What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Barack Obama Super Bowl Commercial

Perhaps during the Pope's U. S. visit in April Obama will buy airtime and announce that he plans to eradicate original sin.

Obama's message: I will end the politics of division by attractively stipulating the correctness of my views and thus implying that those who don't agree are ugly and want to perpetuate the politics of division. It's a version of what I labeled several years ago as the "passive aggressive tyranny trick."

Comments (47)

Yeah, I saw this, too, and kept thinking - when will he actually say anything that means something?

We used to joke about getting out the hip waders when guys like Obama started spreading the manure around so deep and wide.

On the one hand, I'm curious to see if America will vote for such a vapid tool, but afraid that he has the best chance of the Dems; so I'm rooting for Hillary since every time she's asked to be specific on her programs we get such gems as her desire to garnish the wages of people to make them buy her health plan.

Obama is a pretty easy target for ridicule. My favorite mock sentiments run something like "I will end the divisiveness of partisanship. We will compromise and do it my way."

Obama's message: I will end the politics of division by attractively stipulating the correctness of my views...

Mr. Beckwith:
How do you encapsulate the message of your favored candidate? And who might that candidate be?

Why doesn't Barack claim he will end differences of opinion, a more accurate and honest way of saying he will end division?
Maybe toss in " the same shoe size for everyone", just as realistic and allowing for minor discomfort more practical.
Plus, think of the savings to the shoe industry, though already a bastion of obscene profits.

Then again there's always a windfall shoe profits tax to consider, in the interest of fairness.

Frank,

This spot is very clever in its intention to emotionally manipulate. I have a history in performance and theatre, and one of the rules that you follow is that emotional impact on the audience is not communicated through the event, but through the crowd reactions. The reactions of the people in a scene to the action clue the audience in on how to react. Notice how much of this spot is the looks of adoration from Barack supporters and how little of the add is actually the candidate in proportion to other campaign spots. The message being intentionally communicated is not for us to evaluate his poolicy statements, but to stand in awe of the transcendant politician. The visual is powerful and I would wager this spot is testing well. It is very well done.

Of course, there is no substance. But that is a trifling matter in today's politics.

Jay Watts

He's black and can speak in complete sentences. That's all he has to do to make leftists swoon.

He's black and can speak in complete sentences.

Overt racism! That's the stuff!

Amen, Dr. Beckwith. I blow a small gasket inside everytime I hear any politician talk about 'ending the politics of division' or some such. The last time a world leader really 'brought the country together' we got the Third Reich, not to put too fine a point on it.

The last time an American leader really 'tore the country apart' we got the Civil War, not to put too fine a point on it.

He's black and can speak in complete sentences.

Overt racism! That's the stuff!


I'd rather a person be overt with their prejudice(s) to those who would otherwise say: "He's 'articulate'."

Francis has already indicated his candidate preference here:

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2008/01/im_supporting_john_mccain_of_p.html

If I may summarize: The ultimate conservative principle is beating Hilary Clinton in the General Election; John McCain is in best position to do so.

Overt racism! That's the stuff!

afds' comment wasn't racist. It wasn't even primarily about Senator Obama. It was about leftists. And unless I missed some groundbreaking new information, "leftist" is not a race.

afds' comment wasn't racist. It wasn't even primarily about Senator Obama. It was about leftists. And unless I missed some groundbreaking new information, "leftist" is not a race.


Just for the record, my comments were addressing Rodak's who was the one who actually made the statement "Overt racism! That's the stuff!"

I merely responded in that regard I am more accepting of those whose racism is overt (however dispicable that is) as opposed to those who surreptitiously mask it.

Aristocles,

I was also addressing Rodak's comment rather than your response to it. Sorry for the confusion.

I was also addressing Rodak's comment rather than your response to it. Sorry for the confusion.

No worries -- I do appreciate the fact that you brought attention to what can be construed as a deviously planted axiom.

Brendon--
How is "He's black and can speak in complete sentences" about leftists? The implication there is that the black man who can speak in complete sentences is rare, or special. To me, that's racist. And it is just stupidity to try to imply that speaking in complete sentences qualifies any person as an attractive candidate to leftists. The leftist core leadership is the effete, East Coast, Ivy League elite, isn't it?
And, btw, the "he" in afds's little quip quite clearly applied directly to Obama. So I frankly don't know what you're talking about.

Brendon & Aristocles, well said.

Rodak, get a clue. "He's black and can speak in complete sentences" is, quite obviously, part of afds's *imagining* of how white liberals think about Obama.

Oh, and thanks, FB, for another smart/funny post.

"He's black and can speak in complete sentences" is, quite obviously, part of afds's *imagining* of how white liberals think about Obama.

Even if you're correct, that makes it better...how? At least you are admitting that it does refer to Obama. That's a start.

Even if you're correct, that makes it better...how?

That's the whole point --

The whole perjorative tone of the remark "He's black and can speak in complete sentences" is meant to reflect poorly on the leftists.

I don't know how more simply the whole affair can be explained than what Mr. Burton has already elaborated above.

The accusation, Rodak, is that leftists will swoon over any articulate black man because the average leftist believes it to be so rare.

The statement is not racist, it is an accusation of racism directed at leftists. That is to say, at you.

So tell the truth, are you really too stupid to understand straightforward declarations, or unwilling to deal with them in like manner when they are demonstrably true?

Ah, feel the love.


Aristocles, you're wrong! Franklin Jennings has just explained it even more simply than I did (or tried to do).

But thanks.

I will take the retreat into shallowest sarcasm as an affirmative, but for which option, I shall not guess. I do hope the former, as dullness is nothing of which to be ashamed.

I wish Pres. Bush would speak in complete sentences. Then we could compare the two fairly. But dullness is nothing of which to be ashamed, or so I've been told.

Is there some strange variation of Tourette's that accounts for the reliable interjection of Chimpy McHitlerburton's name every time anyone goads a leftist?

I could understand it in a discussion with a died-in-the-wool Bush-supporter. But how on earth is it supposed to hurt a legitimist?

Actually it's pretty hard to read the statement as anything but racist, outside the bubble of sophistry you appear so eager to pull around your ears.
It is a fact that there are many black men in America. It is a fact that "leftists" do not swoon over the majority of them. The implication is clear enough, however slickly you want to slither sideways and turn the tables, labelling it, projection for the deeply un-ironic, a sneer at the racism of others.
It's interesting you're all so convinced Obama's rhetoric is empty. There are buckets of over-flowing cynicism littering the corridors.
The man is able to do a little more than string a sentence together. (And I'd bet his wife would wipe the floor with any of you in argument...) You should try reading "Dreams from my father." I suspect he might be president one day, not too far off. And if we should be so lucky, you'll get a good look at the measure of the man.
I agree, it's dismaying how little the election will be about ideas, and how little the electorate will care for policy debates. That's a fact of the world Mr Obama is doing a great deal more to change than any of you. What's wrong with the world? It's in danger of turning into Curmudgeon's Corner.

Of course there is a danger in seeing racism too often or too easily, separate even from falsely inflating one's own self pride although related to it.
I give you Mike Nifong and the Duke lacrosse players, as well as the hordes who rushed to quickly to an anti-racist but indignant judgment.

Just a cautionary note.

As to change, well it always helps to know what type it is, and given Barack's record and if he remains true to past form, then the change we will have will be in fact more of the same, a dubious change if at all.

It's interesting you're all so convinced Obama's rhetoric is empty.

Obama's rhetoric is empty because it seeks middle ground and compromise were there is no middle ground to be sought, no compromises to be made. There is no compromise on some issues. I will not make peace with the murder of children in their mother's womb. I will not make peace with the cannibalism of children so adults can live longer, prettier, more enjoyable lives. I will not make peace with sodomy and tribadism being raised to the dignity of marriage rather than being recognized as the abominations they are. I will not make peace with the state usurping the authority that rightfully belongs to families and local communities. There are no half way points that are good enough. If you tell me that there are, then all you are doing is reveling yourself to be either a liar or a fool who is unable to listen and draw clear distinctions.

To say you will "end division" blah blah blah without reference to a specific issue(s) is pretty much the definition of "empty rhetoric".

Very good examples.

Last night I spent some time on the phone with an Obama volunteer. He seemed totally nonplussed that Obama has promised both to eliminate corporate tax breaks and outsourcing.

No one has given me any explanation how jobs might be kept here without enticement.

Empty rhetoric.

Rob, in claiming that leftists swoon for Obama merely because he is both black and articulate, no claim is therefore made that he is nothing but black and articulate. That is a strawman of your own creation.

That is a strawman of your own creation.

Franklin--

The only strawman there is your bigoted mischaracterization, knee-jerk stereotyping, and blatant misrepresentation of the "leftist" response to Obama's candidacy.

I didn't make the claim, Rodak, I merely explained the claim to you in as simple and straightforward a manner as possible.

At least you now understand what afds was saying. My good deed is done for the day.

I do wish to add that I am honoured to have induced such apoplectic fits. To be derided by a certain calibre of opponent is far greater lauds than to be praised by one of high esteem, given the situation.

Rodak, take no prisoners ! Your voice of moderation WILL be heard.

Kill all fanatics!!!!

The reason Obama's message resonates is because he is promising change from the corrupt policies of the Bush administration. It is risible that the first comment described Obama as a vapid tool, when Pres. Bush by that standard should be living in the Home Depot instead of the White House. I know some conservatives have buyer's remorse, but this administration was branded and supported as being by, for, and of the conservative movement, and legitimists were playing games in the parlor and failed to notice, I guess.

To be derided by a certain calibre of opponent is far greater lauds than to be praised by one of high esteem

You keep telling yourself that, Frankie. And always remember: no matter what anybody says, you're just as good as anybody else!
Peace.

"...this administration was branded and supported as being by, for, and of the conservative movement, and legitimists were playing games in the parlor and failed to notice, I guess."

Really? I recall a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth 8 years ago that Bush was the best the GOP could put forward, but some said he represented a marked change from the corrupt policies of the Clinton administration.

Instead, we the people got another guy happy to invade our privacy, undermine our institutions and attack foriegn countries in a willy-nilly round of nation-building.

As for legitimists, would you prefer we play games in the parlor or plot the reversal of 1688's disastrous tack?

"...Frankie..."

And we have devolved to the point of cutesy diminutives in place of discussion...

Ah, my work here is done. Now to dine in kingly fashion in advance of the deprivations of Quadragesima.

Pres. Bush by that standard should be living in the Home Depot instead of the White House

I resent the smear of Home Depot. There are no "vapid tools" there, just a lot of good...stuff. I know. I spent the night once. I'll bet Obama's never been inside a Home Depot, unless it was like John Kerry's visit to Talladega: "Who among us does not love Home Depot?" I'll bet Obama doesn't even know what a ballpeen hammer is.

And we have devolved to the point of cutesy diminutives in place of discussion...

But, Frankie, that's how we do things here at WWWtW:

Intellectual and spiritual dumpster diving, that is: Rod Dreher links to Franky Schaeffer's...

What's good for Mr. Schaeffer's goose is also good for Mr. Jennings' gander, nicht wahr?

In fact, to extend my observation above, I would like to point out to both resident Frankies (Beckwith and Jennings) that disparagement of the opposition is a primary rhetorical tool around here, and, as a veteran of that era, I can attest that disparagement of the opposition was similarly one of the primary--and least appealing or effective--tools of the New Left radicals of the 'Sixties.

(Jonah Goldberg, call your office.)

I'll bet Obama doesn't even know what a ballpeen hammer is.

He uses a 2x4 of Enlightenment instead.

Rodak, better watch out--your cultural and historical ignorance is showing. Franky Schaeffer was called "Franky Schaeffer" when you had probably never heard of either him or his father. It's merely a way of distinguishing him from his father in speech. He has always been known that way, for as long as I can remember, from the time when he was directing films with his father and writing his much earlier books.

Lydia--
You're right. Thank you.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.