bumped - Matt

While I still have a few critiques on this ad, it is still a vast improvement over her last ad.

I really like the overall idea of this ad because it tells a story.  Facts are easier for most people to remember if they are given in story form.  In less than thirty seconds the ad established a conflict with both good guys and bad guys and a favorable resolution thanks to the heroine of our story, Debbie Stabenow.

Stabenow's last two ads had her trying to appear strong by having the good Senator say that she was "fighting" for Michigan.  An added benefit of the story format of this Ad has her not saying that she's strong, but showing her fighting for Michigan.  This is much more effective at making her strong rather than saying it.

This ad also states that she "passed a Bill to cut taxes for companies that create jobs in Michigan".  Last ad I berated her for using the Republican frame, "cutting taxes to create jobs".  This time by rephrasing it the way it does she has successfully reframed the issue.  Where as Republicans claim that any tax cuts are good, she claims only cutting taxes for companies who create Michigan jobs are good.  Not only is this good policy, but good politics.

I also like the Bush attack in this Ad.  Not only because it attacks President Bush, but the way it attacks him.  When Peter Perez says, "The Bush administration did nothing to help" it helped to reinforce 1 of 2 narratives on Bush and, by extension, all Republicans.  Bush is either incompetent so therefore is unable to help this American Business, or doesn't care so therefore is unwilling to do anything.

Also, this ad seems to have taken my advice from the last Ad Watch to have someone else sing Stabenow's Praise, instead of her trying to promote herself.

I don't like the way the ad ended with Peter saying that he's neither a Republican or Democrat.  Again, Stabenow is acting like she can trick people into voting for a Democrat by not acknowledging  that she is one.  Instead of Peter saying, "I'm not a Democrat.  I'm not a Republican.  I'm a manufacturer and I support Debbie Stabenow because she supports Michigan manufacturing", he should say something that helps Senator Stabenow and brand `D'.  For instance, I'd have Peter Perez say, "Before, I wasn't a Democrat or Republican, but now, after witnessing Democrats like Stabenow stand up for Michigan businesses, this November, I'll be voting for Senator Debbie Stabenow and Democrats like her."

While I don't know for sure, this ad appears to be made by the same media consultants that made her last 2.  They have the same look and feel.  My last inquiry to Stabenow's campaign went unanswered so I still don't know who's making her ads.

Way before the Connecticut Primary and just after Lieberman indicated that he'd run as an unaffiliated candidate if he lost the primary, I sent my Senior Senator from Michigan, Carl Levin an email.  Actually, I sent one to Debbie Stabenow as well.  I asked them both to support the winner of the Democratic Primary.  2 days ago Levin finally responded.

Bumped--Chris

Believe it or not, even though she fails to mention Bush or Iraq, that is not the biggest problem with this ad. See it Here

I think this ad is a virtual case study in why so many of us in the progressive movement keep uttering the phrase "Fire all of the consultants".  This is a feel good ad about Michigan and bi-partisanship.  Under most circumstances promoting those two things is fine with me (as long as it isn't Joe Lieberman (CT-CFL) style 'bi-partisanship); however, this is a campaign.  She should be promoting Democrats and more specifically Debbie Stabenow, the Democratic Senator from Michigan who is running for re-election.

The most striking part of Stabenow's self narrated ad is near the end.  When I heard her say, "This is about Republicans and Democrats. It's about our Michigan way of life and I'm fighting for it..." I about threw my shoe through the television.  Uhh... yes actually, it IS about Democrats and Republicans.  This statement coupled with stating what she's done by "Reaching across the aisle" would leave many people confused if she's a Democrat or a Republican.

The other part of this ad seems to be trying to promote and show how good that state is doing.  People in Michigan are in a larger funk about our state than almost any other nation.  Our Car industry is dieing right before our eyes, our college educated children are leaving the state en masse, and our brave soldiers and National Guardsmen are dying in a pointless occupation of a hostile nation in the middle of a civil war.  Don't try to tell us (I'm a Michigander) how great things are going.  Tell us what you've done or are going to do to fix it.  Don't tell me it's "Changing" when it's suffering.

Fortunately, she did spend a little time stating what she did to help us.  Unfortunately most of it is crap.  The first one, "cutting taxes to create jobs" is a Republican talking point.  She needs to lose it or reframe it.  The Second one, "to lower college tuition", is absurd enough to make any recent or current college grad and his parents laugh hisher butt off the chair.  Tuition rates have skyrocketed in the last 5 years.  The third issue about the Great Lakes is the only thing about this commercial that may carry some weight with voters.

Then, just to really drive home the ineptitude of the beltway mafia, she ends by saying how she'll "fight" for the Michigan way of life.  This is one of those consultants who thinks the candidate can appear "tough" and "strong" just by using words like "tough", "fight", "kill", and "strength".  As we learned over and over from the Gore and Kerry campaigns, you can't say it you have to show it.

Finally, my last critique of this train wreck is that it is entirely self narrated.  When talking about all of the great things that she's done should be done by a narrator or apparent supporter or constituent or someone important who would like to endorse her.  As Hodel, a character from Fiddler on the Roof, said, "the rabbi who must praise himself has a congregation of one."

This ad needs to be trashed.  If Stabenow isn't careful she's going to suddenly find herself in a highly competitive Senate race.

Well, all of the Cable News Networks and newspapers are doing what the do best.  Making a huge hoopla of an issue for approx 6.2 seconds.  Victims of Katrina FEMA still need our help.  So please consider going to the Red Cross and donating some money.  I'll wait...
...
...
Done?
Okay Good.
Now that that's taken care of, I'd like to announce that I'm jumping ont the Cable New bandwagon and would like to post my own Katrina rememberance.  This being a politcal blog I though I'd post an argument that I had with my cousin-in-law shortly after the whole thing went down via email.  Self Indulgent?  Yes.  Unnecessary?  Yes.  Is this a Bad Rumsfeld impression?  Yes.  But like I said, I'm just doing what the media's doing...

The Center for American Progress tipped me off to this one.  There's a news story in the New York Sun that says Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton are actively considering voting against a Bolton filibuster.  I hope this isn't to "seem moderate" and I hope even more that it's not true.  From the article:

The Foreign Relations Committee is set to hold a hearing on the nomination tomorrow, and several Democrats on the panel have voiced their unswerving opposition to Mr. Bolton's nomination.

From New York's senators, however, there has been nothing but silence. Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Clinton voted to block Mr. Bolton's confirmation a year ago, but they have not declared their positions this time around.

Aides to both senators did not respond to repeated inquiries about the Bolton nomination over the last three days.