For some reason, just about everyone (see this excellent Joe Gandelman piece) seems to be saying that Clinton won with “negative advertising.” I’m not seeing it. In the world of negative political advertisements, putting up an ad saying “your kids will be safer if I’m in charge” has got to be one of the most un-negative negative messages I’ve ever seen. No accusations of dishonesty or malfeasance. No mention of the opponent at all. Just a message that experience as a world leader matters.
Honestly, in my 30+ years of observing politics, I have a hard time imagining a negative message that is less negative than that one. Let’s look at the horrible evil nasty attack-dog ad that has voters quivering like scared rabbits again:
I’m sorry, what?
I also note that conventional wisdom says that Democrats will be weakened this fall by having a hard fight for their nomination. I don’t see that either. First off, because the fight hasn’t been all that negative, and second, because it gets people focused on the two Democratic rivals and has them all but ignoring the presumptive Republican nominee. Yes, he gets time to relax a little, but he also lacks a clear opponent to attack and will have trouble getting much press attention while all eyes are on the Democrats.
Frankly, even though I like Senator McCain very much, I think he’s likely to lose in November, and the fight over the Democratic nomination doesn’t help him near as much as some observers seem to think.
{ 13 comments }
Man WordPress really needs icons to do formatting. I’m getting tired of hardcoding the formatting for these comments…
My biggest concern about McCain is what happened to Bob Dole in ’96. Dole was a war hero too, and it didn’t much help his campaign. Plus the way he spoke about himself using the 3rd person was freakin’ annoying.
Scott Kirwin’s last blog post..Countering the Worshippers of Death
Dean,
You have a tendency to throw out these spectacularly exagerrated statements, like, oh…
>> Honestly, in my 30+ years of observing politics, I have a hard time imagining a negative message that is less negative than that one.
Your imagination needs a little work.
“If Mr. Smoothy gets the job, God Forbid, your children will be in danger.” is plenty negative.
Snippet: You have a tendency to throw out spectacularly silly responses to perfectly reasonable statements. Your characterization of the ad is ridiculous. Yes, the ad has a negative spin. But an awfully minor one. If Obama can’t take a hit like that without collapsing like a house of cards, he’s made out of paper.
“Your children will be safer with me in charge” is a perfectly fine message, and you have to work hard to turn it into a vicious attack.
I don’t see Hillary’s ad as negative either. And I also think that Senator McCain, as much as I like him, is most likely going to lose. Just one of those irrational gut feelings.
“Your children will be safer with me in charge†is a perfectly fine message, and you have to work hard to turn it into a vicious attack.
Oh, how about…
“Barack Obama is a danger to your children. You’re adorable, vulnerable children”
That wasn’t so hard.
What makes rich, though is that when (not if) Hillary finds herself on the receiving end of such an attack, she will not hesitate for one second to cry, “fear mongering!”
I have seen nothing in 30 + years of watching politics to convince me that disagreement with me on this matter could possibly be attributable to anything other than a psychotic disconnect from reality.
What make
I don’t see it as a negative ad. I see it as a foolish ad, though, since Hillary doesn’t have the experience to back up the claim, and the polls on the ad seem to say that most people feel the same way.
Phelps’s last blog post..Gary Gygax (1938 – 2008)
No, Snippet, it wasn’t so hard at all. Just hysterical. You can hate Hillary all you want, but don’t expect the rest of us to see it your way. My psychotic break with reality notwithstanding. ;-)
Dean Esmay’s last blog post..McCain’s Victory Speech
Dean,
That was the most ridicoulous thing anyone has ever said in the entire history of the universe.
Oh yeah?!? Well you’re a stupid head!
Obama-hater!
Seriously, what would a negative ad that’s less negative than this look like? No accusations of sleaze or corruption or dishonesty, and no playing of the race or sex cards, which are the classic negative ads we see every season. No pictures of Obama looking evil, in fact the opponent is not even mentioned. Just, “who do you want to be there in a crisis?” and a warm picture of Hillary.
I’m really serious: tell me what a less negative negative ad would look like. I’m really having a hard time imagining it.
Pretty much ninety nine percent of the ads are less negative than that one.
Any add that explains what Hillary would do to keep the country safe could be less “negative.”
Of course, ANY add implies that you are better qualified than your opponent. That’s built in. However, saying, “Barack (ahem) Hussein (ahem) Obama and I disagree on how best to meet the threats George Bush has created. Here’s what I think we should do, and here is why I think his approach will be less effective than the one my pollsters told me to pretend I believe in today…” would be in a more gracious spirit than, “Vote for him and the kid gets it.”
So much of this is T-O-N-E. And also presentation, insinuation, all that good stuff.
By the way, I have NO problem with negative ads. What I have not yet learned how to stomach, is the rank, butt-naked hypocrisy of the Clintons using tactics they go ballistic about when used against them.
Watching Hillary Clinton make the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT against Obama that the VRWC uses to against democrats is, even by the standards of contemporary American politics – richer than chocolate covered pecan pie dipped in mayonaise and deep fried in pig fat.
You’re reading an incredible amount into an ad that says you’ll be safer with Hillary answering the phone, dude.
Comments on this entry are closed.