Monday, August 07, 2006

More on My Least Favorite Ad

Well if nothing else at least the Malloy ad has put women's issues front and center for both he and DeStefano.

A war over women's health coverage continued to eclipse all else Sunday in the gubernatorial primary endgame as women in Hartford protested Dannel Malloy's television commercial depicting John DeStefano as a woman, and Malloy's forces responded with a counter-protest in New Haven.

The two Democratic mayors have been sparring over their competing plans for universal health coverage for months, but the issue grew more contentious last week, when Malloy began airing the add showing DeStefano's head atop the bodies of several women, including one in a maternity outfit.


Have I mentioned that I hate this ad? Because I do. And I'm not alone. But much like our discussion here at CTLP women seem to be divided.

"It was kind of gross - the images," said Beverley Brakeman, the former executive director of the Connecticut National Organization for Women, who was part of a group that carried signs for about an hour outside Malloy's headquarters in Hartford Sunday morning. "The ad itself is very bizarre. I actually thought it was a joke at first. It's a really inappropriate way to get a message across."

A squad of Malloy protesters, meanwhile, returned the favor 90 minutes later by arriving at DeStefano's campaign office in New Haven to reinforce what the controversial ad seeks to dramatize: Malloy's claim that DeStefano has flip-flopped on women's insurance coverage issues.

"They were very angered to hear there were protestors outside the Malloy headquarters in Hartford, and thus they decided to take a stand," said Lisa-Joy Zgorski, Malloy's spokeswoman.


What's interesting is that those protesting Malloy's ad were from women's groups, while those protesting DeStefano's stance/ad/whatever were Malloy supporters. Of course everyone has their own agenda, but I think who protested what is telling.

Perhaps if Dan Malloy were a woman he'd understand why some of us didn't appreciate the imagery.

Source
Keating, Christopher and Lender, John. "Campaign Ad Spurs Protests".

16 comments:

Chris MC said...

What's interesting is that those protesting Malloy's ad were from women's groups, while those protesting DeStefano's stance/ad/whatever were Malloy supporters. Of course everyone has their own agenda, but I think who protested what is telling

What is telling is that Ms. Brakeman evidently misrepresented her affiliation and implied the NOW supports DeStefano or is criticizing Malloy's ad. Neither is the case.

Brakeman, last I knew, was a lobbyist in Hartford. I have her card here somewhere and will try to dig it up.

DeStefanites intentionally misrepresenting themselves to the press is a new low for Disaster for Connecticut.

This "protest" was nothing but a publicity stunt, CGG. Trying to attribute a significance to it beyond that is a mistake.

Anonymous said...

Malloy has continually stood up for "womens things" as John DeStefano calls them. Remember the New London debate? The ad simply tells how little John thought about "womens' things" in his orignial plan. Campaigning is about promoting your plans and why you think they are best. That's all Malloy is doing. Look at all the attention the DeStefano people are giving to Dan. I say, good job.

cgg said...

Anon, no that isn't all Malloy is doing. That's the problem. Were he only doing that I wouldn't have a complaint.

Anonymous said...

DeStefano's stance/ad/whatever

Since it seems you are unclear on the situation here is what it is yet again -

"DeStefano said he would ask the General Assembly to waive several services now required by law, including pharmacy coverage for birth control pills, three-day hospital stays after a Caesarean delivery and at least an overnight stay after a mastectomy."

Hartford Courant 6/3/06


What's interesting is that State Rep. Betsy Ritter is of many who are both supporters of Mayor Malloy, AND represent womens groups. I think who protested what is telling.

View her take on this issue on YouTube

Anonymous said...

Brakeman is a union lobbyist, close with Melita and Swan.

Anonymous said...

You're delusional if you think "those protesting Malloy's ad were from women's group." Might some of them have an affiliation that looks good in the press? Sure, and that's why DeStefano's staff called them and asked them to go do this. Make no mistake, this was a campaign stunt pure and simple. Seriously, what's more egregious here, the fact that Dan Malloy made a silly commercial or that DeStefano tried to cut the mandates? What's a more serious concern to women?

Anonymous said...

I agree that the so-called protest by Brakeman, et al was a campaign stunt. NOW is always standing hand in hand with the unions on a whole range of issues. As a woman businessowner, I realized a long time ago that NOW doesn't represent women - it only represents union interests. The Malloy ad was a powerful and creative way of demonstrating that DeStefano flip-flopped on issues of critical concern to women.

The DeStefano camp should be ashamed of some of its ads, which insinuate that there is some tie between Malloy and Bush relative to healthcare.

Chris MC said...

For those interested in the substance of the matter, DeStefano was against it before he was for it. Not only that, but he defended the position until the political headwind got strong enough, and then he reversed course.

Now of course the problem is that DeStefano's proposal isn't paid for, which was his rationalization for eliminating women's coverage.

Anonymous said...

All of a sudden Rep. Ritter is the most important woman politician in the state - oops - other than Audrey Blondin, I mean. Please!

Anonymous said...

Interesting what happens when just a few words are substituted, isn't it?

For those interested in the substance of the matter, [DeStefano] Malloy was against [it] raising the estate tax before he was for it. Not only that, but he defended the position until the political headwind got strong enough [DeStefano criticized him], and then he reversed course [I am for the estate tax].

I guess the old axiom is true: it takes a flip-flopper to know a flip-flopper!

Anonymous said...

There was nothing offensive about the Malloy ad. The only reason you are calling it offensive is to give yourself something to write about...we can only offend those who WANT to be offended...that likely includes some whiny blogger who wants fodder for their next "highly intelligent" post. Instead of crying about a fairly comical commercial why don't you try researching the issues?

bluecoat said...

The ad was offensive both in substance and style; I guess I should not have been surprised that Dan Malloy kept it on the air from what I have seen from RoyO with both Malloy and Farrell.

BRubenstein said...

Running an ad in which the subliminal message is that JDS is a C.D. doesnt help DM if he wins and wants to unite the party.That ad is just disgusting,weird and doesnt belong in the political discourse.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

BRubenstein said...
Running an ad in which the subliminal message is that JDS is a C.D



No one cares even if he is a cross dresser.
It's those guys that cross post on various blogs that make everyone crazy.

Anonymous said...

For the former Executive Director of CT NOW Bev Brakeman to represent in Robo Calls and at a rally that CT NOW has endorsed DeStefano is disingenuous. CT NOW has NOT endorsed a candidate for the Democratic Primary - viewing both as being good on women's issues. It was irresponsible for her to leave the impression that CT NOW had endorsed DeStefano.

Anonymous said...

another example of the liberal union folks changing the rules to fit their username candidate ...