the reality that Obama is extremely vulnerable to negative ads in October highlighting Wright, Obama's vote against the Infanticide bill in the Illinois legislature, Bill Ayers, his cocaine use, and whatever other dirt/far left issues that can be pinned on him? If the voters in Pa, Ind, Oh, Mich, Wisc, Va, Iowa, Oregon, Nevada and Colorado hear these things, doesn't he lose each of those swing states? I know he has no chance in Mo if those issus are played up.

What happens if voters are exposed to television and radio ads that play Obama reading from his book more or less bragging about doing cocaine and then a narrator asks, "Do we want to elect Barrack Obama president and deliver the message to our children that it is okay to use cocaine because Barack Obama did it?"

Jobs jobs jobs
Its the stupid economy.

You may be right that the economy is very important, but how does Obama persuade people he has any particular expertise on the economy?

I also saw this interesting statistical analysis regarding 2004 versus 2008 votes in racial terms:

"The white voting population is seven times larger than the black voting population. Consequently, a shift in the black vote of seven percentage points is roughly equivalent to a shift in the white vote of one point. Even if Obama were to receive essentially all black votes, which is unlikely, a loss of less than two percentage points of the white vote would be enough to offset these gains."

Sorry, I mistakenly put Bakho in the name window.

What happens if voters are exposed to television and radio ads that play Obama reading from his book more or less bragging about doing cocaine and then a narrator asks, "Do we want to elect Barrack Obama president and deliver the message to our children that it is okay to use cocaine because Barack Obama did it?"

What happens if readers of this blog are exposed to comments from Brian more or less bragging about blowing goats and being dumb as a stump and then a narrator asks, "Do we want Brian to post comments on the internet and deliver the message to our children that it is okay to blow goats because Brian did it?"

I for one know that is not going to play where I'm from.

Also: the anecdotes from Obama's book are examples of what is variously called a conversion story, a tale of redemption, metanoia, a hero's journey, et al, of which Paul's Road to Damascus is a famous example. In these stories a narrator describes going down a dark path only to be redeemed, giving hope and inspiration to a reader.

So yes, what if Republicans lie and smear and twist Obama's life story around in order to deceive people?

If so, it will be just another typical day in the corrupt and dismal world of Republican political tactics.

trex,

I did not mean to get you agitated, but don't you see how a 527 running that type of ad would move votes?

You think Obama would respond with the conversion story? That was would be a gutsy move, and it would be fascinating to see if it would work. But I doubt he would make that move unless the polls showed him dropping like a rock and, if that happens, it probably would be too late.

I did not mean to get you agitated

My agitation comes from your own subtle attempt at character assassination by insinuation -- essentially doing the very work of the ads you mention.

I did not mean to get you agitated, but don't you see how a 527 running that type of ad would move votes?

I do. Don't you see how it's wrong? If not, why not? Are you morally defective?

And if so, why aren't you trying to stop it instead of spreading it?

And if it turns out that you don't really see anything wrong with it I don't see how you could possibly object to people talking about your goat-blowing proclivities on the web.

The Republican idea of political discourse is to keep citizens uninformed, confused, and led along by their worst fears and prejudices. It is simply unworthy of our democracy.

I prefer that the Democrats not only play defense --- you can't win the game that way. Any ad that puts your opponent on the defensive is an attack ad, and it is entirely reasonable to attack the things that are wrong with McCain and ask people if that's what they want. They've chosen a character-based attack ad, however, and not one based on his marriage, but his insider status, which is about as kosher as the whole elitist Obama stuff. Whatever. My biggest problem with this particular ad is that I think they did a poor job on the images. Views of McCain on The View and Jay Leno's show just make him seem like a popular guy. I mean, it's like we're trying to say there's something wrong with being on Leno's show. How much do you want to bet that he will immediately do a lampoon of the Paris Hilton comeback? I think the images make McCain look like a guy who has been around who you can trust. Did they try this ad out on a test audience without sound? Because they damn well should have.

Catherine D makes some good points, especially about what is wrong with being on Leno or the View. It probably is an ineffective ad.

The point of the McCain ads is not that Obama is just a celebrity or that he is an airhead (everyone knows he is not an airhead). It is that he is a celebrity without accomplishment and "not ready to lead" (cleverly picking up on Hillary's mantra).

McCain now has a new funny ad up that focuses on quotes from some of Obama's airhead supporters, talking about him being like Bono and his aura and soft eyes. It is good because it is entertaining and continues McCain's successful effort to get attention/control the subject of discussion, but there is a long way to go to the election. Perhaps Obama could come back with faux outrage that McCain is doing humor while Russia invades Georgia and American lives are on the line in Iraq an Afghanistan, but I doubt that Obama could pull it off against McCain.

trex,

I respectfully disagree that there is anything morally wrong with bringing up Obama's admitted cocaine use or the possibility that electing him president would send a bad message to children. His drug use does not bother you, but there are people who are bothered by it. I don't see anything morally wrong with telling the voters about it and letting them decide its significance. It could be that an admitted cocaine user cannot be elected president in our society today, which of course would be unfortunate for democrats at this point, but isn't that for the voters to decide? The dems decided to nominate him knowing his history of drug use, which now might cause him to lose. By analogy, the repubs decided to nominate a guy 71 years old, which might cause him to lose. The dems have and will try to convey that perception that McCain is too old to be president. Is that morally wrong?

At the Huffington post, they are encouraging Obama to play the race card on the new ad. I think it would be a mistake. Of course, the ad is not about race, but there is a point at the end where a guy holds up an Obama pin and says "hot chicks dig Obama." I think McCain should have left the hot chicks line out of the ad. It will allow zealots to argue a racial connotation, but it probably would be mistake for Obama or his campaign to do so. I assume it is an actual clip of an Obama supporter, which probably would make Obama look foolish playing the race card, but more important, Obama needs to stay away from race.

I agree that it would probably be a mistake for Obama or anyone in his campaign to say that ad was racist.

That doesn't change the fact that the rest of us should recognize that it was racist. In particular, the gratuitous use of the "hot chicks dig Obama" quote at the end of it was not just a dog-whistle but a nice loud shout-out to everyone that might be influenced by racist fears and stereotypes.

Kevin is right. Run the McCain with a weird smile and a creepy laugh blanking out when asked a question ad. Confused or senile? You decide.