Friday, October 26, 2012

Obama campaign throws swing voters under the bus

The Obama campaign thinks it is so cool and cutting edge. Now it's running an online ad starring Lena Dunham, creator of the show "Girls," to encourage young women to take as much consideration into voting for the first time for Obama as they do in choosing the first man they have sex with. If you haven't seen it already, follow the link and watch.

Conservatives have been having lots of fun on Twitter ridiculing this appeal to young women and sex. Romney supporters are pointing out to the barely employed cohort of Lena Dunham as represented by her character in her show that perhaps they should be thinking more about getting a job rather than sex when they vote.

Here are some of my favorite Tweets ridiculing the ad.‏
@bdomenech If voting is like sex, you're doing one of them wrong.
@politicalmath Looks like Obama team's "First Time" video as gone viral. I told them this would happen if they didn't use protection.

@thesavvy Women went from "I don't need a man to survive" to "I can't survive without Barack Obama."

@amandacarpenter "First he asked for your wedding gifts, then your yard sales and now he has asked for your daughters."

@LisaDeP College Kids: It's easier to get sex on a regular basis when you have a job. #justsaying #VoteRomney

‏@Cameron_Gray I'm hoping that Romnesia will one day help me forget that Lena Dunham ad

‏@keder Dear college kids: trust me on this, having a job when you graduate is WAY more 'cool' than voting for Barack Obama. I PROMISE. #Mitt2012

‏@benshapiro Nothing says you're courting the women's vote like saying women should have sex with you.

‏@clayjohanson @Messina2012 Not shown: Obama never calls her again, having gotten what he wanted; she ends up with a raging case of herpes.
And what makes this even more ridiculous is that they copied the idea from an ad for Vladimir Putin. Rather telling, isn't it that the Obama campaign looks to Putin for their model?

Is this the only sort of argument that they think appeals to young people - sex? Do they have so little respect for young women that they think that they're only motivated by their lady parts?

Seriously, is this the way that the father of two young girls thinks one should talk to young women? And when will the Obama campaign realize that their task is to win over swing voters? Does this appeal to them? Does it appeal to parents of young women to hear their president air an ad like this? The campaign seems to think that they can target just young people through an ad that will go viral, but they ignore the fact that others see their ads and won't find it cool but disgusting to equate voting for Obama with sex. Somehow I doubt that most Americans don't want to think of sex in conjunction with their president.


Bill Litchfield said...

Actually, it does make me think of sex in conjunction with this president but only in the crudest and unkindest terms. I regret that such thoughts have occured to me but fortunately they were fleeting and replaced very quickly with relief that there is a real alternative come Nov 6.

Chris said...

Well, when Ozymandias-on-the-Potomac and the rest of the Libs/Statists keep promoting having the Government "service" all of your needs, just remember that "service" is also the word used to describe what the bull does to the cow.


Rick Caird said...

This gives new meaning to the term "White House sleepover".

SoccerPlayingMom said...

I wonder if Barack and Michelle would feel comfortable watching this ad with Sasha and Malia?

elkh1 said...

If they become pregnant, they can always kill their babies, paid for by Obamacare.

mark said...

Oh, the (fake) horror.

Guess which saucy little guttertramp said this?:

“I know what it’s like to pull the Republican lever for the first time, because I used to be a Democrat myself, and I can tell you it only hurts for a minute and then it feels just great.”

Hint: The number of letter in his three names; 6-6-6

Let the teeth-gnashing continue.

Dr Weevil said...

Looks like mark got his latest talking point from (where else?) Talking Points Memo. This Ann Althouse post, along with some of the comments on it, shows just how silly the comparison of Obama's ad to Reagan's double entendre is.

mark said...

Silly weevil,

Wrong again! I read the quote on Of course, it's an accurate quote, so whining about a liberal link (and then citing a conservative link) is a bit absurd.
Althouse is welcome to her opinion. I don't particularly care about either the video or Reagan's quote, although I happen to think a presidential candidate referring to a woman's pain upon being "deflowered" is a bit more inappropriate than the silly comments of an almost-unknown actress.
But why are you hiding behind Althouse's words, instead of challenging my opinion on your own?
Surely the guy who debunked the problems of climate change with an original theory (spitting in the ocean) can speak for himself. Certainly the person who wrote that 'the secret service kept W surrounded by children because a terrorist dressed as a janitor might have been lurking' can string a few sentences together on his own.
I expectorate more from you, weevil. Don't let me down.

Dr Weevil said...

Of course, no one is "whining about a liberal link". I am objecting to the lack of a link, to the fact that 'mark' feels entitled to repeat stale leftie talking points without providing a link, as if he had come up with them himself. It seems deeply dishonest, as dishonest as his repeated insistence on dragging in things I have written on other topics that have nothing to do with the one at hand, while utterly misrepresenting what I said on those topics. If (hypothetically) he hated Betsy as much as he hates me, how would he behave differently? His comments consistently lower the quality of her comment threads.

In any case, if he had taken my advice and actually read the Althouse posts and the comments on it, he would have found good reason to doubt whether there was necessarily anything sexual about Reagan's quip. If he disagrees, he should try out his arguments over there: his opponents there are likely to be less polite than I am. (He should also avoid calling himself 'mark' over there: there's already a far more sensible just-plan-mark commenting there.)

As for why I don't present my own argument, why should I? Althouse and her commenters (some of them) have the topic well-covered, so I linked to them. Should I take the best arguments I found over there and repeat them here without a link or quotation marks, so people will think I thought of them myself? That would be shamefully mark-like behavior.

Rick Caird said...

Come on, Mark, you get more and more absurd. There was nothing sexual or suggestive about the Reagan remark. What do you think he was saying that would lead anyone to conclude some possible sexual meaning? Remember, too, he was in a working man's bar room when he made the remark. Do yo think he was soliciting something?

To equate Reagan's remark to Lena Dunham's ad is beyond absurd. Most people mature as they grow older. You regress.

Rick Caird said...

Oh, and Mark, with this ad, Obama has completed the trifecta:

1. The check is in the mail.

2. I am from the government and I am here to help.

3. Sure I will respect you in the morning.

But, you want to make the problem out to be Reagan. Fool.

Rick Caird said...


I found the video. It was the deranged MSNBC observer, Lawrence O'Donnell. I suggest you Google "Skeeter Davis" and look for a song "It only Hurts for a Little While". The song is about a breakup. That is what Reagan was referencing, not homosexual sex as O'Donnell claims. How could you possibly have been influenced by O'Donnell?

mark said...

“I know what it’s like to pull the Republican lever for the first time, because I used to be a Democrat myself, and I can tell you it only hurts for a minute and then it feels just great.”

Rick, you're really saying there is nothing sexual or suggestive in the above remark? Seriously? Even weevil called it "Reagan's double entendre".

Silly weevil,
As I've said before, if Betsy thinks I am "lowering the quality of her threads" (or any other reason), she can simply ban me or simply ask me not to post here any more. No whining. No complaints. I would say people like "buckofama" or the idiot who recently compared police officers to nazis are lowering the standards. Apparently I'm wrong, as their posts drew no protests.
Hate you? Not at all, weevil. I do think you're an odd-duck and a bit creepy (I remember you used to have a picture of a Ken doll on your website (something about torture and/or the death-penalty). But I have no hatred for you or anyone.

Dr Weevil said...

So now I'm a "bit creepy" because I once posted this entirely bloodless and safe-for-work illustration of the ancient Athenian method of capital punishment. None of my students has ever found it creepy. If 'mark' finds something sexual in it, that's his problem.

As for Reagan, I should have written more carefully: at worst he made a quip with a possible double entendre that would go right over the heads of clean-minded listeners, if it's even there at all. A far cry from Obama's video, which creepily implies that a girl who looks to be still in her teens wants to have sex with a 60ish married man and father of girls not much younger than herself. That's way creepier than anything Reagan ever said.

Finally, anyone who didn't hate me wouldn't tell such contemptible lies about me, over and over again. I don't see how anyone could miss the hate dripping from comments such as mark's 4:18pm.

mark said...

I don't have the ability to channel Reagan to find out what he meant. Do you? The "and then it feels just great" might throw a kink (no pun intended) into your excuse.

Silly weevil,
Ok, maybe it's just me. But yeah, a mostly naked Ken doll to explain capital punishment: Yup, a bit creepy. And really, how do you know that none of your students found it creepy?

Dr Weevil said...

So 'mark' still hasn't bothered to read Althouse's comment section to see all the nonsexual interpretations of what Reagan said that many of her commentators thought were obvious. If they're all wrong, why doesn't he go over there and tell them?

He also can't be bothered to read what I wrote about that particular form of Greek capital punishment, which is that it was quite similar to crucifixion. Does 'mark' find crucifixes 'creepy'? Or kinky? Most of the older ones, especially in Spanish-speaking countries, depict Christ wearing even less than my model, and in a lot more obvious pain. I've never found them, or my model, the least bit erotic. And I have found that high- and middle-schoolers are very quick to tell me when they disapprove of anything in my classroom. Does 'mark' know anything about teaching? I always thought it was a good thing for teachers to bring their subject alive (maybe not the best metaphor in this case) with appropriate illustrations, dioramas, and so on.

Again, 'mark' will say anything, no matter how obviously false, if he thinks it will make me look bad. Looks pretty hateful to me.

Rick Caird said...

"Rick, you're really saying there is nothing sexual or suggestive in the above remark? Seriously? Even weevil called it "Reagan's double entendre"."

Yes, I am saying there is nothing sexual or suggestive about the Reagan statement. The remark was solely about a "breakup", changing from a lifelong Democratic voter to voting for a Republican.

The "Reagan's double entendre" claim came from O'Donnell. It is exactly what he says in the video. No rational human being, on hearing the remark by Reagan, would thing "Oh, Reagan is making a double entendre". No, they would think it was just what it meant: changing a vote from Democrat to Republican.

Now, it is completely absurd to try to claim that "it feels great" is some kind of dog whistle for sex. I felt great when I finished a marathon. I feel great when I find fix a programing bug. I could go on and on with examples, none of which are sexual.

Really, are you and O'Donnell that perverted?

mark said...

I hope you've recovered from you pity party from last night. I re-read my 4:18 post, which you said was dripping with hatred. Really? Sarcasm? Sure. Hatred? Not at all. Perhaps all your bluster and school-marm scolding masks a very insecure man. You take these posts far more personally and seriously than I do. Bad idea.

Of course, this thread has become ridiculously inane (not that that has ever stopped me before), but it illustrates how some conservatives are willing to lie about even the smallest of matters. Not only did the esteemed Dr. Weevil call it a double-entendre (before he "corrected" himself), but Althouse herself acknowledged it was sexual/dirty.

"Ronald Reagan's 'First Time' Vote [Joke] Was Dirtier Than Lena Dunham's."
Does that mean we can't criticize the Obama campaign for that Lena Dunham ad anymore?

Most of her response centered around the idea that the Dunham video was worse than the Reagan joke.
Lie about the little things, and next you'll be saying he (Reagan) didn't give amnesty to illegal aliens, break the law (Iran-Contra) and raise taxes.

mark said...

btw weevil,
While I appreciate your efforts to really make your classroom zing
(O Captain, My Captain); I'd say diorama/project of stapling a ken doll to a piece of cardboard rates about a D+ from most middle-school history teachers.
(That's not hate. Just constructive criticism mixed with a dash of sarcasm).

Rick Caird said...

Mark, in addition to all your other problems, you have reading comprehension difficulties. Althouse did not acknowledge Reagan's joke was dirty. If you go back and look, the title was in quotes, so it was not her statement Second, point number 4 is a direct contradiction and an accurate statement of the problem the left faces in trying to make the case that Reagan mad a sexual innuendo.

Your problem, Mark, is we don't honor your and O'Donnell's premise that Reagan made a sexually suggestive remark. In fact, we claim that premise is flat out wrong. Reagan was referencing a "breakup", a new object of affection, or a different attitude. It is only gutter minds that take that as a sexual reference. As I said before, if yo polled 1000 people who did not know the controverysy, only you and O'Donnell would think that was a sexual remark.

All Althouse did in her post, is offer counter arguments. But, at no point did she accept the premise.

mark said...

Ok, Rick, just one more post (from me) on this inane thread:
Althouse's first comparison is that Reagan said his "smutty material" in a working-class bar and not a "glitzy ad".

1. Reagan was talking to guys in a working-class bar, not putting the smutty material in a carefully crafted, glitzy ad aimed at everyone

So you see, just as weevil lied when he claimed that Biddle posted his phone number, address, etc, you are lying. You two make a good team. Keep it up.

Rick Caird said...

No, Mark, you are the one who is mistaken here. If you go back to the Althouse post, you will she states "POSSIBLE arguments" and then lists five. She never claimed any of the five were her arguments. In fact, she never offers any argument as her argument. What she is saying with this post is contained in first line when she says:

"Does that mean we can't criticize the Obama campaign for that Lena Dunham ad anymore?"

The Althouse answer to her question is clearly "No".

You are aware, aren't you, that Althouse is professor of law at University of Wisconsin in Madison. As such, her whole business is offering possible arguments.

I don't understand, Mark, why you have so much trouble with the English language and then, in the midst of your language difficulties, claim others are lying because you have misunderstood the language. You have clearly failed to understand the Althouse post at every possible level.

Dr Weevil said...

Oh look. 'mark', who denies that he hates me, just can't stop telling lies about me concerning things that have nothing to do with this thread that happened years ago. (But he somehow can't answer simple questions about whether he finds realistic crucifixes 'creepy'.)

Just last week he claimed that I couldn't blame him for not knowing about all the vile things someone using a dozen different names posted about me here several years ago, because of course Betsy deletes really vile comments as soon as she notices them or is told of them. This though he immediately recalled the principal pseudonym, which he repeats here. (I assume they were all the same person because they all disappeared at the same time.) He knows that there were hundreds of vicious comments on dozens of threads over the course of more than a year, at a time when he was commenting here just as much as he does now, and he knows that many of the comments were up for hours or even days before Betsy deleted them, because she has to teach and eat and sleep and can't monitor comments 24 hours per day. (She often had to delete whole threads.) The poster particularly liked to post his filth when she was taking students on field-trips and they would stay up for a couple of days until she got back. 'mark' cannot possibly have missed all of them. Did he miss the one inviting all comers to a 'Gay Coming Out Party' at my house, giving my real name, address, and phone number? (I'm not gay, and no one called, but that's still pretty vile.) The ones calling students I had taught nasty names? My real name, with "gay in NC" appended, is still posted at Betsy's husband's site, attached to a comment that says the opposite of what I believe while insulting someone I have never had occasion to insult, and in such a stupid way that it incurred mockery from other commentators. (I've never commented there myself, and only noticed it a year or two later, so I haven't asked for it to be removed, since I believe it is quite difficult to find and remove very old comments in Blogspot. Anyone who knows my real name can confirm what I just wrote with a simple Google.)

Unless 'mark' is actually 'Bill Biddle', how could he possibly know for sure that the latter never posted my name, address, and phone number? And unless he actually did see all the abusive messages that he recently claimed not to have seen any of, how could he know what they did or did not include?

To sum up, what the Heck is mark's problem with me? Why can't I criticize anything he writes without him unleashing a string of ad hominems, lies, and insults? Why can't he answer my arguments, or at least try?

As far as I know, the only thing I've ever done to him - until he started insulting me and lying about me - is to try to refute some of his arguments. Apparently he can't handle that.

mark said...

Ann Altman's whole business is offering arguments? A quick visit to her site shows snarky comments about Obama going to church and thinking it hilarious that she thought the Colo Gov. said "pregnancy" instead of "presidency". Only an erudite law professor could come up with those gems.

AND: Speaking of desperate... look! Obama goes to church with his lovely daughters. No Michelle though. Otherwise, I got a vibe like this.
Posted by Ann Althouse at 7:02 PM 77 comments Tags: Robert Reich

The Colorado governor obviously intended to refer to the "first few month's of [Obama's] presidency," but it sure sounds as though he says "the first few month's of his pregnancy."

How insightful!

Sorry, but could you repeat that in a less erratic, more logical way. From your rambling, you're claiming hundreds of vile posts, including attacks on your students. (Of course, you think making fun of your theories is vile.) No solid proof, but I don't believe Betsy would have tolerated that. As I said last week, prove me wrong and I'll apologize, or you'll just have suffer the the cruel injustice.

(And yes, I went back on my word about no more posting on this ridiculous thread. So many damn commercials during football games. My apologies.)

Dr Weevil said...

'mark' writes "I don't believe Betsy would have tolerated" offensive comments on this site, even after I specifically menioned that she did not tolerate them, she always deleted them - and sometimes whole threads - as soon as she knew of them. He also demands "solid proof", smugly thinking that he can safely pretend that something he knows happened (he was there) did not happen if I can't prove it.

He seems to have forgotten about screen shots. Here is a JPEG of one of the worst comments exactly as I first saw it, except that I have used Paint to obscure my real name and part of my real address. Does anything here besides 'mark' think that doesn't qualify as "vile"?

Now that may not be the worst comment ever posted on the web, but that's not the point. What bothers me about it is that my former colleague 'mark', who never had any complaints about my work when I worked with him, also never expressed any objection to this kind of thing when it was happening. Other lefties who visited here at the time were disgusted, and said so, but not 'mark'. It didn't seem to bother him at all. I wonder why. And I continue to wonder what I have done to make him lie and lie and lie about me, including lying about things that happened years ago. What's his problem?

mark said...

OK weevil. You proved me wrong about the personal info, so I apologize.

However, I absolutely never saw that post before (or the "hundreds" you claim. For you to say otherwise is a lie.

Rick Caird said...

So, Mark, it seems now you are changing the thrust of your argument to attack the Althouse blog itself rather than the comment in question.

OK, I can play with that, too. Your post was at 10:45. So, looking back at the Althouse blog, she had 7 posts that included the two you are mentioning. The first was a comment on Reich and his signs of desperation (Reich also tweeted yesterday that 75% of Republican were racist). There are increasing signs of desperation from the Obama campaign including the Lena Dunham video we have been talking about. Obama has not been known for going to church as President, so going without Michelle looks more like a photo op and propaganda than actual interest. Althouse was right to comment on that and to refer to the photo of the Clinton's going to Camp David just after the Monica Lewinski story broke. That was a Clinton photo op.

The second was simply a comment that Hickenlooper misspoke and said pregnancy when he didn't mean it. But, couple that with the war on women theme, and it was noteworthy.

The other posts were on Sandy and a possible effect on the Pennsylvania election, Madonna and the election, a child molester going free, Benghazi, and a video of a baby puggle (which I had never heard of and had to go look up on Google). So, really, your attempt to denigrate Althouse and her blog fails as miserably as most of your comments.