Do you know what word I’m already well and truly sick of hearing being bandied about with respect to the Democrats? “Surrogate.” Hillary’s “surrogate” said this. Obama’s “surrogate” said that. The remarks of the candidate’s “surrogate” or “surrogates” are attributed to the candidate, creating the need for candidates to surround themselves with supporters who are at all times completely reasonable, articulate, discreet, and in control of their emotions. Yeah: good luck with that.
The “surrogate” notion seems to extend not only to employees and designated official campaign mouthpieces (e.g., Bill Clinton), but also to close friends, supporters, well-wishers—persons over whom the candidates doubtless have at best only slight control. Now we have bickering not only between the campaigns but also between the candidates’ so-called “surrogates.”
Angela Winters earlier noted, “Their campaigns and supporters, who are the ones who really created this ‘race war,’ won’t shut up. They’ve lost sight of what is best for their candidate and fallen into the ‘just attack the other side’ trap that most campaigns seem to eventually fall into.”
Yes, and the campaigns and the “surrogates” need to shut up NOW, before they ruin it for their candidates, for Democratic voters, and for everyone else. In a race where many people like all three candidates and are having a hard time deciding, a personal attack on another candidate is a two edged sword. Each time “the Obama campaign” has a go at Hillary (or vice-versa), I dislike both Obama and Hillary a little more. Ditto the Edwards campaign.
And though I try very hard to separate statements by the candidates from those of their “surrogates” and supporters, it’s difficult to do because of the way the media insists on merging them with the candidates.
The racism accusations and innuendos are particularly toxic. Is this what the campaigns think ordinary Democrats want: to see one Democrat bash another for racism or for “racial insensitivity”? Wrong, wrong, wrong. Suppose “racially insensitive” Hillary gets the nomination? How do you back away from “Hillary Clinton might be a secret racist!” to “Hillary Clinton for president!”?
All the candidates have track records on civil rights. To select a candidate who will take a strong position on civil rights, all a voter need do is examine the candidates’ records. In other words, their standing on the “comparative racism” scale really ought to matter less than what they’ve done and are prepared to do to protect and further the civil rights of minorities.
But of course it’s much more fun—and much easier—to play “Gotcha!” than it is to delve into facts or to examine the candidates’ platforms, not only for the campaigns and “surrogates,” but also for the press. So I am not optimistic that the destructive, tedious, ugly sniping back and forth is going to stop anytime soon.
Angela Winters again, this time on Mr. Rangel’s recent remarks: “Is it possible that Hillary thinks if she can sic her ‘black supporters’ on Obama, that it protects her against the backlash? It’s more likely she had nothing to do with this, but she really needs to get a handle on those people claiming to support her.”
Yes, she does, doesn’t she? But how? I doubt anyone on the planet, including Hillary Clinton, could stop Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, or Robert L. Johnson from expressing themselves.
And Obama seems to be having equal difficulty stopping his “camp” from trying to wring some sort of meaning adverse to Clinton out of statements that on their face are free of any racist content or intent.
Here’s an idea: the candidates encourage their “campaigns” to give each other the benefit of the doubt on touchy issues of racism and sexism and focus on showing voters why their candidate is going to make a happier world for us than the other two if elected president. In other words, how about some actual political discourse that allows us to thresh out the real issues so we can make a reasoned choice? How’s that for a plan?
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.