Skip to main content

View Diary: The Power of Negative Branding: Carville Gets It on Webb (204 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ford is "Out-bigoting or out-extreming?"??? (5+ / 0-)

    I have no idea what your'e talking about, and that statement really calls out for either substantiation or retraction -- are you talking about his position on gay marriage, or something else?

    I watched Ford on Bill Maher last night and was quite impressed with his apparent authenticity. I also give him credit for not calling the RNC ad  racist. I think that ad is kind of a Rorschach test. You see racism there, if you see it more generally. The racism isn't overt -- you have to say it's racist only if you believe whites will respond to it in a classically racist manner. On the other hand, I found the ad to overtly sexist -- probably the most sexist political ad I"ve ever seen -- it's incredibly demeaning to women, as it suggests their support for Ford is based on physical attraction. I wish Ford and others would talk about that. Still, I liked Ford's response that the ad is not sutiable for families, and is being aired in family hours. It gives the G.O.P. a great dose of their own medicine. Go, Ford.

    "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

    by FischFry on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 11:03:20 AM PDT

    •  No it doesn't (0+ / 0-)

      That you choose to not keep up with the news and the doings in Tennessee is not my problem.

      Your second graf as to your own views is symptomatic of what you are missing. Harold Ford KNOWS the ad was racist. I don't know quarrel with his strategy of acting that the real affront wad the smut, but that does not excuse your view.

      LEt's be clear - you and I have diametrically different views of what the Dem PArty should  be AND what works.

      For example, you are a  big big fan of Joe Lieberman.

      I despise the man.

      •  You are reading into my remarks (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lying eyes

        I said the ad was a Rorschach test -- and it may have been intended to provoke a racist reaction among those racists who would see a race issue with the use of the white bimbo in the ad. I also said in my first 'graph' that I didn't think too many would respond to the ad that way -- and that those who do probably did not need prodding to go out and vote against Ford. I could be naive in that belief -- but I don't think so. I think that anyone who is going to react viscerally and in a racist way to the ad long ago decided they were going to go out and vote against the black guy. And I don't need you to "excuse" my view.

        As for Lieberman, I have criticized the obsession on this site with going after Lieberman. I have noted that he is far from the most conservative of Democrats, and that our efforts should be directed at electing Democrats, not defeating them.

        "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

        by FischFry on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 11:25:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Excuse me (0+ / 0-)

          It is NOT a relative thing. The ad was racist and any sentient being knows that. I can assure you Harold Ford knows it.

          As I said, you love Lieberman. I despise him.

          •  Of course he knows it. But he's smart (6+ / 0-)

            not to say it.  He let others accuse the GOP of playing the race card.  Had he said it, he would be accused of playing the race card.

            "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

            by Lying eyes on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 11:51:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  OK I'm going to get seroius here (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hester, rolet, FindingMyVoice

            If Ford were a white man, there would be nothing racist about the ad, right? The exact same ad could run against a white candidate -- no changes --exact same images and text, and it wouldn't be racist. So, what makes it racist is that Ford, who is not pictured, is actually black. So, if nothing in the ad itself is overtly racist -- your problem with the ad is that you believe racist people will respond to it -- to some racist subtext. And, that may have been the intention all along -- though I suspect the ad was more directed at suggesting Ford is immoral or frivolous. Either way, what makes the ad racist is not the ad, but people's reaction to it. Which is why I said it's a Rorschach test on racism. That contrasts with the sexism, which is absolutely blatant and undeniable. And, I have said that I would like to see the RNC hammered on that point. I'm disappointed that I seem to be the only voice decrying the obvious sexism.

            As for Lieberman, I never said that I love him. I have said that he is a decent Democrat who fervently disagrees with the majority of the party on foreign policy. I believe he comes to his positions sincerely, not out of crass political poll-taking. You, and I, are free to disagree with him. I just think the obsession here with defeating him -- and it is obsessive (it's only one Senate race, but, until the recent attention to Ford, Webb and McCaskill, the CT-Sen race probably got close to 40% of the attention here) -- made the site look a little nutty. Not to mention that I found it to be a misplacement of energy and resources. As I said, we should be focused on defeating Republicans, to restore a Democratic majority -- on all levels of government and in the gen pop.

            "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

            by FischFry on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 11:53:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Serious" -- I have typing dyslexia (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rolet

              "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

              by FischFry on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 11:54:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  As much as I hate to say it, (4+ / 0-)

              I thought the whole "smutty and improper for family viewing time" was exactly the right way to characterize the ad.

              I hate to say it, though, because I generally don't enjoy the morality police determine what is and is not "appropriate".  But as a rebuttal tactic, I thought it was brilliant.

              George Allen is dreck. 10 Days Left!!

              by RenaRF on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 12:32:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  How can Joementum be a decent Democrat (0+ / 0-)

              when he is unwilling to abide by the decision of the Connecticut Democratic party primary?  He basically said, "Screw you, I'll get my Republican friends to support my running against the Party".  His candidacy will undoubtedly have deleterious effects on the House races there as well.

              Lieberman may be a nice person but he has a serious character flaw.  Hopefully enough independents can see past the whine and "poor me" persona to vote him out of office.

            •  FischFry and Lieberman (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              davidincleveland

              I have said that he is a decent Democrat who fervently disagrees with the majority of the party on foreign policy.

              Wrong. He gets paid well and supports the oligarchy running the Republicans and pulling the strings of some Democrats as well.

              I believe he comes to his positions sincerely,

              You are a distinctly minority view on this. What evidence do you have for this?  His admiration for Cheney and Bush, and his support for them to the extent of knifing Democratic policy over and over is sincere treason, at the very least. The blood of thousands due to a big lie and deception are on Bush and Cheney 's hands. They are on Joe L's, too, and he is an unabashed enabler of this Iraq War/criminal enterprise.

               Where is your sincerity?  If you think Lieberman is "decent", where are your standards? Repubs have none, now we have to toss ours away, too to "win"?

              http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/10/22/42741/248/143#c143

              by Pete Rock on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 05:32:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Perhaps I should have used the past tense (0+ / 0-)

                Maybe my meaning would have been cleareer. I was replying to someone who had noted earlier comments of mine regarding Lieberman -- he exaggerated teh hell out of what I had said, but I wasn't going to quibble all that much about it. I did want to make the point that I was critical of the single-minded focus of DKers on defeating him in the primary and then turning him into the devil incarnate for continuing to run as an independent. I said I believe he comes to his positions on foreign policy sincerely. You may not agree with his assesment of the national interest or threat to this country, and you may surely diagree with his prescription for it, but I don't even think it makes sense to suggest that his stand on the war is a political calculation. If that were true, then you'd have to say he is very bad at math. Most people are opposed to his view -- and a great many are vehemently opposed to his view -- so much so that they are prepared to vote or work against him on that issue alone. I certainly agree that many of his comments about opposition to the war are completely outrageous, but I think they spring from the depth of his concern.

                Yes, I know there are other issues, but Lieberman is hardly alone there -- not the only one critical of Clinton on Lewinsky, and not the only Democrat that thought it unwise to filibuster Supreme COurt nominees. Obama spoke on Meet the Press about why he didn't think it was appropriate to block the nomination of Alito -- it's a reasonable position. I really don't want to go into specifics, because I don't even know all the specifics -- so, I'll leave it there, before I touch off a tempest in a teapot.

                "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

                by FischFry on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 10:07:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  criticizing the obsession (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          davidincleveland

          means you love him so much.

          you were cheerleading for joe.  and you know it.

          I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

          by BiminiCat on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 03:18:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You noticed that little bomb, huh? (0+ / 0-)

      Not only that Ford is a bigot, but he is intentionally trying to be more of a bigot than someone else.

      Yeah, that sort of torpedoing of a democratic candidate pretty much proves that the diarist shouldn't be giving advice on how to go after republicans.  If you can't give advice without kicking the puck into the net, just stop.  Deleting the diary is probably a net plus.

      It's the proto-fascism

      by Inland on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 12:34:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not for nothing, though... (0+ / 0-)

        I do think the diarist gets it completely right regarding Carville's advice and approach for Jim Webb.

        George Allen is dreck. 10 Days Left!!

        by RenaRF on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 12:36:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pretty close to nothing, though.... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RenaRF, Sam I Am

          Calling Ford a bigot is just hyperbole and wrong.

          However, pretending that he's trying to out-bigot bigots is simply slander, the sort of slander that's best suited to dropping it into a diary as an aside and not a defended point.  Maybe the diary should simply admit that it's not ALL democrats that it intends to help.  Just some.

          It's the proto-fascism

          by Inland on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 12:49:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site