That article is interesting. Too bad, its a bunch of BS. Its the kind of critique that insults our intelligence. It is painful to read as he tries so hard to prove a point that simply is not there. Silly stuff!!!

one_wilson,

I would not look down on other voters in that way. Shows poor sportsmanship.

There were a lot of factors that went into Hillary winning Texas. The ad may be just one of them.

I wonder if you can stop blaming others for Hillary winning. May be there are lots of people out there who think that Hillary is a better candidate then Obama.

Read the article.

The idea that this ad is somehow like "Birth of a Nation" is beyond ridiculous.

How about a little fact check?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/did_clinton_darken_obamas_skin.html

Why would someone allege racism even when it's unsubstantiated? Doesn't sound like new politics to me.

Personally, when I first saw the spot I honestly had some of the same vague disquieting thoughts at the subtle racial tones that the feel of the home security footage generated in Clinton's ad. So I get where this piece is coming from. At the time, I decided that it wasn't worth pursuing that line of reasoning, and dismissed it.

I still feel the same way today.

If every potential subtlety that may contain racial or misogynistic overtones is leaped at, then there is no room for a legitimate exchange of ideas, as and language that could conceivably offend becomes taboo, and preemptively avoided. There are degrees which can and should be responded to. There's a big difference between Geraldine Ferraro making a semi-open appeal to bigots while trying to explain Obama's appeal to voters, and trying to discern the true intent of some stock footage shown in a campaign ad.

Even taking in the very real context that no advertising (especially political advertising) goes out without every single overt and suptextual aspect of the ad, it's often wise to choose your battles. I don't think anything productive can be gained from working over whether the 3 a.m. ad was subtly racist. Just be aware of it, so that if something similar pops up later, the response to voters will be that much more effective.

That a guy like this has a job at Harvard is amazing. It doesn't pass any basic logic test.
If the ad had African American kids, he would have said THAT was racist.

I don't think Obama thinks this way-- you have to have some serious paranoia and be a seriously head up your butt academic insulated from reality to write like this.
Why the NY Times published it I have no idea.

You guys have no idea what is involved when ads are put out. There is a lot of scoffing at "subliminal" messages, etc., but those who have studied media and communications know all the TACTICS out there to achieve their objectives, and they parse through every word, every nuance, every possible association, and the truly smart ones do not leave their fingerprints. There was one course on political communications I took, and it was replete with examples shockingly nefarious, no detail is unattended to, including fixing the lights in a televised debate so that the heat is literally turned on the unsuspecting candidate in order to induce discomfort and sweating. I'm glad I'm now completely out of the media business, no offense meant to those who are.

I don't know why I keep getting rejectd for this follow-up post, hope this gets through:

You guys have no idea what is involved when ads are put out. There is a lot of scoffing at "subliminal" messages, etc., but those who have studied media and communications know all the TACTICS out there to achieve their objectives, and they parse through every word, every nuance, every possible association, and the truly smart ones do not leave their fingerprints. They study the effects of ads on focus groups, they look at facial expressions and body language to get at the underlying reaction of the psyche. Ads are expensive, and you want to get the maximum effect out of one spot. There was one course on political communications I took, and it was replete with examples shockingly nefarious, no detail is unattended to, including fixing the lights in a televised debate so that the heat is literally turned on the unsuspecting candidate in order to induce discomfort and sweating. I'm glad I'm now completely out of the media business, no offense meant to those who are.

Orlando Patterson certainly has a lot more credibility than love-struck Hillary supporters that are busy standing up to defend their candidates racist tactics by simply dismissing them. The Clintons are expert at this sort of thing and everything that they or their surrogates do is incredibly calculated and well thought out.

As in the Bob Kerrey "Hussein"/Muslim veiled attack and Bill Clinton's turning point South Carolina "Jesse Jackson" rant, they were quick to backtrack, but had succeeded in what they really wanted to do which was to plant a seed: a seed that he was a scary black man with a scary name who had an estranged father with a scary religion-boo! Be scared.

From the beginning, it was (and still is) agreed that the Clinton Machine would do anything to win and could never be counted out. This is why. They are willing to do anything

Just as Bill Clinton knew that his wife and most of us would come back to him after he disgraced the Democratic Party with the Monica Lewinsky fiasco and other things, they run with that central mindset that they can alienate African-Americans and disgust many Democrats because they think that if they win that we will all come back like they always have. That's wrong and won't work this time.

The "I Will Survive" song that Hillary is playing on her campaign stops is for us-the formerly love-struck ex-Clinton supporters who are over Bill. Just like the heroine in a movie that gets burned time and time again by a non-deserving cheating, abusive boyfriend only to find Mr. Right and can move on and not look back, ex-Clinton supporters can look at Hillary and Bill with a clear head.

While this ad isn't as blatant as Mandy Grunwald's doctored ad that used Photoshop to stretch Obama's face and darken his skin for a more sinister effect or the escalating Geraldine Ferraro racist attacks, it goes along with the Clintons' overall "kitchen sink" plan. While I don't think either Hillary or Bill are racists (my opinion is quickly changing about Ferraro), I do see that they are willing to do anything-even use race and xenophobio-to win with an assumption that we would all come back if she was somehow able to steal the delegates.

Maggie Williams is the ultimate love-struck Clintonite, and may never be able to see clearly.

Oh please. I'm not a Clinton supporter and I am a black woman and anyone who's saying that ad was racist is a fuckwit, pure and simple. I wouldn't be surprised if that op-ed was written by a Clinton supporter--that's how much sense it made.

Qwerty, PLEASE blog separately. You are so far out there the cosmic microwave background hasn't reached you yet.

Why do I keep spelling "Gandhi", "Ghandi"?? Sorry, I'm so predisposed to a certain way of conjugation.

Why did 9 people recommend this piece? It's hard to get a thoughtful story to stay up on TPM with the utter crap that floats to the top.

Now I'm glad this weirdo piece got recommended. View the Ferraro flap in light of this and you see clearly how cynical David Axelrod's ploy is. They will try to find racism whereever they can, which is difficult because their opponents aren't racists. So try a bit of pop sociology on the 3 AM ad. Oops, everyone thinks it's ridiculous. Call Geraldine Ferraro a racist... yep, that one seems to have taken hold.

If at first tyou don't succeed...