The Photo, Con't.

Reader CT has done some sleuthing and finds two recent uses of the photo, one on Sunniblog.com on Feb 11, and the other in the National Examiner tabloid.

Apparently, the photo was first published in the Geeska Afrika Online Magazine in August of '06.

Comments

Uh, Marc, I think you owe it to us to disclose whether "Reader CT" is "Reader Chuck Thies." Because the former may well be an impartial source, but the latter has his own agenda ("Oprama"), which ought to be disclosed.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 11:10 AM

Jeff Larson, please stop the hysterics. What would it matter who sourced these links unless he was also running the websites themselves, which is highly unlikely and conspiritorial a thought.

Posted by Jesse | February 25, 2008 11:31 AM

Heh, mornin' Jesse. I can't tell you how much it gratified me to be a second-order blog celebrity, and to have you following me around.

I follow Marc (and Reader Chuck Thies), Jesse follows me. Once Marc starts quoting "Reader J," it will all have come full circle ;)

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 11:43 AM

Larson - you're not any kind of blog celebrity, you just annoy people.

Posted by Almatt | February 25, 2008 11:56 AM

Marc, so what if the photo has been published before? Matt Drudge claims that someone from the Clinton camp leaked the photo to him for wide ciruclation.

Now, why would the Clinton team do such a thing? As a "writer" presumably associated with The Atlantic, don't you feel even a slight historical obligation to answer or analyze that question?

I will try to help you, Marc. They leaked that photograph because they know that a large portion of Clinton backers, those with the least education, would immediately associate such exotic garb with Islam. In fact, in the immediate wake of 9/11, Hindis and Sikhs were misidentified as Muslims and physically attacked by just the sort of fear-addled morons Clinton attempts to appeal to here.

Posted by Thaxter | February 25, 2008 12:04 PM

Thaxter, good points. In the long run, I suspect the photo in itself isn't damaging (though there may well be short term effects), but if the allegations that the Clinton camp did in fact circulate the photo are true -- as it certainly appears that they are -- then it speaks volumes about that campaign and Hillary's "authentic" emotional moment at the debate. (Which, to be fair, could have been authentic at the time, until she realized that everyone assumed it was a valedictory, and she overreacting in attempting to rebut that presumption.)

Also, via TNR, I enjoyed this hard-hitting look the signifigance of native garb. Also check out the TPM link in that post -- hard to imagine Hillary's campaign didn't have a hand in this.

Oh, and almatt -- always nice to know I'm making a difference ;)

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 12:16 PM

It's presumptuous of the Clinton campaign to claim that the Obama camp believes that the photo *itself* is divisive. What's divisive is passing a photo around w/o context, with the full knowledge that certain low-information Americans will interpret it another way. If it turns out that the Clinton campaign is deliberately passing this around, their response is moot.

I only hope that Texans and Ohians see the desperation here, and what that portends for a Clinton candidacy.

Posted by crazymonk | February 25, 2008 12:29 PM

ebiag uoyctgiw ghpensyxb gjcehlobn ybvco mpzfksd mqhvdgtj

Posted by wontdmfau nlpywr | May 6, 2008 7:50 AM

I am here to help you Mark.They leaked that photograph because they know that a large portion of Clinton backers, would immediately associate such exotic garb with Islam.
---------------------
John
Wide Circles

Posted by John Cena | July 28, 2008 1:58 AM