Democrats cult of celebrity
The video is at the link. Allahpundit does a good job of explaining the point of the ad. It is a point that blew right past the editorial board of the NY Times who came out with a midday editorial with the bazaar claim that the ad was racist. I found their arguments wholly unpersuasive. In fact it was pretty incoherent. They start by claiming that McCain is running negative ads but offer no proof. The ad in question was actually satirical. It made fun of the cult of celebrity that has surrounded Obama. The Times Editorial gives the impression that the writers are part of the cult.
The “C-word” in question being — gasp — celebrity. It comes at around 10:45, but to get a fuller flavor of the exchange you should watch the first three or four minutes before skipping ahead to that point and then letting it play out. In Mitchell’s defense, Davis never quite gets to the crux of the “celebrity” jab; for that, see Lindsey Graham’s succinct description of the ad as being about “the idea of fame without portfolio.” Precisely. Or better still, go watch the old clips of Hannity playing stump the band with Democratic focus groups. The point isn’t that Obama is spectacularly famous, it’s that his fame is out of all proportion to his actual accomplishments. It’s 95% image, a fact implicitly recognized in how easily his fans lapse into creepy iconography. But since McCain can’t call Obamamania what it really is — a benign cult of personality — he reached for the nearest, most innocuous synonym he could find. At the very least, “celebrity” is closer to the truth than, say, “statesman.”As I say, watch the first few minutes (if only to see her play dumb about the race card) and the last few, when she wonders why the campaign is so interested in petty details about Obama’s shopping habits even as the nutroots obsess about the price of McCain’s shoes. Her contempt really shines through in the last 20 seconds, so at least don’t miss that. Exit question: Davis doesn’t seriously think the Obama campaign is feeding lefty bloggers disingenuous demagogic talking points on race, does he? Why on earth would they need to?
The absurd suggestion that there was something racist about the ad is supported by their own racial paranoia and nothing else. Spears and Hilton were included because of their status as being famous for being famous. You would think that this would not be too subtle for the Times Editorial Board, but apparently it is.
With their strange reaction they will give the ad new life. The reaction of the Obama team and their media supporters suggest the ad touched a nerve. It did that by pointing to a truth they had been hoping to avoid. Obama is a man of modest accomplishments, who despite that has achieved fame, but that fame does not make him a leader. The Clinton team tried to exploit this vulnerability but it was never able to make the case as dramatically as the ad that has the Times and Obama upset.