In yet another sign that we're transitioning from primary season to the long-delayed general election campaign, both the pro-McCain and pro-Obama forces have launched new ads today in key battleground states. And both (surprise, surprise) target Independents--a group that promises to be at the heart of the battle between two candidates who owe their political success largely to the perception that they're willing to color outside the party lines.

MCCAIN: 

The McCain camp calls its spot "A Better Way"--but "A Third Way" may have been a more descriptive title. Airing in Oregon--and dovetailing with McCain's climate change speech today in Portland--the ad seeks to distance McCain from his party's global-warming deniers while still offering assurance to his conservative base. "One extreme thinks high taxes and crippling regulation is the solution," says the narrator. "Another denies the problem even exists." Note the word extreme. For McCain, global warming is "not just a greenhouse gas issue--it's a national security issue"; according to the ad, he's a man of the mainstream, moderate middle. Such triangulation--especially on the environment--is a smart strategy for McCain. In running against a Democratic Party that wants to portray him as John W. McBush, his climate change apostasy--he was basically the first Republican to acknowledge it--is useful shorthand for the larger "maverick" brand he wants Independents to buy into (even if his actual climate plan is "behind the curve," according to Grist). What's more, framing the issue as a national-security challenge is a good way to get conservatives' attention (if not their undying adoration). In other words, this isn't the last time you'll see the septuagenarian senator standing atop a craggy mesa in his shirtsleeves before November.

OBAMA:

The content of the pro-Obama ad isn't especially complex: it's basically former US Air Force Staff Sergeant John Weiler--a lifelong Republican--speaking directly into the camera about why he's planning to vote for the Illinois senator this fall. "We need somebody in the White House [who] is strong," says Weiler. "We need somebody [who's] going to represent the left and the right, the Democrat and the Republican, everybody." The interesting thing is who made the ad: a member of MoveOn.org (it then was then chosen by 5.5 million MoveOn voters, including a few celebrities, to air on Ohio, Wisconsin and Colorado TV). If one of the left's most hyperpartisan groups is choosing to push Obama's post-partisan argument with testimony from a Republican believer, expect the campaign to follow suit come fall. Republicans like me wasn't a particularly relevant pitch in the Democratic primary. But it will make a lot more sense in the general election, as Obama struggles to shrug off the liberal label and create a climate in which crossing over seems totally acceptable.

'Tis the season to reach across the aisle, apparently.

Nothing like a politician's final, pre-election TV ad to tell you what he or she wants voters to remember when they go to the polls. And as if on cue, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton released new spots this afternoon (only hours before voting begins in North Carolina and Indiana) that neatly sum up their homestretch strategies--and reveal their greatest weaknesses as candidates.

Clinton first. Her clip is called "What's Happened":

The New York senator is hoping, of course, that voters view her as the candidate "who's going to keep fighting for working people"--while superdelegates ask the question, "What's happened to Barack Obama?", that opens her ad. For the past week, Clinton has been largely content to push her gas-tax proposal--a preposterous political pander that economists say will actually raise prices at the pump--as a way of conveying her blue-collar cred. But now she's going one step further, claiming that Obama "is attacking Hillary's plan to give you a break on gas prices because he doesn't have one." The problem: it's not true. In fact, Obama wants to accelerate the second half of his tax-stimulus proposal to "put, immediately, hundreds of dollars into people's pockets to get through the summer" and "pass a permanent middle-class tax cut, $1,000 per family, to offset the payroll tax to deal not just with rising costs of gas, but also rising costs of food, rising costs of prescription drugs." In other words, Clinton is all to eager to go negative--even when the facts aren't in her favor. Anything to win, indeed.

Now Obama. Here's his new spot, called "Hometown."

Obama's point? To attack Clinton for attacking him--and portray her as part of "the same old Washington politics" that "won't fix our problems." To make the case, Obama cites a recent editorial in the New York Times ("her hometown newspaper") that "says she's taking the low road" and that "her attacks do nothing but harm." It's a sly move; in effect, Obama is letting a newspaper throw his punches for him. But "Hometown"--which, after all, implies that Clinton isn't "honest" and can't be "trust[ed]"--is a negative ad all the same, and will likely expose Obama to some charges of last-minute hypocrisy. Still, that's not the problem. Obama was right to swing back; the more pugilistic he seems at this point--especially to superdelegates--the better. It's the fact that he didn't say anything of substance that bothers me. Instead of refuting Clinton's "he doesn't have a plan" canard with a quick, informative summary of his relief proposals, Obama is content to make yet another process argument against "politics as usual." It's the difference between showing us how Clinton is dissembling and merely telling us that she is. And ultimately the spot ends up sounding like a platitude--which is exactly the perception that's been killing Obama among downscale Dems in state after state.

Same old dogs, same old tricks.

UPDATE, 8:00 p.m.: Breaking! (Or not really breaking at all.) An earlier Obama ad, called "Pennies," actually countered Clinton with substance, mentioning Obama's plan to "give working families a permanent, thousand-dollar tax cut to help with rising costs." But that wouldn't come into effect until Jan. 2009. So we deduct half of Obama's demerits, but still fault him for choosing to talk about process instead of saying how he would help consumers get through the summer (i.e., by accelerating the second half of his tax stimulus proposal.) Anyway, here's the spot:

NB: The headline is a reference to "The O.C."  See number 82.

The Democratic primary in North Carolina is still a dozen days away--but it looks like the general election has already begun.

And the press is partly to blame.

Barack Obama had yet to leave the tarmac in Pennsylvania Tuesday--and news of his loss to Hillary Clinton had yet to break--when two combative anti-Obama TV ads suddenly materialized in the Tar Heel State. The first, called "Victims" was the work of Republican activist Floyd Brown, who bruised Michael Dukakis in 1988 with the infamous "Willie Horton" ad; in the same vein, Brown's new spot attempts to connect a 2001 string of Chicago gang murders to Obama's refusal to expand death penalty legislation. "Can a man so weak in the war on gangs," intones an ominous female narrator, "be trusted in the war on terror?" The North Carolina Republican Party produced the second ad, called "Extreme," which includes footage of Obama's controversial former minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. saying "God damn America." "For 20 years, Barack Obama sat in his pew, listening to his pastor," it grumbles. "He's just too extreme for North Carolina."

Since then, the two spots have saturated the airwaves. But the funny thing is, neither one is actually airing on North Carolina television. Instead, "Victims" and "Extreme" were first released on the Internet in order to raise the money required to eventually get them on the tube. With only $14,000 in the bank at the end of March, Brown's new PAC, the National Campaign Fund, couldn't afford a single ad buy; ditto for the N.C. GOP, which includes a desperate plea for cash at the beginning and end of their YouTube clip. But as soon as the videos--with their "irresistible" racial overtones--hit the Web, the MSM swooped in and started squawking about Obama, Wright, gangs and racism and predicting that "a general election featuring Obama and [John] McCain may unavoidably be a nasty affair." All while showing the ads for free. Today, MSNBC's Contessa Brewer even did a segment on how Brown tricked the media into promoting his work (above); "Victims" was screening in the background.

Is race an issue here? Perhaps. Brown isn't openly saying that Obama is "weak on gangs" because he's black, but it's hard to imagine that he'd object if a few voters came to that conclusion themselves; his fundraising appeal does, after all, go out of its way to call the Illinois senator "Barack Hussein Obama." (Plus, the "weak on gangs" = "weak on terror" equation is a bit of stretch, seeing as Obama supports the death penalty and voted in 2003 to apply it to convicted terrorists. Wonder why Brown didn't highlight that vote.) Meanwhile, "Extreme" is so convinced of Wright's toxicity that it not only implies Obama sat through a sermon he never attended ("God damn America") but tries to tar Democratic gubernatorial candidates Richard Moore and Beverly Perdue (both Obama supporters) with guilt by second-degree association. (And considering that "the specter of a white woman and black man together has been used, subtly and not so, in Southern politics dating back to Reconstruction," the N.C. GOP's choice to linger on an image of the black Obama embracing the white Perdue only encourages racial speculation.) That said, what was originally restricted to a small audience of online die-hards is now familiar to millions of cable news viewers thanks to Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer--who, in jabbering compulsively and endlessly about the "racial content" of the ads, have only reinforced and amplified whatever the creators' initially intended (or not). We took the bait.

And that, I think, is the real danger of a McCain-Obama general election. For their part, McCain and the RNC have been careful to distance themselves from "Extreme." "The television advertisement you are planning to air degrades our civics and distracts us from the very real differences we have with the Democrats," wrote McCain to the North Carolina party chairman. "In the strongest terms, I implore you to not run this advertisement." Whether that's honor, necessity or calculation, I don't know. But the state GOP is planning to air the ad regardless, and McCain will, in the end, get to have it both ways. So you can expect this chain reaction--sludge; spotlight; disavowal; more spotlight--to continue through November; if you think the primary has been race-obsessed, you ain't seen nothing yet. Given that, I'm not saying the press shouldn't cover the questionable barbs that will surely crop up if Obama is the Democratic nominee. That's our job. But unless we want to make the entire campaign about Obama being black, we should perhaps only obsess over the messages that manage to reach voters organically--instead of delivering them ourselves.

I'm not holding my breath.
 

Sick of reading what the candidates, flacks, surrogates, talking heads and (gasp!) bloggers have to say about the latest slips and dips in the 2008 presidential campaign? It's your lucky day. In the past 24 hours, each of the remaining contenders--John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama--has released a new television advertisement jam-packed with pretty moving pictures. What's more, the latest TV trifecta happens to say it all, neatly summing up the shape of the race and revealing more about the candidates' strategies for survival than your average report from the trail. So ditch the reading glasses and grab some popcorn. Here's the state of play in three easy, breezy videos.

"Pennsylvania" by Hillary Clinton

Sometimes, a Scrooge-McDuck-style money bag falls from the sky at your feet--and when it does, you start spending. That's pretty much Clinton's plan with "Pennsylvania." Most of the chatterati had counted Clinton out--until, that is, Obama went and told a closed-door crowd of limousine liberals in San Francisco (of all places) that "bitter" small-town Americans "cling to guns and religion." Now she has a small but significant opening. So as Clinton strives to out-authentic Obama on the stump--antics include whiskey drinking and sharp shooting--her media team is set to blanket the airwaves with an ad showing five Pennsylvanians tsk-tsking the Illinois senator for his remarks.

It's a smart strategy. For starters, the group is cartoonishly diverse--the implication being that Obama not only offended working-class whites but proud Pennsylvanians of every stripe. An African-American woman is "very insulted by Barack Obama"; a young white couple says he's "out of touch" and that "Hillary Clinton has been fighting for people like us her whole life"; a middle-aged lady "finds [her own] faith... very uplifting"; and a burly, goateed Latino gent claims that "the good people of Pennsylvania deserve a lot better than what Obama said." Do real human beings speak in Clinton talking points (or use phrases like "the good people of Pennsylvania")? I hope not. Is every Keystone Stater outraged? Hardly. But by putting her edgiest anti-Obama attacks to date (which happen to mirror McCain's) into the mouths of a few supporters, Clinton can stay positive in person ("I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic") while creating the impression that it's the "the good people of Pennsylvania" who are up in arms. Clinton won't catch Obama in the pledged-delegate race. But Pennsylvania is the first state to vote since Bittergate and Rev. Wright. Hillary's hope, then, is if that the all-important superdelegates keep hearing "the people" say no to electing Obama--and then see some follow-through on Primary Day--they'll start to doubt his electability themselves. Even if she has to scorch some earth in the process.

"Guide" by Barack Obama

In 1981, a little-known Southern governor outlined his political philosophy in an interview with Time magazine. "When someone is beating you over the head with a hammer, don't sit there and take it,” he said. “Take out a meat cleaver and cut off their hand.” The governor's name? Bill Clinton.

Despite early worries that he would wilt under fire from Hillary or Republicans--thus following Al Gore and John Kerry to the loser's circle--Obama has repeatedly shown a surprising eagerness to counterpunch in the (Bill) Clinton style. In South Carolina last summer, he turned what Hillary called a "naive and irresponsible" stance--his willingness to meet with hostile foreign leaders--into a centerpiece of his campaign, arguing that his rival's foreign policy was backward-looking and Bushian. Indeed, that's the Obama pattern: use any flare-up as an opportunity "to pivot back to the central theme of his candidacy: that politics is broken, and he knows how to change it." Bittergate is the latest example. Without acknowledging any wrongdoing--unless his regret for "word[ing] things in a way that made people offended" counts (hint: it doesn't)--Obama quickly seized on Clinton and McCain's claims that he's "out of touch" to accuse the twosome of indulging in "typical politics." He even mocked Clinton for telling a story about how her father taught her to handle a gun. "Hillary Clinton's out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, she's packin' a six shooter!" he said. "Come on! She knows better. That's some politics being played by Hillary Clinton."

"Guide" is more of the same. Boasting a jaunty lounge-lizard soundtrack and faux film-reel effects, the ad matches the cool irony of Obama's "Annie Oakley" attack; with no voiceover and no mention of Obama's name, think Ginsu knife more than meat cleaver. But the slick style masks a typically aggressive Obama counterpunch: the implication that because Clinton has accepted more money from lobbyists "than any other candidate, Republican OR Democrat" (and once said "they represent real Americans"), she would, as president, put their priorities above the needs of average Americans--just like a typical Washington "player." Will such a strategy actually shift the spotlight from Obama's "bitter" gaffe? Not really. But at least it gives him something productive to talk about--and wards off the Kerry comparisons.

"Ignite" by John McCain

For now, McCain's top goal is to reinforce his aging brand identity. So while the candidate's "major" economic address in Pittsburgh this morning was packed with specific policies meant to reassure conservatives that he does, in fact, know something about the economy and show liberals that he's not an uncaring, Hooveresque paleocapitalist, the accompanying ad, "Ignite," only touches on the broadest generalities: "taxes--simpler, fairer"; "energy--cleaner, cheaper"; "health care--portable and affordable" and so on. The point, of course, is not to educate the populace about McCain's plans and record. It's to update his image as a crossover politician. For months, Democrats have been trying to paint McCain as more of the same--meaning more Bush. But with quick cuts and a high-tech "circuitry" motif, "Ignite" seeks to suggests that the old McCain--the maverick McCain--is actually something new. "As president, John McCain will take the best ideas from both parties to spur innovation," says narrator Powers Boothe in his inimitably bombastic bass. "Initiatives that will unite us." With little else to occupy him in the months to come, expect McCain to continue building that brand--especially in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, where "Ignite" will air.

The big picture: while Clinton and Obama scowl at each other on the small screen--and potentially self-destruct--McCain sits back and smiles. If that isn't worth a thousand words, I don't know what is.

Sometimes, the Democratic National Committee helps Democrats. Take, for example, chairman Howard Dean's recent remark that he'd "like the other 350 [superdelegates who haven't committed] to say who they're for at some point between now and the first of July so we don't have to take this into the convention.” The blood bath has to end eventually, and July 1 is as good a deadline as any. But often the DNC isn't so constructive. Like today. Noting that John McCain is set to appear on Letterman this evening, the party has chosen to launch a series of anti-McCain web ads called "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches." They are painful. 

The three spots adhere to a rigid structure. The first frame displays portraits of presidential favorites George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy on a blue background; "Hail to the Chief" plays on the soundtrack. Next are back-to-back clips of Roosevelt and Kennedy--Democrats, mind you--delivering their most famous bon mots: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" in FDR's plummy tones and "Ask not what your country can do for you..." in JFK's reedy bark. Cut to video of McCain misspeaking ("I'm a proud liberal...conservative Republican) followed by an unrelated if similarly dunderheaded George W. Bush gaffe ("recruiterments"). Cue a riotous, Three's Company-style laugh track.

Presumably, the party's intention is to further cement the link between Bush and McCain--both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have labeled McCain's Iraq stance "Bush/McCain foreign policy"--by "proving" that McCain, like Bush, is prone to malapropisms, misstatements and other verbal mistakes. But the "Bushisms" strategy is not only ineffective--it has the potential to backfire. As Matt Bai wrote recently,

if your gaffe goes directly to the main argument you are trying to make about yourself with the electorate, or if it substantiates the most relevant thing that your rival would have us believe about you, then it has the potential to become a serious problem. If, on the other hand, you do something completely idiotic that is tangential to what voters most hope or fear about you, then you tend to get a pass.

Back in 2000 and 2004, "strategery" and such reinforced voters' doubts (rivals' hints) that Bush wasn't smart enough to occupy the Oval Office. That's why it stuck. But no one thinks--or, until now, wanted us to think--that McCain's main flaw was a tied tongue. Which is why the DNC's ads are so incompetent. Two of them (included after the jump) repurpose clips that have already gone viral because they show McCain doing things that either contradict his core argument or substantiate what his opponents say about him--and instead force them into this bogus Bushisms framework. The first catches the Arizona senator mistakenly claiming that Iran is training al Qaeda in Iraq; the second shows him singing "Bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann." It's as if the DNC's video team was given the raw materials for two good spots--one pushing the "McCain is a warmonger" meme, the other illustrating that he's not the foreign policy expert he pretends to be--and chose to go in a different, more stupider direction instead. And the third ad (above) is even worse. The "liberal conservative" slip does indeed "substantiate the most relevant thing that [a] rival would have us believe about" McCain--if that rival were a right winger. But for Independents and centrist Democrats, the Freudian implication--i.e., that McCain, underneath it all, is more liberal than he's at liberty to say--is a plus, not a minus. Foot, meet gun.

How to interpret such idiocy? As a misguided trial balloon for the general election, I think. It seems, for starters, that some party insiders--like much of the rest of America--are assuming that Obama will win the nomination. Why else would they release an ad designed to contrast inarticulate Republican boobs (Bush, McCain) with their silver-tongued Democratic rivals (Kennedy, Roosevelt). Clinton, of course, isn't known for her eloquence. But I'm afraid that calling a Republican a poor speaker isn't a winning plan. Obama already has a lock on the "great speeches" vote; he needs to win over the folks who think great speeches mask a lack of substance. Something tells me they won't take kindly to Democratic "elitists" mocking McCain's misstatements. After all, voters got an earful of Bush's "strategery" in 2000 and 2004--and they elected him anyway.

Back to the drawing board.

Pssst. Did you realize that John McCain is... an American?

Shocking, I know. But if McCain's latest television ad--the first, we're told, of the general election campaign--is imparting some other, more revealing bit of biography, I must have missed it. Consider the evidence. The spot, called "624787" (more on that later), opens with an image of the Arizona senator pounding a podium, shot heroically from below. "Keep that faith," he says. "Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong. Do not yield. Stand up." It's as if McCain is pitching slogans for Alcoholics Anonymous, or an athletic sneaker. I half-expected him to add, "Just do it." The senator quickly clears up any confusion, though, as the camera cuts to a crowd: "we're Americans, and we'll never surrender." How flattering. The cheering echoes ominously, and the image lingers on a sign that reads "JohnMcCain.com." Nothing more American than product placement.

The next movement is similarly vacuous. On the soundtrack, Powers Boothe, beloved in the Stumper household for his turn as the unctuous, scheming pimp Cy Tolliver on HBO's Deadwood, bellows a series of unenlightening rhetorical questions. "What must a president believe about us?" he asks, his voice rich with hammy bombast. "About America? That she is worth protecting? That liberty is priceless? Our people, honorable? Our future, prosperous, remarkable and free?" Apparently, Millard Fillmore thought defending America was a bore, and Woodrow Wilson fully expected that we'd bow down before our Teutonic rulers in due time. On screen, theatrically lit images of McCain--in profile, scanning the horizon, resting his fingertips on a table, saluting--float alongside "uplifting" phrases like "American Values," "Path to Future" and "Time for a Real Hero." Shortly after Boothe asks "what must we believe about that president?" ("What does he think? Where has he been? Has he walked the walk?"), McCain's face dissolves in a burst of light, and we're left with black-and-white footage of a soldier supine on a cot:

Interviewer: "What is your rank?"

John McCain: "Lt. Commander in the Navy."

Interviewer: "And your official number?"

John McCain: "624787."

The exchange, of course, represents, in a terse, Hemingwayesque manner, McCain's military service and years spent as a POW in Vietnam. But like the rest of the commercial, it's not really saying anything. Instead, the footage, the slogans, the flags, the blandishments (priceless, honorable, prosperous, remarkable and free) and the word "America," repeated or displayed at least five times over the course of a minute (including twice in the comically tautological tagline, "the American president Americans have been waiting for"), are meant to convey an impression of McCain as unquestionably, unquestioningly, overwhelmingly American.

I suppose there's a positive case to be made for such an effort. While the Democrats cannibalize each other, McCain has the luxury of defining himself in the most favorable light. That said, everyone already recognizes (and honors) his service. Which is why I can't help but see the rather unrevealing "624787" not as a biographical ad but as a contrast ad. Remember, McCain's likely general election opponent is Barack Obama, whose Achilles Heel, Republicans have decided, is patriotism. You know the drill: the American flag pin, the "non-salute," Michelle's gaffe, the false Muslim rumor, the middle name, the pastor. McCain can't say Obama is a Muslim, or an angry black man, or even unpatriotic; in fact, he's been quick to publicly oppose such tactics when other Republicans indulge (even as his staff has circulated anti-Obama web videos). But he can keep reminding voters that he's really, really American and let their imaginations do the rest. Boothe's questions, in this context, serve not just to elevate McCain but also to stoke fears about Obama: "What does he think? Where has he been?" and, as if channeling Hillary Clinton, "Has he walked the walk?" Let Obama and his followers be "the ones that we've been waiting for," the ad implies. McCain is content, instead, to be "the American president Americans have been waiting for."

In case you doubt the Obama connection, look at where the ad is airing: New Mexico, an extremely close swing state packed with Latinos. Traditionally Democratic, they overwhelmingly prefer Clinton to Obama--and might be persuaded, say observers, to back the pro-immigration reform McCain in the general election. At this rate, we fully expect to see an ad in which McCain soars o'er purple mountains majesty on the wings of a bald eagle by May. And throw in an apple pie while you're at it.
 

On February 26, an aide to Hillary Clinton told the New York Times that the campaign would launch a "'kitchen sink' fusillade against [Barack] Obama" in the run-up to March 4's potentially decisive primaries in Texas and Ohio.

Here's what the kitchen sink looks like.

On the air in Texas starting today, "Children," the Clinton's campaign latest ad (above), is fear-mongering at its finest. The indigo light of the moon falls on the cherubic faces of slumbering children. "It's 3:00 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep," says a deep male voice. Before you can ask why he's spying on your children, goddammit, a phone rings. Who calls at 3:00 a.m.? you think. Is Uncle Levon drunk again? But the voice quickly explains that you are mistaken. "There's a phone in the White House and it's ringing. Something's happening in the world." Whatever this something is, it must be bad, or else it would have the decency to wait until regular business hours. Then comes the twist:

Your vote will decide who answers that call. Whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders. Knows the military. Someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. It's 3:00 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?

As the voice delivers its final line, an image of Hillary Clinton in smart-lady glasses appears on screen. If you are wondering why she let phone ring six times before answering such an important call, stop it. As you can see, Clinton is obviously prepared to protect your children from certain death. Why else would she still be wearing a pantsuit at 3:00 in the morning?

Clearly, "Children" is absurd. Despite what Clinton may claim, there's no reason to suspect she'd keep America any safer than Barack Obama. Simply living in the White House does not make you a foreign-policy expert (just ask President Nancy Reagan). Clinton did not have security clearance. She did not attend national security meetings. She did not negotiate treaties. Instead, her policy focus were decidedly domestic, and her heartiest effort--health care--was a failure. As a senator, she has sat on the Armed Services Committee longer than Obama has sat the Foreign Relations Committee, but the difference in tenure hardly qualifies her to be Commander-in-Chief. And it's not particularly difficult to argue that whatever security cred Clinton does have comes from casting votes early in her Senate career that were meant to keep Republicans from calling her "liberal" or dovish--like, for example, her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. If she responds to pressure with decisions like that, critics would say, do we really want her answering the phone?

But, absurd as they are, ads like "Children" work. Which is why politicians keep making them. Clinton's new spot is a seamless blend of two devious Democratic classics--Lyndon Johnson's 1964 masterpiece "Daisy," which also employs the "vote for me or this adorable child gets it" line of reasoning, and Walter Mondale's similarly telephonic 1984 sequel "Red Phone." (Fun fact: "Red Phone" and "Children" share a creator, Texas ad whiz Roy Spence). The point isn't to establish Clinton as a credible Commander-in-Chief; the only proof provided--"she knows the world's leaders" and "knows the military"--is laughably vague. It's to prey on voters' existing insecurities about Obama, who's even less "experienced" than Clinton (for whatever that's worth)--and to be extreme enough to earn a lot of free media exposure. Over at the Atlantic, Marc Ambinder writes that "this is [Clinton's] best argument," yet wonders why "it's taken her 13 months to make it so explicitly." "Argument" is a stretch. But I agree that it's her last best bet--and that's precisely because there are only 72 hours left before D-Day. The hope for Clinton is that the short notice will give voters plenty of time to succumb to their fears--and not quite enough to stop and think.

UPDATE, 1:50 p.m.: In response, Obama (predictably) plays the judgment card:

"We’ve seen these ads before. They’re the kind that play on peoples’ fears to scare up votes." "Well it won’t work this time. Because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is – what kind of judgment will you make when you answer? We’ve had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer."

UPDATE, 7:30 p.m.: Asked today "what foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary's career where she's been tested by crisis?," Clinton's "usually verbose team of Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinsten" responded with silence. After a long pause, they answered that "she's been endorsed by many high ranking members of the uniformed military." Rest easy, children.
 

The Democratic race may be cruelly, cripplingly cloudy right now, but this much is clear: whoever wins, Clinton or Obama, will labor mightily in the general election to fuse John McCain and George W. Bush into a hellish two-headed Orthrus in the minds of the American people. Obama, in fact, is already off and running, devoting much of Tuesday's "Potomac Primary" victory speech to contrasting himself with "Bush-McCain Republicans" (subtle, no?)  "George Bush won't be on the ballot this November, but his war and his tax cuts for the wealthy will," he said. "When I am the nominee, I will offer a clear choice." The hope, of course, is that the 66 percent of the populace that disapproves of Bush will see McCain in the same light--and that McCain will be forced to distance himself from Dubya without offending the GOP base, which still likes the guy. Not an easy dance to do--especially while still clinging to the last shreds of your maverick rep.

With that in mind, the Democratic National Committee is out today with a Valentine's Day web ad called "Sweetheart Deal" (above). The spot sees Obama's "Bush-McCain" formulation and raises him a hearty dose of... um, latent homosexuality. Marvel as McCain and Bush advocate for "making the tax cuts permanent"! Guffaw as they reiterate their opposition to "amnesty"! And gasp as they agree that "we should stay the course in Iraq"! Oh, and while you're at it, watch a nostalgic, black-and-white photo montage (complete with Ken Burns panning and pink heart graphics) of the lovebirds laying their arms on each other's shoulders and giggling as they clutch a birthday cake, with Bush at one point grasping McCain's aged head and pulling it, softy, tenderly, to his lips and McCain, later, resting his weary brow on Bush's cheek. "Do they share the same heart?" the ad asks. Who knows. But there's nothing like the slinky, soft-core sounds of a soprano saxophone to set the mood. How could something so wrong feel so right?

Which makes you wonder. Maybe the DNC isn't targeting only centrist Democrats with the ad. After all, it's die-hard Republicans--the very people still not sold on McCain--who are most opposed to gay rights. Keep them home next November and the Democrats win.

Now if only Howard Dean could convince Larry Craig to endorse...

Hey, guess what, kids? Hillary Clinton wants your vote. So what if Obama dominates among voters aged 18 to 29, speaks in the Millennial generation's native tongue and boasts a YouTube hit created by actual young supporters instead of high-paid media consultants. Hillary recently released her own "hip" ad (above), and it's full of things that really capture the spirit of being young and fun in America today: asymmetrical hair cuts, stubble, hoodies, striped polo shirts and white Futura lettering on a blue background. Plus, in chronicling Clinton's brief but meteoric career as a shredding rock guitarist, "Hillary and the Band" even manages to pay homage to VH1's "Behind the Music"! And as every youngster knows, that's the coolest show ever--even it hasn't aired regularly since, like, 2006.

Gnarly.

Okay, so I have to admit: I wasn't a fan of "Yes, We Can"--you know, the pro-Obama video by Will.i.am of Black Eyed Peas and Bob Dylan's son (no, not the "One Headlight" guy) that featured celebrities--and Tatyana Ali--staring earnestly into the camera and swaying in black and white as they crooned the "uplifting" words of an Obama speech over the pregnant strum of a single acoustic guitar. It felt like an indulgent, condescending Gap ad, and made me embarrassed to be under 30. But apparently my peers disagreed, and the clip quickly became a viral hit on YouView, or whatever you call it.

Thankfully, the good folks at "Election08"--a comedy group featuring veterans of MTV, ABC, NBC, The Daily Show, Second City Chicago and Reno 911--have finally made a video that even a professional cynic like me can love. Called "john.he.is," it's a pitch-perfect parody of the original. You've got your deadpan, dreadlocked black vocalist. Your diverse cast of backup singers, who fidget ostentatiously, as if to say, "It is uncomfortable to be so, like, honest." And, of course, your egregious Mariah-style vocal melisma ("B-b-b-baby! Ooh-ooh-ooh.") But while "Yes, We Can" was self-serious hagiography, "john.he.is" is biting satire. The target: John McCain.

I won't ruin it for you, but suffice to say: I actually LOLed--as the kids call it--twice over the course of the clip. Whoever came up with the idea of exchanging Obama's gauzy hope talk for McCain's dark rhetoric on Iraq and terrorism--lyrics include "terrible sacrifices," "combat wounds" and "the promise of a better future is not always clear"--is a genius. Not only does it make McCain seem like a wheezy old warmonger (which is right out of the Dems' general election playbook), but if the video spreads virally--and I'm betting it will--it'll probably force at least a few viewers drawn to McCain's maverick rep to do what the singers themselves start to do about halfway in: listen to what's he saying and be like, "What? Wait a second." (Although by mocking the seriousness of our challenges abroad, it could also galvanize some conservatives--and non-hipsters. Which is why a campaign will never produce something this funny.)

Especially brutal, and hilarious: the line about Americans not being "concerned if we're [in Iraq] for 100 years, or a 1,000 years, or 10,000 years." To be fair, McCain means that once casualties drop to zero, we'll keep troops stationed there to help maintain stability, as we now do in Bosnia. But with the words "Iraq Withdrawal Date: 12,008" flashing onscreen over a catchy pop soundtrack, it isn't easy to hear the other side of the story over all the laughter.

Such is the power of YouView.

In case you weren't sure how Republicans would go after the Democratic presidential nominee in the general election, here's a hint:

Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton will get you killed.

That's the message of the new RNC ad ("Protect America Alert") posted above. Sure, it's ostensibly calling on Congress to make the 2007 updates to FISA (the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) permanent. And, yes, it criticizes Obama and Clinton for  "vot[ing] against the... FISA updates in 2007 and remain[ing] opposed to them today."

But if the ad were really about, you know, the legislation, it might note that neither Obama nor Clinton objects to surveillance of potential terrorist calls from overseas into the U.S.; instead, they oppose ending debate on a bill that in its current form will immunize telecommunications firms that may have spied illegally on Americans, at the request of the Bush administration. (They recently returned to Washington to vote in favor of extending discussion.) Not to mention the fact that both Obama and Clinton have strenuously avoided taking much of a stance on the issue--out of fear being tarred as "soft on terrorism."

Too late, apparently. "Protect America Alert" is a master class in fear-mongering: the sinister images of Obama, Clinton and Harry Reid, their faces partially obscured by shadows; machine guns, helicopters and security agents; the invocation of slick, greedy trial lawyers; and a ticking digital clock straight out of "24" that reaches zero just as the words "the terrorist threat to America never expires" appear on screen. My favorite touch, however, is the female announcer's novel pronunciation of Obama's name 27 seconds in:

"Buh-raaack," she says, instead of "Buh-rock." As in "sack." Or "black."

Or "Iraq." 

Genius, I say. Evil genius.

I have a feeling there's more where that came from.

Using metaphors in political advertising is tricky. When effective, they can serve as a catchy way to sum up an opponent's weaknesses, like in 2004, when the Bush campaign reinforced the stereotype of a flip-flopping John Kerry with footage of him tacking left and right while windsurfing; providing viewers with a memorable image is much more effective than simply slinging mud. Or they can seem embarrassingly overwrought and convoluted. A recent Mitt Romney ad called "Ocean," which sees Romney comparing our culture to "a cesspool of violence, and sex, and drugs, and indolence, and perversions" over sunset shots of children frolicking in the breakers, is a perfect example. It was creepy.

The Clinton campaign--which is out this week with two new spots touting its candidate's economic credentials--rarely gets creative with its advertising. Most of its commercials are like "Can Do": soft shots of smiling, multiracial citizens crosscut with a coiffed Clinton saying something about "voices."  But "Free Fall" (above) is different. Unlike "Can Do," it uses a metaphor--plummeting from the sky to certain death below--to describe our current slide toward possible recession. If this continues, Clinton warns, we're all toast. But thankfully there's a "parachute" that you "can depend on to fix the economy and protect our future." And that parachute's name is Hillary.  

I applaud the effort, but still--the ad's a little off. Look, I understand why Clinton is harping on the economy; voters are worried and she polls well on the issue. And I can forgive the shameless fear-mongering--not only is there a lifeless human body plunging to earth, but spooky words like "recession," "less hope," "down," "unemployment," "foreclosures" and even "fears" are flashing onscreen. That's par for the course. But the metaphor itself makes no sense. Deployed mid-"free fall," a parachute doesn't lift you to your original altitude. It simply lowers you the ground more slowly. Extended to its logical conclusion, the ad's argument suggests that we'll still lose our homes and jobs under Hillary--it'll just take longer to happen.

Back to the drawing board, I guess. We hear there's a bridge to the 21st century in desperate need of repair. In a place called Hope. And it will be there until the last dog dies.

Okay, I'll stop now. 

On Jan. 1, we noted some eerie overlap between current Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his Democratic predecessor John Kerry. Both hail from the Bay State. Both speak French. Both grew up wealthy. Both lack the common touch. Both had fathers in government. And both are "rather robotic in person, with stentorian voices permanent stuck on the 'politician' setting."

Two weeks later, top McCain strategist Steve Schmidt added another similarity to the list: they're both "flip-floppers. ""When you have a candidate like Mitt Romney who's been on both sides of every issue," he said, "it's a tremendous liability in a general election."

Now the McCain camp is taking the Kerry analogy one step further--and it may be one step too far. That's right, ladies and gentlemen--they're breaking out the windsurfing (see ad above)."Where does Mitt Romney stand?" asks the voiceover. "Whichever way the wind blows." Kerry, you'll remember, was fond of the water sport, and Bush's opposition researchers soon seized on it as a devastating metaphor for his shifting positions, not to mention his effete, highfalutin ways. (Memo to Obama: buy a stock car.)  Which is why this spot worked so well, and why McCain's clone won't: Romney isn't a windsurfer. The whole metaphor thing kind of requires that your rival actually does the activity in question (see: owning a ranch.) So despite the magic of PhotoShop--or perhaps because of it--the new ad looks painfully forced. 

Back to the drawing board, guys. There's got to be footage of Romney in a robot suit somewhere out there.