13 Comments Add your own

• 1. Steve Safran  |  March 19th, 2007 at 3:12 pm

  Well, Carla’s overstating the point (something I *never* do at LR…) but it’s certainly a fascinating idea. The video is a remix, yes, but it’s a remix culture. You have to have been born in circa 1974-6 or so to remember the original. So the 18 - 22s will look at it with different eyes than we 35+ers do. Either way, it works.

  It’s certainly effective - much more so than the usual “The opponent says X. But can we really trust a candidate that says X when their record shows they did X ever so slightly differently than they claim?” school of negative ads.

  Then there’s the whole “what’s an ad and what’s not” debate. When does an ad stop being an ad? When is it just free speech? If someone posts something that looks like a political ad, but it isn’t from the campaign, isn’t paid for and there’s no 527 behind it, is it even an ad?

  (I’m not saying that’s the case here - this could be plain ol’ pay-for anonymous DC tricks, but it is an interesing question, no?)

  Now, let the 400-thread-long, way-off-topic Hillary - Obama debate LR microsite BEGIN!

• 2. blackcloud  |  March 19th, 2007 at 4:41 pm

  The Apple ad had some originality, but it borrowed from predecessors like the silent movie “Metropolis.”

  This struck me not as anything important, just someone playing around with their home editing setup who doesn’t like Hillary.

• 3. Alyssa  |  March 19th, 2007 at 6:19 pm

  I think the truely fascinating things is that Obama is barely mentioned. If not for that ending bit, this could have been done by any opposing candidate - Democrat, Republican, or whatever third party will be poking its head out for this election cycle.

• 4. Steve Safran  |  March 19th, 2007 at 7:15 pm

  Blackcloud - I think we’re actually in agreement from different angles.

  Let’s suppose it was someone playing around with their home editing setup. (In which case - bravo, good work!) I argue that indeed means it *was* important. It means the quality of work of amateur “ads” for 2008 will be better than ever. The fact that it caught on *means* it is important. The message is the message and all that.

  Agreed, the 1984 ad was a tribute to Metropolis and the like. That’s what made it effective. That’s what makes the remix effective. The message is that Hillary is old guard and Obama is the rebellion against the old guard. Now take one’s politics out of the equation for a moment and simply ask yourself: was the video effective in getting that message across? Even if that’s not the “official Obama message,” did the message come across?

  IMHO: Yes.

  And I suspect Hillary’s supporters will come up with their own homebrew ads, as will other candidates’ supporters. That’s why I think this is significant.

  The “amateur” ads are also gonna be a hell of a lot more fun to watch than the pro ads, too.

• 5. adm  |  March 19th, 2007 at 8:25 pm

  one likely consequence of this ad and its success is that the candidates’ political consultants will outsource the production of “amateur” ads to firms/individuals who can’t be traced back to that candidate. people will be able to do all their swift-boating anonymously.

  probably, too, some candidate will get caught doing this, much like walmart and mcdonalds did with their fake blogs.

  will the FEC or FCC have to step in eventually? they were all riled up about blogs last time, and since “youtube” is the new “blog,” it wouldn’t surprise me to hear some rumblings about this from Washington sometime during this campaign season.

• 6. jim wilson  |  March 19th, 2007 at 8:58 pm

  how is it LEGAL?

  I understand fair use rules, but it borrows SO HEAVILY on the Apple ad it’s got to fall into the “stolen” category…

  Another thing: I’m waiting for everyone to say it’s extremely popular and how much everyone is watching it…

  So far it’s got around 250k views… that is less than 1 percent of 1 percent of the population of the country.

• 7. blackcloud  |  March 19th, 2007 at 9:07 pm

  I was focused on the Apple ad. I remember Hillary’s face, but no mention of another candidate. I was focused on the woman’s ear bud cords!

  I’m sure there will be a number of home-brew op-vids, but this to me was just a rip-off of a classic ad. I’d rather watch the original ad.

• 8. Swift Loris  |  March 19th, 2007 at 9:49 pm

  It’s compelling only because the original was compelling. There’s nothing creative about the Hillary version. And if it’s important, it’s only because it’s one of the first of its kind.

  (I never found the original that compelling either, though. Way too overblown.)

• 9. Pam Miller  |  March 20th, 2007 at 12:06 am

  I’m sure that Apple’s lawyers are pee’ing in their pants just trying to figure out who to sue.

  And yes, I’m definitely old enough to remember the original ad. It was sort of cool back then, but only because Jobs is the master at staccato marketing, regardless of whether the ‘product’ is really that cool.

• 10. Jason P.  |  March 20th, 2007 at 12:15 am

  In a primary election season that will last 11 months, and a general election season that will last seven or so, news and opinion TV shows will be looking constantly for more “online video phenomena,” no matter how quality and/or interesting they are. They’ve gotta report on SOMETHING for 18 months!

• 11. david  |  March 20th, 2007 at 5:58 pm

  Meh. I don’t understand why this clip is getting so much attention (online and on TV). Yeah, it rips off the Apple ad, but as pointed out above, that ad was more than 20 years ago - an eternity in terms of both politics and media. This Hillary/1984 clip is just…lame. Doesn’t advance anything - no idea, no non-idea, no pro or con, until the very last second with the Obama URL.

  Frankly, I’m underwhelmed.

• 12. Anonymous  |  March 21st, 2007 at 5:23 am

  It’s fair use. Parody.

• 13. pupkarik  |  May 3rd, 2008 at 4:04 am

  xdvdsfvd fdgsd
  fdsaiuwa dfgdsgfs

Leave a Comment

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed