Ferraro's Remarks About Obama Decried

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday she disagrees with Geraldine Ferraro, one of her fundraisers and the 1984 vice presidential candidate, for suggesting that Barack Obama only achieved his status in the presidential race because he's black. In a brief interview with The Associated Press, Clinton was questioned about Ferraro's remarks.

The Obama campaign has called on the New York senator to denounce them.

Ferraro told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif.: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

The newspaper published the interview last Friday.

Clinton said, "I do not agree with that," and later added, "It's regrettable that any of our supporters _ on both sides, because we both have this experience _ say things that kind of veer off into the personal."

"We ought to keep this on the issues. there are differences between us" on approaches to health care, energy, experience.

Ferraro is a former New York congresswoman and was Walter Mondale's running mate when he was the Democratic presidential nominee in 1984. She has endorsed Clinton and raised money for her campaign.

Obama called Ferraro's comments "patently absurd."

Story continues below

advertisement

"I don't think Geraldine Ferraro's comments have any place in our politics or in the Democratic Party. They are divisive. I think anybody who understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd," he told the Allentown Morning Call. "And I would expect that the same way those comments don't have a place in my campaign they shouldn't have a place in Senator Clinton's either."

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said Ferraro should be removed from her position with the Clinton campaign because of her comments.

"The bottom line is this, when you wink and nod at offensive statements, you're really sending a signal to your supporters that anything goes," Axelrod said in a conference call with reporters on Tuesday.

"There's no other way to send a serious signal that you want to police the tone of this campaign," he added. "And if you don't do those things then you are simply adding to the growing compendium of evidence that you really are encouraging that."

Axelrod said Clinton has encountered problems because people view her as a "divisive and polarizing force."

"The best way to address those concerns is to not allow divisiveness and negativity to flourish among your supporters," he said. "And this is an opportunity for her to address that."

Jan Schakowsky, an Obama supporter and Illinois congresswoman, said Democrats should not tear each other down, and instead focus on defeating John McCain, the Republican nominee-in-waiting.

"I respect every person's right to promote his or her candidate, but any and all remarks that diminish Senator Obama's candidacy because of his race are completely out of line," Schakowsky said on the conference call.

Ferraro also said Obama has it easy because of a "very sexist media."

"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign _ to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign."

Last week, a former adviser to Obama resigned after calling Clinton "a monster."

___

Associated Press Writer Peter Jackson in Harrisburg, Pa., contributed to this report.

Comments

[JonathanLatroy]

Geraldine Ferraro has a HISTORY of this kind of racism. Her comments about Obama are nearly identical to her comments about Jesse Jackson 20 years ago! She represents precisely the kind of old-guard politics of division that we will finally put to rest by electing Barack Obama.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/11/21956/1233/291/474642

[jj]

Maybe if someone told Ferrarro the only reason she received the VP nod is because she's a woman she'd understand.

And when she was (appropriately) appalled at such a comment, the reply was simply, "you hate me because I'm a man" she'd understand.

However, even if that happened I believe she is incapable of seeing past her own hurdles of being a woman and a politician.

[ME08]

Ferraro got the same shit Hillary is getting now...all you hopeless haters are just so sad. She has absolutely NOTHING to apologize for, not a single word.

[jj]

Then all of those who say Hilary and Ferrarro are in their position SOLELY because they are female have nothing to apologize for either.

I'm sorry you are incapable of seeing the hypocrisy and believe that a concern of racism is simply being a "hopeless hater."

[oshpd1]

Why does Hillary support bigots on her campaign team? What kind of person is she. All you Hillary supporters should look at what you support.

[pithymaxim]

why is there even a question? obviously she is a racist, proud of it. no ambiguity.

[nisha]

White women in general have long been the group with the most highly inflated sense of entitlement. Why else would these two run for the two highest offices in the land? One is running as a former First Lady, regardless of what else she may have done since, and the other never made it to the Senate and was supported by her husband through all her six years in Congress. But white women have historically claimed credit and standing on the basis of their menfolks' collective victories to an absurd degree, so there is a culture f loose talk that goes with it.

Gerladine Ferraro may appear to come across as if her great great grandmother owned slaves, but of course her mama was a seamstress in upstate New York, which is the more likely source of her competitive brand of racism. Probably anyone whose great grear grandmother really did own slaves would be either more circumspect or at least a little more sly.

[AnninCA]

Ferarro's comments were innocuous. I am concerned about the charges of racism where non exist, but I think Obama needs to answer to that.

[mabelle55]

I do. Clinton said she didn't agree. What, exactly, is the problem?

Obama's campaign has said and done some pretty raunchy stuff during this campaign, too. Samantha Powers (Clinton is a "monster"); Obama's paster (had some pretty choice anti-glbt comments). Powers resigned; Obama said he didn't agree with his paster. End of story.

This is not a campaign for high school class president or an audition for a school play.

[2008andbeyond]

Obama's people left the campaign. Something about a higher ethical standard of politics.

Hillary's people stayed on. Something about a kitchen sink and saying or doing anything to win.

[nazgul]

The difference is Obama has denounced those people and let them go.

Ferraro comes out with an outrageously racist statement and, oh, that's ok? That's like McCain saying he disagrees with Hagee and accepts his support.

Obama's pastor is not part of his campaign.

[XYZ]

My queston to Ferraro's remarks is this. Why is Obama lucky he has 2 strikes against him already 1) He is black 2) he has a Muslim name. The very fact that he is currently winning this primary race says something very important about his skills, and abilities. He has out done the Clintons, in every way even when he lost the Super Tues. 2 he still won more delegates. The Clinton campaign is loosing, and when your loosing you have nothing to lose, so throw the whole kitchen at it and hope something changes. I hope that the people of Pennsylvania are smarter than this. I think they are I lived there for a year, and I also lived in Ohio for a year. I had a much better experience in PA than OH. I think they are more enlightened, and know when they are being bamboozled.

[DoAsISay]

On Fox News, Ferraro said that she made the comments as part of a paid speech, and therefore, it had nothing to do with the Clinton campaign. So, that basically means that she has different views when she is getting paid to express them.

Also, she said that Obama should not antagonize or she would not raise money for him. Is she for real? Did Obama not just raise $55 million in Feb. without her help? Why would he need her in the future?

[chicagobama]

I wouldn't be surprised in Senator Clinton loses some superdelegates over this, or some previously uncommitted superdelegates align themselves with Senator Obama. There are many people who would not want to be associated with a campaign that implicitly allows racist comments.

Senator Obama has shown decisively that he will not tolerate divisive remarks. Anyone from his campaign who violates his ethical code of conduct is removed from his campaign. The same isn't true of Senator Clinton. She values loyalty over integrity, and she does not disassociate herself from people who makes similar, divisive comments.

Speaker Pelosi was substantially understating her disapproval of Senator Clinton's behaviour. For the Speaker to make any comment is remarkable since she will be chairing the Democratic Convention and she has to be fair to all parties. She must indeed be provoked to have said anything at all. That demonstrates to me that the anger is building in the Democratic party about what the Clintos are doing.

[Anciano]

Well Ferraro only achieved her status because she's a woman.
If not for that she's be one of those two bit Irish half baked broom men that stink of cigarettes and have the biggest wit in the second rate barroom in a neighborhood that is marginal.
The "women at all costs" Emily's list wing of the Democratic Party would vote for Laura Bush if she were running. Actually if George gets her a rotten borough to represent where she can rename post offices and congratulate sports teams as her major legislative achievements, she'll be just as qualified as Hillary.

[DocTwain]

What the hell has happened to the Democratic party?

After seven years of Bush we need candidates who--even in a close primary fight--will constantly TELL THE TRUTH about the one-sided class war being waged by the industrial cartels (and the ultra-rich who own them) against American workers and their families.

We need candidates who will constantly educate the working class about the real problems that face America. The Health Insurance Crisis--50 million of us without health insurance, another 50 million of us badly underinsured. Unprotected global trade destroying our jobs and benefits. The Iraq war--a treasonous, profiteering, elective war that will have cost us more than a trillion dollars by the time the next president takes office. A voracious military-industrial complex that controls our foreign policy to our increasing economic danger. (The greatest military threat to the United States is its own war cartel.) Massive, crippling national debt created by profiteering military cash-grabs and scores of tax cuts for avaricious billionaires who exploit workers both in the U.S. and around the world. A laughable, third-rate, unequal, unjust, outdated, 20th-century educational system with backwards priorities, a cruel joke that is preparing future Americans for failure in the global economy. Out-of-control college costs and impossible student debt when most Europeans can attend their nations' universities for free. $4.00 per gallon gas to profit the obscenely bloated oil cartel, and energy policies that pander to all of the fossil fuel cartels, driving global warming that is rapidly approaching full-blown crisis. A plutocrati­c-republic­an party that has unanimously espoused radical Hooverian free-marke­t-extremis­m, and a Democratic party half of which has sold out the middle class to abet the egregious supply-siders.

And what do we get? A white woman and a black man in a disastrous primary race, disastrous because these people--both centrist sellouts--have no real policy differences, and therefore do not talk about and educate the working class about its own best interests.

They capitulated to the cartels even before they started. Just look at their health plans. What do you think will be left for the working class when the cartels and the plutocrats have finished their knife job?

So yes, instead of what we need, we get a bunch of self-righteous absurdist "Obama supporters" pretending to argue sincerely that Ferraro is a racist, and a bunch of "Hillary supporters" pretending to seriously rebut that claim.

Why are you people even Democrats?

Remind me, please.

[indie17]

Great post! I'm an Independent.

You are wrong about Obama, however, IMHO. Have you read this? I don't expect it will convince you, but it's another intelligent opinion. (Historians for Obama)



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-pollack/yes-obama-has-substance-_b_87126.html

[AnninCA]

Oh, I think the identity issues have been this silly for a very long time. I'm also fairly optimistic. Maybe we needed to duke out this silly crap.

It's probably good for us.

[ME08]

You do have a point...the Obamabots think their guy is light years more progressive than Hillary, when in actuality their records are very similar...I just think Hillary is much better suited to the job. I have always felt that Obama is green, no matter what his supporters or a panting media say.

[nazgul]

The difference is that Obama was right on Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Cuba, etc. And Hillary is deeply connected to the special interests she claims she's going to fight. And Hillary has Bill, who could drag her administration down on any given day. And as people they are night and day, as reflected in their campaigns. Hillary claims to be a fighter. She's just revealed she's an incredibly bad person.

[DocTwain]

By the way, here's some elementary politics for all you Obama supporters out there:

if Ferraro makes a remark which is technically accurate and not on its face racist, which you then proceed to read race into, calling the race card, you turn your magic candidate, your builder of bridges, your "above race" candidate, into just another race candidate, because you are out challenging on race, and hunting for racism where it isn't necessarily present. It doesn't make any difference what Ferraro's actual motives are. Maybe SHE's testing YOU. And that would be just as legit as any challenging you do.

Stanford University scholar Shelby Steele published a book in January called A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama, and Why He Can't Win. His cultural commentary is extremely perceptive--he posits two types of masks that blacks wear to win success in the mainstream­--bargaini­ng and challenging. At first I thought his major premise was wrong. Now I am beginning to wonder.

Obama is a classic bargainer. That means he gives whites the benefits of the doubt and assumes they are not racist unless they make it obvious that they are. This gives him crossover appeal because every time he opens his mouth he's not positing a whole history of racial prejudice and guilt that makes whites feel uncomfortable. This separates him from challengers, who are constantly hunting for racism everywhere and assume the worst about whites until they prove otherwise. Challengers are able to extract concessions from the mainstream through political correctness, affirmative action, etc., but they can't become truly popular because they are essentially race candidates. Thus Jesse, Al, et al didn't have a prayer because they were presidents for one race.

Challenging Ferraro's remarks just defines Obama as a race candidate and sends a message to sensitive white voters (who were modestly excited about voting for a black candidate who wasn't always pointing a finger at them) that they are considered suspect and racist and "other", that everything they say will be scrutinized, and that the worst is assumed about them. Why would they vote for a candidate who makes (or whose followers make) unjust and, frankly, racist assumptions about them?

Better to let such remarks pass--whatever their motives--and focus on policy for the working class, on the evil that is Bush, and on defeating McCain.

Otherwise black challengers in their zeal will color Obama himself as a challenger, a race candidate, and then he's, er, history in the general election.

So go ahead and support your magic bargainer--but understand that you challenge entirely at his risk.

[DocTwain]

By the way, here's some elementary politics for all you Obama supporters out there:

if Ferraro makes a remark which is technically accurate and not on its face racist, which you then proceed to read race into, calling the race card, you turn your magic candidate, your builder of bridges, your "above race" candidate, into just another race candidate, because you are out challenging on race, and hunting for racism where it isn't necessarily present. It doesn't make any difference what Ferraro's actual motives are. Maybe SHE's testing YOU. And that would be just as legit as any challenging you do.

Stanford University scholar Shelby Steele published a book in January called A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama, and Why He Can't Win. His cultural commentary is extremely perceptive--he posits two types of masks that blacks wear to win success in the mainstream­--bargaini­ng and challenging. At first I thought his major premise was wrong. Now I am beginning to wonder.

Obama is a classic bargainer. That means he gives whites the benefits of the doubt and assumes they are not racist unless they make it obvious that they are. This gives him crossover appeal because every time he opens his mouth he's not positing a whole history of racial prejudice and guilt that makes whites feel uncomfortable. This separates him from challengers, who are constantly hunting for racism everywhere and assume the worst about whites until they prove otherwise. Challengers are able to extract concessions from the mainstream through political correctness, affirmative action, etc., but they can't become truly popular because they are essentially race candidates. Thus Jesse, Al, et al didn't have a prayer because they were presidents for one race.

Challenging Ferraro's remarks just defines Obama as a race candidate and sends a message to sensitive white voters (who were modestly excited about voting for a black candidate who wasn't always pointing a finger at them) that they are considered suspect and racist and "other", that everything they say will be scrutinized, and that the worst is assumed about them. Why would they vote for a candidate who makes (or whose followers make) unjust and, frankly, racist assumptions about them?

Better to let such remarks pass--whatever their motives--and focus on policy for the working class, on the evil that is Bush, and on defeating McCain.

Otherwise black challengers in their zeal will color Obama himself as a challenger, a race candidate, and then he's, er, history in the general election.

So go ahead and support your magic bargainer--but understand that you challenge entirely at his risk....

[bridgeworker]

I'm noticing that the MSM continues this dual tagline - it's either "both sides have their knives out" or "Obama needs to get tougher". I guess the high road is near invisible to the Powers That Be. The old line, with constant repetition, is that going negative works - hence Geraldine and Hillary's shrugged response. I believe that the power of Barack Obama is to help America move out of that darkness into a new day - with all of our help! It's up to us, the voting public, to continue to feed the strength and faith in the positive and not to reward, out of fear, that reflexive, familiar low road.

[ME08]

It does require a shrug, and a simple: WHO CARES? Get over it, move on.

[carlosb00]

Well if the Clinton camp is not going to distance themselves from Ferraro, Obama should re-hire Samantha Power. Just to make the Clinton's Squirm!

[AnninCA]

He can do that. Did he send Samantha out to call her monster? Well, Clinton didn' send Ferraro out to this interview either.

[ME08]

DIfference:

Ferraro: RIGHT
Power: Wrong

Very simple...nothing more needs to be said...NEXT!

[carlosb00]

You sure about that? There is something very reptilian about Hillary! it could be her cold blood, or her vague deceptive serpentlike look, and even her chamaleonic way of changing her face to adapt to the situation that best suits her

Well i guess your right! its unfair to call her a monster. But! a Reptile! Now that is a better metaphor.

[mabelle55]

The Clinton campaign didn't call for Powers to leave or to be removed. Now, what's your next ignorant comment?

[Optimist]

"ignorant comment"; people who dwell in glass houses...

"congressional supporters of Clinton demanded that Obama fire Power for the remarks.

In a conference call organized by the Clinton campaign, Democratic Reps. Nita Lowey and Gregory Meeks of New York, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, decried the remarks made in The Scotsman by Power, 37, a Pulitzer-Prize winning professor at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University.

"This is an important test for Senator Obama, " said Lowey. "It's really a test of character … You really wonder how Sen. Obama can have a person like that, as bright as she might be, advising his campaign."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4408408

[nazgul]

They absolutely did!

[carlosb00]

Ouch! Check your facts! Safety First!

[JiveTurkeyOnRye]

So she's been quoted as complaining that comments against Obama always get unfairly called racist, and now in this article she says comments that are negative against Clinton are sexist? Isn't that sort of a vicious cycle, and contradictory?

[ME08]

Uh, no...

[kellygrrrl]

Between Clinton, Ferraro, Laura Schlessinger, Laura Ingraham - it's not been a great year for WOMEN

[patriotscholar]

Pardon me, but if Geraldine Ferraro is so pro minority in causes for women, which is a good thing, then why did she make such inflammatory remarks about Obama being black? It appears her supporting minority efforts is a bit skewed. She made the remark and Hillary didn't, but by Hillary not "denouncing" or "rejecting", she is only showing how bad she wants Ms. Ferraro's super delegate vote while at the same time diminishing her own ethics.

[Independent007]

The comment was all about Mississippi.
No more no less. The Clintons used the nuclear strategy in Mississippi. It didn't work.
The Clintons will do anything to win.
These people are ruthless.

[IkeChicago]

This really makes Barack Obama look stupid, he fires Susan Powers for calling Hillary a monster and Hillary calls for her firing. Obama fires her.

Geraldine Ferraro makes racist comments one day after the next about Barack Obama and Hillary stands firm, she does not fire Geraldine Ferraro. Barack bring this woman back, she said it off the record yet the Scotsman prints it, well bring Powers back.

[ayc]

This really makes Senator Clinton look unprincipled.

[wgb]

I thought the same thing for a minute also. But then thought you should hold people accountable, look what happens when you don't, Brownie, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzales, etc... We can see what kind of leader doesn't hold their surrogates responsible for their actions. If HRC gave Ferraro a medal of honor start to wonder?

[PhDcommonsense]

I think the Obama camp should bring back his Foreign Advisor. The "Monster remark" pales besides Ferraro's. How soon, we forget when she ran she was selected by Mondale because she was a woman.
All of these racial remarks seem to be coming from Clinton Campaign surrogates. It appears to be a pattern with them to try and use character shots. Clinton's campaign brings up Ken Starr, which I would think would be a name that they would never want to hear on the lips of anyone, and yet their campaign invokes the name of Ken Starr. Well maybe it will bring up all of things that cause Al Gore to loose the 2000 race, that never should have been close when it comes to Intelligence. The sad part of all of this is that the News Media keeps saying the 2 candidates are making this a mud fight. I only see the mud being flung one way. But they constantly want to put Obama in the fray. How does defending yourself, mean that you are throwing mud?