In a column published today, “2008 campaign attack ads hit an all-time low” (cnn.com), Darrell West (Brookings Institute) examines the changing tone, rhetoric, and content of campaign advertisements sponsored by each presidential candidate and independent special interest organizations. While acknowledging that this campaign tactic has been used by candidates since the inception of political parties and elections, he is concerned about the limited focus on issues from both sides, complaining that ads in “recent months have twisted the truth, lied about personal background, taken statements out of context, and clearly sought to manipulate voter sentiments”.
For those people who have not seen the attack ads on television, take a look at these two (one from each candidate):
While ads like these have not been aired too much in our area, they are being televised across the nation, particularly in “swing states”. Moreover, for those that watch mainstream media, you will often see commentators play clips of the ads for national viewers and share their comments. With the election heating up and polls tightening, there is no doubt that both sides feel a greater need to attack through campaign advertisements. For this post, your task is to visit The Living Room President.
Go to the bottom of the page where 20 different advertisements (most are 30 seconds each) are included for each candidate – take a look at some of them. When responding to the discussion questions, please make specific references to the advertisements you viewed and how they influenced your thinking (the title of the ad appears when you move your cursor over the window). You will notice that some of these ads are published on the web v. television.
Discussion Questions:
- Considering the range of voters (age, partisan, independent, geographic region, gender, informed, less-informed, etc.), what are the primary tactics used by each candidate to target audiences?
- Do you view the campaign ads as art, science, or political warfare?
- After watching the ads, have your views changed?
**Be prepared – the next post is going to be devoted to substantive policy issues!
What I have seen so far throughout this campaign is that each ad is directed to a specific demographic, whether it be women (aka disgruntled Hillary supporters), Hispanics, Independents, the working class, etc. For each of these demographics an ad will talk about what the opponent hasn’t done for them or voted against something beneficial towards that group (McCain not supporting equal pay for equal work for women) etc.
The perfect campaign ad is an art in and of itself. The ad has to be able to alter the voter’s opinions about the opponent and than convince them that this guy is better all in 30 seconds. I think some of them have been really good and effective, but there have been some that are just character attacking the other person in the campaign.
I’ve tried to be biased here, but I can’t. McCain’s ad have become so sleazy and full of lies that even Karl Rove and Fox News have recognized as lies and John McCain on the View the other day wouldn’t admit that they were. We all know Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed; we all know that she’s taken hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks; and everything they are saying about Obama’s plans (“he’s gonna raise taxes”=lie; he’s removing the Bush tax cuts on those making more than 250,000 a year. Everyone else [95% of the American People] will receive a tax decrease) are lies. It’s ridiculous how he can get away with some of these things, thankfully the media is beginning to catch up to some of these.
Personally, I’ve never paid much attention to the campaign ads, because both candidates will invariably create at least one false one. I don’t any real demographic aimed at, but there is a certain pull towards those concerned with the energy crisis. I will watch the debates that are coming soon and decide my vote with that. Right now I am leaning towards Obama, but maybe it will change. The debate is the final forum where it’s just the candidates and the issue. Much more reliable than the campaign ads.
Yanksbarack said it well; these ads are designed to focus on a specific facets of society in America.
Take the ad “Not Now,” which was an attack against McCain from the viewpoint of a war veteran – understandable as the Democrats are typically known to get less support from war vets.
“Finish the Job” is just the opposite, advocating for John McCain but trying to keep it nonpartisan by declaring that the Iraq War must be finished “no matter who is president.”
These are typical, but what gets insulting are ads that just undermine the American viewers who watch them. They take portions of speeches and curb them exactly how they see fit and place them in, sometimes, completely incorrect context just to scope the minds of the unknowing Americans who may not know the facts about that specific topic.
Some people get swayed into voting for a candidate due to this phenomena. It’s insulting to me because it makes me feel as if BOTH candidates take Americans to be stupid, ignorant fools who don’t understand the facts about certain issues in a candidate’s campaign.
The way these advertisements are shaped encompasses a broad spectrum of tactics. Obama’s “Yes We Can” advertisement and McCain’s “Man In The Arena” ad are both perfect examples of art.
They are designed in extravagant ways to make them seem extremely epic, such as in “Man In The Arena,” comparing McCain to Winston Churchill and making him appear as the harbinger of patriotism and chivalry in America. I almost got chills watching it, and I harbor no preference to McCain or Obama. The same goes for Obama’s Yes We Can ad, and if I was an unknowing American I would have to say that McCain would have my preference now if I had seen both ads.
When candidates draw out to the larger picture and try to break the isolationist barriers we seem to have created, it gives me some comfort as to knowing that they realize there is more to the world than America, and that’s what many of these art ads do; draw all of the issues together into one large picture.
Political warfare ads are extremely prevalent in modern society too, unfortunately. As I previously stated, it frustrates me when candidates portray themselves or their opponents in untruthful ways, as it personally makes me feel as if they are undermining the whole of America and insulting our intelligence.
But then again they are a normal part of campaigning, and perhaps they can be considered a good thing, but, in my opinion, they have their greatest effect when placed side by side so you can compare them and really see the possible faults in each of the candidates. This lets you question yourself and maybe look deeper into the candidate you may be preferring at the moment, which leads to more informed, intelligent decisions.
Personally, my views have remained unchanged as of now. This is only because I feel that each campaign ad from one candidate cancels out another ad from the other one, so I find myself going one way and then the other. That coincides with previous knowledge I have about the candidates. I get angry at these intelligence-bashing ads, and that turns me off to the politics. It seems as though it’s a competition to become president and the candidates are beginning to play with their “gloves off.”
I only wish we (Americans) could have just one semi-respectable political campaign. Perhaps just advocating for one’s personal preference, or holding off on the attacking advertisements. Making presidential campaigns like this could also decrease the gap between the two running parties in the country. As we stated in class, if the campaign goes 48%-49% with the 49% winning the presidency, that leaves almost half of the country with an unwanted executive in office. Tensions would remain high and nothing would get done.
No matter what you advocate, running with a divided house will lead to it either crumbling down or not allowing anything to get accomplished as votes will never go through for anything. These ads don’t realize it, but they are causing harm to the very cause that their candidates claim are running for for the reason exemplified above.
Dirty politics tend to insult our intelligence, but then again, would it really be politics without the dirt, grime and undercutting of character? The day that politics become friendly matters is the day that every single American gets united under the same exact ideals (which would never happen), or that we’ve just entered the Twilight Zone. Personally, I believe it will mean the latter of the two.
It is very interesting to analyze the campaign advertisements that each candidate has made. I recently read that article by West, and agreed largely on what was said. I think it is sad that the candidates don’t feel the need to talk themselves up, but are completely willing to lie about, and smear their opponent. It is usually very obvious to tell what demographic an advertisement is targeting. The first Obama ad about McCain being out of touch is clearly targeted towards younger voters. They are usually the lead advocates of “change” and voting in an out of touch old person would not appeal. The second advertisement was clearly targeted to ill-informed parents. They see that Obama has no educational accomplishments save voting to teach sex ed to their young children. They do not stop to think maybe the advertisement isn’t true, or do a quick search on factcheck.org to find out it is, in fact, a complete lie. They see this outrageous claim, and immediately think, “I can’t vote for Obama, he doesn’t care about our nation’s youth!” These most recent campaign ads are political warfare. I constantly check the news and fact check to find out which candidate has been smearing the other most recently. While some of the advertisements are good, old fashioned taking words out of context, a few of the most recent are downright lies. That is political warfare. My views have not changed at all. It is glaringly obvious that these advertisements are extremely misleading, if not downright lies. I like to think that anyone with half a brain agrees.
The truth of the matter is that the media has the power to reconfigure any type of situation in order to illustrate a certain point. For example, “Dr No” simply takes bits of Barack Obama’s speeches completely out of context and maneuvers the lines in a way that makes John McCain seem like the obvious choice. While the information presented in the ad has no substance, it is an effective tactic. It leads people to believe that they do not have to take the initiative to research each candidate’s platforms because the information will be quickly and easily presented right in front of their eyes.
I would like to agree with Jeff K. when he states that these advertisements are an insult to our nation’s intelligence, yet it worries me when a large majority of our country is buying into these fabricated and manipulative political tricks. The race is so close and at this point these types of underhanded schemes can truly determine who will end in victory. This is why it is essential for every citizen to take responsibility for themselves and for the future by learning exactly what each candidate’s stance is on every issue. It is a well established notion that both parties use whatever outrageous means they can in order to get a leg up in the contest and sabotage their competition. It is up to us as voters to not get caught up in all of the media based garbage.
Another tactic used by the candidates is the over-the-top visual affects, as shown in “2013” This advertisement paints the picture of a perfect society by using vivid colors and bold statements. By illustrating how much better the world could be with John McCain, it is likely that the viewer will forget to ask themselves the essential question: how will he do it? Additionally, Barack Obama’s “Hands” advertisement puts hope in the eyes of the people by portraying the future’s potential in a clear and inviting way. How each political ad is presented is directly linked to the overall image of the particular candidate. Therefore, bright colors correspond with ideas of change and a better future.
These specific tactics are aimed towards you, the voter. “Hands” further stimulates optimism because it makes citizens feel as though their hard work has a direct effect on the nation’s progress. In a sense, it promotes the idea that together, we can improve the world. Inevitably, people are more willing to vote for a candidate who they feel appreciates their efforts. Ads like Obama’s “Embrace” and McCain’s “Crisis” both claim that the opposing candidate is failing you.
These various advertisements have not changed my view of the candidates because I understand that they are grossly exaggerated to prove a point. In actuality, roughly thirty seconds is nowhere near enough time to create a substantial case and so Obama and McCain must resort to dirty and shallow attacks on one another. I am not fooled or deceived by the opponents’ attempts and neither should you. Instead, fully exercise your right to vote by educating yourself so that you can make the best possibly decision on November 4th.
Barack Obama and John McCain have very different strategies when it comes to campaign advertisements. McCain’s ads tend to put a negative spin on things, either as they are now or how they will be with Barack Obama as president. McCain’s ad “Broken” is tremendously gloomy. It is shot in black & white, and the speaker’s tone of voice is far from upbeat. “Dr. No” was another ad that attempted to spin Barack’s words. For example, Obama did not say ‘no’ to clean energy all together; he just said that nuclear energy is not the right choice. No where in that ad does Obama say no to other clean sources of energy like wind or solar power. One of McCain’s ads, “2013,” was actually out of character, based on the other ads that the McCain campaign has run. It was optimistic for a change, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that there was not one shred of evidence in that ad that change will occur. All it says is what McCain would like to accomplish during his term as president. Obama’s ads, on the other hand, are bright and upbeat. The ad “Old Politics” is a perfect example. It is optimistic, but it is also realistic, and Barack sets out his goals. Obama’s best ad, though, was “Hands.” This advertisement used bright pictures and a hopeful tone of voice to get the message actoss. Obama’s use of color and friendly voices is much more appealing than the McCain camp’s use of subdued tones and dejected voices.
The campaign ads are certainly an exact science. The campaign workers who put the ads together know exactly what buttons they need to press to get a response from voters, either for their candidate or against the other one. Obama is targeting the younger voters in this election. Therefore, he uses bright colors and an upbeat message. McCain is counting on the middle age and older voters. Many of these adults are weary of the current situation, and their outlook may very well be gloomy. That is why McCain’s ads take on an air of gloom. He wants the ads to connect with that demographic.
My views have not really been changed by these ads. Both candidates obviously put a spin on the ads to serve their purpose. There can never be a truly neutral campaign ad; it is the nature of the campaign ad to be biased one way or the other. It makes sense why Obama would want to cast a positive spin in his messages, and it also makes sense why McCain would want to convey a sense of gloom.
No doubt the ads are political warfare, but there is an science and art to how they are created. The “Dr. No” Republican advertisement takes advantage of the lack of knowledge some Americans have for basic economics while having an underlying truth that Obama is not going to invite sweeping change to our energy supply (Obama is correct that offshore drilling won’t help current gas prices, but it helps future independence. A gas tax holiday will not benefit the average American much, but will cost the government billions. The electric car is dead. The only completely true point McCain makes is that nuclear energy is safe and clean).
The “New Energy” advertisement from the Obama camp is equally deceiving. Yes, drilling takes a while, but we must think ahead. Will we not need oil seven years from now? It doesn’t help “independence” if we have nothing to look for in the future. It is extremely difficult to “fast track” a technology that hasn’t been invented yet (throwing more money at it will just have diminishing returns). Raising mileage standards won’t do anything; companies are already trying to raise their mileage because that is a huge appeal to consumers now. The $1000 tax cut will be wrought with deductions from it; many middle class families will see little or none of that. And simply saying that you will break the grip of foreign oil doesn’t mean you have a plan for it.
Attacking opponents and sleazy manipulation of the public eye has existed since the start of politics. Every election year we hear about one attack ad going over the lines or that the ads are getting worse and worse. They aren’t. Think about the Brooks-Sumner caning. Until we get to the level of one politician beating the other senseless, it is nothing to be too worried about. Each side ends up refuting and attacking back. It evens out by November.
Although both ads use dirty and somewhat false information in there attacks, I must admit that I agree with yanksbarack08 that John McCain’s ad is a bit more dirty and gives invalid information on Barack Obama. Maybe im being Biased but I feel like McCain took something good(teaching kindergardeners about sexual predators) and turned it into teaching them about sex. I feel like that was a pretty dirty move on McCain’s part. On the other side although Obama was attacking McCain, I don’t feel as though he changed the meaning of the information on McCain. It seems like the McCain people are definitly trying to appeal to the family people across the country and Obama is trying to appeal to the more modern and middle class people.
I definitly think the ads are a form of political warfare. The candidates aren’t using the ads to point out their own strong points or just get there name out there. They are trying to get there competitor to look bad. I think you may be able to classify these ads as an art or science also in the way that it is made to influence voter’s opinions and feelings on the candidates.
Up untill about the time where McCain chose Palin I liked McCain but recently I have switched to being an Obama supporter. Even though the ads played a very small role in this, I gues the ads did change my view of McCain slightly. I feel like he is a little more dirty and manipulative in his ads where as Obama is pointing out small facts.
The ad run by the Obama campaign depicts McCain as a dinosaur who is unaware and out of touch with today’s youth and technology. Obama is using ridicule to belittle McCain in the eyes of young voters. By showing pictures of McCain side by side with Bush he is suggesting that McCain will be “more of the same”, which is also unattractive to most American voters.
The McCain ad aims to strike fear into the older, more conservative voters by suggesting that Obama believes sex education taught to kindergardeners is appropriate. The McCain message portrays Obama as a candidate with extremely radical views.
In my opinion, both ads go beyond political warfare and approach an art form meant to misinform the voter. Both campaigns have reached new heights of creativity by piecing together comments taken completely out of context and distorting the message of both campaigns.
While some less informed, more naive American voters may be influenced by ads like these I personally find them offensive and insulting. Clearly the ads are meant to misinform voters who are trying to decide which candidate is better fit to be the most politically influencial person on the planet. It is true that John McCain is 72 years old but this does not necessarily mean he is out of touch with the youth of America; and even if Barack Obama did, by chance, embrace some wildly liberal views he probably would hold those close to the vest. It is clear to me that both campaigns are using propaganda and scare tactics to sway voters. These tactics negatively impact my perception and opinion of both candidates.
After watching the ads, my views have changed; I have less respect for both candidates. In my desire to become an informed voter, I have found these ads useless; when these ads come on, the TV goes off. My hope is that I gain a better understanding of the views of both candidates following the upcoming presidential debates.
I definately agree with the above posts. The escalation of dirty tactics on the part of both candidates is really shameful and demeaning to the idea of the election. It really should be about convincing the people that you are the best person for the job and expressing your viewpoints. More emphasis should be placed on trying to show the general public what you’re about as a candidate not what’s wrong with the other candidate.
And the fact that these ads are relying on statements taken out of context and fabrications of the truth is just insulting to the general public. Don’t we, as the public, deserve to have the -facts- presented to us in a truthful and complete manner so that we can make an informed decision, instead of doubting every single claim made by either party due to the large amount of lies that are being thrown around? Let’s face it: the average voter is not going to spend time checking all the facts and may not even be aware that some advertisements have taken a vacation from solid facts.
And even the ads that aren’t based on trashing the other candidate seem to lack substance. In “Man in the Arena,” McCain is shown saying something along the lines of “I know who I am, and what I’m about.” But someone who is seeing this with only a vague notion of McCain’s ideals doesn’t gain any knowledge about him from this. Instead all they get is clips of speechs (accompanied by a tinkling piano), which frankly doesn’t provide them with any necessary information. And in the same vein, Obama’s “Yes We Can” is just as bad (maybe even worse). After a while I just felt like the ad’s goal was to repeat the phrase “Yes We Can” as many times as possible. And it left me wondering, ‘Yes we can what?’
I think the scariest thing about these ads is that somewhere in the country are people who not only believe them, but base their vote (even if it’s just somewhat) off them. I feel that there are many people in this country that don’t actually follow the candidates and their proposed policies for themselves, and base their ideas off of what other people tell them. (Although I sincerely hope that this opinion of mine is wrong.) And there also remains the fact that people today are busy, and what’s going to stick more: the speech that they only half-listened too because it was so time-consuming and they had other things on their mind, or that quick 30-second advertisement they see?
It’s a shame that politics have become so dirty, but unfortunately there’s not much we can do about it. I guess all we can do is hope that one day there will be a politician who’ll mean what (s)he says and says what (s)he means without dirty tactics. And I’d even go so far as to venture a guess that this person would be immensely preferred among the citizens. But I guess until then, it’s our responsibility as citizens of the America to remain informed and not fall for their tricks.
Reading everyone’s post I get the feeling that there is a sense that everyone believes that both campaigns are using “dirty politics”. I think, however, that there is a difference between an attack ad and a “dirty” ad.
Many of Obama’s ads attack John McCain on his voting record and things he has publicly said. None of Obama’s ads call into question who McCain is as a person or his patriotism, and there has yet to be an Obama ad that has lied about John McCain, according to factcheck.org.
On the other hand, there are many instances where the McCain campaign has lied about either Senator McCain or Governor Palin’s record or things about Barack Obama. In a recent McCain ad, probably two weeks old, the narrator talks about how Governor Palin opposed the Bridge to Nowhere and fought corruption in the state of Alaska. Yet we all know that she supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it: In the governatorial debates in Alaska, when posed a question regarding the Bridge to Nowhere, she responded that she wouldn’t do anything that would halt progress. On the fighting corruption argument, all she really did was fire the people she didn’t like or didn’t agree with her and replace them with her friends. In a recent NY Times article a friend of hers who was named to a high ranking position (I don’t recall which position) the friend was quoted as saying that her qualifications for the job were that she had a childhood love affair for cows. I’m not kidding! And let us not forget that Governor Palin is in the middle of an investigation as to whether or not she abused her power and fired a man for not firing a state trooper who happened to be her brother-in-law that was getting a divorce from her sister. In many of McCain’s ads and even in his speeches he likes to say that Obama is going to raise your taxes, yet when you actually read his economic plan, if you make less than 250,000 dollars you are going to receive a tax cut (that group makes up 95% of the American people) and for those who are making more than 250,000 dollars, you will see the Bush tax cuts removed and the tax rates will go back to the way they were in the Clinton years. In the sex education ad, Obama supported a bill that was going to teach younger kids how to stay away from strangers and sexual predators, yet the McCain campaign spins it to make it seem like he wants to teach 5 year olds about STD’s and rape, and sex, etc.
There is a substantial difference between an “attack” ad and a “dirty” ad. The former attacks the opposing candidate on their record and what they have and have not supported. The latter tries to distort the record of the opponent and go after their personality.
I think most voters won’t even take any of these ads seriously. I feel that voters are going vote on whom they personally “like” more. The ads don’t really influence anything on age, location, or gender. To me the ads are more political warfare short of like when one candidate attacks another the other candidate is going to retaliate and attack right back. My views have not changed one bit with these ads I think they are a waste of time and money and the candidates should focus on explaining how they are going to better America rather than attack each other.
When I watch the Obama ads, I see the same thing over and over. He keeps repeating that McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time. He also quotes probably around ten magazines and newspapers in a bunch of his ads, flashing “vile” and “deception” across the screen. Most newspapers don’t write one word sentences, so the chances that he is taking some of the comments out of context are pretty high. Also keep in mind that the media is “in love” with Obama. He figures correctly that when we see one word quotes from Time, Newsweek, The New York Times and so on, we are going to agree with the people who publish the stuff we read. Really, the quotes are from a single writer on the staff of that newspaper/magazine, and not the official opinion for the whole staff.
As for the main Obama ad displayed on this post, it is the least offensive to my intellect. It states that McCain can’t send email, and can’t use a computer. However, he’s running for President of the United States, not website manager for the White House. He could get someone else to do it. How often do you think Bush or Clinton used email as President? Their top advisors wouldn’t want them sending out messages that would hurt their images or chances for reelection.
As for the McCain ads, post #6 said that they’re all negative while Obama’s are positive. I’m not going to dignify that with an argument. However, I do feel that the McCain ad on the main page is straight up idiotic. It’s pretty sick, and no one is going to believe it. (If anything, it is most likely going to backfire.)
There were three McCain ads I did like though: The Dr. No ad, 2013 ad, and the Obama Berlin Ad. The Dr. No ad clearly shows that Obama doesn’t support getting more fuel, electric/hybrid cars, or nuclear energy. What’s left? Solar, Wind, and… we may have a problem. Good luck getting an entire country operational on those two alone. (Maybe we can start running on giant hamster wheels for exercise that double as generators.) As for the 2013 ad, I felt it was powerful, because it was optimistic about the future, of all the good that can happen. Most people say conservatives are constantly nostalgic about the past, but this has no element of the past in it. Powerful campaign ads make you think, not want to run away. What will 2013 be like? (For an example of a powerful campaign ad, go on the livingroom.com thing, go to 1964. Look at Johnson’s “Peace Little Girl (Daisy)” campaign ad. That commercial had the most effect on an election ever, because it made everyone think about Goldwater’s nuclear weapons policy.) The Obama Berlin ad was just “wow.” I know they must have put the dumbest people they could find in it. But still, if I ever gave any importance to what the Germans thought about our politics, I no longer do.
I did not see much demographic targeting in the ads, since most of them were focused on calling the other candidate names. They really focused on issues that affect all demographics, such as energy, duty to country and so on. The exception is the Obama ad that says McCain can’t send email. That ad definitely targets anyone under the age of 50. Even I find that sad, but as I said, it won’t matter if he’s elected.
Most ads are a bad attempt at political warfare, because in the end, very few people will change their minds based on 30 seconds of whining. The good ones like the McCain 2013 ad and Johnson’s Daisy ad are works of art though, if they can really appeal to people’s fears and desires.
If I ever change my mind based on a political ad, I hope someone is kind enough to smack me around a little bit, because I obviously would not be in a sane state of mind and would need to be woken up.
I agree with recount08 that the ads are not truthful and therefore they hold no weight in my decision of who I think should be president. I think these ads are attacking a specific demographic, like the Obama “sex ed” ad, which was targeting mothers who would be mortified if teachers were teaching their kindergardeners sex ed. Also, like the man in the arena Ad with John McCain he is obviously trying to attrack veterans to his cause by using Winston Churchill. I just think these ads are political warfare and they really have no other person. They are just an attempt by both sides to cut eachother down. And in the Yes we can article Obama is trying to attrack the younger generations by using pop culture icons. I believe that the candidates need to focus more on the issues, like the crisis with the economy, then fight with silly he said, she said arguments. I think this shows that politics has really fallen to a low level. The real danger is that some people may base their votes on this callow ads instead of picking the candidate that takes the same stance on issues . Even past the ads, what troubles me is some of the things these candidates are saying to attack in general. Like Obama’s lipstick on a pig comment. He may or may not have been refering to Palin but obviously there are going to be people who do. And in the troops ad they talk about Obama going to the gym instead of meeting with injured troops. I look at that and believe that that is NOT the true story. This election is getting pretty rediculous with attacks, and I can’t wait for the election to be over so I can have my TV back in peace.
Looking at all of the different ads put out by both candidates i can honestly say that this is an all out war between the two candidates. McCain does seem to target obama’s character more so than Obama does to McCain. one add that really caught my attention was Mcains add on the Living room president site where he talks bout the relationship between Obama and a terrorist named Willam Ayers. if this is true its really disturbing, but like most of these adds i’m sure its taken out of context.
I didn’t get a chance to finish my last post. Obama on the other hand is always saying that voting for McCain is like voting for 4 more years of bush. i’m personally tired of hearing this.The democrats are starting to sound like broken records. All of these adds do are smear the oppositions character and they are truely dirty. After watching these adds I have lost a little respect for the candidates. Hopefully i’ll never see another one of these adds again.
I agree, this election is past ridiculous. These adds aren’t proving a point, they’re just attacking the opponent. If they are going to attack each other, they could at leat put in the add what they would change if elected. This election isn’t even about the issues anymore, something that an election is supposed to deal with. Yes, these adds do make true statements, but they only tell half of the truth. The add against Obama for example, yes he does want sex education for kindergardeners, but he was referring to teach them about how to ward off sexual pretadors. These adds are not only lacking facts and misleading, they are not even about what matters here. If America is not careful, a recession is not far away; why aren’t our potential future presidents addressing the issue at hand. Our country needs change, not controversy, and that’s what this elcetion has been about. It is not who the person is, it is what they stand for, and what they can do for us. Let me know if anyone understands what this election is even about anymore, because it seems to me that the issues have disappeared and I dont even know what is left.
Personally these ads are stupid an irrelevant because they don’t really have any part in our area. These ads are targeting the middle-lower class and the lower class because of the stereotype on how the lower class is the determining factor in elections. They also go towards the lower class because they usually have a higher child to adult ratio, so the McCain ad would appeal to those people while the Obama ad would try and appeal to the middle-lower class. Since there is not much of that around here we don’t see the candidates bashing and in an all out media war. All these ads are doing is bashing the other and trying to win votes over. Yes these are dirty tactics like most have been saying, but the “political warfare” is just something we have to live with. There is nothing you can change because candidates have been doing it for such a long time that the meaning has gone away and now it is just a publicity stunt. My view was made into an even more radical hatred for these political ads because most of the items and ideas that are being said are false or they are just bits and pieces of a story. These shouldn’t be a problem where we live and I hope to live in the future, but I will always hate them
I agree here with yanksbarack. I do see a trend in the ads of certain candidates of targeting a specific demographic within the population, and these tend to be whom they consider to be their foundation. They will also try and spin the other candidate’s policies to seem incompetent and inadequate. Obama has chosen to identify with the younger set, and his camp has high hopes of motivating the youth to get out and vote democratically. This appears to be a wise decision because most young people in today’s society tend to have more liberal ideals, and Obama makes promises in accordance to these preferences. Conversely, McCain chooses to cater to the older population, as they similarly tend to be more conservative. His plans for the country are spun as “grounded” and non-radical, ones that will not shake up the government when the transfer of authority takes place next January. I personally do not take the ads on TV seriously, because both parties put our acutely inaccurate information. McCain’s ads belittling Obama claim that he advocated for sex education for kindergarteners, when in fact he wanted to teach them how to avoid sexual predators. There have been other times when Obama’s words have been taken out of context. Similarly, Obama’s ads claiming that McCain has gotten too old fashioned and out of touch, not even able to write an email are also incorrect; McCain has come out and said that he cannot type well because of injuries received during his captivity in Vietnam. These ads are a vicious form of political warfare; they are not so much informative as gross exaggerations of harmless incidents. These should in no way be taken seriously, and it is my opinion that the candidates should focus more on the issues at hand then worrying about what the other guy is doing.
The previous commenter appears to have a great grasp of reality. It is refreshing to hear an individual recognize both sides of the argument. I too, am tired of hearing campaign ads on television as each candidate twists their opponent’s argument in order to put themselves in the spotlight. The small quotations used in the commercials by reputable sources initially may appear to have merit, however after the repeated use, it is quite clear candidates pick and choose what small phrases they would like to add. Regarding one of the commercials about McCain supporting being in the war for 100 years more, researching more into the issue reveals McCain did not in fact only say this. Rather Obama’s team chose to only use a clip stating he was fine with remaining in Iraq for that time period. McCain defended himself later by saying “he was referring to a military presence similar to what the nation already has in places like Japan, Germany and South Korea” (CNN). The Berlin ad used by the Republicans is just strange. But the Dr. No ad was in my opinion, intelligent. Like yanksbarack stated previously, there is a difference between an ad meant to attack and another meant to tarnish the image of another without any merit. This ad in fact is an attack. It is a terrible generalization to say McCain only employs “attack” ads when there are several examples of Obama using dirty advertisements. Obama accuses McCain of doing nothing for families and only looking out for the interests of the rich and of being the “typical” politician to have no merit behind his ideas. In another commercial Obama claims McCain believes the economy is in good condition yet McCain’s speech continues “Our economy, I think, is still — the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times,” McCain said. “I promise you, we will never put America in this position again. We will clean up Wall Street.” (Washington Post). Obama’s “Yes We Can” video combining a song and speech, is genius by its combination of famous figures all coming together to support Obama’s cause. It would be difficult for McCain to pull off something like this because his politics are mostly geared towards older generations.
I believe that for the most part the candidates are capitalizes off of a time of uncertainty in America. They are using the tactic of fear to ensure that people will vote for them. In Obama’s web ad “100 years” it shows gripping and graphic images of the war in Iraq compared to McCain’s “Finish the job” which insists we’re winning the war. The also both seem to be targetted the youth vote, though most of these ads are through individual websites. McCain’s “Obama TV ad in Berlin” is a parody of Obama’s popularity, but at the same time it appeals to youth voters because of its graphics and modern day references (i.e Titanic). For the Obama campaign the “Yes We Can” web video with Will.i.am says it all. It has over a million views on YouTube and it uses Obama’s popularity to show his celebrity endorsements.
I feel that up until September, the campaign ads were art. They were tasteful and harmless. Personally, I find the “Yes We Can” video motivational and incredibly moving and a true piece of art. However, now (as most elections go) the ads are political warfare. McCain openly attacks Obama and blames him on rising as prices (“Pump”) and Obama responds blaming the gas prices on McCain (“Old Politics”). When the stock market crashed on Monday, the Obama Campaign released an ad on Tuesday showing McCain saying on Monday as the stock market crashed, “the fundamentals of our economy are strong”, showing his obliviousness. Now is the when the gloves are starting to come off.
I can’t say as though the ads have changed my views much because I try not to page attention to them. Anyone can add an ellipse to a phrase to a New York Times article and change the meaning of a quote which is why I’d rather hear what the candidates have to say directly from them, and not second-hand from their opponents.
It is quite obvious from watching these ads that John McCain’s targeted audience is anyone involved with the war in Iraq or any other past wars. He wants to draw anyone in who is on the fence about leaving or staying in Iraq, which can be seen in the McCain ad entitled “Troops”. Obama’s approach and desired audience is quite different. He focuses on humanitairans, which can be seen in “Country I Love”. He also focuses on workers and environmentals at the same time, which is apparent when it says in his ad, “Hands”, that the hands that installed roofs can install solar panels. Also, Barack Obama is much more visible in his ads than McCain is in his. I think that the attack ads are political warfare and completely unnecessary. I believe that they’re only in existence due to the egos and prides of politicians and parties. The candidates should let their merits speak for them, not the demerits of their opponents. After watching the ads my views have not changed in the least. However, that doesn’t say much seeing as I consider myself to be pretty well informed about the ongoings of the upcoming election and am steadfast in my beliefs. If I were an uninformed citizen, unsure about my beliefs, I don’t know if my views would have changed as a result of the attack ads.
To begin with, I personally believe campaign ads, especially those played on television to be one of the most fascinating aspects of any election. I regard them as an art. They are a really great historical resource and are the best way to truly understand the tone of a campaign. While I think that throughout the course of this presidential campaign both candidates have produced videos that can be construed as “dirty politics”, I believe that they do not stray that far from years past. A majority of the typical candidates’ videos often deal with fluff and not the issues. Just go back to the 1952 election between Adlai Stevenson and Ike Eisenhower. Both candidates used cartoons with catchy jingles in order to attract votes. Both Obama and McCain have used similar techniques. McCain’s “Obama in Berlin Ad” and Obama’s “Yes We Can” are simply the jingles updated for the 21st century. You cannot rely on campaign ads for substance. They are simply thirty second attempts to get you take a closer look at the candidate. As stated by other posters they are often factually inaccurate. Many times campaign ads simply consist of a few mixed up video clips which bend the truth by leaving out the context.
One major difference I am noticing with this campaign as opposed to past campaigns is the way these videos seem to respond to one another. For instance after McCain released his infamous “Barack Obama as a celebrity” video; Obama released a video responding to the ridiculousness of the premise of the ad the next day. Perhaps, this could be due to the availability of resources like You Tube which releases videos quickly and often gets a lot of publicity.
In terms of demographics I think that political ads work to persuade less informed voters. They often take the most shocking quotes from any candidate and prey on people’s ignorance and fear to secure their vote. The most successful campaigns are the ones which are able to tailor their ads to a plethora of different demographics. Obama’s ads are much more successful at aiming to get young voters while McCain’s ads seem to be geared toward people who have lived through the Cold War. When McCain tried to lure younger people with his celeb ad it flopped and made him look out of touch. I think that as long as there is nothing too slanderous about them I say viva la campaign commercial!
I watched “Country I Love” where Obama addresses the issues that most Americans are concerned with today. Such as helping neighborhoods that were once reliant on the factory/industry in their town. And he states that he “passed laws moving people from welfare to work.” Another one was “Original Mavericks” where McCain’s positive aspects of his campaign are put on display. The word maverick really resonates with you. The narrator states at the end that the McCain/Palin team are the “real change.” Which relates to last week’s article. The third ad was “The One” and it is unsuspectingly enough a McCain advertisement though throughout the entire message you aren’t thinking that it supports McCain. The ad put a religious label on Obama, calling him the one. Yet at the end, the say he might be the one, but they question his ability to lead. However, if they were really comparing Obama to Jesus, then of course he’s ready to lead. I don’t think that the McCain campaign necessarily thought this one through all the way. I hope McCain isn’t senile already…
“No Maverick” The last video. What is extremely funny about this ad is that the same person who narrated “Original Mavericks,” narrated this one too. Obama definitely aims towards a younger audience by associating McCain with president Bush, and using words such as “whoa.” Some of the ads are “political warfare” because they focus more on the other candidate’s faults rather than their own strengths. But neither type of message worked well enough to persuade my opinion about which candidate I would vote for.
I think that both Obama’s and McCain’s campaigns are playing dirty. Obama’s is playing to the younger people, sayingthat McCain doesn’t know how to use a computer or send an e-mail. McCain’s campaign says that Obama supported a bill to teach kindergarteners sex education, when in reality, it was really to teach kids to stay away from pedophiles. I essentially think that the ads are just an example of how dirty politics can be. It’s just dirty pool. After watching these ads, I still think that all politicians are dishonest and that they will do almost anything to get elected.
In the first post, it was stated that these campaign ads are aired mostly in “swing states.” Obviously, the presidential candidates’ purpose of these ads is to convince those who are undecided to vote for them. It seems as though each candidate wants to make their opponent look as bad as possible, so that these undecided voters are strongly swayed one way or the other. For example, the Republican ad “Dr. No” is dramatized to highlight the things Obama does not believe in. The facts almost become skewed in that they seem completely negative, when some people might actually view some of the things he doesn’t believe him as positive. Also, the repetition of the word “no” implies that Obama is not a good candidate for change and that he is reluctant to make changes in the country. However, regardless of one’s political views, it is pretty clear that Obama is very big on changing the country.
In a similar effect, the Democratic ad “100 Years” portrays tragic video clips and then essentially blames them on McCain and his hope to keep troops in Iraq. They take one of his quotes on how much more time could be spent in Iraq, “maybe 100,” and repeat it to the point where it becomes completely dramatized. Some people may believe that the troops should stay overseas, and the point of this ad is to change their opinions by showing devastating images.
I agree with yanksbarack08 that “there is a difference between an attack ad and a “dirty” ad.” That being said, I view these campaign ads as political warfare that is not “dirty,” but an attack, as it should be. The candidates go back and forth trying to make themselves look the best, whether that is by creating an ad that targets their own strengths or creates an ad that does exactly the opposite, target their opponents’ possible weaknesses. Each ad must have something catchy about it that triggers the viewer’s interest, and sometimes the candidates must go to extreme measures in order to do so.
Since I am an Obama supporter, my feelings may have been biased while viewing these campaign ads. Either way, I got more malicious vibes from the Republican ads than the Democratic ones. This may be due to the fact that I do not support the war in Iraq, and many of McCains’ ads had to do with glorifying the war. Humans have an innate tendency to perceives themselves as correct, and when an opposing viewpoint to an argument is presented to them, it only makes them feel even stronger about their original opinion. The opposing viewpoint serves as a reason to argue even more, because they feel that they were initially correct and everything else that does not go along with their ideas is wrong. I believe this is what happened to me when viewing the ads. Seeing McCain’s ads only made me feel stronger about my support for Obama. Then, when I watched Obama’s ads, I found myself agreeing with them, despite the fact that some of them were exaggerated as well. However, if a viewer who is undecided may see these ads, relate closely to one side and eventually chose that side—which is the purpose of the ads in the first place.
To me, I find the presidential ads to be both rude and redundent. So many of the ads are one candidate bashing another, for example, the Republican ad calling Obama Dr. No. I find that to be a cheap way of trying to ruin the competition. I also find these ads redundent because each candidate says what the other candidate isn’t going to do, and then preaches that they are like the messiah of change. I find it obnoxious. I wish the campaign ads would just be honest messages that actually say what the candidate plans to do and how to do it. John McCain’s ad that said how in 2013 every crisis we face would be avoided because he is president. It seems like they both are making similar claims, and it is frustrating, because I still do not know who I will vote for. And these ads are not swaying me one way or another.
On the whole however, I would say that these ads are aimed to attract the liberal crowd. Each ad talks about such huge changes that our economy and country need, and it is obvious that in the next few years things will not be as they are now. Personally, I can see that McCain is attracting the older generation, his age and the parents of kids like me. Barack, however, is trying to attract the young generation. He sees that we are the future, and that it’s imperative to gain our support. I feel that Obama has a better strategy on that front.
Again, I cannot say that my views have really changed. I still do not know who I will vote for. I don’t identify myself as democratic or republican. I just want the next president to be the right man for the job.
I really like the article by West and agree with the majority of his observations and words of advice. These campaigns really are hotter (and sometimes almost seem desperate) than past races for the presidency. Whether the Palin-pig statement was or wasn’t said by Obama’s people, shots should not ever be taken at an opponent’s appearance. That is just immature and does nothing to bolster your campaign. Lastly, I love the realistic, removed perspective of West. He states at the end that voters should not get caught up in the statements in the press; rather they should watch the debates and judge accurately for themselves which candidate to vote for.
Looking at these ads feels like i am watching the same thing over and over again. When you watch ads in a row you realize that each campaign attacks the other candidate on the same issues. Although I know who i would vote for if i was undecided and saw these ads i don’t think they would help my decision at all.
When looking at these ads i think it is important to watch them and think about who you want to believe. You can watch these ads and listen about the war and the economy but what it really comes down to is who do you think will do it?
I don’t know if these ads could change anyone who has decided who they are voting for. They only make you feel stronger about who you support.
In general, I find these ads offensive. They either glorify the candidates to such an extreme or twist their words, in ways that appear both positive or negative. These are the primary tactics that are used to sway the less-informed and undecided voters. The more informed voters have a better grasp of what is actually going on in the campaigns and what the true sides of the issues are and what each candidate stands for. I view these twisted ads as campaign warfare as they stray very far from the truth. After watching the ads, my opinion of them has not changed.
Many of these ads evoke sympathy for the candidates or try to relate to the average voter by speaking about personal experiences, hardships or family life. For example, in “Country I Love” Obama speaks about his family life and the strong values that he learned from childhood such as working hard and treating others as you would like to be treated. The tone of these ads tend to be dramatic or sentimental and tend to twist the facts and statistics. This can be seen in ads such as “The Original Maverick”. It takes quotes from the Associated Press and twists them in order to show change. These ads serve as attacks against the opposition which is seen in many ads including “Maybe”.
In the end, I view these ads as a way to sway the undecided or uninformed voter to whichever side seems more appealing.
After watching these ads, none of my views have changed at all. “Political Warfare” is something that has been going on for most of the presidential elections. Words, beliefs, and political standpoints are being twisted. I do however agree with Yanksbarack09 that McCain’s ads are a bit more vicious.
For one, Obama is not in support of sex education for kindergardeners over reading. He wants kindergardeners to learn how to watch out for sexual predators, not sex education at all. Another thing, Obama has been in talks about drilling offshore about 50 – 100 miles, not 3 miles like Palin and McCain are in favor of.
Most of McCain’s ads seem to be a bit more negative than Obama (excluding 2013) such as the one about Obama being Dr. No. Just comparing the superficial things such as the tone of voice of the narrator. In Obama’s ads ( see “Hands” and “Old Politics”) the ads are bright and optimistic, not demeaning and negative like McCain’s.
I agree with culumania21 in that, for the most part, the negative campaign ads put out by Obama and McCain did not affect my opinion of the candidates. I think that it is a shame that so much money is wasted on prime-time advertizements when they are not imformative or particulaly convincing.
In the past, the line between negative campaigning and lying has been blurry, but this year attack ads have been particularly misleading. In McCain’s add against Obama’s education policy, he says that Obama supports sex education for kindergartens. In reality, Obama wants to children to be aware of sexual abuse at a young age. In my elementary school, these lessons are already in place. As early as the third grade, students watch Muppet-like films teaching kids to recognize sexual abuse; the word “sex” was never even used. I believe that both party’s decision to use negative campaigning reflects negatively on themselves, but at least Obama doesn’t outright lie.
Campaign ads and the general mudslinging that leads to the election is frustrating at best but mostly infuriating. The reason the candidates resort to the least common denominator of civil behavior is because they have no time or worse, any real idea of how to address the grave issues facing the country. Instead of discourse that has any merit at all, the primary objective is to make broad sweeping statements that appeal to the demographic where the ad airs. What’s worse is that the American public is seen by campaign managers as an entity unable to digest anything but the smallest soundbite. They assume we have the attention span of fleas and will not bother to read about or research the candidates ideas and platforms. These ads are a combination of art, science and political warfare. They are crafted to appeal quickly to the eye and ear, they are carefully constructed from polling data and they are all about winning. My views never change from an ad; I just continue to shake my head in disbelief over the rhetoric.
I find it both sad and funny that people actually base their political opinions off of campaign ads. The country is currently split in the polls and a dirty, misleading ad that targets a specific group of people may be just the thing that a candidate needs to win the election. We live in a society where television is king and whatever we see on it we believe. The candidates know this all too well, so they manipulate the truth and tell flat out lies. Ideally a candidate should be able to win the election with a clean campaign, but we live in the age of reality t.v. where the more ridiculous something is the more believable it is. Just take McCain’s claim that Obama wants to teach sex ed. to kindergardeners. It’s so crazy that it must be true. Democrats are no different in claiming that McCain still doesn’t understand the economy. How can a man be a prominent figure in Washington for 26 years if he doesn’t understand the economy? Campaign ads are so one-sided that no party really has the upper hand because for every dirty Republican ad, there’s an equally dirty Democratic one and vice versa. Also, an obscene amount of money is being spent on these ads (55% of the candidates overall budgets). This money could be spent on much more important things like trying to get the people who base their opinions off of campaign ads to make more educated decisions when they vote.
After spending a considerable amount of time watching campaign ads from both candidates, I’d have to disagree with a previous blogger that stated that “… there is a difference between an attack add and a dirty add…” While that might be true to a degree I believe that both candidates adds are embarassing because they are so catered to what their supporters want to hear. That to me is dispacable. Neither candidate has taken the high road, but then again how can you expect them too?… these campaigning tactics have been arounds for ages and the price of possibly not using attack ads is one too high to gamble on. The ads are political-art becase of how delicately manueavered and catered they are to each candidates respective audience, which is why I do not believe as another person previously states that, “Barack Obama and John McCain have different strategies when it comes to campaign advertiesments”
It is important considering the range of voters when questioning how effective the ads are. The advertisement 2013 clearly speaks to McCain supports and reafirms their support for him because of its optimistic tone, however I hardly believe it will win over swing voters or Obama supporters, because its so generic. Same thing with a majority of both advertisements on either side, “Dr. No” from McCain and Obama’s ad that speaks about how McCain does not believe in energy solutions because of his ties to Big Oil, use different “facts” and structures but are very similar criticisms. This makes it hard to believe that the ads are seriously effecting anyones opinion , (they certainly do not effect my opinion). However considering how many people actually even show up at the poles for elections and how many of them follow politics, I bet I would be surprised how effective these campaigns adds are for a majority of voters, who may be less aware and concerned. As a previous blogger stated the, “danger is that some people base thier votes on them.” I couldn’t agree more, its also quite scary.
Attack adds are geared towards the less-informed voter. They are carefully crafted political art similar to that used by “ingsoc” in Orwell’s 1984. by changing around phrases and misconstruing sweeping generalities, attack adds are essentially changing percieved history. For example, McCain’s attack add which states that Obama supported “sex education before children know how to read” is a misconstrued interpretation. Obama supported a bill which taught children about sexual predators and abuse (as stated in post 33). Obama’s 100 years add is another example of political attack art. Yes, it is true that McCain said the phrase “maybe a hundred”. What viewers fail to realize is that what McCain said is taken completely out of context. Surrounded by the democratic narration, McCain could be seeing “maybe a hundred” of anything. With such a vague quote, the democratic committe could potentially create and add which shows McCain saying that he owns “maybe a hundred” puppies. Quotes taken out of context can be made to say anything.
In my opinion, the positive adds are the best. While they are also sweeping generalities, they represent the ideals that each candidate would like to embody. I would like to see more adds whihc aim to educate voters, rather than fill their heads with lies about the other candidate. In my opinion, whoever can better educate their opponent will get their vote. I alsoaggree with maggietodd that it it is scary that so many people base their votes on attack adds.
Ad campaigns offer Americans who cannot watch the debates or read the newspaper a quicker way of staying informed. It should be assumed that people could watch these campaigns and fact check them or at least see the contradictions between them, but often that’s not the case. People who base their votes on these ads really should not be voting, but do anyways. With that said what I now do not understand is why the candidates, knowing this, chose to spread malicious lies about each other through these ads instead of using this valuable time to have their policies heard as much as possible. The fact that they chose to make themselves look better by comparing themselves to their belittled opponent is shameful in my opinion. The president of the United States should have higher moral values than to believe manipulating each other’s words is a respectable part of campaigning.
Having watched these ads I feel like I have wasted a considerable amount of my time. By trying to deceive me into believing one lie about the other candidate I have lost trust in what he is saying even about himself. Not only have the ads failed to trick me into changing my opinion on either candidate but they have still left me uninformed as to what the candidate’s policy truly is.
Typically, these political ads are targeted towards the less informed citizens of the united states. These ads provide viewers with sweeping generalizations of each candidate. For instance, Obama’s ad conveyed the idea that McCain is an obsolete and computer illiterate old man. By the same token, McCain’s ad makes the vast assumption that Barack Obama is an advocate of sexual education in kindergarten classrooms. Certain people that either have no political inclination or are fooled by such fabrication will fall prey to such devices. It is safe to say that the politically savvy people will not be swayed by these embellished and distasteful campaign ads.
Though I am not a supporter of the campaign ads, I do not hold them to be political warfare. They are simply sleazy and tactical devices used by the candidates. I have never been affected by such campaign ads because I am cognzant of the political issues that we face today.
I agree with apgov267 in that the political ads are for the citizens of our nation who do not know what is going on in politics. When a uninformed citizen sees an add like the ones listened above, they are outraged and come up with opinions on the candidate based on fabricated information.
This is political warefare being that both candidates want to point out something about the other that may be unpleasant to the citizens.
In the attack against McCain it says that he does not know how to use the computer. This may sway the views of a younger voter because for us who doesnt know how to use a computer. Computers is an every day form of communication with the world. In a way its saying like if you can’t use a computer what makes you think you can rule the U.S? The attack against Obama on the other had was partcially correct, but the McCain compain failed to say that the Sex education course wasn’t about sex it was about sexual predators. They tecnically didn’t say anything that was wrong, but they did use that bit of information to there advantage. A parent watching this would of course be outraged because who wants there 5 year old learning about sex?
My views in no way have changed because i dont pay much attention to them. Ignore the campain ads and wait till the debate.
The television advertisements that politicians use disgust me. Unfortunately these attacking advertisements have become quite common during a political campaign. There seems to be a consensus among us that the dirty tactics used by both political parties in this election are demeaning and reflect poorly on them and their integrity.
I have recently noticed that the statements used in these political advertisements are taken out of context and do not explain how these original statements came to be. As Darrell West implied in his newspaper article that running for a political office entails the use of some dirty business, they use these campaigns ads as political warfare on each other. I feel that Obama and McCain should set a standard of integrity. Obama and McCain should use their money towards positive advertisements because those are the ones where people will learn their real views on the issues. Although this does not apply to us, some people in other parts of the country may base their choice of president on the statements that they hear on television, not on the important issues.
Obama uses celebrities to attract the youth vote, like in ‘Yes We Can,” while in many of his other ads he uses fear to alter public opinion. In ads like ‘100 Years’ and ‘Don’t Know Much,’ he uses the current economic crisis and the war in Iraq to manipulate McCain’s words against him to attract the public’s vote. However, McCain isn’t innocent either. In ‘Dr. No’ he uses an Austin Powers theme to grab the attention of the youth vote. McCain also attacks the media’s biased view of Obama and his change theme in ‘Obama Love 10.’
I feel like the advertisements that really tell the pubic about these politicians and their own political views on the issues are the only ones that each candidate should use. The negative ads that attack the other person do not encourage the public to follow the election. There is enough negativity in peoples’ daily lives that they do not wish to have anymore unnecessary negativities thrown at them. I agree with Dirk Diggler’s last statement which implies how not only do these advertisements not change the people’s views on how they are going to vote, they transmit a distrust towards all statements made by politicians.
I also suggest that you all look at past election advertisements, they are really interesting.
I agree with apgovforlife that the political ads are really aimed towards the people who are not informed about what is going on in politics. These are the people who will actually be influenced by these ads because they don’t take the time to find out the real information. There was one ad in particular that stood out to me, it was the “yes we can” ad featuring a multitude of celebrities. This ad clearly targets young voters who might actually be influenced by their favorite celebrities about who to vote for. On the other side there is an ad reaching out to all veterans that only features veterans or parents of soldiers who are saying McCain is the only choice in this time of war. I see the campaign ads as political warfare and frankly find most of them to be ridiculous. Both parties manipulate information and quotes given by the other party to make it seem like they are superior. My views have not changed due to any ads because I choose not to watch them and instead let the candidates’ speeches and actions shape my decision.
After watching some of these ads, I have noticed a few themes that are prominent throughout the ads. For one, in “Ayers,” Obama claims that McCain is stuck in a different time and isn’t focused on the issues today. This theme runs in several ads and raises the question: Is McCain too old to lead? He aims his ads towards young people,l saying that with McCain, our country will essentially have George W. Bush for another term. On the other hand, McCain tries to undermine Obama’s experience by asking if he is ready to lead. In several commercials including “The One,” McCain points out Obama’s experience level. He aims his ads tothe middle class, citing the rise in taxes Obama plans to impose.
I find these ads to be so skewed and outrageous, that I tend to just ignore them. They are neither art nor science. They are just trying to make one another look bad, instead of trying to make their own political beliefs known.
My views have not changed simply because I know that most of these ads are taken out of context. You can’t believe what Obama says about McCain and you can’t believe what McCain says about Obama. It’s just political cattiness at its best.
Like many posts I have read, I too have been ignoring the ad’s put forth by both McCain and Obama. I don’t think that attacking each other with commercials shows much about the candidates other than they both have to use this tool to undermine the other. Don’t think I am saying one is doing less than the other, because they are both equal of being cheap.
Unfortunately using political ad’s is one of the main focuses to get the officials into office, but I think it has also in a way destroyed the true running of the President. I wish at times that some of these ad’s were never shown because of how false they are in statements about the other candidates. Both parties should stop arguing with false ad’s and focus on what this country actually needs.
Honestly I doubt anyone will take these trash ads into consideration when voting for president…it is such an obvious way to attract negative publicity to the other candidate that no one can really believe anything thats said in the ads. Even though trashy ads like these are strategically used by both parties, personally it puts down the candidate that approved the message, because it seems like he’s using a cheap way to try to get ahead in the minds of the voters who don’t pay any attention to the candidates views on important issues. The views of the candidate himself should be put in the ads, not the bad qualities of the other candidate.
For Barack Obama I think his campaign ads have been focused on the younger group of voters. In the ad above Obama questions McCain’s ability to lead by listing all of things he cannot do. He basically tries to show the voters that over the last 26 years he hasnt done anything different and if he is elect wont do anything different than Bush. I feel that there is some truths to what Obama is saying but this ad is Politcal Warfare. There is no need to address the fact that McCain doesnt know how to use a computer or cant send an email.. its irrelevant. This ad in general doesnt change who I would vote for because the information in it is not something to judge McCain.
For John McCain he tries to do exactly the opposite in reaching out the inform voter and telling them through his ad that Obama isnt ready to lead a nation. He does this by showing that Obama has no idea what he is doing with education, expecially with teaching little kids sex before reading. Just like Obama McCain’s ad is also an act of politcial warfare. Most likely there is probably a deeper story to Obamas education plan that he doesnt tell us. Regardless, after seeing this ad it also didnt change my mind on who I would vote for because sex to Kindergarteners is not one of my concerns.
I think that most of these commercials wouldn’t change anyone’s mind about who to vote for. Both candidates are attacking each other, despite both candidates saying that they didn’t want to engage in dirty politics (although I do agree with yanksbarack08, there is a difference between a dirty ad and an attack ad). Since both parties also target specific commercials, contradicting what the other candidate has said, anyone who doesn’t already know who they want to vote for won’t know what to believe and will just ignore the ads. That’s what I would do, anyway.
The Democrats seemed to focus many of their ads on connecting McCain to Bush (for example, “Maverick No More” and “New Energy”). Later, the Democrats focus on telling the viewer why specific McCain ads are wrong (“Old Politics”, “Proud of that Commercial”).
The Republicans focus most of their ads on how Obama is just a celebrity, not a real politician who knows what he’s doing. Their ads also talk about how we should finish what we started and how we’ve been doing such a great job in Iraq since the surge.
Both parties claim that the other candidate is the the cause of rising gas prices (“Pump” by the Republicans and “New Energy” by the Democrats).
The best ads, and the most artistic, were clearly “Man in the Arena” by the Repiblicans and “Yes We Can” by the Democrats. However, I also think that both of those commercials were too long to hold the viewers attention. I think that the campaigns realized this, and the rest of the ads are shorter, though less effective.
The ad that I personally found the most chilling and effective was “100 Years” by the Democrats. I already support Obama, so it didn’t change my mind, but I believe that it is the only ad that would have been capable of changing my mind.
Although a few ads told actual information that people want to know, I found that most of the ads are just plain stupid. The one that sticks out to me most is “Obama TV Ad in Berlin” by the Republicans. These ads appeal to the less informed people who don’t really care about the election and would vote for whoever can make them laugh.
When I opened up the “living room president” website and watched a few of the advertisements, I was shocked. A few of them were good, however, a majority of them were awful. After watching a couple ads, I felt that if I was an American citizen uninformed on the presidential candidates and their positions and I was watching these commercials inbetween episodes of my favorite television show, I would have felt like neither one of the candidates were fit to lead our country. Both Obama and McCain use, as previous posts have called, “dirty” advertisement. They both bash eachother and point out why the other candidate is not a good fit for America, however, I do not see either of them showing the citizens why they ARE fit to lead America and why Americans SHOULD vote for them. Don’t get me wrong though, not all of the advertisements were like this.
I was particularly intrigued by two of the ads. McCain had an advertisement called “pump”. In this ad, he tells Americans to blame Obama for high gas prices. I was then looking at Obama’s ads and came across the advertisement called “Old Politics”. I thought that this was interesting that Obama’s campaign shot back with an advertisement and alerted Americans that this ad was not accurate and that Obama does in fact care about the gas situation and they told Americans what he was going to do and told them to read more about his plan on newenergyforamerica.com.
After watching these videos I can see how each candidate has targeted a specific age groups(McCain) and cultures (Obama). In the Living Room Candidate the 3 videos forJohn McCain I watched targeted older people, the ad where Winston Churchill was used, then it also targeted younger people with the 2013 one where it was very specfic and to the point about the changes McCain wants to make. Obamas video with the song targeted African American voters and he also targeted one specific issues. He gave 3 areas he would change in the video on gas prices. The ads are an art,in order for the advertisers to create these videos they need know how to get their point across, appeal audience, and give specifics in less than 30 seconds or so to try and sway voters. These ads did not change my opinion but they definately would be able to sway other peoples opinions.
While both candidates attack the other through these ads, it seems that McCain’s are more ridiculous. For example, the Dr. No, Obama Love, and Celeb ads are just unnecessary. He is trying to make a joke out of Obama and I believe that it is just making McCain look stupid. McCain’s ads tend to twist Obama’s words and use them out of context. Other ads for McCain that don’t attack Obama, sush as Man in the Arena, try to associate McCain with past great leaders or show how the world will be a better place with McCain as President. Obama’s ads have a strong theme of associating McCain with President Bush, saying that McCain will only be 4 more years of the same. Obama’s ads are aimed towards the younger generation especially with the Yes We Can ad with celebrities creating a song out of Obama’s words. He also tends to talk a lot about working families and their values.
These ads are mostly political warfare, very few are anything more than bashing the other candidate.
These ads do not change my views at all. If anything they confirmed them.
Both Obama and McCain’s ads attempt to incite fear in the American public. Take McCains’ ad in which he tries to tie Obama to William Ayers and the ad in which he claims that Obama will teach sex education to kindergarteners. Then there is Obama’s ad in which he implies that McCain is planning to stay 100 years in Iraq. All of these ads, and others, are unsubstantiated. I find it demeaning that both candidates would lie to the American people this way. It almost seems as if they are targeting less informed voters. Both candidates say they are not running for personal gain, but rather to help the United States. These ads, to me anyway, seem to prove the opposite. Both candidates seem so desperate to win the presidential election that they are sinking to such lows as lying to the public. That is the last thing I want from someone who could possbly be our president. I think that some negative campaigning is necessary (for example, I think it was okay for Obama to run an ad connecting McCain to Bush), but I really wish the candidates would focus more on the issues at hand rather than just finding ways to attack the other candidate. None of the ads I watched would make me change my opinion as to whom I would support in the election. The only thing that would change my mind would be if a candidate would come up with a convincing enough argument as to why the other candidate’s proposed policies would be detrimental to the United States.
I also agree with Jeff k. in saying that these ads are not showing the true intellgience of our country and these ads just prove to other nations that we focus on what other candidates have done in the past and what they have done when they were younger that was wrong or illegal then but today they do not partake in any activate like that. I also think that these kinds of ads do not do much for the public only a non informed citizen would know that these ads more than 75% of the time are false or they have true statements turned into something false and misleading. I think that politics will always be about showing your opponents’ faults but I think that our politics have gone over board in trying to find faults that all we hear about are lies about the other candidates and nothing that true.
Neither candidate is likely to go after the well-informed, instead they go after the people who are less-informed because they are more easily swayed. Both candidates attempt to strike fear into Americans (perhaps rightfully so considering what has happened in the economy this past week) and they use that fear to put down the eachother. John McCain doesn’t seem to have said anything positive about himself in his adds. Barack Obama, while putting down McCain has also mentioned his position in his adds.
To me this is a type of warfare, but warfare is also a type of art. There is a great deal of tact involved and only the greats can get the right balance between aggressive enough and too aggressive. In my opinion John McCains have crossed the line and are into too aggressive territory and Obama seems to be managing the balance well enough.
My views have not changed because of these adds and are not likely to change unless something very serious happens.
Most of the candidates advertisements are aimed towards the less-informed because it is the less-informed that are undecided(for the most part) or are making their decision based on superficial reasons. In the Mccain ad Man in the Arena he tries to compare himself to Winston Churchill and Theodore Roosevelt, both of whom are very well respected leaders from their time. While he is trying to better his image in the minds of the American people I feel as though he is accomplishing nothing because the ad doesn’t show who he is, just who other people were. Obama’s ads contain more information that will actually help inform the people who are looking for information.
There is definitely an art to making campaign ads. they have to appeal to people’s emotions towards their country and it’s issues. Along with the art is a science as well. The science aspect is more about what is talked about in the ad and the art is more about how to portray what is talked about.
My views have certainly not changed after watching the ads, nor did i expect them to.
I like many others who have posted here, have been ignoring the candidates’ ads up until now. To be honest, this is my first time really seeing any of them. I guess because I like Obama, I was a bit naïve and thought all of his ads would be positive, merely accentuating his message of hope and change. Though he still does have these types of messages, which are actually artsy in my opinion (take “Yes We Can,” for example), he and McCain both wrongly employ attack ads.
I’ve noticed that there really does seem to be a science to creating an ad for a candidate – you find your (uninformed) demographic, be it veterans, women, blue collar workers, young people, etc. and make sure the ad touches on sentiments similar to theirs, even if the candidates’ message does not really align with the targeted viewers’ opinions.
Most of the ads (especially McCain’s) take things the other candidate said out of context or blatantly create lies. For examples, in McCain’s ad, “Education,” the narrator says that Obama voted to teach kindergarten children sex education. What the ad didn’t explain was that the plan Obama approved of was to protect these children from sexual predators.
It is not only McCain who has turned ads into unfair attacks. Both candidates have attacked one another, and it has turned into somewhat of a war in my opinion. These negative and untrue ads have actually left me dissatisfied with both candidates.
When November comes around and it’s time to vote, it seems that both democratic and republican advertising will play a major role in deciding the outcome of the election. Each candidate seems to be targeting an eclectic group of citizens by addressing a wide variety of political issues important to everyone. While Obama and McCain are spending a large amount of their campaign money on trying to show to the public the benefits of their ideas on how the country should be run, they are also spending a tremendous amount of their funds on advertising all the negative aspects of the other candidate. For example, Obama and the democrats have made commercials that talk about how much McCain is willing to spend on the war and how it’s a bad idea. The commercials also make McCain’s ideas seem old and out of date. McCain is just as guilty as Obama by making equally unflattering ads about his opponent. McCain’s ads about Obama include comments alluding to Obama’s plans for sex education in schools for kindergarteners. He also took some of Obama’s words out of context and made it seem that Obama compared Sarah Palin to a pig. I would say that these commercials are a form of political warfare because it is an attack on the other candidate running for president. It is also a way for the parties to taint the views of United States citizens in order to get them to vote in their favor. However, despite the Republican Party’s efforts, it has not changed my views on Obama. All these ads have done for me personally is think poorly of the Republican Party for creating negative ads about Obama when they could be using their money to promote McCain in a more positive light.
I think that these ads are really unnecessary for any campaign. The ads choose not to promote either Senator McCain or Senator Obama, but rather knock down the other. The ads play upon fears and misconceptions of the public to lead them into making rash decisions. For example, the ad in which the McCain campaign says Obama wants to teach sex to kindergarten students does it in a manner that provokes fear to older voters. Obama has ads like “Yes We Can” that appeal to younger voters in featuring celebrities.
One ad i thought was very hypocritical was Obama’s “Low Road” ad. In the beginning of it he accuses McCain of making up things about him. Then Obama turns things around immediately saying “same old politics, same failed policies” and shows a picture of him with President Bush.
I also noticed that really the only ads that were devoted to positively showcasing the candidates were focused in the past. Both Obama’s “Country I Love” ad and McCain’s “Service to America: 624787″ ad were great, but said nothing about their plans of improvement. If they both want “change” so badly, why wouldn’t they focus more on it in their ads?
In reality, the ads won’t really affect the overall election. Most people will either vote with their party, or have decided who they would vote for a long time ago.
Wests’ article conveys the important truth about how vulgar this presidential campaign has gotten. The two candidates are acting childish in their attempts to put down the other, conveying inaccurate claims and false statements. Each person’s ads take aim at a different set of voters, in the bigger YouTube videos; McCain is portrayed as a stagnant figure in an every changing world. The ad claims that he can’t use a computer or send an email targets younger viewers to get them to think he is incapable of such a “simple” task, therefore, how is he expected to handle our country, the most difficult job of them all. Then it tries to incorporate the older, working, Wall Street crew by stating that John McCain doesn’t understand the economy and how it works, all of this information is completely inaccurate and portrays him as an illegitimate choice for president. The video clip about Obama is targeting mothers and family caretakers, saying that he wants kindergarteners to learn about sex before they learn to read. This ad also claims that Obama is the wrong choice to family because he is in complete favor of malfunctioning public schools and such. All of this information would probably sway some people who are very out of the loop and ignorant to important issues, however, comprehending individuals should see through the falsehood of these “campaigning videos”.
I see the ads as mostly petty ways for the two candidates to go head to head rather than any kind of art; it doesn’t take a genius to twist peoples’ words around. However, I believe that the crisp presentation of these two videos as well as the twenty smaller ones, adds some degree of seeming credibility to the messages they portray. Although these ads are thought out and presented just right, my views have not changed as I see these ads as political arguments that don’t solve anything and are full of false information.
Each attack ad is focused on a very specific audience, none of them are really aimed for the whole population of America. The ads don’t do much for the candidates since most Americans would not formulate opinions based on them. I find it a bit offensive that the candidates actually believe these exaggerated, immature ads would change our opinions. However, it is no surprise both candidates participate in thses ads, because say if Obama didn’t retaliate with attacks of his own, he would be criticized. They have no choice but to attack each other.
It is clear that as we draw closer to the elections, the political ads have moved away from promoting thier candidate to bashing the other candidates. The ad “Troops” which is a McCain ad, attacks Obama for supposedly not supporting the troops. McCain is trying to use the anti antiwar sentiment against Obama rather than promoting is own views and acheivements in that area. The Democracts are not free of negitive ads either. The DNC ad,”Maverick No More”, targeted McCain’s policies and used the standard George Bush comparison to portary him as just another Bush. Furthermore, some of these ads are making claims that are extreme streches of the true or completely false such as, Obama’s comprehensive sex education for kindergardeners. These ads make the assumption that Americans are uninformed and will believe anything they see on TV.
These ads are really just weapons of political warfare. All they are meant to do is to install doubt in the voter’s mind and eventually convince them to vote a certain way even if it means spreading false information. These ads have not affected my viewpoints on the candidates because I am not sure which ones are giving me correct information.
To be honest I feel that the campaign commercials are embarrassing for each candidate. I thought they were more comical then anything else like i was watching SNL clips. The claims by both of these men were so out there that I could not believe they would be taken seriously. It is obvious which voters Senator Obama and McCain are trying to woo. Senator Obama is trying to grab the attention of the young voter. In one of his commercials he says that McCain is out of touch with the world we live in today and doesn’t understand our economy, and can’t send an e-mail or use a computer. Obama wants people to believe that he is the the “new” guy. He can change everything wrong that Bush has done. In McCain’s commercial he says that Obama wants to teach sex to kindergartners. It scares the older more traditional thinking people. In my mind I feel that its just political warfare and trying to tear the names of each other. Personally my views have not changed after watching these videos. For some reason I could not take them serious at all. I would love to see the candidates talk about what they could do for the country rather than what the other one can’t. I also think it insults the country’s intelligence by thinking we will believe the crap they say about each other.
Every campaign add must be taken with a grain of salt because each and every attack, regardless of how justified it appears, has been stretched in some way to shed the opposing candidate in a negative light. The jibes made by the opposing campaign are usually exaggerated or twisted to fit their purposes. Both campaigns use similar tactics to appeal to their audiences and manipulate their interests; while persuasive techniques vary from candidate to candidate, Obama tends to prefer to align himself with the working American while McCain aims to place his objects in unison with change. Two big topics are the Iraq war and the energy crisis and each candidate is approaching them differently. In Obama’s videos like “Country I Love” and “Hands,” Obama tries to unify himself with the average, hard-working American from the “Kansas Heartland” by throwing around phrases like the “hands that built this nation” and the “new vision” he wants to achieve. McCain, on the other hand, tries to separate himself from Bush and play on America’s patriotism and pride. In videos like “2013,” McCain tries to propagate himself as a candidate for change and “Finish the Job” tries to prove the Iraq war is not as bad as people say. The patriotism comes in on the “Man in the Arena” video where McCain plays up the idea that “we will never surrender, they [the Iraqis] will.”
After wathching a few of these campain ads I have realized that they are directed at certain types of people for sure. Ads from both sides, democratic and republican, seem to be trying to get the middle class votes, who are usually the most common voters. The candidate’s main goal in these ads are to either make the other candidate look bad or try and attract a certain group of people, by showing what their main values and attractions are. I would consider these ads as campain warfare. First of all I think that many of the things that are said in the ads are blown out of proportion or full blown lies. The first ad that was shown on the front page for Obama about McCain was to show McCain not being a person of change, and was targeting this to people who want change, usually being the middle class or younger voters. After seeing this ad nothing changed in my mind I already knew that McCain is not suppose to be the candidate of large change. In the ad “old politics” in favor of Obama, showed that McCain blamed Obama for the reason gas prices went up. Clearly this is not correct. This ad also influenced me making me think that Obama was more green, wanting to create ways and bring change on keeping the environment clean. It says that McCain is just like the same old politician that says and does the same thing, making it evident that Obama’s campain says McCain does not want the change he claims and that the US is going to get more of the same. In the ad “troops” McCain claims that Obama took the time to go the the gym rather than go visit injured troops. I think this is a ridiculous claim to say that Obama does not care about the US troops, it makes me mad. The way the ads are conveyed makes me think it is politcal warfare and nothing else
Its definitely evident that both Obama and McCain’s campaigns have turned from talking about the issues to attacking each other. In both those ads above it’s quite clear that right now they’re not leaving anything out. Both Obama and McCain have different audiences that they need to appeal to. Obama’s audience is the young and new voters of America and because of this he is trying to make voters realize that McCain is old and out of touch with today’s age. McCain’s audience is conservatives and by making Obama seem as liberal as possible will help the undecided voters that are more toward the conservative side see that he is the right choice. Before, both campaigns were not too bad, but as election day is getting closer I feel that their campaigns are turning into political warfare. It’s a little bit disappointing to see campaign ads like this, especially McCain’s that took Obama’s words way out of context with the sex education to kindergartners. That was a low blow and everyone knows it. Hopefully both campaigns will return to just talking about what they are going to do with the country, but its inevitable that it will get worst as election day approaches.
From what I have observed during this year’s presidential election, the main focus has been upon the “working” middle class and, generally speaking, our economy and more specifically, the financial sectors. There has been a lot of talk about working to secure the middle class, making sure these people keep their jobs, homes, etc. For the most part, however, these tactics primarily focus on the lack of knowledge or attention a candidate possesses. McCain, again, has been linked with the mishaps of the Bush administration and Obama, again, has been linked with his lacking years of experience in public office. These types of advertisements dig extremely deep into a candidate’s past to uncover any minor sort of mistake or decision he or she made that is generally unacceptable in society’s already half-blinded eyes. If anything, I view these advertisements as nothing more than political warfare and immature bickering between these two candidates. It is easy to go around and accuse someone else of doing something wrong and it is also easy to surprise people with all the little errors a person makes in his or her lifetime. One thing I would like to point out, however, is the fact that none of these advertisements clearly outline the candidates’ plans to fix these problems. All I have seen thus far are worthless arguments with little to no reference to any solutions in these advertisements. Many people are ignorant to the larger picture, but then again, these tactics obviously work, otherwise the candidates would not be spending tens of hundreds of millions of dollars to broadcast these advertisements. Kind of ironic, would you not say? These candidates are spending so much money to be ushered into presidency via a sort of accepted method by the majority of society based upon certain images provided to the masses. I personally find these methods of advertisement deplorable and, again, just plain immature.
Considering the range of voters (age, partisan, independent, geographic region, gender, informed, less-informed, etc.), what are the primary tactics used by each candidate to target audiences?
Do you view the campaign ads as art, science, or political warfare?
After watching the ads, have your views changed?
Due to the fact that Obama’s campaign represents “change”, it’s quite clear that his ads attract the youth of today looking for a brighter tomorrow. His tactics include using famous icons of today, such as the celebrities he put in “Yes We Can”, to capture the attention of adolescents and young adults. McCain on the other hand attempts to point out more of Obama’s faults than positive attributes of his own. I feel he spends too much time focusing on what Obama is going to do wrong than what he himself will do as president. He obviously also goes for the older generations, and those holding onto more traditional views. I also feel that McCain uses these ads to his advantage creating more of a political warfare with Obama, though Obama uses more of an art and science skill to capture the hearts and attention of the viewers. After viewing both Obama and McCain’s ads I have continued agree with Obama’s ideas rather than McCain’s. The ads allowed me to better see why Obama is the better candidate, and see how his personal level with the American people will help him win this presidential election.
I feel that all of these ads have more of a backfire effect then a positive one. In “The One” ad by John McCain, it is implied that Obama feels he is the savior and god of todays world. They attempt to make him seem very pompous and divine comparing him with Moses. To me this is very ridiculous and I do not feel this well effect many if any of Obama supporters.
I feel that McCain is seeming a lot more ridiculous than Obama on attack ads. For the most part Obama has legitimate issues that he is trying to put out while McCain is attempting to prove something not even there. For example in the “Old Politics” Obama ad, Obama attacks a political attack on him. As ridiculous as that sounds Obama proves his point and backs himself up very well. I feel John McCain has failed to do that.
Of course, the Obama campaign uses its “four more years” and “more of the same” tactic on these ads, as well as his appeal to young people by using celebrities in one of his ads. To me these tactics seem like typical political ad campaigns. The McCain ads, however, seem slightly ridiculous. He compares himself to Churchill? The “Dr. No” ad was completely laughable. The “Media Love Affair” simply uses the popularity of Obama to make people believe the media is biased. This of course has some truth to it, but I think the way it is presented (with the hearts and saxophone music) makes it the kind of video someone might make as a joke for YouTube, not something the McCain campaign itself would sponsor.
I think I see the ads chiefly as political warfare, with the exception of the “Yes, We Can” Obama video, which I see more as art. Most of the videos are the same arguments recycled ad nauseam, and the McCain ads especially seem to become pettier and pettier. The “Yes, We Can” music video is different and exciting because it shows the greatness of Obama’s speechmaking (and history making).
If anything, my positive opinion of Obama has gotten stronger after watching these videos. His were more professional, straightforward, and appropriate. Even McCain’s most professional-looking video of those that I watched made unrealistic claims, like “2013, Middle East: stabilized.”
To say the least, each candidate seems to be stretching the truth to gain some type of competitive advantage over the other. As mentioned in the article, even Karl Rove, a master of political advertisements, claims that this year the ads are ridiculously false and accusatory. In one of the ads Obama seems to almost attack McCain’s intelligence saying he doesn’t know how to operate a computer or even send an e-mail. The ad also tries to make McCain out to be an old arcane politician who is ill-equipped to take on the responsibilities as president. However, McCain in one ad attacks Obama’s stance on education. The ad turns on Obama when it states that the only legislation the Democratic nominee has voted for is sex education for kindergartens- a false claim. The advertisements represent how desperate this run for presidential election has become.
The advertisements of McCain and Obama are clearly made to resonate with a certain segment of the population. McCain wants people to see Obama as too liberal and reckless with American values. On the other hand, Obama is trying to play up the need for a fresh face in the presidency and McCain’s inadequacy to handle today’s world. In the article it mentioned that 55% of campaign money has been spent on advertisements, and the candidates are certainly not holding back in their spread of propaganda through these ads.
I do not pay attention to campaign ads either because I think that the sole purpose is to make the other candidate look bad. I think that this is ridiculous because for people who are not really interested or involved in politics the only things they’ll know about the candidates is what the other candidate is doing wrong or why the other candidate is not right for the position. I think that if candidates focused more on making their policies known and what they’re going to do differently than the previous person in the office in question then people will be able to make a more informed decision on who they want to vote for the position. All the campaign ads are a waste of time and money.
Campaign ads, presidential or otherwise, have always been somewhat ridiculous. They show thirty seconds of extremely biased information that is solely meant to make the other candidate look terrible. Unfortunately, we live in a partisan country. Too many of us refuse to acknowledge valuable points and ideas of our opposing party. And as a result, there is terrible antagonism between the parties which leads to adds and attacks such as these.
Much to my dismay, far too few individuals are accurately informed about the candidates and their stances. Instead many receive their information and base their decisions on biased programs or commercials such as these. What’s worse is that voters seem to respond to these adds. When one candidates campaign goes negative, it is near impossible for the other’s not to do the same. Negative campaigning is just too powerful and persuasive and these adds represent some of the most extreme aspects of negative campaigning (Obama wanting sex education for kindergarteners? really?).
I would love to say that we lived in a Country where adds such as these would never be paid any attention too and no one could ever believe messages that they portray and others of the same kind, however that is not the truth. Many voters are easily deceived by less than honorable campaign tactics. All we can do is not respond to these negative adds and instead invest time into learning the truth about candidates.
I just realized that I didn’t make it clear that I am fully aware (as most people are saying) that many Americans do make decisions based on these advertisements on television.
In my post, I was merely speaking on my own behalf and of those who also feel under minded by these ads. Making generalizations about a group of people with obvious examples that contradict that generalization, as in this case, annoys me a bit.
It’s just the same as the European generalized view of the average American which is (from what I’ve gathered) a Southern, hot dog/hamburger eating, fat, six-shooter-wielding cowboy, ignorant to issues outside of their own country’s borders.
Many, many Americans are ignorant to important facets of our society and it’s an ultimately sad revelation that our country is filled, to some level, with hot headed, uninformed people who actually do have some influence on the way the country is run.
This is all the more reason for us to create a new man-made country off the coast of New Jersey. Citizenship by selective admission only.
The primary tactics of the ad are to attract the attention of voters to subject of matters to which they feel great emotion or care towards. Such as the war in Iraq or our economy this present day, which are two headline, issues throughout this presidential election. Matters such as these are where these two politicians will attack each other because this is where each greatest weakness exists. For example if McCain or Obama were to have said something that the general public greatly disagrees with, then there would be a huge change in which who would loose and get those votes. The ads that both of these men are clearly political warfare in that they deal on political terms such as how McCain approved a lot of Bush’s decisions and how he wouldn’t mind leaving the troops in Iraq just like Bush would. While for Obama, McCain attacks him by asking the general public if they want their president to be someone who educates kindergarteners on sex education. Every ad, or at least most of the ads that I have seen on TV or in general have had something to do on ripping each other apart on issues such as the economy or the war in Iraq. After seeing these ads no, my opinion has not changed at all.
Lets face it, besides the handful of politically minded people (who most likely already know who they are voting for), the average American will come across an add at a time when they do not want to see it (ex the middle of a tv program, or on computer). For this reason the ads have to be aesthetically pleasing, in order to engage their attention. Many of the ads are art, fusing popular music, emotionally invigorating visual displays and policy records into one. In the initial ads, both candidates seemed to try to appeal to the emotions of voters, and make the average person feel like they are making a difference in the campaign. This tactic is best represented by the “Yes we Can” video in which uplifting music is played with One of Obama’s speeches while famous musicians sing along with common people.
McCain’s seems to use the same artistic tactics but in a more mocking tone. In McCain Dr. No’s ad, he sets Obama’s words to a James Bond esk video and audio track making him seem silly while imply the same about his policies. In “Obama Love 10” he throws across a message that Barak Obama is more of a love interest than a politican and cannot be taken seriously.
The most striking and effective ad to me was “Finish the Job”. It gave the most bi-partisan message and didn’t even mention the candidates. It did however, subconsciously put’s John McCains policy on Iraq in your head only to be evoked at a later date.
My views have not changed because I see McCain’s taunting ads as one of his many negative qualities … but we will save that conversation for a later date.
→Flash
Media wiggles its way into everything, and this can be seen while watching the various videos with the two candidates opposing each other. The ads are catty and snobbish – forcing the audience to almost question the ethics of the candidate who is allowing the video to be shown.
Although media is a way to coerce voters to your side, I think that it has been overdone in this election, by a mile.
Obama uses tactics to lure younger generations with the use of celebrities and music. When a young person sees their favorite actress in an Obama video singing a catchy tune, it’s hard not to feel a certian tug towards that candidate.
McCain on the other hand, tries to catch the attention of older people with his use of old videos and speeches from past presidents, like in the first video. People who are older are forced to remember a different time and all of the positive attributes they associate with that time period.
I think the ads are blashpemy – They make both candidates look like ruthless men who will do whatever they can to claw their way to presidency. It is obvious that they both want the job, but is it worth putting down your candidate falsely to get there?
I don’t find ads where one candidate continues to flash the others face on the TV just to prove that the latter supports war in Iraq, anything other than trash on my televison for forty-five seconds.
The clips havent’ changed my opinion because most people that follow the election can easily find these ads, so I have seen most of them multiple times, much to my dismay, BUT, I don’t neccessarily agree that the path to winning the presidency is on the same route as obnoxious commercials that point flaws in the opposing candidate. Through intellectual interviews and stimulating debates, America should figure out by themselves who they believe the right candidate is.
Honestly, I find these ads to be very funny. I sometimes pity both candidates for making such needless comments about each other. But when you think about it, we are living in an era where the media manipulates the minds of so many Americans. So although this “smear” tactic is pitiable, it might be the key to winning the elections. What really bothers me is that the candidates are using up so much of their money to make imprecise and misleading advertisements. Also, early in their campaign, McCain and Cindy both said that we wouldn’t see negative advertisement. It all started with a stupid comment comparing Obama with Britney Spears, and look at what it has turned out to become.
My favorite advertisement was the one from the democrats that was on the post. Obama mentions the world has changed since the last 26 years, but McCain hasn’t. I actually got a laugh out of this one. Especially when the ad mentions that he still doesn’t know how to use a computer. This just shows the desperation of the democrats. What Obama should do is stay focused on the needs of the country. He had a great start by ignoring the early McCain ads and comments.
On the other hand, the republican ad about Obama being a celebrity (“Obama Love 10”) is just hypocritical. They make a huge deal about how Obama is nothing more but a celebrity, when they go and choose Palin as the vice presidential nominee. This shows just how pathetic the McCain campaign has gotten. He says Obama cares more about winning the election than the war. Obama plays the race card. He is a bigger celebrity than Britney Spears and Paris Hilton…If you ask me, it’s a sad strategy.
I’m not choosing sides here, but this just shows that their standards have slipped to a new low. It seems that both campaigns are targeting the younger generation of voters, hoping to manipulate their minds about the other candidate. The sad thing is, this tactic does fool some people…. Today the media is such a strong source of information that many people tend to believe everything they hear. As for me, I get nothing but entertainment from these ads. They really don’t effect my position as to who I would vote for.
These ads are just a way for political warfare. It is a tactic used ever since political parties have been created, and it is not surprising that it made another appearance. Jeff K could not have stated it any better, “Dirty politics tend to insult our intelligence, but then again, would it really be politics without the dirt, grime and undercutting of character?” Simply put, this is politics and we should expect to see these negative ads in many more elections.
It is sad and alarming to see the state of political warfare that Obama and McCain are in. But the campaigning more specifically by McCain at the moment has taking the point of manipulating the truth. In times past the negative campaigning was all about exploiting something bad that the opposite opponent had said. But now it seems that McCain is completely changing what Obama has said (i.e. the sex education legislation and increased taxes for the “middle- class”) and is actually creating lies.
The ads by both candidates are political warfare. I believe them to be aimed at those who are less informed of what is actually going on. But as stated in previous blogs, that the campaigns are attacking each so much at this point that it’s extremely difficult for one candidate to stop attacking the other for fear of leaving a negative attack without a retaliation. My views have somewhat changed. I find McCain even more ill-suited for the office of the presidency. But I will look forward to the first debate between Obama and McCain, and hope to see them actually discuss the issues and stay somewhat chivalrous and not attack each other too much.
McCain seems to target middle-aged to older people implying that he is shallow and unfit to lead like in “Celeb.” Obama targets people who are displeased with Bush by trying to connect our current our current president with McCain like in “Maverick No More.” At the same time McCain tries to link Obama with current problems like the high price of gas “Pump.” In “Still” Obama portrays McCain as old and out of touch with modern technology and current issues appealing to a younger, perhaps more educated audience.
These ads are primarily political warfare. While they use art, they do it with the goal of destroying their opponent and winning the election. Similarly, they evidence the use of scientific techniques such as polling, yet this, too, is for the purpose of winning a political war.
If I were an uneducated viewer, I would probably be swayed by these ads. I am choosing not to let them affect my opinions, because that is exactly what they are meant to do and therefore I don’t trust the negative information they contain.
Obama’s ad is using ad hominem, while McCain’s ad is using appeal to ridicule. The Democratic party’s ad is attacking McCain’s inabilities to use a computer and not understanding the economy, making him appear incapable as a president. The Republican party’s ad is mocking Obama’s legislation on sex education for kindergarteners. They are presenting this argument in a matter to ridicule him and make him seem incapable of making significant decisions.
These campaign ads are pretty ridiculous. I hope that this kind of propaganda does not actually change voters’ opinions. For those who are still undecided, do not listen to these ads, research the topic thoroughly and get opinions from different sources!
No, my views have not changed after having watched these ads. If McCain is unable to use a computer, he still has time to do so before Nov. 4th and Obama can still positively impact education.
It is within human nature to lie. That is the blatant truth. Every individual of this world has lied well over once within, say, a day? Therefore, it is no wonder there are false campaigning battles taking place. There always has been, since a presidency was established. The very act of deceit could sway the most uninformed victim, thus winning an undeserving vote toward the misleading candidate. These methods of advertising correlate to false propaganda that was once proven effective back to the great war years. Serving as manipulative trickery, these attack ads have preformed their duties well- to twist the truth and distort the real personal backgrounds and goals of either John McCain or Barack Obama. The very act of taking statements out of context only creates more confusion, in which, people should make use of those organizations that have the facts checked. Nonetheless, i believe that voters should follow their gut feelings and ignore the negative comments of critics and the unreliable media.
Both Obama and McCain have campagin ads explaining why they are the better candidate. However, after viewing some of the ads on this website, it is quite apparent that negative campaigning is much more popular. Many of the ads show middle class people and how they may/may not be affected by certain issues. McCain’s ad “Pump” says that Obama does not care about rising gas prices. While I believe this to be totally untrue, it does appeal to the middle class, who want lower gas prices as soon as possible. I found McCain’s ad “Dr. No” to be very amusing. I liked the background pictures especially. Although I found McCain’s claims to be outrageous, you cannot help laughing at the “creativity” of these ads.
What really annoys me is that the candidates expect us to buy what they are saying. McCain, do you really expect me to believe that Obama wants to talk about the birds and bees to kindergardeners? Obama, does McCain really want us to stay in Iraq for 100 more years? It is like the candidates do not feel that the people of the United States are intelligent. Intelligent people would not buy this nonsense that appears in these ads. However, there are tons of ads, approved by both Obama and McCain, that has this nonsense. Please, are we that stupid??? It is all political warfare. Obama attacks McCain, McCain attacks Obama. Most of the claims are lies, but they keep on attacking. It sickens me.
My views have definitely not changed. Whenever I see negative campaign ads I listen attentively, not because I buy any of it, but because they are some of the most interesting commercials on television. They are very comical and funny. What is interesting is that one of these people, Obama or McCain, will be our next president.
So, if these campaign ads are true, then:
Either our children will learn about sex before they know their multiplication tables
Or we will be dead before the Iraq War is over.
What rubbish.
the attempts to slur each others names are just becoming immature, childish, and low blows towards each other. The Barack commercial especially smearing his name to families across the nation. Of course no one wants a president who’s only accomplishments in education was teaching young children sex ed.
Also the remarks about how McCain is incompetent with technology, it was a stretch to say he did not know how to send an e-mail. These commercials are far-fetched and completely ridiculous. They really aren’t even necessary, they may even be losing more voters rather than gaining.
The commercials make me embarassed of the campaign all together. Tell me, what other countries make outrageous, slandering commercials against competition?
Obama targets the youth by saying McCain is long expired because he can’t use his computer or send emails. While McCain is targets the parents when he talks about how Obama supports sex-ed for kindergarten age kids.
The ads do not do much to lift each candidate up. I consider them political warfare because they do not accomplish anything except trying to ruin the reputation of the other candidate.
My views have not changed from these flimsy ads. The candidates should make ads that say how qualified they are for the presidency and what they plan to do instead of just saying how bad the other candidate would be as president.
I believe that both the adds are targeting the people that have not made up their mind on who they are voting for, and are sort of floating around. Obama makes a very good point about the computer, and McCain admitted himself that he doesn’t understand the economy.
How can a president run a country without even being able to understand the economy??? I think it’s a little foolish of him to just go out there and say it clear out like that.
These adds might be political warfare, nevertheless Obama’s add has full truth and no exaggerations. When McCain’s add is all opinion and not truth or fact. You cannot say that the only thing that Obama accomplished is Sex Education for kids, its not factual enough do portray a full opinion…
Is there anything to back that up?
Yes he did what he though was right, and many more things that McCain probably doesn’t even know about. He is too closed up in his little world.
They say when you run a race never look to the left or right to say where your opponent is, for you may loose ground. However both of these ads focus much more on the negativity of their opponents rather then the good attributes that each they bring to the table. For example John McCain’s add about Obama wanting to teach sex education to kindergarden is taken completely out of context. For them to be able to sway more voters they should put more emphasis on what they bring to the table rather than trying to put the other party down.
Both candidates are trying to bring change to the table. Obama has pretty good points in the ad’s and that McCain doesn’t know how to use computers,also he can’t bring change. I agree with the ad that McCain cannot bring change if he doesn’t know what the newer generations want also McCain is old and admited he doesnt know allot about the economy which is hurting is campaign since we are in an economic crisis… Also Obama is aiming his ad’s at the younger generations. Their both using dirty tactics and saying negative stuff about each other. I think they should be saying postives stuff about their party and them. My views are still the same and obama portrays the “change” slogan better than McCain.
I mentioned earlier before how the media can drastically change the public opinion about a certain person or political party. And one example of how this dirty tactic effects people is halfbake169’s post (post 86).
im not poking at him or anything, but i just realized that he believes (or atleast seems like he believes based on what he wrote) that McCain is ignorent and dubious to our current economic crisis. Just because the democrats said so, it must be true…. I hope you know that thats not how it works.
McCain has been a a representative for 4 years and a senator for 21 years. If anything, his old age further proves that he has more political experience. McCain would be an idiot if he didn’t acknowladge our economic position, and im sure he has plans for it. Unfortunelty i don’t know too much about McCain’s plans so i cant really say if they are good or bad.
But again, both campaigns are using the media to spread dirty “secrets” and take jabs at their opponent. Most of these advertisements are false and misleading. They shouldnt be relied upon when it is time to vote.
I feel that these campaign ads are mostly political warfare that are skew the candidates’ actions in such a way that they give no accurate picture of either candidate. Many are made to appeal to viewers emotions. For example, the Obama ad “Yes We Can” sets the words of one of Obama speeches to an inspirational song sung by celebrities. I thought it was funny that the Obama campaign has chosen to use celebrities as a means to appeal younger voters, when McCain has attacked Obama for being nothing more than a celebrity himself. Many of Obama’s adds attempt to make McCain appear out of touch and similar to George Bush. He is probably trying to appeal to more moderate voters that are unhappy with the current administration. It seems like McCain is trying to appeal to conservatives by mocking Obama and making him appear more radical than he is. I wish that both candidates would stop trashing the other and actually focus on important issues.
As much as targeted ads are a part of our political culture, i can’t help but feeling hostile towards them, regardless of party. Though sometimes they make valid points (as previous posters have suggested, it is disheartening that McCain can’t check his email) they also can distort the truth – one needs to look no further than the 2004 swiftboating to figure this out. Ads, negative or positive, must be taken with a literal grain of salt.
Instead of targeted ads that elicit emotions, if any adds are to be shown, they should reflect serious policy initiatives. People need to know who and what they’re voting for, not what fuels their respective candidate’s ego.
Both of these ads are ridiculous.
Barack Obama has campaigned on a promise of not participating in dirty politics and personal attacks that distract voters from issues. This ad, however, is a clear indication that he is willing to break some promises to win over some voters. For Obama, this may help him with the election but will hurt him in the history books. The idealistic image of a progressive candidate on a clean campaign may be shattered with this ad as evidence.
As for John McCain’s ad, it attacks Obama very unnecessarily. Those who are familiar with what Obama voted for know that the sex education for kindergarten aged children is to protect them from pedophiles. However, since education is a state’s issue and neither of the candidates will implement or remove sex education from kindergarten classrooms, this ad is irrelevant. It is an attack that does not concern the issues to be debated for the presidency.
I find these ads completely ridiculous and horribly done. I think it is very odd that the candidates don’t try to make themselves more appealing in their videos, but they instead make up and try to uncover “dirty” truths about their opponents. Many times these “truths” are just political propaganda without any actual support. Besides just appealing to the Democrats or the Republicans, each party is tying to catch the attention of the Independents. Obama’s add about McCain not knowing how to work a computer is aimed towards the younger generation because that is where the most “change” will come from in the future. McCain’s add about Obama and sex education is targeted for the non-educated parents who decide they can’t trust Obama because he hasn’t made any educational advances. I think these video campaign ads slightly resemble art, but they’re mainly political warfare. Ads like these are expected during the time of the Presidential Campaign. They help pull in some voters who aren’t educated previously about the candidates. The ads usually have some truth to them, but in an extremely twisted form that no longer resembles the actual truth. I don’t think that these types of ads should be relied on when it is time to vote. They’re misleading, untruthful, and quite frankly, stupid.
Negative campaigning is nost definitely a form of political warfare. I think campaigns that don’t use negative ads are more effective because it shows the integrity of he candidate. By not using negative ads, it shows that the candidate will not sink to that level.
However, by alerting the public of the other’s less glamorous policies. It hasn’tswayed my opinion, but I’m sure it has the potential to alter other’s opinions.
To me, it’s not as frightening a thought as to realize that the American public actually listens to these ads from the media, it is the fact that they don’t follow up on the information or question it later on.
I like to think of myself as an individualist, meaning I like it when people act their own way and don’t go mainstream and agree with the majority. This is why that I find it amazing that people will hear that Obama wants to teach toddlers about sex and they believe every word of it, without questioning its context.
We live in America, where we are free to disagree with any facet of any societal ill. Why don’t people ever question the almighty beast that is the American media?
It’s the same across the world however. I’ve seen videos of Australian and some French news reports that clearly take a more hostile aim at America. We see it as well coming from many Arabic places such as Al Jazeera who usually portray the Americans as the hostile ones, such as when American forces accidentally bombed a Muslim wedding. They never say it was accidental, only that it happened.
Realize that the media is all powerful and they don’t have to explain things. They can just thrust the facts at your face and leave you standing there without knowing all of what is truly going on. Be your own person and step away from the mainstream.
Both the republican and democratic ads are very similar. They all try to reach out to the non-informed, young voters, and independents. The ads’ messages are usually targeted to the independents to inform them of what both candidates will do if elected. For example, in the McCain ad, the narrator announces it is 2013 and all these problems in the world and in the US has been solved, and then closes with “… and John McCain is president.” That ad just summed up all the problems in the world and in the US and says McCain will fix everything, but they didn’t say it literally. The Obama’s ad with song that goes along with his speech seems to be targeted to the young people. I remember when I first saw that video a couple of months ago, I remember how it motivated me and made me feel even stronger for Obama. One tactic used in the same Obama ad is the use of music artists that young people may like. Not everyone in the ad was a famous artist granted.
I think these ads would all be considered political warfare since they are being used to act the other candidate mostly and trying to change the people’s mind to vote for that candidate.
After watching the ads, my views have not changed. Like in McCain’s first ad on that site, I am standing up for myself and my views.
I mean actually these videos are genuine methods of attack. You need to absolutely put yourself at a distance from you opponent and make him seem lowly. I can understand the videos reaching out for the masses the ones that cant think for themselves. Those who would listen to a tv commercial instead of there hearts. So i personally think there a great way to sway “swing” votes but i believe the core of the voters will be genuinely more educated than those who take the bait.
This genre of campaigning is one that i find, most unnacceptable. Not strictly for the content, but the reaction of the masses. If only we lived in a world, where all of the country’s citizens were well informed and impervious to the preposterous slanderizing in television ads.
Ever since Kennedy-Nixon debate was aired for the first time on television, campaigning as a whole drastically changed. The cream-of-the-crop advertisers have been hired by politicians rather than the typical manufacturing companies. These manipulators are paid to sell a platform, not products. They succesfully do so and convince the American public with fear, not facts.
I would never pay attention to the ad campaigns, and hold strong to my belief that:
There is nothing more valid than the source itself. Hearing candidates speak directly is always much more reliable than listening to media talking-heads.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/mccain_manager_this_election_i.html
For those of you interested in reading, McCain’s campaign manager has legitimately stated that this election is not about the issues. I do not believe that Davis prefers this kind of competition… the outcome is futile. Candidates spend too much time trying to trick the public, instead of working towards a better america.
False advertising during elections in nothing new, but some of the “facts” that both sides use in their ads are just completely unreasonable. Both sides are attempting to sway the less informed voters by twisting the truth or taking a quote out of context. However, McCain’s ads are dirtier and blatantly untrue. The most ridiculous video I’ve seen is the second video on this page where McCain attacks his opponent saying that Obama “one accomplishment” was sex ed for kindergarteners? Who would actually believe that? In truth, Obama was not even a co-sponsor of that bill and it never left the Senate (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html). The bill actually said that sex-ed should be age-appropriate for kids and that it called for “all sex education course materials to include information that would help students recognize, among other activities, inappropriate touching, sexual assault and rape”. In this add, McCain targets ill-informed families who would –in his opinion I guess- not vote for Obama because he doesn’t care about children? I also think that McCain is milking the whole “Obama is a celebrity not a politician” way too much. In Obama Love 10, I felt that McCain was just whining for the entire clip about how much the media loves Obama. Ads such as these want me to NOT vote for McCain. I think that the ads are neither art nor science, just base political warfare. And in all, my political views are the same as before.
1) Each of these candidates is trying to get voter’s attention by speaking about issues that most see most important. Each is trying to appease voters in ways that will save them money. Issues such as the war in Iraq, rising gas prices and the economy are what people my age (17), want to hear about the most. We want to know what will save us the most amount of money considering that is what we care abou the most. They try to push many other serious issues, such as global warming and nuclear weapon proliferation, under the rug. Everyone who is around the age or old enough to vote is very concerned about the state of the economy, especially in the past several weeks. These politicians just want to make us all happy and say they have ways to keep money in our wallets.
2) Concerning the state of these political campaigns, I see some of them more as political warfare. However, when viewing several of these ads, I noticed that more of Barack Obama’s campaigns were trying to discredit McCain. I selected 3 videos of each candidate at random. Only the one about Barack and comprehensive sex education tried to discredit Obama. Every one of the videos that i selected for Obama tried to make their point by repeatedly saying more of the same with McCain. I see Obama as using tv ads in a more negative fashion while McCain uses them to simply address his stance on an issue.
3) No. After seeing these I would still vote McCain
The fact that these professionals would stoop so low as to bash the other is completely beyond me.. To me, they seem like children! This has become (has always been, rather) an increasingly vengeful and resentful competition for the hearts of the American voters, and approaches the situation very interestingly. Instead of merely presenting each of their own strong points and characteristics, they drag the other opponent through the mud, making sure to expose and exaggerate the other partisan’s flaws.
The candidates use rhetoric to appeal to the pathos, logos and ethos of all of their target audiences. This is very important, since each campaign ad captivates a specific demographic, such as hunters, elders, Hispanics, the upper class, etc. They hold their attention by angering, shocking, upsetting or frightening their audience, and once the viewers are vulnerable, the other candidate drives their point home, creating the effect of “He would do that to you if he were President, but I wont” (whether it’s true or not).
Like the other bloggers have mentioned, the sex education video is twisted into a completely irrelevant piece of propaganda that would appeal to parents of schooled children who may be iffy about Obama’s campaign. McCain also uses the lack of support for troops on Obama’s part to appeal to the veteran population and those who support the war. Obama is not spotless, however, when it comes to bending the truth; his advertisements are just as unneccessary.
I would consider the campaign ads to be a mixture of art and political warfare, considering that those who are uninformed of the current issues would be visually stimulated by the ads and feel knowledgable about the election. You don’t have to be a fully informed citizen to comprehend the campaign ads; a vague understanding of the key terms will suffice when it comes to forming opinions based off of the commercials.
The beginning of this article caught my eyes when it said “’recent months have twisted the truth, lied about personal background, taken statements out of context, and clearly sought to manipulate voter sentiments’”. I believe this is very true. As shown in the 2nd video, about Obama, only parts of what he wants was shown. People want to make Obama seem like a bad candidate for wanting to teach kindergarten children about sex. When I heard this, I had to look it up to see if it was true because if this was true and I could vote, he would have lost my vote. I found that Obama wants to teach kindergarten children about what is inappropriate for someone to do to them. There are child molesters in the world, and children at the age of 5 are not sure of what is right or wrong, especially if they have not been taught about it. Obama was meant to look bad to cause him some lost votes for people unlike me that would assume what they see on TV is real without looking deeper into the story.
Attack ads are very emotional because emotions get people to think. With the Obama example, people do not want 5 year olds taught safe sex. Although it seems suspicious that someone would want to do such a thing, people take it for what it says and don’t look into it. I think it is sad and more people should look further into things if they seem a little fishy like Obama and teaching 5 year olds about sex.
After watching several of the videos i noticed that the candidates are hurting themselves while attempting to hurt the other. In some of the ad’s Obama or McCain are explaining their stand on certain issues while in other ad’s they’re saying what the other candidate is doing wrong. In the “2013″ ad, my attention was captured as all of the major issues seemed like they would be bettered by McCain’s actions. While at the same time, in another ad by McCain he pushes the negativity of Obama’s views. In attempt to make Obama look bad, he’s making himself look even worse. Obama seems to do the same thing as well. These attack ad’s are crazy! They play with peoples minds. For those voters who have already chosen the candidate of their choice, they’re the ones that use the attack ad’s to ridicule the other candidate.
In a lot of the ad’s they piece together all different things once said by the candidates and put it way out of context. I don’t understand how people can believe all of the things they see in these ad’s, but that’s how certain voters are captured. Different ad’s are geared towards different types of voters.
In the two videos posted on the blog site, it makes McCain look like he wouldn’t fit in to the presidential seat because he’s too old to understand anything. By saying he “can’t send an email,” people are supposed to think he’s too old for the job. But is that really the main concern of politics today? Ad makers take the smallest details and blow them up to make them bigger than they need to be. By saying that Obama is not moving anywhere with the education topic because he wants to teach sex to kindergarteners is insane. Some people are only watching these ad’s and believing everything they say and don’t bother to actually look into the issue. These attack ad’s grab people in and make them think about the horrific ideas that the other candidate is considering bringing into the presidency.
The sound of the speakers voice, the people used to give the message, the graphics shown and the personal feel through the advertisements is what brings in the viewers. Ad creators think of all of these things when coming up with the next ad to better their candidate. After watching some of these videos my views did not change on who I would consider voting for, but more about how campaigning is used today. Some of the things these commercials say is ridiculous and for peopel to be captured by them is even worse.
I find these adds almost comical because oh how ridiculous they are. Its like the candidates are on a play ground and are calling each other names. I would rather have a candidate tell me what they are going to do rather than badmouth another candidate. I feel like they are just trying to appeal to the people who make rash decisions and may not be fully knowledgeable of everything. They may hear something that may be a lie on television and automatically assume that its true. Using tactics like this is political warfare. Watching these ads did not change my views at all because its obvious that these are just misleading advertisements. I would be a fool to let these lies mislead me.
I think that is most important to remember that this goes accross the board that all politicians do this sort of swiftboating or attack adds. But i sometimes think that people are biased into believeing that one side is somehow more drastic or better than another. there all the same.
I think that the difference between the two candidates videos is who their target audience is. Obama is clearly targetting the youth with his, McCain cant send an email thing, and also the video with all the musicians, who are really the true leaders of Americas youth. Obama deffinetly has the vote of the youth, even though a large number of his supporters are not of voting age. Mccain is the one targetting all those who can vote. He attacks obama’s policies, and how obama changes his opinions to much or something like that, showing that obama is to much change, which is something that a lot of seniors and people pretty much over the age of 50 will agree with. I think that its both art and political warfare, but not scientific. Some of the accusations are just to insane to actually sway the public, like the sexual education video. I know my views haven’t changed because of any of the videos, because if theres one horrible video attacking one candidate, theres surely one thats equal or worse attacking the other. Its basically the two candidates just attacking random issues of the other, which will hopefully affect the morals of the citizens and sway their vote because of that.
i personally feel that both of these political messages are a little over the top but really show the true colors of polotics. Both of the videos have a definite goal, and that is to minimize the votes for the oppsoing candidates in certain economic and social groups. The McCain video against Obama is actually kid of funny, i think that it is obvious that he is targeting the middle class voters while obama is much more focused on the youth of the nation with his video. Throughout the campaign we have seen over and over again that Obama has the vote of the youth but personally i think this video makes me kid of resent obama for putting out such a blatant video to try and gain the vote of the youth. Agreeing with Mad1948 i also believe that Obama is focusing too much on the youth of the nation, and McCain is staying focused on the people that actually have to ability to vote and will make a difference in the outcome of the election.
After reading the article and watching a few of the campaign videos, it is easy to recognize how different both candidates are just by their tactics and strategies. McCain, obviously going for the votes of the devoted republicans, is targeting an older audience. This is easy to see because he speaks of Obama’s inexperience and how his ideas do no match up to the experience of himself. He uses wordplay to twist Obama’s words in ways such as calling Governor Palin a pig while this statement was taken very far out of context. On the other hand, I believe that Obama has a tendency to stick to more factually based information, though in some of them he did go a little over the top. Both candidates have gone to extremes to win this election, and I personally believe that both McCain and Obama have gone too far with the campaign ads that they have supported.
At the moment, I am in support of Obama, and though I don’t see my decision changing within the next month or so, I try to keep an open mind when it comes to McCain. However, after watching a few of these ads, I can see that McCain has become desperate to the point that, in my opinion, his ads are much more vicious than Obama’s ever have been or will be. These ads have shown me how misleading politicians can be, and though I have tried to not let my political views skew my opinion, I find it hard not to keep my support for Obama more so now than ever before.
Why do candidates put up such ridiculous/immature commercials? It’s for people who are either a. loyal democrats or republicans to hate the opposing candidate even more or b. to try and “inform” the people who just dont know anything about the candidates.
Notice how both campaign parties will do anything to steal the others vote. Obama being Dr. No and McCain not knowing how to operate a computer are red flags for desperate measures.
In addition, both candidates are talking about their plans being the better ones for America, whether it be tax cuts or the War in Iraq. However, if you really want to get votes anymore, you need to state the facts. Just by saying that your “plan” includes tax cuts and troop removal doesn’t mean it will happen. The people need to be told exactly how that plan’s going to go in the commercials themselves. This way, the voters can invest a certain amount of trust in a candidate instead of hesitating over false facts and scandals.
The negative commercials coming from each party are strictly warfare. Attacking the opposing candidate only will in theory make you look good and the other person hopeless. However, we live in a time period where we are tired of lies, and we need to know the truth. The truth doesnt mean how many times John McCain voted with Bush, it means how the Obama or McCain plan will bring the right change to America.
By watching the majority of the commercials, my views on who I would vote for certainly do not change. For the most part, I got a good laugh out of some of the ridiculous commercials, and respected the more serious ones.
I think the primary tactics used by each candidate is appeal to issues that will effect specific age groups, as well as trying to convince each group that the other candidate does not care about them. That is to me, dirty politics, but I have gotten use to it because politicians always feel the need to compare themselves to the other, and it is hard not to include bashing in said comparisons. That is why I only view the ads as political warfare. However, I agree with Yanks Barack in that while Obama called McCain out mostly on a political level, McCain hit a new level of personal by suggesting that Obama would be insensitive enough as to poison kids with the wrong ideas about sex. It is clear that Obama is only trying to be honest and also is only trying to appeal to teenagers. In the end, these ads haven’t changed my mind about the candidates viewpoints, but they have helped me to enforce for myself the idea that John McCain is too wrapped up in this political warfare.
After watching several ads, I have found that the presidential candidates target these ads towards people who tend to be less-informed because then it would be easier to sway the sentiments of such voters to the respective candidate’s favor. As said in Darl West’s article, many of these presidential candidates have “twisted the truth, and taken statements out of context.” As said in yanksbarack08 post #1, there have been many lies in ads, especially in McCain where he wrongly accuses Obama of increasing gas prices in “Pump.” I’ve also noticed that many of the ads are about specific issues like the war in Iraq “100 years”, McCain’s maverick-ism “Maverick No More”, the economy “Country I love.” It was well put in post #99, “each of these candidates is trying to get voter’s attention by speaking about issues that most see most important.” However, it does frustrate me that the candidates are trying to persuade voters with untruthful allegations that personally make me feel that they think the American people are ignorant. This brings up my next point about political warfare. Most, if not all the ads were exercising political warfare; telling downright lies and placing things out of context, especially in the “100 years” ad. The ads are negative; rather than showing how their policies are going to change America for the better, the ads are merely trying to make their opponents look bad. And in doing this, they find the need to lie about the opponent’s policies and beliefs. This is why I don’t really pay any attention to the ads because I know that many of them will have misleading information and not the truth. I don’t want to know why McCain is not suitable for president, I want to know why Obama is suitable for president. In other words, I want to see a positive ad in which the candidates can explain how they can change America from the horrific state of affairs we are in right now.
It is a simple fact of elections that a candidate cannot win without negative campaigning, whether it is in the form of attack ads or pamphlets sent to homes. It is, after all, the job of the vice president to be the major mouth piece of the campaign in the attacking of the other side. In my opinion, Joe Biden, for all of his loquaciousness, has done an effective job in distinguishing between Obama and McCain and making the case that the McCain presidency is really just an extension of the Bush terms. Sarah Palin, for all of her “diva” spending and “rogue” comments, has been effective in her critism of Obama and Biden, because honestly she doesn’t really have much material to go with. Certainly her claims that the best of America can be found in rural towns is offensive, it is wrong to divide the country by her standards of patriotism. But John McCain needed to carry the base and he needed to choose a candidate who would say the kind of negative attacks that he couldn’t make.
One of the most interesting manifestations of negative campaigning seems to me to be the robocalls. As of yesterday the McCain campaign even stooped to using Hillary Clinton’s words not against Obama, but in favor of McCain, in order to bolster support. The negative calls that make their way across the country are more examples of how the public is willing to believe almost anything they hear or see, which is part of the reason that negative campaigning is so effective. But that is not to say that it always works. Elizabeth Dole lost her Senatorial reelection race, most likely partly because she put out ads impersonating her opponent, Kay Hagan’s, voice and accused her of being a Godless America. I am glad to see that negative campaigning won’t always be effective.
McCain’s campaign is generally viewed in a more negative light; he approves untruthful attack ads on Obama, portraying him as a sycophant, “Dr. No”, and even unpatriotic. But Obama is approving counter-attacks on McCain also, and they are skewed also to belittle his opponent. His strategy(which is a word that I am sure Obama DOES in fact understand), is to act bigger (and perhaps he is) than McCain. The candidates try to target various groups, for instance ; the youth. McCain chose popular Bruce Springsteen and the Kinks for some of his backround music, though this backfired when they sued him (he didn;t have permission touse the songs). I personally view the campaign ads as .. scientific political warfare. A lot goes into creating them, and they are also artful– but their primary purpose is simply war. My views haven’t changed after watching the votes, but If i was less informed than I think they could have changed.
I think that there are so many ads that each candidate is trying to attract a different demographic. In the first video by Barack Obama, he was trying to attract the younger voters and the middle class. It makes viewers think about how this guy wants to lead this country but is not up to date on the technology that we have, how can McCain run this country with the advanced materials that he would have. Then Obama talks about how the corporations would get a tax break, but the average middle class AMerican would not get anything. This looks to attract the largest class of Americans.
I view these ads as political warfare because the majority of the ads are not about what they will do to fix the country, but what the other candidate will do to harm it.
My views do not change with each ad, because if they did, all of the candidates would be a terrible choice. I would be led to think that the country is going to be ruined if they are elected president.
I think that the title of the column “2008 campaign attack ads hit an all-time low” definitely fit this election. The ads really did hit an all-time low. I understand why candidates put so much money into ad like this, but I think their effectiveness is hindered by the popularity of the election and the strong opinions of the voters.
These ads do not change my opinion, not even the slightest bit. In this election, it seems as though most voters have a candidate preference, and this preference is oftentimes very strong. Immature and sometimes false attack ads are not going to sway hardcore Obama or McCain supporters. The only Americans that these types of ads can sway are those who are either ignornant or unaware. It is ridiculous how easily one candidate’s speech can be twisted and skewed in another’s attack ad, and I think that the general population is able to recognize this.
The primary goal of attack ads such as these are to try and discredit the opposing candidate and make the viewer reconsider who they are going to give their vote to. And while these ads may leave an impression, I think they are more harmful to the candidate than they are helpful. Some of the ads are simply childish. A McCain ad against Obama may make McCain look as badly, if not worse, for producing the ad as the ad makes Obama look. I also believe that these ads undermine the intelligence of Americans. It’s almost like a candidate think that he/she can erase anything a viewer knows about the opposing candidate’s campaign through a commercial that badmouths him/her. Presidential candidates should do themselves and Americans a favor by simply producing commericials that display the good things about their own campaigns rather trash the other.
The target audience is usually the middle class, the average family, the family that both parents have more then one job, and a kid gets shoved into a job the second he’s old enough. Instead of the past where American families used their children for helping on the farm, it’s now turned into helping with the income of money. That’s where the ads take the stab. You don’t see ads talking about the wealthy in California do you? Most Americans are middle class. For example, the attack on McCain in the “Still” ad, obviously the hook line and sinker was the following, “200Billion on tax cuts, but almost nothing for the middle class.” Also in the attack on Obama in the ad “education” places concern in the middle class family about what their children learn outside of their homes while the parents are working at their jobs.
Coming from an artistic background I do think political ads are an art, a Coke ad is art, why should a political ad be any different? They all work the same, figure out your target audience and go in for the kill with something that is liked/disliked by them. It may be an art of manipulation, but it’s still an art. It requires good talent to make ads in general.
Have my views changed after watching these ads? The answer is no, they haven’t and they won’t this entire election, probably due to the fact I’m not old enough to even vote. In addition, ads are designed to be quick and precise. They won’t explain every little detail in a situation ever. Due to that, my views would never change. I need solid fact for that.
These ads were probably aimed at middle range earning traditional families. Obama’s ad showed a traditional denim dad and his family in a supermarket, stating that McCain’s policies favour the rich and do not help the middle class in any way. McCain’s ad stated that Obama’s education policies were wrong and that he wanted to teach little kids about sex. Both these ads were incredibly ridiculous. If anyone’s opinion was changed by an ad that claimed a man who could be president doesn’t know how to send an email or use a computer, or that he would teach little children about sex, it is incredibly sad. It is a frightening idea that someone who may listen to these ads that make incredibly offensive claims while not stating anything about how the candidate would help the problem, could also go out and vote for the next leader of this nation. If i had to classify these ads, i dont think they’re worth the claim of art, science, or political warfare, they are just plain stupid. I would consider a lot of the McCain’s campaign other ads as political warfare. And I would consider a lot of Barack Obama’s ads, especially the online ones, as art. That neither of those are goods things. Why can’t political ads just be the candidates telling us what they’ll do to help the nation? And not just slander the other candidates with crazy accusations, and say the same old politician jibber-jabber. Many Americans are probably tired with wasted air time of useless ads. If you were to base your political views off campaign ads, you’d probably vote Libertarian because it seems like Bob Barr probably knows how to use a computer, doesnt consider himself to be “The One”, or wants to teach sex to your little kids.
I feel that Barak Obama’s ad against McCain is sort of a low blow. First, he singles out McCain’s confession that he doesn’t know how to use a computer. John McCain is 72 years old and although not many 72 year olds know how to use computers, I think that we can all agree that having the skill to use a computer is necessary for the President to have in todays world. While this points out a of negative of McCain, I think that it could have backfired on Obama. If I did not know how to work a computer I would have felt insulted by Obama. Many people are
still capable of being knowledgeable and reliable with out a computer.
For McCain’s ad, I wasn’t really intrigued until the end when it said that Obama wanted to teach kindergardeners sexual education. for Obama to do this would be totally ridiculous and now that he is elected, I really hope that he does not do it. If I were a parent of a young child watching this I would definitely have to question my support for him.
After seeing the attack ad against McCain, my support for Obama was reassured. After seeing the ad that attacked Obama, I was confused to why he would ever think of teaching sex ed to little kids but knowing that Obama won, McCain’s ad was not a big of enough hit to make a difference in the election.
I don’t think many Americans attempt to participate actively in the political process because they allow themselves to be fooled by these fabricated political ads exercised by both McCain and Obama. This is, in part, why the media possesses so much authority in influencing Americans’ opinions- because they have the power to mold and selectively pick statements from either candidate in order to illustrate or emphasize a certain point. For example, in “Dr. No,” the McCain organization simply takes excerpts from Obama’s speeches and manipulates the content to make Obama seem inadequate for presidency.
Another effective tactic that is used by both candidates are the appealing visuals and vibrant colors. Often times, such as in McCain’s “2013″ ad, the candidates will pair themselves with a positive image or future, but won’t explain what he/she intends to do in order to reach this point. As for Obama, I think he has an advantage in these ads because he continually uses the “more of the same” tactic to spark fear in the American people who have lost faith in the current administration.
With the exception of Obama’s “Yes, We Can” ad, I see a majority of the ads as political warfare. To any viewer(including the uninformed ones), I think the ads start to become repititive and shallow after a while. I thought Obama’s “Yes, We Can” ad was more representative of art because it conveys the greatness of Obama’s oration.
Personally, the advertisements have not changed my view of either candidate because I recognize the superficiality in them and the intent to sabotage the opponent. My support for a specific candidate is based on his/her stance on important and prevalent issues, not the shallow and dirty tricks he/she constantly uses to deceive the voters.
Both candidates attempt to depict one another as having no common sense. They both take things out of context and twist them or reiterate them constantly in order to fit their agenda. I think that in both these ads the target was the less informed voter, who perhaps is less focused and knowledgeable on the true political issues that matter. I think that negative campaigning is almost always done in bad taste and does little to actually persuade swing voters, yet it becomes inevitable when the level of competition rises as high as it has. I view the ads as political warfare. At the end of the day we all know these guys are good men who have had successful careers in politics, there is no dispute there, making their efforts seem futile and demeaning not only to each other, but to themselves. These ads do nothing to change my views on the candidates, because it’s the issues and the plans for the country they have that matters. They leave me disappointed with a loss of trust in both of them for having to fall into the classic trap of competition.
The tactics generally fall into two categories: use broad strokes to paint one candidate as good or the other as bad, or use demographic-specific issues to sway targeted groups of voters. More often than not these ads are either irrelevant or irreverent to truth and the realities of politics. For example, McCain’s ad “2013″ illustrates an ideal future and implies that electing McCain is the only way to achieve this future. Huh?? This is some of the most illogical propaganda I’ve ever seen, but for some people voting based on impressions, this is tantalizing to the point where they will not see the inherent fiction. “Dr. No” is another example of an ad based on drastic oversimplification and pure lies, but with a strong element of emotional manipulation that will ensnare a certain group of non-savvy people. “Man in the Arena” is more of the same, this time comparing McCain to, of all people, Winston Churchill and Theodore Roosevelt. People familiar with only the images of these two figures, and not the facts about them, are susceptible to this ad’s argument. As Michelle C said, “Most of the videos are the same arguments recycled ad nauseam…” Obama’s “Country I Love” is what I call a high-road ad. It is positive, largely factual, and inspiring. Regardless, it uses rhetoric and generalization to cast Obama in a more favorable light than all the facts may actually warrant. I think high-road ads are more effective in the long run, because they invoke emotions other than fear, which is a big turn-off for many people. Yet fear tactics are used most frequently in these ads. “Maverick No More”, for example, uses people’s fear of what Bush represents to undermine McCain by his association.
Naturally, the ads are political warfare. They are also highly scientific, using calculated psychological manipulation to their advantage as much as possible. Not very artistic, with the major exception of “Yes We Can”, which I think is beautiful. But art is relative.
After watching the ads, which I saw before and after election day, my views did not change whatsoever.
I was astounded to see that the dirty ads didn’t come on earlier because that usually drives campaigns for the last couple of elections. The ads don’t impact my opinion because I know it is useless propaganda and slander. There isn’t much else some candidates can do aside from smear their opponents name but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t one day like to see a clean election. McCain’s ad on Obama had me saying “WHAT? Huh?” it is pure junk and it’s ludicrous. Seriously they couldn’t come up with anything better or have something else to do with their time? I defiantly agree with a previous blogger saying that the ads have hit an all time low. McCain’s people probably had a hard time coming up with dirt on him since he wrote his own autobiography letting the world know about anything substantial that could be used against him.
Ads are political warfare and I often picture people in a chem lab concocting different mixtures to make the ultimate/ lethal ad. ” 5 drops of college life/ scandals at a young age, 12 ml of family life and his parents…” “BOOM!” a bonafide ad thats nothing but junk.
After watching both campaign ads, I couldn’t believe what I was watching. I thought it was some type of a joke. Most of these ads were vile and very discouraging. It is mind boggling to see each campaign spending millions of dollars to tear each other down. As we found out in this election, negative ads do backfire sometimes (think Elizabeth Dole-Godless America). I understand that each candidate were trying to gain the support of their voters, but bashing the other candidate on issues that are not important is a terrible way to spend millions of dollars. Each candidate was clearly appealing to its base, but they usually loose the independent and the moderates of each party in the process. In future elections, the Federal Electoral Commission (“FEC”) should force political candidates to focus on the important issues instead of frivolous accusations. Voters don’t want to watch meaningless and false ads, they want to hear how each candidates plan to address or solve the many problems the Country is facing. These ads are clearly political warfare designed to demonize the opposing candidate (“Obama is a Muslim” or “Obama is a Communist”). Both parties use negative ads to demonize its opponent, but I think the Republican Party have mastered the art of gutter politics (think Karl Rove). If we are serious about keeping our campaign ads clean and honest, the FEC should appoint a Review Board to review each ad before it airs, if the ad contains any misrepresentation it should be pulled before getting on the radio or television. If a campaign manages to get an outright on the air, the campaign should be fines One Million dollars for each lie it airs. This is the only way we can keep our politics clean our citizens deserve a garbage free election.
These two ads, that depict John McCain as oldfashioned and not up to date with modern technology and the economy and claims Barack Obama wants to promote sex education to kindergarteners, are unfortunatly not even the worst in the bunch. Obama, and McCain alike have put out numourous slanderous ads on public television in this ping-pong media ad war they seem to be having.
Obama has used tactics such as incorporating popular songs (Don’t Know Much) but changing the lyrics to express his view that McCain “doensn’t know much..about the economy.” Obama has also taken small excerpts from speechs McCain has given and used these quotes against him (the 100 years ad where McCain supposedly states he is willing to have our soldiers in Iraq for 100 years). While they do show a clip of McCain saying “100 years,” there is a flaw in this type of ad: you can’t know how much validity there is to it. The people are not shown what preceeded McCain’s remark of “100 years” nor what followed, so we can’t be sure that the message Obama was trying to send out with that ad is an accurate one. For all we know, McCain could have said something afterwards like “but this would not be the best idea.” We wouldn’t know, and therefore all these ads do is stretch the truth to fit whatever needs the author wants them to.
McCain has been acting just as juvenille, if not more, then Obama has in his ad warfare. McCain has put out many ads that show Obama as “just a celebrity.” His ad titled “Obama Love 10″ shows different clips of media representatives all claiming how much they love Obama and how he “sends shivers up their legs.” The ad then asks “are you feeling that shiver up your leg?” hinting that Obama is not all he’s cracked up to be in the media. Another absurd ad was the “Celeb” ad where Obama is compared to no-talent yet well known celebrities like Paris Hilton, and Britney Spears. McCain is basically calling Obama an airheaded celebrity who’s great to look at and hear, but completely unqualified to lead the nation.
Both ads from the democrats and the republicans have their own flairs, but throughtout most of them they retain a central message: Obama’s is that McCain doesn’t know enough about the economy, and McCain’s is that Obama isn’t experienced enough. Obama’s message hits all Americans concered about the economy, but more specifically younger voters who wouldn’t want a president so “old and out of touch.” McCain opposingly targets older viewers who want someone experienced and not younger then them. These ads have gotten a little out of control, and have definatly crossed the line into political warfare.