I think that one does fit, because she basically says "He’s just a pretty face (and no substance). What’s wrong with that?’
Exactly. I don’t know why I couldn’t put this into words earlier, but pretty much all of the rest of the ad is couched as ironic statements (I look forward to being taxed again after death, terrorists need their privacy, I love paying a marriage penalty, etc). One could argue about the success or quality of the irony, but I think the intention for each is there.
Then the blonde comes on and just makes a statement: I met Harold at the Playboy party. I can’t see any attempt at irony there. Apart from not having any visible clothing on, she stands out from every other element of the ad already because of the lack of irony, even before the Harold, call me, wink wink stuff.
Unlike the other characters, she doesn’t present an issue that Ford is supposedly for and proceed to vouch for it in a manner intended to show how absurd his positions are. Like the guy with the guns and the guy talking about the porn money and the guy talking about paying more taxes. When the black lady says “he’s looks nice, isn’t that enough?” (pulling that from memory) it’s more of a negative reflection on her than it is on him. After all, it’s not Ford’s fault that he looks good, but he does carry responsibility for his positions on guns, porn money, taxes, etc. The black lady comes off as an unthinking voter. The others do not.
Yeah, she does stick out like a sore thumb because of that.
spoke’s link didn’t work the last time I clicked on it. Can anyone tell me whether the black lady and the wanna playboy bunny were the only women in the ad? If so, I find it interesting that the women are fixated on Harold’s appearance and sexual prowess, but the men talk about political issues.
I can understand the POV a little more clearly, but it still irks me to call a somewhat benign ad “racist.” Perhaps it has racist intentions…
Say there was a black version of Geroge W. Bush – he had a DUI when he was younger and he did some drugs. Let’s also say he went through several marriages, all to white women. Would a political ad pointing all these facts out be racist? They are facts, afterall. I imagine that, to a racist, it would trigger a different response than if the canidate in question were white instead. “A black man on drugs after our white women! Ahh!” But…well, it’s just hard for me to consider the commercial itself racist, but I guess in our society that may be splitting hairs.
Nope, not at all. Only when they think it will garner votes. In this case, I don’t have any doubt that the makers were fully aware of both ways that this ad would be taken (Ford’s a player, black man/white woman).
Believe what you’d like, but they were very aware of the overtones. If they simply wanted to point out that he’s at the party, they could have said “Harold Ford visits Playboy parties” and gotten the message across, without offending the sensibilities of their viewers by showing a woman who’s barely dressed (well, we can’t actually see any clothing on her at all).
William Cohen even called it race baiting, and he’s pretty damned familiar with the varied takes on interracial relationships.
Did we see different ads? The one I saw, you can only see about the top twelve inches of her person, from the upper clavicle to the scalp, including her sumptous and well-formed shoulders. Admittedly these are not clothed, but this wouldn’t even qualify as Amish porn.
As well, by the background I assume that Ms. Fifi la Boink is pictured as being outside while she speaks in Blondish. I don’t as a general rule, assume that someone is who is outside in an urban setting is nude. Not been my experience, as a general rule.
. . .and by the way, Corker gets to have it both ways with this ad by simultanously disavowing and benefitting from it.
It doesn’t matter that (or if) the ad was pulled, the warning has been sent, and more than likely received, loud and clear: Vote republican or the time is nigh when it’ll be acceptable, no, encouraged, for your womenfolk to carouse with Black men.
Nope, same ad. There is no shirt, no straps, no nothing. The implication was that she was wearing a pretty skimpy outfit. I’m not equating it with porn, but if seeing someone in a Playboy outfit is bad, then the implication of what she was wearing was equally so. Note that I don’t think that the bunny costume is a bad thing, but the makers of the ad certainly want us to believe it is. Otherwise, what’s the problem with going to a party with women dressed like that, even without any racial overtones?
Gee, yeah, just another odd coincidence. Just happens to be a white woman. Just happens to make a straight statement without irony. Just happens to have no visible clothing on.
(Hint to elucidator: these aren’t really real people on the street. They’re actors with scripted lines and wardrobe in a political commercial for which hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent to sway people’s opinions. It isn’t likely that the woman who just happened to be the one delivering the sexually charged lines also just happened to show up wearing a tube top (on a day when three of the other people in the commercial are wearing jackets) and it isn’t likely that the cameraman just happened to frame her so that you never see any of that tube top.)
Nobody’s claiming that its porn or she’s actually naked. But it was obviously set up, wardrobed and shot to call that possibility to mind.
Folks keep saying, “Her race is unimportant to me.”
Right.
But if it was unimportant to everyone, there wouldn’t be a thread about it, or a news furor over it. No, you don’t feel a welling up of violent hatred over the thought of a blond bimbo with a black man. But take my word for it, some people do feel it. Some people in the north do too, surprisingly enough. They don’t talk about it with strangers, but they do think about it, and when election day comes, some will get up and drag their racist asses down to the polls, and vote.
Aw, c’mon, Hentor, you know I’m just to the right of Emma Goldman, fer cryin’ out loud! The reaction seems to be somewhat independent of ordinary demographic parameters: some of use immediatly were struck by the racist overtones, and some others of us didn’t see them at all! What is so difficult to accept about that?
Let’s look at the truth and/or lies of the ad. Was the “bimbo” ever at “the Playboy party?” Did Ford really get money from a porn producer? (Playboy doesn’t count; it’s been delivered by the Postal Service for 50 years.) What’s that business about “terrorists deserve their privacy?” What’s this thing about Canada taking care of terrorists? Was any of that stuff even vaguely true?
Well, what ad isn’t supposed to garner votes? IOW, Republicans are racist all the time.
You’re saying I should believe what I like and they you assert that they were aware of the “overtones”? You don’t know that-- you just believe it.
Yeah, that’s a great ad. “Ford visits Playboy”. A real chart topper, that one. And you only see her from the shoulders up, but she’s supposed to be a floozy for God’s sake.