We Can Solve It...Tomorrow...

Recently, I criticized Al Gore's "We Can Solve It" campaign's first ad as a weak call to action. Now, it kooks like I've got some support from AdAge's reviewer Bob Garfield.

In Bob's campaign review, he makes a fascinating point. Sure, we came together solved/accomplished all the things the first ad promises...but we did it after years of dilly-dallying. The ad claims, "We Didn't Wait." But, we did! Garfield writes:

"We did wait to invade Europe; we waited five years. We did wait to commence the space program; we waited for the Russians to start first. We did wait to confront racial injustice; we waited 180 years. What is the point of making heroic comparisons if the comparisons don't scan?"

And, if President Bush's speech last week on global warming is any indication, we will continue to wait.

Garfield concludes by applauding the Pelosi/Gingrich spot, but questioning the Sharpton/Robertson spot I just posted. He writes, "polar opposites, yes, but also demagogic scoundrels both." Looks like the "We Can Solve It" campaign needs to solve its messaging if it hopes to have any real impact in solving the bigger problem.

Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson Go To The Beach

Here's the first of two posts today on the "We Can Solve It" campaign I've been following (that's the $30 million ad campaign lead by Al Gore to fight climate change). Here, at last, are the two ads featuring political polar opposites: Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson, then Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich. My big question is, why are Al and Pat chillin' on the beach? Is that like the Neutral Zone for religious ideologues? If so, sign me up!

Al and Pat at The Beach



Nancy and Newt at The Capital

Gore's Green Campaign: "We" The Unoriginal

What does $300 million buy you? Apparently a semi-original concept. AdAge and AgencySpy have been quick to point out that Al Gore's "We" logo and campaign concept may not be all it's cracked up to be in this New York Times write-up. Check out my post from yesterday, then check out this Converse commercial that's making the rounds. Then decide for your self.



For my money, I'd have wanted something more stirring than this campaign. The "we can do it" mentality is a wonderful sentiment, but it's not going to stir the non-believers or the people too apathetic to take action. In the words of Network's Howard Beal, "You have to get mad, goddamn it!" So far, the campaign falls as flat as people used to think the world was before they thought better of it...kind of like how people should think better of global warming if this campaign worked.

Follow Up: Campaign to Fight Climate Change Commercial

As promised, here's the first spot from The Martin Agency for Al Gore's Campaign to Fight Climate Change. For more info, visit www.wecansolveit.com. I'll add some commentary in the days to come.

Gore Stumps For Mother Earth; Won't Broker End to Democrats' Lollygagging

Al Gore went on 60 Minutes last night and discussed his $300 million ad campaign for Mother Earth. The first television advertisements, which are to begin airing on broadcast networks as well as cable starting on Wednesday, will pair up the most unlikely partners in the movement to address global warming. A clip aired on CBS showed the Reverend Al Sharpton sharing a sofa with the conservative preacher Pat Robertson. The two men acknowledge they agree on almost nothing - barring the need to deal with global warming. Other spots will feature the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, alongside New Gingrich, the conservative Republican who once held the same post. Gore also also made it clear he has no intention of intervening to bring the Democratic Primary contest to a close. "I'm not applying for the job of broker," he told CBS. (Source: The Guardian)

I for one am intrigued and will continue to follow this story for this blog. The ad campaign, which was hotly contested within the industry, was awarded to The Martin Agency (creators of the brilliant Geico Gecko and Cavemen spots and the soul-crushingly awful Cavemen TV series). Here's a bit of the 60 Minutes interview.

Clinton/Obama ticket?

On CBS news this morning, Sen. Clinton answered questions, including one about the possibility of her and Obama running on the same ticket.

The question is, assuming that Clinton gets the top spot on the ticket, would it be beneficial for Obama to be VP? In terms of winning the general election, I don't think that people who don't like Clinton are going to be any more likely to vote for her because Obama is on the ticket. And moreover, does he want to be in that position? Its likely that Bill Clinton will be a VP in his own right. Going on the previous Clinton presidency, who doesn't remember the attention and focus on Hillary's healthcare concerns as opposed to Gore's environmental concerns? No matter who the Clintons tap for the VP spot, that person has to contend with the fact that this is a far from usual situation.