The only reason that Paris and Britney are in an ad about Obama is to play on deep-seated fears of black male sexuality.

They're not *comparing* Obama to these two women. They are suggesting that he wants to, or is, copulating with them.

It's not logical, it's emotional That's how ads work. And this one, thanks to its vile and subterranean racism, is working very well.

Part of the genius of this sort of thing is that some of those most deeply affected by it are not even aware of what they are reacting to.

How about you, Andrew? Are you more or less likely to vote for Obama after watching this ad?

Spears and Hilton are not on most of the recent Top 10 lists from the leading Entertainment mags. They're "old" news in the entertainment biz.

If the point was to highlight the "celebrity" aspect, why wouldn't they choose the biggest celebrities of today, like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, or George Clooney or any of the others that make up the Top 10 lists?

McCain't instead chooses two young, melanin-deficient, hyper-sexualized woman, mixed with several shots that oddly emphasize the monument Obama spoke in front of.

Draw your own conclusions.

The white women meme is bush league stuff. I think it's pretty outrageous to suggest that the juxtaposition of a black man with white women is designed to evoke some kind of latent fear of the black man. That's just plain nuts. Sophomoric. Wet. Bush. I'm at a loss for words, Dr. Freud.

That dog whistle was meant for real hounddawgs and not for one-testicled yappy beltway show poodles like Howie Putz.

It's called the power of suggestion.
Why are there half-naked women in beer commercials? Why does Abercrombie & Fitch have to have naked teenager-like models in their catalog to sell CLOTHING???
Sex in advertising works when it is done tastefully. McCain's crew uses the distasteful choice of celebrities such as Paris and Britany--both known form their steamy crotches--and places them with a black man.
What does it suggest to you?
I also notice the phallus symbols in the ad--the tower in Germany and the Washington Monument.
It may not have been intentional but the symbolism is there.

I think it's there.

If you're going to make a television advertisement that appeals to racism, you have to hide your tracks. For that reason, the ad makes its suggestions visually and not verbally.

For some segment of the population, the juxtaposition of a black man with two highly sexualized women will have instantaneously recognizable associations.

It's unlikely that someone who reads Talkingpointsmemo is among that segment of the population, but large numbers of low information Americans -- voters -- were raised in a world where anxieties about black sexuality were far more prevalent and foreceful than they are today.

This ad is meant to freak those people out.

Pretend you're a sixty-five year old voter in Ohio who traditionally votes democratic.

Now watch the add with the sound off.

It's very clear to me as well that the ad is not about race, it's about the rock star thing. Not only that, I remembered reading that this has already been researched, it's known it hurts Obama with swings, it's one of big his weak points with swings.

I remembered that pollster analyst Charlie Cook in a July 12 article noted it:

A recent York, Pa., focus group conducted for the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center by pollster Peter Hart vividly demonstrated that although voters are hurting, are very pessimistic about the country's direction, and are using such words as "deceived," "disgusted," and "horrific" in describing Bush's performance, many still have a difficult time identifying with Obama.

Hart found that the problem was notably not among former supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton, but among others. He reported: "The challenge emerges from the rest of the group. It is not just that they oppose Obama, but rather the vehemence of the opposition; what concerns them is less about issue stances and more about race and character. The most vitriolic comments are not directed at his policies, but at him personally, criticizing him for having a 'rock star attitude,' being a 'great fabricator,' being 'inexperienced,' being someone who 'comes from a Muslim family,' and being someone who will not 'pledge to the flag with your hand over your heart.' As Tony [one focus group participant] puts it, succinctly, 'I just don't believe in his values.' He does not specify which of Barack Obama's values he does not believe in, but he has a clear sense that Obama's values are not his."

In a more recent July 29 article, Cook discusses Obama's bounce from the overseas trip and says that:

If Obama begins to look more presidential and is seen as having greater stature while McCain is seen as angry and unpleasant, it is an opportunity for this race to transition from a very competitive period to one that is a blowout.

This ad is very targeted and it has little to do with race. It's about preventing Obama looking presidential with swings, precisely at a time when Obama has been working hard at doing that.

I am sort of worried by how well it's targeted, that McCain's campaign team may have been greatly improved in expertise.

And I agree with others on this thread that Josh Marshall is making some big gaffes with his comments on this ad, as to his reputation for being wise about political advertising. More and more seems to me like he is reading campaign talking points too much and then falling for them, rather than getting insider analysis of campaign moves. Either falling for them or purposely promoting them would be fine for a political activist, but not so much for reputation as a journalist on political horse race, it's not deconstructing the horse race for people accurately.

Of course I do suspect the Obama campaign knows all this too. Along with things like the overseas trip and the economic conference, which were obviously addressing the weakness, it may be why we are not seeing the extreme inspirationals in the speeches and pronouncements as in the primary? He is purposefully avoiding the rock star reception thing? Seeing how they balance this at the convention will be interesting, because they have to inspire the base there.

I think if Josh Marshall is getting the race thing from people connected with the Obama campaign, they might be being disingenuous with him and he is falling for it, as any race card stuff revs up the liberal blogosphere base.

SECOND TRY, my comment hopefully formatted correctly:

It's very clear to me as well that the ad is not about race, it's about the rock star thing. Not only that, I remembered reading that that has already been researched, they know it hurts Obama with swings, it's one of his weak points with swings.

I remembered that pollster analyst Charlie Cook in a July 12 article noted it:

A recent York, Pa., focus group conducted for the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center by pollster Peter Hart vividly demonstrated that although voters are hurting, are very pessimistic about the country's direction, and are using such words as "deceived," "disgusted," and "horrific" in describing Bush's performance, many still have a difficult time identifying with Obama.

Hart found that the problem was notably not among former supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton, but among others. He reported: "The challenge emerges from the rest of the group. It is not just that they oppose Obama, but rather the vehemence of the opposition; what concerns them is less about issue stances and more about race and character. The most vitriolic comments are not directed at his policies, but at him personally, criticizing him for having a 'rock star attitude,' being a 'great fabricator,' being 'inexperienced,' being someone who 'comes from a Muslim family,' and being someone who will not 'pledge to the flag with your hand over your heart.' As Tony [one focus group participant] puts it, succinctly, 'I just don't believe in his values.' He does not specify which of Barack Obama's values he does not believe in, but he has a clear sense that Obama's values are not his."

In a more recent July 29 article, Cook discusses Obama's bounce from the overseas trip and says that:

If Obama begins to look more presidential and is seen as having greater stature while McCain is seen as angry and unpleasant, it is an opportunity for this race to transition from a very competitive period to one that is a blowout.

This ad is very targeted and it has little to do with race. It's about preventing Obama looking presidential with swings, at a time when Obama has been working hard at doing that.

I am sort of worried by how well it's targeted, that McCain's campaign team may have been greatly improved in expertise.

And I agree with others on this thread that Josh Marshall is making some big gaffes with his comments on this ad, as to his reputation for being wise about political advertising. More and more seems to me like he is reading campaign talking points too much and then falling for them, rather than getting insider analysis of campaign moves. Either falling for them or purposely promoting them would be fine for a political activist, but not so much for reputation as a journalist on political horse race, it's not deconstructing the horse race for people accurately.

Of course I do suspect the Obama campaign knows all this too. Along with things like the overseas trip and the economic conference, which were obviously addressing the weakness, it may be why we are not seeing the extreme inspirationals in the speeches and pronouncements as in the primary? He is purposefully avoiding the rock star reception thing? Seeing how they balance this at the convention will be interesting, because they have to inspire the base there.

I think if Josh Marshall is getting the race thing from people connected with the Obama campaign, they are being disingenuous with him and he is falling for it, as Any race card stuff revs up the liberal blogosphere base.

Erh, who is this Josh Marshall?

Anybody significant we should know about?

There are certainly grounds for suspicion. Political ads are made by people whose job it is to think about subliminal messaging. There is no reason not to suspect that the ad-makers were conscious of any implications.

That said, even if subliminal racist messaging were intended, it's so tenuous that there's little to be gained by trumpeting it. The use of Britney and Paris in the ad is more noteworthy for its puerility than for its racism. No matter which way you slice it, the ad does represent the "substantive" campaign that McCain promised. That's what Marshall should focus on.

PS McCain should have used Beyonce and Tyra. Then you would have really seen the race cards flying.

I'm telling you, Barack should just make the same add on John McCain, Using Carol Channing and Tallula Bankhead! (I think they're both dead, maybe not Carol. But a recent picture would be preferable!)

Scarlett Johanssen? But she's not an airhead.

Why are so many people incapable of recognizing that there's more than one thing going on here? One wants to think that it's only Republicans who are incapable of entertaining more than one thought at a time, but alas, this problem may afflict some Dems as well.

Oh well. We all kid ourselves one way or another, I suppose.

Marshall did use arguments:Obama as a flashy entertainer, the guy reaching above his station, the guy who ends up in video montages with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.
And let's not forget that sports and entertainment are the two "acceptable" outlets for black men. Arguing that there isn't a racial overtone of a black man superimposed on pictures of famous oversexualized young white women can only be done with a straight face if you've never watched TV.

I think you're making a great point, in a vacuum.

But the GOP used this line of attack against Harold Ford in the Tennessee Senate race in 2006. Where you see Josh reaching for an interpretation, I see him recognizing the subtleties of the GOP attack. It'd be the height of paranoia, had it not happened before.

Somebody better tell Obama quick that the big white house up there in the distance, the one he's had his eye on but which now has ceremonial soldiers in blue and gray all around, is not his; it belongs to Mclean.

Weve arrived at the Swift-point of '08. The only question now is if Obama will go to the Grand Canyon and announce that he too would probably have invaded Iraq. I haven't read Chait's latest as yet, but I'm smelling Dukakis all over the place.

In response to this post and to a ton of the commenters, I have to say I'm kind of confused by your inability to see Josh's point and weirded out by people confidently saying he's so off-base.

How can you live in America, be a Democrat, be media savvy, know about the history of GOP messaging, and NOT SEE THIS? It's pretty obvious that's a secondary message of the ad. By the way, someone upthread was arguing that it's about one thing and not the other. I feel it's too simple to point out, but ads have multiple, layered messages. It's how they're designed. Personally, I think this ad's absolutely horrible and people are giving it way too much credit.

But back to my main point. I've seen hysterical posting about "Obama playing the race card" and I've been trying to understand what the hell that even means. I think I've boiled it down to the fact that people think that once anyone even TALKS about race or racism apparently that's "playing the race card" which is the worst thing on earth.

It's astounding to me to see Democrats imply that there's no such thing as racism and the GOP won't resort to those kinds of messages. I don't get where it comes from but it just seems really weird, naive, and hard to understand.

I hardly know where to start. Reverse order? Playing the race card in this case means claiming that your opponent is using your race against you. That's Obama saying they are going to try to scare you about me because I don't look like those white Presidents. He's admitted he did that.

Nobody is saying that there is not racism or that Republicans don't use race. We're just saying that in this case Josh is wrong and, oh by the way, Obama has lost his cred on the subject. Face it. You're not the general electorate. They don't think the way you think. What they see now is Obama playing the victim -- just like who? Jesse Jackson? Why urge him on?

If there is anything this thread has shown me it is that Quinn, Esquire (I guess he is a lawyer, or pretends to be) is not at all who I thought he was. He has morphed into one of Billy's or perhaps Gasket's Sybil-like personas--in the end the truth emerges. The plot thickens and conversing on TPM becomes even less desirable for those looking for an honest discussion. It's like watching a WWE match. Who is Jake the Snake? So much pretentiousness, and all so very precious and clever. OK, boys, time to pile on!!! Like an English schoolboys rugby match!

I don't believe that there was a racist message attacked to the ad in question at the threshold, but I don't believe that's the key point. I have no doubt whatsoever that the McCain campaign is absolutely thrilled that the commercial is the product of this much discussion, and are even more tickled by the opportunities they now have to express utter outrage and challenge the notion that the campaign--pure as the driven snow--would ever use the race card. In short, the McCain camp, in raw political terms, is absolutely thrilled by the kind of debate going on in this thread. I feel as if we are stepping into the same trap we've stepped into almost every presidential election cycle since 1968. If this a sign of things to come in September, I feel (for the first time since early June) that Obama could actually blow this thing.

This was just two years ago, and was a product of the RNC for the Tennessee Senate race.

An attack ad against Senate candidate Harold Ford, a man of mixed race. Seems he had attended a Superbowl Party hosted by Hugh Hefner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vZF5ZTu2Go

Black Man .... Beautiful young blonde woman.