ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Phone Ad Not Ethically Diverse - QED: HRC is KKK

Read this ridiculous article in the Paper of Record Stupidity:

Op-Ed Contributor
The Red Phone in Black and White
By ORLANDO PATTERSON

Cambridge, Mass.

ON first watching Hillary Clinton’s recent “It’s 3 a.m.” advertisement, I was left with an uneasy feeling that something was not quite right — something that went beyond my disappointment that she had decided to go negative. Repeated watching of the ad on YouTube increased my unease. I realized that I had only too often in my study of America’s racial history seen images much like these, and the sentiments to which they allude.

I am not referring to the fact that the ad is unoriginal; as several others have noted, it mimics a similar ad made for Walter Mondale in his 1984 campaign for the Democratic nomination. What bothers me is the difference between this and the Mondale ad. The Mondale ad directly and unequivocally played on the issue of experience. The danger was that the red telephone might be answered by someone who was “unsure, unsteady, untested.” Why do I believe this? Because the phone and Mr. Mondale are the only images in the ad. Fair game in the normal politics of fear.

Not so this Clinton ad. To be sure, it states that something is “happening in the world” — although it never says what this is — and that Mrs. Clinton is better able to handle such danger because of her experience with foreign leaders. But every ad-maker, like every social linguist, knows that words are often the least important aspect of a message and are easily muted by powerful images.

I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery, and when I saw the Clinton ad’s central image — innocent sleeping children and a mother in the middle of the night at risk of mortal danger — it brought to my mind scenes from the past. I couldn’t help but think of D. W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation,” the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society. The danger implicit in the phone ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man, someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat.
I suppose that if one has "spent [their] life studying pictures and symbols of racism and slavery," they're likely to find symbols of racism and slavery in everything... I'd also suggest that they should also be considered insane and not employed by an institution of higher learning.

Can you imagine spending your life doing that? How pathetic and useless!
The ad could easily have removed its racist sub-message by including images of a black child, mother or father — or by stating that the danger was external terrorism. Instead, the child on whom the camera first focuses is blond. Two other sleeping children, presumably in another bed, are not blond, but they are dimly lighted, leaving them ambiguous. Still it is obvious that they are not black — both, in fact, seem vaguely Latino.

Ahhh... the first (and most important) child was blond you see? Obviously HRC is a crypto-Nazi, imparting her Ueber-mensch fantasies into her campaign ads.
Finally, Hillary Clinton appears, wearing a business suit at 3 a.m., answering the phone. The message: our loved ones are in grave danger and only Mrs. Clinton can save them. An Obama presidency would be dangerous — and not just because of his lack of experience. In my reading, the ad, in the insidious language of symbolism, says that Mr. Obama is himself the danger, the outsider within.

Did the message get through? Well, consider this: people who voted early went overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama; those who made up their minds during the three days after the ad was broadcast voted heavily for Mrs. Clinton.

[skipping ad hominem attacks against GOP]

It is significant that the Clinton campaign used its telephone ad in Texas, where a Fox poll conducted Feb. 26 to 28 showed that whites favored Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton 47 percent to 44 percent, and not in Ohio, where she held a comfortable 16-point lead among whites. Exit polls on March 4 showed the ad’s effect in Texas: a 12-point swing to 56 percent of white votes toward Mrs. Clinton. It is striking, too, that during the same weekend the ad was broadcast, Mrs. Clinton refused to state unambiguously that Mr. Obama is a Christian and has never been a Muslim.

It is possible that what I saw in the ad is different from what Mrs. Clinton and her operatives saw and intended. But as I watched it again and again I could not help but think of the sorry pass to which we may have come — that someone could be trading on the darkened memories of a twisted past that Mr. Obama has struggled to transcend.
It is possible? Why the @#$ are you writing this article then, you ignoramus?
Orlando Patterson is a professor of sociology at Harvard and the author of “The Ordeal of Integration: Progress and Resentment in America’s ‘Racial’ Crisis.”
As if we needed more evidence about how crazy those in the Ivory Tower are...

If even raising the question of a candidates ability to handle crises is a racist attack, only made more racist by not including an ethnically diverse set of actors, then this is going to be an utterly pointless presidential campaign.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (2)
Anonymous said...

I read the load of verbal excrement put out by Mr Patterson yesterday, and I couldn't help but think that, by his rationale, even Spongebob Square Pants could have subliminal racist messages. Think about it. The fact that Spongebob's color is YELLOW must have been designed to make black kids feel inferior to their Asian counterparts, right?

Just imagine how much insanity could be thought up using Patterson's rationale for writing that op-ed as a model. It's just a shame that the editors of the NYT have given him space in their paper to publish that. They should have made him ask The Nation of Islam for space in one of their publications instead (if they have any.) Now that would have been a much more appropriate organization to put out such horsesh**!

Monterey John said...

Is anyone surprised by anything the NYT does?

The dollar is melting down. There are folks in the world who want us all dead. There are men and women fighting for our country around the world.

And the New York Times gives this piece of academic offal space.

Surprised?

Not really.