A Bush/McCain Video We Can Believe In

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 20:07


bruhrabbit recommended this video:

I think this is the most effective long ad- that can be reduced to as horter ad I've seen in quite a while. To the point, and brutal.

Is there anyway that Open LEft or the other A list bloggers can push this out there?

See what you think:

And compare it to my thoughts on the flip.

Paul Rosenberg :: A Bush/McCain Video We Can Believe In
Obviously, what seems strongest about this video is close echoing between Bush and McCain, not just saying similar things, but virtually identical things, and often in eerily similar ways.  This immediately made me think of Shawn Rosenberg's description of "sequential thinking", which I've written about both here and at MyDD on various occassions since 2005.  Rosenberg (no relation) described a 3-fold typology of adult reasoning:

  • Sequential thinkers reason "by tracking the world," recognize regularities in sequences of events, but have no abstract understanding of cause and effect.  The world they perceive is a world of appearances that has very little organization to it beyond the recurrence of sequences.

  • Linear thinkers understand cause and effect, limited to a one-direction, one-cause/one-effect model.  The world they perceive has logical order and structure, but the structure is invariably hierarchical, causality flows top-down, and the world is divided neatly into cause and effect.

  • Systematic thinkers understand multi-faceted, multi-linear cause and effect, with mutual cause-and-effect relationships between different elements.  The world they perceive is primarily a world of systems and relationships, rather than objects.

One doesn't need to make any cause/effect connections to get the point of this video.  The repeated appearance of similar, nearly identical statements by the two men binds them together in a manner much more fundamental than any kind of logical argument could.

A couple of other points Rosenberg makes about sequential reasoning are also relevant here:

  • Sequential thinking involves conceptual relations that "are synthetic without being analytic.  They join events together but the union forged is not subject to any conceptual dissection." Because such relations are non-rational, there is nothing rational one can say or do to change them.

  • But they can change, Rosenberg explains, based on changing appearances. These relationships "are mutable," they can either be extended, based on "share[d] recognized overlapping events" or changed, when the sequence does not play out as expected.  Because it is a pre-logical mode of thought, "the relations of sequential thought engender expectations, but do not create subjective standards of normal or necessary relations between events."

Usually these work against us, and in favor of the right.  But this video very effectively takes advantage of simple association in a way that clicks with the sequential thinker, even as it may stimulate more informed and reflective thinkers to bring additional considerations to bear.  The simple fact that the appearances of the two men track so closely over and over and over again makes this video almost a textbook example of how to speak to the sequential thinkers of the world, taking full advantage of the fact that the relationships between objects and/or actors is mutable, and all the efforts to distance McCain from Bush can effectively be erased by sufficient exposure to a video like this.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Great idea, but... (0.00 / 0)
...this is what Obama has been doing for months. People have heard the message. Yet as of today, fivethirtyeight.com has the race at M 289.8, O 248.2.

We just have to face the fact that millions of voters don't give a shit about issues or facts.

Other than going really negative, I don't see how we can win this election. I just don't think things have changed all that much since 2004. And Obama's year-long insistence on staying positive restricts what he can do tactically.


I Don't See That At All (4.00 / 4)
...this is what Obama has been doing for months.

Huh???

This is a direct visual presentation. This is not talking about similarities.  This is presenting moving pictures of virtually identical statements and actions.

It's show vs. tell.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
I've Seen Plenty (4.00 / 1)
I'm pretty sure I've seen TV ads where it flashes McCain and Bush together. I think I've seen a few of them actually.

Honestly, I think the attack of McCain sucks because he's like Bush has kind of fizzled out. It might be time to try: McCain sucks because he's McCain.


[ Parent ]
It's not the same (4.00 / 4)
A still picture up on the screen for one second is not the same as the two repeating the same words together in unison, over and over again, for the entirety of a fifteen, thirty, or sixty-second ad.

People hate Bush. They largely do not hate McCain. Obama has not effectively tied Bush to McCain. This video does.


[ Parent ]
You've seen plenty of intelllectual discussion of it (4.00 / 3)
in which you have to fill in the blanks. You as a political junkie who is willing to do that. Now, put yourself in the place of a busy blue collar worker taking care of their children- who only has 30 seconds or maybe a minute for you to distill all of the intellectualty into the gut. How do you do that? This video, IMO, starts that task. It does what Obama seems constitutionally and apparently minute Dems in the leadership of doing. Using the manipulation and techniques of the media to get at the deeper truth that your dissertation would require hours to explain.

[ Parent ]
... and the dissertation will never get there. (4.00 / 1)
I appreciate how Paul (as an intellectual) and bruhrabbit have been able to transcend their own knowledge and get to the gut reaction. This is smart. Not yet as smart as Rove, but still, very smart.

[ Parent ]
aka (0.00 / 0)
Learning to communicate.

[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 3)
You're expressing a thought that most of us here have had at some point, at least once, over the last few months. I'll give you that.

But otherwise, no, this is wrong. Now is not the time for pessimism, it really isn't. The bounce has started to fade -- not as dramatically and as quickly as any of us would prefer, but fade it has nonetheless. Obama has begun to fight back a bit harder and a bit more often. Again, not as hard and as quickly and consistently as many of us here would like, but a positive change nonetheless. And the media has turned pretty strongly against McCain. Once again, not as strongly, consistently and quickly as anybody here would prefer, but good enough for MSM work.

Throw your hands up in despair in a week if the polls haven't moved further but not until then, please. It takes a little time for bounces to fade and for things like this to show up in the polls. I've got a feeling that all of the above are going to start chipping pretty hard into McCain's numbers. Not as much as any of us would prefer, no doubt, but enough to get those 538 numbers to do an aboutface back to the default position given the fundamentals, I expect.


[ Parent ]
Wrong (0.00 / 0)
Like it or not, we're already committed to a message on McCain: That he's a continuation of Bush (and that, as corollaries of that, he's out of touch, and he represents the past rather than the future - but both of those are tied to tying him to Bush).

Using current "how would you vote today?" poll numbers as predictors of the election is foolish and unwarranted, but even if we were to grant that and pretend those numbers mean what you pretend they mean, that in no way recommends an attempt to shift to a brand new message: down that path likes certain defeat.

So, given your pessimism/cynicism (unwarranted IMO, but I'm granting it), what you should be thinking of is how to more effectively make the message work.  This video suggests a way to do that.  You suggest... what?  I can't tell.  "going negative" how?


[ Parent ]
Onto something but not there yet (4.00 / 1)
There are quite a few ads out there that do this same juxtaposition of McCain and Bush but do it better. From a production standpoint, this ad is a mess. Long, disjointed, sloppy. For example, it begins with that stupid Bushism, suggesting that there will be a comparable McCain example but, then, nothing. The subject changes. I actually had to stop watching about 3/4 of the way through out of boredom.

My recommendation is to go back into the editing room and tighten it up. Your point here is that McCain=Bush. Should be easy to fix.


Just cut out the slow/silent bits (4.00 / 1)
I haven't seen anything out there that does it as effectively (in the fast-moving portions) as this ad. And nothing from the Obama campaign has been anywhere near it.

[ Parent ]
Maybe The Obama Campaign Hasn't Made This Ad Yet Because... (0.00 / 0)
Maybe the Obama campaign hasn't made this ad yet because this ad employs such obvious techniques of propaganda. This ad is like a cartoon version of a political ad. It's not very good.

[ Parent ]
Sort of Like The Swiftboat Ads (4.00 / 3)
This ad is like a cartoon version of a political ad. It's not very good.

Or Willie Horton.

Cartoons. Heh!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
it's the fact you are highbrow and obama's need to be the same (4.00 / 2)
that's hurtign him. Not everyone is intellectual. Some people like cartoons. Some like to watch Shakespeare. Yet you  must convince both types of people to vote for you.

[ Parent ]
Although actually, (0.00 / 0)
Shakespeare knew this, too. He always had plenty of slapstick and gore to go along with the poetry and philosophical musings. Something for everyone.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
the last 30 seconds of this video (0.00 / 0)
(minus the final tagline) IS an ACTUAL Obama campagin ad.
Right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

[ Parent ]
see what I say below (0.00 / 0)
esentially the last part isn't the scary part. It's the bringing it back up from the gut to the head part. Voters need to see the gut part that scares them about what a McCain Presidency will look like.

[ Parent ]
It Goes Without Saying That This Is Roughly Edited (4.00 / 2)
That wasn't the point.  It was the effectiveness of the multiple juxtapositions.  I haven't seen anything as strong as the strong parts of this ad.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Strong (0.00 / 0)
I have to ask; how did you reach this assessment of "strong?" Did you commission a focus group? Did you do any intensive psychological testing on how people respond to this ad?

Or did you go with your gut?

For people involved in the "reality based community," when it comes to What Obama Is Doing Wrong Today, we go with our gut an awful lot.


[ Parent ]
reality based? (4.00 / 3)
 are you serious? the hard hitting commercals obama put out yesterday was a) about obama talking rather than showing (first mistake of visuals- you don't talk, you show) and b) an ad about how mccain is out of touch because he doesn't know the internet.

So let m ask you your question back- in what reality based world does this approach hitting someone in the emotional gut?  


[ Parent ]
Who Cares? (0.00 / 0)
What I'm saying is, I don't think your Grand Unified Theory Of Gut Hitting is based in anything other than speculation and anecdote. Does it even matter if a commercial "hits you in the gut?"

[ Parent ]
you know you seem to want to make up arguments and argue against that (0.00 / 0)
my point was not what you wrote. good luck.

[ Parent ]
Umm, isn't it your gut (0.00 / 0)
that tells you what hits you in the gut?

Gut is not the opposite of reality-based. It is merely another source of information.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
We can tell that it hits us in the gut. Does it hit them in the gut? I have no clue.

Even if it does, does it matter?


[ Parent ]
Yes, it does matter (4.00 / 1)
Emotional appeal is one of the most critical components of effective advertising. There have been studies done that show that inferior products often sell better through strong marketing, marketing that leans to the emotional appeal.

Just as a good speech is not purely intellectual but also is emotive, an effective ad needs to "hit them in the gut."

Many voters are less rational and more emotional and all humans are somewhat emotional.  


[ Parent ]
The Daily Show uses it all the time. (4.00 / 1)
A picture is worth a thousand words, which is why it has to be McCain and Bush saying it - not someone saying they do.  Add in a laugh track (figuratively), and they become laughable as well as liars.

I think Obama needs to call a spade a spade (please, don't go there)and take McCain on in short and plain English.  The high road is where they want him because it leaves the muck free for them to travel unimpeded.   Roseanne Barr took Fund down on Real Time without breaking a sweat.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  


[ Parent ]
You are missing the point (4.00 / 5)
I pointed out the ad not because it was the finish product, but because it's a great idea that connects. The idea of a great short ad is there. From the bizzare way  in which Bush and McCain parrot each other in word choice to their policy similarities.

It's also meant an audience that is not a political junkie set, but instead low information voters who will decide mostly on emotions. The reason this works is that it tells them in no uncertain terms- bush=mccain. It's not intellectual.

Finally, I choose it precisely because it's something that Democrats constitutionally seem to have a problem with doing. Commercials aren't about the mind, they are about the heart. What you feel. What you desire. What scares you. That's all you can do in such a short time. You can't present the dissertation.

The value of this isnt that the production values are exactly right or the length- the value is the idea of what I am saying when I say Obama's commercials are in effective. Name one commercial by his team that captures emotions for a low information voter. Demonstrate to me how it does that without referencing yourself. That's what I was hoping Paul and others would underestand here. It's not about us. It's about the low information voter who isn't interested in reasoning. They are interested in emotional connection.  


[ Parent ]
Agreed. (4.00 / 1)
I'd love to see this ad edited down to 60 seconds.

[ Parent ]
but bruh, (0.00 / 0)
the last 30 seconds of this video (minus the final tagline) IS an ACTUAL Obama campagin ad.
It's right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

[ Parent ]
I Think Most Of Us Realized That Even Before The First Time It Was Pointed Out (4.00 / 1)
And that's not the part that's effective.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
well, there's no evidence of that (0.00 / 0)
and yes, I understand that the Obama ad is tell vs. show. I wasn't defending it, I was just pointing it out.

As I say below, the only useful parts of the video are the audio clips, and the way they will constitute the hardest punch to the gut is to play them as pairs, without any distracting moving images or text, just a simple shot of the White House. Then at the end, either text or a narrator says this:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

New Priorities. New Leadership. New Vision.

For the Change We Need.


[ Parent ]
Aesthetically I Like Your Version (4.00 / 2)
But to actually win the election, you've got to see Bush's mug and McCain's mug as they mouth their words.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
no. (4.00 / 1)
we've seen them so much we're supersaturated. And that approach is just so standard. This is non-standard, new. It's not an aesthetic choice, it's only to do with effectiveness. The ad will have much more shock power without their faces, and the viewer will pair up the disembodied voices much more closely from having to listen to identify the different voices--which is not hard at all, but still a task this ad forces the viewer/listener to engage in.

This paring down of imagery, narrowing of focus, instantly signals we're in a new, and final, phase here. It raises the profile of the message above the baseline ad noise.


[ Parent ]
To me the last 30 seconds are okay (4.00 / 3)
but it's not scary. It intellectualizes the choice between Obama and McCain rather than making it an emotional one. If you read the polls out of Ohio, the chief concern of voters is that while they agree with Obama (their words) they have a gut level connection to McCain (again their words). Intellectulizing it will not break that bound. Again what I am advocating here is use of emotions, not intellect. To me, that occurs with the men using their own voices and saying the same things and having tha tover lap. That would be a far more emotionally effective commercial.  

[ Parent ]
It's Actually NOT Emotional Though (4.00 / 2)
What works for me is that the ad itself is not emotional, but presentational--aka 'experiential'.  It shoves your nose right in it.  The emotion then comes from within, in response to the experience.

I assume you know this, and it might seem like just a paper-thin intellectual distinction, but for me it's vital.  It's not connecting with the heart, really.  It's connecting with the gut.  You want to make people physically ill at the sight of McCain the way they're physically ill at teh sight of Bush.  That's the ultimate objective here.

Does this ad do that?  Not by itself, maybe.  But as you say elsewhere, it starts the process.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
I'm still not convinced (0.00 / 0)
that the McCain=Bush argument has any legs.

I just haven't seen any evidence that people either accept the premise or that it has an effect on their decision.  I think the Obama camp pushing this is about as effective as McCain pushing the experience argument: polling hasn't supported its continued use (hence McCain's change in tactics).

I think it is better to hit McCain more directly.  Call him on his lies and contradictions.  This will have a direct effect on voters (I think) and not rely on an association, which is easily contradicted (all McCain has to do is show a few areas of separation from Bush and the equal sign is no longer valid).

I'm optimistic with the recent turn of the campaign.  The media is starting to push back on McCain/Palin lies and Obama has tried to pile on (new ads, website and press releases all work over McCain on his faults, not Bush's).


[ Parent ]
Personally (0.00 / 0)
 I am kind of not interested in what convinces you since the polls have discussed much of wha tyou say there is no evidence of.

[ Parent ]
So You Paid No Attention To What I Wrote (0.00 / 0)
Not surprising, really.

I don't expect folks to agree with me.  But at least notice that there's an argument up there as well as a video.

So I'm thinking, why bother explaining what's wrong with your argument, since you won't read that either?

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Uhmm, I don't recall ever saying I don't read your posts (0.00 / 0)
As a matter of fact I try to read them all.  I generally like what you have to say, although I don't always agree with it.  And if you are referring to your original post here, I have no contention with it, merely with tactics in this campaign.

I realize there is an argument in that video, a good one too (I like it).  My contention is that I think the McCain=Bush line works best on people like us, that have a visceral reaction to all things Bush.  I think, Paul, your posts make good points on how this video/line of attack works on us.

Problem I have with that line of argument is that at one time Bush had near (if not) 70% popularity in this country.  He is down to his hard-core supporters now, but many of the people we are trying to convince with the McCain=Bush line have been supporters of Bush (and possibly voted for him) in the past.  Hence they may be open to linking their previous high regard for McCain (I believe even Chris has indicated that McCain has been the most popular politician in the land) to what they liked about Bush in the past.

And bruhrabbit, I'm not sure what polls you are referring to.  I say there is no evidence of the McCain=Bush line working as it is being used (not as forcefully as in the video, admittedly) by the Obama campaign and the recent polling has turned south on them, so I deduce that the tactic isn't working (similarly the McCain experience argument needed to be dropped for the polls to turn in his favor).


[ Parent ]
If You Read This Post (0.00 / 0)
then you'd know my argument that the ads aren't about argument, and you wouldn't have been talking about a premise.

That was my point. Bush=McCain as it's presented here is simply a matter of identification.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Ok, we were just on different pages (0.00 / 0)
I did see that, and went on to argue tactics.

I don't mean to ignore your presentation, just was thinking of how it applies to the audience (or voters).

Anyway, we are all on the same team here.  We might not agree about the what, the where or the how of things, but we all do agree that John McCain, President of the USA, is a bad thing.


[ Parent ]
The lies are the same (0.00 / 0)
It's actually a good theme that entails both ideas.

[ Parent ]
It's not an argument, it's a message (0.00 / 0)
Obama's message on McCain is this:

McCain is a continuation of Bush,
- therefore, McCain is about the past, no the future
- therefore, McCain is out of touch with the real world
If you don't like Bush anymore, you don't want McCain either.

It's a versatile message that:
- draws a clear contrast between Obama and McCain (past vs. future, continuity vs. change)
- hooks into what people already think/know/feel about the Bush presidency
- allows Obama to address most of the issues he wants to address, especially on the economy and foreign policy, keeping it all tied into one message.

Now, maybe you could've come up with a better, more powerful, more versatile, more contrastive message to use on McCain.  You haven't suggested such a message here that I've seen, but maybe you could've.  It doesn't matter.

We are committed now to the message Obama already chose.  Attempting to change message this late in the process would only result in a muddled non-message, leaving millions of voters on election day with no clear impression of what the reason not to vote for McCain is.  It's too late.  At this point, the only way to win is to work within the message that has already been used for months and that so much money and press has been invested in.


[ Parent ]
The McSame theme (0.00 / 0)
I agree that the campaign should not totally abandon the McSame theme but it's reaching a saturation point.

They need to put a new spin on it. Take the emphasis off Bush and put more on McCain with a direct attack, including on McCain's judgment (or lack thereof).

More importantly, Obama needs to dumb it down. Use some colloquial slogans to attack. Ones that blue collar guys in bars would react to with a "hell yeah!"

Obama has secured his base and now needs to grab at least half of those more moderate voter that would consider voting for McCain.  


[ Parent ]
"but it's reaching a saturation point." (0.00 / 0)
When committed supporters and political activitists start complaining that they've heard the same thing waaaaay too many times from a candidate or campaign, that's when you know that a good chunk of the general public has maybe heard it once already.

Obama campaign: keep on saturating!


[ Parent ]
The Obama ad which is shown (0.00 / 0)
at the end of that video seems like pretty close to the embodiment of the kind of ad the collective OL consciousness seems to prefer, yet I've seen little mention of it.

I wonder if the Bush Administration regaining some semblance of sanity (or at least not coming up with new insanities) in its final months is impairing efforts to defeat McCain by tying him to Bush. Maybe the message should be that McCain would be worse than Bush, views too extreme for even the Bush Admin, etc.


Zbigniew Brzezinski agrees with you (0.00 / 0)
that McCain would be worse than Bush. He gave that opinion when he was on Morning Joe a day or two ago.

[ Parent ]
The Economic Part Is Pretty Devastating (0.00 / 0)
Splice it with Dubya butchering the "Fool me once" phrase and carpet bomb the Midwest with it until election day.

yeah the video is awful (4.00 / 2)
but the material is perfect--the audio material.

The ad should have no text, no music, no video clips. Just the audio of 4 or 5 of the identical statements from McCain and Bush, played over a shot of the White House. With some slight ambient noise to make it more real.

Either a static shot like this:

Or a zoom like this:

As you say, the sequential thinking does the entire job. You gotta get out of its way.


But without their faces (4.00 / 1)
will people even know who's talking, and why it matters?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
yes, I believe so (0.00 / 0)
I think the power of the disembodied voices will be key to its effectiveness, as I wrote in a reply above.

But you and Paul do have a point. Another way to do it would be to put up side by side photos of McCain and Bush, play their alternating audio clips, then cut for several seconds to a photo of the White House, and run the final text/narration I detail above, fading into a photo of Obama and Biden:




[ Parent ]
Like it (0.00 / 0)
The harmonic and phrasing similarities are good.

The Mr. T stuff has to go.  And it doesn't need to say "more of the same" as many times.

Ending on the fool me once bit is fine though - put a clip of McCain saying he's so different ahead of it.

Someone called this "propaganda" - to which I would take the exception that it is substantively true that John McCain would continue or make worse the Bush policies which are most problematic.  It's not like we're drumming up some trivial similarities in an undeserved fashion.  


Of COURSE It's Propaganda! (0.00 / 0)
prop·a·gan·da
n.

  1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
  2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
  3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.

Sheesh!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Paul- if you agree this approach or idea is effective as a techinque (0.00 / 0)
are there any organizations that are 527s such as Moveon of which you have any friends ? I don't know people like that. So this is why I put the spot light on this to you. So that others can start to see what has been missing from the campaign on a visual level. By the way, Planned Parent Hood also has a great ad out there that I really like about the sexual predator chararacter issue for McCain.

[ Parent ]
I Don't Directly (0.00 / 0)
But I assume that some of the people I know have friends like that, so I'll call their attention to it.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
that's cool (4.00 / 1)
The only thing I will add is what I said over at Talk Left:

Namely,  I wish Obama would start focusing, and if he is please let me know, these sorts of commercials in the swing states with rural voters and exurban areas.

The basic ideas is that a) they maybe cheaper markets and b) they are the places where he may not win, but he can reduce his l oses or make it close enough to win through the numbers he will probaly wrack up in the more expensive urban media markets. To me, the more expensive markets are actually showing these sorts of things to the already persuaded, but airing them with McCain's supposed strength in a way that speaks to them rather than intellectuals would help him a l ot. But that's just gut instinct.

I wish someone would get other orgs - any 527s to do this, even if obama doesn't such as Move on, etc.

Anyway, I got to go out. Oh, and yes, it's still not as emotional as it could be. It's just the idea of that I like.


[ Parent ]
I'm The One! (0.00 / 0)
I'm the one who called it propaganda. Of course it's propaganda!

My issue with it isn't that it's propaganda, it's that it's so obviously propaganda that anyone with an operating bull shit detector will immediately ignore it.

Then again, maybe we're not trying to win over people with operating bull shit detectors anymore. Maybe we just have to win over the easily impressed drooling idiots.


[ Parent ]
ok, reasonable point (4.00 / 1)
I think stripping the Mr. T bits might help with that.   The synchronicity between Bush and McCain without all the obvious partisan jabs would make the point loud and clear without tripping those alarms I think.


[ Parent ]
Anyone With An Operating Bullshit Detector Is ALREADY With Us (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
The Daily Show (0.00 / 0)
The comparison sequence taken from the Daily Show is by far the best part of that video.  I'd start with that clip, rather than this one, and maybe add in the clips (which I've seen all over) of McCain himself arguing that he agrees with Bush on virtually everything.

Since a lot needs to be chopped off (0.00 / 0)
They could just go with that as the main section.

[ Parent ]
Extract the good parts (4.00 / 1)
The 40 seconds from 1:08 to 1:48 are good (though I could do without the techno remix of "fundamentals...are strong").  The rest is really pretty bad.  "McSame" is just so silly.  I can't imagine anyone finding that persuasive.

The important thing to remember is that it's bad for McCain if he's the same as Bush in ways that people don't like.  Just pointing out that they use the same phrases isn't useful unless it demonstrates a more basic point.  That's why I like that middle 40 seconds.  


If all the silliness was taken out (0.00 / 0)
And just the eerie echoing effect was left in - especially ditching the end part that sounds like official campaigning - then I would be willing to fund getting that on the air.  Maybe Get FISA right would be willing to run it through SaysMeTV?

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net




Sorry for being a semi-troll, but... (0.00 / 0)
I don't know if this was already stated, but, while effective, this ad is boring as hell.

Faster, man. Let's squeeze 10 near-exact quotes together in less than a minute. That would be truly effective.


Disqualify McCain on his own merits (0.00 / 0)
Bushism and more of the same is an element of the case -- it's not a silver bullet. We should stop focusing on it as such.

There's ample ammunition -- the constant lies, being a lobbyist/insider's best friend, unsound judgment, Palin's cronyism/corruption/unfitness projected onto McCain, fake maverick etc. -- to disqualify McCain with the voters on his own merit.

Right now it's important to keep the focus on McCain's lying and use it vehicle disqualify him more broadly: To impeach his character, to paint him as a typical career politician who'll say anything to get elected, to argue he's changed and isn't a straight talking maverick, question how can a typical lying politician bring change, etc.

Obama, 527 and surrogates must keep on this -- the press alone will not stay on this unless the Obama forces keep it at the forefront of the discourse. The McCain campaign clearly knows that the press alone won't sink them:

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said this to the Politico about the increased media scrutiny of the campaign's factual claims: "We're running a campaign to win. And we're not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it."

We need to stay on this, day after day, week after week, until it defines and disqualifies McCain, his character, his candidacy and everything he tries to accomplish.

Health care reform = Employer payroll savings = More hiring and more jobs!


Go against the GOP (0.00 / 0)
The entire campaign needs to be more expansive.  Obama and the Dems should be running against the GOP and McCain, not just McCain.  Stick McCain to Bush directly, but harness him to the GOP too.  

The end should say, "John McCain and the Republican Party, the more they talk about change, the more they stay the same."  Barack Obama and the Democratic Party will get things done for America's families.

You could then customize it with a few clips of Norm Coleman repeating himself, or Liddy Dole, or whoever.

Mr T has to go.  Also McSame.


Wrong Frame (0.00 / 0)
The McCain attraction is the same WASP (white, anglo-saxon protestant) framing that was used by Bush I and II (and every other president until now).

The people that Palin is explicitly appealing to are afraid that their three centuries of cultural and demographic domination may be drawing to a close.

Bush represents a failed champion of their ideals, not a failure of their cause. McCain/Palin are the next round promising to do the job better.

Tying McCain to Bush doesn't make McCain weaker for these people, it makes him stronger. It reinforces their ideas that they still need such a leader, just one that will be more effective. Bush pretended to be a member of the religious right, but they have come to realize that this was all talk and little action.

Palin really is a member of the religious right and makes up for McCain's lack of religion.

Tying McCain to Bush will strengthen the resolve of those who are worried about foreign policy and economics to see Obama get elected, but I doubt there are many undecided who fall into the class of people who have been following the issues closely.

Whatever "undecideds" remain, are the people that will vote based upon pure emotion. Unfortunately most of that emotion is based upon dislike of the "other", especially minorities, intellectuals and "liberals".

Obama needs to get out the vote of those who are more progressive, but haven't participated in elections for whatever reason. That's a big task.

Policies not Politics


You're Right About The Base (0.00 / 0)
And you've said it well.

But that bell has already rung.

This is about isolating the base.  And I don't think you're as clear when talking about that.  Of course Obama needs to GOTV the progressive vote.  But he needs to do more as well.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
expertise (0.00 / 0)
I have absolutely no expertise in running campaigns. I belong to the "liberal elite" who is out of touch with the needs of the average person (unlike, say McCain or Bill O'Reilly).

So, I stay away from offering advice or even opinions (mostly).

I'm afraid that unacknowledged racism will be a stronger force than economic dissatisfaction and since most elections are decided by 1-2% that may make the difference.

There is nothing a candidate can do to overcome racism, people don't change, all that happens is a new generation comes along with different attitudes. In the US, for the past 30+ years, that has meant less racist, less religious, but still not "progressive" in the big areas of foreign policy or corporatism.

Try this video:

You can see by the women's affect who their candidate will be even before he asks the question. These are the people who should be supporting progressive economic policies, but even after all the years since "What's the Matter with Kansas?" they haven't changed.

Policies not Politics


[ Parent ]
Not quite. (0.00 / 0)
Parts of the video do break through the standoffish feel that too much of the campaign puts out. But it's nowhere near done -- really no more than a concept. It hammers the McSame stuff too hard and in the wrong places. It's obviously chaotic, the audio is awful. It has no emotional buildup. That's not a knock, just an acknowledgment that at this point it's basically a scrapbook of ideas, not a video. It could be speeded up, pared way down, and turned into an effective propaganda piece.

However, I don't think it remedies the greatest deficit in the campaign so far: it doesn't tell people why it's so bad that McCain is just another Bush. I've come to realize that Dems/liberals have a real blind spot on that score. They/we want to believe that everybody despises Bush the way we do, that nothing more need be said. I mean, the polls agree, right? But the polls say "disapprove", not despise, not hate. I think most, or near-most Americans see Bush as a failure, but not necessarily bad or even wrong in his principles and beliefs. It's not enough to say McCain is like Bush, because a lot of people are gonna say, "but he's not Bush, so he might do the job better, and he has more experience/isn't black/is nice/reminds me of gramps.

If Obama is to win the way he should, he and/or his allies must make a three-way connection: Bush - consequences of Bush - McCain. Bush let the banks run wild, and now xxxmillions of Americans are losing everything they ever had. McCain says he'll keep doing what Bush did.

Bush lied about Iraq and sent 4000 young Americans to needless deaths, along with a million Iraqi civilians. McCain wants to escalate the war and stay in Iraq for a hundred years.

Bush turned America into a country that tortures and then lies about it. McCain approved his message.

Bush took a $xxxx surplus -- our national bank account -- and turned it into the biggest debt in the history of the world. He did it with tax cuts for the rich and corporate and corrupt privatization and deregulation schemes. Now we can't afford the schools, medical care, roads and bridges, job creation, that our people so desperately need. McCain promises to do the same.

And THEN, in between the points, you do the Bush/McCain duets. Maybe it's a bunch of 10-15-second spots, one for each disaster. Dems/liberals have a need to believe that Americans are unhappy and they know why. I say they don't. That is the vital connection to make. It ain't that hard, and it's emotionally compelling as long as you're talking effects on people, not just abstract policy.

Obama won't do that kind of ad: he's not going to risk "going negative" on America. Somebody else has to do it. The real question is less the ad's content than who's going to get it out there. Time is short. The content is easy, Paul -- but how do we get the perfect ad out into the real world? Let's talk about that first.


Just got a message calling for ideas (0.00 / 0)
...from Democracy for America:

You can send this idea by going to this link
http://ga1.org/ct/3ddhzcs1LR2U/

If you don't want to contribute, just fill in the idea part, put 0.00 in the "Other" check box, and give them your name and email.

From: "Rachel Moss, Democracy for America" < info @ democracyforamerica.com>
Date: Mon. Sep 15, 2008 10:50:46 AM PDT
Subject: The next ad - You decide

 

Adam -

Thanks to your support, our ad featuring former POW Dr. Phillip Butler is already making a splash and exposing John McCain as "unfit to lead."

This is just the beginning of our aggressive, hard-hitting ad campaign to expose the real McCain. It's time to take it to the next level.

For our next ad, we want to hear your ideas. DFA has always believed in the power of the grassroots over Beltway consultants. We need to continue unmasking the real McCain. The ad should be aggressive, creative and truthful.

Submit your idea for our next ad and contribute $50 to get it on the air.

SEND US YOUR IDEA FOR AD #2 AND CHIP IN TODAY!

Wall Street is collapsing, our troops are still fighting an endless war and yet the polls are showing that the race for the White House is closer than ever. McCain's campaign of lies is working and we have to fight back fast.

Let's get the message out: If we can't trust McCain to tell the truth, how can we trust him to lead?

This is our moment to make a difference and together we can step up to the challenge. The time to act is now. You can help us put our campaign over the top. Submit your idea for DFA's next ad and chip in $50 to make it a reality.

ACT NOW! CONTRIBUTE $50 TO GET THE NEXT AD ON THE AIR.

Thank you for taking action,

- Rachel

Rachel Moss, Finance Director
Democracy for America

P.S. Our ad "McCain: Unfit to Lead" started running nationally on CNN yesterday and today we're ramping it up -- adding MSNBC and ESPN. The campaign with our partners at Brave New PAC has already been covered in everything from the Politico to the Boston Globe from the National Journal to NPR.  CONTRIBTUE NOW TO KEEP THE PRESSURE ON JOHN McCAIN

Share this email:
 Tell-a-friend!
If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for Democracy for America.
This message was sent to jadammcunha@gmail.com. Visit your subscription management page to modify your email communication preferences or update your personal profile. To stop ALL email from Democracy for America, click to remove yourself from our lists (or reply via email with "remove or unsubscribe" in the subject line).
 
Paid for by Democracy for America, www.DemocracyforAmerica.com and not authorized by any candidate. Contributions to Democracy for America are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.


   

Cunha for Congress (FL-06)

P.S. I'm not a big fan of John McCain


Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search