The infamous Obama-is-a-secret Muslim smear (repeatedly shown to be false) has been winging around the internet via an email forward since late December last year. As I documented for the Nation, it's a permutation of a charge first leveled by a fringe figure in Illinois, but has since been forwarded around by ordinary people either out of ignorance, credulousness or malice. We now have the first example of the smear being forwarded by a someone tied to a rival campaign. Yesterday, Gary Hart, the Jones County Chair of the Democratic party in Iowa (and a Dodd supporter) wrote a diary on DailyKos saying he'd been forwarded the infamous email by an unnamed "Clinton county chair."

In a comment posted in response, the Clinton campaign's Internet Director Peter Daou, posted a statement from the campaign confirming that the email had indeed been forwarded by a "volunteer county coordinator," but said it was "wholly unauthorized" and that the campaign was "unaware of it."

"We are asking this volunteer county coordinator to step down," the statement continued "and are making it clear to every person involved in our campaign that this will not be tolerated."

I've got a call into Gary Hart right now for further details.

UPDATE: Greg Sargent has talked to Hart and confirmed that he did, indeed, receive the email. Ben Smith at the Politico has acquired a copy of the email itself and discovered that it was also sent to a Clinton campaign staffer. Which means the campaign knew that one of their country chairs was sending this around.

Comments (35)

1. CCORBELL...a blogger HERE...was using the "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" thing just a day ago.

   Word must be spreading on the Akasha Grape-vine to her minions!

   Posted by Mask at 12/05/2007 @ 1:35pm

2. "We are asking this volunteer county coordinator to step down," the statement continued "and are making it clear to every person involved in our campaign that this will not be tolerated."

   Sounds like CCORBELL will be looking for a new job.

   Posted by FritztheCat at 12/05/2007 @ 1:41pm

3. This is classic Clinton smear and deny - smear your opponent with lies, and when you caught, deny that you authorized it and promise not to do it again. Meanwhile, the damage has already been done and CANNOT be undone by the subsequent Clinton denial.

   This demonstrates that Clinton just doesn't have the character to be president or she would set the proper tone from the top so her minions know this will not be tolerated. Instead, she winks and nods and gives the general impression that it's OK to engage in these smears and she will back their play with subsequent denials of knowledge.

   Naked ambition and morally bankrupt are the only words that describe the Clintons.

   Posted by Metteyya at 12/05/2007 @ 1:47pm

4. keith ellison for president!

   if mr. obama were muslim, ¿so what?

   "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

   THOMAS ABDUL SALAAM JEFFERSON, 1802

   Posted by frosty zoom at 12/05/2007 @ 1:51pm

5. My wife brought up an interesting point the other day. She said that many people were quite happy under the Clinton administration. Those same people jokingly said that Hillary was the real president and Bill was the figurehead. Those folks that enjoyed the Clinton years, are now supporting Hillary for president because, as they think, she's already done the job for 8 years.

   I thought that was an interesting spin on things. :)

   Posted by FritztheCat at 12/05/2007 @ 1:54pm

6. "Naked ambition and morally bankrupt are the only words that describe the Clintons."

   Well, there are some other words, but they're unprintable.

   Remember: Sat Dec. 15 -- Dem liberals, put your $$ where your lips & hearts are ... donate to the Kucinich campaign: Dennis4President.com

   Posted by sloper at 12/05/2007 @ 2:02pm

7. No doubt the spin from the local Clinton fans (CCOR, HELEN DAO, FRANKGRITS new "secret identity"...heheh) will be...

   "So what? It's a single county chair...She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed knows nothing of it. And so what(redux)? There ARE strange things in Obama's past...smite the un-holy...and kneel before ZOD!"

   (or words to that effect...heheh)

   Posted by Mask at 12/05/2007 @ 2:16pm

8. It's one thing for right-wing fear/hate-mongers to spread these kinds of false rumors. But it reaches a whole new level of gross to see a Democratic campaign operative--volunteer or otherwise--stoop to such lows.

   --Rashi Kesarwani

   Posted by Nation Intern at 12/05/2007 @ 2:20pm

9. Posted by NATION INTERN 12/05/2007 @ 2:20pm

   hey there, rashi! congrats on your internship.

   Rashi Kesarwani writes about politics, culture and social issues. She is a fall 2007 intern at The Nation. ARTICLES BY Rashi Kesarwani

   2007

   Gay Muslims Unveiled in 'Jihad for Love' Rashi Kesarwani | Parvez Sharma's new documentary chronicles the experiences of gay and lesbian Muslims in seven countries, as they struggle to align their sexuality with their religion. December 3, 2007 (web)

   Susan Faludi: America's Terror Dream Rashi Kesarwani | A discussion with the author of The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America, the master narrative of our national security myth. November 26, 2007 (web)

   Posted by frosty zoom at 12/05/2007 @ 2:23pm

10. CCORBELL...a blogger HERE...was using the "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" thing just a day ago.

    Word must be spreading on the Akasha Grape-vine to her minions!

    Posted by MASK 12/05/2007 @ 1:35pm | ignore this person

    We are the company we keep. Great example of why not to vote for Clinton. If such trash talk is the political methodology of her supporters like Corbell (Dumbell is more appropriate), I have only to look at the ilk of her followers to know that this candidate is bad news indeed.

    Posted by OneVote at 12/05/2007 @ 2:45pm

11. It's one thing for right-wing fear/hate-mongers to spread these kinds of false rumors. But it reaches a whole new level of gross to see a Democratic campaign operative--volunteer or otherwise--stoop to such lows.

    --Rashi Kesarwani

    Posted by NATION INTERN 12/05/2007 @ 2:20pm | ignore this person

    Time for a good house cleaning wouldn't you say Rashi?!?

    Posted by OneVote at 12/05/2007 @ 2:48pm

12. Wow! I'm flattered to be the object of so much attention. Who knew I could push so many pseudo-progressive buttons here.

    Spreading lies is absolutely unconscionable and I don't defend it. Dirty politics never justify the means. I concede that the assault on Hillary may prevail, and we may end up with a more progressive candidate - but NOT if that candidate is Obama, he is to her right.

    By using Barack's middle name I was in no way implying that he was a Muslim. I also do not want to give the impression that there's anything wrong or ignoble with being a Muslim; still of course I see how volatile a political topic it is and why these indefensible false e-mails are an extremely dirty trick.

    "Hussein", as Obama himself described in an interview, is a Swahili term meaning "blessing"; it was his grandmother's middle name. Yes it is also the last name of the infamous Iraqi dictator, but there was also a King Hussein of Jordan recently.

    There seems to be a strong sub-text of opinion here that the mere use of Barack's middle name constitutes some kind of defamation. I am genuinely surprised by this feeling and assure you that's not what I meant; I do think he's a fraud, but not because of his middle name. I also thought that in a blogging climate where C*NT or B*TCH or the other awful things are permitted about the Senator from New York that people would be a little less reactionary to subtle provocation. Apologies for my misjudgment.

    If you are an Obama supporter and he wins the nomination you will see his full name repeated over, and over, and over. Wouldn't it make sense, rather than being so thin-skinned about it, to give this as much air as possible now so that by the time the general rolls around there's no one surprised by the name and it's a non-issue. If you think you can kick people out of discourse and ostracize everyone who states a fact - in this case, a candidate's legal name - you don't have the best sense of strategy -or- free speech.

    Peace to you all, and may a true progressive win on a clean campaign in '08. Maybe its time we all rallied around DJK.

    Posted by ccorbell at 12/05/2007 @ 3:39pm

13. This is not about Clinton using dirty tricks, she probably didn't know anything about this and does not condone it. The point is that just yesterday she smeared Obama as being dirty for doing less than this. She was a hypocrite, because she knows full well these things happen in campaigns. That is why people dislike her, why independents won't vote for her and why she is unelectable.

    Posted by Dan, TX at 12/05/2007 @ 3:41pm

14. Posted by ONEVOTE 12/05/2007 @ 2:45pm

    Don't dig the hole TOO deep, OV. Her Majesty may still get the nom and "The Nation" will endorse her over any Repub. ('cept Ron Paul of course.....or maybe even WITH Ron...heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 12/05/2007 @ 3:52pm

15. "Spreading lies is absolutely unconscionable and I don't defend it. Dirty politics never justify the means. I concede that the assault on Hillary may prevail, and ..."----Posted by CCORBELL 12/05/2007 @ 3:39pm

    Whoa, whoa, whoa....did you guys see that?

    "Spreading lies" and "dirty politics" BY the Clinton campaign magically transformed into "an assault on Hillary"!!!!

    Are they good or what?...heheh

    Posted by Mask at 12/05/2007 @ 4:00pm

16. Posted by CCORBELL 12/05/2007 @ 3:39pm

    So tell us, CCorbel, what was the purpose of you using Obama's middle name? We have never heard you use Hillary's middle name, so you have to agree that this is kind of odd. It is even more peculiar since you know that Republican commentators have used this trick to suggest that he is a Muslim or Muslim/terrorist sympathizer.

    You have attempted to explain what you do NOT mean by using his middle name, so now tell us what you DO mean?

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/05/2007 @ 4:30pm

17. The Clinton Machine is losing oil ... rapidly!

    The smoke is wafting out of Hilllary's ears.

    Posted by mmckinl at 12/05/2007 @ 4:52pm

18. Posted by METTEYYA 12/05/2007 @ 4:30pm

    I'm done responding to this lame PC auto da fé. Barack Hussein Obama is the man's name; for you to focus so much on my use of his full name in once sentence of one post, and ignore all of the points against his policies and duplicity, is a waste of time and space. I don't watch right-wing TV so I don't know what they say about Barack.

    I am quickly losing whatever modest faith I had in the rationality of the Nation blog community. Obama is a fraud. If he wins the Dems I'm done with the party; if the Nation endorses him I'm cancelling my subscription (and urging my dad, to whom I gave a gift subscription last year, to do the same).

    Rave on.

    http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html [zmagsite.zmag.org]

    Posted by ccorbell at 12/05/2007 @ 4:55pm

19. Posted by CCORBELL 12/05/2007 @ 4:55pm

    I think CCOR is upset. She thought maybe the "Hussein" thing would fly under the radar (but get stuck in the subconscious) and it's blowing up on him.

    Sort of like the Clinton attack on what Barack HUSSEIN (you know...like SADDAM HUSSEIN...hint! Hint!!!!) Obama's KINDERGARTEN essay!

    LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 12/05/2007 @ 4:59pm

20. CCORBELL, I think you know full well the way "Hussein" invokes immediate reactions from folks. I haven't seen before in your posts your use of Obama's full name until that post. I find it a bit too odd that you were relatively civil regarding Obama in your posts up until the Clinton campaign decided to step up their attacks against him. Then you went from basically "Obama's not a bad guy, just not right for the job" to "Obama's a complete moron who should never ever be trusted, ever." I could understand it if Obama had done something to cause that kind of a switch in your behavior but the only thing that changed was the tone of the Clinton campaign.

    I could be wrong about your motivations. Been wrong before and no doubt will be wrong in the future. If I'm wrong, then I do apologize. As it stands now though, that's how I see it.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 12/05/2007 @ 4:59pm

21. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 12/05/2007 @ 4:59pm

    It's coincidental that my own investigation into Obama's real positions and contortions has reached critical mass of flipping the bozo bit on him at this time. If I had researched harder earlier I would have been more vehement early on. The real question I have now is why Edwards and Kucinich aren't as alarmed by Obama, they should know what he really is. Bringing down Hillary is not a win if Obama is next in the queue - Edwards needs to win Iowa if you want someone left of Hillary to have any shot at this thing. Perhaps he's waiting for the moment when the butterfly can launch the perfect storm - if so I will applaud the feat.

    Of course as rhetoric that one 'lil sentence was a subtle provocation (I used that phrase earlier), but that's not equivalent to a racist defamation or a xenophobic dirty trick. Seriously, do you guys think using a candidate's actual name compares to calling Hillary a C*NT?

    If you are misguided enough to still support Obama, you have to get people used to his full name, not go around blowing whistles and calling it off-limits because your opponents won't give a damn what you say is off-limits. That is not a defense of dirty politicking; this is his name. The Republicans are going to loop it with such regularity that you'll be able to dance to it, so you better start disarming it now.

    Posted by ccorbell at 12/05/2007 @ 5:46pm

22. That's interesting. I'm not an Obama supporter by the way. I don't think he has the...oh, I don't know..."umph" it takes to be the President. He has good ideas but watching him in the so-called debates has been rather enlightening. He seems to back down from confrontation. I don't think he backs off, just down. There will be times, as President, he'll need "umph" to make the hard decisions. He either doesn't have it, or hasn't shown it. I wish I could be more clear on what that "umph" is but I just can't put it into words right now.

    I think Hillary has that "umph" but she seems to me to be more of an enabler to Bushco than anything. I was glad to see her vote on the habeas corpus issue. Plus, her deep ties to the defense contract industry are most disturbing.

    I believe Gravel, Dodd and Biden are out. I really like a lot of Kucinich's views but feel they are too extreme for the present moment. I'm favoring Edwards at the moment.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 12/05/2007 @ 6:45pm

23. CCorbell, thanks for the link you posted about Obama. It's an interesting read.

    I myself have had reservations about Obama for a while. I find it somewhat troubling that both he and Hillary Rodham Clinton (did you catch that gratuitous insertion of her ultra-WASPY middle name?) seem to see themselves as good 'war presidents'.

    O's rhetoric on this leaves a lot of questions in my mind about whether he's really a good person to take command. He just seems a little bit too taken with the fantasy of being commander in chief of the armed forces. He's romanticized the military to a degree that only seems to emphasize the fact that he himself has never been a soldier - as your link does a great job of pointing out.

    Plus there was something a little calculating about his refusal to appear in a photo with San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome, round about the time San Francisco was marrying gay couples. Either he's outright homophobic, or he's unwilling to flat out take a stand on an important issue for fear of the mighty right wing attack machine. Either way, not a promising start.

    p.s. don't give up on the Nation. it's like what Winston Churchill said about Democracy. It's not perfect, it only happens to be (in my opinion) better than just about anything else out there.

    Posted by maddox at 12/05/2007 @ 7:38pm

24. That is not a defense of dirty politicking; this is his name. The Republicans are going to loop it with such regularity that you'll be able to dance to it, so you better start disarming it now.

    CCorbel, his name is irrelevant. Period.

    The fact that you tried to make it an issue shows that you support the Hillary dirty-tricks machine and have basically caved into the Republican approach to politics.

    I wish I can see your face next November when the American people reject your kind of dirty politics and vote for someone who can bring about real change in Washington. Hillary's dirty tricks are already turning off voters to her, including women who "were" her base.

    So keep up the dirty politics attacks and show Hillary's true colors for everyone to see. The more dirt you guys dish out the harder she will fall in the polls, so keep it coming!

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/05/2007 @ 8:02pm

25. The Republicans are going to loop it with such regularity that you'll be able to dance to it, so you better start disarming it now. ----Posted by CCORBELL 12/05/2007 @ 5:46pm

    You mean like the VIDEO of Her Nibs and her various statements about Iraq?

    Posted by Mask at 12/05/2007 @ 8:03pm

26. Spreading lies is absolutely unconscionable and I don't defend it. Dirty politics never justify the means. I concede that the assault on Hillary may prevail, and we may end up with a more progressive candidate - but NOT if that candidate is Obama, he is to her right.

    Posted by CCORBELL 12/05/2007 @ 3:39pm | ignore this person

    Okay...great. So you are not going to support Clinton then? Illegal campaign contributions, planting questions at town hall meetings, prearranging the audience (and questions) at the recent CNN Dem debate and Repub I hear tell, faking mysterious information detrimental to Obama, on and on and on. So why are you still singing her praises?

    Posted by OneVote at 12/05/2007 @ 9:02pm

27. "Spreading lies" and "dirty politics" BY the Clinton campaign magically transformed into "an assault on Hillary"!!!!

    Are they good or what?...heheh

    Posted by MASK 12/05/2007 @ 4:00pm | ignore this person

    I am going to let Corbell do the digging Mask. He/she is doing a wonderful job. No...I don't think Clinton is out the race by any means....lets just say that progressives here are building up a whole lot of ammunition for "I told you so's" if she gets the nomination which the Big Party so ardently desires.

    Posted by OneVote at 12/05/2007 @ 9:08pm

28. compares to calling Hillary a C*NT?

    Posted by CCORBELL 12/05/2007 @ 5:46pm

    has someone called hillary a "CAN'T"?

    good show.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/05/2007 @ 9:21pm

29. Posted by MADDOX 12/05/2007 @ 7:38pm

    actually her middle name is "diane"

    rodham is the surname of her parents.

    "In Roman mythology, Diana was the goddess of the hunt, in literature the equivalent of the Greek goddess Artemis, though in cult she was Italic in origin. Born with her twin brother Apollo on the island of Delos, Diana was the daughter of Jupiter and Latona.

    Diana was the hunting goddess, associated with wild animals and woodlands. She also later became a moon goddess, supplanting Luna, and was an emblem of chastity. Oak groves were especially sacred to her. She was praised in poetry for her strength, athletic grace, distinct beauty and hunting skill. In practice she made up a trinity with two other Roman deities: Egeria the water nymph, her servant and assistant midwife; and Virbius, the woodland god. In her etymology, "Diana" is simply :"the Goddess", with a Greek parallel in the name -- though not the cult practice -- of Dione at Dodona. She was goddess of fertility and quick to anger.

    and this:

    The boy's and girl's name Hilary \hi-la-ry\ is pronounced HILL-a-ree. It is of Latin origin, and its meaning is "cheerful, happy". The name comes from the same root as "hilarious". Name of a fourth-century saint and a fifth-century pope. Hilaire (ee-LARE) is a French form. First Lady Hillary Clinton; actress Hilary Swank; singer Hilary Duff.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/05/2007 @ 9:28pm

30. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/05/2007 @ 9:28pm

    And I believe "Rodham" is old Germanic for "Marry your way to power"!

    Posted by Mask at 12/05/2007 @ 10:24pm

31. And I believe "Rodham" is old Germanic for "Marry your way to power"!

    Posted by MASK 12/05/2007 @ 10:24pm

    not bad.

    actually, it's First found in Northumberland where they were seated from very ancient times, some say well before the Norman Conquest and the arrival of Duke William at Hastings in 1066 A.D.

    Motto: Nec Deficit Alter.

    Motto Translated: Another succeeds.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/05/2007 @ 11:04pm

32. I have known since day one that Hillary wants to win at any cost--by doing anything and saying anything.

    Even though her camp denied any direct involvement, by now I just don't trust that statement any more,

    after planting questions,

    after accusing Obama for so many things, which have been proven untrue...

    I just cannot help but believe that her camp if it is not directly at least indirectly involving in this type of shady dealings.

    In democracy, we are talking about equal opportunities.

    If Hillary is so eager wanting to be the next President, she has the chance, but she got to prove to us, the voters, that she deserves it by her own strengths, not by this kind of dishonest way.

    There is no way she can think because she doesn't personally involve in it, she can avoid responsibilities. It reflects the culture of her camp. If she runs her campaign in such a dishonest fashion, how can we, voters, believe that she will not run a country in this fashion--resembling the worst Bush regime.

    Posted by may2002 at 12/06/2007 @ 12:28am

33. I don't see how this story is significant, unless you think that the guy got orders to do this. Aside from that a sample size of one is clearly not large enough to infer anything about Clinton's typical supporter, or even volunteer.

    That said, why are people giving CCORBELL hell about the use of the middle name (I think it was done for just the same reasons that republicans do it by way, but this is the political equivalent of 'neener-neener') and not his claim that Obama is to the right of Clinton. I don't buy Obama as a progressive, and he is way too far to the right for me, but I cannot think of a single issue on which he is farther to the right than Clinton, and I can think of several on which she is farther to the right than him. The only possible area that I can think of is health care, because he doesn't support a mandate. But considering that Clinton supported a much more corporate friendly plan for over 10 years before she copied the Edwards plan, I don't think Clinton has earned any progressive points there. On every foreign policy I know of Clinton is to the right of Obama. She was the second most vocal democratic supporter of the Iraq war in the Senate. She is more hawkish on Iran, on nukes, on Israel, etc. And since she seems to think that A) Social Security is in crisis and B) We shouldn't lift the payroll cap to deal with it, she must support either making Social Security taxes more regressive by raising rates, cutting benefits (by simply eliminating them or by making them vulnerable to market forces, thus defeating the whole purpose of Social Security) or changing eligibility requirements as far as I can tell. And she is stuck with this position so that she can protect people who make twice as much as the average household per year from more taxes. So she has essentially the Republican position on the largest of the federal entitlements.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/06/2007 @ 12:53am

34. By the way, don't we see the pattern in Bush?

    His entire political career is not built on personal strengths but on using dishonest tactic to attack his then opponents(the ex-Governor of Texas and John McCain) by spreading false rumors.

    And what turned out?

    His administration is the most secretive and dishonest one.

    Even on the most important decision of our time--Iraq War, he couldn't be honest but used false information to lead us to this unnecessary war.

    So, should we be mindful of the similar pattern?

    If Hillary keeps using this dishonest tactic to discredit and attack her opponents, then why we should not worry about that what type of government she will run?

    There is a pattern there.

    Posted by may2002 at 12/06/2007 @ 09:06am

35. Hillary keeps using this dishonest tactic to discredit and attack her opponents, then why we should not worry about that what type of government she will run?

    There is a pattern there.

    Posted by MAY2002 12/06/2007 @ 09:06am | ignore this person

    Yep. Actions speak louder than words. Clinton can't run on her merits anymore than Obama can because she does not have any. Obama has an excuse however.

    Clinton wants to run on Bill Clinton's record. This is preposterous. One blogger here recounts on how his wife said to him.....paraphrased...."you know, Hillary was secretly running things when Bill was President, and look how good things were." This is bull. Lets take a look a look at the archives Hillary. What this guy's wife should have been asking is what has she done since becoming a NY senator. Do you see any kind of senate leadership from this woman at all? I don't. She is one of those go-along senators who work secretively behind the scenes for her special interest groups. Her philosophy....out of sight...out of mind.

    We need strong leadership from the executive branch....not another figurehead lapdog controlled on puppet strings.

    I don't much care for Obama as a candidate either. He is not the reform candidate that we need. However, I believe he would do fall less damage than Clinton, and maybe even some good. My philosophy.....anybody but Clinton. We've had enough entrenched power contiuation....that is why this country is in the mess that it is.

    Posted by OneVote at 12/06/2007 @ 10:44am