It Will Only Get Worse

by hilzoy

As all sorts of people have noted, Hillary Clinton has been throwing everything she can think of at Barack Obama, from pictures of him in Somali clothing (as commenters noted, this is of unknown origin) to yesterday's delightful claim that while she and McCain have a "lifetime of experience" that prepares them to be commander in chief, Obama has nothing but "a speech he made in 2002.” Obama has replied to Clinton's various charges, but he has not thrown any analogous things at her. I might, of course, have missed something, but I haven't seen Obama or his campaign introduce topics not related either to the issues or to Clinton's judgment and experience. For instance, while the Clinton campaign has tried to make hay out of the fact that Obama went to the home of William Ayers, the hateful ex-Weatherman, I have not seen the Obama campaign bring up Bill Clinton's pardons of Puerto Rican terrorists.

I'm glad Obama hasn't gone there. I expect that if Clinton continues in the race, he might go a bit further towards the negative than he has so far. I think that there are some issues of this kind that it would be quite legitimate for him to bring up. For instance, Obama has not yet made much of Clinton's refusal to release her tax returns. Personally, I would much rather see every candidate's tax returns before rather than after the nomination has been decided, and I think this is completely legitimate. Likewise, I would like to see a complete list of the donors to the Clinton library. Topics like these are, I think, fair game. But there are a lot of things that are not. I'm glad Obama hasn't gone there, and I hope he doesn't go there in future.

However, the fact that he hasn't doesn't mean that no one else will. John Aravosis, for one, is quite explicit about it:

"So, what will the Republicans throw at Hillary in the fall?

Lots. (...) I'm not going to be discussing the details of those stories today because I don't want to make our candidate damaged goods in the fall. You will notice that neither Obama's campaign nor Obama's official, or unofficial, surrogates are talking about the Clintons' past or present scandals, the Clintons' negatives, what a Clinton run for the presidency will to Democratic congressional races and governor races across the country. The Clintons are counting on the fact that none of us will write about their negatives, because we're too nice. So they can get as dirty as they want, with impunity.

Well, come Wednesday, if Hillary doesn't win 65% of the delegates in Ohio and Texas, and still insists on staying in the race and ripping our party in two, it will be time to start treating candidate Clinton with the same golden rule she is using for candidate Obama. Why? Not for revenge, but for the sake of our party and the fall election. Hillary and her campaign are in the process of turning Obama into damaged goods in the fall. They didn't have to go there, but beating Obama became more important to them than beating John McCain. So, the first question for Hillary come Wednesday, should she decide to continue risking our chances of winning in the fall even though the math says it's over, will be the question she's asking Obama today: What negatives will the Republicans throw against you in the fall? And as I've noted repeatedly, there are some negatives out there that most of you don't even know about -- but everyone in Washington knows about them, in detail. That's because even Democrats who don't love Hillary, don't go there, for the good of the party. On Wednesday, the good of the party may dictate that we do."

I hope no one goes there. We don't need to: Obama is very likely to win whatever Clinton does; besides, it would be needlessly divisive. I am not writing this to say: "Nice reputation you've got there, Senator Clinton. Shame if something happened to it ..." I do not want this to happen, and I very much hope it doesn't.

I do want to say: those stories are out there. I have heard some of them (not, for the record, from Obama supporters), and since I'm not particularly plugged in to these circles, if I've heard them, so have a lot of people. Obama can keep his people in check, but I don't see how he, or anyone, could keep a lid on an unaffiliated party like John Aravosis once he decides to dish dirt. And there are a lot of potential Aravoses out there. I hope the Clintons and their advisors consider this when they decide what to do tonight or tomorrow.

If, when the results come in, it is still overwhelmingly unlikely that Clinton wins, I hope they put the interests of the party and the nation above their own. Because this could get very ugly.

Comments

[Jim Parish]

Ah. So the plural of "Aravosis" is "Aravoses". I did not know that.

[Debbie (aussie)]

Wow. Not being able to sleep has led me to be first commenter at two blogs so far.
Watching all this from a distance is very interesting.
You may be interested to know that the 'smearmails' that were making there way around the US found there way here too. I nearly died when my Mum sent forwarded on to me. She did ask at the top what I thought, thank goodness. I told her it would be interesting to find out the motives for it being sent and if any of her friends believed it.

[OCSteve]

I had some thoughts she would choose to go out with class. That was, until I heard her putting McCain above Obama on the experience thing last night. That made it crystal clear to me anyway that her own ambition means much more than her party. She has no plans to go quietly into that good night.

Howard Dean and Bubba are going to have to tackle her and drag her kicking and screaming off the stage.

[Ugh]

Bubba won't do it, he gets half the co-presidency if she wins, and no downside if her campaign tears the party apart.

When do the damn polls close?

[Gary Farber]

Regarding the conversation I related here, among the parts I left out were all the tales my neighbor also had about Clinton scandals, campaign fraud lawsuits he couldn't remember any details of, but which he knew were coming up that would see Hillary Clinton indicted, and so and on so forth.

He assured me that all the stuff he was telling me was "all over the internet," and it was a shame I didn't read the internet more, to be better informed.

[hilzoy]

Ugh: from Open Left:

Vermont: 7 pm eastern
Ohio, 7:30 pm eastern
Rhode Island, 9 pm eastern
Texas Primary 9 pm eastern
Texas Caucus 9:15 eastern start time

[Ugh]

thanks hilzoy, I was just about to post that I found it at TPM as well.

Looks like the media will declare a "winner" in texas even though it appears there will be no such thing tonight.

[cleek]

Looks like the media will declare a "winner" in texas even though it appears there will be no such thing tonight.

the narrative is more important than the facts.

[Frank]

Ehh bring it on. I'm a Hillary supporter, but I don't really see the downside. Sling all the mud you like at this point. She's not going to be the nominee anyway, and even if she were the Republicans are much better at fighting dirty than Democrats ever will be.

I'll admit I got kind of hot when Obama supporters were putting down Hillary supporters, but I think Hillary should be used to it by now and I won't hold grudges.
;)

[hilzoy]

The narrative is more important than the facts only when there are enough facts left undecided for the narrative to affect.

[Jay Jerome]

Howard Dean and Bubba are going to have to tackle her and drag her kicking and screaming off the stage.

To repeat what I posted here earlier, OCSteve:

"Two-thirds of Democrats say a victory in either Ohio or Texas would be reason enough for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) to keep her historic bid for the party's presidential nomination alive, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll."

So, you going to tackle and drag off two-thirds of the 'classless' Democratic voters who want her to keep running? If so, once you drag them off, are you going to tie them up and put strips of adhesive tape across their mouths, to shut them up so Hillary can't hear them?

[Frank]

You aren't usually so cryptic Hilzoy.

Anything could happen on the way to the convention. If Obama gets caught eating a baby on camera in the next few weeks we will all be glad we had a spare.

[Nell]

Sifu Tweety doing his best to help you get a good night's sleep (or do something with your beautiful minds this evening besides pollute them with TV "analysis").

[Phil]

Don't look for a lot of significant early returns from Ohio. Because of what happened with the touch screen/balloting issue in some counties -- including mine, Cuyhoga -- ballots aren't being counted at the precincts, but have to go to the Board of Elections to be scanned.

[Donald Johnson]

"You aren't usually so cryptic Hilzoy."

Yeah, spill it. Nice blog you have here--it'd be a shame if I had to troll it.

[Jay Jerome]

"The narrative is more important than the facts only when there are enough facts left undecided for the narrative to affect."

The only plus side of his keeping his nose clean inexperience (not being around long enough for the negative stuff to pile up).

[Ara]

The narrative is more important than the facts only when there are enough facts left undecided for the narrative to affect.

Hilzoy: Cleek may have just meant that if the nomination is nearly sealed, the narrative is more important, because we know we are going have an Obama nomination, but we do not yet know how damaged he will be. And that'll be determined by tonight's narrative, not tonight's facts.

[OCSteve]

Jay: So, you going to tackle and drag off two-thirds of the 'classless' Democratic voters who want her to keep running? If so, once you drag them off, are you going to tie them up and put strips of adhesive tape across their mouths, to shut them up so Hillary can't hear them?

Me? Not really. Being a recovering Republican and a Clinton hater from way back (before it was cool), my first instinct is to go make a tub of popcorn and enjoy the show. However, I’ve had my fill of schadenfruende at Clinton’s expense. At this point I feel sorry for her, and now I’m starting to feel embarrassed for her.

“classless Democratic voters” is putting words in my mouth BTW. Many of the Democratic voters I know are quite classy. Given what I’ve learned of the Democratic Party’s primary system this time around - the only ones I’ve seen with that kind of disdain for Democratic voters are Democratic Party apparatchiks.

My point was that it is now clear to me that she has no intention of throwing in the towel, even if it harms her party to drag this out. Do you think it is in the best interest of the Democratic Party for her to essentially endorse McCain (at least in terms of experience) over Obama? Is that really the savviest political move if the most important thing is seeing a Democrat in the WH? It could be I guess. I’m certainly no political mastermind. Perhaps I’m missing some nuance here…

[Ugh]

Hilzoy: Cleek may have just meant that if the nomination is nearly sealed, the narrative is more important, because we know we are going have an Obama nomination, but we do not yet know how damaged he will be.

Actually, I think cleek was saying that the narrative was more important to the media, than the facts.

But I'm sure he'll be back at some point to let us know for sure.

[Anarch]

So, you going to tackle and drag off two-thirds of the 'classless' Democratic voters who want her to keep running?

Wait, there are two-thirds of the 'classless' Democratic voters who want to keep her running? And you know this already, before any of the polls are closed. Damn. Apparently that Diebold video (h/t Meditative Zebra) really wasn't a joke...

[A.J.]

I'd like to know exactly what Hillary's national security experience consists of. From what I understand, she's sat on a Senate committee for a few years, and before that, didn't even have a security clearance.

As far as I can tell, her argument seems to be "you've had more experience with me, therefore you should feel more secure with me."

[Turbulence]

So, you going to tackle and drag off two-thirds of the 'classless' Democratic voters who want her to keep running? If so, once you drag them off, are you going to tie them up and put strips of adhesive tape across their mouths, to shut them up so Hillary can't hear them?

I don't think many democrats actually understand how big the gap is between Clinton and Obama. Which makes sense; most people are not political junkies and can't be expected to have spent lots of time figuring out how primaries work in different states, obsessively tracking who won what, etc.

To me, that means that asking people if they think Clinton should drop out under such and such conditions doesn't actually tell you anything useful. You have to ask them if they think Clinton should drop out given that she is N delegates behind and that the only way for her to win would be to win future contests by shockingly huge margins. I strongly suspect that asking that question will yield very different answers...

[Warren Terra]

I have been amazed at how Clinton has been allowed to present herself as having weathered all possible attacks and come through unscathed; even if it were true, the attacks could be - and would be - revived.

And it isn't true; there are plenty of Clinton scandals that haven't been examined this time, because the media doesn't care to do so when not prodded by the competing candidate(s) or as part of the exploration of a little-known candidate. Obama, in a move I admire without fully agreeing, has chosen not even to raise the possible genuine Clinton scandal issues.

But Obama's reticence doesn't mean the potential dirt isn't real and doesn't include genuine issues. My personal favorite is that not one but both of Hillary Clinton's brothers hired out their services (for six-figure sums!) to people seeking to lobby the Clinton White House for Presidential pardons.

[farmgirl]

I find it frustrating that there is some "kool kidz" club in Washington where everyone seems to know the inside dirt but won't deign to share it with the unwashed masses outside the beltway.

One example is the many gay Republicans who are not "out" nationally but *everyone* in DC knows about and allows them to continue in their hypocrisy. And now allusions to things that *everyone* in DC knows about Senator Clinton? Hilzoy, I love you, but it's a little tacky to make reference to things you're too high-minded to actually tell people about. I hope Aravosis spills the beans.

[tomtom]

Really good post Hilzoy.

Democrat first, candidate second.

Repeat.

The Clinton camp is skating on the very thinnest edge of breaking that rule.

I say this as an HRC leaner.

Ironically, I believe that Bill's over the top partisanship following SC is a prime reason HRC is losing. HRC seems to have reined him in since, thank God.

[hilzoy]

farmgirl the thing is, I'm not in any kool kidz club. That's what worries me.

[farmgirl]

so ... since it's leaked out to you already, can't you let the rest of us here at ObWi in on it? you whisper, we'll all lean in. no one else is listening...

[Terri]

Think this is worth reading to clarify the importance of what is the unspoken message.

Who is Barack Obama?

Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born
in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a Black Muslim
from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from
Wichita, Kansas.

Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two
years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His
mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia. ?
When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocates to Indonesia. Obama
attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a
Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is
quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also
attended Catholic school."

Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical.

Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.

Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham,
introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.

Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim
terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since
it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major
public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined
the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim
background.

ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.

Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.

Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential
candidacy.

The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside
out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the
President of the United States, one of their own!!!!

[JanieM]

We really do need to be on guard against those athy candidates. It's best to avoid the athier ones, and the ATHIEST ones are the worst of all.

[calling all toasters]

Terri kidnapped the Lindbergh baby and is now a member of the Shining Path.

[Gary Farber]

"a white ATHIEST"

OMG!!!

[john miller]

I don't think Terri meant that to be her thinking. I think (I am in a charitable mood tonight) that she was copying something that has already been out there.

I am charitable because Clinton won't have much if any of a victory tonight. She will not get very many delegates out of Ohio and Obama will probably end up the night with a net gain of 10-15 delegates.

[mandy]

long time listener, first time caller....

and I am posting not to praise your commentary (which is of course sharp and insightful as always) but to celebrate your pleasingly Latinate pluralization of Aravosis. I'm glad I can go to bed smiling without having to stay up until tomorrow afternoon for TX caucus results.

[hilzoy]

mandy: thanks, welcome, and comment again. ;)

[RNR]

Hillary, WADR, I'm with Aravosis on this one. Since neither she nor her advisers possess the grace needed to exit this race, we'll have to do it for her. She needs to walk off the stage, and now.

[dutchmarbel]

Hillary Clinton has been throwing everything she can think of at Barack Obama, from pictures of him in Somali clothing

I just read about that. It came from the freepers. Aren't you supposed to switch to the accusations that the Clinton campaign darkened Obama's skin in a new ad?

I do want to say: those stories are out there. I have heard some of them
Me too! Didn't she kill Vince Foster?

[LarryM]

I hope that we DO go there to an extent that Clinton becomes the most hated woman in U.S. history.

Not even out of much love of Obama, of whom I am only a reluctant, lesser-of-three-evils supporter. Because she is scum, and deserves it.

Wouldn't it be ironic if she really did have Vince Foster killed? She certainly is capable of that.

[Sebastian]

"It came from the freepers."

It is perfectly possible that both free republic people discovered the picture first AND that Clinton staff members were passing it around among the media. Two different people can be acting in a racist manner at the same time.

And I've seen the Clinton ad where Obama looks much blacker than he ever normally does. You raise it like it is a crazy rumor, but it appears to be true. (It is one of the 'are you kidding' type of things for me. I'm going to hope there is a good explanation that once it is pointed out will make me think "oh, that makes sense".)

[LizardBreath]

Yeah, Hilzoy? What's your basis for thinking the Clinton campaign was publicizing the Somali-dress photo? Just Drudge, which you're believing over her denials, or do you have another source?

This one looks unfounded to me. (Seb: is the commercial you're talking about on YouTube?)

[Sebastian]

I can't find where I came across the original video yesterday, but there are two stories about it here and here.

It is one of those things that sounds crazy, but looks really bad. And we have had a drip, drip, drip of ugly racist innuendo from the Clinton camp for almost a month now. If this had come out before Bill's nasty comments I wouldn't have put much stock in it even for the Clintons. But they have given reason to be suspicious at this point.

[LizardBreath]

Thanks, here's the ad on her site. It doesn't look like much to me -- that is, it looks like they messed with the color on the footage showing Obama, but it doesn't look darker to me, it looks colder, like they shifted the color balance toward the blue, to make a contrast with the warm, reassuring tones when they show her immediately afterward. Emotional manipulation, but not racial.

But anyone who's forming opinions about this should go watch the commercial at the link.

[Turbulence]

Aren't you supposed to switch to the accusations that the Clinton campaign darkened Obama's skin in a new ad?

dutch,

I watched the ad on Clinton's website. The skin tone is definitely darker. Are you disagreeing with that assessment? Because if you are, I'd appreciate it if you explicitly did so rather than making insinuations and casting aspersions on other commenters.

Click on Seb's first link for more information.

[hilzoy]

OK, I updated the post. I hadn't watched the Clinton ad before -- darkening skin tone is something I don't know much about, and I seem to have acquired a sort of allergy to anything that reminds me of debates over kerning, which this does -- but fwiw, I'm not sure it just shifted towards blue. At any rate, when I look at Obama's tie, which is blue, it doesn't seem to get more intense (note: if that's not a good way to tell, think of this as one of the reasons I didn't want to write about this -- I am clueless), and his jacket is definitely a lot darker -- all its highlights and texture are lost, and it just goes black.

If -- and I stress the "if", because, as I said, I am clueless -- Clinton did this, then it would make me furious.

[OCSteve]

I seem to have acquired a sort of allergy to anything that reminds me of debates over kerning…

Funny you should say that… because this has been debunked by Charles at LGF of all people. Yes, he can’t resist slamming the “nutroots”, but technically he knows what he is talking about:

What I see in these pictures is the typical color alteration that happens from transferring and copying video segments, which also accounts for the aspect ratio changes; different equipment, different software, different video sources. The color isn’t darkened, it’s desaturated, and I doubt very much that it’s deliberate. They’re comparing colors from low resolution processed video, seen on a computer screen. The idiocy makes my head hurt.

[LizardBreath]

I'd be stunned if it wasn't deliberate -- he looks sort of flattened and gray, and she's all warmly and attractively shot, and that sort of making the other candidate look ugly and your guy look pretty is completely ordinary. It just doesn't look darkened to me.

[JanieM]

I can't get the ad (LizardBreath's link) to run, probably something to do with my security settings, which I'm not going to mess with just to see a Hillary ad. But while I was waiting for the ad to load, I did notice this:

"The wealthy and well-connected has had a president who works for them for long enough."

Sheesh, can't they do grammar either? ;)

[cleek]

it really doesn't matter what LGFboy sees. the guy operating that different software, on that different computer has the ability to adjust the saturation - either to bring it back to the 'original' levels, or to change it, or to leave it changed (if we assume the change is a result of copying to a different format). the idea that it's not "deliberate" is mind-reading - and the attempted ESP is probably why his wittle head hurts.

[cleek]

oh, BTW, the Limbaugh effect appears to be real.

Hillary must be proud.

[hilzoy]

JanieM: follow OCSteve's link to LGF, of all places. They have a picture of Obama that shifts between the video of the debate and the ad, so you can see the changes.

OCSteve: I didn't think LGF refuted anything; just asserted the contrary. That said, the more elaborate reasoning behind my initial "not going to go there" reaction -- which prevented me from opening the dKos diaries about it, clicking the YouTube links, etc. -- was: I'd have to know what normally happens when you transfer files, what sorts of color alterations are explainable as a result of that sort of thing and what just aren't, etc., etc., and I don't, and I don't want to.

Yuck.

[OCSteve]

Well the claim it is deliberate requires just as much ESP. I can buy that whatever manipulation occurred left it looking worse, and leaving it that way may have been intentional. I don’t buy it was done to make him look “more black”. To me it just looks washed out – sickly and grey.

But who am I to support HRC! Go with it…

[OCSteve]

(that last responding to cleek)

[Turbulence]

I can buy that whatever manipulation occurred left it looking worse, and leaving it that way may have been intentional.

I'd find this line of argument more convincing if someone could point to even one instance where footage of Hillary in one of her own ads makes her look significantly darker compared to the source footage.

It appears that saturation was turned down and contrast was turned up...if someone could explain what plausible reason a video editor might have to do that (given the quality of the source footage), that would go a long way to reassuring me that this wasn't a blatent appeal to racists.

[LizardBreath]

It appears that saturation was turned down and contrast was turned up...if someone could explain what plausible reason a video editor might have to do that (given the quality of the source footage),

Seriously, to make him look unattractive. If you watch political ads, footage of an opponent is washed out and unflattering all the time, and there's nothing wrongful about that. What would be wrongful would be manipulating the footage to make him look darker, rather than just uglier, as a racial appeal, and it's not clear to me that that's going on here.

[Turbulence]

LizardBreath,

Are there any practical circumstances under which one could claim that any political advertisement has been altered to make the candidate look darker (rather than just uglier)? I understand that you're not convinced in this case, but I'm curious to know if there are ANY cases where you would be convinced. Won't any attempt to darken the image wash out colors and thus also count as making the candidate appear uglier?

And if this is so common, shouldn't we see this in ads that Clinton has run showing other white candidates as well (perhaps in her Senate races)?

[LizardBreath]

Sure, if they did look significantly darker. My eye for this stuff isn't great, but to me the linked ad looks grayer, less saturated, but not darker. For a classic example, the OJ cover of Time was unambiguously darkened, and if a candidate did that to an opponent, I'd call that a racial appeal.

I'm not wildly sure of myself here: as I said, my eye for this stuff isn't great. If to you the linked ad looks like Obama's skin-tone has been darkened rather than desaturated, I'm not going to argue with you -- I'm not certain that it hasn't.

[dutchmarbel]

It is perfectly possible that both free republic people discovered the picture first AND that Clinton staff members were passing it around among the media. Two different people can be acting in a racist manner at the same time.

The Obama photo from Kenya (in Somali-elder garb) was posted on the Free Republic site on February 23, 2008 and is apparently scanned from a periodical titled "Examiner February 4, 2008." This posting was made to the highly traffic'd, conservative Republican forum two days before Drudge ran the photo on Monday, February 25, and claimed he'd "obtained" it from a Clinton staffer email.

EXIF data shows the scanned photo was created February 23, 2008 using Microsoft Windows Photo Gallery and is stored at the Fotki site. The context is from a very misleading article.

The scan of that photo from the "Examiner" was first posted, in a cropped version on the day of the scanning, February 23, by "bannie". "cmsgop" re-uploaded the full photo to other forum threads the next day (24th). This photo will have been much emailed during those two days.

The photo furor buried tv exposure of Clinton's main event that week - the foreign policy speech that same day at George Washington University, with endorsements by various generals, so was no favor to her camp.

Another copy of that photo has apparently, for some time, been part of a website story about his trip to Kenya in 2006 on the Hans-Geeska Afrika Online site, and Obama authorized a video documentary of that trip.

Are you disagreeing with that assessment? Because if you are, I'd appreciate it if you explicitly did so rather than making insinuations and casting aspersions on other commenters.

I've looked at the ad and I can't imagine that we are actually discussing this issue seriously. Really, because I thought it would be to stupid to be taken seriously. Maybe the Obama campaign can retaliate with a picture of Hillary in a skirt, to make sure voters realize that she is female? If anything should be discussed about that ad, it's wether him not holding any hearings is important or not.

"Making insinuations and casting aspersions" is when people say things like "oh, watch out, there are a lot of bad things to be told about that person. I am not going to tell them, I may not even know all of them, but I am sure they must be there so take them into account". And since I read Averosis' posts on HRC I'd be really suprised if he wouldn't post everything negative about her that he could find.

[cleek]

Well the claim it is deliberate requires just as much ESP.

i agree. but it has to be one or the other, and i'm perfectly comfortable with the notion that it was deliberate in the style of many other political ads, and not that it was a deliberate attempt to pull an OJ on him. or: what LB said.