Obama campaign channels Spinal Tap, NYT channels race

If this won’t make you get ticked off and then laugh on a Sunday morning, not sure what will. There has been some discussion concerning the size of crowds attending events hosted by President Obama and his executive leadership gaffe team (the vice president).

The New York Times details the reasoning behind the “redefined” 2012 campaign events.

… four years ago Mr. Obama often was drawing five-digit throngs, filling arenas’ nosebleed seats and overflow rooms and regularly requiring shutdown orders from the local fire marshals.

Which raises a couple of questions: Where are the crowds now? And what does it mean for the results in November?

“We have plenty of time for big rallies,” a campaign spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, said between the rallies on Thursday. “Our focus right now is on exciting our supporters and winning over undecided voters and the smaller and medium-size events are the best venue to accomplish that because the president can closely engage with the crowd.”

Big rallies are expensive, especially given the logistical and security challenges for a president as opposed to a mere United States senator. And Obama campaign operatives, both at the Chicago headquarters and in swing states where Mr. Obama recently has stumped, say the campaign intentionally limits crowds by restricting tickets. The reason is to allow the president to better connect with supporters, aides say.

OK, maybe that’s true and the campaign is cutting off tickets to venues. But the Times goes a bit further noting Romney’s crowds are always smaller … typical … but it does not end there, since the Times needs to bring race into it.

Romney crowds are overwhelmingly white compared with the more diverse Obama audiences, and older voters generally outnumber younger supporters.

So a story about the size of the crowds attending Obama rallies somehow needs to point out the Obama crowds are more diverse and as such, those in attendance at Romney events are less informed, don’t represent America, are not “down for the struggle.” Yup … more racial overtones. Why do we put up with this shit?

Now let’s see if we can get you to laugh, with a comment from Mark Steyn, who quotes from the film, This is Spinal Tap. My emphasis added.

Marty [ROB REINER]: The last time Tap toured America, they where, uh, booked into 10,000 seat arenas, and 15,000 seat venues, and it seems that now, on their current tour they’re being booked into 1,200 seat arenas, 1,500 seat arenas, and uh I was just wondering, does this mean uh…the popularity of the group is waning?

Ian [BAND MANAGER DAVID AXELROD]: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no…no, no, not at all. I, I, I just think that the.. uh.. their appeal is becoming more selective.

Rock on … and turn up the volume to 11!

4 replies
  1. GdavidH
    GdavidH says:

    Spin!
    Truth be damned as long as 51% of the voters believe it.

    I read the comments over at HuffPo, AP, Yahoo and the like. Could be a slam dunk for the Won if they all vote.

    We are doooooomed! 

  2. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Both this and the huge crowds at Chick-fil-a portend a shift away from the liberal fantasy to the conservative reality.  The relative enthusiasm is something Øbama cannot recreate with his so called “historic” election. 
     
    As the saying goes: “if you voted for Øbama to prove you weren’t a racist, now vote for someone else to prove you aren’t an idiot.”    Being “the first black president doesn’t trump being the worst president.

    • JBS
      JBS says:

      Obama has a list of dubious accomplishments starting with:
       
                The only black president,
       
                The worst president evahh!

Comments are closed.