The Game of Repudiation
We desperately need a fresh primary so the media and the campaigns have something new to talk about. In this huge gap before Pennsylvania, the full attention of the media has come down on a series of non-stories. Even the Rev. Wright flap would have been completely over in 48 hours if it were not for the lack of real political news. This latest non-story, in which an Obama supporter called McCain a “warmonger” before Obama took the stage, is a good jumping-off point for a discussion of repudiation in general.
After the event, McCain’s campaign immediately called on Obama to repudiate the accusation that the Republican candidate was a “warmonger.” Of course, Obama did this yesterday. His campaign said “John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such.”
This is just the millionth time that one campaign or another has been called on to repudiate marks made by a supporter or fellow partisan. Here is just a short representative list:
- Howard Dean: “While we honor McCain’s military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn’t understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.”
- Samantha Power: “[Hillary] is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything.”
- Geraldine Ferraro: “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position, and if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.”
- Bill Cunningham: “It would be a shock [if] Barack Mohammed Hussein Obama can be elected the president of this country in these difficult terrorist times.”
- Steve King: “If [Obama] is elected president, then the radical Islamists, the al-Qaida, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror.”
I’m sure that you can remember others, and if so, feel free to add them as comments. I am so tired of the news being dominated by these kinds of assinine remarks, and the candidates spending all of their time dancing around the awkward things that their supporters say. Maybe it will get better after Pennsylvania and North Carolina and Indiana, when the media have something more substantial to analyze. But I’m not holding my breath.
According to Media Matters…
During the April 3 edition of Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes, a conservative pundit stated of Sen. Barack Obama: “He’s a dime store Mein Kampf.” Co-host Alan Colmes then asked if Obama “is a two-bit Hitler,” to which the conservative pundit responded, “[Y]es.” Colmes continued: “We should be as wary of Obama as they should have been of Hitler in Nazi Germany?” She responded: “If only people had read Mein Kampf.”
Colmes is such a tool on that show. It is embarrasing that he is supposed to represent the liberal side of things on that fair and balanced network.
It would be difficult to stomach the comments of Geraldine Ferraro anyway; but perhaps it would be easier if she had any notion of how to use the subjunctive mood.
Here O’ sensational America, your innate desires and revulsions are heard by the ubiquitous media. Fear not, they will provide you with the meaningless filler that your mind hungers for without respite.
This isn’t news, I don’t think. Nor will it ever get much different. Politics is a game of catch phrases and innuendos. Jefferson and Adams fought over religion; Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton; on the floor of Congress members occasionally struck each other with fists and canes.
The staunchly federalist Connecticut Courant said, during the 1804 election, if Thomas Jefferson were elected: “Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will all be openly taught and practiced.” Cross reference this to the Steve King quote — sounds somewhat similar in prose.
I suspect the media has always played on the Ad Populum Argument, aiming at the masses insatiable crave for sensational news. Predictably, it’s almost always centered around “buzzwords” like terrorism, abortion, Huessin, and national security.
Does it make it right? Absolutely not. I share in your general frustration, David. However, I don’t think its going away anytime soon (probably never). Especially with an unconventional candidate(s) running.
Adam Voiland wrote an interesting piece on Clement Moore’s anonymous screed against Thomas Jefferson. The slanderous rhetoric would, today, probably evoke one of these “repudiation” calls. Here’s an excerpt:
I can pretty much promise you that this is not going to stop anytime soon. It’s one of those “I’ll stop if you’ll stop” kinds of things, and neither side is going to stop. The cure for this political ailment is for those speaking in any tangential way for a campaign or politician to stop staying things that are not useful politically. I have defended (and will continue to defend) Ferraro’s statement, but perhaps this is not the proper discussion for that.
I’ll second the last statement by kolby. Like I hinted at earlier, one of the main reasons Obama is so popular is because he’s entirely unconventional — from a political campaigning standpoint and a cultural standpoint (skin color, family make-up, prior work, etc). And I’ll be the first to admit, this appeals to me.
Ferraro’s statement is sort of the obvious, isn’t it? — at least that’s what I always thought.
My least favorite part is the politicians feigning indignation when they are called some sort of name or insulted in some way. Really? They never thought that would happen?
I wonder what would happen if one or all of the candidates just stopped repudiating everything. “Actually, I would agree with Mr. Schultz. John McCain has been one of the biggest warmongers in the Senate for the past half decade. He has been in favor of the Iraq war all along, which was misguided and unnecessary from the beginning. And now he is drumming up inflamatory rhetoric with Iran and incinuating the need for military action there. If that isn’t warmongering, then what is?”
Ha, that would be the day.
You can defend Ferraro’s statement if you like; I’m not going to attack it on the basis of its appropriateness. I do, however, think that she is incorrect.
Although it is complete conjecture, I do not think that Obama is who he is today just because he is black. If anything, I think his blackness, his name, and his history have been political liabilities more than they have been assets. Especially as we move into the general election, whatever benefit Obama got from the black community for being “one of them” will dissapear because the black community would have supported the Democratic nominee by and large anyway. In the general election, Obama’s blackness will only become more of a liability to him because of that and because there will be a lot more voters who are less informed than primary voters tend to be, and who are therefore more prone to chain e-mails and rumors that Obama is a Muslim who hates America.
I think the fact is that Obama is a talented politician, a gifted speaker, and a natural leader. He isn’t perfect, but his greatest qualities that brought him this far are more important than merely his race.
If Obama had all the political skills and intellect he has today but his skin was white, Hillary Clinton would have been the nominee for quite some time now.
I bet a lot of people are very bitter about that possibility, aren’t they?
Even if it is true, what is the use of taking one aspect of a person apart from the rest of the person? I think it is mostly just a consolation activity for the losers to try to imagine counter-factuals in which they would have won.
Even if we allow Mr. Obama the benefit of being black (kidding..), any number of tactical and strategic factors could (and, I believe, would) have made an enormous difference in the campaign. Even with the compelling package he is marketing, he should have been put to bed long ago.
You’re right that being black ceases to benefit him the minute he (theoretically) wins the nomination. I’d call that a roll of the dice or a gamble, but that would be racist wouldn’t it? I’d hate to have to make you demand that I be denounced.
I wish somebody famous had said something like “Hillary Clinton is very lucky to have married Bill Clinton. She would not be where she is today without that.”
Wouldn’t you agree?
Would she be exactly where she is today? Probably not. But would Bill Clinton be where he is today had he not married Hillary Rodham? I think not. She unquestionably would have made a name for herself on her own, just as Obama would have were he a white man. They are both helped by their status as a part of an aggrieved political out group.
“In the general election, Obama’s blackness will only become more of a liability to him because of that and because there will be a lot more voters who are less informed than primary voters tend to be, and who are therefore more prone to chain e-mails and rumors that Obama is a Muslim who hates America.”
That’s the truly frustrating part…..
Question: If Hillary were a white man, would she be in this position?
What if Hillary were a black man, Obama was a white woman, and McCain was still a 99-year old geezer?
Ha! Exactly….
Perhaps.
She has the intellectual capacity for high achievement. Of course the course of her life has been in many ways set by being a woman. Its not a matter of either candidate being where they are because they are either black or a woman. If they each had the same history as they do now but were both white men (which would at least have the benefit of the United States being an open-minded enough country to have legalized gay marriage and put a gay couple into the White House), history suggests that Clinton (the more established/establishment beer track/working class candidate would be the winner against the high minded, idealistic rhetorician of the liberal elite.
I just personally think, perhaps incorrectly or with some measure of naivety, that Obama’s success is not attributable to his “blackness”.
I definitely agree that “history would suggest” that HRC would be the candidate of choice, but I think Obama’s success is in large part due to a general disappointment with the “establishment or established” politicians.
There is a significant degree of such dissatisfaction, but traditionally large parts of the African American community side with the establishment candidate (as many did early on in this campaign). Give Clinton more than 40% of the black vote and you don’t have a campaign. Those with the toughest lot and the most pressing needs are usually the most difficult to inspire.
Considering that African-Americans make up about 13% of the entire US population, I don’t believe that giving HRC more than 40% of the black vote would actually change things dramatically. How many votes would that translate to?
Obama has also done well in overwhelmingly white states also, as detailed below. I think it is a media driven fallacy that the black vote is crucial to winning an election.
Percent of state population that is African-American:
Wisconsin: 6% (Obama won +17%)
Minnesota: 4.5% (Obama won +34%)
Washington: 3.6% (Obama won +36%)
Iowa: 2.5% (Obama won +9%)
Wyoming: 0.9% (Obama won +24%)
Well, I have nothing more to add, except this:
What if George W. Bush wasn’t related to George H. Bush? Think of the possibilities.
“History suggests that Clinton (the more established/establishment beer track/working class candidate would be the winner against the high minded, idealistic rhetorician of the liberal elite.”
Let’s assume this is true. Isn’t it still kind of depressing that we tend to elect “the guy we could imagine having a beer with” rather than “the high-minded intellectual elite?” I think it’s rather tragic, anyway.
And I am speaking much broader than the Clinton-Obama battle. What is wrong with wanting someone of above-average intelligence in the White House and as Commander-in-Chief of the world’s most powerful military? Haven’t we learned our lesson from electing idiots in the past?
Gino, black voters are a much more significant part of a Democratic primary than they are the nation at large, and when someone (in this case Obama) is able to consolidate that kind of voting bloc beyond the 90 percent threshold it makes an enormous difference in a close election. Cut Obama’s black support in half in states like Texas, California, Ohio, New York, and New Jersey and you end up with huge Clinton wins a much wider delegate splits (and thus Clinton as the nominee).
David, The beer track isn’t precisely the same thing as someone you’d want to have a beer with, but the point is taken. However, this is not a nation of intellectuals and anyone with much hope of being elected must be able to appeal to the beer track. Also, the intellectual elite aren’t always right and are often rather impractical. There is, of course, nothing wrong with wanting an intelligent person in the White House, and I’d say that more often than not that has been the case. Obama has many traits that I would like to see in a President, but he is going to have to play the game well enough to get elected first. If he continues to try and “rise above” mere politics and stay decidedly high minded (read: arrogant), he will not win. This country may be ready to elect some manner of African American, but it will not elect someone it perceives to be an arrogant black man.
This country may be ready to elect some manner of African American, but it will not elect someone it perceives to be an arrogant black man.
That’s probably true; I had a history teacher in college who once said, “There’s nothing white people find more threatening than an educated black man.”
I could see it going the other way, too though: Obama’s blackness allows him to take a more cerebral style, because he doesn’t have to fear being branded as a nerd or Ivory Tower elitist, since these stereotypes are so strongly associated with whiteness.
Obama has a tendency to do a sort of cocky looking strutting when he tries to be ironic or assert his superiority (e.g. when he pushed back on the early March Clinton strategy of suggesting that Obama could be her VP) that rubs many middle and working class whites the wrong way. He’s going to have to stop that.
I thought it was hilarious that her campaign tried to talk about having Obama as the VP when he was far ahead in the delegate count and the polls at that time. It was a nice idea, but Obama shouldn’t have taken it seriously.
Of course it was a ridiculous assertion. That was the point. And it worked. It got the media to see the race as closer than it was. He was right to try and shoot down that meme as soon as he could, but he didn’t do it the right way. A miniature Showtime at the Apollo is not the way for someone in his position to do that. A short walk to the press section of the plane and a few jokes would have been much more effective.
Wow, this thread got interesting after I looked at it…Here are a few things I must throw out there…
Why would someone rather have a beer with HRC than Obama? HRC scares me, and I would want to keep my senses clear around her. And I think I’d rather have a glass of brandy with Obama than a beer, but I guess that’s all just details.
David: John McCan’t has called you out in a press release for calling him a geezer. Even though he is one…and a warmonger too, but we already knew that.
Steve: Dubya would be a nice average guy, probably working at the local hardware store.
Quote of the day: “If that isn’t warmongering, then what is?”
I didn’t mean to directly make the “want to have a beer with this candidate” application to Hillary because I don’t think that is necessarily true. Although she does appeal more to the working class, I don’t think it is because of her beer buddy appeal.
The question is, what is the reason that working class white people tend to suppport her instead of him?
Chris & David: As a Geezer, I take great offense at suggesting that someone else is a geezer! I am theGeezer and lay proud claim to the title without you trying to help someone usurp it who doesn’t live up to the full embodiment thereof!
Long Live Geezers (kind of have to do that to qualify…)
“The question is, what is the reason that working class white people tend to suppport her instead of him?”
Because he is a Muslim and working class white people are like the “Lady at the Dollar Store”………
“There’s nothing white people find more threatening than an educated black man.”
Isn’t that what it’s all about?
I’m sure race/religion/culture have something to do with working class white apprehension about Obama. It also has to do with the fact that working class voters usually are skeptical of the smooth talking candidate of the elite and prefer someone with a track record of concern and action on “kitchen table” issues.
Who has a more elite background, HRC or Obama?
And who is more “smooth talking,” Obama or Clinton? Obama is a good speaker, but he doesn’t come across to most people as someone who “talks like a politician” trying to constantly prevaricate.
Clinton, on the other hand…
It doesn’t matter quite as much what I think, but it is clearly the perception of many that the Clintons are smooth-talking, typical politicians.
Now that race/prejudice/ignorance explanation looks pretty good.
I know this thread has moved way beyond the initial idea of repudiation of errant supporters, and that is okay. But here is an update: Ed Schultz, the one who called McCain a warmonger, refused to back down from the label.
Schultz said that “labeling a candidate is not being disrespectful. And his policies fit the description, there’s no question about that.”
Awesome.
Go Schultz!
McCain, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of them…all warmongers.
Both of their backgrounds are fairly similar. I’m not talking about who actually is more elite. I’m talking about who appeals to the (largely white) liberal elite.
Concerning smooth talk, you may have a point if this was about Bill Clinton. I don’t think anyone would call Hillary’s verbal style “smooth”. Obama not a prevaricator? Please. He may not have that reputation (yet), but his ability to make people think he agrees with them regardless of his actual opinion doesn’t exist without reason.
In your first paragraph, you assert that perception is more important than reality. Hillary may be just as elite as Obama, but people perceive her as being more down to earth.
Then in your second paragraph you say that the perception that Obama is a straight-shooter doesn’t matter because in reality, he is just as smooth as Clinton.
Right… Just thought you should be aware of this rhetorical contradiction, jkkuwitzky.
“I don’t think anyone would call Hillary’s verbal style ’smooth’”
I’m not making this up. They really do think that Hillary will talk like a politician and say anything to get elected. Sorry, man, but that is the widely accepted role that people expect her to play. And, to a large extent, she meets expectations.
David, I agree that Hillary is very well versed in doublespeak, but I wouldn’t call her a smooth talker. Obama has a silver tongue. It’s a gift, and I think it’s great. I enjoyed having a president 8 years ago who knew how to speak, but Obama is even better.
I think Obama is a better speaker than even JFK, and is probably on par with RFK. A silver tongue isn’t everything, but it sure is admirable in a leader, in my opinion. Of course, after the guy we’ve had for the last 8 years, it will be nice just to have someone who can form whole sentences.
Tis a small mind that cannot hold two contradictory thoughts at once (sarcasm alert). I’m obviously arguing in favor of HRC here, thus I don’t think the apparent contradiction should be unexpected. A candidate is labeled as the “elite” candidate not because of their own social status but because of the status of their supporters. You’re smart enough to know what I’m talking about. Anyone who is credibly a candidate for president is going to be a member of the political elite. That Obama is the preferred candidate of college educated white liberals (aka the elite) should be staggeringly obvious by now.
And yes, Obama is perceived to be less political than Clinton. The Clintons certainly have the reputation of saying what needs to be said in a given situation. Thats why they’ve been successful in a hostile environment. Obama does not yet have this reputation, but he will. The GOP narrative against him in the general election will be “Who is this Barack (Hussein) Obama and what do we really know about him?” (answer: an ambitious, calculating, prevaricating unpatriotic black (maybe even Muslim) liberal). He’s not a Muslim, nor is he unpatriotic (though he seems intent on allowing for that possibility), but he is the rest of those things. My current goal is simply to suggest that, while perception is usually more important, perception is not permanent. The perception that Obama is a straight shooter is a huge reason he is where he is today. John McCain also has that reputation, and I think we are all in agreement that it is undeserved.
Those labels do not change as easily as you imply. The media story about specific statements and events tends to take form around the preconceived idea of the candidate overall, not the other way around. You’re smart enough to know that.
That is why everything that Clinton says is viewed through the lens of “well, she is a cold, calculating politician, of course she would say that!” Meanwhile, everything Obama says is “fresh and new, direct and inspirational!” Of course, this isn’t always actually true. But those personality labels do not go away very easily. That is also why McCain has a persistant label of being a maverick and a straight shooter.
And I’m not so sure about the GOP narrative that you suggest against Obama. That may be the narrative used by talk radio, but that won’t come from McCain’s camp directly. And if anyone too close to McCain uses those attacks, it will be time to play another round in the game of repudiation.
As a liberal elitist myself, I prefer such a candidate as Obama.
Now, let’s go ahead and nominate the man and get the party united around the correct candidate!
You’re right that the frame through which the media views a candidate does not change quickly or easily. However, an Obama/McCain matchup would present a serious media conundrum; two “straight talkers” saying contradictory things. In that scenario, I think the McCain bio trumps Obama. I fear they’ll go with the original.
Of course McCain will not use all of that narrative against Obama himself. He’ll certainly use the calculating, prevaricating, and liberal parts. I’m sure the RNC, talk radio, Fox News, and no small number of IEs will be more than happy to fill in the gaps.
I’m afraid you might be right. If it comes to a straight-talk collision, friends, McCain may very well win. Not only does he have the bio and the history with that title, but friends, he also comes across as more down to earth.
But is there necessarily a collision? I’m not sure. Why can’t they both be labeled as “straight talkers” with different ideas. The point is that they are upront with their ideas and proposals. They don’t do things like refuse to suggest to real and specific Social Security reforms and just suggest a vague “commission” to figure it out at some point.
Chalk one more up. From CNN:
John McCain’s campaign called on Barack Obama Tuesday to condemn a comment from one of his Senate supporters that the presumptive Republican nominee, a naval aviator during the Vietnam War, “was a fighter pilot who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit.”
Why did Obama “repudiate” the statement?
“his ability to make people think he agrees with them regardless of his actual opinion”
it is a good point to bring up. iwas reading this at mansizedtarget.wordpress
he is quoting steven sailer
“First, more than anybody else in recent politics, Obama has internalized the rule in all the self-help books on how to win arguments: Restate your opponent’s argument respectfully to show you understand it. Since most people assume their rival disagrees with them only because he is too stupid to understand their reasons, this instantly disarms much opposition. Indeed, Obama’s intelligence and verbal skills allow him often to summarize his opponents’ ideas better than they could themselves.
What his opponents don’t realize is that, although Obama is more than smart enough to grasp their logic, he just doesn’t care about what they care about.”
http://mansizedtarget.wordpress.com/2008/03/
“I wonder what would happen if one or all of the candidates just stopped repudiating everything” . . .
Ask John Kerry’s campaign! They just could not believe that they would have to defend Kerry’s military experience against the Swift Boat attacks. After all, Kerry was the candidate who was a combat veteran, running against someone whose sketchy military experience in the TX Air National Guard was most notable for his repeated absence and failure to fulfill his obligations. I doubt if the candidates want to see if ignoring attacks until it becomes a big problem works any better for them.