Are the Republican attack ads leaving a mark?

[interesteddad]

<p>Obama obviously sent the wrong oppo research for the WashPost “journalists” to transcribe.</p>

[cartera45]

<p>Hindoo - the Gergen quote sums it up nicely. Those ads show a real understanding of the triggers to a lot of fears about Obama.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>“And to suggest that the tongue-in-cheek ads released by the McCain campaign contain some kind of subliminal messages is just such a complete stretch that it would be laughable if it were not so pathetic.”</p>

<p>Riiiight. Like the campaign’s claim that the “celebrity” ad was not intended to be insulting. Suuuure. I will say that they have been more subtle than the “Call me, Harold” ad against Harold Ford, but we’ve still got a ways to go.</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>The Republicans are holding back the heavy artillery until after the conventions. There is concern that, if they destroy Obama too soon, the Democrats might nominate the candidate they do NOT want to run against.</p>

[epistrophy]

<p>

The Republicans are holding back the heavy artillery until after the conventions. There is concern that, if they destroy Obama too soon, the Democrats might nominate the candidate they do NOT want to run against.

</p>

<p>Idad:</p>

<p>As I read today in Political Zombie, the plot is even thicker than what you describe. </p>

<p>It’s been reported, by reliable but at present anonymous sources, that operatives at the highest levels of the Obama campaign have secretly been funneling millions - yes, millions - of dollars to operatives at the highest levels of the McCain campaign in hush money, in order to ensure that they hold off on the aforesaid “heavy artillery” until after Obama (AKA [among certain political sophisticates] Barack Hussein Obama or “the One” [often highlighted in blue by the ultra-sophisticated]) has the nomination in hand. </p>

<p>Meanwhile, a certain candidate whom the Republicans “do NOT want to run against” has been trying to get her (yes, you read that right - “her”) friends over at the National Enquirer to run with this, but so far, at least, they’re staying on the sidelines. </p>

<p>Stay tuned for further developments!!!</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>

As far as these trivial, airhead ads convincing the American voter to move over to McCain in recent polling, it really indicates that he thinks they are dumb. These voters deserve McCain as POTUS.

This just in, voters are dumb. If Obama doesn’t court them, he will lose. In fact, Obama is courting these dumb voters.</p>

<p>

“There has been a very intentional effort to paint him as somebody outside the mainstream, other, ‘he’s not one of us,’” said Gergen. “I think the McCain campaign has been scrupulous about not directly saying it, but it’s the subtext of this campaign. Everybody knows that. There are certain kinds of signals. As a native of the south, I can tell you, when you see this Charlton Heston ad, ‘The One,’ that’s code for, ‘he’s uppity, he ought to stay in his place.’ Everybody gets that who is from a southern background. We all understand that. When McCain comes out and starts talking about affirmative action, ‘I’m against quotas,’ we get what that’s about.”

So McCain is running a smart campaign? Is that the point of this statement?</p>

<p>

Mike Murphy decribes ad comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton as “clumsy, juvenile, and a mistake.”
“I think it was a dumb ad,” said Murphy, during an appearance on Meet The Press. “Not because it asked the question, ‘is Barack Obama ready for the job?’ That’s a very legitimate criticism,…And when if you get off into the small juvenile stuff about Britney Spears, I think you distract from that.”

I don’t understand that. Seems like the polls have tightened up considerably. How could it possibly be a mistake if the goal is to win?</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>Are you being sarcastic? Seems like Obama should be taking the McCain threat seriously.</p>

[Jarn]

<p>

Curious that there is no front page story about the two Palesitinian brothers in the Gaza Strip listed as donors on Obama’s campaign finance reports.

That’s because it’s a complete non-issue… the donations that were received by them were returned on Dec. 6 (yes, 8 months ago). The only error there was forgetting to report to the FEC that the donations were returned.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>[FiveThirtyEight.com:</a> Electoral Projections Done Right](<a href=“http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/]FiveThirtyEight.com:”>http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/)</p>

<p>Perhaps Obama should be talking McCain seriously.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>There’s an interesting article in the Washington Post today about whether Obama should go more negative on McCain now. According to this article, the campaign has been resisting it, and has been encouraging donors to give to the campaign rather than funding the outside groups that could make stronger attacks. I think Obama probably will go negative–he’ll have to–but I suspect he’d like to be able to say that McCain went there first.</p>

[Hindoo]

<p>Hunt–I have mixed feelings about this. I’ve been proud that Obama has maintained a relatively positive, issue-based campaign thus far. But those attack ads coming at him from the McCain side do seem to be having some effect–the polls seem to indicate that. Sadly, I think you’re right–Obama will have to go negative, and soon, if he wants to regain some momentum. …</p>

[Hunt]

<p>It’s too bad. In my opinion, McCain took the gloves off when he said Obama would lose a war to win a campaign.</p>

[bz2010]

<p>Hunt - I guess McCain took the gloves off on himself last summer when he said he’d rather lose an election than lose a war.</p>

[Hindoo]

<p>No, bz. McCain was saying something positive about himself … and something very negative and (in my opinion), untrue, about Obama. McCain is better than that–he should be above that type of thing. Again, just my opinion.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>I agree. I thought it was a very uncharacteristic thing for McCain to say. The McCain of 2000 would not have said such a thing. I guess he wants to win more this time.</p>

[bz2010]

<p>^^ Well he deserves to!</p>

[simba]

<p>Here is the new one for The One</p>

<p>Painful</p>

<p>Go to You tube and search Painful+Obama</p>

[tega]

<p>After the race argument was panned by everyone, the left now believe that the McCain Campaign is portraying Obama as the anti-christ in the ad “The One”.</p>

<p>[McCain</a> Ad Suggesting Obama Is the Anti-Christ? - Steven Waldman](<a href=“http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/08/mccain-ad-suggesting-obama-is.html]McCain”>McCain Ad Suggesting Obama Is the Anti-Christ? - Steven Waldman)</p>

<p>I am not much of a believer, and I have not read “Left Behind”. Is this depiction accurate for those who have read the book or know something about Revelations (New Testament)?</p>

<p>This might also help</p>

<p>[McCain</a> Web Ad Is Accused Of Linking Obama to Antichrist - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121816422728523227.html]McCain”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121816422728523227.html)</p>