“Secretary Clinton….gee…how I *love* saying *Secretary* Clinton…”
How dumb and embarrasing–for this clueless woman now inhabiting the premiere address in the land…shame on her. Her cousin Valerie Jarrett in Chicago indoctrinated and mentored her in psychological, not just monetary tenement development warfare…

The supposed “racial slip” of Hillary’s that is mentioned a few comments below Scratch’s brings up the “hard working Americans, white Americans” comment and is, once again, used entirely inaccurately. In the original quote by Hillary – which she needlessly, I think, apologized for (try catching Obama apologizing for anything) – she was QUOTING an AP article that discussed the demographic problems Obama had attracting both working class groups of all colors and whites across the spectrum of income. Which is why her quote about the AP article specifically separates the modifiers hard working and whites. If anything, her slip in the quote makes it seem that she thinks white Americans are something other than hardworking. It’s hardly people of color who should have been angered by that – but of course the Obama campaign made it all about race, ergo about him.

It simply is objectively not the case that there was any equivalency between Hillary and Barack when it came to racism and sexism in the campaign. Believe me – I’ve experienced both from whites of both genders and men of all colors and I can tell when a black man is trying to put a woman of any color in her place.

HELLO! as gxm at 1:17 wrote..

“Racism is not culturally acceptable and could not be used against Obama. Instead, he was able to use accusations of racism against his opponents, while at the same time embracing misogyny and conducting an overtly sexist campaign.”

It may be hard to believe, after all the years of well-documented acceptable racism that the picture has changed, however much that undermines the previous narrative. Believe it.

You say that the Clinton campaign used the same kind of tactics but obviously you didn’t hear that Obama won the Marketer of the Year from the Association of Advertisers. ( Like, guess who did NOT win.)

The Obama campaign was recognized for their effectiveness in these tactics.

No, it’s not Just Words. It’s damn effective marketing.
No, it’s not just disaffected voters making this observation. It’s congratulations! from the shapers of consumer preferences – which is sorta effective in a capitalist consumerist society.

You just have to deal with that.

The narrative of the most successful marketer outweighs other narratives that have any contrasting, or questioning narrative. It does follow from there that observations of “sexism” were dismisssed as “racism”.

( Hmm… I just wonder how many Obama-narrative supporters remember their outrage at that senator who called Obama ” articulate and clean and well-spoken” as if these were anomalous attributes in an African-American. And that this particular senator was none other than Joe Biden?”
Oh, fer crissakes, get over it, or something.

Oops.

No, Obama rightfully won the Marketer of the Year award. This doesn’t erase the well-documented sexism of his campaign.
99 Problems and A Bitch Ain’t One. And “Bros before Ho’s” and on fairly mainstream SNL “Bitch May be the New Black, but Black is the New President, Bitch!”

Ooh, them awful Clintons – that was part of that awesome Marketer of the Year campaign.

UPDATE on Favreau’s mental processes:

Favreau is dating a former underwear model who has been hired as an aide to a White House Deputy Chief of Staff. . . Here’s the article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....ident.html

Some of the comments in response to the article are interesting (the article is from a British newspaper).

And several people note that the phrase “Yes we can” was swiped from Bob the Builder . . .

Unless we get over the ‘moral’ problem of throwing it right back at them, we will be buried in it. I guess we could use positive framing for ourselves and the framing we use on Obama could focus on his not knowing what the h*** he’s doing, which is truthful, after all.

Looking forward to part 2!

“I think we have to be careful about how we interpret the meaning behind words.”

I agree. And, it does work both ways. And, “lipstick on a pig” is actually an expression that politicians have used for a long time to describe proposed legislation that they feel is being dressed up, but which is essentially the same at its core. (I learned that after this whole incident unfolded with Obama.) How intentional or coincidental Obama’s comment was, I, nor no one, can say. None of us can crawl inside the heart and mind of another to say: “This is what you intended.” At best, it’s guess work, deduction, etc. The fact that Palin had used the lipstick image and then Obama made the comment correlated in time. That, coupled with other aspects of him and his candidacy that made many of us leary about him, certainly made me cringe when he said it. But, getting back to your original comment – I think you’re right on.

And, in my opinion, there’s little need to interpret, assume presume and analyze since there’s plenty of straight forward stuff to go on (Favreau, number of cabinet appointments, the nature of the stimulus package and how it will leave millions of women in the dust come to mind.)

And mom, sorry about the caterpillar in the glass….