3) McCain actually superimposes an oil-well over the background of a forest.
4) This add is ostensibly aimed at going for an early 80's look -- I imagine to conjure up images of Jimmy Carter, when, low and behold, McCain is battling memes that he is too old and out of touch. Yikes, not very helpful.
Seriously though, I commented about this on 538.com, this add is horrendous. If I'm a low info voter, it does nothing to make me like McCain. The picture of him is staid and out-of-focus. The music sucks. And, most of all, it's simply too early to be running negative adds. No one knows who McCain is. They could draw up a :30 bio add that could do real work in developing the McCain brand. Instead, they're getting desperate. Here's hoping they continue to waste money on this crap.
yeah, I'll agree with the diarist to an extent. For me the real eye-opener this week was the seeding of the attacks on John McCain's military record. As mad as I was at Geraldine Ferraro, I have forgiven her for pushing insidious memes. Presidential politics is ugly ugly ugly. It is what it is. There are no saints running for the office. If anything, I'm glad Obama can play at this level -- not that any one should be surprised. Anyone who can beat a Clinton has to have all the clubs in his bag. we've just seen more of them this week.
You know, we immediately jumped on the rhetoric of this add, which is fine. But I think the artistic side is also worthy of a couple sentences. We've all seen thousands of political adds -- this may be one of my favorites.
There are some very nice things at play in this add: I love how the parts about Obama's past are still photos and the "as President" section is all moving film. It's a neat way to make Obama seem older (a subconscious, look, he's been around since before the video generation.) Also the faded color work on the photos is fantastic. Again, the look emphasizes his experience.
The music is exceptional. I love how the trumpet introduces the "as President" section.
The print on the screen is Gotham like all of his campaign material. Distinctly American and open/Midwestern looking. The footnotes are nice a touch underscoring the veracity of the claims.
And the little ladies on the end are fantastic. A subtle reminder that everyone can enjoy the Obama phenomenon.
No, a business owner can right off all of their sunk costs provided that they don't extend the candidate any special advantages and make reasonable attempts to collect the debt. However, in the consulting and legal world, hundreds of thousands and even millions in client debt is not all that unusual. It's another gaping hole in campaign finance.
I understand that Clinton donors, and Clinton supporters generally, want some kind of capitulation -- some kind of nod of respect. But the high-rollers are just flailing around right now. I doubt Hillary expects/wants her debts to be paid down in a substantive fashion. There are positive ways to forward your agenda while striving towards unity. Maggie Williams is now working for Obama's campaign: I'm sure given the unpopularity of that move that Obama made it at the behest of either a major donor or a group (Emily's List, etc.) The campaign debt thing is a non-starter.
I agree that many of the behind the scenes accounts are pretty strange. I keep reading about how Obama has to do more to pay down Clinton's debt. Does Clinton, or more appropriately, the companies that she is in debt to, really even expect/want their debts paid down? I'm sure many of these companies went into this election viewing their work as donations and are more than happy to take the tax right-off.
I'm not a big fan of Cindy McCain, as I have written about in the past. Well actually to be careful, I am a big fan of Cindy McCain, but not the actions she has taken in the campaign so far.
I think the point of this journal may be getting missed by many commentators upstream: It's not that there is sexism in our culture (although there is) it's that the media is more sexist than the general culture at large. Two examples:
First is the Michelle O "really proud" comments. Why must a candidate for first-lady be held to a higher level of patriotism in the media than their husbands. The answer is, they're not by the general public but are by the media.
Michelle Obama has ridiculous favorable-unnfavorable numbers. There's no makeover at play; she's more popular than her husband, and the reason that she is being pushed front and center is not an attempt to salvage her reputation but the fact that she is kicking ass. Indeed, I think she hit on some current that attracts independents with her "proud" remarks. I noticed as soon as her recent polling came out, McCain made comments at four campaign events that he's had moments where he's not been proud of his country. (And this goes back to why I'm not a big fan of Cindy McCain during this election cycle, she was the first person, bar none, to jump on Michelle O and push the meme -- and she, in my mind, got deservedly beat down because of it. Her favorable-unfavorables are horrible and I think she has only herself to blame -- It's not just men pushing sexist memes.)
The second place where I see a great deal of misguided coverage amongst are two candidates for first lady is the covering of Cindy McCain's drug background. Why is it okay for our Presidential candidates to have used drugs but it's not okay for our first lady's to have had issues from which they recovered? I have to imagine that the general public doesn't care about Cindy McCain's slip-ups many years ago, but there they are, on the news much more often than Barack Obama or George Bush's history.
I think you folks may be missing the point: Obama's head-fake towards Alaska isn't really about the electoral votes but attempting to make McCain flip on his opposition to ANWR. McCain has already alluded that he's open to reconsidering his position.
This environment is a quickly emerging issue amongst evangelicals. It's another way put McCain further at odds with, what has to be, his base.
I agree that this only hurts McCain. It's like the Michelle Obama "proud" adds: I wrote a diary about this at the Giant Orange Satan that I may cross-post here. Michelle O enjoys a huge favorability edge over Cindy McCain, I'm sure in no small part to the beatings she took in the national press over what was essentially a non-issue. There is no re-introduction of a softer Michelle O, the campaign is putting her out front-and-center because she's actually more popular than her husband.
In regards to this muslim add, people won't see it because no media outlet will pick it up. Which is unfortunate: this is the type of thing that will turn people off and further strengthen Obama against any Republican attacks, perhaps substantive ones, that emerge later in this election.
Enjoyed the journal. Three kinda' off topic responses:
-- You said: The Constitution's protection of the right to freedom of speech is arguably the most important, most powerful and most effective piece of the foundations of our free society.
I've thought about this a lot, and I actually lean towards the Twenty-Second Amendment (Presidential term limits) as the most integral foundation of our free society.
-- Is there any better example of the power of free speech than the recent Larry Sinclair mess. If he were silenced, his rumors would continue to fester like the plague. Give him a forum to speak and all the sudden he proves himself the imbecile that he is.
-- And finally, you have to let me insert my favorite quote on freedom of expression (just because I love it so much.): Whitney v. California (Brandeis, J.J. Concurring.)
"Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government."