Yeah, yeah. I know. It's not your style. And I respect that.

But it does bear mentioning that Ackers ends her piece thus (Phil Singer is Clinton's campaign spokesman, quoted earlier):

Singer said the decision rested solely on the demographics on a day that made sense: "It's the top [liberal] blog run by women, and it was Equal Pay Day."

So let's see which Democratic presidential candidate decides to blog for Jeff Gannon on "National Coming Out Day" ...

Since Gannon is a Republican, whose blog (does he even have one?) is anything but a top blog, who was outed by the liberal blogosphere, rather than coming out himself, this is almost the perfect anti-analogy.

Presumably, Ackers was trying to indicate that Singer's explanation made no sense, or that it stretched credulity. Instead, by choosing such a ludicrous anti-example, she not only inadvertantly reinforced the logic of what Clinton did (as if it needed any), but she revealed herself as a nitwit utterly incapable of using a literary device. Where I come from, that alone would have gotten her a "C" in high school composition.

Gosh, will her next blog post be on a log post?

As I noted in my previous post, Ackers is incompetent in using a literary device. Leave it to me, a professional writer, and son of an English professor to notice.

But sometimes one can use a literary device perfectly, and catch holy hell for it. Mark Twain, for example, was arguably the outstanding white writer on race relations during the Gilded Age, the period in which one form of racism was being retooled into another. Yet, his work is regularly banned by folks who object to his realist use of the N-word.

Well, blame the passage of time for that one. But, still, many people actually think that Twain was a racist, when he was actually the most acerbic and penetrating critic of racism in the white world of his time. Some people just don't know how to read, and other people get unfairly accused as a result.

Well, the same thing happend with Jane Hampshire, and they're still trying to tar her for it. Because I was following the race quite closely, I knew exactly what the image was about, and what it was meant to convey. It was, perhaps, unwise to assume that understanding would triumph over ingorance and hysteria in such a case, but that was the real offense in this case.

Jane did not create the image herself. But the creator did explain himself in the comments to her article, after a string of critical comments appeared.:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/on-the-ground-with-lamont_b_26316.html?p=2#comments

As the composer of the work in question, allow me to make some broader points clearer. This will be my last word on the subject, but all are free to debate further, of course.

Lieberman has attempted to activate a voting demographic that his strategists believe will aid him in his quest.

To this end, he has imported a figure, Bill Clinton, who has standing with the American black community, and has repeatedly asserted his personal credentials as one who has worked on behalf of that community.

Yet Lieberman has engaged in race baiting (with the Lamont flyer) as a cynical attempt to game this demographic, and he has engaged in other activities which cast doubtful shadows upon this allegiance.

Thus, in my opinion, Lieberman is pretending to be something that he is not for personal gain, exactly like the vile caucasian minstrel show performers of Vaudeville.

And so my artist's impression stands.

If we as a people run from controversial imagery, we will never stop running. Better to unearth and deal with the unpleasant than to live in fear.

As for those who would heap ad hominem at the expense of reasoned debate on the greater issues...I care not what you think, and you are free to ignore my work as you wish.

By: darkblack on August 02, 2006 at 02:42pm

Now, I think darkblack is 100% correct. But reasonable people can disagree. However, no reasonable argument can be made that this image was racist in intent, or that Jane Hampshire harbors any racist attitudes.

What's happened here is that--for a complex variety of reaosns--we have come to us phrases like "racially offensive" as euphamisms for plain old racist. This is precisely the sort of obscurantism that Twain was writing to unmask--and that darkblack was getting at as well. But that's what we're swimming in. And it's precisely that obscurantism which triumphed in this instance, because the obscuritant term "racially offensive" can be applied equally well to something that's patently racist and to something that's critiquing racial posturing a little to pointedly for its own good.

Naturally, in a still-racist society, the final outcome of this process is that the racists will be given a pass--over and over and over again--while the critics will be forever tarred as racists over a single misconstrued event. And that's precisely how a new racist order is constructed on the ruins of an old one.