A Vote Against Clinton’s ‘Conversations’
March 5, 2007, 8:06pm
Remember that “conversation” Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton started when she officially began considering a 2008 White House run? Or the series of online conversations the New York Democrat has been holding periodically since then? They haven’t seemed much like conversations to her critics.
Well, now supporters of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, one of Clinton’s leading rivals for the Democratic nomination, are using Clinton’s “conversation” theme against her in an online video now spreading via YouTube.
The video, titled “Vote Different,” shows an auditorium full of zombie-like people entranced by an image of Clinton conversing. A woman being pursued by troopers flings a sledge hammer into the screen to snap the people (read: Democratic primary voters) out of their trance. The kicker text: “On January 14th, the Democratic primary will begin. And you’ll see why 2008 won’t be like ‘1984.’”
Categories: New York, Illinois, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, Presidency 2008, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
Subscribe to RSS
March 5th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Danny, fyi this is a mashup/hack of the breakthrough Apple video from 1984, thus the “Vote Different” (”Think Different”) title
March 6th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 03/06/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
March 10th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
The original Apple ad was broadcast during the 1984 Superbowl. I remember seeing it–it was great. I think it may have accompanied the launch of the Macintosh.
The “Big Brother” was supposed to represent IBM. (Apple’s motto, “Think Different,” itself is a reference to IBM’s motto, “Think.”)
IBM was not amused.
March 10th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I meant to add–I think the scene refers to the mandatory, daily “Two Minute Hate” in Orwell’s 1984.
March 10th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
7www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wi…
March 10th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Strike that last comment–the original add wasn’t the “Two Minute Hate.” Here’s a link to the original ad: 7www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/adclas…
March 10th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
This wasn’t a mashup, it was Ridley Scott’s Apple Macintosh commercial with Hilary’s video and audio dropped in. (Wildly influential at the time, this ad started the whole craze of paying big name feature film directors a lot of money to make your commercial). I bet Apple is not amused.
March 10th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Just noticed the original Apple ad was spiced up a bit, and love the addition of an iPod to that hammer-throwing woman’s side! Clear look of it at the :23 counter. Sweet!
March 10th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
David still, may I ask why you link us to a Huffington Post article on Giuliani in response to this article about an Apple related video on Hillary Clinton?
March 10th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Actually, it’s taken from the recent remake of the 1984 ad. In the original, the hammer thrower wasn’t wearing an iPod (the iPod not being invented at that time). Thus this ad is a mashup of a mashup for those keeping count.
March 10th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
The original ad helped almost banckrupt Apple and drove Jobs out. It made a ton of $ for the agency but did not help Apple’s sales. The bottom line was hit hard the nex few years and Steve was forced out. CD laughed all the way to the bank!
After reading the above you should understand why I think this will not hurt Billary.
March 11th, 2007 at 1:19 am
As a computer programmer, I’m always amused by Apple’s public stance as the champion of a sort of Libertarianism. Apple would have you believe that they are some sort of anti-establishment corporation, whose cooperate philosophy is somehow empowering to the lower class individual. Apple would have you believe from thier marketing that they are the company of the small guy and of free thinkers. They are in a word, “Hip”, and consequently Apple enjoys a measure of success in hip crowds that want to be seen as socially cutting edge - media figures, artists, various academics, young people, etc. The 1984 Superbowl is typical of Apple’s entire marketing strategy. “Buy Apple and you will be a free thinker.” “Buy Apple and you will be cool.” Or even, “Apple’s competitors are evil.” Much of Apples limited success can be directly linked to the success of getting out this message. It’s quite easy to find a certain segment of the American population which holds as a political idea the notion that Apple’s competitors are in fact monopolists, anti-small guy, oppressive, censoring, un-hip, and in fact evil.
The problem with this narrative is that a close review of Apple’s corporate history shows that its all a load of bunk. Apple has never ever acted in a fashion that could be described as ‘liberating’. In fact, Apple owes much of its crushing failure in the PC market to business policies which are exactly the opposite of the public face that they’ve successfully presented themselves at. To site just a few examples, Apple in the ’80’s refused to allow academic institutions open access to thier programming manuals because they wanted to retain full control of all the code which ran on thier machine. IBM/Intel/Microsoft in contrast actively encouraged academic institutions to teach how to program for thier platform. As a result, just when Apple needed a generation of young programmers to know how to create programs for thier machine - none in fact existed because Apple had actively discouraged thier creation by insisting on full control over the process. If you wanted to program for the Apple, you had to gain Apple’s approval. Similarly, Apple technical manuals were only available to people that Apple approved of, and could not even be ordered via the mail because Apple was so paranoid about losing control over the process that you had to buy the manual in person. This created an environment that was absolutely stiffling in the community that actually used the technology first hand - the computer programming and technology community itself. Software simply wasn’t available on the Apple at the same time that it was flurishing on the IBM machines because IBM had took the more libertarian open source approach.
Likewise, it was IBM that licensed the production and assembly of thier product allowing any number of IBM clone machines to be produced. Apple on the other hand insisted on full centralized control for fear of losing control of the process. So, from the vantage of the people that actually built computers, it was Apple that was stifling creativity. This philosophy of deciding what the customers want and not actually letting them choose permeates the entire corporate history of the company - as anyone that’s wanted to configure Apple’s hardware according to thier tastes will tell you. Likewise, Apple has deliberately set on corporate policies that kept thier machines too expensive for anyone in a lower income family to afford. It’s little wonder that Apple is very popular among affluent media types, because they are about the only group that can afford such frivelous status symbols.
In short, Apple tried to be a domineering monopolist and it killed thier business - with the exception of a few ‘hip’ crowds that were taken in by thier public marketing mask of “empowering hip free thinkers to fight authority” and had the money or lack sense to endulge that marketing driven sham.
What is my point?
When some group steals Apple’s methods to try to sell thier product, it leads me to think that they are probably more anti-Libertarian than whoever they are criticizing.
March 11th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Ironically, the Apple Quicktime-formatted video on this page is causing my browser to freeze and crash.
March 11th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Celebrim:
You are correct in your analysis of the disconnect between Apple’s advertising and how they actually ran (and run) their business. They have loved fat profit margins for years, and you just can’t get there without a proprietary product that no one is licensed to replicate or tinker with in any way, shape or form.
However, you could not be more wrong about those who hork an excellent piece of propaganda as being more anti-Libertarian than those they are criticizing.
I think the people who made the re-mix are confident that the ad makes the statement- Hillary is big brother- despite the fact that the ad was originally not a reflection of actual Apple business practices.
There are far too many contenders for the prize of “most statist Presidential candiate” this year, but Hillary is #1 with a bullet. No other candidate says “I will decide what is best for you” more forcefully or with more conviction than Hillary.
Obama is mostly statist to be sure, but Hillary is the most statist candidate in the race.
Cowboy Wally
March 11th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
celebrim,
Their always has “the” in it. “The,” then the ‘ir’ to cap it off. It’s always spelled “their.” So, there.
Your last statement has me wondering something: why are you (apparently) so certain that whatever group Obama’s a part of that you refer to “stole” the ad?
Is it reasonable to think Obama has many people who support him who could legally and with the originals contributor’s encouragement use the ad? Don’t you know Hollywood loves Obama?
EasyLiving
March 11th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
“There are far too many contenders for the prize of “most statist Presidential candiate” this year, but Hillary is #1 with a bullet.”
This is a rather pointless argument, much like arguing about whether it is better to die by ice or die by fire. Based on my research though, Obama is probably the most statist individual to pursue the office of President of United States since Huey Long. You don’t think the media love Obama for his libertarian classical liberal principles do you? Hillary is ‘merely’ a European style socialist, and one whose evil inclinations are mitigated by her complete lack of character - she’ll gladly comprimise any of her principles to obtain and maintain power. But, for my money, Mr. Obama really and actually believes what he says.
March 11th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
[…] StickerShock posted this in that other forum. Don’t know who’s behind it, but those folks in the ad sure do act like CC posters. I kinda liked that lady hammer thrower. […]
October 4th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
[…] AirCongress was one of the first Web sites to discover the “Big Brother” video (7www.aircongress.com/2007/03/05…) aimed at Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and generated more than 10,000 hits in a single day. Linking to that viral video resulted in the biggest traffic day by far for the site, and searches for that ad continue to drive traffic to AirCongress. […]