Barack Obama is a Silly Girl Who Will Defile White Women
| July 30th, 2008So this ad makes the connection between Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Barack Obama:
As Josh Marshall notes, this one’s a two-fer: it sets Obama up first as a fey celebrity, one who’s facile and shallow. But by juxtaposing white, female Britney and white, female Paris with black, male Barack, we also get a nice echo of the Harold Ford “call me” ad — a reminder that as president, Barack Obama will be able to sleep with all of our white women, including the famous ones.
It’s a not-so-subtle playing of the racist card by the McCain camp. I wish I could say I was surprised.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I viewed the ad as saying that Obama was like Britney and Paris - shallow, empty-headed, and popular among a demographic which I don’t trust to run the country. It’s an insinuation which sticks, because Obama is facile and shallow; let’s hear more about hoping for changey hopefulness as the oceans begin to recede. I didn’t pick up on a “oooh, if you give him power, the bad black man is going to nail your celebrities!!!” vibe, but maybe I’m just so gosh-darned racially progressive that such messages are dogwhistles to me.
“He says no drilling for oil, and will raise your taxes” are arguments which I find much more compelling as reasons not to vote for Obama, than are fears that he’s going to come and take my white women away. Dems are going to have to do a better job of pretending not to want high energy prices.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
That’s the nicest attack ad i’ve ever seen in my life. Obama looks great, statesmanlike. Probably going to backfire.
Unless Obama supporters pull an Orlando Patterson. That’ll backfire too.
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I think you are massaging the facts to fit the narrative on this one. The main point here is the only one - it happens that Britney and Paris are the best known of the most vapid and irrepsonsible celebrities out there. I see no support for a “He’s going to nail the white women” subtext.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I watched the video and haven’t read either the post or the comments. I think the video says that
1. Obama is more image the substance.
2. People are blindly following him in a scary way. (the tone to the Obama chants creeped me out. )
3. He’ll raise taxes and gas prices.
Now I’ll read the post and comments….
Jeff I disagree with your analysis. The only evidence I can offer to support that is that I didn’t see anything obviously sexual about the images of Britney or paris.
If you wanted to make the same add and studiously avoid any negative stereotypes which two celebrities do you think would be more appropriate?
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
This really looks like a pro-Obama ad in many ways, at least to my eyes.
This comment was written by Vidya.The shots of him holding the attention of huge crowds with his words, cutting to shots of that phallic monument — it speaks of masculine power, energy, and leadership to me. The inclusion of the celebrity footage just seems odd. (And don’t people need to consent to have their images used in this way, i.e., linked with a particular political candidate/party? Are Britney and Paris really McCain supporters?)
Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I looked up the Ford “call me” ad. Is this it? And if so, can you expound on the “nice echo” from it, as I am currently at a loss to find a similarity in theme or cinematography (and I’m finding the juxtaposition you mention particularly hard to get, as the cinematography appears so different to me. Is it that the “call me” girl is stereotypically vapid, and Paris and Britney are considered in a similar fashion?).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vZF5ZTu2Go
This comment was written by Plaid.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
If you wanted to make the same add and studiously avoid any negative stereotypes which two celebrities do you think would be more appropriate?
Well, one could write a long dissertation on why Britney and Paris are evil, while Shia LeBeauf (recent DUI, “I can’t have just one drink”) is not, but had the ad shown any celebrities who aren’t young, white, and female — Tim Robbins, Barbara Streisand, Danny Glover, there aren’t exactly a paucity — it wouldn’t have rung that bell for me. But the fact that the celebrities fit the y,w,f demographic…sorry, I don’t think it’s coincidental, especially considering the guy behind the “Call Me” ad is the guy behind this ad.
As for the similarity — no, they’re not stylistically similar, but they’re similar insofar as the attack is subtle. It’s a dog-whistle, a shout-out to the racist creeps. Your average non-racist isn’t going to be looking for it and won’t see it. Your average racist assuredly will. I only noticed it after Josh pointed it out, and I look for this stuff now (and find it all too often).
This comment was written by Jeff Fecke.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Well, but to make the same point, it would need to be celebrities who are widely viewed as vapid and whose fame is purely celebrity-driven, i.e., unconnected to any accomplishment or genuine regard, created purely by hype machine and media love. That’s what the ad is trying to make the point that Obama is like. (Not very effectively, though. They really should just come out and be frank about it: “This guy is an empty suit. We don’t have the luxury of electing an empty suit so that we can feel good about ourselves. Vote for the crotchety old bastard.”)
Tim Robbins, Streisand, and Glover are bozos, but their identification in the public mind isn’t “vapid empty suit”. They’re all very good actors (great actors in the case of Streisand, and she is also a hell of a singer) who have accomplished things through their talent. (Ow, it hurt to have to write that! But it’s true.)
So who in the celebrity arena makes that point, without being young, female and white? I don’t know of any old black men who have that celebrity-moron appeal.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Now, If McCain went with Scarlet Johansen…
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 12:15 am
What’s truly bizarre about this is that if you tried, you could not find two celebrities (other than sports figures) more likely to vote for McCain than Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Gee whiz, John, don’t you want their votes or anything?
This comment was written by Meowser.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 6:40 am
John Riley noticed this too:
This comment was written by Jeff Fecke.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 7:42 am
[...] I’m not convinced McCain’s campaign purposely played the “sexually available white women” card. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t; it doesn’t seem like a slam-dunk case to me either [...]
This comment was written by Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Four quick points about McCain’s Britney Ad.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 7:51 am
In the ad it looks like Britney Spears, and in a slightly less convincing photoshopped way Paris Hilton, are part of the crowd that worship Barack Obama. So the leap from seeing them “in the crowd” that worships Obama and seeing them in bed with Obama is not a big leap. The negative stereotypes about the sexual activity of young white women in celebrity worshipping crowds, and the negative stereotypes about the sexual activity of young black men who are the object of worship are played out “beautifully” here.
Meanwhile, McCain’s logo is ugly and the music that’s played and the image of McCain’s profile all add up to “retirement living in style and comfort” advertising to me…NOT presidential at all.
And, who’s kidding who? Taxes are GOING to get higher, and oil is GOING to continue to be shipped in from overseas, whoever ends up as president.
Either we’re going to levee taxes now or later, from the richest 2% or the poorest 65%. Either we’re going to exploit our own environment, or someone else’s for oil. Democrats would rather not tax the poorest among us, and exploit our own shorelines for oil (or I should say, that’s the party line).
While we continue living in this paradym we will have to tax somebody and we will have to get oil from somewhere. Equating higher taxes and buying foreign oil with shallow celebrity bed hopping is just…disgusting. WHO will be taxed at a higher rate? The top 10% (a nice change from the lowest 40%). WHO is most at risk from off-shore drilling? Poor people and the land, water, and marine life they live with. Oooh, this makes me so mad.
This comment was written by Eva.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 8:58 am
I think its important to recognize that this line of argument–the use of literary techniques to deconstruct a text–is vulnerable to a high degree of subjectivity and, like interpreting a poem, may very well tell us nothing about the intent of the author or even its effect on the audience.
I recall a very convincing argument that Batman I was antisemitic, or the most recent one was actually a paean to GWBush. One scholar believes the Great Gatsby was passing for white but if the author didn’t intend it and we have no idea whether the audience got it, does it really exist?
Since racism and sexism aren’t the only evils in the world, right-wingers–while they may not be as sophisticated as deconstructionists in post-colonial or critical legal studies–will hear their own dogwhstles, usually signifying Obama as a fellow traveler. Some are not so subtle, like the bozo who had a Che Guevara flag hanging in one of Obama’s campaign offices. Yes, Joe McCarthy was a deconstructionist. And he was half right.
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators