Muslim Woman not Allowed to Sit Behind Obama in Detroit

[stevento]

So on Monday I went to see Obama get endorsed by Al Gore and Jennifer Granholm(governor of MI). It was fun. We chose to stand for four hours on the floor so we could possibly get a chance to ask Obama a question. I would've asked him how he feels about not winning the popular vote but winning the nomination especially since in his speech he made such a big deal about Al Gore winning the popular vote... but he didn't take questions :mad::mad:
I wouldn't stand on the floor again, but it was worth it because I got to feel Al Gore's pudgy weak handshake, I tried to get Obama to shake my hand but he completely ignored me.
people with facebook accounts can go look at pics right here (http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2069583&id=19609210)
So basically anybody was alowed to go sit anywhere they want.
Heres a pic i took of the backdrop while there still werent that many people inside :

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c126/gcbenji0/n19609210_32277223_6606.jpg

So we are in the Joe Louis Arena and anyone is allowed to go sit anywhere they want. Keep in mind, its not like people are being directed where to sit, everyone was allowed to sit where ever they please and people carefully choose their seats. I chose to stand on the floor so I could be close. Some people chose to sit right in the backdrop so they could be on TV. Some people chose to sit in the seats close, so they could sit and still be close enough to try and shake his hand afterward.
So today I came across this link today
Muslim Woman: Scarf Kept Her From Seat Near Obama (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/wireStory?id=5193874)
So I'm thinking the women wanted to sit behind him so they just go up and sit down, but were asked to move.
I know the link says there were invitations but if I wanted to go sit in the backdrop I could've eased my way over there without being noticed.
So these women try to sit in the backdrop and they are turned away...
...make your own judgments...

[solvs]

First of all, again, he didn't lose the popular vote. And I still see you won't let this go. Hillary is gone. It's over. Face it.

But the part I think is funny is that you're ignoring the rest of the story, then claiming you want people to make their own judgments. These were volunteers doing this. Based on the "smear" against Obama, though the real smear is against Muslims who some have equated all of them with terrorists and terrorism. Plus, Obama immediately apologized and later put out a pic of him with some women, some of whom were in Muslim garb.

Nice try though.

[LethalWolfe]

...make your own judgments...
You're bitter.


Lethal

[BoyBach]

Lets not beat about the bush here.

Barack Obama's "volunteers" did not want their man to be pictured with Muslims for fear of a rightwing media backlash. This is hardly "Change we can believe in" - which is surely one of the emptiest of political slogans - it's just a disappointing continuation of politicians pandering to the small Islamophobic sections of the media.

[.Andy]

which is surely one of the emptiest of political slogans
There's tautology in there.

[Cleverboy]

His campaign has been actively working on "visibility" during the entire campaign, and the last report I read, was that all campaigns do that. The only difference here, is that the whole "muslim" issue is a hot button one. Previous stories seemed surprised that the organizers were so bold, as to say "we need more white people". It's at the heart of politics though, so... I kind of don't care really. This issue does kind of raise a stink though. It's like Apple's iPhone being criticized for AT&T's termination fees or data plan costs that every other smart phone charges. I think its just evidence that people are reporting on minutia now, having not found much else to navel gaze over.

Example:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E5D61139F936A15757C0A96E9C8B63

~ CB

[Neutral Gamer]

Barack Obama's "volunteers" did not want their man to be pictured with Muslims for fear of a rightwing media backlash. This is hardly "Change we can believe in" - which is surely one of the emptiest of political slogans - it's just a disappointing continuation of politicians pandering to the small Islamophobic sections of the media.

Is it me or are American politicians in a lose-lose situation?

If you endorse or are friendly to Muslims you're labelled as an al-Qaeda supporter and soft on terror. Whereas on the other hand, if you ignore or criticise anything about them, you're labelled a right wing fundamentalist trying to keep their image clean among "ordinary" Americans.

With American appearing to be a country split 50-50, what exactly can anyone do? No matter what is said, it appears that half the population will hate you for it.

With such a split, maybe the country should just be divided into two separate entities and let both sides live their lives autonomously with people migrating as their political views change? ;)

Lets not beat about the Bush here.


A subconscious joke perhaps? :D

[MrSmith]

You spent 4 hours at a political meeting? :confused:

[atszyman]

So a couple of volunteers act on their own, at an open event, in what they probably see as a Catch-22 situation.

Asking them to move, or having a picture of Obama giving a speech with Muslim women in the background that will be posted on every right wingnuts' blogs with some reference to Obama being Muslim, a terrorist sympathizer, and/or a terrorist.

McCain gives a town hall that supposedly contains Dems, Republicans and Independents only to later admit that only McCain supporters were invited.

While I don't necessarily agree with the volunteers, until they come forward and tell us that someone higher up in the campaign told them to do it we're only dealing with a couple of supporters who made a poor decision.

[PlaceofDis]

While I don't necessarily agree with the volunteers, until they come forward and tell us that someone higher up in the campaign told them to do it we're only dealing with a couple of supporters who made a poor decision.

exactly. this is a non-story.

[leekohler]

...having a picture of Obama giving a speech with Muslim women in the background that will be posted on every right wingnuts' blogs with some reference to Obama being Muslim, a terrorist sympathizer, and/or a terrorist.

And sadly, that's exactly what would happen. :(

[BoyBach]

I, rather naïvely, was hoping that Obama - and his "volunteers" - would be the type of politician - and supporters - that would not pander to the rightwing media or blogosphere and the politics of fear.

He should be clearly saying that Muslims are not terrorists.

(Forgive me, but I'm just completely pissed off after ten years of Anthony Blair - followed by that bigger disappointment in Brown - and almost eight years of George W. Bush and his administration. I just want my planet back from these ****ing nutjobs before they completely destroy it.)

[zap2]

Really?

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Are you just mad because Obama "ignored you"(and by that I mean he has millions of people who want to meet him and shake his hand, and can't stop his whole day just to meet with you! its not personal, in fact it was the opposite of personal)

But someone on the low level did something you disagree with, I'm sorry but move on.

[Cleverboy]

I, rather naïvely, was hoping that Obama - and his "volunteers" - would be the type of politician - supporters - that would not pander to the rightwing media or blogosphere and the politics of fear.

He should be clearly saying that Muslims are not terrorists. He HAS... many times. In fact, its the subject of one of the smears against him. Right now, Obama's struggling not to have the conversation changed on him to some "side show" topic, every other word. "Who cares what he's saying", look at the muslim behind him!

~ CB

[mactastic]

This is one of those lose-lose situations. Either you allow the women to sit where they want, and face the inevitable Malkin-style email campaigns depicting Obama as a secret Muslim supporter; or you face this kind of backlash. Now that it's past primary time, and Obama is trying to appeal to the broader general electorate, it sounds like his people made a decision between the lesser of two weevils.

At least his staff didn't make them sign loyalty oaths....

[BoyBach]

I'm sorry to keep on about it, but surely by having these women moved his people have dignified the rightwing bollocks about Obama spearheading a Muslim coup of the White House.

[PlaceofDis]

I'm sorry to keep on about it, but surely by having these women moved his people have dignified the rightwing bollocks about Obama spearheading a Muslim coup of the White House.

his people didn't move them. volunteers did, under no orders to do so did this. not the people officially working for him.

[BoyBach]

Volunteers, supporters or his campaign manager - it's all irrelevant. They all should grow some balls and stand up to Murdoch and his odious News Corp. cronies.

These "volunteers" would obviously have been briefed about making sure that the right people were seated behind Barack Obama. Like I said earlier, they should not be pandering to these wretched politics of fear, but confronting it.

[iJohnHenry]

You spent 4 hours at a political meeting? :confused:

I'm not surprised, given that he is obviously a political junkie. :rolleyes:

God help y'all South of the border if he ever gets into a position of power. ;)

[gkarris]

With such a split, maybe the country should just be divided into two separate entities and let both sides live their lives autonomously with people migrating as their political views change? ;)


They did that a long, long time ago.

It's called, "Canada"... :eek:

:D

[stevento]

The only way Obama is the winner of the popular vote is if you give him ALL of the uncommitted from MI and give John Edwards zero uncommitted votes from MI, ignoring the fact that he was a major candidate at that time.
I cannot believe you guys are not getting mad about this. If this had happened at one of Hillary's rallies this would be all over NBC and Faux and you'd see Keith Olbermann yelling and screaming, calling her a racist monster.
A "sensitive political climate" is all the more reason for a muslim woman to sit in the back drop.


You spent 4 hours at a political meeting?
Well I waited in line 90 minutes then it was two hours before Chauncey Billups came out an introduced Granholm.

[themadchemist]

I was extremely disappointed by the campaign's actions in this instance, and I don't like to "blame the volunteers." Responsibility always lies with organizers, supervisors, and ultimately, the candidate. I was pleased to see the prompt apology and I hope that, as they promised, it doesn't happen again.

[Neutral Gamer]

They did that a long, long time ago.

It's called, "Canada"... :eek:

:D

Haha, nice one. If it wasn't so barren and cold, I'd love to live there especially as I like speaking French.

I, rather naïvely, was hoping that Obama - and his "volunteers" - would be the type of politician - and supporters - that would not pander to the rightwing media or blogosphere and the politics of fear.

He should be clearly saying that Muslims are not terrorists.

(Forgive me, but I'm just completely pissed off after ten years of Anthony Blair - followed by that bigger disappointment in Brown - and almost eight years of George W. Bush and his administration. I just want my planet back from these ****ing nutjobs before they completely destroy it.)

I'm sorry to keep on about it, but surely by having these women moved his people have dignified the rightwing bollocks about Obama spearheading a Muslim coup of the White House.

Volunteers, supporters or his campaign manager - it's all irrelevant. They all should grow some balls and stand up to Murdoch and his odious News Corp. cronies.

These "volunteers" would obviously have been briefed about making sure that the right people were seated behind Barack Obama. Like I said earlier, they should not be pandering to these wretched politics of fear, but confronting it.

Please, tell us how you REALLY feel. ;)

The fact is if a presidential nominee stood up to the "right wing media" as you say, such as that personified by News Corp, they'll just make his life even worse. Obama saying he's being "picked upon" by certain sections of the media would open the floodgates for people who clearly don't understand what a joke is (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/16/obama-plans-white-house-basketball-court-if-elected/) (just have a look at the user comments in that article). They'll damn him with phrases such as:

"Oh poor Os[b]ama(!) If he starts crying when the media dare to write against him, then how on earth can this pansy Muslim lover have the strength to run our beloved country?!"

By reacting, he'd be giving the right wing media and their supporters the rope to hang himself with. To win an election you need to appeal to as broad a range of people as possible and that, I'm afraid, requires compromises in what you openly say and which people / organisations you can attack. Otherwise you'll distance yourself from too many potential voters.

Ask yourself this: would you rather have a third Republican run government with Obama's balls torn and eaten up by the media or have Obama as president with his balls at the same size but still intact? :)

Life's always a compromise. That's why the MacBook Air has only one USB port and no dedicated graphics. Probably why there's no 13" MBP and no headless iMac. (What does that have to do with anything? I don't know, I just wanted to mention something about Apple in the PRSI forum considering this is MacRumors and all. :D)

[themadchemist]

The fact is if a presidential nominee stood up to the "right wing media" as you say, such as that personified by News Corp, they'll just make his life even worse. Obama saying he's being "picked upon" by certain sections of the media would open the floodgates for people who clearly don't understand what a joke is (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/16/obama-plans-white-house-basketball-court-if-elected/) (just have a look at the user comments in that article). They'll damn him with phrases such as:

"Oh poor Os[b]ama(!) If he starts crying when the media dare to write against him, then how on earth can this pansy Muslim lover have the strength to run our beloved country?!"


The best defense is a strong offense. Obama should be firing back, debunking the ridiculous stuff and attacking McCain on his obvious flaws. Rahm Emmanuel made that the strategy for the 2006 Congressional takeover, and I think it was wise. We saw Kerry avoid this approach with the Swiftboaters to great calamity.


By reacting, he'd be giving the right wing media and their supporters the rope to hang himself with. To win an election you need to appeal to a broad a range of people as possible and that, I'm afraid, requires compromises in what you openly say and which people / organisations you can attack. Otherwise you'll distance yourself from too many potential voters.

Ask yourself this: would you rather have a third Republican run government with Obama's balls torn and eaten up by the media or have Obama as president with his balls at the same size but still intact? :)


Rejecting people from your public image on the basis of religion isn't the way to do this. I mean, if there isn't even one party that will stand up for a much-mistreated religious minority, that's pretty shameful. And if he needs to piss on minorities to win enough votes to win, he doesn't stand a chance--the Republicans will beat him on that every day of the week. Their debates seemed to me a contest to outdo each other on hate speech masquerading as jokes.

[BoyBach]

Please, tell us how you REALLY feel. ;)


Why, am I not articulating my disappointment clearly enough for you?

( :D :p )

[iShater]

I have a mixed feeling about this one. I think the it is a lose-lose situation, and I am under no illusions that this is politics, doing the "right thing" and the "right thing for the campaign" are different things :(

I think the volunteers went with a gut reaction to protect "the candidate" vs. actually considering what the campaign stands for.

It is very ironic that Muslims voted for Bush into office, but since 9/11 and how Bush responded to American Muslims, I can't find a single one that will ever vote for a Republican again. (Edit: maybe Ron Paul :D )

I think we should get more Muslims to go to McCain's things and show up behind him, that will throw everybody totally off track :D

[blackfox]

The only way Obama is the winner of the popular vote is if you give him ALL of the uncommitted from MI and give John Edwards zero uncommitted votes from MI, ignoring the fact that he was a major candidate at that time.
I cannot believe you guys are not getting mad about this. If this had happened at one of Hillary's rallies this would be all over NBC and Faux and you'd see Keith Olbermann yelling and screaming, calling her a racist monster.
A "sensitive political climate" is all the more reason for a muslim woman to sit in the back drop.

.
Rationalize your "position" all you want. Lethals' comment is still the most accurate of the thread.

[stevento]

let me ask you guys honestly, if you saw this in the news and it was hillary's name how would you feel about this?
you wouldn't accept the argument that "the volunteer was wrong"

[stevento]

Asking them to move, or having a picture of Obama giving a speech with Muslim women in the background that will be posted on every right wingnuts' blogs with some reference to Obama being Muslim, a terrorist sympathizer, and/or a terrorist.


now i know Fox news tries to maintain an erroneous connection between Muslim culture and terrorism but you're saying that Fox news and the like would be able to make the case that he's a muslim because of two women in the background?
for the record yes i am bitter. though i support him, i am still hoping his campaign comes crashing down before the convention.

[Blue Velvet]

though i support him, i am still hoping his campaign comes crashing down before the convention.


This statement makes no sense in the slightest.

[iJohnHenry]

I tried to get Obama to shake my hand but he completely ignored me.

Sorry, I missed this sentence first time through.

So, you collect palm sweat?? Why did you feel the "need" to press the flesh with Barack??

So you could say "I was there, I shook his hand."?

Pretty weak.

[mactastic]

let me ask you guys honestly, if you saw this in the news and it was hillary's name how would you feel about this?
you wouldn't accept the argument that "the volunteer was wrong"
The same way I feel about this situation. She would be in a no-win position where she would either risk pissing off the Muslim community or the redneck community.

Guess which is the larger voting bloc?

Although I understand in MI, the Muslim community is quite large; but the attack ads would be spread around the entire nation, not just in MI.

Doesn't make what his campaign staffers did right... but surely you can understand the reason for their overreaction. And Obama did apologize to these women.

Let's see if it happens again. And you can bet that right now some GOP operative is trying to recruit some women in headscarves to test the Obama campaign with.

I suppose the easy solution would be to control access to these events the way McCain does, and Bush was famous for. Remember the people with anti-Bush bumper stickers who were forcibly ejected from a Bush rally? Bush didn't have issues with people his campaign didn't want seen because his staffers intercepted them before they got to the floor.

[Thomas Veil]

...so we could possibly get a chance to ask Obama a question. I would've asked him how he feels about not winning the popular vote but winning the nomination especially since in his speech he made such a big deal about Al Gore winning the popular vote...Luckily you didn't get the chance to make a fool of yourself. If you think we're hostile to your nonsense here, I can just imagine how a large crowd would have reacted to such a childish question.

[iJohnHenry]

Why do I have visions of this character??

(Excellent portrayal, btw.)

http://www.filmreference.com/images/sjff_01_img0485.jpg

[atszyman]

now i know Fox news tries to maintain an erroneous connection between Muslim culture and terrorism but you're saying that Fox news and the like would be able to make the case that he's a muslim because of two women in the background?
for the record yes i am bitter. though i support him, i am still hoping his campaign comes crashing down before the convention.

Where did I mention Fox news? The picture would be on every right wingnut's blog page, and in countless emails all used to re-enforce the Muslim rumor or portray him to be soft on terrorism/terrorists. Why give them ammunition?

I don't agree with the volunteers' assessment of the situation, but I can understand their thought process.

[yojitani]

It is disappointing that any person at any level of any political campaign should feel the need to manufacture an image to such an extent that muslims don't even have a place in the background. It (negative image of muslims) is definitely a problem that needs to be challenged, but it seems a political campaign is not the place for that kind of battle.

Stevento: The syntax of the two campaigns can't really be meaningfully compared. Hilary, in the end, was attempting to mold herself into some sort of white champion of the white, less educated, working class. There was something extremely cynical about the manufacture of her image (especially because the only 'real' attribute she shared was her whiteness) such that if the same thing were to have happened to her, the reading would be something along the lines of 'Hillary pandering to the white working class etc. But it would seem with Obama, the lesson is more about him reigning in aspects of his image that have already gotten out of control. That's not an excuse for him. But since we all know that this ridiculous Obama=Osama logic is so prevalent, the move seems less cynical..

[Rodimus Prime]

I think any campain would of ask the person to move. It is to much of a political risk to put some one like that in the back ground.

I doute he or his campain is sorry t hey did it. what they are sorry about is they got caught. But I could promise you the Mcain campain would of done the same thing. welcome to the world of politic. Being Policticaly correct is a load of Bull. It is all about appling to the masses and if that mans some discrimination so be it.

[themadchemist]

It is disappointing that any person at any level of any political campaign should feel the need to manufacture an image to such an extent that muslims don't even have a place in the background. It (negative image of muslims) is definitely a problem that needs to be challenged, but it seems a political campaign is not the place for that kind of battle.

Stevento: The syntax of the two campaigns can't really be meaningfully compared. Hilary, in the end, was attempting to mold herself into some sort of white champion of the white, less educated, working class. There was something extremely cynical about the manufacture of her image (especially because the only 'real' attribute she shared was her whiteness) such that if the same thing were to have happened to her, the reading would be something along the lines of 'Hillary pandering to the white working class etc. But it would seem with Obama, the lesson is more about him reigning in aspects of his image that have already gotten out of control. That's not an excuse for him. But since we all know that this ridiculous Obama=Osama logic is so prevalent, the move seems less cynical..

A very good insight, I think. Thanks for that.

[Mike Teezie]

Is this good enough for you, stevento?

Obama personally apologizes for volunteers mistakes (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_apologizes_to_Muslim_women.html)

[stevento]

Where did I mention Fox news? The picture would be on every right wingnut's blog page, and in countless emails all used to re-enforce the Muslim rumor



i think we all agree that fox is full of right wingnuts.

If you think we're hostile to your nonsense here

it is not nonsense that hillary won the popular vote, i know it doesn't matter, but she got more votes. period. you have to give him all the uncommitted from michigan for him to be the winner. if you give edwards his fair share of MI uncommitted, because he was a major candidate at that time, then he loses the popular vote. count the caucuses, and hillary has 200,000 more votes. now there were 238,000 uncommitted votes in MI. you have to give Obama 200,000 and only give edwards 38,000 votes. you have to give Obama 84% of uncommitted and edwards only gets 16% of uncommited. that's completely unfair to edwards and his supporters. i still dont see why either obama or edwards should even get 1 uncommitted vote from michigan. but that's not the point of this thread. this has all been discussed in another thread, with links.


So, you collect palm sweat?? Why did you feel the "need" to press the flesh with Barack??
So you could say "I was there, I shook his hand."?
Pretty weak.

i'm sure you've seen at the end of rallies, the dignitaries go down the line and try to touch as many hands as they can. and i was one of those people reaching out for a semi-handshake.


Is this good enough for you, stevento?
yes it is. but still i think its interesting that the media and people on this message board let him get away with this when hillary would've been burned at the stake for it.

[Gelfin]

yes it is. but still i think its interesting that the media and people on this message board let him get away with this when hillary would've been burned at the stake for it.

No she wouldn't. You need to put down the persecution pipe.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think he ignored her on principle. The idea to refute those that believe he is a muslim and thereby a terrorist. It's like others in the political field, that distance themselves that make them look negative to others. Separate, and the one associated with a major issue, and you won't be branded one of "Them" regardless of what "Them" you want to use. Ok, so I'm tired nd posting all in one :p

[KingYaba]

let me ask you guys honestly, if you saw this in the news and it was hillary's name how would you feel about this?

Bill Bennett asked the same question last night on CNN about McCain.

[solvs]

To answer the earlier ridiculous question, I doubt anyone would care if Hillary's campaign did this. Mostly because there is no more Hillary campaign, because she's out. Really, she lost, let it go. But she also hasn't been labeled a Muslim extremist, something the volunteers must have been worried about. Which is why most of us, even though we're disappointed at the situation, can't help but understand why they did what they did. Hillary could have had plenty of pics with those in Muslim garb, and while the right might have tried to hit her with it, it wouldn't have been as successful an attack as one against Obama. We should be blaming those who would attack over such a thing in the first place, but hey, anything to criticize Obama right?

And for some reason pretend you know that we'd be attacking Hillary for it.

[Cleverboy]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=5645890#post5645890
I'm not sure. There is a story here, in that the Obama campaign is clearly afraid of being tied to Muslims, but that's just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.
The real story I think is how political campaigns operate and how even small issues (like flag pins) are used as a guide rather than issues.
Of course, this would be a complex story we might see in a monthly magazine six months after the election. No... this is the same garbage NAVEL GAZING news that we usually see.

The Obama campaign isn't "afraid of being tied to Muslims", a couple of volunteers were simply assigned to manage the "look" of the crowd behind the candidate during a speech. They made a poor choice in being honest about what they were doing. Campaigns do this all the time, and JUST LIKE when Senate meetings started getting held about cellphone cancellation fees, simply because the iPHONE is coming out... people are suddenly paying super-close attention to details about campaigns because a particular candidate seems to represent something new.

Obama has been very forthright about his respect of Muslims, but that he ISN'T one... and yet there is a smear campaign happening against him, and his volunteers were trying to manage that image. There is not "fear", there is just an attempt to keep the media "on message"... and its extremely difficult. Just look at the FightTheSmears.com website. Look at this smear here (http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/therealquote), and note what Obama is actually saying, and how it is twisted:
SMEAR QUOTE being distributed:
'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
"Whenever I appear before immigrant audiences, I can count on some good-natured ribbing from my staff after my speech; according to them, my remarks always follow a three-part structure: "I am your friend," "[Fill in the home country] has been a cradle of civilization," and "You embody the American dream." They're right, my message is simple, for what I've come to understand is that my mere presence before these newly minted Americans serves notice that they matter, that they are voters critical to my success and full-fledged citizens deserving of respect.

"Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
So, what did the candidate do when this recent issue came up? He called the women up, and apologized the right way, and said it shouldn't have happened. --But, here's the problem. Campaign volunteers were actively making sure he wasn't painted as the "black" candidate either, by making sure there wasn't an enormous collecton of black people behind him during most of his speeches. Should they apologize for brazenly saying, "We need more white supporters over here?"

Nope. It's just REALITY. There is no "FEAR" from the campaign... there is just the knowledge that a video clip will be circulated of the different campaign speeches, and they want to manage the image. McCain has been criticised because his speeches seem populated by old white people and he just stands in front of a been green placard with "McCain" repeated a million times. Is that representative of his message? Probably not, but it can be very difficult to manage image without "sending a message", as you're demonstrating.

Should Obama's volunteers discriminate against women dressed in muslim garb? No. They treat everyone the same in the sense that the final picture is the only intention... not the oppression of a group. Should they continue to attempt to manage his image when making public appearances? Yes.

The ONLY problem is in hurting someone's feelings and working hard to avoid that. They did not succeed in NOT hurting the women's feelings, so that is the ONLY misstep that was made.

LET'S BE HONEST

People would rather be politically correct than logical sometimes.

In the end, there are delicate issues people would rather not address, but it doesn't make the issue go away. Everyone has seen pictures of Obama's speeches, and nearly EVERYONE analyzes the crowd behind him to get a sense of the types of people that turn out to support him.

The campaign just spent a week answering questions about a terrorist fist-jab. There is a RABID attempt to characterize everything he does as "anti-Israel" and "pro-Muslim". When Obama makes time to sit down with the Muslim community, he's going to want to make sure he does it on HIS terms, and doesn't send signals that will force him to convene leaders of the Jewish community like he did after he was asked questions about Farrakhan during a debate.

It's not about FEAR, its about keeping the message CLEAR. Is the message "no Muslims allowed"? No... no more than it was "no blacks allowed" when he was trying to keep his campaign blind to race. I'm sure if a collection of Africans in colorful dashiki robes stood behind him at a speech (and were the ONLY ones in the crowd), depending on the week's news and the climate, they might try to adjust that image too.

They could play "make believe" and act like it doesn't matter... but newsflash... it DOES.

Again. NAVEL gazing. It's just crazy.

~ CB

[hulugu]

...
No... this is the same garbage NAVEL GAZING news that we usually see.

The Obama campaign isn't "afraid of being tied to Muslims", a couple of volunteers were simply assigned to manage the "look" of the crowd behind the candidate during a speech. They made a poor choice in being honest about what they were doing. Campaigns do this all the time....

Again. NAVEL gazing. It's just crazy.

~ CB

I should have been more clear.

The fact that someone thought something needed to be done about those women is the story. The theater of politics, especially in an age when flag-pins equate substance and people do disingenuous things like always calling Barack Hussein Obama, rather than just Obama.

People like stevento and others are hung up on this little act by one volunteer and this becomes a symbol for the campaign, rather than the campaign or the man.

That's the story.

[Cleverboy]

I should have been more clear.

The fact that someone thought something needed to be done about those women is the story. The theater of politics, especially in an age when flag-pins equate substance and people do disingenuous things like always calling Barack Hussein Obama, rather than just Obama.

People like stevento and others are hung up on this little act by one volunteer and this becomes a symbol for the campaign, rather than the campaign or the man.

That's the story. Mm. You see... the thing gets my undies in a bunch is that this type of "blow up" becomes a leveraging distraction by those that don't REALLY care about the women. For themadchemist to think that this episode was any worse than "sweetie-gate" is maddening to ME.

In one distraction, it is Obama himself implying an air of chauvinism towards a female reporter who didn't get her story. In the second distraction, it is the frank nature of the explanation of two volunteers that clearly were not implying anything about the women themselves, but were simply managing the image of the campaign speech being planned. The women weren't kicked OUT of the crowd, they were asked to sit elsewhere. To me, its no more or less insulting than being moved in a photo because you're creating an uneven grouping by standing with all the other tall people.

Something DID need to be done about the women. If it couldn't have been done discreetly, it should have been left alone. Again, the problem is with the offense... not the act (and implied intention). If there was a clump of all men behind him, and they needed more women... people shouldn't be checking "how I feel about this". It should just be "Oh". It's just in how you communicate with people. Reactions will vary.

Anyone equating this to the candidate refusing to take a personal picture with these women should be ashamed. That's NOT the context of this. If the two women had walked up to him and when someone raised a camera, Obama said... "Oh, no... I'm sorry, I can't be photographed with you." It would have been offensive. As far as I'm concerned, choosing not to have someone with a Hijab on behind him, is the same as choosing not to have someone with a "Pro-life, Pro-love" t-shirt on behind him. Message management. Not personal AT ALL.

~ CB

[iJohnHenry]

I can well appreciate the desire of these women to appear with Barack, but their political naiveté is astonishing.

Unless they have other fish to fry??

[themadchemist]

Mm. You see... the thing gets my undies in a bunch is that this type of "blow up" becomes a leveraging distraction by those that don't REALLY care about the women. For themadchemist to think that this episode was any worse than "sweetie-gate" is maddening to ME.

In one distraction, it is Obama himself implying an air of chauvinism towards a female reporter who didn't get her story. In the second distraction, it is the frank nature of the explanation of two volunteers that clearly were not implying anything about the women themselves, but were simply managing the image of the campaign speech being planned. The women weren't kicked OUT of the crowd, they were asked to sit elsewhere. To me, its no more or less insulting than being moved in a photo because you're creating an uneven grouping by standing with all the other tall people.

Something DID need to be done about the women. If it couldn't have been done discreetly, it should have been left alone. Again, the problem is with the offense... not the act (and implied intention). If there was a clump of all men behind him, and they needed more women... people shouldn't be checking "how I feel about this". It should just be "Oh". It's just in how you communicate with people. Reactions will vary.

~ CB

Oh, well, now that I'm named, I guess I'll have to respond. :)

"Sweetie" happens to be a pretty common word in American vernacular. Reading all sorts of chauvinism into it seems, to me, a little excessive. The Occam's razor explanation is that it's a word that Obama uses, and based on his platform, other behavior, etc., it's not reflective of some underlying sexism.

On the other hand, the Occam's razor explanation for keeping the Muslim women out of the picture was that people were getting uneasy with the various conflations of Obama with Muslims. Don't get me wrong--I in now way think that Obama harbors ill-will towards Muslims, based on his platform, other behavior, etc. (just like with the woman example) What bothers me about this is that the campaign threw these women under the bus to "protect" Obama from a perceived threat of being too closely attached to women. It created space, and even justification, for discrimination that is rampant in this country right now. And it showed both a lack of courage and poor political acumen (the latter because keeping the Muslims away isn't going to win over the anti-Muslim crowd, who are firmly in McCain's corner, and is going to serve to alienate Obama's base).

To compare this incident to not grouping together "tall" people is absurd. We both know what happened there. If you don't think it's a big deal, I can understand that opinion, and maybe even respect it. What I can't respect is trying to fabricate a more forgivable story line so as not to confront the obvious thought process in this situation. The staff was not trying to create a more "even" image, it was trying to create one less susceptible to being associated with Islam.

You don't think that that's saying something about the women? "Oh, you're good enough for the crowd, but please, we can't have your kind photographed with the candidate. Nothing personal." I don't think that this is Obama's line of thinking, but it certainly was the line of thinking used by those dunderhead volunteers. They might not have meant any offense by it; they might have just been playing politics, but let's not deny that they were playing politics.

In the first place, I didn't think it was a huge deal; i did think it was annoying and disappointing that this happened. I was, as I've said, glad of the apology. But what incenses me is the supporters' need to explain this away with some convoluted excuse in order to keep Obama's image perfect. A simple, "This is a campaign, it was a screw up, let's hope it doesn't happen again," would suffice.

But if you do think the crowd was "uneven" because there were two Muslim women in it, I do apologize. I do apologize that two Muslim women in one of the largest concentrations in the United States were just too much for you. I hope that's not the campaign's reasoning, though, or this problem has gotten a bit deeper.

[Cleverboy]

To compare this incident to not grouping together "tall" people is absurd. We both know what happened there. If you don't think it's a big deal, I can understand that opinion, and maybe even respect it. What I can't respect is trying to fabricate a more forgivable story line so as not to confront the obvious thought process in this situation. The staff was not trying to create a more "even" image, it was trying to create one less susceptible to being associated with Islam.
Trying not to create a "target" out of a campaign appearance doesn't in ANY way sound unreasonable to me. And like I said, if they couldn't find a way to do it without offending them, they should have left it alone. Period. Yeah... if it was easily avoidable, it would have been good to steer the women to sitting somewhere else. I sware, thinking anything else seems naive to me. Did you hear the story about the two kids wearing Abercrombie & Fitch clothing? Take a look...

http://gawker.com/5006621/barack-obamas-abercrombie-boys

Google "obama abercrombie". Those women wouldn't have known they'd be targetted by simply sitting where they were sitting. They'd just think, "Oh, hey... good seat." Next thing, Sean Hannity or Kevin James or Fox in general, will be zooming in on the women and suggesting Obama has terrorists in his audience or some stupid thing. You think I'm kidding... we had to spend a whole WEEK outraged that Dunkin Donuts would pull an ad with a suspicious scarf in it.

Would it be better to just avoid the whole thing by asking the women to sit a couple of seats down? YUP. Not politically correct... easily misconstrued as
descrimination... but its just managing the message.

You don't think that that's saying something about the women? "Oh, you're good enough for the crowd, but please, we can't have your kind photographed with the candidate. Nothing personal." I don't think that this is Obama's line of thinking, but it certainly was the line of thinking used by those dunderhead volunteers. No.. I said this before... Obama would have NO PROBLEM taking a photograph with the women. No aid would say, "Hey, sir... don't do that." We're talking about managing the crowd behind him during a speech that has nothing to do with conversations about exotic clothing.

I was, as I've said, glad of the apology. But what incenses me is the supporters' need to explain this away with some convoluted excuse in order to keep Obama's image perfect. A simple, "This is a campaign, it was a screw up, let's hope it doesn't happen again," would suffice. Trust me... its NOT convoluted. It's a dry-eyed reality. I'm sure some people want a perfect reality where people can simply be "natural" and totally cool with randomness and unintentional misconceptions... but no... lots of people work hard to make sure a campaign's message stays on target. The first report I heard that this was happening, said very clearly that this happens with all campaigns. They scrutinize who'll be "in the shot", and "manage" it. The story was about volunteers trying to get "more whites" in the shot. My first thought was, "Ah... so that's what happens during these things." --And I moved on.
I do apologize that two Muslim women in one of the largest concentrations in the United States were just too much for you. I hope that's not the campaign's reasoning, though, or this problem has gotten a bit deeper. You can be as pious and sanctimonious as you like, but there was NO intention to discriminate going on. There was simply an honest attempt to avoid having the women targetted as unintended headlines and conversation unnecessarily. It is a "harsh" environment around Obama right now. The women didn't need to be spoken to in a way that unintentionally offended them. That should have been avoided.

If there is anything GOOD that has come of this, its that if muslim women wearing hijabs show up behind Obama in future speeches this event would have created a much better context for it in the media. Other than that, we'll have to strongly disagree. You'll think me too cynical or somehow descriminatory and I'll think you overly idealistic on this point. Ultimately, we'll both be committed to the same destination with a largely different road to getting there.

~ CB

[themadchemist]

Trying not to create a "target" out of a campaign appearance doesn't in ANY way sound unreasonable to me. And like I said, if they couldn't find a way to do it without offending them, they should have left it alone. Period.



Yeah... if it was easily avoidable, it would have been good to steer the women to sitting somewhere else. I sware, thinking anything else seems naive to me.


Based on the above, I must say that the following makes little sense:


there was NO intention to discriminate going on.


You can argue whether it is justified or unjustified, but by definition these people were being asked to move because they were wearing hijabs. We both know that; you admitted as much several times. I just don't understand why you keep changing your argument. It's inconsistent.


Did you hear the story about the two kids wearing Abercrombie & Fitch clothing? Take a look...

http://gawker.com/5006621/barack-obamas-abercrombie-boys

Google "obama abercrombie".


Again, what T-shirt you're wearing or how tall you are don't seem to me to be as weighty or prone to discrimination as what religion you are, particularly when that religion is Islam in the United States. As the Gawker story you linked to showed, there wasn't a strong narrative for why those guys were there (or why one might want to move them). On the other hand, there is a remarkably strong narrative for the women being moved: It has everything to do with their religion and a fear that the right wing will use their religion to attack Obama. Right? And my problem is insulating oneself from a segment of the American population on the basis of xenophobic yellow journalism from the far right is weak and cowardly. I can understand if you think this political expediency is necessary, but what I don't understand is why you admit it and then go back on your words. This is exactly what you do when you liken it to a T-shirt or claim that the women appearing to be Muslim wasn't a factor here.


Those women wouldn't have known they'd be targetted by simply sitting where they were sitting. They'd just think, "Oh, hey... good seat." Next thing, Sean Hannity or Kevin James or Fox in general, will be zooming in on the women and suggesting Obama has terrorists in his audience or some stupid thing.


Or maybe the women knew exactly what they were doing and wished to demonstrate openly that Senator Obama had their support. And perhaps, they even wanted to show that he had support from the Muslim community. Are Muslim supporters of Obama supposed to be considered an embarrassment because the likes of Sean Hannity say that they are terrorists? Don't you realize that by giving ground to ridiculous claims like this, we are implicitly accepting the hate mongering of the far right peanut gallery?


You think I'm kidding... we had to spend a whole WEEK outraged that Dunkin Donuts would pull an ad with a suspicious scarf in it.


Isn't there an "urgency" in Obama's words, in fact, an urgency of now, to confronting the complexities of race, ethnicity, and religion in America? One of the great things that Obama has done in this campaign was to give that speech on race. In keeping with that speech, it would make sense that he demonstrate a bit of courage on facing those who would narrow the definition of what it means to be an American.


Would it be better to just avoid the whole thing by asking the women to sit a couple of seats down? YUP. Not politically correct... easily misconstrued as
descrimination... but its just managing the message.


The message is it manages is that it's better not to deal with the real problem, which is that it's socially acceptable to go around calling Muslim Americans terrorists, in order to avoid the nuisance of people associating Obama with Islam. I guess I just think we ought to move past throwing a whole ethnicities under the bus, and I don't think that's being overly idealistic.


No.. I said this before... Obama would have NO PROBLEM taking a photograph with the women. No aid would say, "Hey, sir... don't do that."


So if he's OK with taking a photo with them, then he should just let them sit behind him. Trust me, Sean Hannity will find the picture one way or another.


We're talking about managing the crowd behind him during a speech that has nothing to do with conversations about exotic clothing.


Exotic? It's not exotic, it's a piece of religious clothing worn by an American. It's the act of casting these symbols and the people they represent as exotic that takes us down the road to dehumanizing them, disenfranchising them, and dissociating ourselves from them. How do I know? Because that Orientalism has been a powerful tool for oppression every time the West has exerted force over the rest of the world.


Trust me... its NOT convoluted. It's a dry-eyed reality. I'm sure some people want a perfect reality where people can simply be "natural" and totally cool with randomness and unintentional misconceptions...


This is not convoluted. Your business about tall people and T-shirts is what's convoluted.


The women didn't need to be spoken to in a way that unintentionally offended them. That should have been avoided.


My guess is that what offended them is the fact that they were being moved because of the hijabs. I don't think there's much that could have been said to assuage that fact.


If there is anything GOOD that has come of this, its that if muslim women wearing hijabs show up behind Obama in future speeches this event would have created a much better context for it in the media.


It is only through courage that you create context. The better way to play this would have been to let the women stay there in the first place, let the nutters do their talking, and then respond swiftly and firmly. Here, the Obama campaign has been left to wipe the egg off its face as it annoyed supporters like me, while not avoiding bad press. If instead the actions the campaign took had been consistent with it political message, then it would have been able to claim a higher ground and attack from that ground. In fact, it would have created space for Obama to comment on the racist free-for-all against Muslims, a tactic he has used quite effectively in this campaign. Not everyone can pull that off, and he's failing to play to his strong suit by avoiding the opportunity to establish dialogue.


You'll think me too cynical or somehow descriminatory and I'll think you overly idealistic on this point.


I don't think you're too cynical. But the problem is, I don't know what you think. You jump back and forth so much that I don't know whether you actually believe that the women weren't moved because they're Muslim or you simply think they were moved because they were Muslim but it's not a big deal. If it's the latter, that's at least a tenable position about which we can argue. If it's the former, then I just don't know what story you're reading.


Ultimately, we'll both be committed to the same destination with a largely different road to getting there.


In the end, I just hope Obama's still committed to the destination. I'm voting for him one way or the other, but it's one concession after another, and I just hope that it doesn't end up being another cycle of me playing D with my vote instead of O.

[solvs]

This has kinda put him in an awkward situation:

Obama keeping U.S. Muslims at arm's length (http://www.startribune.com/politics/20729974.html?location_refer=Nation)
Minnesota's Ellison is among the disappointed Muslims, but the campaign denies the charge.

As Sen. Barack Obama courted voters in Iowa in December, Rep. Keith Ellison, America's first Muslim congressman, stepped forward eagerly to help.

Ellison said he believed that Obama's message of unity resonated deeply with American Muslims. He volunteered to speak on Obama's behalf at a mosque in Cedar Rapids, one of the nation's oldest Muslim enclaves. But before the rally could take place, aides to Obama asked Ellison to cancel the trip because it might stir controversy. Another aide appeared at Ellison's Washington office to explain.

"I will never forget the quote," Ellison said, leaning forward in his chair as he recalled the aide's words. "He said, 'We have a very tightly wrapped message.'"
This seems like another opportunity for Obama to get the message out there he used to have that Muslim doesn't equal terrorist, but thanks to the continued "terrorist fist jab" type comments and other similar things that for some reason still work with way to many people, I wonder if he'll even take the chance to try.

In fact, it would have created space for Obama to comment on the racist free-for-all against Muslims, a tactic he has used quite effectively in this campaign.
Exactly, and I'm a little disappointed he hasn't yet, if he will at all.

[Cleverboy]

Ultimately, when I say "discriminate" I don't equate that with "differentiating". We probably have a slightly different worldview on this. A personal photo to me, is different than controlling the image of the people behind the candidate.

While I would equate (in that context) a hijab with a disruptive t-shirt... I wouldn't act if there were the potential for a misunderstanding like this. The volunteers invited groups to sit behind him... They ended up picking people close to the women and they came too. They weren't making random picks, they were intentionally trying to paint a neutral "picture" behind the candidate. These women weren't sitting someplace and suddenly asked to leave. In the future volunteers will think twice about picking people too close to people they weren't trying to pick... And if they pick up someone they didn't intend? Keep your mouth shut. Sounds like only real lesson here.

~ CB

[themadchemist]

Ultimately, when I say "discriminate" I don't equate that with "differentiating". We probably have a slightly different worldview on this. A personal photo to me, is different than controlling the image of the people behind the candidate.

While I would equate (in that context) a hijab with a disruptive t-shirt... I wouldn't act if there were the potential for a misunderstanding like this. The volunteers invited groups to sit behind him... They ended up picking people close to the women and they came too. They weren't making random picks, they were intentionally trying to paint a neutral "picture" behind the candidate. These women weren't sitting someplace and suddenly asked to leave. In the future volunteers will think twice about picking people too close to people they weren't trying to pick... And if they pick up someone they didn't intend? Keep your mouth shut. Sounds like only real lesson here.

~ CB

The problem is that we're also so happy to accept that Muslims are not "neutral" in this country.

I'm sure these women would echo the sentiments of ol' Talib Kweli:
"You try to vote and participate in the government, and the mother ****in' Democrats are acting like Republicans."

[Cleverboy]

The problem is that we're also so happy to accept that Muslims are not "neutral" in this country.

I'm sure these women would echo the sentiments of ol' Talib Kweli:
"You try to vote and participate in the government, and the mother ****in' Democrats are acting like Republicans." I'm not "happy" to accept anything. I have a good friend who's name is "Jihad", his family is from Syria. He calls himself "Jay" to avoid problems. Not neutral. There is a comedy group that calls themselves the Axis of Evil. They members are Palestinian and Iranian, etc... and they joke about how much the world has changed after 9/11 for people of middle eastern decent. My job back in 2001 ended abruptly, because it was muslim owned and we couldn't find any more investors after the attack. The CEO's name was Muhammed, and he'd even gotten on the Wall Street Journals "Under the Radar" page.

No one is "happy" about the fact that being "muslim" is not a "neutral" thing in this day and age. People need to jockey for an appropriate response however. It's not always an easy/simple thing to find the right balance of acknowledging difference and not alienating people.

"Happy" discriminators are the straw men of this conversation.

~ CB

[themadchemist]

I'm not "happy" to accept anything. I have a good friend who's name is "Jihad", his family is from Syria. He calls himself "Jay" to avoid problems. Not neutral. There is a comedy group that calls themselves the Axis of Evil. They members are Palestinian and Iranian, etc... and they joke about how much the world has changed after 9/11 for people of middle eastern decent. My job back in 2001 ended abruptly, because it was muslim owned and we couldn't find any more investors after the attack. The CEO's name was Muhammed, and he'd even gotten on the Wall Street Journals "Under the Radar" page.

No one is "happy" about the fact that being "muslim" is not a "neutral" thing in this day and age. People need to jockey for an appropriate response however. It's not always an easy/simple thing to find the right balance of acknowledging difference and not alienating people.

"Happy" discriminators are the straw men of this conversation.

~ CB

It's unfortunate that the calculation you've made here is that it's better to concede to the nutjobs than to back up a community to which it seems you are so intimately connected. The only reason I'm not really outraged by this whole business is that it was a bozo staffer. If it had been the candidate, I would be beside myself with dissatisfaction. That's why your excusal of this behavior riles me up. By justifying it, you're saying it would have even been OK if Obama had taken this action directly. And in that hypothetical situation, where we don't boo the campaign's choice here, we definitely are throwing the Muslim community under the bus. Again, bad politics (interestingly, a point of mine to which you haven't responded) and bad policy.

[Cleverboy]

It's unfortunate that the calculation you've made here is that it's better to concede to the nutjobs than to back up a community to which it seems you are so intimately connected. The only reason I'm not really outraged by this whole business is that it was a bozo staffer. If it had been the candidate, I would be beside myself with dissatisfaction. That's why your excusal of this behavior riles me up. By justifying it, you're saying it would have even been OK if Obama had taken this action directly. And in that hypothetical situation, where we don't boo the campaign's choice here, we definitely are throwing the Muslim community under the bus. Again, bad politics (interestingly, a point of mine to which you haven't responded) and bad policy. Or you could read the part where I said very clearly that it WOULD have been outrageous if it were the candidate. We're clearly talking in circles. You're SO uncomfortable with the nuance of my comments that you're inventing a straw man.

Also... its NOT a staffer... its a "VOLUNTEER". The amount of misinformation slipping under the radar is what stymies me. I'm probably making the worst mistake by "explaining" the behavior, because you think I'm "excusing" it. I said very clearly that it was WRONG. Only problem is, I said it was wrong for the volunteer to have VERBALIZED and JUSTIFIED excluding the women. Excluding the women in the first place (when conducting who was invited and who was not) was perfectly acceptable. It was their task to "paint" a neutral background of people. I feel that because my opinion isn't a happy kumbuya outlook on politics and limiting distractions, you're ignoring the clear contrast I'm drawing.

In fact, the fact that this topic is even being discussed proved my point. If I volunteered, and a staffer assigned me to picking the people to stand directly behind the candidate and said, "You're basically painting a nuetral picture. Avoid anyone looking particularly out of the ordinary, as we want the focus to be on the candidate, and not the background crowd. Use our descretion." I'd have done the SAME THING in the beginning. The main difference however, is that if the women thought they'd include themselves with some people I'd invited, I would not have made an issue of it (said anything AND/OR justified it to them). That was the PRIME and ONLY mistake... and so clearly was NOT representative of what the campaign intended or what Obama would have authorised.

Everything else is the invention of the media and an OVERLY politically correct mindset. People need to stop extrapolating a problem until it bares NO resemblance to what actually happened. Yes, because "sweetie-gate" involved the candidate... it was much more relevant. This involved volunteers and amounted to a misunderstanding unless you're submitting imaginary facts into evidence, like a secret "no muslim" Obama campaign policy that doesn't exist.

If the people behind Obama at some point ended up being 95% black people, and moreover, extremely inconsistent with the rest of the crowd, I'd expect the volunteer to correct the "problem". If a black person took offense and said, "What, Obama can't have too many black people behind him?" I'd hope the volunteer doesn't say something stupid llike, "It's a politically sensitive climate." I hope they just say something like, "I'm just evening the crowd out, sir." You don't always have to draw the worst inference from this task.

~ CB