« Why I Shouldn't Write About Urban Policy at 2am | Main | Why We Need More Historians »

September 25, 2007

BlogAds For Real

I can't figure out if this Bill Richardson ad featuring bloggers talking about his withdrawal plan is actually aimed at bolstering flagging support in the netroots or is something rather more interesting: The first ad based off the assumption that bloggers have gained enough credibility that liberals everywhere trust their assessments as unvarnished truth they don't get in the media. The fact that Richardson is airing the spot in New Hampshire suggests the latter. If so, that's an interesting premise, and it'll be more interesting to see if it works. Anyway, here's the ad, and the bloggers:

Update: Sources e-mail to say that Richardson's ad buy is an ad buy in name only. It's a $6,000 purchase that will air the spot for one day on New Hampshire's WMUR. So basically nobody will see it. The buy, rather, is having its intended effect of serving as the peg with which bloggers and netroots types can post the YouTube and talk about the content.

September 25, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

I thought the former.

How much is Richardson spending on it in NH?

Posted by: Armando | Sep 25, 2007 2:14:00 PM

Richardson calls them "activists." I think he's trying to woo both the netroots and the non-netroots lefty activist set, high information voters who will be swayed by such specific advertising.

The ad definitely isn't for the median primary voter.

Posted by: DivGuy | Sep 25, 2007 2:46:16 PM

The ad would be far more persuasive if the bloggers DIDN'T mention Richardson, but said one (actually two, unfortunately because of Kuccinich) candidate will bring all the troops out of Iraq, and asked do you know who that candidate is. As is, they come across as 'bought' more than passionately committed and independent.

I don't think this ad bucks up the netroots, nor convinces because of crediblity. It is just more of the muddled Richardson campaign.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Sep 25, 2007 2:48:25 PM

"The ad would be far more persuasive if the bloggers DIDN'T mention Richardson... As is, they come across as 'bought' more than passionately committed and independent."

Either way there's the "I'm Bill Richardson and I'm running for President" at the end though, right? Anyways, it is interesting how the ad only features bloggers. Could the campaign find nobody else? How many people in Iowa read blogs, and additionally are not already committed to one of the candidates?

Posted by: Korha | Sep 25, 2007 3:16:03 PM

I'd also point out that I disagree with the over-simplified premise that if you leave "thousands...even tens of thousands" of troops behind, you're necessarily continuing the war. I would say ending the war means disengaging from an active role in the security of Iraqi neighborhoods and the jockeying for political power in the nascent Iraqi civil war. Having troops stationed in, say Kurdistan as a quick-strike reaction force, and in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, would not, in my mind, constitute a continuance of "the war". Nor do I think it would be seen as much of an intrusion by Iraqis (though maybe I'm wrong there).

Though I have to admit, our ridiculous embassy in Baghdad is itself somewhat of a black eye. I think we should do something about that. It's way too big.

Oh, and, to my understanding, Bill Richardson is actually calling for some troops to remain to protect the embassy. As such, it seems like both he and his supporters understand the types of distinctions I'm describing, since he would not necessarily be removing every single last troop. I do believe Bowers himself has noted this...Richardson's plan actually is more on the order of ~5,000 troops remaining. So why misrepresent? Why pretend like no such distinctions exist when they all seem to recognize such distinctions exist?

Seems a little disingenuous.

Posted by: mop | Sep 25, 2007 4:24:03 PM

Bowers plays an excellent Man Reading Teleprompter in this spot

Posted by: Steve Balboni | Sep 25, 2007 4:32:32 PM

The ad is based on the faulty assumption that Richardson's rise (which, as of the latest poll in New Hampshire is over) was driven by this position.

Also intetesting that Bowers and Stoller are effectively backing the candidacy of the most conservative Democratic in the race because of a single (good) position that he seems to have stumbled on.

Posted by: david mizner | Sep 25, 2007 5:26:12 PM

If "leaving troops behind" involves leaving a few of them in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or somewhere else in the region for whatever reason, I don't see why that should upset anyone. That's the only reason (apart from embassy protection, and maybe protection of relief workers) that Edwards wants to keep people there.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Sep 25, 2007 7:18:25 PM

"The first ad based off the assumption that bloggers have gained enough credibility that liberals everywhere trust their assessments as unvarnished truth they don't get in the media."

Yep, pretty much.

Posted by: mickslam | Sep 25, 2007 9:31:54 PM

This ad is more about Bowers and Stoller than it is about Richardson's viewpoint. Still, kudos to them.

I doubt it will have much traction though, even in NH. Richardson is very good one on one and will need to continue to do the retail work there. They, along with Iowans, expect it.

Posted by: Benny | Sep 25, 2007 10:09:40 PM

Of course, this ad may drive the point home that everything those three say about the race has to be filtered through the lens of them being shills for the Dems and Richardson in particular. If they say the sky is blue, you have to wonder whether BR asked them to say that.

Now, certainly, we don't expect anything different from the standard paid hacks like DickMorris. But, any blogger who fashions themselves a *reporter* would be wise make it known far and wide that they're not that type of blogger.

Posted by: TLB | Sep 25, 2007 11:20:08 PM

A-ha! An ABINO!

Posted by: Will | Sep 26, 2007 4:27:49 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.