I never implied that you did, but it doesn't surprise me that you've read design and motive into my text, that, simply isn't there.
The only thing I suggested is the obvious, that the shot was staged to highlight the front edges of that bookshelf to form a cross.
How can you form something that is already there, i.e., the two intersecting lines. Are you actually going to sit there and tell me that this "Christian Cross" is either an epiphenomenon or an emergent property of the light interacting with the bookcase?
Is that what you're telling me is obvious and objective in this commercial?
We disagree on the facts, therefore we disagree on the conclusion.
You, apparently, find it reasonable to conclude that the people who staged this finely crafted scene, where various elements rotate into and out of prominence, while the candidate remains the rock-steady focus, failed to control the big, white element in their othewise dark and muted composition. You find it reasonable that the placement of the ornaments overhanging the edge of the shelf, in the location necessary to eliminate the highlight formed by the vertical divider in the upper left quadrant as the bookshelf was spot-lit from above and to the left and preserve the contrast of the cross formed by the front edges, was accidental. You find it reasonable that the highly trained and professional people who reviewed this scene somehow failed to notice the most brightly lit element as it rotated across the screen and directly behind the subject. You accept the candidates contention that the advertisment was shot hastily and not thoroughly reviewed before it was placed in the critical market of this election right before Christmas.
You accept all of these things as reasonable, and I do not. Given your opinion of the underlying facts, I would agree that your conclusions are correct. You are more insulting in making them than I would be, but that is a matter of style.
I would beg you indulgence, though, and ask you to answer a hypothetical question. It is an indulgence because many people refuse to answer a hypothetical question, because often it is a rhetorical trap. I do not intend to trap you or be unfair, however. We disagree on underlying facts, I accept that.
However, if you were to accept for the sake of argument the position that the shot was carefully crafted to insert the Christian Cross into the shot using an “accidental” element, and that the Candidate is lying about it now, how would that make you feel about Huckabee? Would you find a “deniable” use of the Cross, and subsequent denials, to be offensive?
Again, this is a hypothetical question. Feel free to add all the provisos and flags you want to your response. I assure you I will not quote you out of context or use your answer in a deceptive manner.