Hillary Clinton Office Space

For over five years this blog has focused on the intersection between politics and popular culture. On numerous occasions I have lamented conservatives’ inability to understand the “language” of popular culture and its potential to influence people. Now, at long last, there is a campaign that “gets it.”

The man who came up with the idea for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s new “Damn it Feels Good to be a Clinton” ad needs a raise. Period. It takes 1999’s cult-classic “Office Space” and parodies the “printer” scene to expose the corrupt nature of Hillary Clinton’s “home brew” email server as secretary of state.

In short, it is a work of pure genius. Some of the lyrics include:

“Damn it feels good to be a Clinton. A shameless politician always plays her cards right. Got a crew for the fight on the airwaves. Lapdogs in the press keep their mouths tight. ‘Cause a Clinton never needs to explain what, why it is what they done, or with who. A real Clinton knows that they’re entitled, and you don’t get to know what they do. … Damn it feels good to be a Clinton – a server full of secrets ain’t no thing. Damn it feels good to be a Clinton – nothing ever hits with a sting.”

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd’s response: “That was a little rough. That was a little uncomfortable to watch. That looked vicious.”

Chuck Todd

Do you know what was “uncomfortable to watch,” Mr. Todd? The PBS-moderated Democratic Party debate Thursday night from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff failed to mention breaking news from earlier in the day that State Department investigators subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation last fall. (Note: Woodruff is a Clinton Foundation donor.)

It was “uncomfortable” to watch because it is sad to see the media protect a woman at all costs — even if a mountain of evidence indicates she should be prosecuted and thrown in a “federal, pound-me -in-the-a**” prison.

The Washington Post reported Thursday:

Investigators with the State Department issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation last fall seeking documents about the charity’s projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to people familiar with the subpoena and written correspondence about it.

The subpoena also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.

Yes, you read that right: Huma Abedin was simultaneously employed by the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.

No conflict of interest there, right? No problem with Mrs. Clinton emailing Mrs. Abedin the most highly-classified U.S. intelligence over a personal email server, right?

Objective observers know that if they did a fraction of the things Mrs. Clinton and her aide did that they would be wearing an ugly jumpsuit in a federal prison. But yet, Chuck Todd feels “uncomfortable” watching an “Office Space” parody that a.) skewers the former secretary of state for her corrupt behavior, and b.) nails the media for its, “Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along,” attitude.

Ted Cruz deserves credit for being one of the few Republican candidates in recent memory who has used popular culture to his advantage. His competitors would be wise to learn from his success.

Here is the original — a classic.

Advertisements

About the Author Douglas Ernst

I'm a former Army guy who believes success comes through hard work, honesty, optimism, and perseverance. I believe seeing yourself as a victim creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe in God. I'm a USC Trojan with an MA in Political Science from American University.

15 comments

  1. The problem is that the parody was over-acted. That kills the comedy. Todd isn’t knowledgeable about comedy, but that is what made it uncomfortable to watch. It’s like Jeb Bush saying, “Please clap.”

    The “Conservatives Anonymous” ad they pulled was actually much funnier. Better performances. Better timing.

    1. “The problem is that the parody was over-acted. That kills the comedy.”

      The ad was pitch-perfect. Read the comments section on YouTube. Even people who don’t like Cruz are tipping their hat to the man.

      I can’t believe you’re playing professional film critic with a campaign ad – and a parody of a Mike Judge movie, no less. Where is the Steven Spielberg of political campaign ads when you need him?

      Do you mind disclosing who you’d like to see in the White House in 2016, Invisible Mikey?

      Update: I’ll save readers the trouble of clicking the link to your blog to find out: It appears as though you’re a Bernie Sanders supporter. I should have just went with my gut and predicted it before I checked. Oh well.

    2. I would like to see Charlie Kaufman in the White House in 2016. Too bad he isn’t running. You mistook the fact that I re-blogged another’s article on Sanders for support, when even at the head of that article I said I re-blogged it because it had such great comments.

      I would choose either of the Democrats over any of the GOP candidates, because I prefer their platform and policy stands. Preferring Democrats over Cruz is irrelevant however. I gave you a clear example from the Cruz campaign of one ad that’s done well, to compare with the one that isn’t. I could be voting for KKK candidates, and one ad would still be better than the other. I’m sure the Office Space parody was pleasing to some. I was assisting you in understanding why others like Chuck Todd would see it as a bit weird or off-kilter, uncomfortable to watch.

    3. “You mistook the fact that I re-blogged another’s article on Sanders for support, when even at the head of that article I said I re-blogged it because it had such great comments.”

      No, I didn’t. I made that comment because you reblogged it, and then in the comments section you replied to “Please elect Bernie, you guys,” with, “I do have hopes. It could be Yuuuuuge.” So yes, obviously, you have a thing for Bernie.

      “I was assisting you in understanding why others like Chuck Todd would see it as a bit weird or off-kilter, uncomfortable to watch.”

      To argue that Chuck Todd found it “uncomfortable” because it was over-acted is downright hilarious. Thanks for the “assist.” Heh. I give that an “A” for effort in terms of attempting to explain away media bias.

      Comparing a parody of a scene from a Mike Judge movie — a scene that in itself was originally ridiculous and over the top, unless you think there white guys acting ‘gangsta’ on a printer to ‘Geto Boys’ is not ridiculous — to another ad that has nothing to do with a cult-classic movie, is like comparing apples to bananas.

      It has been my experience that anytime conservatives dabble in the arts and do it well, liberals have habit of finding ways to say it’s stupid, or it’s not right, or it’s not funny, etc. So your film-school-type review of an “Office Space” political ad, in addition to the fact that you “feel the Bern,” is rather relevant.

      You may say that’s not what you were doing. So be it. The readers will decide.

      As an added bonus, readers can check out the time George Takei called Supreme Court Justice a “clown in blackface” and your response boiled down to (I’m paraphrasing), “What’s all the hubbub about? No biggie.”

      You will say that is irrelevant. I would argue that examples where a man’s ideological blinders prevent him from accurately assessing a situation should be available when he presents himself off as an objective observer above the fray.

    4. “Are you sure YOU shouldn’t be in the race? Your ability to make assumptions is Yuuuuge.”

      You: Watch a parody of a Mike Judge movie, read Chuck Todd’s mind and conclude it was “vicious” because over “over-acting”.

      Nope. No leap in logic there. No partisan blinders influencing that comment.

      I’m confident readers will compare the original scene with the commercial, look at your comments (on this blog and your own), and value your “assist” appropriately.

    5. I never said it was vicious, Todd did. I said it was over-acted. It is.

      But you’re right, I do hope others visit of course. My site’s full of interactivity, humor, videos, music and photos. Thanks for the commercial!

    6. “I never said it was vicious, Todd did. I said it was over-acted. It is. — Invisible Mikey.”

      You said it was over-acted to explain why Chuck Todd reacted as he did, which was to say the ad was “vicious” and “uncomfortable.”

      “I was assisting you in understanding why others like Chuck Todd would see it as a bit weird or off-kilter, uncomfortable to watch.” — Invisible Mikey.

      “That was a little rough. That was a little uncomfortable to watch. That looked vicious.” — Chuck Todd.

      I can keep this going all day. I want people to see that this is what it’s like trying to have an adult conversation with men of your ideological bent. You come across as an individual who is deliberately obtuse, a troll, or so lost in your own sense of pride that your self-awareness suffers.

    7. Now you’re over-acting, Doug. We disagreed about a commercial, and I gravitate toward Democrats (in national contests) and you don’t. That’s all that happened here. I never said I was objective, and I offered a specific opinion (subjective). If I seem obtuse, it’s because I try not to engage in emotional exchanges of personal animosity online, even when whoever I’m writing “at” disagrees.

      You can keep fishing if you like. I’m not taking the bait.

    8. “You can keep fishing if you like. I’m not taking the bait.”

      I’m not fishing for a pointless argument on my blog. When someone comments, I reply. If they take parting shots as if they think they’re going to get the last word — again, on my blog — (e.g., “Are you sure YOU shouldn’t be in the race? Your ability to make assumptions is Yuuuuge.”), that’s not going to happen. When I go to another man’s house, I willingly concede the last word.

      Again, the readers will make their own conclusions as to the validity of your “assist” and the nature of your follow-up responses.

    1. “I do not plan to vote for Ted, with that said that was a great advertisement!”

      It almost seems like the Cruz campaign has hired Remy to come up with their ads. 🙂 If not Remy, someone with very similar sensibilities.

  2. Yes, it was a good ad and no it was not overacted. About the only thing anyone could say (and I’m not making the accusation) is that in an age when people–particularly conservatives–are worried about cultural decay, why would the Cruz campaign go with this?

    Like I said, I’m not making that accusation. I’m of the mind that the culture has irreversibly changed and the old rules no longer apply. Engaging the culture, referencing pop culture, and fighting to win are all fair game.

    1. I’m of the mind that the culture has irreversibly changed and the old rules no longer apply. Engaging the culture, referencing pop culture, and fighting to win are all fair game.

      Be careful there, Paul. When I make comments along those lines, it is sometimes met with truly bizarre replies. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s