I got an email asking me to watch the ad (and contribute) the other day... Here it is. At least the DNC is smart enough to start going after McCain instead of waiting until we have killed each other.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Bailey Hall
This is where the magic happens
Welcome
This blog will host a continuing dialogue regarding national politics and political communication theory. Its creation was inspired by the Spring 2008 Political Communication graduate seminar at the University of Kansas but will assuredly transcend this purpose and earn international acclaim for the insight contained herein. Enjoy the reading and post freely, even if you are not associated with the seminar. After all, what is political communication if not democratic.
Ben Warner
Ben Warner
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(124)
-
▼
April
(13)
- 2nd Ad by Dems
- Really Harsh Attack ad on Obama
- Baym, G. (2007). Representation and the Politics o...
- We Can Solve It
- First Ad by Democratic Party
- He's back....
- All bets are on...
- MUST READ!!!!
- The big three doing some comedy
- I now support Hillary
- conference in Houston
- http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg1972...
- Problems with polling
-
▼
April
(13)
7 comments:
Wow, this ad is tight. Well played DNC. Thanks for the post, this makes me happy inside.
This really is a good ad. After watching this, it really puzzles me why so many democrats would be willing to cross the line and vote for this guy if their candidate doesn't win. In today's NY Times, it says that about 15 percent of democratic voters said they would vote for McCain over Obama in a general election....why? Is it race....the same article noted that 16 percent of white voters said race mattered in deciding who they voted for, and just 56 percent of those voters said they would support Obama in a general election; 27 percent of them said they would vote for McCain if Obama was the Democratic nominee, and 15 percent said they would not vote at all. So, what does Obama have to do to win this block of voters? Is there any thing he can do?
Okay folks -- here is the challenge... and I am serious. Analyze this ad as if the RNC just released it regarding Hillary or Obama, take your pick. Again, I am serious -- I want you to be honest in posting what your reaction would be.
Then, and only, then... we'll continue the dialogue.
I'll give this ad 2 sets of reviews, one in an attempt to be objective and one where I consider it an RNC attack on one of my candidates.
Objectively:
It selects a good issue (from a strategy standpoint)-McCain certainly does not want to be running on the state of the economy now and in this clip it "looks" like he is arguing that the economy is ok, no changes needed.
The statistics could use a source or a context. Jobs lost overall? Is that more or less than usual? Who's numbers on inflation? The Fed? The CBO? A think tank? While I don't expect to see much citation in ads, I certainly would not take these numbers on face value.
I bet lots of people do take numbers like this on face value, especially if they resonate with their personal experience (i.e. I was better of 8 years ago, therefore the economy must be in recession).
It is part of a predictable overall strategy to run against Bush, though I tend to think that the economy is only minimally effected by the White House.
It is a solid piece of political propaganda based on a not wholly unreasonable argument.
Reverse Bias analysis:
Typical RNC attack at. It misconstrues the economic situation, blames my candidate while their candidate was in the same Senate voting on the same bills. Typical dirty Republican trick. We need to fire back with an attack ad of our own.
Here is an article I found that has the rest of what McCain said....
New Democratic Party ad edits McCain's response on economy
Sun Apr 20, 3:49 PM ET
TITLE: "Better Off?"
LENGTH: 30 seconds.
AIRING: Nationally on cable.
SCRIPT: CNN's Anderson Cooper: "Senator McCain, are Americans better off than they were eight years ago?"
McCain: "I think you could argue that Americans overall are better off, because we have had a pretty good prosperous time, with low unemployment, low inflation. A lot of good things have happened. A lot of jobs have been created ... I think we are better off overall."
KEY IMAGES: A clip of McCain at the Jan. 30 Republican debate in Simi Valley, Calif., sponsored by CNN. A split screen depicts scenes of foreclosure signs, a shuttered plant gate and $4 gas prices as text on the screen states: "Unemployment Up," "Highest Inflation in 17 years," "Gas Prices Up 200 Percent" and "1.8 Million Jobs Lost." The ad ends with two text questions: "Do you feel better off?" and "Is John McCain the Right Choice for America's Future?"
THE SPIN: This is the Democratic National Committee's first ad against McCain. It seeks to capitalize on the public's anxiety over the economy. Democrats have been trying to link McCain to President Bush's economic policies and cast him as out of touch with the nation's financial fears.
ANALYSIS: The video of McCain's response is edited to exclude the remainder of his answer, where he acknowledged that "things are tough right now." This type of selective quoting has become commonplace. Obama, in criticizing McCain on the economy last week, used only a portion of a McCain answer to Bloomberg Television.
Here is McCain's full response to Cooper's question at the debate:
Cooper: "Senator McCain, are Americans better off than they were eight years ago?"
McCain: "I think you could argue that Americans overall are better off, because we have had a pretty good prosperous time, with low unemployment and low inflation and a lot of good things have happened. A lot of jobs have been created.
"But let's have some straight talk. Things are tough right now. Americans are uncertain about this housing crisis. Americans are uncertain about the economy, as we see the stock market bounce up and down, but more importantly, the economy particularly in some parts of the country, state of Michigan, Governor Romney and I campaigned, not to my success, I might add, and other parts of the country are probably better off.
"But I think what we're trying to do to fix this economy is important. We've got to address the housing, subprime housing problem. We need to, obviously, have this package go through the Congress as quickly as possible.
"We need to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which I voted for twice to do so. I think we need to eliminate the alternate minimum tax that sits out there and challenges 25 million American families.
Cooper: "It sounds like you're saying we're not better off."
McCain: "I think we are better off overall if you look at the entire eight-year period, when you look at the millions of jobs that have been created, the improvement in the economy, et cetera.
"What I'm trying to emphasize, Anderson, that we are in a very serious challenge right now, with a lot of Americans very uncertain about their future, and we've got to give them some comfort.
"We've got to give them some stimulus. We've got to give them some tax relief. We've got to stop this outrageous squandering spending that causes us to have to borrow money from China, and we've got to get our fiscal house in order.
"I think we went on a spending spree that, frankly, betrayed Ronald Reagan's principles about tax cuts and restraint of spending."
___
Analysis by Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn
My analysis:
From the standpoint of an "ad maker", I would agree with Ben's initial assessment--this is a strong, compelling ad. First, it pits "facts" against the actual words/video footage of McCain, providing for the viewer (i.e. the voters) the impression that McCain is not only out of step with the "pain" that most Americans are feeling, but is just wrong about these issues. This juxtaposition is incredibly provocative, and while I don't have any studies to back me up, I can't help but feel that this type of ad is incredibly powerful for voters.
Having said that, and after reading the incredibly helpful article that Kelly posted analyzing and "fact checking" the ad, I have to say that I'm suprised that this is the first ad of this campaign cycle run by the DNC. First, it is seemingly a horrible misrepresentation of the sum total of what McCain was commenting on, no better than if someone took bits and pieces of an entire speech AT WILL and put the words together to say whatever they want (i.e. snippets of an amazing presentation the other day by Benjamin strewn together to read that "Carl is a nazi who eats kittens for breakfast"). It's not just wrong (I hope), it's dishonest, and I think that if this got out to the mainstream, it could result in flight (or, at least, increased unease with) the Dem party.
Second, especially given the recent use of political ads and speeches in Pennsylvania, and the subsequent analyses demonstrating the inherently negative nature of the ads and the voter response against the use of such negative rhetoric, WHY would the DNC run this type of ad FIRST. Is it because they are trying to bait the GOP into running their own such negative ads, relying on the hope that voters will view any such use of ads by the GOP more negatively? Or is it a sign of weakness, fearing that since McCain has sewn up the nomination so quickly, the Dems HAVE to start the barrage of negativity NOW since Obama and Clinton are still duking it out? In either scenario, I honestly believe that it makes the DNC look weak and like they are simply interested in convincing voters, through half truths, that they are the more empathetic party while they are, so far, the much more seemingly vindictive party.
Were this a GOP ad slamming either Clinton or Obama, 1) there would have been a lynch mob formed in the mass media by now aimed at stringing up those persons responsible for such ads (by Obama's supporters, if he were the nom, or by Clinton herself if she were the nom), and 2) I would probably contend that the analysis of the ad would have reached a more mainstream, national level of exposure by now (on morning shows, the evening news, national newspapers, etc.). I have never been partial to the theory of the "liberal media," especially given the increased popularity of Fox News and the GOP domination of radio. However, I can't help but wonder if we hold the GOP more responsible for negative ads, as a national organization, than the DNC. Comments on this particular idea would be welcome...
All in all, I would say that ths ad represents one of the fundamental reasons why I am currently registered as an Independent voter. Party politics can do much to unite like-minded individuals, and to garner support for worthy candidates for high elective office. They can also, however, make incredibly important political elections nothing more than horse-races that attempt to bolster popularity of parties rather than fostering a democratic process that allows voters to select, based on qualifications and merit, the best PEOPLE for the job. Doesn't it always seem to boil down to the GOP and the Dems screaming "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo" at each other while the rest of us become more disenfranchised and frustrated? A humorous use of hyperbole, but am I that off???
Well, it seems that my esteemed colleagues have touched on all the major points. While this is a "policy/issue" ad, it certainly falls short of accurately representing the McCain's stance on the issue. Kelly's post was certainly invaluable in getting a better picture of the true nature of this ad. Similar to Ben, I wish there would be some sort of source citation in these ads. At least give the citizen the CHANCE of tracking down the truth. It's disheartening that we hold freshman COMS 130 students to higher standards than we hold our political leaders. On the grounds of persuasiveness, this ad is certainly effective, but at what point do we stop striving for effectiveness and start aiming for ethical ads that foster true deliberative democracy. You can't completely blame the citizens for not "thinking" if you don't give them the necessary input. One last thing, i don't eat kittens...any more.
Post a Comment