Buckeye State Blog - Calling BS on De Vellis - It Wasn't Him - Comments

Dem dirty tricks in primary campaigns

Demgal — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:20:14 -0700

have gotten out of hand and its unsettling to see the trend growing. Its counterproductive and needs to stop. We should be focusing more on issues and good policy discussions, not driving voters away from the party with mud-slinging at our own candidates.

the revelation changes the media narrative

redhorse — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:14:04 -0700

imo. Obama's rise has been relatively smooth and unbroken in most outlets (besides the stupid Fox and CNN kickers). That will change, suspicion will lead media types to dig more.

Influencing the narrative

JeanLR — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:08:36 -0700

You, me, and every person with an ability to email or blog can "influence the narrative" as much as any other person.

The internet has made the playing field so much more open and even than ever with regard to shaping the "narrative"~

I'm not threatened by people saying whatever they want, I'm all for the end of the "gatekeeper" with regard to information~

Today, as shown by this episode, we ALL can "influence the narrative", and because of that, we should, imo, accept responsibilty for the quality of information we provide in forums like this, and in doing so we can diminish the impact of some in favor of the more powerful impact of sound reasoning and focused logic to advocate whatever position or candidate one cares to support.

This isn't a scandal, it doesn't matter what secret dude made a secret video using the oh-so-powerful Apple commercial from 23 years ago.

OK? Aren't they debating the $100billion funding the Iraq War, the one without the provision requiring the President to come back to Congress if he wants to attack Iran? (and he does, it seems.)

I Don't See It

Paul — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:50:29 -0700

While I agree it's a big story (in our world) and it tells us even more about Philip de Vellis and his motives and methods, I don't see it. We live in our own hot house of politics and if I've learned anything in the last few years is just how much attention people actually pay to things like this. Not very much.

broken record

Eric Vessels — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:48:46 -0700

we've had this discussion over and over. bryan is spot on here. it's not about influence on voters. blogs and youtubes don't. they do influence a narrative and this ad certainly does that. it riffs on a very powerful frame that apple has used for years - and continues to use even with the current "mac/pc" ad campaign.

missing my point

bryan — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:44:25 -0700

it's not about influencing the voter, its about influencing the influencers. the political elite that other folks talk to about politics. if this sets a person's mind re: hillary, it influences the "hardness" of their pitch for an alternate.

so, does it ultimately switch primary votes? yes, it does.

How conservative pundits smear the Democrats.

JeanLR — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:40:22 -0700

"Surrogates need only throw various archetypes "out there," as they say; the dungeon that is the human subconscious can be counted on to do the rest."

How conservative pundits smear the Democrats.
Unconscious of a Conservative
by Rick Perlstein
Only at TNR Online | Post date 03.21.07

Faggot. Nigger. Bitch.

Please excuse the blunt language. From here forward, to avoid the ugly words, I'll refer to it as "FNB politics." With little to show the electorate in 2008--after six years of uninterrupted control--besides sub-standard care from a privatized workforce at Walter Reed Hospital, thrice-married "family values" presidential candidates, and a boom in home foreclosures, the conservative base's 2008 strategy has begun to emerge: Weaken the major Democratic opponents by making their image unpalatable to the public. ...

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070319&s=perlstein032107

However

Paul — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:05:25 -0700

My point is the people who *aren't* the political elite (does that include everyone here at BSB?) probably haven't even seen the ad. I don't see it switching people's votes in Henry County or Crawford County or anywhere else. If someone had an "anti-Hillary" frame and it hardens it, does that switch a primary vote?

yes, it does

bryan — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:26:29 -0700

it hardens the views of the political elite by solidifying the dominant anti-hillary frame. how? it's a cultural touchstone now -- a shared point of reference and conversation. hell of a lot more powerful than any stock teevee ad or direct mail piece.

In The End

Paul — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:14:20 -0700

What does this ad actually matter to those who don't work in and live and breathe politics? I know I'm interested in this, but I'm not your average voter. Does it shift a single vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, California, etc???

Demgal and DMWW

Jerid — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:58:52 -0700

Let's not get off task. This isn't about Hackett, Brown, or either supporters. It's about Phil De Vellis' history and tendencies.

i don't want to start a war...

dmww — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:54:49 -0700

but what evidence do you have to back up the claim that Hackett's supporters did anything of the sort? I can promise you that if Paul heard of any of these incidents taking place he would never want these individuals as supporters. I also don't want to get nit-picky but um.... dozens of hang up phone calls is probably only a tenth of what the average 13 year old does in an afternoon, hardly a shocking number. I don't want the primary to turn ugly and dirty (though it does provide so much entertainment) but its politics, love it or leave it.

Evidence in support of Jerid?

Jill — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:29:12 -0700

Check this out.

Jerid, don't fall for thier bullsht :-)

JeanLR — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:18:30 -0700

The "biggest ad"? Again, who gives a sh*t?

It's a tempest in a teapot, and frankly, I was skeptical that it was even a democrat-affiliated video attack; the first thing I saw reported was that "Barak Obama ran an unfair attack ad against Hillary". Killing 2 birds with one stone here, Hillary is smeared and insulted and Obama is blamed for being an ambitious, mean, jerk.

Remember that it was the Washington Times (Right-wing-moonie-owned organization) that "broke" the story on Barak Obama went to a "madrassa" (the Arabic word for "school")

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703200011

"...On January 17, the day after Obama announced the creation of his presidential exploratory committee, the conservative website InsightMag.com published an article reporting that "sources close to [a] background check," which was supposedly "conducted by researchers connected to" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), discovered that Obama "spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia." The article further reported that the "sources" said "[t]he idea is to show Obama as deceptive." These "sources" also speculated that the "the specific Madrassa Mr. Obama attended" might have taught "a Wahhabi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims."...

So, here we have a right-wing echo-chamber trying to gin up a controversy between Obama and blame it on Hillary. It's not the first time, not the only time, and clearly there are some people who will continue to try and divide the Opposition with lies and innuendo.

We cannot let ourselves, or our elected representatives, to fall for this trick! For goodness sake, the other side will continually appeal to the lowest kinds of emotional triggers- fear, hate, prejudice, cynicism- we have to counter them with Courage, Compassion, Tolerance, Hope- and FOCUS.

They will try to get us all to fear our neighbors, mistrust eachother, to fight each other instead of fighting the people who are busy undermining our Constitution and bankrupting our Treasury.

Keep your Eyes On the Prize! Don't allow yourselves to be sidetracked with petty things~

old wounds

bryan — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 06:23:24 -0700

man, this whole thing opens up old wounds, doesn't it? i'll just say that phil has the biggest case of little man syndrome i've ever seen.

ok, on to your conspiracy post. having been weened on the x-files, i share your penchant for believing the truth is out there. having seen phil in action, it's clear that hes 1) not bright, 2) not talented, and 3) one pugnacious little bastard.

is it possible that even phil could stumble upon something as great as hillary 1984? unfortunately, it is. i do, however, share your skepticism.

the reality is that even phil did it, he needed someone else to come up w/ the idea first. to wit:

A friend suggested the idea after reading a New York Times article about the Clinton's campaign bullying of donors and political operatives after the Geffen dustup.

if it was him, though, i take solace in the fact that he will be the bob shrum of online strategery.

Calling BS on De Vellis - It Wasn't Him

Jerid — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:44:43 -0700

Phil claims he made it? I say don't buy everything you read.

Those who have been around the Buckeye 'sphere for a while know Mr. De Vellis well. One of the most unscrupulous Democratic staffers to come to Ohio in quite a while, creative and talented Phil is not. Pull up a chair and hear the story of the supposed creator of "Big Sister" - the most viral internet ad of recent memory - and why I ain't buyin' that Phil made it.

The '06 Senate Primary
In 2004 Phil worked on the Kerry Campaign out of a Cuyahoga County office in a field-type position (I'm sorry I don't have exact details). In 2005 Mr. De Vellis returned to Ohio as the Internet Outreach/Spokesperson for the Brown for Senate campaign. De Vellis was in charge of a number of tasks, one of which was neutralizing and reaching out to a massive online presence that had just a few months previous been ga-ga for Paul Hackett's campaign for Congress in Ohio's 2nd Congressional District. Faced with a contentious primary, the Brown campaign sought to neutralize Hackett's online base (and they were largely successful).

In Ohio, sites sprang up like wildflower supporting Hackett's candidacy or just to follow the fun - Plunderbund, Psychobilly Democrat, or the Buckeye Senate Blog (BSB, the predecessor to this site). Following the infamous Ohio Democratic Party Christmas Party, as the debate became ever more contentious online, dirty tricks began to occur throughout the Ohio 'sphere. Now, before the "he said-she said-he did this-I did that" starts, lemme preface with the fact that a lot of stuff happened in the '05 Primary. I'm not defending anything bloggers did, nor is that the focus - I just want to get the truth out there about De Vellis.

Dirty Tricks
First, anonymous accounts began astroturfing the Ohio 'sphere with disparaging remarks from users with names like "jewsforjesus", "thisblogishorseshit", and other similar tones. The astroturfing increased in its ferocity as time wore on, and the comments eventually began making loose threats against BSB's founder, Russell Hughlock's, family:

"And then you got called on it, got sued, lost your house, family, dog, cats, etc because thisblogishorseshit wins in court by a landslide!"

And the comments went further:

"I'm trying to get you shut down. Perfectly legitimate. And I'm going to."

Phill De Vellis had denied his involvement in the Ohio astroturfing scandal from the start, but his credibility eventually took a hit. The astoturfer slipped up when BSB was able to compare IP addresses from the anonymous commenters' and De Veillis' email accounts - surprise, they matched - and national sites picked up the news:

Hughlock compared the IP address on the comments to the IP address from e-mails he'd previously received from de Vellis -- and found an exact match. We contacted the Brown campaign ourselves about it, and while they were reticent to discuss accusations made by bloggers aligned with their opponent, they did take partial responsibility for the postings. De Vellis denied being the author, and pointed out the IP address listed on the comments serve the entire staff of about 30, but the campaign has acknowledged that the comments did indeed originate from their office. De Vellis said he was certain no one on Brown's Internet team had posted any of the messages, but said: "We haven't done an in-depth investigation." Rather, the Brown campaign quietly circulated a policy memo: Interns and staffers may no longer contribute to any blog save for Grow Ohio. This is a direction other campaigns will follow, lest they have to learn the same lesson.

Still, despite De Vellis' deception and lies, he remained employed in Ohio.

To pile on Phil's tribulations, PsychoBilly Democrat later uncovered emails from De Vellis to Ohio Right Wing Republican bloggers (about half way down the page) pushing attack material.

From: Philip de Vellis [mailto:philip@sherrodbrown.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006
To: (removed on request of recipient)
Subject: FYI - Hackett's Voting History from Plain Dealer

I thought you'd be interested in this clip from the Plain Dealer's new political website...

The email was just another example of Phil's willingness to play with fire.

Personally, the straw that broke the camel's back for me was when De Vellis began individually targeting Ohio bloggers in their private lives. Opposition research was performed against Hughlock and a message was pushed that he was a "conservative" to discredit his credibility because he had worked for Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom. Reports were relayed that De Vellis ascertained the identity of one poster on the Buckeye Senate Blog and called her boss with the intent to get her fired (I have spoken with this commenter in person. In respect to her confidentiality, I'll let her step forward to discuss it further if she desires). The reason she stated De Vellis went after her was because of the negative content of her posts regarding Phil's candidate. Actions like these, against private citizens, were and are a real problem in politics. These actions were largely the acts not of a campaign, but rather one man, Phil De Vellis.

You don't target private folks merely expressing their opinions. But Phil did. And I have no doubt he would it again in a heartbeat if he could get away with it. The man has proven he will do anything to get ahead.

It Wasn't Him
Now, it's all fine and dandy to know what a sleaze De Vellis was in the last campaign, but why don't I think he made "Big Sister"? Looking back at the work Phil did in '06 I'm struck by the lack of ambition with De Vellis' online effort. Sherrod ran a campaign that ousted former Senator Mike DeWine, that makes him a winner - but that's not to say there were no weak links on the Brown team. After tensions came back down to Earth between the campaign and Ohio blogs, an online campaign presence was largely missed. Sure, Brown reached out to some larger blogs throughout the nation - but he didn't have anything creative, outside the box, or that downright impressive that rallied people to his cause online (aside from the fact that he was one of the competitive Dems nationwide). To put it differently, where was that spark on the online side of things for the Brown campaign that's present in this majestic piece of political outreach?

Also, where was De Vellis' "Big Sister" ad of the Brown campaign. Where's that one piece that hinted at Phil's creativity? Where is something - anything - that shows a high level of technical skill with video editing/manipulation. If you're still looking, stop. I couldn't find anything either. In fact, there's nothing, I repeat NOTHING, from Phil's work on that campaign (or any other work he's done elsewhere that I've tracked down) that even leaves one to hope that he is capable of the pure genius that is "Big Sister". I remain skeptical.

So If Not Phil, Who?
Great question - and like most conspiracy kooks I don't have an answer. All I know is that I have a hard time swallowing this; it's suspect. Phil's shown us before that, arguably, he's willing to deceive and lie to get what he wants. The man isn't afraid of risks, and he's willing to play with fire. He'll do anything to get ahead. If for some reason he thought claiming responsibility without fault, or taking the fall, for "Big Sister" would advance his professional goals I know he'd do it.

How could admitting responsibility for the ad, and subsequently being fired from his job at Blue State Digital advance his goals? Now we're talking - this is the biggest, most impressive viral political ad ever. Over 2 million people have watched it online. It's most likely had an impact on the early stages of the development of the prezzie media narrative, and it's sure to have already persuaded some folks into the camp of the Senator from Illinois. That's an impressive accomplishment. Or, along the more sinister route, maybe he's covering for someone or group. Either way, there's bound to be a reward with a large dollar value down the line for Mr. De Vellis. Hell, I made the "Big Sister" ad (snark).

Make no mistake, this story is going to be explored inside and out. Tonight I spoke with folks that told me reporters from California clear to New York are already digging on it. If there's more to it (and I sure as hell think there is), we'll hear it soon.

Until then, remember this is just my opinion. I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again. And like Phil would want all of us to know...

"thisblogishorseshit."