I hate it because it's based on manipulation. Advertisers would make a case to blind people for buying reading glasses, if they could get away with it. I hate the sell-no-matter what mentality. How many salesmen would walk away from a chance to sell a doghouse to someone who owns no such animal?

I hate the clutter in my life provided by constant appeals to buy something, vote for someone, hate someone, love someone else, believe something , disbelieve (is this a real word?) something else.
I hate not being able to walk in the city, without every available space being plastered with these appeals. TV ads, website ads, salesmen at he door and on my phone.
Give me a little private space for just conducting my life, please.

Okay, I feel better now, and I'm open to compromise.again.

Should we wait to judge his statements from now on until they have been Liebermanized

It's bogus for McCain or Kristol or anyone else for that matter to talk about staying in Iraq for 100 years to maintain the peace. I think most people would agree that if the presence of US troops in a non-hostile situaiton could help maintain peace and order in a region, and were welcomed to that region, then we should go. But the fact is that we are in a war in Iraq, that McCain supported and has said numerous times that we are winning. Certainly there may be some recent reduction in violence, but we're still mired there. So until McCain comes up with a plan to actually win the war, rather than prolong the agony we're in- with occasional advances, but also set-backs, then he (nor anyone else) can talk about Iraq like it's a peacful situation.

…understand what McCain meant by his 100 year comment

I've never heard him outline a scenario for withdrawal under any circumstances. McCain wants us to stay if things are great in Iraq, and he doesn't want us to leave if things continue to be awful. So where's the misrepresentation?

It's a commercial: of course it's spin!!

Here's another example of spin: Opinion pieces published in a newspaper.

Even if it's by William Kristol.

Even if it's in the New York Times.

Where I wrote the word “even” you might want to substitute the word “especially”.

Caveat emptor, people.

So what? I know several parents whose children are in Iraq or Afghanistan who wish their children had not made that choice. If this were a commercial to support legislation against tobacco companies advertising to children and the mother said “you won't get my kid” would that be bogus just because the child would have to choose to smoke in order to become an addict? As a parent of children, I have no problem with wanting to reduce the number of (from my point of view) bad, self-destructive, and dangerous choices my kids might make when they're too young to know better.

The military seems like a good option to lots of young people graduating from high school and wondering how they're going to make their way in the world. It's especially seductive because 18 year olds tend to be pretty confident of their immortality. I find McCain's commitment to the military and an expansive foreign policy presents a danger to my children. It's one of many reasons I'll vote against him.

The ad harkens back to a day when consumers were not sophisticated enough to see through maudlin nonsense. That's simply not the case today, and as a marketing person, you should know that. You believe her voice breaking is compelling when in reality it will create more eyerolls than sniffles.

You see, people are willing to accept emotion when they believe the factual underpinnings. There are none in this ad, as Kristol points out. And the folks that the ad needs to impact– blue collar Democrats, independents– understand what McCain meant by his 100 year comment, and understand that there is no conscription. The ad, therefore, relies on deception to be believable, and there's nothing worse than a consumer who feels that someone's treating them like a naive idiot.