In my column for Oct. 31, 2008, I said that Obama was principled because he does not run negative ads. However, according to the Chicago Tribune, it would seem I was mistaken.
Since the start, the Wisconsin Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin at Madison reports that 73 percent of the ads McCain has aired and 61 percent of Obama’s have been negative.
A reader of my column, who calls himself Father Martin, also emailed me about my statement on negative ads, saying the following, among other things:
I read the article and found it to be okay until I got to the part “(he has, so far, refused to run a negative campaign against McCain.)” If that be the case then why do the CNN and independent monitors of the campaigns surveys of negative ads show the Obama camp has aired more negative ads than McCain’s camp. Of course the Obama camp has aired far more ads positive and negative due to Obama having more funds. They both have degenerated into negative ads. For you to say that Obama has not is totally false.
The Nielsen Wire website also says roughly the same thing:
Despite finger-pointing from both sides, Barack Obama and John McCain’s presidential campaigns have run almost the same number of negative local campaign ads, Nielsen Monitor-Plus reported Thursday.
From June 3, when the primaries ended, through Sept. 7, the most recent reporting period, the McCain campaign ran 76,192 negative ads against Obama. During the same time period, the Obama campaign placed 75,246 negative commercials against McCain.
And finally, Katherine, in a comment on the Brazen Careerist website on my article on Barack Obama, said this:
I have to agree with Amir in that you can’t count your chickens before they hatch. Although I think it’s unfortunate that race may be the biggest variable on election day, there is a definite chance that either more people will vote in support of Obama than the polls show or the exact opposite will happen. And many of the national polls are tightening as well, although the exact differences vary depending on the poll. The reality is that no one will know who our next president is until November 5.
Also, every campaign in recent years has engaged in negative campaign tactics and despite his principles you mentioned earlier, Obama’s campaign is no different. As a percentage of total ads, Obama’s campaign has aired 12% less than McCain’s , but in comparable terms, he’s only aired approximately 1,000 negative campaign ads less than McCain, which is minimal when you consider the sheer number of ads both campaigns run. Regardless of who’s getting your vote on Tuesday, it’s important to recognize that negative campaign tactics are a political reality these days (not to say they’re effective), and neither campaign has better principles than the other in this case.
In the end, I made a BIG mistake, and all I can say is I’m sorry. No excuses. I apologize for that error, and would like to assure my readers I will be more careful in the future.
The issue is not simply negativity. It is in the public interest to critique an opponent’s policies — if one characterizes them correctly and disagrees and makes counter arguments. It is quite fair to say that McCain/Palin regularly practice personal character assassination based on innuendo or flat out misinformation (ie- he’s a socialist, he will raise your taxes spoken esp. to the middle working class folks, he has had no executive experience [except running a multi-million dollar primary and campaign against some of the most connected political machines in Washington, DC, including the Clintons.)
You need not apologize for your statement. Obama ads have given us back McCain’s words and policies for review. McCain’s have been far more personal and simply false. Talk to fact check folks to see if there is validity in these observations. One is about policy, the other about personal destruction and making people principally afraid.
Father Martin again? ? ?
Hello webmaster
I would like to share with you a link to your site
write me here preonrelt@mail.ru