March 11, 2008
Do Clinton's Ads Harken Back to Birth of A Nation?
Orlando Patterson makes the case in the NYT:
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.
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.
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.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 07:15 AM | Permalink





Comments
Well said Robin. The MacBethian Clinton's are at their best in truth withholding, manipulation and misinformation --- theu do so, in order to appeal to people's lowest and most execrable inclinations.
But, whern it comes to facing the truth about Spitzer's ordeal and the circus provided by Bill and Monica; it becomes a "vast right wing conspiracy" --- at least, it was in Bill's case.
And let's talk about Obama as vice president, losing votes, with the blonde woman as the slave rider...
Please, no neuroscientific explanations as to what makes Clinton's tick --- Just look at their padded purses.
Posted by: Felix E. F. Larocca MD | Mar 11, 2008 7:38:01 AM
It's amazing to witness her campaign these days, and to become aware of how enormously short-sighted she is. (Egocentric, also, but that goes without saying among most politicians.) She seems wholly focused on getting the nomination, with no concern about what damage she is doing to her own party, and indeed to her own chances for victory in November should she get that nomination.
Because her maniacal drive to dump ordure on Obama, and humiliate him by suggesting that (even though he can't qualify as a commander in chief) he would be wonderful as her VP, is just making it more and more likely every day that McCain will win the general election. Indeed, there is quite a bit of speculation going around that she really wouldn't mind seeing McCain win, because she could come back in 2012 (she assumes that her public image couldn't get any worse than it is now), while her campaign to fit Obama with cement overshoes would (she supposes) ruin his presidential hopes forever.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this interpretation of her actions. But I'm having a hard time finding evidence against it.
Posted by: JonJ | Mar 11, 2008 12:55:05 PM
JonJ,
Don't go around looking for evidence against it - you are totally right. She can get away with it because there are enough operators within the Democratic Party who are going along with her vicious and destructive game plan.
I now so dread the possibility of the Clintons actually securing the nomination by underhanded means (Hillary has stated that even pledged delegates won in the primaries do not have to vote according to the voters' choice) that I was actually rejoicing yesterday when Eliot Spitzer fell into Bush's wire tap snare. I don't care about Spitzer and local New York politics. But I started to hope that Spitzer's "bimbo eruption" will rekindle the memory of Paula, Gennifer, Monica et al in the minds of voters. Even if Hillary's evil machinations don't sway their votes, perhaps the unappetizing thought of living through years of Clinton psycho-dramas where we Democrats had to defend the couple against Republican attacks, will give Hillary supporters some pause. I know I sound horribly petty minded. But that is how badly I want the Clintons to go away.
Posted by: Ruchira | Mar 11, 2008 1:46:02 PM
This is nonsense. Via this kind of "reading", any attack ad whatsoever is racist simply by virtue of the fact that it is attacking a black man and does not happen to include black children. Gosh, Orlando, do you think the kids were white and latino because, well, Obama's got a lock on the black vote?
If the author's lifelong devotion to studying racism in America has made him this sensitive, then no amount of argumentation is going to erase this kind of tendency from his mind. He might do well to consider, however, that pundits like himself who continually bring up the race-issue when it is not at all clear that either candidate intends to are partially responsible for connecting Americans to that "dark past".
In other words, how are we supposed to transcend race when the media won't shut up about it?
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Mar 11, 2008 1:52:35 PM
Don't we "transcend race" by confronting racism, not by ignoring it? Anyone who seriously thinks that was a race-blind ad has not been paying much heed to the advertizing industry. Is the ad overt racism? Aw, of course not. Did it contain racially loaded elements that have made people who study such things call the Clinton Campaign out for it? I think so, and I grew up in the South in the aftermath of the Civil Rights era. Oh, yah -- I'm white, and that ad woulda scared my mommy, and she coulda told you why.
I think the ad is typical Clintoniana -- assault with deniability. If you like the Clintons, you should be ashamed for them. If you don't like them, you shouldn't buckle to pressure to ignore their worst because the proper interpratation of much of it is yielded by a deeper reading than their adherents are happy with.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Mar 11, 2008 2:44:46 PM
Another Clinton supporter shows her "true colors."
For a woman (or women) who are playing the gender card to its hilt in this race, this is rich! But then unlike Samantha Power who spoke the truth about the character of the Clintons, anything nasty that the Clinton supportes say about Obama's race is a "historic statement" according to Hillary, the historian.
Someone ought to tell Ms Ferraro that if Obama were a white man, this race for the nomination would have been over by now!
Posted by: Ruchira | Mar 11, 2008 5:01:48 PM
Hillary is wearing a business suit at 3AM? Does that mean that the phone has been ringing since 2AM? It usually takes me an hour to get dressed, etc...
Posted by: daniel | Mar 12, 2008 1:46:21 AM
I think Patterson's comments are nonsensical. So was Hillary's ad. Her ad was stupid in lots of ways, but it wasn't racist.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Mar 12, 2008 11:14:14 AM
I think Patterson's comments are nonsensical. So was Hillary's ad. Her ad was stupid in lots of ways, but it wasn't racist.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Mar 12, 2008 11:14:49 AM
"Don't we "transcend race" by confronting racism, not by ignoring it?"
Yes, but we don't transcend anything by inventing it where it doesn't exist. The Obamaniacs on the interwebnet are quite outrageous. They'll say anything to vilify Clinton, anything at all.
Posted by: Dr Zen | Mar 13, 2008 12:06:29 AM
Post a comment