Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Note to Obama's advance team:

Having three frat-bro-looking guys in Abercrombie & Fitch shirts standing right behind the candidate as he gives a speech just looks weird. You should probably try to prevent it in the future.

Note to frat-bro-looking guys behind Senator Obama as he was giving his speech: You really couldn't turn the smirk machine off for even a few minutes?

Yeesh. Those guys looked like plants designed to look like updated versions of a young George W. Bush.

Update: We have a photo (god bless the internet, eh?)

11 comments:

John said...

They really need to start filtering people who stand behind Obama because these three were pulling a prank. I really hope the team realizes what a bad thing this was and fixes the problem in the future. They thought it would be funny to spend a weekend coming really early and weaseling their way on stage so they could wear this stereotype.

The people who stand behind a candidate are EXTREMELY important - they can distract you from an otherwise fantastic speech. These kids knew that and took the time to pull this off.

It was a prank, for sure. I just hope they get publicly shamed for it.

Eric Steves said...

Whatever. When we put together that placement, you wouldn't believe how hard it was. The three guys were triplets, and they were supposed to wear the same shirts. Then, one of them got sick and we were scrambling for a third guy. When they brought their friend, he was all pale and totally drunk in the afternoon. I know, what a weirdo.

Anyway, we had to take him to get a spray tan, driving our van like an ambulance. He didn't even know where he was until the whole thing was over.

So, anyway, just have some respect for the real talented people out there. We had to drive like crazy and find different shirts for this.

Blogonaut said...

In the linked still photo the two white guys in the A&F tees have a blank look, like they are drugged or zoning out.

No doubt some member of the advance team dragged them into the shot at the last minute.

Not that Hillary did not have blacks and young people in the background for her speech. But they were very animated and sincere looking.

Do these things really matter?

jiminy jilliker said...

Did you watch the speech on TV?
In the televised version they looked lucid, albeit not paying very close attention (and by the way-there were three of them-I don't know hoe well it shows up in the photo).

No doubt some member of the advance team dragged them into the shot at the last minute.

I don't even know what you are getting at here...

These things only matter to the extent that the window dressing matters. I hope it's less than I think it is. For what it's worth, knuckleheads notwithstanding, I thought the speech was spot-on in content and tone.

Blogonaut said...

I was so tired that I watched some of HRC's speech--which was also good--and then I was done for the night.

What I was getting at is that campaign advance people often try to stage manage the people sitting directly behind the candidate to create a certain impression. (e.g. young people, black people, or whatever.)

Case-in-point:

"Michelle Obama spoke at the Skibo Gymnasium on April 3rd.

"The Tartan, via LGF Quick Links, published this report today on her speech at Carnegie Mellon University:

""While the crowd was indeed diverse, some students at the event questioned the practices of Mrs. Obama’s event coordinators, who handpicked the crowd sitting behind Mrs. Obama. The Tartan’s correspondents observed one event coordinator say to another, “GET ME MORE WHITE PEOPLE, WE NEED MORE WHITE PEOPLE.” To an Asian girl sitting in the back row, one coordinator said, “We’re moving you, sorry. It’s going to look so pretty, though.”

""“I DIDN’T KNOW THEY WOULD SAY, ‘WE NEED A WHITE PERSON HERE,’ ” said attendee and senior psychology major Shayna Watson, who sat in the crowd behind Mrs. Obama. “I understood they would want a show of diversity, but to pick up people and to reseat them, I didn’t know it would be so outright.”""

Story link: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-event-coordinator-get-me-more.html

jiminy jilliker said...

If Little Green Footballs is a reputable source to you, I repeat what I said before:
We are speaking different languages out of different orifices.

Blogonaut said...

Many reputable political blogs published the story--including Politico:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Obama_advance_Get_me_more_white_people.html

He said:

"I'm not sure there's any real reason for outrage here; every campaign, at least implicitly, includes race in the staging of events like this -- even a campaign whose supporters chant "race doesn't matter." But they don't usually get caught doing it this explicitly.

"And (if you didn't pick it up from the bowling) it does give you a sense of the community Obama's trying to reach in Pennsylvania: whitefolks."

The ABC News Blog Political Punch also ran the item, saying:

"(For those who would criticize this blog for relying on a college newspaper, please recall how much the Obama campaign in its TV ads relied upon the support for his health care plan by the college newspaper the Daily Iowan.)"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/we-need-more-wh.html

jiminy jilliker said...

Oh, hell.
I see I've been operating under a false set of assumptions.
Pardon me.

Blogonaut said...

I have never concealed the fact that I heavily rooted for McCain against George W. Bush 8 years ago, and thought that it was just awful what Carl Rove did to him in S Carolina.

I also heavily supported Gore against Bush, and was very emotionally invested in the Florida travesty that robbed the Democratic party of an election that in my opinion Gore won fair and square.

Second, I (in a later post) made full disclosure of the fact that I gave Hillary the $2,300 max allowed by law, and that she was my first choice for president.

Third, McCain is indeed honest and honorable.

Fourth, I never warmed up to Obama, and as time went on I grew to dislike him intensly.

Therefore, I am among the 28% of Hillary supporters who, if HRC is not nominated, will be supporting McCain any way I can--unless I see something in Obama in the general election campaign that I am missing.

Regarding Rudy, a family friend—Joe Russoniello, asked me to attend a Rudy $500 a plate fundraiser, and I begged of but sent him $200 bucks—as I said in the post, more or less as a friend.

I think that as you grown older you will come to realize that people are a little more complex than you are now aware, and cannot be pigeonholed into little categories.

Anonymous said...

Are there really democratic voters who would rather vote for McCain than Obama? I doubt that such an animal exists even though I've seen the 28% and 17% polls too, and would like a follow-up by some anthropologists to check the veracity of this polling. I would vote for a dog before I'd vote for McShame. At least a dog would not be able to sign a confession written by an enemy. I see no reason on earth to put a person in the White House who will be nothing more than a tool for the same failed policies over the past seven years. If one is seeking an empty suit for president McShame is his or her man. Funny that his criticism of the Bush/Cheney cabal has only arisen since he became the default choice of the Republican Party.

Anonymous said...

Are there really democratic voters who would rather vote for McCain than Obama? I doubt that such an animal exists even though I've seen the 28% and 17% polls too, and would like a follow-up by some anthropologists to check the veracity of this polling. I would vote for a dog before I'd vote for McShame. At least a dog would not be able to sign a confession written by an enemy. I see no reason on earth to put a person in the White House who will be nothing more than a tool for the same failed policies over the past seven years. If one is seeking an empty suit for president McShame is his or her man. Funny that his criticism of the Bush/Cheney cabal has only arisen since he became the default choice of the Republican Party.