« Poll: Hillary Up By 8 Points In Ohio | Home | Tomorrow's Right Wing Attack On Obama -- Today! »

Hillary Campaign Responds To Obama Hit Over Drudge Story

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 Somali garb and a turban:

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.

More in a bit.


128 Comments

| Leave a comment

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

We will not be distracted.

Left unsaid: "We will, however, create every distraction possible to draw attention away from the fact that the 'inevitable' candidate can not win the nomination."

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?

typo: "...based on fear of...."

user-pic

"We will not be distracted."

Too late.

p.s. No denials in there

user-pic

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.

Sounds like Maggie did not deny that the Clinton Camp did distribute the picture.

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

non-denial denial.

her campaign is a joke.

user-pic

Train wreck is more like it. It must be a new york thing, the clintons' campaign is sounding more and more like mr. 9/11's as each day goes by. Too funny.

Indeed. I was skeptical at first of the comparisons to Giuliani's campaign, but they are becoming more and more undeniably apt with each passing day.

Notice Maggie Williams called it Traditional Garb.

The Drudge report does not call it Muslim garb.
Greg Sargent is the one pushing the Muslim Garb label, and we all know by now that Mr. Sargent is in the tank for the Clinton camp.

how does it benefit the clinton camp to suggest that it was muslim garb instead of traditional garb??

what exactly in your paranoid imagination are you accusing greg sargent of doing?

He has finally changed it, and no longer refers to it as "Muslim Garb". Accuracy in reporting is important. Greg always demands it from the NY Times. I therefore have demanded it from him.

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.

Do you see now why the right-wing media loves having the Clintons around? They can churn out the entertainment and the outrage all in the span of about two hours. And they do it day after day. How much easier could they make it for Limbaugh to ridicule both Obama and Hillary? When is Vince McMahan going to step into the ring and call it over?

Tomorrow night is going to be amazing. It will be like that scene in "Scanners" where the guy's head explodes.

Make sure you stock up on the popcorn, because we could witness a campaign totally self-destruct before our eyes.

user-pic

Which campaign, though?

The one that's showing all the signs of stress.

user-pic

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.

Carol S, I actually think you should email the campaign with this.

user-pic

I just e-mailed the campaign. I'm sure he's getting e-mails from all over the country on this issue! :)

Greg Sargent is the one who is calling it "Muslim Garb" Those words are not on the Drudge item that he linked to. Maggie Williams calls it "Tradition Somali Clothing"

Greg Sargent needs to come clean with us. Where did he get the words "Muslim Garb" from. Is he pushing the Muslim Garb label because he wants to help Hillary without having her finger prints on the smear.

user-pic

Wave the photo in HRC's face? That's just lowering himself to her level. Sorry, but it's very counterproductive. Especially considering the majority of people in the audience won't know anything about the whole Drudge thing, so seeing Obama waving a photo around on stage just looks a staged melodrama.

That's the lesson of Hillary's "Change you can Xerox" -- canned politics don't cut it.

user-pic

I understand your point, and I would agree; however, between now and tomorrow evening at the debate I bet you anything that the MSM will pick this up, and that picture will be plastered on every network and cable news program. He can very calmly hold the picture up and ask her what's up? She'll be on the defensive even if he just asks her what the motivation was. I think if this makes the rounds in the media he may have to address it.

user-pic

No. All Barack has to do is stay calm and collected If Hillary makes a bullshit charge, then explain why it's false. He doesn't need to get dragged down to her level. Hell, he doesn't even need to win in OH or TX other then to keep it within 10%.

She might begin by asking Hussein if this is like him deciding that "fairy tale" was a racist slur.
Is he ashamed of the name his parents gave him. Were they racists for naming him Hussein?
And by the way, why is he ashamed of his Somali photo? Isn't it real? Was it altered in any way?
Is he saying that the American people are racists and so mustn't see the photo or use his middle name?
Really, after the unflattering photos of HRC that Hussein has purposefully used on flyers how can he complain?

I guess they are trying to make him look angry again.

And distracting? Like fake plagiarism charges? And divisive? Like pitting Hispanic voters against black voters? Mocking Obama's message? Implying everyone who supports him is delusional? Dismissing the votes of small staters, red staters, caucus-goes? "Shuck and Jive?"

God. I hope they're proud of themselves.

I need a break. I can't take this anymore. I've said over and over again it would be incredibly destructive to the country for Hillary supporters not to vote Obama and vice versa in the general. And if Hillary comes out of this with the nomination I will vote for her. But she's making it really, really hard.


Lucky for me i wont feel guilty not voting for her if she steals it. My state will be completely red if shes running anyways so my vote wont make any difference.

user-pic

I, too, will not feel guilty not voting for her. I'm from NY and my state is solidly blue so my vote won't make enough of a difference, either.

user-pic
And divisive? Like pitting Hispanic voters against black voters?
Yes, It’s a Clinton fault that Hispanics don’t vote 90% for Obama
Mocking Obama's message?
How dare she is. It’s a Blasphemy to mock the divine revelations of Saint Barak.
Implying everyone who supports him is delusional?
How dare she is to imply that "We are the One we have been waiting for" are delusional.
user-pic

"We are the ones we've been waiting for"

What in the hell are you objecting to here? Did he say "I am the one you are waiting for?" I am constantly struck at the difference between their speeches. Barack (by the way, you spelled his name wrong) talks about what we can do together, the change we can create for ourselves, and empowers us to be an active partner in that change. How is that delusional? Hillary is all about what she will do for us, how she understands our issues, etc. etc. We are supposed to take a passive role and allow the Queen Bee to fix all of our problems. Sounds more like she is the one who has the superiority complex here; sounds like she is saying that "she is the one we've been waiting for".

user-pic

Go ahead and "take a chance on your own aspirations", but we should not take a chance on Obama. He himself told us so.

I'm honestly stunned. The Clinton campaign gets caught circulating a smear that's too low for Drudge to take seriously.

And then they attack Obama for criticizing it! Yeah, Shame on Him!

How is an official photo of Obama taken on a Congressional junket a smear?
Are you calling the American people racists? You must be if you think the photo a smear.
Is this like "fairy tale" being a racist slur?

user-pic

Is "Enough." the new "Whatever happened to the politics of hope"?

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?

user-pic

We will not be distracted.

I think it's not an exaggeration to say that her campaign has been distracted from the get-go. What has surprised me most about this campaign's mechanics has not been the effectiveness of Obama's operation so much as the profound ineptitude of Hillary's.

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.

So we know for sure that they circulated it. Now here's the question: why? if it's as innocuous as she's pretending, what was the point of sending this out?

Sorry, Maggie this is pretty pathetic.

user-pic

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.

Yes Obama, bring it to the debate and explain how the photo is a smear. Has it been altered in any way? Is it not real?
Is he assuming that the American people are racists?
Is "fairy tale" still a racist slur?

Wouldn't help...a wise man told me once, never, never repeat someone's attack on you just to win an argument.

It would be better for him to keep pushing her on the issues. He doesn't always get the best of her, but she's just not inpsiring when she's talking about policy.

"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

Kind of an aside, but they are pretty big on shame, these folks, huh? In the span of three days they are on record using SHAME three times (1-Shame on you, Barack Obama. 2-Fool me once, shame on me... 3-"Traditional clothing divisive? They should be ashamed.)

Need anymore evidence the Clinton people sent Drudge this photo? They don't want to be caught outright lying in case Drudge has evidence, so they embrace the photo as merely trying to prove that Obama is as willing to wear "traditional clothing" as Hillary. Thanks, Team Clinton!

user-pic

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

Oh, they didn't "get caught." They gave it to Drudge, as they've done in the past, and never denied it.

They elicit a defense of what is obviously contribution to the rumor that he's a crypto-muslim and then call "shame"!!??

Oh my god.

She's not going to win the nomination, but what is she going to do to the party and its nominee in the meantime?

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.

I wish I could recall what the topic was, but a couple of months back, Drudge posted something anti-Obama he said was from the Clintons, Obama hit the Clintons on it, and they IMMEDIATELY and FORCEFULLY denied it, saying that Obama believing in a right-winger's word shows how "naive" he is. Does anyone else recall this incident?

If they could deny it without being immediately shown as liars, they would.

Right now, knowing she barely has a chance to win this primary, and all the ridiculous surrounding Barack, I am thinking about taking that picture and putting a little subtext, "B. Hussein" down on it and using it for my desktop wallpaper. Unfortunately, I think its hilarious how people are scared of him and think that his name is so bad of a thing.

In the end, I don't mind voting for a man with the name Barack Hussein Obama even with a picture like that. No shame here, just shame on those that hold that against him.

Give me a break.
B. Hussein vs. Duce J. McCain-Bush
I don't know how some people that are anti-Bush could vote for the straight-bs-talkin' Mussolinist.

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?"


Given the carefully phrased response from the HRC campaign we can deduce that:

Words *do* mean something. ;-)

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.

They aren't destroying their reputations to help Obama. They're destroying their reputations to help themselves like usual. It's just that they're not competent enough to actually pull it off.

So the campaign sent a copy to Matt Drudge for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Riiight. They had absolutely no intention whatsoever to be divisive when they sent this to that paragon of context and fairness and balance, their good friend Mr. Drudge. Umm-hmm, yes that's totally believable. No intention to try to stir up anti-Muslim prejudice among low-information, low education working class voters in Ohio by sending this photo to Matt Drudge eight days before primaries that Bill himself calls "must win." Right,

Yep, I guess there's no apparent motive and no conceivable malign intent that a fair minded person could reasonably infer from this set of circumstances. Obama's campaign is just being small-minded and trying to distract the voters from the important issues of the day.

That's the version 1.0 answer, anyway. We've seen this routine over and over again from them. If the blowback keeps coming, I'm guessing the the version 2.0 answer will blame a low-level staffer acting without authority who's been asked to leave the campaign. They're probably focus-grouping the Version 3.0 answer as we speak, assuming the campaign can scrape together the cash to put a focus group together.

I tend towards this same line of thinking myself. The stunt strikes me as contemptible and the responses from all parties suggests that it is indeed coming from the Clinton camp. This is a mark against her, but thankfully I doubt that it will matter much. She needs more than this to turn things around.

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.

Really!?! That is the best the HRC campaign can come up with. Do they honestly believe we are that stupid. Especially after her little speech on Saturday. Are we somehow not suppose to see the hypocrisy?

"Do they honestly believe we are that stupid."

Yes. Next question?

HRC's Willie Horton.

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


Live down what?
Is the photo faked?
Is Hussein "Mr. Authenticity" Obama ashamed of it?
Are you calling the American people racists?

Hillary Clinton is a pandering racist, and obviously thinks enough Americans are like her that pushing this out will get her votes.

End of story.

"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.

Sticking with HRC because a fringe citizen voices support for Obama? Okay, well, that makes sense.

But you were sticking with HRC no matter what, gotalife. You have consistently defended her at every turn, like it's your...job. Hmmm.

"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...

Tina Fey also urged that we support Hillary because she will treat Adult Americans like Mean Nuns handle little children.

Some how I do not feel that adults need to have a mean Nun constantly berating and controlling them.

First off, why anyone believes anything Drudge says as to their 'sources' is beyond me. The Clinton campaign is under no obligation to dignify anything from that site by giving a response.

Second, who the hell cares if a picture the picture is shown around? Why is Obama so threatened by the photo? The only voters to whom it would make a difference (far right wingnuts and bigots) would likely never vote for Obama anyway.

You are being very disingenious. They circulated that photo and said, "Can you imagine this being in newspapers?" in the e-mail. There's only one reason why they did that---to appeal to the xenophobia fear in this country.

Have you seen this email? Or are you simply taking Drudge's word that it exists and was circulated?

I'll bet the Reps are laughing all the way to the electoral college on this one.

Greg Sargent. This is what you posted.

"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 Drudge Report link that you provided does not use the term: "Muslim Garb" The statement from Maggie Williams does not use it either.

Where did you hear or read it. Please provide some proof that either Drudge or the Clinton camp said it.

I have read your comments where you have taken papers, such as the New York Times, to task for careless journalism practices. That means that you have a set of reporting standards that you are expected to live up to.
I demand that you do so now. Where did you get the term "Muslim Garb" from, and if you just created it, on your own, explain how that meets the journalist standards that you hold other publications to?

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.

From the Drudge piece:


"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.


Yes, Drudge is a bottom-feeder, but this is a pretty specific allegation. If it had been made against my candidate, I'd want to make sure there was a brisk denial inserted alongside my disdain.

And don't even try that "only far-right wingnuts and bigots" defense - this is all about reminding people that Obama is 1) black and 2) kinda foreign. You don't have to be a David Duke to respond to it, just an undecided Ohio voter made somewhat uneasy about a still unfamiliar candidate.

Well he is black and kinda foreign.
Isn't Hussein supposed to be Mr. Authenticity?
Well how authentic is it to run away from the name your parents gave you (guess they were racists too huh?) and photos from one of his Senatorial junkets?
How are either of these things a smear?

user-pic

How is he "running away" from the name his parents gave him? He used to call himself "Barry" in Highschool, but he goes by Barack today.

JTHB: Your comments bring down the level of debate on this site. I am sure you know just what you are doing by referring to Sen. Obama exclusively as "Hussein." It is a sleazy move, one that is intended to prey on people's prejudices. Please stop.

Haha, seriously?

I wonder what color the sky is in the Clinton(s) campaign's world?

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.

No, Greg needs to correct the copy, especially since it's front page material.

Honestly, I assumed Greg was pro-Obama, because accusing Clinton of calling Obama a Muslim TWICE, well...

that doesn't look good for Clinton.

So which is it Greg? Are you trying to do a hit job for Clinton or Obama? And if neither, then where did the "Muslim-garb" line come from?

Words matter. Greg Sargent keeps holding the NY Times to those standards. He is the one who wrote the term "Muslim Garb" I know what the Clintons were up to. I want to know why Greg Sargent decided to throw in the specific "Muslim" label. Was he afraid that "traditional somali" was too obscure for bigots to grasp. He needs to come clean with why he chose to use such an inflammatory term.

user-pic

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.

Jeeze... they're using the mannerisms, the tactics, of the basic thread troll.

why get angry with greg for saying "muslim garb"? this is obviously the point. if he were wearing a kimono, eg, no one would care. the reason the clintons are circulating this photo is that he looks like a terrorist! that is the point. and that's why it's so very offensive to circulate it. there is nothing offensive in identifying what the clintons are trying to do.

Because Non Muslims also wear similar attire, and you will not see that attire in the arab countries that are the center of the Muslim faith, and you will not see that attire in Iran. In fact, the attire is not traditional muslim attire, it is traditional national attire in a nation that happens to have a large muslim population.


I still want to know where Greg Sargent came up with the term "Muslim attire" Who fed it to him, or did he just decide to label it such, without any source.

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

Joe McCarthy would be very pleased.

Do not forget how that Union Clinton supporter introduced her in Ohio, and how he called Obama supporters every name he could think of, and Hillary listened and said nothing, just like John McCain did when a Woman supporter of him called Hillery the B. name. Hillery was a Goldwater girl, and she still behaves that way , just like McCain does.

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."

user-pic

I'm thinking that the string of Clinton provocations from the past several days is all an attempt to set some sort of trap for Obama in the debate.

First, the debate is on MS-NBC, which is a perfect setup for Clinton, who will use the opportunity to berate Matthews, Schuster and the whole network for their offenses against the Clinton campaign. Chelsea will be sitting in a prominent spot in the audience, and I expect Clinton will charge right into a "shame on Chris Matthews; shame on David Schuster" rant right from the get-go. It could make for a very sympathetic tableau.

This in likely to put Obama in a somewhat awkward position, as an innocent bystander to a Clinton and MS-NBC feud. He'll need to defend Clinton, and the honor of Chelsea Clinton, without himself playing into the Clinton line that Obama's success is all the result of media favoritism, and media persecution of Clinton.

Obama should try to say something the first time he gets a chance to speak that neutralizes this line of attack. He should deplore the generally low level of campaign discourse, and defend Chelsea against the inappropriate MS-NBC comments, but then turn the charges against the Clinton camapign itself for its behavior over the weekend.

Clinton's only hope now is to provoke Obama into either a gaffe or an angry counterattack that will allow her to pull out the victim card one more time, and perhaps turn on the waterworks yet again about all the "hits" she is taking. Obama needs to keep his composure and maintain the same discipline he has shown up to this point.

I don't think so. This is the Clinton campaign's Waterloo. If they don't win decisively in OH and TX, they're finished. A smear-by-association won't cut it.

First off, this photo tries to give form to the circulating slanders that we've all heard about. Seeing Obama in talibanesque garb helps to ground peoples' nagging suspicions about his background. It nudges them toward giving in to their baser prejudices.

But it'll need something more solid behind it if it's going to become a real momentum-killing knockout blow. I think Clinton's setting herself up to hit Obama with another Rezko smear in the debate. Obama's political career was furthered by a Syrian-born financier with ties to Lebanon? That should tie Obama's acknowledged financial missteps pretty firmly to the covert Islamist narrative.

Ugly stuff. One hopes that Clinton will take the high road here. Alas, it looks like she'll run to the convention through the gutter if she has to...taking the party and the country with her.

"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.

Indeed. My thought runs to the effect that "shame on Obama for Rovian tactics" is an obvious dangerous strategy. It is not as if his mailers in OH are any less accurate than her mailiers in NH and NV. If this is to come down to a debate about who has been the more perfect disciple of Karl Rove, it is not evident to me that she will be the candidate to win that debate. As such, one has to wonder what is her strategy in taking this approach. I can only conclude that she figures that she has nothing to lose at this point, and as such might as well just try every approach simultaneous. She is on track to lose in TX and maybe OH, and that would be the end of it for her. She needs to change the direction of the race, and not knowing specifically how to do that, she is casting a wide net, trying every approach available in the hopes that one of them will gain some traction. That is why we are seeing such a schizophrenic campaign from her of late. It speaks well for Obama's prospects, because it indicates just how on-the-ropes her campaign is.

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.

So, has Hillary conceded Texas, and now is making Ohio her sole firewall?

It seems all her latest stunts are for the benefit of Ohio voters.

user-pic

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 suspect Maggie Williams developed carpal-tunnel syndrome from affixing of postage on all the mailers sent out with the photo of Obama in a Somali gard.

Key: NO OUTRIGHT DENIAL BY THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN REGARDING THE CIRCULATION OF THIS PHOTO. SWIFT-BOATING TACTICS FROM HRC. IF THIS DOESN'T OUTRAGE DEMOCRATS, EVEN HER MOST ARDENT SUPPORTERS, THEY OUGHT TO BE FORCED TO REREAD ALL OF THE ATTACKS ON JOHN KERRY'S SERVICE DURING THE VIETNAM WAR. IT HAS BEEN SAID THE CLINTONS ARE BACK-ALLY STREET FIGHTERS WHO NEVER CONCEDE DEFEAT AND WHO WILL GO TO EXTREME MEASURES TO ASSURE VICTORY. I SUPPOSE JAMES CARVILLE LENT A HAND IN THIS EFFORT DESPITE ALL OF HIS "NEUTRALITY".

it's the same mode of attack she used in South Carolina. put out innuendo, then accusing of "blackness" and now of "Muslimness", get your opponent to respond, and then chide them for being out of line. all the while upping the media-coverage ante in the hopes that some voters will catch a piece of it on The Situation Room and think your opponent is "too black" or "a secret Muslim".

even despite the fact that no intelligent human being would try doing a second time what failed so abysmally the first time, it really is purely disgusting politics, preying on people's ignorance and prejudices. so in other words, perfectly in keeping with core concepts of her attack message during this campaign.

I wouldn't count on the "shame on you" theme drumming up many votes in Ohio. It's certainly not the way I'd suggest getting the working class demographic. My guess is that it generates more mother-in-law jokes than it does votes.

Which probably explains why she's moved on to Muslim-baiting.

If there's any logic behind "shame on you", its to energize volunteers and donors, who still seem lacking. I haven't seen any sign at all of a Clinton ground operation in SE Ohio.

user-pic

"If there's any logic behind "shame on you", its to energize volunteers and donors, who still seem lacking. I haven't seen any sign at all of a Clinton ground operation in SE Ohio."

Curiosity- What do you notice about ground operation in your area?
Bill R.

Let's put it this way. I just found out that Bill Clinton is coming through town this afternoon. Publicity for the event was that bad.

I haven't seen a single Clinton sign in people's yards or received any mailers from them. Just one attack robocall.

Obama people have visited and dropped off mailers twice and there are a growing number of Obama yard signs up. They're way ahead in organization. I don't know about votes.

We're a college town, so maybe we're just Obama territory but Ted Strickland is from around here and I'm surprised his people aren't putting up more of an effort for Hillary.

Looks like her efforts to paint Obama as the one making unfair attacks will now boomerang.

user-pic

...Looks like Hillary's little AIPAC campaign gnomes have been busy...

Grief... I don't want this woman going anywhere near our Foreign Policy... What a diplomatic message to send to the rest of the ... "I don't think so"

So now we get a little antiSemitism tossed in by an Obabot... coool!

user-pic

Your bullshit is tiresome.

Hillary Clinton thinks Jews are too dumb to separate an "endorsement" from some fringe loonie from the actions and policies of a candidate.

Who's an anti-Semite, again?

user-pic

...I guess you don't realize that Palestinians are Semitic/

However, from you previous posts -- I guess not!

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.

user-pic

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.

Such small beer the Clinton campaign has drudged up (get it?!). A photo intended to evoke the worst in us, open mockery, the "shame on you" moment, the Michelle pride gaffe...

I mean, really, is this all there is? Is this the best the desperate campaign can come up with?

I am reminded of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend's mockery of Robert Ehrlich's haircut in the final days of her once inevitable candidacy in Maryland.

The poo-throwing will continue until March 4. Then it is time for a Baker-visits-Nixon moment. Hopefully Maggie Williams will have more influence than the Shermanesque Penn.

Maggie Williams did the right think. Clinton's campaign should not get defensive. Obama is now taking assistance from the same 527s he has previously denounced and filed court papers to stop the other candidate from benefiting. He did not get defensive. When his campaign sent out a four page document suggesting statements that could be "potentially racist" he did not get defensive. When they distributed the Harry and Louise mailings?

He wants voters to play into the caricature that Hillary is not trustworthy. His camp started this fight. the Clinton campaign does not have to prove anything. If Axelrod his the proof, let him bring it. They made the accusation.

user-pic

Oh, and gee, she's proved herself utterly trustworthy with this crap, hasn't she?

Arguing that someone is not the best candidate for the Presidency (which is becoming more and more apparent with each passing day) and purposely putting out misleading, false and incendiary smears are two entirely different things. I would like to find one instance where Obama campaign has engaged in these cheap, underhanded tactics (and don't try to cite instances where he has had to refute inaccuracies and outright lies that Clinton's campaign has put out there). I don't see him issuing photographs of Hillary and Jim & Susan MacDougall just to "remind" everybody about the Whitewater scandal. Come on now, really. This is beyond the pale.

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.

Did you catch the report over the week end about how the past keeps coming back to haunt the Clintons.

Jennifer Flowers received a robocall from Bill Clinton, or so she claims.

A thought ...... Josh says on the main page that the picture was taken when Obama was in Kenya on a 'congressional trip'. Wonder if there are other photos of dignitaries dressing in the local garb? Might well take the "sting" out of things if you could put this picture up next to one of, oh, John Warner in similar outfit -- or Diane Feinstein in traditional women's garb of the area. I have no idea where/how one could find out if there were a whole series of pictures but perhaps someone here might be able to check it out.

I have seen reports of the trip and I had never heard it called a "congressional trip."

Here is a photo of Sen. Obama (in casual attire, Chicago style) with Raila Odinga.

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/Barack.Obama.Kenya.2.331658.html

Thats the spirit!
Obama can really publicize the photo and then claim how it is only a smear when HRC circulates it!
Of course he can title his:
Hussein Obama attends to the needs of his Somali constituency.
Fits right in with his Clinton D.Punjab little joke.

user-pic

"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."

Aneeliz, I think you may be right. That's how vile the Clintons really are.

I can't believe how many Democrats and liberals got fooled by them. I can't believe how many there are who still buy into their lies.

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.

user-pic

You do know that Palestinians are Semitic?

However, looking at your previous posts -- my guess is that you don't have a clue.

"Live down what?"
courting xenophobia and racism.

"Is the photo faked?"
No.

"Is Hussein "Mr. Authenticity" Obama ashamed of it?"
No. Should he be?

"Are you calling the American people racists?"
Won't speak for observer2, but yes, I am.

this is EXCELLENT NEWS FOR HILLARY!!!

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.

But Liam, who fed us the "Muslim garb" line?

Greg Sargent did.

Exactly, and I had to challenge TPM for hours to explain where it came from. They finally took it down, but they never did the proper journalistic thing of posting a formal retraction and explanation of why they used the "Muslim garb" term in the first place. TPM's silence on that question is truly very revealing.

egads! I guess the media isn't after Hillary after all:

"Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader's honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed "Hillary D. Rodham" in compact cursive."

http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/sunday/nation/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,3403116.story

user-pic

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.

The Clinton campaign has no shame.
Cold, calculating and without conscience.

I think releasing the picture was in incredibly bad taste, and bc of it, I have made my mind up. I will not vote for Clinton regardless of the outcome of the primary. I find her campaign contemptible and will vote for a third party candidate (NOT that egotistical Nader either) if she defies the odds and wins the nomination.

I have lost most of the respect I had for Clintons.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address