Careful what you say, kids. Someone might be taking notes.
Advertisements
Recent comments
- 160serpentinegmailcom on An open letter from the populists of the 1890s to the populists of today
- 160serpentinegmailcom on Trumpism, local and global
- eric on A wreck by any other name: on the inadequacy of “Great Recession”
- Brad DeLong on A wreck by any other name: on the inadequacy of “Great Recession”
- Alex on Hitchens minor on the English and their history
- David in San Jose on Trump, populism, Hofstadter, Heer.
- eric on What does Paul Campos know that the Public Policy Institute of California does not?
- ari on What does Paul Campos know that the Public Policy Institute of California does not?
- eric on Keeping a finger on gold
- ari on Keeping a finger on gold
- kevin on “Eight schools account for half of all history professors.”
- eric on “Eight schools account for half of all history professors.”
- ari on “Eight schools account for half of all history professors.”
- eric on “Eight schools account for half of all history professors.”
- eric on A life well lived!
This is officially an award-winning blog
Archives
- April 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- August 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- January 2013
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- May 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
34 comments
October 29, 2008 at 8:58 am
bitchphd
AACK!
October 29, 2008 at 9:04 am
ari
Are you okay, Bill the Cat?
October 29, 2008 at 9:07 am
JPool
Finally, someone using that wink for good instead of evil.
October 29, 2008 at 9:32 am
Vance
I think I’m with Dana Goldstein that the way this ad hits Palin is distasteful, but it’s not easy to articulate why. Granted, of course, Palin is a more-than-legitimate target, and The Wink was obnoxious. But in this ad, the Obama team could easily have made their point by using a standard image of Palin. Instead, they chose a famously “feminized” image, suggesting that that’s where the problem lies.
October 29, 2008 at 9:36 am
ben wolfson
How many unfeminized images of Palin are about?
October 29, 2008 at 9:38 am
Jake Lawson
You know, snarkiness aside, that’s one of the better political ads I’ve seen. They manage to create a narrative and hit you with a fantastic payoff in a 30 second spot. That’s not easy to do.
October 29, 2008 at 9:43 am
kid bitzer
i’m not seeing it yet, vance.
i agree–there is room for caution about not turning anti-palin sentiments into an excuse for misogyny. (see kevin drum on ‘diva’ about this.)
but the point of this obama ad is to stress s.p.’s deep unseriousness.
much of her deep unseriousness his her own self-presentation through various hyper-feminized types, whether the cutsey-poo, the milf, or the hockey-mom. she fosters this; she can’t even present herself as politically aggressive without reminding us that she’s a lip-stick wearing political attack dog.
maybe there are other images that the obama camp could have used which would have said ‘unserious’ without saying ‘hyper-feminine’. but s.p. herself has not given them a lot to work with.
October 29, 2008 at 9:53 am
Vance
I’m saying they could have used any standard shot of Palin (say, the official portrait) for identification. Ben’s right that her normal self-presentation is cartoonish — but they chose the moment where she suddenly turned it up to 11. The point that needs to be made is that she doesn’t supply McCain’s confessed deficiency. Does the cutesy woman act make that point? Not unless you’re a misogynist — what makes the point is identifying her, because you remember she’s deficient in the relevant respect too.
October 29, 2008 at 9:56 am
dana
Instead, they chose a famously “feminized” image, suggesting that that’s where the problem lies.
I see your point. I thought, at first, when they went to video, that they’d be quoting some kind of babbly nonsense from her. Air quotes around some of her nonsense would have worked, too.
On the other hand, they didn’t make up the wink. The woman is running for Vice President and she winked like she was running for prom queen!
October 29, 2008 at 10:02 am
kid bitzer
“what makes the point is identifying her”
i think you’re over-stating this. merely putting her social security number on the screen would not do it, and neither would her name. nor, for similar reasons, would an official portrait in which she is looking uncharacteristically serious.
what the ad needs in order to make its point is that she’s not serious. she’s not knowledgeable, thoughtful, or deep; she is a creature of surfaces. this moment captures that.
your view seems to be that showing dukakis in a tank is no more effective than showing him in his official portrait. but if you want to say ‘this guy is not ready to command military troops’, then in fact the tank shot sends that message, and the other shot doesn’t.
if you want to say ‘this woman has no serious grasp of economic policy’, the wink does it better than a sober portrait does.
i think you are asking something impossible of the obama camp, and then clobbering them for failing to do the impossible: to come up with an image that stresses her lack of seriousness without incidentally showing her constant over-femmy self-presentation.
October 29, 2008 at 10:07 am
dana
But in this ad, the Obama team could easily have made their point by using a standard image of Palin.
With this, though, I disagree. A standard image would leave it open — are they saying she’s unqualified because she’s a woman? The wink isn’t something most female politicians do, even femme ones.
October 29, 2008 at 10:10 am
ben wolfson
I don’t know if they really could have used the official portrait. She does look at least somewhat serious there, and part of the point of the ad is that she was actually a quite frivolous choice. A good way to play that up: depict her being frivolous. The official portrait doesn’t make the point that she doesn’t supply McCain’s deficiency as well.
October 29, 2008 at 10:10 am
ben wolfson
What dana said. I was going to say that too, honestly.
October 29, 2008 at 10:11 am
Vance
Hmm, you both make good points. Without “quoting some babbly nonsense”, which would stretch the ad to 60 seconds or beyond, they have to use some kind of image as shorthand. And Palin being as consistent as she is, it’s going to be a femmy one.
October 29, 2008 at 10:15 am
andrew
Anyone know what she’s saying during the bit they play in the ad?
October 29, 2008 at 10:18 am
kid bitzer
that she thinks m2 is a better measure of the money supply than m3.
October 29, 2008 at 10:31 am
andrew
So she wasn’t saying that Joe the Plumber will use the Umbrella of Job Creation to avoid being soaked by Obama’s tax plan?
October 29, 2008 at 10:57 am
politicalfootball
they chose the moment where she suddenly turned it up to 11
Most campaign commercials rely on images that portray the opposing candidate in an unflattering fashion – and those images are inherently unfair, because they always reflect some momentary reflex or transitional expression captured in a fraction of a second.
I assume that Palin, on the other hand, chose that wink as an expression of her character – the way that presidential debaters have always chosen their “there he goes again” or “change you can Xerox” debate moments. I mean, Palin winked twice, right?
How can it be wrong to portray Palin’s deliberate manipulation accurately?
(I’m wondering if she cleared it with her handlers, or came up with it on her own. Neither would surprise me.)
October 29, 2008 at 11:54 am
Barbar
She winked often enough that it showed up in Tina Fey’s caricature.
I agree with JPool: it’s using that wink for good instead of evil.
God I hope Palin gets the nomination in 2012.
October 29, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Rich Puchalsky
This ad doesn’t work. It assumes that anyone who is still undecided can read.
October 29, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Colin
I mighta left out the wink. But here’s something funny. Wm Kristol
(http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/10/kristol_a_mccainpalin_opportun_1.asp)
calls this an “ad attacking Palin.” The ad does not attack Palin. He says the “ad ridicules Palin’s alleged unpreparedness.” It says *nothing* about her preparedness. The ad relies *entirely* on its viewers’ having already reached conclusions about Palin that don’t fit McCain’s 11/28/07 words.
October 29, 2008 at 2:08 pm
kathy a.
does anyone here know a female professional who *winks* to prove she is ready for the job, or to prove a point? outside a classroom visit to the preschool, i mean.
it’s embarassing. and she has done this repeatedly.
October 29, 2008 at 3:08 pm
sharon
Stop angsting, idiots. It’s brilliant.
October 29, 2008 at 6:01 pm
ac
How many unfeminized images of Palin are about?
There are the ones of her with animals she’s killed.
October 29, 2008 at 6:19 pm
ben wolfson
ac makes a good point.
October 29, 2008 at 6:21 pm
matt w
Also this one.
October 29, 2008 at 6:58 pm
ben wolfson
The viking ladies don’t seem nearly as well protected from the cold as do the viking men.
October 30, 2008 at 4:30 pm
ac
Cold was not an issue for Viking women because those metal boob covers attract lightning.
October 30, 2008 at 4:41 pm
matt w
Ben, I know you play nethack.
October 30, 2008 at 5:56 pm
nick
the wink is KEY, and I think clearly not sexist–I mean,who else winks? the “dumb blonde” of legend doesn’t wink. winking has nothing to do with generic gender sterotypes and everything to do with Palin’s particular lethal cocktail of unseriousness and unearned self-confidence.
October 30, 2008 at 5:57 pm
nick
missing first wd of previous post: “using”
October 30, 2008 at 6:28 pm
ben wolfson
I have successfully resisted playing nethack since mid-2005.
October 30, 2008 at 6:43 pm
matt w
That’s probably wise.
Anyway, valkyries have cold resistance.
October 30, 2008 at 6:58 pm
dana
ac, I have absolutely nothing to say to that, and I’ve been trying for hours. Hanging from Yggdrasil and I got nothing.