Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Dildos in Texas | Charlotte Allen Proves Her Poi... »

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Re: The Politics of Color-Balancing

posted by on March 5 at 13:42 PM

Yesterday it was all about Obama’s apparently-adjusted skin color in a Clinton attack ad. Today it’s also about alleged nose-widening in the same ad.

My two cents: This isn’t nice stuff to see, but in the end it all rests on a somewhat subtle visual distortion. Even though it recalls this…


…it’s not quite as bad (and as blatant) as all that. And, more importantly, it’s nothing compared to what Republican ad-makers will surely do to Obama if he’s the nominee.

RSS icon Comments


Well fuck, I'd give him lighter skin and a thinner nose. It would make him the laughing stock of the country. Hey, it orked with Michael Jackson.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | March 5, 2008 1:50 PM

How can you widen Obama's nose without also widening Hillary's hips?

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 5, 2008 1:53 PM

Dammit, Napoleon--that's racist and sexist! You're the reason we cannot have nice things!

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 5, 2008 1:54 PM

Eli, appreciated the analysis in your brief appearance on KUOW. After you finished, I changed the station. Some Republican guy from the Eastside was on.

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 1:55 PM

...compared to Hillary, to whom Republican ad-makers will surely be courteous and demure.

I'm really not looking forward to hearing the word "Whitewater" again.

Posted by mattymatt | March 5, 2008 1:56 PM

So, Subtle + Not as bad as what the Republicans will stoop to = A forgivable act?

Sorry, it's despicable, racist, a well below what we should expect from any Democratic candidate.

Posted by I Got Nuthin' | March 5, 2008 1:57 PM

Could this get so bad that New York recalls Hillary as their Senator?

Posted by elenchos | March 5, 2008 1:57 PM

Looks like some bad color adjustment and going from .9 to square pixels. Whoever did the ad isn't racist, just a shitty video editor.

How the hell is this even news?

Posted by But.. but... racism! | March 5, 2008 2:06 PM

i agree with #6...yes the republicans will be more racist and more shrill than hillary but democrats should be more than republicans...we should be the change we want to see after all these years of rovian politics.

Posted by Jiberish | March 5, 2008 2:08 PM

It's not going to be "Whitewater" or Hillary's awesome cattle futures trading skills. If Frank Rich's work is any guide, it'll be all new Bill-centered stuff, starting with huge Saudi donations to the Clinton Library and Ron Burkle's press censorship and huge payments to Bill for unspecified services and moving on from there.

Posted by Eric F | March 5, 2008 2:10 PM

Hillary's a hot mess. Her campaign is flailing, and these days she's saying that she and McCain have the type of experience we need while Obama's given one good speech. I look forward to hearing about how her experiences as first lady cutting ribbons and hosting teas discussing literacy rates have provided her with the right experience. By using Hillary's "logic" we should all look forward to Laura Bush running for president, too.

Someone make her stop.

Posted by Michigan Matt (soon to be Baltimatt) | March 5, 2008 2:12 PM

All they need for McCain is some High Def HDTV images of him up close in an ad without too much makeup.

Then people will realize he's even older in person than they think seeing him long distance on the tube made up.

Preferably hugging GWB.

I wouldn't worry about Obama - McCain has way more problems.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 5, 2008 2:29 PM


There are no recalls for federal government officials, local and state only.

Posted by keshmeshi | March 5, 2008 2:52 PM

Since when is "not as bad as what Karl Rove would do" any kind of justification?

Posted by Fnarf | March 5, 2008 4:18 PM

Another apologist for Clinton? Come on now: It's not just as bad as that Time cover, it's much worse. Time was trying to sell magazines by making OJ Simpson scarier, whereas Clinton is trying to win the presidency by making people afraid to vote for the scary black man. It's much worse. And no, I don't think the Republicans (or McCain anyway) would dare stoop this low. The worst thing about this is that supposed progressives think it's okay, or at least not damning, that Clinton is doing this. Why is that, because she's a woman? Because she's a democrat? Or because subconsciously you think this kind of attack on a black man is okay? If Obama were out there blasting Hillary on being a woman, calling her a crybaby or making jokes about her period, everyone would be outraged. Yet somehow this stuff-- and the skin darkening is only the tip of the iceberg, btw-- is just considered politics as usual. Shame on you, ECB, and most of the mainstream media. Your apologies for Clinton are despicable.

Posted by Mr Me | March 5, 2008 5:28 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).