"When you wink and nod at offensive statements you're really sending a signal to your supporters that anything goes"

Sen Clinton;

Based on the events of the recent past, at what other conclusion can I arrive, than that you completely agree with Mr Axlerod's comments vis-à-vis the incendiary words of former Vice-Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro? The events aforementioned, in fact, are precisely these:



Through your exegesis it would appear that rejective and denunciatory language is a critical component of your ethical heuristic: without it, you believe, pejorative and unconscionable discourse in the United States (and, presumably, elsewhere) cannot be combated; this inaction, in turn, permits oppressive prejudice and ignorance not only to persist, but to flourish in full despotism. On these grounds, you claim, your draconian semantic indictment of Sen Obama was not only defensible, but desideratum to the defense of common human decency. And, indeed, you direct us to demonstration of this strategy's success: your own campaign for US Senate in the State of New York.

I ask you now: why controvert the wisdom garnered from this vital experience? Why jeopardize the judgment you've displayed with respect to this lesson and its wisdom?

This seems to be exactly what you have done in merely "distancing" yourself from the campaign commentary of Rep Ferraro, whose subsequent analysis Sen Obama characterized as "patently absurd":

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

Besides her distinct misapprehension of grammatical mood in the English language, Rep Ferraro is perhaps most "patently absurd" in opining on the condition of the campaign if Sen Obama were a white male or female – social categories with which Sen Obama does not identify, and campaign conditions which are thus impossible.

However, the distinct misfortune of her commentary with respect to your campaign is not simply its maladroit surface, but the more fundamental social perspective it quite strongly implies. Indeed, it fosters inane harangues such as these, re-buttressing political notions of personal categorization and demographic allegiance; it is not merely negative but, moreover, anti-positive rhetoric. And – from a strategic perspective – even a tacit acceptance of views such as those promulgate by Rep Ferraro risks alienating large numbers of voters, having defined them along such caustic and categorical lines.

Nevertheless, I must say, your response to Rep Ferraro's obloquy was underwhelming:

It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we've both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal. We ought to keep this on the issues.

Certainly not the twin-engine of rejection and denunciation you required of Sen Obama. Unmitigated and uncastigated, Rep Ferraro would have us believe that discursive society is punishing her – and perhaps, by extension, your entire campaign – on account of her racial profile; in short, she believes there is undue societal pressure on "whites" because they are not "black":

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. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?

How is it? I think Sen Obama said it best: "patently absurd." Indeed, while racism may operate "in two different directions," I hardly think this bilateral nature is the phenomenon impelling the Obama campaign to repudiate her commentary. No one involved with Sen Obama's campaign is "attacking" Rep Ferraro on account of her race (coincidentally, Mr Axelrod is also white); rather, I believe she has been indicted because her commentary failed to "address reality and the problems" facing the world. Instead, she groused and griped and grumbled, and attributed the whole of Sen Obama's success to his racial composition – hardly a constructive consideration of "reality and [global] problems."

But, if you condone in any fashion the statements and suppositions of Rep Ferraro, you implicitly invalidate the popular "votes and voices" of myriad states, which – at other moments – you have so thunderously declared as sacrosanct. Are the "votes and voices" of some states more sanctified than those of other states; or, is it merely an unfortunate matter of convenience?

Apparently, Speaker Pelosi feels that this isn't the only instance of your having selected the path of most immediate convenience, saying this about the much-ballyhooed "dream ticket":

I think that the Clinton administration has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better commander-in-Chief than Obama.

Perhaps you'll find Speaker Pelosi's insight at least somewhat salient; for my part, I think there is perspicacity present in her appreciation of the difference between short-term and long-term efficacy.

Yours.
Jonathan

Sphere: Related Content