McCain: The "Warmonger"
Last Friday, at an event in North Dakota, Ed Schultz, a radio talk show host, fired up an Obama-supporting crowd as he shared his thoughts on why Obama is the top contender. His comments included a criticism of Arizona senator, John McCain, and his support of the Iraq war, calling him a “warmonger.” Later on, when it was Obama’s turn to talk, nothing was mentioned of Schultz’s “warmonger” comment. This brought immediate criticism from John McCain, as he believes that Obama should have denounced these comments. According to CNN, McCain said, “I hope that in keeping with the spirit of Sen. Obama, that they condemn, that Sen. Obama will condemn such language since it was a part of his campaign” (CNN).
Yet, let it be noted that A) Obama was not even in the room at the time, did not hear what Schultz said, and therefore was not aware of the controversial statement and B) Ed Schultz is “not an official supporter of the campaign and was asked to speak by theNorth Dakota Democratic Party, not the Obama campaign” (CNN).
The Obama campaign did eventually denounce Schultz’ statement as Jen Psaki, an Obama campaign spokeswoman, said that, “John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such. He’s a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been authorized and never been waged” (CNN). But was this denouncement necessary? Do politicians really have to apologize for every controversial comment made by every person? Even if the comment made was said by an individual who is not a part of the campaign staff? Where do we draw the line?
We’ve seen them be dismissed one by one, Geraldine Ferrara, a speaker for Hillary Clinton, Bill Cunningham, a speaker for McCain. All have been shunned by their respective campaigns because they dared to speak their mind and say something that wasn’t quite “p.c.” Take a look at a USA Today cartoon by Stantis. The cartoonist implies that if the current campaigns continue to denounce speakers for every little comment they make, soon the candidate’s themselves will be denounced and kicked out by their own campaign.
I appreciate the candidates’ efforts to keep things civil and limit how far their supporters can go in criticizing their opponents. But do we really expect the candidate to be responsible for every word that comes out of every potential supporter’s mouth? Hypothetically, let’s say I am a Clinton supporter and have decided to write in the Observer and comment that I don’t like McCain because he’s old and bald. Will it be Clinton’s fault if she doesn’t immediately denounce my comments? No, because she is not responsible for what some writer said in some school paper.
So why is Obama responsible for Schultz’s comments? Or McCain for Cunningham’s? If the candidates are expected to spend their time apologizing for what everyone else has said, when will we actually get to hear what they have to say?
Yet, let it be noted that A) Obama was not even in the room at the time, did not hear what Schultz said, and therefore was not aware of the controversial statement and B) Ed Schultz is “not an official supporter of the campaign and was asked to speak by theNorth Dakota Democratic Party, not the Obama campaign” (CNN).
The Obama campaign did eventually denounce Schultz’ statement as Jen Psaki, an Obama campaign spokeswoman, said that, “John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such. He’s a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been authorized and never been waged” (CNN). But was this denouncement necessary? Do politicians really have to apologize for every controversial comment made by every person? Even if the comment made was said by an individual who is not a part of the campaign staff? Where do we draw the line?
We’ve seen them be dismissed one by one, Geraldine Ferrara, a speaker for Hillary Clinton, Bill Cunningham, a speaker for McCain. All have been shunned by their respective campaigns because they dared to speak their mind and say something that wasn’t quite “p.c.” Take a look at a USA Today cartoon by Stantis. The cartoonist implies that if the current campaigns continue to denounce speakers for every little comment they make, soon the candidate’s themselves will be denounced and kicked out by their own campaign.
I appreciate the candidates’ efforts to keep things civil and limit how far their supporters can go in criticizing their opponents. But do we really expect the candidate to be responsible for every word that comes out of every potential supporter’s mouth? Hypothetically, let’s say I am a Clinton supporter and have decided to write in the Observer and comment that I don’t like McCain because he’s old and bald. Will it be Clinton’s fault if she doesn’t immediately denounce my comments? No, because she is not responsible for what some writer said in some school paper.
So why is Obama responsible for Schultz’s comments? Or McCain for Cunningham’s? If the candidates are expected to spend their time apologizing for what everyone else has said, when will we actually get to hear what they have to say?
posted by Maureen Burke | 11:44 AM
8 Comments:
Although I think they are apologizing a little much for what seem like petty comments, I think it is their way of keeping one political race civil. Also, I think it is a ploy to make each individual appear in a better light. The one time Obama didn't correct the mistake, the media analysts would have a field day, (as they did) and Obama would be seen as the only candidate who approved of such behavior. I think correcting these mistakes, is a new turn politics are taking--perhaps this will encourage the public to be interested once again. Good post.
This is definitely something that I have been thinking about lately. I don't think that it is necessary to take responsibility for what other people are saying. If anything, I think that it is beneficial when a candidate simply says that whatever is said by others are the opinions of those people. People who are not in the spotlight don't take the blame for other peoples' comments, why should political candidates?
This was a great post. I liked a few of the points that you made. Even Emily's comment seemed really interested in me, especially since I feel that Obama feels no need to correct his mistakes.
Maureen, I completely agree. A surrogate/endorser is not the candidate! These people all have different staff and speech writers and although I think it is most advisable if the candidate's official press/communication person looks over what others are to say, you can't control them. Hopefully the media and public understand that the statements of one person are not the thoughts and statements of another. I do not think each candidates' campaign is going to implode, but as long as they have surrogates, there are going to be these statements.
Apologies seem to be running fluently throughout the race. The fact that correction of mistakes is so influential in the media makes me wonder if the media is out to protect the candidates, or to just simply make them all seem weak in some way. It's almost protecting the public in a new take. Loved the post!
First off, I love Ed Schultz. He served his country bravely in Vietnam, and is a crusader for veteran's rights, the 2nd Amendment, in addition to being a talk show host on Air America Radio. He is known to be blunt and speak his mind. While I definitely think it wasn't the best choice on his part to make that statement before Obama spoke, he wasn't being a surrogate for Obama- He was a surrogate for the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party of North Dakota should have known what they were getting into by picking Schultz as an opening speaker. The people loved it, and that's who matters- the voters. So who cares? It's politics, baby, and you just have to deal with it.
I agree that they shoudlnt h ave to apologize for everyone or everything taht they say. yes it may keep the situations civil, but I would like to hear what they actually think instead of a sugar coating.
First off, this was a great post with many valid points. You are correct in noting that gaffes affecting candidates are not limited to those gaffes committed by the politicians themselves. However erroneous the comments made by a speaker on behalf of a candidate or party, we must begin to draw the line somewhere. Politics is as much a game of not apologizing as it is a game of pleasing the people. Accountability is necessary, but first and foremost for one's own actions.
Post a Comment
<< Home