03/19/2007
Unofficial Obama Spot Called 'Watershed' in Campaign Media
The first time around, director Ridley Scott's ad for Apple Computer's Macintosh, which aired during the Super Bowl in 1984, was said to be a revolutionary moment in TV advertising and has been called the greatest ad of all time by TV Guide. It consistently ranks in "best of" polls of that nature.
The "1984" spot is again making headlines, this time because it's been used in an unofficial YouTube election spot for Barack Obama. As the SF Chronicle notes: "But this time, the woman is wearing an iPod -- and has her candidate's slogan on her chest. And the Big Brother -- whose image she defiantly smashes with a wave of her sledgehammer -- is Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner."
The spot resonates in its reference both to the supplanting of old media (TV) with new media (YouTube) and in its reference to generational shifts in political thinking:
"That theme -- reflecting a generational change in the relationship between media, politics, candidates and voters -- suggests that 'Hillary 1984' could have the iconic power with the 21st century political generation that another classic political ad called 'Daisy' represented to Baby Boomers, says Leyden. That 1964 spot for President Lyndon Johnson -- featuring images of a child plucking a daisy, which morphed ominously into a nuclear mushroom cloud -- battered GOP presidential candidate Sen. Barry Goldwater because it, too, portrayed 'a shattering of the whole world' in both political leadership, and media."
The Lyndon Johnson ad (1964) and the original Apple Macintosh ad (1984).
The Obama campaign's insistence that it has nothing to do with the creation of the video, which is spreading at a rapid viral pace, suggests that the campaign dialogue, thanks to "new" media, may now be more fully in the grasp of the people.
So, who is behind the Clinton attack ad?
Political Smackdown [sf chronicle]
Posted 1:45 PM EST by Andy Towle in Advertising, Apple, Barack Obama, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I'm hoping that Senators Clinton and Obama knock each other out, and let the best democratic candidate, John Edwards, emerge.
Posted by: John | Mar 19, 2007 2:02:11 PM
I don't see any of the dem candidates sparking my interest - it's all the same old pandering, Republican Lite that plagued the party during the early GW Bush years. Where's the assertiveness and promise of real change? As Futurama so wonderfully illustrates, it will again come down to an election showdown between Republican candidate John Jackson, and bitter Democratic rival Jack Johnson.
Posted by: scientitian | Mar 19, 2007 2:29:28 PM
If the Democrats want to bring us into the 21st century, then they need to let us gays be equal partners in the revolutionary process. Otherwise, it's the same old same old.
Posted by: Bill | Mar 19, 2007 2:33:29 PM
Rehash. For being a so-called new vibrant politican this is an old worn out ploy. It backfired with me.
I want a canidate that is the least religious. This country is way too religious. Religion is a grave threat to humanity.
Posted by: Jack! | Mar 19, 2007 2:42:48 PM
RE: Where's the assertiveness and promise of real change?
"Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, poised to sign a bill making New Mexico the 12th state to legalize medical marijuana, said Thursday he realizes his action could become an issue in the presidential race.
'So what if it's risky? It's the right thing to do,' said Richardson."
Posted by: 24play | Mar 19, 2007 2:49:08 PM
Cute. But, as sad as it makes me to shake viewers from the Pavlovian stupor induced whenever anything Apple-related appears, we must make a couple of observations and factual corrections.
1. It's interesting how much the theme of the ripped off ad concept echoes the redent "Clinton = old thinking" attack piece by that famous documented liar David Mixner. Has he deposited any checks from the Reverend O'Bigot campaign yet?
2. The linked SF Chron article about it contains a lot of drivel and misinformation. And, once again, Carla Marinucci's absurd concept of "balance" by going to a Republican to comment about Democrats. That's not news, that's free propaganda.
Further, the "expert" she quotes, Peter Leyden, totally undercuts his credibility in two ways, the first when he refers to the 1964 anti-Goldwater ad as being iconic to "Baby Boomers." Depending on how one identifies "baby boomers," few were "of age" when that ad appeared, so, while it was extremely influential in that election, it is more a cultural memory [even
"The Simpsons" have referenced it] than a political one as few "baby boomers" were then old enough to vote.
But even if millions had been, the meaning Leyden gives the ad is a total distortion. In NO WAY did it portray "'a shattering of the whole world' in both political leadership, and media." It was as black and white a simple scare ad as any that have ever been created without using one's opponent's name. The message was: "Vote for Goldwater and there's likely to be a nuclear war that will kill your children."
Voters had already "shattered" the old political world by choosing young, Catholic Kennedy over old-thinking, WASP Nixon; ending a two-term Repug strangle hold on the White House and country. Johnson, though very much an "old pol" was seen as nobly carrying on the legacy of JFK, assasinated less than a year before the ad appeared, whose VP Johnson had been.
This ad isn't one party's candidate attacking another, but cynical internecine warfare that can only hurt—with less and less Party-identified voters—whomever the Dems end up picking. Gee, and they Hillary's ruthless.
Posted by: Leland | Mar 19, 2007 3:03:42 PM
...and they say Hillary's ruthless.
Posted by: Leland | Mar 19, 2007 3:06:32 PM
Edwards isn't electable in a national election, like him though I do. His style make him sound too ineffectual, frankly. I don't see him faring well against a McCain or Giuliani.
Clinton has no charisma and no oratory skills, and we've just had 8 years of charismaless, oratoriless leadership. It'd be great to have a woman president, but how about one with actual presidential skills like charisma, oratory, and leadership on Democratic issues?
If Obama, who has both charisma and oratory, wises up and becomes a staunch leader on Democratic issues and on issues like GLBT civil rights, the environment, etc., then I may well support him. But not before I hear him speak like a Democrat of conviction and not a Democrat lite.
Posted by: ebsur | Mar 19, 2007 3:13:58 PM
John Edwards won election as a democratic Senator from North Carolina. Don't underestimate him. He could defeat any of the current Republican hopefuls.
Cynicism and apathy, along with people voting for Ralph Nader (also some election shenanigans aided by the United States Supreme Court) got us George W. Bush as president. Right now, I'd prefer Dan Quayle.
There is a difference, however small, between the parties, as evidenced by the current Bush administration. Republicans = irresponsible deficit spending while proclaiming the virtues of small government(Reagan, Bushes) and regression in Civil Rights as per the Christian Right agenda (Reagan, Bushes). Democrats=fiscal responsibility (Bill Clinton) and progress in Civil Rights, however slow (go back to LBJ and Kennedy).
Would we be in the Iraq quagmire and would we have people in large numbers urged by their churches to vote against gay people, had the Democrats won in 2000 and retaken the Congress then? There'd be no Karl Rove in charge.
Please vote, unless you're a Republican.
Posted by: John | Mar 19, 2007 3:44:35 PM
I thought the ad was hillarious. I doubt it's Obama's supporters who created it, but whomever did must be thanked by Hillary's camp cause this is pure viral genius.
Posted by: Da | Mar 19, 2007 3:59:40 PM
with ridiculous ads like this it will be like 1984...a republican will win. Stop wasting time attacking the dems, and start focusing on the top 5 republicans. Start digging up dirt and crafting ads to unleash on them when they pick whichever GW clone they go with this time.
Or we can be the stupid loser progressives we've always been and not rally behind the side that is more closely aligned with us, then whine and wonder why a republican got elected again while they, mad that its not a religious zealot, will still be happy that they have the power.
Wow, we're so smart and idealistic it cancels out all the discrimination and false-pretense wars.
Posted by: NYCREDNECK | Mar 19, 2007 4:17:44 PM
they say this is an 'unofficial advert'...which means that it could've been made by anyone, from any party affiliation. I smell Rove on this.
Posted by: Gary | Mar 19, 2007 5:09:44 PM
To echo John above: "There is a difference, however small, between the parties...." And maybe it is not so small depending on who is nominated.
I could live with Guiliani in the White House and Hillary in the Senate a lot more easily than a conservative Republican could.
But I will vote for the Democrat (Hillary, Obama, John Edwards) over any Republican running.
And that anti-Hillary ad -- too clever, it will go over the heads of most voters. We are talking about people who put Bush in office TWICE!
Posted by: jessejames | Mar 19, 2007 5:41:20 PM
Obviously one of Barack Obama's rabid fans made it. Go to one of his rallies- people are practically throwing their panties at him. I think he'll end up getting the nomination... all that momentum and energy will go somewhere.
To those who say they want a candidate who will stick ujp 100% for LGBT rights... it wont happen. At least not yet. The democrats found their formula in 2006... all politics are local. And unfortunetly, GOP strategists have made issues like gay marriage a local one in many red states. If the democrats want to win, they should keep the moderate stance that they have now. It may not be a profile in courage, but its a profile in winning and not losing another presidency to the conservatives. Vote for a third party candidate if you want to, I just hope you dont live in a major swing state.
Besides, it makes sense to me if the LGBT community focuses on the smaller battles first. Lets fight for the right to donate blood, then dont assk dont tell, followed by gay marriage and adoption. Its more focused and will give us some sort of organization. The gay rights movement is too fracticious... and we have no leadears or spokespersons. One of the reasons why the civil rights movement was so successful was that they had strong, unifying leaders. Also, there was a sense of hope and equality in the movement. The gay rights movement, at least so far has been too angry, bitter, and pretentious.
Win people's hearts first, show them that we're not angry crazy liberals, and then we'll win their minds.
Posted by: Shaun | Mar 19, 2007 5:52:31 PM
How original...NOT!
Posted by: Todd M. | Mar 19, 2007 8:26:43 PM
I agree with Shaun. In the election for President, gay voters should keep in mind that the prize is not the Presidency itself, but nominations to the Supreme Court. The Congress is now poised to start providing some of the civil rights we've been demanding, but when the majority seeks to hold down we minorities, the courts are our only refuge. And now, because of gay issues being given a front-and-center place in the 2004 election, Roberts and Alito have pushed the Court further away from protecting our rights. Only a Democrat or Giuliani in the White House will help to correct that.
So, I think this is why the Dem front-runners refuse to express any views on Pace's comments, or to support gay marriage--because it would provide traction against them in a race with McCain or Romney.
Posted by: Scott | Mar 25, 2007 11:03:28 AM