What would the letters to the editor be titled if Hillary Clinton had won in the primaries? Delightful plays on the candidate’s last name would not be possible; Hillary would not be an “Obamanation.” Granted, if it was Clinton up against John McCain, we’d be talking about how PMS might lead to nuking our allies or how bitches can’t be trusted (none of which comes up when we talk about that lovely little Sarah Palin character, who has now apparently gone rogue against her handlers). When did this race turn into one bad email forward? A look at my small town newspaper probably reflects plenty of those “Real American” newspapers. “Real Americans” don’t need facts; they apparently answer to a larger truth (where dinosaurs walk with man?) and John McCain, according to Jon Stewart, will be President of these areas (see the Nancy Pfotenhauer link below).

I live in a small town in south central Pennsylvania (an area that falls under Nancy Pfotenhauer’s “Real America“). For every liberal or moderate letter to the editor our local paper prints, they counter it with two or three conservative letters. “Barack President? An Obamanation” details Obama’s ties to the evil terrorist William Ayers and closes with, “An Obama presidency means a national breeding ground of neo-Weathermen terrorists. Talk about an Obamanation.” A letter titled “We deserve to keep what we’ve earned” seizes on the “spread the wealth around” comment and going on a tirade about socialism when the person writing it would likely fall under Obama’s proposed middle class benefits (there are very few around here who make more than $250,000 a year).

Other letters, including one from my cousin’s mother-in-law, praise the McCain/Palin campaign for being “what America really needs!” They don’t justify their claims with proof aside from Palin being a “reformer” from outside the beltway and McCain being a war hero. Apparently, that’s enough. We haven’t learned what inexperience can do in a presidency, have we?

Perhaps the issue I find most annoying in this election relates to reproductive rights. For a few weeks now, I’ve been bombarded with commercials with a lady’s voice talking about how Obama voted against protecting infants that survived abortion and how he, essentially, eats babies with a sprinkle of salt and pepper, with the image of a cute white baby rolling around on a blanket on my way-too-large television. In local print, a letter titled, “Honor God with November Vote” references only the Bible and asks, “If we can kill our babies without remorse, who’s to say that our elderly aren’t the next targets?” Presumably, the writer’s message is to vote for McCain. Another recent letter to the editor, “First issue is right to life,” ignores the fact that the economy is in shambles and we’re overextended in two wars and goes straight to the matter at hand: Obama should want to save babies because he’s black. In fact, according to this letter, “Because of [their pro-choice stances], each candidate is a contradiction to either his civil-rights heritage or his doctrine of faith.” I’m not going to judge this man (out loud) for wanting to extend his personal beliefs to my womb, but I am going to question how this could possibly be the first issue for someone right now. Hell, it’s one of the things I’ve been passionate about since I was 14 and it’s barely in my top 10. (#1 is making sure hunting wolves doesn’t become the national pastime.)

What draws me in are the Topix Forums associated with each letter to the editor. Here, wacko people like me can run amuck and say whatever they please. I enjoy opening a browser tab at work specifically to click around and watch three or four logical people post responses to illogical arguments and copied-and-pasted email forwards. I would even classify one of the more conservative posters as one of the most logical, and enjoy the opportunity to argue with him on certain subjects because at least he attempts to find facts to support his claims. Meanwhile, I grow more and more ashamed of the racism and religious discrimination that has always made my small town background something I try to hide.

As the election closes in (FINALLY!), I find myself liking Obama more and more each day. I was on the fence in the beginning, but I think the final nail in the I-might-be-a-Republican coffin was the addition of Palin into the mix. I realize that this race would likely be just as dirty if HRC was at the top of the ticket, but we would replace racism with sexism and the majority of the world might have been able to keep ignorant as to Palin’s existence. These are turbulent times, and when people are unsure of their futures, they will lash out against what supposedly threatens their way of life with little to no proof. I just wish that when political discussions move out of a person’s living room and are printed on newsprint that they would have roots in factual truths; not propaganda-filled email forwards from Joe the Plumber’s aunt’s cousin’s friend.

I’m not the only one who has noticed that the campaign ads are taking a nasty turn.  Karl Rove told Fox News Sunday that he thought both campaigns have gone too far. Other media outlets seized upon his comments and finally this question can be posed to the candidates:  Why are you guys acting like you’re in junior high?  Okay, maybe that’s loose terminology, but people are finally starting to see—and point out—the pattern of negative campaigning and how little it has done for furthering campaign objectives.  For the love of Christmas Jesus, what are their stances on the issues?1

Sites like factcheck.org look at the ads and demystify them.  But what about those who just let the ads permeate their minds?  With the television on in the background while I freelance, I’ve absorbed months of commercials through osmosis, learning only that both candidates are hacks (according to the other candidate).  Taking a look at the three most recent ads, and caring little for any facts that can’t be found by a quick Google search, I think Karl Rove was right.  (And how often can I say that?)  So here are some honest reactions from a media junkie and links, so you can view them and react yourself.

Barack Obama – “Honor”

This ad tries to point out that the McCain campaign has some ads that are completely shenanigans, but for me it’s almost as sleazy.  Quoting a bunch of newspapers out of context, especially when the quotes might be from opinion pieces, is not as effective as taking 30 seconds to dispute a lie straight up.  But instead, playing on John McCain’s honor is the campaign choice?

John McCain – “Disrespectful”

I honestly don’t even want to count this one because it basically takes quotes out of context and uses amusing pictures of Obama and Biden to accuse the Democrats of disrespecting Sarah Palin.  Yawn.  It’s kind of lame to open with the “celebrity” thing, and even more lame to claim that “his star is fading.”  I’m also not impressed by the narrator’s disdainful voice.

Barack Obama – “Still”

This ad opens with a disco ball and states, “1982: John McCain goes to Washington.”  The images go from a Rubik’s cube and an old-fashioned computer to present-day John McCain on a golf cart, then John McCain with George W. Bush.  While the ad includes a jab at McCain for his support of tax cuts for corporations, it also attacks him for not being able to use a computer or send email.  Why should I care about that?  If the President of the company I work for makes me write emails, don’t you think the President of the United States would have someone who could do that for him.  Proficient with Microsoft Outlook is not listed on the job requirements.

John McCain – “Fact Check”

I want to lump this one in the ineffective pile with “Disrespectful.”  This ad cites the Wall Street Journal’s statement that “Obama ‘air-dropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers’ into Alaska to dig dirt on Governor Pail.” A) Obama kind of had to since no one knew anything about her and B) This would have been more effective if the McCain campaign hadn’t chosen wolves in a snowy forest as a metaphor for researchers.  We all know Ms. Palin likes to shoot these kinds of animals from helicopters.  Maybe that was the point?

Barrack Obama – “His Administration”

This ad introduces us to Bill Timmons, a Washington lobbyist hired to “plan [McCain's] administration.”  Again, we see McCain pictured with Bush.  The ad cites Time as the source for information regarding the hiring on Timmons, then goes on to note that Timmons lobbies for “oil companies, the credit card industry and corporate special interests rigging the system against hard-working Americans.”  The ad fails to mention that Timmons also lobbies for Freddie Mac, Anheuser-Busch and the American Medical Association.2 The ad would have done better to plagiarize Time and point out that having someone who has worked in Washington since the 70′s and assisted all the Republican presidents in some respect does not play into McCain’s new “Let’s reform Washington the Sarah Palin way!” battle cry.  Unless you think Sarah Palin is full of it, then the move totally works.

John McCain – “Crisis”

As of September 15, this is the newest ad on McCain’s website and it’s featured on his splash page.  The ad claims that only proven reformers John McCain and Sarah Palin can fix our horrible economy through those much beloved tax cuts and offshore drilling.  The part that makes me cringe is this line:  “McCain/Palin. Leadership. Experience. For the change we need.”  Sarah Palin has so little experience that it’s not even funny anymore.  She was a small town mayor and the governor of a state that has less people than several major US cities.  Also, isn’t “change” the ideal that Obama based his campaign around?  Isn’t the promise of “change” how he beat Hillary Clinton?  Is McCain trying to borrow a cup of successful campaign from him?

* * *

The only thing I’m grateful for in this media circus is that these campaigns are ridiculous enough to have inspired Paris Hilton’s “campaign ad” and the Saturday Night Live opening with Tina Fey and Amy Poehler as Palin and Clinton.  The media mockery almost makes suffering through the countless number of ads worth it. What’s frightening, is the most honesty I’ve seen is what was displayed on SNL.  I’m also curious to see if, after these comments from Rove, the ads will stop being so petty and juvenile.  I guess we can only hope for change—where have I heard that before?

1 http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/09/14/karl-rove-says-mccain-obama-have-gone-too-far/
2 http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1840722,00.html?imw=Y

John McCain’s TV ads
Barack Obama on YouTube (ads, speeches, interviews, etc.) ]]> http://silverfire.net/politics/campaign-ads-if-karl-rove-thinks-theyre-too-negative-they-probably-are/feed 0