Ferraro on Obama: Not a Racist -- Just an Idiot
Geraldine Ferraro stands by her remarks on Barack Obama and says she's hurt that they have been spun in such an outrageous way:
"if Obama was a white man," Ferraro said, "he would not be in this position...And if he was a woman 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."
Is that racist? No. It's just moronic.
Let's look at a few of the Obama qualities that voters are responding to:
--Eloquent
--Smart
--Good looking
--Inspiring
--Young
--Charming
--Well-Educated
--Breath of Fresh Air
Does Ferraro seriously believe that a white Obama with all of the qualities above "would not be in this position?" The Democrats have been waiting a decade for someone with these qualities to come along, and they'd take him or her in any shape, size, color, or species.
Why is Obama whipping Hillary, for example--despite her far-greater experience? Because she doesn't have half of them.
I've always admired Geraldine Ferraro. I'm sorry to learn that she's braindead.
Follow Henry Blodget on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hblodget
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
If we're honest here, if he were white, and it was evident that she could not catch his lead, she'd be forced by the aprty to drop out so that the party could unify and focus on McCain. So, she's right. He wouldn't be in the position of being in first place and being told he should be VP.
Henry, I will one up you and say she is moronic AND racist. I wouldn't say supremist racist, but her statements certainly have an undertone of racism that you can't ignore.
I am not arrogant enough to assume this, but if she were a man, would she have even been allowed to say these things without the torches comming out within hours?
".....And if he was a woman he would not be in this position."
Uhhhh....H
Geraldine Ferraro was just relating her own personal experience and what she had learned in looking back on her own personal history and applying it to her reasons why she supports Hillary Clinton and not Barack Obama. It has to do with experience and qualifications period. He is running on star power not qualifications or experience and part of her star power in 84 was her being a woman. Part of Barack Obama star power is being the first African American who really is expected to win the white house.
That does have a amount of star draw power and we all agree on that. That is all she was trying to say not anything else the spin doctors are trying to turn in to a racist issue. It is the Obama camp and now Obama himself who is trying to pump more into it so they can suck more out of it for Political gain. Typical politics.
We had a whole tread where we talked open and honestly about things like this and now we are resorting to making that thread a sham by this kind of discussion. Here Geraldine Ferraro was relating in and open way her personal lessons learned as to why she was the VP on the ticket. Now was that her only qualifications ..no. She had some experience and had done a lot of good work and was also ask for that. She had to have political qualification other then being a woman or they would have just picked any woman with a big name or a woman off the street. Still one of the biggest factors of picking her at that time was to create star power from her being a woman. The Times and what she brought was responsible for that. The times and who Barack Obama is (all parts of him) is making him the success he is today. He could not have done this 30 years ago or even 20 years ago or maybe even 10 years ago. To say there have never been qualified African Americans before Barack Obama that could have run for office before 2008 is just absurd an not true. The list is way to long to even attempt to say that... it has been shameful and stupid that we as American have not had such ability and wisdom running for President long before 2008 just because of ones race or gender.
What she is saying bottom line is that qualification and experience is not being place on a equal standing with other factors in the success of Barack Obama in 2008 just like qualification and experience was not being placed on equal standing when she was asked to run as VP in 84. Ask yourself what YOUR motives are for sharing in this thread?
Look past the smoke screen it is not that hard to do. She is kind of right that they are attacking her and yes her being white is part of the excuse but they could care less about her race it is the opportunity to attack for political advantage that is the important part. She could be purple or any other color and they would use it. This has nothing to do with Racism in any direction ....it is just who can take and twist and turn for political gain. A show, A Act. We the people are the only ones getting hurt in all this. I don’t buy into it from either side after the fact of her first comments. My above post says what she was originally trying to say and relate to and anything and everything beyond that is just media hype and political gamesmanship.
So in other words....s
LOL! - I'm probably too old to be typing those 3 letters but I did actually laugh out loud!
If Hillary Clinton had not been married to Bill Clinton she would not be a Senator
Therefore she is running for President because she is married to Bill Clinton the ex Disbarred President.
Hillary skipped over a lot of other qualified men and women to be the Senator from New York and she was able to make those skips due to the fact her husband is Bill Clinton.
Don't you think other New Yorkers may resent her jumping ahead of them to be Senator from New York.
The governor of New York before he had to resigned in disgrace Hillary's super delegate was going to be the next in line to run for President in 8 years.
'Barack
you got soul,
you got soul like no others got soul,
you got soul like Miles Davis, Marvin Gaye, Mohammad Ali,
Aretha Franklin, Ed Bradley, Cornel West
the Harlem Globetrotters, and the New York City Fire Department
you got soul....'.
copyright, 08 zoe artemis, 'travelogue of my soul' collection
Perhaps this issue involving Geraldine Ferraro should be judged by facts and logic, and not by ridiculous notions of what is politically correct.
1) Geraldine Ferraro suffers from multiple myeloma [blood-borne cancer], and from what I heard last night, she has been placed on chemotherapy drugs again [which would indicate that her cancer is no longer in remission]. About multiple myeloma: There is no cure for multiple myeloma. About half of the people diagnosed with the disease die within 5 years. Geraldine Ferraro was diagnosed with multiple myeloma in 1998.
2) While I've never had chemo or cancer, I've been close to the finish line more than once, and I can tell you that when you know you're close, you just don't feel the need to sugarcoat your words for public consumption; you simply say what you mean.
3) The argument she has made is a logical one, and it is only in the realm of "politically correct speech" that her argument can be classified as inappropriate; it is a demonstrable FACT.
The Argument: Barack Obama would not be in his current position of advantage [within the Democratic Primaries] if he were not a black male.
Take all aspects of Barack Obama--sex, age, personality, race, qualifications, and political experience--and change one factor: RACE.
It’s a reasonable argument to assert that the demographic of voter percentages would change considerably. It’s unlikely that the white male Barack Obama would unify and consistently pull 80 - 90% of the African-American vote. In primary matches where the block African-American vote is the deciding factor in voter turnout for black Barack Obama, white Barack Obama would likely lose many percentage points in the comparative tallies, and could very well lose some of the closer primary contests that the black Obama has won.
My [and Geraldine Ferraro's] argument is based on common sense and logic; while it may very well be considered an inappropriate position to take or to state in public, the argument itself is sound, and theoretically falls within a logical range of projection for the available facts known about both candidates.
The very notion that you choose to call conterfactual hypothetical conjecture ("would Obama be where he is if he were not black?") a "fact" shows that you are a logical moron.
The FACT that you are a logical moron means the rest of your rant is not worth one ... more ... word ... of ... my ... time.
Did you read the post before you commented? Because he just laid out all the reasons why her argument is NOT logical. Go back and reread. And tell me again that a smart, good looking, inspiring, eloquent, rational, calm, young, charismatic, breath of fresh air candidate who is also a great orator, would NOT be in Obama's position today, or even further along than he is now, if he weren't black. In fact, with these qualities, ALL logic and common sense tells me that he WOULD indeed be in the same position, if not further along.
See my post below .... and try to explain why there are not all sorts of black men that are now governors or senators in the US, or why there has been no black president. There is no "fact" in your arguments at all ... Obama is not the first black candidate to get large majorities of the black vote, and yet other black candidates have failed and failed and failed again to win state-wide (let alone nationwide) elections. Some states in the deep south have huge black populations and yet never, ever have any black governors or senators ... why?
I expect that you like to think that everyone is out to get white people, and that our society is more racist against whites than it is against blacks, but a brief glance at the real world shows that it ain't true.
Just to reiterate, NOTHING is changed by the assertion that 90% of blacks vote for Obama. You may not like this, you may think this is racist in its own way, but that does not show -- does not even come close to showing -- that black candidates have advantages over white candidates. And that, my dear friend, is exactly what Ferraro said, and what you now say: he has it easier because he is black.
if you take out his race, then you've got John Edwards or John Kerry.
if you take Clinton off the Shrillary RodHam, then all you have is a squealing pig with a stick up its butt.
i'm down for the intelligent discussions about race and gender, but the bottom line is that in her 70-plus years, one would hope that Geraldine learned ways to say things of this nature that weren't so biting, incendiary and divisive.
besides there are other blacks who've run for office who didn't garner near the following across the board that Obama has.
if Hillary hadn't failed the DC bar, she'd be a republican pundit -- perhaps that's why rupert murdoch has crossed over and funded her so strongly. perhaps that's why her go-to station is FOX News.
me personally? i'm not drinking anybody's kool-aid. it's just amazing to me that hillary keeps making it about him. "not him - not him - not him"
how about rolling out her own plans and making those the issues of the day?
sex, dirt and conflict sell, but they're no way to run a campaign or a presidency - or did she not learn that the first time around?
Okay so now she gets to be the sick victim of white baiting? Stop the insanity..
Poor , sick me (who by the way has to work her 40 hour a week job) which I'm pretty sure Gerry the victim does not has a few things to say.
Hillary Clinton the monster would be home w/ Bill (who actually wouldn't be home) resting on their supposed laurels had she not carpet bagged her way into being Senator from New York. That could not have happened had she not been married to a philandering president and thus gaining the "poor pitiful me' vote.
I have a few more things to say but it's time for me to cry so everyone knows I'm the victim of being a white woman....h
Sorry, it is racist. This is just a subtle form of the "entitlement" or "affirmative action" slam. The implication is that as a black man, he can't possibly have arrived where he is on his own merits or because of his own inherent skills or attributes, its only because of some kind of gaming of the system, presumably by the media, that he's there, and that everyone's just "caught up in it."
So it's really the media. They've unfairly portrayed him in such a favorable light because he's black. That fits in with the long history of fabulous treatment black men have always had in the mainstream media and Hollywood, for that matter. Surely all those arguments that the media and Hollywood predominantly portray black men as gangsters, pimps, thugs, theives, and drug addicts are overblown. The whole Willie Horton ad was really a positive statement about the benefits of parole. And who could forget the insightful coverage of the victims of Katrina, pictures showing white people rummaging thru abandoned grocery stores were captioned "flood victims search for food" while pictures of black people rummaging thru abandoned grocery stores were captioned "looters taking food."
Yup, it's all that positive press for black people, especially black males. So unfair that Obama is getting all that luck for being a black male in America, where the media is so biased in favor of blacks.
P.S. I'm white.
Absolutely, 100% right on, Openeyes. The implication is that without social engineering raising someone like Obama, he'd be driving a bus or pushing a broom. It is racist, and it is disgusting.
I'll certainly agree that the idea of an African American being president of the US is exciting, intriguing and inspiring. But I could say the exact same thing about the idea of a woman being president of the US. So Obama has no advantage over Clinton in this arena.
The advantage he does have is that he is charming, brilliant, insightful, inspiring and genuinely likeable. HRC is none of these things... and if she thinks the racism of her surrogates is going to make up for her lacking in these qualities, she is simply delusional.
What she was saying, is that if Hillary were running against one of the other contenders, some White Guy, the Black vote would have lined up behind Hillary because she's married to the very popular Bill Clinton. Which, begs the question, Where would HRC be if SHE wasn't married to a 'Black' Guy, (you know, the first black president). Answer - NO-WHERE. She would be NO-BO-DY in politics. Hillary just needs a little more seasoning.
It's funny. If I read that list of qualities without knowing you were referring to Barack, I would think you were talking about John Edwards. Now that I know you are talking about Barack, I think arrogant should be added to the list.
It's the kool-aid the Clinton camp makes them drink. They don't even realize how ugly they have become. Being Right relieves them of any conscience as far as they are concerned.
I read that she's been sick, blood cancer, and taking thalidomide and also likely anti-depressants for the accompanying depression. MSNBC reported last night that her friends have been worried about her physical and mental health.
That doesn't justify what she said, but it may partially explain it. Maybe she's close to an emotional breakdown.
The Clinton campaign needs to remove her from any official role in any case, but her disease may win her some added sympathy.
She is ill, but I saw her, and she's hardly braindead or near an emotional breakdown. She was fiesty.
She complimented on all the same stuff the author points out here.
It's another example of how Obama takes one small thing out of context and whips up fury in his supporters.
This is motivational?
Unfortunately, it's not just moronic, it plays into a narrative of white victimhood and denial of racism against blacks, as if the true racism in our country was actually racism against whites.
Just to reiterate, Ferraro claims that Obama would not be where he is, and is lucky, because he is not a white man or a woman of any color. This morning, she pushes the idea that she really means that blacks are voting for the black candidate. She said the same thing about Jesse Jackson in the 80's though, and I'm not sure why he didn't become president (or at least democratic nominee) by her logic.
Of course, she didn't really mean that Obama only benefited by blacks voting for him because he is black, she meant that he gets favorable treatment from non-blacks as well (from the media, from voters, who knows?).
I'm sure she can explain, then, why there is exactly one black governor in the US, and one black senator (let alone no black presidents). Given all the bias in favor of black men, this seems an odd fact. I'm also sure that she can explain why exit polls in Ohio showed Hillary Clinton doing better both among people that thought gender was important and among those who thought that race was important. See http://www
Ferraro's idea here is, just as Sen. Obama put it, "patently absurd" as a factual matter. Why is she saying it then? Why does she seem to believe it? Her later claim that she was being attacked because she is white points to the answer: like many whites, she thinks that she is the victim of reverse discrimination in general, that our society is not, in fact, one that discriminates against blacks, but is one that discriminates against whites.
Never mind how factually inaccurate this is, it fits nicely with the narrative of the white victim.
I really, really hope that some of the elders of the democratic party come out strongly against this kind of thing, and the Clinton camp's obvious (to me) comfort with the idea of garnering the white victim vote.
Ferraro: Obama's lucky to be winning just because he's black.
Rendell: Obama's worthy but can't win Pa because he's black
Bill Clinton: Obama = Jackson; they're black.
Finally the Clinton campaign speaks with passion and hope on an issue: that racial profiling will prevail in the election.
Agreed. There's a REASON Hillary has the highest negatives in either party. She EARNED them.
boy that about sums it up.
Geraldine Ferraro??? Who went and lifted that rock?
Loved that one!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
