Gone negative

So the Virginia senatorial race (Allen v. Webb) has gone negative. Well, Allen has anyway. I don't think Webb has enough money to use on a negative ad in Washington (northern Virginia) market. More than likely, he doesn't need to spend that money because NoVa is largely blue anyway. His money is better spent in the southern parts of the state.

And let's face it, Webb doesn't need to go negative on Allen. Allen is doing a plenty good job himself of feeding the media with negative stories. The macaca story still hasn't gone away. All Webb has to do is still back and let it happen.

But Allen needs the NoVa votes, so he's gone negative on Webb. He's attacking Webb for his use of a clip of Ronald Reagan praising Webb when the latter was the former's Secretary of Navy, despite the protests of Nancy Reagan to take the ad down.

I don't like negative ad of any kind, but I understand why Allen is doing this.

However, even though this is a text ad, Allen still manages to come across as smarmy. Why? At the end where he has to identify himself and say that he approved the ad, the producers used file footage of him in a profile shot and a voice-over. This is directly in contrast to Allen's self-promoting ads where he looks full-face straight into the camera and delivers the lines. It may be just me that has noticed this, but Allen looks completely insincere and almost shifty by not looking at the camera when the text is read. Go here to view the full ad.

I know this is thinking more than the average person would about political ads... but I think it's worthwhile to articulate this observation.