The Clinton camp has repeatedly injected race into the campaign and it is rightly coming back to haunt them. From ads that were darkened in order to make Obama appear darker than he really is to Bil Clinton’s disparaging Obama’s win in South Carolina by pointing out that Jesse Jackson also won that state (the first black President indeed), to Geraldine Ferraro’s claim that Obama’s ethnicity has given him some great advantage in the primaries, one thing sticks out in my mind; Either the Clinton campaign is the most undisciplined conglomeration of misfits that have been assembled since the Gary Hart campaign or they are injecting race into this primary intentionally in an attempt to come from behind. I lean towards the latter.

Either way it speaks ill of the Clinton campaign and more important this may well be the death knell for whichever candidate emerges as the nominee for the Presidential election. Residual bad feelings among pro black and pro woman groups can only bode well for John McCain in the general election. Of course it’s all a trilemma for me anyway so to me this is like following a hockey tournament.

Update: I was just on the verge of editing this again but I have to leave for a second. I just noticed this story that postulates the same thing I’ve been saying, that the so-called racial gaffes by the Clinton campaign are intentional. Nuff said.

5 Responses to “Intentional”

  1. Phelps says:

    False dilemma.

    And being someone who works with digital photos and video, I don’t think they were intentionally darkened. I just don’t think they took any effort to be flattering. (It isn’t easy — When I was taking RFTV in HS, most of the talent was black, and the darker your complexion, the harder you are to light and color balance properly. Applies to dark Hispanics too. Makes for good training though.)

    (Really pale white people aren’t easy to light either. At least, not without them bursting into flames. Baldies are tough too. Of any color.)

  2. mexi says:

    How is it a false dilemma? Either she wants them to keep invoking race, or she doesn’t want them to but they keep fucking up, or what? What are the other options???

  3. Phelps says:

    No, the false dilemma is that either they are intentionally invoking race or that they are undisciplined misfits.

    And on the other hand, WTMF? Did this MF just claim that Obama was a disadvantaged black man from a single mother household? Private schools in Hawaii and Jakarta, stepfather raised, Columbia and Harvard Law educated? DISADMOTHERFUCKINGVANTAGED? That asshole is crazy.

    (And if Jesus was a black man, then that means that it is actually blacks vs. the PA in Israel, not Jews vs. the PA.)

  4. mexi says:

    I’ve about had it with preachers trying to teach people anything. I think preachers who preach politics should lose their tax-exempt status.

  5. Mexi – totally agree! I detest it when a preacher gets political on any side of a debate. Just shut the hell up and preach already. Of course, I don’t really like listening to preachers, period. About anything.

    Anyway, you wanna really see how much Clinton changed Obama’s appearance? Check ‘dis out!
    Heh heh heh…

Leave a Response