Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Creator of Hillary Attack Ad Speaks

In a new interview on YouTube, the creator of the now infamous "Apple/1984" ad targeting Hillary Clinton talks about the spot and all the attention it attracted. The video is below. Our friend Jeff Jarvis offers the following analysis on his PrezVid blog:


ParkRidge47, aka Phillip de Vellis, the guy who made that Hillary attack ad, is interviewed on video by YouTube's editor of news and politics, Steve Grove. Good idea for making news on YouTube (and an interesting format: the asynchronous webcam interview).

de Vellis gives the geeky details: which machine and software he used to make it (he's a Mac guy; I'll bet lots of Obama fans are). He says he picked the 1984 commercial to mash because he's an Apple fan. It sounds as if he wanted to promote Apple more than Obama. I'd have thought his first point would have been ideological but, no, it's geekological.

He argues that he didn't think it would go viral: "I'm really stunned by the attention it got. I thought it was pretty cool when I did it and that it would get passed around on some progressive blogs. But I had no idea it would be shown on TV." I think that's a bit disingenuous; everybody who makes a YouTube video thinks it might just go viral.

Asked what he thinks the impact of the video is, he feints. "I'll leave that to other people to decide." He explains his anonymity as a matter of employment and defends the American tradition of anonymous speech, savoring the moment when he points out that 1984 was written by George Orwell, which was a pen name. But he says he understands why, when something gets this big, people want to know who's behind it. "In this case, the system worked."

What's most telling, in the end, is the banality of it: He's not, as it turns out, a slick operative with a master plan. He's a geeky guy with the skills (and talent) to say what the heck and make something that amuses him.


By Editors  |  March 30, 2007; 1:42 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Line: Dems Dominate List of Endangered House Members
Next: Clinton Raises $26 Million in First Quarter


here you will find all about tie family:

Posted by: ricky | April 20, 2007 3:40 AM | Report abuse
family tie family tie family tie family tie family tie family tie family tie family tie family tie family tie family tie

Posted by: serj | April 19, 2007 3:48 AM | Report abuse

Use our Quick Quote form to receive a Free Quote for any type of self storage or storage service. You can also use our Quick Quote to find local movers as well as long distance movers. All the companies listed are licensed, bonded and insured.

Self storage

Posted by: ruslik | April 12, 2007 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Use our Quick Quote form to receive a Free Quote for any type of self storage or storage service. You can also use our Quick Quote to find local movers as well as long distance movers. All the companies listed are licensed, bonded and insured.

Self storage

Posted by: ruslik | April 11, 2007 2:12 AM | Report abuse

Stick THAT in your ear, Belinda Stronach!

Posted by: J. William Lawton | April 2, 2007 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Lyle, are you referring to the thinking people in the ad who stand drooling in front of the movie screen?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Lylepink - the possessive of "thinking person" is "thinking person's." You need the apostrophe. Think about it!

Posted by: George "The Grammarian" Orwell | April 2, 2007 11:04 AM | Report abuse

George O: That "ad" will not change any thinking persons mind.

Posted by: lylepink | April 1, 2007 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Phil de Vellis is on Blog Talk Radio right now. Click

Posted by: Blog Talk Radio | April 1, 2007 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Reason, if you didn't think Hillary thought it was a big deal, then why do you suppose her campaign was very interested in finding out who did it? do you really think Huffpost would plunge into it without a little, ah, 'encouragement'? This was a powerful image, and one which will resonate with the voters who saw it.
Lylepink, in case you weren't paying attention, it was a clever piece of work which portrayed your sweetie as the disembodied voice of a totalitarian state... who was destroyed by an upstart individual, apparently supporting Barack Obama. I think it's a powerful image, and all the more effective for how close to home it has apparently struck the Clinton campaign. No, they are not fascists, but they are the establishment and they know it. I mean, she's already lived in the White House for 8 years... no way her candidacy is not about her ego / sense of entitlement. I think "Big Sister" is a great ad, and one that might change some minds.

Posted by: George Orwell | April 1, 2007 10:00 AM | Report abuse

This guy has freedom of speech just as any other American...or illegal immigrant in this country. He has the right to back Obama, and it shouldn't even be this big of a deal. Hillary didn't think it is.

Domenici and Wilson say they simply asked about the investigation as a result of questioning from their own constituents. Their constituents simply wanted to know what was going on, so they asked for them. There was no pressure on Iglesias, they simply inquired on behalf of their constituents. This really doesn't have legs.

Posted by: reason | April 1, 2007 8:48 AM | Report abuse

I have watched this video at least a dozen times and cannot see anything but a clever piece of work. Hillary is not helped or hurt any way that I can see.

Posted by: lylepink | April 1, 2007 8:16 AM | Report abuse

For those of you who think some sort of conspiracy is going on, quit being ridiculous. There are, as of last count, around 4 million Amercian engineers in this country, put out of work by outsourcing and guest workers. Hillary is a big fan of outsourcing and supports even more H1B and L series visa's to put even more American workers in the unemployment line. I, and virtually everyone I know, is busy working on an anti-Hillary ad of one sort or another.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 31, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

He's not a slick operative, but the Obama campaign folks who guided distribution of the video are. The naive answers he gives in the interview proves that the guy is misleading us.

Posted by: cfl | March 31, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Hello to The Fix audience.

It has been a long time since I wrote in here. If you are interested in sharing your opinions about Condi Rice running for president, today, Saturday March 31 is your time to sound off.

A New Hampshire radio show, "Meet the New Press" is linked to the website.

Crystal Dueker of called me the other day, quite irate at Mitt Romney for something he recently did... or didn't do. She'll tell us why. She'll talk about whether or not Secretary of State Rice should run for president. In fact, you can call in and answer our

Question of the day, which is: "Should Condi Rice run for president?"

Call in at 603-527-1490 and let us know what you think (even if you're not in the listening area, we'd love to hear from you.) Crystal will be on at 3:30 EST.

*This is straight from their website.
Thank you for your time and allowing free speech on this website.

Posted by: Crystal Dueker | March 31, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani said Friday his wife will not be a member of his Cabinet or attend most high-level meetings as he sought to clarify his previous statements suggesting she would play a significant role in his administration.

Giuliani, in interview comments released Thursday, had said he'd be open to his wife attending Cabinet meetings on issues in which she's interested. "If she wanted to. If they were relevant to something that she was interested in. I mean that would be something that I'd be very, very comfortable with," Giuliani told Barbara Walters on ABC News' "20/20."

Late Friday, the Giuliani campaign issued a statement in which the former New York City mayor suggested that would not be the case.

"Obviously, she will not be a Cabinet member or attend most Cabinet meetings _ if any. But she will pursue a campaign to educate Americans on preventing illness and promoting overall health."

Posted by: spineless rudy flipflopper | March 31, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Federal prosecutors have told Bernard B. Kerik, whose nomination as homeland security secretary in 2004 ended in scandal, that he is likely to be charged with several felonies, including tax evasion and conspiracy to commit wiretapping.

Posted by: rudy's biz partner | March 31, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Here's your joke of a 'war on terror' Remember how this guy is so dnagerous? Well, they'r lettin him go...

David Hicks will be out of jail on New Year's Eve after an extraordinarily lenient plea bargain agreement meant that whatever sentence he got, he would only serve nine months of it in jail.

The Military Commission panel - made up of serving US officers - gave him the maximum possible sentence of seven years. Even that was a reduction on the statutory maximum of life imprisonment.

But the pre-trial agreement meant that six years and three months will be suspended. This means that he will be released on the last day of the year, and as long as he doesn't violate the terms of his agreement, he will stay out of jail.

The pre-trial agreement appears to have been designed with the Australian political calendar in mind.

As well as keeping Hicks in jail until after the election, due by the end of this year, Hicks also had to agree to not talk to the media for one year.

And if he talks to the media after that date, any proceeds he might collect will be forfeited to the Australian Government.

Under the plea agreement, he will return to Australia within two months, and is expected to serve out his term in a South Australian jail.

While the agreement might be politically convenient for the Howard Government, it will create problems for the Bush Administration. It appears to be a large thank you to the Howard Government for their support on the 'war on terror.'

Posted by: here's your 'dangerous terrorist? | March 31, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Iraqi Police Execute Dozens in Retaliation
The day after two truck bombs went off in the Iraqi city of Tall Afar, Shiite gunmen and police killed as many as 60 people in what appeared to be a retaliatory attack. Tall Afar was cited by President Bush as a success a year ago that the "example of Tall Afar gives me confidence in our strategy." ... Iraqi police are alleged to have been affiliated with death squads in the past. How can we possibly have victory with this type of retaliation and behavior going on?

Posted by: cakewalk | March 31, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Drudge and the Politico -- poisonously joined at the hip
The new online mainstream media venture, the Politico, has proven itself to be as dependent upon Matt Drudge as it is inaccurate and unreliable

Posted by: politico is the gutter | March 31, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

David Brooks' column in The New York Times this morning contains several important observations. It would maximize clarity in our political discussions if journalists could just ingest Brooks' central point: the dominant right-wing political movement in this country that has spawned and driven the Bush presidency has nothing to do with -- it is in fact overtly hostile to -- the ostensible principles of Goldwater/Reagan small-government conservatism. Though today's so-called "conservatives" exploit the Goldwater/Reagan mythology as a political prop, they don't believe in those principles in any way. That movement is the very antithesis of those principles.
Brooks comes out and explicitly declares the twin icons of "conservatism" to be every bit as quaint and obsolete as the Geneva Conventions: "Goldwater and Reagan were important leaders, but they're not models for the future."
Brooks admits what has been crystal clear for some time -- namely, that so-called "conservatives" (meaning the contemporary political "Right") no longer believe (if they ever did) that government power should be restrained in order to maximize freedom. That belief system, says Brooks, is an obsolete relic which arose out of the the 1970s, and has been replaced by the opposite desire -- for expanded government power on every front.
Deceitfully purporting to speak on behalf of what he calls "normal, nonideological people" (the dishonest tactic he constantly uses), Brooks says:
In short, in the 1970s, normal, nonideological people were right to think that their future prospects might be dimmed by a stultifying state. People were right to believe that government was undermining personal responsibility. People were right to have what Tyler Cowen, in a brilliant essay in Cato Unbound, calls the "liberty vs. power" paradigm burned into their minds -- the idea that big government means less personal liberty.
But today, many of those old problems have receded or been addressed. Today the big threats to people's future prospects come from complex, decentralized phenomena: Islamic extremism, failed states, global competition, global warming, nuclear proliferation, a skills-based economy, economic and social segmentation. . . .
Normal, nonideological people are less concerned about the threat to their freedom from an overweening state than from the threats posed by these amorphous yet pervasive phenomena. The "liberty vs. power" paradigm is less germane. It's been replaced in the public consciousness with a "security leads to freedom" paradigm. . .
The "security leads to freedom" paradigm doesn't end debate between left and right, it just engages on different ground. It is oriented less toward negative liberty (How can I get the government off my back?) and more toward positive liberty (Can I choose how to lead my life?).

That is exactly what the right-wing movement in this country is now -- an authoritarian movement animated by the Orwellian slogan that "security leads to freedom" which embraces and seeks ever-expanding government power based on the claimed need to protect people from all the scary, lurking dangers in the world -- dangers which are constantly stoked and inflammed in order to maximize the craving for "security," derived by vesting more and more power in the hands of our strong, protective Leaders.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 31, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A billion-dollar-a-year federal reading program that ran into scathing criticism over conflicts of interest now has a new one: The government contractor that set up the program for the Education Department is also part of the team hired to evaluate it.

Reading First -- part of President Bush's signature No Child Left Behind education law -- has been under scrutiny following a string of federal reports that found it rife with conflicts of interest and mismanagement. The program provides intense reading help to low-income children in the early elementary grades.

RMC Research Corp. was the contractor hired to establish and implement the program starting in 2002, under three contracts worth about $40 million.

Recently, the Department of Education inspector general reported that RMC failed to keep the program free of conflicts of interest. For example, RMC did not screen subcontractors for relationships with publishers of reading programs.

Now, Reading First is in the midst of a five-year evaluation under a 2003 contract with a team that includes RMC, which is based in Portsmouth, N.H.

Congress required the review, spelling out that it must be an "independent evaluation."

That didn't mean for the contractor that set up the program to have any role in reviewing it, said Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, who chairs the education committee.

"It's a classic case of the fox guarding the chicken coop," Kennedy said Friday.

Posted by: RMC=Neil Bush | March 31, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

Who did order the coup d'etat in Guatemala in 1954?

Who did order the coup d'etat in Chile in 1973?

Who did order the coup d'etat in Brazil in 1964?

Who is preaparing a coup d'etat in Iran?

Just spreading democracy babe!!!!

Posted by: che | March 31, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Meuphys, Thanks, but I still don't find it. Maybe it was edited out for the interview?

Posted by: Truth Hunter | March 31, 2007 9:34 AM | Report abuse

truth hunter, the ad ends with the words "" on the screen

Posted by: meuphys | March 31, 2007 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Wanted: for Electoral Tampering Tim Kalemkarian, for Aggravated Assault Tim Kalemkarian, for Racketeering Tim Kalemkarian: may be armed and dangerous.

Posted by: Officer Friendly | March 31, 2007 3:06 AM | Report abuse

Most Likely to Succeed Tim Kalemkarian, Best Hair Tim Kalekarian, Most School Spirit Tim Kalemkarian: what this school is all about.

Posted by: Tim Kalemkarian | March 31, 2007 3:03 AM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalekarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | March 31, 2007 1:46 AM | Report abuse

ack, i was going to saying something but i forgot. my mind went totally blank after seeing him wearing a t-shirt during the commercial, i mean interview. im so excited i cant watch the commercial, i mean interview. *** an unselfish geek creating a very cool video and then wearing a t-shirt with a commercial logo during the commercial, i mean interview. something is not adding up. did he create the video without prompting OR did someone pay him? if i was a betting man, i know where id put my money.

Posted by: egalitaire | March 30, 2007 9:24 PM | Report abuse

ack, i was going to saying something but i forgot. my mind went blank after seeing him wearing a t-shirt commercial during commercial(interview). i will not watch the video clip now. i cant believe a geek with so much potential sold out. an unselfish geek selling who did created the video for free. does not add up, and i dont think he did it on his own -- someone paid him, otherwise he wouldnt wear a commercial during the commercial (interview). ill bet money on it! *** someone paid him, mark my word.

Posted by: egalitaire | March 30, 2007 9:10 PM | Report abuse

CC: "It sounds as if he wanted to promote Apple more than Obama."

Did de Vellis mention Obama? All I heard him say was that the ad spoke for itself. I think Chris was reading more into it...?

When asked why he made the video, de Vellis said that he wanted to draw attention to the primary races. Later on he mentioned that he lost his job supposedly because of making the video.

I don't see the Obama connect, or am I missing something.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | March 30, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Tarheel - That was me above. N.E.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | March 30, 2007 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Tarheel - It wasn't that Iglesias wasn't pursuing this investigation, it was that Wilson and Domenici simply inquired (wink, wink) as to whether or not indictments would be handed down before Election Day (the specificity of Election Day is the smoking gun).

For decades the Department of Justice has had a policy where all Congressional contacts are supposed to be channeled through its Office of Legislative Affairs. That is to prevent improper contact from Members of Congress and their staffs on specific cases, to prevent them from going on "fishing expeditions" for information, and for a couple of other reasons.

Wilson and Domenici are not rookies by any means. They know what a personal call from them, not their staff mind you them, means. Their defense will be that it was only an innocent inquiry. Wilson's already laid the groundwork for that.

But make no mistake about what the intended purpose was. Which is why Domenici called Iglesias at home, not at the office. And why Domenici hung up on Iglesias, as soon as Iglesias said something which indicated that the call was improper.

The reality is that Wilson and Domenici tried to influence a Criminal investigation for political purposes. The punishment will be political, the slap on the wrist by the Ethics committees.

Domenici probably would be re-elected, but the talk has been for at least a couple of years that this would be his last term anyway.

Stay tuned!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2007 6:28 PM | Report abuse

(CNN) -- The recent wave of defaults in the subprime mortgage sector that sent shocks through Wall Street has caught the attention of Congress.

More than 2 million people with subprime loans are facing foreclosure this year and nearly 20 percent of subprime mortgages issued between 2005 and 2006 are projected to fail, according to a December 2006 study by the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonpartisan research and policy organization.

'Foreclosures in the subprime mortgage market are expected to cost American households as much as $164 billion in lost equity from 1998 through 2006, the center reported.

Meanwhile, at least four subprime lenders have filed for bankruptcy since late December and many others closed last year.

Observers of the credit industry place the blame on predatory lenders.'

Posted by: 'market' forces at work.. | March 30, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, good point, that does put it in a different perspective. But wouldn't you agree that with the indictments and guilty pleas to felonies I think the voters will give Domenici and Wilson a pass? I think 90% of voters are not going to fault a legislator who inquires about a someone who ends up convicted of a felony and stealing $4 million in taxpayers money. It won't matter that they may have been trying to get some dirt on the airwaves. The convictions and ongoing trial are now the story in the state of New Mexico, not Domenici and Wilsons inquiries.

It like the surveys that show 81% of Americans are not following the US attorney flap. The Beltway cares about these things, but not many others outside of DCland.

Posted by: tarheel | March 30, 2007 6:14 PM | Report abuse

the point you're missing is that Domenici & Wilson were allegedly pressuring Iglesias about the timing - they (allegedly) wanted indictments in time to help Repubs in the 2006 election. Iglesias did not comply with that request, but did continue to pursue the investigation, resulting in the indictments you now reference.

Posted by: bsimon | March 30, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Why create the news with YouTuble videos? Just go out and find valid news articles like this one.

Jury indicts Aragon in alleged kickback scam, by Steve Terrell, The New Mexican (, March 30, 2007.

A former Democratic Senate leader and three others face charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, and money laundering in a courthouse corruption probe. Manny Aragon for decades was one of the most powerful figures in New Mexico state government. Today the Albuquerque Democrat stands accused, along with three others, in an alleged scheme to cheat the state out of more than $4 million in the construction of the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court House.

The U.S. attorney also unsealed plea agreements, secured earlier this year, from three others: lobbyist and former Democratic Albuquerque Mayor Ken Schultz, architect Marc Schiff and subcontractor Manuel Guara. Each pleaded guilty to felony counts of conspiracy and mail fraud.

Interesting. This was the case fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was not pursuing. Maybe Iglesias wasn't doing his job? Notice that several of the Democrats have already pleaded guilty. So, in the New Mexico voters minds Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici were concerned with the prosecution of some actual crooks, not just fishing for dirt.

By the way, SurveyUSA just released a poll showing Domenici is one of the Top 10 most popular U.S. senators. The Iglesias thing has zero traction, at least for him.

Posted by: tarheel | March 30, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

'THEIR NEW DADDY: Last night, Chris Matthews assembled two trustworthy East Coast Irish Catholics--to sing the praises of Tennessean Fred Thompson! After all, when you need a new message to come out just right, you rely on those you trust--on the clan! And last night, a new message went out loud and clear: If he gets his *ss in the race, Fred Thompson will be their new daddy:

MATTHEWS (3/29/07): Let's talk about gritty New Hampshire. I love New Hampshire. I always brought my kids up there when they were young. It is a state that looks for toughness. [Addressing Pat Buchanan] You won up there. It looks for grit. It looks for the outsider a bit. It's great American state. It's really live for your guy.

MARGARET CARLSON: The Granite State looks for granite.

MATTHEWS: They are looking for a tough guy who's got a little five o'clock shadow, like you. They're looking for a guy like you, Pat.

Here is Fred Thompson going in there. John McCain certainly deserves to be president, based on his contribution to this country over the years, but he ran once. How many chances do you get? And in comes Fred Thompson, looking like the Daddy party, if there ever was a guy that looked like the Daddy party, the Republican. Can he win this thing?"

Good lord! McCain was out--and Thompson was in! And you knew this was the real Real Deal! After all, Chris hasn't talked up five o'clock shadows since he clowned about Bradley that way, eight years back. But now he threw to Margaret Carlson. "Who's your daddy?" Chris had asked. And Margaret knew the words to this song:

CARLSON (continuing directly): He does look like the dad. He has everything that Pat says. He's handsome, he's charming, he sounds like a president, he looks like a president. But Pat says he might not have the fire in the belly. That could help him, not having the hunger. Not being "willing to do anything" could help him.

It could help him. And, you know, he's smart. He's articulate. He knows his lines. He can hit his mark.'

Good God! Thompson was handsome, smart, charming, articulate. He can hit his mark--and he looks like a president! And he isn't willing to say and do anything! And by the way, darlings, Margaret should know! Who can forget how delicious it was when Lloyd Grove tattle-taled, long ago, in the Post's "Reliable Sources:"

GROVE (4/28/00): There was major heartburn yesterday in the office of Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) over the New York Post's report of a "catfight" between CNN host and Time magazine columnist Margaret Carlson and former Republican staffer Jeri Kehn, who the tabloid claims are rivals for the senator's affections. Kehn, whom the Post describes as a "33-year-old bombshell," told the "Page Six" column that she and she alone is the 57-year-old Thompson's "girlfriend," and that Carlson, 54, and any other alleged competitors should just back off.

"She just won't get the hint that he has a girlfriend," Kehn told the newspaper. "She calls his apartment all the time. I mean, what is the deal with these women? Don't they have any pride? It's the joke all over Washington that Margaret has this huge crush on him. And Fred is clearly not interested."

Darlings, it was simply delish! For the record, we checked the original item in the New York Post--and gagged a bit when we saw this:

JOHNSON (4/27/00): [O]ne top-level Washington scribe says it's Kehn who has the wrong idea: "Fred dates a lot of people," says our source. "I've talked to Fred about this woman, and he doesn't know what to do, because if you're a senator, you can't go around bad-mouthing people."

As for Carlson, the insider says, "She's dating someone now. She was with him [the new guy] at her dinner party for John McCain earlier this month, and she's quite happy. Fred was there too, but he was alone ... Margaret and Fred dated for a little bit, but it fell into a 'buddy' thing."

Carlson's dinner party? For Saint John McCain? In fairness, McCain had just dropped out of the 2000 race. But lord knows, the second he did, Margaret threw a gay dinner party, honoring the sanctified solon--the one she threw overboard last night! But that's the way this criminal class conducts the charade we still call "journalism." Of course, we saw more of their ludicrous morés as last night's gush-fest continued.

--does the sight of these blathering winger pundits groveling at the feet of politicians make you as sick as it makes me?

Posted by: DC journamalsim | March 30, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Much ado over nothing. Of course everybody hopes it will go viral -- but only a small percentage do. And of course he's geeky -- that's why he chose that ad to parody. It's also a homage -- becuase you cannot imagine how much we mac and orwell lovers adored that ad.

Posted by: drindl | March 30, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

What ad hominem attack was used in the ad?

I don't understand the ongoing hubbub (fracas? kerfuffle?) over this ad. There have been significantly nastier ads in every recent campaign cycle. I'm sure we could name half a dozen anti-Kerry ads that were meaner. What's so special about this one?

Posted by: Blarg | March 30, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I agree Chris. When de Vellis says "it doesn't hurt to be funny or provacative," to help a video go viral, it sounds like political lies (Animal Farm) for using "ad hominem" personal attacks like he did in the Hillary video (which was not shown in the interview excerpt.) Much online political discourse seems to have this element today.
Also, I think the "geekological" slant in the interview is revisionist. de Vellis seems to be trying to separate himself from politics and turn himself into an apolitical geek, be accepted by that community, to develop a second career. But instead of separating himself, I think he's brought the evasions of political speak into this interview.

Posted by: john | March 30, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

But you GUYS, I thought we were talking about HILLARY! I know I was...

Posted by: lylepink | March 30, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

For once, I have to hand it to Hillary, because her comment about this video right after it blew up was actually appropriate. She said something like "glad it's getting people discussing politics who might not have otherwise."

Unlike some others, for example some Washington Post campaign gossip trackers, Hillary didn't use the video for an excuse to complain about the Obama "campaign" (as if the video creator were on the campaign).

Posted by: Golgi | March 30, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! Zouk hungry! Bring Libs! Zouk must feed!

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 30, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I have suddenly decided to have gender re-assignment surgery. In other news, Tina and I will become same-sex partners, and together give our full support to the seemingly asexual Condi Rice as president. You can read more at

Posted by: Bizarro William | March 30, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

... and Obama and Rudy are in a dead-heat, but Obama's "best friend" is blasting his campaign on

Posted by: William | March 30, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company