With the recent announcement of Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court, news agencies and partisan watch groups have eagerly taken on the job of defining this woman and what her appointment would mean for this country.

Sotomayor’s liberal leanings could greatly impact future decisions concerning hot-button social issues like gay rights and abortion. Comments made in lectures at Berkeley Law School and at Duke University are providing plenty of fodder for conservative opponents.

Coalition for Constitutional Values has released a nationwide ad campaign in support of Sotomayor’s nomination. With a six-figure buy, the thirty second commercial provides a brief biography and pictures of the potential Justice with Obama’s nomination speech emphasizing Sotomayor’s qualifications.

In rebuttal, but on a much smaller scale, conservative Judicial Confirmation Network’s attack ad uses Sotomayor’s Berkeley comment saying Latina women will more often make better decisions than white men to question her ability to provide “equal justice under the law.” The web ad is up on most major news sites and is being passed around via email through conservative activists.

Obama’s approval rating is high and the Democrats enjoy a majority in the Senate, making her confirmation likely. This brings up an important question: is it necessary or appropriate to run campaign-style ads for a Supreme Court Justice nominee? Sotomayor’s confirmation is dependent on the votes of a mere 100 senators.  Does publicizing the nominee to arouse public interest and opinion carry any weight? 

Neither ad mentions any of Sotomayor’s previous rulings that would give insight to her stance on any major issue. These ads provide no firm understanding of where she stands. Both rely on her character, which each side is easily manipulating in their favor.

Only time will tell; when hearings begin in July, we will see if ads have any effect in the court of public opinion or on partisan voting blocs.

Obama’s Change.gov is already at it with the beginning of it’s part II branding campaign….The Presidency.  Democrats and Republicans alike tout the Obama branding operation as nothing short of masterful.

Already, Obama’s communications team has produced a series of videos showing Obama at various events leading up to the inauguration.

These videos are shot on a high end / HD camera and are edited with excellent skill, as they reveal what appears to be a glimpse  behind the scenes of the Obama’s movements.  The best videos so far feature the Whistle Stop Tour and the Sunday concert at the Lincoln Memorial.

The Obama Team’s emphasis on video coverage, with almost instantaneous posting to their YouTube channel, conveys a greater sense of access that is in line with their message of change through transparency.

Kudos….The videos look great.

Nielson has produced some very interesting post-Election ad spending analysis.  If you interested in reading more about Nielson’s work in this area I highly recommend Nielson Wire/Politics.  

In a recent post titled, How Obama’s Local Buys Added Up, Nielsen examines all the ad buys by the 2008 Presidential candidates.  The conclusion: local spot TV was the principle component of the Barack Obama TV buy strategy.

Spot television is all advertising time that is available from local TV stations.  Local Spot advertising is selectively buying on one or more targeted stations in each market separately.  These are purchased through the individual stations.  This is different from National Spots, which is advertising handled at a larger scale, where an advertising will cover several markets over a large region or across the country. 

Acoording to Nielson, “President-elect Barack Obama placed one-and-a-half times as many spot TV ads than John McCain during the general election season (6/08 to 11/08), and almost twice as many ads dating back to the beginning of January when the primaries were just heating up.”

The local numbers show a much bigger discrepancy than those for national cable and network buys. Sen. McCain kept pace w/ President-elect Obama in those categories, with Obama edging out his rival by just 136 ad buys in the cable and network combined, dating back to January.

Other notable campaign facts from Nielsen’s research

• Obama’s ads were on the airwaves over twice as much as McCain’s in the final month before the election (210,245 vs. 97,023 ad buys).
• McCain took early advantage of Obama’s long primary battle with Hillary Clinton, which ended on June 3rd. McCain bought over three and a half times more spot TV ads than Obama in June (26,594 to 7,251), the only month that McCain beat his opponent in that category.
• McCain made a major push with national buys in September, out placing Obama 10 to 1 in cable and network ad buys.
• The two candidates alone combined for almost 850,000 total ad buys dating back to January.

Complete Ad Spends: Jan-Nov 2008

A month or so ago, we were privileged to watch a cross attack by McCain and Obama, referencing each other’s homes.  You know, your run of the mill elitist house hit.

Now, Barack Obama has this new spot attacking McCain for his cars – all 13 of them.  Airing in Michigan, which actually makes sense.

MI “Foreign Vehicles” Ad

McCain has a new spot titled “FACT CHECK“, which features a pack of wolves, symbolically representing the pack of lawyers which recently descended on Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin.

This ad reminds me of other more famous political spots featured in past presidential elections, featuring animals as symbols for menacing enemies, demonstrating an  excellent use of cinematic symbolism.  

And why does this work so well? Because, scary animals scare people.

Let me explain.

We are in the business of emotional advertising. Emotion creates a very effective path for psychological message delivery. If a political advertisement or direct mail piece does not create some form of fear, love, anger, or pleasure, in line with the intended effect, then it is ineffective.

Animals in action drive people back into a state of emotional instinct.  So naturally, wolves on the hunt or a bear lurking in the woods makes the viewer feel uncomfortable and fearful.  This produces a subconscious ’conditional reflex’ toward that negative emotional state. AKA Pavlovian condition.

FACT CHECK (McCain 2008)-Use of wolves to show how the Obama campaign is viciously going after Sarah Palin.

WOLVES (Bush 2004) – Use of wolves to symbolize terrorists.  This spot, not so subtly, draws the connection between agile packs of wolves and terrorist cells, both similarly capable of vicious attack on unsuspecting victims.   This was used by the Bush campaign to illustrate his strong position against terrorism and keeping the country safe.

THE BEAR (Reagan 1984) – Use of bear to symbolize the threat of communist Russia.  This spot was very well executed.  It is subtle yet it creates tension, through the sound of a heartbeat and the calm yet concerned voice of the voice talent.  During the Cold War, Soviet Russia was known symbolically as the bear.  So this spot really played to this already identifiable symbolism.  Well done.

Now this is a new one for me.  Barack Obama and his supporters have decided to take full advantage of Gov. Sarah Palin’s off-the-cuff joke about hockey mom’s.  The problem for Obama is, the joke was funny, it connected with people and it was about women.

With these factors working against Obama, I would have counseled him to stay away from the Palin line and move into other territories of attack.

This one just appears too personal, and any man talking about a woman, lipstick and a pig in one sentence just never seems to come off in a good way.

So, the McCain camp took full advantage and rolled out this one called, “LIPSTICK.”

UPDATE – Spot is no longer available on McCain’s YouTube Channel.

This year’s convention had a lot of excitement, with the Clintons’ drama, the brief appearance of Hurricane Gustav and the Palin non-stop news coverage.

So I wasn’t surprised when I found something missing from the mainstream press coverage – the attacks. Reporting paid very little mind to the tee-up on the contrast messaging for the Fall.  

At party conventions, normal fire breathing and attack messaging is done through surrogates.  This allows big name party leaders to go after the opposite party’s ticket without leaving any stain of negativity on their own nominees.

The nominee ticket usually spends their prime-time address outlining their vision and firing up the base.  Not this year.  

As this presidential head-to-head polling numbers bounce within the margin or error, the attacks were infused into all elements of the convention addresses.  And if this year’s conventions are any indicator of the heat to come, we are in for a good ride.  All four members of the national party tickets spent a great deal of time and energy during their nomination speeches whacking at their opponents.

How does this old news translates into new news?

These convention attacks provided the menu for what will be served up in the paid communications for the fall.  Sans, the surprise hit pieces that may rear their ugly heads in October, much of what was mentioned in these speeches will be communicated over the web, on the airwaves, over the phones, in mail boxes and on the stump this fall.

Already, not a moment to spare, Obama lit the airwaves this week, with a spot aimed at McCain, claiming ‘he doesn’t understand’ and painting him as another four year extension of Bush.  These attacks were showcased by Obama the night of his major address – if you missed it, you were asleep or under rock.

What we will see over the coming weeks is a build toward contrasting messages and themes, where each presidential ticket and respective party attempts to line up their values and vision with the voters, while pinning the vision and values of their opponents and their records in conflict with voters.  Remember, alignment and conflict.

So below, I laid out the attacks, launched by both tickets at their opponents, during the convention.  These were pulled from their speeches and their respective party messaging surrounding coverage.  

Attacks on McCain/Palin

• McCain is 8 more years of Bush
  
• McCain sides with Bush 95% of the time
  
• McCain only wants tax breaks for the rich, corporations
  
• McCain’s foreign policy is simply “Bush-McCain”
  
• McCain was “wrong” on national security
  
• McCain doesn’t get it
  
• McCain has caused our oil addiction
  
• McCain has poor temperament & judgment as a commander in chief
  
• Palin is inexperienced and is a heartbeat away from presidency

Attacks on Obama/Biden

• Obama opposes drilling & nuclear energy
  
• Obama has no record, and no experience
  
• Obama’s only experience is as a “Community organizer”
  
• Rural and red state voters were reminded of the perceived Obama slight when he said people in small towns ‘Cling to religion and guns’
  
• Obama is nothing more than, “dramatic speeches” and “devoted followers”
  
• Obama is a celebrity with no substance
  
• Obama will raise your taxes
  
• Obama uses “change” to promote his career

As the election progresses, it will be important to hone in on the arguments being made over time, and watch how each campaign makes points that fit into these arguments to build their strength and legitimacy among voters – which in political speak is referred to as ‘traction.’

Creating and finding traction with attacks and messages will be the main objective leading up to election day.

 

The Obama campaign is working on getting its footing back in the election, with a new line of attack on McCain.  Obama took the gloves off again this week, with a tough speech in Michigan and a new spot titled ‘WHAT KIND.’

This is another example that the Obama campaign decided to shed the cute and funny spots and replace them with traditional attack ads that center around crystal clear message delivery.

Unfortunately, I do not have a brightcove player so you can see the spot through the link below.

“What Kind”