Fergawd's sake. Here' Chris Cilizza, dutifully ginning up a patented hissy fit for the wingnuts:
Using a mother and newborn (an emotional touchstone in our culture if there ever was one) to illustrate what McCain's has said about Iraq is a powerful -- and provocative -- line of attack. MoveOn clearly knows that the ad will be controversial. A press release from the group notes that "preliminary testing" by a Democratic polling firm rates "Not Alex" as "more persuasive than any other ad we've tested before."
Saying they "know" it's going to be controversial is Cilizza projecting something onto the words "persuasive" that I don't think people normally see. But he's clearly shocked ---- shocked! --- that anyone would use a mother and child (by all that is holy, dear God, have they no decency!) to make an anti-war statement.
But lest anyone think that Cilizza is anything but concerned for Move-On's reputation in this, he writes:
At issue is whether the ad's obvious provocativeness eclipses or enhances its fundamental message.
There seems to be little question, judging from scads of polling data, that the American public has grown tired of the war in Iraq and wants American troops to begin leaving. So, MoveOn's ad should land in fertile territory in that regard.
But by making the case against McCain and his past public statements on the war with such emotionally charged images, the ad also could turn off many of those same voters who agree with MoveOn on the substance but disagree with the group on how it practices its politics.
Emotionally charged images will turn off voters from those who agree on the substance but disagree with "how Move-On practices it's politics?" Sez who? Who thinks this besides the quivering hanky wringers in the Village?
I'm sure the McCain campaign appreciates all the distraught town criers calling for the smelling salts on their behalf.
Here's the ad. Be sure to grab a hold of the fainting couch before you watch it:
Oh Jesus. The Kewl Kidz are obviously busy on their little crackberries breathlessly sharing the news. The appropriate response was apparently signaled this morning by Chuck Todd on Morning Joe. I guess that stands to reason. He seems to be the frontrunner for Russert's spot. Regurgitating conventional wisdom for the villagers to is the primary requirement for the job.
I doubt if the Republicans even have to prompt these guys to respond anymore. They've so thoroughly internalized this nonsense that they just automatically start clutching their pearls the minute the words "Move On" pass through their beautiful minds.
Well, well, well. I hate to say I told you so to all the bloggers that praised him, but in the blink of an eye the Villagers have turned on MoveOn. For all those that thought Chuck Todd was so cool—guess what? He’s going to stick with the Villagers every time. I’m not saying that he’s wrong all the time, but in the end, you’ll wind up with this. And the right wing doesn’t even have to engage them in the MoveOn ad because the Chuck Todd’s will never need any convincing to attack the left. They will instinctively do it to appease the right wing and demonstrate to them that “I’m not part of that crowd.” That’s why I focus on the media so much.
Geist: It might be fair, it might be effective, I just opposed dangling babies.
Todd: I think it was a borderline shameless ad, using a baby like that. It just seemed like a sledge hammer on the message…
Right. You wouldn't want to be too aggressive when you're talking aboutpeople dying in a fucking war. How unseemly.