"Honestly, It Shouldn't Matter

A while ago, I wrote about Campbell Brown's reaction to the McCain campaign sequestering Sarah Palin. I liked her, but now I like her even more with her latest "Cutting Through The Bull"; I like how she brings up that being a Muslim or being Arab is not a disqualifier for higher office. I like her point about how using Muslim or Arab as slurs against Obama, who is neither Muslim nor Arab, maligns the 1.2 million actual Arab-Americans and 7 million actual Muslim-Americans we have in this country. Brown is correct in stating that it hurts these American citizens to consistently have their ethnicity or religious affiliation be utilized as shorthand for "dangerous" and "unAmerican". And I agree with her that newscasters and news organizations should not be complacent in accepting that ignorance unchallenged.

At the same time, I wonder if the campaign trail is the appropriate place to counter such an argument, on either side. Campaign trails are good for many things; but I do worry about either Barack Obama or John McCain deciding to take on this particular issue head on. I agree that creating the dichotomy, however inadvertantly, of "Arab" versus "decent family man" is not of the good. But McCain runs the risk of looking like he is trying to foster more questions about Obama (a rational concern, since he has tried to create questions about who Obama is) if he attempts to create a larger discussion about our prejudices as a society against Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans. "He's not, but so what if he was" could be taken as "He says he's not, but you and I know the truth". Obama runs the same risk. He should rightfully challenge untrue statements about his ethnicity and his religion. He is African-American. He is a Christian. He has a right for both of those aspects of his personality to be respected as truth. At the same time, creating that larger argument about Muslims and Arabs could easily backfire and be seen as a complicit admittance. This sort of thing has been used by school yard bullies for decades. I believe both candidates need to step up to the plate and defend Americans from being turned into a slur, but neither one of them should use Obama, a man whose background is already (irrationally) questioned, as an example of "but so what?" The argument needs to be shifted away from Barack Obama. The answer could go, "No, ma'am. Barack Obama is not Arab-American, but African-American. He is also a decent family man, citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues". It changes the response enough to eliminate the dichotomy of Arab or good citizen. It changes enough to both respond to what Obama actually is, and further explains what the issues of the campaign are. What both candidates should do, what they should feel obliged to do, is to confront the idea of Arab and Muslim Americans not being 'real' Americans without benefit of having it linked to Obama and without the question being raised at their rallies.

These two men should further the ideals of our society that all men are created equal, and that religious views and ethnicity should not automatically create suspicion. But they should do so independent of questions about Obama, because it is very easy in this world of soundbites to sound as if one is either admitting to being an Arab or a Muslim, or that one is disingenuous in that line of defense and is in actuality attempting to create more questions than provide answers. In the context of a political campaign, it is remarkably simple to have what should be stating the obvious, as Brown puts it, turn into an out and out controversy. Both campaigns, if they are smart (and I think at least one of the campaigns is smart; the other, not so much), would do well to limit the amount of false controversy they create at the moment. With 21 days before the election, both have a lot to lose in regard to this issue.

Sexism and the McCain Campaign

I have a new crush-worthy individual, and that is Campbell Brown. I enjoyed her dressing down of Tucker Bounds (and why is it that the name "Tucker" is a conservative name?) after Sarah Palin was picked as the vice-presidential nominee:

and I fully enjoy her newest rant about the sexism McCain's campaign is demonstrating in not allowing Sarah Palin any access to the press:

I love her exhorting the McCain campaign to "end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. Allow her to show her stuff. Allow her to face down those pesky reporters, just like Barack Obama did today, just like John McCain did today, just like Joe Biden has done on numerous occasions"  (though a friend of mine will note that Biden is especially prone to inserting his foot fully in his mouth on many of those occasions).

That same friend brought up an interesting rationalization for the change in format for the vice-presidential debates, namely that "the reason they've agreed to all of this is because they're afraid Palin will play the gender card and insist that Biden was 'bullying' her throughout the debate". He further pointed out that this kind of gender card was used and used effectively by Hillary Clinton in 2000 against Rick Lazio when her supporters felt that Lazio was "pushy and disrespectful during the debate in Buffalo - bullying her in a way he would not have bullied a male opponent". I fully believe that was the Democratic reasoning behind the debate format change, but I think the fear of the "gender card" is misplaced in this instance. The Republican campaign has already done most of the work for the Democrats by inferring that Sarah Palin is so delicate and inexperienced and fragile that she cannot face reporters until they show her the proper deference. It has gotten to the point where Fox News is irate with the Republicans' handling of the Sarah Palin situation in the media, and that is what I would term the turning point of the whole mess. It may not last until November; but if the McCain campaign does not exhibit confidence in their vice-presidential nominee, it becomes all the more difficult for them to mount a truly moving defense of Palin if Biden does come off as stronger and more capable -or even belittling (something I myself am somewhat nervous about). And not that MSNBC or The Countdown are impartial sources of information, but I think this, along with Campbell Brown's assessment, is right:

And then there is the fact that the Republicans have become the lead in the story "The Campaign Who Cried Sexism". They have invoked sexism in attempts to delegitimize the strangest things, like the SNL sketch featuring Tina Fey. At some point, and I think that point has come, the cry of sexism will lose its power for the Republicans; which is great for the Obama campaign and not so great for the rest of us who fight for sexism and its pervasiveness to be recognized in the mainstream. The McCain camp had some goodwill left over from the days when McCain was a true maverick who was the press's darling because he would answer questions other candidates wouldn't and was surprisingly candid. But I think they have used up most - if not all - of those fond memories in this current campaign cycle. Finally, the press seems to have been awoken from their usual stupor; and if the press begins to start charging that the McCain camp's efforts to shield Palin from the rigors of the election campaign is insulting to voters in general and women voters specifically, any other charges the McCain campaign makes about Obama's campaign being sexist may be met with jeers and incredulity unless Biden commits a serious infraction.