I saw that bit about the houses on another blog! It's somewhere between 4 and 7, I guess. " Obama owns one house, the family home in Chicago" says his campaign. I'm impressed with the Republican propaganda machine for making Obama the elitist when McCain's wife is worth an estimated $100 million, he makes cracks defining rich as making more than $5 million, and owns multiple homes. Man of the people.

I like the way Townhall tries to compare being a bigot to being a homosexual. What a silly and false argument.

Oh, and finally Obama gets a little feisty. Thank God.

Jude, I am so with you on the Townhall thing. Sheesh!

How will the Obama people defend this ad after crying so much about McCain's silly ads? I don't see how pointing out how many homes he owns (gasp! a successful president!)is sticking to the issues....

If the McCain people feel it's valid to try to paint Obama as out of touch by comparing him to a couple of vapid celebrities with whom he has no connection--a superficial comparison without any substance--then I think it's perfectly justifiable for the Obama camp to try to paint McCain as out of touch by pointing out things that are provably true about McCain himself.

It seems a lot more deceptive to me to draw a comparison between Obama and Paris Hilton than to point out that, yes, McCain owns so many homes he can't remember how many he has. This is the same man who had no idea what the price of a gallon of gas was. That seems a lot more telling regarding his understanding of the current difficulties in the American economy.

Were people really "crying"? I think it was more alternating between rolling eyes at the silliness of the attacks, and pointing out the various flaws in the ads' attacks and approach.

I see what you are both saying, Mich and Jude. If Obama's supporters were upset with McCain's celebrity ads (as they should have been; those ads were silly), then they shouldn't be defending Obama's ad.

John and Cindy keep a lot of their assets separate. I don't think it's that odd that people with a great deal of wealth, like they have, wouldn't know how many houses they own. I don't recall McCain not knowing the price of a gallon of gas. Maybe not the exact average that day, but I've never seen a clip of him not knowing the ballpark figure. I mean, I don't really know the exact average on any given day or week. I know it's around $4.00, but I also know that the price on Monday could be $4.00, by Wednesday it could be $3.85 and by Friday it could be $4.15.

And yeah, the Townhall article is dumb. If homophobia is genetic, why do so many people in older generations experience it and so few people in younger generations?

WISCKOL: I'd like to ask you a couple questions suggested by voters here. They're not reporter-type questions.
McCAIN: Sure. It'd be a pleasure.
WISCKOL: When was the last time you pumped your own gas and how much did it cost? 

McCAIN: Oh, I don't remember. Now there's Secret Service protection. But I've done it for many, many years. I don't recall and frankly, I don't see how it matters. I've had hundreds and hundreds of town hall meetings, many as short a time ago as yesterday. I communicate with the people and they communicate with me very effectively.

Source: http://www.236.com/blog/w/chris_kelly/john_mccain_doesnt_know_the_pr_742...

I don't know how much gas is either. I just don't look. Who cares? I have no control over it.

"If the McCain people feel it's valid to try to paint Obama as out of touch by comparing him to a couple of vapid celebrities...then I think it's perfectly justifiable for the Obama camp to try to paint McCain as out of touch"

Well I'm not a "McCain person" really, but I don't think either ad is justifiable. Both are silly and don't address any real issues.

But then that's how I feel about the candidates in general

If this were the first attack ad, then I'd be disappointed in Obama. But at this point, he is defending himself. It's not the most sophisticated ad, but it's got more substance than the Paris ad or the Anti-christ ad (in my own very biased opinion).

There's no comparison between the ads. Very few Americans can identify with a person who has so many homes he can't keep count.

If Townhall's Andrew Tallman really took the Bible seriously, he wouldn't be congratulating himself for trying to justify his antipathy toward others. Surely that violates Jesus' second great commandment "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

He was saying he didn't remember the last time he pumped his gas and how much it cost then, not that he didn't know how much gas costs in this country today.

Right, I don't think it's a big deal at all. I was just providing the quote since it came up.

lil, the "McCain doesn't know the price of gas" thing came from the Orange County Register:

WISCKOL: I'd like to ask you a couple questions suggested by voters here. They're not reporter-type questions.

McCAIN: Sure. It'd be a pleasure.

WISCKOL: When was the last time you pumped your own gas and how much did it cost? 


McCAIN: Oh, I don't remember. Now there's Secret Service protection. But I've done it for many, many years. I don't recall and frankly, I don't see how it matters. I've had hundreds and hundreds of town hall meetings, many as short a time ago as yesterday. I communicate with the people and they communicate with me very effectively.

Later on in the same interview, McCain seems flustered at having been called out on not knowing the price of gas (even, seemingly, the ballpark range):

WISCKOL: Thank you very much for taking the time to talk with me.

McCAIN: Thank you. It's a pleasure.... Hang on just one second. I think the last time that I ... I've been on the campaign trail for so long I don't remember when I last filled up my own gas tank, but I certainly did for many, many, many years and I understand the difficulties and challenges that it poses for the people of California and my home state of Arizona. I thank you, my friend.

One of the reasons I do think this is relevant is because a main running theme in the attacks against Obama try to paint him as "elitist" and therefore out of touch with the experiences and struggles of the citizenry he hopes to govern, and by painting Obama as elitist, it's suggested that McCain is in comparison a man of the people, salt of the earth intimately in touch with voters' concerns. Which it appears he is not.

I didn't realize that having someone who you could identify with was an important qualification for being president. Very few Americans can identify with someone who went to Harvard law, as well. If being able to identify with a candidate is a criterion, both candidates fail.

I don't see what's substantial about pointing out that someone owns a lot of homes. (Although, I can't watch the ad because I'm at work, so I don't know if it says anything else.)

Sorry, looks like Torg beat me to the punch with the quote

If he had at least a ballpark idea of how much gas costs, why wouldn't he at least have given it, though? I mean, "around $4.00" would have been fine.

Whatever. It's really not the biggest issue out there, so

Well, not many Americans can identify with a man as wealthy as Obama either. Both candidates are far wealthier than the average voter, McCain has just been around much longer. Give Obama time, he might forget how many houses he has too

I think the ads are comparable because they're both more or less attack ads and lack any real substance. If you must rank, then McCain's were sillier, but that doesn't mean Obama's ads aren't silly.

Well, thanks for the quote, torg and Jude! I still don't think it means that he doesn't know the price of gas, just that he can't remember when he last pumped it himself. (I doubt Obama can, either!)

Anyway, I'm off for the day! Have a good night, all!

I don't think that being wealthy disqualifies McCain at all, nor do I think that we need to identify with our Presidential candidates (be a bit hard for me, I think, being an Asian-American woman, anyway).

I think the point is what I said before--pushing back against the claims that Obama is "elitist" by pointing out that McCain isn't exactly a man of the common people himself. That's all...self-defense more than anything else.

>I didn't realize that having someone who you could identify with was an important qualification for being president.

It's not a qualification for the job, but neither is being a Christian, giving speeches, kissing babies, or eating cheesesteaks. Doesn't mean it doesn't sway some voters. It would be great if it didn't matter at all, but Obama is still getting slammed for being "elitist."

Bye, lil--enjoy your evening

If this were the first attack ad, then I'd be disappointed in Obama. But at this point, he is defending himself.

Yeah. I'm sure we'd all love to see both candidates stick to issues of substance and policy, but the fact of the matter is that if Obama sticks to matters of substance and policy and never fights back when the opposition smears him and attacks him personally in the kinds of ads they've been using, he'll have no chance.

It's not a qualification for the job, but neither is being a Christian

THANK YOU, torg!

I'm glad Obama was able to rise above launching negative attack ads like he talks about. That's the kind of campaign that I can believe in.

Obama didn't need to defend himself from McCain's ad. It was so silly that it didn't warrant a response. Futhermore, this ad isn't an answer to McCain's ads. It's a completely separate, irrelevant issue. What happened to the clean, positive campaign Obama promised? As soon as McCain slings a little mud, Obama slings right back?

... same old tit for tat.

it's old ... no matter who does it.

Did the capitalization (or lack thereof) bother anyone else?

Torg: my spelling in comment 26, or in the commercial:

"it's seven. worth 13 million dollars."

A little mud? There was the Dr. No ad, the Paris ad, the Anti-Christ ad, the ad about him going to the gym rather than visiting troops. I'm just happy this ad is based on facts (even if they are conveniently cherry picked) rather than blatant lies like Obama wants to raise taxes on the middle class and tax electricity. McCain accused him of putting his political aspirations ahead of national security, accused him of playing the race card, and has been running a very negative campaign. It's more than a little mud.

Oh, the commercial!

Obama didn't need to defend himself from McCain's ad. It was so silly that it didn't warrant a response.

All this tit for tat is unfortunate and disappointing, yes, but I can't agree that Obama doesn't need to respond to attacks like those. As intelligent and informed as people are on Citizen--obviously, since we all care enough about news and politics to spend our days reading and posting here ;)--we have to remember that there are many more people out there who aren't as engaged in the process and aren't as informed about the candidates, and probably are much more influenced by ads we can recognize as silly. And those people also vote. Unfortunately, this stage of the process is a part of the process that all the candidates have to engage in in order to win and have a chance at achieving what they hope to achieve.

It's a completely separate, irrelevant issue.

I don't think so. McCain's camp painted Obama as an arugula-chomping, out-of-touch elitist. This is an answer to that.

What happened to the clean, positive campaign Obama promised? As soon as McCain slings a little mud, Obama slings right back?

I also seem to recall McCain promising to campaign with integrity, not personal attacks.

My last thought on this subject: Of course it would be disastrous to have a truly ordinary citizen in the Oval Office, but neither do we want Marie Antoinette

I didn't mean to minimize the negative ads McCain has run. I'll agree there have been a lot. I'm sure Obama's camp saw it coming(how could they not?), but they still promised to run a clean, positive campaign. But they've changed their minds, apparently.

McCain promised a clean campaign, too! What happened to "an argument between friends," how McCain described how he wanted the campaign to go.

I do see what you're saying, Michelin.

If you can use arugula against a candidate, you should expect to be called on it when you don't know the number of homes you have.

It seemed to me that Bush won in 2004 because of negative campaigning. Because of that, I do understand the urgency in defending oneself and firing back. Lies, myths, rumors can do a bazillion times more harm than good - and once they're done, it's hard to rebut to the same audience.

So I do understand the importance, Jude. But I still don't like it. I'm annoyed by everyone!

It's like an uphill battle!

Which makes you more of an elitist, the salad you eat or the fact that you have so many homes you don't bother to keep count?

Definitely the salad you eat!

Most definitely, yes.

I am definitely disappointed in the negative campaigning on both sides--I didn't mean to imply that I think it's good. Just a sad necessity, but yes, it is annoying!

What bothers me about McCain isn't just that he also promised a clean campaign, but that the Bush camp's negative campaigning against HIM pretty well derailed his chances at getting nominated in 2000...you'd think an experience like that might convince a man of his integrity to not turn around and use all those dirty tricks himself.

What can you expect, though? The Karl Rove playbook has worked so well for others that of course it's come in play again...but yes, it's annoying.

SIGH... what people will do in times of desperation, eh?

Arugula's the one that's sort of bitter and peppery-tasting, isn't it? I've never understood the appeal

I don't like it either.