Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 7, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY....Over the past few days there's been a huge fracas over accusations that Hillary Clinton's campaign deliberately darkened Barack Obama's face in an ad they ran in Texas. It started with a post over at Daily Kos on Tuesday and has been spread far and wide since then.

The problem is that it's impossible to compare color tones using YouTube clips because their compression process doesn't preserve color fidelity. However, FactCheck.org got hold of a high-quality recording of the ad as it appeared on station KCEN in Waco, Texas, and then compared it to MSNBC's streaming version of the debate from which the clip was taken. Here it is (the ad is on the left, the original debate is on the right):

In the ad version, Obama's face has been desaturated (i.e., there's less color tone) but it doesn't look any darker than the original. Nor has his face been widened to make Obama's nose more prominent, as the original posters also suggested. That was yet another YouTube artifact.

Darkening images is fairly standard practice in attack ads, and FactCheck suggests that the Clinton campaign may have done it here. But if they did, it's pretty damn subtle when you compare the original source material instead of stuff that's been sent through the YouTube mill.

Hillary Clinton is running a rough campaign, and I'm pretty unhappy with some of her tactics, but that's no reason to start hauling out all the old Clinton-hating artillery we came to know and love in the 90s. This ad isn't evidence of race-baiting or anything else. Time to move on.

UPDATE: Spencer Ackerman points out that Factcheck does, in fact, say the images in the ad are darker than the images in the debate footage: "When we compared the frames in the ad to frames from the debate video using the 'eyedropper' tool in Photoshop image-processing software, we found that the frames in the Clinton ad are uniformly darker."

I don't have the entire video to compare, but I did load the two frames above into Photoshop, and I got exactly the opposite result. When you look solely at brightness, not hue or saturation, the two images are mostly identical. Where they aren't, the frame from the ad is a little bit brighter, not darker. I just don't see any evidence of darkening at all.

Let's not go down the rabbit hole of 90s-era Clinton hatred, where any accusation that gets tossed out is presumed true unless it's conclusively proven otherwise. That ain't right. If someone has credible evidence of dirty tricks, based on high quality recordings of both videos, that's one thing. But until then, there's just nothing here.

Kevin Drum 2:22 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (80)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Looks to me like they desaturated the color to make him look sickly.

Posted by: jefff on March 7, 2008 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

Heh, actually I think he looks worse on the right because of the facial expression that is caught there.

Posted by: jefff on March 7, 2008 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

I distinctly remember the left blogosphere going apesh*t over the "kerning" scandal pushed by LGF, Powerline, Redstate, and others. There is plenty of other negative campaigning coming out of the Clinton camp that we can criticize without going down this road.

Posted by: Bush Lover on March 7, 2008 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

It is my opinion that the folks over at DailyKos seem to need to have at least one, if not more, daily apoplectic fit.

Perhaps it is ADHD, or maybe (creepy music swell in now), it's proof that the Obama campaign has ultimate control and is pulling their strings just to see how powerful a preznit Obama would be.

Posted by: optical weenie on March 7, 2008 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Here we go again. Cue rabid outraged Obama supporters, stage right.

Posted by: Oh, no, not again on March 7, 2008 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, color and aspect ratio (width) depends on your monitor settings, as well as compression/artifacting cause dby how you save or process the image.

A web page is not the same as a published piece of paper (which also has fidelity issues of its own).

I work in an office with artists, and if I get up right now and look at the same image on other people's monitors (and I do, regularly) I'll see a wide range of brightness, saturation and contrast. And we're professionals and still don't get it right, goddamn it.

Don't assume because one image you downloaded and looked at on your monitor, you're seeing it the same way everyone else is.

Posted by: anonymous on March 7, 2008 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

The quality of the video is pointless. He still only looks like someone who's gotten too much sun rather than a scary negro. The problem is that the message is factually correct.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 7, 2008 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

If this particular tactic works - i.e. "black is bad" - as in actual skin pigmentation then I see little hope for this country. It is disturbing that it is being taken so seriously on liberal blogs ...


Posted by: RS on March 7, 2008 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry Kevin but Factcheck themselves got fact checked:

LINK

Posted by: wetzel on March 7, 2008 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

In a previous thread, I laid this on her as well. However, in a future comment on that same thread, I linked the factcheck.org article, out of fairness. I lost some kool-aid credibility, however, but I'm pretty sure I'll be accused of it again, and all will be well.

Factcheck.org states that the charges of intentional darkening of Barack Obama is unsubstantiated.

Within their analysis, however, they conclude that unless there was new evidence, they could not definitively substantiate the charge.

"But without further evidence to the contrary, we see no reason to conclude that this is anything more than a standard attempt to make an attack ad appear sinister, rather than a special effort to exploit racial bias as some Obama supporters are saying."

It's a fair conclusion, and in my mind, you either take heed of the charge, or you do not. If you do, you face an uphill battle trying to prove it.

The way the Clintons have conducted their campaign, I can easily see why others would infer this an attack. So, I'm not going to cut them any slack. No sooner you start to give her the benefit of the doubt, then you see a picture of Obama in muslim garb. Politics.

Posted by: Boorring on March 7, 2008 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

As someone who actually does video editing, this Kos claim was completely baseless. Even in your example your comparing two types of compressed video, both captured on one screen and displayed on another.

There are so many things that can go wrong with video editing, including problems with the source quality, confusion about pixel aspect ratio issues, that it is impossible to conclude that this stuff is done on purpose, especially when you consider how bushleague campaign ads are in terms of quality and editing.

Campaign ads suck because professional editors and animators don't waste their time low rent jobs like this.

Same goes for the "RATS" controversy from 2000. That was a case of an untalented hack trying to mimic an overused animation technique.

Posted by: enozinho on March 7, 2008 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

What happens if Obama goes out in the sun this summer without sunscreen? Would he be race-baiting himself?

This "controversy" is so tired now.

Posted by: Oh, no, not again on March 7, 2008 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

"hauling out all the old Clinton-hating artillery "
================
It's been out and firing away for months now. Its use is shortsighted.

Posted by: david on March 7, 2008 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

Sen. Clinton could of showed some Good Will and Magnanimousness of spirit by accepting Ms. Powers' apology and moving on, knowing that some pretty heated things get said in the thick of the battle. Unfortunately, Sen. Clinton and her cronies had to show how Petty they are and call on Ms. Powers' resignation and now she is out of a job when the economy is so bad. A true person of goodwill would have smiled and said I accept your apologies. That would have been like doing the right thing. There is no hope in that woman or forgiveness Sen. Clinton shows how she really feels about a woman's plight, she could have cared less. She is not a pleasant spirit, and very ruthless. But, Sen Clinton, what goes around comes around and what you put out will come back. She has a lot of unpleasant things to look forward too. I guess that is why her life has been like it is, because underneath that exterior is a blackened heart of stone. When Obama wins contests, she comes out and does her stump speech and never congratulates Sen. Obama at all. And now we see that she did not even have compassion towards another women -- just cut her head off, she says! Put her out in the cold, let her suffer, what a mean-spirited women. I like the way Ms. Powers had the class to resign so as not to derail Sen Obama's campaign efforts. She quickly defused the bomb Sen Clinton hoped to throw. People will begin to see through these monstrous tactics of Sen Clinton and her Team.

We are now finding out, through the new information channel, the internet that Naftagate was the work of an initial call from the Clinton camp and Bush’s Canadian allie, Stephen Harper in an attemp to sabotage Obama and the democrats, which they did! Where's the Press on this? Click on the word "round-up"
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-truth-about.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home

Those of us who care for our Democracy for the vetting of truth and for fair and accurate reporting must call the main stream media to task. We can exercise our rights and our united power by calling CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. and ask them to begin to Vet Hillary Clinton and ask the important questions they should be asking her, like why she has not returned the money back to IPA, a company accused of sexually harrasing women? Why have they not further discussed Camp Clinton's initial call to Canada in the Naftagate controversy? Why do they continually bring up negative stories on Obama and soft question of her -- like the press is bought and paid for, yet again! It is an illusion that the press has been hard on her and soft on Obama. That is a traditional Camp Clinton spin and we all know they are the Masters of Spin (that means in essence they do not speak the truth).

As for Hillary’s superior foreign experience, Hillary did not think it important enough to read the National Intelligence Report and so she voted Yes on a War/Mistake that should have never been waged instead of having the intelligence and Judgment to say No, as other Senators did, and stated at the time, that we must not invade Iraq who did not bomb us on 911, but instead finish the job in Afghanistan. This makes her qualifyingly ineligible for the top job as commander-in-chief. Just because she surrounds herself with a bunch of generals does not make her qualified. A Photo-op does not eras her Iraq vote or exonerate it. Camp Clinton loves to stage phony events for the perception to make us think something that is not, is -- Masters of Spin & Hype and Delusion, often busing people in to their events to make the crowd look bigger than it is!

Then there is the current Camp Clinton Mantra, that may be the American public are having second thoughts about Barack Obama, beginning to doubt him because he did not win in Ohio. That is such spin. They won Ohio because they slandered him and made people doubt that he is a true Christian and some secret closet Muslim instead. They duped him on Naftagate, when they were the initial culprits, somehow Rezko's trial was pushed up to conincide with the primaries and the insinuation that Obama was a criminal too, just waitin to go down with Rezko. That is why people doubted him unfairly, because of old-time party politics, instituted by a "do anything and say anything mentality", no matter the cost to the person and the party.

Brotherhood (1937) - 552: Do you wish to be courageous? Then prove your courage in battling for Brotherhood. Assurances alone will not create courage, nor will praises affirm achievement. No preparations can be a guarantee of success. Courage is tested by unexpected obstacles. I have already spoken about courage; if I repeat it, it means that this quality is especially needed on the path to Brotherhood

Let the Vetting Begin!

Posted by: Angelight on March 7, 2008 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

If all this weren't so very dangerous for American democracy, I'd almost be inclined to laugh at the underlying absurdity: Is anyone really naive enough to believe the Clinton campaign needed to show any voter that Obama's not your run-of-the-mill male, caucasian politicians?

Posted by: S1 on March 7, 2008 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Coming from a campaign now deliberately and repeatedly suggesting that McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama, the idea that it would engage in a little subtle effort to play on people's residual subconcious fear of darker skinned peoples doesn't seem unlikely or unexpected.

Posted by: mirror on March 7, 2008 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Coming from a campaign now deliberately and repeatedly suggesting that McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama, the idea that it would engage in a little subtle effort to play on people's residual subconcious fear of darker skinned peoples doesn't seem unlikely or unexpected.

And the campaign did straight up lie about it being their video when it was right on website in its darker colorless form. Why lie if you don't think you've done something wrong?

Posted by: mirror on March 7, 2008 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting...but where are the cats!

Posted by: crimelord on March 7, 2008 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of the quality of campaign ads, this study of the 3am is interesting.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/3_am_tested.html

Posted by: enozinho on March 7, 2008 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK
….I'm pretty unhappy with some of her tactics…
1) Harry & Louise [Sen. Obama stood by an Ohio campaign mailer that mimicked Harry and Louise ads ] 2) promoting false Clinton quote "NAFTA a boon to the economy," 3) Obama aide Greg Craig on Hillary’s record "For seven years she aligned herself with Sen. McCain in putting all our eggs in General Musharaf's basket," Craig said. 4) Obama strategist references Whitewater. AXELROD: " I honestly -- with all due respect, I would think that the Clinton campaign would be the last person to be wanting to characterize any real estate transaction" 5) attacking Clinton tax records [Over 20 years of the Clintons' tax returns are in the public domain. Their tax returns since they left the White House will be made available on or around April 15] 6) AXELROD: "I think she is wrong. We've talked to reporters from -- and he's talked to reporters from both papers several times in several sessions about this,…" [ Chicago reporters: not so] 7) Sen. Obama Blasts Cheney's Energy Policy, Doesn't Mention He Voted For It 8) well, one could go on ... and on, but I'll end with Obama's absurd and pointless mocking John Edwards.
…. No sooner you start to give her the benefit of the doubt, then you see a picture of Obama in muslim garb… Boorring at 2:44 PM
Which no one has shown to be from any Clinton aide Posted by: Mike on March 7, 2008 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, this is what happens when her campaign starts losing the 'benefit of the doubt.'

Posted by: GOD on March 7, 2008 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, there really is something about the Clintons that attracts conspiracy theories like a magnet. Maybe her next play will be to drive Obama to distraction by getting the ghost of Vince Foster to haunt him.

But hey, I like conspiracy theories. So to keep it going I'm officially starting three rumors:

1. Obama uses skin lighteners.

2. Hillary is Bill's gay lover in drag.

3. McCain dies years ago and, with some help from the folks in the Disney World workshops, has been replaced by an automaton enhanced by taxidermy techniques.

Ok, so #2 is old hat, and #3 is probably true. At least I'm trying!

Posted by: alex on March 7, 2008 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,
You're wrong about bringing the 90's back because Clinton's campaign when there with the "Ken Starr" comments. Yes, let's talk about all the attendant silliness that would manifest itself if Hillary (and Bill) head back 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Besides the fact that she would almost certainly not have any sort of electoral mandate, every other day would bring some nonsense from the far right about the Clinton's. Some people might relish that, but I think a lot more are ready to say good riddance to bad rubbish (not calling the Clinton's trash, by the way, but I am saying that they bring a hefty amount of their own psychodrama and a Republican Smear Machine (overhauled and updated!) with them.

Posted by: Mike P on March 7, 2008 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

If all this weren't so very dangerous for American democracy, I'd almost be inclined to laugh at the underlying absurdity: Is anyone really naive enough to believe the Clinton campaign needed to show any voter that Obama's not your run-of-the-mill male, caucasian politicians? Posted by: S1

Unfortunately, for some voters over the age of 55 of so, yes. Ohio proved there is still a lot of latent racism among substantial segments of "Democratic" voters.

Don't be so naive. The Clintons are still smarting from Whitewater and every other right wing attack endured during Bill Clinton's presidency. Hillary Clinton so badly wants to be president that I don't think she'll leave too many options open, regardless of how unsavory they may be, to assure her nomination, in spite of the fact that McCain will probably fair better against her than Obama.

Look, if it weren't all about winning at any cost, why didn't Hillary Clinton run for senator from Arkansas of Illinois? They had no connections to the state of NY. It was as transparent (though not illegal) as Cheney claiming to be a resident of Wyoming when he ran for VP. His primary residence hadn't been there for at least fifteen years.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 7, 2008 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

Why do you play it so objectively all the time on things like this. You don't when it comes to poverty issues or income disparity.

If moderation is your goal I guess I sort of understand but wouldn't consistency be a more important goal in your blogging?

Disappointing blog post.

Posted by: Patrick Briggs on March 7, 2008 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

"that's no reason to start hauling out all the old Clinton-hating artillery we came to know and love in the 90s"

I'm afraid I don't see why not. By Clinton's own logic, we need to test our candidates in the primaries to see if they are vetted or not...to see if they'll be able to stand up to Republican attacks or not. If Clinton is willing to throw the kitchen sink at Obama, why should he then not feel liberated to do the same right back at her?

I've got news for Hillary Clinton's supporters: Hillary Clinton is NOT VETTED, not even close. For every rumor, scandal, or impropriety that exists for Obama, there are a hundred for Hillary Clinton. By the time the Obama campaign is finished with her, she'll be lucky if she can hang on to her Senate seat in 2012. There's THAT much dirt on her.

As far as most Democrats are concerned, this race is OVER. There is simply no way the Clinton campaign can overcome Obama's pledged delegate lead, and the superdelegates are not going to risk setting off a riot in Denver, not to mention the implosion of the Democratic Party, to give Clinton the nomination when she has not earned it according to the rules of the nominating contest. If Hillary Clinton wants to make a SUICIDE BID for the nomination, she's welcome to try, but her opponents will do everything in their power to stop her for the good of the party and the good of the nation.

Posted by: astrodem on March 7, 2008 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

This shows how inept the Clinton campaign is. They should have also changed his suit to red and added some horns on his head.

Posted by: AJ on March 7, 2008 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II: Ohio proved there is still a lot of latent racism among substantial segments of "Democratic" voters.

So we can infer that anyone who didn't vote for Obama didn't do so because they're a racist. I'm glad that we've moved beyond identity politics.

Posted by: alex on March 7, 2008 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

I think they intentionally changed the color, but not to make him look "blacker", more to just make him look drab and sickly. That's pretty standard campaign ad stuff though, nothing to really get too angry about.

I'm more angry about this quote from Hillary:

On a "do-over" in Florida and Michigan, which held nominating contests that broke Democratic Party rules
I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

She's categorically saying that she wants the FL delegates seated as is, with no do-over.....


Posted by: Joe on March 7, 2008 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Seems like there are a lot fewer posts today by the rabid outraged Obama supporters (ROOS). And only one claim that anyone not supporting Obama is racist.

Posted by: mario on March 7, 2008 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

When making political commercials, if you want to make you opponent to look bad you bleed the image toward black and white. That seems to be what has been done here.

It's campaign SOP.

Posted by: Chris Brown on March 7, 2008 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

What the HELL?

The "fact-check of Fact Check", has been up for at least a day, on Daily Kos. You basically have just admitted, you don't even READ Kos regularly.

Either that, or you are simply pushing the "common wisdom".

May I say, I'm disappointed.

Posted by: JC on March 7, 2008 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Mike, regarding your points, here's the run-through, using your same perspective:


  1. Stop whining.

  2. Stop whining.

  3. Stop whining.

  4. Stop whining.

  5. Stop whining.

  6. Stop whining.

  7. Stop whining.

  8. Stop whining.

…. No sooner you start to give her the benefit of the doubt, then you see a picture of Obama in muslim garb… Boorring at 2:44 PM

"Which no one has shown to be from any Clinton aide" - Mike

Of course, and when we finally nail down who exactly was behind that innuendo that Senator McCain fathered an illegitimate black child, then we can blame them with righteous anger.

...what's the verdict on that, anyways, eight years out?

I could, of course, debate with you on the fine merits of each of those points you made out, and whether those points note a divergence from what, we all know, is standard truthful discourse from both sides of the aisle (sarcasm).

But that would be useless, because it's been done here many, many times, and the end result is the same. I've given her the benefit of the doubt before, but I don't cut her any slack anymore. If this is politics, then the points (and I went through each of them) that you brought up are useless. If this is politics, it isn't about winning hearts and minds, just about innuendo as fact. Fine, I'm game, but spare us your false outrage. Barack Obama has the delegate lead, and Hillary Clinton needs unrealistic outcomes for each of the remaining states in order to swing things her way. It is in her best interest, to go negative. It is in her best interest, as it always was, to torpedo Obama's November election effort, and offer herself a venue in 2012.

Posted by: Boorring on March 7, 2008 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

Shock me that the tin-foilish Kossacks would start some dumb rumor like this.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on March 7, 2008 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

So we can infer that anyone who didn't vote for Obama didn't do so because they're a racist. I'm glad that we've moved beyond identity politics. Posted by: alex

I have moved beyond identity politics (and perhaps you as well), but a lot of voters in Ohio, particularly older than 50, apparently haven't.

I think we will know we have moved beyond "identity politics" the day a Green, pro-Palestinian, Jewish African-America lesbian is elected president.


* * * * *


http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/06/election-2008-crossing-the-archie-bunker-divide/

Election 2008: Crossing The Archie Bunker Divide?
By: Christy Hardin Smith Thursday March 6, 2008 12:00 pm

Bloomberg has an intriguing theory regarding the split in votes between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the OH and TX primaries -- let's call it "the Archie Bunker divide."

The white, blue-collar voters personified by the 1970s fictional television character cost Obama yesterday. His Democratic presidential rival, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, beat him 54 percent to 44 percent in industrial Ohio, and 58 percent to 40 percent in heavily Catholic Rhode Island.

In Ohio's 10th district of Cuyahoga County, a suburban enclave on Cleveland's west side that includes a large population of Polish-Americans, Clinton trounced Obama 61 percent to 37 percent, according to exit polls. In the state's Belmont County, an economically depressed Appalachian border area that is predominantly white, she had a 50-point lead over Obama, the first black candidate to have a shot at the White House.

"Race played a significant factor in Ohio,'' said Cuyahoga County Commissioner Timothy Hagan, who supported Obama. "These people are not necessarily bigots, but the image they see every day of black America is drugs, crime, guns and violence.''.... (continues)

Posted by: Jeff II on March 7, 2008 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

When did the Clintons ever get the benefit of the doubt? He arrived in Washington without it and she has never had it.

Do you have to pay the press extra to receive it?

Posted by: searcy on March 7, 2008 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

All I know for sure is that the version of the ad on Clinton's own website has Obama looking much darker and wider-faced than the MSNBC debate clip.

Given that nearly every negative ad for 20 years has been darkened, why would this one be the exception?

Posted by: JD on March 7, 2008 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin - Joseph Cannon debunks the Kos meme quite thoroughly here.

Posted by: Arachnae on March 7, 2008 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II: I have moved beyond identity politics (and perhaps you as well), but a lot of voters in Ohio, particularly older than 50, apparently haven't.

That's speculation, as is the article you linked to. In all fairness I don't think that Obama has engaged in any identity politics, but unfortunately some of his supporters do. Didn't vote for Obama? Must be racism. Similarly there are those who accuse anyone not voting for Clinton of being sexist.

I'm not saying that race and sex don't have an effect - I'm sure they do. But how much of an effect is unknowable - most people won't admit to not voting for someone because of their race or sex. As a result, people rely on anecdotes to see what they want to see.

I think we will know we have moved beyond "identity politics" the day a Green, pro-Palestinian, Jewish African-America lesbian is elected president.

That would prove nothing. It's well known that Green, pro-Palestinian, Jewish African-American lesbians always watch out for their own.

Posted by: alex on March 7, 2008 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

Angellite - Would you like some kookies with your koolaid?

I hope you're intellect doesn't represent the majority that youth has today.

Posted by: optical weenie on March 7, 2008 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

When did the Clintons ever get the benefit of the doubt? He arrived in Washington without it and she has never had it. Do you have to pay the press extra to receive it? Posted by: searcy

Since Nixon and the "Southern strategy" and the rise of the "religious" Right, I think you have to pay them if you're a Southern Dem. Carter went through the same shit. But you'll note that full-on peckerwood Southern Rethugs get a pass.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 7, 2008 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

optical w. --
Angellite posted the identical post on the earlier Power thread.

Just FYI....

Posted by: Sarah on March 7, 2008 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton is running a rough campaign .. but that's no reason to start hauling out all the old Clinton-hating artillery...

—Kevin Drum

Bullshit. Grow a pair. This skunk -- and her pathetic spouse -- are going to destroy dem chances in the fall and tear the party apart.

Posted by: Econobuzz on March 7, 2008 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

"Barack Obama has the delegate lead, and Hillary Clinton needs unrealistic outcomes for each of the remaining states in order to swing things her way... It is in her best interest, as it always was, to torpedo Obama's November election effort, and offer herself a venue in 2012."

Of course! Why didn't I realize that? How could I be so stupid?

After all, just because the total popular vote in the primaries and caucuses is about even; and just because the super-delegate-count difference is only around 110+; and just because the eventual super-delegate outcome is impossible to predict; and just because Obama--like Clinton--cannot win =without= super-delegates, why am I so dense as to think this race is only over in the minds of those who want it to be over?

Why don't I understand that =everybody= feels about Senator Clinton the way Booring does. What is the matter with me? Why don't I grasp how evil Clinton is? Booring grasps it.

And why don't the 50 percent of Democrats who've voted for her grasp it either? Why don't they see, like Booring, that not only can't she win, she's a borderline felon for even staying in the race.

Who the hell does she think she is, the corrupt, whiny, two-faced racist sow--sticking around just to ruin Obama's chances so she can run in 2012?

What an insight! The scales have been ripped from my eyes--I sink to my knees in gratitude. After all, look at the historical record. Until now, every Democratic presidential candidate who's attracted half the popular vote in primaries and caucuses, and who's within 100-plus super-delegates has dropped out and not stayed in the race simply to ruin the chances of his opponent. Oops. Not.

Let's try Stanley Crouch's flip test: if the numbers were reversed, does anybody believe that Booring would be fulminating that Obama was staying in the race only to hurt Clinton, and that, by implication, he should drop out?

What's that I hear? Oh, silence.

Posted by: Mezzanotte on March 7, 2008 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

LOL!
Not quite silence...


Posted by: Sarah on March 7, 2008 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

"This skunk -- and her pathetic spouse -- are going to destroy dem chances in the fall and tear the party apart."

No, Econobuzz, the facts are that Obama's been coasting along in a powderpuff campaign. He's gotten outrageously favorable coverage from 90% of the media. And yet he's still managed to blow it big-time by actually telling a right-wing, pro-Bush Canadian gov't and several trade associations that he was just lying to the putz-es in Ohio. In the face of such shocking ineptitude the smart Democrats have realized that this guy's not ready for a real election campaign against the Rethug sharks.

BTW, here's the latest from the Globe and Mail on the NAFTA kerfuffle:

"After being asked whether Canadian officials asked for — or received — any briefings from a Clinton campaign representative outlining her plans on NAFTA, a spokeswoman for the prime minister offered a response Friday. 'The answer is no, they did not,' said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler."

Full G&M story at http://tinyurl.com/3ypkzk

Posted by: otherpaul on March 7, 2008 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Just my 2 cents' worth of geekery (geekitude?), as someone that used to work in a TV factory:

NTSC = Never The Same color.


Posted by: thersites on March 7, 2008 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

Yet again, the defense of something -- in this case defense against an attack that was never made -- underscores how insecure about Obama's candidacy his supporters are. If they think his race is such a high negative that some bit of dumbassery like this would hurt him, why do they think that a majority of Americans would vote for him at all? He's black. If Americans won't vote for a black man, an ad like this doesn't mean anything. If they will, an ad like this -- guess what? -- doesn't mean anything.

Apparently the people at KOS think there's some kind of blackness threshold, and Obama is just on the right side of it, but shade him any darker and oops! there goes the presidency. I don't know what's scarier, the idea that they think this, or the idea that they might be right. But if they are right, why are they, not just supporting him, but fanatically supporting him?

Posted by: MG on March 7, 2008 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK
"whine, whine, whine" - Mezzanotte

Math. It's relentless.

What's that I hear? Silence.

Posted by: Boorring on March 7, 2008 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

LOL yeah isn't it?

BO may be leading by perhaps 1% in pledged delegates by the convention. Probably less after PA.

Posted by: on March 7, 2008 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

The popular vote is incredibly close. I think the only way Hillary gets out is if Obama approaches her (quietly) about running on the same ticket and makes concessions on health care. If Hillary could run as his veep and take the front line on universal health care, I think that's an offer she would consider.

I know, I know, she's an entitled, power-hungry bitch. I KNOW.

Posted by: Caitlin on March 7, 2008 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting stats here from SurveyUSA.
They both win the electoral college, but differently. And it's incredibly close.

Make a unified ticket seem like the best path...

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/surveyusa_hillary_and_obama_wi.php

Posted by: Sarah on March 7, 2008 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

Funny, but I thought the picture on the right was the one the complaint was about. If they did anything with that picture, it made him look better, not worse.

Posted by: jussumbody on March 7, 2008 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

*

Posted by: mhr on March 7, 2008 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

Let's have some examples of the candidates appealing to voters because they're a women/black...

Posted by: Sarah on March 7, 2008 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

I work in visual effects (post) and that ad is just bad color correction. Nothing looks malicious about it.

Posted by: Matt on March 7, 2008 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

I read the Fact Check article carefully. They concluded that the darkening was intensional but the racism was unsubstanciated/

racism is always unsubstanciated unless someone uses the N-word.

When the Republicans darkened harold Ford's face to make him look more sinister we all knew it was an appeal to racism. So there is no reason to use in defense of Hillary the same excuses that wingnuts used to defend the Republican ad.

Posted by: wonkie on March 7, 2008 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

no, haul out the artillery. hillary mcclinton is an asshole.

Posted by: mencken on March 7, 2008 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

Racism and race-baiting are extremely serious sins and extremely serious charges. That some folks at DailyKos are willing to hurl such charges so casually reflects extremely poorly on them.

Posted by: Steve on March 7, 2008 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

The cahrges were not flung lightly., A link to Fact Check was up in a pro-Clinton diary for most of yesterday.

It's a Rove tactic to shit on people and then tell them that they have no right to be mad.

Posted by: wonkie on March 7, 2008 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

Honestly.

Posted by: Radix on March 7, 2008 at 11:54 PM | PERMALINK

This whole thing is completely nuts. If one pic is supposed to make Barack look more African American, or more sickly, or whatever, it's infintessimally so-- like, no one would give a damn about it unless anyone started harping on it and pointing it out, or probably even notice it. Millions of Americans make themselves look a lot worse in their home-movies every year by not understanding how to use their new video cameras correctly before they take them to a party or on vacation for the first time.

This whole "controversy" really makes me sick.

Posted by: Swan on March 8, 2008 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

This makes me feel like Adolf Hitler is somewhere out there, in control, and dictating to people what to think.

Posted by: Swan on March 8, 2008 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

@Booring,

"No sooner you start to give her the benefit of the doubt, then you see a picture of Obama in muslim garb"

God, what nonsense! It has been proven that Drudge got it from the right-wing site, THE FREE REPUBLIC:
http://andrys1.blogspot.com/2008/02/source-of-obama-photo-from-kenya.html

Even if there wasn't absolute proof that Drudge got it from this site there was no proof whatsoever that the Clinton camp had sent Drudge anything, especially since Drudge not only refused to name this supposed "staffer" but also clearly said he "obtained" it not that someone "sent" it to him.

You people are unbelievable. You're forcing Clinton to do the impossible: prove a false negative.

@wonkie: Actually, you're wrong. These charges are making an absolute mockery of racism.

Posted by: Davidson on March 8, 2008 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINK

Jeff II, WTF does this mean????
"Hillary Clinton so badly wants to be president that I DON'T THINK SHE'LL LEAVE TOO MANY OPTIONS OPEN, regardless of how unsavory they may be, to assure her nomination, in spite of the fact that McCain will probably fair better against her than Obama."

Posted by: turtledove on March 8, 2008 at 1:02 AM | PERMALINK

This will help Hillary. People are sick and tired of this politically correct lunacy, and liberals constantly screaming racism.

Posted by: Jonesy on March 8, 2008 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK

alex: "Hillary is Bill's gay lover in drag."

But how can that be, when Chelsea's father was Janet Reno?

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 8, 2008 at 2:07 AM | PERMALINK

Isn't it a bit racist to think a blacker Obama is a more negative Obama in the first place?

I read someone on Kos saying that newspapers should always try to make black people look lighter so they aren't accused of racism.

An aside . . . some newer digital cameras have "face recognition" functions that allow you to focus on faces when they aren't in the center of the image. I'm curious how racist the software is. Say you have a crowd of people spread over a significant distance. Will the camera focus on the white guy in the back and leave all the black folks in the near field out of focus? Is there a dial for race?

Posted by: B on March 8, 2008 at 2:47 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin: "Let's not go down the rabbit hole of 90s-era Clinton hatred ..."

... but rather, take a pleasant stroll down the misty shores of timeless anti-Clinton lunacy, to the sand dunes where Bill and Hillary disposed of Jimmy Hoffa's body back in '75.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 8, 2008 at 4:49 AM | PERMALINK

funny how some prominent supposedly democratic outlets, like DailyKos, complain incessently about how Clinton is damaging Obama's standing in the general election and possbily fragmenting the party, yet they constantly attack her with bs charges of out right racism. Talk about an effort to split the multi-racial democratic party

Posted by: pj on March 8, 2008 at 6:47 AM | PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton IS GOP Lite with an dash of Clintonian slipperiness. If she is the Democratic nominee, I'm voting 3rd party.

Posted by: anon on March 8, 2008 at 6:55 AM | PERMALINK

Here is the Afghanistan.

Tis worse than Iraq.

Hillary wants MORE in Afghanistan.

Congresional hearings 911'O were fraud.

Bush Hampered becomes is administration Cash---- closet spit apocalyp.

Afghanistan is the ultimate insult today to Martin and family King dream.

You cannot judge a woman well on really her face.

Barack is using tones cope.

And a man wears cross rags in order to sumetimes.

Afghanistan secondly is the place where we are not focusing on freedom because the lady stands for it all, although to stay fair she is Windsor Rodham Merkle.

Posted by: bittylake on March 8, 2008 at 7:11 AM | PERMALINK

The add image isn't darkened, it is, as you say, desaturated, which leaves Obama looking a bit sickly. The real color shows vibrant life or a healthy man while the add indicates a faded, anemic, unhealthy person.

Perhaps Clinton would like to see Obama release adds that use related video trickery to enhance the lines and wrinkles on Hillary's face while also making HER appear somewhat anemic or perhaps even jaundiced...is she having liver problems?! Too sickly, old, and dying to be President! I find the DLC/Carville/Rovian nonsense very VERY unattractive and disgusting.

Clinton is doing everything she can to make me NOT vote for her if she is a nominee. I hate assholery.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on March 8, 2008 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

Let's assume the techies are right, and the Obama advert flap is about quick and inept ad creation and not an intentional effort to make her opponent appear to be more black than he is.

What's interesting to me is that a great number of blogging progressives were prepared to believe that she is capable of having done it on purpose. That it was plausible that she would do such a thing. I don't doubt the Clintons are difficult, driven people, but even as an Obama supporter I have a hard time believing they play THAT roughly.

But that's how a good number of people view her. And that, to me, is the problem.

There is so little policy difference between them, and he so much more effective a speaker than she, that Senator Clinton is now reduced to proving she can play hardball politics better than Senator Obama can. Surely that's not what this election wishes to be about, and surely that's not going to help a Democrat -- either Democrat -- into the White House.

And the 3 a.m. phone thing? How old was Bill Clinton when the phone started ringing at his bedside?

Posted by: Shocko from Seattle on March 8, 2008 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

I would not have beieved it six months ago. I do now based on her behavior. Herr campaign leaked the Somali picture and the Bill Ayers donation info. She's been flogging the Rezko thing endless, but Obama hasn't said one word about Hsu{and shouldn"t). Now herr sstaffers are referring to us, half the Democratic pary as "latte drinkers: who :never had a hardscrabble life."


It isn't unreasonalbe to draw conclusions bsed on a pattern of behavior. If she's going to campaign like she's got Rove for an advisor then she's going to show that she merits her bad reputation. Natural consequence of her choices.

Posted by: wonkie on March 8, 2008 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

See Kevbo, you still have readers that believe Clinton sent those Somali pictures. All because Drudge claimed someone in the Clinton camp sent them and folk like you and Josh over at TPM ran with it.

For those of you who still believe those Somali pictures were sent by Clinton, she denied it and Drudge has offered nothing more than his original statement, "someone in the Clinton camp sent me this picture". Now before you decide to give Drudge that much power you might want to consider what his Obama offerings might be, if Obama should win the nomination.

Posted by: Radix on March 8, 2008 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry Wonkie, but after the charges of racism made by the Obama camp, before the South Carolina primary, it's hard to believe that anyone still believes Obama isn't a vicious campaigner himself.

Posted by: Radix on March 8, 2008 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

God, what nonsense! It has been proven that Drudge got it from the right-wing site, THE FREE REPUBLIC: Posted by: Davidson

The Drudge Report is a right wing site as well.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 8, 2008 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

The Hillary haters should stop playing the race card making Obama the victim. If he gets the nomination the Republicans are likely to mop the floor with him, He must have known what he would get into. He had it too good for too long. At the moment it looks like most of the pundits are black and of course they favor Obama, it is only natural.
He is enough politician to play the victim if it is opportune.
Obama supporters will call Hillary every name under the sun and really cry foul when their guy gets a little dirt thrown his way. You people quit your whining. You can give you should be able to take.

Posted by: Renate on March 8, 2008 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINK

Whenever things get a bit shaky for him, the Obama campaign and his surrogates cry racism. Lose NH - the Bradley effect Lose TX & OH - racist whites and Mex-Ams. It's designed to shore up support among liberals who should be re-examining Obama's health and economic policies. You scream race so no one looks at class.

When a Clinton supporter votes based on their class interests they are labeled ignorant or racist. When an Obama supporter votes based on their class interests they are labeled progressive or post-racial.

Posted by: upscale, downscale on March 9, 2008 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly