The Obama Phenomenon and the 2008 Presidential Campaign

[anthriel]

It makes me cringe. Am I typical of my demographic?

[axordil]

Decent people listen to Rush. But that's not whom he's after. Decency doesn't sell.

[Griffon64]

A demographic of which you are an atypical member, and which is likely to react to the parody in an entirely different way.

I've always wondered: doesn't being an atypical member of a demographic put you in a new demographic or something?

Sometimes I think demographics are just a tool for subtly, non-subtly, or possibly smugly or non-smugly, or maybe even intellectually or less-intellectually-ish-thingy-that's-not-a-word, compartmentalizing people in order to be able to discount what they're on about ( "Paarp! You're in demographic Z and therefore you are dead to me!" )

I rather think I'm in the demographic of people who dislike most if not all forms of labeling and rubber stamping. So much for trying to be hard to fit into a slot in somebody's brain

Anyway, I seem to be in Anth's demographic as far as this is concerned. We may cringe for different reasons, though. I grew up in South Africa so I'm just so sick and tired of race or anything to do with race. I think that overdose is what made me ( let me say: by and large, so I err on the side of caution ) ready to accept that everybody are human, and move on from there. Fixation on race by any human is an extremely counter-productive and ugly thing.

I just find the whole ruckus about race and gender in the US presidential elections to be incredibly tedious. I'd rather be concerned about which candidate has the best plan for America - say, what they're planning to do about the surprisingly low quality health care, about the national debt, about infrastructure, about pollution - things that affect how the citizens of the country live.

And anyway anyway, that's all I had to say, to say.

[yovargas]

I'd rather be concerned about which candidate has the best plan for America

Weirdo.

[axordil]

Sometimes I think demographics are just a tool for subtly, non-subtly, or possibly smugly or non-smugly, or maybe even intellectually or less-intellectually-ish-thingy-that's-not-a-word, compartmentalizing people in order to be able to discount what they're on about ( "Paarp! You're in demographic Z and therefore you are dead to me!" )

Actually, they are and always have been about marketing products. I probably shouldn't have used the term in the first place. Allow me to restate what I said originally:

The racist goons which form a disproportionate share of Rush's audience almost certainly took the song differently than people like Faramond.

[Griffon64]

Actually, they are and always have been about marketing products.

Yup, that's what they're for. But marketing, in a crude form at least, does boil down to: "Paarp! You're in demographic Z and therefore you are dead to me!", isn't it? Marketing people don't care about you if you're not in their target demographic. For whichever definition of "don't care" they might care to employ.

The racist goons which form a disproportionate share of Rush's audience almost certainly took the song differently than people like Faramond.

I had to read that twice, I thought you were implying that Faramond is an atypical member of the "racist goons" demographic

[axordil]

I had to read that twice, I thought you were implying that Faramond is an atypical member of the "racist goons" demographic

Curse my academic diction. No, that was certainly not my intent.

Marketing people don't care about you if you're not in their target demographic. For whichever definition of "don't care" they might care to employ.

Remind me to tell you about the marketing surveys I do online for points. I got a toaster by repeating "I didn't watch that show" about fifty times.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Anyway, I seem to be in Anth's demographic as far as this is concerned. We may cringe for different reasons, though. I grew up in South Africa so I'm just so sick and tired of race or anything to do with race. I think that overdose is what made me ( let me say: by and large, so I err on the side of caution ) ready to accept that everybody are human, and move on from there. Fixation on race by any human is an extremely counter-productive and ugly thing.

Grif, I'm pretty sure (based on previous discussions we have had here in this forum) that your reasons for cringing are pretty similar to Anth's, and to mine, for that matter. Even though each of us grew up in very different circumstances.

Indeed, one of the things that I like about Obama is that he does not seem to be about race. But unfortunately too many people on both sides of the racial divide want to make it so.

The "racist goon demographic" comes in all shapes, sizes AND colors.

[halplm]

Ok, here's my issue (and I've only skimmed the last couple of pages, so I apologize.)

I think it's way too early to be thinking about the election, but it seems inevitable.

However, I have not put a lot of effort into getting to know the candidates positions on anything... and am thus only exposed to their most broad marketing strategies at this point... or how people have portrayed and perceived them in the media. This is what I've got so far:

Obama: Black, and Oprah likes him.
Clinton: A woman, who is either from New York or somewhere else.
Edwards: who most people think is handsome and thus want to compare him to JFK, although most agree he is nothing close.
Giuliani: Definitely from New York... and the whole 9/11 thing.
McCain: Old, and pretty much Pro-War.
Romney: Mormon
Fred Thompson: Actor, who I recognize, but don't remember from where even after looking him up on IMDB

That's supposed to be kind of humorous... but it's sad to say... I fear that would be more than most would know going into the polls...

My point is... I'd love to see anyone's plan for anything... or are we really just voting for a party platform?

Is there no real leadership out there? Or do leader's get weeded out becuase they won't do what the people paying for the campaign want them to?

[Faramond]

I don't understand why the parody is cringe-worthy. I really don't. Am I coming rather close to racist goon territory?

I know no one is saying that, but it's hard not to wonder when everyone is saying how much they dislike the parody.

Look, I'm not a fan of Rush. I don't listen to the show, though I used to listen occasionally, years ago. So I haven't heard this parody, but I am familiar with his style. I have read both the lyrics of the parody and a transcript of Rush's explanation of it on his show.

I guess this is a bit like that Hilary-1984 advert: I thought that was clever, while almost no one else did. I think this parody is also clever. The point of it is that people, on the left, are making race an issue in the Obama campaign. Both Biden and Sharpton have made it about race so far. At least Clinton hasn't.

Yes, there are people who will vote against him because he's black. There are also people who will vote for him for the same reason. I guess that should be talked about a little bit, but it is what it is at this point, unfortunately, and I'd rather the focus be elsewhere. But that's not what is most important about his campaign ... I hope.

If Obama's campaign does become about race, then he will almost certainly lose. His campaign needs to be about him and his ideas and policies, and maybe also about how rotten his opponent is. ( A nod to reality there. )

I don't want the Obama campaign to be about race, and I think he doesn't want it to be about race either. I want him to beat Clinton; I think he'd make a much better president than she.

The LA times piece is written by someone who is primarily a Hollywood critic, hence the emphasis on the "magic negro" in film. Perhaps he didn't deserve to be parodied, surely I shouldn't have implied he was "obsessed with race" in an earlier post, though I also think that his piece is a little insulting to Barack Obama.

I don't think it's fair that Rush's piece be mentioned as a possible reason why Obama needs protection. There is nothing about the parody expressing violence toward Obama, or frankly epressing anything negative about Obama. As I said before, he's not the target, and I don't agree that Rush should be held accountable for what some are sure is his mostly racist goon audience. This parody is not, surely we can agree, speech that incites.

[yovargas]

Good point, hal.

[axordil]

Faramond--

I agree, the parody is not likely to incite violence. And the discussion about the metaquestion of his race has been mostly on the left, it's true.

hal--

There is substance to be had about most of the candidates, but right now the media is concentrating on the whole horse race aspect of things. You have to dig through that to get to actual positions on things. And at this point, is it worth it? I honestly can't say. It's still way early. November, December, when the primary races are actually gearing up, perhaps.

[elfshadow]

Fred Thompson: Actor, who I recognize, but don't remember from where even after looking him up on IMDB

He's the District Attorney on the original Law and Order. He was also in The Hunt for Red October. He's a former Republican senator as well, though I can't remember where he's from.

One excellent candidate that I think is often overlooked is Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico. He's served as a Representative and was the UN Ambassador under Clinton so he has plenty of foreign policy experience--arguably more than nearly any other candidate, especially considering that while in the House his specialty was foreign relations. He was also the Secretary of Energy under Clinton.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't understand why the parody is cringe-worthy. I really don't. Am I coming rather close to racist goon territory?

I know no one is saying that, but it's hard not to wonder when everyone is saying how much they dislike the parody.

Look, I'm not a fan of Rush. I don't listen to the show, though I used to listen occasionally, years ago. So I haven't heard this parody, but I am familiar with his style. I have read both the lyrics of the parody and a transcript of Rush's explanation of it on his show.

Faramond, it would probably be helpful if you did listen to the song before making a final judgment about how cringe-worthy it is. It is how it sounds, with it's mock-street-ebonics/Al Sharpton impersonation that makes me cringe, as much as what it says. And I can't help but believe that at least part of purpose of using it is to inflame racial tensions. Perhaps that is my prejudice showing through.

But regardless of whether you decided that it was or was not cringe-worthy, even after listening to it, it would not lead me to believe for a second that you are approaching "racist goon territory". Nor do I believe that everyone who enjoys listening to Rush Limbaugh should be lumped into that category, or everyone who likes the parody. But there are some people that do fit into that category, and regardless of the intentions, they are likely to be encouraged by this parody.

I don't think it's fair that Rush's piece be mentioned as a possible reason why Obama needs protection. There is nothing about the parody expressing violence toward Obama, or frankly epressing anything negative about Obama. As I said before, he's not the target, and I don't agree that Rush should be held accountable for what some are sure is his mostly racist goon audience. This parody is not, surely we can agree, speech that incites.

I don't think that anyone is saying that this parody is the reason why Obama needs protection. (Rush himself stated that the reason Obama needed protection was from "Clinton, Inc.", but that is another story.) i agree that the parody is not speech that incites, per se. But human beings are strange animals. I do fear that this parody will help inflame already tense racial relations. Like Griffy, I would prefer less emphasis on race, not more. Unfortunately, neither of us are likely to get our wish.

[halplm]

Fred Thompson: Actor, who I recognize, but don't remember from where even after looking him up on IMDB

He's the District Attorney on the original Law and Order. He was also in The Hunt for Red October. He's a former Republican senator as well, though I can't remember where he's from.

One excellent candidate that I think is often overlooked is Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico. He's served as a Representative and was the UN Ambassador under Clinton so he has plenty of foreign policy experience--arguably more than nearly any other candidate, especially considering that while in the House his specialty was foreign relations. He was also the Secretary of Energy under Clinton.

OF COURSE! the DA on Law and Order! I knew he was in the Hunt for Red October... but I also knew that's not where I was remembering him from...

[Padme]

psst, Hal you forgot Bill Richardson....the only canidate that actually has experience with decent foreign policy, however he will not get the same attention and if he does get attention it will be because of the whole Robert Vigil issue (although Richardson did act on it as soon as he legally could).

I would like to see Obama run on issues not on race, and wish he could win, but honestly I don't think it's going to happen.

My opinion is the past Mayor of NYC maybe the next President. He is liberal enough on abortion issues that it may favor him. It just depends on if he can get the whole 911 patriotism going again.

Clinton, not going to happen. Too many people resent her already. I have never understood why they resent her, as she felt it was important to keep her family together. And unlike Guilini and McCain she has never cheated, her husband has, but she hasn't.

Edwards will end up dropping out at some point to help his wife.

Romney is too much like Bush, and he is the wrong religion, and too much like Bush.

Thompson does not have enough experience, acting doesn't actually count.

Out of all of them Richardson does have the most experience with dealing with other countries, and is diplomatic with it all.

It's a very long time to the elections, and perhaps someone else will run. Let's just hope its not Jeb, on the same platform.

As for Rush, it's like listening to monkey chatter.

[Primula Baggins]

Giuliani is unpopular in New York City, and if he tries to run on 9/11 there are plenty of people, including the firemen's union, who will be happy to slag him. (One reason for the chaos of that day was that the city's emergency control headquarters was in the World Trade Center—years after the first terrorist assault there, it had never been moved.)

A few liberal positions on social issues are not going to make Democrats vote for him (he's even more authoritarian than Bush about the "war on terror"), but will probably prevent the Republican base from accepting him.

Right now I don't see who they're going to be able to nominate, let alone elect.

[yovargas]

How about - ANYBODY with a plan for Iraq?

[elfshadow]

How about - ANYBODY with a plan for Iraq?

All of the major Democratic candidates (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) have stated that their plan is to get out of Iraq as soon as possible if they are elected into office. I assume that this means the sort of graduated troop withdrawal outlined in the recent bill that Bush just vetoed. But I haven't actually heard any specifics. McCain's plan is to increase the troop level--he introduced a bill a about it few months ago, I believe, and I would imagine that his plan would be exactly that as president. I haven't heard anything from the other Republican candidates, but admittedly I have not actually looked for their words on the subject.

I have not heard any candidate express a plan--even a vague one--for long-term policy in Iraq.

[Primula Baggins]

I think long-term planning will have to wait until we're no longer involved in combat operations there. (We'll have troops there for a looooong time; just not so many.)

We won't really know what the best long-term plan is likely to be until we put a stop to the long-term disaster we created ourselves.