A lot of ink has been spilled in the past couple of days over this YouTube clip, which mashes up Apple’s 1984 Superbowl commercial with the image and voice of Hillary Clinton presiding over a numbed Orwellian dystopia. But whatever–you’ve all seen it at least once by now, so I don’t need to describe it any further. Let me share with you some commentary, though, from the National Journal’s Blogometer that really dogs my cats:
We don’t know whether the creative license taken by the creator of the “Hillary 1984” infringes on any of Apple’s intellectual property rights claims (some bloggers did not even know of the original ad), but there’s no doubt the official Obama logo on the hammer lady’s shirt infringes on Barack Obama’s copyright and trademark properties. Trademark in particular would be a strong claim since many viewing the ad could conclude the logo signals Obama’s endorsement of the message. YouTube policy on intel. property rights enables Obama to flag the video, and given the clear violation involved, YouTube would have to remove the video if Obama protested.Currently the Obama campaign refuses to discuss the spot, only saying: “There is a lot of energy for Sen. Obama on the Web, in communities all over the country … and frankly, that energy will manifest itself in a lot of ways.” But what if those manifestations come on Swift Boat-style anonymous ads? Shouldn’t a candidate, especially one campaigning on ending ‘negativity‘ in politics, move to silence such ads when they can? We certainly Hope Obama isn’t playing a cynical game of allowing other to attack for him while he stresses how positive and uplifting politics should be.
For the record, I like the National Journal’s Hotline, and by and large I have a great deal of respect for the work they do. Heck, back in the good old days when Hotline-on-Call actually bothered to write about House, Senate, and Gubernatorial races, I would link to them regularly on this blog. Conn Carroll, the author of this particular piece and the editor of the Blogometer, is by and large a sharp guy who has a decent grasp on the dynamics of online activism. But this note of “concern” misses the mark in so many laughable ways.
Carroll makes an attempt to equate this viral YouTube clip with the nasty “negative” politics that Obama has condemned in the past, and therefore he argues that Obama has only one choice: that he must to pull the plug on this wildly popular video by filing a legal complaint. Carroll and others like him should get a grip. For one thing, this is hardly the “Swift Boat-style” ad that Carroll implies it is. Anonymous, sure, but this ad does not in any way possess the vile character defamation of a Swift Boat attack, nor the kind of crass “negativity” that Carroll puzzlingly attributes it with. What’s so offensive about this ad to Carroll? If anything, it complements Obama’s narrative about unlikely actors bucking the grain to achieve impossible results. Heck, it’s pretty easy to view this ad and see it as “positive and uplifting”, depending on your perspective. I’m not sure what Carroll’s “concern” is trying to accomplish here. If this is an attempt to A) preemptively disarm Obama, and/or B) de-energize his netroots base, then it’s an extremely weak one.
while gleefully watching the outside mud being thrown at Hillary, is to make sure that the same person can not do anything like that to THEIR guy next year.
Even though the Swift Boat gang did the old media version of that to Kerry, new media, this media, OUR media is not centrally controllable. Today, an outside campaign on You Tube can move polls. Today, while money is still mother’s milk, the message has resonance. Today, even more so than in the past, activist perception drives that message.
Remember, WE can move the message, WE can move the country, WE can elect the next President and Congress. But we can only do it if we move the message to the people in a way they will react to.