I get error script on the destination page.

I think the primary place he needs to be is not online trying to convince the choir, but in places like TV ads (papering the walls with them)where he will  probably find more of the peo he needs to convert. I also think that its great he is going on the radio. Finally, I think he needs to spend a lot more of his money (less time trying to be fundraiser guy) and move beyond focusing on 'substance,' being the 'netroots' candidate and focus more on attacking Lieberman until Lieberman bleeds, and when Lieberman is really bloody, kick him again until he doesn't get back up. But- that's just me. For some this may sound too brutal. I suppose like with most Democrats- I am left wondering with such a slow start- does he want this? Is he hungry enough to be mean?

I guess my point is that I don't think the substance is what affected the audience.  After re-reading what I wrote, and Stoller's response, I realized I am making it sound like a false choice. My point is that of the two things- between substance (ie, getting a particular idea across about policy) and emotions- I would concentrate on emotions.

I can just tell you from my experience as I have begun to shift careers from being a lawyer to training to become a filmmaker.  In a 30 second spot, you really can't do a whole lot of substance. You can make hint at it, but what you can do effectively is convey an emotion.

In the daisy ad example- the emotion is "fear over nuclear weapons destroying the earth" should the voter make the wrong decision. The most important part was the emotional fear of the nuclear war- not the particulars of any policy or which man was right or did x do enough votes etc. In the swiftboat ads, they were substantive but again, i think the core point was emotions as I remember- answering peo's fear about Kerry. That he wasn't what he appeared to be. That the flip flopper narrative was true. I don't think the substance really mattered except to relay the underlying narrative. It didn't really matter what they claimed Gore was lying about in 2000 so long as peo came away from it with the impression that Gore was a liar whether it was substantively about the Internet or SS.

Below, I give an example of how I view emotion as more important in a way than the substance w/ the ad from the military guy about body armour.

Maybe I should rephrase it to say that the emotions are used to convey the deeper substantive point. Maybe that would make it more clear what I am trying to say. Frankly, it's hard to explain concepts that I have only in the last two years truly begun to undrestand how they work.

ps below- it would been substantively accurate either way to convey the reactment or the dummy, but I think the reactment would have great emotional impact- at least this is what I think.

They are okay. Neither reaches the "students" level.

I worry that the "fairy tale" assumes the listener no longer believes the words of Cheney and Bush. But what about those who still do believe in WMDs?

I think it would be better to go right at Leiberman on his votes. Directly quote his own words - and only his own words - in 1988 about Weicker. Then you've got a negative ad that Joe can't condemn - because it's his words. He's already used them against someone.

And the ad will get extra free play because it will have the added-value of dredging up the 1988 race.

why does it need to be eyed? I am trying to get into the difference between how the Republicans seem to throw the kitchen sink- and we place certain restraints on ourselves that I think reflects more a distrust of using emotions in favor of intellectualism. In my example, of how I would have done the military ad do you consider it sensational to show a guy getting killed with the wrong body armor with the appropriate images of what the damage to his body would be? The blood and guts. Versus the image of a guy surviving an attack and going back home to his family with the right body armor. To me, emotionally that's visceral and far more damning of the Republicans, and requires no emotional leap by the audience.

I think part of the issue of why the Republicans are able to distract the American public 3 years out from the war is that we don't see the repercussions of the real effects of the war on TV. It's hard to argue with blood and cuts, but abtractions of blood and guts in the form of dummies are less impactful. Do you consider that sensational to show them that sort of level of truth with the goal of hitting them emotionally in a way their senses as consumers of media can't deny?

I know, by the way, that there are lines at which it hurts rather than helps, but I guess I would like to see us err more on being closer to the line.

ps

I forgot to add:

I would like to see us err on the side of being closer to that line, rather than focused on whether we have at least gotten the substance right. To me its more important ask did we convey the emotions and characterization right and did we in doing so advance the stories narrative.

They are easy to listen to, memorable and fun. They repeat the effect of the TV ads that ended with Ned's smile and sense of fun. Effect: we smile too. People vote for the guy they like, but often don't have that chance. [The lessor of 2 weevils problem]. Ned will win because he's a smart, capable, likeable guy who stands for change when change is most needed. Lieberman comes off as a sourpuss and nit-picker. Nobody likes a boring has-been, whiney loser.