You Call That Negative?
Oh the humanity! That many pundits got their undies in a bunch over McCains sudden turn to negativity is hilarious. First, there's the "smear" ad using images of Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton to, I think honestly and fairly, poke fun at Obama's hypercelebritization. Like them, right now he is more famous for being famous than for anything else, period. Hey, in an era where American Idol participants routinely get more votes than the total election day turnout it's certainly open to commentary. A subtle and clever admonishment that this really is more than a popularity contest is certainly among the mildest "negative" campaign ads I've ever seen.
There is some truth to the adage that the truth hurts so maybe that's why they're crying foul. But even so, why and how exactly is that a smear? I'll grant negative, but a smear? No, a smear is like in 2000 when the Dems promised southern voters that more black churches would burn if Bush won - - that's a smear.
Speaking of race, as I do hear quite often being a resident of the longest standing integrated community in Wisconsin, how about that smooth talker dealing the race card off the bottom of the deck? In Missouri Obama warned his audience that McCain and Republicans would try to scare voters by reminding them he has a funny sounding name and "doesn't look like the other Presidents on dollar bills".
Seriously, you'd have to have a single digit IQ to understand that reference as anything other than racial, but sure enough, Obama's campaign manager, David the Weasel Axelrod, actually tried to explain that as "just Obama's way of explaining how he wasn't just another typical politician." No kidding, I saw the video, and with a straight face no less. Which begs the eternal question; which is bigger, their capacity to insult our intelligence or our tolerance for taking it?
If you ask me, for an all out open contest with the stakes as high as they've ever been, and partisanship as stark as ever, this campaign is pretty tame, so far. I would go so far as to argue the general hasn't even gotten as negative as did the Democrat primary. Not complaining, just saying enjoy it while it's relatively clean. If the 9 point loss in Obama's numbers is no accident we have witnessed just how effective ridicule can be when adroitly applied. And when they come to that conclusion, trust me, the shit is gonna start flying both ways in increasing measure and velocity.
In the week following an international tour with Presidential-looking images galore and press coverage just short of rhapsodic, one would think "The One" would be 20 points ahead. What gives? I'd postulate it's because the alternative media is having none of the spoon fed drivel served up by the lamestream media and is exposing Obama for what he is, as they say in Texas, "all hat and no cattle" or, as my mother used to say "a little too big for his britches" or an empty suit with a resume that could fit on a business card.
If the best rebuttal he's got is to say I only say that because of how he looks, he's just proving the point, or to further torture the haberdashery metaphor, this would be emperor has neither an empty suit, britches, nor even a hat...
There is some truth to the adage that the truth hurts so maybe that's why they're crying foul. But even so, why and how exactly is that a smear? I'll grant negative, but a smear? No, a smear is like in 2000 when the Dems promised southern voters that more black churches would burn if Bush won - - that's a smear.
Speaking of race, as I do hear quite often being a resident of the longest standing integrated community in Wisconsin, how about that smooth talker dealing the race card off the bottom of the deck? In Missouri Obama warned his audience that McCain and Republicans would try to scare voters by reminding them he has a funny sounding name and "doesn't look like the other Presidents on dollar bills".
Seriously, you'd have to have a single digit IQ to understand that reference as anything other than racial, but sure enough, Obama's campaign manager, David the Weasel Axelrod, actually tried to explain that as "just Obama's way of explaining how he wasn't just another typical politician." No kidding, I saw the video, and with a straight face no less. Which begs the eternal question; which is bigger, their capacity to insult our intelligence or our tolerance for taking it?
If you ask me, for an all out open contest with the stakes as high as they've ever been, and partisanship as stark as ever, this campaign is pretty tame, so far. I would go so far as to argue the general hasn't even gotten as negative as did the Democrat primary. Not complaining, just saying enjoy it while it's relatively clean. If the 9 point loss in Obama's numbers is no accident we have witnessed just how effective ridicule can be when adroitly applied. And when they come to that conclusion, trust me, the shit is gonna start flying both ways in increasing measure and velocity.
In the week following an international tour with Presidential-looking images galore and press coverage just short of rhapsodic, one would think "The One" would be 20 points ahead. What gives? I'd postulate it's because the alternative media is having none of the spoon fed drivel served up by the lamestream media and is exposing Obama for what he is, as they say in Texas, "all hat and no cattle" or, as my mother used to say "a little too big for his britches" or an empty suit with a resume that could fit on a business card.
If the best rebuttal he's got is to say I only say that because of how he looks, he's just proving the point, or to further torture the haberdashery metaphor, this would be emperor has neither an empty suit, britches, nor even a hat...
Comments