Skip to content
Categories:

Why is Paris Hilton better able to talk substance than John McCain?

Post date:
Author:

I’m reluctant to post this because it’s a celebrity web video, and I hate celebrity web videos. But given that it’s a celebrity web video that actually relates to politics, explores an important policy issue, and has instantly become something of a political sensation, it’s probably worth taking a closer look at this Paris Hilton clip about energy policy.

I generally try to run the script of these videos for people who can’t watch clips on their work computers, but this is one of those videos you’ll really have to see to fully appreciate.

Hilton’s video is, of course, a response to the McCain campaign’s ad comparing Barack Obama to the 27-year-old heiress/reality-show star. This response video describes McCain as “the oldest celebrity in the world,” and compares him to Yoda, the Crypt Keeper, and the Golden Girls.

”Hey America, I’m Paris Hilton and I’m a celebrity, too. Only I’m not from the olden days and I’m not promising change like that other guy. I’m just hot,” Hilton said, reclined in a pool chair. ”But then that wrinkly, white-haired guy used me in his campaign ad, which I guess means I’m running for president. So thanks for the endorsement white-haired dude.”

Hilton goes on to describe an energy policy that seeks to blend Obama’s and McCain’s approach, relying on drilling in the short term, and alternative fuels over the long term, and does so in a surprisingly articulate way. She concludes, “Energy crisis solved…. I’ll see you at the debates, bitches.”

The McCain campaign actually seems to think this ad has merit. It doesn’t.

Asked for a response to the video, the Obama campaign said, literally, “Whatever.” McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds issued this response: “It sounds like Paris Hilton supports John McCain’s ‘all of the above’ approach to America’s energy crisis — including both alternatives and drilling. Paris Hilton might not be as big a celebrity as Barack Obama, but she obviously has a better energy plan.”

My, my, the McCain campaign does come up with the dumbest things to say.

That said, watching the Hilton video, a few questions came to mind. First, why is that Paris Hilton’s fake ad includes more substantive talk about energy policy than John McCain’s real ad? Second, if writers helped Hilton with her script, and writers helped McCain with his script, why is it that Hilton seems to have a better grasp on policy details than McCain does? Shouldn’t that be, you know, the other way around?

And third, why is it that a 27-year-old heiress/reality-show star can read a teleprompter better than the presumptive Republican presidential nominee?

Now, I’m loath to actually type the words, “Let’s scrutinize Paris Hilton’s energy policy,” but the McCain campaign seems to seriously believe that her “proposal” not only has merit, but mirrors McCain’s own approach to the issue. For that matter, literally millions of people are going to watch Hilton’s fake-ad today, and some of them might think she raises a legitimate point.

With that in mind, here’s specifically what she said:

Barack wants to focus on new technologies to cut foreign oil dependency and McCain wants offshore drilling. Well, why don’t we do a hybrid of both candidate’s ideas? We can do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight, while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars. That way, the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick in, which will then create new jobs and energy independence.

It’s a clever little web video, I suppose, but that doesn’t make it right. Indeed, the fact that McCain’s gang likes what she had to say is not at all encouraging.

Coastal drilling can’t “carry us until the new technologies kick in.” Even the Bush administration and McCain’s policy aides concede that we’re about a decade away from new coastal drilling having any kind of effect on the marketplace. And even then, we’re talking about pennies on the gallon. There’s nothing to actually “carry us” at all.

If we really want a “hybrid” plan, the Obama campaign is offering one.

Before anyone emails me, saying, “I can’t believe you fact-checked a fake ad from Paris Hilton,” keep in mind, I know her ad was a joke. But, again, McCain’s spokesperson endorsed the ideas articulated in this fake ad, and a whole lot of Americans are going to wonder why the candidates can’t just accept the Paris Hilton “plan” as some kind of reasonable-sounding compromise.

I figure, why not take a moment to set the record straight?

Comments

  • r_m

    says:

    This really reminds me of Gulliver’s Travels, something about politicians getting elected by how well they do gymnastics…

  • Racer X

    says:

    Seems like McCain should invite Ms Hilton to perform in a “beauty contest” in front of a bunch of bikers, like he invited his wife to do. That would generate some energy.

  • Georgette Orwell

    says:

    Who created and produced this ad?

    And why isn’t Obama hammering the facts about how much oil we ship overseas?

  • JC

    says:

    And let’s not forget:

    Paris Hilton was wearing diapers when John McCain took his first oath of office in the Congress.

  • Badass4Peace

    says:

    *sigh*

    The most important job in the world (other than pizza delivery driver) somehow has the most inane, absurd job interview process. It’s bizarre!

  • Steve

    says:

    …a whole lot of Americans are going to wonder why the candidates can’t just accept the Paris Hilton “plan” as some kind of reasonable-sounding compromise.

    Therein lies the two-pronged key to addressing the issue. First, acknowledge the Paris Plan as being far-and-away beyond anything the McWhite-Haired-Dude campaign has offered the American people—and then second, go into detail (in a language that these “whole lot of Americans” can understand)—just WHY offshore drilling isn’t going to “carry us through.”

    We were moving Americans, by the millions, a full century ago via electric-powered interurban trains. We were moving mail and express freight the same way.

    Wow. American technology that’s 30 years older than John McCain can do what John McCain says America lacks the technology to do. And he wants to be president?

    Of what? The blond trophy-girl club? Please….

  • Joy

    says:

    I thought this was a pretty funny video. The best part was she could articulate an energy policy better than McCain. Too bad he pissed her and her family off. She would have been a better spokesman (and would have fit in at Sturgis too!)

  • danimal

    says:

    The McCain campaign must realize that getting into a substantive debate with Paris Hilton is a sure no-winner.

    He couldn’t match wits with her and he knows it. Besides, she’s hot.

  • woody, tokin librul

    says:

    @ # 6.On August 6th, 2008 at 9:16 am, JC said:
    And let’s not forget:
    Paris Hilton was wearing diapers when John McCain took his first oath of office in the Congress.

    and John McCain will be wearing diapers before the end of his ‘first term,’ if indeed he has one…

  • Focality

    says:

    So McCain’s energy policy=Paris Hilton’s joke ad

    This says so much about what kind of world we’re living in.

    Unfortunately, it’ll be bought hook, line and sinker. McCain supporters will be parroting the ideas, convinced it’s 1) The truth, 2) The Gospel, 3) Better than Barry Obama’s Plan, and 4) That McCain’s been saying this since 2000.

  • hark

    says:

    I really wish someone would set the record straight on drilling. The oil companies have billions of barrels under current leases, and do not need to drill in ANWR or protected coastal waters. It is not a choice of drilling in those places or going without increased domestic production. It is about forcing the oil companies to produce more oil in areas they already have access to, or not. Why is it that the media won’t inform the public about the facts? And why won’t the Democrats push more? I haven’t even heard Obama set the record straight on this.

    The American people believe we can’t produce more oil unless we raid and pillage these protected areas. That is blatantly false. The oil companies do not have the capacity to fully exploit the areas currently under lease. We can drill, drill, drill to our hearts’ content right now with no need to ravage these protected areas.

    Why won’t someone who can command an audience set the record straight once and for all? I don’t get it.

    For the record, I like Paris Hilton, and I thought the spoof was very clever. Obama should respond that he favors increased domestic drilling on existing areas and that they don’t need to drill in ANWR until those areas run dry. But he won’t. Nobody will. Why?

  • Jen

    says:

    I have no problem with your analyzing the video. Both my husband and son did not enjoy listening to me do so last night, so I’m glad to have someone else who recognizes the value!

    It’s closer to Obama’s in that it’s “hybrid,” but the offshore part is wrong — it’s not a gapfiller. There, I love when the comment box listens. ;-D

  • hark

    says:

    Another point that is never mentioned is that OPEC tightly controls its production. They have the capacity to turn the spigot on or off, to increase or decrease world production by a million barrels a day or more at the drop of a hat. Who’s to say that if we invest heavily in increased domestic production – aka more tax cuts for the oil companies to entice them to do this – and so manage to grind out a couple hundred thousand barrels more a day, that OPEC won’t respond by cutting production by the same amount? This is a global situation, not a national one. We are not in control. They are. There’s no guarantee that world production will rise at all if we do this. So even 12 cents a gallon reduction is a pipe dream.

    We could be wasting money for no purpose at all, money that could be invested in alternatives. That’s what we should be doing with those windfall profits – threatening extra taxes unless they invest heavily in alternatives.

  • Lance

    says:

    I’ve always wondered if Paris is not in fact smarter than many people believe her to be. I’ve seen her be serious and effective when the task calls for it (really, on the Simple Life).

    Just keep her away from Nicole!

    I’ve also wondered if Paris is not more evil than people believe her to be. Just look how she leads people astray.

    Keep her away from Brittany!

    It’s funny that the McC*nt campaign now thinks that Paris is great two days after saying she’s nothing but a talentless celebrity famous only for being famous.

    Paris Hilton, my candidate…

    … for the Anti-Christ!

  • The Other Ed

    says:

    Now if you’re the John McCain campaign, do you really want to say that an ad where your candidate is called the “wrrinkly, old white haired guy” and compared to the Golden Girls and the Crypt Keeper agrees with you on policy?

    And I thought you got all whiny about ageism when he was called confused.

  • John Rove

    says:

    I like Paris but Nicole is funnier.

    If the election were a choice between John McCain and Paris Hilton I would probably go with Paris Hilton she has created a successful reality show, which is more than John McCain has ever accomplished.

  • amy

    says:

    Britney’s ad:

    Montage of her last 8 years (the bad driving, the pantilessness, the hair cut)

    Britney voice over: This is what has happened to me over the last 8 years. And I’m finally getting my life together. I don’t think I could survive another Bush term. Do you?

  • Lance

    says:

    amy said: Britney voice over: “This is what has happened to me over the last 8 years. And I’m finally getting my life together. I don’t think I could survive another Bush term. Do you?”

    I’d just love to have Britney blame Boy George II for the last eight years of her life. I’m not sure that’s fair, but I’d love it.

  • Dale

    says:

    Lance said: Lance said:

    I’ve always wondered if Paris is not in fact smarter than many people believe her to be. I’ve seen her be serious and effective when the task calls for it (really, on the Simple Life).

    Lance, you horndog. First fur facts about Pamela and now psych-facts about Paris. Your range of knowledge on these issues impresses me. 🙂

    Paris really is helping McCain with this ad. Her comment about offshore drilling will re-inforce in the public mind that it is a quick and easy fix. Too bad.

  • Dale

    says:

    Republicans believe in the Jed Clampett theory of oil production. Just shoot a hole in the ground and out comes bubbling crude. Oil that is.

  • dodahman

    says:

    I thought for sure she was going to say something about getting drilled offshore in the Gulf. 😉

  • Racer X

    says:

    On the energy topic, specifically Obama’s statement that conservation would save more gas than we would get from the new offshore drilling McCain wants, I found one commenter’s smackdown of Jake Tapper fun and informative:

    KEVIN: Here’s a major problem your conclusions that I spotted right off the bat. This is part of what you wrote:

    “Since American drivers use roughly 380 million gallons of gasoline (not including diesel) per day, an 18% improvement translates into a savings of 68 million gallons, or 1.62 million barrels of oil per day.”

    NO, nope, not even close! 68 million gallons of gasoline is roughly equal to about 3.4 million barrels of oil per day. Crude oil (of the higher grades, known as “light/sweet” because of its low sulfur/acid content only converts to gasoline at a rate of about 20 gallons of gas, per 42 gallon barrel of crude.

    Secondly, you are not factoring in at all, the amount of energy required (expended) in exploration, drilling, building rigs and drilling machinery, transporting it to the site, drilling (and of course building, supplying and powering up all the necessary manpower, offices, computers, etc. necessary to run such an operation), pumping, transporting, refining, transporting to the blender and finally to the gas stations for the end consumer.

    The DOE says that means that you only, in terms of net energy balance, end up with about 43% of the energy content contained originally in that crude oil.

    Thus, for every 42 gallon barrel of oil, you end up with about 10 gallons of Net energy product in the form of gasoline.

    I knew you didn’t know what you were talking about when you equated a direct linear constant between crude oil and gasoline in that sentence. Unless you factor in the energy required to acquire that crude, transport it, refine it and get it to the consumer in the form of gasoline, you aren’t coming close to creating a valid comparison with the idea of conserving the same amount of gasoline.

    Every gallon saved through conservation, equals roughly 4 gallons of crude oil. Considering that conservartion would start paying benefits today, it makes your take on this even further off, as it would be years before a single drop of oil would be created from (ANWR as an example) and a total of about 40 years to fully extract the crude from there.

    Posted by: kevin | Aug 5, 2008 11:10:25 PM

    Tapper’s article: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/from-the-fact-1.html

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    Oh, come on. Read Paris Hilton’s statement, and it’s a helluva lot closer to what Barack Obama said yesterday than it is to anything McCain ever said.

    Barack wants to focus on new technologies to cut foreign oil dependency and McCain wants offshore drilling. Well, why don’t we do a hybrid of both candidate’s ideas? We can do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight, while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars. That way, the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick in, which will then create new jobs and energy independence.

    The line about “the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick in is hardly as important as the line I highlighted, which is as close as you can get to what Obama said.

    More importantly, this “ad” is a poke in the eye with a sharp stick to a bunch of morons too stupid to see that fact. Which is cool.

  • Racer X

    says:

    hark makes a good point in #19.
    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16458.html#comment-449679

    Even if we increased production, the major oil producers can make the price go back up again any time they want to, if they’re willing to forego the revenue, which of course until there’s an alternative is like leaving money in the bank.

    There is no energy independence until we have our own supply of energy, and the only party that is willing to invest seriously in alternative energy is the Democratic party. The Republicans talk a good game, but their numbers tell the true story.

  • Basilisc

    says:

    The point is that, even talking complete nonsense that she doesn’t understand anyway, Paris Hilton can sound way more sophisticated than John McCain.

    And that, if showing images of promiscuous young white women in your anti-Obama ad isn’t racism, then showing images of wrinkled geezers in your anti-McCain ad isn’t ageism.

    And that Paris Hilton is exploiting her unexpectedly renewed 15 minutes of fame for all it’s worth. Which is just fine by me, especially if she does it wearing that bathing suit.

  • BuzzMon

    says:

    Just as long as Paris doesn’t dress McCain in a kilt and have him photographed getting out of a vehicle, I’m OK.

    Visualization of this acts as an appetite suppressant.

  • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

    says:

    This whole ad was a stroke of genius. (Does anyone know who was behind it.) The ‘combined plan’ may not make sense, sure, but does that really matter? The true killer is ‘that wrinkly, white-haired dude.’ People are going to have that image in their minds so solidly that every time they see McCain on tv, those are the words that will pop into their head. (I can see families calling out “hey, that w.w-h. d.’s on, wanna watch what he says.” “Naah.”) Talk about ‘branding’ — in both senses of the term.

    Between this, Obama’s ‘they take pride in being ignorant,’ and Sturgis, this is already Obama’s best week since Super Tuesday.

    And if any of you are conservative Christians — not impossible, since not all CCs are idiots despite the way their spokesmen often sound –, or have friends/relatives who are, suggest that your ministers bring up Sturgis this Sunday.

    I think a lot of them will, unprompted.

    Hooboy, can’t wait for the campaign really to get rolling. Champagne anyone?

  • beowulf888

    says:

    Good for Paris! This is really a embarrassing add for McCain, no matter how his people try to spin it. What frustrates me about my party (I’m a Democrat), is that so many of peers think that a discussion of POLICY can win a campaign. The Repugs understand they can take any whacko policy position, and spin it so it sounds attractive. In other words the Repugs understand the value of propaganda. That’s why Kerry’s campaign sank under the Swiftboat attack — they didn’t understand that propaganda often trumps policy in a campaign. So don’t get hot an bothered about Paris’ policy statements. She’s really doing Obama a service by making McCain look like a chump — and an old chump at that.

  • Ghillie

    says:

    I agree with Prup – Obama can’t come out and say “wrinkly white-haired dude,” but she can – and she’s not a surrogate or otherwise associated with Obama. It’s an image that’s worth hitting on, because McCain so lacks vitality that he seems older than 71 (?). And that lack of vitality reinforces his befuddlement and total inabilty to articulate a position.

    And McCain invited her into the contest.

  • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

    says:

    If you are wondering if this is getting sufficiently noticed, it’s the top item on the front page of today’s NY DAILY NEWS. And the story begins “Paris Hilton drove her stilleto heel into John McCain yesterday…”

    Who would have thought Will Ferrell — whose website produced the ad — would turn out to be a major player in the election race?

  • Splitting Image

    says:

    As bad as the optics are for McCain, and they are bad, I think the subtext is even worse.

    Short-term, McCain is set for weeks of late-night jokes about being dumber than Paris Hilton, but the real damage is that Hilton is a celebrity Republican. Or at least she was. Practically her entire family is maxed out for McCain, and apparently there’s some real unhappiness there because of McCain’s ad. Paris’ mother has publicly rebuked him for wasting her money, and that’s a criticism that will carry weight with other Republicans.

    Consider what has been said about the big-money Clinton donors who were hesitating to back Obama. McCain may be in bigger trouble with his own donors now and he doesn’t have the big small-donor base that Obama has to get away with it.

    It gets worse. Keep in mind he attacked Britney Spears as well. Remember how Obama is hoping to compete in Mississippi and Louisiana with a concerted get-out-the-vote effort? How in Mississippi the newly-larger black vote plus about 25-30% of the white vote might just do it? Well, Spears was born in Mississippi and brought up in Louisiana. Take away her singing career and she’s a fairly typical Southern white working class woman. One of the vast majority in those states that vote Republican. McCain is playing with fire by attacking her, maybe even moreso than with Hilton.

    It’s a stretch to think that this brouhaha will carry both states for Obama, but it’s heartening to see McCain setting so many fires in his own backyard. Some people might ask whether anyone cares about Spears and Hilton and their political allegiances. The answer is that Republicans do. So many Hollywood celebrities are vocally Democratic that Republicans these days latch on to pretty much any celebrity who is willing to speak out as a Republican. And Spears (for all her faults) was loyal to the cause. (Actually that is one of her faults, but I digress…)

    Even if the immediate impact were minimal, Hilton’s ad has underscored the fact that a lot of Republicans are unhappy with their nominee and that large numbers of them are jumping ship. Granted I’d rather have Chuck Hagel than Paris Hilton, but give him time. The fact that McCain is doing so badly with his base so close to the election is a great thing.

  • susan g

    says:

    you guys are way to uptight! this ad is fabulous for its mockery of mcsame’s TACTICS and his ANCIENTNESS-nobody cares what she thinks about energy policy, but they will remember the mockery and the insane response from mcsame.this may be the best pro-obama ad of the silly season

  • The Other Ed

    says:

    Speaking of “Biggest Celebrity”, have you seen John McCain’s IMDB profile?

    He has more TV & Movie credits than Paris Hilton but not quite as many as Britney. Barak Obama comes in a distant 4th among the four of them. This looks like a case for FactCheck.Org since this is hilarious, did this guy ever miss a chance to promote himself?:

    John McCain – http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0564587/

    Paris Hilton – http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0385296/

    Britney Spears – http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005453/

    Barak Obama – http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1682433

  • cnnr

    says:

    i’m not sure why mccain thinks her ad looks good for him? She calls him a wrinkly white haired dude.

    At any rate, it was hilarious and smart. I enjoyed it immensely.

  • slag

    says:

    I would criticize you for “fact checking” a Paris Hilton campaign ad, but to be honest, I thought the exact same thing when I watched it. The writers really should know how stuff works before they try to sell it.

  • JWK

    says:

    My concern is that this fake ad plays right into a strategy I see being employed by the Republicans and the McCampaign. I’ll call it the Joker Gambit. I didn’t have a name for this strategy until I saw The Dark Night.

    The Joker’s Gambit is to bring down a noble and idealistic Harvey Dent. Spoilers ahead for those who haven’t seen it. The Joker does this through inciting chaos and ridiculing the very nobility Dent aspires to and the people crave.

    The Republicans are doing the exact same thing. They are a cornered dog, sure to loose. And having nothing else TO loose, would rather bring down the whole institution of government than see a Democratic candidate, let alone Obama, in power. All of the Republican antics point to this strategy of making the body politic absurd. From their sit in at the Capital, to their lunatic ravings, to their tire gauge glee — all of it is designed to tear down the idea of nobility and the possibility that government COULD work under an Obama administration.

    It can have the effect of disillusioning those of us who are idealists ourselves, or even those who simply have hope in an Obama administration. This Gambit works to sap our resolve and our interest, to dismiss politics as disgusting and not wanting any part in it.

    That is the Joker’s Gambit, the Republican’s Gambit.