I ran across your article on YouTube and it’s impact on the next election. The Hillary video make all the press, but please don’t overlook the positive potential in all this. Here’s my own application of YouTube: www.ExpertVoter.org.
This will be the election where we finally break the stranglehold of mainstream media on the process, pretty much what you said. I would be interested in your feedback.
For the last 6 months I’ve been telling people that when things started to heat up and Hillary had a serious challenger things would get very ugly. I said that Hillary would chew ’em up and spit ’em out, and that dirty politics would take some pretty interesting turns.
This Hillary 1984 video has her written all over it.
First, Obama couldn’t possibly be so stupid as to think this could further his political career. He’s new to the game, but he’s not that naive, and he’d have to know the backlash would cost him.
Secondly, the republicans would love to drive a wedge in between the democratic candidates, but there’s a hole in the theory that they did it. Simply, it puts Hillary in a good light.
Who stands to GAIN from this beautiful piece? No one but Hillary.
It shows her being pleasant, forthright, enjoining, ‘honest’ (if you can use that term in the same sentence with her name), and overall positive. She’s portrayed in this video in a very positive light, and in the end she’s destroyed by the opposition. Whoever put this together chose carefully the image and words she would say, and they did a magnificent job of making her look good. Even in the context of 1984, she looks pretty damn good.
The republicans would have had her coming off with a much more ‘big brother’, negatively flavored image. Not too much, but just enough to put a subliminal sour into her sweet.
No, my money is on this video being a carefully crafted Hillary effort to throw some dirty backlash on Obama. She knows exactly what the backlash will be, and how it will hurt his standing overall.
Hillary climbs on corpses, and this is how she does it.
EDITOR’S NOTE: After receiving this letter, the creator of the YouTube ad revealed themself as an Obama supporter who was acting independently.
Thanks for the great article on Hilliary on you tube You don’t like the ad being unknown well one thing many of us feel out here is that it really is dangerous to attack people in power because they certainly are above the law . I think we have come to the point its our only way to fight back and not have the gov Goons come after us The content of the add is true she is very 1984 and if elected do you think she will forget those who opposed her . Get real she is the most vindictive person in politics The person that did that add did not put their name on it because they believe the add is very close to the truth Hope you see my point.
Hello Paul Hogarth,
We don’t know where this came from?
Let’s make a few simple calculations. So far, nearly all of these low level collage technique video postings have targeted democrats. The same techniques used in the Swift Boat ads.
Suddenly some of those Pixies lyrics are starting to make sense to me.
Enjoyed your article, thank you. I really agree with you that YouTube will play a large role in this election. However, I see the trend ultimately further depressing voter turnout.
Given the types of videos being posted, I foresee a continued hardening of opinion among the political active while commensurately reinforcing the idea among those who don’t vote just how meaningless the whole process is. This broadening use of the internet – YouTube, in this case – as a message medium seems hearlds the final passing of the American public from citizens to consumers.
Today’s piece by Paul Hogarth on the Newsom Newsom campaign website is offensive for a couple of reasons. First, he says that the organization I chair, Plan C, “advocates for Ellis Act evictions” as a means of creating homeownership. That is not correct — we have never advocated that owners do Ellis evictions. In fact, we have spent our energy trying to find ways to create homeownership without evictions. None of these efforts have met with approval from the progressive community, however, and until that happens, property owners will continue to use the Ellis Act to convert buildings to ownership units. It is a tool of last resort, and not one that we advocate.
Second, Paul Hogarth criticizes the Newsom campaign site for an alleged lack of diversity in the bloggers on the site. He says that “while some of the bloggers might be gay, none of them are active in LGBT issues or write about issues that are central to that community.” As a gay contributor to the Newsom site (on housing issues), I submit that issues of affordable housing and homeownership are very much central to the lives of gays and lesbians in San Francisco. What kinds of things would I need to talk about in order to qualify as a “real” gay person for Mr. Hogarth?
As long as I’m at it, let me just say that the progressive struggle against homeownership in San Francisco, in addition to being bad policy, is a bad strategic move. Limits on condo conversion are no longer necessary to stop Ellis evictions – last year’s Peskin legislation bans conversions in Ellised buildings. And they aren’t effective at protecting the “rental stock” either – rental buildings are still converting to TICs at ever-increasing rates, despite the fact that condo conversion is a distant hope for most new homeowners.
No, the only thing that strict condo limits are really achieving is the creation of a large and growing group of very motivated voters who are furious with the progressive movement. I’m talking about the TIC owners amassing behind the condo conversion caps. How many TICs are joining this motivated group? In 2001, there were 79 TICs sold in San Francisco. In 2002, 154. In 2003, 269. Then 393 in 2004, 545 in 2005 and 637 in 2006. You get the idea. These people, almost all of them former renters, are furious with progressives for preventing them from owning their own homes, for no good reason. They are becoming “single issue” voters who are the volunteers and campaign contributors of the future — helping elected officials who will listen to them. I assure you, eventually these voters will be listened to. It would be smart for progressives if, having successfully achieved a ban on conversions for Ellised buildings, they “declared victory” and found a way to help the thousands of San Franciscans whose only sin is to want to own their own home.
Mike Sullivan Chair, Plan C
The Problem is the Undemocratic System. Ralph Nader’s 2000 campaign revealed to the entire world in no uncertain terms that America’s so-called “democracy” is fundamentally undemocratic. It is, as was stated in the film, a consumer fraud, structured in such a way as to ensure that no candidate who is not bought, paid for, and owned by corporations can have any chance to win an election.
It’s astonishing to me that someone who I respect as much as Paul Hogarth would scapegoat Ralph Nader for George W. Bush’s election. If Democrats want votes from people like me – who believe in real democracy – they should take strong stances on reforming the electoral system, including clean money, ranked choice voting, and proportional representation. In short, the Democrats must recognize that a system without third parties is closer to autocracy than democracy.
You can’t have it both ways. Don’t tell us to vote for a Democrat who doesn’t represent our values and interests, and don’t tell candidates who represent our values and interests to stay out of the picture. You don’t hear Greens telling Democrats not to run, because we support democracy – unlike the so-called “Democrats.”
By the way, if Al Gore declares his candidacy for President in 2008, and runs as a progressive (in comparison to his timidity of 2000), will Nader’s critics have the courage to admit that Nader should get some of the credit?
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: email@example.com
or by writing to:
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102