Here's how it works: A candidate (almost always Hillary Clinton) makes a statement, any statement out of the thousands made on the campaign trail each week, and that statement is seized upon by the chattering class and then dissected in order to determine what the real intention was. Experts pore over the text and announce what the candidate should have said during an impromptu exchange with the media. It's not that the statement in question is wrong, or blatantly malicious, it's that the statement wasn't quite right. It should have been a little bit more this or a little more that. Plus, based upon the pundits' expert training and analytical skills, they're able to spot a deeply disturbing, unspoken meaning right below the surface. Alarmed, they then rush to alert voters.
In responding to the statements in question, the perpetrators can be grouped into 2 categories:
The accusers These are the people who understand the events, but deliberately distort the statement in question, and deliberately spread the distorted version of the truth.
The cheering onlookers These are the people who cheer the distortion of the truth, because the distorted version of the truth happens to favor a candidate or a cause that they believe in. The end justifies the means, or at least, the great goodness of the end justifies the small badness of the means.
When a distortion or a canard spreads, and causes damage to a campaign, it is natural for a rival campaign to watch from the sidelines. That would place them in the 2nd category ~ that of the cheering onlooker. Sometimes, a rival campaign will actively act to spread that distortion, thus placing themselves in the 1st category ~ the evil accuser. Both categories of people are culpable, in my opinion.
From the Columbia Journalism Review, we have the following analogy
Psst, did you hear?…Hillary Clinton is questioning Martin Luther King, Jr’s legacy…Pass it on…
Psst…the Clinton camp is saying the Obama camp is deliberately stoking racial tensions…and the Obama camp is saying the Clinton camp is deliberately rewriting history…Pass it on…
Psst…the Clinton camp is denying the Obama camp’s accusations…Pass it on…
Psst…the Obama camp is denying the Clinton camp’s accusations…Pass it on…
Psst…the Democratic party may be permanently fractured…Pass it on…
___________________________________________________________________________________
Let us now consider these 3 statements:
Example 1: Sen. Clinton and the Muslim smear.
Sen. Clinton was asked if she believed Sen. Obama was a Muslim. Her answer, which was provided in less than 1 second, was "of course not". The question was then repeated, and her answer was repeated... but with different language.
KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?
CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's--you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.
CLINTON: Right. Right.
KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying? Right.
CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.
KROFT: It's just scurrilous --
CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.
If you are Sen. Clinton, you are not allowed to repeat your answer with that different language. That altered language is evidence of willingness to win at all costs. It is an indication of the kitchen sink strategy, apparently. David Knowles declared this to be "A New low for Hillary Clinton"
Interviewed on "60 MInutes," Hillary Clinton gave the nation a glimpse of her win-at-all-costs mentality. Confronted over whether or not she believed Barack Obama was actually a Muslim, she couldn't give a simple, firm answer and let it stand at that.
Many commenters and diarists have repeated the canard that Sen. Clinton was repeating the "muslim slur". Examples include Andrew Sullivan, who initially declared in a post titled "As far as I know" that "Clinton is pressed to say that Obama is not a Muslim. She does - but then she pulls it back. Video here". But in subsequent posts, he neglects to mention that Clinton ever said no to the muslim smear. For instance, he later said: The anti-Muslim smears may also have worked, and Clinton delicately managed to keep them alive last night . He later added for good measure "Hillary Clinton, for her part, knows that Obama is not a Muslim, but when asked to dispel the canard, she can still add the qualifier, "as far as I know." Again the addition is a meretricious nod to truthiness, a hope that something she knows is untrue can yet be introduced into the political bloodstream to her advantage."
In a bit of irony, Andrew Sullivan also explains how all this is done:
Jonah Lehrer explains how we respond to rumors:
Not only are we persuaded by false rumors that get repeated, but we're persuaded even when the false rumors get repeated by one person. As Psy Blog notes, a recent study by Kimberlee Weaver and colleagues, found that "if one person in a group repeats the same opinion three times, it has 90% of the effect of three different people in that group expressing the same opinion."
That's why one popular and persistent blogger, or one partisan hack on CNN or Fox News, can do so much damage.
A single loud voice repeating bullshit is, as far as the brain is concerned, roughly equivalent to lots of voices repeating bullshit. And if lots of voices are repeating bullshit, then the bullshit must be true.Of course, the paradox of this post is that, even though I set out to discredit the Michelle Obama rumor, I actually made things worse.
Robert George on how this is just the latest incarnation of a conservative urban legend that pops up each presidential election.
But Andrew Sullivan is not the only one. Countless commenters including on MyDD, DailyKos have been guilty of spreading the canard either as the Accuser, or as the Cheering Onlooker.
But, there have been examples of responsible journalism. A prominent one is Josh Marshall who declared I've read and now watched a few times. And I suspect this is a case where different people will come away from seeing the exchange with very different senses whether she was hedging or whether people are pulling more equivocation out of her words because of the intensity and combustibility of the moment. For me it's on the edge. And I find it surprising she would leave it on the edge. Why the 'as far as I know' line? On the other hand, at other points, she seems pretty unequivocal. But mainly I'm curious to hear what you think.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Example 2: The MLK/LBJ Flap
Sen. Clinton, on Fox News:
“Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do; presidents before had not even tried. But it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became real in people’s lives because we had a president who said ‘We’re going to do it’ and actually got it accomplished.”
There is nothing offensive in this statement. It may be an odd statement to have made ~ to be sure, I would not have agreed to have my political opponent be compared to MLK, even if that is how the question was set up. But, all in all, there was nothing offensive in there. But, the statement led to a media firestorm.
The firestorm was fueled by selective edits on her quote, indulged in by quite a few people and by several mainstream newspapers. For instance, as reported by Media Matters
A January 11 New York Times article marked at least the third time that a Times article, editorial, or blog post truncated Hillary Rodham Clinton's January 7 comments about civil rights. Each of the articles quoted Clinton's statement that "Dr. [Martin Luther] King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964" and that "it took a president to get it done" but omitted Clinton's reference to former President John F. Kennedy. Clinton had also said that passing a civil rights bill was "something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried."
The selectively edited references were all made out to give the impression that Sen. Clinton was insulting all black people by denigrating MLK's contribution to civil rights. In actuality, Sen. Clinton was denigrating Pres. Kennedy ("he was not successful") and Pres. Eisenhower ("he did not even try"), and not MLK. She attempted to clarify her remarks
"Dr. King had been on the front lines. He had been leading a movement," Clinton said. "But Dr. King understood, which is why he made it very clear, that there has to be a coming to terms of our country politically in order to make the changes that would last for generations beyond the iconic, extraordinary speeches that he gave. That's why he campaigned for Lyndon Johnson in 1964. That's why he was there when those great pieces of legislation were passed. Does he deserve the lion's share of the credit for moving our country and moving our political process? Yes, he does. But he also had partners who were in the political system."
But those clarifications were ignored, obviously.
Sen. Obama's campaign profited from this, of course. And Sen. Obama, himself, when asked about it, fueled the outrage thusly:
Asked whether he had taken offense to Clinton's remarks, the Illinois Democrat said he had not been the one to raise the subject.
"Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement," Obama said in a conference call with reporters. "I haven't remarked on it. And she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that. But the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous."
At the time, I was a bystander (my candidate was Sen. Biden, and he had just dropped out after doing poorly in Iowa). But I was amazed over this MLK/LBJ flap ~ it was then that I sorta "knew" (in hindsight, it is easy to identify a moment when you "know" something) that Sen. Clinton was doomed.
Just for fun, let us construct an imaginary dialogue between Steve Kroft and Sen. Obama
KROFT: Were you offended by Sen. Clinton's remarks on MLK/LBJ?
OBAMA: Of course not. I mean, that's--you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Clinton at her word that she was not insulting MLK.
OBAMA: Right. Right.
KROFT: You don't believe that she is insulting MLK, or implying? Right.
OBAMA: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.
KROFT: It's just scurrilous --
OBAMA: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.
Now imagine your reaction to those hypothetical remarks. And you will understand the double standard that Sen. Clinton was subjected to.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Example 3: She called for Sen. Obama's assassination
This was one of the most bizarre instances of the "slay the bitch" mentality displayed by a press pack and commentators acting like a pack of hungry dogs.
As reported by the New York Times,
Speaking to The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, S.D., she added: “You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”
Critics seized on the comments, with some accusing her of suggesting that she was staying in the race because tragedy might strike Mr. Obama.
Others were less charitable ~ they implied (or in some cases, said so directly) that Sen. Clinton was hoping for, or even asking for, an assassination that would let her "win".
In this particular case, Sen. Obama's campaign spokesman appeared to be adding some fuel to the fire by using the word "unfortunate" to describe those remarks. But, to his immense credit, Sen. Obama quickly stepped in himself and expressed sympathy for Sen. Clinton.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
In closing, I should say that I wish Sen. Obama well. He is the Democratic nominee, and I will listen to his case against Sen. McCain and for himself. But, at the same time, I also feel that Sen. Clinton was given a raw deal while we (i.e., the progressive blogs) cheered the process, and that we should acknowledge that. Indeed, I would say to the supporters of Sen. Obama, an honest acknowledgement of the brutal treatment that Sen. Clinton was subjected to would be an important (and necessary) step towards party unity (something like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa)
No comments:
Post a Comment