(no subject)

[topaz]

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.

Comments

[harimad.livejournal.com]

Very impressive, worth the five minutes to watch. Can anyone suggest an anti-Obama one to go with?

[dbang.livejournal.com]

Wow.

I'm, I swear to god, sitting here with goosebumps.

too long? maybe. that was one damn effective ad, though. thanks for sharing.

(the goal of this is to NOT have negative ads? Hmmm...)

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

Well, the idea is to produce the most negative ad possible without resorting to personal smears. A negative ad about Cindy McCain's drug habit wouldn't qualify here because it's not issues-based. This one is based on a real campaign issue -- McCain's approach to foreign policy -- and casts them in the worst possible light.

[crouchback.livejournal.com]

That is one of the more effective ads I've seen.

Even though I'm not sure who would fling nuclear weapons at a US city if Iran doesn't have them and we attack Iran. Or why the nuclear genie would go back in the bottle after a US city got hit.

[jacflash.livejournal.com]

Two smart friends of mine -- both poli-sci profs -- are betting that Clark is going to be Obama's VP. That will be fun to watch, should it come to pass.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

That was fascinating, if terrifying, to watch.

(But please don't become more conservative. *smile*)