[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE_wj6NHdEQ] I watched this ad yesterday, the latest salvo in the Massachusetts senate race, and I knew I wanted to comment about it. Watching it again today, it's amazing how much I forgot about it, ok I'll get to that later.
What I responded to in this ad was the message, Warren is unapologetically saying she's a crusader against Wall Street, and she's going to fight for the 99%. What's interesting is that she does it (unlike me) deliberately without invoking the language of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Of course, you all remember Crossroads GPS just attacked her for her liberal extremism as the intellectual underpinnings of that protest movement.
What I think Warren does successfully here is embrace the message without embracing the messenger. She doesn't run from who she is or her record, she doesn't defend herself "before you hear a bunch of ridiculous attack ads" (which of course have already started), but rather issues a forceful statement of principles and values.
Alright, that's 130 or so words in praise of this ad. When I first started this blog, I broke my reviews up into a form grade and a function grade, while I found that format too constraining and not ultimately helpful, I think it's instructive here. The function of this ad would be an A-, the form, on the other hand, being generous would be a C.
What I remember from the ad was the message: Warren fights Wall Street, which is a pretty good summation, but loses all of the detail and texture of the message. I loved the archival pictures, so vivid, but the text is kind of flat and at times falls into political cliche. The taking on the powerful interests message was lost on me until I re-watched the ad, her story had drifted away.
For a candidate who has capture so much support and excitement of voters, her delivery is alright, but not especially compelling. Was a scripted ad read off a teleprompter the best way to go here? I've never heard her speak, but I can't help but think an interview ad going over the same message points, but spoken spontaneously would capture more of the real Warren. Here, I feel like I'm watching a candidate speak, the ad is well executed for what it is, but it's not compelling in the least.
Warren wants to tell us who she is, but I feel watching this ad that she's hiding behind a teleprompter and words written by a political consultant. I want more from her than this ad gives.
Again, maybe that's not fair, maybe she stinks in an interview, but what the ad gives in message is lost in authenticity. (Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't believe Warren, I just don't connect to her.)
If you averaged my earlier form grade C with the function grade A-, you end up about a B, and that's where I'd put the ad, B/B-. It's not a bad opening ad, certainly serviceable, but this blog isn't about serviceable ads. I've only really read about Warren in the book "Confidence Men," by Ron Suskind, but she comes off as a compelling and intriguing figure there. I can understand the excitement about her campaign, because I felt it too just from the little she's in the book, she seemed genuine and passionate.
I don't get that feeling here, or maybe I do, but it's diluted. Am I less excited about Warren now, no, but I'm a believer after all, am I more excited, not really. At the end of the day, this isn't a bad ad, it's right where it needs to be message wise, but I just felt the pieces were there for a great ad.