Vicious Attack Ad From Wesley Meredith (VIDEO)

It’s being called the most sexist ad of the 2010 elections.

Wesley Meredith, Republican, is challenging Margaret Dickson, Democrat, for the position of state senator in District 19 of North Carolina. Dickson is serving her first term in the North Carolina Senate after being appointed to represent the district in January 2010.

Now she’s running for election to keep her seat. Apparently her challenger, Wesley Meredith, is both desperate and extremely sexist. How could a person of integrity possibly vote for someone who sinks as low as to portray his opponent as a whore?

Take a look below, and you’ll see what I mean. (For the record, Margaret Dickson is a 60-year-old mother of three, a business woman who is married to family court judge John Dickson.)

If you would like to see the transcript, you can read it below the video, thanks to Care2 blogger Laura Smith-Gary.

Wesley Meredith Attack Ad

Video: A middle-aged white man in a mustache and collared shirt faces the camera. He’s surrounded by several “average American” people, none of whom are looking at the camera. There’s text on the screen (mostly obscured on the youtube video) reading “Paid for by Wesley Meredith For NC Senate.”

[click of sound starting] Voiceover: “…for state senate and I paid for this ad.”

Video: Shot of the back of a brunette woman’s head and faint image of her reflection in a mirror.

Voiceover (in a woman’s voice): “Incumbent Senator Margaret Dickson.”

Video: Woman applying mascara.

Voiceover: “Who does she really care about? Is it you, or is it just a charade?”

Video: Close-up of woman opening a gold-colored tube of bright-red lipstick, then applying the lipstick and blotting her lips on a tissue. The camera then moves to a close-up of the woman adjusting a “Margaret Dickson NC Senate” button on the lapel of her dark suit worn over a red shirt. In the final shot, small text on screen reads “JRCE: HB2, 2/10/03”

Voiceover: “Not once, not twice, but three times, busted using public office to help companies she owned.”

Video: The screen splits into three columns, each with a different picture. In the farthest right, there’s a close-up of the woman adjusting a diamond ring on her left-hand ring finger. Text at the bottom of the picture, apparently citing a source, reads “NC Utilities Comm. Docket no. p-100.” The second is a close-up of her clasping an apparently gold and diamond bracelet around her wrist. Text at the bottom reads “12/20/2009 Charlotte Observer.” The third shot seems to be cut off at the right edge — what we see is the back part of an ear against dark hair and part of a hand making a “putting in an earring” motion. Text at the bottom reads “WTVD-TV 12/03/09.” The pictures are revealed from left to right as the voiceover names her alleged crimes.

Voiceover: “Special deals. Insider trading. No bid state contracts. All for her own gain.”

Video: Close-up of women’s hands removing a thick wad of cash from her purse and placing it on a table. The outside bill in the role is a $100 bill.

Voiceover: “What does Margaret Dickson really care about?”

Creative Commons - Jon Curnow


Hannah Lindsey
Hannah Lindsey7 years ago

This ad is not that bad and I don't think it's sexist.

Michael Cunningham

"Hate ads along with hate must go"

Sorry this was not a "hate" ad!

You want "hate" gone? Talk to the dictionary people.

jane richmond
jane richmond8 years ago

Hate ads along with hate must go

Barbara Erdman
Barbara Erdman8 years ago

Thank-you for this article.

Michael Cunningham

"Regardless of the platforms and accusations in this ad, if you don't see the sexism in it, I suspect that you are either a sexist yourself or are totally unaware of the meaning of the word...."

What the ad says is;
Here is a politician that is concerned about their appearance and bling. A politician that cares about the trappings of success. A politician that does not care the manner in which they aquire said appearance, bling, and trappings.
Were this ad about a male head of a business everyone here, that is decrying the ad as sexist, would be calling for the greedy SOBs head!!

Kay L.
KayL NOFORWARDS8 years ago

Regardless of the platforms and accusations in this ad, if you don't see the sexism in it, I suspect that you are either a sexist yourself or are totally unaware of the meaning of the word....

Michael Cunningham

Vicious Attack Ad From Wesley Meredith (VIDEO)

"I'm a died in the wool leftie, but I'd want to see what Margaret Dickson said in reply -- or do some fact checking about those accusations. "

Good for you! You paid enough attention to realize that there were actual comments made about the candidates political actions.

Michael Cunningham

"Horrific attack ads say more about the candidate who produces them and can even be helpful -- an ad like this one only reveals the character of that candidate. Helps me to know who to vote for!"

"Horrific!?!? First of all there is noting "horrific in it, though it is an attack ad. If you truly thing it is "horrific", then I posit that you have a very thin skin. Usually occurs when you think the object of the "horrific" appellation hits to close to what you believe to be true!

Michael Cunningham

"This kind of ad and politics has got to be stopped. And it should be stopped at the federal level with campaign reform."

"Campaign reform" from Washington will only entrench the incumbents. They think they are "royal" now. We don't need to give them more reason to think so!

Sarah d.
Sarah I8 years ago

For all the nervous and possibly misspent attention I direct at US politics, I am not aware of either of the candidates referenced in the advert. There are a lot of voting districts and far, far too many smear campaigns happening all at once for a foreigner to get a handle on.
After viewing the indefensible and unconscionable head-stomping of a perfectly reasonable person exercising her First Amendment rights at a Rand Paul gathering, I'm sure our American friends will forgive the rest of us as we retire to a safe, dark place and nurse a giant migraine headache whilst you go to the polls.
If the corruption of the female candidate depicted is a matter of public record, then surely the facts alone will suffice. The whole business with the vanity mirror is crass, demeaning, and sexist. Overtly sexist. One would really have to be completely stunned to miss that point of an advert that spared little cost in driving it home. (See? Baseball vernacular! We truly are paying attention to you!)
I urge anyone who disputes the charge of sexism in this case to explain, for example, the paucity of political adverts referencing egregious comb-overs. Surely a 'do' like that requires an equivalent amount of time/vanity to achieve?

Having said that, however, show me a male politico kitting up in lipstick, jewels, and high-heeled shoes and he'd have my vote in a New York minute. Now that's an example of honesty inhabiting artifice.