Maker of Anti-Clinton Video Outed, Loses Job

Raul654 writes "Philip de Vellis, the author of the anti-Hilary Clinton viral video was outed yesterday on the Huffington Post. The company he worked for, Blue State Digital — a Democratic Internet strategy company that does work for Barack Obama — has now fired him as a result. Said Vellis: 'I made the "Vote Different" ad because I wanted to express my feelings about the Democratic primary, and because I wanted to show that an individual citizen can affect the process.'"

Comments

Was good

[cayenne8]

Well..I'm sure someone else out there will hire him...it was a pretty decent job...showed imagination.

Re:Was good

[Stanistani]

de Vellis: "I wanted to show that an individual citizen can affect the process."

That he did. He also demonstrated that if you stand up for something, be prepared to be slapped down.

Here's hoping he can get back up.

Re:Was good

[dctoastman]

Showed imagination?
A rip-off of a Mac ad shows imagination?

Must be some definition of imagination that I'm not familiar with.

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they fired him because that is what Democrats do
when put into a corner. Sacrifice someone below them.
Take no responsibility.

politics as usual, yawn.

the poor guy should get a raise.

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

Well..I'm sure someone else out there will hire him

Whats interesting is had he taken credit, he likely wouldn't be job hunting. Of course, working for several democratic campaigns, a Dem themed Donkey shirt smashing a Bush image would have gone over much better.

Re:Was good

[cayenne8]

"Showed imagination?

A rip-off of a Mac ad shows imagination?"

Well, he used a fairly iconic commercial as a platform for parody to make a political point.

Not only that...the job he did appeared fairly good to my eyes...quality-wise.

I'd say he did a good job...made an effective point, and with little investment but personal time editing the video, he reached a worldwide audience both on the internet and television.

You don't see that very often...

Re:Was good

[Billosaur]

Wish I still had mod points... someone mod this up. "Imagination" is sorely lacking in this day-and-age of the audio/video mash-up and the crap that Hollywood churns out. I'm constantly amazed at how my kids are "bored" when we won't them watch TV or play video games. They seem totally unable to come up with new, original games to play or things to do that aren't related to some TV show they watch or game they play.

Re:Was good

[jav1231]

He should have used the word "innovation." Microsoft has been ripping off people for years and calling it that.

Re:Was good

[Rei]

Notice the insertion of the word "Democrats". Gee, let's take a wild guess as to what your politics are. I mean, it's not as though we currently have a Republican president who has sacked official after official to cover for it's bungling, or anything of that nature.

It's general politics, not a Democrat or Republican thing. You want all good to stick to the candidate, and all bad to stick to "anyone but the candidate". And I'm not even saying that this is a case of the candidate deliberately passing the buck off to someone else; this guy's story seems reasonable enough. Gee, a person who works on political ads being A) a political enough person to want to make an ad in his spare time, and B) knowing how to make a high quality ad: who'da thunk it?

Re:Was good

[Deagol]

How many of Bush's underlings have been cut off at the knees during his time in office? Indeed, this is politics as usual. However, labeling this as a Democrat thing is disingenuous at best.

Re:Was good

[spun]

I think that was more a demonstration of the "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" principle.

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

And violate their trademark? That'd be more than just a slap-down!

Re:Was good

[Rei]

Heck, Cheney even shot an old man in the face, and the man apologized for it. ;)

It's not a partisan thing. It's a general political thing. Some people are better at it than others, it's true, but everyone does it.

Re:Was good

[WormholeFiend]

I'm constantly amazed at how my kids are "bored" when we won't them watch TV or play video games. They seem totally unable to come up with new, original games to play or things to do that aren't related to some TV show they watch or game they play.

The problem is that A) they are not bored enough, and/or B) they watch too much TV

Back when I was their age, we only had like 3 channels on TV (I know, luxury), so we had to come up with plenty of ways to have fun with just a bag of rocks and some sticks.

Re:Was good

[Romancer]

But it was a type of lie. By assigning credit to a group that did not produce the ad, he is committing a type of slander. Making it seem that that group has a specific oppinion or approves of an ad that they had no knowledge of, and didn't approve.

Same as saying, "John says Jill is a bad person" to people. When John has no idea what you're doing and said no such thing. That not only hurts one person but both. It's like trying to start a fight between two people. Not a thing to be proud of, and an underhanded method of addressing the political scene in my eyes. It's bad enough without his help. Try and make it better, and I'll applaud the effort. Do this and I think he should be fired at a minimum.

Re:Was good

[mdozturk]

You mean: "A rip off of a Mac ad, which was a rip off a novel, shows imagination?" right?

Must be some definition of imagination that I'm not familiar with.

So ironic.

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful my ass..

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

You had a bag?

Re:Was good

[UbuntuDupe]

Well, he used a fairly iconic commercial as a platform for parody to make a political point.

That doesn't require imagination.

Not only that...the job he did appeared fairly good to my eyes...quality-wise.

That requires technical skill, not imagination.

I'd say he did a good job...made an effective point, and with little investment but personal time editing the video, he reached a worldwide audience both on the internet and television.

Maybe I'm clueless, but I just don't see what the "effective point" of that ad was. It looks like just a cheap attempt to say, "Hillary bad". And indeed she is. But you could replace the video of her in the ad with Bush, or Cheney, or Obama, or the challenger in the dog-catcher primary for Hicksville County, Alabama. What actual negative information does it convey about Hillary Clinton other than "She, like the rest of the human race, kinda looks scary (but actually mostly boring) when edited into that cool Mac ad." ?

Seriously.

Re:Was good

[truthsearch]

He's fed by his skill (and now 15 minutes of fame), not by his employer. He'll find another job.

I think Arianna should hire him to make more viral videos. It would be great promotion for the Huffington Post.

Re:Was good

[PopeRatzo]

it was a pretty decent job...showed imagination.

No, the original Apple commercial showed imagination. This guy just showed plagiarism.

Re:Was good

[denmarkw00t]

But he didn't bite the hand that fed him - in fact, he made an ad that will bring more publicity to Obama now than ever intended. Firing him was probably one of the best things his employer could have done to bring in more traffic for Barack. I mean, its on the Slashdot front-page, for one.

Re:Was good

[truthsearch]

That doesn't require imagination.

Coming up with the idea in the first place required imagination.

Maybe I'm clueless, but I just don't see what the "effective point" of that ad was.

The original Apple ad carried no additional information either, but made a very effective point. Anyone familiar with the concept of Big Brother can see the point. Therefore it's effective in its simplicity. If instead it just displayed negative information about Hillary it would be very boring and not get people talking about the actual point.

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

You had paper? We carried our lava rocks in lotus and played hot potato with them. And by golly, we liked it!

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a bit shocking that there are people who view this video as creative or imaginative. It demonstrates a poor level of media literacy. There is a difference between technical ability and meaning.

"Oooh, look that is so pretty, it must be true!"

Re:Was good

[farble1670]

wow i am so glad you made that point. i really, really can't hear enough negative opinions of microsoft. i especially like hearing the same ones over and over again. and wow, what really tops it off is when they are completely out of context. thank you.

Re:Was good

[UbuntuDupe]

Coming up with the idea in the first place required imagination.

*Which* idea? The idea to mold a previous successful ad into something else? The idea to swap out a villan from some artwork, with someone you hate? (Cause no one's ever done that, right?)

The original Apple ad carried no additional information either, but made a very effective point. Anyone familiar with the concept of Big Brother can see the point. Therefore it's effective in its simplicity. If instead it just displayed negative information about Hillary it would be very boring and not get people talking about the actual point.

Well, I originally thought it was trying to play off the fears of "Hillary as Big Brother", but a) I thought that idea wasn't popular among Democrats, even pro-Obama ones, and b) why not, um, actually use scary quotes from Hillary? There's a lot of stuff out there, "We need to stop thinking about what is good for the individual", etc. Instead they just put a video of her rambling about some vague generalities typical of politicians. I just didn't see what was so special.

Re:Was good

[Viper Daimao]

Um, didn't Obama just get elected for the first time in 2004?

As for the rest, can we stop calling people we don't like fascists? The word has lost almost all meaning now.

Re:Was good

[truthsearch]

Oh it's not that special. And personally I don't really care about the ad. But I could see how others find it interesting and viral.

Those scary quotes from Hillary would make just another boring political ad. At least this one was different.

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe someday they'll sink in.

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

and it was a copy of a copy... as you'll notice this was not the original 1984 ad, but the redone ipod version (the hammer tosser had an ipod).

as for those who said it was parody, that's questionable. parody is usually defined as an imitation of artistic style or work with the intention of comedy or ridicule. this really wasn't parody, so much as it was altering premade video for a different purpose. In other words, if Obama used this in a public campaign, he'd be sued and probably lose... as opposed to how Weird Al can record and sell many of his songs without legal question.

Re:Was good

[Skreems]

Maybe it's all a trick, and he's secretly still on the payroll :-)

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

You could play? We were enslaved in labor. I had to wake up an hour before I went to bed to work a 25hr day!

Re:Was good

[HCase]

Throwing facist around is overplayed, but fits this video. The ad being used was Apple's 1984 ad. Using that story against someone is making a facist comparision.

Re:Was good

[Mr2cents]

He's fed by his skill (and now 15 minutes of fame), not by his employer. I have this feeling your employer is ripping you off. Did you know most of us receive money from our employers?

Re:Was good

[dynamo]

Sorry no. It wasn't well designed, well done, or even original.
The general shittiness of political ads does not make this one any cooler in comparison.

Copying Apple's 1984 ad has been done some many times it's past cliché now.

Two quick examples for ya:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNru2SGZSms

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2665948/

----

What might have been useful would have been if, in the ad, they said even one thing which gave a REASON that Obama might be better than Hillary. All they did was dress her up as a totalitarian leader in the commercial and copy all the old footage. Seriously, this is a two day project for a decent editor. It's sad that someone with real creative thought didn't get involved, because it really could have been cool if they would have made a rational argument. There was no evidence, just a cartoon of what this guy saw Hillary as. He needed to explain WHY.

Re:Was good

[zCyl]

Well, I originally thought it was trying to play off the fears of "Hillary as Big Brother", but a) I thought that idea wasn't popular among Democrats, even pro-Obama ones, and b) why not, um, actually use scary quotes from Hillary? There's a lot of stuff out there, "We need to stop thinking about what is good for the individual", etc. Instead they just put a video of her rambling about some vague generalities typical of politicians. I just didn't see what was so special.

Her ramblings showed the entire point of the ad. The ad was implying that Hillary speaks in meaningless and empty rhetoric that the masses eat up like mindless brainwashed drones. It was THIS, rather than any implications of fascism as said elsewhere in this thread, that the ad was presenting. The ad was trying to encourage people to try something fresh and different. It was effective in the internal coherence of this message and in the appropriateness of the analogy for relaying that message, which is why it has received so much attention and popularity.

Re:Was good

[dynamo]

b) why not, um, actually use scary quotes from Hillary? YES, thank you. There is so much more that could have been done - this (job) loser just did the absolute minimum of work to get the concept across, congratulated himself, and posted it. The sad thing is that this ad could have been effective and it's not because it's made from a well-worn template.

People are so starved for creativity they'll praise anything.. sorry but it's not there in this video.

Re:Was good

[cduffy]

Obama has had two stints in the Illinois state senate, but is even now a junior member in the US senate. Further, his voting record is far less conducive to such charges than Clinton's -- her position on flag-burning and stances regarding gaming and government regulation of the Internet are considerably less Libertarian in nature. To be sure, my Libertarian side disagrees with Obama on gun control -- but that's true for both of them.

More importantly by far, Obama is the less divisive candidate, and goes far out of his way to acknowledge, respect and try to learn from opposing viewpoints. Given the enmity our recent politics have invoked -- both internal and external -- I cannot in good conscience cast my vote otherwise.

Re:Was good

[Maxo-Texas]

Okay..
It doesn't require imagination.

I'm looking forward to your enormously popular video of similar quality and originality.

Re:Was good

[UbuntuDupe]

Okay, that actually starts to bring sense to it. :-) Still, it doesn't seem very effective. I mean, who really thinks Obama isn't doing exactly the same thing to an audience just as brainwashed?

Re:Was good

[rynthetyn]

Wait, you really believe that the Obama campaign didn't have anything to do with this? I thought that Barak and Co. were supposed to be different, but this incident looks like nothing so much as politics as usual, with an internet twist to it. You have enough layers of plausible deniability to allow the Obama campaign to wash their hands of any responsibility, but this episode smells an awful lot like those fake viral videos that have corporate fingerprints all over them even though the corporation won't admit it.

Shame on the Obama campaign, I thought they were supposed to be above this manipulative junk.

Re:Was good

[UbuntuDupe]

Er, yeah, that's the point. Let's say I did this:

Take a random clip of some villan from a movie -- say, Palpatine electrocuting Luke? Then, digitally edit it Hillary's face into it so it looks like she's doing it. "Hahah! Hillary's electrocuting someone! We shouldn't vote for someone who'd electrocute people with her fingertips!"

Now, explain to me in what sense the 1984 Hillary ad revealed imagination and originality, but the one I just described, didn't.

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

That sucks. Sorry bro.

Re:Was good

[PMuse]

Yeah, hid did bite the firm that fed him. He got caught doing something that embarrassed the firm in front of one of its clients (the Obama campaign) and in the media. The Obama campaign may yet have to fire the firm to get enough distance from this. It's unsurprising that he's out.

Sad, but unsurprising.

Re:Was good

[Mr. Bad Example]

> As for the rest, can we stop calling people we don't like fascists?
> The word has lost almost all meaning now.

Don't you tell me what's lost meaning, you fascist.

Re:Was good

[Blakey Rat]

What bothers me the most is that he used the stupid iPod version instead of the original.

Re:Was good

[Maxo-Texas]

So DO it. If it is SOOO easy to make a popular video. Then do it.

You'll be famous.

Re:Was good

[canajin56]

Indeed, so far beyond cliché it has reached the status of YTMND fad! Take Future Conan Enslaving Asia, which set off the 1984 Conan fad: Future Conan in 1984, the Defeat of Future Conan, and the Defeat of Futurama Conan

Re:Was good

[DrEldarion]

Hey, you might be interested in this mat I have. You see, it has conclusions written on it...

Re:Was good

[UbuntuDupe]

Okay, you're starting to compromise your "friend" status, but let me try here:

I have no control over whether people like my video. I do have control over whether it has the characteristic that made the Hillary one popular, that I can't seem to understand.

The video I described most likely won't get popular. What I want to know is, how does it not have the characteristic that made the existing 1984 parody popular? What is that characteristic? The problem is, people can't really explain it. They're drawn to it without even knowing why.

On the other hand, if a well-done video of Hillary electrocuting Luke with her fingertips did get popular and widely viewed, you'd have to wonder exactly how much imagination went into the original. Cause it sure wasn't hard to think of mine.

Re:Was good

[Yonder Way]

The Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech.

It does not guarantee us freedom from the consequences of our speech.

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing is that this ad could have been effective and it's not because it's made from a well-worn template

What everybody seems to be overlooking is that most people who aren't Mac geeks (a figure that totals only about 5% of the overall computer-geek population... a niche within a niche) won't even recognize the Ridley Scott ad.

It will seem fresh and creative to a young voter who may have been 3 years old when the original '1984' ad came out.

Re:Was good

[anotherone]

Wow, yeah, the front page of slashdot- the extra 50,000 eyeballs, of which maybe 50% belong to eligible US voters, will really help Obama's campaign.

Re:Was good

[aplusjimages]

Well..I'm sure someone else out there will hire him

I think there's a political party out there that would enjoy his talents for the upcoming presidential election.

Re:Was good

[sumdumass]

I'm simply amazed by all the "lack" of outrage. It is just a guy in his spare time here and it was a coverup by the marching penguin global al gore warming video.

Here, we are going out of our way to excuse this behavior but then there was no excuse. So, I ask you, did we learn a lesson that being applied here? Or is this a reflection of the political ideals of the posters on slashdot. Those that know me or followed my conversations know my political leaning pretty well. So i will leave it at that. I'm wondering why there is a difference in attitude. Either way is just as legit, but it would speak volumes about slashdot.

Re:Was good

[UbuntuDupe]

It will seem fresh and creative to a young voter who may have been 3 years old when the original '1984' ad came out.

Um ... as a matter of fact, I was born in 1981, dude ... and I've made several posts saying how it's not fresh and creative. The Mac ad was cool when I first saw it, and has since become cliche. All they did was swap out Hillary for the guy on the screen. Big deal.

So, anyone going to explain why editing the "Palpatine zaps Luke Skywalker" so that the Emporer has Hillary's face, won't be considered original?

Re:Was good

[511pf]

So every user-created political ad on the Internet MUST have had something to do with the campaign it supports? Unlikely.

And really, I thought the ad didn't come close to living up to its hype. What's next? People getting all excited about a Fark photoshop contest of Chris Dodd?

Re:Was good

[halr9000]

Yeah, and that's too bad. I'm very much anti-Democrat but that has zero bearing on the fact that what this guy did was:

1. effective
2. well-made
3. pretty damn cool
4. free speech

Why was he fired exactly? For embarrassing the less creative of his co-workers and bosses I guess...

Re:Was good

[lucabrasi999]

As for the rest, can we stop calling people we don't like fascists? The word has lost almost all meaning now.

I agree. Let's all pick a NEW word, everyone! I hear Anne Coulter has suggested 'faggot'.

Re:Was good

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Maybe he's a farmer and what he does actually feeds him... I'm a manure salesman, and I recommend the salad bar.

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

"And the ad screamed "pot calling the kettle black", as Obama was also in power during most of the decline of civil liberties that we've seen under Bush Jr."

No.

"and unlike Hillary, was not a junior senator while most of this was going on."

Also no.

As others have pointed out, this is all completely wrong. As in, "WTF were you thinking spouting off when two minutes worth of research would have revealed to you that you are completely, totally, unequivocally ignorant" wrong.

I don't think I could have been this wrong if my intention was to fabricate obvious lies, yet somehow you managed to do it while seriously believing what you were posting was actually correct.

For future reference, you are too stupid and uninformed to be allowed an opinion. Please forfeit yours and refrain from posting.

Thank you.

Re:Was good

[flyingsquid]

Her ramblings showed the entire point of the ad. The ad was implying that Hillary speaks in meaningless and empty rhetoric that the masses eat up like mindless brainwashed drones.

Which is why I don't think Hillary is electable.

Don't get me wrong here- I'm not one of those right-wingers for whom hating Hillary is an unconscious reflex, like breathing. I'm a slightly left-of-center Democrat (or a "radical leftist liberal" in right-wing terms), and I think a President Hillary Clinton would be a vast improvement over the current bunch of incompetent right-wing hacks. But when she talks, she sounds calculated; it sounds like her words are the result of intensive polling, long hours of drafting in a committee, and several rounds of focus groups. There's no passion, no idealism, no belief. It's very difficult to get others to believe in your cause if you don't sound like you believe in it yourself. She's so much a product of marketing that she's unmarketable.

Americans are fundamentally idealists and we want idealistic presidents. It almost doesn't matter what you believe in as long as you are sincere, I don't agree with all of McCain's views but the fact that he seems honest and sincere in holding them counts for a lot. Of course you can have too much of a good thing; Bush II is a perfect example of how good intentions can lead to disaster if you don't have a grasp on reality. It'll be interesting to see how this election plays out; between the right-wing Democrats, and the left-wing Republicans, the next election is almost guaranteed to put the country back on a more centrist track, which is exactly where we need to be right now.

Re:Was good

[dharbee]

"What is that characteristic?"

Relevance. The idea that Hillary may compromise civil liberties exists for some people. As far as I'm aware, no one believes she can shoot electricity from her fingertips.

Eating babies on the other hand... (I kid, I kid)

Re:Was good

[rynthetyn]

Not every user-created political ad. However, this particular user-created political ad was created by someone with close connections with the Obama campaign. Someone who was pretending to be a random outsider but who turned out to be anything but. If people want to make grassroots ads, then go right ahead, but don't try and make me think that something is grassroots when it was made by a partisan political operative with connections to a candidate's campaign.

Re:Was good

[edumacator]

The ad has the x factor. It would be difficult to define, but the creator was able to put a piece together that made a statement. I agree it wasn't very deep or telling, but that doesn't matter.

It looks like just a cheap attempt to say, "Hillary bad".

And now millions of people have seen an ad that says "Hillary bad." While you, as a critical observer, might not see the merit and question the content, there are millions of others who aren't as critical and will take the images at face value and see Hillary as a domineering mind controlling woman. It might be true or false, but that isn't important in mass advertising.

The creator put something out that resonated with his audience. I don't understand why, but you can't discount the effect it is having.

Re:Was good

[chris_mahan]

You had days?

We had permanent darkness in the mines...

\mumbles: my preciousss...

Re:Was good

[stefanlasiewski]

Compare Apple's original 1984 video vs. the Parody video.

Apple Original 1984 video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo
Parody: http://youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

Would you call this "Where's the Beef" parody imaginative? Probably not---

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-Sc0Wdi0Vi4

How much difference is there between the two videos? The parody borrows the vast majority of it's content from the original-- the faces, the cadence, the audio (except for Clinton's voice), the facial expressions are all exactly the same.

If I take a song, and change 5% of the song, I really can't go around claiming my new song is original, or call it a mashup, a blend or a cutup.

A good hip-hop, IDM, mashup, cutup, etc. song will usually only sample small pieces of the original, and manipulate that small piece. A good mashup will borrow a bunch of small pieces from a collection of different songs, and combine them in a unique way.

Is it good technically? Sure--- it's clean, the creator kept the images in sync; as the camera pans across the stage, the prole heads pass in front of the television, etc. Sure, good job. But don't call it imaginative.

Re:Was good

[suggsjc]

Hold on, is this one of those philosophical political type of statements?

Don't you know this is /.?
Unless you have a completely biased, un-supported claim that somehow reverts back to Bill Gates being the anti-christ, then your on the wrong site.

Take your insightful intellectual conversation elsewhere.

Re:Was good

[admdrew]

I don't have TV reception at home, but I happened to be traveling in the US most of Tuesday, where that video was alllll over the the major news networks (at least the ones that were playing in the various airports).

It was a little more widespread than Slashdot.

Re:Was good

[WhyDoYouWantToKnow]

Wow, yeah, the front page of slashdot- the extra 50,000 eyeballs, of which maybe 50% belong to eligible US voters, will really help Obama's campaign.

50,000 eyeballs, assuming most people have 2 in their head and are not some cycloptic or tricloptic mutant, would mean /. only has 25,000 readers. And if only 50% are US eligible voters that's like... add the, minus, carry the 1, 12,500 US readers/voters. I think you seriously underestimate the number of /. readers.

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Ann Coulter said that if you say faggot, in today's culture, you have to go to rehab.

It's amazing how the press loves to distort everything she says, like the job they did on her in re: to the 9/11 widows... distorting it very badly.

Re:Was good

[Poruchik]

1. effective
2. well-made
3. pretty damn cool
4. free speech
5. Embarrassed his employers and their employers.

Because of free speech he was not jailed. No company is required to keep you on after you did something stupid, no matter how cool.
That said, he will not lack for employment.

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think he will be very keen. He's already got one, you see.

Re:Was good

[naoursla]

The fascists just want you to think it has lost all meaning so that you cannot call them what they are.

Read some history. The word fascist has a very clear meaning even if most of the people who use it do not know what it means.

Re:Was good

[PMuse]

Wow, yeah, the front page of slashdot- the extra 50,000 eyeballs, of which maybe 50% belong to eligible US voters, will really help Obama's campaign.

In the 2004, U.S. Presidential election:

State: Margin (Electoral Votes)
New Mexico: 5,988 (5)
New Hampshire: -9,274 (4)
Iowa: 10,059 (7)
Wisconsin: -11,384 (10)
Nevada: 21,500 (5)
Delaware: -28,492 (3)

For less than 38,000 votes, you could have swung New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada (20 electoral votes), and changed the outcome.

Re:Was good

[jmorris42]

> For future reference, you are too stupid and uninformed to be allowed an opinion.
> Please forfeit yours and refrain from posting.

No, I don't care if the original poster rants on the Internet; I hope the asshat doesn't VOTE.

Re:Was good

[monkeydo]

He was fired because his employment contract theoretically doesn't allow him to work for or against company clients off the clock.

Whether or not you believe he was really off the clock is another issue altogether.

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing that you are a programmer. That you have few friends. That you have trouble making new ones. And that you don't understand why.

Re:Was good

[Cylix]

Actually,

There have been about a half dozen incarnations of the original work floating around ytmnd.com

http://conandefeat.ytmnd.com/

This is merely one longer modification of an existing idea.

In fact, if you search future conan you will find many variants and even some interesting ones with Snape.

So yeah, not so original, but I'm sure there are plenty who will interpret it as suhc.

Re:Was good

[rlp]

> Don't get me wrong here- I'm not one of those right-wingers for whom hating
> Hillary is an unconscious reflex, like breathing.

Yeah, that would be me. But, I agree with you. Hillary will tell any given audience what they want to hear. That strategy is so 20th century. Doesn't work well in a time of 24x7 news, YouTube and bloggers. I got a real laugh out of her fake Southern accent. Can't wait till she gives a speech in Southern California.

I don't care for Obama's (liberal) politics - but the guy is the real thing. He speaks his mind. I respect that.

Re:Was good

[Tanktalus]

Actually, your constitution does not guarantee you freedom of all speech, but that which it does guarantee, it further guarantees no consequences.

That speech that is free is only speech that talks negative of the government (positive speech having never been threatened). And the normal consequences of that speech, being jailed, fined, or killed, are guaranteed not to occur (or, as much of a guarantee that the government can normally give - anyone attempting to confine you, take your money, or kill you, just because of such speech would be guilty of an offense and liable for jail time themselves).

It's not the speech that got the maker of this video in trouble. It's the association they had with the Barack campaign. While there are guarantees of freedom of association, it works both ways: the Barack campaign has chosen not to associate with him. They are perfectly free to do that. What would be illegal is for the government (any branch) to force that disassociation.

Re:Was good

[Cervantes]

>> As for the rest, can we stop calling people we don't like fascists?
>> The word has lost almost all meaning now.

>Don't you tell me what's lost meaning, you fascist.

Don't order him around, you fascist.

Re:Was good

[davper]

IANAL
Is this a free speech issue? If so, couldn't he sue?

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me O'bama was elected to State Senate in 1996.... this would give him 4 more years of Legislative experience than Mrs. Clinton who is only serving her 2nd term after election in 2000.

Re:Was good

[fyngyrz]

Actually, your constitution does not guarantee you freedom of all speech, but that which it does guarantee, it further guarantees no consequences. That speech that is free is only speech that talks negative of the government (positive speech having never been threatened)

For your reference, the relevant portions of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, I read that part where it says "make no law" as a written version of the idea that congress should, uh, "make no law" that does what the part that says "abridging the freedom of speech" means, because that would, uh, abridge freedom of speech, you see. I do not see anything that says "except if you're not talking about the government, or if you agree, or if you're within 50 feet of a funeral or you're at a political rally, or in a theatre, or frankly, anything else of that nature.

I wold also note in passing that the 14th amendment requires the state governments to comply with the first ten amendments as well. So this isn't just a federal issue.

Now, I am aware of a number of significant misinterpretations of the 1st amendment, including the one about shouting "fire in theater" (entirely wrong-headed, as well as unconstitutional), but yours is a new one for me. Would you care to explain how you got the sense of "only in speech critical of the government" from the above text? Thanks. I appreciate you taking the time.

Re:Was good

[Danse]

I don't care for Obama's (liberal) politics - but the guy is the real thing. He speaks his mind. I respect that.

Didn't Obama go all "southern baptist preacher" during at least one of his speeches too? I seem to remember seeing a clip or two of that alongside Hillary's bizarre accent clips. They both play to the crowd. Republicans do it too. It's pretty ridiculous, painful even, to watch, but for some reason, some people actually buy into that stuff, like they believe that the candidates are really just like them.

Re:Was good

[Kristoph]

You know those focus group - a bunch of citizens siting around telling the politician what they like and don't like - we should have more of those not less. I mean, when did we get to the point where listening to people and making policy around that became a bad thing. Is that not what democracy is all about?

]{

Re:Was good

[fyngyrz]

Have you looked at Ron Paul? Other than his stance on health care, I'm pretty well aligned with him, speaking as a person with strong libertarian leanings.

Re:Was good

[fyngyrz]

I think - my opinion only - that 1984 carries serious social messages and concerns that star wars does not. I would also think that this leads directly to the popularity of the current video, and a lack of underlying meaning for your proposed video. I am not saying that the video accurately portrays Hillary; I'm just saying that it carries implications that her opponents find convenient, and her supporters do not. To the extent that people are undecided, but familiar with 1984, the video may evoke some discomfort that leans them away from her.

1984 used to be a very frightening scenario. Of course, now that we live in times that are worse in many ways, and we're working on what we missed out of Orwell's vision, I'm not sure if the message is quite what the maker of the video thought it was. Just because the video made an impact, doesn't mean it made the right kind of impact.

Re:Was good

[Fear the Clam]

That's a modification of the original 1984 ad.

In the original version the woman doesn't have an iPod clipped to her shorts.

Re:Was good

[Petra_von_Kant]

Normally I wouldn't comment on US politics, but this is too strange a comment not to.

Ahhh, can you remember what happened to Hillary last time she showed her ideals to the American public whilst first lady? Look it up if you can't recall what they were. I think the saying goes something along the lines of "once bitten ....."

Talk about the bizarre rabid witch-burning that went on. Over here, in Australia, the bulk of the population sat wide eyed as someone, their first lady, who was trying to give the US a hint on equitable health care got torn limb from limb.

Just weird.

"You've got a chart filling a whole wall with interlocking pathways
and reactions to shock and the researcher says "If I can just control
this one molecule/enzyme/compound I'll stop the whole negative
physiologic cascade of post haemorrhagic shock." Yeah, right."

Re:Was good

[Mex]

I have seen more and more of these types of comments lately. They add nothing to the discussion, and your sarcasm only hurts the community here.

Sure, we have lots of anti MS people, but that does not mean we are all mindless drones who cannot discuss any other current affairs.

Re:Was good

[Darby]

So, anyone going to explain why editing the "Palpatine zaps Luke Skywalker" so that the Emporer has Hillary's face, won't be considered original?

Because nobody would notice the change ;-)

Re:Was good

[cduffy]

I know dgatwood IRL, and he's a fairly bright guy -- so I'm chalking the post in question down as being sorely misinformed (and an object lesson on fact checking) as opposed to evidence of general idiocy.

Re:Was good

[cduffy]

Yes; I like Ron Paul. If he somehow manages to get the Republic nomination and Obama gets the democratic, I'm going to have a *very* hard choice ahead of me. It would be a very happy choice to have, though -- either outcome I could be ecstatic about.

Re:Was good

[dgatwood]

You're partially right. He was a state Senator in 1996, though. I misread that as "elected a Senator from Illinois in 1996." Still, he's been in politics longer than Hillary.

Re:Was good

[Darby]

Throwing facist around is overplayed, but fits this video. The ad being used was Apple's 1984 ad. Using that story against someone is making a facist comparision.


No, it does not fit this video and it is not a fascist comparison.
1984, the book, was about *left* wing socialist totalitarianism gone out of control.
Fascism is a *right* wing ideology which is basically corporate power controlling the power of the state to rip off the people and merging in religion to keep the sheep in line. See the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, and the like. It's an entirely elitist ideology ( as the right wing is by definition ) where the "superior" types use the power of the state to keep down the undesirables. See the whole gay hatred amendment bullshit for all the proof you need of that.
From the point of view of the people with the bootprints on their faces it might be a largely meaningless semantic distinction, but there are very real differences between left and right wing extremism.

Now, that being said, Hillary, along with most of the Democratic party are pretty far to the right economically. See the DMCA, Continuous copyright extension etc for proof of that A lot of the Democrats are pretty far to the left socially, see hate/thought crime laws and the like for that.

But 1984 is in no way related to anything fascist. It's the opposite extreme.
If it were fascist, the proles wouldn't have been left to themselves, they would have been rounded up and exterminated as the undesirable subhumans they would have been considered.

So, yes, fascist is thrown around a lot in the wrong places, like this and people, largely, have no clue what it means otherwise they wouldn't whine when people call Bush one since he absolutely is in every particular.

Sometimes I think the worst thing Hitler did was the holocaust not just because of the whole mass murder thing, but because that overshadows all the other problems with fascism. When you call Bush a fascist people spout off idiotic bullshit about how that's stupid because he isn't killing Jews. They don't realize that a fascist government doesn't have to kill anybody to be fascist and awful.

Re:Was good

[dgatwood]

Yup. I misread the Wikipedia entry and read "Illinois State Senator" as "Senator from Illinois". I'll chalk it up to having been sick most of the week. Either that or all these posts on Slashdot have made me illiterate. :-D

BTW, I think you mean an abject lesson. :-)

Re:Was good

[Viper Daimao]

I dunno, it's not exactly the same, but I would say her experience as first lady for 8 years and the governors wife for however many years before then counts for something. No one calls Hilary a political novice.

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution does protect us from some consequences of speech. As Ronald Reagan joked:

What's the difference between the Soviet Constitution and the American Constitution? The Soviet Constitution guarantees freedom of speech -- the American Constitution guarantees freedom after speech.

Re:Was good

[StikyPad]

At least one...

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary will tell any given audience what they want to hear.

You said it, bro'. That's why I'm voting for McCain. He would never stoop to that level.

Re:Was good

[Jorgandar]

Step 1. Post negative comments about microsoft on slashdot
Step 2. Get rated super insightful!
Step 3. ??
Step 4. Profit!

Re:Was good

[Tanktalus]

You're right and, what you didn't address, doesn't take away from my point. What I meant to say, and failed utterly miserably (so miserably as to have been misleading), is that the government is not supposed to hand out consequences for your speech. That doesn't prevent Obama's campaign (aka "not government") from sanctioning the individual for actions deemed unbecoming to the association as a whole. Nor does it mean you have to agree with Obama's campaign to fire the guy. It just means that there is no criminality or unconstitutionalness going on here.

Note: where to get some of this from is simply a google search for "first amendment history" - I found this intro to be informative, and even mentions the "shouting 'fire' in a theater" concept.

Re:Was good

[gettingbraver]

Bet he gets a book deal!

Re:Was good

[sumdumass]

you know, If the add was on the up and up and the actual free speech work of this employee on his own time, all he would have had to do is post a disclaimer saying something to the effect of that. It isn't as much who he is, were he works, or who he works for, as much as it is how all that was hidden with some attempt to give it more weight.

This is no different then the penguin thing about Al gores movie. Except no republican was the current customer of the people behind it. Somehow, I see this as being worse but I'm reading the comment as it isn't even close to the penguins thing.

Re:Was good

[sumdumass]

the free speech protection say congress shall make no laws. It doesn't really mention companies who were nice enough to give you a well paying job. If he filed suit, it would probably be difficult to achieve anything. Especially when he essentially has a non compete clause disallowing him to work for, or against the firms customers unless it is through the firm.

Re:Was good

[maop]

He is a coward for posting anonymously and then putting Obama's name on it. Maybe he has learned his lesson on how to behave properly.

Re:Was good

[maop]

I brought nothing but bad publicity to Obama and the entire party.

Re:Was good

[sumdumass]

You mean listening to a small representative group of people to determine all of government policy? I think that is a very bad idea.

You don't elect politicians to do what you want. You elect them to do what is good for the country, state, county, city, whatever they are running for. They are there to pick the best choice when presented with one or to offer the best choice when not presented with one. It really has nothing to do with what you want unless you want what they stand for. But even then, you won't agree with them.

Matter of government are too complexed to be just the majority rules. the majority supported slavery, had no problem with shooting Indians on the spot, Didn't mind that certain people weren't as valuable as others, and so on and so on. The majority of people didn't want us involved in WW2 until after we won(or was on the way to winning). But that was a differen generation of people. They weren't ready to give up on the troops and cause their defeat because things were going bad. But that is another story.

It took some strong senators to vote against the will of the people and declare war. That is the way they are supposed to work!

Re:Was good

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not qualified to judge. You're a fan of, or at least aware of, an even more-obscure OS than MacOS. Elections cannot be won or lost on the backs of Mac fanboys and Ubuntu fanboys. Rest assured, Joe Six-Pack and Jane Boxwine have never even heard of the original '1984' ad.

Re:Was good

[nocomment]

And I'm sure out of the original 50,000 as least a couple actually only have 1 eyeball. So 12,502.

Re:Was good

[denmarkw00t]

Personally, this ad made me smile and made me even happier and affirmed in my decision to support Obama as much as I can in his (fingers-crossed) presidential campaign.

Re:Was good

[maop]

I don't support Hillary or Obama because I don't know where they stand yet. Being experienced or having a great personality is not enough. It's Edwards for me.

Re:Was good

[suggsjc]

Sure, we have lots of anti MS people, but that does not mean we are all mindless drones who cannot discuss any other current affairs.

Speak for yourself...

All joking aside, there are pretty much 4 categories of people on /.
1) Intelligent people who make insightful comments
2) The mindless drones that you referenced earlier
3) Complete idiots 4) People who make fun of #2 & #3, or #1 if they get tired of making the same snide remarks.

I tend to jump between #1 and #4. Being #1 takes time, effort, thought and diligence. Being #4 only takes a keyboard.

Re:Was good

[asninn]

[...] meaningless and empty rhetoric [...]

[...] effective in the internal coherence of this message and in the appropriateness of the analogy for relaying that message [...]

Thank you, that was a perfect illustration.

Re:Was good

[dctoastman]

While I am aware that the original Mac ad evoked the imagery of 1984 and the idea of Big Brother and a totalarian state aren't original in and of themselves. What was imaginative of the Mac ad was the thought behind putting this computer against all of the principles that ideology by having a female runner throwing a sledgehammer at it. (Which, as far a I am aware of, is not in the book.)

That's the difference between an homage/parody and a blatant rip-off, which the Hillary as Big Brother ad was.

Re:Was good

[smilindog2000]

Er... no. Obama served 7 years as a state legislator before running for Senate. I'm almost done with his book, "The Audacity of Hope." All I can say is he is now my top choice for president, with McCain being my second. Can America elect a black man? If so, Obama's got a chance. I highly recommend the book for anyone who wants to know what he stands for.

Re:Was good

[CommanderIsm]

show me a politician and i will show you a crook - perhaps proportional representation is the answer - at least your vote counts that way. good video (if lacking originality) - i am sure the maker will not be out of a job for long.

Re:Was good

[jav1231]

Step 4. Profit! Shit! Where's my money!?

Re:Was good

[Maxo-Texas]

My point is that it always looks easy after someone does it the first time.

Creating new stuff is not easy. As a person that struggles to create, when someone diss's one of my creations and says how easy it is, it irritates me.

I guess I agree to the point that once you have an original idea spontaneously or if you grind through 50 ideas to get 1 good one, it seems easy. But when you consider how many millions of people could have done it, it becomes apparent that something rare and unique is going on.

Also I suspect a lot of people could have had the idea and then lacked the drive to complete it or the technical skills to do something that wasn't so cheesy you couldn't watch it.

---

Don't use the friend... enemy stuff myself. Interesting to see some people do. Wonder how many friends and enemies I've made over time.

Slashdot seems so disconnected to me. I really dislike the editing restrictions.

Re:Was good

[UbuntuDupe]

I don't think you understand. With genuinely creative works, you can say, "hey, this aspect about it was good", *even if* it looked "easy". But on this one, you can't even say what about it is good. All it is, is swapping out a villian in one video with someone you want to diss. It's just, "See that bad guy? Well, um, Hillary ... is a bad guy ... too. Yeah."

I completely agree with you that a lot of people trivialize genuine creativity. But when you ask, "Why didn't people do this before?" I have to say, people did do "this" before, if "this" is taken to mean "swapping out one villan for someone you dislike". The question is, what set does "this" refer to, for which the Hillary ad is first?

And what makes it good, in a way that Hillary zapping Luke isn't?

Re:Was good

[UbuntuDupe]

I think - my opinion only - that 1984 carries serious social messages and concerns that star wars does not.

You're kidding, right?

You're saying no one ever compared Star Wars to another "evil empire"? No one ever saw the empire as "big government"? No one ever compared any defense program to "Star Wars"? No one ever saw the parallels to "if you're not with us..."? No one every compared the movie to the Iraq War? No one ever compared Lieberman to Palpatine?

Try again.

To the extent that people are undecided, but familiar with 1984, the video may evoke some discomfort that leans them away from her.

No. It asserts without evidence that Hillary is a bad guy. It would equally arouse concerns, regardless of who you put in the video. You think it wouldn't have caught on if Bush had been in it?

And the statements aren't even that scary -- they're the opposite. "I don't want people who already agree with me"? Okay, sure, if you already except that everything Hillary says is a lie, sure, but the point of ad is to persuade people who, ironically, don't already agree with you.

I'm going to sit down tonight and make the zapping-Luke video. I want a personal apology from everyone who linked the Vote Different ad, if it catches on.

I don't see the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-communism is noble and moral.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[OrangeTide]

Just in case people don't "get it", the problem with Communism is that it assumes that there must be a ruling elite to watch over and guide the proletarians. That's not to say that other systems don't have the same defect, Communism is just always that way. (at least according to Lenin)

Remember Socialism is not the same as Communism, despite what some Republicans try to tell everyone.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[Spazntwich]

Not that Communism or Socialism will be viable until we find ways to significantly change human nature.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[spun]

Marx's original plan was that communism was a transitional government on the road to real anarchy and self governance. But it was criticized by true anarchists from day one. Anarchists such as Proudhon said that communism would invariably lead to a concentration of power, just the same as capitalism.

In any case, I think the post you were responding to was not raising a critique on that level. I think it was more along the lines of "They wants to take mah propurtai!"

Re:I don't see the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it was more along the lines of "lol communism."

Re:I don't see the problem.

[OrangeTide]

I generally overlook Marx's communism because he never implemented it, it seem impractical to build a huge state with the idea of eventually eliminating it. Marx really wanted to change human nature and help people move beyond egoism and the ideas of property and ownership.

I tend to focus on Lenin's communism because it was actually implemented. Lenin was far more detailed and precise in regard to his explanations and critique of the subject, and in my opinion is a better reference on what it is really about. Could just be my personal bias to put Communism in the worse possible light, the light of reality, rather than focus on Marx and see it under a light of idealism.

China's communism seems to be a transitional government, but the complete opposite of what Marx would want. The goal seems to be to convert the people to a society comprising mostly of the bourgeoisie (capitalist middle class). Funny that.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[spun]

Lenin's communism proves Proudhon was right. Communism failed the day they decided on violent revolution as a means to an end. Funny and true insight on Chinese communism!

Re:I don't see the problem.

[Dr. Manhattan]

Ginsberg's Theorem (The modern statement of the three laws of thermodynamics):

1. You can't win.
2. You can't even break even.
3. You can't quit the game.

Freeman's Commentary on Ginsberg's Theorem:

"Every majoy philosophy that attempts to make life seem meaningful is based on the negation of one part of Ginsberg's Theorem. To wit:

1. Capitalism is based on the assumption that you can win.
2. Socialism is based on the assumption that you can break even.
3. Mysticism is based on the assumption that you can quit the game."

Re:I don't see the problem.

[Hatta]

Marx's original plan was that communism was a transitional government on the road to real anarchy and self governance. But it was criticized by true anarchists from day one. Anarchists such as Proudhon said that communism would invariably lead to a concentration of power, just the same as capitalism.

Bakunin summed this up best when he said: "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."

Re:I don't see the problem.

[spun]

I also like the old African proverb, "Only free people can make a strong tribe. Only a strong tribe can make people free."

Re:I don't see the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just in case people don't "get it", the problem with Communism is that it assumes that there must be a ruling elite to watch over and guide the proletarians. That's not to say that other systems don't have the same defect, Communism is just always that way. (at least according to Lenin)

Remember Socialism is not the same as Communism, despite what some Republicans try to tell everyone.

Except that Socialism involves a bureaucracy in order to regulate the economy and transfer wealth without free-rider problems. This bureaucracy must be far too massive to be controlled by the electorate. Moreover, it cannot be allowed to be controlled by the electorate, because the majority would just vote pay raises for themselves - essentialy a "Free Commons" problem. Leaving us either with a ruling elite or an economic collapse, but usually a combination - a ruling elite which give bribes to specific parts of the electorate, but finds said bribes are impossible to rescind once they are impractical economically (i.e. France).

What's the beef?

[Anonymous Coward]

The company has the right to fire him if they want to. That's the company's own business. Now if the government were imprisoning him that'd be a different matter.

Re:What's the beef?

[gorbachev]

There is no beef.

His employer, being that it works in the "politics industry", had a policy forbidding employees from political activity to avoid any impropriaties. He violated the policy and was fired.

An employer I used to work for was creating lottery systems. It forbid employees from playing lottery games. Violations were dealt very harshly.

Re:What's the beef?

[LittleGuy]

His employer, being that it works in the "politics industry", had a policy forbidding employees from political activity to avoid any impropriaties. He violated the policy and was fired.

It was interesting to see Hillary and Obama doing a verbal paso doble on how to react before he was 'outed'.

They both let out a sigh of relief and went with the standard "my opponent was behind thisCHUFFCHUFFCHUFF!"/"I never authorized thisRUNAWAY!!!!!!" responses.

Re:What's the beef?

[truthsearch]

He violated the policy and quit.

Fixed that for you.

Re:What's the beef?

[maxume]

firstreferenceonthepageasofnowthathequit.

Re:What's the beef?

[gorbachev]

Well, he says he quit. The employer says he was fired.

Who knows who's right. Maybe he was quifred?

Before the end he realized...

[RyanFenton]

It was just before he was fired, he finally realized the horrible truth - he loved Big Sister.

And a boot descended over mankind's face, forever.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Before the end he realized...

[voice_of_all_reason]

he loved Big Sister... and a boot descended over mankind's face...

That's no boot...

Re:Before the end he realized...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's no boot...

It's a space station!

Re:Before the end he realized...

[voice_of_all_reason]

Then why is he licking it? o__O

Re:Before the end he realized...

[Anonymous Coward]

Salt-poor diet?

Re:Before the end he realized...

[Tackhead]

> > That's no boot...
>
>It's a space station!

Clinton II: "It's a TRAP!"
Bush II: "We shall rule the Galaxy, as Father and Son!"

This is how liberty dies. With thunderous quoting of Star Wars.

Re:Before the end he realized...

[QuantumPion]

To: Philip

I really liked your video and would like to see you in person to discuss it. Meet me at Fort Marcy Park tomorrow at 6.

-Hillary C.

Re:Before the end he realized...

[The Dobber]

That's no boot..

That's Hillarys thighs.

Re:Before the end he realized...

[GrayCalx]

I love that quote from 1984... "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever."

Re:Before the end he realized...

[VAXcat]

Great quote - but. Like I've pointed out before, it's not such a bad situation...you just have to make sure that you're the one wearing the boot.

Clarification

[voice_of_all_reason]

From a reply to the Huffington Post article by the creator:

I've resigned from my employer, Blue State Digital, an internet company that provides technology to several presidential campaigns, including Richardson's, Vilsack's, and -- full disclosure -- Obama's. The company had no idea that I'd created the ad, and neither did any of our clients. But I've decided to resign anyway so as not to harm them, even by implication.

Re:Clarification

[Billosaur]

He said, they said. He's probably chanting the "I quit" mantra to avoid the uncomfortable silence during his next job interview when asked "Just why were you fired from your last job?".

Re:Clarification

[NitsujTPU]

This is also kind of standard PR fluff. Heck, I knew a programmer who got canned who "moved on to brighter horizons," according to both he and his company.

Re:Clarification

[l4m3z0r]

De Vellis was an employee with Blue State Digital, an Internet company that provides technology to presidential campaigns, including Obama's. De Vellis said he resigned from the company "so as not to harm them, even by implication." The company issued a statement Wednesday, saying he was terminated.

"Pursuant to company policy regarding outside political work or commentary on behalf of our clients or otherwise, Mr. de Vellis has been terminated from Blue State Digital effective immediately."

From: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/clinton.you .tube/index.html

The CNN version has quotes from Blue State Digital's spokesperson saying that he was in fact terminated.

Re:Clarification

[morgan_greywolf]

CNN is reporting that he was terminated (read: fired). Not just on their website, but on Robin & Company this morning (blatant plug: Robin Meade is just soooo hot!). According to CNN, the company released a statement to that effect.

So who's telling the truth? I think maybe de Vellis has more to gain by lying, don't you?

Re:Clarification

[RingDev]

Hah, at my last job my boss called me in to talk about what would be the best option for the company and I.

The option was my departure from the company.

That option lead me to a new job, new office with a view, 3x as much vacation, a professional work atmosphere, and challenging and fun projects in a field that actually helps society.

That option lead them to an employee shortage, lower moral, 2 dropped projects, 6 months added to the time-line of most live projects, and tens of thousands of dollars spent on overtime and head hunting.

-Rick

Re:Clarification

[Timesprout]

He is such a knob. If he did not want to harm his employer 'even by implication' then why didn't he quit and do the ad as a freelancer? Why did he not come forward himself sooner? If he felt the ad was making such an important statment why was it not pitched first to Obama? Only a complete moron could not have seen the implications of what he was doing while in a position with Blue State Digital given their portfolio.

And his blog about it is just a stream of self indulgent garbage. Newsflash buddy, the future of American politics always rests in the hands of ordinary citizens, they are what grown ups like to call voters.

Re:Clarification

[drinkypoo]

And his blog about it is just a stream of self indulgent garbage. Newsflash buddy, the future of American politics always rests in the hands of ordinary citizens, they are what grown ups like to call voters.

Given that we are currently living under a president who was never elected by the people, I think that's a pretty specious argument.

Re:Clarification

[king-manic]

Sometimes you do something small and watch it snow ball. The ad itself was fluffy and very mild for an attack ad. his company acted within their own policy and terminated him. He seems to be taking it in stride. He reecognized his mistake and is moving on. The publicity will likely net him a job somewhere with as good or better pay. So even if he is a knob, he's porblably a knob with prospects.

Re:Clarification

[guyinblacktshirt]

Quoting Blue State Digital website:

Our Statement On The 1984 Video

Statement from Thomas Gensemer, Managing Director, Blue State Digital

On Wednesday afternoon, March the 21st, an employee at our firm, Phillip de Vellis, received a call from Arianna Huffington of "The Huffington Post" regarding the "1984" video currently circulating online. Initially, de Vellis refused to respond to her requests. He has since acknowledged to Blue State Digital that he was the creator of the video.

Pursuant to company policy regarding outside political work or commentary on behalf of our clients or otherwise, Mr. de Vellis has been terminated from Blue State Digital effective immediately.

Blue State Digital is under contract with the Obama Campaign for technology pursuits including software development and hosting. Additionally, one of our founding partners is on leave from the company to work directly for the campaign at headquarters.

However, Blue State Digital is not currently engaged in any relationship with the Obama Campaign for creative or non-technical services.

Mr. de Vellis created this video on his own time. It was done without the knowledge of management, and was in no way tied to his work at the firm or our formal engagement [on technology pursuits] with the Obama campaign.

I have spoken with David Plouffe, Sen. Obama's campaign manager, to inform him of this action and am appreciative of his understanding and ongoing support of our work.

We wish Mr. de Vellis well in his future endeavors.

Re:Clarification

[Timesprout]

Actually what ever the circumstances of the first election, his second term proves my point completely. The Republicans turned out way more voters than the Democrats expected and won fairly. Personally I felt it was a mistake to reelect Bush but again the voters had their say when they realised their mistake and the Republicans got creamed in the Congressional and Senatorial elections, so the voters are the final arbiters.

That aside the bipartisan nature of US politics is too divisive. Yes Bush won but almost half of the voters picked the other guy. Thats always going to lead to probems and recriminations, especially when the winner promotes controversial policies. The US needs some more credible parties that reflect popular opinion so thats its not a one or the other choice or maybe Proportional Representation becomes an option.

Re:Clarification

[Castar]

There are differing accounts as to whether he was fired or resigned... Here's a quote from another story (this is the statement from his employer):

"Pursuant to company policy regarding outside political work or commentary on behalf of our clients or otherwise, Mr. de Vellis has been terminated from Blue State Digital effectively immediately," the statement said.

So here's my question: assuming that this is true, and he was fired... Is that legal? Especially the "company policy regarding outside political ... commentary" part? That seems like obvious infringement of the right to political speech.

Re:Clarification

[apathy maybe]

You do realise that no president is ever elected by the people. (At least in the good ol' US of A.)

You have a little thing called the Electoral College.

See also my academic paper (which I just so happen to have put on a site called Revolutionary Left, though that doesn't detract from the quality at all!) on the matter over at RevLeft http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=24734. In it I talk far to much about the Electoral College.

Re:Clarification

[drinkypoo]

You do realise that no president is ever elected by the people. (At least in the good ol' US of A.)

Oh yes, I am well aware that the USA is actually a republic and not a direct democracy.

But my point is that even if the US were an actual, honest-to-ghod, one-man-one-vote democracy, Bush would not have been elected in either election. The recount in the first election was well on its way to proving this when it was illegally halted. In the second election, the tally clearly showed that Bush did not have the popular vote.

Re:Clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you idiots ever get tired of this nonsense?

For every "fact" your kind dredges up that "proves" the election was stolen, the other side finds one that refutes you.

For someone who like to pretend they're intelligent, you sure don't notice that there aren't any real "facts" at all, just partisan rhetoric and scheming.

You were manipulated into thinking the election was "stolen" by one sides interpretation of the "facts". I don't understand how you can be so condescending when you're clearly not figuring it out.

The lied to you. BOTH OF THEM.

Re:Clarification

[aicrules]

A popular vote that is completely suspect on many fronts in my estimation. How many fraudulent votes were cast by dead people? By people voting multiple times? By people who aren't citizens? At least with the electoral college we know who is voting and we can rest assured that the number and type of votes is accurate.

Re:Clarification

[drinkypoo]

Actually what ever the circumstances of the first election, his second term proves my point completely. The Republicans turned out way more voters than the Democrats expected and won fairly. Personally I felt it was a mistake to reelect Bush but again the voters had their say when they realised their mistake and the Republicans got creamed in the Congressional and Senatorial elections, so the voters are the final arbiters.

Your statement "the voters are the final arbiters" is correct in a sense - the voters in question are those who make up the electoral college. But the citizens of the United States are not the final arbiters - their voice was heard, and ignored. This is an inherent flaw in the structure of our government.

The electoral college was ostensibly instituted to prevent mob rule from selecting our president. Yet this is an extremely unusual occurrence;

"In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual State elections and the national vote totals. This also occured in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes." (How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote?)

In fact the original principle behind the original electoral college (we're on something like Mark III now) was that the most knowledgeable individuals from each state would select the president. This is not democracy. But then, neither is the system we have today.

Re:Clarification

[brouski]

First election: What law was broken? Second election: Which tally?

Re:Clarification

[droopycom]

> Oh yes, I am well aware that the USA is actually a republic and not a direct democracy.

Hum ? This should probably read:

> Oh yes, I am well aware that the USA is actually a republic BUT not a direct democracy.

Otherwise you seem to imply that a Republic cannot be a direct democracy, which is not true.

Re:Clarification

[aicrules]

Oh, and you're wrong. In the second election Bush received a 51% clear majority of the popular vote. A distinction his predecessor, Bill Clinton, did not have.

Re:Clarification

[Archangel Michael]

"Given that we are currently living under a president who was never elected by the people, I think that's a pretty specious argument"

Funny, Clinton wasn't even close to 50% of the vote and won, yet nobody said he "stole" anything. I doubt that your view of Clinton is diminished by this little reminder. Would you say that Clinton was "never elected by the people"?? I doubt it.

Re:Clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that we are currently living under a president who was never elected by the people, I think that's a pretty specious argument. In other words, drinkypoo, you are saying "I'm an idiot and I don't know anything about election law in the United States of America and since my guy didn't win under that law I'm going to whine about it 7 years later and pretend those laws don't exist."

I think that sums you up pretty well.

Re:Clarification

[deets]

Yeah, I don't remember the "outrage because Clinton never got 50% of the vote. Also, how was Bush not elected the first time? I think I remember they had an election.

Re:Clarification

[WadeTheWise]

What exactly is your argument that Bush was never elected by the people? If you're argument is that he was elected by the electoral college, then no president in the last 200 years has been elected "by the people".

If you have enough sense to move on from that, and look at the popular vote, in both elections that Bush won he did in fact win the popular vote. Granted it was by a very small margin, he still won with the majority (not plurality) of required votes.

Now the real question. Did you vote in the last two elections. If you did, good for you. you can disagree with Bush but get over the fact that your single vote didn't sway the election. If you didn't, then shut up, you gave up your right to complain when you didn't vote.

Re:Clarification

[jnaujok]

You do realize that Bush won the Popular vote in 2004 by three million twelve thousand four hundred ninety-nine (3,012,499) votes, right? I'm not sure what "popular vote tally" you're looking at.

Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 by about five hundred forty thousand (543,811) votes. And if you want to be technical about it, the recount in Florida was not stopped illegally, it was started illegally when Gore's campaign filed a suit to prevent the certification of the election. Had they allowed the election to be certified, Florida state law would have automatically required a state-wide recount of every vote. By preventing the certification and tying the Florida Secretary of State up in court until they reached the deadline for appointing Electors, Gore insured that the State of Florida had no choice but to "illegally halt" the recount. Had they not, then their Electors would not have been selected in time for the meeting of the Electoral College, and the entire state of Florida would have been disenfranchised. (Resulting in a Gore win.) So, if that's the basis for your argument that Bush lost in 2000, you'd be right.

In fact, only in the case where all election law was thrown out and the most liberal (not *that* meaning of "liberal") definition of "vote" was used (the Palm Beach County "Pregnant Chad" rule), and you only recounted the five most democratic counties in the state of Florida, only in that (incredibly invalid and illegal case) does Al Gore squeak out a margin of 22 votes. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/s tories/main.html Heck, had Gore won his home state of Tennesee, the whole thing would have been moot anyway.

In retrospect, Bill Clinton never won the majority of the popular vote. (He won pluralities in both elections.)

Re:Clarification

[coaxial]

Given that we are currently living under a president who was never elected by the people, I think that's a pretty specious argument.

Sadly, he was elected in 2004.

Re:Clarification

[UbuntuDupe]

You do realize that Bush won the Popular vote in 2004 by three million twelve thousand four hundred ninety-nine

You do realize I revel in hunting down those who feel obligated to spell out large numbers, right?

So watch out. You, and your mentor Malcom Gladwell.

Re:Clarification

[UdoKeir]

And if you want to be technical about it, the recount in Florida was not stopped illegally, it was started illegally

Hmm, not according to this.
November 9: Manual recounts are requested by or on behalf of the Gore campaign under 102.166 in Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Volusia counties.

But why let the facts obscure the truthiness of your assertions?

Re:Clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't remember the "outrage because Clinton never got 50% of the vote

The reason Clinton got less than 50% of the vote is that a third-party candidate (Perot) did extremely well. The important distinction is that unlike Bush in 2000, Clinton actually got more votes than anyone else.

Re:Clarification

[khallow]

Several points. The First Amendment only covers infringement by government. Second, the company works in politics. So outside political work or commentary by its employees is both a conflict of interest and easily undermines the company's reputation. It's quite reasonable for them to require this policy. Third, there is no infringement of political speech. The ad is still out there. The author is free to make more like it.

Re:Clarification

[soft_guy]

Funny, Clinton wasn't even close to 50% of the vote and won, yet nobody said he "stole" anything Funny, that's exactly what I heard over and over again from republicans who kept claiming that the 1992 election was "stolen" because most people voted for a "conservative" candidate.

Re:Clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, had Gore won his home state of Tennesee, the whole thing would have been moot anyway.

You know, if you would just concentrate on the debate at hand and avoid these stupid personal attacks, this whole thing would go a lot better. You had a very good point but alas, I lost all respect for you when I got to this line.

The whole American political machine would be so much better if people could separate their arguments from their personal feelings. But no, everybody who supports Bush's policies has to get in jabs at Clinton, and everybody who opposes Bush has to get in jabs about him not winning the election. You can't be content to argue a position, you have to argue a platform, argue a party.

In conclusion, I hate you all. You're what's wrong with this country.

Re:Clarification

[jnaujok]

I just had the urge to write that out, since it's such a large number to simply ignore as the parent poster did. I normally am the first to complain about numbers written out. I must have been in a weird mood.

Re:Clarification

[jnaujok]

Nice try, but that website is not reading all of the law as it should be read:

"Bush's margin of victory in Florida is slim enough to trigger an automatic recount under 102.141(4) of the Florida Election Code"

First of all, 102.141(4) deals with when the ballots should be turned over to the state election board. They meant 102.141(6) which deals with automatic recounts. However, this entire law only applies to County Canvassing Boards, and Gore won Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties by a wide margin, not the less than 1/2 of 1% that is required by that law, so the point here is moot. The ballots had to be transfered to the state level and the recount demanded from there:

"The Elections Canvassing Commission is the board responsible for ordering federal, state, and multicounty recounts."

This can not be done until all counties have submitted their formal vote totals.

The second part (the one you site) clearly states that Al Gore's demand for manual recounts was out of order. He did not wait for two recounts, and further, he is not a member of the board responsible for the results. (Emphasis in below text is mine -- ellipsis remove text relevant to judge retention and ballot measures -- full text available on here.)

"If the second set of unofficial returns pursuant to s. 102.141 indicates that a candidate for any office was defeated or eliminated by one-quarter of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office...the board responsible for certifying the results of the vote on such race...shall order a manual recount of the overvotes and undervotes cast in the entire geographic jurisdiction of such office.... A manual recount may not be ordered, however, if the number of overvotes, undervotes, and provisional ballots is fewer than the number of votes needed to change the outcome of the election."

Again -- when we apply this law at the county level -- in none of Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, or Volusia counties was there enough under, over, or provisional votes to overturn the outcome of the election, as Gore had won all of those counties handily. None of these counties should have recounted. His "request" was, therefore, out-of-order and illegal. He is not even granted the right to make such a request under the law.

However, had we applied this law at the state level -- had the vote counts been passed to the state level -- this statute would have immediately compelled a state-wide ("...in the entire geographic jurisdiction of such office...") recount of all the votes. Gore blocked this by focusing on five counties and preventing them from sending formal counts to the state of Florida Election Canvassing Committee.

Finally, the statute 102.112 sets forth a clear and unmutable deadline for counties to report results to the state. Had the counties reported those results to the Elections Canvassing Commission, it would have triggered an automatic state-wide recount. Gore, Valucia county, and Palm Beach county specifically blocked this, basically by taking the Secretary of State to court and claiming that the law, as written, was illegal. They lose the case.

The Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, under 102.112(3), is specifically instructed to ignore late returns, and she indicates she will comply with the law as written. This is when the FSC steps in and prohibits her from certifying the election. Thus blocking the automatic triggering of the state-wide recount.

At the same time, Gore and the Florida Democratic party sue to ensure that 16,000 plus military ballots are invalidated and 16,000 men and women serving in harm's way are disenfranchised because they didn't get a postmark on their ballot, knowing full well that most APO's do not postmark mail.

Finally the FSC sets November 26th as the new deadline for certification. Palm-Beach county says that they can't b

Re:Clarification

[Archangel Michael]

Funny, That's not what I remember them saying. More like Perot threw the election. Still the point was that today, fascist liberals love to cry over a few hundred thousand vote difference, while simply ignoring what occurred during Clinton's election.

I'm sick of double standards on both sides. oooh, (D) good, (R) bad. Or is it (R) good (D) bad?

My view (R) bad (D) bad. (L) good.

Re:Clarification

[mapkinase]

I think you accidentally omitted part of the sentence: "I've resigned from" should be like "I've resigned, as part of the deal, from".

Re:Clarification

[dacaldar]

That's right. They had an election. Bush did not receive the most votes (neither outright, nor by electoral college). There were many different fraud issues with the counting of the ballots. The first (erroneous) count did indicate that Bush received the most votes by electoral college. Each recount corrected the actual vote count, correctly adjusting it to be less and less in Bush's favour. This process was arbitrarily halted by the Republican-controlled Supreme Court, just before it was "corrected enough" to display the true vote count. They DECLARED Bush the winner. He did not win the election. He won the declaration. He won the second election, I'll give you that - but he never should have been there to run in it, after his loss in 2000.

Fired?

[Aladrin]

I see nothing in that article that says he was fired. I see user comments to that effect, but those aren't cited, either.

I heard on the radio this morning that he quit when he realized he was going to be unmasked. That's quite a bit different than being fired.

Re:Fired?

[VTMarik]

Yeah, he resigned much in the same way that Nixon resigned, before the machine could do it for him and cause a big scandal.

I hate it when people cover for their small-minded employers like that. "I decided to resign so the company I work for won't get a black eye when its shown that its employees have thoughts and feelings of their very own.

Re:Fired?

[UbuntuDupe]

Let me guess -- you didn't see any evidence Dan Rather was fired either, right?

Re:Fired?

[Ogive17]

I read the CNN article earlier this morning and a spokesman for the company said the employee had been terminated.. which to me sounds like being fired. But the guy who did the ad said he resigned. In either case he's out of a job.

Vast, left-wing conspiracy

[winkydink]

As Hilary laughs it off saying it was better than her off key rendition of the Star Spangled Banner I imagine her muttering under her breath, "yeah, and the really funny part is that asshole is out of a job and if I have anything to do with it, will never work again."

Re:Vast, left-wing conspiracy

[ArcherB]

As Hilary laughs it off saying it was better than her off key rendition of the Star Spangled Banner I imagine her muttering under her breath, "yeah, and the really funny part is that asshole is out of a job and if I have anything to do with it, will never work again."

At least she is being a good sport about it, publicly at least. I wonder is she would have felt differently if it were George W. Bush's face up there rather than hers. I wonder if would have resigned or gotten a promotion.

Re:Vast, left-wing conspiracy

[0xdeadbeef]

"yeah, and the really funny part is that asshole is out of a job and if I have anything to do with it, will never work again."

Word on the street is she's already got a hit out on him. 'Cause you know, all Democrats are murderers. Just look what they do to fetuses!

Re:Vast, left-wing conspiracy

[BluedemonX]

Not for nothin, but look at how many people connected with Whitewater ended up dead.

I'm not suggesting the Clintons have hitmen on speed dial, but wasn't there some guy with two or three bullets to the back of the head that was ruled "suicide"?

Re:Vast, left-wing conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

As Hilary laughs it off ...

[Later this year, Hilary hires Philip to work for her campaign. They meet with other campaign advisors at Totino's over a few drinks...]
Philip - You were a riot, you were really funny. Really funny.
Hilary - What do you mean I was funny?
Philp - It's funny, you know. It was a good piece, it's funny, you're a funny gal.[laughs]
Hilary - what do you mean, you mean the way my mouth moved? My blouse? What?
Philip - It's just, you know. You're just funny, it was... funny, the way you talked like Orwell and everything.
Hilary - [it becomes quiet] Funny how? What's funny about it?
Philip - Jus...
Hilary - What?
Philip - Just... ya know... you're funny.
Hilary - You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little juiced up on RedBull and Rum maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to fuckin' amuse you?! What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?!
Philip - Just... you know, how you looked on screen... what?
Hilary - No, no, I don't know, you said it. How do I know? You said I'm funny. How the fuck am I funny, what the fuck is so funny about me? Tell me, tell me what's funny!
Philip - [long pause] Get the fuck out of here, Hilary!
Hilary - [everyone laughs] Ya motherfucker! I almost had ya, I almost had ya. Ya youtube prick ya. Bill, was he shaking? I wonder about you sometimes, Philip. You may fold under questioning. So, you almost finished with that McCain "Mushroom Cloud" commercial?

Re:Vast, left-wing conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, considering W isn't up for election next year, I think it's a safe bet to say a few people would laugh, a few would get all pissy, and it would soon be forgotten.

Re:Vast, left-wing conspiracy

[winkydink]

much nastier to let a broken man suffer than put him out of his misery.

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

He wasn't fired, he resigned.

Re:RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, that's what Hillary said about Vince Foster, too!

cant have that

[mastershake_phd]

a Democratic Internet strategy company that does work for Barack Obama -- has now fired him as a result.

I guess someone who makes national news and reaches millions isnt something you want in your "Internet Strategy".

Re:cant have that

[OldeTimeGeek]

When it appears that your "Internet Strategy"'s opening gambit is a hit piece against your opponent, it may not be a very effective strategy.

Re:cant have that

[mhall119]

I guess someone who makes national news and reaches millions isnt something you want in your "Internet Strategy".

Someone who makes national news and reaches millions with a message you did not approve is exactly what you don't want in any strategy. What if the next ad calls someone "macaca" or "fag"? Campaign messages are very tightly controlled to avoid self damage, you don't want anyone doing anything unpredictable.

In his own words

[techstar25]

You should also check out his letter where he says he resigned from his job. It reads:

I've resigned from my employer, Blue State Digital, an internet company that provides technology to several presidential campaigns, including Richardson's, Vilsack's, and -- full disclosure -- Obama's. The company had no idea that I'd created the ad, and neither did any of our clients. But I've decided to resign anyway so as not to harm them, even by implication.

Pioneering?

[Notquitecajun]

I suspect that we won't see a lot less of this. Outlets like youtube are going to be where some REALLY nasty political ads are going to appear...many "unofficial" and "unrelated" and "not endorsed." Campaign workers are going to go "off the reservation," private lobbies will make their own, and get TONS of viewership in public forums without having to pay a dime to television.

Heck, we're seeing it already on campaign websites and MoveOn has some pretty vitriolic (and usually baseless) stuff.

The lies will get worse, but one of the more interesting things is that it will be a LOT easier to debunk bad ads. Places like factcheck.org have done a REALLY good job at research, and stuff like that is only going to get more prolific as well.

So, in other words, politics ain't going to change all that much.

BTW, Frist P00st.

Re:Pioneering?

[cayenne8]

"I suspect that we won't see a lot less of this. Outlets like youtube are going to be where some REALLY nasty political ads are going to appear...many "unofficial" and "unrelated" and "not endorsed." Campaign workers are going to go "off the reservation," private lobbies will make their own, and get TONS of viewership in public forums without having to pay a dime to television."

Man...I sincerely HOPE so...this is so much cheaper, maybe it will reduce the insane amounts of money political machines have to generate, and hence how beholden to the donors at the end of the race.

Anything to take some of the money out of the politics, I think, would be useful thing.

Re:Pioneering?

[PriceIke]

Factcheck.org has their biases too though. I was a regular reader of their bulletins for years until I started seeing patterns in the kinds of things they choose to "debunk" and how they go about it. You just can't take anything you read for granted. Moral: When anyone claims to be objective or "non-partisan" .. it's a safe bet they're lying. If not to you directly, then to themselves for thinking it's true.

Re:Pioneering?

[Dachannien]

What sorts of patterns are you talking about? I've seen things on their newsletter that I've disagreed with, yes, but they do a pretty good job of analyzing political comments from across the spectrum.

Re:Pioneering?

[iminplaya]

So, in other words, politics ain't going to change all that much.

Maybe so, but having access to mass media without a lot of money is kind of a "new" and a very good thing. Nothing like a little chaos to stir things up.

Re:Pioneering?

[technococcus]

Amen to this. If unpaid ads can capture a significant chunk of the political sway currently garnered by paid ads, we might even (GASP!) see a non-uber wealthy Third Party stand a chance of fielding a viable candidate!

Anything that takes the binary polarity out of politics is a good thing indeed.

Old Strategy

[TheMeuge]

This is a very old, and very nasty strategy:

1. Get somebody to make an offensive attack ad
2. Get it noticed by the press
3. Enjoy seeing your attack ad on the air FOR FREE for a dozen news cycles or more.
4. Offset the blame, since you never "approved" the ad. ...
5. Profit!

Re:Old Strategy

[MindStalker]

Dude,
1. The guy worked at a tech company that assisted in Obamas campaign we well as other campaigns. You'd be surprised by the number of subcontractors in a campaign who don't give a hoot about it, they just have a job of keeping the web server running, or whatever.

2. Did you watch the video? Its not even an attack ad really. It just says that 2008 won't be like 1984. It seems that the choice to use Hillary was fairly inconsequential to the message.

Re:Old Strategy

[fredrated]

Are you paying attention? No one "got" him to make the ad, he did it himself on his own initiative. Oh I know, it was a conspiracy, yep.

The best part of course is "get it noticed by the press" as if there was nothing to it. Anyone that can do that is worth their weight in gold.

Re:Old Strategy

[hal9000(jr)]

Did you watch the video? Its not even an attack ad really. It just says that 2008 won't be like 1984. It seems that the choice to use Hillary was fairly inconsequential to the message.

Dude? The fact Hillary was used is the POINT of the message. If W. was used instead of Hillary, that would have been a very different political message. If Homer Simpson were used, that would just be silly and no one would have cared.

Re:Old Strategy

[That's Unpossible!]

It seems that the choice to use Hillary was fairly inconsequential to the message.

Exactly, just like the choice to target IBM in the original ad was inconsequential.

Oh, wait.

Re:Old Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Chretien_attack_ ad

Re:Old Strategy

[nine-times]

Or it could be a different very old, and very nasty strategy. When faced with an opponent who's supposed to be admired for his integrity and restraint:

1. Collect all the nasty things said about you
2. Find one where the person making the statement is loosely connected to your opponent
3. Play the victim and make a big deal about how nasty the statement was
4. Disclose the connection to your opponent as though they're best friends
5. Act shocked, surprised, indignant
6. Profit!

Unfortunately, when something like this comes out, it can be hard to tell whether it's a result of the strategy you mentioned or the one I did.

Re:Old Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop placing the words FOR and FREE beside each other.

Re:Old Strategy

[MrMarket]

Shouldn't the tag-line say: 2008 won't be like 2004?

Then it would make sense: "Don't elect a loser to run for your party because he/she is the establishment candidate."

Personally, I thought the ad itself was lame. The idea that someone would make such a biting attack add against someone in their own party was the most compelling part of the story to me.

Re:Old Strategy

[MindStalker]

I think the reason it said it won't be like 1984 is simply that the message was "You will have a choice".

This is exactly why I don't see it as an attack against Hillary, more an attack on the idea that Hillary or any one candidate is your only choice.

Re:Old Strategy

[steelfood]

You do realize that he resigned because he thought his outing would, by association, harm his company and Obama's campaign. That and he made it in his free time. While (arguably) negative publicity might be a good thing in some instances, it's usually not for politicians.

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if someone from another presidential hopeful's camp shows up at his front door with a really nice job offer within the next few days. I'm thinking perhaps Edwards, Giuliani, McCain, or even *gasp* Clinton.

Re:Old Strategy

[dan828]

Shouldn't the tag-line say: 2008 won't be like 2004?

Then it would make sense: "Don't elect a loser to run for your party because he/she is the establishment candidate."

How soon we forget history. The Democratic candidate in '84, Walter Mondale, was exactly what you describe-- a guy that got the nomination because he was the long time party hack whose turn it was to run. More so than Kerry was. Mondale managed to lose every state in the union except for his home state of Minnesota and D.C.. Kerry actually had a following, and could have pulled out a win should things have gone only slightly differently. Though I must say, just a slightly more dynamic candidate and the Dems would have easily won.

I think the author of the ad picked what he did for the 1984 reference, and it wasn't just happenstance. Political nerds remember stuff like this long after the general public has long forgotten.

Anyways, point being, the ad is clearly linking Hillary to the Democratic establishment, is aimed directly at her campaign (the careful selection of her "conversation" reference), and is pointing to the disastrous defeat the Democrats suffered in '84 because they ran a candidate whose support was almost all from within the party itself and not the general public. Obama is playing at the "fresh new blood" and "party outsider" angle, and the intent is to juxtapose the two.

Re:Old Strategy

[lucabrasi999]

This is a very old, and very nasty strategy:

I am not sure if it was a formal strategy. I am willing to believe the guy when he said he made the commercial without any formal campaign support.

But, whether or not it was a "formal" strategy isn't what I am surprised in. I am surprised that you act so 'shocked' by the entire episode. This is an ELECTION campaign. You play to win. You go for the throat. Politics is a zero-sum game and Presidential Politics are the biggest game of all. The fact is, 12 months before the first ballot is cast, Clinton and Obama are fighting like cats and dogs. And, I love it!

And, no, I am not a Republican. I am a Democrat. I want my Democrats to be battle-tested and ready for political war when it comes time for the General Election. This kind of action is just the kind of activity you should expect in an election. I want blood in the water now, so the nominee is ready for any assault in the General Election. Remember when Karl Rove had his lackeys in South Carolina basically emasculated John McCain during the 2000 Republican Primary? Remember when the Swift Boat group basically destroyed Kerry's election campaign before the Democratic Convention? These people are running for the most powerful position on Earth. Going back to the formation of the United States, there have been formal AND informal attacks when running for political office. 'Push' polling has been happening ever since the invention of the telephone. Opponents of Grover Cleveland used to spread rumors that he was the son of an unmarried couple (a huge offense in those days). Sometimes, these attacks are organized by a campaign, other times, it is a missile coming from some fringe group.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I can hear everyone talking about how Senator Obama has promised to "change the ways" of Washington. Well, whether or not he had anything to do with the ad, the fact is, unless he gets down in the mud, his campaign won't win.

For the record, I am kind of impressed by Senator Obama, but, I am withholding my support until later -- and, since I live in Pennsylvania, it really doesn't matter who I like as the Primary will be decided when Pennsylvania votes.

Re:Old Strategy

[monkeydo]

Dude,

One of the founders of the company is currently in charge of new media and web for Obama. The company is called "Blue State Digital". They work exclusively for democrat and progressive candidates/causes. They have like 15 employees.

This is not just some random guy at some random media company that just happened to have a contract with Obama. You don't work at such a place if you don't have some very partisan ideals. You would wind up hanging yourself from a ceiling fan.

Re:Old Strategy

[that this is not und]

Was IBM explicitly 'targeted' in the original '1984' Macintosh ad?

Re:Old Strategy

[MindStalker]

Yes, but is that really "attacking" Hillary. I think everyone who is saying this ad is a vicious attack is assuming this ad equates her to big brother or some monster. It doesn't really, it just shows her as the established canidate and that we don't have to accept that. How is that a vicious attack.

Primary Season

[Viper Daimao]

Primaries are always fun, if only because you get to watch each party attack itself for awhile before making their pick and pretending all that never happened.

Re:Primary Season

[powerlord]

And this year we get to have twice as much fun as usual, since I doubt the Republicans are all going to rally behind Sure-Shot Cheney. :)

All the "outrage" is a farce

[netbuzz]

Here's what I make of this whole flap -- not much: Clinton, Obama, the ad's maker (now out of a job), his employer and the press are all just playing their roles ... and the play is a farce. No one's really outraged by that video clip (especially Clinton). And no one really believes it's out of bounds. They're all just reading from the script. ... Of course, that's what high-stakes presidential politics is all about these days. More on this theme on my blog if anyone cares:

http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/1275 7

Re:All the "outrage" is a farce

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean your blog full of sponsored links? How opportunistic of you...and so like what you appear to be decrying ;)

Re:All the "outrage" is a farce

[TubeSteak]

No one's really outraged by that video clip (especially Clinton). And no one really believes it's out of bounds. They're all just reading from the script.

It's entirely possible.
PR flacks on opposite sides of an issue like to coordinate and plan out how they want the public debate of their issue to get played out in the media.

We don't know that's what happened here, but it isn't unusual. When it happens, it's a win-win since the debate stays civil & the issue gets more publicity, over a longer period of time, than it otherwise would.

So they may not have manufactured the situation, but PR guys would have no problem trying to cooperatively milk it for all it is worth.

Some obersvations.....

[8127972]

...About this video (and ones like it) are in an article in yesterday's Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM .20070321.gtpoltube0320/BNStory/Technology/

Three key points from the article:

        * How will Web content outside the control of campaigns affect voters?
        * How should campaigns react to anonymous but highly viewed attacks?
        * When is Web content, no matter how provocative, newsworthy?

Also worth noting. Apple has decided NOT to sue the creator as it would be unlikely that they'd win:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM .20070322.w19840322/BNStory/Technology/

Apple not suing somebody? I'll believe it when I see it.

Re:Some obersvations.....

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apple not suing somebody? I'll believe it when I see it."

What would they gain from a law suit? That guy doesn't even have a job wight now..

Re:Some obersvations.....

[PayPaI]

From that article:

Apple spokesman Steve Dowling declined to comment on the video or whether Apple would take any legal action.

The article speculates that Apple would be unlikely to win, but that last line tells me that there's no official word from Apple either way.

Re:Some obersvations.....

[Anonymous Coward]

That guy doesn't even have a job wight now..

O'WLY? Shh. Be vewy vewy qwiet. I'm job hunting on caweewbuildew.com! ah ha ha ha ha!

their loss

[bigwavejas]

idiots

Political Statements beget Unemployment?

[Aceto3for5]

I don't understand. Isn't there something out there that protects this sort of thing? He wasn't hateful, it was an artistic and political statement. I'm no obama supporter, but the video was very well done. Is obama against free speech?

Re:Political Statements beget Unemployment?

[GigsVT]

He's just mad he wasn't presented as the big brother socialist overlord in the video.

Re:Political Statements beget Unemployment?

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

I don't understand. Isn't there something out there that protects this sort of thing? He wasn't hateful, it was an artistic and political statement. I'm no obama supporter, but the video was very well done. Is obama against free speech?

The First Ammendment protects against going to jail for something you said (for sake of simplicity, I'm skipping the obvious "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" type arguments). It does not guarantee anything else. Employment is not a right guaranteed under the Constitution.

Obama's handlers have to officially play the outrage game because that's just how things are done in politics to avoid pissing off potential voters who are offended by such things. It also gives them grounds to complain if someone who loves Hillary makes a similar video against Obama.

Re:Political Statements beget Unemployment?

[BobMcD]

Two flaws with your assumption:

A) He resigned. Was not fired, but chose this himself, according to his own account of the situation.

B) The First Amendment only applies to the US government and its subsidiaries. It does not apply to anyone else, including private employers.

Re:Political Statements beget Unemployment?

[GrayCalx]

It amazes me that in the 21st century people still can't figure out what the protection of free speech means. According to your theory Ace, I could walk up to my boss and begin describing to him all the filthy things I'd like to do to his wife and he couldn't fire me... "Hey its a free country right?" Come'on man... get with the picture.

Re:Political Statements beget Unemployment?

[Creepy Crawler]

Is it not true that a citizen must petition the government for the creation of a corporate entity? It just so happens that this permission is handed out cheaply now.

In past days (pre 1907) this permission was not handed out freely, but in only public works that benefitted the public. After the public work was made and done, the corporation was dissolved.

In what way is a corporation not an extension of the government? Government IS bound by those rules.

Neither Side Knew That He Made the Video

[ras_b]

From his blog:

The campaigns had no idea who made it--not the Obama campaign, not the Clinton campaign, nor any other campaign. I made the ad on a Sunday afternoon in my apartment using my personal equipment (a Mac and some software), uploaded it to YouTube, and sent links around to blogs.

He will be hired with lightning speed

[unity100]

How many people you know that have successfully made any video over youtube a hit ?

So they found him

[iminplaya]

Let's hope this doesn't stop others from doing the same thing. It's time to show these people who's really in control now.

Viral video

[apathy maybe]

Great way to spread a viral video even more. Post it to /.

The fact that I've never heard of this, until now, probably means I hang out with the wrong people (both off and on line).

Either way, if it does do anything, it is a good example of an individual affecting the political process. Another good example would be Bill Gates giving shit loads of money to a campaign for one candidate or another.

It doesn't mean debate, it just means propaganda.

Re:Viral video

[KDR_11k]

Great way to spread a viral video even more. Post it to /.

Do you think any Slashdotter gives two hoots about preventing the spread of this video?

Mod parent up

[RingDev]

This is one craptastic piece of sensationalism in print.

-Rick

So?

[ilovegeorgebush]

I don't get it. Where's the news? Don't companies have the right to discipline their employees? If they don't like the fact that their employee had views - not any old views, but a deep political ideology that might threaten business (i.e. conflict of interests) - then they have a right to discipline and indeed fire those people. What if we looked at this the other way - the company complaining about him and ultimately firing him because they believed due to his views, he was not a safe employee and possibly had intentions of ruining business due to his views and actions.

Basically, this isn't news.

Re:So?

[PFI_Optix]

It's really not news when you find out that the summary is completely wrong, and he resigned.

When the editors don't bother to RTA, why should we? :D

Re:So?

[ilovegeorgebush]

LMAO indeed :)

I've resigned from my employer, Blue State Digital, an internet company that provides technology to several presidential campaigns, including Richardson's, Vilsack's, and -- full disclosure -- Obama's. The company had no idea that I'd created the ad, and neither did any of our clients. But I've decided to resign anyway so as not to harm them, even by implication.

Come on, it's not as though his Blog post was an essay, there's 8 paragraphs, OH NOES MY EYES!!!

Hillary 1, Humor 0

[Cr0w T. Trollbot]

Of course they had to be fired. Hillary certainly didn't want anything as base as "humor" to puncture the condescending hot air of her "listening tour." Which is what the mock-1984 ad did. Which is why it was a more effective ad than anything the official Obama campaign has put out thus far.

However, by the standards of 21st century political warfare, it was a creampuff. It was funny and didn't take itself too seriously, and was aimed to deflate Hillary, not directly attack her. Compare that to former Edwards campaign staffer Amanda Marcotte calling Catholics "godbags" and talking about how God filled the virgin Mary with "his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit" and it seems like the tiniest of molehills.

About the only person who really has casue to complain about the whole kerfluffle is Steve Jobs...

Crow T. Trollbot

Re:Hillary 1, Humor 0

[rjung2k]

Since he resigned of his own free will (and was not fired), it appears you're now lacking a point...

No problem finding a job

[brett880]

He will have no problem finding a job for a few reasons. He obviously has some talent and creativity, so he will be picked up by someone outside Hilary's camp. Hilary has a lot less power and control than most people would like to think. A presidental candidate pretty much only has one shot at the presidency, after she loses (god willing!), she will have even less influence and power than she does now. I have no problem with a woman president, but not that witch!

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?

[dereference]

Here's what I make of this whole flap [... they] are all just playing their roles ... and the play is a farce.
[...]
More on this theme on my blog if anyone cares I suppose you're just playing your role as well (emphasis added above).

Re:If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?

[asninn]

Check and mate - if I had mod points I'd spend one on you.

Was that an Ipod?

[apathy maybe]

I think it was. Are you sure this video isn't really a viral ad for Apple? Especially the logo at the end looked a little like the Apple logo.

And Apple apparently gives money to the Democrats ...

Something is going on Mister Jones. And I don't know what it is. But something is going to change.

"Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?"

Re:Was that an Ipod?

[MalleusEBHC]

I'm guessing you are unfamiliar with the original ad, but it's a spoof of a famous Mac commercial that aired in 1984. In 2004, at some Apple conference (WWDC?), Jobs showed the ad again, this time with the runner wearing the iPod. (So it was the folks at Apple who made the realistic iPod added on.) The guy who made the Obama/Clinton spoof took a copy of the 2004 updated version, so hence the iPod on the runner.

The logo at the end is a spoof of the old Apple logo, so yes, it should look similar to the Apple logo.

On the one hand...

[Billosaur]

It shows his concern for the political system. OTOH, it shows his political naïveté -- you're not going to get away with smacking Hilary Clinton. This combination of chutzpah and bad judgment is rare in Washington... for good reason.

Barack the Magic Negro

[Anonymous Coward]

David Ehrenstein of the L.A. Times refers to Barack Osama as "the Magic Negro". Today on Rush Limbaugh they played a parody of the tune "Puff the Magic Dragon" by Peter, Paul, and Mary. They changed the words to "Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C. ...". Google it.

Way funnier than "Vote Different".

Apple Legal

[teneighty]

Why isn't Apple's legal department all over this? Much as we love to hate copyright laws on slashdot, I think this is a shining example of the kind of copyright abuse that really should be prosecuted.

That aside, I don't really understand this ad's message. It's a hell of a stretch to compare Hillary Clinton to Big Brother (the current administration, on the other hand...)

Re:Apple Legal

[nuzak]

> I think this is a shining example of the kind of copyright abuse that really should be prosecuted.

Lemme look this up...

Special Pleading: See Apple Inc.

Parody is protected, no thanks to the people who would like to see it prosecuted.
(you may now wipe off your monitor if you read that aloud)

Re:Apple Legal

[king-manic]

It's a pretty obvious "satire" or protected derrivative work. they may not win that lawsuit and in even pressing a lawsuit against the guy, they would seem "partisan" to a lot of their consumers.

Re:Apple Legal

[Jaysyn]

And I'd imagine *political* satire is doubly protected.

Re:Apple Legal

[snarkbot]

Under U.S. law, it is satire, not parody (see next person's post). Satire is not (generally) protected, and therefore this is probably copyright infringement. You can make a fair use argument if you want. It's plausible... but probably unsuccessful in the end.

Re:Apple Legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Not around these parts...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Pantsdown

Re:Apple Legal

[Anonymous Coward]

I think in order to be parody, then the derivative work must parody the original, not merely use the original to stick it to someone else, which would make it satire. Since satire isn't usually as protected as parody, I can only imagine that Apple Legal knows this but has decided it wouldn't be worth their time to get caught in the middle of this. It will probably blow over long before anything could make it to court, and since Steve is a Democrat supporter he probably wants to minimise any negative karma hanging around the Dems.

Huffington?

[FutureDomain]

How did Huffington find out who it was? It was posted on YouTube under a pseudonym. Unless he blabbed it to someone, I don't see how anyone could have figured out who it was.

damn bush administration

[b17bmbr]

oh wait, he didn't have anything to do with this?

Queue the mindless responses!

[Rotten168]

Two party system, proportional representation bad... blah blah blah...

Re:Queue the mindless responses!

[Anonymous Coward]

A two party system that gives it's people fair representation? Please let me know which country has this system because it's definitely NOT the United States.

"The United States has only one party - the property party. It's the party of big corporations, the party of money. It has two right wings; one is Democrat and the other is Republican." - Gore Vidal

Resigned, Fired: Just word games

[Rei]

Yes, he says he resigned.
His employer says says he was fired.

Does it really matter? He was shown the door, one way or another.

Re:Resigned, Fired: Just word games

[Aladrin]

Yeah, it does matter. His quitting was a smart choice, showing he's sorry for pain he caused the company he worked for.

His being fired shows a hard choice made by his employer, possibly unethical. (Off-the-clock, not associated with the company, etc, etc.)

Unless you meant 'does it matter' in the 'long run', and then nothing we do matters. We'll all be dead and gone in less than 100 years, and after a few millennia, the human race may not even exist any more. (Cute, Firefox thinks I spelled 'millennia' wrong.)

Re:Resigned, Fired: Just word games

[zCyl]

His being fired shows a hard choice made by his employer, possibly unethical. (Off-the-clock, not associated with the company, etc, etc.)

It was not a hard choice for his employer at all. According to the news, all employee contracts for that company specifically prohibit off-the-clock political productions of this sort by its employees, precisely because perception is more important than reality in their business. They cannot afford to have the perception that a contractor of one political candidate made X advertisement through under the table money, so they have to prohibit all such connections in the terms of their employee contracts.

Video Covered the Droning Point On...

[BoRegardless]

Humor is what sets up many good points in print or video.

Pointing out the laborious droning on of political speech by a particularly notworthy practitioner in a quirky way has made it memorable.

That is what advertising is ALL about.

He's right.

[jafac]

There is a lot of frustration among Democratic voters right now, about the crappy selection of presidential candidates. We felt like we got railroaded with Dukkakis in '88, and while Clinton was a pleasant surprise in '92, there was a lot of consternation about Lieberman in 2000 (and it should be clear by now, that Lieberman did more harm to Gore's campaign than Nader could ever dream to) - and Kerry in '04.

Democratic voters feel their principles have been betrayed. That their party is beholden to monied special interests (especially the mafIAA). Is it any wonder that a stooge like Bush can win?

I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with Obama as a candidate (his views on Gun Control are pretty wacky - the NRA will slaughter him, even with the weak field of Republican candidates). I'd rather see the Democratic Party take someone like Bill Richardson a lot more seriously. He has a lot more experience, and his views are a lot closer to the mainstream of America. Plus, he *is* a minority; but he doesn't use that status as a political tool, like Clinton and Obama do.

This Obama staffer made a bad move. It was a clear, ethical, conflict of interest, and possibly a violation of campaign finance law. But he made a damn important point. Is anyone at the DNC (and especially, the DLC) listening?

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

I must say that, as a conservative (mind you not a republican), I must agree with you to the point that both Clinton and Obama and damn near unelectable IMHO. Thanks to the Dems for once again putting their best and brightest up front.
 
I have a feeling that I will be laughing all the way to the election booth.

Re:He's right.

[mtgarden]

I'm a republican, but you make a good point. We get stuck on the same script as well. If I could have predicted the future, I wouldn't have voted for Bush, but alas I did. Mostly, I dislike the DHS and the Patriot act (I WANT MY FREEDOM AND PRIVACY). All that said, I am interested in the Democratic campaign for one simple reason: Obama's use of the internet and related technologies. He has showed some intelligence in his approach to the internet and that will earn him points against the Clinton war machine. (And yes, I shudder at the thought of Clinton in the White House. At this point, Obama seems to be the best candidate for the White House for the Democrats. He appears to be the most middle of the road.) My two cents.

Re:He's right.

[Billly Gates]

Republicans are having issues as well since they have gone very far to the right recently and not of their candidates preach to the choir. There is more in common with moderates like Guilini and Bill Clinton then there is with Bush and Guilini.

Re:He's right.

[Mr. Underbridge]

There is a lot of frustration among Democratic voters right now, about the crappy selection of presidential candidates. We felt like we got railroaded with Dukkakis in '88, and while Clinton was a pleasant surprise in '92, there was a lot of consternation about Lieberman in 2000 (and it should be clear by now, that Lieberman did more harm to Gore's campaign than Nader could ever dream to) - and Kerry in '04. Democratic voters feel their principles have been betrayed. That their party is beholden to monied special interests (especially the mafIAA). Is it any wonder that a stooge like Bush can win?

Never understood it myself. I'm independent, no party affiliation. I've watched with dismay in the last 10-15 years as the Republicans have crawled into bed with religious nutjobs. In response, the post-Clinton Democrats, rather than seizing the opportunity and crushing the Reps with a centrist candidate who could establish long-term dominance, have responded by throwing out a series of candidates who are more and more hard-line, shrill, and utterly unappealing to independent voters. They haven't put forth a coherent plan aside from their (rightful) disdain of Bush. They've tossed their support of the first amendment in their push to cozy up to the media companies (MAFIAA) and to be seen as more family values oriented (Gore/Lieberman/Hilary with their anti-violent music/games push). I think the growing tendency of the Democrat leadership toward condescending wanna-be intellectualism and truly venomous campaigning is really turning off a lot of the country, never mind the selling out.

Put another way, in the run-up to the 2004 election Bush was saddled by a 9/11 economy that had not fully recovered, a war we were by that point not winning, and no idea where Osama was. Even a remotely appealing candidate would have destroyed him. Who gets nominated? A condescending stereotypical Massachussets Democrat with a lot of baggage. Of course, he is destroyed in the red states by 20+ point margins and loses enough of the peripheral states (Ohio, Fla) that he loses. This, while Lieberman or Edwards probably would have beaten Bush. Lieberman probably takes Fla, Edwards probably a mix of SC, VA, NC, or OH, possibly others.

To more properly address your points, I'm not comfortable with Obama because he's an inexperienced ideologue, and I find that incredibly scary (I don't even want to ponder the fate of Universal Health Care in this country). Hilary has experience, but I have no idea what she'll do when president because the only thing she seems to stand for is her own self-aggrandizement. I assume it's a two-dog race now, so no point discussing the also rans.

As an independent, *I* feel betrayed, because I'd like one party to have the sense to go more centrist. Don't much care which party.

Regarding Dem presidential candidates, I completely agree with you - the Dems haven't come up with a truly appealing candidate that they actually planned to run since, what, Kennedy? LBJ was an accident, Carter won because he wasn't Nixon/Ford, and the frontrunners like Cuomo bailed in early '92 when Bush I had a 90% approval rating, leaving the surprising win to Bill.

Re:He's right.

[metamatic]

Yup, The Onion was absolutely spot on last week:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/59586/print/

I knew Bush would win as soon as Al Gore was chosen. I knew he'd win again as soon as Kerry was chosen. If Hillary is picked, we'll get another Republican president.

Re:He's right.

[cloudmaster]

What Obama staffer? The guy in the article did something on his own time, and happened to work at a place that had worked for Obama in the past. Are you confusingly talking about someone else, or just confused?

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

(and it should be clear by now, that Lieberman did more harm to Gore's campaign than Nader could ever dream to)

No ... it isn't clear. I think what hurt Gore's campaign the most was his insistence on only minimal campaigning from President Clinton. Gore was afraid of people remembering the scandals that Clinton's administration had been mired in, but when Gore finally allowed Clinton to campaign on his behalf, his numbers improved. Turns out people were less concerned about his philandering than they were about his ability to run a country.

Re:He's right.

[Blakey Rat]

The last candidate who was notable for using the Internet well for his campaign was Howard Dean.

Just putting that out there.

Re:He's right.

[jafac]

- Obama went to a madrasa in Indonesia in his youth. He hid this fact before it was brought to light.

Obama did not hide this fact - because it was never a fact. He went to a private school; one that was NOT a madrasa in any sense of the word.

- Though he claimed to be a Christian now, how come no muslim want his head like they did with the Afghan guy who converted out of Islam?

Because he was never a muslim?

- He claimed to be an Israeli supporter but he said Palestinians are the most oppressed people on Earth (Darfur anyone?)

Support of Israel means turning a blind eye to human rights violations?

One can support Israel, and still care about innocent Palestinians caught in the middle in this conflict.

One can also support Palestinians without supporting the terrorist tactics of a radical minority.

Darfur is a tragedy. But the US is not supplying the Sudanese government with $3 Billion in military aid each year. Now tell me who is more oppressed.

Re:He's right.

[Bluesman]

Amen. If ever there were a chance for a Ross Perot-type candidate to win, it's right now.

I don't know anyone from either party who is pleased with the current crop of candidates, as both parties have run to their respective wacko nutjob base for support.

Obama impressed me in his senate run during his debate with Alan Keyes, and I really like a lot of the stuff Alan Keyes has to say. Obama's gun control stance is a deal breaker for me, though.

Hillary's universal health care history scares the crap out of me. Not to mention she's the most condescending a*&hole on the planet. No way in hell I'd vote for her.

I can't stand Edwards for many of the same reasons, and I find malpractice attorneys of his ilk despicable. Surprisingly, he's probably the least distasteful of all the Democrats.

On the Republican side, McCain is a disaster. He's the guy who means well but creates a much bigger mess than existed before he tried to fix it. Rudy's gun control stance is a deal breaker, and so is Romney's.

The Democrats have a huge opportunity to change their party into a fiscal conservative/socially liberal party that probably 70% of the country would agree with on just about everything, and sweep the 2008 elections. Instead, they run candidates least likely to give the party a new image. (I'm sorry, but, "Obama is young, and BLACK!" isn't a very convincing argument as to why he would be any different from the rest.) The very public Nancy Pelosi isn't helping things, either.

The Republicans could try to do the same thing, but the more libertarian Republican supporters have heard this story before and wouldn't believe it a second time. And their new base of religious fundies would abandon them.

Ah well, looks like we'll continue to get mediocrity.

Re:He's right.

[Creepy Crawler]

And what ruined it was his lack of anger control.

Anybody who wants to play president for 4 years must seem to have a cool head to the public.

Re:He's right.

[Blakey Rat]

Anger control? It was enthusiasm. Personally, I'm a big fan of people who are enthusiastic about their jobs.

To be fair, I'd never have voted for Dean, but I think he got a raw deal from the media about that outburst.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Got an example of Dean acting angrily?

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Democratic voters feel their principles have been betrayed.

Could we finally be realizing that (gasp) the power elite work for themsleves, and not "the people" as they so vehemently claim?

Nah, it couldn't be. Could it?

That sure would throw off the whole rationale for continually expanding government, wouldn't it?

Re:He's right.

[MBraynard]

Don't need one. It's memetic.

But to answer your question, almost every stump speech he ever made in the primary in 2000 would be a good example. His body language and his voice conveyed anger. He's big on pointing his fingers.

I mean, I realize you are a fan and whatnot, but can you tell me he does not LOOK angry here - expecially when that picture gets printed everywhere in the daily paper.

Re:He's right.

[MBraynard]

It was a clear, ethical, conflict of interest, and possibly a violation of campaign finance law.

No, it wasn't a conflict of interest, per say, and not a violation of campaign finance law. If anything it was a confluence of interest, and if somehow it did violate a campaign finance law, it would be the law that is unethical.

However, it did violate the terms of his employment. What is funny is that he did get fired but his work liiiikely benefited the BHO campaign more than anything his firm did and for free.

Not saying the ad won over many voters, but that it energized BHO's own voters, motivated them to donate, and gave them, in their minds, a pretty potent 'cool' factor.

Re:He's right.

[dasunt]

I thought that Evan Bayh would be viable Democratic candidate for '08, due to his more centralist views.

Too bad he dropped out in December of last year.

Re:He's right.

[macshit]

I'm sorry, but, "Obama is young, and BLACK!" isn't a very convincing argument as to why he would be any different from the rest.

It's also not an argument that anybody is using.

People seem to respect, and adore, Obama; I'm not in the U.S., and haven't seen him, but apparently he just has that effect on people. My Illinois relatives describe him as being intelligent, respectful, and straight-forward, which is extremely refreshing in an occupation known more for toothy grins, attack ads, and cynical gaming of the system. To many people Obama seems like a chance to escape the horrid cycle of politics-as-usual.

That's why he's a potential candidate...

Re:He's right.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Support of Israel means turning a blind eye to human rights violations?

"Look everybody, an Anti-Semite!"

(OK, that's out of the way now)

Re:He's right.

[jafac]

Young and black, and "clean, and articulate" - etc. are what's being used as an argument on the nation's talk shows. Like it or not (I sure as hell don't), they're a pretty influential source of opinion in America.

It's not his inexperience that worries me - directly. It's that I'm afraid that makes him MORE vulnerable to special interests. He's got a lot of high-powered consultants holding his hands and guiding him through this process. THAT'S who I'm afraid of. The bait-and-switch here is on; they're framing this candidate as the "escape from politics as usual" candidate. Same exact thing they did for Schwartzenegger in CA. How did that work out? (actually, not bad - but his first two years were a fucking disaster). - Schwartzenegger is finally standing up for what he really believes in. But in the first couple of years, he had to "pay off his barons" - the people who put him in office. The worst offense, of course, was dropping the Enron lawsuit, and putting the bill on a Credit Card. The worst sort of "borrow-n-spend" Republican policy. Now, the taxpayers (and electricity rate-payers, and frankly, anyone who borrows money at the elevated interest rates) have to pay for the price-fixing and market manipulation, with no legal recourse.

Look very carefully at who Obama's getting his money from. And wonder why his position on issues is not well known. The word on Gun Control is being very carefully hidden. Only those who are paying attention know. His opinion on the war is the only thing that's well known.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually he went to a Madrasa.

But there's nothing sinister in that. Madrasa is just the local translation of the word 'school'.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

But there's nothing sinister in that. Madrasa is just the local translation of the word 'school'.

Actually 'school' is usually translated to 'sekolah' in Indonesia. 'Madrasa' would be the Islamic schools. The newspapers in Indonesia actually say that the school Obama went to was a regular school, even including interviews with former teachers and classmates... But maybe they're lying to help one of their own enter the White House?

Was bad

[Jeff Fohl]

Actually, Ridley Scott showed imagination when he made the ad in the first place. This guy just copied and pasted. This was an extremely weak effort, and had nothing of substance to say about Clinton. It was trite, cheap, and weak.

Re:Was bad

[mdozturk]

Didn't Ridley Scott rip off George Orwell? Why is one good and the other bad?

Re:Was bad

[The Dobber]

I don't think the point of the video / ad / statement was to say anything about Clinton. I think it was more about the need to move forward, away from the same old cookie cutter political process. Hillary just happens to represent that process.

Re:Was bad

[Jeff Fohl]

Yes, he did rip off Orwell. Or reference Orwell, depending on your point of view. In my opinion, Scott was clever in using the Orwell reference - since the year that the Mac came out was 1984. And obviously, the visuals that Scott created were very imaginative.

The guy who made the YouTube-hosted video of Clinton just took Scott's work and pasted Clinton's face on it. It was neither clever nor imaginative.

Re:Was bad

[truthsearch]

Yet now you're thinking and talking about it. That means the ad worked.

Re:Was bad

[dgatwood]

Which is, of course, ludicrous. Hillary has been in politics (as opposed to watching from the sidelines) for seven years. Obama? Eleven. Which one represents the old regime again?

Re:Was bad

[Miseph]

As a matter of fact, no, I'd have to say he didn't. Taking a written work and converting it to film DOES take imagination because, obviously enough, there isn't any visual to use ahead of time. If Ridley Scott had made a full length feature of "1984" instead of just an ad for Macintosh, it STILL wouldn't have been ripping off Orwell, it would just be a film adaptation... and one would hope a damned good one.

The simple truth is that the vast majority of movies are adaptations from books, and even the ones that aren't are only very rarely written by the director. Figure that 9/10 of everything that is written is inspired by or based on something else, and it's incredible how little of what we consider to be groundbreaking is completely "new".

The difference with this version is that it doesn't give us any new visual, it isn't a synthesis of any sort, just a quick edit. We've already seen the ad, and there's nothing new; even the message is virtually identical, the sole exception being the target of the ad which, to some extent, actually IS trivial. The creativity required begins and ends with having the idea to change the face from the creepy guy to Hilary, which, while I didn't think of it, still isn't nearly so creative as what went into the original.

Re:Was bad

[Anonymous Coward]

So we can look forward to yet another year of everyone saying they don't represent the status quo? I'm so sick of hearing that.

Re:Was bad

[Dan Ost]

Hillary was never "watching from the sidelines".
She's as "old regime" as her husband is.

Re:Was bad

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Lewis Lessig (a god to most slashdotters) would disagree.
He'd say that this ad is a direct result of the "mix" culture, where you take previous work and alter it or mix it with others to make a new creation.

Re:Was bad

[Jeff Fohl]

First of all - it's Lawrence Lessig.

Secondly, this particular branch of the thread is a discussion of the creative merit of the piece, not whether or not this is an example of "mix culture". Just because someone took two existing pieces of video and smashed them together does not mean it has any sort of cultural value.

Re:Was bad

[The Dobber]

Just cause Piano Legs wasn't running for office doesn't mean she wasn't involved.

Remember the Health Care debacle?

Didn't Bill tell us by electing him we were getting a two for one deal?

Re:Was bad

[fireylord]

The ipod was a nice touch though :o)

Re:Was bad

[cduffy]

That's a remarkably bad way to make the determination; looking at their actual positions would be much better. Being new doesn't mean being different any more than having been in the field for a while implies playing the game the same way everyone else does -- and Hillary is by no accounts a political neophyte.

Obama clearly appears (to anyone half watching) to vote heavily on his principals and be willing to speak his mind. Hillary clearly appears (to anyone half watching) to get onto whichever bandwagon is most likely to get her the most votes in short order.

Witness Obama's early opposition to the Iraq war, and the precise words with which he framed the reasoning and position associated with that opposition; witness Hillary's position on Iraq changing with the wind. Witness Obama's unqualified opposition to a ban on flag burning; witness Hillary's support for such a ban (though not as a Constitutional amendment, and neutered nearly to the point of unenforcability -- in short, as a sop to those who supported such a ban).

More importantly (from my perspective), witness Obama's attempts at bridge-building. The nuanced, thoughtful positions he takes on hot-button issues which are otherwise used to divide promises the potential to reduce the demonization and fear between the Right and the Left. Before you continue to badmouth Obama, take a look at his views -- his 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention for a taste and The Audacity of Hope for a fuller appreciation of how he really does represent something other than politics as usual.

 
Even if this massive chasm in terms of the candidates' suitability did not exist, however, there would still be the compelling argument that the Democratic party should choose a candidate able to win in the general election. Hillary is hated and feared by the Right, rightly or not; Obama speaks to them using their own vocabulary -- describing principals generally in line with the Democratic Party's positions, but in terms familiar to those who consider morality grounded in faith -- and avoids characterizing those with whom he disagrees as ideologues who put their personal faith before their neighbors' wellbeing.

Re:Was bad

[lawpoop]

Didn't Ridley Scott simply create a trite, cheap, and weak rip-off of George Orwell's 1984? Orwell wrote what became a classic novel about fascism and society in the 20th century, and Scott made a commercial for a corporation. Scott plucked almost every element straight out of the novel.

Re:Was bad

[doom]

Witness Obama's early opposition to the Iraq war, and the precise words with which he framed the reasoning and position associated with that opposition; witness Hillary's position on Iraq changing with the wind.

Ah, but she's very steadfast in her determination to blow with the wind in just the same way she always has.

My personal favorite Hillaryism is "Israel has the right to defend itself", on the occasion of their most recent attempt to bomb Lebanon back to the stone age, because they figured there were some terrorists in there somewhere.

(My sole gripe about Obama at this point is that he's been backing off from making any sympathetic remarks about Palestianians.)

Freedom of speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Did he use company resources or time to produce the video? If he did not, and used his free time to do this, then it sounds like a free speech violation to me.

Re:Freedom of speech

[Billly Gates]

Your free only from government prosecution. Having a job is not an inalienable right and the employer has a right to fire him because he could hurt the business if Obama drops his contract with the company.

It sucks but thats how it goes. Yes you can run around office screaming the star spangled banner like a maniac and have security escourt you out and its your right to do so and lose your job of course. It only means the government can not prosecute you for doing so.

Where is the typical /. outcry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine what a difference a couple words would have made:

The company he worked for, Bl^H^HRed State Digital -- a Dem^H^H^HRepublican Internet strategy company... then the article would have been something like,

"Unnamed sources exposed Bush as being behind propoganda lie for political reasons, claims "First Amendment" (meaning Patriot Act in dubya-speak) gives authority to release anti-terrorist video anyway in time of war. Democrats to issue supeanas against the entire US population in all red states until they expose every right-wing youtubers as the unintelligent racists we know they are. In related news, big oil and tobacco companies suspected of making money on the day this video was released, causes temperatures to rise an alarming 10 degrees between 8 am and noon."

Quit vs Fired

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked a retail job in my youth. I was fed up with it and decided one day that I was going to quit. I had somethings going on that weekend and just didn't bother going in to work. On Monday I went to the store to turn in my uniform. Upon arriving, the manager came out and said "You're Fired!"

In his mind I was fired for not showing up to work. In my mind I had quit two days earlier. Who was right?

The new volunteerism

[dsdtzero]

His losing his job is just following the proper form.
*Obama distancing himself from company.
*Company distancing itself from employee.

What is slightly disturbing is that this form is required.
No one has anything to be ashamed of. Obama should say,
"I had nothing directly to do with this. I am glad, however, that
I have inspired people to do such creative work. I will continue to
do what I am doing so one day, when I am president, I can inspire
such creativity in more americans"
Hillary should say "Hey, this thing struck a chord. Maybe I am doing something
wrong"

My hope is that similarly creative works continue after the democratic primaries.

A perversion of a great advertisement

[Flailmonkey]

I don't see how this is anything but a perversion of the excellent "1984".

A change to the voice over, and switching some faces? The parallel attempted to be drawn between Hilary Clinton and the authoritarian figure of the original advert is weak, gaining strength only from trying to force you to "see" a connection.

The following implication that Barack Obama is somehow fighting for free thought, as the sledgehammer-throwing-runner symbolizes in the original, is fairly ridiculous, and just reinforces my overall impression:

A weak showing, and a weaker story

Translations of previous two posts:

[Loundry]

"I support Hillary Clinton."
    -- TheMeuge (645043)

"I support Barack Obama."
    -- MindStalker (22827)

Re:Translations of previous two posts:

[MindStalker]

HAHAH Love it!

I really haven't formed an opinion on Obama but I do know some people who work on campaign tech. They don't care, its just a job..

Re:Translations of previous two posts:

[TheMeuge]

It seems that having a 4-digit UID does nothing for one's ability to reason.

Why in the world would I possibly support either of these political whores? They're totally unpredictable in who they're going to sell out to next.

Re:Translations of previous two posts:

[M. Baranczak]

That's not quite true. Hillary has a longer track record. This makes it much easier to predict who she'll out to, and for how much.

(Of course, both of them would be preferable to the guy we have now, but that's setting the bar pretty low.)

Re:Translations of previous two posts:

[bythescruff]

"I believe the puppet on the left shares my beliefs."

"I believe the puppet on the right is more to my liking."

"Oh wait a second," - pull back to reveal - "it's one guy, controlling both puppets!"

-- Bill Hicks

This is really lame...

[TheDarkener]

1) I don't see any connection.
2) It's a rip off of an old, dumb commercial.
3) All politicians are douche bags.

That is all.

Rant

[fistfullast33l]

Sorry, I know you're the messenger, but you make this point and I have to go off on it:

Campaign messages are very tightly controlled to avoid self damage, you don't want anyone doing anything unpredictable.

That is completely what's wrong with political campaigns in America today - too many people controlling the message and the candidates just saying exactly what their talking points tell them to say. The presidential debate in 2004 was disgusting and disgraceful in my opinion. The candidates weren't even allowed to say each other's name for fear of their heads exploding. If there's anything wrong with our political process in America today, outside of the gross undermining of our constitution by all parties involved, it's that elections have turned into a puppet show with the strings being controlled by those in power and their grossly overpaid consultants.

Slashdot? Biased? Naaaaaaah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, he was slamming democrats. If he was slamming republicans, THEN that would be censorship, appearing in censorship category with a scary gagged face next to the article.

Outed as a Lying Jerk

[Doc Ruby]

De Vellis was fired because he made a video attacking Clinton, fraudulently crediting it to the Obama campaign, while the Obama campaign was an actual (if tangential) customer where he actually works.

If he had not signed it "Obama", he might not have been fired. If his boss hadn't had Obama as a client, he might not have gotten fired.

This guy is a jerk. He's got the right to publish whatever video he comes up with, except when he lies in it. He has no right to frame Obama with that attack ad. And his boss has the right to fire a guy who pisses off the clients.

Re:Outed as a Lying Jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

"And his boss has the right to fire a guy who pisses off the clients."

Then surely this is also the right of someone who _performs a similar service (i.e. IT infrastructure)_ for the Republican party or the Bush administration?

Or is this simply a 'natural law' that is for the benefit of the audience and rhetorical convenience coached in generalised evenhanded axiomatic terms, but in reality is only being applied in this specific case to justify a specific goal?

Re:Outed as a Lying Jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's hear it for Doc Ruby.

Doc Ruby: perpetually on the WRONG side of EVERYTHING.

Biggest. Idiot. Ever.

Re:Outed as a Lying Jerk

[Doc Ruby]

OK, I'm on the wrong side of people who retain employees who fraudulently frame clients with attacks they didn't make.
Or I'm against the people who do that kind of fraud, that scares the clients.

Or maybe I'm just against the Anonymous idiot Cowards who think they're everything, but are really just the wrong side.

I'll take it.

Re:Outed as a Lying Jerk

[Doc Ruby]

What the hell are you talking about, Anonymous babbler Coward?

When a Republican runs a "false flag" operation like this to frame their clients and attack political opponents of course they should be fired. It should happen a lot more often, but it typically happens under orders by their Republican bosses, not in secret or on their own time. So they get a raise, or promotion up the "dirty tricks" ladder.

Only an anonymous Republican like you would project their partisan preference fears onto me for no reason. Damn, you can't even get "couched in generalized evenhanded axiomatic terms" right, you're struggling so hard not to say "but Republicans should be able to do this". You people are pathetic.

Re:Outed as a Lying Jerk

[Raenex]

fraudulently crediting it to the Obama campaign Where was it credited to the Obama campaign? I saw the video, and at the end it was clearly pro Obama, but did it say "created by the blah blah Obama campaign"? It could have been created by any pro Obama person.

What evidence do you have that he was trying to frame Obama, instead of just being an over-zealous supporter? For that matter, for all you know the Obama campaign could have knowingly approved this, and this guy is just willingly taking the fall.

Re:Outed as a Lying Jerk

[cain]

De Vellis was fired because he made a video attacking Clinton, fraudulently crediting it to the Obama campaign, while the Obama campaign was an actual (if tangential) customer where he actually works.

He was not fired.

It did not pretend to be from the offical Obama campaign.

0 for 2. Wanna try again?

Re:Outed as a Lying Jerk

[Doc Ruby]

He was fired, though he claimed he quit, as it says in the WP article linked from the story summary.

He framed the video as coming from Obama: the woman running to smash the screen has the Obama logo on her shirt. That was what caused people to believe it came from Obama, as it also says in the articles linked from the story summary.

Now you are 0 for 2. You don't even RTFA. Don't bother trying again.

Re:Outed as a Lying Jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your kind words, ranting moronic partisan Doc Ruby. I especially appreciate how you avoid answering the question by attacking the questioner, including speculating about the questioner's motives and with a derogatory reference to anonymity.

You posited the natural law, the axiom, the principle, the categorial imperative that someone who posts a (non-factual I assume) offending attack against the clients of their own company can and should rightfully be sacked. This is not something you can deny, it is something everyone can read.

I question whether this is something you would apply in every instance. You see, I have observed the tendency for people to publicly make appeals to the categorical imperative, when what they actually want is a very noncategorical single case decision. Why do people go through the phrasing of principles in terms of categorical imperatives when what they are really doing is justifying a single specialised case only? I don't know. It may be that it's more socially acceptable, and/or carries greater weight in discussions. I wanted to highlight this fact, and felt I did, by asking you whether your categorical imperative should be applied in every case, even when it would hurt someone you would seem to agree with.

You, of course, did not reply. This is not surprising to me, given my assumptions about selective use of categorical imperatives as justifications.

For your information I am not a US citizen, have been in the US only once, work for a relatively small nonmultinational company and do not have a Slashdot account. Am I allowed to speculate about what underlying motivations and psychological landscape that could have motivated you to reply the way you did now?

Re:Outed as a Lying Jerk

[Doc Ruby]

It was so pro-Obama, including his logo on the "star's" shirt, that the reasonable impression that everyone had was that it came from Obama.

That's the entire point of a "false flag" operation. A good one has builtin "plausible deniability". In this case, there's no evidence to believe that Obama's campaign was involved in any way.

By being an overzealous "supporter", he thereby framed Obama. And thereby caused Obama damage.

Re:Outed as a Lying Jerk

[Doc Ruby]

Oh yeah, it's pretty simple. I hate loudmouth jerks who launch anonymous attacks. And that's a general rule, if not a "categorical imperative". Don't try to play with Kant when we're not talking about epistemology.

Despite your poindexter pretense, that's not a "natural law", even if it's generally true.

I did indeed respond to your question, pointing out that of course my general statement is a general statement. I'm not going to further dignify your bruiting about terms like "natural law" you evidently don't even understand. And if you don't understand how being obnoxious and supercilious while anonymous, you can't blame that on being a foreigner. Nobody likes someone like that.

A general rule that probably is a natural law, too.

Re:Outed as a Lying Jerk

[cain]

He framed the video as coming from Obama: the woman running to smash the screen has the Obama logo on her shirt. That was what caused people to believe it came from Obama, as it also says in the articles linked from the story summary.

If they are "offical", polictical ads are required by law to identify who paid for them. The video does not have that. Simply ending it with a web site address is not even close to looking like an offical ad. There would need to be "I'm politican Joe Q. Public and I apprive this message".

I'm willing to call the fired/quit as a toss up. It is, as you say, a "he said/she said" arugment which does not have enough data to prove either way.

So it's 1 to 1. But only 'cause I'm in a good mood.

Re:Outed as a Lying Jerk

[Doc Ruby]

No one said it was an "official" ad, just that it looked like it came from Obama's campaign. Just look at some of the press, like the WP blog linked from this article's summary. Even though it's the Washington Post, an "official" news org, and they found out that the culprit didn't work for Obama, was fired by his boss who had only an unrelated Obama connection, and Obama's campaign consistently denied any connection - no evidence there was a connection - the WP writer insisted in conclusion that it was still possibly Obama.

In other words, De Vellis' stunt worked, including backlash on Obama.

And even if he quit, it's only to preempt being fired. The difference isn't even academic.

I don't really care about the score. And I'm in a good mood. Because I like seeing anonymous attacks discredited early in the game, but still possible. It evolves the public, especially our suspicion of the "official" news media as automatically correct, or even responsible. And gets us closer to some way to make even "little guys" accountable for public communications, like we used to do with traditional libel.

Re:Outed as a Lying Jerk

[Raenex]

I don't think it's reasonable to assume the ad came from Obama. As YouTube shows, anybody can make a pro-anything video.

You talk about plausibility deniability. That cuts so many ways. You could argue that this guy was a Republican (seems unlikely, given who he worked for and his history). You could argue he was pro-Clinton (seems unlikely, as this attack hurts her image too much). Or you could argue that it was Obama, given all the connections. If anything, the last seems the most likely from a "plausible deniability" angle. It's also possible he just did this on his own.

So, what *evidence* do you have that he was out to frame Obama? Pointing to generic Wikipedia articles on dirty tricks doesn't count as evidence.

yeah, right, they're calling him 24/7 to rehire

[swschrad]

dude, hear the door knocks? they're not blue digital. they're pounce reporters looking for a hot quote to spike somebody else in the back with.

"not hurt their efforts?" you just chainsawed their credibility with potential clients.

would I hire that outfit to support my campaign for Benevolent Dictator? nah, not if some janitor or evelope stuffer changed all my literature to read "dick" instead of "benevolent dictator."

after all, it already happened once, right?

ever hear of a thing called ETHICS?

no, didn't think so.

nice video, though. play it over and over for satisfaction while they evict you for nonpayment of rent.

Subtly effective

[alienmole]

Maybe I'm clueless, but I just don't see what the "effective point" of that ad was. It looks like just a cheap attempt to say, "Hillary bad". And indeed she is. But you could replace the video of her in the ad with Bush, or Cheney, or Obama, or the challenger in the dog-catcher primary for Hicksville County, Alabama. What actual negative information does it convey about Hillary Clinton other than "She, like the rest of the human race, kinda looks scary (but actually mostly boring) when edited into that cool Mac ad." ?

That was my initial reaction, too. But talking to other people, it seems that the what the ad has done is to help crystallize a set of concerns that many people have about Hilary in particular. You couldn't put just anybody in that ad if those feelings didn't already exist amongst the target audience. In that sense, the ad could be very effective, because it provides provocation and a concrete focus for discussion of what might otherwise be some fairly vague feelings.

Mis-Clarification is more like it...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've resigned from my employer, Blue State Digital, an internet company that provides technology to several presidential campaigns, including Richardson's, Vilsack's, and -- full disclosure -- Obama's. The company had no idea that I'd created the ad, and neither did any of our clients. But I've decided to resign anyway so as not to harm them, even by implication. Read: I am covering my ass and that of my employers by making it appear as though I am 'resigning'.

Really when will we stop believing this crap. If it was a personal opinion piece why put barrak obama site-link at the end while not crediting anyone else?

This is what one man can effect with goof-off time at work while he has access to their resources.

iBama

[Anonymous Coward]

She is most definitely wearing a (5G?) iPod, and the guy even did some physics to get the headphone cord twisting in the breeze. That's the most impressive detail, IMO. Shows it wasn't a slapdash Fark-job.

But I'm usually distracted by the running. (Could also use the word "slapdash" there... ahem.)

Re:iBama

[Blakey Rat]

Apple did that a couple years ago. This guy just used the new version with the iPod and not the original from 1984. (A bad choice, IMO, the iPod distracts from the message of the ad and destroys any possible immersion in it. Of course, Apple did it just as a kind of joke during one of their conferences.)

Yes, stand up for something...

[vinn01]

Yes, stand up for something...

The tallest blade of grass is the first to get cut.

Re:Yes, stand up for something...

[Stanistani]

Yeah, ancient folk wisdom.

Instead of my post I almost wrote "The nail that sticks up is the one that gets hammered down."

digg censoring

[Intangion]

they had this same story on digg a couple hours ago
on the frontpage no less
but they DELETED IT!!
its not just off the frontpage, its gone, i commented on it, and its gone.. not in my history..

this is like the 10 something threads now in the last month that have been deleted that i posted on

wtf man digg is full of crap, i like how it lets you leave your opinion, and boost things, but i hate how it is so damn censored, if its all about peoples input, why do they censor/delete/moderate so much FUCK them...

NO, he showed the opposite !

[Qwavel]

"I wanted to show that an individual citizen can affect the process."

No question that he had a big impact with this video, but the average voter is 100% incapable of producing a video like this, and even if they could they are too busy with their own job and kids to do so.

What this reinforces is that those with the time, skill, and (usually) the money to produce entertaining spots will have a big influence.

For me, this reinforces the impression that the 'average' voter will continue to spend less time doing their own research and thinking, and more time absorbing the influence of those who produce the commercials, sock puppets, and blogs written by people who are quietly being paid for their work.

(The evidence of this is growing rapidly here in Canada too. One of our two national papers was setup with an explicitly political purpose by the fellow on trial in Chicago at the moment.)

1st shots

[BCW2]

This is just one of the first shots in what will be the dirtiest campaign in history. This is going to make all the comments on /. about Bush seem like hugs and kisses, and that's just the Democrats beating each other up! The Republicans will probably end up eating their own too. When we get to the final 2 standing the public will be so sick of the whole thing that I expect the lowest voter turnout in history. It would be great if a couple of truly knowlegeable and likeable candidates showed up but I won't hold my breath.

I remember the questions about when a Vice President moves up due to the senility/mental competence of the President during Reagans second term. After seeing how the press and other candidates treat everyone running, I question the sanity of anyone who want's the damn job! Colin Powell might be the smartest man of our times. He refused to put himself or his family through this asinine process, that's character!

Re:1st shots

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just one of the first shots in what will be the dirtiest campaign in history.

Wait a second here. Never before in the history of organized coercion has a government been as hugely powerful or expensive as the US government. In the minds of the power elite -- especially the career politician -- that's called success. Now more than ever, we ought to realize that the power elite work for themselves, not you and me. (Can you come up with another reason why the US government of today *dwarfs* the US government of only 100 years ago, measured both in revenue per population and power over the people?)

Would you honestly expect anything other than the dirtiest campaign in history? Playing dirty -- meaning employing coercion as one's means rather than voluntary association -- is their business.

Re:1st shots

[Jon Abbott]

I completely agree. Why on earth did the primaries get moved ahead this time around? The media is beating the '08 campaign to death before it has really even started. We are over a year and a half away and yet all the news outlets are spouting off daily rhetoric about the candidates. Is there nothing else important to talk about besides this? By voting day, there will be so much negativity and poor sentiment towards candidates that nobody is going to want to vote.

I really like Michael Badnarik's quote, "We selected Miss America from 50 people, why don't we [select] the president from this many? Isn't the United States all about making choices?"

Re:1st shots

[BCW2]

Who said that anyone in DC has worked for "us" in the last 50 years? The truth is, if you make less than $150,000 per year, you have NO representation in Washington. Those clowns work for the tax bracket they are in and the higher one they aspire to. It's really sad when the most effective and best working law passed in the last 35 years is the "Do Not Call" list! How many other specific laws does anyone remember (after civil rights in the 60's)? Party affiliation doesn't matter they all think the Federal Government is a jobs program. The bloat is at the mid level b-crats who don't actually do anything or have the power to do more than shuffle paper.

ipod?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol why was she wearing an ipod?

NO Imagination Shown - Mash Up Hit Piece

[gadlaw]

Give me a break. The imagination was originally by George Orwell and then the Ad agency that took the George Orwell idea and did the original commercial for Apple Computers. This clown started off the hit piece commercial crap early by changing the already completed and good commercial with two inserts - of Hillary Clinton speaking and of the Obama campaign sign on the girls shirt. Guy is a creep of the first order and rightfully lost his job. Hopefully he doesn't get another job which puts him in a position of trust anytime soon.

Just wait until the REAL truth comes out...

[raehl]

He was paid to create the ad.... .... by Karl Rove.

Think about it - Hillary looks bad, AND Obama looks bad! This has to be the work of Republicans.

Or maybe it was Edwards.

Re:Just wait until the REAL truth comes out...

[kartan]

Or maybe it was Edwards. That Faggot.

There's more to this than "standing up"

[Pommpie]

Everybody mumbling about how this guy was fired for having his opinions should bear in mind that, as his company is doing strategy for a Clinton competitor for the Democratic presidential nomination, the sight of a guy making viral videos ragging on her could hint at a pretty big conflict of interest and serious public relations trouble. While it's sad that a guy lost his job for this, it's understandable.

I dont believe any of this

[night_flyer]

Im sure they knew, and just as the story started to die they stir the pot again by "finding" ther perp. meanwhile Obama keeps his hands "clean".

FIX THE TITLE

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't lose his job because of the video. HE RESIGNED. Don't mislead people coming in who don't scroll down and read everything.

With an IPod?

[Krater76]

Did Apple remake the commercial with an IPod because if you watch the Ms. Thor is wearing one when she throws the hammer.

So did he use the original old commercial (and add the IPod himself) or a newer, updated commercial?

Foolish

[Orig_Club_Soda]

If this is cause for firing someone, I'd like to see everyone who says much worse about Bush fired. Oops that would include both Hilary and Obama!

Sincerely curious?

[writermike]

Where is Apple with their YouTube/DMCA/Copyright/Patent$/etc takedown notice?

Seriously.

m

What I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

... is why anyone would hate on good old George and the P-Funk?

Huffington is a Cunt

[Anonymous Coward]

And so is her blog.

As a proud non-American I say proudly say

[Anonymous Coward]

a) That video sucked balled, DDDD----- Would not view again.
b) What's an Obama?

fascists

[KKlaus]

That word had alreadylost all meaning 60 years ago. Go google for an essay by none other than George Orwell himself complaining about it.

baseless?

[alizard]

Only if one gets all one's news from the GOP propaganda channel that calls itself FoxNews.

are you a Mac fanboy or a Hillary fanboy?

[alizard]

Political parodies are protected speech, Apple Legal already said they aren't suing because they think they'd lose. You asserting publically that you know more about copyright law than Apple?

As for why they simply didn't go for a preemptive / baseless DMCA takedown, my assumption is that they knew that this would be the best way to make sure everyone got to see it.

I'm oppressed :(

[Loundry]

It seems that having a 4-digit UID does nothing for one's ability to reason. Why in the world would I possibly support either of these political whores?

I get a lot of hate for having a 4-digit UID. I'm not being gay-bashed nearly enough on Slashdot (damn you liberals!), so I'm going to have to create a new group of oppressed minorites for those of us poor souls who carry the immesurable burden of having 4-digit UIDs. (Here's where the 3-digit UID user is supposed to stand up and indignantly state that his burden is so much greater than mine.)

In any case, since when did supporting a political candidate have anything, anything at all, to do with reasoning? Political operatives now muse openly about the "likability" of candidates, openly eschewing all discussions about positions. There's a lot of both love and hatred for W, but is any of that based on reasoning as well? It's pure, gut emotions. The thinking mind is hard to find around election time, and that societal illness is going to get worse, not better.

So, why would you support either of them? Because they would make you *feel* good. I'm sorry, did I impugn you with not thinking? Of course I did. Forgive me if I did so and it was not warranted. You may very well be one of the very, very few people who has a list of values that he would like to see upheld and can express them in terms of political positions that a politician can support. (Please don't denigrate "whores" by likening them to politicians, it's rude.)

They're totally unpredictable in who they're going to sell out to next.

It's not unpredictable at all. They'll sell out to whomever or whatever can deliver or maintain (legitimately or otherwise) the most votes. Furthermore, our two-party system in the USA makes it pretty simple in most cases. It's not like Obama and Hillary are both grappling in deep consternation over the issue of pandering to either the NRA or the NEA.

Re:I'm oppressed :(

[Jon Abbott]

(Here's where the 3-digit UID user is supposed to stand up and indignantly state that his burden is so much greater than mine.) My burden is so much greater than yours. Was that convincing enough? :^)

Re:I'm oppressed :(

[MindStalker]

Hey what about us 6 digiters. We are like the bastard second child. Get none of the appreciation but can't say.. Duhhhh.. I'm new here sorry..

Re:I'm oppressed :(

[Loundry]

You 6-digiters are just common. But at least you're not as bad as the 7-digiters. I'm so glad I'm not one of those 5-digiters. But the 3-digiters are so cool and smart.

Re:I'm oppressed :(

[MindStalker]

Stops...... WTF did I just say.... Counts his digits.. yep....

*hangs head in shame* // I don't know WHAT I was on when I posted that.. honestly.

Does not look that embarrassing to me

[Lonewolf666]

US campaigns have seen MUCH lower and dirtier rethorics than this little film.
With a bit of luck, the author will get enough publicity from it to find another job elsewhere.

Or not.

[2short]

This hasn't exactly been a good thing for Obama. He's trying to portray himself (fairly or unfairly) as the guy who isn't going to get involved in mudslinging. This story has hurt him as much, if not more than, it has hurt Hillary. So who does it help? That's right, the rest of the Democratic primary candidates. At least two of whom are also clients of Blue State digital. Shouldn't we be pointing fingers at Bill Richardson?

Or we could drop worrying about who said what, or who did or didn'thave aproved their saying it, and concentrate on something else. Like, I don't know, what the candidates positions on issues are? Is the only thing we're ever going to ask Barak Obama about is whether he aproves of what nasty thing someone else said about Hilary? Who cares?

Cuomo (played by Phil Hartman): "I have mob ties!"

[Anonymous Coward]

"the frontrunners like Cuomo bailed in early '92 when Bush I had a 90% approval rating, leaving the surprising win to Bill."

Sometimes Saturday Night Live does a great job of showing (by exaggeration) the political climate of the time. Case in point: "Campaign '92: The Race To Avoid Being The Guy Who Loses To Bush":

---

Sen. Bill Bradley (Kevin Nealon): What about me? If Lloyd wants to talk about lack of substance, I say what about me? I'm an ex-jock. End of story. The fact is, Lloyd is one of the finest minds in the Senate! In fact, he reminds many of us of another great democrat - John F. Kennedy.

Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (Kiefer Sutherland): Sen Bradley, I knew Jack Kennedy.. I worked with Jack Kennedy.. I am no Jack Kennedy.

Sen. Bill Bradley: Senator, that was uncalled for.

...

Gov. Mario Cuomo (Phil Hartman): Sen. Bentsen, I resent the suggestion that you are somehow more the candidate of Willie Horton than anyone else here! The fact is, as governor of New York, I have pardoned criminals far worse than Willie Horton! Including key figures in organized crime, who happen top be close friends of mine! Yes! I'm talking about the mob!

...

[closing statements]

Moderator: And now, Sen. Bentsen.

Sen. Lloyd Bentsen: I'm old.. and I'm only gonna be getting older. Older and more confused. Hell, I can't tell you all the names of the people that are standing right here. One thing I can tell you, is that George Bush would beat the living bejebus out of me. He's done it before, just ask a couple friends of mine - Michael Dukakis and Willie Horton.

Moderator: And, finally, Gov. Cuomo.

Gov. Mario Cuomo: Thank you, Fay. Tonight, we've heard a lot about images of perception, about what poll shows what candidate losing by the least to whom at any given time.. Now, I could stand here and talk about the inaccuracy of polling, or the subjective nature of the process - but that's not the real issue here! The real issue is simple - I.. have.. mob ties!

Here's the beef

[EmbeddedJanitor]

In theory there is freedom of speech etc. In practice there isn't because the companies are too scared of losing their connections within the White House etc. If their employees step out of line, they jump on them to keep their relationships with the government (or those likely to get into government intact). Pretty much the same happened to Robert Scheer.

In the press, time to market and access to stories is everything. If your paper/TV station steps out of line, then the WH staffers return your calls, but just a bit later: lost scoop. Got journalists in Iraq? Step out of line and your crew gdon't get indented with the front line soldiers with nice TV footage to send home - no they get sent off withthe soldiers washing trucks at the motor pool... and how many viewers will that get you?.

So while, in theory, you have freedom of the press the editors and TV bosses are really chicken-shit scared and keep in line.

viral propaganda by a professional

[nanosquid]

The video was simply something designed to hit people's emotional buttons and make Clinton unappealing, using video material copied from an Apple ad; it was derivative and contained no intelligent thought or argument. You could make the same video about Obama or anybody else if you wanted to make them look bad.

If this kind of propaganda is what "citizen participation in the political process" is going to be, I want no part in it. This kind of ad would have been a low point even if it had been made by a political opponent, which is probably why Obama is distancing himself from it. Fortunately, it looks like this is not actually citizen participation, it's a political propagandist using his skills for his private amusement.

Cromulent

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why we shouldn't use facist. It's a perfectly cromulent word.

Why does the girl have an iPod?

[Mex]

If this was aired in 1984, how come she has an ipod? Did he digitally add it?

Did anyone subpoena Blue State Video?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if anyone subpoena'd Blue State Video's email and postal mail to ensure that this firing was legitimate and not motivated by political agendas?

It's a man, baby!

[FatSean]

Did they distort her famous quote about attacking other nations and converting them to Xtianity?

There are no Americans in the US!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to break it to you but unless he used company resources to do the video, he can not be fired for his political beliefs or action. It one our rights! You, the read, should know this since you where told to learn it in at lest one or more of your 1 12 grades. But of course, do not learn, question, or understand just memorize to pass a test and then forget. Or perhaps I forgot, we no longer support the ideals that the US was founded on; money rules. How much easier is that?

Re:There are no Americans in the US!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gah, is there no "Horrible Grammar" moderation attribute? Please make one, it's hard enough to read something like what the parent posted, without having to fill in the missing letters. "It one our rights!"?!? Ugh! "Me Tarzan" to you too, freak.

facts not in evidence

[doom]

You do realize that Bush won the Popular vote in 2004 by three million twelve thousand four hundred ninety-nine (3,012,499) votes, right?

Actually, no I don't.

No worries...

[TufelKinder]

...the Republicans will hire him.

-~

Big Brother=Republican, NOT Democratic

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anyone familiar with the concept of Big Brother can see the point."
And who is depicted in the advertisement. A proponent of privacy, in a party that advocates privacy. Dumbass.

What a rip-off

[gevantry]

Maybe the guy was sacked because he ripped off the 1984 Ridley Scott Apple Mac ad, though maybe he thought he was just ripping off the derivative iPod ad. Maybe the company wants to avoid having Apple go after it for stealing most of the video and keeping the guy on after he was outed could be taken to mean the company was behind it. As for the political huff, what can any Democrat possibly expect from other Democrats? Party officials and Congressional reps have already forgotten that their favorite pastime, internecine intra-party back-biting, is what lost them the House and Senate in 1992. I guess self-destructive behavior over single-issue navel-gazing represents a return to happy days are here again. I won't be surprised if they get the crap kicked out of them again in the next round of Senate and House elections.

Re:1st shots -- calling all Flash coders!

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed -- but I'm surprised that no-one seems to have commented that you could have taken clips of ANY candidate and dropped them into the Apple ad, and it would have had pretty much the same effect.

If there are any flash coders out there with time on their hands, how about doing a little app where you can upload any clips you like, add a "desaturate" filter, and then play it with the new clip appearing on the screens in the 1984 ad. Then anyone could diss anyone or anything from the comfort of their own home.

Re:Was good...NOT

[mysticgoat]

it was a pretty decent job...showed imagination.

I just watched the video. It was imaginative AND original. The part that was imaginative was not original. The part that was original was not imaginative.

Paraphrase of Groucho Marx, I think

the godlessmess of american politics

[mysticgoat]

when she talks, she sounds calculated; it sounds like her words are the result of intensive polling, long hours of drafting in a committee, and several rounds of focus groups. There's no passion, no idealism, no belief.

So, in short, her reliance on rational thought is enough to assure that she will not be elected?

I fear that you are right. As an englishman once said, "If God wanted America to have Presidents, He would have provided candidates."