To be quite blunt, this was one of the most ignorant, irresponsible editorials I have read in a long time. It is ridiculous to assume that simply because the author does not personally feel compelled to drink when confronted with a television advertisement for alcohol that the influence of the ad is not felt by others. If this were true, companies would not be spending money to produce these advertisements. Despite what the author believes, Budweiser did not create their little frogs just to make TV viewers chuckle. Countless studies have shown a correlation between the advertisements the public is exposed to and the products it endorses.
Alcohol ads are no exception.
All it takes for him to support a product is an endorsement from a celebrity he admires. It is sickening that alcohol companies target his age group, as they are impressionable and mainly concerned with peer acceptance. I love a good laugh as much as anyone else does and do not object to lawful and responsible drinking. However, I'm not willing to encourage advertisements that can contribute to teen-age drinking just so I can watch some cute little frogs. I applaud President Clinton for taking a stand on such an important issue.