View Story | 894 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
If you want to really give her the benefit of the doubt, you might argue that this kind of doctoring (darkening and increasing contrast) is somewhat common in political attack ads to make opponents look sinister. But it's especially inappropriate in this context, running against an opponent in her own party who's facing a racism obstacle already with the Muslim smears. There's a case you might make that this was incidental rather than deliberate race-baiting, but there is absolutely no doubt the video was doctored.
Also, regardless of the color question, she's blatantly lying about his subcommittee.
--- "If Obama is the nominee, we are doomed." -Rush Limbaugh "Always speak before Barack Obama, not after Barack Obama." -Olbermann
by Troutnut on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:07:37 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
There's really no doubt it was doctored
they really though that this would pass unnoticed nowadays. Sheesh.
by homerun on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:22:36 AM PDT
like Rove and the Republican ad against Harold Ford (is that his name? LOL... he is so irrelevant that I forgot his name) when he ran in 2006 against the white guy. Remember that one?
Hillary is showing me exactly why I didn't and I will never vote for her. She is a Republican and should switch parties NOW so she can run in the party that loves her tactics.
by victoria2dc on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:20:10 AM PDT
to forge cohesion among those who share the antagonism. There's no interest in the "target" or excluded populations. I compare it to people sharing a dislike of broccoli. That broccoli is good for you; that green is a nice color and that other people like the taste has nothing to do with the feeling of mutuality that some people share in hating it.
How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.
by hannah on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:57:46 AM PDT
Obama, not so much. Hillary is working hard to get herself right up there next to broccoli, though...
"No man should advocate a course in private that he's ashamed to admit in public." -George McGovern
by Arturo52 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:23:32 AM PDT
Broccoli never doctored anyone's photo for race-baiting purposes! Besides, I happen to love the stuff. :)
by shizzyhiznat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:09:08 AM PDT
eat his brocolli, and had the nerve to claim that, as President, he didn't have to!!
"You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -Abbie Hoffman
by Uthaclena on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:40:53 AM PDT
Using Republican tactics does not make one a Republican. Policy-wise, she is a Democrat. If by some perverse twist of fate she manages to get nominated, we have to remember that there are crucial, substantive differences between her and McCain.
I still would vote for her in November over McCain. But God, she seems determined to make the contemplation of that vote ever more painful.
Or hell. If not for the Supreme Court I might swing to Nader.
"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine
by arainsb123 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:17:00 AM PDT
...who were willing to use racial divisiveness to gain and keep power. We called them "Dixiecrats." During the long march from Hubert Humphrey's civil rights speech at the 1948 Convention in Philadelphia to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and beyond, they gradually defected to the Republican Party, like Strom Thurmond, or eventually saw the light and changed their ways, like George Wallace.
The price we paid for our principles was Nixon's Southern Strategy, but the price for the other way would have been our souls.
Damn it, my father, out of his own meager pocket, paid poll taxes for black voters in Texas in 1966. I will not stand for this vile shit in my party.
"No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." --MLK
by Progressive Witness on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:38:51 AM PDT
They both have
a lifetime of experience that [they] will bring to the White House.
tragically un-hip ..- .... --..-- / --- -.- .-.-.-
-5.88, -6.82
by Debby on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:07:16 AM PDT
the get some gain by using it to purge the party of DLC asswipes. Send a message - don't send us a damn Centrist - this is FDR's party and he wants it back.
by ronlib on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:19:02 AM PDT
As my mother used to say, "Handsome is as handsome does."
I approach all the TV and print ads the same way -- if a Republican would have made the ad, would it have been different? If not, then the ad is not a Democratic ad.
This system served me well in the Maryland primary, with the recorded phone calls from Al Wynn against Donna Edwards, and it serves me well when I see ads like this.
Not to mention that the subcommittee he heads deals with Europe, and Afghanistan is nowhere near being in Europe. So the text is as misleading as the photo.
One more reason for the Obama campaign. The problem we will have with politics as usual will be that it may take something akin to 'politics as usual' to get elected, so fundamental change will be that much harder. In order for a leopard to change its spots, it must still survive, and his spots make that more possible.
I'm not sure how this all will work out, but we need the struggle, we need the upheaval, we need the movement -- not just a campaign -- and we need the victory, the office, the power and authority to make the changes.
It's going to be a tough year (as if it weren't already a tough century -- they don't call these the 'oh-ohs' for nothing).
Ed
I do not belong to an organized political party -- I'm a Democrat. [Will Rogers]
by Ed Drone on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:05:23 AM PDT
Her tactics are. Isn't the fear always that fighting one enemies long enough means you will become them?
I think that the thing she is bragging about is what destroyed her. She was in the crucible of Right-Wing hate and scurrility for so long that it altered her drastically - and she now responds to threats with the same kind of horrible tactics that were used against her.
Say what you will, but she's always been the fastest learner and brightest student in school. The Republicans sent her to the Vince Foster Memorial School of Insane Lies and Rumors for a decade. She learned.
Circumstances rule men; men do not rule circumstances. -The Histories of Herodotus, Book 7, Ch. 49
by Louise on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:37:15 AM PDT
Not republican, circa 2008, but Republican nonetheless.
Sharing and Caring are for Commies! They should be illegal. Drop by and support the Human Agenda
by k9disc on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:22:30 AM PDT
Obama's record trends closer to the Republican side than Hillary. Here is a graph of all of Congress.
The political spectrum image is generated through a statistical analysis of the cosponsorship of bills in the 109th and 110th sessions of Congress. The analysis places representatives who cosponsor similar legislation closer together --- it does not rely on party affiliation information or any analysis of bill content. A deeper explanation is below the image. Note that members of Congress are placed vertically roughly alphabetically. Only the left-right axis means anything.
On the basis of the legislation that each actively supports, Clinton is only to the right of Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, and Frank Lautenberg. Obama is only slightly to the left of Joe Lieberwhore.
Of course, this is not their voting records, but rather an analysis of the issues they felt strongly enough about to sponsor or cosponsor legislation. But considering the number of factors that enter into Senate votes - horsetrading, compromise, various shades of gray that come down to a yes or no vote - it may be that this analysis gives a better glimpse of the candidates priorities.
Bill had Bimbo eruptions ... Crazy John has Rambo eruptions
by kbman on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:19:48 AM PDT
but there has been very little progressive legislation since Reagan.
And I'm not a huge Obama fan. I'd support him over HRC though.
I think pretty much all Democrats have turned into 'old school' Republicans over the last couple decades. It's sad that there are very, very few people that belong to the 'Party of the People' anymore.
The entire window of 'acceptable' political discourse here in the US has turned sharply to the right.
by k9disc on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:52:23 AM PDT
I just find it ironic that Obama is widely viewed as more progressive than Hillary when he's actually more of a centrist than she.
by kbman on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:05:00 AM PDT
Good voting record, not a good Democrat.
Wrong on the HUGE issues and puts her foot in her mouth on issues important to people and to the Democratic party, forcing us to deal with the rhetorical chickens that come home to roost.
Cheers!
by k9disc on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:00:57 PM PDT
Like Rove, they are convinced that they are so clever that you will never figure out their schemes. And even if you did, there is nothing you can do about it, puny little person!
The flaw in this thinking is that though they may be cleverer in a nasty way than any one individual, they are not smarter than the collective We that we, their opponents, form. Our insights and information and logic, taken together, are infinitely cleverer than any Penn-Rovian scheme.
Between the 50-State-strategy and the Kos-style use of the internet, the day of the Evil Strategy Overlord is done.
by Louise on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:31:26 AM PDT
in your face hypocricy is what makes one look tough, don't you know?
Obama!
by fisheye on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:28:55 AM PDT
...as she stated clearly in the debate his subcommittee has jurisdiction to address NATO force levels in Afghanistan...that is the fighting force she was referring to.
He didn't refute it...but said that instead he was busy campaigning and telling Americans what he would do in the future..I thought at the time...and still do it was his weakest point in the debate.
by elial on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:23:22 AM PDT
She doesn't say "that subcommittee has jurisdiction to address NATO force levels." She says "charged with the force of fighting al Qaeda." There's a huge difference between a minor role in overseeing the participation of our allies (the truth) and being in charge of fighting al Qaeda (Hillary's fiction).
by Troutnut on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:28:13 AM PDT
nefariousness of the color scheme than that argument...though some below seem to have reservations about that as well.
I think in this ad it is not unreasonable to skip over details regarding the structure of the senate committees and their authority. I would say it is common knowledge that he is not in charge of fighting al Qaeda.
The key to the ad are his own words in the debate...his reasons for why the committee has not met.
Does his response and rationale raise any concerns for you?
by elial on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:43:58 AM PDT
She's fundamentally misrepresenting the role of the subcommittee. I wish I could find this old news story, but I recall it said this was a subcommittee that rarely ever met unless there was a major event in foreign policy in Europe that required ongoing Senate involvement.
I would say it is common knowledge that he is not in charge of fighting al Qaeda.
But that's exactly what she's suggesting in her ad: that he's in charge of fighting al Qaeda and he's not showing up to do it. That's not just a lie of omission, it's a huge glaring in-your-face lie.
Obama's response doesn't concern me at all, except that I wish he'd been more mindful of how the sound bite could be abused by Hillary's dishonest smear artists. He has been a remarkably prolific senator compared to others during the campaign season, and he's been involved with the Foreign Relations Committee, which apparently conducts most of its business as a full committee rather than subcommittees. Most notably he worked with Dick Lugar on preventing nuclear proliferation, and he's been active on issues outside of Europe, too.
Hillary has provided no evidence that Obama in any way shirked his duties by not holding subcommittee hearings. So, no, I'm not concerned.
by Troutnut on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:22:37 AM PDT
...like a war?
by elial on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:53:49 AM PDT
Besides, what NATO force levels are going to be addressed? Do we have any American NATO forces in Iraq?
The true Ben Franklin quote from Poor Richard's Almanack is "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
by Andy30tx on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:03:11 AM PDT
specific to the regions in which we currently have wars.
by Troutnut on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:07:20 AM PDT
Link: http://www.motherjones.com/...
by jdmorg on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:25:08 AM PDT
"I wouldn't trade one stupid decision / for another five years of life." -- LCD Soundsystem
by tomjones on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:18:04 AM PDT
As she always tells campaign crowds, she is a member of the Senate armed services committee. In February the committee held two hearings on Afghanistan. On February 8, it focused on appropriations for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was a witness. Eight days later, the committee zeroed in on U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, holding a two-part hearing examining recent reports on Afghanistan. Key witnesses included senior officials from the State Department and the Pentagon responsible for the administration's Afghanistan policy. Clinton attended neither of these hearings. She was on the campaign trail.
As she always tells campaign crowds, she is a member of the Senate armed services committee. In February the committee held two hearings on Afghanistan. On February 8, it focused on appropriations for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was a witness. Eight days later, the committee zeroed in on U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, holding a two-part hearing examining recent reports on Afghanistan. Key witnesses included senior officials from the State Department and the Pentagon responsible for the administration's Afghanistan policy.
Clinton attended neither of these hearings. She was on the campaign trail.
h/t Andrew Sullivan.
by tomjones on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:16:38 AM PDT
which tell the truth we need to see.
Clinton-Bush-Lieberman are all part of the same party - and we're never going to know their agenda, but we aren't likely to benefit from it.
"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" - Abraham Lincoln
by LondonYank on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:07:24 AM PDT
We know their agenda well enough.
"It's the planet, stupid."
by FishOutofWater on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:22:39 AM PDT
"When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck to crush him." - FDR
by Chuckie on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:03:17 AM PDT
I'm not a fan of Hillary, but surely catching a picture of her smiling between two people we don't like is as manipulative as allegedly changing Obama's skin color.
John McCain: no health insurance for kids.
by AlanF on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:50:20 AM PDT
... about?
if i were standing that close to Caligula, it would require all of my self-restraint to avoid doing something that would get me beaten, tased, and arrested. i couldn't possibly be that happy in that situation. at the least, i would have a look of unconcealed disgust and contempt on my face.
the one thing that is clear in this photo is that she is in her element, one big happy family of sharks.
I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!
by UntimelyRippd on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:24:01 AM PDT
a picture like this is that this one never saw the light of day in an Obama campaign ad and, to the best of my knowledge never really spread across the internet.
I'm afraid the evidence points daily to Senator Clinton and/or her campaign resorting to the most despicable of tactics to discredit her opponent. How pathetic.
Only a few weeks ago I was proud the Democratic Party had two such marvelous choices. Now it's clearly down to one and my fingernails are bitten raw.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence" Doug McLeod
by artmartin on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:37:30 AM PDT
You mean Hillary Clinton and George Bush were once in a room together?
She must be a closet neocon!
Please. Grow up.
by evanaj on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:08:52 AM PDT
Her cover up on the Iraq Study Group erased any doubts I may have had that she is fully complicit in all the crimes of this administration, and any administration of hers will compound those crimes.
There will be no investigations. There will be no hearings. There will be no evidence. There will be no testimony. She will cover up for the criminals in the next eight years as she has in the past eight years.
by LondonYank on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:40:54 AM PDT
of Napalm in the morning?
Think of the constitution as a levee. Think of our democracy as New Orleans.
by Into The Woods on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:16:27 AM PDT
Please make some calls for Barack!
by sick of it all on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:48:50 AM PDT
That's what Hillary Clinton has done. Yes, I said Hillary herself. I will hold her personally responsible for this until she fires the people responsible for this. Yes, she must publicly FIRE someone for this or I BLAME HILLARY FOR THIS.
We the People ordained our Government to promote our General Welfare; If We the People want Health Care for All, Government should provide it.
by Jimdotz on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:55:09 AM PDT
Hillary says Hillary herself. That's what that "I approve this message" blurb means.
by catfood on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:49:32 AM PDT
The principle is NOT that "dark skin" is sinister. It's that elements you cannot see are sinister. People lurking in the shadows, outside the light, are sinister because they're unseen and unknown. You don't know what they're up to. So, take the brightness out of a photo, and you make the subject or scene appear more sinister. It has NOTHING to do with race.
The next time a campaign desaturates and lowers the brightness of a white candidate's portrait, will that campaign be accused of racism?
by beauchapeau on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:42:59 AM PDT
but discounting the racial undertones as an additional piece in some instances is sticking your head in the sand, IMO.
by sick of it all on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:03:17 AM PDT
darkness/dark skin and "shadowy". As long as shadows and some variations of skin tone are dark- it can be used to signify race.
And darkening the skin of a white opponent in an attack is probably racist- but doing it to a black opponent is definitely racist.
by Zulia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:40:21 AM PDT
no, no thank you.
Give me a f'ing banana - Eddie Izzard
by linc on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:10:19 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 894 comments