Must Watch: Lara Logan on The Daily Show

I have become a member of the cult of Lara Logan, after this interview on The Daily Show earlier this week. Watch the whole thing, it's fantastic.

"If I were to watch the news that you're hearing here in the United States, I'd just blow my brains out, because it would just drive me nuts."

"You get in a Humvee with soldiers, they're all on their best behavior, they've been told not to swear about you, and you say, 'Yo, what's up, motherfuckers?' and then it's all done."

"You know, I was asked once, 'do you feel responsible for the American people having a bad view -— a negative view -— of the war in Iraq?' and I looked at the reporter, and I said, 'Tell me the last time you saw the body of a dead American soldier. What does that look like? Who in America knows what that looks like? 'Cause I know what that looks like, and I feel responsible for the fact that no one else does.'"

Candor from a MSM correspondent, anger, and a desire to get the real story out to the American people, with a feeling that if she doesn't she's failing us. Pretty damned impressive. I would also be remiss if I didn't mention her hottness.

According to Wikipedia, Logan has been in Iraq and Afghanistan ever since she essentially snuck in via Russia in November of 2001. Also, she pissed off Michelle Malkin, which is always a good thing. She's now Chief Foreign Correspondent for CBS News and her reports appear regularly on 60 Minutes, a show I will definitely need to start watching again.

Why To Vote Republican

Fuck Scott McClellan.

Excepts from McClellan's upcoming book are in the news, as the former press secretary levels more charges of dishonesty to add to what his publisher released in November, and he's getting a ton of press and making the rounds of the TV news shows to talk

Fuck This Guy

about it. Basically he's taking President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the rest of the administration to task for lying on a number of issues of critical importance, things that literally are a matter of life and death.

Yes, that's right -- they lied. And what's worse (to McClellan), they lied to him. I'm sure it's tough to find out that your boss lied to you, but I have a hard time garnering any sympathy for him. What did he expect? He was the public face of a presidential administration which will go down as one of the worst in American history, and try as he might to distance himself from their actions, it can't be done.

Look, it's all well and good for him to come out now and talk about how the Administration got it wrong on the war and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and how Rove and Cheney lied to him about Valerie Plame. Maybe he really has been troubled over the last few years by what went on while he worked at the White House.

But, you know, lots of people were saying those things at the time and McClellan was one of the main people responsible for making sure those people were ignored or ridiculed instead of paid attention to. What is this going to accomplish, besides selling some books? It's way too little, way too late.

Fuck him.

The Stopped Clock Theory

Seven-plus years in, our president has done something I'm in favor of. I'd say that's worthy of a post.

I'm pretty surprised about this, but I heard President Bush on the radio yesterday, taking a stand on an issue, and I agreed with him. Bush was in Kiev, Ukraine, on his way to Romania for the NATO summit, and while there he expressed his support for Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO. Russia strongly opposes this move, and apparently has the French and Germans scared enough that their making noises about opposing it as well.

Bush said that "helping Ukraine move toward NATO membership is in the interest of every member in the alliance and will help advance security and freedom in this region and around the world" and I actually agree with that. Given the propensity of Vladimir Putin to rule Soviet-style, I think we need something to balance him in eastern Europe, and while NATO is far from ideal it's what's available. So, yeah, Let Ukraine and Georgia in, and how about the Baltics, too, while you're at it?

The cynical among us might suggest this is all just posturing to counteract Russia's opposition to our missile defense system. Could be, but if the end result is NATO on Russia's borders, that works for me. Besides, there's no way that missile defense system can built in the next 200 days, right?

Five Years Gone

5 Years Of War Vigil
Front & Market Streets
7:00 PM tonight (Wed 3/19/08)

----------

"I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.

But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a

heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members

like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split. After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.

The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.

There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers

fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.

The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.

But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.

The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a

pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home? A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.

What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?

Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?

War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us."

-- Senator Robert Byrd, "The Arrogance of Power," March 19, 2003

Quite Exciting, This Election Magic

After last night's split decision on the Democratic side, it's looking more and more like Pennsylvania's April 22nd primary will actually mean something. So:

* If you haven't done so already, register. In order to vote in the primary, you must be registered by March 22nd. Or maybe the 23rd, I'm not sure exactly how "30 days before" would be digured, so better make it the 22nd just to be on the safe side.

* Don't make the same mistake Jersey Mike did. If you want to vote for Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama (or anyone else on the Democratic ballot), make sure you register Democratic. Pennsylvania is a closed primary state, and if you are registered to any other party (or Independent) you will not be allowed to vote in the Democratic primary.

Edwards Out: Whither the Democratic Party?

John Edwards is dropping out of the presidential race today. Edwards was the candidate I was supporting; even though

I live in a state that will have almost no part in choosing the Democratic nominee, Edwards had energized me with his "two Americas" rhetoric and I really felt like he was a candidate I could get behind and be happy with if he were to win the general election.

When it comes to politics I find myself simultaneously fascinated and repulsed by the horse-race aspect of the primary season. Since it was a foregone conclusion I'd be voting for a Democrat this November, the only question was which one it would be. I've had numerous discussions with friends and family over the past few months, and we've talked about issues, electability, and the elusive "it factor" that a candidate has to have to capture the country's imagination. I thought Edwards came out ahead in all three of those areas, though obviously the majority of Democrats (at least hose in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, and Florida) felt otherwise.

I had hoped Edwards would stick it out through the convention, believing that a strong third place showing might give him some juice within the party when it came to the platform. But then I realized that the days of the platform being hashed out in smoke-filled back rooms is long gone. The Democratic platform is set in stone right now; it's not the platform I would like, but the party has decided that it needed to move to the center in order to take back the the center and prevent another Republican presidential victory. The result has been softening on a number of issues that I (and many other) Democrats believe strongly in; I can only hope that this calculated decision pays off. I saw it happen on a smaller scale here in Pennsylvania when anti-choice, anti-gay-rights Bob Casey won the Democratic Senate primary over Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals. He went on to beat Rick Santorum in the general election, which is certainly a good result.

But at what cost to the party? My imperfect knowledge of recent Democratic history tells me that Bill Clinton and the "New Democrats" spearheaded this slide to the center as a reaction to the loss of the so-called Reagan Democrats in the 1980s. I do think it's telling that, since then, the only Democrat who has taken the White House was Clinton himself. Maybe Democrats don't want to move to the center, and they were responding to Clinton himself in '92 and '96 rather than to a centrist message? The Gore and Kerry losses could be taken as indictment of the Third Way as a way for Democrats to re-capture the White House, though of course both candidates had other problems as well (And then there's that whole thing about Gore actually getting more votes than Bush in 2000, but I digress).

Anyway, with Edwards out of the race this primary campaign looks like a race to determine the path of the Democratic party. We have a New Democrat (Hillary Clinton) and a more traditional one (Barack Obama), and I'm much more comfortable with the latter than the former. I'll vote for Clinton if she ends up being the nominee, but I hope everyone realizes that just because she's his wife that doesn't mean she has Bill's ability to inspire and energize voters. I think he won twice because he motivated centrists to vote for him, not because he was aligned with the core values of the Democratic party, and I'm worried that Hillary will expect the same results and be disappointed when those people don't come out to the polls (or, worse, vote for the Republican). Apparently, when the Democratic nominee isn't named Bill Clinton, the Democrats don't win, and the only thing worse than a New Democrat in the White House in 2008 is no Democrat in the White House.

[UPDATE 1:35 PM]: Just watched Edwards' valedictory speech, a typically classy speech in which he called on Obama and Clinton to uphold their promise to him to make poverty a central issue of their presidency. Let's hope that happens. He ended his speech to the strains of U2's "Walk On," which was very a propos and a much better choice than "Pride (In the Name of Love)," which he's used before.

I Heartily Concur: Benjamin Barber

Dr. Benjamin Barber's new book, Consumed, just shot to the top of my must-read list (I think I'll check it out from the library instead of buying it, though). Here's an excerpt from an interview with Bill Moyers:

"Part of the problem here is that the capitalist companies have figured out that the best way to do their job is to privatize profit, but socialize risk. That is to say, ask the taxpayer to pay for it when things go down. The banks now that have just screwed up so big, not one of those banks is going to go under because they'll be bailed out by the feds. 'Cause the feds, the federal government will say we can't afford this gigantic multi billion dollar bank to go under. Happened with Chrysler 20, 30 years ago. And, therefore, it's impossible to fail if you're a business. You never get punished. Now the whole point of profit is to reward risk. But what we've done today is socialize risk. You and I, and all of your listeners out there, pay when companies like sub-prime market mortgage companies and the banks go bad. We pay for it. They don't.

Now, he's simplifying things a bit; it is possible to fail if you're a small or medium business. It's just the huge corporations that get shielded by the government, and not even all of those (ask Enron or Andersen Consulting), but overall I think his point is dead on. In fact, I was just saying the same thing to Daryl in my best cranky-old-man voice the other day. "Companies these days," I said, "there's no risk of failure for screwing up or doing something wrong!" It's not just the sub-prime screw-up, it's all the lead in children's toys, too. And (As I mentioned last week) it's the energy bill, too. Are there any substantive penalties for the car manufacturers not reaching the new emissions levels outlined in the bill? I seriously doubt it.

Barber has a history of getting it right before the fact. His best-known book, Jihad vs. McWorld, was eerily prescient. As New York Times reviewer Michiko Kakutani wrote, it "depicted the post-cold-war world as a place simultaneously subject to the fragmenting forces of religious and ethnic fundamentalism and the homogenizing forces of global capitalism: forces, he suggested, that were threats to democracy, and that were on a dangerous collision course with each other." That's easy for us to see now, but Barber wrote that in 1995.

The whole interview with Barber is worth watching or reading. Here are a few more of his insights:

* "Capitalism is no longer manufacturing goods to meet real needs and human wants. It's manufacturing needs to sell us all the goods it's got to produce."

* "Here in the United States, the cola companies, which couldn't sell enough cola, figure out, why sell cola when we can sell water from the tap that people can get for free, but we'll sell it in bottles from the tap? Twenty billion a year. Twenty billion dollars a year in bottled water. In the third world there are literally billions without potable, without drinkable, without clean water. Now why shouldn't capitalism figure out how to clean the water out there and get people something they need and make a buck off it? Because that's what capitalism does. It makes a profit off taking some chances and meeting real human needs, instead of convincing Americans and Europeans that they shouldn't drink pure clean tap water but instead pay two bucks a bottle for it."

* "Capitalism cannot stay indefinitely in business trying to manufacture needs for people in the middle class and the developed world who have most of what they need. It has to figure out how to address the real needs of people."

* "Capitalism has put democracy in trouble, because capitalism has tried to persuade us that being a private consumer is enough. That a citizen is nothing more than a consumer. That voting means spending your dollars spreading around your private prejudices, your private preferences. Not reaching public judgments. Not finding common ground. Not making decisions about the social consequences of private judgments, but just making the private judgments and letting it fall where it will."

* "As Americans, I would think we understand that, above all, democracy means pluralism. If everything's religion, we rightly distrust it. If everything's politics, even in good politics, we rightly distrust it. But when everything's marketing, and everything's retail, and everything's shopping, we somehow think that enhances our freedom. Well, it doesn't. It has the same corrupting effect on the fundamental diversity and variety that are our lives that make us human, that make us happy."

* "So many of our choices today are trivial. We feel that we're expanding and enhancing our choice, but the big choices, a green environment, a safe city for our kids, good education, simply, are not available through private consumer choices."

* "We're on the wrong end of globalization...the US is selling itself, China's buying. China is buying into the global market. America is selling itself out in that global market."

* "we've got to retrieve our citizenship. We can't buy the line that government is our enemy and the market is our friend. We used to say government can do everything, the market can do nothing. That was a mistake. But now we seem to say the market can do everything and government can do nothing. Government is us. Government is our institutions. Government is how we make social and public choices working together. We've got to retrieve our citizenship."

Guy Goes To An Anti-Abortion Rally With A Videocamera

No, it's not the setup for an unfunny joke -- apparently a guy went to an anti-abortion rally in the not-at-all-ironically-named Libertyville, IL (just minutes from my hometown! Vanilla suburbs, represent!), with a video camera and a simple question for the participants: "if abortion were to be made illegal, what should the penalty be for the women who have illegal abortions?"

The resulting video blew my mind a little.



[Update 8/2: Apparently embedding is now "disabled by request." So to see the video you need to click through to the YouTube page]

These are people who have been working for years to outlaw abortion, and they haven't given a single thought to the consequences for the women who would be made criminals if their wishes were fulfilled. To be honest, this question hadn't crossed my mind, either (though I'm not the one calling for the criminalization of thousands of women), so when I watched the video I had one of those moments of clarity that come so rarely. The national "debate" (it's hard to call it that considering how little actual back-and-forth goes on) over abortion has been raging for nearly my entire life, and never before had I heard this question asked.

Anna Quindlen has a piece in Newsweek talking about this video, as well as an upcoming campaign by The National Institute for Reproductive Health that asks the same question that the Libertyville filmmaker asked:

Lawmakers in a number of states have already passed or are considering statutes designed to outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned. But almost none hold the woman, the person who set the so-called crime in motion, accountable. Is the message that women are not to be held responsible for their actions? Or is it merely that those writing the laws understand that if women were going to jail, the vast majority of Americans would violently object?

[...]

Nearly 20 years ago, in a presidential debate, George Bush the elder was asked this very question, whether in making abortion illegal he would punish the woman who had one. "I haven't sorted out the penalties," he said lamely. Neither, it turns out, has anyone else. But there are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can't countenance the first, you have to accept the second. You can't have it both ways."

Looking at the faces of the people in the Libertyville video, I almost get the sense they might be thinking about what they're saying and doing, instead of just blindly doing what they think is right in the name of religion or belief or whatever. Almost. Still, you can't re-think a position you've never thought about in the first place, and if this simple question gets people thinking about what they believe in, and what those beliefs mean, that can only be good.

(Hat tip to Feministing, who posted about this yesterday, and Feministe, who followed up with some questions of her own.)

----------------
Listening to: Hank Williams - I Saw the Light
via FoxyTunes

I Heartily Concur: Reggie Longcrier

I first saw this on Feministing -- it's a question asked of John Edwards on last night's YouTube debate by Reverend Reggie Longcrier, pastor of Exodus Missionary Outreach Church in Hickory, N.C.:



"Sen. Edwards said his opposition to gay marriage is influenced by his Southern Baptist background. Most Americans agree it was wrong and unconstitutional to use religion to justify slavery, segregation, and denying women the right to vote.

So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay Americans their full and equal rights?"

Independence Day

"I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war.

I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people, a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient.

I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons, and sisters and daughters, and friends and neighbors.

I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but instead to stifle dissent.

I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought.

I accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents.

I accuse you of handing part of this republic over to a Vice President who is without conscience, and letting him run roughshod over it.

[...]

It is nearly July 4th, Mr. Bush, the commemoration of the moment we Americans decided that rather than live under a King who made up the laws, or erased them, or ignored them—or commuted the sentences of those rightly convicted under them—we would force our independence, and regain our sacred freedoms.

We of this time—and our leaders in Congress, of both parties—must now live up to those standards which echo through our history: Pressure, negotiate, impeach—get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our Democracy, away from its helm.

For you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task. You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed. Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.

Resign.

And give us someone—anyone—about whom all of us might yet be able to quote John Wayne, and say, 'I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.'"

Full text and video of Keith Olbermann's Special Comment available here.

Feeling Blue In This Red City

Why isn't there a chapter of Drinking Liberally in Harrisburg? There are chapters in Chambersburg, Gettysburg, York, Lancaster, and Reading, but that's as close as they get. I would think there would be enough people interested in the combination of beer and Democratic politics to put one together. Then again, when I participated in a conference call for MoveOn a few weeks ago, trying to get a chapter started here, there were a total of three people on the call. So maybe there really isn't.

And yes, I know the answer to my complaint is, "why don't you start one, then?" And maybe I will. My first choice of place to have it closed, though, and I'm not that well-acquainted with the bars in Midtown (if I'm going to do this, I'm going to do it within walking distance). I'll take a look around and who knows, maybe there will be a Harrisburg chapter soon enough...

My Vote Counted!

Wow...for the first time in my adult life, the votes I cast actually made a difference.

Harrisburg City Council Results:
Gloria Martin-Roberts	1,658
Susan Brown Wilson	1,554
Brad Koplinski	1,549
Eugenia Smith	1,545
Calobe Jackson Jr.	1,520
Kia Hansard	1,343
Patricia Stringer	680

The "Reed Team" (Koplinski, Smith, and Jackson) missed gaining a majority on the council by nine votes (the difference between Wilson and Smith). I'm especially heartened to see Smith and Jackson lose, after finding out that they raised a combined total of $75 for their campaigns, which was effectively bankrolled by Mayor Reed.

So instead of a Reed-controlled council, Koplinksi, Wanda R.D. Williams and Patty Kim should be more-or-less held in check by Martin-Roberts, Wilson, Linda Thompson, and Dan Miller.

Which is how it should be; in a city with a "strong mayor" system, having the City Council in the hands of pro-mayor folks does a disservice to the citizens of that city.

I Can't Believe I'm Still Protesting This War

D Jo got an email from MoveOn.org yesterday, announcing a rally to protest President Bush's veto of the war funding bill. It was pretty short notice, but I headed out of work a little bit early, and she and the girls and I walked down to Front & Walnut Streets to take part.

We marched in San Diego in 2003 to protest the beginning of this war, and it's amazingly depressing to think that, four years later, we're still protesting it. At least now a larger percentage of the American public agrees with us; when we marched back in '02, drunk 23-year-olds wandered out of the Hooters in the Gaslamp District to flip us off. This time, with a few minor exceptions, anyone who favored an open-ended occupation didn't see fit to let us know.

The rally was pretty well-attended for something that had been organized on such short notice. At its peak I counted 38 attendees, and organizers put the final estimate at between 40-50 total:



We flanked both sides of Front Street:



Most people had noisemakers and signs and were encouraging drivers to honk to show their support:



The response from drivers was almost uniformly positive. Every second or third car honked and/or waved, and I only saw two cars react negatively: one was a pickup truck with a couple of guys who yelled something unintelligible as they drove away, and another was a guy in an SUV who dropped his car into neutral and gunned his engine, which I tool to be conspicuous consumption of gasoline and pretty stupid as far as anti-anti-war statements go.

A camera crew from WHP news was there, and the reporter asked me to say a few words about why I was here. The news piece led the 11 o'clock news and included a brief clip of me in which they even spelled my name correctly.

My Tax Dollars At Work

Now this is excellent response from a public servant -- on my way home from work I got a call from someone in State Representative Ron Buxton's office, saying she got my email and letting me know that according to their information, Comcast would be adding the missing four channels on Friday.

She asked me to please call the Representative's office on Friday if that didn't happen, and I assured her I would.

Barton, Fink; Inhofe, Insane.

Remember Congressmen Joe Barton? Last week when I wrote about Daylight Saving Time, I mentioned that the change in the dates for DST this year was signed into law as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The sponsor of that bill was Barton, a Texas Republican who received more campaign contributions from the oil industry than any other Congressional candidate. I also referred to him as a "climate change naysayer," after going back-and-forth with D-Jo about how to describe his views on the subject, since someone else had already grabbed anti-climate-change fundamentalist.

Al Gore testified in front of two environment-related House subcommittees yesterday. DailyKos linked to the Intersection blog, written by Chris Mooney (author of The Republican War On Science), which linked to video of Gore's testimony. Mooney points out that in order to give his testimony, Gore had to wade through "questions" and parliamentary tricks from committee member...wait for it...Joe Barton. But I'm sure Barton's concerns were solely based on wanting to make sure that the best, most truthful information possible was released to the American public.

And anyway, Barton was nothing compared to Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, which is not surprising given some of Inhofe's previous climate-related pronouncements:

* Stated that global warming was "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state"
* Compared environmentalists' repeated warnings to Hitler's "Big Lie"
* Suggested that global warming might actually have a beneficial effect on human life
* Implied that the Weather Channel is somehow behind the global warming hoax, in order to improve its ratings

These, by the way, are all courtesy of Wikipedia's Inhofe pagem where you can also readd about Inhofe's views on gay rights, 9/11, and lots more. He's a pistol.

(Update: Scientific American has Gore's testimony, along with the text of Gore's nine-point plan for dealing with climate change.)

Barack Vs. Hillary 1984: But What Does It Meeeean?

So the MSM is buzzing about the anti-Clinton, pro-Obama ad that takes the Apple "1984" ad and casts Hillary in the role of Big Brother (and, I guess, Barack's supporters in the role of hottie blonde hammer-thrower). Here's the clip:



First, let me get my political leanings out of the way. It's still pretty early in the process, so I haven't decided which candidate I'll be supporting in the primary. After the last two electoral debacles, I hope that the Democrats put up a candidate that can energize the population, especially people who voted for Bush but are now disillusioned enough to consider voting Democratic, but I'm a big old bleeding-heart commie liberal, so whoever the Democratic nominee is in '08, I'll be voting for him or her.

So that's where I'm coming from. As far as the "ad" itself, I have a couple of pretty big problems with it, as well as with the MSM's response to it.

First of all, I can't believe the sloppy blow job this ad got from the San Francisco Chronicle. So far, just about every article I've seen online refers back to Carla Marinucci's article, where she serves up the sort of breathless, dealthless prose usually reserved for new product launches and invasions of Middle Eastern countries. According to the experts/quote whores Marinucci talked to, this ad is "a watershed moment in 21st century media and political advertising" which "could have the iconic power with the 21st century political generation that another classic political ad called "Daisy" represented to Baby Boomers."

Pretty heavy stuff, but I don't buy it. First, it's not all that technically amazing. I'm no special effects guru, but looking at the ad it doesn't seem like whoever did it really did all that much. They took the original ad, replaced Big Brother with Hillary Clinton, and put Obama's logo on the hammer thrower's shirt. Big deal. Even 23 years after its original airing, I have a visceral (positive) reaction when I see the Apple ad -- it was a great piece of advertising and one of the first well-known uses of that sort of anti-authoritarian message to sell products, and for that I applaud Apple and Chiat/Day. When I watched this version, I had a little bit of the same feeling, but after thinking about it for a few seconds I realized that was due to the original ad itself, and not this re-working of it.

Which leads me to my biggest problem -- this ad is intellectually lazy. What does it mean? The original ad set up a very clear syllogism: IBM was Big Brother, and as they gobbled up market share they were imposing their Way on the poor defenseless computer buying public, who didn't even know they were being duped. It fell to Apple to stand up for the rights of the poor, dumb sheep and subvert the dominant paradigm (and if that subverting could be done by a fit chick in shorts, all the better).

Whether or not it was true was irrelevant -- the medium quickly became the message and Apple immediately became identified as the anti-corporate corporation, the computer company that let you stick it to The Man by buying its products. It's a corporate stance that Apple has clung to since, and it has served them well, from "Think Different" to the iPod to the John Hodgman TV ads. I'm sure we'll see more of it when the iPhone hits the streets.

But the analogy falls apart in this reworking. How is Hillary Clinton Big Brother? She's in power, sure, but Obama has the same job she does, and I find it hard to believe that her four additional years in the Senate (or even her eight years as First Lady) gave her some sort of overlord-like power that Obama lacks. How is Barack Obama a plucky underdog revolutionary? Yes, he's the first African-American with a reasonable chance at a major party's nomination (sorry, Mr. Jackson & Mr. Sharpton), but Hillary is the first woman with a reasonable chance at a major party's nomination. I'll call that a wash on the underdog-revolutionary scale.

So what dominant paradigm, exactly, is Barack Obama subverting with respect to Hillary Clinton? Or, to put the burden of proof elsewhere (since Obama is apparently not involved in the production of this clip), what do the creators of this mashup (or, for that matter, Carla Marinucci) think it means? What do they want to accomplish? I have a sneaking suspicion the answer has less to do with paradigm-subverting and more to do with job-getting. Until the creators identify themselves, we won't know, but something tells me we won't be in the dark for too long.