Stuck in the Mud

Certainly a rough week for Senator Obama.

It matters not that former Congresswoman Ferraro’s racially insensitive comments—and her subsequent reiterations—were universally repudiated. Nor is it significant that that Obama handled the controversy with true statesmanship, refusing to brand Ms. Ferraro a racist but instead simply illustrating the inaccuracy of her viewpoint.

Irrelevant is Obama’s denunciation of his former pastor’s extreme and startling remarks, and the remarkable character he displayed by simultaneously refusing to repudiate the man who had brought him to God. It is not important that his immediate response to each unfortunate comment by a supporter offers a stark contrast to Senator Clinton’s actions in similar situations.

At the end of this week, what truly counts is that all of us are talking about garbage—about race, and racism, and “reverse racism” (itself a racist term). About gender and religious identity. About frightening middle names and sociological dividing lines. About anything and everything unrelated to the issues at hand and the future of the nation.

We are now in the mud—and everyone knows which of the two Democrats stands to benefit. But Senator Clinton does not realize the true harm she is doing: While dragging the race into the muck may be her only shot at the nomination, it simply makes John McCain’s eventual election more likely, no matter whom he faces.

The Slimy Road Ahead

The bad news for the Democratic Party (and for America) this morning is not which candidate had a good night, but rather the manner in which the victory was achieved. Hillary Clinton managed to pick up the few vital percentage points she needed in Texas and Ohio by pushing the race in a more negative direction than it had previously gone--subtly playing on racial and religious predjudices, and not-so-subtly fear-mongering in a way that would make Dick Cheney proud.

Clinton knows that negative innuendo and attack advertisments represent her only chance at securing the nomination. If voters walk into polling stations proud, hopeful, and optimistic, she loses. If they arrive cynical, fearful, and confused, she does well--but at what cost?

The decision Clinton faces is whether winning is worth poisoning the process and silencing the better angels of our nature. She has obviously made her decision. Get ready for two very ugly months.

Better at This

Comedians and rival politicians have made much of Barack Obama’s supposed preferential treatment at the hands of the national media. Op/ed pieces have even cited statistics showing the ratio of positive to negative coverage of Senator Obama to be significantly higher than the ratio for other candidates—especially Hillary Clinton.

While Obama certainly has benefited on occasion from glowing media treatment, the claims of bias make a false implication–specifically, that each candidate for public office should receive the same amount of positive and negative coverage as another. This argument relies on the assumption that all politicians are equal in their honesty, experience, consistency, and statesmanship. It assumes that all candidates are equally well-behaved on the campaign trail, and that all of them are hiding the exact same number of skeletons in their closets.

But this is not true. These candidates are unique individuals, with distinctive personal stories, who behave very differently with the public and the media. Simply put—some candidates run more positive campaigns than others. Some are more candid and magnanimous. Some statesmen (or women) perform better on a national stage.

The media have no responsibility to cover rival politicians in equally favorable or unfavorable fashions. They simply owe it to us to report the truth—what the candidates have said, whether or not it is true, what they have done, and what they plan to do. It’s not their fault if some people are simply better at this than others.