USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[melliedee]

Is it just Ohio or is the moveon ad playing a lot where you live? Everytime I watch it, it irks me more and more. I finally sent an email to the feedback section of their website and got an immediate robo-response about how they can't answer every email but do read them.

[roni]

Have not seen any ads at all here in Oregon, but I do not watch TV much. I'll ask Kathy if she has seen any

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Is it just Ohio or is the moveon ad playing a lot where you live? Everytime I watch it, it irks me more and more. I finally sent an email to the feedback section of their website and got an immediate robo-response about how they can't answer every email but do read them.

According to Bill Kristol's critique of it today (echoes previous points and presents many others), it's being aired especially in swing states OH, MI & WI.

Lucky you!

Steve

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

I didn't get that last bit (an impression of contempt held for those serving, I mean), but otherwise, it is kind of a ready-made example for those who might want to teach high schoolers or college kids what a pathos approach looks like.

In fact, particularly good example, as it sort of overrides a logos element in the bit you mention about the service being all voluntary, after all...

Steve

I didn't think you would be susceptible to a pathos approach, especially to one done so poorly. While the nature of such an approach is to focus on the emotional/empathetic side of our being, having a least a kernel of truth is what make the approach believable. There is nothing in her set-up that is true, or believable, and thus the emotional appeal falls flat.

I don't understand your point in the second paragraph, care to provide more detail?

[tmc]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Is it just Ohio or is the moveon ad playing a lot where you live? Everytime I watch it, it irks me more and more. I finally sent an email to the feedback section of their website and got an immediate robo-response about how they can't answer every email but do read them.

What is it about the ad that irks you?

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by tmc

What is it about the ad that irks you?

It uses a cute baby to appeal to the fierce sense of protection in mothers. An insult, when you think about it, to mothers with grown children serving in the military (as if they said, "ok, you can have my child..." despite the fact that our military is voluntary and that decision is one for an adult to make.

I do not like the direct address, "John McCain," used throughout the ad. It heaps further disrespect on someone who lost a large portion of his life defending this country. I also think they're taking the whole "100 years" line quite out of context.

Plus, the cable news shows have been playing it constantly and it strikes me as so obvious, poorly done and unfairly emotional that everytime I see it, it just bothers me more.

[Mr Cancun]

Originally Posted by beerbreath

The latest Newsweek poll is out and it has Obama 15% ahead of McBush.

B O'carter should enjoy this while he still can !!

[beerbreath]

Originally Posted by Mr Cancun

B O'carter should enjoy this while he still can !!

Obama's lead will only increase,people are fed up.McBush looks like a tired old puppet of Bush.We need a thoroughbred,not an old mule.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by melliedee

It uses a cute baby to appeal to the fierce sense of protection in mothers. An insult, when you think about it, to mothers with grown children serving in the military (as if they said, "ok, you can have my child..." despite the fact that our military is voluntary and that decision is one for an adult to make.

I do not like the direct address, "John McCain," used throughout the ad. It heaps further disrespect on someone who lost a large portion of his life defending this country. I also think they're taking the whole "100 years" line quite out of context.

Plus, the cable news shows have been playing it constantly and it strikes me as so obvious, poorly done and unfairly emotional that everytime I see it, it just bothers me more.

C'mon, tell me how you really feel about it! I think you are spot on in your analysis. There are plenty of ways to drive home the differences between Obama and McCain, this is not a particularly honest one (although it may be effective, who knows).

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by tmc

C'mon, tell me how you really feel about it! I think you are spot on in your analysis. There are plenty of ways to drive home the differences between Obama and McCain, this is not a particularly honest one (although it may be effective, who knows).

We'll see if moveon responds to my angry missive. I doubt it.

I think some of the internet forwards against Obama are just as effective. It makes me lose faith in the intelligence of our voters. Just like the "you can't have my baby, warwongerer" message of the moveon ad, you'd think that reasonable people would not be moved by whoever it is who starts these sleaze forwards about Obama being a secret, black power Muslim USA hater.

I don't know about your local poltical ads, but here in the rustbelt they are even worse. Like bad porn: crappy music when you get to the bad guy (opponent) and over the top voice overs which must be done by by high school thespians practicing their ability to do one note emotions. "John Smith wants you to think he's pro-union..." Then a shot of him looking really put out and ugly. Freeze frame.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by tmc

I didn't think you would be susceptible to a pathos approach, especially to one done so poorly. While the nature of such an approach is to focus on the emotional/empathetic side of our being, having a least a kernel of truth is what make the approach believable. There is nothing in her set-up that is true, or believable, and thus the emotional appeal falls flat.

I don't understand your point in the second paragraph, care to provide more detail?

Well Melliedee has again already summed up a lot of what I would also say, but I just mean that I think if you're doing a freshman composition class, for example, and you have a unit on rhetorical analysis, and you want to heighten the distinctions between ethos, logos & pathos approaches, well it would be good to use this ad, because it not only is a very pathos approach, obviously, but tit moreover has sort of excised or suppressed some obvious logos aspects from the situation.

And these are not subjective aspects, either (like the interpretation of McCain's remarks might arguably be), but are rather clear objective facts. For example, the US has all-volunteer armed services, so it's not possible for McCain or anybody to take her son. Or as Kristol points out, the fact that we have 4-year terms for the presidency, in this country, and a 2-term limit, such that even if McCain wins, this woman's son could be no more than 9 years old while McCain is still president, hardly the age to fear the draft even if we had one.

Steve

[horizon200]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well Melliedee has again already summed up a lot of what I would also say, but I just mean that I think if you're doing a freshman composition class, for example, and you have a unit on rhetorical analysis, and you want to heighten the distinctions between ethos, logos & pathos approaches, well it would be good to use this ad, because it not only is a very pathos approach, obviously, but tit moreover has sort of excised or suppressed some obvious logos aspects from the situation.

And these are not subjective aspects, either (like the interpretation of McCain's remarks might arguably be), but are rather clear objective facts. For example, the US has all-volunteer armed services, so it's not possible for McCain or anybody to take her son. Or as Kristol points out, the fact that we have 4-year terms for the presidency, in this country, and a 2-term limit, such that even if McCain wins, this woman's son could be no more than 9 years old while McCain is still president, hardly the age to fear the draft even if we had one.


Steve

I dunno! Had a pilot stop by the office for a mission brief the other day that didn't look much older!
Can't possibly be me getting older can it?

[ryberg]

OK, some of you please check out this entry on the CNN ticker and read at least the first couple of paragraphs and tell me if I'm whacked in thinking that the headline is whacked:

Poll: Obama's candidacy not affected by racial divide

I can only imagine that what they're trying to say with that headline is something about there being a sort of net wash, in the end, not that there are no racial divide effects (since about everything they discuss after that title is precisely about racial divisions). Even if that's the case somehow mathematically, I don't think you can get to the conclusion in that title.

Or as I say, am I whacked?

Steve

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by ryberg

OK, some of you please check out this entry on the CNN ticker and read at least the first couple of paragraphs and tell me if I'm whacked in thinking that the headline is whacked:

Poll: Obama's candidacy not affected by racial divide

I can only imagine that what they're trying to say with that headline is something about there being a sort of net wash, in the end, not that there are no racial divide effects (since about everything they discuss after that title is precisely about racial divisions). Even if that's the case somehow mathematically, I don't think you can get to the conclusion in that title.

Or as I say, am I whacked?

Steve

I think the gist is that Obama's candicacy is no more affected by the racial divide, at least among whites, than any other Democrat. It is the margin he "loses" the white vote which will matter. Clinton lost it by only 1 point; Carter by 5.

But, you're not whacked. The article was all about racial divides.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I think the gist is that Obama's candicacy is no more affected by the racial divide, at least among whites, than any other Democrat. It is the margin he "loses" the white vote which will matter. Clinton lost it by only 1 point; Carter by 5.

But, you're not whacked. The article was all about racial divides.

Woo-hoo!

I feel like Homer Simpson in that early episode when he's released from the mental hospital with a big red stamp on his hand: SANE.

Steve