Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
No more denouncing and rejecting
This seems to be a new infection in political campaigning. Farrakhan, Hagee, Ferraro, Wright, Power, Billy Graham. Each one must be denounced and rejected. To do so demonstrates "presidential timbre", and that the candidate is not going to allow "loyalties" to take precedence over independence of judgment.
But I fear this will go too far, if it hasn't already. For one thing, loyalty itself shows good character. Not to excess, of course, nothing to excess, but still, what does it show when a candidate throws a supporter under a bus for a triviality? For another, look at the flack Obama took when Samantha Power abruptly left his campaign, apparently in response to a demand by the Clinton campaign. He was immediately excoriated for his "weakness".
What does he have to do, denounce and reject his own wife when she goes off message? (For that matter, is Hillary supposed to denounce and reject Bill when he goes off?) What do we want: for Obama never to have any contact with Rev. Jeremiah Wright again? Where does it stop?
This sort of thing didn't seem to happen in previous presidential campaigns; certainly never to this degree.
Some people are saying that Obama needs to deal with this Wright thing, forcefully and soon. The calls for him to deal with this are, of course, self-fulfilling prophecies -- if they don't let up, then he will indeed have to. So it is ironic that they are coming from Obama's supporters.
What I would like to see is for Obama to stand up and say something to the effect of this: I am running for president, not for magician. I do not have the power to make my supporters stop saying things that they want to say, any more than all of you do. I don't agree with everything they say, and if you ask me whether I agree with one of their *statements*, I will tell you that I agree with it, or else I will repudiate it: the statement, not the speaker. I nevertheless appreciate their support -- these people are friends and associates, and in the past, have offered me valuable counsel -- if they hadn't, they wouldn't be friends or associates in the first place. If you want to know my position on an issue, ask me and I will tell you.
Loyalty is a virtue, when did it become a vice? And why are we Obama supporters showing so little of it?
Comments (4)
I agree with alot of what you're saying, but insinuating it's 'disloyal' for an Obama supporter to speak up when they think he's fallen short on something is absurd. Part of being loyal is speaking up if you disagree with something about your candidate's campaign.
March 14, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
See, it's not disloyal to call for Obama to take a forceful stand on something, or to call him on a mistake you think he's made. But to ask him to throw his supporters overboard is something that I think can easily hurt him as much as help him, down the road. It's enough to ask that he forcefully address the statement itself, not dump the speaker. And the longer and shriller the calls go on for him to denounce and reject Wright, the more likely it is that the Clinton campaign (and later the McCain campaign) will pick up the chant -- giving aid and comfort to someone's enemies is disloyalty.
March 14, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is clear that the denouncing and rejecting is a reaction to simple-minded attacks implying guilt-by-association. If you don't explicitly reject them, Drudge, or even Russert, will make them out to be your BFF. Then you'll get swift-boated in the election. Unless you're McCain, of course.
IMO, Obama should have stuck with Power, but the old saying, "the buck stops here" applies. If the putative leader won't take responsibility for what happens during the campaign, what can we expect if and when he/she is elected?
March 14, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but even if you do explicitly reject the speakers, Drudge or Russert will still make them out to be your BFF. And in the process, you will have lost a friend and supporter.
I just see this new campaign game spinning out of control. It's like the way playground cliques get formed -- "I won't be your friend because you're friends with Becky." It's repulsive, and boring, and irrelevant.
March 14, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment