Something happenedFollow

That's right. It was a Chrysler commercial. They were selling the brand, not a specific model of vehicle. Primarily, "Please continue thinking of Chrysler as an American brand and here's some feel good America stuff."

Your avatar nodding along makes your post really funny.

So I watched the 2012 Chrysler ad. Ok, so it's (just) a grandiose car ad. But it tugged my heartstrings. Time and again I admire so much of the rhetoric and speeches that come out of America. Australia might have some very nice laws, but my GOD they'll put you to sleep if you aren't paid to read them. Political discourse here is usually snipey, scrappy and aimed at the lowest common denominator. We've had some stellar political moments, like when our Prime Minister apologised to the native population for the old law that removed every half-caste child from their parents. But I don't think an Australian speechmaker has once reached the didactic heights of the best American speechmakers.

It's always easier to make someone look bad than to make yourself look good.

Except that the name Chrysler was never mentioned in the ad. No cars they make were mentioned by name. You saw cars, but only got a glimpse or two of their brands. There was nearly no logo or other recognizable brand imaging in the entire ad until the very very end when it fades to black and they quickly toss up a list of brands in relatively small print.

It was an ad about America. It was an add about American recovery. And it connected that recovery to the recovery in the Detroit auto industry. Now which politician has campaigned in the past (and will certainly do again as this year progresses) on the success of the auto bailout as part of his "jobs created or saved" spiel? Wait! That's Obama. Which politician is seeking a "second half" for his presidency? Yup. Obama again.


The ad doesn't have to say "support Obama" to be political. It only needs to associate things that Obama associates himself with in positive ways. And this commercial does that in spades. Every time Obama mentions Detroit as an example of how the types of programs he supports work, the audience will view that just a bit more positively on average because of this ad. Some might even remember the ad directly, nod and think "Yeah. Clint Eastwood said this was a good thing". That's how this ad is political. It can't not be. Unless Obama never brings up Detroit and the auto industry bail out during his campaign that is. And what do you think the odds are of that happening?



For those still confused, here's the transcript of the ad:




Add the images to this, and it's a powerful campaign ad for Obama. Just because Eastwood didn't realize it doesn't make it any less true. Again, you can absolutely count on Obama using the very images and ideas in this ad during his campaign. And every time he does, you should think of this and realize that I told you so.

Edited, Feb 9th 2012 6:43pm by gbaji

Stretch any farther and you'll need to invent unstable molecules for clothes.

Sure. But only one candidate is going to include the bailouts of the auto industry as a positive component of his effort to help America recover economically. This ad ties directly into Democratic Party talking points. It doesn't have to mention them, or Obama to have the effect of creating positive associations to their own words when they use them later in the campaign.


I guess I'm just amazed at how so many people can look at that advertisement and not see that it's political. Of course it is. It can't be anything else. If a similarly pro-America ad in 2004 had used images of 9/11 and talked about how great America can be when it works together to recover from tragedy, no one would have questioned that it was a pro-Bush/pro-war campaign ad, even if it didn't mention him by name. Why the blinders in this case?

C'mon, this is blatant:



and...



It doesn't mention Obama, but is there really any question that it's about the direction we take in the second half, and that the proposed direction is the one used in Detroit? How does anyone not see this?

Stock response: Gbaji is an idiot.

See, if I admit it then I'm part of the evil liberal media out to weaken the country and if I deny it, that just means I was tricked by the evil liberal media proving you right all along an am out to weaken the country all along. FLAWLESS LOGIC.

So any message of optimism and hope for economic recovery is to be taken as a re-elect Obama ad?

Sweet.

I knew those Clydesdales pulled to the left.

Yeah, I know your argument hinges upon the weak assertion that no one could possibly know it was a Chrysler ad but, um, I've yet to see anyone who wasn't aware that it was a Chrysler ad.