Exactly. This is perhaps their most irksome trait.

Mimi Schaeffer displays another characteristic of a Hillbot: getting outraged over something some Obama supporter said somewhere and pretending it’s a good reason to support Hillary. A final trait of the standard Hillbot on display in these comments is the deployment of white privilege while remaining oblivious to same.

Let me get this straight. We just spent the last two months listening to conservatives and hillary supporters (wonderful combo there, btw) attacking Obama for being associated with a “radical” “black nationalist” preacher.

Now Obama is responding to the fears that he’s a secret black nationalist himself by presenting an image of racial unity and diversity in his campaign, an image which was clear and present all along but now has to be reasserted after months of intense media distortion.

Now we have to hear conservatives and hillary supporters (again, nice bed fellows, folks) claim that Obama is pandering to white guilt. Wonderful.

There are a couple of reasons why this is, once again, total horse shit.

Appeals to race, whether direct or indirect, are always fraught with complications and justifiably raise suspicions. The Wright controversy was centered on a critique of Obama as maybe, possibly TOO black. When race is exploited in such a way to undermine a candidate’s appeal, that’s pretty fucking racist behavior. If Obama is trying to appeal to whites now, to counter the damage done by the Wright distortion, by projecting an image of inclusiveness and diversity in his campaign, he is not exploiting race to undermine other candidates. He is actually underscoring a positive message of diversity and unity as well as the the central message of his campaign is that he will represent every American of every race. He wouldn’t have to do that if suspicions had been raised in the first place that there was something suspect about his racial attitudes. And its conservatives and hillary supporters who pushed that message in the first place.

I highly doubt that Hillary would be criticized for attending a black church or seating blacks behind her at a podium. Hilary has supporters in the black community and she would like more support. If she spoke at a black church that would be a positive and inclusive way to appeal to black support and someone would be hard pressed to criticize her for it. If you want the union vote, you get a bunch of steel workers behind you, if you want the military vote, you get a bunch of soldiers behind you. You want to push your education agenda, you get a bunch of children behind you. Simple as that.

Where such image politics are dubious is when a candidates actual policies are in direct opposition to the image they present. Like Bush putting a bunch of environmentalists behind him, or union workers, or children or, for that matter, the military …

It’s ridiculous that people are attacking Obama now because they suspect that Hillary MIGHT BE attacked if she did the same thing. I highly doubt it. But if she was, such criticism would surely be based on the fact that her supporters have spent the last two months excoriating Obama for having too close a relationship with the pastor who presided over his wedding — of all things.

The other reason why these attacks on Obama are ridiculous because they seem to suggest that in putting whites behind him at the podium, he is projecting a false image of his support. Really? Whites aren’t supporting Obama? That idea is simply a carry over of subtext of the Rev Wright attacks: Obama is too black to represent whites fairly so he has to stage manage his events to present a false image of white support. What bullshit. Really, you all ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Oh stop it. Now who’s reading who’s mind?

It may not be unusual in the great, wide world, but I haven’t noticed Jeralyn doing it much. Her headlines are usually very direct.

Personally, I’ve always been disgusted with the way Bush uses our troops as props. He’s not entitled to turn them into part of his campaign.

You may not like the practice, but it is hardly unique to Bush. The President before him did it, and the President after him will do it.

I was neutral and didn’t know whom I would support but as soon as Eugene Robinson and other Obama supporters started gnashing their teeth about some lame comment Hillary made about King and Pres. Johnson and claiming voters in New Hampshire were racists and liars because they told pollsters they supported Barack and then bailed out, that was it for me.

Enough! And now this latest 10-second ad with Michelle, sis and racist grandma. The ad is a blatant appeal to white guilt offering redemption through support for Obama.

I mean, what is one to make of grandma’s oblique reference to Obama’s “depth and a broadness of view.”?

And what about Michelle’s point that Obama’s priority is to ensure their children “can imagine any kind of world for themselves with no barriers”?

Barriers because of gender?? Race??? What the hell are these people talking about…??? Oh that’s right–race.

How are they different? They’re not really any different at all when the point is to influence or to make a particular impression upon an audience (which is what both tactics try to accomplish). They’re just different ways of accomplishing the same goal. Seating can be a more subtle influence, but isn’t necessarily so.

I’ve been reading TalkLeft for many years. Tongue-in-cheek is not Jeralyn’s style. The only “tell” I’m alluding to is that the headline is about Michelle Obama and her campaign event. The headline is NOT about Hillary Clinton or her press coverage. Generally, the headline of a blogpost reflects what the blogger wants to highlight about a news item.

Of course, you could be right. Maybe Jeralyn was directing our attention to something else in a purely ironic or satirical way. That wouldn’t be within my first 10 guesses, though.

Methinks you are looking too much for something that isn’t there (although you never really say what you think the “there” is). What exactly is she “telling” by the headline? Shock? Dismay? Horror? Or maybe she was trying to highlight the hypocrisy of the media by throwing out a tongue-in-cheek provocative headline? Of course one would have to actually read the post to see that. I don’t know. Maybe you should ask her what her intent was and see if you’ve accurately read her “tell”. In any event, OW’s update provides more evidence, proof if you will, of my original point -Senator Clinton WAS criticised by the press and other media for the stage managing of the event noted. More proof of the “Clinton rules” in effect.

Yes, I can imagine that kind of request. Because it’s made on a regular basis. Yet somehow I haven’t seen it on the evening news. Perhaps, while admittedly rougher on Clinton at times, the press is not the destruct HRC at all costs demon her supporters wail about constantly. You know who will try and be a destructive force against any and all democrats come November? The very same Conservative bloggers that TalkLeft, Taylor Marsh, and the rest are cozying up to right now.

(Personally, I’ve always been disgusted with the way Bush uses our troops as props. He’s not entitled to turn them into part of his campaign.)

However, her headline is something of a tell: “Michelle Obama Event: Seating Re-Arranged to Showcase Whites”

If she was only pointing out the discrepancy in press coverage, then I would expect the words “Press” or “Bias” or “Coverage” to appear in the head.

Can you imagine if a similar request for African-Americans was made by the Clinton campaign? It would lead the evening news.

That’s exactly right. The Obama campaign has consistently smeared the Clintons as racist, and if the Clintons had done this, there would have been a freeper-like circlejerk about it that would have lasted for days.

Stuck pig squeals, say I.

Oliver, you totally missed the point of Jeralyn’s post. She did not complain about the fact that the event was stage-managed, because even you know that they are.

Her larger point was the double standard. It would be 2 segments on was used to be “Countdown” and a whole day of news coverage if this was about the Clinton campaign.

Jeralyn is not really one of the “Clinton bloggers” you should trash and I don’t think you are much smarter that she is, which goes to something the “Obama bloggers” should learn. You guys are not as a group much smarter or even more rational than the “Clinton Bloggers”.