Translation: We sent it out, sorry we got caught.

There is clearly a 1-2 punch from the HRC campaign here. Thus, I suspect that they *did* circulate the photo as Drudge reported.

I do like that Obama must be so super-clean that the best HRC can do is pull up innuendo best on fear of terrorism.

Remind me again: how is she unlike GWB as a person?

The timing and context are as favorable as any Obama supporter could hope for. Whatever the source of this distraction, it's a fairly painless, and ultimately useful, bit of inoculation for Obama.

They were challenged to make a denial. Doesn't sound like one to me. Cheap stuff.

non-denial denial.

her campaign is a joke.

If it is true, and it seems like it is, that the Clinton campaign sent this out, I will forever be disappointed in the DNC if they do not rebuke this. I am going to email and call them, whatever, to tell them how I feel about this - and I've NEVER called the DNC for anything. How absolutely horrible, unfair, and disgusting this is. Is this really what we want for the next 4 years? If its what Democrats want, then I need to look for a new party.

OK, so I read a few things in this response:

(a) They did "circulate" the photo (there was no denial here at all)
(b) They're claiming innocence on the impact of their opponent dressed in what some people in this country will perceive as "Muslim garb" (for Christ's sake, doesn't anyone remember the insanity over Nancy Pelosi wearing a scarf when she went to the Middle East)
(c) A woman (i.e., Hillary) wearing a head scarf does NOT have the same impact as a picture of Obama in African dress (after all, even some so-called Democrats on this site call him "Hussein", along with a great many Republicans) - so their argument is ridiculous and manipulative.

Now, on the face of it this photo is fine - it's a wonderful photo of Obama in traditional dress and it should not cause an issue. However, just what was the purpose in "circulating" this photo? Really, someone please tell me what was the purpose if not to remind people that (a) he's black; (b) his father was a Muslim; (c) he supposedly attended a madrassa; and (d) he supposedly has ties to Louis Farrakhan. This is worse than the "hey, Harold, call me" (wink, wink) commercial. I stand by my previous statements that this is cheap, nasty, and really beneath her.

Someone said this in the previous thread, but if I were him I'd have that photo at the debate tomorrow nite, wave it around like she did those stupid mailers and very calmly look at her and say "Shame on you, Hillary". And see how she responds.

Let me say that after last Thursday's debate, I was reminded of why I thought Hillary Clinton would have been a good candidate if Obama (my choice all along) couldn't be the nominee. She wasn't my first choice, but I could have lived with her up until her antics from the last six weeks or so. But after Thursday I warmed to her a little bit.

But no more. Her campaign just repulses me at every turn. She's disgusting, and if she is run out of the Democratic party tomorrow, it won't be soon enough. If somehow she wins the nomination, she will not get my vote.

As I said elsewhere: with Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?

Here's the statement just out from Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams, responding to the Obama campaign's criticism of Hillary over a Drudge story saying that Clinton staffers had "circulated" a photo of Obama in Muslim garb:

The irrelevant wonkiness of a story is directly proportional to the size of the tag line if it were diagrammed.

Triple hearsay does not a story make.

Did I miss it, or has the Clinton campaign failed to deny they were behind this in the first place?

Seriously? I don't see a denial there.

And I second Carol's comment--bring it to the debate, Obama, and ask her about it.

"She exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way."

Hillary's statement (in an affidavit) about the 12-year-old girl in the rape case detailed by Glenn Thrush in Newsday:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/
ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story?page=4

Well, y'know. Words don't count, but the Hillary campaign believes in the power of pictures.

OK, now I'm getting a little nervous. Until this latest smear, I was working under the assumption that the American people are better than this. But I have to wonder, At what point in the cascade of misinformation are people's prejudices finally loosed? In a recent issue of Dissent, Paul Berman quotes the British novelist Iain Pears on European anti-Semitism: "anti-Semitism is like alcoholism. You can go for 25 years without a drink, but if things go bad and you find yourself with a vodka in your hand, you can’t get rid of it." I wonder if the same couldn't be said about this most virulent forms of American racism and xenophobia? Are we doomed to see this stuff rise to the surface when things get rough? Or can we actually improve as a people? Obama's presidency is premised on the idea that we can move forward together as one nation. Now, the success of his candidacy depends on this being true.

Propsed response from Obama:

"I totally agree with your campaign managers's statement that wearing the traditional clothing of a country one is visiting (when requested to do so, of course)is an accepted practice and certainly no cause for shame. But since that is your view, I'm puzzled why your campaign would make a point of widely circulating this picture? Could you please explain?"

They don't necessarily need a denial, but they do need an explanation. Neither one will be found here.

At this point, I almost wonder if they're not attempting to inoculate Obama against potential GOP attacks. That would mean that they understand this thing is over, and in a way that probably eliminates a possible 2012 run. The only other explanation is that Hillary's campaign is completely bankrupt of ideas, and now are just trying stuff to see what sticks.

Gosh, it doesn't seem so long ago that I logged on to hillaryclinton.com to watch the announcement of her historic candidacy. I winced a little when she announced: "Let the conversation begin", but I figured she'd focused the hell out of the phrase and it was probably meant to appeal to some reluctant corner of the electorate. Ditto the weird Sopranos hit ad. These are the Clintons, I told myself. Every move they make is calculated in terms of its content and its potential impact.

As her campaign has developed and her momentum has broken against a candidate who is genuinely likable and who need not manufacture his appeal, the content of her message has floated away, leaving only the raw force of her political will.

If there is any principle left in the Clinton campaign, then I can only believe that this move is designed to inoculate Obama against the really virulent attacks to come. Alas, this seems unlikely.

The conversation? It's over.

HRC's Willie Horton.

She won't be able to live this one down.

"Farrakhan hearts Obama:

Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan set Barack Obama up for a Sister Souljah Moment on Sunday.

While Farrakhan didn"t endorse Obama, he spent most of his almost two-hour Saviors" Day celebration speech praising him.

"This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better," said the 74-year-old Farrakhan. "This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama"s audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed."

Farrakhan pointed out that the Nation of Islam"s founder, Fard Muhammad, also had a white mother and black father. "A black man with a white mother became a savior to us. A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/shared-blogs/ajc/thinkingright/index.html

Um, I think I will stick with Clinton.

"Shame on you!" "Enough!"

I take it Hillary thinks the best way to make Obama lose his temper is to treat him like a little boy.

I saw Dee Dee Myers on Morning Joe today claiming that Hillary's rant about the mailers was unfortunate because the public will judge her unfairly due to the double standard applied to women who are forceful or angry. Uh, no, Dee Dee, the problem isn't that she's angry, the problem is that the anger seems manufactured.

I had issues with Tina Fey's commentary too. She doesn't seem to appreciate that a lot of voters are actually judging Hillary as an individual. As opposed to blindly following Oprah or swallowing the narrative that she's a bitch. After stating how strong, intelligent and great she is, Fey supports the idea of co-presidency with her husband? So which is it? Yes, I know it's a comedy show, but considering Hillary is using it as defense...

north_aufzoo: >
You pose a valid, if sad, question, and this may be enough to trigger such prejudices. And the prejudices may be enough to defeat him. But if so, then it may as well happen now, bacause you know the Republicans or some of their supporters will go to town with something like this, with even greater flourish, so if it's going to have an effect like that, it's going to happen sometime before Nov. Might as well be now.

I learned one thing in the 2004 election: if the American public wants to be damned fools, then *nothing* is going to stop them! The fact that GWB was re-elected, that he was even close enough for re-election to be finagled if that occurred, still hits boggles the mind and all logic. So if there is enough prejudice out there to defeat someone like Barack Obama, then it's there and it's going to defeat him and there's not a damn thing we can do. So far, it's seemed as if that isn't going to be a factor, so I'm hopeful... but it's certainly not a given.

Haha, seriously?

liam, my friend, I don't agree with you here. I think it's pretty obvious what that picture is supposed to signify. Drudge--(oy)--does mention the Muslim smear in his article and it's clearly what's being implied here. They are Muslim-baiting, that's the story.

OK, this won't be popular here, but I think the Clinton response was smart. Sure, they didn't deny it, but they get to act like they're taking the high road, while subtly insinuating that Obama is being paranoid. (And we all know what they say about black men and paranoia...)

Clinton partisans will read Williams' statement and immediately assume that the photo was leaked by the Obama campaign in order to trap Clinton, and that Clinton handled it with aplomb.

Most importantly -- If the Clinton camp is lucky, this exchange will get under Obama's skin, because that's what they really want. If he comes to the Tuesday debate feeling "frustrated," then she'll ambush him with some debate trick.

The O-man needs to keep his even temper. He's been charming and unflappable up to now. He needs to keep doing that.

Nice to see the politics of guilt by association are alive and well, gotalife.

Joe McCarthy would be very pleased.

in case anyone wasn't convinced it actually was the Clinton campaign pushing this, more from Ben Smith:

A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, denied knowledge of whether someone on the campaign circulated that image of Obama in Somali garb -- and defended the email, arguing that the text Drudge quotes suggests the context image was a (very familiar-sounding!) matter of complaining about press coverage, not pushing a negative story to the press.

Per my colleague Beth Frerking, with the campaign.

“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."

"Tactics right out of the Carl Rove playbook!"

Her campaign is melting down and has become truly schizophrenic. Everytime she attempts to be gracious, she quicky becomes 'outraged' and launches some distorted attack. THis country is looking for someone calm and consistent not angry and unpredictable.

during past 2 weeks the democratic pundits have been saying that this game is not over til it is over because Clintons can bring the best of them when they are down. what she's been doing ever since the tuesday night in TX is 'their best'-certainly they've down during the entire month of feb.- they can do, I'm not impressed, I'm bored. truly this primary season reminds of me lots of 'high scool mean girl' stuff.

If this was circulated by Senator Clinton, and the lack of denial sadly seems to confirm that as a fact, it is truly a sad day for America and democrats in particular.

I can imagine the cover letter:

Dear Tim/Chris/etc.

We thought you might want to see the attached photo, which ISN'T divisive, and DOESN'T reflect poorly on Sen. Obama's patriotism. We just think it's kinda cute.

P.S. Have you seen the one of Obama kissing a Koran? We'll send that one around tomorrow.

I actually wrote the DNC and expressed my disgust. At this point I think she is trying to weaken Obama so he won't win the general and she can try again in four years.

I actually liked Hillary Clinton before this campaign. I canvassed and campaigned for John Kerry, even though I was lukewarm about him, because he was my party's nominee, and two months ago I would have done the same for Hillary without question. I think Bloomberg will run if she is the nominee, and I will not only vote for him I will campaign for him.

This is vile.

The question now is not as much whether white liberals will vote for her if she gets the nomination by destroying Obama with this type of shit. The question is what will be left of the Democratic party when the most consistently solid, loyal voting bloc we have - African-Americans - leave the party because of the Clinton campaign's despicable tactics?

I've read a lot of people here in the last few weeks - many of my fellow Obama supporters - ridicule the exit polling breakdowns about percentages of black voters, female voters, blue collar, etc. And I agree it does get absurd after a while. But you're going to see why it ultimately matters if Hillary gets the nomination after this. Then the only group that votes 85-90% Democratic will leave in a hemorrhage the likes of which have never been seen in American politics.

And before the HRC crowd start with their idiotic "wah-wah-wah you can't take it" crap, remember: the devastation to the party won't be because Obama lost; it will be because the Clintons used their version of the "Southern Strategy" to win.

And I hope they rot in Hell for it.

We're in Cleveland. I haven't seen a sign of the Clinton campaign, including signs. They tried to robocall us twice but we just got dead air when we picked up (we called the number back and got the campaign.)

There are a ton of ads from both of them. Essentially, the two campaigns sponsored the local broadcast of Lost last week.

I keep wondering whether this new hoopla would have anything to do with this.

As some commenter wrote on a blog, this would no go well with many women and mothers in particular. One wrote:

For context, I am a lawyer in New York. A lawyer certainly is obligated to zealously defend their clients. HOWEVER, there are limits placed on your advocacy -- both by common decency, morality and laws. In this case, Clinton ultimately got a reduced sentence due to evidentiary issues. She WAS NOT REQUIRED (and indeed lawyers today routinely DO NOT) attack the rape victim unless there is a demonstrated rather than manufactured basis to do so. For her to call herself a champion of women's rights but yet attack a TWELVE YEAR OLD RAPE VICTIM is abhorrent and ridiculous. - Link

At this point in time, she needs to keep all of her base & that piece of news could be very damaging. Notice how that has now been all but drowned in this new controversy.

It doesn't matter how American Politicians and officials choose to dress when they are guests of other nations. When in Rome, you know the rest of it.

You have to show respect to gain respect. Dressing in the traditional attire of the nation or place that you are visiting is merely being a respectful cultural visitor, and is far more likely to win more friends for America than just dictating our demands from afar.

What the Clintons were doing was trying to create an impression that Obama is too Muslim like. That is why you were fed the term "Muslim garb" which was clearly false, but intended to create a pejorative impression.
Remember the Clintons have already played the Obama Muslim smear card before. It is not like this picture pushing by them was not preceded by similar gutter tactics.

What could be more disingenuous than saying, big deal, we all have our photos taken in local garb? To paraphrase James Carville, "It's the turban, stupid!" With the "Obama's a Muslim" smear circulating, getting a picture into play of Obama in a big, white turban is clearly a cheap shot. Lederhosen and an alpine cap wouldn't raise any eyebrows.