We interrupt our regularly-scheduled personal angst...

[textualdeviance]

...for a bit about politics. Posting here instead of on 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.

Comments

[halophoenix.livejournal.com]

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.)

[thefirstalicat.livejournal.com]

Aside from the strange permutations of this "story," I'm mostly concerned about each camp's (Clinton's and Obama's) responses to each other's real or perceived comments. To me, the absolute best shot the Dems have would be a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket, but if those two front-runners get supernasty on each other during primary season, that behaviour will pretty much rule that ticket out.

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!