A question about Obama and negative ads (looking for an honest answer, not a spun answer)

[Stinky The Clown]

I am aware of a lot of negative ads from McCain.

Not so much from Obama. In fact, I can't think of any Obama negative ads.

My question:

Has the Obama campaign done negative advertising? (Telling the full, actual truth, is not negative in this context. Telling a half truth and then spinning from there *is* negative; i.e.: Palin using out of context Obama statements like "a child as punishment".)

[NMDemDist2]

1. according to the talking heads lately Obama is running about 1/3 'negative' ads

and McLame is 100% negative.

not sure how much spin is in that 1/3 :shrug:

[Stinky The Clown]

2. The talking headery is what prompted this question.

I trust them as far as I can throw them.

[Hope And Change]

5. That is correct.Here`s some more info...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7371664&mesg_id=7371664

[Jackpine Radical]

6. I would look carefully at what they call "negative."

I am quite unaware of any deceptive stuff coming from the Obama campaign, and it would diminish my high regard for them if they were to do that.

I would further say that everything they do is relevant to the campaign. Foe example, a Keating ad speaks to McCain's competence and honesty as they relate to dealings between business and government. It's quite a stretch to connect Wright or Ayers to Presidential performance. In neither case are the accusations about anything Obama did or said.

Within the sense of the OP, I would say that Obama has not been negative--has not lied, has stayed on topics relevant to making a judgment about the capabilities and suitability of his opponent.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. Yup, that's part of it .....

I tried to qualify it that way in the OP.

Not really on topic in this thread, is the moral equivalency between, say, Keating 5 and Ayers. You know they're very different. I know they're very different. But to the target audience of fully 99% of all campaign ads - the morons who comprise the 5% (or whatever) undecideds who still sit with that fence picket up their ass - they are often mutually canceling ("well, they both did it").

[Jackpine Radical]

11. You're right. But Obama's integrity matters to me.

Sort of like a top-notch jazz band out playing at a Special Olympics event. I don't think they'd let themselves do a crappy job just because a lot of people in their audience may be incapable of perceiving the full subtlety of their music.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. I think we're in full agreement.

[iiibbb]

3. Lots of fairly neutral websites track the bended and blended truth... Obama is not 100% clean..

What politician is?


Obama's going to make a good president, and that should be enough.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Ummmmm .......

.... some of us actually like to have facts.

Lacking facts, East Coast Innnelekshuls like me ask questions.

[iiibbb]

27. Politicians lie... this should be no surprise.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/


Obama/Biden still tell way fewer than McCain/Palin... and has very few of the "Pants on Fire" fibs.


Politicians bend the facts. It's a fact of life.

[wishlist]

4. No, although some in media claim his ad about McCain's Soc Sec stance is false

I believe Obama is correct in ad criticizing McCain where he says that McCain would put people's Soc Sec funds at risk. It is true that McCain advocates private accounts allowing (probably encouraging) people to put their individual SS contributions at risk in the stock market. However some of the major network reporters have tried to spin that the Obama ad is false because McCain would not force everyone's Soc Sec funds to go into the market.

[Lasher]

9. This can be open to interpretation.

In a September 18 article, the New York Post falsely claimed that the results of a September 17 Wisconsin Advertising Project analysis -- which stated that in "the first week of advertising after the conventions ... 56 percent of the (Sen. John) McCain campaign ads were negative, while 77 percent of (Sen Barack) Obama's ads were negative" -- "clash with recent media coverage accusing McCain of distorting Obama's record in ads." In fact, the analysis reportedly "do(es)n't measure the veracity of the ads," in the words of San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Joe Garofoli. Rather it "define(s) 'negative' as any time you mention the opponent's name." In other words, the analysis did not "clash" with recent media reports noting that McCain's ads have contained falsehoods and distorted Obama's record, because it reportedly did not analyze whether the ads contained falsehoods or distortions.

In a September 17 post on his San Francisco Chronicle blog, Garofoli wrote of the analysis:

The WAP says "56 percent of the McCain campaign ads were negative, while 77 percent of Obama's ads were negative" between Sept. 6-13.

Here's the fine print: The WAPpers define "negative" as any time you mention the opponent's name. So if Team O ran an ad that said "My economic plan is better than John McCain's" -- ding! ding! ding! -- that rings negative bells in the WAP's ears. And they don't measure the veracity of the ads or whether something was a personal attack or a policy attack.

WAP deputy director Sarah Niebler told us why: "It's more objective than having our coders determine what is a personal negative attack and what is a policy negative attack."

More at Media Matters, as well as the embedded links I didn't include: http://mediamatters.org/items/200809180011?f=s_search

Edit to replace copied square brackets with parentheses (HTML code thingy)

Edit again:

And it is the WAP that is the source of this recent Associated Press article, which reports:

Nearly every TV ad Republican John McCain ran last week was negative, compared to just 34 percent of those by Democrat Barack Obama, according to an analysis released Wednesday.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Even the "full actual truth" can be negative, I think.

Any advert that would influence the election if your opponent was running against someone else, but not if you were running against a different opponent, is a negative advert.

[Jackpine Radical]

12. Obviously, there is more than one possible definition of "negative."

Within your definition, certainly some of Obama's ads are "negative."

[Stinky The Clown]

13. It simply isn't easy to simply define it

"John McCain voted with President Bush 90% of the time" shows McCain to be in league with an upopular president, and, strictly speaking, is negative because of this. It is also germaine to the campaign and completely factual. It could as easily (but less effectively) have been stated as "Barack Obama has not voted with the president 90% of the time" and leave it up to the listener to guess who he meant.

"John McCain has killed people" is factually true, based on his job in the Viet Nam war. Anyone who utters such a phrase in a political campaign would deserve the defeat they would suffer. They would also be guilty of a negative ad.

[Contrary1]

15. "John McCain has killed people"

I'm not even sure that statement is true, given he spent most of his time crashing planes.

:evilgrin:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. "Negative" doesn't mean "unjust".

"Vote for me" is positive campaigning.

"Don't vote for him" is negative campaigning.

When there are good reasons not to vote for the other guy, drawing attention to them may be perfectly justifiable, but it's still negative, I think.

[old mark]

16. Depends on your definition - not to be slick, but ...Example:

Obama's "negative" and "smear" ads referenced McCain's involvement with Keating and the S&L fraud and bailout. McCain's folks thought this was terrible, and stated Obaba was running a dirty campaign.
BUT McCain really was involves with Keating, up to the neck, and McCain's wife and her family made hundreds of thousands of dollars from investing in Keating projects. Keating made no bones about giving money to politicians to buy their influence, and McCain was head of the line, with both hands out. Google any of thius - it's all true, and all over the net.

McCain's "Negative" is the racist inflamatory inuendo about Obama's life in general, which is lies, distortions of facts, and making very minor incidents into incredible imaginary conspiracies.
Ayers, contributions, middle name, too much money, Muslim, foreigner, etc.
McCain's campaign is based about 99% on lies and distortions.
Obama's negative accusations are true.

mark

[Stinky The Clown]

17. We agree

Several discussions along these lines already ...... "It depends on the definition of Negative".

That's why, in the OP, I attempted to allow for this.

[last1standing]

18. Of course they have, but negative ads don't have to be factually incorrect.

A negative ad is one that attacks the opponent instead of building up the candidate, himself. There have been plenty of those from the Obama camp hitting mcRacist on his tax policy, flip flops on the economy, etc...

Now if you're asking whether Obama has released any untrue ads, I think the answer is no. He has definitely used some mcRacist positions and comments in the very worst light possible but he's been pretty good about keeping things "technically honest".

[Stinky The Clown]

20. More of the same dilemma of other replies to this thread .....

.... the definition of 'Negative Ad'. (not disagreeing .... just acknowledging the issue.)

What you say is as valid as anything else.

[last1standing]

23. In your context Obama has still run negative advertising.

If you don't want it spun, then I'll just leave it at that. Obama runs some ads that do not cover the entirety of mcRacist's policies.

[endthewar]

19. Well, the Keating 5 web ad wasn't exactly a positive ad

[endthewar]

21. On MSNBC they had data showing McCain and RNC running 100% negative ads the last 12 days

[earth mom]

22. Obama has sold himself as a Dem, yet he has taken a huge right turn since the primaries.

As well, Obama is beholden to corporate interests as evidenced by his talk about "clean coal" during the debates. Because in truth, coal is anything but clean.

So, No, I don't think Obama is what people think he is, No.

But the alternative of Palin-since McCain probably doesn't have that much time left- is a horrific thought.

So solid lefties will vote for Obama, even though they have reservations, and don't see the kind of "change" coming that we should really get from a candidate running on a "change" platform.

[endthewar]

25. Obama in 2003

youtube video showing how he's been beholden to corporations since 2003: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQVRrqyqepU

:eyes:

[Orangepeel]

24. Yes, because they are defining positive as "pro candidate" and negative as "anti opponent"

In addition to Obama ads talking about why Obama is right on the issues, there are Obama ads that talk about why McCain is wrong on the issues. There is nothing wrong with such ads, but they are, by some definitions, negative.

If one defines "negative ads" as false or personal attacks, I'm not sure that Obama would have any. Possibly, the "out of touch" ads are personal, although they are not false.