Obama and McCain, substance and celebrity

Barack Obama brought up John McCain’s instantly infamous campaign commercial featuring Britney Spears and Paris Hilton today, asking McCain, “[I]s that the best you can come up with? Is that really what this election is about? Is that what is worthy of the American people?”

As it turns out, McCain was asked about the same ad today at an event in Racine, Wis.

Woman asking question: “First of all, Sen. McCain, I want to commend you on your service for our country. But earlier this year in April, you made comments about the mudslinging and how it had been affecting the other campaigns and how you didn’t want to do that. But recently, especially last week when Obama went to Europe, it seems like there were a lot of campaign ads that you put out that were doing that. And the one yesterday comparing him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, I was like, ‘OK.’ So it seems like to Americans like me and other people that you may have flip-flopped on what you said earlier. And what is your response to that?” McCain: “First of all, let me say there are differences, and we are drawing those differences. And I said earlier, I admire his campaign. But what we are talking about here is substance and not style. And what we are talking about is who has an agenda for the future of America. Campaigns are tough, but I’m proud of the campaign that we have run. I’m proud of the issues that we have been trying to address with the American people…. So, all I can say is that we are proud of that commercial.”

A lot of reporters are seizing on the fact that McCain is “proud” of his ridiculous commercial, which is clearly odd. But I was also struck by his insistence that “what we are talking about here is substance and not style.” I didn’t see McCain’s facial expression, but I can’t help but wonder if (and how) he kept a straight face.

Substance and not style? Has there been anything of any substance at all from the McCain campaign in months? I suppose there was at least some policy talk recently when McCain commented on his tax proposals, his position on affirmative action, his position on gay adoption, and his ideas for Social Security — but this “substance” didn’t last long, because McCain’s campaign, in each instance, said he didn’t really mean what he was saying.



And speaking of all of this bizarre celebrity talk, Yglesias raises a point I’ve been meaning to mention.

Pardon me if you’ve seen this point elsewhere, but in what sense is John McCain not a celebrity? I’ve seen him on the covers of magazines, on television, in newspapers, doing guest appearances on SNL, etc. Could you possibly be a major party presidential nominee and not be a celebrity? But in particular, McCain actually stands out among politicians as being someone who was a famous celebrity first and then parlayed his fame into a political career, rather than merely being someone who’s well-known for being an important politician.

Indeed, John Weaver, McCain’s long-time friend and confidant, made a similar observation yesterday, saying, “John’s been a celebrity ever since he was shot down.”

I suppose it’s possible the McCain gang means that Obama is a celebrity in more of “Hollywood” fashion. But that doesn’t quite work either.

Take a look at McCain’s IMDB page and tell me he doesn’t qualify as a “celebrity.” There’s the guest role in “Wedding Crashers,” there’s the film adaptation of his military career, there’s the appearance on “24,” etc. Put it this way — do you know who’s made more appearances on “The Daily Show” than anyone in any field? John McCain.

Well, perhaps the McCain gang doesn’t mean celebrity in a “Hollywood” sense, but more in the sense that people around the world admire Barack Obama, and are captivated by his candidacy. And if that’s what the McCain campaign means, they’re going to have to do more to explain why that’s a bad quality for an American president to have.