Agreed (you didn't think that's what I was posting about, did you? My topic was completely different! Just making sure!) wholeheartedly.
I wonder how often this is going to happen between now and November - it started in New Hampshire, when Clinton's win was most easily explained by pollsters - who out and out failed - with the Bradley Effect, which I think did a disservice both to Tom Bradley and the very real events that took place during his election. Rather than properly investigate their own failure, the pollsters went rushing into another one, claiming that race was to blame for Obama's loss. Whether it was the problem or not, there's absolutely no way to know one day after the votes were tallied, so why even say that?
I wonder to what degree there's a crowd of pundits and media manipulators waiting for the scent of racism and sexism to linger long enough on the political air for them to descend on it in front of the cameras. It's kind of maddening when what you're really looking for is something more than surface analysis to the campaign.
As for Hillary's MLK statement, I think Obama's campaign was correct with their statement: It was ill-advised. If she'd been properly advised, she would have seen this coming. She's right, I agree, but if there's anything I've seen among my fellow black bloggers as of late, it's a disaffection with politicians who line up to remember the struggle but are so slow to act on anyone's behalf-including our own. Given that we've seen more talk about rolling back civil rights in the past several years than in progressing them, there's a natural hypersensitivity to the very notion that someone might say that the triumphs of the day are anything less than a combined effort. In this case, I think some people are worried that through her statement, Hillary is stripping the black community of its role in making those triumphs a reality. I also think those people are hypersensitive, but I can understand their perspective.
I say all of this with my standard disclaimer: we have to be very very careful when deciding what people are allowed to be offended by and what they're not, especially when speaking as outgroup or worse, from a place of privilege. We run the risk of alienating and looking down on very legitimate feelings, even if they're overreactions. (And even if the point being made is flat out wrong.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 01:31 am (UTC)I wonder how often this is going to happen between now and November - it started in New Hampshire, when Clinton's win was most easily explained by pollsters - who out and out failed - with the Bradley Effect, which I think did a disservice both to Tom Bradley and the very real events that took place during his election. Rather than properly investigate their own failure, the pollsters went rushing into another one, claiming that race was to blame for Obama's loss. Whether it was the problem or not, there's absolutely no way to know one day after the votes were tallied, so why even say that?
I wonder to what degree there's a crowd of pundits and media manipulators waiting for the scent of racism and sexism to linger long enough on the political air for them to descend on it in front of the cameras. It's kind of maddening when what you're really looking for is something more than surface analysis to the campaign.
As for Hillary's MLK statement, I think Obama's campaign was correct with their statement: It was ill-advised. If she'd been properly advised, she would have seen this coming. She's right, I agree, but if there's anything I've seen among my fellow black bloggers as of late, it's a disaffection with politicians who line up to remember the struggle but are so slow to act on anyone's behalf-including our own. Given that we've seen more talk about rolling back civil rights in the past several years than in progressing them, there's a natural hypersensitivity to the very notion that someone might say that the triumphs of the day are anything less than a combined effort. In this case, I think some people are worried that through her statement, Hillary is stripping the black community of its role in making those triumphs a reality. I also think those people are hypersensitive, but I can understand their perspective.
I say all of this with my standard disclaimer: we have to be very very careful when deciding what people are allowed to be offended by and what they're not, especially when speaking as outgroup or worse, from a place of privilege. We run the risk of alienating and looking down on very legitimate feelings, even if they're overreactions. (And even if the point being made is flat out wrong.)