Truly Impressive Ad, "Hands"
For the life of me, I do not understand how TPMEC has failed to post and comment on this ad. To those who have not yet seen the Hands ad that will be playing during the summer games, do not miss it.
The "Hands" ad gracefully and beautifully artfully hits on many themes, values, and visions we, as a society, share, such as work and jobs, the environment, and technological progress to address some of our more pressing challenges.
Fortunately, the Obama campaign has not yielded to the hand-wringers in the Media and the blogs caught in 2004 Groundhog Day, and they have instead put out this Olympic ad which ignores all the armchair pundit advice to actually address and dignify the McCain tactics.
This ad, instead, hits positive, visionary and constructive notes and leaves little doubt that in this race, one candidate's message is optimistic, realistic and serious about much needed change while the other candidate, with his puzzlingly childish ads, deserves as much attention as Lyndon LaRouche does - that is, absolutely none.
What do you think?
And it really melded well with the spirit of the Opening Ceremonies and the Olympics in general. I didn't catch McCain's ad, but read elsewhere that it was a typical attack ad - was it the "Celebrity 3" ad posted here yesterday?
August 9, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it's called "Painful". Truly disgusting lies within the ad....
August 9, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Negative ads of seasons past may have distorted facts a bit, but McLiar's campaign has broken new ground and embraced all-out, no-holds-barred mendaciousness.
August 9, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure you've heard the analysis that McCain is using an apocalypse/antichrist dog whistle?
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1830590,00.html
August 10, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been happy to observe today that you didn't have to be an Obama loyalist to find McCain's choice of a negative ad during the Parade of Nations to be in poor taste - his Me Too rush to outspend may have been a rather tremendous buy for our side ;)
As always, McCainanites In Action.
August 9, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You articulate something I sensed about McCain's ad which I was unable to put my finger on. Its negativity is misplaced and beneath the occasion.
August 9, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
whatever get over yourself, Im sure you posted this comment so you can get you points from the mccain campaign. Everything in this ad was true, I think it is impressive and Im quite surprised at how impressive it is, I thought he was going to put out an ad talking about his love of country.
Yet, I have been watching the Olympics and haven't seen it yet hopefully I'll see it soon.
Video: Hillary Campaigns For Obama in Nevada
August 9, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am an Olympic junkie (I watched fencing yesterday, today badminton is on the agenda) so I have seen both ads several times. Obama's ad is great, it fits with the uplifting spirit of the Olympics. McCain's ads are just jarring because they negativity is just so out of place and against the spirit of the olympics.
Granted, I am biased and not prone to be influenced by negative ads much anyway but I don't see these ads helping McCain much - and if anything they might hurt him. Its like a cold shower of dispair when they come on compared to all the hope and inspiration of the Olympics and the rest of the commercials.
Maybe the contrast will get the commercial noticed and help him with some people, but to me it just makes him seem like a cranky old man raining on everyone's parade.
August 10, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree 100%. "Hands" is a great ad. It's about the economy, but in a concrete way. It promises that a dignified working-class job doesn't have to be a thing of the past: there's a future for American workers.
Great stuff.
My wife was watching the opening ceremonies and she described a McCain ad that sounded somewhat more positive than the "painful" one. It had McCain in front of a bank of wind turbines.
(Everybody loves those wind turbines.)
I hope she's wrong, and they're running with "painful," because I think McCain is making a huge mistake positioning himself as the candidate of fear and jealous resentment.
August 9, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree the ad is great; it would be a good one to show anyone who is dumb enough to listen to the "tire gauge is Obama's energy policy" fluff.
August 9, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I too saw that message in this ad, one I also remember from his 2004 Convention speech, in which he stated something obvious that Democrats unfortunately have over the years forgotten to articulate. This message promotes work values from the Democratic perspective and says that Obama is more than just a candidate of policies and programs.
As with national security and foreign policy, Obama seeks to reclaim the values of work from the undeserving Republican party.
August 9, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
In response to Alex.
August 9, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. You're right that this is the real kicker. The campaigns we've run in the past have too often approached work in a way that seems to condescend to workers. "We'll create trade barriers to protect you." Or "we'll create job training programs so you can retrain your sorry out-of-date self."
But this ad approaches it as an issue of values. The visuals are all about the dignity of work, and about its proud future. If we can reclaim those values, this will be a realignment election.
August 9, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you say why you think the ad is impressive? Is it because it's a positive ad rather than a negative one?
Everything has a reference, and this ad's reference may be the Jesse Helms Hands ad. In the Helms ad, white hands crumple a letter that informs someone they lost a job due to the company's legal obligation to fulfill minority quotas.
In Obama's ad, the hands are once again white, but the man with black hands is the one who will deliver jobs to the white people. The obviousness of this makes me cringe because it's a pander to working-class whites: everyone is a laborer, and they are almost exclusively white.
The text, meanwhile, is simple enough so that any child can understand the message. To me, this talking down to the audience is irritating, but that doesn't mean others will feel that way; it doesn't mean it won't be an effective ad. I have no idea if the lush visuals will trump the condescension.
I think it's a good but not impressive ad. The shift to Barack Obama, both visually and in the script itself, is extremely abrupt and makes me wonder why it's so awkward. Can't they finesse Obama's difficulty in relating to working-class people better than that?
Because of the visuals and sentimentality (those are pluses) I give it an 8. The text prevents it from being a 10.
August 9, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gasket, simple phrasing is not per-se a bad or dangerous thing. Low-information American voters will be reached only if we speak their language, a lesson Republicans learned quite long ago. If this sort of pandering is necessary to win, remaining above it would be inexcusable, not to mention, elitist.
August 9, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what's impressive? That it talks down to "low-information voters"?
August 9, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This comment is what's elitist. Frankly, it turns my stomach.
Bill O'Reilly never talks down to his audience. In fact, he uses big, polysyllabic words like "truculent."
August 9, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
All advertising to some extent talks down to its audience and generally reverts to symbols rather than reason. An ad is not the place for dealing with complex issue treatises. Such is the nature of advertising whether it is the 3:00 am ad or a shampoo commercial. Keep it simple since everyone is watching, grandma, kids, and Alice.
August 9, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree that all advertising talks down to people. But I don't care enough to debate it if you're going to make gross generalizations.
Third and last time I'll ask: What is "impressive" to you about the ad?
August 9, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gasket, I think your question has really been answered, because AdAb has commented in other sections of the thread, and his comments have been seconded.
The ad addresses energy and the economy. But, as AdAb points out above, it does so in a concrete way, translating proposals into human values, not just numbers.
As Ripper point out below, it's not excessively focused on Obama personally -- it puts the focus on ordinary people.
I would add that the production values are above average for political ads. The soundtrack is subtle, and there's a nice rhythm to the last few scenes that allows the motion of Obama's hands (a gesture that explains a point, or a handshake) to punctuate the editing, linking him personally to the theme of work, and implying that we're all in this together.
August 9, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Gasket, I've not been avoiding your question. I have been enjoying a rather long elitist Saturday lunch with non-cyberspace friends and scarce opportunities before the keyboard. So here's the response from my share of the bottle of wine.
In addition to points made elsewhere on this thread, about touching multiple themes such as work values, their relationship to environmentalism, technology, and economic opportunity, I also thought, as expressed in my main post, that it was a refreshing digression from the tit for tat on inanities that the Republicans and many in the media are trying to reduce this election to.
It is typical Obama in that it is aloof to the echo chamber memes of the moment and instead glides above these by addressing more serious and meaningful concerns. It clearly states that the debate will not be about Obama himself nor about Paris nor Britney, but about a better future, and it is effective at doing so, in my opinion.
August 9, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, thanks, AdAbsurdum. Glad to know you are enjoying life in the real world! ;-)
I agree it was smart for Obama to focus on issues rather than on McCain, especially since the ad is airing in all 50 states. It's got a kind of Meet-the-Candidate feel with the hand-shaking and basic introduction to Obama's domestic policy ideas.
August 10, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to give an example of an ad you consider a "10" rather than an "8," that might help.
August 9, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This probably won't help for a bunch of reasons, Alex, but I think three Lyndon Johnson ads from the 1964 campaign are all 10s: "Daisy," "Merely Another Weapon," and "Glen Canyon Dam." You can see all 3 here.
They are scare ads, obviously, filmed in b&w, of course, and although the script is ridiculously simple, the directness is seamless and effective. Maybe writers were just better back then?
August 10, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those are good, I've got to say.
Ah, mid-century liberalism.
August 10, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! I know. Talk about addressing the issues! Yikes!
August 10, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ad may not be about race. Really. Just consider the possibility for a second: "Maybe it's not about race."
I agree that there's an effect of surprise when Obama enters. But I don't think it's because there's any mysterious aura of arugula that emanates from him. On the contrary, I think he does a great job of looking practical and involved.
The surprise may be because, up to that point, the ad hasn't seemed explicitly political. The soundtrack is key. Instead of the really heavy-handed brass-band uplift or sinister menace that political ads use, you've got a really subtle soundtrack that starts with acoustic effects and slowly modulates into electronic hum which then slowly becomes more explicitly uplifting.
For that reason, and because there aren't a lot of heavy-handed chyrons, it feels less like a political spot and more like the kind of indirect ad that airlines and investment companies run, which focuses on general optimism about technology and the future.
Then Obama shows up, and it's a bit surprising. "Oh, this is about politics!"
But I would say that's an excellent sort of surprise for a political ad to generate.
August 9, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair to gasket: after watching it for the fifth time, I am noticing that the first eight or nine people in the ad all look white. It gets more diverse toward the end, when you see several African-Americans in group shots.
In this sort of ad, there's usually a more exaggerated Benetton-esque effort to celebrate racial diversity. "Smiling Asian girl," in particular, is an important part of the formula, noticeably absent here.
I guess the Obama campaign figures they've already got a lock on "racial diversity," and can afford to look unconcerned about it.
August 9, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's also possible that, in the context of the Olympics, whiteness becomes more than usually necessary, as a way to visually signal that this is an ad about an American future, and not about a globalized one. I bet that's actually the logic.
August 9, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll be pleased to know then, RTBaG, that even the dullards on Cable News are likening it to Reagan's "Morning in America" ad - so your concern regarding Jesse Helms is duly noted but Wholly Unwarranted.
August 9, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! I can see that parallel. Maybe Obama's targeting Reagan Democrats. (Which are those white working-class people who voted for Clinton, right?)
Here's "Morning in America" for comparison.
August 10, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've got to "hand" it to you: you put the "project" in "projection," sir/madam. For someone who failed to see anything untoward in McCain's celebrity ads, you have the gall to accuse the Obama campaign of deliberately riffing on Helms' notoriously race-baiting ad because ... wait for it ... its title is "Hands" and it features a diversity of different colored hands? Are you f!@#ing serious? Man, you guys are in trouble if such are the depths to which you've sunk.
It's funny how the minute a Dem candidate starts appealing to all the working class folks that the Republicans have duped for decades then suddenly you guys get so scared that all you can muster is a sputtered: "But one time this one Republican ran a racist ad involving ... HANDS!" Maybe you should revisit the Antichrist angle, at least that dogwhistle might resonate with the lunatics you call what's left of your base. You know, the folks McCain v.2000 called "agents of intolerance"? Let me get this straight: your central GE strategy is to remind voters that your opponent is more highly admired by lots of people? Good luck with that.
August 10, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
... and, just to save time, spare me the "I'm an HRC-backer and a Dem" nonsense. You're either a terrible Democrat or a clueless McCain backer looking for a trolling check. Either way, I want nothing of it. The rest of us real Dems (or whatever you want to call folks who think a McCain presidency would be an unmitigated disaster) don't have time to talk dead-enders such as you appear to be off the ledge of your (former) candidate's own making. There are two busses in this race and one of them's the laughably labelled "Straight Talk Express." Buy your ticket already and stop trying to slash our tires with your sharpened sense of entitlement.
August 10, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Overreact much?
You must have skipped the part where I gave the ad an 8, which means I think it's a good ad (which I also clearly stated). What's your problem? I critiqued it: I mentioned what I thought was successful and what I thought the specific flaws were. I added that other people might not notice the things I noticed.
So what does that have to do with my support for Hillary? I didn't think she had any perfect 10 ads either.
Geez. Calm down already.
August 10, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cry me a John Edwards-sized faux river o' tears, RTBAG. You singlehandedly accused the Obama campaign (!?) of deliberately invoking the racist themes from ads by folks the like of Helms and now you expect us all to roll our eyes and, yes, chuckle approvingly while you attempt to back-peddle and strain at appearing reasonable? Either you haven't mastered sarcasm or you're grasping at melanin-enhanced straws: either way you're an embarrassment to the party and the site. Go peddle your hate elsewhere and get over the fact that your candidate-of-choice lost the primary months ago. Your feigned outrage at Obama's ads -- despite the fact that he's gone out of his way, as he did in defeating your candidate, to stake out a high road so far as that's possible -- is just tiresome at this point. I'm sorry there weren't enough appropriately-colored hands in the ad to suit your taste. It's just that with McCain knocking at the door it's folks like you, lingering in the foyer, faking polite conversation with the snake-oil salesman posing as an "independent maverick" that just may yet succeed in handing this election over to people with the very worst of intentions and a total lack of executive competence. But, whatever. You have a "pent-up voice" aching "to be heard." Yeah, right. You and Joe Lieberman.
Just for the record: I only "exploded" because I witnessed a person claiming to be a fellow Dem attacking our mutual candidate for running a "pandering," "race-baiting" ad that in fact is neither. You can't have it both ways: i.e., you can't decry objections that McCain is inserting race-baiting phallic symbols in his ads whilst simultaneously claiming that Obama himself is appealing to - what exactly? - racial tension?? in an ad that's about as harmless as it gets. Not, that is, while retaining any claim to being a member of the party that is about to nominate him for the office of president. And, to be clear, I'm no DLC-centrist, middle-of-the-road type. Obama's politics appear to be right of my own, but I'll be damned if folks like you are going to wax cynical while McCain burn-fiddles what's left of this place to the ground.
I genuinely regret if I took too-personal a tack in responding, I just got fed up with what appeared to be a consistent strategy of lazy, low-level trolling and/or self-sabotage ever since your candidate-of-choice blew her commanding lead (while feeding talking points, i.e., compliments, to our mutual GOP opponent in the process). If this was about policy and party over personality (so much for the Kool-Aid, I'm afraid) then you'd have put down your saber long ago. But insofar as you didn't and continue(d) to play the self-styled puckish rogue, I have no practical or tactical interest in pretending to treat you like someone with a mutual interest in not seeing a misogynistic warmonger elected to the highest office of the land. But, whatever. I'm not going to waste any more brain cells or time trying to cater to your feelings or predict your narcissistic mindset. Either you get behind Senator Obama's campaign and help the rest of us restore some sanity and humanity to our federal politics or you don't. I'm done "engaging" you, so spare the breath.
August 10, 2008 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
(... deep breath ...)
Truce?
I've had a shitty night and fear I may have taken some of it on you, RTBAG. I'm not nearly this belligerent most of the time. Shit, it's 5:00 AM EST and I'm on TPM for chrissakes. Context: I spent 3 (slightly inebriated) hours arguing with a friend's friend tonight over why it's a horrendous idea for HRC to mount an insurgency in Denver AND trying to convince the rest of her (male) peers that McCain is a douchebag-in-sheep's-clothing.
In short: I'm a little touchy and underslept. I sincerely apologize for the DEFCON 1 nonsense. I do hope we're on the same side, here, when all's said and done. I just honestly do not see the racialized undertones you referenced in the ad. Anyways, sorry for being an asshole about it. Cheers.
August 10, 2008 4:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Truce accepted, Joe.
Politics brings out passion in political junkies. I admit I can be an aggravating asshole sometimes, and because of that reputation, I can get easily misread or dismissed or attacked. Sometimes, however, I can be quite pleasant. ;-)
For the record, I'm not a PUMA, and I don't advocate disunity at the convention. I do advocate passion at the convention because I want the Dems to get fired up to win.
For historical reasons, I'd like to see Hillary's name put into nomination or a roll-call vote taken or something that records her achievement. I think it's important to do for posterity's sake. But as a formality. Not as a means to alter the ultimate outcome of nominating Obama. I've totally accepted that Obama's the Dem nominee. I may not be able to put Obama on a pedestal, but my cranky vote for him is as good as any other vote for him.
August 10, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. I can't believe you, of all people, have the gall to ask anyone else that question. Your lust for making personal attacks on others is well documented throughout this site, and your theory that Obama's "Hands" ad is based on white, racist pandering only continues that trend. Always ignoring the truth in front of your nose to go picking for hidden subtext in support of your paranoid invective.
Now you do try to backpeddle when confronted by others. Sound familiar, diRTBAG?
August 10, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right, McCord. You're a paragon of fucking virtue.
You attack and stalk people constantly on this and other sites (remember Rachel Sklar?), and you have threatened me personally with physical violence! Why don't you shut the fuck up, stop bullying people, stop feeling sorry for yourself, and spend a little time examining your own aggressive behavior for a change? Maybe, just maybe, you get attacked when you attack others. Ever consider that possibility? Of course you haven't, because you're such a prince.
I don't attack without cause. Ever.
I have a proposition for you: Either you come to terms with your own hostility, or you just ignore me and I'll be happy to ignore you. It's a one-time offer. If you can't interact with me with basic civility going forward, I send the thread where you threatened me to TPM.
August 10, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
diRTBAG, you're the one issuing threats and an ultimatum here. Just as your weird attempt to Google me, investigate my identity and wear out my real name was threatening. I think Josh would find your current threat ludicrous. Just as most readers here find your habitual behavior. You never attack except when provoked? You're a liar.
August 10, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I attack when 1) the Clintons are attacked, 2) when my friends are attacked, and often (but not always) 3) when I am attacked. These are the rules I blog by.
Since you have attacked Billy repeatedly, you are on my list of Most Hated. It's not that Billy can't defend himself, it's just that I tend to be fiercely loyal. A trait I inherited from my mom.
Of course, since Billy and the Clintons are attacked on this site 24/7, I've got my work cut out for me. If I manage to get under the skin of morons like you, McCord, I consider my efforts a success.
Carry on, sucker.
August 11, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
You have failed.
Please exit the website now.
August 10, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fabulous! I love it and I find it to be vintage Obama. McCain will keep going with the attack ads, because he has NOTHING else to run on.
August 9, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do feel it was a bit rushed, like it would have been better if they had been 45 second or even a minute ad.
August 9, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. But for them to buy that sort of air time during the Olympics, we'd all have to bankrupt ourselves on barackobama.com.
August 9, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not necessarily - both Senators Obama and McCain received a favorable rate on this buy from what I've read: they're going for shorter-format, wider net buy to hit as many possible vectors as they can across the span of the games.
The debates are now framed, though. McCain outspent and went negative, Obama made, in point of McCain's reframing, a modest buy - that went positive. That's the takeaway, whether as a viewer you're aware of the numbers or not. The GOP has unwittingly walked into a sort of Morality Play framing and is busy adding another 6M to reenforce that frame leading into the more message-focused conventions and then - debates, where that frame has been amplified and honed.
I'm looking forward to the debates even more now :)
August 9, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to butt-in, T. Critic, just wanted to applaud your observations and genial sense of perspective on this and other threads. I miss your awarding of points, though! I guess it's just Olympic fever or something. Maybe Thread Trolling will make the 2012 games in some sort of exhibition capacity and then you can guest-judge and make us all proud. Anyways, carry on, sir. Thanks for the chuckles.
August 10, 2008 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously could use some chuckles. :-)
August 10, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here, Joe: Here's an effective ad slamming Hillary Clinton that you may not have seen. Maybe it'll cheer you up.
August 10, 2008 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
A good ad in the sense that it features American workers with little of Obama himself until the end. It puts the focus on common people, helping mitigate the "celebrity" charge. Better, but I fear it's not detailed enough to counter some of McCain's hyperbole. That will have to wait for other ads. We are part of the choir, but it's time Obama preached to the back pews, as well.
August 9, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's with the obsession with counting the number of white people in Obama's ads? I live in New York, where the mayor takes pains to have as many non-white staff members as possible and to always have them in photo-ops. I don't see it as condescending or patronizing. I see it as his way of reassuring demographic groups that may have problems with him.
I did make the connection between Obama's "Hands" and Jesse Helms' but not in a negative way. I wondered if Obama wanted to replace that negative association of working class hands with something positive.
August 9, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is another case of Barack Obama being damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. People say he has a "problem" with working class whites, so he targets them in ads - he's accused of pandering!
August 9, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
To the Ad itself - not being aware of the remainder of the campaign re: whether or not we'll see additional ads in this cycle, the only flaw I see in the buy is a neglected First Salvo sort of placement opportunity - something speaking directly to the US Athletes, Families, then fans in a short Spirit of America piece that could've been shot on the cheap and shelved.
Nothing at all about policy, position or any facet of governance - simply good will and a dose of American Pride. Bracketed against McCain's negative buy and the President's Lack of Vigor in the face of a long Ceremony, it would have set a stark contrast for viewers who aren't even tuned into much more than local news at this time of year.
August 9, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm liking the italics and caps. Reminds me of the 18thc. prose of my youf.
August 9, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is what struck me about the ads. First we had McCain's "Celebrity" negative attack in the middle of the march of nations. It stuck a very discordant note and did not speak well of McCain and his campaign. Second, we have Obama's ad that through visuals and words reminds Americans of how great we can be -- that we can solve problem facing not just us but the world. Those of us who watch the Olympics share a love of country and pride in our country. I think Obama's ad played to our better selves. That's what I found impressive -- even without the contrast to McCain's ad.
August 9, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the ad was kind of cheesy, but maybe it's because it reminded me too much of this WW2 propaganda flick.
August 9, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fabulous!
August 9, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain seemingly made the decision to run an Olympic buy late, and thus they didn't have an ad campaign designed specifically for it. Basically the McCain camp has to spend any and all campaign money on hand before McCain accepts his party's nomination at the convention because then he is locked into the public money.
So they probably did some number crunching and figured they had money to burn so decided might as well match Obama with an Olympic buy, but then one-up him for an extra million (probably opening and closing ceremony extra).
So they made the buy and threw on whatever national ad was next up to be released in their current attack series.
August 9, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the extra million was because NBC charged McCain more because he waited until the last minute. Hope so, anyway.
August 9, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the new ad, ESPECIALLY (that's for you, Alex!) in contrast to the nasty ad from McCain. Therein lies the BIG (again, Alex!) difference between the 2 campaigns...Obama is all about a positive message of hope, we can band together and get it (no matter what the "it" is) done...McCain is all about "I have absolutely nothing to offer but he's scary and bad, so vote for me, because at least I won't do anything and he might do something scary and bad."
As far as it being racist...no way...he's trying to reach the white voters that John McCain is trying to scare, and it's more effective to do that w/ the white hands of the majority than with black...If he had tried to do it w/ black hands it would have been counterproductive in attempting to reach his target audience...It's like talking to people in their native language...it isn't pandering, it's meeting them where they are...nothing wrong w/ that in my book!
August 9, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard the McCain campaign, seeking peak market saturation, requested that NBC run their spots during the popular Olympic bull-fighting competition.
(tip of the hat to Muammar al-Gaddafi)
August 9, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid that I figured it was an agribusiness commercial and went to the refrigerator.
August 10, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think one of the most effective aspects of the "Hands" ad is that it visually realizes the idea that while old jobs might not be coming back, new jobs can take their place.
I've always thought when Obama made that point on the stump that it lacked any sort of visceral connection to the concerns of listeners, because while they can visualize themselves doing the jobs they've done in the past, they have no mental picture of themselves doing the jobs of the future. So the notion that their skills might translate remained hypothetical and intellectual.
The visual imagery involved in showing the shift from traditional roofing to installing solar panels, for example, is believable. It's a visually smooth transition and the work being done to install the panels looks comfortably familiar (even to those who aren't roofers but have a mental image of what roofers do). It can help people think, "Hmm, maybe there actually are uses for the skills I know in this world of 'new jobs' that I don't."
August 10, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
And isn't it kind of amazing that McCain would not only put up a negative, dishonest ad but, given the amount of money he was no doubt paying for the time, a repeat of an ad that was already playing? Wouldn't you think he'd want to unveil something new?
Or would that have blown his budget?
August 10, 2008 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
New Rasmussen out today has McCain flopping out of his Saturday lead:
With leaners, it's Obama 48, McCain 46.
If you take into account Ras's decision, to weigh 2% in the Republicans' favor for July party ID, it's Obama 50, McCain 44.
McCain's Olympic smear job was a HUGE miscalculation.
August 10, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink