Comments on: Geraldine Ferraro’s Ugly Words - Accidental, or Campaign Ploy? http://politics.steidler.net/2008/03/12/geraldine-ferraros-ugly-words-accidental-or-campaign-ploy/ Happening now in politics. Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:59:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Tony Steidler-Dennison http://politics.steidler.net/2008/03/12/geraldine-ferraros-ugly-words-accidental-or-campaign-ploy/#comment-6 Tony Steidler-Dennison Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:31:11 +0000 http://politics.steidler.net/2008/03/12/geraldine-ferraros-ugly-words-accidental-or-campaign-ploy/#comment-6 What's interesting in this, as others have pointed out, is that the Clinton campaign used such a light touch in condemning the language. That leaves open the possibility that this is an actual strategy - to inject race into the campaign. As noted on the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/geraldine-ferraros-ugly-_b_91075.html" rel="nofollow">Huffington Post</a>: <blockquote>Do I believe that Sen. Clinton has a secret command center dedicated exclusively to transmitting coded messages of racial bigotry? Of course not - er, I mean, not as far as I know. Do I think she and her staff use coded appeals to bigotry when it's convenient? Put it this way: A pattern of "accidental" racial slurs has persisted throughout the campaign, despite all the controversy, and has yet to be explained. (And, as a commenter noted, Ferraro used the same line in 1988.)</blockquote> The Clinton camp also responded by claiming that Obama was playing the situation to political advantage by expressing his concerns about the comments. So, let me get this straight. A prominent official in the Clinton campaign (finance chair) makes racially-insensitive remarks. The campaign notes that the comments are "regrettable," but leaves the official in place. The Obama campaign expresses concern at the tone of the remarks. The official futher expounds on and justifies the remarks. And, the Clinton campaign calls Obama an opportunist for expressing his concern. This goes beyond hardball politics and is exactly the "politics of personal destruction" the Clintons decried in the 90s. Someone in the Democratic party has to step in before this becomes a party-wide blood bath. What’s interesting in this, as others have pointed out, is that the Clinton campaign used such a light touch in condemning the language. That leaves open the possibility that this is an actual strategy - to inject race into the campaign.

As noted on the Huffington Post:

Do I believe that Sen. Clinton has a secret command center dedicated exclusively to transmitting coded messages of racial bigotry? Of course not - er, I mean, not as far as I know. Do I think she and her staff use coded appeals to bigotry when it’s convenient? Put it this way: A pattern of “accidental” racial slurs has persisted throughout the campaign, despite all the controversy, and has yet to be explained. (And, as a commenter noted, Ferraro used the same line in 1988.)

The Clinton camp also responded by claiming that Obama was playing the situation to political advantage by expressing his concerns about the comments.

So, let me get this straight. A prominent official in the Clinton campaign (finance chair) makes racially-insensitive remarks. The campaign notes that the comments are “regrettable,” but leaves the official in place. The Obama campaign expresses concern at the tone of the remarks. The official futher expounds on and justifies the remarks. And, the Clinton campaign calls Obama an opportunist for expressing his concern.

This goes beyond hardball politics and is exactly the “politics of personal destruction” the Clintons decried in the 90s.

Someone in the Democratic party has to step in before this becomes a party-wide blood bath.

]]>