Following a fairly standard format, Sheriff Cabral, candidate Khazei, and special guests Max and Vicki Kennedy spoke, implored volunteers, and took questions for about 45 minutes. Then, right at the break, a Khazei staffer walked directly to a woman (late 50’s, I’d guess) seated in the row in front of me, and asked her if she was video-recording the event.
The woman replied yes, and the staffer asked her who she was working for. The woman replied Martha Coakley.
As I moved dutifully toward the free pizza, I looked back and saw Khazei smiling and shaking the “videographer’s” hand, along with others in her row. It struck me as odd that the “30-point front-runner” is dispatching underlings to videotape Khazei (hoping for a Massachusetts Macaca?) unless, perhaps, she’s secretly worried about him.
Or maybe she’s got people videotaping Capuano and Pag’s, too…?
I’d love to circle back to a Coakley event this weekend and ask her, but she’s not scheduled for any according to her campaign website.
So maybe someone else can ask her…
In the meantime, what do folks think — why is Martha Coakley adopting Drudge-FOX v. ACORN tactics against the Community Organizer in this race? Will she wrap the video with some fish and mail it to Sheriff Cabral?
Ever since George Allen, campaigns are anxiously awaiting opposing candidates’ macaca moments.
<
p>Doesn’t bother me.
Besides being obnoxious, it can’t really be the best use of limited resources.
When I worked in NH in 2002 the Democratic Party had someone tailing Sununu. It’s a little petty, but also standard procedure.
I would guess that as of the macaca incident, it became close to universal. Was probably considered a slightly oddball technique before that.
–Marge Simpson
Because she’s running for Senate, and this is what real — not vanity — candidates do. And maybe if she’s really, really lucky, her aide can videotape a meeting of Capuano supporters desperately ginning up another fake “controversy” in a vain effort to make people dislike her.
Photography and by extension videography are vital components of a vigorous free press. These complaints are as old as newspaper photography and, in my view, as misguided.
<
p>These are public events, public figures, and campaigns for public office. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy — to the contrary, these are intended to be public. Candidates know that, and successful candidates behave accordingly.
<
p>Unrestrained freedom of speech and freedom of expression implies, in my view, a similarly unrestrained freedom to listen, watch, and read. However distasteful any of us might find these practices, in my view they are a thoroughly vital and necessary price to pay for the openness, transparency, and — yes — accountability that healthy democracy depends on.
<
p>I might add that I am very glad that the “macaca incident” was caught on tape and publicized. I think America is a better place because of it.
You’re right, philosophically, and I agree with those who say this is standard procedure.
<
p>But one campaign doing it to another still doesn’t feel right to me. The news camera is neutral (usually); the other campaign’s camera is oppositional. There is a difference with that.
<
p>
release all of its tape of a candidate’s event to any opponent who asked for it? If not, the news camera’s neutrality is not evident. Further, do TV cameras record all of every candidate’s public appearances?
Why did Bill Belichick get in trouble for videotaping a televised game? Sometimes the lines we draw are a little silly, but usually they have meaning, however subtle.
<
p>It’s almost like the other campaign is trying to force a mistake.
It comes with the territory.
<
p>The “gotcha” photograph is a classic of film-noir staples.
I think it comes with the territory when you are filming someone from the other party who is known for saying outlandish things. Sending a mole to film a fellow democrat who has done a lot of good things in this world is another matter, and I don’t like it very much.
<
p>I am surprised that you seem to take umbrage with people questioning the records of other candidates, yet are perfectly comfortable when the front runner by 30 points is trying to force errors in the under-doggiest campaign around.
with those who “question[ed] the records” of John Kerry in Viet Nam or Ted Kennedy in Chappaquidick?
<
p>Speaking of questioning records, where do you stand on the City Hall email scandal, on the disinterest our local officials have shown in prosecuting the network of lawyers, doctors, and therapists who support and enable our local public service disability, retirement and pension industry rackets, or on the similar disinterest in prosecuting the lobbyists and various “friends” of our elected officials who seem to have such an endless supply of low- and zero-interest mortgages, loans, and similar “coincidental” benefits?
<
p>I didn’t say I was “comfortable” with the videography, I said it comes with the territory. If you’re going to play in the Big Show, you’re going to get thrown at. If you aren’t prepared to deal with it, pick a different game.
<
p>I think the current public record of the “front runner by 30 points” makes her leading opponent — Mike Capuano — better suited for the office both are campaigning for. I think the public record of Mr. Capuano far outshines that of Ms. Coakley.
<
p>I strongly suspect that Ms. Coakley sends a “mole” to most campaign events of Mr. Capuano, and I equally strongly suspect that Mr. Capuano mugs for her camera.
<
p>I grew up in Washington DC, and I am quite certain that game is played much rougher there than anything we’re talking about here — especially now, and especially around this seat. I think Mike Capuano — and the rest of the Massachusetts delegation — has been playing the game well for a very long time.
<
p>This campaign is for the “Big Show”, and whoever we elect had better be ready for it.
Keeping a videocam on George Allen in the general election was a good idea since he was well known to possess a lively gaffe reflex and engage in race-baiting when the media weren’t in the room.
<
p>It struck me as silly (excessive?) that Coakley would deploy a video-recorder to fellow-Democrats who, at the end of the day, agree on most everything and are going to support the eventual nominee –especially Khazei, who appears the least politically confrontational.
<
p>I can’t imagine donors are psyched to see that this is what she’s spending money on. And if I were Khazei, I’d take it as a sign that she’s worried about you.