My favorite right-wing wacko radio pundit, Jay Severin, has spent several hours today calling Obama a liar for running this attack ad.
I think it’s fair to call the ad misleading. I’m still trying to decide whether or not it’s a lie. There’s obviously more than a grain of truth in the ad, however.
So here’s a question: Is this ad more or less misleading than John McCain’s Kindergarten ad?
And more importantly — if you think this ad is comparable to the Kindergarten ad, or if you think the ad is a lie – is it wrong for Obama to run this ad, under the circumstances?
On the one hand, if Republicans — who lie about why they took us to war and about what American intelligence indicated, lie about torture, lie about Obama’s positions, lie about the size of the crowds at McCain’s rallies, lie about Sarah Palin’s position on the Bridge to Nowhere, etc, etc, etc. – are going to lie with abandon and get away with it, aren’t Democrats actually duty bound to fight their lies with lies, if necessary, in order to keep the right-wingers from winning this election and ruining our country?
On the other hand, I’ve admired Obama for sticking to the truth for most of his campaign and I’d hate for his reputation to suffer as a result of misleading ads. Obama’s reputation for honesty may be helpful when he is president.
I would also invite anyone to use this thread to describe their favorite Republican lie.
They say nice guys finish last. The same could be said for honest guys in politics. I’m sick of finishing last.
I really don’t buy the logic of this post. You are assuming, I think incorrectly, that it is impossible or more difficult to win an election without lying.
Lying is not the same as being Aggressive or even Negative. I do not think Obama, or any politician, needs to lie in order to win. I do think he needs to hit his opponent hard. He needs to be Aggressive. He may need to go Negative. But lying? I don’t buy it.
I think the burden of proof is on those who want to make that argument that he needs to lie. So: bracketing off Aggression and Negativity as tactics, do you think Obama needs to lie in order to win? If so, why?
Comment by Lee — September 18, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
To Lee: As a person who fundamentally values honesty, I would be hard pressed to disagree with your comment above.
It seems that you are saying that if Obama lied, that would be wrong, even under these circumstances. You’re probably right, but it’s a bitter pill to swallow. Confronted with the McCain campaign’s lies, it has occured to me that Obama may lose this election because he is unwilling to fight lies with lies. But you’re saying lies are unnecessary, and you may be entirely correct.
Given the time I’ve spent on this blog criticizing anyone who would dare criticize Obama, I feel hypocritical soliciting criticism. But I think my advocacy of Obama would be stronger if I could get clear in my own mind about this ad. I really am interested to know what you think: Is it more or less misleading than the Kindergarten ad?
If Obama’s ad is comparable, then it suggests that the Obama campaign has decided to fight back in kind. This doesn’t make me any less of an Obama supporter, but it is an issue that should be confronted head-on, I think.
Comment by Ian — September 18, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
Why would it be hypocritical of you to solicit criticism? What am I missing? Can you connect the dots for me?
No surprise here but, I do not think the Obama add is misleading – it properly attributes who said what and correctly attributes the fact that they are, indeed, all Republicans. The Democrats have no Tom Tancredo.
The McCain ad purposefully obfuscates and tries to confuse who said what, in an effort to insinuate things that are false (e.g. ‘comprehensive sex education for kindergartners’). A comprehensive analysis is here:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html
The Obama ad says “John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One tells lies to get our votes. The other, even worse, follows the failed policies of George Bush,…”
The one who ‘tells lies to get our votes’ would be the ‘Republican friends’. Well, pick a Republican who has told an egregious lie and the statement becomes correct. Yes, I know, the add is showing McCain’s face when it says this. Of course, McCain has never told a lie. The ad goes on to say about the second face, “The other, even worse, follows the failed policies of George Bush…” This too is correct in light of the fact that John McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time.
Lying and Truth are slippery things. I’ve talked about it here in the past. I find it more useful to closely compare/contrast specific instances of ‘truthiness,’ as you’ve invited us to do here.
As for ‘fighting lies with lies,’ I think Obama’s ad shows that it’s not actually necessary. In fact, his ad isn’t even misleading. I must admit, I’m impressed with this ad and think that it’s likely to be a harsh hit to McCain – just the kind I’ve wanted to see. It’s scary to me that the Right is so willing to lie and that it works so well. But, I think I might just be getting on board with this ‘higher moral ground’ thing that Obama has been doing so well, even if it’s not been enough to run away with the election. Wouldn’t it be amazing if he wins without actually having to lie like the Republicans have? I know, so far, he has not.
Comment by aaron — September 19, 2008 @ 2:10 pm