Maybe it'll play well down in Tennessee. Personally...I would never vote for a Democrat who spoke in near-wingnut fashion.

And for most of the Wars in history. Be happy when Stroller finds one that he thinks is really good.

Wish he had graduated with a degree in Critical Arts. Yes there is such a thing and I was part of the program as my minor with film as a major at Cal Arts before $$ forced me out.

well, I think it's a pretty good ad. It's clear and straight forward.

Of course, hitting Bush might not work in TN. You have to remember that southerners love to attach themselves to losers and lost causes.

The ad serves to separate him on an issue where they both agree, where everyone agrees.  The ad is hard hitting yet personal and he firmly claims a republican issue.  I understand why Stoller dislikes it, but I believe that it will be effective.

How competent a politician is Harold Ford?  I suspect that Republicans will try to make his family the issue in November.  Ford has not done a good job of reining them in but, then again, this may not be his job.  Brother Jake's independent campaign for Harold's old seat in congress could come a cropper as he is running against the white candidate who won the democratic primary essentially as the black candidate.  It may work for Jake but backfire on Harold. (Jake is given a good chance of winning this district where Kerry took over 70%).

Is it me or does Ford come across in the ad as trying too hard to look sincere? The setting seems too staged as well. And Matt is right -- the ad doesn't differentiate Ford from Corker in a tangible way.

I think a familiar setting in Tennessee with a backdrop of law enforcement personnel would have been more fitting to the ad. A location the local folks could easily relate to could help too.

I'm sorry, I don't get the criticism. When did security stop being a progressive value? And when did competence at a basic government function become right-wing? Maybe you can make the case that 'get tough on controlling our borders' is anti-undocumented worker, but the stronger case there is an explicit criticism of the Bush administration's failure to catch the 9-11 hijackers at the Canadian border even though we knew they were Al-Queda.

Harol Ford may be a conservative Democrat running in a conservative state, but to call this ad fake Republican is insane. National security is and always has been a progressive value, and the fact is Democrats are more effective at securing this country.

Schumer is demonstrating how out of touch he is by not writing off Ford.

Schumer could win Arizona and Nevada for what he will waste on a DLC loser in TN.

Ford is a great example of why the Party committees are the problem, not the solution.

I've seen other Ford ads like this, seizing upon the current issue. He had a similar ad when the news came out regarding the ports being outsourced: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-AtJJppE xw&mode=related&search=

Notice the aggressive aspect of both ads, walking toward the camera. I think that's subliminally effective and hardly coincidental he chooses to do it. It suggests strength, as do the relatively high decibel level and decisive words.

Hey, he must be doing something right. Jessica Alba donated to his campaign. I think she can afford the $600.

Running as an out-an-out progressive in TN is suicide, particularly for Ford, who comes from an absolutely infamous family of corrupt politicians.  Ford is not corrupt, but the family name is a huge problem for him.  Everyone in TN knows that name, and there are no good associations.  He has to run as a very dependable, competent candidate who is very mainstream.  Ford's family would be considered by Tennesseans as "liberal", and anything that smells "liberal" will bring that association (I don't think too many Tennesseans are familiar with "progressive" as opposed to simply "liberal".  

He's run a good campaign so far, but I just have a hard time believing a Memphis Democrat can win a state-wide race in TN right now.  Most Tennesseans east of Nashville see Memphis as a totally different world, and probably have only been to Memphis to see Graceland.  There isn't much trust there.  If Coker is smart, he will attend as many UT home football games as possible to highlight the fact that Ford is from the one city in TN where the people root against the Vols (college football is a religion in TN).

Wow-

What a weenie.

At first blush, the ad is sexy.  Harold Ford looks sharp in that orange tie. But he dos not act like a DEMOCRATIC SENATOR. and as a result he looks like, for lack of a better word, a phony.

People in Tennessee understand they are voting for a Senator, not an Executive. They understand that the Senate is the place where the executive branch is held accountable. Southern Voters are well versed in the idea of the Senate being the cooling saucer for a hotheaded house or out-of-control president. Yet, Fords ads give the impression that he is going to become the guy in charge of the war terrorism.  Everybody knows that Harold Ford is not going to solve the war on terror. Why doesn't he just got out and say that if he is elected senator, he might as well say that he will use his powers as Senator to tell how Phil Fulmer to gets the job done, Phil Fulmer will do it.

What is realistic is the idea that he can make people believe that he can join a team of Democratic Senators and make sure that the executive barnch is held accountable for completely fucking everything up. People will believe this from a Senator, they want to hear this, and a Senator can deliver on this.  Why isn't the Ford Campaign acting like a (d)emocrat and follow the will of people?

Another problem: 9 seconds of a 30 second of the ad says liquid explosive was a job well done. The liquids story is not something to thank God about, for a myriad of reasons it is another example of us compromising security and a reason why the Bushies need to be held accountable. Can somebody explain the reasoning of bringing the story of liquid explosives up?

...and save our bright ideas for after. If he wins, we might we wish we'd kept our mouth shut, and if he loses we may have contributed to it. Each candidate is the best judge of his or her own strategy.

Many southern politicians, not least Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Ford's daddy, have won races by taking defensive positions on conservative attack points and going after the GOP on its vulnerabilities.

Remember, TN is not far from the place where war hero Max Cleland was smeared as coward, the evidence for which was his being a Democrat and, one supposes, his sole remaining limb.

Go Harold.

Southerners may no longer contribute many seats to the Democrats in the Senate but they are still an important resource in the House.  House Democrats from the south fall into three pretty equally sized groups.  One third are blacks; one third are "national" white Democrats; and one third are traditional southern Democrats occupying the shrinking middle ground of the votes.

In Tennessee, a state where Democrats hold five of the nine House seats, the traditional southern Democrats are quite strong, holding four of the five seats.  These are people with Progressive Punch scores in the 60s (much better than electing an average Republican with a score of 6).  But not exactly progressive stalwarts.  I think that the Lincoln Davises, Jim Coopers, Bart Gordons and John Tanners have effected Ford.  Gordon and Tanner in particular ran 24 points and 28 points ahead of Kerry.

Ford comes from the only strong democratic district in the state (71% for Kerry) but is the 17th most conservative black southern Democrat (out of 20).  There is no reason for this from a district standpoint.  Ford has either absorbed being a "Tennesse Democrat" or believes that is the road to advancement.

It didn't work for me but then I am not a Tennessee resident.  it would be interesting to see the congressional ads of Davis, Cooper, Gordon, and Tanner as a comparison.
The commercial does not make any of this clear .  I suspect he is triangulating like crazy and trying to fit in.

This country will never be secure until we understand what motivates the proliferation of terrorism and extremism and attack the root causes of those phenomena.  Those root causes include economic privation and sexual repression (though admittedly I oversimplify).  

Here is the problem; an "understand the problem" platform will quickly be mischaracterized as "let's feel for the terrorists", and Harold Ford, Ned Lamont, Jim Webb, and virtually every other Democrat will be defeated.  What do we accomplish in that eventuality?  NOTHING!  A big fat zero, while our country continues to wither under wingnut rule.  

Harold Ford is following the only strategy he can, and from what I can see in the ad, he is doing well.  My guess is that the race will be within 2% at the end.  

He's running as a more competent right-winger

I agree with this point.  And I think it deserves more attention than it has gotten in this thread.

The MyDD memo argues for a clean break from the right-wing frame, where we face an enemy (e.g., terrorists) and embrace of a progressive frame where we face a danger (e.g., government screw up without oversight).  

Simplified and applied to ads on national security/defense,  we can say that in the right-wing approach, the tactic is:  keep your eyes on the terrorists.  In the progressive approach, the tactic is:  keep your eyes on Bush.

In specific terms, then, what I see missing from this Ford ad is a shot of Bush.  All Ford needed to do was include one 2 or 3 second still shot of Bush and the message would be much, much different.

Without that, I think we can say objectively that this is a right-wing ad.  No judgement against  Ford, but...it is structurally and thematically a right-wing ad.

And Matt raises the key point:  Here we have a right-wing ad by a candidate that is backed by key players in the Democratic caucus--will it work?

I think that's a question that grows out of the discussions we've had prior to watching this ad--and that it's a very objective question.

Will it work?  Here we have a clear, objective decision to reproduce the right-wing national security message tactic pretty much verbatim--will it work?

Stoller's answer is also good:  it will work if the other right-wing candidate gets hit by a bus (e.g., scandal, etc.).   In other words, the ad makes the national security choice in the TN election between (1) right-wing candidate riddled with scandal or (2) right-wing candidate not riddled with scandal.  

In this ad, Ford is only giving people the opportunity to not choose a corrupt opponent.

I guess what I'd ask is whether Corker is one of the many Republicans this year who's trying to hide his party affiliation and downplay his support of Bush. If he is, then refusing to nail him on it is just propping up his strategy of choice, which can't be good tactics. If Corker is still associating with Bush of his own free will, though, there's no need for Ford to risk driving away voters by spending his ad time tying them together--anyone who's going to be swayed by that will be able to see it anyway.

What I don't get is why Democratic challengers in races where the Republican incumbents are running away from Bush and the Republican party aren't pressing their advantage on that by declaring their opponent is a Republican and criticizing the Republican congress as much as possible. If the incumbents don't want to be associated with Bush and the Republican congress anymore, then hang it around their neck! Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I am usually for the aggressive approach. But I see nothing wrong with this ad. I do not see a pandering to republicans. When asked, I would like Ford to say he is a proud democrat. However, there is no need to drum up the party in his ads. This is about him serving all of TN.

I am a Lamont backer. And I would back him up if he adopted a welcome all approach as long as he does not compromise on his main message. You do need some soft ads in addition to some hard hitting ones. I don't think we should be analysing ads in isolation unless they are clearly bad. You gotta look at an entire ad campaign for a candidate, see how it is affecting locals, and then come up with a judgement.

Then again, if you got an ad as ridiculous as Lieberman's sunset ad or bear ad, fire away!

My rule of thumb. If your opponent is self destructing, go with soft ads. If your opponent is hard hitting and focussed and having an impact, then you gotta be aggressive and focused on what you want your message to be.

I've read through the post and all the comments and I don't think anyone has mentioned the elephant in the room; Harold Ford is black.

Am I naive in thinking that this will have a negative effect on his ability to win the state.?

To answer the previous poster's question, Coker is not running from Bush.  Coker's problem is actually that he is a fairly moderate republican, so in the primary his main rivals were on the right, and his big challenge is making sure the far right Reps show up to vote.  Coker will not be able to run for the middle in this race because he's going to need to shore up his base.

A couple of things to note about TN.  First, TN is one of the few states that still has a sizable number of boll weevil style Conservative Democrats.  Most of those went Rep in the 80's or 90's, but TN still has a sizable number of them.  They will vote for suitable Dems in statewide elections, but are pretty automatic Rep votes in presidential elections.  As such, Ford wouldn't be wise to make this a referendum on Bush.  Many TN are frustrated with Bush right now and his approval ratings are as low as they've ever been in TN, but there's little viceral Bush hatred.  Most TN like Bush on a personal level even if they disagree with his policies.  A sizable majority of TN, including many Dems, are very wary of anything that smells "liberal".  (Just to give an idea, I have talked to literally dozens of TN Dems who say they will never vote for Hilliary for prez, not because she is too centrist, but because she is "too liberal" or "I just don't like her".) "Family values" issues are a big deal there.  Even if they aren't happy with Bush, an anti-Bush cmapign would smell liberal to them.  

Second, there have only been two Dems in TN who have been successful since the post Gore/Sasser era: Ned Ray WcWherter and Phil Bredesen. Ned Ray was an old style populist conservative Dem, while Bredesen is more of a DLC/Blair style "good government" Dem.  Both of them were/are more conservative than many Rep candidates in Northeastern states.  If you're Ford, and your looking for a gameplan for success, you've pretty much have to start with Bredesen's playbook and work from there because there simply isn't much else to work from.

While everyone on this thread has made some good points about Ford's ability to win, all Corker has to do is use Ford's own voting record against him.

Why vote for a faux Democrat when you can have a real ReThug holding office?

And while Ford's ethnicity shouldn't be a factor, given Tennessee's history of race relations, it is going to be a factor, whether you want it to be or not.

Plus, African-Americans are beginning to wise up to Ford, once they realized the congressional representation they have been getting from Junior has not been the same as the representation they got from Harold Sr for more than 20 years.

There are conservative Dems in Congress (Ben Nelson comes to mind)but they haven't run away from the "Democratic" label as Harold Ford has.  In fact, I'm convinced if he wins, when he thinks the coast is clear, he's going to turn ReThug.

He already uses many of their talking points, and is too cozy with Bush and Lieberman (and he considers Lieberman his mentor).

So Matt's analysis is spot on - and we can agree to disagree on Harold Ford's senate race.  My concern is if he wins, what does the Democrats gain by having, at best, a Zell Miller clone who will probably vote Republican every chance he gets?

For more information on Ford's voting record, go here: http://www.cbcmonitor.voxunion.com.  His voting record shows he voted with the Democratic caucus 30% of the time and he received failing grades not only from that group, but here as well:
http://www.drummajorinstitute.org.

Both are independent of one another, but Ford's performance as a lawmaker was to flunk.  Should poor performance be rewarded with election to higher office?

As a Tennessee voter, I feel I'm pretty inclined to discuss this topic.  Sure Harold Ford Jr is a conservative dem, and sure there's very little difference between the two candidates...  but here's the kicker:

1) Ford will caucus with the dems, giving them the majority.

2. Conservative voters can't stand the Republican candidate and are going to stay home in droves.
   
3. Ford and his moderate views will play well in a state that is fed up with the current administration but don't want to forfeit the social conservative agenda.

I'm telling you, Corker's campaign is getting killed because Ford is actually talking issues.  Other candidates could learn from his straight forward, no nonsense mentality.  Even though he's conservative, you gotta love his charisma.