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

[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

[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.

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.

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: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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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."