RECENT POSTS
- White House Study Looks at Job Creation in Illinois if Gitmo Prisoners Transferred There
- President Obama: Asia Trip Helped Usher in a New Era of American Engagement
- Secretary Sebelius Celebrates the Tenth Anniversary of National Adoption Day
- Organizing for America Targets Sarah Palin
- Obama Administration Starts to Publicly Raise Issue of Detained US Citizen Xue Feng
- President Obama Gives Interview (of Sorts) to Dissident Cuban Blogger
- "You Guys Make a Pretty Good Photo Op," President Obama Jokes to Troops at Osan Air Base
- Did the Chinese Government Crack Down on an Obama Interview?
- Our Trip to the DMZ
- President Obama Greets U.S. Troops in South Korea, Wraps Up Week in Asia
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Liberal Bloggers: Clinton Campaign Darkened Obama's Skin in New TV Ad
March 04, 2008 5:15 PM
Some liberal blogs are questioning whether in Hillary Clinton's new TV ad attacking Barack Obama for not holding any subcommittee hearings on Afghanistan, he has been given the same treatment TIME magazine once infamously gave OJ Simpson -- his skin being made artificially darker.
The question was first raised by a diarist on DailyKos who asked readers to look at the original debate clip of Obama saying he hasn't held hearings because he's been too busy running for president and compare it to Obama's hue in the new Clinton ad, which you can watch HERE.
Americablog's John Aravosis screen-grabs three images of Obama from the debate and compares it to the Clinton ad. (Which to be fair, is dark and foreboding throughout the ad.)
Aravosis writes: "It just keeps happening again and again and again. The Clintons keeps doing things, saying things, that sound awfully racist. And we're to believe that this, the - what? 8th, 10th time? - this has happened is again just a coincidence."
I do wonder what the reaction would be were the McCain campaign to darken Obama's skin in a TV ad. Front-page of the New York Times, perhaps? (Recall the democRATS ad?)
Asked for comment, Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson said, "this is a bogus assertion. Ads look different based on software, screens, computers, television, etc."
The Obama campaign did not have any comment -- on or off the record.
Anyway -- check it out for yourself. What do you think?
- jpt
March 4, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (136)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
We have three candidates whom I will refer to as dumb, dumber, and dumbest, does it really matter what color they are? You get to decide which one is which. If they are the best this country has to offer it just goes to show how far the state of education has fallen in this country. I am referring to the education of people who would even consider voting for any of these unqualified individuals. Let's face it if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin were to run for elected office today they would not garner 10 percent of the vote because they all had deeply held religious beliefs. This shows how successful the socialists and communists have been in marginalizing religion in this country. Many people today now view a leader who has strong religious beliefs negatively. We reap what we sow and by taking God out of every aspect of public life we invite unprincipled, unscrupulous people like Hilary Clinton to fill the void.
Posted by: swann2001 | Apr 1, 2008 4:02:22 PM
The average American is ill informed! This individual is an ignorant at best, Jake Tapper does not know. We YES WE the product of mixture, for I am Chinese, Jewish Portuguese and African DO NOT think in terms of race.
Race should never be categorized! America is an infant, a society and culture that believes that all and in all there is a practical justification or an inner purpose that is driven by a practical justification for it's existence.
Perhaps, I would better be understood if I spoke in my first language instead of my 7th, get educated because you don't have one, at best you have receive training and sets of instruction that you are to exercise in achieving that wish you live for, the instantaneous gratification.
Racism begins to exist when you attempt to categorize things by race, regardless of the outcome... when you walk that path you are a racist! your dumb experts, perhaps can chew on that for the next century. Mind you I only got my Masters in Biosystems engineering when I was 20.
You have lived when you have been born, you are a racist when you think, categorize in terms of race. Clear? As this been understood? or should I continue to elaborate on the alphabet. Just in case you missed, which you probable did "somethings begin to exist when they are conceived, enter the mind or the mind follows a path!"
Posted by: Cristo | Mar 7, 2008 2:34:35 PM
Has it really come to this? Are Democrats arguing because some might be less inclined to vote for Obama if his skin appears slightly darker? Somehow we are expected to believe that Americans are ready to elect a black man President as long as his complexion isn’t too dark. The fact that people assume this in a Democratic primary shows how shallow and prejudiced current day Democrats really are.
Why can’t we spend more time discussing issues that matter and less time arguing about political cheap trickery. Why not talk about school choice? This is something that really impacts lower income and inner city families. How about Social Security reform? Maybe they could spend some time explaining how they would control health care costs under their ‘health care for everyone’ plans. The law if supply and demand dictates that increasing demand without increasing supply will cause prices to rise. Stealing a line from Tom Cruise, maybe they missed the day they taught economics at Yale and Harvard. I won’t be supporting a Democrat because both of the likely nominees are socialists. It really doesn’t matter what race or gender they are.
Posted by: Dan | Mar 7, 2008 10:49:38 AM
"one would think it would be the Republicans but its not it the bonehead liberals"
If you've ever doubted evil politicians are evil politicians, no matter which side of the aisle they live on, you need not doubt any longer.
Posted by: Karma | Mar 7, 2008 12:53:43 AM
If she can't win on her own merit - she needs to drop out of the race, because she is going to become the most hated woman of 2008, knocking Ann Coulter out of first place
Posted by: let | Mar 6, 2008 3:22:23 PM
When is this going to end? I'm blaming RACIST Ohio for forcing us to deal with even MORE Hillary in the coming months. Ohio can fall off the face of the earth unless they vote Republican. I was hoping that they would be the sensible people to put an end to this.
Why would Hillary do this? Who cares what Obama did "wrong". What is Hillary Clinton trying to insinuate?
She has enough work to do in explaining her health care agenda. She's wasting our time instead.
Posted by: carmenincali | Mar 6, 2008 2:31:17 PM
Hillary is the same crook she was when she stole in the Whitewate incident. It seems everyone has forgotten that she wouldn't produce needed papers then, also. When they mysteriously appear, her explanation always changes.
Posted by: janice | Mar 6, 2008 2:14:46 PM
Hillary is the same crook she was when she stole in the Whitewate incident. It seems everyone has forgotten that she wouldn't produce needed papers then, also. When they mysteriously appear, her explanation always changes.
Posted by: janice | Mar 6, 2008 2:13:30 PM
Nancy Reagan for Commander in Chief!
She also was First Lady for eight years, and has more life experience than you know who.
Posted by: WayBelted | Mar 6, 2008 1:11:40 PM
If we think this nation has not recial problems then why 95% of blacks vote for Obama?
Posted by: george | Mar 6, 2008 10:30:43 AM
I know a few things about photo editing, and you can't tell me this was just bad or different lighting. They are both from the same debate. ALL of the dark tones in the retouched photo are darker, including his tie (which makes it obvious). Yet his shirt is actually whiter. You don't get that from just "bad lighting". If it were, his shirt would be darker too.
But then again, black, white, lesbian...what do I care. It's still one socialist attacking another socialist. Good. And Mrs. Bill will just do what she always does; deny it until it is obvious it's true, then blame some random staffer.
Posted by: JP | Mar 6, 2008 9:34:01 AM
The accusation is a complete lie, leveled by the technically incompetent.
Posted by: Joseph Cannon | Mar 6, 2008 7:06:41 AM
These two pictures were taken either with a different lense, with different lighting adjustments on the camera, or just in different lighting on the subject. They are not the same picture, and there likely was no intentional darkening of Senator Obama's skin. Actually, the shade and lighting on the "darker" picture is complimentary to Obama. It seems someone is just trying to make trouble in interpreting the difference in lighting in the two pictures as being anything more than a variation in lighting. This was most likely not due to any intention to put Obama in "bad light."
Posted by: Kathryn Bailey | Mar 6, 2008 1:13:39 AM
well tweedle dumm is calling tweedle dee racist my oh my is that a qualifing action for president?, This is a childish distraction for the sheeple to argue over while the real problems that this nation is facing will need more leadership than that ship of fools will ever provide There is no discussions on eceonimic wreck that we are in no words of wisdom on our Oil problems no comments about world events that will drag us into a major war What we all worry about is a dark casting on a photo I am worried about what this mess will do to our countrys survival not what cast a photo is.
Posted by: erheault | Mar 6, 2008 12:56:05 AM
BlindedbytheLight:
I appear to be misreading you. I still don't quite get what you are saying. I don't know where the claim originated and I certainly don't fault ABC for reporting on activity in the blogosphere.
If the bloggers got their marching orders from Obama's campaign, then my comment is directed at Obama's campaign. If the bloggers are freelancing, then my comment is directed at them. If a blog is getting a lot of activity and is stirring up emotion among many people online, I think that's worth reporting.
We Republicans don't really care who the nominee is, although some would prefer Clinton. I think they're both trying to make the United States a socialist country, and I am against that, so I have no political agenda with regard to this specific issue.
It does seem to me that talking about race in general in the context of the presidential contest reveals that the people talking about it are stuck in a time warp. I really believe most Americans could not care less what color you are. I really think most people are past all that.
But then, the Democrats have always been slow on the issue. After all, FDR employed strict segregation at Warm Springs, and Woodrow Wilson caused racist policies to be employed. This notion that the Democrats are the party of choice for African Americans is really a joke, you know. The Democrats have always been against recognizing all Americans as brothers and sisters.
So shame on them for continuing to use race to gain power by trying to capitalize on the few people who still are afraid of people who may look different than they do.
Posted by: Yupdatsme | Mar 5, 2008 11:23:52 PM
Yupdatsme:
My point...ABC picked this "story" up on their own, I don't think there was any complaints.
After-all it "IS" Corporate Media with an agenda!!
Posted by: BlindedbytheLight | Mar 5, 2008 10:58:05 PM
BlindedbytheLight:
My comment is not directed at ABC, but at the source or sources of the complaint.
Posted by: Yupdatsme | Mar 5, 2008 10:44:39 PM
Yupdatsme:
Who is playing the victim? ABC picked this story up from bloggers.
Corporate *owned* Media wins if Hillary or McCain become president. Whose side do ya think they are on, Obama's?
Posted by: BlindedbytheLight | Mar 5, 2008 10:37:31 PM
Most Americans don't care what color you are. To raise this issue is to play the victim and insults all people of goodwill.
Posted by: Yupdatsme | Mar 5, 2008 10:26:55 PM
Wow! Corporate Media (ABC) sure is giving the Corporate Democrat (Hillary) some exposure...
Two ads that favor Hillary, Yet Americans are too Blinded by the Light!
Posted by: BlindedbytheLight | Mar 5, 2008 10:13:18 PM
Post a comment


