Letters to the Editor
-
Rationalizing
Like others here said, this was a drawn out and off-the-mark presentation. You are rationalizing and could have handled the issue more effectively and with fewer words if you had posted your core arguments sooner. What really drove this home to me was this specious argument:
"The paper Ferraro made her comments to was a small, local newspaper that few outside its distribution area had heard of. It has, according to Drum, a circulation of only about 60,000 readers. And the paper ran the interview on page D6 -- not exactly prime placement. Beyond that, if the Clinton campaign really was pulling Ferraro's strings, and wanted to get this dog-whistle out into the national discourse, they certainly have better surrogates at their disposal than a failed vice-presidential nominee who hasn't won an election since 1982, ran two unsuccessful Senate campaigns in the 1990's, had been largely forgotten until recently and has an obvious tendency to say some pretty dumb stuff."
You are part of the press and, I suspect, know better than this. When the current administration wanted to hit back at Joe Wilson for pointing out one of their more egregious lies, they didn't have a senior member of the administration like Rove publish a letter in the NYT. They clandestinely leaked information about Valerie Plame to a second-tier talking head and let things unfold as they knew they would. I'm not saying the two events are close to equal; the Plame outing was purely vindictive, arguably traitorous, and far worse than anything Ferraro said. The point of my comparison is attempt to show that releasing a statement to a limited audience is an often practiced and perfect way to to play dirty politics. As you pointed out, it was quickly misquoted and analyzed beyond its [supposed] original intention. An approach like this virtually guarantees that a seemingly innocuous comment festers just long enough to gather new innuendo in its earliest reinterpretations. I think Ferraro's comments were innocent, but it certainly isn't a stretch for the press to have imagined that there could be something more sinister in the Clinton campaign's intentions given some of the things they've said and done during this campaign. I can't imagine why you are expressing such shock and dismay given the history of politics- especially politics as practiced since Atwater, Rove, Helms, and the like lowered the bar for what's acceptable.
-
I am writing this not as a supporter of any presidential candidate, but as a concerned citizen.
I am writing this not as a supporter of any presidential candidate, but as a concerned citizen.
Charges of “playing the race card” are out-of-control and causing great damage to our social fabric. I would like a clear definition of “racism” and “racist” from the accusers. Self-serving individuals may lodge complaints of “bias” in order to advance their own ends. Some citizens of goodwill make claims of racism that strike others as blatantly wrongheaded. “Playing the race card” and, indeed, charging that one has played the race card typically involves jumping to a conclusion that is not always compelled by the facts.
Do we, or do we not, care about the larger social injustices in our country? As politicians, the candidates’ behavior may not be exemplary, but they are politicians, and they should be able to deal with grievances on the campaign trail without turning them into a *federal* case. These constant slings and arrows, fueled by the ratings-hungry media mongers, are a sideshow, one that should be largely disregarded in a campaign. But, no. The media (KO included) loves to stir up the petty to juice the bottom line.
I realize I’m in the minority here, but I think these charges of racism (and genderism, for that matter) are designed to draw attention to the trivial, so that less attention is focused on the pressing need to talk about substance, and moving forward an agenda of social and racial justice.
Analysts of racial controversies are usually either identifiable as liberal or conservative. And liberals are the bigger knee-jerks on the topic. I thought, before this campaign cycle, that we were further along on race but obviously we still have a great distance to go. Younger people are generally quite comfortable in a diverse society -- some older people, not so much, it seems. When John Edwards was still in the Democratic race, Americans had a good story to tell -- we were finding it difficult to choose between Edwards, Obama and Clinton, with issues mattering more than race or gender.
As we know a sacred cow is often unreasonably immune from criticism. I think we’re headed for a world of upset and possibly explosive events, if we continue to yell “racism” at the slightest...well, slight. We’re 50 years into Martin Luther King, Jr’s civil rights movement -- it would be a shame if we now fail on delivering on our promise of social and racial justice, and continue to lose ground.
Oh...and Alex, thanks for your article. I believe you put a lot of heart and soul into it.
-
C'mon Alex...
It's very odd that you decide to draw the line on covering these fracas' with such with this one, given it has substance on a number of levels, which you point out. I'd agree completely that Olberman went over the top... I held of watching it because I knew it would be painful, and Keith didn't disappoint. But seriously...
First and foremost, if Ferraro is such a lightweight n'er do-well fvk up, as you describe her, why is she given a title in the Clinton campaign? Second, you are far to quick to dismiss the campaign's role in the whole thing post-facto: it's become a pattern to blame the press, cry wolf and soft pedal when someone goes off the reservation. They clearly like the negative attention, and love to see the debate carried forward.
Whether or not it was intentional, Ferraro was the ideal spokesperson for this blow, or rather the series of blows - her "compliments" were toss-offs as part of a much uglier argument. She's another tough, original political icon, like Hillary herself. Furthermore, whatever you may think about the original venue, she repeated the remarks at private speaking gigs with audiences who were sympathetic to this whistle. Her voice is finely tuned for this arguments most fertile audience: older, scared or nervous whites.
Finally I'm with others here who think you're a little defensive about this. That probably comes from the fact that when you look back, Salon's burned 4X more electrons on Samantha Powers than Ferraro. I don't blame you however... the media generally is following the lead of the respective campaigns. Hillary's campaign is a shoddily-run, sleazy and ineffective old-school operation, so it's not surprising they get fixated on "gotchas" and are willing to do anything to win... old habits die hard, and this one stretches back from Hillary to Pappy Bush. It's how their game is played.
Obama plays a different game, so it stands out when they respond at all. This has been a particular challenge: It's nearly impossible for a young, black man to be seen attacking on older (in this case legendary) white woman, especially one whose saying out loud what many of her cohort actually believe! He played it down, much as he's played down many of the most offensive attacks, because they gain power through repetition. That doesn't mean that ignoring bad behavior helps correct it though. He must respond to the most ridiculous attacks, and these certainly qualify.
Her attempts to defend herself were frankly bizarre, and far more offensive than the original statements. As the story developed, and we learned of her propensity for such statements, and her clearly sincere belief in garbage, it became obvious that unlike the Samantha Powers fiasco, there's substance here. So, as she tromped from network to network, it becomes difficult to believe the Clinton campaign was entirely unaware, and out of the loop. While I don't think they approved or supported Ferraro's mission, I am more certain the campaign did little to stop her from blowing the dog-whistle on every stage that would have her.