Posts
Comments

Obama robes

So I’m sure by now you’ve seen this picture. Someone, it is suspected from the Hillary Clinton campaign, leaked it to the Drudge Report. And it since has been picked up and commented on by newspapers across the country — and even in England.

It’s a good, ol’-time political smear, designed to play on fears that Barack Obama is some kind of closet Muslim (he’s not) ready to spring a Sharia surprise on the country as soon as he’s elected president.

Obama wore the outfit on an African visit. The BBC explains that the turban is that worn by Somali elders as a badge of respect and the robes are those of a nomad, signifying Obama’s status as a visitor to the area. There’s no religious content to the garb at all.

The whole controversy is really rather funny as one sees politicians in these kinds of native outfits all the time.

But nothing is quite as laughable as Hillary’s “What? Who? Me?” response to the claims her campaign leaked the photo. The campaign has yet to issue an outright denial of the release. Clinton herself says she “knows nothing” about it. Her campaign manager, Maggie Williams, actually tried to accuse the Obama camp of making an issue of the photo.

It is, as Obama himself said, a desperate move of a failing campaign. Expect more to come.

After all, if you can’t beat ‘em, smear ‘em.

  • michael cook
    Hillary Clinton is looking pretty desperate and pathetic these days.
    But what else should we expect from a woman who slams George Bush for his war in Iraq but won't admit her vote to authorize the fiasco was a mistake?
    Hypocrisy, whether displayed by a man or woman, is never pretty.
  • bilge rat
    I don't see it as a smear at all. There have been many pictures over the years of our politicians donning the traditional garb of another culture when visiting that country. It's done out of respect, not subversion.
    Mrs. Clinton knew the media would have a field day with the photo.
    The media fell into her trap. I think it shows just how ridiculous and shallow these "professional journalists" are. I've read in other publications the photo is several years old and had been published prior to this, anyways.
    So what's the big deal?
blog comments powered by Disqus