- BIG NEWS:
- Barack Obama
- |
- Joe Lieberman
- |
- Sarah Palin
- |
- GOP
- |
Is Geraldine Ferraro Right?
Read More:
2008 Election, Barack Obama, Barack Obama 2008, Barack Obama Campaign, Barack Obama Race, Geraldine Ferraro, Geraldine Ferraro Comments, Geraldine Ferraro Race, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton 2008, Hillary Clinton Campaign, Offthebus,
Home News
Is Geraldine Ferraro Right?
Carlotta Cooper
For more than one generation of women Geraldine Ferraro was an inspiration in 1984. My mother, in her 40s, and I, still in college, both cheered her selection as Walter Mondale's running mate, and laughed at every feisty remark she made on the campaign trail. It seemed an enormous breakthrough back then that a woman could be in the vice presidential slot on a major party ticket.
Now, more than 20 years later, as Hillary Clinton pursues the Democratic nomination for president, Geraldine Ferraro is once again at the center of a campaign, this time for comments she made about Barack Obama, his qualifications to be president, and his race. Her comments have been so controversial to the Clinton campaign, for which she has been a fundraiser (she has held one fundraising event according to the newspaper which published her hot-button comments), and have so outraged Obama supporters, that Rep. Ferraro has now resigned from the campaign's Finance Committee as "Honorary New York Leadership Council Chair."
According to the original interview in the Torrance Daily Breeze with Jim Farber:
"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.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "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."
To further elaborate, Ferraro gave a follow-up interview with the Daily Breeze to Gene Maddaus (among other media statements and appearances):
Ferraro said she was simply stating an obvious truth, as seen in exit polls that show Obama taking as much as 80 percent of the black vote in the Democratic primaries.
"In all honesty, do you think that if he were a white male, there would be a reason for the black community to get excited for a historic first?" Ferraro said. "Am I pointing out something that doesn't exist?"
Ferraro further said that she herself would not have been the vice presidential nominee in 1984 if she had been a man.
What can you do with remarks such as these? Rep. Ferraro is staunchly standing by her remarks, even after resigning from her volunteer role in the Clinton campaign. Senator Clinton has said she did not agree with Rep. Ferraro's remarks and said it was regrettable that either her supporters or Senator Obama's made remarks that veered into the personal. She also said she preferred to stick to the issues. All in all, a mild response. Too mild to suit Senator Obama and his supporters.
So, what did Geraldine Ferraro mean when she said that if Obama were a white man he wouldn't be in "this position"? How is he "lucky" to be who he is? And, does Senator Obama have reason to be offended? Or, was Rep. Ferraro really trying to say something positive, as she told Good Morning America?
According to those most offended by Rep. Ferraro's remarks, her comments were racist. What she said was tantamount to saying that the only reason African-Americans would vote for Senator Obama is because he's black. Obama supporters seem to read her comments as saying that being black is Senator Obama's biggest asset. In return, they quite rightly point out that Senator Obama has done exceptionally well in areas with well-educated white voters, more liberal Democratic party members, and even with Independents -- not just with the black vote. He's also seemingly cornered the market on the Youth vote.
Indeed, without understanding the context of Rep. Ferraro's remarks, it might be possible to be offended. However, if the people in the Obama campaign are politically astute at all, one would suppose them capable of understanding context. Even as a Clinton supporter, Rep. Ferraro was giving an interview to discuss an upcoming lecture to "offer her views on the state of the nation and the race for the White House." She's known as an outspoken advocate for women's issues. It's little wonder that these issues should come up in her interview in advance of the lecture, or that she should think in terms of historic firsts considering her own role as a trailblazer in Democratic politics. Or, in fact, that she would think of comparing her situation in 1984 to that of Senator Clinton or Senator Obama today.
Personally, I think Senator Obama might be in the same position today whether he were black or white. He has a John Kennedy-Abe Lincoln quality about him, a charisma and oratorical style that make him an excellent candidate. He has the education and the background to run for president. His campaign seems to have been run effectively and efficiently. Whether I agree with his positions or think he would make the best president is another matter, but I think he is undoubtedly a highly successful candidate. No doubt Geraldine Ferraro does, too. She said he has the kind of campaign it would be hard for anyone to run against. She also says that the black community has enthusiastically rallied around Senator Obama, not just for these obvious talents and abilities, but because they are excited by the prospect of a successful black Democratic nominee for president. And she cites exit polling that shows Obama taking as much as 80 percent of the black vote in some primaries.
I ask you: can you deny that what she says is true? Is it racist for her to point our that, in addition to his other great attributes, he has the support of the black community? I'm not saying that he is only supported because he is an African-American candidate. But he is a very well-qualified candidate who happens to be African-American and there are many in the black community who are excited about his campaign.
I do not agree with Rep. Ferraro when she says that Senator Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he were white IF by that she means that he couldn't have become a successful candidate. However, if she means that he might not enjoy as much support from the black community if he were white, then, yes, I agree, that is probably true.
Is he "lucky" in the sense that he has the attributes of being young, good-looking, intelligent, well-educated, and a gifted speaker? Yes. When you add to those qualities the fact that he has a special appeal to many in the black community, I don't think it's difficult to see why Rep. Ferraro called him "lucky."
For anyone to suggest that the Clinton campaign somehow stoked this fire and put Rep. Ferraro up to making these controversial comments, such an idea qualifies as Byzantine without brains. There was nothing to be gained from such a gambit and much to be lost. Why would the Clinton campaign want to risk alienating black voters when it needs them? Does anyone think they wake up in the morning and say, "Today we should try to lose some votes!" Does anyone think they need to call attention to the fact that Senator Obama is black? That's about as necessary as pointing out that Senator Clinton is female. In general, things that lead to supporters resigning are not good, so this was probably not something that was planned, for you conspiracy theorists out there.
I do not think that people should vote for someone because of their skin color. I do not think that people should vote for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman. I think people should vote for the person they believe is best qualified to be president regardless of these things. But this campaign has undeniably elicited charged emotions on all sides when it comes to gender and race. I do think that too much has been made of Rep. Ferraro's remarks and that some people have either intentionally misunderstood them for their own purposes -- or there are some people who need to drink a lot less caffeine on the campaign trail.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"So, what did Geraldine Ferraro mean when she said that if Obama were a white man he wouldn't be in "this position"? How is he "lucky" to be who he is?"
Ferraro meant "those _______s are stealing your jobs using affirmative action!"
I doubt she believes it, personally, but she knows how to get blue collar democrats fired up and that's a hornets' nest she's ready and willing to stir up.
And no, it's not even remotely flattering toeither Ferraro or the woman on whose behalf she's doing it for. In fact, it's ucking fugly.
If only Senator Obama had worked in the U.S. Senate longer and at least completed a term or two gaining the knowledge one needs to be POTUS. Then no one could say that he was inexperienced and reference affirmative action in any way.
May I ask how an "idea" can have brains? I think that comment you made is about as sensical as your argument.
Sen Obama's current position is due to the civil rights movement, the women's rights movement, and to his own self-determination. The first sentence of her original statement is the right-wing definition and complaint about affirmitive action. I live in Oklahoma and hear it all the time, so I should know.
Ferrero is clearly the kind of white, heterosexual feminist whose forebearers excluded lesbians and women of color from the women's movement. She can't see past the color of her own skin and thinks that gender is a greater concern than race. I don't think any form of oppression can be quantified and compared like that. We need to be unified in the pursuit of distributing power, decentralizing it.
Your defense of her remarks only deepens the unnecessary divide. Please re-think your argumentation.
You can reference anything you want. If he had served as the V.P of the U.S. people like you would still deem him unprepared because he's black. You see the affirmative action argument cuts both ways, you either gain by priviledge or affirmative action depending on your race, which do you gain by?
Here’s my 2 cents:
1) Ferarro was wrong, but not intentionally, the way folks are making it out to be. (You’re spinning it, and that is bothersome.)
a. She was speaking at a paid event, not associated with the HRC campaign.
b. She was asked to analyze the campaign but unfortunately stepped into some dog-doo along the way. The more she defended her stance, the worse it got for her.
2) Ferarro was hurt by what really is the heart of a campaign – the folks behind the curtain. She went off again this morning because these people know her, know she is a defender of equality, she has worked with a few of them on other campaigns, yet the Obama people took an opportunity to go after the HRC campaign via Ferarro and made something out of nothing. This speech she gave should have been like the tree that falls in the forest, yet no one is around to hear it. But that ever-so-clean Obama machine did what every politician does – it searched for, found and mutilated something that was innocent and spun it into something ugly.
3) I do not think that BO is a unifier at all, and I see this party being ripped to shreds, with only Hillary being blasted for it. Makes no sense – it takes 2.
4) Get used to saying “President McCain.”
"(You"re spinning it, and that is bothersome.)" - this does not pertain to the poster, but to the HuffPo site in general. Sorry for any mis-cue.
Spot on.
The context with which Ferraro made the wrong headed statement - and then stuck by it without clarifying - tells me that she is thick headed too.
She is implying that Obama could not succeed were it not for his race. Ignoring the fact that he has run a hell of a good campaign and energized many voters other than black voters.
The fact that she is [was] a Clinton fund raiser means that she was diminishing Obama's accomplishments.
Ferrarro seems to think that because she was chosen as VP candidate for affirmative action reasons that everyone else is too. What she fails to understand is that she was chosen by a small committee while Obama was chosen by thus far 13 million voters. Nobody put him on the ticket but himself.
You may want to consider this point of view.
With regard to the Ferraro's comments: At the very least, they were made to intensify and provoke those who would tend to harbor racist thought. If that wasn’t the intention then what was the point?
Her comments didn’t provide any new insights. If so, what were those insights? You and she said they were obvious. So why underscore something you think is so obvious?
For everyone one time that a woman or black man in this society has “benefited” from their sex or race, they do so after decades of being marginalized, debased, diminished, trivialized and so much more.
So, what was the point?
By the way, about being lucky:
There's a famous answer to the question many performers and sportspeople get:
Question: Do you feel lucky to be so successful?
Answer: Yeah, and when I practice I get luckier!
Obama may be lucky. But he is prepared and accomplished and we will all be luckier that he practiced so hard!
Many of us have been spent a lot of time talking about sexism and racism. When this campaign is over and people get some distance with regard to the fall out, I think some very sad conclusions will emerge.
One conclusion for sure is that the legacy of the Clintons’ actions has done more to undermine feminism and race relations in this country than to improve them..
The Obama campaign is supposedly to be post-partisan and post-racial. Yet, the venom coming out from the MSM and his supporters is just unbelievable. I am sick and tired of this Obama euphoria. Should he become the Dem nominee, as an independent, I will vote for McCain this Nov. I am sure that I am not alone.
Take heart, la2008. In this world, no one is alone. Doesn't mean you're right, but you'll doubtless have company in the wrong.
Please explain this. The initial comment is made by a Clinton supporter, the reaction comes from the media, and yet you are going to refuse to vote for Obama. Thoughts like yours are the reason that this country has not been able to get anything accomplished in decades.
Your exegesis of Ferraro's statements falls into the category of "spin". Ferraro made it very clear that she meant that Obama would not be as successful a candidate if he were not black. She claimed he was an affirmative action candidate -- as she was herself when she was selected by a small elite in the Democratic Party to be the vice presidential candidte in 1984.
Obama was not my first choice, but has certainly impressed me more than anyone else left in the race Clinton's campaign has run a dirty, negative and destructive race over the last several weeks, and has turned many of us who could have happily accepted her as the nominee into sincere doubters.
"According to those most offended by Rep. Ferraro's remarks, her comments were racist. What she said was tantamount to saying that the only reason African-Americans would vote for Senator Obama is because he's black."
Who's saying that?
The problem with Ferraro's comment is that it is a calculated appeal to racist white resentment, not what it says about black voters.
She's appealing to out of work or underemployed Pennsylvania blue-collar workers who think that the reason they aren't as wealthy as they'd like is because black people, like Obama, have used their blackness to get to the head of the line. She's telling them that Hillary knows exactly how they feel, and if they want to get revenge, they should vote for Hillary Clinton.
That's the problem. The rest is a stack of red herrings and straw men.
I suppose it is true that we all are where we are because of who we are. In that sense and in isolation Ferraro's comments are true. It is also true that Jesse Jackson won a previous South Carolina primary. It may also be true that there are people in Pennsylvania who will find it difficult to vote for a black man.
There are many things that are true, but no one has the time to say them all. So why did Clinton campaign supporters and surrogates choose to say these 'truths'?
There are also lies. Ferraro claims, and you repeat, that she only made the statements in preparation for a lecture to a small audience on the state of American politics. In fact and recorded, she said exactly the same thing in an interview on the Fox network and has continued to repeat and defend them, refusing to apologize. She also said she was 'not a part of the Clinton campaign' and then resigned from the campaign.
So what are we to make of this? What really is the context?
Clinton won a majority of
I am an avid Hillary supporter.... but before she announced, I really felt that I did not want her to run because of what "they" would do to her. The "they" I referred to, were Republicans. Little did I guess the kind of horrendous treatment she would receive at the hands of her own party. The way the Obama campaign has cynically exploited comments Ferraro made to somehow prove that Hillary is a racist, not in a campaign appearance, but off the cuff in answer to a question at a lecture, is disgusting. Neither Hillary nor Bill nor Ferraro is a racist, not by any stretch of the imagination. She is right that she is the one that deserves the apology... and don't even get me started on Olbermann. Where has his outrage at the sexism towards Hillary been??? I am so sick at the cynicism of the Obama campaign but, I have finally reached the point where I am going to be okay about Hillary not winning. The democratic party and this country do not deserve her. As a woman, the sexism that has been uncovered in my own party has left me demoralized and disgusted. So, let them have it their way. Obama will win the nomination and McCain will win the election....... Way to go Democrats.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "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."
OK folks, let's all read it again .... and again and again and again if you have to to get these ridiculous ideas out of your head about what Ferraro said and meant. There is simply no possible way in the world that this statement can be read to mean that "if Obama were not black, he would not be getting 90% of the black vote." Why? Well, you'd have to wonder why only black men can get 90% of the black vote, and not black women, but more importantly, she says (and means) that "the country is caught up in the concept." I'm not sure when "the country' started meaning "the black community."
Ferraro also complained about the incredibly sexist media. Unsurprisingly, this contrasts with their supposed treatment of Obama (because, you see, the country is caught up in the concept of the historical first of a black man becoming president, and not caught up in the historical first of a white woman becoming president).
Take a look at "in this position" in the above Ferraro quote. What does that mean? Does it mean that he would not be "in the position" of getting 90% of the black vote? Can that argument seriously be made? Even if you think it could, Ferraro herself clearly said on Good Morning America (ABC) that she was struggling to come up with an explanation for why Obama was doing so well vs. Clinton in the race (not just among black people), and she could only imagine that it was because he was black -- really, this is the only reason she cited.
OK, so now that it should be clear what Ferraro actually did say and did mean, is she right? Well, no. At least, not unless blackness is something that helps Barack Obama become president, but doesn't help, you know, other black people become president. We have one black governor right now, out of 50, and one black senator (Obama) out of 100. We've never had a black president. If being black helps you get elected to statewide or nationwide office, it seems very odd that there are not actually many black people in these positions, and never have been many.
Now, do not sit there and think to yourself (or type in) some tired red herring about how black people vote 90% for Obama, or suggest that some non-blacks may vote for him in part because of the "historical first" of having a black president. This doesn't matter -- not even a little bit it doesn't matter. Why? Because a brief glance at the real world (hardly any blacks elected to major national office, ever) shows that being black is on the whole a burden and not a benefit if you want to be elected to such office.
The argument that Ferraro is making that "the country" is somehow more "taken with the concept" of a black man being elected than a black woman is also, of course, wrong for the same reasons: you would have expected this massive national yearning for a black president to have shown up before now.
OK, so now that we are clear about all that (I hope), why would Ferraro say and continue to defend (and why are so many here doing the same thing) something that is so clearly wrong? Well, I'll give you your pick: simple pro-Clinton myopia would be probably most benign, but there's also the well-established story of the white victim out there, where it's said that really racism works more against whites than against blacks, that the media, the mainstream public, etc., are out to get whites ... all that great stuff. Kind of reminds me of something Archie Bunker might have thought. Come to think of it, the fictional Bunker lived in Ms. Ferraro's congressional district, didn't he?
My sentiments exactly. It's been horrifying to read some of the posts here, horrifying again to read the replies from Obama supporters, horrifying even more when these newcomers to politics start with the name-calling if you even question their candidate's credentials.
And the way the mainstream media has treated this woman, with no one backing her, so many men (and even women) trashing her, I feel like we've somehow harkened back in time to 1918. There should have been SOME large-scale reporting when the first female won a presidential primary, but not one of the MSM gave up the applause for the women of this nation.
And in political conversation with folks, I hear some refer to HRC as, "That woman." This comes from females as well as men. When you press for details as to why they feel the way they do, these folks stumble and can't even respond adequately. Recently spoke with a woman from Tiburon, CA and she could only come up with, "Her husband cheated on her," when asked why she did not like Hillary. Then she clammed up, as she could locate nothing to really bash her with having no talking points handy.
Folks repeat the spin, do no homework on the topics, and the media actually chooses the candidate. (Remember, Bush was their darling in 2000 and 2004; their making the choice does not bode well for America.) The sheeple just follow along, repeating what they’ve heard.
I, unfortunately, agree with you. Obama will win the nom due to the insane pressure from the MSM, and we will end up with another 4 years of Republican rule as I sense quite a few Dems will be sitting this one out.
If a tree falls in the forest, Obama supporters would automatically say "Did not". They manage to make a big fat deal out of just about anything while defending calling Hillary a 'monster'. They demonstrate the opposite of 'unity' and 'healing'.
Tonight, the cable news shows were all featuring Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, saying the ugliest things. They had to give a warning that the following might be offensive and it was. This guy was his pastor for 20 years, married him and Michelle and baptized his kids. Someone should ask Obama if he will be invited to the White House if he's elected. What about your judgement Barack?
"Was Ferraro right?"
YES!
Okay, let's "get real" and talk about the truth.
Geraldine Ferraro cannot explicitly and repeatedly refer to Obama's race
as somehow giving him an unearned advantage AND, at the same time,
claim her remarks are not racially motivated.
Does racism always mean looking at another race in a negative manner?
In this case, I would say Ferraro is not so much denigrating Obama personally
as she is venting her own (and by proxy Hillary's) frustration over the superior abilities
of someone "not herself".
This is more properly called envy or jealousy. Brutal self-examination is not the preferred
option for most people who feel inadequate - much easier to blame it on luck.
Yes, of course Carlotta is correct, and Ferraro's statements are not racist. She gave a sociological and political science perspective on the novelty candidacies of Clinton and Obama. This competition is charged with gender and race, and it is about time, too! No longer do we have to rely on White Males for our guidance, hope, and change. Ferraro's statements defy analysis as racism; and I believe that the charge comes from the knee-jerk tendency to grab labels and sterotypes as explanations for complex events, instead of relying on the more relevant and difficult route involving rational and intellectual analysis, which may all have died last week with Bill Buckley.
"Ferraro's statements defy analysis as racism; and I believe that the charge comes from the knee-jerk tendency to grab labels and stereotypes as explanations for complex events, instead of relying on the more relevant and difficult route involving rational and intellectual analysis."
Yes, precisely.
The charge also comes from the Obama camp's habit of churning up racial antagonism and blaming it on Hillary Clinton whenever there is about to be a southern-state primary where Obama is going to take 80 or 90 percent of the African American vote.
They do it--as they did in South Carolina, and as they've just done in Mississippi--to distract the media from the lopsided electoral pattern, so that Obama won't be portrayed as "the black candidate."
That's an understandable concern in racist America, but this is a dirty tactic, and it's shameful to depict Geraldine Ferraro and Bill and Hillary Clinton as racists.
It's not as if Geraldine Ferraro--whose comments were not "racist" anyway--made them to the New York Times the day before the Mississippi primary. No, the Obama camp dug them up from an obscure California newspaper, when they were already about a week old, and deliberately put them out there right before voting started.
But maybe this time Obama has shot his bolt and bagged himself some instant karma. I hear that he was just been defended by Al Sharpton, the gift that will keep on giving to Hillary Clinton. Plus, Obama's, um, "Afrocentric" pastor and spiritual advisor has finally hit the MSM. Talk about being "the black candidate"!
Yet, Obama stays 'above the fray' while his campaign and supporters do and say the ugliest things. Then, they get upset over Ferraro using the word 'lucky'. You simply can't have a rational discussion with these people.
If he's the nominee, does anyone think that his supporters will mellow out when competing against McCain? You ain't seen nutin' yet. Their nastiness will be their undoing. 'Unity' my foot.
You dance around the truth and do your best to obscure the facts- and you leave out the fact that Ferraro made a virtually identical statement about Jesse Jackson back in 1984. So is it that every black man who runs for president and gets support of black voters is lucky? Then I guess HRC is the one who is really lucky, since there are more white women registered to vote in the democratic party. And she is certainly the most lucky woman in the country b/c there is NO WAY she would have EVER been elected as a Senator in NY if she wasn't a woman married to the former president! Ferraro may not be a racist, but her comments and subsequent protestations are evidence of race-baiting, the indirect kind practiced by the Clintons throughout this campaign.
"I think they're attacking me because I'm white. How about that?"
Is that statement true? Ferraro is an idiot. She has never been a leader in the Democratic party, and yes, she was selected to run for VP because she is a woman. Every time somebody in public life makes a ridiculously ignorant statement, somebody says the statement needs to be put "in context". The context in this case is that you don't want to give up your opinion that Ferraro is admirable and "feisty". She was just running her mouth to bash somebody who opposes her candidate by belittling his achievement on the grounds of race. The real context of that is not your dewy reminiscinces of Ferraro as a candidate, but the history of racism in America, and in particular, the history of belittling the accomplishments of persons with African ancestry. I don't know whether Ferraro is a racist or not, and I don't really care. I do know that she is a very stupid and selfish woman who damged the candidate she supported far more than she helped her, by shooting of her ignorant mouth.
Am I the only person in America who realizes that Ms Ferraro's comment was deeply sarcastic? I suspect that most people commenting on it didn't hear it said in context. She was stating her opinion that Obama supporters were too willing to characterize remarks as racist that were not meant to be. I urge everyone interested in this subject to find out when the interview was given, the circulation of the newspaper in question, and find out who pushed it on to the wider stage. Read the entire interview. While you are doing so, remember that Ms Ferraro is a 73 year old woman from Queens who has long been known to be a little more blunt and less PC than perhaps she ought to be.
So because she's old and a straight shooter, she's not responsible for what comes out of her piehole?
The first thing you learn in Politics 101 is to never utter a statement that can be taken in any other way than you meant it.
So what does this former vice presidential nominee do after 20+ years out of the spotlight. She utters, in my opinion, an intentionally imflammable statement, to put herself back in the national discussion.
It's funny, as a young Democrat, I used to sit in front of the TV and wonder why the party leaders of the time (Mondale, Gary Hart, Ferraro, etc.) could never connect with the american people while an imbicile like Ronald Reagan had the electorate eating out of his hand. I realize now that Democrats like Gerry Ferraro during that time just weren't very bright.
Finally, the "It was just a joke" defense is the height of disinginuousness (if that is a word). At least have the conviction to stand behind your statements.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
