Hal Daub is on the air with this first ad of the 2009 Mayoral campaign. It is entitled, "Hal Daub: We Need Him Now."
Take a look here:
Not a bad piece, going back to Daub's initial presser on the crime issue. We'd argue that Daub is being more specific than his opponents as far as spelling out his plan, and this ad hits some of those elements.
One point where Daub has a big advantage on either Jim Vokal or Jim Suttle is that he doesn't have to waste air time introducing himself to voters. He is able to talk about his proven record, without trying to spell out where he's lived, what he's done, etc. etc.
One thing we found interesting was the last image used of Daub smiling. We've seen it before. Where?
In Daub's ad in 2007 for the U.S. Senate.
Here are images from each.
And here's the 2007 ad, so you can remember.
(Now just so long as his ad guys don't flip the images, we'll be OK....)
Channel 7 did a story on the Jim Vokal poll from the other day. Daub's campaign manager Brinker Harding said, "It was an internal poll and we don't give a lot of credibility to his internal poll." Harding then made an interesting attack on the ad: It breaks the law.
Harding cited LB720 (now Neb.Rev.Stat. 49-1474.02) that when disseminating a "prerecorded message" the sender "shall include, immediately preceding the message, the name of the person making the expenditure".
Vokal put his name a the end of the poll, instead of at the beginning.
But the counter argument here (at least as we see it) is that it's a "poll" and not a "message". Is a question ("Who ya gonna vote for?") the same as a statement or request ("Tom Smith is the best. Vote for him.")?
Interesting question. Now will Jim Vokal have to spend another $28K to clear this one up?