Sorry about the light posting; my other life has me distracted. I've been meaning to write about the MoveOn ad since I first saw it on Tuesday. In case you haven't seen it, here it is:
I sat in silence for a few moments after watching this initially. The ad is nothing if not powerful. But is it fair? And if it is, is it smart politics? My answer to both questions, after two days of thought, is yes. That probably isn't surprising given my past writings on McCain's "100 years" and "not too important" comments.
The ad is personal, and given the response from others that watched the ad in my presence, it is too personal for some. The idea of a webcam video, filmed in a new mother's bedroom makes it even more effective. The tone, though, is what makes the ad really work. The mother is joyful about her son, not angry at McCain. She is confident, not defensive. She is saying enough is enough.
Those who think McCain's comments have been taken out of context will surely cry foul at the ad, but they will be wrong. MoveOn has used the exact context of McCain's quotes and pushed back. He said that it doesn't matter if troops are in Iraq, so long as they aren't being killed. This ad shows that it clearly does matter; it clearly is "important."
My thoughts on the ad aren't surprising, but I would love to hear other people's views. To me, the ad goes to the heart of what this short general election has been about. It highlights the flawed McCain foreign policy strategy. And it's sure to pull at people's emotions. So, take a minute and give your thoughts. Does the ad work, and if so, why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
We don't have a draft.
The ad is prefectly fair. It's much more transparent than some of the things McCain has done already. Like trying to get Obama to lock into 10 debates before the Convention. Preposterous suggestion aimed clearly at chilling the effect the debates are going to have when he gets publicly bent over by Obama. This ad represents the Democrats finally using new media. Facts are facts. He wants to leave the troops there, Obama doesn't. He said we'll have a presence in 100 years. The comment above that we don't have a draft is a joke. It's not about being drafted. It's not about THAT kid. It's about the fact that any kids are there at all.
I just don't understand the notion that it's a good idea to have zero U.S. troops in Iraq. We started this mess, how is it responsible or morally upright foreign policy to just pull out and leave them to fight amongst themselves? It seems to me that we owe it to the people of Iraq to maintain a peacekeeping presence there until we're no longer needed. We have troops stationed throughout the world. I don't see it as a problem to have troops stationed in Iraq, to the extent we are welcome. What I see as a problem is having troops die in Iraq and having Iraqi civilians die as well. The narrow-minded focus of those who harp on the "100 years" and "not important" comments seems to be that it is egregious to have any troops in Iraq and that anyone who focuses more on violence than on troop levels is just continuing Bush's foreign policy. Violence and casualties are what are important; to the extent that our continued presence exacerbates those factors, we should withdraw, but not irresponsibly; to the extent it mitigates them, we should remain.
Look, I fear a McCain presidency because he seems to think our adventure in Iraq might be a good model for the rest of the Middle East; he's a hawk and I fear he is indeed too cavalier about our troops. But crying foul at any kids being abroad is narrow-minded isolationism. For better or worse, when you're the world's only superpower (or one of few), you have a responsibility to the rest of the world not to be isolationist. (You could say that Bush took that "responsibility" too far, or you could say that he never understood it in the first place; the opposite of isolationist is not unilateral aggressor).
The critique of the ad, in short (too late, I know) is this: in 2028, or whenever that kid is of age, everyone's hope ought to be that Iraq is a stable democracy. Whether that outcome requires some continued U.S. presence is "not too important." (There is obviously a separate interest in not being actual or perceived "occupiers," but that's another matter). What is most important is that nobody's dying and that the Iraqis have effective self government. If that kid wants to be a part of it, he can join the army. If he or his mother don't, that's fine. I'm not saying it's not an effective ad, or that it's any less or more fair than any other political ad, just that it's short-sighted, aka par for the course.
Post a Comment