Obtuse much?

When all is said and done, middle aged women are reliable voters who contribute a lot of money and volunteer time to campaigns. I cannot imagine that this ad is doing Obama any favors with the 40+ female demographic.

If he and his supporters see the first viable female candidate for president as a fascist, I guess we should make sure that they don't benefit from any of our money or time.

I, for one, see the ad as an attack on gender and age. And I'm in the John Edwards' camp. But if the race comes down to Hillary or Obama, I'm sure as hell not gonna give a moment of time to someone who sees my contemporaries as fascists.

In the end, this is one of the most childish and divisive ads I've ever seen. I'm not an Obama fan (although I've liked some of the stuff he's done lately), but this just makes me think he's a child.

I wonder that myself, though I can see how some might think it's clever.

Oh good grief, no--I think they all are so carefully controlled that they're quite plastic and uninteresting to listen to. I didn't mean to imply that my comment was targeted solely at Clinton. Everyone is like that. And I know why. But it's so fake that when something that looks almost spontaneous comes out, it's a nice surprise.

When Obama was asked about this on King last night, he said that his campaign could not even afford to produce an ad of this caliber, since they don't have the money to do so.

He also said that he thinks the American people would rather talk about the issues than listen to his and Hillary's opinions about this video or Geffens remarks.

She is no worse than the rest of 'em. I'm a guy, voting for her. I'm sure a lot of people on here don't agree with my next comment, but I honestly believe she is treated differently and held to a, well, it's relative as this is politics, but a "higher" standard. And, again, this whole thing about her being an opportunist and so on. Well, who the hell isn't? Edwards? Puh-leze, he was trial lawyer for god's sake. Obama, isn't he this biggest opportunist around right now? He's seems to have made a few opportune moves here and there with supporters help, or supporters' supporters. If you don't like her politics, don't vote for her. But let's keep the criticism consistent.

It should definitely be stressed that the thing didn't originate from Obama's campaign. But more than that: there should be serious questioning of whether this isn't a Republican knife. The ad provides no credible criticism of Clinton and only--baselessly--associates her candidacy with an Orwellian state, and also creates the impression--especially if people fail to point out that the ad did NOT come out of the Obama campaign-- that Obama can go WAY negative, and is undistinguished in that regard from any other politicians. Plus, it breeds a negative campaign war between the two camps (and so I'm VERY glad Clinton responded as she did, no matter how many consultants contributed to styling the response). I think this stinks of Republican trickery to high heaven... TPMer's; this deserves careful scrutiny!

He has said when asked that he had nothing to do with the ad, and could not even afford to produce an ad of that quality.

I doubt that 5% of the population even know of the existence of this video.

UA

good god. even the humor is calculated.

so she's happy this is replacing her youtube rendition of the Star Spangled Banner?

i'll vote for her if she wins the nomination, but i don't have to like it.

g

btw, my local paper the San Francisco Chronicle put a story about this advertisement on the front page [below the fold]

i really don't see how this helps obama. i think the association with the video, while acknowledging that it is not coming from his campaign, actually hurts him.

Greg Sargent, I like your work but man, you're prone to hyperbole sometimes.

"Hillary Speaks out" conveys some kind of hard rebuttal to the ad. "Hillary Comments on the ad" or something like that is much more appropriate and much in line with Hillary's response.

On a sidenote, as of last count, that ad has been viewed over 1,000,000 times. This is one heck of a viral video.

Given the anonymous manner of submission, the cutesy little O-shaped riff on the old Apple logo at the end, and the idiocy of the message, I think it's plainly obvious that this was a Republican ratf*cking exercise. Those dems who harbor that much animus for Hillary might be Kucinich supporters, but they're probably not Obama supporters. It's not as though Obama is a bomb-throwing radical, after all.

this ad has been extremely interesting to consider.

i first saw it when josh posted it last week with a comment to the effect that this is interesting and i'm passing it on.

i watched and thought, "hmmmm... that was interesting and well done." but the point of the ad was confusing.

i didn't recognize that it was a mash of a popular ad. it makes sense though since the production values looked great.

i couldn't figure out at first if Hillary was the president and this was the future.

was she supposed to be totalitarian?

was she goldstein in the minute of hate a al 1984?

when the blond ran out, i flirted briefly with the idea that the blonde would be hillary and the totalitarian hillary was sort of a self-deprecating joke. obviously that's not the case.

it didn't look like the type of "mommy state" that you would expect Hillary to be accused of.

i wondered did those people watching have jobs or health insurance?

and the obama connection.

aside from being clever, it reflects no particular credit on him.

it wouldn't make sense for him to release something like that, so occam's razor says he didn't.

it doesn't make sense for any of the candidate to make this kind of ad focusing on hillary.

is it a swift boat style attack? i don't think so. it didn't enter the discourse through a rightwing outlet. the argument is too subtle and too unfocused to be a clear hit piece.

my bet is it was some clever prankster who came up with a clever premise and ran with it. they will remain anonymous if only to save themselves from lawsuits for infringement.

the fundamental equation though, of hillary with fascism, should be denounced by all candidates.

my two cents.

I love this video but I don't think it signals the dawn of a new age of campaign advertising, etc. The people who watch political ads on YouTube are by and large people who follow politics closely; this one is effective if you already felt HRC was the Estblishment and Obama an outsider.

I think she's right to worry more about video that might lead journalists to take up a new narrative, since I think she is comfortable with the current one -- Hillary as Establishment candidate. tHats her strategy, to consolidate support and money, and this video does little to undermine it.

imagine this ad with george bush.

a voice over to the effect that of course Amerika has always been at war with Eurasia

then have hillary run in.

now that would have been funny.

g

They didn't have to purchase the footage of Hillary. It was her own campaign video/ad that was posted on her website.

The Apple 1984 footage is also widely circulated.

This ad cost only time, but essentially any Mac user could have put it together. They didn't have to pay union scale.

That Obama doesn't know this is meaningless. He doesn't own a post-production facility.

The fact that the "first viable female candidate" is also a fascist is just a coincidence. There is no reason to suppose that all viable female candidates would also be fascists.

It just so happens that Senator Clinton choose to create a campaign spot that makes her sound like a fascist. The creators of this ad picked up on that.

I expect that this is not from an Obama supporter or a conservative. My first thought was that it was a giant "fuck you" from someone for whom her vote to authorize military force was "the most important issue."

Hillary is amused and Obama can't muster anything more specific than he couldn't afford a $1000 ad that's had a million+ viewings. Not impressive for a guy who wants to be president after 2 years in office.

What has Obama actually done again? Oh, that's right - he was head of Harvard Law Review. Uh huh, that's some kind of qualification for president. Jeez.

I think I just heard Tucker Carlson endorse Obama. He certainly is traveling in some curious circles.

It's fair use, as it is a parody.

This is settled law, as far as I can tell: see the 2 Live Crew case (link).

I agree with southpaw chris; this is probably the handiwork of Republicans. If it was a Democrat, it was a stupid one -- way to empty some all-to-timely Orwell references of all meaning. But the last few years have made me paranoid enough that I'd guess the creator's aiming for a threefer: making mischief for both Dem front-runners, and inspiring a corollary to Godwin's Law.

So the point is that I'm a slack-jawed zombie who's been enslaved by the evil machine? I don't think this makes me want to vote for Obama.

To be fair here, when a Hillary supporter tells a racist joke somewhere on the internet, are we to conclude that Hillary is somehow at fault, and that we should vote for Obama as a result? This is a prank ad and nothing more, by someone with a limited sense of judgement. But, it is a "cute" modification of the Apple ad, pointless, but cute. When I first saw it I had no idea what the point was, nor do I now.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Especially if she turned and ran back out before she through the club. :)

I first heard about this from my cousin, who describes himself as a "Libertarian" but who I suspect is either a Freeper or a FreeRepublic Lurker.

I find it extremely suspicious that the Right is so interested in this bit of agit-prop, and anyone even considering voting Democratic in the next presidential cycle should as well.
Folks, until we know exactly who created this I would look at it as part of a Right-wing FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) campaign.

-Dave Adams-

How about the ad is something as simple as someone wanted to tweak an iconic piece of video and symbolize HRC as the "establishment" and Obama as the "fresh, new alternative".

I think a lot of people are reading WAY too much into this. It's a fun little piece of satire. What I find really ironic is that, I suspect, many of those who are condemning this ad would be cheering it on if it were Hillary or Obama against a republican.

Give Obama credit for one thing--so far, he is setting the tone of the campaign. Apart from a couple of stutter steps, he has stayed on the "high road" and forcing the other candidates to do the same.

It's only my opinion, but I am 100% sure that, if not for the tone that Obama has set in the campaign so far, Hillary's response would have been completely different (and that's not meant as criticism of HRC).

There does seem to be a not-so-subtle narrative in the lefty blogosphere that Clinton doesn't do anything without pollsters or consultants. When they call her "the establishment" that's part of what they seem to be saying.

Edwards never seemed to show much anti-poverty interest while a Senator but no one really questions his sincerity. Similarly, Obama seems to be equating Democratic behavior with that of the most corrupt GOP behavior ("our enemy is cynicism from both parties"). Few ask Obama if, when he says that, both sides are equally to blame and to provide evidence of Dem behavior that matches that of the GOP (e.g. phone jamming, robocalls, etc.) That's the double standard that people ask about.

i agree. it's clever, but it doesnt have a strong message about any of the candidates or parties.

chalk it up to a prankster.

and you know what?

this is one of the best things about the internet. random culture bombs that don't line up properly and make you think.

was this an exercise in culture jamming?

I rate this comment as 0:Troll. It is devoid of factual content and full of baseless accusations.

"His willingness to use GOP talking points against other candidates."

Please cite on instance of Obama using GOP talking points against Clinton, or any other candidate.

"This piece of garbage."

This video has no relationship to Obama.

Your perceptions and your thoughts are not evidence.

it's a cleverly done ad that will get its 15 seconds of fame.

g

Uh-oh....

Hill strikes back at Barack with new vid on YouTube. Interesting. Let the youtube wars begin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dycbAsB9-ps

I've stated directly that I don't like guy. But this ad strikes me as genuinely divisive and destructive. I"m more than happy to let people battle about someone's resume or policy. And if someone starts misstating Obama's policies, I'd intervene on his behalf because that stuff is destructive to the Democratic party.

The "ad" was intended to elicit just exactly the disgusted response you've stated. To boot a lot of people will think it actually came from the Obama campaign.

-Dave Adams-

I suggest that you begin by behaving with a modicum of respect yourself.

Obama is not in video production. He is lawyer and legislator. Why should he know how much that ad costs? He said that he and his campaign didn't do it. There is nothing disingenuous in his not knowing about video production costs. Your impugning him on that count doesn't make any sense unless you have already decided on the conclusion that you are seeking to justify.

The charge the Democrats have been unwilling to talk about faith don't come from Republicans, they come from Democrats, see Jim Wallis of Sojourners for examples. In any case, it doesn't matter who said it first. The texts of the Obama speeches that I see don't "bash" other Democrats. In the speeches that I see, he talks reasonably about what Democrats (including himself) have done in the past. They have been reluctant about speaking out about their personal beliefs and how those beliefs inform their governance. He thinks that this should change.

This isn't bashing or repeating GOP talking points. This is talking about what he wants to do in his campaign and as President.

Your Harvard Law Review crack elsewhere in this thread does echo GOP talking points.

This ad is embarrassing.

If I were with the Clinton campaign I would be distancing myself to its incredible lameness as fast as I could go.

Obama has introduced legislation to criminalize election-day fraud GQ. Check it out:

http://tinyurl.com/273erf

He doesn't recommend we emulate Rove's tactics, he's trying to outlaw them. Hence his statrment he's been in Washington long enough to know it needs to change.

"but didn't the polls in March 2003 show Joe Lieberman in the lead?"

I keep hearing this BS but I don't think so. Kerry was the frontrunner until he wasn't and then was again. Lieberman might have gotten a tiny bump when he announced. Edwards got a lot of interest when he had the first big fundraising quarter but it was Kerry in the lead until Dean took over.

This is troubling, given the lack of real enthusiasm anyone had for Kerry. We seem to end up voting against the other guy rather than for ours.

"I own a post-production facility that does digital post-production for motion pictures. There is nothing expensive about that ad - an experienced professional editor with a Mac Pro in his second bedroom could put that together very easily over the course of a couple days"

Yours is a minority viewpoint. It seems this ad was incredibly expensive when it first appeared as a Super Bowl ad for the introduction of apple computers and several ad people have asserted it is still incredibly expensive to produce an ad of this nature. Obama's remarks were consistent with those of experts in the industry. Perhaps, you lack the expertise to produce this sort of ad and know the nature of the true costs entailed.

"I rate this comment as 0:Troll. It is devoid of factual content and full of baseless accusations."

Isn't Lorelynn, the same poster that cscs and marcf attacked WRB for troll rating? WRB was accused of ratings abuse after Lorelynn had made several unsubstantiated factless posts with rumors and baseless accusations just like these on another thread.?

I'm certainly no legal expert, and will yield to anyone who knows the case law, but having taken a quick look at the link you provided, it seems a bit like apples and oranges. In the 2 Live Crew case, they "borrowed" some lyrics and the "bass riff" from the original song. In this case, it appears that the ad reuses the bulk of the actual original footage. Very little seems to have been altered in any way, and very limited new content appears to have been added. Doing that without permission from the copyright holder seems pretty sketchy to me. But I'm willing to be corrected.

I was also struck by the overt reference to the Apple trademark at the end. But perhaps you're correct that that's also covered by the parody provisions.

Voteless In DC

Basic Guidelines on Comment Ratings From: Cafe Management By Josh Marshall

In practice, it can be difficult to separate out how we judge the 'quality' of a comment from whether we agree with its content. But readers should never down-rate comments simply because they disagree with the views expressed.

Readers trying to participate in discussions in good faith should never be given ratings of 1s or 0s. Those ratings are reserved for clearly inappropriate behavior or content -- obscene or offensive language, ethnic slurs, spam, disruptive behavior, extreme ad hominem attacks. This isn't an exhaustive list. But the key point is that you do not give a 1 or 0 to someone's comment just because you think their comment is stupid or because you strongly disagree.....

Your perceptions and your thoughts are not evidence.

If that's the criteria for rating comments, I've got a TON of downrating to do on this site. Matter of fact, if that's the criteria, I doubt that I will be able to find many comments on this site to rate above 2 at all.

It's going to be a longer and more horrible presidential primary season on this site than anyone can imagine if everyone downrates based on voiced support for a candidate or dislike of a candidate. It's not a voting booth, this site--downrating people based on the candidate they like is not going to get you anywhere--it strikes me as sooo childish to rate this way. While I am not particularly interested in hearing individual's likes or dislikes, as I can get more accurate info. from scientific polls, I don't see any reason to give such comments 1' or 0's. I just don't rate them--the ones without any details of perception or thoughts like those that she offered, they're just sort of noise like an unregulated online poll. At least some personal detail adds the interest of how a single mind sees things.

It's personal opinion. Whether or not lorelynn is just another dem like she claims or is an op volunteering to defend for Hillary's campaign on blogs, I found her personal reaction a lot more interesting than a lot of other crap I read on these political threads.

If you think there must be "evidence" or some such in a comment, how come you haven't been giving out troll-ratings to the comments that basically say "I can't stand Hillary and I won't vote for her" or "Edwards is a pretty guy with a big house that talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk"?

Really, how can you downrate someone's reaction to a video? It is what it is! Everyone reacts differently! You trying to enforce some kind of groupthink or what? Force people to laugh when they don't find something funny or vice versa? It's not going to work. She doesn't like Obama, ok? She said that. You downrating her is not going to change her mind, it's childish to think so. If you really are a smart supporter of Obama, instead of screaming at her and downrating her, you'd try to use her to figure out what it is that bothers her, presuming that it might bother others as well who are not verbalizing it, and counteract that in a smarter way with your own "virals."

I am not an Obama supporter.

I am not screaming.

I didn't down rate her posts because she supports Hillary or didn't like the video. I down rated her post because she is making many specific factual claims that aren't supported or supportable. She is throwing up a fusillade of undigested half truths and allegations without bothering to support any of them.

She accuses Obama of using GOP talking points when she herself is using GOP talking points against Obama elsewhere in the thread.

She is calling Obama a liar because he doesn't know how much a video mash up costs to produce. Is that creditable to you? It isn't to me. She has yet to produce any evidence, or reasonable scenario, why a lawyer and legislator ought to know as much or more about video production than she does.

She is claiming that Obama is alienating middle aged women because he is calling Clinton a fascist in this ad. Seriously, how lame do her accusations need to be before you call her a troll?

Garth, what about Richardson? Why is he such an also-ran? The guy's got a more impeccable resume than any of the other candidates: both extensive foreign policy and domestic leadership experience. He's like one of the few American politicians North Korea can talk to -- a very able negotiator. He's moderate and likeable. He's Hispanic -- a demographic the Democrats are courting. All the planets line up behind Richardson and nobody gives him the time of day. The only culprits i can point to are that he's from a small state and he doesn't have any money.

I'm not. You could have put Edwards face up there, or John McCain's, or JOe Biden's or any of the Washington D.C. Dems or Repubs who are running, and the message still would have resonated--you interpret it as a slight towards a woman running for President. Isn't that a bit narrowminded? I interpreted (and I"m in that women over 40 demographic that you're defending) as an attack on the carefully scripted, politics as usual that's gotten this country into the condition that it's in.

Take it as an attack on a woman running for President, or, take it as an attack on Presidential politics as usual. I prefer the latter.

Ray, your actions appear consistent with how Tpm ratings are given which is on the content of the post and not a like or dislike.

It is apparent that the posts were factless and baseless accusations. That is indisputable. While we all have opinions the general standard at TPM has been that posts which contain only opinion and an inability to support them are deemed troll-like or unproductive. This is especially true when the poster repeatedly does not provide facts or a basis for their attacks.

Perhaps, not replying to ignorance is best, as those general guidelines appear to have been suspended for the 'political season' such that hired hacks for Clinton supporters can spew their baseless opinions against opponents. Who knows, perhaps the troll attacking of political opponents is a new revenue stream on the site from now until the election.

The pattern seems to be that you can not troll rate a Clinton supporter for attacking the opponent. It is not inconceivable that because Clinton is obviously running scared her campaign is paying generous dollars to those sites which allow the trolls to rant on and bash the opposition without being challenged.

"It's fair use, as it is a parody."

Not necessarily. They may use Apple's idea, and even Apple's script, but I don't think they can use Apple's labor. By just splicing in Clinton, that is what they have done.

The free speech argument allows the use of Clinton's campaign footage to make politically protected comment on a public figure. However, unless you are arguing that they are making a political comment about Apple, they shouldn't use their footage.

Given that the creators may not be making any money out of it though, I don't know what Apple would do about it.

Njorl

Not really so clear. Taking material so you can parody that material is fine. Taking material so you can parody something else is a grey area that I don't think has been ruled on.

There was a spat a few years ago where Penny Arcade was forced to take down a strip that used Strawberry Shortcake as a vehicle to parody American McGee's game designs. It obviously didn't go to court, so who knows if that avenue of attack has a legal basis. But since it's a gray area, few people are in the position to risk the time/money/effort to find out.

I support Obama, enthusiastically and without reservations, but this blatant lie by Hillary certainly ensures that she will be no better than my third choice as Democratic Candidate for President. I mean just how low can you get, lying about whether you viewed a scam ad on the internet? That is a deal breaker. Boy howdy.

Hoppy in Sacramento

lorelynn:

My mistake; looks like you were right after all..

-Dave Adams-