When you're a fan of something, you run the risk of people assuming you believe all the same things as every other fan out there. Fan stereotyping if you will.
To that point, as an Obama fan, I want to make clear that I do NOT believe, support, or even fathom this article in the Times. It argues, of all things, that Hillary's ubiquitous red-phone ad is racist.
I just don't get it at all. How do you get from "innocent sleeping children and a mother in the middle of the night at risk of mortal danger" (which I grant you is super hypey but whatever) to "The danger implicit in the phone ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man"?
The only concrete piece of supporting evidence in the piece is that there are no black people in the ad and that the mother is a blonde. And then the author makes the leap that OBVIOUSLY the undefined terror outside the house is therefore BLACK PEOPLE = OBAMA.
It's people like this that give the Obama campaign a bad name.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hm. That is an odd article. Daily Kos claimed the other day that the Clinton campaign made some video footage of Obama "blacker." I just don't see it...just looks like the type of bad editing you see in local car ads. Ha, I'm not with stupid. Hazzah!
I'm almost more interested in the author's propensity for referring to each candidate as "Mr." and "Mrs." Not "Sen." Not just last names. Does that expose some sort of inherent gendered response?
HELLO FELLOW ANIA BLOG READERS IT'S NICE TO MEET YOOOOU
thanks for commenting on my blog, tim! finally!
Post a Comment