(no subject)

Andrew Sullivan recently proposed a sort of competition for this campaign season: Taking Back the Campaign. He has invited his readers to edit, hack, and mash up the most cynical, negative campaign ads they can. His idea is putatively to show the public the man behind the curtain:

If we can put out the most damning attacks on Obama and McCain we can, it could help dilute the nasty noise from the party establishments, expose the mechanisms of smears and take the wind out of the sails of the pros. The idea is not to produce crude and ugly smears or lies. The content must be factually accurate (even if horribly misleading) and the images for real.... By doing this, we could even help expose the way in which this cynical enterprise is constructed by the pros.

I like Sullivan a lot -- if anyone ever persuades me to become more conservative, it'll be him and lhn -- and the idea is unquestionably an interesting one. I'm still skeptical. Negative ads, by design, appeal to people at an emotional, irrational, gut level. No matter how aware you are of the shock techniques employed by negative campaigning, you still carry those images and sounds in your mind. I'm doubtful that a contest like this will do much to expose the techniques of negative advertising.

But it can certainly produce some effective propaganda.  This one is arresting.

It's not perfect.  The Scott Ritter and Wesley Clark bits go on for way too long to work as soundbites and should be chopped more finely.  And as much as I love Lux Aeterna I have to admit it's gotten overused.  (I still think it works beautifully here.)

It's not perfect... but it would work.  I'm tempted to say it's more effective than any anti-McCain ad I've seen yet.