Bill's still a believer in the Hai Karate Impact.
(click ad for closer look)
Smells Like Teen Voters. Probable spec ad (update: no, it's a real ad. see comments.) by BBH New York for Axe, eau de teenage wannabe Mooks the world over. This is a primo example of the laziest, easiest type of ad concept—borrowed interest that has nothing to do with the product. Either that, or they're actually saying that Barack Obama wears Axe? But if that good-looking man wears any fragrance, I think it's probably Derek Jeter's 'Driven'. Yet another way to read this ad is that it's implying that hubby Bill's the one who wears Axe, the stench of which has driven Hill to not only quit her campaign, but pursue her sexy opponent amorously. Your two cents welcome. (there's also a McCain version) related: fake political buttons ad for Dems '08.
update: go to PollsBoutique to vote your opinion on the ad.
posted by copyranter @ 9:30 AM
28 Comments:
I saw it in someone's AM New York on the subway last Tuesday. It was opposite an ad with Hillary Clinton wearing a button for John McCain, in case you didn't get it the first time.
Was in Thursday's or Friday's Metro. Ran bottom-left, half-page opposite an identical (but mirrored!) bottom-right half with a McCain button.
thanks. I refuse to pick up either of those free rags.
Good Christ! If that's the kinda chicks that Axe attracts, I'd rather roll in a cat box.
Her neck-skin looks like a neatly folded comforter.
Oh, and the first woman to have a real shot at being the US President should really give a damn what you think about her neck? I'm sure your approval of her sexiness has everything to do with how well she can lead a country.
And really, most 60-year-old male politicians don't look half so good.
As for my opinion of the ad, it's obnoxious and juvenile, just like the "body spray" it promotes.
Hillary is the only candidate who will be ready to govern on Day One. She has stood up to the relentless attacks of the Right Wing Attack Machine. She has been tested, vetted, grilled and filleted. This sort of ad only cheapens her accomplishments, suggesting that such a trail-blazing women of severe substance would trade her beliefs because a man wore a smelly cologne. That is cheap, silly and it takes us back decades in terms of women’s rights and equality.
But there is a rumor going around: Once you’ve had Barack, you never go back.
To answer your question, bird:
Yes.
If you don't think looks aren't a big part of why people get elected, consider the fact that there hasn't been a bald President elected since the advent of TV.
And since we're getting political, here: I'd vote for Hillary Duff before I'd vote for Hillary Clinton. Hell, I'd vote for George Clinton over them all; I'm all for ditching our Congress and bringing back Parliament. Along with the checks and balances of Noise and Funk.
Get over yourself.
They should have made one with McCain sporting an Obama button.
Lovely. So I take it this AXE product can actually make Hillary a heterosexual too. Huma Abeden and Caity Mahoney would be interested to know about this.
OK. In my writing and theatrical work, and the subsequent copyright discussions I've had with lawyers, we talked about the use of someone's likeness, for profit, without their permission. So, for example, we couldn't advertise a play by putting a picture of marilyn monroe on the poster. The egregious example they gave was using someone's image to sell a product. Time to sue?
According to m.m.mcdermott, "there hasn't been a bald President elected since the advent of TV."
Oh really? What about Dwight "Pimp Daddy" Eishenhower? (Then again, his opponent in both 1952 and 1956 was the equally hairless Adalai Stevenson.)
And if looks are "a big part of why people get elected," I have three words for you: Richard Milhous Nixon.
Here endeth the lesson.
Now if they could only make a product that gets rid of cankles and congenital lying.....
M.M.McDermott, stop trying to change the subject. You made a comment that reduced a woman's worth to her fuckability and you got called on it.
Don't bother pretending you were aiming for some cutting commentary on electability in politics -your actual comment proves your lie.
I don't think Bird is the one who needs to get over herself; she's not the one tho thinks her opinion on the sexual attractiveness of potential world leaders is commentary worth sharing with the whole odd internet.
Hey, just because you don't find her "fuckable" doesn't mean you won't vote for her. Ask her husband.
Hey bird, he made a joke. A funny one. Sorry that you didn't notice, I suppose you were too busy whining about how unfair people are being towards Hillary because she's a woman.
But I don't think it's because she's a woman. I think people don't like her because she's a bitch that promotes censorship and sucks lobbyist dick. If she was a man, black or white, young and pretty, I'm sure she'd be getting the same criticism.
You're making Democrats look bad, so please get over yourself and realize that just because someone is a woman it doesn't mean that they have a free pass when it comes to criticism. If they did, that would be sexism. We don't need anymore sexism in this world.
Howlingmonkey: The whole Axe Effect shtick is about getting hot chicks to screw you. So Dermott's comment does pertain, because Hillary is neither hot nor fuckable.
And where did he reduce her worth? She's a hell of a politician. I don't agree with a lot of what she says, but she's powerful. She's just not aesthetically pleasing, which shouldn't mean anything in terms of political power.
And this ad makes no sense.
Dude, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not even an American. But I know asshat ads when I see them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I hate the ad. Implying that a product makes a woman so wild with sexual desire that she'll abandon her own aspirations to serve a man is complete sexist crap.
And dwsl, your post is completely full of woman-hating. You say the same "criticism" would happen to Sen. Clinton regardless of her sex, but then you call her a bitch (only women are called bitches) and say she "sucks lobbyist dick." (While some men are said to suck dick, it is usually meant to shame them and imply they are weak, womanly, or gay, and thus not real men.)
dwsl, thanks for bringing some perspective back to this.
bird, give it up. You're the one who wants to turn an irreverent ad discussion into a rotary club debate on women's lib.
All your name-calling does is rob you of any credibility.
You don't agree with me on my point that looks factor into elctability, fine. I think you're wrong.
Anyway, I'm guessing folks don't come to this fine blog to watch us piss and moan about personal politics. To hijack the forum to push your agenda is awfully self-righteous. And my continuing to argue with you makes me an accessory after the fact.
You can continue to stew on this as Obama takes Clinton to the woodshed in the Potomac primaries. But I'm done.
Bring on the next AA pseudo-porn ad.
edit: I didn't see the "ad" after the "asshat". Disregard the name-calling 'graph. I was wrong...about that, anyway.
My apologies.
Actually m.m.mc, while socio-political discussions certainly ain't my strong suit, and are not the primary focus of this childish ad blog, they are most definitely welcomed and even encouraged.
That said, this ad is sexist. Plain and simple. That's the extent of my involvement.
MM, how is bringing up the ad's sexism, and the sexism shown by yourself and other commenters in response to the ad, not focusing on the ad? The ad has brought up all these issues, and posting about them seems to me a perfectly valid tactic. Your attempt to silence Bird by declaring her point irrelevant is a classic bullying tactic used by anti-feminists to silence women, since other issues are "more important" than equality for women.
Funny, m.m., in my studies of advertising analysis (I'm in communications), examining the political and social implications of advertising is wholly appropriate analysis and has far deeper implications than a "Rotary Club debate on women's lib." When we are talking about advertising including a major political figure, certainly a political analysis is appropriate.
I have to say, too, that the sexism of the ad and of your responses certainly shows why we still have a long ways to go until women are equal.
I do not see any of you declaring whether or not you'd "hit it" in reference to Obama or McCain. So why is it acceptable when the candidate is a woman?
Sexism is playing a big role in the US primaries, as is racism. Both elements are worthy of discussion, and this ad is an example of how that's become part of the popular debate.
This is a sexist ad, and so are most of the comments made here. I always knew that a man of color would make it to the presidency before a woman because we live in a "man's world". I find it infinitely comical that people,especially young people, are voting for Obama because they believe he is different from any other politician. He has used his "christianity" to label the word marriage as a heterosexual word. Who's sucking republican dick now? Not very sexy. Maybe Hillary should be the one wearing axe. In order to play with the boys i guess you have to stink like them.
I go by one criteria: Who is the candidate best able to lead the country. And I don’t care if they yell at their staff or don’t give good press conference.
When did this become about who votes for them? Who gives a fuck how Hillary is polling with white women or Obama with black men.
“Sexism is playing a big role in the US primaries, as is racism.”
Only insomuch as the two issues keep getting mentioned all the time. Maybe we can put this shit behind us if we stop talking about it every two seconds.
thedamntruth almost got it right. I think Hillary's position is that it's all about sexism and blacks in the polls these days. That's why she's now behind.
I'm just waiting for her to claim there's a "vast and far-reaching" Left-Wing conspiracy.
Well, with copyranter's blessing to continue this thread, I will say this: I freely admit that I'm sexist. I don't find women comedians funny. I think co-ed sports are pointless. And I'm convinced Bukowski was right more often than he was wrong.
That being said, this whole thing kicked off when I made a comment about Hillary being fugly, yes? Was it sexist? Probably. But to read any more into it than you would any other pot shot fired by the likes of a late night TV host is less an indcitment of my thoughts on women and more so an opportunity for folks to press their agendas.
Hell, until she went and got all weepy on TV, I was even considering flipping the switch for her in the voting booth. But she opted to descend into the same stereotype that so many folks on here have accused others of bashing. It was manipulative and sad.
Anyhow, thanks for the discussion. Usually have to hit up the newspaper forums for such a rabid dialogue. This was enjoyable.
I can show you footage of Bushes I and II, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Bill Bradley, and any number of male politicians and public figures "crying" more profusely than you've ever seen Hillary Clinton do so, for no better reason.
But Clinton's female, so when her voice barely catches while speaking about the welfare of her nation and her ambition to improve the lives of its citizens, sexists and the MSM are obliged to make a big stinkin' deal about it.
BTW, mmmc, being a sexist is no less disgusting and contemptible than being a racist.
Post a Comment
<< Home