Ferraro's Race Argument Isn't Insulting to Obama; It's Insulting to Democrats
When Obama started doing well in the Presidential primaries, I was actually embarassed.
That feeling came because I remembered two middle-aged white guy friends of mine who had told me months ago they supported Obama, drawn by the promise of a young, smart leader with good ideas who seemed poised to implement them without resorting to the same old nonsense of our political past.
I liked his approach and ideas, but I had a much more cynical view of race politics. I never thought he'd have a chance because I assumed America would never really let him compete.
So to hear so-called progressive politicians such as Geraldine Ferraro complain that Obama is only ahead in the Democratic primary race because of his race, sounds to these ears like hearing news that cats have been found on the moon.
You mean, somebody thinks being a black man with the name Barack Hussein Obama is a bigger advantage than being the wife of the most successful Democratic president since John F. Kennedy?
Then Politico.com blogger Ben Smith on Tuesday highlighted a compelling nugget: Ferraro said the same thing back in 1988 about Jesse Jackson. And back then, her views were echoed by that great paragon of racial equality, Ronald Reagan.
Smith quotes Washington Post writer Howard Kurtz's 1988 story: "former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."
Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's.
Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history."- Howard Kurtz (WaPo, April 15, 1988)"
Ferraro still seems amazed by the concept that there is a problem with attributing Obama's 13-million votes in this year's primary elections solely to his race. She says, instead, that people who criticize her are being racist and that she was complimenting the way black people have supported Obama.
This is the way Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in this election; allowing dunderheads like Ferraro -- whose biggest political claim to fame is being part of the team which got annihilated by the Republicans in 1984 -- to drive wedges between a coalition which was poised to unseat the Republicans in November.
Ferraro's words also raise another complaint I've heard recently; that Obama is winning because America is more sexist than racist. Leave aside the notion that comparing disadvantages in this way is absurd -- women and black folks suffer from different kinds of oppresion in different ways -- the thesis also ignores some powerful facts.
There are more females than black males serving as governors, Congresspeople, and cabinet members. I wonder how any of them would feel about people who said they got their jobs because they were female? (And does Ferraro agree that she got her spot on Mondale's ticket because she's female?)
If Clinton wins this way -- basically encouraging working class white people and women to turn on Obama through race-based attacks -- the young people and black folks who were so excited about this election will stay home in November and John McCain will be president. Because nobody plays wedge issues and the fear game like the Republicans.
This is why I wound up voting for Obama when the primary rolled around in Florida. I'm tired of fear mongering, wedge politics and Democratic ineptitude. And, though I'm sure Obama cannot pull off everything he thinks he can as president, I'm desperate enough for a change that I'm willing to give him a shot.
Frankly, Ferraro's assumption that people like me voted for Obama because he self-identifies as a black man is less insulting to Obama and more insulting to me.
She better hope we get over our anger before November, or the Democratic party is going to pay the price.
Follow Eric Deggans on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Deggans
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
"Ferraro's words also raise another complaint I've heard recently; that Obama is winning because America is more sexist than racist."
Yeah, I've heard that crap too. I just say "how many women were lynched?" 'Well, things are different now than they were then,' people might counter.
Things, mindsets, patterns take a lot longer to change than people like to acknowledge. While neither form of discrimination is right - discrimination isn't appropriate period - people who try to pull the 'sexism is greater than racism' line need to be slapped.
I just watched the clip of the SC reporter who was attacked in a small SC town as she reported on a story about a murder. The victim's family attacked her and called her various racial names as they punched her. They didn't attack her because she is female, the attack was because of the color of her skin. Her statements afterwards reminds us that while changes have taken place, the racism still exists in this country. Our country hasn't progressed nearly as much as we would like to think it has. Racism and sexism has no place in this election. I agree that the Clintons aren't racists, but the comments coming from their campaign fuels the racism that exists and appeals to the racists attitudes of people in this country. Unfortunately, it is likely a calculated tactic, like many others they have used. That Hillary would let her campaign sink to this level is really sad.
(And does Ferraro agree that she got her spot on Mondale's ticket because she's female?)
She actually did say just this, something to the effect that if her name was "Gerald" Ferraro, she wouldn't have been on the ticket.
Yes she did... it was a back door justification for infusing race into the campaign.
Exactly. And, one which has no basis in fact. The media is often the ones who first push the racial narrative, which in this case may have been part of the Clintons' strategy to marginalize Obama as qualified, more than he is good because he is black. The unfortunate problem for Clinton, is not this comment in isolation, but it is the collective experience of non-whites who themselves have been subject to this same mindset in their lives. Interesting enough, some who come here and apologize and defend the statements like they exist in a vacuum, which also gives us a clue that they can't comprehend that those who disagree with them, have in many cases seen such things before. They are in other words, out-of-touch with what some in the white community have done and said to non-whites---as they seem to in self-denial about the real insidious nature of racism, is not one single item, but a series of them.
Someone needs to tell Ferrero and all these other people that seem to be so focused on Sen. Obama's race......
Excellent point. Not only is he half white but he was raised by a white family. That kind of blows Gerry's "IF HE WERE WHITE" theory!
In fairness, Clinton does get credit for dumping her although we could have skipped her bogus resignation letter; what a piece of crap that was! Hey Hill, how about turning over your tax records instead??
Eric:
The Clinton's fractured the coalition back in January. What's happening now is they are throwing the last arrows to finish the kill. Sorry, that you haven't figured it out yet, this has never been aboubt the democratic party - for the Clinton's it's always been about them and nothing else.
Now, not only will democrats who are running for office at the local, county, state and US House and Senate have to work harder there is a chance that republicans will make inroads and gain what was lost in 2006.
This will be the true legacy of the Clintons: Win at all cost and, if that fails destroy what you can along the way.
You see this is the kind of thing that happen when yoou have some older people in the party like Ferraro don't want to change. As long as you are voting for someone they like, everything is o.k.. It is time to wake up old democracts. Black people have been voting for everybody you have served up for us to vote for since the 60's. Tell me what is wrong with voting for a person that don't look like all of them in the past? You not the other side is always bring up race. Tell me do you have a problem now?
It's the Obama campaign who are constantly "pushing" racism charges against anyone who moves that will derail the democrats in Nov. I for one, am sick of it. McCain is almost starting to look good.
show me a single instance where obama accused his critics of being racist? people assume that if a minority disagrees with them or thinks their statement was inappropriate in any way shape or form, that they're automatically calling them a racist. it's just not the case.
prove it.....you can't
Yeah right, we heard Ferraro blame Obama for HER racist comments!
This country is ruled by spin and everyone happily participates.
If her comments were so divisive of the party, why did DailyKos put them front and center? She made this comments to some unknown tiny provincial newspaper? And why does every Obama supporter and his campaign distort and twist her meaning?
What she said was that in this election it's OK to be sexist. But it's not OK to be racist.
And she's totally right. She has more balls than most men making their worthless comments.
It was front and center everywhere because she made a public statement to the press, and they printed it. Every Obama supporter seems to be "distorting and twisting her words" because you are relying on the Clinton campaign to provide you with an accurate representation of what she said. I'm not going to get into a debate over what the meaning of "is" is, but the fact she referenced skin color twice in her remarks, most people thought she was making a statement related to race. In fact, some who have actually read her statements thought that the "gist" of her statement seemed to be that since he is a "lesser qualified" candidate, he owes his success to his skin color. Some viewed this as a thinly-veiled reference to affirmative action programs. Bush has used statements like these to send "coded messages" to his evangelical supporters - some refer to this type of statement as "dog whistle politics"
Well, you got the "gist" wrong.
She first made the statement during a radio interview. Don't you think some people were listening?
Here we have two campaigns being waged and they're as different as night and day, The Obama campaign is trying to run a positive campaign that wants to bring all politcal parties and the american people together. The Clintononians are all about divisiveness as shown by all the comments that have been coming from their side. The differences couldn't be clearer.
Good post. Hillary supporters are giving the impression that they believe HOPE SUCKS and that UNITY IS FOR LOSERS!
The most telling part of this Mr. Deggan's ignorance on this matter is this question:
(And does Ferraro agree that she got her spot on Mondale's ticket because she's female?)
Actually, she said just that in her original statement-in the same sentence, I believe.
She said that if she had been Gerald Ferraro at the time she would not have been on the ticket, that it was only because she was a woman.
The basic comment was that the timing was right in both cases.
It really helps, and is more honest, when one who is writing about what someone else said actually takes the time to find out what was said.
finthnx... watch Keith Olbermann's special comment either on MSNBC or YouTube ... it will open your eyes.
it was a racist statement, it is a racist statement, and will forever be a racist statement.
Mr. Deggan has it right. We will remember in November. Clinton's race-based, divisive politics will cost her dearly should she win. And conversely if Mr. Obama wins, expect a record turnout and show of support.
Oh, I don't really need to watch Olbermann. His opinions are just that. There is more than enough propaganda- pretending to be news- out there. He is there to make money.
Hillary Clinton is posing as a Democrat, but I believe she is far closer to John McCain in policy than those in the Democratic Party.
Progressive Politics and Hillary Clinton? LOL, fraid not...
The most telling part of this Mr. Deggan's ignorance on this matter is this question:
(And does Ferraro agree that she got her spot on Mondale's ticket because she's female?)
Actually, she said just that in her original statement-in the same sentence, I believe.
She said that if she had been Gerald Ferraro at the time she would not have been on the ticket, that it was only because she was a woman.
The basic comment was that the timing was right in both cases.
Whether the timing was right or not, to say Obama wouldn't be winning if her were white is absurd. Take away xenophobia and Obama would have wrapped this up weeks ago.
Both Ferraro and Clinton were liberals in their day, fighting against both racism and sexism. But, like me, they are now "wrinklies" and have not fully appreciated how far things have moved on since the 1960s.
Perhaps these unfortunate remarks were engendered mostly by frustration that their long-held dream of seeing the first woman president take office might be eclipsed by someone of the younger generation winning against another form of discrimination.
Once we turn 60, the realisation that our juniors are going to overtake us in the long race always generates a certain amount of envy - and that's one of the 7 deadly sins !
It's all very sad.
Hillary fighting racism? How so? She started her political career in 1964 as a Goldwater Girl.
I think you are hitting the nail on the head here.
LondonLib: what a charming point of view. Refreshing, actually.
Ferraro and Clinton live in a different world from today's young women. They think that "9 to 5" is a contemporary drama and that "Maude" is the paradigm of modern womanhood.
Today, women are more likely to graduate from college (55-45%), more likely to graduate from law school, and more likely to graduate from medical school. Women under 50 make the same amount of money as men with equal education levels and equal years experience. Black women do about as well as white women.
Black men, however, are more likely to go to prison that college. They do far worse than white men, white women, or even black women financially. The plight of black men in America is appalling, and yet Ferraro says they are "lucky", just as she did in 1988.
Hopefully, some day soon, a woman will run for president who does not rely on her husband's name and pretend that his experience belongs to her. When we do finally have a female president, hopefully it will be one that does not cry "sexism" every time things don't go her way and one that sees that racism is a sin, not a tool for political manipulation.
Its insulting to every supporter as well. Just as HRC's whole campaign has been. Its based on the fact that anyone who supports Barack has ulterior motives, WHATEVER they may be (as Hillary sees fit). Not that we actually like him, trust him, believe in his message, review his credentials, compare them with HRC's, do our own research. We have continuously been insulted by her campaign and now our comes this old bag from 1984 pandering to other racists in PA, KY and WV just in the nick of time. I can't take the next kitchen sink tactic. I can't!
My motive for voting for Obama is to move as far away from Bush's vision for America as possible. Clinton has proven time and again that she likes Bush's America, and just wants to tweak the edges.
She supports his in-roads into our privacy. She supports his wars, voting both to fight Iraq and then again in 2007 to fight Iran. She obviously loves Roves political tactics, as she is using them to the best of her ability. She treats blacks with the same disdain that Bush does. She even praises the Republican nominee, whom Bush sees as his heir.
If you like Bush, then vote for McCain. If you don't like Bush, vote for Obama. There's really no reason to vote for Clinton, since she presents no clear alternative to Bush and might as well be running as McCain's running mate.
I couldn't have said it better. I originally supported Obama because he was the Anti-Clinton, but have actually become quite impressed with his intellect, poise and quiet strength. We need a move away from the politics of hysteria.
I really had my doubts about Obama's candidacy at first. After letting him plead his case through debates and stump speeches, I decided to move closer to choosing him as the nominee for the Democrats. I still had some reservations but after seeing the Clinton campaign
a) employ fear tactics
b) dismiss the caucuses and smaller states and saying they didn't really matter unless she won
c) the mismanagement of her campaign
d)seemingly and willing to play nice only to flip around and attack
e)attacking Obama on experience and praising McCain in the same breathe
f) run on inevitabilty
I can't in good faith support any candidate willing to but their candidacy before country or the party.
I want to beat the Republicans not hand them the election.
Excellent post. It's insulting to all of us who are Democrats primarily because it's the only effective way to oppose the Republicans. Although, the hidden issue is the threat of the Democratic Party elite losing control to the common folk like us. Superdelegates were invented to stop that possibility, but that scheme may no longer play.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
