Mother Jones - Comments for ""Hillary 1984" is like Bob Corker's Ad against Harold Ford, Jr."

Sad but true, RealityBytes, most votes are won and lost on imagery. We're irrational creatures who operate on auto-pilot most of the time. So we try to discern the reality: these images have nothing to do with Hillary's politics. In real life she does not run a fascist state and does not have America under her spell. She has not made sheep out of any men, certainly not her husband. The imagery is an ad hominem attack.

Most attack ads are dirty and the most effective ones are subliminal--that's no news. So no surprise that Obama's campaign ran as away as possible from this one. But by exposing the subliminal, we can talk and vote more rationally. Otherwise we're just like kids sitting in front of the TV, begging our parents for whatever we see on commercials because we don't know how they work. 1984 was an ad, not art.

Golly gee whiz! Does that mean that any lambasting of Smokin' Joe LoveTheWarMan is anti semitic because Smokin' Joe is a Jew?

Only someone who didn't see the Apple ad when it first aired could possibly think this is a sexist ad. In 1984 when the Apple ad originally aired, the young woman with the hammer (and the fashionable outfit and hair, btw, for the period) was seen as empowering...a voice of a new generation, a refusal to bow down to the grey world of IBM and its analogs.

For that message to now be seen as "titillating and sexist" says considerably more about the entrenched positions of the viewer than of the ad itself. The runner isn't "chesty", she's average sized. She isn't dressed in "hooter's gear", she's wearing the running shorts that were common in that period. Are women supposed to wear burkas so you don't think we're being titillating? What sort of backhanded slap at feminism is that?

I tell you sister girl, as a woman who marched for the rights so many of you now enjoy, and who remembers when women didn't even have the right to own property, or bank accounts, or credit cards in their own names in many states, I believe your generation may have missed the real message of feminism, and has bought into some fairly serious right wing gender bias, if you think a woman in running gear is sexualized...and that the subtext of the ad is that "women shouldn't be in power".

As to the ad itself...it has none of the power of the real apple ad. It has none of the shock value, it has none of the skin tingling "fight the power" pseudo-revolutionary, anti-establishment message...it's just a trite mashup that deserved none of the attention it got.

If campaigns are won and lost on imagery. Sigh...

O'Reilly has more open-mouthed fools paying attention to him than Hillary, whether he's running for office or not.

I don't find the ad to be sexist. But I do find it to be misleading, deceptive and dishonest. That alone is reason enough not to like it. Honestly, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to think after watching this ad. But it takes 1984-ish world image and links it to a giant, distorted face of Hillary Clinton, which I hardly consider to be a substantive attack on her politics.

And also, I don't really find it all that impressive that some yahoo with a computer put Hilary's face in an otherwise barely altered clip. For a follow-up, perhaps the clever creator can show a clip of litter being thrown from a car, and then an image of Al Gore with a tear running down his cheek. Or Obama picking a flower as a nuke goes off.

I wish I had the insight, perception and focus of purpose to be able to read much more than what the ad appears to be attempting to comunicate. My suspicion is that if the front-runner were a man with the same positions and personality as Hillary, the ad would still have been placed with the other front runner on the screen mouthing inanities.

But, keep it up, April - movement is not made without the envelope being ripped. But if you want to convince people on the edge about your position, make it real. There are boogiefolks out there - I don't think this is one of them.

>The ad would not shock us if there were women in the audience. So how terrifying is this scene of men at work without families or homes?

Do note that there ARE women in the audience. One notably feminine head and face sits at the end of a row of drones. You have to look closely since everyone is bald, but at least one of those drones is female.

Regarding whether it is likely that people have seen the original ad... it's pretty well known among the YouTube generation. It's a VERY famous (as in "top ten ads ever") ad. I wouldn't be so sure that few people are familiar with it.

Is it sexist? Actually, I don't care. What bothers me is that it's image oriented not issues oriented. It's like saying Kerry looked like Herman Munster. What does that have to do with ANYTHING? It doesn't. It lowers the discourse to a popularity concert. Who's prettier? who's more "mannerly?" Pfaugh! Makes me want to spit.

What disturbs me most is that Hillary 1984 came out of an employee of a firm that is in the pay of Barack Obama. Sure, he lost his job... but so did Sampson (sp? the Gonzoles chief of staff) and Scooter Libby. It just reeks of swiftboating.

Hillary 1984 was dirty pool. I don't like it. I don't like it one single bit. I don't care for Hillary, and probably won't vote for her in the primary, but I still don't like this at all. Say she lacks leadership. Say she panders. Say she wouldn't be a good president... but don't harp on her image. As we have all found out too sorely with GWB, a good IMAGE does not make a good PRESIDENT.

I have been supporting Obama... to the point of attending the first meeting of my local area's Obama for President organizing committee. But this has made me seriously rethink that. If that is how people supporting Obama think then I don't want any part of him. I'm thinking maybe I need to call the Edwards campaign.

dej

Hillary Clinton has never apologized for her political pandering support of the atrocious fiasco in Iraq. She has less than zero credibility. If I were female, I would be appalled that someone so devoid of personal scruples would be viewed as "breaking ground" for my gender. Talk about setting equal rights back 50 years! Hillary even makes Condolezza Rice look like God's gift to women's liberation. At least Condolezza doesn't pretend to have been "fooled" by the foolish idiots running the White house.

I might be mistaken, adam, but I think they did identify the culpret as a male. I have tons of opinions about stuff that doesn't really offend me personally; in fact I am pretty ambivolent about things like this - the things that didn't happen to me personally in the course of my day. I rarely emotionalize these things, but I still have an intelectual reaction if I think that someone is cashing in on a stereotype rather than expending the 'conversation'. Have you noticed [its in the Hillary blips, too] how much pundants, media personalities and others are using the word 'conversation' these days? It's like all the think tanks on manipulation and marketing universally decided that this term, suggestive of an egalitatian relationship with the masses, a chatty, cup o' International Foods Cafe Vienna moment, should be used as much as possible. I digress, but where I was going is that I'm more mentally offended than emotionally.

Paul - I think you're giving the ad's creator too much credit. The reason I don't find it sexist is because I seriously doubt that some you tuber really had gender politics in mind. I think it seems clear that the ad is anti-establishment; isn't it kind of a good sign that Clinton is the establishment?

But offense is in the eye of the beholder - and I'm not trying to tell anyone what to think. If you're offended, it's offensive.

Which brings another point - why are we assuming that a male did this? Do we actually know that? Want to talk about sexism, let's all make assumptions that because it's on a computer on you tube that a male must have made this ad. I don't know who created it, but it's entirely possible that a female created it.

Of course the ad is sexist! Hillary Clinton as Big Sister? Who has turned men into pallid sheep? Who is destroyed by a sexy young woman in tiny shorts? This is a subliminal attack of the idea of a woman president -- it actually doesn't have much to do with Hillary Clinton, who is not a dictator, does not run a police state, has not hypnotized the nation, does not control the mass media etc.

You know what is the most frightening thought? That in 1984, that runner-like female would have symbolized a messy-haired, empowered woman - strong physically, agile and driven. She was sending her weapon then through the face of a foolish male dominator. Now the very same woman has new meaning, at least to some - the tiny runners shorts seem meant to titilate, the hair is no longer 'I don't doll up for men' but now seems more 'I just got f--ked'. I've sited Faludi's "Backlash" before - but if you read it, you'd see how the backlash against feminism has led us to the place where this very same representation of the feminine has such dramatically differant meanings from 84 to 07. And in my opinion it is easier to believe that the male mind that created this version had some understanding of this subtle message than it is to think that April is just some crazy, imaginative 'girl'.

that should be -oversexed- (not oversixed)

Two of my coworkers were discussing this ad yesterday - the person that saw it said that it was hilarious, and started to go into a rant about not voting for Hillary. He didn't give any concrete reasons why, just that she was loud and unmannered (?!) and then later started to talk about meeting Hillary's daughter, who was just "adorable" and that he would vote for Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump, if she ran for office. He stated that she is beautiful, well spoken, and elegant.

Another co-worker replied, who called into fact the fears of a woman being in the presidential seat, and the uncomfort of the unknown. He accepted that was the fact, and that is when he brought up the "beauty" and "manners" qualms.
The real kicker is that the 1984 co-worker is a young male, possibly early 30s or late 20s. He is from the West Indies. The co-worker that called him on his concerns is a late 40s African American woman, a very shrewd person who sees through a lot.

I didn't participate in this conversation - and for good cause. Often when I hear people discuss Hillary they put out a lot of ridiculous bluster. I do not yet know who I'm going to vote for, but her or his appearance will not make a difference in my vote.

This ad is definitely about comfort with women's "place" in men's psyches (and women's!) and in the world. The Hooter's girl represents the female dummy, a cold body there to represent whatever the viewer wants - someone to serve your food, someone to show their titties and ass, someone to be an oversixed barbie doll in dark tights, a live strip club girl in the workplace...that's what I think of the Hooter's girl, as having been in Hooters. But by going up in front of a crowd of "zombified" men who have been "stripped of their power" (WTF? - when did women = men's power?! Isn't it 2007?) and then shooting a javelin into her head and spreading light back to the crowd?
This is just about our comfort with women in power, and fears of what the unknown will bring.

Mother Jones - Comments for "&quot;Hillary 1984&quot; is like Bob Corker&#039;s Ad against Harold Ford, Jr."

Mother Jones - Comments for ""Hillary 1984" is like Bob Corker's Ad against Harold Ford, Jr."