Press conference: Obama shocked, shocked at Wright’s behavior; Update: Video added; Update: Q&A highlights added

You said:

An appeal of that type would be difficult, but it would be a lot better short- and long-term than simply assaulting the black community and its friends with the embarrassing caricature of their aspirations represented by Wright.

I said:

How in the world is Wright a caricature of the black community’s aspirations?

You said:

“Wright” is being described as (said to represent) a “caricature of their [the community’s] aspirations.”

Now that we’ve established that Wright is a caricature of the black community’s aspirations, my question still stand: how in the world is Wright a caricature of the black community’s aspirations?

And how in the world can you possibly think, much less know, that the makers of the ad were presenting Wright as a caricature of the black community’s aspirations? Maybe they were just presenting Wright as he actually is, in his own words and actions, as shown by video of his words and actions? An extremist, America-hating, racist conspiracy-theorist. It’s twisted that anyone could assume that Wright is even a caricature of the aspirations of the black community. Or that the black community is some monolithic entity with the same aspirations.

Oh, and Pot? Along with the English lessons, thanks for the civility lessons:

someone with moderately advanced, High School level or higher, reading comprehension skills should have little difficulty parsing and interpreting it

misterpeasea on April 29, 2008 at 7:59 PM

Playing an ad with Wright shouting god damn America in order to associate Obama endorsers with him is obviously a stretch.

The underlying idea of the attack ads is right – that voting for candidate x implies validation of Wright via liberal enablers like Obama

How about we just stop making reachy, 6-degrees of Rev Wright ads and attack Obamas own statements, those are more than enough.

The underlying idea of the attack ads is right – that voting for candidate x implies validation of Wright via liberal enablers like Obama

The North Carolina ad isn’t even aimed primarily at Obama. It’s aimed at people who endorsed him. So it’s not even guilt by association. It’s guilt by association with guilt by association.

The underlying idea of the attack ads is right – that voting for candidate x implies validation of Wright via liberal enablers like Obama

once you took out the ranting black-racist reverend and the goofy photos of African-American-loving pols, you’d be left with a really lame argument

The underlying idea of the attack ads is right – that voting for candidate x implies validation of Wright via liberal enablers like Obama

The ad on its own terms is not an appeal to logic – even less to the better angels of anyone’s nature.

The underlying idea of the attack ads is right – that voting for candidate x implies validation of Wright via liberal enablers like Obama

It’s pure 100% guilt by association, and indirect association at that

The underlying idea of the attack ads is right – that voting for candidate x implies validation of Wright via liberal enablers like Obama

The point is that as a political or logical argument, the idea that Perdue and Moore should be held responsible for Wright at his worst, by way of their endorsement for their party’s likely standard-bearer and the resultant association with his poor judgment, is laughably abstract and weak.

The underlying idea of the attack ads is right – that voting for candidate x implies validation of Wright via liberal enablers like Obama

they chose to make what is in my opinion a dubious argument based on guilt by association once removed, guilt by secondary association

The underlying idea of the attack ads is right – that voting for candidate x implies validation of Wright via liberal enablers like Obama

——————–

I think a large number of them rightly see themselves painted in the worst possible light, and see a political party trying to inflame a white racial response to the Democrats and their black frontrunner.

I never called the ad “racist.”

it over-dramatizes its point with sadly familiar visual – inevitably racial – cues

I never called the ad “racist.”

if I’m just a little bit human, maybe I’m thinking, “There they go again.”

I never called the ad “racist.”

Wright’s been doing an excellent job of keeping himself in the news and harming Obama without the Republican Party having to take responsibility for racially inflammatory politics.

I never called the ad “racist.”

glaringly obvious echoes of traditional racist messages going back hundreds of years. Even the appearance of the Republican chairperson who appears at the end of the tape plays into an ugly iconic tradition.

I never called the ad “racist.”

assaulting the black community and its friends with the embarrassing caricature of their aspirations represented by Wright, and at the same time trying to tear away from them their new hero Obama without offering anything in their place.

I never called the ad “racist.”

It helps turn the clock back on years of effort by Republicans to present their alternative positive vision on race issues.

I never called the ad “racist.”

it exploits racially charged words and imagery in a way that is familiar from racist propaganda

I never called the ad “racist.”

It does make conservatives look like racists. It can only reinforce the perception among non-conservatives that the Republican Party really is dominated by racists, boors, and antedeluvian morons.

I never called the ad “racist.”

people who talk about moving beyond race but don’t hesitate to feed racial hatred, who produce political ads that anyone who really was a racist could approve of wholeheartedly.

I never called the ad “racist.” Neither did the NEW YORK TIMES, for that matter.

NY Times: “Race-baiting….a clear bid to stir bigotry in a Southern state.”

misterpeasea on May 1, 2008 at 9:27 PM