Personality and Conflict in the Democratic Race

And the battle of the personalities continues.

You know, because of events that have happened (or is it because I support Obama?), I kind of want to say that the Clinton campaign is the one that really bears the most responsibility for perpetuating the disgusting process by which, in effect, the potential for really focusing on issues of policy is taken away by focusing on issues of candidate personality, or on the character of the associates of the candidates (and what these associates said in some interview)--or even on the associates of the associates. But, ultimately, I think the blame extends to both camps and, in particular, media and the nature of the campaign process.

Looking back a few months ago, I really wanted to say that everyone overreacted to the comment by Bill Shaheen (former co-chairman for Clinton's New Hampshire campaign), where in an interview he predicted that Republicans would jump on the opportunity to blast Obama because of his past drug use. The incident seems to have been almost universally characterized as dirty partisan politics whereby, in a fierce turn of irony, Shaheen successfully made an issue out of something under the guise of predicting someone else would make it an issue. Problem was that we didn't get any of the context of the comment from the original article in which it appeared. Could it conceivably have been in response to a question by the interviewer such as "Are there any things that you think Republicans are particularly likely to come down hard on Obama about?" In that case, his comment looks more like simply a statement of fact, no?

Granted, when Shaheen resigned, he said that he deeply regretted saying what he did. Why would he feel any regret or shame for his comments unless there was some ulterior motive in bringing up the drug use besides just stating fact? But even Obama said that he “did not think it was Shaheen's intent to plant such a rumor.” Anyone want to shed any light on this?

Anyways... along similar lines, a couple of weeks ago, I didn't have any immediate urge to accuse Mrs. Ferraro of fanatical racism. Since we only really got that small snippet of comment from the interview, it's hard to say what she really meant... but I just assumed that she simply believes--due to her fanatical conviction that Hillary is so obviously a better candidate--that if Obama didn't have some distinguishing characteristic that would radically appeal to a large bloc of voters, he wouldn't be in position that he's in. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, I don't think she made a racist remark. I think she made a huge (completely unsubstantiated, and idiotic) attack on the quality of Barack Obama. I think the only way the statement could be considered racist is if it's construed as implying that black people are automatically going to vote for a black candidate. The logic behind that would be awful. But also, I don't think we should disregard the results of some of the primaries, and the trends the numbers suggest: “In Georgia, Obama polled 88% of the Black vote, in Alabama 84%, in Arkansas 74%. In Tennessee 77%. In the northeast, Obama polled 82% of the Black vote in New Jersey and 74% in Connecticut.”

So I guess that leaves the “And if he was a woman he would not be in this position” comment. Again, giving her the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume she just meant that it would be no contest if the race were between two women--because Hillary is the best female candidate who could possibly exist. Or something like that.

But if Obama is in the position he's in because he's black, but wouldn't be in this position if he were a woman... what if he were a black woman? I think the universe would explode or something. :D

_______


But I have a really hard time excusing everyone for not standing up for Samantha Power. I just finished Power's excellent book, A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, and am about to start her book on Sérgio Vieira de Mello. I think it's unquestionable that she would be a valuable asset as an advisor to any candidate or elected official—she's a huge human rights advocate, and critical of anyone who isn't. I think the most mature thing that could have been done in the situation would have been for Obama and Power to have done a joint speech/press conference where, first of all, Obama gave a fucking precise lesson in geopolitics: really spelling out to the public exactly what Power's job is, and what her interests are--and how important she is, not just to our nation, but to the world. Then, Power should have made a speech where she apologized, and made it abundantly clear how idiotic her statement was, and how idiotic it is for anyone to be so careless with the things they say in public. Lastly, Obama should then have said that, the most correct, the most ethical position, and the position best for America and best for the world is this: I'm going to keep Power on staff, and accept any fallout that may result from that.

Certainly, the Clinton campaign wasn't giving a shit who Power is, beyond the lady who said something mean about Hillary. "Only an hour before her resignation was made public, surrogates to Clinton convened a conference call demanding her firing." "'We’re here today to ask Senator Obama to ask Samantha Power not to be part of his campaign,' said Rep. Nita Lowey of New York, responding to the remark by Power--foreign policy adviser to Obama and expert on international human rights. 'It’s really a test for Obama, a test of character,' she said."

Obama's character was already tested. So was Hillary's. And, in a sense, they both failed.
_______

On to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Okay, just selected a random op ed from a few days ago. Here are the first few lines: “This controversy isn't over with Rev. Wright's departure. Senator Obama must explain his relationship with Wright. Why? Because for twenty years, Barack Obama attended Trinity United Church in which Wright spewed his hateful rhetoric on an apparently regular basis.”

I haven't been keeping up with domestic news much at all the past few days, but from a quick scan, this seems to be a fairly common sentiment among some people: Barack must answer as to why he kept attending the church, in spite of some of the insane views of its pastor. And the subtext here seems to be that he needs to answer in order to dispel any notion that he agrees with some of the things that Wright has said.

Well, that was certainly already answered. In the Washington Post op-ed a few months ago that originally linked Louis Farrakhan to Obama through Wright: “It's important to state right off that nothing in Obama's record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan. Instead, as Obama's top campaign aide, David Axelrod points out, Obama often has said that he and his minister sometimes disagree. Farrakhan, Axelrod told me, is one of those instances.”

I think the important thing for everyone to keep in mind is that Trinity United has 10,000 members (6,000 weekly). The community it serves is the African American community in the South Side of Chicago. If there are any crazy comments or conspiracy theories that happen to get slipped into a sermon, it's definitely nowhere near the primary goal of the pastor. The primary goal is encouraging the community to lift itself out of poverty; to unite; to give hope for the many who are hopeless. Since the church is entirely black, there's definitely more of a tendency for the pastors to migrate towards Black Theology. Jeremiah Wright happens to have links to extremist Black liberation theology. The other day, Rev. Wright couldn't stop asking Sean Hannity if he had read any James Cone, the founder of Black liberation theology--a man who is severely confused at best; bigoted and delusional at worst.

I can't help but think that any questioning of whether Obama may actually support some of Wright's more controversial statements (or especially if Obama is also “anti-American”!) is about as ridiculous and non-progressive as Hillary's massive fuck-up in response to the question of Obama actually being a closet Muslim.