digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at dailykos.com —

Hillary's Ad: Debate Footage Doctored To Make Obama Blacker

dailykos.com — In case you needed yet another reason to despise Hillary Clinton and her vermin strategists, she's now running an ad blatantly lying about Obama's subcommittee. Her ad includes debate footage heavily doctored to make Obama blacker.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • u2wedge, on 03/04/2008, -51/+148The Republican's New Agenda is to Stop Obama, they want to run against Hillary. They have so much dirt in their Arsenal on the Clintons just waiting to be Unleashed (movies, scandals, lawsuits, books) -- that is why Rush Limbaugh is Begging, Begging his listeners to vote for Hillary. Limbaugh declared: “I want the funeral music to play at some point to the Clintons, but not this early.” America, if Hillary becomes the nominee, we haven't seen nothing yet!

    Who released the Canadian Memo and distorted its contents--, where did that come from and who called Goolsbee to a meeting and conveniently set him up? Who pushed up Rezko's trial which, was to start much later this year? Why did the Somali picture come out, along with Farrakahn endoresement and a radio jock mocking of Obama's middle name? Which was allowed to be played over and over again by the Main-stream media. We have to ask these things? Who wants to Kill unity and hope? Was this part of the Kitchen Sink or may be the Basement (Swiftboating)? I do know its dirty politics and until we reject this kind of politicking in America we will be a pawn in their hands, the people of power, and never find our true Independence and Voice which Obama is offering. The Evil Ones are just getting started, warmed up. Someone is trying to pull our strings. The Truth will come out, however. Hopefully, America we can see through this Rouse this time and elect CHANGE!


    • oldhick, on 03/04/2008, -12/+63I love that in your world, even when a Democrat (read the story) is guilty of gutter politics, you can completely ignore it and transform the issue somehow into Republicans being the problem...
      ***** people are the problem and they exist in both parties.
    • HoratioHellpop, on 03/04/2008, -27/+8I guess some whacked LIberals love To Needlesly capitalize Random words In their Posts ...
      • kipmartin, on 03/04/2008, -3/+13funny and True, but Dugg down for Using the Term 'whacked Liberals'.
    • mbraynard, on 03/04/2008, -22/+5Rush is only supporting Hillary to keep her in the race. We would rather run against Obama but want to see him have to fight all the way to the convention to get it. Kinda nice to sit back and watch since it hasn't been since 1992 that you guys had the battle and we got to sit back and enjoy.
      • PleaseJustDie, on 03/04/2008, -0/+13Rush is supporting Hillary because he thinks McCain has a better chance of beating Hillary than Obama.
        • mbraynard, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2No, he doesn't. HE just corrected you guys yesterday on getting this wrong.
      • kipmartin, on 03/04/2008, -5/+2dugg down for being a troll. youre about as republican as Ralph Nader,
        • mbraynard, on 03/05/2008, -3/+2Check my donor history, retard. I think I'm dugg down just because people disagree with Republicans in general and this is the only way for them 'get back' at us.

          Oh, and go ***** yourself.
    • dmadip, on 03/04/2008, -10/+4you are a stupid ass. Don;t you tihnk it is a little late for the republican machine to change who they want to win the democratic primary. Hilary is obviously better to run against since she is a stone cold bitch, and if call Obama on anytihng, they will be callled racists.... and that is hard to fight, so we bow to you overlord obama
    • wendelgee2, on 03/04/2008, -6/+14All of those things were done by Hillary, not by the Republicans. But, isn't that precisely the problem with her? You want to clean up Washington, she's the first piece of trash that needs sweeping.
      • wflan, on 03/05/2008, -2/+6amen

        Hillary = what's wrong with the Washington Establishment
    • paradexes, on 03/04/2008, -11/+7I donated this to the Obama campaign. It is an image they need to consider using when running in their ads about Hillary. I made some minor cosmetic changes to improve the image quality and color. A little softening here and some color correction there.
      Hillary before = http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/6442/hillspeechdn ...
      Hillary after = http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2707/joke663akh1. ...
    • DarkLance, on 03/04/2008, -3/+2pretty scary that it comes down to Texas and Ohio....
    • nreynolds, on 03/04/2008, -5/+8Watch any negative political ad. They all do this to every candidate (darkening the picture). It makes them seem more mysterious and evil (the point of any negative ad). The fact that he's black really has nothing to do with it.
      • EwMo, on 03/04/2008, -5/+5Thank God that at least one person is built with some sort of common sense on this site.
        • Gozchev, on 03/05/2008, -1/+4I'll put you back at zero (up from -1) because you and reynolds actually freed me getting drawn in to this story too much, as way too many diggers do. Inconsequentially, I will probably get buried.... whatever....
    • Proctor, on 03/04/2008, -5/+9Elect Change? You failed to do that when you completely overlooked Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, or Ron Paul. Now you're ***** and have to deal with a facade.
      • franklymister, on 03/05/2008, -3/+3Tito the Masturbator who gets arrested a lot on Avenue C would be a change, too. There's more to being President than just going against the grain - you have to be able to hold the reins of power effectively. Clearly the majority of voters didn't think any of those candidates had the qualifications America was looking for.
        • Akronos, on 03/05/2008, -3/+4Yes, and I'm sure media bias had absolutely nothing to do with that.
    • TicoTico, on 03/05/2008, -4/+0I agree partly, the attacks to Obama are childish but effective. Consider that the average citizen doesn't think, he just reacts (emotionally).
      And in a hypothetical Clinton v McCain, the whole world is screwed cause they are the same piece of ***** neocon bastards.
    • airburst, on 03/05/2008, -0/+11DailyKOS is ***** on Hillary and it's the work of the Right Wing Hate Machine? Partisans like you will be the death of this country. Will we ever come together or will it be Red vs Blue for ever and ever?
    • rz8472, on 03/05/2008, -4/+1Note that Hillary also widened Obama's head and nose. Apparently she's trying to make him more "stereotypically Hutu blacker", not just blacker. Hooray for Rwandan politics.
    • omegaredIX, on 03/05/2008, -6/+2Do not forget that the evil piece of dog trash known as Rupert Murdoch Mr Fox News conservative network has thrown fundraisers for Hilary Clinton.
    • clayasaurus, on 03/05/2008, -3/+3Oh God... wake up people, Obama is a THEM.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21340764/

      Every family has a black sheep.
    • RepubOperative, on 03/05/2008, -5/+6Obama is a dumbass with regard to trade, NAFTA and all importantly, OIL.

      http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/02/28/canada_n ...

      Cut and paste if the link truncates
      www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/02/28/
      canada_nafta_and_obama/index.html

      Canada exports more crude oil to the United States than any other nation, including Saudi Arabia. All of that oil, along with a gusher of natural gas, comes free of any kind of export controls or tariffs, courtesy of NAFTA. In fact, the United States consumes almost 100 percent of Canada's energy exports.

      Which undoubtedly puts Canada in the driver's seat should a new president of the United States decide he or she wanted to "renegotiate" NAFTA.

      David Emerson, Canada's trade minister, took some pains to remind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama of U.S. dependence on foreign (Canadian) oil on Thursday, according to a Globe and Mail story a reader kindly forwarded to me.

      Americans' privileged access to Canada's massive oil and gas reserves could be disrupted if Washington cancels the NAFTA accord as Democratic presidential candidates threaten, Canadian Trade Minister David Emerson warned yesterday.

      "There's no doubt if NAFTA were to be reopened we would want to have our list of priorities," he said.

      In other words, if you Yankees think you can wave a magic wand and "renegotiate NAFTA" so as to be more beneficial to Americans at the expense of Canada's interests, think again, because we'd be happy to close off the oil spigot and sell our crude, to, oh, I don't know, China.

      Don't mess with Canada!


      http://www.energybulletin.net/18828.html

      There will be no quick fixes for natural gas shortages in North America. None. Eventually, natural gas from Alaska and the MacKenzie Delta in the Northwest Territories will arrive by pipeline. But that could easily be 10 years from now. Imports in the form of liquid natural gas (LNG) could offer some relief, but the timelines for building the necessary special purpose ports and ships could be equally long.

      So, what happens in the meantime should Reynolds' prediction turn out to be true? The answer will be puzzling to many Canadians. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) obliges Canada to share its oil and gas in the same proportion as it has in the previous 36 months prior to any restrictions placed on output. The specific reference is Article 605. In other words, the United States is supposed to get its share no matter what. In 2005 the U. S. imported almost 3.7 tcf of natural gas from Canada which produced about 6.5 tcf in the same year. That's more than half Canada's production.

      (Perhaps even more galling to the Canadian public will be the fact that the other party to NAFTA, Mexico, retained control over its own hydrocarbon resources in the very same chapter of the agreement in which Canadian negotiators gave away Canada's energy sovereignty.)

      But what if the Canadian government faced a situation in which its own citizens were freezing in their homes for lack of heat? Would it simply let natural gas flow south because of a trade agreement? And, what if it became apparent that the situation wasn't temporary, but rather a long-term problem?

      Any party to NAFTA can withdraw from the agreement with six months' written notice.
    • prahareturns, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2Change? Since we still have the same members of congress and an out of control budget deficit we won't see any real change.
    • DonkeyBeliever, on 03/05/2008, -0/+3Let me get out my tin foil hat here....
    • starkruzr, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1Man, Wil, don't dig this comment up. It's disheveled and disorganized.
    • LeeSoong, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2Well, I don't know why you guys keep going on and on about Obama and Clinton,
      Mike Gravel has the Democratic Nomination for the win:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8


      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aKHakMfV5s
  • mablco, on 03/04/2008, -49/+25"Hilary Clinton has painted me blacker than I am..not that there's anything wrong with being black, i just want you to know im not THAT black"
  • bsegovia, on 03/04/2008, -18/+63This is what American presidential dialog has come to? Jeez... If only there were a candidate that focused on issues and fixing America... hrmm.. i wonder who... Dugg to help the rest of the world illustrate American stupidity.
    • orxor, on 03/04/2008, -23/+35Ron Paul?

      I'm going to get dugg down aren't I?
    • Justice101, on 03/04/2008, -7/+8Nope, your not gonna get dugg down. The presidential race has long been nothing but a source of embarrassments for the American people. Anyway this stories inaccurate, so the point is mute. The Hilliary team just desaturated the video it seems. A lot of indie films do the same thing to change the mood of the film, into something more somber. They just tried to make the video look a little bit better for the tone of the add, that's all. The titles a bit sensationalist.
    • AkCowboyAk, on 03/04/2008, -2/+3nader 08!!! buried?
    • HanSolo69, on 03/05/2008, -8/+5If you mean Ron Paul, the only issue he focused on was being bat ***** crazy.
      • bsegovia, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2lol, is that what the friendly media told you to think? I wish people would stop outsourcing their opinions. I was a Barack fan, then i saw the light. We're a nation of sold voters. This candidate makes me feel good, that candidate "looks" presidential. Who's ***** crazy? The people. Thank god we're a republic.
  • jkbowman, on 03/04/2008, -21/+195I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. - Never
    • brownmajik, on 03/04/2008, -10/+30I would vote for her, if she ran against Hitler.
      • Jaliyl, on 03/04/2008, -10/+7Digg me down, digg really needs a delete comment button, at least when its still editable.
      • PleaseJustDie, on 03/04/2008, -6/+22Hitler was pretty charismatic, I'd probably have ended up voting for him over Hillary.
        • oenoneablaze, on 03/05/2008, -8/+7You have serious issues if charisma is the determining factor in getting your vote. I can only hope that most Obama voters aren't like you.

          You don't want to vote for Hillary? Fine. Saying that someone who massacred millions of innocent people would be a better choice than her? Ridiculous. Even if you don't support her, Clinton is not that much worse than Obama, and everyone in this race is a sight better than GWB. Get some ***** perspective. People like you make us look bad.
          • Edrick, on 03/05/2008, -3/+4HUMOR. SENSE OF. GET ONE.
          • andersan, on 03/05/2008, -4/+3You need to learn to identify humor.
          • Akronos, on 03/05/2008, -5/+3SENTENCE. LEARN TO. EDRICK. WRITE ONE.
          • andersan, on 03/05/2008, -3/+2that made less sense than the one above you.
          • ZeroOrDie, on 03/05/2008, -7/+1Hitler didn't kill anyone. In fact Germany was on vacation during the years of this "Holocaust". Just propaganda made by jews to take even MORE money.
        • p4r4d0x, on 03/05/2008, -5/+3Someone needs to tell Hillary charisma != yelling.

          Oh and oenoneablaze, you fail.
      • brokencrystal, on 03/05/2008, -4/+1She is running against Hitler. (McCain) Just do the right thing and vote for Ron Paul.
    • eddy23170, on 03/04/2008, -2/+28don't worry, diebold will do it for you...
      • theblt, on 03/05/2008, -3/+4Yep. Because Diebold machines always votes for the candidate the tin-foil hat wearers dislike.
        • drwatson, on 03/05/2008, -1/+4No, they vote for whoever gives them the big contracts.
        • daborg, on 03/05/2008, -0/+4If they start voting for Japanese robot manufacturers we know that the machine uprising is near.
        • Emceay, on 03/05/2008, -2/+3When it's proven they can be hacked in under 4 minutes, and the president of the company says he'll see to it bush wins, and he does.. there's cause for concern, no tin-foil hat required.
    • Chompy, on 03/04/2008, -9/+18Why?
      I suppot Obama, but I'd still take Hillary over McCain. She shares most of the same positions as Obama. So why the vehemence?
      • qwerter, on 03/04/2008, -3/+14A lot of her attacks aren't just at Obama, but at his supporters, too. Beyond stuff like the "celestial choirs" speech, much of her campaign rhetoric revolves around the idea that Obama supports are incapable of thinking critically for themselves, and are simply moved by "empty speeches." Way to insult the intelligence of millions of potential voters, Hillary.

        If she manages to become the candidate, she's going to have a LOT of making-up to do before I can justify voting for her.
        • Chompy, on 03/04/2008, -2/+5Eh, it's not like McCain would refrain from that sort of crap if he was in a tight race. Gutter politics are almost a fact of life now. I can understand not wanting Hillary to get the nomination, but voting republican (or not voting dem and thus still helping them out) if that happens, because of dirty politics, just seems a bit extreme to me.
          • qwerter, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2I see your point, but I really don't feel like for some bully who belittles me and my hopes. Besides, McCain doesn't need Obama's supporters to vote for him in order to win the general election. Hillary will most certainly have to win them back if she's going to be president.
          • Emceay, on 03/05/2008, -1/+0Really? Her sarcasm was enough to turn me off to voting for her. And I've voted in every election and primary since I got the right. When it comes down to it, between her and McCain I see her as the lesser of two evils. However, I see them as turd sandwich and giant douche and neither one will I want to see giving a state of the union. They're both hell in a hand basket to me, so I'll just end up letting everyone else that wants her in so bad decide on their own.
      • jonohull, on 03/04/2008, -3/+4Because of the means she uses, which are dirty and despicable.
    • ligyron, on 03/04/2008, -6/+9I was just about to go vote for her, but after reading this article--***** that!
    • LocalDocal, on 03/04/2008, -2/+8In all fairness, the entire video looks like it was supposed to be darker. I skipped the video to the scenes with Hillary in it and, yes, she looked darker compared to the debate video too.
    • D0m0kun, on 03/04/2008, -2/+6At least with Hillary you don't have to photochop her to look dangerous...

      http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080209/capt.f ...
    • notque, on 03/04/2008, -8/+7I'd vote for her over Ron Paul.
    • DinosWillDie13, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2I ***** hate Hillary Rodham Clinton and her conniving phrase stealing ass-tard speech writers.
  • gwayo, on 03/04/2008, -9/+75FTA: (about the commercial this appeared in) "Besides doctoring the footage, she's lying about the subcommittee. Afghanistan is handled by a different subcommittee, and by the full foreign relations comittee in which Obama participates. His subcommittee met very rarely under previous chairs in the last several years."
    • citizenchan, on 03/04/2008, -1/+4She lied about the content, made his skin tone darker, made his face wider. Seriously, this lady has gone too low, over and over again. I only hope her bullsh*t doesn't damage Obama's chances agains McCain. Hers: They're shot.
      • lebruf, on 03/04/2008, -0/+6Her defense: "If anything, I've helped him to better connect with that pocket of voters who didn't think he was black enough."
    • JKAL, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1interesting how during the debate she was asked about re-invading Iraq, but she would not answer the question as it was "hypothetical", then blunders around her comment just so she can bring up Obama not meeting with the subcommittee.
      Then Obama turns the table's on her once again by answering the question and burying her subcommittee comment,
      So just before the add break, she puts in her worthless 2cents, something about "the question was about re-invading Iraq"?
      WTF?
  • tmanstark, on 03/04/2008, -27/+7People are buying this !!!!! OMG.

    gwayo you and FTA are flat out wrong on the facts.
    • Shopko, on 03/04/2008, -2/+5Did you even read the article? Did you read about the committee meetings SHE missed on Afghanistan? Did you follow the links in the article to the original source? Please provide evidence and support of YOUR claim. Otherwise, you are nothing more than a fool who operates on emotion rather than facts. If this is indeed the case, do all of us a favor and DO NOT VOTE. If you would like to vote, do not use HillaryClinton.com as your only information source. Read, critique, think for yourself, and then make a choice.
  • PeteZaHutt, on 03/04/2008, -8/+24Hilarious -- Obama ads are being displayed on this page.
    • cohortq, on 03/04/2008, -1/+6Hmm...yea...I adblo....."see" them too
  • PeteZaHutt, on 03/04/2008, -25/+235Perhaps Hillary should use the same technology to make her look more like a woman.
    • RoroCo, on 03/04/2008, -2/+6The nano-tear ducts weren't enough?
    • rawnzilla, on 03/04/2008, -2/+17OH SNAP!
    • Kautylia, on 03/05/2008, -5/+6Unfortunately, the only way women can even participate in politics, they have to appear "manish" to voters, since male qualities are ones that people associate with leadership. Unfortunately, when women exhibit male qualities, people then think their evil, emotionless, and fake.
      Bottom Line: This county is not ready for a female president; we're still too superficial.
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 03/05/2008, -3/+4This country IS ready for a female president. The problem is that in this election, the only viable female candidate is Hillary Clinton, and she is just a terrible person. She is dishonest and petty. She is in the pocket of the corporations. She represents the status quo of closed door politics serving the interests of a handful of powerful people, rather than the country as a whole.

        Hillary was only in Washington for 8 years, but she was already a terrible person before she got there, so she fit right in. I am not a anti-feminist. Most of these evil people are men, but Hillary is a living example that women can be just as evil.

        "Unfortunately, when women exhibit male qualities, people then think their evil, emotionless, and fake."

        Maybe to some people... But Hillary really is evil and fake. She is not emotionless. I am sure she has plenty of emotions. They just might be different than the ones we think she has, because she is so dishonest.

        I don't like men who possess these qualities either. Mitt Romney was fake. Guiliani was an evil douchebag, Thompson was just a regular douchebag, and Huckabee is way to religious.

        John Kerry and Al Gore are emotionless.
    • flintmecha, on 03/05/2008, -2/+3I wish I could digg you a hundred times.
    • Peko, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1Alas, I don't think the technology exists yet.
    • plumcarrot, on 03/05/2008, -0/+0why? so you could have sex with her? I am considering you are male. Just a hunch.
  • ModernDemagogue, on 03/04/2008, -23/+403I work in broadcast advertising, so two things from a professional standpoint:
    1) The aspect ratio shift is exactly 0.9; which is the difference between "square pixels" and "dv pixels," DV pixels are slightly squished for technical reasons relating to the difference in the way TVs and computer screens display images. A squished face happens all the time if footage from one source is not properly imported, or converted when exported. It looks to me like the entire commercial is squished, meaning someone captured this in a DV file format without correcting the aspect ratio for accurate viewing on a computer screen.
    2) As you can see in the obvious difference in saturation values; the gamma curve is completely different for the hillary commercial. This is a little more complex, but essentially, the gamma dictates the slope of how the image shifts from dark to light, and is another broadcast vs. computer issue. For example, any image that looks bright and crisp on TV will look too dark and tough to see if played on a computer, while a normal computer image, will look bright and washed out on a television unless it is properly color corrected. This suggests to me that when the spot was compressed for the internet, someone did it wrong, leaving the broadcast colorspace since even the scenes without Obama in them are too dark and contrasty.
    Either whoever made the ad simply didnt know what they were doing, OR whoever digitized and captured the ad, and posted it to youtube, didn't know what they were doing; either way, it wasn't an intentional move by the Hillary campaign.
    If they had intended to make Obama look "blacker" they would have gone about it in a very different fashion. You would not be able to see any difference in the image, except for his skin tone; extensive and transparent color correction is not difficult to do, happens on a daily basis and is done for every commercial you watch.
    I haven't had time to look into the truth of the statements made in the ad, and I hope they're not lies because I think Obama's great, but these accusations are ridiculous. If they wanted him blacker, they would have done it in a way that no one would notice except with a side by side comparison, and the Photoshop color picker. Someone that has a KOS account, please post this in the comments there. They're going crazy over nothing.
    Edit: As an aside, the idea that its "almost impossible" for "color profiles" to be responsible for that significant a difference shows an utter lack of knowledge on the part of the article's author. Not only is it easy, its almost certain that an untrained amateur will make these kinds of mistakes when manipulating footage across devices. This is one of many reasons why I still have a job even with iMovie out there.
    • converze, on 03/04/2008, -77/+4Simple response: You're wrong. Go look at any videos of these two pieces; the difference is the same throughout. I'd give you a "nice try", but it wasn't.
      • ModernDemagogue, on 03/04/2008, -3/+62http://img222.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gammabk7. ...

        Straight 2 pass gamma conversion of debate footage (debate encoded using tv gamma, then imported using PC gamma). Looks pretty close to me, though it's crappy youtube quality. If you add a slight color correct to the whole image itll match perfectly. If you were trying to make him look blacker, you'd just pull his skintones. QED.

        Pixel-aspect correction is so obvious I don't even need to demonstrate. Whether the editor screwed up, or the uploader screwed up, is irrelevant, its an amateur hour mistake.
        • getrdone656, on 03/04/2008, -22/+2Yes I can see how it would be a mistake however if one was going to run an advertisement of any sort especially one that is political I would think that he would be professional enough to not overlook this.
          It should not matter however how black someone is, I would think that racists who would look at color wouldn't care how black he looks but that the fact that he is black is enough.
          • ModernDemagogue, on 03/04/2008, -0/+29Part of my point is that a huge portion of the visual difference could have occurred when porting the image from broadcast to YouTube. Actually watching the ad on your TV at home might look very different.
          • karel747, on 03/05/2008, -0/+13ModernDemagogue, you have incredible patience.
        • yeti22, on 03/05/2008, -0/+5You're my hero!
        • callmejordy265, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2pwned his ass.
    • Falldog, on 03/04/2008, -3/+7If someone knows the Obama's ad which Clinton plays earlier on in their ad that could brought up. Despite not the best quality if there simple errors in conversion those shots should appear different as well.

      That said, even if there wasn't an error like you suggested, it's more than likely that ad's creator adjusted the brightness and contrast for the purpose of the message (if they really wanted to make him blacker they could've just edited his skin, notice how the background changed as well, and the same for his suit). This article mentions this very briefly but blows past it. Yes you see this type of thing all the time in political attack ads, and no it's not racist. The real issue is the dialog in this speech.
    • zarex, on 03/04/2008, -3/+15Well done.
    • GreyICE, on 03/04/2008, -4/+52Thanks for the accurate analysis. Buried the article as innaccurate.
      • notque, on 03/04/2008, -1/+4I don't understand burying the article. I think it's useful to read the article, then read his response. Let the reader make up his mind.
        • GreyICE, on 03/05/2008, -0/+7Only way to mark the article as inaccurate so people don't think that this is actually true.
    • theAlice, on 03/04/2008, -14/+8Watch the ad again. Notice how the color balance has been changed for the sections with Obama, but when they show Hillary she is bright and peachy.

      It's clearly been done on purpose.
      • ModernDemagogue, on 03/04/2008, -1/+15While it appears this way to you, that analysis is actually incorrect. She appears TOO bright because she is the focal element in the scene, and there is not much white; her blacks are crunched as well, and the image is too punchy.

        I seen this all the time, it's really a classic gamma problem; yes the image was probably somewhat desaturated, but thats more of a black and white effect, not a darkening skin-tone effect. Look at the white that is on the same frame as Obama, look at how sharp that vignette is and how it forms that harsh white halo on the background card. That is not intentional, and is a symptom of incorrect compression or conversion. It should be a much softer, more subtle gradient. You can't simply take a color corrected spot for broadcast, put it on a computer, and think its going to appear the same way....

        The only difference, if any, is a mild saturation/desaturation shift globally applied to the image; that is hardly evidence of a racial motivation. It's like showing your candidate from a low angle, vs the opposition from a high angle... and, I didn't even notice much of that when I did my test render posted above...

        I am an Obama supporter, and I do not have a problem with the visual portrayal
    • Spoomeister, on 03/04/2008, -3/+29DailyKos? Going crazy over nothing? Really. That would be so out of character for them.
    • headzoo, on 03/04/2008, -4/+18(Note: I'm an Obama supporter)

      Most political ads that I've seen always show the opposition in a darker light. The good guy is shown standing outside on a bright sunny day, shaking people's hands, and the bad guy is shown in some dark room looking all menacing.

      That's all I see happening here. The fact that he looks "blacker" seems to be a side effect of a typical political tactic, and it was likely unintentional.
      • notque, on 03/04/2008, -1/+5I agree with this regardless of the accuracy of ModernDemagogue's statements
      • Oozinator, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1the bigger issue is the phony manufacture of an issue that she pushes with the whole subcommittee thing. It's too bad Obama didn't respond to it effectively during or after the debate where she made that specific attack.
      • Woah_G!, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1Speaking of shaking hands, from the video I just noticed that Obama is left handed.
        Something I never noticed about other left-handed presidents until now:
        James Garfield
        Herbert Hoover
        Harry Truman
        Gerald Ford
        Ronald Reagan
        George H.W. Bush
        Bill Clinton
    • kingUssop, on 03/04/2008, -5/+3While I'm sick of all the political crap, I think you're wrong here. I've run the pictures through PS, and just changing the gamma on this source material there is still very significant reddish values. The commercial image was very heavily stripped of not gamma, but color information. In fact you can replicate the effect by making another layer of the source material that's turned to grayscale, tweaked around for a bit with various curves and set to about half opacity to cover the original... this ruins the color values completely and makes Obama look "blacker", which is what is definitely going on here.
      • ModernDemagogue, on 03/04/2008, -0/+8You have to do two pass gamma in order to first, get rid of the original correction that was made in the conform/online for broadcast to get back to the "flat" image, and then do a proper gamma pass for a PC or a Mac, it comes much closer then; after that, in order to dead match I found a blanket desaturation of the midtones of about ~15% across the board works fine, though in actuality, they probably reduced the red channel slightly more, however, the shots of Hillary have the red channel reduced similarly as well, so I can't say that its specific to that shot.

        Either way, they certainly didn't pull a matte of his skintones and just shift them, which is what "doctoring" the image would be. Also, the whole video is aspect ratio shifted, so the stretch is obviously just a web error.
    • Spartandog, on 03/04/2008, -0/+9Thanks for the professional analysis. I also work in film and video, and right away I spotted the common error of an amateur transfer. Makes it worse that we're watching it via craporama Youtube.
    • madfrogurt, on 03/04/2008, -2/+12Thank you for giving a well reasoned, experienced response. Comments like this are why theres still hope for debate on the internet. I only can hope this gets dugg up higher than the "***** HILLARY" comments in this thread.
      • p4r4d0x, on 03/05/2008, -1/+4The '***** HILLARY' comments are still valid on some level :)
    • fahrenheitlf, on 03/04/2008, -5/+3Is it not possible that they made these novice video editing mistakes on purpose? Gain the benefits with the ability to deny intent. This is exactly how I would have produced the video if my intent was to make Obama appear blacker (on a subconscious level).
    • JinnRikki, on 03/04/2008, -3/+1I'd like to believe nothing underhanded is afoot here but do you really think they couldn't see the dramatic difference in contrast, color or whatever? You really believe they would throw this out and not know what they were doing? Please if this is true she needs to pull out right now without further ado because she obviously lacks sufficient judgment in hiring help. We've seen the results of that for 7 years now, no more thanks anyway!
    • Dreyruugr, on 03/04/2008, -1/+4I voted for Obama. That aside, ModernDemagogue appears to be correct in this. Both ads contain some of the same footage, HRC in the yellow suit on the phone. Try the following:
      View the end of the ad in question (where HRC is on the phone): http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/145.aspx ...
      side-by-side with the "Children" ad (00:27): http://youtube.com/watch?v=M70emIFxETs

      Note the overall differences in color and tone between this identical footage in the two ads; it's a clear indication that the entire ad from HRC's website is darker, not just parts containing Obama.
    • Picaroon, on 03/05/2008, -3/+7This is why getting your information from blogs and "indy media" is stupid. Reporters actually research their claims--if a reporter thought this were a story, he or she would call some experts in the area and get their opinion on what happened. Then, the reporter would discover that this is a non issue and the story would never appear.

      Instead, diggers read some idiot's blog and jump to conclusions.

      I think it's funny just how much intellectual snobbery I see around here when you're all so quick to bandwagon.
    • McFury, on 03/05/2008, -1/+3I absolutely agree with ModernDemagogue on this. I work at a post production house doing animation, compositing, and color correction for television all day every day. The points (s)he makes are absolutely valid. You can't assume this is intentional. I'm am Obama supporter, but there are so many points in the import/export line that these things can shift that it's really hard to know where the difference could have been brought in. Who knows what the color profile or gamma was like for ANY of the images along the line.

      Especially about the "making him look blacker" issue -- the entire image has more contrast and less saturation. Look at the difference in the black levels on Obama's suit between the two images. The "blacker" image has more contrast overall. If they wanted to just adjust his skin tone, they would have done that and not the entire image.

      I'm not saying there couldn't have been a conscious aesthetic choice along the way to make the Obama footage more contrasty -- In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there WAS -- but you can't make assumptions about this and say it was definitely doctored. It's pretty classic for political ads to color correct the opponents footage to make it look more dramatic (for example, to make it black and white).

      My two bits.
    • p4r4d0x, on 03/05/2008, -1/+5If they wanted to actually make him look blacker and pull it off in such a highly scrutinized environment, wouldn't the best way to do it be something could be written off as an error in editing/digitization/etc? The internet is full of skeptics who would say 'oh no its the gamma, its the whatever' The end result is the same. Just a thought, I'm probably giving them waaay too much credit.
    • luke374, on 03/05/2008, -2/+5I'm an editor for a company that does a lot of political attack ads. Anytime you're showing the "bad guy" you desaturate the image and kick up the contrast- or something to that effect. They're just doing the same thing to make him look more evil ... I don't think it has anything to do with race, it's just the standard style. With that said, I ***** hate Hilary.
      • garrettgjb, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2Agreed, thats what I thought right off the bat.
    • mrkakka, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2I totally agree with ModernDemagogue...mostly because i couldn't follow his long explanation
    • bonk2k, on 03/05/2008, -0/+3Thank you for shedding some light on this. As much as I despise Hillary, as soon as I saw this headline I immediately called BS.
    • brettmurf, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2It looks like they just applied a cheezy radial gradiant to the entire commercial and then manipulated the transfer mode of it along with some other color corrections. The entire commercial has this, not just the parts with Obama. How about we just assume that the racists in the country already know Obama is black and that it doesn't matter how much 'blacker' anyone tries to make him it will only make those who aren't going to vote for him already continue to not do so.
      • sithie, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2I know, right? If someone had decided to vote against Obama for being black, they would have already decided to do so and the "blackness" of him in a ***** commercial wouldn't make a difference.
    • webtroll, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2Thanks for the accurate analysis. From just briefly watching the (YouTube version) video it's clear that something is wrong with it as the proportions are totally stretched out. If that's what they really intended then her own campaign office wanted to make Hillary look hulky with a big broad face.
    • JirkJiggler, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1Won't dispute the technical arguments and common practices, but I too have worked in advertising (and have worked on government accounts) and trust me, there is no way in hell that someone from her campaign team overseeing the production did not notice or flag this - and then approved it. All you guys in production know that unless it's in the brief you won't be making this kind of decision independently - and if you did that you would get smacked down by the AD/client.
      Ok but then mistakes in advertising do happen - in that case I find it very difficult to believe that no one caught this considering the high degree of sensitivity surrounding the colour of his skin.
  • Jordan117, on 03/04/2008, -13/+25We won't have to be hearing about crap like this for long. Obama's got a cavalry of fifty superdelegates waiting until just after the elections today to endorse en masse, wiping out any gains Hillary might make tonight.

    The struggle is almost over, folks... time to focus on John McCain.
    • HoratioHellpop, on 03/04/2008, -10/+4Great, so now 20-something idiots can spew more ridiculous tripe about how to "save the country" by bashing a new person. Can't wait.
    • rockyvirk, on 03/04/2008, -5/+4And you know the secrets because Obama spoke to you in your dreams? I like the guy but this is just plain dumb!
  • GhostWithToast, on 03/04/2008, -14/+7ModernDemagogue, while I agree with your technical assesment regarding why the footage looks so crunched, the Hillary footage looks fine. There is detail in the black levels (npi) and the contrast is normal. For whatever reason, the Obama fooatge looks horrible. If this was a professionally done commercial, it should look good. If it was a conversion to YouTube or encoding issue, it would have affected the Hillary footage. I remain skeptical.
    • ModernDemagogue, on 03/04/2008, -1/+11It did effect the Hillary Footage, because they used footage from a completely different setting, it is not quite as noticeable; yes, her footage is supposed to look softer and more vivid, and his is supposed to look slightly desaturated, but the effect is exacerbated in the footage of him, while she just looks "punchy."

      I'm running the debate footage through compressor to show what ripping this off a broadcast without proper gamma correction would look like, I'll post a link when done; the preview looks pretty identical.
    • ModernDemagogue, on 03/04/2008, -1/+16AS posted above:

      http://img222.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gammabk7. ...

      Straight 2 pass gamma conversion of debate footage (debate encoded using tv gamma, then imported using PC gamma). Looks pretty close to me, though it's crappy youtube quality. If you add a slight color correct to the whole image itll match perfectly. If you were trying to make him look blacker, you'd just pull his skintones. QED.

      Pixel-aspect correction is so obvious I don't even need to demonstrate. Whether the editor screwed up, or the uploader screwed up, is irrelevant, its an amateur hour mistake.
      • notque, on 03/04/2008, -0/+6Thank you for your analysis, and legwork. You are an good example for all diggers on a variety of topics and issues. Thanks.
    • theAlice, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2ITT: we fail to click "reply to XXX's comment".
  • wild, on 03/04/2008, -7/+45Yea, this is grasping at straws.

    The important info here is that the content of the commercial was wrong, not the tone of his skin.
    • lewhich, on 03/04/2008, -4/+2It is easy for anybody to belive HillBilly will do suuch a thing because she has shown several times what she is capable of
    • hannahback, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1Yeah I actually agree. And why would Hillary think that making someone more "black" is going to make people not vote for them?
  • hydroplane, on 03/04/2008, -6/+1Sweet Can
    • MasterGrief, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2Swee--swee-caaan-sweeeetcanAuuuhhhhh
  • moolaismyfriend, on 03/04/2008, -20/+53This dailykos diary is *****. It;s like an aborted social studies assignment by a 12 year old.

    I use to think dailykos was a place to admire with thoughtful insight and well written articles, and now this tripe is the most recommend ***** of the day.

    What G A R B A G E
    • GrodyChamp, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2Everything from dailykos is complete bu;;*****. Nothing new with that.
  • cheddarbek, on 03/04/2008, -11/+65Oh please, they dimmed the entire bit of footage to make it greyer. They do this with all footage they want to downplay.

    Buried as spam.
    • kaelyiesta, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3Thank you. I was looking through the comments waiting for someone with some reason to bring this up. Each and every negative campaign ad always does one of two things:

      Uses black and white when depicting the opposition.
      Using darker and washed out(less saturated) depiction of opposition.

      This is not something only HRC does. This goes for each and every mainstream candidate. They are all ***** moves, yes, but not specific to Obama due to race.

      There is no question that Hillary is corrupt but don't ruin the case for Obama by overstating the argument. This paranoia is even more pathetic than the supposed fanaticism for Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich everyone gets so hostile about.
  • loganhid, on 03/04/2008, -10/+10Doesn't matter if your black or white!

    hee heeee
    • Trevcal123, on 03/04/2008, -3/+1.... or Michael Jackson!

      Damn, loganhid, you got to that joke quicker than I did. Props!
  • stackered, on 03/04/2008, -11/+5What a slunt.
  • Waskonator, on 03/04/2008, -4/+9It's a trap!
  • moolaismyfriend, on 03/04/2008, -13/+23Fox news has now used this DailyKos story as a way to attack a Democratic candidate for president.

    Congrats DailyKos, you have truly shown your true colors now.
  • YeahIsGood, on 03/04/2008, -15/+5Too bad they can't digitally doctor footage of Hillary to make her more womanly.
  • nolesfan247, on 03/04/2008, -10/+3This is why you don't even give wild-eyed crazy bitches the chance to become president.
  • Xabora, on 03/04/2008, -4/+9Still voting Cthulhu, The one true third party.
    • MikeFallopian, on 03/04/2008, -0/+8Great call. I mean, why vote for the lesser of evils?
    • INTERNETMASTER, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2no way, Cthulhu is beholden to the Old One lobby
  • JackHererUK, on 03/04/2008, -12/+7Forgive my ignorance, I didn't realise that was how racism worked. So is darker some how worse, if you are a bigoted *****? Is it graded? So pure white is the ideal, someone with a light tan is OK, darkly tanned is not so good and the full on Nigerian hue gets the full force of hatred? Well you live and learn ...
    • gypsi, on 03/04/2008, -3/+3sadly, that is both the inference and historical reality
    • JinnRikki, on 03/04/2008, -3/+1You sound so nave I doubt you will learn all you need to know in 100 years. Better stop doing drugs, now.
  • wonderworm, on 03/04/2008, -12/+1What a Bitch!! No wonder the Republicans are trying to undermine the election by voting in the democratic primary for Hillary in order to artificially elect her as the Democratic contender. Both are slimeballs.
  • irvin666, on 03/04/2008, -2/+17Uhh, don't they always do this to make the opponent look like a 1920s villain?

    I always love the negative effect and scary music. Ah, I love political ads.
  • Atheyst, on 03/04/2008, -7/+2Mirror?
  • Dibou, on 03/04/2008, -9/+9I've seen MANY democratic adds attacking republicans where they darken the image to make their 'enemy' look worse.
    I find this whole Obama-Clinton thing hilarious because you have democrats doing their normal hate-mongering / attacking and the other democrats have a hissy-fit because it is happening to them! Democrats have done this garbage a long time and are finally seeing what it is like to be on the receiving end.
    If you don't vote Hilary you are sexist!
    If you don't vote Obama you are racist!
    Democrat name calling is finally catching up to them.
    • originaldna, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure if this is true but you said it yourself ( I've seen MANY democratic adds attacking republicans where they darken the image to make their 'enemy' look worse.) The fact that they make images darker say something about being darker or black. That's what institutionalize racism does, you try saying things not to be racist but it peeks it head.
      • historicity, on 03/05/2008, -1/+0So, the children that are scared of the dark are racist?
  • semrocks, on 03/04/2008, -15/+24Buried for digging DailyKos.
    Anything from that crap hole deserves to be buried...
  • coffee200am, on 03/04/2008, -10/+17It's racist to say anything bad about Obama. It's also racist not to vote for him..../s
  • vladimirp00pen, on 11/13/2008, -3/+8but but it's mac gamma vs windows gamma - we swear
  • mal1964, on 03/04/2008, -4/+2"If you tear it down,They will come"
  • paradexes, on 03/04/2008, -10/+1I donated this to the Obama campaign. It is an image they need to consider running in their ads about Hillary. I made some minor cosmetic changes to improve the image quality and color.
    Hillary before = http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/398/hillspeechdnc ...
    Hillary after = http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2707/joke663akh1. ...
    • lostarchitect, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3wow! she looks JUST like a 404 error! how'd you do that?
  • lewhich, on 03/04/2008, -6/+8I heard dying isn't easy ... and Hilary is proof of that. She has not only ruined her whole reputation, but she has made people also realize that her husband - billy is also a selfish bastard who doesn't care about America but themselves.

    Shame on you HillyBitch
    • Proctor, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2I don't know if you're talking about Bush or Clinton right there.
  • Langford, on 03/04/2008, -5/+11The impression I get, is that Hillary has adopted an attitude of "If I can't have it, no one can".
    • airburst, on 03/05/2008, -3/+2Crying, kicking and screaming. This is the true face of American politics.
  • mlbman11, on 03/04/2008, -14/+7WHAT A *****
  • RocketSeason, on 03/04/2008, -6/+8This is possibly inaccurate. the color could have been brought about from poor capture, compression or output. The stretching could be someone simply not handling a pixel aspect ratio adjustment correctly.
    In short, there could be nefarious things going on, or its simply a poorly produced ad.
  • Mr.Gone, on 03/04/2008, -5/+6This is the Democratic party's cliff puppy.
  • effedup, on 03/04/2008, -3/+7American politics are so interesting. Confusing, very confusing, but interesting.
    • hammerpants, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1Don't worry. We're working on a plan to make yours just as confusing. World Police FTW.
  • TwoLOUD, on 03/04/2008, -4/+6Come on, buried for being retarded...anyone with common sense can plainly see him on tv..give me a ***** break...PATHETIC POLITICS AT ITS BEST..but is there such thing and no pathetic politic? I think not.
  • mal1964, on 03/04/2008, -4/+13Obama's Ad: Debate Footage Doctored To Make Obama whiter.
  • Sternkrone, on 03/04/2008, -2/+19I know this will be an unpopular view but…could it be possible that the ad was just darkened in the normal "this is bad" way that's common in political ads, infomercials, etc.? Would we complain if Obama made footage of Hillary darker, or would we take it as a standard advertising technique?
    • wllmsaccnt, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2Based on your diggs+ I would assume this is a popular assumption. No matter what they did to the video footage of Obama, he still came off looking much more natural than Hillary in the add. If the content/message of the add is incorrect, then that should have been the focus of the article instead. Harping on a negligible racial slant of the ad will not help bigoted Americans choose a candidate based on their political stance. I would rather see Obama win because I believe him to be the better candidate...and if it becomes a war of African American vs Woman...I don't want to have to see Hillary cry in public again.
  • jm4847, on 03/04/2008, -9/+11"In case you needed yet another reason to despise Hillary Clinton and her vermin strategists"
    Such professionalism and class.
    • cougar618, on 03/04/2008, -0/+5Yep. I couldn't find any bias in that statement at all.
  • DVmaker, on 03/04/2008, -12/+5***** Hillary Clinton.
  • hadamin, on 03/04/2008, -14/+9B - U - R - R -Y - - - I - T

    FOX NEWS ladies and gentleman

    FOX NEWS


    • elmetald00d, on 03/04/2008, -3/+8at least spell bury right..
    • greenlight2001, on 03/04/2008, -2/+5gentlemEn
    • tcugrilla, on 03/04/2008, -4/+6b u r r y spells typical D E M O C R A T
    • badqat, on 03/05/2008, -4/+3If you ever watched Fox, you'd know that they're leaning towards Hillary, and she appears there quite often.

      But, based on your spelling prowess, perhaps you're the product of the democrat agenda of failing public schools and just assume that "Fox News" = anti-democrat.
    • jellygraph, on 03/05/2008, -0/+4what does this have to do with fox news?
      • takua108, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2Duh, it's on Digg. Fox News is at fault for EVERYTHING. Looks like you're new around here.
  • saqer, on 03/04/2008, -3/+18Let's not look too much into things. I'm not a Hillary supporter, but this sorta reaffirms my position that many diggers get too caught up in the "digg effect".
    • theblt, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2Digg effect, echo chamber, groupthink...

      I prefer to call it "pissing in an ocean of piss", as that seems to be the bulk of the political Digg articles.
  • reflux83, on 03/04/2008, -6/+3Now isn't pointing things out like this and in fact looking for things like this no better than Hillary's attack ads. We really should just be looking for more examples of why Obama is the better choice rather than find out own ways of cutting down Hillary.
  • lajaw, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1I love the way the leftists are eating each other. With McCain to take the nomination on the Republicans side, it'll be a leftist feast when the two parties go after each other. Those of us who want to restore our representative republic with an enforced constitution will be enjoying the fireworks.
  • kidjay, on 03/04/2008, -2/+3youre forgetting that this is kos. reasonable journalism goes out the window.
  • harrypl0tter, on 03/04/2008, -1/+10are you ***** kidding me? SO if Obama's camp made a video and made Hillary whiter would people be bitching? I can't believe people get their panties in a bundle over stupid ***** like this.
    • elmetald00d, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2black is bad in a presidential race. as we have never had a black president in the past. NOT to mention, historically, whoever wins the south, wins the race, and I'm sorry to say but I live in the south and people here still will not accept blacks.
  • Dimbleby, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1I wish i'd buried it. Damn my cat-like typing. This is the kinda stuff Hillary loves.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 164 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.