Vote Different

"Guerilla politics."  "Citizen ads."  If anything, it make the vision of 1984 something of a fallacy.

From a strictly political standpoint, however, I'm interested in the frame ad man Phil De Vellis hung around Hillary Clinton.  If the fear regarding Hillary (or, "Clinton Inc.," as she is sometimes derogatorily referred to) is that she's a corporate shill and a hopeless "triangulator," this indie/pro-Obama "Vote Different" ad hits some powerful buttons.

The code on the screen reduces each of us to a number. The "big brother" analogy levels out any unique impact of Hillary's gender.  (Not lost, of course, is the fact a woman destroys the icon.) While being invited to engage in a conversation, our casting -- as lobotomized campaign drones -- puts a bitter twist on the subliminal exhortation to "be part of the team."

And then, the logo at the end cues all kinds of distinctions evoking innovative versus the routine, the vibrant versus the colorless, and tomorrow versus yesterday.

If the early days of the campaign involve the shaping and counter-programming of personal images, I'd say Phil did Clinton and her media team a favor.  Unless they are so myopic and fixed in their ways that they just (either technologically or thematically) ignore this (which would prove this "one man" guerilla ad not just clever, but prophetic), they need to seriously channel the meme of their candidate (including themselves, too) as a "machine."

(click all pics for full sizes)

It's curious how, in responding to the video, Obama told last-generation media relic Larry King:

"Frankly, given what it looks like, we don't have the technical capacity to create something like this... "It's pretty extraordinary."

Of course, that's a lot of b.s. -- at least from a financial and technical standpoint.  If what he's talking about, however, is the ability to think, act, and conduct oneself in a more freely creative way, that projects almost as much about his own mechanistic tendencies.

View the video here.

(video frames:  Apple iPod ad/Phil De Vellis via YouTube)

Comments

[KingElvis]

I have to admit it. I was in the 'paranoid' camp that thought this was some kind of GOP trickery to get the candidates to attack eath other.

I was moved by the 'ad' because I just don't like Hillary. I really really really really hate this new trend of 'dynastic' candidates - not to mention Billary's war mongering and prison bitch 'centrism.'

This is a woman who has cozied up to Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch. That's all you need to know.

Billy promised health care and all we got were slightly cheaper goods, made by the (virtual) slaves in China - and now US labor is expected to 'compete' with slavery.

I've had enough of Billy and Hilly.

[Eric (Lettuce)]

It's interesting that they've found the guy who created it, and he works (now "worked") at a firm that does media consulting for Democrats and Obama. The company fired him, and he says the campaign had nothing to do with the ad.

What gets me, what really gets me, is how the AP was able to say this "casts a cloud" on the Obama camp. Or why this story really matters.

In 2004, we had the "Swift Boat Vets" slandering a wounded war hero. Their comments -- in ads and elsewhere -- required belief in a vast Military conspiracy, the undermining of the purple heart and bronze star awarding process and belittling all else who recieved them and the folks who did this had obvious ties to Rove and the Bush campaign.

Of course, as we know, they were reviled, the audacity decried, but it didn't stop, had a real effect against Kerry and no backlash against Bush. And those folks are getting hired all over the place for the 2008 cycle. This was 19th century political intrigue and it's success is alarming.

I agree that this Obama "ad" should be a wakeup call. But the campaigns, it should be a different kind then: "look out!"

The Hillary as panderer meme is the one that's most troublesome as KingElvis showed above. She's seen as a 100% calculater, completely insincere and rightly or wrongly, that is just as sticky and damaging as "flip flopper" or "serial liar." And if Hillary doesn't do something and fast, she'll never break out of Kerry Country.

I don't know if there is anything like that against Obama. His race, his name, his experience and all that, and despite America's history of ignorance on those issues, I don't see nearly as damaging as the insincere label that goes with panderer, flip flopper, liar, etc. Heck, the Edwards as wussy meme was beginning to take hold there, but again, nothing much for Obama.

His image is either too unformed, or he is too skillful to let a negative descriptor attage.

And that, I think, is telling.

P.S. What are the memes or elevator pitches for the other candidates, GOP or Dem? I know McCain is the "Maverick" which may be turning into "sold-out Maverick," Giuliani is fighting between "9/11 hero" and "liberal lech." Who and what else?

[janinsanfran]

This effort simply said something many of us believe is true: Hilary, and the Democratic establishment, have ZERO interest in democracy. They want power for themselves and in pursuit of it they'll screw the people.

Now I am not saying Obama is any different... don't know the answer, but media access for the masses helps a little, at least by making us feel better.

[Robin Farley]

I just love that the hammer lady is wearing an i-pod. Nice detail since the original commercial was filmed something like 20 years before the i-pod was invented.

I guess that when I step back a bit I just have to wonder about how much time the news media spends on such trivial matters. Isn’t there a war going on? Hasn’t the administration been caught up in yet another episode of incompetence, criminality, and lying? Never mind that, look at that shiny thing over there!

[tardigrade]

I have to tell you that all I think is how amazing Apple is when it comes to selling stuff.... that their designs are unique and lasts forever... and can be reused for a whole bunch of other stuff.... If the person had created something different with new icons and not just re-use this Apple masterpiece, then I would have been impressed.

[Mad_nVT]

I'm impressed by many pieces. By how well the video captured/capsized Hillary Inc. By the video itself, and by the Apple immortality.

But most of all, this again shows the progression/jump to a whole new information dynamic.

Loss of control by the center, whether that center be the campaign, or the media, or the "responsible authorities", or the Establishment.

One video (maybe not this one) by one person may well change history. Perhaps even human history. And that one person can be almost anonymous, it can be anybody.

Is that power to the people, or is it another way of finding anarchy?

(By the way, I'm also impressed by the name "tardigrade", also known as "water bear")

[tina]

Why not talk about someone who has a chance, who will bring in the swing voters?

Edwards today said he will continue to run for Prez even though his wife's breast cancer has returned.

Look for the right to start spitting on his wife's cancer by accusing him of using her for pity points, or something along those lines.

But I for one breathed a huge sigh of relief.

Please BAG, show us more of Edwards. People can't talk about what they never see.

For that matter there are several other candidates we never see either. Kucinich? I can't even spell it.

[jawbone]

Actually, while I found the parody interesting, even arresting, I found myself 1) thinking how good Hillary looks and sounds (this was taken from her announcement video which was on the web), and 2) are there copywright implications for the person who did this. I though the iPod was a great touch.

However, the original ad, with its attack on Big Blue, was what gives this parody its emotional kick. Does this parody somehow denigrate the original? I'm not sure.

I am not a big Hil fan, but would probably work for her if she wins the nomination. As she would be the first woman US presidential nominee of a major party, I think she would have an uphill battle. But I think the same about Obama.

But the parody did make me uncomfortable about how the nomination race will be handled. I don't want to blow this, and, as always, Dems will have the MCM*ers aiding and abetting the Republicans.

*Mainstream Corporate Media

[Johanna]

The video doesn't identify her as a "corporate shill" or a triangulator -- it calls her a would be tyrant. This bold charge resonates about her, as it couldn't about any of the other democratic candidates. The falsity and condescension of her speaking manner make it possible for her to take on the role of "big brother." The Obama sequel makes no emotional sense, because he addresses others as equals. Anyone remember that her healthcare plan included prison terms for patients who sought medical care outside the boundaries of the plan, and doctors who treated desperate people not assigned to them? In a predictable case of life imitating art, the video's creator was run to ground and punished in mere days after its appearance.

[Mad_nVT]

Why don't we see quality viral videos that portray/parody/pillory that mindless Bimbo we got in the White House?

[chimproller]

Edwards, Tina??
Didn't he support the Iraq war?
No thanks - tired old democrat Iraq war flip-floppers will not bring in swing voters, and don't have a chance.

[readytoblowagasket]

The original Apple commercial was so powerful and seamless and irreverent it was instantly iconic. That's because film director Ridley Scott made it, and so it is beautiful as well. It's cinematic, a miniature movie, an art piece.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(television_commercial)

http://www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/adclass/1984_mac_ad.html

If you didn't see the original commercial in 1984, the Hillary version might seem awesome. It's easy to paste anyone's face into the original and badly dub new sound and get away with a hack job because the raw materials are so rich (and expensive: it cost $1.6 million to make). That Obama would say his people don't have the technical capacity to alter something that already exists is disingenuous, lazy, and possibly shockingly ignorant. Any teenager (or younger) could make the Hillary version. Hell, I could make it.

[lowly grunt]

I agree, RTBAG, Obama is out of touch with technology if he thinks his campaign is not able to make this. Or his campaign is out of touch; can't quite decide.

Apple remade the commercial in 2004 to celebrate their 20th anniversary and added the iPod to the woman as an update. In the 1984 original, she wasn't wearing it.

Edwards has admitted his vote for the war was a mistake.

[Karl Weber]

Whether you like Hillary or not--and I personally would rank her, at this moment, no better that fourth among the declared Democratic contenders--the ad is extremely unfair. You could take a clip of practically anyone and insert it in place of the image of Hillary on the screen, and they would end up looking creepy and sinister. (Think about it.) The ad certainly doesn't demonstrate anything about Hillary--it just smears her by associating her with emotions that are, at the very least, wildly disproportionate.

When Apple originally created the ad to introduce the Macintosh computer, it was deliberately using hyperbole. It was obvious that comparing IBM to a brutal, tyrannical Big Brother was an absurd exaggeration. (For starters, IBM never had an army, prison camps, or secret police.) Depicting Mac users as feisty iconoclasts battling an all-powerful regime was just a fun way of tapping into everybody's inner rebel, drawing on emotions derived from a much more serious conflict--the conflict between freedom and tyranny dramatized in George Orwell's novel.

By recasting the Apple ad with Hillary as Big Brother, the hacker is dragging the 1984 symbolism back from the world of technology into the world it originally came from--the world of politics. Suddenly it's no longer so obvious that the ad is a satiric exaggeration! We all know that IBM doesn't literally have the power to turn the country into a dreary hopeless den of conformity. Do we know that about the next president of the United States? Not necessarily.

Thus, transforming a computer ad which embodied a mock political message into a real political message invites us to take its imagery much more literally. And I have a real problem with this. Whatever you may think of Hillary, she is no Big Brother. Depicting her as one is--well, is Limbaugh-esque.

I'm also hearing a lot of talk about how this ad illustrates the incredible new powers of technology, of the netroots, of citizen activists, etc. etc. (Paul Begala and Arianna Huffington were just expatiating about these themes on WNYC radio.) Let's not get carried away here. Remember this ad is a ripoff of an old media ad. It gets most of its evocative power from the production values of the original TV commercial as well as from our memories of how the original was used--as the opening salvo of a very effective marketing campaign designed with great creativity and chutzpah and launched with enormous fanfare during the Super Bowl, no less.

So the excitement this anti-Hillary message is generating is largely derivative. It doesn't show how the little guy with no resources can use technology to create a powerful message--it shows how a little guy can make a big splash by cleverly stealing, twisting, and repurposing a message originally created by a big guy.

[Chris]

"Karl Weber" is right; maybe it's time to calm down just a little bit. The main differences between IBM and Apple are size and the variety of services offered. Other than that they're both just big American computer companies, each serving their customers.
As long as we have remarks about patients and doctors going to prison under the Clinton health plan, discussion tends toward the pointless.
Who can shout the loudest?

[Johanna]

The Health Security Act proposed by Hillary is a matter of record. Punishment for buying or selling covered services outside the plan is "a civil monetary penalty in an amount not to exceed $50,000" and a jail term max. 5 yrs. HSA, page 947. It is not "shouting" to bring this matter up again as part of the normal and legitimate scrutiny of the record of someone running for the highest office. How good she looks , of course, should also be a consideration.

[MonsieurGonzo]

Robin: “Never mind that, look at that shiny thing over there!”

...marvelous !

[rilkefan]

Funny, I just looked up the HSA and I see civil monetary penalties for violating the Social Security Act and the like, for illegally terminating someone's enrollment, for discriminating on the basis of medical condition, or for lying or bribing someone to enroll in your plan. (SEC. 5412. CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES) . I suspect Johanna got taken in by some right-wing propaganda.

[jtfromBC]

Right on !!! its Big Sister Hillary with a speciality in intellectual property law a stilted mechanical oratory style combined with the quote below provides me a chuckle or two and I toast George O and the guy who reworked the original video.

When Pat Buchanan states Canada is a "safe haven (sic) for terrorists" most Canucks are not surprised but when it was suggested that, "Hillary Rodham Clinton should apologize for speculating on a Canadian link to terrorism after reports that five terrorist suspects entered the United States from Canada turned out to be false" (AP, 10 Jan. 2003). She refused, saying that she finds the hoax "all too believable [. . .] I take very seriously my responsibility to speak out about the U.S. government’s responsibility to allocate increased resources to the protection of our northern border and I will continue to do so" reconstruction.eserver.org/033/ouellette.htm

A vote for HC assures total safety from all terrorists real or imagined.
Regarding Obama's comment (tech difficulty) hes dumb like a fox.

[Johanna]

Rilke, there is no way you can assess all the penalties in this plan. The health security act is close to 1400 pages. Look at the ACLU's thoughtful, and in some ways, sympathetic assessment of it. They express concern about the ways it infringes upon civil liberties, and the new categories of crimes it creates (although they are not necessarily opposed to the creation of new crime categories). This assessment is called "Toward the creation of a new health care system" and is on the web. The plan's provision that there would be some kind of statute of limitations on challenges to its constitutionality is called by the ACLU simply absurd. Remember, this plan went down to defeat in a democratic congress. Hillary doesn't seem to hold it up as something she is proud of, either. I only brought it up because it really lets us see her as a policy maker -- someone unable to forge a plan that could get widespread support from democrats and reasonable republicans. And someone with a really coercive bent.

[Samantha]

I think Weber is right, anyone's face can be in that ad and look creepy. And it IS a ripoff ad. But I think it especially works because it feeds into the unfair stereotypes of Hillary and even powerful women in general.

So no, I don't agree with the statement that "the big brother analogy levels out any unique impact of Hillary's gender." Absolutely not. I think gender is in there, and so is how we relate to women and what we expect from them, how far we allow them to go, etc. So in that sense, it's really little more than swiftboating. But ok, he's supporting Obama.

Unfortunately for the ad man, it may have backfired. Hillary got elected in NY partly because she was so viciously lambasted by her opponant. A poll was conducted after this ad, and the majority of responders felt sypathetic toward Hillary, felt she was in some sense victimized by the ad, and not inclined to support Obama as a result.

[MonsieurGonzo]

RTBAG: “The original Apple commercial was so powerful... it was instantly iConic”

MomentOfZen => Dubya as Steve Jobs, selling iRaq

[readytoblowagasket]

Gonzo, now THAT is genius!

Still

laughing . . .

: )