The Drudge Photo

It's unclear who is circulating the photo, what the photo means, why only Matt Drudge would receive it, why anything would assume that eve "stressed" Clinton staffers would do such a thing, and why, absent any proof that such a photo was circulating, Obama's campaign would formally react.

(Clinton campaign aides denied circulating the photo, although they worry that, if someone on the campaign -- 700 people now -- did so without authorization, they will be in a pickle.

We're at the stage of the campaign where both campaigns lose perspective and are willing to believe the absolute worst about each other on the basis of an assertion. And that Manichean perspective then cause said campaign to imputing the absolute worst motivations to their opponents. That's not how human beings work, but such psychological blind spots can be forgiven, I guess.

(Quick: Clinton staffers: name five GOOD things about Obama. Obama staffers: name five GOOD things about Clinton.) Spending eight months locked in mortal combat will do that.

Anyway, the Clinton campaign believes that the Obama campaign is cynically exploiting the Drudge fetish that news producers have in order to step on her big foreign policy speech today, and the Obama campaign believes that the Clinton campaign is actually sending out a funny-looking photo of Obama.

Such charges are aided and abetted by stories like this one, which uncritically accepts the premise of the photo and its origin.

Could some dumb Clinton ally have sent the photo to Matt Drudge? Sure. Does that mean the campaign authorized its sending? Why would Matt Drudge be the recipient of such an oppo dump -- whatever the oppo dumb was supposed to signify.

Incidentally, an Obama campaign aide who would know said the campaign did not sent the e-mail to Drudge.

CLINTON STAFFERS CIRCULATE 'DRESSED' OBAMA
Mon Feb 25 2008 06:51:00 ET

With a week to go until the Texas and Ohio primaries, stressed Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a "dressed" Barack Obama.

The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat frontrunner fitted as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya.

The senator was on a five-country tour of Africa.

"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.

In December, the campaign asked one of its volunteer county coordinators in Iowa to step down after the person forwarded an e-mail falsely stating that Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Comments

I think Clinton's team could claim, quite reasonably, that if they don't air this stuff then McCain certainly will.

The McCain overall 'framing' of Obama will likely be, as I suggest here, that he is un-American:

http://marbury.typepad.com

They will use every weapon at their disposal.

Posted by marbury | February 25, 2008 10:08 AM

So the media questions the integrity of the NY Times story on John McCain's alleged affair for lacking substantial proof and quoting anonymous sources, but when a known instigator and a naive presidential candidate seem to give credit to each other, the media plays along and wags its tail. What a double standard.

Posted by LawSchoolDem | February 25, 2008 10:10 AM

Hello, Marc-

I thought that the respective takes by Jon Martin and Ben Smith over at The Politico were worthwhile on this news...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0208/Obama_on_the_need_to_spotlight_the_Muslim_smear.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Dressed.html

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com (McCain site) Publisher | February 25, 2008 10:11 AM

What a shock, Ambinder is defending the Clintons. So, if it's confirmed that they sent it to Drudge, you'll agree it's a Republican smear-machine level of attack?

At this point, they are not denying it, as I'm sure you know. And Wolfson is usually so slow about denials like this.

Posted by evie | February 25, 2008 10:20 AM

You may be right about this, but there's a discrepancy between your post and the Politico article. You say the Clinton aides are denying it while the Politico article says that they are not. Politico is at least enough of a respectable site that they probably did indeed ask someone. If it was a mere periphery actor in the campaign, then the Clinton campaign could have said so. Anyway, I'm guess we'll be hearing more to clear this up.

Posted by Greg | February 25, 2008 10:22 AM

Marbury is right, whoever released this photo, it was bound to surface at some point. Better now than before the nominating convention or, worse, election day.

Posted by Tim K | February 25, 2008 10:35 AM

I don't get it -- it's not like the photo is showing him doing anything scandalous. Much ado about nothing.

Posted by Lee | February 25, 2008 10:51 AM

Marc, you don't have a link to the Clinton campaign denial. Where did you see this?

Posted by Mary | February 25, 2008 10:53 AM

The question isn't whether in the end having the photo out there now is good for Obama, but whether Hillary is yet again engaging in Rovian tactics to smear. Drudge says he sent it around this weekend. I'm sure that the moment she denies it - he will produce the E mail. So don't expect a denial.

Posted by C.B. | February 25, 2008 10:54 AM

Why would Matt Drudge be the recipient of such an oppo dump -- whatever the oppo dumb was supposed to signify.

Seriously.

This totally disregards the Clinton connections to Drudge, the fact that Drudge called out the Clinton camp, and the history of the Clinton campaign regarding Drudge and pushing stuff like this.

I think the Politico piece was pretty fair all around.

Posted by Rhoda | February 25, 2008 10:56 AM

The Clinton campaign has been reduced to a pathetic sludge. Hillary Clinton was a paper tiger to begin with... and that gets demonstrated more and more everyday. She's done.

Posted by PulSamsara | February 25, 2008 10:56 AM

The photo is a red herring, a MacGuffin Device. The real story here is Matt Drudge.

Posted by lampwick | February 25, 2008 11:02 AM

And that Manichean perspective then cause said campaign to imputing the absolute worst motivations to their opponents.

Gosh, where would anyone get that idea about the Clinton campaign? Hillary's been so classy throughout. Rolleyes, etc.

(Clinton campaign aides denied circulating the photo, although they worry that, if someone on the campaign -- 700 people now -- did so without authorization, they will be in a pickle.

It's kinda like Enron: maybe wrongdoing is never actually authorized or encouraged except in a relatively few limited instances, but you've created an environment where wrongdoing becomes normalized to even otherwise decent people.

Why would Matt Drudge be the recipient of such an oppo dump -- whatever the oppo dumb was supposed to signify.

Maybe Drudge's long time -- support? admiration? respect? -- for Hillary. Whatever it is, he's not at all an unlikely outlet.

It's unclear who is circulating the photo, what the photo means, why only Matt Drudge would receive it, why anything would assume that eve "stressed" Clinton staffers would do such a thing, and why, absent any proof that such a photo was circulating, Obama's campaign would formally react.

Not to be petty, Marc, but this is borderline incoherent. You have a pretty amazing forum here. Would a little proofing kill you?

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 11:03 AM

Actually interestingly enough the Clinton campaign put out a statement castigating Obama for making an issue out of this ... without at ANY point denying they WERE circulating it.
Things that make you go mmmm

Posted by Benjamin | February 25, 2008 11:04 AM

Obama is now being attacked by nearly everyone, even the Germans:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,536232,00.html

This is the essence of Clinton's "experience" argument, and it is the cowardly political philosphy of a nation resigned (for better or worse) to political mediocrity. It is the sign of a country that no longer trusts itself to be great.

While understanding the historical fears that mitigate in favor of choosing "safe" professional politicians over "risky" young advocates of change, I strongly believe that the German take on politics is wrong for Germany, and especially wrong for America.

We are not talking here about a radical or an extremist. Obama is not Hitler, Moussalini, Lenin, Mau or Guevara. Obama is advocating for change within the government, not of it. He is advocating for transparency in lawmaking, not more executive power. He wants to reduce the power of lobbyists, not build a new political machine. He is not a Muslim or a Somali tribal leader or a communist, nor is he a sympathizer with any of them; he is merely willing to talk to all of them, as America must if its influence is to be felt where it is needed.

An America that accepts the known and cynical quality of the Clinton machine over the fresh hope and inspiration of the broad-based and genuine Obama phenomenon would be, in my view, an America that has admitted that all the intangible qualities of its citizenry that made it great in the first place were now dead. It would be the surest sign to the world that America had accepted mediocrity and a slow demise among nations, and decided it was too tired to fight it anymore.

Posted by T.K. | February 25, 2008 11:07 AM

Yeah, here's the non-denial that you may have read as a denial, Marc. It really looks as if the campaign sent the picture to Drudge, then acted affronted when caught.

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.

(Err, T.K., that German article was an attack on Obama? Really? Or was that sarcasm?)

Posted by Mary | February 25, 2008 11:09 AM

The reason why Obama is winning because he is not about this GOT-CHA politics, but chooses to debate the issues. Believe me, as all of us know, he could bring up all kind of Dirty things on the Clintons, but this is negative politicking, politics that tears you down and not build you up. Obama is not about this, he wants a more uplifting tone to dominate Washington, so we can get some things done.

Posted by Angellight | February 25, 2008 11:10 AM

T.K:

It is the sign of a country that no longer trusts itself to be great.

Greatness doesn't come from waving a rhetorical magic wand and hoping all of the nation's problems go away. There is nothing in Obama's speeches that convinces me he has any idea how to accomplish great things, and there certainly isn't anything new about his style or words. Politicians have been campaign against Washington, promising fundamental change, since the 19th century. It's always as a means of winning power for themselves, and always comes far short of the expectations set. If Obama is elected nothing dramatic is going to suddenly change in Washington, except that everyone who is so captivated with Obama's high-flying promises will realize how difficult those are to achieve.

As for this photo it seems to me that it is either damaging or it is not. One cannot have it both ways. It cannot at once be a harmless photo, yet still proof of the Clintons duplicity (accusations of which are getting really tired and out of hand on this blog). So - Obama supporters - get your story straight. It's either a big deal or it ain't. It cannot be both.

Posted by Tim K | February 25, 2008 11:31 AM

Mary,

Yes, that article qualifies as an attack in my book, and a more effective one than any I've seen from Clinton's 8th-grade campaign, which has often made the same point with much less conviction and substance behind it. But as I said, even when eloquently put, I think the argument is crap.

Posted by T.K. | February 25, 2008 11:44 AM

Would you please point to the denial from Clinton's camp you claim has occurred, instead of simply stating that you talked to some friends from the Clinton machine who said, "Not me!" or even "We would never do such a thing." Someone from the Clinton camp apparently did do such a thing, as the Clinton campaign refuses to unequivically go on record denying it circulated the photograph.

As a writer associated with The Atlantic, wouldn't it be better to attempt to clarify or otherwise objectively analyze this incident, as others are doing in their own blog posts, instead of allowing (so obviously!) your partisanship to muddy the truth?

Oh, and the Clinton "non-denial" -- that the Obama camp ought to be ashamed (!) -- this is classic Rovian smear politics. They know that a large bloc of uneducated Americans (one of Clinton's strongest bases) would, in its clueless fashion, associate this dress with Islam.

Posted by Thaxter | February 25, 2008 11:54 AM

I guess we're all already over Hillary's screeching to Obama ("shame on you, Barack Obama") and tacky mocking of him ("and the clouds will open, and everything will be so easy" etc.) and on to the next thing.

To inject a light moment into this meltdown mess that is now HRC, Hillary is a Scorpio. Scorpios can be very very vindictive when they feel they've been wronged.

We've been dealing with her "poor me" victimization ("Well, Katie Couric, I've been attacked here and I've been attacked there...") for months.

She is indeed a paper tiger. And the paper has been set on fire, by Obama, projected-onto surrogate for a nation sick and tired of this BS in politics.

I don't care if somebody sends around a picture of Obama in diapers or Hillary doing a poll dance for Bill, none of it has anything to do with what we're really interested in, which in my mind is daring to rise above the pettiness and stupidity that politics has degenerated into...at the peril of our entire nation and by extension, the world.

So whether Billary put out the picture or not is irrelevant: watching her this weekend try to "shame" Obama (shame? For God's sake, Mom, lighten up) for some flyer which has been out there for 2 weeks, or mock him now, only reminded me of the Howard Dean moment in Iowa four years ago. And which now seems tepid indeed.

Hillary is signaling loud and clear that...

She.

Is.

Done.

That she never had the depth of character and vision that we are hungry for in this election in the first place is obvious. It took awhile for it to become evident to the American people, just as it happened with Rudy Bug Eyes Guliani, once the voters got a few looks at him and realized what they were signing on for.

The time of the Clintons and Bushes of America are, we can fervently hope, coming to a close.

And I'm no spring chicken. I'll be 63 in April. We're all sick of this stuff, aren't we?

Posted by James Lawrence | February 25, 2008 12:04 PM

Tim K.,

My big hope for our politics might not strike you as worthy of your concern, but here it is: I think the executive branch of our government - that one-third of the federal government that chooses the members of one of the other thirds and is supposed to check and balance the last third - has been complicit in the steady rise of special-interest influence since the middle of the Reagan administration. I want our next President to be committed to changing that.

As you may know, the executive branch has one boss, who happens to be recognized as the most powerful person in the entire world because of the influence he has on setting the domestic and foreign policy agenda of the United States. Please do not tell me this person cannot make changes in Washington DC politics if he wants to. The trick is finding someone who actually wants to make the right changes.

The magic wand, as you put it, is the same one George W. Bush has wielded over the past 7+ years, effecting, I think you would agree, a startling amount of change, both in America and throughout the world. There's no reason besides moral laziness that we shouldn't at least try to put it to good use.

Posted by T.K. | February 25, 2008 12:14 PM

Well, Maggie Williams is definitely not denying the e-mail, instead the Clinton campaign seem to be wallowing in the self-congratulatory air of we got Obama good this time! So you can sure as hell bet that Hillary has everything to do with the mailer

Posted by John Piscopo | February 25, 2008 1:29 PM

On a weekend that Hillary attacked Obama for pointing out the truth, Hillary should be ashamed of carrying out such a dastardly campaign. I guess this is an issue of cost versus reward. That is, run the risk of continuing the narrative of "Hillary is part of the negative old-style Washington politics" versus hoping that the photo will plant a seed of doubt in any undecided who will be gullible enough to believe this.

Posted by Brian Little | February 25, 2008 1:41 PM

In defense of Drudge -- this would be my first -- he also printed photographs of Presidents Bush and Clinton and Senator Clinton in ethnic garb of foreign countries including, in the case of Senator Clinton, in a burqa -light. Is it just me, as an Obama supporter, that this pretty much defused the whole thing?

Posted by Paul Gerard | February 25, 2008 1:53 PM

Have you no sense of decency, Mrs. Clinton, at long last?

Posted by kit | February 25, 2008 2:03 PM

At this point in the campaign, with more laughable (and well documented) attempts to smear Obama than I can count, your little op-ed is hilarious. Really. Come on, we're at a circus, and you're arguing they'll never be able to fit the last clown in the VW bug. Maybe there's another clown to push into that car: you.

Posted by Jeremy | February 25, 2008 2:09 PM

Just wondering...

Why would Obama be bothered about a picture of himself that is not doctored?

Why haven't we seen this picture before? If Obama was proud of it, wouldn't he have released it 2 years ago?

Was Obama trying to hide the photo?

Aren't these Somali War Lords the same ones that killed US troops during the Blackhawk Down incident? Would any former President wear this garb? Maybe Churchill wearing Nazi garb?

Posted by John M | February 25, 2008 2:12 PM

To John M:

Doing Hillary's dirty work, are you? Perfect move: first question Obama's response and then repeat the smear. Throw in a little Nazi reference and you're job is done!

How much are you getting paid for this? I sure hope it's a lot bc it must soul draining.

Posted by Jeremy | February 25, 2008 2:28 PM

Jeremy,
What smear are you talking about? Is this a picture of Obama or not? Is Obama ashamed of the pic? Why do you refer to this picture as a "smear"?

Posted by John M | February 25, 2008 2:47 PM

It's a shame that when it comes to dressing up in Muslim-dominated countries, Obama has no problem playing the part as to not appear rude. When it comes to wearing the American pin, however, then he has strong convictions against it.

Shame on you, Senator Barack Obama.

Posted by jose | February 25, 2008 2:54 PM

To JohnM:

""

Posted by Jeremy | February 25, 2008 3:00 PM

It seems that Hillary's campaign did give the Drudge the photo. If I had written this blog article, I would be apologizing now for blasting Obama. His campaign were correct -- her staffers sent it. Isn't your blog article a little outdated and obviously proven wrong by the announcement by Maggie?

Posted by Vera | February 25, 2008 3:09 PM

T.K:

I want our next President to be committed to changing that

The question isn't what you or I would like to see - I'd like to see a lot of things happen - the question is how will it happen?

Every now and again Barack Obama seems to have a lucid moment and reveals that he knows this as well as anyone. He has said he would prefer a single-payer health care system like they have in Canada or the UK, but won't promise it because it's politically unfeasible. Well, if a single-payer health care system cannot be done then how does he plan on taking away the power of special interests in general? A far taller order since it means not only taking on one set of lobbyists and firms, but every lobbyist and firm, including left-wing groups. So, again, how exactly does he plan to do this? Until he answers that question then his promises are meaningless.

Again on the subject of this Drudge photo:

Clearly the Clinton campaign cannot deny that somebody on their campaign circulated this considering they employ hundreds of people. If they denied it categorically and it turned out some low-level staffer in the mail room emailed this off, they'll be pilloried in the press.

Clearly the Obama campaign is exploiting this in order to once again play the victim, and seek advantage from appearing to be the subject of some kind of racial smear. It's the same thing they did with Hillary's innocuous MLK remarks that they deliberately distorted for their own purposes.

What exactly is wrong with being photographed in traditional Somali dress? Somebody answer me that.

Posted by Tim K | February 25, 2008 3:31 PM

Funniest thing of all about this is the photo itself. Graceful Obama is clumsily dressed in Kenyan garb over his all too American Hanes and dockers; watch on his wrist is classy, though.

He doesn't look at home in that garb. He looks like an American visitor.

Posted by zic | February 25, 2008 4:18 PM

I think people should also look into the fact the the Drudge Report is the most anti-clinton website on the internet.

Posted by John | February 25, 2008 4:40 PM

I have read about this on blogs before this came out today and i assumed the Media didnt care to report on it.

At the time i was surfing Mitt Romney Blogs.

When i went to see if it was still at the Romney Page, everything is now gone.

I think this photo come have came from anywhere.
I have a picture of obama and rezko i copied from a blog.

Posted by Blair H Pittsburgh | February 25, 2008 4:46 PM

Well Mrs Clinton just convinced this undecided who to vote for. I voted for Bill twice, and I will never support Hillary now in any election. She is not only a disgrace, she is hurting the party and destroying the Clinton legacy. Don't come back in 4 or 8 years seeking support. It wouldn't surprise me if she lost a re-election race in the Senate.

Posted by Sam | February 25, 2008 4:51 PM

Tim K. is the only one who has made any real sense so far. I think if the situations were reversed, many people would just write it off as "Well, Hillary has to expect this, it is HILLARY after all." Just remember, the Clinton campaign fired the low-level staffer who sent the bogus email as well as the high-level state campaign chairman who made the remarks about BO's past drug use. Why not wait to see if there is similar action take IF it is determined someone on the campaign staff did this? The whole Matt Drudge thing makes it especially suspect, IMHO.

And zic, you're absolutely right! To me, he just looks like a geeky skinny kid who was forced into a diaper by some bullies.

Posted by acbs | February 25, 2008 4:52 PM

Will you freaks please give up on the "PIN" and "HAND OVER THE HEART" arguments? It is getting old and you look silly. Barack Obama is not un-patriotic. Who in their right mind would want to be subjected to this crap if they didn't love their country?

I have never seen our country this divided and right now, I'm for the guy who is promoting cohesion, the return to excellence in innovation and bringing our standing in this world to the position of loved and envied.

Posted by Nick | February 25, 2008 4:52 PM

What the campaign has proved is that Clinton is not ready for the Presidency. Experience is not teh same as expertise. She has run what would be a classic case on how not to run a campaign, for many years to come!

Her angry outbursts the other time would have sent most politicians to an anger management school but somehow we cannot judge the Clintons with teh same yardstick.

They are the proverbial Dennis Rodman and are allowed to play according to their rules, one reason why this race is supposed to be close in spite of 10 straight losses!

Posted by James John | February 25, 2008 4:53 PM

I think the Media should be reporting the Islamic Minister Louis Farrakhan comments from sunday rather then this story.

A spry Farrakhan sings Obama's praises
By SOPHIA TAREEN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour ago

CHICAGO - In his first major public address since a cancer crisis, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said Sunday that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the "hope of the entire world" that the U.S. will change for the better.

“This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better,” he said. “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 compared Obama to the religion’s founder, Fard Muhammad, who also had a white mother and black father.
“A black man with a white mother became a savior to us,” he told the crowd of mostly followers. “A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080225/ap_on_re_us/farrakhan_saviours__day

Posted by Blair H Pittsburgh | February 25, 2008 4:53 PM

JohnM,

Yes, it is a picture of Obama. It's not the most flattering picture he has.

Now, maybe you can explain what business the Clinton campaign has in releasing it?

On a separate note, anyone that judges a person's patriotism by a freaking flag pin is an idiot.

Posted by Greg | February 25, 2008 4:56 PM

Get real, Hillary people.

There have been false rumors floating around for months now about Obama being Muslim (he is Christian, for anybody who doesn't know), and the Clinton campaign releasing a photo of him with a turban-like headpiece is a transparent attempt to stoke that flame.

Then, instead of denying that they sent the photo, Clinton's campaign manager plays dumb ("what, they think that traditional Somali clothing is divisive?") and accuses Obama of trying to distract from the issues? My goodness.

Of course Obama doesn't think that donning the traditional garb of a Somali elder while visiting Somalia is "divisive", but let's be real: when his opponent's campaign releases a photo of him in "Islamic-looking" clothing at the same time that false rumors about him being Muslim are going around, it's pretty clear what their intentions are. Yesterday she was comparing him to Bush, now this. It's dirty, it's shameful, and it's yet another reason why I will never vote for Clinton.

Posted by Willis P | February 25, 2008 5:16 PM

I have been watching American politics all my life from Canada. This is by far the most interesting democratic primary in my adult memory.
It is amazing that democrats have just now begun to see the Clintons for what they have always been - climbers who will do anything for themselves. They almost destroy your party and you still respect them?
Obama is your Trudeau. If you miss this opportunity, it is your own fault. There is no right wing conspiracy now - just the nasty Clintons.

Posted by Jim O'Brien | February 25, 2008 5:35 PM

"It's either a big deal or it ain't. It cannot be both."

The photo is not a big deal. Senators, presidents, etc often don traditional garb at the request of their hosts; I think the current prize in this genre should go to the obsidianwings blog for their photo of GW Bush and Putin in Vietnam.

The question is why the Clinton campaign thought it was a big deal. The Williams nondenial reads as an admission that they sent the photo and are trying to reflect it back, very reminiscent of the "pledged delegates are fair game, too" trial balloon from last week that sunk so fast. They certainly don't seem to think they can say "no one at our campaign did this; if you can show they did, they'll be fired." So why did they want Mr. Drudge to have this photo (I presume he wasn't intended to credit them with it)? To show Clinton's foreign policy acumen? To underline her good judgement? To show she is ready on Day One? What campaign message did they intend to send? She is, after all, all about the issues, about competence, about the sort of experience that might prevent boneheaded insults to the voters. Surely this little drama is making an important policy point. They're just being coy about what it is.

Posted by Deborah | February 25, 2008 6:17 PM

And I'll add my name to those looking for denials. Williams piece quoted in the comments sure didn't read as a denial.

Posted by Deborah | February 25, 2008 6:21 PM

You know why Democrats lose? Cause we play stupid games. We fall for them every time. You know who probably released this dumb picture? A individual meddler with sympathy for the Republican machine. The real other side. But as usual, the Democratic party is allowing itself to get weaker and weaker, not look at what is really important, and taking the word of a meddling, repeat idiot like Drudge as credible! Incredible! It says something that this picture is receiving such a huge reaction, it came from the INTERNET folks! And the fact that it is hitting a nerve shows that it is truly speaking to the inner, pardon my lack of PC, "redneck" within many. Grow up people, and stick to credible facts. Either candidate will have to face the GOP eventually, and it will not be pretty. There will be more of this kind of bad behavior to come, no matter who is the Democratic candidate. It's just sad to see people on the same side believing this crud. Gullible.

Posted by PR | February 25, 2008 6:24 PM

Of course we believe the Clinton campaign when they deny having sent out the photo because NOTHING like this has EVER happened before.

Posted by GFR | February 25, 2008 6:27 PM

Marc, while one can appreciate your attempts to be "evenhanded" here, a little bit of gumshoeing makes this a no-brainer. Hillary Clinton's campaign on 3 SEPARATE OCCASIONS has not come out to deny that they released the photo. The reason's rather obvious-- they know that Drudge would produce the original Email then. Otherwise, they would have sternly denied it.

Read the statements by Wolfson and the other Hillary staffers. They are not by any stretch denying the release of the photo.

Also, to any Hillary Clinton supporters trying to say this is "so innocent" and "doesn't mean anything"-- you've just ensured that we'll all be giving a few extra hundred dollars to the Obama campaign by tomorrow. Even those of us who haven't been Obama supporters.

Few things are more infuriating that insulting others' intelligence, which you obviously lack yourselves if you think that any of us are dumb enough not to see what Hillary is doing here. It's playing up the Obama = dangerous African Muslim meme. The Hillary campaign has constantly been based on such divisiveness and obfuscation, so perhaps this should come as little surprise. But it is entirely unbecoming of a Democratic candidate, in any form.

Posted by Daransag | February 25, 2008 6:48 PM

Yoohoo, earth to jose, yes you-- idiot Jose who accused Obama of lack of patriotism. First of all, Kenya is not a Muslim country, you dolt. It's a majority Christian country. Second, for a loser like you to question Obama's patriotism for "lack of a USA flag pin" just shows the level of stupidity that afflicts too many Presidential campaigns. If anything, it's the most patriotic act imaginable for Obama to be smart and classy enough to wear the traditional outfits of a country in which he is a guest.

This represents the USA at its best-- diplomatic, smart and respectful. True patriotism is shown by true respect.

Posted by Daransag | February 25, 2008 6:51 PM

PR, if this had been released by an "individual meddler" with GOP sympathies, then the Clinton campaign would have issued a vocal denial. They didn't-- they know that Drudge would then just produce the Email. Q.E.D. Think about it.

Posted by Daransag | February 25, 2008 6:52 PM

What is the big deal about the photos? B. Hussein is running for the presidency simply because he is black and both he and his wife are more interested in black issues than in American issues, as evidenced by her comments and his religious and personal preferences. Why is anyone surprised and why does anyone care about his costume?

Posted by KATZ66 | February 25, 2008 7:15 PM

What Hillary did in RI was not only ridiculing Obama but all those who have voted for him too. I call this HIllary's Howard Dean moment only what Dean did wasn't nearly as bad. People have always told me that Hillary in real life is a mean person but I had never seen it until I saw the RI incident. She is losing it.

As for the dress thing the general traveling with Obama pointed out that Kenya wanted him to wear the dress. Lots of politicians have done it and I know for a fact I've seen Bill Clinton wear the same (yet I'm almost 50). Given all the Hillary attempts to smear Obama as an Arab I am not surprised that her campaign has stuped to this. Hillary fire the wrong person when she forced that Hispanic lady out. As pointed out by two hispanic senators they told her they were firing the wrong person and that others were more at fault. Well what do you think now? They were right. Now both Clintons appear to be racists (intolerant of races other than their own). Seems to me they are only nice to you if they can get your vote. I've suspected them of being like that, now I'm actually seeing the proof.

Posted by violet | February 25, 2008 7:55 PM

Yet another reason why my dumping HRC in SC was the right thing to do. May OH and TX be the 12th and 13th in a row March 4th.

Posted by Canklecrazy | February 25, 2008 7:55 PM

What Hillary did in RI was not only ridiculing Obama but all those who have voted for him too. I call this Hillary's Howard Dean moment only what Dean did wasn't nearly as bad. People have always told me that Hillary in real life is a mean person but I had never seen it until I saw the RI incident. She is losing it. Now even if she wins the nomination she is not going to get the votes she'll need after badly insulting all these new voters, independents, republicans and dems who had like Hillary who are Obama supporters. So many I've talked to and see in blogs say they will vote for McCain.

As for the dress thing the General traveling with Obama then pointed out that Kenya wanted him to wear the dress. Lots of politicians have done it and I know for a fact I've seen Bill Clinton wear the same (yes I'm almost 50). Given all the Hillary attempts to smear Obama as an radical muslim I am not surprised that her campaign has stuped to this.

Hillary fired the wrong person when she forced that Hispanic lady out. As pointed out by two hispanic Senators they told her they were firing the wrong person and that others were more at fault. Well what do you think now? They were right if you ask me. Now both Clintons appear to be racists (intolerant of races other than their own). Seems to me they are only nice to you if they can get your vote. I've heard they are like that, now I'm actually seeing the proof.

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

Why is this photo deemed offensive by some? If the Hillary campaign realased it to Drudge, why did he post it? What does it mean? Most American have dual heritage. If a Mexican-American goes to Mexico and wears the cultural garb, does it mean anything offensive? How about an Scottish-American wearing a kilt? If it means nothing in those instances, why is Mr. Obama wearing African garb even a news story?

That this is a new story tells me that there are innuendos, not voiced, behind its release. Wonder what those could be?

Posted by Munk | February 25, 2008 9:04 PM

Why would Matt Drudge be the recipient of such an oppo dump -- whatever the oppo dumb was supposed to signify?

Because, Marc, Matt Drudge is the Pied Piper of Sludge, leading the MSN around by their leashes. The campaigns know he will print their smut in screaming headlines and that the rest of the media will breathlessly follow. Were you in diapers in 1998, or what?

Posted by Michael | February 25, 2008 9:21 PM

Who cares if Barry "Turban Man" Obama wore a ceremonial robe while in Somalia.

It his his ridiculously predictable far left agenda we should be afraid of - not his clothing.

BTW, for someone with the farthest left voting record in the senate (even if it is only for a couple of years) - how exactly is that person going to work together across the aisle?

Zero chance of that.

Might as well elect the only moderate / centrist actually running. JM

Posted by Jack | February 25, 2008 9:22 PM

Please not Obama he is not ready

Posted by dudleyh | February 25, 2008 9:26 PM

Please not Obama he is not ready

Posted by dudleyh | February 25, 2008 9:26 PM

Hi Jack,

A lot of people keep circulating the National Journal rating that Obama is the most liberal ("not that there's anything wrong with that..." wink wink).
Well, I love the internet.
It allows me to find the original source...
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/votes.htm

My question for you Jack is this--why is voting for more ethics reform and port security considered liberal? I didn't think I was a liberal until I started looking over the National Review's criteria.

Any insight would be awesome, as this is really troubling me, especially the notion that ethics reform, or transparency in government, should be a badge of the left.

And not that anyone asked, but I consider myself an independent, but maybe I'm just one of those young kids who doesn't have enough historical awareness to know which party I'm supposed to be in.

Posted by Tara K | February 25, 2008 9:38 PM

Obama knew that Mccain had this photo, His campaign circulated the photo for these reasons:
1) Accuse Hillary of fearmongering, to divert attention from Hillary's complaint about Him mailing those flyers to Ohio voters.
2) Mccain campaign is broke and is terrified by the prospect of Obama winning the March 4th primaries, because he can't get himself out of his campaign finance committments. Obama knew Mccain would have circulated the photo sooner or later.
3)To divert attention from Hillary's major Foreign Policy Speech.
4) To get compassion and contribution from his supporters, especially from his Muslim supporters; don't forget Muslims are the 2nd populous religious group in this country.

Obama is the smartest politician I have ever known!
He makes Karl Rove look like a novice politician!

Posted by Sumo | February 25, 2008 9:40 PM

Most of the politician including Hillary wear the local cutoms when they visit Foreign countries as a friendship gestures;

But come on, shouldn't he have had a second thought before wearing these cloths;

Doesn't they resemble Bin Laden cloths;

A bad judgment!

We need a President who can make good judgements from the first day in office!

Posted by Sumo | February 25, 2008 9:52 PM

Why are people blaming Hillary when it has not been proved it was her? If anything, this sounds like a right wing conspiracy to divide the Democrats even more so the Republicans reclaim the White House. Everyone on here pointing the finger at either Obama or Hillary are pretty crazy or hate Hillary or Obama so much that anything the media puts out there will make you automatically go into attack mode.

Think about it!!! It's the Republicans!! DUUHH!

I'm sorry. But I know when I'm being pushed into some sort of game. Democrats are crazy right now and it's not Hillary's fault. It's not Obama's fault. It's the media and the Republicans.

And if you don't realize that now...then you better close you eyes and take a breather.

You are all puppets in their game and the Republicans are winning because they are working with the media to destroy the Democrats and anyone with eyes and ears can realize it's working. They want you to blame Hillary of course. Cause what going to happen is that Hillary supporters will hate Obama so much that they will never vote for him. Obama supporters will do the same and never vote for Hillary..so what else is there??? Independent or Republican?

Well I'm sure a lot are going to vote Republican. So clear your heads and point to the Republicans. Because if you don't....you're really, really falling for the game their winning.

Posted by josh20950 | February 25, 2008 10:10 PM

and I meant they're winning. lol

Posted by josh20950 | February 25, 2008 10:13 PM

I sent it to Mr. Drudge. Any other questions?

Posted by Fred Paxson | February 25, 2008 10:34 PM

I sent it to Mr. Drudge. Any other questions?

Posted by Fred Paxson | February 25, 2008 10:34 PM

The photo is a red herring, a MacGuffin Device. The real story here is Matt Drudge.

Posted by lampwick | February 25, 2008 11:02 AM

Exactly. Why would we trust anything that shows up on the Drudge Report in the first place?

Posted by Crosby | February 26, 2008 9:54 AM