Media Strategy

Ain’t no way in hell Hermain Cain should be running the country. That being said, I finally got a chance to check out his new campaign video. After almost a week of reading tweets about whether or not the video was “real,” I wasn’t quite sure what to expect. But I have to say, as weird as it is, there’s some genius there.

Using an old Hollywood western style, the video successfully conveys Cain’s primary message which is “Hey! I’m just as white as you are, thank you very much!”

The video starts with his Chief of staff Mark Block, an older white male, saying what an honor it’s been to work for Cain. You get the feeling that there is a good chance that this man may have shot the Sheriff AND the Deputy. After giving his spiel about whatever it is that America needs that we really don’t, he ends his statement by taking a puff of a cigarette and blowing the smoke right in the viewer’s face.

How’s that for thumbing the nose at everything that America’s wimpy side stands for?   What may look like some silly hypermasculine puff of smoke to you was really a coded action. With that puff, Block just told all of you that Cain isn’t some soft, new-age, PETA-supporting, we-are-the-world, race-speechifying Obama supporter. This is a guy who doesn’t mind if you smoke, eat copious amounts of red meat, or carry a gun onto school property.

When times are hard, nostalgia reigns supreme and Cain’s ad provides a healthy dose of it. The narrative that America has gotten too “soft” is a popular one in red states. Lots of Americans long for a time before there were regulations that protected us from companies, strangers, and ourselves. When you could smoke a cigarette without everyone looking at you like some sort of pariah. There is a direct correlation, in some Americans’ minds, between America’s one-time strength and the popular norms and values of that time.

Of course those would be the norms and values they like to remember like smoking in public places, not the ones they conveniently forget like openly accepted racism and sexism (though I gather they don’t think that was all that bad). Cain’s supporters want America to be free again whether that means exercising some prejudice or simply smoking while having a drink at the bar.

The song you hear in the background “I Am America” is a perfect complement to the video and so is Block’s immediately preceding line about taking the country back. Cain’s face shows up right as the lyrics begin to play and there’s a subtle message that again, as dark as Cain may be, he’s just as whitebread as you and the rest of your family. With this video and subsequent sustained messaging, Cain may effectively detach “taking the country back” from racially coded language and reduce it to merely politically-coded. Can you take the country back from blacks if a black man is leading the charge? Literally, yes. Figuratively, no.

On a whole, this video spits in the face of almost everything I learned studying elections and media. Of course, my original study took place long before you tube and the advent of online viral campaigns.  But it gets one thing right for sure–it portrays the candidate in a way that will appeal to his audience. And due to the fact that many folks in red states have shown a distaste for negative ad campaigns when polled, Cain was wise to avoid yet another formulaic 30 second take-down of an opponent.

The Democrats lost the budget fight last week. Actually, it was more like a knockout than a loss. The budget that will be passed and implemented in the coming weeks, promises to set back setback recent economic growth as well as long term social policies Democrats have fought for over the past 30 years. And now that the GOP is in a stronger position going into the next budget debate (which starts in a month or so), you can assume progressive policies will continue to take a backseat.

After the budget deal was reached, the President took credit for the aversion of a government shutdown and praised the agreement as the biggest one-time spending cut in America’s history. As more details about what is contained within the budget is revealed, liberals will see just how badly this all went for them. You’d assume this would spur liberals to mobilize and begin to push the President to stop regressive policies. But it won’t.

President Obama has been keenly successful at turning the progressive base into an extension of his campaign rather than giving them the influence they expected to gain when he was elected.  This is a major victory for the President and one that promises to keep progressives marginalized for the remainder of his Presidency. But how does a politician accomplish such a thing?

I think much of the blame points back to the proliferation of cable news. Cable news helped turn all kinds of political news coverage into a game of winners and losers focusing on political strategy rather than substantive discussions about benefits and consequences. Now, everyone from bus drivers to accountants are confident in their ability to provide strategic political guidance. Nowadays every-day conversations are doused with emphasis on what a politician or political party should do to position themselves to best an opponent. Those were the kinds of conversations you rarely heard outside of K Street or Capitol Hill in years past.

Democrats, in particular, habitually support positions that they don’t agree with because they’re convinced it will pay off in the near future when they gain a concession from the other party. But if you look at politics over the past 20 years, from a results standpoint, Democrats have lost a great many more policy fights than they’ve won on the national level.

This administration has been very direct about its intentions to ignore the will of its base. Last year, when former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs got fed up with what he perceived as liberal bashing of the President, he lashed out at what he called the “professional left” for whining. He even used the kind of inflammatory and exaggerated characterizations that are more appropriate for a Fox News host than someone responsible for maintaing a relationship with the media (which, by the way, includes lefties).

What Gibbs wanted from progressives was silence by way of faith.  The administration wanted liberals to trust that their best interests were being served from a strategic standpoint and avoid criticizing the President’s policies and decisions. Unfortunately, liberals bought into this drivel and have remained mostly defensive of the Obama as the administration becomes more influenced by corporate interests and less preoccupied about fixing the damage done to the working class by the previous Administration.

One thing that the public should remember is that there are people who are paid handsomely to strategize and influence the media and its publics. As a member of the American Association of Political Consultants I know this to be a fact.  Political consultants work on overall campaign strategy, radio and TV ads, read and conduct polls, and advise sitting politicians on what decisions strengthen their position in the short and long term. It is their job to c0njole and convince the American public to side with their clients.

But who needs strategic moves when the American public willingly plays along? What Gibbs referred to as “whining” I refer to as exercising the only power you have politically as an individual citizen of the United States. All you can do in a representative Democracy is complain about what you don’t like. Whether that means blogging, tweeting, writing members of Congress, commenting on message boards and publication sites, organizing protests, or joining interest groups, whining is all you have.

By asking liberals not to whine, the Administration essentially asks that a segment of the population give up their political power and become unofficial members of their team of political strategists in lieu of holding them accountable for their decisions. By agreeing to be silent in the interest of strategy, you not only give up basic American rights to freedom of speech and political participation, you also willfully participate in the political manipulation of yourself. And as is clear by the current budget fight, there is rarely any compensation for such willful acquiescence.

Rather than pursuing a role in the administration’s outreach plan, liberals should be demanding that the administration’s pursue a political strategy that appeals to them. Otherwise, the left’s relationship to the administration will continue to be akin to a business making consumers pay to view their advertisements.

I hear a lot of liberals argue that conservatives stick together and that’s the reason for their success. I agree. But members of the conservative base are also known to strongly believe in and support policies that have been proven to be detrimental for them time and time again. That’s not the kind of “victory” progressives should seek.

Since 2006 when Oprah profiled Newark mayor Cory Booker, he has rarely been off the national radar. He’s gone on to win the affections of the President, black talking heads, and liberals across America. But this isn’t something you achieve by being a good mayor. In fact, great mayors and politicians can be taken out by bad PR strategy.  You achieve national stardom by working the PR machine like nobody’s business, and Booker is a master at this.

Take the latest snow falls in the the state of New Jersey. While Jersey’s Governor, Chris Christie vacationed and then appeared to  grossly exaggerate his role in governing from afar, Booker was using twitter to find people who needed digging out.With every tweet, Booker won over more hearts and minds. And when he began to go out and shovel snow himself, you could hear some of his woman followers hyperventilate.

But people who work in politics know that mayors going out shoveling snow is akin to kissing babies during a political campaign–looks good, speaks nothing to the politician’s ability to govern. What it DOES speak to is how much that person understands media and American minds, and whether or not they believe catering to those sensibilities is an achievable and effective strategy.

To give a somewhat parallel example…as a resident of DC I supported the re-election of Adrian Fenty. Fenty, a no-nonsense type that is more likely to run past your snow-covered sidewalk during his morning exercise routine than he is to shovel you out if you look stuck, bears very little resemblance to Booker in terms of press handling. Fenty cared nothing for pleasing the media or appeasing constituents whose opinions ultimately mattered most. Fenty lost to Vincent Gray–a man with a spotty leadership record and zero charisma at all. The camera wasn’t kind to Fenty, but it hates Gray.

Continue Reading…

Since I had a little time I decided to post about some things that bother me but are too petty enough to be the only post I put up in a day. ha!

First of all, Tyrese Gibson has the worst twitter timeline of any celebrity I’ve seen–in particular one who purports to have a book coming out. Tyrese is trying to capitalize on the black male advice genre of books–a genre I’d hoped would go out of style before it ever got up and running.

The problem with Tyrese is not just that he’s full of self-important and often senseless advice (according to him, if you’re not moving you’re lying flat), his advice is also questionable. On January 10th he told his followers that if you believe in God you can live outside of your means and know that he will provide. If that’s the kind of advice that will be in his book………

To add insult to wounds Tyrese already inflicts with his tattered logic, he doesn’t ever ever ever bother to spell check before hitting that precious “send” button. In Tyrese’s world, titties are tithes, years are hours, and there’s no difference between “your” and “you’re.” I’ve said before that grammatical errors and typos don’t really get to me, but when there are a string of them in every tweet that defy a reader’s efforts to make sense of what’s being said, it’s time to rethink your strategy.

Tyrese may be the first person to ruin his own book launch by misusing social media.

Jennifer Hudson…glad she’s lost weight…glad she’s happy. My only question is if there’s so much less of her why am I seeing so much more of her? Her Weight Watchers commercials are loud, the lyrics to the song are Tyrese-twitter-timeline-like “sun in the sky, I know how I feel…” Im sure it’s supposed to be motivating, and perhaps there are additional lyrics not in the commercial, but mostly the song feels…wrong.

I typically limit myself to watching TV once a week and then when football is on. Seeing Hudson’s commercial so many times has reminded me that I’ve gone over my TV limit the past two weeks. So perhaps the fact that the commercials offend my ears is a good thing. I will definitely be scaling back to my normal schedule.

Overall, WWs is running too many commercials for my tastes. It feels like Hudson is screaming at me about “feeling good” every 10 seconds. After a while, I start to wonder if WW is the only company that can afford to advertise on TV during this recession.

I can’t wait until WW releases subscriber/customer information after this campaign. I want to know if this strategy of saturating television with 1 or 2 of the same commercials is effective. The commercials are certainly memorable.

**Update @Rhythmkeene on twitter noted that the song is “Feelin’ Good” by Nina Simone. I’ve heard this song before and didn’t recognize it. Of course, I haven’t heard it since I was kid. At any rate, perhaps they should have used the original. Or, at least, lowered Jennifer’s key. But I suppose they didn’t do that because they wanted the tone to be different.

Oprah’s new Oprah Winfrey Network debuted last week and of the shows on the network called “Master Class” began with an appearance by Jay-Z. Oprah has previously interviewed Jay-z for her “O” magazine so this isn’t the first time she’s promoted the rapper-cum-mogul in some form.

Oprah being the same woman that that cited misogyny in hip hop has one of the main reasons she doesn’t like to feature rappers on her show. But, as we all know, Jay-Z has continued to make woman-hating music since becoming rich enough to make whatever kind of music he wants. Further, he’s said lots of hateful things about women even after marrying one of Oprah’s favorite things — Beyonce.

I think Jay-Z is a prime example of not only the hypocrisy of our beloved Oprah, but of the hypocrisy of people in general. Jay-Z has risen to become much more than a cult hero. He’s associated with names like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet–however underserved (I like Jay-z, but let’s be real, there’s some marketing affirmative action going on here). We, as a community and as a nation, lament the existence of drug dealers and the glorification of such behavior in music. We criticize musicians, actors, and men in every day life for being misogynistic. But as soon as they convince us that that they’re bigger than the sum of their actions we afford them the same praise and recognition we’d afford someone who has dedicated their lives to ending drug use and sexism.

It’s a curious thing.

And this isn’t about redemption–Jay-z has never and would never apologize for his misogynistic references. He will never stop emphasizing how his wealth and power make him better than the those who purchase his music. And he’ll never express more than passing regret for whatever (most likely exaggerated) involvement he had in dealing drugs. He doesn’t have to, he’s revered nonetheless.

Even if he did, it wouldn’t matter. I think of this whenever there is great emphasis on the comings and goings and raps of up and coming artists. New favorite targets of the hip hop bourgeoisie are Rick Ross and Gucci Mane. And certainly their music makes light of many heavy things. But in the scheme of things, what rapper has profited–and continues to profit– more from the exploitation of women and the lower class than Jay-Z? And he still remains in the spotlight so it’s not as though he’s forgotten–more likely forgiven.

I suppose it’s okay to ask if “that’s yo’ bitch” as long as the verses are intricate enough for phDs and hipsters to intellectualize. It’s okay to brag about selling drugs 20 years ago and to act as if you’re still thugging as long as you put on a nice tuxedo when you accompany your superstar wife to the Golden Globes. But me, I like to pick on the biggest target in the room and the person who holds the most responsibility for what ails us. And Jay-Z has a bulls-eye on his forehead. You can see it if you’re not blinded by the bullshit.

I’m more comfortable with people who say that rap music is just that music. And that artists should be able to express themselves however they please whether they choose to glorify the heinous or create a new identify completely.  I often come out on this side of the argument myself–I’ve been known to cut down anyone who has an issue with my Waka Flocka obsession.

What makes me uncomfortable is when you crucify others for actions that you give others a pass for. That’s when I know your principles are more flexible than what would allow me to take you seriously.

You too, Oprah.

When I first heard that Alicia Keys and a bunch of other celebrities were giving up social media until they raise 1 million dollars for HIV/AIDS awareness, I thought it was a joke. The reality is no one of age gives a damn if celebrities tweet, facebook, you tube or whatever else they might be doing online. To decide to engage in a “digital death” that can only be revived if people donate money is silly on its face.

In order to inspire people to donate in this manner, they’d have to be “punished” by the “death.” But the reality is celebs leaving social media hurts no one but them. Kim Kardashian, who is also participating in the death, gets paid upwards of $10,000 to tweet about products. Her tweets (and I’m a fan btw) are either product placements or tweets to her sisters and her celebrity friends.

Lady GaGa, who I’m also a fan of, rarely ever tweets and when she does she’s either thanking her fans or promoting some charity or another.

On the bright side, at least I knew GaGa and Kim had twitter pages. These other people? I had no idea.

When it comes to PR campaigns, one of the first things you have to think of is the value of your product. In this case, Alicia Keys’ tweets aren’t providing enough value to her audience that they would clamour to spend money (IN A RECESSION) to get them back.

Continue Reading…

Back in June I blogged about Columbia professor Marc Lamont Hill’s allegation that he was harassed by the Philadelphia police. It was reported last week that Hill now plans to sue the Philadelphia police department for the incident he describes in the tweets that appear at the end of the post.

The reporting on this story seems to be headed toward a Hero vs. Hip Hopper storyline. Most outlets have emphasized Officer Decoatesworth’s past heroic actions and subsequent invitation to a joint session of Congress in which he sat beside the first lady.

The above picture was run by Politico.com. In their article they elected NOT to run a picture of Hill at all; rather to refer to him as “another black Ivy League Professor” having a run in with the law, an allusion to Professor Henry Louis Gates’  run-in with a police officer in Cambridge which ended in the infamous “beer-summit” at the White House.

Sidebar: The paragraph comparing Hill and Gates is misleading. Gates didn’t file a Federal civil rights lawsuit nor was his incident with the Philadelphia police as the paragraph implies.

Nevertheless, the decision to run a photo of DeCoatesworth without running a photo of Hill is interesting as was the decision to emphasize DeCoatesworth’s achievements without mentioning who Hill is beyond a black professor.

The Philadelphia Inquirer article on the Hill lawsuit was better but one thing bothered me–they repeatedly referred to the incident as a traffic stop. I suppose this is factually correct as Hill was in his car and driving; however, Hill alleges that the police told him to move his car as he was dropping a friend off, and then after he dropped off his friend, the same police officer’s later stopped him and did not explain why.

That sounds like more than a “traffic stop” and the use of that language sort of downplays the whole thing. Maybe I’m being nitpicky?

I perused a few more sites and most seemed to either follow the Politico route of treating this like a non-story with more details about the cop than the professor–and others spending the bulk of the text explaining the incident. Almost all the sites referred to Hill and hip hop–I suppose that’s fair since lots of his work is centered around the musical genre.

At any rate, if Hill wants to win the media war in this one he has an uphill battle. I think this casting of him as an Ivy League hip hopper who is accusing an 24 year old hometown hero of acting completely and utterly reckless will probably continue–that is until more details are released and a new storyline emerges.

Obviously, journalists have to tell both sides of a story, and there’s no getting around the fact that DeCoatesworth is a hero. However, heroes can later make mistakes–something the general may not immediately recognize given the storyline.

As for Hill, I did note that his initial tweets didn’t sound as though the encounter was violent, so I was surprised to hear those details. That’s the downside of tweeting about something like this, you have to ask why he didn’t relay the juiciest part of the story the first time.

Tell anyone who reads MediaTakeout.com that the site was invited to the White House as part of its effort to “broaden online engagement” with the black community and it will be at least 5 minutes before you can continue the conversation due to the laughter that will ensue.

Media sites have been buzzing about the fact that a few of the members of the African American blogger community who were invited to participate broke the ground rules (the first half of the President’s brief was to be for background only and no quote attribution, the second half was completely off the record). The White House responded by posting a quick after-the-fact blog about the “Summit” including the complete list of list of invitees.

The list is embarrassing and perplexing to say the least.

Beyond Media Take Out among the list were representatives from the urban music gossip blog Concrete Loop, the gossip sites Young Black and Fabulous and Global Grind, politics blog sites like Jack & Jill Politics, as well as news sites like The Washington Post’s The Root, and NBC’s The Grio. Even online dating sites got a seat at the table via Black People Meet’s inclusion in the Summit.

This is such a jumbled mess of an attendee list I’m hard pressed to know where to begin my critique. Many of the sites and site-representatives who gained access to this Summit are notorious for publishing questionable content. The Root’s Cord Jefferson was roundly criticized for his historically inaccurate comparison of the Black Panthers and the Tea Party and Global Grind has admitted to routine content-scraping of other sites.

Media Take Out and Young Black and Fabulous are known to print highly speculative and, in many cases, clearly false information about people in the public eye. Much of the content on Media Take Out’s web site is graphic and certainly not safe for viewing on your work computer. What could they possibly add to a conversation about Obama’s healthcare, education, and civil rights policies?

I have to wonder what kind of research, if any, went into making these picks. They range from the not-very-important-or-relevant to the wildly inappropriate. If the White House was trying to show they’re serious about connecting with African Americans and discussing their issues this wasn’t the way to do it.

All it takes it one click on the homepage of Global Grind or Media Take Out to see that those are not sites that should represent black people politically in any way, nor are they sites that black people visit to engage in serious political debate. Even BET, which does some news reporting wouldn’t be a top pick for most black people when deciding who should represent the community in meetings at the highest levels of government.

As a black woman and confirmed policy wonk, I can tell you, I don’t look to music and gossip blogs for thought leadership. It’s almost as if the White House decided that any blog or web site that is owned or read by black people would be sufficient. I think black people DESERVED better representation at the White House than what was provided via this summit. And if the administration was serious about connecting with bloggers whose audiences they want to engage they all but completely missed the mark.

I have to wonder whether when the White House holds an “integrated” online engagement summit if comparable white, Latino, and Asian sites will be invited. For example, will Harvey Levin be invited to represent TMZ? What about Perez Hilton? Eharmony? Cosmopolitan.com? Something tells me, the types of sites extended an invitation to talk real policy won’t be of the gossip and fashion magazine ilk.

The biggest controversy that has surrounded this summit so far has been the discussion of the breaking of ground rules. Certainly a few of the bloggers broke those ground rules and Natasha Eubanks of Young Black and Fabulous and Kelli Goff of Loop 21 seemed shamefully unapologetic about doing so. Obviously, the bloggers acted in poor and inadvisable taste, but the bigger issue here is the question of seriousness.

Why were credible bloggers excluded for the most part? Is flawed research to blame or something more sinister such as a desire to avoid serious dialogue with the black community? Whatever the case, the President has now elevated the importance and legitimized the existence of sites that add very little to the debate and, in some cases, destroy it altogether.

I can’t decide if the White House doesn’t take the online community seriously or if they believe that the list of invitees is a genuinely accurate representation of black political engagement on the web. Either way, this Summit proves there is a gaping hole in between the President and the black community online and off.

**Complete list of bloggers who attended the summit from the White House blog.

• Aminah Hanan, Blogging While Brown
• Angel Laws, Concrete Loop
• Barion Grant, theGrio
• Claudio Cabrera, NewsOne
• Cord Jefferson, The Root
• Darrell Williams, Ph.D., theLoop21.com
• David Wilson, theGrio
• Deborah Bennett, HelloBeautiful
• Denmark West, BET Networks
• Fred Mwangaguhunga, MediaTakeOut
• Jackie Jones, BlackAmericaWeb.com
• Jeffery Holley, Concrete Loop
• Jeneba Ghatt, Black Web Media
• Jody Vaughn, BET Networks
• Keli Goff, theLoop21.com
• Leutisha Stills, Jack & Jill Politics
• Mario Armstrong, Black Web Media
• Mark Thomas, City Limits
• Michael Skolnick, Global Grind
• Natasha Eubanks, The YBF (Young, Black & Fabulous)
• Ron Worthy, BlackPeopleMeet
• Wendy WIlson, ESSENCE

I found some of the comments that supported (or at least semi-supported) the inclusion of gossip rag blogs interesting.

Melanie S said: “They were not trying to reach politically savvy or credible sites. They were trying to reach popular sites that attract a certain following. Obama is trying to connect with this black demographic, so he gathered the places they go to for news in one room. Yes, I said news. It sounds bizarre, but there are people who see The Root, MTO and Theybf as credible sources for information.”

I’d like to hear more about this demographic and we could speculate Obama intends to do with them. I think The Root is certainly credible, but what would the White House do with the the kind of person (or even the age group) who reads Media Take Out to acquire accurate information?

Cynadoll says: I really don’t believe the WH will utilize these sites to engage in substantive political discussions. I think they’ll be used the same way the WH engages urban radio(i.e. Tom Joyner, Steve Harvey, Michael Baisden, etc)…to get the word out. To make announcements during elections or when Obama needs an important bill passed and he wants you to call your senators/congressman.

I like this comment and I wonder if people think that this lends itself to the idea that Obama only wants to engage with black folks when he needs votes. A couple of white commenters alluded to that on other comment boards.

Another thing I thought of: There were other ways for Obama to reach out to these sites besides having a closed-door meeting at the White House. And, for his VERY FIRST closed door meeting with the black blogosphere, I still think that many of these choices were inappropriate.

Finally Inkognegro said: “I think the choice of blogs speaks more to The Completely Bizarro world status of the Black Blogosphere.”

I’d like to hear him further explain this but as written, I agree. Even a credible source like The Root are confusing sometimes in terms of their goals and content.

And just to be clear, the White House DID portray this as a POLICY discussion meeting, not as a lightweight will-you-help-us-get-out-the-vote effort.

From their blog:

On Monday, the White House hosted its first African American Online Summit, which brought together a group of programming leaders from the African American online media world for an in-depth briefing and discussion about how the Administration is approaching important issues such as jobs, the economy, health care, education, community investment, civil rights and civil liberties, and the First Lady’s Let’s Move! initiative.

The morning was spent with a series of policy briefings on everything from health care reform to the economy. After everyone had a chance to ask questions about specific issues, President Obama was able to drop by for a few minutes to welcome everyone and his senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, was able to stick around to kick off a wide-ranging discussion about how we could work together to engage their audiences.

I’m a political junkie, but even I avoid campaign ads at all costs. In fact, I usually don’t bother to look at them until it’s time for the Pollie Awards. But because I heard that O’Donnell’s latest ad is based on the most viral of viral videos (the Antoine Dodson clip), I was suckered into watching.

Sure the Antoine Dodson reference is genius…although I’m not sure if the people who would vote for O’Donnell would know who Dodson is or, even more importantly, find the raw video of his commentary outside his apartment building in Alabama charming.

But it doesn’t matter, the O’Donnell ad is gold without the Dodson allusions. The soundtrack is classic slasher film genre quality. The knife and prison door sound effects, the foot steps…it all works. The video is also seems to be shot in HD (or at least HQ) and starkly black and white. It feels super modern and relevant. Even the voice of the narrator isn’t the normal “Unsolved Mysteries” schtick that barely scares anyone anymore.

Typically there are two types of campaign ads: personal appeals–where the candidate and/or constituents speak directly into the camera with text-based information at the end. Or, the Contrast ad where a mixture of unflattering clips and text are used to draw differences between the candidates.

Both types of ads are overdone. O’Donnell’s ad is a modern “Daisy” ad–though obviously not as alarmist, she’s talking about taxes not nuclear weapons–still this a deviation from the status quo that portrays her opponent as inherently dangerous in some way. It works and ought to get her taken a tad more seriously.  She needs a good ad if she’s going to rise up from 38% in the pols. Still, she’s opened the door to producing different types of ads this campaign season. I hope other candidates walk through it.

Who knew the witchy woman from Delaware would give us the best gem so far of this (already-too-long) campaign season.

For those who don’t know, No Wedding No Womb is a movement started by Christelyn D. Karazin and Lorraine Spencer to encourage responsible relationships and parenting (broadly speaking). Karazin is now married but spent some time as a single mother and has stated that she wishes she’d made some different choices in the past, especially as it pertains to having a child out of wedlock. You can find more information here, but the gist of it is both women and men need to make smart decisions and try very hard not to produce children outside of marriage.

As far as I can see, there’s nothing wrong with that message—there’s also nothing groundbreaking about it either. Many bloggers, personalities, and media outlets signed on to be a part of No Wedding No Womb which officially launched on September 22.

I’m used to choruses of “Amens” any time black people are taken to task whether fairly or not. But this time, things weren’t quite so simple. No Wedding No Womb seems to be getting just as much, if not more, blow back as it is getting support.

There are a couple of reasons why I think the movement hasn’t been well received across the board.

Much of the success of any movement is largely predicated on timing. We are coming off of a year when black women have had it very hard in the media. From stories about how they will never be married to stories about how they will never have any money—there’s been one piece of bad news after another.

By and large, black women are shouldering the blame alone and this movement feels like piling on. Though No Wedding No Womb explicitly states they are advocating responsibility by both men and women alike, male reproductive organs aren’t mentioned in the title.

In the midst of a time when black women are achieving more than ever before, having less children than ever before, and feeling more divided from black men than ever, No Wedding, No Womb as a concept just seems tone deaf.

It’s also a bit Reaganesque in that it takes a snapshot of a certain group of people and presents it as the norm in order to achieve a desired goal with no regard for the image of the larger group. In Reagan’s case, his motives were malicious. By singling out poor black women as a drain on society, he created a lasting image of black women in general being deficient. That being said, it’s no wonder that Conservative web sites like The Daily Caller dialed in their agenda-laden support.

I don’t think that No Wedding No Womb is malicious, but I do think its needlessly damaging. For many, No Wedding No Womb immediately conjures up images of the myth of the welfare queen and other unfair stereotypes bandied about regarding single mothers. The underlying assumption is that there is an epidemic of black women who don’t understand that marriage is ideal. There’s no evidence beyond confusing and easily manipulated statistics that hint at that being a fact. It’s hard to get behind something that drums up such bad feelings, no matter how noble the cause, when there are only flimsy statistics to back it up.

When it comes to the title, using the term No Wedding No Womb, while catchy and direct, completely sacrifices nuance. You have to go to the web site in order to find out that their goals are not absolute e.g. they aren’t advocating for everyone get married even if you hate the person you’re with. I can assume that the title was conceived to get a reaction and draw interest. Unfortunately, sometimes you get a reaction and no real interest. And the reaction from many single mothers was an instinctual urge to defend their own personal decisions, not to go to the web site and find out more.

The creators of No Wedding No Womb have themselves to blame for their awful presentation. However, that doesn’t excuse entire written blog posts and twitter timelines that skew the intention of this initiative. In fact, I even had to stop myself from discussing it because I felt I was uninformed.

For those who are interested in a pretty substantive discussion on this subject and why the stats are so misleading, I recommend you read this post and this post over at The Atlantic. FYI: Census reports should be out fairly soon, and the numbers are likely to take this conversation in a different direction.