Clinton bloggers are just shocked as heck to find out that campaign events are stage managed affairs. This is either naive or stupid. Or both. But I guess you’ve gotta grasp at straws…
Next thing you know they’ll be shocked and appalled that those tv anchors aren’t just coming up with those thoughts off the top of their heads but are in fact reading.
God, please let this primary season end before people take complete leave of their senses.
UPDATE: A campaign stagecraft flashback.
On Friday, the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, issued a statement to CNN in response to an article written by a college newspaper that included the accusation that the campaign suggested a student ask a certain question.
“On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Senator Clinton’s energy plan at a forum,” campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said in the statement. “However, Senator Clinton did not know which questioners she was calling on during the event. This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again.”
Hillary Has a New Strategy !
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/25/204347/049/867/484236
Probably the most telling part of Jeralyn’s comments, “Hat tip to Instapundit.” I never thought the Left could be full of as many gullible rubes as the Right. It turns out we’re not really the fact based community at all.
I suppose you see no parallel to your own posts whenever Bush has a photo op with a plastic turkey or in front of a prepared backdrop.
So you admit that Bush’s visits to Iraq and “Mission Accomplished” were nothing more than campaign events? Glad to see you’ve finally seen the light!
Oh, so it is just an accident that Hillary is always shown giving her speeches with a mass of black supporters in the background? Please!!!
EL…
Everything that appears on my TV screen is a staged event.
I didn’t say a “staged event”, I said a campaign event. I take it you approve of using our troops as props?
I approve of putting troops in a camera shot to provide atmosphere and context.
So, yes then.
Hillary’s using Bush’s Social Security “town hall” strategy while the Taylor Marshites rehash the “Obama has a scary black pastor” meme
My problem with Bush isn’t that he has photo ops. Every president has had them since the invention of the camera. He just thinks that photo ops are a good substitute for actually doing his job. He’s the man who thinks pictures of him appearing to do something are as good as doing something.
I read the offending post and my take isn’t that anyone is shocked that campaigns do this (in fact, that sentiment is explicitly mentioned in the post), but rather, if Clinton had been caught doing the same thing with African-Americans that the press and blogs such as this one would have blasted her for it. I think that’s probably true.
‘but rather, if Clinton had been caught doing the same thing with African-Americans that the press and blogs such as this one would have blasted her for it. I think that’s probably true.’
Give this person a Gold Star.
**searches for dunce cap big enough for oliver’s head
I keed!
You’ve got it Mingus!
If it were the reverse - and Hillary had re-arranged AAs seating - Obamacrats would be screaming.
The Obama campaign already did go after Hillary just for answering a question that wasn’t straight up nasty. Stop pretending that it’s a non-issue when Obama does it. They should stop the bullshit or explain why it doesn’t apply to them. I guess that’s asking too much, huh?
Of course if Clinton tried to showcase blacks at an event you’d call her a racist whore.
Does fanaticism for Obama kill brain cells?
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”.
Amen, Mingus, Amen.
Poor Oliver has lost it. He can’t even recognize a criticism of the double standards of this primary season. Check your reading comprehension skills and own bias before calling others “naive and stupid” because you don’t come off as too bright yourself.
Jeralyn’s comment was precise and on point, and, sadly, Willis does not engage it. She wrote:
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.
mingus, I mostly agree, but then, I’m generally willing to assume goodwill on Jeralyn’s part.
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.
Maybe it’s because Hillary has already been attacked for being photographed with old people, with young people, with black people, with Hispanics - you name it. Anything Hillary does is evil.
(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.)
The best part of the post is this “Can you imagine if a similar request for African-Americans was made by the Clinton campaign? It would lead the evening news.”
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.
Quaker,
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.
Arranging people on stage is one thing, setting up questions is a whole other.
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?
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.
“Arranging people on stage is one thing, setting up questions is a whole other.”
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.
As a very tiny insignificant blogger in Virginia, I posted the story. To me it demonstrated that Obama, Michelle and his supporters use race to convey message. It’s a color coordinated crowd.
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.
Jeralyn, as you know from being a long time reader, is an accomplished criminal defense attorney. Speaking for myself and my experience as a criminal defense attorney, I can say that it’s not an unusual tactic, stylistically, to make a provocative comment to grab attention and then proceed with the substance of one’s argument (as long the provocative comment fits into the framework of the argument of course). If we’re trying to read her mind, and what her headline “tells” that’s as good a guess as any (that I can come up with anyway).
Avedon…
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 can say that it’s not an unusual tactic, stylistically, to make a provocative comment to grab attention and then proceed with the substance of one’s argument”
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.
The ad is a blatant appeal to white guilt offering redemption through support for Obama.
Oh stop it. Now who’s reading who’s mind?
“The ad is a blatant appeal to white guilt offering redemption through support for Obama.”
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.
Go, faf, go!
I see the TalkLeft Hillbots have arrived, with Sir Douchebag “Lambert Strether” spearheading the charge in defense of pure and virtuous Lady Jeralyn. As fafaroo and others have pointed out, Merritt’s post was completely daft because nobody knows what the hell would happen if Clinton did something like this, and it’s idiotic for Merritt to pretend that she does. Such counterfactual speculation as a substitute for actual argument is one of the hallmarks of a TalkLeft Hillbot.
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.
“A final trait of the standard Hillbot on display in these comments is the deployment of white privilege while remaining oblivious to same.”
Exactly. This is perhaps their most irksome trait.