techPresident - ParkRidge47 - Comments

So many people just use

johannabartley — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 07:27:49 -0500

So many people just use logos they find on the internet without caring about any copyright law. When it comes to politics there have been fliers made up with a party's logo payed and printed by another party, used to discredit the image of the first party.
___________
Payroll Services

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

Not just the MSM

cfinnie — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:51:15 -0400

I agree that it's time to take democracy out of the hands of the professionals and give it back to the people.

But more people were suspicious of ParkRidge47 than just the media. I was and said so. Some people disagreed with me, but others agreed.

As an advertising professional of many years experience, I have always respected the right of the candidates I work for to set their own message. I never hesitate to speak out about my own feelings on a candidate or issue. But I NEVER represent my views as those of the candidate. ParkRidge47 created a piece that looked like it came from a campaign--something he was not authorized to do. For me, that's where the line has to be drawn.

Well, if you really want to know who it is...

lluad — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:03:04 -0400

You received email from them. The email headers will likely give you most of the information you need to identify the sender.

Hillary 1984

benna — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 04:55:39 -0400

I am deeply suspicious of this ad.

The soundbites seem to be completely wrong for the ad. I realize there is a certain irony in the original, which juxtaposes "we shall prevail" with the throwing of the hammer. But in the original, the voice has an obviously evil quality to it. These soundbites are Hillary's explicit attempt to come across as a regular person, having a "conversation" with each of us individually, whereas the original ad speaks of "one people, one will, one resolve, one cause," and "a garden of pure ideology where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory thoughts." Meanwhile, the Hillary soundbite says "I don't want people who agree with me." Also, the image of big brother is dark, and blends in with the dark wall in the original commercial, while the imagine of Clinton is bright white, an aberration in the monolithic room

If I had to guess at the source of this video, I would bet it came from the Clinton campaign. Imagine seeing it without any knowledge of the original. Most people probably don't remember the original all that well. Here is an alternative interpretation of the Clinton video: Clinton is trying to awaken people who have become used to politics as a competitive sport, or partisan war, rather than a discussion, an exchange of ideas, about how to make everyone better off. Hillary says that it's "really good" that "so far, we haven't stopped talking." However, some evil forces don't want you to keep talking. Right before the hammer is thrown, the text on the screen over Hillary reads, "this is our conversation." The next time we see the screen, a smiling Hillary again says she "hopes to keep this conversation going," just before the sledge hammer smashes into the screen. In the original ad, following the initial explosion as the sledgehammer crashes into the screen, we hear a light, cool breeze, suggesting freedom. This sound appears to have been slowed down in the Clinton video, lowering the pitch and suggesting the cold wind of emptiness and despair. By this point we are really wondering who would be so evil as to want to end "our conversation." We then see a bright white screen which says, "On January 14th, the Democratic primary will begin. And you'll see why 2008 won't be like '1984.'" Note that 1984 has a significance in presidential politics quite apart from Orwell's book. 1984 was the year Walter Mondale, running as an unabashed liberal, lost every state in the nation except Minnesota. The white screen, associated with Clinton, promises a different outcome in 2008, until it is covered over by a pitch black screen bearing Barack Obama's web address. It must be he who wishes to end the conversation.

come again, Mr. Rosenberg?

Jon Garfunkel — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 00:42:39 -0400

Well, on behalf of Americans Not Really Caring Until At Least November...

I'm not sure one would classify this as a "powerfully emotional" ad, any more than one can about Apple's ads with Richard Dreyfus giving paens to long-gone American icons in the "Think Different" campaign. Pastiche is not genuine, so you don't form emotion with it.

And again, the end of the "top-down candidate message" is predicted. But why would this commercial cause me to support Obama? Why would anyone support a candidate without knowing what they stood for... in other words, the message?

Also, of course, this subverts McCain-Feingold. The whole brouhaha in 2005 over whether blogging was an in-kind contribution will largely be dwarfed by the issue of partisans dumping massive amounts into anonymous video posts.

Democrat or Republican, I don't want a campaign run by kids. I want an adult in the White House for a change.

Hi Chris!

Micah L. Sifry — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:27:18 -0400

I remember talking to you while doing some reporting on the Dean phenomenon; great to hear from you. For the record, I haven't formally stopped writing for the Nation; I just don't have much time for lots of freelancing these days! Personal Democracy Forum and TechPresident are my major projects, along with some consulting work for the Sunlight Foundation and occasionally others.

Thanks for sending all that stuff to Carla Marinucci; it looks like she's done a nice follow-up story on ParkRidge47. And definitely stay in touch!

Micah

Swift Boat 1984

cfinnie — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:34:49 -0400

Hi Micah,
After a fellow Deaniac, now an Obama supporter, sent me the 1984 link, I saw the Marinucci story you mention. I'd met Carla in Iowa when I was volunteering for the Dean campaign. So I dropped her a line to let her know my theory on the whole thing. I figure this is this year's Swift Boat episode. It effectively tarnishes the two Democratic front-runners: Hillary as Big Brother, and Obama as a business-as-usual politician who will slime his opponents.

Carla wrote back, telling me the Chronicle was trying to track down the identity of ParkRidge47 and asking if she could quote my theory. She also asked if I'd come across much on this "in the blogosphere." So I went looking and found your pieces. I hope you don't mind, but I emailed her the first one, along with your observations about the significance of ParkRidge47's online moniker.

BTW, I was glad to spot your byline again. I've missed you since you stopped writing for The Nation. Are you still doing New York politics and clean money campaigns? Chris Finnie

Millions read Drudge? Maybe not

Micah L. Sifry — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:29:40 -0400

As reported first on ValleyWag, there's evidence that Drudge's metrics are grossly inflated. See this post for details.

That said it's clear lots of reporters read him. But I called him a bottom-feeder because he traffics in unsubstantiated rumors. Remember the one about Kerry's affair with the intern?

Micah

Trust?

David All — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:50:09 -0400

Whether or not I trust Drudge has nothing to do it. I don't personally read his site - at least not that often.

But millions of liberals, conservatives, and reporters do.
________________________________________
David All
The David All Group
http://davidallgroup.com
________________________________________

Drudge's record speaks for itself

Micah L. Sifry — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:17:03 -0400

David--
I would never deny Drudge's impact in the political world. But here's a simple question: Do you trust what he posts?
Micah

Where the kids are

Ruby Sinreich — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:11:13 -0400

Oh please, Matt Drudge is well-known as one of the leading muck-rakers in the country.

Anyway, I'd guess Obama's popularity has to do with the fact that younger voters are so much more attracted to him, and they are also disproportionately likely to be YouTube users.

Bottom-feeder?

David All — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:44:54 -0400

Micah-

What do you mean when you say that Matt Drudge is a "bottom-feeder?"

His influence in the political world has been noted by smart people like Mark Halperin and John F. Harris.

...And there's certainly nothing on the Left which rivals its impact. Just need a bit of clarification. It's possible I'm reading it the wrong way.

Thanks,
David

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

Good Point

howardpark4 — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 15:29:23 -0500

I gotcha, yes I would look at it differently if it was the product of a hired gun. I think its a valid point too about transparency. I sort of assumed "Vote Different" was from a grassrooter of some stripe but I have no idea.

Funny definitely beats serious, but we should still demand openn

Micah L. Sifry — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:52:38 -0500

Howard--
I agree with you. But my point is a different one. I know the Vote Different ad is well done. What I'm curious about is if we'll ever know who made it. We've been saying for a while that voter-generated content is going to be the wild card of 2008, but the bit of mystery around the making of this ad suggests that unless people take credit for their work, campaigns may ALSO be able to make much more powerful use of anonymous messaging than ever before, as well.

To whatever degree possible, I'd like to reward people for being open and transparent about what they're doing, and conversely, withhold some of my trust and admiration for someone who insists on hiding behind a pseudonym. For all we know, "Vote Different" was made by a top campaign consultant. Would that change how we view it? I think so.
Micah