Ad Hulabaloo
The recent spurt of new ads from the Lamont and Lieberman campaigns has gained quite a bit of attention both in the blogosphere and the local media. The latest salvo is a fake 'negative ad' by the Lamont campaign criticizing...Lamont. The ad shows three images saying that Lamont makes bad coffee, is a bad singer, and has a messy desk, then concludes with Lamont saying "Aren't you sick of political attack ads that insult your intelligence? Sen. Lieberman, let's stick to issues and pledge to support whoever wins the Democratic primary."
Even I have to admit the ad is clever. But what's the saying about people living in glass houses? It's more than a bit disingenuous for the Lamont campaign to call out Joe on negative ads. The presumed target of Lamont's parody ad is a recent Lieberman ad where the Senator put up a fake bumper sticker 'from' the Lamont campaign which reads "No More Joe." Lieberhaters cried foul, saying it was a "lie" since the Lamont campaign had never issued any such bumper sticker. The point, of course, was not that it was a real Lamont bumper sticker, but rather that the message on the bumper sticker was representative of the tone of Lamont's campaign.
People also seem to forget that real paraphernalia from an opponent's campaign is subject to copy protection just like all other official company publications. So if you want to parody the other side, you have to change at least some part of your opponent's paraphernalia.
True, "fair use" rules would probably protect Lieberman in this case, but then that would mean directing people who see the ad to Lamont's actual campaign sight, which anyone would have to admit would be a really stupid move for Lieberman's campaign. This is all something these Lieberhaters obviously did not consider when using their criticism; if they did know it, they chose to ignore it.
Above and beyond that, any fair-minded person would have to agree with the Lieberman campaign's response that the bumper sticker ad was "hardly more outrageous" than the "doctored video in a Lamont ad of Lieberman's voice coming from President Bush's mouth." Really, the only difference is that the Lieberman campaign doctored a photo while the Lamont campaign doctored a video. Is one really more acceptable than the other?
I'm certainly not saying that Lieberman's ad was a good one. If I were him, I would have certainly found another way to convey the message. But I would send this warning to the makers of Lamont's most recent ad:
Careful, Mr. Lamont. Your house is looking particularly transparent on this one.
Even I have to admit the ad is clever. But what's the saying about people living in glass houses? It's more than a bit disingenuous for the Lamont campaign to call out Joe on negative ads. The presumed target of Lamont's parody ad is a recent Lieberman ad where the Senator put up a fake bumper sticker 'from' the Lamont campaign which reads "No More Joe." Lieberhaters cried foul, saying it was a "lie" since the Lamont campaign had never issued any such bumper sticker. The point, of course, was not that it was a real Lamont bumper sticker, but rather that the message on the bumper sticker was representative of the tone of Lamont's campaign.
People also seem to forget that real paraphernalia from an opponent's campaign is subject to copy protection just like all other official company publications. So if you want to parody the other side, you have to change at least some part of your opponent's paraphernalia.
True, "fair use" rules would probably protect Lieberman in this case, but then that would mean directing people who see the ad to Lamont's actual campaign sight, which anyone would have to admit would be a really stupid move for Lieberman's campaign. This is all something these Lieberhaters obviously did not consider when using their criticism; if they did know it, they chose to ignore it.
Above and beyond that, any fair-minded person would have to agree with the Lieberman campaign's response that the bumper sticker ad was "hardly more outrageous" than the "doctored video in a Lamont ad of Lieberman's voice coming from President Bush's mouth." Really, the only difference is that the Lieberman campaign doctored a photo while the Lamont campaign doctored a video. Is one really more acceptable than the other?
I'm certainly not saying that Lieberman's ad was a good one. If I were him, I would have certainly found another way to convey the message. But I would send this warning to the makers of Lamont's most recent ad:
Careful, Mr. Lamont. Your house is looking particularly transparent on this one.
posted by Matt Smith at 6:30 AM
13 Comments:
good for you! so tired of the national bloggers trying to make a name for themselves at the party's expense trying to knock off one of our nat'l leaders
check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j47E4rV1RdU
Isn't it sad that Lieberman can't even be bothered to run a campaign blog, and that some groupie drunk on the neocon Kool-Aid has to do it for him?
it's about time level headed Dems started defending a multi faceted Party.
I emailed Kos Krew the following:
I can't with good conscience not defend lieberman from your daily assaults.
His FULL record bears little resemblance to the caracature portrayed of him on this once reasonable & thoughtfulblog.
Your unrelenting, vitriolic hits on his character & temperment seem odd, considering the Senator is routinely voted by folks on the Hill as one of the most likable, nice guys.
The obsessional anti-Joe rantings by you & the Kos Krew, portray him as:
*conservative;
*phony;
*an absoulote shrew.
However his record & reputation show: he's socially liberal; pro-labor; principled; and entirely decent.
I could write much more about your mean spiritness and deceptive writings about this good senator, and his Democrat values which you choose to ignore.
But sadly, I'm more & more getting the impression that you won't let honesty and fairness interfere with your agenda.
The ends justifies the means.
Regardless how mean.
I love it, you guys are tearing yourself apart internally. Well done.
Please, get an rss feed.
The existing RSS feeds on this blog:
http://lieberdem.blogspot.com/rss.xml
http://lieberdem.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Why on earth is it blackmail for him to say he'll run as an independent if he loses?? It's legal and everyone and their mother knows that Dem turnout on primary day probably won't even crack 20%.
Why is it so unfair for him to then put himself on the ballot in November when far, far more people - Dems included - will be paying attention?
Joe is a Republican, not a Democrat. Actually, he's worse than a Republican, because he's a backstabbing liar, who likes to wound Democrats and the progressive agenda at opportune moments for him.
If Lamont loses the primary, I'm voting for Schlesinger. At least Schlesinger is honest about who he is and what he stands for.
The Nedheads are the same extremists who supported Ralph Nader and gave us Bush. They care about nothing except their own egos and their issues of the day. Today it is the war tomorrow it will be some other litmus test issue. Will they go away after Ned loses??
The Lieberman campaign's use of a fake Lamont bumpersticker in their TV ad is intended and likely to give viewers the impression that the bumper sticker is an official Lamont bumper sticker.
By contrast, no sane person could come away from viewing the Lamont ad with the impression that Lieberman has literally taken over Bush's body and is speaking through him!
The Lamont ad is clearly making a point about how similar Lieberman's positions and rhetoric are to Bush's (using Lieberman's own words against him). The Lieberman ad, by contrast, makes use, not of anything Lamont or his campaign did or said, but rather creates a straw man only to knock it down. As you know, the fake bumper sticker was not authorized by the Lamont campaign.
I think the Lamontistas have a skewed sense of reality--but this is attempted Totalitarianism--it's their way or the highway.
They can't produce their own rocks and then complain about pebbles, it's laughable.
Jane Hamsher is having a snitfit because of NARALs support for Joe--well, AFIC, her colorful description that ignores the reality of hospital rights, is a problem of her own creation and as such, this AcidSpeak is going to come back and burn whomever spits it out. No responsible organization would do anything that sides with or lends credence to such verbal garbage.
There is no need to work hard to knock down a puppet-leader in the making, the key, I feel, is to have the public look at his bloggers--let them see what he has inspired and ask them if they want to align with people of that much hate, vile, cobra-spit expletives and outrageous distortions. Ask them is this group, these bloggers who have boasted they are political jihadists, the party they want in power. The public will be ruinously effected by progressive totalitarianism, it could lead to chaos.
What do you mean by totalitarianism? Last I recalled, this is all over an election - you know, exercising the democratic will.
Also, it's generally accepted that in the US, the statements members of an organization make do not disqualify the policy views of that organization. For instance, Pat Robertson still holds a lot of power, as does Grover Norquist. In fact, they both hold significantly more power than Jane Hamsher. So why attack her?
Post a Comment
<< Home