The Obama campaign got itself into a crap load (a unit of measure used in politics) of trouble today after a couple of its junior campaign staffers (who no doubt had some guidelines from higher up advisors to Obama) decided that women wearing headscarves should be “discouraged” from being in the background when pictures of the candidate were being taken in Detroit (of all places!):
Two Muslim women at Barack Obama’s rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.
The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.
“This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama’s commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. “We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers.”
Building a human backdrop to a political candidate, a set of faces to appear on television and in photographs, is always a delicate exercise in demographics and political correctness. Advance staffers typically pick supporters out of a crowd to reflect the candidate’s message. [Link]
<
p>
This incident is D-Punjab all over again. I have no doubt that Obama is disappointed in his staffers over this but the buck has to stop at the top of the ticket. By forcefully refuting rumors that he is a “secret Muslim,” I think he is beginning to overreact and hurt his reputation among the very people who believe in him to bring a change. I mean, how in the world do you expect to campaign in Detroit and NOT be associated with Muslim supporters?
… incident began when the volunteer asked Aref’s friend Ali Koussan and two others, Aref’s brother Sharif and another young lawyer, Brandon Edward Miller, whether they would like to sit behind the stage. The three young men said they would but mentioned they were with friends.
The men said the volunteer, a 20-something African-American woman in a green shirt, asked if their friends looked and were dressed like the young men, who were all light-skinned and wearing suits.
Miller said yes but mentioned that one of their friends was wearing a headscarf with her suit.
The volunteer “explained to me that because of the political climate and what’s going on in the world and what’s going on with Muslim Americans, it’s not good for [Aref] to be seen on TV or associated with Obama,” said Koussan, a law student at Wayne State University. [Link]
<
p>Ennis reminds me of the fact that this isn’t the first time that the Obama campaign has “preemptively photoshopped” their pictures. From a Michelle Obama appearance at Carnegie Mellon University in April:
While the crowd was indeed diverse, some students at the event questioned the practices of Mrs. Obama’s event coordinators, who handpicked the crowd sitting behind Mrs. Obama. The Tartan’s correspondents observed one event coordinator say to another, “Get me more white people, we need more white people.” To an Asian girl sitting in the back row, one coordinator said, “We’re moving you, sorry. It’s going to look so pretty, though.”
“I didn’t know they would say, ‘We need a white person here,'” said attendee and senior psychology major Shayna Watson, who sat in the crowd behind Mrs. Obama. “I understood they would want a show of diversity, but to pick up people and to reseat them, I didn’t know it would be so outright…” [Link]
<
p>
Yet more proof that the Obama campaign can’t free itself from the race issue. What I really wonder about is what will happen the next time a Sikh male goes to an Obama rally and ends up in the backdrop. Will they move him just in case some ignorant voter confuses religions and thinks the turban-wearer is a Muslim or a supporter of Osama bin Laden? Being a young Obama campaign volunteer seems to me to be a much more difficult job than I first assumed.
“We’re not letting anyone with anything on their heads like baseball [caps] or scarves sit behind the stage,” she paraphrased the volunteer as saying, an account Marino confirmed. “It has nothing to do with your religion!”
In most work and school settings, religious dress — such as Jewish yarmulkes, Sikh turbans and Muslim hijabs — is permitted where secular clothing, such as baseball caps, is not.
“The scarf is not just something she can take off — it’s part of her identity,” said Marino. [Link]
Update: A couple of other things I wanted to add since I wrote this. First, the guy who broke this story was Ben Smith of Politico. Only hardcore political junkies (like me 
) know who Smith is and read his blog entries all day (or send him tips). According to NPR’s interview of Smith this afternoon, a friend of one of the two women emailed him about this incident. That just goes to show how politically attuned some young voters are these days (and that blogs are a great way to spread the word). Smith is one of the few guys you’d want to get this type of info to in order to break it as soon as possible into the mainstream media.
The second thing I want to reiterate is that it is almost unreasonable to believe Obama had any hand in this and set this policy from the top. He had Muslim roommates in college and went to Pakistan with them. He’s also appeared with women in headscarves before. It is also most unreasonable to believe that two unpaid volunteers came up with this idea on their own. No freaking way! It is very reasonable to believe this policy started somewhere in the middle. As some commenters have said, this is what politics does to even the “purest” of candidates.
And, for those of you wondering, John McCain’s campaign does the SAME THING (and the Republicans are known for trotting out minorities from out of nowhere at their conventions). Will the Democrats have to trot out white folks and Christian clergy at their convention this year? I’ll look for them
On the Republican side, a Hispanic New Hampshire Democrat, Roberto Fuentes, told Politico that he was recently asked, and declined, to contribute to the “diversity” of the crowd behind Sen. John McCain at a Nashua event. [Link]
It was partly sarcastic but I am also very frustrated at the pseudo-liberal crowd.
I really don’t have anything against Obama himself. The things that turns me off about him is his elite trustfund starbuck white liberal crowd who foam at the mouth about him becoming president. The ones who on Nov 5, 2008 will be sitting in some ethnic restaurant with there one gay friend drinking the most expensive bottle of wine and talking about how there life is complete cause obama is in office.
i hope that foam is from their grande mocha latte with soy milk. also, you forgot prius-driving. please to add to your list.
i hope that foam is from their grande mocha latte with soy milk. also, you forgot prius-driving. please to add to your list.
I forget to add when they go back to there house in a gated community the living room is covered with art made by native americans. On the living room table is a book about Che Guevera and when they plug in there I-pod they have just downloaded some songs from some unkown African artist singing in some language they don’t understand but they feel hip that they are listerning to him.
The “true liberal” argument about the headscarf is nonsense. There are few rational grounds for banning the headscarf as a “religious symbol”. To whom is the headscarf a religious symbol? Not to Grace Kelly when she popularised the fashion accessory. Something is a religious symbol only to followers of the religion that identifies it as such. It is a specific interpretation of Islam that transforms the headscarf into a religious symbol. To those outside this religion, it is simply a piece of clothing.
To some this piece of clothing symbolizes the oppression of women or Islamic fanaticism. But what is a symbol to one is not to the other. Many view the headscarf as a piece of clothing, no more, no less. How could a neutral state then accept that the headscarf is a religious symbol, to be banned from public institutions, if its symbolism depends on individual opinions?
One could argue that the headscarf is a religious symbol to the Muslim women who wear it. This works if one is consistent: one should view all symbols of all religions as religious symbols and ban these from public institutions.
In 2004, the French minister of education demanded clear criteria to determine under what conditions a headscarf or a beard becomes a religious symbol. Indeed, when is a beard a religious symbol? When Muslims wear it? The state might prohibit its Muslim employees from growing a beard, but this would amount to religious discrimination and a violation of equal rights. One could perhaps suggest that the beard should be barred in cases where its wearer views it as religious symbol. But how can the state determine a man’s motive to grow a beard? How can it distinguish between a beard that grows for aesthetic reasons and one that is religiously inspired? The secular state could prevent all employees from growing beards, but this policy goes against democratic freedom.
The only way out is to decide that beards of a particular shape and length count as religious symbols. No bureaucrat may have such a beard. Then the state faces an embarrassing difficulty: it has to prove that a beard suddenly becomes a religious symbol on the day that the collection of hairs reaches a particular length. This reveals the absurdity of the debate: it is impossible for a secular state or a “true liberal” to determine from a neutral perspective when something is a religious symbol. Here the headscarf is no different from the beard.
Consequently, banning the headscarf is not some neutral policy in the name of secularism, it is simply targeting the Muslim community under the guise of liberalism.
“I guess Geraldine Ferraro was right after all. There are advantages to being a colored man running for president. For one, you are apparently allowed to pander to racism and bigotry without accountability.”
We’ll see. Name that non-colored man that won the presidency in recent times without being “allowed to pander to racism and bigotry without accountability”. If you’re unable to, perhaps you’re subjecting Obama to the hard bigotry of higher expectations.
He is not running for class president. He is running for to become president of USA. Negative campaigning works, is more effective than a positive one. “Hope” and “Change” are great buzzwords but “Fear” and “Greed” are greater motivators. As long as you turn on the television news and you have car bombs, embassy bombings, beheading, calls of death to America with visual imagery containing hijabs, burkhas, niqabs, keffiah, beards the average punter will be motivated by Fear. The other side will exploit it. Obama is already handicapped with the working class/ senior/ women over 50 vote, he can afford to discriminate against Arabs Muslims to win more votes from other groups. Arab Muslims are not going to vote republican any ways after Bush.
Well Said. Again when you say all people are equal, I hope you refer to opportunity and not outcome.
@#49
Its not external markings, it is what those markings represent. If I wear the Nazi insignia and claim it as my religion and identity, its not the insignia per se but what it represents that is the issue.
I bet this comment will be deleted.
The true liberals should consider the weakness of the arguments to ban the headscarf. What harm is caused by allowing this piece of clothing among state personnel, students or citizens? Religion should not interfere in the public sphere, some argue, but this principle was created to prevent that religion plays a decisive role in political decisions and the rule of law. In itself, the headscarf cannot possibly play this type of role. Why ban it nevertheless?
Western citizens know that headscarves represent conservative Islam, some say, and this religion causes problems in one’s functioning in the public sphere, because the accompanying views on homosexuality, toleration and gender equality are incompatible with modern democracy. This argument reduces the headscarf to the underlying beliefs. But how does wearing a headscarf prove that a woman holds certain opinions? Many Muslim women admit that they wear it only because it became a marker of identity in European societies. Others do so, because their husband prefers things that way. The headscarf is worn for all kinds of reasons. Only sometimes is it inspired by the injunctions of conservative Islam.
Besides, how could one use personal opinions as a criterion to assess people’s functioning in the public sphere? Without doubt there are many bureaucrats with opinions incompatible with modern democracy. One could argue that in the case of the headscarf it concerns public expression of one’s personal preferences. This is unacceptable for state personnel and students. In that case, how does one cope with gay men who wear rainbow badges, Jewish women having on wigs and similar cases?
The majority recognizes the headscarf as the expression of a problematic form of religion, some may emphasize, and this justifies banning it. Here we end up in a dangerous alley: tyranny of the majority. The majority with its own views is now free to determine which things count as public expressions of unacceptable religious views and ways of life.
This hijab issue could and should have been handled with more finesse, but I think the more pressing issue for Muslims is who eventually gets elected president. With habeas corpus recently defended by only the slimmest (5-4) majority in the Supreme Court (and we know whose rights in particular we are talking about here), with one of the candidates willing to keep troops in Iraq for the next hundred years and singing “Bomb Iran”, and with 43% of Americans supporting torture (and we know who would be targeted for torture, don’t we?) with which to extract information in a recently released Pew Research survey, I suspect Muslims have a fairly good idea as to which candidate is the better choice for them.
With his opposition eager to paint him as a Muslim sympathizer at best, and a closet Muslim at worst, is it really that bad not to give them the ammunition with which to snipe at him? As for kowtowing to AIPAC, I believe at present it would be well nigh impossible to get elected with that lobby actively opposing a candidate. So one says what one needs to keep them happy, wins the election, and then makes policy decisions with regard to what benefits his nation, not necessarily AIPAC.
Now this is not to say that I don’t have problems with Obama — I prefer clearly articulated policy platforms to say, empty platitudes like “Yes, we can.” But if blanketing the political rhetoric with the latter prevents McCain from being elected, then I can deal with it.
I believe this is one of those situations where the end justifies the means, and I suspect most savvy American Muslims know it too.
melbourne desi: you’re kidding me, right? I didn’t realise anyone with an IQ above 90 took Andrew Bolt seriously.
Abhi, you’re making a joke of yourself. Obama didn’t know and he has nothing to do with this?! Come off it, man. Obama is charismatic, but he’s a politician like all other politicians.
Imagine being one of the volunteers. “urm, sorry you can’t sit thereâ€, you can only laugh, make fun, ridicule these silly (too eager to please that common sense goes to never never land to boogie with MJ) people.
And the hire powers (maybe the politician themselves) that probably instructed them, “Realising that our actions, feelings and behaviour are the result of our own images and beliefs gives us the level that psychology has always needed for changing personalityâ€. Sandburg Carl
i like obama, nevertheless, we have to be aware that a lot of democrats are racists. in my experience, i’ve come across more racists who are left leaning in politics than i have with any other group of people.
I’m a Sikh male who worked at the DNC in 2004. I met Obama on my way in one night and he would not take a picture with me becuase he was “late for a meeting.” However he did take a picture of caucasian in front of me. Interestingly enough Hilary did take a picture with me.
I understand Obama is trying to craft a certain image to get elected, but he needs to be careful…
Unfortunately, I must agree with sunshine that today’s leftists are usually the worst kind of racists in progressive disguise. The degeneration of the Left after Marxism has all too often turned its intellectuals into self-serving tenured radicals, who view non-western peoples as an easy means to a career (by specializing in some culture or the other) or as showpieces to illustrate one’s political correctness (by hiring a few non-westerners in academic departments in the humanities). In the US especially, the “radical intellectuals” have sold out to the promise of fame, wealth and star-professor-dom in the Ivy League. As Ernest Gellner once said, their slogan should be “Sturm und Drang und Tenure.”
kyrial: He was kinda stuck either way here… on the one hand, of course having Muslim girls with the headscarf in the background does suggest the kind of unity message he’s been pitching. On the other hand, you can just see the Republicans jumping all over this suggesting the old “he’s one of them… look he’s even got them in his picture!”
So now even the racism of Obama’s campaign staff gets blamed on Republicans. Awesome. What a contortion. Do you really think that makes sense?
) does anyone think that the obama campaign is anti-muslim? of course not. they were total morons about the implementation of an overkill policy.
I do think so though they are more Muslim averse than anti-Muslim if the distinction makes any sense. Obama campaign has been dissing Muslims all around the country. I have heard numerous personal anecdotes from ‘activist’ Muslims who have complained that the Obama campaign ignored them while the Hillary campaign engaged them.
Comments describing African Americans as “colored” (or using any other derogatory slang or codewords) will be deleted.
i didn’t know so many muslims/browns faced problems from the campaign – it’s very sad. i love the zeal for politics that Obama has brought out in youth (particularly of color). maybe muslims who want to campaign for Obama can focus their energy in mosques and in the homes of relatives to encourage fellow muslims to vote. the Obama camp should sit down with muslims that want to campaign for him and (after apologizing) explain what his proposed policies would do for the muslim community, to give the volunteers some actual talking points.
The important question is: Will he do that if he’s elected? I think the answer is no. Obama first has to get elected, and then try to educate/lead/pull people in his direction. If he’s smart, he will only hint about the direction he will go, but won’t try to pull people now. The republicans understand this. A nice symbolic statement now really won’t mean anything if he loses and one of McCain’s court appointees decides that it’s ok to screen anyone who looks asian at the airport.
Jack
It is really fascinating to see how deeply political correctness dominates the American psyche, even that of the Sepia Mutineers. It is as though one expects that replacing words with other words will change people’s attitudes.
But again and again non-WASP Americans come to the conclusion that these changes only go skin deep. I wonder if political correctness is simply the protection device which conceals the structural WASP domination in US society under moralistic verbiage. The only way for any one coming from a different cultural background to really penetrate the structures of power in the US is by turning into a WASP. Then, they have to keep proving their WASP credentials; precisely what Obama is forced to do these days (and what this headscarf affair is a part of) and what Bobby Jindal has done a long time ago.
The tragedy is that even those critical of WASP domination have bought into the suffocating dogmas of political correctness.
Obama has come all the way because of his campaign’s great marketing skills. I won’t blame their decisions. They have been excellent so far. Do you want to win the presidency or score some points in political correctness?.
This being a case of “politics as usual” is not an acceptable excuse for pandering to Islamophobic sentiment. Doesn’t the “secret Muslim” smear also indicate that there is something fundamentally wrong and sinister about being Muslim? I understand why this happened, but I do think this is a moment for Obama to distinguish himself (as he has done admirably in the past) as opposed to quietly brushing it under the rug. One of the reasons I support the big O in this race is because he often speaks honestly, proactively, and positively about a future that tries see our commonalities as American people. Reverting to “establishment” tactics is disheartening and does not resonate with the vision of hope/change that the campaign has communicated over the past year.
For the crowd who are enjoying using this moment (and previous posts) to hate on their caricature of the “prius-driving elite trust-fund latte liberal Obama-supporters,” come off it. We get it, you’re annoyed. It doesn’t matter who this crowd votes for, you find them irritating regardless. (On that note, I recommend Stuff White People Like — it’s satire, and mostly funny). The fact is, people who are politically similar and dissimilar to you are voting for Obama in substantial numbers across a wide swathe of demographic trends, including your “average middle- to low-income white person” in Middle America. Just as not all Republicans are hawkish pro-business religious nuts, Obama supporters are not some monolithic group. Facts are a pain, aren’t they?
Mr.Obama is over doing to prove that he not a Muslim. Muslims will not vote Obama because he is over acting against Muslims. Jews do not trust him. These two major deciding votes will go against Obama. Oldman Mcain will be the winner. Even the majority of the country is against Republican.
I’ve observed this diversity in the background when watching various campaigns.
Is it considered racism if a couple of old white men (who are sitting in the rows covered by camera angles) are asked to move and give way for someone with ‘diverse’ looks ?. I don’t know if the above scenario really happens, but wondering what the response would be.
74 · Gandhi said
Hispanic vote will matter in battleground states (NM, CO, Nevada). Jews and Muslims make up 8 million/300million in the U.S. Less than 2%. McCain has the hispanic vote so far, so it’ll be very close.
69 · ensure said
I agree. They should explain to their fellow Muslims Obama’s stands on homosexual rights, women’s rights, abortion rights, “Jerusalem undivided”, being a “stalwart friend of Israel”, etc.
Politico has a piece on how Obama can win the popular vote and end up losing the election. GOREd again.
Wow. Same thing, huh?
Asking somebody to get out of the picture and asking somebody to come into the pictures is the same thing? OK.
68 · SM Intern said
Wake up to reality. The term “people of color” is making a comeback. The left has changed names for African americans from colored people to negro to black to African american and is now slowly shifting to colored. Reality is more difficult to change than names.
Stillbourne Desi:
Yet another conservative telling people how to believe. Thanks for defining “liberal” for us. Nevermind that you’ve got it all wrong. Most liberals believe fundamentally nowadays in the right for individuals to choose things for themselves. So if those women want to wear hijab (since they’re coming to a campaign event and almost found themselves on national TV, maybe it’s likely that the hijab in this case isn’t a sign of oppression…hard to believe, but there you have it), then that’s their choice.
And if you want to choose to live a tightly constrained life where other people tell you what to do, hey, you’re probably already on the right track.
I may even agree with you that it’s a symbol of oppression. But until and unless the women who wear it agree to that point, then what you think is meaningless. Except of course when you and yours get elected to office and start making policy based on your own narrow interpretation of what is or is not okay for others–then it’s not so okay.
But why am I arguing with someone who thinks Andrew Bolt is awesome? Do you think there’s any credence in the Stolen Generation claims? And is this whole global climate change thing a sham?
bleh (66):
Yes, it does. Or have you not noticed the myriad conservatives who bandy about the myth that Obama is a Muslim, and use it as a weapon? And apparently it’s effective, even if it’s stupid, so pardon me while I hold my nose and reach into the grab bag of neocon rhetorical tricks for a moment and let’s see what we’ve got in here. Aha!
“OH YOU JUST DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE YOU’RE THE RACIST.”
Oh, that was nice. Wasn’t that fun?
Well, it was for me, anyway.
As far as Jakob (65) goes, that doesn’t even make sense. Are you implying that all liberals have tenure and high profile media jobs?
These Muslims are not doing any favors to there Muslim friends in Iraq. They should have kept this to themselves, but they just gave a boost to a guy who wants to be there for a hundred years.
68 · SM Intern said
“Colored” is a rascist term? Someone better inform the
NAACP, sorry the NAA”AA”P about it.Ozy (80):
Seriously, where do you people come from? I mean, did you just wander off the set of Amos n’ Andy or what? Oh, yeah, it’s LIBERALS who’re bringing that term back, right? Even though all the liberals on this thread, and also those who don’t lean one way or another, who are taken aback by your claims? While you defend them? And presumably, you’re not a liberal?
And I think it was the African-American community (and not all of the left-leaning members of American society) that came up with those terms (Jesse Jackson popularized “African-American,” after all). I support the right of a community to pick its own identity (that’s why we’s brownz!), and even come up with its own rules for how those terms are used. But I have yet to hear of a single black person who’d rather be called “colored” than “African-American.”
Jakob:
I won’t argue about “political correctness.” But again, I’d like to point out that most of the terminology that people object to stems from lack of choice. It’s not that the terms “negro,” or “black,” or “African-American,” or “colored” are inherently more or less objectionable than each other, which is what you seem to be unable to get. It’s some of those terms (for instance, “colored”) were imposed on them. “Black” was embraced in the 1960s as a means of turning around a previously derogatory term. And “African-American” was a self-identifier.
Of course, (presumably) being a member of racial minority, none of this makes any sense to you.
84 · Salil Maniktahla said
You may be a brownz but I am Indian American. Jesse Jackson is a leftist. You may have yet to hear of a single black person who’d rather be called colored but there was a program on television in which an elderly black man who said he preferred ‘colored’ to African american.
Shaad – “As for kowtowing to AIPAC, I believe at present it would be well nigh impossible to get elected with that lobby actively opposing a candidate. So one says what one needs to keep them happy, wins the election, and then makes policy decisions with regard to what benefits his nation, not necessarily AIPAC.”
How do you know Obama is lying to the AIPAC. And if you truly believe that one cannot be elected President in the United States without the AIPAC’s blessing, then isn’t it unlikely that Obama, once in the white house, will go against them, since he surely must want to get reelected in 2012?
I wish Muslims, beginning with my family, would understand that, if elected, Obama will not be able to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan; contrary to my father’s fervent belief Obama is not going to grant Kashmir a plebiscite; Obama is not going to inspire millions of Americans to embrace Islam [yes, i have heard that one too];Obama is not going to stem the growing anti-Islamic feeling in the west [not while he considers being labeled a Muslim a smear].
You may be a “brown.” And now your argument makes even less sense. You just self-identified as an Indian-American, which is pretty analagous to “African-American,” and is also a term that only came about after the “leftist” you speak of popularized “African-American.” Or did you just come up with “Indian-American” on your own, just now, all by yourself?
As far as your evidence about who prefers “colored” to “African-American,” I believe that sound you just heard was the bullet entering your own foot.
can we name names here? i’d like to access the source. how high up do they go? are we talking ann coulter or mccain himself? let me help you out, i believe debbie schusel or lgf and daniel pipes have spread some rumors. maybe that military expert in the nytimes apostate piece?
i got some names: hillary clinton, bob kerrey, stephanie tubbs johnson, larry johnson. fairly high up except for the last bozo.
i say this b/c the recent michelle obama whitey tape reveals a concerted effort by liberals to introduce bigotry into the conversation and then, along with the willing left wing msm, pin the blame on conservatives, even though it was conservatives who went out of their way to debunk the rumor as a way of covering up their own bigotry.
and this isn’t obama first flirtation with bigotry, remember d-punjab and his suspicious anti-nafta stand, suspicious b/c it intersects nicely with protectionist xenephobia–not unlike reagan’s “states rights” intersected with segregation—but unlike Reagan’s southern strategy, he apparently doesn’t even believe in the principle in the first place.
FYI, Obama has no power (even if elected as President) to grant Kashmir a plebiscite.
Re 73:
Camille, I do think that we might be on the cusp of a sea-change in American politics, in terms of say, young people being excited about voting, the mood of the electorate, and so on. That said, I think the current administration has done a particularly effective job of poisoning the political climate with anti-Muslim rhetoric (e.g. actually meaningless but quite effective words like Islamofascists). Now, I think it’s quite possible that an Obama administration could ratchet down this type of hate/bigotry, but that does require Obama being elected in the first place. Perhaps he could, as you say, distinguish himself by making a stand here, but I’d much rather he take the stand if and when he is president. What I don’t want to see is Obama losing, and the disillusionment with American politics that happened in the aftermath of the JFK, MLK, and RFK assassinations.
This is not the same. The volunteers above didnt’ ban an entire a group of people with a shared identity. I am not saying it’s okay, but ‘shrug’. I am willing to accept the political reality that those crowds behind the candidates are hand-picked. I have always assumed this. Remember the black guy behind Hillary who appeared both in Pennsylvania AND west virginia? But this time, it’s different. These women were asked to leave Because they were identifiably muslim. That’s not okay.
And in response to the comments that are saying, “well, that’s just a smart, reality-based political move” or some variation of that.
Well, it quite clearly and demonstrably was not. This could have been a story about how racist/crazy those right wing-nuts are (because they made a whole lot of noise about Obama’s muslimness), but instead it is a narrative about how Obama is not as inclusive as we thought he was. Which is not good for any campaign. Those volunteers were just dumb, and I am glad they were let go.
As for impact in the larger campaign, I want Obama to win, and I am not worried this will have lasting negative consequences. Because lets face it, discrimination against muslim people is not a priority for much of the nation. But that’s sort of why it bugs me so much too. There is no way I would ever vote for McCain, but come on, Obama, don’t make me vote for you because I HAVE TO. So far, it’s because I want to, I am proud to.
Re 87:
Sabiya, I don’t necessarily know that he is lying to AIPAC. However, almost all candidates for the Executive Office (and for Congress too), promise AIPAC the world, but deliver different degrees of it. I also suspect that the power of AIPAC is beginning to diminish, albeit gradually, with many American Jews beginning to see AIPAC values not necessarily mirroring theirs, and the mainstream publication of books like that by Mearsheimer and Walt.
Er, I don’t subscribe to any particular faith myself, but I don’t think most Muslims have unbelievably high expectations of Obama — years of American foreign policy would see to that. What they probably have is a notion that he won’t be quite as bad for Muslims as say, Shrub has been, and McCain is likely to be.
yes, I meant equality of opportunity.
Jakob – given that you link to German website, I take it that you will not be wearing Nazi insignia or goose stepping anytime soon. As Samir said, it is not the clothing, it is what the clothing signifies that is the cause for the trouble. Further, I also used the example of a bikini clad woman in some parts of the world being interpreted as ‘I am ready for a gangbang’.
Totally agree.
the key word is nowadays. Hence I used the terminology ‘true’. Choosing do your own thing is not liberalism, it is anarchy. Maybe that is why the liberals were furiously supporting child porn (Henson) Re: stolen generation, that is true. the claimants are bogus. Yet, in 2007 there was and is bi-partisan support in Australia to save the children from child predators. Stolen Generation – Part II??
Re:Climate change – still have an open mind. Sometimes, I wonder if the climate change scare has been manufactured to keep the developing nations down.
Not always but he does provide an alternative view of reality in a media that is controlled by the likes of David Marr and Michelle Grattan.
this thread has digressed a great deal, but an update to the original story: obama personally apologized to the two women:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_apologizes_to_Muslim_women.html
and they put out a statement appreciating his response. quick response to an unfortunate incident.
And.. you condone this behavior, and think we should extend it to be judgmental about other forms of clothing?
flygirl, i think comment number 94 witgh gems about global warming and leftists should make it fairly clear that melbourne desi doesn’t contradict your assumption.
melbourne desi,
I take issue with your deeply offensive and untrue implication that the racist, systematic forced removal of part-Aboriginal children from their parents was a mythical construction from a giant liberal conspiracy. There is more than enough documentation available showing otherwise, including the calculations as the presumed “genetic composition” of said children and the statements regarding the “breeding out” of the Aboriginal “characteristics” and race.
I must have missed the Big Liberal Memo. The MSM controlled by Grattan and Marr? Right, sure, as proven by the incredibly high ratings of Media Watch and – well, the ABC and SBS generally. Perhaps if you haven’t heard enough Right Wing opinion in the media, at least try the likes of Albrechtsen, Devine, and Sheehan, The Courier Mail, The West Australian and, well, The Australian generally. Gerard Henderson is someone more worthy of notice than the cheap, third rate demagoguery of Andrew Bolt.
Also, I’m really not sure where you get off telling other people what they can and can’t wear, or the presumption that all Muslim women are somehow incapable of making their own, rational decisions about what they wear, though I grant you that many probably don’t make a thoughtful decision about the hijab.
I don’t want to hijack this thread. The issue at hand is about the refusal by Obama’s campaign staff to allow hijab-wearing girls to appear behind him in media broadcasts. Is it really a viable option politically for Obama to properly deal with the Muslim-as-smear issue? I can’t understand how it has gone on for so long.
Read my comment carefully. the stolen generation is true. the current claimants are bogus. Last year there was overwhelming support for federal intervention in the NT. Is it any different from the original stolen generation. ABC /SBS do not have a strong leftist bias including Barry and Tony. Yeah right. Unlike most commenters and bloggers, the hijab and the burkha were normal when I grew up (am a DBD). So although tis not confronting in the traditional sense, it brings back memories of a society riven by sectarian violence and divisieness. And yes, it creeps me out coz all I see is medieaval tribalism. For those who are furious about removing the Hijab wearing women, would the reaction be the same if he refused to be photographed with a few Black/White/ Brown/ Yellow Supremacists?
surprised that no one mentioned – the woman in the pic is bloody hot ;). Does anyone have a full length pic ?
melbourne desi…uhhh….I was pointing out that thought the ABC and SBS are regarded as having a left wing bias, they are not popular or mainstream in any way. The SBS is ridiculously marxist and doesn’t hide it, even in its news broadcasts. Such a shame that govt-supported broadcasters don’t sound like the govt of the day, right?Your assertion that Michelle Grattan or David Marr control the MSM here is hilarious, uninformed and simply untrue. I got two words for you: Rupert Murdoch. Oh, and I forget – Kerry Packer.
The current NT intervention issue is far more complex and doesn’t directly compare to the Stolen Generation, really.