Don't Fire Geraldine Ferraro, Pin a Merit Badge on Her for Having the Guts to Tell the Truth

Fire former Democratic VP candidate and Hillary Clinton advisor Geraldine Ferraro? She ought to get a merit badge pinned on her for having the guts to tell the truth. Ferraro got it right on both counts when she said that race has made a difference with Barack Obama. He has gotten a virtual free ride from much of the media. His paper thin voting record, lack of experience, zig zag stances on foreign policy issues, Republican lite positions on health care and the sub prime housing crisis, repeated subtle going negative against Hillary Clinton while giving himself a plausible deniability out and insuring that Clinton gets dumped on when she hits back has been blatantly obvious. The media and much of the public have kept hands off him in part out of sheer terror of being branded racist and in part out of hatred for Clinton. And that's the other thing that Ferraro got right. She flatly called the media sexist and said that many Americans, she really said America, has a huge problem with a woman running for president.

The Obama camp screamed bloody murder at Ferraro's brave and very accurate remarks. They went through tortured gyrations in demanding that Clinton fire Ferraro by comparing her to the justly released Obama aide Samantha Power. There is no comparison. Power should have gotten a swift boot for her personal, slanderous and mud sling name call of Clinton as a "monster." Ferraro did not engage in personal name calling against Obama but rather made a blunt political comparison between the double standard treatment Clinton's campaign has gotten versus Obama's.

That double standard should rankle anyone who believes in at least some fair play in what's arguably the dirtiest business around, namely American politics. But that's been a moot point when it comes to dealing with Clinton. From the instant she tossed her hat in the presidential ring back in January 2007 she's had to deal with a relentless barrage of gender tinged wisecracks and outright insults on the campaign trail. At one rally, hecklers yelled to her to iron their shirts. Other gender taunts and slurs were even less flattering. Radio host Rush Limbaugh told listeners in one of his nationally syndicated shows, "Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?" Clinton has been taunted in some online websites with fake ads for toilet brushes labeled, "First Cleaning Lady" and a Clinton nutcracker was also for sale. It cracked nuts between her legs. Hillary Clinton's hairdos, ankles and even her cleavage did not stir any sustained protests or outrage from either men or women.

A female in the White House would shatter the frozen in time mindset that the first lady isn't the president but the emotional helpmate to the president. That notion, though, is still a foreign concept to many men. In February, the Associated Press and Yahoo News found that 40 percent of Republicans said they would be reluctant to vote for a woman. A much smaller percentage said they would be reluctant to vote for a black.

More than three decades before Clinton made her run for the White House, then New York Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm the only other woman to make a spirited run for the presidency as a Democrat quipped that "Of my two 'handicaps' being female put more obstacles in my path than being black. I've always met more discrimination being a woman than being black." Chisholm got a frosty reception from the male members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Thirty six years and nine presidential elections later some things haven't changed as Ferraro noted for a woman that seeks the highest office in the land.

The politically correct view is that Clinton's entrance into and drive for the presidency will permanently alter the hostile mindset of many men that a woman is not equipped to hold the highest office. That's been the biggest myth of all. In Democratic primaries in January and February Obama held his own or surpassed Hillary's vote total with white men. He did it in some of the most traditional bastions of white male voter resistance to backing a black candidate in elections past.

The votes he got from the men didn't necessarily mean that these men were enthusiastic backers of Obama. It likely meant that when it was a head to head contest between a man and a woman, they backed the man. Many liked Obama's message of change, but there were undoubtedly other men that simply didn't like Clinton, or rather the thought of a woman in the highest office. As Ferraro accurately put it lots of men fit that bill.

Clinton will be under intense pressure to dump Ferraro. She should mightily resist it. After all, no one should lose their job for telling the truth.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).

Comments

[bellecloche]

How is it helpful to compare which minority has it worse? What does it accomplish? A sense of superior entitlement based on greater suffering? What? I'm a white woman and I found Ferraro's comments to be unproductive, besides offensive. Should we begin to compare all minorities? Has Barney Frank had it easier as a gay man than Hillary has as a woman? Does Dianne Feinstein think being Jewish or being female is harder? Would you rather be transgender or handicapped? It's pointless. You can talk about the seriousness of misogyny - a noble argument no doubt - without needing to prove that women's suffering is greater than another group's. All minorities have experienced oppression and all in different ways. Comparison is unnecessary and it repels those who feel their suffering has just been down-played.

[SCMagnolia]

Earl, kudos man for saying - out loud - what many others have definitely been thinking, Hats off for your courage in telling the truth all around. Edwards was my original candidate because, out of the gate, he spoke directly to all those elephants ganged up in our respective corners. It was a refreshing change.

When his campaign headed to my home state of SC, I'd already spoken to family there and they were awash in the Kool Aid as I"d anticipated. And you know what? I even understand why. When I asked, "What exactly do you expect he will do for you there? I got no concrete answers.

Many Black"s, 30 - 50+ years old, who grew up there still remember the long history of Jim Crow and James Crow Esq. in their lives. But more importantly, they understand it really hasn"t changed that much regarding the balance of power. It has informed who we've all become, white and Black. The chance at having a Black president is not only vindicating, it offers, in their minds, an opportunity to change (there"s that word!) the dynamics of power - but that's not ever going to be said out loud in "mixed company." That being said however, all is not lost when it comes to building cross-cultural relationships or reconstructing the face of this country. But that won't happen without serious, open dialogue about race, something neither Blacks nor whites seem really ready to have -out loud.

Sen. Clinton's comments on Dr. King and LBJ we're true, but that rains on the momentum parade if the statement is considered for accuracy. Here, Joe Califano, President Lyndon Johnson's special assistant for domestic affairs from 1965 to 1969 gives an account of what happened - he was there:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402079.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I understood the "fairytale" comment from former Pres. Clinton to mean, Sen. Obama"s comparison of speaking out against the war versus Sen. Clinton"s voting for it, was a fairytale given that once in the Senate, his votes mirrored hers. He, in my opinion, wanted the senator to drop the "fairytale" and tell the people the whole truth " me too. I'd have respected him immensely for that.

Since he wasn't yet in the Senate for the vote with no access to the erroneous information to which Congress was privy, making a comparison at all was like comparing apples and oranges. But to then vote in tandem with her on all war issues once elected to Congress, makes what he"s telling the American people very disingenuous. And I don"t respect him at all for that.
Here's a very long, yet interesting article written by Sean Wilentz, entitled "Race Man."
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304&k=5083

It further illustrates how racism has been employed by the Obama campaign to paint Sen. Clinton with that ugly brush. And before anybody jumps on me, I know he's a Clinton supporter, but does that make his points any less true?

I"ve had several conversations with Black and white friends and family of mine regarding the "white guilt" thing long before you wrote this piece. Some agree it exists, some don"t. Some say there are whites who feel electing Sen. Obama would finally put to rest the idea that America is racist. To them, I"ve said, "Bad Reason." That"s just more prettying up a longstanding problem with no real move toward facing and fixing the truth AND it opens the floodgates for some whites who are racist to say, "See, we"re not racist, we elected a Black president" - and then continue to support all of the institutional racism entrenched in our society. Some say, it is time for a Black president. To them, I"ve said, "Thank you Miss Ann for finally deciding it"s time." When pressed, they say that"s not what they meant and I know it isn"t, just had to let them know what that sounded like without them further supporting their point. They just think that throne is and always should have been open to all and feel for the first time, there are others who agree.

As for Ms. Ferraro"s statement, I"m not all up in arms. As a woman, I totally agree with her. Men have historically and consistently found ways to minimize and marginalize the role of women in this country if we"re honest. Blaks got the right to vote long before women did! I believe that"s where she was trying to go with statement.

[Dailyfare]

"Men have historically and consistently found ways to minimize and marginalize the role of women in this country "

So, in turn, it's OK for Geraldine Ferraro to minimize Senator Obama because of his skin color?

"Blaks got the right to vote long before women did! I believe that"s where she was trying to go with statement."

Yes, dear. Blacks did get the right to vote before women. And it was smooth sailing all the way. That's why it only took 2 additional amendments and a Voting Rights Act to enforce.

1868 -- The 14th Amendment recognizes African Americans as citizens, giving them the right to vote. However, state officials continue attempts to deny this right.
1870 -- African Americans were given the right to vote in the 15th Amendment. It prohibited any state or local government from denying that right.
1964 -- The 24th Amendment declares that no person should be denied the right to vote because they cannot pay a "poll tax."
1965 -- An amendment to the Voting Rights Act bans the use of literacy tests, poll taxes and other obstacles designed to keep people from voting.

The gist of the Ferraro argument seems to be: how dare a black person get an advantage before white women.

It's not Obama's fault that Geraldine Ferraro was unable to win a Senate seat on her own. It's not his fault that she was chosen as a token in 1984. He's put together an effective presidential campaign.

Deal with it, Geraldine.

[SCMagnolia]

Dailyfare....I try really hard not to live in a tit-for-tat world. I am basing my comment on my beliefs not some "in turn" thing. And yes dear, I interpreted her statement about Sen. Obama differently than you did and you know what? That's okay. I respect your right to disagree.

And as a 52 year-old Black woman who was born and raised in the Deep South, I promise you, I know everyone of those statistics you so nicely laid out. Let me share a few more to clarify my point which you obviously missed:

"Black voters came out strongly for the Republicans in the 1868 elections, helping Grant win the presidency. With Grant in office, the Fifteenth Amendment passed through Congress and was submitted to the states for ratification. This amendment guaranteed all citizens the right to vote, regardless of their race. Douglass's push for state approval of the amendment caused a breach between him and the woman suffragists, who were upset that the measure did not include voting rights for woman. Old friends such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton accused Douglass of abandoning the cause of women's rights. At the annual meeting of the Equal Rights Association in May 1869, Douglass tried to persuade the woman suffragists that voting rights for blacks must be won immediately, while women could afford to wait. "When women because they are women are dragged from their homes and hung upon lampposts, .....then they will have the urgency to obtain the ballot," said Douglass. One of the women in the crowd cried out, "Is that not also true about black women?" "Yes, yes," Douglass replied, "but not because she is a woman but because she is black." The women in the audience were not convinced by Douglass's argument, and some of them even spoke out against black suffrage. Douglass's relationship with the woman suffragists eventually healed, but women would not receive the right to vote until 1920.....Between 1868 and 1870, the southern states were readmitted to the Union, and large numbers of blacks were elected to the state legislatures. Blacks also won seats in Congress, with Hiram Revels of Mississippi becoming the first black senator and Joseph Rainey of South Carolina being the first black to enter the House of Representatives. " ( from "A biography of the life of Frederick Douglass by Sandra Thomas.") In order to overcome revisionist history, we must tell the whole truth ourselves dear.

Nowhere in my comment did I say it was "smooth sailing." I simply stated the fact that Blacks got the right to vote before women did. Between 1870 and 1890, it is also a fact that we held public office - even in the most racist of sttes. After 1890, an apparent 180 degree turn happened and we found ourselves in a situation damn near as bad as slavery. If you're interested, may I suggest a book by C. Van Woodward entitled "The Strange Career of Jim Crow?" It's an enlightening account of how the country went backward in race relations after the 1890 Jim Crow laws were passed. Very informative!

Oh, and where in my comment did I blame Sen. Obama for Ms. Ferraro not winning "a Senate seat on her own?" Or that "she was chosen as a token in 1984?" I can't seem to find it. You know if you think he's put together an effective presidential campaign, that's wonderful. You have a right to your opinion - and I have a right to mine. Ain't Freedom of Speech grand?

[ignrnthllblly]

I am a white man. I'm not young. By strict delineation, I am a Southerner. So I'm fairly certain I'm not supporting Barack Obama because he is a black man (though, like Stephen Colbert, my DNA tells me I'm blacker than I thought I was). But if there were no Barack Obama in this race and the only "disqualification" I could find with Hillary Clinton was that she was female, I know I could support her without reservation. That's the rub, you see. I can find numerous actual disqualifications for Hillary. Even if I leave them unstated, I will be attacked as a misogynist, just as people who reject Obama for reasons other than race will not escape charges of racism. To attempt an assay of the relative weight of racism v. misogyny might best be left waiting the Monty Python reunion, because it's absurd folly. Obama wasn't my first choice for Democratic nominee. Neither was he my second choice. But when the race was reduced to Obama and Clinton, I began an examination of both to determine if I could support either. I assure you I have not been seduced by Obama's message of change because, frankly, I simply don't believe there is a candidate out there who would meet my measure of the change necessary in order to pull back from empire and restore the republic. If I am wrong about that, it will be because I underestimated Obama. As for Clinton and McCain, the past is prologue because, as it is often said, it's not even past: they are known quantities and that is what damns both. When Clinton and/or McCain try to stop the resonance of Obama's change meme, they err because it is the "correct" meme in the eyes of the electorate.

Clinton and McCain are also foolish to attack Obama's skill as an orator because their own oratory cupboards are so marginally provisioned and besides, making light of eloquence on the tail end of eight years of Bushspeak might strike a contrast so sharp as to register even with Republican undead.

Anyone who is not too lazy to examine Obama's eight remarkable years of legislative accomplishment in the Illinois senate and to put that record in direct comparison to the record of Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate cannot but know immediately than this is the kind of person who qualifies to lead this country--and that's when you know for certain that Clinton's sex (like Obama's color) is irrelevant.

[PoliticalAsylum]

Amen

[CitizenE]

Democrats and progressives posting on this and other blogs at Huffpo continuously deny the closet sexism and racism that exists among us. This is not surprising--can you imagine if Obama really were Muslim, the fallout then. They are both breaking ground, and inevitably, people both as prominent as Ferraro and anonymous as PosterJohnJaneQ are likely to reveal blind insensitivity. Though an Obama supporter, I find that so many people who critique Clinton and deny misogyny in what appears to be an irrational dislike for her pathetic. Similarly, Ferraro's remarks play on stereotypes, and her prickly denial betrays more about her than her detractors. The fact is Barack Obama if one would only cast a hard eye on history is a successful political candidate despite his racial background and because of his personal charisma. One could easily argue that Clinton is of the Bob Dole school of politicians and certainly would not be in her position were it not for her marriage to the former President, but no one would argue--though I have heard the argument made on her behalf--she has the support she has simply because she is a woman. Geraldine Ferraro should go back and look at those first Republican presidential debates, look at whom they nominated; then, think how Democratic voters in this campaign have voted. Indeed one of Obama's biggest constituencies are younger people who just do not have the phoney baloney liberal love-hate thing going on about women and blacks; Clinton and Obama's successes have occurred because the electorate by and large do not care whether you are black or a woman, but rather whether you can inspire and work to respond to the abject crisis in governance that exists today in American politics. As Bob Dylan sang decades, "get out of the way, if you can't lend a hand; the times, they are a' changing."

[retarius]

Earl....you are just toadying up to Clinton...have you been promised a job in WH or something?

Her tactics are Rovian...cheap, divisive, nasty, gutter-level, cynical...open your eyes and look at her...take the cloth out of your ears and listen to her...'monster' is way too kind....

Obama's the man....he's gonna win...and you will be cryin' out in the cold...

[vbond]

This is reprehensible.

[hank48188]

It's just the truth, you need to wake up!

[bauersox]

Interesting story in the Wall Street Journal about how Obama has been exploiting the race card since Day One of his campaign:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120536677319031953.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The story begins: "Is it just us, or does Barack Obama seem a mite too quick to play the
race card when facing criticism from political opponents? ..."

[vsign]

Obama supporters are taking the cue from their leader and thinking they don't need to come to us for our votes.

They are both racist and sexist toward us. Mean emotions. Hostile threats. Why would I want to shut up and give in to such a movement?

It has been obvious since New Hampshire that Obama and his campaign have promoted race baiting. White liberals get intimidated easily.

Women and older democratic voters - not so much.

We react like Gerry Ferraro does. "You want some advantage from me and you do it by making threats."" That is it. "You make threats and now I know who you are".

Obama - you are the thug.

[Dailyfare]

It's just them.

[Aaror]

You know, for a while it seemed like Clinton's run would pave the way for a qualified female presidential candidate (as opposed to someone whose qualification is that her husband was president). Unfortunatly Clinton has ruined it.
Lets face it, any female candidate for president for at least the next generation will have to deal being "like," Clinton, and being tarred with that brush will be political death. Clinton has made sure that there will not be a female president for at least 28 years.

[QueenCeleste]

Mr. Hutchinson, did you happen to hear Keith Oberman's diatribe tonight? Appalling! All the pundits (except Pat Buchanan, someone I seem to agree with more and more lately!) are blasting Ferraro. I am stunned. And I'm happy she is not apologetic as she has nothing to apolgize for.

Anyway, thanks again for your words. You are obviously one of the few sane people left these days, not to say keenly astute.

[Kalaine]

You can't seriously be 'stunned'. I am a woman and I believe that Senator Clinton has gotten so out of control - she can't even keep up with her spin and mud. It's embarrassing to me and she's closing any door for any woman to run for president for years. Blindly supporting her without critiquing her lack of ethical behaviour is simply irresponsible.

[hoodrat]

With Florida and Michigan, she still couldn't catch him. But a lot of you look like logic isn't a coherent thought process, so I'm going to switch. You know Hussein isn't really Black! He's African one of the few walking around America today that fits the moniker African American, so he can't use the "race card". Besides, he got a White momma - and you know the old darkies say that those mixed with White are sneeky, and more ruthless in their dealings because of that mix. So you can't trust him - so lets vote for a "true" Black American - Alan Keyes comes to mind....I was on the debate team in highschool - til', after one debate, the other side didn't like the decision, or the fact that the opposition had a couple "jiggaboos", on the team, and did they give us bananas for memorizing lines. I guess there was a reason that, after I was released from jail, I never tried to conform to your ways of etiquette, ever again. I always say that eloquence is reserved for the deserved - all else receive a very bad day.

[DLSteinhardt]

The premise of this post is absurd on two counts:

1) There is nothing "brave" about Rep. Ferraro's remarks. They're boilerplate resentment: "He sure has it easy, being the first-ever hugely popular mainstream black high elected official political leader in the history of the Republic!" (As opposed to rising to national prominence as the life partner of a President impeached for lying about cheating on you?)

2) THERE IS NO SUCH THING as "if he weren't black," or any other such construction. Nature or nurture, we're a "race" from birth, and to speak as if that singular characteristic could even hypothetically be stripped away is to step deep into a fantasy world.

In no way can any "if s/he weren't male/female/black" arguments further intelligent discussion. Such fantasies fuel racial misunderstanding by oversimplifying, with gross inaccuracy.

That's not brave, that's stupid!

[zarkon]

Amen!! Did I say Amen?

[laborgrunt]

You, Maggie Williams, Clarance Thomas and Uncle Rukus should totally do dinner sometime. You all would just famously get along.

[neoprimordial]

What kind of claptrap is this that you're putting forth as a credible take on the Ferraro debacle? The truth? "Ferraro got it right on both counts when she said that race has made a difference with Barack Obama." Did you not read/hear the statement she repeatedly made?? Let me show you the quote again:


"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."


How can you in any way shape or form possibly justify her statement? Your position defies logic and smacks of a cronyistic sycophancy. Alright, at the risk of descending into another "what if" scenario reductio ad absurdum argument, here's WHAT would have happened IF Obama was a White person: Obama would go on to be president of the United States in January. This is absurd! Everything that he is today is as a result of all that he's experienced in his life, from his being born of a Black father and White mother to his exemplary academic experiences to his political life today. All the drive, the determination, the discipline, the intelligence, the manners, the foresight, the achievements, the patience--everything that he is is inextricably linked to all that he has experienced in his life. We would have to be God to credibly imagine what life would be like if he were White or female.


Why did the DNC pick Obama to give the keynote speech at the 2004 convention? Why did the majority of voters in Iowa vote for him? Why have the majority of voters overall voted for Obama? Because he's Black? Don't be ridiculous! Why was Obama getting significant numbers of White male voters? Because they preferred a man to a woman?? Come back to reality! They didn't like Hillary and they liked what Obama was advocating DESPITE his being a Black man, otherwise why not vote for Edwards? That you choose to ignore or reject this puts all else that you say into question, just as Hillary's judgment is now suspect because she did not immediately reject the flagrantly racist comments of a so-called supporter.


It just amazes me that allegedly learned and sophisticated people can go off and hold positions that are not only indefensible but downright foolhardy. Mr. Hutchinson, you have lost your credibility with me.

[nice2blucky]

One imbecile after another explains this or that without weighing contributing factors and facts. Geraldine Ferraro said what she said because she has an agenda. At best, it was simply an opinion -- an opinion I so not share because of contributing factors. At worst, it was dirty and sly.

First, the reason that both Obama and Clinton have come this far is because of the media. If the media played their hand differently, we could have Edwards and Kucinich, or almost anyone for that matter.

If Obama were a black woman, and the media supported that, Obama-the-black-woman would be doing just fine.

Clinton reminds me of movie character that is helped along at every turn, given every advantage, but still cannot win. She just cannot do it fair and square. She must cheat to win.

Republicans see Hillary as their best chance to win, so they are crossing parties to keep her close enough so the not-so super delegates can turn the party on it's head. And true to character, as someone who has little character, Hillary -- just like Joe Lieberman -- is willing to let this happen; as long as it's on her behalf.

[democraticjack]

This is as good a place as anywhere to post this. Given the Obama camp's resistance to a redo in Florida; how does he justify the following which is an excerpt from the 9/30/07 Tampa Tribune:

TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.

[Kalaine]

Are you counting Hillary's victory rally where she waited on the tarmac for the polls to close?

[Hawise]

At this point- who cares who violated the stupidly thought out pledge first? The real question is- does the Democratic nominee (whoever it is) think they can turn enough small red states with 5-10 electoral votes to offset the votes of Michigan and Florida combined? They can't, they need to suck up to those voters now before the convention before they lose them altogether. American presidencies have been lost on smaller things than disregarding two populous states.

[ignrnthllblly]

Justify what was purported to be a hint? In the Tampa Tribune? Is this a Russian nesting joke?

[SCMagnolia]

ignrnthllblly...though the reporter characterized it as a hint, here is what those very generous fundraisers said Sen. Obama's response was: "Scarritt said Obama responded that he'll "do what's right by Florida voters." Now what could that have meant? He plans to do what's right by Florida voters by totally ignoring them? I think not.

I can only deduce that he thought he'd be the presumpitve nomee and, as is the rule, he could with the sweep of his hand seat the FL delegates. I'm sure neither he, nor his surrogates expected he'd be in the position he's in right now - no presumptive nominee. So we in FL will not b be "bamboozled" that he really wanted to seat us. Now he finds himself, particularly in the wake of his previous arguement FOR the fairness of mail-in ballots, in the awkward position of showing how he REALLY feels. Sucks to be him at this juncture.