Using Ferraro to set the topic
Like I said last night, I'm not willing to go all the way to grand Clinton conspiracy on the Ferraro comments, but, clearly, as little as they're doing to repudiate Ferraro, they don't mind this being the topic of discussion. Here's my guess as to why.
Yesterday, the Obama campaign put forth a pretty scathing memo challenging Clinton's claims of foreign policy "experience" hitting her claims point by point on Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, China.
Today, McClatchy has a piece echoing that memo, "Clinton's foreign experience is more limited than she says," but what other media is leading with questions on Clinton's "experience?"
The experience claim is the very core of the Clinton argument to voters, and if it is dented, dinged, or otherwise damaged, her primary positional advantage would be gone, so, taking some blowback over Ferraro's racial comments is well worth the cost if keeping this garbage on the air floods out the far more damaging challenge to her "experience."
(The Nobel Peace Prize winner for N. Ireland has called her claims "a wee bit silly," and even Sinbad is going after her about her claims on Bosnia.)
The Clinton camp wants "experience" to be the topic as it is currently perceived. They don't want a real discussion of it. They want the issue frozen as it is, so they're extending Ferraro as the media topic.
But six weeks is a long time, and if the "experience" story has any legs, they're going to have to throw out a lot of stuff to maintain the distraction. But for now, it's working.
(Later: Ferraro was on ABC and CBS this morning saying the same stuff. Make note that the Clinton camp isn't even asking her to step back from the media.)
Yesterday, the Obama campaign put forth a pretty scathing memo challenging Clinton's claims of foreign policy "experience" hitting her claims point by point on Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, China.
Today, McClatchy has a piece echoing that memo, "Clinton's foreign experience is more limited than she says," but what other media is leading with questions on Clinton's "experience?"
The experience claim is the very core of the Clinton argument to voters, and if it is dented, dinged, or otherwise damaged, her primary positional advantage would be gone, so, taking some blowback over Ferraro's racial comments is well worth the cost if keeping this garbage on the air floods out the far more damaging challenge to her "experience."
(The Nobel Peace Prize winner for N. Ireland has called her claims "a wee bit silly," and even Sinbad is going after her about her claims on Bosnia.)
The Clinton camp wants "experience" to be the topic as it is currently perceived. They don't want a real discussion of it. They want the issue frozen as it is, so they're extending Ferraro as the media topic.
But six weeks is a long time, and if the "experience" story has any legs, they're going to have to throw out a lot of stuff to maintain the distraction. But for now, it's working.
(Later: Ferraro was on ABC and CBS this morning saying the same stuff. Make note that the Clinton camp isn't even asking her to step back from the media.)
posted by mikevotes at
7:58 AM
13 Comments:
Is it fair to say at this point, the Clintons are relying heavily on the closeted racial prejudice of Americans to frighten people away from Obama? Are they trying to legitimize these fears of "reverse discrimination" and the white man's burden?
I am no longer willing to say the Clintons are not racists.
Clinton's experience claims will continue to be vetted. I believe there will be a segment today on the NPR show Day to Day exploring Hillary's Northern Ireland claims. Promo wasn't flattering. (I may have the wrong show, but I believe this was the show in the promo I heard today.)
Right now it's wall-to-wall Sptizer and whores. But as you said, six weeks is a long time. Voters may become fatigued with nothing but insults, ridicule and race-bating...
This needs to end. I'm hoping against hope some big Dems will knock some heads together and shot the rabid campaign before it infects the whole process. Richardson, Edwards, Gore?... Someone stop us before we kill ourselves.
By
-epm, at 11:47 AM
Agreed. Not racist, but using racist levers.
The interesting thing to me is that this is all a kind of blowback from the "threshold" comments and the 3AM ad, but it took about a week for the challenges to her claims to percolate up to the mainstream.
And, I don't care about Spitzer. He's screwed up, he's gone, fine. I'm not outraged, I'm not shocked, so I'm not really blogging on it.
By
mikevotes, at 2:01 PM
If you're going to argue that Clinton is using race in the primaries (which I don't agree with, but never mind), then I think you have to admit that it will be an issue in the general election too--that in fact, it's not the case that "all the racists are voting Republican anyway."
And looking at the vote split in Mississippi, it's hard not to think this thing is going to get more and more racially polarized.
By
Anonymous, at 4:02 PM
Somewhat. I'll give you Mississippi, but on the other hand, there have also been very white states like Vermont. And if you get out in the white states of the west, Obama does very, very well.
Really, you have to draw a line. Southern racism is something very different.
(PS I find it funny that you are saying the white people voting for Clinton because they're racist. You don't see another possibility? Maybe they prefer your candidate on something besides race?)
I'm really not going to play on this one. This is another Clinton argument that Obama is unelectable. It's an ugly one, too.
The national polling doesn't support that viewpoint. He beats McCain poll after poll.
...
As for using race in the primaries, do you think the Ferraro comments are race neutral?
Since the Clinton campaign isn't even telling her to sit down, you have to admit that they're at least tacitly endorsing the conversation (if not the sentiment.)
I'm not going to convince you of any of this, but that's where I am.
By
mikevotes, at 4:26 PM
if it quacks like a duck....
I believe one who pulls racists levers is in fact a racist. You can't be kinda pregnant...
I'm hoping MSM brings on Sinbad for a little interview that gets heavy play and sound bites...maybe even the nobel winner saying "a wee bit silly" in a kilt-and-all...everyone loves those accents!! HRC chances are now close to ashes. I saw a piece at KOS that outlines the "winning big state" argument that puts that theory to pasture...
and Spitzer jokes are tying into clinton (Leno and Letterman last night)-- not too sure HRC wants that out there...
what is priceless though is to read some attempts by the clinton supporters on some blogs of GF comments and spinning it as correct and blown out of proportion!
By
Anonymous, at 4:27 PM
TG, one more.
Waht about the Republicans that made up 13% of primary voters and broke for Clinton 3 to 1. (In Mississippi, Republican means white.)
....
Anon, I will still make that distinction. To me, Racist is about personal perspective and I don't think the Clinton's, or anyone in her camp as far as I can tell, is racist. Using racist levers is a different thing.
I'm actually surprised Sinbad hasn't been on my TV. I would think he could use the exposure.
And the "big states" argument does appear to be facing examination, although, as it's being exposed, it's now shifting into a "battle ground states argument."
Look, it's what they've got.
By
mikevotes, at 4:34 PM
A mobster who orders a hit is just as guilty of murder has the trigger man. I have a similar feeling regarding racism.
By
-epm, at 8:18 PM
We may disagree, but I don't think that's apt.
I see it more as the Clinton camp trying to leverage it after the fact, not ordering it.
By
mikevotes, at 9:12 PM
Bill Clinton c. South Carolina primary.
Maybe not the "murder" level of racism... call it the negligent homicide of racism. I'm not saying they're white hooded, cross burning racists, but I can no longer see how we can say "I don't think the Clintons are racist, but..." anymore.
Maybe it has to do with how we each define racists, but I don't think we'll agree on this. I leave it at that.
By
-epm, at 9:27 PM
Good choice,
By
mikevotes, at 10:26 PM
EPM, extremely good point about the different definitions of racism. They vary widely even within the Democratic party.
I will point out that while a mobster who orders a hit is indeed just as guilty as the triggerman, that's not the case here. In this case, the "mobster's" "crime" is (once again) that she hasn't appeared sufficiently outraged at the "hit."
And Mike, that's a great distinction you make between having the conversation and endorsing Ferraro's sentiment. Hillary has explicitly rejected the sentiment, so I don't think one can reasonably argue that she endorses it.
Does she want the conversation to take place? Maybe. (Though I note that Ferraro is now gone.) It may not be race neutral (not sure of the exact meaning of that), but I don't think it's per se racist.
It's undeniable that in this campaign, Obama has been advantaged in some ways by his race; it's also undeniable that he's been disadvantaged in some ways by it. How does it balance out? Like it or not, the answer DOES bear on his chances in the general election... because what was an advantage in the primaries may be a disadvantage in the general.
For me, this contest is ALL about electability. Race (or gender)will be a factor in November. That's what a 90/10, 30/70 split in Mississippi tells us. Not all of those voters, white or black, voted solely on race... but I'm pretty sure some of them did.
By
Anonymous, at 2:17 AM
TG, I bet Ferraro's going to change tone or disappear now (as much as she can.) I don't know why, but that's my hunch.
And, yeah, race has played a role both ways, but so has gender, and frankly, so has height or attractiveness. If Obama were short or overweight or ugly, I doubt he'd be there either.
As to electability, the best data we really have are those crappy polls, either the national vs. McCain numbers or that one SUSA state by state, and in all of them he is ahead or behind Clinton by pretty insignificant margins.
(Again, the SUSA electoral map had them getting there different ways,he gets Virginia and the west instead of Florida, but it gets him there.
Neither one of them wins Ala, Miss, Ga, etc.)
So, regardless of the votes in the south, I would say electability as measured broadly by polling is a wash.
By
mikevotes, at 6:33 AM
You're right, the empirical evidence on electability is mixed (perhaps slightly favoring Obama, but not by much)...
Which is a huge opportunity for whichever campaign can make its case more persuasively.
By
Anonymous, at 2:25 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home