Politics | 08/06/2008 10:00 am

Paris Hilton for President? Paris Responds to John McCain Ad With Her Own Campaign Video

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

In a 30-second campaign ad that debuted last week, McCain mocked Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama’s image as a media star by flashing pictures of tabloid staples Paris Hilton and Britney Spears in the opening shots. This didn’t go over too well with the hotel heiress or her family, who have donated thousands of dollars to the Republican’s campaign.

According the the New York Daily News, Kathy Hilton donated $2,300 to McCain for the primary, the maximum allowed by law, as did her husband, Richard Hilton. Paris’s grandfather also sent McCain $2,300 for both the primary and the general election.

In response to the McCain video, Hilton snaps back with her own fake commercial hosted on FunnyOrDie.com. While wearing a leopard swimsuit in the video, she calls the 71-year-old senator a "wrinkly," "old," "white-haired dude," announces her plan to solve the energy crisis and also shares how she thinks, if she is elected president, she’ll paint the White House pink.

That’s hot.

Watch the McCain video by clicking here.

Watch the Paris Hilton video below.

Read more about: Campaign, Celebrities, John McCain, News, Paris Hilton, Politics

434 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Well, McCain & Obama are both flip-flopping more than the whales at Sea World, and they’re not even denying it anymore. In a way, it’s refreshing, because this oil crisis is new to all of us…..er, strike that.

By James the Game on 08/07/2008 12:43 pm

e-mail alert

James, I have seen no credible source that estimates offshore drilling taking 15 years to have an effect. Based on historic information, there will be some effect within five years, and a significant impact on supply within ten. Car companies are producing hybrid vehicles now, but the reality is that most people are not in a financial position to immediately sell their car and buy a hybrid. Turnover is a slow process. In regard to hydrogen fuel cells and electric power, two sources that will actually wean the country from oil to power cars, affordability and infrastructure issues exist that will require more than ten years to solve, according to the scientific community.

By K O on 08/07/2008 10:41 am

e-mail alert

Yeah, Kitty, the speed at which offshore drilling could have an impact on a large scale depends on who you’re talking to, exactly where it’s being done and so forth: http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/30/news/economy/poll_drilling/index.htm?pos… . As for your statement that “most people are not in a financial position to immediately sell their car and buy a hybrid”, Obama’s is a six-year plan. It would put one-million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on roadways within six years, and provide a $7,000 tax credit for customers who buy the hybrids. McCain’s proposed a graduated tax credit for purchasing lower-emissions cars such as the Chevy Volt, GM’s hybrid car that’s slated to hit the market in 2010. He’s called for a $300 reward for anyone who can develop a super high-tech battery with “the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars.” Regarding infrastructure hurdles, the oil companies could remove those so fast it would make your head spin, if given the right financial incentives. I’ve heard talking heads on TV say it could be done within one year, although who knows what the truth really is, when the stuffed shirts are talking, eh? That’s one thing that really encourages me about the one-upmanship between Obama and McCain. The plans would induce oil and automotive companies to move away from their smog-producing ways and go green a bit.

By James the Game on 08/07/2008 12:20 pm

e-mail alert

$300 million reward, I meant. Ha! <:-l

By James the Game on 08/07/2008 12:25 pm

e-mail alert

The problem I have with the ‘reward’ is that if you believe in capitalism, then the rewards should come from the patents - not the pockets of the taxpayers. This little bit of ‘pork’ flies in the face of everything that McCain and the Republicans claim to stand for, and sets a bad precedent. The government should not be placing bounties on marketable innovations.

By Zera Lee on 08/07/2008 1:39 pm

e-mail alert

It should when it’s in the best interests of the economy and its citizens. Have to disagree with you on that one. It’s not pork, but an investment. Pork is a give-away with no hope for return on investment. This bit of “pork” portends to pay dividends perhaps beyond what we can even imagine right now. What good is government if it doesn’t try to help its people?

By James the Game on 08/07/2008 3:51 pm

e-mail alert

I agree that a better battery is in our best interests, but the incentives and rewards are already built into the system. That is what IP and patent laws are for. This money will not produce a new battery sooner, or make it better. We already have businesses blackmailing state and local governments for concessions, this is a dangerous precedent to expand. We do not want innovators waiting on handouts from the government. And what about the next battery system? If there is an Even Better Battery following the First Better Battery, do we pay them $300M too? And what about the first viable fuel cell system? Where does it stop? Who do we stiff? Best to stay off that slippery slope and let capitalism work on its own.

By Zera Lee on 08/08/2008 2:47 am

e-mail alert

What you call “blackmail”, I call “negotiation”. The reality is, money is what drives the marketplace. Oil companies have had the capability of converting their gas-station pumps over to hybrid pumps for several years, but have been slow to do so because there’s more money in their smog-producing oil monopoly. Now that the government’s talking incentives, and people are scaling back big-time at the pump, these greedy oil executives are finally waking up to the concept of going green. Money talks, high-minded talk about capitalism be darned. And if the government wants to reward firms that build a better mousetrap to help society on a mass scale and curb pollution, I’m all for it. Better that than choke to death on fumes.

By James the Game on 08/08/2008 3:13 am

e-mail alert

James, I am having trouble following your arguments. Your “negotiation” comment suggests that you approve of corporate greed and social manipulation; but then you rail on the oil industry, which suggests the opposite. You say: “Money talks, high-minded talk about capitalism be darned.” and yet, “money talks” is the essence of capitalism. Air quality is another topic, a sensationalist diversion. Good passion, though. Frame your arguments with reasoned logic, and I’ll look forward to what you come up with. Just stay focused on the topic at hand: reducing our use of oil, gasoline in particular.

By Zera Lee on 08/08/2008 5:44 pm

e-mail alert

No “sensationalist diversion” whatsoever. It gets right to the heart of the issue as to why it’s so important to incentivize automakers to build green cars. If you can’t see how reduction of oil consumption goes hand-in-hand with reducing air pollution, that’s your issue. Your “reasoned logic” is a very condescending Republican remark: Whenever someone disagrees, pretend the other person isn’t being reasonable, and stoop to pettiness. Your lecture about corporate greed and capitalism is the real diversion. It takes focus off the bottom-line truth that motivating greedy corporations to do the right thing by offering financial incentives stands to benefit the entire nation. Hybrid vehicles could help wean us off foreign oil dependence, reduce carbon emissions, boost the economy, help the average person being able to afford to drive back and forth back to work, and so forth. But the filthy-rich can’t relate to that, and instead prefer to get on their high horses about “capitalism”.

By James the Game on 08/08/2008 6:17 pm

e-mail alert

Why are we giving Oil Companies, making unprecidented profits Tax Incentives? That’s not capitalism. And which is better for the environment, Bush’s tax break to HUMMER purchasers or a tax break for Hybrids (something Bush actually abolished)? Let’s take back the tax incentives and use that money to invest in alternative’s to oil.

By DeBúrca obj on 08/08/2008 7:52 pm

e-mail alert

Good morning, DeB,. I found you on this stream so that I could attach this latest bit. The Swift Boaters have launched, it’s a best seller, and even though they have been documented liars, people will believe whatever it says. Never fails. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/anti-obama-book-tops-nyt_n_1183…

By Diana T on 08/12/2008 10:14 am

e-mail alert

Diana… I’m afraid to even look at it, but I will. *sigh* Why must Americans be so stupid?

By DeBúrca obj on 08/12/2008 3:33 pm

e-mail alert

Diana, You know what gets me? Is that people could actually READ a whole book meant to tear someone down, yet won’t bother to do real research. I’ve heard people say they don’t really know enough about Obama. To me that is intentional ignorance because there is plenty of information out there, in fact, I have seen more information on this man than any past candidate. Some people just don’t want to know. And those same people think they know McCain, yet only know a few details, but are satisfied with that.

By DeBúrca obj on 08/12/2008 3:36 pm

e-mail alert

James, Sounds good, and you have almost got me here, but how can he give us a $7000 tax credit? Where will the money come from. Who will he tax to make up that money? Would congress every pass that?

By Frannie Em on 08/09/2008 7:00 pm