Muslim Barack Obama fans told to hide from television camera

[General Zod]

How does that prove anything? Clearly it is in his best interests to have his aids control his image by asking people behind him to remove their veils, for instance, so that he has plausible deniability. Then he can come swooping in and criticize his aids for their inconsiderate action and thus deflect all of the blame while reaping all of the benefits of having his aids watch his back. This is probably the best possible outcome, even better than if he had let them sit in the photo in the first place.
It is a classic win-win situation.

I suppose his staffers should get everyone to wear a cross too? Can't risk the possibility there's atheists in the crowd, it might scare off the fundamentalist swing vote. How about making sure everyone is wearing a flag lapel pin? Don't want anyone who hates America there scaring off the patriot swing vote.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

That's a bit of a slippery slope there. It's not like Obama is being called a secret atheist. Besides, Obama had pretty much pandered himself as a Christian until the Rev Wright thing exploded, to a pretty ridiculous degree. He wanted everyone to know darn well that he was a Christian and not a Muslim, so I don't think he's too concerned about appearing overly atheistic.

Besides, as has been stated, we aren't arguing about the morality of his aids' actions, but about their political expediency. Are you seriously arguing that it would be more expedient for Obama to have some "Lolz Secret Muslim" photo looping on Fox and CNN 24 hours a day, rather than have some aids prevent that and then get to play Gallant to their Goofus afterwards to show that he doesn't discriminate?
The man comes off well to his followers and to the swing voters at the same time this way as opposed to looking good to his supporters while giving McCain yet one more dirty card to play.

It's not like his supporters would give him any extra brownie points just for seeing some headscarves--they wouldn't even have any reason to notice this inclusiveness in the first place until it's pointed out to them by someone like Bill O'Lielly, but the right, and then the middle, sure would take notice. The way it was actually done, attention is called to what a great, unifying guy Obama is while at the same time denying the Sean Hannities of the world a free shot against him.

Is that really going to harm Obama's campaign?

Just so we're clear, when I asked for some evidence that his "unity" message was what was driving Obama's supporters, I got a response along the lines of "Well, actually most people seem to like his charisma and oratory skills..." I will concede if you can show that his unifier image is so important that harming it even slightly will harm his campaign, and I recognise that it will take time to drudge up that evidence if it even exists, but for now there is absolutely no reason I can see to believe that his aids' actions have hurt his campaign. I doubt most of his supporters are so shakey as to drop him over his aids' actions, and I also doubt that more swing voters will be turned off by his aids' actions than would be turned off by seeing yet one more news cycle of Muslimboating, now with even more photos.

[General Zod]

That's a bit of a slippery slope there. It's not like Obama is being called a secret atheist. Besides, Obama had pretty much pandered himself as a Christian until the Rev Wright thing exploded, to a pretty ridiculous degree. He wanted everyone to know darn well that he was a Christian and not a Muslim, so I don't think he's too concerned about appearing overly atheistic.

The fact that there isn't a scandal yet is besides the point, the fact that there are knuckle-draggers who will go out of their way to find any excuse not to vote for him is, which again is why your appeasement tactic is incredibly weak.

Besides, as has been stated, we aren't arguing about the morality of his aids' actions, but about their political expediency. Are you seriously arguing that it would be more expedient for Obama to have some "Lolz Secret Muslim" photo looping on Fox and CNN 24 hours a day, rather than have some aids prevent that and then get to play Gallant to their Goofus afterwards to show that he doesn't discriminate?
The man comes off well to his followers and to the swing voters at the same time this way as opposed to looking good to his supporters while giving McCain yet one more dirty card to play.

As much as the "Secret Muslim" garbage has been played up, anyone who hasn't changed their minds about whether or not Obama's Muslim by now isn't going to anytime soon.

Is that really going to harm Obama's campaign?

You have yet to make a solid case for how showing Muslims in the crowd would harm Obama's campaign anymore than the slander has already except for some very shaky "b-b-b-b-but I know people who would!!1!!!!" claims.

Just so we're clear, when I asked for some evidence that his "unity" message was what was driving Obama's supporters, I got a response along the lines of "Well, actually most people seem to like his charisma and oratory skills..." I will concede if you can show that his unifier image is so important that harming it even slightly will harm his campaign, and I recognise that it will take time to drudge up that evidence if it even exists, but for now there is absolutely no reason I can see to believe that his aids' actions have hurt his campaign. I doubt most of his supporters are so shakey as to drop him over his aids' actions, and I also doubt that more swing voters will be turned off by his aids' actions than would be turned off by seeing yet one more news cycle of Muslimboating, now with even more photos.

I assume you have something more going for this line of reasoning than "gut instinct" and "I know people!111!1"?

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I assume you have something more going for this line of reasoning than "gut instinct" and "I know people!111!1"?

Admittedly, no. This is why I asked for any actual evidence you could provide to the contrary. I still haven't seen it.

Besides, the polls swing wildly everytime a new Obama controversy comes up, so I imagine that there are some not insignificant numbers of swing voters who won't finish deciding until November. And I'm sure more people will become interested in politics as the voting day draws nearer.

Do you have any evidence that excluding those two Muslims will hurt Obama's chances besides "it's wrong"? (I don't disagree that it's a douchebaggy thing to do, just that it will harm Obama politically.) I still don't believe that anyone is seriously supporting Obama on the issue of "unity" alone, and I find it hard to believe this incident will turn anyone away who is voting on Obama for any other issue besides "unity". Do you have anything concrete that indicates otherwise?

As I've said before, my position does seem pretty weak, so if you can present any actual evidence I will concede. Until then, it just seems like you're railing against this because you don't like it, not because it actually harms his cause. Convince me otherwise.

Besides, "my" appeasement tactic isn't the first time the Obama camp has had to "appease" the opposition. From Obama's Christing it up to his disowning his pastor, you could argue that many of his politically motivated moves were just him "appeasing" the middle.

And I seriously doubt the "secret Muslim" garbage has indeed been played out. I think we'll see more of it right up until the election, especially in the South.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Let me ask a question to everyone saying this was "right" or "smart" or whatever the fuck you're trying to say...

If he had removed, say, aethists (for whatever reason) or a pair of gay people, instead of Muslims, would you be so supportive of the move?

[AniThyng]

Don't be absurd, if this was a reverse situation about a Muslim woman in a muslim country denied the right to be in a photoshoot because she isn't wearing a headscarf, you wouldn't be accept "you are responsible for the faith you choose to push" as an excuse now would you?

Yes. The way that Muslim women are treated in various Muslim societies is a legacy of what Muslim women in the past chose to accept, and what they continue to choose to accept. They are largely complicit in their own oppression.

So you are saying that by wearing headscarves to the obama rally, these 2 women were complicit in their being discriminated against? Because they could have just "removed the headscarf"? Do you "just wear a cross" to fit in?

[hongi]

Let me ask a question to everyone saying this was "right" or "smart" or whatever the fuck you're trying to say...

If he had removed, say, aethists (for whatever reason) or a pair of gay people, instead of Muslims, would you be so supportive of the move?

But they aren't important to his campaign, so discriminating against Muslims is A-okay as long as Obama keeps his popularity. That's all that matters!

[Big Phil]

Let me ask a question to everyone saying this was "right" or "smart" or whatever the fuck you're trying to say...

If he had removed, say, aethists (for whatever reason) or a pair of gay people, instead of Muslims, would you be so supportive of the move?

Atheists or gays identifiable how? By wearing a T-shirt saying "Religion is for idiots" or "I like buttsex?"

Two answers:

1. Is it smart? Yes, because the atheists/gays will probably still vote for him regardless, and he can then pander to the religious dumbfucks and say "I'm one of you; vote for me."

2. Is it moral/ethical? Absolutely not, but then this is politics we're talking about here, so what do you expect.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Let me ask a question to everyone saying this was "right" or "smart" or whatever the fuck you're trying to say...

If he had removed, say, aethists (for whatever reason) or a pair of gay people, instead of Muslims, would you be so supportive of the move?

If the atheists were wearing large "Cogito ergo Deus non est" shirts or something, I probably would. I would still think that it's "wrong, but politically expedient." Keep in mind that I am an atheist, and part of a (somewhat) politically active group of atheists.
If someone behind Obama is gay, I don't think they'd show up in the photo as "gay" so much as "looking just like anyone else", so I wouldn't see a reason to kick them out. Now, if they were making out behind Obama, that would be just as rude as if a heterosexual couple was making out behind Obama.

I would also not object if they kicked out people wearing "viva le France" shirts or tefillin, either. I would think it was wrong, and terrible, but probably would save the Obama camp a lot of time on the defensive. Those of us who pay attention will vote based on what Obama's positions are and what he has done. The average American will vote based on "which one scares/annoys me least." Guess which block of voters is larger and more fickle.

Besides, Obama isn't being attacked as a secret atheist or secret homosexual. He's being attacked as a secret Muslim, who is also sympathetic to terrorists. Sure, the attack is ridiculous and slanderous, but it plays well in Peoria, as they say. The current administration has spent 7 years conditioning the US populace to have a Pavlovian "fear" response to Muslims and terrorists, and to equate the two, to the point where even subliminally suggesting a connection can move public opinion. ("Saddam...9/11...Saddam...9/11" seemed to work, for example.) So, yes, I think it's important for Obama to counter the Muslimboating at each and every opportunity.

[hongi]

Let me ask a question to everyone saying this was "right" or "smart" or whatever the fuck you're trying to say...

If he had removed, say, aethists (for whatever reason) or a pair of gay people, instead of Muslims, would you be so supportive of the move?

Atheists or gays identifiable how? By wearing a T-shirt saying "Religion is for idiots" or "I like buttsex?"

The big red A symbol for atheism, or the rainbow gay pride flag.

[General Zod]

Besides, Obama isn't being attacked as a secret atheist or secret homosexual. >snip<

Does the name "Larry Sinclair" ring a bell? As far as the atheist thing, click here. People are quite literally going for every possible angle of defamation here to smear Obama.

[hongi]

So Bob the Gunslinger, what should happen the next time a Muslim woman wearing a hijab wanted to stand behind Obama? Should she be barred or told to take the headscarf off?

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Besides, Obama isn't being attacked as a secret atheist or secret homosexual. >snip<

Does the name "Larry Sinclair" ring a bell? As far as the atheist thing, click here. People are quite literally going for every possible angle of defamation here to smear Obama.

I thought Larry Sinclair was discredited. Besides, he and the atheist angle combined probably get less than a tenth of the airtime as the secret Muslim nonsense, and certainly fewer talking heads discussing it on the nightly news. I can see them becoming really popular in those chain emails that go around every election, but I doubt they'll hit the average voter as often or as deeply.

[Mr Bean]

FYI:Larry Sinclair has been discreted to say the least, he has a 27 year criminal record of fraud conventions and after his recent press club appearance the DC Police arrested him because surprise, surprise, he has an outstanding warrant against him.

[General Zod]

FYI:Larry Sinclair has been discreted to say the least, he has a 27 year criminal record of fraud conventions and after his recent press club appearance the DC Police arrested him because surprise, surprise, he has an outstanding warrant against him.

The Muslim angle has been discredited as well, repeatedly. Which makes me wonder why some people are insistent that being seen with a Muslim is somehow detrimental to Obama's campaign.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

So Bob the Gunslinger, what should happen the next time a Muslim woman wearing a hijab wanted to stand behind Obama? Should she be barred or told to take the headscarf off?

She should be allowed to stand behind him. It's the right thing to do. Politically, it would also be a better move next time to let her stay. If his aids are on the ball, they know they can't pull the same trick now that they've been castigated or whatever without it looking planned, so they'd have to let her stand behind him. But they should also have a couple guys in big ol' Texas hats with huge belt buckles and some frumpy "everywoman" wearing a cross or flag pin waiting to crowd around them, just to show how inclusive Obama is. It wouldn't hurt to make a game of "where's Waldo" out of spotting them while giving a wink and a not to the average slob that Obama cares about them, too.

Who knows, maybe they'll be able to spin it the other way and gain points by making it appear as if Obama's not afraid to extend an olive branch to all minority communities while representing the good ol' God-fearin' Americans. I'm nowhere near politically savvy enough to guess at what they will or should do to gain the maximum advantage from the situation, but I guarantee you there's already someone in his campaign planning for just such a situation.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

The Muslim angle has been discredited as well, repeatedly. Which makes me wonder why some people are insistent that being seen with a Muslim is somehow detrimental to Obama's campaign.

Because that discrediting didn't "stick".

I know I'm just using anecdotal evidence again, but I still hear people discussing Obama and considering him to be either Muslim or sympathetic to Muslim (i.e. "terrorist") causes. I have not heard anyone in real life or on the news claim that Obama is gay or an atheist.

[General Zod]

The Muslim angle has been discredited as well, repeatedly. Which makes me wonder why some people are insistent that being seen with a Muslim is somehow detrimental to Obama's campaign.

Because that discrediting didn't "stick".

I know I'm just using anecdotal evidence again, but I still hear people discussing Obama and considering him to be either Muslim or sympathetic to Muslim (i.e. "terrorist") causes. I have not heard anyone in real life or on the news claim that Obama is gay or an atheist.

I suppose your state has the entiretyof the 11% of Americans who believe Obama is Muslim then.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

11% is a large percentage in an election.

Probably the same amount of those people live in my state as people you know who are voting for Obama because he's a "unifier".

[General Zod]

11% is a large percentage in an election.

Probably the same amount of those people live in my state as people you know who are voting for Obama because he's a "unifier".

30% of the population thinks President Bush is doing a good job. How much do you want to bed that 11% falls under the 30% that supports Bush and wouldn't have voted for Obama anyway?

[General Zod]

11% is a large percentage in an election.

Probably the same amount of those people live in my state as people you know who are voting for Obama because he's a "unifier".

30% of the population thinks President Bush is doing a good job. How much do you want to bet that 11% falls under the 30% that supports Bush and wouldn't have voted for Obama anyway?

Ghetto edit: bet, not bed. meh.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I've already told you that I know a bunch a Democrats who think Obama is a Secret Muslim, so they can't all be in the 30%. Granted, probably the majority of them are, but it only takes a small percentage of voters voting against their party or not showing up at all to swing an election.

Again, I'll ask you just how many independents or swing voters, or hell, voters, you know who are likely not to vote for Obama because his aid didn't want headscarves behind him on camera? Do you know anyone who will be decided either way by this incident? We are arguing whether or not it was a politically expedient move, not whether it was morally right or even whether or not it will bother some Obama supporterss who will still vote for him anyway. Simply put: do you think this has cost Obama any votes at all?

Regardless of whether or not this action will have effectively curtailed another round of "secret Muslim", or whether or not such slander would cost Obama votes, if this action hasn't cost him any votes, then it will still be a net positive since Obama will not have to deal with any more fallout from the Muslimboaters who would have put him on the defensive and used up valuable campaigning time in which he could get his message out.

[Twoyboy]

The argument defending these actions basically boils down to "it may have hurt Obama's election chances, and people are already bigots - he didn't cause that, he's just playing the game".

For an analogous example, look here. You're solving the wrong problem. Playing to people's bigotry to get elected is bigotry in itself, and, whether or not it hurt his chances in the election, it's completely unjustified.

[General Zod]

Again, I'll ask you just how many independents or swing voters, or hell, voters, you know who are likely not to vote for Obama because his aid didn't want headscarves behind him on camera? Do you know anyone who will be decided either way by this incident? We are arguing whether or not it was a politically expedient move, not whether it was morally right or even whether or not it will bother some Obama supporterss who will still vote for him anyway. Simply put: do you think this has cost Obama any votes at all?

Who gives a shit whether I know any personally? But just for clarification, this incident in and of itself isn't going to necessarily cost any votes, with the notable exception of the Muslim community. BUT it gives the Republitard slander machine more ammunition to work with specifically because it contradicts his campaign's message of unity. As it stands they're looking for any and all contradictions they can spin the fuck out of.

[Big Phil]

Again, I'll ask you just how many independents or swing voters, or hell, voters, you know who are likely not to vote for Obama because his aid didn't want headscarves behind him on camera? Do you know anyone who will be decided either way by this incident? We are arguing whether or not it was a politically expedient move, not whether it was morally right or even whether or not it will bother some Obama supporterss who will still vote for him anyway. Simply put: do you think this has cost Obama any votes at all?

Who gives a shit whether I know any personally? But just for clarification, this incident in and of itself isn't going to necessarily cost any votes, with the notable exception of the Muslim community. BUT it gives the Republitard slander machine more ammunition to work with specifically because it contradicts his campaign's message of unity. As it stands they're looking for any and all contradictions they can spin the fuck out of.

How will this cost Obama muslim votes? After what Shrub and the Republicans have done to Iraq, how many American muslims are likely to vote Republican?