An Orwellian “anti-Hillary” video, posted on YouTube, a remix of Ridley Scott’s “Big Brother” Super Bowl commercial for Apple, supposedly represents “a watershed moment in 21st century media and political advertising,” according to Greg Mitchell, writing for Editor and Publisher. “It’s all there—the blank faces of the mind-controlled citizens; the ominous soldiers chasing the woman athlete; the ‘big brother’ spouting double-speak,” adds USA Today. “And after the woman athlete throws her sledge hammer through the huge screen where Clinton’s face is being shown, the commercial fades to the words ‘BarackObama.com.’”

In other words, for the Obama supporter who remixed this admittedly creative video, Hillary is the visage of “Big Sister,” while Obama represents… well, apparently, not Big Brother.

Obama, a Harvard graduate billed as the “rising star of the Democratic Party,” will not save us from Big Brother. In fact, Obama represents the new, freshly scrubbed face of Big Brother, as he is a Democratic Leadership Council favorite—he made the DLC “100 to Watch” list in 2003—and last November sojourned to the Council on Foreign Relations to pay homage.

But never mind, so-called “liberals” love him, and this time around “liberal” new worlders will rule the day as it should be painfully obvious the “conservative” version (as in neoconservative) has gone flat as beer left out overnight. Even with Obama’s elitist, AIPAC groveling baggage front and center, the Buddhist Democrat Allan Hunt Badiner, writing for Alternet, was unable to restraint himself from gushing about the new Democrat dawn, same as the old Neocon dawn. “An Obama presidency could vault him and all of us into a new era, where sane and compassionate policies are championed by a more united and rational citizenry… The possibility of a new president named Barack Hussein Obama hangs in the balance.”

Ack.

“The Barack Obama I chose to support was a progressive and wasn’t afraid to admit it,” writes Justin Felux for Dissident Voice. “Progressive organizations such as the Planned Parenthood Council, the Illinois Environmental Council, the National Association of Social Workers, and Citizen Action Illinois have all given him a perfect rating of 100.”

I’m not sure how Planned Parenthood, started by eugenics and euthanasia advocate Margaret Sanger—who wanted to promote the birth of “fitter” upper class children at the expense of “dysgenic” lower class children—rates as “progressive,” but never mind.

For Fulex, Obama “has principles” he may “sacrifice… to ambition in the long-run,” but “at least [he can] say that he had some principles to begin with, unlike Harold Ford, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and many of the other people being touted as possible presidential candidates in the future.”

Never mind, for presidential “candidate” selectees chosen by the ruling elite, “principles” are something that change with the wind, something as interchangeable as an Ermenegildo Zegna or Ken Scott business tie. In Obama’s case, for instance, when AIPAC demanded a “principle” revision on the Palestinians, Obama obliged. Naturally, Israel-centric Jews and the “New York money men” have more influence than a few disenfranchised Arabs.

As should be expected, the false and hackneyed left-right paradigm, employed for years by our rulers, will kick into overdrive as 2008 approaches. “If the Democrats’ candidate in 2008 is Obama,” writes Paul Street, “we can be sure that the right-wing Republican noise machine will denounce the nation’s potential first non-white male president as a dangerous ‘leftist.’ The charge will be absurd, something that will hardly stop numerous people on the portside of the narrow U.S. political spectrum from claiming Obama as a fellow ‘progressive.’ Certain to be encouraged by Obama and his handlers, this confusion will reflect the desperation and myopia that shaky thinking and the limited choices of the U.S. electoral system regularly instill in liberals and some squishy near leftists.”

Of course, the point is not left, right, up or down, but rather globalism, and as New York Times columnist David Brooks notes, Obama has “a mentality formed by globalization, not the SDS.”

Street continues:

“Never mind that Obama (consistent with Brooks’s description of him) has lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and ‘other Wall Street Democrats’ to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party. Or that he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman’s struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Or that Obama has supported other ‘mainstream Democrats’ fighting antiwar progressives in primary races… Never mind that Obama voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act. Or that he voted for the appointment of the war criminal Condaleeza Rice to (of all things) Secretary of State. Or that he opposed Senator Russ Feingold’s move to censure the Bush administration after the president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens. Or that he shamefully distanced himself from fellow Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin’s forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo. Or that he refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran.”

In other words, there is scant difference between “Big Sister” Hillary and “Big Brother” Obama, although somebody, putting to service a Mac and Final Cut Pro, would have us believe otherwise. Obviously, this video is targeted at soft and squishy liberals who understand in varying degrees the essence of Hillary Clinton—a Bilderberg attendee, a top dog on the DLC pyramid, a warmonger par excellence—and are in search of an alternative.

Naturally, that’s where Obama, product B to Hillary’s product A, comes into the picture.

It’s all neoliberal snake oil at the end of the day.