Obama’s New Ad Invites Scrutiny

Barack Obama and his campaign have vowed to come out swinging and put up a more aggressive fight. Obama feels that the Republicans are liars and that he must defend his honor and his chances by hitting them hard. His newest “hard hit” is an ad that makes a bad attempt at painting John McCain as someone who has not changed.

The ad starts off with the year 1982 emblazoned on the screen and McCain with a pair of big out of style glasses and says that in 1982 McCain went to Washington. Then we see a disco ball, a huge cell phone, Rubik’s Cube, and a computer with an email icon. The narrator explains that a lot has changed since then but McCain has not. Then it disparages him because he does not use a computer and does not know how to send email.

I think the ad will backfire. I know Obama is trying to hit the younger crowd. You know that crowd. It is full of self absorbed people who seek instant gratification and who always have to have the latest and greatest electronic gadget and can’t function without a cell phone stuck in their ears. This is the crowd that cannot find Vietnam (or many countries including the US) on a globe. Obama is appealing to them by deriding a man who is of a generation that is the least tech savvy. The ad is trying to show McCain has not changed but many elderly will see it as an attack on senior citizens. Obama might lose a number of people from a generation that is the most reliable voting block by trying to appeal to those who traditionally do not show up on election day.

That is a possibility but I think Obama has made a much more serious error. He has opened up the past as an avenue for exploration. Of course he has had his army of dirt bags in Alaska trying to dig up dirt from Sarah Palin’s past but Barry does not like to discuss his own past. We know the buzz words; too young, in the past, distraction, yada, yada, yada. The past is probably on the list of things Barry will not allow to be discussed but he has opened that door.

Obama opened up his past by discussing McCain’s and he could pay for that. It will now be fair to question Obama about his drug use when he used all kinds of drugs and used them a lot. He has stated that his drug use was his greatest moral failure and that it was a bad choice. Since Joe Biden said Hillary would have been a better pick than he, we can make the case that Obama made bad choices then and he makes bad choices now.

The first pinhead who talks about McCain being stuck in the past and not about change can expect to be asked about Obama’s drug use and how he can possibly be change we can believe in when he still makes bad choices.

BTW, McCain reads email but does not send it and he knows how to use a computer (not terribly well). The Obama ad does not mention that Bill Clinton only sent 2 emails during his term and said he did not understand the internet (and the inventor of it was his VP). McCain said he talks to people by phone and that he uses the internet to read his daughter’s blog and the news. However, he is unable to type effectively because of his war injuries. NRO reports this from a story that appeared in the Boston Globe in 2000. NRO also makes this point:

Oh one last point for now: Lord knows I think the chicken-hawk arguments are stupid. And I don’t think the fact that Obama never served in the military should count against him in and of itself. But how stupid is it for the Obama campaign to claim that McCain is unqualified to be president because he can’t grasp cyber-security issues based on the fact he has never sent an email when the McCain campaign can just as easily say Obama can’t understand first order national security issues because he’s never fired a rife, flown a plane, commanded men in battle, or faced an enemy? I mean which prepares someone to be commander in chief better, hitting “send” on AOL or fighting a war? [emphasis mine]

Big Dog

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

9 Responses to “Obama’s New Ad Invites Scrutiny”

  1. goon says:

    Here is what I say let NOBAMA keep up with the sleazy ads there is a reason his campaign is falling like a prom dress on prom night. Light weight.

  2. Adam says:

    Hey, at least the ad has some truth to it. That’s more than we can say about the series of flailing attacks and cheap shots coming from McCain all week that were based on total fabrications and distortions of quotes and just outright lies.

    From factcheck.org for example:

    Energetically Wrong
    Palin says Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy. Not true. Not even close.

    Belittling Palin?
    A McCain-Palin TV ad accuses Obama of being “disrespectful” of Palin, but it distorts quotes to make the case.

    McCain-Palin Distorts Our Finding
    Those attacks on Palin that we debunked didn’t come from Obama.

    Off Base on Sex Ed
    A McCain campaign ad claims Obama’s “one accomplishment” was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids. Don’t believe it.

    Over at Politifact you got more of the same. This was not a good week for truth on the campaign trail and most of the lies came from the McCain camp.

    “Of course he has had his army of dirt bags in Alaska trying to dig up dirt from Sarah Palin’s past but Barry does not like to discuss his own past.”

    I take issue with that because I don’t believe there is any evidence that Obama has sent any people there. The campaign denies it of course. It would be hard to deny such a thing if you’ve got an “army of dirt bags” leaving lots of clues behind, but of course it could still be true. I just haven’t seen any real evidence.

  3. Adam says:

    To slighty correct what I was saying about the dirtbag army, I remember now that the issue wasn’t that nobody went to Alaska, but just that the Obama campaign didn’t send people directly.

    It can be argued that there are few differences at this point between Democrats in general and the Obama campaign since it’s a united front, so I don’t take as much issue now as I did when posted the previous comment.

  4. Big Dog says:

    I think we can point to both campaigns and show that half quotes are used. As a matter of fact, by only showing how McCain has stretched the truth you have done the same thing that you are claiming he is doing. I can provide you with plenty of examples of Obama using half quotes or lying about what was done.

    And I have found some incorrect “FACTS” provided by fact check so I am not sure about all that they do.

    The ad is OK with me. Obama says that McCain is not ready to lead because on cyber security issues he can’t send email. Then Obama is not ready to lead on the ground because he has never been in the military. He has negated his whole stance on the war because he is not qualified to take a position, using his standard, of course.

    I think we will see Obama losing his mind before long.

    But Adam, do me a favor, keep an eye out for the Obama lies. They are there but I bet you will NEVER see them…

    Kool Aid OH YEAH

  5. Adam says:

    Oh brother. Every single media outlet (except Fox of course) and non-partisan watch group has been highly critical of McCain this week for his campaign’s actions, yet when Obama releases an ad that is actually true you say it will invite scrutiny? Give me a break.

    Again you treat me as if I’m a rabidly partisan kool-aid drinker over Obama. I’ve never once suggested Obama’s campaign doesn’t distort the truth or that his ads are all true. I just point out that if any campaign invites scrutiny this week it is the McCain camp because of their flurry of misleading ads and campaign comments.

  6. Adam says:

    Or maybe you missed by line about “This was not a good week for truth on the campaign trail and most of the lies came from the McCain camp.” Yeah, that’s me ignoring Obama’s lies completely and drinking kool-aid. Oh brother…

  7. Big Dog says:

    I think you missed the meaning of will invite scrutiny. The ad will not invite scrutiny of itself, it will invite scrutiny of Obama’s past. Now it is OK to say that Obama was an enthusiastic drug user and he said that was a bad decision. He is still making bad decisions.

    The ads told the truth. It is not a lie to only use part of a quote or to use it out of context. It is done by both sides. I just find it amusing that as soon as it is out there from the right the left cries foul but when the left does it, all is well.

    Well stay tuned because I am going to show you what real media bias is and how to omit stuff to present what you want. I expect politicians to stretch the truth but the media is not supposed to and yet I will point it out.

    Also, just because Obama’s legislation was designed to protect children it does not excuse the teaching about sex part. For the chirren is not going to work any more. You see, it depends on how it is presented. I could easily say Obama lied about it…

  8. Adam says:

    While I don’t deny that there is bias, I welcome examples of bias so we can talk about it…

    I think having pulled for Clinton so much and not being a rabid Obama supporter puts me in a unique position in this election to discuss issues with you without losing sight of reality because of fandom.

    I’m also unofficially retired from blogging so I’m having a lot of fun simply taking part in discussing issues with you lately without it going too far one way…

  9. Big Dog says:

    I noticed not much got updated there. Some day I might hire you to write me a theme.

    Read my latest and there is bias.

    I, as you know, was not a rabid McCain supporter. I think Palin adds a lot to the ticket and support it. I waited to decide until he picked a VP. I had been pushing for her so i went to the ticket. I was going to vote for Ron Paul or not vote top of ticket until that pick.

    Won’t matter here in Maryland because Osama bin Laden could run as a Democrat here and he will win. Like Pavlov’s dog, the people in MD are trained to react to a D next to a name.