I'm a sucker for good vocal harmony, and the Secret Sisters delivered a great KCRW session recently. This one's an original, but they also do fantastic covers.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
The Secret Sisters - "Tennessee Me"
I'm a sucker for good vocal harmony, and the Secret Sisters delivered a great KCRW session recently. This one's an original, but they also do fantastic covers.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Marshall McLuhan and Socialist Teddy Bears
The only thing worse than inane political analysis and obtuse cultural criticism is combining the two. John Cole of Balloon Juice finds this stunning example of "Bad Punditry":
The piece goes downhill from there, in a Dante's descent-into-the-Inferno sorta way. The author is Andrew Klavan, the same odious dipshit who tried to steal The Dark Knight's popularity to praise Bush and claim vindication for war, surveillance and torture. Backtrack through the Balloon Juice post and you can read the Klavan piece – then solace yourself with it being savagely mocked in the BJ thread. (Some of the commentators at the LA Times, where Klavan's piece appeared, also make short work of it.)
For his analysis of The Dark Knight, Klavan had to ignore key aspects of the actual movie, of course, but that's standard for "conservative" film reviewers these days. His Toy Story 3 piece does the same, but I'd say it's even worse for several reasons. The key one is that Pixar makes truly wonderful movies, and they deserve better than this hack and dolt trying to purloin their work, and crapping all over it in the process. Pixar also deliberately tries to avoid politics in their films (the subject has come up in interviews). This is in part because they're making films suitable for young kids (as well as adults), but also because good storytelling tends to be multifaceted in a way that agitprop isn't. And come on, if the Pixar crew were going to push a political message, it would tend to be liberal-minded, like their neighbors in San Francisco and Berkeley, or like most of the film industry in very liberal (and extremely capitalist) Hollywood. Does Klavan really think Pixar is run by closet right-wingers? Lastly, the analysis itself is extremely dumb, without even the saving grace of some wit or an all-in-good-fun wink for its ridiculously counterintuitive, counter-textual reading. Klavan's "analysis" is reductive, making the film less fun, less moving, less rich. You would have to be an ideological zealot, an inept propagandist or a fucking moron to write that piece. I leave it to discriminating readers to decide the exact nature and composition of Klavan's latest little turd.
This isn't the first time poor Pixar has suffered this sort of Konservetkult abuse. When the fantastic WALL-E came out, conservatives first strongly attacked it because of its environmental themes... but then later, some decided to try to appropriate it as a conservative indictment of the nanny-state. Oh, the humanity. It's a sad waste of life to approach the arts in this way, and I've got much more on this whole mindset in a long post on the most "conservative" films (which also covers Klavan's take on The Dark Knight in more depth). If, for instance, conservative Danielle Crittenden loves Pride and Prejudice, great, and perhaps we can have a pleasant conversation about it. But it's silly and pitiable to insist that Pride and Prejudice is a great "conservative" love story, as if it can only be safely enjoyed after being stamped with the conservative imprimatur, and certified free of thought-crime. Good art is often ambiguous and multilayered, and it's to be enjoyed, shared, reflected upon and discussed, not conquered and enslaved.
That said, I think we need one more response to Klavan, and I happen to have Lee Unkrich, director of Toy Story 3, right here:
If indications hold true, voters Tuesday will deliver a powerful rebuke to the Obama administration and its plans to transform America. Also, “Toy Story 3” will come out on DVD. These two events are not unrelated.
The piece goes downhill from there, in a Dante's descent-into-the-Inferno sorta way. The author is Andrew Klavan, the same odious dipshit who tried to steal The Dark Knight's popularity to praise Bush and claim vindication for war, surveillance and torture. Backtrack through the Balloon Juice post and you can read the Klavan piece – then solace yourself with it being savagely mocked in the BJ thread. (Some of the commentators at the LA Times, where Klavan's piece appeared, also make short work of it.)
For his analysis of The Dark Knight, Klavan had to ignore key aspects of the actual movie, of course, but that's standard for "conservative" film reviewers these days. His Toy Story 3 piece does the same, but I'd say it's even worse for several reasons. The key one is that Pixar makes truly wonderful movies, and they deserve better than this hack and dolt trying to purloin their work, and crapping all over it in the process. Pixar also deliberately tries to avoid politics in their films (the subject has come up in interviews). This is in part because they're making films suitable for young kids (as well as adults), but also because good storytelling tends to be multifaceted in a way that agitprop isn't. And come on, if the Pixar crew were going to push a political message, it would tend to be liberal-minded, like their neighbors in San Francisco and Berkeley, or like most of the film industry in very liberal (and extremely capitalist) Hollywood. Does Klavan really think Pixar is run by closet right-wingers? Lastly, the analysis itself is extremely dumb, without even the saving grace of some wit or an all-in-good-fun wink for its ridiculously counterintuitive, counter-textual reading. Klavan's "analysis" is reductive, making the film less fun, less moving, less rich. You would have to be an ideological zealot, an inept propagandist or a fucking moron to write that piece. I leave it to discriminating readers to decide the exact nature and composition of Klavan's latest little turd.
This isn't the first time poor Pixar has suffered this sort of Konservetkult abuse. When the fantastic WALL-E came out, conservatives first strongly attacked it because of its environmental themes... but then later, some decided to try to appropriate it as a conservative indictment of the nanny-state. Oh, the humanity. It's a sad waste of life to approach the arts in this way, and I've got much more on this whole mindset in a long post on the most "conservative" films (which also covers Klavan's take on The Dark Knight in more depth). If, for instance, conservative Danielle Crittenden loves Pride and Prejudice, great, and perhaps we can have a pleasant conversation about it. But it's silly and pitiable to insist that Pride and Prejudice is a great "conservative" love story, as if it can only be safely enjoyed after being stamped with the conservative imprimatur, and certified free of thought-crime. Good art is often ambiguous and multilayered, and it's to be enjoyed, shared, reflected upon and discussed, not conquered and enslaved.
That said, I think we need one more response to Klavan, and I happen to have Lee Unkrich, director of Toy Story 3, right here:
GOTV 2010
These are the most compelling Get Out the Vote ads I've seen so far. The first one comes from Steve Benen and Bill Simmon:
I actually saw this one, "I Remember," proliferate on one of them thar social media sites before the blogs really picked it up:
Digby passes on this cool one, "We Vote":
Lastly, here's a longer MoveOn ad with a sci-fi dystopian theme, and featuring Olivia Wilde. Apparently it's personalized for users who follow a Facebook-MoveOn log-in process:
More info about this ad is here and here. It's a bit creepy, and fairly clever and entertaining, including the little throwaway geek-out at the end about time travel theories.
I was working on a longer piece about the disappointing Democrats and third parties and all that, subjects of perennial discussion on some liberal blogs. But personally, when faced with an unabashedly reckless, nihilistic, plutocratic party, the party that's partially plutocratic-and-corrupt, and often gutless, but also has a few genuine liberals and hasn't completely abandoned the social contract, looks pretty good in comparison. And hey, the weekend after the "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Keep Fear Alive," the "Not Insane" ticket may not always be inspiring, but it is nonetheless compelling.
Update: Roy Edroso sounds the trumpets:
I actually saw this one, "I Remember," proliferate on one of them thar social media sites before the blogs really picked it up:
Digby passes on this cool one, "We Vote":
Lastly, here's a longer MoveOn ad with a sci-fi dystopian theme, and featuring Olivia Wilde. Apparently it's personalized for users who follow a Facebook-MoveOn log-in process:
More info about this ad is here and here. It's a bit creepy, and fairly clever and entertaining, including the little throwaway geek-out at the end about time travel theories.
I was working on a longer piece about the disappointing Democrats and third parties and all that, subjects of perennial discussion on some liberal blogs. But personally, when faced with an unabashedly reckless, nihilistic, plutocratic party, the party that's partially plutocratic-and-corrupt, and often gutless, but also has a few genuine liberals and hasn't completely abandoned the social contract, looks pretty good in comparison. And hey, the weekend after the "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Keep Fear Alive," the "Not Insane" ticket may not always be inspiring, but it is nonetheless compelling.
Update: Roy Edroso sounds the trumpets:
Outside of that it's the straight Democratic ticket for me. Obama is a trimmer and a pudding, but the Republicans are Satan's emissaries on Earth, and if I have little hope of making a difference I can at least, at the Final Trump, answer my Maker that I spurted my spitball against the hull of the Dark Lord's deathship when duty called. Go thou and do likewise!
Brown in the Final Stretch
Jerry Brown didn't start running ads seriously until pretty late in the election - or maybe it just felt that way because Whitman spent so early and so heavily. Regardless, Brown's strategy seems to have worked. This one minute ad, "Echo," has been in heavy rotation on TV since mid-October. It's received a fair amount of national press as well. The concept is pretty simple, but the end result is devastating to Whitman. I think it's quite fair, exemplifies the Brown critique of Whitman, and is the most effective political ad in California this election cycle:
Brown has been pretty sharp in most of the debates, and his campaign cleverly seized on Whitman's own words to hurry out this ad – "Why I came to California":
This ad, "Positive Finish," is also quite savvy. This exchange definitely made the local news:
TPM has more on this ad. There's also a one minute version that's even more effective, with Brown coming off as upbeat and gracious while Whitman is left squirming. Brown even posted a five minute version to show the exchange in full context. Whitman appears more reasonable in it, I'd say, but Brown also comes off well by coming to her defense at the end, and seeming loose and confident.
Personally, I hate "pledges" sought by reporters, which are almost always inane and seem designed to make headlines and little else. This one is no exception. Who gives a damn about whether an ad is "negative" or not? What matters is whether it's accurate (and honest in terms of context). So while I think Whitman would be a terrible governor – Schwarzenegger without the schmoozing skills, probably – I'm a bit sympathetic to her here on the general issue. That's not to say all the ads from her and her allies have been accurate and honest, because they certainly haven't, and like Fiorina, Whitman has offered mostly sound bites versus good policies. Consequently, my sympathy only goes so far.
On the politics, realistically, being down in the polls as much as she has been, Whitman's only chance of closing the gap was probably to go negative, even though it was a long shot. So a "no negative ad" pledge worked to Brown's advantage. Plus, Brown sharply picked up on Whitman's hedging, and so his offer was smart, allowing him to come off looking as the more honorable person. Hey, maybe he meant it without much calculation, since Brown favors the disarmingly candid response at times. I'm guessing part of it was his natural personality, and some of it was political savvy. In any case, Brown has played things well in the final stretch.
No matter who's governor, the job is going to be very tough because of California's ridiculous structural problems (a 2/3rds majority needed to raise taxes and an obstructionist GOP). However, Schwarzenegger was rarely willing to push his own party much, and consistently worked to protect rich plutocrats. Whitman would have been exactly the same on that front. Although she campaigned as an outsider, like really all "responsible" Republican candidates, she's an eager class warrior for the establishment. I'm not sure how much Brown can actually get done, but at least he can try.
Brown has been pretty sharp in most of the debates, and his campaign cleverly seized on Whitman's own words to hurry out this ad – "Why I came to California":
This ad, "Positive Finish," is also quite savvy. This exchange definitely made the local news:
TPM has more on this ad. There's also a one minute version that's even more effective, with Brown coming off as upbeat and gracious while Whitman is left squirming. Brown even posted a five minute version to show the exchange in full context. Whitman appears more reasonable in it, I'd say, but Brown also comes off well by coming to her defense at the end, and seeming loose and confident.
Personally, I hate "pledges" sought by reporters, which are almost always inane and seem designed to make headlines and little else. This one is no exception. Who gives a damn about whether an ad is "negative" or not? What matters is whether it's accurate (and honest in terms of context). So while I think Whitman would be a terrible governor – Schwarzenegger without the schmoozing skills, probably – I'm a bit sympathetic to her here on the general issue. That's not to say all the ads from her and her allies have been accurate and honest, because they certainly haven't, and like Fiorina, Whitman has offered mostly sound bites versus good policies. Consequently, my sympathy only goes so far.
On the politics, realistically, being down in the polls as much as she has been, Whitman's only chance of closing the gap was probably to go negative, even though it was a long shot. So a "no negative ad" pledge worked to Brown's advantage. Plus, Brown sharply picked up on Whitman's hedging, and so his offer was smart, allowing him to come off looking as the more honorable person. Hey, maybe he meant it without much calculation, since Brown favors the disarmingly candid response at times. I'm guessing part of it was his natural personality, and some of it was political savvy. In any case, Brown has played things well in the final stretch.
No matter who's governor, the job is going to be very tough because of California's ridiculous structural problems (a 2/3rds majority needed to raise taxes and an obstructionist GOP). However, Schwarzenegger was rarely willing to push his own party much, and consistently worked to protect rich plutocrats. Whitman would have been exactly the same on that front. Although she campaigned as an outsider, like really all "responsible" Republican candidates, she's an eager class warrior for the establishment. I'm not sure how much Brown can actually get done, but at least he can try.
Rise (and Fall?) of the eMeg
At last report, Meg Whitman has spent an unprecedented 163 million on her campaign. Much of the first blast went to airing this one minute ad, "Confidence," starting in early April, as part of a juggernaut-momentum strategy. It seemed like it ran at least once per hour on TV:
It's a well made spot, it's positive, and a good "introduction to the candidate." For those seeking a change and not too picky about the standard plutocrat pabulum, I imagine it was pretty effective – and Whitman was doing well back then. Reuters reported back on 4/5/10:
Anecdotally, some people got really sick of the constant Whitman ads, though, it seemed she was trying to "buy" the governorship, and growing familiarity did not seem to make her any more likable. In March, she called a press conference to make a speech and then refused to take questions. (This seemed to be the "command-and-control management style" a recent Mercury News described.) Her primary battle with Steve Poizner also hurt her. As Dave Dayen wrote back in May, after her sizable lead over Poizner shrunk dramatically:
Two other issues made her look very bad as well – her not voting for decades, and that her former housekeeper had been in the country illegally. Whitman began campaigning on being "tough" on illegal immigrants back during his primary race with Poizner, and when the housekeeper story broke, it made her look dishonest and hypocritical. (My favorite quip on the matter is: "In fairness to Whitman, she shouldn’t be criticized for this episode, because for the first nine years she employed the illegal alien she didn’t know that she would someday need to demagogue the illegal immigration issue.")
Some of Whitman's later ads seemed successful. I suspect this one, featuring Bill Clinton and airing starting in early September, was one of her most effective. I'm guessing they were targeting swing voters and disenchanted Democrats. (Perhaps it also served as red meat for the conservative base – even Bill Clinton doesn't like Jerry Brown!)
Finally, I'm not sure I ever saw this one air on TV – it's called "Strong Leadership," but I had to post it because I think "Douchebags" fits it better:
It seems this would only appeal to rich Republicans who would already be inclined to vote for Whitman anyway – and maybe that's why this one didn't air much, at least in Los Angeles. As Harold Meyerson's put it, Romney "approaches the Platonic Ideal of Inauthenticity." And while Condoleezza Rice's star probably shines brighter than that of the other disgraced Bushies, there's little good reason for that. She's a pretty despicable, craven human being, and should probably be on trial for war crimes (as should most of her former colleagues). Her approval ratings in the black community might exceed those of most conservatives, but aren't great. Overall, I don't think Romney, Rice and the Jarvis guy would help Whitman with swing or crossover voters. I don't think the Whitman ads attacking unions did much on that front, either.
In any case, the election starts shortly, and if Whitman loses, it's an important victory because of the money factor if nothing else. Money can definitely turn an election, but it can't buy it outright, especially if the candidate makes herself look bad all on her own.
It's a well made spot, it's positive, and a good "introduction to the candidate." For those seeking a change and not too picky about the standard plutocrat pabulum, I imagine it was pretty effective – and Whitman was doing well back then. Reuters reported back on 4/5/10:
Billionaire Republican Meg Whitman has built a slight lead in the California governor's race after contributing a record-breaking $39 million to her own campaign, a Los Angeles Times/USC poll showed on Monday.
The former CEO of online auction house eBay Inc., making her first bid for elected office, has 44 percent of the vote to Democratic candidate and former governor Jerry Brown's 41 percent, according to the poll for the November election.
The winner will succeed Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is barred by term limits from seeking re-election.
In what is expected to be the most expensive nonpresidential election in U.S. history, Whitman has spent millions on television ads ahead of the June primary and holds a 40-percentage point lead over Republican Steve Poizner.
"The story is the money. The amount of money and the level of advertising Whitman has run to date is not only unprecedented ... it has had a very clear marked effect on campaign," said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.
"Among people who have seen her ads, Whitman is beating (Brown) handily, but she's losing to those who have not seen them," Schnur said.
Whitman's $39 million contribution is a record in California for candidates donating to their own campaigns.
More than seven months ahead of the general election, she has spent $46 million, a record for a candidate in a California statewide election and more than Schwarzenegger spent in his entire 2006 campaign.
Anecdotally, some people got really sick of the constant Whitman ads, though, it seemed she was trying to "buy" the governorship, and growing familiarity did not seem to make her any more likable. In March, she called a press conference to make a speech and then refused to take questions. (This seemed to be the "command-and-control management style" a recent Mercury News described.) Her primary battle with Steve Poizner also hurt her. As Dave Dayen wrote back in May, after her sizable lead over Poizner shrunk dramatically:
What can account for this epic crash? First off, the Poizner ad tying eMeg to Goldman Sachs is, outside of the Joe Sestak’s closing ad against Arlen Specter, the best of the cycle.
Beyond that, Whitman just punched herself out. The massive pre-primary spending became the story more than her worth as a candidate, and when Poizner and his millions got competitive on air it became a race. Whitman’s been pretty terrible in the two debates thus far as well. Also, the CA Republican primary electorate is, shall we say, crazy, and Poizner has one of the staunchest conservatives, Tom McClintock, on his side. His personal testimonial ad for Poizner is pretty successful, as he’s the most high-profile conservative in the state.
Two other issues made her look very bad as well – her not voting for decades, and that her former housekeeper had been in the country illegally. Whitman began campaigning on being "tough" on illegal immigrants back during his primary race with Poizner, and when the housekeeper story broke, it made her look dishonest and hypocritical. (My favorite quip on the matter is: "In fairness to Whitman, she shouldn’t be criticized for this episode, because for the first nine years she employed the illegal alien she didn’t know that she would someday need to demagogue the illegal immigration issue.")
Some of Whitman's later ads seemed successful. I suspect this one, featuring Bill Clinton and airing starting in early September, was one of her most effective. I'm guessing they were targeting swing voters and disenchanted Democrats. (Perhaps it also served as red meat for the conservative base – even Bill Clinton doesn't like Jerry Brown!)
Finally, I'm not sure I ever saw this one air on TV – it's called "Strong Leadership," but I had to post it because I think "Douchebags" fits it better:
It seems this would only appeal to rich Republicans who would already be inclined to vote for Whitman anyway – and maybe that's why this one didn't air much, at least in Los Angeles. As Harold Meyerson's put it, Romney "approaches the Platonic Ideal of Inauthenticity." And while Condoleezza Rice's star probably shines brighter than that of the other disgraced Bushies, there's little good reason for that. She's a pretty despicable, craven human being, and should probably be on trial for war crimes (as should most of her former colleagues). Her approval ratings in the black community might exceed those of most conservatives, but aren't great. Overall, I don't think Romney, Rice and the Jarvis guy would help Whitman with swing or crossover voters. I don't think the Whitman ads attacking unions did much on that front, either.
In any case, the election starts shortly, and if Whitman loses, it's an important victory because of the money factor if nothing else. Money can definitely turn an election, but it can't buy it outright, especially if the candidate makes herself look bad all on her own.
Monday, November 01, 2010
The Case Against Fiorina by Boxer – and Fiorina
Continuing our look at California political ads, here's two attack ads against Carly Fiorina aired by Barbara Boxer's campaign.
I've probably seen this Boxer ad, "Outsourcing," the most. Apparently it started running about mid-September, and it's run a lot since then.
I think it's pretty effective. (Update: Here's more on the ad.) So is this similar one, "Workers," which started running 'round the clock a couple of weeks ago:
Both these ads underscore a recurring theme - the best case against Fiorina has often been made by Fiorina herself. Here she is on what's normally conservative cheerleading territory, Fox News, struggling to evade a reality-based question by Chris Wallace:
Wallace can be pretty hackish, but he does have his moments, and this was one of them. Like many Republicans, Fiorina mainly trots out slogans, but there's no responsible policy behind them. TBogg expertly summarized this Fiorina performance in "Carly Fiorina’s Underpants Gnome Budget":
I've probably seen this Boxer ad, "Outsourcing," the most. Apparently it started running about mid-September, and it's run a lot since then.
I think it's pretty effective. (Update: Here's more on the ad.) So is this similar one, "Workers," which started running 'round the clock a couple of weeks ago:
Both these ads underscore a recurring theme - the best case against Fiorina has often been made by Fiorina herself. Here she is on what's normally conservative cheerleading territory, Fox News, struggling to evade a reality-based question by Chris Wallace:
Wallace can be pretty hackish, but he does have his moments, and this was one of them. Like many Republicans, Fiorina mainly trots out slogans, but there's no responsible policy behind them. TBogg expertly summarized this Fiorina performance in "Carly Fiorina’s Underpants Gnome Budget":
Short version:
1. Post every agency budget on the internet
2. ?
3. Balanced budget!
It appears that Carly Fiorina is Christine O’Donnell with less Jesus and more work history.
Fiorina's Demon Sheep Ad
I would be remiss if I didn't include this web-only Fiorina ad from the GOP primaries, the infamous "Demon Sheep" ad from early in the year. Political junkies will have already seen it, and perhaps a parody or two of it. But ya gotta see this one if you haven't. I dare you not to laugh – or think of Monty Python.
Ignore the Culprits, and Vote Non-Partisan – Republican!
Here's five more ads from Carly Fiorina and her allies. The first one is called "Day" and it started running heavily early in October:
The ad depends on voters not following the news and not knowing (or caring) which party is primarily responsible for their economic woes and running up wasteful spending (roughly five trillion added to the debt under Bush, for instance). My favorite part is probably the mournful strings.
Outside groups such as the Chamber of Commerce have been running ads against Boxer as well. This LA Times article details some of them, and some are targeted at specific regions in the vast state of California. This one, "Bad With Money," has aired in Los Angeles:
I've seen this other Chamber ad, "28 Years," much more, though - it's been running constantly:
You'll notice these ads are simpatico with Fiorina's. This one doesn't even make much of an argument - it just repeats "28 Years" as a mantra, and simplistically, deceptively pretends that economic and fiscal woes are all Boxer's fault. (It's sad that the Chamber pursues short-term gain over long-term gain, since GOP policies over the past 30 years have been disastrous.)
Next up is "Crushed," an official Fiorina ad that's playing a lot:
It's also simplistic, deceptive bullshit of course, but it's great voiceover work (by the same guy who did "Day"). The "Barbara Boxer is Satan" delivery makes me laugh, but of course I'm not the intended audience.
This one's called "Label," and has been running non-stop the past few weeks:
Party doesn't matter anymore – so vote for the Republican! Funny how that works. Never mind that overwhelmingly, Republicans are responsible for creating the mess.
I think "Andres from Long Beach" sounds a bit like Ed Norton. Meanwhile, I find Carly Fiorina's chirpy platitudes at the end shallow, hypocritical and off-putting, especially given the "petty bickering" shown in her campaign ads and public appearances. But I wonder how others react.
Fiorina has also bought time for ads on YouTube itself, that play before someone watches a video. User BloodRedChorizo commented on this ad: "I'm voting against you solely because I'm extremely annoyed with having to watch your fucking ad before every other video. Annoying as hell." Meg Whitman certainly seems to have suffered somewhat from over-exposure, and maybe that's hitting Fiorina, too. But we'll see what happens on Tuesday.
(As an aside, I also find it annoying that YouTube requires a log-in for the embed code for any video on an user's page. There are a workarounds, or one can log-in, but... you damn kids stop messing with those embed codes!)
The ad depends on voters not following the news and not knowing (or caring) which party is primarily responsible for their economic woes and running up wasteful spending (roughly five trillion added to the debt under Bush, for instance). My favorite part is probably the mournful strings.
Outside groups such as the Chamber of Commerce have been running ads against Boxer as well. This LA Times article details some of them, and some are targeted at specific regions in the vast state of California. This one, "Bad With Money," has aired in Los Angeles:
I've seen this other Chamber ad, "28 Years," much more, though - it's been running constantly:
You'll notice these ads are simpatico with Fiorina's. This one doesn't even make much of an argument - it just repeats "28 Years" as a mantra, and simplistically, deceptively pretends that economic and fiscal woes are all Boxer's fault. (It's sad that the Chamber pursues short-term gain over long-term gain, since GOP policies over the past 30 years have been disastrous.)
Next up is "Crushed," an official Fiorina ad that's playing a lot:
It's also simplistic, deceptive bullshit of course, but it's great voiceover work (by the same guy who did "Day"). The "Barbara Boxer is Satan" delivery makes me laugh, but of course I'm not the intended audience.
This one's called "Label," and has been running non-stop the past few weeks:
Party doesn't matter anymore – so vote for the Republican! Funny how that works. Never mind that overwhelmingly, Republicans are responsible for creating the mess.
I think "Andres from Long Beach" sounds a bit like Ed Norton. Meanwhile, I find Carly Fiorina's chirpy platitudes at the end shallow, hypocritical and off-putting, especially given the "petty bickering" shown in her campaign ads and public appearances. But I wonder how others react.
Fiorina has also bought time for ads on YouTube itself, that play before someone watches a video. User BloodRedChorizo commented on this ad: "I'm voting against you solely because I'm extremely annoyed with having to watch your fucking ad before every other video. Annoying as hell." Meg Whitman certainly seems to have suffered somewhat from over-exposure, and maybe that's hitting Fiorina, too. But we'll see what happens on Tuesday.
(As an aside, I also find it annoying that YouTube requires a log-in for the embed code for any video on an user's page. There are a workarounds, or one can log-in, but... you damn kids stop messing with those embed codes!)
Courting the Right-Wing
Continuing our look at Fiorina ads, this one is called "Sir," and started playing in late September. At this point, she'd ditched the tobacco/jaundice filter:
I think this was aimed mainly at right-wingers to prove her bona fides with them – and the community at conservative site Red State responded favorably. I wonder how effective this was with other people, though. This exchange (from June 2009) is well-known in right-wing circles, where it was the scandal du jour, and Boxer was denounced as arrogant, anti-military and all the usual BS. However, if you weren't familiar with the incident already, I'm not sure you'd know what the hell was going on from this clip. Boxer could have been edited to look worse, actually, and I think she sounds slightly weary but fairly polite. I would imagine many women would sympathize with her on the asking-for-a-little-respect front. Even for those who feel differently (apart from right-wingers, naturally), Boxer might come off as touchy, but was this ever really that big a deal? Meanwhile, yet again, Fiorina's delivery is "eager playground taunt." In fact, Fiorina brought this incident up during their debate, and Boxer said she actually called the general afterwards and said, "Do I owe you an apology?" and he said no. This always seemed like a "red meat for the base" or desperation attack to me, one to fire up the faithful but not likely to swing the undecided.
I'm always interested to hear how other California voters across the political spectrum react to individual ads, or the overall deluge. To my eyes, Fiorina has been pitching herself as the responsible adult, but many of her attack ads (and almost all of her ads have been negative) have been extremely shallow. The two images contradict, and often do so in the very same ad. And earlier in the election cycle she was pitching herself as a "conservative" Republican, while later she adopted a "transcend party" pitch. That's hardly unprecedented, but in both cases there's a contradiction. Her campaign has depended on voters not remembering and not paying attention – both to Fiorina's campaign ads, and to which party and policies caused the vast majority of damage to America over the past decade.
I think this was aimed mainly at right-wingers to prove her bona fides with them – and the community at conservative site Red State responded favorably. I wonder how effective this was with other people, though. This exchange (from June 2009) is well-known in right-wing circles, where it was the scandal du jour, and Boxer was denounced as arrogant, anti-military and all the usual BS. However, if you weren't familiar with the incident already, I'm not sure you'd know what the hell was going on from this clip. Boxer could have been edited to look worse, actually, and I think she sounds slightly weary but fairly polite. I would imagine many women would sympathize with her on the asking-for-a-little-respect front. Even for those who feel differently (apart from right-wingers, naturally), Boxer might come off as touchy, but was this ever really that big a deal? Meanwhile, yet again, Fiorina's delivery is "eager playground taunt." In fact, Fiorina brought this incident up during their debate, and Boxer said she actually called the general afterwards and said, "Do I owe you an apology?" and he said no. This always seemed like a "red meat for the base" or desperation attack to me, one to fire up the faithful but not likely to swing the undecided.
I'm always interested to hear how other California voters across the political spectrum react to individual ads, or the overall deluge. To my eyes, Fiorina has been pitching herself as the responsible adult, but many of her attack ads (and almost all of her ads have been negative) have been extremely shallow. The two images contradict, and often do so in the very same ad. And earlier in the election cycle she was pitching herself as a "conservative" Republican, while later she adopted a "transcend party" pitch. That's hardly unprecedented, but in both cases there's a contradiction. Her campaign has depended on voters not remembering and not paying attention – both to Fiorina's campaign ads, and to which party and policies caused the vast majority of damage to America over the past decade.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Discontent, Fear and Jaundice
Here's three ads from Carly Fiorina, the Republican challenging Senator Barbara Boxer's seat.
This one is titled "Work." It was posted in May, and it was running all the time on TV back then:
I refer to it as the "jaundice ad." I think some of the people look pretty ghoulish with that yellow/rose filter. I suspect it, and the soft-focus effect, is to make Fiorina look more vibrant and young. But what sticks with me is (sorry) bad teeth and creepy eyes. I'm supposed to take advice from them, these "regular zombie Americans," to vote for a Republican?
"Jobs" was also playing all the time in May:
Yes, we all remember all those great jobs – as in zero net job creation – with tax cuts to the rich (like Fiorina) under Bush. The Dems have worked to pass legislation to help small businesses, and have been blocked by the GOP. Fiorina favors standard GOP sound bites with little reality behind them.
This one's called "Safe," and played 'round the clock in June:
It's obvious that this is a very short, out-of-context excerpt of Boxer, and she has more to say about national security than this. However, what she does say is exactly in line with what the Pentagon has stated:
"Terrorism kills – and Barbara Boxer's worried about the weather" is childish and really insults viewers' intelligence. It's inept McCarthyism. This ad targeted low-information conservatives and conservative-leaning voters, or maybe her team actually thought this crap (that worked pretty well in 2002 and 2004) would still play with other voters. If there were any doubt before that Fiorina wasn't wooing the reality-based community, these three ads clinched it.
This one is titled "Work." It was posted in May, and it was running all the time on TV back then:
I refer to it as the "jaundice ad." I think some of the people look pretty ghoulish with that yellow/rose filter. I suspect it, and the soft-focus effect, is to make Fiorina look more vibrant and young. But what sticks with me is (sorry) bad teeth and creepy eyes. I'm supposed to take advice from them, these "regular zombie Americans," to vote for a Republican?
"Jobs" was also playing all the time in May:
Yes, we all remember all those great jobs – as in zero net job creation – with tax cuts to the rich (like Fiorina) under Bush. The Dems have worked to pass legislation to help small businesses, and have been blocked by the GOP. Fiorina favors standard GOP sound bites with little reality behind them.
This one's called "Safe," and played 'round the clock in June:
It's obvious that this is a very short, out-of-context excerpt of Boxer, and she has more to say about national security than this. However, what she does say is exactly in line with what the Pentagon has stated:
Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment... While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world."
"Terrorism kills – and Barbara Boxer's worried about the weather" is childish and really insults viewers' intelligence. It's inept McCarthyism. This ad targeted low-information conservatives and conservative-leaning voters, or maybe her team actually thought this crap (that worked pretty well in 2002 and 2004) would still play with other voters. If there were any doubt before that Fiorina wasn't wooing the reality-based community, these three ads clinched it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)