I'm a little late commenting on the last presidential debate, but something occurred to me that I thought I would pass along. John McCain made the charge that Obama is spending is spending an unprecedented amount of money on negative campaign ads. I'm in no position to know if that's true (and haven't seen any of the fact-checking sites that maybe have weighed in on that point). But based on what I have seen of the two campaign's ads, it occurs to me that there are two different types of "negative" ads, and that there is a considerable imbalance in terms of the respective messages of the two candidates (or their surrogates). First, there are negative ads attacking the opponent's positions/stands on issues like health care, education, taxes, etc. Second there are negative ads about the opponent's character (might be referred to personal as opposed to professional attacks). My perception is that the McCain campaign is doing much more of the latter, while Obama's fall mostly in the former category. It seems to me that it is the personal attacks that carry the higher risk, and that in fact McCain is suffering for the decision to go after Obama's character as harshly as he has. It has put McCain on the defensive in the debates, just because Obama comes across as more measured, more thoughtful, and more considerate-- in other words, totally at odds with the image McCain has tried to paint of Obama in his ads (and occasionally on the stump). Now it's possible I'm not seeing the bulk of the ads out there, since Montana is not exactly seen as a swing state (though, to his credit, Obama has spent more time here than any other national candidate, of either party, since I moved here), so maybe there's more even blame for the "negativity" of the campiagn to go around than I see. But somehow, I doubt it.
No comments:
Post a Comment