Skip to content
Categories:

Obama and McCain, substance and celebrity

Post date:
Author:

Barack Obama brought up John McCain’s instantly infamous campaign commercial featuring Britney Spears and Paris Hilton today, asking McCain, “[I]s that the best you can come up with? Is that really what this election is about? Is that what is worthy of the American people?”

As it turns out, McCain was asked about the same ad today at an event in Racine, Wis.

Woman asking question: “First of all, Sen. McCain, I want to commend you on your service for our country. But earlier this year in April, you made comments about the mudslinging and how it had been affecting the other campaigns and how you didn’t want to do that. But recently, especially last week when Obama went to Europe, it seems like there were a lot of campaign ads that you put out that were doing that. And the one yesterday comparing him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, I was like, ‘OK.’ So it seems like to Americans like me and other people that you may have flip-flopped on what you said earlier. And what is your response to that?”

McCain: “First of all, let me say there are differences, and we are drawing those differences. And I said earlier, I admire his campaign. But what we are talking about here is substance and not style. And what we are talking about is who has an agenda for the future of America. Campaigns are tough, but I’m proud of the campaign that we have run. I’m proud of the issues that we have been trying to address with the American people…. So, all I can say is that we are proud of that commercial.”

A lot of reporters are seizing on the fact that McCain is “proud” of his ridiculous commercial, which is clearly odd. But I was also struck by his insistence that “what we are talking about here is substance and not style.” I didn’t see McCain’s facial expression, but I can’t help but wonder if (and how) he kept a straight face.

Substance and not style? Has there been anything of any substance at all from the McCain campaign in months? I suppose there was at least some policy talk recently when McCain commented on his tax proposals, his position on affirmative action, his position on gay adoption, and his ideas for Social Security — but this “substance” didn’t last long, because McCain’s campaign, in each instance, said he didn’t really mean what he was saying.

And speaking of all of this bizarre celebrity talk, Yglesias raises a point I’ve been meaning to mention.

Pardon me if you’ve seen this point elsewhere, but in what sense is John McCain not a celebrity? I’ve seen him on the covers of magazines, on television, in newspapers, doing guest appearances on SNL, etc.

Could you possibly be a major party presidential nominee and not be a celebrity? But in particular, McCain actually stands out among politicians as being someone who was a famous celebrity first and then parlayed his fame into a political career, rather than merely being someone who’s well-known for being an important politician.

Indeed, John Weaver, McCain’s long-time friend and confidant, made a similar observation yesterday, saying, “John’s been a celebrity ever since he was shot down.”

I suppose it’s possible the McCain gang means that Obama is a celebrity in more of “Hollywood” fashion. But that doesn’t quite work either.

Take a look at McCain’s IMDB page and tell me he doesn’t qualify as a “celebrity.” There’s the guest role in “Wedding Crashers,” there’s the film adaptation of his military career, there’s the appearance on “24,” etc. Put it this way — do you know who’s made more appearances on “The Daily Show” than anyone in any field? John McCain.

Well, perhaps the McCain gang doesn’t mean celebrity in a “Hollywood” sense, but more in the sense that people around the world admire Barack Obama, and are captivated by his candidacy. And if that’s what the McCain campaign means, they’re going to have to do more to explain why that’s a bad quality for an American president to have.

Comments

  • TR

    says:

    First of all, let me say there are differences, and we are drawing those differences.

    You sure are. Obama’s running a campaign with class and focus, and you’re flailing in the mud.

  • TheSpiceMustFlow

    says:

    This is really becoming ridiculous. So, uh, he’s proud of lying and then rejecting the truth as reality? Whatever this old guy is smoking, I want some.

  • Always hopeful

    says:

    “McCain’s campaign, in each instance, said he didn’t really mean what he was saying”.

    At least the campaign has the sense to know when McCain is wrong. That’s as close as you will get to an admission of error, I’m afraid. Authoritarian personalities never admit error. In fact, when caught in an error, they stubbornly refuse to even consider that they would be anything less than proud of what they have said or done. We don’t need any more authoritarian personalities leading this country.

  • Racer X

    says:

    Who you gonna believe, your eyes and ears or JOHN MCCAIN?

    He isn’t really a celebrity per se, he’s an old guy who tries to be one. How many times has he been on Leno and Saturday Night Live?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24690855/

    And doesn’t singing Barbara Streisand songs on TV make you a celebrity, or at least a wannabe celebrity?

    http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/saturdaynightlive/v/mccainstreisand.htm

    And as many times as he’s been on TV, he still can’t do a stump speech without a cue card. It’s sad. What’s even sadder is that we’ve seen this movie before. Ronald Reagan was a likable bumbling idiot who f-ed up more things that we’ll ever know. He sold high tech weapons to our enemies, destroyed the fledgling renewable energy sector, and funded murderous criminals in central America. By accident, of course.

  • doubtful

    says:

    The public seems to always ask better questions then the media, and that was a good question.

    Horrible, blatant lie of an answer, though. But good question.

  • Ohioan

    says:

    It took some guts for McCain to go to Racine, WI – with all their college educated S.C.Johnson employees… being all “ooh, ooh, can I ask a reasonable question?” and all that…

    Frigging socialists!

  • ROTFLMLiberalAO

    says:

    And if that’s what the McCain campaign means, they’re going to have to do more to explain why that’s a bad quality for an American president to have.

    Pigs. Wings. Fly.

  • JoeW

    says:

    Let me make sure I have this straight. Obama delivers a speech in Berlin before 200,000 people (many of whom are waving American flags, not burning them). He talks about the history and future of our country’s strategic and cultural alliance with Europe. The speech is considered a success by just about all observers, regardless of country, or partisan affiliation. And somehow, McSame considers this legitimately comparable to Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton?

    On what planet was he born, and in what year did he arrive on this one?

  • joey

    says:

    “If you think I’m lying, why you ask me questions?
    Do you think I’d lie about lying to you?
    If you’re looking for some explanation
    Then you’d better start looking inside of you”.-@JBacon 2000

    We ask what we already know but just want McCain to admit it…but he will deny deny deny and continue on to your disbelief. Quit asking…you already know what he is…it’s rather obvious.

  • zoe from pittsburgh

    says:

    This is indeed silly season. It’s actually far sillier than Hillary ever was and we’re barely into this one-on-one race.

    I would LOVE it if one of Obama’s surrogates would say something fantastically cheeky about Ronald Reagan being a celebrity FIRST and a politician second. Afterward everyone should take cover as right-wingers heads simultaenously implode.

    So far much of what McCain is doing is so absurd– almost dada-esque– that it needs to be fought back with a fair amount of mocking. Once McCain candidacy becomes the butt of jokes then his candidacy will be over.

  • Wally

    says:

    Sure, it’s about substance. It’s about the fact that the only thing candidate McCain can talk about with any safety is his opponent and how handsome/well-liked/oratorically gifted he is. Seriously, does this guy ever talk about the concrete things he would do to lead this country?

  • slappy magoo

    says:

    I’d like someone to ask McCain if he’s aware that people managing his campaign have gone on record as saying McCain does not speak for the McCain campaign?

    Seems to me that’s an important question to ask, because, if McCain’s staff is saying ‘don’t listen to McCain; he doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” what’s the point of campaigning at all?

  • libra

    says:

    But what we are talking about here is substance — McCain

    What “substance”? The varying amounts of fatty tissue in the mammary glands? With McCain claiming the ad is abut “substance” and saying he’s “proud” of it, I have to wonder if he’s even seen the damned thing. I suppose, he might mean that (celebrity) Obama is all hype and no substance and that that’s where the “substance” comes in but, but that’s the only way I can see him fit “substance” into th context. As for comparisons… McCain’s more like Britney and Paris than Obama is — all that silicone in his cheeks is like the silicone in their tits. Add in the empty head and the similarities are striking.

  • SaintZak

    says:

    But most importantly, another day and John McCain sets the tone, dictates the discussion and keeps his unfounded smears alive and forefront in the news. Why the hell should he care if anyone asks him about his despicable campaign? He’s getting the results he want…and another day and silence from the Democrats and a watery responce from Obama. They need to nail this guy to wall, now. This is turning into 2004 all over again. John Kerry was turned into a joke, and the Democrats are sitting on their hands once again.

    So today we learned the McCain campaign had two commercials ready to go (one if Obama visited the wounded tropops in Germany, another if he didn’t). The Democrats, the Obama campaign should be screaming this at the tops of their lungs. Silence.

  • Mathew

    says:

    “But what we are talking about here is substance and not style.”

    No, it’s projection more than anything else.

  • JMG

    says:

    Look, the people who keep saying “Obama has to hit back” had better make a suggestion as to how. Challenge McCain to a duel? Tell voters how he dumped his first wife? Yell? That’s not Obama’s style. For better or worse, that’s what made him appealing to a lot of voters.
    The left wing of the Democratic party will never get anywhere until it stops fretting and says, “hey, if the voters are stupid enough to fall for this crap, *&%@ ’em.”

  • mishanti

    says:

    I think Senator Obama mocking Senator McCain actually was great…the comments about him not looking like other presidents. I was laughing and wondering how pissed off McCain was when he heard that. As for Senator Obama speech in Germany has no one ever thought that since we have many US soldiers stationed there that they could have been in that crowd listening.
    As for Ms Mitchell, she let Rick David get in a great deal of his distortions and wasn’t all that forceful in disagreeing with him. But perhaps it was simply because if she did she would lose access to that campaign?

  • Capt Kirk

    says:

    McCain’s talking about substance? No. He’s talking about Obama! Just like everybody else.

  • Fast Eddie

    says:

    I saw a snippet of that speech where Obama was talking about the faces on the banknotes. He looked very, very, v-e-r-y at ease. I think he knows.

    They. Got. Nuthin’.

  • Bruno

    says:

    SaintZak @22 said:… So today we learned the McCain campaign had two commercials ready to go (one if Obama visited the wounded troops in Germany, another if he didn’t)

    Maybe MoveOn can run an ad showing how it doesn’t matter what Obama does, because the Republicans have a negative ad ready to run regardless of what direction Barack decides to go.

    On a side note, it would be nice to see an independent ad, putting some of McCain’s own quotes together, where he praises Obama and his skills as well as how he runs his campaign.

    Another ad, showing all the ‘substance’ McCain and Davis claim the campaign has been talking about. Just string all the Spears, Hilton, Wright, etc… blabber together. Ending with a question: How will this substance help you in your daily life with lower gas prices and affordable food?

  • nepat

    says:

    Sigh. McCain’s “celebrity” ad is ridiculous and should be mercilessly mocked. But here we are earnestly grappling with its themes as though it were some kind of legitimate commentary. It isn’t. It’s crap. It doesn’t make any sense. And we need TO STOP TAKING MCCAIN’S TALKING POINTS SERIOUSLY. Don’t feed the troll. Yes, we can.

  • Lucien BONNET

    says:

    RE:
    July 31, 2008
    Obama and McCain, substance and celebrity
    Posted July 31st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
    ————————————————–
    Thank you for wecloming me
    And allow me to congratulate you for your present article
    ———————————
    THE SPACE AGE, OPTICS, AND RACISM

    Racism, more particularly anti-Black racism, shows itself in many ways. But the general public is only aware of the visible tip of the iceberg: race riots, various kinds of segregation and obvious racist remarks. The other part of the iceberg, while less visible, is fundamentally more important and never ceases to affect human life. It constitutes, in short, a heavy handicap in inter-human relations and even blocks the road leading to scientific progress.

    One scientist who has found this to be true is Professor Carl Sagan, the famous astrophysicist from NASA. Through the careful study of cutting-edge research in astrophysics, among other areas, he was able to detect a set of anti-Black prejudices which, in his opinion, hinder progress and represent brakes on the pursuit of new discoveries in the Space Age.

    Professor Sagan’s astute observation provoked a positive and yet critical reaction on the part of Mr. Lucien Bonnet, a member of the Black community in Canada and a specialist in optics, that “exclusive preserve of the scientific world, that beloved field whose seemingly complicated and dangerous approaches are actually transparently obvious”.

    The Western world, accepting Newton’s theory, has declared that white is the synthesis of all the colors; actually, according to Mr. Bonnet, the reverse is true: white is the “visible” analysis or breaking-down of light or colors, where as black is the “invisible” synthesis or compounding of colors.

    In other words, according to the author’s thesis, darkness or blackness and thus, by extension, “Black Holes”, are a source of energy and light.

    This raw material of light energy culminates, at its highest degree of radiation, in the neutralization of all the colors of the spectrumin the form of “white light”, to use the common term.

    Consequently, “absolute blackness”, the absorption of all colors, is a divisible compound of light. Without any doubt, Newton’s theory, in excluding black, provides only a partial interpretation of the concept of light. Lucien Bonnet’s thesis is intended to show that black is not only an integral part of the light process but the true synthesis of it. In this view, the concept of light is thus seen to be a “divisible” whole including a range of intensities (or colors), where black is the “invisible” (or absorbed) form of light energy.

    It was in order to introduce this new scientific vision of optics that Mr. Bonnet addressed the above-mentioned, particularly relevant, letter to Professor Sagan.

    This letter, published in booklet form, aroused considerable interest in Canadian and Haitian circles.

    In Canada, two prestigious publications — Le Devoir and Le Québec Industriel — mentioned it. While the 17th General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union was taking place in Montreal in August 1979, Quebec’s Telemedia Network, including Montreal television station Télémétropole, interviewed the author, Lucien Bonnet.

    In Haiti, the weekly magazine Le Patriote republished in its entirety the document sent to Dr. Sagan.

    Aware that the ideas contained in that document might be of interest to the Christian world, the author also sent it to the highest authorities of the Catholic Church, as well as to the Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness Pope John Paul II.

    A full understanding of the elements making up this subject will doubtless help the reader to consider color problems, like those of optics and racism, more serenely and objectively from now on.

    Lucien BONNET

    PLease, SEE :
    LETTER TO POPE JOHN-PAUL II
    in ‘BILL A RI AND THERE WAS LIGHT !
    http://www.contact-canadahaiti.ca

    LINKS (JANUARY 12, 2008)
    UBC astronomer makes first map of dark matter
    CTV.ca – 11 Jan 2008
    For the first time, a team of UBC scientists have mapped the elusive “dark matter” in a supercluster of stars in the night sky.
    New map lets scientists ‘see’ dark matter CBC News
    Astronomers get best look yet at dark matter surrounding galaxies The Canadian Press
    Ars Technica – Kazinform – InTheNews.co.uk – Daily Mail
    all 26 news articles »

  • Paul Camp

    says:

    Is it just me, or does that response sound like 6 unrelated talking points recited in an arbitrary sequence?

  • chrenson

    says:

    Last night, Jon Stewart showed where Paris Hilton’s parents have given the maximum amount possible to the McCain campaign. Ouch!

    Leave it to fake news to get the real story — again!