(Title swiped shamelessly from the email the fabulous Julia sent me enclosing the link to this dreck.)
James Taranto would like you to know that he is shocked, shocked! that anyone would think that the infamous anti-Obama McCain ad featuring shots of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton was, "of all things, racist."
Pro-Obama writers were more explicit in accusing the McCain camp of racism, laughably suggesting that the ad's producers had chosen Hilton and Spears because they were slatterns of pallor. "I note with interest today, John McCain's new tactic of associating Barack Obama with oversexed and/or promiscuous young white women," wrote Josh Marshall on TalkingPointsMemo.com. "In juxtaposing Barack Obama with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, the McCain campaign is simply trying to plant the old racist seed of black man hitting on young white woman," echoed Bill Press on the Puffington Host.Nope, no racism here!
The McCain campaign "accused Barack Obama . . . of playing racial politics," reports the Associated Press:
Obama "played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck," McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said in a statement. He called Obama's remarks "divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."
The Obama campaign in turn claimed it was all a big misunderstanding, according to another AP dispatch:
Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday that the senator was not referring to race.
"What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn't get here after spending decades in Washington," Gibbs said. "There is nothing more to this than the fact that he was describing that he was new to the political scene. He was referring to the fact that he didn't come into the race with the history of others. It is not about race."
Oh, but Taranto isn't quite finished with his deconstruction of the criticism of the ad. You see, the liberal critics of the ad got the whole racism angle all wrong! Why, all the pants-wetting about black men with white women has nothing to do with the black men being sexual predators out to violate white women!
There is a lot of silliness on both sides here. First of all, the notion that the McCain ad plays to stereotypes of black men as sexual predators is far-fetched. The invidious old stereotype has to do with black men as a threat to white feminine innocence, and it is hard to imagine two less innocent symbols than Hilton and Spears.Get it? Har, har! They're sluts because they like sex! You can't threaten a slut's innocence! So, no harm, no foul, amiriteamirite?
You know, there's a reason that the Wall Street Journal keeps its news content behind a pay wall and puts the opinion writers out there for free. Nobody would pay for the opinion writers if they had to, but they'll gladly pay for the news division's stuff.
The slut-shaming goes to 11
(Title swiped shamelessly from the email the fabulous Julia sent me enclosing the link to this dreck.)
James Taranto would like you to know that he is shocked, shocked! that anyone would think that the infamous anti-Obama McCain ad featuring shots of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton was, "of all things, racist."
Oh, but Taranto isn't quite finished with his deconstruction of the criticism of the ad. You see, the liberal critics of the ad got the whole racism angle all wrong! Why, all the pants-wetting about black men with white women has nothing to do with the black men being sexual predators out to violate white women!
You know, there's a reason that the Wall Street Journal keeps its news content behind a pay wall and puts the opinion writers out there for free. Nobody would pay for the opinion writers if they had to, but they'll gladly pay for the news division's stuff.
blog comments powered by Disqus
James Taranto would like you to know that he is shocked, shocked! that anyone would think that the infamous anti-Obama McCain ad featuring shots of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton was, "of all things, racist."
Pro-Obama writers were more explicit in accusing the McCain camp of racism, laughably suggesting that the ad's producers had chosen Hilton and Spears because they were slatterns of pallor. "I note with interest today, John McCain's new tactic of associating Barack Obama with oversexed and/or promiscuous young white women," wrote Josh Marshall on TalkingPointsMemo.com. "In juxtaposing Barack Obama with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, the McCain campaign is simply trying to plant the old racist seed of black man hitting on young white woman," echoed Bill Press on the Puffington Host.Nope, no racism here!
The McCain campaign "accused Barack Obama . . . of playing racial politics," reports the Associated Press:
Obama "played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck," McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said in a statement. He called Obama's remarks "divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."
The Obama campaign in turn claimed it was all a big misunderstanding, according to another AP dispatch:
Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday that the senator was not referring to race.
"What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn't get here after spending decades in Washington," Gibbs said. "There is nothing more to this than the fact that he was describing that he was new to the political scene. He was referring to the fact that he didn't come into the race with the history of others. It is not about race."
Oh, but Taranto isn't quite finished with his deconstruction of the criticism of the ad. You see, the liberal critics of the ad got the whole racism angle all wrong! Why, all the pants-wetting about black men with white women has nothing to do with the black men being sexual predators out to violate white women!
There is a lot of silliness on both sides here. First of all, the notion that the McCain ad plays to stereotypes of black men as sexual predators is far-fetched. The invidious old stereotype has to do with black men as a threat to white feminine innocence, and it is hard to imagine two less innocent symbols than Hilton and Spears.Get it? Har, har! They're sluts because they like sex! You can't threaten a slut's innocence! So, no harm, no foul, amiriteamirite?
You know, there's a reason that the Wall Street Journal keeps its news content behind a pay wall and puts the opinion writers out there for free. Nobody would pay for the opinion writers if they had to, but they'll gladly pay for the news division's stuff.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
