Hillary on Anti-Hillary Video (And The New Anti-Obama Video...)

It seems like everyone has weighed in on the anti-Hillary 1984 video except for Hillary Clinton. Now she's jumped in the fray, emphasizing the positive in a Tuesday interview with the local news channel NY1:

"I think anything that drives interest in these campaigns and get people who otherwise are not at all interested in politics, I think that's pretty good... I might quibble a little bit about the content, but if we get more people, especially young people, thinking about politics, I'm happy about that."

That's a far cry from the Clinton Campaign's defensive reactions to criticism from David Geffen or John Edwards. Hillary deserves credit for looking past the horserace to celebrate the promise of Internet politics: meaningful participation, democratization ("more people") and inclusion ("reaching people who otherwise are not at all interested in politics").

The Clinton Campaign may also be warming up to Internet activism because their supporters are now striking back online. A new video called "Barack 1984" projects Obama on the Big Brother screen, flush with confidence yet poised to lose, just like his favorite football team. The ad ends with the warning, "The Bears Lost So Will Obama." Riding the buzz, it is Tuesday's most viewed video in YouTube's "News and Politics" section, and the 8th most popular YouTube video overall. By reversing the premise of the Hillary spoof, the video provides what columnist Joe Klein imagined on Monday: "I could put together a reel of Obama sound bites that sounds every bit as trite as Hillary in this guerrilla mashup. But I wouldn't have the skills or sensibility to do it this way; very few in my generation would."

And that's the whole point: Our political discourse is no longer limited by a given columnist's skill-set.

Voter-generated content adds new voices, perspectives and ideas to our politics, (as I explained in this MSNBC discussion of the 1984 video). The political establishment is generally wary of user-driven technology because it helps jam new information, content and scrutiny into the system, which challenges political (and media) professionals. YouTube activism might even scare political professionals more than the infamous blogosphere, for the same reason televised attack ads cut more ice than op-eds. Some things you have to see to believe, and video can be much more gripping than words...

UPDATE: The Huffington Post has now solved this mystery and reported that the original anti-Hillary video was made by a staffer for Blue State Digital, a consulting company that works for the Obama Campaign, and both the company and campaign deny any prior knowledge of the video. So it turms out this is a better example of hack-generated content than voter-generated content.

Comments (38)

1. IS IT JUST THE MOST BEAUTIFUL SIGHT WATCHING ALL YOU ANTI AMERICAN TRAITORS CRACKUP FROM WITHIN.

   Posted by looneylefties at 03/20/2007 @ 7:06pm

2. Looneylefties Your stuff cracks me up.Are for real or just a kid playing?

   Posted by i'm nobody at 03/20/2007 @ 7:26pm

3. Rio Lets look at what your side has to offer.1)Rudy-pro abortion,pro gay rights,multiple marriages,no real plan for much of anything.2)McCain-Flip flopper doesn't know what he believes in.3)Mitt-Flip flopper doesn't know what he believes in.4)Newt-adultery,serves wife divorce papers while in the hospital dying of cancer,multiple marriages,admits to wanting to reduce freedom.Great choices.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 03/20/2007 @ 7:35pm

4. Rio-You,lvliberty,ponti,rese,plunger really need to work on the paranoia/conspiracy thing.May I recommend group therapy?We'll provide you folks with a zionist and socialist therapist to make things really interesting.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 03/20/2007 @ 7:41pm

5. If I were Hillary I would add this, maybe in a new video on my campaign site:

   "The 1984 video makes light of my saying that I welcome a conversation with voters--but the video itself IS the conversation I'm talking about. In this YouTube era we can have dialoge and debate among millions of people in a way Town Halls and door-to-door canvassing never allowed us to. So in many ways the 1984 video's success actually undermines the point it seems to be trying to make about me and the clips I've published on my blog. The 1984 video is a *direct response* to my video. It is part of the very conversation I want to have with the American people and I welcome more as my campaign continues."

   Posted by jdmelber at 03/20/2007 @ 7:45pm

6. AS OPPOSED TO: 1. HILLARY ROTTEN aka her thighness

   THIS YENTA HAS ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING IN NY EXCEPT INCREASING THE SALES OF PANT SUITS. SHE CANNOT EVEN KEEP A LEASH ON HER HUSBAND YET SHE WANTS US TO TRUST HER TO STARE DOWN THE FASCIST IN IRAN

   I THINK NOT

   2 OSAMA HUSSEIN OBAMA

   HAS ACCOMPLISED NOTHING....UTTERLY UNELECTABLE...FORGET IT

   3. THE BRECK GIRL....JUST WHAT WE NEED ....ANOTHER SLIP AND FALL LAWYER....NOT

   4. EVERYONE ELSE IS JUST A JOKE

   YOU LIBZ ARE PATHETIC EXCUSES FOR PATRIOTIC AMERICANS

   Posted by looneylefties at 03/20/2007 @ 7:45pm

7. Looneylefties-May I suggest you join the ones I mentioned above in this group therapy session.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 03/20/2007 @ 7:49pm

8. Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/20/2007 @ 7:29pm

   See, stick around long enough and they all start to blend together....

   RIO morphing into RESE!

   hehe

   Posted by Mask at 03/20/2007 @ 8:09pm

9. Posted by LOONEYLEFTIES 03/20/2007 @ 7:45pm

   I think LOON is a poser. (lib posing as an idiotic CAPITALIZED right-winger with nothing really scholastic or thoughtful to add...but given a few others here, more likely I guess he's the "real deal".)

   But give it a shot...

   So...what do you think of the Republican candidates?

   Posted by Mask at 03/20/2007 @ 8:11pm

10. "I think anything that drives interest in these campaigns and get people who otherwise are not at all interested in politics, I think that's pretty good... I might quibble a little bit about the content, but if we get more people, especially young people, thinking about politics, I'm happy about that."

    What a two faced hunk of crap. Didn't her Highness issue an edict to potential campaign donors that she will not accept donations from those who also donate to her competitors. In other words, either you support me completely or you can forget my doing any favors for you if I get elected. Now this is a fine example for our young people. Maybe thats why they feel so disenfranchised your Highness?

    Posted by OneVote at 03/20/2007 @ 9:44pm

11. What was most telling about the "Big sister" hillary ad was that, from most of the posted commentaries on Utube, almost none of the posters recognized the video from the 1984 superbowl...this is of great significance, in that it proves I'm getting old...Also proves the adage that sometimes, what's old is new......

    Even more significant is the new nickname for Hillary.....Like the video, it's brilliant...of course, my lefty friends are crediting Karl Rove for the ad (heh,heh)

    Posted by davebarlett at 03/20/2007 @ 9:46pm

12. Can we agree, as Nation bloggers, to refer to Hillary as Big Sister from now on? How about a bi-partisan effort? This'll be fun, I promise..........

    Posted by davebarlett at 03/20/2007 @ 9:57pm

13. Think of it.....HILLBILLARY is now BIG SISTER!

    Posted by davebarlett at 03/20/2007 @ 9:58pm

14. Who's with me????

    Posted by davebarlett at 03/20/2007 @ 9:59pm

15. It was only last month that the Fox bathhouse boys were trying to stir up trouble by saying that they'd got the Obama-in-the-madrassa story from Hilary's camp. It didn't work, so they decided to try the more direct approach & appeal to the neophyte Netlings who wouldn't know a Left-Wing Deviationist from a Capitalist Running Dog.

    Bush's pseudomacho snufflegiggle gang can practically be heard in the background of the video . . . "snnhhehhhenssnnhhehheh . . . we got the LIB traitors, didn't we girls?!!"

    Posted by poppinjay at 03/21/2007 @ 01:09am

16. THE Most Popular Left-Wing Conspiracy Theory these days (maybe tieing any 9/11 one) is the idea that "The Republicans/Karl Rove were behind the 'Hillary-1984' ad, to hurt both Hillary and Obama".

    The truth is ...Obama's folks might not have had a DIRECT hand in it, but it's likely still an Obama fan (or fans). One who thought it would be HELPFUL, not embaressing to Barack, and put it out there to show their dislike of HRC. Well, it backfired (slightly) and Obama had to distance himself from it.

    So...to FURTHER distance noble Mr Obama, his supporters are now trying to push this "Rove did it" Theory. Which is prima facie idiocy because...the guy Karl Rove works for could care LESS who becomes the nominee in 2008. Plus, I think he's got other things to worry about "fixing" right now.

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2007 @ 06:36am

17. Hillary handled this flapdoodle just right. you tube is just like public access TV, ninety percent crap. I'm glad it's there, but viewer discretion is advised.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 08:39am

18. OV: Senator Permanent Occupation of Iraq from New York and Representative Cop-Out Barbi from San Francisco can both do me a favor and announce their resignations from office and public life tomorrow AM. Both of them are symptomatic of why the Democrats are not just not an example for young people, but a speedbump on the road to a better world.

    Posted by ZERO 03/20/2007 @ 10:12pm | ignore this person

    I totally agree Zero! Ms. Clinton totally wants to do an end around FEC campaign contribution limits designed to clean up the election process and somewhat level the playing field. Because of the vast political connections of her husband, she has the luxury of "skirting" all public finance. She is a fat bag of hypocrisy and doesn't give a crap about what young people think or their participation in the political process except to the extent that their blogs and postings on the internet "tarnish" the image she wants to portray.

    Posted by OneVote at 03/21/2007 @ 09:41am

19. pretty funny stuff [uncyclopedia.org]

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2007 @ 09:54am

20. Hell of a segue to Bobby Kennedy - Marilyn Monroe, "Rio Briefo". In your extensive research of the Kennedy-Monroe affair (I hope you didn't rely on the one page reprint of really old dis-informational "Blowback" historically used by the CIA to discredit real researchers and disinform casual and gullible readers.) Oh yeah, they usually start these campaigns overseas (Sydney Morning Herald, Mar. 17, 2007) and have a stateside run up by one of our towering bastions of "Fair and Balanced" reporting set us kids in America straight. And, as usual, this "old stuff" resurfaces just prior to a publication on the issue is about to be published. You think a pre-emptive strike on "Bobby" just prior to David Talbots release due in May might be the issue. Let me set you and a few other anti liberals here straight on a couple of things; I'm a liberal leaning person on many issues and I guarantee you that you do not hold a monopoly on Patriotism. I have fought for my country and it sickens me to see a pup like you think there is some glory or justice in a political figure being assassinated. You, and most I know, could not carry the Kennedy's lunch when it comes to service to this country. And finally, "sound bite boy" if what I am seeing blogged here is supposed to be the higher political and moral ground in America, this country is in deeper doo-doo than I ever could believe. Reagan's theme was "It's Morning in America again". What the hell do you think Neocon Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rummy and others would hold out as their theme. There a bunch of no-show (and I was in Vietnam) Punks. Period. Do some research, or shut up.

    Posted by johnrosina at 03/21/2007 @ 10:10pm

21. THE COMING ASS AGE March 21, 2007

    No matter how much liberals try to dress up their nutty superstitions about global warming as "science," which only six-fingered lunatics could doubt, scratch a global warming "scientist" and you get a religious fanatic.

    These days, new religions are barely up and running before they seize upon the worst aspects of the God-based religions.

    First, there's the hypocrisy and corruption. At the 1992 Democratic Convention in New York, Al Gore said: "The central organizing principle of governments everywhere must be the environment." The environment would not, however, be the central organizing principle of Gore's own life.

    The only place Al Gore conserves energy these days is on the treadmill. I don't want to suggest that Al's getting big, but the last time I saw him on TV I thought, "That reminds me -- we have to do something about saving the polar bears."

    Never mind his carbon footprint -- have you seen the size of Al Gore's regular footprint lately? It's almost as deep as Janet Reno's.

    But I digress. As has been widely reported, Gore's Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the energy of the average home in that state. But it's OK, according to the priests of global warming. Gore has purchased "carbon offsets."

    It took the Catholic Church hundreds of years to develop corrupt practices such as papal indulgences. The global warming religion has barely been around for 20 years, and yet its devotees are allowed to pollute by the simple expedient of paying for papal indulgences called "carbon offsets."

    Americans spend an extra $2.2 billion on gas a year because they're overweight, requiring more fuel in cars to carry the extra pounds. So even with all those papal indulgences, Gore may have a small carbon footprint, but he has a huge carbon butt-print.

    Further proving that liberalism is a religion, its practitioners respond with the zeal of Torquemada to any dissent from the faith in global warming.

    A few years ago, Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book titled "The Skeptical Environmentalist," disputing the hysteria surrounding global warming and other environmentalist scares. Lomborg is a Greenpeace anti-war protester -- or, as he is described on liberal Web sites, he is a "young, gay vegetarian Dane with tight T-shirts." His book was cited favorably in The New York Times.

    But for questioning the "science" behind global warming, Lomborg was brought up on charges of "scientific misconduct" by Denmark's Inquisition Court, called the "Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation." I take it Denmark's Ministry of Truth was booked solid that day.

    The moment anyone diverges from official church doctrine on global warming, he is threatened with destruction. Heretics would be burnt at the stake if liberals could figure out how to do it in a "carbon neutral" way.

    Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball is featured in the new documentary debunking global warming, titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." For this heresy, Ball has received hate mail with such messages as, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further global warming."

    I'm against political writers whining about their hate mail because it makes them sound like Paul Krugman. But that's political writers arguing about ideology.

    Global warming is supposed to be "science." It's hard to imagine Niels Bohr responding to Albert Einstein's letter questioning quantum mechanics with a statement like: "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further quantum mechanics."

    Come to think of it, one can't imagine the pope writing a letter to Jerry Falwell saying, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further infallibility."

    If this is how global warming devotees defend their scientific theory, it may be a few tweaks short of a scientific theory. Scientific facts are not subject to liberal bullying -- which, by the way, is precisely why liberals hate science.

    A few years ago, The New York Times ran an article about the continuing furious debates among physicists about quantum mechanics, which differs from global warming in the sense that it is supported by physical evidence and it doesn't make you feel good inside to "do something" about quantum mechanics. It is, in short, science.

    Though he helped develop the theory of quantum mechanics, Einstein immediately set to work attacking it. MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark called the constant testing and arguing about quantum mechanics "a 75-year war."

    That's how a real scientific theory operates. That's even how a real religion operates. Only a false religion needs hate mail, threats, courts of inquisition and Hollywood movies to sustain it.

    COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER

    Posted by looneylefties at 03/22/2007 @ 03:54am

22. Rio Briefo, Once again your lack of background information shows. I am happy to have observed you included LBJ with the JFK reference. As you are, I am sure, aware, JFK had already begun a withdrawal of troops from Vietnam the week prior to his assassination. (2,500 - if memory serves.) The military industrial complex was not happy with JFK's pronouncement that the situation was unwinnable and we were standing down. One week after his Assassination the Executive orders to draw down troops was rescinded and LBJ made the War profiteer boys happy again. JFK conferenced with Eisenhower, who, you recall, admonished Americans to beware the military industrial complex. I would say Ike was eminently qualified as a WWII General and the very president who reluctantly agreed to aid the French as they were being routed by the Vietnamese. He knew full well the situation was a quagmire and thus advised Kennedy. But war profiteers like LBJ, George W Bush, Dick "Halliburton" Cheney do not care for prevailing wisdom, nor do they hold sway over a particular party. FDR was one hell of a Democratic War President, wouldn't you agree, or are you just politically monochromatic on account a cuz. So,if you want to extend a debate with me on the Kennedy's and War and engage general name calling, do me a favor and hitch your next argument to something a little more substantial than a list of GI's you dug up some where. I wonder if you sought approval from their next of kin for your ham handed use of their honor in a political shit Blog-Debate. I'm not going to come back with guys name I actually served with and have visited their parents every year since 1969, because their sacrifice rises above the blog-fray of trying to make some stilted political point by a liberal hating (for no apparent reason) person who won't even engage this weighty discourse with herms own real name. That would be Real Bravo Democrats and republicans equally have led us to this disastrous foreign pre-emptive war policy in Iraq. The Congress did so by hysterically giving up their Constitutional Authority to declare war. Because why? Two Buildings fell down and there was lots of pandamonium and fear. So when they needed to stand strong, they flinched. They also "Hysterically" gave up a lot of other Constitutional rights, but that's another debate. And Bush, Cheney and company, living out the dream wishes of the PNAC Think Tank strategy developed by most of their cohorts, had decided to attack Iraq before 9/11 ever occurred and the Yellow Cake, Downing Street memo and Al Qaeda meetings in Prague lies were all mustered knowingly by this administration to start the wrong war (for profit/oil) right when America was enjoying a vast support from the world community. You are correct about one thing, I fought in a war we had no business fighting. Henry Kissinger still cannot appologize for being educated beyond his intelligence in his convoluted strategies. But that ill conceived Vietnam War took years to figure out. We knew within 18 months tops that this war was a boondoggle. Just look back at how many time Bush changed the reasoning for the War; AlQaeda Cells, WMD, InSurgeons (obviously a medical battle) and last but not least, "Spreading Jeffersonian Democracy to Tribal Arab Culture". Oh Yeah, and lets give one last surge a chance. A military man is "On Go" when ever he is injected into a frey. Thank God for the Military heros. To put those Super Patriots in harms way for no good reason is, given today's evidence, an impeachable crime. Democrats, listening to the voices of 70% of the voting public, are trying to disengage our men an women from harms way - and they should be held just as responsible as the administration for failing to uphold their Constitutional Duty as they proclaim in their oath of office. Hysterical reaction, to give up their oversight and declaration of war powers. Cowardice. And you need to learn to think for youself on issues. These are serious times and they require serious and sincere debate. The crap being spewed bty Media corporate mouthpieces like "No Spin O'Really" needs to be vetted for truth. Forget Democrat and Republican, unchecked they will both sell your mother for a nickle. I'm to old to be bullied by a god damn Dick Cheney. America deserves better, but only if we get involved, learn as well as preach. And point out solutions instead of constantly regurgitating problems and name callings. I'll tell you one thing I truly believe, this internet has the potential to turn American politics on its head. That could be a very good thing for the average citizen. But dismissive sound bite poison and labeling is our danger. John F Kennedy was my hero when I was a 16 year old junior in High School. He exemplified hope for the future to us kids of the 60's. And you want to talk about patriotism and guts, I shudder to think how this administration would have handled the nuclear show down with Russia and the Cuban Blockade. That was a mano y mano heavy weight, scare me to death crisis. My beloved President Kennedy forced the Soviet Union to stand down. I am forever in his debt.

    Posted by johnrosina at 03/22/2007 @ 04:33am

23. Yea, gotta love them Demoncrats for the fine hospitality and the leftwingnuts for all the love back home for U.S. servicemen, just like the love they display now for them! There is no accounting for ignorance and poor memories many display here.

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/22/2007 @ 02:31am | ignore this person

    I am assuming you are talking about your ignorance and poor memory Rio. I think you need to get a new handle. There is nothing bravo about you like JohnRosina indicates in his post. Just another chickenshit chickenhawk progressive baiter whose ignorance is all too obvious.

    Posted by OneVote at 03/22/2007 @ 06:24am

24. Posted by LOONEYLEFTIES 03/22/2007 @ 03:54am

    LOL!....THREE times now, LOON has decided that we couldn't live without the esteemable wisdom of Ann Coulter on climate change...

    1. PETER ROTHBERG on War protests....LOON's response- Ann Coulter on climate change

    2. Tom Englehardt on March Madness TV...LOON's response- Ann Coulter on climate change

    and now 3. Ari Melber on the Hillary ad...LOON's response- Ann Coulter on climate change

    Posted by Mask at 03/22/2007 @ 06:58am

25. I don't see what's so new about You-Tube campaign ads. Do these ads inform us any better than their TV predecessors? Do they have any more factual content? Do people who view them learn anything at all?

    No, no, and no.

    Perhaps there is a slight innovation in how these web-based campaigns are funded. The web is a very wide net, capable of catching a large number of small contributors much more quickly than was ever possible before. This potential, which was already felt in the Howard Dean campaign, is indeed a hopeful thing, since it reduces the power plutocracy holds over democracy in political discourse ever so slightly.

    Still, the You-Tube campaign gets no three cheers from me, only the first "hip" out of a "hip-hip-hooray."

    It would be better if the funding of each of these campaigns were required by law to be more transparent. My ideal are the Scandinavian candy ads (from a few decades ago now) of which it was required that a toothbrush, as visible as the Surgeon General's warning on cigarette boxes, must appear in one corner. The law that I propose for political campaign ads would require a number to appear in one corner, representing the number of human beings who have publicly endorsed this ad with verifiable signatures.

    That reform might really be something to cheer about.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 03/22/2007 @ 09:40am

26. Looney,

    "SHE WANTS US TO TRUST HER TO STARE DOWN THE FASCIST IN IRAN"

    That's 'democratically elected' facist, and you want to be careful about the names you sling around.

    Posted by Draconis at 03/22/2007 @ 10:03am

27. Looney,

    Do you have permission to reprint Coulter's diatribes? Adding a copyright notice doesn't actually cut it.

    Posted by Draconis at 03/22/2007 @ 10:08am

28. All,

    Something about the Coulter piece kindly supplied by Looney didn't seem correct, especially as a thinly veiled attack piece by someone who writes for a fifth grade audience.

    "But for questioning the "science" behind global warming, Lomborg was brought up on charges of "scientific misconduct" by Denmark's Inquisition Court, called the "Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation." I take it Denmark's Ministry of Truth was booked solid that day."

    She refers to the event as though it was contemporary. The Committee for Scientific Dishonesty did indeed succumb to hatchet job, but in 2003, with the Ministry of Science, technology and Innovation actually overturning the ruling in 2004. There is no such thing as a 'Danish Ministry of Truth', and she should consider the role of George Deutsch before slinging that mud around.

    There are 'true-believers' in the environmental crowd, much as there are true-believers in using ALL CAPS TO POST, the idea of a big superbeing that watches you on a toilet, or believing that a second-rate team could make it to the finals. Generally we in the scientific field read everything and decide based on the evidence presented. The problem with the people who don't believe in a human driven global warming is that they're fighting against some incredibly solid information that we have regarding the 20-year old field.

    Having read the skeptical environmentalist it's a solid warning piece on scientific skewing of data, but doesn't represent the state of the art in scientific envirnomentalism because it's such an old book.

    Likewise Coulter and other apologists of their ilk would argue that a 'one percent' chance of invalidity invalidates the whole thing; this is exactly the same tactic used by fundamentalist christians who would claim that not having a full set of knowledge on evolution requires you to throw out the whole field.

    Posted by Draconis at 03/22/2007 @ 10:32am

29. Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 03/22/2007 @ 09:40am

    How would you enforce that law on the Internet?

    Posted by Mask at 03/22/2007 @ 10:44am

30. In a few days...the return of Wood Yee!

    Posted by Announcement at 03/22/2007 @ 10:49am

31. Posted by JOHNROSINA 03/22/2007 @ 04:33am | ignore this person

    good post. for future readability, put some paragraphs in, hitting return twice does the trick.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/22/2007 @ 11:01am

32. This campaign proves to be most interesting, except for the imbeciles who force feed us pablum and ignore the real issues.

    Business as usual, needs some airing. This 1984 Clinton tape just happens to pay the bill.

    Posted by Leefeller at 03/22/2007 @ 11:10am

33. John F Kennedy was my hero when I was a 16 year old junior in High School. He exemplified hope for the future to us kids of the 60's.

    Posted by JOHNROSINA 03/22/2007 @ 04:33am

    JOHN, curious....how did you feel about Kennedy running on EISENHOWER being weak on defense...i.e. "missile gap"?

    or his call for across-the-board tax cuts (even for the super-rich) in 1962?

    Posted by Mask at 03/22/2007 @ 4:10pm

34. Dear "Mask,"

    If you give money to a charity through the internet and want the charity to send you a receipt so that you can get a tax deduction, then of course you have to identify yourself, but there's a way to do that. Many of us have signed petitions over the internet, by supplying information that third parties can use to verify our identity.

    What I'm proposing to reform campaign ads wouldn't require anything more than this, technologically. All that it would require would be more data-compiling on the part of those who produce political campaign ads, so that there would be more transparency (and, frankly, more pertinent information) for those of us who view the ads.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 03/22/2007 @ 5:00pm

35. JOHN, curious....how did you feel about Kennedy running on EISENHOWER being weak on defense...i.e. "missile gap"?

    or his call for across-the-board tax cuts (even for the super-rich) in 1962?

    Posted by MASK 03/22/2007 @ 4:10pm | ignore this person

    Mask, I wonder why you would care. Are you trolling to lead the debate elsewhere? What's your agenda? I gather that Rio likes to start a conversation and, once a response is proferred, he likes to respond in a totally diferent direction. My conclusion is he has nothing to offer once his topic is questioned and is interested in only the process of blogging for blogging's sake. We used to call that "mental masturbation". Now, tell me what is on your mind or, is there a position or issue you would like to have a healthy difference of opinion on. To wit I'll be happy to engage. I assure you I have been wrong and I can admit it when I am. But, I hope, I can't be had.

    Do you want to know my position on JFK's election strategy in 1960, as a 12 year old? Because the dog ate that homework. And tax cut's back then were an entirely different thing than tax cuts today. Agreed?

    Any how, Best regards.

    Posted by johnrosina at 03/22/2007 @ 6:55pm

36. WHERE IS ALGORES CARBON ASSPRINT?????

    Posted by looneylefties at 03/22/2007 @ 7:53pm

37. I want to officially state that this media frenzy around the you tube clip is a MAINSTREAM MEDIA HYPE. It is not a GRASSROOTS anything. Dear NATION, you get worse every time I bother to look at you.

    Raise your hands readers....how many of you never heard about this until you heard about it from the "real" media. Isn't anyone suspicious about why every media outlet from ABC to NPR to Tom's Toilet Times is whipping out the think pieces on this thing, or why this "story" has had enough coverage to make the headlines on Google News for 4 days now?

    (In a probably vain attempt to head off the idiots I must protest that I have no use for Hillary Clinton and THIS ISN"T ABOUT THAT)

    This reminds me of when the "Dean Scream" thing was blamed on the "age of the internet"....even though it was real live professional media that ran the thing 89 times a day for about a week.... Lies lies and more lies. There was no "grassroots surge" behind the massive over-publicization of the "Dean Scream," it was orchestrated by gigantic bullhorns from on high, complete with sonic tweaking for good effect. And they had the nerve to blame it on that wacky internet.

    FYI I've never watched the you tube clip, couldn't care less, and don't plan on watching American Idol either, suckers. I missed the original commercial on which it was based, at least when it originally aired, apparently some Super Bowl ad from 1984, only I didn't "miss" it if you get my meaning (in the Office Space sense, fellow travelers).

    How dare I judge? here's what I know: The fact that everyone is so eager to be excited over a commercial that REFERENCES ANOTHER COMMERCIAL (ahh, the classics - the canon is alive and well) is prooof, prrooooof, prooof beyond a doubt as if any were needed at all that you are all a bunch of flatliners intellectually. The similarly hyped Apple Commercial (which I probably was subjected to at some point or other) was a bunch of lying crap, so CONGRATULATIONS once again on referencing it. Hack communications Ph.D. dissertation writers AND hack "thoughtful" journalists (pardon redundancy) around our America are thanking and yanking you as we speak.

    Oh and the "excitement" over the "real identity" of the vid maker that I heard so much about on "All Things Considered and Made Stupid Sounding": congratulations on the hype, hype lad, hypeie hypester.

    Enough irony: The people who make big media in this country should really REALLY be locked in a concrete hole and hosed down until the shit they have for brains runs down the drains - they really couldn't be made more braindead with a guilotine. But what's your excuse?

    Posted by Vic Perry at 03/23/2007 @ 01:47am

38. Posted by JOHNROSINA 03/22/2007 @ 6:55pm | ignore this person

    good points all. the top tax rate at that time was 90%, I am told. in this context a tax cut takes on a different light.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 08:09am