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

As I’ve said on another thread, you cannot believe the polls…. they DO NOT poll on cell phones ! And I do not know a single young person between the ages of 18 to 35 who has a landline’ I am paying more attention to the new voter registrations, which are off the charts… now if they all show up …….

By EKA - on 08/06/2008 6:29 pm

e-mail alert

EKA, I agree. The Dems are breaking records and changing states with the phenomenal number of Democrats registering to vote for this election! And you are right the 18 -30 yr olds are not being counted into the polls because they all use cell phones and no land lines. And the 18 - 30 yr olds are NOT voting for McCain… in any real numbers anyway.

By DeBúrca obj on 08/06/2008 10:46 pm

e-mail alert

Why don’t you guys let the cerebral Paris decide?

By Star Lawrence on 08/07/2008 9:42 am

e-mail alert

Paris has served her purpose quite nicely.

By DeBúrca obj on 08/07/2008 9:51 am

e-mail alert

I concede Obama is as smart as she is!

By Star Lawrence on 08/07/2008 3:36 pm

e-mail alert

Well, of course he is AS smart as Paris, aren’t most of us? Oh, you’re implying Obama isn’t that bright or something? Do you actually believe that? I suppose you agree with Rush L. in his satirical post on pg. 6 aimed at Bonnie.

By DeBúrca obj on 08/07/2008 4:33 pm

e-mail alert

Ooo Yes! I can see it now. Another Paris Hilton reality show. They can call it “Swing Vote”. ;-)

By Zera Lee on 08/07/2008 5:03 pm

e-mail alert

ROTF!

By Deni G on 08/07/2008 9:34 pm

e-mail alert

The latest CNN “Poll of Polls” has Obama ahead 48-43 with 9% undecided. On the economy, Obama leads 54-43 (+-3%).

By Zera Lee on 08/06/2008 9:09 pm

e-mail alert

The high heels with the swimsuit are practical: with offshore drilling there are little tar blobs all over the beach so you don’t really want to go in barefoot. Does no one remember that the Santa Barbara oil spill in the sixties is what led to the creation of Earth Day? My parents were charter members of Get Oil Out [GOO]. Offshore drilling will produce less oil than we can save by driving sixty instead of eighty. I say we lower the speed limit and enforce it. [Right, no one seems to like that, even though just about everyone knows someone who was killed in a freeway crash at speeds higher than sixty.] Bonnie, I do not like close elections, because they lend themselves to voter fraud. No matter who is ahead in the polls, if it is close, you just know all those reptilian folk who dream up ways to deliver electronic voting machines pre-voted for a particular candidate will be getting a gleam in their eyes. My preference is for democracy. I am old-fashioned that way.

By Elizabeth Bennett on 08/07/2008 1:41 am

e-mail alert

Elizabeth - About election fraud, I agree to some extent. I guess there is now agreement that Joe Kennedy bought West Virginia votes for John, and that the Daley machine brought in some voters from the cemeteries to also vote for JFK. Nixon, to his credit, never disputed the election because he realized that the country did not want the controversy. As for the non election of Al Gore, there may have been some fraud though the independent findings of The Washington Post and other news outlets have said otherwise. I think George Bush won the election fairly…..though it was a mess! I laughed at your “high heels in oil spills” comment. The good thing is that if (IF) off shore drilling is permitted, the rigs will be located at least 50 miles out to sea. I think that is a good compromise and, as a result, I have changed my mind about drilling off of California’s coast. As you said, the current oil rigs in California are visible from both Santa Barbara and Long Beach….too close to the shoreline. I do think drilling is going to have to be part of the answer. We are years away from alternative fuels and America cannot keep hogging up most of the world’s oil supply. Just my own humble opinion. If I thought dropping the speed limit would work over a long period of years, then I would agree to that too. Alas, I do not think drivers will continue to drive 55 when their automobiles will drive very comfortably at 70… while the crisis remains in the rear-view mirror.

By Bonnie Oliver on 08/07/2008 1:56 am

You only agree to some extent? A little fraud is OK? As for 1960, I thought it was well known that it was actually disputed and resolved in Kennedy’s favor. See http://www.slate.com/id/91350/ Nixon just tried to look like he was not talking to the people filing the recount requests. I have been driving 60 mph for two years now [not continuously]. I get to where I am going, and save a ton of money on gas. I also think I am doing a little bit to fend off global warming by not wasting carbon. The impetus behind the offshore oil drilling has something to do with a popular theory among certain economists and politicians that unless this sort of drilling is permitted, the speculators who are garbling the oil futures market will not calm down. I think this theory is getting debunked as oil and gas prices continue to decline. I like Raum Emanuel’s challenge that oil companies should be asked to drill on the many oil leases they already have before the feds give them additional ones. As for Al Gore and George Bush, nothing about that was fair. There are half a dozen books detailing the many ways in which that election was stolen. If you read those “independent findings” carefully, they have several what if scenarios. Only the one in which they only recount the counties where Gore asked for a recount [as opposed to what the Florida Supreme Cout ordered—a full state recount] would there be a Gore loss. A full state recount would have yielded a Gore win. Plus if you take into account the fact that eighty thousand mostly minority voters were illegally denied the vote because their names were similar to people who were felons in Texas, that one piece of hanky panky alone messed up the election. [To be denied the vote in Florida for felon status, the felony must be committed in Florida.]

By Elizabeth Bennett on 08/08/2008 1:09 am

e-mail alert

I disagree with your assessment of the Kennedy/Nixon race and of the Gore/Bush race. As for driving 60 miles per hour, I am totally in favor of that limitation even though I do not think it would be followed by the marjority of drivers after the first 6 months. Anything else?

By Bonnie Oliver on 08/08/2008 3:03 am

I am glad that we have found a little slice of common ground!

By Elizabeth Bennett on 08/08/2008 11:33 am

e-mail alert

Elizabeth B I read the article you linked by Greenburg. Did you read the whole thing, with all of his corrected sidebars? Greenburg cited incidences without backing them up. If you link to where he has links, they are mostly sidebars explaining the reason for his opinion. In one he talks about Mazo who wrote articles about a Nixon election fraud (Mazo believed there was one) and he states “Mazo’s articles are problematic…… He rarely cited his sources or provided any way of gauging anecdotes authenticity.” I had to laugh, although Greenburg is very intelligent and seems to have a great read of human nature, he never cited a viable source. He based his opinion in the article of things he had read, and those were his conclusions. So it is an opinion piece and not a hard fact journalism piece. That is okay. When he said that one Republican launched a effort, he was referring to telegrams that were sent out. Not much more on that incident. There were other efforts launched as Greenburg indicates, but now it is suspect to me, because of his manipulations, how much substance is behind them. I am sure there is some, but I for one don’t like to have my intelligence taken for granted. The sad part is he had to go back and ‘not quite’ correct himself because he didn’t cite hard fact sources. He took what someone said and what he thought they did, and wrote on it. Not much different than what we do here. When he mentions the 11 points that were contested - in the linked sidebar he discounts maybe one or two with some interesting points, but says some of them were probably true? What kind of reporting is that? Where is his research, and why doesn’t he back it up better. Nixon was his own fool, with very definite problems. If Greenburg’s motivation was to be the guy that could finally really show us that Nixon was a manipulator in this case as well as with Watergate, and take away one of the few appealing points about the man, does that make Greenburg a big man? Okay, who cares. Sorry, but Greenburg’s writing, albeit somewhat interesting, is a little maddening.

By Frannie Em on 08/09/2008 6:20 pm