U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 23, 2007 10:27 PM UTC

Vote Different?

  • 69 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

After 2.6 million views and counting, we realize you’ve probably already seen this.

The video, produced by a Blue State Digital employee in his spare time (Blue State Digital is a D.C. software development shop contracted with Barack Obama that traces its origins to Howard Dean’s presidential campaign), has created a huge stir, with some people nervously suggesting the FEC regulation of Youtube ads. The now-fired employee (who nobody expects will be hurting for a job) responded heroically, in our opinion:

“The specific point of the ad was that Obama represents a new kind of politics, and that Senator Clinton’s ‘conversation’ is disingenuous,” de Vellis wrote. “And the underlying point was that the old political machine no longer holds all the power.”

He’s on to something, and Colorado Pols readers help drive the point–whether you’re reading our blog because you identify with this ‘new media political revolution’ stuff, or because you fear it, you’re a piece of what he’s talking about.

Further evidence of which should be apparent when Hillary Clinton loses the Democratic nomination to some kid with a computer and a little imagination.

Tweet
Share

Comments

69 thoughts on “Vote Different?”

  1. I can’t see how this really hurts Hillary.  People will have a few laughs, chuckles, and then move on.  I think the media is blowing this into some huge revelation or major blow to Hillary.  Puhleeze.

      1. It does not hurt Hillary at all.  With Matt and Meredith speaking on this it only causes more stir for Hillary.  Actually could be spun as a good thing.

    2. After watching the video, the imagery of a calculating, cold, dominate woman is quite nicely crafted.  This is the main concern/complaint of the population that dispises Hillary. 

      Gecko and company will be quite pleased with this video.

      1. Edwards used his cancer afflicted wife for publicity and contributions–how cold and calculating is THAT?!  Far worse than Hillary ever was or will be.

          1. This is a race for president.  An Obama loyalist trashed Hillary.  Edwards shamelessly self-promoted on the back of his wife’s illness.  It’s all fair game.

              1. I find it amazing that Dems (our side) can say Hillary is a cool, calculating, b&!@tch, but when another candidate does it (ie. a man, most recently Edwards), somehow it’s ok?  If all the Dems pledge to not attack Hillary this way, then this wouldnt’ be an issue.

              2. Who would you want staring down Ahmedinejad–Hillary, the American Margaret Thatcher or someone who has no White House or international experience?

                1.   Indeed, Hillary should be viewed as the Iron Lady (albeit of the center-left).  And you’re aboslutely right about HRC probably being the only candidate besides McCain and Richardson with any real international experience.

                2. I simply think it’s shortsighted and unseemly for the candidates and their supporters to level low-down personal attacks at one another.  Note that I didn’t condone this ad’s attack on Hillary.  But I don’t think the ad justifies mean-spirited attacks on someone else (Edwards) who had nothing to do with the ad.

                  Wasn’t it Mike Miles who said that “an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.”  Or was it “be the change…”?  Oh, who knows, the man was infinitely wise.

                  1. A Google search makes the attribution for the quote unclear.  It is attributed most commonly to Ghandi, but also to Dr. King, and to half a dozen other peace movement leaders.  Everyone knows the internet is 100% reliable, so the only logical explanation is that those were all just alternate personae of Mike Miles.  Yes, of course the quote is his.

                    1. It was Kwai Chan Kane (aka David Caradine) in the episode of “Kung Fu” titled “An eye for an eye.” 🙂  (He was, after all, a late-19th century fictional character, predating Ghandi and Dr. King!).

        2. Now really, how come you and Mountain Man can talk about how Edwards kicked his dying wife to the curb and not get beat up about saying it, but if I so much as mention anything remotely negative about the ass, I get called down like a dog?

          Maybe if I said Edwards is an insensitive jerk but followed it with:
          Love, Gecko?

        3. I had cancer (I’m cured now). And if my wife was running for anything when I got it I would have done the same thing as Elizabeth Edwards.

          And I did do that – as much as possible life went on as before for my wife & 3 daughters. The last thing I wanted was them putting their lives on hold for a year. That would just make things worse.

          Until you have had cancer (and I hope you never do) – shut the F#@K up about how a family chooses to handle this. It’s incredibly tough and the last thing a family needs is others throwing crap their way when they clearly have made a mutual decision to proceed.

          – dave

    3. And it’s so early in the campaign, who cares?

      Question is, what next?

      Every candidate can be scorned, demonized and parodied. It gets old after awhile.

      1. There you go………”Repugs”
        I respect you, I think you know that, but you guys on the left (centrist if you will) throw lots of nasty words around and then get pissed when a lib is attacked by a conservative (the other centrist if you will).
        Hmmm?

        2.   Touchee, Gecko……….I’ll refrain from using “Repugs” since I can see how it might be considered demeaning. 
            But I’m too lazy to type out the full word “Republicans,” and “Reps” can be misinterpreted as short for Representatives.
            How about GOPers, as an abbreviation for Republicans?

  2. like Howard Dean that’s his business, but personally I’d rather win an election.  The Clintons have shown time and time again that they know how to do.  One silly ad is not going to change that.

  5. This ad is nothing but a smear, and you “CO POLS” have taken countless blogs off this site for doing just that.  So it’s ok to smear a candidate on this site only if CO POLS doesn’t like them?  Is that it?  Fair enough but could you please put a list of which candidates its ok for us to smear and which ones we can’t?  That would be very helpful thank you!

    1.   It’s a smear when the right wing nuts claim that Hillary is a lesbian (not that there’s anything wrong with being a lesbian), or that she practices witchcraft, or that she murdered Vince Foster, or that she ran the federal govt. between ’93 and ’01 while her husband played with the interns. 
        Big Brother/Big Sister is pure political parody, not a smear.

      1. I know she ran the government, so she’s got experience. She put spells on New Yorkers, so she’s a witch.
        Now you’re telling me she’s not a lesbian.

        She lost my vote.

  6. This is the kind of imagery that sticks in people’s heads, especially coming on the heels of the recent clashes between Obama and Hillary, and Geffen’s comments. Brilliant.

    I wonder if Giuliani’s team can get him?:)

    2. They had to treat him like a renegade employee going outside the management of good and fair campaign.  The key for me is Obama not denouncing the ad.  That’s the tip off this computer guy pitched the concept to someone in the campaign, or maybe his boss since his company works for Obama’s campaign.  They loved it because it defines HRC the way they need to define her if they want to win. 

      However, they have to have deniability so they tell the guy he is on his own and will get fired if he’s caught but they’ll take care of him.  They also tell Obama something is going to happen and he doesn’t need to know what but when it does he denies knowledge but doesn’t denounce or apologize for the situation.

      Anyone believing no one in the obama camp knew about this ahead of time hasn’t been involved in helping candidates and campaigns create and handle fallout from hit pieces.

      Again, I doubt Obama knew the specific hit because he needs to be able to deny knowledge but he knew his role once it happened.

      So much for running a “new kind of political campaign”.  Anyone giving Obama points for being a refreshingly different politician isn’t paying attention.

      1. You’ld be surprised at how much people do on their own when they are a full time staff member. Someone who works for an associaed company – he probably could not have talked to the campaign manager even if he wanted to.

  7. I’m only 36 but every time someone claims that something about the internet is going to “revolutionize” something, the big boys co-opt it and nothing is revolutionized at all. Remember how netroots made Dean a big deal? But the Old Boys in the Democratic Party (and yes, the Dems do have an old boys’ network) pulled the rug out from under him so their boy Kerry would get the nod. (Even NPR played the “scream” and made fun of Dean for it.) Also, I don’t know the numbers but most voters still don’t visit political blogs or YouTube, so I don’t think the video reached that many people (2 million plays doesn’t mean 2 million individual viewers.)

    I foresee YouTube somehow restricting the posting of these kinds of videos, either voluntarily, or at the request of other campaigns (you can object to YouTube videos and enough complaints will get them yanked), or the law will either be extended to cover these videos or a court will decide that the law applies to YouTube.

  10.   This is an extension of David Greffen’s interview with the NYTimes trying to destroy HRC’s creditability and integrity.  Interestingly, both critics are Obama Supporters.  What does that say about the Obama campaign?  Obama didn’t renounce either incident.  That encourages more attacks.  Is Obama behind this effort?  I don’t know but doubt if he would be directly involved.  That would be political suicide.  But, by not denouncing this stuff he is giving permission to go ahead with more.

    You would think the wacko right would be doing this instead of it being done by fellow Dems.  That’s the big deal. 

        1. As much as the public loves to complain about negative compaigning, the high costs of modern campaigns, and everything else imaginable, the fact is that the American public, collectively, is responsible: Politicians do what works, and this is what works. They’ve made a science out of it. Just as every salesman learns that straightforward honest, in the long run, is a failing strategy, so politicians and their highly trained agents have developed increasingly the most sophisticated ways to convince large numbers of people to vote for them, which, apparently, begins with highly sophisiticated strategies for convincing them not to vote for the other guy. We have to either revamp the system or revamp human psychology to change it. I suspect that the former would be easier.

          1. and I have to say that this ad doesn’t make the case at all that I shouldn’t vote for hillary.  The whole ad is completely emblimatic of the Obama campaign it is big on style and empty of any substance.

            1. The ad is emblematic of a changing of the guard. It is just as revolutionary to younger voters as it was when apple created it as a Super Bowl ad. My non-political friends are invigorated by this ad. They are ready to vote, they are excited to vote, and they are excited to vote for Obama.

              Im racking my brain, but I cant seem to remember you posting a reason why I should vote for your candidate. You seem to be pissed at Obama and Edwards, but you have offered no reason why. You dont like them, ok, but why? What makes Hillary so great? How about Richardson? Why is Edwards bad? You must have habored some resentment towards him prior to your vitriol regarding his wife. How about Obama? Christ almighty, we are what, 20 months out of the convention and 10 months out of the first primary? What are they offering? What makes them better? Enlighten me, please.

              1. Every campaign that relies on young voters, and claims to be bringing new people into the process that haven’t voted before goes up in flames!  I’m sure Obama’s will be the same.

                I’ve said before and I’ll say it again I like Hillary, Gore and Richardson.  I think Bush has shown us that we need a president with experance.  I think all three of these candidates not only have the skills to govern, but they are also electable.  Edwards and Obama would mean at least four more years of a republican in the white house.

              2.   She’s been tested.  She’s been through hell and lived to tell about it.  She is indeed “the Margaret Thatcher of the left.”  (With a little more stylish hair and wardrobe.)
                  I realize that surviving the health care reform fiasco in the early ’90’s, Newt Gingrich, the Whitewater investigation, Al D’Amato, the infamous Lewinsky affair and the subsequent impeachment, followed by eight years as a U.S. Senator may not compare to surviving inter-office politics at the Harvard Law Review and four years in the U.S. Senate, but I think that next to Bill Richardson, HRC is probably the most experience Dem in the race.
                 

                2. You say surviving as if she were the person on trial. Short of the health care reform fiasco (fiasco being a generous term) and Whitewater she was not on trial. You’ll have to remind me about D’Amato.

                  Edwards has been through a presidential campaign as a candidate. Hillary has as the wife of a candidate. She took on the divisive roles at her own choosing and failed. You can say survived, but the monstrosity that was her health care reform plan did not come to pass and is used as demonstration of the want and need of the left to implement huge bureaucracy. She is a lightning rod who tries to espouse “moderate” credentials, yet wants to impose a flag burning amendment (frivolous and injurious to the rights of all americans) and wants stricter controls on video games (OMG! Think of the children!). Then there is her carpetbagging candidacy where she road the goodwill and popularity of her husband to the senate. Her second campaign was a joke since she had no real competitor, but what about her legislative record? What are the standouts? Aside from her strident non commital attitude about her feelings regarding the Iraq war.

            2.   The ad shows that even with a lack of experience at the national level, Obama, for all his professions of being a non-politician is, at his core, a politician and a damn talented one.
                He comes to the ’08 race well versed in the art of manipulation and hypocrisy, or if he didn’t arrive in the race with such skills, he’s getting the hang of them really quickly (i.e., the David Geffen fiasco, and now Hillary as “Big Brother”).
                I don’t think the ad seriously harms HRC, it’s kind of amusing and entertaining, but if anything, it’s probably going to drive me (currently registered as an unaffiliated voter) towards declaring as a Dem and voting for Hillary in the caucuses next year.
                That’s assuming that:  (a) Giuliani’s candidacy does not implode between now and then, and  (b) Rudy refrains from following in John McCain’s footsteps in engaging in some deplorable asskissing of Fallwell, Robertson and Dobson.

              1. Do you think he implored Geffen to speak out? Would you want to alienate one of your biggest contributors and fundraisers? Of course he is a talented politician. He is extremely intelligent, personable and quite the wordsmith. As far as this “ad” is concerned, do you really think he had a hand in it?

                How about Hillary? Remember the smear on Obama? How he supposedly was enrolled in a madrasa? How he is actually a closet muslim? How reports said that it originated in Hillary’s camp? (I dont believe them, but…)

                Many more people will create many more viral videos that they themselves create, should each and everyone be repudiated? This guy is a no-name who will be forgotten just as quickly as he rose. I dont think it will harm, directly, Hillary, but I doubt it will help her.

                On Guiliani, I am sure that many of his positions appeal to you, and, honestly, some of them appeal to me, but what he said to get elected then, and what he is now saying about constructionist judges scares me. That is kowtow that is equivalent to ass kissing Dobson and Falwell. And, what about being a mayor gives him the requisite experience to be president, over Edwards or Obama?

          2. Ive done sales, been successful, and never lied. Maybe I didnt do it long enough to realize that my honesty would come back to bite me in the ass, but I closed through honesty. You know how easy it is to close a client that was lied to by your competitor? Even when you are the most expensive ticket in town, even when your competitors are selling your product at a 5k discount closing them is a breeze when they have been lied to. You know why? Because they are pissed off. It is the same reason the repubs lost congress, people were pissed.

            I think it is a flawed strategy to only give people a reason NOT to vote for the other guy/gal. You have to give them a reason to vote for your guy/gal. This reason is why I bemoan the DLC wing of the dem party. When you are selling you must, absolutely must, draw a distinct line between you and your competitor. Take the debate between Tancredo and Winter. Winter actually commended Tancredo on his immigration policy. That is his only issue! Tell them why he is wrong, why you are right, and what the distinctions are. If you are the same, people will always go with the devil they know. Why should they change horses midstream unless your horse is on a boat and the other guy’s has water lapping at the saddle? Convince them that is the case and they will be yours. You must present an alternative.

            1. The Glengarry Glen Ross approach to sales is what pisses people off. You cant lie to consumers and expect them to be happy when they find out about it. You need to cultivate a real relationship. That is what wins consumers over. What is the old statistic that was repeated ad nauseum in every marketing class? 7 out of 10 consumers will tell there friends about a bad experience while only 1 out of 10 consumers will tell friends about a good experience, something to that effect. Apply that to politics. You take the glengarry glen ross approach to politics and your approval ratings are in the toilet.

            2. but I wasn’t referring to out-and-out lying in sales, just to the art of manipulation. Anyone who has ever done telemarketing or door-to-door sales is told, repeatedly, to stick to the script, and not to be drawn into a natural conversation, though I admit that some big-ticket or repeat sales are different, because you can develop a relationship that may be genuine, and that works. In politics, however, you can’t develop a genuine one-on-one relationship with millions of people, only the mass-produced imitiation of one.

              And it is always possible that an entire industry (campaign advisors) has missed the boat regarding what works and doesn’t, and that conventional wisdom is ahead of rather than behind expert opinion, but it’s always more likely that the alternatives others know would work better have been tested and failed. Generally, the changes everyone is clammoring for inform changes in strategy that aren’t really more honest, but that accomodate public sensabilities without giving up the advantages of being manipulative.

              1. There is no such thing as a one-on-one relationship in politics, but the image or belief of one is just as solid. To say that I had personal relationships with businesses would not be a lie, but I wasnt invited to their kids bar mitzvahs. It was a business relationship, but I knew their business backwards and forwards.

                Im no expert, and I only speak from experience. If I gave off the impression that I am more knowledgable than an entire industry of insiders than I apologize, because that was certainly not my intention. Your last statement is framed in such a way that attacking it on its face would require me to admit that all campaign strategy is based on lies and manipulation (touche). But I reject that premise. Sure, campaigns do use manipulation tactics as means to an end, but just like in business, when those manipulations are discovered, those candidates are in trouble.

                1. people react to the knowledge that they are being manipulated, which is why the art of manipulation has, in many ways, become subtler. Remember, as in sales, name-recognition is goal number one: All you have to do is get that name stuck in people’s heads. The chorus here gathered may sometimes forget how little attention a large part of the electorate pays to issues and candidates: They look for the candidate closest to their ideology, or who votes the right way on the one or two issues that they hold sacrosanct, whose name is best known to them.

                  Beyond that, candidates know that they are walking a mine-field: They have to steer clear of stepping on any of those many mine that will blow them out of the water (oops, mixed metaphor!). My guess is, for instance, that a very high percentage of candidates are somewhat less devoutly religious than they let on, becuase they know that not being seen as devout would be one of those mines. They simply HAVE TO package themselves! To fail to do so would be to invite defeat.

                  I’m not saying that there is no sincerity in what candidates say and do, just that pure sincerity and honesty, for the most part, are not the absolutely most effective strategy. My evidence for that is the abundance of insincerity and dishonesty in politics, coupled with the argument that there has been a highly-motivated evolutionary process to determine and employ the most effective strategy. The products of that process (i.e., what candidates actually do, in general) is very likely to be more effective than what we guess would be more effective. If it were true that any disingenuity were more of a liability than an asset, then it is highly likely that disingenuity would have fallen by the wayside already. Of course, sometimes the wisdom of time, experimentation, and expertise is behind the curve, and public opinion is ahead of it: It may be that pure honesty is the winning strategy, and the experts are just too entrenched in their thinking to realize it.

                  Unfortunately, I very highly doubt that, not just for the reasons cited above, but from knowledge of human beings and human nature. People are malleable, especially when hanlded expertly. I truly believe that almost any candidate who exercised pure candor and honesty would have no chance of winning. If there were a person who so perfectly fit what the public would vote for that honesty would work best, I suspect that that candidate would make a lousy and ineffective politician, because politicians have to be great strateticians, and, ironically enough, the public would consider a completely honest and forthright great stratetician (if such a combination is even possible) as LESS HONEST than his/her more deceptive competitors!

                  Some of our difference of opinion here may be semantic, or a question of degree. We are making a “false dichotomy” of honest and dishonest, instead of recognizing the huge range of possibilities between the two extremes. Dishonesty does carry with it the liabilities you have identified, and the more dishonest a candidate is, the more likely those liabilities will prevail. So honesty has the benefit of creating the impression of honesty, an absolute requisite for success. However, the most successful mixture, I believe, is a combination of some sincerity and some ability to play the game in such a way that one appears to be completely sincere and honest. Complete honesty carries liabilities of its own, that can be avoided with good skills of self-(mis)representation while simultanously avoiding the pitfalls of perceivable dishonesty.

                  Don’t get me wrong: I wish it were otherwise. But I don’t think that it is.

                  1. Well, I sold copiers. With copiers, there are, what, 6 major brands. Everybody knows at least 5 of those brands, which makes name recognition goal number one, but also a major barrier to entry. Plus, if they can put a bad experience to one of those names, say goodnight. This is tangential to the argument at hand anyway.

                    I think people here realize that the vast majority have one or two major issues they follow, or some other simple qualifier by which they vote. But I also think that we underestimate the general public. Anecdotal, but my grandmother has been a lifelong republican, yet found some sort of appeal in Napolitano. So, at times, we rely heavily on simple thinking to guide voters, but we must begrudgingly realize that, at times, our perceived non political friends do break the mold that we have set for them.

                    I agree that we are engaged in a sort of semantic argument, which is defined around this false dichotomy of honest and dishonest. I hear manipulation and think out and out lying. To be sure, that is not always the case, and it is an oversimplification on my part, but describing what I am thinking requires a greater vocabulary than I currently possess.

                    Let me try and put words to what I am thinking. The use of faulty logic can be used as a tactic to bring people over to your side. Most people dont realize faulty logic when they read it or hear it. Faulty logic isnt necessarily a lie. In fact, in most cases, truth is the basis for the manipulation (for lack of a better term). I think politicians use faulty logic as a means to bring people over to their side. Same as movies use music to draw out emotion. Same as tonality (something that is tough to express in the written word). If people had a greater understanding of logic the ability to use such fallacies the steadfastness with which they are used would drop, as would there effectiveness. Because, lets be honest, with such a short amount of time to impress, a logical fallacy can be delivered quickly, effectively, simply.

                    There is an exception to the pure candor losing rule, and that is Ron Paul.

                    1. That’s a great analogy!

                      It’s not just underestimating people that leads to the assumption of limited attention and analysis: It’s also the recognition that they really do have limited time to devote to choosing candidates, usually negligable or highly limited training in the areas of expertise required to engage in an analysis of policies, and a very reasonable recognition that of the relative value of their individual vote in comparison to the time and effort required to make a profoundly informed decision! In fact, it’s a huge tribute to the responsibility of the electorate that they invest as much time and effort as they do!

                      Alas, I don’t know Ron Paul. I’d be delighted to become aware of such an exception! Maybe the dynamics that create a demand for “manipulativeness” are less salient in local politics, where perhaps a completely honest person has a better chance (just as I was saying about sales: If you can form actual personal relationships with your customers, honesty can then be a winning strategy).

                      Always a pleasure, Toodles. And thanks for your vote, though now I feel bad about having duped you into it! 🙂

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

183 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!