Media Exposed #13: Political Campaigning...wait, who's the one running??

So...Is Rachel the candidate?

All of us (or rather our parents) get those postcards, pamphlets and brochures on the latest political candidates for our government.  And, as I've heard from many of my neighbors, family, and friends, a lot of us actually don't even bother to take a look at them, and end up throwing them away as soon as they arrive in our mailbox.  But, has anyone ever really looked at those ads the candidates send us?  Have we ever looked at what each candidate is really about, or rather who they even are?  Has anyone ever noticed how vague these ads really are?  In this ad from the mail, it's supposed to be campaigning Terry Schanz for the Sacramento City Council.  But are we able to tell??  Reading this myself, I was very confused.  The ad shows a woman and her child and husband just living a simple life, but her name is Rachel Wagoner.  Where's Terry Schanz in this?  Rachel (I believe) is saying how she supports safe neighborhoods, good schools and so on, yet she says "and that's why I want Terry Schanz to be on the City Council."  When I read this I thought, "Wait, what?  I thought this Rachel Wagoner was running!"  The ad is so simple, yet to confusing!  How is this possible??

I'm confused, is the picture of Rachel or the candidate, Terry?

The ad is campaigning on how Terry Schanz will do good by being part of our City Council, especially for our kids.  The ad definitely uses certain basic appeals to pull in its audience, which I presume is about middle-aged couples from around 35-50, who look for the best possible life for their family and kids.  It uses "the need to nurture" especially, as the ad shows Rachel with her son, Ryan, and in the ad she says that her husband and her have "another one on the way".  This helps appeal to that parental instinct and make the reader of the ad think, "Look how happy this family is and how well off they are by supporting Terry Schanz.  Maybe Terry will help make my family just as happy!"  This also applies to "the need for guidance", as having Terry Schanz on the City Council will guide our future generations to a "better tomorrow" (or so that's what the campaigners are advertising).  Of course the ad applies to using plain folks by having Rachel Wagoner, a simple woman and the stereotypical mom with a husband and child, showing how supporting Terry Schanz means her family is more well off and happy, as depicted in the pictures of this ad.  Additionally, there's the use of repetition, as in the ad, Rachel keeps quoting "good schools, safe neighborhoods, recreational opportunities for our kids", and repeating the name "Terry Schanz" and how this candidate will give them all of these wonderful things.  By repeating these positive qualities that we supposedly want in our society and linking it to the name "Terry Schanz" (which too, is repeated a lot), we start to think of Terry Schanz equaling those positive traits of society, and vice versa.

Who exactly is talking? Who's the one actually running?

It is VERY apparent on how vagueness has overtaken this ad, in more than one way.  For one thing, what are we to know exactly what a "safe" park is, or what qualifies as a "good" school, or what exactly "recreational opportunities" really are.  Rachel never really specifies what any of those things are, or how Terry Schanz is supposed to improve/keep those qualities about Sacramento.  But, the most vague point about this ad is the most important part of it: Who really is Terry Schanz???  We don't know anything about this person, what political party they're part of, their background, even if they are a man or a woman!  With so much that we don't understand about the candidate, why is there any reason to elect this person to be part of our Sacramento City Council?  If the campaigners or even Rachel Wagoner were to really persuade us into supporting Terry Schanz, they should have thought like a critical thinker would, and used one of the 16 Habits of a Critical Thinker, "thinking and communicating with clarity and percision".  By giving more background information and being clearer on who the ad is really for (giving pictures of Terry Schanz, NOT Rachel Wagoner, and more info on Terry and NOT Rachel), they could have made their point clearer on who Terry Schanz is and what this person is really going to do to help out the city of Sacramento.

Reading and just looking at this ad, are you as confused as I was?  This may be why politics is so confusing and so difficult nowadays, because we don't even know who our candidates are!  Campaigners really need to watch how they advertise their candidates, otherwise those potential supporters will be looking for someone making a clearer argument and presenting their candidate more precisely.