“Hillary 1984″ Mystery Solved…
by Pamela LeaveyThe mystery of who created the “Hillary 1984″ ad has been solved by Arianna Huffington. It wasn’t a “swift boat” job… it was instead the work of “the work of Philip de Vellis, who was the Internet communications director for Sherrod Brown’s 2006 Senate campaign, and who now works at Blue State Digital, a company created by members of Howard Dean’s Internet Team.”
Oops… cancel that “now works at Blue State Digital — Blue State Digital has released a statement “On The 1984 Video” and it seems that Philip de Vellis is now looking for a job due to a slight hint of conflict of interest:
Blue State Digital is under contract with the Obama Campaign for technology pursuits including software development and hosting. Additionally, one of our founding partners is on leave from the company to work directly for the campaign at headquarters.
However, Blue State Digital is not currently engaged in any relationship with the Obama Campaign for creative or non-technical services.
Mr. de Vellis created this video on his own time. It was done without the knowledge of management, and was in no way tied to his work at the firm or our formal engagement [on technology pursuits] with the Obama campaign.
There you have it… the “Hillary 1984″ ad was created by a tech saavy guy who’s employer was under contract to Obama and he’s an Obama supporter. Philip de Vellis tells his story here saying “This ad was not the first citizen ad, and it will not be the last. The game has changed.”
The game may have changed, but like Hillary or not, I think this sort of slash and burn type candidate supporter stuff within the party is setting the precedent for some very ugly campaigning very early on in the ‘08 season. It’s going to be a long rocky road to get to election day ‘08.
Filed under: Democrats, Election '08, In The News, Politics | Get Permalink or trackback |
In one sense, I understand the slash and Burn situation of the inter-net savvy consumer. Why? Because it now seems a whole bunch of states are piling on to “Super Tuesday”. There will be no time to campaign, except in a few selective states (now). It’s really too bad.
With “Super Tuesday” being the all everything to a campaign, we are know stuck with these inter-net sniper attacks, creating inter-party fights.
This is really very unhealthy – the whole thing.
His argument comes down to “others are (or will be) doing it.”
Apparently when he told his parents ‘all the other kids are doing it’, they believed him.
At least he is taking a higher path at this point.
Youtube is a hotbed for political commentary, no doubt about it. However, we must ask ourselves, how long until this streaming “broadcast yourself” media is censored and regulated just like everything else?
In the meantime, I’ve found another fabulous youtube video that falls in line with the recent spring of “Political Entertainment” that critiques, while it entertains.
For waterboarding advice, please view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GcXl1y_mQw
I wish film and television had as much bite as the content on the internet.
Tech equals youth. Youth equals lack of political participation. Until that changes, the internet is only an interesting little side show in the political process.
A young gentlemen named Pete Ashdown chose to run against Orrin hatch last year. Mr. Ashdown was the founder of an ISP company.
His campaign was very heavily focused on his website, etc., which means that he dedicated the bulk of his resources to campaigning for the votes of people who mostly don’t vote. Then he mostly took positions that would not alienate traditional voters, so he never excited anyone. His vote total was slightly below the disapproval rating of Hatch, so Hatch actually did a little better than he would have done running unopposed.
There may be a lesson there, but, then again, this is Utah.
As I proposed before, in a couple years, campaigning could be left to bloggers alone. The blogosphere almost pushed the Dean candidacy into the running in 2004, could it eventually be the entire emphasis behind a campaign.
What is frightening is that with technology growing like it is, you could have a Philip de Vellis creating a lifelike video of a candidate that is entirely fabricated.
Interesting analysis Darrell, particularly since the 25,000 miles I put down in Utah campaigning over two years was not traveled by my mouse.
As far as positions, I’d be interested in what you think “excites” voters in Utah. What I found as the candidate was the fact that I gathered facts and ideas from the people and ran an “open” campaign pushing for complete accountability in Washington was the most exciting thing people had seen in decades.
Danny and Darrell,
Do you guys get out from behind those computers and meet a lot of average folks out there in the rest of the country?
I am always fascinated by the people who embrace new technology and use it early and often. Then I watch the ones who can’t bring themselves to try it, yet.
When they do, they usually find themselves SLOWLY gaining enough confidence to start exploring. But the number and ages are still tilted to the X generation and younger. I am truly amazed at the number of boomers who have NOT joined my sisters and I in this amazing world. And equally intrigued by those of the WWII generation who have joined my parents.
It’s going to be awhile before enough of the voting age citizens are using computers with enough skill to make it the significant part of campaigning it can become. But to expect that it could be left to bloggers alone is premature.
There’s a point at which governing ourselves does involve talking, face to face. ( No, not with a camera on the monitor.) There is no substitute for meeting candidates and listening to them in a group, speaking ad lib. There is no substitute for the kind of dialogue that occurs at spaghetti dinners or pancake brunches between constituents.