The Angry Blogger Rides Again

From the "Who The Fuck Do You Think You Are, Anyways?" file, former Clinton supporter and donor Charles Pluckhahn (no, I don't know either) writes a guest op-ed in today's Seattle Times. Among the highlights:

"When combined with your rejection of Obama's qualifications to be commander in chief, and your husband's disrespect for Obama's effort, I see an ugly undercurrent...

"Woe betide the politician, and especially the Democratic politician, who makes a racist appeal, no matter how artfully they think they've constructed it.

"Sen. Clinton, you still have time to salvage your dignity and your reputation. Geraldine Ferraro's resignation from her fundraising role is a start, but it's only a start. You should fully apologize to Sen. Obama for the stream of insults that has come from your campaign, and then you should step aside. If you do that, then I'll know my money and my time were well spent."

The sheer entitlement amazes me. I respond at length (note how I crib from my own brief portfolio):

Sen. Obama's campaign has shown a dark and ugly undercurrent of its own in the way in which it misrepresents race-neutral and factually accurate statements from the Clinton press shop, surrogate and principal spokespeople, and from Sen. Clinton herself. A few examples:

- Pres. Clinton's characterization of Sen. Obama's stance on the Iraq war as a "fairy tale". Pres. Clinton used the phrase by way of pointing out that while Sen. Obama stood against the impending war in 2002, he shut up about it when he got his Senate seat and refused to take any meaningful leadership to end the war or to prevent it's further funding. He refused to state how he would have voted were he to have been in the Senate at the time the AUMF was passed, and declares his stance on the war to be identical to Pres. Bush's. Further, it's demonstrable that at every turn in the war, he has demonstrated the exact wrong kind of judgment --against it when the surge begins working, neutral or silent when it's going poorly. And then, he turned around and voted for increased funding! As an aside, this is the type of disingenuousness and duplicity that, for some reason, is credited almost solely to Sen. Clinton, who refuses to issue post-hoc justifications for her vote every time the war effort takes a turn. Somehow, this completely accurate (and race-neutral) statement was twisted to mean that Sen. Obama's candidacy (the unstated portion of that sentence being "...as a black man") is a fairy tale.

- When Bill Shaheen said that the Republicans would make an issue of of Sen. Obama's admitted used of cocaine, he got thrown off the campaign and stripped of his unpaid, ceremonial duties. Mark Penn brought it up again (or, rather, was forced to bring it up) in an interview and was roundly attacked for using Sen. Obama's name and the word "cocaine" in the same sentence. Flash forward--Erick Erickson, who writes for redstate.com, refers to Sen. Obama as a "'self-admitted former cokehead'."

It's only going to get worse from here.

Yes, Ms. Ferraro's comments were ill-advised. But were they untrue? Can we dispute that the elephant in the room that is Sen. Obama's ethnic heritage has benefited him immensely in that the issue is untouchable to almost everybody, and that those who dare to bring it up--especially if they're affiliated with Sen. Clinton's campaign--suffer for it? Mr. Pluckhahn calls for measures beyond Ms. Ferraro's resignation. I'm curious as to what he had in mind, beyond public humiliation.

And while we're holding candidates to strict account for every stupid word uttered by a supporter, let's call for the heads of Jeremiah Wright, Samantha Powers, Austan Goolsbee, Louis Farrakhan (in a big way), and Michele Obama herself, who apparently couldn't allow herself to feel a single twinge of pride in her country until her husband's star began to rise.

The audacity of hope!

Briefly (ha, ha), I also want to address Mr. Pluckhahn's calls for Hillary to step aside. Without going too deeply into it, and with most things being mostly equal, why is it incumbent upon Sen. Clinton to abandon the race? Her supporters are no less dedicated, no less passionate, and, arguably, represent a more sizable and dedicated portion of the Democratic party's base. And let's not forget that Michigan and Florida will be in play some how, soon, and that they're unlikely to abandon their support in terms of popular vote or delegate count. Frankly, I find it insulting that Mr. Pluckhahn presumes that the millions of Democrats who've cast their support behind Sen. Clinton would take that in stride. Even the phrase you use, "...deny him the nomination", smacks of the kind of entitlement that, until recently, was falsely attributed to Sen. Clinton and her supporters.

Also, Mr. Pluckhahn, what makes you think that Pennsylvania is in the bag for Obama?

It's clear to me, as a voter, that it is not Sen. Clinton's campaign that is playing the race card. The amount of distortion coming from the Obama press shop whenever a Clinton supporter dares to speak publicly is astounding and disturbing. It indicates that Sen. Obama is not practicing a new kind of politics, and that he's not above using the issue of race as a wedge to differentiate himself from Sen. Clinton. That, I feel, is the ultimate betrayal of the Obama candidacy--that it sell hope and change to its supporters while wallowing happily in the muck that lies just below. I'd like to remind Mr. Pluckhahn that identity politics is a two-way street, and because one side practices it better than the other is no reason to abandon the candidate who, until just recently, you were convinced would make the better President. The only thing more disappointing than Barack Obama's empty promises is the ease and comfort with which people flock to them.

No catharsis. I'm still the angry blogger.