RUTGERS v. IMUS: IS SENATOR CLINTON’S RESPONSE PRESIDENTIAL?

Both Senator and President Clinton have often been on the receiving end of Don Imus remarks. So, like scores of others, both have many reason(s) to be further outraged by the Rutgers’s incident. But, it is Senator Clinton who wants to be President. Thus, it seems natural to ask whether her take on the matter is consistent with the job.

The question is important because the President’s principles regarding race and gender permeate every conceivable American policy and relationship. The proposed test seems straightforward: does Senator Clinton's response rise above any personal animosity towards Imus and show a solid consideration of the issues raised by the remark.

Senator Clinton addresses Imus in a manner expected of a President, even though final thoughts must be reserved until after her forthcoming address on the matter at Rutgers’s. First, she has formally addressed the issue through her website. She is on the record in a concrete way. Second, the Senator clearly addresses multiple issues in a positive manner. She states what everyone knows – our kids are both our happiness and our future, and recognizes the basketball team as an example of both. Conversely, she condemns the awful content of Imus’s remarks. And, finally she provides people with the opportunity to do something positive to overcome the remarks, i.e. she provides an email contact form you can use to tell the kids you support them.

Senator Clinton's response to the Imus incident is as telling by what it does not say as for what it says. As president she must uphold the Constitution. As a child of the 60’s she must know the vital role free speech plays in every aspect of our lives. Furthermore, as tempting or difficult as it might personally be for her, given the remark, the person making the remark, and any possible perception of some immediate political benefit, Senator Clinton doesn’t demand Imus be fired (censored). Rather, she seems to understand why bad speech is and must be protected, and has displayed smarts, courage, and leadership in addressing the issue.

A website and what it infers can, however, only go so far. If, when Senator Clinton addresses the Imus issue at Rutgers, she backtracks or but fors – if she too trashes or joins in the frenzied parsing of the right to bad speech – then we lose. But if she takes the opportunity to inject the real underlying concerns and problems the Imus remark raises into this campaign - if she truly challenges all candidates to engage in a constructive, albeit partisan debate with constructive solutions – we win. That really would be Presidential.