It's as if somebody on her campaign is working for the other side.

Wow. Our embarrassment of riches vis-a-vie the Democratic choices is now just embarrassing. I'm not sitting on the fence any more.

Obama for president.

You know, this "Barack Obama should be ashamed of X" meme doesn't appear to have much punch to begin with, but whatever force it could have had is diluted even further by the way the Clinton campaign keeps throwing it around. Bad message management, folks.

Silly season, indeed.

I'm with ferd on this.

Clinton's selling point is supposedly her experience and good decision making abilities, but Jesus, she surrounds herself with stupid people. I've been highly annoyed with Obama's people and the progressive web's almost unreal hatred of the Clintons for daring to contest the Democratic nomination of Saint Obama, but, my God, I might have to apologize to any I've insulted. These Clinton people are painfully stupid. If these are the types of people Clinton would surround herself with when president, we would all be in horrible danger.

Seriously- could anyone be this fucking stupid in a DEMOCRATIC primary? This has to be a plant.

FWIW, I'm a Clinton supporter, and when I first saw the photo, I assumed that if the Clinton campaign was circulating it, it was because Obama looks kinda silly and awkward wearing native garb over his Western duds, as if he weren't quite sure what he was doing in them. Roughly equivalent to the famous photo of a helmeted Michael Dukakis in a tank, in other words.

After all, the Obama-is-a-closet-Muslim notion now said to be the Clinton campaign's motive for circulating the photo has been one virtually exclusively promoted and perceived as terrifying by the right, hasn't it?

This is idiotic of the Clinton campaign. She's counting on a few too many people to understand the lengths she's going to to try to win, if Hillary was really in touch with these kinds of decisions.

Has Mark Penn brought in a GOP staffer to work/destroy things from his lobbying firm?

Thanks, Hillary!

About Hilary Clinton and her campaign... Desperation is a stinky perfume...

Wehner wrote:

During tomorrow evening's debate, Hillary Clinton will be on the defensive and very much regret this stupid and ugly effort.

She's definitely not positioning herself to be remembered as graceful and wise-- she's going out looking like the spiteful loser in highschool who lost the school election to the person who became the popular class president.

Better now than later?

Bring back Mittens!!!

Shame on him for criticizing her health care plan while dressed as a woman.

Dear Hillary,

Please, shut the fuck up and go away.

Thanks,
cleek

Harold Wolfson denied the campaign sent it out (as far as he knows). When you have a huge campaign like that, there is no telling which low level staffer/volunteer is doing what. (Ask Obama about the Che Guevera flag in his volunteer's office.)

But if Obama supporters think this is the last time this will show up -- or things like it -- think again. The GOP and their nasty little minions on the internet are already spreading this and worse. See Redstate.com just today talking about Hussein Obama the cokehead.

My 77-year old mom who voted for Hillary told me she wasn't worried that he was a SecretMuslimâ„¢, she was worried that "He'll have us intervening in Kenya next!"

I feel like Rip Van Winkle.

You don't say.

From Scott Horton's blog:

CBS aired its long-awaited feature on the prosecution and imprisonment of former Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman this evening at 7:00. In a stunning move of censorship, the transmission was blocked across the northern third of Alabama by CBS affiliate WHNT...

"But if Obama supporters think this is the last time this will show up -- or things like it -- think again. The GOP and their nasty little minions on the internet are already spreading this and worse."

The question isn't whether they'll fling it. It is whether it will stick. He's managed to parry the attacks thus far -- the Red State contingent may not be convinced, but I don't think they are a targeted demographic anyway.

Swan,
The movie is called Election

I am confused.. the photos on the Drudge report only help Obama. In fact there is a good chance that Obama's campaign are circulating this photo themselves.

The Clinton campaign.. is not lacking in stuff to make Obama accountable for and I am not talking plagiarism.

I am not sure who circulated this .. but Kevin's logic is hardly compelling..

Here is another point if view that works just as well.
http://www.philipweiss.org/

I'd like to focus on the picture itself. Of course, that is not a popular or a correct thing to say here or anywhere. It sort of reminds me of an incident some years ago when an attorney tried to argue that a particular bit of scurrilous doggerel that he had participated in would be safe from discovery as attorney-work product or whatever. My response to him was that we might not be looking at niceties here--that whether or not something could be withheld by the government in a civil action might not address the bigger problem of someone "discovering" it in reality and sending to a newspaper of other publication. Not that I'm so smart, but I've always believed that before things are put in writing, etc. it is wise to ask yourself how you would feel if you woke up to newspaper headlines with your writing or pictures. The question here ultimately does not involve the "shoulds of should nots." In the bigger league of the general election, I guess that the rightwing will include this picture in the arsenal of defining a person if that person becomes the nominee. Democrats can scream all they want about fair, unfair, or what happened. But, I keep asking myself why an individual who must have entertained the idea of running for higher office (that would be Obama) would not imagine/consider/think about the possible uses of a picture in Somalia that he knew was being taken. Forget all the posturing on both sides--this ain't beanbag--and ponder the judgment involved or not involved and the gift this picture(published in at least three places before today) gives the Republicans. And, please, enough with the handwringing about who is more pure or more evil. Recall Harry Truman's "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." (P.S. I really am a bit sorry for being so harsh; but, we do need to think about the effect of cumulative distasteful incidents that a candidate finds himself involved in, and how that plays in November.)

But if Obama supporters think this is the last time this will show up -- or things like it -- think again.

I'm so tired of hearing this phrase, how many examples of Obama supporters thinking the general election is going to be easy have there been, none that I'm aware of. I doubt Obama, his staff, or his many supporters, those passionate and those not, think the general election will be a cake walk.

During tomorrow evening's debate, Hillary Clinton will be on the defensive and very much regret this stupid and ugly effort.

The debate is on MSNBC I believe, so we KNOW we're going to get a full 15 minutes on this stupid photo.

Obama looks kinda silly and awkward wearing native garb over his Western duds,

Better than if he were not wearing a shirt I think!

I am confused.. the photos on the Drudge report only help Obama. In fact there is a good chance that Obama's campaign are circulating this photo themselves.

You know what, MSComment? When you're out of gas, just stop.

Since when do we believe Drudge's sources?

ferd: It's as if somebody on her campaign is working for the other side.

Someone is working for the other side...

His name is Mark Penn

Ah, Kevin. Nice to see liberals finally believing Drudge. Haven't I told you for years what a good journalist he is but you never believed me? It is only because of Barack that liberals are finally seeing the truth. *snicker*

This is an extremely ballsy (and extremely stupid) Rovian-style attack by Hillary's campaign.

One would think they would look ahead and consider the likely backlash before making a move like this. But they either didn't look ahead or just said "screw it, we're losing anyway, let's see happens."

There is literally no legitimate defense they can make for circulating the photo. It is unashamedly pandering to the "Obama is a radical Muslim in disguise" meme, and is probably the ugliest gutter-style politics we've seen so far.

Hard to believe Hillary's benevolent closing statement at the last debate would be followed by this, isn't it?

Hillary supporters must be proud.

The Clinton campaign did not say they supplied Drudge with the picture. They couldn't deny it without lying because they did not questions every one of their 700 staffers. Kevin assumes then that the accusations of the Obama people must be true. Where is the logic and fairness in that?

Then people here use this as yet another chance to bash Clinton. This situation couldn't have worked out better if Obama had sent Drudge the picture himself. He defuses its impact and attacks Clinton in the same move.

If Obama is proud of his special honor then he shouldn't be complaining about the photo. Personally, I am wondering why the media has not examined his diplomacy failure in Kenya and the fact that his family there is associated with the dictator not the insurgents in that dispute. Focusing on Somalia and ignoring that larger issue is just silly. Clinton hasn't talked about either, but she is being attacked even so.

Since when do we believe Drudge's sources?

Since Maggie Williams confirmed it???

I actually think this is a great way to finish off the campaign. The Clintons show there real colors and allow me to truly understand where there primary interests lie, in themselves.

And it gives Barack practice an swatting off right wing nonsense that is sure to come up....it is good sparring..

Thanks Hillary, and here's to a primary challenger in 2012...Oh and by the way...say goodbye to the last 10 percent of the African American vote and your CBC superdelegates who will take this as the sign you have given up.

Good riddance...

Have you looked at the Drudge photos.. well take a look?

I may be out of gas but I can smell your's all the way home.

Oops...another quick post. "Silly" hit a chord here. One of the more damaging things that happened to Dukakis involved his poor judgment in posing for the infamous man-with-helmet in a tank in 1988. (Yes, I voted for him because I've been a very loyal Democrat...very few others saw it the same way.)

Since when do we believe Drudge's sources?
When camp Clinton produces one non denial after the other.
All they had to do is say "If we find that someone in our campaign sent the picture they will be fired. There is nothing wrong with the image but it's obvious the intent was malicious and we will have no part in it."
If they had said that there would be no story.

When I first saw this photo I thought it was photoshopped. There's so much that comes out that's amazing, it's getting harder to be surprised by things.

The only thing that will top seeing Obama in a Middle Eastern tunic is when the photos of Bush giving a fellatio to King Abdullah come out, I guess.

The hat needs something.

He looks like a little kid in that pic. Is that other guy 7 feet tall?

I think most people are going to find this picture funny, more than they are going to be offended or fooled. Obama has to play it right though. He should have fun with it.

That little laugh he had during the debate about his supporters being delusional is the right way to handle this stuff.

Our President?

http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Scary%20Hillary%20Clinton.jpg

The intent in the Clinton camp is to get elected. There is nothing malicious about that. A staffer shouldn't be fired for sending a real photo to Drudge (not that they couldn't have found it themselves) with or without an email asking why it has not run anywhere. Anything Obama has done in office is fair game, including dressing in traditional Somali garb.

Ugly is Obama's attempt to portray this as Muslim-baiting. Is any different native dress automatically Al Qaeda? How many unflattering pictures of Hillary has Huffington Post run in the past months? Every goofy camera moment, blink, and twitch blares from her headlines when its Clinton who does it.

I don't see this as any campaign act of Clinton's. It makes no sense that way. This is yet another Obama smear, aided by Drudge and other Clinton haters. You are the ones with no shame.

Besides talking about the sleaziness of this tactic, they'll be talking about Obama's movement in the polls. He's moving up in most Ohio polls and in the Texas polls and took a 51-39 lead in today's Gallup/USA Today poll.

I am an Edward's supported but I am feed up with the Obama religion. As they say, Bitch is the new black!

The only thing that will top seeing Obama in a Middle Eastern tunic is when the photos of Bush giving a fellatio to King Abdullah come out, I guess.

Really? The story of Bush figuratively blowing the Saudi king bare months after his countrymen killed 3000 Americans didn't make a ripple.

It's still more butch than our Evangelical Christian President taking a walk through the Texas bluebonnets, hand-in-hand with Crown Prince Abullah.

X: See Redstate.com just today talking about Hussein Obama the cokehead.

And their point was? I think he'd be a much better president than the current "Osama who?" cokehead.

Soriah,
Did I get you right? You defend camp Clinton for sending the picture and then say they didn't do it.
Bold!

Here's my take on things. Clinton is a person motivated by the desire to feel her impact on the world. She did that by associating with a powerful man, attaining the power of an attorney at a top law firm, and now is emboldened by her success to seek a position where she can implement her ideas as president. Obama is a person who is motivated by the desire to have people like him. He has developed charisma and social skills that attract enthusiastic followers and behaves like a chameleon in diverse social circumstances, enabling whites, blacks and even Somalians to relate to him. His urge is to avoid conflict and be conciliatory in office, to maintain his approval ratings and be as well-liked by as many people as possible.

Which of these two is most likely to accomplish the changes we need to get out of the hole Bush has dug for us? I just don't think it is Obama.

Better the primary than the general. Need to know now. Who Obama is. Who Clinton is. Who can take it. Who can't.

I should have known where Drudge got this photo originally: the conservative blogosphere!
Check out: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-wore-m...

So rather than Hillary's camp pushing this story, Sweetness & Light was pushing it on SUNDAY as proof that Obama is a muslim. And, let's not ignore the fact that Free Republic was pushing this same photo on Saturday:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/197527...

Drudge once more gets an A for stirring up trouble.

Spokesperson denies involvement and Drudge has done this sort of thing before but those who take their clues from the likes of Drudge and Sullivan and their talking points from the RNC will never learn.

...On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson strongly denied any official campaign role in pushing the photo of Obama in a turban and Somali garb.....Asked if the campaign had any role, Wolfson said, "No, not to my knowledge...I've never seen that picture before. I'm not aware that anyone else here has. I'm not aware that anyone here has circulated this e-mail."...

This may actually work in Texas.

Remember: Texas voted for Dubya not twice, but FOUR FRIGGIN' TIMES.

Sure, it's desperate, but it's better than halfway shrewd in the Lone Star state.

Obama isn't wearing an American flag lapel pin in the picture, and from the shadows it appears that he is facing Mecca.

Bet no apologies will be issued by any Obama people.

This is a no win situation for Clinton. If she denies all involvement and they find some staffer with the picture, she will be called a liar. That's worse than being called a bad campaigner. But she'll be called something bad no matter what her campaign says or does.

I am bothered by Kevin's willingness to jump to conclusions about this. Since when does a denial have to meet his standards in order for someone to be innocent until proven guilty? My earlier statement -- they probably didn't do it but even if they did, it's no big deal -- was because I don't know who did this any more than Kevin or Obama's people do. When you don't know, it is wrong to assume the worst of someone, even if you hate them and want Obama to win an election.

AJ you're right, but the kerning on the shadows doesn't look right.

Why would anyone believe that Drudge's source isn't really a Republican?

Mike, the journalist Matt Drudge has an e-mail proving Clinton was behind it so Wolfson's denial is worthless. Read it:

"Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?" questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

Here are Teresa's links to Sweetness&light storyand the Freeper page with the National Enquirer story. People need to understand the means and methods of Republican smear campaigns. Blaming one campaign for an attack on another is Rove 101.

Wolfson finally announced about 3pm Eastern that the "official" Clinton campaign has nothing to do with this.

"Official."

Whatever THAT might mean.

Exact same post I made on fark:

Congratulations, we live in a diverse and rich world. No, this is not something that we can celebrate and learn about, but we have to demonize or make fun of.

I read in a crazy article, as well as heard from some crazy news cast, that in some parts of the world they don't ceremoniously wear Brioni suits and Rolex watches. Sometimes, just sometimes, they wear ceremonial ancestral garb from their history. Kudos to Barack Obama for just doing what every other politician does, from Bush to Clinton. This only makes me support the man even more, because the world is complex and diverse, and to have a candidate that is only tunnel-visioned in his/her lone state makes them a naive candidate for job requiring global understanding. This is the sort of thing that I will readily expect Republicans to bring up, only now we will see the backlash occur to fellow Democrats.

Did you really think that those who supported Barack Obama are going to be surprised that he will dress up in local garb on a ceremonial visit? The man was successfully raised without his father, but that's not enough. The man went to Columbia and Harvard, but that's not enough. The man worked in the community early on, earning his political "cred", but that's not enough. The man helped pass a common-sense law requiring video-taped confessions in Chicago, and got over the resistance and earned the respect of the other side, but that's not enough. The man made a common-sense assessment and keen future observation about our quagmire in Iraq, but that's not enough. The man helped pass a tough ethic reform bill, but that's not enough. The guy is handsome and appealing candidate, but that's not enough. The guy can speak like no other, but that's not enough. The man can rally thousands who were not interested, but that's not enough. The man helped modernize government scrutiny by allowing public donations to be accessible via the internet, but that's not enough. The man is redrawing the political map, and helping us to see ourselves as Americans, but that's not enough.

If you have to take something, take this: Barack Obama is the most modern political candidate in a long while. He is reflective of the new America than the threads here on Fark. Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Bush, etc, are remnants of old politico.

I'm so sick of Omaba crying over every attack. IT'S POLITICS! He can dish it out but he really doesnt like taking it, huh?
He can send out 1/2 truths about Clintons health insurance plan, but the slightest ruffle in his feathers, they all cry foul.
WELL GET USED TO IT! You think the GOP is going to play nice? This is kids play compared to what he'll get if he gets the nomination.
And since when do we believe Drudge about his sources.

Bitch is the New Black ...

End of story ...

I think:

This isn't going to help Clinton at all, but it helps weaken Obama a little as a candidate in the general by LEGITIMIZING this style of attack. GOP ops can say, "well, Hillary did it, so leading Democrats think its ok, so how can it be shady if we do it"

It will be right up there with the argument that "It is ok to call black college athletes 'nappy headed hos' because a black person once said that to another black person."

Clinton should know this. I am getting very suspicious that there is a Liebermanesque shift of "loyalties" here now that her handlers know she won't win the primary.

Looks like Hillary supporters are a bit confused on how to respond to this.

So far they've got:

1. This wasn't from the Hillary campaign, Obama probably conspired with Drudge to make Hillary look bad.

2. It was from some low-level staffer who sent it because Obama looked funny in it....It wasn't Muslim-bating though, and to suggest that it was is offensive...(because Hillary is so obviously above such things I guess?)

I'm reminded of those SNL sketches on Weekend Update, where Amy Poehler and Seth Myers sarcastically and repeatedly ask the question "Really?" to someone who tries to justify a regrettable action with an oh-so-obvious pathetic excuse or lie.

I'm so sick of Omaba crying over every attack.
But why aren't you sick of Hillary crying over every attack?

"Official."...Whatever THAT might mean.

It means that they can't speak for every person affiliated with a national campaign. Remember Obama denying the "Big Sister" youtube ad, then it turned out that someone affiliated with either the campaign or a staffer had done it on their own time?

While watching the State of the Black Union on C-SPAN Saturday, I thought Hillary's speech would have been the perfect time to concede the nomination to Barack.

Is it a cheap shot? Sure. Political campaigns are filled with them. And despite the Obama rah-rah culters here always with dreamy chants of "the old politics is dying," it always will be. Grow up.

I am constantly amazed at some Obama supporters and their whining reaction to stuff like this. You're RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. GET IT? YOU'RE UNDER A MICROSCOPE.
I view it the same way as the Michelle Obama "not proud" stuff. Don't want to get cheap shotted by political operatives? Don't say stupid shit or put on odd costumes. OK?

This is a no win situation for Clinton. If she denies all involvement and they find some staffer with the picture, she will be called a liar. That's worse than being called a bad campaigner. But she'll be called something bad no matter what her campaign says or does.

But shouldn't we know now how well HRC can respond to these kind of attacks? Better she be vetted now than in the GE, right?

From Sandy:

I'm so sick of Omaba crying over every attack. IT'S POLITICS! He can dish it out but he really doesnt like taking it, huh?
He can send out 1/2 truths about Clintons health insurance plan, but the slightest ruffle in his feathers, they all cry foul.
WELL GET USED TO IT! You think the GOP is going to play nice? This is kids play compared to what he'll get if he gets the nomination.
And since when do we believe Drudge about his sources.

Obama supporters are more than prepared for the smear attacks that will come from the right during the general election. What we didn't expect was Hillary and her supporters to oh-so-gleefully embrace the dirty tricks that we Democrats say we despise.

If Hillary was up against Kerry in 2004, I'm guessing you'd have no qualms getting on-board with the Swift-boaters as long as it was Hillary doing the Swift-boating to get the nomination. Because that's exactly what she's doing here.

"Don't say stupid shit or put on odd costumes. OK?"

Everybody here obviously stayed up too late last night and are clearly showing that they are overtired today.

Take a nap, or take a valium. You too Kevin. Lets wait till the blog foam subsides to see what is really underneath.

It is from Drudge remember.

Bitch is the New Black ...End of story ...
Oh yea, this will get you a long way. Please keep it repeating this, put it on a bumper stickers, write it on posters and take it to rallies. You'll be sure to win votes galore with that.

OK, Booring. If he's happy to wear the outfit, and have his picture taken in it, what's he crying about?

While Wehner of National Review's "The Corner" says that the pic is pretty nasty stuff: it says Obama is a Muslim and it should bother you".

I don't trust anything the National Review says. It's more likely that Wehner is saying, "terrible stuff, this Obama = Muslim stuff"... All the while knowing that, for their readers, the Muslim/Arab bogeyman is one of their best sellers.

Fuck the neo-con press.

Though it would not surprise me to find out that a Clinton staffer sent the picture, my first response to anything from Drudge is: Bullshit!

That said, Obama's response should be indifference. If he acts mad or offended it makes it seem like he is concerned about his appearance in the picture (symbolically or otherwise). He should spin this as a pride of culture and a respect for tradition...the kind of respect he'll show for America.

Pat, you're killing me, and I have to spell it out to you. This is to be expected from the Republican Party and their velcro-shoe base. In the Democratic Party, "the party of shoelaces", this is something that is almost a betrayal if the source was the Clinton campaign, because this can damage the party's appeal in November.

In addition to that, it is an obvious slime, and just because Obama made a response, really, any sort of response, you tag it as "crying". What else could he have done but respond?

Pat, Boooring is right. The question isn't whether he should have taken the picture -- the reason politicians do this (and should do it) is that it's good diplomacy and makes the United States look friendly. That's very different from someone's decision to circulate a picture of Obama in a turban during a presidential primary in which certain hacks have spread the false rumor that he's a Muslim (and Clinton surrogates like Bob Kerrey have exploited that misinformation for political purposes).

Not whining, here. But if the Clinton campaign did this, it's not the kind of campaigning Democrats should be doing.

Oh, I see. Sen. Obama was happy to take the picture, it's that mean old Hillary who is picking on him again by showing it. Democrats should be above it, right chums? These last two comments represent the exact type of tiresome "tsk tsk we're not playing the game" nonsense I hear from Obama people all the time. Sell it somewhere else, boys -- maybe some of those fresh faced high school kids I see giving out Obama lit at the Metro will buy that. Me? I know David Axelrod. So don't even waste your time.

*

I have been thinking about this picture all day. It seems to me that Obama's best move is to embrace it. As I understand the context, he was on an official trip. This was part of his work on behalf of the US. It is the kind of thing lots and lots of officials put up with. Clinton herself says she has been asked to wear local clothing to engender good will. As to the Red State bloggers, piss on them. This only becomes an issue if and when the Main Stream Media make a bigger deal about the clothing than it is. If they do, then come down hard on the moron who does. Until then a sage and knowing laugh is appropriate.

At least Obama wouldn't stoop to anything this low. For example, he wouldn't send out a 4 pager mailer in South Carolina showing how Clinton favors Hispanic voters over African-American voters, also insinuating closet racism. Gosh no Obama wouldn't do anything of the kind. Oh wait, he did.

The Clinton campaign is now trying to distance themselves from the photo with this from Hillary spokesperson Mo Elleithee:

“We have over 700 people on staff. I don’t know if someone on our staff sent it out or not," Elleithee said. “If someone on our staff makes the point that we are treated differently by the press than Sen. Obama, we agree with that sentiment. We don’t think there’s anything wrong with this photo. Sen. Clinton has herself, while traveling abroad, dressed in traditional, local dress. And there’s nothing divisive about that."

He also tried to push back at Obama: "We think it is wrong for the Obama campaign to say that this is divisive photo. It’s not a divisive photo."

This statement doesn't make sense though. It'd be one thing to claim that they have a big staff, and cannot definitively claim that no one on that staff sent it out, but then why keep defending the photo with statements like the ones in bold above?

Either you sent the photo and need to defend it, or you didn't and don't need to comment either way. It's pretty transparent to me that they were behind it, hence the need to continue to defend it.

Obama supporters are more than prepared for the smear attacks that will come from the right during the general election. What we didn't expect was Hillary and her supporters to oh-so-gleefully embrace the dirty tricks that we Democrats say we despise.

If Hillary was up against Kerry in 2004, I'm guessing you'd have no qualms getting on-board with the Swift-boaters as long as it was Hillary doing the Swift-boating to get the nomination. Because that's exactly what she's doing here.

No, the point is, there is no proof that this was from the Clinton team, unless you accept Drudge! But most importantly, the idea that this was some sort of slam against him came from the Obama team not anyone else. Why is the photo offensive or demeaning? What's wrong with it? The Obama camp infused the photo with a negative/smear tactic.

Two things... First, ever since WI, the Clinton campaign has been parroting, and in some cases, inspiring GOP talking points against Obama. That's just icky.

Second, "Shame on You", is the lamest attack slogan ever. Ineffective, unimaginative, and stupid.

Oh, I see. Sen. Obama was happy to take the picture, it's that mean old Hillary who is picking on him again by showing it. Democrats should be above it, right chums? These last two comments represent the exact type of tiresome "tsk tsk we're not playing the game" nonsense I hear from Obama people all the time. Sell it somewhere else, boys -- maybe some of those fresh faced high school kids I see giving out Obama lit at the Metro will buy that. Me? I know David Axelrod. So don't even waste your time.

But...you asked...the...question...

Corpus Juris is right about the response. All Obama has to do is put it in context.

mhr, that little rhetorical question could have come straight from the Hillary campaign (and maybe it did!). As far as I know, the Obama campaign hasn't disavowed the picture. The problem isn't the picture, it's the use of it.

But really, I don't think it's that big a deal. The more airtime the whole "Obama's a Muslim" theme gets in the form of petty stupid attacks from low-level campaign staffers, the more the issue gets discredited and the media gets fatigued with it.

It'd be one thing to claim that they have a big staff, and cannot definitively claim that no one on that staff sent it out, but then why keep defending the photo with statements like the ones in bold above?

It could be:
1) They are very clumsily trying to say that the picture says nothing negative about Obama, and should be ignored entirely, or
2) They are desperately trying to attack the Obama campaign for something (by suggesting that their reaction to the picture is wrong) while distancing themselves from the act of releasing the picture.

It was denied. Update the story.

So don't even waste your time.

Bwahaha. Don't try to tell Pat anything about politics. He has heard it all.

It's as if somebody on her campaign is working for the other side.
Posted by: ferd on February 25, 2008
---------

Yeah, the Goldwater Girl!

But ... your ... answer ... is ... nonsense.

Look, its pretty simple. Either the Senator was happy to wear the outfit and shouldn't be complaining now that there is a picture of it. Or he doesn't want pictures of it, shouldn't have worn it, and has no one to blame for himself that he did. Your answer: IT'S HILLARY'S FAULT! How dare she try to WIN the election. BOO-HOO! She's so mean.

Christ, have you ever seen a bigger bunch of sissies than these Obama people? Someone should get you guys a tissue so you can sit down and have a good cry.

True. Just not from you, Lucy. How's the deprogramming going, BTW?

Isn't it a long and honorable tradition for American politicians to go overseas and look silly in native garb? What's all the fuss? If his name was Barack O'Reilly Obama, nobody would give a shit.

But it's always great the way the wingers get double mileage out of these things.

1. Look! He's a Scary Brown Man!
2. Look! Hillary is evil for showing us that he's a Scary Brown Man!

MUST READ. Compelling analysis of democratic contenders in Texas.

http://blog.psaonline.org/2008/02/25/the-clinton-obama-exchange-you-might-have-missed/

Look, its pretty simple. Either the Senator was happy to wear the outfit and shouldn't be complaining now that there is a picture of it. Or he doesn't want pictures of it, shouldn't have worn it, and has no one to blame for himself that he did. Your answer: IT'S HILLARY'S FAULT! How dare she try to WIN the election. BOO-HOO! She's so mean.

Christ, have you ever seen a bigger bunch of sissies than these Obama people? Someone should get you guys a tissue so you can sit down and have a good cry.

Amen! It really is amazing ...

Pat, sit down, take a deep breath, and let me explain this again.

Nobody's saying there's anything wrong with the picture. It's a fine picture. It depicts Senator Obama doing something perfectly appropriate and statesmanlike.

The problem is that many people might misunderstand the picture, seeing it out of context. See, in politics, there's this thing called misinformation. Some of the misinformation being circulated about Obama right now is that he's a Muslim. People who have heard that, and don't know better, might see this photo and take it as "photographic evidence" that he's a Muslim. Because some people really are that stupid, and still are allowed to vote. That's what makes it dirty for a Democrat to circulate this photo during the primary -- because you shouldn't win the Democratic primary on the basis of falsehoods that pander to people's prejudices. The Republican primary, yes, fine, but not the Democratic primary.

But really, it's not going to help HRC. It just makes her look bad. So I, for one, am not complaining.

Maybe next they'll circulate a photo of him dressed up as President for Halloween when he was in kindergarten.

Look, its pretty simple. Either the Senator was happy to wear the outfit and shouldn't be complaining now that there is a picture of it. Or he doesn't want pictures of it, shouldn't have worn it, and has no one to blame for himself that he did. Your answer: IT'S HILLARY'S FAULT! How dare she try to WIN the election. BOO-HOO! She's so mean.

Ummm, no, it's not quite that. It seems there is a miscommunication going on here, and you assume that a response, or any sort of response, is tantamount to "crying". When you support a candidate like Barack Obama, it's expected that you will get these smears. But it's also expected that you respond to these smears when they come out. Responding != crying.

It's called politics. Which you know. Because you know Axelrod. But I'm wasting my time.

. . . and by the way, if it turns out it wasn't the Hillary campaign that circulated the picture, then great. I would like to think it wasn't, because I generally like her and am sorry to see how badly her campaign seems to be operating.

"many people might misunderstand the picture, seeing it out of context." "really are that stupid and still are allowed to vote"

Hilarious. You keep explaining there, Fabulous. It's clearly what you're good at.

Oh, Pat, you big meanie, I've never tried to tell you anything about politics. I have responded to your inane jabs at Obama by pointing you to the record, which, if your comments are any indication, you never bothered to read.

The reason the Obama campaign is unhappy with the photo is because of this sort of thing. But you knew that, didn't you, so you're just being a bitch.

Pat,

Did you not understand it?

Can't spell Booring without "Boo." As in "Boo-Hoo."

I don't believe for a minute that this comes from the Clinton camp. I got the same message forwarded to me from a devout Republican. This is so nasty it reeks of Repub-thugism, this astroturf stuff that works on their dinosaur brains.

Lucy's in L-O-V-E!

Can't spell Booring without "Boo." As in "Boo-Hoo."

Thank you, you proved my suspicions correct.

JMe,

Yeah, I have the same doubts. I'm sure there are people who vote in Democratic primaries who would be influenced by something like this, but I have to think most such people vote Republican.

Me? I know David Axelrod.

Oh. My.

The. Worst. Namedropping. Ever!

The problem is that many people might misunderstand the picture, seeing it out of context.

The real problem is the source. Drudge posted that photo to smear a democrat. That fact is irrefutable. Arguments about whether the photo will or should have a negative effect are meaningless. The photo was intended to make Obama and Clinton look bad.

Clinton's camp should be able to argue against innuendo pointed at democrats from dubious sources. The fact that they were unable to, and want to turn it into larger argument about how Obama is soft, is lame.

Yes, Fabulous. I understood you to say that in your view some Americans are too stupid to vote.

Well, sorry if it seemed like namedropping. The fact is I have been exposed up close and personal to David Axelrod on a campaign. And I didn't mention it to sound important (I'm not). I only mentioned it because I think it's the biggest joke of all. He's the consumate political operator and spinner. He packaged Rod Blagojevich. Now he's packaging and selling Barrack Obama. He's been planning it for years. Which is fine. That's politics. I just think its hilarious to see people like our earnest little Lucy falling for the eyewash hook, line and sinker. And even better, scold everyone else who haven't. I just can't wait to see when it all dawns on them.

The problem is that many people might misunderstand the picture, seeing it out of context. See, in politics, there's this thing called misinformation.

Yeah, just like the misinformation the Obama camp has been mailing out about the Clinton's Health Care Plan. But he doesn't seem to be falling over himself to correct his misinformation, is he?

Pat,

Um, no. Nope. Not what I said. "Stupid" probably was the wrong word to use, since it gave you the opening to distort what I said. Since your eagerness to do that apparently distracted you from the task of understanding it first, I'll change the wording. Try to pay attention.

The folks I mean are the ones political strategists are calling "low-information voters" these days. You know the people who still believe Saddam was behind 9-11? Folks like that are the ones I mean. They might be smart about other things, but for one reason or another they are making their political judgments on the basis of things that could be proven false with a minimum of effort.

So, to return to my point, which you still haven't addressed: the problem here isn't the content of the picture, it's the fact that the only reason to circulate that picture (especially to Drudge) is to put misinformation into the minds of low-information voters who are afraid of Muslims (and/or brown people). If the Clinton campaign's doing that, it's nothing to be proud of.

Distort you? What part of your exact words, "Because some people really are that stupid, and still are allowed to vote." did I distort? Keep digging, chum. You really don't sound like a liberal elitist. Not at all.

Pat,

I thought we were talking about the picture. Do you have a substantive response? Or are you accusing me of "liberal elitism" to distract from the fact that you don't?

Apparently the latter.

Tangerine,

I haven't seen those mailers, so I can't respond. Neither candidate should be spreading falsehoods about the other. On the other hand, talking about the effect a policy will have, even if your statements are wrong or unfair, is quite different from aiding and abetting a Republican misinformation machine that smears a Democratic candidate as a crypto-Islamist educated in a Wahabi madrassa.

Fabulous: I'd change the subject too if I were you.

By the way, what mechanism will you be using to let people in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island know if you consider them smart enough to vote in the upcoming primaries?

I see the idiots around here, including Kevin, just couldn't wait a few hours to see what the Clinton campaign had to say about the matter after they might have had time to figure out what really happened.

In fact, they have now denied having any knowledge of anyone on their staff pushing the photo. I guess that isn't good enough, of course, because they didn't deny it in the first few moments after they had had it brought to their attention. Of course, for anybody with a brain -- rare beasts around here, though -- some delay might be exactly what you'd expect if the issue hit them out of the blue, and they had to do some investigation to figure out what happened. If they had had an immediate response, wouldn't that be more suggestive of the possibility that they had known about it beforehand?

But by all means, idiots and children, hyperventilate away.

Yeah, I love the "reality-base" I'm seeing here, even in Kevin. I feel so at home.

The Fabulous Mr Toad: I guess it all depends on the context.

Suppose that a decision has been taken at the highest levels of the Clinton campaign, including the candidate herself, to "take the gloves off" and use all means necessary to win, including any and all forms of gratuitous smear attack.

Suppose that orders go down to Clinton staffers, please pass this photo to all media outlets, making the case that Senator Obama is a closet Muslim.

This would be reprehensible. Everyone agreed? Good.

Suppose field operative X, currently working in Ohio, scanning the political blogs, comes across a picture of Senator Obama on a RW blog site on Sunday, and eMails a friend or friends musing "imagine what they'd do to HRC if she got dressed like this." Said friend eMails others, one eMail makes its way to Drudge, and voila. Here we are.

Less reprehensible? I'd assert this.

But at the moment, fairly or not, the Clinton campaign has fewer defenders on the LW blog sites than people (IMV) ready to assume the worst. So off we go.

The Clinton campaign's response is consistent with scenario A, but also with scenario B. Not many political campaigns, in the first six hours after learning something ambiguous, are willing to come forward with an unequivocal statement of self-repudiation, particularly when they don't know the facts of the case.

Oh, and BTW, "progressive" idiots on the blog:

Kinda funny how you're all dancing to Drudge's tune these days, isn't it?

There was a time when Democrats had some real scepticism of the accuracy of Drudge's "reports".

You must be real proud of yourselves that you bought into the whole thing, down to every possible slimy implication and innuendo in the piece.

Pat,

I didn't change the subject; I explained what I meant, and then returned to the original subject. About which you STILL have nothing to say. That's fine. I'm going to stop responding now. Have a good evening.

Andrew,

I actually agree with everything in your comment. Thanks, that was refreshing!

Cheers,

Toad

Let me just spend a little moment demonstrating what a tool Kevin is.

Let's take this comment from the end of his post:

I still want to know a few more details: namely who sent out the photo (low level staffer? senior press person?) and who received it (a couple of close friends? a large private email list?). But either way, this was spectacularly ill conceived.

But what does Kevin in his toolness still bring himself to say? "But either way, it was spectacularly ill conceived." I mean, a low level staffer sends it to a couple of close friends and it's "spectacularly ill conceived"? Could you possibly get more smear per supporting fact than this?

Jesus F Christ.

Toad: Hurrah! Two people of the same mind. 4,999,999 blog-reading progressives to go...

Meeting with the ex-Weathermen/woman could actually be some trouble, but now pics of GWB et al in silly costumes are all over for comparison to the threadline.

Maybe it was planted to look like Hillary did it per Kevin's final trope, but I don't think Obama would do that - the Repugs might.

Gee, Pat, I guess "Dreams From My Father" was written by David Axelrod, who invented that stuff about Obama helping out the poor in Chicago with their asbestos problems. Light bulb, Obama taught constitutional law at the U of Chicago as part of David Axelrod's master plan to conquer America! Clearly a cynical move on Obama's part to get a bill passed in Illinois that requires homicide interrogations to be videotaped--that's the ticket to the White House! Everybody knows that Hillarycare is the one true church when it comes to universal, so you got me there. Whatever would I do without you, Pat, the expert, to help me understand that Obama is a pol.

Hey maybe you have some insight into Hillary's Solution for salvaging her campaign!

For me much more curious is that such an innocuous photo could be seen as politically risky in the U.S. Were it say a Japanese or a Swedish or a Korean politician dressed so I can't see it eliciting much more than a "Oh... what?...Oh where?...Oh that's nice" from their electorates.

I kinda doubt Hillary's campaign has anything to do with this though... So I guess I'm with hyperventilating Pat though perhaps with less spittle.

Wow! Good to know that we can believe all that comes out of Drudge.

Notice he said he "obtained" an email, and not "received" an email from the Clinton camp. When I get an email, I receive one. I obtain one through other means, meaning that it was not forwarded directly to him.

I smell ratfuc*ery.

Clinton camp denied it. TPM will probably take another day or two to update their hyperventilating story.

10 points to the house of Drudge.

Oh, and how could I skip over Kevin's remark,

So apparently they not only sent the picture around, but then issued a statement slamming Obama for complaining about it. Points for chutzpah, I guess, but not much else.

Clinton's people have denied it. How long will it take Kevin to post an Update to his original post. People here in the comments don't seem to be getting the message -- the Clinton's didn't do it. Drudge did it, grabbing a photo circulating widely already on conservative websites. Obama supporters owe a big fat apology to Clinton and to the various Clinton supporters here today. Step up guys.

The hat needs something.

Yep. Yeah it does. The "Kenyan kilt thing" or whatever it is has got some kind of pattern. The hat needs a matching pattern or a contrast or something.

Soriah,

Since this Obama supporter is on record above in this thread as doubting whehter the photo came from Hillary, I'll leave the apologizing to others. But I don't think they should apologize just because the Clinton campaign issued a denial.

BTW, I believe snicker-snack is another Obama supporter who doubts the source. (Don't mean to misrepresent your allegiances, snicker, so feel free to correct if I'm wrong.)

See, some of us are trying to stay reality-based around here.

Now there is a picture of Obama wearing a cowboy hat at Talking Points Memo. Is he secretly a Texan?

Obama supporters owe a big fat apology to Clinton and to the various Clinton supporters here today. Step up guys.

Hmm... do you mean all Obama supporters or some Obama supporters or Obama supporters in the aggregate or...? And what about Clinton supporters who thought the Clinton camp may have passed on this photo... Do they also get to receive the apology/ies or what?

fab, I do not deny your allegation of allegiance but would like to go on record as wanting to retain right to create my own reality.

For me much more curious is that such an innocuous photo could be seen as politically risky in the U.S.

I agree. One would think that. We should be talking about substantive issues.

But these kind of dirty tricks (no matter who starts it/them) can be very effective.

A little anecdote -- my brother-in-law forwarded me the "Obama is a secret Muslim" email a few weeks ago asking me if it was true. After I picked my jaw up off my lap, I replied back "you are kidding me, right?" and I got a very serious email back asking again if it was true. My brother-in-law has a MBA and a PhD in psychology. He is no dummy, nor is he a real partisan. But because the email had been forwarded to him by someone he knew and obviously trusted on some level…

So even the most ridiculous of smears...

Who cares what outfit he's wearing? Where's his flag pin?