This ad actually leaves me a little flat.  There are repetitions of the same shots to no rhetorical effect.  It started off well enough, with the 'standing up to Bush' line, but it's not really possible for Lamont to coopt that message as uniuely his in the same way Dean did grassroots populism, which one could say he (re)created.  It would have been more effective if he had continued the thrust of the opening and shown how others (wink wink) have NOT stood up to Bush and how he is going to.  

Is this really an ad running on TV? Or is it more of a web-based message to rally the troops? I gotta go with SaratogaProf, it leaves me a little flat. It's a fun ad, but what does it really say to anyone other than the choir?

As I've watched this race unfold, I've come to a bad conclusion: Ned Lamont is still running for the Democratic nomination for Senate in Connecticut.  

But the majority of the state's residents are not Democrats.  You have to tell them how Lieberman tried to sell out Social Security, or other issues that appeal to some outside the party.  

Great ad, IMO, but I'm frankly disappointed by the fall-off in momentum that I've noticed in the netroots for Ned. Where has it been mentioned that Kerry will be going to CT to campaign with Ned on October 25, for example? There was passing mention of this on some of the CT blogs, but nowhere else. Other than Russ Feingold, I can't think of another senator who's publicly offered to help campaign for Ned.

Take a look at the Dems who have been willing to go out on a limb and ask voters to support Ned: Richardson, Warner, Edwards, Wes Clark. Recognize anyone from the Beltway there? Ned is a born leader, and we desperately need more people like Ned in the senate. But who's going to take a Ned-like risk again if we aren't consistently covering his back for him?

Chris, maybe you have some insight into what is going on at the Lamont campaign or why the hype seems to have died down, but I, for one, am feeling frustrated. I'm not in CT, so maybe there are tons of ads running that I don't see, but as I look at the CT blog sites I see too much time being spent on people like DeStefano who, IMO, doesn't have a prayer against Rell anyway. Rightly or wrongly, Ned is inextricably identified as a netroots candidate, and we still have Dem senators out there who think they can get away with not supporting the legitimate Dem candidate. Is that acceptable? I don't think so. Where is all that pre-primary enthusiasm?

I normally don't like to talk about ads, its too chatty. But if I could improve it (if I could, you know I would..)

1. MORE PEOPLE. 70% of America dislikes bush. 140 million people. Make the voice deafening, like the roar of a storm.

2. Pin camera angles down steady on Lamont. Give Lamont the sense that he's not just floating in the breeze.

3. PUT THE KISS SOMEWHERE ELSE. The "kiss" right now , is in the wrong place. Its almost an afterthought ... highlight it at the beginning. This is an administration, after all, whose party consists of pedophiles, felons and criminals.  Start off with Lieberman standing alone .. Bush, highlight him - bring it closer..
Then zoom in on "the kiss" - and then bring in the people

4. For us: we need to bring real political pressure to bear on the old boy network.

It's a simple but profound message - this guy is going to put the brakes on a runaway, when the previous engineer (Lieberman) would not.  And the many citizens who say "And so do we" is very powerful.  They join Lamont in standing up to an evil and destructive machine.  I think this may be the best, if simplest, campaign ad I've seen all season.  On the surface it looks sort of like a typical ad, then you get punched in the stomach by the idea that this guy is going to stop a train with his bare hands, until at the end, you see many, many people are going to help him.

Run that sucker.

The problem with the Dean campaign's late '03 media was that their movement ad was HoHo in front of a white backdrop telling people "this election is about power." Coming on top of a lot of other things, this just didn't ring true with Iowa caucus-goers.

Movements can sell. This ad is not a slam-dunk, but it's certainly not a "shot self in foot" salvo. I think it probably motivates those who are already involved and might attract some leaners/unlikely voters.

"I'm Ned Lamont and I approve this message..."

VOICE OVER: ....Do you?

Maybe it's too soon for that.

I love the ad. It reminds me of when we first heard about Ned Lamont - the only guy brave enough to take on an entrenched incumbent.

That being said, I hope the campaign starts airing hard-hitting ads on Joe about the issues - Social Security, energy policy, the bankruptcy bill, and of course, Iraq.

They had Dean standing all alone talking at the camera most of the time. The last one was the worst -- he didn't even have any background, just white walls. The ads conveyed exactly the OPPOSITE message and no doubt left the uninitiated scratching their heads wondering what all the fuss was about.

Thanks Trippi, McMahon and Squires! :-(

At least the Lamont team seems to have learned from Dean's mistakes. I think this ad is good because it makes people feel good who are thinking about voting for Lamont. I think a lot of those who are telling pollsters they are planning to vote for Holy Joe are soft supporters. Lamont is already making plenty of intellectual appeals for their vote. This ad makes the emotional appeal and makes Ned look like a winner (and people like to go with someone who looks like a winner -- which Dean decidedly DIDN'T in that awful last Iowa ad).

Everyone was really impressed with the things the Dean campaign did to change presidential campaigns, for which they deserve a lot of credit.  But by the end of 2003, everything the Dean campaign did seemed solely to bring the story back to the campaign.  Does anyone remember that new Declaration of Independence in Boston where Dean supporters all signed some document?  Even Al Gore's endorsement was chalked up to how great a campaign Dean had run.

That's all well and good, but a campaign should always focus on policy over process.  The Dean campaign wound up being entirely about process, which people in Iowa don't care about.  The Lamont ad here still focuses on the "message for change" about standing up against Bush.  It's pretty vague, but there's at least a real message that you can tie to people's everyday lives.  The movement references in the Lamont ad just frame the message.  I like it a lot.

5 weeks out it's worrisome that Lamont doesn't have a message other than I'm not Joe, and I won't support Bush.  

What is Lamont for?

It's not that it's a bad ad, it's what it reveals about the Lamont campaign that makes it bad.

Lamont isn't the first politician to end the required disclaimer with a wider shot of a crowd yelling "so do we!" -- Tim Kaine did it here in Virginia last year.  

It seems hollow and staged to me.  What does it tell me?  That Ned Lamont has a few dozen supporters?  I knew that already -- but it doesn't help distinguish him; even ballot poison Katherine Harris can come up with a few supporters.  

The audience chant is on cue -- scripted, rehearsed, and not at all spontaneous.  I'd rather see something more genuine, not just from Lamont, but from other blue candidates.  

Is there any research that shows that the "so do we" chorus has any effect on the viewer?

A call to do a post-mortem on the Dean campaign?  Okay.

The problem wasn't a movement versus issues.  The problem was a movement versus a candidate.  People don't want a movement, they want a candidate.  

I love getting people more involved in politics.  I love having an enthusiastic campaign.  But when it comes to electing a President, people want a leader.  Dean became too deferential: He took the message of "You have the power" too far.

His other problem was that towards the end of the summer of 2003 and into the fall, the image of Dean's campaign took a decidedly lefty swing, image-wise.  

A big part of Dean's initial appeal was that he wasn't a Green Party candidate.  He wasn't a Ralph Nader or a Dennis Kucinich.  He was a moderate who spoke honestly.  His image was sort-of as the Democratic version of John McCain.

But, although Dean didn't change.  The image of his campaign did.   Soon, it became very hard for self-identified moderates to see the old Howard Dean.  That killed his credibility in terms of being a Bush-killer.  This image problem was exacerbated by the DLC stabbing him in the back.  Had the DLC embraced Dean based on his merits as a centrist politician, I am convinced we would have Pres. Dean right now.  Instead they played stupid, personal games and sabotaged Dean's campaign.  The rest is history.

f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7 f8 f9 f10 f11 f12 f13 f14 f15 f16 f17 f18 f19 f20 f21 f22 f23 f24 f25 f26 f27 f28 f29 f30 f31 f32 f33 f34 f35 f36 f37 f38 f39 f40 f41 f42 f43 f44 f45 f46 f47 f48 f49 f50 f51 f52 f53 f54 f55 f56 f57 f58 f59 f60 f61 f62 f63 f64 f65 f66 f67 f68 f69 f70 f71 f72 f73 f74 f75 f76 f77 f78 f79 f80 f81 f82 f83 f84 f85 f86 f87 f88 f89 f90 f91 f92 f93 f94 f95