Ohio was such a disappointment, because, the midwest, they're my people. How can Hillary get such a pass from all the folks who lost jobs because of NAFTA? How can her ethics-less campaign be rewarded? How can they fall for that 3am ad? How can any Democrat vote for her after she does this kind of damage to the part: “McCain’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”
But I think that after I saw this, that I'm done with any possibility I'll vote her. This sort of weasel-y racism, I just can't stand it:
The whole story is here. But, basically, she darkened him in an ad:
33 comments:
Wow. I hate to argue - but that's just absurd. I'm from Ohio, dude. And I'm bloody proud.
Argue about what?
It was just a gradient effect - who cares? This is one of the few times that I really have to disagree with you. Obama has thrown his own fair share of barbs back over the fence at Hilary yet you don't feel the need to overanalyze his intentions.
Sheesh, lighten up ;-)
Agreed. Obama is not a victim, and doesn't get to play one. He is fully capable of holding his own, and throws his own punches.
Darkening someone and widening their face is just a gradient effect? Did you feel the same way when Time magazine darkened OJ Simpson ten years ago? It's preying on the worst part of America... it's Rovian...
Thinking this campaign trick is horrible is not implying at all that Obama is not fully capable of handling his own. Of course he can.
It still sickens me, though.
"Obama is not a victim, and doesn't get to play one."
And why not? Clinton's campaign turned around when she started playing the victim. It could be time for some turnaround.
It's only a racial issue when people make it one - it's not the first time that effects have been added to an image but because the stakes are so high, let's play the race card.
This is precisely the same kind of crap that happens at BCPSS. If you're white and incompetent, you get fired. If you're black and incompetent, play the race card against your white supervisor and you'll be fine - the school system will be too scared to deal with it.
Stick to the politics and the candidate platforms.
It's not me who is playing the race card, it's Hillary.
And, really, the BCPSS thing is a reach and a half. They don't have anything to do with one another. I am not making any sort of excuse about Obama's performance or competetence. I am talking about the dirty tricks of a campaign.
Why is it so incomprehensible that Hilary may actually have a heart? She doesn't cry, she is accused of being "cold and polarizing" but if she does she's being manipulative.
If Obama cried I have no doubt there would be a collective "awwwwww" and the American public would demand that he be named the winner ahead of time just to turn that adorable frown upside-down.
Talk about sickening.
You're not talking about my entry or any of the comments above, but I'll bite nonetheless:
I didn't think it was calculated when HRC cried and thought it was an honest gesture. I agree that a lot of the criticism about her is mysogynist. But a lot of it is deserved, too - the fact that she'll do anything to get elected is becoming more and more clear. This ad is sickening. Bill Clinton tossing off Obama's win of SC by saying, "Oh, Jesse Jackson won that state in 1984 and 1988" is sickening. This sort of race-baiting is just so disappointing, especially from my own party.
Of course one doesn't have anything to do with the other, it was purely illustrative...my point is that it becomes a racial issue when people choose to make it one.
Dirty tactics are happening on both sides, the tactics from the Clinton camp are just easier to spot.
Just as long as you're realizing it's not me who is making it a racial issue. It's Clinton who is, with the darkening in her ad.
At the end of the day, none of us can tell what is purposeful and what was not. It could've been on purpose... or not. But either way, here you are arguing about the tonal quality of a photo versus any REAL issues. That's what is sickening. Period.
If it's not purposeful, then why is her campaign wildly denying they did the ad?
As for not arguing the issues, that's fine, but that's not what my post is about. Obama and HRC are pretty similar on the issues, as they have said many times. I was disappointed with HRC's judgement regarding the war, but as I have said, including in this entry, my positions basically line up with hers.
Because their issues are so similar, we are forced to look at the people, and decide based on their actions whether we trust them to lead the nation. So it might be "sickening" to do that, but, frankly, I don't recall much issue talking on your blog either about "your girl" Hillary, and that's fine. We're not doing party platforms here in personal blogs. It's not "sickening," though. I think these tactics are, though. Hillary knows exactly what she is doing; she has been in politics a long, long time. I always liked her until very recently, too.
I'm not attacking you, Epiph... and you're right, I don't talk about major issues on my blog... (yet). But this is just silly to me, and I was commenting to that fact. That's all.
I haven't gotten any comments in a couple of posts and guess I wanted someone to say something. :)
I mean, I do believe everything that I've said here - passionately - but certainly wasn't expecting 17 comments within an hour, lol.
And thanks.
"How can Hillary get such a pass from all the folks who lost jobs because of NAFTA? How can her ethics-less campaign be rewarded? How can they fall for that 3am ad?"
How? As a Michigander, you should know better. They're from OHIO.
Geez - it's one thing to criticize a public candidate... but a whole state full of people? That's just low. I'm opting out of the banter, folks. Sorry, Epiph.
I think Charissa wants to argue about how you want to kick Ohio out of the country. She likes that state for some odd reason :)
I think the political attacks on Obama because of his skin color, or his middle and last names, are absolutely disgusting.
What I also think is disgusting is how, after the DNC decided that Florida and Michigan's delegates weren't going to be counted, and that the major candidates were told to pull their names from the ballot (Edwards did, Obama did), Clinton didn't: and now the governors of those states are demanding their delegates be seated, giving her a clearly unfair advantage. I'm all in favor of Michigan and Florida seating their delegates: all those states need to do is rehold their Democratic Primaries, with Obama's name listed. Betcha, though, if that proposal is floated, Clinton'll shoot it down.
It seems to me that the Clinton camp -- and I mean her campaign, not her supporters -- are more interested in her becoming the nominee than they are in finding the best candidate for the party.
I will certainly vote for Obama in November. If Clinton is the Democractic nominee, I think I might have to give some hard thought to voting for McCain, or for a third-party candidate.
Also, and unrelated: I think anonymous comments are generally cowardly. Sign a name to what you have to say (even if it is a fake name). At the very least, it allows continuity for how many people are participating in this conversation.
I want to be clear that I'm kidding about the Ohio secession thing. Although they certainly haven't helped elect very many good presidents lately. :)
I think Christine was kidding, too, Charissa... just friendly border-state banter.
Snay: I'm glad you brought up the middle name thing. I wouldn't be surprised if HRC started using it soon, and if her supporters just start to say things like "Who cares? You're just making an issue out of nothing."
No, it's an issue. I want a candidate who won't intentionally try to polarize along racial lines. Obama has not once stooped to any mysogynist language this campaign, and this sort of darkening of ads, or her saying "No, he's not... as far as I know" to the question about him being Muslim just is unbelievable.
With no dog in the fight (I hate all candidates not named Ron Paul), I'm just enjoying the drama. I do think you calling Hillary's tactics "Rovian" is pretty funny.
Obama (and even more so his supporters) got a little too secure and misjudged exactly where his candidacy stands. To expect Hillary to not fight an ugly game in an ugly way is a gross underestimation of the Clinton tenacity.
And just because he's trying to paint himself as the savior of the party and the country doesn't mean she's going to buy into it.
I could be wrong, but to me the footage just looks like it's been taken from a widescreen tv that has different saturation settings. The image is letterboxed (which suggests widescreen) and the colors look more cool-toned than warm.
This just seems silly, I hope Obama's team doesn't buy into it because it just smells of desperation and up to now, that hasn't been his style.
My dear friend. Whether it can be proven that the darkening was intentionally done or just what happened in creating the add is debatable. However, doesn't Obama himself push his blackness, bury his white heritage in a political manipulation to win over the black vote? Should he get angry then about looking like a black man and less like the mixed heritage his is truly made of?
Don’t believe one optimistic word from any public figure about the economy or humanity in general. They are all part of the problem. Its like a game of Monopoly. In America, the richest 1% now hold 1/2 OF ALL UNITED STATES WEALTH. Unlike ‘lesser’ estimates, this includes all stocks, bonds, cash, and material assets held by America’s richest 1%. Even that filthy pig Oprah acknowledged that it was at about 50% in 2006. Naturally, she put her own ‘humanitarian’ spin on it. Calling attention to her own ‘good will’. WHAT A DISGUSTING HYPOCRITE SLOB. THE RICHEST 1% HAVE LITERALLY MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. Don’t fall for any of their ‘humanitarian’ CRAP. ITS A SHAM. THESE PEOPLE ARE CAUSING THE SAME PROBLEMS THEY PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT. Ask any professor of economics. Money does not grow on trees. The government can’t just print up more on a whim. At any given time, there is a relative limit to the wealth within ANY economy of ANY size. So when too much wealth accumulates at the top, the middle class slip further into debt and the lower class further into poverty. A similar rule applies worldwide. The world’s richest 1% now own over 40% of ALL WORLD WEALTH. This is EVEN AFTER you account for all of this ‘good will’ ‘humanitarian’ BS from celebrities and executives. ITS A SHAM. As they get richer and richer, less wealth is left circulating beneath them. This is the single greatest underlying cause for the current US recession. The middle class can no longer afford to sustain their share of the economy. Their wealth has been gradually transfered to the richest 1%. One way or another, we suffer because of their incredible greed. We are talking about TRILLIONS of dollars. Transfered FROM US TO THEM. Over a period of about 27 years. Thats Reaganomics for you. The wealth does not ‘trickle down’ as we were told it would. It just accumulates at the top. Shrinking the middle class and expanding the lower class. Causing a domino effect of socio-economic problems. But the rich will never stop. They will never settle for a reasonable share of ANYTHING. They will do whatever it takes to get even richer. Leaving even less of the pie for the other 99% of us to share. At the same time, they throw back a few tax deductable crumbs and call themselves ‘humanitarians’. Cashing in on the PR and getting even richer the following year. IT CAN’T WORK THIS WAY. Their bogus efforts to make the world a better place can not possibly succeed. Any 'humanitarian' progress made in one area will be lost in another. EVERY SINGLE TIME. IT ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT WORK THIS WAY. This is going to end just like a game of Monopoly. The current US recession will drag on for years and lead into the worst US depression of all time. The richest 1% will live like royalty while the rest of us fight over jobs, food, and gasoline. Crime, poverty, and suicide will skyrocket. So don’t fall for all of this PR CRAP from Hollywood, Pro Sports, and Wall Street PIGS. ITS A SHAM. Remember: They are filthy rich EVEN AFTER their tax deductable contributions. Greedy pigs. Now, we are headed for the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time. SEND A “THANK YOU” NOTE TO YOUR FAVORITE MILLIONAIRE. ITS THEIR FAULT. I’m not discounting other factors like China, sub-prime, or gas prices. But all of those factors combined still pale in comparison to that HUGE transfer of wealth to the rich. Anyway, those other factors are all related and further aggrivated because of GREED. If it weren’t for the OBSCENE distribution of wealth within our country, there never would have been such a market for sub-prime to begin with. Which by the way, was another trick whipped up by greedy bankers and executives. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. The credit industry has been ENDORSED by people like Oprah, Ellen, Dr Phil, and many other celebrities. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. Now, there are commercial ties between nearly every industry and every public figure. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don’t fall for their ‘good will’ BS. ITS A LIE. If you fall for it, then you’re a fool. If you see any real difference between the moral character of a celebrity, politician, attorney, or executive, then you’re a fool. WAKE UP PEOPLE. ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. The 1% club will always say or do whatever it takes to get as rich as possible. Without the slightest regard for anything or anyone but themselves. Reaganomics. Their idea. Loans from China. Their idea. NAFTA. Their idea. Outsourcing. Their idea. Sub-prime. Their idea. The commercial lobbyist. Their idea. The multi-million dollar lawsuit. Their idea. $200 cell phone bills. Their idea. $200 basketball shoes. Their idea. $30 late fees. Their idea. $30 NSF fees. Their idea. $20 DVDs. Their idea. Subliminal advertising. Their idea. Brainwash plots on TV. Their idea. Prozac, Zanex, Vioxx, and Celebrex. Their idea. The MASSIVE campaign to turn every American into a brainwashed, credit card, pharmaceutical, love-sick, couch potatoe, celebrity junkie. Their idea. All of the above shrink the middle class, concentrate the world’s wealth and resources, and wreak havok on society. All of which have been CREATED AND ENDORSED by celebrities, athletes, executives, entrepreneurs, attorneys, and politicians. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don’t fall for any of their ‘good will’ ‘humanitarian’ BS. ITS A SHAM. NOTHING BUT TAX DEDUCTABLE PR CRAP. Bottom line: The richest 1% will soon tank the largest economy in the world. It will be like nothing we’ve ever seen before. and thats just the beginning. Greed will eventually tank every major economy in the world. Causing millions to suffer and die. Oprah, Angelina, Brad, Bono, and Bill are not part of the solution. They are part of the problem. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE HUMANITARIAN. EXTREME WEALTH HAS MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. WITHOUT WORLD PROSPERITY, THERE WILL NEVER BE WORLD PEACE OR ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE. GREED KILLS. IT WILL BE OUR DOWNFALL. Of course, the rich will throw a fit and call me a madman. Of course, their ignorant fans will do the same. You have to expect that. But I speak the truth. If you don’t believe me, then copy this entry and run it by any professor of economics or socio-economics. Then tell a friend. Call the local radio station. Re-post this entry or put it in your own words. Be one of the first to predict the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time and explain its cause. WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE.
Tsunami Mommy:
No, actually, Obama doesn't do that at all. And, even if you say he does (which, frankly, I see as ludicrous), there's a big difference between the two.
Obama himself on 60 minutes last year said that he chooses to call himself black only, because that is how he is treated when he "tries to take a taxi" Check it out. Go to the archives. Everyone seems to ignore this. I have never heard him say anything publicly, other than what I have mentioned above, about his prevalent white heritage (prevalent because it is what he was raised in). The media and every public figure I have heard speak calls him the first black candidate. I never hear "the first bi-racial candidate".
Oprah says she did not come out to speak for Obama because he is black. Who believes that? It is no more right to vote for a man because he is black, the to not vote for a man because he is black, but that is what is happening. Obama does not object at all; he does not correct anyone who calls him black instead of bi-racial; he is getting every vote he can using his color to his advantage
Sorry, I don't buy it, and don't think it's an issue. Most people who are mixed black and white and look black do identify themselves as black. Are they all pandering? No, they are not. People yearn for identity, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Obama has never distanced himself from his upbringing or his relatives, as far as I have seen. Read his biographies - his white grandparents and mother are prevalent throughout, and their race is evident.
And didn't you contradict yourself here?: "Oprah says she did not come out to speak for Obama because he is black. Who believes that?"
How is the Oprah comment a contradiction? She has not chosen to support any other candidate. She claims that it is because she believes in him, not because he is black, but I am not buying it. The fact that most people who "look" black, identify as black, is the fallout of Jim Crowe laws. Until we all start being totally honest, the race issue will not go away. It is a badge of honor to call yourself black. Oprah did a show where a geneticist evaluated famous black people to discover their racial heritage. Many of them found out that they were a large percentage white. Oprah was told that she had none. Her response was "That's good. That's good." Could a white person get away with being relived about having no black in them? Obama is quite aware of these attitudes in this country. He is the one who said he was black not mixed. This is to his advantage especially with whites who want to prove to themselves that they are not racist by voting for him.
Don't get me wrong, I like many things about Obama, but this stuff sticks in my throat. It makes me angry. My children's mixed heritage makes me want to fight these hypocritical and publicly accepted attitudes.
It's a contradiction because when someone goes against your pre-conceived notion that people are voting for him because he's black, you don't believe that person, and in fact use it as an argument in your favor simply because you don't believe (or, based on your comments, like) her.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see Obama as denying his white heritage at all. Saying he identifies himself as black because that's what he has to worry about when he's getting a cab seems to be perfectly logical. He's not trotting out his blackness for votes. Nor is he trotting out his whiteness, or his bi-raciality. He's acknowledged it all as far as I'm concerned.
Post a Comment