Pennsylvania Ad Campaign

The ad called ‘Pennsylvania’ ad aired on Pennsylvania television on Monday April 14, days after Obama’s controversial remarks at a San Francisco fundraising reception and one week before the Keystone State primary. The advertisement was paid for by Hillary Clinton for President.

The ad is a response to a Senator Barack Obama’s comment about small-town Americans, which was published on the Huffington Post website by Mayhill Fowler: “It’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

The commercial begins with black and white picture of Hillary Clinton resting her chin on folded hands, listening contemplatively, accompanied by a voiceover of Clinton saying: “I’m Hillary Clinton and I approve this message.”

The screen goes black and the excerpt from Obama appears in white text. The announcer says: “Barack Obama said that people in small towns ‘cling to guns or religion…as a way to explain their frustrations.” The date of the speech, April 6, 2008, appears in white text in the bottom right-hand corner.

The ad then proceeds with a series of responses to this comment from what looks like people stopped on the street.

The first response comes from a 30’s something African-American woman who says, “I was very insulted by Barack Obama.”

The video then cuts to a Caucasian man and women, both appearing to be in their 30’s as well. The man says, “It just shows how out of touch Barack Obama is.”

The ad then shows a Caucasian, middle-aged woman who says, “I am not clinging to my faith out of frustration and bitterness. I find that my faith is very uplifting.”

A middle-aged Caucasian male then says, “The good people of Pennsylvania deserve a lot better than what Barack Obama said.”

The video cuts back to the first woman who says, “Hillary does understand the citizens of Pennsylvania better.”

Then the women who previously appeared, standing next to the man says, “Hillary Clinton has been fighting for people like us her whole life.” The screen then goes black.

The following text is a larger portion of the fundraising speech that includes the controversial remarks:

"Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. Now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical."

(The audio of the speech can be found in its entirety at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-exclusive-audio-on_b_...)

This ad is an attempt to portray Obama as elitist, while positioning Clinton as more understanding and ‘in touch’ with the needs of the working-class. Clinton has repeatedly told Pennsylvania residents of her connection to small town Pennsylvania and her upbringing as the granddaughter of a factory worker. The ad is targeted at working-class Pennsylvania voters, who will play a crucial role in the April 22 election.

The quote, which serves as the basis of this political advertisement, has unquestionably been taken out of the larger context of the speech. It is debatable as to whether the larger message given by Barack Obama during the fund-raising event is misrepresented in Clinton’s advertisement.

The validity of the statement is not in question. Mayhill Fowler reported the excerpt on HuffingtonPost.com. Fowler was present at the private fund-raising event, where no reporters were assumed to be present. Obama has not denied the statement. His response has been a mix of an acknowledgement of the ‘poorly-worded’ statement and an explanation of his intentions.

Given the validity of the statement upon which this advertisement is based, the use of this comment is not inherently untruthful. However, using the statement to perpetuate her image as the “Working Class Hero” by attempting to position Obama as ‘elitist,’ ‘out of touch,’ and ‘offensive’ is opportunistic.

This advertisement was not the only instance in which Clinton capitalized on Obama’s remarks. In the week following the California fund-raiser, Clinton spoke out almost daily regarding the controversial remarks. “I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made about people in small town America,” Clinton said during a speech at a mechanical plant that builds transmission parts for military vehicles. “Senator Obama’s remarks are elitist and out of touch.”

Using the Potter Box as an ethical decision-making model, after considering the morally relevant facts of the ad, it is necessary to determine the purpose or value of a campaign advertisement. The purpose of a political advertisement is to communicate the position, qualifications, and character of a candidate for the purpose of aiding voters in making informed election decisions. As the end goal of a democratic election is to have an elected official whom the majority of the public supports on a basis of accurate information, it is important for ethical persuasive political communications to contribute to this end. Any advertisement that prevents this clarity for the purpose of informed decision-making can be deemed unethical according to this value and purpose. Based on this principle, the ultimate loyalty of a political advertisement is not to the candidate but rather to the public. Unnecessarily negative political campaigning and ambiguous, opinion-based ‘attack’ advertisements have the potential to damage this clarity, as well as add to cynicism and apathy amongst voters.

The specific claims made in this advertisement are difficult to assess due to their opinionated and ambiguous nature. For instance, the claim “Hillary has been fighting for people like us all her life” is nearly impossible to assess from an objective point of view. From the ad, the viewer’s only indication of whom “people like us” refers to is a visual: a white, middle-aged woman, presumably from the state of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, there is no clarity regarding the phrase ‘fighting for us’. The ad does not address policies, issue stances, or a voting record to support this statement. Likewise, the claim that Clinton understands the citizens of Pennsylvania better is equally difficult evaluate.

The ambiguous, opinion-based claims that comprise this advertisement do not serve the purpose of presenting information in a way that is clear and fair with the intentions of aiding voters in making an informed decision. The ultimate loyalty of this advertisement is not public, but rather the candidate herself.

Link to Advertisement: <http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/162.aspx>

Bibliography:

Bacon, Perry and Shailagh Murray. “ ‘Bitter’ Is a Hard Pill or Obama to Swallow.” The Washington Post. 13 April 2008; Page A06.

Christians, C., Fackler, M., Mckee, K., Rotzoll, K., & Woods, R. (2004). Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning (7th Edition). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Suarez, Fernando. “Clinton Says Obama is ‘Out of Touch’ with Middle Class Americans, Calls Comments ‘Elitist’”. CBS News. 12 April 2008.

<http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/12/politics/fromt

heroad/entry4011172.shtml.>

__________________________