- ‹ previous
- 5763 of 8922
- next ›
"Hillary 1984" is like Bob Corker's Ad against Harold Ford, Jr.
Have you seen Hillary 1984? You've got to. It's brilliant. About 1.3 million people have already seen it. It's the advent of a new political era. The minute-and-a-half-long clip, spliced from an Apple commercial from Super Bowl, shows hundreds of men as just ashen drones marching in line and then sitting down before a screen under Hillary's head talking, detached from her body. Everything is gray and lifeless. The only dash of color at all is when a busty blonde wearing only a white tank and orange shorts—a Hooters girls outfit but with only one "O" in the logo over her chest—runs through the crowd of men and hurls a javelin at Hillary's head, shattering the screen, spreading light everywhere.
Yep, it's brilliant. And lefty bloggers are cheering it as the advent of "open-source politics" because it's on YouTube. What none of them have mentioned is the reason why it's so effective: It exploits subconscious bigotry, just like the ad for now-U.S. Senator Bob Corker in October. Since blacks weren't recognized as fully human, this country used to have special laws for them. Black men could not sleep with white women, but it was fine the other way around (even the president did). Black men with white women is still taboo—that's why broadcasting a blonde actress crooning, "I met Harold at the Playboy party…. Harry [wink], call me!!" was enough to derail Harold Ford, Jr.'s, campaign. The racism operated subtly and subconsciously enough to change the minds of people who would never admit to being racist. Lefties pointed that out, but not as loudly as they should have. Ford lost.
Likewise, women weren't recognized as fully human in this country until recently, and modern society still has a taboo against women holding power. Lefty bloggers who don't think Hillary has the charisma to win the general election may be happy that this ad will derail her in the primary. But they look like hypocrites unless they stop cheering for a moment to mention that the ad exploits subconscious fears. That goes for you too, Arianna Huffington—author of On Becoming Fearless. "Hillary 1984" is as un-Democratic as the ad against Harold Ford was.
Trippin, Hey?I've got disagreements with Hillary too. And I like Obama a lot. We can debate them, but I wasn't writing about their politics, because this ad has nothing to do with their politics. I was writing about how it works, why it's gotten so much attention.
To rephrase the reason: The ad taps into our subconscious ambivalence about women and power, the fear that if they step out of their traditional feminine roles, if they were to run the world outside of the family, we would have to forfeit comfort, color, playfulness, love--whatever helps us feel at home, wherever. None of the cowed male drones in the audience in this hyperindustrial world has a real family. They are like drones in a bee hive, in a world without homes, without families.
Also, Besttrousers, you say, "Wouldn't any subtext have to have been present in the original Apple commercial? In that context, I don't think the connection with any sexism can be made strongly." Well, most of the people on YouTube didn't even remember the Apple commercial it's derived from. It ran twenty years ago. They share a plot and a setting, but differ completely in tone and focus, and ultimately in meaning. One is funny, the other deathly. In the Apple ad, the dictator speaks in a rollicking voice with an English accent and flowery prose. "Today we celebrate the first glooorious anniversary of the iiinformation purification?. a gaaarden!" He's silly. He's meant to amuse you, whereas Hillary's image is spliced in order to disturb you. It's the difference between the shorts and tank tops that my co-ed track teams wore and the shorts and tank tops that Hooter girls wear to work. Not the perfect metaphor, since Hooters wasn't around in 1984, but same fabric, different meanings.
Trippin, Hey?I've got disagreements with Hillary too. And I like Obama a lot. We can debate them, but I wasn't writing about their politics, because this ad has nothing to do with their politics. I was writing about how it works, why it's gotten so much attention.
To rephrase the reason: The ad taps into our subconscious ambivalence about women and power, the fear that if they step out of their traditional feminine roles, if they were to run the world outside of the family, we would have to forfeit comfort, color, playfulness, love--whatever helps us feel at home, wherever. None of the cowed male drones in the audience in this hyperindustrial world has a real family. They are like drones in a bee hive, in a world without homes, without families.
Also, Besttrousers, you say, "Wouldn't any subtext have to have been present in the original Apple commercial? In that context, I don't think the connection with any sexism can be made strongly." Well, most of the people on YouTube didn't even remember the Apple commercial it's derived from. It ran twenty years ago. They share a plot and a setting, but differ completely in tone and focus, and ultimately in meaning. One is funny, the other deathly. In the Apple ad, the dictator speaks in a rollicking voice with an English accent and flowery prose. "Today we celebrate the first glooorious anniversary of the iiinformation purification?. a gaaarden!" He's silly. He's meant to amuse you, whereas Hillary's image is spliced in order to disturb you. It's the difference between the shorts and tank tops that my co-ed track teams wore and the shorts and tank tops that Hooter girls wear to work. Not the perfect metaphor, since Hooters wasn't around in 1984, but same fabric, different meanings.
I haven't seen the ad yet, but I find it hard to believe the creator intended to single Hillary out because she's a woman. If that's what you are trying to say. On the other hand, the Ford ad was clearly racist. I'll have to watch it to see, but doubt this is about Hillary being a woman.
Are you saying that the ad is sexist just because Hillary is a woman? So, women should support other women regardless of their politics? So, should all women support Ms. Dole? Or Ms. Bush?
I don't see the misogyny in the ad. Wouldn't any subtext have to have been present in the original Apple commercial? In that context, I don't think the connection with any sexism can be made strongly. It's an anti-Hillary ad, and Hillary just happens to be a woman, not an anti-woman ad.
Blue, How about watching the ad before you say it couldn't possibly be sexist? Then criticize Hillary all you want. But criticize her as a human, not a woman. I'm not rooting for Hillary in the primary here. What I'm saying, this particular ad taps into the fear that if women have power, the world will lose all color and comfort. Hillary's head on the screen is enormous, literally, "Her head is too big." She is uppity. Where is comfort, where is home, if women aren't in their place? This is no home in this scene, nothing remotely comforting. The other fear it works on is that men would be cowed into a slave mentality never seen before in human history, seen only in science fiction. It's apocalyptic.
As for the argument that this ad was just taking off on Apple's ad. Well, it is just as compelling to anyone who hasn't seen the Apple ad. But try replacing Hillary on the screen with Kerry? Both may be doomed by lack of charisma. But picture Kerry talking to the audience of drones, then taken out by a Hooters girl. It wouldn't be scary. It would be hilarious.
How else would the ad lose effectiveness? It wouldn't work half as well if the audience were composed of both men and women. And the ad would not work at all if the javelin thrower was male. That the javelin-thrower is female is also is the best a defense against accusations of sexism. Not that women are any less sexist than men, but they are hardly ever accused of it. Gotta love a catfight. Also defensively, Bob Corker's ad started off with a black woman herself who disliked Ford. As in, "See, black people don't like him either. So this isn't a race issue." A few cuts later, the racist part comes in with the blonde woman. And Bob Corker's ad would not have worked AT ALL if the actress who met him at the Playboy party were black. Sexism is very different from racism, but both operate by stirring up irrational fears.
I still stand by my assessment without even having seen the add. The more you try to prove your point, the less convincing it gets. The point about swapping out Kerry's head isn't convincing. Kerry isn't in the same league with Hillary in terms of notoriety. Stick George W.'s head in there, the add still has the same power.
You're grapsing for staws on this one.
I watched the ad and I'm familiar with the original Apple 1984 ad, and I've got to agree with Blue that you're reaching here. Yeah, the ad would be laughable with Kerry up there instead of Hillary Clinton. But that says more about Kerry's personality than sexism. As Blue pointed out, it would be just as effective with Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc. It could also easily work with Bill Clinton, if you used the right clips of Bill.
That said, I can't stand any of these political ads, even when they're for candidates I support. I'm one of those idiots who votes based on the candidate's poisitions on issues and their voting records. The ad is well done, but it makes my skin crawl.
The clip recycles an ad whose theme was a revoltution against power by disrupting the collective trance. The woman with the hammer was part of the original ad.
The original was a very successful and memorable commerical from over twenty years ago. Your claim that it was successful by virtue of sexism may be clearer with the benefit of hindsight, but at the time I can assure you that she was used to illustrate a powerful female figure in a manner completly consistent with fashion at the time. Men wore those goofy athletic short-shorts back then too. I had a few pairs myself.
As for all the "women holding power" aversion stuff, well, maybe for some, but my problem with Clinton isn't that she isn't electable. My problem is quite the contrary: that she is most certainly electable, and that would be a disaster, not because she is female, but because she has demonstrated no leadership. She panders to the right -- she pokes a stick in the eye of her base and takes them for granted -- one day she says she'll end the war, the next it's an indefinite occupation -- she hasn't the mettle to risk one stinking plug nickel of political capital for principle -- again, not because she's a woman, but because she's Hillary Clinton.
I think you're the unfortunate victim of navigating through life with a great big chip on your shoulder. Seek sexism, and you will most certainly find it, whether it's really there or not. But certainly there must be a more blatant example of sexism worth critiquing than this, what with all the reactionary zipperheads running around Washington.
I think Josh's observations are pretty much on the mark.
Oh my god, this is ridiculous. I am a liberal woman, and I find nothing about the ad sexist. Are all of the male candidates supposed to refrain from criticizing Hillary just because she's a woman? Or because if they do, it might be seen as sexist? Hell f'n no.
That girl with the sledgehammer was part of the original ad in 1984 for Apple, it's not like the Obama supporter just made her up. And the ad is not about Hillary being a woman; it's about her being part of the establishment, which she IS, like it or not. It's pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't go looking for something to be offended about that the point was not that Obama is the better candidate because he is a man, but because he is part of a new generation of Democrats.
Oh yes, about the following:
"Lefty bloggers who don't think Hillary has the charisma to win the general election may be happy that this ad will derail her in the primary. But they look like hypocrites unless they stop cheering for a moment to mention that the ad operates on bigotry."
Could it instead be that your overwhelming desire to have a woman be President regardless of a huge leadership deficit be blinding you to that reality? It seems you can't get your mind around the notion that some people honestly don't believe Clinton is the right choice to lead despite her consistenly demonstrated inability to do so.
The U.S. has recognized women as fully human? When? I missed that.
I think that if only Clinton's huge head were there, an argument could be made that the ad isn't sexist (though to me, that would smack of sexism, too, given the history of the type of attacks made on her). But the presence of the woman showing her ass in the tight shorts as the "real" strong woman sent to destroy Clinton does indeed appeal to a subtext of regarding Clinton as a sexless drone.
Brilliant, yes, but why Hillary? Bill O'Reilly would have made a much better and more appropriate target.
I think it's fair to hit Clinton with 1984 spoofs. My issue with her is that she is very pro-censorship: from flag-burning to video games. Maybe the dirty truth is that she's an establishment-backed authoritarian?
Having a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton cycle is an Orwellian travesty. Maybe it's more Animal Farm than 1984, but the dude's spinning in his grave.
I think it would be great to have a female president, but not one who votes to alter our constitution to remove rights, and not one who gets there by legacy and nepotism.
thinkgra, Probably because Hillary is running for president and Bill O'Reilly isn't. The purpose of the re-tooled ad was to promote the maker's favorite Democratic candidate (Obama) over another Democratic candidate (Clinton). What would have been the point if O'Reilly was in it? It wouldn't make any sense.
Trippin, HeyI've got disagreements with Hillary too. And I like Obama a lot. We can debate them, but I wasn't writing about their politics, because this ad has nothing to do with their politics. I was writing about how it works, why it's gotten so much attention.
To rephrase the reason: The ad taps into our subconscious ambivalence about women and power, the fear that if they step out of their traditional feminine roles, if they were to run the world outside of the family, we would have to forfeit comfort, color, playfulness, love--whatever helps us feel at home, wherever. None of the cowed male drones in the audience in this hyperindustrial world has a real family. They are like drones in a bee hive, in a world without homes, without families.
Also, Besttrousers, you say, "Wouldn't any subtext have to have been present in the original Apple commercial? In that context, I don't think the connection with any sexism can be made strongly." Well, most of the people on YouTube didn't even remember the Apple commercial it's derived from. It ran twenty years ago. They share a plot and a setting, but differ completely in tone and focus, and ultimately in meaning. One is funny, the other deathly. In the Apple ad, the dictator speaks in a rollicking voice with an English accent and flowery prose. "Today we celebrate the first glooorious anniversary of the iiinformation purification . a gaaarden!" He's silly. He's meant to amuse you, whereas Hillary's image is spliced in order to disturb you. It's the difference between the shorts and tank tops that my co-ed track teams wore and the shorts and tank tops that Hooter girls wear to work. Not the perfect metaphor, since Hooters wasn't around in 1984, but same fabric, different meanings.
Seen the ad now. Still not buying it April.
Hillary is already a powerful women. She is a senator from one of the most important states in the nation. So, are you saying Americans are okay with powerful senators but not a president? What about a supreme court judge? What's the difference? Where does one stop and the other begin?
Honestly I think you are just trying to come up with a unique angle on this story (I haven't seen anyone else make this leap). But unfortunately, unique angles need to be based on the facts at hand. Your unique angle is something that doesn't exist. Nice try.
Lanky, the flag-burning things seems to get a lot of them--very sad. Clinton did, however, vote against a Constitutional ban on flag desecration. And, you'll recall, Dennis Kucinich voted to ban flag-burning a few years ago. It is such a scary issue for all of them--they really lack spines.
Let's not talk about politics. I'm not defending Hillary's politics. I'm not rooting for her. I'm talking about the role of sex in this ad.
Hillary 1984 depicts a society without any real women or any femininity: a hyperindustrial world. Hillary doesn't count here as a woman; she is just an image on the screen and a roboticized voice. 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?
Since industriazation women at home have been expected to make up for the stark horrors of the factory, of the office. "Men make a living. Women make life worth living." But the lives depicted in this ad are not worth living.
Men love women. Men need women. The threat of "Hillary 1984" is of a society without women in their familiar place. It's the threat of the unknown.
One can argue whether the implicit message was intentional, but I think that April's observation regarding the psychology of the piece is true. Perhaps the creator was mostly thinking of how Hillary aligns herself with The System to gain power, but the fact that this spoof also nicely associates well with those gender fear/ biases is significant, as well. Perhaps, too, the imagery was selected because it has a visual tie-in with "V is for Vendetta" which is a more current '1984' cross reference than the Apple commercial. In "V" the feeling is different - even creepier - because even if the high chancellor or whatever the head honchos title was, were a woman, the overall feeling there is that people are living in a false ideal of everyday-ness [home, mom, dad, kitty] while in fact they are very much controlled. This is more to the point of America today than the Apple commercial.
However, I think there are a lot of literary referances that would be more specific to Hillary's unique weaknesses than '1984'.
The best thing? Get some savvy MoJo journalist busy on getting an interview with the guy who made the commercial and get the truth from the horse's mouth. April, I elect you.
You're still grasping at straws, and I'm still not buying it.
You would have more of a case if the creator of Hillary 1984 had created the original Apple one himself. He only re-tooled it. He didn't make the audience full of males, he didn't invent the woman with the sledgehammer and or what she was wearing, he didn't delete any "femininity" from it. All he did was put the face of The Establishment (Hillary) on the big screen and add the text at the very end. What would you have him do? Re-shoot the whole ad in a studio with more women or pink walls and re-cast the person with a sledgehammer? Would it be acceptable then? Or do you just want the male candidates to not make anti-Hillary ads, period?
This liberal isn't not going to be supporting Hillary in the election, and I wish her supporters who only want her in there because she's a woman or because she "deserves it" would stop giving me crap about it.
That should be: "this liberal isn't* going to be supporting Hillary..."
As someone fairly tuned into politics, it is not that H.R.C. is a sexless drone (really...in politics of all places...the name Clinton and SEXLESS go hand-in-hand?), it is that the current media narrative is Clinton is inevitable. THAT is what the woman is destroying...it has nothing to do with her being a sexless drone, but EVERYTHING to do with Obama showing that it isn't a foregone conclusion who the nominee will be. A brief glance at any of a myriad lefty political bogs will quickly show you the disgust for the 'Hillary as Candidate' talk that runs the MSM...for she has the apparatus, the support and the cash...somewhat like the original face that got destroyed in the 1984 unaltered commercial.
You have every right to oppose Hillary in this election without being labeled sexist. Hillary does not deserve special protections or extra votes just for being a woman. We agree there. We also probably agree that anyone who said a leader is a bad candidate because of their race or sex--is racist or sexist. But the most effective ads do two things: They capture attention and work on a subconscious level.
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.
that should be -oversexed- (not oversixed)
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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
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.
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.
O'Reilly has more open-mouthed fools paying attention to him than Hillary, whether he's running for office or not.
If campaigns are won and lost on imagery. Sigh...
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.
Golly gee whiz! Does that mean that any lambasting of Smokin' Joe LoveTheWarMan is anti semitic because Smokin' Joe is a Jew?
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.
replica watches
replica watches Discount Watches, Fashion Watches, Wristwatch, Fake Watch, Wholesale Watches, Jewelry Watches, Replica Jewelry Watches. A Piaget Fake Watches Replica Fake Gucci Raymond Replica Oris Weil Franck Muller Fake Watches Watches Maurice Lacroix Replica Watches Richard Mille Replica Watches was Raymond Weil Watches Replica founded in 1976 Replica Blancpain Watches by Raymond Weil Movado Watches himself drawn replica watches on Jaeger LeCoultre Watch Replica his Bulgari Replica Watch Breguet Watch Replica knowledge of Fake Baume & Mercier the Fake A Lange & Sohne Watch watch Rado Replica Watches Replica Corum making industry Vacheron Constantin Mens Watches combined Patek Philippe Watches with creativity and enthusiasm. Raymond IWC Wristwatch Weil Hublot Fake Watch watch Parmigiani Watches is Panerai Replica characterized Emporio Armani Watch Omega Replica Watch by its Replica Michele Watches exceptional quality, Fake Jacob & Co. Watch originality and Girard Perregaux Mens Watches attention to Ebel Replica Replica Mont Blanc detail. It Christian Dior Watches Replica ranges Fake Longines Watches from casual Fake Breitling Watches to dressy Bedat & CO Fake Watch and are sought-after for Chopard Watch Replica their reliability and affordability. Rolex Mens Watches Sophisticated, classic Invicta Watches Watches and Porsche Design Replica Watches Zenith Watch always timeless, Technomarine Wristwatch Replica Raymond Concord Wristwatch Audemars Piguet Replica Watches Weil Watches are Swiss Army Replica known for Tissot Watch Replica its replica watches TAG Heuer Wristwatch versatility and practicality. Replica Raymond Weil watch integrate Replica Glashutte art Seiko Watches and Roger Dubuis Replica style with Replica Louis Vuitton Watch Cartier Mens Watches technical know-how, resulting Swiss Ladies Watches in practical and elegant timepieces.