"The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania."

Sen Clinton;

Artful metonymy aside, I believe there are sincere flaws in the argument of your campaign-spokesman, Phil Singer, which I am compelled to bring to your attention; the following, his full disputation:

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania. So if Barack Obama can’t win there, how will he win the general election?

Perhaps I have been misguided, but I had been impressed with the notion that the nominative rules of the Democratic Party were delineated in such a way to provide every state a fair say in the nomination? Does your official campaign-position diverge on this issue?

I ask because – while the campaign commentary of Rep Geraldine Ferraro could easily be seen as symbolically re-directing an entire racial community towards the back of your priority bus – the contention of Mr Singer could just easily be viewed as a preferential directive to an entire community of US States, conducting countless less-convenient or less-congenial states rearward.

To your credit, Rep Ferraro has officially retracted herself from the infrastructure of your campaign; nonetheless, she has been equally unwilling to retract any dimension of her inflammatory analysis of voter motivation. Presumably, you saw the vast fissures in an antiquated post-colonial logic which predicates African-American achievement on notions of racial guilt.

However, for the sake of both your credentials and your campaign, you might caution the former Vice-Presidential candidate concerning the volatility encoded in her attempts (and those of anti-Obama conservatives) to portray her victimization throughout this row. Indeed – whether it be the attribution of success to racial demographics, or the disputation of political viability on account of racial profile – to my mind it seems dangerous to allow this sort of discursive discord to fester in any form or for any function; not only is it an unsound political principle, it is a practically untenable political argument.

For instance, the rationalization submitted by Rep Ferraro to demonstrate this persecution is ramshackle and diaphanous:

SAWYER: In your words, let me just ask. The popular vote, 13,033,386 for Senator Obama. 11 senators who know him and know Senator Clinton are supporting him. Do you think they're doing it because they're just caught up in a concept?

FERRARO: No. Because what you've done is you've gone in and you parsed something out of context again. I just think -- I find that offensive. I was talking about historic candidacy. You know, the numbers are there. Why would you call -- wait. Hold on a minute. Why would you call South Carolina so far ahead of time if people are not reflecting about how the black vote was going to come out? Why would they call Mississippi ahead of time?

SAWYER: That was polling.

[...]

SAWYER: Sorry you said this?

FERRARO: Absolutely not, absolutely not. And to be quite frank, it seems to me that the campaign -- and David Axlerod knows me. He should have called me up and said what do you mean by this? And I would have given the full context. I have only said nice things. When I give a paid speech, I don't pick out one campaign over another. I talk about them both. I give one a little bit of an edge, but I'm also fair to John McCain. I'm not speaking for either the Democratic party or candidate. I think, I have to tell you, my concern has been over how I've been treated as well. And I'm hurt, absolutely hurt, by how they have taken this thing and spun it to imply that in any way, in any way I'm racist. And to use it to attack Hillary, because they can't speak about the issues, I find this just appalling.

Foremost, I find her feigned appall disingenuous, if not intentionally divisive; certainly, there is societal precedence for excoriating the rhetoric of white-exploitation, which in a historical or contemporary discursive context does seem "patently absurd." But, Rep Ferraro's self-interested and analytically-distorted "concern" for her treatment also has precedent; in fact, it is a well-traveled paradigm exercised by one of the most ignorant and injurious mouth-pieces in the "news" media, Rush Limbaugh, who said the following about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb:

I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.

Upon promptly being fired by ESPN (and parent-corporation, Disney Inc), Mr Limbaugh provided an "apology" whose echoes pervade the consternation of Rep Ferraro:

All this has become the tempest that it is because I must have been right about something. If I wasn't right, there wouldn't be this cacophony of outrage that has sprung up in the sports writer community. [...] the sports media, being liberals just like liberal media is elsewhere, have a desire that black quarterbacks excel and do very well so that their claims that blacks are being denied opportunity can be validated.

Despite Mr Limbaugh's energetic support of your campaign in the states of Ohio and Texas, I hardly think the radio-pundit has the personality or perspective to propel your campaign or to promote within US discourse any kind of positive, progressive political policy. And yet – despite the hedging of Rep Ferraro's factually inaccurate statement that she only proffered these opinions "at a paid speech"; despite Rep Ferraro's personal résumé and persistent reiteration of her pejorative "intellectual" attitude; despite Rep Ferraro's pandering and pathetic invocation media-perpetrated victimization, predicated on some inexorable racial compunction; despite the ouroboros diversion of Rep Ferraro's appeal to "the issues" – despite myriad phenomena, you watch the self-described "purely historical" Vice-Presidential candidate force your campaign to condescend – to capitulate to a discourse fettered to superficial categories and discriminatory distortions.

But, to be quite frank, Rep Ferraro's ploy of rhetorical misdirection – her rubber-glue strategy of placing culpability for this row in the hands and mouths of Sen Obama and his campaign – is so grossly imbecilic it reads as pure farce:

And to be quite frank, it seems to me that the campaign -- and David Axlerod knows me. He should have called me up and said what do you mean by this? And I would have given the full context. I have only said nice things.

I can only presume that your campaign did not feel it prudent to "call up" Sen Obama's campaign to ascertain the context of Professor Goolsbee's actual non-comment vis-à-vis NAFTA because this was a policy issue; nor did Sen Obama's campaign even provide you with ample time to respond to Ms Power's "monster" comment for context, so swift was their punitive action. Now, however, I'm to understand that your unofficial perspective is that – in some fashion – the conditions of this speech in proxy are fundamentally disparate: in this case, your surrogate orator deserved the unequivocal 'benefit of the doubt', Rep Ferraro deserved to be sought for context before a word was said edgewise.

Because of your campaign's excellent recent record of racial discussion? Since that pretext rings hollow, am I not compelled to assume that, even if you disagree with the premise, you somehow condone its propagation — that you do not feel such a blanket dismissal of intelligent voter-motivation is divisive or deleterious to political progress?

Meanwhile, Sen Obama's campaign – other than their censure of Rep Ferraro's campaign "analysis" – has stayed distinctly "on-message" in recent days. In fact, controverting Rep Ferraro's infantile indictment of their campaign operation is Mr Plouffe's discursive exploration of – perhaps – the most significant nominative "issue" at present:

Although we don't think this is the barometer on which the race will be decided, we have a big popular vote lead. Our popular vote lead is up around a million. Which is obviously a significant edge and one they would have a very tough time reversing.

They are trying to hold the popular vote out there because they can't overtake the delegate lead. They are trying to create a diversion there... But our lead is bigger than most counts have it. [In Pennsylvania, however, Sen Clinton is] the prohibitive favorite, they will campaign there very hard. We will try to win but our campaign will not be defined by Pennsylvania.

Indeed, Sen Obama's campaign has exhibited an acute sensitivity with respect to such unilateral prescriptions and normative pronouncements: these statements and sentiments are unwise and unwelcome, and Sen Obama has been wise in his unwillingness to deign into their discursive stratum. The approach of his campaign, instead, has been more systemic, organic, holistic; they have disarticulated conventional political rhetoric of estate and obedience, without forfeiture of progressive and particular rhetorical articulation:

The Clinton Campaign would like to focus your attention only on Pennsylvania - a state in which they have already declared that they are "unbeatable." But Pennsylvania is only one of 10 remaining contests, each important in terms of allocating delegates and ultimately deciding who are nominee will be.

Despite its eponymous address, Sen Obama's campaign properly indicates that Pennsylvania is but "one of 10 remaining contests," and but one of fifty states. And, as the perspectives and persuasions disseminated by you campaign become more and more singular, more and more sinuous, more and more slanderous, so too do the questions about your motivations and your methods grow louder and louder:




Mr Olbermann feels that "you are campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat, and you were the Republican."

I fear that – barring rapid and robust measures to reform the discursive and operational platforms of your campaign – your candidacy may engender more instead of less political dissatisfaction, more instead of less social discord. Certainly, this should be dissonant with the designs of any Democratic candidate.

Yours.
Jonathan

Sphere: Related Content