That's quite a find.  I suppose it is unsurprising, but it is very disappointing.

What I really don't understand is why Burner's campaign can't find someone a little more local with some understanding of 8th District demographics to produce the ads.  

Not that I think it's a great ad, but just because it's a district that Kerry won doesn't mean that it's full of Democrats.  The Eastside of King County is very independent-minded and lacks strong partisan affiliations.  In fact, if there are strong partisan affiliations there, they are way more likely to be Republicans.  (Trust me, I've done a lot of phone banking here.)  The reason Kerry won the 8th is because voters were disillusioned with Bush himself, not with the entire Republican brand, which is why Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi won big here.

I'm sure Tom McMahon is a sellout, but I don't think the fact that Darcy's ad doesn't identify her as a Democrat is "unbelievable."

After Kerry's failure, I sat next to a big-time fundraiser for the Dems on a plane to Chicago who said that "the only person who ought not to be fired and barred from the next several presidential campaigns is Elmendorf."

This might also explain her wooden and awkward appearance. Contrast her end "I approve this message" and the lifeless stilted "so do we" response behind her with the original exciting, authentic Lamont ads.

Dean also looked stilted and unnatural in some of his TV spots if I recall. Some of it may have been him, or the wrestlers neck, but I have a feeling a lot of it may have been poor ad work and the inability (or lack of desire?) to pick up on problems with the ad spot by McMahon.

This is getting very interesting, very quickly. Do we have a shot at finally taking down this guy and his minions that have played such a large part in creating a losing and loser Democratic Party?

I don't agree that it's a good idea to come out with Democrat right out of the gate.

First of all, Kerry won 51% of the vote. Any campaign that just goes after those 51% is doomed to failure.

Secondly, all the polling I've seen show that the Democratic leadership isn't much more highly regarded than the Republican leadership. Americans are sick of incumbents and Washington and want to turn to new leadership. They aren't sick of Republicans and want to turn to Democrats.

It's a slight but crucial distinction. Being angry with the Republican leadership does not equal wanting to turn to the Democrats. The smart way to navigate this, frankly, is branding your opponent as part of the failed Republican leadership without calling yourself a Democrat. If Burner calls herself a Democrat is her opening ad she brands herself as a partisan, political figure, exactly the wrong branding in an anti-incumbent, anti-Washington year. Look at the initial wave of your poll. Independents still think Democrats are corrupt, and only half think that the Democrats are most likely to hold Bush accountable for Iraq.

The proper message is that we need to hold the current leadership accountable by bringing in new voices. Telling voters they need to switch one team on politicians for another just isn't going to resonate very well.

The fact that she hasn't brought up Iraq yet is bad, but it is just the intro ad.

That said, it is a dreadful ad, in the mushy language and poor style. And why in God's name is it 60 seconds long. That's just flushing money down the toilet to put people to sleep.

[I live in WA-7 and have worked for a candidate in WA-8].

First of all, the district profile is a very odd mix. It includes some of the wealthiest suburbs in the country, where Bill Gates owns a house, other well-off suburban in Microsoft's orbit, plus working-class areas to the south.

Second of all, the economy is actually doing pretty well here. Boeing has been very successful lately, so a lot of folks are pretty happy, particularly in this district that has lots of Boeing employees. To wit, approval of Bush is relatively high for a Blue State.

Third, Congressman Reichert is Famous, for a reason that it's basically impossible not to like him; catching the Green River Killer and getting a confession.

Fourth, as in much of the Northeast, Democratic presidential preference has yet to turn into down-ballot support; upper-middle class Bellevue, WA, which voted for Kerry 54-46, has a city council made up only of Republicans (though most are pro-choice).

Fifth, it's early; I'm sure the offensive firepower will come later, and since she was one of the first targeted races, she'll get plenty of anti-Iraq war ads later on.

All of this leads to several different potential strategies for the Burner campaign. Judging by the ad, the goal is to emphasize that Burner knows what problems face people who work for a living and eat into Reichert's "just a regular guy" appeal. Conveniently, this effect will be strongest among working class voters, who are most likely to get their news from local & nat'l TV rather than the internet or newspapers. You can still reach the Bill Bradley Plus coalition through other media.

I don't recall a lot of grousing when Paul Hackett ran ads touting his military service and "independence". In a district that's not quite 60% Democratic -- at the Presidential election, which means there are lots of "I'm a Republican; I just don't like Bush" voters -- I wouldn't tout my party ID either; or at the least I'd say "I'm a Democrat, but I'm interested in solving problems more than attacking Republicans".

And I think you do a good job at pointing out that, despite what we liked about the ads back then, we're smarter now and this is what we know about these kinds of ads--and the people who make them--right now.  That's a very big distinction and it's crystal clear in this post.

One other topic that hasn't been mentioned is the connection between a 'lets-go-slow-get-to-know-ya' approach of the Burner ad, and the 'I'll give you a cut' attitude of the firm producing the ad.

Why not go for broke on the first ad?  Why not front the big issues and the passion right away?  OK...on some level, maybe because there is concern over the district not liking it.  But I have trouble believing that there is a district in this country where people are thinking, "Yeah...the  Iraq war.  I'm still not sure what to make of that."  Or: "President Bush...I still  haven't made up my mind. Let's wait one more year before we judge hiim."  These decisions have been made in every district.  

Particularly in light of the quote from the CTG, I see the first-gear quality of the ad in question could very well be a product of the concern of the producers to keep billing as long as possible. I can almost hear the pitching, "Don't worry, this is just the first ad.  We've got one more get-to-know-you ad lined up and then it's into the these-are-my-position approach for three ads and then onto a big finish with two I-am-passionate ads.   Now, how's the fundraising going?"

On a different note: I see McMahon all the time as 'the Democrat' in the chair on TV.  He's terrible.

i think its an overreaction. its the first ad, its an intro ad.  but yea, its too long

Yikes.  I hope Burner can get out of her contract with these guys...

LOL!

Those Jeb Bush ads attacking Bill McBride were widely credited with actually helping McBride defeat Janet Reno in the Democraric primary that year.

Of course, the strategery was the brain child of GOP uber consultant, Mike Murphy -- not McMahon.

A bit off topic, but Lieberschnitzel's registration as a Democrat in CT is being challenged-

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archi ves/2006/08/city_asked_to_u.php

Dean's ads were the worst I ever saw. Only in the Democratic party is incompetence (if not treason) rewarded with more clients.

...should be told they will be paid one amount if the candidate loses, and twice that if the candidate wins.

Then greed will be an incentive instead of a problem.

If she's getting money from Washington, DC, they are telling her who to go with...

Or else they won't give her any cash...

That's how it works.

...isn't too bad.

She sounds rather nervous to start with (with what sounded like one or two bleeding chunks from her stump speech shoehorned in); there were one or two awkward beats (that could either have been her or her nerdy interviewer); but she certainly warmed up towards the end, even to the point of working with Nerdy Guy's attempt at humor.

I think a reasonably open-minded independent listening to the interview would have got an impression of a pol they'd want to hear more from.

(Which is more than could be said of the media appearances of 'Speaker' Pelosi, to name but one unimpressive Congressional Dem graybeard.)

As other folks have said, there certainly seems to be the raw material for much better ads than the one on Youtube...

Doesn't anybody go to the source? I e-mailed Darcy and asked her why the words "Democrat" or "Democratic Party" weren't in the ad, and she replied that it was part of the strategy; that this was to introduce her as a person first.

Having phone banked already on her behalf, I can tell you that her name recognition needs some work, as might be expected for a first-time candidate.

Darcy assured me that subsequent ads would emphasize her party affiliation, and was glad that I was paying attention.

We should continue to pay such attention, and should not hesitate to pressure Democrats who leave their party affiliation off their ads.

It's easy to pick apart these things from afar. A first time candidate for office, who is running for Congress, usually does not have a lot of people around them who can help them navigate the variosu decisions they need to make. Choosing a consultant is just one of them.

Having lived in Seattle for 7 years and worked on camapigns in primarily non-Seattle parts of the state, and who had relatives living (and who still live) in the 8th, I can say that this district just a few years ago was hardcore GOP. The fact that Kerry did as well as he did was a surprise to me, but a sign of changing demographics.

That said, Darcy will need more sophistcated stuff if she's going to cut through the clutter of the World Series, the fall TV schedule, back to school coupons, and the like. Esp. with people who in many places skew towards high-income, high education and won't pay attention to standard ol' stuff.

but all 30 or 60 ads are bad, we can't run self-government on 30 and 60 second ads, it's destroying our democracy!

Governor Dean's recommending of Mr. McMahon says more(or less) about Governor Dean then it does Steve McMahon.

was dead-on right. I live in Seattle, and understand why the ad was done the way it was. The incumbent is a very popular law-and-order Republican who has shown in a few cases that he is not in lock-step with the president.

Banning Ron for even a moment was insensitive and disrespectful to the people in WA-8 who may have some unique insight into the efficacy of this ad.

A cookie-cutter/one-size-fits-all approach to criticizing political ads is inappropriate. What makes sense in a Boston or New York political ad may not make sense in wealthy suburbs of Seattle.

As others have said - please respect context. Thanks. I thought the ad was awesome as did many others in our district.

have a peculiar sense of being independent (at least it felt that way when I moved here sixteen years ago.) The "blanket" primary, while a thing of the past now, was emblamatic of that sense of independence.

I don't think the ad is particularly awful in a state that elected the "mom in tennis shoes." That warm fuzzy stuff worked well for Murray and it should for Burner as well.

That being said, I'm seriously concerned that the Burner campaign has hired an outfit like McMahon's, and I don't really care if Howard Dean said to or not. Why should I send my money straight to Steve McMahon? The lesson I learned in 2004 (thanks to the Kerry/Shrum team) was save your money if this is what happens.

Sorry to be so harsh, but I fail to understand why I should make another donation to Burner. Maybe the Goldmark (WA-05) campaign will hire a Washington state media firm with some, um, moxie?