The Britney/Paris clips in the McCain ad were just a way of making fun of Obama's celebrity status, implying that he has no substance (like Britney/Paris) yet is still popular because he presents himself well. The McCain campaign is trying to do the opposite of appeal to "plump, TV-educated aging teenagers." They're saying that this is what Obama does.
Kevin Davis | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 3:01 pm | #

Right. No appeal to eye candy involved at all. Pure substance.

Mmmmhm.
Mark P. Shea | 07.30.08 - 3:08 pm | #

Seriously, Mark. I don't understand why you think it was put in for eye candy. I am sure that the vast majority of viewers will understand the point being made by the McCain campaign. No two celebrity figures are more quintessentially hollow celebrity than Britney Spears and Paris Hilton -- they are constantly made fun of. It seems pretty obvious to me.
Kevin Davis | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 3:23 pm | #

At this point I'd settle for one of the Jane Curtin/Dan Ackroyd debates.
victor | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 3:25 pm | #

I'm with Kevin on this one, Mark. If you are right and Spears and Hilton are pleasing "eye candy" to lend support to a candidate in the McCain ad, then it would actually work against McCain since they are juxtaposed with Obama -- not McCain.

Now, once Spears comes out with a new song promoting McCain replete with her gyrations and Hilton writhing in a state semi-undress on one of McCain's buses, then I'll grant the parallel to the song by Ludacris. In the examples you provided, though, the celebrity appeal is intended to have an entirely opposite effect in the ad than it is in the song.
Ronny | 07.30.08 - 3:29 pm | #

Well, to be fair, McCain *did* try to do things differently; if the the series of town hall meetings he proposed had actually gone through, they would have been quite a big step forward in this regard... But, of course, Obama managed to shut those down in short order...

Oh, well...
Nathan | 07.30.08 - 4:02 pm | #

To be clear, I don't necessarily think that the McCain ad is a laudable example of what should pass for political discourse, and I would grant that it does resort to the cultural lexicon of "plump, TV-educated aging teenagers" even if it is being turned in on itself to show the vapidity of preferred candidate of that constituency. As one McCain supporter and former campaign aide has pointed out, such ads are childish and diminish McCain as a result.
Ronny | 07.30.08 - 7:14 pm | #

What eye candy? They're gross!
Mark R | 07.30.08 - 9:08 pm | #

Good point.
Ronny | 07.30.08 - 10:08 pm | #

What eye candy? They're gross!

They're underdressed. That's not a distinction the Constituency makes these days.
Ed Pie | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 10:28 pm | #

I'm gonna have to join the chorus disagreeing on the McCain ad. I think it's very effective way of stating that Obama is a celebrity, not a leader. I got it right away, and I think a lot of other peoplw will too. In fact, this thread proves they are. All in all, I'd say it's a very effective and, more importantly, honest ad.
Michael | 07.31.08 - 2:34 am | #

And Mark, regardless of this, let's ask ourselves the more penetrating question: of whom does this ad speak more poorly: Obama with a power to win the crowds ala Evita or us, the Consitituency, who stand around and are moved to respond to the flashing pulsating power of celebrities.
Fr. Shane Tharp | 07.31.08 - 8:33 am | #

The intention of McCain's ad was to show that Obama has no experience to lead the country and that he's famous for doing absolutely nothing of importance (like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton). It's one of McCain's more effective ads, and it's effective largely because it's so true.
Judith M. | 07.31.08 - 9:04 am | #