Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 19, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

BIG SISTER....I finally watched all of the famous Hillary/1984 YouTube mashup last night, and it didn't do much for me. (I started to watch it once before but got bored after 20 seconds and quit. This time I got through the entire 1:13!) Marc Cooper's daughter wasn't impressed either. But Time's Joe Klein was:

I disagreed -- quietly, in a loyal and seemly fashion -- with Time's Person of the Year last December. But ads like this one, which will have an impact on this campaign, indicate that I was wrong. You are, apparently, not only the Person of the Year, but also the Political Consultants of the future. Wonder how Hillary's paid help will respond.

OK, so now I'm curious: tell me in comments what you think of this video. Were you pro-Hillary, anti-Hillary, or don't-care-about-Hillary before watching it? How about after? Any change?

Kevin Drum 12:59 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (169)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I am terrified of this woman and I have a feeling she is going to tell me what I can and can't have in my sock drawer.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 19, 2007 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Well, as someone who is still (still! with only 11 months to go! what is wrong with me?) undecided between all the Democratic candidates, it did remind me of one thing I already found unappealing about Clinton, namely her programmed nature. To the extent that campaigning is largely about defining your opponents, then, it was certainly effective on me (although I find it funny that Klein has just discovered it).

Posted by: matt on March 19, 2007 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Eh. I dislike her because she spends more time wooing the right than the left, and because I think she's learned caution too well. Hyperbolic ads don't really sway that opinion.

Posted by: gussie on March 19, 2007 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

It was a cute idea but, really, is Hillary the one who needs a hammer in the face? I can think of other more appropriate targets.

FWIW...Hillary is my fifth choice behind Edwards, Obama, Richardson, and Another Possible Undeclared Candidate.

Posted by: MikeBuck on March 19, 2007 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

The response of American Hawk-- conservative troll extraordinare-- says it all. Conservatives are salivating at the thought of a Hillary nomination... another chance to unite the GOP base by taking on the Clintons.

Primary voters- do NOT allow them this opportunity.

Posted by: Jeremy Wilcox on March 19, 2007 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

That Kevin got bored in the middle of a 1 minute commercial should tell policitians what kind of attention span they're dealing with.

The video was a clever take on an earlier theme. I don't think the makers intended it to be anything else.

Norman, believe me, nobody wants to see what's in your sock drawer.

Posted by: cerulean on March 19, 2007 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Oy vey! Poor Hillary. Now wedded to the old Apple Computer anti-IBM ad. Not a good sign. People sure hate her! Me, I never did really like her but if it came down to her or any Republican (except possibly anti-war Hagel ) I’d vote for her.

Posted by: Dr Wu -I'm just an ordinary guy on March 19, 2007 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Could have been worse, Democrats. The name at the end could have been Nader's.

Posted by: monkeybone on March 19, 2007 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I was slightly pro-Obama over Hilary going into the ad, and, perhaps not surprisingly, that's been intensified. Wow, do I not like her voice and her manner. It reminded me that every time I hear her speak I just want her to stop. She is definitely the least sincere sounding of the major candidates.

Posted by: Lou on March 19, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

I think it's an indication of just how great that Apple commercial was in 1984, and still is by spawning such imitators.

Posted by: David W. on March 19, 2007 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

It would be more appropriate if the 'big brother' were a clip of John Yoo talking about the appropriateness of crushing a child's testicles.

Posted by: Jon H on March 19, 2007 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

My stint at Legal Aid left me with a good impression of Hillary. The lawyers with whom I worked spoke highly of her and the work she did through the Rose Law Firm for children's rights. Now before someone gets all out of whack and thinks she espouses children's rights on all kinds of goofy things, mostly they concentrated on making it criminal to, say, BEAT YOUR CHILD.

I'd add that I don't think who is elected president matters all that much, but the appointment of the current El Presidente Bush has proven THAT theory to be utterly wrong.

Posted by: Angela on March 19, 2007 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

I thought that putting the "I don't want people who already agree with me" and the "be part of a team" comments in the visually Orwellian context was particularly effective in driving home the "programmed nature" of Clinton's speaking style.

Posted by: chris brandow on March 19, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

The ad probably won't change opinions. Hillary's a statist who wants to meddle in everything from health care to video games, but it is doubtful that people will think Hillary will turn the U.S. totalitarian.

Hillary's main problem is, simply, that she has never done anything that should inspire people to elect her President. When she was in the White House, she didn't do anything other than a failed health care proposal and, aside from that, typical first lady stuff. She likes to try to take credit for Bill's work, but no one ever mentioned her involvement with his achievements, from welfare reform to balancing the federal budget, until just recently.

What has Hillary done in the Senate? Followed the crowd. She followed the crowd on Iraq, she followed the crowd on pork barrel spending.

Honestly, if Hillary was not a woman, or if her last name was not Clinton, would anyone even be considering this candidate as a credible one? Especially with more experienced and successful candidates, such as Bill Richardson, running?

Posted by: brian on March 19, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

There is pretty much nothing out there that could possibly change anyone's opinion of Hillary one way or the other at this point.

Posted by: mats on March 19, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, I found that ad completely flat and ineffectual. And I'm a much bigger fan of Obama's than Hilary's.

Hilary as "big brother"?! She's got plenty of flaws, but the capacity to turn us into a nation of Winston Smiths is not among them

Posted by: David on March 19, 2007 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Yawn. . .whatever.

I am no big fan of Hillary but this ad did nothing for me except reinforce the notion that what she say doesn't matter. The people who hate her hate her and nothig will change their mind.

Posted by: DP on March 19, 2007 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with Jon H. There are real, identifiable villains in charge right now, and they need to get hammered.

There isn't an ounce of originality or wit to this ad. To replace a big brother face in an existing and very famous ad with someone else, distorting her voice in the process—well, any junior-highschooler could do that. It made me mad, alright—at Obama.

Frankly, I don't like Hillary all that much myself, and am sick of the whole Clinton-Bush thing. Which is the approach Obama and followers should take: respectful, but let's move on. Ferchrissakes, they're going to have to work together. Let's not do Rove's work for him.

Posted by: Kenji on March 19, 2007 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Yawn.

Posted by: Pat on March 19, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

I do not support Hillary Clinton for president. Yet I cannot stand the constant ridicule and demonization. It degrades all of us, particularly Democrats.

What I recall most about the corporate press/media's obsessive pursuit of bogus Clinton scandals, and their War on Gore and the Destruction of Dean is that a fair number of Democrats joined in for fun or perceived political advantage. All they really did was feed the beast that ate them later.

Posted by: James E. Powell on March 19, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

I'm generally undecided with the Democratic candidates and that includes Hillary. But, I have to say I sympathize with some previous posts I've read here about going into the voting booth and having to YET AGAIN see a Bush (Jeb?) or a Clinton to choose from. Someone else please?

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on March 19, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Content-wise there didn't seem to be much to it...
But aesthetically- as a kind of branding move- [which is Apple's genius]it seems pretty strong. It needs better pacing [or to just be weirder]... but it likely is too tied to the Apple add in form.

Expect to see some hipper version by pros at some point.... Obama's outsider image could catch fire with a very pricey demographic on video this way. It's not a boring "Wash Outsider" thing... it's a generational/racial/moment-in-history kind of New Hope.

Sounds Nice.

Posted by: eli brennan on March 19, 2007 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

I'm with cerulean.

WAY too much is being made of this ad. It's a clever joke that takes advantage of Hillary's being seen as the Establishment candidate -- an image that her handlers seem to be pretty comfortable with BTW. But it ain't gonna change any minds, and it certainly is not some "wave of the future" wherein the mighty Blogosphere will change forever the ways of political advertising.

The original ad was a work of art, and it took a lot of time and money to produce. Your average political ad is a lot cheaper and easier, but nobody's gonna go searching one of those out on YouTube.

Tempest in a teapot.

Posted by: bleh on March 19, 2007 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Not a big fan of Hillary as a candidate, perfectly fine fan of hers if she wins the nomination. Not my first choice, Edwards is the most radical (poverty as leitmotif for all policies is certainly an amazing way to treat a foreign policy) and Obama is the most soothing (if he can keep the high road while others do his vicious work for him).

That said, the ad sucks. Seriously. It's not "inspired by," it's "copied from." There ad is cognitively dissonant. People have NEVER responded to Hillary as automatons, so why the IBM clones simply staring? She's not in the power seat, nor Big Sister, or anything else. The ad really really sucks in its intellectual content.

What it says about the candidate, I don't care or can't tell. If you hated her, you'll hate her more simply by hearing her voice - that seems to be the take-home message. Other than that, the ad is vacuous and logically unsound.

Posted by: mc on March 19, 2007 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

The point should be made in this discussion that so far, nobody has connected this ad to anybody officially connected with Obama.

Posted by: Ein on March 19, 2007 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Ooops, typo as one deleted sentence morphed into the next. It shoudl have read "There's no there there, and worse, the ad is cognitively dissonant."

Posted by: mc on March 19, 2007 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

So Obama wants a bunch of yes-men who aren't part of a team? Or having a conversation among people who don't agree is conformist and sinister? Or saying you want to have a dialogue is frightening, but it appeals to sheeplikr people and so must be resisted by free-thinkers? Or the thought police are anti-Obama?

Oh I get it. Hillary is scary.

Whoever made this thing is a moron. 1984 is not exactly an inspired choice. Nazi rally maybe less safe but equally obvious if your only intention is to insinuate that a particular candidate is untrustworthy.

Speculating about what impact this sort of thing might have gives it far too much credit. And encourages more of the same. Blech.

Posted by: brent on March 19, 2007 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

I can't believe all the hoo-hah over the equivalent of a political cartoon.
To quote Monty Python, it's just a bit of fun, ya silly bitch!

Posted by: Jim on March 19, 2007 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

I think we need to do a version 2.0 for the constitution, with some upgrades. One would be an amendment banning the immediate family (children, siblings, spouses and parents) of previous presidents from serving in the office.

Posted by: jimBOB on March 19, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, I thought it was lame.

To the extent that I have issues with Hillary, it has nothing to do with any fear of 'big brother.'

The original Mac ad was great because the IBM/Microsoft world had really stalled, and people were really moving in lockstop, while the Mac was a leap forward.

Posted by: Misplaced Patriot on March 19, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Silly ad because...wait, what was the point again?

I'm pretty anti-Hilary for several reasons. First, she's bad for democracy, not necessarily because of her policies, but because of who she is. If she were to become president, that would mean only two families controlled the office from 1988 to at least 2012, not to mention GHWB's 8 year vice-presidency. New blood is a good thing. Second, all those who think that after Whitewater etc. Hilary's been vetted sorely underestimate the base vitriol that motivates HilaryHate in this country. Nominating Hilary is a gift to Swiftboat 2.0.

Posted by: km on March 19, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

I like Hillary, but I prefer other Democrats for the 2008 run for president. I thought the ad was insulting and stupid. It is simply another form of 'swiftboating.'

Posted by: old gold on March 19, 2007 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

I'm very pro-Hillary, and wish her all the success possible in obtaining the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. I think it would be even better if she brought on Barack Hussein Obama is a Veep.

American Chickenhawk says this only because all his friends are sexist racist anti-muslim bigots and he knows that they'll vote against them.

Posted by: Wilbur on March 19, 2007 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary's fine with me, and this video only makes me like her more. It's a lazy, predictable attack which just assumes there's something bad about Hillary Clinton even though it presents no evidence to show that she's bad.

You could put any politician or public figure in that video and the video would create the impression that there's something "bad" about them. But it's just baseless visual propoganda.

Posted by: McCord on March 19, 2007 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

On a basic level, the ad doesn't work. It might work against an incumbent, who has the levers of power and keeps reminding people they need to fall in line with that power. But a fellow candidate, a fellow senator? She's not the power. And is that really her image with the general public? Ruby or McCain, maybe, but it's hard to see where "overly scripted" fits in with monolithic Big Brother. Especially, when the clip of her isn't her use of newsspeak while describing her position on Iraq. Cool on first glance and then it falls apart.

Posted by: jz on March 19, 2007 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Who gives a s***? Besides the usual contingent of moronic trolls, that is.

Posted by: calling all toasters on March 19, 2007 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

I don't get it. She's controlling our brains? We're going to kick her tyrannical ass in the 2008 summer olympics? They're trying to incite people to attack her with sledgehammers?

I guess it emphasizes that she's a crappy uptight speaker and we'll probably be seeing a lot of stories about her being too wooden and stiff, then stories about her trying too hard to remake her image, and then stories about how she's a real relaxed person that knows how to drink beer on their front lawn with Bon Jovi after they lose an election.

Posted by: B on March 19, 2007 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

I was expecting another Macaca video. It was a letdown. Didn't live up to its billing.

Posted by: Nan on March 19, 2007 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Lame. I expected them to have cleverly stitched bits of Hillary speeches together to make her appear totalitarian, instead they just cut and pasted. Lame and lazy.

Posted by: lame on March 19, 2007 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

I'm neutral on Hillary, and the ad did nothing to shift my opinions one way or the other. It was clever, but the gimic was obvious within seconds, and then it was just a matter of waiting for it to play out.

Posted by: MadLad on March 19, 2007 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Hilary's done.
Stick a pitchfork in her.

Next Lib to be tar and feathered:

Osama Hussein Barack.

My flying monkey trolls haven't even begun to reduce this man to a quavering quivering quisling.

But we will... we will.
Hie my right-wing pretties... HIE!

Posted by: Bunco from The Bunker on March 19, 2007 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

"Honestly, if Hillary was not a woman, or if her last name was not Clinton, would anyone even be considering this candidate as a credible one?"

If Barack Obama wasn't black would anybody even consider him for President? The guy has two years experience in the US senate. The bar has been lowered way down for him so that he gets applauded for being articulate and repeating platitutes like "why can't we all get along"?

If Obama had been white nobody would take him seriously as a presidential candidate.

Posted by: Nan on March 19, 2007 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

The 2008 campaign will be the dirtiest ever because the GOP is all set to lose and they will pull out the entire playbook of dirty tricks no matter who the candidate. They will find a way to turn Obama into the next Willie Horton. Hillary will be the Wicked Witch of the West and Al Gore would be the Brother From another planet, just as they turned John Kerry as a coward who came home from Vietnam instead of dying there like a man.

2008 will take the dirties infighters the Dems have to offer. I say lets have a bloody primary and pick the one that is best at twisting the knife into the GOP and beating back the press.

Posted by: bakho on March 19, 2007 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary's not that scary.

But man, when I see her disembodied head floating all grey/blue on an overhead screen in front of a sea of zombies, I get really scared. And the way the screen blew up - was that evil spirits?

It never crossed my mind before, but... does she eat bugs? Just askin'.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on March 19, 2007 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

was it supposed to be anti-Hillary? Then the mace wielding Baywatch stand-in was the hero of the piece? Interesting. Liberals are just beyond comprehension.

Posted by: cull tech on March 19, 2007 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

After watching this video, I didn't feel much differently about Hillary, who I've always thought would be an okay president but not a winning candidate, but I did feel like Barack Obama's supporters were a bunch of smug, self-righteous, cultists who make pretentious, messianic commercials.

So I guess you could say this commercial pushed me toward Edwards?

Posted by: Nina on March 19, 2007 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

That's a great commercial. Didn't change me, but it does capture part of the Hillary problem, the smugness and elitism.

The Republican party is on the verge of being torn apart by its factions. Only one person can unite them: Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: MaxGowan on March 19, 2007 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

Ironic that Obama claims to be "above the fray", but his supporters have no problems perpetuating right-wing Clinton-stereotypes (including Geffen). I've been suspicious of Obama's sincerity and this, though not sanctioned by his campaign, is evidence that his gimmick is just that, a gimmick. Clearly, his supporters seem to be fine with a.) negative politics and b.) perpetuating right-wing stereotypes.

For the record, HRC is my third choice. I had Obama ahead of Edwards, but Obama's surrogates/supporters playing a similar role of Bush's back in '00 and '04 doesn't inspire much confidence in me. Besides, Obama is all about cheap rhetoric. At least Edwards is now putting down some specifics. I read Obama's latest book, and it's basically nothing more than a generic Democratic talking point handbook.

Posted by: gq on March 19, 2007 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

It's amazing how little we discuss the appointments a Presidential candidate might make.
I can't recall one single instance of reading or hearing a conversation about who Hilary or Obama might choose as their Attorney General, Sec. of Defense, etc...

Seems to me that stuff is critical, yet it doesn't seem to be on the agenda in America's political discourse.

Posted by: swamp thing on March 19, 2007 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't particularly like Hillary before the video, and my opinion didn't really change after watching it.

I do think it was a brilliant bit of political messaging, though.

Posted by: fiat lux on March 19, 2007 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

I've been very over 1984 for about 20 years now. It was a brilliant diagnosis of creeping political illness in 1948, same time as the brilliant "X" note, shortly in advance of Arendt on totalitarianism. Today, it's largely a poor analogical framework for political life. It presents a set of tropes -- authentic vs. programmed, honest vs. doublespeak -- that are only occasionally relevant. Like Klein says, name a politician you couldn't have put up on that screen with equal effect.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 19, 2007 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone who gave junior of awol and 5D shoot'em in the face a blank check to wage war, The Bush Doctrine, will never get my vote! Bottom line i'm already fed up with the 08 campaign! cleve

Posted by: cleve on March 19, 2007 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Ooooh! Ooooh!

It's a Mac ad! That means it's COOL!!! And it's attacking Hillary! That means she's Bill Gates!!!

Oh man, she's dead meat!!! You'd have to live in Ohio or something to vote for her now!!

Posted by: frankly0 on March 19, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

I hope this helps define the difference between on-line video and TV. TV is an experience shrared by tens of thousands, if not millions, of people of the same event, usually combined with some kind of editorial comment delivered by a spokesperson chosen by the establishment. YouTube is experienced by the individual in a time of their choosing without a corresponding corporate spokesperson informing the viewer whether or not the content was good or bad.

Although I think the internet is good at some things political, like recruitment and networking, it does not have the same propaganda effect that other forms of mass media have. Perhaps that is the internet's best feature, it is able to combat the propaganda of other mass media and inform the individual outside of a mass or mob identity.

Posted by: Brojo on March 19, 2007 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

I thought the part where she ordered the flying monkeys to capture Dorothy and Toto was pretty scary.

Posted by: nikkolai on March 19, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

"I've been suspicious of Obama's sincerity and this, though not sanctioned by his campaign, is evidence that his gimmick is just that, a gimmick."

Obama has been marketing himself as a political Messiah, someone above politics. That gimmick cannot work long term except with Obama cultists. They have really bought into the gimmick and think he walks on water. They are supporting him based on emotion, not reason. Sooner or later they will end up disillusioned.

Posted by: Nan on March 19, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

No, I didn't think it was a great ad. Nice idea, not quite well enough executed. (In the interests of disclosure I'm vehemently anti-Hillary but that's another matter.)
However, I think that the various campaign teams are really going to have to look out for these sorts of things. One good joke, that's all it really takes, to establish a politician's image in the voter's minds. From a UK point of view it happened to Neil Kinnock. A clip of him falling over on a beach was used to open Spitting Image (a puppet satire show) for years and that's what people though of him, a buffoon. There are those who think that Moseley was held back by PG Wodehouse and his satire of the Blackshorts.
If someone comes up with just one striking clip or mash up that gets a few tens of millions of You Tube plays that's gonna hurt.

Posted by: failingeconomist on March 19, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Bo-o-o-ring!
about sums it up. It may perhaps be exciting for those supporters of the democratic party that are going to get all involved in the Obama-Clinton race instead of insisting on substantive issue-related campaigns.

Posted by: RS on March 19, 2007 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

I've been suspicious of Obama's sincerity and this, though not sanctioned by his campaign, is evidence that his gimmick is just that, a gimmick.

What's become perfectly obvious is that the KoolKids in the Democratic Party have all chosen Obama as their man.

For me, that makes him really, really hard to stomach. In the end, a politician becomes his constituents, or, more likely, is one of them from the beginning.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 19, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

I'm very pro-Hillary, and wish her all the success possible in obtaining the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. I think it would be even better if she brought on Barack Hussein Obama is a Veep.

Posted by: American Hawk

That tells you whom the rightwingnuts want as the Democratic nominee -- and gives Democrats a very good reason not to nominate her.

Posted by: bob5540 on March 19, 2007 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

I suspect Hillary wouldn't be nearly as much of a statist as a lot of people seem to think, but it's hard to tell with Hillary. She'd probably be pragmatic in the same sense that Bill was pragmatic.

But I think nominating her would be a gift to the Republicans. It's their best shot at getting a bad candidate elected, because Hillary would energize the wingnuts like nothing else possibly could. And also a significant percentage on the far-left who can't get past her cheerleading for Bush's war in Iraq. Nader said he'd be more likely to run again if Hillary gets the nomination. And she has such high negatives that if the GOP runs Rudy I think a lot of moderate liberals would look at two pro-choice candidates, etc., and not turn out for Hillary very strongly.

And a poor turnout for Hillary in those segments means a poorer showing for Democrats in the house and senate.

Posted by: bob on March 19, 2007 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

The original ad was clever, but so what?

This ad was also clever, a little less, but so what?

Posted by: spider on March 19, 2007 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

I'm very much pro-Hillary and thought the ad was decent only to the extent that it's target audience was aimed at activists who, most likely, have already made up their minds. Viewed as a bit of boosterism for the Obama faithful, it's not bad. Viewed as something to change minds, maybe a bit less effective.

If nothing else, it's a nice starting point to set off future rounds of independent pajama-driven political marketing in the future.

Posted by: Greg Wythe on March 19, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Of all the fairly well known candidates, from either party, Richardson, Giuliani, and Romney have in many ways the best professional experience with which to make a claim to be be prepared for the job. I know, however, that Richardson and Giuliani have some blots on their professional record which works against them, and at this point I haven't taken any time to look into Romney's record as Governor to have any opinion of him.

I'd rather not see a U.S. Senator from either party be elected Presdient, however, regardless of who is getting targeted by derivative ad campaigns.

Posted by: Will Allen on March 19, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't like Obama before viewing this ad and I dislike him even more after viewing it. I agree that he is dishonest. I do not understand the enthusiasm for him given his support for Lieberman against Ned Lamont, to the point of going to CT to campaign. I realize Hillary did that too, but Obama had no reason to be there.

This ad is a cheap shot. It suggests that people in 1984 don't think, but it assumes by its approach that people in 2007 don't think either. This should be about issues, not Hillary Clinton's voice or speaking style. I'd like to see you guys examine what it is about your own relationships with your mothers that gives you this knee-jerk dislike of the woman's voice. Obama is no one and he's done nothing to qualify himself for being president. If you have read Bill Clinton's autobiography, you'll know what Hillary was doing all those years, besides being targeted and smeared in ways that make this attempt look silly.

Posted by: Perry on March 19, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Ive seen this same thing used a million times with people like Bill Gates, Ashcroft, Bush, etc.... So Im not impressed, Ive seen it before. Also, the stuff Hillary is saying almost seems like it was chosen at random, nothing shes saying is that scary.

I think this video actually helps Hillary becuase it makes the hate about her seem hysterical. Hillary may not be perfect, but she aint Big Brother either.

Posted by: Jonesy on March 19, 2007 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

This is mostly a white site, of course. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But in my fairly extensive experience, as a white guy who know and works with quite a few people who are African-American (although mostly middle-age) - there's definitely a difference. It seems that the Obama ascendency is fueled by a lot of younger white folk. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But by contrast, nearly all of the middle-age people I know who are African-American think Obama is too young, FWIW. At least he's thwarting Hillary's coronation. The only one of the top three who can carry 270 Electoral votes is Edwards.

Posted by: MaxGowan on March 19, 2007 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

I thought it was stupid, if the intent was to impact the Democratic primaries. When it comes to Big Brother boogeymen among Democrats, Clinton is way, way down the list.

Posted by: PapaJijo on March 19, 2007 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

OK, this was an anti-Hillary ad, right. But who is it supposedly in favor of? Anybody but Hillary? Is this somehow an antidemocratic ad and I'm missing it?

I would see this as being anti-Democratic establishment, but the thing that really confuses me is Joe Klien. Maybe he doesn't like Hillary specifically, but he seems about as much of an establishment type guys as there could be.

I mostly dislike whoever made this ad. I don't care much for Hillary, but anyone who can equate her with the pure stupid evil of Bush junta is full of it, in my opinion. If they had juxtaposed her with Bush and Lieberman, this could have worked on me. But the idea that SHE alone is dangerous when the government has been running amok for six years just makes me sympathize with her.

Posted by: jussumbody on March 19, 2007 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a NYer and was an agnostic on HRC in 2000 (although I did vote for her) and now must admit that I've been generally impressed with her as Senator. That said, she's 4th on my list for President. This tape is an interesting piece of snark but meaningless and without any real impact.

Posted by: Mark C on March 19, 2007 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK
I can and can't have in my sock drawer. Norman Rogers at 1:09 PM
Your soiled sockpuppets and bdsm porn probably fill the entire dresser.

There will be better swift boating to come, who ever become the democratic nominee, but it's typical that all the authoritarian pseudo-christians like to accuse others of having their attributes. Someone should have told the makers of this that 1984 isn't the future, it's the past and the past represents Republicanism.

...and gives Democrats a very good reason not to nominate her. bob5540 at 2:32 PM

Puhleeeze, are you hawk puppet?

Posted by: Mike on March 19, 2007 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

This is mostly a white site, of course. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But in my fairly extensive experience, as a white guy who know and works with quite a few people who are African-American (although mostly middle-age) - there's definitely a difference.

I'll speak up on behalf of all the white people here--

The problem with Hillary is not that she's smart. It's not that she's a bad person. It's not that she wants to emasculate every red blooded American male, take away all of our guns and put us in re-education camps like in that film, Red Dawn.

It's just that no one--and I mean no one--wants to sit there and have her bitching at us all day long about this and that.

Do you want that? No. And, I don't know what the fizzle in the ma-shizzle in the black community is, but that's the situation, cornbread.

And I say that with the utmost respect.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 19, 2007 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Boring. When did Weird Al Yankovic start making political ads?

The ad would be equally effective if you put ANY candidate in it. And equally unoriginal.

More cult of personality discussion. Isn't that what got us GWB in the first place?

As an Unenrolled voter from MA who tends to vote in the Democratic primary, I can't get fired up about Hillary or Edwards. Obama doesn't have the experience.

Where have you gone, Albert Gore. Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you...

Posted by: Barringer on March 19, 2007 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

"If Obama had been white nobody would take him seriously as a presidential candidate."

If Obama was white, he'd be John Edwards, who plenty of people take seriously as a presidential candidate, and did in 2004 when he had exactly one term in the Senate -- two whole years longer than Obama will in '08.

As for Hillary, listening to her speak is a wierd combination of listening to paint dry combined with listening to fingernails on a blackboard -- boring and irritating at the very same time.

And sorry, Perry, but my mother has a wonderful soft soothing voice.

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 19, 2007 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

All of those who are sneering at candidates because they're "nobodies" and sneering at supporters because they supposed, "aren't interested in issue-related campaigns" write as though they have slept through the last 6 years.

Hate the game, not the players.

Posted by: Tyro on March 19, 2007 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Honest to god, the only people more whiny and defensive and thin-skinned than Obama supporters are Hillary supporters.

I thought one HRC's strengths was that she's been through the wringer and she's not afraid to take on the VRWC? If all the snivelling and whimpering about this video is any indication, the lady's got a glass jaw and might as well give up now.

Perry: Obama was in Connecticut in March of '06, when Lamont was at about five percent. Hillary and her surrogate (Bill) went in July when Lieberman was down by ten points. Bill Clinton continued to campaign for Lieberman by spreading the myth that he was a good Democrat post-primary. If you're basing your vote in the primary on who backed Lieberman, you can't vote for anybody named Clinton.

Posted by: Jim on March 19, 2007 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Was this actually a campaign ad, or just someone's mashup joke? It's kind of funny, and as noted, the 1984 Mac commercial was brilliant. I think the point, if there is one, that Hillary is just another corporate clone DLC candidate, is exactly right.

I really don't want to have to pull the lever for H. Clinton in November 2008.

Posted by: gummitch on March 19, 2007 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

I think the ad frames Hillary as a machine politician. She's been trying to paint herself in more human terms, and this ad seeks to imprint quite the opposite impression.

It's not substantive of course, it just serves to imprint that negative feeling, or remind skeptical viewers of their past negative feelings if their impressions were at all swayed by Hillary's recent softly-lit "chat's".

Posted by: jackifus on March 19, 2007 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

It's oh-so-fashionable in certain circles for those who otherwise proclaim themselves Democrats to oppose Hillary Clinton in her quest for the presidency and pledge allegiance instead to a lesser light with a lesser chance to win big in 2008 -- or win at all.

Indeed, Karl Rove has done his job well, as usual.

Posted by: bill bob on March 19, 2007 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Hate the game, not the players.

I believe the correct term that you wish to employ here is better described as "player hating" and it should be expressed like this:

whassup wit da playa hatin, cuz?

Thank you.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 19, 2007 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Mike Buck writes: ...is Hillary the one who needs a hammer in the face? I can think of other more appropriate targets.

FWIW...Hillary is my fifth choice behind Edwards, Obama, Richardson, and Another Possible Undeclared Candidate.

So you're saying that your top choice for getting a hammer in the face is Edwards, and Hillary is only your fifth choice?

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on March 19, 2007 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

She's just a cautious, centrist politician, ideologically correct enough and fairly well skilled. But she's nothing like the monster portrayed in the clip.

Still, I can see how someone else might find her to be mechanical and contrived--even frightening--in the way that clip suggests.

Posted by: Unfrightened on March 19, 2007 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

The ad should be very effective against Hillary in the general election. In the primary, not at all.

I'd prefer if Hillary were more progressive and I'd rather that Edwards, Obama, Clark, or Gore were the Democratic nominee. But compared to anyone the GOP would put up there Hillary would be a much better president and much better for the good ol' USA at this point in our history.

Personally, I was offended that a Democrat would use that frame against another Democrat. Idiotic.

Edwards and Obama need to tread carefully in how they try to bring down Hillary because she just might be the Democratic candidate in 2008. So they can choose to put self over party and country or they can show respect to the other candidates. Right now it looks as if Obama in particular is choosing "self".

Posted by: Curt M on March 19, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't think much of the ad - it is a carbon copy of a 23 year old ad. But then again I'm 38 and remember the original ad. Maybe the young'ns on YouTube don't.

That said, I think what is more important is that when someone was trying to come up with a quick & dirty anti-Hillary ad, this is what they came up with. Hillary's big problem is that she lacks charisma, and one of the reasons the 'preprogrammed' label sticks to her is because she DOES seem that way, or more that way than the politicians like Obama & even Bush back in '00. People like warm politicians to be president (or vice versa?) - witness Clinton, Reagan, and yes, Bush II. That's why I have a hard time seeing Clinton in the White House. It seems like Democrats have a hard time accepting that ... witness Kerry, Dukakis (!), Mondale, etc. (As a former Massachusetts resident & a current New Yorker I now need to take a break from thinking about Democratic presidential politics ... too depressing.)

Posted by: will on March 19, 2007 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking for myself, I'm an anti-Hillary Democrat, and I thought the ad was lame.

The Apple ad was just a hair shy of ridiculous self-importance, but this unimaginative rip-off is just silly. Particularly given what she's actually saying, which is about as untotalitarian as you get. I dislike her for her DLC pabulum and stances on Iraq, etc, but those points have nothing to do with this ad, which seems to largely play on the anxieties the right have with having a strong woman in power.

Posted by: JD on March 19, 2007 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

Jeremy Wilcox writes: The response of American Hawk-- conservative troll extraordinare-- says it all. Conservatives are salivating at the thought of a Hillary nomination...

How can you tell that? Because American Hawk says he wants Hillary as the nominee? Why do you think he's telling the truth?

He could be saying that he wants Hillary because he knows that Kevin's readers will be inclined to do the opposite of anything American Hawk suggests.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on March 19, 2007 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK


KEVIN DRUM: I'm curious: tell me in comments what you think of this video.

The video is a decently produced parody, but its lack of originality makes it modestly clever at best. The image of nearly anyone could be used in place of Clinton's to the same effect.

But even if I were more admiring of the ad, and even if it had been actually produced by the Obama campaign, and even if I were a strong supporter of Obama, I would not see it as effective campaigning.

When I see an ad--any ad--which causes me to laugh uproariously or be otherwise moved emotionally, I come away from it admiring the talents of the ad's producers, not the product. If anything, because they resort to manipulative techniques, my opinion of the product itself is most likely diminished.

But I do understand how those less anti-capitalistic than myself are moved by advertisements and empty rhetoric to actions (such as purchasing or voting) which are ultimately detrimental to their interests. How else could any Republican get elected?

Obama's not a Republican, which is why I would think less of him were he to actually use a commerical such as this.


Posted by: jayarbee on March 19, 2007 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

I thought it was a little over the top.

But boy, I sure do wish we could get our party back from the corporate whores who seem to own it now.

I've wished for that since the 1984 presidential election.

They don't fight to win. They don't even fight to lose. All they do is hand us some lube and let the Republicans have us.

Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on March 19, 2007 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Democrats had better concentrate on ending the occupation of Iraq if they want to win. The candidate that best bashes W. Bush and his wars will win the electorates' loyalty. This childish crap only makes the anti-war leaning moderates more entrenched in their belief Democrats have too much infighting to be an effective governing party.

Posted by: Brojo on March 19, 2007 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

If Weird Al did the ad, it would be much better.

I can't believe anybody thinks this ad will make one bit of difference. I was left wondering who the blonde in red shorts was and why she was throwing the hammer. The commercial really didn't make a lot of sense.

Now, everbody agrees the original Apple commercial was great. But did I miss the Apple's subsequent takeover of the desktop? They have a great product, but I'm pretty sure they didn't win.

Posted by: DR on March 19, 2007 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

This ad says more about Obama and how F.O.S. he is than it does about Hillary and will more likely turn even more people away from both of the two dueling divas trying to upstage each other.

CalGal thinks if Obama was white he'd be John Edwards. No way. Read the WM article about Obama and going wobbly. The most striking thing in the article was the following:

"Their first meeting, several months later at a D.C. steakhouse, did not begin auspiciously. “His body language was not good,” says Power. “He had no desire to be there at all. It was, ‘Who the fuck is this person, this lily-livered Harvard softy, and tell me why I am meeting with her again?’”

Clearly the man is no gentleman, like Edwards.
The Power woman should have picked up her purse and accidentally spilled her drink on Obama's head before walking out. Obama's ambition is raw and ugly.

Posted by: Chrissy on March 19, 2007 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

The video was better than I realized. I remembered it the next day. It stayed in my brain.

My fantasy ticket has been Edwards/Obama, but I still wasn't anti-Hillary (because ANY of the Dem. candidates are far superior to me than any of the Repub. candidates).

But, I've gotta give snaps (or props or whatever the current slang is) to the creator of that ad. It DID make Hillary creepy. And, it DID sink in.

I didn't end up being pro-Obama, but the video certainly succeeded in making Hillary far more creepy and less desirable.

And, if the same commercial ran with Obama being on the big screen, I'd be creeped out by him, too.

The genius of the video is that so many Democrats already feel like Bush (and his administration) is Big Brother. Ideally, this concept would have been used to oppose ALL GOP candidates (paid for by the DNC or any group of Democrats). But, if the creator the video sees Hillary as just another GOP candidate, then I understand his/her desire to make that point.

I saw this video the same day Obama had 10K-12K people show up for a rally. That on top of the video, makes Hillary appear EXTREMELY obsolete.

I'm fascinated by the crowds Obama gets. It speaks to the desire we all have to escape this Orwellian world we've been living in.

And, THAT is the point. It's not about any Dem. candidate as much as it about getting AWAY from the Orwellian world, and Hillary, sadly, still attaches herself to that world. That's why the grassroots/netroots people don't like her.

This ad was made for and designed by a person who literally wants to throw a sledgehammer at the whole system. And, I understand how he/she feels.

Posted by: Mr. Pink on March 19, 2007 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

Clearly the man is no gentleman, like Edwards.
The Power woman should have picked up her purse and accidentally spilled her drink on Obama's head before walking out. Obama's ambition is raw and ugly.

I think you need to talk to your doctor about upping your dosage

Posted by: YOWZA!! on March 19, 2007 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

I found the ad boring and, well, derivative. A true parody requires some original content in order to work, and this had none. It did nothing for me, and I have little love for HRC. I really don't know what the hubbub is about.

My guess is that the only people going gaga over it are the ones too young to remember the original ad.

Posted by: Disputo on March 19, 2007 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

Treating Hillary Clinton like a totalitarian bitch is a tactic straight out of the right-wing smear machine playbook ($5.95 on ebay). I think supporters of Mr. Audacity-of-Hope are imitating the wrong people.

Posted by: Hieronymus Braintree on March 19, 2007 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Before :

Mildly pro-Hillary but intrigued by Obama.

After:

Mildly pro-Hillary and kind of put off by this tactic, therefore less intrigued by Obama.

I think they are aiming this at people younger than I and I wonder whether their target audience gets the reference to '1984'.

Posted by: ursus on March 19, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

You Hillary-defenders better face facts:

Folks voted for Nader in 2000 for a reason.
Those same people WILL reject Hillary - for the same reason.

The Democratic party has to accept this contingent of voters, passionate about their cause. Or the Democratic party can reject us. And lose again; the next time the Republicans can successfully con the evangelicals into voting to put Mammon's prophets back into the White House.

Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on March 19, 2007 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

What exactly does this ad expose of Hillary? That she's a somewhat mealy-mouthed platitude dispenser? Wow. Devastating take-down.

Posted by: Blame America on March 19, 2007 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

the man is no gentleman, like Edwards

Edwards, like Obama, is an empty man with only ambition driving his campaign. Edwards did not exhibit much gentlmanlyness when not standing up for his bloggers when they came under attack by an anti-reproductive rights big mouth. A strong candidate who believes in his ideas would have rhetorically spit in Donoho's eye. Edwards didn't, and I would expect Obama and Clinton to flinch the same way when confronted with a religious conservative bigot. They only have the will to fight each other, not the real power that hurts America and the world.

Posted by: Brojo on March 19, 2007 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, yes, Nader in 2000. Where to begin? That it exposed the myth that there are no sheep on the left? That the narcissism of (those over 40, therefore knew better, having lived through the '68 debacle) the Nader supporters perfectly mirrored the narcissism of the man himself? I have one in my own family: "I voted for Nader. I feel so pure!" Yup, that's what it was all about. Not what was best for our country, about feeling morally superior.

Posted by: MaxGowan on March 19, 2007 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Re Extradite Rumsfeld's remark: "Folks voted for Nader in 2000 for a reason."

The reason is they were simple-minded, narcissistic fools who, by their votes, helped hand the country over to Bush and his corporate cronies.

Posted by: McCord on March 19, 2007 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Was anti - Hill before; the ad is borderline irrelevant.

Posted by: fbg46 on March 19, 2007 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

The reason is they were simple-minded, narcissistic fools who, by their votes, helped hand the country over to Bush and his corporate cronies.

But on the other hand, there were a couple of relatives I was just itching to cut out of my life, and their Nader support was my impetus.

You might say that support for Nader brought us to the nadir.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 19, 2007 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

And another html foul...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 19, 2007 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary attitude status: mostly indifferent, not a hater, not a huge fan.

Anyway, the problem with the ad is that there's no connection between the semantic content of Hilary's speech and the Orwellian images. Deep Orwellian double thought is not the problem with Hillary. (And even if it was, this commercial wouldn't make the case on its own. It would only repeat the conclusion, devoid of argument.)

You could put any other democratic front runner in there and the net effect would be about the same. Similarly, you could put Hilary's speeches in another film, say, Nightmare on Elm Street, or Star Wars (her pale face peaking out from the emperor's cowl), and the words she spoke would be just as irrelevant.

What I find disturbing, however, is that Joe Klein finds the commercial notable enough to go back on his stance on Time's Person of the Year. It may be that he believes there are people out there who will be persuaded by a commercial like this, even though he sees it for what it is, but my guess/opinion is that its more likely that he is impressed with the production values (relative to the usual youtube fare) and that's all it takes to make him vulnerable to the passive acceptance of an incoherent critique.

It's not like that the windsurfer attack ad from 04, which used to drive me crazy. It was unfair in that it brought irrelevant shortcomings to the fore in its characterization of Kerry as a presidential candidate and human being, but the representation of that small flaw--a propensity to look silly while publicly acting out hobbies he misidentified as being "masculine"--was pretty accurate.

Posted by: Tim on March 19, 2007 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

The reason is they were simple-minded, narcissistic fools who, by their votes, helped hand the country over to Bush and his corporate cronies.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen)

Speaking as one of those simple-minded narcissistic fools, I have to disagree. Yes, it was a mistake, although not a fatal mistake on my part, since Oregon gave all of its electoral votes to Gore in spite of my mistake.

However, at the time, my disgust with the Democratic Party was pretty much equivalent to my disgust with the GOP, as I was sick to death of years of corporate butt-licking from both parties. I wished to "make a statement" and figured that I good safely do that in Oregon. If I had realized how thoroughly fked-up the Bush administration was going to be, I would never have done that, regardless of the need to "send a message" to the Dems.

I was not simple-minded nor narcissistic. I was fed up. There is a difference.

Posted by: gummitch on March 19, 2007 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not too keen on Hillary, but would take her over any GOP candidate, of course. I thought the video was long, way too derivative and predictable, and boring. After the first three seconds, you knew what was coming, so why bother?

Posted by: K on March 19, 2007 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not a big Hillary fan. I guess I lean toward Obama (he's my senator) but I also like a lot about Edwards, and I'm curious to know more about Richardson.

That said, I thought the ad was pretty lame.

For one thing, the original ad is a pop culture icon, and the book itself is a cultural icon, so any take-off is going to seem stale and suffer in comparison. And if you add some particularly clever twist, you really just look like you're ripping off an old Apple ad. The O at the end was cute, but not cute enough to really make the ad stand out.

The ad doesn't seem particularly fair, either. As I said, I'm not crazy about Hillary, but her supporters really aren't any more drone-like than anyone else's, from what I've seen. And the speech chosen, her talking about wanting to let voters get a chance to know her and have a conversation -- well, that's what primaries are about, isn't it? It's not exactly the kind of Orwellian sentiment that you want to take a sledgehammer to.

So no, I just don't find anything particularly redeeming about the video.

It really takes an out of touch fogey like Klein to be wow'ed by something like this. 1984 as an ad was edgy in...1984. Now it's just a yawn.

Posted by: Royko on March 19, 2007 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Those who voted in non-swing states have no excuse for voting for Nader. Thanks for giving aid and comfort for the Naderites in swing states. It's part of the same narcissism.

I do cut slack for those who were younger than 40 in 2000, as they did not witness the left sitting on their hands, or voting for Pat Paulson or Dick Gregory, and giving the presidency to Nixon.

Really, where would the right-wing be today were it not for the petulant cluelessness of the Nader left?

Posted by: MaxGowan on March 19, 2007 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

Stupid me, I did not get the ad. Are we breaking Hillary or breaking Apple or breaking complacency?

Posted by: Matt on March 19, 2007 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, brother, we now have Jim suggesting that Obama early on was a supporter of Ned Lamont in Connecticut.

The truth is that early-on Obama supported Lieberman and made his support plain in a speech on March 6 to the Connecticut Democratic Party's big annual Jefferson Jackson Bailey dinner attended by more than 1,700 party members.

Said Obama in the keynote address at the Party gathering:

"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf."

Here's a link to the full story for those interested:

http://tinyurl.com/27tqea

The fact is that Obama supported Lieberman in the primary and only after Lamont defeated Lieberman in the primary did Obama support Lamont. And it was mighty tepid support at that -- a cash donation of $5,000 and a short email later. Obama declined to come into the state to support Lamont as he had come into the state to support Lieberman.

Obama's supporters obviously want you folks to forget.

(by the by, if you want more facts, just Google: obama support for lieberman)

By contrast, Hillary Clinton's support for Lieberman in the primary was lukewarm, to say the least. She hedged it by noting that she had known and worked with Lieberman for 30 years.

Hillary Clinton's lukewarm support for Lieberman in the primary was in contrast to other Democrats who got aboard his bandwagon: Harry Reid, Charles Schumer and Barbara Boxer, to mention a few.

I supported Ned Lamont and am unhappy with Hillary Clinton's support, lukewarm or not, for Lieberman, but I can understand it better than I can understand that of Obama. The Clintons and Lieberman go way back; Obama, by comparison, barely knew him.

But what I really object to is the constant effort by Obama's supporters -- and Obama himself, for that matter -- to rewrite his history. It surely leads the independent mind to question whether or not the Obama we see today is the real Obama -- or if the Obama we see today is real at all.

Folks who wonder may want to read David Ehrenstein's piece in Monday's Los Angeles Times, headlined OBAMA THE 'MAGIC NEGRO."

http://tinyurl.com/24m66g

Posted by: george on March 19, 2007 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, let me mention, what this ad makes me think of is the anti-Kerry Wolves ad in 2004, which was trying to recreate the phenomenon of the bear ad from 1984. It was a big deal when it came out, because everyone noted that it was similar to the bear ad. But it failed to have the same cultural resonance, and a week later the thing was forgotten. Zero impact.

Lightening just doesn't strike twice in the same place. But the press and punditry cover it like it will because, well, it makes their jobs easier.

Posted by: Royko on March 19, 2007 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Starting to get it after some web searching.

She has tranformed herself from a progressive masquerading as a conservative to a progressive masquerading as a liberal.

Her masquerades are getting better, and I would vote for her if I thought America needed a masquerader.

I think for Hillary to win we will need a new political faction: The Triangulators!

Posted by: Matt on March 19, 2007 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

I would favor any Democrat (or the proverbial yellow dog) over any of the Republican scumbuckets running. I do think that Hillary is undeserving of the hostile reaction she has generated among the party. Males with almost the exact same voting record are largely given free passes, but Hillary is held to an exacting standard - "Caesar's Wife" perhaps?

The commercial was brilliant in 1984, but I think it sold the brand as an edgy cool company more than it sold actual Macs. To the same extent, if Obama supporters think he is going to revolutionize the party, they haven't been paying attention. He is a tarasa bulba at this point and many people will later be disappointed because they like him for what they think he will do, not what he is actually saying he'll do, which is about the same as every other Democratic candidate. He's no sledgehammer through the screen of the party; really, he is just as comfortable mouthing platitudes as the next candidate. I like the guy, but he would not govern any further left than Edwards, Clinton, or any of the lesser candidates.

Steve Hager

Posted by: C. Steven Hager on March 19, 2007 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

I'm somewhat anti-Hillary, but all this video does for me is reaffirms what an idiot Klein is. Just nothing to this video.

Posted by: Steve on March 19, 2007 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

Valid observations, Steven. I think for a lot of people, it's instinctive, not thought out - but the fact that she only stayed with Bill for political gain (and everyone knows it), is one big factor that a far cry from the Ceasar's wife thing. Her mishandling of health reform was very revealing of her character. "Does not have the executive temperment; does not listen." And I'm no fan of Bill, either. I'm not sure I dislike her any more. She's not likable, and that's a quality that transcends gender. Too smug, condescending, morally superior when she isn't.

Posted by: MaxGowan on March 19, 2007 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

I hope this helps define the difference between on-line video and TV.

I saw this blurb from the Wapo at Huffpo:

Not one of the videos made by John Edwards's campaign, for example, matches the popularity of the one showing the former senator combing his hair before an interview to the tune of "I Feel Pretty." That video has been viewed more than 135,000 times since it was posted on YouTube in November. Edwards's most popular official video, of his announcement in December that he's running for president, has been viewed about 116,000 times.

Similarly, Clinton's most watched HillCast, titled " Roadmap Out of Iraq," comes nowhere close in popularity to the video showing her singing " The Star-Spangled Banner" off-key at a rally in Iowa. The HillCast has been viewed more than 15,000 times since it was posted on Feb. 17, the out-of-tune moment nearly 1.1 million times since its posting on Jan. 27.

Posted by: Brojo on March 19, 2007 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

I haven't seen the video and am moderately anti-Hillary. She would be my fifth choice behind Gore, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson.

Why do I feel this way? Because she feels like an unathentic fraud to me...everything she says has been calculated beforehand for maximum political effect and you have no way of knowing if she actually believes a single word of what she says. Add to that the fact that she is a stiff and passionless speaker, and you get a candidate who really is not that appealing.

Posted by: mfw13 on March 19, 2007 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary is not my 1st preference by any means, I like Bill Richardson best, followed by Edwards. However this video should not influence anyone, isn't it obvious that she could be replaced by (insert any politician here) and produce the same effect?

Posted by: Dirk Murcray on March 19, 2007 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

I don't like Hillary very much

To set the record straight, this ad was NOT from Obama's campaign, but from a third party who did it anonymously. I think the video was a swipe against Obama, since his official web site is given at the end without his campaign's knowledge or consent

My opinion about both has not changed. But the vid made me think real hard about the team in office now. Put Rove, Bush, or Cheney's face on the screen & we have reality.

Posted by: bob in fl on March 19, 2007 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

James E. Powell: "I do not support Hillary Clinton for president. Yet I cannot stand the constant ridicule and demonization. It degrades all of us, particularly Democrats."

I agree. Hillary Clinton's not my first choice for the Democratic nomination, either -- but then again, neither was her husband in 1992. But once Bill Clinton was the nominee, I supported him. He grew to become a pretty effective president, in my estimation.

And if his wife wins the 2008 nomination, I will support her candidacy with every political fiber in my being. Because one thing's for sure, fellow Democrats -- she's one hell of a lot better than anybody who is or will be offered up by the GOP.

Any Democrat who say's he or she would rather vote for St. Ralph Nader of the Ivory Snow Party, or some other fringe third party candidate, is a moron -- the times are such that we do not have that luxury of such frivolous political self-indulgence.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 19, 2007 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

I was neutral Hilary before, but first and foremost an Obama supporter. It doesn't have that much of an impact on my perception of her, though it might make her seem like more of a stiff, authoritarian candidate in comparison.

Posted by: Declare A Vision on March 19, 2007 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

I would not be surprised if the ad came out of Obama's camp or Edwards's camp. Obama has been receiving very positive news coverage but he is stil behind Hilarry. Edwards is trying hard but his message does not resonate.

Boring stuff. There is nothing the right or left can do to Hillary that have not been done sine 92. Nothing.

Posted by: bob on March 19, 2007 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers: "I am terrified of this woman and I have a feeling she is going to tell me what I can and can't have in my sock drawer."

Normie, she probably couldn't care any less about your vintage copies of Juggs magazine and that half-empty bottle of Astro-Glide.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 19, 2007 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

Let's try to avoid circular firing squads.

It's a bad idea for Democrats to make ads for the primary that Republicans will use in the general.

Ralph Nader elected George Bush-do YOU want to elect Rudy?

Posted by: xtalguy on March 19, 2007 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, brother, we now have Jim suggesting that Obama early on was a supporter of Ned Lamont in Connecticut.

Um...no. Someone upthread was misrepresenting Obama's trip to CT vis-a-vis HRC's. The truth is their stances were exactly the same: Supported Lieberman pre-primary, did as absolutely little as possible for Lamont post-primary. The one difference is Michelle Obama did not go to CT to campaign for Lieberman's sorry ass the week before the primary, possibly (I think probably) saving him from total meltdown, and did not go on Larry King to proclaim that it didn't matter who won, because Lamont and Lieberman were both Democrats.
IF you think there's no connection between what Bill Clinton does and HRC's electoral strategy, then HRC did nothing to help Lieberman. And if you believe that, would you please send me twenty thousand dollars to that I can liberate my vast fortune from a Nigerian bank account, which I will then share with you fifty-fifty?

Posted by: Jim on March 19, 2007 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

I ama strong Obama supporter and I hate the ad. It's like a kick in the stomach. I don't think Hillary would be a bad Presidennt--just a bad candidatte--but I don't hate her annd I don't appreciate an ad that unfairly demonizes her.

Posted by: wonkie on March 19, 2007 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

"If Obama was white, he'd be John Edwards, who plenty of people take seriously as a presidential candidate, and did in 2004 when he had exactly one term in the Senate"

Not true. Edwards had served a 6 year term in the Senate before running. More importantly Edwards was not marketing himself as a political Messiah. Edwards did not get the kind of saccharine sweet fawning media coverage that Obama gets.

If Obama had been white nobody would be talking about him as a credible canidate.

"given his support for Lieberman against Ned Lamont, to the point of going to CT to campaign. I realize Hillary did that too, but Obama had no reason to be there."

Hillary Clinton did not campaign for Lieberman in CT. She always said she would support the Dem nominee and she did.

Posted by: Nan on March 19, 2007 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

I like Edwards and Obama better than Clinton, but Clinton better than any Republican, so if that makes me pro-Hillary so be it. But this video had absolutely no effect on my opinion.

Posted by: Dave Hysinger on March 19, 2007 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

no excuse for voting for Nader.

Although I did not vote for Nader, I did not vote for either of the Democratic or Republican candidates in 2000.

I become a bit disgusted with those who think voters should not vote for the candidate they think best represents their views. What they suggest, to me, is that voters should vote for either the least worst candidate or the candidate with the best chance of winning, but not the one who they think is the best choice based on the merits of their platform and history. I think one reason the US is so fucked up is that this kind of party politics has dominated its elections for a very long time. Gore might have been a great president, but he probably would not have been a better president than Nader.

My suggestion to all of the party politicos who want to win at all costs is to run a third party candidate on a platform similar to your opposition's. Otherwise shut up about my sacred vote and how I use it. It is mine, and I use it to vote for who I think is MY best choice, not the choice of some party apparatchik, banker or defense contractor sitting in a five star restaurant eating an expensed $200 lunch.

Posted by: Brojo on March 19, 2007 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

Whatever. But, at least I know now that Obama is an anti-establishment political insurgent who would never have $1,000 a plate fundraiers in California with establishment Democratic bigshots, right?

I think it's piffle. I'm not particularly for or against any of the Democratic possibles at this point, other than thinking that any of them would be better than the elderly and/or fraudulent Bushniks on the other side.

Posted by: anon on March 19, 2007 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK
I become a bit disgusted with those who think voters should not vote for the candidate they think best represents their views. What they suggest, to me, is that voters should vote for either the least worst candidate or the candidate with the best chance of winning, but not the one who they think is the best choice based on the merits of their platform and history.

Which, really, is exactly what voters should do if they want to effect the best possible results given the real context of their actions. If they merely wish to make an ineffectual gesture, honest voting even when the structure of the system does not allow such voting to produce results that advance the interests of the voter may be desirable, but if they wish results, they have to consider the likely outcome of their vote, not merely who they'd abstractly like to win.

That being said, I'm certainly in favor of reforms that reduce the structural need for tactical voting by making it less likely that the best results for any given set of preferences will be acheived by voting other than honest preference. But I'm rather disgusted by people who act as if ignoring the reality of the structure of the electoral system is somehow morally superior.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 19, 2007 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

I'm rather disgusted by people who act as if ignoring the reality of the structure of the electoral system is somehow morally superior.

Then you should have voted for the winner.

Posted by: Brojo on March 19, 2007 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

Of the presidential candidates of 2000, which candidate was the most anti-Bush?

Democratic Party activists say Nader voters should have voted for Gore to prevent the horrible Bush from becoming president. But when compared, which candidate was the most antithetical to Bush? It was not Gore.

Of the presidential candidates for the 2008 election, which candidate is the most anti-Bush? My guess is the Nader blamers at Political Animal are not going to support that candidate. They are going to support the Democratic candidate that has the best chance to win the presidency. My opinion is that candidate will have many views and policies similar to Bush's, e.g defense spending and aid to Israel, which is why I will probably not support them with my vote.

Posted by: Brojo on March 19, 2007 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

The winner. That would be Al Gore, of course. And, yes, I did vote for him. Funny how even most Republicans (if only privately) acknowledge that America and the world would have been better off with Gore in the White House. And your precious vote is no more precious than my precious vote. I just love the disassociation of actions and consequences. "I'm ABOVE politics!" Puke.

Posted by: MaxGowan on March 19, 2007 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

For those who feel their vote "sacred" and are not about to be influenced by anyone on how to expend their "sacred" vote, I have the following advice:

Exercise your "sacred" vote in a primary election;

and then,

Cast your "sacred" vote for the nominee of the Democratic Party in the general election.

Simple enough, Brojo?

Otherwise, bubba, you risk getting a George W. Bush. Like in 2000 when you self-indulgently and self-importantly sat out the election, but, by Gawd!, Brojo, you showed 'em didn't you, that'll teach 'em to set around eatin' all them expensive expense-account dinners (which you obviously don't qualify for at your job at Randy's Air Conditioning and Repair).
Hmmmmm, bubba?

Posted by: hector on March 19, 2007 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

My vote is sacred and so is yours. If you want to vote for the monopoly party candidate, I would argue against it based on issues, not intra-party politics.

Posted by: Brojo on March 19, 2007 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

I was pro Hillary before and am after ad. It's a childish, nasty ad, and mostly playing on fears. I don't like it when Democrats do this. Too low, too irrational.

Posted by: Lee on March 19, 2007 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

I hate fucking war fought in my name. Remember that in 2012, Pat, when the Iraq occupation will still be the main issue after your Democratic president does not withdraw the troops. Remeber that during the 2016 campaign, too.

Posted by: Brojo on March 19, 2007 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't the more imp't question what you think of Obama after seeing this? Most ads say as much or more about the sponsor as they do about the target. This puts Obama in a very bad light. I presume this is not really his campaign ad.

Posted by: bruce on March 19, 2007 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

I'm an Obama supporter who liked her fine before the ad and fine after. Personally, I don't get some of the responses to the ad exclaiming how horrible and mean it is. I understand the 1984 implications, but I think most people who are in tune with pop culture (many more than are tuned in to politics) see the ad purely as old (IBM/Clinton) vs. new (Mac/Obama). It highlights the generational differences more than anything.

My feeling is it was created by some college student on their laptop --- no big conspiracy to be uncovered.

Posted by: Gwen on March 19, 2007 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

Wow... Never thought I'd see someone as delusion as Al or AH on the left side of the aisle at this point. Guess there's a few in every crowd.

Posted by: K on March 19, 2007 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

Yawn.

Posted by: Steve on March 19, 2007 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

There were very few differences between Gore and W. Bush. More NAFTA type trade, trillion dollar defense budgets, billions for Israel, and reducing welfare for the poor are a few policies that both Bush and Gore (and Kerry) shared with little differences.

The delusion is thinking establishment politicians have many differences between them. The emotional wedge issue of reproductive rights keeps the war machine well oiled. Kerry, Clinton and Edwards voted to invade Iraq. Their votes were no different than the Republicans'.

Posted by: Brojo on March 19, 2007 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

When Bill was president, Hillary had him veto the bankruptcy bill because the data was clear: unemployment and ill heath were the major reason for lower and middle class bankruptcy.

As senator she voted for essentially the same.. or actually a bill slightly more favorable to the financial services industry… It was written by the financial services industry after all.


Hillary will be the same old, same old… nothing new for poor and middle class people with her.. She wants power and she want is now…. The candidate with the biggest was chest is the most compromised candidate.. and clear she has not qualms about being compromised.

The ad... pales in comparison to her actions.. It is just an ad.. The bankruptcy bill is reality.. I prefer reality.

Posted by: Dee Lee on March 19, 2007 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

I wondered about copywright violations....

Posted by: jawbone on March 19, 2007 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

What's to think? You could create a video like this for anyone, including Mother Theresa. Anybody who is swayed one way or the other by this is an idiot.

Posted by: Tom on March 19, 2007 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

Before the ad: lukewarm feeling about Hillary.

After the ad: internal rant for a few minutes. "What the @#$%^ is wrong with people? How does an idiotic ad that falls apart upon even the most superficial analysis become a worthy topic of discussion on the Internet? What is the point of the ad, that Hillary is an unexciting operating system? That she has a monopoly on the Democratic nomination? Who is the woman throwing the hammer at Hillary? Barack Obama? The Republican party? Does any of this make sense in light that the woman is throwing a hammer at the only other woman in the room?"

This ad is too befuddled to make whatever point it is trying to make. I haven't read all of the comments, but I'd be surprised if a single person was influenced by this ad.

Posted by: Jason on March 19, 2007 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

It would be sad for historians 100 years from now to see that the US went through an entire generation with presidents named either Bush or Clinton. And this is a democracy? That's the best we can do? A father/son around a husband /wife? This is the decline of the US.
Oh well, it was bound to happen.

Posted by: TJM on March 19, 2007 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo, you are a fucking twit.

Posted by: Pat on March 19, 2007 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

I loved Hillary until I saw that ad. Then I realized who she reminds me of.

Posted by: Marco Ross on March 19, 2007 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

Well said, K. Hard to believe six years later the same Nader lies ("no real differences between Bush and Gore") are being peddled. Yeah, right. Proves my earlier point about the sheep on the left.

Posted by: MaxGowan on March 19, 2007 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't get the ad when I first saw it, and I still don't. I lived through the obsession with 1984 tropes and the Daisy commercial of 1964, and this ad didn't connect effectively with either of them. It just seemed like the ad maker is throwing stuff on the wall to see if anything sticks.

I'm agnostic on Hillary--she's not my favorite, but I'll probably vote for her if she gets the nomination. The worst thing about her being the Democratic candidate is that we will have to live through this sort of advertising schlock for an extra year--and four years of screaming on the right if she wins. It's enough to make a person tired.

Posted by: BWR on March 19, 2007 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

So, Brojo joins the ranks of those who proclaim that there is no difference betwween the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and therefore it behooves all to vote for guys like Nader or just sit out the election.

Where does this come from?

Where have these people been in JUST the last couple of months or so?

Has anyone following the current Congress, for starters, not seen the difference between now and then?

If you believe there is no difference today between the Democratic Party and Republican Party, then talk to the folks who are on the verge of benefiting from the first 100 hours of this Democratic Congress -- and remember, this is just for starters. And remember, too, that virtually all of the Democrat-drafted legislation introduced in the first 100 hours was OPPOSED by Republicans in the past and is OPPOSED by nearly all Republicans today.

Here is is, Brojo -- put it in your pipe and smoke it:

DRAIN THE SWAMP

- Prohibit the receipt of gifts, including meals, entertainment and travel, from lobbyists.

- Ban travel on corporate jets.

- Expand public disclosure of campaign contributions and client fees.

- Consider establishing a new independent ethics panel to police the House.

- Reform the "earmarking" process by requiring conference committee meetings to be open to the public and conference reports to be posted publicly on the Internet 24 hours before consideration.

- Promote bipartisan administration of the House, including regular meetings of both parties to discuss scheduling and operations of the House.

- Allow open, full and fair floor debate on bills under a procedure that grants the minority the right to offer amendments or substitute legislation.

REAL SECURITY

- Enact all the recommendations of the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

- Establish a new House committee to keep watch over government spending on intelligence.

- Screen 100 percent of containers and cargo bound for the United States in ships or airplanes at the point of origin.

- Provide greater assistance to local firefighters, police and emergency medical workers.

- Invest more money in public health to combat biological terrorism and pandemics.

- Double the size of U.S. Special Forces.

- Rebuild the U.S. military with greater investments in pay, technology, equipment and manpower.

- Enact a new GI Bill of Rights that guarantees health care and mental health services to active duty troops and veterans.

- Increase production of alternate fuels and set the United States on a course to achieving energy independence by 2020.

PROSPERITY AND OPPORTUNITY

- Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.

- Link a congressional pay raise to a hike in the minimum wage.

- End subsidies for Big Oil.

- Cut student loan interest rates in half to 3.4 percent for students and 4.25 percent for parents and increase the maximum on Pell grants to $5,600.

- Provide a tax credit for college tuition, up to $3,000.

- Allow the government to negotiate lower drug and HMO prices for Medicare recipients.

- Promote expanded stem cell research.

- Oppose any proposal to privatize Social Security.

- Require companies to provide accurate and timely information on under-funded pension plans.

- Institute a "pay-as-you-go" approach in federal budgeting to eliminate deficits, possibly requiring a roll back on some Bush tax cuts for taxpayers earning more than $250,000 a year.

And OF COURSE, there is the monumental fight going on in the Congress today to bring the Iraq War to a halt -- a fight that pits the vast majority of Democratsm who want to get the troops out as soon as possible, against the vast majority of Republicans, who want the troops to remain fighting in Iraq for the forseeable future, 10 years or so.

Climb down, Brojo. Take your Nader nonsense somewhere else.

No one with the sense God gave a goose is going to sit out the next election -- or vote for Nader.


Posted by: hector on March 19, 2007 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

It honestly didn't even cross my mind that the ad was calling Clinton Orwellian. Far worse, I thought they were comparing her to Microsoft.

Posted by: Ian Knox on March 19, 2007 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

My impression is that it just lacked in creativity. 95% of the ad is just taken from the original. It's basically drag-and-drop for anyone you don't like. Whoopee.

Posted by: PseudoNoise on March 19, 2007 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

The Nader voters can make the same case as the Nader blamers, with the exception that they had a better candidate. I do not know if Gore would have invaded Iraq, but I think there is a possibility he would have used 9/11 the same way as Bush to take over the oil. Gore would have had similar national security advisors and corporate interests to satisfy as Bush. I am pretty certain Nader would not have invaded Iraq.

hector, I voted for Kerry, and I regret it more than I can adequately express. I am not going to vote for a Kerry again. Voting for the lesser of two evils compromises the voter's franchise. In order to do it the voter has to make a lot of rationalizations justifying voting for someone they know is not the best candidate available. These justifications build up over time and the voter no longer stands for anything except an obstacle to the worst evil, while allowing those other evils to go unaddressed. You may say that is a compromise. Please allow me to think it is a betrayal. To most people this betrayal is unconcious, but to me it is obvious. If the war would have been an issue in 2000, probably most Nader voters and some independent Marxists like myself would have probably voted for Gore, just like we voted for Kerry in 2004, despite Kerry calling for more troops to be sent to Iraq.

Kerry and Gore both support the huge military that is available for invading and occupying other countries, as do most current Democratic candidates. Probably most Americans do. I think our military power is the root cause of the war in Iraq. Gore and Kerry would not appreciably change that or adopt passivist national security strategies. Voting for the likes of them is not going to prevent the next unnecessary war or end this one any time soon.

Posted by: Brojo on March 19, 2007 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

Apologies, Brojo, had I known that you style yourself "an independent Marxist," I would have ignored you completely.

Nevertheless, I hope my posting on the differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in response to those who hold there are no differences at least served to remind folks that there remains a constituency out there who has bought into the stay-at-home position -- a constituency independent of the foolish Naderites and the "independent Marxists." Maybe it's a constituency of folks too lazy to register to vote and who thus are just expressing a cover story, I don't know.

Despite these self-important, self-indulgent folks who trumpet no difference between the two major political parties, I predict that the November 2008 balloting will attract the largest percentage of eligible voters in history. It's going to be a real blowout.

And as for you, Brojo, feel free to stay at home along with the two other "independent Marxists." Or is it one other?

Posted by: hector on March 20, 2007 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with you that the Democrats will win a huge electoral victory in 2008. You have not said anything about what they will do to stop the US killing in Iraq. I do not think they will stop it. They certainly will do nothing to dismantle the military machine, so it will be available for the next war. Military aid will be available for Israel next time they want to bomb a neighbor to hell, too. I know you will be happy knowing your party scored an electoral victory.

Posted by: Brojo on March 20, 2007 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

It was the Communists and the Social Dems fighting against each other in the Weimar Republic that allowed the National Socialists to come to power. I'm sure the Commies at the time insisted that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the SocDems and the Nazis.

It's a shame that some contemporary lefties have not learned the lessons of history.

In 2000 it was childish and naive to believe that Gore and Bush are clones. After witnessing what has transpired during the last 6 years, it is pure insanity.

Posted by: Disputo on March 20, 2007 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK

i find it bizarre in the extreme that the most viciously anti-hillary repugs look upon giuliani as a trustworthy guy. forhet the socj drawer... rudy will be looking in your undies... while you're wearing them.

Posted by: Billy on March 20, 2007 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

I'm neutral about Clinton, and the ad had zero effect on me. It's neither clever nor original, just a rather silly, stupid, and overblown ripoff of Ridley Scott's original by some mindless Hillary-hater. Yawn.

Posted by: peachkfc on March 20, 2007 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINK

The lesson of history is warring nations only become peaceful when their huge military cultures are destroyed.

Destroy America's devotion to military idolatry, destroy its ability to wage future wars.

Posted by: Hostile on March 20, 2007 at 2:35 AM | PERMALINK

Kind of reminds me of this ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad4fagTyaM4) an agency did for volkswagon several years ago. The ad was done on spec and was obviously rejected, but it still got out and had the company's name on it. I bet this was done by a dem who just doesn't like Hilary.

Posted by: jrkinsella on March 20, 2007 at 3:10 AM | PERMALINK

Wow
If you put some kind of an echo effect on somebody's voice, show only their face on teevee screen setup in front of future shock looking "citizens" and play a little creepy 1984 soulless music behind it all, that person sure sounds scary... Who'da thunk it? It's gonna be a long 20 months.
DK2

Posted by: DK2 on March 20, 2007 at 4:09 AM | PERMALINK

Well, she never struck me as a Mac person--more like MS-DOS.

Cute, but not particularly convincing in terms of steering one away from Ms. Clinton. Kind of like the original ad--notice that most of us kept our PCs? On the other hand, her delivery and at least part of her public persona lend themselves to this sort of sendup.

Posted by: david ware on March 20, 2007 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

Call it boring, but it sure is a Comments magnet. Not too many Political Animal posts hit the 170 mark, and even fewer hit it that fast.

Posted by: curious on March 20, 2007 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

I don't care for Hillary, hope she's not the Democratic candidate, but will vote for her if she is.

I enjoyed the ad but was not impressed with it as a political statement. It hasn't changed my opinion of her.

Posted by: Lindy on March 20, 2007 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

The apple add is 23 years old. You would have to be born at least later than 1972 to even "get it." For my part I was viscerally shocked that such a mean-spirited ad was designed on behalf of Obama. If anything the ad made me question a candidate I was hoping would be a different kind of politician. Who has he got working for him anyway?

Posted by: Eunice on March 21, 2007 at 12:45 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly