The odd trio: McCain and Britney and Obama
Racial paranoia—or strategic accusations of racism, take your pick—has gotten out of hand in the Democratic Party. Now McCain has been accused of racism in his new ad for juxtaposing video of Obama speaking in Berlin with photos of young blond white women Britney Spears and Paris Hilton as examples of celebrities for celebrity sake.
The accusations would be funny if they weren’t so sad. Apparently, comparing Obama’s empty celebrity to that of the two females in question is tantamount to saying Obama is about to hit on white women.
It seems that if the Obama campaign can’t find any of the overt racism they predicted coming from the McCain campaign, they have to invent it.
As for Bill Press’s question: why these two empty celebrities, then? Why not Tom Cruise, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Donald Trump, or Oprah Winfrey?
Well, I’ll take a stab at it.
Tom Cruise, weirdo though he may be, is actually famous for a reason: he is an accomplished actor (and if you don’t think so, take a look at “Rain Man” or “Born on the Fourth of July”). Arnold Schwarzenegger was a Republican when last I looked, governor of a highly populous state that McCain would probably prefer to win in November, if possible, so ragging on him wouldn’t be the smartest move. And although Trump certainly is a celebrity hog, he initially came by his fame through his own efforts in the world of commercial real estate.
As for Oprah—can you imagine the flak if a McCain ad called her an empty, airheaded celebrity? The accusations of racism that we’ve seen so far from the Obama campaign would pale in comparison to what they’d be issuing if that happened.
Surely Press must be joking. But alas, he doesn’t seem to be.
I think the criticisms of the ad have come about because the Obama camp realizes it draws blood, and not for any subliminal racist message they imagine it has. The ad strikes hard at the soft underbelly of Obama’s puffery. It also shows a certain audicity on McCain’s part: the gloves seem to have come off. It’s about time.
Britney is a sub-optimal airhead: she actually rose to fame on her ability to carry a tune and actually sing. That she’s suffered a meltdown of epic proportions doesn’t negate that talent. But until/if she gets her head straight, her celebrity status will be based on “what new stupidity will she commit?”
The better third for your title is Paris, who’s famous for being enormously wealthy without actually having made any of that fortune.
Do the Dems think that 200,000 people would have turned out at the Victory Column to hear Kerry speak? Do they think those attendees really wanted meaty policy discussions? Most knew three things: Obama is black; he opposes the war; and he is not Bush. The talk was an event you had to attend–the coolest thing since Woodstock.
should have put this in this post. didnt know you touched on it.
have you looked at the brouhaha over the mccain video? its like lunatic central. and i usually give a huge leeway before thinking people lunatic, after all, it might be lifestyle.
I think its interesting that all the leftists have watch leftist hitler and the Riefenstahl work! something that the vast majority of people would not have watched or seen. And instead of noticing the parallels between Hitler and Obama, they instead envision mccain as some crypto Hitler using Hitler to smear Obama.
Exploding Obama At The Subliminal Level implies that the subliminals the republicans are using are saying obama should be assasinated..
and things get weirder at Obama As Sexual Predator
here is a direct paste quote
n each, Obama – framed as a protean black celebrity (like O.J.) – comes up on the woman, each an oversized icon, and creates the digital effect of a physical merger. (The fact that Britney is “facing” Obama and Paris is “looking away” could be mostly a function of what clips were available. On the other hand, the difference between the two – Britney more “receptive” and Paris seemingly “unwilling” – also resonates with the two dimensions of this ugly stereotype, one objectifying the white woman’s supposed secretly lust for the black man’s sexual prowess, and the other representing the more predatory “take it by force” scenario.)
and the left isnt racist? Gringo, see why i agree with you? these people are completely out of touch with reality… they are spouting KKK fear lines as if they are scholarly psych analysis!!!!
my comment above is the deconstruction that compares the video to triumph of the will… of course most never have seen that, and that the similarity would first have to be created by obama. ergo my comment as to the odd thing that they ascribe such similarity to a rightist plot when hitler was leftist, Leni Riefenstahl was a leftist, and obama is a leftist… but its a rightist plot..
oh lord are we in trouble if this is the discussions…
[note that anyone that wants to lend a sanity moment to them ends up being deleted as a troll]
here is another comment to paste
Ah, so I am not the only one who thought that the chanting crowds thing was supposed to be a reference to mad dictator. (Extra points for using Adolf Hitler!) I guess in this context Mike’s question about the placement of the black man under “Is he ready to lead?” is more understandable – all GOP ads are apparently required by law to strike into the fear of our subconscious and conjure up nasty images. I wonder what Mr. Weaver has to say about this . . .
and this
I think it is wholly justified to look at the memes planted by the photographic images alone. The juxtaposition of the black man (in GOP eyes menacing merely for being black as well as being in proximity to the white women) and the tender white flesh to be protected (a major theme in “Birth of a Nation”). As others have pointed out, all the talk (coordinated talking points, actually) about Obama acting “presumptuous” is just a coded way of saying, “uppity n*gger.” (It’s kind of funny though to realize that Britney is a stauch GOP supporter).
I remember seeing a TV campaign ad for Shrub with the sound off in 2004. It kept flipping images in an MTV-style timed beat where it showed D-Day landings, American flags, Reagan, American flags, Reagan’s militarism, American flags, more D-Day, American flags, Bush, American flags, Iraq War, American flags, D-Day again, and American flags. The meme was that Bush’s war was a “good war” like WWII and that Shrub was deserving of the mantle of “great Republican” just like Reagan.
As Bag News Notes has pointed out so well, it’s the image that largely conveys the message regardless of the audio. McCain’s people are trying to get as close as possible without crossing the line to an “electronic lynching.” It is yet to be seen whether this tactic will ultimately be successful.
and this
Wow. With all due respect, to anyone who thinks that McCain/Rove were NOT playing the sexual predator card with this ad, I have some swampland to sell you. How could they POSSIBLY have made it any more obvious? A flashing neon sign, perhaps? Did you see how close they got Obama’s crotch to Britney’s chin? That was just a harmless coincidence?
I predict you will hear about this outrageous ad for months to come. This is a colossal blunder by McCain that has left many in the news media speechless. Even they can’t believe he would attach his name to this racist, pandering garbage. Who could possibly want this man for president?
=======
such a bunch of wackaloons hell bent on creating hell and thinking its heaven. they are so twisted up they dont know that the crimes they rail against are and were committed by the side they are siding with.
arrrggghhhh!!!
Bill Press is just a dem hack.
I guess you can blame someone besides the usual madmen for his speaking style. Or maybe not, given there are few propellers posting on here missing a blade or two; who’s knows what they’ll come up with next.
Byron Rodriguez, a real estate lawyer in San Francisco, recalls his professor’s admiration for the soaring but plainspoken speeches of Frederick Douglass.
“No one speaks this way anymore,” Mr. Obama told his class, wondering aloud what had happened to the art of political oratory. In particular, Mr. Obama admired Douglass’s use of a collective voice that embraced black and white concerns, one that Mr. Obama has now adopted himself.
In class, Mr. Obama sounded many of the same themes he does on the campaign trail, Ms. Callahan said, ticking them off: “self-determinism as opposed to paternalism, strength in numbers, his concept of community development.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&em
At first, I didn’t get the Paris Hilton commercial. I thought it weird and dumb. But, after the brouhaha, I watched it more closely. Now I get it: Obama is all posturing, no accomplishment. Obama is Paris Hilton.
Mockery is the way to defeat Obama. He is a laughingstock in disguise. You are correct that no one would be yelping if the mockery were not drawing blood. Obama draws some support now b/c he is a cool celebrity. Undercut that support. Obama is not so cool. He is pretending to be cool! Poseur.
As I wrote on my blog this afta,
Just as that New Yorker cartoon cover of Barack and Michelle Obama as Islamist terrorist and 60s “revolutionary” was meant to be about the hysteria of extremist Obama critics, so “Celebs” is meant to be about the hysteria of extremist Obama advocates. Neither has anything to do with Obama per se, beyond his ability to inhabit the superstar role of what Virginial Postrel has called “the fresh young prince onto whom Democrats project their hopes and dreams.”
I’m able by means of a secret charm
Today’s “The One” ad is, as straight up satirical mockery, even better than the “Celeb” ad. Using the torrent of stupid things Obama has himself said up till now is the best strategy, I think.
Let him be the “One’ to destroy himself. Hegelian irony could be so fitting.
If you think Obama’s whining today is bad, it’ll increase tenfold if he drops in the polls. He’ll grow bitter and cling to his cliche’s and prepared scripts.
These people must be stupid, or they think we are.
“Just as that New Yorker cartoon cover of Barack and Michelle Obama as Islamist terrorist and 60s “revolutionary” was meant to be about the hysteria of extremist Obama critics, so “Celebs” is meant to be about the hysteria of extremist Obama advocates.”
Not! It is what it is, just what you see: juxtaposition of Obama with other vapid, empty people (who both happen to be women, I believe, only because they fit the role) who are celebrities because. Their celebrity feeds their increasing celebrity. Why people are in awe? THAT’S the question.
Done. No between the lines. No sexual or racist overtones — or undertones. Geez……..
Like ’em or not, Oprah and Schwarzenegger are accomplished individuals who built substantial careers a step at a time over decades.
Obama would be fine if he weren’t interviewing for arguably the most important job on the planet. There was a time when even he knew better:
“I got elected to the U.S. Senate. I haven’t done anything yet.” –Obama, Washington Post, Feb25, 2005.
In modern American politics, it seems to me that a very real gap has emerged in the way some people become so personally invested with their perception of the meaning or intention of others. And, it is reflected in what they are so willing to publicly say about the “real” intentions of others, especially public figures.
I’m not wistfully hearkening back to the “good old days” notion that we should get back to “the way we were” — times change, and perhaps predominently due to the internet, we relate more intensly, more quickly, and without any hesitation, than we ever did before. So, maybe one inevitable byproduct of that is the preservation (e.g., YouTube) of more out-and-out “blurts” — comments or rants that one might have decided not to say, given a little breather.
I honestly do not recall a prior time when so many people whose views or entertainment I might otherwise consider, are expressing such strange, and frequently poisonous notions about what they “know” public figures are thinking —e.g., “Bush derangement syndrome.” Press, Letterman, Olberman, to name a few . . . it’s a very long list.
Now, I don’t know whether your work as a therapist leads you to really understand better what makes people click, or whether it actually gives you a greater appreciation for how little we know about one another. But I think you have taken a very good “stab” at undermining Press’s risible claim.
But I am curious about what prompts a man like Bill Press to so confidently assert that the “celebrity ad” is racist? His explanation is so tortured that it is actually quite laughable. It was my immediate reaction when I started reading it. Now, I can imagine someone writing such palpable nonesense in a fit of passionate intensity, and then getting up and reading it again the next morning over a cup of coffee. At that point, it would be promptly sent to the cyberspace graveyard, with a large sigh of relief at having dodged the bullet of making a fool of one’s self. Bit not with Bill Press.
Is Press just a willing partisan tool who is offering his way of turning the around an emerging trend — to poke a little well-deserved fun at Obama? Is Press’s thinking so twisted that he really believes what he is saying?
I just cannot imagine ever hitting the “publish” button on such rubbish. But it seems to me that more and more people, even ones with reputations to uphold, cross that existential threshold, and do make similarly preposterous claims every day.
Pingback:Begging an Answer | curtis schweitzer (dot) net
I think the Left is infantalizing all public discourse.
“Bill Press is just a dem hack.”
As someone who remembers when he was a political ‘commentator’ on the local news in Los Angeles, let me assure you, he is exactly that- and always has been. no answer is too tortured for him if it sticks to the script.