New study: Republican/McCain 2008 campaign against Obama was racist

[Tender Branson]

Obama's skin tone darker in GOP ads, study shows

WASHINGTON -- A new study shows that negative ads targeting President Obama in 2008 depicted him with very dark skin, and that these images would have appealed to some viewers' racial biases.

The finding reinforces charges that some Republican politicians seek to win votes by implying support for racist views and ethnic hierarchies, without voicing those prejudices explicitly. The purported tactic is often called "dog-whistle politics" -- just as only canines can hear a dog whistle, only prejudiced voters are aware of the racist connotations of a politician's statement, according to the theory.

(...)

Likewise, as the election approached, images of Obama in spots aired by McCain's campaign became gradually darker.

Images of McCain campaign's own candidate, meanwhile, became somewhat lighter.

Whether this was a conscious strategy on the part of McCain's campaign is impossible to say.The Washington Post contacted the Republican National Committee and McCain's Senate office. They did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/12/president_obamas_skin_tone_dar.html#incart_most-commented_pets_article

[Tetro Kornbluth]

This should be massive news to Atlas Forum.

[Kingpoleon]

He depicted his opponent in dark light? How dare he!!!

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Republicans using racist tactics against black political opponents? In other news the sky is blue.

He depicted his opponent in dark light? How dare he!!!

The ignorance is strong in you.

[Zioneer]

He depicted his opponent in dark light? How dare he!!!

You know full well how racism works, don't pretend to be oblivious about it.

[ElectionsGuy]

Nobody cares about this. People who are going to be more affected by darker skin tones would've voted for McCain anyway.

[Mr. Smith]

Nobody cares about this. People who are going to be more affected by darker skin tones would've voted for McCain anyway.

In which case, the campaign really shouldn't have felt the need to do this.

[Kingpoleon]

He depicted his opponent in dark light? How dare he!!!

You know full well how racism works, don't pretend to be oblivious about it.

Yes, I do. I also know from campaign commercials that it might flip through dark pictures of opponents and then take a brighter tone as the candidate comes into view and presents their case.

[Zioneer]

He depicted his opponent in dark light? How dare he!!!

You know full well how racism works, don't pretend to be oblivious about it.

Yes, I do. I also know from campaign commercials that it might flip through dark pictures of opponents and then take a brighter tone as the candidate comes into view and presents their case.

You're being deliberately obtuse about this. When a campaign specifically edits an image in an attack ad to make an already dark-skinned man look darker then he actually is, that's playing on voter fears of a "scary black man", that is stereo-typically darker-skinned then many black people. Obama himself isn't actually that dark-skinned, so deliberately making him seem darker than he actually is about 100% guaranteed to be part of a racist attack. This really isn't hard to understand.

Did you even read the article?

[ProgressiveCanadian]

He depicted his opponent in dark light? How dare he!!!

You know full well how racism works, don't pretend to be oblivious about it.

Yes, I do. I also know from campaign commercials that it might flip through dark pictures of opponents and then take a brighter tone as the candidate comes into view and presents their case.

You're being deliberately obtuse about this. When a campaign specifically edits an image in an attack ad to make an already dark-skinned man look darker then he actually is, that's playing on voter fears of a "scary black man", that is stereo-typically darker-skinned then many black people. Obama himself isn't actually that dark-skinned, so deliberately making him seem darker than he actually is about 100% guaranteed to be part of a racist attack. This really isn't hard to understand.

Did you even read the article?

^^^^
This. Couldn't put it any better then that.

[Kingpoleon]

He depicted his opponent in dark light? How dare he!!!

You know full well how racism works, don't pretend to be oblivious about it.

Yes, I do. I also know from campaign commercials that it might flip through dark pictures of opponents and then take a brighter tone as the candidate comes into view and presents their case.

You're being deliberately obtuse about this. When a campaign specifically edits an image in an attack ad to make an already dark-skinned man look darker then he actually is, that's playing on voter fears of a "scary black man", that is stereo-typically darker-skinned then many black people. Obama himself isn't actually that dark-skinned, so deliberately making him seem darker than he actually is about 100% guaranteed to be part of a racist attack. This really isn't hard to understand.

Did you even read the article?

This is like putting together a puzzle with half the truth showing and the author makes the other half and being shocked the author was right about what it is.

McCain was famously sabotaged by Karl Rove asking SC voters if they would vote for McCain if he had an illegitimate black child. The same person who headed McCain's advertisements was a former DNC consultant who was on Jon Huntsman's campaign and currently is working for Kasich's Super-PAC. In other words, this is a racist man with huge political ties to both parties if it's true, who works for the Republican candidate the Democrats like the most every time.

[Beezer]

Ridiculous. As has been pointed out here negative attacks tend to portray opponents in a quite literally negative light. The GOP uses dog whistle politics all the time but this is an example of painting any negative depiction of Obama as racist.

[Zioneer]

He depicted his opponent in dark light? How dare he!!!

You know full well how racism works, don't pretend to be oblivious about it.

Yes, I do. I also know from campaign commercials that it might flip through dark pictures of opponents and then take a brighter tone as the candidate comes into view and presents their case.

You're being deliberately obtuse about this. When a campaign specifically edits an image in an attack ad to make an already dark-skinned man look darker then he actually is, that's playing on voter fears of a "scary black man", that is stereo-typically darker-skinned then many black people. Obama himself isn't actually that dark-skinned, so deliberately making him seem darker than he actually is about 100% guaranteed to be part of a racist attack. This really isn't hard to understand.

Did you even read the article?

This is like putting together a puzzle with half the truth showing and the author makes the other half and being shocked the author was right about what it is.

McCain was famously sabotaged by Karl Rove asking SC voters if they would vote for McCain if he had an illegitimate black child. The same person who headed McCain's advertisements was a former DNC consultant who was on Jon Huntsman's campaign and currently is working for Kasich's Super-PAC. In other words, this is a racist man with huge political ties to both parties if it's true, who works for the Republican candidate the Democrats like the most every time.

Well, yes, political consultants tend to be unscrupulous and many work for whoever pays them. And McCain could have given into hypocrisy on race even after Rove's famous attack. It's pretty simple.

And it doesn't necessarily follow that the consultant is racist, just unscrupulous and knowing of racist tendencies in some voters. Look at Lee Atwater, for example. Really good at knowing voter's racial bias, but not that racist himself.

As for the Jon Huntsman thing, who cares? He could have been paid extensively to be on that campaign, it doesn't necessarily follow that his ties to Huntsman's campaign mean anything at all. Same for Kasich.

The point stands that there were racist attacks by the McCain campaign, and it's not that hard to understand. He might not have condoned it himself, but his campaign did.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Lot of good it did him.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Ridiculous. As has been pointed out here negative attacks tend to portray opponents in a quite literally negative light. The GOP uses dog whistle politics all the time but this is an example of painting any negative depiction of Obama as racist.

Portraying Obama with darker skin that he has is putting him in a 'negative light'?

[Beezer]

Do a study on negative ads focusing on white politicians. I'm sure you'll get broadly similar results about how the candidate behind the ad is portrayed in a more favorable (brighter) light.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Do a study on negative ads focusing on white politicians. I'm sure you'll get broadly similar results about how the candidate behind the ad is portrayed in a more favorable (brighter) light.

and that's not Racist, how?

[Beezer]

It's about making people look better. Are you saying that a natural preference for certain skin tones among many people is inherently racist? If you had a candidate that was pale as hell they'd probably make him look a tad more tanned, add some color to his face. Racist?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

It's about making people look better. Are you saying that a natural preference for certain skin tones among many people is inherently racist? If you had a candidate that was pale as hell they'd probably make him look a tad more tanned, add some color to his face. Racist?

Question 1: Ummmm.... yes

Question 2: Does that actually happen though? And regularly?

[Beezer]

OK, so saying that you like pale redheads makes you a racist then?

[Mr. Reactionary]

OK, so saying that you like pale redheads makes you a racist then?

Don't bother arguing with them. The idea that something as common as changing light filters is objectively racist regardless of actual intent or perception because reasons! is irreconcilable with debate.

[All Along The Watchtower]

whadabout Hillary Clinton's 2008 racist campaign against Barry Hussein Obama?

and now Hillary is the Democratic frontrunner??! THE HYPOCRISY!!!!

[Zioneer]

OK, so saying that you like pale redheads makes you a racist then?

No, but pretty obviously making a member of a marginalized group (in this case African-Americans) seem more intimidating than they actually are (in this case darkening skin to play on the "scary black man" stereotype) is racist.

I would agree that it's normally not racist to "change light filters", but when it's done within an attack ad, it's at best pretty suspicious.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Hillary campaign tried to use this picture to insinuate that Obama was a Muslim.

[Ebowed]

I like how people are forgetting Hillary 2008 did literally the same exact thing.

Yes, that's basically the main reason I support Sanders, tbh