The Obama Administration is famous for its ability to "speak" to voters, making them feel like they personally are a part of something much larger. One of the ways they have accomplished this is by launching various "groups" for Obama, like "Women for Obama" or "African Americans for Obama."
But has the latest group crossed the bridge into ridiculousness? Introducing "Pet Lovers for Obama."
Launched on BarackObama.com on January 30, the Facebook description says, "This page is dedicated to showcasing the Obama 2012 spirit of our favorite animals and those of us who love them. While this page is run by the Obama 2012 campaign staff, our honorary host is Bo Obama, First Dog."
The Facebook page, which now has more than 10,000 "likes," features innumerable pictures of people's pets with witty political statements like, "[he's a] progressive pit bull" or "I bark for Barack."
Advertisements are even popping up with the "Pet Lovers for Obama" slogan.
This isn't the first time that Bo Obama has been used in a White House publicity stunt, but some are asking, why now? Are "people with pets" really a significant voting bloc?
Maybe if a clear contrast is presented between how candidates treat their pets.
"Dogs Against Romney" is also beginning to gain traction (its Facebook page already has more than 37,000 "likes"), in an effort to remind voters of Mitt Romney's decision to transport his dog on the roof of his car back in 1983. The group, which refers to itself as a "Super Pack," has written:
"Mitt Romney...has admitted he transported his dog strapped to the roof of his car. Furthermore, [he] has recently indicated in the mass media that he does NOT think there was anything wrong with this dangerous practice. DON'T let Mitt Romney set this bad example for America, leading to potentially thousands - even millions - of pet owners adopting this practice."
So, how do you feel about utilizing animals in elections? Is it pandering, or will it have an effect?