Analysis of Anti-Hillary “1984” Commercial

(click title for video)

You may recall the 1984 Super bowl, not for its excellent athletics, but rather a particular commercial that aired during the game. In an attempt to portray the colorful, yet unexpected revolution in computers that was about to undergo, Macintosh ran a clever ad promoting the ingenuity of its new Apple Computer. A spin-off of George Orwell’s dark novel “1984”, the ad linked the evil imagery of Big Brother to the Microsoft Computer Corporation. In recent months, we have seen a similar advertisement emerge; this time it delves into the realm of electoral politics…

Hillary Clinton is the definite target of the contemporary version of this “1984” advertisement. As the first shot opens, the camera focuses downward on a transparent tunnel that bridges a vast, seemingly endless, almost Star-Wars like gap. The number “14” marks the bridge in a bland font on a wall. Colors are light blue and gray, suggesting a stark, lifeless environment. Crammed people can be seen marching forth through the tunnel. In an echo that subconsciously implies emptiness, Hillary’s voice can be heard lecturing the moving masses. “One month ago, I began a conversation with all of you”, she begins, “and so far, we haven’t stopped talking, and that’s really good.” The use of simple language makes it appear that Hillary is speaking to a group of innocent, vulnerable children. This is very persuasive in the fact that it suggests the people have been dumbed down and robbed of their intelligence. Further, the word “conversation” juxtaposed against blatant visual conformity draws an undeniable irony. Hillary comes off as being a deceptive and self-interested.

The camera cuts to the inside of one of the tunnels where the people wearing all- white clothing continue their drone-like march. The left wall is lined with television screens bearing Hillary’s lecturing face. Because the lens is zoomed, any chance for comfortable or familiar depth is collapsed.

For a split second, the camera reveals the first glimpse of color; the image of a women running. She is strong and blond. She wears “80’s” workout clothes, carries a sledgehammer, and is strangely wearing a barely noticeable ipod (I wonder if itunes had a hand in the creation of this commercial). The orange markings on her clothes represent the only warm colors used throughout the entire commercial. The rest are cold and sterile.

As the shot returns to a close-up of the peoples’ faces, Hillary continues to talk down to them. “I intend to keep telling you exactly where I stand on all the issues”, she explains. In the background, a distressing, mechanical beep can be subtly heard every few seconds. As the people walk by, their faces look the same. All heads are shaved, all tones are pale, all expressions are empty, and some of the folks are even wearing gasmasks. This re-enforces the mind-numbing danger of a world run by Hillary Clinton.

The camera turns its focus to a number of guards running down a hallway armed with clubs. The guards are dressed in black (the opposite of the people) and are wearing helmets that protect their heads. Glass shields hide their face in shadow, giving them nameless identities of darkness. There are no human-like characteristics for the audience to relate to. This capitalizes on the notion that people fear the unknown.

As the camera cuts back to the people walking, it shows a zoomed shot of feet marching in synchronicity. The march is not proud nor energetic, but rather forced and obedient. It is soon revealed that the people are marching toward a large room, where a screen displaying Hillary’s gaze oversees the order below. Wisely, the producers of this commercial chose to insert rather animated clips of Hillary speaking. This is tremendously effective because it not only shows a huge juxtaposition of intelligence between Hillary and her controlled people, but it undercuts her credibility on the deepest of levels. If they were to choose a bland expert of Hillary to display, the real-world audience would have ample room to breathe. A person could always rebut the commercial claiming that “she is more life-like in reality”. But now, her gestures of deep sincerity are cast in the light of ultimate deception. Even if she, herself rebuts the commercial in the most genuine way, a seed of mistrust will be linked to her mannerisms in the mind (conscious or subconscious) of the audience. Not to mention, the blue filter and off-centeredness of her face ad eerie imagery.

The woman continues to run down the hallway with the sledgehammer in her hands; this time she is being chased by guards. The symmetry of the camera (closed camera) provides the feelings of order and isolation. Hillary continues to lecture, “I don’t want people who already agree with me, I want honest, hard working, patriotic people who want to be part of a team”. The discourse here simply implies that people who agree with Hillary are not honest, hard working, nor patriotic. The uncomfortable beep continues.

As the guards get closer and closer to the woman, she begins to twirl her sledgehammer. The camera shows a close-up of Hillary’s blue, evil-looking face. With a cry of raw emotion from the woman, the sledgehammer is thrown through the air, and the screen explodes in a white burst. The shocked faces of the people are illuminated by a white mystical light as a wind blows their clothes. It is cinematic; as if a demon has just been destroyed. As the screen fades to white, the words, “On January 14^th, the Democratic Primary will begin. And you’ll see why 2008 won’t be like “1984”. A colorful apple then fades in with the words “BarackObama.com”.

It should be noted that throughout the entire commercial, the proximity of the camera gradually became closer to Hillary’s face (with the exception of the last shot in which the screen explodes). This is a tactic used by filmmakers to imply power. The closer the camera to the subject, the more power he or she is perceived to have. The feeling provided by camerawork here is that Hillary is gaining more and more power throughout the ad.

Overall, this was an incredibly persuasive commercial. With rhetorical tactics ranging from visual to verbal and from subtle to obvious, the clear message becomes engrained in the minds of the audience. Let’s hope that if Hillary wins the election of 2008, she’s not that power hungry.

Jim Feeney '07'

Wilkes University Student

Communications studies

Bring our troops home.

Dear Mr. President,

It is time to bring the troops out of Iraq not time to send more in. Every American is asking, when will it end? After four years, you would think our troops would be home, safe and sound. Yet here you are advocating sending more troops into the chaos. January 10, 2007 you asked for 20,000 more troops be sent into Iraq; part of your New Way Forward Plan. Last week that number grew to 30,000. When will you realize that enough is enough? It is time to bring the troops out of Iraq not time to send more in. How many innocent lives must be lost before you realize that you made a huge mistake sending us into this war? A strong President would have the courage to admit that he made a mistake and take action to correct it. You, Mr. President, on the other hand hide behind “the war on terrorism”; trying to make Americans believe that the only way to succeed is to continue this ludicrous fight; a fight, a battle, a war that no longer has a convincing cause. It is time to realize that many Americans no longer support the war. Many Americans, along with myself, wonder why we are continuing this fight. Can you truly answer that question, Mr. President? America is waiting…

A recent polls conducted by CBS News revealed that only 25% of Americans believe that the military can be truly effective in curbing the fight between Iraqis. Half of Americans believe that the war is getting worse and nearly three-fourths reported that they believe the war is going poorly. Two thirds oppose your troop surge, Mr. President, and 45% say that Congress should block funding for more troops in Iraq. As of the beginning of this month 505 billion dollars have been spent on this war and on March 10, 2007 you requested 3.2 billion more dollars to send troops into Iraq. These figures are becoming astronomical!

May I remind you of a speech that you gave May 1, 2003 aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, you said; “… my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.” You gave this speech four years ago and here you are now asking for more troops to be sent into Iraq. This war should have long been over.

Mr. President, the time is now. Stand up for our country and show America that you still believe what is right and what is wrong. Bring the troops home, it’s the right thing to do.

Jeanne Stapleton '07'
Wilkes University
Communications Studies

U.S. Past and Current Treatment of Immigrants Based on Greed, Not Need for Diversity

The controversial issue of immigration into the U.S. has been a recurring problem for many decades. Immigration seems to be a fresh “hot” topic due to constant media exposure. Yet, this hot topic that appeared President Bush’s State of the Union Address and many other outlets that discuss immigration as a “problem”, really have roots as far back as the late 1800’s.

There should be restrictions on the amount of people you allow into the U.S., because if immigration is not monitored then it will result in an overwhelming amount of foreigners jeopardizing a national identity. Also, for security reasons we should place limits on immigration. In reality history shows that the U.S. only places restrictions on those countries in which the U.S. does not have any allegiance to (which is understandable), but also even those countries who have had citizens here the U.S. Then, when the U.S. government no longer has use for them they deport them back to their countries.

In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act which suspended Chinese immigration, and indirectly endorsed definitions of race and class to define certain groups as “undesirable aliens”, which made them ineligible for entry citizenship. Defining a certain group of human beings as “undesirable aliens” closes the door of opportunity for the Chinese race, without any consideration. Now prior to this Act, there were German immigrants who lived in the U.S. and established their culture on U.S. soil by creating newspapers, schools, clubs, etc. The Germans were able to stay due to the fact that they were bi-lingual, and that was an advantage in trading. That’s fine, but what is the usual basis for the U.S. to choose between which immigrants are allowed, and which are not? I have yet to see that reasonable basis.

During World War I, the major concern for the U.S. was over shortages of farm labor. This heart-throbbing problem allowed the U.S. to call upon 76,802 Mexican workers temporarily. Six years following the war, the U.S. Border Patrol was established to “secure” the borders. In the 1930’s, which equals the Great Depression, thousands of Mexicans immigrants, and citizens were deported. Now where is the fairness? Mexicans are human beings just as U.S. citizens are, and to give them an opportunity just to take it back is cruel.

Today’s immigrants have families, and need a constant home to go to. They are not toys to be used and played with, and when you’re done you just put them down. This particular situation is like when you’re a baby, and your mother wiggles your food around in the air on a spoon until she gets ready to feed you. But as far as the Mexicans are concerned, they never really got a chance to be fed. Did I forget to mention that with the onset of World War II, the U. S. established the Bracero Program which forced Mexico to import more workers, because of the labor shortage scare? Well they did. During 1942-1967 Mexicans were forced to do the jobs that American citizens refused to, such as working on the farms. This Bracero “strong arm” Program provides temporary work for Mexican’s until the clock says “ding”, and then they are forced to travel back to their country. Unfortunately, it appears that the United Stated government has no regard for those citizens who may be seeking opportunity on the “the land of the free.” Besides, we have the authority to force these individuals out of their homeland to work for us, but after temporary work is over, we kick them out the door. It’s not fair to the Mexican population, especially those that have families to care for. This brings us to post WWII immigration conditions.

Those of you reading this blog, if you don’t know who Hazleton, PA Mayor Louis Barletta is, you will know after I’m done. Post-Gazette.com reported that on March 14, 2007, Barletta testified that his city needs 30 more police officers, because his priority is to establish laws to kick illegal immigrants out of town. He believes that Hazleton is becoming corrupted by violent crime, crowded schools, and a clogged emergency room at the city’s private hospital. He believed that “illegal aliens” are the blame for this list of problems that plague Hazleton, but admitted that he has no idea how many illegal citizens reside in Hazleton. So Mayor Barletta, you know that immigrants are the problem in your city, but you don’t know how many “illegal aliens” live in Hazleton? That seems quite contradictory. Barletta is a direct reflection of our country’s ability to toss immigrants out of our country without any regard to the fact that immigrants are individuals, and treated as so.

Two of the laws initiated by Barletta would punish businesses that hire illegal immigrants and the landlords who provide housing to them. Jose and Rosa Lechuga are legal immigrants who once owned a grocery store in Hazleton, PA before police damaged their store by parking police cruisers nearby in an attempt to intimidate the couple, and force them out of their store. The entire operation that involved removing immigrants out of Hazleton is unfair to those who are business owners, and those who have families. Barletta also believes that the city’s crime rate is caused by immigrants. Since 2000, Hazleton reported 8,575 felonies, and only 20 were linked to illegal immigrants. So Mr. Barletta, who is the blame for the other 8,555 felonies in the city of Hazleton?

Since 1882, when Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act until today our government has labeled immigrants as “undesirable aliens”, or “illegal aliens”, but in the same instances, needed immigrants for one reason or another. Labeling a group of individuals as “undesirable" insinuates that there is no need for foreign individuals. Labeling immigrants as aliens dehumanize their character, what they stand for, and places a cruel title on innocent people who are only seeking opportunity. Using individuals for their services and deporting them back to their country after the United States is done with them is not “cool.” These immigrants have families, jobs, seeking quality education, just like we are. That being said, either love immigrants or leave them alone, because how we treat our guests, is a direct reflection of what “the land of the free” stands for.

Carlton Homes '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies Major

How Much Do Celebrities Influence the Vote?

Right or wrong, in today’s society many in the younger generations look to celebrities as role models. Celebrities are very important to today’s society. Just take a look at how younger people get their news. Much of the time The Daily Show hosted by Jon Stewart (who was an actor in movies such as Big Daddy before starting his politically geared show) is watched as a primary source for news.

During election time celebrities are out in full force supporting their choice candidate. During the 2004 election, John Kerry visited Scranton, PA and was accompanied by supporter and “friend” Ben Affleck. At the rally there were many younger women there to see Ben Affleck (in fact he was the reason that I went) but while there I got to hear John Kerry and John Edwards speak and I was able to learn a few things about the candidates.

Celebrities are a great way to get the younger generation interested in politicians and what they believe in. Many consider this generation to be apathetic and not interested in what politicians say but if celebrities get them interested then what’s the problem.

Some criticize the use of celebrity in politics. In 2002 singer Kevin Richardson was invited to testify at a Congressional hearing about mountain top removal mining. Richardson, founder of his own environment charity called Just Within Reach, was criticized by Ohio Senator George Voinovich. Voinovich said that Richardson was not at all qualified to testify at the hearing. He stated, “This witness was put in as an afterthought because someone thought it would add to the glamour of the hearing and attract media attention.”

What’s wrong with media attention? The environmental issues being discussed at that hearing were important and the more media attention there was the more people knew about what the issues were. Richardson stated that was one of the major reasons he agreed to testify.

Other celebrities that have been invited to appear in Congress have been Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeve, Julia Roberts, and Sheryl Crow. Some celebrities don’t just appear before Congress or speak on behalf of other politicians, they become politicians themselves. Ronald Regan was an actor before becoming the 40th President of the United States. Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger and wrestler/actor Jesse Ventura both became governors. Sonny Bono also got into politics, and the singer was elected as a representative for California.

Celebrities are very influential and I encourage them to continue to support politicians and speak out on important issues. The younger generation looks up to celebrities and are influence by what they say. Celebrity endorsements are a great asset to the causes that they support and should be looked at as such. The effects that they have on the issues which they speak about can be very influential and lasting. Think about it, after being diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, Michael J. Fox became the spokesperson for stem-cell research and is still working to inform people on the subject.

Samantha Clarke '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies Major

Political March Madness

There is one time each and every year that the eyes of the sports world entirely turn to amateur athletes on their quest for a national championship, March Madness. It is when colleges and universities from all over this great nation have an opportunity to prove that their team is the best in the country. These “kids” don’t play for the sponsors or salary, they play or the shear love of the game, to fulfill that childhood dream of being the best. March Madness is a totally democratic tournament, all teams have to do is win their conference tournament or have a selection committee vote them in. This is why we have seen the likes of small schools taking down the upper crust of the college basketball world. This year Duke University saw an early exit to a much smaller and lesser-known school, Virginia Commonwealth University. VCU is just the latest David vs. Goliath story. Small teams have prevailed over the “goliath” teams proven themselves worthy on this exalted stage.

This year, the month of March saw more than basketball madness, we have also seen political madness. Nearly two years away from the elections candidates have already been campaigning like the election is next week. And the 2008 presidential election shows signs of being just as exciting as the NCAA Basketball Final Four.

For all those at home filling out the presidential campaign bracket, lets do the break down. Our bracket is going to have two sides: the Democratic side and the Republican side. Just like the NCAA tournament, we have to rank the candidates. In the Democrat’s side the number one spot is hard to determine, it’s between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Hillary is a lot like the University of Florida; she has campaigned at this level before – twice (courtesy of Bill) and is a favorite to end up in the White House again. Obama would be The University of North Carolina, a crowd favorite with a strong possibility of winning the whole thing, with strong support from the African American community. Now that the easy part is done and the “power houses” are out we can look at the smaller candidates, the mid majors.

In the NCAA tournament most of the mid major schools come out of the Mid West. In this Presidential campaign most of the smaller, but potentially strong candidates are coming out of the Mid West or West. Bill Richardson is a candidate from the state of New Mexico. Richardson would be the University of Nevada, the team has one of the best players of all the mid majors and Bill has that same “trump card” with his environmental platform and strong experience in diplomacy, a solid team and a solid candidate guaranteed to surprise some people. Another strong candidate is John Edwards, defiantly UCLA. One of the strongest teams in the country, defiantly going to make it deep into the tournament. UCLA is seen as a glamour team and having been to the dance before and making strong showings with history on their side. Edwards was the Vice President candidate in 2004 and knows the game just as good as anyone. Rounding out the field are Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, Long Beach State and New Mexico State, it doesn’t really matter who is who because like the teams they should just be happy to make it to the big dance.

Now for the Republican side of the brackets, starting with Sam Brownback. Brownback can be his home state university, Kansas, a team that people expect to go deep in the race and has the potential to represent the party at the end. The same way Kansas is a deep team with there talent, Brownback has depth in his professional life working on big projects that have been successful. The heralded spot of Duke University goes to none other than the former mayor of New York, Ruddy Giuliani. Just like Duke he may be a big name and nothing else. Can he go the distance? I am going to predict an early exit for the former Mayor much like the Blue Devils. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, can only be one school, and one school only, his alma mater BYU. The only Mormon in the whole race Romney has been taking a lot of flack from the other candidates for his religious beliefs. And what about John McCain? He would have to be the biggest name in the republican bracket and could very well win his side. Ohio State is a school that is right up McCain’s alley. Young people are huge fans and like the team he is considered a powerhouse that marches to the beat of his own drummer (Greg Oden).

My final four predictions are Obama and Hillary coming out of the Democrats side and McCain and Brownback representing the Republicans. Keeping in mind that these brackets are subject to change due to the fact that some people have not yet officially declared and others are expected to drop prior to the elections. One candidate has already withdrawn, Tom Vilsack, someone that lots of people had their eyes on. Vilsack would have been Texas A&M, really exciting and different but just doesn’t have the resources to get it done (withdrawing due to financial support). While March Madness is coming to an end in the basketball world, Political Madness is just heating up. As the lists grow think what school you think each candidate would be, then get your final four and your champion. No trophies in this tournament, its bigger than that. Who will be the next leader of the free world?

Tyler Jenkins "07"

Wilkes University Student

Communications Studies Major

The greatest gift ever: asking others to register to vote & voting

There are many misconceptions in society about 18-25 year old voters. One of them is that we don’t vote because we don’t care. I disagree with those who say we don’t care about the political system. When I graduated high school in 2004, I asked all my friends and family to register to vote for my graduation present. Not only that, every year since 2000, I have asked all my family and friends to do this.

Today, all my closest friends and both immediate and extended family are registered. How many people can actually say that all they want for Christmas, Hanukah, their Birthday and graduation presents are to have the ones they care about register to vote? I did it. The fact that politicians don’t listen to my generation is not only disturbing, but undemocratic. This is why I am proposing to ALL people, both young and old, ask those you are close to, family and friends, to register to vote and vote on election day as a present for your birthday, graduation, Christmas, Hanukah or an other holiday or occasion you celebrate.

If they tell you that they don’t know anything about voting, how to register to vote, or that their vote doesn’t count, educate them. There are numerous websites that will provide information on how to register to vote, where to send it, and many also provide information about stances that political parties and politicians take. Some of these websites include: http://www.rockthevote.com/, http://www.register-vote.com, http://www.publiccitizen.org/congress, http://www.lwv.org, http://www.declareyourself.org, and http://www.justvote.org. Moreover, after you encourage and get family and friends to register to vote as a gift, you must make sure to encourage them to vote on Election Day.

Make sure you call your family and friends to ask if they voted. If they haven’t, persuade them. If you don’t want to call them, give them a ride to the polls and vote with them. This is especially true of people my age. Once they see how enthusiastic you are about the democratic process, they most likely will be too. Once politicians realize that we have the power and influence to get people to register to vote and to the polls, they will start to listen to us, the 18-25 year olds, and we will be able to provide fresh ink to the democratic process! If we all do this, we WILL have a very powerful voice and vote in the 2008 presidential election and those thereafter. Politicians would most likely not take our votes for granted. Additionally, since many of us know how to use technology, do research, and can sniff out when we’re being manipulated or BS, politicians will eventually have to be more honest and straightforward. Most importantly, we will be the leaders of this country in 15-20 years!

That’s right; in 15-20 years WE will be running this country and making policy. It seems many of our current leaders don’t realize this, and as a result, they are not sincerely listening to our opinions, which is part of the reason why some people our age can become apathetic and cynical about civic involvement, voting, the government and the democratic process. If we want to be effective leaders in 15-20 years, we MUST and NEED to get involved NOW! So, encourage those around you to give the greatest gift of all, ask them to register to vote and vote on Election Day!

Mark Congdon Jr."08"

Wilkes University Student

Communications Studies Major

Ethics in Politics: A Glimpse at Hillary Clinton

Let’s talk politics. It is ideal to think that politicians of today are free from vice and should work solely toward justice and the betterment of society; although, this is often not the case. At the voting polls, the political process has become a choice between the lesser of evils. Justice may have been the objective of those who have lived before us, the thoughts of great minds of the ancient Athenian democracy such as Plato, Isocrates, and Aristotle, but are of little concern to leaders today. The political process is in dire need of social reform to attempt to put honesty back into government policy.

Even now, candidates for the 2008 presidential election are starting their campaigns, hoping to manipulate the public by feeding them mounds of bullshit, or what they think the public wants to hear, while at the same time making their opposition seem “unfit.” The United States, as a whole has put great emphasis on the individual, which is reflected in the way we conduct Presidential campaigns. Candidates are more concerned with their personal gain and the power associated with the Presidential position, rather than a concern for the people. Politicians #1 top priority is to get elected, rather than represent the American voters concerns. Political campaigns have turned into a game of who can afford to hire the best spin doctor rather than who might have the best innovations in good government. It is about who is born with the silver spoon in his or her mouth or who has an oil well in the family, rather than skills and leadership? It is estimated that candidates will have to raise a $100 million dollar entry fee by 2008 if they want to be viewed as a “serious candidate” (Kirkpatrick). The high cost of politics poses an ethical dilemma, because the other candidates will be significantly disadvantaged if they do not raise as much money.

Hillary Clinton’s, a 2008 presidential candidate, ethics have been put into question. Hillary was the first 2008 candidate to turn down public funding so she could raise more privately. MSNBC corresponders Edward Luce and Stephanie Kirchgaessner, claim that “Mrs. Clinton can probably raise as much as $500 million from her network of loyal backers in New York, Los Angeles and elsewhere, whereas she would be unlikely to receive much more than $100 million from public funds.” Money raised during the presidential election by both the Democrat and Republican parties, along with all other primary candidates, is expected to exceed $1 billion (Kirkpatrick).

The public financing system was established post-Watergate with the hopes of riding politics from the being influenced by the rich moneymakers. With Hillary pulling in her money from private donors, other candidates will most likely have to do that same to compete with her. The ethical issues here are whether the candidates we chose are the ones who are passionate about their issues or if their stance will ultimately make them the most money and gain the most support (Luce).

Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center states that “When you are talking about raising $1m each time, it invites abuse – the ability to buy influence and access.” For instance, even in President Bush’s presidency, prominent donors were rewarded with administrative positions and ambassadorships. If the amount of money privately funded increases, the trade-off will only get worse (Luce). It could lead to the wealthy people of America running the country, while the rest of the public sits back and watches. The rich will become the puppeteers of presidential candidates.

Dana Lehman "08"

Wilkes University Student

Communications Studies Major