Where's the love?

Last week, Team McCain posted a montage of media personalities fawning over Democratic nominee Barack Obama on its website and YouTube channel. Called "Obama Love," the fundraising video asked viewers to choose which song--Frank Valli's "My Eyes Adored You" or "Can't Take My Eyes Off You"--served as a more stirring accompaniment for the footage. It immediately amassed 260,000 views and rocketed to the top Unruly Media's presidential campaign viral video chart. And then, as quickly as it appeared, "Obama Love" vanished into the ether. (Or would it be e-ther?)

Turns out the music was to blame. As the good folks at Wired magazine report, the McCain campaign failed to license Valli's hits--a pricey but, alas, necessary move--and the Warner Music Group asserted its copyright claim against YouTube, eventuating the takedown. Wired notes that "it's ironic that a United States senator, who has been part of a body that has so repudiated the idea of fair-use, is feeling the repeated stings resulting from its own legislative history." But we here at Stumper headquarters think that the more interesting--and/or hilarious--story is McCain's utter inability to find a single rock star willing to associate his or her songs with the campaign.

Regular readers will recognize that this isn't the first time McCain has received the cold shoulder from the music industry. Earlier this year, ABBA nixed McCain's attempt to use "Take a Chance on Me" (a personal favorite) at his rallies. "We played it a couple times and it's my understanding they went berserk," the candidate confessed. John Hall, formerly of the 1970s band Orleans and now a Democrat­ic congressman from New York, wouldn't let McCain use “Still the One."When hardline Dem John Mellencamp learned that McCain was blasting "Pink Houses" before events, he requested that the Republican cease and desist. Shortly thereafter, McCain settled on "Johnny B. Goode" as his signature song. "It might be because it is the only one [the artist] hasn't complained about us using," he said at the time. But Chuck Berry quickly came out for Obama. While Will.i.am, Arcade Fire, the Decemberists, the Grateful Dead, Macy Gray and Wilco have personally serenaded Obama fans at campaign events, McCain's musical support has been limited to octogenarian composer Burt Bacharach and one half of the novelty country duo Big & Rich. Even the reliably Republican Ted Nugent is no fan. "McCain seem[s] to be catering to a growing segment of soulless Americans who could care less what they can do for their country, but whine louder and louder about what their country must do for them," says the Motor City Madman *(who has the same criticism for Obama)*. "That is both un-American and pathetic."

What gives? In 2000 and 2004, the twangy, evangelical George W. Bush boasted his fair share of backing bands. But nearly all of them were either Christian (Third Day, Michael W. Smith), country (Travis Tritt, Larry Gatlin, Billy Ray Cyrus) or ultra-conservative (Nugent). A relative moderate, McCain isn't particularly comfortable with any of those constituencies--and more importantly, they're not particularly comfortable with him. Now, it's not like celebrity endorsements translate into votes. In fact, the Annenberg Public Policy Center found in March that "the endorsement of presidential primary candidates by notable groups and individuals carries little weight with the public." But famous musicians can help in other ways--namely by raising money. In 2004, Bruce Springsteen, who now supports Obama, raked in more than $10 million for John Kerry with an October swing-state tour, and this April a pro-Clinton Elton John concert vacuumed up $2.5 million in one night. McCain could use that kind of cash.

What's more, a good tune coupled with a clever idea can also work wonders online--as the original "Obama Love" proved. On Saturday, the McCain campaign reposted the video, substituting a generic, sax-heavy doo-wop track for Valli's swooning, falsetto-laden classics. A Jersey boy myself, I have to admit: there was no thrill going up my leg this time around. And the crowds, in their infinite wisdom, seem to agree. So far, the revised clip has received only 9,970 views.

Ain't that a shame.

*Updated 5:32 p.m.

The liberal blogosphere's outrage du jour? John McCain's professed "computer illiteracy." "Did the GOP really pick one of the last few cavemen among us who has yet to learn how to use the internet or e-mail?" writes commenter Tony over at the Politico. "Pathetic," add DailyKos's BarbinMD. "How long should it take to 'learn' to get online? It's one point and a click."

I understand the temptation to sic some snark on the senator from Arizona. Compared to Barack Obama--a 46-year-old who's comfortable thumbing his BlackBerry every "seven seconds" and teleconferencing by Mac laptop with his young daughters--it's easy enough to paint McCain as a doddering old dinosaur by, say, trotting out the clip where he admits that he's "an illiterate [who] has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance I can get." Or the one where he uses the nonexistent phrase "a Google" to describe an Internet search. Or his assurance during an interview yesterday with the New York Times that even though his aides "go on for [him]" right now, "[he's] learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon." That latest outburst has earned McCain a round of liberal scorn over the past 24 hours, with Politico commenter Veritas claiming "it shows he is stubborn, stuck in the past and slow to learn" and Democratic blogger Jed Lewison wondering what would happen if  the famous 3:00 a.m. call arrived via email. Elsewhere, Jane Hamsher has written that "someone who is going to be expected to lead the country through the social, political, economic and communication upheavals that are happening as a result of the changes in computer and online technology very much needs to be able to use [a PC].” In other words, no email = incompetent president. Also, he's, like, old. LOL.

The only problem? This line of reasoning is misleading. For one thing, McCain's computer illiteracy doesn't reflect a lack of curiosity--it reflects a lack of necessity. Over the past 10 years, most adult Americans have encountered and explored computers primarily in the workplace, where the ability to communicate and find information on the Internet has gradually become a required skill. But McCain's job in the U.S. Senate--where all communication and information has to be filtered through staffers--has actually made fluency more difficult to achieve (or at least less necessary). When aides are responding to your messages and briefing you on every imaginable subject, the incentive to get online sort of disappears.

Secondly, even if McCain had spent some time surfing the Web over the last decade, it's highly unlikely that he would've amassed enough technological expertise to single-handedly craft appropriate public policy responses to the "upheavals" mentioned above. I spend about 10 hours a day blogging, Facebooking and researching politics online, and still I'd have nothing whatsoever to add to a White House task force on, say, social networking in the military. The idea It's unlikely that McCain, a 71-year-old senator, would get around to exploring anything beyond Yahoo! Mail, Google and Amazon is preposterous.* My parents--both more than 10 years younger than the senator--don't know what "minimizing" a window means, and they use an Apple laptop everyday. In other words, "normal" Internet ability is completely pointless from a policy perspective. That's why you hire and consult with experts, just as you would on farming or immigration issues.

Finally, George W. Bush gave up email when he was elected in 2000. The reason? National security worries. What's more, there's no computer in the Oval Office, and the president can't surf in the Executive Residence, either. McCain or Obama would certainly follow suit. Meaning that the 3:00 a.m. call would arrive by telephone, not email. And something tells me the senator knows how to operate one of those.

*Revised to more accurately reflect what I was trying to say. 

UPDATE, July 15: Reader W.B. disagrees:

The good Senator’s inability to comprehend, or even show interest in a simple, yet highly expanding source of information like the INTERNET or email is revealing.  Assuming he does not understand this technology, it is rather difficult to believe he’ll understand the importance of cyber-security in government and industry, for instance.  It will be difficult for him to properly make many decisions without a broad understanding of technology and its importance in our information age.

In response, I'd say that it's not fair to assume that he can't acquire a broad understanding of technology issues without being a regular emailer; in fact, as I wrote above, 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've never actually experienced firsthand (like, again, farming or immigration). Reader S.M. provides a perfect example:

[Supreme Court Justice] David Souter doesn't use email/computers at all really (I actually am not sure how often he uses telephones-- I know they had a hard time tracking him down when Rehnquist died and he was up in New Hampshire). But he wrote the opinion in the Grokster case, which as Jeffrey Toobin put it "showed an extremely sophisticated understanding of the very modern technology of file-sharing."

You might prefer a president who emails. (Especially if you're the type of person who's reading and commenting on blogs.) That's fine. In the end, basic computers skills are obviously preferable to utter illiteracy--all else being equal--and I can understand why McCain's apparent lack of curiosity on the subject (and the attendant symbolism) rubs some folks the wrong way. Still, I think it's inaccurate to say that his computer inexperience would hamper his presidency.

Expertinent is a regular Stumper column featuring interviews with experts on the news of the day. This edition is cross-posted from NEWSWEEK's June 16 print issue.

Carlos Javier Ortiz / Rapport for Newsweek

On May 6, expectations were high for Hillary Clinton. After all, the latest polls suggested the former First Lady had built up a 5-point cushion in Indiana and slashed Barack Obama's 20-point lead in North Carolina to 8. But over at FiveThirty Eight.com, an anonymous blogger (nom d'écran: "Poblano") wasn't convinced. Relying on demographic data from previous primaries and ignoring the usual mishmash of polls, the mysterious upstart projected that Clinton would win Indiana by 2 percent and lose North Carolina by 17—a far-less favorable outcome. When the results finally rolled in—1 in Indiana, 15 in North Carolina—Poblano had outperformed every established pollster. Clinton never recovered, but with the National Journal, the Guardian and the New York Post suddenly dissecting or demanding the secrets of his success, Poblano became an Internet sensation. "It was kind of amazing," he says.

It only gets better. For the man behind the blog, outpredicting the experts wasn't anything new—even if outpredicting political experts was. On May 30, Poblano finally revealed his offline name: Nate Silver. Doesn't ring a bell? Chances are you're not a baseball geek. Silver, 30, is already celebrated among ball fans for inventing something called PECOTA. Developed while the University of Chicago econ alum slogged through a post-collegiate consulting gig—"I'm used to not sleeping," he tells NEWSWEEK—PECOTA is now recognized as the most accurate system for forecasting how athletes and teams will perform in the future (down to the number of singles). In 2007, Silver's algorithm enraged at least half of Chicago when it said the White Sox—2005 champs—would post a 72–90 record. Turned out PECOTA was exactly right. For laypeople, the leap from the national pastime to national politics might seem like a stretch. But not for Silver (who posted his first political item on Daily Kos in October). "Baseball and politics are data-driven," he's written. "But a lot of the time, that data might be used badly. In baseball, that may mean looking at a statistic like batting average when things like on-base percentage and slugging percentage are far more correlated with winning ballgames. In politics, that might mean cherry-picking a certain polling result." In other words, different sport—same skill set.

From the start, Silver took pride in myth-busting the MSM, which has tended to reduce 2008's complex calculus—delegate distribution, demographic coalitions—into not-quite-true narratives. Obama has a problem with working-class whites? Actually, he has a problem with Appalachian working-class whites—and not their cousins in Oregon and Wisconsin. And so on. The response was ecstatic, and FiveThirtyEight's daily traffic increased 5,000 percent between March and June. But the main attraction was always Silver's primary predictions. Taking a page from PECOTA—a comprehensive historical database, it projects future performance by matching current players to comparable predecessors—Poblano predicted the results in, say, Pittsburgh by measuring how Clinton and Obama did in demographically similar congressional districts earlier on (once set, their coalitions were remarkably stable). Silver's score wasn't perfect—he underestimated Clinton in Kentucky and South Dakota. But ultimately, he came within 20 delegates of the final split on Super Tuesday (out of nearly 1,700) and 2.5 percent, on average, in the other six post-March primaries. "Nate's work is innovative," says Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com.

So who will win in November? Silver says Obama (full disclosure: he's a supporter). Predicting the Election Day outcome is not like predicting a primary; with no previous head-to-head results to mine, Silver is relying on Census data to balance out the polls. So far, Silver's system shows Obama and McCain splitting the popular vote 50.0 percent to 50.0 percent, with Obama winning the Electoral College 274.4 to 263.6. Today, McCain runs about 10 points better than Bush in parts of the Northeast—his strongest region, comparatively—but it's only enough to swing tiny New Hampshire. The Arizonan's best chance for a big flip? Michigan. Obama, on the other hand, currently swipes Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa from the GOP, and is within striking distance in Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Virginia and even Alaska. And thanks to Nebraska, where electors are awarded by congressional district, Silver even suspects that McCain and Obama could, um, tie. "Right now, Obama's losing the state by 10 points, but that's 10 points better than Dems usually do," he says. "If Obama wins Colorado, Iowa and the city of Omaha, where he's popular, it would end up 269–269 and go to the House of Representatives. Crazier things could happen."

They could. And Silver would probably be the first to know.

... Matt Drudge casts his vote:

 

Once upon a time, the New York Times could gush about the strange new synergy between Clinton and Drudge, a former family foe. Not anymore, apparently. Absurd as it is, the fedora'ed-one's eponymous site exerts an enormous influence over MSM editors and producers--meaning that "The Nominee" might very well be tomorrow's storyline.

The first email arrived in my inbox at 10:34 a.m. "Thought you might want to check this out," wrote Digg user "southjaw." The next one came at 10:50, from a reader with the handle "misssbd": "Since the media broke the story about Barack's bitter comments to help Hillary in PA, let's see if they are going to break this story concerning Indiana voters......." "How about an article on this video to the Indiana voters?" wrote another eager correspondent, about an hour later. And the links kept coming: 12:56, 1:08, 2:03, 2:09 and so on. Each one was steering me to a video clip posted this morning on YouTube--a clip that supposedly showed, in the words of the original Digg story, "Bill Clinton Campaign Chairman and Hillary Clinton '08 Advisor Mickey Kantor tell[ing] George Stephanapoulos and James Carville: 'Look at Indiana...it doesn't matter if we win. Those people are sh*t. How would you like to be a worthless white ni**er?'"

The point, I suppose, was clear: supporters of Barack Obama were finally getting revenge. "If the company candidates keep is as important as your coverage of Rev. Wright implies," wrote one reader, "then Kantor's continued association with Hillary Clinton and her campaign certainly is noteworthy. Most specifically, to the voters of Indiana." The only problem: the video doesn't actually catch Kantor saying any of those things. Excerpted from "The War Room," a 1992 D.A Pennebaker documentary about Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign, the footage depicts Kantor and former Bill Clinton aides James Carville and George Stephanopoulos marveling over preliminary Election Day exit polling that shows them ahead of incumbent President George H.W. Bush in deep-red Indiana. "Look at Indiana -- wait, wait, look at Indiana," says Kantor, "42-40!" Then, according to the video first posted on YouTube--which included subtitles not in the original Pennebaker film--Kantor adds the fateful lines about "sh*t" and "white ni**er[s]."

But as the video quickly spread through the pro-Obama blogosphere this morning, reporters contacted Kantor and Pennebaker--and both insisted that the subtitles had it wrong and that a prankster had overdubbed the n-word, which is not remotely audible in the original film. The son of civil rights activists, Kantor called the clip "frankly libelous" and told the Huffington Post, "I've never used that word in my entire life, ever, under any circumstance, ever." And Pennebaker was equally adamant in an interview with the Politico. "He does not say that," he said. Soon, the poster removed the video from YouTube and replaced it with a non-subtitled version (above). A close listening reveals the truth. Buoyed by the Indiana exit poll, Kantor clearly says "those people are sh*tting," not "those people are sh*t"--meaning that they (i.e., the president's reelection team) are shaken, frightened, nervous. (He even adds "in the White House.") And far from following that (by all accounts accurate) analysis with a racial slur, Kantor then turns to Stephanopolous and asks, ""How would you like to be in the White House right now?" He's jabbing the Bush campaign, not ripping on Hoosiers. End of story.

Ultimately, though, the Kantor contretemps is less interesting as a hoax than as a window on the deeply divided Democratic psyche. Assume that Kantor did say some inappropriate things about Hoosiers 15 years ago. Would those remarks really reflect poorly on anyone other than him? I'm not so sure. Obama spent two decades listening to Wright deliver sermons that (by his own admission) veered at times into controversial territory; whether or not that lowers your opinion of the senator, it's at least reasonable to examine whether Obama's decision to keep sitting in those pews reveals something about his character and judgment. But to knock Clinton for a comment she never even heard is silly. Still, this morning a few thousand fed-up Obama supporters blindly seized on the footage and attacked--indulging in precisely the sort of tit-for-tat, politics-as-usual game-playing that their candidate has premised his entire bid on ending.

When Kantor was cleared, at least one of my original emailers wrote back to express remorse. "It illustrates what this horrible primary season has devolved into," she said. "Do you remember how everyone in the Democratic party felt last year when we looked upon our wealth of choices for Democratic nominee?  It's like remembering how unified we were as a country after 9/11 then seeing it all frittered away for a political agenda.  I felt we such a unified party back then & now we're ripping and tearing at one another.  Horrible.  I dearly hope it all ends sooner rather than later... Please disregard and accept my apologies." 

UPDATE, May 3: To the readers pointing out that a few 1992 reviewers heard Kantor's remarks as anti-Hoosier: that only proves that they misheard, not that Kantor misspoke. It's 100 percent clear if you watch the original film that Kantor is saying "sh*tting," not "sh*t"--and therefore referring to Bush's nervous campaign staff. Which makes more sense: reacting to Indiana's Clinton-friendly poll numbers by denigrating the state's residents--or by speculating that your opponent (whose vice president was from Hoosier Country) must be scared? Logic says the latter. (And the transcript from Pennebaker agrees.)
 

We here at Stumper headquarters aren't the types to slobber over every user-generated YouTube video to clog our overloaded inboxes. Sure, it's wonderful, in theory, to know "the people" can unleash their "creativity" on the political process. But rarely is their creativity worth unleashing. Consider the greatest hits of Politics 2.0. Though novel, "Vote Different" was also pretty heavy-handed; like her or not, Hillary Clinton isn't a whole lot like the totalitarian dictator of a futuristic dystopia. "Yes, We Can"--as I've written before--"felt like an indulgent, condescending Gap ad, and made me embarrassed to be under 30." And I won't even go into "Hillary4U&Me." What's more, the spectacle of candidates linking themselves to Rocky Balboa--McCain used the theme song in New Hampshire, and both Obama and Clinton have discovered a fondness for Sylvester Stallone's fictional Philadelphia pummeler in the run-up to the Pennsylvania primary--is getting pretty old.

But despite all that, we have to admit: "BARACKY: The Movie" is pretty darn great.

The brainchild of former entertainment lawyer (and recent UCLA Film School graduate) Michael Fox, "BARACKY" has racked up more than 100,000 views since surfacing on YouTube last Thursday. Sure, the video--a slick, skilled montage of news clips, speeches and scenes from the original film--is an unabashedly pro-Obama revision of Rocky's triumph-over-adversity tale; Clinton, whose real-life comebacks are nothing to scoff at, doesn't exactly get a fair shake. But as pure entertainment, "BARACKY" is a knockout. The best part: Fox's decision to superimpose Obama and Clinton's faces on the bodies of Balboa and Apollo Creed, respectively, a move that produces priceless shots of a bobble-headed "Obama" hopping through the park with a railroad tie slung across his shoulders and a hulking, African-American "Clinton" dancing around the ring--sans blouse. (Watch for the Mark Penn cameo, too.) Even after three-and-a-half minutes--an eternity on YouTube--the technique still kills.

That said, Clintonites shouldn't fret. Despite that fact that a triumphant Obama bounds up the Philadelphia Art Museum steps in the last frames of "BARACKY," it's worth remembering how the actual 1976 blockbuster ended. After 15 long, bloody rounds, the judges decide, in a split decision, to award the title not to the scrappy underdog but to the heavy favorite (who entered the fight believing he would win in a rout): Apollo Creed.

I wonder which version Hillary prefers.
 

Political analysts love to talk about the ongoing (and interminable) battle between Democratic presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in generational terms--Stumper included. Such discussions almost always center on style. Forged in the heated cauldron of the 1960s-era identity politics, Clinton is cast as a typical Baby Boomer; she knows how to pull the levers of power in Washington and understands what it takes to defeat the intractable opposition. Obama, on the other hand, assumes the post-Boomer role: post-racial, post-partisan, the living embodiment of a younger generation's desire to get past the "old divisions" and work across party lines for "change." But while such stylistic characterizations are important, they've obscured differences that have, I think, had a much more substantial impact on the course of the nominating contest to date--that is, the generation gap in tactics.

The latest efforts launched by each campaign to reach out to upcoming primary voters--both relatively unusual--nicely illustrate this gap. Last week, Clinton began airing her first ad in North Carolina (below). Called "NC Ask Me," the 60-second spot poses as an open invitation for Tar Heelers to ask Clinton "anything and everything."

The "NC Ask Me" pitch is supposed to seem new-fangled, open-source and Internet-y. After applying a light patina of Southern specificity to generic issues--"I hear about the crushing cost of healthcare from Winston-Salem to Fayetteville"; "military families from Fort Bragg tell me their deep concerns about how we're treating our veterans"--Clinton tells viewers to "go to NCAskMe.com, and then I'll be getting back to you here on TV to answer your questions and offer some solutions," presumably in upcoming commercials. But the ad campaign isn't, of course, about "hav[ing] a conversation," as Clinton puts it. If that's what the New York senator wanted, she would hold a live, unmediated Web chat with the unwashed masses. Instead, it's about creating the superficial impression of solicitation--and hoping that it lends her bid a welcoming aura of Web 2.0 openness--while screening the submitted questions for toothless queries ("What's your plan for the economy?") that allow her to "respond" with carefully scripted talking points through the old-school, one-way medium of television advertising. No back-and-forth, no give-and-take, no real input from voters. Just top-down messaging masquerading as a something "newer." Clinton's last "conversation"--the series of sterile chats that followed her campaign's Jan. 2007 launch--inspired the famous "Hillary 1984" YouTube ad. So it doesn't matter how many times Clinton says, "I want to hear from you" or "this election isn't about me, it is about you" or "it's nice talking with you." Anyone who remembers "1984"--and with more than five million views, that probably means much of younger, engaged America--realizes that she's not about to relinquish control any time soon.

Is Obama more open? Not really. But the important distinction--the real generation gap--is that he doesn't pretend to be. Team Obama realizes that Clinton's "conversations" are transparently phony. So he doesn't even indulge. Instead, the Illinois senator's staff implements novel, under-the-radar efforts like Indiana's recent "3-on-3 Basketball Challenge for Change."

The incentive is irresistible: a lucky supporter from the hoops-obsessed state gets to play a game of pick-up with two friends against Obama (a skilled baller) and his to-be-determined teammates. But the objective is what makes the "challenge" really intriguing. To enter, high school students must collect voter-registration forms from 20 of their peers--meaning that the "3-on-3" scheme is not about raising money or submitting questions, but leveraging students' actual social connections to increase the states' concentration of young voters (most of whom go untargeted by rival campaigns because they're still 17--even though they'll turn 18 by Election Day in November and are therefore eligible to vote in the May 6 primary). It's this sort of strategy--aggressive organizing in unexpected places, plus mobilizing new voters--that accounts for Obama's slim but insurmountable lead of 150 or so pledged delegates, nearly all of which came from caucus states where Clinton didn't even bother to compete.

So while the former First Lady awkwardly attempts to appeal to the latest generation of voters, Obama actually drives them to the polls. More than age, packaging or rhetoric, that has made all the difference. 

Yesterday, I praised Hillary Clinton for challenging Barack Obama to an April Fool's "bowl-off"--not so much because her riff was actually, you know, funny, but because her willingness to read it showed that she's at least somewhat aware of her campaign's absurdities. The bar for humor with Hillary--who rarely breaks character--is admittedly pretty low. But here's what happens when you have actual comedy writers (rather than harried communications staffers) penning your material: people really laugh.

Major props to McCain--a potential leader of the free world, after all--for delivering the absurd, hilarious jab "You look like the guy who enjoys getting into a hot tub and watching his swim trunks inflate" with such aplomb. (Memo to Letterman: it's funny because it's true.) Something tells me that Clinton (or the manicured Obama, for that matter) would've demanded a rewrite.
 

Sometimes, the Democratic National Committee helps Democrats. Take, for example, chairman Howard Dean's recent remark that he'd "like the other 350 [superdelegates who haven't committed] to say who they're for at some point between now and the first of July so we don't have to take this into the convention.” The blood bath has to end eventually, and July 1 is as good a deadline as any. But often the DNC isn't so constructive. Like today. Noting that John McCain is set to appear on Letterman this evening, the party has chosen to launch a series of anti-McCain web ads called "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches." They are painful. 

The three spots adhere to a rigid structure. The first frame displays portraits of presidential favorites George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy on a blue background; "Hail to the Chief" plays on the soundtrack. Next are back-to-back clips of Roosevelt and Kennedy--Democrats, mind you--delivering their most famous bon mots: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" in FDR's plummy tones and "Ask not what your country can do for you..." in JFK's reedy bark. Cut to video of McCain misspeaking ("I'm a proud liberal...conservative Republican) followed by an unrelated if similarly dunderheaded George W. Bush gaffe ("recruiterments"). Cue a riotous, Three's Company-style laugh track.

Presumably, the party's intention is to further cement the link between Bush and McCain--both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have labeled McCain's Iraq stance "Bush/McCain foreign policy"--by "proving" that McCain, like Bush, is prone to malapropisms, misstatements and other verbal mistakes. But the "Bushisms" strategy is not only ineffective--it has the potential to backfire. As Matt Bai wrote recently,

if your gaffe goes directly to the main argument you are trying to make about yourself with the electorate, or if it substantiates the most relevant thing that your rival would have us believe about you, then it has the potential to become a serious problem. If, on the other hand, you do something completely idiotic that is tangential to what voters most hope or fear about you, then you tend to get a pass.

Back in 2000 and 2004, "strategery" and such reinforced voters' doubts (rivals' hints) that Bush wasn't smart enough to occupy the Oval Office. That's why it stuck. But no one thinks--or, until now, wanted us to think--that McCain's main flaw was a tied tongue. Which is why the DNC's ads are so incompetent. Two of them (included after the jump) repurpose clips that have already gone viral because they show McCain doing things that either contradict his core argument or substantiate what his opponents say about him--and instead force them into this bogus Bushisms framework. The first catches the Arizona senator mistakenly claiming that Iran is training al Qaeda in Iraq; the second shows him singing "Bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann." It's as if the DNC's video team was given the raw materials for two good spots--one pushing the "McCain is a warmonger" meme, the other illustrating that he's not the foreign policy expert he pretends to be--and chose to go in a different, more stupider direction instead. And the third ad (above) is even worse. The "liberal conservative" slip does indeed "substantiate the most relevant thing that [a] rival would have us believe about" McCain--if that rival were a right winger. But for Independents and centrist Democrats, the Freudian implication--i.e., that McCain, underneath it all, is more liberal than he's at liberty to say--is a plus, not a minus. Foot, meet gun.

How to interpret such idiocy? As a misguided trial balloon for the general election, I think. It seems, for starters, that some party insiders--like much of the rest of America--are assuming that Obama will win the nomination. Why else would they release an ad designed to contrast inarticulate Republican boobs (Bush, McCain) with their silver-tongued Democratic rivals (Kennedy, Roosevelt). Clinton, of course, isn't known for her eloquence. But I'm afraid that calling a Republican a poor speaker isn't a winning plan. Obama already has a lock on the "great speeches" vote; he needs to win over the folks who think great speeches mask a lack of substance. Something tells me they won't take kindly to Democratic "elitists" mocking McCain's misstatements. After all, voters got an earful of Bush's "strategery" in 2000 and 2004--and they elected him anyway.

Back to the drawing board.

OBAMA: Forget those false (and politically malicious) "Obama is a Muslim" rumors. Now the Illinois senator's unusual name has been linked to another "exotic" entity: the small town of Obama, Japan, known the world over for its delightful "lacquered chopsticks."

No word yet on whether the connection has destroyed Obama's chances with the crucial "bigoted South Pacific combat veterans" demographic. Then again, something tells us they were going to vote for John McCain anyway.

CLINTON: Back in February, Stumper mercilessly mocked the creator of "Hillary4U&Me," a painful, over-choreographed pro-Clinton "music video." "The song itself... sounds sort of like a commercial jingle for a used futon store circa 1979," we wrote. "Only less catchy." Which is why we sharpened our knives when "Hillary in the House" appeared in our browser's window:

Sadly, the video, which was made by Texas volunteers, does not aspire to the same level of Three's Company-era professional polish as "Hillary4U&Me"--and so, despite ourselves, we find it kind of adorable. The awkwardly improvised lyrics, the sporadic clapping, the fist-pumping dance moves--it's clear that while its predecessor wasa humiliatingly misguided waste of too many people's time and energy, "Hillary in the House" is a spontaneous expression of childlike enthusiasm.

Cherish it while you can. These people are going to be suicidal zombies by the time the Democratic party finally picks a nominee, like, five months from now.

And by best we mean worst.

(Hat tip to Wonkette)

If you love adolescent lyrics and off-key, high-pitched, vibrato-heavy warbling, you'll love "Hillary Clinton--Making Our Dreams Come True." Personally, I miss "Hillary4U&Me."

The less I say--other than "beware"--the better. But I do have a few factual quibbles. Despite what ron0iQRe claims, I suspect the senator from New York has, in fact, "heard the word impossible" at some point over the past six decades.  Also, this time there is time for chance. There is always time for chance.

After dissing the earnest, pro-Obama hipsters of "Yes We Can," praising their anti-McCain parodists ("John.i.am") and comparing the maniacal "Hillary4U&Me" to a jingle for hepatitis B, it's only fair that Stumper takes note of the latest supporter-generated musical extravaganza: Mike Huckabee's "High Hopes" (above).

How does it compare? I'm torn. On the one hand, I appreciate the historical allusion; originally popularized in 1959 by Frank Sinatra, "High Hopes" was rerecorded by the Rat Pack in 1960 to serve as a campaign theme for John F. Kennedy. (Lyrics included the immortal phrase, "Oops, there goes the opposition -- KERPLOP!") But whatever trivia points the Huckafans may have scored by plundering the past, they've more than lost with their actual rendition of the song. Without spoiling the surprise, let me say that "overeager Disney World cast member performs at Asian karaoke joint circa 1997" wouldn't be too far off the mark.

The Democratic race may be cruelly, cripplingly cloudy right now, but this much is clear: whoever wins, Clinton or Obama, will labor mightily in the general election to fuse John McCain and George W. Bush into a hellish two-headed Orthrus in the minds of the American people. Obama, in fact, is already off and running, devoting much of Tuesday's "Potomac Primary" victory speech to contrasting himself with "Bush-McCain Republicans" (subtle, no?)  "George Bush won't be on the ballot this November, but his war and his tax cuts for the wealthy will," he said. "When I am the nominee, I will offer a clear choice." The hope, of course, is that the 66 percent of the populace that disapproves of Bush will see McCain in the same light--and that McCain will be forced to distance himself from Dubya without offending the GOP base, which still likes the guy. Not an easy dance to do--especially while still clinging to the last shreds of your maverick rep.

With that in mind, the Democratic National Committee is out today with a Valentine's Day web ad called "Sweetheart Deal" (above). The spot sees Obama's "Bush-McCain" formulation and raises him a hearty dose of... um, latent homosexuality. Marvel as McCain and Bush advocate for "making the tax cuts permanent"! Guffaw as they reiterate their opposition to "amnesty"! And gasp as they agree that "we should stay the course in Iraq"! Oh, and while you're at it, watch a nostalgic, black-and-white photo montage (complete with Ken Burns panning and pink heart graphics) of the lovebirds laying their arms on each other's shoulders and giggling as they clutch a birthday cake, with Bush at one point grasping McCain's aged head and pulling it, softy, tenderly, to his lips and McCain, later, resting his weary brow on Bush's cheek. "Do they share the same heart?" the ad asks. Who knows. But there's nothing like the slinky, soft-core sounds of a soprano saxophone to set the mood. How could something so wrong feel so right?

Which makes you wonder. Maybe the DNC isn't targeting only centrist Democrats with the ad. After all, it's die-hard Republicans--the very people still not sold on McCain--who are most opposed to gay rights. Keep them home next November and the Democrats win.

Now if only Howard Dean could convince Larry Craig to endorse...

Sometimes something goes viral in a good way--like, say, the pro-Obama video "Yes We Can," which has racked up 3.7 million views in the last week. And other times, something goes viral... like hepatitis B.

World, meet "Hillary4U&Me." Upon first seeing the pro-Clinton clip--to call it a "music video" would suggest that the years 1982-2008 never happened--I wondered whether it was part of a sadistic plot on the part of the Obama campaign to convince the few remaining sentient beings who believe Clinton is "cool" that she is, in fact, not. But alas--this is user-generated content. The ceaseless, maniacally delighted dancing; the grinning Asian flautist; the lyric "The world is getting hot / But our global warming plan is not;" and the song itself, which sounds sort of like a commercial jingle for a used futon store circa 1979, only less catchy--all of it is the brainchild of a real live Hillary supporter named Gene Wang, a 50-year-old entrepreneur from Palo Alto, Calif.

According to a Jan. 30 article on Palo Alto Online, Wang wrote the song late last year and quickly taped the video at the local University Club. In its first three months on YouTube, the clip netted only 1,100 views. The silence seemed, for a time, to validate an ancient truth: that the only people who can get away with the abbreviation "4U" are 12-year old girls, or Prince. But today, Wang's hit counter shot up to 5,000, then 10,000. The reason: the video was randomly picked up on a handful of political blogs. Now that it's in the bloodstream, expect views to skyrocket over the next few days, as every Obama fan on earth forwards the link to friends and family as (self-gratifying) "evidence" that the stereotypes about the candidates' supporters--Obama: iPhone; Clinton: fanny pack--are true. I received my first email while writing this item. "It hurts," wrote the sender. "It really does."

Painful or not, I'm not the type to fault a candidate for attracting dorky, flute-playing fans. But apparently Clinton is culpable, too. According to Wang, the New York senator actually heard a live rendition of "Hillary4U&Me" at a January fundraiser in nearby Atherton--and "loved it."

That's 2 much 2 4give.

Okay, so I have to admit: I wasn't a fan of "Yes, We Can"--you know, the pro-Obama video by Will.i.am of Black Eyed Peas and Bob Dylan's son (no, not the "One Headlight" guy) that featured celebrities--and Tatyana Ali--staring earnestly into the camera and swaying in black and white as they crooned the "uplifting" words of an Obama speech over the pregnant strum of a single acoustic guitar. It felt like an indulgent, condescending Gap ad, and made me embarrassed to be under 30. But apparently my peers disagreed, and the clip quickly became a viral hit on YouView, or whatever you call it.

Thankfully, the good folks at "Election08"--a comedy group featuring veterans of MTV, ABC, NBC, The Daily Show, Second City Chicago and Reno 911--have finally made a video that even a professional cynic like me can love. Called "john.he.is," it's a pitch-perfect parody of the original. You've got your deadpan, dreadlocked black vocalist. Your diverse cast of backup singers, who fidget ostentatiously, as if to say, "It is uncomfortable to be so, like, honest." And, of course, your egregious Mariah-style vocal melisma ("B-b-b-baby! Ooh-ooh-ooh.") But while "Yes, We Can" was self-serious hagiography, "john.he.is" is biting satire. The target: John McCain.

I won't ruin it for you, but suffice to say: I actually LOLed--as the kids call it--twice over the course of the clip. Whoever came up with the idea of exchanging Obama's gauzy hope talk for McCain's dark rhetoric on Iraq and terrorism--lyrics include "terrible sacrifices," "combat wounds" and "the promise of a better future is not always clear"--is a genius. Not only does it make McCain seem like a wheezy old warmonger (which is right out of the Dems' general election playbook), but if the video spreads virally--and I'm betting it will--it'll probably force at least a few viewers drawn to McCain's maverick rep to do what the singers themselves start to do about halfway in: listen to what's he saying and be like, "What? Wait a second." (Although by mocking the seriousness of our challenges abroad, it could also galvanize some conservatives--and non-hipsters. Which is why a campaign will never produce something this funny.)

Especially brutal, and hilarious: the line about Americans not being "concerned if we're [in Iraq] for 100 years, or a 1,000 years, or 10,000 years." To be fair, McCain means that once casualties drop to zero, we'll keep troops stationed there to help maintain stability, as we now do in Bosnia. But with the words "Iraq Withdrawal Date: 12,008" flashing onscreen over a catchy pop soundtrack, it isn't easy to hear the other side of the story over all the laughter.

Such is the power of YouView.