It's very sad that someone turned a rules issue into a racial issue.

Why Bobby? Tell me what the cowards who are afraid to talk about race except when it benefits them to use accusations of racism have to hide?

Either race is real or it isn't. If it's real then people have a right to talk about it and consider it.
If it's not real, then stop the guilt tripping.

People have a right to like or not like anyone else based on whatever factor they choose. Do you prefer blonds to brunettes? Does that make you a blondist?

Do you prefer overweight people to skinny people. Older to younger or younger to older. It's your right.

You see we live in a society that officially ascribes ...

It's very sad that someone turned a rules issue into a racial issue.

Why Bobby? Tell me what the cowards who are afraid to talk about race except when it benefits them to use accusations of racism have to hide?

Either race is real or it isn't. If it's real then people have a right to talk about it and consider it.
If it's not real, then stop the guilt tripping.

People have a right to like or not like anyone else based on whatever factor they choose. Do you prefer blonds to brunettes? Does that make you a blondist?

Do you prefer overweight people to skinny people. Older to younger or younger to older. It's your right.

You see we live in a society that officially ascribes to the theory that race is not even real. Yet at the same time they condemn others as racist. It's impossible to have racists if race isn't real!

But why do people who do not even believe in race want to call others racists. For power of course.

You see even though race isn't real calling people racists is designed to give more power to the race that is a 'victim' at the expense of the non existent race of the 'racist.'

As a White person, I am more than happy to admit that White people have done a lot of harm to a lot of other people, both White and non White. I will say the same exact thing about men. Men have done a lot of harmful things to other men and to women.

As a White male, I have for over 40 years endorsed generating as much fairness as possible both in law and attitudes of individuals.

That does not mean that I decide to let guilt tripping be used to play and get away with illegitimate power grabbing. Because the reality is that I am White and I am male and I am not a traitor to myself. I don't expect Blacks to be traitors to themselves and I don't expect women to be traitors to themselves. I expect that they will defend against abuses of fairness just as I expect White males to defend against abuses.

Guilt tripping manipulation of power structures is an abuse.

Your statement above is not credible. What factcheck says is that the video, overall, was darkened, in an obvious attempt to make Obama appear sinister.

* Furthermore, our analysis of the Obama frames, using Photoshop, shows a fairly uniform darkening of the entire image including the backdrop. It is not just Obama's skin color that's affected.

* Also, nearly all the images in the ad are dark, including those of Hillary Clinton. And dark images are a common technique used in attack ads.

Factcheck is acknowledging that Hillary resorted to the most gutter type ads appealing to base fears. There is no denying Hillary resorted to fear mongering when she plagiarize...

Your statement above is not credible. What factcheck says is that the video, overall, was darkened, in an obvious attempt to make Obama appear sinister.

* Furthermore, our analysis of the Obama frames, using Photoshop, shows a fairly uniform darkening of the entire image including the backdrop. It is not just Obama's skin color that's affected.

* Also, nearly all the images in the ad are dark, including those of Hillary Clinton. And dark images are a common technique used in attack ads.

Factcheck is acknowledging that Hillary resorted to the most gutter type ads appealing to base fears. There is no denying Hillary resorted to fear mongering when she plagiarized Mondale's 1984 attack ad against Gary Hart.

A Page from the Attack-Ad Playbook

A standard technique used in attack ads is to portray the opponent in black and white while showing the person being supported in glorious, flattering color. And attack ads often use dark images to convey a sinister tone to the message. As the University of Pennsylvania's Kathleen Hall Jamieson (who is director of our parent organization) stated in her 1992 book Dirty Politics:

Dirty Politics (p. 51): Quick cuts, use of black and white, dark colors, shadowed lighting, stark contrasts, videotape, the voice of a seemingly 'neutral' announcer, and ominous music are the techniques associated with 'oppositional' production spots.

You show a particular lack of knowledge about politics, campaigns, and human nature in general.

You are total and absolute idiot. And if you are calling me a liar then you can basically shove your head up your ass moron.

I have checked the article that Masbury linked to and never did they call anyone racist. I checked all the comments on Masbury's clip that you are referencing and the only people who made references to racists regarding Hillary's ad were you and willhelm. One comment of mine contains the word racist and that is a quote of Lee Atwater talking about when he used the famous attack ad, Willie Horton, for Papa Bush against Michael Dukakis (I did make a statement that I thought Lee Atwaters ad was racist).

I challenge anyone to go and read the Fact Check article, and I l...

You are total and absolute idiot. And if you are calling me a liar then you can basically shove your head up your ass moron.

I have checked the article that Masbury linked to and never did they call anyone racist. I checked all the comments on Masbury's clip that you are referencing and the only people who made references to racists regarding Hillary's ad were you and willhelm. One comment of mine contains the word racist and that is a quote of Lee Atwater talking about when he used the famous attack ad, Willie Horton, for Papa Bush against Michael Dukakis (I did make a statement that I thought Lee Atwaters ad was racist).

I challenge anyone to go and read the Fact Check article, and I link it, unlike yanceducat who just makes references to stuff but never provide any evidence. Here's the link. Check it out everybody. Link to yanceducat's bullshit.

Factcheck says forthright:

Others will speculate about the Clinton campaign's intentions and motives, as they already have. 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.

This can be interpreted no other way than, (1) Hillary's ad was an attack ad, (2) Hillary's ad attempts to make Obama appear sinister by darkening the entire video which includes Obama's image.

Considering that no one on clipmarks made an accusation of racism on Masbury's clip except you and willhelm makes you a total jackass.

Now you are doing more lying to cover up your lying.

You say:

I have checked the article that Masbury linked to and never did they call anyone racist.

But masbury's clip says:

With all the attention to her race-baiting, people might overlook one other story here.

And Daily Kos said

A March 3 post by an Obama supporter on the liberal blog site Daily Kos framed the question starkly in its headline: "Is the Clinton Campaign Now Engaged in Intentional Race-Baiting?" A March 4 follow-up by another blogger on AMERICAblog.com asked, "Why is Obama's skin blacker than normal in Hillary's new attack ad?." The blogger concluded that the image had been intent...

read more»

Now you are doing more lying to cover up your lying.

You say:

I have checked the article that Masbury linked to and never did they call anyone racist.

But masbury's clip says:

With all the attention to her race-baiting, people might overlook one other story here.

And Daily Kos said

A March 3 post by an Obama supporter on the liberal blog site Daily Kos framed the question starkly in its headline: "Is the Clinton Campaign Now Engaged in Intentional Race-Baiting?" A March 4 follow-up by another blogger on AMERICAblog.com asked, "Why is Obama's skin blacker than normal in Hillary's new attack ad?." The blogger concluded that the image had been intentionally darkened, going on to charge that Clinton is "using racism to win." Both of these posts have attracted hundreds of comments and have been re-posted on other widely-read Web sites.

Also from Daily Kos we have:

I'm not accusing Hillary of technically being a racist. But she is cynically exploiting racism to further her personal ambition...

And yes you are lying about the conclusions from FactCheck. It seems you are willing to use technicalities and completely ignore the evidence they cited that blows your argument to pieces.
Your whole lie was that Hillary took special effort to unfairly hurt Obama, and then you misrepresent what at the very worst standard operating procedure, which FactCheck does not say occurred but is the worst that could have occurred!

I believe you are confusing all posts that could possibly appear on DailyKos as being Masbury's clip. Very disingenuous of you.

Once again I will state that the only two people who commented on Masbury's clip using the word racist were you and willhelm.

Yes, I am being technical and so were others who point out that Hillary's ad smacks of race-baiting but in totality she is not a racist. What part of English do you not understand?

In addition it is the lowest type of politics - pandering to fear. Fact check says Hillary's ad is an attack ad made in an attempt to make Obama appear sinister.

Summary

But without further evidence to the contrary, we see no reason to con...

read more»

I believe you are confusing all posts that could possibly appear on DailyKos as being Masbury's clip. Very disingenuous of you.

Once again I will state that the only two people who commented on Masbury's clip using the word racist were you and willhelm.

Yes, I am being technical and so were others who point out that Hillary's ad smacks of race-baiting but in totality she is not a racist. What part of English do you not understand?

In addition it is the lowest type of politics - pandering to fear. Fact check says Hillary's ad is an attack ad made in an attempt to make Obama appear sinister.

Summary

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,

Since when did Americablog.com become DailyKos, much less the article that Masbury clipped?

I hope no one pays you based on competence.

Again you lie.

You put summary.

And then you put what you want to be the summary.

You leave off these 3 important points that are part of the real summary.

1) * However, the YouTube copy of the ad, on which the bloggers base their conclusions, is darker overall than other copies of the ad. We obtained a digital recording of the ad as it actually appeared on a Texas TV station, and it is lighter.

2) * Furthermore, our analysis of the Obama frames, using Photoshop, shows a fairly uniform darkening of the entire image including the backdrop. It is not just Obama's skin color that's affected.

3) * Also, nearly all the images in the ad are dark, in...

read more»

Again you lie.

You put summary.

And then you put what you want to be the summary.

You leave off these 3 important points that are part of the real summary.

1) * However, the YouTube copy of the ad, on which the bloggers base their conclusions, is darker overall than other copies of the ad. We obtained a digital recording of the ad as it actually appeared on a Texas TV station, and it is lighter.

2) * Furthermore, our analysis of the Obama frames, using Photoshop, shows a fairly uniform darkening of the entire image including the backdrop. It is not just Obama's skin color that's affected.

3) * Also, nearly all the images in the ad are dark, including those of Hillary Clinton. And dark images are a common technique used in attack ads.

NO WHERE DOES FACT CHECK SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM!
It does not say

Fact check says Hillary's ad is an attack ad made in an attempt to make Obama appear sinister.

It says

Others will speculate about the Clinton campaign's intentions and motives, as they already have. 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.

I hope you will note the important difference. You falsely claim FactCheck said it was to make Obama look sinister.
What it actually says the idea was perhaps to make the ad NOT Obama look sinister.

It says "standard attempt" as in SOP. Your and others hysteria about the ad is actually justb a cynical attempt to play the victim for the sake of political power.

You are amazing. I quoted the entire part you quoted last but apparently that wasn't good enough but now you are using it. Are you for real? Just check 3 comments ago. Good lord.

Yes, Standard Operating Procedure of those who stoop to gutter politics right out of the Lee Atwater, Karl Rove playbook. Man that is something to be proud of!!!!!!!! How can you continual ignore that Fact Check states that it is an attack ad, with overall darker images to make Obama look sinister. Now you are the one going to extremes for technicalities. In English, Hillary wouldn't want her ad to appear sinister she would want the focus of her ad to appear sinister. Damn that is downright stupid.

And it explai...

You are amazing. I quoted the entire part you quoted last but apparently that wasn't good enough but now you are using it. Are you for real? Just check 3 comments ago. Good lord.

Yes, Standard Operating Procedure of those who stoop to gutter politics right out of the Lee Atwater, Karl Rove playbook. Man that is something to be proud of!!!!!!!! How can you continual ignore that Fact Check states that it is an attack ad, with overall darker images to make Obama look sinister. Now you are the one going to extremes for technicalities. In English, Hillary wouldn't want her ad to appear sinister she would want the focus of her ad to appear sinister. Damn that is downright stupid.

And it explains why a majority of likely voters polled judged Hillary to be less honest and trustworthy than the other candidates.

Oh on another note I loved how the found pictures of Hillary strolling along Tuzla Air Force base greeting little girls and GI's when she's been going around claiming that it WAS DANGEROUS and that we had to duck our heads and run so as to avoid snipers...

HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH hilarious !!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again you concentrate on claiming racism and I have informed you time and time again that the DailyKos article didn't call anyone racist, Masbury did not use the word racist, and I refered to Lee Atwater's Willie Horton ad as racist.

The two people who used the word racist were you and willhelm and you can not change that fact.

Factcheck makes the argument that Obama's image is not darkened more than the darkening that was done to the entire footage. The footage is darkened and anyone who has eyes in their head and looks at any clip of original debate footage compared to the ad can see it. The point is that the Hillary ad darkened the overall footage (of which Obama's image is a part ...

Once again you concentrate on claiming racism and I have informed you time and time again that the DailyKos article didn't call anyone racist, Masbury did not use the word racist, and I refered to Lee Atwater's Willie Horton ad as racist.

The two people who used the word racist were you and willhelm and you can not change that fact.

Factcheck makes the argument that Obama's image is not darkened more than the darkening that was done to the entire footage. The footage is darkened and anyone who has eyes in their head and looks at any clip of original debate footage compared to the ad can see it. The point is that the Hillary ad darkened the overall footage (of which Obama's image is a part of) to create a sinister effect - pandering to fear.

In other words no air gets to your brain.

Leave it to Willhelm to lecture about morale clarity while being entirely fraudulent in failing to acknowledge the conservatives use of race baiting. But he has a selective memory.

Willie Horton anyone?

Even Lee Atwater, Papa Bushs main political consultant and strategist, in his death bed confessional written for Time magazine, apologized for his scorched earth tactics, "In 1988, fighting Dukakis, I said that I 'would strip the bark off the little bastard' and 'make Willie Horton his running mate.' I am sorry for both statements: the first for its naked cruelty, the second because it makes me sound racist, which I am not [but obviously was]".

For the Clinton campaign to stoop to R...

Leave it to Willhelm to lecture about morale clarity while being entirely fraudulent in failing to acknowledge the conservatives use of race baiting. But he has a selective memory.

Willie Horton anyone?

Even Lee Atwater, Papa Bushs main political consultant and strategist, in his death bed confessional written for Time magazine, apologized for his scorched earth tactics, "In 1988, fighting Dukakis, I said that I 'would strip the bark off the little bastard' and 'make Willie Horton his running mate.' I am sorry for both statements: the first for its naked cruelty, the second because it makes me sound racist, which I am not [but obviously was]".

For the Clinton campaign to stoop to Rethuglican tactics disqualifies them in my book. Anyone who thinks advertisers can't play on individuals lingering phobias hasn't been living in the real world for some time.

First you use the word race baiting. Same word as masbury's clip resorts to.

Then you on your own bring up Willie Horton that Republican Atwater used in his famous ad. You call him a racist because what he DID was racist. According to you I mean.

And finally you connect your bread crum trail by saying that Hillary resorted to the same Republican tactics which were racist when Atwater DID them and therefore Hillary is racist because she DID the same thing as Atwater.

So in essence in your own deliberate race baiting way, you called Hillary a racist!

So for the record you falsely claimed that only Willhelm and I used the word 'racist' when you yourself used it and used it basically directly or indirectly in your race baitig way to call or pander to the fear that Hillary might be a racist.

And you do not want to admit it. Of course.

All of which is just a big joke because the 'evil ad' is not sinister or racist is unlikely to have affected one vote against Obama.
Which matters not at all to his rabid supporters who are just happy to have an excuse, any excuse at all to vent their bile.