The New Face of the Liberal Nutroots
The left-wing campaign to knock off Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's August 8 Democratic primary has established a couple of new political benchmarks worth noting.
Exclusive, WASP-heavy country clubs, like the one Lieberman's opponent Ned Lamont belonged to in Greenwich, Conn., are okay again, as far as the Lamont-adoring liberal blogosphere is concerned. Of course, they were always okay with those of us on the freedom-loving, live-and-let-live right. But liberals have tended to be more censorious. (Here, for example, is the New York Times editorial page in May 1993, after Webb Hubbell was hounded into leaving the Country Club of Little Rock: "It's time to warn ambitious people thinking of joining exclusionary clubs: no inside agitation will redeem the hateful public symbolism of such memberships.")
Lamont himself was apparently unaware of the new dispensation and only belatedly dropped his membership in Round Hill Country Club, explaining to the Times in mid-July that the club is "not as diverse as it should be. I didn't pay as much attention to that before the [Senate] race began, to tell you the truth."
The Lieberman campaign correctly sensed a guilty conscience in their opponent, and a possible opening to Connecticut's black voters. They produced a flyer showing a photo of Bill Clinton campaigning with their man in Waterbury, Conn., touting Lieberman's record as a civil-rights activist in the 1960s, and asking, "What is Ned Lamont's Civil Rights Record?" They reprinted in that context Lamont's admission to the Times that he hadn't previously paid much attention to his "not as diverse as it should be" club.
Any conservative can attest that this is Campaigning 101, as practiced by American liberals for more than a generation. But the left-wing bloggers who invented the Lamont campaign were aghast. This was "shameless race baiting," one wrote. "Democrats should NEVER stoop to this level." How to hit back? Jane Hamsher--a Hollywood producer and blogger who has filmed campaign ads for Lamont and spearheaded the fundraising campaign for him among the left-wing nutroots--decided it was time to break the longstanding taboo on blackface. Hamsher illustrated one of her reports on the website of fellow Hollywood political macher Arianna Huffington with the Photo shopped image of Clinton and Lieberman shown here.
Arianna, always a trendsetter, was fine with that. "It was a satirical point she made in the picture," Arianna told the Washington Post's Dan Balz, "and there was nothing in the text that was racist, and there is nothing about Jane that is racist." Glad that's cleared up. But the satire was lost on the Lamont campaign, which asked Ham sher to remove the illustration. She did. And she issued one of those formulaic, unrepentant apologies "to anyone who was offended."
Count THE SCRAPBOOK among those more bemused than offended--we're big fans of satire, too, Arianna. That's probably why we were laughing so hard at the comments of the anonymous creator of the blackface graphic, who goes by the name "darkblack." Here's his explanation to the HuffPost crowd of the creative muse that whispered in his ear:
As the composer of the work in question, allow me to make some broader points clearer. . . . Lieberman has attempted to activate a voting demographic that his strategists believe will aid him in his quest. To this end, he has imported a figure, Bill Clinton, who has standing with the American black community, and has repeatedly asserted his personal credentials as one who has worked on behalf of that community.
Yet Lieberman has engaged in race baiting (with the Lamont flyer) as a cynical attempt to game this demographic, and he has engaged in other activities which cast doubtful shadows upon this allegiance.
Thus, in my opinion, Lieberman is pretending to be something that he is not for personal gain, exactly like the vile caucasian minstrel show performers of Vaudeville. And so my artist's impression stands. . . . As for those who would heap ad hominem at the expense of reasoned debate on the greater issues . . . I care not what you think, and you are free to ignore my work as you wish.
Yep--that's some mighty fine "satire," not to mention "reasoned debate." Just the sort we've come to expect from the nutroots.
Whouley Moses
Last week, Washington Post reporter Jim VandeHei wrote a story headlined "Democrats Scrambling to Organize Voter Turnout." Read it, and you learn that the AFL-CIO plans to spend $40 million to turn out Democratic voters this fall; that Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel are no longer on speaking terms; and that Emanuel has hired Michael Whouley to supervise House Democrats' turnout efforts.
Among Democrats, Whouley (pronounced Hoo-ley), a longtime Democratic consultant based in Boston, has an outsized reputation. He has been called "magical," the "best in the biz," "the hottest name in Democratic field politics," and the "Vince Lombardi of politics," among other things. In short: The man is a legend.
And yet, as U.S. News's Roger Simon once noted, "just what it is that Whouley does that is so magical is not easy to explain." Consultants burnish their reputations by working on winning campaigns. Whouley, though, seems to specialize in defeating other Democrats. An expert in the intricacies of Iowa's caucus system, Whouley won the caucuses for Gore in 2000 and again for Kerry in 2004. But when it comes time to move on to the general election, Whouley's candidates, with the exception of Bill Clinton (who, incidentally, lost the 1992 Iowa caucuses), have this unfortunate habit of, well, losing. Vince Lombardi is spinning in his grave.
Classic Headline from 'The Onion'
"Critics Accuse Joe Biden of Running for President for Political Reasons"