Betrayal is perhaps the best word to describe it, overall. A woman they respected, even admired, was suddenly engaged in race-baiting, not once but repeatedly and apologetically. Our friend who supports Senator Clinton was, understandably, the most hurt by it all: not only was one of her female political touchstones turning to ruin in front of her eyes, but it was directed to the cause of her second touchstone, her great hope for a female President in her lifetime. The notion that any woman would seek to help another reach high office by bashing any other minority group horrified her.

----------------

The events of the last few days are a tragedy. A person, fondly remembered by many Democratics for their (admittedly Quixotic) run for the Vice Presidency, is trashing their image, likely forever. Another person, still with some possibility of reaching the Presidency, is risking their image by appearing complicit with remarks of disparagement, of race-baiting, of division. The gender-shift here is intentional; this has nothing to do with either being women (though it has everything to do with why the women at the table were more personally upset by this debacle).

I'm not entirely sure what it does have to do with, why either of them would chose the path they've chosen, and I'm not going to hypothesize here. I'm not writing this to psychoanalyze the principals in this tragedy. I'm writing this to talk about how much of a disaster I think this is rapidly becoming.

The Personal -- The Tragedy

Geraldine Ferraro's reputation is growing more tarnished by the day, almost by the hour. Not only are her remarks, on their face, race-baiting of a low order, but she's absolutely unapologetic of them. Furthermore, she's chosen to accept interviews on right-wing talk radio as a way to continue her downward spiral. I'm assuming she must believe that her remarks are just that important that any forum is acceptable, even one where her remarks are going to be used to Senator McCain's benefit in the general election and even at the risk of doing grave damage to the Democratic party.

Everyone that I talked to tonight, and most everyone I've heard from, finds Ferraro's remarks to be far worse than those of Samantha Power, especially in their endless and unapologetic repetition. It's not just the remarks that are offensive, it's the obvious political calculation behind them; if she merely wanted to make a point, she's made long since made it. Geraldine Ferraro may be many things, but she is not a political neophyte. She's not saying what she's saying because she's a rabid racist. She's a very vocal supporter of Senator Clinton, and she's saying them because she sees an advantage in them for Senator Clinton.

Most thinking people will give her remarks a listen, reject them, and go on about their business. But there's a certain sort of voter, a sort of voter who hates the idea of affirmative action, who thinks any black or minority in a position of power, in a good school, in a good job, having success, owes that to putting a deserving white man down. Those are the voters these remarks target. No surprise that there are many such voters in the previous primary state, the next one, and two more significant upcoming primaries.

Senator Clinton's reputation is at risk here too. Her campaign came out swinging over a single personally disparaging remark, made by a non-politician, with no clear political gain from it in sight, quickly apologized for and with the clear intent of not being a public statement in the first place. How then can she react with a less strongly-worded denunciation of a series of repeated disparaging remarks, race-baiting remarks, with clear political gain for her being offered, made by a fairly prominent figure? How, if Senator Obama was insufficiently vehement by merely denouncing Louis Farrakhan's dubiously-valuable support, but it needed to be rejected as well, can she fail to reject any support coming from such remarks, or a person who would make them?

Yet Senator Clinton didn't make Geraldine Ferraro say these things, and they've put her in a bad position. She either has to be a hypocrite and hold herself and her campaign to a much lower standard than that which she's held her opponent to, or she, the first competitive female candidate for President of the United States, has to publicly denounce and reject the support of the first candidate for Vice President of the United States. That's a terrible position to be put in, and it's not her fault that she's in this position. To me, the choice is clear; if she chooses the path of hypocrisy, the tarnish from Geraldine Ferraro rubs right off on her. Geraldine Ferraro is already fundamentally tarnished; Senator Clinton can still avoid it. If she's worried about losing some support from other women over rejecting Ferraro, I think she can give that up worry; I think, if anything, she'll win their hearts a bit more by being strong and doing what needs to be done, by showing that she has a moral compass.

The Political -- The Danger

This isn't just about the ruination of one person's political reputation and career, and the risk to another's. Those are a tragedy; a tragedy which can be partially alleviated, but it'll still be tragic. There's worse here.

This is also dangerous.

Ferraro's remarks call for a clear rejection from each and every Democratic voice who hears them. Not just Obama supporters. Not just Clinton supporters. Not just those who are neutral in the whole matter. Everyone.

Why, you ask? Why should I need to speak against them? Maybe, as an intelligent thinking person, you think: "I know I'd never see Senator Obama as the affirmative-action candidate. Besides, I like affirmative action. I'm not racist, not bigoted, and I'm immune to race-baiting dogwhistles. To me, what she said is perhaps poorly worded, maybe a bit inflammatory, but maybe a bit true too. So why should I come out swinging."

The reason why is that it's going to bite you, me, the Democratic party, and the country in the you-know-what. The reason is that if a major candidate for the Presidency and her supporters let this go... if those who are neutral between the two let this go... if this is considered to be just a regrettable worded remark, then we've established the tone of discourse in our primaries, in our general elections.

If it's ok to attack Senator Obama, who is, regardless of your opinion as to the relative merits of him versus Senator Clinton to be President, clearly a very intelligent, very well educated, very accomplished politician, who has more national-state experience than a number of accomplished Presidents, who brings with him a large grassroots movement, who's well-spoken and articulate and all those wonderful qualities -- if it's ok to attack him this way, then it's ok to attack any black politician this way. To paint anyone who is a minority as an affirmative-action candidate. To pander to the real racists, those who'll hear the dog whistle and bark.

And if it's ok for black people, it's ok for women. If it's ok to say that Senator Obama is where he is because he's black, then it's unquestionably ok to say that Senator Clinton is where she is because she married Bill Clinton, and that if she hadn't, she'd be just another attorney in Arkansas or Massachusetts or wherever she'd landed. It's ok to say that Speaker Pelosi would maybe be a lawyer in SF if she were Ned Pelosi. And so on, and so forth.

And when it's said by a minion of Senator McCain in the GE, should it get to that point, and Senator Clinton responds that that's a bunch of sexist claptrap and an apology is in order, all they'll have to do is point at this incident, and say, if it was ok for your supporters to say about your rival, it's fine for us to say about you. Oh, they'll say it anyway, but now they'll be doing it from unassailable moral ground, too.

If this is ok, if this is what's allowed to be said about a successful Democratic Senator, who over half the Democratic primary voters to this point feel would make a perfectly fine President of the United States, if it's allowed to be said "he wouldn't be where he is, except that he's black" then it's ok to say it about anyone. And, sure, perhaps the well-educated, the bloggers, the in-crowd, the elites, they'll shrug that off and say "eh, it's a factor, but so what. They're still great and I'm still going to vote for them."

But the bigots out there won't. The bigots out there will eat it up. It's not meant for you, the bloggers, the netroots, the grassroots, the people who obsess about resumes and detailed policy platforms. It's aimed at the people who vaguely feel that their lives might be better if they got rid of that affirmative action stuff, if blacks/women/Asians/whoever just stayed in the ghetto/in the kitchen/in China/wherever and let more white people/men/whatever into colleges/jobs/political offices.

In a close election, between two fairly qualified candidates, that means the bigots decide who gets to be the Senator, the Congressperson, the Governor, the President. That means the standard really will be that the black candidate, the woman, the Asian, needs to be twice as good, three times as good, more, just to get past the bigots, because their opponent is out there dog-whistling to the bigots that "they're only where they are because they're <X>." And it's ok for them to do that, because after all, an icon of the Democratic party did it, and a very prominent, very well respected, very influential Democratic politician went along with it -- and not only that, but they're both "minorities". If they think it's ok, who's to differ?

This is already a tragedy. That can't be helped. This is starting to get really ugly. That can be, in large part, fixed. This could turn into a disaster. That needs to be fixed.

Please, if you respond to this, do not start with he-said she-said he-did-it-first she-did-it-first comments. Any of those positions are debatable, and I love debating them as much as the next person on the blogs, but they miss the point entirely. Even if you, in your heart of hearts, believe that this is just tit-for-tat politics, that it's just what-goes-around-comes-around, stop and think. And if you think it's making a mountain out of a molehill, really stop and think. What possible extra political damage could be done by stopping this now, by denouncing it in the strongest possible terms, by rejecting any political gain that comes from it? What -- it matters that much to you that a few low-information bigots might be disappointed that their dog-whistle stopped playing? That you might lose a few votes from people whose support is purchased at the cost of undermining Democratic principles, like fairness and equal opportunity?

You may feel that it's been done before. I may disagree. But nothing that has been done up to now in this campaign, in the wildest stretches of imagination, amounts to saying that someone is where they are only because of affirmative action. Nothing that's been said on either side tosses the keys to the bigots and shouts "bring it on!". On both sides, there are scattered instances of one person or another's character being impugned to a greater or lesser degree. None of them have been dismissive of anyone's entire career or campaign. None of them have much of an implication towards other future campaigns.

Suppose I grant you, those who feel this is one-sided the other way -- suppose I grant you that everything you've ever felt about Senator Obama's role in playing the race card is correct (mind you, I don't, I think much of it is nonsense, but for the purposes of argument, we'll grant it here). Suppose he's an absolute racist scalliwag who'll do whatever it takes to win, and millions of thinking voters have been, to quote the Senator, bamboozled. Is the proper response to that to add a bunch of grease and oil, get down in the mud, and roll around in it contentedly? Or is the proper response to stand off to the side of the mudpit and point out the dirt on your opponent?

I guarantee you, supporters of Senator Clinton, pretty much the only thing she'll get from a firm, no-questions denunciation of this sort of campaigning is applause. Oh, there'll be the usual idiots, there always are. And there'll be people saying "what took you so long?". That's the fallout from coming down so hard on Samantha Power and waffling about someone doing something far, far more insidious.

But there's almost no political risk here in taking the high ground. Whatever small loses she faces in bigoted areas of various states will be made up for by shaking off the stench of negativity that's settled over the race. To those who think Senator Clinton is in no way a racist, this'll be a minor little flap they can chuckle over. For those who do, this offers a chance of reaching across the divide and creating some doubt. To those with little opinion, it looks magnanimous.

That it's such a small risk, that the people who'll take it the wrong way are exactly the sort of bigots I'm sure Senator Clinton would not be proud of as her supporters, makes lack of a forceful response inevitably lead to questions. Senator Obama has gone way out on a limb decrying racial politics in the campaign. A forceful response gives you a saw to cut off the limb if he does something you can point out as hypocrisy in the future; the only reason to fear it is if you're afraid that he has, in fact, done nothing of the sort. By decrying this in no uncertain terms, as Senator Obama decried the hate speech of Louis Farrakhan (and you can credit Senator Clinton for pushing that, if you wish, though I believe his original statement was stronger all along than her amendment called for), you in no way exculpate anything Senator Obama may have done; by refusing, you make it clear you accept anything to do with the politics of racial division, and let the cards fall where they may.

Senator Clinton has done nothing all that wrong up until now, on this issue, except waited a bit long... but waiting an extra day is something no one will remember in a week's time, except the rabid, and they're already set in stone anyway. Please do not consider this to be an anti-Clinton diary. I can't state it more clearly. Senator Clinton has, to this point, done nothing wrong except to wait longer than her standards demand that anyone else wait in responding to their own campaign's misdeeds, and that's entirely forgivable.  The longer it goes, the more damage is done, and the harder it is to stop this dog-whistle when it's blown at your favorite candidate next time, and maybe not within the party.

Is all of this -- that we condone this sort of character assassination, that we allow the politics of minority belittling, that we accept statements that a person's status as a member of a minority can be widely inferred to be the reason for their success -- really a message the Democratic party, any member of it, or anyone who cares at all about equality wants to send?