I'm switching posting slots with the Mayor this week. But fear not loyal citizens of MacNamerica, um, she already wrote a post. So I guess this italicized announcement is really highly unnecessay, but I just want to be consistent.
Ok, I know nothing about art. But I know something about politics. And the best chance us political consultants get to express ourselves artistically is through the medium of horrible television ads. On my previous blog last campaign season, I ran a feature called Bad Ad Thursday, where I critiqued one of the zillions of terrible ads. With apologies to Phylan for bogarting (wtf? KELLYq what does that mean?), here are three of my favorite damn bad, and consequently damn good, political ads of last cycle.
I recommend watching each one once or twice before reading the comments so you know what the hell I'm talking about.
Ok. Here goes:
A) If I had to describe this video in four words or less, those words would be, "It was due today?" As in, those are the four words Carl Sheeler must've blurted out at 10 PM at this Rhode Island bar when his media consultant told him he damn well better come up with some kind of ad so he can FedEx it to the cable stations the next day.
B) Talk about production value. The video jumps four times and cuts off the last words of poor Billy Shaw's sentences. The Sheeler camp didn't even EDIT this--they just turned the camera on and off 4 times sequentially. Now, THAT is low budget.
C) I promise you that this is the only campaign ad of the season you will see where the guy you thought was simply a random drunk is actually the candidate for Congress. The video jump cuts only further that notion, as it makes it look like Sheeler is wobbling in his chair.
D) This Billy Shaw seems like a pleasant bloke, and I guess they were going for the whole average-Joe-upstanding-citizen endorsement thing. But they should have picked an upstanding citizen who didn't have a bizarre pinky twitch. Seriously, I thought that thing was going to jump off his hand. And I guess it doesn't hurt to have a guy with such a stereotypical Rhode Island accent, but I still wouldn't feel right if I didn't make fun of Billy Shaw for sounding like every stock character on Family Guy.
E) The end of the ad sorta lacks the punch that I think Sheeler was going for. First of all, there is something goofy about Sheeler flaunting this jumbo-sized Constitution that he got from a gift shop. And then the "and so do we!" which is meant to show this overwhelming populist support for Sheeler comes from about 8 people. Not as impressive as it must have been on paper (if Sheeler even planned this out on paper at all.)
Here's another one, which has a certain nerdy charm to it but is just as bad.
A) Weak start. David, if you can't say, "I'm David Sanders, your candidate for Congress in the 4th district" without conviction, don't say it at all. You trail off at the end of the statement as if you are ashamed to be David Sanders. You're goddamn David Sanders, goddamn it--Be proud!
B) Horrible visuals, part 1. Nothing moves voters to the polls like what appears to be my 9th grade biology classroom.
C) We're not speed readers. How many words can this guy fit on the screen, and how many are we going to absorb? A total of 68 words appeared on screen during the course of the ad, and all of them are going simultaneously with Sanders' narration (and that doesn't include the "Paid for by . . . " messages that twice clutter up the bottom of the screen). I'm not sure if that sounds like a lot, but that's insane. Were you able to pick up on the following words and phrases: "Will ensure a real and cost-effective medicare prescription drug benefit," "National Science Foundation Career Award Recipient," or "Vote for Integrity and Real Constituent Service"? Because they were there, on-screen, and I picked up on none of them the first 2 or 3 times I watched it.
D) Message inconsistency. He's talking about several thousand things, which means he might as well be talking about nothing at all. He mentions Medicare, stem-cell research, health care, vaccine safety, WMDS. And then his tagline, "Vote for Integrity and Real Constituent Service," has nothing to do with anything in the rest of his ad. So what is your impression? Just a general hodgepodge, which again doesn't really move voters to the polls.
E) Horrible visuals, part 2. How 'bout that map of Afghanistan with a quote from his opponent about Afghanistan in it (which, by the way, was hard to read and comprehend in the 3 seconds that it is on screen)? And do we really need to see the former bio-weapons lab in Siberia that he inspected?
F) Which reminds me: One line in this ad wins easily for political non-sequitur of the year. I've put it in between the sentence before and after, with the non-sequitur in bold, so that you can see the context (since context is what makes a non-sequitur in the first place): "I'm working to prevent weapons use. Because of my expertise on the ebola virus, I recently inspected a former bio-weapons lab in Siberia. I'm David Sanders, Democratic candidate for Congress, and I authorize this message." What? Did someone slip that sentence in as a joke? What does that have to do with anything?
How many swing voters are marching into the polls saying, "Well, I've voted for Steve Buyer before, but it's about damn time we elect someone who's been to Siberia and knows something about the ebola virus!"?
G) Horrible visuals, part 3. The last screen shot is one of the most visually unattractive shots I've ever seen. A slogan that is hard to read, a picture of Indiana with the 4th district highlighted awkwardly, a harsh and clashing blue and red scheme, a website address that looks out of place, and a goofy picture of Sanders blinking.
OK, finally here is my personal favorite Bad Ad, coming from the Pete Ashdown for Senate campaign. You won't need my commentary because this ad speaks for itself . . . though I do want to know what the hell they are feeding that baby that makes it so damn spastic.
bogart:
1.) bully, intimidate (bogarts his way into a room)
2.) to use or consume without sharing (bogart a joint)
(No really, m-w.com uses the phrase "bogart a joint" to illustrate the meaning of this term.)
Anyway, Jerome, in my opinion, you have not bogarted. I'm sure there are plenty of youtube videos remaining for Phylan. You didn't consume them all. (Though maybe you were apologizing for not sharing the mary j with him last night?)
Posted by: Merriam-Webster | August 30, 2007 at 10:36 AM
i guess the phrase 'bouncing baby' is cuter in theory than in practice
Posted by: Lauren | August 30, 2007 at 11:01 AM