MNpublius.com

16 Responses to “New Obama Ad holds McCain Accountable for Ad Lies”

1. 1 1 neighborly neighbor
   September 15, 2008 at 12:39 pm

   Now I’m totally for Obama… but does that little photo of him at the bottom of the ad count for the required 4 second endorsement image? Because the photo of him and Biden didn’t seem to stay up for 4 seconds…

2. 2 2 Chris
   September 15, 2008 at 12:53 pm

   It’s always a sign of desperation when you have to criticize the kind of campaign your opponent is running — especially this early in the campaign season. Usually these kinds of ads don’t appear until the end of October. I love the ad too because he attacks McCain in the same old Washington, D.C. kind of way and doesn’t offer any susbstance. The ad is politics as usual and not the kind of Change anyone can believe in.

   And what is the ad referring to? Is it the lipstick ad? If it is, McCain was right on the money. If you don’t think Obama was talking about Palin, then you didn’t see the quote in context. The very next line is, “You can wrap an old fish in paper called change, but it’s still gonna stink.” The old fish reference was clearly McCain just as the lipstick on a pig reference was Palin. These kind of tactics aren’t new for Obama who famously flipped the middle finger when talking about Hillary.

3. 3 3 Sean Broom
   September 15, 2008 at 1:01 pm

   No Chris — the ad he’s talking about is this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3sVPN5f62w

   The bill that McCain is referencing like it would teach kindergartners the finer points of kama sutra was actually trying to protect kids against sexual predators.

   It is arguably the single most disgusting ad I’ve ever seen, it is an embarrassment, and John McCain should be ashamed that his visage graces that vile piece of shit. Sean

4. 4 4 SeanH
   September 15, 2008 at 1:18 pm

   If you don’t think Obama was talking about Palin, then you didn’t see the quote in context

   I saw the whole thing. He was not talking about Palin.

5. 5 5 Matt Martin
   September 15, 2008 at 1:29 pm

   Chris, I know it’s weak to just make statements like this, but I can’t help myself: I normally find you to be a reasonable commenter, but you’re really straining your credibility here.

   I heard the quote in context, and I think the best case scenario for your side is that it’s feigned outrage to get upset over the comment. The reality is that any reasonable observer would not jump to the conclusion that he was speaking about Palin. But even worse is your bird flipping comment, you have to be joking me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoOFp-RDpvM

   Come on Chris.

   That’s not even the point, however, because Obama wasn’t talking about the Palin ad (as gross as that was). He’s talking about the ads that even Karl Rove said were crossing a line: the ad claiming that Palin fought the bridge to no where (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieuA7nAOBXQ) and, much worse, the kindergarten sex-ed ad. The latter of those hasn’t been embraced as a single credible journalist as even close to the truth; the bill sought to teach children about sexual predators so that they would know who to avoid! Absolutely disgusting.

6. 6 6 Zach (the other one)
   September 15, 2008 at 1:48 pm

   He wasn’t talking about Palin. It is glaringly obvious in context, and has been openly disproven in the media. It was a manufactured scandal to keep the press at bay while McCain stayed out of the spotlight for a bit longer. He doesn’t do well. Again, Common knowledge.

   I can tell which campaign is in real desperation, and it ain’t the Democrats. The man picked Sarah Palin for gods sakes!!

7. 7 7 Randy
   September 15, 2008 at 3:06 pm

   “I love the ad too because he attacks McCain in the same old Washington, D.C. kind of way and doesn’t offer any susbstance.”

   Contrasted with all the substance in McCain ads? You cannot be serious.

8. 8 8 Chris
   September 15, 2008 at 5:23 pm

   Matt and Sean,

   I thought the Ad was referencing the Palin Lipstick Webad ran by McCain. Now that I know which McCain ad his ad is referring to, I went ahead and read the bill Obama voted for. Here is the change McCain references:

   Each class or course in comprehensive sex
   14 education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall
   15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
   16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
   17 of HIV.

   The previous law only required comprehensive sex education in grades 6-12.

   Matt, I just watched the video you posted where he flips off Hillary. It’s pretty clear what he did. Are you saying he didn’t?

   As for the lipstick on a pig stuff, let’s read the quote in context:

   “You can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in paper called change but it’s still gonna stink.” Now I ask you, who is the pig and who is the old fish? Just as when Obama flipped off Hillary, the audience got the joke. It’s just funny to watch my friends on the other side say what happened didn’t happen. Sorta like don’t believe your lying eyes!

9. 9 9 Matt Martin
   September 15, 2008 at 5:39 pm

   Factcheck.org (nonpartisan, they rip into Obama’s ads too) straightens this out. Sorry this is long, but it’s necessary to show just how completely factually bankrupt the ad is:

   A Factual Failure
   The ad claims “Obama’s one accomplishment” in the realm of education was “legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergarteners.”

   It’s true that the phrase “comprehensive sex education” appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain’s claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it “medically accurate.” It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed “comprehensive sex education” to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be “age-appropriate” for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question:

   SB 99: However, no pupil shall be required to take or participate in any family life class or course on HIV AIDS or family life instruction if his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil.

   The bill also called for all sex education course materials to include information that would help students recognize, among other activities, inappropriate touching, sexual assault and rape:

   SB99: Course material and instruction shall discuss and provide
   for the development of positive communication skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid unwanted sexual activity. … Course material and instruction shall teach pupils … how to say no to unwanted sexual advances … and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one’s judgment.

   The bill passed in the Health and Human Services Committee with Democrats, including Obama, voting along party lines in support of it. But the measure promptly stalled and died in the full Senate, and no action has been taken on it since late 2005.

   Obama is often quoted as saying that when it comes to sex education in public schools, “it’s the right thing to do … to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools,” placing an emphasis on the word “appropriate.” But Obama has also said he does not support, “explicit sex education to children in kindergarten.”

   In a debate with Republican Alan Keyes, against whom Obama was running for an open seat in the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama made it clear that at least one reason he supported the bill was that it would help teach young kids to recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles:

   Keyes, Oct. 21, 2004: Well, I had noticed that, in your voting, you had voted, at one point, that sex education should begin in kindergarten, and you justified it by saying that it would be “age-appropriate” sex education. [It] made me wonder just exactly what you think is “age-appropriate.”

   Obama: We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it’s medically accurate and age-appropriate. Now, I’ll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that’s the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation.

   Besides the Obama-Keyes race, this allegation also surfaced during this year’s party primaries when Mitt Romney claimed Obama supported sex education for five-year-olds. (Obama misleadingly fired back that Romney supported the same policy.)

   His Only Accomplishment?

   The ad claims the bill was Obama’s “one accomplishment.” This is doubly false. Obama was neither a cosponsor nor a sponsor of the sex education bill, which never got past “go” in the Senate. So it was not an “accomplishment” at all. Furthermore, Obama can properly claim a number of real accomplishments.

   He was a cosponsor of what became the Chicago Education Reform Act of 2003, which allowed for an increase in the number of Chicago charter schools and required the Chicago Board of Education to enter into a formal partnership with the Chicago Teachers Union to “advance the Chicago Public Schools to the next level of education reform.” He was also a cosponsor of a bipartisan bill to help Illinois high school graduates be eligible for in-state college tuition rates even if they weren’t U.S. citizens.

   On the federal level, Obama sponsored three amendments to The America COMPETES Act, which became law in 2007. All three amendments were passed in the Senate by unanimous consent and became law. One amendment proposed language that would create a mentoring program for women and minority groups during their studies in Department of Energy programs. He also proposed language to support summer learning programs and boost their math curricula. And he put forward a requirement that women and minorities be represented in the President’s Science and Technology Summit. Whether or not one considers any of these measures earth-shaking, they’re accomplishments nonetheless

   Cherry-Picking Quotes

   The ad also features three cherry-picked quotes from the media, highlighting negative comments about Obama’s record and ignoring those directed at McCain. The announcer quotes Education Week contributing blogger David Hoff, saying, “Education Week says Obama ‘hasn’t made a significant mark on education.’ ” The quote is accurate. But the ad leaves out a quote Hoff gathered from Arizona’s Casa Grande Elementary School Superintendent Frank Davidson:

   Davidson (via Education Week): I don’t think [McCain] has a strong track record of putting education at the top of his priorities.

   McCain had used the information about Obama before, and in response, blogger Hoff encouraged readers of the magazine’s election blog to “Read the Obama story and the McCain story and you can decide who has a better track record on K-12 issues.” We agree, you should.

   The ad then quotes a July 7 editorial from The Washington Post, which said “that he’s ‘elusive’ on accountability.” Those words did appear in The Post’s July 7 editorial. At the time, McCain had no education plan to critique, but later, in August, The Post revisited both candidates’ proposals and said McCain’s was “both late in coming and still a work in progress.” It also said “of the two, Mr. Obama has given the issue more attention.”

   The last quote used in McCain’s ad is attributed to the Chicago Tribune and says that Obama is “a ‘staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.’ ” This is actually from a piece by Steve Chapman, former associate editor of The New Republic and contributing writer to Slate and the conservative publications The Weekly Standard and The National Review. The piece isn’t a Chicago Tribune editorial at all, though it’s made to appear that way in the ad. And Chapman, none too pleased about how his opinion piece was featured in the ad, responded in a Sept. 10 Tribune blog entry with this:

   Chapman: … the ad itself doesn’t bother explaining how the candidates differ on school vouchers, the subject of my column. Instead, it insults our intelligence by expecting us to believe that Obama thinks kindergarteners should be taught how to use condoms before they’re taught to read. Right. And Joe Biden eats puppies for breakfast.

   We couldn’t have said it better, Mr. Chapman.

   One of the sleaziest ads of all time

   And for the flip off, he’s scratching his face; he HAS TWO FINGERS UP! Obviously the crowd thought they saw him flip her off, but look at his face, he doesn’t even realize what’s going on.

   And for the lipstick on a pig, you didn’t finish his line. Right after the fish he says, “We’ve had enough of the same old thing.” DUH! The quote is taken from a section of his speech where he’s talking about how Palin and McCain pretend to be mavericks but are just more of the same Bush policies; which is exactly what both phrases he used mean. Obama’s not a stupid politician, he wouldn’t flip someone off or refer to a woman as a pig to score a laugh. Which is what makes all of this so transparently moronic: perhaps if this was an off-the-cuff remark or a behind the scenes gaff it would be believeable, but I wouldn’t believe that either McCain or Obama are so stupid to encorporate a demeaning, sexist joke into a prepared political speech. Within the context it makes sense as the same old phrase it has been for the last 100 years, why would you jump to an unlikely conclusion? Sigh…

10. 10 10 Chris
    September 15, 2008 at 5:57 pm

    Matt,

    You prove my point. The section of the speech talks about both McCain and Palin. McCain is the old fish and Palin is the pig. He may not have meant it, and I hope he didn’t, but his audience got the joke. Just as the audience howled when he flipped the middle finger. Don’t use the excuse that he had more than one finger going, I’ve seen many artful finger flips that had more than one finger up. The audience got that one too and howled. Do I think they would be stupid enough to bring a sexist joke into play? Yeah just as the Chairman of the South Carolina Democratic party was stupid enough to say that God was on “their” side because of Hurricane Gustav or how his wife was stupid enough to say that Sarah Palin’s only qualification was that she hadn’t had an abortion. There are all kinds of gaffes and stupid things said along a campaign trail. I bet Obama wishes he could take back the lipstick on a pig comment.

11. 11 11 Richard
    September 15, 2008 at 6:25 pm

    Matt, you provide a well sourced, detailed response and what do you get in return? Nah-ahah, or however you would spell the infantile reply. I suspect those on the right who most vociferously charge Obama with having called their VP candidate a pig, are having the most trouble with her. I suspect her grossly negligent and lacking qualifications make those on the right nervous, to the point of nausea, whenever she steps up to the mikes. And what does her selection say about her selector? She is the most qualified candidate for the VP spot in the republican party? Or, she is the most palatable candidate for the extreme religous zealots on the right. She is going to get the base all revved up. Country first or win the election first. McCain showed us how he thinks with her pick. Election before country.

12. 12 12 63
    September 15, 2008 at 9:02 pm

    Obama’s face isn’t up for 4 seconds…oh no, what do we do?

13. 13 13 Walter hanson
    September 15, 2008 at 11:44 pm

    Hey Richard:

    Obama goes on television and tries to compare his campaign
    to the town she was Mayor of. If he makes the comparison with
    the Alaska budget it shows she has far more experience than Obama
    was trying to claim by running his campaign.
    The fact that he doesn’t know she’s governor shows he’s not qualfied.

    Now what lies has Mccain told folks?

    He runs an add claiming that Obama is behaving like a celebrity
    which he did. I mean his ego was so big he decided he had to design
    his own Presidential seal.

    The only thing the ad did was show comments by the liberal main stream
    media attacking Mccain. Where’s a real nonpartisan fact in that ad.

    I didn’t see one.

    Oh Chris the O has been caught right after attacking the claim
    that he doesn’t support sex education in kidgarten that he endorses it.
    Oh I forgot “Real” facts don’t matter to you.

    Sorry folks if this the best ad that Obama can air keep airing ads
    like this.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

14. 14 14 amuseinc
    September 16, 2008 at 8:10 am

    WAlter could you perhaps list the total number of humble, non-egotist presidential candidates of the last oh, 250 years? The reason I ask is that it shouldn’t take you long to realize that there are no humble candidates for president.

    Next thing you will complain about is Obama being just too damn tall.

15. 15 15 Walter hanson
    September 16, 2008 at 11:32 pm

    Okay Amusein how about you get a picture of every presidential
    seal each one of those candidates designed?

    How about you get the pictures of how the Obama plane has
    been remade?

    He has a big ego. That’s why he thinks he can say on a national
    interview he has more excutive experience because he’s running an
    organization far bigger than a city of 7,000. She’s a governor now
    Barrack. The fact that he doesn’t want to acknoweldge she’s a
    governor is ego!

    Sorry he has ego.

    And since no body has pointed out where the lies Matt has written
    a post that lies. And you people have the nerve to accuse the Mccain
    campaign of lieing!

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

16. 16 16 Typical Frightened Right Wing Guy
    September 17, 2008 at 8:32 am

    Walter Hanson, I agree 100%,

    The McCain campaign has told no lies, because we Republicans say so.

    We are the party that the public trusts, because we have been consistently 100% correct on every issue.

    It’s about the track record, Walter, and we Minnesota Republican bloggers should be thanked by America. We have made America a better place, because we say so.

    A divided America is how it should be, because you Liberals are wrong on every issue.

    Great Job Minnesota Republican blogger Walter Hanson