« Bipartisan Group of Lawmakers Seek Common Ground
Hillary Clinton »



A Hillary Supporter Considers Photogate*

February 26th, 2008
By DAMOZEL

Print Print

*Hey, someone’s bound to call it that of they haven’t already:  I am just getting the jump on the bandwagon.

I am genuinely bemused by the "outrage" (or display of it) in the media and elsewhere over the dressed-Obama photo and the current dearth of denials.  How on earth can the Clinton campaign deny it?  It’s certainly conceivable that some Hillary supporter, somewhere, circulated it. 

How could Hillary validly deny it unless she checked with every single person connected to her campaign?

If she did deny it, and it later developed that someone in the campaign had circulated the photo, she’d be accused of lying to cover up the campaign’s involvement.
 

I understand that the photo would get Drudge readers excited.  But I’m a Democrat, and all I could think was, "So?" 

First, I know Obama’s not a Muslim.  Second— and here’s controversial for you—-I wouldn’t care if he were, because I don’t believe all Muslims are terrorists or hate America.  I can’t imagine that any Democrat thinks this.

Consider Clinton campaign spokesperson Maggie Williams’ statement:

"Enough.

“If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him [BELOW THE FOLD] 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.” (Quoted in No Quarter)

Distraction is exactly what resulted.  In reality of course, the people who are now whipped into a froth of "outrage" couldn’t be more gleeful. 

The media hardly mentioned Clinton’s foreign policy speech (yesterday), despite the importance of foreign policy to the presidency.

Also yesterday, Clinton got an endorsement from Army Major General Antonio Taguba: now she has endorsements from 27 "flag rank military officers" (and 2000 veterans).  That sounds like news to me, but the Obama-besotted media barely covered it.

Back to the photo: here’s one possible reason why some Hillary supporter, somewhere—albeit, someone who hasn’t been paying close attention—might have decided that circulating the photograph would be a good thing.

In Texas, where there is an open primary, ‘Republicans for Obama‘ seems pretty intent on not having ‘another Clinton in the White House.’  Perhaps an overzealous Hillary supporter in Texas circulated the photograph on the theory that Republicans might be turned off by it.   It’s also possible that it came from attentive Republicans who are finally starting to worry about what an Obama presidency would mean or from the Obama camp.  Who the hell knows?

If it the photo did come from someone directly connected to the Clinton campaign, it was a stupid move. Anyone who hasbeen following the campaign and has a grain of media savvy would know in advance exactly how such a gesture would be construed: against Hillary.

After a perfectly benign statement about MLK got turned into a "racially insensitive" comment, no one directly connected with Hillary could possibly think that circulating the photograph would do anything but create a backlash among Democrats and give volume to the chorus of anti-Hillary cackling. 

And so I’m torn between my annoyance over the circulation of the photo and my annoyance at the input of Clinton-hating Republicans picking the Democratic nominee on the highly rational ground that he’s not Hillary Clinton.

Though no matter what her campaign or those connected to it might say or do, I am increasingly convinced she’d still make the better commander-in-chief.  And that’s one unshakable reason for me to support her.  There are a host of others, but that’s one that no one has so far successfully disputed. And the more time goes by, the more I’m at peace with my support for Hillary (which is only growing stronger with reports that her chances are gone).

Finally, shut up, Dana Milbank.  (See Memeorandum here).

Cross Posted at Buck Naked Politics.



This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 at 10:51 am and is filed under Journalism, Foreign Policy, Women, Newsweek Blogitics, Primaries, Texas, Ohio, Negative Campaigning, Democratic Party, Women's Issues, Military, Foreign Affairs, 2008 Elections, Media Criticism, Democrats, Democracy, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 16 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    The only winner in "Photogate" was, of course, Drudge. It was silly. The Clinton camp wasted stupid time trying to decide whether or not to deny involvement or ignore it (it would have been simple to just say "no one at the top of our campaign has any knowledge of this photo"). The Obama camp was silly for playing the politics of outrage over it.

    As for Republicans deciding the Democratic nomination in Texas, what little of their support goes to Obama won't impact the bigger picture. I'd note that the Republicans for Obama Texas petition only has 31 signatures on it for starters. And in a primary season that has seen early Dem voting 800 percent over '04 numbers, it would take an awful lot of Republican votes to be statistically meaningful it seems to me.
    • ^
    • v
    Some of we "Obama supporters because he's the first viable black candidate and we're black and WOW this is the realization of a dream in the black community BUT are we doing the right thing" guys were talking about this issue in the barber shop this morning. We all agreed that this issue blew up WAY TOO FAST and WAY TOO BIG. But this is the silly season to the nth degree with a dose of American Idol thrown in. And nothing makes sense anymore.

    As far as who would make a better Commander-In-Chief, I would since my BBQ is so good that I could bring about World Peace with it!

    Seriously, I think both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama would do well. But the more I think about it and the more the silly season rolls on, I think Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton is the way to go. For a gaggle of reasons. One being to heal the damage caused by the "The Great Supporter Wars".
    • ^
    • v
    Didn't follow the photogate story, so it might have been silly. No argument. It does sound about as silly as plagiarism-gate and Ohio-mailer-gate.

    As for Republicans choosing the Democratic nominee, when one points out this fact/trend/influence, one should also mention the large string of caucuses in particular, often restricted to Democrats only, that have voted rather convincingly for one of the candidates. It's certainly not as if Dem-only votes all swing to Clinton and Dem+Indy votes all go to Obama. As much as each candidate's supporters hate to admit it, many honest to good Democrats support Clinton and many honest to goodness Democrats support Obama. Many support both.
    • ^
    • v
    A number of people who are not kneejerk Clinton opponents found the two non-denial denials that emanated from her campaign that preceded Wolfram's final denial to be confusing, even troubling. Of course, the campaign couldn't absolutely declare that some rogue staffer didn't do it, but nothing was stopping them from saying something like, "If someone from our staff or one of our volunteers did anything like this, we find it reprehensible. Our campaign does not support such divisive ploys. If anyone associated with this campaign was responsible, they will be fired. We have requested that Drudge share the alleged email message and are checking our own mail servers. Give us time to investigate and let's not be distracted from the larger issues."

    But instead, the two non-denial denials repeated the talking point in the email: that Clinton would be treated worse than Obama if a similar photo of hers was released to the media. And that's nonsense. Clinton takes a lot of undeserved crap, based on both sexism and Billary disdain, but this specific issue -- the scary coloured man/stealth Muslim issue -- is Obama's area of vulnerability.

    The campaign response was self-pitying and inept in the way it stumbled badly on dealing with this huge, obvious difference in how the candidates are perceived. It was lousy spin. If Williams, Wolfram, and Penn himself (who somehow has kept his mouth shut throughout this mini-scandal, and that's probably a good thing for Clinton) are the representative of the kind of people Clinton hires and manages, it doesn't increase my confidence in her general judgment one bit.
    • ^
    • v
    I love this Blog, and so I was surprised to see it written AS A FACT that Senator Clinton would be the "better Commander in Chief". I was disappointed to see the link was to Larry Johnson.

    Larry Johnson?!!! Why not link to Taylor Marsh or to Hillary's official website?

    I wonder how anyone could know before hand who the better C-i-C would be or will be. If THAT is the issue, doesn't Senator McCain have the edge?

    Please let me squeeze in one more observation. If Maggie Williams says: "We condemn any attempt to smear any candidate, especially on a day when Senator Clinton is making a Major Foreign Policy Speech. If this silly, non-issue came from us, we will fire the person just for taking the emphasis off the area where it should be: whose ideas are better articulated and thought out," is there an issue?

    Why cannot Hillary's campaign take the high road and stay on it?
    • ^
    • v
    Do you really think Hillary would be better? Really? How do we really know beforehand how any candidate will be once they've won the presidency? We don't. And unless you link to a reliable NON-PARTISAN source for your commander in chief comment, you have no credibility.
    • ^
    • v
    MaryL sums up my opinions on the photo issue. If someone was trying to damage Obama, a photo of him in Somalia was a laughable way to do it that was bound to backfire. The photo is therefore a non-issue. At issue is the fact that all Clinton had to do to defuse the situation was issue a statement similar to what MaryL suggested. Had that happened, the story would have died immediately. The fact that it didn't happen is what raised some eyebrows.

    On a similar note, look at how McCain responded today when someone speaking at one of his events said some things about "Barack Hussein Obama" that went way over the line; the Clinton camp could learn something from this: "I regret any comments that may be made about these two individuals who are honorable Americans, we just have strong philosophical differences, so I want to disassociate myself from any disparaging remarks that may have been said about them,” he said, adding later that “I absolutely repudiate such comments, and again I will take responsibility it will never happen again. It will never happen again.”
    • ^
    • v
    (Ack! That should have been WolfSON, not WolfRAM -- twice! I started reading this book online last week and just made the mother of all intrusion errors.)
    • ^
    • v