David Shuster is saying Obama is trying to hide his "negative ads"

[jenmito]

and "fly under the radar" by airing them in targeted states. Shuster is asking if this "ruins his brand" by "going negative." Funny-I didn't realize that pointing out facts on the ISSUES is going negative. But Shuster is playing the ads, I guess to "expose" him, and I'm glad to see them FINALLY playing OBAMA'S ads. They will probably be very effective.

McCain made a response ad showing the usual crowds, saying, "Maybe the applause has gone to his head..." and then saying how Obama's ads are false.

[babylonsister]

1. I think Shuster had better stand by; I don't believe Obama is done

pointing out the truth, even if that happens to be negative. Did he just gloss over the fact that Lynn Sweet was trying to make via FactCheck, i.e., McCain's ads are lies?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html

[jenmito]

2. Yup-I think he's just getting started...

But Lynn Sweet was talking about FactCheck calling OBAMA'S ad false (as sources in McCain's response ad).

[babylonsister]

5. Hmm. I'm not surprised by her; in her neverending

quest to remain neutral, I think she takes gratuitous swipes at Obama. Maybe it's that Chicago thing?
I did see the factcheck link on that, too; the one I posted about McCrotchity was more of a lie, I'm thinking.. But then again, I would.
Here's the DHL one:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/distorting_the_dhl_deal.html

[jenmito]

8. Yeah-

maybe it's that Chicago link.

And yeah-the link you just posted is the one she was talking about.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Well, getting the ads played is a good thing. Hopefully viewers with

half a brain can tell the difference between an attack ad and just telling the truth.

[jenmito]

6. I agree. It's a GOOD thing. These ads aren't character attacks. They're legit.

And the more they get played for free, the better.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. And in far more markets to boot.

[jenmito]

11. Yup. But now they showed McCain's response ad and his comment on THAT ad was,

"And even if it's misleading and unfair, isn't it effective?" :eyes:

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. Oh, good grief. He sets a new standard in two-facedness

[jenmito]

14. Maybe he's trying to appear like he's not "in the tank" for Obama like the REST of the media

SUPPOSEDLY is (but isn't)?

[book_worm]

4. That ad, imo, in Indiana is not a negative ad because it doesn't attack McCain personally

like McCain's ads do to Obama. It is pointing out comments that McCain has made on the economy and how voters perceptions are different than McCain who says that the there is no recession and the economy is getting better.

[jenmito]

10. Exactly. But the media must feel the need to say they're BOTH using negative ads when

McCain's ads are all largely on Obama's character and personality.

[RollWithIt]

7. Actually, he's only "hiding them" for a 1 day from the media.....

They air in Battleground states, and the Obama campaign doesn't release to the media ahead of time like the McCain campaign does. I believe the Obama campaign believes that McCain is branding himself as "Mr. Negative." An angry old man who is running the same old campaign.

So the Obama campaign releases their negative adds (millions spent in about 12 battleground states) but without all the fan fair. They get their message out to the voters without nonstop coverage of how negative their ads are.

[jenmito]

12. I think that's a good strategy. n/t

[ErinBerin84]

15. when McCain makes negative ads and whores them to the media

, said media says "Oh, he's just being mislead by his advisors!" When the Obama campaign actually releases the ads without a press release, it is "secretive" and "damaging to Obama's brand". Bleh.

[jenmito]

16. Exactly! They protect him as if he's being FORCED to do these ads, making

excuses for him. They say he's "in a bubble" and doesn't even know, probably, what those ads are, even though he claims he's proud of those ads. :eyes: