re: #107 Gus 802

For one, this is an ad by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee — the article you link to even states this. The claim that “she” is responsible for this ad is false. This is not even the Martha Coakley campaign, it is separate. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee more than likely used a stock photo. There is no conspiracy.

Since the ad was in reference to “Wall Street” corruption, why not a “stock picture” of the typical Wall Street street sign instead.

Bottom line is, you cannot defend the ad, whether Coakley had anything to do with it or not.

Or can you defend it?