Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Please say DEMS have not stooped this low

By

This seems shamefulif HRC’s campaign had anything to do with this.  Mocking Obama is one thing, but this seems an attempt to connect Obama with Islam and play on the fears of SOME people in the United States.  Disclaimer: I am not blaming HRC outright but I have to question the timing of the photo release.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Does it falsely say anywhere that he’s a Muslim?  Does the Obama campaign dispute that the photo is real?  I mean, really, if he didn’t want the photos out there, he shouldn’t have posed for them, right?

    <

    p>Here’s the Clinton camp’s response — anyone see this as problematic?

    <

    p>

    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.

    • There’s nothing wrong with the photos.
      What is wrong is the motivation  behind circulating them. Why would the HRC campaign push these (if they indeed did — it was not denied) other than to appeal to many people’s intolerance and xenophobia. How else to explain this? If there is no other explanation, how can you say that this is not contemptible?
      This strategy is absolutely unacceptable in our party under any circumstances and should be roundly condemned by the party leaders.
      It’s most unfortunate that you don’t understand this.

      • I’d like a little more confirmation that it is indeed from the Clinton campaign than the fact that Drudge says so.  As TPM just posted: “It’s worth pointing out that the sole source thus far for the existence of this email is Drudge, and he didn’t say what level of Clinton ‘staffer’ circulated it and to whom it was circulated. Yet this is still commanding a huge amount of attention.”

        <

        p>Second, if “there’s nothing wrong” with the photos, then there’s nothing wrong with the photos.  What’s next — a big breaking news story that “someone in the Clinton campaign” is alleging that Obama’s father was Kenyan?  

        • The Obama campaign is crying crocodile tears about this one. It’s almost as if the Clinton campaign complained about the S&M mash-up postcards of Bill and Hillary on the wall at Bartley’s Burger Cottage in Harvard Square.

          <

          p>To continue the game, however, it is brilliant politics that the Obama campaign is now trying to make the story whether the photo did or did not come from the Clinton campaign.

          <

          p>Let’s see … silly plagiarism, silly photographs … what happened to health care, the war in Iraq, and the economy? Oh well.

          <

          p>

          • to something that they believe to be offensive? I think both campaigns can walk and chew gum at the same time.
            Kerry didn’t respond quickly or aggressively enough to the “silly” swift boat attacks, and look what that got him. He could have done that as well as campaign on substance.  

            • I’m just saying that both sides are playing. The Clinton camp, with their dewy-eyed surprise. The Obama camp that this is a horrific smear. That’s why I called their claims crocodile tears i.e. insincere, or at least hyperbolic. The allegations of the Swift Boaters, incidentally, were much more serious, just in passing. The twist that I thought was brilliant was the Obama campaign’s reframing of the question as: who from the Clinton campaign leaked this monstrous smear?!

        • Had they categorically denied the report, then it should have been dropped. They were given the opportunity and Maggie Williams hedged.
          So if they did circulate it, as it’s becoming increasingly clear, is it ok to send out a photo with the clear suggestion that there is something wrong with it, that there is something that some people might be concerned about seeing? Why else would the campaign send this out, unless they thought some people would find it offensive. We’ve seen this brand of politics used by southern racists for a long time. There’s nothing wrong with a photo of Harold Ford with an attractive white woman… is there?

          • People who see something objectionable in that photo are the folks that have “problems”.

            <

            p>It’s just a photo of a politician on a junket on my dime.
            In legal parlance, “the evidence speaks for itself”.

            <

            p>Much ado about nothing.

          • It’s becoming increasingly clear? Cite your sources please.

            <

            p>Maggie Williams dealt with it early morning, then went to her staff, found out it wasn’t them (it takes time to ask 700+ people) and then categorically denied it.

            <

            p>Are you blaming her for not denying it categorically without first finding out if it might be true???

        • … in the same way that there was nothing wrong with the Dukakis-in-tank photos.

          <

          p>I mean, what’s wrong with a photo of a Presidential candidate riding around in a tank?

          <

          p>That’s what’s wrong with these photos.

          <

          p>Now, if Drudge hadn’t made the HRC connection, this photo would only get play among the Manchurian candidate crowd, so don’t discount the Drudge strategic interest (more publicity for him; makes both D’s look bad in different ways).

        • what then?  Will you then question why the Clinton camp is putting such photos out there?  Its not to make Obama more popular is it?

          <

          p>Ultimately this may not be that big an issue but the whole Obama Muslim thing and all the email traffic it generates – don’t think for a minute this was not put out there by whoever did it to feed that negative beast – they didn’t put it out because they thought Obama looked good in white.  

          <

          p>The Clintons have already had to fire a campaign aide for spreading the Muslim email.  They have fired Bill Shaheen for hitting Obama on drugs.  They’ve had to apologize to black voters for saying MLK did nothing.  And yet you are so sure that they had nothing to do with this and even if so that they meant no harm by putting this out there.

          <

          p>You seem to be very ready to jump all over any negative activity by Obama’s camp from the not debating to the NAFTA flier the Devack crap.  But, this type of racially and religiously tinged shit gets a pass.  I don’t get it.

      • They are survivors.   Not that they deserve to survive, but they do.  And even if they don’t, they will stop at nothing trying.

        • as a large pile of horseshit.

          <

          p>”They stop at nothing.”  You should listen to something besides Rush and the screeching idiots on TV.  I bet you think they murdered Vince Foster as well.

          <

          p>

          • Loved your response CMD. Ultimately, perhaps, this sort of thing is testimony to the power of the media, or at least of suggestion: repeat a fable often enough, and it becomes a kind of truth.

            • Are you intimating that President and Senator Clinton were innocent targets?

              <

              p>For the sake of arguement I wonder just how far the Clinton’s would go to “ensure” her presidency?  

              • campaigm for her party’s nomination, and then, if nominated (gasp) campaign in the general election.

      • From RawStory:

        <

        p>Howard Wolfson, who is running the campaign, said the photo’s distribution was not sanctioned and he challenged reporters on a conference call to prove that campaign aides were behind spreading the photo.

        <

        p>”If you have any original reporting to suggest that someone in the campaign sent this e-mail let me know,” Wolfson told NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell, who was asking about the photo flap.

        <

        p>”Here’s what I’d say,” he continued, “I’ve never seen that picture before, I’m not aware that anyone here has, I’m not aware that anyone sent any such e-mail.”

        <

        p>The fact that y’all are placing this on Hillary without any proof is pretty unfair and just shows the amount of bias on here in favor of Obama. This used to be a place for constructive conversation, but it seems everyone likes to jump the gun lately.

        • I was simply pointing out what the issue was, not whether the allegation is true or not. Whether true or not, I think the Obama campaign’s reaction was overly strong and the Clinton campaigns counter-reaction showed a lack of sensitivity to the underlying issue, IMHO.

          • You said, regards to the photo:

            <

            p>”The issue has to do with the Clinton compaign’s motivation for circulating it.”

            <

            p>That, to me, says that the allegation is based on fact, that the Clinton campaign actually circulated the photo. There was nothing mentioned that leads the reader to think otherwise.  

  2. a little more about the who, why, what and where of this picture coming out before making any judgments.  I can see both sides of the argument, but at this point i don’t have enough information to agree with either.

    <

    p>in any case, i’m sorry that the obama campaign is not making this into an opportunity to show how world-wise obama is, etc.  it is a teachable moment being wasted by the campaign of hope.

  3. Let us celebrate diversity!

    <

    p>The Rodham name is associated with the Stanhope county in northeastern England – possibly Sen. Clinton would like to pose is a kilt, or possibly painted blue, depending on if she wishes to emphasize her Scots or Briton background.

  4. pushing the story.  Hmmmmm….I smell something.  Right wing smear mongers try to get the best of both worlds.  Pushing the Muslim Obama thing while blaming Hillary.  They did this before with Obama’s school last year.

    • Hmm, wasn’t that Bob Kerrey who, to press covering his announcement of support for Hillary Clinton, lied this year when he said Obama attended a “secular Madrassa”? He also repeatedly referred to Obama as “Barack Hussein Obama”.  

      <

      p>Comments like these, from important supporters, are why the Clinton campaign has a credibility issue when it comes to use of the xenophobic “muslim card.”.

      <

      p>I am unaware that Hillary Clinton ever uttered a single “Shame on You, Bob Kerrey” for his remarks.

      • So Hillary’s campaign did that and ran it on Faux news?  Please, you are embarrassing yourself.

        • Kerrey’s made his comments to the Washington Post, and Omaha World-Herald.  No, not faux news, real news.

          <

          p>Kerrey, to his embarassment or his credit, later apologized in a letter to Obama.  

  5. This is an insignificant issue. How many pictures have we seen of George W. Bush in the native dress of a country he is visiting, or Bill and Hillary Clinton for that matter? Also, its not a smear to disseminate a photo that has apparently been floating around the Web for well over a year. I assume that Senator Obama knew of the photo’s existence and was aware that he would be photographed during his trip to Africa. Any thought to the contrary indicates a disturbingly high level of naivete on the part of a candidate for the presidency.

    <

    p>If anything, I was struck by how young he looked in the photo not how he was dressed.  

      • The big deal is that the Clinton campaign engaged in racist campaign tactics and we should ALL speak out against those kind of tacticts.

        <

        p>I’ve had it with her campaign.  She wants to win on Superdeleagtes thwarting the will of the people, injects race into the campaign multiple times, holds a victory rally in Florida after agreeing not to campaign there.

        <

        p>Meanwhile there are areas of NYC where Obama got 0 – yes 0 – votes and Mayor Bloomberg is claiming fraud.  Why is that not on the front page news?  

  6. “What’s the problem?”

    <

    p>The problem is that I’ve heard on more than one occasion “did you hear that Obama is really a Muslim?”

    <

    p>These photos are NOT being distributed to highlight differences between how Obama and Clinton are portrayed in the media? This isn’t showing John Kerry windsurfing or in a clean suit for the purpose of embarrassment.

    <

    p>This IS reinforcement of the patently false assertions that Obama is a secret muslim or anti-American .

    <

    p>We can (and should) expect plenty of this crap in the general election from the other side. We shouldn’t tolerate it from within our own party, no matter who you want the eventual nominee to be.

  7. it sure is getting some play here.

    <

    p>This reminds me of the redneck email that has been going around claiming that Obama never recites the pledge of allegiance or puts his hand over his heart for the national anthem. All because somebody snapped a picture once where he has his hands folded in front of him. Sad.

    <

    p>The funniest part is hearing all of you Hillary supporters insisting that her campaign has nothing to do with it. You guys somehow see this as below a campaign that is desperate after winning only 10 states out of 30 something (yes, I know, the ones she lost are not “representative”).

    <

    p>The plagiarism charge lat week was laughable (and extremely hypocritical if you watched Meet the Press yesterday), but this is just low class.

    <

    p>Although it’s almost impossible to win she will stay around until she has alienated as many people as possible while destroying her own party. The democrats should have won in 2000 and 2004. Will they blow it again? If she’s the “best foot forward” that they put on the ballot in 2008, yes. And once again they’ll have nobody to blame but themselves.  

    • Drudge made a claim … where’s the evidence? Who did it? Where did it happen? When? Where was it sent?

      <

      p>Forgive me for not taking Matt Drudge on his word, but I’m going to need to see better evidence before I believe this is a campaign effort.

  8. foreign policy speech today.  One wonders what they are afraid of.  Could it be maybe his lack of foreign policy experience?  Besides, there is no evidence that the picture really came from the HRC campaign except Drudge’s say so.  Doesn’t anyone think it would be oddly stupid of the Clinton campaign to circulate such a photo on the very day that HRC is giving a major policy speech?  The picture could be perceived as evidence of Obama’s foreign affairs experience, not helpful to Clinton, or, what the Obama campaign chose to use it for, the basis for a claim that the HRC campaign is somehow trying to smear him, again not helpful to Clinton. Really, people need to start using their heads!  Don’t you see that the person who actually could gain something from distribution of the photo is Barack Obama?
     

  9. There is nothing wrong with the photo obviously.

    <

    p>The problem is the Clinton campaign is not denying they sent it around.  Furthermore, they know full well that it feeds into uninformed people’s racist fears about people who wear head wraps, and it plays inot the Obama is muslim e-mail.

    <

    p>If you are defending Clinton on this one, you should be ashamed.  Her campaign had all day to deny that they sent the photo around to reporters.

    <

    p>You don’t see Obama’s campaign sending photos of Hillary in traditional clothing to the media that’s for sure.

    <

    p>This is something ALL democrats would cry foul over if a Republican campaign had done it.  

    • have you stopped to consider that “the campaign” is a diffuse thing.  therefore, it would take them some time to determine whether such an email did indeed come from one of their computers.  during that time, they of course could not deny or confirm anything.  sad to see people so fast to jump up and accuse people of nasty things.  so much for due process!

      • It’s Obama’s camp that quickly jumped to blame Hillary.  Based on what?  Matt freakin’ Drudge?  That’s a bit of a stretch don’t you think?  Obama’s folks put out the statement even before there was any reaction from Hillary.  Maybe Drudge is believed to be a credible resource to the Obama folks.

        <

        p>The whole thing doesn’t make sense, she getting him good with health care and NAFTA, this really doesn’t jibe with anything that she’s doing.  Obama’s response clearly shows that they are reaching with this thing.

        • From an Oct 2007 NYT’s article by Jim Rutenberg “Clinton Finds Way to Play Along with Drudge”

          <

          p>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10…

          <

          p>

          Mrs. Clinton’s aides declined to discuss how the Drudge Report got access to her latest fund-raising figures nearly 20 minutes before the official announcement went to supporters. But it was a prime example of a development that has surprised much of the political world: Mrs. Clinton is learning to play nice with the Drudge Report and the powerful, elusive and conservative-leaning man behind it.

          <

          p>and the final paragraph of the article

          <

          p>

          At the same time, Democrats said they noticed an occasional Clinton-friendly tone from Mr. Drudge, whom New York magazine quoted as saying on his program: “I need Hillary Clinton. You don’t get it. I need to be part of her world. That’s my bank.”

          <

          p>Politics.

            • Since I don’t read Drudge, I have posted this link to TheAtlantic’s site which has the Drudge headline I noted above

              <

              p>http://marcambinder.theatlanti…

              <

              p>And since you mentioned FOX News, here’s a quote you might also find interesting from Matt Yglesias, The Atlantic Magazine (emphasis added)

              <

              p>

              The Clinton-Drudge Connection
              02 Oct 2007 11:25 am

              I’m not really sure what to make of the Clinton campaign’s apparent relationship with Matt Drudge. His site isn’t merely an appendage of the conservative message machine, but it’s mostly an appendage of the conservative message machine. I’d like to see a nominee who’s approach to the right’s domination of American political discourse is to challenge it, rather than try to cozy up to it.

              You see much the same thing in Clinton’s relationship with Rupert Murdoch. Sure, as long as she’s seemingly ascendant and willing to court these people, they’re happy to play nice. But when the chips are down — when the right is, say, trying to get her removed from office on a flimsy pretext — does she think Murdoch and Drudge are going to have her back? Where are they going to be when she has a tough legislative battle? When she’s looking to elect friendly members of congress in the midterms? It all seems bafflingly self-centered and short-sighted to me.

              http://matthewyglesias.theatla…

              <

              p>John, my friend, I recognize that the New York Times and The Atlantic Magazine are no match for your gut instincts, but, ah, there is always hope.  

              <

              p>Let me know if you need more links.

      • I see now that they categorically deny it.

        <

        p>I withdraw any accusations and give them the benefit of the doubt that they are telling the truth.

    • because…because…because why?

      <

      p>The longer I watch this game, the more it seems to me to resemble the dynamic of the first OJ Simpson trial.  Everything the white woman making the case does is being screamed down and anything plausibly associated with her maligned as tainted, unethical, racist, malicious, paid off, and corrupt.

      <

      p>Everything the other side does is clever and convincing, has cute slogans and optimism and nonchalence and explanations and strategems for everything (which on close inspection and in practice never hold up), and constantly makes claims of being unfairly maligned, negative bias everywhere, and sees evidence of racism and abuses of authority all over the process.

      <

      p>I’m not sure people are going to find the outcome as satisfying as they think now.

      <

      p>

      • Only one other comment on this site has ever elicited a viceral response in me. It was similar to yours in that it made what I consider an outrageous comparison, linking murder to Obama.  That comment was (only) smirky, your’s out does that one by making a direct comparison to the racially charged Brown-Goldman murders.  I thought about poorly rating your comment but decided not to, because you are entitled to your opinion, however vile or shameful I may consider it to be. Let’s be clear, I don’t know you, we’ve disagreed on this site in the past, but I don’t consider you to be a bad person, and I am notorious for my fondness for people I vehemently disagree with – but I can’t let what I consider an irresponsible and reprehensible comment go unanswered.  That is my obligation in an open society.

        <

        p>I am not sure why you chose to make this argument in this way, why you chose to inject a comparison that has race and violence at its core. Perhaps this is truly what you believe, if so, I am sorry that you believe that. Because to compare Presidential hopeful Barack Obama with the murderous and psychopathic OJ Simpson is not just factual insupportable, it degrades and cheapens real political discourse.  To compare Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton to the viciously murdered Nicole Brown Simpson is an insult to Nicole Brown Simpson, and to those of us who have the misfortune to be the survivors of murder victims. There is no comparison here, whatsoever, other than the race and gender of the two principals. Is this really reason you support Hillary Clinton?  I hope not, and I would guess, that she would hope not, as well.

        <

        p>Let’s be clear, after this primary is over, no one will come to zip bodies into bags for the coroner, the bittersweet smell of dried blood will not hang in the air, no mortuary will reconstruct mutilated bodies for the closed family viewing…

        <

        p>If you had the smallest bit empathy for what it means to be the survivor of the victim of a violent and brutal murder, you would understand why I am so aggrieved by your comments. Let us respect this impossibly wonderful democratic process, by not degrading it with these kinds of ill-considered comments.

        <

        p>I respect your passionate support for Hillary Clinton, I just ask that choose another metaphor.  

        • And yes, I have been very close to multiple criminal acts of a horrendous nature and have been personally touched by more than one.

          <

          p>And, I found falling snows analogy interesting. There was zero noted re Simpson/Obama. That was your inferrence. It never even crossed my mind. I was thinking that the comparison was Cochran and Obama.  

        • Amidthefallingsnow was making a valid point about how charges of racism have been leveled in this campaign with no basis in fact, much like they were used in the OJSimpson trial.  You decided to turn it into something it was not, in essence, proving amidthefallingsnow’s point.    

          • I personally was shocked when I saw the subject line. Then I clicked through and Lo and Behold Laurel was absolutely 100% right. Great comment. Thanks, Laurel!

            <

            p>With friends like that …

            • the post for better clarity.  Roger Stone, a member of the Party of Family Values (GOP), filed papers the other day to create the 527 org called Citizens United Not Timid (CUNT).  Here is the logo, which on their website sits below a banner that asks
              WHAT IS HILLARY?.

              According to TPM

              [I]t’s all about the group’s acronym, which, used in conjunction with Hillary Clinton, is supposed to be irresistibly humorous. That is the beginning and the end of it. The group will not be running ads in any form and will not be making any robocalls. They’ll be making T-shirts. That’s it. You can buy them for $25 on their website

              Who is the brilliant misogynist behind the scheme?

              Stone…is a Republican operative who prides himself as something of an elder statesman of GOP dirty tricks. He went to work for Richard Nixon at age nineteen, making him the “youngest Watergate dirty trickster.” He continues to idolize the man, even sporting a tattoo of Nixon’s face between his shoulder blades. On his website, the StoneZone, he proudly touts Nixon’s endorsement of him as “one of the very few excellent political professionals.”

              • … right out there speaking against this kind of c***.

                <

                p>Uuugghhh (……………Silence…………) Barack????

                <

                p>Right,  Too busy blaming HRC for doing something she didn’t do. Okay well it was a nice piece Entertainment Tonight did on him.

    • There are a few things that I nor anyone else need to be subjected to and your choice of words is one of them.

      <

      p>The first amendment is the first amendmentm but shame on you.

      • i hope you are also sending messages of outrage to the GOP for creating such misogynistic crap.  yes?  if no, shame on you.

  11. A campaign always ready to believe the best about America is also the campaign instantly ready to believe the worst about one of its most prominent and powerful women.

    <

    p>More hope please, less audacity.  And give me something other than Drudge as your “authority” if you want me to take you seriously.

    • Howard Wolfson denies that the campaign was involved. No one was willing to give any credence to Drudge until the campaign issued a non-denial further suggesting that there was nothing wrong with circulating the photo. Josh Marshall explained his dilemma very well and was perfectly willing to sit on this until the HRC campaign issued a very ambiguous statement. They blew the response and generated the normal suspicion that they were behind this, and the confusion lasted a full 7 hours.

      • …what other scurrilous rumors about Obama can we pin on the Clinton campaign?  How else can we impugn one of the leading Senators of the country and help the Republicans finish the job they started sixteen years ago?

        <

        p>This is scorched Earth campaigning at its worst.

      • …you mean it took a full seven hours for the Clinton campaign to research outgoing emails from the offices all over the country to figure out if someone from within circulated this photo so they could actually make a definitive statement?

        <

        p>The horror.

        <

        p>God forbid we expect due dilligence from people running for President.

        <

        p>

        • An initial response along the lines of “we do not condone this and it had better not have come from someone in this campaign” would have knocked the temperature down on this. But I’m not in the campaign pressure cooker, so I don’t know why that didn’t happen. Surely statements like “If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed” (source) did not help matters.

          • Had to get dinner into the kids… 🙂

            <

            p>Equally, Obama’s camp was right to jump on this quickly but was not right to have blamed Clinton’s campaign with no more than Drudge’s word. Again, a more measured response was in order.

            <

            p>I think it is a good idea to take a close look at this as a tactic. This is “connect the dots” and is the sort of thing we’ll see from the GOPers in the general. Plant the Muslim seed. Pass around the picture with no direct connection, but due to the seed planting, it’ll do its work.

            <

            p>The more I think about this, the less I suspect that Drudge will reveal anything else. This couldn’t have worked out better for the Republicans. They won this round – Clinton and Obama both lost.

        • The whole thing would have blown over had they simply said that the campaign doesn’t condone this and that anyone engaging in it would be summarily fired. Do you really think that they were waiting that long with this story stewing while they were doing internal research?
          It would have been one thing to wait and do nothing for this period, but instead they issued a statement suggesting that there was nothing wrong with the release of the photo in the first place fueling normal suspicion that they were behind it. There is no excuse for this level of either incompetence and/or obtuseness. Take your pick.

          • …right back at you.  Apparently the Clinton campaign is to be blamed for doing nothing wrong, literally, nothing wrong, for a whole seven hours.  They stewed in their having done nothing wrong?

            <

            p>Sorry….ridiculous.

          • Pictures of leaders in traditional garb?  So you think the Clinton campaign should have said they do not condone printing pictures of leaders in traditional clothing because it could imply something about the picture’s subject?  What kind of message would that send to people in the rest of the world?  BTW, the only group saying the picture implied something negqative about Obama was the Obama campaign, and that was because it gave them a chance to misdirect the news away from Hillary Clinton’s important Foreign policy speech yesterday.  It sounds a lot like what the Republicans did to John Kerry during the last presidential campaign.  Everytime he was about to make an important announcement or give an importamt speech, we would have an orange alert.  

            • Remember all those times the Obama campaign said that it didn’t condone the excessive focus on Hillary’s hair, her laugh, and her cleavage?

              <

              p>Oh, wait…they were silent on that.

        • It is Bush whose instinct it is to deny something before knowing if it actually happened.  “Talk first, check second” should never be the slogan of a Democratic campaign.

  13. It is one of my unfortunate hobbies that I study the GOP’s far right base on a fairly regular basis. The photos were originally posted on a wingnut blog; The Astute Bloggers. As anybody who has followed the Right Wing Noise Machine knows, Drudge trolls the threads at FreeRepublic for stories.

    <

    p>I am neither an overt Obama or Hillary supporter (I will support the nominee, however) but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is simply more right wing agitprop rather than HRC’s dirty tricks.

    <

    p>I really think the headline on this thread should reflect reality rather than Drudge’s spin.

    • … that the photo was most recently printed in a Friggin’ Super Market Tabloid; the National Examiner’s February 4th edition.

      <

      p>I really wish people would do 5 minutes of research before they fall for GOP spin!! Be skeptical of EVERYTHING that comes from known GOP mouthpieces like Drudge and Fox.

      <

      p>Look for this photo to circulate for years to come if Obama wins along with the ‘secret Muslim’ cr*p. And those who fell for Drudge’s and Fox’s spin only helped enable it.

Archives