Signs of Spine. Obama's latest ad drew a harsh response from Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Joseph Romm, who rightly points out that the ad repeatedly associates the word "maverick" with Palin and McCain. Still, while Team Obama should have been able to do better, the ad represents a high-water-mark thus far: The Obama campaign seems to have finally accepted that they need to fight Team McCain's onslaught of insinuations with a little emotional oomph instead of just pointing out how much more sensible Obama's policies are. The Obama campaign even used the L-word, finally calling a lie by its name. Yes, they could have done it better, but given Obama's anemic reactions to McCain's attacks so far, I choose to see this ad as a hopeful sign of things to come.
Don't Think of a Wolf in Elephant's Clothing. Romm gives Team Obama no credit, but it is worth noting what they are trying to do by using the word "maverick" so much: They want to link the notions of McCain-Palin and "maverick" to a third notion: that those jokers are actually anything but mavericks. If that association were made strongly, then every time the GOP ticket used the word "maverick," it would also call to mind the idea that they were phonies. I agree with Romm, though: this ad does not quite have a memorable enough hook to do the trick. (I would like to see an ad that uses this same strategy to hijack McCain's insulting catch-phrase "Country First" - asking what country McCain thought he was putting first when he voted against alternative energy that would free us from our dependence on foreign oil, or against the new GI Bill to strengthen our military...or did he think he was putting his country first when he voted against equal pay for women doing equal work, or when he tried to privatize Social Security... etc. etc.)
Blinding Smiles. A few other details merit mentioning. The ad could just as easily have been voiced over by a female voice with a little sass to it, since taking the wind out of Palin's sails is the idea. What's more, the new Obama ad includes several smiling pictures of Palin alone and her and McCain together, looking happy and at ease. Replaying these images does a disservice to the cause. A famous anecdote makes the point best: in the 1980's 60 Minutes ran a scathing piece about President Reagan's hypocrisy on environmental policy and caring for seniors, with a very critical script read over pictures of Reagan's photo ops in front of scenic wilderness and visiting seniors. But when the White House called the producers, it was not to complain about the criticism - it was to thank them for running all those great images of Reagan at his majestic, charming best. (Check out McCain's latest attack ad, and you'll see no smiling pictures of Obama until they try to paint him as delighting in sexualizing childhood.)
An Overdue Milestone. Still, Obama's "No Maverick" ad does one important thing right: it marks the first time the Obama campaign clearly described the "Bridge to Nowhere" whopper as a deliberate falsehood. Yes, this would have been infinitely more effective if her lying had been the story before her acceptance speech won so many American hearts - as Drew Westen has pointed out, if the first thing people know about her had been negative, then everything she said would have been taken with a grain of salt... but since their first impression was positive, and folks like her, it is much harder to convince people that she's Bush in high heels.
Why Lying Matters More. There was plenty of criticism of Palin before her acceptance speech, about about her inexperience and her extreme pro-life views. Why then does it matter that we left the issue of her misleading the public alone? As the Washington Post's Shankar Vedantam helpfully explains, research shows that people are generally much more sure of themselves when judging others on their interpersonal ethics than on policy issues. Low-information swing voters often don't know where they stand on policy questions (and they do know that there are experts with complicated arguments on both sides). But show them someone lying or cheating or being disloyal, and they will quickly form a strong opinion of that person's character. Again, the point is not that someone changed their mind about a policy, it's that they are trying to fool their fellow citizens into believing things that are not true.
Deja Vu: The Landstuhl Lie. Team Obama's reluctance to call Palin out on her lying recalled their earlier flailing over McCain's wholly made-up charge that Obama had canceled a trip to visit wounded troops at the end of his overseas trip because he learned there would be no cameras present. For the first several days, the the Obama campaign's response opened by calling the charge "inappropriate," instead of "completely not true" "a deliberate lie" etc. For the record, "inappropriate" is about the most counter-productive thing one could say in that situation. Here's what it conveys:
- The charge is factually true - because if it were not true, the Obama people would have said so, instead of complaining that it was "inappropriate."
- Obama is more concerned with what he feels is "appropriate" or tasteful than he is with being straight with the American people, honoring our troops or leading the country. After all, "inappropriate" is wearing white after Labor Day, not lying to the country.
- After the same Obama spokespeople finally started calling the charge "not true," and it became clear that the McCain people had lied, it also became clear that Team Obama had been too timid to stand up to McCain's bullying and call out his lie in the first place. Timidity is a very unappealing trait in a Commander in Chief, to say the least.
- Finally, it conveys a very clear message to the McCain campaign: "We have no idea how to handle it when you make up outlandish lies. Please, hit us again!"
Palin: The Tragic Timeline (so far). No wonder then that McCain's speechwriters filled Palin's mouth with lies. But Team Obama had still not learned the lesson of Landstul - call an untruth an untruth, and make the lie the issue (the M.O. of Bill Clinton's War Room in 1992, not coincidentally). Once again, they were caught flat-footed:
- The Obama campaign's first statement Friday morning criticized Palin's lack of experience directly (rather than indirectly, as in "we don't know anything about her"), which opened the door to the endless criticisms of Obama's experience versus Palin's that we heard throughout the convention.
(Initially, the Obama camp could have called out Team McCain for introducing Palin within a day of Obama's acceptance speech - a first in this country's long history of dirty campaigning, I am told - in a deliberate attempt to keep Americans from hearing more about it, painting McCain as scared of Obama's appeal. Team Obama declined to criticize Team McCain's dirty trick.)
- Later Friday, Palin was introduced to America. Less than 10 minutes after her first "hello" to the American people, she told the Bridge to Nowhere "thanks but no thanks" lie she has been repeating ever since. Over the next five days prior to her prime-time acceptance speech, virtually nothing was said about Palin's lying to the American people by the Obama camp.
- Over that weekend prior to her speech, Obama wildly overcompensated for the campaign's initial criticism of Palin, calling her a "compelling new voice," among a few other compliments. Apparently he was thinking that even if everyone really liked her, they would still vote against her because they didn't like her polices. Don't get me started.
- This kind of bumbling was still going on 10 days later: On Monday Ed Rendell first very effectively called Palin out for lying about her record, but then completely torpedoed his own point about her deception and reverted to the inexperience argument, saying "I like her... She is a good person, she has tremendous potential, but in no way shape or form is she ready to be President of the United States."
A Halfway Bright Shining "LIE." At last, though, with this ad we see the beginnings of an offense from Team Obama. Nothing too potent yet, mind you: as happy as I was to see Obama call McCain-Palin on the lying, and as great as the visual was, with the "LIE" nicely highlighted, it must be said that the ad still tiptoes around the charge. The issue of them lying isn't introduced until the very end, and as good as that "LIE" visual is (all 2.5 seconds of it), the voiceover is oh-so gentle: "Politicians lying about their records? You don't call that 'maverick,' you call it more of the same." The intonation skips lightly over the L-word, which admittedly can be harsh on the ear and needs to be used carefully. But the phrasing attributes the lying to politicians in general, a category that to many people includes Obama and Biden.
Doubts and Hope. So while Mr. Romm doubts that the ad successfully connects "more of the same" to the McCain-Palin-"maverick" association cluster, I have my doubts that this is clear and forceful enough to make the lying charge stick either, especially after Palin has already connected with so many people. And at this point, it may well be that she is already too popular, and calling her lying out more any more forcefully would just come off as mean. (It is always worth remembering that Obama's people are scary smart, and also have access to information the rest of us don't.) Regardless, it is a huge relief to see Team Obama standing up to Team McCain (/Rove) at last.
Will Team Obama find their groove and come out swinging? Will a progressive 527 appear with memorable ads to save the day? It's hard to know. But this ad is still a start, and we still have eight weeks left. They are sure to be long ones.