As a journalist, I'm supposed to sneer at the mere idea of manipulating public opinion during political campaigns.
The truth is, I kind of get a kick out of it. I enjoy it in the same way I enjoy watching a con job movie like "House of Games," for example, or a masterful sleight-of-hand artist who can pull off seeming miracles with misdirection and patter.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that trying to make a candidate look good is inherently deceitful. That's what campaigns do. I don't habitually wear a suit, but I wear one when I show up for a job interview. Does that make me deceitful?
To be perfectly frank, I see more insincerity in the frequent expressions by members of the public and many of my colleagues in the news media to the effect that they are shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that these campaigns would present their candidate in a positive light and the opponent in a negative one.
Then again, maybe it's not insincerity so much as a willful refusal to see the obvious.
A related pet peeve of mine, which I've alluded to before on this blog, is when people imply that there's something inherently wrong with "negative" campaigning.
Again, don't get me wrong. I have a big problem with major distortions and outright lies. I also believe it's possible to be critical without being mean-spirited.
"Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth," for example, was grotesque and inexcusable. And Karl Rove's push poll in the 2000 South Carolina primary suggesting that John McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter was an out-of-wedlock black child? Scuzzy.
What I don't understand is this attitude that criticizing an opponent is inherently dishonorable. Isn't the whole point of a political campaign to demonstrate why one candidate is a better choice than another?
That's especially true for incumbents. I consider it not only appropriate, but necessary under a democracy for elected officials to be held accountable for their actions in office.
Now, I wanted to talk about two McCain ads that have been getting a lot of attention lately. It seems like they've already become catchphrases: "Celebrity," and "The One."
In case you haven't seen them, here they are.
I think they represent a miscalculation for the McCain campaign.
I don't object to them because they're negative. I also think that the underlying message -- Obama is all glitz and no substance -- is a perfectly valid point, whether you agree with it or not. If I was on McCain's campaign, that's exactly the message I'd be trying to put out.
Some have criticized the "Celebrity" ad as trying to tap into primal racist fears by juxtaposing images of young, blonde women with a black man. Personally, I think that's a stretch worthy of Reed Richards from the Fantastic Four.
In fact, I kind of like the ads. Both of them, particularly "The One," are sarcastic. And as you may have ascertained from reading this blog, I do enjoy sarcasm.
Nevertheless, as I said, I believe they represent a mistake on McCain's part. Why? Because they're full of images showing Obama in a very charismatic light, complete with crowds cheering and chanting his name. People respond to images like that.
"But Tom," you say, "those images are clearly used for satirical purposes. Immediately after the ads show those images, they argue that all that speechifying and adulation ultimately count for nothing."
Doesn't matter. Images are powerful. Regardless of what their overt messages are, those ads still communicate to viewers that Obama is a charismatic candidate with legions of devoted supporters throughout the world.
I can see what the McCain camp is trying to do. It's the same as those references McCain made to Obama's European tour during his domestic appearances. To wit: "Hey, while my opponent is posing for news photos and sucking up the international adulation like some jet-setting rock star, I'm back here talking straight to you people."
I guess my criticism of that approach is the same as my problem with the ads. They both have a certain petulant quality.
"Why are you fawning all over him? I'm the guy with the solutions!"
So at the risk of contradicting a lot of what I've written in this post, I think McCain would be wise to put the focus back on himself.
I like what you've written. It puts an entirely different spin on what most of the media and others are saying, yet what you say is very plausible. This is the kind of writing so badly needed around these parts to counter-act the rubbish on most of the talk radio that Yorkers seem to adhere to. More of the same, please!