Do Obama supporters really think this "Teacher, teacher, he's picking on me" argument is going to sway voters to their cause?

This darker-ad controversy reminds me of when people joke that they going to start a rumor that BO has black kids...

... I don't mean that he's [Obama's] got to go ballistic on her or go after Bill's business deals or whatever else her vulnerabilities might be. Candidates fight in different ways and if they're good candidates in ways that play to their strengths and cohere with their broader message.

Today, David Axelrod pleaded with the media to do Obama's dirty work for them. The litany of topics (from disclosure to ethics) covered by Axelrod, are no where to be found on Obama's site (after a quick perusal, the "talking point memo" that raises negative questions about Cltinon is not immediately apparent if it is there). Obama's strategy and media wing wants to insulate his adoring supporters of their own dirty work by keeping Obama's site free of the negativity that lies at the heart of his campaign.

TPM featured posts throughout the day about the racism of Clinton voters, the negativity of Clinton's campaign, and Brazile's nonsense about the DNC stepping in. TPM's front page has nothing about David Axelrod's phone call today laying out Obama's supplication to the media to go negative on Clinton on his behalf. The messages that TPM wants it readers to take away are: racism, negativity, Clinton, and, according to Brazile, Clinton's effort to destroy the Democratic party In fact, David Axelrod in his interview would not categorically dismiss the idea that the Clinton campaign is destroying the Democratic party by remaining in the race--this is the Obama campaign's talking point circulated through Brazile, CNN, and TPM to the public. That is not news? A democratic strategist basically lets stand the accusation that their opponents are destroying the Democratic party by respecting the democratic process?  

Tonight, now, TPM has the Canadian news report (with even less details than the original Obama meeting) alluding to the idea that Clinton's also gave a wink-wink-nudge-nudge to the Canadian conservative government. Marshall entirely drops the issue of Oabama's denial of and obfuscation about the meeting. Although he does toss in a throwaway line about "friendly governments," the implication seems to be that Ohioans were hoodwinked.

We do have diaries here, only they are not automatic, you have to e-mail me and ask for a change of your status from "user" to "diarist" and I look at the comments you've left on the site or what you've written elsewhere to see if you'd be a good fit. Example: If I think you're going to write a post about why the death penalty is a good thing, you'll probably be turned down.

I'd actually like to get some new diarists here...

At the end of an extended conversation, Mr. Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-NAFTA voters that carried serious economic implications for Canada. ... Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns. "Quite a few people heard it," said one source in the room. "He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

Back to politics--I wasn't even going to dignify the darking ad thing with a response.  But what I will add is that my G-d-children are biracial and me and my best friend crack up how they can look either white or black in pictures from the same photo session--it's just the lighting or the contrast of what they are next to.  Some people here gave much better technical answers than mine though.  

MCNAMARA

Seriously, if there was any truth to the HRC camp talking to Canada, we would have had it by now.  No names, No memo's, NO STORY.  Sorry, this is Obama's mistake to contend with.