Couldn't disagree with Lowell more .... this ad was brilliant on many levels. It captures the problem with Hillary (dronning on about some policy wonkery) ... the corporate force within the Democratic Party telling the crowd how to think.

In juxposition .... a woman no less (any women voters out there??) comes out and smashes the conventional wisdom with an Obama hammer throw ... Just freakin brilliant.

By the way, the conventional wisdom out on the street is this: If Hillary gets the nomination the Democrats will loose (again). Don't believe me ... then just ask your co-workers. She is polarizing and represents a past people don't want to go back to. While the Democrats will get behind their candidate, regardless of whom he or she is ......  independents will look elsewhere ... they'll be looking for something different (ala Webb for Senate).

Right now that looks like Obama .... and I think David Geffen's assessment was dead on.

The piece was a major score for the netroots!!  Right On!

Uh, I don't think so.  This guy was a paid employee of Blue State Digital, which provided technological support to the Obama campaign.  How's that "netroots" exactly?  Also, how is it a "score" - did it damage or knock off a Republican candidate?  No. Did it promote the video creator's own favored candidate, Barack Obama?  No, if anything it was an embarrassment and distraction to Barack Obama.  Did it elevate the debate?  No, although it was "clever" in a post-modern, cynical kind of way.

Finally, I really wish that people would stop repeating right-wing talking points about how this or that Democratic candidate "can't win."  How about just making the case FOR your candidate, and stop tearing down the other ones?  The right-wing attack machine is good enough at doing that...

These things are based on a little truth. It would be wise to confront the things addressed in these Right-wing talking points rather than running and hiding from them.  Because sometimes, not often, but sometimes, the "right-wing talking point" is correct.

...or at most have a grain of truth, twisted totally beyond recognition.  But regardless, there's no sense spreading them around, IMHO.  Much better to fight back, or to deal with the issues if they really exist.

Best way to fight back is to understand what the attack is.  They say Hillary is unelectable.  Why do they say that?  Well, because 45% of the country won't vote for her regardless.  They make a good point, it turns out.  And they've done a great job of convincing Republicans and Independents that she is the anti-Christ.  We can't fight back without confronting this.

Fact #1:  Hillary Clinton won in 2006 with 82% of the vote in New York City, but also 57% of the vote in conservative, "red," rural upstate New York.

Fact #2:  In a February 2007 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, the percentage of voters saying they would "Under no conditions" vote for the particular candidate was:

*Newt Gingrich 64%
*John Edwards 45%
*Hillary Clinton 44%
*John McCain 40%
*Rudy Giuliani 36%
*Barack Obama 34%

So yeah, Hillary's "under no conditions" percentage was fairly high, but much lower than Gingrich, about the same as Edwards, and only 4 points higher than McCain.  Not exactly a compelling argument that Hillary is uniquely unelectable.

It's Fox news who's been building up Hillary for the last 8 years.
Heck, the fox news owner even gave Hillary a bunch of money.

Hillary disqualified herself by taking the "cattle futures" money (bribe) and serving for Walmart.  This is the lady that cashed in on the destruction of the family farm and the mom and pop retail outfit.  And now she's immune from criticism?

The video is apropos.

would be the most conservative Dem in the field, right?  Wouldn't that be sort of like a "Donkey with a Trunk?" :)  So why aren't you supporting Hillary Clinton, Dannyboy, since she's (supposedly) the most conservative Dem. in the field? 

Plus, I'm a social moderate-conservative, and you know damn well that they'll never run a social moderate-conservative as a Democrat for President.  But economically, I'm right there with Jim Webb.  Hillary Clinton clearly isn't.  We need somebody in the White House will reorient our economic structure towards those in the Middle Class.

The term I like is "Populist Blue Dog."  Socially, I have to say that I disagree with most candidates running.  Economically, Edwards is by far my favorite (even if he is a wee bit idealisic for my tastes).

If John Edwards would come out in support of Second Amendment rights, I'd support him today and get to work campaigning for him. But because of Edward's more moderate-liberal social views, I'm split between either Richardson (who is slightly more moderate socially) and Edwards (who is economically the right man for the job). 

I could seriously get behind an Edwards-Richardson ticket.

and I certainly never said that.  I just believe that Dems should focus their efforts on Republicans, not fellow Dems, as much as possible.  Of course, that's easy for me to say since I'm neutral in the Presidential race right now.  As Dannyboy said the other day, when you get excited about a candidate, it's easy to get into attack mode.  I'm not there with regard to 2008.

I was wrong on this one. I thought that the ad smelled like a typical Republican dirty trick intended to promote tension between the Obama and Clinton camps.

Clever as the ad was at promoting its anti-establishment message, I didn't think that any sentient Obama supporter would do something so sneaky yet strategically thoughtless. Even though Obama's staff was probably as clueless as everyone else about the origins of the ad until the revelation at HuffingtonPost.com last night, the episode is nonetheless an embarrassment. At least Hillary showed deftness in responding to the ad with humor--much better than her camp's shrill response to the Geffen dustup.

But although I'm saddened by this instance of Democrats eating their own, I don't think it should be off-limits for Democrats to debate the issue of electability.

Hillary, for all of her financial and organizational advantages, has built up--fairly or unfairly--a negative image with as many as 45 percent of the voters. To win the general election she would have to pick up 91 percent of the remaining 55 percent. Maybe she could do it, but weighed down by such a downside anchor, I'm not sure she could manage it even with a perfectly run campaign.

From the standpoint of basic election math, it just looks to me as though any of the other major candidates--Edwards, Obama, or Richardson--would have a higher upside and a better chance than Hillary in 2008.

I am personally leaning toward Obama at this stage, but I could easily see working for and contributing to Edwards or Richardson if either one were to become the nominee. Sure, if Hillary becomes the Democratic candidate, most progressives would swallow hard and vote for her rather than for any likely Republican candidate. But wouldn't it be better to have a Democratic candidate for whom the real party activists, i.e., the grassroots progressives, could enthusiastically work--a candidate with a genuinely progressive agenda, domestic and foreign?

Hillary Clinton isn't who we need right now, and the momentum is against her.  Every poll has Obama gaining every day.  And if Edwards is forced to drop out, as some believe he will, those supporters will go mostly to Obama, some to Richardson perhaps.  Obama has Bobby Kennedy like momentum and charisma, and right now I think he'll be the nominee. 

But this is a classy move by Hillary Clinton, I think you guys would have to admit:

And no, I'm actually not even LEANING towards one of the currently announced candidates in the field.  Now, if Wes Clark or Al Gore got into the race, well that might just be a very different story... :)

Maybe we should have a weekend conference about our conformist, sick culture.  Part of me wants to write a long email about this, but part of me wants to do work that I need to do.

My main complaint with the ad is that it says barackobama.com at the end.  I think that was incredibly stupid.  I will also say that watching it once was enough.  I did not like it that much the second time.

She is an excellent Senator for the state of New York, but I do not support Hillary Clinton for President.  I want an authentic candidate who does not feel the need  to disingenuously defend previous actions.

The next 10 months will be a test for the candidates.  The leading candidates will get their chance in the spotlight to prove themselves.  I look forward to seeing Senator Obama or Governor Richardson prove themselves as the deserving nominee of the Democratic Party.  If someone else surprises me I could change my mind about other candidates.

One other possible complication:  People should examine Al Gore's testimony before the Congress carefully.  It seems to me that he is calling for a radical overhaul of our economy.  The things he says we need to do will take a lot of political will.  I wonder, does he have any obligation to consider running for President?

I think Lowell has it all wrong concerning the "Vote Different" video.

But, first, we must acknowledge this video for its technical and substantive brilliance. There very few like it in history. It was created by an individual citizen, and it has had a huge and significant impact in American politics. Can we cite any other instance where an individual citizen advocate has made a comparable impact; indeed, he did not have to spend a large amount of money to make his political point.

Phil de Villis's video was not unfair. It's salient point was that Hillary Clinton represents inside Washington DC interests instead of the American people. Washington DC is where Big Brother lives, and practices his evil ways. Her Royal Highness is deeply connected with Big Brother. She does not represent the interests of the people, as is evident by her pro-Iraq war position during a time when a huge majority of Americans oppose the war.

So, because the Vote Different video is fair political commentary, it should not be considered an attack ad; indeed, it was not even a "personal" attack ad.

As for the canard that Vote Different is ammunition for the right wing nuts or for a potential Republican candidate, it misses the point of the video entirely. I don't know any Republican who may get away with attacking Hillary Clinton because she represents big shots in Washington when they, too, would be in the same boat with their own connections with inside Washington fat cats.

Phil de Villis has shown how individual citizens can again have their voices heard without having to be a millionaire, thanks to wonderful tools like personal computers and the internet. If you are compelled to criticize de Villis for what he did, you must also criticize bloggers who also feel empowered by computers and the internet.

...with access to video and audio equipment, digital cameras, the internet, etc., has tremendous power to get their views out there.  This 1984 ad epitomized that, and I'm not really arguing that point.  My main issues are:

1) I think that it's better for Democrats to go after Republicans than fellow Democrats; and
2) To a lesser extent, that de Villis was employed by Blue State Digital - which does consulting work for the Obama campaign, among others - when he made the video.  That muddies the waters at least a little bit on the "power of the netroots" argument here...

"1) I think that it's better for Democrats to go after Republicans than fellow Democrats"

How many new ones did we rip Harris during the primary?  I do remember you promoting quite a few of my very harsh posts to the front page.  I'll admit you have a point on the second one, but this is primary time.  You know first hand how brutal supporters have to be sometimes to win.

...and he went hard after Webb.  Primaries are rough and tumble, and I'm not saying they're going to be pure as the driven snow.  But what purpose did this video serve, exactly?  To amplify the argument that Hillary is too establishment, too controlled?  OK, I think we all got the point.  Now what?

Quite the insightful analysis .... backing up my gut feeling / impulse much better than I could have described.

And I guess there's a lot of gut feeling to politics. As my friend Dan G has observed ... Obama is creating excitement everywhere he goes. There's a reason for that. He comes off as authentic, intelligent and audaciously hopeful.  Few in politics can match his oratory skills which serve him so well in this Pod-casting world.

You-Tube, RK, iPods and netroots democracy .... all for the good .... and POWER to the PEOPLE, Right On!

Thanks Tony.

You will note that I did not identify myself as an Obama supporter or a Hillary opponent. My comment was primarily to point out the merits of the Vote Different video for its uniqueness and for political impact, exactly the kind of speech that the First Amendment was designed to protect.