The Phoenix Network:
About | Advertise
Moonsigns  |  BandGuide  |  Blogs
 
 

NYT: Clinton wins Somali-photo-gate

Hey, where did that photo of Barack Obama looking all Somali come from?

Matt Drudge, who helpfully disseminated the photo in question, cited "stressed Clinton staffers." Obama campaign manager David Plouffe blamed Hillary Clinton's campaign. Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams didn't deny Plouffe's charge; instead, she issued a statement claiming that the Obama camp's ire evinced A) anti-Somali bias and B) a desire to avoid serious issues and sew discord. Later, Clinton communications czar Howard Wolfson did offer a denial, kind of, saying: "I'm not aware that anyone has sent any such e-mail."

Let's suppose, for the sake of the argument, that this photo was sent to Drudge by an overzealous Clinton staffer who received absolutely no permission or encouragement from campaign higher-ups. Even if this is the case, Williams' statement was preposterous. Of course the Obama campaign is going to be pissed about this photo making the rounds, what with that whole Muslim-secret-agent rumor (which, incidentally, a couple Clinton volunteers in Iowa helped promulgate).

To suggest this indicates a lack of cultural sensitivity, or a lack of substance, or a cynical attempt to foment conflict is just absurd. In fact, by responding the way she did, Williams pretty much guaranteed that, wherever the photo came from, the whole flap is going to end up hurting Hillary's campaign. (It might hurt Obama down the road, if he's the nominee, but that's another story.)

Which brings us to the New York Times. Bizzarely, the paper actually seems to see Somali-photo-gate as a win for Hillary.

After describing the photo in question, and quoting Plouffle's claim that the Clinton camp was engaging in "shameful, offensive fear-mongering," reporters Patrick Healy and Julie Bosman close their treatment of the subject as follows:

It has not been independently verified that the photograph came from the Clinton campaign.

Mrs. Clinton’s new campaign manager, Maggie Williams, recently appointed to bring a tougher hand to the operation, issued a withering reply, not taking responsibility for the photograph but attacking the Obama campaign for suggesting that the photograph amounted to fear-mongering imagery [emph. added].

"Enough,” Ms. Williams’s statement began. "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," she added. "We will not be distracted."

The Times: all the tendentious political analysis that's fit to print!

  • Aging Cynic said:

    Sadly, the fact that you had to link to Fox to get this info means (to me at least) that many will dismiss it as less than "fair and balanced". In fact, the Clinton effort is looking more and more like "The Emperor's New Clothes". These geniuses will soon realize that since we're all drinking out of the same well, peeing in it is counterproductive.

    February 26, 2008 5:11 PM

  • Adam said:

    Good point, AC. I've added an alternate link from the Des Moines Register.

    February 26, 2008 5:22 PM

  • Chop Chop said:

    Although I believe all of the candidates running this year - democratic as well as republican - are to say the least "sub par" and I can't stand Shrillery, I thought the original email; which Matt Drudge claims was from a Clinton staffer, made a valid point when saying something like "Imagine how the media would react if HRC was wearing this" (paraphrasing here).

    In my entire life I don't think I've ever seen a presidential primary candidate who has received less scrutiny from the media than Obama. It's almost as if they are afraid to challenge him in any meaningful and critical way.

    The Saturday Night Live parody last weekend about the media's outright gushing adoration and absolute absence of any critical analysis of Obama and his campaign was not only hilarious but spot-on as well, in my opinion.

    February 26, 2008 7:42 PM

  • Oh man said:

    Metro felt there was enough urgency to this story to commit its ENTIRE front page to it. Exactly who's steering the ship over there? I'm wondering if there's any "Boston" left in the Boston Metro these days.

    February 26, 2008 10:45 PM

  • Devine said:

    @ Chop Chop:

    Your point is an interesting one, but the more I think about it, the less I'm sure what would constitute a valid counterbalance.

    Certainly, the press should cover the race and the candidates objectively and without showing favor or prejudice.  And yes, it does appear that Sen. Obama has become something of a golden child for media outlets across the country, in part because he's forever cast in contrast with Sen. Clinton, a polarizing figure whom, for one reason or another, it seems like it's more acceptable for people to publicly hate.  And I agree, it seems that every day there's more negative discussion in the media about Sen. Clinton's flagging numbers, her attempts to build primary firewalls, the "Shrillary" image, etc., whereas most Obama stories concern surging momentum, soaring rhetoric, and statements of voters proclaiming they're "ready for change."  Given all of that, I'll absolutely grant it looks imbalanced.

    But what, in your view, would constitute a more "meaningful and critical" approach to covering Obama's candidacy, character or past?  The issue of his "present" votes has been covered, hit hard and criticized.  The lack of experience angle has been picked pretty clean over the past year or so, and Obama's campaign has done a solid job of defusing it.  He openly laid out his past drug use in his book, a story later mitigated (or possibly even debunked) by an NYT story quoting ex-classmates saying "Barry" was never really in that deep.  Our distinguished DQM host, and a number of other outlets, have hit the Obama/Patrick overlaps and plagiarism fairly hard, too.  And while there may well be meat left on the Rezko bone, you can't really say nobody's covering that.

    Is it that the coverage of those substantive issues isn't enough?  And if so, what would you like to see covered to bridge the gap?

    February 27, 2008 5:32 PM

  • Chop Chop said:

    Excellent points there Devine. Let me address them one by one...

    >> Most Obama stories concern surging momentum, soaring rhetoric, and statements of voters proclaiming they're "ready for change." Given all of that, I'll absolutely grant it looks imbalanced. <<

    That is in fact; the very definition of imbalanced. This situation with the lack of critical press/media coverage of Obama reminds me of another 'kumbaya preachy orator' type (Jimmy Carter in '76) who wouldn't have had a chance of being elected had the country not been sick and tired of the secrecy and corruption of the previous president and therefore were 'ready for change.'

    >> But what, in your view, would constitute a more "meaningful and critical" approach to covering Obama's candidacy, character or past? The issue of his "present" votes has been covered, hit hard and criticized. The issue of his "present" votes has been covered, hit hard and criticized. <<

    I disagree. I believe that while Barack Obama's past and present votes have been covered; the coverage has not been 'hard hitting' at all but instead has been glossed over by the adulations (and ommissions) of the adoring media without any securitization at all.

    I'll give you and example of a story that the national media outlets either glossed over, and/or missed:

    In December 2007, the Trinity United Church of Christ (which happens to be Obama's church) bestowed its highest social achievement award upon Louis Farrakhan, the head of the Nation of Islam.

    This award was facilitated through the church's publication Trumpet Magazine and presented at their end of the year awards gala. The award dubbed the Lifetime Achievement "Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Trumpet" Award is named after the head pastor that married Barack and Michele Obama nee Robinson.

    According to Barack Hussein Obama's official web site, Obama has been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ for 20-years and his pastor, Wright, has become a close confidant.

    Between January 1, 2008 and January 30, 2008 (a critical month full of primaries) this story got a total of 6 links on Google News - and all were minor or unheard of online news outlets. And all of these links were from Jan 28, 2008; well after many of the primaries were over.

    news.google.com/news G=Search&as_drrb=b&as_minm=1&as_mind=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxd=30

    Do you honestly think that Google News would have had only 6 links (between 1/08 and 1/31/08) if this story broke at the beginning of the primary and either Hillary, McCain or any other candidate's spouse were married by a pastor whose name was attached to an award that bestowed its highest social achievement upon Louis Farrakhan?

    Obama got yet another pass... plain and simple.

    >> Our distinguished DQM host, and a number of other outlets, have hit the Obama/Patrick overlaps and plagiarism fairly hard, too. <<

    The only coverage by DQM of the Obama/Patrick overlaps and plagiarism was "Obama's rhetoric recycling" posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 thephoenix.com/.../default.aspx

    And this DQM post is hardly "hard hitting" - it is actually just the opposite if you ask me - especially at the ending of this post:

    >> DQM: "Which brings us to the question of just how important political consultant David Axelrod is. Because both Patrick and Obama are Axelrod clients, the Clinton camp's plagiarism charge rings false. The real question, I think, is where Axelrod's thoughts and convictions end and Obama's and Patrick's begin. Or, to put it differently: could Obama not sound like Patrick if he wanted to?" <<

    February 27, 2008 8:24 PM

  • Adam said:

    CC, you're wrong. I spent about 1800 words on Patrick/Obama parallelism back in mid-January:

    69.25.198.13/article_ektid54627.aspx

    As for your dissatisfaction with the blog post you cite: I think it's pretty clear I was asking to what extent Patrick's/Obama's messages are authentically their own. To me, that's at least as "hard-hitting" as saying plagiarism occurred in one instance.

    February 27, 2008 11:28 PM

  • Chop Chop said:

    >> CC, you're wrong. I spent about 1800 words on Patrick/Obama parallelism back in mid-January Adam <<

    You're right Adam... I stand corrected. I missed that article entirely (nice job BTW!)

    February 28, 2008 3:21 AM

  • Chop Chop said:

    Excellent points Devine... And you're right this HAS been fun!

    I always get nervous whenever the media appears to give any candidate a 'free pass' on a variety of issues.

    In the past this type of situation invariably winds up with (1) something; or several things, that the media 'let go by' blowing up in the candidates face after they are elected and then (2) the media (albeit unintentionally) has simply set up the candidate for the fall after they get in. After this happens; they can't get anything done at all for the next four years, because all of the focus is on the scandals.

    February 28, 2008 4:14 AM

Leave a Comment

Login | Not a member yet? Click here to Join

(required)  
(optional)
(required)  






Saturday, November 22, 2008  |  Sign In  |  Register
 
thePhoenix.com:
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
Copyright © 2008 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group