the consequences of negative campaigning

Posted on January 29, 2008 by Lessig

This entry was posted in presidential politics. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to the consequences of negative campaigning

  1. bnb says:
    January 29, 2008 at 9:47 pm

    She makes a good point. Too bad not all NOW leaders take the same view. NY NOW holds the sexist view that because Kennedy doesn’t support Hillary, it is because she is a woman. It is sad to consider that NY NOW is saying that regardless of whether you think she is the best choice, you need to support her because she is a woman.

  2. Seth Finkelstein says:
    January 29, 2008 at 10:53 pm

    “He’s 100% honest”?

    Sorry, no Presidential candidate is that good. It’s the nature of the beast.

  3. Jardinero1 says:
    January 29, 2008 at 11:09 pm

    Political contests are about winning. Hillary is about winning. Now that Barack is taking some kidney punches, we’ll see if he is about winning as well.

  4. Steve Baba says:
    January 30, 2008 at 12:33 am

    The consequences of mudslinging will be that the “100% honest” candidate on the white horse is going to look a lot worse with mud on his white horse while the candidate on the grey horse is going to look the same.

  5. Steve Baba says:
    January 30, 2008 at 6:40 am

    Are we sure this video is even authentic? The oldest and most common dirty political trick is to call into a radio talk program claiming that I used to be a Republican/Democrat/Candidate X supporter until they did something so despicable that I now support the other.

    It’s odd or incompetent that the video does not show her face enough to compare to her online picture:
    http://www.mapendo.org/about_blog_links.cfm?blogID=55&type=bio
    or that Google News has no stories on this by the real media that checks facts before publishing.

  6. John Harrison says:
    January 30, 2008 at 5:32 pm

    Steve Baba,

    Are you watching the same video I am? It doesn’t show anything other than her face and the person speaking and the person in the picture you linked to are clearly the same person.

  7. Steve Baba says:
    January 30, 2008 at 7:56 pm

    Nice clintonesque twisting of words, but while the video does show her face for “enough” time, the video does not show the face with “enough” resolution (due to the intentional or incompetent backlighting) to see anything – her mouth, nose, eyes, ears even where her face ends.. in my opinion.

  8. Steve Baba says:
    January 30, 2008 at 8:01 pm

    If anyone knows, a more constructive comment would be a link from a reliable source that she made the video or changed her endorsement. Damm that CAPTCHA but I guess it’s necessary

  10. Steve Baba says:
    January 31, 2008 at 8:56 pm

    Thanks Seth. I suppose it’s as likely that this story did not make it to mainstream media because it was not newsworthy enough as opposed to unconfirmable (false). But if, whatever organization was behind this did not even take the time to write her statement into a press release – any press release mades Google News, Yahoo News and so on – one can’t blame the news media.

  11. a random John says:
    January 31, 2008 at 10:28 pm

    Steve Baba,

    Clearly we’re looking at different videos or you need your eyes checked. The resolution is fine, the lighting is fine, and you can see her face clearly. The walls behind her are a bit distracting due to being overly ornate, but that is my major complaint. Will the person who filmed this win an Oscar for cinematography? Of course not. But it is perfectly adequate. I honestly have no idea what you’re complaining about.

  12. Steve Baba says:
    February 1, 2008 at 5:39 pm

    For the people that don’t know, if you see your teenage son or daughter setting up their webcam with strong lighting behind them – the same as taking photographs into the sun – and having a blank wall behind them, they are likely doing it to conceal their identity, likely because they are engaging in mild exhibitionism or talking to older people and trying to conceal that they are not 18.

    Giving John the benefit of the doubt that he is not a troll, it’s possible that he has a different better monitor than I and can see more of the bad webcam image.

    But actually since this was discussed on the Huffington Post recently and only the content of her speech was disputed by people that presumably know her, not the identity of the speaker, I am much more likely to believe it’s her.

  13. M Junaid Khan says:
    February 1, 2008 at 6:58 pm

    I hope you are doing great! I had to spent an hour to find any method of contacting you. To introduce myself, i am a Muslim from Pakistan and the purpose of writing to you is to request you to ask the concerned people in Wikipedia to kindly remove the pictures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) from the Wikipedia. I do understand your policy of Neutral Point of View (NPOV) but i think publishing the pictures negates it itself. By publishing pictures, you have already taken a side and offended the religious feelings of one sixth of the humanity on the face of earth.
    I think there are certain times when you try to be a bit different and be more practical. Two years ago, the Danish published the cartoons in the name of freedom of expression and the ensuing riots resulted in the deaths of several innocent people. I am sure you will use the common sense to remove these pictures which are hurting the emotions of the Muslims. Lastly, since these pictures are not the only source of information on Prophet Muhammad (SAW), removing them won’t bring any bad image. I am sure if you remove them, the whole Muslim world will appreciate it. I am ready to volunteer myself to do any service for Wikimedia which might benefit your endeavor for free availability of knowledge.
    I am sure you will look into that and support us in this case. Even few petitions, which have recently been circulated will provide you with enough evidence to the level of activity these pictures have created.
    Please stop this issue from turning into something ugly in which again few innocent people lose their lives and more and more hatred is created. I am sure you will talk to the concerned people on our behalf and present our point of view.
    Regards
    M Junaid Khan
    Pakistan

  14. M Junaid Khan says:
    February 1, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    I hope you are doing great! I had to spent an hour to find any method of contacting you. To introduce myself, i am a Muslim from Pakistan and the purpose of writing to you is to request you to ask the concerned people in Wikipedia to kindly remove the pictures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) from the Wikipedia. I do understand your policy of Neutral Point of View (NPOV) but i think publishing the pictures negates it itself. By publishing pictures, you have already taken a side and offended the religious feelings of one sixth of the humanity on the face of earth.
    I think there are certain times when you try to be a bit different and be more practical. Two years ago, the Danish published the cartoons in the name of freedom of expression and the ensuing riots resulted in the deaths of several innocent people. I am sure you will use the common sense to remove these pictures which are hurting the emotions of the Muslims. Lastly, since these pictures are not the only source of information on Prophet Muhammad (SAW), removing them won’t bring any bad image. I am sure if you remove them, the whole Muslim world will appreciate it. I am ready to volunteer myself to do any service for Wikimedia which might benefit your endeavor for free availability of knowledge.
    I am sure you will look into that and support us in this case. Even few petitions, which have recently been circulated will provide you with enough evidence to the level of activity these pictures have created.
    Please stop this issue from turning into something ugly in which again few innocent people lose their lives and more and more hatred is created. I am sure you will talk to the concerned people on our behalf and present our point of view.
    Regards
    M Junaid Khan
    Pakistan

  15. ilan says:
    February 2, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    I think there are certain times when you try to be a bit different and be more practical. Two years ago, the Danish published the cartoons in the name of freedom of expression and the ensuing riots resulted in the deaths of several innocent people. I am sure you will use the common sense to remove these pictures which are hurting the emotions of the Muslims. Lastly, since these pictures are not the only source of information on Prophet Muhammad (SAW), removing them won’t bring any bad image. I am sure if you remove them, the whole Muslim world will appreciate it. I am ready to volunteer myself to do any service for Wikimedia which might benefit your endeavor for free availability of knowledge.

  16. bnb614 says:
    February 3, 2008 at 6:14 am

    Steve, log off your computer and get your eyes checked. Quit trying to create a scandal where there isn’t one. There is no doubt that is Lorna Howard. “the video does not show her face enough” – What video are you watching? The entire video is a close up of her face. It took me 2 seconds of looking at her official bio to know the picture and video were the same person.

    For any Bay Area Obama fans. Members of the Grateful Dead are throwing a fundraiser/concert for Obama.

  17. dfb says:
    February 3, 2008 at 8:36 am

    Steve Baba: I agree with the others. There is nothing wrong with the resolution and the picture is very clear, her face is well lit, and there can be no doubt it is the same person shown on the Mapendo Blog. The resolution is still pretty good with full screen mode. The YouTube video was posted by the Obama campaign, however there is nothing presumptively wrong with that.

    You can easily do a search of her name and come up with a ton of results, mostly regarding this video.
    http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=ytff1-&p=%22Lorna%20Brett%20Howard%22&ei=UTF-8

    Here is a relevant thread on Archpundit.
    http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/02/02/lorna-brett-howard-responds/

    btw: My vote went to Edwards (not quite wasted) so I’m neutral between Obama and Clinton, for now. I despise the negative campaigning both sides have engaged in.

  19. wff says:
    February 4, 2008 at 6:03 pm

    I think Steve did not actually play the video, or he is watching it on dial-up. Flash can smartly degrade streaming video quality to keep up with connection issues. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, because unless he is just being an arse, this video is just perfect for identifying the subject. The lighting is fair if not subtle. The detail is very good. There is no intent here to deceive the audience with regards to who this is.

  20. Keith DeRose says:
    February 9, 2008 at 11:06 pm

    Perhaps the title of this post should be changed. I don’t think it’s *negative* campaigning that’s the real problem here; it’s *false* or misleading campaigning that’s really objectionable.

  21. Samantha says:
    February 17, 2008 at 8:29 am

    I find it amazing that after a multitude of attacks over months by our illustrious First Lady on Barack Obama that LYING is simply referred to as negative campaigning. LYING is LYING and HIllary Clinton should be called on it loud and clear. Why are we so careful with her? Hillary has run a negative, down and dirty, lying campaign and has dishonored herself, the title of First Lady and the Democratic party.

  22. Ken Deutsch says:
    February 19, 2008 at 9:16 pm

    This video shows more about the power of the narrative then the problem with negative campaigning.

    The Clinton campaign went negative with targeted printed materials with no narrative.

    The Obama campaign produced this video with a homemade feel and in doing so disguised a negative attack as defense against those mean Clintons.

    While Lorne Brett Howard implies that she was the President of Illinois NOW AND was in agreement with Obama’s abstaining to vote, she was not even part of Illinois NOW at the time. NOW wanted Obama to vote against the legislation (see http://www.illinoisnow.org/ ).

    Clearly, the Clinton campaign does not understand how to carry out negative campaigning with new media. Wrap a negative ad into a narrative on YouTube and you can imply anything you want and even the most intelligent and educated won’t bother to look at the facts.

  23. LDTrucano-Harp says:
    October 6, 2008 at 12:18 pm

    For the record:

    (1) The woman in this video is, indeed, Lorna Brett Howard.

    (2) Lorna served as president of the *Chicago* Chapter of the National Organization for Women, *not* Illinois NOW. (Yes, there are both state and local chapters of NOW, in addition to the national chapter.)

    How do I know? I spent many years involved with Chicago NOW, including time as Vice President during Lorna’s tenure as President.

  24. Stephen says:
    March 1, 2013 at 4:19 am

    if u like banana leave rice, then do try out a Selvam reratusant, its nearby the red house, before u reach red house, there’s a public bank (and next to public bank its Tabung haji and police station), so Selvam is sorta opposite public bank . erm, u get my description? LOLas for baba nyonya food i’ve yet to come across a favourite one, but there are many of such restos in melaka raya, and i see their biz is always good. u can try out!oh and there’s one place that serves kick ass thosai and char kuey teow. i think the name of the street is jalan laksamana. (both shops are side by side, at night u sit out and u can order from both shops)thats all i can think of now lolAdino: Yummy! Thanks, I’ll write these down and see where we end up.

  25. bfulacwaa says:
    March 4, 2013 at 12:07 am

    zvRIha , [url=http://srjfebykgpkq.com/]srjfebykgpkq[/url], [link=http://cnfdrfxjjppn.com/]cnfdrfxjjppn[/link], http://ojgefqouqspp.com/

Leave a Reply