Geraldine Ferraro's Ugly Words - Accidental, or Campaign Ploy?
(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
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
This is shameful and intentional from the Clintons.
The Democratic Party is now officially broken.
I don't want to share the same air as anyone who supports this poison.
Well, we agree on the broken part. But I blame Obama.
I agree with you there. If Obama would have just let this blow by him and not given it any credence we would all be off somewhere else and he would be above the fray. He should stay away from jumping for the racist tag to show his innate ability to keep his cool.
You're also right about me having no idea how campaigns are run. That doesn't mean that high profile supporters for Hillary don't represent her in the public's eye when they say controversial things about her opponent.
Again where are the elected officials of this party and other leaders.
(1) Where is Nancy Pelosi?
(2) Where is Harry Reid?
(3) Where is Howard Dean?
(4) Where is Al Gore?
(5) Where is John Edwards?
Bill Bradley, Gary Hart,
Obviously, it is a ploy and unfortunately, it is working.
I'm not sure what is more depressing, the new lows to which the Clinton campaign will stoop or the fact that far too many Americans still fall for this crap.
The key weakness Obama has is the color of his skin, despite Geraldine's rantings. HRC's gutter political team will continue use this to divide Dems to hold out any chance of getting the nomination.
Oh well, the Repukes will do the same thing so I hope the Obama campaign has an effective strategy.
This will be a good test for the GE, except now Obama appears to want to promote party unity and may be fighting with one arm tied behind his back.
Get over it! Obama's rise shows that people do not care about race if the person is qualified. So everyone should be less sensitive and get over civil-war era mentality. Ferraro is right - in addition to being eminently qualified, Obama is black thus drawing 90% of the black votes. And, lets be real - would Oprah have campaigned for him if he was not black?? And he is able to get black votes by subtly using the race card for himself ?-there is no question. Why is Jesse Jr. calling superdelgates and asking them to move from the path of the first black president??
Obama needs to rise above all this and say - yes I am black, so what? I am qualifed and so I should be president. And I do not have paper thin skin that people calling me black should rattle me - because that is who I am and proud of it. If he has a chip on his shoulder about being black, how will he run the country?
Good point - aye!
I disagree with your first point that people don't care about race. I would qualify that as saying more and more people are less influenced by race and gender negatively (i.e. "I will not vote for a "blank"). How many remain is the key question.
As to your prescription for Obama, I agree completely. They do need to point out, however, when their opponents (HRC or McCain) are using his race or her gender to divide us. One of his main themes has been to end the politics as usual in DC and bring Americans together to solve problems despite our differences (even ideology).
He needs to point out that a central tenet of the politics as usual was that to win one had to be divisive, yet being divisive hurts our ability to solve our problems.
A Clinton supporter suggests that Obama is only where he is because he's black, and what you come up with is that Obama has a chip on his shoulder?
The Clinton camps' strategy MUST be working for anyone to draw that conclusion.
Obama has not campaigned on race and in no way should be considered responsible, directly or indirectly for the Clinton camps' squandering of African - American support.
Yep.......
Yep.......
A "chip on his shoulder for being black"??? What the hell could that mean, I wonder.
I have a quick question for all. Will somebody tell me why if someone has one African or African-American parent and one white parent they are called black? It is not logical too me.
So, that brings me to another question. If an Eastern-Indian Person has a child with an Asian person what race is that child? Enlighten me please.
Oh Boy! A proper answer to that would require a very long answer, but in short, people have always had the 'nasty habit' of race-mixing. In early colonial America, in fact, it happened not altogether infrequently and rather openly. Especially since European women didn't begin arriving in the Americas in suficent numbers for quite a while.
However, in the 1600's, when the racial caste system of America was being established - with the force of law behind it - the existing and newly occuring children resulting from this race-mixing posed legal problems for the courts of the time.
Having just written a bunch of laws saying what white men and women could and couldn't do, and what black men and women could and couldn't do, and what indian men and women could and couldn't do, they of course had a bunch of mixed race people - both men and women since the laws were usually not only race but gender specific as well - entering the courts saying, well, "Do I have the rights of a white person, a black person, or an indian. After all I have a white father, and half Negro mother" whatever.
Slavery, even racism, in the specific forms we know of them today hadn't quite arisen a codified system of laws - in slavery's case - and beliefs - in racism's case -, but the courts found it easier, and planters generally more profitable to just classify anyone even partially descended from a black person as black.
I don't know if I've explained it well, but basically, it's the result of early 17th Century legalese, re-enforced and absorbed into the collective American conscious at various points throughout the intervening
I agree with Ms. Ferraro--some people support Obama in part because of what they perceive his mixed race will allow his to accomplish as President. That's voting for someone because of race--and whether it's white, black or other, that's racism. Ferraro's comments were politically incorrect (heaven forbid) but not racist.
Ferraro did not say, "Some people vote for him because of race." She said that the only reason he was still in the race was because he was black. That's ridiculous and offensive.
Of course some people vote for Barack because he's bi-racial, just as some vote for Hillary because she's white, or becase she's a woman.
Seeing as how we've never had a black nominee for president from either party, it's kind of ridiculous to suggest that being black improves your chances of being president.
You must be young. We've had several AA candidates.
So be offended.
I think at this point there can be no question that Ferraro's comments are a calculated ploy and not simply a boneheaded 'slip'. Disappointing and astonishing.
This is a tactic based on the Clinton's assessment of Pennsylvania as 'Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Alabama in between'. Clearly they don't mean the real state of Alabama, with significant black and progressive voters where Obama already won the primary, but the backward, racist old south.
Rather than just complain on these blogs, let's flood the former candidates and super delegates with a demand that they renounce and reject these tactics. The uncommitted -- John Edwards, Joe Biden, Tony Richardson and senators, congress people and other 'party leaders' -- especially need to speak out.
It was not boneheaded at all. It was simply a comment, very timely due to the Mississippi returns, about the role of race here.
Good grief, unless you are going to call the entire world racist, you cannot possibly deny that race is propelling him.
Me? I'm a Hillary gal, but I have absolutely no quarrel with her losing the entire AA vote. The minute he became viable....
I DO have a big problem with calling the Clintons or her supporters racist.
That's patently unfair.
She has amazingly enough held onto a huge Latino bloc. It's amazing because she's not even pandering. Women vote for her because we identify with the sexism going on. That's OK to discuss, btw. It's true. She has my "deep down heart" vote due to that factor. Thank goodness, that's not the entire reason I support her. But there's no question that's a factor.
The fact that I'll most likely be an Independent in the Fall if Obama is awarded the nomination is due strictly to the fact that the "new" Democratic party will no longer represent my ideals, my principles, or my personal issues. I will exit because I refuse to participate in a party of bullies.
So keep putting out Anti-Hillary crap.
It solidifies my position every day.
Thank God! Goodbye!
Many Democrats want to vote for a black man for President to break an important racial barrier. But not this black man - Obama. His father is a foreigner with Muslim roots. Obama has the taint of being a foreigner. It would have been better if his father was an African American.
Not this year - not this black man.
Have you noticed? Obama is looking pretty mean nowdays. His talk of being the unifier is sounding pretty stale. He cannot "close the deal" with voters.
And what is this with all the black people voting in a block? Does anyone think for themselves? What other group all votes the same way? Who are the "real" racists?
White people in Mississippi seem to vote in a bloc, too.
I guess well-educated white people are racists, too, since they strongly support Mr. Obama.
Hillary only knows one campaign tactic: make it an us vs. them all-out war. Hopefully, the American people won't fall for it this time.
It's offensive to the millions of people who support Obama when you say they all are just voting for him because he's black. I'm a 31 year old white male, and I support Obama because he's clearly the best candidate. He'd be the best candidate if he were orange.
That's not what she said, you silly goose.
RACISM ON THE ROCKS!!!
Bigot.
"Who are the "real" racists?"
Well, you for one...but I really think you're a Republican troll.
Nice comeback Ms. (vsign)Ferraro. Get yer name off of RM Nixon's old shtick?
Or is this Hillary's attack puppy...c'
"taint of being a foreigner"
Keep floating enough half-truths and lukewarm spin. Keep it up, it's like an old borscht belt shtick that wasn't funny 20 years ago.
Those rats and roaches that feast on offal in darkness skitter when the light of truth hits them square in the eyes.
No denouncing, no refusing - G. Ferraro has to step down or to be fired. If not, you have the "smoking gun", everyone is looking for: Because, if she stays with the Clinton-campaign after having made SUCH statements (PLURAL!), you KNOW, it was DELIBERATE and, PLANNED by the campaign. BTW, I just saw Hillary "denouncing" Ferraro's claims on CNN. If you know only a BIT of body language and, psychology, you could clearly see that, while "denouncing" Ferraro, Hillary was LYING! She perfectly knew, what Ferraro had done - and she, in fact, APPRECHIATED IT! Try it yourself! See CNN and watch Hillary "denounce" Ferraro. You'll see, what I mean. It's there - for all the World to see. And the World SEES IT, HILLARY!
She couldn't care less about that superficial title on Hillary's campaign.
This is personal.
This is about her.
And she's mad.
SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR. SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR. SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR. SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR.
He spoke out against it. End of discussion. This is not a race and gender issue. This is a neo-con vs progressive issue.
http://www
It's no secret that Ferraro is an angry and bitter person. But her relationship to Hillary Clinton's campaign has accomplished one extremely damaging thing: Her statements and the response from the campaign have revealed to America that Hillary Clinton has no character.
George Bush has no character and this country will not make the same mistake again.
For being such and exceptional person, it's truly pathetic to watch Clinton preside over this unraveling campaign. What a wasted opportunity.
Barack Obama remains a breath of fresh air and I can't wait for November.
What a tool.
I can't believe that you are outrightly incapable of comprehension, so I conclude that you know what Ferraro is talking about, but want to twist it for political purposes. That makes you fundamentally and irredeemably dishonest.
You, the MSM and the swarm of namecalling, woman-hating Obama-bots that make up the Obama "movement" have given him a free pass because he is black. It is that simple. It has nothing to do with the racial discrimination that he has certainly endured in private life and probably even in public life. It has to do with the fact that YOU have two standards -- the standard to which, say, G. Ferraro is held and the lower standard to which B. Obama is held. By YOU. By the MSM. By your kook-aid drinking camp followers.
Get over it. Ferraro spoke truly and it spooked you, not because she is a "racist" but because you are.
Thanks.
mp
Oops, my total bullshit alarm just went off!
Likewise, after I read your response.
Typical Rove tactic-- deflect reasonable criticism by throwing back the same exact charge against your opponents. Keep it up. Hillary just doomed not only her candidacy but her future as a player in the Democratic Party. Then she, and you, can turn into the Republicans you truly are.
"not because she is a "racist" but because you are"
Now there's a classic. People who decry racist remarks are racists. Thats right up there with calling liberals fascist because they decry fascisim. David Duke couldn't have said it better.
Lets be honest here saying he's popular because he is black makes no sense.
Just click on this poster's profile and read some of his other comments. He's a typical Hillary supporter, throwing around every excreble term he can think of for Obama's supporters and accusing everyone who's not behind Hillary of being a "woman hater".
I dislike Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro. I love my wife and daughter. Does that make me half a "woman hater", because I detest two women but love two others? Or am I, like Seinfeld, "even Steven"?
I dislike Mike Tyson...no
I admire Barack Obama, not for the color of his skin, but for the strength of character that he's exhibiting along the campaign trail. Clinton supporters may not see it that way, but that doesn't make it any less true.
I am disappointed that Race has become an issue pursued by the Clinton campaign. (Wait until the Rovians use this against either potential candidate.
But, what has concerned me about both Ferraro and Clinton is that they have behaved selfishly and childishly. I dont know what to think of Geraldine except Hilary must have promised her something real important.
What kind of deals has Clinton already made that makes it so important for her to win at any cost, including the cost of long term damage to her own Party? Why is her campaign so rude and divisive?
The more these issues crop up, the more it helps McCain.
My conclusion is simple, too simple, I know. Not only is America NOT ready for a female president, there are NO female candidates that are ready to BE president. Both these women have shown they are too selfish and immature and, even stupid, to have positions of power.
And you after eight years of the idiot in the White House, you would think ANYONE could do the job. Here is hoping a Democratic party woman comes along who has more self control, more depth of character and more honor than these two. Someone who can speak to the issues, not this petty bullshit that passes for campaign rhetoric.
The Clinton camp is probably refusing to cut Ferrareo out to show just how tough they are.
Who could possibly doubt their toughness They have the kind toughness one would not want in one's family because toughness is not strength, be it Democrat or Republican.
Most of the people in our prison system are tough. Maybe we should run Charles Manson for President. He's plenty tough, crazy and a racist too. Plus he has proven organizational skills and 50 some years experience.
Just more evidence of Hilltary's, and by extension Ferraro's, attempt to divide the Democratic Party so badly that if Obama wins the nomination, he will lose the election and Hillary can run in 2012. They both should be condemned for blatant racism by Howard Dean.
By not stepping in, the DNC is watching its own funeral procession. It may be too late to prevent the burial, but you'd think they would want to try.
What a shame. What a disgrace. What a way to grab defeat from the jaws of victory.
I am starting to think, the DNC WANTS Hillary to detach, denounce and, disable Barack Obama. There is just too much silence from the head of the DNC to be just coincidental. This silence is DEAFENING! Why isn't anybody calling Hillary to order? Because, she is playing after rules, we don't know. Remember - Dean, Pelosi, Reid, the Clintons and, even Al Gore are more part of the problem than of the solution. The problem is the "Washington-Bubble" in wich all those people live - sharing breakfast, lunch and dinner with the K-Street-guys. Don't expect the heads of the DNC step in for something decent. They will only step in for something profitable - like they always did. QED!
I don't think that there are many 'accidents' in politics
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
