Campaign Advertisements: Now This is Just Getting Silly!

It started way back in the primaries...who can forget Hillary Clinton's 3 AM ad accusing Barack Obama of being soft on National Security. Way to chalk up points for the other team, Hillary. Then again, that is not so surprising considering the leaked Clinton internal campaign strategy memos showing that she intentionally sought to portray Obama as a foreigner and bring up Rev. Wright as often as possible.

Then we moved on to the General Election and the McCain ad calling Obama a celebrity, putting him next to images of Brittey Spears and Paris Hilton.

Awesome come back there, John. "Don't vote for Obama, he is popular in Europe. He is like a rock star. I may be boring and can't inspire a single person with my speeches, but I'm no celebrity! I'ma leader." Okay, whatever.

But now there's this: Obama's ad flipping the issue, calling McCAIN the celebrity.

Now...this ad is very well put together. It is funny and extremely clever. It's flashy. It implies that McCain would be another four years of Bush. It turns the tables back on McCain on the whole celebrity issue. And, in reality, it is pretty dishonest.

I do agree, McCain would be (in a lot of instances) more of the same when it comes to Bush policy, and we certainly cannot afford another four years of a Republican in power (especially with two looming Supreme Court vacancies), BUT...to use images of McCain on various talk shows to imply that he is the one that is in fact the celebrity is pretty misleading. I mean, after all, hasn't Barack Obama appeared on late night and talk show programs? Yup, he sure has:
The Colbert Report (2008)
The Daily Show (2005, 2007, and 2008)
The Ellen DeGeneres Show (2008)
Late Night with Conan O’Brien (2006 and 2008)
Late Show with David Letterman (2004, 2007, and twice in 2008)
Jimmy Kimmel Live (2008)
The Oprah Winfrey Show (2006 and 2006)
Real Time with Bill Maher (2005)
Saturday Night Live (2007)
The Today Show (2007 and 2008)
The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (2006)
Tavis Smiley (2004 , 2005, 2006, and 2008)
WWE Monday Night Raw (2008)


Well, there you have it. They must BOTH be celebrities. They are both running for President and are both super famous. Obama is just more captivating. It is time for the Obama team to go a new angle, and get back to the policy attacks (which the ad nicely contains in the middle there...they just simply get lost with the celebrity message!)


Either way, at least we don't have any commercials with fun images like this from the Olympics:

Way to hold the flag the proper way King George II.

The Myth of the Liberal Media: Obama Edition

No matter where you turn these days, someone is talking about how Barack Obama is the media darling. How he gets all of the coverage and is being treated like the President when the election hasn’t even occurred yet. This notion that Obama gets all the media attention was a favorite talking point of Hillary Rodham Clinton when she was refusing to drop out of the race (never mind the fact that the Media kept her in it but talking about how it was a race down to the wire even when it was all but impossible for her to get the nomination). Unsurprisingly, it seems as if John McCain’s team has taken up the Clinton motto and now cries foul at the coverage that Obama is getting.

The Liberal Media scare tactic has been one the right has been using for years. And yet, the Neoconservative mouthpiece himself, Bill Kristol, has declared ”The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.” So what can we make of the latest effort by the right to proclaim a liberal media bias in its coverage of Obama? Pure lies and spin (what Fox News does best)!

Last week, the Center for Media and Public Affairs released a study showing that, in fact, the major news networks have been harder on Barack Obama than they have on John McCain. As the press release on the study declares:

These results are from the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) 2008 Election News Watch Project. They are based on a scientific content analysis of 249 election news stories (7 hours 38 minutes of airtime) that aired on ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and Fox Special Report (first half hour) from June 8, 2008 to July 21, 2008. Previously we analyzed 2144 stories (43 hrs 30 min airtime) during the primary campaign from December 16, 2007 through June 7, 2008. We report on all on-air evaluations of the candidates by sources and reporters, after excluding comments by the campaigns about each other.

The study showed that of all on-air coverage of Barack Obama since the end of the primaries, seventy-two percent (72%) of it was negative. During that same time, however, John McCain has only received fifty-seven percent (57%) negative coverage. This is a huge turnaround from the primaries where the media coverage of Barack Obama was only thirty-eight percent (38%) negative (and although the Clinton coverage was a balanced 50/50 for the most part, much of the so-called negative coverage she received had to do with the performance of Mr. Clinton, who received a whopping seventy-six percent (76%) amount of negative coverage).

What the Right would like you to believe is that more coverage in terms of time spent discussing a candidate will show a liberal bias. Afterall, since June 8th,Obama has been the subject of 120 stories on the big three’s evening news programs, while McCain has only been the subject of 80. Hazzah! The media must favor Obama then…but look at the numbers, it doesn’t work that way. If Obama is receiving one and a half times the coverage of McCain, and yet 72% of that coverage is negative, it would follow that OBAMA IS RECEIVING BY FAR MORE NEGATIVE COVERAGE. That is roughly 86 negative stories on Obama, more than the McCain’s total number of stories. Delve further into the numbers and you see that McCain had roughly 45 positive stories to Obama’s 34. Needless to say, more coverage doesn’t necessarily mean a bias in any candidate’s favor.

If the numbers aren’t enough for you, let’s look at an anecdote. After goading Obama to travel abroad, the McCain team began attacking the presumptive Democrat nominee for leaving the country during campaign season. Then they released this ad claiming that Obama only gives a damn about the troops when the media is around:


If the media had some sort of pro-Obama slant, they certainly would have taken McCain to task for this commercial. Let’s forget for a second most of the false claims in the ad, like the notion that he is against troop funding, and focus upon the idea that the troops are merely a photo op for Obama. The claim in the commercial is that because Obama had time to go shoot hoops for the troops in front of the cameras, but canceled his visit to an Army base in Germany, that he is not for our troops. However, as a Pentagon spokesperson has clarified, officials at the Pentagon told the Obama camp after Obama was already en route that he could not visit the Army base with campaign staff in tow, stating that “[w]e informed the Obama staff that he was more than welcome to visit as Senator Obama, with Senate staff. However, he could not conduct the visit with campaign staff.” Thus, Obama had no choice but to cancel that specific visit.

Upon this realization one might think the so-called Liberal Media would go after McCain for such tactics. While the networks did comment upon the fact that Obama responded to McCain’s attempt to paint him negatively, they all (initially) failed to mention that the ad was in fact FALSE. MSNBC did eventually note that the ad was false, but the networks in general did not jump on McCain the way they would any other candidate who makes such a false statement.

So, the next time someone tells you there is a liberal bias in the media, tell them to get their facts checked. It shouldn’t take astute observations by the likes of Jon Stewart for people to start getting that the media goes after Obama. Then again, he does it better than anyone else:

Keith Olbermann, the End of the Nomination Process, and Fuck the South

So, for those of you who do not follow Keith Olbermann since his ESPN days, he has always been a pretty awesome pundit, whether it is sports or politics. Here is something from his ESPN days...


He has a segment on his current political show on MSNBC where he makes a "special comment" on different situations. The most intense one I have seen yet came on Hillary's assassination remarks. Her remarks really bothered me because it is entirely possible that the Clintons are not above inciting racial hatred to have Obama eliminated and have her take office. They have shown who they truly are over the last few months. At worst, her comments were extremely irresponsible. Here is what Olbermann had to say:

I think his outrage sums it up perfectly. I have come to respect Keith Olbermann so much more over the last few years and I am glad he is sdoing what he does!

On another nother, looks like tonight is the end for Hillary Clinton. SHe is now maneuvering for VP. Let's hope this doesn't happen. I don't think I can vote for Obama if she is on the ticket. Might as well just pick Cheney to be his VP.

And finally, i wanted to remind everyone of this blog that was posted at fuckthesouth.com the day after the last Presidential election. I didn't write it (I probably would have worded it much differently), but much of what it says has resonated with me.

November 3, 2004

Fuck the South. Fuck 'em. We should have let them go when they wanted to leave. But no, we had to kill half a million people so they'd stay part of our special Union. Fighting for the right to keep slaves - yeah, those are states we want to keep.

And now what do we get? We're the fucking Arrogant Northeast Liberal Elite? How about this for arrogant: the South is the Real America? The Authentic America. Really?

Cause we fucking founded this country, assholes. Those Founding Fathers you keep going on and on about? All that bullshit about what you think they meant by the Second Amendment giving you the right to keep your assault weapons in the glove compartment because you didn't bother to read the first half of the fucking sentence? Who do you think those wig-wearing lacy-shirt sporting revolutionaries were? They were fucking blue-staters, dickhead. Boston? Philadelphia? New York? Hello? Think there might be a reason all the fucking monuments are up here in our backyard?

No, No. Get the fuck out. We're not letting you visit the Liberty Bell and fucking Plymouth Rock anymore until you get over your real American selves and start respecting those other nine amendments. Who do you think those fucking stripes on the flag are for? Nine are for fucking blue states. And it would be 10 if those Vermonters had gotten their fucking Subarus together and broken off from New York a little earlier. Get it? We started this shit, so don't get all uppity about how real you are you Johnny-come-lately "Oooooh I've been a state for almost a hundred years" dickheads. Fuck off.

Arrogant? You wanna talk about us Northeasterners being fucking arrogant? What's more American than arrogance? Hmmm? Maybe horsies? I don't think so. Arrogance is the fucking cornerstone of what it means to be American. And I wouldn't be so fucking arrogant if I wasn't paying for your fucking bridges, bitch.

All those Federal taxes you love to hate? It all comes from us and goes to you, so shut up and enjoy your fucking Tennessee Valley Authority electricity and your fancy highways that we paid for. And the next time Florida gets hit by a hurricane you can come crying to us if you want to, but you're the ones who built on a fucking swamp. "Let the Spanish keep it, it’s a shithole," we said, but you had to have your fucking orange juice.

The next dickwad who says, "It’s your money, not the government's money" is gonna get their ass kicked. Nine of the ten states that get the most federal fucking dollars and pay the least... can you guess? Go on, guess. That’s right, motherfucker, they're red states. And eight of the ten states that receive the least and pay the most? It’s too easy, asshole, they’re blue states. It’s not your money, assholes, it’s fucking our money. What was that Real American Value you were spouting a minute ago? Self reliance? Try this for self reliance: buy your own fucking stop signs, assholes.

Let’s talk about those values for a fucking minute. You and your Southern values can bite my ass because the blue states got the values over you fucking Real Americans every day of the goddamn week. Which state do you think has the lowest divorce rate you marriage-hyping dickwads? Well? Can you guess? It’s fucking Massachusetts, the fucking center of the gay marriage universe. Yes, that’s right, the state you love to tie around the neck of anyone to the left of Strom Thurmond has the lowest divorce rate in the fucking nation. Think that’s just some aberration? How about this: 9 of the 10 lowest divorce rates are fucking blue states, asshole, and most are in the Northeast, where our values suck so bad. And where are the highest divorce rates? Care to fucking guess? 10 of the top 10 are fucking red-ass we're-so-fucking-moral states. And while Nevada is the worst, the Bible Belt is doing its fucking part.

But two guys making out is going to fucking ruin marriage for you? Yeah? Seems like you're ruining it pretty well on your own, you little bastards. Oh, but that's ok because you go to church, right? I mean you do, right? Cause we fucking get to hear about it every goddamn year at election time. Yes, we're fascinated by how you get up every Sunday morning and sing, and then you're fucking towers of moral superiority. Yeah, that's a workable formula. Maybe us fucking Northerners don't talk about religion as much as you because we're not so busy sinning, hmmm? Ever think of that, you self-righteous assholes? No, you're too busy erecting giant stone tablets of the Ten Commandments in buildings paid for by the fucking Northeast Liberal Elite. And who has the highest murder rates in the nation? It ain't us up here in the North, assholes.

Well this gravy train is fucking over. Take your liberal-bashing, federal-tax-leaching, confederate-flag-waving, holier-than-thou, hypocritical bullshit and shove it up your ass.

And no, you can't have your fucking convention in New York next time. Fuck off.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the Media!

I have talked to a lot of people about Rev. Wright, but I think it is time to expand the dialog. The media, who has been against Obama from the beginning (don't believe the Clinton spin), has continuously used the spectre of Jeremiah Wright to attack Obama and scare white people away from voting for him. But, let me ask you...how many people have actually heard his comments in context?

Here is the sermon it its entirety following 9/11:


Now, nothing he says in there seems to outrageous to me. Sure, take a few soundbites out of context and he sounds crazy...but listen to the ENTIRE sermon and NO!!! This man is giving a sermon that asks us rethink or own lives in light of 9/11 and to engage in self-examination and your relationship with God. Sounds a LOT more reasonable than some of the stuff I hear come out of right wing pastor mouth. And don't even get me started on Hillary's pastorate (There is a book coming out entitled The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power which talks about her pastorate--in the general sense, not having to do with Hillary in any way--and how it is broken into cells and that "[a]t the heart of the Family's American branch is a collection of powerful right-wing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe, and Rick Santorum."*)

In short, the Media and the Right Wing (and Hillary Clinton, or is that redundant?) is using Rev. Wright as a means to taint Obama's run. Those of you who have talked to me about Obama know that 1) I caucused for him, 2) I do have reservations about Obama, and 3) I truly wish a more liberal candidate could win because Obama is rather centrist despite what the media tries to paint him as...however, I think he is our only chance to beat McCain in November. Or at least I though that...thanks to Hillary and her campaign, that chance may be evaporating. She coninues her scorched earth tactics while people within her campaign admited months ago that she had less than a 10% chance of winning. Some within the campaign said 5%. Now, with more primaries gone by, and Clinton only having gained (literally) a few delegates, that chance is almost nil. Yet she continues on wasting money and hurting the Party. I think maybe it is time that HER chickens come home to roost and she is booted from the party! What do you say Howard?

Election 2008 Update: Political Advertising & NAFTA (Shame on Obama?)

Continuing what was a theme set by my last blog, I would like to comment on another political ad that has just been released by Hillary Clinton. Just in time for the primaries on Tuesday, the HRC campaign released this misleading ad:

Wow, way to take the comments out of context, Hillary. That's really not h ard to do and we could easily do it to you. However, let's look at his whole statement at the debate that took place last week and see what was really being said:

Clinton: I also have heard Senator Obama refer continually to Afghanistan, and he references being on the Foreign Relations Committee...He chairs the Subcommittee on Europe. It has jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He’s held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan.

Obama: I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So, it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan. I have been very clear in talking to the American people about what I would do with respect to Afghanistan. I think we have to have more troops there to bolster the NATO effort. I think we have to show that we are not maintaining permanent bases in Iraq because Secretary Gates, our current defense secretary, indicated that we are getting resistance from our allies to put more troops into Afghanistan because they continue to believe that we made a blunder in Iraq.

So the HRC campaign has attacked him repeatedly about this after the debate, now charging that he is soft on security because they haven't had hearings. Last time I checked, Afghanistan wasn't in Europe, but I could be wrong. Now, that doesn't preclude such hearings from taking place, since NATO is heavily involved in the region, but you'd think that maybe hearings would come from the subcommittee on the Middle East?

So, yes, what she says is true...but the charge is somewhat unfair if you believe Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN). As noted on politifact.com, Sen. Lugar's camp defended Obama.

But Clinton’s claim, while technically true, is unfair, said Andrew J. Fischer, a spokesman for Republican Sen. Richard Lugar. Lugar now serves as a minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee, but he was the chair, from 2003 to 2006, when Republicans controlled the Senate. He is the ranking Republican on the committee.

Fischer, who is a minority staff member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said something as major as NATO’s role in Afghanistan would typically be held before the full Foreign Relations Committee, rather than Obama’s European subcommittee.

So not only is her charge somewhat dishonest, it seems as if the logic from the ad could easily be turned against her..."Hey Hillary...are you too busy to release your taxes? Yes, you are?"


And, to remind you all that I am a Kucinich supporter who has simply embraced Obama, I am exrtemely disheartened by recently breaking news on Obama and NAFTA, if it is in fact true. According to CTV.ca, a candian tv channel:

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

Here is the story in question...


To me, that's a pretty damning report, and could lead us to my greatest fear in this campaign...that in supporting a candidate that is more centrist than I would like, we will end up with a candidate who isn't really a CHANGE. Now, the Canadian government is emphatically denying that this ever occurred. But, as The Nation reminds us when you read their article on the topic, "CTV has a very credible source -- a a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy -- who has provided the network with details of the call and a timeline." SO...who to believe? I really don't know. All I can do is hope it is not true.

Hillary Clinton has gone TOO FAR!

So, the new Hillary Clinton ad is Alarming. And it is meant to be.


Seem familiar? Yeah, it is the same kind of scare tacics LBJ used in the 60s!

And it is just disgusting. I expect such dirty tacticts from republicans, but thus far McCain has actually refrained from it. Leave it to Hillary play this card.

Next thing you know this will be her campaign theme song:

AtomFilms.com: Funny Videos | Funny Cartoons | Comedy Central

UPDATE:
Turns out a McCain Supporter made the same argument for McCain over a month ago. Language is too similar for it to be using a common theme (a scene a faire if you will).

I'm No Politico, But It Is Time to Get Political...

Sometimes I love the fact that I have a Tivo. It lets me record television programs without actually having to watch the television. That means I can get my dose of The Daily Show (or, as it is known until the writers strike ends...A Daily Show), and weekly doses of Family Guy, The Simpsons, and maybe a little It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. if you don't know IASIP, get on the bandwagon people...it is simply amazing. check it:

So, I get a call today that says Hillary Clinton cried again. Yes, really, it worked so well before, that she DID IT AGAIN. However, this time Fox News thought it was sincere. Why? Well maybe it is because Ann Coulter has said she will support Clinton if McCain gets the nomination. Yes, she really said that HILLARY CLINTON IS MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN MCCAIN!


Then, as I sat at home tonight watching the Simpsons on the Tivo, more Clinton talk (about Bill, but Clinton nonetheless). This amazing scene came on. Take note that this is a flashback episode to the 90s, which then uses prescient comments to bash Bush...