Obama and the Muslims
By Masoud Shafaee - Jun 18th, 2008 at 3:35 pmPolitico is reporting that two Muslim women were barred from sitting behind the podium at a Barack Obama campaign rally in Detroit, an area with a large Arab population. The incidents, which occurred separately, were aimed at preventing images of the women’s headscarves from appearing on television while Obama was speaking:
“I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change, who I could really relate to,” said Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer who lives in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills. “The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters.”
[…]
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, who is a law student at Wayne State University.
Both Koussan and Miller said they specifically recalled the volunteer citing the “political climate” in telling them they couldn’t sit behind Obama. [emphasis mine]
What’s most troubling about this incident is the campaign it’s coming from.
Obama has consistently spoken of the need for the country to overcome its divisions and has made “change” the centerpiece of his candidacy. This incident goes directly against what he stands for. What if President Kennedy, a man Obama openly admires and often quotes, had told a young black supporter in the sixties, “I appreciate your support and strive to bring the aims of the civil rights movement to fruition, but given the political climate, you need to step aside. I can’t be seen with a black supporter”?
This comes after repeated instances in which Obama has sought to quash rumors by emphatically stating that he is Christian and not a Muslim (you know, not that there’s anything wrong with that).
But that in itself is what’s wrong here: Obama’s repeated denials of his alleged Islamic faith are accurate but incomplete. Given that the presidential candidate has been praised for his much-heralded speech on race, it’s surprising and somewhat disappointing that he hasn’t come out to say, “No, I am not a Muslim, but what if I were? So what?” It appears that Islam has become the new communism, and “Muslim” the new “commie.” It needn’t be so.
To be fair, Obama’s campaign has apologized for the incident, and he ultimately can’t be held directly responsible for the actions of two misguided volunteers. Plus, photographs from a Seattle rally earlier this year do show Obama posing with a couple in traditional Muslim garb. But it’s nonetheless disconcerting that a volunteer of Obama’s change-movement could be so hypocritical.
you made a good point using the Kennedy example.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:58 pmThis is terribly disappointing. I actually think candidates should always be held accountable for their volunteers. Volunteers don’t get ideas like this or the idea that they have the power to do these things from nowhere, and if the campaign were being run correctly, all volunteers would KNOW the campaign and the candidate do not stand for such discrimination. Agh. Appalling.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:30 pmfor a campaign like obama’s, that exerts such stringent message control, this seems like more than just a couple of misguided volunteers.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:56 pm““I appreciate your support and strive to bring the aims of the civil rights movement to fruition, but given the political climate, you need to step aside. I can’t be seen with a black supporter”?
Wait…you think that didn’t happen? You think he didn’t go shake hands at segregated restaurants? You think he didn’t make speeches in auditoriums where blacks were relegated to the balcony? You think that African Americans were allowed in every campaign venue that he spoke at? Think again. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 wasn’t introduced until 4 years into his campaign…So I guess he didn’t have to say that he couldn’t be seen with a black supporter in the South…most of them couldn’t register in the first place. And he originally told civil rights activists to chill out because he thought that their protest and rebellion would do more to anger the southern whites..the very voters he needed to vote for him.
Not excusing Obama at all…its still awful. Just be careful about holding JFK as a standard bearer for this argument.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:06 pmand I meant to say the VRA wasn’t introduced until 4 years AFTER his campaign.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:07 pmI agree that there’s more here than meets the eye. In my experience, volunteers are the most gung-ho part of a campaign, and they wouldn’t think twice about this kind of logistical shuffling. Way to go, Obama advance, for throwing your volunteers under the bus. I guess because they have plenty more volunteers, sacrificing a few doesn’t matter.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:11 pmOh come on. Yes, this was a terrible incident and the Obama camp rightfully apologized because they made a mistake, but it’s a little ridiculous to blame Obama himself for this. There are thousands of volunteers across the country that work on Obama’s campaign and many probably haven’t even met Obama. He can’t control every person and every aspect just like it was getting ridiculous that he had denounce everything someone said that was controversial if that person supported Obama (like Samantha Power). Obama doesn’t even handle the day-to-day details like this (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/us/politics/16manage.html?ref=politics). As someone who’s volunteered on political campaigns before, I don’t blame Obama at all. It seems to me to be some errant campaign volunteers who made a terrible mistake.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:26 pmI have to echo what e.lindsey’s saying here. JFK…and LBJ (the one who actually signed the VRA in ‘65) did not equivocate about distancing themselves from blacks and social protest as a rule throughout the time period. And JFK only entered into the struggle for civil rights begrudgingly. (LBJ only embraced it when he realized he’d lost the south in ‘64). JFK owed his 1960 victory to the South…and he, and everyone else in his administration, knew that. I’m definitely not trying to excuse Obama’s campaign here, but politics has been played exactly this way since before the days of Lincoln. If people want a candidate to get elected to push change, he has to get elected. Strategy is the game–unsettling, but realistic.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:28 pmamen to that.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:33 pmI am not too surprised this happened. Volunteers often have crazy ideas about how to ‘help the campaign’ and get high off of the thought that any small move they make will increase his/her candidate’s liking by .05%.
Sure, candidates should have better control over their volunteers, just like human error should never happen in nuclear power generation, but fact is, it does. We are right to bring light to this, but the general tone of rabid disappointment in a candidate that has done more for racial healing in this country than has been done for a long time is a little premature and dramatic.
I don’t remember this much outrage over Hillary’s darkening of Obama’s picts or other much more serious attacks to racial healing in this nation throughout this campaign.
Oh, and btw, I TOTALLY agree with your criticism of the general reaction to him being called a Muslim. It is MESSED UP that no-one stands up saying “so what if he were!?”, and that is more disappointing to me than the stupid act of a couple of volunteers.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:37 pmOh please. Until Obama starts having folks sign papers stating they support him prior to watching him speak (as Bush does), I don’t think anyone has a right to scream foul. There are a lot of idiots in this country who are afraid of headscarves - so much so, that they boycott donuts and Rachel Ray, for god’s sake. This was not *Obama* saying they couldn’t sit there - it was a well-meaning, though possibly misguided, volunteer. Did these women really *want* to be a Republican talking point for the next several months? Did they not get to attend? Were they arrested and strip searched, as women going to see Bush have been? No. No. And No.
This is Television, people. Have you never assumed that the folks in the background are hand-picked? Because if you haven’t, you are naive. Those are “choir” seats, dears.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:38 pm“I don’t remember this much outrage over Hillary’s darkening”
* by that I meant Hillary’s campaign volunteers
June 18th, 2008 at 5:40 pm“But it’s nonetheless disconcerting that a volunteer of Obama’s change-movement could be so hypocritical.”
I’m with Thomas–it’s not disconcerting at all that a volunteer got a little power hungry or confused about a media shot. If there’s a memo or something indicating that this is standard policy for the campaign, or even a paid staffer doing the same thing, then I’d be worried.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:42 pmI think the damage of seeming like a bigot is worse than talking points from bigots.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:42 pmThis blog confirms my fears that every candidate that appears progressive will ultimately be self-serving and image-preserving. God forbid Obama acknowledge his Islamic background with respect or pride. I understand that politics are politics, but how can we have “hope” and bring about “change” when Obama often acts just like every other candidate?
June 18th, 2008 at 5:45 pmThis is unfortunate but with such a huge campaign it is hard to fully take into account every volunteer. Its not an excuse but we shouldn’t let the actions of these individuals sway our views of Obama nor represent his views…
June 18th, 2008 at 5:45 pmso they just let ANY campaign volunteer decide who gets to be situated behind barack when he gives a speech?
it seems highly unlikely that some random volunteer gets to make decisions that affect the appearance of the most talked about presidential candidate in the history of politics without some kind of oversight.
for a campaign who is willing to move the dnc political operations from d.c. to chicago to have more control, this seems like something they’d have noticed.
June 18th, 2008 at 6:39 pmthis is definitely something they have gone over. especially after all the talk about the A&F boys in the background.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:06 pmIt is absolutely not Obama himself that manuevered this, so he is not to blame. Nor, as lolcakes suggests, are volunteers savvy on the minute details such as the positioning of the media platform in relation to the podium, let alone are they able to discern which audience-members would be in the background. I am convinced that Obama’s staff arranged this, because any good staff is aware takes these things into account. Unfortunately, in their zeal to make an event go off without a hitch, campaign staff make silly decisions like this in the heat of the moment.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:06 pmWith respect to e.lindsey’s point: I agree completely. JFK DID avoid being being too close with the black population out of fear of repelling the white-vote. Hell, he picked a southerner partially for that reason. But that was 1960 and this is 2008; he was white and didn’t experience racial discrimination first-hand, Obama is black and he has.
Having said that, I don’t hold Obama accountable for what a dumb volunteer did. What bothers me is his tepid response, and his distancing himself from the Muslim community, and I say that as an atheist. To be frank, it’s probably the politically-wise thing to do: he’s already got the liberal vote locked up and needs to draw in conservatives. But he’s supposed to transcend politics. That’s what he’s about.
Ultimately, though, I’m probably being a bit too idealistic and holding him to too high of a standard. I’ve been an Obama guy since the ‘04 DNC, but I gotta say, this, and especially him wearing those ridiculous American flag lapels as of late, has sort of rubbed me the wrong way.
Also, this volunteer was a young black woman. The irony that the “political climate” was once a barrier for women and African-Americans alike has not been lost on me.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:39 pmAs the candidate of purported change both in his rhetoric and the very fact that he is the first official African American presidential nominee from a major party, Obama has the chance to address and challenge many of the nation’s fears and stereotypes but he has instead distanced himself from Islam and Muslims.
I don’t think we can or should hold him or his campaign personally responsible for the actions of two of his campaign’s numerous volunteers but I have always been weary of his handling of the rumors that he is or was a Muslim.
He has the opportunity to stand up and make a big statement in a time when such a diverse population has been demonized and grouped together, but has yet to step up to the plate and live up to the change he so eloquently espouses.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:47 pmThis is an interesting take on the “real” story behind this story:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080619/BLOG08/80619032
Hate, not incident at Obama rally, is the real issue
By ROCHELLE RILEY • FREE PRESS BLOGGER • June 19, 2008
We are missing the bigger story.
That two young Muslim women wearing head scarves were steered away from seats behind Sen. Barack Obama at his televised Detroit rally on Monday was sad, but not the bigger story.
That his campaign apologized, as it should have, for the badly mishandled incident by campaign volunteers was not the bigger story.
The bigger story is that hateful extremists who used to exist on the fringe of society are now taking over and too much is being done to appease them instead of ignore them.
The Obama volunteers who didn’t want the women to provide fuel for rumors that Obama is a secret Muslim chose to let hate-mongers dictate their actions and hurt the women’s feelings. They made a mistake, as far as we know. (Of course, the Web would have you believe that they did it on purpose because they KNEW that these women were actually plants by Sen. John McCain’s campaign, an unlikely but possible scenario that seems all the more impossible when you read about their wonderful attitudes.)
The news media who worry that the hate-mongers will accuse them of being too kind to Obama have spent as much time on the volunteer’s misguided actions as they have on what the candidates will do about the economy.
And in the meantime, we’re all talking about a distasteful campaign strategy that has been a part of politics since television. Has anyone noticed the “We Are The World” tableau behind EVERY candidate? Volunteers, in zealous efforts to protect their candidates, have watched out for sleepy kids, wrong-messaged T-shirts and people, quite frankly, whose unattractiveness might detract from the candidate. Nobody wants the TV audience making jokes about the guy over McCain’s shoulder instead of listening to him.)
In the meantime, we’re talking about campaign strategy and TV perceptions instead of the fact that President George W. Bush just asked Congress for another $165 billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for another year.
Almost one year.
Not quite one year.
Then Bush, the inept president who has created more problems than any president in history, who has presided over the longest war in American history, who has the lowest approval ratings of any president in history, who has had the least experience - almost - than any president in history - will leave this mess in the hands of a new president, who also will have to deal with the deficit. Oh, yes, there’s still a deficit, which the Department of Treasury reports has reached an all-time high of $311 billion for the first half of this budget year.
According to the Christian Science Monitor, deficit hawks “worry that Washington will use recession and war as excuses to stop caring about red ink altogether. They also warn that current deficits leave Washington ill-prepared to face an imminent explosion of spending on Social Security and Medicare caused by retiring baby boomers.”
We’re going to hell in a hand-basket, but what we care about is whether Michelle Obama isn’t soft enough (She proved on “the View” that “People like her, they really like her!”) and whether to reject Barack Obama as president because a member of his campaign reacted to the rising power of hateful people.
As I said, the bigger story isn’t campaign strategy. The bigger story is how the 2008 presidential campaign is giving more power to bigots, spigots and the hateful fringe than ever.
June 19th, 2008 at 4:07 pmIn your voice