Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat

Your second turn. Go Gators! This is an Open Thread.

< Howard Dean On FL And MI | Late Night: Doolin' Dalton (Hello, Wyoming) >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Abrams give Hilary credit (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Saul on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:12:20 PM EST
    when he states that all the pundits say the only reason she did so good was because she went negative yet he has the exit polls from Texas and Ohio  that show that 55 to 60 percent say it was because of her and how  she shows she is fighter a positive sign of a leader, etc etc. None of the exit polls show  one mention that they voted due to any negative ad.  Abrams's point is the pundits, to include those on his panel,  just hate to give her any credit that it was due to her good character and she won for no other reason because she is Hilary and the  voters just liked her for who she was.   Abrams states that when Obama wins the pundits say its because his is charismatic, because he can draw the crowd, etc etc.  I have come to the conclusion that the owner or owners of MSNBC have give the green light to guys like tweety and oberman and others to destroy Hilary, and they only put Abrams who kind of supports her as a decoy to divert you  from their real plot of Hilary's destruction.  No owner of a TV media station worth his salt would have allowed them to do this to Hilary unless he was in on it.

    OMG, Isn't it true? (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by coigue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:14:11 PM EST
    MSNBC is shameless!

    I read your diary and the comments. It was (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:16:18 PM EST
    very sad. You stated your thoughts so well and most of the commenters seemed touched by it.

    Thanks Teresa (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by coigue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:23:59 PM EST
    You aren't Teresa in PA, are you?

    No, tabbycat in tenn over there. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:32:09 PM EST
    I haven't seen Teresa in Pa recently either.

    I joined here about three years ago and didn't realize blog etiquette about using the same name. I'm a dog person and people always want to talk cats to me over there so I didn't want to use the same name.


    yeah...the pooties (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by coigue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:41:45 PM EST

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:55:23 PM EST
    hey there...

    Hey yourself (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by coigue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:17:27 AM EST
    nice to see you!

    I too read your diary (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by 1040su on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:28:33 PM EST
    Yours & BTD's and several others from people I'm seeing here.  This afternoon I decided it was time to go.  They won't really miss me there because I wasn't a prolific poster & only wrote a couple of diaries over the years, but I was an avid reader & recommended the site to many, many people.  I've been there since August of 2004 & used to spend a couple hours a day reading there.  Even donated a little $$ in the early days.  The last month or so time spent has dwindled to 10 minutes during lunch.  It broke my heart when the video flap was front-paged this afternoon.  I'm truly saddened.  I've been looking at a few sites tonight & so far I like this one best.  I think I'll stay for awhile

    Excellent choice (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by vigkat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:34:17 PM EST
    Yes this site is nice. People are very welcoming. (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:39:05 PM EST
    I also tried a few other sites when things started going sour at DKos, but I couldn't get anyone to pay attention to me! The posters here do not snub newcomers, which is very cool.

    I too have left the OTHER site recently. (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:02:05 AM EST
    It became ugly in the last 6 months or so, but there were nice regulars there and we put up a lot of comments with links to counter their blather but generally it was met with silence or some 4 letter words or things like "pack up and leave" so I heard about this site and starting reading a few weeks ago.  I miss some of the high powered diarists with science or economic backgrounds but the general scene there is too toxic.

    GBCW was righteous. Race-baiting was clearcut. (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:24:06 AM EST
    The "evidence" used to conjure outrage out of gossamer was mischief at best, malice at worst.

    I wish people would take deep breaths and use their brains when their hot buttons are clearly being pushed (even if :: cough cough :: I'm not the best example of this level-headedness.)

    The "evidence" on the egregious mischief proceeds on a basic flawed assumption: that monitors (screens, viewers), video cards and software will show material exactly the same way.

    This relates not only to color but proportions (eg, that ridiculous accusation that BO's nose was flattened and widened to make him look "blacker".) Never mind that the noses, as well as other facial features, of black people range as diversely, from very delicately boned to more fleshy, as much as among other anthropological groups.)

    On computers and TVs, the different end result even in exactly the same model and make of just one of the components -- or combination -- can be even more drastic than the stills shown in that "evidence".

    This relates not just the many systems involved in creating the material but in the millions of systems viewing it.

    The expert opinion of a copywriter who's worked in that field for all that time? BFD. It not the person's area of experience. Even that would count for nothing if s/he's not using his or her brains -- or the simple common sense of which all of us are capable, no matter what our individual personal components are.

    Allowing leeway that such wide deviation will occur and affect the content much more drastically than what appeared there is intern level in the visual arts.

    Even a routine computer user knows s/he has to tweak the monitor, software etc. to get flesh tones and proportions objectively right.

    If you're lucky, our two fine candidates for president don't end up looking like Kodos or Kang. To deliberately exploit quite ordinary, expected idiosyncracies was inexcusable.

    I was a regular reader of Big Orange back in the Billmon / Gilliard days. I still check back for the views and research of a couple of writers but sometimes weeks will go by and I don't miss it a bit.


    Thanks! (none / 0) (#159)
    by coigue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:18:02 AM EST
    Hello there! (5.00 / 4) (#152)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:41:15 AM EST
    I've gone from a week lurking to logging in.

    Tired of the crap at dk.  Voted in the OH primary and then woke up to "What the hell's wrong with Ohio?".

    I mean, I could tell them, but they don't really want to hear about all the manufacturing jobs that we lost.  They just want to beat on OH for not voting for the Their Candidate.

    Why talk when no one listens?

    Hi everyone!  Nice to see you all!  Keep up the pageviews!


    Hey Fabian (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by coigue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:27:18 AM EST
    I am really glad you are here. We have some really good people here. Feels like a strong place for some real analysis.

    PS (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by coigue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:28:43 AM EST
    I lived in Columbus for about 6 years then Wooster for a year, so I know what you mean!

    Hey You... (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:49:44 PM EST
    Long time no type...<wry grin>

    If I missed a gbcw diary, sorry. I logged out one day and haven't been back beyond a peek at the FP.


    Hey, I really liked your stuff at the other site. (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:04:08 AM EST
    Thanks... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:35:47 AM EST
    Danger Kitty and I have been wandering around looking for a newish home or two. Have posted a few diaries over at Docudharma...

    I really enjoy it here. (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by coigue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:19:05 AM EST
    I think finding this place so "happening" really made it easier to leave big orange

    It helps... (none / 0) (#167)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:42:14 AM EST
    that there are so many familiar names also.

    that's what i mean by (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by coigue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:47:49 AM EST

    "Peeking" at the front page (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:11:28 AM EST
    Ain't that the truth? I can only "peek" at it myself.  Literally... Sometimes I just squint a little between my fingers, filled with fear about what I might find.

    It was hard to peek... (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:37:24 AM EST
    I scrolled down, winced at the mean, and went off in search of the cat to snuggle.

    Welcome Coigue (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:08:47 AM EST
    You will be safe here (hands over a pillow and a blanket)

    Thanks D (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by coigue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:19:50 AM EST
    It's so nice that so many old friends are already here.

    So good to see so many of you (none / 0) (#170)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:17:46 AM EST
    whom I missed. I left after the FP flap with DHinMi's diary that misstated so much -- it was a long night, but with a new dawn . . . I also found this site that corrects itself and commenters. What a concept.

    I think I missed that one (none / 0) (#174)
    by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:23:43 AM EST
    my participate varies quite a bit.

    GE energy company employees (none / 0) (#17)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:26:08 PM EST
    But, they own NBC too (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:32:34 PM EST
    and that is SNL. Abrams is the MSNBC program coordinator BTW. I use to love them over there, but once Shuster got spanked, they all started the Gang Up. And it is ugly to watch. I hardly watched the TV but I had it on CNN when Hillary started making her speech. In my cable area, they put on Weather.com for a flood alert that was going to be over in 10 mins. Very suspicious. I actually had to put on Fox to watch the speech.  

    I was happening well before Shuster (none / 0) (#157)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:22:45 AM EST
    I never watch MSNBC or NBC, I like you, if I had to view something would do Fox. I now buy nothing that is GE or Microsoft if I can help it, my only individual power to reject their ignorance hmmm I need to check there sponsor list..  This stuff is bad for America, its really I believe, harmful to women certainly you cannot have corporations picking your nominees as GE and Microsoft are trying to do.  Makes you wonder who they think will watch and of their talking heads when Clinton is the nominee, hmmm or maybe GE doesn't care of course, those ENERGY Bills and yes votes on the Cheney energy bill is more important I suspect, and of course Senator Clinton voted against the bill.

    Abrams was good -- but as for Maddow (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:19:14 PM EST
    (note, posted this in the other open thread just as it closed) -- Maddow such another sad loss. Tonight on Abrams' show, she said that Clinton on SNL was "trying to make herself human."

    Does Maddow even realize what she says? She is smart, so I have to think so. But she must have been hanging with KO and the Boyz for far too long. Maddow can't imagine that Clinton has -- as she does, as I saw more than a decade ago when I first saw her speak and then interact with folks -- a great sense of humor.  But the voters will hear that and not hear Maddow . . . and she will have hopped on the wrong horse and made herself foolish, too.


    rachel is trying so hard to be "cool". (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:32:30 PM EST
    sad!once you throw away your good name, getting it back is twice as hard. hillary goes on, the voters still vote. the people in general like the clintons. they don't give a flip what the so called dem leaders or pundits think.

    if she stood up to the boys (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:40:05 PM EST
    then the boys wouldn't welcome her back.  Women can't get away with disagreeing with the "team," because then they are no longer "team players."  They are either b*tches or lesbians if they disagree.  I have a friend who is a sports anchor for a station in mid-sized market and she says she's kept her Clinton endorsement to herself because she would end up losing her job if the guys turned against her. (Progression would go from razzing her, to not inviting her to lunches-where most of the work gets done-to leaving her out of important meetings and stories, to blaming her for not coming to important meetings or bringing in good stories to questioning her credentials to...pink slip).  

    It's hard to watch (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by vigkat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:42:57 PM EST
    I can't tell if it's motivated by a desire to be one of the guys, keep the gig on MSNBC and maybe expand it, or express her deep commitment to Obama.  Whatever, the transformation appears to be complete.

    All true the Voters (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:00:06 PM EST
    are so past the pundit class and the Washington Post Newsweek MSNBC Triage, as they have truely become jokes pitiful.

    Wow ... stunned that Maddow would say this (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Ellie on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:06:43 PM EST
    Clinton on SNL was "trying to make herself human."

    I don't watch MSNBC anymore; life's too short to fill with the daily hate-swarm against liberals and Dems generally and HRC in particular.

    I became a Maddow fan listening to her on Air America Radio and always admired her intelligence, independence and guts. I can't believe her mindset has eroded so much that she's thinking along these lines.

    So to add to the incline of an unlevel playing field that increasingly resembles a vertical cliff the capable, determined woman vying for a presidential run has to make herself human now?

    Wow. Bad enough to hear the medieval misogyny and other bigotries that that the *holes in the treehouse serve up hourly. What a disappointment the very few liberal and indy voices that MS/NBC grudgingly invites have turned out to be.


    My cable company (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:05:43 PM EST
    dropped MSNBC a couple of months ago from my mid-level cable package.  At first I was outraged.  But from what I have heard about them ever since, I'd be MORE outraged if I still had them.  It certainly doesn't sound like paying another $12-15/month in order to get MSNBC and a couple of family channels.

    Still, you do kind of wish you could turn them on in order to throw rocks at the creeps now and then, even though it requires frequent teevee replacement.


    Tune out, turn off, drop in (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by badger on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:17:33 PM EST
    We dropped our satellite TV subscription last month (can't get broadcast TV where we live). We get movies from the library and signed up for Netflix, so we watch what we want when we want to.

    Just finished watching In the Valley of Elah and probably got a better sense of Iraq from that then from several years of MSNBC, CNN, Fox or all three. At the top of our Netflix queue is The Candidate - where Barack Obama is played by Robert Redford.


    i loved in the valley of elah (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:12:51 AM EST
    i was hoping tommy lee jones would get the oscar this year. he doesn't have to say a word. the look on his face when the military guy shows up with news of his son is a film classic.

    since i ran away from msnbc, cnn, and the rest, i have actually started liking csi miami. who knew!


    I have one Name for any (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:20:33 PM EST
    Obama supporters to keep in mind whenever the talk about all the stuff that can brought out about the Clintons.  

    Penny Pritzke Link
    and Link

    The Heiress? (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:24:16 PM EST
    And Obama's campaign Financial Director (none / 0) (#20)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:28:42 PM EST
    you mean the woman who helped (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:41:57 PM EST
    orchestrate the sub-prime packaging for the market whose fall-out has helped push us into this recession?  Nah, that doesn't matter a bit.  Obama has been real aggressive talking about helping consumers by freezing interest rates and taking a time-out on foreclos...oh, wait, that's Clinton.  Nevermind.

    preparing the ammunition to attack Obama from that angle.  I hope he is ready if he's the Nominee.

    I'm waiting for them to make the Kenya connection (none / 0) (#51)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:01:56 PM EST
    That is going to be ugly.

    FARC shocked me (none / 0) (#56)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:06:24 PM EST
    I have to admit.  Talk about left field.

    FARC? (none / 0) (#84)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:40:54 PM EST
    Columbian rebel group. (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:43:54 PM EST
    There is a diary up at DK on this subj, although I have no idea if it is accurate.

    The Pritzker family is on both sides of the fence (none / 0) (#144)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:11:00 AM EST
    so don't think Sen. Clinton will get a pass, either. As a matter of fact, it'd be surprising if anything came of this. She chaired the bank 20 years ago, and had been gone from her position for 7 years when the bank failed. The FDIC actually sued Ernst & Young for improper auditing, and the Pritzker family paid more than half of the losses of their uninsured investors. Subprime may be a dirty word now, but 20 years ago was it seen that way? Or was it seen as a charitable risk that did profit companies while also giving people a chance to rebuild their credit?

    But since we're talking money, is there an answer from Sen. Clinton on the Kazakhstan story?


    Like all Rich Families they (none / 0) (#149)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:16:28 AM EST
    are on all sides.  But Penny is the Financial Director of Obama's campaign.  And please don't make it sound like charitable work have you seen the small print on those loans.

    Well, I'm about to refinance an ARM (none / 0) (#173)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:47:28 PM EST
    mortgage, so I know how they work, though I didn't get locked into the more egregious forms of the subprime. I also have been a collector for a major auto financer, and I know how few people really understand financing and how they get the runaround in the name of commissions.

    So, I know they are not charity, but I also know that not everyone who goes into them is completely ignorant, either, and that they can be helpful if you educate yourself and are prepared to deal with them. The fault cannot lie entirely at the feet of the bogeymem at the bank.

    My real point was that she was at the front end of trend, 15 years ago, long before the market hit crisis level, and long before Superior went under. That is all true. It's also true that a lot of the big financiers are people who have made their money w/o always being pure as the driven snow, so this will not find sturdy legs to stand on, imo.


    zyx - you asked a question in the last open thread (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ding7777 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:25:19 PM EST
    about Obama and a phantom donation -- Maybe Obama has Kerry's mailng list of supporters from 2004

    that he does (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:27:26 PM EST
    Except I took my name off of it (none / 0) (#80)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:37:10 PM EST
    The day Kerry sent me an e-mail endorsing Obama (I was for Edwards at the time), I unsigned myself from his e-mail list.

    I'm not on the Kerry e-mail list (none / 0) (#87)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:43:34 PM EST
    But I donated enough to his campaign to show up at the FEC website.

    I think I gave $200 when he ran (none / 0) (#107)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:08:49 PM EST
    Does that qualify me there too?

    I think so... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:11:36 PM EST
    IIRC $200 is the line.

    $200 it is! (none / 0) (#112)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:14:40 PM EST
    Go to the FEC website http://www.fec.gov/

    and look for your name in "individual search".  Or go to OpenSecrets.org  It's pretty--revealing.  You can look up people you know, people in your zip code area, etc.  I used to live in a fairly conservative part of Texas.  Scary!  But there were good Democrats there who donated to various candidates, too, so I could sleep at night some of the time.


    Where is this site. (none / 0) (#109)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:11:11 PM EST
    Then I can look for myself. Thanks,

    Yes, that makes sense (none / 0) (#78)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:36:33 PM EST
    BUT why does his campaign claim I have donated $100 to him when I have NOT?



    Does this raise questions (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:48:15 PM EST
    as to the vaunted claim of a million donors?

    That is something I wonder (none / 0) (#98)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:56:15 PM EST
    Apparently they count me--and I am NOT an Obama donor.

    And frankly, if he gets the nomination, I will vote for him, but his swooning fans--some of whom have given me some very harsh words in the past months--they will have to do the heavy lifting.  

    (Oh, wait--Obama and McCain are going to have a publicly-financed GE, right?  So they are off the hook.  Well, they can volunteer.)


    Oh could it be (none / 0) (#95)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:52:45 PM EST
    hiding a large donation by splitting it into many small ones using information from Kerry's list?

    That would be nice to know.  And very illegal.


    Yes, exactly (none / 0) (#101)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:00:58 PM EST
    A friend suggested that might be what is happening.  I don't know if it is at all likely, but I do wonder about it.

    The donation that "I" supposedly made is $100.  The FEC site doesn't list a donor unless they donate $200 or more to a candidate.  So I'm not sure most people would be able to verify a smaller donation.

    It could, of course, just be a mistake.

    Or it could be that the campaign is trying to flatter me somehow, as a hook to get me to cough up for real.

    I don't know.


    Could Obama win TX by 3 Delegates (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:29:26 PM EST
    That what this says

    TX allocates 2/3 of the delegates (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:33:06 PM EST
    to the primary and 1/3 to the caucuses.  And caucus voters have to prove they first voted in the primary.  

    There are shady stories about abuses (none / 0) (#90)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:47:27 PM EST
    at the caucuses even at the NRO website!  Caucuses sound like such a terrible idea--so subject to abuse, so inconvenient to voters.  And for a candidate to waltz away, snapping his fingers because he wound up with MORE delegates when he LOST the popular vote in the primary seems--undemocratic.

    Project Runway Finale!!!! nt (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:31:32 PM EST

    I saw it. (none / 0) (#81)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:38:19 PM EST
    All 3 collections were great. Jillian had wearable clothes. But it is over now.

    I liked Jillian's best! (none / 0) (#92)
    by liminal on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:49:27 PM EST
    I guess I'm opposite of fashion.  I rank them:

    1. Jillian;
    2. Rami;
    3. Christian.  

    I mean, Christian was dramatic, but I don't like the "high fashion" stuff that makes models look hunchbacked.  As for the evening and cocktail dresses, I preferred both Rami and Jillian.  Also, I wish they'd had Chris showing the full collection he made too.

    Still, fun!  Much better than any of the past finales.  


    I adore Christian. He brings out the mommy in me. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:54:51 PM EST
    But I liked Jillian's clothes better.

    yep. (none / 0) (#99)
    by liminal on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:56:41 PM EST
    I did like all three lines; I wouldn't mind watching some remake of Dark City with all of those 80s/40s silhouettes Jillian and Christian were peddling, too.  

    Good news, though probably meaningless (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:34:52 PM EST
    ABC News/ WaPo
    Obama 52 - McCain 40
    Clinton 50 - McCain 44

    As I've said before, I'll take either win

    Dkos is still obsessing over ... (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:42:52 PM EST
    the picture "darkening" in that ad.

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

    Blue collar Dems aren't big fans of whining.

    Oh hooray (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by zyx on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:13:37 AM EST
    factcheck.org says

    "Some Obama backers cry "racism." We find the accusation to be unsubstantiated..."

    and then they show a number of different clips that to my mind show that the Kos people just really, really need a lot more adult supervision.


    I really hope (none / 0) (#44)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:55:08 PM EST
    the press picks up on it.  That's what these rumor-mongers want, right?  For it to be all over the press just like the tribal dress photo was, just like the 3am ad was...millions and millions of "views" of this unflattering picture so that folks can decide for themselves whether or not it's been tampered with.  Maybe we'll get experts on it?  Maybe we'll have a whole day talking about this or stretch into the weekend.

    Sometimes I wonder if some of these blog guys are still republicans.  They sure know how to shoot democrats in the foot.


    I've caught one or two ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:58:50 PM EST
    out as fairly recent Republicans who now are plumping for Obama.

    There's a chunk of them.

    And, of course, Dkos is a former Pug.


    What, are they saying it matters? (none / 0) (#88)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:44:00 PM EST
    I mean, are they saying light ebony is all right but dark is not? Are they saying people will vote or not vote for Obama based upon the shade of his skin? So, when I put the tan wipes on my arms and legs in the summer, does that make me not the same person just because tan looks better with white capris? Heh.

    They did not darken the picture. They darkened the lighting. That is what darkened the picture. But hey, the guy playing Obama on SNL is really doing a nice imitation.


    No? 'Cuz they sure as heck seemed to (none / 0) (#145)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:16:38 AM EST
    respond to the SNL skits and the "Ya know, I always get the first question..." bits.

    Blue Collar Dems Are Not Part Of The (none / 0) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:31:52 AM EST
    Creative Class so their opinions don't count. Talk about Obama supporters giving the Repugs ammunition for the GE on how the Dems are elitist and discount the working class.

    I was so upset (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kenosharick on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:56:10 PM EST
    over at americablog, I had to get out of there. It has turned into a blatant Hillary-hate site. They remind me of the nutcases in the 90's that accused the Clintons of the most ridiculous crimes imaginable. It sounds like rush or ann coulter is writing over there.

    I think they'll wear themselves out (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by catfish on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:02:00 PM EST
    Today was so apparent that they're throwing punches in the air practically.

    And the "racism" charge is losing its effect with each false charge in each passing day.


    I think they are disgracing Obama (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:30:19 PM EST
    So many posts arguing over photos and altering and race.

    It is disgraceful to be so obsessive and examine every photo and them have hundreds of comments about it. It's icky. I kind of feel sorry for Obama.  What sane person would think that stuff was supportive?  Poor guy.


    In the long run - (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by liminal on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:52:10 PM EST
    that's what really bothers me.  They deploy racism charges in a carpet bomb fashion, with such abandon.  How can we make it stick come September and October if he is the nominee, when the crazy Pugs have crypto-fascist 527s deploying real and actual racist tactics around the country?  

    i agree. the public will soon be (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:16:56 AM EST
    thinking, "oh, yeah, you again! who is picking on you now barrack?"

    I think they've really got to be (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:41:31 AM EST
    desperate if they're digging up Whitewater again.  Wasn't all of this already covered 15 years ago?

    Maybe Ann will start posting there now. nt (none / 0) (#50)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:01:41 PM EST
    On my regular forum (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:15:21 PM EST
    where I've been part of the community or over ten years, today someone posted that she thought Hillary would murder Chelsea for the sympathy factor, if she thought that would get her elected.

    She was not joking - and if she was, it was not funny.

    I don't understand this kind of hatred. What kind of a person inspires that kind of malevolence in his followers? Aside from GWB, that is.


    People like that think it's 'cool' (none / 0) (#103)
    by catfish on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:04:43 PM EST
    to bash Hillary. Swear they are trying to impress people.

    It's so ridiculous that it will be 'cool' to actually LIKE Hillary and say it out loud.


    I noticed (none / 0) (#151)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:34:02 AM EST
    it a couple of weeks ago and took Americablog off my favorites list and don't go there anymore. They have really turned into a bunch of lunatics. Just one more disappointment in the liberal blogworld.

    I still scroll through (none / 0) (#154)
    by kenosharick on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:19:38 AM EST
    every couple days or so, but spend very little time there. Too bad, I really liked them, but it is like arguing with crazy people/fanatics. They refuse to be civil.

    I'm in a good mood about this election. (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by hitchhiker on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:13:19 PM EST
    My gut says that HRC and BO are going to find a way to do the right thing -- which is whatever it takes to make the country stronger and the party better than it was.

    They're ambitious, yeah, but they're also sane, and they're patriots.  It will be okay.

    I hear ya Maria (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by NJDem on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:41:28 PM EST
    Posh was all over Christian's line (which was too monochromatic, IMO).  And what happened to those feather pants?  The detail in Rami's evening gowns was fabulous though.  I'm gunna miss Tim Gunn.

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

    And the "F*ck Ohio" dairies illustrate what a grasp these people have on how to win in November :)

    True--all three lines were beautiful (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by NJDem on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:11:49 PM EST
    and I too thought Christian's had a little Chris in it.  I think Rami had a great point that Christian doesn't make closes for non-models--Jillian does. I can never understand how 'high fashion' translates into real-people clothes anyway.  

    And if I am somehow considered a BO contributor b/c I gave to Kerry--I am PO'ed!

    Obama's Talking Points Memo for Tomorrow (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:10:30 AM EST
    I think as people are discussing above, Obama campaign wants to rely on the netroots and media to sling its mud (and keep the candidate squeaky clean). The strategy was laid out by TPM:

    ... 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.

    My thought is, we (the Clinton camp) do need to keep on eye on TPM and the netroots (unnamed sites we all know from discussion earlier today!) to see what the Obama campaign is stoking in the background. These netrooters are vastly experienced in the ways of the right wing noise machine and they are working to support the Clinton memes that Obama wants in the media. The issue tomorrow is not what the conservative government reports without substantiation. In fact, earlier today, Obama was entirely exonerated of the original charge, so why does TPM rush to accept the same discredited charge against Clinton? I think we know. However, the real issue remains that Obama lied to the public about his campaign's overtures to the Canadian government and then hid behind the legalistic assertion, that "the fact patterns" did not change.

    NoQuarter (none / 0) (#156)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:06:14 AM EST
    has a clip of one of Obama's spokespeople saying that Obama isn't qualified to take the 3am call. (She says, "Neither one of them is.")


    Alegre also lists out the many things Clinton did as first lady, such as helping to negotiate peace in Ireland and opening up Kosovo's borders.  Lots of links to follow!


    Jeralyn, looks like the flood has begun! (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:13:07 AM EST
    Look at all the blogosphere refugees coming aboard... wow.

    All hands on deck, we need to make room for these fine folks.

    ppppbbfft! (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:32:12 AM EST
    Hugs to you too dear ;-P

    Hey (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:26:07 AM EST
    It's going to be a long 7 weeks of unhinged madness over there waiting for Pennsylvania.  Just imagine how many things to get outraged about... eeeek.

    I'm very flattered (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:05:24 AM EST
    that new people are coming here to post. TalkLeft is  different in that the commenting rules are a little stricter, but they also promote civility. No one should be mocked for their point of view. And all points of view are welcome provided the writer doesn't abuse the site, chatter, or try to hijack threads. The only other differences I can think of is that your urls should be in html format using the link button at the top of the comment box because long ones skew the site and if you want to talk about something other than what the thread is about, please use an open thread for that.

    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...

    So welcome to those of you who are new, and I'll get to know you from reading your comments and feel free to e-mail me if you have any questions.

    Thanks Jeralynn (none / 0) (#162)
    by coigue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:21:16 AM EST
    I probably will become a diarist in time.

    Sadly Hillary Clinton wrongly accused (1.00 / 3) (#113)
    by The GrandPanjandrum on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:15:39 PM EST
    the Obama campaign of being two faced about NAFTA. Apparently her campaign has the problem, NOT Obama. The Globe and Mail has the rundown 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."
    CBC has a report on it here. According to these reports it looks like the Clinton campaign is guilty of being being the two-faced skunks. Darn those facts for cramping the Clinton campaign style, eh?

    Cute try, but I've now looked at the links (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:40:03 PM EST
    and the broadcast says nothing about Clinton, and the story with the sole paragraph you pull out does not support your claim as you claim. Stop it here, as there are plenty of sites where your sort of games will be welcome.

    I just watched that video (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:40:49 PM EST
    and it doesn't mention anything about HRC or her campaign. Last week HRC offered denied it spoke to Canadian officials and gave "blanket immunity" so that Canada would over the name of the staffer.

    She denied it completely and gave them the ability to giver her a name, while Barack was denying and covering his rear.


    you need to go back to a site (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:20:00 AM EST
    that appreciates slander and a nasty attitude.

    OMG (none / 0) (#116)
    by badger on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:29:01 PM EST
    "said one source" and "someone". How damning!

    That isn't how I read it. (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:29:44 PM EST
    You're right (none / 0) (#124)
    by badger on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:50:54 PM EST

    Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.

    They said that Mr. Brodie sought to allay concerns about the impact of Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's assertion that they would re-negotiate NAFTA if elected. But they did say that Mr. Brodie had no recollection of discussing any specific candidate -- either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama.


    When Mr. Obama's campaign and the Canadian government denied the allegation, a leaked document was obtained by The Associated Press written by a Canadian diplomat. It chronicled a conversation between Obama economic adviser Austan Goulsbee and diplomats at Canada's Chicago consulate.

    Someone not only has a problem relying on unnamed sources, but also in comprehending what an article is really about.


    Wonder how those Gator players (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:10:46 PM EST
    do academically.  They sure play a lot of games.

    about basketball (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by lectric lady on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:15:26 PM EST

    Amen (none / 0) (#79)
    by badger on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:37:00 PM EST
    Hockey too!

    They have to do fairly well UF (none / 0) (#3)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:12:43 PM EST
    is strict on this things

    'bout as good as the Buckeyes (none / 0) (#4)
    by coigue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:12:49 PM EST
    I'd imagine.

    No wonder OSU keeps tromping (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:21:54 PM EST
    U of M.

    Now you are my friend for life!! (none / 0) (#15)
    by coigue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:24:51 PM EST
    They shot almost 70% in the first half (none / 0) (#5)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:12:54 PM EST
    and scored 55 points on my Vols.

    Your portable server comment was hilarious. I couldn't reply because the thread must be closed.


    One thing has to be Admitted (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:23:54 PM EST
    Billy Donovan is for real a heck of a coach.

    mehh (none / 0) (#19)
    by english teacher on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:28:22 PM EST
    give me rick stansbury and some maroon and white.  and just so everyone here knows, i am a certified gator hater.  go bulldogs!

    Now I really Like you being a Bulldog fan (none / 0) (#22)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:29:53 PM EST
    in Gator land

    Great coach and great person too. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:35:32 PM EST
    Vols trailed by 16, now down to 2.

    You and BTD missed a great (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:38:42 PM EST
    opportunity to live blog this game on the new software, which I discovered by clicking on the info tab, is well-suited for this purpose.  Think outside the box, peeps.

    Then we'd be fighting about the officials. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:43:38 PM EST
    All SEC officials stink. We are within one now. Go Vols!

    They have talent down there. During a timeout, a girl was on the court spinning around and around on her head. It made me dizzy watching.


    All SEC officials stink (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:09:31 PM EST
    unless Auburn is winning.

    War Eagle!


    We have a lot of SEC fans here...I figured (none / 0) (#65)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:16:20 PM EST
    you were a GA Dawg.

    I'm a Dawg Fan here in (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:20:47 PM EST
    Gator Country.

    Wow, Vols up 7. What a shootout. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:46:38 PM EST
    23 point turnaround.

    Had to do my own research (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:46:50 PM EST
    to find out who won tonight.  Why is that, I wonder?

    I don't object to Kos as much as many here (none / 0) (#11)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:22:39 PM EST
    I'm not a Hillary partisan. I voted for Obama in CA, but would be happy with either of them.  I looked at the Hillary ad he says was darkened and it does look darker to me.  I have no idea if it was intentional.  I know zip about video.  It does seem significantly darker to me.

    All that being said the graphic accompanying this post is way over the line as far as I am concerned.

    The 3 a.m. ad makes Obama (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ding7777 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:32:56 PM EST
    look drab, lifeless - nothing racist about it at all.

    If you want to see a touched-up photo that shows Obama with more stereotypical AA features, look at this photo.


    It's more a different color (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:35:47 PM EST
    than darker.  Often anti-candidate ads use a smoky filter or just plain black and white to make the opposition look sinister.  Happens all the time with caucasian people too.

    I certainly don't think it was about race.  As my husband said, "do they really think people wouldn't notice that he's black if the Hillary camp didn't point the fact out?  And BTW, what's the matter with being black?"

    It's truly ludicrous.


    And the picture of Hillary with glasses on (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:41:10 PM EST
    working at her desk also darkened her. There were links in that diary from Obama's website with pictures that made him look darker than he is. Every TV in my house has a different shade to the colors. I don't know for a fact that it wasn't deliberate but there is plenty of evidence that it isn't.

    I just don't understand why this is an issue (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:50:20 PM EST
    There are plenty of pics out there where Obama's skin tone looks darker.  Look at Newsweek for evidence of that.  It's lighting, quality of photo, background and quality of print. Did they pick a flattering photo?  Heck no.  Have you seen Clinton's neck in the ones they run of her?

    This is just as stupid the flap over the words on the kid's nightshirt (which didn't get traction, so now we have this).  If you want me to believe that in front of a full crew of at least six people, minimum, plus the kid wrangler (by law), the actor playing the mother and the various ad people milling around-plus the campaign reps--someone stopped production, went over and adjusted the kid's nightgown, angled the camera just so, and took the shot that showed the letters n-i-g as a subliminal dig at Obama?

    Last week, folks were believing Drudge and his "source" about Clinton's campaign sending out a photo that has been out for years.

    This is called clutching at straws, and it's embarrassing that educated people are fabricating these kinds of stories because they can't come up with any other way to bring Clinton down. And it's even more embarrassing that educated people are actually believing it.  If Clinton had lost TX or OH, do you think we'd be hearing any of this right now?


    Because he held no hearings on NATO (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by catfish on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:00:16 PM EST
    My mom said that moment in the debate in which Obama said he held no subcommittee hearings because he's only been chair since Jan 2007 was THE MOMENT she "fell out of love" with Obama.

    That's why it's an issue. The Clinton campaign can't show the ad in Pennsylvania now, because of the "darkening".


    I have a solution (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:03:18 PM EST
    Lighten it.  I mean he would probably look like a ghost but at least they can't say they darkened it.

    Lighten it, narrow his 'widened' his nose (none / 0) (#60)
    by catfish on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:10:08 PM EST
    They're also alleging they widened his nose to look more black.

    Yes I agree - just make him whiter than he is. Of course, they'll get attacked for that but who cares.


    Til he (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:46:12 AM EST
    looks like Michael Jackson? :)

    That he is 1/2 AA isn't a secret is it? And do we really care that much about skin tones? (Oh my God my neighbor has a deep, deep, tanning booth tan and I'm pale as a ghost. Now which of us is the better person?)

    Who cares about such drivel? Other than people that have too much time on their hands and find a conspiracy about everything. How about issues?  


    I think they can show the ad (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:05:48 PM EST
    Millions of people saw it in TX and OH and over and over and over again on the news and didn't notice anything untoward.  I say Clinton should keep using it as much as she likes because it was extremely effective.  

    Man, I feel like we're in a melodrama here.  "But it took one eagle eyed blogger to bring down the whole conspiracy!"

    I'm telling you-people who are crying foul here should really be careful about what they wish for.  None of us want this crap crossing into a news cycle.  It will help no one, except maybe Clinton, and help like that she does not want.


    Maybe that's the real reason they're flipping.... (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:09:35 PM EST
    ...because the ad was effective.

    they see their hero slipping and (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:28:57 AM EST
    are getting desperate. i ran away from the republican party because of the way they treated the clintons during impeachment. now watching these pundits, bloggers, and so called dem leaders just makes my head hurt. i am still a registered independent and think i'll keep it that way.

    Kathy, is there a link for this new ad ? (none / 0) (#69)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:22:50 PM EST
    I've only seen stills.

    link to the 3am call ad? (none / 0) (#155)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:03:24 AM EST
    It's probably on Clinton's website.

    Don't worry ... (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:06:02 PM EST
    he'll say something equally stupid before PA that we can use in an ad.

    Not that we can't use that ad again.  No one outside the tiny group of people who read blogs or watch cable news even know about it.

    And most of those who know about it couldn't care less.


    Unfortunately (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Foxx on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:31:37 PM EST
    this will play with the people it is intended for, black people who are already angry that Obama might lose the nomination, many white liberals. I wouldn't underestimate the damage.

    I have seen pictures of Hillary in which her (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:27:00 AM EST
    wrinkles are more pronounced than in other photos.  I have also seen her shot from angles that cast shadows on her making her look sinister. Shall we start looking for the culprits on her shots as well?  

    And let us point that her hair is lighter (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:21:46 AM EST
    than ever. But it and the Ferraro cut work great.

    I can see kos' case, but video editors (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by catfish on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:58:47 PM EST
    have said the following, about how hard it is to adjust for tone/etc.
    One from no quarter said:
       Yeah, and it's a bogus claim. Anyone knowing anything about graphics or working with video, knows gamma correction (or from what I saw sharpening) will darken the image(s) as a by-product.

        This is a pain when trying to enhance the chroma, so hues won't wash out, with video compression or stills (e.g., JPEG conversion). Not only the blacks get darker, all the colors darken (as you can see in examples -- look at the background and tie). Terrible with darker hair. :/

    Another from TalkLeft said:

    different monitors show different tonal variations, so my iMac might show an image darker while another person's PC might show it lighter.  Unless you've got a tightly calibrated monitor, you can end up washing out or darkening in a way that looks extremely exaggerated on a different viewer's monitor.

    And, as someone who spent a few years in print and advertising, aa's, Asians and other people of color are REALLY hard to calibrate, especially depending on the background they are standing against.  You have to tweak it very carefully or you end up making things look totally out of whack-muddy, yellow, whatever.  It is a nightmare, especially if you have a poor image to begin with, and the problem only compounds when you lower the resolution or compress for the internet.  Other factors: the quality of the original film (from the internet? Crappy), lighting, ambient lighting, etc.

    Crazy Thought: Did DailyKos Make Obama Lighter? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:13:45 PM EST
    Has anybody suggested that the DailyKos LIGHTENED their original image capture of Obama to deliberately mis-represent/exaggerate his looking "blacker" in the image they claim is taken from a Clinton ad.

    BTW, the Clinton campaign is adamant that the DailyKos "blacker" Obama image IS NOT from their ad.


    I'm imagining a really funny (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:59:59 PM EST
    do-over of the ad on SNL or Jon Stewart.  But not at all PC.

    Interesting theory! But no (none / 0) (#119)
    by catfish on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:39:07 PM EST
    Yeah, I saw kos post a denial from the Clinton camp. That was interesting...the Clinton camp isn't sloppy with denials (Drudge report...took them a while.)

    BTW: The New York Post (none / 0) (#172)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:14:13 PM EST
    has picked up the story.  No, I don't have a link.  Saw this at MyDD.  Verified it at NYPost.com

    Shrill-ness, race-baiting AND making liberals look bad.  It's a three-fer.


    Oh, that video (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:16:56 PM EST
    I don't know diddly about video, but I have over 30 years in still photography, and I know how ferociously hard it can be to make things reproduce properly across media.

    And of course campaigns have been doing this for a long time--you don't really think Nixon had 5 o'clock shadow in that debate with JFK, do you?

    But the real issue is: Isn't the whole point of progress in racial issues supposed to be that we treat each other the same, regardless of race?  (Seems I heard some kind of dream speech about that once.)  If so, then Obama got precisely the same crappy treatment that everyone else gets in this racket, no more, no less, and with no regard for his race.  And that's bad... why, exactly?


    Am not a partisan for any camp (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:06:15 PM EST
    but I left cause I just couldn't take the vitriol any longer. It just hurt to watch my fellow kossacks tear each other apart.

    i dropped by today and haven't been there (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:31:35 AM EST
    in several months. geez, the quality of comments is down. it sounded like a frat party and the language was just as bad.

    Just went back to read (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:41:23 AM EST
    coigue's gbcw diary.

    awww shucks! (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by coigue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:25:30 AM EST
    It was good... (none / 0) (#166)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:30:32 AM EST
    and I understood where you were coming from. And yes, some folks, people I'd normally consider thoughtful and so on, are in too deep.

    That worries me.


    I peeked (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by coigue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:46:59 AM EST
    at the FP today, dhonig has a diary that debunks the whole sorted affair with the so-called "altering". Of course that will not stop the rancor. They will find something else. I have no stomach for it.

    So, who wants to dish about (none / 0) (#70)
    by NJDem on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:24:05 PM EST
    Project Runway?  I think it was Rami's color choices that did him in.  I had a pair of parachute pants in that teal blue color :)

    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.  

    Also, why hasn't BO released his February $$ numbers yet?  And what about those 50 S-D's Brokaw alluded to Monday?

    I really wanted to see... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:04:26 PM EST
    Chris's line. I think he could've been a good dramatic addition. Rami's outfits annoyed me...but I really liked Jillian's work.

    I think it was the colors and Posh Spice. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:31:51 PM EST
    She was so enthusiastically in Christian's corner. I did agree about the colors, actually. But on the other hand, at least he tried to use color. Everyone else was so monochromatic.

    I think they should have given all 3 a spread (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:05:20 PM EST
    All 3 collections were great. Rami had such detail and so did Jillian. Christian had a little bit of Chris in it. I am so tired of those ruffles. I know I would be spitting out material all the time. I love shoes, but the ones Christian made that model wear hurt me just to watch.

    Why did they all go for "dark" themes (none / 0) (#118)
    by catfish on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:36:04 PM EST
    maybe this says something about the times we're living in. They all went for dark, gothic. Hhhmmm...

    Here's Mary McNamara (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:27:51 PM EST
    on smugness in Presidential prim. candidates:


    Which brings up another plan:  how about an American Idol type night with Obama/Clinton/and Edwards where only viewers registered to vote in MI or FL get to vote?  Sell ads.  Presto.  Problem solved. Hillary Clinton did say she might go for Dancing With the Stars.

    Well have to go to work night folk. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:40:31 PM EST

    Me too (none / 0) (#114)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:16:28 PM EST
    Last night I was so wide awake that I got only about 3 hours of sleep. I think it is the Penna thing that my vote will count in April. Luckily I did not fall asleep in my office. Oh wait, how could I? I was reading all the BTD's diaries. Heh.  G'night. And

    One more nugget. Apparently NAFTA-gate (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:42:24 PM EST
    isn't over yet, at least in Canada:


    Don't be surprised (none / 0) (#150)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:57:19 AM EST
    to hear that a criminal investigation starts up in Canada.  

    While this is a controversy right now here for political purposes it really is a much bigger deal for Canada.  If Obama wins the White House they could face very real repercussions for interfering.  


    Re conference calls w/Wolfson, Axelrod (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:09:10 PM EST
    et al.  I just read Swampland where my unfavoritest blogger not only summarizes, in her snarkiest fashion, the contents of one of those calls, she also announces them ahead of time and solicits questions from commenters.  TalkLefters, unite:  we deserve equal time.  

    Good point (none / 0) (#123)
    by NJDem on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:46:24 PM EST
    they were all dark themes in the lines--a sign of the times I guess.  I can't wait to compare it to next year's Fashion Week :)

    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.

    I missed a lot of posts today, has anyone talked about BO's interview where he admits he's never handled a crisis?  It's like: "Thanks for writing a campaign ad for us--Love, Hillary" :)