Is it 3 a.m. at Klan Headquarters?

Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.


Orlando Patterson argues in today’s New York Times that there’s a racial subtext to Clinton’s 3 a.m. ad. I didn’t see it before and I’m not so sure I do now. But I don’t dismiss Patterson—one of my intellectual guide stars—lightly.

More after the jump…

Andrew Sullivan, for one, is persuaded that the ad is subliminally aimed at Latina and white women and that they fear black men in the night. But I didn’t see Willie Horton in that ad, or, not until Patterson connected what he sees as the dots:

“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.”

Patterson is not a racial hysteric, far from it, though it’s true to say that (my chum) Andrew loathes the Clintons with a highly literate passion; are they overreacting? Clinton still hasn’t regained my trust after her and Bubba’s race-baiting leading up to and including South Carolina, so I’m a lot more open to this interpretation than I would have otherwise been. More, Patterson argues that, before 3 a.m., people who voted for Obama, after the ad, they voted for Clinton. The causal connection seems a little attenuated, but it’s worth wondering; is Clinton still playing the race card against Obama? Against America?

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you'll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you’ll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate