Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

    • not recommending any of these postings so that the Limbaugh and O’Reilly trolls will not have an audience.  I think all of us know quite well where the YouTube Hillary and Obama attacks reside.  Why wastes time and space on this garbage? 

      • you don’t find the ad interesting or relevant, as an example of how things are changing — third parties making YouTube ads, with the most interesting getting media coverage?  it happened here on BMG!  i actually was about to post the same story, when i noticed MCRD had already done so. 

        <

        p>
        ABC News is running it as a feature — how much more MSM can it get? 

    • when the creators make no secret of what they are copying.

      <

      p>
      The Schick Quattro and the Mach3, now that is a rip-off.

      <

      p>
      Seriously.  There was a lawsuit over patents.

      • …There was a lawsuit over patents

        <

        p>
        in a comment below regarding the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement.

        <

        p>
        Example: when the Glob suspended Mike Barnicle over charges of plagiarism, their fears might be considered two fold.  One (the lesser one) was that he was not giving them what they were supposedly paying for–original material.  Two (the greater one) was that they might be sued for copyright infringement.

        <

        p>
        The Globe would not have been sued for plagiarism.  But they might have been sued for copyright infringement.

        <

        p>
        NB: Remember the dust-up over Doris Kearns Goodman’s “plagiarism” issue a few years ago?  The issue wasn’t plagiarism.  The issue was copyright infringement.  And she and her publishers settled out of court.  Even if she had “credited to source” in a footnote, she still would have been liable for–copyright infringement, if she had not received permission from the copyright holder for using the copied material*.

        <

        p>
        There is a very difference between the two.

        <

        p>
        *Regarding permission: those of us who are familiar with papers in scientific articles know that authors of scientific papers oftentimes want to reproduce material–mostly images (graphs, photos, etc.) from earlier material. If they are ethical, they will ask for permission to do so from the copyright owner, which is usually given provided that credit be given to source–and credit is always given in those circumstances.  It isn’t that complicated.  In my last corporate employment, I was often asked to provide permission for use of images, and, conforming to corporate policy, we always did, provided credit be given to source.

    • …so what if they modeled their ad after the 1984 Macintosh ad?

      <

      p>
      If your issue is plagiarism, it strikes me that oversensitivity with plagiarism in the political sphere is a bit misplaced.  I guess it began with the Biden knock-off (notice I did not say rip-off, which has a different connotation) of a Neil Kinnock speach during his 1988 presidential primary run (I believe that was the year).

      <

      p>
      Plagiarism is an issue for academics, relating to footnoting to give credit to source.  It’s difficult to footnote in a speech.  And in a political ad.  And that’s why plagiarism* complaints never made any sense to me.

      <

      p>
      *Issues relating to copyright infringement are completely different than issues relating to plagiarism.  Don’t confuse the two.

      • No, I’m not concerned at all with any issue of plagiarism or intellectual property. I just wanted to point out the origin of the ad’s imagery, in case that escaped anyone.

  3. An awesome display of why neither Hillary nor Obama really have any business leading in the polls.  When I said that Obama’s message had the thoughtful complexity of a sledgehammer, I didn’t mean it literally…

    • I’m not too enamored with the current crop of Democratic candidates. Bill Richardson is an exception because he’s by far the most qualified candidate in either party (Congress, UN, Energy Dept, Governor), but he hasn’t struck me as exciting. Clinton feels entitled, Obama’s resume is paper-thin, same for Edwards.

      <

      p>
      Still wishing Warner didn’t drop out, or that Gore might drop in. For the love of God, can we get a candidate of strong substance and experience to run for and be elected to the most powerful office in the democratic world?!

    • Any sense that this actually came from the Obama campaign? As far as I can tell, it hasn’t, nor should it.

  5. If Obama thinks he is going to win the nomination by blowing up Hillary he is wrong. He needs to win it by convincing a majority of Democratic voters that he is the best candidate — an affirmative requirement, not a negative one. Infantile ads like this one that attack a woman — let me repeat that, a woman — who is ultimately on the same side as he is — just highlight his inexperience. Was this ad really made by Obama’s campaign?

    • No. If it were, it would have had his logo that’s he’s rolled out (you know, the red, white and blue sun rising) and it wouldn’t copy an Apple ad from the ’80s, the reference would be lost on a good chunk of the population. Moreover, nobody’s running ads yet, except Mitt Romney, and there’s really no reason to do so. And, if there were a real negative ad from the campaign, the MSM would be all a-twitter with the news that positive, shining Obama has gone negative. Remember: Obama’s campaign is all about positivity and hope and a new face. Clinton won the Geffen match not because Obama’s rapid response wasn’t better than hers (I think he had a better argument), but because she pulled his campaign into a tit-for-tat politics, and so his image of a new hope for politics in America was slightly diminished. It’s all positive from here on out. Sheesh, it’s just some overzealous Obama fan.

      • also it didnt have the obligatory, “I’m Barak Obama and I support this message” at the end.

  6. So far as I can tell from a bit of Googling. I reiterate my earlier comments: they would have to be complete idiots to make an ad like that.

    • The ad is effective. Very effective.  It’s memorable, easily understood, and plays up Hillary’s weaknesses. 

      <

      p>
      While I agree Obama had nothing to do with this, he must be loving it.

      • Obama is trying to run a very similar campaign to that of Deval Patrick. And one of the most crucial parts of that campaign was that Deval was seen as completely positive and altogether different from the type of politics we normally see–the type of “sledghammer” politics that is exemplified perfectly in this ad. This ad isn’t just about why Hillary shouldn’t be President (which is the kind of ad that a positive campaign does not run anyway), but about what kind of person Hillary is perceived to be. And politics shouldn’t be about that. It ought to be about who has the best ideas to move us forward as a nation. Obama’s campaign is about that: hope for the future and a new face in politics. This ad is way off message.

        <

        p>
        Moreover, his campaign isn’t thrilled about this kind of ad because any ad – on TV or on YouTube – right now ought to be about introducing America to who Obama is and what he believes. We’re just not at the point in the cycle when you should hammer the other candidate down to boost yourself up. Otherwise the entire campaign will be about how negative you–or your supporters–are.

        <

        p>
        Which brings me to the other reason this ad is bad: any campaign volunteer, supporter, etc. is by default — fairly or unfairly– a representative of the campaign. Part of Deval’s success, I would say, is that he had the “coolness factor.” I think I even remember somebody once joking (somewhere on BMG) that only the “cool kids,” supported Deval. Who supports a candidate matters; if I don’t like you, and you support candidate X, I’ll be less inclined to vote for that candidate because I’ll probably wonder why he/she appeals to your type of person. The opposite is also true. As an extension, when the type of people who support Obama appear to be mean spirited, that makes me less inclined to want to support Obama.

        <

        p>
        So no, I don’t think he’s loving it.

        • The 527 and union onslaught on Kerry Healey was extremely negative.  It distorted her record dramatically.  That as much as anything cause her to lose.

          <

          p>
          BMG is reality based correct?  There were as many if not more negative ads ran against Kerry Healey as she ran against Deval Patrick.  The only difference is others did Deval’s dirty work for him.  He still benefited.

          • Seriously. Look, this post is about Obama, not Deval. But do we have to have a “Deval will allow rapists in dark garages,” versus a fact-based “Under Romney/Healey, property taxes have gone up,” battle of so-called facts?

            <

            p>
            Frankly, the thing that caused Kerry Healey to lose was Kerry Healey. If her campaign hadn’t been so down right nasty as to, say, scare Deval’s campaign manager’s kids, I might consider taking this comment seriously.

            • the comparison between Deval and Obama into this thread. I did not.  I stand by my comments. Look at the total money spent by the Unions and the 527s vs. what was spent by the Healey campaign.  You’ll see where I’m coming from.

              <

              p>
              The facts are negative advertising works, whether you do it yourself or others do it for you.

              • First, I brought Deval into this thread because there were obviously certain commonalities between the type of campaign that Obama is trying to run and the type of campaign that Deval is trying to run. I did not want to go into a giant thread that rehashes who did what to whom. That said, I don’t remember one ad — 527 or otherwise — that supported Deval that was nearly as nasty as what Kerry Healey did, or, for that matter, what the YouTube video at hand did to Hillary.

                <

                p>
                Whatever, you can stand by your comments, but you’re still wrong. If “negative advertising works,” then Healey’s “Deval will allow people to rape you,” negative ads should have done brilliantly, right? Certain types of negative ads work, at certain times. They have to be well placed and meaningful that harken to what people already believe. This particular ad certainly plays into one narrative of Hillary as cold, hard, and evil, but it’s poorly timed and does not fit Obama’s message at all. This kind of negative advertising does not, in fact, work for the reasons I’ve already said.

                • Anyone can make an argument, but the idea that Healey ran a positive campaign while Patrick ran a negative one is not convincing. The “garage rapist” ad was very negative, was paid for by Healey, and lost her thousands of votes. Patrick ran nothing comparable. Negative advertising can be effective, but it was not in this case: Healey and her campaign team blew it. The election results prove it.

                • Healey ran a completely positive campaign. All I said is that Deval benefited from the negative attacks by the Unions and left leaning 527s.

                • “There were as many if not more negative ads ran against Kerry Healey as she ran against Deval Patrick.  The only difference is others did Deval’s dirty work for him.”

                  <

                  p>
                  Stand by your comments.

                  <

                  p>
                  Peace out, it’s time for bed.

                • and what I said above your last post are exactly.  I don’t know how you inferred that I said she ran a completely positive campaign, when in the quote you just used I said, “There were as many if not more negative ads ran against Kerry Healey as she ran against Deval Patrick.”

                  <

                  p>
                  I stated that she ran negative ads in that sentence. I will have exact numbers on the money spent on ads later today.  It’s now 12:30 and time for bed as well.

                • I’d love to see your numbers on this.  I don’t watch that much TV, but what I saw during the campaign was a LOT of the Healey garage and Florida cop-killer guy; a fair amount of Deval’s mild ads; and maybe one or two from these supposedly ubiquitous 527/union anti-Healey ads.  They just didn’t strike me as much of a factor.  I’m absolutely with Bob et al. on this thread: Healey’s biggest enemy in the campaign was not Deval Patrick, nor was it the 527s and unions who ran a couple of not very good ads against her.  It was her own campaign strategists.

                • I was just looking on youtube at some of the old campaign ads and saw this one:

                  <

                  p>

                  <

                  p>
                  I found the first two points kind of funny given the light of recent events.

                • but I think those independently run, negative pro-Patrick ads were a bit of a misfire – mainly because they came across as lame and unnecessary.  Especially the “Bush-morph” ones.  Yeesh, how cliche!  In sum, I don’t think they helped Patrick at all.

                  <

                  p>
                  As for the Patrick/Obama connection…  Well so what?  They’ve been friends for years and clearly share a lot of ideas.  Why should that be a scoop? 
                  It’s fine with me.

        • machine is David Axelrod, a top media consultant who specializes in promoting ( messaging for) minority candidates.
          The fact is that Deval came long AFTER Obama who was the proto type for “the message” which we know is “hope’ despite an abscence of substance or experience. It works. In short, make them “feel good”,”feel part of the process(together we can)” and give them ,above all “hope” (yes we can!). Get elected and then worry about the details later.  Sound familiar?

          <

          p>
          From AKP&D Message and Media

          <

          p>
          “”In 2004, Axelrod helped State Senator Barack Obama score a landslide win in his U.S. Senate campaign, developing a message and media strategy that enabled Obama to defeat six opponents in the Democratic primary with an astounding 53% of the vote. He is currently serving as media advisor to Obama’s presidential campaign.

          <

          p>
          In 2006, Axelrod oversaw the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s independent expenditure media program, helping Democrats regain the House Majority for the first time since 1994. That same year, Axelrod served as media advisor to Deval Patrick, former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, who was elected Massachusetts’ first Democratic governor in 16 years, and the first ever African American governor of the state.””

          • for revealing this terrifying conspiracy.  I vow to abandon all hope henceforth.  And all this “re-engagement” stuff… how could I fall for that?  I guess I’ll just go off and drink cheap beer and watch Fox for some real moral uplift.

  7. This ad would be terrible for Barack Obama to run and attach his name to, that said it essentially summarizes who Hillary Clinton is and what Barack Obama represents very eloquently and visually, and considering it was mostly an old ad they did the editing fairly well for a you tube video, looked quite seamless. Hillary is indeed a Big Brother figure, full of pure ambition and a raw taste for power, no new vision, no true ideology, merely a need to exert and maintain control. I personally have had enough of one Big Brother president in Mr. Bush, I certainly hope Barack Obama or anybody else for the matter can stop a second one.

Archives