Obama vs Hillary Round 1

[RandFan]

Political Smackdown (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/18/MNGHNONEPS1.DTL&feed=rss.news)

'Hillary 1984': Unauthorized Internet ad for Obama converts Apple Computer's '84 Super Bowl spot into a generational howl against Clinton's presidential bid.

6h3G-lMZxjo

Vote different and see why 2008 and won't be like 1984.

[Tony]

cool

[skeptifem]

I think this whole fueding thing is pretty stupid. It draws attention to both of them (which is good, you know what they say about bad press) but then all the attention is put on them arguing with each other while issues about the current administration get ignored. I hope it works out well.

[RandFan]

coolAgreed. I don't think Obama had a hand in it but I like it. If Obama wins the nomination I will very likely be voting for a Democrat this presidential election. I hope others will seriously consider voting for him also.

[RandFan]

I think this whole fueding thing is pretty stupid. It draws attention to both of them (which is good, you know what they say about bad press) but then all the attention is put on them arguing with each other while issues about the current administration get ignored. I hope it works out well.You have a point. I'm not sure it can be helped. FWIW, I don't personally care if it hurts Hillary. If she wins the election I will likely vote for a Republican.

[Tony]

Agreed. I don't think Obama had a hand in it but I like it. If Obama wins the nomination I will very likely be voting for a Democrat this presidential election. I hope others will seriously consider voting for him also.

I'm also leaning towards Obama.

[Mycroft]

Agreed. I don't think Obama had a hand in it but I like it. If Obama wins the nomination I will very likely be voting for a Democrat this presidential election. I hope others will seriously consider voting for him also.

My wife really likes Obama, but when I ask her what his policies are, it gets kinda vague. The kid's got charisma, and people are excited about supporting something new, but I don't see much substance beyond that.

Not yet, anyway. It's still a ways to election time.

[Tricky]

Agreed. I don't think Obama had a hand in it but I like it. If Obama wins the nomination I will very likely be voting for a Democrat this presidential election. I hope others will seriously consider voting for him also.
What about if Edwards wins the nomination?

[RandFan]

My wife really likes Obama, but when I ask her what his policies are, it gets kinda vague. The kid's got charisma, and people are excited about supporting something new, but I don't see much substance beyond that.

Not yet, anyway. It's still a ways to election time.That's a fair point. I'll keep an open mind. This is what primaries are for.

[RandFan]

What about if Edwards wins the nomination?My preferences at the moment are Obama and Guiliani in that order. I won't say no to Edwards but He's not high on my list. I'm a registered Republican who hasn't been behind a Democrat since Gary Hart so I'm afraid you will have to settle for that. I see something I like in Obama. Perhaps it is style over substance and that is why I've not absolutely committed myself. I only hope others will give him an opportunity to make his case. Don't dismiss him just because he doesn't fit some preconceived ideal.

[corplinx]

What's so great about Obama? I didn't realize people voted for anti-gun, social healthcare, tradional american liberals if they were handsome and spoke well. How fickle we are.

[Tony]

What's so great about Obama?


He's not Newt Gingrich, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Rudy Giuliani, Jesse Jackson, Sam Brownback, John Edwards, George W.Bush, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Al Sharpton, John McCain, Mitt Romney or Dennis Kucinich.

[RandFan]

What's so great about Obama? I didn't realize people voted for anti-gun, social healthcare, tradional american liberals if they were handsome and spoke well. How fickle we are.Considering that I've voted Republican since 1984 (I was going to vote for Gary Hart but something happened on the way to the election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Donna_Rice_and_Gary_Hart.jpg)). I can hardly be called fickle.

I think Obama is more than just attractive and well spoken. In any event, I'm leaning toward national healthcare. I'll be honest. Watching my children suffer for lack of health care and losing my health care when I needed it most has had a large impact in my life.

[casebro]

My theory is "Looks will win". Obama is cute. Hilary won't even get the dyke vote. Edwards could get all the womens votes. Too bad for the GOP that Ahnuld can't run. Who else have they got? Condi? Jiuli?

[boloboffin]

So that's what the original ad looked like. I kinda like it.

Unfortunately, I just saw what some really whacked-out anti-Hillary people did with that ad.

It's over five minutes long with a [rule8]-to-the-wall screed about Juanita Broaddrick cut in (almost subliminally; if you want to read it, you have to stop the ad - engage with it). Here is the real slime. This is some real Internet propaganda. It even directs you to a site called deletehillary.com.

QViJwZwXTl0

And remember, it's only March 2007.

[SezMe]

I heard Drudge report tonight (yeah, I listen to Sludge sometimes; what else is on Sunday night?) that Obama stated he had nothing to do with the ad. If that is true, I'd like to see him request that the very ending be removed as a way to distance him from this.

Randfan, if health care is a significant issue for you, take a look at Edwards. He's the only one with the cojones so far to put a specific proposal on the table. The rest are just talk.

[RandFan]

I heard Drudge report tonight (yeah, I listen to Sludge sometimes; what else is on Sunday night?) that Obama stated he had nothing to do with the ad. If that is true, I'd like to see him request that the very ending be removed as a way to distance him from this.

Randfan, if health care is a significant issue for you, take a look at Edwards. He's the only one with the cojones so far to put a specific proposal on the table. The rest are just talk.I'll happily look at his proposal. And I'll do so with an open mind. I'm not interested in my side wining. I honestly wish everyone would be less dogmatic about the elections. Guliani and McCain are not neo-cons. I wish more Democrats would be willing to consider them. Ok, perhaps that's not fair. Perhaps they would be.

[Darth Rotor]

He's not Newt Gingrich, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Rudy Giuliani, Jesse Jackson, Sam Brownback, John Edwards, George W.Bush, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Al Sharpton, John McCain, Mitt Romney or Dennis Kucinich.

Tony, did you mean to leave out Bill Richardson, or do you find him at least somewhat appealing?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Guliani and McCain are not neo-cons. I wish more Democrats would be willing to consider them. Ok, perhaps that's not fair. Perhaps they would be.

I wonder about Giuliani on that score.

IMO, McCain's window of opportunity was 2000. He missed it.

DR

[steverino]

Um, getting back to the point of this thread, I think the ad glamorizes Hillary. She looks modern, feminine, and also authoritative, and underscores that she is in fact the front runner, which, OK, she is, at this point. But Obama is not exactly the "underdog" compared to Edwards or Richarson. Plus, Obama's photo image is not in this, so it seems more "anti-Her" than "pro-Him."

So I don't know how many votes he will grab away from her based on this video.

[RandFan]

Um, getting back to the point of this thread, I think the ad glamorizes Hillary. She looks modern, feminine, and also authoritative, and underscores that she is in fact the front runner, which, OK, she is, at this point. But Obama is not exactly the "underdog" compared to Edwards or Richarson. Plus, Obama's photo image is not in this, so it seems more "anti-Her" than "pro-Him."

So I don't know how many votes he will grab away from her based on this video.Good points. I thought the ad interesting but it didn't strike me as persuasive but I didn't really give it a lot of thought. She isn't really saying anything outrageous, she doesn't come of looking like "big brother", there is nothing ominous in her tone or her message and you are right, she actually looks good considering she is the big head in the ad.

[SezMe]

But it's not the specific image or text of Hillary's speech that is the focus of this ad. It is the connotaton that Hillary would become Big Brother should she become President...and that connotation is both very powerful and very negative. In that context, it not only does NOT "glamorize" her, it slams her. It does, in fact, RandFan, make her look EXACTLY like "big brother".

A word of caution: I am NOT a HRC supporter. Don't interpret this post as anything other than an opinion about the OP vid.

[Lonewulf]

But it's not the specific image or text of Hillary's speech that is the focus of this ad. It is the connotaton that Hillary would become Big Brother should she become President...and that connotation is both very powerful and very negative. In that context, it not only does NOT "glamorize" her, it slams her. It does, in fact, RandFan, make her look EXACTLY like "big brother".

A word of caution: I am NOT a HRC supporter. Don't interpret this post as anything other than an opinion about the OP vid.

Oh, I agree, that's the intention. But watching the video, I wasn't very persuaded because she wasn't really saying anything that makes me fearful. Anyone can superimpose an image onto a big screen and make someone look like "Big Brother"; but if they then talk like Daffy Duck, it doesn't inspire a whole lot of fear.

I certainly hope Obama didn't endorse this at all. Saying that Hillary Clinton would become Big Sister (and thus, your next default choice must be Obama) is a little over the top.

[RandFan]

But it's not the specific image or text of Hillary's speech that is the focus of this ad. It is the connotaton that Hillary would become Big Brother should she become President...and that connotation is both very powerful and very negative. In that context, it not only does NOT "glamorize" her, it slams her. It does, in fact, RandFan, make her look EXACTLY like "big brother". I think that is what it is trying to do but I'm not sure it is succesful at doing it. In the end I don't think it achieves the intended goal. That's just my opinion.

A word of caution: I am NOT a HRC supporter. Don't interpret this post as anything other than an opinion about the OP vid.Understood.

[steverino]

it not only does NOT "glamorize" her, it slams her. It does, in fact, RandFan, make her look EXACTLY like "big brother".


Hi SEZ. When you say "It slams her..." I ask that you define "it." I mean, we are talking about an artistic, little, video piece, not a commercial paiid for by a political opponant or organization.

Her biggest plus is that she is female, which is obvious in this video as she looks glamorous.

Her biggest minus (baggage) is her husband. He is absent from this video.

I am not sure her policies are even considered big-brother-esque at all. So I guess this thread could discuss why she is considered the big-brother candidate. I think her husband's ability to raise money blindly impresses people and gives her a huge, maybe undeserved, advantage, so in that way she is big-brother.

[Upchurch]

Vote different and see why 2008 and won't be like 1984.
The iPod was a nice touch.

[Solus]

The iPod was a nice touch.

I wasn't the only one that noticed it seems. ;)

[Darat]

I do seem to ask this a lot - but on what are you basing your decisions on? To help me (a non-USA citizen) where can I find the detailed policies the different candidates are proposing to implement?

[Steven Howard]

I do seem to ask this a lot - but on what are you basing your decisions on? To help me (a non-USA citizen) where can I find the detailed policies the different candidates are proposing to implement?

Some of them have position papers up on their web pages:

Obama (http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/)

Edwards (http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/)

McCain (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/)

Romney (http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/index)

Others seem a bit more vague:

Clinton (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/) (press releases)

Giuliani (http://www.joinrudy2008.com/record/default.aspx) (talks about what he's done in the past)

[Steven Howard]

Back to the main thread:

Am I the only one who sees this whole "Hillary vs. Obama" thing as a completely empty media-created non-event? I mean, sure, they're going to be competing against each other in the primaries next year, but all of this "feud" stuff just strikes me as made-up.

I mean, I know it would be asking too much of our modern journalists to write about what the candidates actually have to say about their plans for the presidency. I know they want to portray every political race as if it were a sporting event, only talking about who's ahead, who's behind, and by how much. And I know that it would apparently kill them stone dead to just not report anything about a "hot" story, even when they have nothing new to say.

I just wish the made-up stories were less ... high-school. It's "David Geffen" this and "Al Sharpton" that and "Internet attack ads" the other. All I hear is "Stacy's mad 'cause Jason went to Jennifer's party instead of hers" and "Did you hear what Jennifer's friend Mindy said about Stacy?"

[gnome]

What's so great about Obama? I didn't realize people voted for anti-gun, social healthcare, tradional american liberals if they were handsome and spoke well. How fickle we are.

Couple of points... can you describe Obama's anti-gun record?

Secondly, there is a difference between advocating for "socialized medicine" and advocating some kind of national health care plan that's better than the one we have.

[SezMe]

Hi SEZ. When you say "It slams her..." I ask that you define "it." I mean, we are talking about an artistic, little, video piece, not a commercial paiid for by a political opponant or organization.
"It" is the video, taken as a whole and evaluated on the message it tries to convey. Obviously, reasonable people (assumes RandFan and I are reasonable :) ) can differ in such an evaluation.

I'm unable to assess the importance of a video on the net. But the fact that HRC and others used the net to announcement of their candicies suggests that politicians see the net as an important factor in vote (and money) gathering. Again, I'm sure you could get 5 opinions from a gathering of 4 people.

[SezMe]

I do seem to ask this a lot - but on what are you basing your decisions on? To help me (a non-USA citizen) where can I find the detailed policies the different candidates are proposing to implement?
I would guess that many (most?) Americans vote based on factors other than specific policies. For example, both parties have platforms that supposedly detail their positions on the issues of the day. But I'd guess that the only people who read these platforms are other politicians.

The age of image in politics came in the Nixon/Kennedy debates where Nixon came off very poorly. Since then "image" has become increasingly important as TV came to dominate the election process. For example, HUGE sums of money are spent of 30 seconds TV commercials. But I'd challenge you to find any one of these commercials that spell out a clear policy position - if only because that is not possible to explain a serious policy position on any complex issue. So what is being sold is image, not policy.

[SezMe]

Am I the only one who sees this whole "Hillary vs. Obama" thing as a completely empty media-created non-event? ....
Well said. I agree completely.

[Vorticity]

Tony, did you mean to leave out Bill Richardson, or do you find him at least somewhat appealing?

DR
For some reason, people always leave Richardson off of lists of presidential candidates. I'm baffled by this. I don't know yet if I'd vote for him, but he certainly has the best resume of anyone runing so far:

Governor of New Mexico
U.S. Secretary of Energy
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
U.S. House of Representatives

[steverino]

... the fact that HRC and others used the net to announcement of their candicies suggests that politicians see the net as an important factor in vote (and money) gathering.

Thanks for responding. Good point. I still think that controversy, like this video, helps both Hillary and Obama. I guess the reason Richardson has not yet caught on is that he is not controversial, and Americans love a soap opera.

[Tony]

Tony, did you mean to leave out Bill Richardson, or do you find him at least somewhat appealing?

DR

I do find him appealing, but I didn't include him because, AFAIK, he has yet to officially announce his candidacy. At this point, I think he's only announced setting up an "exploratory committee".

[Darat]

Some of them have position papers up on their web pages:

Obama (http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/)

Edwards (http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/)

McCain (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/)

Romney (http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/index)

Others seem a bit more vague:

Clinton (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/) (press releases)

Giuliani (http://www.joinrudy2008.com/record/default.aspx) (talks about what he's done in the past)


Thanks - very useful.

[steverino]

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/03/a_link_between_.html

Looks like Sen. Obama just fired the consultant putting out that video.

[Kaylee]

I do seem to ask this a lot - but on what are you basing your decisions on? To help me (a non-USA citizen) where can I find the detailed policies the different candidates are proposing to implement?

I don't know if this is true in other countries, but it seems to me that many voters will loyally support a politician even though they really don't know his or her positions.

I don’t get it. To use a silly analogy, deciding who to support as president shouldn't be that radically different then deciding who to be friends with or have a long-term relationship with in other areas of one's life.

It seems to me that how much you are willing to commit to someone (even a vote) should be dependent on how reliable they are. How reliable they are should be gauged by how trustworthy they have shown themselves to be in the past. This can only be determined by how well you know them. I envision this as a pyramid with knowledge being the bottom layer, trust the next, followed by reliance and then by commitment. If all these interpersonal dynamics are shaped like a pyramid -- then the relationship has a chance of being stable and making sense.

But if you are willing to trust someone more than you know them -- using the pyramid analogy the whole thing can tip and fall over. You can end up with a jerk for a boyfriend (or girlfriend as the case may be) and Bush as president. It just doesn't make sense.

Yet many people I know are willing to trust someone even if they don't know them, or even know of their history. I find that many people are especially willing to do this with politicians and also with new people they have just met but fallen in "love" with. I truly don't get it. I haven't seen this occur when people are meeting their neighbors for the first time though -- then logic seems to prevail.

So if people only went about deciding who to vote for president as carefully as they decided whether to loan their neighbor their very expensive powertools -- we might have half a chance at getting a good president. :rolleyes:

[LawnOven]

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/03/a_link_between_.html

Looks like Sen. Obama just fired the consultant putting out that video.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-de-vellis-aka-parkridge/i-made-the-vote-differen_b_43989.html

interesting he says he 'resigned'

[SezMe]

If he was (is) so proud of his work, why did he distribute it anonymously? And yes, there is a clear different reading of his departure between his account and that cited by Steve.

[LawnOven]

Maybe at first he feared for his job... and then he decided he could make more money exposed and fired/resigned.

[steverino]

If he was (is) so proud of his work, why did he distribute it anonymously? And yes, there is a clear different reading of his departure between his account and that cited by Steve.

What do you think really happened?

[SezMe]

I have absolutely no idea what really took place but LawnOven has a plausible explanation. There are probably several others.

IF the company fired him, I think they are on solid ground. Having an employee acting on his own regarding a corporate client (by closing with the shot of BO's web site) endangers the company's client relations. If I'd been his boss, he would have had only enough time to clear out his desk and be escorted out the door by security.

[Darth Rotor]

This ad was not the first citizen ad, and it will not be the last. The game has changed.
Yep. This is not your father's political campaign.

DR

[Dave1001]

This ad was not the first citizen ad, and it will not be the last. The game has changed. \

It certainly wasn't the first "citizen ad"- meaning by someone not on the campaign payroll.

[steverino]

I heard Hillary tonight on the news comment on the ad. She said it was much more flattering than the one going around of her singing the national anthem!

[boloboffin]

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/03/a_link_between_.html

Looks like Sen. Obama just fired the consultant putting out that video.

http://www.bluestatedigital.com/2007/03/on_the_1984_video.html

Not true. Senator Obama would have no way of firing that person, because he didn't work for Senator Obama.

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.

You might as well say that Tom Vilsack (http://www.bluestatedigital.com/2006/01/heartland_pac.html) fired the guy.