(this was a comment posted on KO's 2nd Special Comment thread)
I guess that I have to disagree with Keith Olbermann, somebody with whom I agree on many subjects--economic policy, constitutional rights, war and peace, and fairness and equality of opportunity.
I think that Olbermann's missing a few very important points in the midst of his outrage...
There seems to be a pattern on the part of Obama partisans and his campaign to exploit the sensitivities of their AA supporters for political gain. Jesse Jackson Jr's perverse and inexplicable "African Americans in South Carolina will wonder why she has no tears for the victims of Katrina" comes to mind. Olbermann goes to decent lengths to support his contention that the Clinton campaign has been dirty enough to try to emphasize Obama's race in order to alienate low-information white and hispanic voters presumably casting ballots on the basis of "who's more like them".
It doesn't seem to even occur to Olbermann that elements of the Obama campaign could be dirty enough to falsely accuse the Clintons of playing dirty in order to get a predictable response from the Beltway press stars (who eat this stuff up) in a short-term gain gamble that Obama will come out ahead of the Clintons (whose relationship with the press corps is contentious). It doesn't seem to cross his mind that there are political consultants willing to gin up outrage on behalf of their candidate who might find employment at a political organization as wealthy as Obama's. It doesn't cross his mind that there might be a predictable response from liberals at the mention of even the possibility of "racially motivated attacks" to be used largely at will. It doesn't seem to occur to him that in the weeks before the primary in which Obama's support from the African-American community was crucial--and unproven--some desperate political operatives might be audacious enough to try a tactic there to gain support in the state where Bill Clinton came to talk to Black people: the tactic being to accuse the former president of racism, and then let the African-American community choose relatively predictable sides.
Either these possibilities don't cross Keith Olbermann's politically savvy mind, or he's convinced that there is no basis in fact for these suspicions to be found anywhere, or (most likely) there's something more important than these obvious possibilities taking up room usually reserved for skepticism about a political campaign's professed innocent lamb status.
If you've listened to audio files of these conference calls with Penn/Wolfson or Axelrod/Plougge, the most apparent and obvious conclusion that first crosses one's mind is that these people are bullsh*tting--endlessly. That there is nothing that these people won't absurdly twist in to a positive for their candidate, and a negative for their opponent. It is an exercise in pure spin. The idea that Hillary Clinton is arrogant--pushed again and again, no matter what the topic. The idea that Hillary Clinton is unelectable--pushed again and again, the subject of the question could be NASA. The idea that Hillary Clinton is a nasty, dirty robot who will do or say anything to satisfy her lust for power--the message is the same, no matter what the discussion.
This goes on until reporters start signaling that they've collectively reached the end of their boredom and frustration with these angles, and then fresh material is delivered. These reporters don't really question whether the messages are unfair--they expect dirty pool--they only debate the plausibility of the message with the messengers.
One reporter asks the Clinton campaign "Will losing those twelve primaries derail your campaign for good, like the Obama campaign is claiming?", and the Clinton campaign responds "these contests don't matter to us--we're concerned with big states where all the delegates are to be had". Another reporter asks the question of the Obama campaign "the Clinton campaign is dismissing your claims, saying, in essence, that these contests don't matter", and the Obama campaign responds with "well, if she wants to insult the entire populations of twelve states by saying that those voters' votes don't count in her mind, she can go right ahead". Then the diaries come pouring out on DailyKos: "Hillary Clinton disenfranchises entire states", "Hillary Clinton hates people who don't vote for her", "Hillary Clinton to America: you don't matter". Then the real dirty ones come out: "Hillary Clinton: some votes matter than others", "Hillary Clinton: my voters are better than Barack Obama's", and then the predictable "Hillary Clinton: Black voters don't matter to me and Bill".
Keith Olbermann must, in his professional capacity, be highly aware of this dynamic, and yet he doesn't seem to want to admit how race-baiting can rise from the this muck to form raging monsters of accusations and counter-accusations, especially in this post-swiftboat shock-and-awe campaign climate. My guess is that he's decided to choose sides.
I don't mean partisan sides, as in he's picked Barack Obama to support publicly. I mean that he's decided that he disapproves of Clinton's campaign enough (on many--some--legitimate grounds) to deny them the benefit of the doubt--and to bestow the benefit of the doubt on Obama's. David Axelrod makes the claim:
Obama adviser David Axelrod suggested that Clinton surrogates were intentionally bringing up the issue of race. "All this is part of an insidious pattern that needs to be addressed," said Axelrod.
and Olbermann says to himself "Racism is bad and it needs to be condemned. Since I know that the campaigns are dirty bastards, that means that the Clinton campaign is probably doing something bad on this front. Enough African-Americans like Gene Robinson and enough liberals like E.J. Dionne and enough high-level reporters like Andrea Mitchell are comfortable saying that the Obama campaign is probably correct about this generally, so I'm going with the idea that the Clintons tolerate and maybe encourage racist tendencies in voters--which must be condemned so that I can unleash the same condemnations when Republicans are accused later. If I don't do it now with Gerri Ferarro, what can I say when it comes from Trent Lott?".
What I don't want to suggest here is that the Clinton campaign is somehow the innocent victim in all of this. I've listened to their people on these calls, and the things that come out of their mouths, especially these days, are ridiculous ("Commander-in-Chief test"?). I don't doubt that these are some dirty, rotten motherf--kers who would falsely accuse the Obama camp of falsely accusing them of playing the race card. I am thoroughly able to imagine that some in the Clinton camp may have done so--may have said "Barack Obama is a Black man, and that won't get him elected in America", and "Look! Look! He's Black, everybody!" I am of the hesitant opinion that the Obama camp started this, however, and that at some point, the Clinton camp said to themselves "Well, if they're going to accuse the former president of racism, and the press turns around and declares 'South Carolina's African Americans agree that Bill Clinton was way out of line', we may as well do what they're accusing us of!"
My chicken and egg theories are confused on this, to be quite honest, as to whether they genuinely believe that race is being used against them--and so they must retaliate in just as dirty a strike, or whether they started it when they found a press corps drooling to make this an issue, and exploited the HRC campaign's weaknesses in this way.
It's probably both of these campaigns' faults.
...and I think that we're in Israeli v. Palestinian territory here, with neither side being able to negotiate peace in good faith.
What I think that is being forgotten by Keith Olbermann and some others in this episode is that accusations are being made in a partisan context. I also think that something even more fundamental is being discarded, and it is very troubling to me. That is the idea that someone (who's largely been on the right side of most issues) can make a statement that some or even most people think is awful, but really should be judged on the entirety of their records, and not the most recent words touching the subject of race that have exited their mouths. It's why Ferarro's credibility for me personally was diminished due to her nearly identical remarks during the 1980's--I don't understand why this is a talking point for her, and what it accomplishes. But people's entire records are to form the basis of our accusations. That's fair and right. This whole throwing under the bus at the drop of a hat thing is very disappointing. This isn't to say that there isn't a pattern of remarks here, but that the sum of a person's worth isn't in their remarks, but what they've accomplished that's good for the country. Here's a bit of what Ferarro has accomplished:
Diplomatic mission in Nicaragua
Congresswoman Ferraro took a trip to Nicaragua and El Salvador in January 1984, when she had time to speak to the contras, and blamed the situation in Central America on the policies of the Reagan Administration. Said Rep. Ferraro at the Vice Presidential Debate, "We're not moving toward a more secure area of the world. As a matter of fact the number of troops that the Sandinistas have accumulated since the administration started its covert activities has risen from 12,000 to 50,000, and of course the number of Soviet and Cuban advisors has also increased. I did not support the mining of the harbors in Nicaragua; it is a violation of international law. Congress did not support it and as a matter of fact, just this week, the Congress voted in cut off covert aid to Nicaragua unless and until a request is made and there is evidence of need for it, and the Congress approves it again in March. So if Congress doesn't get laid on, the covert activities which I opposed in Nicaragua, those CIA covert activities in that specific country, are not supported by the Congress. And believe it or not, not supported by the majority of people throughout the country."[5]
At a time in which we were moving towards a potential "Cuban missile crisis" (with Ronald Reagan in office--not JFK), this was significant. It was also done at a time in which the country was in the midst of the "Reagan Revolution", and carried significant political consequences. She went up against the same bullsh*t conventional wisdom that got us into Iraq--against some of the same people who actually got us into Iraq--at a time in the nation's history that could be said to resemble the post-9/11 period in slow-motion. These facts can not be tossed into the garbage can because of a "pattern of remarks" that some people consider over the line of decency with respect to one issue. When Geraldine Ferarro says "How dare they accuse me of racism now, when it's convenient for a campaign, after all I've done to help my fellow Democrats, after all I've done to try to end discrimination, after my record on affirmative action--how dare they!", she has a point. If she and Bill Clinton can be tarred with the brush of these accusations, then who is safe? Who can't be sent to the guillotine? Who will go first to the block--those who don't swiftly and forcefully condemn the accused to the satisfaction of the accusers? It sounds like a process that we will view with shame at a later date, to me--like the AUMF vote, actually.
There are also other things that disturb me about how these condemnations are flowing--things that have to do with the apparent primacy of "sending a message that racism is wrong" over individual merits and circumstances.
I guess that I also have an issue with being sanctimoniously told what to think and what I'm allowed to say about any subject by people absolutely convinced of their own superior moral authority--an issue common to many Americans, I believe.
I would like to believe that Keith Olbermann has somewhere in his mind that same American problem from which some of us still suffer, and will go back to that core individualist skepticism when his outrage subsides.
Thank you for reading this...