The new ads
Following the last two debates, you'd think everyone would be talking about the Notwithstanding Clause bomb, Jack Layton's "Working Families" rap, or, well, something, anything, debate-related. But no. Big focus is on the latest round of Liberal ads. As the Conservatives said they would, they've gone negative - and how. One's already gotten them in so much trouble that they've had to pull it. (You can see it at the CTV site.)
Don't get me wrong, they're good (as Warren Kinsella sez). And they might pull some votes back to the Libs - especially NDP "strategic voters". But if you listen to them at all, or see the same ad more than two times, you are going to start thinking . . . and you'll think, hey, why so hysterical? That's why I think they released so many ads, so that their target audience wouldn't really have time over two weeks to really think about any of them, but still feel the emotional impact from each one, up to election day.
Now, many Liberal supporters, or folks who are just plain anti-CPC, are saying, what's so wrong with attack ads? After all, the Conservatives as well as the NDP are using them. Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with attack ads, in their proper place. But they are really more of a seasoning than a main ingredient. The bulk of your ad campaign needs to be your fruit & veg & good carbs (idea ads, laying out your platform, what you'd do, your vision) and good, lower-fat protien (feel-good, I'm-proud-to-be-Canadian ads). Then you sprinkle your seasoning on top of that. But you can't eat seasoning, it has no nutritive value. To make cayenne pepper or saffron alone, without any "real" food, the centerpiece of a dinner, would be a little . . . um, nutty. And to have an ad campaign consisting only of attack ads is a little . . . um, desperate.