No, They Didn’t Circulate That Photo…
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, VideoAnd no, one of their top surrogates didn’t just say that Obama was wearing his “native clothing”…
Nope, nothing to see here. Move along…
But the funny thing is, even the studiously objective 2008Central.net says Hillary and company aren’t responsible for what she said…
She (probably inadvertantly) kept referring to Obama’s Somali dress as his native dress. There is no way the Clintons want her to take this angle; they are not going to win because of it, or gain a single point, even.
Folks, at a certain point you have to stop saying the surrogates are dumb and start laying the blame on the campaign. These people are hand picked to go out there and speak on behalf of the candidates with prepared talking points. They’re not random politicians who are just winging it. That’s not how this system works. At least not usually. And this surrogate has been all over the talk show circuit, so any suggestions that she’s not seasoned are a bit naive.
Also, while I understand moderate bloggers tendency to want to be fair and give the benefit of the doubt, in doing so they’re giving the Clinton camp an open door to say or do whatever they want as long as it’s not traceable back to the campaign itself. Personally, I think that’s a bad policy for our corner of the blogosphere because one of the main reasons we exist is to hold these politicians accountable.
Food for thought…
UPDATE:
Christopher Orr shares my sentiments…
At this point, it seems to me there are really only two plausible interpretations: Either Stephanie Tubbs Jones is an imbecile, and the Clinton campaign is enormously unlucky that it keeps looking as though they’re trying to paint Obama as an exotic, probably Muslim foreigner. Or the Clinton campaign is trying to paint Obama as an exotic, probably Muslim foreigner, and they think they can get away with the smear as long as they add, “not that there’s anything wrong with that.”At this point, I’m afraid I know which I believe.
Me too.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
STJ is just a bad politician and surrogate. Why in the world would the Clinton’s want this type of spin? You think working class Dems in Ohio and Texas wake up with Joe Scarborough? Hell no, and I know, because I lived there.
My biggest flaw with the theories that this is all intentional is that this would be the dumbest thing her campaign could possibly do.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
The Clintons are losing - it’s undeniable. It would appear she’s going to get “waxed” in Texas, and Ohio will probably wake up and realize what Clinton/Bush rule has done to them these past ~20 years and throw her out too. Good - I’m not racist, I’m not sexist, I’m simply sick of Clintons and Bush’s - it’s really quite simple.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Sure. And I understand the tendency of Obama supporting bloggers to want to blame the Clinton campaign for every dirty trick whether or not there is any evidence to support it, but in doing so they’re giving right wing operatives an open door to do whatever they want as long they can leave an absurd easily spoofed “clue” pointing at the other campaign.
Do I know it was a GOP sympathetic dirty trickster that sent this picture to long time Clinton sympathizer MATT DRUDGE? No, of course not. It is just that there is exactly as much evidence pointing in that direction as there is pointing in the Clinton campaign direction. And there is an equally long history of dirty campaign tricks, maybe even longer and dirtier. And its just more logical, since there was no upside for the Clinton campaign to send this. None. But lets blame the Clinton campaign.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Yes, surrogates can be that dumb. Just look at the Texas surrogate who couldn’t name one of Obama’s accomplishments when grilled by Chris Matthews last week.
February 26th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Do you know STJ? Read any of the information I posted on her? Of course not.
The Clinton campaign has a tendency towards being incompetant (as even you post, oddly enough) and you assume some malfeasance? What’s the logic?
There is none. Two words: Occam’s Razor.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Wait John, was that last comment directed at me? I’m confused because I think it may be in response to the update I posted, but I’m not certain. I’ll assume that it is so I’ll respond.
I think it’s obvious I read what you wrote, so let’s not slip down that rabbit hole, okay? And no, I don’t know STJ, but you claim only superficial knowledge of her yourself. What was the point of asking those questions again?
What I do know is that the Clinton campaign thinks highly enough of her to send her out to speak on the candidate’s behalf. 99 times out of 100 when campaigns do this they make sure the surrogates know what talking points they want to push. Both you and I know that this is a standard practice. And yet you argue that there’s no way Clinton wanted her to take this tact? Well, okay, but I strongly disagree with that and I’ve said as much in this post. Especially when another Clinton spokesperson, Mo Elleithee, said the following the day of the controversy…
Does STJ’s statement sound similar to Mo’s statement? It certainly does to me. In fact, STJ’s statement sounds like a refinement of Mo’s. Like when Mark Penn came on Hardball after Bill Shaheen had talked about Obama’s drug use. Penn proceeded to say the word “cocaine” a couple times, and Joe Trippi (John Edwards’ campaign manager at the time) was on the program and called him out on it because it was transparently an attempt to link Obama to cocaine use.
And all of you are right…I’m not giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt. The time for that has passed for me and I think I’ve explained AND detailed exactly why.
Thanks for your comment.