More Clinton Campaign Nastiness
and
The Double Standard
Man, the seedy underbelly of the Democratic party is suddenly on display big time. The Clinton campaign is looking more and more like GOP Lite. And if they keep going, they're not even gonna be all that lite... I'm starting to think I know what Karl Rove is up to these days.
Now Geraldine Ferraro has stuck her oar in, to the great embarrassment of...well, humanity.
Some points:
1. There's not doubt that some people are more likely to vote for Obama because of his race. However, we don't have much of an idea how many such people there are.
2. But...since when did it become o.k. to say sh*t like this? If Obama were unqualified and somehow cruising along on his race, well, then it should be pointed out. However, in a case like this in which you've got a highly-qualified candidate who may be getting some kind of bump because of his race...well, this is edging over into some pretty shady territory.
3. So, if it's o.k. to mention this kind of thing, it must be o.k. to mention that a good bit of Hillary's support is coming (as will a good bit of McCain's if Obama is the nominee) from people who don't want to vote for a black person, right?
4. And that many of Hillary's supporters are supporting her because she's female?
5. And that she wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being where she is if she hadn't been married to Bill?
6. And, if Ferraro is going to claim that her claim is defensible because it's plausibly true...well, couldn't we defend Samantha Power's claim on similar grounds?
Now...will Ferraro resign? Her comment is arguably worst than Power's was (and less defensible...). Power's comment was more like saying 'go to hell Hillary,' whereas Ferraro's comment has real content--and it's not good. Even if Ferraro does resign, it's not really even. She's less important to the Clinton campaign than Power was to Obama's, and her transgression was (arguably) more serious.
Once again, the Clinton campaign shows that it's mean and dirty. It seems to be getting clearer and clearer that they value winning over truth, over unity, over what's good for the country. Man. I eventually came to sympathize with Bill and Hillary because of the insanity of the Republican attacks on them. (And because of Clinton's intervention in the former Yugoslavia, which I admired very much.) But I never really liked them all that much. Oh, from time to time I'd get fairly positive about them, but usually only because they were so much less bad than the CDS crowd made them out to be--and so much better than Bush '43. But whatever semi-positive feelings I had for them have just about completely evaporated.
Again, let me say that this is danger time for the Obama campaign. They're being goaded into responding angrily to the Clinton campaign's provocations, and this, predictably, is being spun to make it look like it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Which it is not.
I'm serious when I say that I might not vote for Clinton if she wins. And I almost certainly won't do so if she steals the nomination.
and
The Double Standard
Man, the seedy underbelly of the Democratic party is suddenly on display big time. The Clinton campaign is looking more and more like GOP Lite. And if they keep going, they're not even gonna be all that lite... I'm starting to think I know what Karl Rove is up to these days.
Now Geraldine Ferraro has stuck her oar in, to the great embarrassment of...well, humanity.
Some points:
1. There's not doubt that some people are more likely to vote for Obama because of his race. However, we don't have much of an idea how many such people there are.
2. But...since when did it become o.k. to say sh*t like this? If Obama were unqualified and somehow cruising along on his race, well, then it should be pointed out. However, in a case like this in which you've got a highly-qualified candidate who may be getting some kind of bump because of his race...well, this is edging over into some pretty shady territory.
3. So, if it's o.k. to mention this kind of thing, it must be o.k. to mention that a good bit of Hillary's support is coming (as will a good bit of McCain's if Obama is the nominee) from people who don't want to vote for a black person, right?
4. And that many of Hillary's supporters are supporting her because she's female?
5. And that she wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being where she is if she hadn't been married to Bill?
6. And, if Ferraro is going to claim that her claim is defensible because it's plausibly true...well, couldn't we defend Samantha Power's claim on similar grounds?
Now...will Ferraro resign? Her comment is arguably worst than Power's was (and less defensible...). Power's comment was more like saying 'go to hell Hillary,' whereas Ferraro's comment has real content--and it's not good. Even if Ferraro does resign, it's not really even. She's less important to the Clinton campaign than Power was to Obama's, and her transgression was (arguably) more serious.
Once again, the Clinton campaign shows that it's mean and dirty. It seems to be getting clearer and clearer that they value winning over truth, over unity, over what's good for the country. Man. I eventually came to sympathize with Bill and Hillary because of the insanity of the Republican attacks on them. (And because of Clinton's intervention in the former Yugoslavia, which I admired very much.) But I never really liked them all that much. Oh, from time to time I'd get fairly positive about them, but usually only because they were so much less bad than the CDS crowd made them out to be--and so much better than Bush '43. But whatever semi-positive feelings I had for them have just about completely evaporated.
Again, let me say that this is danger time for the Obama campaign. They're being goaded into responding angrily to the Clinton campaign's provocations, and this, predictably, is being spun to make it look like it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Which it is not.
I'm serious when I say that I might not vote for Clinton if she wins. And I almost certainly won't do so if she steals the nomination.
posted by Winston Smith at
9:28 PM
9 Comments:
But...since when did it become o.k. to say sh*t like this?
Truth and politics don't mix. That's why they killed Socrates.
However, in a case like this in which you've got a highly-qualified candidate who may be getting some kind of bump because of his race...well, this is edging over into some pretty shady territory.
It shouldn't be, although it is. It's often been observed that
...many of Hillary's supporters are supporting her because she's female?
Duh. But female voters lean Demo anyway.
So, if it's o.k. to mention this kind of thing, it must be o.k. to mention that a good bit of Hillary's support is coming (as will a good bit of McCain's if Obama is the nominee) from people who don't want to vote for a black person, right?
It's OK to mention it. In fact when it's Obama vs. McCain, it'll be mentioned more and more, even though it will be largely a slander against Republicans and McCain supporters.
Even still, Barack Obama will get more votes because he's black than he'll lose.
Hell, I'm in sympathy. I've always cheered for black quarterbacks, regardless of their team. Black QBs had been historically discriminated against. Rush Limbaugh was right about the press wanting to see a black QB like Donovan McNabb do well.
I'm not a memeber of the press, but I did [and do] too.
If I felt that Obama were as centrist [center-left, mind you] as Bill Clinton instead of an orthodox lefty, he'd be getting my vote, too.
In fact, linguist John McWhorter, who's employed by the conservative Manhattan Institute [and who has a Cosbyish view of Black America's predicament], said the other night that he's an Obama man because seeing a black president elected might be for the next black generation the antidote to the poisonous diet of hopelessness and pissoffedness that they're fed by putatively well-meaning persons like Al Sharpton.
Again, let me say that this is danger time for the Obama campaign. They're being goaded into responding angrily to the Clinton campaign's provocations...
Well, that's another well-commented upon phenomenon, from left to right {see Shelby Steele], and the form-meets-function corner Obama has either claimed as a source of strength or has painted himself into.
Because the Obama campaign is a perfect storm of form-meets-function.
An angry black man, even if on the side of the angels, puts white folks off. Too soft, and he appeals to no one's better angels.
But Ferraro's assessment is entirely accurate. But it's the hemlock for her; the republic demands it.
As one who is philosophically inclined, WS, I think you might follow me here. Once philosophy, which loves wisdom, reveals itself, makes itself intelligible to the demos, it's a threat that must be silenced.
Poor Geraldine.
in a case like this in which you've got a highly-qualified candidate...
Hehe. You almost slipped this one in under the radar, WS. Well done.
Well, Ferraro's central point, that Obama's candidacy wouldn't be 'historical' if he were white is of course true.
1.) So what? Clinton's candidacy wouldn't be 'historical' if she were not female. And Kennedy's candidacy would not have been 'historical' if he were not Catholic.
This kind of counter-factual hypothesis is meaningless.
2.) Ferraro's larger gripe comes off as a combination of bile and jealousy. Again: what if Clinton were running against some white-bread Democratic candidate like Mondale? Well, she isn't. To bad for Clinton, boo hoo. Somehow, my sympathy is extremely limited.'
3.) I have no idea what TVD is going on about vis-a-vis Socrates et al.
-mac
Again, Tom, it's tempting to get drawn into a fruitless discussion with you. But years of this has taught me that you don't move, no matter what. So I won't bite. Life's short and all that.
I do resent the suggestion that I'm suggesting that it's not o.k. to speak the truth. I've made it clear hundreds of times that that I do not believe that to be so. Many, many times I've made it clear that I could not disagree more with lefty types who think that "offensive" truths are off limits.
My point above is, roughly, that Ferraro is digging out one particularly volatile truth and twisting it. "more blacks vote for Obama" and "Obama wouldn't be where he is if he weren't black" do not mean the same thing. She said the latter--which virtually entails that he's unqualified--but then fell back on the former when challenged. You don't get to cherry-pick one particularly racially-charged and insulting truth out of a bundle of them and then scream it from the rooftops. THAT does make you an asshole. This isn't a complicated or obscure point. A little thought will show that it's a fairly modest claim.
The very fact that she picked out that claim to focus on, ignoring the others (Hillary's advantage among women and among racists) shows what she's up to here.
Now, I know you aren't interested in actual dialog, and so I do realize that the odds of actually engaging you on this are zero. But I'll thank you not to try to spin my claims so as to produce the worst possible interpretation--especially when that interpretation is radically at odds with positions I've accepted many times.
"Once again, the Clinton campaign shows that it's mean and dirty. It seems to be getting clearer and clearer that they value winning over truth, over unity, over what's good for the country."
I totally agree - and I started out preferring Clinton to Obama. To my mind, it would be a disaster for the country if she won the Democratic nomination. The health of our political life really needs a reasonable and charitable presidential election after years of mere propaganda. I feel confident that we would see such an election between Obama and McCain, but much less so between Clinton and McCain.
Which is why, even though AP polls show him more easily beating my currently preferred candidate (McCain), I completely support Obama in this primary.
Truth be told, I would probably be more upset if Obama lost the primary than if McCain lost the presidency.
Oops...that should say "...than if McCain lost the presidency to Obama."
Well, WS, it's my experience that you avoid specifics wherever possible because you dread incurring any burden of proof for your opinions.
You've tried the tactic of the balnket dismissal before. What did you disagree about? Obama is running on the confusion---he says he'll "end the war in Iraq" [which is inherently meaningless]; his advisors say he won't do anything precipitous.
Uh-huh. Whatever. Not to say Nixon didn't do the same thing with his "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam. that's politics.
To return to the topic of Geraldine Ferraro, she's quite right that Obama's race is outweighing his sub-optimal qualifications [by any objective historical standard] for the presidency. she told the truth, and I think it's OK for her to speak her mind.
She's doing a good job of pushing back against the pushback.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/11/ferraro.comments/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail
Good on her.
"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, 'Let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world,' you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," she told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, California. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
In another interview Tuesday, she compared Obama's situation to her own 24 years ago, when she was the first female candidate for vice president.
She told a FOX News interviewer, "I got up and the question was asked, 'Why do you think Barack Obama is in the place he is today" as the party's delegate front-runner?
"I said in large measure, because he is black. I said, Let me also say in 1984 -- and if I have said it once, I have said it 20, 60, 100 times -- in 1984, if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for vice president," she said.
Ferraro took the hemlock, I see. Predictable.
WS originally asked
But...since when did it become o.k. to say sh*t like this?
Well, it always used to be OK to say the sky is blue. Even if it's red. First Amendment and all that. But as the late Richard Jeni observed, liberals are all for freedom of speech until you say something that pisses them off. [Emphasis Jeni's.]
Meanwhile, the candidate tells his audiences that
"The notion that it is a great advantage to me to be an African American named Barack Obama and pursue the presidency, I think, is not a view that has been commonly shared by the general public."
Right. As a few folks have observed, if you're white with an inspiring story, a good rap, and a thin resume, you're only John Edwards.
Pass the hemlock, Geraldine. [See comments section.]
They'll be dropping like flies soon, I tellya. Like flies.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home