Comments on: Make your own attack ad

Make your own attack ad

CunningLinguist — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:46:38 -0800

Make your own attack ad. The Democratic party is uploading all its "tracker" videos of the top Republican candidates out on the campaign trail, for use by anyone for anything. "The party hopes that thousands of eyes might find something the mainstream media has missed, or that a new way of juxtaposing the video with something else will be revealing about the candidates," says the NYT. Gimmick or political sea change?

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:49:47 -0800

No, the party hopes that its supporters will create videos that will be factually false, misrepresent the opposition, and perhaps even be libelous, but which will nonetheless become popular and accepted as the internet version of the truth. It's a political sea change, in the sense that this will bring out the worst in everyone.

By: Thorzdad

Thorzdad — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:50:36 -0800

Well...mud-slinging is certainly a whole lot more fun with more people in the pit.

By: CunningLinguist

CunningLinguist — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:54:31 -0800

To be honest, for political junkies, it's kind of cool in a c-span-on-demand kind of way as well.

By: bugmuncher

bugmuncher — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:55:52 -0800

It's not wise to release another person's image for use by anyone "for anything." Though it is within the Democrats' rights to relinquish copyright in works created by them, thereby placing the work into the public domain, that does not absolve any of the users of the images from legal action due to their use of the work. At the very least, commercial use of the image without that person's consent would be actionable.

By: solistrato

solistrato — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:00:05 -0800

This is awesome, because I was looking forward to a bunch of poorly-edited "RETHUGLICAN" videos from the DailyKos mouthbreathers. Thank you, crumbling decadent institutions, for your false promise of participation!

By: damehex

damehex — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:01:30 -0800

I predict the juxtaposition of candidates with tubgirl.jpg.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:01:40 -0800

Gimmick. I doubt they'll actually be able to change any sea with this. Maybe one of the lesser seas, perhaps the South China Sea, would admit of some type of change; I have a feeling that another Exxon "accident" strategically placed might bring about a certain amount of change in the Bering Sea. If they're looking to change a sea, and they're willing to settle for homonyms, the Democrats could try the Holy See. I have a feeling they'd have better luck there. They should mention Kennedy in order to establish some sort of rapport.

By: DU

DU — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:07:46 -0800

What, there's no edit function? Pfff. I thought this was going to be as awesome as the Chevy Tahoe thing, but it's just a bunch of footage. Meh.

By: brain_drain

brain_drain — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:10:20 -0800

Is there anything of substance in these videos? I just looked at a couple of Giuliani videos and they are terrible -- muffled sound, crowds of unidentified people, a few shots of the back of the candidate's head.

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:20:56 -0800

It will be interesting to see if this election cycle will produce any tracking videos as devastating to a campaign as Sen. George Allen's 'macaca' quip in 2006. Some independent groups are tracking candidates to record their positions on specific issues. They are posting the videos to the web -- and essentially bypassing traditional media channels in the process. In a sense this is a "sea change." Take, for example the work of Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana. The video of Romney turning his back on Clayton Holton (who suffers from muscular dystophy) was picked up by traditional media sources. Granite Staters has other candidate videos posted here.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:21:56 -0800

I'm in the ad biz, so I'm a whiz at this sort of thing. Here, check it out: Slow, Ken Burns-style pan over cruddy black and white photo of Mitt Romney. ANNOUNCER (basso profundo VO): Mitt Romney - He's a Mormon - that's one "m" away from moron. A vote for Romney is a vote for a near-moron. Vote for Kucinich and his hot wife; have you seen Romney's bitch? Also, Hillary is a lezzie. Paid for by Kucinich for President. fin

By: DU

DU — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:26:21 -0800

The video is of a Republican politician with plastic hair rather than the hot wife? Oh yeah, you are an ad wizard all right.

By: mecran01

mecran01 — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:31:50 -0800

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:32:10 -0800

Candidates can be caught in contradictions between what they say "in public" and what they say "in private." Take for example the controversy this week regarding Romney's current and past statements about not appointing a Muslim to his cabinet, if elected president ("This guy is lying now to the American people...He probably never imagined someone would come out and write a piece the way I did. And I think he made a serious mistake in judgment in trying to disown what he said.)"^* All campaigns are marshalling "trackers" to videotape their opponents in the hopes of catching such contradictions. Heck, Flip-Flop Romney's contradictions are legion and were/are made in public -- take for example what he said in 1994 as compared to recent statements on abortion, gay rights, etc.

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:35:11 -0800

Al Gore had in mind when he invented the internet. Claim: Al Gore claimed that he 'invented' the Internet? Status: False.

By: never used baby shoes

never used baby shoes — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:38:28 -0800

I'm guessing this is in response to this, which started about 5 weeks ago.

By: DU

DU — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:39:54 -0800

It's absurd to claim that this is the goal of the project. It's certainly absurd to claim that this is the goal above and beyond what is already taking place. Even if you believe all Democrats (or all politicians, for that matter) are always lying and pure evil, they already have people that can make false, accusatory videos. The goal here is to give regular people a voice. That voice can be louder and/or more focused with access to this material.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:39:55 -0800

I have to work with what I'm given, DU. We could fake up a picture of Mrs. K saving some drowning children, though, see how well it tests. Can't let her speak, though, as she's got an accent.

By: wsg

wsg — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:39:57 -0800

Please drop the tired gore-invented-the-internet meme. Thanks.

By: ZenMasterThis

ZenMasterThis — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:47:53 -0800

Your favorite mud-slinging partisans suck.

By: DU

DU — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:50:16 -0800

We could fake up a picture of Mrs. K saving some drowning children, though, see how well it tests. I can see you need to take my patented How To Exploit Women To Win An Election class. Still shot of Ann Romney Mitt Romney wants to make this woman America's wife. And as a Mormon, he might have two of her up his sleeve. Still shot of Mrs Kucinich Dennis Kucinich would make this woman your wife. And as a liberal, she might be open to a threesome. Any questions?

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:54:23 -0800

ANNOUNCER (basso profundo VO): Mitt Romney - He's a Mormon - that's one "m" away from moron. A vote for Romney is a vote for a near-moron. In Iowa, Mormon Issue Is Benefiting Huckabee

"The religious divide over Mitt Romney's Mormon faith that his supporters had long feared would occur is emerging in Iowa as he is being challenged in state polls by Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor who has played up his faith in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. ...On Monday, Mr. Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, raised the stakes when he began broadcasting an advertisement in Iowa that emphasizes his faith and declares him to be a Christian leader' — all in capital letters — which some might view as a shot at Mr. Romney.

Huckabee's "Believe" Ad here.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:54:40 -0800

Not bad, DU, not bad. I am sure, with enough time, we can find a much less flattering shot of Mrs. Romney, as she looks almost cute in a white-bread helmet-coiffed Stepfordy kind of way.

By: ALongDecember

ALongDecember — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:57:00 -0800

Thanks for the link. I'll bookmark the Fred Thompson videos for the next time I have insomnia.

By: DU

DU — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:58:38 -0800

That entire ad is in all caps. Which is not to say he isn't exploiting the divide. Also, I CANNOT BELIEVE we are living in 21st century America and it is considered OK to use the phrase "CHRISTIAN LEADER" when running for President. Seriously, what is wrong with this country. (Also also, I love the end. "We believe in some things." I'm all fired up!)

By: psmealey

psmealey — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:58:58 -0800

Wow. What a great idea. And by great, I mean terrible.

By: fungible

fungible — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:59:30 -0800

This video would make an awesome anti-Giuliani ad, if only he was on camera. Or maybe he doesn't need to be... it's pretty effective.

By: CunningLinguist

CunningLinguist — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:00:42 -0800

"We believe in some things." I'm pretty sure that's code for NOT MORMON

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:02:36 -0800

That Huckabee thing is grotesque. When Kennedy was running, the American people were most concerned that he would keep his religion out of the Oval Office. Carter is a born-again Christian, but he didn't feel the need to trumpet it; it is his business and his alone. Now there is an acid test to see which candidates are most ostentatiously godly. This is not progress. If only the bible had something to say about showy displays of religiosity...

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:03:44 -0800

Tacos Are Pretty Great: Pastabagel, I understand that you are a right-wing cartoon, but give me a break. It's absurd to claim that this is the goal of the project. If I was in partisan politics, on either side, I'd try to find any possible scandals, inaccuracies or outright lies from the other side. I'd hire people to videotape them, and to review those videotapes. This is just a way to review them. There is no reason, whatsoever, to believe that they are specifically looking to factually false arguments, to misrepresent or to engage in libel. So please, for God's sakes, shut the fuck up. We get it. You're a cartoonishly right-wing bigot who honestly believes that all Democrats are pure evil. Now shut the fuck up, you awful, awful partisan troll. I don't believe Pastabagel is a 'right-wing cartoon,' but whatever. I'm not here to defend her or him. I'm here to say two things. First of all, nearly any politician of nearly any stripe, Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, what-have-you, would stoop to libel if it were legal and accepted. It is in their best interest. Not only is it their interest, but politicians on both sides, and everywhere in between, have consistently proven that they have very little in the way of scruples in these matters. This is a result of certain societal circumstances that have, over time, created an economy of politics whereby it's not possible to succeed without being willing to bend and break laws, attack beyond moral scruple, make clandestine connections which are usually shady, and resort to other unfortunate tactics. The end is this: Democrats, like Republicans, are filthy, snot-covered fools, who are willing to do nearly anything to get the power they're in the process of regaining. I have no doubt they'll win the next election, and I have a strong feeling that the nation will be better off, but I'm not fooling myself; that's because the Republicans are such utter wretches, not because the Democrats are salvation-granting saints. The sheer provinciality of our age, the enormity of the inability of the mass of men to think beyond their time, can be the only culprit behind the fact that so many claim to 'look up to' any of the human beings I know of who wear the Democrat stripe. It's all marketing. And, second, what's most ironic when people complain that it's 'partisan' to say that the Democrats are like this is that we're so inured to an inability to think beyond ourselves and our situations that we automatically assume that, when someone says "Democrats would resort to libel if they could," they're speaking from the other default position in society. Never mind that it's a fact (study political science for a while, it's true, and for good reasons)-- we assume that everyone is just like us, with a choice between two or maybe three options. Whereas the notion that the entire system of Democracy is somewhat bankrupt is beyond our ken. The fact that Republicans are worse than Democrats has nothing to do with the fact that Democrats are downright fucking evil. Anyhow, yes: this is a borderline way to encourage libel. But I'm sure they vetted it out with their lawyers first.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:07:14 -0800

So please, for God's sakes, shut the fuck up. We get it. You're a cartoonishly right-wing bigot who honestly believes that all Democrats are pure evil. Now shut the fuck up, you awful, awful partisan troll. posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 11:36 AM on November 28 It's lucky for you that tacos are pretty great. I don't even know where to begin. How am I bigot, or partisan, or right wing? I don't believe democrats are pure evil, in fact I once mentioned that I think Bill Richardson might make a decent president. I don't care what the goal of this is, the result will be precisely what I described. They are just making footage available. And republican supporters will do precisely the same thing with any footage of democrats they get their hands on. The only reason I referred to "the party" instead of "the parties" is because the post is only talking about the Democratic Party. In other words, YouTube is going to be used by supporters (not the party apparatuses) to circumvent all of the campaign finance and truth in advertising laws that exist for traditional TV commercials. Remember that Hillary 1984 ad made by some Obama supporter? That's the future. The democratic party is simply making useful footage available. Remember this video? It looks very slick, but is it factually accurate? Or how about this video of Hillary from some right-wing goon? All of these are the same in that they are supporter produced propaganda outside the scope or enforceability of defamation, campaign finance, and advertising regulations. If you don't think that this footage being released by the Democratic party is going to end up in some hatchet job viral video, you're delusional. Whether the party intends it or not is irrelevant. The same thing will happen on the other side, they'll just have to use network or CSPAN footage to do it. So chill.

By: never used baby shoes

never used baby shoes — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:11:23 -0800

I think koeselitz has it.

By: gtr

gtr — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:13:04 -0800

I don't believe Pastabagel is a 'right-wing cartoon,' but whatever. It's just one cartoon telling off another cartoon. Same coin, different sides. Please drop the tired gore-invented-the-internet meme. Thanks. posted by wsg Can we please drop the 'OMG GUYS HE DIDN'T SAY THAT YOU ARE ALL LIARS!!!1' meme also?

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:17:48 -0800

And as a Mormon, he might have two of her up his sleeve. Okay, that made me chuckle. And yeah, this strikes me a cheap and easy way for the Dems to ~~rise above the fear mongering and sensationalism of partisan politics and empower the hundreds of creative and intelligent people on the internet~~ contract out their mudslinging. I'm neither right-wing nor cartoonish, except for when I run off a cliff and hang awkwardly in the air for a few seconds before plummeting.

By: lazaruslong

lazaruslong — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:19:34 -0800

pastabagel, in all fairness, you did say: No, the party hopes that its supporters will create videos that will be factually false, misrepresent the opposition, and perhaps even be libelous, but which will nonetheless become popular and accepted as the internet version of the truth. Emphasis mine, but it's pretty obvious that you don't consider the intent "irrelevant", and if you "don't care what the goal is" then you probably shouldn't have put the hit and run jibe in there. How am I bigot, or partisan, or right wing? You know, if you have to ask these things, you might want to assume the burden of proof is on you.

By: DU

DU — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:19:38 -0800

First of all, nearly any politician of nearly any stripe, Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, what-have-you, would stoop to libel if it were legal and accepted. Actually, any human being would "stoop to" pretty much anything legal and accepted, wouldn't they? It's all marketing. Except you said yourself that you'd prefer Democrats to be in charge. So it's not all marketing. yes: this is a borderline way to encourage libel. I can't wait for the anti-transparent government people to start using this argument, if they haven't already. "Making voting records and financial dealings public opens officials up to being misrepresented!"

By: lazaruslong

lazaruslong — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:23:08 -0800

gtr: "Please drop the tired gore-invented-the-internet meme. Thanks. -posted by wsg Can we please drop the 'OMG GUYS HE DIDN'T SAY THAT YOU ARE ALL LIARS!!!1' meme also?" I'm pretty sure no one in this thread shouted OMG HE DIDN'T SAY THAT blah blah blah. That's hyperbole to make it look like both sides of the argument are even there. They aren't. One is wrong, one is right. I'll let you guess twice which is which. Also, the "Gore Claimed to Invent The Internet" is a meme, and a false one. People who refute it are not spreading a meme. They are being, you know, invested in truth.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:24:19 -0800

I think that this stuff is just going to lead to more hideous song parodies and other youtube crapola, but no one is going to take this stuff seriously. Even now, if it's not on the TV, it didn't happen. What I mean is that, warts and all, TV is still more of an authoritative source than the internet, in most Americans' minds. This is because most Americans have first-hand knowledge and/or experience of Internet fakery, on some level or other, and do not really trust things they find on the internet unless they are well vetted.

By: mecran01

mecran01 — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:36:43 -0800

Al Gore had in mind when he invented the internet. Claim: Al Gore claimed that he 'invented' the Internet? Status: False. Ok, let me explain this slowly: 1. someone says, "Oh my goodness, the Democrats are letting people use the internet to create mashups of Republicans. This will lead to a new era of slander and dishonesty!" 2. I reply, "That's not what Al Gore intended when he invented the internet". Get it? Because POLITICIANS HAVE BEEN DECONTEXTUALIZING EACH OTHER'S COMMENTS FOR A LONG TIME, LIKE WHEN THE REPUBLICANS SPREAD THE LIE ABOUT AL GORE CLAIMING TO INVENT THE INTERNET. So, in conclusion: the reference to Al Gore was made in order to make a point about the long standing use of slander in political campaigns, not to suggest that he actually claimed to have invented the internet. Please--caffeinate yourselves before posting. And my apologies for not being more clear.

By: cloeburner

cloeburner — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:40:47 -0800

If only the bible had something to say about showy displays of religiosity... posted by Mister_A Matthew 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. Matthew 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

By: Sailormom

Sailormom — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:41:42 -0800

Needs more Ron Paul.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:52:32 -0800

will nonetheless become popular and accepted as the internet version of the truth That sort of thing never happens without someone (Lee Atwater, Rove, Swift Boat Veterans, etc.) making a concerted effort to invest money behind it and drive it home. Without that, all you have is noise.

By: Happy Dave

Happy Dave — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:06:09 -0800

I love that I can't tell movie trailers and American political ads apart. Always sounds like the same guy doing the voice overs. Over here we have a couple of minutes of politicians talking earnestly to camera, then some cheesy footage of people being deeply affected and doing well in life because of the just-mentioned policies. And usually an arbitrary shot of a fluffy bunny, or something. Attacking the other guy is just so outre. Terribly vulgar, don'tcherknow. *sips tea*

By: wendell

wendell — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:25:19 -0800

mecran01, it is always important to remember that HTML does not have a <sarcasm> tag*, and it doesn't take a decaffeinated dullard to see a rote repeating of a long-ago-disproved-but-still-used talking point and see you as more troll than droll. *should make a Feature Request for one at MetaTalk

By: Wood

Wood — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:27:47 -0800

mecran01, I thought it was funny. So, just between you and me your humor appeals to a more perceptive audience. Don't let the haters get you down. I'm going to get another coffee.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:31:27 -0800

I didn't think mecran01 was seriously espousing the idea that Al Gore claims to have invented the internet. But I drink a shitload of coffee.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:34:50 -0800

I don't think they're haters. I just think they're just people who were exhausted by republicans beating that drum non-stop during the 2000 race, and mentioning it again still touches a nerve.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:37:49 -0800

Wait. Wait. Wait just a goddamn second here. They want us to do their toxic work of negative marketing of them for them? *head explodes* Yeah, there's a sea change, all right. If you want a vision of the future, imagine a person's booted foot stamping on their own face - forever. This is why I advocate going barefoot. Them hippies were on to something. Please--caffeinate yourselves before posting. And my apologies for not being more clear. Hey, I got the joke Mecran01. Without the aid of caffiene. I don't know what those dunderheaded literalists are on about. Besides, Gore really did invent the internet. What he's more coy and humble about is the time machine he invents next year, which makes all of this possible. But the time machine proves even more useful for going back and driving Howard Hughes totally batshit bugfuck crazy. If Gore had not, we'd all be speaking Germanese and eating saurkraut sushi by now. Do you have any idea how hard it is to speak Germanese? Do you have any idea how awful wasabi kraut is? Al Gore is your savior, and you don't even know it.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:40:03 -0800

Is wendell being sarcastic? I looked at the code and I don't see the [sarcasm] tag.

By: athenian

athenian — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:34:14 -0800

Happy Dave: Over here we have a couple of minutes of politicians talking earnestly to camera, then some cheesy footage of people being deeply affected and doing well in life because of the just-mentioned policies. I think there are a couple of reasons for this: 1. The ban on political advertising on TV and radio, meaning that the Party Political Broadcasts have to try and get a lot of message across in half an hour of airtime spread through the entire election campaign. 2. The fact that we are (even if it doesn't always seem it) a Parliamentary democracy, and therefore the party theoretically matters more than the Prime Minister. Plus we are classic northern Europeans when it comes to social issues, religion in politics, and so on.

By: Tacos Are Pretty Great

Tacos Are Pretty Great — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:43:11 -0800

Pastabagel: Give me a break. Your post clearly states the the reason for this is to create false realities, and nothing more. Any moderately reasonable person can think of situations where a snippet of footage could show a candidate engaged in an outright lie or distortion. As such your first post is obviously flamebait. I'd say it's a credit to metafilter's admins that such flamebait is allowed to stay, despite the fact that it is obviously false and obviously a troll. Unfortunately, I cannot say that, because the admins happily delete critical responses that treat your opinion with the lack of respect that it deserves. Now please, pastabagel, quit trolling.

By: Tacos Are Pretty Great

Tacos Are Pretty Great — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:45:53 -0800

oh, and pastabagel, it is a ludicrously weak and spineless thing to back away from your original statement as you did in your response, while simultaneously pretending that you did not do so. Obviously the stuff *could* be used for an attack ad, but the fact remains, if somebody can make a truly vicious attack ad by following you around, then you're probably doing something wrong.

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:47:15 -0800

Pastabagel versus Tacos. Kinda like -- 'Tastes Good!' versus 'Less Filling!' Mmmmm. Pasta. Mmmmm Tacos. /Homer

By: Tacos Are Pretty Great

Tacos Are Pretty Great — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:48:11 -0800

First of all, nearly any politician of nearly any stripe, Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, what-have-you, would stoop to libel if it were legal and accepted. It is in their best interest. You're wrong. It would be in their best interest to prove that their opponents are legitimately inferior to them, using only their opponents words as weapons. Libel and near-libel serve mostly to annoy everybody, sell advertising, and keep voter turnout generally low.

By: wendell

wendell — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:48:45 -0800

Mister A (if that really is your name; I've heard you're a sockpuppet for Mister Z), I never stoop to sarcasm in my comments. They are always thoroughly thought-out, triple-source researched and vetted with my personal team of libel, copyright and medical malpractice lawyers (in case any readers laugh so much as to become physically ill). You should be aware that, in the event of a dispute, your response to my comments is subject to arbitration, via the mandatory binding arbitration agreement I posted in MeFi thread #9622 and which you acknowledge and tacitly agree to by your participation in this site. And I have retained the services of quonsar as a fair and impartial arbitrator. With a fish in his pants. And I can neither confirm nor deny rumors that Tim Berners-Lee is Al Gore's sockpuppet.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:38:25 -0800

Your post clearly states the the reason for this is to create false realities, and nothing more....Obviously the stuff *could* be used for an attack ad, but the fact remains, if somebody can make a truly vicious attack ad by following you around, then you're probably doing something wrong. posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 4:45 PM on November 28 First of all, the title of the post is "Make Your Own Attack Ad". The reason I used the word "hopes" in my comment was to parallel its use in the fpp. If that was too flippant, well, I'm sorry. And I could not care less about some internet jackass calling me names, but you accused me of being a bigot and that I take seriously, because it is completely outlandish and wholly without merit. So, do you have anything to support that? My posting history is right there for all to see and copy and paste. My post did not say that the reason for doing this is to create "false realities, and nothing more". I simply said they hoped that people would make precisely the kinds of very misleading and defamatory yet nonetheless effective ads that they themselves cannot make. I didn't say this was their exclusive objective. And, FYI, taking a quote, any quote, out of context "creates a false reality". Welcome to the world of spin doctoring and advertising. This is the last I'm saying on this subject. If you have some specific problem with me, I'd be happy to take it up with you in email, Mefi mail, or metatalk.

By: Green With You

Green With You — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:58:42 -0800

The thing you're all forgetting is, Al Gore couldn't have invented the internet. I did. I would hope that the kinds of ads created by this are on par with this little ditty. But I won't hold my breath.

By: Green With You

Green With You — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:00:26 -0800

Actually, I was thinking of this video. I wasn't aware The Daily Show did another skit like the first one.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:08:15 -0800

Maybe it was the 15+ years too late radio documentary on spin I was just listening to, but did this read like a parody of exactly the sort of tactics used by pols to anyone else? "Okay, start off with a tight, clear message - make your opponent's point clear right off the hop, and lock that in, following it up with a little stroking of the audience's ego to get them on board. Mind you don't appeal to them directly; remember, Let Them Relate, Don't Dictate. Make a reference to the admins, but be careful. Position yourself so that you're on the side of the angels, but at the same time make it clear that you're the underdog, hamstrung by the incompetence of the boys and girl upstairs. Co-opt their authority while at the same time undermining it, it's a great way to suck in the brown nosers and the anti-authoritarians. Your action points are your opponent's flamebait and trollery, so make sure you get a couple references in, but look too aggressive and people'll think you're the bad guy. Make at least a couple mentions, especially near the end, that's what the rubes'll walk away with. And throw in a weary please, remember, you're The Bigger Man^TM. And vaseline those teeth, mister!"

By: Mastercheddaar

Mastercheddaar — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:49:55 -0800

Here's an ad for ya: (Black and White photo of Romney in a devil costume.) Romney has sex with chickens and other barn yard animals.... (color photo of Kucinich scoring a touchdown.) Kucinich likes pumpkin pie.... Any questions? Vote Kucinich!