On the Attack

As in any presidential election, there are an abundance of politically charged and fiery attack ads that are aimed at the two major party candidates. These attack ads are important and worth noting, despite their inaccuracies, because as CNN commentator Darrell M. West stated these ads, "run emotional and inaccurate content designed to play on voter's fears and anxieties" (West).

Due to how these ads manipulate and feed upon the fears of the voters, they can be a candidate's worst nightmare. In fact, one of the first attack ads, which was created by the McCain camp, immediately appealed to the American citizen's uncertainty regarding national security.

The ad, displays a picture of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, next to a picture of Barack Obama. The message is simple but explosive: "Is it OK to Unconditionally Meet with Anti-American Foreign Leaders?" As reporter Jed Lewison writes, " the visual imagery [suggests] that Barack Obama is somehow aligned with one of America's enemies" (Lewison).

The idea Obama is aligned with Ahmadinejad is ridiculous. Although, what makes this ad work is how it never directly ties Obama to the Iranian President, it just sends the message subliminally through its visual depiction. What is somewhat concerning about this ad is how it is successful at appealing to America's fear of anti-American leaders. While the majority of voters are hopefully able to see through this smokescreen, there are voters who's decisions may be altered by the alleged threat of an Obama- Ahmadinejad "alliance".

While McCain may have been one of the first to sling the political mud, he was not the only one to get their hands dirty. In fact, it would be foolish to think that while McCain went on the offensive, Obama just sat on his hands and played nice.

According to West, Obama's campaign has made claims that McCain: "supported a 1,000-year war in Iraq and therefore was not worthy of the presidency" (West). This attack also appeals to voter tensions. At this point the majority of Americans do not support the U.S. effort in Iraq. In fact, an ABC news/ Washington Post Poll shows that 61% of Americans feel that the Iraq War is not worth fighting. That makes Obama's claim that McCain supports a 1,000 year war seem extremely unappealing, resulting in a negative view of the candidate.

Despite inaccuracies and erroneous claims, attack ads, especially in an election of this magnitude, can have a huge impact on a voter's decision. Hopefully, the voter' will read up enough to navigate their way through the partisan smokescreen.

Sources: West M., Darrell, CNN, "Commentary: 2008 Campaign Attack Ads Hit An All Time Low", Sept 15, 2008, http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/15/west.negative/index.html

Lewison, Jed, The Jed Report, "McCain Launches First Negative Attack Ad of General Election", June 8, 2008, http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/mccain-smears-o.html

A Heartbeat Away from the Presidency

As I am sure we all know by now, John McCain has nominated Sarah Palin to be his running mate in the 2008 presidential election. Since this controversial pick by the Republican candidate came last Friday there has been a firestorm surrounding her qualifications.

1) She was a city council member for Wasilla, Alaska from 1992-1996. (Pop. 9,780 as of 2007)
2)She was then elected mayor of Wasilla from 1996-2002
3)Finally she was elected Governor of Alaska

While she does have executive experience, it's relevance to her vice presidential nomination is non-existent, considering she would be essentially going from a population of approximately 9,780 to approximately 305 million.

Even more interesting than her apparent lack of experience is the way with which the conservatives have gone about defending McCain's VP choice.

• "I'd also suggest that governor Palin's experience is not significantly less than that of our current President before he entered the oval office." (Alder, Jonathan, National Review)
• "But, with what's at stake this fall, conservatism appealing to more people--and a rockstar conservative motivating more people to get to the voting booth--sounds great to me."(Favazza, Katie, Right Wing News)

These arguments in defense of Palin are a mixture of poor thought and hypocrisy. First of all, I am shocked that Conservatives are bold enough to compare Palin's experience to the experience of George W. Bush. This comparison is not flattering to Palin considering that George W.'s overall approval rating has hit a low of 28% for the first time since President Carter's rating hit the same number in 1979.

Finally, the hypocrisy of the second argument is startling. The way that her lack of experience, which has been a major target on Obama's back, was completely overlooked because she is "a rockstar conservative" is completely absurd. Especially due to how McCain has attacked Obama publicly calling him "the biggest celebrity in the world", and then posing the question "Is he ready to lead?". With Palin only "a heartbeat away from the presidency" as Bill Warner put it, shouldn't we be asking the same question of Palin?

Sources:

Alder, Jonathan, National Review, "Palin's Experience- Useful Comparisons", Tuesday, September 2, 2008, http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2U3ZmMwY2M4OThlOGZhY2U1NTcyMTQ3Mzk0MmNiMDU=

Favazza, Katie, Right Wing News, "Is Palin's Experience Lacking?", September 4, 2008, http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/09/is_palins_experience_lacking.php

Jones M., Jeffrey, May 8, 2008, http://www.gallup.com/poll/107128/Bush-Approval-Rating-Down-60-Among-Republicans.aspx

"Obama Campaign Highlights Palin's Zero Experience", http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080829171140.5123i228&show_article=1