Hillary staffers play Obama Muslim card with leaked Somali photo

What can one say about this?

(Here's the Drudge page where it came from. More here.)

Although I probably shouldn't, I'll give Hillary the benefit of the doubt, for the moment, and assume the photo was leaked by low-level staffers with no authorization -- not even of the wink-wink, nudge-nudge kind -- from Hillaryland Central. Of course, to maintain that benefit, she'll need to step forward forthwith and angrily condemn this disgusting, unworthy smear tactic in no uncertain terms. No caveats, no defensiveness, no twisting this into some sort of talking point: just a straightforward, genuine condemnation.

Even if she does that, though, there is simply no way to undo the damage the photo will do -- both to Obama (among general-election voters who are inclined to lend credence to the Muslim Manchurian Candidate nonsense) and to Clinton. In the context of the Democratic nomination fight, this is deeply, deeply damaging to her, regardless of her personal culpability (or lack thereof), because nobody in the media -- and very few in the party, outside of her most loyal die-hards -- will give her the same benefit of the doubt that I'm tentatively extending. After all, the logic will go, leak-and-condemn is precisely what she'd do if this was a deliberate ploy. Even a full-throated condemnation can't unring the bell. So, no matter what she says, practically everyone will see this as yet another dirty Clinton tactic, orchestrated or at least acquiesced to from the top of the campaign. That's the price she pays for a) having a do-anything-to-win reputation, and b) behaving in ways that amplify that reputation.

I think, in fact, this may be the straw that breaks the camel's back for Hillary (no pun intended). I wouldn't be at all surprised if a whole bunch of superdelegates defect to Obama's camp in the next 48 hours, and the pressure on Hillary to "drop out for the good of the party" rachets up much sooner than expected. If this is going to be what the final week before Texas and Ohio looks like, every Democrat outside of the most loyal Clintonistas are going to want this campaign over, now.

UPDATE: On the other hand... Marc Ambinder points out that the only evidence the photo actually came from Hillary's camp is, well, Matt Drudge's assertion that it does. Ambinder writes:

It's unclear who is circulating the photo, what the photo means, why only Matt Drudge would receive it, why anyone would assume that even "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. ...

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 dump was supposed to signify.

It'll be interesting to see how this story develops. My above commentary is obviously premised on the notion that the photo did come from someone in the Clinton camp (or at least that the media continues to "uncritically accept" that assertion as fact).

UPDATE 2: Benefit of the doubt extinguished.

Obviously, if this wasn't coming from them, they'd deny it. (As Josh Marshall says, "Put it all together and the Clinton camp would appear to be unwilling to make even the most perfunctory denial that they are or were circulating this photo around. We held up on [discussing] this [story] because we never want to take Drudge as a fact witness for anything. But I think the Clinton camp's statement speaks for itself.")

Instead, the Clinton camp did exactly what I said they shouldn't do, reacting with defensiveness and twisting this into an anti-Obama talking point. And it's the most cynical talking point you can possibly imagine. From Hillary's campaign manager:

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.

The message, in essence, is that Obama is being anti-Muslim for daring to suggest that it's divisive to circulate a photo that's obviously deliberately designed to feed the bigoted anti-Muslim rumor that he's some sort of terrorist Manchurian Candidate. So basically, Clinton's people can play the Muslim Card to maximum advantage, and then call Obama an anti-Muslim bigot for objecting to their tactics.

F*** Hillary Clinton. F*** her and f*** her whole cynical, divisive, disgusting campaign. May she return to the Senate in shame, get caught in some sort of horrible scandal, and be defeated in the 2012 Senate race.

P.S. From the previously skeptical Marc Ambinder: "OK -- so someone (connected to the Clinton campaign?) circulated the photo because they wanted to show everyone how cool Obama looked in it... and the Obama campaign, for questioning the motive of the person who distributed it, is being offensive?"

P.P.S. Note that, just this morning (before I knew about the photo), I was saying, "I don't think it's fair to put the 'Muslim Manchurian Candidate' thing on Hillary."

Oh, but how quickly and thoroughly she has proved me wrong.

If Clinton's campaign really wanted to avoid being "distract[ed] from the serious issues confronting our country today," they would have promptly put out a statement like this:

Senator Obama and I disagree on a number of things, but we are in complete agreement that religion and ethnicity should not be used as a wedge issue to divide us. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with wearing the traditional garb of another nation while visiting there. Just as obviously, the person who circulated this photo is trying to suggest otherwise. We do not yet know whether the photo was circulated by anyone working for our campaign; if it was, it was obviously unauthorized, and we abhor it. If we discover that anyone on this campaign was employing such a cynical tactic, that person will no longer be working for this campaign. I know that Senator Obama and I both share a desire to make this contest about the issues, not about race or gender or ethnicity or religion, and I hope we can return to that important and substantive debate.

But they don't want to avoid distraction. They want to turn this to their advantage. They will, I think, fail. But it's telling that their first instinct is to attack, no matter how cynical or wrong-headed or mutually destructive their line of attack may be.

UPDATE: Now the Clinton campaign has come out -- finally -- with a quasi-denial. They say the e-mail wasn't "officially" pushed by the campaign. Well, of course not. Things like this are never "official." Cue Josh Marshall:

When we first heard about this brouhaha this morning, we didn't want to do anything with it before we heard what the Clinton camp had to say, for the reasons I described in the initial post ["we never want to take Drudge as a fact witness for anything"]. We know that without doing some sort of exhaustive internal investigation, there's no way a national campaign can say that no one in their campaign had anything to do with it. There's high-level staff, mid-level, hundreds of volunteers, etc. That's not what we were looking for. In most cases, in a situation like this, a campaign, or in this case, say, perhaps Howard Wolfson or some other top level staff would say: "We don't condone this. We didn't authorize this. As far as we know no one in our organization had anything to do with this. Our campaign is made up of hundreds of people. So we can't say definitively that someone somewhere didn't make a stupid decision. But this isn't something the campaign has anything to do with." We pushed and pushed. But we didn't get anything like that. The new statement goes further [than earlier non-denials]. But not that much. The Clinton campaign is either terribly inept at dealing with the story or they know or suspect that it's accurate.

Comments

[dcl]

Clinton's biggest problem in winning primaries is actually running for them. If she didn't campaign at all, she would be doing much better. Every time she opens her mouth she loses a tenth of a percentage point in support. For her, Texas and Ohio can't come soon enough--if she wants to win them.

[dcl]

In other news, so what? He went to Africa. He wore local traditional garb, happens all the time. So what? But beyond that Obama has repeatedly said he is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. But so what if he's not? The question is not is he a Christian, is he a Jew, is he a Muslim, is he Buddhist, a Hindi, an atheist, a Zoroaster, or whatever. The question is, Is Obama qualified to be President of the United States? Religion, in and of itself, cannot possibly answer that question.

[Brendan Loy]

I agree entirely, of course, dcl. (Though I notice you didn't include Mormons on your list... hmmm... :) But the answer to "so what?" is that a lot of Americans don't feel the same way, and the photo would seem to be designed to damage Obama's standing among those Americans.

[Angrier and Angrier]

All I can say is it is better for this photo to come out now instead of a week before the General Election. My belief is get all this crap out now because you know the Republicans would have no problem using this come November.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Brendan-

To your point, this could be some Rovian tactic by the Republicans to keep HRC in the race longer by boosting her numbers in Texas and Ohio. However, I tend to believe the Republicans are holding their powder on Obama (or Hillary) until after the nomination is locked up. Remember, the Swift Boats came out in September (I believe). The Republicans wouldn't waste this now. And while I believe Obama is running a very sophisticated campaign, I don't think his people would risk something like this as an attempt to give Hillary a black eye given Obama's command of the numbers at this point.

Based on what Hillary said this weekend, and the organized spamming effort you are seeing from Hillary supporters on blogs, YouTube, etc, I have to believe this is coming out of the Hillary campaign. I think it is a whisper campaign that has become a yelling campaign out of desperation.

[dcl]

Brendan, I was thinking Mormons went under Christians (sort of) and didn't want to get into specific denomination listing, I didn't mention Catholics either even though there is a tendency to separate Protestants, evangelicals, Catholics, and Mormons in the mainstream media. All groups, though, believe in Jesus Christ and thus are, nominally at least, Christian. However, I did willfully leave of Scientology if we want to discuss things left off the list.

[Condor]

I'm curious which 80% of this story Matt Drudge got right.

[Brendan Loy]

What about Jews for Jesus? ;)

I kid, dcl. I wasn't actually suggesting you're anti-Mormon or anything.

(That said, I believe, and I think you'll agree, that considering a candidate's individual religious beliefs and practices -- not to be confused with the religious "label" they carry -- can be a legitimate, though generally not dispositive, consideration. That is to say, it's perfectly fair to vote against a candidate if you think their wacky religious beliefs, or their lack thereof, reflect poorly on their fitness for office in some way. What isn't okay is to simply exclude whole classes of people based on religious labels without giving individualized consideration to what they, personally, actually believe and practice. That's where it becomes bigotry, in part because a person's religious "label" may be as much about family history as anything else. (I.e., there are "Catholics" and there are Catholics. And the same is true of all other religions, and non-religions.) But with regard to their beliefs, the line has to be drawn somewhere, as I think it's up to the individual voter to decide where to draw it, so long as they aren't rejecting whole categories of people (or displaying an unwillingness to vote for anyone who doesn't hold the same exact beliefs that they do).

[Angrier and Angrier]

Clinton's campaign manager doesn't deny that the campaign put out the photo of Obama...

The Clinton campaign puts out a response from Maggie Williams, which doesn't respond to the question of whether a staffer was circulating the photo of Obama in Somali garb, but takes issue with the Obama campaign's embrace of the issue:

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.

[Brendan Loy]

In other words:

Not voting for Mitt Romney because he's a Mormon = wrong.

Not voting for Mitt Romney because he appears in his personal life to fervently believe everything the Mormon faith professes, and you, as a voter, personally believe those tenets are irrational, and therefore his belief in these things causes you to question his judgment = okay.

It's a subtle and in some ways unsatisfactory distinction, but I don't know how else to parse this issue in an intellectually honest way. After all, it can't be that adherents of all "mainstream" religions are categorically okay and their beliefs are off-limits for all non-bigots, but categorical exclusion suddenly becomes okay for non-"mainstream" religions.

The reason we reject Scientology as non-legit is because we find its beliefs utterly wacky; well, if someone feels that way about Mormonism or Catholicism or Islam or atheism, that's their prerogative, and who am I to tell them they can't or shouldn't consider it?

So I think is okay to consider -- though generally not to based one's entire vote on -- so long as: a) one's opinion is based on an individualized assessment of what is known about the particular candidate's beliefs/practices, not a flat rejection because he or she carries a certain religion label; b) one's opinion of those beliefs/practices is based on some sort of reasonably rational analysis, not blind prejudice (e.g., "Mormon theology is suspect and I question the rationality of someone who fervently believes in it," not "all Mormons are crazy nutjobs"; or, "the Koran has some troubling passages and I'm not sure I can support a candidate who adheres to those ideas," not "Muslims are a bunch of evil terrorists").

CAVEAT: I'm not expressing my opinion of any particular religion, these are just examples.

[Angrier and Angrier]

You know, maybe this is part of some "brilliant strategy" from Mark Penn to drive a wedge between Barack Obama and Somali voters.

The difference between Mark Penn and Karl Rove is that Karl Rove is actually good at this kind of thing.

[4-7]

I heard that Hillary wanted to paint an Osama Bin Laden beard on Obama and put a training camp in the background, but she didn't have enough money in the budget for Photoshop.

[Angrier and Angrier]

I hope and I pray Hillary loses by 20 points in Texas and Ohio. I hope such a loss would finally prompt this woman to feel embarrassed about something.

[dcl]

Brendan, fair enough. I think the point is the same, is the person qualified to be president. Religion, pre se, does not figure in. But insanity or our disturbing superstition or human sacrifice or any number of other things the specific person does or believes could disqualify one to be president.

[Brendan Loy]

Right.

Just to be clear, at no point during this thread was I arguing with you, dcl. :) I'm more like arguing with myself. This is something I've given considerable thought to since Romney's "Faith in America" speech, but I haven't really posted about it before, and your comment got me thinking about it again.

[dcl]

I didn't really look at as an argument either. More of the exploration of an idea. So I suppose we'll just have to agree to vaguely agree :) In terms of faith in America, I think Kennedy's speech is far better.

[Bobby]

Looks like Obama is a muslim.. that picture of him in that garb is proof... looks like it is all over for Obama now...can't you just see someone cut and pasting that picture to one of bin laden and calling it osama and obama....Obama, you gave it a good try but Hillary wins....
In addition Obama's dad had four wives at the same time....People, wake up....Obama is a false messiah.......Hillary is the real deal...Poor Obama. Don't cry... Just go ahead and admit you are a muslim. nothing wrong with that. is there???

[Ed]

The release of the photo doesn't simply serve to raise the Muslim angle, it serves to belittle and minimize Obama's experience. The junior Senator from Illinois doesn't dare now cite this trip as part of his foreign policy portfolio of experience. If he does, pop goes the pic (legitimately).

Question for you, BL...if HRC somehow runs as the Dem nominee come 11/5, will you vote for her? If yes, please explain which policy imperatives would trump your fear of HRC's horrid personal character and your moral outrage? If no, would you vote for the GOP nominee?

[Mad Max, Esquire]

After Hillary's the actions the past few days, I will gladly vote for John McCain if she gets the nomination...as will a lot of other moderate Democrats. If she gets the nomination using these tactics, I think it is important not only to punish her, but to punish the party that sat idly by while this happened.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Obama is starting to pull ahead of Hillary in Texas. Keep up the crazy ranting, you shrew!

[Brendan Loy]

Ed, I would be undecided in either potential general-election race, but I lean Obama in an Obama-McCain race, whereas I lean McCain in a Clinton-McCain race. But I would consider either candidate in either case. I would also consider a third-party protest vote if the circumstances demand it (though I usually believe one should vote for someone whom one actually believes would make a good president, which often disqualifies the third-party candidates -- see, e.g., Nader). It's far too early for me to give you a firm list of criteria for that choice.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

New CBS/NY Times poll taken over the past four days shows Obama ahead of Clinton by 16 points nationally.

I think Obama should thank Hillary for handing him the nomination at Tuesday's debate. She has been his biggest asset.

[Alasdair]

So is it time for Obama to announce Nader as his VP pick, yet ? Or will Clinton do so, first ?

Or will Hillary offer to be VP on Nader's ticket ?

I seriously freaking hate politics-as-usual.

[Andrew]

I'm not hot and bothered by HRC's actions at all. My question is, WTF took her campaign so long to go negative and dirty? HRC of all people understands Machiavellian principles, that it is better to win ugly than to lose pretty, so why has she tried to stay above the fray for so long?

My guess is, her campaign is well aware of her high negatives, and combined with her strong belief in her own inevitability, she thought she could maximize her position for November and minimize collateral damage among Democrats and independents by staying clean in the primary then getting down to dirty tactics to win the general election.

No later than February 5, HRC should have woken up from that fantasy strategy and immediately opened up on Obama with all her guns. Yet she's largely held her fire until now, and I am utterly perplexed as to how she could possibly be seen by potential voters as being anything but reactionary and desperate. It's simply a case of too little, too late.

Still, to the extent she can damage Obama's heretofore mint candidacy and give him some warps and bruises for November, I applaud and thank her for finally getting down to business and not going down without a real fight. Somebody needs to make this guy fight rather than just give platitudes and stand around and be worshipped, Obama needs to be tested so we can get a better glimpse of what kind of man he really is behind his messianic mask.