Who do you think created the "Hillary 1984" ad?

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003560324

What is this person's agenda? Was it someone on "our side" of the political spectrum? A second or third-tier Dem opponent in the presidential race? A repuke making mischief? Or, per the latest below, just someone who wants to rattle the system and urge Americans to "vote different".




The ad was first placed on the YouTube site on March 5 by an anonymous poster signed ParkRidge47, a signature that appears to be a clever jab at the New York senator, who was born in Chicago in 1947 and raised in nearby Park Ridge, Ill.

After the ad received more than 100,000 hits in two days, Micah Sifrey, editor of TechPresident.com, a Web site that tracks how the Internet is changing politics, sent an e-mail to the poster, asking for more information about how and why the ad was created.

ParkRidge47 wrote back, saying that the "Hillary 1984" ad, which urged Americans to "Vote Different," was inspired by Hollywood entertainment mogul David Geffen's public critique of Clinton -- and "Clinton's campaign bullying of donors and political operatives" in the wake of it, according to Sifrey's Web posting....

Steve Dowling, corporate spokesman for Apple reached Monday by The Chronicle, said he did not know who produced the political video and repeatedly declined to answer questions about the firm's reaction -- or whether it was considering legal action.


EDITED: Revised the first query- I guess it's obvious that an agenda was involved!

that it is someone with an agenda. only question is what that agenda is, right?

Somebody with an agenda made this ad for a specific reason. The only question is, who did it? Part of me wants to be paranoid and believe that it's another Republican plot aimed at driving a wedge between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, almost forcing them to address the issue in public while possibly going after one another and beginning some early in-fighting and mudslinging.

Then again, my more rational side wants me to believe that it was just an Obama supporter with some decent skill in putting together this 1984 ad, a YouTube account, and a desire for change in this country.

For the moment, paranoia is winning out over rationality.

the average computer geek couldn't have blended and integrated the new bits, image and audio, in the old so seamlessly... a highly skilled professional hand was involved.

If I knew how to use the various programs on my computer, I could probably make an ad like that. The technology to do this sort of thing isn't expensive any more. Almost anybody can have access to this sort of technology to create an ad like this. Yes, it looks pretty darned good, but it's not perfect. A professional job might have made it look much more seamless.

Unless that's what they WANT us to think...

I'm not in that biz, and have never produced anything of the kind- though i've made simple Flash animations for fun. It does not look and sound like the work of an amateur to me.

I am hoping some 'net detectives" are on the case, and the source of the submission (IP address?) will be identified and taken from there. My hunch is that a team was involved, and not necessarily the handiwork of the sender.

At this point, I'm HOPING it was just some Barack Obama supporter who wanted to make a statement against Hillary Clinton. I'm HOPING that's what it is.

I'm beginning to worry, however, that my paranoia is justified. This video absolutely reeks of the touch of a professional, and I feel that it will probably end up being revealed as another Republican ploy. Whether it's more swift-boating or something more official cloaked as an unofficial Obama supporter... i don't know. I'm just hoping that this doesn't become the norm in political warfare, because if it DOES become the norm, then we're going to be in for a very, very, VERY long campaign season.

easily.

Edited to add: I mentioned Mac because I don't really know if it would be as simple to do on a PC — I have less experience on those.

ANYONE with Adobe Premier or Media 100 or access to a basic Avid system could have done this video 7 years ago.

The audio from the Clinton speech is not even diced up to make the words sound less innocent.

Also the image of Hilary is altered with a basic filter that is a preset on most editing programs. Also this is a mashup of only two source materials. Nothing that isn't on the screen it altered. Nothing is done except pasting a square of video over annother square of video.

Not hard to do. If you want hard to do try taking the Sony Walkman off the hammer throw woman. That's hard to do.


I think that this video is less creative than 95% of the mashups I hear or see out there.

There is such a lack of creativity and such a lack of using good footage in the first place that it almost looks like it was done by someone who was getting paid a flat rate and didn't want to put much time into it.

In other words, this is about the same level of sloppy work that most Republicans provide.

I think it's a GOP video just from the lack of creativity.

Is there really going to be a way to dig out who did this? I'd certainly be interested.

I get blamed for everything else around here!

:evilgrin:

it was Sheik Khalid Muhammed

and very hopeful of being controlled by a woman.
(Fetch my chardonnay, man-thing!)

...if it turns out not then let me know and I will apologize.

I'm hoping Newt is nominated by the Repos.

:eyes:

The Misogycrats are at it again. Fortunately, DU represents the extreme left and most Democrats support Hillary.

Fox.

So I guess he must not be a misogynist? (He's also not a Repo, since he's Aussie, but he is an asshole.)

DU doesn't represent anybody. We who are here, are here. Most of us are Democrats, liberals, lefties, peace-niks etc.

You're here, do you represent the extreme left? If not, then why not go to the corporate Democrat board? Or do the corporate Democrats just want to horn in on the "extreme left's" board and not have to shell out the dough for thier own board?

Who do you hope the Repos nominate?

Is Code Pink misogynistic?

state aren't extreme left.

:shrug:

on BushInc's crimes of office.

Or even if she had used her considerable clout to OPPOSE BushInc in some significant way on serious issues over the last 6 years.

Most of the people at DU don't support Hillary due to her stance on key issues. I guarantee you, if Jan Schakowsky, Barbara Boxer, or Maxine Waters were in the race they would have most of this websites full support. Believe me it has nothing to do with Senator Clinton's gender!

I guess there is no reasoning with a Clintonbot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dycbAsB9-ps

Saw this today and thought that someone is playing both sides off each other.

of a blogger's mother's house. This is nerd work. We know our own kind.

You certainly don't need to be a political bigwig to master the intertubes...

That said, this is hillarious, and I welcome hackery of this type for all candidates. Lets see who responds well to them!

I think it's a pro's work.

A professional hand- a highly skilled one- was involved.

It was created specifically to post this video, apparently. PR has watched a total of 8 other YouTube vids.

You don't have to be a DU mod to smell a troll.

"flashlighter" molests kittens, for the sheer fun of being noticed.

Look, if this is the best repubs can do...awesome. We have nothing to fear!!

It has a professional feel to it and he would know the right folks. No love lost there.

A little bit of training and a nice system- almost anyone could do this. I think it's great.

If you want to see an amateur's work, check out the other version with Obama as the one addressing the crowd, and note the technical differences.

The techniques used were very sophisticated

I'm just saying, if you, random-internet-dweller, can do this, then it doesn't have to be a posh K street lobbying firm behind it.

*you aren't Karl Rove are you? Because that would be weird...

The girl has Obama's logo on her shirt. That would have to be mapped on with a 3-D compositing program because of the way it moves when she does. This was done by someone who knows what he's doing.

Was just going off memory of the mapping of the Hillary video into the 1984 commercial and the Apple styled Obama logo at the end. That didn't look like anything more than what those programs plus Photoshop could do. I didn't remember the shirt logo you're talking about, so it sounds like I was wrong about that.

Racists who wanted to blame it on Obama to make him look bad? Someone with something to gain by creating a rift within the Dem party? Swiftboat types.

Why on earth would Obama -- or his camp -- want to descend into the muck at this early stage of the game when one of his best assets is being squeaky-clean?

This little exercise (1) stirs up trouble among Democrats, (2) mocks Hillary, and (3) makes Obama look bad.

I guess that's actually a three-fer.

Please.

Hekate

Personal smear attributed to a fellow dem, but this time they did it anonymously.

"bad"....I think it gives Obama something that makes him stand out in a crowd (albeit at Hillary's expense)

:P

The land of animal-human hybrids? Where women show their love to their OBGYNS?

:rofl:

You're KILLING me here!!!

:rofl: :rofl:

I can say that kind of shit here and you guys GET it! :hi:

:rofl: :rofl:

That's why I love DU too :D

"IT WAS ME!"

"Cheesburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheesburger!"

:D

:rofl:

:rofl: :rofl:

I loved his Joe Cocker impersonation too - especially when they did it side by side. :rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x455668#455846

If this ad was put together by someone in Obama's camp, it was done so to appeal to conservatives. Hard to imagine he'd want to do that for the Democratic Primary.

It's the tired old (BE VERY AFRAID--IT's INEVITABLE) themes about Hillary, and it makes Barack look like a bully who can't campaign on his own strengths, steals intellectual property, uses craven stereotypes, and won't hesitate to take the cheap shot.

That's why I wonder about who did the thing. It's not the high-minded quality of the campaign that he or his wife have talked about in their speeches. If it's a "supporter," he or she isn't "helping." IMO.

and also the name of the author of the piece.

http://www.personaldemocracy.com/node/1312

campaign had anything to do with it. He doesn't strike me as the kind of a guy to play games like that. :shrug:

hrrmm?

Professionally done. Then again, it didn't need to be a professional. Just somebody that has software to digitally alter video. (I don't think my PC has the software, but for all I know there's shareware or even freeware that'll do it.)

I suspect that it's somebody that's disliked Hillary Clinton for a long time. I think some of the video clips are old, but I must say that I've forever ignored political speeches (I'll read them, but almost always refuse to watch them). I could well be wrong; I'm not up on the vissicitudes of Ms. Clinton's hair. I'm not sure that somebody that just felt like doing something like this for a gag would dig that far back, although maybe for a film student project.... If I knew there was a database with the text of her speeches, and a way of getting from the speech/date info to the actual video, I might change my mind. A film or video archive might be useful in this regard (although if anybody can ID the speeches/talks that were cribbed ...)

I don't think a repub did it. Too much effort at "Clinton talks and talks and talks and says nothing"; most repubs hate her for her policies and decisions, believing that that is what makes her 1984-ish. I think they'd have made a fundamentally different selection of shots.

Of course it's Hillary.

:sarcasm:

It's just more proof that modern candidates are still going to be blindsided by smart, edgy people who are able to make better commercials than the big-bucks hired "professionals"..

It's clever, but it's not difficult to do. Some random Obama supporter could have easily created it, without any help from Obama or anyone else. I don't see how it makes Obama look bad. It's obviously negative on Clinton, but I doubt it will do anything other than reinforce opinions already out there about her.

To me the part that makes it look professional is in how many hits it had in such a short time. That could imply professional effort, or it could just be a symptom of the Internet. Sites like ours can add a lot of hits, but frankly, I don't think it's a good enough commercial to really get that many hits on its own. I've never tried, so I don't know how much attention can be generated for a decent but not exciting political commercial without some professional marketing strategy or some large group pushing it.

I doubt it was Obama, though I could see it catching on with Obama supporters and spreading. I could see the RNC pushing it--they have more fear of Clinton than Obama--that should be obvious. Not saying they should, but that they do.

Just my completely amateurish thoughts on this. Not meant to prove anything, just to suggest some things that those with more knowledge than me can shoot down. :)

and with YOUTUBE we better get use to it.

It's an ad for junkies. It goes on too long and doesn't really say anything for the average voter. The objection is too technical. Kind of like the original Mac ad. It got us computer junkies all excited, but Microsoft still won.

One thing it does do, though, is continue to make the race about Clinton and Obama, just in case anyone was thinking about a third candidate. In that way, it may even help Clinton. Long ways to go, though.

I may actually have to decide between those two one of these days. I was hoping someone else would make a surge, but so far, nada. I'd almost suggest that Obama and Clinton are working together to keep the race exclusive.

just as wide just as fast, its called viral marketing.

i think the speed at which this has spread shows a clear interest in (1) the material presented, (2) the 2 personalities involved and (3) a concious or unconscious desire for change. Unless a message resonates with someone, they are not likely to pass this on.

The ad or image is sent directly to sites or web rings that are expected to circulate it. At some point the ad has to catch on on its own, but it isn't just dumped on youtube and expected to circulate. There's a science to it. I'm sure some things have spread on their own, but often there is some strategy behind it.

I have no proof of my theory, but I am just generally suspicious. That's good enough.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

originally called McCain the "Manchurian Candidate" after McCain whupped Bushbaby's ass?

in the event of a copyright suit from Apple. Then again, Apple might just have YouTube pull it and not try to find out who it is.

is secondary IMO...

as I am in the marketing/sales business, I have to ask:

Is this the future of political ads? this is certainly impactful....

in today's crowded media marketplace and with DVR technology, I am afraid that the average political commercial does little or nothing to make someone stop and take notice...this spot most certainly does that....if you saw this while you were fast forwarding thru the spot break on CSI, I think most would stop and take a look and THAT is what an ad is meant to do.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think it's a Hillhating Democrat or Green.

It's too thoughtful to be Republican.

He's a Republican, yet creative.

I think it's creepy...
whoever did it should just say so...
kinda like a stalker...

mark my words, when the truth is out!