Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Flickr Photo of the Day | Sigh. »

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Is Obama’s Victory—or at Least McCain’s Defeat—So Important for the United States and the World That We Have to Play by the Idiots’ Rules?

posted by on June 18 at 13:35 PM

That’s my question upon reading this ABC News story, about the two Muslim women who claim they were barred from sitting behind the podium at Obama’s rally in Detroit because of their headscarves.

Discuss and squirm.

RSS icon Comments

1

ABC is the new FOX.

Posted by cochise. | June 18, 2008 1:38 PM
2

Unfortunately, this is the country we live in, so yes, we're going to have to seat the moslems off camera. I hate it too, but I don't want President McCain because we wanted to be respectful of Islam.

Posted by Mike in MO | June 18, 2008 1:42 PM
3

Politicians often hand-pick the people who sit behind them during speeches and town meetings. It is unfortunate that they have to do this, but I understand why.

I'm sure at a few McCain rallies they have done the opposite and made sure there were a handful of minorities and women behind McCain to give the impression that he has a diverse appeal.

Posted by boxofbirds | June 18, 2008 1:47 PM
4

@2 is the winner.

Next.

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | June 18, 2008 1:50 PM
5

I think it was wrong for them to turn those women away. It's one thing to decide strategically not to align with muslim groups, given the climate of hatred in the USA right now. It's another thing to look a person in the face and tell them that they are not welcome because of their faith. Those women were not welcome to participate in the political process, and that is wrong.

Posted by ams | June 18, 2008 1:51 PM
6

@2 is the right answer.

People make stories out of flag pins and Rachel Ray's "Palestinian scarf" , they'll go nuts over a head scarf at secret-Muslim Obama's rally.

Posted by Kim in California | June 18, 2008 1:56 PM
7

Muslims are the new Gay Marriage. We need an uncomfortable wedge issue that Democrats can get squishy on, and Republicans can unashamedly exploit to win.

Posted by Teddy | June 18, 2008 1:56 PM
8

Remember, half the people in the country have an IQ below 100. But they still get to vote. The Dems might be tired of conceding the dumb vote to the Republicans.

Posted by yuiop | June 18, 2008 2:03 PM
9

Remember when Clinton's campaign stopped letting all the really old women sit behind her, and started putting young men and women?

How is this different?

McCain screens his crowds ... if you can call 50 people a crowd.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 18, 2008 2:05 PM
10

@8- that's by definition, so I don't really catch your drift. You're pointing out that half the population is dumber than the other half.

Posted by ams | June 18, 2008 2:10 PM
11

There were Muslim people behind him at the Seattle rally. They are visible in many of the photos of that day, right under the "Change" banner.

I hope this is a case of overly cautious local campaign workers rather than the national campaign. It's depressing that so many Americans think that being Muslim is a bad thing, that it's even a possibility that it could be the national campaign trying to manage the persistent 'he's a secret Muslim omg!' BS out there.

Posted by Organized Lightning | June 18, 2008 2:10 PM
12

At the end of the day, the Obama campaign is going to hew to the traditional political playbook and play to local sentiments. Kind of genius in a way, making everyone think it's not actually BAU, but rather something new and exciting.

Posted by laterite | June 18, 2008 2:15 PM
13

Is it too much to ask the Democrats to be the ratfuckers for once? I can deal with the means if the end is that Republicans are shut out of the government for a while.

Posted by demo kid | June 18, 2008 2:36 PM
14

Are you serious? Many, many people vote for images not ideas. Do you want to have ideological purity or do you want to win?

Play fucking hardball for a change.

Posted by Westside forever | June 18, 2008 2:44 PM
15

religion is dumb

Posted by john cocktosin | June 18, 2008 2:45 PM
16

i got no problem with this. take it further if you want. fuck islam. and fuck christianity & judaism.

Posted by max solomon | June 18, 2008 2:50 PM
17

@13 - from your lips to Allah's ears ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 18, 2008 2:50 PM
18

Strange that their doing this. I remember seeing a photo from the Seattle rally of a muslim woman wearing a headscarf and tha that wasn't an issue. Of course, that was before that damn photo of Obama in Kenya/Somolia came out.

Now, the first thing that comes to mind now is that it could be used negatively by the Repugs and Faux news. But could be used in the Arab word to garnish support for Obama if he wins the election. That'd be a great tool to counteract the growth of terrorism in the Arab world.

Posted by apres_moi | June 18, 2008 2:53 PM
19

@5 - contrary to popular belief, appearing on television is not an inalienable human right and does constitute "[participating] in the political process."

Posted by lola | June 18, 2008 3:52 PM
20

1. Muslims, and Xtians, and Jews, and gays, and... are often sitting on the podium and on camera - they're just not wearing flashing neon signs identifying them as such.

2. When does that new kind of politics get going?

Posted by umvue | June 18, 2008 3:55 PM
21

Muslim women are the attention whores of the funsamentalist world.

Posted by Sirkowski | June 18, 2008 4:26 PM
22

@2 still wins.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 18, 2008 4:27 PM
23

Here's a question right back at you: would the women have agreed to take off their scarves in exchange for the opportunity to sit behind Obama on camera? My guess is, probably not.

Here's the thing: in the background of one of these rallies, how is a woman in a head scarf functionally different from a man in an orange safety vest? Both articles of clothing are intended to scream, "LOOK AT ME!"

That head scarves have a religious overtone doesn't make them less distracting, nor make it imperative that Muslim women be allowed to wear them all the time, regardless of venue.

P.S. Remember that old guy who was yawning all through one of Hillary's speeches?

Posted by Greg | June 18, 2008 4:51 PM
24

Islam isn't the only ones with religious costumes. It may not be enough to populate a "It's a Small World" Disneyland ride, but the Catholics also wear them. And tribal people have strange clothes too. I guess maybe they want anonynous "I bet you can't guess their denomination" kind of people.
But I think it's it's stupid to alienate anyone. This is a country with a lot of different kinds of people ya know. :p

Posted by I wonder | June 18, 2008 5:01 PM
25

frickin typos. Never try to type something deep thoughtful while a customer walks up. You fuck up EVERY time. Doh!

Posted by sorryaboutthatdizzkneelandpost | June 18, 2008 5:09 PM
26

Next time you're a Sikh and try to sit behind a presidential candidate wearing your ceremonial dagger, phone me.

After they arrest you.

(geesh)

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 18, 2008 5:17 PM
27

Discriminating against a hat is not the same as discriminating against a person.

Posted by flamingbanjo | June 18, 2008 5:19 PM
28

Where has the Dudley Doright tack gotten us in the age of Rove?

Stupid people are allowed to vote. I believe the term for them lately is "undecideds." Seven years of this insanity and they're still UNDECIDED?

Hats... what if the judgement day comes before election day? And Charles Nelson Riley returns on a big flying hat?

Posted by CP | June 18, 2008 6:28 PM
29

@ 27 - when the hat is part of their religion (and I'm not sure it is), then yes it is.

Posted by UnoriginalAndrew | June 18, 2008 6:49 PM
30

Sikhs have refused to go where their kirpans are not welcomed.
(DUH)
http://www.newspostindia.com/report-40122

Posted by sikhofitall | June 18, 2008 8:22 PM
31

#27: We differ on this point. I do not believe that a person's right to believe (or pretend to believe) that God is issuing them personal instructions about what sort of hat to wear trumps the right of others to distance themselves from people crazy enough to claim that God issues them personal instructions on what sort of hat to wear.

Interesting fact: the Biblical passage demanding women cover their hair out of modesty is in the part of the Bible shared by Jews, Christians and Muslims, which means that if wearing such a covering is such a crucial part of being a Muslim it is an equally crucial part of those religions. I know this because when I was a child, my parents belonged to a Christian sect that practiced this and my early memories of my mom were of her wearing a head covering any time she left the house. They afterwards joined a church with a more modern interpretation of the Bible and started dressing like everybody else.

Which brings me to my point: Wearing a head covering or engaging in some other selective practice of choosing which obscure verses of the Sacred Book will govern one's personal conduct (and it's always selective) is not an immutable fact of personal identity like skin color or gender or (arguably) sexual orientation. It is a choice. It is their prerogative to wear headscarves just like it is a candidate's prerogative to tell people what sort of dress is appropriate if they wish to be photographed with the candidate at a campaign event.

The above example of Sikhs choosing not to go places where they are not allowed to wear their daggers is an excellent example of people who understand this: If your religion demands something of you like wearing a weapon at all times, it is your responsibility to make accommodations for this fact and not everybody else's responsibility to make accommodations for you.

Posted by flamingbanjo | June 18, 2008 9:26 PM
32

@19- to show your support for the candidate of your choice, to campaign for them, to show up and be counted: these are parts of the political process. The process does not begin and end in the voting booth.

America is so screwed. It really is. Your melting pot philosophy, "oh you can believe whatever you want, but when you leave the house try to look like a white christian." It's like people who say gay people flaunt their sexuality by having a partner or refusing to stay closeted.

Posted by ams | June 19, 2008 4:03 AM
33

#32: Sure, and it's also a drag that I have to wear a suit and tie to a job interview, but then again so does the President.

For some perspective, remember that Obama's opponent likes to sing funny little songs on the campaign trail about bombing Iran. (Hilarious!) There are real, life and death issues at stake here, and real, live Muslims (as well as lots of other folks) stand to lose a lot if this election goes the wrong way. So it seems like a reasonable request to ask people to stand back and let the candidate's staff run his own photo ops. You know, so he actually has a chance of winning.

Posted by flamingbanjo | June 19, 2008 8:46 AM
34

This is the kind of shit the staffers were thinking about when they refused those women a seat on camera:

Desperate President Bush Hopes To Catch Obama Before End Of Term

Posted by Greg | June 19, 2008 9:06 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.