Wash. Post's Givhan suggested political motivation for Obama's choice of tie colors
SUMMARY: The Washington Post's Robin Givhan wrote: "One of the most distinctive elements of Barack Obama's public style comes down to what he so often is not wearing: patriotism on his sleeve." Givhan continued: "No flag pin on the lapel. No hand on heart during the national anthem. And he generally shuns bold red ties." In the piece, Givhan offered no explanation as to how a "bold red tie" is a "usual symbol[] of nationalism and politics," or how Obama's alleged avoidance of "bold red ties" constitutes a statement on patriotism.
In one of the pieces comprising The Washington Post's December 14 "Front-runners" profile of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Post fashion editor Robin Givhan wrote: "One of the most distinctive elements of Barack Obama's public style comes down to what he so often is not wearing: patriotism on his sleeve." Givhan continued: "Whether he is speaking at a campaign rally, attending a fish fry or debating his Democratic challengers, he comes across as the candidate least willing to drape himself in the usual symbols of nationalism and politics. No flag pin on the lapel. No hand on heart during the national anthem. And he generally shuns bold red ties." In the column, Givhan offered no explanation as to how a "bold red tie" is a "usual symbol[] of nationalism and politics," or how Obama's alleged avoidance of "bold red ties" constitutes a statement on patriotism.
The Post bills its "Front-runners" series as a "revealing look at each of the leading presidential candidates." While Givhan's column might be construed as positive, her invocation of the theme that Obama doesn't wear his "patriotism on his sleeve" could serve to reinforce smears echoed among conservatives in the media and reportedly in emails spreading falsehoods about Obama, including the false claim that he is Muslim, the false rumor that he was educated in a madrassa, and the general notion that he is insufficiently American or patriotic. A front-page article in The Washington Post itself recently came under widespread criticism, including from Post media critic Howard Kurtz. The article repeated false rumors that Obama attended a madrassa as a child in Indonesia without noting that those rumors had been thoroughly debunked by several news organizations. The article stated that "[d]espite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege that Obama (D-Ill.) is a Muslim, a 'Muslim plant' in a conspiracy against America."
In audio commentary accompanying a slideshow on washingtonpost.com, Givhan claimed: "On those rare occasions when he wears a tie that one might describe as being in the red family, it's closer to burgundy than a God-bless-America hue." Media Matters for America found several photos of Obama wearing ties that, in Givhan's words, are "in the red family." For purposes of comparison, here is an example of burgundy. Givhan did not elaborate on what constitutes a "God-bless-America hue."
Photos of Obama in ties in the red family available on the Internet include:
Additionally, in writing "No hand on heart during the national anthem," Givhan was rehashing false allegations that first surfaced in anonymous emails attacking Obama's patriotism. The emails, which contained a photo of Obama standing for the national anthem without his hand over his heart, falsely claimed that Obama refused to pledge allegiance to the American flag. Obama called them a "dirty trick." In fact, as Snopes.com pointed out, the Obama campaign subsequently released photographs of Obama with his hand over his heart during the national anthem.
From Givhan's December 14 Washington Post column:
One of the most distinctive elements of Barack Obama's public style comes down to what he so often is not wearing: patriotism on his sleeve. Whether he is speaking at a campaign rally, attending a fish fry or debating his Democratic challengers, he comes across as the candidate least willing to drape himself in the usual symbols of nationalism and politics. No flag pin on the lapel. No hand on heart during the national anthem. And he generally shuns bold red ties.
Obama refuses to dress the part of the presidential contender, with all of its safely prepackaged banality. He has never fully embraced the stereotypical uniform of Washington. Even in the glossy pages of Men's Vogue in September 2006, when he was positioned as Kennedy, Santa Claus and the Messiah all rolled into one, he was never pictured in the traditional political costumes or doing any of the glad-handing that is standard practice.
Nice tie. I think I'll ask for one just like it for Christmas.
Um what was this thread about?
How utterly ridiculous. I swear if Hannity picks up on this........
I'm unsure what's more mindless, the washingpost article itself, or mediamatters actually reporting on it here.
Regular readers of The Washington Post have gotten used to Givhan's sophomoric take on "politics" based on hairstyles, heel length, and now tie color. Really, this kind of "analysis" really should have gone out with the 1950s. I think the only reason that this column is still in existence is because The Post likes the angry letters that it always brings in.
suggesting that tie color has something to do with patriotism is absurd. i rarely wear a tie, but i do not like bold red ties either.
This was my response from Givhans when I inquired about the tie:
Dear Reader,The bold red tie is part of the Washington uniform and is most certainly anod to the flag. I noted that the senator "generally shuns bold red ties"and indeed he does not wear them with the regularity of other candidates,such as Rudy Giuliani. He does, however, frequently wear darker shades ofred.Robin
meanwhile global warming is melting the arctic at super speed, and these idiots are talking about ties.
Its ridiculous but you know the idiots will ask why Obama doesn't address the all important tie question.
This is the constant drumbeat the rightwing wishes to bombard the American Public ... lots and lots of "evidence" that Obama is not PATRIOTIC.
And, of course, there are lots and lots of media people willing to make that charge every day, gaining the favor of their rightwing masters. Some say it's "silly" and ridiculous, but it is part of a partisan political program to demonize Democrats while propping up and excusing Republicans.
It's best never to underestimate the power of a determined rumor mill. Many a life has been destroyed by just such "silly observations". And you can bet Karl Rove knows it, lives it, breathes it, and DIRECTS it.
Oh come on, the media plays it both ways. Get out of your conspiracy-minded dreamworld. For instance on more than a few occasions I've read and listened to left-wing media commentators ridiculously speculate that republican candidates seek to turn America into a theocracy. Just as on the right, there are plenty of left-wing hacks who distort republicans' views simply to scare people.
They say it because it is true...Romney said those with out faith can't be free...Bush says God wanted him to be president and attack Iraq...the stuff about Obama is all speculation.
Definitely agree that the Obama crap is taudry speculation, and bone-chillingly dumb. But Bush has been pres. for 8 years. Do we live under a theocracy? In terms of religion in the public square, my life hasn't changed much since the 8 years of clinton.
That's because Bush was not the Evangelical Christian that everyone thought he was in 2000. Never has been.
He's a Podhoretzian (not really a word, I know. Thanks Spell Check!) Capitalist who was elected under the guise of "Compassionate Conservative" when he was, in fact, neither.
"Do we live under a theocracy?"
No, but if Bush had been able to appoint one more Neanderthal to the Supreme Court...who knows? This, more than any other reason, is why we MUST elect a Democrat to the White House in 2008.
Also, I hope you progressives aren't too prone to turn a blind eye to all the bible-thumping that obama does. Not a knock in my book, but he seems to warmly espouse how the role that his faith plays in his life as well
Sure he does, but I highly doubt he uses the Bible to affect his policy decisions. I also highly doubt that Obama believes in Creationism, because he's at least somewhat rooted in reality. That's what I care about.
Mostly so the right will stop calling him a Muslim.
Dont forget Huckabee telling an audience that G-d is responsible for his rise in the polls- "there is no Earthly explanation....just as a little boy could feed a multitude with a loaf of bread and three fish...."
Nobody has to distort right wing views, their inherently scary. For instance their endorsement of the value of waterbordering and arguing it’s effectiveness by using Jack Bauer examples comes to mind. Now that's scary! I was watching Dan Abrahams show the other night and one of the topics was water boarding. It took the guest wing nut pundit about 3 minutes to cite how effectively Jack Bauer uses torture to thwart threats. He obviously thought he was on one of the Fox propaganda shows where examples of torture used by a fictitious character somehow passes as expert evidence of it’s efficacy. No you guys are terrifyingly crazy.
Give us some examples Steve.
The Post is a friggin' joke... seriously- this person gets PAID to write this drivel...??
Wow...between Obama's tie color and the Baseball Steroid story, the lapdog press can avoid talking about really important stuff for another month. BRAVO!
"he was never pictured in the traditional political costumes or doing any of the glad-handing that is standard practice."
So he's not just another phony... and that's a bad thing?
The man is apparently comfortable in his own skin, a trait that his supporters admire - and you want him to change to fit your mold, just because he is running for president, Robin? Would maybe a star-studded red and blue elephant on his tie make you happy?
Somebody at MMFA apparently has way too much free time on their hands.
Please explain what you mean by this. You think that her harping on Obama's wardrobe and insinuating his appearance is unpatriotic is Coservative misinformation?
Well, let me see if I can help you... First, let me grant you that this type of misinformation pales in comparison to most of the misinformation from the reich wing. However, it is illustrative of the petty daily attempts to paint anyone to the left of Genghis Kahn as less than patriotic. When, in fact, it is the attack on the Constitution from those on the right that poses the greatest threat to democracy and ultimately our nation. After all, it was the Commander In Thief that referred to the Constitution as just a “GD piece of paper”. This is exactly what the sycophants on the right just don’t get. Without that “GD piece of paper” we are nothing. There are plenty of cowards on the right ready to give up their freedom for the illusion of security. Freedom has a cost and the ‘peeing in their pants’ righties have never had the guts to pay that cost. Not when it was their turn to don a uniform and certainly not now. Those willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. I believe some famous guy said that a long time ago. ‘Oceans no longer protect us’ is a cry we hear often from the Decider but he seems to conveniently forget that they really never have. I believe the Brits crossed the ocean to attack us and they even burned down the frickin’ Whitehouse in 1812! These cowering little men of the neo-con pussuasion are pathetic. So who’s really unpatriotic? Oh, and the fact that Mr. Obama was opposed to the illegal invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq from the beginning and the subsequent occupation, demonstrates that he is 10 times the patriot that these neoclowns claim to be!
The reason you see so many red ties has nothing to do with any sort of symbolism. They wear 'em because the contrast with the usual blue shade of the suit and white shirt looks good on the TV camera. Watch C-Span some time. Note how the guys with blue or dark-colored ties just don't stand out.
Robin Givhan is the fashion editor. Who told her she was qualified to do political analysis?
Sheesh.
If ever there were a proponent of the pale blue tie, it's George W. Bush. He also likes to make speeches in rolled-up shirt sleeves.
Robin Givhan's columns are typical of the mediocre writing that fills the Washington Post.
Anybody notice the color of the blood on the Bush administration's hands?
I’m surprised that none of the folks who come around here just to nitpick haven’t pointed out that these pictures of Obama do not really show him in “bold red ties” – more like burgundy, maroon, or falu – no?
That’s OK, ‘cause you can bet he’ll get his share of them for Christmas! LOL
I hadn't read down this far when I posted my reply from Givhan, but will do so again since you bring up the shades of red:
Dear Reader,The bold red tie is part of the Washington uniform and is most certainly anod to the flag. I noted that the senator "generally shuns bold red ties"and indeed he does not wear them with the regularity of other candidates,such as Rudy Giuliani. He does, however, frequently wear darker shades ofred.Robin
Although the Post's claim is clearly a bunch of poppycock, there is something to be said of a candidate's tie color, specifically, how well funded they are.
If you see a candidate wearing blue in public often, it is most likely not because it is their favorite color. It's because they have a well-informed advisor.
If you take notice during President Bush's State of the Union Addresses, he is generally clad in a blue tie. This is because people who have no better use of their time have discovered that blue is the color of trust. This principle is widely used in the area of marketing. You will see a generally tendency for insurance, banking, and investment companies to use blue blue for their logos because they want you to trust them with their money.
Obama's ties, Hillary's choice of coffee, don't the RW have anything of substance to talk about?
she's a fashion editor.
I thought "red ties" were a bad thing...
never mind. showing my age.