![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
textualdeviance...for a bit about politics. Posting here instead of on ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
uppityliberal because it's that important (and also because it pertains in part to my journalistic ethics sensibilities.)
By now, I'm sure most folks have been hearing the whispers about race-baiting coming from the Clinton campaign. While it's true that some Clinton supporters and one staffer have said unfortunate (if unintentionally so) things, neither Hillary nor Bill has said word one that's actually in any way, shape or form racist or even just clueless. Instead, what's happening is that there's this big game of telephone, where a couple of people think they heard something racist, they tell other people, and then the morons at the NYT print it as if it's a fact.
When it is, actually, nothing of the sort.
Don't believe me?
Commentary from the Huffington Post (which, by the way, has leaned heavily toward Obama):
...
Here's the quote, which was part of a larger comment on Obama's representation of his Iraq war position:
"It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."
Wow, strong words — but unequivocally pertaining to Obama's Iraq war position. Pretty clear cut, right?
Ha, as if. Here's what it morphed into in the media: BILL CLINTON CALLS OBAMA'S MESSAGE OF HOPE AND INSPIRATION A FAIRYTALE! HE THINKS OBAMA'S DREAM FOR BLACK AMERICA IS A FAIRYTALE!
I kid you not. Some examples:
New York Times, Jan. 11th: "[Former President Clinton] described Mr. Obama's campaign narrative as a fairy tale."
The Politico, Jan 11th: "...Bill Clinton dismissing Sen. Barack Obama's image in the media as a 'fairy tale'"
BreitbartTV, Jan. 8th, which hosted the full clip yet chose to headline it in the most inflammatory (and inaccurate) way possible: "Bill Clinton Fumes About Obama: 'Biggest Fairy Tale I've Ever Seen'"
Same NYT article, quoting someone else incorrectly framing the comment: "[Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-SC)] saw the remark as a slap at the image of a black candidate running on a theme of unity and optimism. "To call that dream a fairy tale, which Bill Clinton seemed to be doing, could very well be insulting to some of us."
Maureen Dowd, NYT, Jan 9th: "Bill churlishly dismissed the Obama phenom as 'the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.'"
Donna Brazile on CNN, Jan. 8th: "For him to go after Obama, using a fairy tale, calling him as he did last week. It's an insult. And I will tell you, as an African-American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing."
Here's what I find to be very depressing: When someone's words are taken deliberately out of context and blasted across the headlines to make them sound like a racist. That, to me, is despicable. Whether all of the above sources did so deliberately isn't clear (Breitbart obviously did, the NYT and Politico ought to have been more specific and accurate, who knows where Clyburn and Brazile got their information) — but at this point, the misinformation is out there, so much so that Clinton had to call into Al Sharpton's show to explain himself. ("When did you stop beating your wife, sir?")
As for the other two comments--the MLK and Nelson Mandela ones?
In the MLK bit, Hillary was stressing the importance of being in a position to actually do something instead of just talking about it. And she's dead right. None of MLK's passionate and laudable activism would have gotten anywhere had it not been for people with actual power--aka elected officials--who could pass the laws necessary. (This is, FYI, the same reason why it's so darned important to vote: You can march and sign petitions and holler at city hall all you want to, but when you squander your vote--the one bit of political power you really have--your efforts fall short.)
And the Nelson Mandela thing: Bill was talking TO Nelson, who asked him a question to the effect of "what one person would you want with you if the world was going to hell?" Well, duh. Bill's going to pick his wife, instead of saying, "Gosh, Nelson, I really love Hillary and all, but y'know, I think I'd rather spend Armageddon next to you!"
I have no idea who it is that's pushing this racist nonsense (and it wouldn't surprise me if it was someone from the GOP, trying to sow discord among the two Dem frontrunners), but it's really quite irksome. And I'm not even a Hillary fan. (I'm voting Edwards; his economic policies are far more worker-friendly than those of the other two.)
Obviously, race and gender are going to come up in this election. It would be impossible for them not to. It's a historic moment here, and the biological states of these two candidates are newsworthy. And there will, of course, always be people who actually are racist and sexist who want nothing more than to vent their spleens about the ability of these two people to lead the country. In fact, I sincerely believe that there are enough of these bastards to make a difference in the general, and I am a tad nervous about that (although really, most of the actual bigots are voting for Paul or Huckabee anyway.)
But this is just petty bullshit, and anyone who keeps perpetuating it is either stirring up shit for the sake of doing so, or so far out of touch with reality that it's a wonder why they're not just voting a straight Mordor ticket.
uppityliberal because it's that important (and also because it pertains in part to my journalistic ethics sensibilities.)By now, I'm sure most folks have been hearing the whispers about race-baiting coming from the Clinton campaign. While it's true that some Clinton supporters and one staffer have said unfortunate (if unintentionally so) things, neither Hillary nor Bill has said word one that's actually in any way, shape or form racist or even just clueless. Instead, what's happening is that there's this big game of telephone, where a couple of people think they heard something racist, they tell other people, and then the morons at the NYT print it as if it's a fact.
When it is, actually, nothing of the sort.
Don't believe me?
Commentary from the Huffington Post (which, by the way, has leaned heavily toward Obama):
...
Here's the quote, which was part of a larger comment on Obama's representation of his Iraq war position:
"It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."
Wow, strong words — but unequivocally pertaining to Obama's Iraq war position. Pretty clear cut, right?
Ha, as if. Here's what it morphed into in the media: BILL CLINTON CALLS OBAMA'S MESSAGE OF HOPE AND INSPIRATION A FAIRYTALE! HE THINKS OBAMA'S DREAM FOR BLACK AMERICA IS A FAIRYTALE!
I kid you not. Some examples:
New York Times, Jan. 11th: "[Former President Clinton] described Mr. Obama's campaign narrative as a fairy tale."
The Politico, Jan 11th: "...Bill Clinton dismissing Sen. Barack Obama's image in the media as a 'fairy tale'"
BreitbartTV, Jan. 8th, which hosted the full clip yet chose to headline it in the most inflammatory (and inaccurate) way possible: "Bill Clinton Fumes About Obama: 'Biggest Fairy Tale I've Ever Seen'"
Same NYT article, quoting someone else incorrectly framing the comment: "[Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-SC)] saw the remark as a slap at the image of a black candidate running on a theme of unity and optimism. "To call that dream a fairy tale, which Bill Clinton seemed to be doing, could very well be insulting to some of us."
Maureen Dowd, NYT, Jan 9th: "Bill churlishly dismissed the Obama phenom as 'the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.'"
Donna Brazile on CNN, Jan. 8th: "For him to go after Obama, using a fairy tale, calling him as he did last week. It's an insult. And I will tell you, as an African-American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing."
Here's what I find to be very depressing: When someone's words are taken deliberately out of context and blasted across the headlines to make them sound like a racist. That, to me, is despicable. Whether all of the above sources did so deliberately isn't clear (Breitbart obviously did, the NYT and Politico ought to have been more specific and accurate, who knows where Clyburn and Brazile got their information) — but at this point, the misinformation is out there, so much so that Clinton had to call into Al Sharpton's show to explain himself. ("When did you stop beating your wife, sir?")
As for the other two comments--the MLK and Nelson Mandela ones?
In the MLK bit, Hillary was stressing the importance of being in a position to actually do something instead of just talking about it. And she's dead right. None of MLK's passionate and laudable activism would have gotten anywhere had it not been for people with actual power--aka elected officials--who could pass the laws necessary. (This is, FYI, the same reason why it's so darned important to vote: You can march and sign petitions and holler at city hall all you want to, but when you squander your vote--the one bit of political power you really have--your efforts fall short.)
And the Nelson Mandela thing: Bill was talking TO Nelson, who asked him a question to the effect of "what one person would you want with you if the world was going to hell?" Well, duh. Bill's going to pick his wife, instead of saying, "Gosh, Nelson, I really love Hillary and all, but y'know, I think I'd rather spend Armageddon next to you!"
I have no idea who it is that's pushing this racist nonsense (and it wouldn't surprise me if it was someone from the GOP, trying to sow discord among the two Dem frontrunners), but it's really quite irksome. And I'm not even a Hillary fan. (I'm voting Edwards; his economic policies are far more worker-friendly than those of the other two.)
Obviously, race and gender are going to come up in this election. It would be impossible for them not to. It's a historic moment here, and the biological states of these two candidates are newsworthy. And there will, of course, always be people who actually are racist and sexist who want nothing more than to vent their spleens about the ability of these two people to lead the country. In fact, I sincerely believe that there are enough of these bastards to make a difference in the general, and I am a tad nervous about that (although really, most of the actual bigots are voting for Paul or Huckabee anyway.)
But this is just petty bullshit, and anyone who keeps perpetuating it is either stirring up shit for the sake of doing so, or so far out of touch with reality that it's a wonder why they're not just voting a straight Mordor ticket.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
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.)
no subject
Not to sound like the poor whiny white chick, but in a way, this is frustrating for me, because I'm caught in this position of feeling strongly that I should try to set the record straight--purely on the purpose of getting the truth out there--and then also getting the response from some that since I'm not a PoC, I don't get a say. I suppose if I were defending Obama from accusations of sexism (which I would do), I'd have a say?
But of course, even the PoC who have lined up to talk about how ridiculous this is are getting labeled Uncle Toms, so I guess no-one's allowed to talk about it at all. No-one's allowed to question Obama's experience, his understanding of the political process in DC, his lack of time spent outside of an educational environment, etc. either. Calling any of his qualifications into question is apparently racist. So how are his opponents supposed to point out his shortcomings and why they're the better choice? Is there any way possible for a white candidate to run against a black candidate without insinuations of racism?
Likewise, I don't think it's fair to ignore questions of exactly how much 8 years as First Lady really qualifies Hill. Obviously, she had a ringside seat to a lot of stuff, and that is important, but she wasn't exactly working in an official capacity. There's also the question of whether she'd have gotten as far as she has if it weren't for being married to an ex-president. Is it sexist to ask those questions? I certainly freaking hope not, because they're legitimate questions that the candidate for the biggest job in the country should have to face.
I'm reminded a lot here of Catherine Tate's Lauren Cooper character: Lauren turns even the most innocent comment into a personal attack, and spars in an increasingly hostile way--but only to loudly declare how entirely not bothered she is about the percieved slight. She creates the controversy, picks the fight and screams and yells while the other person can't even get a word in, and then proudly says she's above it. Silly.
I'm not versed in every thing that might be percieved as racist (I only discovered yesterday that the term "cakewalk" is insensitive. Had no clue.) But I am willing to learn, and perhaps far more important, willing to fight in every way possible to ensure that everyone is on equal footing and has an equal chance of success. I would like to think that that counts a lot more than someone who scrupulously vets everything he or she says--and then does jack shit to actually work for positive change. Or worse, just panders to get votes and then ignores the people who voted in good faith (welcome to how most queer folk feel about a lot of candidates.)
no subject
Plus I'm sure the Repugnants are just sitting back and laughing - "yeah, let the Dems pick each other off, as usual, so we end up winning by default." Nope, we've got to do everything possible to prevent that outcome!
no subject
Truthfully, I'd be perfectly happy with any of the three. I'm Edwards/Hil/Obama, in that order, but the margin of difference is really quite small. Each has his or her own positives and negatives, and each is leaps and bounds beyond the assorted nuts, jerks and weirdos on the other side.
no subject
You bring up another incredibly salient point that scares the crap out of me about this campaign. I think Obama has done relatively well leaving the topic of race out of his campaign discussions up to this point, and I really really wish that he'd go back to not talking about it. I really don't want people with legitimate questions about his experience or his voting record or his previous statements to not be able to raise their voices in concern just because he's black, and because they're worried about them and their concerns being perceived as racially motivated. Same with Hillary. We've lost something central to the political discussion if that becomes a reality, and no one's allowed or willing to challenge anyone because of the elephants in the room that we're all too afraid to deal with. You're right, it's frustrating.
I'm entertained because on today's Morning Edition a couple of good things came up, mostly exactly how the black electorate - especially in South Carolina right now - feels exactly the way you and I do: completely fed up with the whole thing, convinced that this is a big deal about nothing, and most of all disappointed that this has become an issue in the first place:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18106242
I'd never say I speak for the whole black community, but I can at least say that's exactly how I feel - the whole situation is more disappointing than anything else, and I'm appalled at both candidate's campaigns for jumping on this like it's actually worth airtime. Again, I'm not a terrible fan of Juan Williams, and I desperately wish that NPR would hire another black political commentator so I don't have to hear his voice every single time a story airs with the word "black" in it, but his commentary this morning was for the most part accurate:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18106245
(not the AP wire commentary, but the audio story)
Anyway - I hope my standard disclaimer (which I really do use often, I swear) when talking about issues like this wasn't taken as a claim that you're not allowed to talk about it because you're not in-group; even in-group discussions are subject to privileged positions because you have the leeway to speak without being "overheard," if you know what I mean. It's just a very difficult line to tread when you, like me, think this just reeks of BS and want to say so, but don't want to simultaneously undermine yourself by speaking from a privileged position. I totally recognize that, and I'm sorry it's frustrating. :(
That being said, now I totally see why you posted it here instead of as uppityliberal. What makes me grin, though, is that it would only be folks like you or I who could even have this discussion. Others on one side of the spectrum are either too hypersensitive and would decry us both from even talking about it, and people on the other end couldn't care less about the whole affair.