One of the comments to come out of the MyDD caucus at Netroots Nation was that a lot of folks were interested in seeing a comeback of the "Adwatch" series where we offer constructive criticism on ads coming from folks on this side of the aisle. Indeed, it looks like it has been close to a year since I have done one, making it right time to restart the series right as the political advertising season heats up.

For my first installment, I'd like to point to some hyper-local ads being run on targeted cable in Northeastern Pennsylvania by the Alliance for Retired Americans. Take a look:

These ads carry a kind of J.G. Wentworth / Head On / Matthew Lesko / Publishers Clearing House quality to them -- although they don't feel like traditional political ads, and certainly don't have the more expensive production values seen in other ads, they almost stand out because of rather than in spite of this fact.

Perhaps this is the best way to convey the message to older Americans that John McCain's position on Social Security -- that it's a "disgrace" and that it should be partially privatized -- is a dangerous one. At this juncture, older voters are about the only ones to support McCain, so there is a possibility that a traditional national ad campaign wouldn't be able to completely permeate through the noise. But a localized campaign using local voters? The ads just may have the desired effect.

All in all, I don't think it's the greatest ad campaign ever, but it is a little different than the type of stuff we have been seeing this cycle. On the basis of this, as well as the strong message conveyed in the ad and the thoughtful targeting of the campaign, I'll give the ads an initial thumbs up while reserving some judgment to see how the ads actually play on the ground going forward.

What do you think?

You know those stupid ads that depict before and after shots where the before is always a woman without makeup frowning and the after photo is much brighter and crisper and features the same woman made-up and smiling? You're supposed to be, "Wow, [product X] must be great, look how it made her happier, prettier and appear more in focus!" Well, this is the political equivalent. I didn't know people were really able to be so blatantly manipulated. Clearly Rudy disagrees.

Hmm, who knew that New York pre-Rudy was a black and white urban jungle whereas post-Rudy it was sunny, in color and had lots of trees. It appears that the Giuliani campaign has been raiding the New York City tourism bureau's video library.

This ad is perhaps most notable because it casts Giuliani as the "turnaround guy," which is exactly what Romney is running on. The strategy here is to bypass the intro ad altogether, for obvious reasons, and subtly go after the frontrunner on his turf in New Hampshire on his strength. What's conspicuously absent: any reference to 9/11 or terrorism, probably a wise strategy since the moment you start making claims about 9/11 you're asking for more scrutiny and that's the last thing he needs. Rudy would much prefer that his fragile 9/11 facade remain in place. One cliche about Rudy that this ad does reinforce though is that he is "America's Mayor." The post-Rudy imagery of New York looks like the overwrought nationalism from Pearl Harbor, complete with rising sun, tree lined street and a child hoisting an American flag.

Here Giuliani is playing the competence card over the fear card and going after Romney in what is essentially Romney country. If he's not going to devote more time to early states, as his campaign manager seemed to imply on a strategy conference call on Monday, it seems to me he should be trying to secure a strong second, which means going after the guy who's nipping at your heels for the runner-up spot: John McCain. Instead Giuliani is going after the leader, which I suspect will be a futile endeavor without further resources devoted to the state.

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq and the Campaign to Defend America have launched a new ad in Kentucky on the support Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is up for reelection in 2008, has given to the President's Iraq policy. The ad looks like this:

I've argued for some time, both on this site and in private conversation, that it's completely in the interest of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement to keep McConnell's feet to the fire by almost continuously running ads exposing how the positions he has taken and the actions he has undertaken are bad for America and out of touch with Kentucky. Even if McConnell isn't to be beaten this cycle -- and let me state for the record that I believe he is beatable, even though it would clearly be a difficult race for the Democrats to win -- keeping him on the defensive, thinking about his obstructionism may hurt him back home, could make it more difficult for him to keep his caucus together in blocking the Democratic agenda. With this in mind I most certainly endorse this ad buy.

Beyond that, I think this ad is important for another reason. By many accounts, General David Petraeus is an outstanding soldier and military mind. But he has acceded to the President's demand that he play a role in American politics by agreeing to be a part of a report on Iraq this September that will apparently be written by the White House to futher their own agenda. Given that the Bush administration and the Republican Party have been more than willing to politicize Petreaus, it is entirely reasonable that they are held to account for the potential political fallout from his comments, in this case that he believes America needs to stay in Iraq for the next decade, which, as President Bush's war czar has suggested may require a reinstatement of the draft.

Jerome has already posted each of these ads over in Breaking Blue, but I'd like to lay down a few thoughts on these first biographical ads put out by the Obama campaign. To view the ads, which begin running in Iowa this week, click on the screen below (note, the ads may take a second to load):

Let's start with the ad on the left, the longer biographical spot that deals with Obama's community organizing. I think this ad hits on the right points and is fairly effective. I like the effort to harken back to Obama's keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the speech that put him on the national map. The focus on organizing and the quote from the SEIU organizer seems to strike the right tones for the Iowa Democratic caucus-going electorate, as does the attention given to his decision to turn down high paying legal work on Wall Street in favor of registering voters. This isn't going to seal the deal for most or even many caucus-goers, but it is a solid biographical spot that does a good job of advancing a narrative that could help him win.

Now on to the second ad. Again, I think the inclusion of a portion of Obama's 2004 DNC keynote is a plus for the ad. But I think the ad doesn't particularly work, at least in terms of the Iowa caucuses. The fact that the Republican legislator quoted at length in the poll is a supporter of John McCain in the Republican primaries isn't a particular problem for me (though it could make for fodder for the talking heads on the cable news networks). My issue with the ad, which Marc Ambinder expresses very well, is that Iowa isn't necessarily the best place to run an ad about bipartisanship -- at least when running for support in the caucuses rather than in the general election. Ambinder explains, "Bipartisan message ads like this work in New Hampshire... they're not seen all the much in Iowa, where the Democratic caucus electorate is (a) Democratic and (b) partisan." Remember, while Independents are able to participate in the New Hampshire primary -- and appear intent to do so at a remarkably high rate -- they cannot participate in the Iowa Democratic caucuses, a fact that Ambinder alludes to.

It's certainly possible that this second ad (or both of them, for that matter) is more about garnering national attention via near-constant repetition on the cable news networks than it is about swaying potential Iowa Democratic caucus-goers. In this case I'm still skeptical that the bipartisan angle is the best one for the Democratic electorate (as much as there is one nationwide), but that's a point that could be argued at another time. Regardless, it seems to me that the first ad is getting closer to the right message for Obama than the second -- even if it's not quite there yet, either.

What are your thoughts?

Why is Bill Richardson rising so quickly in both Iowa and New Hampshire? His May bio ads go a long way toward providing an explanation:



Clever stuff, and definitely not typical bio ad boilerplate. The ads get rave reviews from basically everyone:

The ads have gotten widespread praise on the Web for their clever message. It appears Republicans almost wholeheartedly agree.

GOPers rated Richardson's offerings far above average across the board, giving them a 7.2 for their appeal and a 7.6 for their memorability. Respondents are asked to rate the ads in six categories from zero to 10.

Democrats and independents rated the ads even higher, including several marks above 8.0, making them among the best-reviewed ads in the history of the bi-weekly survey.

The ads also scored well among members of the news media, typically the most critical group in the survey, and consultants. Both groups gave the spot marks around 9.0.(...)

Another ad, in which Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) attempts to establish himself as a leader on getting a withdrawal timetable for the Iraq war, was greeted lukewarmly by Democrats and independents, though slightly above average.

When comparing all the ads, nearly six in 10 Republicans said Richardson's were the most effective, while 32 percent said Thompson's was.

Adwatch has typically avoided commentary on bio ads, which are necessary for a campaign but generally lacking in agenda setting messaging on issues such as Iraq. One thing we have looked for in bio ads has been for candidates to self-identify as Democrats, something which Richardson does not do in these ads. While, to a certain extent, that might explain why these ads do so well among Republicans, I can't imagine such self-identification would hurt him.

The Richardson ads have done well on YouTube. In terms of views, they are competitive with even the top videos from the Clinton, Edwards and Obama campaigns. That is quite an achievement for a candidate who is never considered top-tier, who has comparatively few online supporters to other campaigns, and who probably has a much smaller email list than the other campaigns. These aren't the best ads I have ever seen, and as I already noted I wish they identified him as a Democrat, but they do show potential for political ads that break away from typical frameworks. These ads appear to have produced real results while, for example, more standard ads from Edwards and Dodd have not moved numbers in a noticeable way. For some time now, I have heard many people comment that even though Democrats appear to have deep support in creative industries such as film and technology, for some reason we don't have more creative media than Republicans. Hopefully, this Richardson ad signals the beginning of a trend where our media will become more reflective of the depth of creativity in Blue America.

Remember the adwatch here on MyDD, which was based on the MyDD / Courage Campaign / Wright Consulting memo for Democratic Congressional Challengers in 2006? The basic message we were looking for was for Democratic challengers to identify themselves as Democrats, foreground Republican failure in Iraq, state that you will stand up to Bush on Iraq, and pick a specific accountability fight of some sort (contractors, troop pay, bad intelligence, whatever--just pick a fight). Even though it is now spring of 2007, there are now two new ads from Democratic Presidential candidates that follow that script almost perfectly, but with one twist. In their latest ads, both Chris Dodd and John Edwards demand that other Democrats, whether in Congress or those who are running for President, do a better job of standing up to Bush on Iraq:

John Edwards

Chris Dodd

I am not going to begrudge either Edwards or Dodd for targeting fellow Democrats in their ads. They are, after all, running for the Democratic presidential nomination right now, not against a Republican Congress. Still, I think Edwards does a better job of targeting Bush as well as encouraging his fellow Democrats, while I think that Dodd's commercial is superior stylistically. Having a diverse group of people all read from a prepared script is getting kind of old in campaign commercials, and I am not even sure if it ever worked. Even though Dodd's commercial employs one of the longest running stylistic elements in political TV ads, simply having the candidate speak to the camera, I think it still works as an old standby and is also appropriate given his lower name recognition.

Still, I think they are both decent ads. While I have to run back out to the polls for the evening rush, I would like to see what you think.

Back in 2006, one of MyDD's main projects during the summer and fall was the Adwatch. the purpose of the adwatch was to critique Democratic campaign commercials based on the criteria of the MyDD / Courage Campaign / Wright Consulting 2006 candidate memo. In the memo, we told candidates to focus hard on Iraq, to blame Republicans for it, to promise accountability and oversight on Iraq, and to clearly identify yourself as a Democrat. I still think that was good advice based on solid research, and I think we made a difference on 2006 Democratic messaging with that campaign.

Now, just a few short months later, Bill Richardson has started the 2008 campaign ad season by going on the air in Iowa and New Hampshire. As such, I would like to start up the adwatch again, although I should note that there is not candidate memo or other general theory currently serving as the touchstone for my critiques. Here are his two ads: a bio piece called "life's work" and an Iraq piece called "the wall."


Starting with "The Wall," I like the concreteness of the visuals, which strike me as very effective, and the message of total withdrawal. At the same time, I don't think the ad points out that Richardson's total withdrawal plan is different from that of other candidates. Then again, maybe that can wait--this is an ad where he is trying to introduce himself, not draw an immediate contrast with other candidates. What I don't like about the ad is that it does not blame Republicans for Iraq, even though it is quite clearly Republicans who managed the war into the ground and who now refuse to start brining it to an end. Saying you will "work with both parties" on Iraq I don't think accurately characterizes the current political difficulties in ending the war in Iraq. "Life's Work" is a more standard biographical spot, and as such is not the sort of ad we usually focused on in the adwatch. It is very well produced, and focuss on his obviously impressive resume, although it oddly never has Bill Richardson himself speaking in it. Do voice over commercials still work?

Overall, there are two problems with both of these ads: over-emphasis on bi-partisanship, and a complete lack of self-identification as a Democrat. Neither commercial offers any information as to Richardson's partisan affiliation, which is particularly strange since he is running for the Democratic nomination and since the Democratic brand is so strong right now. As for the consistent message of bi-partisanship, while I know that is what some pollsters (PDF) are saying Democrats want, I think that is faulty information. As I wrote last week:

Many establishment types will continue to argue that the country has a deep desire for bipartisanship even while Democrats hold the advantage, and even point to polls numbers indicating as much [PDF]. However, what are people going to say when they are asked whether or not they wish we could all just get along? No? It is like the crappy 2006 exit poll that asked people whether or not they thought combating corruption in government was important, and therefore supposedly proved that combating corruption was the number one issue in the campaign when everyone polled stunningly said that corruption in government was bad. Maybe next we should ask voters whether or not they like sunshine and puppies as a means of proving that sunshine and puppies are the most important issues in the campaign.

The country doesn't want compromise, or bipartisanship, or someone who straddles both parties. Right now, the country wants Democrats. All of our candidates running for higher office need to remember that, and we need to keep reminding them.

Both Iowa and New Hampshire resoundingly rejected Republicans in 2006, even supposedly "moderate" and "bipartisan" Republicans. Combined, despite their small size, those two states produced four of the thirty US house seats we pickup last year. Further, Democrats also took back every legislative chamber and governorship in both states that they did not already possess. These two states were among two of the biggest nodes in the 2006 landslides, so it doesn't seem to me that the good folks in Iowa and New Hamsphire want bi-partisanship--it seems like they want Democrats. I think Bill Richardson is listening to the wrong people if he thinks otherwise. I certainly hope he comes to more clearly and strongly identify as a Democrat in the future.

Update: This isn't directly related to the ads, but I wanted to note that the four new US house Democrats from Iowa and New Hampshire--Braley, Loebsack, Shea-Porter, and Hodes--not only took Republican seats, but are quite a progressive group. Residents of Iowa and New Hampshire didn't just reject Republicans, they embraced progressives. That could add an interesting factor to the early states.

Readers of this site may be familiar with Jimmy Siegel, the former Madison Avenue executive who donated his ad-production services to Eliot Spitzer and helped him win by a 40-point margin on November 7. For those unfamiliar with Siegel's approach, it is decidedly different from many other media consultants who produce political ads that tend to look and sound at least somewhat like one another and very few of which stand out among the sea of advertisements on broadcast and cable television.. One ad, which he produced for Kirsten Gillibrand's successful campaign for Congress, recreated the film Good Night, And Good Luck -- along with the film's star David Straithairn. Another weaves in very uplifting tones to call on voters to provide a Democratic candidate for the state Senate with the 18 votes she lost by two years earlier. Yet another, also with an uplifting tone (a number of his ads are fairly inspirational) laid out Spitzer's wish-list for the state government in Albany. One more offered one of the most effective biographies in under 30 seconds that I have seen in a recent political ad. And one of Siegel's most recent ads looks something like this:

Now Siegel, who was profiled last summer by The Sun's Jacob Gershman and who, prior to 2006, had not produced campaign ads, has been signed by Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign. Elizabeth Benjamin of the Albany Times Union's blog has the story.

Jimmy Siegel, the former Madison Avenue adman behind Gov. Eliot Spitzer's much-praised cinematic TV spots during the 2006 campaign, has agreed to lend his talents to U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, in her likely bid for the White House in 2008, her spokesman confirmed Sunday.

"We're delighted that Jimmy and Danny (Levinson) are helping us," said Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson, referring to Siegel and his partner at their production company, Moxie Pictures. "They have consulted for the campaign, and we expect they will be important parts of the campaign's creative team, which Mandy (Grunwald) is in the process of putting together."

[...]

It will be interesting to see what he comes up with to soften Clinton's image and make her seem less scripted and more personable - the same way he took Spitzer's so-called "anger problem" and turned it into the more positive: "passion."

To that end, the whole "conversation with America" focus Clinton took in her announcement speech, and her expressed desire to "chat" with voters, has Siegel written all over it.

It will be interesting to see how Siegel approaches ad-production in the Clinton campaign, where he will not be the top dog and where his candidate will not be a shoo-in. (Spitzer not only had an air of inevitability -- his victory was inevitable.) Will his slightly different ads help propel Clinton to the nomination or will they not be hard-hitting or substantive enough enough to make it through the clutter of campaign ads that will deluge voters in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina and elsewhere? I have a hunch that the former will be the case -- that campaign ads that look more like non-political ads than political ones will be the most effective, both next year and in future cycles -- but writing campaign ads for the candidate who will clearly be the next Governor might not be the best preparation for the rough and tumber of a presidential primary. Either way, I do like the hire in the sense that it represents a willingness to, at least in part, bypass the media consultants who have in past years failed the Democrats in favor of Madison Avenue types who might actually be able to produce ads that help get Democrats elected rather than just pad the bottom lines of their own firms.

(And just to follow on what Atrios wrote, discussing a candidate's campaign should not be construed as an endorsement of that candidate, just as running a candidate's ads should not be construed as an endorsement either...)