I’m sorry, but even when the McCain team does something right —
bring up Bill Ayers — they do it wrong. See this ad. Chris
Cilizza at the Post is
right to write this: It feels like two totally
different ads in the space of 30 seconds. The first 10 seconds
are aimed at tying Obama to Ayers as a way of questioning his
judgment; the last 20 seconds are dedicated to painting
congressional Democrats as blindly opportunistic when it came to
the bailout package. Huh? What does Ayers have to do with
congressional Democrats? (A point of clarification from experts
in campaign finance law: Because the cost of the ad is split
between the McCain campaign and the RNC, it must make mention of
Congress. So, that explains that. But, it doesn’t make the ad any
less confusing for the average viewer.)
I have liked only one (or maybe two) McCain ad(s) since the GOP
convention. Every one of the others seems heavy-handed; most of
them aren’t entirely coherent (they don’t close the loop,
logically); and almost none of them offer the right sort of tone
or (if a positive ad) of serious-, sober-minded hopefulness. But
this ad, well, stinks. It doesn’t explain who Ayers is, or why or
how Obama lied. And it takes a logical leap — no, a Snake River
Canyon Evel Knievel blastoff (and pathetic flameout) — to meld
Ayers with congressional Democrats. Cilizza isn’t the only one
who just won’t get it, largely because there’s nothing logical
to, uh…. to get got.
Another thing: All of this ominous music and scary-sounding
narration is terrible. It defeats the purpose of the ad. Voters
DO want relevant information; they do NOT want negative or nasty
campaigns. By using all the ominous music, ominous wording, and
omimous narrator’s intonations, the commercials
SCREAMABSOLUTELYFRIGGINSCREAMWAYTOOLOUD that this is an ATTACK
COMMERCIAL. It basically tells the viewer two things: First, we
think you are too stupid to get it unless we use every device
known to man to beat the message into your skull; and second,
that we are on the attack and are trying to scare you about the
other guy. So it therefore comes across, on its face, as, yes, a
sign of a negative or nasty campaign. The effect is for the
viewer to tune out the substance of the message, to discount it
immediately, or even to react AGAINST it and therefore against
McCain.
There is every good reason to raise real concerns about Ayers and
Wright and Rezco and the other conglomeration of low-lifes who
have been so important a part of Obama’s career. The concerns are
a wholly legitimate issue. But the way to do it is by presenting
the facts in a concise and cogent manner, with no bells and
whistles and Friday-the-13th music, in a way that makes clear WHY
the issue should be important to the viewer.
The McCain ads fail on all counts. Badly. Disastrously.