Did Clinton's Campaign Darken Obama's Skin?
Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.
There's a controversy brewing that I just heard on the Thom Hartmann Show as I drove in to work. I will direct you to the sources and let you see for yourself. Since I am at work, unfortunately I cannot take the time to research this any further.
First, the original source:
First, I will allow all of you to look at both the debate clip and the campaign commercial. Sen. Obama's response to the question at the debate comes at about the 4:40 mark. Watch them both and see if anything seems a bit askew.
Call me crazy, but it certainly appears to me that Sen. Obama's skin tone is significantly darker in the Clinton campaign commercial. Watch it again and see if you agree.
Now, as most of us know, one of the ways in which to demonize a person of color is to make them appear darker than they are. By this twisted logic, somehow being more black makes you more threatening.
One of the first times I distinctly recall this issue being brought to the forefront was the Time Magazine cover picture of O.J. Simpson after his arrest. Time was heavily criticized for darkening the shade of Simpson's skin in the cover photograph. [...]
UPDATE:A few of the comments have properly pointed out that the entire Clinton commercial is in darker tones. It has also been pointed out that darker tones are often used to subtlety demonize political opponents.
Both of those points are well-taken. However, is there or should there be a double standard when one of the candidates is a person of color--i.e., is it OK for a white politician to darken or distort the image of another white politician in a commercial, but not a black candidate?