It's 3 a.m.; the Ku Klux Klintons are here

Rod,

I agree with you that I didn't think Hillary's add was racist. And I like this line especially: "I'm sorry, but this is paranoid crackpottery"

Maybe it takes being Black to recognize covert racism, but I just don't see it in this ad (which I watched/saw today just now for the first time, since I don't watch network/prime-time TV). Stupid ad, IMO.

Patterson sounds like a real-life Alvy Singer:

EXT. MANHATTAN STREET-DAY

A pretty Manhattan street with sidewalk trees, brownstones, a school; people mill about, some strolling and carrying bundles, others buried. The screen shows the whole length of the sidewalk, a street, and part of the sidewalk beyond. As the following scene ensues, two pedestrians, indistinguishable in the distance, come closer and closer toward the camera, recognizable, finally, as Alvy and his best friend, Rob, deep in conversation. They eventually move past the camera and off screen. Traffic noise is heard in the background.

ALVY
I distinctly heard it. He muttered under his breath, "Jew."

ROB
You're crazy!

ALVY
No, I'm not. We were walking off the tennis court, and you know, he was there and me and his wife, and he looked at her and then they both looked at me, and under his breath he said, "Jew."

ROB
Alvy, you're a total paranoid.

ALVY
Wh- How am I a paran-? Well, I pick up on those kind o' things. You know, I was having lunch with some guys from NBC, so I said ... uh, "Did you eat yet or what?" and Tom Christie said, "No, didchoo?" Not, did you, didchoo eat? Jew? No, not did you eat, but Jew eat? Jew. You get it? Jew eat?

ROB
Ah, Max, you, uh ...

ALVY
Stop calling me Max.

ROB
Why, Max? It's a good name for you. Max, you see conspiracies in everything.

ALVY
No, I don't! You know, I was in a record store. Listen to this-so I know there's this big tall blond crew-cutted guy and he's lookin' at me in a funny way and smiling and he's saying, "Yes, we have a sale this week on Wagner." Wagner, Max, Wagner-so I know what he's really tryin' to tell me very significantly Wagner.

ROB
Right, Max. California, Max.

ALVY
Ah.

ROB
Let's get the hell outta this crazy city.

ALVY
Forget it, Max.

ROB
-we move to sunny L.A. All of show business is out there, Max.

ALVY
No, I cannot. You keep bringing it up, but I don't wanna live in a city where the only cultural advantage is that you can make a right turn on a red light.

ROB
(Checking his watch)
Right, Max, forget it. Aren't you gonna be late for meeting Annie?

ALVY
I'm gonna meet her in front of the Beekman. I think I have a few minutes left. Right?

Ann Althouse had a flat-out insane post about this ad last week where she claimed that the word "NIG" was subliminally enforced by a brief shot one of the sleeping kids' pajamas which said "Good NIGht". Seriously, I'm not making this up:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-are-letters-nig-on-childs-pajamas.html

To paraphrase the immortal Miller in Repo Man: "The more you blog, the less intelligent you are."

Ann Althouse had a flat-out insane post about this ad last week where she claimed that the word "NIG" was subliminally enforced by a brief shot one of the sleeping kids' pajamas which said "Good NIGht". Seriously, I'm not making this up:

At the 18-second mark in the 31-second YouTube video of the "3 a.m. phone call" commercial:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kddX7LqgCvc

the child (the last child you see) has the bedsheets folded so the dark stripes make it look like he's wearing a tallit (Jewish prayer shawl). He has a neck support that has spots on it that look like blood, almost as if he had been in a car accident or a terrorist bus bombing. The implication is clear: Jewish children will be hurt or die if Barack Obama becomes President, because he is not a strong supporter of Israel and the Jews like Hillary is.

The idea that anyone who opposes Obama is a racist, along with the suggestions by many such as David Kuo that Hillary ought to concede before the fight is over, will do more to damage Obama, if he becomes the Democratic nominee, than any of the idiots who keep talking about him as "Barack Hussein Obama."

The more that happens, the more likely it is that Hillary Clinton supporters like me will pick John McCain if the choice in the fall is between McCain and Obama.

If Obama needs "special treatment" aka "affirmative action" to get the Presidency, he's not ready for it.

Rod,

I think you're wrong, not necessarily about the criticism, but about whether the ad is racist. I don't think that it is racist to suggest that Obama is not the man for the job, and on its face that seems to be what Doctor(? Professor?) Patterson is saying. However, I think that an examination of the ad will show that the narrative presented relies a great deal on race-based thinking, as I will attempt to show.

What is the ad about? It shows a number of children, at least the first of whom is fair-haired, asleep in what is implicitly a suburban setting. It discusses an unnamed danger to those children, happening "somewhere in the world" at 3 a.m. It presents Hillary as the only one who can prevent that danger from taking place, or handle it if it does transpire.

What fear is being evoked by this unnamed, hypothetical danger to sleeping children? I contend that the ad is not about a parent's fear of terrorism. Terrorist violence against civilians (including children) is almost without exception done during the day, so as to be highly visible and seem daring; the ad takes place at night. Terrorist violence against civilians is almost without exception done in high-traffic, public places, so as to inflict maximum casualties and damage; the ad takes place inside the home, at a time of virtually no traffic. Terrorist violence against civilians is almost never directed against residential areas. The children live on a suburban, residential street.

What fear is being evoked here? What is a parent afraid of at 3 a.m., when her children are at home, asleep? Kidnapping? Sure. Burglary (armed or unarmed)? Sure. Rapists and murderers breaking into the house? Sure. Not terrorism. Terrorism takes place in the day, in public, in high-profile locations.

The ad is not about terrorism. The ad is about crime. Specifically, the ad is about suburban attitudes toward crime. I don't suppose I need to explain that suburban America strongly correlates crime with race, and that when you talk about a nameless, faceless, generalized threat to our children who are at home, sleeping, what a lot of people think about is a Big Scary Black Man.

Having thus raised the spectre of crime, the ad presents a question to the viewer. The question, however, is purely emotional. It does not ask who has more experience, or who is better capable of handling a crisis. It asks simply, "Who do you want answering that phone?" Don't judge; don't assess; don't think -- just answer. The ad primes our instincts with the fear of crime, and then invites us to listen to those instincts.

To further illustrate this, I ask: What information does the ad present about Hillary? Does it show that she has experience dealing with these dangers, as a parent, as a politician's wife, as a politician herself? Does it show that she has surrounded herself with people who are versed in protecting America's children? No. It shows us Hillary's face. It shows us what she looks like.

Your talk, Rod, of this incident as evidence that Obama does not or will not promote racial healing is therefore a canard. If Obama were to win the nomination and be elected, would a minstrel show somehow cease to be offensive? Of course not. Would the n-word suddenly become acceptable? Would Don Imus get his old job back? Please.

In my experience, it is Obama's detractors who emphasize him as messianic, far more than his supporters. You are playing a cynical game, Rod. Is there a certain amount of fanboyism? Sure; it's inevitable. But the grown-ups know that we will be in almost all ways the same nation on January 21, 2009. We will still be accountable for having neglected our communities. We will still face all of the problems that we face today. Transcending race is not the eschaton, Rod. It is only the beginning.

There are three questions here.
The first is, can a black man be criticized without all assuming the critic is racist. I think the answer is fairly clearly that he can be, except in some quarters, and those quarters can't be moved by discourse.
The second, will all criticism of black politicians be subject to an initial screening to see if they are based on race? Yes, of course they will, and that's reasonable.
The third, and most pertinent here, is whether the Clinton campaign would resort to an appeal to the underground racist -- either the hidden racists in society or the latent racist that may be in each of us. Seems very likely that if that tactic will win votes, it will be used. In a recent interview, Clinton was asked something about her woman-ness and she replied that this election wasn't about her being a woman -- and volunteered that it also wasn't about race. She inserted that into the conversation. It wouldn't have been to buttress her opponent. The subtext was, hey, you may not want a woman in office but you sure don't want a black person, do you? It's simply mercenary.

Rod does go for the attention grabbing headline, eh?

Lisa and Adam, interesting analysis...

Anyone else think of the 'daisy - countdown' ad?

I don't believe the 3:00 a.m. ad is racist, but how about these comments made by Republican pundit Kellyanne Conway on Larry King's show.."Hillary and Obama are arguing about whether she should let him sit on the back of the bus of her presidential ticket,or he argues whether or not she lied us into war in 2002."
I'm not saying Ms.Conway consciously made a racist statement, she clarified herself saying she made it in the context of Hillary wanting him as V.P.
My questiion do you think she would have used the language "back of the bus" if Obama were white?

at 3:00 a.m. the President of the United States gets a phone call: "Mrs. President - Iran has just launched a nuclear strike at Israel." 3 a.m. EST is 10 a.m. in Jerusalem.

[Trending OT here...]

Not sure this is the best analogy. If Iran tried to nuke Israel, methinks they'd shoot for 0300 (local) rather than 1000 - particularly if they were using ballistic missiles (which don't care what time it is). With a military strike, you're trying to defeat/destroy an enemy; in which case, striking when most of his leadership & military are asleep (and his watches _want_ to be asleep) makes sense.

OTOH, IIRC the War of Atonement began at 1400 hrs...so perhaps there's precedent for an afternoon nuking.

As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, the success of the "3:00 a.m." ad was that it reminded voters that we know who Hillary Clinton is, whether we like her or not. But, we don't yet really know who Obama is - the appeal of the ad hinges on, in his words, familiarity.

If Obama is the person his supporters say he is, he should jump all over suggestions that this ad contains hidden, racial messages. That would go a long way to assuring people that he was truly above the old brand of racial politics.

@Eric W. 10:56

Of course you can find a different narrative when you *add information* to what's already onscreen. But it's not 10 a.m. The ad tells us several times that it's 3 a.m. It's not Tehran or Tel Aviv. It's a suburb. And no, we don't know what the phone call is about. But that isn't the question. The question is, what narrative is presented with the information available? And once that's established, what are the subtexts of _that_ narrative?

"we don't know what the phone call is about"

Maybe it's just a mis-dialled pizza order.

Very sharp post from rebaccat. Like her, I wouldn't call this ad racist, but I think Rod goes too far in calling the critic paranoid, and like rebaccat and unlike Rod, I immediately noticed the race and general home decor of the mother and children in the ad.

My first thought, as is often the case with any advertising, was, "Well, that doesn't look like my family."

It is often derided as marketing "bean counting", but there's a place for marketing and design professionals (a role I've played) to take a look at the racial composition of ads of all kinds and decide if it fits with their message/audience. It was definitely an active, conscious choice on the part of the Clinton ad team to make the kids in this ad white.

That doesn't make it a racist ad, but it also makes it a fair question with an ad this controversial: What did the ad team and the campaign team consider when choosing the race of the kids in the ad, and thus the overall tone of the ad?

Bless,
Doug

http://raggedthots.blogspot.com/2008/03/3-am-call.html

3 AM Call...
The phone rings. Hillary Rodham Clinton picks it up.

"Yes?"

"Hillary, it's Silda Wall Spitzer. Sorry to call so late. Eliot's still not home. Based on your experience, what should I do?"

Sorry, I just could not help it.

Orlando Patterson said in his piece that Hillary could have blunted the racist content by putting black children in the bed. But if she had done that, we'd have heard him kvetching about how Hillary was exploiting the stereotype that black men can't be counted on to take care of their children.

I can't tell you the anxiety it's causing me to feel sympathy, however attenuated, for the Clintons! Make it stop!

Rod: What exactly is making you feel sympathy with the Clintons? You seem to be saying two mutually exclusive things at the same time, first that it is ludicrous and "sympathy evoking" to even discuss the racial composition of high profile, controversial political ads; yet secondly, that we of course we should consider the racial elements of ads and such with calm deliberation, and once we do so all reasonable people will reach the conclusion that there's no racist subtext in any of the ads attacking Obama.

Which is it? Is it "beyond the pale" to raise in discussion the question of how anti-Obama communications use traditionally racist imagery? Or is it OK to raise such questions? And if the latter, do we agree at the outset that we shouldn't presume good or bad intentions on the part of those creating the messages, but judge them on their merits?

Bless,
Doug

Obama's whole MO has become anyone disagreeing with his is "divisive". Of course, agreeing with above-it-all Obama means your on the good team. And his supporters seem awful quick to break out the racism card at every turn. If this is how things would be with him as president-shortcircuiting any discussion of any issue with sheer demogaugery-that's as bad as Clinton or Bush.

And it would get ugly fast.

I think as a conservative, Mccain would be a dissappointment. But he would reach across the aisle(the working together that Obama and the media tell us is supposedly such a wonderful ideal). It would suprise no one if Leiberman was his running mate.

We face SERIOUS issues. If this is the childish way Obama would deal with them,more dividng the country into us vs. them, he should stay home.

I agree with Eric W--the first thing I thought about was not terrorism but a 3 a.m. phone call to inform the president about nuclear missiles being launched somewhere in the world.

You know, even on the off-chance that the ad was subliminally racist, do you really think Hillary Clinton sat down and wrote the script and specifically went out to find clips of white/Latino families to insert in the ad? No. She has people to do that for her.

The whole thing is ridiculous.

Rod:

Yes, I agree with you completely. I'd say Hillary is setting up a dynamic that leaves itself open to questions about sub-textual racism because she is basing her candidacy on the psychological/emotional associations people will have with her image and name. It's all about "How do you feel about a white Boomer woman named Clinton?" Thus, Obama's campaign feels more about the flip question, "How do you feel about a black man named Obama?" than his campaign will feel when opposed by McCain's. My hope and prayer is that an Obama/McCain race will trend towards policy debates in a way that the Obama/Clinton race hasn't.

Bless,
Doug

I don't think the ad is racist. When I saw the Orlando's Patterson in the NY Times for that opinion piece today I did roll my eyes and decide not to click on it, because Patterson is one of those guys who sees racism where it's not there. IMO.

So what does the community think of Hillary's confidant Geraldine Ferraro?
Hillary's not firing her for saying the only reason Obama's where he's at is because he's black.
Obama was light years ahead on the learning curve related to our Iraq war profiteering venture. Hillary supported the war.
At this point I'd take a trans-gendered white albino if that would get us out of Iraq.
I dunno Rod. Maybe the Klintons keep some KKK company.

Brian, if Obama had been in the Senate I believe strongly he would have voted the same way for the authorization to use force as Hillary did. Granted this is unapprovable. A decision to oppose the war made by someone who was not yet in the Senate, even if he was running for the Senate, does not carry a lot of weight. The more he harps on Hillary's Iraq vote, the less seriously I take his criticism.

Thanks, Brian. Without Hillary's considerable talents, I don't think she could have become Senator from NY or a serious Presidential candidate. Sure, it doesn't hurt to have been First Lady, just like it doesn't hurt to be the President's son if one is planning to run for President.

But need I point out that Hillary is the first First Lady to do this? The connection obviously helped, in fact it might even have been a necessary condition for her becoming a legitimate presidential candidate but I would argue it wasn't a sufficient condition. It was her talent and tenaciousness and good reputation as a senator that got her the rest of the way.

I found Ferraro's comments extremely muddled, by the way. If she was trying to say that some people would rather vote for a man, of any race, than for a woman, she should of just said that.

About Iran, I do think Iran qualifies as a terrorist state in many respects. But it is an enormously complicated society, and I don't think the Bush Administration position relative to Iran has been successful. To say the least.