There seems to be a bit of a kerfuffle a-brewing over Hillary Clinton’s latest campaign ad. I happen to think it’s very well-made and quite effective. I don’t understand how anyone can objectively compare it to the infamous “Daisy” ad of the 1960s. Subjectively, Obama supporters have to hate the ad because there’s no answer to the question it asks that’s good for him. But it’s a fair ad and it’s hardly controversial.
Which is why I’m surprised that Ann Althouse is trying to gin up more controversy over it. She threw in her lot with the Obamessiah not long ago and it looks like she may have drunken deeply from the Fount of What the Hell?
I can’t think of anything else that would explain this bit of complete nuttery:
…[T]he pajamas in question are on display during seconds 11 and 12. On pausing, staring, and thinking, I believe these are pajamas that say “good night” all over them, but the letters “NIG” are set apart by a fold in the fabric.
Is the campaign responsible for sending out a subliminal message to stimulate racist thoughts in the unsuspecting viewer? It is either deliberate or terribly incompetent. There is no other writing on screen until the very end of the commercial, and if letters appear in anyplace in a commercial, they should be carefully selected letters. Certainly, each image is artfully composed and shot and intended to deliver an emotional impact. Could this be a mere lapse?
Oh give me a stinking break. I’ve linked the commercial below the fold so you can see for yourself what a silly thing she’s saying. And she appears to be serious. So, assuming she’s not just completely in the tank for Obama, I’ll take her seriously for a few minutes – long enough to analyze more of the video.
My first observation is that Hillary Clinton isn’t just racist, she’s predjudiced against Neanderthals, too. In the same frames where the alleged “NIG” appears, you can clearly see the word “OG” upsidedown above it. It’s reinforced by another “O” before the upsidedown “G”. What does that tell you?
Well, obviously Hillary Clinton thinks Barak Obama is a primitive cavedweller, too. How else could you possibly construe the careful placement of those three letters? Sure, they could have dressed the kid in Captain Caveman pajamas, but that wouldn’t have been subtle enough.
Ah, but there’s more! At the 20-second mark, the lines that converge on the sleeping child’s head clearly form the letter “V”. And on the blanket you can plainly count four dark stripes. Hmmm….V four…AHA! “V for….Vendetta!” Is Hillary Clinton saying that the black man would bring us to the brink of a police state with his black and primitive ways? And that he would focus his cruelty on the heads of our children? Well, of course she is. What other explanation could there be. After all, “each image is artfully composed and shot and intended to deliver an emotional impact”. Well, there’s your impact right there. A vote for Obama is a vote for tyranny focused on the heads of your children.
Let us analyze further.
What’s with the young kid in the sharply-pressed shirt coming into the room at the 24-second mark? The parents are already tucked into bed. So are all the kids. Everyone’s tucked warmly into bed in their most comfy sleepwear. Everyone except for this well-dressed youth stalking around the house in the dark and peeking into a bedroom. It looks very out of place to me. Hey, wait. You know who else is young and dresses very sharply? Barack Obama.
My goodness, Barak Obama’s going to steal into my house and look at my kids instead of picking up the Worldwide Trouble Phone? And he’s primitive? And black? And ready to usher in George Orwell’s worst nightmare? What sort of hideous monster is this man who calls himself Barack Obama?
Ann Althouse, you are a certified genius. Thank you for your keen insight. Without your unquestionably objective analysis of this scurrilous attack on your preferred candidate we would never have seen the truth of Hillary Clinton’s attempted brainwashing. We all owe you a debt of gratitude.
Or at least a hearty belly laugh at the giant load of codswallop you’re foisting on us.
Do you think I’m exaggerating her case? Here she is, in the comment section of the same post:
But consider that a politician is seeking the greatest power in the word and is doing it in this ad by manipulating deep emotions in millions of people. If we aren’t to look closely at that with a critical eye, we don’t deserve democracy.
The word here is “critical”, not “paranoid”.
By the by, the Presidency is far from “the greatest power in the world”. Perhaps remembering that will bring her back from whatever fevered realm she inhabited today. I hope she comes back soon. She’s a much better blogger and an vastly sharper intellect than this post demonstrates.
Category: The 2008 Horse Race