Anyways, of all the opinions I've read today, this seems to be the most level headed, intellectually detached reaction:
Its also because the point isn't to close the argument. Most pundits watch waaaay too much political news, and are constantly looking for the parties to clinch the deal.
But for most Canadians, this is their first real glimpse at Michael Ignatieff outside of soundbites on the news and photos in newspaper boxes. The travelling salesman needs to say hello before he can start trying to sell you a vacuum.
If you come across as a screeching ball of political will, you will scare your potential supporters away. Ever have a sweaty, panting politician sprint up your lawn babbling about tax cuts? That's what you can expect if you start with a closing argument.
Ignatieff establishes himself and his core proposition. He believes Canada can do better, and that together we can take on the world. The point isn't to bring down Harper, but to provide a foundation for Ignatieff. This is who he is and this is why he wants the job.
Of anything I've seen, they remind me of the round of prewrit ads Dalton McGuinty ran in 2003, with the future Premier standing in a snowy field in front of a tree and talking about his optimism for a better tomorrow.
Those ads are all about answering the question: who is Dalton McGuinty? They were clearly successful as the Liberal Leader never trailed in a single poll after that until he won the first of his two majority governments.
And what did people say about those ads?
“Who's less wooden, McGuinty or the tree?”
The bland opining about bland...
7 comments:
In 1999 the CPC were elected over Dalton McGuinty claiming he was unproven and a rookie leader.
In 2001 Mike Harris resigned.In 2002, the opposition Liberals began a round of attacks on perceived PC mismanagement. Too many problems to list but MANY.
The Liberal strategy was the same as in 1999: polarize the election between the Conservatives and Liberals to marginalize the NDP and then convince enough voters that the Conservatives had to go. With polls showing more than 60% of voters reporting it was "time for a change", the Liberals campaign theme was "choose change".
The theme summarized the two-step strategy perfectly: first, boil the election down to a two-party choice and then cast the Liberals as a capable and trustworthy agent of change at a time when voters were fed up with the government.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_general_election,_2003
=========================
I don't agree comparing Iggy with Dalton.
1)Campaign Experience
2)Polling
3)Voting options
Let me know when you show the most basic capacity to make "sense". It was a reference to an ad reaction, not a treatise on the McGuinty "experience". You're a bore, you know that right?
Isn't the common factor that both war rooms have Warren Kinsella running them ?
but wait steve, you mean those ads were NOT supposed to seal a Liberal majority?
I think the volume on the Tories' com puters must be broken because Ignatieff opens his mouth and they hear something completely different than what he says.
It sure sounded different, when they showed it on CTV. ....someone on the net,doctored it. I wonder who???
Steve,
Interesting rebuttal.
You compared the ADS and I added some detail behind the "soft sell" of Dalton that was required.
Timing. Ontario was ready for a substantial change and the Polls reflected it.
The Federal Party does NOT have the same winning conditions at this present time.
It looks like the Bloc and NDP are not interested in participating and have offered the CPC olive branches to stay in power.
"Interesting rebuttal."
I'm sorry you felt that way.
Post a Comment