By Jennifer Parker

Mar 4, 2008 5:15pm

Liberal Bloggers: Clinton Campaign Darkened Obama’s Skin in New TV Ad

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.

abc obama 080304 blog Liberal Bloggers: Clinton Campaign Darkened Obamas Skin in New TV Ad

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

User Comments

The whole picture not just the face is darker, and who cares!!! this is stupid! people are injecting racism where there is none, one would think it would be the Republicans but its not it the bonehead liberals.

Posted by: Dennis | March 4, 2008, 5:27 pm 5:27 pm

Pattern Emerging:
Obama uses race card after every defeat.
After NH, After NV, now after OH/TX.
It seems to me that the Obama campaign has more problems with the color of Barack’s skin than anyone else.

Posted by: Jaz | March 4, 2008, 5:28 pm 5:28 pm

This is low Jack no doubt this is been highlighted by an Obama supporter who wants to us to think this is a clinton tactic!
Give us a break! This is low!

Posted by: Gerry | March 4, 2008, 5:30 pm 5:30 pm

This claim is absurd! If you look at Obama’s face and Hillary’s face, the lighting looks the same degree on both. Is this another ploy by the Obama camp to get more racial sympathy and outrage as they did in South Carolina and elsewhere? What a weak assertion for a candidate who is also weak on experience, substance, and the issues.

Posted by: georgia | March 4, 2008, 5:33 pm 5:33 pm

This is CLASSIC Clinton and emblematic of her dirty tricks. Although I should say that Hillary is not a racist “to the best of my knowledge.”

Posted by: David | March 4, 2008, 5:33 pm 5:33 pm

There is no low that Hillary won’t stoop to in her quest to make off with the rest of the White House furnishings and art pieces.
What I am wondering is why a link that must have required hours of work by it’s author, and shows the REAL comparison of the Senate records of both candidates isn’t a hot topic on the internet?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

Posted by: Rebecka | March 4, 2008, 5:37 pm 5:37 pm

While we are on the subject of liberal bloggers, could someone check ABC news articles, other than jpt, and see if some Obama fan is blocking pro-Hillary posts from being posted? It has been very strange since Sunday, and I noticed that a blogger did get through today to complain. I have had several posts not posted even though I followed all the required guidelines. If it is a technical issue, fine. But, if what I halfway suspected is true, what gives?

Posted by: georgia | March 4, 2008, 5:39 pm 5:39 pm

Getting reports from Texas that the Obama nuts have torn down Hillary signs all over town as well as in people’s yards.

Posted by: Dogsoldier | March 4, 2008, 5:40 pm 5:40 pm

Wow! Another lowering of the bar for the Clinton campaign!!! Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.
It is unfortunate that race does play a role in this campaign, as some Latinos clearly state they support Hillary because they won’t vote for a black. And the “darker hue” has been used before, and unfortunately is not too low for the Clinton camp and Mark Penn to stoop.
If Clinton is elected, Mark Penn may be the new Karl Rove!

Posted by: Jackt51 | March 4, 2008, 5:41 pm 5:41 pm

As a far right Republican, I beg you, please KEEP IT UP Obama and Hillary!!
Double dealing, dirty racist tricks, name calling, vote stealing, and best of all, Democratic HYPOCRISY exposed in its most naked, blatant shameless form! I am loving every minute of it!!
The Demos are finally being exposed for the race obsessed racists they really are and have been all along. And they’re learning how we Republicans had to feel having the Racist label hurled at us every time we opposed another government mandated handout or racial or gender quota preference system.
So please keep it up! I can’t get enough! I hope it drags on all summer through the conventions and into the fall! Let the entire world see the REAL nature of Democrats which has been known to Republicans for decades now.
And if you are a non-racist Democrat sickened by what you’ve been seeing from Hillary and Obama, come on over! There’s plenty of room for you in the GOP, where you are truly judged by the content of your character, not the color of your skin!

Posted by: NYR | March 4, 2008, 5:41 pm 5:41 pm

This is the Daily Kos mafia attempting to create a negative Hillary story. Bury it.

Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | March 4, 2008, 5:41 pm 5:41 pm

Enough already! I am so fed up with Obama’s campaign calling Clinton Camp desperate and look what they come up with time and again. Of course Obama says no comment since they started the whole thing. Let’s see, he’s black but you can’t call him that; his middle name’s Hussein but you can’t say that either and sorry, but he does look a little like Curious George but of course you can’t say that either. And yet who’s always accused of whining? More importantly, why is this idiot even running this story? We know he hates Hillary but gimme a break.

Posted by: druggstohr | March 4, 2008, 5:41 pm 5:41 pm

Answer me this, Why does he always look orange in debates. My husband and I have commented on it before. He looks much better brown in the Clinton add than orange in the debate. And this isn’t the first debate he looked orange in, like oompa lumpa orange sometimes.

Posted by: s.b. | March 4, 2008, 5:41 pm 5:41 pm

Rebecka, why am I not surprised that someone on here is even quoting the Daily Kos, as if that is an authoritative source. Proves my poinit.

Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | March 4, 2008, 5:43 pm 5:43 pm

Jaz, Georgia and all-
Did you even READ the article? LOL. The claim is made by bloggers like the DailyKos and the Obama campaign and his surrogates have made no comments on or off the record about it. Now how exactly is the accusation coming from Obama’s campaign? Stop it with the transparent gotcha moments and relax.
By the way, last I checked time was linear which would make it impossible for Obama to come out with any strategy after the Tx, Ohio primaries in seeing that they are not complete yet!
SMH

Posted by: Brando | March 4, 2008, 5:43 pm 5:43 pm

Yes it is a ploy by the Obama camp to get racial sympathy, just like the curious george comment, which was probably an Obama plant. Anything to change the subject from real issues or real questions about him. No we just want garbage hyperbol about nothing.
Yeah real news please.
And he does look like Curious George, but so does George Bush and John Kerry looks like the man in the yellow hat, and I’ve thought this for 4 years.

Posted by: s.b. | March 4, 2008, 5:45 pm 5:45 pm

I have bee busy throwing puppies all afternoon (have not been able to get one to yelp while in flight) and missed this preposterous claim. Even the most desperate of politicians would not change the hue of a tape. The kos community is beyond all reason. I am with Jaz on this one.

Posted by: flyover | March 4, 2008, 5:48 pm 5:48 pm

Some people are really clutching for straws. They do not want the primaries to continue, they do not want the rest of the Democrats in the other states to vote, they want superdelegates to go ahead now and support Obama. He has not been crowned King, even though they say some women have fainted at some of his rallies. As far as I can tell, neither does he look or sing like Elvis. Give us a break! This is an election for the President of the United States, and we need to be really careful that the candidate nominated has sufficient and relevant experience and knowledge. Let everybody vote! Until then, settle down and quit looking for phony issues. If John McCain is already campaigning (He is not the candidate, yet), against Obama (and Hillary), so what? If Obama is as great as some of you think, he’ll make McCain look inexperienced. Oops! I don’t think I believe that.

Posted by: georgia | March 4, 2008, 5:49 pm 5:49 pm

“Hillary Clinton will never be too busy to defend our national security…” But in the previous ad she let “the” phone ring 6 times because she was too busy wondering who should answer “the” phone at 3 AM.

Posted by: James Danley | March 4, 2008, 5:49 pm 5:49 pm

And while we’re talking about nothing, can I just say that I’m really glad Michelle Obama has stopped wearing black ALL the time. She looked like she was going to a funeral at every event.
And at the risk of sounding racialist, I think that a dark skinned women with dark hair wearing black all the time was not a good image. She’s very attractive too. So it’s nice to see her in a cream coloured suit in the video on the board today. I think she baught a sort of redish one too.
Now Hillary shouldn’t wear cream. We all know that, she’s too pale. Is that racial??
Anyways, the all black on Michelle all the time was a bit much.

Posted by: s.b. | March 4, 2008, 5:52 pm 5:52 pm

I wouldn’t put anything past Hillary, as for Obama not doing his job while campaigning, take a look at Hillary’s voting record the last couple of years. What is her excuse for not accomplishing anything more substantive than renaming federal buildings.

Posted by: Patriot2008 | March 4, 2008, 5:52 pm 5:52 pm

I have had enough! I DO NOT BELIEVE SHE DARKENED HIS SKIN!! People, people, people. Is this what our country has come to? People are getting evicted, senoir’s are having to make the hard choice of paying their bills or buying their medicine, and single mom’s are working two jobs to stay afloat. Is this really the most important question on the minds of America?

Posted by: I LOVE MY COACH PURSE | March 4, 2008, 5:53 pm 5:53 pm

I have had enough! I DO NOT BELIEVE SHE DARKENED HIS SKIN!! People, people, people. Is this what our country has come to? People are getting evicted, senoir’s are having to make the hard choice of paying their bills or buying their medicine, and single mom’s are working two jobs to stay afloat. Is this really the most important question on the minds of America?

Posted by: I LOVE MY COACH PURSE | March 4, 2008, 5:54 pm 5:54 pm

“I’d sooner vote for W for a third term than cast a vote for Hillary.”
With the possibility of McCain -v- Clinton I would have to agree.

Posted by: Patriot2008 | March 4, 2008, 5:56 pm 5:56 pm

So let’s hear the outright denial from Team Clinton. Should be a simple matter – either they did it or not.

Posted by: Vote4BO | March 4, 2008, 5:57 pm 5:57 pm

No, No, Michelle is good looking. Really classy, stately. Not a wall flower, but beautiful, I think.

Posted by: s.b. | March 4, 2008, 5:58 pm 5:58 pm

He is black, is he?

Posted by: pat | March 4, 2008, 6:00 pm 6:00 pm

Sorry state of Digital Journalism. Too much information flow has drained the ability for media to present sensible information.
Garbage in Garbage Out.

Posted by: Humm | March 4, 2008, 6:02 pm 6:02 pm

The reason this article has some interest is in its suggestion that the Clinton camp continues to play the race card.
Darkening his skin could make a difference to someone who is racist against blacks.
Its hard for me to believe that the professionals who produced the Anti-Obama ad did not color correct the final output. With modern computer software this only takes a few seconds. Color accuracy is an important component of film and video production. The producers don’t ignore it, especially for what they are being paid.
I do find this suspicious. For the Clinton Camp to play the race card would be consistent with precious behaviors on their part. Maybe they figure they’ve got nothing to lose at this point, since African Americans have landslided toward Obama already. Why not try to conjure up some additional votes by tapping into some racism among whites or other ethnic groups?

Posted by: Mike Denhof | March 4, 2008, 6:07 pm 6:07 pm

It would appear that the Clinton 3am TV ad didn’t help Hillary at all
“Who would you prefer to have answer a White House crisis phone call at 3 a.m.?
Hillary Clinton 25% 99177
Mike Huckabee 6% 23658
John McCain 31% 125214
Barack Obama 38% 152461″

Posted by: Patriot2008 | March 4, 2008, 6:11 pm 6:11 pm

IF — I repeat, IF — this was done intentionally by the Clinton campaign, this would be the most desperate, despicable, vile, racist, thuggish tactic to which I’ve ever seen a Democrat stoop.
IF this can be proven to be an intentional race-baiting smear, both Clintons should be thrown forcibly out of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Mark | March 4, 2008, 6:12 pm 6:12 pm

Mike Denhof, it is more than obvious you have absolutely no idea how digital material reads out on different mediums, do you? Here’s an example for you, try watching the same program of the same event using different station on your television. Some are great picture quality and some suck. Usually we watch the better picture and ignore the bad one. And they are as much pros on each network. You’ve seen this concept at work yourself and you know it.

Posted by: Dogsoldier | March 4, 2008, 6:13 pm 6:13 pm

Ok so I just perused some photos of candidates.
Obama often looks orange, which I’m pretty sure he’s not in real life.
McCain either looks like a corpse or pink like he’s had a little nip.
Clinton often looks greenish.
Its all in the lighting.
Who cares.

Posted by: s.b. | March 4, 2008, 6:15 pm 6:15 pm

Lets see, the media is finally starting to ask Obama questions. What to do??? Let’s play the race card!! This is just a preview of things to come. You can expect that any time Obama is called on the carpet the race card will be ready to be played.

Posted by: Firefighter | March 4, 2008, 6:16 pm 6:16 pm

Obama’s Latte color is lame to sit and discuss, and whether Hillary or anyone photo shopped his face to look darker, wow,
lets find out if Obama wears Boxers or Briefs talk amongst yourself.

Posted by: Boxers or Briefs | March 4, 2008, 6:22 pm 6:22 pm

The bloggers clearly have some paranoia.
At this point, variations in light is not what matters to voters.
Proof of talk is what matters.
That is the issue in the Ad.

Posted by: Lauren | March 4, 2008, 7:17 pm 7:17 pm

So what, if we all keep following Hillary’s crazy moves she just gets more attention. I am very disappointed with her all her moves so far boarding on the cheap.

Posted by: Uretha | March 4, 2008, 7:53 pm 7:53 pm

Desperate person will do anything, I mean anything to achieve her/hus aim. Clinton folks are just counting the time. When to drop out. Hillary has become her own defeatist.

Posted by: RN | March 4, 2008, 7:56 pm 7:56 pm

Different lightings can make a big difference, and somebody may have just been trying to make him look less orange. It doesn’t seem likely that there was anything diabolical, and I’m an Obama supporter!

Posted by: jock59801 | March 4, 2008, 8:02 pm 8:02 pm

Compared to the other sleezeball tactics of the Clinton crowd over the past week, this seems pretty tame. Anybody read/hear the sleezy quasi-campaign-ad that sounded exactly like regular news today in Ohio that was put out by the Clintons? John McCain, was slimed by the Bush campaign (to the degree that his children were attacked) in a battle against Bush in SC. He not only rose above it – he moved on – and when the same crowd Swift Boated Kerry, he crossed party lines, stood by a fellow vet, and reviled the despicable tactics. The Clintons were endlessly chased by the media – often over trivia. So what is their response? To not only take the lead from the Atwater/Rove crowd, but go even lower. Anybody remember the line about the yellow dog?

Posted by: Mara | March 4, 2008, 8:03 pm 8:03 pm

Bunch of whiners. Here’s a newsflash for you: Obama is black!
Why is Obama ashamed to be black?

Posted by: BigDeal | March 4, 2008, 8:21 pm 8:21 pm

I agree that he doesn’t actually look ‘darker’ anyway, just less orange.
I am a painter and photographer – the black/white light contrast is not actually darker – the color tones are just from the blue spectrum more than the red spectrum.

Posted by: Lauren | March 4, 2008, 8:22 pm 8:22 pm

The color depends mostly on the lighting when the picture is taken. And what does it matter? He is bi-racial but calls himself black. Does the shade have anything to do with it? He is what he wants to be. In my opinion, this campaign is all about race anyway.

Posted by: Starlight | March 4, 2008, 8:25 pm 8:25 pm

This is paranoia:
Look how much lighter his forehead looks in the image that is supposed to be ‘darker.’

Posted by: Lauren | March 4, 2008, 8:26 pm 8:26 pm

I personally think this was done on purpose, but I still cannot believe that people eat up political ads, like they were watching an advertisement to make them want to go and get a Big Mac. I mean, come on people!..Go Obama!

Posted by: michael | March 4, 2008, 8:27 pm 8:27 pm

All of these comments so perfectly exemplify what Susan Jacoby calls, “junk thought.” Anti-intellectualism in America reigns. Still. Jake, you’re still the smartest one in the room…

Posted by: Dana | March 4, 2008, 8:31 pm 8:31 pm

“I’m Hillary Clinton and I approved this spin.”
Did anyone here watch Harold Ickes on Charlie Rose last night? He can’t utter a sentence without spinning it for Clinton. This ad is just more of the same.
Ickes was pushing the “we don’t know enough about Obama…things could surface…” – sounded a lot like Clinton’s “as far as I know” comment. All part of the same “he’s not like us” meme.
It’s what they do.

Posted by: Tom J | March 4, 2008, 8:51 pm 8:51 pm

Obama is bi-racial but there is nothing there in being black. He is lighter in complexion because his mother is White and people should stop insinuating things. I dont think it was deliberate and thank God, Obama had no comments.Class-act.

Posted by: vinny | March 4, 2008, 8:53 pm 8:53 pm

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. Fold your tent and go home

Posted by: Rose | March 4, 2008, 8:57 pm 8:57 pm

This is another example of bad tricks gone wrong done by the Clinton campaign. Instead of sticking to the issues , Hilliary or should I say Billiary are desperate and are doing things that are not ethical,,Obama is polite and the are trying to pin baloney on him,,,
We do not need a weak president at this time,,we do not need someone who has to ask their husband what to do,,Bill Clinton allowed the Al Quaeda to remain in Afghanistan from 1992 to 2001 until GW finally went in there and threw them out and disrupted them,,Hilliary was too weak to stop her husband from having numerous affair while in office,,Hilliary allowed her husband to play around for 37 years or so,,,
we do not need her,,,May Obama win the nomination and may she just go home quietly,,,please

Posted by: alonzo | March 4, 2008, 9:08 pm 9:08 pm

Despicable, outrageous.
If the media doesn’t cover this prominently and thoroughly, they are complicit in the most disgusting bit of campaign racism I have witnessed since the 1960s.
This disqualifies Hillary as far as I’m concerned. Simply disgusting.

Posted by: Oomingmak | March 4, 2008, 9:08 pm 9:08 pm

Hmmm…Hillary looks awfully pale in the Obama ads. Do you think maybe the Obama peoble LIGHTENED her skin to make her look more White??? About as ridiculous as the claim they tried to make Obama look darker…..

Posted by: ssmolly | March 4, 2008, 9:26 pm 9:26 pm

To say she disappoints me is an understatement. She has played to racial and religious bigotry and ignorance, all while using a Republican narrative. If she sleazes her way to the nomination, I will vote my liberal progressive sensibilities and vote for Nader. If that means McCain wins, then so be it. Frankly if my party chooses her as the nominee, we DESERVE to lose!! And sorry, Hillary, you CAN’T win on a Republican narrative. If voters want a Republican they have a fine choice in John McCain. They won’t go for your “Republican Lite” nonsense. You knee-cap Obama at our party’s expense.

Posted by: Jill | March 4, 2008, 9:32 pm 9:32 pm

This is not about the color of Mr. Obama in the press. When are the Obamanites and Mr. Obama stop beating the dead horse about the Iraq war ad nauseam and toot that Hillary took this country to war? Was she the Joan of Arc in armor with the American flag in one hand and the shield in the other shouting “Let’s attack Iraq”!!!!! Or was there a bunch of decision makers who made that decision? Come on, folks. This is outright stupid.

Posted by: Starlight | March 4, 2008, 9:40 pm 9:40 pm

“now”

Posted by: TG | March 4, 2008, 9:43 pm 9:43 pm

Starlight, why don’t you inform yourself.
The FACT is that 23 other Senators voted NO on the war. These Senators READ the National Intelligence Estimate that cast a huge amount of doubt on the war.
What did Hillary do? She didn’t read it. She was swept up in the irrational fervor.
If you think that doesn’t matter, then shame on you. She is running for PRESIDENT! And she has a history of following whichever way the wind blows, and a history of not reading the Intelligence reports, something she has in common with Dubya.

Posted by: Jill | March 4, 2008, 9:44 pm 9:44 pm

Whenever Obama’s campaign staff doesn’t like the way things are going, they play the race card. It is becomming tedious and tiresome. One would wonder if they are embarrassed that he is black……..
I’m voting for Hillary.

Posted by: Terre Bullock | March 4, 2008, 9:50 pm 9:50 pm

It’s discusting that the Obama camp would even suggest this. They are grasping at straws, now that it’s obvious that Clinton is winning. She has Ohio. “You can’t win without Ohio.” as the old saying goes…

Posted by: tina_polenti | March 4, 2008, 9:51 pm 9:51 pm

Really Terre? Who on Obama’s campaign staff has complained? These are liberal bloggers raising the questions. ABCnews chose to address it, on a blog. What part of “The Obama campaign did not have any comment — on or off the record.” did you not understand in Jake Tapper’s blog?

Posted by: Jill | March 4, 2008, 9:53 pm 9:53 pm

Who cares?
Obama ’08

Posted by: Nobodys fool | March 4, 2008, 9:58 pm 9:58 pm

Hillary is winning Ohio with a higher percent than McCain, yet the obama loving media acts like it’s too close to call.

Posted by: chassuer | March 4, 2008, 10:01 pm 10:01 pm

All photos are not created equal, one camera man pictures will give a diffrent result. This a total non subject but on the other hand someone want you to think about race.

Posted by: Frank | March 4, 2008, 10:10 pm 10:10 pm

Racist? That is so weird. He’s black. Making him light black, or medium black or dark black – why would that be racist? If Clinton’s chest looks bigger in one of his commercials is he being sexist??? Ridiculous.

Posted by: missy | March 4, 2008, 10:12 pm 10:12 pm

Obama’s staff doesn’t need to say a word; the media is handling that for them.

Posted by: Terre | March 4, 2008, 10:12 pm 10:12 pm

For anyone, for a second, believes this wasn’t deliberate on the part of Clinton only has to read what her response was… “The ad the dailykos used, wasn’t our ad.”
That is a blatant lie, and has been disproved by 3rd parties. Why lie, if not guilty.
This is despicable. I wouldn’t have been so upset if her people said “Hey, the whole ad was dark, we hired some crummy video editors, we’re sorry, blah blah blah.” But the fact that they are trying to lie about it is incredible.
This should seriously be front-page news.

Posted by: Seth | March 4, 2008, 10:14 pm 10:14 pm

So, the Obama camp is pulling the race card again claiming that Clinton changed his color on some of his pictures. He should have thanked her because he looked better AFTER the color change.

Posted by: Vince | March 4, 2008, 10:18 pm 10:18 pm

Lets see.Hillary had nothing to do with the Insight magazine rumor that still persists to this day,or the most recent release of Obama wearing a scarf/turban.Now we have the tv. ad that plays to some with already racist leanings.Hmm.Funny how all of this points back to Hillary,and she continues to deny.How anyone can vote for this poor excuse for a human being is beyond me.Obama’s skin is more light than dark.This is obvious tampering.She and whoever is running her campaign should be ashamed.How anyone can be this low and think it is fun or fair to win in politics using these tactics is beyond what I can say on a public forum.
Obama shows class in his campaign.Hillary could learn a lot from him.

Posted by: kim | March 4, 2008, 10:28 pm 10:28 pm

Hillary stoops low, again. I don’t think I want her in the White House. She’ll make too many enemies, very fast. There will be a backlash against her if she is elected president, nothing will get done, except maybe another impeachment process as the Republicans will dig up more dirt about the Clintons. Same old, same old.

Posted by: Sallie | March 4, 2008, 10:36 pm 10:36 pm

Vince – are you daft? READ THE ARTICLE. Where does it say that Obama or his campaign have brought up this issue? It doesn’t. It says “liberal bloggers” have noticed it.
For crying out loud, man. Pay attention.

Posted by: Sean | March 4, 2008, 10:39 pm 10:39 pm

Vince – wow. The article says Obama’s campaign has had no comment on this either way. Typical Hillary supporter. Uninformed.

Posted by: Mark D | March 4, 2008, 10:41 pm 10:41 pm

I’ve seen many ads over the years candidates be painted black and white (or other twists) by their opponents. When they create ads to demolish someone, they might work on some colour things to have better effects. There’s nothing wrong with it. Besides, as Clinton campaign has said, colors can be quite different depending on many factors. Don’t make big deal out of it, please!

Posted by: snakebaby | March 4, 2008, 10:47 pm 10:47 pm

I get so tickled at the Obamabots who see a Hillary conspiracy behind everything! They make it sound like she turned him into a black man! Gee, folks, is dark skin something to be ashamed of?

Posted by: Robbie | March 4, 2008, 11:32 pm 11:32 pm

I’d like to pont out that the Obama campaign made no response. Meaning they don’t believe this. Also this is a non-issue and a bogus one at that.
Obama ’08

Posted by: Kwame | March 5, 2008, 12:10 am 12:10 am

they don’t complain when hillary is shown without makeup, in bad light, with every possible wrinkle showing. and yes, jaz, race card after every defeat.

Posted by: so saddened | March 5, 2008, 12:11 am 12:11 am

Having manipulated photos and video professionally, I can tell you that the video was altered. The levels and the contrast look as if they have been manipulated. It’s very blatant.
I think that the decision to progress with this ad shows a lack of sensitivity and leadership that is necessary in today’s political climate, both at home and abroad.
If Hillary wins the nomination, the only sound decision would be to jump to McCain. He has taken the high-road.

Posted by: tx2stp | March 5, 2008, 12:13 am 12:13 am

Hillary may have won tonight, but with her negative campaigning as if she was a republcan, she has lost my vote.

Posted by: The Unshrub | March 5, 2008, 12:17 am 12:17 am

People. Video editing happens all the time. Have you ever seen FOX News? Then you just said yes to saying you’ve watched edited videos.

Posted by: JWest | March 5, 2008, 12:19 am 12:19 am

Hillary is a fighter and a doer, not like sir-talks-a-lot, words without experience, knowledge, and wisdom. President Hillary will be answering the phone at 3 am in the White House.

Posted by: Charles | March 5, 2008, 12:20 am 12:20 am

Who Cares. Obama is history.

Posted by: dalton | March 5, 2008, 12:33 am 12:33 am

Oomingmak and all those others…
You’re joking, right?
GIVE THEM HELL. HILLARY!
THEY’LL BLAME YOU EVEN IF YOU DON’T…..

Posted by: QUESTIONER | March 5, 2008, 12:41 am 12:41 am

stop with racial stuff against the clintons — Just Stop !!obama should just grow up already !! — he cannot handle playing w/ the big boys — he has all the media — so what more does he want –all the victories —
– his camp is the one w/ all the racial stuff — give us a break –

Posted by: rachel | March 5, 2008, 12:53 am 12:53 am

This blog post is disgustingly full of racist and fear-mongering comments. I’m sickened that this type of thinking and speech can come from within our own party.

Posted by: Adam | March 5, 2008, 12:58 am 12:58 am

Karl Rove is laughing his arse off.RNC had to repremand the Ten. branch for a mailer featuring the Obama photo in Kenyan garb,along with not so nice comments.All they have to do is start a rumor release a picture and it the Obamabots blaming the Clintons.Unlike Obama and the Nafta mess that turns out to be true.

Posted by: girlinvt | March 5, 2008, 1:03 am 1:03 am

As a steady independant, If Hillary wins I will go with McCain. I think her support and attitude is too vitriolic to sustain a national campaign.

Posted by: Sean | March 5, 2008, 1:34 am 1:34 am

Obama’s campaign is in a hurry to wrap the campaign because they khow what Rezko’s trial might bring in the next few weeks. Obama’s name is associated with Rezko’s name on more than the fundraising and the real estate deal, and he knows this will come to light as the trial begins. We will see that he is no different than any other politician.

Posted by: Mitka | March 5, 2008, 1:36 am 1:36 am

What’s racist about the ad? He doesn’t look any darker in this ad.

Posted by: CEL | March 5, 2008, 1:53 am 1:53 am

I have to say that the assertion by Hillary that she has more experience makes it look as if experience is everything. It is not. One can also have bad experience and in this case, all the experience Hillary talks about is connected with her husband’s presidency and Washington, which needs to be overhauled. All the experience she can boast is the wrong experince and she cannot bring about the real change that everybody is looking for. She must please the lobbysts, the drug companies, and the wealthiest Americans who are her main supporters as opposed to Barack, who is being supported financially by the poor, rich, young old, black, yellow, brown, white, chocolate etc. It is not as if Barack does not have experience either. Just read about his work as a law instructor, in a University in Chicago, his experience as a state senator with quite some accomplishments, his experience as a senator, and his wife’s experince as an administrator of a large hospital and I understand she worked as a vice president at the hospital. Besides, all the experince in Washington put together did not stop the congress from giving a blank check for the most unfortunate war in the history of the world in which thousands of young Americans have been executed and the Iraqi people have their heads cut off and buried in mass graves for no good reason.
I think that temperament is very important and being able to keep the cool even when things are going seriously badly. Hillary is not only very emotional but she was extremely condesending in the way she adressed Barack like a mother scolding her little boy “shame on you Obama” etc. Surprisingly, the media did not comment on this behaviour. This behaviour undescores who Hillary really is and she does not show respect for Barack. On the other hand, we see Barack maintaining his cool under pressure and even with kitchen sinks being thrown at him, remaining dignified. He does not fluctuate minute by minute from being extremely charming to extremely mad.
It seems that Barack is highly well organized in his campaign compared to Hillary, despite her claim for experience. That is one reason Barack is doing so well. He is also not polalizing but rather uniting, which we desperately need in the country. He is inspiring which means that people are taking interest in politics for the first time because of Barack. Whatever happens, I hope Hillary will not continue with her attacks of Barack, which we are all tired off. If Barack did what she is doing we would have been chasticed. I think it is good to lose or win with one’s dignity intact

Posted by: Esther | March 5, 2008, 1:54 am 1:54 am

NYR, I am SO with you! As a conservative Republican sitting back and watching the democrats scream all the things they usually reserve for us (“racism” “vote tampering” “disenfranchisement”, etc. etc.) is just hilarious.
Pray continue!

Posted by: Jo | March 5, 2008, 2:02 am 2:02 am

Obama campaign always playing a race card. Always wanting hillary to dropped out the campiagn, what a dectator? people in texas, ohio, and rhode island are smart, theyve voted for issue,future of our country,

Posted by: tonni | March 5, 2008, 2:07 am 2:07 am

Well, considering that Clinton is losing 85% of the black vote, your logic makes little sense. Or maybe you are thinking that in her next add, Clinton will make herself seem darker and Obama seem lighter. I can’t believe this article made front page!

Posted by: Larry | March 5, 2008, 2:13 am 2:13 am

This charge of making Obama look more black is crazy. This sounds like the people who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Also, why would Osama and his supporters be angry if he looks black. At first he was the no race candidate, and then he turned himself into the black candidate. Osama’s supporters are going to incredible lengths to find things against Hillary who is the best possible person to be president.

Posted by: mars4 | March 5, 2008, 2:57 am 2:57 am

The slight difference in hue between the 2 renderings of Obama falls well within the range of normal variation in reprocessing images.
Someone said it can’t've been accidental because Obama’s shirt looks whiter in the Clinton rendition of the clip, but slightly increased contrast in the Clinton rendition explains both his skin color and the shirt. More exactly, his skin color is relatively BLUER in the Clinton clip, that is, the peach and pink tones appear to have been reduced in both skin and shirt. Get a life, folks.

Posted by: Tade | March 5, 2008, 3:05 am 3:05 am

I don’t know, I think it looks like they just have a clip with different lighting…they might have intentionally picked the darkest clip they could find, but i doubt they photoshopped it…if they did, they really are bad people

Posted by: brad | March 5, 2008, 3:12 am 3:12 am

Hilary wins!

Posted by: Juan Torres | March 5, 2008, 3:45 am 3:45 am

The charge was made on DailyKos, whose shrill netroot fundamentalists have already broken en masse for Obama.
Therefore, whatever appears on that site is tainted, to be read with suspicion. Same goes for talkingpointsmemo.com and all those other talksites.
And don’t look at me; the sites brought it on to themselves. The editorial leaderships chose their candidates and so they should now not be surprised if/when they’re accused of partisanship.
It is a journalist’s JOB to be independent and objective. To inform, not to convince. Unfortunately, too many of those websites have started casting themselves as a news media of sorts…

Posted by: Kaj | March 5, 2008, 4:00 am 4:00 am

The “Clinton comeback’is the media’s fault, you played along with her spreading unconfirmed rumours and speculations for a whole week. The answers from Sen.Obama , his campaign and the Canadian ambassador never made the headlines, collaborating with a shameful smear campaign. Are you happy now, knowing the Democratic Party will have it harder than ever? Keep your objectivity and show both sides of the coin with the same length and coverage. Otherwise, you become puppets of whomever wants to use you.

Posted by: carmen | March 5, 2008, 4:44 am 4:44 am

I do a lot in photography, and on monitors, a lot is influenced by one’s settings (monitor type, age of the monitor, and the photo software’s workspace).
Add that basic lighting makes a big difference. In the pics you present the one on the left is lobster orange on my screen. Maybe some would prefer that!
My experience is that people look darker or lighter depending on the light and also, in photos, on the exposure.
But there’ll alwyas be people looking for these things, and whatever makes one happier …
It’s not as if we don’t see Obama everyday for ourselves and don’t know what he looks like. I don’t think anyone would think twice were it not for people bringing this up after looking for things.

Posted by: Andrys B. | March 5, 2008, 4:53 am 4:53 am

I like the Obama orange look. There are a lot of pictures of Hillary out there where she looks lighter, darker, her teeth are yellow or white. I haven’t heard an outcry saying someone gave Hillary big yellow teeth! Please. This is a stupid assertion. I’m going to go water the marshmallows now.

Posted by: falla c | March 5, 2008, 5:07 am 5:07 am

Actually this looks like a pathetic unprofessional job. It seems as though they captured the images from a digital feed with the extended width (this takes a 3×5 and makes it a 4×16)function on. You’ve seen it if you have a hi-def tv. The image was not color corrected and is clearly out of phase. BTW the Baltimore Sun regularly runs unflattering pictures of Sen. Clinton and the Baltimore affiliate of NBC showed her campaigning in the MD, for the whole 20 second clip her back was to the camera. We know that she had faced the front of the hall at least once in the hour she spoke, but this is what the producer had decided to air. Don’t let the press cheat you from the real issues or manipulate you. This is a real non-issue, and says more about the press and bad video producers than either candidate. Just stay aware.

Posted by: JB | March 5, 2008, 5:28 am 5:28 am

Has anyone noticed John McCaine’s neck? Sometimes it looks like a second head is growing under his chin. I hadn’t considered the possibility that the neck may be a digital ruse. Maybe John McCaine doesn’t really look old and saggy. Maybe none of the candidates (or any public figure) looks anything like the images that are portrayed in ads or in newsclips. How did democracy survived prior to the advent of television? Aside from the widespread use of such wholesome tactics as vicious political cartoons, yellow journalism, propoganda, and a wagonload of othe dirty tricks, how did candidates for political office persuade the voting public?

Posted by: falla c | March 5, 2008, 6:06 am 6:06 am

OK, the photo is a frivolous issue for many, let’s stick to a real one about Hilary’s conduct, like her activities as lawyer and board member for Walmart, which has fought unionization and fair wages for workers… NOT A PEEP about how Hilary sees that, nor where she stands on that issue. Not a word anywhere about that. No hard hitting questions from the press. HMMMMM!!! what could that all mean?

Posted by: karvictho | March 5, 2008, 6:11 am 6:11 am

Yeah, I think the charge of racism is barely tenable in this clip – the entire thing is bluetoned.
But who’s fault is it? That’s right. Clinton. She played all the race cards, so now, EVEN IF she didn’t deliberately tone his skin, EVEN IF she didn’t fudge on whether or not Obama is muslim, EVEN IF she didn’t send those emails to Drudge…
The first thing people thing is “Yes She Did”. Because she’s done it countless times already in this election. It’s too late to take the high road.
Way to go Hillary. Reap what you sow. Thank you for destroying this country.

Posted by: chicka | March 5, 2008, 12:09 pm 12:09 pm

Any time HRC overcomes the media jurganots, they always find ways to discredit her.
Both Bill and Hillary are not racist and have done more for African Americans than any media group has ever been.
Get it?
Stop the whinning and accept defeat.

Posted by: Sam1 | March 5, 2008, 1:10 pm 1:10 pm

When you make a political ad of your opponent, do you use their best looking picture for the ad?
Get a grip, you bloggers. I use to think that liberals are more sophisticated. If they are crying about an ad that uses a bad picture of Obama, then I question their level of thinking.
The whole idea of a political ad of your opponent is to cast them in the worst possible way.
Review Obama’s ad of HRC and you will get the picture.

Posted by: SO | March 5, 2008, 1:18 pm 1:18 pm

Not that it is NOT the Obama Campaign, not any representative of the Obama Campaign that brought this up. This is what the Clintons do. Whine about how they are getting unfairly picked on by the press, not the press has to find negative stories about Obama in order to look balanced. There is a reason why there are so many negative stories about HRC, she, and her husband do a lot of questionable things. They take money from the Saudis to fund her campaign, they refuse to release documentation that they have had since January to show her experience. They use innuendo and shaded answers to destroy reputations and most of all they count on the American people to be too stupid to see the manipulations. There is no, NO difference between her an McCain. She will not get us out of Iraq, look at her answers, she has said she would study it, and then go with the reccomendations of the Generals that will still be in place fromt he Bush adminsitration. She will for a committee on Social Security, just like Bush, forcing people to buy health insurance for themselves will only benefit the insurance companies and does nothign for health care. She has no education plan whatsoever, and her plan for the Economy does not involve gettign people back to work.

Posted by: Louis | March 5, 2008, 1:56 pm 1:56 pm

Note that it is NOT the Obama Campaign, not any representative of the Obama Campaign that brought this up. This is what the Clintons do. Whine about how they are getting unfairly picked on by the press, not the press has to find negative stories about Obama in order to look balanced. There is a reason why there are so many negative stories about HRC, she, and her husband do a lot of questionable things. They take money from the Saudis to fund her campaign, they refuse to release documentation that they have had since January to show her experience. They use innuendo and shaded answers to destroy reputations and most of all they count on the American people to be too stupid to see the manipulations. There is no, NO difference between her an McCain. She will not get us out of Iraq, look at her answers, she has said she would study it, and then go with the reccomendations of the Generals that will still be in place fromt he Bush adminsitration. She will for a committee on Social Security, just like Bush, forcing people to buy health insurance for themselves will only benefit the insurance companies and does nothign for health care. She has no education plan whatsoever, and her plan for the Economy does not involve getting people back to work.

Posted by: Louis | March 5, 2008, 2:00 pm 2:00 pm

I think the whole add is dark, this is just trying to get Hillary of her campaign , so the whining has really started now that she has took away his MO. Have you noticed every time she wins people start yelling racism. This is why he should just drop out now, it is tearing the party and the country apart.

Posted by: Debby | March 5, 2008, 2:18 pm 2:18 pm

Okay, anyone pushing this bogus mess needs to re-examine exactly what desperate looks like. Give me a break.

Posted by: Jen | March 5, 2008, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm

Interesting that ABC would have this story. It was ABC that had the Rush Limbaugh story about Curious George using a Curious George picture next to a photo of Obama with his lips puckered. Something I thought made an ugly situation even more disgraceful. Why are you all choosing to do that? Are you all trying to fan the flames of racism? Is the media looking for an all out rebellion from the people against it? I think the media does not reflect the people at all. They seem to join in thinking with the small minority of racists.

Posted by: irma | March 5, 2008, 4:25 pm 4:25 pm

To the Obama camp….So what are YOU all saying? There are better hues of black? Anyone who uses movie clips in video streams knows that the image is always off color with a tendency to be darker or more maroonish. Don’t defend yourself by putting darker tones down, DUH!

Posted by: irma | March 5, 2008, 4:37 pm 4:37 pm

I don’t have cable, so I watch major press conferences and State of the Union addresses on over-the-air broadcasts. Sometimes during a broadcast, the signal will weaken, and I’ll flip to the next channel. I’ve never seen such a broadcast where the color was the same on each of the networks, despite being contemporaneous pictures of the very same event. While I don’t trust the Clintons any further than I could throw them, I think this is much ado about nothing.

Posted by: Grant | March 5, 2008, 4:54 pm 4:54 pm

I have seen countless negative ads where a candidate is darkened. Its called persuasion, not racism. It would be racist to suggest Obama shouldnt get the same treatment because he is black.

Posted by: matt | March 5, 2008, 4:55 pm 4:55 pm

Just one thing i observed about race in this election.If i’ as a white man , voted for a white, because he was white, and running against a black canidate. Would i be a racist? Wellll what are all the blacks for voting , overwellmingly for obama? Just an observation. Frankly i wish Ms rice would have run. She would be bullet proof and would have crushed these 3 bozo’s handidly.Of course we,d be seeing the aunt jemimah pictures again , from the dems(their so non racist)

Posted by: marine 43 | March 5, 2008, 5:01 pm 5:01 pm

Obama disputing the “shade” is in itself racism. I like the darker color.
It has different hues.
This is what his campaign has been based on all along. Racism and McCarthyism. Instead of going on the defense, I’m astute enough to see that his whole platform is based on reverse psychology. In other words, blame the opponent for what you yourself are guilty of or what you are about to do.
Watch closely and you will see this whole thing in a different light.
This Obama campaign is based on the past. JFK, MLK, reverse psychology of the 70′s and old worn out ideas like going to meet tyrants in person to solve things. Have you ever heard anyone talk so much and say nothing as Obama? He can’t toot his horn beacuse there is NOTHING to toot about so he attacks with false accusations and mid games. Don’t fall for it people. Forge ahead Hillary camp. Igmore this liar.

Posted by: reverse_psychology | March 5, 2008, 7:14 pm 7:14 pm

“Nothing in advertising is accidental. It is over-thought and then subjected to second thoughts and second guessing then over-thought and re-looked at again. I’ve been doing this ten years. It is my professional opinion that the film was made darker, and it has obviously been stretched. I will not comment on their reasons, as I can’t offer an informed case for that.”

Posted by: J.K. Bowman | March 5, 2008, 8:59 pm 8:59 pm

are all pictures of HRC and McCain the exact same skin tone? Both of them are about the colour of a sack of baking flour, so they could use a little colour.

Posted by: Aaron | March 5, 2008, 9:37 pm 9:37 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 | March 5, 2008, 10:13 pm 10:13 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 | March 5, 2008, 10:26 pm 10:26 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 | March 5, 2008, 10:37 pm 10:37 pm

BlindedbytheLight:
My comment is not directed at ABC, but at the source or sources of the complaint.

Posted by: Yupdatsme | March 5, 2008, 10:44 pm 10:44 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 | March 5, 2008, 10:58 pm 10:58 pm

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 | March 5, 2008, 11:23 pm 11:23 pm

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 | March 6, 2008, 12:56 am 12:56 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 | March 6, 2008, 1:13 am 1:13 am

The accusation is a complete lie, leveled by the technically incompetent.

Posted by: Joseph Cannon | March 6, 2008, 7:06 am 7:06 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 | March 6, 2008, 9:34 am 9:34 am

If we think this nation has not recial problems then why 95% of blacks vote for Obama?

Posted by: george | March 6, 2008, 10:30 am 10:30 am

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 | March 6, 2008, 1:11 pm 1:11 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 | March 6, 2008, 2:13 pm 2:13 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 | March 6, 2008, 2:14 pm 2:14 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 | March 6, 2008, 2:31 pm 2:31 pm

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 | March 6, 2008, 3:22 pm 3:22 pm

“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 | March 7, 2008, 12:53 am 12:53 am

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 | March 7, 2008, 10:49 am 10:49 am

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 | March 7, 2008, 2:34 pm 2:34 pm

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 | April 1, 2008, 4:02 pm 4:02 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.