I've said that I wanted to post more Obama ads and that the reason I haven't is that his ads haven't been very creative or much fun, like McCain. So someone sent me this one:
"They share... the same questionable ties to lobbyists." That line about made me think about this.
I liked the peppy music and the style of voice over. It seemed like a parody of a promo for a new TV show or movie, though, so it would have been funnier with a punchline, something like "You'll love this new show for the next four ... [channel flipping]... Vote for Barack Obama."
ADDED: For comparison, here's what McCain just put up:
३ सप्टेंबर, २००८
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६५ टिप्पण्या:
Questionable ties to lobbyists? I'll take Joe Biden's son for $2,000,000 please.
How can you talk about Obama's ads at a time like this, when the Republican vice presidential pick's daughter is 17 and got knocked up by a beefy hockey player?
Ann -- you forgot the label "lameness". That "McSame" meme is played out; and I think that the choice of Palin, the reformer, for veep really should put it to rest.
The question remains: Why, when Obama has the support of most of the talent in Hollywood, are Obama's ads so ineffective?
Pasta -- You rarely see effective ads for Jesus, either. How, really, do you do something so mundane as advertise for a world-historical light walker?
Lobbyists are in charge of McCain's campaign. They should hit harder on that fact and show a rogue's gallery of lobbyists running his show and contrast with McCain claiming he got rid of them all. Maybe that's in production.
I like it, though I think McCain-Palin may be worse than Bush-Cheney, hard as that is to believe. McCain wants to invade Iran, Syria and other countries and to ratchet up tensions with Russia.
Palin wants everybody to have babies but then Palin cut funding for teenage moms to find homes.
Ugh.
Yes, George W. Bush and John McCain are so much the same that John Kerry seriously considered McCain as a VP in 2004.
It's a good tactic, but that's all it is; a tactic.
Where does Alpha find all the energy to be so scared and frantic all the time? Ill tip, dude: put that energy into learning how to divine what is truth and what is propaganda.
I also like the vibe of this ad. It's playful.
Nawwww, C grade at best - the bouncy feely music won't do much for working stiffs but it may give pause for a few white collar workers sucking on the hind economic teat to wish a bit.....
Are these unimaginative ads a calculated strategy, to avoid appearing too slick?
Is this some sort of rope-a-dope, with a blindsiding series of clever, interesting, effective ads set to be released in October?
Or is my partisanship clouding my judgment, and these ads from Obama are actually quite effective?
Seven -- If Christianity needed to advertise, they could get the best production people on it and come up with brilliant, soaring, effective ads for Jesus. If Hollywood can entice millions of people to pay $12 for a ticket to "Snakes on a Plane", they can sell ice to an Eskimo (no offense to the Palins). I just don't understand why Obama's ads look like they were written and produced by...me, or someone like me, with no knowledge of how such things are done.
Maybe Obama is micromanaging these things and ruining them.
I absolutely love your blog, Ann. I find your viewpoint very insightful, and it has provided me with hours and hours of good reading.
Please don't ever stop.
Or is my partisanship clouding my judgment,
This is a question all should ask themselves before they hit publish.
Yeah, it's not like Obama or Biden have questionable ties to lobbyists. Of course, I guess Michelle isn't technically a lobbyist....
Madisonman -- is that the case then? Do you think that these ads are effective?
Are they as effective, in your opinion, as the last 3 or 4 McCain ads? Because those really seemed to hit Obama right in the walnuts.
If I were the Obama campaign, I would stay away from lobbyists and corruption. I'd especially stay away from trying to use either to attack McCain, of all people.
Then, I'm still waiting for any sign of intelligence from Obama or his campaign.
I see the line about corporate taxes, and I can't help but think about Fred Thompson's great line about how "...it's not going to affect you." from the convention last night.
Guess that means I'm not in the target audience for the Obama ad.
bjk -- that line from Fred was the highlight of the season for me. "We won't take your money, we'll take businesses' money; so, unless you buy groceries or gasoline or clothing from business, or receive a paycheck from a business, you'll be fine".
"We won't take water from your side of the bucket -- we'll take it from the other side of the bucket".
Good stuff, highlighting the shocking economic ignorance of Democrats. I think it was Chuck Schumer who was chairing some committee investigating why so many businesses pay no income tax; and he projected that if they could get those businesses to pay their "fair share", the government would gain something like $250 billion in revenue.
He arrived at this figure by taking the combined grosses of these companies and multiplying by 35 percent. One of his aides then explained to him the difference between "gross" and "net", and the fact that these companies don't pay taxes because they don't actually make a profit...and they adjourned their very important committee with a Gilda-Radneresque "Never mind".
And these are the people that want to tell us how to run our businesses, and want to control our economy.
Don't tax the people with jobs. Tax the people who create jobs. They'll just keep creating.
Right? Right?
RightWingProf, McCain has had his own problems with lobbyists over the years, although I'm too lazy to look it up. (And I'm not counting the Keating Five incidents or the story the NYTs made up earlier this year about McCain having an affair with a lobbyist.) The problem they have is that it will be hard for them to back up those claims with specifics without having the McCain campaign come back at them with specifics. Both sides are silling to sling some generic charges on this front, but neither will want to get into specifics.
I hate those dirty lobbyists. Except the ones who lobby for the causes I believe in. Those guys are different. They are honorable.
The lightness is refreshing. It might even draw added attention because of it. The tone reminds some me of Feingold's ad's during his first run.
Ann, your idea for a TV show parody trailer sounds much better than what they did.
Here's a Senate ad from Minnesota that creates a parody movie trailer in order to critique Norm Coleman.
pastafarian: Work deficit spending into the bucket analogy and then get back to me.
Peter -- Work cutting federal spending into the bucket.
What I don't get is how Obama's campaign has demonstrated his transcendence, his post-partisanship.
This is the same old campaign ad we've seen year in and year out (albeit with a different soundtrack). "Where's the beef?" so to speak.
Seven, cutting government spending means that we're taking water out of the bucket with a smaller dipper.
There. Now it's your turn.
Why a small dipper? Why got a ginormous ladle?
AngryLiberal-
Could you ask your wife to pick up some loose underwear for you? You're obviously suffering from Crushed Nuts Syndrome.
My employer blocks internet streaming so I literally can’t…
OMG... This is another Rove plot to prevent the American people from seeing the truth as streamed by the redeemed, the most high, the one and only, our savior Obama.
Nicely done, especially when McCain and Bush seem to be playing touch football to music in the "same failure to understand the economy" sequence.
But instead of the lame "we just can't afford more of the same" how about this tagline:
"McCain and Bush: Not the odd couple."
All the ads for both of these "candidates" should be done with
puppets.
this is 2008, not 2004
mccain himself said he votes with president 29% 90% of the time
also, for you "sandy burglar" types: http://harpers.org/archive/2008/09/hbc-90003489
This is 2008, not 2004, or 2000, or 1988, or 1984, or 1980, or 1972, or 1968. Or 1994, for that matter, when the Republicans swept into both legislatures. Or 1960, when NRA member and tax-cutter Kennedy won. Or 1952, or 1956. Please make a note of it, conservatives. Things are all different now.
Work deficit spending into the bucket analogy and then get back to me.
There's a hole in the bucket dear Liza, dear Liza.
Obama is not qualified to be President.
Being president is more than knowing an issue. It is running an executive branch. Most of the job is making decisions on matters that affect various parts of the government and how it is running. This inludes budget matters, making appointments, assessing results of your appointments, deesigning strategies of executing government policies, etc..
The best experience to have for such a job is being the Governor of a state. You do the same stuff, just on a smaller scale.
Maybe McCain can do it because he has been in the senate so long and has enough experience on the issues to equalize his inexperience on executing the laws.
Obama has never made an executive decision. The moment he gets in he will have to learn how to manage the government. It will be on-the-job training. If he is bad at governing it will be disasterous for our country.
In contrast, Sarah Palin will not need on-the-job training, she already knows how to govern. Moreover she has proven to be successful at it.
“I hate those dirty lobbyists". Except the ones who lobby for the causes I believe in.
What are senators and representatives... If not lobbyists?
ADDED: For comparison, here's what McCain just put up:
I think this is much better. Newt is great here. Clear, direct, right to the point without those lame studio voiceovers.
The Republicans need to get this clip out there. Relentlessly.
Entrenched financial (unions and others) and media interests are determined to drag Barack Obama's inexperienced, unaccomplished and unqualified carcass over the finish line. Right now it looks as though they may succeed.
ADDED: For comparison, here's what McCain just put up:
Remind me who's at the top of the (R) ticket again? I can't tell from that ad. :)
I found one big lie in the Obama ad. Bush lowered taxes on everyone, not just the rich. He repealed Bill Clinton's tax hike on the middle class; Clinton raised the withholding tax on us while telling the lie that he was only taxing the rich.
Bush lowered it. Working people had more money in their paychecks thanks to President Bush. So, Obama is now a proven liar. Hmmm, will the media viciously trash him now?
Robert said...
Questionable ties to lobbyists? I'll take Joe Biden's son for $2,000,000 please.
How about Joe Biden himself. He is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the Delaware Corporations.
...as opposed to the corporations from the other states, all six of them.
AlphaLiberal said...
Lobbyists are in charge of McCain's campaign.
And who is in charge of Obama's campaign? Special interests and lobbyists. WHo are you kidding here. Obama's and the Democratic Party list would be so long it would crash servers.
I see you continue try to prove stuff by linking to partisan hacks. Man you are something.
The Obama ad has some cuteness, but it's just more of the same.
MM: The McCain message is not confusing- by understating McCain they effectively say what Team Obama dare not say. Have you noticed anything about Biden lately?
I seriously question Obama's media skills. One would think that after last week, some serious change would have been taken place.
They're doing it again. It just doesn't occur to Obama and crew that maybe they shouldn't bring up things they're guilty of. Ed at HotAir:
"Are Obama’s people actually coming after Palin on pork? After Captain Earmark tried to stuff his fat face with federal money last year and voted — together with Biden — not to shift the money for the bridge to nowhere to Katrina relief?"
Gawwd, the Palin thing is no better - do they both secretly torture cats in the privacy of their basements at night??
I'm John McCain, and I couldn't afford a better photoshop editor.
chickenlittle: One of my very first comments re: Palin (Sarah) was Beware the VP that outshines the President. I stand by that comment.
At some point, McCain will have to talk. That is when everyone will shake themselves and think Oh yeah. We have to vote for him too. How many will be happy with that thought?
I wondered about the "most liberal senator" claim, which appears in the McCain ad. The national journal (whatever that is) posted the data for Hillary and Barack. Barack was deemed the most liberal while Hillary was the 17th most liberal. The difference was two votes out of 99.
And one of the two votes was to create a Senate office of public integrity, that would investigate ethics complaints against Senators. Apparently integrity is one liberal issue that Hillary doesn't share.
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/votes.htm
pasta: That "McSame" meme is not played out -- it is evergreen, like the "tax and spend Democrats" is for the Republicans. Did you like the Bush White House? "Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?" Four more years! Four more years!
MM said: At some point, McCain will have to talk. That is when everyone will shake themselves and think Oh yeah. We have to vote for him too. How many will be happy with that thought?
Well not everybody. I was for McCain even before Palin, but now I wish I lived in Chicago so that I could vote twice. The polls haven't moved much (yet), so I guess I'm not the only one thinking that way.
Given the fact that GWB has spanked the Dems and whoever they put up against him, winning everything at each and every turn, a record number of voters turning out and voting for him the last time he ran, and besting them on everything they try to do in Congress, I'm thinking this whole "same" meme is poorly thought out on Team Obama's part. They should be trying to sell, WE'RE the same, NOT McCain, he's too different. That's the winning ticket.
The odd fact about Governor Palin is that she is both for drilling and has "taken on big oil."
When most democrats talk about taking on big oil it is code for being against more drilling.
However, Palin has taken on big oil and is for more drilling - a lot more drilling. Generally, this appears hypocritical, but she can actually prove it through her record. In contrast, Obama has done the opposite. He says he is against big oil, but then voted to give them tax breaks (a bil McCain voted against) and isn't for any more drilling.
Lets hope Palin shows this difference in tonight's speech.
Goesh: Long time no see! Hope you and yours are well and happy.
"Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?"
Yes, by quite a bit. I'm also better off than I was four years ago. (While my 401k is down from a year ago, I just got a raise, so I'd say it's a wash for the past year.)
There goes Alphaliberal's perverted mind again.
They should be trying to sell, WE'RE the same, NOT McCain, he's too different. That's the winning ticket.
You think so? Then why don't McCain's ads show him embracing Bush? It may have something to do with Bush's approval rating, which was down to 28% back in July, before the WaPo stopped caring.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2006/02/02/CU2006020201345.html
a record number of voters turning out and voting for him the last time he ran
However, Bush's victory margin (approximately 3 million votes) was the smallest of any sitting president since Harry S. Truman in 1948, according to wikipedia. Moreover, increasing population meant a record number of voters turned out and voted for Kerry as well. Note that at the time of the election, Bush's approval numbers were within striking distance of 50%. They have declined throughout his second term.
former law student said...
…"Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?" Four more years! Four more years!
Most definitely yes. Thanks to Bush repealing the Clinton tax hike on the middle class and lowering taxes, especially the with holding tax that Clinton raised, I have more of my money to spend, save, invest, or waste, instead of giving it to the government to throw into the useless vortex of government failure.
The only way a ticket with Obama/Biden's record on the subject of lobbyists would dare run this ad is if they were fully confident that the media was so deeply in the pockets (and perhaps other places) that there was no danger of being exposed for the incredible hypocrites they are.
That is when everyone will shake themselves and think Oh yeah. We have to vote for him too. How many will be happy with that thought?
I'm quite happy with that thought. I wasn't going to vote for anyone for President this year, but with the addition of a conservative on the ticket with whom I agree on most issues, I will vote for McCain. The fact that she is a female is just icing on the cake.
I was having coffee today with a liberal economist friend of mine, and he tries to sign me up to work for the Obama campaign.
As much as I despise George Bush, I;m not ready to go to the other side yet.
(I almost said go to the dark side, but this isn't Star Wars and that comment be misinterpretted.)
Why, when Obama has the support of most of the talent in Hollywood, are Obama's ads so ineffective?
For the same reason Bush comes from a business background, and has been wholly unsuccessful in advertising his programmes to the American people: timing and imagination.
Another thing is that Obama is a man who has had the misfortune of having record three major opponents in this election:
2 Women
1 Elderly Man
Not exactly people you can beat up to a bloody pulp.
Cheers,
Victoria
Empty words from an empty suit. If BHO didn't realize Kentucky and Illinois shared a long border, I wonder if he even can find Alaska on a map. The MSM response is classic Chicago politics.
The Obama ad isn't saying anything new. It's not terribly clever. I suppose it will work well enough, though. The McCain = Bush thing seems to be the Dems big message and a lot of people are open to that. Still, a large part of the reason that McCain isn't more popular is that he has a long history of running for office and is a very well known personality. With the exception of young people, it will be hard to reach people who don't *already* have an opinion about him.
The McCain ad blatantly sets the Republican VP candidate against the Democrat Presidential candidate... something the Dems (at least the foot-soldiers) seem prone to do anyway. It can only work in the Republicans favor to emphasize that.
And yes, McCain will have to speak eventually... though he has been almost compulsively staging Town Hall forums and what not. I don't think he's dreading the debates with Obama at all.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा