Home › Blogs › Josh Kahn's blog ›

Obama’s “Karl Rove Style Negative Campaign”

by Josh Kahn | August 21, 2008 at 1:09 PM
in

It’s official, Obama isn’t just running a negative campaign, he's running an all-out smear fest.  Obama’s Ralph Reed ad accusing McCain of being in bed with Jack Abramoff is especially Swift Boat-like.  He's going after McCain’s strength in a very Rovian way, never mind how baseless the attack is.

The Obama campaign is counting on the classic “he started it” argument and a docile media to let him continue his Different Kind of Campaign shtick, and without some very aggressive action from the McCain campaign that’s exactly what will happen.  McCain’s press shop has been admirably swift and aggressive in rebutting Obama’s attacks, but they need to run a paid media play as well.

McCain should run spots during the Democratic National Convention hitting Obama for corruption (see Rezko scandal, Freddoso’s new book) and hypocrisy (for running a “Karl Rove Style Negative Campaign,” literally use Rove’s name, it’ll spark a fantastic press frenzy).  The spots are primarily about disrupting Obama’s convention coverage and would be a perfect hook for the party’s robust Denver strike team.

Check below the jump to see 9 of Obama’s recent negative spots.

 

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

Fortunately His Ads Suck

Submitted by Jeff Roberts on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 13:34.

There's just not a lot to go after McCain on.  The main weakness I saw with McCain was his hawkish "we leave when we win" position on Iraq.  If Iraq was still in chaos, McCain would be finished, but now McCain's stance on Iraq is a real asset.

The issues Obama is bringing up seem so trivial.  Like the fact that a lobbyist who knew another lobbyist that broke the law is now raising money for the McCain campaign.  I can't see a single one of these ads bringing down McCain.  It may take a little luster off of him, but if this is the best the Obama campaign can do, Obama's in trouble.

McCain's negative ads are better at hitting large themes that can do Obama in like his ridiculous celebrity hype, his inexperience and extreme left-wing positions.   I think McCain should also hit Obama on corruption and character issues like Obama is attempting to do with McCain, like the Rezko house deal and the pork barrel projects he broght to the hospital his wife "works/lobbies" for. 

I also wouldn't let the Pastor Wright issue go either.  Bring up the 20 years Obama been a member at Trinity, how he's given $50,000 to this hateful church, how Wright baptized his children and married them.    A nice ad of Pastor Wright spewing a hateful sermon, followed by the footage of Obama saying he could never disown Wright anymore than he could disown his grandma or the black community.  Obama will play the race card, but let him, it will only create more backlash against him.

Make no mistake, the gloves are off, McCain just doesn't have the many vulnerabilities that Obama does.  McCain's attacks have clearly hurt Obama, just look at all the recent polls. 

McCain should continue to hit at Obama until the election.  Obama is certainly not going to pull any punches.

 

Abramoff, really?

Submitted by dinafraioli on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 13:56.

Two Words: Tony Rezco.

I recognize how the Yucca attack ad plays out in a swing state such as Nevada, but think it was a stupid play by Team Obama to bring up Abramoff. 

Knee 'em in the balls while kissing 'em on the cheek.

Submitted by carltonyates on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 13:59.

It's the Chicago Way. Please no whining or crying foul. This ain't beanbag. Besides, donors have been waiting for the real battle to get engaged. Defining McCain is the path to victory.

The St. Valentine Day's massacre was also "the Chicago way"

Submitted by Ironman on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 18:52.

and I'm sure the Obama campaign will make sure not a single deceased Democrat has his right to vote denied.

Thanks for providing our justification for election day ballot security, since you obviously have no problem with stuffed ballot boxes.

3rd Ad

Submitted by AeroSpear on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 15:51.

In the third ad, they claim under McCain, "100 million Americans won't get any tax relief" while Obama will "cut taxes for middle class families 3 times as much as John McCain."

So which is it?  He doesn't provide any relief, or he DOES provide some just not the same way as Obama.

In math class, 3 X 0 = 0.  So, he's promising the same thing just using different wording (fuzzy logic). 

Abramoff scandal is way too complicated for me to argue

Submitted by mnmod on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 17:49.

specific details, but from what I recall  Ralph Reed appeared to be in pretty deep. Didn't see any explanaion in Mccains responce  why investigation wasn't pursued.  Raising questions about ties to lobbyists seems like fair play to me.  I guess voters will just have to decide which candidates associations concern them.

McCain was the only reason Abramoff was investagated

Submitted by Josh Kahn on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 18:15.

McCain was the only reason Abramoff was even investigated in the first place.  Ever ask why a lobbying investagation played out in the Indian Affairs Committee? That was deeply weird, and it happened because McCain happened to chair the committee - he had to really stretch its jurisdiction of to make the investigation work at all.  Reed didn't have enough to do with Native Americans  (therefore the committee's jurisdiction) to go after.  Bottom line, Abramoff would still be a prominent DC powerbroker and the whole investigation never would have happened without McCain. To imply that he's in bed with the corrupt DC lobbyists whose corruption he exposed (which is the ad's aim and effect) is absurd. 

That said, one of the oldest and most effective propaganda techniques is to say the opposite of the truth and muddy the waters as a result.  That's what this ad does, and it works.

 

 

thanks for the reply

Submitted by mnmod on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 20:39.

it supports my current view of Mccain as former Maverick who sold out to get the GOP nomination. I typically rely on progressive blogs for analysis and appreciate another thoughtful perspective.

Its all too complicated but still looks suspect to me, especailly when considering info in this NYT story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/us/politics/14mccain.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin