The article itself isn't anything extra ordinary... Michelle Obama appears at an Obama rally, students are excited.

The interesting part is there in the middle, about an Obama staffer specifically moving people around because of race, so that the crowd behind Mrs. Obama looked more diverse.

So the question becomes: Is this a form of racism (rejecting one race, in favor of another), or 'just politics'?

Note: I'm not suggesting that Michelle Obama, is a racist... there is no evidence in this story of that... just whether the actions of her staff were racist in nature, or fair play in a presidential race.

That's just PR, they all do that crap.

Does it surprise anyone that all the Presidential Candidate managers look ahead to the filming of the event and want to establish the look of diversity on the TV news shows?

I think the Swift Boat type attempts on Obama will create significant backlash, this is a man that has a brain and knows how to use it.

The last 7 plus years may have created a much wiser public.

I don't think for a second that this is racism. This type of activity is par for the course when it comes to visual media.

Is this any different than the media uses different ethnic groups in adverts? How about the language/accent the ethnic actors use?

Target market, target market, target market - bravo to the Obama staffer for being ontop of their game

Everybody does this. That doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make Obama any worse than anyone else.

Wait... This could be racism.

Did she say "we need more white people" or "we need more crackers"?

Because there is a very big difference.

Especially if they're Wheat Thins... they're delicious.


Actually, I agree with what has already been said. It's a PR move that looks awkward, but is probably smart in the long run.

However, it does lend a little insight into the inner workings of the Obama campaign. They are apparently concerned about the "white" vote. Interesting (if not particularly meaningful) stuff.

exactly they all do that. Not just politicians either. They all want to display the right look that their experts have told them will get the results they want.

They want to show that there is more than just black support for obama. Nothing unusual about that.

Television commercials, magazine covers, brochures, every aspect of advertising makes a special effort to show diversity, this is no different.

I think the only meaning in it is that his campaign is like everyone else's...and I mean that in every sense...

All in all, this isn't very meaningful at all...My undergrad institution would gather different 'folks' for their marketing material...Private schools here in Memphis (coughHELLcough) put black kids on their website pages, though they make up a quite disproportionate piece of the school's population (especially when you consider Memphis is 70%+ AFrican american).

Obama does not represent change...he is a new version of the same thing...and upgrade? that might be the best that we get...but it is not a change.

This reminds me of something.

As many of you may know, my last name is Washington. This leads to a lot of racial confusion because everyone assumes that I am black.

A couple weeks ago Disney sent us a vacation pamphlet and every single picture had all black people in it. No white people at all. Every shot was of black families having fun at Disney Land, in only one picture was there a white person and they were sitting at the far end of whatever ride it was, blurry and in the background.

It's hilarious.

All my other neighbors got white people Disney Land pamphlets.

"It's hilarious.

All my other neighbors got white people Disney Land pamphlets."


Yes, and all your homosexual neighbors got a similar brochure with same sex couples.

It just goes to show how smart advertisers are and how dumb we are.

We are manipulated daily into believing what the manipulators want us to believe. Can you imagine what would happen if all the sheep stopped believing all the garbage we are spoon-fed so carefully?

Well, the reason why I find it a little interesting, is knowing that Obama isn't doing as well (as perhaps he'd like to be doing) with the white vote. The black vote is very VERY high in his favor, but the white vote is more evenly split (I don't have the numbers in front of me now, but I remember there were a bunch of news stories about the black/white differential).

Just interesting (at least to me) that they're actively attempting to combat that... and one of their methods, apparently, is to feature a more diverse group of supporters behind Obama(s).

Stop believing that black people go to Disney Land?

Disclaimer: Yes, I hate Obama the politician. I hate nearly all of his policies, and I think he's a scumbag.

That being said, I'm going to try to be as unbiased as I can.

Obama is running on this "change" platform. He's running on the idea that he's black, but not racist. He's a senator, but he's not Washington. He supports extending the military, but not Iraq.

But as a candidate of "change," there needs to be some true change. So, finding white students to move to the front for more diversity isn't "change." It's more of the same thing. If he really thought he had the policies to win he wouldn't need to do this.

The problem is he was rated in the top 10 most corrupt politicians in 2007 by judicial watch. He doesn't provide anything new other than a new color on the face of the President.

Obama has lofty campaign goals, but won't deliver on his promise of change. I think this is evident in the way he is running his campaign. True change would show from the beginning to the end.

A candidate of change bucks the trend and doesn't rank as the number 1 most liberal senator in the country.

Sadly race, or gender shouldn't be an issue at all in politics, but are obviously existent.

Ignoring the fact that the website is run by Republicans, Hillary Clinton was #1 on that list.

There's absolutely nothing unique about efforts to look good on camera, the only thing it says about his campaign is that it's a campaign.

Heh heh, That's some try. If that's your unbiased, I'll have to keep it in mind for your future posts.

Why rant on Obama and his campaign motto of change? It's been used many, many times before by all the various parties and almost never followed through to any degree. Any experienced observer of political history knows that you can't make those changes by yourself or if the changes you speak of are not popular. Considering the changes our current "decider" wanted to make we can be very thankful that change is difficult.

All three candidates lack something to one degree or another but Obama is probably the best of the bunch. I'm guessing your guy is "Let's Stay In Iraq Forever" McCain, and that would be like re-electing Bush for another term.
Talk about effecting "no Change."

The reason I pick on Obama is because everyone is so mesmerized by him but they don't see his real policies. He says he's someone different but he's not. I'm finally at the voting age, so I take notice to what's going on now. I didn't follow the 2004 or 2000 or 1996 elections extremely closely, because I wasn't old enough to vote.

Obama promises change, but he's no more different than the rest, except he's the most dangerous.

Haha, no. I'd never vote for Obama, Hillary, or McCain. If I had to vote out of the three, I'd pick Hillary because the chance of deadlock is higher. I would also consider voting for anyone that would keep Obama out of office...however I hate the whole lesser of two evils philosophy.

I'm voting Libertarian.

Yes, Hillary Clinton was number one. They both suck. Huckabee was on there and so was Giuliani.

Interestingly enough, I hated all four of them. Ironic how that works out.