Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Geraldine Ferraro

Boy, New York State Democrats are all over the place with scandals this week! So, basically, as much as I can tell, Geraldine Ferraro gave a muted comment about Barack Obama's race helping his political career in some small newspaper, which was eventually caught by Kos. Then, instead of taking the issue off the table, she intensified her remarks on the topic, which echoed things she said about Jesse Jackson in 1988. My rule about racist-seeming comments is as follows: you get one questionable comment free. If you say something sketchy, but you don't have a track record of saying anything of the sort, I'm willing to grant the benefit of the doubt. Fool me once and all that. The second time I'm just gonna assume you're bigoted. That's why, say, I'm willing to believe that Michael Richards might not be a racist (though it seems like I'm in the minority here), while I'm pretty sure that Mel Gibson really is an anti-Semite. There's just been a few too many questionable instances of conduct with Gibson.

So, Ferraro might have a problem with Black folks is what I'm trying to say. Andrew Sullivan attributes this to a sort of White paternalism, which might very well be true in some cases, and particularly in the case at hand. Clinton kinda rejected these sentiments. But, amazingly, Clinton supporters try to explain how someone affiliated with Clinton's campaign who made some pretty offensive remarks that were rejected lukewarmly by the Clinton campaign is somehow evidence of Obama playing the race card! That makes perfect sense...in a universe where people have camels for pets and two and two equal pi! Then again, expecting something other than dishonesty from the Clintons has become quixotic these days.

This is truly becoming despicable. This campaign wasn't supposed to be divisive. The Democrats were together. We had the same policies, basically. Yet this contest has grown far more divisive, and it's loony to say Barack Obama has done this. The Clintons are behind it, not only polarizing the party but poisoning the well for the general election for whoever gets the nod. It was the "McCain would be better than Obama" remark that totally pushed me over the edge, but there's new shit that's even worse every day, seemingly designed to appeal to disgruntled Whites in Pennsylvania. Hillary Clinton has so thoroughly disgraced herself in this contest. I can't recall a single Republican (aside from the loony right-wing radio brigade) saying anything even remotely like this stuff. Maybe they're saving it for the general election, but it's just gross. So what if Paul Krugman disagrees. He's beginning to sound more and more like a propagandist these days. My eyes are wide open.

The Man, The Myth, The Bio

East Bay, California, United States
Problem: I have lots of opinions on politics and culture that I need to vent. If I do not do this I will wind up muttering to myself, and that's only like one or two steps away from being a hobo. Solution: I write two blogs. A political blog that has some evident sympathies (pro-Obama, mostly liberal though I dissent on some issues, like guns and trade) and a culture blog that does, well, cultural essays in a more long-form manner. My particular thing is taking overrated things (movies, mostly, but other things too) down a peg and putting underrated things up a peg. I'm sort of the court of last resort, and I tend to focus on more obscure cultural phenomena.