Meet Barack Obama

[Yonivore]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/us...rssnyt&emc=rss

You don't google as hard as you claim, Charles.

I watched that ad. They were being critical of his attending the Playboy party. Why does the race of the woman have anything to do with it? Are you suggesting it should have been a black woman so that it would avoid such criticism?

Well, then they'd of said the ad was telling Ford to stick to his own race...particularly if it was known he's a multi-racial dater.

Now, let's look at the article:

Ad Seen as Playing to Racial Fears

Seen by whom?

Critics asserted that the advertisement was a clear effort to play to racial stereotypes and fears, essentially, playing the race card in an election where Mr. Ford is trying to break a century of history and become the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction.

Who's playing the race card here? Hey, I can't help how "critics" characterize the ad.

Why does the race of the woman in the ad matter at all? Why can't it be a white woman?

I think that they characterized it that way speaks to their own racism. Kind of like you bringing up Lincoln's alleged sexuality, out of the blue, belies some bias you have.

Seriously, couldn't the reference have had more to do with the fact she was a party girl he met at the Playboy party than her race? Talk about seeing faces in the smoke.

Hilary Shelton, director of the N.A.A.C.P.’s Washington bureau, said the spot took aim at the sensitivities many Americans still have about interracial dating.

Sounds to me like Hilary Shelton is sensitive about interracial dating.

Mr. Ford told his audience here, and elsewhere in recent days, that the attacks were simply a sign of desperation, a sign the Republicans have nothing else to say. He added, “You know your opponent is scared when his main opposition against you is, ‘My opponent likes girls.’ ” The audience erupted in laughter.

Doesn't appear Ford thought it was racial. It seems he saw the criticism the way I do, except he left out party and Playboy.

In fact, I could argue this response is trying to insinuate Corker is gay or something? Otherwise, why would Ford present it this way? It's just as outlandish as drawing the Ford is "coming for our women" argument when viewing that ad.

In an interview, Mr. Ford demurred when asked if he thought the advertisement was injecting race into the campaign. “You need to ask those people over there what they tried to do with that ad,” he said. “It’s tasteless, but I’ve come to expect that from my opponent.”

So, did they ask? Apparently not.

I read that article and I see the left trying to gin up some fake race issue to make Ford look more sympathetic.

And, you didn't meet the challenge. Find a source that criticizes Ford for dating white women. Imagined stuff doesn't count.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm changing the rules.

[ChumpDumper]

Yoni, if you are gay and offended by my saying Lincoln was gay, I apologize.

[sabar]

Talk about seeing faces in the smoke.

Kind of like you bringing up Lincoln's alleged sexuality, out of the blue, belies some bias you have.

[ChumpDumper]

It's pretty clear from his implied biases that Yoni is gay and doesn't want to be associated with Lincoln in any way.

I apologize profusely for any such association that was inferred.

[Yonivore]

Yoni, if you are gay and offended by my saying Lincoln was gay, I apologize.

I'm neither gay nor offended. Just curious as to why you picked that to compare with Obama's drug use.

[Yonivore]

It's pretty clear from his implied biases that Yoni is gay and doesn't want to be associated with Lincoln in any way.

I apologize profusely for any such association that was inferred.

He was a great President. I could care less about his sexual orientation.

[ChumpDumper]

Just curious as to why you picked that to compare with Obama's drug use.

Why? Why do you want to know so much about me personally?

[Yonivore]

I didn't change the rules, you didn't produce anything but an article that quoted lefties accusing the Corker campaign of inferring something the ad doesn't contain.

Seriously, why does the race of the woman in that ad make a difference?

Say, how 'bout the inference that only white women are ty party girls? Maybe they should be upset at Corker for that.

You found what I said you'd find. You found what I found.

Find something that shows the Corker campaign or, anyone on the right, saying that Ford dating white women is a problem. You can't do it...it didn't happen except for in the race-baiting minds of the left.

[Yonivore]

Why? Why do you want to know so much about me personally?

That's not a personal matter, it's a curiosity about your post. I'm intrigued.

[ChumpDumper]

That's not a personal matter, it's a curiosity about your post. I'm intrigued.

By what?

[Yonivore]

By what?

The introduction of sexuality in a discussion about drug use and campaigning for President.

It seemed an odd reference.

[ChumpDumper]

Why did you immediately start asking questions about me then?

[Yonivore]

Why did you immediately start asking questions about me then?

Probably to help me understand the reference. Didn't mean to pry.

I'm still curious about why you picked sexuality as a point of comparison.

[ChumpDumper]

So you are curious about me. That says alot. Especially your attempt to hide it.

[Yonivore]

So you are curious about me. That says alot. Especially your attempt to hide it.

Actually, I was just illustrating how people like you attempt bait people into traps where the term phobe starts getting tossed around.

It's not unlike the Ford campaign seeing some imagined racism in an ad by the Corker campaign and then baiting the media and public into a conversation that can never be resolved.

The makers of the ad said there were no racial meaning to the ad, the critics disagree. Why do they disagree? Well, I believe it allows them to paint Corker as a racist.

I was just asking why you would even bring up sexuality in the context of the discussion being had in this thread. Why is it even relevant?

I think you were hoping someone would say something that would allow you or some like-minded idiot, in this forum, to go off on a tangent about phobia or some such. It happens all the time in here.

Really, I don't want to know anything about you personally, I don't think I could care any less.

I do find it interesting that you continue to try and make this into some kind of personal issue instead of just explaining why you chose that particular rumor about former President Lincoln when making your comparison.

[Ocotillo]

Wow! So a good speaker means a good President? Lets hit the lecture circuits. I'm sure we can find some more candidates.

It got Reagan canonized by the right. From where I sit all he brought to the table was charisma and speaking skills. Other than that? Nixon without the five o'clock shadow.

[ThomasGranger]

It's not unlike the Ford campaign seeing some imagined racism in an ad by the Corker campaign and then baiting the media and public into a conversation that can never be resolved.

The makers of the ad said there were no racial meaning to the ad, the critics disagree. Why do they disagree? Well, I believe it allows them to paint Corker as a racist.

It may not have been as overtly racist as, say, the Willie Horton ads that Bush Sr. used (quite effectively) against Dukakis, but the Corker ad did invoke deep rooted racist anxieties about miscegenation. Anybody who is even remotely familiar with American history knows that.

Were they calculated to do that? Who can say for sure except the people who made them, but given the stakes of the contest and the emotional content of most political advertising, I'm thinking yes.

[Yonivore]

It may not have been as overtly racist as, say, the Willie Horton ads that Bush Sr. used (quite effectively) against Dukakis, but the Corker ad did invoke deep rooted racist anxieties about miscegenation. Anybody who is even remotely familiar with American history knows that.

Were they calculated to do that? Who can say for sure except the people who made them, but given the stakes of the contest and the emotional content of most political advertising, I'm thinking yes.

See, I disagree that the Willie Horton ads were racist. I can't help that the prisoner Dukakis's furlough program allowed to commit a heinous act was black.

The point of that ad was that Dukakis was soft on crime and that his silly furlough program got someone killed.

Only people who want to believe the ad was racist saw it that way. Okay, there's the other category who wanted the public to believe the ad was racist so they could accuse President Bush of being a racist and started planting that seed in criticisms of the ad.

Are you saying that if Willie Horton had been white, the Bush campaign wouldn't have used the cir stance to demostrate Dukakis's ineptness on crime issues?

I think the same applies with the Corker ad.

[ThomasGranger]

The point of that ad was that Dukakis was soft on crime and that his silly furlough program got someone killed.

I got that, but the goal of the ad was to scare voters, and the way in which Horton's image was used was a big part of that equation.

Larry McCarthy, the guy who made the ad called the mug shot of Horton "every suburban mother's greatest fear." Hmmm, wonder what he meant by that?

Only people who want to believe the ad was racist saw it that way.

Or, only people who don't want to believe the ad was racist are completely blind to the way race is used . . . I guess we can go down the "it's just a matter of perspective road" on this and agree to disagree.

Are you saying that if Willie Horton had been white, the Bush campaign wouldn't have used the cir stance to demostrate Dukakis's ineptness on crime issues?

No, I don't know what they would have done. What I am saying is that both ads used racial stereotypes and anxieties to scare/anger voters. If you don't think that's a racist form of political advertising, then I guess we have different notions of what cons utes racism.

[Yonivore]

I got that, but the goal of the ad was to scare voters, and the way in which Horton's image was used was a big part of that equation.

Criminals sometimes look scary...even white ones. If the guy had looked like Barak Obama or Louis Farrakhan, both of whom are snazzy dressers with decent haircuts, I doubt the image would have been effective and probably not used. Incidentally, if the guy had looked like Charles Manson, I believe it would have been used in the same manner. I still don't buy the argument it was used because he was black. I think it was used because he looked like a ing murderer. He was scary looking.

Larry McCarthy, the guy who made the ad called the mug shot of Horton "every suburban mother's greatest fear." Hmmm, wonder what he meant by that?

That the guy was scary looking. Are you inferring there are no suburban black mothers? That's a racist stereotype as well.

Or, only people who don't want to believe the ad was racist are completely blind to the way race is used . . . I guess we can go down the "it's just a matter of perspective road" on this and agree to disagree.

Okay, but to the extent that I believe the critique that these ads were racist is intended to incite some racial response in me -- a suburban white dad -- I think deserves my response.

I didn't see either ad as racist. It never occurred to me until the race-baiters started harping on it. And, to infer that suburban white mom's are racist, instead of just scare less of a heinous criminal, is, in my view, racist.

No, I don't know what they would have done. What I am saying is that both ads used racial stereotypes and anxieties to scare/anger voters. If you don't think that's a racist form of political advertising, then I guess we have different notions of what cons utes racism.

I don't agree that the ads used racial stereotypes. I believe both ads were intending to convey a negative image, no doubt. But, that Willie Horton is a black murderer who looks like a murderer and that the woman in the Ford ad is a ty white girl portraying someone Ford may have encountered at a Playboy party is merely coincidental and only racist in the minds of those who see racism in everything.

[ThomasGranger]

I still don't buy the argument it was used because he was black. I think it was used because he looked like a ing murderer. He was scary looking.

OK, fair enough.

Are you inferring there are no suburban black mothers? That's a racist stereotype as well.

No, what kind of bull is that? Of course suburban moms are not exclusively white, just as urban moms are not exclusively black. But why didn't he simply say "all mothers." Answer: because he was speaking about pushing the buttons of a specific demographic group which is predominantly white.

And, to infer that suburban white mom's are racist, instead of just scare less of a heinous criminal, is, in my view, racist.

Some are, some aren't. Again, quit trying to put words into my mouth.

But, that Willie Horton is a black murderer who looks like a murderer and that the woman in the Ford ad is a ty white girl portraying someone Ford may have encountered at a Playboy party is merely coincidental and only racist in the minds of those who see racism in everything.

Merely coincidental? I've worked in advertising creating ads. You can bet that pretty much everything that goes into an ad is there for a reason, especially with political advertising. That is by design.

[ponky]

I WILL be meeting him when he comes to Austin next Friday at Gregory Gym (U.T.)!

[Yonivore]

No, what kind of bull is that? Of course suburban moms are not exclusively white, just as urban moms are not exclusively black. But why didn't he simply say "all mothers." Answer: because he was speaking about pushing the buttons of a specific demographic group which is predominantly white.

Or, it could be that suburban crime by urban criminals is a real fear.

Some are, some aren't. Again, quit trying to put words into my mouth.

I'm sorry if you took that wrong, I was referring generally to the assumption that the ad was intended to scare suburban white moms as opposed to all suburban moms. I can't speak to your specific position except for the fact that you posited that proposition here.

Merely coincidental? I've worked in advertising creating ads. You can bet that pretty much everything that goes into an ad is there for a reason, especially with political advertising. That is by design.

Okay, then explain the races of all the other people in the Corker ad. Why did the advertisers choose them? It couldn't be that they were the best actors for the parts and images they were trying to convey?

Look, you're right, marketing is a science. My point in saying race was coincidental is that I believe the woman was chosen for the ad because she could pull off a ty woman with whom Ford might have encounter at a Playboy party and that's what they were trying to project; not that she was a white woman.

I'll even grant this. I wouldn't be surprised if the ad company had the conversation along the lines of should the actor be black or white because, well, if we use a black woman, the race-baiters are going to infer we want Ford (a person known to date white women) to stick to his race and quit dipping into our pool; and, if we use a white woman, the race-baiters are going to infer we're calling Ford out for "stealing our women folk."

Please tell me you see my point here.

It was a no win situation. I think they finally arrived at the conclusion at which that debate always arrives. We're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't, it's a no-win proposition; let's just find a ty looking woman to put in the ad to make our point that Ford is a jet-setting party boy.

Truth be told, it could probably be argued they relied on the blonde bimbo stereotype in order to make their point and how fair is that to white blonde women?

[clambake]

Yoni, even with all you supposed condemnation of "playing the race card", you still seem quite satisfied with the characterizations the ford ad was clearly attempting to convey. It's also clear that if it benefits your position, then it's not crossing the line. I guess most of us are guilty of that, just not to your extent.