Many businesses like to use famous folks in their advertising to cash-in on the cachet of their celebrity status in hopes that it will rub off on whatever wares or services they’re hawking. There’s risk associated with this practice, however, should the celebrity fall from the public’s good graces. Such was the case when waifish model Kate Moss recently admitted that she was a bit of a cokehead and several companies immediately responded by canceling their endorsement deals with her lest they be perceived as financing her libertine lifestyle. Likewise on the local front, now that Green Mazda Lincoln Mercury has buddied-up with Mayor Davlin by having him appear in a new television commercial, they may also feel some of the fallout from recent allegations that the mayor made some racially insensitive comments to his then chief-of-staff/executive assistant.

Sunday’s SJ-R reported on the depositions that both Letitia Dewith-Anderson and the mayor gave to attorneys in the lawsuit being brought against the city by a coalition of black police officers. In them, Dewith-Anderson claims that the mayor refused to meet with more than three blacks at a given time, citing his consternation of their vociferous form of elocution as the reason. She also claims that he used a variation of the dreaded “those people” in referring to blacks. The mayor denied the crux of her allegations, although he was somewhat less definitive in his statements than she in hers. Whether he was hedging or simply lacked full recollection of the conservations in question isn’t clear.

In cases such as this when it is basically one person’s word against another’s, it’s human nature to pick sides. Those who are familiar with either of the two subjects may be able to look back on their past behavior or proclamations to decide if their current statements are consistent with what they know to be true. Others may be inclined to believe one version of the truth over the other based on prejudices or biases. However one comes about declaring judgment, it’s important not to be too overwhelmingly certain in our hunches and inklings because the fact is, we really don’t know.

Although I wasn’t as current-events savvy back in 1991 as I am today, I was nevertheless astounded that people were so settled in their assumptions concerning the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill controversy. Because there was no smoking gun, nor a smoking anything else for that matter, that would lead to a clear indication of where the truth lied. What we had were two rather accomplished individuals, neither of whom seemed to lack for respectability (although some would say that harboring certain political proclivities is an ignominious trait), who had competing and irreconcilable versions of events. It seemed rather unfair to me to either defend or denounce either side too vehemently given the reasonable doubt that clouded both sides.

Back to commercial endorsements, I don’t expect Todd Green to cancel his current run of ads based on the mayor’s contentious relationship with Dewith-Anderson being made public. Green’s friendship with the mayor, as revealed in a Bernie Schoenburg column last week, may cause some people to look elsewhere for their next automobile, but I don’t that it will impact business too much.

As for the mayor’s decision to appear in the ad, there are those who believe he crossed a line that he ought not to have crossed. I’ve yet to see the ad but from what I understand, Davlin isn’t delivering a lengthy testimonial, he simply appears reciting Mazda’s “zoom, zoom, zoom” mantra. I don’t perceive it as all that much different than politicians who allow their mugs to hang on the paneled walls of a dimly lit restaurants amongst the autographed headshots of other B-list celebrities and made-guys who had stopped in for a plate of linguini.

The mayor probably did invite some headaches that he could have avoided by not doing the ad. Other car dealers may feel slighted and other of his business-owning friends might be hitting him up for endorsements of their own. There is also the question of is it ethical for a person in his position of power to be cavorting too intimately in private sector business.

That Davlin chose to appear in the ad is the result of one his admirable traits. He seems to rely on his instincts and isn’t a person who measures his words and actions in strict accordance to how they could play with any given segment of voters. It’s rather refreshing coming from a politician, the lot of whom can’t order breakfast without consulting a poll on the most popular brand of breakfast flakes among registered voters. But might this candidness have betrayed him in a heated discussion with a former underling? I have no idea.