Omnibus 2008 Campaign Ad Thread

[boloboffin]

I'm starting this thread in hopes that it becomes the place to post new campaign ads and discuss their effectiveness and their factual nature, which in politics isn't always the same thing.

To start out, a new Barack Obama ad, "Never."

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1185304443?bctid=1743107606

As soon as I find a YouTube link, I'll post it.

This one has a simple storyline, true all the way through (as far as I know), and shows the major themes that the Obama campaign is framing John McCain with. I find this one quite effective, and I'll give it a solid A.

 

[RPG Advocate]

Horrible ad.

Running any sort of negative ad is going to hurt Obama more than it will hurt McCain, because it clashes with Obama's message of "hope/change". Negative ads aren't very "hopeful". Furthermore, if there's one thing you can do to make yourself look like an establishment politician, it's run negative ads.

As to the specific content of the ad, the Obama campaign needs to take a different tack. If they want to paint McCain as "corrupt", they should dig for direct evidence of corruption. "McCain is corrupt" packs a much harder punch than "McCain failed to adequately investigate someone else's corruption". Then, the ad goes on to try and paint McCain in a negative light because an unsavory character is raising money for him. Guilt-by-association tactics are never optimal unless the association is one of "X knowingly acted with Y to do some bad thing" rather than "Y supports X" (this ad) or "X is associted with someone who believes something weird/stupid" (e.g. Obama/Ayers).

I think the Obama should keep hammering the issues on which right-wing authoritarians are vulnerable, like the Iraq war, the economy, energy policy, and civil liberties. Republican corruption is important, of course, but it needs to be talked about in a different frame than this ad.

 

[boloboffin]

I disagree, respectfully. It's not that Ralph Reed is raising money for McCain, but that it's an officially sanctioned effort by the campaign. That's mutual association. McCain lets Ralph Reed skate on the Abramoff affair and then gets Reed to raise money for him.

That equals "McCain is corrupt."

 

[Freddy]

I disagree, respectfully. It's not that Ralph Reed is raising money for McCain, but that it's an officially sanctioned effort by the campaign. That's mutual association. McCain lets Ralph Reed skate on the Abramoff affair and then gets Reed to raise money for him.

That equals "McCain is corrupt."

Obama needs to be careful using guilt by association to tie McCain to Abramoff. As we saw, McCain's people fired back with Bill Ayers. In a contest of who has the most unsavory associations, I don't think Obama wins. He needs to attack McCain on the economy and the war.

 

[boloboffin]

Does Obama have Ayers bundling money for him? Has he ever? I missed that part.

Did Obama keep critical evidence about Ayers' wrongdoing from being investigated in a Senate committee?

 

[Freddy]

Does Obama have Ayers bundling money for him? Has he ever? I missed that part.

Did Obama keep critical evidence about Ayers' wrongdoing from being investigated in a Senate committee?

Are either of those things likely to matter to Joe Sixpack?

And Tony Rezko has bundled money for Obama. Several hundred thousand dollars over the course of Obama's career. Ayers isn't the only association Obama has to worry about it.

I know these associations don't matter to you, but you are hardly the average American. The average American doesn't follow politics that closely. "Friends with a terrorist" is a lot easier to understand and draws a much more visceral reaction than lobbying scandals, especially when McCain led a panel that put several people in prison. Nuance isn't a good thing when you're going negative.

 

[boloboffin]

Show me the quid pro quo for Rezko.

Quid - McCain lets Reed skate
Pro Quo - Reed bundles money for McCain

 

[Freddy]

Show me the quid pro quo for Rezko.

Quid - McCain lets Reed skate
Pro Quo - Reed bundles money for McCain

Quid - Rezko raises hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama.

Pro Quo - Obama sponsors numerous bills in the Illinois Senate earmarking literally millions in tax money to Rezko and other low-incme housing developers. In addition, Obama wrote two letters to help Rezko get $14 million of tax money for a project that wasn't even in Obama's state Senate district. Obama made Rezko a millionaire.

And this last part isn't Obama's fault but it is icing on the cake: All of those housing developments have been condemned because of total neglect by Rezko and Obama's other developer friends. Rezko shut off the heat from December to February of one winter in one of his housing units, claiming he couldn't afford to keep it on. But he could afford to write Obama a check for $1000 in January.

This isn't technically illegal, but it looks horrible, especially given that everyone in Chicago knew Rezko was a crook. Except Obama, apparently. Obama should be very careful. He doesn't exactly squeak when he walks, and unlike McCain, his record is not as well known.

For all his talk of changing the way things are done in politics, he sure plays the special interest earmarking game as well as anyone.

 

[Puppycow]

FWIW it seems like an effective ad to me, but it will also depend on the McCain campaign response and the media response.

Since this isn't the first ad by either candidate targetting the other, is there any public consensus about who went negative first? Remember that McCain equated Obama with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.

There's the truth about things and then theres the "Optics," which aren't always the same. Personally, I really think the criticism of Ayers is a little overblown. While I don't condone what he did, it seems to me that he was trying to behave morally according to his worldview. He was not simply a sociopath trying to hurt people. He was trying to stop a war that he saw as very immoral and which in fact inflicted a lot of suffering on innocent people. Look at the pictures of My Lai or the terrified little naked girl running away from napalm and maybe you can understand why Ayers felt he had to take extreme measures to stop the war. Ayers didn't actually kill anyone or try to kill anyone, and he didn't go to jail. He's now a tenured professor, not an outcast from society. Of course, you can't explain all that in the middle of a campaign.

 

[Freddy]

FWIW it seems like an effective ad to me, but it will also depend on the McCain campaign response and the media response.

Since this isn't the first ad by either candidate targetting the other, is there any public consensus about who went negative first? Remember that McCain equated Obama with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.

There's the truth about things and then theres the "Optics," which aren't always the same. Personally, I really think the criticism of Ayers is a little overblown. While I don't condone what he did, it seems to me that he was trying to behave morally according to his worldview. He was not simply a sociopath trying to hurt people. He was trying to stop a war that he saw as very immoral and which in fact inflicted a lot of suffering on innocent people. Look at the pictures of My Lai or the terrified little naked girl running away from napalm and maybe you can understand why Ayers felt he had to take extreme measures to stop the war. Ayers didn't actually kill anyone or try to kill anyone, and he didn't go to jail. He's now a tenured professor, not an outcast from society. Of course, you can't explain all that in the middle of a campaign.

Actually, Ayers did kill someone, or at least one of the weatherman bombs did. A police officer in San Francisco. Ayers' wife actually set the bomb, in the bathroom of a police station. Ayers talked about this to an FBI mole who infiltrated the group. He knew details about how the bomb was constructed. There was also a bomb set in a Detroit Police office. Ayers told them to time the bombing to coincide with when there would be the most people possible in the vicinity. The informant tipped off the authorities, and the bomb failed to go off, so no one was hurt in that one. But the intent was absolutely to kill people.

All of this information is from sworn testimony before a Senate subcommittee in 1974 by Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated the weathermen and inormed to the FBI. Ayers would be in prison today if the feds hadn't screwed up the case. Ayers got off on a technicality because the evidence was mishandled.

Grathwohl's formerly classified testimony can be found at the Library of Congress. For some reason, no one has reported on the Weatherman bombing that killed a cop. Very few people seem to know this, but it's absolutely true that the testimony exists, and it seems very credible.

 

[Puppycow]

Actually, Ayers did kill someone, or at least one of the weatherman bombs did. A police officer in San Francisco. Ayers' wife actually set the bomb, in the bathroom of a police station. Ayers talked about this to an FBI mole who infiltrated the group. He knew details about how the bomb was constructed. There was also a bomb set in a Detroit Police office. Ayers told them to time the bombing to coincide with when there would be the most people possible in the vicinity. The informant tipped off the authorities, and the bomb failed to go off, so no one was hurt in that one. But the intent was absolutely to kill people.

All of this information is from sworn testimony before a Senate subcommittee in 1974 by Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated the weathermen and inormed to the FBI. Ayers would be in prison today if the feds hadn't screwed up the case. Ayers got off on a technicality because the evidence was mishandled.

Grathwohl's formerly classified testimony can be found at the Library of Congress. For some reason, no one has reported on the Weatherman bombing that killed a cop. Very few people seem to know this, but it's absolutely true that the testimony exists, and it seems very credible.

I stand corrected. Still, compared to Charlie Black, who worked for the likes of Mobuto Sese-Seko, Joseph Savimbi, Ferdinand Marcos and even Jesse Helms, I think that Ayers is somewhat less unsavory. At least Ayers was (according to his worldview) doing something selfless to help save innocent people, and not for personal profit, while Black was profiting from working for monsters.

 

[boloboffin]

So hearsay evidence from a single witness is enough to convict people of murder? Wow.

 

[Brainster]

Yeah, the questionable associations thing just might backfire on Obama:

“However, if Barack Obama wants to have a discussion about truly questionable associations, let’s start with his relationship with the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, at whose home Obama’s political career was reportedly launched. Mr. Ayers was a leader of the Weather Underground, a terrorist group responsible for countless bombings against targets including the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and numerous police stations, courthouses and banks. In recent years, Mr. Ayers has stated, ‘I don’t regret setting bombs … I feel we didn’t do enough.’

“The question now is, will Barack Obama immediately call on the University of Illinois to release all of the records they are currently withholding to shed further light on Senator Obama’s relationship with this unrepentant terrorist?” —McCain spokesman Brian Rogers

 

[daredelvis]

People here on a skeptics board should stop repeating the "Obama's career was launched by Ayers" line until they can provide some evidence (other then right wing blogs) that supports that assertion. Please go back to the original Ayers / Obama thread and deal with the questions raised there, or drop this BS.

From the other thread that you decided to drop before statring another factless Obama Ayers thread.

But it appears what is being sought is a source that indicates:

1. Ayers and Dohrn threw a fundraiser for Obama.
2. It was at their house.
3. That it effectively launched Barack Obama's career.

Interesting how he left that out.
Did click on said link. and nothing else (ok #2, but big woop) Young's quote does not even come close to backing up that assertion. You aren't convincing me that you are trustworthy enough to check links with this kind of game.
Here is another point to nail down. How much mental koolaid does it take to make this an issue? And, on top of that point #3 was used to illustrate what a big influence Ayers has on Obama (questionable), yet there is NO evidence to back it up.

Yet you continue to repeat point #3 when most evidence leads to the conclusion that it is misleading and inaccurate.
Back it up with a reasonable source, or man up and retract it (or at least stop repeating it).

Daredelvis

 

[RPG Advocate]

The problem with the guilt-by-association tactics used by both parties is this: deniability.

Let's stipulate that the alleged quid pro quo between McCain and Reed is 100% true. All you've got is circumstantial evidence. Good luck getting die-hard authoritarian followers (a large minority of Republicans in the U.S.) to believe you with that. To nail these guys, you need a direct link that can't be explained away. If they could find damning documents showing a quid pro quo agreement similar to the ones directly linking Reed and Abarmoff, that would be pure gold. Even the official sanction of Reed's fundraising isn't enough, because McCain can plausably claim that it's not related to the Abarmoff scandal at all.

Same deal with Obama and Ayers. If we assume that Ayers did everything attributed to him up to and including the murder and that Obama knew all about it, so what? Obama has much better deniability than McCain does with Reed because of how long ago the Weather Underground stuff happened, the fact that Obama's association with Ayers doesn't seem to be much more than acquiantances, and that even backers of this theory seem to admit that some of it isn't widely known. If Obama really needs to defend himself against these allegations at some point, he could use any or all of these facts to his advantage.

* For the record, I believe that there really is a quid pro quo going on between McCain and Reed because it's part of a larger pattern, but I'm ignoring that pattern for purposes of this thread.

 

[Freddy]

So hearsay evidence from a single witness is enough to convict people of murder? Wow.

That single witness was a member of the Weatherman who informed to the FBI - and he was an informant from the day they recruited him, so he wasn't trying to save his own hide. A jury may not have heard that particular allegation because it is hearsay. But any sane person on the street who reads Grathwohl's testimony will believe that Ayers was involved, because he obviously was. JREF is not a court of law. Google Grathwohl and read excerpts of the testimony. And Ayers doesn't exactly deny setting bombs. The only one he denies setting was the one that killed someone. That's just because he's a gutless coward. If you really believe that Larry Grathwohl is a liar, and Bill Ayers is a nice guy who never hurt anyone, fine. I'm not trying to convince you. But I think most people don't have such large blinders on. The part where Ayers gives instructions to time the Detroit bombing for maximum casualties - that wasn't hearsay.

Most juries in a court of law would convict based on it. Ayers is lucky the Government mishandled the case, because he was going to spend the rest of his life in prison until they screwed up.

 

[Brainster]

People here on a skeptics board should stop repeating the "Obama's career was launched by Ayers" line until they can provide some evidence (other then right wing blogs) that supports that assertion. Please go back to the original Ayers / Obama thread and deal with the questions raised there, or drop this BS.

From the other thread that you decided to drop before statring another factless Obama Ayers thread.




Yet you continue to repeat point #3 when most evidence leads to the conclusion that it is misleading and inaccurate.
Back it up with a reasonable source, or man up and retract it (or at least stop repeating it).

Daredelvis

1. I was quoting the campaign.

2. You appear to want a video of Ayers smashing a champagne bottle against a ship called the SS Obama Campaign before you will accept that Obama launched his campaign at Ayers house. That's not skepticism, it's cynicism. A skeptic demands proof; a cynic refuses to accept any proof.

Take the launch question up with Pookster from that very same thread you linked. She quotes Slate (can't find the link she used):

Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly: as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left.

“When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn,” Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. “They were launching him — introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.”

Bolding added for emphasis.

ETA: Link.

Please stay on topic, the campaign ads. If you would like me to split the Ayers topic to its own thread, please pm me and I'll be glad to do so.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[boloboffin]

That single witness was a member of the Weatherman who informed to the FBI - and he was an informant from the day they recruited him, so he wasn't trying to save his own hide. A jury may not have heard that particular allegation because it is hearsay.

And without that testimony, there was nothing more than property damage to charge them with. That's why juries don't get to hear hearsay evidence.

 

[boloboffin]

1. I was quoting the campaign.

2. You appear to want a video of Ayers smashing a champagne bottle against a ship called the SS Obama Campaign before you will accept that Obama launched his campaign at Ayers house. That's not skepticism, it's cynicism. A skeptic demands proof; a cynic refuses to accept any proof.

Take the launch question up with Pookster from that very same thread you linked. She quotes Slate (can't find the link she used):



Bolding added for emphasis.

Palmer had a lot more control over where her hand-picked successor would be launched than Obama did, don't you think?

 

[chipmunk stew]

The Obama campaign and its allies are taking advantage of McCain's recent gaffes, framing McCain as super-rich and out of touch with the average person's economic hardships.





It appears the Obama camp smells blood here.