Some say unauthorized internet attack ad for Obama is a watershed moment in 21st Century media

[DeepModem Mom]

Political video smackdown
'Hillary 1984': Unauthorized Internet ad for Obama converts Apple Computer's '84 Super Bowl spot into a generational howl against Clinton's presidential bid
Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
March 18, 2007



It may be the most stunning and creative attack ad yet for a 2008 presidential candidate -- one experts say could represent a watershed moment in 21st century media and political advertising.

Yet the groundbreaking 74-second pitch for Democratic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, which remixes the classic "1984" ad that introduced Apple computers to the world, is not on cable or network TV, but on the Internet.

(To see the video, go to: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo)

And Obama's campaign says it had absolutely nothing to do with the video that attacks one of his principal Democratic rivals, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Indeed, the ad's creator is a mystery, at least for now.

The compelling "Hillary 1984" video recently introduced on YouTube represents "a new era, a new wave of politics ... because it's not about Obama," said Peter Leyden, director of the New Politics Institute, a San Francisco-based think tank on politics and new media. "It's about the end of the broadcast era."...

***

"It puts Hillary spouting cliche nonsense to the drones -- while a fresh face breaks through," (veteran San Francisco ad man Bob Gardner) says. "It's old versus new."

That theme -- reflecting a generational change in the relationship between media, politics, candidates and voters -- suggests that "Hillary 1984" could have the iconic power with the 21st century political generation that another classic political ad called "Daisy" represented to Baby Boomers, says Leyden. That 1964 spot for President Lyndon Johnson -- featuring images of a child plucking a daisy, which morphed ominously into a nuclear mushroom cloud -- battered GOP presidential candidate Sen. Barry Goldwater because it, too, portrayed "a shattering of the whole world" in both political leadership, and media....

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

[MADem]

1. Maybe I am an old fogey, but I dislike the ad on several levels

It does NOT seem like the sort of thing a gentleman like Obama would endorse, because it's gratuitous, first, and it steals intellectual property from Apple, second.

Lastly, it spends way too much time building up just to SHIT on Hillary. Aside from that being plain mean, what it does do is reinforce the impression that she is a strong and formidable woman. And no matter how often the woman in the dated costume with the sledgehammer goes to town, Hillary doesn't really disappear, does she?

The Apple commercial was all about the APPLE, not the BIG BROTHER character on the screen. This one is all about Hillary. It's no DAISY ad, no matter how excited reviewers want to shop it that way.

Obama is an afterthought in the whole thing. I don't think it helps him at all.

And it's targeted at the same ultra-hip 'audience' that didn't show up for Ned Lamont in CT, either. The ones that let Howard Dean down, too.

It just doesn't resonate with me. But I AM a fogey, thus YMMV.

[Clarkie1]

22. I think it's a somewhat clever ad that makes a good analogy.

Welcome to 21st century politics. Expect more of the same.

[Trajan]

23. We've seen some of that here too ......

21 century politics = flinging shit ?

And you welcome that ?

Oh wait .... nevermind ....

[Clarkie1]

27. As "negative" ads go...if you want to call it that, it's not really "nasty."

Really, it's a positive ad for Obama as it make an analogy with him as the "new face." Part of his campaign is built upon changing Washington politics as usual. There is nothing horrible about the ad....unless you are an overly sensitive Clinton supporter.

[MADem]

24. Well, the guy who made the ad got fired. And his target audience was that bunch that

doesn't vote...historically, anyway. They ALWAYS say they will, they promise they will, but the only time they roll out of bed and push themselves away from the TV/stereo/Xbox is if there's a draft on the horizon. Harsh? Yes. True? Yes.

Obama disavowed, and it wasn't his guy, anyway, who put the thing together. He's been outed. And FIRED (he says he resigned, I believe the company--I'll bet the guy collects unemployment, which ya don't do when you resign).

You don't build yourself up by tearing someone else down, which is why Obama's people had to be APPALLED at this kind of help, especially given the recent speech that his wife gave about the tenor and quality of the campaign they intend to wage. It just does not work to take cheap and carping shots at an opponent in that fashion--IF you have any integrity in the first place. And Barack Obama certainly has integrity. He was right to disavow. Hopefully none of that meanspiritedness of the commercial will stick to him.

Here's the guy: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/clinton.you.tube/

[Clarkie1]

28. Well, like I said, expect more of the same.

And a ads go, this one wasn't particulary negative. It did have a positive message about Obama in it; it wasn't just going after Clinton the way I perceived it as much as the Washington establishment Clinton represents.

Unfortunately, there will be far more negative ads then this posted by who knows who on Utube. The internet has enabled anyone to make an ad and broadcast it to a wide audience.

[MADem]

30. Not to nitpick, but what was the positive message?

Hyper-Muscular Amazon-like White Women with Sledgehammers for Barack?

If the message was so great for the Obama campaign, that guy would have been 'counselled' and not fired, I suspect. That BLUE STATE company was taking its cues from the BO 08 campaign. They want the full measure of his account, and they aren't going to get it if their 'helpers' help in that fashion. The fact remains that the ad was the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Obama and his wife have been saying. Argue the issues, take the high road, no cheap shots, earn it, don't put others down...that's what he's been saying, and the ad did the exact opposite. But it doesn't really matter--it's yesterday's news, already.

I'm sure there will be more crap on You Tube. The question remains, will all these You Tube viewers bother to go vote? They sure let Ned Lamont down, which is why I think Obama was QUICK to disavow the ad--he can't rely on that demographic. They make promises, and they don't deliver, and they haven't since the draft ended.

[Clarkie1]

31. See post #27. nt

[MADem]

33. I'm not an "overly sensitive Clinton supporter" though.

I'm an undecided voter who likes a lot of what Obama says, but if Gore gets in, I'm with Gore.

So, let's put that assertion to the side.

I agree that the ad wasn't "particularly nasty." What it did, though, was take a shot at Clinton without offering up anything about Obama, save an Amazon with an eighties hairdo and a big sledgehammer.

In 21st Century time, Obama is no longer a complete newcomer, an unknown fresh face. He's a "seasoned ingenue" ready to become a featured player, and well on his way to superstardom. The more swipes are taken about his Hussein name, his "education in the madrasa" (cough bullshit cough) and the more crap he takes from the "Born a Muslim, Always a Muslim" Quranic experts on the Xtian right, the more the country gets to know him by his measured and mature responses.

I just do not think this ad represents HIM. He wants votes based on HIS ideas, HIS visions, HIS dreams. He doesn't want his message to be "Vote for me because you've been hypnotized into believing that HRC is the anointed Big Brother candidate." I don't think his message is that he's a large, muscled white woman with an eighties hairstyle either. If he didn't have a problem with the ad, he wouldn't have pulled the string to find out who was responsible for it. He wouldn't have disavowed it vigorously, instead, he would have said "Eh, it's not mine, but I guess we'll see a lot of this stuff in future."

It just didn't resonate. Maybe it did with kids, but like I said, they don't vote much, so their influence is not equivalent to their numbers--and they have only themselves to blame for that, too. They watch a lot of YouTube, but they don't stand in line at the polls. It's just not 'cool' or something, I suppose.

[Clarkie1]

34. You are reading the add literally and not metaphorically.

Edit: it doesn't matter what Obama or Clinton want. People will produce whatever they wish and put it on Utube.

I think there are more important things to discuss than a (clever, silly, negative, dumb, effective....take your pick) ad no one has any control over.

[MADem]

37. I am reading the ad the way people who bother to vote read it.

Why do you think Willie Horton worked? That wasn't a metaphorical journey, either. How about the Daisy ad? That was a gut check, and they only showed it once, and then on every nightly news across the nation.

People don't "analyze" political ads. They see an amazon with a bad haircut and a big rack tossing a sledgehammer at HRC, and the message is Vote Obama.

It's unhelpful to him, IMO.

And if you don't want to discuss it, no one's forcing you. But actions do have consequences, as Mister De Villis learned to his dismay. Also, there's a bit more to the story, that's not helpful to BO 08 and made it ALL THE MORE important that Obama disavow forcefully: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2977670&page=1

March 23, 2007— The press secretary for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., recently lived with the creator of the scathingly satirical YouTube video ad that attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., a revelation that seems to undermine the senator's claim that he and his campaign had only "very attenuated" ties with the ad's creator.

Ben LaBolt, the recently named press secretary of Obama's Senate office in Washington, D.C., roomed with Philip de Vellis, the creator of the "1984" ad, in Ohio last year while the two worked together on the successful Senate campaign of then Rep. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.

The relationship does not serve as evidence that anyone on the Obama campaign knew de Villis had made the ad. The Obama campaign and its employees have said they have no knowledge of and had nothing to do with the creation of the ad, and de Villis has written as much on a blog.

But it does seem to belie statements by Obama and the campaign that implied a much more distant relationship between Obama's campaign and de Villis.

Until the Huffington Post Web site uncovered that de Villis was the anonymous poster of the YouTube video, which portrays Clinton as a futuristic dictator, de Villis worked for Blue State Digital, which does Internet work for the Obama campaign's Web site. After de Villis admitted he had made the video, he and Blue State Digital parted ways. ....

[Evergreen Emerald]

39. I agree with you

(Not that you are an old fogey), but really, how creative do you have to be to steal an idea?

Further: I was disappointed in Obama's response. He did not distance himself from it sufficiently for my taste. Time and again, I hear the republican candidates talking about each other with respect. We eat our own.

Why did that "democratic" "artist" create an attack ad against a republican?

[AtomicKitten]

2. I've read it is perceived to be generational.

I don't have a problem with the ad. It's theater and well done at that. It's presenting an idea, not making any claims.

It's not even in the same ballpark as the Swift Boat Liar crap; after that nightmare, this is tame.

On edit: I am a little bewildered realizing many people are upset by this ad and I appear to be swimming against the current as usual here at DU. Oh well.

[MADem]

25. Here's what I dislike about it. It does not represent Obama's viewpoint toward the campaign

Just the other week, he and his wife were at a rally. His wife made a point of talking about how her husband intended to campaign; take the high road, integrity, no cheap shots, we aren't like that. We want to win it fairly, that kind of thing.

And then, some anonymous (since outed) asshole tosses that bomb. It 'touts' Obama by insulting Clinton. Not ONE WORD about why anyone should vote for Obama. Just a sledgehammer in Clinton's face. I do NOT think that is Obama's style. I think Obama might be inclined to take it as a "Please, don't HELP" kind of thing.

I'm sure the creator got fired (though he says he resigned, the company says otherwise) so the company could keep the Obama 08 account.

It's already yesterday's news. Over the long haul, it didn't help Obama, and may have developed a shred of sympathy for Clinton, because she's always getting crapped on. A couple of old ladies I was settin' with the other day saw it come on TV when they were running it in heavy rotation--ya know what they said? "Oh, doesn't she look LOVELY!" and "Oh, yes, such a pretty face she has..."

They MISSED the 'insult' entirely!! And those were TWO voters (I know, I haul them to the polls).

So, maybe it's effective amongst the non-voting young, but the little play it got on the TV helped Clinton amongst the "look at the pictures, ignore the words" voting demographic!

[AtomicKitten]

29. I see where you are coming from

... and quite frankly think it would be brilliant reworked and used in the general against the GOP. In that sense it would be infinitely more applicable and hard-hitting.

[Double T]

3. This propaganda ad is a disgrace to Democrats of ALL persuasions.

Some Democrats are acting like 'swift boat veterans' when it comes to backing the leadership of their own party; what can they possibly be thinking? If Obama is actually supporting this kind of crap, perhaps his integrity needs further scrutiny. The Democrats need a positive message for the party, not a divisive message with minion drones watching the destruction of Hillary.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. That's one reason I don't think Dems were behind it

this smells of something Rove would think up--after all, the MSM have "decided" the two main contenders are Clinton and Obama--so isn't only "natural" they would be fighting each other? The whole thing is a setup, imho.

[sendero]

9. Oh horse puckey..

... the MSM and the Republicans want HRC so bad they can taste it and they make that abundantly clear every day.

My god, a real candidate is their only fear, they've had a 15 year head start on swiftboating Hillary and they don't want that investment wasted.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. But this adds interest to the campaign

and only hurts Obama--so it fits right in with their plan.

[Double T]

15. Agreed. Today, there is NOW an ad of the same ilk targeting Obama.

The evil vast rightwing conspiracy is on the move!!!

[MADem]

26. I initially thought that too. But it turns out the guy is an ill-advised and now unemployed Obama

supporter. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/clinton.you.tube/


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.

"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 with the Obama campaign."

The company said it is under contract with Obama's campaign for technology pursuits, but it is not currently engaged in a relationship with the campaign for services. One of Blue State Digital's founding partners is, however, on leave to work directly with Obama's campaign headquarters.

The company told Obama's camp Wednesday evening that de Vellis was behind the clip. The senator's camp then issued a statement and said they had no knowledge of the ad and had nothing to do with its creation.

[karynnj]

16. This is nowhere near any of the dirty tricks advertising

from Willie Horton to the SBVT. I don't like it, but what is it accusing Clinton of.

The Horton ad played the race card and blamed Dukakis for a program put in place before he was Governor of Massachusetts. (The Boston Harbor is polluted ads were as bad- as they filmed polluted water that was not in Massachusetts.)

The SBVT ads lied about Kerry's official service record (Their were people claim they served in Vietnam with Kerry - except they were not in the same place as the same time.)

Those ads dishonestly attacked the records of the nominees - and hurt the candidates. I can imagine some people who don't like Hillary liking the ad - but I can't see it even shifting anyone's opinion. I'm really not sure what the big deal is. Apple has a right to complain about copyright infringement.

[ContraBass Black]

18. And that's exactly the point.

Remember the lie about Obama attending a madrassa that Fox News broadcast and then attributed to the Clinton campaign?

This is more of the same.

[Cosmocat]

19. I just see a pattern here ...

I am not real prone to "conspiracy" theory stuff ...

But, I just A LOT of conservative machinations here ... A LOT ... This ad does nothing for Obama, IMO ... It is simply an attack ad on Hill ...

I just cannot help but think that there are republicans who are taking shots at Hill, Obama and Edwards under the guise of one of the other two, getting the shot at one in and attributing negative campainging to the other ...

[ContraBass Black]

20. The ad targets Obama as much as Clinton by attributing the smear

To his campaign.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. "cliche nonsense"? That's for others to conclude. nt

>>>"It puts Hillary spouting cliche nonsense to the drones -- while a fresh face breaks through," (veteran San Francisco ad man Bob Gardner) says. "It's old versus new.">>>

[caledesi]

5. Obama said he had nothig to do with the vid and unlike our

Liar-in-Chief...I believe him. Besides, Obama tends to appeal to young people who never saw the original ad in the lst place.

[randr]

7. Do we need to be reminded who the owners of Youtube are?

The msm has latched onto the momentum of moveon and various bloggers who have set the stage for the apparent change in the way campaigns will be run.
Gil Scott Heron was correct and the Revolution is being televised as we speak.

[Vinca]

8. I thought the ad was brilliant. Somebody should be offered a job

by a major campaign.

[Rockholm]

10. I really liked the ad.

Quite stunning and visually beautiful.

[baldguy]

11. Does anyone find it ironic

That a campaign ad for a black man uses a tall blond Aryan Valkyrie as a heroine?

[Tellurian]

13. I find it curious no one knows where the ad came from..

Or who is responsible for making it.
Aren't the Apple people seeking out the theft of their intellectual property?

[marshall]

21. It has been tracked down

According to ABC news it was traced to a worker at the company that handles Obama's website.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2971514&page=1

[vireo]

14. "not on cable or network TV"

Actually, that's the only place I've seen it. It reminds me of the endless presentation of the swiftliars ad as "news." :eyes:

[Forkboy]

17. The ad is nothing new...clever...but nothing new.

The only reason it's a story is because it appeared online and bypassed the "accepted" forms of media for it's delivery.

[Steely_Dan]

32. IBM

Keep in mind that the original ad was a slam on IBM (i.e. Big Brother) because they so fully dominated the market. Is this saying that Clinton is so dominate in the race that she represents Big Brother?

-P

[Clarkie1]

35. Yes. It' a metaphor. nt

[IsItJustMe]

36. They have almost the same commercial that was against Hillary, only it's against Obama on that site.

I seen it today. I guess all is fair in politics.

[Telly Savalas]

38. I thought Sen. Clinton was the perfect candidate until I saw that ad.

Now I realize that she's simply a Big Brother who wants to maintain the status quo of keeping the American public as mindless drones.