Yesterday, the BBC has a article titled The meaning of Obama's robes This refers to the 2006 photo of Barack Obama taken in the Wajir region of north-east Kenya. The gist of it is that the clothing has no religious significance whatsoever.
The head turban is especially used by elderly people as a suggestion of respect. It is something that has no meaning whatsoever in Somalia culture.
If you see someone dressed like that in Somalia, you think it is a nomadic person - that is all.
There is no religious significance to it whatsoever. It is mainly the nomadic people who use it. Some of them are religious, some are not.
The author of the piece makes the observation:
This debate reminds me of people back home in Somalia, who say that women should not wear trousers, or other cultures who say men should not wear a tie. I just don't think it makes sense.
If the Obama campaign is aware of the fact that the garb has no meaningful significance, why didn't they point that out instead of sending David Plouffe out at full throttle:
On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election. This is part of a disturbing pattern that led her county chairs to resign in Iowa, her campaign chairman to resign in New Hampshire, and it’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world
I'm an Obama supporter, but in the light of this article, I do think that they overreacted. I think a better approach would have been to explain the circumstance under which the photo was taken, and in that way point out the silliness of Drudge drawing attention to it, and the Clinton campaign too if they were in fact the source. The apparent hypersensitivity of the Obama campaign to Barack Obama being caught on camera in unguarded moments is not good. If he finds this photo embarrassing or feels it should not be shared, like the one of him on the beach in Hawaii, the Republicans will be aware of that and who knows what they will dredge up.
On top of that, MSNBC used this photo last night in the first segment of the debate. Why didn't they do some research on the photo and the clothing shown? It seems as if they just wanted to stir things up further. Fair play to Obama last night in that he only used a single sentence to dismiss discussion of the photo and moved onto something more worthy of discussion.
The Washington Post has a interesting article yesterday on the "silly photo" and its possible meaning.
Obama Photo Swaddled in Mystery of Its Intent
But what did it mean? Was it a deliberately leaked smear image? Or an innocent snapshot of a guy humoring the locals by dressing up? The photograph, which might just as easily be seen as feminizing Obama as suggesting hidden Islamic sympathies, didn't yield many clues.
Even if it was meant as a smear image, the Obama in Africa picture was only slightly more sophisticated in its insinuations than an old Polaroid with horns and fangs drawn on it. By the end of the day, the only clear message from the strange episode is that whoever was spreading the image was not particularly sophisticated about the way images work in our new media world.
However, the article cautions that the power of photographic images is a very unstable one. It points to how the Bush admin's "arsenal of imagery in support of the Iraq war," esp. the Mission Accomplished images, were a failure. We have a suspicion about the credibility of political images, knowing how easily images can be modified in Photoshop. In order for an image to be damaging, it needs to circulate first among those who already have a negative opinion of the subject, and for whom the image will reinforce that. The WaPo article speculates on the damage that may have been done by the photo of John Kerry windsurfing
Who knows how much damage was done by an image of former presidential candidate John Kerry windsurfing? It certainly confirmed, for those inclined to believe it, a narrative of Kerry's elite tastes, distinguishing him from the other candidate, who liked to relax by clearing brush on his ranch.
I think if a negative image of Obama does make its way into the media, it should just be ignored. The effect of any image will be diluted by all the positive image already out there and the power of a single image to change minds is limited. In this era of digital cameras and cellphones with photo taking abilities, there is no way they can control the vast amount of images in the public domain.