Skip

Why Obama Now
October 11, 2012 8:32 AM   Subscribe

Why Obama Now - from Simpsons/Family Guy animator Lucas Gray

It's a sequel to this from four years ago
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 (61 comments total) 21 users marked this as a favorite

 
I've watched this spread over the internet and have been totally charmed by it each time.
posted by The Whelk at 8:35 AM on October 11, 2012


Why Obama Now: Because I'm tired of the last 4 years of Bush policies of low taxes on the rich, torture of prisoners, phone tapping and big giveaways to insurance companies for little in return, among many others.
posted by DU at 8:36 AM on October 11, 2012 [9 favorites]


(I like the retro-y Terry Colon-like visual design, it's like a happy 50s-era short)
posted by The Whelk at 8:37 AM on October 11, 2012 [1 favorite]


(also, Ryan has Crazy Eye even in tiny B&W cartoon form)
posted by The Whelk at 8:39 AM on October 11, 2012 [2 favorites]


I missed the part depicting the murder and assassinations...maybe he was on a budget...
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:41 AM on October 11, 2012 [2 favorites]


I missed the part depicting the murder and assassinations...maybe he was on a budget...

WE'LL GET THE POINT THIS TIME I'M SURE
posted by shakespeherian at 8:55 AM on October 11, 2012 [28 favorites]


Obama's economic narrative weirdly ahistorical as usual (1950s-60s golden age nostalgia without recognizing US geopolitical supremacy, at least in capitalist world, after WWII) but good film. I liked that Standard & Poors and Moody's were included. The ratings agencies usually escape most of the critical attention, though they are hugely messed up
posted by Bwithh at 8:55 AM on October 11, 2012


That video should be a lesson in marketing to everybody ever.
posted by Phredward at 8:59 AM on October 11, 2012 [2 favorites]


WE'LL GET THE POINT THIS TIME I'M SURE

That would be nice if we could break the stranglehold the two war parties have on our country, but I'm not holding my breath.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:01 AM on October 11, 2012 [3 favorites]


Yeah, me either.
posted by box at 9:04 AM on October 11, 2012


That was fantastic advertising.

I didn't see--did it say which speech the audio is taken from?
posted by psoas at 9:06 AM on October 11, 2012


I didn't see--did it say which speech the audio is taken from?

I didn't see that either.

I did see "Written and Directed by Lucas Gray," though, which... Huh?

(That said, this is pretty much the best, most succinct Obama thing I've ever seen, so, yay!)
posted by Sys Rq at 9:10 AM on October 11, 2012


whew. I'm glad he cleared that up.

Okay, let's vote.
posted by mule98J at 9:14 AM on October 11, 2012




The really depressing part is that if Obama loses, it'll be blamed on the voters who failed to hold their noses, rather than the candidate for failing to woo those voters. (That's how the system works--candidates work win votes, not vice versa.)
posted by DU at 9:19 AM on October 11, 2012 [4 favorites]


AElfwine Evenstar: "
That would be nice if we could break the stranglehold the two war parties have on our country, but I'm not holding my breath.
"

Until Kucinich (or etc.) can have a reasonable chance to the presidency, I'm not sure where we can go from here.
posted by boo_radley at 9:22 AM on October 11, 2012


The really depressing part is that if Obama loses, it'll be blamed on the voters who failed to hold their noses, rather than the candidate for failing to woo those voters.

I think the really depressing part is that a guy who supports waterboarding and called half the country irredeemable moochers will be President
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:26 AM on October 11, 2012 [20 favorites]


I wish someone would show this video to George Osborne and David Cameron.
posted by dng at 9:30 AM on October 11, 2012


The really depressing part is that if Obama loses, it'll be blamed on the voters who failed to hold their noses, rather than the candidate for failing to woo those voters. Romney will have won.
posted by chavenet at 9:33 AM on October 11, 2012 [16 favorites]


East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94: " I think the really depressing part is that a guy who (...) called half the country irredeemable moochers will be President"

but he apologized eventually after somebody explained to him patiently for the hundredth time why he can't say that.
posted by boo_radley at 9:36 AM on October 11, 2012 [1 favorite]


Some people look at the election as a process that elects the President, others view it as a way to express their preferences and opinions. Thank goodness there's less than a month left to go of the two groups arguing past each other on MetaFilter..
posted by benito.strauss at 9:38 AM on October 11, 2012 [3 favorites]


but he apologized eventually after somebody explained to him patiently for the hundredth time why he can't say that.

It takes a while to roll out a software patch for RomneyBot, okay?
posted by entropicamericana at 9:39 AM on October 11, 2012 [5 favorites]


but he apologized eventually after somebody explained to him patiently for the hundredth time why he can't say that.

Completely Wrong
posted by Mister_A at 9:41 AM on October 11, 2012


The really depressing part is that if Obama loses, it'll be blamed on the voters who failed to hold their noses, rather than the candidate for failing to woo those voters

Every time someone who really has a stake in the election -- women afraid of losing control of their reproductive rights, LGBTQ people, the poor, people whose access to lifesaving healthcare will be cut off under a Randian government -- there are plenty of people willing to chime in and tell us that they're foolish to believe there's a difference between the political philosophies of the two parties. Do you think we can save a little blame for them?
posted by samofidelis at 9:42 AM on October 11, 2012 [15 favorites]


The image of the sparrow eating the "oats" out of the shit of the one percent horse is probably the single best one-second rebuttal of trickle down I have ever seen.
posted by The Bellman at 9:42 AM on October 11, 2012 [5 favorites]


Don't work for reform, just hope for those ever-decreasing crumbs!
posted by DU at 9:44 AM on October 11, 2012


The really depressing thing about american politics is that no matter who wins, everyone loses.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:51 AM on October 11, 2012 [1 favorite]


This is great, but already showed up in the debate thread.
posted by arcticseal at 9:52 AM on October 11, 2012


I think the lipread version of the debate makes more sense of the differences between the candidates
posted by any major dude at 9:58 AM on October 11, 2012 [3 favorites]


That would be nice if we could break the stranglehold the two war parties have on our country, but I'm not holding my breath.

Bottom up change. I vote in a safe district, but not a safe state, so I'm looking at third parties for the local elections.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:04 AM on October 11, 2012 [2 favorites]


This is great, but already showed up in the debate thread.

I definitely think it stands on its own as a video about income inequality and social stratification. It's well done and I hope it stays.
posted by cashman at 10:11 AM on October 11, 2012 [1 favorite]


that was really, and i mean REALLY well done. the use of infographics to hammer in the facts clearly & succinctly is FLAWLESS. this should be included in any "political marketing 101" courses.
posted by liza at 10:13 AM on October 11, 2012


See, this is why the rich hate Obama now. Even though his actual campaign is too focused on Big Bird jokes to run something this effective.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:16 AM on October 11, 2012 [1 favorite]


That was fantastic advertising.

Yes, fantastic advertising for socialism. And however much you love/hate Obama, he's not a socialist. I really wish he was.

I really wish that the SPA would take a cue from production like this and put out some copy. Instead, their website looks like something a 8th grade student made in 1998 that lived on Geocities. Did they scan in their logo from a photocopied zine?
posted by furnace.heart at 10:18 AM on October 11, 2012 [2 favorites]


East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94: I think the really depressing part is that a guy who supports waterboarding and called half the country irredeemable moochers will be President

boo_radley: but he apologized eventually after somebody explained to him patiently for the hundredth time why he can't say that.

Mister_A: Completely Wrong

Google completely wrong, then search for images. Seriously, do it. It's Mitt Romney, see, and he Google Bombed himself with his own soundbite, responding to the 47% comment almost a whole month after it impacted his campaign, about 5 months after he actually said "there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims."

And just now, he comes forward and says he "said something that's just completely wrong."
posted by filthy light thief at 10:22 AM on October 11, 2012


DU: "The really depressing part is that if Obama loses, it'll be blamed on the voters who failed to hold their noses, rather than the candidate for failing to woo those voters. (That's how the system works--candidates work win votes, not vice versa.)"

Candidates go where the votes are, and its coalition-style politics make the Left much more vulnerable to voter apathy. There was some oversimplified and angsty rhetoric in it, but by and large I stand by this comment I made in response to one of the many prior instances of liberal fatalism.
posted by Riki tiki at 10:26 AM on October 11, 2012 [1 favorite]


Fascinatingly, a Google search for "completely wrong" now yields a page full of Romney photos ... and images of Google Image results pages of Romney photos. It's Mittens all the way down!
posted by dhartung at 10:28 AM on October 11, 2012 [5 favorites]


And however much you love/hate Obama, he's not a socialist.

Maybe not, but is it too much to ask for a Keynesian?
posted by Drexen at 10:31 AM on October 11, 2012


dhartung, I'm already seeing triply-nested results. I can't make out any of depth 4, which is really the theoretical limit based on the Google Images thumbnail size.
posted by CaseyB at 10:47 AM on October 11, 2012


Maybe not, but is it too much to ask for a Keynesian?

Michael Grunwald has been doing his book tour for his new new deal book, and when was interviewed at the New America Foundation he gave a quote from Obama saying "I get the Keynesian thing, but it's not where the electorate is at." Grunwald also gives the polling on support for the stimulus at "fewer than the percentage of people who believe that Elvis is still alive" (I think it's about 6%). That sort of chasm is pretty damning, especially considering that even when there's bipartisan polling on this sort of stuff (eg taxes on the rich to contribute to paying down the debt) that in no way leads necessarily to governmental responsiveness.
posted by dimejubes at 11:15 AM on October 11, 2012 [1 favorite]


The video brings up what is a key question for me, which is this:

It's correct to say that the Bush tax cuts did not lead to the job growth/prosperity predicted. So why does such a big chunk of the American public agree with Republicans that we need MORE tax cuts, and THEN it will work?

Is it that they personally just want their taxes cut so they don't have to subsidize the "freeloaders" (which to some extent propbably includes themselves); is it simple tribalism; or is it that they actually believe in trickle-down, and what's the BASIS of that belief; if they haven't personally seen it work, why would anyone believe that what's failed in the past will suddenly work now?
posted by kgasmart at 11:19 AM on October 11, 2012


It's correct to say that the Bush tax cuts did not lead to the job growth/prosperity predicted. So why does such a big chunk of the American public agree with Republicans that we need MORE tax cuts, and THEN it will work?

To be fair, I can imagine this question being posed to Keynesians: If spending in a downturn is good for the economy, why is unemployment so high after the stimulus? And the answer is: the stimulus wasn't big enough. So maybe the rich don't have enough tax cuts for trickle-down to work?
posted by shakespeherian at 11:26 AM on October 11, 2012 [1 favorite]


So why does such a big chunk of the American public agree with Republicans that we need MORE tax cuts, and THEN it will work?

Because the American public is functionally innumerate, and 40 years of right wing demagoguery taking advantage of that fact has conditioned them to respond with "tax cuts" as the answer to any national problem involving numbers larger than say the median household budget.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:28 AM on October 11, 2012 [3 favorites]


if they haven't personally seen it work, why would anyone believe that what's failed in the past will suddenly work now?

It's because we didn't BELIEVE in the free-market Great Pumpkin hard enough, or maybe our pumpkin patch of choice wasn't the most sincere...
posted by Strange Interlude at 11:28 AM on October 11, 2012 [2 favorites]


Maybe not, but is it too much to ask for a Keynesian?

For the last time, the President was born in Hawaii!
posted by Renoroc at 11:30 AM on October 11, 2012 [14 favorites]


and 40 years of right wing demagoguery taking advantage of that fact has conditioned them to respond with "tax cuts" as the answer to any national problem involving numbers larger than say the median household budget.

I mean, I think this is probably correct. The voices they trust, Fox News, etc., insist that tax cuts are the way to go. Reagan did it; and since Reagan is lionized (and those sources they trust never mention how Reagan actually RAISED taxes as well) then tax cuts must be the best way; trickle down must work; and any insinuation they don't is all part of the evil elite liberal plot against them.

It is akin to a religious faith, as you note, Strange Interlude. We didn't believe hard enough. We must double down. And so we will.
posted by kgasmart at 11:32 AM on October 11, 2012 [1 favorite]


To be fair that's the same logic by which some people are advocating more stimulus - it wasn't enough of this thing which is the true answer.
posted by dimejubes at 11:36 AM on October 11, 2012


Pursuing the animation connections; here's the 1941 Disney Studios version of the Occupy movement. (via the Art Babbitt blog)


Also check out Hell-Bent for Election. Produced (in the wake of the Disney strike) for the American Auto Workers union by the founders of UPA and directed by Chuck Jones.
posted by bonobothegreat at 11:38 AM on October 11, 2012


So why does such a big chunk of the American public agree with Republicans that we need MORE tax cuts, and THEN it will work?

I think probably a simpler answer is: tax cuts mean I can buy an ipad or take the family to TGIFridays five more times this year.
posted by nushustu at 11:54 AM on October 11, 2012


That would be nice if we could break the stranglehold the two war parties have on our country, but I'm not holding my breath.

That's a good thing, because if you're aiming for the White House to break the two-party "stranglehold", you will fail. There's a lot of folks voting 3rd party in municipal and state elections, though. I know being comptroller or town councilperson doesn't have the same sheen as POTUS, but those elections have an actual chance of getting 3rd party candidates into positions of power.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:33 PM on October 11, 2012 [3 favorites]


Until there's structural, electoral change, there won't be a viable, long-term 3rd party. And there can't be. So if you want to see a 3rd party, start campaigning for an amendment, and vote for the candidate that won't wreck America.
posted by Vhanudux at 12:38 PM on October 11, 2012 [2 favorites]


To be fair that's the same logic by which some people are advocating more stimulus - it wasn't enough of this thing which is the true answer.

The difference is those people have actual evidence to argue from. As Krugman is fond of pointing out, US treasury yields are currently negative adjusted for inflation, contrary to going broke, government borrowing costs are at all time lows, the world is literally willing to pay the US government to spend more money. The bond market is not exactly worried about the budget deficit, they're not cutting the credit cards off, they're knocking on the door in person with a shiny new gold card with 0% on purchases for 1000 months and no fine print. Which begs the question of who exactly in Washington is driving the policies of austerity and pain for everyone, at least until a Republican is in the White House.
posted by T.D. Strange at 12:54 PM on October 11, 2012 [2 favorites]


The really depressing part is that if Obama loses, it'll be blamed on the voters who failed to hold their noses, rather than the candidate for failing to woo those voters.

If there were enough of you (us) to win an election with, it would have happened already. So now we have to play in the game thats actually happening.
posted by Senor Cardgage at 1:21 PM on October 11, 2012 [2 favorites]


The animation team must have about had a heart attack when they discovered they misspelled "insurance."
posted by bz at 1:35 PM on October 11, 2012 [1 favorite]


WE'LL GET THE POINT THIS TIME I'M SURE

Somehow, I doubt it.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:57 PM on October 11, 2012 [3 favorites]


It's a great video. I'm glad you posted it, East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94.
posted by homunculus at 3:46 PM on October 11, 2012


See, this is why the rich hate Obama now. Even though his actual campaign is too focused on Big Bird jokes to run something this effective.

But is it? They ran an ad and Obama made a comment in a speech. Ordinarily this would be called punishing your opponent for saying something stupid. The Daily Show then made it sound like Obama is all BIGBIRDBIGBIRDBIGBIRD.

I love Daily, but once in a while they seem just as normative as the rest of the media.
posted by JHarris at 3:51 PM on October 11, 2012 [2 favorites]


I assume that the polls will have another shakeup or two before election day, but the fact that Romney can actually be ahead right now is one of the most depressing political developments since... Well, since Bush got re-elected in 2004. Bush and Romney are both just so obviously rotten. Bush was stupid and rotten, and the best I can say for Romney is that he's not a blithering fool like Bush. The latest polls make me feel like it's 2004 all over again, and this country hasn't learned a damn thing.

I love Daily, but once in a while they seem just as normative as the rest of the media.

The problem with this "equal opportunity offenders" jazz is that whatever you want to say about the failings of today's Democrats, the Republicans have become genuinely dangerous and crazy. In their zeal to "go after both sides," the Daily Show (and SNL, and most other mainstream sources of political satire in the US) end up going after the Dems for a lot of awfully goofy or petty stuff, and they try to make it seem like that stuff is comparable to the truly heinous crap the Republicans are doing every day. One of the things I like about Stephen Colbert is that, while he stays in character as a Republican blowhard pundit, his attacks are pretty consistently directed at the folks who truly deserve it.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 5:13 PM on October 11, 2012 [6 favorites]


I love this. Beautiful, succinct logic. However, the spelling error at 1:39 ("health insurence") is driving me batty.
posted by Lieber Frau at 5:25 PM on October 12, 2012






« Older NOT FINAL SOFTWARE   |   Searching for Iran’s lost funk Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post