×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Maker of Anti-Clinton Video Outed, Loses Job

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the on-his-own-time dept.

The Internet 401

Raul654 writes "Philip de Vellis, the author of the anti-Hilary Clinton viral video was outed yesterday on the Huffington Post. The company he worked for, Blue State Digital — a Democratic Internet strategy company that does work for Barack Obama — has now fired him as a result. Said Vellis: 'I made the "Vote Different" ad because I wanted to express my feelings about the Democratic primary, and because I wanted to show that an individual citizen can affect the process.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

401 comments

Was good (4, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445017)

Well..I'm sure someone else out there will hire him...it was a pretty decent job...showed imagination.

Re:Was good (4, Insightful)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445079)

de Vellis: "I wanted to show that an individual citizen can affect the process."

That he did. He also demonstrated that if you stand up for something, be prepared to be slapped down.

Here's hoping he can get back up.

Re:Was good (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445473)

I think that was more a demonstration of the "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" principle.

Re:Was good (4, Insightful)

dctoastman (995251) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445125)

Showed imagination?
A rip-off of a Mac ad shows imagination?

Must be some definition of imagination that I'm not familiar with.

Re:Was good (3, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445241)

"Showed imagination?

A rip-off of a Mac ad shows imagination?"

Well, he used a fairly iconic commercial as a platform for parody to make a political point.

Not only that...the job he did appeared fairly good to my eyes...quality-wise.

I'd say he did a good job...made an effective point, and with little investment but personal time editing the video, he reached a worldwide audience both on the internet and television.

You don't see that very often...

Re:Was good (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445243)

Wish I still had mod points... someone mod this up. "Imagination" is sorely lacking in this day-and-age of the audio/video mash-up and the crap that Hollywood churns out. I'm constantly amazed at how my kids are "bored" when we won't them watch TV or play video games. They seem totally unable to come up with new, original games to play or things to do that aren't related to some TV show they watch or game they play.

Re:Was good (1)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445593)

I'm constantly amazed at how my kids are "bored" when we won't them watch TV or play video games. They seem totally unable to come up with new, original games to play or things to do that aren't related to some TV show they watch or game they play.

The problem is that A) they are not bored enough, and/or B) they watch too much TV

Back when I was their age, we only had like 3 channels on TV (I know, luxury), so we had to come up with plenty of ways to have fun with just a bag of rocks and some sticks.

Re:Was good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18445783)

You had a bag?

Re:Was good (5, Funny)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445283)

He should have used the word "innovation." Microsoft has been ripping off people for years and calling it that.

Re:Was good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18445489)

And violate their trademark? That'd be more than just a slap-down!

Re:Was good (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18445727)

Insightful my ass..

Re:Was good (1)

mdozturk (973065) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445651)

You mean: "A rip off of a Mac ad, which was a rip off a novel, shows imagination?" right?

Must be some definition of imagination that I'm not familiar with.

So ironic.

Old Strategy (4, Informative)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445129)

This is a very old, and very nasty strategy:

1. Get somebody to make an offensive attack ad
2. Get it noticed by the press
3. Enjoy seeing your attack ad on the air FOR FREE for a dozen news cycles or more.
4. Offset the blame, since you never "approved" the ad. ...
5. Profit!

Re:Old Strategy (4, Insightful)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445255)

Dude,
1. The guy worked at a tech company that assisted in Obamas campaign we well as other campaigns. You'd be surprised by the number of subcontractors in a campaign who don't give a hoot about it, they just have a job of keeping the web server running, or whatever.

2. Did you watch the video? Its not even an attack ad really. It just says that 2008 won't be like 1984. It seems that the choice to use Hillary was fairly inconsequential to the message.

Re:Old Strategy (1)

fredrated (639554) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445465)

Are you paying attention? No one "got" him to make the ad, he did it himself on his own initiative. Oh I know, it was a conspiracy, yep.

The best part of course is "get it noticed by the press" as if there was nothing to it. Anyone that can do that is worth their weight in gold.

Re:Was good (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18445163)

I think they fired him because that is what Democrats do
when put into a corner. Sacrifice someone below them.
Take no responsibility.

politics as usual, yawn.

the poor guy should get a raise.

Re:Was good (4, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445361)

Notice the insertion of the word "Democrats". Gee, let's take a wild guess as to what your politics are. I mean, it's not as though we currently have a Republican president who has sacked official after official to cover for it's bungling, or anything of that nature.

It's general politics, not a Democrat or Republican thing. You want all good to stick to the candidate, and all bad to stick to "anyone but the candidate". And I'm not even saying that this is a case of the candidate deliberately passing the buck off to someone else; this guy's story seems reasonable enough. Gee, a person who works on political ads being A) a political enough person to want to make an ad in his spare time, and B) knowing how to make a high quality ad: who'da thunk it?

Re:Was good (2, Insightful)

Deagol (323173) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445403)

How many of Bush's underlings have been cut off at the knees during his time in office? Indeed, this is politics as usual. However, labeling this as a Democrat thing is disingenuous at best.

Re:Was good (2, Funny)

Rei (128717) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445553)

Heck, Cheney even shot an old man in the face, and the man apologized for it. ;)

It's not a partisan thing. It's a general political thing. Some people are better at it than others, it's true, but everyone does it.

Re:Was good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18445203)

Well..I'm sure someone else out there will hire him

Whats interesting is had he taken credit, he likely wouldn't be job hunting. Of course, working for several democratic campaigns, a Dem themed Donkey shirt smashing a Bush image would have gone over much better.

Was bad (2, Insightful)

Jeff Fohl (597433) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445557)

Actually, Ridley Scott showed imagination when he made the ad in the first place. This guy just copied and pasted. This was an extremely weak effort, and had nothing of substance to say about Clinton. It was trite, cheap, and weak.

Re:Was bad (1)

The Dobber (576407) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445799)



I don't think the point of the video / ad / statement was to say anything about Clinton. I think it was more about the need to move forward, away from the same old cookie cutter political process. Hillary just happens to represent that process.

Re:Was good (1)

Romancer (19668) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445641)

But it was a type of lie. By assigning credit to a group that did not produce the ad, he is committing a type of slander. Making it seem that that group has a specific oppinion or approves of an ad that they had no knowledge of, and didn't approve.

Same as saying, "John says Jill is a bad person" to people. When John has no idea what you're doing and said no such thing. That not only hurts one person but both. It's like trying to start a fight between two people. Not a thing to be proud of, and an underhanded method of addressing the political scene in my eyes. It's bad enough without his help. Try and make it better, and I'll applaud the effort. Do this and I think he should be fired at a minimum.

I don't see the problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18445033)

Anti-communism is noble and moral.

Re:I don't see the problem. (2, Informative)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445309)

Just in case people don't "get it", the problem with Communism is that it assumes that there must be a ruling elite to watch over and guide the proletarians. That's not to say that other systems don't have the same defect, Communism is just always that way. (at least according to Lenin)

Remember Socialism is not the same as Communism, despite what some Republicans try to tell everyone.

Re:I don't see the problem. (1)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445525)

Not that Communism or Socialism will be viable until we find ways to significantly change human nature.

Re:I don't see the problem. (3, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445563)

Marx's original plan was that communism was a transitional government on the road to real anarchy and self governance. But it was criticized by true anarchists from day one. Anarchists such as Proudhon said that communism would invariably lead to a concentration of power, just the same as capitalism.

In any case, I think the post you were responding to was not raising a critique on that level. I think it was more along the lines of "They wants to take mah propurtai!"

Re:I don't see the problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18445665)

No, it was more along the lines of "lol communism."

Re:I don't see the problem. (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445809)

I generally overlook Marx's communism because he never implemented it, it seem impractical to build a huge state with the idea of eventually eliminating it. Marx really wanted to change human nature and help people move beyond egoism and the ideas of property and ownership.

I tend to focus on Lenin's communism because it was actually implemented. Lenin was far more detailed and precise in regard to his explanations and critique of the subject, and in my opinion is a better reference on what it is really about. Could just be my personal bias to put Communism in the worse possible light, the light of reality, rather than focus on Marx and see it under a light of idealism.

China's communism seems to be a transitional government, but the complete opposite of what Marx would want. The goal seems to be to convert the people to a society comprising mostly of the bourgeoisie (capitalist middle class). Funny that.

What's the beef? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18445053)

The company has the right to fire him if they want to. That's the company's own business. Now if the government were imprisoning him that'd be a different matter.

Re:What's the beef? (3, Insightful)

gorbachev (512743) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445469)

There is no beef.

His employer, being that it works in the "politics industry", had a policy forbidding employees from political activity to avoid any impropriaties. He violated the policy and was fired.

An employer I used to work for was creating lottery systems. It forbid employees from playing lottery games. Violations were dealt very harshly.

Before the end he realized... (5, Funny)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445055)

It was just before he was fired, he finally realized the horrible truth - he loved Big Sister.

And a boot descended over mankind's face, forever.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Before the end he realized... (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445123)

he loved Big Sister... and a boot descended over mankind's face...

That's no boot...

Re:Before the end he realized... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18445261)

That's no boot...

It's a space station!

Re:Before the end he realized... (4, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445579)

> > That's no boot...
>
>It's a space station!

Clinton II: "It's a TRAP!"
Bush II: "We shall rule the Galaxy, as Father and Son!"

This is how liberty dies. With thunderous quoting of Star Wars.

Re:Before the end he realized... (2, Funny)

QuantumPion (805098) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445763)

To: Philip

I really liked your video and would like to see you in person to discuss it. Meet me at Fort Marcy Park tomorrow at 6.

-Hillary C.

Clarification (5, Informative)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445059)

From a reply to the Huffington Post article by the creator:

I've resigned from my employer, Blue State Digital, an internet company that provides technology to several presidential campaigns, including Richardson's, Vilsack's, and -- full disclosure -- Obama's. The company had no idea that I'd created the ad, and neither did any of our clients. But I've decided to resign anyway so as not to harm them, even by implication.

Re:Clarification (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445177)

He said, they said. He's probably chanting the "I quit" mantra to avoid the uncomfortable silence during his next job interview when asked "Just why were you fired from your last job?".

Re:Clarification (1)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445253)

This is also kind of standard PR fluff. Heck, I knew a programmer who got canned who "moved on to brighter horizons," according to both he and his company.

Re:Clarification (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445457)

Hah, at my last job my boss called me in to talk about what would be the best option for the company and I.

The option was my departure from the company.

That option lead me to a new job, new office with a view, 3x as much vacation, a professional work atmosphere, and challenging and fun projects in a field that actually helps society.

That option lead them to an employee shortage, lower moral, 2 dropped projects, 6 months added to the time-line of most live projects, and tens of thousands of dollars spent on overtime and head hunting.

-Rick

Re:Clarification (2, Interesting)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445481)

He is such a knob. If he did not want to harm his employer 'even by implication' then why didn't he quit and do the ad as a freelancer? Why did he not come forward himself sooner? If he felt the ad was making such an important statment why was it not pitched first to Obama? Only a complete moron could not have seen the implications of what he was doing while in a position with Blue State Digital given their portfolio.

And his blog about it is just a stream of self indulgent garbage. Newsflash buddy, the future of American politics always rests in the hands of ordinary citizens, they are what grown ups like to call voters.

Re:Clarification (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445609)

And his blog about it is just a stream of self indulgent garbage. Newsflash buddy, the future of American politics always rests in the hands of ordinary citizens, they are what grown ups like to call voters.

Given that we are currently living under a president who was never elected by the people, I think that's a pretty specious argument.

Re:Clarification (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445761)

Sometimes you do something small and watch it snow ball. The ad itself was fluffy and very mild for an attack ad. his company acted within their own policy and terminated him. He seems to be taking it in stride. He reecognized his mistake and is moving on. The publicity will likely net him a job somewhere with as good or better pay. So even if he is a knob, he's porblably a knob with prospects.

Re:Clarification (3, Informative)

l4m3z0r (799504) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445399)

De Vellis was an employee with Blue State Digital, an Internet company that provides technology to presidential campaigns, including Obama's. De Vellis said he resigned from the company "so as not to harm them, even by implication." The company issued a statement Wednesday, saying he was terminated.

"Pursuant to company policy regarding outside political work or commentary on behalf of our clients or otherwise, Mr. de Vellis has been terminated from Blue State Digital effective immediately."

From: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/clinton.you .tube/index.html [cnn.com]

The CNN version has quotes from Blue State Digital's spokesperson saying that he was in fact terminated.

Re:Clarification (0, Redundant)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445417)

CNN is reporting that he was terminated (read: fired) [cnn.com] . Not just on their website, but on Robin & Company this morning (blatant plug: Robin Meade is just soooo hot!). According to CNN, the company released a statement to that effect.

So who's telling the truth? I think maybe de Vellis has more to gain by lying, don't you?

Quit vs Fired (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18445767)

I worked a retail job in my youth. I was fed up with it and decided one day that I was going to quit. I had somethings going on that weekend and just didn't bother going in to work. On Monday I went to the store to turn in my uniform. Upon arriving, the manager came out and said "You're Fired!"

In his mind I was fired for not showing up to work. In my mind I had quit two days earlier. Who was right?

Resigned, Fired: Just word games (2, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445499)

Yes, he says he resigned.
His employer says says he was fired [msn.com] .

Does it really matter? He was shown the door, one way or another.

Re:Resigned, Fired: Just word games (2, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445791)

Yeah, it does matter. His quitting was a smart choice, showing he's sorry for pain he caused the company he worked for.

His being fired shows a hard choice made by his employer, possibly unethical. (Off-the-clock, not associated with the company, etc, etc.)

Unless you meant 'does it matter' in the 'long run', and then nothing we do matters. We'll all be dead and gone in less than 100 years, and after a few millennia, the human race may not even exist any more. (Cute, Firefox thinks I spelled 'millennia' wrong.)

Fired? (4, Informative)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445063)

I see nothing in that article that says he was fired. I see user comments to that effect, but those aren't cited, either.

I heard on the radio this morning that he quit when he realized he was going to be unmasked. That's quite a bit different than being fired.

Vast, left-wing conspiracy (0, Troll)

winkydink (650484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445069)

As Hilary laughs it off saying it was better than her off key rendition of the Star Spangled Banner I imagine her muttering under her breath, "yeah, and the really funny part is that asshole is out of a job and if I have anything to do with it, will never work again."

Re:Vast, left-wing conspiracy (2, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445171)

As Hilary laughs it off saying it was better than her off key rendition of the Star Spangled Banner I imagine her muttering under her breath, "yeah, and the really funny part is that asshole is out of a job and if I have anything to do with it, will never work again."

At least she is being a good sport about it, publicly at least. I wonder is she would have felt differently if it were George W. Bush's face up there rather than hers. I wonder if would have resigned or gotten a promotion.

Re:Vast, left-wing conspiracy (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445321)

"yeah, and the really funny part is that asshole is out of a job and if I have anything to do with it, will never work again."

Word on the street is she's already got a hit out on him. 'Cause you know, all Democrats are murderers. Just look what they do to fetuses!

Re:Vast, left-wing conspiracy (1)

BluedemonX (198949) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445663)

Not for nothin, but look at how many people connected with Whitewater ended up dead.

I'm not suggesting the Clintons have hitmen on speed dial, but wasn't there some guy with two or three bullets to the back of the head that was ruled "suicide"?

RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18445083)

He wasn't fired, he resigned.

Re:RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18445717)

Funny, that's what Hillary said about Vince Foster, too!

cant have that (1)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445089)

a Democratic Internet strategy company that does work for Barack Obama -- has now fired him as a result.

I guess someone who makes national news and reaches millions isnt something you want in your "Internet Strategy".

In his own words (0, Redundant)

techstar25 (556988) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445103)

You should also check out his letter [huffingtonpost.com] where he says he resigned from his job. It reads:

I've resigned from my employer, Blue State Digital, an internet company that provides technology to several presidential campaigns, including Richardson's, Vilsack's, and -- full disclosure -- Obama's. The company had no idea that I'd created the ad, and neither did any of our clients. But I've decided to resign anyway so as not to harm them, even by implication.

Pioneering? (1)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445127)

I suspect that we won't see a lot less of this. Outlets like youtube are going to be where some REALLY nasty political ads are going to appear...many "unofficial" and "unrelated" and "not endorsed." Campaign workers are going to go "off the reservation," private lobbies will make their own, and get TONS of viewership in public forums without having to pay a dime to television.

Heck, we're seeing it already on campaign websites and MoveOn has some pretty vitriolic (and usually baseless) stuff.

The lies will get worse, but one of the more interesting things is that it will be a LOT easier to debunk bad ads. Places like factcheck.org have done a REALLY good job at research, and stuff like that is only going to get more prolific as well.

So, in other words, politics ain't going to change all that much.

BTW, Frist P00st.

Re:Pioneering? (4, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445357)

"I suspect that we won't see a lot less of this. Outlets like youtube are going to be where some REALLY nasty political ads are going to appear...many "unofficial" and "unrelated" and "not endorsed." Campaign workers are going to go "off the reservation," private lobbies will make their own, and get TONS of viewership in public forums without having to pay a dime to television."

Man...I sincerely HOPE so...this is so much cheaper, maybe it will reduce the insane amounts of money political machines have to generate, and hence how beholden to the donors at the end of the race.

Anything to take some of the money out of the politics, I think, would be useful thing.

Re:Pioneering? (1)

PriceIke (751512) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445387)

Factcheck.org has their biases too though. I was a regular reader of their bulletins for years until I started seeing patterns in the kinds of things they choose to "debunk" and how they go about it. You just can't take anything you read for granted. Moral: When anyone claims to be objective or "non-partisan" .. it's a safe bet they're lying. If not to you directly, then to themselves for thinking it's true.

Re:Pioneering? (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445509)

What sorts of patterns are you talking about? I've seen things on their newsletter that I've disagreed with, yes, but they do a pretty good job of analyzing political comments from across the spectrum.

Re:Pioneering? (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445667)

So, in other words, politics ain't going to change all that much.

Maybe so, but having access to mass media without a lot of money is kind of a "new" and a very good thing. Nothing like a little chaos to stir things up.

Primary Season (5, Insightful)

Viper Daimao (911947) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445131)

Primaries are always fun, if only because you get to watch each party attack itself for awhile before making their pick and pretending all that never happened.

All the "outrage" is a farce (5, Insightful)

netbuzz (955038) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445135)

Here's what I make of this whole flap -- not much: Clinton, Obama, the ad's maker (now out of a job), his employer and the press are all just playing their roles ... and the play is a farce. No one's really outraged by that video clip (especially Clinton). And no one really believes it's out of bounds. They're all just reading from the script. ... Of course, that's what high-stakes presidential politics is all about these days. More on this theme on my blog if anyone cares:

http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/1275 7 [networkworld.com]

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em? (2, Insightful)

dereference (875531) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445303)

Here's what I make of this whole flap [... they] are all just playing their roles ... and the play is a farce.
[...]
More on this theme on my blog if anyone cares
I suppose you're just playing your role as well (emphasis added above).

Re:All the "outrage" is a farce (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18445797)

You mean your blog full of sponsored links? How opportunistic of you...and so like what you appear to be decrying ;)

Some obersvations..... (4, Interesting)

8127972 (73495) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445137)

...About this video (and ones like it) are in an article in yesterday's Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM .20070321.gtpoltube0320/BNStory/Technology/ [theglobeandmail.com]

Three key points from the article:

        * How will Web content outside the control of campaigns affect voters?
        * How should campaigns react to anonymous but highly viewed attacks?
        * When is Web content, no matter how provocative, newsworthy?

Also worth noting. Apple has decided NOT to sue the creator as it would be unlikely that they'd win:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM .20070322.w19840322/BNStory/Technology/ [theglobeandmail.com]

Apple not suing somebody? I'll believe it when I see it.

Political Statements beget Unemployment? (1)

Aceto3for5 (806224) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445179)

I don't understand. Isn't there something [wikipedia.org] out there that protects this sort of thing? He wasn't hateful, it was an artistic and political statement. I'm no obama supporter, but the video was very well done. Is obama against free speech?

Re:Political Statements beget Unemployment? (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445231)

He's just mad he wasn't presented as the big brother socialist overlord in the video.

Re:Political Statements beget Unemployment? (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445643)

I don't understand. Isn't there something out there that protects this sort of thing? He wasn't hateful, it was an artistic and political statement. I'm no obama supporter, but the video was very well done. Is obama against free speech?

The First Ammendment protects against going to jail for something you said (for sake of simplicity, I'm skipping the obvious "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" type arguments). It does not guarantee anything else. Employment is not a right guaranteed under the Constitution.

Obama's handlers have to officially play the outrage game because that's just how things are done in politics to avoid pissing off potential voters who are offended by such things. It also gives them grounds to complain if someone who loves Hillary makes a similar video against Obama.

Neither Side Knew That He Made the Video (3, Informative)

ras_b (193300) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445181)

From his blog: [huffingtonpost.com]

The campaigns had no idea who made it--not the Obama campaign, not the Clinton campaign, nor any other campaign. I made the ad on a Sunday afternoon in my apartment using my personal equipment (a Mac and some software), uploaded it to YouTube, and sent links around to blogs.

He will be hired with lightning speed (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445199)

How many people you know that have successfully made any video over youtube a hit ?

So they found him (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445201)

Let's hope this doesn't stop others from doing the same thing. It's time to show these people who's really in control [slashdot.org] now.

Viral video (1)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445207)

Great way to spread a viral video even more. Post it to /.

The fact that I've never heard of this, until now, probably means I hang out with the wrong people (both off and on line).

Either way, if it does do anything, it is a good example of an individual affecting the political process. Another good example would be Bill Gates giving shit loads of money to a campaign for one candidate or another.

It doesn't mean debate, it just means propaganda.

Re:Viral video (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445421)

Great way to spread a viral video even more. Post it to /.

Do you think any Slashdotter gives two hoots about preventing the spread of this video?

So? (1)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445237)

I don't get it. Where's the news? Don't companies have the right to discipline their employees? If they don't like the fact that their employee had views - not any old views, but a deep political ideology that might threaten business (i.e. conflict of interests) - then they have a right to discipline and indeed fire those people. What if we looked at this the other way - the company complaining about him and ultimately firing him because they believed due to his views, he was not a safe employee and possibly had intentions of ruining business due to his views and actions.

Basically, this isn't news.

Re:So? (0, Offtopic)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445319)

It's really not news when you find out that the summary is completely wrong, and he resigned.

When the editors don't bother to RTA, why should we? :D

Re:So? (1)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445349)

LMAO indeed :)

I've resigned from my employer, Blue State Digital, an internet company that provides technology to several presidential campaigns, including Richardson's, Vilsack's, and -- full disclosure -- Obama's. The company had no idea that I'd created the ad, and neither did any of our clients. But I've decided to resign anyway so as not to harm them, even by implication.
Come on, it's not as though his Blog post was an essay, there's 8 paragraphs, OH NOES MY EYES!!!

Hillary 1, Humor 0 (0, Troll)

Cr0w T. Trollbot (848674) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445291)

Of course they had to be fired. Hillary certainly didn't want anything as base as "humor" to puncture the condescending hot air of her "listening tour." Which is what the mock-1984 ad did. Which is why it was a more effective ad than anything the official Obama campaign has put out thus far.

However, by the standards of 21st century political warfare, it was a creampuff. It was funny and didn't take itself too seriously, and was aimed to deflate Hillary, not directly attack her. Compare that to former Edwards campaign staffer Amanda Marcotte calling Catholics "godbags" and talking about how God filled the virgin Mary with "his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit" [patterico.com] and it seems like the tiniest of molehills.

About the only person who really has casue to complain about the whole kerfluffle is Steve Jobs...

Crow T. Trollbot

Re:Hillary 1, Humor 0 (1)

rjung2k (576317) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445647)

Since he resigned of his own free will (and was not fired), it appears you're now lacking a point...

No problem finding a job (1)

brett880 (970445) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445293)

He will have no problem finding a job for a few reasons. He obviously has some talent and creativity, so he will be picked up by someone outside Hilary's camp. Hilary has a lot less power and control than most people would like to think. A presidental candidate pretty much only has one shot at the presidency, after she loses (god willing!), she will have even less influence and power than she does now. I have no problem with a woman president, but not that witch!

Was that an Ipod? (1)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445305)

I think it was. Are you sure this video isn't really a viral ad for Apple? Especially the logo at the end looked a little like the Apple logo.

And Apple apparently gives money to the Democrats ...

Something is going on Mister Jones. And I don't know what it is. But something is going to change.

"Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?"

On the one hand... (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445341)

It shows his concern for the political system. OTOH, it shows his political naïveté -- you're not going to get away with smacking Hilary Clinton. This combination of chutzpah and bad judgment is rare in Washington... for good reason.

Barack the Magic Negro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18445347)

David Ehrenstein of the L.A. Times refers to Barack Osama as "the Magic Negro". Today on Rush Limbaugh they played a parody of the tune "Puff the Magic Dragon" by Peter, Paul, and Mary. They changed the words to "Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C. ...". Google it.

Way funnier than "Vote Different".

Apple Legal (0, Troll)

teneighty (671401) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445353)

Why isn't Apple's legal department all over this? Much as we love to hate copyright laws on slashdot, I think this is a shining example of the kind of copyright abuse that really should be prosecuted.

That aside, I don't really understand this ad's message. It's a hell of a stretch to compare Hillary Clinton to Big Brother (the current administration, on the other hand...)

Re:Apple Legal (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445517)

> I think this is a shining example of the kind of copyright abuse that really should be prosecuted.

Lemme look this up...

Special Pleading: See Apple Inc.

Parody is protected, no thanks to the people who would like to see it prosecuted.
(you may now wipe off your monitor if you read that aloud)

Re:Apple Legal (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445541)

It's a pretty obvious "satire" or protected derrivative work. they may not win that lawsuit and in even pressing a lawsuit against the guy, they would seem "partisan" to a lot of their consumers.

Huffington? (1)

FutureDomain (1073116) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445379)

How did Huffington find out who it was? It was posted on YouTube under a pseudonym. Unless he blabbed it to someone, I don't see how anyone could have figured out who it was.

Video Covered the Droning Point On... (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445529)

Humor is what sets up many good points in print or video.

Pointing out the laborious droning on of political speech by a particularly notworthy practitioner in a quirky way has made it memorable.

That is what advertising is ALL about.

He's right. (4, Interesting)

jafac (1449) | more than 7 years ago | (#18445535)

There is a lot of frustration among Democratic voters right now, about the crappy selection of presidential candidates. We felt like we got railroaded with Dukkakis in '88, and while Clinton was a pleasant surprise in '92, there was a lot of consternation about Lieberman in 2000 (and it should be clear by now, that Lieberman did more harm to Gore's campaign than Nader could ever dream to) - and Kerry in '04.

Democratic voters feel their principles have been betrayed. That their party is beholden to monied special interests (especially the mafIAA). Is it any wonder that a stooge like Bush can win?

I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with Obama as a candidate (his views on Gun Control are pretty wacky - the NRA will slaughter him, even with the weak field of Republican candidates). I'd rather see the Democratic Party take someone like Bill Richardson a lot more seriously. He has a lot more experience, and his views are a lot closer to the mainstream of America. Plus, he *is* a minority; but he doesn't use that status as a political tool, like Clinton and Obama do.

This Obama staffer made a bad move. It was a clear, ethical, conflict of interest, and possibly a violation of campaign finance law. But he made a damn important point. Is anyone at the DNC (and especially, the DLC) listening?

Re:He's right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18445749)

I must say that, as a conservative (mind you not a republican), I must agree with you to the point that both Clinton and Obama and damn near unelectable IMHO. Thanks to the Dems for once again putting their best and brightest up front.
 
I have a feeling that I will be laughing all the way to the election booth.

Freedom of speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18445675)

Did he use company resources or time to produce the video? If he did not, and used his free time to do this, then it sounds like a free speech violation to me.

Where is the typical /. outcry? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18445755)

Imagine what a difference a couple words would have made:

The company he worked for, Bl^H^HRed State Digital -- a Dem^H^H^HRepublican Internet strategy company...
then the article would have been something like,

"Unnamed sources exposed Bush as being behind propoganda lie for political reasons, claims "First Amendment" (meaning Patriot Act in dubya-speak) gives authority to release anti-terrorist video anyway in time of war. Democrats to issue supeanas against the entire US population in all red states until they expose every right-wing youtubers as the unintelligent racists we know they are. In related news, big oil and tobacco companies suspected of making money on the day this video was released, causes temperatures to rise an alarming 10 degrees between 8 am and noon."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...