McCain ad: hide your white women from Obama
A recent John McCain television ad attempts to depict Barack Obama as a “celebrity” on the order of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, who make brief appearances in the ad, long enough — the McCain admen hope — for the average American, never a too discerning individual, to formulate somewhere in his often numbskull brain a few blurry equations. If these ads did not actually “define” candidates, as the admen intend (in this case that Obama is an “elitist,” whatever that means and whatever effect it has on his ability to govern), they would be laughable for the adolescent perspective from which they emerge. Not that history hasn’t shown that such ads don’t work; they apparently do: think Willie Horton and John Kerry.
Political campaigns as played by the Republicans is a pretty nasty business; no tactic is low, cynical or pernicious enough as long as it can sway a voter away from the opposition. In the ad in which Spears and Hilton appear, the intent is clear, and it’s not that the creators of the ad want voters to think primarily that Obama is an arrogant celebrity. Any number of celebrities of all races and genders and sexual orientation could have been placed in the ad as representatives of this class of individuals. And the appearance of these two women in the ad is not even to get the viewer to equate Obama with the kind of mentality that has led Ms. Spears and Ms. Hilton to reveal their coochies to millions of people around the globe. The key symbol in the ad is the “young blond woman,” the same symbol used in the ad meant to derail the 2006 Senatorial campaign of Harold Ford (“Call me, Harold”).
The monkey brains behind this ad want the viewer to think of our wives and daughters — generally the white female — who are at risk of being ravished by black men, especially powerful ones, whenever in close proximity to them. If this was not the intent, then why not represent “celebrity” by showing George Clooney or Elton John or Hillary Swank in the ad? No, the thinking must have gone, a young blond to fit the cliché of the latent fear that the black man is constantly salivating over the chance to defile the white woman is needed. This assumes, of course, that white women have no defenses against the advances of men, black or white, wanting to bed them, not even their morality, which indicates a dim view of women and which might just be a miscalculation on the part of the McCain camp. What if many women don’t see themselves as prey to black men? What if it can’t be so blithely assumed that women are always the potential sexual victims of black men?
But I doubt that women are the main target here. The admen seem to conceive of a world in which women are either fragile and in need of protection by men from other men wanting to get in their pants or that at any given moment, ala Ms. Spears and Ms. Hilton, they might give into their weaknesses and succumb to the attentions of other men, particularly a black man with a degree from Harvard and an unusual name. If this is the actual world, then it might be time to dust off those chastity belts to affix to the loins of those women who might be considering a vote for Obama.
Latest posts by Albert DiBartolomeo (Posts)
- McCain ad: hide your white women from Obama - August 1, 2008
- What’s So Funny? - June 23, 2008
Print This Post
I saw the ad and never even considered that the admen might want to connect Obama to ‘white women’ and project a subconscious ‘threat of the black man’.
I saw Obama being linked to two immensely popular, but troubled celebs who are in the news more often than the skyrocketing gas prices. (Personally, I think it would have been more effective had they used Lindsay Lohan, but that is beside the point.) I also think they wanted to say that Obama is so popular and a media darling NOT because of what he has done or how talented he might be, but because of WHAT he is, a black presidential frontrunner.
As to why they didn’t show George Clooney or Elton John, the answer is in the paragraph above. They are NOT media darlings and have not released sex tapes, been in drunken driving incidents, had child custody hearings with white-trash ex spouses etc, etc, ad nauseum.
I think your assumptive leap to the sex-and-power angle says more about your personal prejudices than it does about the ad.
No way!
I read this and then read it again just to make sure I wasn’t misunderstanding. Then I read it twice more and thought,
No! I won’t go there.
That didn’t last very long.
The ad is ludicrous but your attempt to conclude that it surreptitiously suggests that if Obama is elected president that blonde women in America are at risk for a national raping by black men is, at best, imaginative. I am hoping it was only contrived to spark conversation. If not, its time to put away To Kill a Mocking Bird — you’re not helping.
And yet, your inference that I if didn’t perceive the symbolism due to my not having the capacity “to formulate a connection, somewhere in my numbskull brain, a few blurry equations” is more offensive than the ad — or your elucidation.
Although I won’t presume to speak for all white females or an entire population of “average, never too discerning individuals,” I can assure you that the ad didn’t make me feel the least bit threatened by a black man’s salivation, only McCain’s normal abundant flow of dribble.
From my perspective, an average, white female, the ad effectively demonstrates that McCain, Bush, and right-wing fundamentalism have no respect for women in general. Not just the two shamelessly exploited in the ad.
Indeed, why not Robert Downey Jr, Shia Labeouf, Mel Gibson, Snoop Dogg, Josh Brolin, David Hasselhoff, Kidd Rock, Lane Garrison, OJ Simpson, Dennis Rodman, Kiefer Sutherland, or Michael Jackson?
All celebrities. All certainly qualify for the elitist image. All have questionable morality from most perspectives — especially the right. Yet, black or white — all men. No racism there.
I wonder, do they all have prescriptions for Viagra?
Ah, come on, Preacher. isn’t it an old Orwellian/Rovian tactic to accuse the person who points out underhanded behavior of seeing the behavior as underhanded because he is himself somehow corrupt and thus deflecting blame away from the accused and onto the accusor?
In other words, after dressing up in sheep’s clothing and making a masked attack, when caught the wolf says, “No no no, I’m innocent, and that’s not really blood on my teeth but a figment of your imagination born of your own evil nature.” The ball is batted back to me and I find that I have to defend myself–stress that–and my perceptions–stress that too–and not what I saw.
A different issue is immediately created and the original issue recedes behind its smokescreen. The original discussion, if it even begins, is therefore gutted, because such accusations–that I see things because of my own character flaw–essentially have you saying that there is no issue other than that you–me–created one by the particular shape of my brain. So anyone following the argue is no longer thinking about the issue but of how or why I came to see it. Deflection. Mirror work. Funhouse stuff.
See, instead of me saying, after perhaps a slightly modified reply on your part, that you know, Preacher, maybe I did see a little too much in the blond bimbo thing, but it’s still a specious–and juvenile too–argument to imply that Obama is an equally vapid celebrity, I’m here doing this other thing, talking about what’s behind Door Number 2 and not what was on the front stage to begin with.
You cut the legs out from under the true issue, man, and, although it sure appears to work–after the deflections, Democrats become “soft on defense” because they happen to focus on the cost in money and lives as a result of warfare (they become the subject to argue, not the warfare)– that just ain’t proper.
Sorry Al, that dog just won’t hunt.
After reading (and replying to) your piece, I discussed it with no fewer than a dozen others, from both sides of the isle, and none of them saw the Mandingo fantasy scenario you painted.
Interestingly enough, no two people were in complete agreement about the true meaning of the ad in question, but not a single person came up with a sexual motivation for the inclusion of the bimbos.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Al has drunk deep from the Obama Kool-Aid…. As I see it Democrats are focused on the war because of money, in that you are right… but it is not the cost of lives… it is merely the thought of how many social programs that money could fund….. and thereby insure a nice welfare state of voters. EVERYONE fighting this war volunteered…. and continue to volunteer…. but Mr. Obama never did…. did he? ….. Hide your white women…. give me a break…. those two?