A Hillary Supporter Considers Photo-Gate*

Posted by Damozel | *Hey, someone's bound to call it that:  I am just getting the jump on the bandwagon.

I am genuinely baffled by the "outrage" of the media over the dressed-Obama photo and the current dearth of denials.  It's certainly possible that some Hillary supporter, somewhere, circulated it. 

But how on earth could Hillary validly deny it unless she checked with every single person connected to her campaign?  If she denied it, and it later developed that someone in the campaign had circulated the photo, she'd be accused of lying to cover up the campaign's involvement.

I understand that the photo would get Drudge readers excited.  But I'm a Democrat, like the rest of the people voting in the primaries, and all I could think was, "So?" 

First, I know Obama's not a Muslim.  Second--- and here's controversial for you----I wouldn't care if he were, because I don't believe all Muslims are terrorists or hate America.  I can't imagine that any Democrat thinks this.

Consider Clinton campaign spokesperson Maggie Williams' statement:

"Enough.

“If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him [BELOW THE FOLD] 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.” (No Quarter)

Distraction is exactly what resulted.  In reality of course, the people who are now whipped into a froth of "outrage" couldn't be more gleeful. 

The media hardly mentioned Clinton's foreign policy speech (yesterday), despite the importance of foreign policy to the presidency.

Also yesterday, Clinton got an endorsement from Army Major General Antonio Taguba: now she has endorsements from 27 "flag rank military officers" (and 2000 veterans).  That sounds like news to me, but the media barely covered it.

Back to the photo: here's one possible reason why some Hillary supporter, somewhere---albeit, someone who hasn't been paying close attention---might have decided that circulating the photograph would be a good thing.

In Texas, where there is an open primary, 'Republicans for Obama' seems pretty intent on not having 'another Clinton in the White House.'  Perhaps an overzealous Hillary supporter in Texas circulated the photograph on the theory that Republicans might be turned off by it.   It's also possible that it came from some of the increasingly worried Republicans or from the Obama camp.  Who the hell knows?

If it the photo did come from someone directly connected to the Clinton campaign, it was a stupid move. Anyone who has been following the campaign and has a grain of media savvy would know in advance exactly how such a gesture would be construed: against Hillary.

After a perfectly benign statement about MLK got turned into a "racially insensitive" comment, no one directly connected with Hillary could possibly think that circulating the photograph would do anything but create a backlash among Democrats and give volume to the Chorus of anti-Hillary croaking. 

And so I'm torn between my annoyance over the circulation of the photo and my annoyance at the input of Clinton-hating Republicans picking the Democratic nominee on the highly rational ground that he's not Hillary Clinton.

Though no matter what her campaign or those connected to it might say or do, she'd still A BETTER COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF THAN OBAMA.  And that's one unshakeable reason for supporting her. 

I'm not a happy Hillary-camper this morning, but I felt cheered and supported by the following:

SusanUnPC at No Quarter points out:

From a friend, “It just occurred to me that today is the day that the Rezko trial is supposed to start [must check that — today IS the day, but I think it may have been delayed, also interesting]. It’s at least likely that their campaign put that out, and threw a huge tantrum to a) distract from Hillary [and her major foreign policy address today] and the issues of healthcare and trade, b) distract cables from covering Rezko. Because, you know, if it’s a slow news day, they may run a lot of Rezko. But now, the beast has been fed, and is happy.” - SusanUnPC x2

In the meantime, Pamela Leavey at The Democratic Daily has noted:

UPDATE: Via DU, the origins of the photo on Drudge causing the latest hoopla that Jerome was commenting on is apparently the National Examiner, the Free Republic and the wingnuts. Howard Wolfson called out the media on this firestorm. The pile on by progressive bloggers supporting Obama has been a sad statement as others have noted.

Taylor Marsh added:

I'll tell you as plainly as I can, I don't know who shopped the photo around  and neither does anyone else right now, so posts like this and this are just lazy and have no relationship to journalism. It's exactly what the New York Times did to John McCain that I found so objectionable. If you don't   have the story and don't know, don't print it, especially when it's inflammatory   and potentially devastating to somone's credibility.

If I find evidence of anything different from what I know right now I'll let you know, regardless of where it lands.

Finally, shut up, Dana Milbank.  (See Memeorandum here).

Related BN-Politics Posts:

Penn. Governor Notices Media Bias Toward Obama (or Against Clinton)

Maybe Jonathan Alter Should... (fill in the blank)

Obama Pulls a "Rove" on NAFTA?

Tina Fey Endorses Hillary....

Hillary Clinton Ahead in Ohio, Tied in Texas   

Taylor Marsh on 'The Progressive Rot at the Core of This Primary Season'

Comments

[B Merry]

Great post. While cruising the blogs early this morning, saw a comment (true or someone wanting to seem important) that said the pic was either on BO's website/blog/forum (didn't write it down, but it was in the comments at Hot Air) as recently as last December. Besides, just exactly where would anyone from Hillary's campaign have found this? BO went to Kenya. Ofrah met up with him in Kenya (he turned down the airplane ride for some reason) and there were a gizillion photographers running around. I seriously doubt someone from Hillary's campaign had the prescience in 2006 to follow him around and snap a pic just so she could flash it to Drudge and drown out her own major stump speech. But, anything's possible, I guess.

[Adam]

The "silly season" is in full swing.

It seems plausible to me that a Clinton staffer leaked this after coming across it, particularly given the supposed caption. After all, the plagiarism accusation played well. But it's ultimately irrelevant who brought the picture to the forefront. This story is dead and gone already - a 24 hour bug. (At least until some scum-shoveling questioner brings it up at the debate, but that only gives it another day of life.)

What is relevant is the ongoing viral smear campaign against Obama - that he is a closet muslim and/or an unpatriotic muslim sympathizer. This angle will get used in the fall if Obama takes the nomination.

With that in mind, it's worth noting how Obama's campaign responded to this, with agressive indignation. Like it or not, this is the effective way to respond to silly attacks in the current political climate. You've posted before about how we don't know how Obama will stand up to attacks from the right. Well, between the plagiarism questions and this, we are getting an answer, and it's "pretty well".

Obama's response to other accusations have also been decisive:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/25/obama/index.html
Contrast this to Clinton's vote on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, or, of course, Iraq. Obama's campaign seems much more geared toward throwing accusations back in the face of the accusers, turning defense to offense.

Is there a media bias? I dunno. There's been plenty of negative press both ways lately, and this brief but noisy spat between campaign staffers doesn't prove anything.

But let's say there is. Here's the thing - straight-talking maverick war hero John McCain is as much of a media darling as Obama is. If Hillary is at a disadvantage due to the media inclination in the primary campaign, this is not going to change in the general campaign. Setting aside whether or not the media bias is fair (or real!), it brings us back to that old electability question.