By Jon Kelly
BBC News
Both men have raised the temperature of the campaign They promised positive, high-minded campaigns which focused on issues rather than personalities. But as the race for the White House intensifies, the two contenders have increasingly gone on the attack. Republican John McCain has earned huge publicity for an advert mocking rival Barack Obama as "the biggest celebrity in the world", juxtaposing the Democrat with gossip magazine regulars Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. But Senator Obama has not hesitated to lambast his opponent and his allies as "cynical", "desperate" and "in the pocket of Big Oil". Negative campaigning is, of course, hardly be a new phenomenon in US politics - and as Professor Shanto Iyengar of Stanford University attests, it is often the quickest way for politicians to grab attention. "That is a stock approach here - candidates use controversial personal attacks as a means of attracting free news coverage," he says. Regular blows Senator McCain has so far been the most forthright of the two contenders when it comes to going on the offensive. The Republican has accused his opponent, who promises to withdraw troops from Iraq, of being prepared to "lose a war in order to win a political campaign". A McCain campaign advert also charged Mr Obama with cancelling a visit to injured US soldiers. But in the blue corner, Mr Obama has aimed regular blows at his rival. Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play. He has accused Mr McCain of taking the "low road" in the election and dismissed his time in the US Senate as "years of inaction". An Obama advert accused Mr McCain of practising the "policies of the past", using images of him with President George W Bush. The McCain camp also protested when John Kerry, the Democratic candidate in 2004, said the 71-year-old was "confused" over Iraq. The tone of the contest took an angrier turn after Mr Obama warned an audience that the Republican would try to scare voters about how he looked unlike "all those other presidents on the dollar bills". A McCain aide responded furiously, attacking Mr Obama for having "played the race card" - all previous US presidents having been white men. Mr Obama said no-one had thought his comments were accusations of racism until Mr McCain's team "started pushing it". If Mr Obama has so far avoided the jugular, it is only because his campaign do not want to tarnish his brand of idealism and hope, Professor Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia believes. "The candidate of fresh, optimistic change cannot afford to go too negative," Mr Sabato says. "McCain is also now given more leeway to go negative since he is the underdog. It isn't fair, but nothing about politics is fair." 'Battle-tested' Few American voters are likely to be shocked by such tactics. Negative campaigning has, after all, played a key role in modern elections. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - who questioned Mr Kerry's Vietnam war record in the 2004 presidential election - were widely agreed to have contributed to George W Bush's victory. In 1988, the "Willie Horton" campaign run by George Bush against Michael Dukakis accused the Democrat of supporting weekend leave for prisoners who went on to reoffend. The famous Daisy ad played on Cold War fears of a nuclear exchange And perhaps the most famous negative advert of all time was shown just once in 1964. Lyndon Johnson's "Daisy" showed a small girl counting as she picked the petals off a flower. When she reached nine, an ominous adult voice counted down to 10 and the scene dissolved into a nuclear explosion - playing on public fears that Mr Goldwater would start a war if elected. Not everyone believes that negative campaigning is intrinsically unhealthy. Brooks Jackson, director of the nonpartisan campaign monitoring group FactCheck.org, says he is less concerned by whether an advert is positive or negative than by whether it is accurate. "Political scientists and communications scholars will tell you that negative ads tend to have more information in them than positive ads," he says. "We see positive ads that are false or misleading, too." Professor John Geer of Vanderbilt University, Tennessee, is the author of In Defense of Negativity - a spirited defence of the role of attack adverts in the political process. He says it is vital that candidates are held up to scrutiny and examined under fire. "Being president is a tough job - ask Bush or Clinton," he adds. "Having a negative campaign run against you is a test of your toughness. You come out of the election battle-tested."
E-mail this to a friend Printable version Bookmark with: Delicious
Digg
reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon What are these?
John McCain Barack ObamaThe latest advertisement for United States Republican presidential candidate John McCain is questioning Democrat Barack Obama's benefit to families.

Last week the BBC reported that the McCain campaign had released an advertisement comparing Obama to American celebrities Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, calling him "the biggest celebrity in the world."

McCain's newest advertisement, released early this week, continues along those same lines.

"Is the biggest celebrity in the world ready to help your family?" the narrator asks, according to ''The Boston Globe'' and a video of the ad displayed on its website. "The real Obama promises higher taxes, more government spending. So, fewer jobs." With images of wind turbines in the background, the narrator says, "Renewable energy to transform our economy, create jobs and energy independence, that's John McCain."

''The Boston Globe'' reports that McCain's latest ad does not acknowledge that Obama's economic policy, especially the proposed rollback of current president George W. Bush's capital gains tax cuts, would largely affect the wealthiest of America, not the middle class.

Obama, the BBC reports, is quoted as calling McCain "cynical," "desperate" and "in the pocket of Big Oil."

The latest Obama video, shown on the ''USA Today'' website, touts McCain as "just more of the same" politics employed by George W. Bush. The ad cites a May 22, 2003 Fox News Channel interview where McCain says "the President and I agree on most issues. There was a recent study that showed I voted with the President over 90 percent of the time." The ad then criticizes McCain's policies on tax cuts, money for oil companies, and "tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas."

''USA Today'' does note that "while the ad shows McCain touting the fact that he had voted "with" President Bush more than 90% of the time, the Arizona senator did criticize the administration's conduct of the war in Iraq — calling early on for more troops to be sent there. He also voted against the president's original tax cut plan — though McCain now says he supports extending those tax cuts. And, he proposes cuts in all kinds of corporate taxes, not just those on oil companies."

McCain is set to appear at an Ohio furniture plant Wednesday to reinforce the messages in his latest advertisement.

"America has the second highest business tax rate in the entire world," he plans to say, according to prepared remarks issued by his campaign, and released by ''The Boston Globe''. "Is it any wonder that jobs are moving overseas when we are taxing them out of the country? Unfortunately Senator Obama's plans would raise taxes on businesses even more. He has promised tax increases on income, tax increases on investment, tax increases on small businesses. This is exactly the wrong strategy. Raising taxes in a bad economy is about the worst thing you could do because it will kill even more jobs when what we need are policies that create jobs."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton responded:

"Is the biggest proponent of George Bush’s tired, failed policies ready to bring about change? Another day brings another dishonest attack from John McCain. While Senator McCain knows that Senator Obama has proposed cutting taxes for 95% of American families, what he’s not telling us is that he wants to give $4 billion in tax breaks to the oil companies, continue giving tax breaks to corporations that ship our job overseas, and provide no direct tax relief for more than 100 million middle-class families. It’s time to retire these old policies and bring new energy to America."