In terms of communicating the philosophy of the current government, and catering to its intended tech-loving, social media-savvy baby boomer (primary voter) demographic, the ad hits the target spot on. Bravo for marrying the not-so-subtle threats of security with government promises in a non-threatening, culturally sensitive way!
Ethical questions aside, inviting the viewer to take time to read each Act description, but not giving quite enough time, was an interesting choice. Especially since the descriptions included quite a few numbers. I had to squint on the last one to read the tiny letters. Did anyone else feel impatient when watching? Now if only we could have clicked through the apps (I mean Acts) ourselves...

Michael, thanks for the response. I agree with Shaun -- I thought it was a pretty effective ad. I wasn't distracted by the fact that it was derivative -- instead, I just saw it as riffing on an ad that is a cultural force ("there's an app for that" has already become a joke-catchphrase), and IMO they hit their three points very effectively during the short spot: support teacher excellence, support people who want to attend college, and support job creation.

As for the political back and forth, I thought we were here to discuss the effectiveness of an ad? Lots of other forums out there to vent your spleen, folks.

I didn't actually think it was all that bad an ad. It communicated the point clearly, and quickly.

The main problem with it was, of course, that it could be confused with an iPhone ad; if the viewer is an idiot.

Now, if it was paid for with taxpayers money, that is unethical, as it was clearly (if less blatently than some examples) a partisan ad. However, that does not detract from the creative work itself. Now all they need to do is come up with something truly creative, and not rip off someone elses idea.

Good point Susan. When Clinton was president, his fiscal policies became so conservative, they opened the floodgates to wealth generation in the private sector. Plus, the Baby Boomers were in their peak earning years. Can you spell "surplus?" Now we have a president who has no idea where money comes from and he wonders why punishing the private sector, raising taxes and forcing suffering firms to lay people off doesn't improve the deficit.

With all of Hollywood in their thrall, this was the best the Democrats could come up with?

I don't care how you try to explain it away, a purely partisan ad paid for by the government is at least unethical if not illegal. I don't care which party produced it. And there's no way you can convince any sane person that "cleaning up the last eight years" is not a partisan statement. By the way, I hated Bush II, so my comments have nothing to do with partisanship.

I remember in the Bush years when Health and Human Services got slammed for spending taxpayer money on PR programs. The media and the president's critics portrayed a VNR as propaganda and there was general condemnation on spending of government money on propaganda. This is clearly political and paid for by taxpayers. So where's the outcry?

Todd,

This is a good idea because, as noted in the post, Democrats have done a poor job communicating the effects of the stimulus to Americans. If they could explain it in a clever, 30-second video that would be a major communications coupe.

They didn't pull this off, because I didn't learn anything from the video. All I kept thinking about was the actual iPhone commercial and I wasn't sure if I was supposed to be reading what was on the phone's screen or not. And then I was wondering what an iPhone has to do with the Recovery Act. And then it was over.

What did you think of it, Todd?

We have seen much worse, and much more mean-spritited stuff than "cleaning up the last eight years." If there was a surplus at the end of Clinton and a huge deficit at the end of Bush, does someone have a reasonable explanation for that? Perhaps someone can make another anonymous jab.

Not only does it reinforce "general skepticism," & waste still more taxpayer money, it rips off a private company's creative work. Is this ok, because it's the government?

Oh, and they couldn't be content to tout its supposed (but dubious) stimulative results; they had to throw in the poke in the eye to about half the country about "cleaning-up the last eight years." Oh please. There's a forward-looking, bipartisan spirit of leadership for you.

"Good idea, bad execution." With no explanation, reasoned or otherwise, of why you have this opinion. How easy ... and useless.

This spot just reinforces the genearl skepticism on how the money was used and if it worked. Obviously, it didn't do a thing to the unemployment rate, which is what people care about, then this group rubs it in by showing us all the different, non-job creation spending that went on. Bluh.