MyDD :: Our statement on Blue State Digital

Our statement on Blue State Digital

by Jerome Armstrong, Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 11:30:30 PM EST

Why would Blue State Digital feel compelled to say they "terminated" Phil De Vellis for having created the 1984 video? Phil blogged on Huff Post that he "resigned"; but Thomas Gensemer (who I vaguely know) goes out of his way to claim that Blue State Digital "terminated" De Vellis. I guess the guys at BSD thought they needed to offer up Phil's head to the Obama campaign. Weow, fuck you too!

I know Phil from having hired him away from Walmart-Watch to be the online communications director for Sherrod Brown, to replace Tim Tagaris as the latter went to work at the DNC. Phil was one of 4 individuals I hired for the tech/internet team there, and lasted till the very end of the campaign. A terrific staffer and worker, I was prepared to bring him on staff had Warner continued on his presidential run. I heard he was talking to Edwards team, and then that he got hired by Blue State Digital to do client services.

I know the founders of Blue State Digital, and this was a petty move on their part-- an over-reaction to say the least. Phil's a big reason why Sherrod Brown kicked ass in Ohio in 2006, he made a remarkable video adaption, and BSD could have simply said they accept his resignation.

Feel free to post here on MyDD anytime Phil, stretch out that 15 minutes...

Tags: Blue State Digital, Phil De Vellis (all tags)

Permalink :: 58 Comments :: Post a Comment

The idiot deserved to be fired (2.20 / 5)

We face a moment in our history in which our liberties are in danger, and big brother, represented by George W. Bush and his cronies, want to trample our rights. This message is watered down if some idiot implies that Hillary Clinton is somehow the type of politicians who would apply illegal surveillance without suspicion to Americans.
This baseless, pointless ad divides the Democratic Party, and undermines Clinton's chances if she eventually wins the nomination.

by kingsbridge77 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 11:39:31 PM EST

Re: The idiot deserved to be fired (none / 0)

Are you ignorant? YOu are calling someone an idiot while you expose your own ignorance. The original ad had IBM like corporation as its target. It was about thinking outside the box and not do things the establishment way like sheep. It was not about civil liberties.

Hillary's conversation comment was also kind of ironic considering Hillary is very careful at monitoring how the conversation should flow. Kind of Orwellian way of making us believe she wants a real conversation. She can't even admit she saw the ad.

Also the ad was obviously tongue in cheek like the original Apple ad. But you would know this if you actually read comments in other diaries instead of rehashing the same shitty whining which we have debunked several times before.

by Pravin on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:27:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The idiot deserved to be fired (3.00 / 1)

I don't think the man is an "idiot" but I pretty much agree with the rest of this post.

He can say that the spot is about Obama representing "a new kind of politics" all he wants. But 1984 references actually MEAN SOMETHING. I remember watching this ad back in college (the original apple ad), and thinking it was amazing. As an apple user it made me proud. "We'll show that big bad IBM!"

However, since then the Bush administration has taken power and now we have warrentless wire-tapping, Guantanamo,the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and a media outlet (Fox) that spreads the DIRECT mesage of a corrupt administration.

I'm sorry, but things have changed, and 1984 is much closer to fact than fiction than when apple used it in its commercial. I find it ironic and sad that the use of this reference to attack Hillary Clinton got such play on the Fox "News" channel.

We are getting ready for the fight of our lives in '08, and frankly I am in no mood to see Hillary Clinton's face smashed with a hammer when the face should be that of Bill O'reily (or whatever right-winger you choose).

The funny thing about this ad is it gave me reason to reconsider my stance on Hillary Clinton. I had all but decided to back either Edwards or possibly Obama. But seeing how much joy the right has gotten out of seeing Hillary bashed makes me realize what a shit-sandwich her presidency would represent to the right. Perhaps even though she isn't as progressive as I'd like, her election would be an important step in this country's abandonment of radical right-wing politics.

by Aaron007 on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:48:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The idiot deserved to be fired (none / 0)

I remember that ad too and cheered on Apple in the 80s. But I never for once thought IBM was run by evil execs. I did think IBM and other PC makers were these entrenched interests the same way some of us think about Hillary. If someone has a sense of that original ad, you would be thinking of Hillary's place among the old boys network and how she represents the old way of doing things, and how her references to "let's have a conversation" are kind of Orwellian. Her conversation is one way.

I highly doubt the admaker felt Hillary was as bad as Bush and Co.

by Pravin on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:14:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Phil's an idiot. (none / 0)

Agree with first post, that Phil is an idiot.

1. It should have been obvious to him that if he was caught, Obama's campaign could be seriously undermined.

Running the ad undermines Clinton's campaign, should she win the primary.
Prevents Obama and Clinton from becoming each other's running mate.
The apple ad is extremely powerful, Orwellean.
Republicans do not have enough brain to understand the ad, or why it says 1984 and not 1985.

Does nothing to draw any republican voters over to progressive side.

by saguaro on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:43:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Phil's an idiot. (none / 0)

I don' think this ad does any of that. It keeps them from being running mates?!?!?!??! FIrst of all, I don't think that any of these individuals running for president currently care about that and second of all, this was made from the outside, not the inside, and thus does prevent the candidates from doing anything!!!

Mark

by Mark J. Bowers on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:57:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Whatever (none / 0)

If this ad came out in Jan 2008, then maybe it would make a difference. All posting it this early does is defuse the ability of anyone to use it when it matters.

That said, I speak from complete ignorance as I haven't seen it yet and never thought the original was anything special.

by skintigh on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:12:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Original not special? (none / 0)

The original is widely considered the best commercial ever produced. An advertising industry benchmark of originality and creativity. It launched the Apple Macintosh personal computer, which is fairly meaningful in itself. Fwiw, you could look it up.

by candace in sonoma on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 06:32:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The idiot deserved to be fired (none / 0)

The RW slant of the ad bothered me, too.

by LancDem on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:37:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

Jerome, sometimes you are so inside, inside, baseball that it makes my head spin. Phil posted a terrific post on Huffington which says it all.

This guy is a hero. He has demonstrated that people powered politics is here to stay. Thank god for the internets.

by aiko on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 11:41:20 PM EST

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

I think his ad will end up harming Obama greatly. Why is he a hero?

This will be used to show Obama's new politics are anything but. That may be unfair, but most people will not see the nuance between working for the firm that works for the campaign and Obama himself. Jerome's opinion nothwithstanding, the guy did not help Obama - he is no hero.

by littafi on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 11:52:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

I didn't say anything either way about whether it helped or hurt Obama-- I'd guess it's a wash.

by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 11:58:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

This isn't really about Obama. It is about one man who was successful in getting a message out that was not controlled by political machines, consultants or mainstream mouthpieces. If you are suggesting that he souldn't have done it, I very much disagree.

by aiko on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:06:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (3.00 / 0)

No, I didn't suggest that either.

by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:07:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

You and I have a different sense of ethics.

It is a pluralistic world and many people have different ethics than I do. In his position, I would not have done what he did. I hear you to be saying you would have.

Right and wrong are quite subjective, and people often differ. I guess we do on this. I certainly would not try to impose my views of ethical action on you. They are just for me.

by littafi on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:11:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh? (none / 0)

How does this harm the man? I'm slow so I need cliff notes on this one. He WAS NOT INVOLVED! So how do it harm him again?

by Lorraine on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:44:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh? (none / 0)

Because tards continue to blame him even though they know he had nothing to do with it. Unfortunatly, some of those tards are even in our party. This is how it hurts Barack Obama. People who secretly would never vote B...K , but can't say that as a Democrat, will use this as the perfect way out for them. They will dog Barack Obama and continue to tie him with this Ad in an effort to supress others from voting for Obama. They will use it to tap into that hidden Dixiecrat inside some Democrats. As you can tell, I am very upset with this guy. He sat on this and allowed Obama to be dragged through the mud. I don't believe he is an Obama supporter and I don't trust his motives. I don't care who vouches for him. We all have our own opinions and mines is, I don't feel one bit sorry for him. I don't have to pretend to like him just because his friends post here and if that turns out to be the case, that wil speak WORLDS about MyDD.

WORLDS!

"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama

by ObamaEdwards2008 on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:46:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh? (none / 0)

Let's make it easier:

Suppose a John McCain staffer (or an employee of his Internet vendor), in his spare time, put together a devastating, funny YouTube video attacking Clinton for the scandals in her husband's White House.

He gets caught. But he says, "Oh, I wasn't directed to do that; it was all on me."

Wouldn't we, as Dems, demand that he be fired, because we'd believe that he was in fact directed to do it but the "voluntary" thing was a ruse?

by Adam B on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:48:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

He is a hero because he is one person doing what highly paid consultants have failed to do so far. I won't have a problem even if guerilla campaign using essential truths were used against my favorite Gore or Clark.

The South Park episode on Gore was much more juvenile and offbase and unfair, yet I still like South PArk and we need voices like that to keep people honest even if they disagree with us sometimes. So my support for this kind of a spirit has nothing to do with my distaste for Hillary though I do agree with the essence of the ad.

The guy has accomplished something that you or I ahve been unable to do so far in politics. He gets my respect.

by Pravin on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:19:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I had the impression (none / 0)

from the Huff post TIMING that he did indeed quit, but BSD and probably the Obama camp both needed it to be "fired" ..

I didn't buy that version either, and I don't know any of those involved.

"Lobbyists Represent 'Real' Americans" - Hillary Clinton

by TarHeel on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 11:41:39 PM EST

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

why assume the Obama camp demanded it?
they wanted to look like they were taking action so, they don't lose biz. with other campaigns.

by vwcat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:00:14 AM EST

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

Hey, don't assume what I assume.

by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:09:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

I'm a Hillary fan, but a bigger fan of free speech. I don't agree with dems attaching dems with imagery that plays to the arguments that the republicans will use against a dem. Fight her policies on iraq and anything else substantive, but false imagery is wrong. She is not superhuman, royalty or have witch power. She is just a woman that a lot of people agree with and support, which is why she is leading in the polls right now. I say that you know my bias.

Hillary made the comment ealier in the NY post that the video took attention from another youtube video of her singing badly. If Hillary is not upset, I dont see why anyone should be. The guy really did a well made video on his personal time and should be entitled to the privacy that everyone else enjoys on internet. I support his right to freedom of speech. (I agree with kingsbridge that the imagery used is better suited to the imperial bush presidency who has a record of trampling privacy rights and does not seem to be burdened with facts or reason)

I look foward to after the primary when all good dems work together and support the parties nominee and we are all on the same side. I can't wait to see what this guys does against the republicans!!!

Roger

by rogpol1 on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:07:52 AM EST

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

He does good work against the Republicans, ask the retired senator from Ohio, Mike DeWine.

by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:09:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (3.00 / 1)

From the Blue State Digital statement:

"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."

Don't most companies have these kind of prohibitions on outside work? If I worked in a creative department of an advertising company that had McDonald's as a client and made a clever YouTube clip showing the Burger King as Joseph Stalin that I produced in my free time would that be OK with my employer?

Phil deVellis could have remained anonymous and kept his job. He didn't and will have better long term prospects because of the success of the 1984 ad. I don't see why it's any big deal that he left/was asked to leave by Blue State Digital.

"Nothing seems to embarrass the political class today." - Bill Moyers

by joejoejoe on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:19:42 AM EST

RE: the geniuses who blamed this on right wingers (3.00 / 1)

Where are all you geniuses who couldn't comprehend that Hillary could be attacked by fellow democrats for reasons of principle?

I remember some of you saying it must be the work of some right wing nuts. Face reality. Madame Hillary is not the the universally beloved leader. Not every attack on her is by someone who is a closet republican.

by Pravin on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:38:14 AM EST

Re: RE: the geniuses who blamed this on right wing (1.00 / 1)

Wow! You really have some anger issues.

by bsavage on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:04:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: RE: the geniuses who blamed this on right wing (none / 0)

I am not the one throwing out reckless accusations elsewhere in this thread. Look in the mirror as to who is being unhinged.

by Pravin on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:21:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

The term is "ankles" to describe a situation where somebody says they quit and others say it was a firing.

This is nothing new, it has been going on since the the first pimp let go the first person to practice the oldest profession.

Bob Brigham Blog

by Bob Brigham on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:46:40 AM EST

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

I gotta disagree with you here. He violated company policy, and in a way that would directly influence their client base. I'm pretty sure he was well aware when he outed himself that he'd have to lose his job as a result.

Further Reading

by Dave Sund on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:56:21 AM EST

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

I think Jerome's making a much subtler point; not that he should still be with BSD, but that BSD should have let him say "I resigned" rather than "we fired him".

by Adam B on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:04:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (3.00 / 2)

Maybe. But I think it had less to do with Obama and more to do with protecting their reputation with clients and potential clients - Obama among them. To say that he resigned would mean it was his decision to leave. BSD had to make it clear that he had no choice but to leave.

Further Reading

by Dave Sund on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:11:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

Free speech is free speech and corporations large or small, political or not, should respect their employees' right to free speech. No one should have to choose between being an active citizen and an employee. If Mr. de Vellis had been working for, say, Wal-Mart or Philip Morris, and created a You Tube video for Obama or whomever, on his own time, on his own computer, not using any company resources or materials, I dare say that the progressive blogosphere would be buzzing with outrage. Of course, in this case Mr. De Vellis may or may not have used company resources -- that would be an important question.

The fact that a corporation might lose business is beside the point. Tough. Suppose someone who worked for a company that supplied carpeting to Southern Baptist churches was fired after speaking out on behalf of gay rights -- I'd be outraged. I don't think this case is much different.

Blue State has a much deserved great reputation in the netroots community. That will not change nor should it. I just think that employees have the right to create their own content on their own time. Anyone who thinks otherwise should pause and reflect on the question of what should come first, active citizenship or loyalty to a corporation. Corporations dominate too much of our civic life. The Edwards situation with the bloggers is different. A political campaign is different from a private company and in that case the blogging continued after employment by the campaign. I do think, however, that perhaps Mr. De Vellis should have disclosed his activity to his employer but I don't think he should have been fired for, what is clearly, First Amendment expression.

Howard Park

by howardpark on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:56:46 AM EST

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (3.00 / 1)

He signed a contract when he was employed. That contract stipulated that he couldn't do outside political work. He did. It's not about free speech. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew the consequences. And he's obviously very good at what he does, so he shouldn't have trouble getting work somewhere (though I think probably not Obama's campaign).

Further Reading

by Dave Sund on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:01:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

Are you friggen kidding me?

Okay well. I work in the Lodging Hospitality Industry and I'd love to use my Free Speech to tell some annoying and demanding guests to GFT, .......but I can't now can I ?

"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama

by ObamaEdwards2008 on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:36:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (2.00 / 5)

Obama must be pissed that someone found out that BSD was behind this attack. What happened to his"new politics"? I don't know what Obama thought he can accomplish by using Karl Rove politics against a fellow Democrat.
Did he resign or get fired? I guess the Obama campaign probably made a deal with BSD to have deniability if the identity ever leaked. Obama is now at the bottom of my list to be the Dem nominee.

by bsavage on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:11:35 AM EST

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (3.00 / 1)

BSD is the website vendor for his campaign. Joe Rospars doesn't work for BSD anymore, but does work for the Obama campaign. Phil had no connection to Obama's account.

You want to quit throwing out baseless accusations?

Further Reading

by Dave Sund on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:14:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (2.33 / 3)

Even you have to admit that someone who was under contract by the Obama campaign would have had to been in contact with the communication director and other Obama PR staff. There is no such as a coinicdence in politics. Obama was probably ROFL when he was denying his campaign's involvement. Blue State Digital is under contract for the Obama campaign- and now one of their employees manufacured the ad, is anyone really that stupid?

by bsavage on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:58:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

Do you have any clue how vendors operate? Honestly?

Further Reading

by Dave Sund on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:45:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

on larry king (none / 0)

he was definitely smiling while he was claiming his campaign had nothing to do with the ad.

this is the guy who also claims to want to rid american politics of cynicism and change the way americans talk about politics.

by Stewieeeee on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:43:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (3.00 / 4)

Obama is now at the bottom of my list to be the Dem nominee.

Says the person with the "Hillary Clinton For President 2008!" sig file.

Gimme a frickin' break. I cannot stand faux outrage from obviously interested parties.

by Scott Shields on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:24:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama-Basher? (none / 0)

Wow, just took a look at your diaries and comments. It seems like you joined this blog for the express purpose of bashing Barack Obama and praising/defending Hillary Clinton.

If this tactic is supposed to help her with the netroots, I think your mistaken.

TAKE BACK OUR PARTY: Democracy Bonds

by LiberalFromPA on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:26:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

based on the histories (none / 0)

of others it appears, at first, as if they joined only to bash hillary and champion obama.

by Stewieeeee on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:44:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No surprise (none / 0)

Doesn't surprise me.

But what does surprise me (a little) is that people think it's not obvious. Your diaries and comments are there for all to see.

Of course, if they're not really part of the netroots, I guess they wouldn't know that...

TAKE BACK OUR PARTY: Democracy Bonds

by LiberalFromPA on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:00:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

GOP tactics against HRC by Obama (3.00 / 4)

ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE.

Argue on policy, judgment, achievements.

But this ad, WAY, WAY, WAY OVER THE TOP.

So, how many of the above comment writers HATE Hillary so much that they'd rather have a GOP president.

As a Democract, and an American, I find that self-righteous attitude offensive.

Sometimes I wonder if I have any place in the netroots community...if hating HRC is a sacrament.

by borlov on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:33:34 AM EST

Re: GOP tactics against HRC by Obama (none / 0)

You nailed it! I feel exactly the same way.

by bsavage on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:59:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP tactics against HRC by Obama (3.00 / 1)

Strawmen sure are easy to knock down, aren't they?

by Scott Shields on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:20:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not a Strawman (none / 0)

GOP tactics are used against hillary in the netroots.

and hillary supporters are, more often than not, once they are "outed" as a hillary supporter, are accused of working for the hillary campaign.

the idea that one can be a hillary supporter and a respected member of the netroots is not accepted, and that dude francis holland who was banned for obvious reasons would have been given a longer leash if his behavior was the same but he was advocating for edwards or obama.

it's not a strawman. it's the truth.

by Stewieeeee on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:41:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

Feel free to post here on MyDD anytime Phil, stretch out that 15 minutes...

Now that's certainly a great way to get Obama Supporters to stop posting here.

Hmmmm, Oh I get it.

"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama

by ObamaEdwards2008 on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:32:36 AM EST

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

Why would Phil posting here bother you? It was a pro-Obama ad. This ad got national exposure on news shows like Countdown (which means even more people saw it than simply on You Tube) and other than maybe Fox Noise I haven't heard any accusations that the ad was somehow endorsed by Obama. Even Hillary was bemused by the whole thing and I think she handled it very gracefully. So if she's not outraged (at least in public), why are Obama supporters so upset?

I'm an Edwards supporter (I hope I hear good news today at his presser) but Obama is a close second and I thought the ad was unbelievably clever and made its point without personally attacking Hillary. I don't think it will hurt his campaign one bit and I think this will all blow over in a couple of days the way most things do.

by CarolSoprano on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:01:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (3.00 / 0)

I'm not sure why this is a problem for some people. The ad was extremely well done, it was not a "hit" job, Obama had nothing to do with it, and the ad got over a million hits, which is no small thing. Hillary needs to be called on the carpet for the things she says, and I thought this ad did that very well - it was clever, it made its point, and it did so without sliming the opposition. Granted, if he signed a contract with Blue State then they have grounds for dismissal, but I don't think this hurt the Obama campaign at all. I betcha Hillary will grab him right quick now that he's out of a job!

I think what's going to be so amazing about this election cycle is the ability for anybody to get his or her message out. It levels the playing field somewhat, doesn't it? In my opinion, anything that can cut into the millions of dollars spent on campaign ads can only be a good thing.

by CarolSoprano on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:51:30 AM EST

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

If Obama can't survive something like this then he is in trouble. I think he will do fine. But it is going to be a long year.

And HRC is not the devil incarnate however the GOP hates her and I think she will have a hard time winning the general election--the aura of invincibility will evaporate after the GOP starts going after her. This little ad will be nothing compared to what we will see popping up on YouTube. Can you say bimbo squared...whitewater, vince foster, blue dresses, impeachment, ughh...it will be a time warp back to 1998.

I don't want to go back.

by aiko on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:17:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Union Connection to "1984" Ad (none / 0)

From http://www.solidpolitics.com

Philip de Vellis, a consultant working on Barack Obama's campaign,
admitted today that he produced the infamous "1984" Hillary Clinton attack
ad.
De Vellis also blogged on Walmartwatch.com, an anti-Wal-Mart website
partially funded by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The
union's president, Andrew Stern, serves on the board of directors of the
website. In blog postings, de Vellis railed against Wal-Mart.

Hillary Clinton served on the Wal-Mart's board of directors for six years.... MUCH MORE at http://www.solidpolitics.com

by AustinTexas on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:16:52 AM EST

Blind support (none / 0)

Is there no friend you won't rush to defend, even when a defense is unnecessary? The people who run the largest political blogs are exactly the same as the people who work in Washington. Exactly. Defend a friend, even when it's ridiculous.

Of course Blue Digital had to fire him, even if he was willing to resign. I like the guy's ad, and commend him on creating it, but he clearly knew it was a conflict with his work to do it. This is a presidential campaign, and Blue Digital has very close ties to it. They have to do everything in their power to distance themselves from the creation of the ad.

I'm quite sure Phil understands this completely. In fact, I'm also quite sure that this whole thing has helped his job prospects, not hurt them.

by lapis on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:40:43 AM EST

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

Yet another example of the political establishment stabbing talented/innovative progressives in the back.

Check out my blog, Capital Viewpoint

by whogotthegravy on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:52:05 AM EST

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

Oh, come on! This is about as clear a case of conflict-of-interest and breach of contract as you're going to get. Plus, he's not going to have any problem finding a job - like the ad or not, it was one of the most creative political ads I've seen in some time.

Further Reading

by Dave Sund on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:05:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our statement on Blue State Digital (none / 0)

I'm quite sure Phil understands this completely. In fact, I'm also quite sure that this whole thing has helped his job prospects, not hurt them.

sexe833
sexe834
sexe835
sexe836
sexe837
sexe838
sexe839
sexe840
sexe841
sexe842
sexe843
sexe844
sexe845
sexe846
sexe847
sexe848
sexe849
sexe850
sexe851
sexe852
sexe853
sexe854
sexe855
sexe856
sexe857
sexe858
sexe859
sexe860
sexe861
sexe862
sexe863
sexe864
sexe865
sexe866
sexe867
sexe868
sexe869
sexe870
sexe871
sexe872
sexe873
sexe874
sexe875
sexe876
sexe877
sexe878
sexe879
sexe880
sexe881
sexe882
sexe883
sexe884
sexe
sexe
sexe8892
sexe8893
sexe8894
sexe8895
sexe8896
sexe8897
sexe8898
sexe8899
sexe8900
sexe8901
sexe8902
sexe8903
sexe8904
sexe8905
sexe8906
sexe8907
sexe8908
sexe8909
sexe8910
sexe8911
sexe8912
sexe8913
sexe8914
sexe8915
sexe8916
sexe8917
sexe8918
sexe8919
sexe8920
sexe8921
sexe8922
sexe8923
sexe8924
sexe8925
sexe8926
sexe8927
sexe8928
sexe8929
sexe8930
sexe8931
sexe8932
sexe8933
sexe8934
sexe8935
sexe8936
sexe8937
sexe8938
sexe8939
sexe8940
sexe8941
sexe8942
sexe8943
sexe8944
sexe8945
sexe8946
sexe8947
sexe8948
sexe8949
sexe8950
sexe8951
sexe8952
sexe8953
sexe8954
sexe8955
sexe8956