WaPo Lauds Obama Infomercial as 'Poetic and Practical, Spiritual and Sensible'

Photo of Tim Graham.
  • Bookmark and Share

Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales offered his own endorsement of Obama for President with an oozy review of Obama’s half-hour infomercial, which he called "Obamavision." That certainly was supposed to carry more than one meaning, including a tribute to Obama’s visionary politics. It wasn’t hidden in tiny type on the home page like yesterday’s sleaze-Internet-cash story. It stood out in bold lettering: "An Appeal to the Masses | Poetic and practical, Obama's paid political broadcast was a montage of montages." Shales was more syrupy than that in the full text:

Somehow both poetic and practical, spiritual and sensible, the paid political broadcast, which aired on seven major cable and broadcast networks (on Univision, it was identified as "Historias Americanas"), was a montage of montages, a series of seamlessly blended segments interweaving the stories of embattled Americans with visions of their deliverer, Guess Who.

While there was some rhetoric about the horrid last eight years, Shales later admitted, "Most of the talk was conversational in that laid-back, not-to-worry, calmly passionate, defiantly hopeful Obaman way."

Meanwhile, the Style-section front pager trashed the opposition. Obama was effective in being the anti-McCain, the polar opposite of Cranky Grandpa:

Although McCain was not seen during the half-hour, one could easily summon the contrasting image of the Republican while watching Obama. McCain has come across on television as relatively worried, whiny, fusty and falsely folksy. He brought bad news; he has come to epitomize and personify it. Obama brings you medication along with the list of symptoms; he has developed a great bedside, as well as fireside, manner.

It was the easiest thing in the world, watching the skillfully edited hodgepodge put together by his campaign, to picture Obama as president. That's one thing the film was designed to do, especially for the doubters and those scared, "undecided" voters out there.

Shales was so hopelessly devoted to "Obamavision" that he started comparing Obama’s image-making to Reagan’s "Morning in America" ads, but Obama's ad was in no way positive about America's present condition. Shales even compared the Democratic convention to a....Biblical pageant?

The tone and texture recalled the "morning in America" campaign film made on behalf of Ronald Reagan, a work designed to give the audience a sense of security and satisfaction; things are going to be all right. Obama was narrator of his film, but also its star, appearing in excerpts from speeches delivered before tremendous crowds (including the finale to the Democratic convention, a nearly biblical pageant), sitting or standing in a flag-bedecked office that looked comfortable and White Housey, and in campaign footage out amongst the folks, the people, the faithful, the huddled masses.

So the Obama film was a little bit of Cecil B. DeMille's Ten Commandments? Or maybe it's a Frank Capra movie about Washington remade by an idealist:

The half-hour was underscored with music in a kind of elegiac, Aaron Copland mode -- sorrow and stature. Obama seemed as heroic a figure as Henry Fonda's Tom Joad in "The Grapes of Wrath," but with more of a Jimmy Stewart personality. He has come, the film said, to show us all the way, and if we don't know it by now, and after all those millions spent to tell us, it's our fault.

...Now it seemed to be turning into a Frank Capra movie; after all, "Grapes of Wrath" did not have a happy ending, but, according to last night's multicast -- in spectacular ObamaRama -- this movie will.

Spectacular ObamaRama? Shales did make an error in his review, mistaking Obama’s mom for Grandma in the overworked early-morning homework story: "For the umpty-umpth time, he told the story of how Granny woke his 8-year-old self up at 4:30 a.m. to go over homework and how, when he grumbled about it, she'd respond with, ‘Well, this is no picnic for me, either, buster.’" Shales didn’t suggest that this story is odd, considering Obama’s wandering mother left him for years at a time with the grandparents, which contrasts sharply with the task-master image.

The only sour spot for Shales was "a weirdly retro reference at one point to curbing ‘Russian aggression.’" Doesn’t Obama know that liberals like Shales think it’s not "retro" to root for some Barney the Dinosaur foreign policy? Enemies, what enemies?

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Is Obama the One?

One thing Barack Hussein Obama made 'Crystal Clear' in his speech on wednesday, he makes 'Slick Willy' look like an amateur when it comes to lofty rhetoric!

The speech hit almost all of the 'Hot Buttons' that his followers wanted to hear, without any specificity of how those 'Catch Phrases' will be accomplished.

The essence of Obama remains the same, 'anything you want is Obama Change and everything you feel is Obama Hope'.

Obama has convinced himself, the MSM and his followers that America is without 'Hope' unless Obama can 'Change' America.

The underlying 'Obama Principle' is about rewarding failure and punishing success.

Obama believes that 'those less equal' shall become 'equal', typical Marxist rhetoric.

Obama like most Marxists, believe the only reason that Marxism has failed miserably anywhere it has been tried, is because the wrong person has led the 'Revolution' and Obama believes he is the 'One' to finally accomplish Marxisim.

"He can't be man 'cause he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes ...

... as me. I can't get no. Oh, no, no, no!"

Doesn't this remind you of the day after the super bowl "what's your favorite million dollar commercial" segments on "news" outlets?

How about that Oxyclean infomercial. Now there's a product that really delivers "hope & change!" 

Obama's relatives?

He likes to write and speak about his relatives; yet, when he throws them under the bus, the msm is mystereously silent. For example, his aunt living in Boston. In poverty. Yet, she donated $260 to his campaign.

Yet Obama wants us to despartely believe he has compassion for his whole family, and will also have the same or more thoughtful compassion for America. Speaking outside her home in Flaherty Way, South Boston, on Tuesday, Onyango, 56, confirmed she was the "Auntie Zeituni" in Obama's memoir.

Obama simply used his aunt as a convenient and useful stepping stone -- with absolutely no intention of doing anything kind for her. I could understand it, maybe, if this aunt was out -of - sight, out-of-mind. But I don't understand it when he takes the time to write about her, then discards her. This really shows the true nature and character of this charlatan.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Spiritual my A**

I especially like his "I am my brother's keeper" (biblical?) reference.

Which actually reads: (After Cain killed Abel): The LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" 

"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"

Regardless, Obama "keeps" his family under wraps in their cozy slums & mud huts. 

 

Your new word for the day: OBAMAN

"... defiantly hopeful OBAMAN way"?

Is that like a new branch of Christianity?

Pathetic! All this over a bad ad!

Was Mr. Shales watching the same infomercial as I was?  I'm voting for Mr. McCain, but out of curiosity, I decided to take a look at this infomercial.  It was just a bad ad!  Between the sob stories and Mr. Obama's "pie in the sky" promises, it was tough to watch and gave me even more reason to vote for McCain/Palin.    Mr. Shales and Chris Matthews are just two more pathetic so-called journalists who have thrown their credibility down the toilet.

Not only bad, but dishonest

Not only bad, but dishonest as well.

Breitbart.com has a good fisking of it, by, believe it or not, an AP writer!

So it matters not one whit

that he never says HOW he's going to do all the things he promises or that they are at diametric odds with his past stated policy...OR HOW THE HECK HE'S GONNA PAY FOR IT ALL!

 

Oh yes." tax the rich, give it to the poor until there are no poor no more"...except then we'll all*  be poor and the definition will have to change. Why not, his definition of rich is being "revised" almost every day. Last night it went down from $250,000 to $200,000 and Biden said 150,000 recently.

* all= not the party elite , of course

PS. Tom Shales?  Just another poof ball who now fancies himself a pol. Make another inane critique of something you don't understand Tommie Boy.

Very Funny, barry explains things LOL

No kiddies around...Language  WARNING 

 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=491_5WxfcgI&NR=1

I AM JUST SICK AND TIRED OF BEING SICK AND TIRED..............THIS COUNTRY IS HEADING DOWN CRAPPER...........AND JUST REMEMBER WHEN IT"S TIME FOR BLAME.....YOU REMEMBER WHO!!!

Amazing what one can do

Amazing what one can do with 3/4 of a billion dollars.

"Forget change, I want improvement!"

I agree.  This will be the

I agree.  This will be the most egregious example of buying an election in the history of this country.

I don't even care if someone, at some point, spent more.  They didn't have the media facilities and communication machine to spread the propaganda so far and so thoroughly.

Jason Blair Journalism

This is getting tiresome. Shales could have pre-written this story without ever watching the Obama video and the words would have been be any different.  Just phone in the poetic praise of the chosen one.

With reporters like this,  Obama can implement the Cheryl Crow toilet tissue dictum. The White House will save a fortune.

The camera lies

Shales reveals the deceptive self-lying that television allows. They know it's a staged event, and yet they believe it anyway, on the basis of the staged event. They make their living in make-believe, and yet they trust the fiction they themselves created. My father always told me that the worst lie was the lie you tell yourself. And now I hear the TV critic admitting that the staged event persuaded him, even though he knew it was staged. By any psychological measure, that's a case of willing self-deception.

An argument is useful if it will push someone toward a belief. But the mere fact that this is a staged event, created by professionals who make their living by presenting positive images and eliminating anything negative, should alert the viewer that the staging (which is the sole ingredient that Shales mentions) is not itself an argument. Rhetoric is the art of presenting an argument in the most persuasive way, but at least there's an argument being presented. This infomercial's script was just an excuse to present a soothing and reassuring image. Obama's intellectual points weren't very good anwyay, but that wasn't the point. It was the image. So when Shales praises the infomercial, he's praising the ability of the media professionals to manipulate the viewer's feelings. It's like a thief who praises the safecracking skills of another thief.

In a normal world, it's fine to praise the professionalism of the illusion's creators. But if you then claim that their staged illusion should assure assure viewers that Obama is "fit" to be president, then you have willingly trusted a staged illusion, even when you knew it was staged to manipulate you. That's deliberate self-deception.

And now I hear the TV

And now I hear the TV critic admitting that the staged event persuaded him, even though he knew it was staged.

I think that's called "the willing suspension of disbelief"....to quote a former Presidential candidate.  :-o

 

 

 

Is Tom Shales blind?  If

Is Tom Shales blind?  If the dreck that was on last night had been produced as a TV show, he'd say it was drivel suitable only for the Lifetime network's afternoon sob-stories.

 

It was a commercial

Nothing more. nothing less. Just a snake oil salesman whispering "trust me" .  With the money the campaign spent on it it should have been more interesting and have a larger share considering that it preceded the final game of the World Series and was on anywhere up to 8 channels on cable.

Anyone who believes they got something new or even interesting is fooling themselves.

Actually I got this secondhand from my 20 somethings daughters. I had to carve a pumpkin which seemed to be a better use of time.

My review of the WaPo's

My review of the WaPo's review of the Obama Ego-thon is "stomach emptying".

McNotObama '08

Undecideds

WOW! A Fair and Balanced Report of Obama's Infomercial

The liberal Associated Press has a surprisingly balanced assessment of Barack Obama's infomercial titled: Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities.

AP writer Calvin Woodward begins the article with: " Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office."

He then goes on to list "A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:"

Perhaps the barrage of criticism of media bias in this election has had some affect on this reporter.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't miss reading this excellent article by Orson Scott Card titled: Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?