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

Comments

[SamWainwright]

What is amazing about all this is how hamfisted the Clinton campaign has been in trying to cultivate the racist vote. Maybe this is what she meant by 'the fun part'?

[Horst]

Political has-been, now a flack for the Clintons trying to bait Obama.

[sfbayani]

Is there a Clintonite here defending Ferraro's remarks?
Just wonderin'.
By the way, I just had a copy of the new Rolling Stones with Barack Obama on the cover.
All superdelegates should read this to know why Obama had been winning these past months.
Shall I say, it is planning and organization that did it, and of course, on top of Obama's inspiring
words and presence. Obama has made it not only his campaign but the people's campaign. It is really true democracy at work.
Something that cannot be said of his rival Hillary Clinton, which depends on superrich and super-influential people raising money for her.
Therefore, for Obama, it is inspiration plus hard work!!!

[jdm58]

Every day, and in every caucus or primary, the press "slices and dices" the results in exit polls catagorizing them by race, gender, educational background, and "class". Is this not racist, elitist, or discriminatory in any way? Come on people, we're on the verge of war in Iran. Pakistan and Afghanistan are about to implode. There are battlelines being drawn in South America. Oil, and Oil company profits are at record highs. So is unemployment and foreclosure. There are far better topics to argue. To argue race at this time will only divide our party further come Convention, and then November, insuring a victory for John "stay in Iraq 100 years and bomb Iran" McCain. Rove is laughing at you all.

[Herrington]

Rove is laughing because he has set the tone of American politics and now Clinton is an adherent. Yes, we should be talking about the issues, as Clinton once advocated. The airwaves are filled with the "kitchen sink" strategem and not the issues. And our complaining about it will not, apparently, stop it.

[barackoblogger]

In 1988, Ms. Ferraro made the same comment about Jesse Jackson.

From the Politico:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html

"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," she said.

Really. The cite is an April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available only on Nexis.

Here's the full context:

Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And 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."

[ljsfolly]

Nothing about the clintons is accidental. They have a pattern that gets to be more obvious as time goes by. They set up attack dogs that say ugly things and then say "we don't agree" "we reject her/his comments" but they never get rid of anyone that makes these comments. They never really distance themselves from the person in a clear way. Once the words are said/written they are out there loud and ugly and then Hillary twists things and blames Barack for what the person said. This has been the way they have denied "making the statements" and they cannot control people. But it has happened over and over so not accidental at all. Very much intentinal all the time and if you look closely at Bill's time in office in Ark and the oval they did the same things.

[anonhuffpostcommentator]

Some philosopher, whom I’m too lazy to google™ right now, said something to the effect that all we are—in fact, what we are—is merely the sum total of the choices we’ve made. Choice is the basis of all morality, and is the substance of free will. If you believe in a personal God, choice is the basis of sin and salvation. If you believe in a non-personal Divine, choice is the engine of karma and the key to achieving emptiness or unity with one’s divine self. If you believe in no god, choices are all we really have to make the world a hell or heaven. In every case, the only substantial thing that lets us make judgments about ourselves and others are our choices.


When John Edwards lost three primaries, he chose to exit the race. He surely did not want to do so—he had been campaigning steadily since 2004. He and his wife had chosen to continue their campaign despite her cancer. His pulling out must have been a tremendous personal disappointment to a man who was clearly motivated by a feeling of obligation owed to his own parents and every working person like them.


He could have soldiered on, using his own personal wealth to continue the ticket much as Mike Huckabee did with the GOP. Yet, he chose to leave the race so that his presence would not be a futile distraction from the remaining two candidates. He chose to subordinate his personal ambition, his platform and his political future to the greater good of the nation, as embodied by the Democratic Party. That choice spoke volumes about John Edwards as human being.


There is another candidate, Hillary Clinton, about whose choices I would now speak. Objectively, there is no rational reason to believe that Clinton can overtake Barack Obama for the nomination. None. Absent a horrific event—an assassination, perhaps—Clinton will arrive at the end of the process in second place in pledged delegates, states won, and total vote.


She knows, as does everyone, that once that race is done, Obama will have to face the cruelest, most unprincipled and vile campaign machine in recent memory—a desperate, back against the wall GOP. He will face it as an African American with a Muslim name and liberal voting record. He will face an old, unprincipled war-hero –turned-pandering-liar. She knows, as does everyone, that another four years of GOP control of the executive branch will mean four more years of war, currency debasement, international rebuke, environmental degradation, religious and lifestyle intolerance, and, most dangerous of all, diminution of our Constitutionally protected rights and the limits on the vast powers of the federal government. In other words, the world, for all intents and purposes, are at stake.


Yet, what are the choices that Hillary Clinton has made? She could have chosen to continue the race as did Mike Huckabee. He gamely hung on, but did so with great care to avoid damaging the putative nominee of his party. He spoke up for the interests of his constituents, but he did not denigrate John McCain. He fought until defeat was inevitable, and he bowed out with grace and pledged to support McCain.


But she did not make that choice. Instead, she made another choice—to emulate, to the smallest detail, the abhorrent tactics displayed by the GOP since Lee Atwater and Karl Rove became their poster boys for “win at all costs.” It began with her ridicule and patronizing dismissal of Senator Obama. She followed with touting a vastly exaggerated series of claims about her own experience, and then morphed that into the fear and smear tactics of the “3:00 a.m.” ad and the turban picture. It continued with “as far as I know” and has now sunk to the point where her surrogates openly fan the flames of bigotry within the Democratic Party. A party which is entirely dependent upon the goodwill and enthused support of the African American community.


Don’t be confused—the Ferraro statements were not rogue statements. In one instance, they were made to John Gibson, a famous Faux News asshole. You know who his audience is. Just as Bill Clinton knew who Rush Limbaugh’s audience was when he appeared on Limbaugh’s show on the day of the Texas primaries. The Clintons have examined the demographics and the polling of the south and of states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, and have determined that a large segment of the voters in those states would respond to claims that Obama is privileged to be Black, and would otherwise not be where he is. They know the visceral hatred that is inspired in struggling, poverty-terrorized industrial workers by the mention of affirmative action, of favoritism and the spectre of reverse racism.


And what was their choice? Was it to take a principle road that acknowledged that Obama, whatever other flaws they might accuse him of, is a legitimate candidate with support across all racial and gender divides. They could have avoided all injection of race into the campaign, being true leaders—those who lead by example.


No, it was not that choice. They chose, rather, to set themselves and their own personal ambitions for great power above the interests of their party, above the interests of their nation, and above the principles and goals of an America that seeks to grow beyond the fatal and ignorant racism that is a blight on all of us. They fanned those flames, they drew succor from them, they pinned their success not on the hopes and aspirations of free people but on the fears and hatred of a retro few.


And it worked, to some extent. Not enough to provide the votes and delegates for Hillary to win. Nope, that tactic can only help so much. It was enough, however, to divide the party on racial lines, to depress Obama’s ability to garner white, working class votes. In other words, they have succeeded not in winning the nomination, but in dividing the party on the most despicable basis possible.


That was their choice. A knowing, informed and despicable choice.


Judging candidates is difficult, to be sure. I believe that the very last measure of their worth is their platform or positions. Those change with circumstances, and are never more than starting points to be taken up against the other powers that be in Washington. Next there is experience, which is also tricky. One cannot estimate what a politician has learned from experience—whether it made them wiser or more bitter and closed. One cannot value a politician based necessarily on their background, because people rise or fall according to the circumstances into which they are thrust and there is no sure way to predict how they will react.


But there is one good way to judge. It is by their choices. In this campaign, Obama, for whatever faults he may have, has chosen to take the high ground in this campaign, DESPITE some of the grossest and most vile provocations I can recall in 30 years of watching presidential campaigns. He has dismissed all surrogates who have failed to live up to those high standards. He has talked about hope, not fear. He has talked about the future, not the past.


His choices, like those of John Edwards, tells me that this man is special. They tell me that despite decades of layered over cynicism, this man is different. Clintons choices? They tell me that if you liked Bush, you’ll love Hillary Clinton.


Hillary Clinton is not a racist. No, she is merely one who chose to employ the language of racism, the emotions of fear and bigotry, in order to destroy a rival and perhaps her own party. A racist does wrong out of ignorance and fear. Hillary Clinton did wrong out of a calculation that such wrong would give her a marginal advantage. Just like her choice to enable George Bush to initiate a war of aggression at the cost of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. That is, in my opinion, the very definition of evil. Not Hitler size evil, yet. But the kind of evil one expects from scurvy little spiders who spin their webs to trap and destroy for their own benefit. Hillary Clinton is the Mr. Potter of American politics.


Given the choices she has made merely with the power she’s had as senator and candidate, I tremble at the thought of her decisions when empowered with the authority of the Presidency of the United States. A presidency that has vastly expanded its powers far beyond what the Founders thought wise or safe. If she is willing to “push the button” on Barack Obama in a futile effort to steal the nomination, what little or perverted justification will she need to “push the button” as president.


To hell with Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama in ’08.

[Dap]

Eloquently expressed AHPC, Seems we (you and I) are in the exact same stream of consciousness on this one. Kudos!

[Dalicious]

I was shocked at first at what Ferraro said, but the more I examine her remarks, the more I admire her clarity of thought. The Democratic party is proud of its caucuses for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, American Indians, gays and women: but if anyone wanted to form a caucus for white men, God help them. It is primary trait of the Democratic Party that Democrats who tell the truth are castigated as racists, sexists, or both.

[lennox3rd]

Let's face it . Ferraro knows how to lose, and so does Hillary. They deserve each other..

[robXdion]

After given it some thought......Ferraro is right. But not for the reasons she thinks.

The only white man in recent history similar to Obama is John Edwards who ran for President in 2004 after being in the senate for just 3 years. He had a hard luck story too. He had an inspirational message to rise above the "politics as usual" and tried to stay above personal attacks. He ran against an establishment candidate too.

But then the similarities end...

Edwards was not as inspiring with his message or delivery as Obama. And his poor kid back story was fell flat and was kinda hypocritical considering his lavish home and previous employment as an attorney chasing big bucks.

Obama is just better at the message Edwards tried to present in 2004. Obama had the added large burden of being black-ish, so the fact that he made it is far more inspiring than a wife riding her cheating husband's coattails to power, or a token female on a congressional sub-committee with no accomplishments being chosen for a VP running mate. Obama is doing well with whites not because of some guilt-trip, but even these whites understand the barriers to being black in the US. They sure as hell wouldn't want to actually BE Obama, even with his success.

But Ferraro delivering the message the way she did with such rage against Obama AND Jesse Jackson in 1988, just shows her true motive is jealousy. She really feels a WW has more of a right to be president 1st than a BM. That's what this is all about. Roseanne Barr said as much back in January and again this month with the "Bow to the Woman" article.

[anghiari]

Maggie Williams, Geraldine has called you out too! Are you Hillary's campaign manager just because you are black?

[atila]

Thank you anghiari very good point !..

[imfedup]

Was there rage? I haven't seen the clip, but I don't think this was said out of rage.

[stupidme]

I've posted a clearly sarcastic and ethic slurred comment to this post. It remains to be seen if it get through. So let me try this approach. Calling Hillary IS a monster for not coming out and angrily condemning Ferraro's remarks. If anyone was 'lucky," it was the Clinton's who had no problem with the African-American support they've enjoyed in previous years. As has been pointed out, Ferraro's spot on the failed Mondale ticket was due to her luck of having a Vagina. In fact, it clear that Hillary is enjoying considerable support because of her Vagina, along with being LUCKY to have been married to a President who was Lucky because of a third party candidate. I really hope the Sisterhood is comfortable with their candidate.

[Merin]

Thanks RJ.

[Teritt]

What really gets me about Ms. Ferraro's comments is the fact that "she made them, she stands by them" and in turn BLAMES the Obama campaign for 'twisting' it! Excuse me, but it is the MEDIA that is making this into a major story, not the Obama campaign as far as I can tell. Now we have the "VOC" - Vast Obama Campaign (or Conspiracy - take your pick), that is the cause of all bad things that happen to Sen. Clinton. According to CNN "Thirteen percent of the voters in today's [MS] Democratic primary identified themselves as Republican; they voted for Clinton, 78 percent to 22 percent."....Chances are those voters will vote for McCain in November, don't you think? There is so much division caused by her campaign, is this just a preview of what's going to happen if she gets the nomination? We real Democrats won't stand a chance, and it will be a continuation of the Bush legacy...divide, divide, divide. Obama's advisor steps down for just saying 'monster' off the record, and afterwards Clinton's advisor called Obama's people "Ken Starr like", and now Geraldine Ferraro blames the Obama campaign for making an issue out of race - all I can say is - WTF??? Get a grip, Clinton supporters, get a grip. BTW - I don't drink latte's, nor own a Prius or Birkenstocks...I'm a white middle-aged female, working class, and former Hillary defender.

[DennyCrane]

I think it's very telling that Clinton has to appeal to the worst in people to get them to vote for her. And I'm sure the timing was deliberate. Remind poor whites that blacks get breaks like affirmative action just when the news is reporting that Obama wins Mississippi because of the large black vote there. This kind of politics is why I will never vote for Hillary. What kind of leader exploits racism? I used to think only Republicans did that. Maybe Hillary really is in the wrong party.

[frustratedinohio]

"There are no serious political observers of any political orientation who doubt Sen. Obama's political skills, including Republicans or the Clintons themselves. "

No. They just don't want to be labeled as a racist. That was the whole point of her statement. He is being treated with kid gloves because everyone in the press and other politicians don't want to called racists. Your statement just adds to proving her point.

[djarvis]

The Clinton campaign IS coming off as racist. It's hard to believe that Senator Clinton is willing to alienate the African-American voters in this way in order to gain ground with white voters who may be angered by affirmative action. Hillary and her surrogates using this kind of tactic to win Pennsylvania is reprehensible! Even if it works in the short run, and she becomes the Democratic nominee, it will hurt the Democratic party because she won't get the black vote in November.

[drmavis]

It's the resurrection of the Southern Strategy, Clinton-style. A return to the Democrats of the 1950's.

[xenofile]

"Your statement just adds to proving her point."

Huh? How is that? "Lucky to be black" is an acknowledgement of Obama's skills?

Regardless of Ferraro's intent, she had to know that statement would be offensive. She chose to make herself the target of protests against racism. She's a smart woman; if she meant something else she could have said it. In addition to clueless, I think you're wrong: she DID want to be labeled as a racist because, as RJ aptly pointed out, it sends a coded message to Hillary's base.

Now, personally, I would not have initially categorized her as a racist just because she made racially insensitive (okay, offensive) remarks. But saying, "I refuse to be discriminated against because I'm white...." Yeah, she IS a racist.

[CaptainObvious]

Well they could probably avoid being labeled racist if they avoid making comments related to SKIN COLOR.

Don't you ever get tired of trying to defend the indefensible? Do you really keep this up for the next 4 years?