So wait, who's hung up on race? Dear sir, I invite you to step away from the advanced degree and go serve yourself a mug of reality. And the New York Times? I expect this sort of dunderheaded overly analytical cluelessness from academia. Those guys do have to churn out some high-grade ridiculousness to justify their existences. But there's no reason for the paper of record to indulge this sort of thinking.
Patterson also writes: "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."
Firstly, I'd bet that only 0.1% of the entire population of the universe missed the terrorism angle of this ad. Only someone with an advanced degree could gaze upon such a ham-handed retread of a tired idea and think "Oh, the danger is a black man lurking in the bushes." Secondly, if you're targeting a state that is predominantly white and Hispanic and your opponent is a black man, wouldn't it come off as rather foolish to put a black family in the ad?
As it is, the Hillary camp was burned for using the stock footage when it turned out that the little blonde devil who starred in the b-roll turned out to be a Barack Obama supporter!
That's not to say that the Hillary camp hasn't been playing the race card, but this sort of ridiculous ad criticism will only make people discredit the real argument to be made here.
Link via Instapundit.