Red Phone Ad

The New York Times has an op-ed piece about Clinton's telephone ad, in which sleeping children are depicted as safer in their beds because when/if that 3A.M. call comes, Clinton is ready to lead. Do I think the commercial is a wee bit over the top in its assessment that only Clinton, who is extraordinary alert and well-dressed given the stated time of the call, is able to handle such situations? Yes. Do I think the ad plays on fear. Absolutely, and this is a bit disheartening. But this op-ed is one giant pile of manure in its claim that racism is at the very heart of this piece. To such an extent that I want to reply with a resounding, "You have got to be f---ing kidding me." (Normally, I don't comment on anything involving race because I'm white and suffer from white man's guilt.)

Let's review both the piece and the commercial to see what we come up with.



Mr. Patterson's first claim is that there is something "not quite right" about the ad, something that "went beyond my disappointment that she [Clinton] decided to go negative". Stop. Let's review the claim that the ad is, in fact, negative. In the sense that the ad is not a glowing call for hope, yeah I suppose it is negative. (If you're not paying attention, that's written with a sarcastic edge.) But perhaps realism is more appropriate for a message at this time. As much as it is great to hope, we are a nation at war. Because of the current administration there are more people that hate us today than there were before G.W. took office. Clinton is arguing that she is competent and ready to handle those calls. As for the "not quite right" feeling, read on.

Patterson continues to say that Clinton's uninspired ad isn't so much about what is said but what is depicted. (If you've already forgotten, now would be a good time to watch the ad again.) Patterson takes issue with the fact that the threat is not stated. We all know the something that is "happening in the world." I'm guessing it was left unsaid to soften the claim the ad was blatantly using the politics of fear, which it is. And again, I am disappointed with this approach.

And here's where Patterson completely loses me: "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 [I'll get to the "mother" in a moment] - it brought to my mind...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." First, I had to get over my reaction that Patterson mentions Clinton and the KKK in the same sentence and as if they are somehow in cahoots. What I see is a continuation of the experience theme of her campaign. The claim of the ad is that Clinton is better equipped to handle such calls - not because Obama is black but because he lacks experience. [I will not be addressing the experience claim this morning, but it should be noted she is the first New Yorker ever to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee.]

Let us return to the ad once more. Patterson argues the racist "sub-message" could have been removed by making a few casting changes. (He also claims that it could have explicitly stated the external danger was terrorism. But, again, I argue this is a given and doesn't need to be stated.) It starts with a little blond girl, followed by a baby of indeterminate gender and race, third child looks black to me - the fact that Patterson completely skips over this kid makes me think he wasn't paying as close attention as he should have been when viewing the ad and writing his piece - on to two more (possibly) white kids in bed, and then a boy (perhaps Asian?). I say the ad runs the gamut on gender and race. Enter "mom." Also white but, um, is this a woman? Are we sure this isn't dad?

Is Clinton actually making a statement about androgynous folks who dress poorly at 3A.M.? Are they the real threat to America?

It ends with Clinton in a business suit answering the ringing phone, which, by the way, has gotten increasingly annoying over the course of the ad. Answer the dang phone already, woman! Don't bother getting dressed, grab it in your jammies. We won't care.

Patterson thinks the racist sub-message was well received by audiences in the voting state. "Those who made up their minds after the ad was broadcast voted heavily for Mrs. Clinton." So, the politics of fear worked. But it's a stretch to attribute the voting patterns solely to a trumped up racist sub-message. (A supposed implied message that was completely missed by this white woman.) The message, as far as I can tell, was "Fear the inexperienced, vote for me," rather than "Fear the black man, vote for me." Or perhaps it was something else entirely. If Androgynous Pat is in fact a mom, maybe this was a way for one mom (i.e., Clinton) to reassure another mom (i.e., Androgynous Pat) that women are prepared to meet the challenges of a ringing phone in an age of war.

In the next paragraph, Patterson outlines previous candidates who have used similar tactics to "inspire unity among 'we whites'". All of the examples are of Republican candidates. If this were a Logics class, it would go something like this:

P1: Republican candidates use racial fear to unite whites in their television ads.
P2: Clinton's ad uses racial fear to unite whites in her television ad.
C: Therefore, Clinton is a Republican.

But wait, Clinton isn't Republican. Exactly. (I'll give you a moment to sort it out and join me. And no, I don't need comments that explain how Clinton is a Republican.) Last I checked the Clintons were well liked by their African American brethren and sistren.

On to the Fox poll, which Patterson admits to using. A Fox poll. Is this the same "fair and balanced" Fox that Fox News comes from? If so, do we really want to base anything on what they say? Besides, it is just a poll. And polls can be wrong. "It is significant that the Clinton campaign used its telephone ad in Texas...whites favored Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton...and not Ohio, where she held a comfortable 16-point lead among whites." Seems to me Clinton was trying to ease the rough minds of the Texas populous that she was commander in chief material. Hell, I'm surprised she didn't add some tag line in there about how she had the balls to vote for the war initially. Seems to me that would have gone over well with the folks down there. (Please note, I have never actually been to Texas but from what I hear about it, it seems it would be a place swayed by the fear of politics given its infamous support of the use of the death penalty and all things gun-related.) It makes sense Clinton wouldn't play a bunch of ads in a state she is already fairly confident of winning. Patterson points to an interview during the same time in which Clinton refuses to state that Obama is a Christian and has never been a Muslim. The disagreeable part, as seen by some, is that she added "As far as I know," to her statement regarding his religion. That probably could have been handled differently. She could have said something akin to "Obama is not Muslim, not that there's anything wrong with that. He'll make a great V. P. and I look forward to bringing him on board when I whup his ass and secure the party's nomination." Instead she went on to say, "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors, that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Patterson ends with this: "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." Cue tiny fiddles softly fiddling "Cry Me a River". I'm interested to know what others think because I just don't see why Patterson took it where he did.