Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 25, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

DRESSING OBAMA....I feel like Rip Van Winkle. Somehow I only just now noticed that the Freak Show news cycle has been dominated for the entire morning by a Drudge story claiming that Hillary Clinton's campaign has been circulating a picture of Barack Obama dressed in the traditional garb of a Somali elder. It was taken in 2006 during a visit to Kenya.

Drudge's piece is ambiguous — who distributed the picture? who did it go to? — but the Clinton campaign, given a chance to deny the charge, rather loudly declined to do so. 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.

Peter Wehner probably has the right take:

[This] is pretty nasty stuff, with its "he's a Muslim and it should bother you" undertone....Twenty-four hours from now I suspect we'll see virtually the entire Democratic establishment, and many others, condemning this tactic. It'll advance the storyline that the Clinton campaign is spinning out of control — lurching from melancholy valedictory comments one day to faux outrage the next — and in its dying days.

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

Other than that, it was a swell idea.

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.

Kevin Drum 2:34 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (174)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

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

Posted by: ferd on February 25, 2008 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: bobbywally on February 25, 2008 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on February 25, 2008 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: DougMN on February 25, 2008 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: Swift Loris on February 25, 2008 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Swan on February 25, 2008 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: sam on February 25, 2008 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks, Hillary!

Posted by: GOP on February 25, 2008 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: brian beckmann on February 25, 2008 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Swan on February 25, 2008 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Better now than later?

Bring back Mittens!!!

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on February 25, 2008 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: fairandbalanced on February 25, 2008 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Dear Hillary,

Please, shut the fuck up and go away.

Thanks,
cleek

Posted by: cleek on February 25, 2008 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: X on February 25, 2008 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on February 25, 2008 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

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...


Posted by: mattski on February 25, 2008 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

"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.

Posted by: Tom in Texas on February 25, 2008 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Swan,
The movie is called Election

Posted by: bjd on February 25, 2008 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

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/

Posted by: MsComment on February 25, 2008 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

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.)

Posted by: christinep on February 25, 2008 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

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!

Posted by: tom.a on February 25, 2008 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Lucy on February 25, 2008 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

Since when do we believe Drudge's sources?

Posted by: Tangerine on February 25, 2008 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: justmy2 on February 25, 2008 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

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*

Posted by: Al on February 25, 2008 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Joe on February 25, 2008 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Soriah on February 25, 2008 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

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...

Posted by: justmy2 on February 25, 2008 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: MsCommnet on February 25, 2008 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

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.)

Posted by: christinep on February 25, 2008 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: bjd on February 25, 2008 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Swan on February 25, 2008 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

The hat needs something.

Posted by: Joshua Norton on February 25, 2008 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Jonesy on February 25, 2008 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Our President?

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

Posted by: cajun on February 25, 2008 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Soriah on February 25, 2008 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Sue on February 25, 2008 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: MsComments on February 25, 2008 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Boronx on February 25, 2008 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

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


Posted by: Joshua Norton on February 25, 2008 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: alex on February 25, 2008 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: bjd on February 25, 2008 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Soriah on February 25, 2008 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: razor on February 25, 2008 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Teresa on February 25, 2008 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

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."...

Posted by: Mike on February 25, 2008 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: BombIranForChrist on February 25, 2008 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: AJ on February 25, 2008 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Soriah on February 25, 2008 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: Boronx on February 25, 2008 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Al on February 25, 2008 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Mike on February 25, 2008 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

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

"Official."

Whatever THAT might mean.

Posted by: MNPundit on February 25, 2008 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Boorring on February 25, 2008 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Sandy on February 25, 2008 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Bitch is the New Black ...

End of story ...

Posted by: Tang on February 25, 2008 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: mirror on February 25, 2008 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Joe on February 25, 2008 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: bjd on February 25, 2008 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

"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?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State on February 25, 2008 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Brojo on February 25, 2008 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: Pat on February 25, 2008 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: td on February 25, 2008 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Joe on February 25, 2008 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK
"Don't say stupid shit or put on odd costumes. OK?"
Pat, that was the dumbest statement you made. There are a host of pictures of Clinton, Bush, etc, wearing local garb during their visits, so you're advice is not even close to practical. Posted by: Boorring on February 25, 2008 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: optical weenie on February 25, 2008 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: bjd on February 25, 2008 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: Pat on February 25, 2008 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: luci on February 25, 2008 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Bush Lover on February 25, 2008 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: Boorring on February 25, 2008 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on February 25, 2008 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Pat on February 25, 2008 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

*

Posted by: mhr on February 25, 2008 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: corpus juris on February 25, 2008 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Radix on February 25, 2008 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Joe on February 25, 2008 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Sandy on February 25, 2008 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: enozinho on February 25, 2008 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK
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...

Posted by: Boorring on February 25, 2008 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on February 25, 2008 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK
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.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 25, 2008 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

It was denied. Update the story.

Posted by: DET_B on February 25, 2008 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

So don't even waste your time.

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

Posted by: Lucy on February 25, 2008 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

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!

Posted by: MarkH on February 25, 2008 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Pat on February 25, 2008 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: Pat on February 25, 2008 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: thersites on February 25, 2008 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

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!

Posted by: thersites on February 25, 2008 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

MUST READ. Compelling analysis of democratic contenders in Texas.

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

Posted by: JHA on February 25, 2008 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

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 ...

Posted by: Tangerine on February 25, 2008 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on February 25, 2008 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK
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.

Posted by: Boorring on February 25, 2008 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

. . . 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.

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on February 25, 2008 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

"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.

Posted by: Pat on February 25, 2008 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Lucy on February 25, 2008 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

Pat,

Did you not understand it?

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on February 25, 2008 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: Pat on February 25, 2008 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: JMe on February 25, 2008 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: Pat on February 25, 2008 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK
Can't spell Booring without "Boo." As in "Boo-Hoo."

Thank you, you proved my suspicions correct.

Posted by: Boorring on February 25, 2008 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on February 25, 2008 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

Me? I know David Axelrod.

Oh. My.

The. Worst. Namedropping. Ever!

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on February 25, 2008 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: enozinho on February 25, 2008 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: Pat on February 25, 2008 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Pat on February 25, 2008 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: Tangerine on February 25, 2008 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on February 25, 2008 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Pat on February 25, 2008 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on February 25, 2008 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: Pat on February 25, 2008 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: frankly0 on February 25, 2008 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Andrew on February 25, 2008 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: frankly0 on February 25, 2008 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on February 25, 2008 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Andrew,

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

Cheers,

Toad

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on February 25, 2008 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

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.
OK, so what Kevin is granting is that it is consistent with his understanding of the Drudge post (which of course he seems to accept as being true -- ask Kevin why) that what was really going on might have been something as innocuous as a low level staffer emailing this photo to a couple of close friends.

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.

Posted by: frankly0 on February 25, 2008 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: Andrew on February 25, 2008 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Neil B. on February 25, 2008 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Neil B. on February 25, 2008 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

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!

Posted by: Lucy on February 25, 2008 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: snicker-snack on February 25, 2008 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: was on February 25, 2008 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

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

10 points to the house of Drudge.

Posted by: B on February 25, 2008 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

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.
Displaying, of course, the levelheadedness and care in drawing inferences for which he is justly renowned in the blogosphere.

Posted by: frankly0 on February 25, 2008 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Soriah on February 25, 2008 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on February 25, 2008 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on February 25, 2008 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: AJ on February 25, 2008 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: snicker-snack on February 25, 2008 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

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...

Posted by: JAC on February 25, 2008 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: fyreflye on February 25, 2008 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

From Sandy:

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.

Ok, seriously, are you really going to play this dumb on the photo and why it's a dirty trick? Obama has been the subject of a whisper campaign portraying him as a Muslim in disguise for months now. Check out snopes, or this from Crooks and Liars.

Now, given that atmosphere, do you see now why a photo showing him in African garb looking like "one of them" might be frowned upon by Obama and his supporters? It's blatantly obvious what it was intended to do, and for the Clinton people to shrug their shoulders innocently saying "I don't see anything wrong with the photo" is utter bullshit.

Now having said all that. I think it actually helps Obama. First it shows the Hillary campaign's true colors, and will most likely backfire on her. Second, by releasing it now, it prevents the Republicans from using the photo in the general election.

Posted by: Joe on February 25, 2008 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

I find the clinton campaign distasteful too. but is there any evidence b/y drudge-slime that the campaign or anyone affiliated with it is somehow involved?

or put another way: is there any truth to the drudge post? has there been any independent verification?

not that I know of.

and this frankly chaps my ass. jumping to conclusions w/o verifying the underlying facts is a hallmark of the right and the MSM. it's embarrassing when the left joins the lemming brigade.

whether something is true or not is never incidental to the discussion. it is where the conversation starts.

if this turns out to be linked to the clinton campaign the landscape changes. but until that happens most of you look like a bunch of jackasses.

Posted by: mencken on February 25, 2008 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK

mencken, look at the way the Clinton campaign "denied" be involved in this...

First they come out swinging:

Enough.
If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.
This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.
We will not be distracted.

No denial. They even defend the photo and play innocent, apparently not understanding what all the fuss is about.

Then they put out a second statement:

“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."

Again, no denial. Instead we get a suggested explanation for why someone on the Clinton staff would circulate the photo and yet more defense of the photo.

These are supposed to be pretty politically savvy folks and they have to be aware of the right's whisper campaign. Are you really telling me, that they fail to see how anyone could possibly make the connection of a photo of Obama in African garb to those whispers about him being a Muslim.

And common sense would say that if your campaign didn't have anything to do with the photo, you'd say so and be done with it. But why defend it, why play dumb?

They are in effect saying: "We don't think the photo came from our campaign, but we don't see what's so bad about it. The possibility that people could link this photo to those whispers about Obama never occurred to us. And shame on Obama for attributing nefarious motives to those that circulated this perfectly innocent photo".

That's not the response of a campaign that had nothing to do with it.

Posted by: Joe on February 25, 2008 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

whatever

Is there html coding for valley girl speak?

Posted by: asdf on February 25, 2008 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINK

Joe,

Your argument would have been a lot more convincing to the gullible around here before the explicit denial by the Clinton campaign as to their involvement (at least so far as they have been able to determine - there are those 700 staff, not all of whom may even be candid about what they may have done, I'd guess, since it could be a firing offense).

I'm quite sure you could have gotten a lot of mileage out of it before that denial. I'm sure Kevin would have given you a very manly embrace at the time.

But now even these impaired creatures can spot you as a complete tool.

I suggest you stop digging.

Posted by: frankly0 on February 25, 2008 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe I'm being excessively byzantine, but this seems more likely to have been instigated by Rep minions. They can test the waters to see what sticks with little risk of blowback, while helping to feed another Obama-Clinton food fight, ensuring it gets plenty of coverage.

Posted by: has407 on February 25, 2008 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

...now even these impaired creatures...

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion

-Rabbie Burns 'To a Louse'

Posted by: snicker-snack on February 25, 2008 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

The photo probably will backfire horribly on Clinton, but I don't see that it is such a big deal. I even have sympathy for Hillary with all the hideous photographs that are circulated about her. But the pro-Obama press will exaggerate the Obama objection to the photograph.

I thought Hillary was pretty good mocking him about the skies opening up. But Obama has it down in terms of trying to deflect criticism of him to be criticism of his voters. I just saw Juan Williams totally buy into the funny mocking of Obama being belittling of his voters.

Posted by: brian on February 25, 2008 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, snicker-snack, I don't have a lot of respect for so-called progressives who suddenly, when it's very convenient, find Drudge immensely credible, after years of expressing outrage over his distortions and lies.

On any basic level, how are they from the freepers who also find Drudge immensely credible on every convenient point -- but who simply happen to find it convenient more often?

If you do have respect for these "progressives", that would definitely be your problem. Maybe you could figure out a way to explain yourself?

Posted by: frankly0 on February 25, 2008 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin used to write intelligent blog posts. The level of hackery and knee-jerk reactionism he has fallen to is sad.

Posted by: Ogre Mage on February 25, 2008 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

From Frankly0:

Joe, Your argument would have been a lot more convincing to the gullible around here before the explicit denial by the Clinton campaign as to their involvement (at least so far as they have been able to determine - there are those 700 staff, not all of whom may even be candid about what they may have done, I'd guess, since it could be a firing offense). I'm quite sure you could have gotten a lot of mileage out of it before that denial. I'm sure Kevin would have given you a very manly embrace at the time. But now even these impaired creatures can spot you as a complete tool. I suggest you stop digging.

You're still around here? I thought you'd be busy coming up with the twisted logic you've continuously used to explain why the states Barack won don't count....something along the lines of "If he can't win old White Women, he'll have a tough time claiming to be the real nominee..."

But back to the discussion....so you're saying that their earlier non-denial denials in which they defended the photo should be ignored because now they've really truly denied it? That doesn't make any sense, but neither does most of the stuff you spew.

If they had nothing to do with it, they should have said so, or simply said no comment. Instead they tried to portray the photo as innocent, and said Obama should be ashamed to think anything else, when it's obvious to everyone that it was circulated with the message "Obama's a Muslim".

Posted by: Joe on February 25, 2008 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK

frankly0, you won't find me defending Drudge as a source - ever... just IMHO, a great many souls have been caught up in the heat of this campaign and could gain from some perspective and that this is certainly not just true of supporters of Mr. Obama. There is a lot of distruct among the more passionate and involved supporters on both sides... And that no, this doesn't remind me of freepers one tiny whit... And that you have a different opinion doesn't make you impaired.

Posted by: snicker-snack on February 25, 2008 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

Uh oh. Time to hide the kitchen knives if you live in a "blended" household.

Clintonite Stabs Obama Supporter

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0225081ortiz1.html

Posted by: JAC on February 25, 2008 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

Reality check for everyone:

Today Kevin posts items on Pakistan, Kristol's take on Obama, how the press has ignored the candidate's foreign policy positions, and any number of other substantive pieces, and the two posts with the highest number of comments are:

1) Obama dressed up funny (most comments by a mile) and

2) The Oscars.

I thought this was a higher quality crowd.

;-)

Really, the Obama picture, no one knows where it came from, Drudge is not reliable, and this sort of low tripe should be resolutely ignored. As long as you all are paying attention, you'll get more of it.

And yet here I am ratcheting up the comment count one more notch. Sigh.

Posted by: J. Myers on February 26, 2008 at 12:00 AM | PERMALINK

I'll believe it's not Karl Rove doing a little freaky freelancing only when a Clinton or Obama staffer is hung out to dry.

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on February 26, 2008 at 12:49 AM | PERMALINK

At this point The Bard has it about right:

"It is a tale told by an idot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
-MacBeth

Posted by: Keith G on February 26, 2008 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINK

yeah that was hmmm

Posted by: bad credit credit cards on February 26, 2008 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

whether something is true or not is never incidental to the discussion

This whole thread was worth reading just for that line. Thanks, mencken.

A whole bunch of people on here would do well to let that soak in a bit, methinks.

Posted by: Trickster on February 26, 2008 at 2:01 AM | PERMALINK

If the Clinton campaign had nothing to do with this, why not simply denounce it? It's a blatant attempt to play up the Muslim smear, but instead they are feigning ignorance, while also alleging that if Clinton took such a photo (nevermind that she has - repeatedly), it would be front page news. They've attempted to twist this into a story about media bias in favor of Obama -- which is the precise talking point of the person who released it to Drudge! This is not a coincidence. This latest smear is part of an extensive, disturbing pattern, beginning with the Muslim and madrassa smears spread by Clinton staffers and Bob Kerrey in December, when Obama became a serious threat.

This smear may not have come from the top. They rarely do. But the connection is obvious.

Posted by: vosh on February 26, 2008 at 3:58 AM | PERMALINK

I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm not outraged that the Clinton campaign, if it is true, found this and distributed it.

Oh sure.. maybe it says something about their priorities, but still someone would've found it at some point. He looks silly but I don't see it as a big deal.

Posted by: PE on February 26, 2008 at 5:38 AM | PERMALINK

brian: "The photo probably will backfire horribly on Clinton, but I don't see that it is such a big deal."

The photo came from Drudge, not Clinton. And who asked you, anyway?

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on February 26, 2008 at 5:58 AM | PERMALINK

Joe: "Instead they tried to portray the photo as innocent, and said Obama should be ashamed to think anything else ..."

Did you and the other Obamabimbos here ever think to first ask yourselves why Sen. Obama would have dressed up like that, and then have his picture taken, if what he was doing wasn't an innocent photo-op?

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on February 26, 2008 at 6:12 AM | PERMALINK

You're twisting Joe's words. The photo is innocent, but the intent in spreading it is clearly not. Yet the Clinton campaign is pretending it is, and effectively endorsing this smear. The mere fact that she won't denounce this tactic and agree to fire anyone in her campaign who was behind it speaks volumes. Volumes.

Posted by: vosh on February 26, 2008 at 7:19 AM | PERMALINK

O wad some Power the giftie gie us...

Goode one, snicker-snack!

Posted by: Lucy on February 26, 2008 at 7:44 AM | PERMALINK

Donald, I expected more from you than that. Why the stupid name calling?

Posted by: GOD on February 26, 2008 at 9:21 AM | PERMALINK

thanks Luce...

The photo came from Drudge, not Clinton. And who asked you, anyway?

As I said, I think you're probably right but let me throw this out anyway... here's a story from the IHT from back in October that claims to outline a growing connection betweenthe Clinton camp and Drudge. Perhaps useful background.

Posted by: snicker-snack on February 26, 2008 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

It's funny, but when I saw this picture on some other site (not the original Drudge pic), my first thought was "why is Barack Obama wearing a dress?" I didn't see turbans or Africans or think Muslim--I thought "effeminate." I wonder if that's the real impact of the photo. Goes with Josh's Bitch slap theory of politics. Hillary Clinton may finally be coming around to owning the "bitch" label that's been slapped on her, so now she's got to do the slapping. And painting her opponent as more effeminate than her is the way she's doing it. Frankly, I agree with Tina Fey. Bitches get stuff done.

Posted by: ally's gift on February 26, 2008 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

Donald from Hawaii: Did you and the other Obamabimbos here ever think to first ask yourselves why Sen. Obama would have dressed up like that, and then have his picture taken, if what he was doing wasn't an innocent photo-op?

Yeah, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The photo is innocent, however the circulation of it knowing that there is this "Obama is a Muslim" smear campaign out there is not.

And just in case everyone didn't get the point, Clinton surrogate Stephanie Tubbs-Jones plays innocent on MSNBC, and says Obama shouldn't be ashamed to wear the "native clothing of his country"....

Posted by: Joe on February 26, 2008 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

....But either way, this was spectacularly ill conceived.
It is spectactularly lame for republican-lite Obama supporters to swallow all the propaganda the American media feeds you.
Obama lies about Clinton on health care, Nafta and other issues and 'bamabunnies whine and blame Clinton for a Drudge photo. Obama supporters act like typical smear&lie Republicans. As expected, Bob Somerby gets it.

...as any advanced fifth grader could see, Drudge didn’t say that “Clinton staffers” had sent the photo in question to him; he simply said that unnamed Clinton staffers had “circulated” the photo (where, he didn’t say), and he quoted an accompanying e-mail message—without saying who the e-mail had gone to. Do you mind if we draw two simple conclusions—conclusions so simple a child could reach them? First: In all likelihood, no Clinton staffer sent the photo to Drudge, or the brilliant fellow would have said that they had. Second: For all anyone knows, some Clinton staffer sent the photo to a friend in Obama’s campaign, and the photo and e-mail proceeded from there. Is that what happened? We have no idea. But then, no one but Drudge has the slightest idea what facts (if any) lay behind his report—which didn’t keep a pair of moo-cows from mooing the Drudge story forward.
It would be hard to find words low enough to capture the work of these two cheerful bovines. Even as of this morning, Drum still hadn’t updated his post to include Howard Wolfson’s conference call, in which (quoting Greg Sargent at TPM ), Wolfson “strongly denied any official campaign role in pushing the photo of Obama.” Having mooed his affirmation of Drudge, Moo-cow Kevin withdrew from the scene, failing to comment on Wolfson’s statement. And if anything, Moo-cow Marshall played things even ....Marshall rushed into print with a premature judgment (the Clinton camp surely did it!), then back-pedaled in a rambling, barely-coherent “update” (same link)—a non-clarification clarification of a type he has come to master. Incredibly, Marshall eventually linked to Sargent’s story—while pretending that Wolfson’s statement didn’t go beyond what had already been said....

Posted by: Mike on February 26, 2008 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

Wait a second. Are we Obamabimbos or 'bamabunnies?

Posted by: PE on February 26, 2008 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

I always liked Obama, and hoped he would one day be president after he gets some experience. That is why I am supporting Hillary.

But this whole African garment-gate makes me pause.

No way I can vote for him now.

Obama buys the story and makes some statements about Hillary as if it is coming from Hillary. But the only source of it has been Matt Drudge. Think about that for a second. If Obama goes around believing something is true based on something only Matt Drudge has reported, what is going to happen when he is sitting across the tables from Vladmir Putin or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (as he said he would.)

The answer scares me.

LN

Posted by: Les on February 26, 2008 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Dear Hillary, more crude attacks, please!

For news cycles can be a friend,
Particularly as and when they end.

Bash Obama now, see if t'will stick,
Surviving, nay thriving, he's more the November pick.

Posted by: cognitorex on February 26, 2008 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

LN: But this whole African garment-gate makes me pause.
No way I can vote for him now.

lol, did I just read that?

Look, Kerry tried to ignore those obvious swift-boat lies and slander Drudge and others gleefully posted about him, and it probably cost him the Presidency. To criticize Obama for responding too forcefully when confronted with similar smear-tactics is nonsense.

Posted by: Joe on February 26, 2008 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Then go after Drudge.

Obama shows serious lack of judgement.

Posted by: Les on February 26, 2008 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you to all the "progressive" bloggers for bringing about the catastrophic defeat that is going to happen in the upcoming presidential general election. In your desire (fascinatingly increasing as Obama gets closer to winning the nomination) to humiliate (not jut defeat) Clinton, you are now beginning to take the word, without verification, of a hack internet scribbler who you all know lies more than he tells the truth.

Oh, and to those of you who seem to have forgotten how campaigns work - the Clinton campaign couldn't issue a specific denial immediately without checking with probably about 500 STAFFERS - because who knows how that photo came to be circulated or why and what circumstances. Wolfson was being careful in making sure he had all the facts before issuing a VERY STRONG DENIAL. But, of course, giving the campaign the time to check wouldn't have followed the "let's believe every terrible accusation rightwing tools level at Clinton" playbook for formerly progressive bloggers.

Hey - Drum - maybe you should spend more time getting YOUR facts straight before issuing herdlike postings rather than accusing Clinton's campaign of everything under the sun. What's next "Matt Drudge reports that the Clinton campaign has not in the last 30 secs denied not killing babies; Why does Hillary Clinton hate babies?"

By the way, I happen to have voted for Clinton, but have many friends working in the Obama campaign and was a hair away from voting for him. I forwarded to them a posting from Glenn Greenwald that discussed a vicious email being sent to the Florida Jewish community claiming that Obama will turn on Israel if elected, along with other slanderous accusations. I thought they should know about what was being said about Obama under the radar. I guess if they then sent that around saying - "hey a friend sent this to me, we better pay attention to this" - and somehow it made its way to Drudge and he claimed that the Clinton campaign was circulating rumours about Obama's position on Israel this would be fine and dandy since the original came from someone who voted for Clinton. And, you would happily transcribe the charge on your blog without waiting for the Clinton campaign to check to find out what happened. Right?

If this is your MO now, we are all doomed in the general election. You and bloggers like Marshall and KOS (whose blog is now virtually unreadable) have clearly shown your brains are so scrambled at this point that you can't tell who your friends and who your enemies are. By the end of this year, if there is any justice, the behavior by many of you during this primary season will have destroyed any credibility you may have built up over the years. As Somerby says - you're all moo cows now.

Posted by: Dawn on February 26, 2008 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Dawn, simple question, why does the Clinton campaign continue to defend the photo?

Posted by: Joe on February 26, 2008 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Count me in as one who thinks the story was planted by Republican operatives trying to achieve a "bank-shot" - Obama gets smeared and Hillary gets blamed for it. A two-fer, so to speak.

That being said, the Clinton campaigns response to this was just pathetic and incompetent. They may not have actually been guilty, but they sure acted like they were.

Posted by: tam1MI on February 26, 2008 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Is my party the most gullible party on the face of the Earth? Kevin wrote: "this was spectacularly ill conceived." Yes. I see no benefit in it for the Clinton camp whatsoever. I have not seen any solid proof that the Clinton camp did this, and I don't see a substantial benefit in them even getting the notion to do it. I KNOW Bill Clinton's comments were not anywhere close to race baiting or race card politics. You people are fools. Better get ready for 4 years of Mcain.

Posted by: Geoff on February 26, 2008 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Les and Dawn,

This has been a long and very close campaign. I think that both campaigns occasionally see slights when nothing was intended. Like I said before, someone at some point would have discovered this photograph.

I personally plan to get over being called a 'bamabunny should Clinton win the nomination.

Posted by: PE on February 26, 2008 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

Dawn, simple question, why does the Clinton campaign continue to defend the photo?

Joe: Simple answer - they don't. Although, why in the world OBAMA didn't defend it, I have no idea. Nothing wrong with the photo after all.

Is my party the most gullible party on the face of the Earth?

Geoff: Simple answer - yes.

This has been another editiion of simple answers to simple questions.


Posted by: Dawn on February 26, 2008 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Although, why in the world OBAMA didn't defend it, I have no idea. Nothing wrong with the photo after all.

Why wouldn't Obama defend this photograph? Maybe because its appearance corresponds to the whispering campaign that "wonders" if Obama is a Muslim Manchurian candidate.

You don't sound like a zombie, so you must know this. Why do you affect to "have no idea"?

Posted by: Lucy on February 26, 2008 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINK

Dawn: Joe: Simple answer - they don't. Although, why in the world OBAMA didn't defend it, I have no idea. Nothing wrong with the photo after all.

Ok....I've provided you links to quotes and video of the Clinton campaign defending the photo, and blasting Obama for seeing dirty tricks behind it. They did this throughout the day yesterday, and again this morning. Just because you chose to ignore this doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Posted by: Joe on February 26, 2008 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly