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

[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

[spun]

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

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

[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

[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

[DrEldarion]

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

Re:Was good

[Yonder Way]

The Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech.

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

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...

[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...

[The Dobber]

That's no boot..

That's Hillarys thighs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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: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.

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.

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.

Translations of previous two posts:

[Loundry]

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

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

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!

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.