Senator Clinton fired the Iowa staffers. Good. Senator Clinton had Billy Shaheen resign, and personally apologized to Senator Obama. Good. Senator Clinton sent Bob Kerrey packing, and Kerrey apologized to Senator Obama. Good. Andrew Cuomo does not hold any official position within the Clinton campaign. She is no more responsible for his behavior than any of the other candidates are for any of their supporters.
Senator Obama used Donnie McClurkin to raise money for his campaign. McClurkin behaved reprehensibly at the Obama event. Senator Obama has neither condemned McClurkin nor apologized for causing so much pain in the gay community. And I want to emphasize something very important: I do not believe Senator Obama is a homophobic bigot. Unlike some Clinton critics, who inflate everything said or done by one of her surrogates into evidence of racism or race-baiting, I prefer to stick to the facts. The fact is that Senator Obama has been very good on LGBT issues. The fact also is that he used a homophobic bigot to further his presidential aspirations.
A couple days ago, Senator Obama's campaign co-chair, Jesse Jackson, Jr., said this:
TPM Election Central provided these choice excerpts from the transcript:
...there were tears that melted the Granite State. And those are tears that Mrs. Clinton cried on that day, clearly moved voters. She somehow connected with those voters.
But those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama.
And:
We saw something very clever in the last week of this campaign coming out of Iowa, going into New Hampshire, we saw a sensitivity factor. Something that Mrs. Clinton has not been able to do with voters that she tried in New Hampshire.
Not in response to voters -- not in response to Katrina, not in response to other issues that have devastated the American people, the war in Iraq, we saw tears in response to her appearance. So her appearance brought her to tears, but not hurricane Katrina.
That Jackson is questioning Senator Clinton's tears, and suggesting they need be "analyzed" is despicable enough, but the Katrina reference is where we really have to ask what he's trying to do. Why Katrina? Of all the just causes for tears in the world, why Katrina? If anything, you'd think he'd want to emphasize Iraq, over and over, since Senator Obama's opposition to the war, when he wasn't in the position of having to actually vote on it, seems to be one of the key reasons we are supposed to support him; and never mind that since he has been in the position of actually having to vote on Iraq, he and Senator Clinton have nearly identical voting records. But why Katrina? What's Jackson's point?
Of course, Senator Clinton's actual record on Katrina bears noting. She did, in fact, not long after the disaster, introduce legislation to establish an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate what went wrong with all levels of government response to Katrina. The Republicans killed it.
Last May, the Bayou Buzz wrote:
Hillary Clinton, heading the Democratic polls has made a campaign stop in the city of New Orleans flooded by the waters caused by broken levees during Katrina. During her visit which included a fundraiser, she made very specific proposals for the city and for the Gulf Coast-- some which might work if she were elected president and some which should be implemented by Congress before the primary vote.
More importantly, Clinton by the sheer magnitude of her presence has helped put New Orleans into the national debate where it should be.
And, last August, she introduced a comprehensive Gulf Coast recovery plan.
So, Senator Clinton clearly has made efforts on behalf of the victims of Katrina and the Bush Administration. So, what, exactly, was Jackson's point? And what will Senator Obama do about it?
If you want to criticize Senator Clinton's surrogates, do so. But she has dealt with each situation appropriately. To add contexts or insinuations to each situation is simply intellectually dishonest, and sometimes deliberately inflammatory. Senator Obama's surrogates have received some criticism, but he has done nothing about them. It would be wrong to suggest Senator Obama shares his surrogates' views, or is responsible for their expressing those views, but it is also wrong to excuse Senator Obama's lack of leadership in at least reprimanding them, and apologizing for the pain they caused. The supporters of Senator Obama who so consistently inflame every possible tension associated with Senator Clinton need to come to terms with their own candidate's glaring imperfections. Either there are equal standards or there are not.