There's NO proof the Clinton campaign approved of the Drudge pic. So, he's a legitimate source now??

[bigtree]

This looks like yet another Drudge smear. It doesn't deserve to be amplified here as legitimate at the first hint of some publication on his site.

I'm outraged at the length and breadth of the charges against the Clinton campaign which are supposedly based on this Drudge smear. Just skimming the reports on this, there's an attempt by some to blend this unproven charge in with every petty complaint the Obama campaign has been pushing against the Hillary Clinton camp. Here's the Clinton campaign's reaction:


Maggie Williams Statement

25 Feb 2008 11:03 am

This statement by Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams does not include a denial that said photograph was distributed by the campaign, which, perhaps, one can justify under the assumption that Williams doesn't have access to the e-mail records of all 700 of her employees.

To the contrary: she argues that the photograph is not offensive and that its publication and the Drudge/Plouffe reactions to it are distractions from "serious" issues.

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.”

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/maggie_williams_statement.php

[bigtree]

1. They issued as clear a denial as any. They don't think the clothes should or would be an issue

That's completely contrary to the Drudge report in which a Clinton 'campaign staffer' supposedly told him they thought it would be damaging.

[rodeodance]

2. good gawd--i just logged on and looked over the forum! Thank you.

[Straight Shooter]

13. Another day, another faux outrage causing clenched widdle fists and stomping widdle feet.

I don't come to DU to get information anymore, but merely to be entertained by the bellowing herd :D

[SammyWinstonJack]

19. ...

:evilgrin:

[rodeodance]

50. well, seems, Hilliary has been raked over the coals--trial has ended she is

guilty of tearing down america.....damm she is powerful!

[BigDDem]

77. No kidding

I've never seen such a thin skinned group in my life.

[MoonRiver]

78. Lol, ain't it the truth!

:D

[Occam Bandage]

4. "This isn't a big issue" is not "we are not responsible."

[bigtree]

7. someone in the campaign sent an email. That's not the same as some approved attack.

The Clinton campaign doesn't see the wearing of traditional clothing as an issue, so there's no need for them to act as if Obama has been slighted by the surfacing of these pics on the Drudge site.

[Occam Bandage]

8. If it were only a rogue staffer, why didn't they single out who it was and fire them,

like they did with the Muslim-email staffer in Iowa?

[bigtree]

24. give them a frickin chance. The story's been up for HOURS??

. . .and you want them to have completed their investigation of this? Obviously, this was no attack from the head of the Clinton campaign. They don't see anything offensive or jarring about the pics.

[Occam Bandage]

25. Database searches do not take hours. They take seconds.

[bigtree]

31. That concern of yours doesn't make the case that the head of the campaign is responsible for this

And, I fail to see what they have to apologize for. Drudges claim of what was said in the email? He doesn't provide a direct quote. Just the cryptic reference to a 'campaign staffer'. Hell, that could have come from anywhere. When did Drudge become a reliable source? You go ahead an rest on the fact that there's been no purge yet from the Clinton camp over this, but the fact remains that neither the top of Clinton's campaign, nor Obama, feels the pictures are either offensive or controversial.

[Occam Bandage]

53. Responsibility starts at the top. She hasn't denied it was sent by one of hers,

and yet she doesn't seem to be holding any of hers responsible. Rather, she's digging in her heels and saying, "Yeah, so what?" I expect better from Democrats.

[bigtree]

59. You don't know that. And, you also don't have any proof of the credibility of the Drudge article.

Yet, you persist in pressing it as a legitimate source for your criticisms. Is he a legitimate source?

[Occam Bandage]

61. Nope. The Clinton campaign is a legitimate source. Their non-denial is an admission of truth.

[bigtree]

64. just saying it (and playing with it) doesn't make it so. Grow up.

[Occam Bandage]

67. If they weren't behind it, why did their statement lack a denial?

[bigtree]

70. Because it's a game that folks like you are playing. That's as offensive to me as Drudge.

I like the fact that the Clinton campaign didn't fall for the bait. Piggybacking on republican-originated attacks doesn't deserve a direct response.

[Occam Bandage]

73. Issuing a statement on it counts as "falling for the bait." She gave a direct response.

She just didn't deny her involvement.

[bigtree]

79. keep stretching. I think your promotion of Drudge's ignorance is appaling

And, your attempt to smear the Clinton campaign with the Drudge ignorance is typical of the piggybacking on republican attacks which has characterized most of the opposition to Hillary Clinton. This time you got caught in *your own ignorance. NO one thinks the pics are offensive. That takes all of the wind out of whatever smear Drudge was trying to orchestrate, and takes all the punch out of the false outrage folks like you are expressing as they stand beside Drudge and promote his bullshit.

[Big Blue Marble]

69. The headline says staffers.

That would indeed imply more than one rogue.

[bigtree]

80. he said 'a campaign staffer'

Get your bullshit right.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

12. look at ties between Clinton and McCain campaigns!

http://www.obamaiswinning.com/2008/02/mark-penns-lobb.html

[Levgreee]

5. people can say one thing and mean another - FYI

if they distributed it, they obviously believe it would be politically detrimental to Barack.

[cali]

6. lol. that is NOT a denial

who do you think you're fooling? Anyone who knows how political campaigns operates can recognize that as spin. A clear denial looks like this: "No one in Senator Clintons campaigns distributed photographs of Senator Obama when he was in Africa to any media outlet"

[bigtree]

11. They don't see the pics as offensive, so where's the attack?

Are you claiming that because SOMEONE emailed something the OFFICIAL Clinton campaign doesn't feel is offensive -- that Obama doesn't see as offensive -- and that that is an attack?

[Occam Bandage]

26. "Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?"

What does that imply to you?

[bigtree]

34. It implies to me that Drudge made it up, like he made up those bimbo reports during the Kerry run

in 2004, which were published here at DU as legitimate.

[washingdem]

45. Then why

did they circulate the picture if they didn't intend it as a smear?

[bigtree]

46. no evidence that 'they' did. Anyone can send an email. Why didn't Drudge identify the staffer?

. . . because, the story's bullshit.

[washingdem]

51. Then why didn't the Clinton campaign deny it?

[bigtree]

56. they just wanted to piss off shitstirrers and bottom-feeders pushing this Drudge tripe

[washingdem]

57. Good answer.

[rodeodance]

58. hey 20 poster. many of like to get facts straight first. got it.

[washingdem]

62. Post count reference. Mature. Just like the Clintons' tactics.

[bigtree]

65. you aren't as clever as you think.

go play somewhere else.

[washingdem]

66. Ha. Guess you've realized defending despicable smear tactics is a losing argument

[bigtree]

72. You mean like the folks who have accepted and are spreading the Drudge bullshit?

I won't defend that despicable smear tactic by you and others.

[washingdem]

81. Explain

why the Clinton campaign would issue a statement basically saying "what's the big deal?" and not "We are not responsible and do not condone such an attack" if the story wasn't true. See, that's the question you guys can't answer. And if your position is that they have not denied it because they are still getting the facts, then explain why they wouldn't say "We do not condone such an attack and if a member of our staff was involved they were wrong to do so."

[bigtree]

83. done.

go play

[Occam Bandage]

3. Er, then why did their response not include a denial?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

9. since her campaign and McCain campaign have ties

no big shock that they are double teaming Obama.

http://www.obamaiswinning.com/2008/02/mark-penns-lobb.html

[redqueen]

10. I see how they're trying to play this... but it's not going to work.

It might work if they included a "whoever is responsible for feeding the rightwing smear machine by sending e-mails to rightwing sites will be fired, and we don't condone that sort of behavior" or something like that.

Their failure to do something like the above was a mistake. A big one, I think... as it's getting late in the game and people are tired of all this back and forth.

[bigtree]

15. the 'story' has been up for a matter of hours. This is opportunism from the Obama camp

FALSE outrage over the appearance of photos they, THEMSELVES, say aren't offensive.

[redqueen]

23. That's all beside the point.

It's very easy to acknowledge that if a staffer is sending crap to rightwing sites, that that is wrong, and they don't condone it.

[bigtree]

27. give them a chance. But, it makes no sense that this is an attack

from folks who don't see the pics as controversial or offensive, LIKE DRUDGE OBVIOUSLY DOES!!

[redqueen]

32. Right... but it does look sleazy.

Because in sending the e-mail to Druge, the staffer left no doubt as to their intention.

Perception is everything.

[bigtree]

35. It came from Drudge

remember the Kerry 'affair' he reported in detail in the middle of the race in 2004, which were repeated here as fact?

[redqueen]

38. Right... so there's no guarantee it came from anyone with her campaign...

but, again, how hard is it to include a statement saying that if it did, that that would be wrong, and they would be held responsible?

[bigtree]

47. what was wrong? the statement Drudge says came from the emailer?

or the photos? There's a real disconnect between the fact that these photos are not offensive and the charge that someone in the Clinton campaign thought they were, enough to spread them around as offensive. Did you know they were already in circulation? Drudge's claims don't square with the fact that no one, on either side is willing to say the pics are the least bit damaging.

I think the issue of someone sending unauthorized emails is important, but not some major issue. It happens all of the time. And, Drudge lies repeatedly.

[BuyingThyme]

14. Your post only proves that Hillary Clinton is now running a racist campaign.

Maggie Williams' statement cleverly and evilly points out that there's a difference between Hillary Clinton wearing traditional brown-people garb and Barack Obama wearing traditional brown-people garb.

That's the point of this exercise. These are racists we're dealing with.

This is about to blow up, and it should.

To hell will anybody who supports Hillary Clinton for another second.

Shame on all of you Hillary supporters. And bring it on.

[bigtree]

18. You are delusional

Nothing in that statement differentiated between the two. And, the Obama campaign isn't saying anything was wrong or damaging at all in the pics of Obama.

SHAME ON YOU, for trying to smear the Clinton campaign with Drudge's release of pics even the Obama campaign says are innocuous.

[BuyingThyme]

28. Of course the pictures are innocuous.

So is race. But racism tries to paint everything in a different light, doesn't it.

But the statement does differentiate. Why the hell would they release a statement like that in response to this incident? They are not running away from it, they're trying to make a point. Read it.

And why don't they just say whether or not they're even responsible for this in the first place?

Come on, man. Have some minimal expectations of your candidate (if that's what she is).

[bigtree]

37. Maggie Williams is saying she doesn't think the pictures are offensive or controversial

some basis for an attack :eyes:

[BuyingThyme]

40. No, what she's doing is calling the attention to the differences between

a white woman wearing the garb and a black man wearing the garb.

Why do you suppose? What do you suppose they were thinking when they wrote that paragraph you have highlighted?

These are ugly people.

Please make them go away.

We're all better than Hillary and company.

[bigtree]

48. that's so intellectually dishonest, I can only interpret that as spin

good luck with that.

[BuyingThyme]

55. It's dishonest to ask what Maggie Williams was trying to say/do

when she issued that statement?

How so?

[bigtree]

63. It's in response to unproven Drudge tripe. She addressed the substance of the controversy

She knocked down any notion that the head of the Clinton campaign feels the pictures were the least bit offensive or were something which could be or should be used as the source of some sneak attack. That makes sense, as these photos have been in circulation for years, and Clinton has her own pics in unusual, traditional garb.

Nice piggyback on Drudge's ignorance. HE thinks the pics are offensive, so he thought this was some dynamite way to stir up some racial issue between the camps. Even if someone did email him, the fact that he didn't NAME them is revealing. It obviously wasn't an attack from the head of the Clinton campaign because they don't see a thing wrong with the traditional garb Obama is wearing. Drudge is responsible for all of the rest of the implications he raised, not the Clinton campaign.

[rodeodance]

54. typical--an Obamafolk posting vile comments about racism and Clinton without knowing the facts!

[BuyingThyme]

60. What facts are those? I'm responding to Team Clinton's

racist response. Have they asked you to pretend that the statement doesn't exist?

It's hard to keep up with all the dishonest tactics of Team Hillary.

[bigtree]

68. Maggie Willams is racist? Good luck with that.

[BuyingThyme]

75. If you can put a better motive to what she did today,

go for it.

Explain why they would release that insane statement that does everything but denounce the use of that photo, by anybody, as a racist ploy.

Allow yourself to return to reality for just a moment.

[rodeodance]

74. get a grip!!

[BuyingThyme]

82. Okay then, you explain Maggie Williams' statement.

You explain why they're pretending not to know the difference between Barack wearing that stuff and Hillary wearing that stuff.

Explain how one comes to writing that crap if not specifically to play on people's racism.

Then try to explain how playing on people's racism is not racist.

[bigtree]

84. What is the difference? You seem to have a very complex view on the difference.

Maggie Williams doesn't seem to see a difference or attach any importance to the wearing of traditional garb. YOU, however, seem to be suggesting there's something damaging to Obama in those pics. YOU need to explain . . . Maggie Williams was as clear as day.

[BuyingThyme]

85. Now you're just being dishonest.

Now they have you pretending that you don't know that those photos have and will be used to garner the support of racists.

This is not complicated.

Look what you've become.

[bigtree]

86. sure, disagree with you or your campaign, and, I'm somehow 'dishonest.

That's a good representation of the intellectual brevity of the Obama supporter's defenses.

You are shackled by your own narrow world view. I can't help it if you feel there's some negative inference which you've heard or contrived behind the wearing of a traditional African costume. That's a function of your own acceptance of the importance of those few idiots who still snicker and point at anything which looks any different from their own bigoted selves. Drudge made the same ignorant miscalculation. You and Drudge are left with your own interpretation of the impact of these pictures. I don't share your interpretation of some negative impact from these photos, which have been seen by millions already in other publications. We've see traditional African garb before. We've seen presidents wearing African garb. It's just not something that's as jarring or unusual in our communications age as Drudge and you want us to believe.

[BuyingThyme]

87. You don't seem to understand. I'm not the audience they're going after.

Hillary is trying to appeal to the racists.

Don't you think it's racist to use racism to garner support from racists?

That's what Hillary is doing.

How is it that you tend to fall so far off track?

[bigtree]

88. You have a narrow world view. We don't hide ourselves away just because some racist might be guffaw

What was the 'racists'' reaction to the tabloid's attempt to exploit the photo when it was published earlier and seen by countless millions? And, what was the impact of whatever reaction you perceive? I never heard a word of protest about that from the Obama camp.

[BuyingThyme]

89. Just because you see no difference between

Hillary Clinton and other racists doesn't mean racism is somehow right.

How is it that you've lowered yourself to the point that you don't understand why Barack Obama would hold Hillary Clinton to a higher standard than the Republican Party or the Ku Klux Klan?

What was the racists' reaction? They reacted like racists.

What's my reaction? Fuck you, Hillary!

What's your reaction?

[bigtree]

90. This is originated from Drudge, not Hillary Clinton or Maggie Willaims.

The picture was obviously lifted from a PUBLIC site after its PUBLICATION and viewing by millions. This is an old line of attack. It make no sense that the Clinton campaign would bother pushing this. you're arguing out of your own head on this. Drudge posts a lie, and you've been drawn into associating Maggie Williams with the KKK . . . This isn't a discussion, it's hopeless therapy. I'm done.

[BuyingThyme]

91. After the Williams' statement, the origin is moot.

It's Maggie Williams, or whoever told her to release that statement, who decided to pretend that s/he didn't understand the purpose of exploiting that photo. And s/he only went on to exploit that photo precisely for that purpose.

Read carefully: Racist bullshit will always be associated with the KKK.

[ProSense]

16. This is a tactic by Hillary's campaign and it backfired. They're now in damage control.

Obama's campaign would not connect Hillary to the story without validation

It has happened before and Axelrod denounced the attempts to link Hillary's campaign to an attack:

The article further reported that Obama strategist David Axelrod said he did not "believe ... for a second" the allegation that Clinton's camp was behind the story.

This latest incident is different in that it comes on the heels of Hillary's campaign and her surrogates promoting Obama's ties to "former members of a radical domestic terrorist group."

[IndianaGreen]

17. Clinton staffer is the one circulating the picture and Maggie Williams refused to answer

the question as to Hillarycamp's involvement.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/25/65646/2095/155/463607

[bigtree]

20. She answered. You may not like the answer, but she clearly doesn't see the pics as offensive

and, neither does Obama. Where's the attack??

[IndianaGreen]

29. Maggie Williams is as big a liar as her boss Hillary

She was part of the Whitewater missing files cover up, in case you have forgotten.

[bigtree]

33. There you go, The right-wing piggyback attack. Typical.

[IndianaGreen]

41. It is a fact that she helped the cover up of the missing files

and she spent over $100,000 in legal fees to keep her ass out of jail. Obstruction of justice is a crime!

[bigtree]

52. It is a FACT that the line you're using is right out of the right-wing script

. . . they ran in a loop during Bill Clinton's two-term presidency.

[HeraldSquare212]

21. The non-denial is telling.

[robbedvoter]

22. Yes. Until he attacks BO - he is legit. Like Nooner, Kristol and the rest were.

[LizW]

36. Not Kristol anymore. He spoke ill of Obama.

The thread was deleted, but apparently Kristol is only okay if he's attacking Hillary.

[ProSense]

30. Hillary Clinton woos man (Drudge) who nearly ruined her husband

Hillary Clinton woos man who nearly ruined her husband

Earlier this month, Ms Clinton's staff leaked campaign fundraising data to the website just as her rival for the nomination, Barack Obama, was to deliver a policy speech on Iraq - and a crucial 20 minutes before the official release of the information. The story on Ms Clinton's fundraising prowess dominated the news cycle.

[Blue_State_Elitist]

39. Obama supporters have brought a lot of change to DU

Free Republic and Drudge Report are now legitimate sources of news.

[greguganus]

42. Hillary's camp is testing to see just how far they can go. Now they are "somewhat" backpedaling. n/

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

43. Don't look at this!

Don't Look at How Badly Hillary's campaign is sinking

look at this instead:

There have been 12 duplicate threads posted about the Clinton campaign circulating a photo of Obama in "muslim" garb
6 duplicates trying to defend Hillary Clinton for this, and 6 duplicates condemning this smear campaign.

Absolutely NO PROOF anyone from Clinton camp connected in anyway to 'the photo' Mon Feb-25-08 11:02 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4758267&mesg_id=4758267

There's NO proof the Clinton campaign approved of the Drudge pic. So, he's a legitimate source now?? Mon Feb-25-08 11:18 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4758517

*WHY* is it a "smear photo"? Mon Feb-25-08 11:30 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4758733&mesg_id=4758733

To address the recent Drudge photo...Mon Feb-25-08 11:49 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4759060

Hillary doesn't mind pictures of her in traditional clothing being published. Why is Obama so upset? Mon Feb-25-08 11:26 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4758646

RETHUGS sent the Photo! Mon Feb-25-08 11:57 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4759207&mesg_id=4759207

rebuttal

Politico: Obama slams smear photo Mon Feb-25-08 10:11 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4757652&mesg_id=4757652

The Clinton goes ON RECORD re: PHOTO SMEAR and DOES NOT DENY, just change subject Mon Feb-25-08 11:18 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4758523&mesg_id=4758523

in addition to being a low political move, distributing that photo would be an offense to muslims Mon Feb-25-08 11:37 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4758867

Hillary's use of Islamophobia against Obama, will hurt our Democratic candidate for Congress Mon Feb-25-08 11:21 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4758564

As long as Clinton supporters can blame Drudge the HRC camp will never be called on race baiting Mon Feb-25-08 10:10 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4757636&mesg_id=4757636

Why is there so much spectulation as to where the photo came from? Mon Feb-25-08 11:41 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4758939

People should be worried to hear of the connections between the Clinton and McCain campaign advisors, or the fact that Obama has won 25 contests, Hillary only 11. This cute distraction seems to be working.

[greguganus]

44. What's next? Pics of Obama wearing diapers when he was a baby? n/t

[bigtree]

49. ask Drudge.

[yourguide]

71. where's the DENIAL?

it's NOT THERE.

[bigtree]

76. They deny that the pictures are the least bit controversial. That's enough.

Now, you're left standing beside Drudge and his word, in effect, defending him.