A justly defiant Geraldine Ferraro just keeps getting it right. She told NBC that if anyone should apologize for playing the race card, it's Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama. She flatly and rightly blasted Obama for virtually calling her a racist for merely saying what Ray Charles (may he rest in peace) could see and that's that the media has employed a blatant, no grotesque, double standard when it comes to tiptoeing around any criticism no matter how slight and muffled of the hyper-thinskinned Obama.
Yet let rival Hillary Clinton (or God forbid, hubby Bill) even breathe the R word about Obama and the screeches from the clinically obsessive Hate Hillary Clubbers are swift and loud.
Ferraro bore the full brunt of their noisy howls and the double standard when she dared intimate that the media and much of the public has turned like Lot's wife into a stone mute on race with Obama while unleashing a 24/7 barrage of sometimes thinly veiled and other times outrageous sexist innuendos, wisecracks, taunts and ridicule of Clinton. As Ferraro correctly noted, if you scratched out gender from the cracks at Hillary and penciled in race and made the same veiled and not so veiled racial digs at Obama, the howls of protest would be heard on the Moon.
A textbook case was the Martin Luther King, Jr. versus Lyndon Baines Johnson flap a couple of months ago. Clinton in an innocent and, in fact, praiseworthy and totally factual statement said that Johnson played the major role in getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress. Oh, boy! Clinton was: take your pick: A. a maligner of Dr. King B. a slanderer of the civil rights movement C. a closet bigot. When Clinton fought back the by now all-too-predictable pattern from the Obama camp kicked in. First self-righteous indignation, followed by deliberate distortion of her actual statement, followed by personal attack and slander, and then the capper, plausible deniability that Obama never made an issue of it in the first place.
But here's the bigger problem with all this. The great strength of the Obama campaign has rested squarely on his pitch that he's the post-civil rights guy, with a broad based, issue driven, non-racial appeal. That's the front door, image-enhancing spin. The back door, under-the-table pitch is to subtly play race at every turn. Whether it's getting Oprah to nakedly and blatantly rev up blacks on the campaign trail, or hint to black audiences about his poverty and civil rights work, or to cast a different cadence of speech when he's talking to black groups, or most importantly to snatch at every chance to turn even the slightest reference to race by Clinton or anyone in her camp, such as Ferraro, into a federal case.
This tired act is wearing thin and thankfully a few that have not totally abandoned all sense of reason are seeing through this melodrama. In an editorial, "Obama and the Race Card," the Wall Street Journal got it right. It blistered Obama for the wrong headed, and self-serving dictum that if anybody white dares bring up race they automatically will be branded as the second coming of David Duke (my characterization). Yet, it's totally permissible a la the Lyndon Johnson blast at Clinton for the Obama campaign to bring up race when and wherever it's deemed in their interest.
The even bigger problem with all of this is that this shows beginning warning signs of backfiring. That was plainly evident in the Mississippi primary. Obama would have gone down to a crushing defeat if it wasn't for the black vote. His on-the-surface hope and change message fell flat on its face with white voters. He won exclusively with the black vote (90 percent). Clinton got the overwhelming bulk of the white vote. The racial polarization was in the Democratic primary! If Obama is the eventual Democratic nominee, it isn't political rocket science stuff to figure out how he'd fare in the general election in the state if he had to depend on the black vote alone.
Now back to Ferraro. She didn't just ask for an apology from Obama for virtually calling her a racist, she also warned that if the Obama camp persists in this shell game on race, that he risks alienating many Democrats that could and would raise money and votes for him if he is the eventual nominee. She included herself in that category. It may already be too late on that score. Race is just too good and too juicy a plum to abandon when it serves a campaign purpose. In other words, Geraldine, while you certainly deserve an apology from Obama, don't hold your breath waiting for it.
New America Media National Political Affairs Writer Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is How the GOP Can Keep the White House, How the Democrats Can Take it Back (Middle Passage Press, July 2008).
I don't understand how Clinton gaffes are Obama's attacks or the fact that Ms. Ferraro picked the wrong fight and at the wrong time be a race-card play by the Obama camp. I've seen the replies from Camp Obama and it didn't seem that they were playing it up and rather it was Camp Clinton who was keeping the story alive with Ferraro on every channel. It was like someone yelling fire at a fourth of July bar-b-que cook-off contest.
Hence don't know what's a miss here but then again, the media is "biased" against the Clintons according to Camp Clinton, despite the fact that if Clinton wasn't Clinton, she would've been written off long ago after losing eleven contests in a row. It's the brand that keeps it alive.
The financially insecure (yes, that means middle-aged; I remember what it was liking having no money in the late '70's when I was young--who cared? It was a great time) like Hillary. That 's because we're taking care of our kids (the Obama supporters) and our parents. We like Hillary's solution. Like Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia, I did my research, made my choice, and I'm standing by her!
I am disappointed in Geraldine for allowing herself to become embroiled in a debate on whose terms she cannot win. What if I were to say that HRC only got to be where she is by being a woman - promoted by Sam Walton of Wal-Mart as: " my little (token) woman." HRC was the wife of a former president - not husband, wife, and so far, that still means being a woman.
I believe that Geraldine is right - Obama is where he is because of his race - but HRC is where she is because of her gender. Neither candidate is free from baggage of their pasts - who they accepted money from. Neither would end the financial system of the Federal Reserve as would Ron Paul and probably Nader or Kucinich.
What we need is strong president who can face the financial oligarchy. neither of these candidates, and not Geraldine herself, will measure up to the task.
We need a George Washington or an Abraham Lincoln. Neither Obama, HRC (nor Geraldine for that matter) are even in this category.
While these two candidates argue over who dissed whom the big picture is out of focus. Keep your eye on the ball - war and money policies. These two have squandered the opportunity to effectuate real change. You can get into the White House with money but to have real change you must look at the underlying dynamic, not the "symptom" of racism or gender bias - these go with the system of exploitation. That system is economic; and it must be first addressed for all races and both genders first. MLK told us that and all the Geraldines and HRCs can spout but they don't really "get it."
If you weren't alive in the days of MLK I really don't think you get it as he lived it. There is no "middle ground." Obama is being untruthful about being able to reach across because the economic powers will cut off your arm at the shoulder. Things get ugly about "their" money. Like the British did in the colonies. Race or gender is not the real issue, money and power are.
I believe that Geraldine is right - Obama is where he is because of his race - but HRC is where she is because of her.....
marriage. to the former president.
We're still quite a way from a woman coming up the ranks on her lonesome to Presidential contender.
And they're BOTH where they are because of their corporate backers.
I'm not sure why, but somehow I thought that Mr. Hutchinson would tell us how Ms. Ferraro had ever gotten it "right" that Obama is beating Clinton because he happens to be black. He could have told us how it is "right" that being black helps Obama so much despite the evident fact that being black is such a disadvantage for being elected to statewide and national office in general (only one black governor out of 50 and one black senator, Obama, out of 100).
Mr. Hutchinson goes further than simple lack of argument, though. He says that Obama had "virtually" called her a racist, without bothering to, you know, quote what he said. I recall him saying that Ferraro's comments were "patently absurd," and noting that if you were to design an ideal candidate for president, you would not make him black and give him a funny sounding name. I'm not sure which of these, or any other statements, is in any way objectionable or inaccurate -- Ms. Ferraro's statements were and are, as a matter of fact, patently absurd.
As far as a pattern of charging critics with racism, it is funny that there is no quote from Obama calling someone racist. Indeed, there is no quote from anyone in his campaign saying such a thing. Mr. Hutchinson seems to want to make a something of a virtue of this absolute lack of evidence by saying that Obama's campaign has left itself "plausible deniabiity" that the issue was raised -- could it be so plausible because it's true? Shouldn't you at least make an attempt to show why it's a false denial, with real evidence?
After Mr. Hutchinson (or one of the commentators that thinks he is so right) can point out exactly how Ms. Ferraro was "right" in the first place and how Obama or anyone in his campaign unfairly raised the issue of racism, they can perhaps go on to discuss an other example of all of this which would support the claim of a "pattern" of such activity by Obama's campaign. I suggest President Clinton's analogy of Obama to Jesse Jackson, and the Obama camp's reaction to it. Of course, they would have to convincingly state what President Clinton meant by the comparison, if something other than a racial comparison, and they would go on to not the Obama campaign's reaction. I recall Obama more than graciously stating that he didn't think President Clinton had a racial comparison in mind.
The other thing that bothers me with Obama hasn't made the news yet. I'm wondering when it will. I've heard blacks say that they aren't pressing Obama on what he will do for African American communities until he's president. They're afraid that of they ask him now, it will turn off white voters. That leads me to wonder just what they have in mind. It also explains why media hogs like Jessie Jackson Sr. and Al Sharpton are keeping a low profile. Hmmmmm.
If anything, Obama's campaign is trying to get the public to ignore race as a factor -- as it should. If Hillary supporters (like you) can't stop injecting race into the campaign discussion, then it's up to the Obama supporters to call them (and you) out on it.
Your comments smack of fear of the unknown. Turning off "white voters" will only happen because of what others say about Obama, not about what he or his campaign has put forth.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=fd72d239-fb33-4493-be6a-2a869fa597d2
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/28/intv.clinton.out.of.context.cnn
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
Please read Violist's commentary. Again and again if necessary, until you get it.
Senator Obama's strength includes his ability to see beyond his own race and include all of America in his regard. See, once you can do that, race becomes more AND less important as a factor in who someone is. It's more important when it serves as a barrier among people and less important when that barrier is easily destroyed.
Are you one of those "tough" warmongering neocons, too?
The main problem with the Obama campaign's protective attitude towards race is the way they have used it to close of discussions. If they can somehow portray a topic that they would rather not confront as racist they do so immediately. This fits into a larger pattern of Obama's interaction with the media. Obama has shown himself to be remarkably thin-skinned the second someone starts asking him tough questioned. Its not just his response to Clinton's oftentimes over-the-top and unfair attacks, but its also whenever reporters start asking him questions he doesn't want to answer, like that time he stormed off the podium after only seven questions were asked. While the "kitchen sink" tactics of the Clinton campaign are unseemly and destructive, how much better are Obama's thin-skinned temper tantrums?
The media has amped up the "racial" aspects of this 1000% and you seem to be lapping it up. Why it seems to be landing on Obama is beyond me.
Your arguments are crafted completely out of your warped imagination.
a tougher fact to swallow is that clinton had better than half of the AA vote locked up, and blew it by making foolish comments about MLK. I don't believe she intended any harm by them, she just misread her constituency, and lost them as a result.
http://www.davidduke.com/general/keith-olbermann-says-ferraro-sounds-like-david-duke_3576.html#more-3576
I'd suggest it may be time for some soul-searching reflection about what you're certain is and isn't true.