It is a great spot until you get to the end. The “call to action” is very weak, in my opinion.

To me, the time to ask the hard questions is over, it’s time to replace the Republican majority with a Democratic majority, because there *won’t be* a rubber stamp mentality. Getting a Democratic majority is the *only way* the hard questions are going to be asked.

Getting some check and balances back should have been the message at the end.

I’m really surprised they ended it that way. I’ll go read about it.

Thanks, Matt.

Here’s copy from the DNNC site about the spot:

it’s time for a new direction…our troops deserve better – it will take new leaders to ask the tough questions and fix our failed strategy in Iraq.

I think it would’ve been way more effective if they would’ve ended it with…

We need new leaders. A new direction. Our troops deserve better.

Something like that.

Now…back to working on my own advertising accounts!

:)

I can’t argue with you, Blue Girl — great point. Your accounts are lucky to have you.

I rather think this one does the trick:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfkqC_etID8

Matt,
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. I think this DCCC ad is as weak as the Daisy campaign revisited on the part of the G.O.P. Campaigning with fear, terror and death seems pretty slimy on both parties part, but I do not see how either ad does anything towards suggesting the facts, as you suggest. Numbering the dead and “shocking” newspaper headlines does not underline the ugly truth that both the democrats and republicans were seeing red after 9/11 (as was most of the nation), and would do or say just about anything to be seen by the public as “tough on terror”.

The difficulty of locating their “slight differences” in exploiting fear and terror in these ads just further suggests the fact the America is in desparate need of an alternative from the extisting ruling parties. And while it may be easy to recognize the Republicans as more heinous -in relative terms- than the democrats, there is still no excuse for the options we are strapped with.

You’re right, Jimmy, that most Democrats enabled this war. But George W. Bush owns it.

The differences between the two parties are more than slight. And the stakes are too high, at this point, to waste time and energy on third-party solutions (think Nader 2000). We need a change now, and we’ve got to go with what we got, however imperfect it might be.

Maybe you’re right, Matt. But I just don’t see how campaigning with ads like those rolled out by both the republicans and democrats recently reflects a significant change. Nor do I understand how questioning the greedily shared monopoly on power in Washington D.C. in a more fundamental ways these days (given your heart-felt investment in these issues on a daily basis) is tantamount to a waste of time and energy.

I think more energy is squandered on the mud thrown between the two parties than on any real examination of the “cold, hard facts”. And while I don’t mean to come off as a killjoy, I do have a problem these days with trying to salvage the vestiges of a left in America with the leavings of the right -take Jim Webb in Virginia as one sorry example of a Democrat (and I hope the sorriest!). How is it that these the two parties have become so fluid that the appointee to Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan era can declare himself a Democrat. It is extemely troubling when you have to choose between George Allen and Jim Webb for the US Senate . Even more so when the DCCC is echoing the exploitative sensationalism of GOP in their ad campaigns, not unveiling some kind of truth.

But I just don’t see how campaigning with ads like those rolled out by both the republicans and democrats recently reflects a significant change.

I didn’t say that it reflected significant change. All I said was that it smacks down the Bush administration and — unlike typical Republican negative advertising — uses properly sourced information to make a strong point about an important issue.

Nor do I understand how questioning the greedily shared monopoly on power in Washington D.C. in a more fundamental ways these days (given your heart-felt investment in these issues on a daily basis) is tantamount to a waste of time and energy.

Everything I’m saying, Jim, is reflective of the fact that we’re FIVE FOUR days away from an election. I’m not interested in anything that will detract from the likelihood of a Democratic victory on November 7th.

And, look — I’m living in a state where the Democratic candidate to replace Santorum is not pro-choice. I supported Chuck Pennachio, a grass-roots progressive candidate, in the primary. But Casey won; he’s my candidate, imperfect as I think he is. You don’t see him up there in my “Supported Candidates” list because he doesn’t represent my values. But I sure as hell want him to win.

I guess that what I’m saying is that I agree with you on nearly everything you’ve said. I just think that it might be the wrong time to say it, at least insofar as the goal is to unseat a Republican party that controls the Presidency, the Senate, and the Congress.

That’s what I care about doing. I’ll worry about the evils of the two-party system once the evil party in control of the system is dethroned.

I just think that it might be the wrong time to say it, at least insofar as the goal is to unseat a Republican party that controls the Presidency, the Senate, and the Congress.

Fair enough, but I can’t think of a better time, for the face of evil is much more banal than the Republican party, but I will stop vandalizing now. Love and kisses …

“Vandalizing”? Are you kidding me? This is what blogging is all about. Thanks for getting this discussion started.