advertising and other stuff. no, really.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Obama vs. McCain? First came Lincoln vs. Douglas.

If you can’t already tell by the 1,500 political posts Jetpacks and I have done, we have been just absolutely enthralled with the whole presidential campaign process. Why, it’s been magical! It even got to the point last week that I noticed Fox News Channel referencing Lincoln in relation to McCain. Spying the necklace on his blogging daughter, yep, it’s a silhouette of Lincoln alright. (She blogs! If, you can call a daily recap of what she had for breakfast and a photo op timeline a blog.) So it got us thinking, what would today’s tactics be like if applied to campaigns of the past such as, um, Abraham Lincoln vs. Stephen Douglas in 1860? Hmmm. Perhaps a little something like this...



Anonymous said...

Brilliant. I think you're on to something here...maybe a series of historical attack ads?
Hamilton v. Burr? Caesar v. Brutus? Lenin v. Trotsky?

Nice work guys.

Anonymous said...

Who needed ads for those guys?
Burr just shot Hamilton; Brutus knifed Caesar; and Lenin, having passed himself, had Stalin chop Trotsky to death in Mexico.
Ads are such a benign, bloodless way to vent.
That 1860 race was even more divided, by the way, than it appears.
The Democrats, themselves split into Northern and Southern parties, and Breckinridge siphoned enough from Douglas to let Lincoln squeak in with 39% of the popular vote. There was a fourth candidate, too, forget his name, possibly Nader.

Anonymous said...

Breckenridge and Bell were the others. The concept is based on Lincoln recognizing that the country would have to make up its collective mind about slavery and which way it wanted to go, that a split nation wouldn’t work. Either way, states needed to make up their minds one way or the other.