Going Negative In Barack Obama’s Name
April 2, 2007, 7:22am
Through no fault of his own, Sen. Barack Obama is seeing his name attached to negative ad after negative ad in the early months of the 2008 presidential campaign.
The most prominent is the “Vote Different” online video that paints one of Obama’s chief rivals, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., as the leader of zombie-like cult. That one hit close to the Obama campaign when the anonymous creator of the video, Phil de Vellis, was exposed as an Internet consultant to the campaign.
The ad closed by referring viewers to the campaign site for Obama, D-Ill. De Vellis said that neither the Obama campaign nor his employer, Blue State Digital, knew he had created the video, and he was fired from his job. Once his identity was known, de Vellis predicted: “This ad was not the first citizen ad, and it will not be the last. The game has changed.”
And indeed it has — especially for Obama, who may have to spend an inordinate amount of time distancing himself from online ads that attack his rivals. The latest examples target Clinton and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. (Ironically, the anti-Clinton ad is running at the Capitol Hill Broadcasting Network alongside a PollingPoint.com ad that asks whether voters support her — and the anti-McCain ad is paired with an ad that directs people to McCain’s Web site.)
The anti-Clinton ad, titled “Say No To Hillary,” recalls the sex scandal that led to the impeachment of her husband, former President Bill Clinton. “If she can’t control her husband,” the 30-second spot asks, “how can she possibly run the country?”
The jab at McCain, dubbed “Vote Different: No McCain,” focuses on his support for the war in Iraq and the policies of President Bush there. “John McCain — wrong on defense, wrong for America,” it says.
Both videos direct viewers to BarackObama.com. It could be a long campaign for Obama if the people who presumably support him keep working hard to make his name synonmous with negative advertising.
Categories: New York, Arizona, Illinois, Producer's Picks, Iraq, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. John McCain, Sen. Barack Obama, Presidency 2008, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, AdWatch
Subscribe to RSS
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
That’s dirty pool, old man. I like it!
Also: What’s really going to bake your noodle is when it’s revealed that the anonymous creator of a viciously anti-Clinton video is actually working for Obama’s campaign…
…but then we find out that he’s really an agent for Clinton, sent in to sabotage Obama’s campaign from the inside!
…but then he claims that he actually wanted to get caught, because he’s really an Obama supporter and wanted to make Clinton look like a Machiavelli-wannabe!
…but THEN…
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
It’s a vast right-wing conspiracy ….
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
There is a new spoof of Clinton at youtube. Extremely funny.
Hillary Clinton Doomsday Machine:
7www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXy_sP…
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:48 pm
It is interesting how easily convinced everyone is that Sen. Obama has nothing to do with these ads. Even after it has been shown that at least one of them originated within his own campaign.
Remember back in 2000 when the press crucified candidate Bush for his alleged “sleazy tactics” against John McCain in South Carolina? Strangely, there was not the slightest thread of actual evidence linking the Bush campaign to any misbehavior in the state, but that didn’t stop the press from “connecting the dots.” (Maybe we need more reporters in Homeland Security!) Fast-forward to 2007, and la-de-da, nobody is troubled in the slightest by anonymous hit pieces that, strangely, all favor Sen. Barack. Strange, isnt it?
Lesson learned: The press controls reality. A scandal is only a scandal when the press says it is. An allegation becomes a “fact” when the press repeats it enough. Oh… and we have always been at war with Eurasia.
7www.boston.com/news/politics/p… (Please note how those anonymous and mythological “push” pollers became Bush controlled operatives without one scrap of evidence or proof required.)
Or this one:
7www.iht.com/articles/2000/02/2…
Just miles and miles of anti-Bush innuendo, and not a single concrete piece of evidence. Oh, and I liked this quote:
Mr. Bush outspent Mr. McCain, dollars 3.1 million to dollars 2.8 million, for television time, yet in exit polls more voters thought Mr. McCain had waged a negative campaign than thought Mr. Bush had.
A mere six years later and the exact opposite of those people’s experience has been enshrined in the political mythology. And we have always been at war with Eastasia.
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:42 am
My sources tell me that the Evan Bayh Vice Presidential Campaign Committee is behind ALL of these fake Obama ads.
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:13 am
You forgot another Machiavellian angle: what if the anti-Clinton spot is actually done by REPUBLICAN operatives, trying to weaken Clinton’s support because they believe Obama would be easier to beat in the general election? (I head that speculation made about the “Vote Different” ad too)
The bit about “If she can’t control her husband” seems more like a stereotypically Republican sentiment than one Obama supporters might hold.
On the other hand, it’s SO stereotypical that it seems suspicious. Like if it’s the kind of thing Clinton supporters THINK Republicans might say, so they put it in the ad to make everyone think Republicans are trying to take Clinton out, and making Obama look bad in the process.
House of mirrors, people.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Agh, ya beat me tae it!
(On the way home, I thought “wait a minute, I forgot to say that it’ll all turn out to be a plan by Karl Rove!“)
I’ll say, though, that if the RNC thinks that it’ll be easy to beat Obama, then they’ve got another think coming.