Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

16 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. Clarification by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Clarification by l4m3z0r · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Clarification by guyinblacktshirt · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Clarification by aicrules · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Clarification by jnaujok · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.)

      --
      Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
  2. Fired? by Aladrin · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  3. Old Strategy by TheMeuge · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!

  4. Neither Side Knew That He Made the Video by ras_b · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:I don't see the problem. by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  6. Resigned, Fired: Just word games by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
  7. Re:I don't see the problem. by spun · · Score: 3, Informative

    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!"

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  8. Re:Freedom of speech by Billly+Gates · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:What's the beef? by truthsearch · · Score: 2, Informative

    He violated the policy and quit.

    Fixed that for you.

  10. Re:Was good by admdrew · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  11. Re:Was good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:Was good by monkeydo · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian