I can see billionaires from my house

Stephanie Cutter is deputy campaign manager for President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign. When I visited her YouTube channel, it said she had posted 2,294 videos. Ouch. So not gonna watch any of that. Just for youse guys, I did sample two. In the first one, she claimed she’d expose all of Karl Rove’s Evil Lies. Whatever. I turned it off.

In this one below, she claims to expose The Romney Campaign’s Double Standard. I listened up to :49, just enough to hear her complain that diddling with statistics is only a Very Bad Thing when Republicans do it. When Democrats do it, they’re just Telling The Truth. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Like how they blame all that deficit spending in 2007 and 2008 on BUSH. Jerks.

Stephanie Cutter: The Romney Campaign’s Double Standard

I really do not have the stomach for oppo research. Thank God for the people who do. Blowing kisses to Pete, who posted this odd video yesterday. Turns out it’s not Stephanie Cutter’s outtakes, but an SNL-style comedy skit, done by the same group that helped launch Tina Fey’s career.

Stephanie Cutter Knows She’s Screwed — Obama FA Outtakes [1:39]

Ah, Tina Fey … that would make “Stephanie Cutter Knows She’s Screwed” a 2012 Conservative version of the 2008 hit “I can see Alaska from my house!”

Blowing more kisses to Mafia Rose, who actually read the article at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/13/1099699/-How-we-could-stop-the-Adelsons-and-their-millions which was the motivation behind the comedy skit. According to Rose, the author had the bright idea that if all of the liberal millionaires and billionaires pledged to match conservative millionaire and billionaire donations, the conservatives would stop donating.

I dunno why Daily Kos bothered to publish an article. Wouldn’t it have been faster to just phone George Soros and put the plan to him? They must have him on Speed Dial, right?

It’s too bad that Stephanie Cutter hasn’t got anywhere near the value of Sarah Palin as a political comedy target, because Janel Benisch (the comedienne in the skit) does bear a striking resemblance to her.



Filed under Loose Pollen

3 responses to “I can see billionaires from my house

  1. I’m still trying to figure out how they could make such a video without a disclaimer. It has an almost identical intro…same wording…same banner and she claims she’s working for Obama’s campaign. That doesn’t seem like it should be legal to me. From their FB page, it’s obvious that they’re liberals. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that BO and his peeps are not going to be happy about this.


    • chrissythehyphenated

      My lawyer the niece said there isn’t a clear demarcation for what constitutes “fair use” vs. “copyright infringement.” If someone wants to try something like this, their lawyer (if they consulted one) would do a “risk assessment.” I think that boils down to “What’s the worst that could happen?”

      I discussed this with KD back in the day. He said he’d tread on the “fair use” toes of various copyright owners, but only NBC ever called him out on it. He got a huffy email, took down the video and never used NBC’s stuff again.

      Multiple, egregious violations can get someone booted off of YouTube, because YouTube has bucks and is worth suing. But again, losing posting privileges at YouTube is all that would happen to the person who actually posted the infringing material.

      When it comes to educational and artistic uses, the law favors free speech. To sue for damages, OFA would be looking at paying lawyers and wasting time with an iffy chance of winning and little profit to be had even if they won, since the comedy group is probably working on a shoestring to begin with.

      So I’m guessing in this case, “the worst” would come down to the OFA sending a huffy email and the comedy group taking the video down. But even that could be risky. OFA could get bad press for picking on a bunch of improv artists. And the artists themselves would likely strike back in slightly more legal ways.

      They used to say you shouldn’t pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel. It’s even more true when you’re talking about people who pay nothing for 24-7 air time.


      • All very valid points. You would have the burden of proving damages, first, then recovering whatever damages you were awarded. In the end, you are correct, they would probably just make them take the video down. The sooner the better (for them)! So, I guess I shouldn’t complain about it, huh?