Astronauts were paid to drink TANG

[Horse with no Name]

You know...most of us KNOW that astronauts don't ALWAYS prefer TANG...and know that they might prefer a Coke or might prefer a Beer...but they were paid to drink to TANG...so that is what they did and they certainly wouldn't tell you that they didn't LIKE TANG.
Now here is THE problem I have with that 3 am commercial.
That kid and her parents were PAID for that footage. It was stock footage but they were PAID. Personally, I wouldn't ever sell some footage of my kids not knowing what was going to be done with it...but then I am a responsible parent...not just a money grubbing parent whoring my kids out for a few bucks to put in the bank or buy beer or drugs or whatever they did with it.
So we come to the "controversy".
The family of "that kid" was paid for the footage...for all they knew...it could have been used to solicit child prostitution in the Mariana Islands..yet obviously they didn't care about THAT...but they supposedly CARE about it being "used" to support Hillary in an ad.
As far as I am concerned...here again we have a family that is just looking for some more cash from that already shot footage that they were already paid for. I would be interested to see the contract her family signed when they SOLD the images of their child in bed (just typing THAT gives me the total creeps) and see what kind of liability that they have against them for the embarrassing situation they have put the ad agency in. When you sell your image like that...it just isn't YOURS anymore to do with what you will...even if it IS for Hillary.:sarcasm:
Do I REALLY care if she likes obama?
Not any more than I care if the astronauts REALLY like TANG.
However...for those NEEDING to have ONE more thing to poke Hillary Clinton with...I guess this...as with anything...will work.

[cali]

1. LOL!!

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a flying fuck. What an inane little post.

[Bicoastal]

2. You know what kind of "tang" those Astronauts ended up getting the most of?

<ahem> :evilgrin:

[jgraz]

32. post. of. the. night.

:rofl:

[whopis01]

34. Astronauts were paid to have tang, Spitzer paid to get tang.... n/t

[Hutzpa]

3. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

there is no more morale left within the Hillary camp....


:puke:

[Horse with no Name]

5. It is probably the silliest non-story that was sensationalised

to embarrass someone.
The ones who SHOULD be embarrassed are the family who SOLD pictures of their YOUNG child in bed...not knowing what was going to be done with them...and the media for covering it.

[Hutzpa]

11. What would you have done?

do you think you could have done something different, if you where
approached by an advertising firm?

[Horse with no Name]

12. What would I have done about WHAT?

If I am selling images of my kids--then I will KNOW exactly what purpose they will be used for and not allow any generic uses.
You are aware they get MORE money for THAT, don't you?
It was about irresponsible, money grubbing parents who weren't looking out for the welfare of their kids or their images...THAT is the sick part of the story...not the fact that the images were used in Hillary's ad.
Yet like everything else in our post-modern American Idolized age...too many in their blind hatred of Hillary cannot see that.

[Catherine Vincent]

15. Noreen Gosch could attest to that. nt

[Eric J in MN]

4. While I haven't seen the contract, my impression is...

...that she was hired for a railroad commercial, the parents signed a general release, and then the company which made the railroad commercial sold the rights for the video as stock footage.

[Horse with no Name]

6. "they signed a general release"

There you go. They sold her image to them to do with AS THEY PLEASED.

[DemBones DemBones]

20. Exactly, and since they signed a general release,

they have no say over how it's used. It could have been used to advertise
kiddie porn.

I'll bet they're really supporting McCain and just trying to make trouble for
HRC, like a lot of other people I could name.

[Catherine Vincent]

7. I hear what you're saying. That was purchased by the HRC campaign.

The parents probably milking this as much as they can. The girl did say that she liked Hillary but she preferred Obama.

[Horse with no Name]

8. and the "non-story" was dragged here every two hours

for several days for the sheer embarrassment factor.

[DemBones DemBones]

22. You have to ask why are the parents doing this?

Republicans trying to stir up trouble for HRC?

They're quite common today, in the sense of being numerous and in the sense of being unrefined trash-talkers.

Edit: This isn't meant to suggest you haven't asked what the parents' motive is, but that many haven't.

Another possibility is that they just want to get more modeling jobs for the kid, more money.

[SoxFan]

9. Somebody's drinking something besides Tang

[Horse with no Name]

10. I am just taking your "non-story" and turning it on it's ear

I'll save the drinking for you...I don't touch the stuff.

[Beregond2]

13. Tang

Oh, for god's sake. Anyone who can make some money for their kid to have in later life (like say for college) by having them shoot some footage of them sleeping, and doesn't do so, is guilty of child abuse, IMO.

As far as Tang goes, you'd pretty much HAVE to pay someone to drink it.

[Horse with no Name]

14. but if you sell footage

It isn't YOURS anymore to do ANYTHING with or have ANY opinion about. What don't you understand about it NOT belonging to you anymore?

[mojowork_n]

28. Dude,

It's called "suspension of disbelief." We all know it's made-up.

That what we see on the TV is so often a:

• "D R A M A T I Z A T I O N"
  

Those weren't that woman's real kids, in the ad, but that doesn't give the production company that purchased the "stock footage" the right to control what anyone *thinks* about that schtick. The kid had every right to pipe up about it. (No one made a three year old sign that sort of release, for when she turned 18. And she was 18.)

That's called:

• "I R O N Y"
  

It's meant to be funny, but -- I've been there to feel it, in other spots that beat up on my guy -- when it's your candidate "taking the hit," you lose track of the situation.

...Actually, going back to when those TANG commercials were filmed, I saw a "Breaking News" flash on CNN today, that Dawn Wells (the actress who played Mary Ann on Gilligan's Island) was busted for pot, on her 69th birthday.

Some friends threw her a surprise party and got her buzzed, and she was picked up for swerving in traffic. Do you think Tory Spelling should get a bite off Dawn's residuals, because the actress violated the "good conduct" (or "morals") clause in the original contract that she signed with Aaron Spelling, the show's creator?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

16. I agree ... it's sad that, for the most obsessed,

ANYTHING and EVERYTHING can be bent, twisted, and fashioned into a bludgeon to be used against their perceived enemy.

It's a disease that, unless resolved, will end up bending and twisting them into something barely human.

[gore_as_a_compromise]

17. Good Call *NT*

[unblock]

18. what's dumb was hillary's campaign staff using the footage without checking them first

everyone knows you don't even remotely imply an endorsement from people who might not be on your team. someone got lazy and used stock footage instead of filming a staffer's kid or whatever and took the risk that something like this would happen.

not saying that's hillary's fault necessarily, it's too in-the-weeds for most candidates to pay attention to. but whoever didn't think to vet that footage should be fired.

[Horse with no Name]

19. That shows the stupidity of your argument

The Hillary campaign NOR the ad agency did NOT have to check with them. The parents SOLD the images of their child and they do NOT own them anymore. They had NO RIGHTS TO THEM. It was a non-story from the start.
The only story is that the parents exploited their child and now they are trying to double dip at the trough.
Purely disgusting.

[unblock]

24. nice, call my argument stupid without refuting it.

yes, the parents sold it and have no rights to it. they can't sue or anything. i wouldn't go as far as to use the word exploitation, but they have no legal or moral complaint against the clinton campaign. the clinton campaign clearly had the RIGHT to use that footage.

they DO however, have a golden opportunity to get some free airtime on behalf of their candidate of choice, and THAT is why it was a screw-up on the part of the clinton campaign.

the clinton campaign had the right to use the footage, but that doesn't mean it was bright of them to do so. you have to admit that using footage of the family of known clinton supporters would have worked out better for them.

[Horse with no Name]

27. Do you know the process of making a commercial?

They aren't full blown movie productions unless there is a reason...and in this case, the ad agency owned the video and there was no reason NOT to use it.

Oh make no mistake...the PARENTS cannot sue...however, I have to wonder if after the campaign the HRC campaign won't be suing the ad agency for the embarrassment and in turn the ad agency suing the family for breach of contract.

[unblock]

35. i very much doubt the family signed away the right to whine

but we're on the same page, whoever put the ad together screwed up -- and should have known better.

[Metric System]

25. Bingo! The parents knew what they were doing and Getty legally owns the right to the footage.

[zabet]

21. The stock footage is property

of the company that owns the
stock. To be sold for use at
their discretion.
The parents were lax in there
long term outlook as to the potential
for use/abuse of this type of film
footage. I just think they are
being used as pawns played in the
media chess game by the Obama campaign
to weaken the 3am ad. Someone in
all reality probably researched
the film, found the girl, and asked
her about it. Who knows whether or
not she was paid to do it? Who knows
whether or not she is just after a
little time in the spot-light? I
could not seriously believe she spotted
it with out comparing the original
stock footage and see how it was used
and if it was manipulated in any way.
It was not an implied endorsement like
another poster stated, with that line of
reasoning all the protestors that show
up at the white house, get a media pic
taken of them, then they must support the
BFEE in the White House.

[Horse with no Name]

23. The story the parents put out there

was that they were all sitting around watching TV and saw the ad and recognized their daughter.
They notified the obama campaign and it "escalated" from there.

I heard this on a news show...so there is no source.

[zabet]

30. They could possibly be true but,

without comparing the original
stock footage with the 3am ad,
that is hard to verify. The Obama
campaign picked this ad apart is
why I harbor suspicion that it is
all political chess. They picked
it apart, this was first, then the
lettering on her pjs was suppossedly
subliminal racism, and then he copied
her ad and made his own. All the while
he was blasting and ridiculing her ad.

[DemBones DemBones]

26. Well said. You sell the rights to photos and

they're used to advertise Coke, you don't go out and say that you really like Pepsi. You sold your image, period.

[Eric J in MN]

31. Apparently, she didn't recognize...

...herself after seeing the campaign ad several times, but her brother recognized her.

[ContinentalOp]

29. Nobody thinks this is a real "issue." It's just hilariously ironic.

But then Clinton and her supporters are apparently tone deaf when it comes to humor.

[NMMNG]

33. Same old, same old

Everything HRC does has to be hyper-analyzed and blown out of proportion to the N-th degree.

[Jamastiene]

36. It's not like a kid can vote any fucking how.

It's all a bunch of overblown bullshit, bullshit to make such a big fucking deal out of it. Obamaminations need to check their heads. Their ideas are so far out of the mainstream, they might as well be aliens from another planet altogether. Can we send them back now?

[golddigger]

37. The Mother Ship can't land fast enough.

:nuke: