Criticized, he replaced that tweet with the "Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!" in a circle instead of a star.
Could it have been a mere failure to perceive a Star of David? It is missing the internal lines showing intersecting triangles. It is stupid to fail to perceive even the unintentional image, and a candidate's operation should not be that stupid. And I'm the one who held Hillary Clinton responsible — back in the '08 campaign — for the letters "NIG" on the pajamas of a black/possibly black child in her 3-a.m.-in-the-White-House ad:
Is the campaign responsible for sending out a subliminal message to stimulate racist thoughts in the unsuspecting viewer? It is either deliberate or terribly incompetent. There is no other writing on screen until the very end of the commercial, and if letters appear in any place in a commercial, they should be carefully selected letters. Certainly, each image is artfully composed and shot and intended to deliver an emotional impact. Could this be a mere lapse?...
The intense scrutiny of [GWB's] "RATS" ad heightens the assumption that presidential candidates these days pay close attention to any incidental lettering that appears in their ads. "RATS" as part of the word "bureaucrats" in an ad criticizing Gore's prescription plan is nothing compared to "NIG" isolated on a sleeping child's shoulder in an ad intended to create doubts about a black man's ability to take an urgent phone call at 3 a.m., an ad authorized by a candidate who has already heard accusations that her campaign is slipping racial material into its attacks on her opponent.
This is either a revolting outrage or shocking incompetence.