How is defacing a Democrat allowed to stand at DU?

[cboy4]

I don't think I should have to log in here and see this kind of shit in a sig line.

This graphic is something they would happily post at FR or one of the other hard core Republican websites.

The only thing that's missing is some reference that's she's a lesbian or something.

== I'm also opposed to anything that exaggerates Obama's appearance. ==

The bottom line is they're both Democrats.

I wonder where the line is drawn? Or if there even is one around here?

Disgraceful:

[Hepburn]

1. Oooooooh, I LOVE the graphic....

...thanks! :hi:

[MadBadger]

2. Selective Outrage much? You havent seen the anti-Obama sigs?

[grantcart]

6. well it would be nice to raise the bar and apply it to both sides

[grasswire]

3. previously, it was wrong to criticize a Democratic candidate here.

I guess I'll have to start looking for a new internet home. It's too much. And I'm not even a Hillary supporter.

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. only after we have a nominee, does that rule go into effect...nt

[grasswire]

17. well, good luck with having anything but sycophants left by then

DU is being ruined.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. Four truer words were never spoken. n/t

[riskpeace]

105. I agree with you.

Thanks for your post.

[tkmorris]

120. I think that ship set sail already

But I hold out hope.

[Beacool]

136. Being ruined?

It's already ruined. Only Obama supporters are allowed, the rest are being vilified along with our candidate.

Well, if this continues, let's all practice saying: President McCain.

[joshcryer]

143. As long as the hate comes from people with little stars by their name...

...the hate will continue.

Guaranteed.

[Saturday]

4. I agree. nt

[Johnny__Motown]

5. Maybe you can replace that with one of these images, much more flattering

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZsYWiywdCA&feature=related

[Abacus]

7. You should include xxxx's in your post also.

Or would that require too much objectivity? I'm pretty sure hers has been around longer than the one you illustrate.

Edited because I called someone out. Here is the image I was referring to

[cboy4]

15. I don't think that's the same thing...Sorry.....

His face isn't all distorted.

Do I like seeing that graphic in a sig line?

Not really.

But I don't think you can compare the two.

[Umbram]

18. I would have agreed with you - until this post

Of course you can differentiate the two, you are biased. Only - you think your personal bias should be made into the rules.

If you are going to be a partisan hack, don't complain about the other side's partisan hackery.

[cboy4]

23. Why does everyone keep insinuating that I'm a Hillary

Clinton voter?

Huh Umbram?

Why are you calling me biased and a partisan hack when I started out supporting Kucinich and ended up voting for Edwards.

And now I'm some huge Hillary Clinton supporter?

How does that add up?

Right, it doesn't.

And if you're basing your decision about the graphic on what I have to say, then you have not been fundamentally opposed to it at all.

"I would have agreed with you -- until this post..."

Mmmmm hmmmm. Sure.

[Umbram]

46. Wrong.

I'm indifferent as to both graphics but willing to support any rule that is fair and unbiased.

You proposed a rule, essentially that such distortions/caricatures of our candidates should not be allowed on DU. I would support that rule.

When asked to apply your rule - you made it quite obvious that you would ONLY be willing to see that rule enforced in a biased manner. Showing Clinton as angry is not OK while showing Obama as an empty suit is just fine by you.

I do NOT find such a rule acceptable, as you would apply it.

I too started supporting only DK. I went on calling myself a DK supporter until I realized that I spent the majority of my time disagreeing with/criticizing Clinton and rarely criticized Obama (though I was happy to call both sides of supporters on the carpet). At that point, I was honest enough to admit that while I would vote for EITHER in the GE, I was just using my DK support as a shield to pretend to be objective when I wasn't objective at all.

If you believe that you are entirely objective, so be it. I've read enough of your posts to think you are not. I don't see that as a bad thing - MOST dems at this point are leaning one way or the other.

There is one Edwards supporter in particular who doesn't post here much any more - but almost EVERY post he made concerned the "Obama cult" and criticized Obama. When it's a two person race and you are only willing to criticize one side, it's disingenuous to say that you don't, at least constructively, support the opposing side.

The point in my previous post was simply this: a rule has to be applied neutrally, and if you aren't objective enough to suggest doing so, then you shouldn't suggest the rule to begin with. If you DON'T find caricatures of Obama offensive, but DO see caricatures of Clinton as offensive, then I don't care WHO you support, you are too partisan to pretend to be objective.

---
On edit, I suppose post #38 makes some of the above moot. Some stands.

[anigbrowl]

133. Because 90% of your posts on GD-P are complaints about Obama or his supporters?

[Nine]

80. I also think they are not comparable - and bias has nothing to do with it

The Obama image is a political cartoon addressing his substance (or lack thereof in the cartoonist's apparent opinion). You may or may not agree with that message, but I can't see how anyone could argue that the topic itself is unworthy of discussion. The actual depiction of Obama's physical appearance in the cartoon is not unflattering in any way. The Hillary image, by contrast, is an unflattering photo that seems to do little more than mock her appearance. There are plenty of unsavory tactics I see around here used by both camps, but I can honestly say that I've never seen Obama attacked on his appearance here. And honestly, female political figures seem to get this treatment much more than males ones; I don't even like to see physical caricatures of Condaleeza Rice, as much as I despise her on policy.

[Umbram]

99. Bias has something to do with everything.

You just explained a coherent rationale for why you feel as you do. Do not tell me that that rationale is not backed by bias.

Bias is not illogic. Bias is not something to be ashamed of.

I've seen the exact opposite rationale explained on this board: one is a caricature, the other is an actual photo.

You don't think some people would rather be perceived as "ugly" than substantively hollow? I sure as hell would. That's my bias. Tell me, is my biased conclusion objectively wrong?

[Nine]

103. I'm saying that criticisms of a candidate's substance seem above-the-belt while...

attacks on a candidate's appearance (especially an older, female candidate) seem below-the-belt. I think the former belongs on a purportedly progressive message board while the latter has no place here.

[Umbram]

106. Saying someone has NO substance is not a criticism of that candidate's substance.

it is just garden variety trollishness.

You find one thing offensive, I find another.

I could care less about the cartoons where Obama has elephant-sized ears.

[grantcart]

22. if you want people to take the high road you have to make an appeal that

will rally people on both sides. Why don't you start a thread that requests a change in policy about sig lines that would include all negative attacks on other candidates - regardless of whether it distorts the face or not?

[Skinner]

24. I want to thank you, cboy4, for illustrating why we permit people to "deface a Democrat" on DU.

You may not realize it, but you have pretty much answered your own question. Your reply here, in response to the anti-Obama graphic, shows the incredibly difficult situation which we find ourselves.

For whatever reason, you consider the anti-Hillary graphic in your OP to be inappropriate for a Democratic website. And yet you think this anti-Obama graphic is within bounds.

I admire the fact that you want to raise the bar and improve the quality of discussion around here. Thank you for that. But you need to understand that this cuts both ways, and once we actually start trying to enforce some sort of "don't say mean things about other Democrats" rule, people will inevitably dislike the choices we make. There is no way we can possibly make people happy if we go down this road. On what basis would we draw the line between the anti-Hillary picture you posted and the anti-Obama picture above? The facial expression? Black-and-white vs. color? Photos vs. cartoons? Apparently, the difference seems obvious to you. But is it obvious to everyone? Heck, is it obvious to anyone?

The fact of the matter is that it is impossible to moderate discussions in a manner that is completely fair and consistent. But if we go down the road of "this type of criticism is OK while this is not" the enforcement will become EVEN MORE unfair and inconsistent. Not because the moderators are biased -- they try very hard to be fair -- but rather because as the rules become more subjective, it becomes impossible not to be unfair and inconsistent.

[cboy4]

38. Well the more I think about it, the more I think the Obama

cartoon is inappropriate and inflammatory.

I just find the unflattering look on Hillary's face to be more egregious.

And I would have less of a problem if they were being used in selective posts, as opposed to sig lines where we have to see them again in post after post after post.

I understand that it cuts both ways. I really do.

And I understand you guys have your hands full.

It's still doesn't make it any easier to stomach.

[Skinner]

43. I appreciate and understand how you feel.

And believe me, I don't take any pleasure from it either. I really like both candidates, and I don't like it when either of them is attacked -- particularly when it comes from our fellow Democrats. It sucks. I will be as happy as anyone when this primary is finally over.

[Skinner]

76. Addendum to my previous response.

I was not aware that this topic was in reference to images in signature lines.

I agree that having inflammatory images in one's signature line is more disruptive than simply posting an image once. The moderators have often asked members to remove disruptive images from their sig lines when they are aware of them. Members who persist have their sig lines deleted and even lose sig privileges.

Ultimately, what matters is if the mods come to a consensus that a particular image goes too far. I can't promise that they would remove the picture of Senator Clinton, but there is no harm in alerting it to see whether they agree.

[yardwork]

135. Thank you, Skinner. I'm going to alert on both of them, as I find them both to be offensive.

[GOTV]

31. Face or no face, both graphics belittle their subjects. Both demean Democrats. n/t

[cboy4]

44. I agree. I was just saying I thought one is worse than the

other, but you're right -- both demean Democrats.

[Kool Kitty]

157. One is NOT worse than the other.

They are the same. Offensive.

[JVS]

48. Hers shows her actual face. His is a freaking caricature! How is hers distorted and his not?

[Abacus]

65. I'm with you,

I actually find the Obama cartoon more offensive because I feel it is a complete misrepresentation. The Hillary graphic is certainly not flattering, but it is an actual photo that is left to speak for itself.

I've chosen not to put "attack" graphics in my sig line because I don't find it beneficial in any way; in my opinion, they demean the campaign the poster supports and puts posters supporting the attacked candidate on the defensive before any reasonable consideration of argument can occur. Regardless, I don't know how one can be deemed acceptable and the other not and I do not think the OP is being objective, despite attempts to remind us that he is not a Hillary supporter. This does a disservice to his argument.

Edit: typo.

[Nine]

107. Speaks for itself? And what does it say?

It says "ha, ha, we found a photo of Hillary that makes her look ugly." That lowers the tone of this place. The cartoon of Obama attacks his substance, but the physical depiction of him in it is not unflattering in any way. I wouldn't object to losing both images, but the Hillary image seems clearly nastier and more freeperish (and sexist) in its approach. I don't see how people don't get that.

[Yes We Did]

109. But what is the difference between that and the 3 am ad?

[Nine]

134. Huh? There is no similarity at all!

What are you talking about? That ad touted her readiness to handle a crisis. It didn't even mention Obama much less attack him on something as despicable as personal appearance.

[Abacus]

130. It's more than that...

I think it's a commentary on Clinton's perceived personality characteristics.

[Jed Dilligan]

58. Um, if you think the photo of Hillary is more distorted than

the cartoon of Obama, you are definitely seeing the world through some kind of filter that I dare not attempt to name.

[Yes We Did]

79. What? The image looks like it was desaturated and darkened...

Just like in the 3 am ad.

It was okay then... right?

[BeyondGeography]

152. You MUST be joking

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. Did you find that here?

I have to agree with the OP, I see a qualitative and quantitative difference.

[Abacus]

67. Yes, it's in the sig line of a Hillary supporter.

I see a qualitative and quantitative differences also, but the other direction. As I said in another post, I do not think either graphic is beneficial so I don't see how you can call for the elimination of one and not the other.

[lumberjack_jeff]

83. You make a good point. Both should go. n/t

[buff2]

8. When the nomination and GE is over.......

The freepers will crawl back over to freerepublic.com We just have to wait it out I guess.

[NastyRiffraff]

9. It's Hillary.

that's not the worst, by a long shot. Did you miss the one of her tied up to be burnt as a witch, and several other violent images? (They were finally taken down after many, many requests to do so.

You'd better believe if an image that's even mildly critical of St. Barack would be taken down in an instant.

[buff2]

11. Isn't that the truth?

It's sad what the freepers have done to DU.

[Yes We Did]

87. No, it's not the truth.

How long did the "hype" one last?

[GOTV]

34. Right! Like the one just above! Look! It's already been taken ... oh, it's still there.

Oooh, That's got to be embarrassing

[NastyRiffraff]

36. That's not an image or caricature of Your Saint

As you know very well.

[GOTV]

40. It's not an image? It's not a caricature? Is it a sound recording? No. It's caricature.

It's calling Obama an empty suit and it's still there.

You were shot down by your own statements colliding with reality.

[NastyRiffraff]

45. Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about my sig graphic. My bad.

Yes, I agree that the empty suit graphic is a caracature. It's kinda well done, though.

[dionysus]

10. here...

banky will make it all better...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. I Thought The SAME Thing. TOTALLY Freeperish And The Sign Of An Absolute Childish Moron.

It definitely shouldn't be allowed here.

[Yes We Did]

115. Yup... just like the 3 am ad.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

118. Now THAT's A Sig Pic I Can Get Behind LOL

Ya can't help but laugh while lookin at it, ya know? lol

[frogcycle]

13. I agree, and likewise some of the anti-obama ones

Might I recommend you use the alert button and address your opinion to the mods rather than ranting here though? I am sure if enough people express reasonable opinions they might have a chat with the offenders. What we don't need is a long thread beating the subject to death. Get you opinion expressed where it can matter and then let it be.

[cboy4]

16. The alert button doesn't work anymore in GDP.

The inmates run the asylum.

That's why I'm speaking out.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

57. But the Ignore button still works

Makes it a much more pleasant place.

The primary is over here in CT and I'm voting for whomever we nominate, so I don't need to read all the vitriol

[Tarheel_Dem]

60. so you resort to calling out the mods? after skinner himself addressed

your concerns? bad form i must say.

[cboy4]

71. Hey Tarheel_Dem....why don't you learn to read time

stamps before you mouth off?

Talk about bad form.

I obviously wrote that post you're referring to before skinner posted.

Apology accepted in advance.

[Tarheel_Dem]

112. when Hill apologizes to the families of dead soldiers, orphaned

Iraqi children, and the rest of the world her for IWR vote, I'll apologize to you. But don't hold your breath.

[cboy4]

122. Do you always base taking responsibility for your

stupidity (you know, not being able to tell time) on the apology decisions of others?

If you blow a red light and smash into my car, what are you going to say Tarheel_Dem?

"I'll apologize for running the red light just as soon as "Hill" apologizes for the IWR vote, but "don't hold your breath?"

You're quite the scholar, ha?

[Tarheel_Dem]

138. yup. you know us Obama supporters, we're all ivy leaguers.

There is one thing I'll apologize for though...and that's ever trying to have a discussion with someone who is intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. But considering who you support, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Death and destruction don't seem to matter anymore, it's so last year.
:puke:

[cboy4]

140. You're very drunk.

I diapprove of intoxicated people polluting up my threads. :thumbsdown:

[Tarheel_Dem]

153. Whatever...I'm just waiting for the mods, who you disrespected, to

kick your ass the hell out of here.

[cboy4]

155. The mods, "whom" I disrespected. Not "who."

And you pour yourself another tall glass of vodka while you're waiting for that to happen.

[Yes We Did]

114. Apparantly it works just fine.

[cboy4]

128. How many more promises have you made today demdog?

I want to write them down for later tonight.

[jojo54]

19. Here's the bottom line:

Yes, we're all Democrats, which gives up the right to express our opinions. That's a good thing because what we're fighting the Repukes over is repression and tyranny - something that this current administration knows how to do very well.

I don't agree with the mud slinging and foul language towards other DU members. THAT has to stop. Let's just hope that we can all be united after the convention, so that we ALL support our Democratic nominee, whoever it may be!!!

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. I agree, that is over the top

Why is it so difficult to portray your choice in a positive light? Why is it deemed necessary to portray someone else's choice is a negative light?

[SoCalDem]

21. as long as TWO dems are duking it out, this will be the case

once ONE has been chosen, it will no longer be allowed :)

[cboy4]

29. Why is it being allowed now?

:thumbsdown:

[MNDemNY]

25. Thin skins on both sides. Suck it up.

[cboy4]

32. I know. I should be far more tolerant and suck it up.

[MNDemNY]

33. Are those two running for the Dem Nomination?

[stillcool]

54. Suck up shit?

No thank you.

December 10, 2007
Third Clinton Volunteer Knew Of Smear E-Mail
A third volunteer for Hillary Clinton's campaign was aware of a propaganda e-mail alleging that Barack Obama is a Muslim who plans on "destroying the U.S. from the inside out. "Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential Candidacy," the email reads. "Please forward to everyone you know. The Muslims have said they Plan on destroying the U.S. from the inside out, what better way to start than at The highest level."

Two Clinton volunteers, Linda Olson and Judy Rose, have already been asked to resign from the campaign for their roles in forwarding the e-mail. The AP reported yesterday that Olson, a volunteer coordinator in Iowa County, sent a version of the e-mail to 11 people, including Ben Young, a regional field director for Chris Dodd's campaign. Young passed it on to the AP.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/12/third_clinton_v.html

Kerrey Apologizes to Obama Over Remark
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4031436
Kerrey's mention of Obama's middle name and his Muslim roots raised eyebrows because they are also used as part of a smear campaign on the Internet that falsely suggests Obama is a Muslim who wants to bring jihad to the United States.
Obama is a Christian.
The Clinton campaign has already fired two volunteer county coordinators in Iowa for forwarding hoax e-mails with the debunked claim. Last week, a national Clinton campaign co-chairman resigned for raising questions about whether Obama's teenage drug use could be used against him, so Kerrey's comments raised questions about whether the Clinton campaign might be using another high-profile surrogate to smear Obama.

Hillary: Sorry for Any Offense Campaign (Bill) Has Caused
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB65wJ6Rcfs

Bill Clinton Asks for a Second Chance
By Liz Halloran
Posted February 11, 2008
The morning after his wife, Hillary, was routed in three state contests by Sen. Barack Obama in their dead-heat battle for the Democratic nomination, former President Bill Clinton made his case for her before a packed Sunday service at one of the largest black churches in Washington, D.C.
But first he offered an apology of sorts for racially tinged comments he made about Obama and his candidacy that have triggered a backlash in the black community and among many other Democrats.

Clinton invoked his "worship of a God of second chances" in pronouncing himself glad to be at the Temple of Praise, which claims nearly 15,000 members. His invocation of second chances echoed comments he made early last week at black churches in California, where he campaigned for his wife before that state's
Super Tuesday primary, which she won.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-

2008/2008/02/11/bill-clinton-asks-for-a-second-chance.html

Source: Newsday
Posted on Sunday, December 16, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Barack Obama Accepts Apology From Hillary Clinton
Washington D.C. 12/15/2007 09:17 AM GMT (FINDITT)

Hillary Clinton went straight to Barack Obama with an apology following a staffer's remarks about any skeletons that may be lurking in Obama's closet, pointing out that she had accepted the staffer's resignation over the disparaging remarks. Obama accepted her at her word, according to his campaign staff, and is moving on without letting it interrupt his campaign plans.


Obama is currently leading the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, the two early primary states often considered key to the process, according to numbers at usaelectionpolls.com, but on a national level Clinton still holds a huge lead. The most recently posted poll results show Obama with 31 percent of the
probable voters in New Hampshire backing him with 29 percent showing support for Clinton.
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=30629&cat=5

Clinton Camp Pushes O-Bomber Links: Ignores
Her Own Radical Ties
By: Justin Rood

ABC News - The Hillary Clinton campaign pushed to reporters today stories about Barack Obama and his ties to former members of a radical domestic terrorist group -- but did not note that as president, Clinton's husband pardoned more than a dozen convicted violent radicals, including a member of the same group
mentioned in the Obama stories."Wonder what the Republicans will do with this issue," mused Clinton spokesman Phil Singer in one e-mail to the media, containing a New York Sun article reporting a $200 contribution from William Ayers, a founding member of the 1970s group Weather Underground, to Obama in 2001.
In a separate e-mail, Singer forwarded an article from the Politico newspaper reporting on a 1995 event at a private home that brought Obama together with Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, another member of the radical group.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4330128&page=1

Bill Clinton To Apologize At LA Black Churches
Once again, Bill Clinton is ready to repent.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/02/bill-clinton-to-apologize_n_84573.html
On Sunday the former president is scheduled to visit black churches in South Central Los Angeles, where he's expected to offer a mea culpa to those who "dearly loved him" when he was their president, Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.) says. Watson, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who has endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), tells us she'll usher the former president to more than half a dozen churches in
her district where she says he needs to "renew his relationship" with congregants who were turned off by his racially tinged comments in the days leading up to and following the South Carolina primary. (Such as when Clinton compared Sen. Barack Obama's landslide victory to Jesse Jackson's wins in 1984 and 1988.)

http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20080112_nevada_lawsuit.pdf
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/a-feisty-bill-

clinton-defends-nevada-lawsuit/
CLINTON ALLIES SUPPRESS THE VOTE IN NEVADA...
On Meet the Press on Sunday, Hillary Clinton said her campaign had nothing to do with a lawsuit--written about by Nation Editor Katrina vanden Heuvel--that threatens to prevent thousands of workers from voting in the Nevada caucus on Saturday.
Back in March, the Nevada Democratic Party agreed to set up caucus locations on the Vegas strip for low-income shift workers, many of them members of the state's influential Culinary Union, who commute long distances to work and wouldn't be able to get home in time to caucus. It was an uncontroversial idea until the Culinary Union endorsed Barack Obama and the Nevada State Education Association, whose top officials support Clinton, sued to shut down the caucus sites.
The Clinton camp played dumb until yesterday, when President Clinton came out in favor of the lawsuit.
Clinton's comments drew a heated response from D. Taylor, the head of Nevada's Culinary Union, on MSNBC's Hardball. "He is in support of disenfranchising thousands upon thousands of workers, not even just our members," Taylor said of Clinton. "The teachers union is just being used here. We understand that This is the Clinton campaign. They tried to disenfranchise students in Iowa. Now they're trying to
disenfranchise people here in Nevada, who are union members and people of color and women."
Rank-and-file members of Nevada's teachers union also come out against the lawsuit filed by their leadership. "We never thought our union and Senator Clinton would put politics ahead of what's right for our students, but that's exactly what they're doing," the letter stated. "As teachers, and proudmDemocrats, we hope they will drop this undemocratic lawsuit and help all Nevadans caucus, no matter which candidate they support."
The lawsuit's opponents make a persuasive point. Creating obstacles to voting is what the GOP does to Democrats, not what Democrats should be doing to other Democrats.

Clinton adviser steps down after drug use comments
Earlier Thursday, Clinton personally apologized to rival Obama for Shaheen's remarks.
Obama accepted her apology, according to David Axelrod, the top political strategist for the Obama campaign.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/13/clinton.obama/index.html

January 6, 2008, 5:18 pm
Edwards: No Conscience in Clinton Campaign
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/edwards-no-conscience-in-clinton-campaign/
By Julie Bosman
KEENE, N.H. – John Edwards angrily took on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at two news conferences in a row on Sunday, saying that her campaign “doesn’t seem to have a conscience.”

COMPTON, Calif. (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton and her campaign tried to mend ties to black voters Thursday when a key supporter apologized to her chief rival, Barack Obama, for comments that hinted at Obama's drug use as a teenager. The candidate herself, meanwhile, praised the Rev. Martin Luther King and promised to assist with the rebirth of this troubled, largely black city.

Bob Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, apologized for comments he made at a Clinton campaign rally in South Carolina on Sunday that hinted at Obama's use of drugs as a teenager.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-17-

johnson-apology_N.htm?csp=34

Clinton Surrogate Compares Obama Ad to Nazi March
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080201/cm_thenation/45278988_1
Fri Feb 1, 2:23 PM ET
The Nation -- On a media conference call organized by the Hillary Clinton campaign today, Clinton surrogate Len Nichols compared an Obama health care ad to Nazis.
----------
Accusing political opponents of Nazism is an outrageous smear. Raising the specter of a Nazi march in response to a health care mailer that evokes the insurance industry is so absurd, it would be hard to take the attack seriously, were it not launched from a high profile national campaign conference call in this crucial stretch of the presidential race. And political observers know, of course, that the Clinton Campaign regularly arranges opportunities for surrogates to launch these kind of smears, which are later followed up with apologies. (See: Bob Johnson, Bill Shaheen, Bob Kerrey, and Francine Torge, to name the most recent offenders.) For his part, Nichols did not immediately return a call requesting further comment.
-------------------------
Len Nichols, Director of New America's Health Policy Program, stated, "For nearly 17 years I have worked tirelessly to reform our nation's struggling health system. Today my passion overwhelmed me. I chose an analogy that was wholly inappropriate. I am deeply sorry for any offense that my unfortunate comments may have caused.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[MNDemNY]

56. Well, God Damn America!

[stillcool]

86. You get excited about that shit, eh?

by the way. This is a picture of my Dad. He is the one on the left. Yesterday you told me his wounds were self-inflicted. You didn't answer when I asked what you meant.

[Tellurian]

91. This poster regulary SPAMS the same BS whenever it can !

SPAMING threads with the same posts over and over again is against the Rules.

[MoonRiver]

26. I predict that will be allowed to stay and this thread will be locked.

I have just about had it with DU. I look a little every day but am so repulsed I rarely post anymore.

[redqueen]

27. I don't know.

I cringe when I see that kind of crap.

[knixphan]

28. I can't wait to see how creative we get

with McCain!

[berni_mccoy]

30. Pssst. She's not *really* a Democrat.

Voted for the War.
Supported NAFTA.
Voted for the Bankruptcy law.
Couldn't convince a Democratic Congress to pass her Health Insurance Plan.
She simply "adores" John McCain.
She's a founding member of the DLC.

[truebrit71]

35. That is a FANTASTIC graphic!!

COOL!!

[Jersey Devil]

37. I am thinking of this for my signature line

Do you approve?

[cboy4]

41. As opposed to the one I showcase in the OP, it's

perfectly fine because it doesn't distort her image.

[Life Long Dem]

42. Nice graphic. Thanks for pointing it out!!

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii233/IndieLeft/

[Upton]

47. Hillary's a Democrat?

could of fooled me. Praising John McCain, sitting down with Richard Mellon Scaife, she's really a DINO.

[Cali_Democrat]

49. I love that graphic. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

50. Ever read "Lord of the Flies"?

That's why.

[whatchamacallit]

51. How is using an actual picture of Hillary, "defacing" Hillary?

They did her a favor, have you seen it full size and in color? <shudder>

[apocalypsehow]

55. That graphic makes me LMAO every time I see it.

On edit: deleted cliche.

[cboy4]

59. As long as you have not a single problem with any

unflattering image someone posts of Obama...fine.

I personally, think, BTW, that the "lighten up" expression is heavily misused.

[Yes We Did]

61. Remember the 3 am ad... Nuff said.

[cboy4]

64. I don't know what the 3AM ad has to do with anything

demdog.

[polmaven]

94. That one has me

scratching my head too. My first reaction was.....HUH????? :shrug:

[apocalypsehow]

62. I see your side of this: I'm not insensitive to it. This primary is rough. BTW, I agree with you

completely with my use of that cliche, I think it is heavily misused, too. I've edited it out of my post.

[cboy4]

66. Right on dude. :)

Thanks.

[endarkenment]

63. The decision by the board owners to basically allow almost anything

here in GDP was wrong headed. They need to rethink this policy. Discussion of the candidates merits is fine, over the top smears, regurgitating rightwing talking points, spamming the board with inane nonsense, all should be locked and repeat offenders banned. It is crap and it is crap that damages this board and to some small but non-negligible extent, our party.

[whatchamacallit]

69. This one is not that easy

This is not a denigrating photoshop hack, it's a candid picture. Can you ban a picture because it's not pretty enough? How and where do you draw that line?

[endarkenment]

104. Did I say it was easy?

It is not easy. I don't know where the line is, but I am absolutely sure that GDP crossed that line a long time ago.

[Swamp Rat]

68. I don't see it as "disgraceful."

I do, however, see why you dislike it.

My advice is to just ignore it, instead of giving it more visibility.

[cboy4]

72. It's very hard to ignore swamp...especially when it's

also fricken blinking red letters in the sig line.

I saw the one graphic you designed of Hillary Clinton as "toast."

I thought it was clever.

I think graphics like those, while still poking the eye of Hillary supporters, are fine, because they're not malicious.

That's the difference.

[Swamp Rat]

84. Yes, perhaps you are right.

Malice was not at all my intent. I cannot speak for the creator of the offending graphic in the OP...

In fact, I find it very difficult to condemn anyone's art, even if I really dislike it for ideological reasons.

So, while I sympathize with you, I cannot say, "let's ban it."

:hug:



:D

[Jed Dilligan]

73. SwampRat, you're a photoshop wiz

Do you agree hands-down that it's a "distorted" image? I can't really see the distortion no matter how hard I look at it.

[Swamp Rat]

85. ALL images are distorted.

:D

[Yes We Did]

90. It was darkened and desaturated.

[Jed Dilligan]

92. The question remains, then

Was it done to inspire sexists to vote against her? Or just to make her appear sinister in general?

I don't think there's any doubt as to the equivalent questions surrounding the 3 AM ad.

[Yes We Did]

110. sinister in general....

It was done to make a point. After she had the 3 am ad darkened, people said it was no big deal.

Well, apparantly they don't like it when it is done to them.

[Jed Dilligan]

117. I think the 3 AM ad was worse because it played into racism

The image above just plays into everyone's fear of weird, maniacal face-makers.

[polmaven]

144. Is there anything you see

that isn't racist in your eyes? Is the fact of Hillary's blond hair a deliberate racist slap too?

The 3AM ad played into racism only for a very few of the most rabid Obama supporters trying to make Senator Obama into the victim at every turn.

You will note it got nowhere very fast. The MSNBC crowd tried to promote it, but even they couldn't get it to fly.

There are many more legitimate racist acts and words out there. The 3AM ad doesn't even come close.

[Jed Dilligan]

154. I was referring to the skin darkening, not the whole ad

The whole ad played into the same mass hysteria that empowered * after 9/11.

It's a toss-up for me which is worse--making an opponent blacker to make him look bad, or using fascistic militaristic fearmongering tactics. Both bad, both Hillary.

And there's a hell of a lot more spurious "sexism" allegations coming from your side than there are spurious racism allegations from mine.

[polmaven]

159. OK, you've REALLY got me stumped now....

First, pardon the late response...I know you may not even see this...I'm having cookie problems at home, and I am not always in a position to post in the office.

You have said that the 3am ad is racist, and you are refer to "the skin darkening" as your basis.

What skin darkening? Who's skin was darkened? What am I missing? I am completely unable to find Senator Obama's image anywhere in that ad. Yes, there is a African American child, but how would you know if his/her skin was darkened?


Are you sure we are talking about the same ad? I mean, Senator Obama followed up Senator Clinton's ad with one of his own, that was almost an exact duplicate, but put himself in it rather than her.

:shrug:

[Recursion]

70. There's currently a thread in GDP claiming Obama "hates Jews" and "admires Hitler"

As always, the aggrieving party complains the loudest.

[cboy4]

75. Are you insinuating that I condone that?

Your example is completely irrelevant.

[Recursion]

78. *shrug* I have no idea what your opinion on that is

Only that I've seen extremely vile attacks on Obama on this board, whereas the worst thing I've seen about attacks on Senator Clinton is that they use the word "shrill" (a usage, incidentally, I oppose).

[cboy4]

81. bwahahahaha. You're so ridiculous, I'm not wasting another

keystroke on you.

hahaha. Yea, only Obama is being attacked. :spray:

[Recursion]

82. In fairness, I have a lot of zealots on both sides on "ignore" at this point

Senator Clinton is also being attacked, but as far as the threads I've seen, she's being attacked on her positions and character, rather than on spurious and flamebait-worthy claims.

I emptied my ignore list last weekend. That lasted about 12 hours.

[Skinner]

88. To be fair, that post appears to have been satire.

Although I must admit that I am not totally clear if that specific part was supposed to be factual.

Anyway, it's locked now. It managed to pick up no fewer than 39 alerts during the time it was open, which could well be a DU record.

[Recursion]

100. My bad, thanks Skinner

And as I mentioned, my dozens-long ignore list probably distorts the "full" nature of GDP

[crankychatter]

74. that photo is unretouched

Unlike her darkening of Obama in her smear ad... they didn't take down from their site till they got caught

[crankychatter]

77. How are racist posts allowed to stand?

or any other fear mongering faked up arguments?

"...oh America won't vote for a Black person in the General Election
be afwaid, be afwaid...."

Are you one of the "if it's brown, flush it down" clan?

I don't know why more of the Clinton supporters that are closet racists don't just come out and admit it

I'm sure it would be very therapeutic

yeah, very selective with the outrage...

[Jed Dilligan]

89. I would concede that the shadows may have been heightened,

but "defaced" is way too strong a word. She actually made that face--it couldn't be faked.

[cboy4]

95. You've already asked the photoshop wiz who told

you all images are distorted.

So now what?

You're going to keep asking around, and going on and on until you get the answer you want to hear -- as opposed to the truth?

[Jed Dilligan]

98. So all images should be banned, then?

What are you, the Koran?

[Yes We Did]

111. The image was desaturated and darkened. JUST LIKE the 3 am ad.

If it was okay then, it is okay now.

[Whisp]

93. that's my question too, Obama is a Democrat

Hillary is not. she proves it day to day - thinking McCain is the better man, etc.

feh!

[Skip Intro]

96. There is a seething hatred for Hillary from some on this board because she dared to run against the

chosen one.

That really is about all there is to it. Blind hatred.

And yeah, sometimes it looks like we have become fr.

I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.

[Yes We Did]

108. I agree with you 100%... just flip it. Hillary was the "inevitable" one... remember?

In fact, that's like her whole mantra! "How dare he run against me... It is my turn..."

[Umbram]

113. Yep - this was Hillary's to lose - her supporters are just misplacing the blame. (nt)

[AllexxisF1]

97. How do you not get this?

How exactly do you not get this?

She lost.

She is trashing the hell out of our nominee with flat out lies and deceit.

She is running the nastiest campaign ever seen.



She deserves every picture, slander and joke by everyone else in the party who has their head on straight.


SHE LOST GET OVER IT.

[anonymous171]

101. So is Obama not a democrat? Double standard much...

[susankh4]

102. Thanks for calling folks out on this.

K&R.

[MethuenProgressive]

116. If there was an anti-Obama equivalent, there'd be mass PMs to the mods targeting you for banning

That's the way things work here.

[MethuenProgressive]

119. :crickets:

Crunchy and sweet, if quickly deep fried in peanut oil.

[crankychatter]

123. I've seen WAY WORSE of Obama in here - quit posturing

big ass dumbo ears... alfred e neuman lookalikes... jesus facsimiles

it never ends with you ppl

[MethuenProgressive]

129. Link?

None?
That's right.
None.

[kleebo151]

121. Let's not blame moderators

Mods. have done a great job balancing freedom of speech with what could be considered inappropriate.
It's hard to contain a group of thousands of members.
Contrary to what some say, The forum is under control.

[MethuenProgressive]

127. Kleebo, since this is your first day here, please tell us how you "know" this:

"Mods. have done a great job balancing freedom of speech with what could be considered inappropriate.
Contrary to what some say, The forum is under control."

Welcome to DU!

[Umbram]

132. Lol. (nt)

[crankychatter]

124. WHY DO YOU STIR THE RACE AND GENDER POT A THOUSAND TIMES A DAY?

You that do this are not Democrats.

The GOP is accepting registrations.

Do the right thing.

[cboy4]

126. Wow....look at all of those CAPS!

How about you do the right thing and take some deep breaths into a brown paper bag so you'll stop hyperventilating.

Ooops, is that racist cranychatter?

That I called it a "brown" paper bag.

Once again, I point out the city in which you reside is so fitting.

Oh, so fitting.

Nothing about my OP is racist or sexist, so you can put those cards back in your pocket.

[Umbram]

131. Get a grip

There is no mention in the OP of sexism. It was, of course, brought up elsewhere in the thread, but nonetheless - there is a discussion to be had here without flipping your lid.

[shomino]

125. A better question is how is Hillary's defacing of Obama allowed to stand

[undeterred]

137. You're a fine one to talk.

[meow mix]

139. Nice Graphic.

good work on that one..

[eridani]

141. We don't need this crap. Really we don't n/t

[NickMorgan]

142. on the one hand, I agree, but

on the other hand, i view Clinton as a total enemy of the party, and especially an enemy of progressive values. this whole campaign got ugly because she made it ugly and, predictably, she blames obama for that, too. at a certain point, there's just no good reason to show respe3ct for someone like Clinton, who's personal thirst for political success has so eclipsed the basic norms of decency, honesty, and honor, that I'd feel perfectly happy to see her career slouch into a long, shameful demise with name calling, etc.

[NDambi]

145. Grow up...how petty.

[cboy4]

146. I agree. Shame on the person who designed that graphic.

:thumbsdown:

[NDambi]

149. Sorry, I'm not for censorship...let it all hang out..

[cboy4]

151. So, if someone posts a graphic showing Obama with

stereotypic large lips, munching down fried chicken and watermelon, you're okay with that?

On a Democratic website, you'd let that "all hang out?"

Shocking.

I'll bet you don't have the guts to answer the question NDambi.

Prove me wrong.

[NDambi]

158. Here I am to prove you wrong...I may not like it but I certainly wouldn't drop a baby either

Smoke that...

[against all enemies]

147. tell hillary - she the one defacing obama, in favor of mccain

[cboy4]

148. Wow, you certainly have a way with words!

:thumbsdown:

[JoFerret]

150. 100% correct

All those with demeaning foul, ridiculing signs and signatures on EITHER great candidate should be ashamed of themselves.

Why do the photoshopping for the GOP / why copy their vile work. Either way it is a shame and a disgrace.

A plague on all those who defend such tactics. You deserve McCain. You truly do.

[backscatter712]

156. All these pictures are still up,

yet my pic of Clinton's face photochopped onto Khan from Star Trek II gets deleted by the mods. :eyes:

Some people really need to loosen up.