Apr 09 2008
We Need More White People!
More of the new politics we’re gonna get from Barack Obama, this time in a form that by rights should be infuriating his supporters, but they’re so drunk on Obamaade they’ll never even notice how ironic it is.
During President Bush’s term, he’s developed a reputation for controlling every single minute aspect of a press event including how the crowd looks. Many have ripped into him on numerous occasions for manipulating the audience behind him, for example, to make his crowd look more “diverse” (ie: to make it look like there are more black people at his speeches; let’s be honest; diversity = more black people) and more blue collar (people wearing ties were asked to remove them to create that warm fuzzy folksy look). Here’s an example of a libtard website that went way deep into analyzing Bush’s “theater”
So what does this have to do with Barack Obama and his new politics and all that hope stuff? Well, apparently his pitbull wife was having a little get together, but the crowd behind her was a little too black for her tastes.
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.”
It isn’t supposed to be, Shayna. It’s supposed to be “new politics” and change, hope, etc. and so on.
Instead, it’s just more of the same.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:06 am
I can’t imagine why everybody expects that Obama isn’t going to play the same games as his predecessors. There’s a road map to the presidency, and they all follow it. They’ll sell out their ethics, their morals, their values, their own mothers, and not once will they consider the long term. It’s all about “Get me in and I’ll be able to do what needs to be done.” But the rest stops on the map are controlled by various interests, and you have to pay them back for allowing you to pass their way. The whole system is broken, and I think it’s probably too far gone to fix at this point.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:09 am
I don’t mind that he plays the game. I honestly expected him to just as much as the next guy. What annoys the piss out of me is the constant assumption (and assertion, for that matter) that he’s above doing it when he clearly isn’t.
In the end, he’s just like any other politician running for office and he’ll do whatever it takes to get himself elected. I don’t mind it, I just wish he would stop denying it.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Exactly! Of course he’s going to play the normal political games. Only a dumbass would think that somehow he would be able to get this far without playing those games. Only a dumbass would think that he could get ANYTHING done in Washington without playing ball.
Just like every other facet of life, it all comes down to politics… sure teaching is about teaching, but it’s really about politics, same thing with business, it’s the same thing almost all over. But sure, that’s who we want in office… the guy that doesn’t play politics. How is he supposed to get anything done?! Last I knew, we had three branches of government, and if the other two are politics as usual, he’ll be the odd man out if he didn’t.
I hate that he comes across as some sort of messiah! It just proves that people are stupid to the core. Stupid, sappy, unrealistic. They’re being lied to and they eat it up. It’s really sad. You can put the truth right in front of them, and they’d still not see it, until it’s too late.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Rye,
About what are people being told lies?
Vinny,
I hope I don’t sound like a pretentious dick, or anything, but I noticed that you put a lot of energy into posting negative opinions about Obama while you post only a few positive statements about Hillary. I mean, hey, it’s your blog; I just find it interesting that you could be discussing Chelsea Clinton, Mark Penn, or the Columbian trade imbroglio, but instead you choose to nit-pick the Obama campaign…
April 9th, 2008 at 11:40 am
It’s really being more reactionary than anything else. I’m tired of the kid gloves he’s getting from the mainstream media and his kool-aid drinking supporters.
You’re right. I haven’t posted enough positive stuff about Hillary and I should probably try harder and do a better job of that.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Well, like I said, it’s your blog. You should do whatever you want with it, really. But hey, I wouldn’t mind discussing Hillary with you…
On another note:
Why the fuck aren’t we forcing the candidates to further discuss the economy? We are facing what might be the biggest economic failure since the Great Depression, yet the media prefer to discuss moot race and sex issues…
April 10th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
People are being lied to when he says he won’t play the political game… he HAS to play the political game. Not to mention the not-so-subtle obfuscation when discussing contributions… his words don’t hold weight when you look at who he’s getting money from… bundling and all.
Well said on the economic issue though. We ought to hear a bit about that, I would think.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:13 am
if you have not seen this video yet, you should give it a look.
http://snurl.com/24pdk