The Usual Suspects Prepare To Lynch Obama

[Upchurch]

Are you sure his meaning wasn't "insincere or grandiloquent language"? That's also a definition. And it's one of the definitions in your own link.

It is, but is it an appropriate definition for this case? I think it is clear from the context that boloboffin was using the term metaphorically, not insincerely. Certainly not purely 100% insincerely.

 

[BenBurch]

"This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."

More rhetoric? Or when it happens to a Conservative doesn't it count?

 

[RandFan]

I don't understand what you guys are getting at. Rhetoric is the art of speaking effectively. How could "lynch" not be remotely appropriate if it is 100% effective in relating boloboffin's meaning?

In this context the rhetoric is sophistry. "Lynch" is a loaded word. Rhetorically it is very effective as it appeals to our fears and our contempt of racists and some of our worst traditions. Clarance Thomas famously used it to his benefit during his confirmation hearings.

The nut jobs attacking Obama aren't doing anything that they didn't do to Kerry. It's wrong but it's not racist anymore than swift-boating was.

I would think the word appropriate to use (rhetorically) if they were attacking Obama because of his race.

 

[RandFan]

More rhetoric? Or when it happens to a Conservative doesn't it count?

It was spurious then and it is spurious now.

 

[BenBurch]

... I would think the word appropriate to use (rhetorically) if they were attacking Obama because of his race.

Do you think that none of this opposition is racially-motivated? That the smears we have seen here about Obama wanting to get "Whitey" were absolutely isolated and represent none of those supporting and funding the attacks on Obama?

 

[applecorped]

More rhetoric? Or when it happens to a Conservative doesn't it count?

Yes, more rhetoric.

 

[Drudgewire]

LYNCHING??!! Are you ing kidding me???

See you guys after the election. Unreal.

 

[Upchurch]

In this context the rhetoric is sophistry.

Debatable, but still possible. I don't think that is a given in this case.

"Lynch" is a loaded word. Rhetorically it is very effective as it appeals to our fears and our contempt of racists and some of our worst traditions.

It is also a reminder of our past and our worst tendencies. Loaded terms are used because they are effective. They create imagery and are not, necessarily, intellectually vacuous or insincere. Using a loaded word does not automatically invalidate the argument.

The nut jobs attacking Obama aren't doing anything that they didn't do to Kerry. It's wrong but it's not racist anymore than swift-boating was.

You are taking the metaphor too literally. It is, after all, just a metaphor. In this case, the lynch mob (swift-boaters) are lynching (making untrue attacks on) the black people (Democratic nominees for President).

I would think the word appropriate to use (rhetorically) if they were attacking Obama because of his race.

Instead, they are attacking Obama and, previously, Kerry not because of the quality of people they are or what kind of President they would be but because they are the Democratic nominee for President and, therefore, worth attacking regardless the ethical or moral implications of the form of attack.

 

[RandFan]

Do you think that none of this opposition is racially-motivated? That the smears we have seen here about Obama wanting to get "Whitey" were absolutely isolated and represent none of those supporting and funding the attacks on Obama?

Do you think we should paint everyone in opposition with the same brush? Do you believe that people should be guilty simply by association? Do you believe that if there is some truth to a stereotype that the stereotype is then justified?

 

[Upchurch]

Do you think that none of this opposition is racially-motivated? That the smears we have seen here about Obama wanting to get "Whitey" were absolutely isolated and represent none of those supporting and funding the attacks on Obama?

I have seen nothing indicating that is the case with this group. Have you?

 

[leftysergeant]

Do you on the right also feel that it was inappropriate for Clarence Thomas to call the efforts to block him a "high-tech lynching?"

(Just trying to determine whether we are serving gored ox for dinner.)

 

[RandFan]

Lefty,

It was spurious then and it is spurious now.

 

[boloboffin]

Oh and that makes such a huge difference in the moral degeneration of the smears I'm sure.

I wasn't considering the morality of either side when I cited the size of the groups. Please curb your straw men.

All negative attack ads have to please an initial audience before anyone else sees them: the people paying for the ads to be made. When it's a large group, like MoveOn, the ads are subject to a number of people's ability to vote with their cash. Even in bubble atmospheres like MoveOn.org, that tends to temper the message to at least appeal to that large crowd. With AIP, there's only one money man that I know of. That tends to encourage a sense of excess to the final product.

Lynch is not even remotely appropriate. It's 100% pure rhetoric.

That remains to be seen.

Are you sure his meaning wasn't "insincere or grandiloquent language"? That's also a definition. And it's one of the definitions in your own link.

Perhaps he meant this one from

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/rhetoric;_ylt=AuIw0HERLSC4UaqMyRNwagesgMMF

I assure you that my language was not insincere, and if you consider lynching a reference of grandiloquence, well, there's not much I'll be able to do for you.

Let me explain the reasons why, from the already posted ad, I believe that this group is going to destroy the sleaze standard of any negative advertising in the country's history.

1. Audience size

This has two parts. One I've already mentioned above. The approval of the money guy means it's more prone to the failing of one person's worldview. The second is the end audience. Because of the substantial funding behind this group and the reach of the Internet, many more people will see this ad than have seen the negative ads of the past. They will be able to smear at will whatever heinous idea appeals to the prejudices of the funder, and lots of people are going to be exposed to it. So any sins are multipled.

2. The descent of the ad

All negative ads must reveal the heart of darkness embodied by the opponent. But there is a pacing to this. Conrad's novella makes this a slow, ponderous journey into the African wilds. The previous AIP bashes you about the head with shocking revelation after shocking revelation, all in under 30 seconds (I think, it may be a 60-second spot). The material in that ad could have been put into three different ads as a campaign, pacing the revelation and making the overall message much more effective.

This lack of proportion shows that Grand Guignol appeals to our donor here, and seeing that the first ad "did so well for them" I see no reason for them to temper their tone in the future. In fact, I expect them to get even more lurid.

3. Excessive production values

Even the composition of the visual elements of the ad speaks to this sense of excess. Compare that ad to the master ones coming from either of the campaigns (where the people funding the ads are hiring professionals trained to account for their own tastes in advertisment). The most striking thing to me are the various title cards. In the campaigns' ads, they are without exception clean, simple fonts, and usually one per ad (unless you see a newpaper article, which excuses the excess with context). And the titles are subtly flashy, but never overpowering the visual presentation of the material. The AIP ad is completely the opposite. It's being showy for the sake of being showy. Mr. Moneybags wants to know that his money is right there on the screen. So he gets overpowering fonts flying all over the frame.

All of this tells me that it's a vanity project. And when a rich person has his personal vanity on the line, there is little that can hold him back and precious few that might reason him out of his crusade. (Witness Episodes 1, 2, and 3). The premiere installment of the AIP ad gives me great confidence to say that this group is going to overshoot itself badly. The second ad will be the true test. They could show that they're learning, but I have no reason to think that they will.

Their excess is going to lead to the spotlight being on them, not on Obama, just the same as almost everyone here focused in on me and my pointed hyperbole. I could be wrong about them going for the race card in a over-the-top way, but at this stage of observation, I've got my hypothesis and I'm sticking to it. Google "Obama Waffle." Have you heard about the Obama monkey doll?

There are 50 days left in the campaign. You're not going to believe how much worse it gets. And I'm laying odds that it's this group that's going to get there. I can be wrong. Let's find out.

 

[RandFan]

Debatable, but still possible. I don't think that is a given in this case.

It is also a reminder of our past and our worst tendencies. Loaded terms are used because they are effective. They create imagery and are not, necessarily, intellectually vacuous or insincere. Using a loaded word does not automatically invalidate the argument.

You are taking the metaphor too literally. It is, after all, just a metaphor. In this case, the lynch mob (swift-boaters) are lynching (making untrue attacks on) the black people (Democratic nominees for President).

Instead, they are attacking Obama and, previously, Kerry not because of the quality of people they are or what kind of President they would be but because they are the Democratic nominee for President and, therefore, worth attacking regardless the ethical or moral implications of the form of attack.

I'm not at all persuaded by your argument. I don't see how this kind of attack can be accurately called lynching. You wouldn't use the word "lynch" to describe what happened to Kerry, right? But it is ok just because Obama is black? I find that patronizing and insulting to blacks. If Obama were a Jew you would bring in some Godwin metaphor. Call it gassing or something.

I don't see it.

 

[Policenaut]

Good shock title. Nothing more.

 

[leftysergeant]

The comparative numbers of individuals making up the financialk base of a campaign may be said to make the difference between a movement of some size or an individual with more money than wisdom trying to buy an election.

 

[RandFan]

The comparative numbers of individuals making up the financialk base of a campaign may be said to make the difference between a movement of some size or an individual with more money than wisdom trying to buy an election.

{sigh}

 

[Upchurch]

You wouldn't use the word "lynch" to describe what happened to Kerry, right?

Not only would I, I did. In my last post, for example.

I'm not at all persuaded by your argument.

Well, I'm not persuaded by your argument that a lynching metaphor must necessarily impart racist connotations. It could just be implying, as I believe it does in this case, irrational hatred of.

 

[RandFan]

Not only would I, I did. In my last post, for example.

Sorry I missed. It's nonsense. Would you use the Holocaust for the same political purpose? Don't you think you are trivializing something that is rather significant for political ends?

Then again, tu quoque.

It could just be implying, as I believe it does in this case, irrational hatred of.

"Irrational hatred"? I guess when it comes to politics nothing is off limits as far as speculation goes. If that's what you "believe" then I guess that is all that matters.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Do you think that none of this opposition is racially-motivated?

You are definitely racist. You obviously don't think that anyone could oppose Obama on legitimate differences in beliefs. You've made it clear that you see only the color of Obamas skin and the color of his opponents skin.