Yesterday, Glennia Campbell wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton offering her tips on how she could salvage her campaign. Today I'd like to offer my own suggestions, starting with this one:
Get the fuck out of this race.
Now.
Yeah, Glennia's a lot more eloquent than I am.
Hillary—what the hell were you thinking leaking this photo of Barack Obama in traditional Somali dress to the Drudge Report? (* Edited to add: "allegedly." /eye-roll)
Let's soak it all in: Oooh, Barack Obama in a turban. That must mean he's part of Al Qaeda. Couldn't they have found a photo of him sporting a Taliban beard? Holding a rifle? With explosives strapped to his chest? Amateurs!
How can any self-respecting Hillary Clinton supporter tolerate this kind of smear campaign? Dig deep people, is this who you really want for your Commander-in-Chief? Is this how to "earn our votes?"
Look! It's Hillary in a room-full of Muslim women! She's un-American.
Hillary: you have allegedly officially become that sour friend or relative that no one talks to anymore because they never have anything nice to say about anyone. The ones that no one comes to visit anymore. Thirty-five years of experience? Thirty-five years of experience being a BITCH. Allegedly.
The sad thing is that everyone knew the "Swift Boat campaign" was coming. When the chips are down, the Clintons alllegedly play dirty. Isn't that what everyone says? You had so many chances to rise above and prove people wrong, but over and over again, you haven't. Hillary it's time to pick up your ball and go home.
Here is what I know about your attempted alleged "Obama is un-patriotic"
campaign, a campaign that is failing miserably with people who have
brains:
1. No one wears American flags on their person IRL. You know why? It's ridiculous. Only politicians do and it's because they are "supposed" to an every one knows it. No one looks at a that tacky flag or that gold-plated eagle broach and thinks, "Wow, that person must love America way more than I do!"
2. As a teacher, I never said the Pledge of Allegiance in my (inner-city) classroom. Yes, I have a problem with the "under God" part, but more than that, I had a problem with the "and liberty and justice for all" part. It's hard to look at a room full of kids who show up to school everyday despite some pretty impossible odds and want to say that everyone has equal opportunity here. That's right, I hate America! Just as much as Barack Obama!
3. I had serious reservations about both you and Barack Obama which is why I backed John Edwards. But now? Seeing the kind of campaign you are running? From now on, I'm going to donate $50 to Obama's campaign every time a story like this hits the papers. It's a long way to $2300, so keep it up!
Who's with me! Who wants to be part of the "$50 for Every Smear" campaign? The sad thing is, Hillary, that no donations are even required. You are doing more than you probably know to help get Barack Obama elected.
Allegedly.
I'd just say that Drudge is not the most, shall we say, honorable person on the earth. I have a hard time believing anyone in Hillary's campaign is that stupid to "leak" a photo like this, especially to Drudge -- they would know it would come back to bite them on the butt. They're desperate, but ....
Posted by: PunditMom | February 25, 2008 at 10:32 AM
This has Mark Penn written all over it. Sheesh.
So, I guess Americans believe that George Bush is really a communist and an atheist because he wore the Sgt. Pepper/satin Mao jacket thingie when in Beijing?
Posted by: Glennia | February 25, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Wait, is the Obama campaign really saying that Barack Obama in Somali dress is bad? I don't know about you, but if people are really going to be dumb enough to be turned off by a photo of a statesman doing his job and being respectful of another culture he visits by wearing their traditional clothing, then they're idiots and shouldn't be voting period. According to CNN, the Clinton camp response to this is, "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,” said Williams." I think that's a fair response as why would you want to offend the Somali people by saying an American leader in their dress is OFFENSIVE or DIVISIVE?
Like PunditMom, I have a hard time believing Hillary Clinton would do this, especially since she too has been photographed wearing muslim garb. Regarding your three points, I think if I'm reading my various sources correctly (CNN, BBC, MSNBC, NYT) that the media is really perpetuating that along with the Republicans...you know, those other people who perfected Swift Boating and patriotism attacks on people with public service records.
And seriously, enough with the bitch characterizations. You know I'm a long time reader of you CM, and I usually agree with your opinions, but this is where we don't agree. I've been in corporate meetings where we women were told we had to be bitches to get shit done. We were ORDERED to be tough and ruthless and a lot of us took issue with that word while others agreed that that's what it takes to get things done.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are the same on 90% of the issues and they voted together on things 94% of the time. Her 35 years include being on the board of Wal-Mart where it's reported that she was a pain in their ass trying to get more equal opportunity for women. She worked for the Children's Defense Fund, she got Universal Healthcare on the map! (who cares if she failed, the country wasn't ready for it, but people certainly talked about the possibility)...all that because, she was as some say, a stubborn bitch.
Let's get real here, to be a politician and get elected, you have to play "dirty" but everything is her fault, whereas mistakes in the Obama campaign are his campaign's fault. He's been known to twist her words too and he's been calling her a divisive figure since the beginning. If you repeat something a thousand times, it becomes the truth right? Especially since all his attacks are on the third page while all her attacks are on the front. You'll probably be at that $2300 number pretty soon.
Posted by: honglien123 | February 25, 2008 at 11:09 AM
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/the_drudge_photo.php
I think we really have to question whether the HRC campaign is really behind this.
Posted by: PunditMom | February 25, 2008 at 11:16 AM
I don't put it past them to leak to Drudge. Honestly, I don't. I am fully aware that Drudge is not the most reputable of sources but let's not forget there was truth to Monica Lewinsky.
Honglien--I haven't called her a bitch before today, and while I knew I might get flack for that word choice, come ON. You cannot tell me she is an innocent party in all of this. And it doesn't even matter anyway. When shit like this happens it doesn't matter who is "right" or who "didn't know." The damage has been done. And you betcherass she knew about this. I am HARDLY in league with Republicans. I love that retort that people get every time they say something negative about Hillary: "Oh you are doing/saying what Republicans do/say." Is that the official Clinton party line? Cuz that's not the first time I've been likened to a Republican. Spare me. I am certainly not naive enough to believe that all politicians aren't playing dirty at some level. I just know a low ball move when I see it. And for once and for all Hillary Clinton is divisive! How can you say she isn't? I don't see independents and republicans voting for her in droves, do you?
Posted by: Stefania/CityMama | February 25, 2008 at 11:21 AM
PM--I guess time will tell. Certainly a pro-Hillary faction whether her campaign or someone else leaked it. But it's too late. It's kind of like lawyers letting their client ramble on before an objection/strike from the record. The words are already out there for everyone to hear even if we are supposed to forget them.
Posted by: Stefania/CityMama | February 25, 2008 at 11:28 AM
CM, I never said you are doing/saying what Republicans are doing or saying. I'm just clarifying that number 1 and 2 are what they've been saying, not the Clinton campaign. Knowing your blog, I can definitely say you're not a Republican. =)
Perhaps I can say that Hillary Clinton isn't divisive because she isn't divisive to me or the millions who do support her? I dunno. Millions don't support McCain either, but they don't say that about him do they? And actually, I know of a number of republicans and independents who prefer McCain or Clinton over Obama. And regarding who leaked this and whether or not she knew, it's all speculation unless Drudge gives up their sources. Still, I am with the Clinton campaign statement on this, this is only offensive if the Obama campaign wants to make it out to be offensive.
Posted by: honglien123 | February 25, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Honglien--do you really think that's how people will view it? That the Obama campaign is feeling defensive about the garb? I didn't get that from their statement. I think most people will view is as an attack or an attempted smear and ig'nant people will think, "See he is a Muslim."
Posted by: Stefania/CityMama | February 25, 2008 at 12:13 PM
I think, based on comments on Politico, the CNN ticker, Time's Swampland blog, that this photo is bad bad bad news for Hillary Clinton and that the majority of people see it as a low ball smear tactic. Frankly, I think that Hillary Clinton herself realizes that these tactics don't work and are negative for her! I mean, she has zero to gain from this, if anyone is getting desparate it might be someone in the periphery. I mean, when some lame ass underling in her campaign in Iowa spread rumors in December, they were fired. If anyone in the Clinton campaign did this, I'm willing to bet that it was a bunch of lower level employees. The Obama campaign is calling it a smear, but it's just a photo, as the Clinton campaign noted...because it doesn't benefit them at all and actually causes people to align themselves with Obama. I don't see how this would damage Obama's primary chances at all, if anything, it would allow conservatives to make a biased opinion of him...in the general election. I mean, it makes no sense for the Clintons to release this.
Posted by: honglien123 | February 25, 2008 at 12:29 PM
PS I think the Clinton campaign is not willing to say whether or not they released this photo because they want to make sure they really didn't. They've got 700 people on their crew, it only takes one to do something stupid.
Posted by: honglien123 | February 25, 2008 at 12:31 PM
PPS I just realized I didn't answer your question, yes, I do think the Obama campaign is defensive about the garb, why else would they be so upset about it?
Posted by: honglien123 | February 25, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Honglien, I don't buy that for a second. I think they are upset by an attempted smear campaign vis a vis the "questionable patriotism" campaign that has been going on. Everyone knows that there is a smear campaign going on. Whether started by the Republicans or right-wingers or fundies or fed into by the Clinton campaign who perhaps saw an opportune moment, it's wrong. It's so easy for the Clinton campaign to say "Obama wouldn't be offended if he didn't think something was wrong with it," isn't it? Spin, spin, spin. I'll wait to see if she apologizes and who gets fired.
Posted by: Stefania/CityMama | February 25, 2008 at 01:24 PM
1) I'm reading more on this and it looks like this photo's been on right wing sites for a long time. 2) Drudge isn't exactly the most objective or reliable source. 3) The Huffington post is reporting the following:
'I have not previously seen this photograph," Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said Monday. "I'm certainly not aware that anyone in this campaign has anything to do with it."
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe immediately accused Clinton's campaign of "the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election."'
Obama's foreign policy adviser, Susan Rice, said the circulation of the photograph was divisive and suggests "that the customs and cultures of other parts of the world are worthy of ridicule or condemnation."
From that, it looks like the Obama campaign is responding to this photo as a negative and is accusing the Clinton campaign when they weren't even the first ones to release the photo, if it was them at all. The photo plays into fear mongering that Obama is a secret Muslim (although only racist xenophobi idiots would really see a problem with that I think) and also plays into notions that the Clinton camp plays dirty.
THE PHOTO has been around for months!
http://bigheaddc.com/2008/02/25/drudge-falsely-accuses-clinton-of-obama-photo-ties/
Posted by: honglien123 | February 25, 2008 at 01:43 PM
Ok, last comment for today, promise. I don't know if there's a smear campaign going on. I've been reading a lot of political news (since I was in high school, trying to decipher positions for my parents) and I can tell that I think Mr. Obama has gotten the benefit of the doubt from the vast majority of major news organizations. There IS no smear campaign going on for him. His negatives are tied to blogs and editorials rather than news whereas Hillary Clinton's are everywhere (as has been the case for a good 15 years now). I mean, his campaign is getting upset over a two year old photo that doesn't say anything other than that he was a gracous guest in a foreign country as all of our leaders tend to be. I mean hell, even Fox News is defending the Clinton campaign on this one:
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/25/photo-showing-obama-in-somali-garb-circulated-by-clinton-campaign-source/
Posted by: honglien123 | February 25, 2008 at 01:59 PM
Honglien, I guess we will have to see how it all shakes out. So far, nothing about this surprises me.
Posted by: Stefania/CityMama | February 25, 2008 at 02:14 PM
I'm with the cynics of the group - I think there are people (mccainAHEMCOUGH) who have far more to gain by circulating this than Hilary.
The really bad part is that if you all think Hilary is fighting dirty (which really, by political standards, she isn't at all - remember Bush spreading rumors about the legitimacy of McCain's daughter in 2000 in SC?) then we are going to be in major shock when it comes down to one candidate on each side.
This is the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by: Mom101 | February 25, 2008 at 02:18 PM
Mom101, that is one of my biggest pet peeves in politics. As an adoptive mom, I feel there is no excuse -- NO EXCUSE -- for what McCain let the Bushies say about his daughter. She didn'f find out about it until recently when she did a Google search for her name. She was pissed.
So, needless to say, McCain or the GOP machine (Rove again??) could absolutely be behind this.
Posted by: PunditMom | February 25, 2008 at 02:23 PM
PUnditMom, I didn't know that about her having discovered it. It was a horrifying moment in politics. Nate believes that he made a deal with the devil then....let this one go and we'll back you in '08.
I also think by the way that the GOP has a lot to gain not just in disseminating the photo, but attributing it to a HRC staffer. More in-party division, more money spent attacking and challenging - if we eat our own, that means the GOP won't have to do it with their own money.
Posted by: Mom101 | February 25, 2008 at 02:31 PM
Re: fighting dirty, I wonder why political standards are different than any other? When I look at all the campaigns, I'm going to vote for the one that is (or appears to be cuz who can tell, really) the least dirty. I have a big mouth and tend to use it when I get pissed off, but for heaven's sakes, I look at Clinton and see nothing but smarm and desperation. I look at Obama and see someone that is trying to rise above. Do I think all's fair in politics? No! Am I being provocative by writing a post like this? Hell yeah! I want to send the message that if you go all negative and smeary, I'm not voting for you.
And to suggest that Hillary is subject to media bias is hilarious since back in the fall, when we started this blog, the media--esp CNN--seemed to be in love with Hillary. It was John Edwards who couldn't catch a break. How fickle the media is. How soon we forget.
Posted by: Stefania/CityMama | February 25, 2008 at 02:33 PM
What does it mean this photograph was circulated? Did it show up on fax machines at a newspaper somewhere? In an e-mail? Unless someone will verify where it came from and from whom ... it sounds like a bunch of political hooey to me. It's not like they don't have the Internet, right?
http://www.geeskaafrika.com/ethiopia_31aug06.htm
This is the link to the newpaper that ran the photo ... in 2006.
Posted by: Becky | February 25, 2008 at 04:29 PM
I don't think it matters that the photo has been "around" for months. What matters is that it's (conveniently) resurfacing a week before a major "firewall" primary. And notice that the defense is always "there is no evidence that HRC's campaign was behind the photo-leak," instead of, "HRC would never participate in a smear campaign like this nor condone anything like this." Because we all kinda know that she is, in fact, capable of something like this.
And as for the HRC campaign's retort of "If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed." Really? And if it's so uncontroversial, then why is it on the Drudge Report (the penultimate in yellow-journalism)? And why are all HRC handlers and supporters so defensive and in such a mad rush to deny their participation?
I have no problem with Hillary being a "bitch" (though I'm not keen on the word and its canine origins - if feminists want to do something really useful, they need to mass market a better word describing us tough broads). But I have a huge problem that she conveniently becomes a victim when things get rough. If she's gonna be tough, then she should be tough through and through. At this point, I can't figure out what she is, except that she's whatever she feels she needs to be to win.
Obama's no saint, but he's been a hellofalot more consistent. So like CM, I'm sending my $200 to Obama today. I've still got another thou' to go, so keep it coming, Madame Senator.
(As for the idea that people who are turned off by the photo being idiots who shouldn't be allowed to vote, unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that the Constitution (at this point) guarantees every citizen the right to vote. And I'm personally pretty damn friggin' grateful for that. I guess I'm just a patsy for not being ready to disenfranchise the stupid.)
Posted by: KL | February 25, 2008 at 09:19 PM
What KL said.
I was just coming back to post that a spokesperson for Clinton campaign said they were "unaware" of the photo and cannot control what that 700+ people in their campaign would do. Her campaign manager said, "We will not be distracted." Take that FWIW. I guess Texas and Ohio will decide.
Posted by: Stefania/CityMama | February 25, 2008 at 09:27 PM