More On The Photo: The Ohio Connection

Reader J.K. writes:

FYI: Columbus (as you know the largest city in Ohio) is home to the second-largest collection of Somali ex-pats in the nation (Minneapolis is first). Columbus' Somali population is in the tens of thousands, and most estimates range from 30,000 to 45,000. As with any large influx of ethnically and nationally distinct people into a largely culturally homogenous area, assimilation efforts have been tough going. From my experience, there is definitely an underlying tension (among white and African Americans alike) regarding Somalis here in Columbus. I'm not necessarily suggesting that this was part of the calculus in pushing the image (indeed, we still don't know for sure who pushed it or why they did), but it is something to think about.

And a well-respected superdelegate is angry:

Are we now in a place in which every thing that someone does that is Obama related is viewed through a prism of racism? I I suppose that it's too much to think that maybe someone just does something stupid. What if there were a picture of HRC in a burka? Would it be sexist to circulate it? Would the press even suggest that it was -- or would it attack the Clinton campaign if it suggested it was sexist? Everyone really needs to take a big, deep breath here and get real about what things mean and what they don't mean. Or better still, why does the Obama campaign - a campaign whose candidate considers himself "post-racial" immediately play the race card? I'd like to see someone in the press ask that question.

Incidentally: here's a blog that scooped Drudge..

Comments

Gosh, I'll say that automatic delegate is angry -- they're verging on incoherence!

But this bit seems (willfully?) disingenuous:

Or better still, why does the Obama campaign - a campaign whose candidate considers himself "post-racial" immediately play the race card?

I don't think this has anything to do with race -- it has to do with religion, and the allegations (meant to be damaging) that Obama is a Muslim, and the fact that the Clinton campaign has previously spread those same allegations.

Would circulating a photo of Hillary in a burka (photos which exist, BTW) be sexist? Not at all. What if Hillary were the target of rumors that she's actually a Muslim, and that these rumors were spread with the intention of damaging her candidacy? Circulation of that photo would justify a strong response under those circumstances.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 5:01 PM

Ok, everybody. let's guess who well respected superdelegate is..

A) Bill Clinton

B) HIllary Clinton

C) Terry McCaullife

D) Harold Ickes

E) Ted Strickland

Posted by RKA | February 25, 2008 5:08 PM

The reaction of this "well-respected" superdelegate is absurd, for reasons ably enumerated by Mr. Larson.

The fact that Marc Ambinder simply reports him as being "angry" before going on to provide his comments in full tells us more about Ambinder--about his frustration, his disbelief, his anger--than the issue at hand.

Posted by wj | February 25, 2008 5:12 PM

yeah, I agree with Jeff Larson and wj. Please Marc, let's have a bit of contextualizing, reporting, and even judgment when you give a blind quote from someone you say is "well-respected."

Also: "Incidentally: here's a blog that scooped Drudge.."

Incidentally?? Really? I guarantee you, that right-wing smear blog, and others like it, is EXACTLY what this email "circulation" was intended to lead us to, and to play into in the minds of voters. THAT's what the Obama camp is calling "divisive politics."

Posted by along | February 25, 2008 5:22 PM

That "well-respected" super delegate is no doubt as out of touch with the African American Community as the democratic party is as a whole. If they do not realize the damange they are doing, they are dillusional at best. If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, you can kiss off the presidency because all it would take is 5% of African Americans, like me, to keep our asses at home to guarantee defeat. We are tired of the plantation politics of this Party!

Posted by Dawn | February 25, 2008 5:56 PM

As an African-American myself, I'm getting a little bit tired of seeing Obama's campaign screaming "racism" for every single minor little story. It's not like a flaming cross appeared on their lawn. I think our community is ready to go beyond these victimization games; Mr. Obama should take notice of that.

Posted by Daniel | February 25, 2008 6:03 PM

The "well-respected" super delegate would have a point . . .

IF THERE WAS NOT A STEALTH CAMPAIGN TO SMEAR OBAMA AS SECRET MUSLIM AGENT!!!

Posted by Jon | February 25, 2008 6:06 PM

The "well-respected" super delegate would have a point . . .

IF THERE WAS NOT A STEALTH CAMPAIGN TO SMEAR OBAMA AS SECRET MUSLIM AGENT!!!

Posted by Jon | February 25, 2008 6:06 PM

Would the super delegate be happy if the Obama campaign was sending around information indicating that Hillary was a closet lesbian? Being a lesbian is not a bad thing to most people, but if the effort is being made to court people to whom it is a bad thing, then it's a Rovian-style attack. That's what this picture is intended to do- ramp up whatever anti-muslim votes that Hillary can get among the less-open minded sections of the democratic party.

Posted by Helter | February 25, 2008 6:13 PM

The superdelegate says, angrily:

"What if there were a picture of HRC in a burka? Would it be sexist to circulate it?"

If you are going to call forth analogy to emphasize your point, please at least be marginally accurate in your comparison.

A proper analogy would be:

"What if there were a picture of HRC in a cocktail dress and high heels? Would it be sexist to circulate it?"

It would only be sexist if the implication was that she's a slutbag and unfit to be president because she wears heels and a slightly sexy dress.

AND THAT'S HOW YOU MAKE AN ANALOGY.

Posted by John | February 25, 2008 6:13 PM

AND THAT'S HOW YOU MAKE AN ANALOGY.

I don't know if you're echoing the "Spring Breakout" episode of Arrested Development, but big, big props if you are.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 6:22 PM

Hey Marc Ambinder: can you point us to where Obama played the race card or even brought up race - not religion - in their response? I'm not seeing it.

Posted by Gregorio | February 25, 2008 7:33 PM

Yeah, I'm just not seeing race brought up anywhere in Obama's responses. Maybe it's........MAGIC

Posted by Gregorio | February 25, 2008 7:39 PM

I'd like to echo the comments of others that the issue here is religion (also stupidity).

And a well-respected journalist is angry:

Are we now in a place in which react-quote that is Obama related has to make sense? I suppose that it's outside the bounds of propriety to respectfully pass along something horrifically stupid. What if there were an oft-repeated allegation that Hillary was Jewish? Would it be sexist to circulate it? Would the press even suggest that it was --

Posted by southpaw | February 25, 2008 7:57 PM

Oops, I misquoted the angry journo:

Are we now in a place in which every single react-quote that is Obama related has to make sense? I suppose that it's outside the bounds of propriety to respectfully pass along something horrifically stupid. What if there were an oft-repeated allegation that Hillary was Jewish? Would it be sexist to circulate it? Would the press even suggest that it was --

Posted by southpaw | February 25, 2008 7:58 PM

Dear Angry Super-delegate -

It's OK to call it racism when it is, in fact, racism.

And what was Harold Ickes doing yesterday once again comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson? No white politicians to compare him to?

Your phony insolence and the tin ear of the Clinton campaign never cease to amaze.

Today Hillary Clinton became a card-carrying member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Time to get Rove officially on the payroll. If there still is a payroll: http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080208/NEWS/80208066

Posted by nepat | February 25, 2008 7:59 PM

What is exactly racism, nepat?

The photo? Is it fake? How the hell is a photo of a guy dressed in tribal clothing racism?

Obamanuts are getting out of their mind... their paranoid is just creepy.

Posted by apol | February 25, 2008 8:28 PM

What is exactly racism, nepat?

The photo? Is it fake? How the hell is a photo of a guy dressed in tribal clothing racism?

Obamanuts are getting out of their mind... their paranoid is just creepy.

It isn't racism. It is part and parcel of a long-running right wing campaign to falsely paint Obama as a Muslim. For the Clinton campaign to (allegedly) sign on to that line of attack is repulsive--but it ain't racism.

Posted by southpaw | February 25, 2008 8:37 PM

Wow. In addition to being angry, that superdelegate sure is super stupid. Was it Geraldine Ferraro? She wrote possibly the inane, slanted Op-Ed I've ever read in today's NY Times.

It just shows the sense of victimhood Team Hillary is feeling right now. They can't see beyond their misfortune and recognize that, yes, those kind of tactics cross a line.

Posted by Ryan | February 25, 2008 8:53 PM

I have to agree with just about everything said above. The objection raised by the Obama campaign had nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the erroneous suggestion that Obama is a Muslim. Many races wear a turban. While I enjoy this blog, I seriously have to question why Marc Arbinder would consider the superdelegate "well respected," and then pass along his/her "angry" comments. Was Marc merely influenced by the "super" preceeding "delegate?"

Posted by fcadmus | February 25, 2008 9:00 PM

Why all the hyperventilation? How concerned can Obama really be about the "negative" imagery here? Like generations of pols before him, he willingly got into this garb and posed for photographs knowing they would be used for political purposes -- his political purposes and those of his hosts.

The photo was featured on the front page of a tabloid weeks ago, and the tabloid cover story was brought to the attention of conservatives on the Free Republic blog weeks ago.

Why no outrage from the Obama camp at that time?

The hypocrisy and cynicism of this primary season has outdone anything I've seen over all the years I've been watching Democrats make fools of themselves.

I can't see any benefit in the Clinton camp in bringing this to the attention of Drudge at this time.

The only people who benefit from this are the conservatives Drudge generally serves. And an Obama camp that feeds on outrage and Hillary Hate. You ready to send more money, boys?

New politics? Bah

By the way, why no outrage at Jon Steward talking about "Hussein" before a national and worldwide audience?

Posted by roy | February 25, 2008 9:29 PM

Marc-

I am equally confused as to how the Obama campaign has suggested this was racist? It seems there has been quite a whisper campaign to suggest that Barack Obama was educated in a madrassa and that he is a closet muslim. There are a lot of Americans for whom this picture would confirm that lie.

This is from a 11/29/07 wash. post article...

"In an August poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 45 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate for any office who is Muslim, compared with 25 percent who said that about a Mormon candidate and with 16 percent who said the same for someone who is an evangelical Christian."

"A CBS News poll in August showed that a huge number of voters said they did not know Obama's faith, but among those who said they did, 7 percent thought he was a Muslim, while only 6 percent thought he was a Protestant Christian ."

So that pretty much sums up for me why the Clinton campaign sent the photo and why the Obama campaign has every right to be upset about it. I suppose it would be wrong for the Obama campaign to be upset that the Clinton campaign was forwarding the email claiming Obama was a Muslim? The end game is the same.

Come on Marc, this is not rocket science.

Posted by cgibson | February 25, 2008 9:42 PM

Yeah, I'm just not seeing race brought up anywhere in Obama's responses. Maybe it's........MAGIC

It's not magic, Gregorio. It's an illusion.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 9:48 PM

Obama supporter leaked this to
1) blame Clinton for slimy right wing politics
2) drum up outrage in MSM and their supporters
3)appeal to the large Somali population in Columbus

This appears to be a win-win-win for the Obama campaign.

Clinton campaign leaked photo
1)scares white Democrats into thinking Obama is a secret Muslim 2)outrages Obama supporters, MSM and some part of the electorate in remaining states

Appears to be a push at best

Republican leaked the photo
1)slime Clinton
2)reinforce idea that Obama is a secret Muslim

Appears to be a win-win

Posted by Obama or GOP leaked this photo | February 25, 2008 9:49 PM

The photo was featured on the front page of a tabloid weeks ago, and the tabloid cover story was brought to the attention of conservatives on the Free Republic blog weeks ago.

Why no outrage from the Obama camp at that time?...
By the way, why no outrage at Jon Steward talking about "Hussein" before a national and worldwide audience?

You're either being disingenuous or you're thick as a fat slab of concrete.

Why no outrage at the Free Republic? Because it's the Free Republic. It's a niche publication that people with deep psychological issues read.

Why no outrage at Jon Steward (sic)? Because he's a comedian. His intent was to make the audience laugh. Oh, and the content of his joke wasn't meant to associate him with the Muslim smear; it was to point out how difficult his task has been to overcome the idiocy/superficiality or our media and lingering prejudice of our people.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is the most famous woman in our country. Since she's somehow still respected by a large chunk of the Democratic Party, her words and actions, no matter how ridiculous, are viewed with legitimacy.

Posted by Ryan | February 25, 2008 11:08 PM

If the Obama campaign released a photo of Hillary Clinton in a burka in some wild attempt to make her seem like a docile female, then OF COURSE it would be sexist. That's obvious, isn't it? How did this clown get to be a super-delegate?

Posted by Brian | February 26, 2008 12:40 AM

As a practical matter, if a photo of Hillary in a burka were released, how would anyone know it was her?

Posted by Eric | February 26, 2008 8:28 AM

It's shocking how little effort Marc makes to be impartial. It seems like we've now had several weeks or more of uninterrupted, unadulterated Clinton campaign spin on this blog. I really expect better from the Atlantic. The lameness of this coverage has only been heightened by the fact that Marc has been shamelessly campaigning for support on some blog award at the same time. Better luck next time, Marc.

Posted by J.B. | February 26, 2008 8:44 AM

Ryan --

There is absolutely no logical reason to believe, or evidence to support, the assertion made by Matt Drudge -- a blogger who caters to and shares the ideology of the right wing elements you characterize as "people with deep psychological issues" -- that Clinton distributed the photo. A photo that, by the way, before the Obama campaign used it to attack Clinton, had only circulated on conservative sites.

Your position appears to be that Drudge and and his right wing cohorts are to be taken as credible sources for any attack on Hillary Clinton, but dismissed as unimportant and dishonest on everything else. If you can't see the hypocrisy and blind partisanship in that position you are the one exhibiting slab-like qualities.

It was the Obama campaign that brought the photo to the attention of, and guaranteed its circulation in the broader media and blogs like this, not the Clinton camp. Which indicates they thought there was more political advantage in distributing it than disadvantage.

Your illogical post has simply confirmed the point of mine; outrage about the photo and any reference to "Hussein" from Obama supporters is purely opportunistic and situational. It isn't based in principle, it's based in partisanship.

Posted by roy | February 26, 2008 3:35 PM