Obama calls McCain a Washington insider, blames him in part for U.S. foreign oil dependence

Saturday 12th July, 06:28 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 27 Total Comments Show All

sailwind at 03:39 PM JST - 12th July

Sez,

It's a spoof, but pretty darn funny no matter what your politics are. My point though about Obama making a pledge not to run any negative attack ad's and then runs one is valid though. For the record I think both McCain and Obama's energy plans stink. Nowhere near what I was hoping for, all out one hundred percent commitment to get us of foreign oil and mobilize the entire nation behind the effort.

Both their plans for all intensive purposes is just playing around the margins to mantain the status quo as all the other Presidents have done since Carter.
SezWho2 at 03:55 PM JST - 12th July

sailwind,

Your point may be valid, but I haven't seen any negative attack ads that Obama has run.

Obama's criticism of McCain on energy dependence here is not a negative attack, not any more than any attack is negative. I'll not hold my breath waiting for a positive attack ad.

Nonetheless, his criticism of McCain on this account strikes me as being silly and pointless. Congress has never been noted for long-term thinking. Even those capable of it cannot afford it.

They do silly things like bend with the wind today and vote for immunity for the telecoms but promise to fix it when the wind dies down.
sailwind at 04:17 PM JST - 12th July

Sez,

Your point may be valid, but I haven't seen any negative attack ads that Obama has run.

Here it is the actual Ad the article refers to. It's a negative attack ad pure and simple. I wish he would have stayed with his pledge to take the high road instead of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT-lxXsrgaE
SezWho2 at 05:02 PM JST - 12th July

sailwind,

I have to disagree with you on that. He certainly does attack McCain's policies and his voting record. He does not attack the man himself.

Furthermore, I think that it is permissible and even necessary to criticize (or "attack" if you will) your opponent's plans. I also note that this ad appears as a response to a criticism (or "attack" if you will) of Obama's plans.

What's more, even if it were a negative attack ad, it couldn't possibly be one "pure and simple" in my view. Obama spends 16 of the 30 seconds telling us what he plans to do if he becomes President. It's still more about him than it is about McCain.

I think we've gotten so used to an absence of civility in politics that we're all a bit confused at how to distinguish scurrilous attacks from legitimate criticism. Criticism is and must remain legitimate.

In point of fact, I think Obama's criticism of McCain is weak in this ad because a drilling plan that does not produce oil for 7 years is not necessarily the only thing McCain would support. Moreover, while McCain favors tax breaks (and I do not), there is no demonstration that tax breaks would not be effective. It's an appeal to emotion. And voting with Bush 95% of the time is not a clear statement (on everything? on energy?) and we have no idea how that compares to other voters.

So, I think any wise voter would take this ad with a grain of salt. But it certainly doesn't meet my definition of negative attack ad. "General Petraeus or General Betray Us" does that. Or Bush 1's Willie Horton offering:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC9j6Wfdq3o
sailwind at 05:25 PM JST - 12th July

Sez,

First 14 seconds of the ad call McCain a Washington insider, has him and Bush holding hands together (subtle tie-in there). And tells us he voted with Bush 95 percent of the time. Pretty much wasted 14 seconds when he could have spent flushing out his own policy better. It's an attack ad on McCain with the message vote mccain and get Bush again.

And Obama endorsed the Ad.

Move-on ran the General Petraeus garbage and has every right to as an independent organization their ad's are not endorsed by the candidates.

Willie Horton same thing.

The ad was also controversial because it was not produced by the Bush campaign. A political action committee not affiliated with Bush paid for the ad in an early example of outside groups using ads to effect an election.

http://www.pbs.org/30secondcandidate/timeline/years/1988.html

It's a negative ad that Obama promised not run. You may not think so but you are in the minority in that view. AP not known for its radical stance when reporting the news even called it a negative ad.
SezWho2 at 06:30 PM JST - 12th July

sailwind,

Where are the statistics that show that the majority believes the ad in question to be a "negative attack ad pure and simple". And even if the majority did believe it to be so, so what? Are we suddenly going to make decisions based upon what the majority think?

It doesn't make any difference that the Petraeus ad and the Willie Horton ad were funded by independent groups. These ads were offered as examples of what a negative attack ad truly is. It attacks and attacks and attacks without offering any positive remedy.

This ad by Obama could have focused entirely on his own plans, but as the article points out, it was a direct response to an ad in which McCain "wasted" a similar amount of time suggesting that Obama only intones "no" to energy solutions and does nothing more than cleave to the party line:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbrbSO6flDQ

That ad is prettified version of McCain's web ad of Dr. No, in which there are no talking points in favor of McCain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r22SQ1EYlo

Obama can't play nicey-nice if McCain isn't going to. McCain says of Obama, "just the party line". Obama says of McCain, "voted with Bush 95% of the time". That sounds like a fair rejoinder to me.

Yes, the ad does show Bush and McCain arm in arm. (They aren't holding hands, I think. That wasn't a homophobic complaint was it?) But Bush has endorsed McCain I believe and has indicated that McCain is the right candidate to carry on after him. There's nothing subtle about this. It's a direct reminder of what Obama says every day--that a vote for McCain is a vote for no change.
Madverts at 06:44 PM JST - 12th July

YAWN

Can't they just swear Senator Obama in already.

This is becoming so mind-numbingly B-O-R-I-N-G.
Madverts at 06:48 PM JST - 12th July

"voted with Bush 95% of the time"

That's 95% of the nails in the coffin.
sailwind at 07:00 PM JST - 12th July

SEz,

Wrong about this.

This ad by Obama could have focused entirely on his own plans, but as the article points out, it was a direct response to an ad in which McCain "wasted" a similar amount of time suggesting that Obama only intones "no" to energy solutions and does nothing more than cleave to the party line:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbrbSO6flDQ

McCain had nothing to do with the RNC ad. Notice you don't hear his endorsement on it.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/02/1180977.aspx

Qoute from the article

An important (yet inside-baseball) note: While the RNC is paying for this advertising blitz, it is coming from its independent expenditure unit. What that means is that the RNC has nothing to do with the ad's message or content; a vendor -- in this case, Brad Todd -- is responsible for that.

This, in fact, was an issue in that infamous RNC "Call me" TV ad against Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee in 2006. It was an ad paid for by the RNC, but they were able to deny --legitimately -- that they had anything to do with the message. Both political parties utilize independent expenditure TV ads.

Now for the Dr. No ad.

The Dr. No ad that his campaign did endorse is a pretty hard stretch to meet an attack ad, but what the hey if that is the best you can do to distinguish the use of Obama's own statements about his views on energy policy as an attack ad on him so be it.

Obama can't play nicey-nice if McCain isn't going to. McCain says of Obama, "just the party line". Obama says of McCain, "voted with Bush 95% of the time". That sounds like a fair rejoinder to me.

Heck, let's make this real easy to follow.

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

The ad he endorsed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT-lxXsrgaE

The ad that McCain endorsed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O85jpuFKT4

Any questions who went negative and attacked.
SuperLib at 07:03 PM JST - 12th July

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT-lxXsrgaE

I don't think the ad really crosses the line into an attack ad. Yeah, there's some criticism, and yeah, saying that McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time is a bit undefined at best, but I didn't really see any of the fear that I usually associate with an "attack ad." Maybe I associate creating fear as the biggest driving force behind negative campaigning...? I guess it really depends on the context of things as a whole. If the campaigns were more negative overall maybe I'd see each commercial in a different light.

I watched the other ads by Sez, too. Close to crossing the line, but not quite. I think if you're giving actual positions on the issues for the other guy then you're allowed some latitude. The ads use Obama's own words that he's against nuclear power, for example, with him saying it's not optimal. Some will agree and disagree with that but the door is open for others to make their own decisions. That's different than saying Obama doesn't support nuclear power by showing a family living in their car because the lost their house due to rising energy prices...heh.
Betzee at 07:38 PM JST - 12th July

He didn't really have an answer but promised to get back and give an answer after he had looked into it.

This is not a new issue for him, the reporter was simply asking about his own voting record, which was not to require health insurance providers to cover birth control, after Fiorina pointed out women perceive this as unfair given that Viagra is covered.

Carly Fiorina was a big catch for his campaign, a former Hillary supporter. But how familiar is she with McCain's actual record? Apparently not very well. That points to the problem McCain is having given his greatest strength against Obama should be that he is a known quantity against a first-term Senator. The veteran of an unpopular war with several decades in the Senate where he compiled a voting record that, despite its reliable conservatism, has been periodically punctuated by principled stands as well as real efforts at bipartisanship. Washington-insider should, in short, be a strength in uncertain times.

But his flip-flips to gain the support of the Republican base have left many wondering who he is and what he really stands for. Off-shore oil drilling, waffling on immigration, is the economy in good or bad shape? It's not reassuring when the guy has taken different stands in front of different audiences. Ironically, flip flops are less damaging to Obama precisely because he doesn't have such a long record to defend.
SezWho2 at 11:45 PM JST - 12th July

sailwind,

Wrong about this.

No, you're wrong. Now can we put the unprovable assertions aside?

You obviously believe the ad in question to be a "negative attack ad pure and simple". I'm OK with that. I have argued, though, that Obama's exposition of his position means that if it is a negative attack ad it is not one "pure and simple". You haven't really responded to that point except to say that Obama "wasted" time he could have used to support his positions. He could have shown himself bowling for 14 seconds, too, and wasted time that way. It's his choice on how he wants to use his time.

Next, lets disabuse ourselves of this term "negative attack ad". This is a silly bit of language. Can you show me a positive attack ad or a neutral attack ad? What flavors do attack ads come in? By their nature, attacks are meant to be destructive. They are meant to cause real damage to an idea or to the campaign of a person who espouses that idea.

So, is it an attack ad? Yes, in so far as it is criticism of McCain it is an attack. I don't think Obama ever pledged not to criticize his opponent, however. And why should Obama not mention his notion that McCain's energy plan won't produce a lick of oil for 7 years, or that it will give tax breaks to oil companies, or that McCain has pretty much voted down the line with a guy who is following a secret energy plan that we are not privy to?

Saying that the Dr. No ad is a negative ad is hardly a stretch. Using a bullseye background and having shadowy images of Obama loom up into the bullseye is quite negative. The real stretch is the notion that McCain has no responsibility for the publicity that goes out for him by the RNC or by John McCain 2008.

Which candidate went negative? If you're telling me that McCain is not responsible for Dr. No Obama, then I'd say neither one.
sailwind at 12:22 AM JST - 13th July

Sez,

Thank you. Nice post in response to my position.

To be honest with you, I think McCain is a decent person who has run a decent campaign and I give the man credit for that. I also think Obama is a decent person who has run a decent campaign until this ad in response to the RNC and I wish he wouldn't have.

That was my whole point I wanted to make on this discussion.

I also want to say to you thank you for listening to my reasoning on this.
teaabe at 06:09 AM JST - 13th July

rest assured obama's not going to win. ya'll can count on the south to do him in, as well as nader, and the cadre of hillary haters.
SezWho2 at 08:31 AM JST - 13th July

sailwind,

You're welcome.

There are a host of things I wish Obama hadn't done--starting to wear a flag lapel pin, calling on God to bless us, calling on folks to pay down Hillary's honestly incurred debt, recalibrating his positions after seeming to win the nomination, supporting the surveillance bill. I no longer have a candidate I can vote for and am reduced to either identifying the one I will vote against or trying to fathom whether the Flat Earth Party candidate is my new hope.

What I have been saying is that this particular ad does not trouble me. I believe that the general rule for competing with ideas is that first you weaken your opponent's position and then you make your own case. I think that this is what Obama has done although, as I alluded earlier, I think he could have done it better.

If this were an election for student council president, we could put up posters wear ribbons and smile, and we could rest assured that inappropriate attacks would be censored by the principal. But I imagine the stakes to be somewhat higher here. Of course, that may be only my imagination.

If McCain felt this ad to be unfair, he should have responded to it and pointed out how and why it was unfair. Instead he sent his publicity people to make an unsupported accusation.