Clinton Playing The Race Card Again? If So, She Is NOT Worthy to Be President

Both Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/3/14550/75567/858/467989) and America Blog (http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/why-is-obamas-skin-blacker-than-normal.html) are reporting what, if true, has to be the lowest and nastiest stunt used by Hillary's campaign yet: ads that suggest they were intentionally darkened so as to show Barack Obama's skin significantly darker than it has ever appeared in any debate and other video footage I have seen. Having seen Obama in person, I can attest that the skin tone in the new Clinton ad is MUCH darker than his skin in real life. The Clintons have shown that they have utterly NO SHAME other occasions, so it is unfortunately all too easy to assume that once again they are showing themselves to be utter dirt bags. If this stunt is true, obviously, Hillary thinks black voters are so stupid they will vote for her in November even after she has resorted to disgusting tactics like this to try to win the primary. I'm truly beginning to believe she has Karl Rove secretly on her payroll. This stunt has made her even more unelectable against McCain. Here are highlights from Kos:

Call me crazy, but it certainly appears to me that Sen. Obama's skin tone is significantly darker in the Clinton campaign commercial. Watch it again and see if you agree. Now, as most of us know, one of the ways in which to demonize a person of color is to make them appear darker than they are. By this twisted logic, somehow being more black makes you more threatening. One of the first times I distinctly recall this issue being brought to the forefront was the Time Magazine cover picture of O.J. Simpson after his arrest. Time was heavily criticized for darkening the shade of Simpson's skin in the cover photograph. Whether intentional or not, the message was that a darker skinned Mr. Simpson somehow was more threatening or frightening than a lighter skinned Juice. Notwithstanding the ridiculousness of this notion, it attempts to exploit stereotypes concerning race--specifically, to dredge up fear of black men. IF the Clinton campaign has deliberately doctored the footage of Sen. Obama to exploit racist fears, she should be banished from American political life--along with anyone else involved.

Here are John Aravosis' remarks:

I went and got the original footage from the Clinton ad, and then compared it to 3 different video clips of the same debate from 3 different sources. I did this so as to take into account any editing, or quality issues, that might have accounted for Obama having darker skin in any particular video. None of the 3 video sources I found showed Obama nearly as black as the Hillary ad does. Click the image above to see a larger version. Look at his lips. Look at his eyebrows. Look at how the red MSNBC background has turned more purple. Clearly the image was darkened. The question is "why."

It just keeps happening again and again and again. The Clintons keeps doing things, saying things, that sound awfully racist. And we're to believe that this, the - what? 8th, 10th time? - this has happened is again just a coincidence. The first half a dozen times you launch seemingly racist attacks on your black opponent, maybe - maybe - we can write it off as "boy you're really dumb not to get it." But having a seemingly-racist attack from the Clinton folks on Obama every single week, after a while, you don't get to play the "I had no idea!" card anymore. After that many times, you're race-baiting. You're using racism to win. And you're destroying your legacy and your husband's. Enough already.

More Clinton Race Baiting

It is getting increasingly difficult to adequately express my disgust with the tactics of Hillary Clinton's campaign. I know that I am not alone in this and I must applaud the Obama campaign for not going after Hillary's biggest Achille's heel: Bill's sexcapades which I suspect have continued since he left the White House. Of course, the questionable post White House deals that have made the Clintons wealthy ($34,900,000 as of 2006) might also be appropriate fodder. Here's some of what John Aravois at America Blog has to say (http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/clinton-surrogate-says-obama-is-really.html):

This is the sixth time, at least, I believe, that the Clinton's and their surrogates have launched racist attacks on Obama. It's not just abominable on its face, it's absolutely astounding that the Clinton campaign is now using Republican hate-emails to create their talking points about Obama. The Clinton campaign simply doesn't care if they permanently damage Obama for the general election by feeding the GOP Swift Boat attacks on the man who is very likely going to be our nominee.

Race-baiting simply isn't the same thing as saying your opponent is divisive and lacks credibility. What would be the same thing is were Obama and company publicly talking about Bill Clinton's sex life past and present. That would be inappropriate, disgusting, and damaging to Hillary and her run for the presidency were she to get the nomination - it would be the same thing as talking about Obama's race and ethnic origins. And in spite of how negative both sides have gotten, you don't see Obama's people, or even their surrogates, touching Bill Clinton's sex life, even though, frankly, it would be one hell of a bombshell to drop on Hillary. There IS a difference in how negative each campaign has gotten.Moving away from racism for a moment, my problem with Hillary's attack below is that 3 months ago she swore off such attacks, and now she's using them the same week that she's complaining about Obama going negative. Both sides have gone negative, but there's a difference between negative and vicious.

For a look at the Clintons' astonishingly soaring financial net worth (from $2,076,000 in 2003 to $34,900,000 in 2006), some interesting stuff can be found here: http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html

Clinton Campaign Mimics Karl Rove Tactics - Stop It Hillary!!

I am increasingly concerned by things being done by the Clinton Campaign to harm Obama’s image. One would almost believe that Karl Rove was advising Hillary, not that she does not innocently claim to have no knowledge of the dirty tricks. From my years in politics and working on campaigns, I realize that politics and campaigns can be dirty at times. However, the candidate is ultimately responsible for the actions of EVERY campaign worker and advisor. Smiling denials of ignorance on the action just does not cut it. Hillary, we want CHANGE and that includes integrity in one’s campaign.

One example of what I am talking about is this the picture posted above that I received from a friend who was really pissed off – and he’s been a Hillary supporter to date and received an e-mail (not officially from Hillary’s campaign). The following caption was under the photo:

Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin stand during the national anthem. Barack Hussein Obama's photo (that's his real name)......the article said he REFUSED TO NOT ONLY PUT HIS HAND ON HIS HEART DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, BUT REFUSED TO SAY THE PLEDGE.....how in the hell can a man like this expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief????

Notice the wording’s emphasis on Obama’s middle name? In addition to the cheap shots about Obama’s name, Clinton minions have been talking up his drug use as a teenager on TV interviews and stressing his immaturity, even though he is four (4) years older than Bill Clinton was when he ran for President. I do not know too many people Barak’s age – or mine for that matter – who have not briefly tried drugs in their youth other than perhaps some of the Christianist nutcases. Give it up Hillary!!

As for the photo, a good friend reports that although the Flag Code is U.S. Federal law, there is no penalty for failure to comply with the Flag Code and it is not widely enforced—indeed, punitive enforcement would conflict with the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. IPlus, it was during the national anthem, not the pledge of allegiance.

In other words, can we move past this? And can we stop acting like Karl Rove is calling the shots? Or should we rather support another future president (such as (Bush) is unfortunately titled today) that can salute the flag or national anthem but cannot admit when he is wrong when he makes a mistake- i.e, middle East Wars, highest deficit ever, personalization of retirement accounts, weakening economy & dollar, - etc, etc, etc...