Skip to content
Categories:

Two can play the ‘celebrity’ game

Post date:
Author:

With Barack Obama taking the time off to spend time with his family before the convention, one might have thought we wouldn’t be hearing much from the Obama team this week. Not so — the candidate may be taking a break, but his operation has decided to start the week with a new ad that’s bound to get some attention.

To provide a little context, the McCain campaign decided in recent weeks to embrace the “celebrity” narrative with both arms. It’s the principal anti-Obama attack in every ad, every press release, every surrogate talking point, and every speech. The irony, of course, is that the attack is coming from John McCain, a bona fide political celebrity, as evidenced by his cameo in “Wedding Crashers,” his appearance on “24,” his stints on “Saturday Night Live,” and the fact that he’s been on “The Daily Show” more than any other guest ever.

And with that in mind, this morning, the Obama campaign decided to turn the tables.

It’s as if the Obama campaign is telling the McCain gang, “You want to play the ‘celebrity’ game? Great, let’s play the ‘celebrity’ game.”

The point of the 30-second ad, entitled “Embrace,” is to characterize McCain as “Washington’s biggest celebrity,” explaining the ways in which the DC establishment has (at times, literally) embraced McCain as its hero, and how McCain hugged the establishment right back.

Over footage of McCain as a guest on Letterman and SNL, the voice-over tells the audience, “For decades, he’s been Washington’s biggest celebrity.”

Over footage of McCain and George W. Bush repeatedly hugging, we hear, “And as Washington embraced him, John McCain hugged right back.”

Over footage of McCain with a phalanx of well-dressed lobbyists, the announcer explains, “The lobbyists – running his low road campaign. The money – billions in tax breaks for oil and drug companies, but almost nothing for families like yours.”

Then the ad lowers the boom: “Lurching to the right, then the left, the old Washington dance, whatever it takes. John McCain. A Washington celebrity playing the same old Washington games.”

The spot does a lot in 30 seconds, connecting McCain to Bush, characterizing him as a flip-flopper, hitting McCain’s disconcerting ties to lobbyists, and, of course, putting all of this in the context of “Washington’s biggest celebrity.”

One could probably make the case that the ad has a few too many messages, but overall, I thought it worked just fine, and the mocking tone sounded like the right pitch.

What’d you think?

Comments

  • edr

    says:

    I did not see the ad. I am seeing more McCain ads than Obamas.
    Whatever happened to the monetary advantage the Dems had?

  • wvng

    says:

    Bam bam bam bam. Not too many messages at all, just highly effective reinforcement of two central points – Mr. Celebrity loves him some Bush.

  • DebbyeOh

    says:

    Where is the ad showing? I saw O’s Olympic ad (it was classy and great). And to answer #1’s question: I think its the RNC that has the money advantage for now, the DNC is kinda low, and apparently O’s money is for after the convention.

    Don’t forget to keep making contributions!

  • Jesse

    says:

    Nice, but I would have liked to see a continuation of Obama’s positive messages thrown in with his attacks. We’ve criticized McCain’s adds for only mentioning Obama, and now Obama ad’s only features him at the end approving of the message. Still, I thought it was good even as my idealism shrank a bit.

  • SaintZak

    says:

    Of course this morning on NPR Cokie Roberts was questioning Obama’s choice of vacationing in Hawaii, you know its so, as she put it, “exotic.” Hawaii is about as exotic as Panda Express, but he’ll get nailed all week over his unusual and exotic vacation.

    Its good move on Camp Obama’s part to hit McCain back on the celebrity angle, but will the media play along, or will they just fawn over John McCain’s appealing “regular guyness” when he makes his celebrity appearances? I’m saying Obama gets hit hard by the media for his disturbingly “exotic” and vaguely “un american” vacation while McCain gets a pass on the celebrity angle.

  • ROTFLMLiberalAO

    says:

    A pitch perfect reframing of the dirty old man with the creepy smile:

    Same old Washington game.

    It needed to be done.
    And it needs to be run.
    Game. Set. McMatch.

  • Kathleen in WA

    says:

    I think McCain is running lots of ads now because he is trying not to let Obama run away with the whole thing. If it gets way toooo lopsided, McCain won’t be able to continue to collect any money from anyone hoping to curry favor with the next President, because it will be very clear he won’t be that President. McCain (and the RNC) has to spend like crazy now or it won’t matter.

    Obama can’t wait until after the convention, because that will be a different cycle. All of the nomination money has to be spend before the convention, doesn’t it? Or is it just the other way – no money for after the convention can be spent before it?

  • Jesse

    says:

    I’m not overjoyed that we’re seeing the first 100% negative ad out of the Obama camp. I obviously agree with the message, but I think I would have preferred to see a list of compared facts (Appearances on Leno: M – #, O – 0, Appearances on the Daily Show: M – #, O – 0, etc) through half of the ad, and then a message about Obama in the other. I realize it wouldn’t have hit as hard, but I appreciated that Obama’s campaign had managed to eat all the negative ads from McCain without responding in kind, and I think it’s a shame we can no longer point to the “our candidate hasn’t run a single wholly-negative ad all season” as an objective reason that he’s better than McCain.

  • JC

    says:

    It’s tempting to push back on Sen. McCain’s negative advertisements, and pretty darn easy, too. But I wish the Obama campaign hadn’t done it.

    It doesn’t matter if you’re throwing legitimate mud *back*… you’re still throwing mud.

    It’s like giving someone the finger on the highway: momentarily satisfying, but overall pointless and wrong.

  • Leonard

    says:

    “Of course this morning on NPR Cokie Roberts was questioning Obama’s choice of vacationing in Hawaii, you know its so, as she put it, “exotic.” Hawaii is about as exotic as Panda Express, but he’ll get nailed all week over his unusual and exotic vacation.”

    Cokie misspoke. She meant to say “erotic.” Cokie is thinking about Obama on the beach…

  • jimBOB

    says:

    through half of the ad, and then a message about Obama in the other.

    Yeah, that ad didn’t have its focus fractured enough already. Let’s add in even MORE stuff.

    Jesse, I work in advertising. You can’t try to do everything in a single 30 second spot. If it were up to me I’d have left out the flip-flopper stuff and done a more focused message. 30 seconds is just long enough to say one thing. Best to say it as loud and hard as you can.

  • Maria

    says:

    I suppose it was necessary, but it’s all so…wearying. No, I’m not without pragmatism. I’m just not in the mood for this campaign season right now. Maybe a break until the convention is in order for me.

    Still, I found myself wishing that as long as they were repeating images of McCain embracing Bush (a good strategy), they’d use the one in which McCain looks particularly sycophantic and pathetic and Bush is gazing indifferently over McCain’s shoulder, bored with his fealty. I still think alternating that image with the one of McCain and Bush grinning over McCain’s birthday cake as New Orleans drowns, and making sure these photos are ubiquitously placed, would win us the election if Obama didn’t say another word between now and November.

    100 percent negative ads have their place used judiciously, but they have to be balanced with the kind of pro-Obama, positive-message ads Obama has been running all along. I don’t imagine he’ll be trading one for the other going forward, but as the election gets closer I suppose we’ll see more of the negative stuff.

  • agentX

    says:

    Hahaha! That was great! What a wonderful push-back by the Obama camp. McCain wanted to go there, so Obama went there.

    How’s those Hollywood lights working out for ya, John?

  • N.Wells

    says:

    1) Obama’s ad struck me as the perfect response.

    2) I’ve been seeing McCain’s “Obama celebrity” ad time and time again during the Olympics (is that national or just northern Ohio?), and it wears very poorly with repetition. Also, the Olympics context (cheering crowds, = good) seems to be stepping pretty severely on the intended message of the ad (cheering crowds, = bad). All I get left with is reinforcement of the concept that huge crowds cheer Obama.

    3) I too did a double-take over the concept that a vacation to Hawaii (in the US, and where he grew up, fer crying out loud) is too exotic. Yeah, next time he should stay in America. That means no trips to Alaska or New Mexico either. /snark

  • Jack

    says:

    The difference in the campaigns is that McCain has the discipline to focus on a single point and hammer it home. Was the Obama ad a comback about celebrity, about links with Bush, or about oil/drug connections? Chasing three messages in a 30 second spot does a disservice to each

  • konchster

    says:

    All these polly anna types can’t remember what lost the last 2 presidential elections. No push back!!!
    To be fair an answer to an accusation doesn’t seem that negative to me. If he had brought up Cindy’s drug problems or John’s dumping on a faithful wife to get a bimbo I would have found that negative. Justified but negative

  • Racer X

    says:

    Awe. Some.

    The thing I like is the tearing down of McCain’s alleged honesty. His “lurching to the right, then the left” has been noticable to many of the pundit class, and this ad forces them to talk about it. I hope.

  • Racer X

    says:

    Must suck to have all those videos of you hugging all over the guy you “stood up to” so much. 🙂 McCain is drowning, so it’s time to throw him an anvil with a big ol’ “W” stamped on it.

    I think Obama should find all the clips he can where the petulant Bush is being a jerkwad, and splice them together with ones where Bush is stumping for McCain. Let the voters decide if they want George’s buddy to succeed the Worst President Ever.

  • Edgar M.

    says:

    I love seeing Obama punch back! No problem at all with some more attacks, as long as they’re substantive.

    That said, one thing I didn’t like about this one is their use of the “celebrity” angle — I think they should have avoided getting into the celebrity crap and focused on the image of McCain as a Bush-loving, lobbyist-hiring Washington sleazebag. The celebrity angle won’t have any impact, because people will just see it as Obama stealing McCain’s line, which is already old news. It looks small, in sort of the same way that McCain’s whining and carping during Obama’s overseas trip made him look small. We should definitely hit back, but from a different angle. Just saturate the media with images of Bush and McCain’s love affair — simple and to the point.

  • Edgar M.

    says:

    Re: # 19 and Anonymous Liberal’s suggested response to the celebrity stuff: Yes! Yes! Very nice. I’m gonna be “presumptuous” and paste it here in case anyone doesn’t click the link.

    Over at the The New Republic, Michael Crowley writes:

    More handwringing about Obama’s optics: I see that tickets for his acceptance speech at Denver’s Invesco Field stadium sold out instantly. In light of the apparent traction Republicans got with their ‘Celebrity’ meme you have to wonder if the Obama team is reconsidering the wisdom of this move. I would recommend any possible stagecraft to minimize the event’s scale.

    No. No. No. Crowley’s instinctive response here demonstrates much of what’s been wrong with the Democratic approach to politics over the last decade or so. Obama’s ability to draw large enthusiastic crowds is one of his chief political strengths. It is ludicrous not to showcase that strength just because your opponent has–in classic Rovian style–tried to turn it into a liability. That’s how you lose elections.

    The way to deal with the “celebrity” charge is not to lower your profile; it’s to turn that charge back around on McCain. If I were advising Obama, I’d tell him to get up there in front of that sold out stadium and say the following:

    My opponent has taken to calling me a “celebrity” in all of his commercials. The suggestion, I can only assume, is that all of you (gesturing to the crowd) show up at events like this and donate your time and your money to this campaign because you’re all adoring groupies who are obsessed with me. Now, that would certainly be flattering if it were true, but I’m not going to delude myself. The reality is I can’t act, I can’t sing, and my personal life is incredibly boring.

    The truth is that no one would be paying any attention to me at all if I wasn’t talking about things that really matter to a lot of people. You’re not here tonight–and you’re not watching at home–because you want to be entertained. Lord knows there are plenty of things that you could be doing with your time right now that would be far more entertaining than listening to me. No, you’re here tonight because you love your country and you’re concerned about the direction it’s been heading over the last eight years.

    You’re not here tonight to see what kind of outfit I’m wearing or to hear my latest hit single–and if you are, I think you’re probably going to be disappointed. No, you’re here because you want change, you want a government that fights for people like you and not on behalf of powerful special interests; you want a government that keeps you safe by pursuing a rationale foreign policy abroad and keeps your family secure by creating jobs, ensuring access to affordable health care, and fighting for energy independence.

    That’s why you’re here. That’s why you’re volunteering your time at record levels. That’s why you’re contributing your hard-earned money in record amounts.

    So remember, when John McCain and his surrogates call me a “celebrity,” they’re not insulting me; they’re insulting you. They’re insinuating that you are a mindless groupie rather than a concerned citizen, a fan rather than a voter.

    But it’s not going to work. You know why you’re here, you know why you’re watching, and you’re much smarter than they give you credit for.

  • AK Liberal

    says:

    I like this ad because it says so much of what I’ve been thinking. I don’t know what the rest of the country will think. Twenty-eight percent of the electorate will think its mean to criticize an old man that’s a war hero. I hope the rest will laugh as hard I did.

  • amy

    says:

    The confused look on McCain’s face during the “lurching to the left, lurching to the right” is awesomely priceless.

  • Rabi

    says:

    Here’s what I like about this ad: the attack makes some sense. Calling a politician “Washington’s biggest celebrity” holds some water. Trying to call a politician “the biggest celebrity in the world” is asinine hyperbole.

  • lib4

    says:

    I Have thought for a while that the Mccain campiagn was baiitng Obama into joinng them going negative just to point out that Obama is just like every other politician. We will see how this plays out as Obama has put out his first real negative ad.
    I bet you the tone of the ad will get the most attention in the MSM rather than the message. Watch as the Republicans cry foul to their MSM buddies that Obama is engaging in negative attacks. The media will dutifully eat it up and now equate weeks of McCain baseless ads with Obama one negative ad to make it seem like both are playing the low road political game.

    While the MSM blathers on about the content of McCain’s baseless ads ..(Obama celebrity, Paris. Britney, is he ready to lead.)…Obama will enjoy no such analysis of the content of his ad (McCain flip flop, McCain as the Washington celebrity, McCain embrace of Bush 95%)…rather the sole focus will be on negative tone of Obama’s ad.

  • Stacy6

    says:

    Bloody brilliant!!!

    Here’s the thing. I think it’s great that Obama focuses on issues. I love that he advocates for a new style of politics. That said, he can run this kind of ad and it doesn’t tarnish him in my eyes. He’s not “going negative”, in my opinion. All he’s doing is holding a mirror up to his opponent and saying “Oh really?”

  • Goldilocks

    says:

    Trouble is, many LIVs like that kind of folksy, tricksy, double-dealing little homely runt image. It’s kind of cute, familiar and sneaky-naughty: the smutty kid at the candy pot; the neigborly wheeler-dealer — always grinning and a bit of a laugh. Sure, you’ve got to watch him, but basically he’s harmless. So, what if he is up with the big numbers? We all want some of that, if we’re honest. Good on him if he’s made it for himself. Yeah, he gets my vote.

    This ad is good, but it’s too good. It’s intellectual rather than nasty. It’s dull because McDull’s dull. It’s old, glitzy studio dull. And it’s ACCURATE. That’s where it falls. We’ve seen it all before. We know this. What we want is raw, snide, sneering, cheep sleaze loaded with vicious fatuous bellow-the-belt strip naked peel the skin expose the goolies character-assassination masquerading as irrelevant, insulting, slanderous fantasy art humor to slaver over.

    But we’re not getting it. We feel deprived and cheated, and so we throw our lot in with the bad guy, the other one, you know the one I mean.

    It’s all a game, now.

    Meanwhile, back in Georgia..

    Monday was made for cynics.

    P.S. I like “Hands” much better.

  • mark

    says:

    I like the upbeat music with Obama’s “response” ads. Perhaps people will tire of McCain’s apocalyptic drumbeats.

  • Scott F

    says:

    Loved the ad, about time. Agree with commentors who are seeing far more of McCain than Obama during Olympics. Needs to change.

  • zhak

    says:

    Far more McCain ads in NH than Obama ads — and I hate to say it, but I expect McCain to carry NH (something I did not think would be possible a few months ago).

  • Bernard HP Gilroy

    says:

    Is it possible that this ad — the first “entirely negative” ad — is the Obama campaign’s way of throwing an elbow? Of saying, “We can play hardball with the best of them; we just don’t have to.” If it stays in relative isolation — if Obama runs mostly positive ads, with just the occasional pushback to show he’s not asleep at the switch — this is a good development.

  • MsJoanne

    says:

    I would imagine that for people who have seen little of these ads, that you are not in the states where they are running.

    I would ASSUME that Obama is running his spots where McCain is running his, thus trying to cut the legs out from under all of McCain’s bullshit.

    I doubt I will see many ads at all since I live in northern IL. I bet McCain won’t waste a penny here and Obama doesn’t really have to (he might in downstate markets, though. I am near Chicago.)

    McCain will have to place ads in previously red states and Obama will do all he can to make McCain’s ads there useless.

    That’s my thought on why many people haven’t seen these ads. FWIW.

  • Jesseaw

    says:

    I didn’t view this Obama ad but, after reviewing the detailed anti-McCain points as described above, I think it is a very brilliant strategy by the Obama camp: as long as most of Obama’s anti-McCain ads show, in stark contrast, Obama’s positive approach to solving the problems that confront our nation and the world–and Obama’s eagerness to seek mutual win-win solutions to diffuse world tensions through negotiations–as opposed to McCain’s eagerness to continue George W. Bush’s disastrous warmongering policies.

  • Ted

    says:

    Re: #26 – I like that a lot. The celebrity stuff isn’t insulting to Obama, it’s insulting to his supporters – great framing.

  • barkleyg

    says:

    I like this ad, but I like AL’s idea more. As others here have said, make sure you read post #26 to read AL’s idea.

  • barkleyg

    says:

    Ted # 41: I was trying to find the proper words, but my perception of AL’s idea was:
    A positive ad talking about a positive future, with citation to the oppositions negative ads saying that Obamas followers are nothing but “blind followers”, insulting those that believe in something other than McSame!

    Have you noticed this election cycle where McSame talks about an issue, and basically says that you are an idiot if you don’t agree with him. No black and white with BUSH III / snark; no other position has any validity, especially if it’s Obama’s position.

  • Hannah

    says:

    #7: “Of course this morning on NPR Cokie Roberts was questioning Obama’s choice of vacationing in Hawaii, you know its so, as she put it, “exotic.””

    Cokie also said Obama should have instead gone to Myrtle Beach for his vacation. Being a Westcoaster, I’m unfamiliar with Myrtle Beach except for hearing about its golf (though I’m not a golf fan). Anyway… per Myrtle Beach’s official website:
    “One of the top domestic tourist destinations in the continental United States. With nearly 14 million visitors a year…”

    Oh, yeh, Cokie, that’s JUST the sort of spot that a presidential nominee, dogged by the press and exhausted from campaigning, would want to go. Instead Obama is apparently in a secluded spot in Hawaii. And he gets to visit his grandmother and visit his old haunts. Cokie Roberts: idiot.

  • Hannah

    says:

    #44 Before anyone responds, yes, I understand Roberts’ point that Myrtle Beach=America’s vacation spot. Or at least for 14 million a year.

    That doesn’t mean that everyone would want to vacation there. Esp. when it’s not “home”. I personally wouldn’t go there if you offered me free accommodations. Not my idea of a relaxing time.

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    Jesse (#6) said: Still, I thought it was good even as my idealism shrank a bit.

    Jesse – this isn’t a slam, but I suggest strongly that you read Ryan Lizza’s New Yorker article on Obama and Chicago politics, and that you remember the truth of what Bill Clinton said: “politics ain’t beanbag.” A nice, idealistic campaign might gain the approval of David Broder and Richard Cohen, but if that’s what goes, you would need to start practicing saying “President McCain” today.

  • pixie

    says:

    I think the new ad rocks! I was hoping the Obama campaign would start using the pix of McCain hugging Bush. I like that the ad tosses several ideas at you–it leaves you with the impression that McCain is one bad dude. It seems that the Obama campaign still is holding back–waiting for McCain to run out of steam. Then hopefully they’ll strike back with the major ammunition. This is all just the pre-show I think (I hope). I still say, wait until the debates. That will seal the deal!

  • Scott Herbst

    says:

    Loved it. The best part is the contrast between the two ads. Obama’s ad actually has McCain being a celebrity and hanging with celebrities. And it shows him on The View. I imagine his motorcyle buddies in Sturgis are going to give him hell over that one.

  • Chad

    says:

    Oh Please, talk about grasping at straws. So what if McCain has had a couple of cameos? He’s been around longer than the inexperienced junior Senator from Illinois, so naturally he’s going to have had more media appearances over the long haul than Barry. The purpose of the celebrity ads was to point out the sickening christening of Barry by his Obamabots and the MSM as Homecoming King, er President of the U.S.

    If Barry had some thicker skin, he’d just laugh it off, but I guess this shows how shallow he is.

  • Bruno

    says:

    Good ol’ chad is back… 🙂

    If Barry had some thicker skin, he’d just laugh it off, but I guess this shows how shallow he is.

    I guess, following your own logic, then Barry – I understand you can’t utter his real name Barrack – must have a thick skin, because he did laugh it off. By mocking McCain’s ad, he actually did show how shallow the republicans really are.

    I’m glad you ‘re starting to look in the mirror. Keep up the good work. You’re making some good points. 🙂

  • joey (bjobotts)

    says:

    Edgar M… #26 comment…thanks for posting that. It even sounds like something Obama would say anyway without the coaching…but he doesn’t always get the best advice from his campaign advisers. I hope he gets that message before the convention crowd, it is marvelous…I loved it (and surely everyone thinks just like I do)…but really a perfect response to the “celebrity” meme

  • Texas Aggie

    says:

    If Obama goes negative, he can’t be mean about it. It has to be a joke that gets people laughing. Obama has the image of a grownup messing with a not too bright, narcisstic kid, sort of like the way Jackie Robinson dealt with the Enos Slaughter’s of the baseball world at that time, by being the mature person confronting a bunch of petty kids. The reasons that Mr. Robinson was a hero is that he was very capable in what he did for a living (fielding and batting) and he also acted in such a way that shamed those who wanted to bring him down. So far Mr. Obama has been following much the same trajectory. He is very capable in what he does for a living (governing) and has been acting like a grownup, even when faced by petty little jerks, and has not gotten down on their level. He needs to keep doing that.

  • ESM

    says:

    Perfect!!! This is the exact type of ad I’ve wanted. Republicans don’t just point out differences. They mock, ridicule and demean. This goes in that direction, but in a playful way. It’s perfect. I wish this was running during the olympics.

    By the way, why am I seeing something like 8 McCain ads for every one Obama ad. I thought both purchased about the same air time (5 and 6 million worth)?