First off, no idea that's actually how you spelled potpourri, would not have guessed it in a million years. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbaP0Jzd6QA&feature=player_embedded]
A two minute closing ad from Rubio has some people thinking he'll run for President. I can see that from this ad, he's good to camera, feels authentic and compelling, and the ad has an epic sweep, it's not just about Florida, but about America, it's not about issues, but about a philosophy. Two minutes seems a bit indulgent, but when you're up big in your campaign, you can take a 50,000 foot view of things.
I don't talk about script all that often, but the strength of this ad is it's script. Yes, Rubio is very good, and a lesser candidate would flounder with the sweep and narrative, but this ad gives Rubio stature without making him appear overly ambitious or pompous. It has him stake a position without him being political. It all starts on the page, and if it isn't on the page, it won't appear on the screen. The more I watch this ad, the more I like it, simple and elegant, it's form matches the function.
On the other side of the coin you have this line, "Harry Reid working for us, Sharron Angle pathological." Can't help but laugh even as I write it down. This is exactly the kind of ad I really dislike (is hate too strong a word). It's jammed packed, the last line isn't bad, but it's so rushed it feels almost like a parody of a political ad.
Going back to script, do they really need the first seven seconds of this ad? Can't they just say, a newspaper called her pathological, that she's lying, blah, blah.... They don't really connect running away from reporters its a macguffin that's not particularly useful or satisfying. While I usually like using newspapers as validators, here it almost gets lost, the impact of that word "pathological" never gets to settle because the script is on to the next line.
I'm never a big fan of using your spouse or kids in an ad unless they really have something to ad. Exhibit A is this ad from Rand Paul. Yes, he has a pretty wife, but of course she's going to be shilling for him, she's married to him. I know the rationale for using her, it shows Paul in a softer light, it makes him seem human in the light of the Aqua Buddha stuff.
Still compare this ad to the Rubio ad, which one conveys a better sense of the person? Which one tells a better story, which one is more compelling both in philosophical terms and in the epic scope. Yes, Rubio had more time to talk, but if you gave Mrs. Paul another minute and a half, don't think it would make a huge difference as she feels contrived whether she actually is or not.
It's drivel, it was probably drivel on the page, and it sounds like drivel on the screen.