Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Government Politics

The Living Room Candidate 228

Posted by CmdrTaco from the candidates-in-the-modern-age dept.
Karin Ponce writes "I represent the American Museum of the Moving Image , and I wanted to write to you about the Museum's latest online exhibition, The Living Room Candidate. The exhibition maintains a comprehensive and detailed collection of over 300 commercials from the past fourteen elections (1954-2000). As the presidential race heats up, I think this is a very timely exhibition that will equip your readers with insight on the development of the campaign messages crafted by our presidential candidates over the years and provide historical context for the 2004 campaign as the race unfolds. Its convenience (all commercials are available online in the Living Room Candidate website) make this exhibit a must-see for voters and non-voters."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Living Room Candidate More

The Living Room Candidate

Comments Filter:

  • Slashdotting here we come (Score:3, Funny)

    by Nos. ( 179609 ) <andrew@nOSPAm.thekerrs.ca> on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:50AM (#10277030) Homepage
    A site with multiple streamed videos, this is sure to last.

  • Link to site filled with video? You must be mad! (Score:4, Funny)

    by YetAnotherName ( 168064 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:53AM (#10277059) Homepage
    Oh, they're historic campaign commercials ... oh, OK, nevermind ... no Slashdot Effect to worry about!

  • Rats (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Zorilla ( 791636 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:53AM (#10277067)
    This looks like a good way to see if past presidents have fulfilled their election promises by looking at their agenda in commercials. One thing that sticks out in my mind is the "Rats" commercial in 2000, which was about Bush's prescription drug benefit plan. How did that work out, seeing how some have resorted to getting pharmaceuticals from Canada and elsewhere?

  • Wow, I haven't seen these ads! (Score:4, Informative)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:54AM (#10277073)
    Wow, I just went to the site and was perusing the 2004 election commercials. For once they gave a realistic view of our future.

    Blank.

    Remember to give serious thought to who you are voting for in November and make sure that those around you are at least somewhat educated on what they are voting for.

  • What he meant to say... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Skim123 ( 3322 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:57AM (#10277107) Homepage
    "I represent the American Museum of the Moving Image, and I wanted to write to you to ask you for your help in melting our Web server, bringing our entire site to a halt. I think this is something your audience would find particular interest in doing."
    • He's clearly been learning a thing or two from those ads they're showing: to wit, anything which grabs people's attention is good. When the firemen come rushing in to put out the blaze in the server room, people will notice there's a museum there.

      I must, however, commend his honesty for being up front about the submission being an ad - most of the ads on the front page of /. are pretending to be stories.

  • Here's an idea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jb.hl.com ( 782137 ) <joe@noSpAm.joe-baldwin.net> on Friday September 17, 2004 @11:01AM (#10277169) Homepage Journal
    I have an idea. Rather than watching campaign commercials, read each candidates Wikipedia page.

    John Kerry [wikipedia.org]
    George Bush [wikipedia.org]

    That way you get unbiased info untainted by either party, with all the nitty gritty details. Try it with friends, see if they switch allegiances after seeing the truth.

    • Re:Here's an idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @11:09AM (#10277265)
      Because people who post to Wikipedia are totally without any political opinion. Some supernatural Neutral peoples. Maybe from the Futurama world of the Neutrals. "Tell my wife...eh."

      The George Bush page is locked against editiing because well, perhaps there's been some tainted data. Or something.
      • Zapp: I hate these filthy Neutrals Kif. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me!

    • Re:Here's an idea (Score:3, Informative)

      by Zorilla ( 791636 )
      Keep in mind when doing this that the people who submit entries to Wikipedia are most likely computer savvy people, and these people tend to lean more to the left in politics. That, and it seems there's a record amount of Libertarians online, including Slashdot sometimes.

      Barely anything is unbiased anyway.
    • By "unbiased" you mean "accusations which I believe to be true are not biased," right? Bush's entry is drastically more critical of the man than is Kerry's, which ignores any substantiative criticism and brushes the Swift Boat allegations aside as "mostly untrue."

      I'm not pro-Bush, but I'm definitely anti-Kerry. The Democrats deserve their loss this year for putting forth such an awful candidate.

      Can anyone say they are truly pro-Kerry and not just anybody-but-Bush?

      • Re:Here's an idea (Score:2, Insightful)

        by nanter ( 613346 )
        The Swift Boat allegations ARE mostly untrue. And even that may be generous. They have been thoroughly debunked and the partisan ties and dubious credibility of the members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (oh, the irony) have been exposed.

        So why pay it any more attention than it deserves?

        • The kernel of Swiftie truth is that Kerry never served a day in the hospital, despite all those medals. Kerry uses his "heroic" Vietnam career as a campaign point, even as he has admitted that he committed war crimes in Vietnam.

          Why pay Bush's service record any attention, when he's never claimed to be a war hero?

          • Re:Here's an idea (Score:4, Informative)

            by Planesdragon ( 210349 ) <slashdot&castlesteelstone,us> on Friday September 17, 2004 @11:56AM (#10277808) Homepage Journal
            Kerry uses his "heroic" Vietnam career as a campaign point, even as he has admitted that he committed war crimes in Vietnam.

            Not so. Kerry's "we committeed war crimes" was not referring to his own unit. It was referring to the "we" of the Winter Soldier investigation, whose allegations he presented to Congress.

            If you take the armed forces in Vietnam as a whole, they DID commit war crimes. Ever hear of Mi Lai? SWVFT seem to want to ignore that when they get all indignant about Kerry saying "we the armed forces committed war crimes."

    • That way you get unbiased info untainted by either party...

      Thanks for the laugh! I needed that after a long hard work week.

  • Politicians (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gustgr ( 695173 ) <(gustgr) (at) (gmail.com)> on Friday September 17, 2004 @11:02AM (#10277182)
    I was just discussing policitians with my father a few minutes ago while we were lunching. In two weeks brazilians are going to vote to elect municipal mayors and during all the day there are candidates on the TV saying that he/she will do the best for the city and stuff like that. It is always the same bullshit.

    These bla bla bla will never win an election, so in my opinion most of the campaign money is throw away with this kind of trash campaign. I don't know how about US, but here in Brazil the candidates usually spend millions and millions in order to get elected while there are hundreds of thousands starving, in such a poverty situation that most of us would not belive.

    • Re:Politicians (Score:3, Insightful)

      by transient ( 232842 )
      The money spent on political campaigns doesn't simply vanish. It has to be spent on something. Someone gets paid to make those advertisements. The TV stations get paid to air them. Real people who work for a living get paid to do these things. Would you rather the candidates just hoarded all that money?

      I know fuck all about Brazil and its economy, so I could be way off here. But it seems to me that it's very hard to make a purely economic argument against well-funded political campaigns.

      As for it always

  • Google Cache (Score:5, Informative)

    by diver8 ( 810336 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @11:05AM (#10277212) Journal

    20 some comments & slashdotted!

    Here's the google cache:

    http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:http://living roomcandidate.movingimage.us/index.php&hl=en&ie=UT F-8 [216.239.53.104]
  • For those of you unfamiliar with the Bush version 1.0/ Dukakis matchup in 1988, the Republicans made very good negative attack ad use of the case of Willie Horton [1988election.com], a first degree murderer on a weekend furlough program in Massachusetts endorsed by Dukakis. Horton, surprise and shock and awe, became a recidivist violent criminal on his furlough.

    Since he's trailing Bush version 2.0 right now, what Kerry needs is a good Willie Horton type attack ad.

    Bin Laden anyone? [villagevoice.com]

    The Democrats need the balls to launch a full force negative press assault on Bush. The popularity of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 prove that the public is receptive to serious Bush-bashing. Not wishy washy peripheral attacks and sniffing around the perimeter that Kerry seems married to right now, but a dead on hurricane force teeth gnashing polemic. Especially dismaying in Moore's movie is the revelation that Bush let the Bin Laden family fly out of the country in the days after 9/11/2001, when noone else was allowed to fly anywhere. Clearly a case of allegiance to big oil being more important than allegiance to the American public if there ever was one.

    This revelation played well in theatres in Middle America, even in communities near military bases. Hello Kerry campaign: anyone listening? The Democrats need to grow a backbone and start pounding away at Bush where he is weakest.

    So let us hope the Democrats find the cojones to attack Bush full force and head on in an attack ad blitz in October, Willie Horton style, or unfortunately for Americans (and the rest of the world for that matter), it's four more years of the drunken frat boy in big oil's pocket in the White House for us all. ;-(
    • yes more attack ads are EXACTLY what we need!! that's a great way to learn about a person's take on issues! Talk about what they did 40 years ago and talk about conspiracy theories, and forget about all this relevant stuff... I mean, really who needs it anyway?

      </sarcasm>
      • politics is politics is politics. it's not dry debate society or philosophical musings, it's blood sport.

        when you figure out how to change human nature itself, in all of its good, bad, and ugly qualities, you will have figured out how to change politics into something nice and neat and pat.

        until then, your ivory tower reaction to negative attack ads simply means you are out of touch with what really works in the real world of the technology we have here and now instead of what shouldcouldawoulda works in

    • Yes, Please Do! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by WombatControl ( 74685 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @11:26AM (#10277450)

      Yes, the American people really haven't gotten enough Bush bashing. I mean, c'mon, we haven't even seen Al Franken's Bush Is The Love Child Of Hitler and Tokyo Rose or Jim Hightower's Bush Kidnapped The Linbergh Baby or MoveOn.org's Bush Enjoys Raping Kittens, Small Children ad yet.

      Here's what's interesting - note how the successful political campaigns usually say something about their candidate rather than just smear the other guy. Like what has John Kerry been doing for the last 20 years. Where are his major legislative accomplishments. He's had two decades in the Senate, let's see what he's done? As long as we're on it, let's see what his position is on Iraq. What would he do now to end the violence there? How would he fight terrorism? What would he do in Darfur? How will he stop the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons? How will he contain North Korea?

      Hell, the Democrats should be doing that sort of thing regardless. I know it's a shock to some, but not everyone in America hates Bush. Some of us (gasp!) actually think he's done rather well given the situation he's had to work with. And some of us do so because we've actually taken the time to do our homework.

      Nope, instead just bash Bush. There's a real winning strategy.

      Hint, when the server recovers from being Slashdotted, take a look at McGovern's "Morning in America" ads and compare them to the ads Kerry is running. Note McGovern's electoral successes. Look at Mondale's ads against Reagan. Note how well he did.

      Then note why campaigns that are just referendums against a relatively popular incumbant but offer no information on the challenger end up failing miserably.

      • this is team sports speaking in your post, and you are apparently filling out the roster

        most noticeably, you grimace in horror when i point out the negative attack potential of the democrats, but you are conveniently in alzheimer's mode about your own team's attack dogs hard at work right now (rah rah rah! go team!)

        so rather than bang up against your blind spot, i am going to go with realpolitik: politics is not philosophical debate society, it's flesh and blood sports, as your one-sided shock and perplexed understanding of the relative sins and virtues of republicans and democrats attest to: you're a fully indoctrinated one-sided team player

        i won't buy into the whole "can't we all just get along" road some seem to insist that will make negative ads go away in politics

        politics is politics is politics. it's ugly stuff. you will never turn politics into something else unless you change human nature itself.

        therefore, my observations about kerry needing to go full press attack mode still makes sense, from an objective, neutral, third-party pov, as if watching two football teams go at it midgame and commenting on what strategy one or the other should take to win the game... of course, if you are one of the teams and hear me commenting on the way the other team should win, your reaction fits in perfectly

        i live in the real world of human nature in all of its good, bad, and ugly qualities and without your rah rah go home team one-sided blind spot attitude towards the virtuousness of the repulican party

        want to argue virtue? you're in the wrong world buddy

        when you're ready to talk about reality and realism and what plain works in american politics as it is, not as it wouldashouldacoulda be in science fiction, get back to me

        until then, the attack ad proposition stands as sound
        • Did you even read the parent post? He didn't say anything about virtue, he said attack ads aren't likely to be effective.

          I, for one, agree with him. I am about as up-for-grabs as a voter can get--I do not identify with any political party, and am moderate, liberal, or conservative depending on the particular issue in question. Another round of negativity from the Democrats would only turn me off. (But I live in Massachusetts, so I guess my vote won't matter anyway.)

          Most people I know who will respon

          • i respectfully submit to you that those who would be lost by going negative, such as yourself, are vastly overwhelmed by those who would be swayed

            see? that kind of arithmetic is the blood sport we call politics

            and that kind of realism defeats your kind of idealism any day
        • If you concede that Negative Campaigning is necessary - simply because one must always stoop to the same dirty tactics one's opponent is using, then what you're conceding is basically that the whole Enlightenment movement was just BS. That mankind has not progressed into an "Age of Reason". That we're still bloody savages, and that it's necessary for us to fight over scraps of meat from the rotting corpse of Human Civilization.

          And if that's the case - if you make that concession, then you really do not s
          • i think we're talking rhetorical strategy here in politics, not vikings raping and pillaging!

            i mean, you're 100,000 foot vantage point is interesting in a poetic way, but hardly instructive and revelatory

            politics is politics is politics

            it's a manifestation of human nature itself, not of its civilized veneer

            and i'm not rationalizing political assassinations for crying out loud, i'm talking attack ads on television

            i think you've got some problems with perspective, scale, and context when it comes to disc

      • note how the successful political campaigns usually say something about their candidate

        Well, Kerry's does. His campaign says: "John Kerry is not George Bush". Which is enough to get my interest. Add in that he does indeed have a hope in hell of being elected, and that's about enough to save him from almost anything short of an indictment for Treason.

        More seriously, an attack campaign on the Democrats part would be REALLY STUPID-- even if doing so might swing the 937 popular votes needed to be the d

        • Well, Kerry's does. His campaign says: "John Kerry is not George Bush".

          Sadaam Hussein is not George Bush. My retarded cousin is not George Bush. Dennis Kusinich is not George Bush. Ralph Nader is not George Bush. I do not see why "not George Bush" should compel me to do anything, much less vote for Kerry.

          Add in that he does indeed have a hope in hell of being elected, and that's about enough to save him from almost anything short of an indictment for Treason.

          Still not seeing your point, although th
      • To me, as a truly up-for-grabs voter, this has been Kerry's biggest failure so far. I voted for Gore in 2000, and have little confidence in Bush on a number of fronts, but all I hear from the Kerry camp is a constant anti-Bush screed.

        The only position statements I've seen have been typical political vaporware (he'll lower health care costs??? yeah, right) or old-style Democratic populist junk like trade protection.

        Personally, I couldn't be more disappointed in the choices available, and just wish both s
      • The tactic of negative campaigning achieves two results:

        1. Turns independents and undecideds OFF. Makes them stay home. Negatively impacts overall turnout.

        2. Deflects attention on issues: When a candidate cannot convince voters that he will represent their views on issues, turning to character assassination of one's opponent is the alternative.

        Typically, independents and undecideds tend to favor Democrats. This election is different, because of the perceived "Security" and "Terrorism" issues. (legitim
    • If he does that, there are plenty of us who currently vaguely like him who will vote against him for being a sleazy bastard.

      Some of us demand you stick to issues. Not all of us, I'll grant.
  • Definitely one of the better political commercials out there. For those who haven't seen it its a black and white (duh! everything was B&W back then!!!) shot of an adorable little girl picking petals off a daisy with cuts to an atomic missle take off counting down.

  • Kenedy (Score:3, Informative)

    by couldntthinkupagoodn ( 734614 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @11:10AM (#10277272)
    I heard just last night at a Boy Scout meeting on the Communication merit badge, that in 1980 (?), Kenedy spent millions and millions (or .1 sagan) of dollars on advertising his campaign, only to find out afterward that it actually hurt him. He would have been better off if he had spent $0.

  • A Must-See (Score:5, Funny)

    by Killer Napkin ( 221026 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @11:12AM (#10277301)
    must-see for voters and non-voters

    What about for the rest of us!?

  • Nice webserver, while it lasts... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Chuck Bucket ( 142633 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @11:12AM (#10277302) Homepage Journal
    While this is cool, the streams will kill their bandwidth shortly. Still, this is a cool idea, and I for one would like to see how many ads by outside groups have had the affect that it has this year. Yes, I'm talking about the 527 groups like swiftboatveterans and moveon. While I appreciate more viewpoints, it seems that these just get too radical and whomever has the most money gets the most influence.

    Oh wait, even with the campain finance reform, NOTHING HAS REALLY CHANGED! - am yelling b/c I'm mad.

    Please vote this year, everyone!

    CB
    • FWIW, many of the ads attributed to MoveOn are actually from MoveOnPAC, which is a fully regulated political action committee and subject to much more stringent rules, reporting, and donation limits than a 527. MoveOn itself is a 527, though, AFAIK.

  • Can anyone pinpoint (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @11:13AM (#10277306) Journal
    When political ads stopped being about the candidate, and his/her views and platforms, and when they started just being about bashing the other guy?

    America has been successfully brainwashed into believing there are, and will only ever by, two choices. This makes politics simple, you only have to smear one guy, and it's just a contest to see who can smear the other guy better. Bushs platform is "Kerry sucks", Kerry's platform is "Bush sucks".

    The last Bush commercial I saw said "John Kerry even voted against the Laci Perterson bill which would make it illegal to assault pregnant women." Well, it's obvious, of course, that Kerry is for assaults against pregnant women! What a bastard.

    McCain was the rep. frontrunner, until a whisper campaign about his "mentally disabled black daughter" killed his hopes. The whispers of course didn't mention that she was adopted from Somalia or some country, the implied message was McCain knocked boots with a crack whore.

    I haven't heard one real issue discussed during the entire pre-election smear fest. It's all about what Bush did or didn't do in the National Guard, and what Kerry did or didn't do in Vietnam. I haven't heard what either man plans to do or not do in Iraq, Syria or North Korea.

    The ads are so shallow and transparent it amazes me. There's no subtlety or tact. I guess if Bush's commercials make him look like a petty asshole, it's irrelevant, as long as he's less petty and less of an asshole than Kerry.

    The two party system we've imposed on ourselves have turned elections from "who will do the most good for our country?" into "who will do the least evil to our country?"

    American politics are fucking sad. Two parties is not democracy, and not representative of the people. How could it be, when there are 50 states + D.C? How could the ideologies of 300 million people fit into either slot A or slot B?

    Vote your conscience. Don't be satisfied with the lesser of two evils. Vote for someone you believe in. Whether or not they win, your vote sends a clear message.

    I'd love to see the republicrats win, but with 50% or more of the votes going independant. That would send a real message, loud and clear, that people are sick of the way both parties have mangled the country.

    • McCain was the rep. frontrunner, until a whisper campaign about his "mentally disabled black daughter" killed his hopes. The whispers of course didn't mention that she was adopted from Somalia or some country, the implied message was McCain knocked boots with a crack whore.

      First of all, I was a McCain supporter in 2000 (and really, really, really want him to run in 2008).

      Secondly, McCain's campaign cratered because he had some logistical problems, he insulted members of the Republican base (which is not

    • Re:Can anyone pinpoint (Score:4, Funny)

      by CSG_SurferDude ( 96615 ) <wedaa.wedaa@com> on Friday September 17, 2004 @12:26PM (#10278134) Homepage Journal

      Well, since you said (And I quote)"Don't be satisfied with the lesser of two evils."

      Why vote for a lesser evil? [cthulhu.org]

    • When political ads stopped being about the candidate, and his/her views and platforms, and when they started just being about bashing the other guy?

      It's been happening pretty much since the United States was formed as a nation. A notable early example is the election of 1840, known as the "log cabin and hard cider" campaign. The Whigs protrayed their canadate, William Henry Harrison, as a poor farmer who lived in a log cabin; someone who could relate to the American voter, when in fact Harrison was quite

  • they should have a special section for the 'blockbuster' ads; ones that for good or bad reasons sealed the fate of a canidate. Ones that come to mind; the Willie Horton one and the Dukakis one when he's riding in the tank.

    Funny, I can't remember who the WH one was for, but I remember his name and the story! Damn advertising! (irony anyone?)

    CB

  • Welcome! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Migraineman ( 632203 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @11:19AM (#10277373)

    I, for one, welcome our new politicial overlords ...

    oh damn ...
  • Haven't tried viewing the ads yet until the Slashdotting abates, but does anyone know the copyright/license status of the ads? Are they public domain? Just thinking about all the fun someone could have with a big ol' archive of ads like that. A parody would be within fair use anyway, but I'm just curious.

    • Re:License? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Blitzenn ( 554788 )
      I don't think you will find any party putting up a fight over air the ads. If they did anything like that, they would look pretty foolish. It would only serve to draw attention to what they didn't want you to see or better yet cause people to think that they really had something bad to hide. Free use or not, nobody is going to stop them.
  • Non-voters (except those disqualified by some misc law) should get their asses to the polls.

    Not voting is worse than draft dodging.
    • I mentioned this in another thread, as well, and the more I read up on it, the more I feel that voting is just giving sanction to a corrupt system.

      This [lewrockwell.com] is a nice archive of articles on non-voting, and I'd say this one is a good place to start [lewrockwell.com].

      Granted, I'll still probably go fill in the blank, knowing that it won't matter, and my vote won't make either party change it's plans -- they'll still go just a socialist no matter who I vote for, but hey, it's nice to read some opposing viewpoints.

      (-1, OffTopic)
  • For anyone uncertain about the voting process in key battleground states, I compiled a comprehensive listing of resources in each state. You can donwnload PDF forms direct from the source when available, and get information on deadlines, etc:

    http://www.lonseidman.com/voteinfo.html [lonseidman.com]

    -Lon

  • Advertisement (Score:3, Funny)

    by epcraig ( 102626 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @01:16PM (#10278755)
    If your commercial interrupts my enjoyment of the program I'm watching, I'm remembering your ad and voting against you. And yes, I'll hold 527 ads against whomever I can discern as benefitting from your ads. So far, I'm only voting against Bush and Kerry. I'll expand that list if I only see someone else's ad.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson

Close