techPresident - 1984 - Comments

opinion

HUSTON — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:25:11 -0400

ParkRidge47 is skilled, and probably liberal, but I’m not so sure he’s an operative in the sense that you are. Awareness of redstate and littlegreenfootballs means he reads KOS, or just surfs around the net like the rest of us.
t’s a much more egalitarian world in cyber space, but not to the extent that Marcus deserves a link back to his video, which is, uhhh, bad — like his grammar and spelling.
The two efforts aren’t comparable in any way. My 11-year old daughter produces more effective Power Point demos.avodart drug

A Small Percentage

Just6Dollars — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:34:31 -0400

However it's defined, online contributions count for just a small percentage of the total amount candidates raise. The contributions with the most cache and influence come in much larger amounts than individual online contributions. The only way American voters can "write a bigger check" is through public funding.

A Very Valid Debate

Michael Turk — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:55:25 -0400

Since the McCain campaign's success in 2000, the media has really looked at "online fundraising" as a type of fundraising separate and distinct from any other fundraising, and has given credit to candidates who are able to generate a lot of "online donations", but never ask exactly this question.

I have a lot of e-mail from people since I posted my critical exploration of Mitt's "online fundraising". Much of the e-mail I have received is critical of my view that driving your $2300 donors to give through the website instead of by check is not "online fundraising".

I tend to believe that direct mail, telemarketing, and your website generally attract the same donors. They're people who normally give small amounts, but may occasionally bring in a large $2300 donation. The RNC seems to agree, for the most part, as they have their finance shop divided into small dollar and major donor segments. A small dollar effort (like a mail piece) may prompt a large gift, but the bulk of the $2300 donations are done through personal solicitation, not online.

If I e-mail 500,000 people who are typically small donors, and a large gift comes in, I consider that a grassroots contribution.

Under the definition you've proposed, donations made in conjunction with something like Mitt's National Call Day would be an online contribution if they fulfilled through the website. These weren't calls to $25 donors. Meg Whitman, Matt Blunt and Bill Weld don't call $25 donors. Moreover, 400 people don't raise 6.5 million dollars (an average of 2000 per hour per caller) calling $25 donors.

Why, then, would we count those donations in the same way we do Obama's 50,000 "online donations"? Why would give those donations the same weight as an indicator of grassroots strength? It is demeaning to small donors and discourages their role in the process if we say their effort and the effort of fat-cat money men are in the same boat.

I'm tend to be a populist in the sense that I give a lot of small dollar donors as much or more political weight than a large donor. Both, to be sure, are critical to the success of a campaign (at least in today's environment), and the involvement of both is necessary to win. If we seek to measure whether a candidate is appealing to both, we cannot simply lump the two together in one aggregate number simply because they both used a website to give.

If we're going to define everything solicited or fulfilled online as an online donation, then, given the staggering number of variables your lists allow, we may as well not look at "online donations" and stick instead to itemized versus unitemized donors (which Romney, to his credit, also detailed).

And it looks like he's been

cdharrison — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:01:10 -0400

And it looks like he's been fired? BetaNews has the story: http://www.betanews.com/article/Campaign_Consultant_Fired_for_Making_Ant...

Politubing entering main stream

Marisa — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:23:23 -0400

From the 10,000 foot level one of the aspects that gets lost in the heat of this story, is the tremendous impact these "politubers" (a term recently coined by a TubeMogul.com blog) will have on this election. The political campaign game rules have now forever been altered. This video is a brilliant example. Absolutely Phil's talents would be better served had it been more refined. But like him, there are many. This was bound to happen. The attention this story is getting will bring “politubing” to the main stream. By the next presidential campaign, "politubing" will be a more functional work of art. For now, candidates that embrace the power of this medium and adeptly guide their campaigns using this as a tool, will most likely reap the benefits.

Marisa

The modern way

tedlaskaris — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:26:45 -0400

Phil de Vellis has been fired from his job, but I think he won't have trouble finding people who would want to employ his talents right away. The Internet is a route to many things, political and otherwise, including making career changes on the fly. As for the video itself, I thought it was a very good job indeed.

Ted Laskaris

Mystery Solved

Kevin002 — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:06:36 -0400

Great Job, but I have this question , why did Obama say that he knew nothing about the Video and his camp had nothing to do with it ,when this guy is linked to the Obama Camp

It's not "new"

David All — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:37:09 -0400

...it's modern.

And yes, it is.
________________________________________
David All
The David All Group
http://davidallgroup.com
________________________________________

And possibly more interesting...

Raven Brooks — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:47:34 -0400

Blue State Digital's statement.

Statement from Thomas Gensemer, Managing Director, Blue State Digital

This afternoon, an employee at our firm, Phillip de Vellis, received a call from Arianna Huffington of "The Huffington Post" regarding the "1984" video currently circulating online. Initially, de Vellis refused to respond to her requests. He has since acknowledged to Blue State Digital that he was the creator of the video.

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.

Blue State Digital is under contract with the Obama Campaign for technology pursuits including software development and hosting. Additionally, one of our founding partners is on leave from the company to work directly for the campaign at headquarters.

However, Blue State Digital is not currently engaged in any relationship with the Obama Campaign for creative or non-technical services.

Mr. de Vellis created this video on his own time. It was done without the knowledge of management, and was in no way tied to his work at the firm or our formal engagement [on technology pursuits] with the Obama campaign.

I have spoken with David Plouffe, Sen. Obama's campaign manager, to inform him of this action and am appreciative of his understanding and ongoing support of our work.

We wish Mr. de Vellis well in his future endeavors.

HuffPo has the scoop

Raven Brooks — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:36:57 -0400

story here

Well, today I can end the guessing. Last night, we sent out a challenge to the HuffPost team asking them to hit the phones and contact all their sources. As a result, we have learned the video was the work of Philip de Vellis, who was the Internet communications director for Sherrod Brown's 2006 Senate campaign, and who now works at Blue State Digital, a company created by members of Howard Dean's Internet Team.

High Quality Copies of Updated "1984" Apple Ad Readily Available

btn — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:48:41 -0400

FYI, Apple made high quality versions of the updated "1984" spot readily available for download on their site. They rotoscoped the iPod onto the runner's waist for the special anniversary edition Steve Jobs unveiled during one of his keynotes.

Apple ad

Fred Stutzman — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:34:55 -0400

Correct, versions of that commercial are available on P2P networks in many formats, so its quite likely they didn't do a youtube rip.

Interestingly, the updated version of the ad (with the iPod) was produced by Apple - http://www.macminute.com/2004/01/06/1984

Interesting insight...

David All — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:15:45 -0400

Just to clarify, the anti-Hillary "1984" ad used the updated version of the 1984 spot created in 2004.

And I can only find one version of that on YouTube - at least through an organic search. It was uploaded by YouTube user eons:

Here's the description of that spot in the description of YouTube:

"Apples 1984 which aired at half-time of the Super Bowl, directed by Ridley Scott, this is the remake version made in 2004, added the ipod to it."

I'm not sure what the technical word is, but you'll note that this spot has some noise distortion at the beginning of the spot - which the anti-Hillary spot does not have.

In other words, I don't think ParkRidge47 simply ripped the flash file from YouTube which would be a likely tactic. Instead, they got their hands on the original.

________________________________________
David All
The David All Group
http://davidallgroup.com
________________________________________

Lamer and lamer

cfinnie — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:21:30 -0400

You are right. This is unlikely to get as much traction as it's not nearly as well done. However, some of the other Hillary ones are. See previous comment. (Hey! I'm new here--just learning the interface.)

Same person, different skill level?

cfinnie — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:16:59 -0400

Interesting you should bring that up. I wondered the same thing about the first crop. What if the well-done, but fairly restrained one supposedly posted by ParkRiver47 was actually done by the same people who did the much nastier one with the Jennifer Flower interview from Fox News? When you view one, the other comes up on YouTube. Some people, as I did, must click on the second. Some people must go to the paranoid website listed at the end that accuses Mrs. Clinton of being a procurer for her husband's career as a serial rapist.

The Obama one, however, is not nearly as well done as the first ones. So I would question whether it comes from the same source.

And, yes, Micah, I am the Chris Finnie you interviewed for The Nation about the Dean campaign. Good to hear from you again too! Chris