Was Eastwood's 'Halftime' Ad an Obama Plug?

Whether you like football or not, you probably watched at least part of the big game this past Sunday, at least for the commercials.

During any other broadcast, of any other show, movie or game, the commercials are the signal to run answer nature’s call, grab a beverage from the kitchen or let the dog out. In other words, the commercials are the signal to de-butt the couch and take care of real life before the resumption of the Great American spectator sport otherwise known as watching TV.

Except on that special Sunday, once a year. Then, we would often rather miss a moment or two of the action than miss the most innovative, creative and often down right hilarious advertisements that during any other time we curse for interrupting our viewing pleasure.

Advertisers know this all, and know it very well. They save their best 30- or 60-second spots for those few hours of television. Ad agencies are working on next year’s spots before this year’s even air, assigning their most creative and imaginative teams to the task. They know they will get as much mileage from the press about their spots as they do from the spots themselves. For weeks after the big game, pundits and Joe Public alike will be talking about the best of the lot.

Being controversial is a calculated risk many advertisers take. They know that a little controversy will generate as much buzz about the spot, and therefore they hope, the product. So, they often push the envelopes of good taste  and humor, both the offbeat and the sort of gross.

It is a fine line, but that is exactly the point. When someone decides a particular spot went too far in one direction or another, for one reason or another, it is a cause for celebration. They are now getting their ad, and their product talked about, rerun and publicized for free.

Normally, I don’t much care about commercials beyond moaning the frequency with which they run, ruining what may have seemed clever or even funny by endless repetition. I laugh when I see one group or another demand an ad be pulled because it is found to be offensive or delivers a message that group doesn’t want out there. All those protests do, generally, is guarantee a larger audience for that ad. When the pundits talk about it, everyone has to go look up the offending ad, with each view adding dollar signs for the advertiser.

This year, I have to take a different tack. This year, there was one ad that actually moved me. My family and I sat in rapt attention and unanimously declared it was awesome, as in awe inspiring and moving at it’s conclusion.

The ad I’m referring to is the Clint Eastwood spot.

The words integrity, patriotic and class were offered up by the viewers in my family room. We unanimously agreed if there were ever to be a text book definition of an American Icon, we just witnessed it. We were grateful to have seen a celebrity use his public standing for something good.

Without wrapping himself in the flag, he managed to make us feel proud of our
country, proud to be an American.

The following morning, I was shocked, horrified and sickened when I heard the talking heads debating whether or not it was a thinly veiled political endorsement for President Barack Obama.

My first thought was “How stupid can they be? Eastwood is a famous Libertarian Republican. He epitomizes the American spirit of self-reliance, personal integrity and honor.” Yes, I am an Eastwood fan.

My second thought was “Did the Obama camp really think this through? Hijacking this spot for their own political agenda? I can’t wait to hear what Eastwood has to say about that.”

The wait wasn’t long. Monday night Eastwood went on The O’Reilly Factor and unequivocally stated that the spot was in no way shape or form political. It was not an endorsement of Obama. It was completely apolitical.

He went on to say that if anyone wants to get behind the message, whether they are Democrat or Republican, it’s fine with him. The message was and is, pull together. Work together on those things that are for the common good.

Yet the talking heads continue. Karl Rove, who may have intelligent things to say other times, said one of the dumbest things I’ve heard on this topic. He said “all pull together” was code for the government’s bailout of the auto industry, and Eastwood was working hand in hand with the Obama administration. I love conspiracy theorists. They’re fun to watch.

I would be surprised if The Clint would lower himself to engaging in an ongoing conversation. He said his piece. But, if I were his publicist or lawyer, I would look at suing Karl Rove, and whoever is responsible in the DNC for defamation of character. Accusing Clint Eastwood of working with the Obama campaign makes as much sense and has as much accuracy as saying Ronald Reagan travelled to Russia, therefore he supported Communism.