Low Cost Media and Distribution || High Impact Message Delivery

July 11, 2007 2:40 PM

"Why should candidates, or issue groups, spend millions on traditional advertising when they can generate hundreds of thousands of hits from simply uploading a video? Take, for example, the Hillary Clinton campaign's use of a Soprano’s spoof to unveil a campaign theme song....she generated a stunning amount of favorable press and television coverage (not to mention millions of dollars worth of free advertising)."^* A well produced video distributed on the Web can have great impact. For example, in a dispute last year a United Steelworkers union video forced Goodyear back to the bargaining table. A new video produced by the International Association of Firefighters may have impact on Rudy Guiliani's campaign for President. "...[The video's] release on the Internet hints at a broadening effort to spread [the union's] dim assessment of the Mayor and has already drawn comparisons with the campaign by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry in 2004."^*
posted by ericb (52 comments total)

With very low-cost video production and free wide-market distribution available to anyone, it is interesting that most anyone can have the opportunity to influence opinions and events these days.

One wonders what other videos, such as 'Crush on Obama' [Risqué YouTube Song Takes Obama Campaign by Surprise], will potentially have impact on politics and public discourse in general -- not only here in the States, but worldwide (as seen by videos posted by Al-Qaeda, etc.).
posted by ericb at 2:49 PM on July 11, 2007

Guiliani should retaliate by firing more of McCain's campaign staff. Man, the Republicans look to be in trouble. It's starting to become amusing, though, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it - do the crackpots vote for the gay-loving, abortion-tolerating, firefighter-hater Mayor of NYC; the boring Stepford Mormon; or the old lobbyist-cum-actor with the trophy wife? Zombie Reagan has got to love his chances.
posted by billysumday at 2:50 PM on July 11, 2007

But all those videos only really get attention when they get mainstream media attention, and multiple blog links, no?

By themselves, they all just sit there--you still have to send press releases and/or call/email the networks and news channels.

And they cut both ways--the new Hillary lesbian song (which is already on CNN) can't be appreciated by them.
posted by amberglow at 2:53 PM on July 11, 2007

There is a huge difference between the Swiftboaters and These guys, at least so far. But the media seems to want to conflate any aggrieved group opposed to a politician with the Swiftboaters. The 'Boaters were explicitly partisan, and created for the sole purpose of destroying Kerry. The IAFF has been around for a long time, and has been holding this grudge for years. And so far the IAFF hasn't lied about Rudy, as far as I know. IAFF is very non-partisan for a Union, and the supported Joe Lieberman in the CT senate race.

By the way, does anyone actually think Guiliani will actually get the Republican nomination? It just seems so unlikely. He cross dresses in public, he's had two divorces and met his current wife while married to his last, he's unapologetically pro-choice, he's at least somewhat pro gay, he quit the 9/11 commission in order to make money giving lectures. It really does seem like he's coasting on his name, but unlike Hillary rather then mumble milquetoast sweet nothings he's rambling like a maniac and Hiring Norman Podhoretz as his foreign policy adviser.

How can he possibly win? Romney or Fried Thompson seem much more in line with normal republican "values"
posted by delmoi at 2:57 PM on July 11, 2007

Giuliani won't get it, but he might get Veep, which is horrifying too--think Cheney+.
posted by amberglow at 3:00 PM on July 11, 2007

This McCain ad is probably the most effective one I have ever seen.
posted by jefbla at 3:05 PM on July 11, 2007

How can he possibly win?

Because at the end of the day, Republicans worship power for its own sake. If Giuliani is their best shot at the presidency, a large number of the bible-thumpers will fall into line toute suite, with a negligible number staying home or voting for a protest wing-nutter like Tancredo or Brownback.

Seriously, just look at the latest example of Republican hypocrisy -- Senator Vitter likes to pay women so he can fuck them. He got elected as a "family values" candidate.

So yeah, if we lived in a world where the Republican party had a modicum of virtue, sure -- there's not way a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage guy like Giuliani could win the Republican nomination. But we don't, and Bush's collapse only makes them more desperate.
posted by bardic at 3:07 PM on July 11, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

And they cut both ways--the new Hillary lesbian song (which is already on CNN) can't be appreciated by them.

Risqué YouTube Song Takes Obama Campaign by Surprise

Exactly! It is harder these days for politicians, companies and individuals to "control the message." I, personally, find it fascinating that a well-produced, low-cost video or a compelling screed on a blog these days has the potential to impact society-at-large -- very much like the pamphleteers of America's colonial days.
posted by ericb at 3:08 PM on July 11, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Fred Thompson seem(s) much more in line with normal republican "values"...

They all have wives young enough to be their daughters?
posted by RMD at 3:20 PM on July 11, 2007

Exactly! It is harder these days for politicians, companies and individuals to "control the message."

But i think they're all still dependent on the mainstream media and their own scripts/biases--anything mocking a Dem gets on tv while those knocking the GOP rarely do. The Hillary lesbian one and the Obama sexy one already have gotten far more play than any mocking any of the GOP candidates (and that Edwards hair pretty thing too--by a mile). The weird Gravel video came and went in a second because the media didn't care about him enough.
posted by amberglow at 3:31 PM on July 11, 2007

Seriously, just look at the latest example of Republican hypocrisy

Support the troops!
posted by homunculus at 3:37 PM on July 11, 2007

RMD: They all support Scooter Libby in his hour of need (and want to have wives younger than their daughters).
posted by drezdn at 3:40 PM on July 11, 2007

Youtube of Thompson's latest video made for the National Right to Life Conference.

Prepare to be weirded out -- it looks like he's standing with his daughter and her two kids. He's not.
posted by bardic at 3:54 PM on July 11, 2007

Fred Thompson: Nixon White House Mole
posted by homunculus at 3:56 PM on July 11, 2007

Senator Vitter likes to fuck pay women so he can fuck has to pay them, because, he got elected as a "family values" candidate.

You are paying as much for discretion as you are the fucky fucky.

Oh, and yes, the Internet IS the foundation of the Information Age (which changed reality as we know it...that's why they are called "Ages").

--
A picture is worth a thousands word, a movie worth a million.
But with no eyes to see those verbs,
We'll all elect a villain.
--
posted by wah at 4:03 PM on July 11, 2007

Giuliani enlists Norman ‘bomb Iran’ Podhoretz.
posted by homunculus at 4:39 PM on July 11, 2007

I honestly don't understand why any Republican would want to win the White House this time around. Anyone having to deal with the mess Bush has made is doomed to failure and, with him/her, their party's chances for control of the White House will be shot for the foreseeable future.

About the only reason I can see for a Republican to be running right now is if they want to stay-the-course.

If I were a Republican, I'd sit this round out and run for the sure-thing in 2012.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:44 PM on July 11, 2007

it won't be a sure thing til 16, but whoever gets it is going to be hamstrung and hobbled because Bush bankrupted us, as usual for the GOP.
posted by amberglow at 4:51 PM on July 11, 2007

Interesting to note that Giuliani hired notable shitbag neocon Norman Podhoretz to lead his foreign policy team. Do we really need another 4 years of this authoritarian, benevolent hegemony shit. Even HRC is a better option than that.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 5:10 PM on July 11, 2007

ah shit, no preview.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 5:12 PM on July 11, 2007

Oh, and yes, the Internet IS the foundation of the Information Age (which changed reality as we know it...that's why they are called "Ages").

What's most fun is watching people who simply don't understand how fundamentally things have changed, twist in the wind. Yes, a viral video may still need traditional, corporate media coverage to really blow up--but the difference is that the message itself is coming from very different places. It won't be much longer now that 'we the people' are providing a large part of the content of corporate media; and thus (hopefully) influencing the conversation to an equal degree.
posted by LooseFilter at 5:18 PM on July 11, 2007

It won't be much longer now that 'we the people' are providing a large part of the content of corporate media

Not if the FTC and our elected mafia have their way
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 5:35 PM on July 11, 2007

ah shit, no preview.

Post or post not. There is no preview.
posted by homunculus at 7:18 PM on July 11, 2007

Not if the FTC and our elected mafia have their way

Too true--I wonder if things will change if balance of power shifts in 08.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:55 PM on July 11, 2007

Because.
posted by longsleeves at 8:41 PM on July 11, 2007

"I say to my Republican opponent: I know you are, but WHAT AM I?"
posted by longsleeves at 8:46 PM on July 11, 2007

I am actually interested in the politics topics in this post, but the only thing I care to comment on has nothing to do with that.

I wanted to watch the video at the first link, but upon realizing that it was a parody of the last scene of The Sopranos I shut it off, because I HAVEN'T SEEN THE LAST SEASON OF THE SOPRANOS YET. I love the show and have watched every season currently on DVD, but unfortunately I don't have HBO.

My ire isn't exactly directed at the Hillary video (or the author of this post) but at every last media outlet and asshole on the internet who talks freely about episodic television as if EVERYONE has seen it once it has aired. Well fuck you, I haven't seen it yet. I can't afford HBO right now, and besides that, I'm perfectly happy waiting until it comes out on DVD. In fact, I enjoy being able to watch at any pace I want.

I mean, what the fuck? Is everyone lazy or stupid or what? When movies are discussed, a big fat SPOILER ALERT is used in almost every case (where it matters). Why is television any different? As an example, I had the last season of Six Feet Under spoiled by a Fresh Air interview with Alan Ball where a key plot point was discussed in great length. Fuck you Terry Gross.

I'm being much more careful with The Sopranos, but it's not easy. All I want is to watch the last season without knowing the ending, just like apparently EVERYONE else on Earth has already done...sorry about the off-topic rant.
posted by ChestnutMonkey at 9:05 PM on July 11, 2007

ChestnutMonkey writes "I'm being much more careful with The Sopranos, but it's not easy. All I want is to watch the last season without knowing the ending, just like apparently EVERYONE else on Earth has already done..."

The Sopranos's penultimate scene shows Tony getting whacked by a young "soldier" the Lupertazzis bring in from England.

It ends with Paulie Walnuts arriving, moments too late to save Tony, and avenging Tony by whacking his killler, one Harry Potter.
posted by orthogonality at 10:52 PM on July 11, 2007

What's most fun is watching people who simply don't understand how fundamentally things have changed, twist in the wind. Yes, a viral video may still need traditional, corporate media coverage to really blow up--but the difference is that the message itself is coming from very different places. It won't be much longer now that 'we the people' are providing a large part of the content of corporate media; and thus (hopefully) influencing the conversation to an equal degree.

As long as they remain the gatekeepers and deciders of what gets propagation and what doesn't, and why, it doesn't make a difference where stuff comes from since they're using the same incredibly inane and unfair rules to pick and choose content.

And much of this stuff that gets the wide propagation that is called "viral" or "made by real people" now is not in fact that at all, but by campaigns and by professionals and by opposition researchers and nonprofits and 527s, etc. The Obama and Hillary songs, the 1984 thing, etc...
posted by amberglow at 10:47 AM on July 12, 2007

Also, consider the Macaca moment of Allen--was there really not one single press person there reporting on the VA Senator's appearance? How is that possible? Why was it not reported as news directly?
posted by amberglow at 10:49 AM on July 12, 2007

And as for the Firemen and Rudy: ... Tweety did his best to paint Schaitberger and the union as a left wing group, accusing him of going after Rudy simply because he’s a Republican.
Schaitberger schools Matthews on how Rudy failed to get adequate radios to the fire fighters before 9/11 and then halted the recovery effort, pulling fire fighters from the rubble of the World Trade Center just 24 hours after recovering millions of dollars worth of gold from a safe from the basement. Matthews still didn’t get it, even after Schaitberger told him to walk into any NYFD station and ask them how they feel about America’s Mayor…...
posted by amberglow at 11:13 AM on July 12, 2007

Also, consider the Macaca moment of Allen--was there really not one single press person there reporting on the VA Senator's appearance? How is that possible? Why was it not reported as news directly?

amberglow, I think your pessimism is entirely justified, and realistic. The Macaca moment, though, illustrates why I'm optimistic about where this all could likely go--obviously, that "little slip" of Allen's would have been conveniently overlooked by the corporate media--especially given his then-frontrunner presidential candidate status--but we did hear about it, and it did become a big deal, and it knocked an ignorant, stupid bigot out of contention.

It's happening a little bit at a time, but it's inexorably happening nevertheless.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:33 PM on July 12, 2007

But the guy that taped the Macaca moment was part of Webb's campaign, and had been following him around all season--he wasn't some random guy or "the public" either. The Webb campaign had to have spoonfed it to the media--the media didn't stumble across it, nor have they stumbled across any of these to my knowledge. You have to ask why this, where's it from, who fed it to them, what are we not seeing or hearing about and why...
posted by amberglow at 2:09 PM on July 12, 2007

And there are tons and tons of others like them--that little girl for president thing gets no airtime at all in big media, for just one out of thousands of examples from issue groups, nonprofits, campaigns, and other pros. And that's not even counting the hundreds of thousands of videos and flash things actually from real people who don't write press releases or have connections, etc--which never ever get the attention they deserve.
posted by amberglow at 2:12 PM on July 12, 2007

It's just that we only see or hear about a very small fraction of all online things, and the campaigns and orgs and pros etc themselves are continually sending releases to the media about this kind of thing, and only a vanishingly tiny fraction of their stuff gets on (and their stuff never has sound or lighting or other broadcast issues, etc). Individuals without connections or media and pr people, etc, have basically only an infinitesimal chance of breaking thru.

The big media is not really where change is occurring at all--they're still operating by the same narratives and laziness and standard procedures. The only difference is that instead of messengering videos of attack or issue ads, etc, or damagin oppo research, they're now directed by press release/pr email/blast fax to a website to see them and decide whether to run them or not.
posted by amberglow at 2:20 PM on July 12, 2007

The Macaca thing was actually an old trick: ...Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D), who during his campaign last year was dogged by young GOP operatives with video cameras -- usually called trackers -- chided Allen.

"It's insensitive," Kaine said. "Campaigns are tough. But George has been in campaigns. He knows there's trackers. It's just a fact of life. You should just do your thing and not single them out."

Big-time campaigns often assign trackers to shadow their opponents, hoping to catch the candidate making a gaffe or shifting the message to accommodate different audiences. Virginia Republicans have tracked Webb this year. Often, videos can end up in campaign commercials. ...
posted by amberglow at 2:25 PM on July 12, 2007

It's why we heard so much about that Hillary's changing southern accent thing a while ago too, i believe. People from other campaigns or the other party had taped it.
posted by amberglow at 2:26 PM on July 12, 2007

Well, my point on the Macaca thing is not that it was taped or first reported by some indy blogger, but rather that the story got legs and was first spread by the 'blogosphere'.

The big media is not really where change is occurring at all

Yes, but would you agree that more people are receiving a much more diverse array of perspectives, and sources of information, than even 5 years ago? If these independent voices aren't finding their way to our eyes and ears through big media, that's fine by me; my point is that the fundamental change is that such voices are being heard at all.

It sort of harks back to the days of pamphleteers in the later 18th century, in that anyone now can get his or her thoughts published cheaply, and though that creates quite a bit more chaff, there is also much more wheat as well. I am certain I never would have read, to pick one worthwhile example among many, Glenn Greenwald--now employed by corporate media--if he had not been able to start a blog. His little blog, in just a few years, resulted in a brand new book at my local Borders front table recently.

The rules of our public discourse are rapidly changing, and big media so far is doing what any entrenched power does (see: RIAA)--they're trying to marginalize the change as much as possible, to preserve the status quo which works so well for them. I am reminded of Schopenhauer: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." I think we're in the second stage.
posted by LooseFilter at 4:19 PM on July 12, 2007

I totally agree with you about the net overall, but i think people mistake old techniques (and content) simply moved online, with greater access to more people, or with some kind of revolutionary change.
Textwise it's been incredibly valuable, but our news media is visual, and our culture is visual, and that's been lagging immensely. It bothers me that people point to professional or professionally funded video put online as paradigm-changing, since it's totally not, but could be if it really was now open to all video and all content created by regular unconnected people.

I think besides the parasitical nature of much online, the routes to access and wide propagation and greater range of voices hasn't really changed, since it's still that you have to seek out and find different voices, and even the very best online voices have not been welcomed in the big media, where they could help enormously. We still see only the same old faces and words from the same people in big media, and many of them have become even more powerful and successful--or more entrenched and reactionary-- despite appalling accuracy rates or interesting viewpoints.
posted by amberglow at 6:53 PM on July 12, 2007

Yes, definitely--but at least the seeds of revolutionary change have been sown--and the medium for revolutionary change has definitely been established. I think corporate media is in for a big wake-up call, TV in particular--Hillary's Sopranos video was completely professionally made, but it was disseminated in very non-traditional ways, and that's what I see having more immediate impact. (How fast is the RIAA being swallowed by the quicksand of change in their part of the media industry, brought on to a great degree by established professionals? One must also consider the widespread accessibility to the tools necessary for professional work--amateurs are, in some instances, generating quite polished, substantial product.)

We still see only the same old faces and words from the same people in big media, and many of them have become even more powerful and successful--or more entrenched and reactionary-- despite appalling accuracy rates or interesting viewpoints.

I would say more entrenched and reactionary (stages one and two of Schopenhauer maybe?) but not more powerful or successful, and their increased entrenchment is to me symptomatic of how big the changes already are; "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" and all that. Also, I think wingnut media personalities are more transparently lying assholes to more people now than 7 or 8 years ago, and internet news sources (and discourse) are a huge part of that (based entirely on my anecdotal samples of people I know, of course).

It seems we mostly agree on this, but I think my take is just more optimistic (and perhaps naively wrong, but I really think we're looking at a tides-of-history kind of sea change here).
posted by LooseFilter at 7:29 PM on July 12, 2007

I wish i could share your optimism...i see declining tv and newspaper and radio, but i don't see that the net is replacing it--misinformation is still rife among the public and more lies are propagated daily. I think there's been a move away the big media for interested and involved people only, but that the vast majority isn't bothering at all anymore with news online or off. News and information has traditionally been passively presented to all--now to really get the truth or any sort of different viewpoint or analysis you have to go find it. Most aren't, i don't think.

I think the majority of people are less informed now, compared to the days pre-cable when it was the paper, radio, or Cronkite. (and studies have shown that majorities or close do believe lies that have been told them--esp about Iraq/Saddam/etc) Most people are lazy about news, and things that aren't entertaining.
posted by amberglow at 8:08 AM on July 13, 2007

I look at things like all the new original reporting and digging being done online, and i'm thrilled, but even when it is picked up by the big media or helps keep stories/issues alive, they either don't credit the online people who did the work, nor does that make them start doing it either--it might actually be the reverse and be making them stop doing it altogether since they can just scoop it up like they scoop up what's fed to them traditionally on and offline.

And even tho more people are going online now for info and news, are they checking Drudge (or Politico, which are where the media gets their political cues every day anyway), or Yahoo .or AOL news or Google news or NYTimes or WaPo, etc, or are they actively seeking out new viewpoints? It's such a different experience--hunting out news and opinion online--than the old way of getting it. Just as my family only watched Cronkite for decades or only picked up the NY Daily News every day, people now only hit the same few online places usually, over and over, i think. I know i tend to--like how most people don't watch all 100 or 500 channels on their tv, but stick to what they know or have heard about.
posted by amberglow at 8:19 AM on July 13, 2007

more on the Firefighter thing: CNN, NY Times, Wash. Post uncritically repeated Giuliani's claim that anti-Giuliani firefighter unions are partisan
posted by amberglow at 8:34 AM on July 13, 2007

Yes, too true. Since I work with college students, my perspective on this is likely totally skewed, but more and more of my students are engaging me in current events conversations outside of class time (I'm a musician, so those topics only rarely come up in class, and even then it's discipline-specific, like the RIAA etc.). Not only that, they're asking me where to go for good information--as you say, more and more people are aware they're being lied to by corporate media, but are just 'dropping out' rather than seeking better sources of information.

But many of my students--typical California young adults, as far as I can tell--belie that trend. They ask me what kinds of news sources are good, and--more importantly--why I think those sources are reliable. So I end up talking with them about how I developed my own critical faculties about where to go and how to evaluate information, etc.

It seems reasonable to assume that there has to be a period of disenthrallment, at least proportional to the period of enthrallment: the media's change from Cronkite's heyday to the ridiculous shouting, infotainment, celebrity gossip bullshit that passes for most news now was fairly gradual, and being gradual people just acclimated to it. Widespread awareness of the sorry state of affairs of the news media is really a recent phenomenon, maybe 3 or 4 years. Again, anecdotally, a couple of my co-workers have gone from 'trust the president, I love Bush' guys to 'I will never trust him or the media that fed me those lies about him again', which is a profound shift, esp. considering the arguments we had back in 02-03. My mom has gone from uncritically trusting 'the paper' to realizing that her news sources have not been informing her at all.

So I think it's true, we've entered into a jaded period of better awareness, and people's first instincts seem to be to turn off. My hope is that this is just the first stage of the citizenry demanding more substantial, reliable news media. I guess I'm optimistic because, in my experience, 5 years ago people were by and large still in thrall--now, not so much. If the first period of waking up to this fundamental truth of contemporary America--that our news media is profoundly flawed--is disgust and disengagement, that's only natural, I think. It remains to be seen what people will decide from here.
posted by LooseFilter at 9:38 AM on July 13, 2007

oh, re: the Firefighter thing: yeah, that's pretty fucking awful. Your facts are challenging my optimism! But I still try to take a longer perspective, that we're in the first stages of a long process of profound changes. Looking at it that way, as a process rather than a state of being (which is fixed), gives one the energy to fight the good fight day after day, and hope that our collective efforts might just make a difference in how things will play out.

Either that or I'm just loony.
posted by LooseFilter at 9:42 AM on July 13, 2007

One more thought along those lines, and sort of tangential: this is an element that the progressive left has really lacked in my lifetime, imagination. Our imagination to a great degree creates our future reality, and I think one of the most important reasons that the religious right/social "conservative" movement has been so successful was vision--they really know what they're going for, and have been working for decades to make what they imagined a reality.

The political/social left mostly laments the awful absurdity of our contemporary reality--rightly so, but to what end? So things are terrible, what's your alternative? Elected Republicans are by and large complete fucks (IMHO) but at least they have a vision of what ought to be (however hateful and bigoted it might be). It's that lack of imagination, specific views as to how things should be that seems lacking in most public discourse coming from progressives.
posted by LooseFilter at 9:49 AM on July 13, 2007

You're not loony--i guess because i was cynical from the start about all the lies and non-information--since they impeached Clinton, really, or even during Iran-Contra-- i see it differently. I do know tho, that it takes much much much more time and energy (and skeptical analysis) to find and get comfortable with even half a dozen regular news or opinion sites online, compared to clicking the remote to another channel, or turning it off altogether.

I don't think the right had imagination--i think they knew what the game was all along (it's all old pr tricks) -- and how to "game" it to their advantage. Now it's thoroughly entrenched, even if a columnist here and there won't play or now stops playing. Financial pressures on the media too have enormously enabled the lazy shit we get now as news--that's not going to change, and the net makes it even easier to be lazy stenographers and simply pass off lies and smears and blastfaxes and emails and Drudge/Politico items as news.

The vision is to create alternative structures to dispense truth. The vision is to fight back against the lies and to call them out. The vision is to encourage people to not buy or watch or listen to lies peddled as news. It's the creation of alternative structures that's the problem, because the current online content is all there, but not at all all reachable or assessible as easily as it should be.
posted by amberglow at 1:49 PM on July 13, 2007

McClatchy needs far far more attention by the way--the only media org that has always pointed out lies and still does. Outstanding and rigorous.
posted by amberglow at 1:51 PM on July 13, 2007

And this was nowhere yesterday or today: ... As you may know -- unless you rely on the corporate media for your news, of course -- yesterday the U.S. Senate unanimously declared that Iran was committing acts of war against the United States: a 97-0 vote to give George W. Bush a clear and unmistakable casus belli for attacking Iran whenever Dick Cheney tells him to.
The bipartisan Senate resolution – the brainchild (or rather the bilechild) of Fightin' Joe Lieberman – affirmed as official fact all of the specious, unproven, ever-changing allegations of direct Iranian involvement in attacks on the American forces now occupying Iraq.
The Senators appear to have relied heavily on the recent New York Times story by Michael Gordon that stovepiped unchallenged Pentagon spin directly onto the paper's front page. As Firedoglake points out, John McCain cited the heavily criticized story on the Senate floor as he cast his vote....
posted by amberglow at 2:11 PM on July 13, 2007

One wonders what other videos, such as 'Crush on Obama' [Risqué YouTube Song Takes Obama Campaign by Surprise], will potentially have impact on politics and public discourse in general

Video Face Off: Giuliani Girls To Take On Obama Girl.
posted by ericb at 2:19 PM on July 13, 2007

slutty girls + politics = big media exposure, always
posted by amberglow at 5:01 PM on July 13, 2007

one more relevant thing: Frameshop: A Picture of the GOP on Civil Rights
posted by amberglow at 8:35 PM on July 13, 2007