Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Daiy Kos caught smearing Hillary: Factcheck determines "photo darkening" claims "unsubstantiated"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ada chupitos perez Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 09:50 PM
Original message
Daiy Kos caught smearing Hillary: Factcheck determines "photo darkening" claims "unsubstantiated"
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 10:00 PM by ada chupitos perez
The independent website "factcheck.org" analyzed claims by the pro-Obama site Daily Kos, that Hillary Clinton's camp had darkened Obama's picture, or video, in order to make him 'blacker", and determined the claims are "unsubstantiated".

This will be top news on the internet for a few days:

(Translation: The Daily Kos wanted to play the race card yet again.)

These are the independent website's conclusions:

From the website:


Obama supporters on the Internet are agitated over the apparent darkening of Obama's image in a Clinton attack ad.

Our video team took a look. Our conclusions:

* The Obama frames from the ad do appear darker than other video of Obama from the same event.

* 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.

* 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.


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/did_clinton_dar...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks
As a graphics pro --I've been saying this too

Thanks for the post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. And you just KNOW there will be ten threads about the debunking
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 10:01 PM by Kurt_and_Hunter
This was not team Obama's proudest day
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
46. with 100's of hate filled slime by posters here on DU!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
29. not only was it darkened, it was widened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Nope
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #29
49. By whoever put it on you-tube. READ the post. Or this one:
The Obama darkened face myth debunked.

Here is a shot of the you-tube video clip that started all the hype:


Here is the high-quality video as it actually appeared and was broadcast on television:



Here, if anyone wants to cry racism is how the same clip appeared on MSNBCs website:


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/did_clinton_dar...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. Your facts do not agree with you title.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. Hmmm..... would the You-Tube be the original ad and the one now up
on Hillary's web site be the 'ooops- someone figured out what we did better fix it quick" version?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
51. You usually have much luck stretching one piece of bubblegum to the moon?
Can't blame you for trying I guess, even in the face of hard evidence. Hate is such a hard habit to break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmilyAnne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. Good to know. I didn't believe she or her campaign would do something like that.
Especially when it would be so hurtful to so many democrats AND so easy to discover. Puhlease.
I understand daily kos seeing an "irregularity" and wondering about it. That's ok to ask questions when something looks weird. Its just not helpful to jump to the most sinister conclusion first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
6. Another day, another spurious charge from the Obama camp punctured
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
57. Yeah, right: clink those beer mugs together with your now tombstoned buddy, the trolling OP....
Another day, another example of how HRC fans love to link arms with disruptor's if it helps bolster their "cause"....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #57
74. hate is not a good thing to live by.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #74
106. Neither is buddying up to disruptor trolls - but you go right ahead and keep at it.
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #106
108. what is disrupting about the OP. ??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #108
110. He/She/It has been tombstoned, genius. Figure it out for yourself.
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #110
118. hey sweetie--I asked about the OP--not the poster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. Sorry, I still smell a rat. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
37. Get your nose out of your . . . . .
underarm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ada chupitos perez Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. Rupert Murdoch's NY Post ran this Daily Kos non-story/smear today
You know your story is crap when Murdoch runs to tell the world.

By BILL SANDERSON


March 5, 2008 -- A prominent left-wing Web site is questioning whether Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign is playing the race card - by darkening the tone of Barack Obama's skin in a new TV attack ad.

The commercial, which began airing Monday in Texas, used footage from last week's Ohio debate in which Obama admits that a Senate subcommittee he has led since early 2007 hasn't held any hearings on Afghanistan because he's been too busy campaigning.

"Call me crazy, but it certainly appears to me that Sen. Obama's skin tone is significantly darker in the Clinton campaign commercial" than it appeared in the debate, wrote J. Thomas Cronin, who blogs on the Daily Kos Web site.



http://www.nypost.com/seven/03052008/news/nationalnews/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
9. I didn't need factcheck to tell me how stupid that was.
I opened that thread, rolled my eyes and promptly closed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
54. You inspire me to clean out my "buddy" list, which I have been using as a tombstone watch
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 11:18 PM by Hoof Hearted
and fill it with sane and gracious Obama supporters. All this is going to be over one day, and the truth is, we need each other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
66. Thank you--good to hear from an obamafolk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
10. "Clinton ad makers may have darkened the Obama images intentionally, to some degree"
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 10:18 PM by zulchzulu
The article admits that the production did use darkening techniques. When the video was uploaded to YouTube and converted to Flash video from MP4 format (standards used by YouTube), that was closer to the digital source used. The video used by the TV station is washed out due to the file being converted to Windows Media to be used on the news streaming section on their web site. Windows Media is not broadcast quality and the conversion process usually is lighter and the sound louder.



YouTube frame with graduated background on left



Windows Media version also enlarged to larger size as well as faded graduated background


Besides all this, the video of Obama WAS darkened as per the article. That's the point.

I've been doing digital video production for years and can talk about codecs, formats, conversion standards all day long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #10
85. "Had the bloggers compared the CMAG version of the ad to the MSNBC version of the debate"
Our conclusion: Had the bloggers compared the CMAG version of the ad to the MSNBC version of the debate, they would have a far less compelling case for intentional darkening in the Clinton ad. To our eye the Clinton ad has a noticeably less reddish hue, but whether it looks darker or not depends on which version of the ad is being compared to which version of the original debate footage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwenu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
11. Did they say anything about Hillary's campaign creating the "He's a muslim" e-mail????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
50. Stay focused or go start your own thread please
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
12. Just goes to show who the real race baiters are.
Same in SC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
13. just because the whole picture is darker & not just his skin doesn't mean the intent wasnt' the same
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beregond2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Just because...
Exactly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #13
123. listen to your vile. shameful!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
15. I'm sorry but I don't think factcheck has some extra sensory powers the rest of us do not.
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 10:20 PM by Bread and Circus
I've watched both videos (Clinton's commercial and the original debate clip) and it's very clear that it's been doctored.

factcheck.org is highly over rated as it is. Rarely do I come away from that site knowing more than when I went to it.

Their position is that is the artifact of the youtube video that makes Obama darker and wider. However, why doesn't this artifact of darkness extend to his shirt (which is actually whiter) or to Hillary herself? It only seems to affect Obama's visage...strange indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ada chupitos perez Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. hmm, let's see. A team of video experts vs. a DU'ers called 'bread and circus'
tough choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. The "team of video experts" failed to mention the sources were from different video formats
Besides, the article DOES admit that the Hillary camp DID darken the video. That's the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. go look for yourself...
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 10:24 PM by Bread and Circus
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/21311/85811/...

and tell me why the letters and logos weren't desaturated, darkened, and widened?

In that youtube video Hillary has good color and proper proportion.

If this was a "youtube" technical artifact, everything would be distorted, not just the black guys face.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. The "widen" is a fucking HOAX
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 10:40 PM by Kurt_and_Hunter
How can you disseminate lies like that?

The "widen" picture is not taken from the actual TV ad, it is taken from an internet posting of the ad where the entire ad is stretched to wide-screen format in the little playing window.

The actual TV ad was not "widened." It is 1:1.33.

The little picture there is taken from the original 1:1.33 ad stretched to wide-screen 1:1.66.

That is a malicious hoax... the image shown is NOT FROM THE TV AD.

You have been royally punked, and yet you keep spreading this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #27
53. Again you are asking me to not believe my own eyes...when Obama's image
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 11:20 PM by Bread and Circus
in the ad is the only thing that is distorted. Not the lettering. Not the logos. Not Hillary's face either. Some how the aspect ratio only applies to Obama's face. I'm not talking about still shots, I'm talking about the videos.

Watch the videos, freeze the frames, move your eyes back and forth from one image to the other. You will see in the Clinton ad Obama is darker, desaturated of natural color, and wider. It's easy to see.

Of course, this could be "youtube" artifact, but then everything else should be darker, desaturated, and wider. But it's not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #53
64. Your own eyes see thru the lens of HATE!! your credibility is ZERO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #64
79. rodeodance. i expect more out of you. nu uh. i dont hate. anyone
but i do like truth. i want truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #79
105. this posts are terrible--thread after thread!! and you know that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #105
107. no. i know that something is up with the picture. i want to know why
if hillary doctored the film then she had to do it with the expectation that someone might notice and might have to explain herself. i am asking why. i dont want it to be the reason that is obvious. blogslut cam up with another plausible reason. but it is important to know why.

i wont do another four years of this type of politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #107
112. yes. IF doctored. but to ASSume it came from hill camp even before you
know is stupid. In addition--'all things clinton" have gotten attached to the vile comments.
enough said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #53
77. this is what get me. it is visible. you are looking at it and hillary suppporters
insist there is nothing to see. kinda like that nothing to see all, move along..... when looking at it say uh hu.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k8conant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
17. "And dark images are a common technique used in attack ads."
It says it right there. I rest my case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
20. No way!
Next thing you know you're going to tell me Hillary doesn't eat kittens. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
21. The Obama supporters that are jumping on this are fools.
That's all I have to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
22. Okay, smartass. Explain this then:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Oh dear lord.
How long are we gonna be subjected to this?
The letters are on the pajamas because it says "good night."
Get a clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #22
40. This IS a joke, right??
Btw, I hear if you play a Clinton ad backwards it says "Obama is a black man. Pass it on."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #22
58. ACKKKKKKK!!!!! GOOD NIGHT PAJAMAS!!!!!! THE HORROR!!!!! THE HORRRRRRRRORRRR!!!!!
Get 'em away! GET 'EM AWAY!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #58
86. oooooooooo noooooooes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
23. Would this be the factcheck.org mentioned here?
In defense of Allen, Cal Thomas cited FactCheck.org's already-debunked criticism of Vote Vets ad
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609280002

Ignoring change after Kerry rating, FactCheck.org claimed National Journal has used same "rigorous process ... since 1981"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802140013

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610300009

Media Still Using Debunked FactCheck.org Analysis to Discredit VoteVets Ad in Senate Contests
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609280011

FactCheck.org...Wrong on the Facts
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609220012 ?

From the annals of pseudo-analysis
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh060404.shtml

Meanwhile, partisans link to the stories they like. On Tuesday, Eric Alterman said that ABC was lying for Bush and summarized Robinsonthereby offering an account of the facts which strongly cut against Bush. Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivansaying theres not much therelinked to an absurdly Bush-friendly account produced by Brooks Jackson at factcheck.org, a brand-new Annenberg operation. How absurd is Jacksons account? He lavishes time on those two Bush friendsfriends who recall Bush saying he was pulling Guard duty. But incredibly, other evidence sleeps with the fishes. Incredibly, Jackson doesnt mention the May 1973 report in which Bushs superiors at Ellington air base said hed been absent for the whole year. Its simply astounding that this report was produced by a man who was, until recently, CNNs ballyhooed fact-checking star. Annenberg should be embarrassed to have this laughable report on its site.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020504.shtml

Factcheck.org explains who is right about social security:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh050405.shtml

They don't exactly have a clean record on "fact checking"

Sorry, I'm waiting for the definitive answer from Uncle Cecil or snopes.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ada chupitos perez Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Out of thousands of fact-checks, you cherry-pick counter-criticism that we don't know to be fair
And you determine by this "analysis" that the website has no credibility? ha!

Factcheck.org is the top fact-checking site in the United State.
It defended Kerry from the Swifties, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #23
38. Good work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #23
47. Yeah, factcheck has had its own issues and it is known.
I haven't participated in the darkening drama either here or at Dkos. I frankly don't care at this point. There are many claims and counterclaims. I worry more right now at the massive increase of personal attacks in the media on the frontrunner Obama with little real "there" and the power politics and deliberate misinformation to try to crush the Obama voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
25. THANK YOU for bringing this here. It was effin ridiculous in the first place.
Like stretching one piece of bubblegum to the moon.


(Translation: The Daily Kos wanted to play the race card yet again.)

Indeed.

Bookmarking, kicking and recommending.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ada chupitos perez Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. It is the "race war" that has brought Obama to his position as front-runner
Remember that a lot of African Americans, though still a minority, supported Hillary before claims of racism surfaced after Hillary criticized Dwight Eisenhower for not doing enough for civil rights (Obama supporters never told us this part, because Hillary bashing a white guy doesn't fit the script), praising Lyndon B. Johnson for doing his part and regretting that JFK had not been able to do anything about it because he died.

Even the "fairy tale" comments about Obama's war record was strangely labeled as "racially insensitive".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. Not too long ago the right was throwing accusation of Bill fathering black babies as a way of
illustrating without actually coming out and saying "Hey, these Clinton's like black people just a little too much."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InAbLuEsTaTe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
30. Can you blame anyone for suspecting Hillary of such shenanigans . . .
given all the other crap she's pulled? I sure don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ada chupitos perez Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. They suspected her of Whitewater. They suspected her of Vince Foster
Can you blame anyone for believing these new accusations are part of the bullshit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Medusa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. We have eyes. We can see this.
We have ears. We know what we heard in SC. We know what we heard and saw on 60 minutes. Keep denying it exists if you'd like but this is now getting media play.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #36
43. lame --hundreds of slime posters all feeding on HATE--that is what was 'seen"!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #30
56. Yes, I Absolutely Can.
This accusation was beyond absurd and anyone thinking clearly should've been able to see it for what it was in a friggin heartbeat. But so many have lost the ability to think clearly, and instead just knee jerk without any scrutiny or common sense whatsoever, that this story actually got life to it and tons of people were running around making fools of themselves.

This should've been a no brainer right out of the gate, period. The accusations were not only beyond stupid, but beyond distasteful and melodramatic. Common sense easily should've been able to dismiss this out of hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
34. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWebHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
35. ohh, okay, if they darken the entire ad
then it's okay to darken up the black candidate. That entire Time magazine cover was darkened up too, so I guess factcheck.org is okay with that too. I'm sure republicans will note this for future reference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JimGinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
39. In Their Totally Subjective Opinion - They Have No Idea
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #39
52. and of course that clears hillary and all of us fools, cause we can clearly see the color
change. hillary, just give us the friggin answer and we will be done with it. and none of us have to play the game anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
41. So, they darkened the entire ad for what purpose?
racist a-holes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liquorice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. Haven't you ever seen
an oppositional campaign ad? They're almost all dark like that. It's nothing new.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
42. wtf... you make it sound like it clears them, yet reading stating there was darkening
where are you seeing hillary cleared on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ada chupitos perez Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. It says attack ads are darkened, and that Hillary's face is also darkened
And that the somber, dark mood of the ad is justified.

But of course, you have to cherrypick facts in order to justify the smear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. oh bullshit. i want the truth and i am tired of having to work thru words
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 11:05 PM by seabeyond
and mislead and untruths and denials and excuses and justifying to find the truth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
55. You Mean, There's A Common Sense Explanation That Any Reasonable And Rational Person Already Knew?
I'm shocked! SHOCKED!

Chalk this up as a no brainer...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. I'm shocked! SHOCKED! myself, that you're buddying up with another tombstoned disruptor.
Well, not really...

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laugle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
60. I knew it was bogus, and so is the claim that the
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 11:30 PM by laugle
Hillary camp put out the photo of Obama in Kenya, like you can really believe the "SLUDGE/DRUDGE" report!

Want to hear another funny one I noticed on MSNBC last night, they had two really nice pictures of Hillary and Obama, and then I noticed they had doctored-up his ears. His ears were flat and it looked like they had put someone else's ears on him. More likely they just air-brushed them. I wonder if anyone else noticed?

There seem to be a lot of people creating mischief...........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
61. *Kick* for all the HRC supporters to come back in and lavish praise on the OP, their newest hero
in the DU GD: P wars....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
62. This OP got 19 "recommends" on a very bogus basis. I'd be interested in hearing the justifications
for those "recommends" from an obvious troll, HRC supporters - if you have an ounce of integrity or self-respect left. I won't be holding my breath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gustapof Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. Since you can't criticize Fatcheck.org's argument, go after the OP!
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 11:51 PM by gustapof
Shooting the messenger is a bad way to win an argument. You didn't even shoot the REAL messenger, which is Factcheck.org, but instead shot the guy who copy and pasted Factcheck's findings. I don't blame you though. There is nothing to justify the Daily Kos' attempted smear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #65
68. I didn't "go after the OP" - the mods did. And it looks like they got him/her/it...
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gustapof Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. You went after him/her too
And listen to your logic: "The OP who linked to Factcheck.org was banned, therefore Daily Kos was right".

LOL. No one plays dumb like an Obama supporter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. Cry me a river.
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #70
83. huh? someone got banned over this thread. ??? geez, blink and miss something. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #83
119. i wonder if it was over this or something else? No one is being clear about this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
63. The silence from the Hillary Clinton supporters who slobbered love over this OP is deafening....
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gustapof Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #63
67. wow, you just posted 4 messeges in a row. Are you that angry?
And why do you keep ignoring Factcheck.org, focusing instead on a DU'er? Was the DU'er who analyzed the video?
I thought it had been analyzed by a team of video experts from factcheck.org.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. "ada chupitos perez," is that you?
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gustapof Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. apocalypsehow, wanna talk about Factcheck.org? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. Cry me a river.
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gustapof Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. Can you say that 5 or 6 more times?
It works as a "kick" to the thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #76
81. And this *WAS* your thread originally, wasn't it?
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #76
102. Ah, and now *YOU'RE* gone from our fine forum, too. AGAIN. But you made many HRC supporters happy
with your smears, right up until the moment you were TOS'D. Telling, that. And quite pitiful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #73
78. your posts are shameful. As were posters conjuring up hate on this issue!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #78
82. Go ahead and support your tombstoned buddy the OP some more - I'll leave it to DU's legitimate
members to sort out who has been "shameful" or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #82
122. Not my buddy. You are foolish to ASSume that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsmirman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #67
80. Whoa. All of a sudden the website's "video team" is a "team of video experts"?
That's quite a transition you're working there.

I think that- as it was from the first this ad was brought up- the issue is still unclear.

I would very much like to know the source of the frames that people are using to show the "non youtube" version of the ad. Because if it's Hillary's website, well, that would make it a useless reference point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gustapof Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #80
84. Yes, they are video experts, unlike the Daily Kos anonymous diarists and Obama hacks
Including the obscure guy who posted the smear.

Factcheck only hires experts. It is part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The Daily Kos is a website where ANYONE can create a post and spew the most baseless accusations, including this one.

Do not compare one with the other. It's prestrige vs. bias:

http://www.factcheck.org/about/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #84
87. False - your OP here has been proven phony. Why would any legitimate DU member believe you?
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motorolaman Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #87
93. Has Factcheck.org been proven phoney? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #93
99. And another disruptor bites the dust...HRC supporters, you must be real proud, huh?
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsmirman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #87
97. how exactly was the OP proven "phony"?
I missed this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #97
100. Your inability to keep up is not my problem, genius.
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsmirman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #100
109. Uh, this is definitely a sign of the need for deep breaths around here
I'm someone who has- after a period before my primary of being undecided- lined up behind Obama.

My posts on DU could probably be characterized as "trying to remain civil to Hillary supporters and occasionally failing."

But I was asking a question, and you seem to be running a bit ahead of yourself, tonight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #109
113. Peddle it elsewhere - I'm not interested.
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsmirman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #113
115. I'm a poster WHO FAVORS OBAMA (caps, since you're slow on the uptake)
Good lord, you are a jack***.

This is a new one for me in internet debates. Friendly fire, lol. Wow, the level of discourse here is pretty busted sometimes...

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #115
116. As I said - peddle it elsewhere. Your special pleading doesn't interest me. Thanks.
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsmirman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #84
95. Fair point that it's a reputable organization, still not sure
that I'm seeing a "team of video experts" there, as the closest thing I can find on their staff is a former PA for Bill Moyers. Now, the funny thing is that my sister worked for Bill Moyers a lot longer than that woman did, and the idea of calling her a "video expert" :rofl:

There are facts and non-facts.

Your point is not without legitimacy, but it just doesn't establish the credentials of the people who supposedly came to this conclusion.

And I still believe that it is a legitimate question to insist that they spell out exactly how they sourced their video images.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #80
90. yes it is unclear. we look and see doctoring. do we know
wtf it is about... no we dont. we are left guessing. but clearly we can see it. then hillary supporters come on and call us all kinds of names, that we are stupid, hateful and all kinds of things as we clearly look and see the change in the picture. all we are asking is why the fuck was the picture changed.

so answer hillary

then we can move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
75. HA! WRONG! FACT CHECK CAUGHT POSTING DOCTORED FILE! SEE HERE === >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #75
88. You just linked TO YOURSELF?
:rofl:

This is why I have my ignore list on hold. Sometimes it's just too fucking entertaining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #88
91. I linked to a post I made that DEBUNKS this b.s. story the OP posted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #91
94. bah hahah, to the bah hahahh of the poster that linked to your other post
but in confusion found such humor in thinking you posted to self, which you did post to self, but just aother self, not this self. lol lol

i think it is time for bed,

was a day today
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
89. Obama supporters take their cues from Obama: lie, lie, lie,

distort, distort, distort. Accuse your opponent of racism. Did he do that to Alan Keyes, too???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #89
92. no, we look at a doctored picture and say wtf. we want to know why
instead of name calling, pretending picture was doctored, ignoring or dismissing, just tell us why it was doctored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bitingforest Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #92
98. Attack ads are often made darker to give a somber tone
Factcheck explained that and it is a well-known fact in the graphic design and advertising world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #98
104. i dont want fact check to guess why hillary darkened obama....
that is not a satisfying answer, not is it necessarily a correct one. it is their guess...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #104
120. good gawd. anyone trying to reason with you is doomed.!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #89
96. Just keep cuddling up to your buddy the OP - he only seems to be able to answer through sockpuppets
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #96
114. You must enjoy living with so much hate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #114
117. You must enjoy living with so many disruptor's, misdirected freepers, and outright trolls....
Thankfully, the DU Admin & Mods do not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
springflower Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
101. Daily Kos diarist applied the "Clinton rules" described by Krugman
Krugman (February 11, 2008):

Whats particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of Clinton rules the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.htm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #101
103. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 12:47 AM
Response to Original message
111. Thanks for facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #111
121. i note facts did not appy to obamafolk who choose to just hate for sake of hating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 02:18 AM
Response to Original message
124. I forgot to say. I have thought KOS was full of shit since before '04.
So I have the conscience of being consistent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 06:44 AM
Response to Original message
125. locking
The OP is no longer with us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 23rd 2014, 06:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC