Watch this new ad for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Try to put yourself in the frame of mind of a person who isn't committed to either party, and see how you react. At Ankle Biting Pundits, they're assuming this is such a plainly despicable ad that it will backfire. But I think it's an effective ad, although, absurdly, what's most effective is the voice of Bill Clinton. The effect of Bill Clinton, to me, is so strong that it blocked out my memory of everything else in the commercial. I went back and watched it a second time to keep track of my response. The ominous, pounding music was baldly manipulative. The series of images is so clearly meant to make you think yes, everything really is terrible.... and it's the Republicans' fault that the manipulation is easy to resist. A hurricane map? As if forces of nature are part of a big plot! But, when we hear the familar voice say "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"... well, it seems there is nothing wrong with this commercial that cannot be cured by what we really loved about Bill Clinton.
(I'm just being honest. Go ahead and insist that Bill Clinton is contemptible, but you'll be missing the point. )
UPDATE: The DCCC has pulled the ad for the reason chezDiva brings up in the fourth comment here: the use of the flag-draped coffins of soldiers.
१३ जुलै, २००६
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२७ टिप्पण्या:
" The series of images is so clearly meant to make you think yes, everything really is terrible.... and it's the Republicans' fault that the manipulation is easy to resist. A hurricane map? As if forces of nature are part of a big plot!"
Are you implying that Bush does not, in fact, control the weather? Stop being part of the Repugnican spin-cycle lie machine, you proto-fascist tyranny-denier!
(I miss Quxxo enough to mock him, but if this were one of his posts, it would be followed by paragraph after paragraph of links and quotes to stories on far left sites priving that Bush does, in fact, control the weather).
To be fair, the hurricane image is defensible as a shorthand reminder of the mismanagement after Katrina. (Not that the Democrats in a position to deal with the Katrina aftermath showed better management skills.)
What was it we "really loved about Bill Clinton."? Is Clinton the new Reagan?
No snark. I really don't know.
If someone provides a hint I'll keep Googling until I find a satisfactory answer. Honest.
"(Not that the Democrats in a position to deal with the Katrina aftermath showed better management skills.)"
That's the key point. From which party's ranks were the people who were most directly responsible for the failures to act drawn? Well, so far as New Orleans is concerned, Katrina was first and foremost a failure of the city and state authorities to plan, prepare and react. That is not to excuse FEMA's failures; yes things went wrong at the Federal level, yes that is Bush's responsibility (not necessarily his fault, indisputably his responsibility), but the real scandal with the Katrina response, as far as I'm concerned, is the failure of the local and state authorities, virtually all of whom are democrats. It is a sign of how much has gone wrong with the federal system that all eyes turn to Washington when a crisis needs a response, and in any event, is the D3C sure it wants to be throwing those stones in that pretty glass house it's in? Desparation is such an unattractive trait.
On another thread, Editor Theorist said that Clinton projected optimism. That sounds about right to me.
The Republicans should come out with their own commercial. They can blame everything on Clinton. They can blame 9-11 on clinton. they can blame Enron on Clinton and all the exhuberance. The tag line would be that all democrats do is make everything artificially rosey and then set us up for a big fall
Democratic policies led to the folowing:
Bin Ladin
A Nuclear North Korea
Recession
Corporate Scandels
Irrational Exuberance
Excessive taxation
If you want all this again, Elect democrats.
I think it overall effective, but I think they erred in one respect-- including Pelosi.
I think she is overwhelmingly regarded as ineffective, and she blunted the impact.
Please note that an old advertising study found that those most affected by ads were those that thought they were most resistant.
I also was struck by my son's reaction-- "They going to haul Clinton out of retirment to run? Repubs out to run Teddy Roosevelt against him.". Tempus fugits and Clinton's impact is little among the young.
Another thing that was good about Clinton was that he always projected a sense of confident knowledge when speaking publically. Watching the current President stumble about in front of a podium can be nerve wracking.
And here's a crazy idea. Why doesn't (Bill) Clinton pick a House seat occupied by a Republican in Arkansas and run for the House. Make it clear he would be the next Speaker. That might give Dem congressional hopes some punch.
What I take away from that.
1) Steam billowing out of operational nuclear power plants - bad. Nuke power, bad. Republicans, bad.
2) Troops in combat doing hard stuff, bad. Dead troops, bad. Republicans to blame.
3) Bad weather - caused by Republicans. Bad.
4) Roads are failing - caused by Republicans. Bad. (Good thing they didn't show the Big Dig...)
5) The economy is failing, caused by Republicans. Bad.
6) Tom Delay and some guy in a black trenchcoat and fedora - bad. Corrupt. Unlike the Dems.
7) Dick Cheney is a demon in human form, or perhaps Orwell's big brother. Bad! Bad! Bad! Bad! Bad! Scary bad!!!
A) Wind farms (currently unable to operate due to Sierra Club litigation, but who's counting...) Good! ;-)
B) Troops training and giving thumbs up - well out of harms way, which is where troops belong. Good! :-)
C) There are really, really photogenic Black people in the Democratic Party, and the while males are blue collar. Good! :-))
D) Democrats are really, really really patriotic. Good! Really good!
E) Bill Clinton will lead us back to good times. Good!
Yeah John C, I'm really affected by that. I think I'm ready to vote Democratic after seeing it. The message is clear - Republicans - really bad, perhaps just plain evil. :-( Democrats - really good. :-)
It looks like he's running again! Is this the only popular Democrat left?
But we only loved Bill Clinton after he left--sort of like when you eventually forget what a rat your ex was. I worked for Clinton's campaign even though I thought he was a phony, the kind of guy who talked about women's rights and then groped you in the xerox room. Hey, I was right, too.
Americans are buying gas and going on vacation. They're working. They're not overly worried about "climate change," which Clinton suggested at Aspen could be a winner for Dems. They revere, not pity, our volunteer military. Corruption? How about Jefferson's freezer--much cooler image than Abramoff's fedora. They are, however, worried about the assault on our culture and economy by illegal immigration, which was NEVER mentioned in the ad! (Substitute "we" for "they" in most of this.)
Grade: A for images ala Michael Moore, F for content. Save some dough and go back to "America can do better."
Quxxo,
Regardless of what anyone thinks of global warming and what causes it, I wasn't aware that it had been conclusively linked to the increase in hurricaines. Certainly, I've read papers suggesting the link, and it has that sort of truthiness feel to it (after all, global warming is climate change, increased frequency and scale of hurricaines are changing weather, so it stands to reason that climate change drove this weather change, right?), but I've read equally serious papers - from scientists who 100% buy into global warming and who 100% buy into the "industry is doing it" argument for global warming - who simply don't believe that the two are linked, and that hurricaine production is a cyclical function of north atlantic and carribean weather conditions. And, naturally, then there are also scientists who dispute the "men cause global warming" thesis who also question the link. So in any event, with such a vigorous debate underway, and so few concrete conclusions, to paint it as being settled beyond doubt that bush = global warming = katrina is little short of absurd. Even scientists on your side dispute the link.
It is so far from being established that even NPR ran interviews from scientists on both sides of the argument.
"I also love the "Republicans control the weather" theme and the dissonance of "Nuclear power: bad; Global warming: bad." Someone tell me, where are all those Republican Nuclear Power plants being built? In my dreams."
Not to mention the dissonance between the claim that global warming is bad, but that the widely-deployable power source with the lowest emissions is ALSO bad. So let's get this right: no to fossil fuels, but no to nuclear power? Presumably we should line our costs with wave power, convert arizona and texas into solar farms, pave over New England for wind farms, and then turn off enough electricity to make up the shortfall. They really don't think this stuff through.
I thought it was a powerful vision. At a time when you must get the most bang for the ad dollar, this will make a powerful impression on real Americans who see it. Of course, Fascist republicans will have a hard time figuring out real American values.
I don't get the fascination, either. Nothing about the ad "moved" me - the weather map made me laugh..and Clinton in the end just made me think the Democrats are tired. Unrelenting negativity followed by one positive thought, uttered by a voice from the past. Even though, to many, Clinton never left. I found the whole thing bleak and unconvincing.
I'm minded of a book review once reportedly given by Abraham Lincoln. To paraphrase: "If you like this sort of book, this is the sort of book you'll like."
My guess is that Democrats will view this advertisement with approval. Its nearly hagiographic treatment of Pelosi, Emanuel, and Hoyer, not to mention Clinton, is not intended to win new converts to the Democratic Party. Both parties have, in fact decided that they're not in the business of expanding their bases and thereby, adding to their capacity to govern. Instead, they believe in throwing meat, sound bites, and selective imagery at the already-convinced or to the easily-convice-able in order to ensure financial and other forms of support to their party.
This ad seems specifically designed to elicit financial support for Dem candidates and to energize the base. So, I don't think they care if this ad offends or turns off Republicans and independents.
By the way, I didn't react to the ad in the same way as you did, Ann. I didn't find Clinton's voice and image such a jarring thing that I couldn't remember the rest of the ad's images, etc. In fact, I sort of laughed when I heard and saw Clinton.
It was, as they say, deja vu all over again. In 1993, when he left office, George H.W. Bush was sort of the crazy uncle Republicans didn't want to talk about and who the nation dismissed. But eight years later, people were downright nostalgic for him, a feeling that no doubt contributed greatly to the Year 2000 success of his son. I sense that there are similar sentiments for Clinton these days, although he will always be a somewhat controversial figure. Not to Democrats, though. For them, he's Saint Bill, the keeper of the flame. That's why he's so effective in getting Dems charged up.
Mark
This ad seems specifically designed to elicit financial support for Dem candidates and to energize the base. So, I don't think they care if this ad offends or turns off Republicans and independents.
I thought this as well.
Clinton-love: Liberals generally loved him, not because of his policies which they ordinarily would have found repugnant from someone with an (R) after their name, but because he drove convervatives batsh*t crazy.
Independents at least approved because of low gas prices, low unemployment, and a soaring stock market.
"Liberals generally loved him, not because of his policies which they ordinarily would have found repugnant from someone with an (R) after their name, but because he drove convervatives batsh*t crazy."
If that is true, David Frum was right - the democratic party "has rendered itself unfit for and incapable of wielding political power." Anyone who is so foolish as to embrace someone they disagree with for no better reason than because the other side hates them deserves the minority status that they appear to have voluntarily relegated themselves to. Vote for them because they're better than the other guy, sure - but to give them accolades just because it drives the other guy nuts? That's not politics, that's kindergarten. And they have the nerve to suggest that the GOP has demeaned political debate in this country.
Henry:
"Why not show an open pit coal mine? My guess is that the Democrats know they've already alienated blue-collar Ohioans enough, without also threatening their livelihoods."
Not just Ohio, but particularly West Virginia, where coal mining is an absolutely vital part of the economy, and houeshold incomes are already the lowest in the country. This in a state with two Democratic Senators (one of whom is up for re-election this year) and a Democratic Governor. Say what you like about Rep. Emmanuel, but he's not a moron, and he therefore must surely understand that their agenda doens't play well with the voters they need. So I suspect that it isn't an oversight that the Dems refuse to adopt something like a contract with America, as many have urged; it's because if Democrats wrote down what they actually believed in one place that people could read and consider definitive, they'd lose every seat outside of the coasts and Illinois.
Simon, if you want to drop all the blame at the feet of local Democrats, you're out of touch with what happened in the aftermath of Katrina. Stripping FEMA of experienced management and packing it with political friends guaranteed a sluggish, inadequate response. Those actions are Bush's responsibilily; he was irresponsible and acted to put personal attachments over the safety and security of U.S. citizens. Placing it under Homeland Security was another bad choice, and congressional Democrats and Republicans both signed off on that.
The disaster, of course, wasn't the hurricane, it was the failure of the levees and canals, and those are federally designed, built and maintained. That goes to straight to the Army Corps of Engineers and likewise is the responsibility of both parties, who have overseen, funded and come up with the mandates for the COE. Local officials are responsible for poor input into those designs, including insisting on locating pumps too far away from the lake to do any good, and on resisting the use of floodgates.
There's much blame to go around. Looking for a simplistic partisan target is foolish.
Me: Ever heard any George Clinton? Heck of a musician.
Dems: Why can't you people shut up about Bill Clinton? Clinton was one of our best presidents evur. It doesn't cover up the abject failure of YOUR evil fascist president Bush.
Me: Oh, you were talking about that Clinton? I see he's in your latest ad. That's an interesting part of your "For a Better Future" campaign.
Dems: There you go again! You said Clinton! This is so infuriating. I'm tired of your endless panty sniffing. Leave Bill alone, you obsessed Wingnut!
Me: Um, yeah. I think I'll go catch the latest news clips on CNN or something. Seeya.
Dems: AAAARRRRGGGGHHH! YOU ALMOST SAID CLINTON AGAIN BUT YOU SAID CLIPS AT THE LAST SECOND! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, YOU SICK EXTREMIST FREAK!?!
Me: Whatever.
Dems: AAAIIIIEEEII! WHATEVER WAS THE NAME OF ROBERT REICH'S CHIEF OF STAFF'S APARTMENT DOORMAN'S DOG...
One of Bill Clinton's biggest problems, one that manifests itself through everything that he has ever done, is that the man is in love with himself.
For example at his high point, maybe 97 or 98, he had huge positives, refused to spend a single iota of that political capital doing anything useful like work on Social Security. That was a task that a Democrat had to tackle.
Give Bush credit, whether you agree with his attempt to reform SS or not, he had the balls to try. Low on capital he tried.
SS and medicare are huge problems and the Dems and the NYT are in denial. why? because Bush says there is a problem...
I can't easily put myself into the mind of Ann's hypothetical uncommitted voter, but I do like the ad's second half. If the Democrats could make this their predominant message, it would be a good thing for them and for the country.
But the presence of the various manipulative images in the first half of the ad suggests to me that they won't be able to stick to the positive. Clinton understood Reagan's success well enough to be able to reproduce it. But I think that the current batch of Democratic leaders understand neither Reagan nor Clinton.
A question for Ann, in response to this comment (from Jack):
"I can't easily put myself into the mind of Ann's hypothetical uncommitted voter"
On that topic, I wonder what our Hostess thinks about the potential nomination candidates in '08 on the GOP side, since the field of candidates now seems to be settling. Are there any that could keep you in the fold? Are there any you're certain would push you out? Or does it all depend too much on who the Democratic candidate is to say?
Elizabeth -- I think the point is that the Democrats, in their ad, are trying to create a "simplistic partisan target."
Henry, I'll be looking for you to step up and point that out when the GOP ads targeting the Democratic governor for her response to Katrina come out. Bush has things to be held accountable for regarding Katrina. The Dems will aim at that. Locally, that will be true for Democrats in charge at the time.
I can't see past the Clinton part. He's just so sleazy. Looking back - the country actually did very well then. But that's because there was gridlock with the Republican Congress.
We need gridlock again.
I know I'm jumping in kind of late, but...
As others have said, this ad is aimed at Democrats, specifically at getting Democrats to part with their money. I think the point of all the negative images is to encourage Democrats to believe a campaign contribution would be a good investment. It's saying: "No way we're losing to the GOP this time. Look at all the baggage they have to carry!"
It's noteworthy, of course, that they don't ever say why Democrats would be any better, or what they would do differently. But in this context, the reason is that they don't want to offend anyone in their own party. The Democrats have the same problem as the Republicans; half their agenda offends half their base.
So, the ad-makers figured, keep it simple. Katrina. War. Culture of corruption. We got 'em right where we want 'em.
I think including Clinton was a mistake, however. Not that he isn't exciting and all that, but he's a man of the past. Where was Obama?
"I think including Clinton was a mistake, however. Not that he isn't exciting and all that, but he's a man of the past. Where was Obama?"
That juxtaposition implies that Obama is a man of the future to Clinton's man of the past, something I think is far from clear.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा