"I made the "Vote Different" ad because I wanted to express my feelings about the Democratic primary, and because I wanted to show that an individual citizen can affect the process. There are thousands of other people who could have made this ad, and I guarantee that more ads like it--by people of all political persuasions--will follow.This shows that the future of American politics rests in the hands of ordinary citizens.Dreaming 5GW has an interesting analysis of this. Zenpundit also puts in a comment.
...The specific point of the ad was that Obama represents a new kind of politics, and that Senator Clinton's "conversation" is disingenuous. And the underlying point was that the old political machine no longer holds all the power."
I am no Clinton supporter, but I think the last paragraph of this mea culpa is extremely unfair. Obama does not represent a "new kind of politics"--he is a slick, media-conscious politician who speaks in comforting platitudes and has done precious little to demonstrate why he is the clean break from D.C. politics that he claims to be. But the "Vote Different" creator is right in that citizen media is going to take off in 2008. However, it is unclear whether this will result in ideal citizen participation or a hyper-partisan bloodbath, given the height of political polarization right now.
4 comments:
I agree with your post. But I couldn't help thinking that Phil de Vellis sounds like a fatuous windbag. Sorry, bit blunt, but there are too many poseurs about for my liking.
The sign of a third rate student debater is frequent references to Hitler and 'slippery slopes'. Similarly, the mark of a third rate political pundit is use of the 1984 motif.
George Orwell was too good a writer to be abused in such a fashion.
No need to worry. Candor is appreciated.
As I said in my post, Vellis is wrong to idolize Obama when he and Hillary are both D.C. politicians. It's also right to point out to the staleness of the 1984/Hitler comparison.
In any case, I don't think Vellis will lack for work. Despite the ad's flaws and the fact that he didn't create it himself--(stolen from the apple 1984 commercial), he's certainly proven he can get attention.
I thought that your take on Obama was right on the button.
Incidentally, what's your view on Chuck Hagel - suitability for high office? I read an interesting profile of Hagel in the Guardian Weekly (Ewan Macaskill I think) - Macaskill interviwed a rich businessman who said that he'd been impressed the first time he met Hagel, because Hagel wanted to hear his views on foreign policy, and didn't ask for campaign contributions.
I would probably need to read more about Hagel, to be honest.
Post a Comment