I feel all dirty, as if I’m the Fairfax Online website crew or something, embedding this. But it’s kinda funny. And everyone else is. And there’s a serious point here - why wasn’t Obama reacting better to the attacks on him from McCain which are keeping the latter’s candidacy alive? Writing at the Graudian’s Comment is Free, Cliff Shechter worries that Obama might be joining a long line of failed Democratic presidential candidates who failed because they failed to hit back at Republican slurs. McCain’s negative strategy is designed to box Obama in - if he doesn’t reply, the mud sticks. If he does, the gloss of the “charismatic new politics” comes off. So send out some surrogates already! It shouldn’t take a viral from Paris to make McCain look like the nasty old bugger that he is.
Edit: the original video we embedded was on YouTube, which has been pulled because it violates the copyright of Funny Or Die. Luckily, they have an embedding facility as well.
Update: [by Mark] Andrew Bartlett wishes he could give Paris Hilton his second preference.
Wow, her superficiality and policy depth are rivaled only by Obama.
Hey, at least she’s not pimping her partner as a contestant in a “beauty parade” that involves simulated sex acts, like McCain did.
Update: [by Mark] Andrew Bartlett wishes he could give Paris Hilton his second preference.
I disagree with Hilton’s energy policy but I am impressed with her eloquence.
See you at the debate, bitches.
Too true, Kim. Obviously, Paris has the industry contacts to get a well-produced clip up with a witty script, in order to defend her reputation/career/party invitations against the unflattering presentation of her in the McCain attack ad. But why hasn’t Team Obama, with all that talent and energy sloshing around in his campaign, come up with something even half as effective?
The ineffectual response of a Democratic candidate to Republican slime is starting to look all too bleakly Gore/Dean/Kerry/Edwards familiar.
It’s her foreign affairs I’m worried about. And what’s her view on Fanny Mae?
That ad about Obama was hilarious, and nicely done, too. Obviously it had a few purposes - to make McCain seem like a ‘funny guy’, but also to suggest to the more hard-core Biblical belters that Obama did blaspheme by comparing himself to Jesus. (And, well, they could be right about that, too - politicians do often want to encourage cultish-style worship, and to cultivate a kind of magical image for themselves).
And if all Obama’s responses are going to be this humourless, he might find himself in trouble.
Best piece of guerilla politics in the US since Ross Perot.
I’m with Andrew. Paris for President. She could not be any worse than the Village Idiot now in charge, and her PR machine has a sense of humour, gasp.
I get the feeling that the American Right is attempting to persuade Americans that it is ok for them to whistle as they pass the graveyard.
Given the dire condition of the US political economy, the foul odour emanating from the putrescent corpse of the Republican Party, and the diminished stature of the US in the world since Bush first dragged his knuckles over the Oval Office Axminster, an appeal to insouciance is a lonely, major political resource available to the Right.
Insouciance has been pricked before in US political history.
Obama’s minders’ challenge is how to ridicule this insouciance effectively.
I wonder how that video would be regarded by those who dislike western ways.
It’s a fascinating cultural statement.
Amazing timing, dropped into the presidential pool right now, and I can’t think of any one else who could have made it so, what? subtle? poignant? apposite? engaging? enjoyable? And that it was done at this time in her career - too early and she couldn’t carry it. I reckon it says a lot about (and questions) what is real and what is illusion/perception, what is hidden and not, and what is substance and vacuous.
And are there similar things we are missing from other cultures, booked into our responses to them, hidden, by our not understanding them?
Mr Fish has concerns about the poll improvement for McCain.
http://blogs.laweekly.com/fish/2008/07/we_love_you_grampa.php#comments
I think the ad is funny just because it’s got Paris Hilton in it (kind of like a sit com where a star appears in a cameo performance); the script doesn’t seem particularly funny or clever at all. What was the John McCain ad that it’s reacting against?
The ad was dissing Obama for being a celeb and comparing him to Paris Hilton rather than being the sort of manly experienced type of guy you want leading your country.
I’m sure it’s not too hard to track down on YouTube.
Just in terms of the timing, this I think heralds the moment when the simmering wildness, even madness, in the US will rise, emboldened. That is, if the Paris ad gets wide airplay - by giving those desires the ok to act. It marks a seminal and thereby turning point, by the nature of it.
A pink White House. Has anybody even thought of the political symbolism of that?
rise, emboldened, seminal - who would’ve thought it? I mean, concerning Miss Hilton.
Because Josh is not on the job.
McCain may regret mixing it with the celebrity crowd and attempting to play that game. Clearly, he can’t,
Never thought I would too interested in what Paris Hilton had to say, but I think she is right on the money this time.
The Bolta’s got a copy of the ad on his site. The narrator says ‘he’s the biggest celebrity in the world’, and the camera plays images of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and then Obama. Doesn’t seem so nasty, on first viewing.
Well, I will have to raise my estimation of PH’s intelligence. That was quite well done.
Kim: “the nasty old bugger that he is.”
Oh come now Kim, it’s not very polite to speak about Jeremiah Wright that way, even if it’s true.
Two points. The minor one is, you know perfectly well that presidential politics is hardball, so why are you getting bothered, even if what you’re saying were true?
Second and major point: what you’re saying isn’t true. In fact, you are flat-out wrong; I believe the technical philosophical term is, you’re ass-backwards on this.
You’re right at least that there is a race-obsessed hypocrite running for president, and his name is Barack Obama. Obama has consistently used racial attacks, racial obsessions, and racial feints as part of his rhetorical strategy; his campaign is based in no small part on explicit, overtly racialist appeals; his political and spiritual mentor for the better part of *two decades* is not only a vile racist but a howlingly ignorant and deluded crank, and indeed Obama’s worthless book “The Audacity of Hope” takes its title, literally, from the text of a racist diatribe delivered by Wright. (”white folks’ greed runs a world in need etc. etc.” Obama saw nothing wrong, or indeed even imprecise, with this, and used it for his title.) McCain has been strangely quiet about all this top-drawer, easily used material, and has fought with velvet-padded gloves throughout.
It is Obama who has, quite unprovoked and without substantive cause, conjured the specter of an evil racist plot, based on nothing McCain has said or done, but solely on the fact that McCain is a) white, b) a Republican, c) his opponent. He has ascribed racism to his opponent purely on the basis of, well, his race. What do you call that? I could have sworn there was a word for it, but strangely it escapes me now…
As usual, Richard Duke of Gloucester says it best:
“I do the wrong, and first begin to brawl.
The secret mischiefs that I set abroach,
I lay unto the grievous charge of others.”
I have to say, I really can’t believe you are defending this narcissistic, mendacious, shallow fool. In all of American political life, there are only a handful of people who are less fit to be president than George W. Bush was, and yet the Democrats have found one of them, and will nominate him. To me it is more proof that leftists no longer have any principles, merely a Christmas list of petty grievances, hatreds, and resentments. Obama may be an utter prat, but he’s *your* prat, and so you’re okay with that. Not much to respect in that, afraid to say.
With apologies to Lefty E, I think my baked potato strategy remains sound.
Reading the transcript of Wright’s sermon of that name in 1990, it doesn’t appear to say any such thing, actually. The bulk of the sermon is using the story of Hannah and her hope of a cure for her barrenness from 1 Samuel 1 :1-18, and although there are mentions of systemic problems in the world caused by hate and greed, there are no specific fingers pointed at any one group of people.
http://www.preachingtoday.com/sermons/sermons/audacityofhope.html
TimT:
It isn’t obvious to you that “celebrity” is being used as a synonym for flashy, shallow and vacuous? It’s hardly being used as a compliment.
I’m on board with a lot of people who think Obama is over-hyped - or at least should have a few more years in the legislature under his belt before running for the top office - the Dems had several stronger candidates to choose from in my estimation, and I’m sad that one of them didn’t get the nod. Despite that, I still think he’s immensely superior to McCain, who is quite simply a very nasty piece of work by all accounts in both his personal and his public life.
Sure, the ad is not complimentary. But nor is it nasty. All in all, I think it makes a fair observation about the media hype that has surrounded Obama, and the tendency to portray his charisma and fans as a political asset, rather than a liability.
I only made the comment because Kim described the ad as nasty in her post.
Kim didn’t describe the ad as nasty.
The ad is what it is - and quite pathetically shoots itself in the foot on a few levels.
She called McCain a nasty old bugger. A well-earned reputation he’s had for years.
tigtog, what may be happening here in j_p_z’s comment is an uncritical acceptance of McCain talking points. I note that the first comment on this thread exactly reproduces the line the McCain campaign came out with today.
I wonder why - in the context of this blog which would be largely read by people who have no vote in America - people would still want to do this. I do accept that sometimes “information” may have slipped in via the media noise machine, and that may be the case with j_p_z, but I’m still puzzled by the motives of commenters like “God Almighty”.
Righto Nick. My mistake!
Swift boating to the ol’ race carding. Wow.
I am not sure, either, why the elephants, in the room would try this one on.
Maybe they reckon we are all donkeys, down under, and are just trying to get a hoof in, for practice.
Say what you like about her (and I frequently have) I doubt she’s the bimbo we have previously assumed. That energy policy, derided by some, actually has some merit. Not to mention she is better at taking the piss than either of the blokes in the campaign!
http://zenoferox.blogspot.com/2008/08/paris-hilton-outs-herself.html
Three Ways of Looking at John McCain (via Crikey)
Whereas McCain continues to out himself as…I don’t know what.
Legally Blonde I remember reading, was the Number 1 movie in the period after 9/11.
It all makes sense, sorta.
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3778713600/tt0250494
tigtog @ #21 — surely you’re not unaware that, in between the delivery of a sermon at the pulpit and its later publication, there can at times occur this thing called… editing. Whether the text you link to matches the sermon as delivered we do not know. There does in fact seem to be some open question as to whether Wright himself ever actually said the phrase I refer to; or if he did, whether it was original with him or he was perhaps quoting yet another pastor (still, if he did that, it nevertheless would have been, one would have to imagine, approvingly). Mickey Kaus discussed the matter at greater length at Slate (March 30, 2008) if you care to investigate further.
What does not appear to be in dispute is that Obama in his autobiography reports (whether accurately or not we do not know, for with His Obamaness, all things are possible) hearing the phrase “white folks’ greed runs a world in need” in the sermon. Here is a bit of Obama’s own text (I quote an internet citation, not the printed text itself, so fact-checkers, feel free to correct me):
” …’Your eye is then drawn down to the scene below, down to the valley below, where everywhere are the ravages of famine, the drumbeat of war, a world groaning under strife and deprivation. It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere … That’s the world! On which hope sits.’ …And so it went, a meditation on a fallen world.”
Now whether Wright said it verbatim or not becomes secondary, as there is ample other documentation of his habits of mind. But what is primarily relevant here is that Obama saw fit to reproduce the thing uncritically: that is to say, a man holding an Ivy League diploma heard (or thought he heard) this shrill, hysterical, (and worst of all… inaccurate) diagnosis of the world’s disorder, and did not arch an eyebrow.
Rather, he joined the congregation.
Mark: “what may be happening here in j_p_z’s comment is an uncritical acceptance of McCain talking points.”
Since I have a rather healthy amount of dislike for McCain, I have never read his talking points, and certainly would not carry water for McCain here, even if I had. My comment simply related what is the case. If McCain’s talking points in this instance are more congruent with the truth than Obama’s, one should perhaps draw a conclusion from that.
“I wonder why - in the context of this blog which would be largely read by people who have no vote in America - people would still want to do this.”
Perhaps for the same reason that Obama felt compelled to give a fatuous and error-filled campaign speech to a bunch of non-voting Germans in Berlin. In any event your bemusement strikes one as somewhat disingenuous, as this blog discusses American politics frankly and vigorously, and on a regular basis. Furthermore, IIRC, Kim holds dual AUS/US citizenship, and for all I know, she may have a right to vote in the US election. Your wry suggestion that I am some species of McCain zombie is not accurate, and moreover carries a faint aroma of a partisan swipe all its own, if I may be so bold.
I will remind you that I am on record on this blog as strongly preferring a baked potato to be the next US president, over either Obama OR McCain.
Still prefer the Baked Potato, even though Miss P. Hilton has entered the race?
I take you point about editing etc, jpz. However, even if that phrase was used in the sermon and struck a chord, I don’t actually see how that one phrase makes the entire sermon about hope in a world of where many people live in despair “a racist diatribe”, especially when the central text used was about a woman being barren and how her husband’s love and respect kept her strong in her faith in God.
As to the phrase itself, your outrage strikes me as disingenuously excessive. It’s a valid point, surely, when juxtaposed with the image of food wasted by cruise ships at ports in countries where people are starving - we do know that this does happen, don’t we?
More generally, the West does exploit the rest of the world, diverting resources that could feed the starving simply to feed our engines of commerce and our appetites for luxuries. Despite the fact that various colonised peoples have often enthusiastically embraced Western capitalism, it’s still very much a White creation. Pointing out that White Western culture runs on greed is not the same as assuming that all White people are therefore greedy, either.
j_p_z, the comment’s been taken the wrong way. What I meant to say was that things we think we know - ie Wright being the source for the title of Obama’s book - are in fact something read somewhere which someone has put out there for a reason, and it’s never been fact checked.
As fact checking should be taken seriously, this source asserts that Wright’s sermon in question was entitled “Audacity to Hope”, not “Audacity of Hope”.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/chi-070121-relig_wright,0,7064380.story?page=2
This modification is noteworthy.
Wright’s formulation implies strongly that individuals who belong to certain groups do not at present hope because they have not yet generated sufficient audacity.
Obama’s formulation implies strongly that hope is a common inheritance and only audacity is required for all to mobilise it.
Thus, it seems clear that Obama does not share Wright’s expressed views about hopelessness.
And what tigtog said:
“To me it is more proof that leftists no longer have any principles, merely a Christmas list of petty grievances, hatreds, and resentments.”
j_p_z, when it comes down to it, is fighting Wright, Obama and even Mcain because of some over the top fear of the left. These sermons are interesting and becoming more strident as the American election draws near.
While he says that he would prefer a baked patatoe than either candidate, my bet is he plugging for the frozen vegetable. His hatred of the Democrat drips from almost every word.
That’s a very good point Katz!
Why even muck around with that particular sermon, j_p_z? “white folks’ greed runs a world in need” hardly translates as vile racism.
Link directly to the Wright clips (or alternatively, one of the many ‘hate’ compilations) millions of Americans have already viewed.
They were widely publicised during preselection which Obama won in a landslide and given the poll results of the last few months, the American public (only 13% African-American) don’t seem overly perturbed.
So moving on from Jeremiah Wright – where’s your evidence Barack is “a narcissistic, mendacious shallow fool” who has “consistently used racial attacks, racial obsessions, and racial feints as part of his rhetorical strategy” and “conjured the specter of an evil racist plot”?
Or are you content just to apply your own rhetorical persuasiveness?
Also worth pointing out:
“You’re right that there is one race-obsessed hypocrite running for president…”
Kim didn’t write anything like that and neither did Schechter in his article…
“Second and major point: what you’re saying isn’t true. In fact, you are flat-out wrong; I believe the technical philosophical term is, you’re ass-backwards on this.”
So what you’re saying isn’t true. In fact, it’s flat-out silly; I believe the technical term is ‘smashing the ball into the back fence’.
tigtog: “Pointing out that White Western culture runs on greed is not the same as assuming that all White people are therefore greedy, either.”
And yet the latter is exactly what the phrase does. (Never mind that your major premise, “White Western culture runs on greed,” is highly debatable, and probably preposterous.) What does “white folks” mean: abstract culture, or “White people”? I know what it means when I hear Black people say it, which I do (and I don’t know if you do.)
The rest of your assertions are of similarly poor quality. I could devise a few interesting thought experiments to show where your reasoning goes south, but this has gone on too long, and it’s not the main point anyway.
joe2 — my dislike of the GOP would be unremarkable on this blog. My dislike of McCain centers on domestic issues that probably hold little interest for Australians, but believe you me, I dislike McCain. For purposes of writing here, my dislike of the Dems is a little anomalous, and it what’s known as “value-added”. Baked Potato/And A Cold Beer in ‘08!
Nick: “during preselection which Obama won in a landslide”
Um, no. Obama fought a closely-contested campaign, which he struggled to win, against *the most hated woman in America*, and he would arguably have lost except for certain commendably clever aspects of his campaign strategy. (btw, he is now in a statistical dead-heat against a moribund grouch who is hated by much of his own (much-despised) party. Where’s the trust?) When presidents win on Electoral College votes but lose the popular vote, the left screams that the people’s will has been denied. Obama crafted a very sound and interesting strategy along these lines, and now you call it a landslide.
Explain why you should be taken seriously, and then perhaps I will respond to the rest of your laughable points.
Joe2 I have always found JPZ’s commentary on this blog to be very thoughtful,funny and I don’t get how you find that he/she drips hatred.
I would be interested to know what j_p_z thinks of the “most hated woman in America” as a presidential candidate.
Some of us over here reckon Hills would have been a slam dunk against McCain. Older women have much more stamina for the long haul than older men for a start. And any Repug negative ad campaign against her would have been taken as a personal insult by 51% of the voting population.
While we can understand that americans really like all that preacher stuff that Obama does, was he really a better choice for the Dems to win the election against the GOP machine?
I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
“Joe2 I have always found JPZ’s commentary on this blog to be very thoughtful,funny and I don’t get how you find that he/she drips hatred.”
Leigh, I agree with you in the first part. It is often a good read.
On your second point, I actually said..”His hatred of the Democrat drips from almost every word”. If you read carefully j_p_z comments, on Obama, it would be hard to conclude otherwise.
Fair enough j_p_z, maybe we both tend to get carried away in our choice of words.