Hillary Ad Also Widened Obama's Face...

[Yes We Did]

From America Blog:

Hillary ad also widens Obama's face, making his nose more stereotypically African-American - and then they got caught lying about it

"You'll recall that we wrote yesterday about how Hillary had blackened Barack Obama's face in a new campaign attack ad. Well, Markos found that that's not all they did. They also stretched the width of Obama's face, making his nose wider and more stereotypically African-American looking. Oh yeah, and then they lied about it, and got caught."

http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/hillary-ad-also-widens-obamas-face.html

The Clinton camp denies this of course, and goes on to say that the blogs are lying an don't have the ad. However, if you go to Kos, he has the image right from Hillary's website and MSNBC debate she took the image from.

The Images are the same height, but the ad is wider. Don't give me any of that "if I squint" bs. Use a damned ruler. There is a definite difference.


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/21311/85811/447/468408

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. You really need to see this:

There's even more going on than meets the eye:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-are-letters-nig-on-childs-pajamas.html

[Yes We Did]

3. Hence... the "Democrat" Party...

So, why don't people view this in the same light?

[Yes We Did]

7. I just updated the link... FULL story on Kos. You don't need a ruler.

[hueyshort]

52. Stop this nonsense. I am a Photoshop Artist

This is a legitimate way of cleaning up and enhancing
a video shot.
Desaturate, enrich the blacks.
Look at Obama's website. His movs are even DARKER.
Maybe he's in on the consipracy!

[hueyshort]

53. All of you Obama people screamed he was too Light

on SNL! What on earth is wrong with you?

[hueyshort]

58. Obama Supporters: STOP Race Baiting !

[Yes We Did]

61. It's not race baiting if it's true.

Stop trying to excuse the inexcusable.

[hueyshort]

76. Kos has made a total Fool out of himself

to anyone with undertstanding of video and photoshop.
(and not wishful thinking people who claim they do)

[Yes We Did]

83. And clearly you don't understand photoshop.

If you think this can't be done.

[Celebration]

95. Just how do you explain this???

Hillary's darker photo of Obama is the same height, but broader than the real Obama.

Exactly what part of photoshop don't I understand?

[Yes We Did]

97. Thanks for posting that there.

I love when people tell me I don't understand a program I've been using for 3 years.

[Celebration]

109. The shenanigans are as clear

As the broadened nose on Obama's face.

[Texas Hill Country]

98. there are a thousand legitimate reasons why that would be so...

stop grasping at straws.

[Yes We Did]

108. I'm just looking at the pictues. I don't need to grasp. It's in plain view.

Anyone who looked at the before and after would have seen the difference. You are grasping for excuses.

[Texas Hill Country]

118. why go for the tinfoil hat theory?

could be rendering to fit into the rest of the advert, could be balancing colors, could be could be could be...

like i said, there are thousands of other reasons, why go for the worst and the most shady one possible?

[Yes We Did]

119. Alright... best case scenario...

It is really shotty work.

Best case, with all that money she has raised, she hired someone who didn't really know what they were doing.

The truth probably lies in between the two.

However, I will say this. I have seen numberous commercials with "photos" and none of them have had that kind of distortion. That's just a fact.

[Hoof Hearted]

168. Here is the TRUTH about the "darkened face" myth. FACTCHECK.ORG

The Obama “darkened face” myth debunked.

Here is 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 you want to cry “racism” is how the same clip appeared on MSNBC’s website:


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/did_clinton_darken_obamas_skin.html

[NashVegas]

142. How About the Part Where You Use IDENTICAL Frames For Comparison?

Which those are not.

[Yes We Did]

147. I gave a link close as possible...

plus, there are a to of identical photos posted throughout the thread. Nice try.

Well, not identical... Hillary's are altered of course.

[aquart]

159. As usual, the race baiting comes from the Obama camp.

Didn't get enough of a guilt vote in Texas?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

173. You know, I'm going to defer to the African-American community on this.

The 85/15 split in all the primaries speaks volumes. Obviously they see something you don't, and I'm going to take their opinion over that of a Hillary shill.

Hope y'all enjoyed the bigot vote you got in OH.

[Celebration]

94. Did we complain that his face was not broad enough?

Hillary took care of that!

[Yes We Did]

57. I am a photoshop artist too. Maybe you need to take a look.

take the images off Kos, and take the smaller one and scale it up... DON'T forget to keep the aspect ratio the same. This image was stretched out.

And second, your de-saturate argument is lame at best. Although, you are right, it does make him look darker.

And third, this image was taken from MSNBC... NONE of the videos on there show him that dark. Nice try though... desperate as it was.

[hueyshort]

67. Oh, PLEASE!!!

You sound like a neophyte. Desaturate always to make video look filmic.
Have you ever converted horizontal pixels to square? Do you understand the
concept of D1? Ratios get screwed up.
And finally, you IDIOT, a picture quality looks different on every monitor.
On a Mac it will look washed out, on a pc it will look dark, on a print
monitor it will look one way on a video monitor, on a business monitor.
YOU DO NOT KNOW ONE THING ABOUT VIDEO OR PHOTOSHOP!

[Yes We Did]

73. yes, and I've got two monitors in front of me.

And second, no name calling. That will get you booted quicker than you can blink.

Second, the image is altered. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

I have the image open on photoshop right now. And while an image will look different from monitor to monitor... one thing still holds true.

The difference between the original and the edited pictures still remains. Also, aspect ratio doesn't change just because you are on a different monitor.

I got one set ot 800x600 and one at 1024x768

The images look the same. Nice try though.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yes We Did]

82. Then go away.

The ONLY one hurting the democratic party is Hillary Clinton.

[Hepburn]

145. IMO, it is altered.

No doubt in my mind.

[Celebration]

93. Oh, so you just happen to enhance

Black faces to MAKE THEM BROADER????



The facial images are the same height, but Hillary's campaign not only darkened, but broadened it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

107. Go to the link and watch the ad (link)

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/145.aspx

You will notice the entire ad is stretched to be widescreen.

Even the periods in the text are stretched into tiny ovals.

The whole ad is broadened on the web, but it wasn't that way on normal TV.

[Celebration]

106. You need to take a closer look

Is broadening the photo a "legitimate way of cleaning up and enhancing a video shot."?

[Hoof Hearted]

169. you need to do better research. from factcheck.org

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 MSNBC’s website:


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/did_clinton_darken_obamas_skin.html

[cali]

11. Are you an expert in this field? I'm not and that's why I'm witholding

judgment. I wish a forensics expert in the field would weigh in. But you dismiss it out of hand. Why is that? It's not that altering images hasn't been know to be used as a campaign tactic, so why are you simply the mirror opposite of those claiming that it must have been done on purpose? There's not a whit's worth of difference between you and the folks you're mocking. You're leaping to a conclusion in the same manner.

[Yes We Did]

25. I do this stuff for a living... An expert? I wouldn't say that.

But this is what I do... graphic design and web design... some video editing.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

55. There's little in graphic design I haven't done at one time or another

And designers are not generally propagandists by nature. They want something to look good.

You resize things and crop things and adjust color to make things look good... read well, match type design, etc. I will make literally hundreds of adjustments in Photoshop to a photo to clean it up, make the colors pleasing.

And there are wrinkles to working with images. For instance, every time you save a compressed image, the contrast increases. Different format conversions change color and contrast. Copying video changes color and contrast.

Was his face widened? Well, it's the same as asking whether his face was squashed a little vertically. Was it? I don't know. I have squashed and stretched thousands of images to fit a format, to be compatible with other images, etc.

Another issue: when you look at a still from a video you are looking at something very distorted. Video isn't a series of clear images, it's a flowing mash of indistinct images that add up to appearing clear in the eye. Take a screen capture of any video and it's shocking how low quality it is.

Since the after" picture offered is clearer and more detailed than the "before" (which is impossible) I going to guess we are comparing a standrd video screen capture with a high-definition source. I have no idea what changes that implies, but I haven't seen a format yet that didn't change things somehow.

So is the picture offered really the same as the video? Probably not. Or maybe the same on one TV but not another. Are we comparing a you-tube mpg. with a high-def screen cap? I don't know.

Is Clinton darkened and stretched? Who knows.

American TVs use NTSC video format. Computer monitors do not. Does this mean anything? Well, I'm guessing you can find ten video people and get ten answers. (The vido format contains the picture ratio. Change it a litle bit and you've got heads to tall or too short or whatever.)

So proving something has been altered is not a serious allegation. Everything you ever see on TV or in a magazine is altered. It's not like a chain of custody for forensic evidence.

When I was an illustrator I always winced when a client requested a person in a scene should be black because it's a mine-field... people will raise questions about a depiction of a black person out of paranoid over-sensitivity. Is she too dark? Are his features exaggerated? Etc.. A piece would be passed around to five (hung-up white) people to be weighed against some vague notion of sensitivity.

Ironically, in my experience black people are less touchy about such matters... they tend to see images of black people as images of individual people, not as statements of racial attitudes. The art director telling me to add 3.4 black people to a crowd scene and fretting about whether someone's nose was too broad was invariably a white person.

Having lived it, I just don't take this story at all seriously.

Is it possible that someone told a video technician to make Obama darker and broader in the face? Sure. It's possible. But to hunt for such things is madness... there are a thousand things that affect how an image ends up in commercial use, and 90% of them are all but accidental.

It seems we are introducing some unrealistic new "rules" for black candidates that have never been followed for other candidates. Images in negative ads are never chosen to flatter. The "bad guy" in a negative ad is always desaturated... often down to grainy black and white in slow motion. The "good guy" is in color and beaming.

If one is inclined to hunting for racial slights, you'll find them. But if we are to have mainstream candidates of color, then we need to stop identifying every previously mundane aspect of political campaigning as racist.

A negative ad against a black man will show him in a poor light, but not necessarily because he is black. Because he's the "bad guy" in the ad.

In practice, Obama will be less distorted in political ads out of sensitivity. If he was white he would probably look like Hannibal Lecter!

(There are exceptions, of course. The Willie Horton ad darkened him so much he was just a dark shape with two eyes. I have little doubt that was intentional.)

[Yes We Did]

66. You forget.... Whoever the graphic artist they used was working for Hillary.

"Looks good" depends on your motives.

I am looking at this in photoshop right now. This image was part of a larger image... It did not need to be altered.

And, with digital media, you can grab a frame and have it look crystal clear.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

72. Why isn't the "before" image as clear as the "after"?

[Yes We Did]

78. Actually, the before image is clearer.

Take a look. Please.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/21311/85811/447/468408

copy the images, take them into photoshop. isolate the smaller one, keep the aspect ratio's locked. chop it down to cheek to ear, hair to neckline and resize. If you make them the same height, the edited one hangs over... noticeably.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

88. This is getting comical. I did read the link, and I went to see the video on Hillary's site

as recommended in the Kos piece, to see the truest version of the ad.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/145.aspx

When you watch that video you will notice something about it... it' s widescreen

So what exactly are we talking about? The entire video is stretched out to widescreen, and we are supposed to be bowled over that Obama is WIDER.

Yes... it it a TV ad stretched to widescreen... you will notice that the periods in the text are little ovals too.

Because the entire ad is stretched to widescreen at that link.

And that's the link the KOS piece says I should go to to see the problem.

I'm out....

(PS: Th contrast is higher and the saturation is lower. Those seem like unextraordinary alterations to me. If they seem extraordinary to someone else, that's just an agree to disagree thing. People in negative ads are never shown to best advantage.)

[Yes We Did]

91. Well, we will agree to disagree then.

However... I have one last question for you. Why is it that his shirt wasn't made darker? Only his face is darker.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

104. When you increase contrast it pushes everything away from middle gray

Dark gets darker, light gets lighter.

A very dark gray like the shadow behind his ear fills in black. A very light tone like the shirt color burns out to pure white.

Any format change or compression increases contrast. The simplest example is a xerox of a xerox... the contrast increases with each copy.

So if even one non-lossless copy or compression of a video clip is made, the contrast goes up. Darks fill in black. Lights burn out white.

To say this could not have been altered with the specific intent of making him appear blacker would be proving a negative. So I wouldn't say that.

But I'm not freaked out by what I'm seeing. I just did a job where a conversion from RGB for a web piece to CMYK for the print version turned an hispanic woman bright red. I am glad the client said, "can you fix the color on this one" instead of saying, "what do you have against latinos!!??"

[Yes We Did]

112. So once again, why would they do that?

What would be the motive? That doesn't improve picture quality. If they wanted to improve picture quality, they would just adjust the curves.

This just makes him look darker and blurry. You don't do that unless you are trying to portray something negative.

[Celebration]

100. Good grief

I sized these pictures using Paint. I don't even have Photoshop. Look at her picture of Obama-- it is the same height, but wider than the real Obama...

[Yes We Did]

110. Not to mention, there are ways around that.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

117. Are you intentionally ignoring the fact here?

The screen-capture of "wide Obama" was taken from this link:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/145.aspx

You will notice the entire ad is stretched to be widescreen.

Even the periods in the text are stretched into tiny ovals.



Again, he was not broadened in the original ad.

The linked video online is being displayed in a widescreen box, so the whole ad is being stretched sideways to fit the box.

Have you ever visited someone with a widescreen TV? People often have it set to show even regular TV widescreen. It makes everyone wider. It's not that the shows they are watching were made to be wide. It's that the TV is set wrong, and is stretching them.

What the Kos poster did is exactly the same as if I took a picture of a TV that I knew had the wrong ratio setting and then claimed that was how the original show looked.

The image of Obama in the original ad is not broadened.

[Yes We Did]

120. so best case scenario... shotty work?

Like I said... the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.

I just don't see it all being a coincidence.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

129. I don't even know if it's an error.

It wasn't shown on TV that way.

But whoever posted it at Hillary.com may have quite intentionally set it at widescreen because widescreen looks classy.

But not for the purpose of making the one image of Barack look wider-nosed.

If the story was that Hillary.com had the video window set wrong on the internet version of the ad it would be acurate, but I doubt anyone would care.

The story is that it's a TV ad, but the source image of the wideness controversy is not how the ad appeared on TV, so there's no real story.

[Yes We Did]

131. I understand what you are saying...

But given everything she has tossed at him... the kitchen sink stragegy.. I just can't bring myself to accept that this was just an accident. I just can't do it.

She has done nothing to let me think anything but it was intentional.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

134. Fair enough. I'm not happy with some of the campaigning myself.

[aquart]

162. You CAN'T see it as "coincidence."

You have too much invested in believing Clinton is the Wicked Witch of the West.

[seaglass]

114. That was a very educational and interesting post. I'm sorry that

many can only see through partisan eyes and few are really looking for answers :-(, I think you did your best - thanks.

[aquart]

157. Give it up. They NEED the worst possibility to be true.

Because if they were really making these abominable accusations against a decent, responsible, and caring woman, they would be ...monsters. Wrong. Bad. Mistaken. Fools.

And it is more important to prove to themselves they are not fools or monsters than it is to see the truth of anything.

[Celebration]

96. Just take a look at this

The Hillary photo is wider than the real Obama, but the face is the same height.

[Igel]

165. That's been explained several times.

With pretty much the same plausible explanation each time.

Yes, the stretched screen capture is wider than the unstretched pic of Obama. The explanation admits as such. When you have an image that's stretched to wide-screen, that's precisely what happens. "Wide screen" doesn't imply "tall screen", just "wide screen". This is precisely what's been explained several times. Restating the issue in precisely the same terms doesn't make a new explanation necessary, nor does it constitute reasoned discourse.

The stretching is possibly an accident. Possibly not. All that's necessary for people of good will is to show that it's a plausible mistake; the explanation goes further to say that it's at least plausible, and might well be a probable mistake. At that point, the issue isn't whether it was done, but the presence of a motive. Those that wish to ascribe ill motives to HRC do so, which allows them to say that the stretching was intentional; they then turn around to say that the stretching proves that HRC's motives were foul. This is called circular reasoning, which is all the worse because the initial step--assuming that anything that can be interpreted negatively must be interpreted negatively--is often tacit. But all that you get out of it is a tautology--the simple statement that the person making the attempt at an argument believes in HRC's bad intentions, with a corollary that there's some fact that may--but probably isn't--justification for the belief. However, it can be assembled into a narrative to justify the belief--not substantiate it, but justify it--so it is. It's a simulacrum of the scientific method, it's called abductive reasoning. It's fine for producing a hypothesis, but hardly constitutes valid reasoning.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

172. AND most importantly, the wide picture is not from the actual ad

The actual TV ad is not widescreen.

The "wide" picture being passed around is taken from an internet version of the TV ad that is shown in a widescreen frame.

It is not from the actual ad as it was shown on TV.

[mzmolly]

23. I hate to be a voice of reason, but I'm guessing that the pajamas say "NIG

HT." "GOOD NIGHT" in full. I doubt they had some child do a commercial with the word NIG inscribed on his jammies. For gosh sakes guys, this is :crazy:

[Yes We Did]

29. I don't' think we're saying that it said... the N bomb...

but, you cannot rule out the possibility that they focused on those three letters for a reason.

I'll use this example. I went to Wisconsin with my friend, who just so happens to be black.

The owners of the hotel drive you wherever you want to go there... So, we asked what bar would be good. She said "Nigs" and instantly started blushing... "that is the owner's name...."

Now, you have a state where 20% of your voters say race is very important, and 80% of those people make their decision on race...

1+1=2

[mzmolly]

42. I think this is paranoid and destructive.

Many words begin with the letters "NIG" it's not a conspiracy to fan racism. I support Obama currently, but this kind of nonsense is just that.

[Yes We Did]

51. Really? Give me one.

Nigeria. That's the only one I can think of. You got any?

[mzmolly]

64. The word I gave in this thread was NIGHT.

That's a word commonly found on kids pajamas.

[Yes We Did]

68. That still doesn't expain why the only three letters focused in on were NIG

Quite honestly, I hadn't noticed it until... someone way up there put the link in.

The face editing was bad enough.

[mzmolly]

77. The childs body covered the remaining letters. The letters GO also showed

So we're now left with "GO NIG"? C'mon...

[Yes We Did]

81. As I said...

That is someone elses link. That's first time I saw that. I am talking about the photo.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/21311/85811/447/468408

Hillary shouldn't have done this. Plain and simple.

[mzmolly]

139. Gotcha, on this issue we agree.

:hi: Welcome by the way.

[Alcibiades]

167. niggardly

niggle, nigh, nightcap, nightclub, nightcrawler, nightfall, nightgown (and a few dozen other "night" words), and...

Apparently that's it. I am an Obama supporter, but I do think this part of the theory is a stretch.

[Tuesday_Morning]

45. Everything in that tv spot

is completely controlled. You carefully pick out the kids. You pick out the bedding. You pick out the pajamas. You pick out the mother. You decide how many times you want the phone to ring. You write and rewrite the script. You decide what Hillary should wear. You light and shoot and reshoot. And you edit, watch it, tweak it, watch it some more.

"Nig" would never happen by chance.

[mzmolly]

62. "NIGHT" is a common word found on pajamas.

It think this is a stretch, sorry.

[catgirl]

148. Notice the dark thing under the child's chin?

It looks like an arm of an animal (claws and all) reaching up to the child's face.
Do you see that?

[catgirl]

154. You should do a separate post on this ad

I'd like to know who made this ad for Hillary.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

156. I'm out of posts, but you're welcome to

[Cha]

2. Fucking A$$holes...cutting off her own

supplies..leave to hilary to be so goddamn stupid.

[THUNDER HANDS]

4. she learned a lot investigating Nixon, didn't she?

[midora]

5. Yes, It Takes One to Know One, Doesn't It?

[formercia]

6. As Will Smith said in Enemy of the State:

"The proper term is Eggplant."

Thus, their choice of the color Purple.

[FlyingSquirrel]

8. Holy cow, I did measure.

Although it was obvious even before that. AND they made his lips VERY LARGE. Look, in the doctored photo you can barely see his teeth.

Despicable. This kind of thing has no place in our party.

[MNDemNY]

14. And the ears! do you see what thet did to his ea.....

Never mind, those are untouched. My bad. Carry on.

[FlyingSquirrel]

22. Untouched? Ear is darkened and sharpened to be more prominent

Net effect is to make it look bigger, wider, more exaggerated.

You don't have any problem with this?

[MNDemNY]

26. Jeez, get a grip. contrast and sizing, nothing new here.

[Yes We Did]

33. It's not just about the size.

If you increase the "unedited" image to the same size as the edited one... the height... the edited is noticeably wider.

There is no reason for that. It is not a "mistake"

That is one of the first things you learn in resizing... To click the little box to keep the ratio the same.

[LeftCoast]

9. Just curious why nobody has mentioned that Clinton's face is also widened and darkened?

I mean, if her campaign was intentionally making him appear 'more black' then were they also trying to make her appear 'more black' as well?

[Yes We Did]

16. That's a ridiculous argument.

And I feel much dumber for even reading it. Naivety is not an excuse.

[LeftCoast]

18. Oh?

Please enlighten me.

[Yes We Did]

24. Simple. Hillary Clinton isn't black.

Everyone knows it. The argument has even been made on here that adding a little color to her pale complexion makes her look better; tan.

If you can't see that, then I certainly have to question your motives.

As I said, 20% of Ohio dem voters said race was a very important issue, and 80% of those people voted accordingly.

I guess for you, ignorance is bliss. But know this; it is not an excuse.

[LeftCoast]

31. I think that is making a HUGE stretch of logic

This is just one more example of a made-up scandal that some (many it seems) of Obama's supporters have been throwing at Clinton this whole campaign. Remember when she 'stole' NH?

[Yes We Did]

34. No, I think I am right on.

I have read this argument over and over. I think you are choosing to remain ignorant of the truth.

[NashVegas]

155. Plenty of Those Who Said Race Was Important

39% who said it was important voted for Obama.

[Cronus Protagonist]

20. Project much?

Apparently you are. quod erat demonstrandum :)

[whopis01]

32. You are aware that the ad doesn't show footage of Clinton from that debate, aren't you?

The only footage of Clinton appears to have been shot specifically for that ad, so it is quite difficult to make the argument that it is also doctored footage from something else.

[Yes We Did]

35. Thank you... That's what I thought too.

[AndyA]

10. The images at the link provided are not one and the same.

That site is comparing two different images. Likely taken at the same time, I believe on film, possibly even within a frame or two of each other, but it is not the same image.

I call bullshit.

[Yes We Did]

12. That doesn't matter. If you click the bottom link

You will see that the aspect ratio is not the same.

It's not the size of the images, it's the aspect ratio. If you know anything about graphic design, you know what I'm talking about.

If not, basically, it means if you increase the size, they should keep the same shapes.

If you increase the size of the original to the "edited" version, they should look the same.

And, all you have to do to make sure the aspect ratio stays correct is click one little box. Whoever did this for them knew what they were doing.

[AndyA]

171. I do graphic design on a regular basis, so yes I am familiar with the aspect ratio

and how it is retained.

However, the images are not one and the same, so all comparisons are null and void. Look at the mouth, and how much of his teeth are visible. You can clearly see his mouth is open wider in one of the images.

Not the same.

[here_is_to_hope]

15. Not taking sides but you obviously didnt go have a look...

Its as plain as the nose on his face.

[Yes We Did]

19. I just took the image and put in photoshop...

I made sure the aspect ratio would remain the same and blew up the smaller version, so the height was the same on both of them. The Hillary Edited version overlaps by about an 1/8 inch.

Facts are facts. This was done, and it was done deliberately.

[AndyA]

170. Yes, I looked. They ARE NOT the same image.

Look at the mouth. You can see his lips are open wider in one shot, with more of his front teeth visible. In the other image, his mouth is closed more, with less teeth visible.

It is not the same image.

[tabasco]

13. Disgusting.

Of course, they have to deny this, but it is obvious.

[Cronus Protagonist]

17. Sorry, but his nose looks exactly the same and he's black, you know

He still looks fine, and very cute.

They don't need to MAKE him look black. Surely you don't think that making his nose and his chin and his head and his shoulders wider and with less contrast will make some racist Obama supporter think "Oh, no! He's BLACKER than I thought!". Or will it make a racist think, "Oh, I WAS going to vote for him, but now I can see he's actually a n****r!!"

Of course not. This is a load of BS. Typically, in political ads where they drop in an inset video or picture or reference, the opponent's image is distorted or manipulated to make the opponent look weird.

I remember seeing similar tricks in every political race I've ever seen - watch any negative ad and you'll see the opposing candidate presented in grainy footage with a black vignette, and/or in black and white, and/or distorted slightly, and/or zooming in on the image to look grainier and scarier, watch the common use of wavy dissolves used as transitions to signify wackiness, additional edge sharpening added to make them look older, and/or lower contrast used, weird music, odd sound effects, echos, fade to black, and so on. No political ad will cast the opponent in a better ligh than the candidate who made the ad. None.

This is a complete red herring, but hey, enjoy yourselves making them and talkikng about them, we've got an election to win, so perhaps it's better if you people are preoccupied anyway.

[Yes We Did]

21. Yes, I do think that it matters.

Especially when you consider the FACT that 20% of Ohio voters said race was a very important issue to them. And of those people, 80% decided their vote on it.

And no, I don't have a link, but if you watched CNN live coverage yesterday, you saw it.

[Hoof Hearted]

36. So you don't think the people that voted against him NOTICED HE WAS BLACK before a TV ad?

That, is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[Yes We Did]

44. Yes, as I look at a photo of Hillary taken 35 years ago.

Yeah, images mean nothing.

[Hoof Hearted]

43. What about the black voters who answered yes to that poll question?

Are they racist because they considered Obama's race an important part of their decision? You do KNOW, don't you that they asked thousands of black voters that very same question and were just as likely, if not more so given current voting trends to have answered yes?

Where is your outrage about their race based decision?

[Yes We Did]

47. Might have made up 5% of people asked... So no, not worried about them.

For the record, I take issue with anyone who bases their vote on "primarily" race or sex.

So, you would have been fine with Obama running an ad in South Carolina that made Hillary look whiter than a saltine cracker... right? He can doctor her image up any way he wants, and you won't complain.

This wasn't just distorting color, this was distorting the shape of his face to play on the fear of uneducated racists.

That's fine, be ignorant. I don't really care what you think. You are going to follow blindly, just like that 19% still following Dubya. Good luck with that.

[aquart]

161. Whiter? Heh, heh. How about older?

What are the chances I would find that on his site? But then, I don't think he's obligated to find complimentary pictures of his opponent. You, however, do. Which is, sorry, racist to the bone.

[Cronus Protagonist]

99. OMFG!! You actually claim that the blacker he looks, the less votes he gets?

Holy smoke! Now I've seen everything on DU. All that's left is someone to compare Obama to Hitler, but we can't do that now that he's too black for it and someone forgot to paint a moustache on him.

:P

[Yes We Did]

113. In Ohio.... Yes.

And if you watched CNN coverage, you know I'm right.

[mzmolly]

27. I disagree that the images are the same height.

but I don't doubt their changing his facial characteristics was a deliberate act.

[Yes We Did]

39. The images shown aren't the same height... that doesn't matter.

As I said, I just put them into photoshop, just to make sure I wasn't wrong on this.

If you increase the size of the unedited version so the heights match, it should come out even. It isn't even close.

I know my shit. This is edited. Any photoshop buffs out there can back me up on this one.

[seaglass]

116. But there is someone who posted above you that seems to know

way more than you and you're ignoring him. If you know so much, why don't you refute his points one by one so we can all judge?

[Yes We Did]

122. Maybe you should read all the comments before you

comment. We have been going back and forth on this issue.

Yes, he probably does know more about this stuff than I do, but I am not some armature who just opened up the box.

Like I told him... the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. But it can't ALL be coincidence.

At best, she hired an armature who didn't know what they were doing. I seriously doubt that. There have been too many ads using photos that didn't look that way.

[Celebration]

102. These are the same height

But notice how the image that Hillary used is broader--

[mzmolly]

160. They used a close up. My problem is with the darkening of the image.

I'm not that concerned with the close up personally.

[Catherine Vincent]

28. What about his lips?

Are they still purple? :)

[Perry Logan]

30. Obama is black. What could possibly be wrong with making him look more black?

[FrenchieCat]

37. Being on a subcommittee about Europe doesn't mean that

Holding a hearing on Afghanistan.....so I don't even know what this "Ad" was about to begin with. It was a disingenious ad all the way around. But then, I'm not surprise....as politics of cynicism has hit sky high!

[Yes We Did]

41. First off... Obama is half black.

His mother was white.

Second, when you got that many people who are voting on race in Ohio, an ad that makes him look like a "stereotypical" african american is done for a reason; to play on the fears of those racists.

Third. At least you aren't denying what is plainly in front of your face.

[Hoof Hearted]

46. Again, What about the black voters who answered yes to that poll question?

Are they racist because they considered Obama's race an important part of their decision? You do KNOW, don't you that they asked thousands of black voters that very same question and were just as likely, if not more so given current voting trends to have answered yes?

Where is your outrage about their race based decision?

[Yes We Did]

50. Answering the same question doesn't get you a different answer.

As I said, I take issue with anyone who bases their vote primarily on race OR sex.

And, I would imaging it was around 10% of that 20% I mentioned... so about 2%

[Saturday]

38. So just widening Obama's face wins it for Hillary? ROTFLMAO

[Yes We Did]

40. Amazing... the pure ignorance is just amazing.

At least you don't deny it.

[Donna Zen]

74. Politics 101

The rule is: the first thing you do is define your opponent. Since Iowa TeamClinton has been working, in a very subtle way, to identify Obama as black man. I think they were really surprised by Iowa's exit polls when people weren't phased by race. However, Mark Penn knows that racism exists in America, and he is ready to go for that vote.

Obama is in a bind on this one. He never raises his race to the degree that Hillary raises her gender. If he goes after team Clinton for this, the issue gets more leverage, and yet, there is the moral question of letting them get away with it.

BTW, they always deny race baiting. Well hell, they're not going to admit it. There is no doubt that this photo was doctored with eye to feigning innocence. I guess there are people who will defend this behavior, or bury their head in the sand, but you are correct. The deniers should remember: if we let it work, then we will get more of it.

[Cronus Protagonist]

101. The "subtle" racism is coming from you and other complainers

"Since Iowa TeamClinton has been working, in a very subtle way, to identify Obama as black man."

Isn't that what Team Obama have been doing also? From day one. And, ahem, isn't he, *ahem* BLACK!?

Why would anyone be ashamed of that?

ROFL!!

[Donna Zen]

128. I'm sure that Obama has never been ashamed of being black.

However, we all know that Obama has never appeared on national TV waving his arms in the air shouting "I'm your home-boy!" Listening to a wonderful speech by Howard Dean, I was gratified to learn that exit polls show that younger voters now look past race...or at least those who chose to vote for Democrats. I think that's a wonderful thing since it tells us that efforts to form a more perfect union are paying off.

I first noticed the code words used by Clinton endorsers before Iowa when they were dropping lines like: Oh well, Obama can play basketball. It built slowly but surely until NC. I mean, why didn't Senator Clinton cite the achieving of a woman's right to vote as being the work of a white guy in Washington? Afterall, it only took us 70 years to convince them that we could handle it. And then there are President Clinton's remarks.

All the while Obama's campaign said little or nothing. It was Donna Brazille (leans Clinton) and other non-aligned Democrats who raised the fuss. After all, logic tells us, or should, that Obama has nothing to gain by protesting subtle race baiting. It's hard to prove, ends up he said she said, and draws attention away from the issues, like oh ah...voting for bush's war.

Note: it seems to be perfectly fine to play the gender card at every opportunity. Weird that.

[Yes We Did]

138. I could Kiss You!!!

:applause::applause::applause::applause:

[NashVegas]

153. I Know ... I Know

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Political Heretic]

48. ....

:tinfoilhat:

[DrFunkenstein]

49. What, Is He Ashamed of Being a Black Muslim?

OBAMA is the RACIST for suggesting that altering pictures and sending photos of him in Muslim outfits is somehow meant to do something besides remind voters of the pride they should feel, like Clinton surrogate Bob Kerrey, to have someone named Barack HUSSEIN Osama running for president.

Oops, did I say Osama? Sorry. Its so easy to get them mixed up, especially because I heard they went to the same radical Madrassa. Did I mention Jesse Jackson and Farrakhan?

[Yes We Did]

84. Wow, Everything you just said... came right from Fox Noise.

All of it.

[OzarkDem]

54. Another ridiculous post

by someone "unfamiliar" with Dems and this forum.

[DemGa]

56. The Obamas are just looking silly with new line----NT

[Beausoir]

59. This is as hysterical as the "jammy-gate" from yesterday.

[Yes We Did]

86. NO, this is new.

perhaps you should read the post and look at the links.

[CatnHat]

60. How many pics

of Hillary Clinton that was posted on the DU alone, not to mention other forums, clearly put up pics of Hillary in the least flattering light. Your kind of OP borders on stupidity, but keep posting your "unbecoming" pics of Hillary, that's ok. Last night Charlie Rose had a debate on the primaries in TX, OH, RI, VT. They ran parts of Obama's speech last night, and the guests and Charile Rose suggested Obama simply did not look good. The lighting was bad, the backdrop was bad, and he looked bad. So now go to Charlie Rose's forum and start bitching to him. Ok.

[Celebration]

65. Least flattering is fair game

Photoshop is bullshit. See the pictures, which I posted below.

[CatnHat]

69. What!!!

I have seen dozens of pics of Hillary and Obama, they're all different. You are really grasping at straws. I can get pics of Hillary, the same ones posted recently here by zealot Obama supporters, and show differences in color, contrast, etc. to the original. Nothing more here to see.

[Celebration]

79. Take a look

The top image, and bottom right image are the same--the real Obama.

The blacker Obama is the same height, but wider.

This is complete bullshit.

[Celebration]

63. Here it is

I sized the pictures exactly to the top, bottom, and sides of the face.

Notice that the pictures are almost exactly the same height, but the darker Obama is wider than the real Obama.

[Levgreee]

70. Even more evidence... they'd have to put in extra work to darken the face, but not the shirt

"But here's the kicker -- look at the shirt on the left, and the shirt on the right. Notice how dingy the white shirt gets with the saturation/lightness lowered? This means to get the effect above, they had to *mask* either Obama's face or the shirt, frame by frame, to get the shirt to look right and the face to look dark.

To make this more clear -- each frame, because Obama was very animated and moving about in the frame, his shirt and tie would have had to be demarcated separately from the rest of the image, so that they would not get darkened and dimmed in color.

This is not a casual process, regardless of how the Clinton media folks may spin it."




http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977276266




This crap is deplorable

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

92. No, increasing contrast burns out the shirt by itself. No mask needed.

[Yes We Did]

103. Yes... and they just stumbled onto that.

Come on now. There are any number of ways to accomplish this. The fact is that the image is distored... significantly.

If you want to believe it was not done for a negative impact... Then that is what you believe.

I disagree. There is too much of a difference for it to just be an accident or coincidence.

[Yes We Did]

105. Furthermore, they could has just as easily adjusted the curves.

And it would have kept the image looking natural.

[Hoof Hearted]

166. Here are some new links for you.

The Obama “darkened face” myth debunked.

Here is 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 you want to cry “racism” is how the same clip appeared on MSNBC’s website:


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/did_clinton_darken_obamas_skin.html

[SoCalDem]

177. Remember the "Condi's eyes" pics?and all the hub-bub over them?

[RememberWellstone]

71. Daily KOS = daily Krap

or Hillary bash, take your choice.

[OzarkDem]

75. Welcome to DU

aren't you homesick for that "other place"?

[shaniqua6392]

85. What a bunch of

CRAP!! Let's discuss something relevant.

[Yes We Did]

87. FACTS.

That crap... that is the smell coming from her campaign.

[Celebration]

89. Playing to people's racial fears is Complete Crap

We don't need Rovian moves in this party.

[Yes We Did]

90. It really is disgusting.

And what is more disgusting is how her supporters will ignore what is right in front of their faces... all so she can win.

It is embarrassing. They give us REAL democrats a bad name. REAL democrats don't stand for these kind of disgusting tactics.

[anigbrowl]

111. Let it die already. There's a simple explanation....

the pixel width from pro video cameras is not square, it's rectangular. Many video editing packages will automatically convert the pixel types from one to the other and widen the image by default. This would not usually be noticeable on TV (because the square pixels would typically be converted back to rectangular ones when outputting to tape or an external monitor) but it would on a computer monitor.

And yes, I am a professional in this field. It's an oversight, not a conspiracy. I've fallen victim to it on more than one occasion when I didn't select the appropriate conversion setting while digitizing from tape. It's an easy mistake to make.

[Yes We Did]

115. If you are a professional... You don't make mistakes like that.

And with all the money Hillary has raised, you would think she would hire people who know what they are doing.

Not to mention, we have seen pictues of him in plenty of ad already... and NONE of them have him looking like that.

At BEST is was very shotty work.
At WORST it was blatant racism.

I think the truth lies in between... probably closer to the worse.

[Sparkly]

121. "more stereotypically African-American looking."

Fred: "Good God, Fern, I never realized that man had an African-American looking nose."

Fern: "And look -- he's blacker than I thought!"

Fred: "Off-black is okay, but that is just too black."

Fern: "I never even realized he was black until the Clintons injected race into the race."

[Yes We Did]

124. You can choose to ignore what you don't like...

But as sad as it is, it is true. It DOES matter. And we can pretend that it doesn't all we want. That doesn't make it go away.

[Sparkly]

125. Who does it matter to?

People who'd otherwise vote for Obama??

[Yes We Did]

127. Yeah. You don't think there are people on the fence?

That is just... I'm not even going to say it anymore. You know what that is.

[Sparkly]

130. Huh??

There are people on the fence, so they're considering voting for Obama, but you're afraid they have a threshold for blackness, so if they see him looking "more black," that'll send them over the fence to Clinton??

:crazy:

[Yes We Did]

132. Ignorance is not an excuse.

And I am sorry you keep trying to use it. Don't be too upset when her race baiting tactics backfire.

Peace.

[Sparkly]

137. If I'm ignorant of something, please enlighten me.

Please tell me how this is a worry for you.

[Yes We Did]

141. OH, I'm not worried about anything.

Obama is going to win. And you are ignorant of the fact that racism still exists, and that Hillary is using it.

Just remember, Ignorance is not an excuse.

[Sparkly]

143. "ignorant of the fact that racism still exists"

Racists aren't going to vote for Obama as it is.

Or are there semi-racists who will vote for a black man, but not a too-black man? (Edit: Especially as seen in ONE picture, changing the whole equation?!)

[Yes We Did]

149. Yes, there are.

I have convinced some to change. So don't tell me anything different.

Don't turn a blind eye.

[Sparkly]

152. Really?!?

What was their threshold for "black?" How did you convince them Obama is black but not too black?

[ecstatic]

123. To those of you who don't "get it"

There are subtle ways to manipulate people into forming automatic negative reactions to people or things. Call it, a play on fears or stereotypes. Google "psychology automatic reaction unfamiliar black face." There is a large body of research in social psychology that you can familiarize yourself with. What the Clintons are doing is despicable and inexcusable.

[Yes We Did]

126. And before someone else says Obama is "race baiting"

Be prepared to back it up. Obama has done nothing of the sort. He as constantly downplayed this. What other choice does he have?

Hillary can play the... they're picking on me card, and women will rally. Obama has no such luxury. He just has to take it.

This is just disgusting. Not just this ad... all of it. Clinton and her surrogates have been using this subtle racist bullshit the whole campaign.

Did she have a Macaca moment? No. She is smarter than that. She says everything by not saying anything at all.

[backscatter712]

133. Then we, the supporters need to broadcast this.

Obama can't call Hillary on this.

We should.

Keep kicking this up. Keep blogging it. Keep it in the media spotlight.

Obama doesn't have to do or say anything. But as long as this incident is in the spotlight, it brings these sorts of racist tactics under the scrutiny and scorn they so richly deserve.

[krabigirl]

174. like calling a woman a bitch? Oh, wait, that's not subtle...

[NDambi]

135. Hillary is evil. Period.

[Liquorice]

136. I am glad I am not

an Obama supporter because these kinds of crazy accusations would embarrass the hell out of me. People are measuring the dimensions of his face in the ad now? Maybe someone should listen to the audio of the ad backwards and see if it has any backward masking. :eyes:

[Yes We Did]

140. I am glad I am not a Hillary supporter.

That way I don't have to defend the indefensible. It must really hurt to have keep covering up for her horrible tactics.

[Liquorice]

144. These kinds of silly accusations

aren't going to get Obama any votes. Obama has to run on his merits. If he can't do that, he loses.

[NMMatt]

146. It's not about Obama - it's about showing the Clintons for who they are

Cynical, power mad, scumbags who never saw a Rove tactic that they didn't admire. This is straight from the Karl Rove approach - a nuanced appeal to the fears of racists.

[Liquorice]

151. The only problem is that

Hillary is not a racist. Neither is Bill. More AA's were lifted out of poverty during Bill Clinton's presidency than at any other time in the history of America. What a racist scumbag! The only Rovian attack I see here is wild accusations of racism over a run-of-the-mill campaign ad.

[NMMatt]

158. Who knows where they actually stand

On issues of race or how they feel about African Americans. The only thing they care about is their own power. That much is clear. Rovian racist attacks are simply a means to and ends with them. They needed to increase their racist uneducated white vote in Ohio, which they did.
I fully would expect them to attempt to reach out to the AA community if they are able to steal this nomination and fool people like you again. I suspect that they've gone too far and will be unable to win over enough Black votes, however, to win in places like Ohio or Missouri in November if they succeed, as I said, in stealing the nomination.

[Liquorice]

164. I haven't been fooled. I vote my best

interests, and I was better off when Clinton was the president. Most people were...Hillary has a clear economic plan that will lift us out of the current nightmare. It's really that simple. And you are stating some pretty crazy beliefs you have about Hillary and Bill as facts. Just because you believe these crazy things doesn't make it so. Maybe you've been fooled? You think Hillary is stealing the nomination? Is this the newest conspiracy theory? It's hard to keep up with all of them.

[aquart]

163. Nothing to defend. Paranoia remains nuts.

YOU LOST THREE STATES. Naturally it was because the Wicked Witch Hillary put an evil enchantment on the people with the aid of her Photoshop wand.

It has to be because of wickedness. It HAS to. Because, otherwise...you could be wrong.

[catgirl]

150. His lower lip has been messed with too. And his hair is darker

even filled completely in on the top. Unbelievable. Notice the dark line under the
lower lip? See post one and check out the subliminal message in the ad.

[backscatter712]

175. Paging Swamp Rat.

Swamp Rat, please report to this thread...

We'd like a respected graphical wizard to give us his take...

[jefferson_dem]

176. Till then, here's one I found on Kos.

[SoCalDem]

178. Oooh that's a biting commentary

sad , but not surprising :(