For the past five months or so, Barack Obama relentlessly harped on a single message: You don't like George W. Bush. John McCain is George W. Bush. So vote for me instead.

In contrast, McCain has careened between at least eight different themes--in the past 48 hours alone. At a national-security roundtable in Tampa, Fla., he questioned Obama's readiness to be commander in chief. At a pair of "Joe the Plumber" events in Ohio, he claimed that Obama wants to "spread the wealth" around. Meanwhile, he managed to remind voters of Obama's past relationships with Bill Ayers, Khalid Rashidi and ACORN; accuse him of planning cut defense spending in Virginia; characterize him as soft on criminals; warn about the dangers of one-party rule; charge that Obama is just "a typical politician"; and slam him for voting in favor of Bush's 2005 energy bill.

All of which, I suppose, was meant to drive one overarching message: that Obama is an unsavory character. Call it the "Choose Your Own Attack" approach to presidential politics.

With that in mind, you can understand why I was a little surprised when McCain's latest national TV ad arrived in my inbox. The title says it all: "Obama Praises McCain." For your viewing pleasure:

I'll leave it to smarter observers to judge whether McCain's mixed messages are hampering his ability to connect with voters on the issues that matter most--i.e., the economy, the economy and also the economy. But I have to admit: I'm thinking of suing for whiplash.

I mean, I get that McCain wants me to be all excited that Obama once praised his "outstanding leadership" on greenhouse-gas emissions. You know, bipartisanship and whatnot. But doesn't this ad make Obama seem at least as bipartisan as McCain? And what about all that talk about Obama being a pro-criminal, anti-military terrorist lover who's conspiring steal the election and transform America into a socialist dystopia? Wouldn't that make his praise sort of offensive--like how a Hamas spokesman said some favorable stuff about Illinois senator and suddenly he was "the candidate of Hamas"? Wait a second. Does this mean that McCain has become... the candidate of Obama? And if so, what does that say about McCain's "character" and "judgment"?

Now, it's not like I care about some washed-up old redistributor. But the people have a right to know.

As an unabashed fan of "Gossip Girl"--it's no "The O.C.," but then again, what is?--I feel strangely compelled to post the latest ad from liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org. Called "Talk to Your Parents," it features Dan Humphrey and Serena Van Der Woodsen--also known, I'm told, as Penn Badgely and Blake Lively--encouraging kids to steer the 'rents toward Barack Obama. Judging by the small-scale buy--national airtime during "Gossip Girl" followed by screeningson MTV and Comedy Central in North Carolina and Nevada--the point is to get Blair-aholic political bloggers like yours truly to post the spot online. I hate playing to type, but...

Truth be told, I'm digging the satirical anti-drug PSA vibe of the spot. "Mom, Dad, I found this in your room," says "Lonely Boy" as he holds up a "Drill Baby Drill" trucker cap. "And if you're ever out somewhere and you're considering voting for John McCain, just call me!" adds Serena. "I'll pick you up, no questions asked." But I sort of wish MoveOn took it a few steps further. Why not compare your brain (an egg) to your brain on McCain (a plate of scrambled--I mean, "erratic"--eggs)? Or, you know, show a teenager busting into his dad's room and confronting him with a bag of "Country First" buttons. "This yours?" he could say, cutting his father off before he can respond. "Who taught you how to do this stuff?" And, then, exploding with years of pent-up despair, the older man would shout, "You, all right! I learned it by watching you!"

I'm not sure that this ad would make any sense whatsoever. But I am sure that it would be totally awesome.

XOXO, Stumper

Spotted last night around 9:45 p.m... in Brooklyn, NY... on Bravo... during "Project Runway"...

Obama's preemptively defensive new health care ad, which casts his plan as the moderate middle ground between "government run health care, higher taxes" on the left and "insurance companies without rules denying coverage" on the right:

Who knew that Obama was targeting upscale, Bravo-watching Brooklyn fashionistas? A bold move, I say. A bold move.

Next thing you know John McCain will be going after the military vote. In Oklahoma.
 

Breaking news! John McCain and Barack Obama agree--at least in theory.

In response to the surprising collapse yesterday afternoon on Capitol Hill of the Bush Administration's $700 billion plan to bailout the imploding financial industry, both McCain and Obama called for--wait for it--"bipartisanship." Speaking this morning at an economic roundtable in Des Moines, Iowa, McCain bemoaned "the lack of resolve and bipartisan good will among members of both parties to fix this problem," reminding legislators that "bipartisanship is a tough thing--never more so when you’re trying to take necessary but publicly unpopular action." Meanwhile, Obama told supporters in Reno, Nev. that "while there is plenty of blame to go around...now is the moment for us to come together and put the fire out." What's more, both candidates floated the exact same proposal--increasing the federal deposit insurance cap from $100,000 to $250,000--as a way to make the package more palatable to wary House Republicans. So helpful!

The only problem? Despite all the bipartisan blather, both candidates have actually spent the past 24 hours jockeying for partisan advantage--especially on the airwaves. The point, of course, is to appear "above the fray" without sacrificing any possible political advantage.

Given that not all of you live in swing states, we thought it'd be worthwhile to harness the power of YouTube and bring the mudslinging to a computer screen near you.

McCain's hypocrisy has been more blatant than Obama's. First, McCain debated himself yesterday on the proper response to the bailout failure, denouncing the blame game precisely one sentence after (ahem) blaming Obama. "Sen. Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process," he said. "Now is not the time to fix the blame, it's time to fix the problem." The trend continued today. A mere 16 minutes after McCain again extolled the virtues of bipartisanship in Iowa, his campaign sent out a new ad, "Rein," that blames the financial meltdown solely on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and claims that "Mr. Obama was notably silent" when McCain pushed for stronger regulation of the mortgage giants. Bill Clinton even makes an unhelpful cameo:

But today's weirdest anti-Obama spot came from the RNC. As McCain took to television to urge the plan's passage and ask that it be referred to a "rescue" rather a "bailout," the GOP decided release an ad... attacking the same plan that McCain so ardently supports. "Wall Street squanders our money and Washington is forced to bail them out with--you guessed it--our money," says the announcer. "Can it get any worse?" The answer, according to the ad: yes it can--as long as America elects Barack Obama, whose "plan... will make the problem worse." Call it a twofer: contradicting McCain's ban on partisanship and his position on the bailout. All in one fell swoop:

Lest the day end on that ambivalent note, however, the McCain has just released yet another ad attacking Obama. This one, called "Strong," slams the Senator for saying yesterday that "we've got the long-term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows" after spending a week or so flogging McCain's infamous "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" remark for his own political advantage. Its conclusion doesn't exactly strike a bipartisan note: "Obama's a hypocrite." (Unfortunately for McCain, Obama was referring to the "long-term fundamentals" of his own economic plan--not the fundamentals of the economy itself.) Watch it and weep:

Obama, for his part, is no angel--even if he hasn't proven to be as aggressively hypocritical as McCain. In response to the RNC ad, Obama spox Bill Burton chastised "John McCain’s party" for "demagogu[ing] a rescue plan that he supports in order to score cheap political points." That was appropriate. But Burton proceeded to ratchet up the rancor for no particular reason, implying that McCain is a "dishonest and dishonorable" character who no longer puts "country first"--even though the McCain camp had no involvement with the ad in question, which was produced by the RNC's independent expenditure wing. Meanwhile, Obama communications director Robert Gibbs, appearing today on MSNBC's Morning Joe, called McCain's reaction to the crisis "erratic" and likened him to an unsteady driver--a not-so-subtle dig at the Republican nominee's age. "This guy zigzags," Gibbs said. "Look, if he's driving a car, get off the sidewalk." Finally, Obama himself points a finger squarely at the GOP in "Same Path," his latest TV spot. "The old trickle-down theory has failed us," he says, going on to catalog its alleged failures. The ad is largely substantive--a sober two-minute synopsis of Obama's economic plan. Still, its secondary message--that Republicans alone are responsible for the current crisis--contradicts the candidate's claim, voiced this morning in Reno, that now is not the "time to punish those who set this fire." Never mind that Democrats--bipartisanship alert!--are to blame as well. 

Do I expect Obama and McCain to resist poking each other for partisan advantage at a time like this? Of course not. But the next time they reach for their shivs, they could spare us the bipartisan boilerplate. With 35 days until Nov. 4, most voters are smart enough to realize that politics comes first.

Can you feel the cognitive dissonance tonight?

According to Barack Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, this was a historic day--"the first day," in his words, "of the rest of the campaign." In a memo sent to reporters this morning heralding the arrival of this hopeful new age--"at least the second time the Obama campaign has decreed such a new beginning, perhaps even the third," as ABC News's Jake Tapper notes--Plouffe informs us that Chicago "will respond with speed and ferocity to John McCain’s attacks and ... take the fight to him ... on the big issues that matter to the American people." This afternoon in Dover, N.H., Obama himself made precisely the same point in response to a voter's question. "I can guarantee you that we are going to be hitting back hard," Obama said. "We are hitting back on the issues that matter to families."

Like, for example, McCain's doddering old-fogey-ness?

Apparently, yes. While Obama was transmitting his high-minded "hit back hard on the issues that matter" message from the stump in Dover, his ad department was sinking a little lower. Released this morning, "Still" ostensibly "details why John McCain would just be another out-of-touch president offering more of the same." But it's really about why old John McCain would just be another old out of touch president offering more of the same old. The spot opens with a shot of the word "1982"--the year McCain was elected to Congress--followed by a montage of images from that prehistoric era: a disco ball, a cinder-block cell phone, a record player, an early PC, a Rubik's Cube. "Things have changed in the last 26 years, but McCain hasn't," the announcer says. "He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer. Can't send an e-mail." Cue the clip of McCain puttering around in a golf cart with 84-year-old former president George H.W. Bush.

While the underlying message of "Still" is certainly relevant--i.e., whether McCain represents "more of the same"--the way Team Obama has chosen to deliver that message is misleading. (Nevermind the fact that they're preaching to the choir--younger, techier folks who already support Obama--and alienating the older, less-wired voters they still need to win over.) Take the computer thing. Last year, McCain famously admitted that he's "a [computer] illiterate [who] has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance I can get." That's where "Still" gets its quote. More recently, however, McCain updated his status--pun intended--in an interview with the New York Times. "I'm learning to get online myself," he said. "I'm becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need." In July, aide Brooke Buchanan testified to McCain's growing competence. "He's fully capable of browsing the Internet and checking web sites," she said. "He has a Mac and uses it several times a week." If McCain's previous lack of curiosity on the subject (and the attendant symbolism) rubs you the wrong way, fine. I happen to believe that it's kind of inconsequential--as I've written before. Either way, it's simply inaccurate to claim, as Obama does, that McCain "still" doesn't know how to use a computer.

Even worse is the line "can't send an email." That factoid--attributed in the ad to a July 13, 2008, New York Times article--seems to be completely fabricated. What McCain said at the time was “I don’t e-mail." Can't and don't, of course, are two very different verbs--especially for a U.S. senator. One connotes inability; the other connotes inaction. When aides are responding to your messages and keeping your calendar, the incentive to use Outlook sort of disappears. As McCain himself put it in July, "I've never felt the particular need." To conclude that McCain can't click the SEND button simply because he doesn't--and then to mock him for his imbecility--is a low blow.

Implying that McCain is too ancient to occupy the Oval Office is not a new part of the Obama playbook. The Illinois senator has long praised McCain for his "half century of service," and his surrogates regularly attach the adjective "confused" to their Republican rival. Last month, Chicago released an ad claiming that McCain had "lost track" and "couldn't remember" "how many houses he has"--a result, said a spokesman, of "how out of touch all of John McCain’s years in Washington have made him" (emphasis mine). I'm not saying that "Still" is as misleading as McCain's commercials from earlier this week. It's not. Nor am I saying that Obama's isn't allowed to "hit" the Arizona senator "hard" for being an economically incompetent Bush clone, as he does in the second half of the ad. Given Team McCain's underhanded tactics, Obama has a right to fight back. But when he starts insinuating that McCain is not just out of touch but senile--and stretches the facts to do it--then he's drifted far enough from "the issues that matter to families" to start sounding hypocritical.  

UPDATE, Sept. 13: Perhaps McCain "can't" email after all. From the Boston Globe, circa 2000:

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain’s severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain’s encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He’s an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can’t raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.

And from Forbes Magazine around the same time:

In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate. Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate’s savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. “She’s a whiz on the keyboard, and I’m so laborious,” McCain admits.

Either way, it's not fair to assume that McCain can't acquire--or doesn't already have, as the Forbes excerpt indicates--a broad understanding of technology issues without being a regular emailer. Using the Internet doesn't really contribute to your understanding of tech-related public policy, and legislators (and presidents) regularly make laws about stuff they haven't experienced firsthand (like farming or immigration). I agree with conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg on this one, actually: it's stupid for the Obama campaign to imply "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." Of course, I don't think Chicago's goal is that sophisticated. They're happy to imply that McCain is old and call it a day.

What... did you expect them to talk about John McCain?

With the release this morning of its latest ad, "Disrespectful," the McCain operation continues its transformation from a "campaign for the presidency" to "an effort to depict Sarah Palin as the victim of rampant sexism." Personally, I'm not particularly interested in the parts of the ad that claim Obama and Co. "lashed out" at Palin by saying she was "doing what she was told" and "call[ing] her a liar." That's because I'm not sure how either of those two charges is sexist, or even "disrespectful," really. In the first case, the quote, which is supposed to imply that Palin was meekly following orders, was taken completely out of context; originally, David Axelrod said that Palin made a false claim about Obama's legislative record and added, "maybe that's what she was told." The new sexism: people telling other people things! As for the second accusation, come on. It's not chauvinist--or disrespectful--to point out when your opponent is lying. Even if she's a woman. This is politics.

The other charge--that "they" "dismissed her as "good looking"--is more interesting, though. It's true that Joe Biden used the adjective "good-looking" to describe Palin. But a quick glance at the actual exchange reveals that Biden wasn't being "dismissive," as the ad alleges--he was being self-deprecating. Here's an expanded transcript:

"There's a gigantic--gigantic--difference between John McCain and Barack Obama, and between me and I suspect my vice presidential opponent. And that is that--" The crowd laughed. "Well there's obvious differences," Biden said, beginning to ham it up. "She's good looking," he said, laughing. "You know there's obvious differences. But there's a whole lot -- "A woman shouted: "you're gorgeous!" to Biden. "Where's that person?" Biden asked. "Who said that? Who said that? Would you say that again for my wife?" "You're gorgeous!" the woman yelled. "Oh, I tell you what, would you make sure Jill hears that?" Biden joked... "I haven't heard that in a long, long, long time. And hanging out with this lean, young-looking guy is making me feel pretty old, you know what I mean?"

I suppose I can see why some folks would interpret this as sexist--even though Biden was really just putting himself down. That said, it's a little rich for McCain to be calling Biden disrespectful for merely mentioning looks when he was the one who in 1988 said that Dan Quayle's appearance alone would draw women to the Republican ticket. Here's the Washington Post from Aug. 19, 1988:

Republican strategists are betting that Quayle's youth and his telegenic good looks will help him with younger voters and with women voters who are staying away from Bush in droves. Sen. John S. McCain of Arizona described him as "extremely telegenic in this day of television and images," and said: "I can't believe a guy that handsome wouldn't be attractive in some respect" to women.

The notion that Bush had picked the prettiest man in the Senate to help him with women voters touched off an incendiary reaction suggesting that the candidate had been what the British call too clever by half. "Whether it was just aides misspeaking or the truth, it was a supreme slap at women," says Irene Natividad, head of the National Women's Political Caucus. "To the women who are stretched so thinly between work and family, a pretty face isn't the answer. They want real policies and they want leaders who understand what their real lives are."

Here on the Internets, there are a lot of rumors, charges, slanders, accusations, calumnies and lies circulating about this intriguing woman named Sarah Palin, who sources tell Stumper has been asked to join John McCain's presidential ticket in the No. 2 slot. I mean, who knew?

Some of these claims have been substantiated. It's true that Palin raised the sales tax as mayor of Wasilla (mostly to pay for a new hockey rink). It's true that she sought and obtained earmarks (about $27 million between 2000 and 2003 as mayor and more than $200 million last year as governor). And it's true that she worked with Sen. Ted Stevens and was for the "Bridge to Nowhere" before she was against it.

That said, much of the information cycling through our beloved series of tubes is patently false. Palin never belonged to the secessionist Alaska Independence Party (that would be her husband, Todd). She never supported Pat Buchanan for president. She never mandated the teaching of creationism in public schools (even if she didn't oppose it). She never banned any books from the Wasilla library (that list you received by e-mail--it's a hoax). She never slashed special-needs funding. She certainly never covered up her daughter Bristol's pregnancy by pretending the baby was hers. And those are among the milder smears.

Given all the lies, I can understand why the McCain campaign has just launched what they're calling the "Palin Truth Squad." It's kind of like when Barack Obama--who's also been besieged by false internet rumors--unveiled his "Fight the Smears" Web site earlier this summer. A campaign has the right to correct the record.

But here's what I don't understand: if the purpose of your truth squad is to spread the truth about Palin, why kick off your campaign with an ad that's full of falsehoods? 

Earlier this afternoon, Team McCain released "Fact Check" (video above). The title must be ironic. Over images of bloodthirsty wolves prowling a shadowy forest, a female announcer gravely intones that "The [Wall Street] Journal reports Obama 'air-dropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers' into Alaska to dig dirt on Governor Palin." Meanwhile, a banner over Obama's grim visage claims that "the attacks" on Palin have been called  "completely false" and "misleading" by the nonpartisan researchers at FactCheck.org. "As Obama drops in the polls, he'll try to destroy her," concludes the announcer. "Obama's 'politics of hope'? Empty words."

So what's the problem? Where to begin. First of all, there's no evidence that "Obama" sent anyone to Alaska to "dig dirt" on Palin. Originally aired by conservative writer John Fund in a Wall Street Journal opinion article--not a "report," as the ad alleges--the charge, which Fund attributes to unnamed "sources," has been denied by both the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee. "I sent no lawyers, no investigators and exactly zero researchers to Alaska to research Sarah Palin," said DNC research director Mike Gehrke, while Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor characterized the claim as "fiction," "made up” and “absolutely, unequivocally false.” What's more, the McCain campaign misquoted Fund, who actually wrote that "Democrats" (not "Obama," as the ad claims) have dispatched a "mini-army" to Alaska "dig into [Palin's] record and background"--not to "dig dirt." As FactCheck.org said this afternoon, "Maybe the McCain-Palin campaign knows something we don't about what's in Palin's record and background."

Which brings us to the ad's most insidious conflation. By flashing those quotes about the "completely false" and "misleading" attacks on Palin over an image of Obama's face--as the announcer warns that "they've just begun," no less--McCain is suggesting that FactCheck.org attributed the attacks to Obama himself. But as the organization noted earlier today, "there is no evidence that the Obama campaign is behind any of the wild accusations that we critiqued." They continue: "there is no more basis for attributing these viral attacks to the Obama campaign than there is for blaming the McCain campaign for chain e-mail attacks falsely claiming that Obama is a Muslim, or a "racist," or that he is proposing to tax water. The anti-Palin messages, like the anti-Obama messages, have every appearance of being home-grown." Earlier this year, McCain spoke out against the Obama rumors; recently, Obama has denounced the Palin smears, as well. For Crystal City to suddenly imply that Obama is behind this stuff is completely disingenuous.  

It's clear what Team McCain is trying to achieve here. They want to portray Palin as the victim of a menacing Obama-media industrial complex that's "out to get her" just because she's a woman. They want to insulate their veep pick from any real opposition by equating valid journalistic inquiries and good hard politicking with the sort of anonymous smears that have spread online. They want to gin up sympathy for her among female swing voters who have faced improbable odds in their own lives. And they want Chris Matthews and Co. to deliver their message free of charge tonight on TV.

They'll probably succeed on all counts. But that doesn't mean that "truth" has anything to do with it.

Into a political season that has already seen the McCain campaign put out its share of sharp and sometimes misleading anti-Obama ads comes this higher note: John McCain congratulating his opponent on his nomination.

If you don't live in one of this year's dozen or so swing states (like most of the rest of the electorate), chances are you've encountered Barack Obama and John McCain mainly through the television screen--or, more specifically, through their combined $11 million investment in ads airing nationally during NBC's coverage of the Beijing Olympics. In which case, all you're seeing of Obama is his dream of "putt[ing] the middle class ahead of corporate interests" and his desire to "create five million jobs [by] developing home-grown energy technologies." And all you're seeing of McCain is... well, not much. The majority of McCain's record-setting $6 million ad buy went into airing "Painful," an ad mocking Obama's "life in the spotlight" while claiming that "the real Obama" is "not ready to lead." Given that Team McCain has spent much of the summer seeking free media exposure with limited-release spots comparing Obama to Paris Hilton--and releasing attack ads riddled with inaccuracies-- you'd think that only the Arizona senator has indulged in negative messaging, leaving his opponent from Illinois to travel the high road all by his lonesome.

You'd be wrong. As the New York Times reported this morning, Obama "has started a sustained and hard-hitting advertising campaign against Senator John McCain in states that will be vital this fall, painting Mr. McCain in a series of commercials as disconnected from the economic struggles of the middle class." So why haven't you heard anything about them? Because unlike a traditional campaign, Team Obama has "begun the drive with little fanfare, often eschewing the modern campaign technique of unveiling new spots for the news media before they run in an effort to win added (free) attention." The point, of course, is to preserve the perception that Obama is a "new kind of politician" on national level while still scoring "old politics"-style points against his rival in the places it matters most. According to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, for example, Obama’s campaign spent nearly $400,000 Sunday to run two anti-McCain spots more than 600 times, accounting for roughly two thirds of his commercials for the day--a number that didn't quite match McCain's 85-percent negative rating over the same period, but came closer than most casual voters would expect. “If you can go quietly negative, that’s what he’s done,” CMAG president Evan Tracey told the Times. “I think the perception is that he’s still running the positive campaign. It’s a pretty smart, high-low, good cop/bad cop strategy."

In the past--as recently as 2004, even--it would've pretty difficult for a voter in, say, Brooklyn to get any sense of what was airing in Dayton. But now we have YouTube. Scouring the site, I've compiled a playlist of all the videos in Obama's quiet, ongoing anti-McCain onslaught--for your non-swing-state viewing pleasure. This isn't to suggest that Obama is going "more negative" than McCain (he's not, especially because most of his focus on "the issues"), or even that his "high-low" strategy is somehow unwise (frankly, attack ads work--and I can imagine many Democrats are pleased to see their man finally "hitting back.") But the fact remains that before Aug. 4, Obama's only "negative" ads bemoaned McCain's "low-road campaign" and came in direct response to Republican swipes; since then, he's unleashed 11* nine--by my count, at least--unprompted anti-McCain spots (some of which are misleading, according to Factcheck.org). That's a change worth noting.

Broadcast information and/or factcheck.org analysis included where available:

1. "Never" (Atlanta)
"Draw[s] a connection between Republican John McCain's decision not to call Ralph Reed before a Senate panel and Reed's involvement in an Atlanta fund-raiser this week." (Atlanta Journal Constitution)

2. "Three Times"
Calls McCain's tax plan "more of the same."

3. "Punch" (Ohio)
"Spotlights John McCain's role in helping pave the way for foreign-owned DHL to take over an American shipping company and put more than 8,200 jobs at risk in Wilmington, Ohio." (Obama campaign)

Factcheck.org: "Ads from the AFL-CIO and the Obama campaign claim that McCain is partly to blame for the loss of more than 8,000 jobs in Ohio. They paint a false picture." 

4. "Fix the Economy" (Philadelphia; East Lansing, Mich.; Green Bay, Wis.; and at least five other major cities)
Asks "How can John McCain fix the economy when he doesn't think it's broken?"

Factcheck.org: "An Obama ad uses dated and out of context quotes to portray McCain as clueless on the economy. " 

CONTINUED AFTER THE JUMP...
 

As we've said before (more than once, in fact), Stumper knows how painful political ads can be--even if they're only 30 seconds long. Today, we make haiku of the latest releases from Barack Obama and John McCain. First up is the newest--and most effusive--spot in McCain's two-week-old "Barack Spears" series, followed by the Democrat's belated response. Find out what the candidates are actually trying to tell you--without suffering through their cheesy commercials: 

"Fan Club" by John McCain 
Web Ad, Aug. 11, 2008

"Hot chicks dig" Barack--
Hot WHITE chicks. Not frightened yet?
He'll raise your taxes!*

P.S. Oh, and about that "tax increase on everyone earning more than $42,000 a year"? Not quite true. According to FactCheck.org, "Obama's plan promises cuts for middle-income taxpayers and would increase rates only for persons with family incomes above $250,000 or with individual incomes above $200,000."

"Celebrity" by Barack Obama
National Cable, Aug. 11 2008  

"Same." "Old." "Washington."
Same as Dubya--but older
By "decades." Like Washington.

A few points of interest, while we have your attention: 1) Some pundits say that Obama waited too long--two weeks--to bite back on the "celebrity" front. But we think his timing was savvy. At this point, the "McCain takes the low road" meme is firmly fixed in voters' minds--which allows Obama to attack without damaging his "high road" brand. 2) The Obama spot will run only on national cable, which means, as the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder notes, "that for the most part it's intended to make an imprint in the minds of political elites." Another smart move: no need to go fully national, because with Obama away on vacation, Chris Matthews and Co. will lavish the ad with plenty of free coverage. Cable abhors a vacuum. And 3) according to the Politico's Ben Smith, "a cynic might see [Fan Club] as a bit of Putinesque skirmishing on the border of race designed to provoke the other side into a broader war." Call us cynical.
 

By Holly Bailey 

Is John McCain out of touch with... pop culture?

The Arizona senator's campaign is up this afternoon with a new ad called "Celeb," which dings Barack Obama for, you guessed it, being more of an international celebrity than a credible Commander in Chief. The ad highlights Obama's opposition to offshore oil drilling and questions his energy policies, but the real attention-getter is film of Obama juxtaposed with red carpet footage of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, a pair of Hollywood starlets who don't exactly have the most stellar reputations. Hilton, of course, briefly went to jail for drunk driving, and Spears had a widely publicized breakdown that culminated in a brief stay at the UCLA psych ward earlier this year.

So is the McCain campaign trying to equate Obama to a hotel heiress with a best-selling sex tape and a fading pop star who seems to truly dislike wearing underwear in public? Why no, the campaign innocently insists. In a conference call this morning with reporters, McCain manager Rick Davis said they included Britney and Paris in the ad only because "in our estimation" they are the two biggest celebrities in the world. "Britney is first, Paris came in second and third was Barack," Davis said. "Will people think of this as negative advertising? Look, it's the most entertaining thing I've seen on TV in a while. I wouldn't anticipate anything about this being negative."

The only problem with this argument: When was the last time Paris Hilton was on the cover of Us Weekly? Aside from a few paparazzi shots, McCain's new ad is the biggest spurt of publicity Hilton has gotten lately. After the conference call, the campaign released a memo from Davis backing up his arguments and adding a new celebrity name to the mix: Tom Cruise, whose ties to Scientology have gotten more attention than his acting roles lately. "It is beyond dispute that (Obama) has become the biggest celebrity in the world," McCain aide Steve Schmidt told reporters today. "It is a statement of fact. It is backed up by the reality of his tour around the world...The question we are proposing to the American people is this: Is he ready to lead yet?"

No surprise, the Obama campaign is attacking the ad as simply more negativity from McCain. "Oops! He did it again!" spokesman Tommy Vietor said. *Even a McCainiac agrees. This afternoon, former confidant John Weaver went on the record with Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic to call the ad a "childish" move that "diminishes" the senator. "There is legitimate mockery of a political campaign now, and it isn't at Obama's," he added. "For McCain's sake, this tomfoolery needs to stop."*

*UPDATE, 4:11 p.m.: Some smart analysis from Politico's Jonathan Martin:

The message is akin to the oft-heard line about Hilton herself: She's just famous for being famous. With Obama, the political translation is that, yes,' he's a rock star -- but does that mean you want him to lead the country?' And not just the country, but our country. It's no accident that he's called "the biggest celebrity in the world" and portrayed overseas. Nor is it incidental that he's described as being for more "foreign oil" "That's the real Obama," the ad closes.

"Celeb" represents a risk for McCain. His campaign seems to have made a conscious decision to use Obama's enormous appeal against him, with the hope that Americans will ultimately vote for the more familiar and less glamorous option. But by acknowledging Obamamania, they also reinforce the sense that the young Democrat has created an unprecedented and perhaps historic movement. It's quite a concession from somebody who himself was once a media darling and is close to a household name. They're trying to inflate Obama to tear him down -- but they also could just enhance his stature and send more buzz, money and supporters his way.

John McCain sure knows how to say bon voyage. 

With Barack Obama packing his bags for next week's journey to Europe and the Middle East--where the entire U.S. political press corps will watch, dumbstruck, as hope and change and audaciousness spread unbridled o'er the land--the Arizona Republican this afternoon gave his rival a not-so-friendly parting gift: the first real negative ad of the 2008 general-election cycle. Called "Troop Funding," the blistering spot uses the Democrat's overseas trip to compare him unfavorably to McCain on national security and press the case that he's a no-good, yellow-bellied, flip-flopping opportunist.

The only problem: it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The ad accuses Obama of three offenses: he "never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan," even though he chairs the Senate foreign relations subcommittee tasked with overseeing military operations in that country; he "hasn't been to Iraq in years"; and he "vot[ed] against funding our troops." All of these, says an announcer, are "positions that helped him win his nomination"--and now that he has, "he's changing to help himself become president." So what's wrong here? For starters, none of these "positions" actually helped Obama win the Democratic nod. It's not like the party was looking for a troop-hating, Iraq-avoiding, hearing-skipping candidate and Obama happened to fit the bill. So the whole "he's changing to help himself" accusation isn't particularly convincing.

More importantly, while the individual complaints may sound damning when simplified and strung together, they quickly crumble upon closer examination--especially as contrasts with McCain. It's true that Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan--but that's because Joe Biden, the chairman of the Foreign Relations committee, has insisted that hearings on this critical issue be held at the full committee level, and not at the subcommittee level. It's also true that Obama has only attended on Afghanistan-related Senate meeting over the past two years, as McCain has loudly noted elsewhere. Unfortunately, McCain's record--he's attended zero of his Armed Services committee's six hearings on the subject since 2006--is even worse. Sadly, that's what happens when you're running for president--the day job suffers. Neither Obama nor McCain should treat his opponent's Capitol Hill absences as especially unusual. Nor should voters.

Then there's the little issue of "vot[ing] against funding our troops." Sounds despicable, right? Unfortunately, it's just another example of the way Washington works. Obama did, in fact, vote against a 2007 war-funding bill. But it wasn't because he hates American soldiers. Instead, he was registering an objection to legislation that "lacked a timetable for troop withdrawal"--a position that arguably means he was more concerned about troop well-being, not less. Reasonable people can disagree over whether timetables are warranted. But portraying this as a vote "against the troops" is silly. It's also a game two can play. On March 29, 2007, McCain voted against H.R. 1591, an emergency spending bill designed to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and provide more than $1 billion to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Why? Because it included a timetable for troop withdrawal. Does than make him a anti-soldier? Not at all. But it wouldn't stop an opponent from characterizing his vote--unfairly--as such.

Finally, there's Iraq. This is probably McCain's most meaningful beef with Obama. Since May, the Arizonan, who visits every few months, has said that his rival, who hasn't visited since 2006, should return and assess the changing conditions in person. He's right. As my NEWSWEEK colleague Michael Hirsh noted earlier today, "the Democratic senator missed witnessing the sectarian violence that roiled Iraq for more a year, and he has not had a firsthand look at the surge's success even as he has continued to say he would withdraw troops within 16 months of his presidency." But there are two important caveats to consider. One, heavily chaperoned congressional travel doesn't always offer the most accurate (or revealing) view of a war zone. Take McCain's April 1, 2007 trip to Baghdad. At the time, McCain claimed that his stroll through an open-air market proved that people could now "walk freely" through the city. But it was later reported that the candidate wore a flak jacket and received protection from 100 soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters and two Apache gunships during his promenade; snipers returned the next day and murdered a few Shiite merchants. (CNN even deemed the area too dangerous to visit without military escort.) Second, Obama is already planning do this summer what McCain has said he should do--that is, visit Iraq. This doesn't change the fact that he should've gone earlier. But it does instantly outdate the Republican's attack.

Ultimately, McCain is trying to frame Obama as a no* know-nothing foreign-policy novice maneuvering for maximum political gain. He may have a point. He may not. But by choosing to focus "Troop Funding" on matters of symbolism rather than substance, he doesn't really make it.

*D'oh.
 

Dude. I'm totally having a flashback. And it is not particularly groovy.

Boasting a new head honcho and a new economic message, John McCain today "reintroduced" himself to the American electorate with one-minute commercial set to air on national cable and in key swing states. Called "Summer of Love," the spot opens with stock late-Sixties footage of goateed protesters, flamboyant queens and nearly naked longhairs making out in a muddy field. "It was a time of uncertainty, hope and change," announces actor Powers Boothe in his bombastic, History Channel baritone. Then, suddenly, the music fades and images of fighter jets, wrecked fuselage and a captive McCain replace the flower-power iconography. Hushed and reverent, Boothe continues: "Half a world away, another kind of love -- of country. John McCain: Shot down. Bayoneted. Tortured... A man who has always put his country and her people before self." The implicit contrast couldn't be clearer. While McCain stands for service and selflessness, his rival for the White House, Barack Obama, represents "hope," "change," narcissism and "beautiful words [that] cannot make our lives better." In other words, he's a dirty hippie.

As always, McCain's "Hanoi Hilton" years are a compelling testament to his character, and I can understand why his campaign--new motto: "Putting Country First"--continues to highlight them. But casting Obama as a self-obsessed Aquarian--and, in the process, resurrecting the culture wars of the past 40 years--strikes me as unwise. Sure, the boomers are an easy target--even they have loathed themselves for a few decades now. But it's not like Obama is a big fan of their work. In fact, the Democratic nominee rose to prominence largely on his pledge to leave boomer politics behind. In 2006's "The Audacity of Hope," Obama (who was six in 1967) wrote that “in the back and forth between Clinton and Gingrich, and in the elections of 2000 and 2004, I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation--a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago--played out on the national stage.” And when he announced his presidential candidacy a few months later in Springfield, Ill., the Democrat bet that Americans of all ages, sick of the squabbling boomers, would rally around "a new generation" that promised to "rise up and do what needs to be done"--a new generation that he would (conveniently) represent. So given that Obama has already defined himself in opposition to the group that McCain's trying to lump him into, the image of the Illinois senator as some sort of Merry Prankster--or even, say, a Clinton--is an awkward fit. Ultimately, by reviving the clashes of the Sixties to score political points, McCain is simply indulging in the very sort of boomer-era politics that Obama's running against. Not a smart way to appeal to swing voters.

Which brings us to the second (and ultimately more damaging) problem with McCain's strategy here: it's completely retrograde. In the commercial, Boothe presents McCain in the past tense: a man who was "offered early release [but] said, "No"; a man who came "home [and] turned to public service"; a man who "tackled campaign reform, military reform, spending reform"; a man who "took on presidents, partisans and popular opinion." I know it's a biographical spot. But Boothe says nothing about how that past would propel McCain into the future. The idea, of course, is to show that the candidate rejects the baby boomer ethos; instead, he's a scion of the "Silent Generation" seeking to revive an earlier era of honor, duty and sacrifice. That's true enough. The trouble is, when given a choice between a non-boomer (McCain) who promises a return to the past and a non-boomer (Obama) who promises to strive for a better tomorrow, voters will inevitably choose to move forward--especially in a "change" election like this one. In 1992, a youthful Democratic novice beat an experienced World War II hero. Four years later, another aged ace told voters that he represented "a bridge to an America that only the unknowing call myth." The Democrat won again. And lest we forget, voters chose a chicken hawk over a decorated Vietnam vet last time around. In presidential elections, biography isn't everything. When not integrated into a larger, forward-looking narrative, it can, in fact, make a candidate seem stale. As he continues his "reintroduction," McCain should remember that rule--unless he wants to experience a flashback of his own.   
 

As a rule, we here at Stumper headquarters--which, for the record, is not located in a massive underground lair or on a space station--are big fans of all things Bond. James Bond. So we were excited to see John McCain reinforce his latest talking point--that "Barack Obama is the Dr. No of energy policy"--with a Bond-themed web video boasting authentic theme music and groovy 60s-style title sequences. Unfortunately, the rest of the ad is not quite as accurate. Our qualms:

1) One panel portrays Obama as saying "no" to energy "innovation" and "the electric car," but as we've already pointed out, Obama has said that he would invest $150 billion in green technology since last October--long before McCain proposed his $300 million prize for a greener car battery. 

2) Another panel claims that Obama has said "no" to "clean, safe nuclear energy." In fact, Obama has said, "I have not ruled out nuclear... but only [would support it] so far as it is clean and safe." So he's more like Dr. Maybe.

3) Actually, comparing Obama to Dr. No on nuclear energy at all is kind of confusing. In the 1962 Bond film, the handless villain Dr. Julius No was a nuclear innovator who managed to build a reactor on the isolated Jamaican island of Crab Key before Bond foiled his plan to divert American rocket launchers from nearby Cape Canaveral, Fla. So instead of dissing the doc, McCain might want to hire him to help out with those 45 new nuclear plants he's always talking about.

4) At no point in the ad does Honey Ryder emerge from the ocean in white bikini with two large conch shells.

That said, we enjoy the implication that McCain is the worldly Bond to Obama's nefarious No, and hope the campaign releases more ads in this mold. If so, we humbly suggest that they cast Mrs. McCain as a Bond girl. We even have a name picked out: Cindy Licious.

We'll stop now.
 

For Republicans, desperate times call for desperate measures. Like, for example, pretending they're Democrats.

In a new, 30-second TV ad touting his "bipartisan leadership" on energy issues (above), incumbent Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith snubs fellow GOPer John McCain--whom he endorsed in early 2007--to trumpet his connection to the guy he ostensibly opposes for president. "Who says Gordon Smith helped lead the fight for better gas mileage and a cleaner environment?" asks the narrator. "Barack Obama!" The music swells. On screen, the camera pans from Smith's name to a headshot of the Democratic nominee. The background is blue. Smith's logo is green. And there's not a drop of red in sight.

Smith's mancrush on Obama is understandable. The last statewide Republican standing in bluer-by-the-minute Oregon, Smith is facing a Democratic challenger, Jeff Merkel, who has pulled within three points in recent polls. Obama, on the other hand, attracted 75,000 people--a personal best--to his most recent rally in Portland, and is currently clobbering McCain by an average of 6.3 percent in local polls. Plus, he has really great abs. (NB: This probably doesn't factor into Smith's calculations.)

To be fair, Smith, who crossed the aisle on stem-cell research and health care and broke ranks with his party in 2006 to denounce the Iraq War, does have a relatively moderate record, including a National Journal ranking as the Senate's second most-liberal Republican (which he's emphasized in earlier ads). But seeking to save your skin by sidling up to the Democratic nominee--while ignoring his GOP counterpart--is a whole different can of worms. For starters, it proves that the Republican Party has no message for voters, having abandoned the clear, top-down discipline of 2000 and 2004 in favor of an "every man for himself" approach. Like the round of anti-Obama ads tied to May's special congressional elections--which, by the way, backfired--Smith's maneuver only reinforces the idea that McCain is little more than bit player in a drama that's all about Obama. And, as Jonathan Martin writes, Smith is actually "making life difficult for his GOP colleague by breaking the ice for other blue-state Republicans to hug Obama."

In other words, totally unprecedented--and totally awkward. Yesterday, in fact, Obama was actually forced to rebuff the Republican's advances, lest the good people of Oregon think that he, you know, reciprocates. "Barack Obama has a long record of bipartisan accomplishment," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. "[But] in this race, Oregonians should know that Barack Obama supports Jeff Merkley for Senate."

Don't worry, Gordon. The pain will subside after a pint of Chunky Monkey and a few hours with "Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason." We promise.