It is about time- We need refreshing truth exposure, not mindless corporate shepherding... Unfortunately, both parties are two sides of the same coin. Win or lose on the surface, those who pull the strings always win.

Research showed that the ad had little to no effect on voters. Sounds like a perfect fit for the Richardson campaign.

Maybe Mr. de Vellis will now turn on Barack. What goes around comes around. I suggest a depiction of a bumbling idiot tryng to look experienced in a South Carolina debate. Hillary '2008

Just one problem with the "1984" ad... It wasn't effective with Democrats. This guy is too undisciplined to hold a job.
http://www.solidpolitics.com

Research showed that 3 million views of the ad and counting - reinforces Hillary's all ready sky high negative.

First time I've viewed that ad. No controversy to me. It seems one would have to be pretty dern impressionable to be sucked into its ridiculous levels of hyperbole. It is almost a parody of itself. If anything, it made me like Clinton more because she was saying very non-controversial, very open things herself, inviting citizens into the process, nothing that would suggest an audience of automatons dealing with her or the process.

Hey, ad folks, here's a tip: Work a lot harder this cycle, because you're dealing with a culture and a new generation now steeped in deconstructing ads and the media and totally disgruntled with the monied political process and ired over attempts to reduce us to fear-laden reactionaries. In this election, what is going to matter is who is "keeping it real." Take a stab at that.

John your conclusion is illogical. To argue that watching the ad equals a spike in negative points for Clinton doesn't follow on any level. I watched it and found it ridiculous, but you would probably shoot me down if I said, 3 million views equals a raise in Clinton's positives because it means everyone else found it ridiculous, too. Stick with logic on a numbers argument, and intuition when it comes to the fuzzier stuff.

Please, can't we keep this campaign on a high level. I know Bill Richardson ever since he walked the northern part of my Native New Mexico that I love so dearly. He has been the ideal candidate to me eversince his first race. I think we have been lied too enough for 6 years. The media is guilty of lying and making ennudos, now lets get down to facts. Bill does not need someone to make up lies and attack his co-patriots. I am a Native and have voted in every election since 1940.

Vellis needs to thank the kids at YTMND.com for their Future Conan O'Brien series of animations. Thieving bastard.

That oh-so creative ad was stolen from a TV ad run only once about 20 years ago by a major electronics company--maybe Apple, or Xerox, somebody like that. It ends with a sledgehammer being hurled at a giant screen. It might've been run in 1984 but this new ad is a direct ripoff and I'm amazed other people haven't mentioned it.

Phil's 1984 ad was EXTREMELY effective with Democrats. If you were Hillary would you want a million people looking a WOMAN throw a hammer at your picture, while you droned on?
The Ad was so effective because 1) it tarred Hillary with being the Establishment (completely true) and 2) it show a WOMAN rejecting the misogynist "feminist" Hillary.

Hey, the title of the blog is playing with the Big Boys, so we should not be surprised that the Obama-ad man has been bought and paid for to promote Gov. Richardson. Why be surprised? It is the same story for consultants, they are paid to LOVE their candidate, it is just money. Jim Johnson has bounced all over the place as well, so no one should be shocked.

Now, if Richardson chooses Obama as his VP, or Obama chooses Richardson, it will be called the Perfect Ticket. If Hillary survives the primary, everyone will play nice with her and kiss her feet. Again, no surprise.

re: John's comment - "it (the ad) reinforces Hillary's all ready sky high negative." Recent polls have found McCain's negatives over 60%, Giuliani's are in the mid-50's, Romney's in the upper-40's and this is before the real dirt starts flying. Hillary is around 40%, about where any presidential hopeful lands in a General Election. This is also a drop of at least 25% from the 65% negative she posted on the presidential question just 18 months ago. Now, that's what I call progress. Hillary 2008!!!

Ah, ah, ah! It would be so nice, if this pro Bush string would end up by his and his VP impeachment, and no Hillary nomination, but it seems that it is too good to be true. I didn't think that Obama could overjump Hillary on his own without Gore's (I mean 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner-Gore) help, and it seems that he is confirming this premonition of mine. Whichever. Hillary, of course, is well known, and very experienced master of all kinds of behind scenes dirty conspiracies.

Has de Villes become the 'O. J. Simpson' of the Democrat party in crowd? Will Hillary and Bill spit every time they speak his name? Will he be slow chased around the globe by those waiting to stomp on his grave? Tune in this time next week, same bat time, same bat channel.

The article contains a lie: Wolfowitz did not set his girlfriend up with a raise and a cush job. The World Bank ethics committee did that. He noted that he had a conflict of interest, reported it to them, and the World Bank bureaucrats decided what to do WITHOUT Wolfowitz's influence. Of course, why let the truth get in the way of bashing a former Bush admin official?

Has there been any response to the many cogent arguments raised in objection to the very questionable sourcing in the story about Hillary Clinton and Firedoglake? If there has been, I'd like to read it. Carrying on as if the past doesn't exist is intellectually dishonest.

Meanwhile how hilarious is it that the world's one defender of Wolfowitz on the internets can't figure out how to add his comment to an article that's pertinent. Sometimes conservatives can be very silly people.

Akers, you said (Uh-oh, should Richardson now kiss good-bye his chances of becoming Clinton's VP pick?) and "No doubt about it, this is a controversial hire."

Akers, please, if Clinton becomes the Dems nominee, do you really think that if she wants Richardson as her VP, something so inconsequential as De Vellis working for his campaign would stand in the way? That is not realistic. I am certain that Hillary could easily overlook this "controversial hire" if she determines that Bill Richardson can help her win the office. She is way too tough and savvy to let trivial office politics and petty paybacks get in the way. Think about it.

Mr. de Vellis is a loose canon ball that cannot function well in a contemporary media set-up.

He should try his hand on selling chicken soup!

"robert marrow"

It wasn't "effective" with Democrats.

Primarily, because it's completely false. The ridiculous ad is comparing apples to apples essentially, when you view Hillary's and Obama's voting records side by side.

They are I D E N T I C A L except for 4 minor votes. They are no different, except in terms of length of experience, and one's married to a great former President.

Oh, and "John," I guess that's why Wolfowitz issued an apology. I guess that we should trust a member of the bush administration, because they're all upstanding honest people. AHAHAHAAHHAHAHA

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6548291.stm

Let me guess, the BBC is a "liberal media." And anything that is opposite to a republican's point of view is automatically wrong, and "liberal"?

This guy was a direct student of Leo Strauss. The guy who believed it was ok to lie to the people, to preserve society.

Whatever dude.

If Obama is so smart like people said, how come hired that kind of dirty players and didn't know what his employees were doing. Obama said his campaign team has nothing to do with Anti-Hillary video, give us a big break. I don't think he can lead our country, because he will say I and my staffs has nothing to do with it and that. I got the same impression from Obama with VP. Also Edwards is vulgar, he tried to use Hillary's vote at debate, but apology can't resolve the problem of war, focus on what you should do for the country now like Hillary does, nice try but American people are not that stupid. He showed his bad taste again. First one is using wife's cancer. I don't trust Obama also I don't respect Edwards.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.