Under the Radar

I wrote about Local Hits early last week.

First Read and Campaign Diaries seem to agree.

First Read:

Obama’s stealth ad campaign: Over the past week, we've gotten our hands on a number of negative TV ads Obama's been running against McCain in key states like Ohio and Michigan. This is in addition to the tough spot, uncovered by Politico [*** UPDATE *** Actually the spot was uncovered by the Washington Times' Christina Bellantoni, who reported on it yesterday and was linked to by Politico] , that Obama's airing in Indiana. Clearly, the Obama campaign isn't interested in telling the media about every single McCain attack ad they’re running. Perhaps this is because Obama's brand can't afford to be tarnished too much if he's seen as constantly running negative TV ads. So the campaign simply puts them on the air in key markets, doesn't tell the press about them, and layers those ads with positive ones being run nationally during the Olympics. Also, by not releasing to the media, it forces the McCain camp to wait a day or two before they see the ad. McCain's camp is much more comfortable unveiling their negative ads, perhaps because they want the free press that comes with them. But make no mistake, Obama’s running plenty of negative TV ads, particularly in the industrial Midwestern states. In fact, one of Obama's biggest candidate strengths -- which doesn't get the attention it deserves -- is that he plays political hardball as well as his opponents; he just sometimes does it under the radar.

Campaign Diaries:

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Obama campaign’s positive ads at the national level are being complemented with some harsh state-level attack ads. This, of course, raises an interesting question: which negative strategy is the most effective? McCain’s attempts to globally reinforce the theme of Obama lacking substance, or Obama finding local issues with which McCain can be tarnished (Harleys in Wisconsin, Yucca Mountain in Nevada, DHL in Ohio)?