Comparing the Campaign Ads of John McCain and Barack Obama

In presidential campaign ads, an ad's tone can fall into one of three categories - positive, pure negative, or contrast. In a campaign ad by Republican hopeful John McCain, we see a pure negative tone, where McCain chooses to attack his opponent's running mate. McCain uses Joe Biden's own words against him, using condemning statements that Biden had said long before he was chosen to be the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate. Another ad, titled "Advice", is also a pure negative ad, as it only depicts Obama and who he associates with negatively, rather than express any of the positives of John McCain. In another ad, titled "Crisis", McCain speaks ill of the economy and the current state of the times, but does not take any stabs at his opponent. Rather, he simply says that he would be the most ideal leader to solve these nation wide problems, ultimately rendering this a positive ad. When viewing McCain's ads further, the pure negative ads truly begin to outnumber the positives. In ads like "Lipstick" and "Recovery", the focus is solely on depicting Obama in a negative light.

However, Barack Obama's ads are somewhat less purely negative. He has some ads where the tone is positive, such as "What If" - a one minute ad that speaks of how Obama brought about social change and united people across partisan lines as a senator, where not once is an insult about McCain uttered. However, in the ad "No Maverick", Obama not only mocks the McCain/Palin team's use of the phrase "maverick", but goes on to explain why neither of them are worthy of declaring themselves to in fact be mavericks. Not once is a positive thing said about Obama, making this a pure negative ad. In an ad titled "What Kind", McCain's platforms on education are portrayed in a negative light, but not before a preface containing what Obama will do positively, rendering the tone of this ad to be a contrast.

It is interesting to compare these observations to the 2000 presidential election discussed in the text. The study in the text found that in President Bush's ads, the tone was 57% negative, 27% were contrast, and 43% were positive. In contrast, Democratic hopeful Al Gore's ad tones were more predominantly positive, with the figures varying between the ads that were produced and those that actually ran. While these figures may not be reliable in terms of determining the overall tone of a campaign, they do have some surface value in the sense that they do indeed align with the current figures, if not at least very loosely. Out of the current campaign ads provided, McCain certainly did have more pure negative ads, with Obama's negative ads tending to be contrast rather than purely negative. Ultimately, though, the text suggests that overall the campaign ads shown on television in 2000 were for the most part positive.

In our 2008 election, however, the ads shown on television are clearly not predominantly positive as they were in 2000. That of course poses the question as to whether or not this is the fault of the candidates, or simply a change of the times. The text later suggests that the more competitive a campaign, the more negative the campaign advertisements. I believe this to be an accurate explanation - this election is not only extremely historical due to gender and race, but is occurring during a serious economic depression. The competition is clearly intense, thus there is clearly some reason for the negativity, mudslinging, and blatantly cruel Paris Hilton comparisons.