Well, since you put it that way, the one thing we know for sure that the ad did — because it’s visible whenever you watch the ad — is that it depicts Obama saying the epiphany language in a joking manner, to an audience that was laughing. So if, by your question, it’s impossible to do so “in order to make fun of him FOR taking the language seriously,” then the ad isn’t making “fun of him FOR taking the language seriously.”

My opinion, however, is just as I’ve said more than once above. Obama is admittedly joking, but just as it is telling that Rush Limbaugh “jokes” about how far superior his intelligence is to that of liberals, it’s telling that Obama “jokes” about epiphanies from heaven. In each case, the joke (arguably) derives at least part of its humor from the fact that there’s an undercurrent of “geez, I know, I do act as if this is true.”

Granted: I’m not trying to say that this ad was meant to be “complicated,” as if there were layers of coded message and intricate symbols etc. It is quite simple and the message is simple. But I think rather you are tending to make it more complicated by trying to explain away what is at least in one clip a blatant attempt to misrepresent what was said.

First: It seems apparent that Obama uses hyperbolic language and sometimes religious overtones. I grant that this is perhaps a legitimate point to poke fun at, that’s fine. But the sense of the word “literal” you are using here is something of a red herring. It is simply stating the obvious that this never entered the minds of either the admakers or those making a fuss about the ad. Obviously, they did not intend to depict Obama as though he claimed to “literally” be the messiah; and obviously, he would be in a straitjacket if he made such claims. You are missing the point that language like this is never used literally in politics, but metaphorical use is always presupposed. Your point is entirely unrelated and does nothing for your claims.

What is at issue is how the metaphorical language was being employed. It is possible that Obama could use metaphorical language like this in seriousness, which would suggest that he believes he is of some great importance, and can do things analogous to a messianic figure. It is using the metaphors SERIOUSLY that is the object of criticism, the object of fun. The primary-democratic opponents and conservatives, if they take this line, could only sensibly be criticizing him for using this language in a SERIOUS manner (i.e. to project some analogous connotations upon himself).

However, the metaphorical language can be used JOKINGLY (i.e. not seriously): If I say “I will change the world like a messiah!” It is obvious I am not using the word literally, but metaphorically and seriously. If people have referred to me negatively as a messiah and I joke to my friends saying “oh yeah, that’s me, a big messiah!” It is clear I am using the language metaphorically but not seriously. I am here in fact taking issue with the portrayal that I am a messiah-figure.

This isn’t that hard. It’s not complicated. This is something anyone who watches the ad and doesn’t seek immediately to find an ideologically sound “interpretation” of it sees. Your summary of their intentions is at odds with the common sense grasp of what is in the ad: it simply makes no sense to claim that part of what the admakers are criticizing is Obama’s use of the language “sometimes using a joking air.” That’s completely inconsistent with the intention of the ad and your explanation simply makes the admakers out to look like horrible admakers. Why would anyone employ footage that clearly depicts the person NOT taking the language seriously in order to make fun of him FOR taking the language seriously? And if it is as you put it: why on earth would anyone want to critique a candidate for using hyperbolic language, BUT SOMETIMES JOKINGLY? Talk about cutting the knees out from under your intended claim about his reputation.

An ad like that would only reinforce in my mind how lightly i should take any claim that Obama buys his own hype: why waste time targeting “his joking air?” That to me looks like you are going to some extreme lengths to vindicate the admakers from, well, flat-out lying.

It may be fun and legitimate to needle Obama over his hype. But THIS instance is clearly attempting to do so through intentional deception. It’s blatant. Why not, as I keep suggesting, stick to the NON-deceptive criticisms???? Those are fun too (especially if they are true).

Pax Christi,

So maybe it wasn’t a blatant lie after all. Sorry, that was too hasty of me. Instead of a “blatant lie,” it could have merely been intellectual error (mixed with self-righteousness and contempt, as always is the case with you guys).

In any event, if it were me caught putting forth what looked like a lie, I hope I’d have the ability to say, “Gee, I was wrong, I guess I was remembering a different speech.” Refusing to do so would indicate a serious lack of courage and honesty, far more humiliating (if one is thinking clearly) than the original error.

Yeah, good job staying “unpartisan” yourself. And not moaning or whining.

(Is defending a candidate from blatant lies “partisan?”)

But I think you’re overthinking the ad. It’s obvious that Obama doesn’t literally believe himself to be the Messiah, and of course the ad doesn’t literally accuse him of that; if anyone really thought that of Obama, they would be trying to have him committed to an insane asylum, not making jokes about it. So the ad to me is very simple: Obama sometimes speaks of himself in overwrought and hyperbolic language, sometimes using religious overtones. Sometimes he uses a joking air, sometimes he doesn’t. His supporters swoon over him as if he were a fifth Beatle. Thus, regardless of whether he was joking in any particular instance, it’s fun to needle Obama over this.

That’s all. It’s not complicated. It’s not sinister. It’s just a joke. And it was pretty darn funny (the Moses bit was classic), not to mention effective (in getting the partisans to moan and whine).

I am willing to grant you that most likely the context does not have to do with the way conservatives were depicting him. I also agree that it is clear in the ad that it is a joke, and people are laughing. What I am not willing to grant is that conveying that fact is precisely the intention of the ad makers. That simply doesn’t make sense to me. It suggests either 1) they intended to depict Obama NOT taking the messiah thing seriously, in a video designed to suggest he DOES take it seriously, therefore making them rather bad admakers; or 2) you are giving the admakers way too much credit for being honest, and they attempted to take the joke out of context to suggest Obama does take the messiah thing seriously; in which case still they are bad admakers. This is why I said it smacks of desperation: if they have to rely on attempting to distort a clip that clearly still suggests the context, that he is in fact joking about his hype, then wow, it seems they are making the case for his hype rather weaker.

Further, it seems to me that Poli’s suggestion about the context of conservative portrayals of Obama’s hype isn’t quite so off the mark as you suggest. Depending on when it was made, it may not refer to them at all. But it certainly seems to be something that Obama’s primary-democratic and republican critics would have in common: they would both suggest he’s making himself a messiah. Makes sense. He may even believe his own hype, and it may be worth critiquing! The point is, in this clip, if he’s joking about it, this is evidence to the contrary. And though his joking about the messiah thing may not be explicitly referring to republican portrayals at the time, it is obviously the kind of thing they accuse him of now. Heck: LOOK AT THE AD ITSELF: IT IS AN EXAMPLE of precisely THAT! In other words, the ad is relying on a clip that, most likely, in context, depicts Obama joking about those who portray him as believing himself to be the messiah…in order to make it look like he does in fact believe himself to be the messiah!

That is deception.

Pax Christi,

Unlike a couple of frackin cowards who fled the scene as soon as they realized they had been caught misrepresenting the “context” of Obama’s speech.

Being wrong: Happens to us all. Being too obnoxious to admit it: Sinful and stupid.