If you watch the show “Girls,” you know writer Lena Dunham is an expert at creating painfully awkward but still compelling scenes. This ad she cut for the Obama campaign is along those lines:
After watching the ad, Foreign Policy wonders whether the concept was borrowed from a similar commercial run by Vladimir Putin’s presidential campaign
Is Obama’s ad a reflection of his own Putin-like personality cult? It’s hard to imagine any other candidate, Republican or Democrat, cutting a video like this. Not just because it’s risque, but because it could easily be seen as sexist, patronizing, and offensive.
Of course, Putin’s ad wasn’t designed to win an election (he has much more reliable ways of doing that), but to build his legend as a hyper-masculine patriarch. Obama’s ad is the reverse. It’s aimed at getting young people to vote, not to make people think young women like Dunham have romantic feelings about him.
But was the chance of this video going viral and convincing a few Millenials to vote really worth the risk of being mocked for copying a sleazy Russian autocrat? On Twitter, Phil Klein wondered whether there was a secondary motivation:
Wonder if pt of Obama ad is to bait conservatives & hope over the top reactions will fuel culture war/fire up base.
— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) October 26, 2012
@melissatweets so far, it’s mocking. But all they need is one statement that goes to far, and they’ll run with it, and media will follow
— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) October 26, 2012
Who knows? The Obama campaign could benefit from a big, fake media controversy to reenergize its “war on women” theme, especially since the Mourdock scandal appears to be winding down.
The Putin add is far, far better. n nIf anyone thinks the dopey conformist (see the ugly tattoo) is going to get anyone other than other dopey conformists to vote for Obama . . . n nIn fact, anyone other than a dopey tattooed teen is likely to take offense at the basic premise of the add, and think the guy who approved it is desperate. n nToo bad it doesn't have Obama's voice saying "I approved this ad". Why doesn't it? Is this a PACS ad?
The Putin ad- and I don't speak Russian- seems to be much more intelligent and-amazingly- really romantic. The Obama ad (what else would you call it?) is crude and offensive. The Democrats cannot even plagiarize well! (just like hapless Joe Biden….)
Three letters: FCC. n nRemember there is that little clause that "Congress shall not…" in the First Amendment, not to mention the 13th Amendment and how "involuntary servitude" has been interpreted (e.g. lawyers can not be *required* to defend indigent criminal defendants pro-bono). So McCain-Finegold could not require politicians to say *anything* outright. n nHowever, the airwaves (Broadcast Radio & TV — and the FCC would love to extend this to both CATV and Satellite Radio) are a finite resource and hence must be managed "in the public interest." This is the authorization that the, IMHO, unConstitutional Mc/Fg campaign reform requirement was tacked onto. n nInitially, a century ago, this was the government saying who could broadcast on what frequency because not only did multiple people on the same frequency tend to become bedlam, but at certain mathematical multiples/fractions of the wavelength someone else is on, you can do some really funky things and mess their signal up badly. And as much of this is bouncing off the Ionosphere, an AM radio station in Boston could (and did) mess up ones in Chicago, about a thousand miles away. Interference is why, with a couple of exceptions (because of what was between the channels) you could never have two (old analog) consecutive TV channels in the same city because they would mess each other up — and remember that TV initially required two segregated signals (audio & video) which with color became three video signals and with stereo became two audio signals, and with closed captioning became one more for each of those, and for good measure they tossed in a bunch of other stuff including (I believe) some stuff for utility power management. n nMuch like I have no problem with the government saying we have to drive on the right side of the road and that black, red (and sometimes yellow & blue) wires are "hot" while white and green ones are not — someone has to do it and everyone has to agree that this is the standard — I don't have problems with the FCC saying what frequency can be used for what and who can use it and at what power. It truly was utter chaos before there was a FCC. n nBut the FCC expanded its mission by saying that since the airwaves were really quite finite (and in the days of AM Radio and Analog (FM) TV, they were), all voices had to be heard (the fairness doctrine), stations had to do public service stuff, and that there would be restrictions on what could be broadcast (George Carlin's "7 words" comes to mind). This is why CBS got fined for Janet Jackson's bare breast — you could strip her naked on the 50-yard-line with impunity, you just couldn't broadcast the image over the air (which CBS did). n nOn commercials that are broadcast over a licensed radio station or licensed TV station, the candidate's "I approve of this message" is required –BUT THIS OBLIGATION IS NOT ON THE CANDIDATE — IT IS AN OBLIGATION OF THE LICENSEE (THE STATION) — AND **THEY** GET INTO TROUBLE IF THEY BROADCAST AN AD THAT LACKS IT. n nJanet Jackson didn't get into trouble for baring her breast, and a politician won't get into trouble for not having the "I approve" disclaimer in his/her/it's stuff. The radio or TV station that airs it will — and that is how Mc/Fg got around that pesky little bit about "Congress shall not…"
I should add two facts here. First, when FM radio came on the scene, with the ability of a LOT more radio stations and then UHF (analog) TV with the ability of a lot more TV stations than any market could economically support (it costs a lot of money in electric bills alone to send out a TV signal, not to mention things like transmitters, towers and the like), people started having trouble with the "fairness doctrine" which was that anyone who disagreed with any political statement that the radio or TV station broadcast had to be given equal time for his/her/its opinion. (I did this once.) n nSecond, Reagan ended the "fairness doctrine" in the 1980s (although much as OpEd started out with ethical editors running letters from those who disagreed with their positions, some ethical radio/TV stations will still air opposing viewpoints, although most have gone to not having editorials at all. n nWe haven't had "the fairness doctrine" in a quarter century — and I need to make that point. I cited it only as an example of the power to regulate that Congress *has* — although wisely decided not to use. H*ll, you once had to get a license for a CB radio, complete with your own call sign (e.g. "KBKM-5622", amazing how one remembers things 3 decades later), and without the "low power" exception, we'd all be having to get our own personal FCC licenses for our cell phones. n nArguably, the ending of the "fairness doctrine" let the broadcast MSM drift to the left while also giving birth to conservative talk radio — and what the left fails to realize is that while re-instituting the "fairness doctrine" (assuming it passed the inevitable SCOTUS challenge) might reign in Rush Limbaugh as absolutely every nut job would demand to rebut him on local radio affiliates, it likewise would reign in Katie Curick & Co as every nut job on the right would have an equal opportunity to demand the ability to rebut all of her leftist points on each local TV station broadcasting her diatribe. n nAnd as to why someone like me is willing to let the government regulate who may broadcast on what frequency (and where) — I strongly suspect that unlicensed radio transmissions were the cause of the "runaway" Toyotas a few years back….
We had two consecutive channels in the analog days: 4, which was WRC, a NBC outlet and 5, WTTG which had great counter-programming back in the day. Not as funky as Channel 20 WDCA's bull fights from Mexico (the bull does not stand a chance) but … perky.
Another UMass alumnus (you know him Alana), far better at math than I, came up with this: n n"If you use Rasmussen's state by state polling numbers' allocate according to who is leading, and take out any states Rasmussen currently has as a tie- Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin- Romney leads 261 – 243. This means that of the 3 tied states Obama needs to win all 3 to win. Romney, keeping in mind that a tie generally favors the challenger, need only win either Wisconsin or Ohio. Also keep in mind that Rasmussen had the closest results in 2008."
I thought this advertisement was petty, buffoonish and I hope they get routed by Romney.
Objectify. Feminists used that term to describe a man's view of a woman as a sexual object. The catch phrase was "Don't objectify me!" and it was meant to say that a woman is more than a sex toy. Yet here we have the democrats doing precisely that with this ad. The double entendre is blatant and the whole sense of the ad reads like something Hugh Hefner would say. n nThe democrats have sunk low. We have had an ad about Big Bird, seen our president act condescendingly in the debates, heard the vice president laugh when discussing Iranian nuclear weapons, and now this ad that is base and demeaning. You have to wonder just how much further can the democrats sink. n nI hope they've hit bottom.
"I hope they've hit bottom." I guarantee you they haven't.
I am all for swinging back with something similar — I am serious about making the "Occupy" people think that ObamaCare will mean they get locked up in the psych ward (which they probably should be, but in reality never will be). They are unbalanced, they have never dealt with challenge or confrontation, lets start pushing them and watch them go say things that are stupid and outrageous that help OUR side.
Gosh, you're are right, Mike. That one is a few fathoms deeper. Here's a worry: How low is the bottom?
They've got 9 days to show us.
One other thing — and note how the "abortion in the case of rape" issue is being thrown at Republican Congressional candidates right now — could Obama be hoping to so infuriate/offend conservatives that a few folk go off the deep end and say something so outrageous that it pushes people in the middle back to Obama? n nA classic PSYCHOP — psychological warfare, with the final target audience being people like Ms. Goodman — the young professional woman. Women who are also buying $4/gal gas and worried about Israel becoming a large blob of glowing radioactive glass, women worried about the future of this country and their own futures. And hence Sandra Fluke is giving speeches to only *ten* people while Romney no longer has a gender gap. n nIf Obama is able to push some unbalanced folk on the right over the edge (and we have our crazies too – remember the Rabbi who called for Bibi N to assassinate Obama?) — if Obama is able to provoke comments like "women should submit to their husbands", "the woman's place is in the home" and the classic "be home, barefoot & pregnant" — enough of this might provoke a visceral reaction from said young professional women (and people whom they listen to, and men listen to women whom they admire far more than people realize) and swing the tide back to Obama. n nThat's what the Abortion & Rape issue is — an attempt to get a visceral panic reaction from women who are more likely to die in a car crash than be raped, and even then have at least a 95% (or better) chance of not getting pregnant, even less of carrying the child to term. That's what the "vote like your lady parts depend on it" stuff is all about — trying to scare women into believing that Romney will turn America into John Winthrop's Boston. n nAlana, you are the ultimate target of that ad. They are trying to provoke a much larger version of Rush Limbough's infamous "slut" comment, things that hit you so viscerally that you reluctantly vote for Obama out of fears of what will otherwise happen to your rights as a person because you are a woman.
I can understand why Lena Dunham would like to do it for the first time with a man who pulls out the troops prematurely
Could it be that our side understands women better than theirs does? We actually have women in responsible positions, paid based on merit and the rest. The Dems don't — and Team Obama tends to be a Boy's Club. Maybe they honestly think that some sophomoric diatribe like this — or some response to it — will actually have an impact on women who are more concerned about the damn $4/gallon gasoline and having to pay $50 to fill their cars up. n
The is just embarrassing. Just like The Life of Julia. How can the democrats possible think that this humiliating meme has appeal? When I think it can't get worse, I am proven wrong.
"Borrowed"?? Not likely. Boss Putin saw his stooge in trouble in Washingtonsky and ordered the ad made.
Such cheese. Putin's ad uses a Barbie-fied fluff-head who needs a fortune teller to tell her how to vote and Obama's tramp-stamped fluff-head pretends to have an independent mind. I wonder if the Dems actually thought that the clever "subliminal" hint of a White woman's loss of virginity to a Black man would send Republicans into an atavistic rage. When called out for being patronisng, sexist and tacky, the Dems could scream "racism" and theoretically "energize" what ever's left of their base. Very deep stuff.
Romney IMHO is best advised to give this tawdriness, aimed at a specific and tiny, self absorbed and reflexively liberal demographic, a wide berth and to keep campaigning on his economic plan, his critique of Obama's term, and his revitalization of America internationally through its projection of benign strength rooted in her best ideals. That insistent closing campaigning ought to bracket into tawdry irrelevance Dunham's ad.