Not sure (0.00 / 0)

I'll keep repeating that I'm no advertising or political expert, but on a gut level I don't like the way that the ads BEGIN with the falsehood, momentarily suggesting it may be true, before debunking it.  Also, the McCain assertions are more easily digested than the explanations why they are false.

I don't know if there is a better way, though.

---

by: ThomasPaine @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 15:50:29 PM UTC

from robert greenwald re mccain lies (4.00 / 1)

the idea is exactly that. begin with the assertion and then you reveal the storyline. otherwise, if you start with mccain is a lying scumbag there is no place to go and no way to reach folks who may be uncertain.

---

by: robertgreenwald @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 18:05:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The end of the video was pretty good (0.00 / 0)

the first part only so-so.

I found it mostly a defensive piece that comes across, to me anyway, as somewhat whiny.  Almost a "look what he did" sort of approach.

I think that's what we should be staying away from.  Rather, take the second part using the clips of McCain being called out for lies and turn his lying against him.

An approach of "He's lying now about his opponent's record, how can we expect him not to lie later about Iran's nuclear capabilities as President?"  With the whole allusion to Bush and WMD and all I think something like this would be more effective.

Hit him on his lying, don't just point it out.

My two cents.

---

by: alffy @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 15:57:38 PM UTC

I Would Agree If It Was A 30-Second Ad (0.00 / 0)

But it's not. There's a different logic with a longer piece, and there's a reason why the second part is much more harsh.  The audience has been prepared for it.

That's what allows the intensity to build the way it does, without seeming over the top to folks who don't already know McCain the way we do.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 16:10:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I only watched the first 30 seconds (0.00 / 0)

because, well, I got interrupted and then assumed I had watched 90% of it anyway.

But actually, isn't that the way most people will encounter and watch it, by tuning out after 30-60 seconds? Maybe this depends on where it is aired.

---

by: ThomasPaine @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 16:13:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You don't need to prepare the audience (0.00 / 0)

this isn't a debate. it is also way too long. 30 or 60 seconds or else no one is looking anymore.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 16:14:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Going Viral With Half A Million Page Views? (0.00 / 0)

I don't think so.

A good rule of thumb: People don't pass on a link to something they don't even watch themselves.

It's very difficult for people to distinguish between their own particular responses--especially as high-info political junkies--and the responses of others.

And yes, I know you're a film-maker and try to think about how others will see things.  But the terrible track record of so many top Hollywood producers and executives is a stark testimony to how hard it is to really step outside your own skin.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 16:19:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, but how much of the video did those half million page viewers watch? (4.00 / 1)

I agree with Tom and rabbit on this.

I watched the whole thing, but only because I'm a political junkie.  If I had passed it on to my friends at work, who are all Obama supporters (we are Social Workers, afterall), I know maybe only one, at best, would have watched it all.

A short, 30 second blast, as if it were for TV airing, is all that is needed.  If the point can't be made in 30 seconds, it isn't a useful political point in the current atmosphere.

And turn it into a hit against McCain, not just a complaint!

---

by: alffy @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 16:36:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ae you trying to pass this on to people n the fence or the already decided? (0.00 / 0)

the audience matters is all I am saying and this wasn't produced with them in mind or how to manipulate their emotions.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 16:37:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It Would Be More Compelling (0.00 / 0)

If they used these lies to tie McCain to Bush. That, after all, is he mission statment of this campaign: McCain = Bush. Compare their lies.

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 16:07:36 PM UTC

yeap didn't link McCain to Bush (0.00 / 0)

and kept saying distortionr ather than lie. Kept waiting for the audience i guess to make the links. This is the problem with the messaging. They think peiople should figure it out just because they know the answer.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 16:16:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the main thing the campaign has to do (4.00 / 2)

is keep up the criticism every single day from now until the election. With criticism on the news and ads every day you raise doubts about McCain and you keep your campaign going. With criticism showing once and then disappearing people forget their doubts and McCain looks good again. That's what they're doing to us, we have to match and raise.

---

by: T Maysle @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 16:34:20 PM UTC

and (0.00 / 0)

the criticism has to raise doubts about McCain's ability to govern the country. Not criticism on issues and positions, that is different. Obama campaign has to raise doubts about McCain's ability to govern every day.

---

by: T Maysle @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 17:10:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Awesome video! (0.00 / 0)

This gives me hope.

---

by: KosherDutchAfro @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 17:41:14 PM UTC

Really? (0.00 / 0)

Do people really find this persuasive?  I mean, I know that he lies about all this stuff and I still found it pretty weak sauce.  I agree with the folks above who say it comes off as pretty whiny.  Quite a few of these are lowercase-l lies, the stuff you'd expect from any politician and I can't imagine people in the middle really getting upset about it.

The sex ed thing: it doesn't sound good that the "proof" is a liberal pundit literally reading the Obama campaign response.  They couldn't find a nonpartisan source on this?

The "tiny threat" is definitely a lowercase lie.  He did say it's tiny and "doesn't pose a serious threat."  Sure, there's context but honestly it doesn't really change things that much.

The visiting the troops thing.  The counter is "that's literally not true."  No further details, no explanation, no nothing.  It really just sounds like "they say, we say."

The lobbyist thing is really frustrating.  Yes of course he's got tons of lobbyist issues, but this is a classic case of it being possible for two things to be true at the same time.  You haven't proven his statement a lie to say that in other ways, he's actually really pro lobbyists.  Basically, the lobbyist thing is a useful attack, but it's just not effective in the context of this ad.

The oil drilling thing, sure, fine.  The various quotes from news sources calling him a liar. Fine

The definition of a lie at the end is corny.

All in all, it's pretty tedious.  I guess others disagree, but I can't see it.

---

by: Baldrick @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 18:52:25 PM UTC

Not Only That (0.00 / 0)

What's with Maddow's hair, anyway?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 19:03:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

To clarify (0.00 / 0)

Just to make it clear, I think the idea of this ad is good, and it's certainly better than nothing.  I just find the execution lacking.  Tightening some of these up, and getting in the tax cuts lie (the most important one, I think) would really help.

---

by: Baldrick @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 19:10:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]