John McCain’s latest ad against Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama has received quite a bit of press recently. The ad centers on Obama’s popularity and the idea that he has generated a political cult of personality. This is hard to argue with given the domestic Obama enthusiasm from many voting demographics and worldwide (200,000 Berliners attending an Obama speech isn’t too shabby). However, the main point of contention doesn’t center on Obama’s celebrity, but the choice of comparison that the McCain camp used.

When mentioning Obama’s celebrity status, the ad flashes images of two of the most controversial celebrities in American culture, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Opponents of the ad claim that McCain is resorting to smear tactics by either directly or otherwise comparing a presidential candidate to oft-criticized Hollywood characters. This claim isn’t without merit. Spears is a (former) pop star and Hilton a rich California socialite, and anyone who hasn’t lived in a cave for the past decade know that both have had their share of bad press including leaked sex tapes, DUI’s, mental illness, potential child abuse, and generally embodying the loathed stereotype of the spoiled, rich, arrogant American. The McCain camp defends the ad, claiming that it was meant to demonstrate that Obama is cloaking his inexperience with the enthusiasm he’s generated. I suppose this is a legitimate point, but ask yourself if the ad would have generated this much hoopla if it had flashed images of say, Matt Damon, Daniel Day Lewis, or even Scarlett Johansson.

My beef with the ad isn’t so much that it attacks Obama or that it says nothing about McCain’s ability to transcend Obama’s alleged shortfalls (although I am miffed by both). I have a problem with the way it treats Obama supporters. This ad is yet another example of finger-wagging at young voters, black voters, Latino voters, independent voters, or just about anyone who has thrown his or her support for the candidate. Not only the GOP, but even Hillary Clinton and her surrogates in the primary season spoke exasperatedly of people being doe-eyed over a man who had only served a year in the Senate, had no foreign policy chops, etc. The ad merely punctuates the idea that people who support Obama are nothing but prattling Claire’s shoppers who give thumbs up to his candidacy simply because he’s darn purdy.

I’m not denying that some of Obama-mania is formed by people who are primarily excited by someone who doesn’t look like he’ll keel over at the State of the Union. But airing an attack ad that suggests that the majority of Obama’s supporters are merely charmed by his charisma rather than motivated by his message is insulting. Whether Obama is up to the task of the presidency is a very important question to ask, but the same question must be asked of John McCain. Either question can be posed without denigrating the voter, the lifeblood of democracy, to someone who splits time between politics and gawking at intoxicated Hollywood snatch-flashers. And although McCain’s exasperation is justified, the first rule of political success is avoid insulting voters, no matter how much they may deserve it. Celebrity is nothing without fans, and those fans might eventually sniff out the idea that this ad is more “shame on you” than “shame on him.”