Maker of Anti-Clinton Video Outed, Loses Job 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.'"
Was good (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Was good (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Arianna should hire him to make more viral videos. It would be great promotion for the Huffington Post.
Re:Was good (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't have TV reception at home, but I happened to be traveling in the US most of Tuesday, where that video was alllll over the the major news networks (at least the ones that were playing in the various airports).
It was a little more widespread than Slashdot.
Re:Was good (Score:4, Interesting)
In the 2004, U.S. Presidential election:
State: Margin (Electoral Votes)
New Mexico: 5,988 (5)
New Hampshire: -9,274 (4)
Iowa: 10,059 (7)
Wisconsin: -11,384 (10)
Nevada: 21,500 (5)
Delaware: -28,492 (3)
For less than 38,000 votes, you could have swung New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada (20 electoral votes), and changed the outcome.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No worries... (Score:3, Funny)
-~
Yes, stand up for something... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, stand up for something...
The tallest blade of grass is the first to get cut.
Re:Was good (Score:5, Insightful)
It does not guarantee us freedom from the consequences of our speech.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't you know this is
Unless you have a completely biased, un-supported claim that somehow reverts back to Bill Gates being the anti-christ, then your on the wrong site.
Take your insightful intellectual conversation elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, we have lots of anti MS people, but that does not mean we are all mindless drones who cannot discuss any other current affairs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, your constitution does not guarantee you freedom of all speech, but that which it does guarantee, it further guarantees no consequences.
That speech that is free is only speech that talks negative of the government (positive speech having never been threatened). And the normal consequences of that speech, being jailed, fined, or killed, are guaranteed not to occur (or, as much of a guarantee that the government can normally give - anyone attempting to confine you, take your money, or kill you, ju
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2. well-made
3. pretty damn cool
4. free speech
5. Embarrassed his employers and their employers.
Because of free speech he was not jailed. No company is required to keep you on after you did something stupid, no matter how cool.
That said, he will not lack for employment.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Whether or not you believe he was really off the clock is another issue altogether.
Re:Was good (Score:4, Insightful)
A rip-off of a Mac ad shows imagination?
Must be some definition of imagination that I'm not familiar with.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
That doesn't require imagination.
Not only that...the job he did appeared fairly good to my eyes...quality-wise.
That requires technical skill, not imagination.
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.
Maybe I'm clueless, but I just don't see what the "effective point" of that a
Re:Was good (Score:4, Interesting)
Coming up with the idea in the first place required imagination.
Maybe I'm clueless, but I just don't see what the "effective point" of that ad was.
The original Apple ad carried no additional information either, but made a very effective point. Anyone familiar with the concept of Big Brother can see the point. Therefore it's effective in its simplicity. If instead it just displayed negative information about Hillary it would be very boring and not get people talking about the actual point.
Re:Was good (Score:5, Insightful)
Her ramblings showed the entire point of the ad. The ad was implying that Hillary speaks in meaningless and empty rhetoric that the masses eat up like mindless brainwashed drones. It was THIS, rather than any implications of fascism as said elsewhere in this thread, that the ad was presenting. The ad was trying to encourage people to try something fresh and different. It was effective in the internal coherence of this message and in the appropriateness of the analogy for relaying that message, which is why it has received so much attention and popularity.
Subtly effective (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Was good (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the rest, can we stop calling people we don't like fascists? The word has lost almost all meaning now.
Re:Was good (Score:5, Funny)
> The word has lost almost all meaning now.
Don't you tell me what's lost meaning, you fascist.
Re:Was good (Score:4, Funny)
I agree. Let's all pick a NEW word, everyone! I hear Anne Coulter has suggested 'faggot'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple Original 1984 video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo [youtube.com]
Parody: http://youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo [youtube.com]
Would you call this "Where's the Beef" parody imaginative? Probably not---
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-Sc0Wdi0Vi4 [youtube.com]
How much difference is there between the two videos? The parody borrows the vast majority of it's content from the original-- the faces, the cadence, the audio (except for Clinton's voice), the facial expressions are all exactly the
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Old Strategy (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Dude? The fact Hillary was used is the POINT of the message. If W. was used instead of Hillary, that would have been a very different political message. If Homer Simpson were used, that would just be silly and no one would have cared.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly, just like the choice to target IBM in the original ad was inconsequential.
Oh, wait.
Translations of previous two posts: (Score:5, Funny)
-- TheMeuge (645043)
"I support Barack Obama."
-- MindStalker (22827)
Was bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 underhande
Re:Was good (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Just wait until the REAL truth comes out... (Score:5, Funny)
Think about it - Hillary looks bad, AND Obama looks bad! This has to be the work of Republicans.
Or maybe it was Edwards.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Before the end he realized... (Score:5, Funny)
And a boot descended over mankind's face, forever.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
That's no boot...
Re:Before the end he realized... (Score:5, Funny)
That's no boot..
That's Hillarys thighs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Before the end he realized... (Score:5, Funny)
>
>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: (Score:3, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And his blog about it is just a stream of self indulgent garbage. Newsflash buddy, the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
That aside the bipartisan nature of US politics is too divisive. Yes Bush won but
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 by about five hundred forty thousand (543,811) votes. And if you want to be technical about it, the recount in Florida was not stopped illegally, it was started illegally when Gore's campaign filed a suit to prevent the certification of the election. Had they allowed the election
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Clarification (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Resigned, Fired: Just word games (Score:3, Informative)
His employer says says he was fired [msn.com].
Does it really matter? He was shown the door, one way or another.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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' w
Re:Resigned, Fired: Just word games (Score:4, Insightful)
It was not a hard choice for his employer at all. According to the news, all employee contracts for that company specifically prohibit off-the-clock political productions of this sort by its employees, precisely because perception is more important than reality in their business. They cannot afford to have the perception that a contractor of one political candidate made X advertisement through under the table money, so they have to prohibit all such connections in the terms of their employee contracts.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Quoting Blue State Digital website [bluestatedigital.com]:
Our Statement On The 1984 Video
Statement from Thomas Gensemer, Managing Director, Blue State Digital
On Wednesday afternoon, March the 21st, an employee at our firm, Phillip de Vellis, received a call from Arianna Huffington of "The Huffington Post" regarding the "1984" video currently circulating online. Initially, de Vellis refused to respond to her requests. He has since acknowledged to Blue State Digital that he was the creator of the video.
Pur
Re: (Score:2)
"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 effectively immediately," the statement said.
So here's my question: assuming that this is true, and he was fired... Is that legal? Especially the "company policy regarding outside political
Fired? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Primary Season (Score:5, Insightful)
All the "outrage" is a farce (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/127
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em? (Score:3, Insightful)
[...]
More on this theme on my blog if anyone cares
Some obersvations..... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGA
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/RTGA
Apple not suing somebody? I'll believe it when I see it.
Neither Side Knew That He Made the Video (Score:4, Informative)
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.
On the one hand... (Score:2)
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.
Video Covered the Droning Point On... (Score:2)
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. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:He's right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama did not hide this fact - because it was never a fact. He went to a private school; one that was NOT a madrasa in any sense of the word.
- Though he claimed to be a Christian now, how come no muslim want his head like they did with the Afghan guy who converted out of Islam?
Because he was never a muslim?
- He claimed to be an Israeli supporter but he said Palestinians are the most oppressed people on Earth (Darfur anyone?)
Support of Israel means turning a blind eye to human rights violations?
One can support Israel, and still care about innocent Palestinians caught in the middle in this conflict.
One can also support Palestinians without supporting the terrorist tactics of a radical minority.
Darfur is a tragedy. But the US is not supplying the Sudanese government with $3 Billion in military aid each year. Now tell me who is more oppressed.
Re:He's right. (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Never understood it myself. I'm independent, no party affiliation. I've watched with dismay in the last 10-15 years as the Republicans have crawled into bed with religious nutjobs. In response, the post-Clinton Democrats, rather than seizing the opportunity and crushing the Reps with a centrist candidate who could establish long-term dominance, have responded by throwing out a series of candidates who are more and more hard-line, shrill, and utterly unappealing to independent voters. They haven't put forth a coherent plan aside from their (rightful) disdain of Bush. They've tossed their support of the first amendment in their push to cozy up to the media companies (MAFIAA) and to be seen as more family values oriented (Gore/Lieberman/Hilary with their anti-violent music/games push). I think the growing tendency of the Democrat leadership toward condescending wanna-be intellectualism and truly venomous campaigning is really turning off a lot of the country, never mind the selling out.
Put another way, in the run-up to the 2004 election Bush was saddled by a 9/11 economy that had not fully recovered, a war we were by that point not winning, and no idea where Osama was. Even a remotely appealing candidate would have destroyed him. Who gets nominated? A condescending stereotypical Massachussets Democrat with a lot of baggage. Of course, he is destroyed in the red states by 20+ point margins and loses enough of the peripheral states (Ohio, Fla) that he loses. This, while Lieberman or Edwards probably would have beaten Bush. Lieberman probably takes Fla, Edwards probably a mix of SC, VA, NC, or OH, possibly others.
To more properly address your points, I'm not comfortable with Obama because he's an inexperienced ideologue, and I find that incredibly scary (I don't even want to ponder the fate of Universal Health Care in this country). Hilary has experience, but I have no idea what she'll do when president because the only thing she seems to stand for is her own self-aggrandizement. I assume it's a two-dog race now, so no point discussing the also rans.
As an independent, *I* feel betrayed, because I'd like one party to have the sense to go more centrist. Don't much care which party.
Regarding Dem presidential candidates, I completely agree with you - the Dems haven't come up with a truly appealing candidate that they actually planned to run since, what, Kennedy? LBJ was an accident, Carter won because he wasn't Nixon/Ford, and the frontrunners like Cuomo bailed in early '92 when Bush I had a 90% approval rating, leaving the surprising win to Bill.
Outed as a Lying Jerk (Score:3, Insightful)
If he had not signed it "Obama", he might not have been fired. If his boss hadn't had Obama as a client, he might not have gotten fired.
This guy is a jerk. He's got the right to publish whatever video he comes up with, except when he lies in it. He has no right to frame Obama with that attack ad. And his boss has the right to fire a guy who pisses off the clients.
1st shots (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember the questions about when a Vice President moves up due to the senility/mental competence of the President during Reagans second term. After seeing how the press and other candidates treat everyone running, I question the sanity of anyone who want's the damn job! Colin Powell might be the smartest man of our times. He refused to put himself or his family through this asinine process, that's character!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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"?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Remember Socialism is not the same as Communism, despite what some Republicans try to tell everyone.
Re:I don't see the problem. (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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 abou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pioneering? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's the beef? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 Constitu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Freedom of speech (Score:4, Informative)
It sucks but thats how it goes. Yes you can run around office screaming the star spangled banner like a maniac and have security escourt you out and its your right to do so and lose your job of course. It only means the government can not prosecute you for doing so.