As I've written before, I'm nonpartisan. My decisions are dictated by more than political affiliation and I support members across the blue-red spectrum. But while the DNC and RNC websites are predictably focused on the same candidate this morning, I'm particularly troubled with the way this new GOP ad closes.
Regardless of whether Debra Bartoshevich was aware of the implicit message when she spoke these lines, I'm not alone in the reaction that it seems to be vaguely racist. Politics aside, that tactic is completely unacceptable--and no, not okay.
- Log in to post comments
I don't see the racism here. The person in the ad is talking about a Democrat crossing party lines to vote for a Republican, which is presumably why they would have to say that it is "okay."
I've heard a lot of people come up with some pretty baffling displays of supposed racism, but this takes the cake for silliness. I also think these weird charges hurt Obama's chances with independents.
FYI, I am a registered Democrat and will vote for Obama come this November.
It was my first reaction too. I think it was intentional. Maybe not by her, but yes a tactic to woo a certain group of people.
Hugely disloyal? Certainly.
Racist? No.
That's just my opinion and I guess others will view it in their own subjective frame of mind but if I ask the question could that ad have been done exactly the same way if say John Edwards was the candidate getting snubbed I would have to answer yes it could. Debra Bartoshevich is not the first democrat to jump ship like this, Joe Lieberman has blazed this trail for the last couple of years and that wasn't racist either.
hardindr-
Yes, it's subtle. Not overtly done. But Debra is being used to attract middle-class central US women who supported Clinton. Mainly a caucasian demographic. As someone who used to live there and be one, it's an obvious allusion to recognize race. To me at least.
Interesting question, Sheril. I didn't get the racism connection myself. And I'm a little surprised, because I'm one of the few people in my peer group who has always feared unacknowledged racism would be a huge problem for Obama. You'd think I'd be predisposed to see it in this ad, if it was that obvious!
Personally, I wouldn't have used that line because it implies that the viewer is insecure and needs peer reassurance about their non-normative behavior. If you're really confident McCain is the better candidate, you shouldn't need to be told "it's okay." They're trying for humor, but I wouldn't be surprised if the condescending tone rubs people the wrong way.
I don't see the wisdom of this sort of ad in the first place as it can easily be countered by terming these sort of cross party switchers as a 'Traitors for McCain'.
Yes, it's subtle. Not overtly done. But Debra is being used to attract middle-class central US women who supported Clinton. Mainly a caucasian demographic. As someone who used to live there and be one, it's an obvious allusion to recognize race. To me at least.
To be honest, this isn't much of a response. Why is it racist for McCain to try to attract former HRC supporters to vote for him? I've lived in a white, middle-class neighborhood all my life (FYI, I am white/caucasian), and I don't see any racism in the ad. I think if you asked most people who are not center-of-left, they would say the same thing. This is quite a stretch.
Sigmund,
Blue dog democrats were a big part of Reagan's electoral victory. Calling American citizens traitors because they vote for one political party over another is wrong, no matter which party calls people traitor.
It's not about traitors, it's about staying on point. Bartoshevich sounds like she's repeating catchphrases, and I wonder what her stance is on issues--esp those most important to women...
i didn't see the racism in the ad either, though the "it's OK" part seemed a bit weird to me. that being said, i can see where sheril is coming from. so it's a subjective call. that's a big problem with these racism/offensive charges; it depends on your perspective. who gets to decide what is offensive to group X? what if group X is not unanimous in its perception of offense? this is more relevant to religion from what i have seen (e.g., person thinks that action X is offensive to their religion, everyone not of that religion is like, "oh, ok," then other people of that religion claim it's not offensive at all. who to believe?).
in any case, we'll see more of this. there's going to be a lot of subtext, intended or not! and what is, and isn't, subtext will be subjective.