killer buffalo

Throughout this election cycle, Barack Obama has been barraged with negative advertising, blasted by inflammatory speeches from John McCain and Sarah Palin and blitzed by the conservative Right with attacks on his character, associations, and religion. Obama has handled these tactics very professionally, especially given that previous Democratic Presidential candidates have been crippled by the same ploys. The GOP successfully defeated John Kerry in 2004 at least in part by branding him a “flip-flopper” and questioning the true extent of his bravery in the Vietnam war. In 2000, Republicans tarnished Al Gore’s image by calling him “elitist” and “arrogant.” What has Obama done differently than his predecessors?

First and foremost, Obama has not been afraid to fight back. He has spent far more money on advertising—and, in fact, has run a far greater absolute number of negative ads. However—due to this spending advantage—he has also been able to run a large amounts of positive ads to counterbalance the negative ones. On the other hand, John McCain, whose funding is limited, having accepted public financing, has run a smaller number of total ads, but a much higher percentage of negative ones. The result is the public perception that McCain has been much more negative in his advertising. In terms of rhetoric, Obama has successfully leveraged one of his greatest talents. When McCain attacks Obama, he appears on the offensive, and is often perceived as being repulsive or downright nasty. Obama, while often very critical of McCain, is critical in a defamatory and sometimes informative way. Instead of constantly blasting his opponent, he explains why McCain is wrong. Obama succeeds in appearing poised and presidential even while going negative, where McCain, comparatively appears erratic and angry.

Obama’s poise and presence have done more than help him attack—they have aided him while on the defensive, too. Perhaps one of Obama’s greatest speeches came all the way back in March in trying to defuse the Reverend Wright controversy. Through sincerity and earnestness he distanced himself from former pastor, while using the opportunity to discuss race, as a whole, in America. Ever since, he has been able to dismiss the more outlandish allegations that McCain and the GOP have directed at him, ranging from ties to domestic terrorists to socialist leanings, with ease. While Swift Boat Veterans for Truth successfully painted Kerry as a much-exaggerated hero in 2004, Obama has been able to deflect or trivialize much of the 2008 Republicans’ negative propaganda.

The timing of Obama’s candidacy has neutralized the usual Republican smears, employed so successfully in the last twenty-five years: foreign policy weakness and higher taxes. The philosophy with which President Reagan endowed his party in 1980—small government, low taxes and strong defense—has successfully carried Republicans to the White House four times since then to Democrats’ two. Now, however, the War in Iraq has caused voters to doubt Republicans on foreign policy; although most polls reveal more confidence in John McCain, as a Commander in Chief, than his opponent, it is certainly not by the margins that Republican candidates have enjoyed in the past.

Furthermore, Obama, unlike his Democratic predecessors, has never appeared soft on foreign policy, making resistance to the invasion of Iraq one of his main talking points when campaigning for the Senate. Unfortunately for McCain, given that terrorism and Iraq are top priorities for a much smaller segment of the population than in 2004, his perceived superiority on such issues comes with little benefit. And more importantly, the current economic crisis has indicated the adverse effects of a trickle-down tax system; David Lamb has already noted that recessions tend to favor Democrats. The “perfect storm” of 2008 cannot have helped McCain in now economically depressed areas like Ohio, Missouri, and Michigan, where Republicans have typically held the advantage.

John McCain’s poor decision-making and erratic nature have not helped him either. The angles of attack have certainly been many, and the attacks themselves have often lacked evidence of truth, but there never seemed to be one, solid strategy to tarnish Obama’s image. First there was the elitist, celebrity line of advertising,featuring Moses and Paris Hilton, which was promptly discontinued. The next installment was a series of attacks on Obama’s experience and readiness to lead—a campaign wich McCain was forced to abandon after selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate. Round three consisted of assaults on Obama’s foreign policy stance, even though, by the time they aired, the War in Iraq had taken the backseat to the financial crisis at home.

Thus the following few weeks featured persistent attempts to tie Obama to domestic terrorist William Ayers. When McCain’s polling numbers took a nosedive, he backed off and began criticizing Obama’s tax policies. By the end of October the negative tactics lacked any cohesion. None of this has bode well for a McCain campaign attempting to ward-off left-wing attacks that the Republican nominee is like an angry man who cuts himself off in the middle of one insult to begin a second, and that he has led a campaign far more negative than effective.

-William Hakim

Sphere: Related Content

Related posts:

1. Negative Campaigning and the Positive Response Today Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin presented her...
2. Election Day Blues: An Endorsement of Senator Obama Why is it vital we put Senator Obama in...
3. Senator Obama: Stop Hitting Yourself Yesterday afternoon, as Senator Obama discussed his proposed energy...
4. President-Elect Obama: How McCain lost the Oval Office On the morning of August 20th, Senator Obama and...
5. Courting Goldilocks: Obama, McCain, and the Growing Divide [caption id="" align="alignright" width="260" caption="This one's just right"][/caption] The...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.