(Read more HuffPost coverage and reaction to Geraldine Ferraro's comments)
Geraldine Ferraro, once a beacon of hope for the possibility of a new era in American politics, has now disgraced herself for a second time. Today's 'clarifying' comments regarding last week's racist remarks were, if anything, even more offensive. They, and now Ms. Ferraro herself, symbolize a dark and ugly political era that belongs firmly in the past. And by allowing her to remain with her campaign in an official capacity, Hillary Clinton has brought the shadow of Ms. Ferraro's disgrace upon herself.
I remember the pleasure my then-wife and I felt when Rep. Ferraro was nominated as the Democratic Party's Vice Presidential candidate. As parents of a small girl who was already showing leadership traits, we -- and many others -- saw her as the harbinger of a better and more inclusive politics, the politics of the future.
What a disappointment yesterday, then, to read of Ms. Ferraro's ugly and bigoted comment that Barack Obama is "lucky" to be black, and that he would not be where he is today "if he were a white man" or "a woman." Make that ugly, bigoted -- and incorrect. There are no serious political observers of any political orientation who doubt Sen. Obama's political skills, including Republicans or the Clintons themselves.
Ms. Ferraro's comment may be offensive and wrong, but that doesn't mean it's stupid. On the contrary: It looks pretty shrewd. Her words play very well into white resentment of affirmative action, by harping on the notion that less-qualified black people are getting jobs that should go to hard-working and experienced white people.
Ferraro's words suggest a coded play for the bigot vote, with the "woman" reference thrown in to somehow link Obama with the oppression of women (a little something for the Erica Jong set.) It fits in nicely with the "accidental" darkening of Obama's skin in a Clinton campaign photo, or Sen. Clinton's recent statement that Sen. Obama isn't a Muslim - "as far as I know."
If that weren't bad enough, Geraldine Ferraro went back to the well today: "I really think they're attacking me because I'm white," she said. "How's that?"
How "that" is, Ms. Ferraro, is offensive and shameful. You have dishonored the country that has given you so much.
Still, are her statements the uncensored ravings of a bigot - or yet another example of the Clinton campaign playing the race card and then saying "who, me"? Comments like Ms. Ferraro's play into the fears and resentments of some lower-income white voters - the same voters who just so happen to be Sen. Clinton's strongest voting bloc.
Before Hillary's devoted followers weigh in, they should consider this: Geraldine Ferraro still has a position with the Clinton campaign. (See update, below.) Clinton's waffling rejection of Ferraro's comments stands in sharp contrast to Samantha Power's immediate resignation. (And the Powers comment was personal in nature, not a play to bigotry.)
Here's what Senator Clinton had to say today: "It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we've both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal," she said. "We ought to keep this on the issues." Apparently she can't resist exploiting the victim role, even when an official in her campaign has transgressed the bounds of political decency.
And Ferraro isn't just some "supporter." She has an official role with the campaign as finance chair. She speaks as a Clinton surrogate. By allowing Ferraro to keep her role in the campaign, Sen. Clinton is giving Ferraro's remarks her tacit approval. She's confirming the worst fears of those who believe she will stoop at nothing to become President.
Do I believe that Sen. Clinton has a secret command center dedicated exclusively to transmitting coded messages of racial bigotry? Of course not - er, I mean, not as far as I know. Do I think she and her staff use coded appeals to bigotry when it's convenient? Put it this way: A pattern of "accidental" racial slurs has persisted throughout the campaign, despite all the controversy, and has yet to be explained. (And, as a commenter noted, Ferraro used the same line in 1988.)
It's still possible, given enough public pressure, that Ferraro will resign from the Clinton campaign. That would be appropriate. But given the waffling today, even that would now leave the suspicion that this was an example of a time-worn and dirty political tradition: Have a surrogate inject hateful ideas in the campaign, then let them take the fall for it once the ugly message has been set loose.
Either way, it's time for Geraldine Ferraro to retire from the public stage. At this point she's no longer just an embarrassment to the Clinton campaign. Her continued presence as a Democratic figure tarnishes the entire party. At a time when American politics needs to lift its sights toward higher purpose, she is a reminder of its ugly past - one that, sadly, is apparently still alive and well in some quarters.
Oh, and one last question: Is Geraldine Ferraro by any chance a superdelegate?
UPDATE: Geraldine's latest gem - "I will not be discriminated against because I'm white." And, as of this writing, she is still an official representative of the Clinton campaign.
UPDATE II: As I thought likely, the continued public pressure has finally led to Ferraro's resignation from the Clinton campaign (see third-to-last graf). They tried to weather it out, but thankfully the negative reaction was too great. That says good things about the party and the general public, if not the campaign itself. Ferraro's self-pitying resignation letter, and her promise to keep speaking out, cries out for repudiation from every single one of Clinton's supporters.
Read more HuffPost coverage and reaction to Geraldine Ferraro's comments
Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DF153AF936A3575AC0A964958260
Mr. Obama has decided to take the high road. Many people are impressed by that fact alone. Many more agree with his ideals. We want to effect change in the way things are done, as well as what things are done.
The establishment on both sides of the political aisle are afraid. Fear and hatred are all they know. It remains to be seen if the voting public will see through it all.
INTERVIEWER: Well Senator Clinton you must be very busy and I really appreciate the opportunity to sit with you for a few minutes to talk about this important race. One thing I’d like to ask you Senator: If you lost this race, and I know you say that this will not happen, but if you did lose it, what do you think you would do?
SENATOR CLINTON: Its good to be here and I want you to know I feel very comfortable speaking with you because of your stellar reputation for fairness and accuracy. The election? Well, if I don’t win this election, and that’s not going to happen, I will, as they say, carry on.
INTERVIEWER: Senator, are there any particular problems that you see with the campaign?
SENATOR CLINTON: Well yes, there is one particular thing that’s annoying. Senator Obama certainly is an honorable and likeable person. But I do have a problem with me and my campaign staff being accused of making what might be considered racist comment. It’s just so not true and I feel I cannot say what I need to say without being accused of saying something that might be considered racist. I mean, if he were not only black but blind too, I would feel very uncomfortable saying something like “I look at it this way” during a debate. I would be accused of saying something offensive to a blind, black man. This really bothers me.
INTERVIEWER: You said you would carry on if you lost. What does that mean Senator?
SENATOR CLINTON: I’d like to go off the record here.
INTERVIEWER: Sure. Consider your next comments off the record unless you want to go back on the record.
SENATOR CLINTON: I’d like to become Governor of New York. I would like to challenge this guy Spitzer in the next election. He’s not really liked by many and I think I could debate him and carry on a good campaign and not worry about saying something that could be construed as being racist. This Spitzer is a rich white guy and, ha, ha, he isn’t blind so I can really do battle and win the Governorship. Yes, I think I can take Spitzer down. Being a federal senator is like being a small fish in a big bowl. I would like to be New York State Governor then, a big fish in a small bowl. Or, as they say in New York, I’d be Capi di tutti Capo. Ha, ha! There are always options. Ha, ha, ha!
INTERVIEWER: Senator, as busy as you are, you may not know that Governor Spitzer was caught up in a prostitution scandal and has resigned. The current Lieutenant Governor has become Governor and as you might know, he is black and legally bli…. (CRASH) Oh my God! Senator? Senator?
Look at the contrast though. Power says "monster," which is pretty mild (i.e. not a curse word or dirty) and she is immediately gone. Obama has a rule against personal attacks, and it doesn't matter who you are. Power accepts it, says an apology, and no excuses are offered.
Ferraro comes out with this bigoted filth, and nothing is done. When the heat is finally turned up high enough, and after Ferraro continues to repeat and repeat this, finally Clinton comes out with "we disagree." Not fired, not resigned, but we disagree. Then Ferraro starts with they hate me b/c I am white and you should apologize to me. Finally the heat is too much and Ferraro resigns. Apology - Not from Ferraro or Clinton. Matter of fact, GF whips off a letter saying she is leaving and it seems its Obama's fault. Clinton comes on and says she regrets it, at the same time saying she has been the victim of the same thing. Really? When was that comment from Obama's campaign that you are only there b/c you're a woman? or that you are there only b/c of Bill? Power hated the way you were acting, but there was no sign that she felt you didn't deserve to be where you were.
At the same time Clinton feigns lament, her campaign manager starts with the Obama is playing the race card schtick. Are you kidding me? You say he is nothing but a product of white guilt, that his life accomplishments are nothing, and then when he renounces the repeated statements of Ferraro, you say he is getting racial? That is the slimiest thing I have seen.
There is no doubt that Clinton is trying to poison the well. Whether it is to poison the GE for Obama so she can get superdelegates, or causing him to lose so she can run again in 2012, she has forever disgraced herself.
Let's remember too that Obama has abstained from smearing Clinton. All the garbage from the 90's that many would have dove into with glee, not one word of it has come fom Obama. Everyone from his campaign that has gotten too overzealous and has stepped out of line has been canned, no questions or excuses, and supposedly "weak" Obama has never made any excuses for it. Tough Hillary always likes to talk about how she is victimized.
The irony of ironies is that Clinton claims that Obama is playing the race card at the same time she/GF/Maggie are crying about they can't get a fair deal b/c of sexism. Newsflash: Dodd and Lewis may be supporting Obama b/c they think he is a better candidate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SDHxaYhqAo&feature=user
The Clintons have employed a racist sub-theme ever since they realized that limited world view, warmongerer Hillary was NOT inevitable.
Hillary's No. 2, when he was ahead. All calculated, and covered.
So now Ferraro says she's getting picked on because she's white.
Do any of these people think?
Apparently not.
I suppose Ms. Ferraro will indeed continue to speak out, oblivious of the fact that nobody has any interest in what she apparently believes to be her marvelously clever repartee. Ms. Ferraro hasn't been heard from in many, many years, because she has nothing of any conceivable interest to say. Her momentary prominence was a fluke, on the level of Dan Quayle's momentary fame. She will now return to obscurity, where she belongs.
Anyways, I don't think she was being offensive. If you cannot explain why Obama gets almost all the African American votes, then you have no idea what really goes on among people's minds...Because, what she says actually refers to a critical and honest observation that neither refers to bigotry nor insult.
But her ploys also show that her tactics are based in the Reagan Era rule book. You see it with her concentration on "Industrial States". Highlighting the fact that The Reagan Era is old, on its 28th year and has since, and her using it, shows her out of touch with the creative and progressive in the Democratic Party and the Country as a whole. What is more Reagan Era, than Geraldine Ferraro, in an official or public role in your campaign. If the contrast over the last few weeks have shown anything, it is in the contrast of women like Samantha Power, who speak their mind against fellow females and those like Geraldine, that still allow gender hangups of the 1980's, to dictate their careless talk.
However, don't think this "campaign ploy" on the part of Clinton is timed well, Pennsylvania or not. Although tempting, It was suppose to be, but in exercising her temptation, and her Achilles heel for power, Hillary sacrificed her appearance of showing clear, decisive, reasonable Democratic judgments. This is not the kind of Judgment you want answering the Country's phone at 3 a.m. She is also sacraficing her Good Will. I guess it was just too tempting for her. Obama, has left Hillary with a bad hand, her only choice is to Win Ugly, it's a Very Bad hand that will mercilessly magnify her deep Personal flaws.
To sum it up, Ferraro is trying to inflame racial tensions to a point to where white people in droves will drop their support from Obama and rally around Hillary. In view of her weak response to Ferraro's rants, Hillary is making it very clear -- she does not care about race relations with blacks or Democratic Party.
Meaning, she wants the African American voters to vote not using Obama's skin color as a reference. Instead she asks them to use the character of both candidates and their capabilities, as the main reference. If that happens, Obama's support will definitely lose some ground, because if the African American voters go with the typical 50+-% support for each candidate, then Clinton is supposed to become the winner. Isn't that right, considering the closeness of the votes each candidate has been awarded?