Back To The Future

Hillary's path to the nomination...

Canadian Government and Mr Furious Issue Retractions

Here is a CBC video that breaks down the whole NAFTA flap that very well may have screwed Obama over yesterday (especially in Ohio). Seems it was all a big misunderstanding/set-up. Either way, Obama got a raw deal.

Oh, and in the video the CBC has a clip from the Ohio debate which very closely resembles the "Muslimized-blackened" Obama from the Clinton ad. [NOTE: image added at right] Perhaps it is a case of source video rather than malevolence from the Clinton campaign. I'm not quite ready to drop it, but I'm open to other possibilites...

UPDATE: Here's a new diary at Kos discussing the variations that occur when uploading video, converting to Flash, etc... This might explain things (or not) but raises enough questions that I will concede benefit of the doubt on this issue for now. I'd be curious to see actual tv footage of the ad rather than multi-generational online YouTube footage. Though it should be noted that Clinton website's video also exhibited the "problem." I added the CBC image above, and it appears washed out and the color desaturated, perhaps as a result of the factors noted in the diary.

UPDATE 2: Using the two highest quality sources I could find, MSNBC's stream of the debate, and a hi-res Quicktime version of the ad from Hillary's website (no youTube factor in either case) there is still a clear color shift.


It is not as dramatic a difference as the examples presented in many places earlier, which are all open to a biased selection to fit the argument (NOTE: I used those images in my post yesterday as well). While not a light (or lightened?) as examples provided yesterday, Obama's debate image is noticeably warmer and less high-contrast, while the HRC ad remains shifted in hue and contrast.

It is my opinion as a person who edits photos as part of their job (and used state of the art equipment, software and the best available originals) that Obama's image was altered—whether this is a result of the standard practice employed to present a political opponent in "an unfavorable light" or a deliberate attempt to capitalize on Obama's race and distort his appearance because of that is unclear. But to pretend this was all incidental and can be blamed on uploads and an unfortunate (or happy) coincidence like the Kos diary link above does is ludicrous. It was deliberate. It indicates either negligence on the part of the Clinton campaign to realize that when your opponent is a different race, perhaps you don't mess with their skin, or, a conscious decision to disregard that and use it as an intentional strategy.

They get a one-time pass for this on the chance that the political ad chop shop did it unthinkingly. If it happens again, they should be fucking nailed to the wall for it.

UPDATE 3:
I took the MSNBC original (far left) and tried to replicate the HRC ad (far right). My file in the center.


It took dramatic shifts in hue, saturation, brightness and contrast to approach what the HRC ad looked like. I am having a harder time believing it was an accident. It may not have been the malicious race-baiting intent, but I think it was deliberate.

"I'll take Mitt to block..." Never Mind!

IMPORTANT UPDATE! Per Smitty (who I trust implicitly about state-level politics) points out that while this might be a wrench in the works nationally, if Romney ends up somehow getting the nomination, there will be serious blowback here in Michigan. Romney is obviously well-connected into the GOP machine here, and if he heads up the national ticket, it will motivate the state GOP and their voters. Democrats only control one chamber of Michigan's legislature right now—narrowly, and only since the last election. Smitty's worried this will flip the House back and build on the GOP's Senate lead. It's definitely a risk not worth taking. So, back to the somewhat less-satisfying "uncommitted" to block Hillary...

UPDATE 2: Took this back over to Daily Kos. It's crazy how fast shit moves over there...

UPDATE 3: Kos is being a prick. He's got a fourth front-page post on this, and hasn't addressed anybody's concerns. It's now getting play in the MSM, and taking off online. I'm with Smitty on this being a bad idea for Michigan, but I just think it's a mistake to throw the most well-financed Republican anything but an anchor when he's drowning...this has blowback written all over it.

---

[Original post]:

An interesting strategy for Michigan voters via Kos...

Next Tuesday, January 15th, Michigan will hold its primary. Michigan Democrats should vote for Mitt Romney, because if Mitt wins, Democrats win. How so?

For Michigan Democrats, the Democratic primary is meaningless since the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates (at least temporarily) for violating party rules. Hillary Clinton is alone on the ballot.

But on the GOP side, this primary will be fiercely contested. John McCain is currently enjoying the afterglow of media love since his New Hamsphire victory, while Iowa winner Mike Huckabee is poised to do well in South Carolina.

Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who’s suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he's out. If he wins, he stays in.

And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.

I'm intrigued. I fully intended to vote "uncommited" on Tuesday, and urge others to do the same, but this might actually be a more valuable/useful way to use my vote. Thoughts? Especially you, Smitty...

In theory hurting McCain is a good thing, as I feel he is the GOP's strongest candidate, but who the hell knows? This could backfire...but without looking at it as helping or hurting particular guys, I agree with Kos' assessment that keeping the field open on the other side is to our beneft, no matter who emerges.