When Republicans Attack

The McCain TV ad “Special” contains what may be the most disturbing sequence of all official ads. Whether this juxtaposition is random or chosen is up to the viewer to decide.

First the ad:

Like “Celebrity” and many previous ads, “Special” mocks the media glitz of Obama’s televised messages, specifically the recent 30-minute special. The McCain campaign’s response juxtaposes shots of Obama on stage with problems like the failing economy and terrorism (punctuated visually by bright blasts of light, and aurally by popping noises–ostensibly the sight and sound of flashbulbs).

Here is the troublesome segment, divided into 26 frames (the video is shot at slightly less than 30 frames per second, so this sequence lasts less than a second). The frame numbers are 267-292, and the timing is 8.907 seconds to 9.741 seconds.

Frame 267

Frame 268

Frame 269

Frame 270

Frame 271

Frame 272

Frame 273

Frame 274

Frame 275

Frame 276

Frame 277

Frame 278

Frame 279

Frame 280

Frame 281

Frame 282

Frame 283

Frame 284

Frame 285

Frame 286

Frame 287

Frame 288

Frame 289

Frame 290

Frame 291

Frame 292

…

Here is a video version of the above frames:

Although the juxtapostion of soldier firing gun and Obama may be accidental, the direction of the burst of light transition (to the right of the gun, like gunfire, then left to right like a bullet emerging from Obama’s head), along with the timing of the sound of the flashbulb popping, suggests a subliminal association that would be extremely unsettling if it was intentional. (Replay the commercial and notice the timing of the bursts here and when the image of Obama at the end.)

And if the association was accidental, why did the filmmakers (who have lavished attention on each frame of other commercials) not notice the disturbing possibility and edit the transition?

The Soviet director Sergei Eisenstein showed how juxtaposing one image with another (montage) could create a third idea by associating the two (metaphor). In this famous example from October, Eisenstein cuts from a scene of post-Tsarist leader Kerensky to a shot of a mechanical peacock and back to Kerensky to reveal not only the leader’s vanity but also the mechanistic, anti-human nature of his politics.

mechanical peacock

Kerensky

…

Nazi film propaganda exploited the power of metaphorical montage. These frames from the anti-Semitic film Der Ewige Jude (The Eternal Jew) associate Jews with rats. Notice that both the rats and the humans move from right to left (a more sinister, unsettling direction than right to left–the normal order of reading).

Der Ewige Jude 1

Der Ewige Jude 2

Der Ewige Jude 3

…

The John McCain TV ad “Fact Check” visually compares wolves to the team of lawyers  allegedly sent to Alaska to discredit Sarah Palin. (For the full background on this charge, see the article by Factcheck.org). But the real association is not wolves = lawyers, but wolves = Obama (yet another attack on Obama’s humanity). Notice how the wolves initially run from left to right, but one wolf turns facing left. A head shot of Barack Obama appears in the following frames, facing left as well.

Wolves 1

Wolf facing left

Obama facing left 1

Obama facing left 2

…

Source clips:

October

Der Ewige Jude

Fact Check ad

Just in time for Halloween, Team McCain released its latest negative ad, “Preconditions.”

“Preconditions” uses gimmicks from previous attack ads:

• shaky, blurred images


CNN Debate image

• scratchy backgrounds


scratchy background

• frighteningly distorted faces (Iranian President Ahmadinejad)


Before distortion



After distortion

• swirling blotches of color


Color blotches

• ominous background music (drone morphing into mideast melody)
• parallel poses of Obama and a bad guy to suggest guilt by association


Obama at microphones



Ahmadinejad at microphones

It might seem curious at first that the video of the CNN YouTube Democratic candidate debate containing Obama’s reply to a question about meeting with hostile world leaders without preconditions is so blurred, but perhaps the intent is to draw attention away from the debate and the original footage, so that viewers won’t notice the attack ad’s slanted editing.

Here is the edited text (cited from JohnMcCain.com’s press release):

YOUTUBE QUESTIONER: Would you be willing to meet separately without precondition within the first year of your administration in Washington or anywhere else with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?

CNN’S ANDERSON COOPER: Senator Obama?

BARACK OBAMA: I would.

Here is the unedited question and answer:

YOUTUBE QUESTIONER: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

CNN’S ANDERSON COOPER: I’d like to point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight. Senator Obama?

BARACK OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding principle of this administration, is ridiculous. Now Ronald Reagan, and Democratic presidents like JFK, constantly spoke to the Soviet Union, at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an Evil Empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them, that they might pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we have the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq–one of the first things I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses. They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point, but if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they’re going to have to carry some weight in terms of stabilizing the region.

The questioner (Stephen Sorta) loads the question for a positive response, and Obama uses the question to distinguish between his diplomatic philosophy and that of the current Republican  administration.

But stripped of context, Obama’s reply sounds like a simple-minded embracing of inimical regimes, when in fact Obama states that he would use the talks with Iran to hold them responsible for securing peace in the region. And clearly agreeing to the preconditions alleged in the McCain ad would undermine peace and stability.

There’s room for debate on the issue. (In follow-up answers, Democratic opponents Hillary Clinton and–to a lesser extent–John Edwards criticize Obama’s approach while not rejecting it totally.) But the debate should take into account the entire question and answer, and not the deliberately misleading snippet in the McCain web ad. If McCain and Palin are so willing to twist words and speeches, how can they negotiate successfully with hostile states, even with preconditions?

Original footage from the CNN YouTube Democratic debate: