Hi guys/gals:

I'm an Obama supporter who really has yet to receive an answer to this question, and I honestly want one:

What was the REASON Ferraro brought this up?

You've all made good points that on some level there is truth to her statement, and many of us Obama supporters have on some level agreed. (I'm the one who said he should have acknowledged the truth of it in some way, which had the added advantage of making him look above the fray and leaving Clinton/Ferraro disarmed.) But I keep coming back to...Why did she say it?

There are all kinds of truthful (or at least truthy) statements out in the world that can be made, and defending their accuracy sometimes skirts the issue. What about the person who compliments Hitler's organizational skills or someone who mentions that it's raining outside when someone else says "What a nice day we're having!" I think it's relevant to look at motives in addition to accuracy.

Can't we hold these concepts together: that there might be some truth to Ferraro's statements, but that she was clearly attempting to diminish him in some way when she made them? One can insist all day long that something's true, but really, we liberals are not so lacking in nuance that we can't look a little deeper at motivation, are we?

I think I would feel better if I had some real dialogue here, if Hillary supporters would say, "You know, while there is certainly some technical truth to what she says, her saying it was meant to demean, and I'd rather she'd have stuck to the issues. Let's stay away from personal or identity politics."

Or maybe, "Gosh, she's right on some level but it's really not helpful in any way b/c she herself even admitted that this particular 'advantage' doesn't discount his qualifications. I think she was just majorly frustrated that some of the superdelegates were crossing over out of race, and she spoke kind of impulsively."

Do you get that this is not what's generally being said here? I mean, instead, there's this kind of defiant vitriol about how TRUE! TRUE! TRUE! it was. Well, let's concede it (on some level--b/c many have made eloquent arguments that don't concede that) for a moment. Can I have some thoughtful comments on the wisdom or necessity of her bringing this up in the first place? And if you can't really defend it other than proclaiming its truth, can you concede that?

This letter is really meant in earnest btw. Honestly, I'm sick of the partisanship on both sides.

I think you're right. We have gotten used to the measured, thought-out responses of politicians, so we're no longer accustomed to this "run at the mouth" kind of thing anymore. But that's why it sort of defies logic that she went on for days about it. I mean, if Hillary actually wanted it to stop, does anyone think it wouldn't have? I think HRC understood it was benefiting her by appealing to the soft racism of the Archie Bunker variety, and I think the apologies came out yesterday b/c it had reached the political tipping point and was now moving into the "damage" column. I guess I wish people would just concede these points.

Personally, I found something refreshing--at first--about Ferraro. I am a real free speech nut, and I am also surrounded by impulsivity in my family, so I can relate in spades to that kind of thing. I just wish she had come back a little more graciously when called on it. (And I have said also that I wish Obama would have responded a little differently. I thought his outrage/demand for apology was something less than the kind of change in politics he usually espouses. But to be realistic on that front, I think he too is just frustrated.)

Anyway, thanks for your balance. I try hard on that front but find myself failing. I'm beginning to dislike Hillary, and I want not to.

@rebeccawriter: See previous posts about the non-analogy b/t her VP status and his P status. (There's something in my letters, but a better one called False Analogy by breadbaker around page 14 of this thread.) I agree with your larger point about stopping the oppression competition. I suppose we have different views on "who started it" (nyah nyah), but perhaps it's best for all to move forward. :)

@unclefester: always nice to see you.

@Bees: Thanks for the response. I hear you on the political correctness issue. I rail against it often. But what do you say to identical charges in the other direction? I mean, were you consistent on this position when Chris Matthews suggested Hillary got to where she was b/c of Bill's issues or to others who've suggested gender or family name have played into her political sucess? Because the Clinton campaign has not been consistent. They forced an apology out of Matthews, held up a debate in Cleveland over the Chelsea comments, and insisted on the firing of Samantha Power. Isn't all that political correctness as well? I just think there's hypocrisy going on here on both sides. What do you think?

@Sue: with you on the political calculus being major feature of both campaigns. That's life, huh? I've often wished and suggested that others put themselves into the role/mind of the opponent's campaign advisor. See if you would do it differently. Then report back with your outrage.