I've approvingly quoted Andrew Sullivan plenty of times, so I'll go ahead and say I DISagree with this take:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:The Clinton campaign's decision not to reject or denounce Geraldine Ferraro's racial gaffe strikes me as a conscious and deliberate one. The Obama campaign saw Samantha Power resign for a less offensive remark. But Ferraro is now on the networks and airwaves amping up the volume, and Clinton, in classic passive-aggressive mode, is merely "disagreeing." Isn't this obviously about Pennsylvania? Isn't this classic Rove-Morris politics - to keep designating Obama a beneficiary of affirmative action and Clinton a victimized white woman in order to racially polarize a primary where Clinton needs white ethnic votes?
Ferraro's original gaffe was an accident. The compounding of it is a strategy.
I don't think so. I think it's all Geraldine Ferraro. I think the initial comments were made when things were looking very bad indeed for Hillary, and were made out of frustration (similar to Powers' comments right after March 4th -- Ferraro's comments were first, chronologically, but were published after Powers' comments). Then it's become the whole "you can't shut me up" thing. She's taking it as a personal affront.
I think Hillary isn't happy that Ferraro is doing this, but that Hillary is also loathe to issue a stronger condemnation, for a few reasons, including the fact that Ferraro is a friend, and that it means she'd have to cede moral high ground (if only in her own mind) so soon after the Power incident. But I think Hillary is compounding the problems by refusing to distance herself from them more thoroughly. I think it will end up being closer to the BET situation -- a mild response, growing outrage, and then eventually an apology.
This also goes back to what I was talking to FreeDuck about (sorry for making references to other threads, can find it back on request) in terms of how much Hillary is creating situations rather than just reacting to them. Sullivan is ascribing too much strategy to the Clintons, I think, and while he means it to be an insult, it actually feeds into the idea that they're geniuses, if evil geniuses. And people actually like the idea of having someone who is capable of being an evil genius in power, if only so they can out-genius other evil geniuses out there. I just don't think the Hillary campaign has shown many signs of genius. And I really don't think that this episode is strategy.