Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
So Much for Making Good, Snap Decisions at 3 A.M.
For all the controversy about Geraldine Ferraro's comments on Barack Obama and her belated resignation from the Clinton campaign, there is one critical issue that isn't getting addressed much -- if at all.
It's easy to choose among the many reasons to talk about Ms. Ferraro. It's pundit heaven. Good morning, shoppers, there's a special for Geraldine Ferraro on Aisle 6.
But we're going to ignore Ms. Ferraro, whether she was wrong, right or stupid. Once we address a separate issue, all the others won't mean as much.
Okay, take out your lists and find the separate page on Hillary Clinton, "Why She Should Have Fired Geraldine Ferraro Instantly." and just look at the top. You don't have to scroll down any further. There it is -
Reason 1. Because Hillary Clinton is a Democrat.
Now, to be clear, I've never minded that Democrats like to criticize themselves. It's actually healthy. A vibrant volley of argument brings about all viewpoints that lets you understand issues fully and make wise decisions. It's only when you refuse to listen to one side that you end up, say, in a disastrous war with no way out. Or force out of leadership the 40-year veteran admiral heading your command. Or decide to torture. Or decide to wiretap Americans. Or...well, okay, you get the point.
Disagreement is good. And it's always been a Democratic trademark. As far back as the 1920s, legendary humorist Will Rogers said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." Democrats eat their young. It's almost like a right of passage. But out of that, you get vibrant ideas -- like Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights laws, child labor laws, and bringing electricity to rural America, and more.
But what Hillary Clinton has done (no, that's not a typo, I didn't misspell "Geraldine Ferraro") isn't even eating her young -- it's first slow-cooking her young, basting her young, then eating her young, and finally making sure there's enough for others to eat her young, too. And have some of her young for dessert. And a doggie bag of her young for leftovers.
Even if you're a Democrat who agrees with every word Geraldine Ferraro said -- and are willing to ignore that the only reason you're even listening to what Geraldine Ferraro says is because she was selected to be a vice presidential candidate for the very reason she's slamming Barack Obama -- that "Because Hillary Clinton is a Democrat" reason above still holds.
Because right now, Barack Obama by Hillary Clinton's own acknowledgment is the leading candidate among Democrats to get their nomination for president. And I'm guessing that most Democrats would prefer the Democratic candidate win the presidency, and not the Republican. (I'm willing to go out on a limb with that one.) But by not blasting Geraldine Ferraro and firing her, Hillary Clinton is taking away the outrage against Republicans when they trot out the same seedy and offensive argument during the general election. And as sure as there is sand on a sandy beach, you know Republicans will.
But now, Ms. Clinton has given them a defense. "What? We didn't say anything wrong! When the former Democratic vice presidential candidate said the exact same thing, even Hillary Clinton didn't fire her, but kept her on staff for two weeks to continue advising her."
And you know that's what they'd say. Wouldn't you, in their position?
(Happily, there is a response for the Obama campaign, should he become the nominee. "Hillary Clinton did not get the Democratic nomination. Voters repudiated her for not acting instantly -- or at all -- for what Geraldine Ferraro wrongly and offensively said. Senator Obama, on the other hand, actually won the nomination. So, unless you repudiate the statement, it's a fair guess that voters in America will repudiate you, too. America deserves smarter, better and more decent than that.")
I think that Hillary Clinton would make a very good president of the United States. But that doesn't matter. What does matter is that this "scorched earth" tactic within the Democratic Party has become a running theme of the Clinton campaign, and it does not serve her well. Because it does not serve the Democratic Party well - something problematic, since she wants to be head of it.
When the Clinton campaign sent the Senator's spouse on the trail, that was just fine. Spouses supporting their partners is as it should be. But blistering attacks against an opponent is another matter entirely -- most especially when that spouse attacking is the former President of the United States. By his unseemly tactics, the Clinton campaign eliminated the full effectiveness of a former president in the general election. How can Bill Clinton campaign for Barack Obama wholeheartedly after trying to suggest he wasn't worthy? No doubt, they'll figure out a way for him to campaign -- but no doubt it will be far less impactful than it would be otherwise. Than it should be.
You don't throw out a resource like a former President of the United States. But then, there is a lot you don't do that the Hillary Clinton campaign, to its discredit, is doing. And doing.
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
One more example of experience triangulated into bad judgment.
Ferraro was probably accurate (if you take the trouble to look at it in context). Obama should be a lot more worried about the public reaction to the Rev. Wright and his radical views. As a member of the congregation for 20 years and having been married by the Rev he can't say credibly that he doesn't agree with the statements/beliefs. He also should be worried about how the Clinton supporters feel about him and (probably more significantly) his supporters. Anything one says, any questions or criticism no matter how mild is me with prehorative and personal attacks. His campaign crys about attacks on him all the time, but his supporters can't talk about his positions with anyone who is not in complete agreement without making it personal and offensive. I have voted for the democratic nominee in every election since '68 and I probably will again if he gets the nomination, but I may need to hold my nose.
Don't worry about the reverend stuff. The poured through video upon video to get what they got, and they got their sound bite. Its a cultural interpretation of facts, really....with a few wacky things thrown in. We can't assume that B.O. believes everything this man says, especially since NO ONE has seen B.O. act anything but gracious and professional.
But Ferraro was right! Without 90% of the black vote, he would not be where he is today. The media and both candidates openly assess the chances of his wiining a primary by the percentage of black voters!!
and where would Bill's wife be today if she hadn't been Bill's wife?
For that matter, where would Bill Clinton be without 90% of the black vote?
She would have been president long ago.
I'm sure you must be Wright.
Ann's pick of the day post. *howling*
Hillary would make the perfect keynote speaker for the republican convention!!! Shades of Susan Molinari - another disgusting keynote Demo-Basher. And Hillary, there you could stand beside that other comparably experienced 1st Lady, Nancy Reagan, whose resume of 16 years sleeping in executive mansions also makes her more "experienced" to be president than Obama. The rightie's talk radio hosts have encouraged republicans to vote for you, so the least you could do is show your appreciation and offer to do the keynote at their convention!
How many things can a person do before someone calls them to the side? Between not handling Ferraro, praising McCain, contradicting herself, implying her opponent is an untrustworthy liar even though he might end up the nominee, helping to bankrupt the Democratic machine with this re-vote nonsense, and allowing her surrogates to minimize Obama and the people in the states he won, you'd think someone would say something. She's basically handing McCain the election and its pissing me off. If these are her judgements I don't want her anywhere near the White House red phone at any time. If she ends up being the nominee, I may seriously consider putting myself through four more years of Bush 2.0 in order to teach the Democrats to pay more attention to their candidates. I won't do it, but I'll consider like hell.
what is being lost in all this is how insulting and patentlyy false GF's remarks are- if someone like Al Sharpton had done as well as Barack i think they would have to call out the hanging chad squad to do a special investigation and I would volunteer to do
Yes, "now Ms. Clinton has given them a defense." But not until she first endorsed their nominee. One step at a time, please. If Ms. Clinton can't have the nomination, then NO ONE ELSE can have it. And if she runs against her friend McCain and he gets it? So what? They've got a deal. She'll be one of the most powerful senators, her friend will owe her, and her nemisis Obama will be licking his wounds while she plots her way to the Whitehouse in a future election. The important thing is OBAMA won't have what SHE wants. Ever. To hell with the party, the country, all of us little democrats. Oh couldn't be, you say. She cares so much about women and children and healthcare... Of course. Don't you SEE? She's saving the earth by scorching it, for US. Only she and BILL can run the world. It's THE CLINTON'S world. You do see, don't you?
It's the same rationale our military commanders used in Vietnam. "In order to save the country from Communism, we have to destroy it." Carpet bombing, napalm, Agent Orange. If we destroy enough of the country there will be no one left alive to resist us.
In order to save the Democratic Party from nominating Obama--who can't win the GE, according to Penn and Wolfson--we have to destroy him and all of the fools who support him.
Our brilliant leaders in Vietnam never accepted that we could never win that war. And the Clinton campaign refuses to accept that they cant win this primary.
Shame On You!
If only Hillary had used as much enthusiasm denouncing Geraldine Ferraro as she did denouncing the Obama campaign mailers in Ohio, ("Shame On You, Geraldine Ferraro!"), she might have averted this mess.
Does she really think that the Obama campaign mailers really matter more to voters than Ferraro's comments? She certainly acted like it.
What's incredible to me is how little she seems to genuinely care, and how everything she does is and says is for political advantage.
I'm convinced that this story was released by Obama's campaign to the national press.
I am equally convinced someone is going to spill the beans soon that's exactly what happened.
40% of Clinton voters in PA agree with GF. This whole thing is working exactly like it was supposed to work. And Obama had nothing to do with it. The Clinton's are brilliant.
I am from PA and I find your argument insulting. While I won't say their are not bigots in PA as there are in other areas of the world, my state is not composed of 40%. Where did you find such a statistic? Is it something the Clintons linked from their campaign of crap? Seriously, do you really think 40% of the populace would say "yes I am a bigot" on a survey.
What STORY?
Meaning? As if Geraldine hadn't already repeated her absurd remarks a half-dozen times? As if she didn't deserve to be called out on it? As if Hillary herself shouldn't have stepped in and put an end to it before it broke, if she had any character?
Contrary to this absurd idea that gets repeated ad nauseum, Hillary can't tell people what to say or do. She could remove her from the finance committee, but that was a token gesture. She did what she should have done, which is to instantly disagree. Ferarro had no problem with that, either. Ferarro had no problem with Hillary "firing" her. And Ferarro laughed at the notion that Hillary could "rein her in."
You guys are in a trance of Rovian tactics. Obama convinced you and demonized HIllary as though she has powers far beyond any human. It's sick shit.
And it's lost you support in the Fall election, too.
You all sound like a bunch of loony Republicans.
If Obama had any character, he would step in and put an end to your remarks, too. Each candidate must be responsible for every dumb thing a supporter says? If that were the case, Obama would not have time to do anything else and Hillary would run away with the election. Please be reasonable.
Notice a pattern of similarity between Hillary's campaign and George Bush's administration.
Scooter Libby lets slip the name Valerie Plame, to out her and her husband Joe Wilson, and George Bush is the beneficiary. Mad King George is insulated from any kind of prosecution for treason, because he didnt say a word.
All the king's men, or would be queen's are floating these balloons out for the public to spot, some of which, in the case of Ms. Ferraro happen to be black. Just like Barack. Geraldine's just practicing her first amendment right in her assertion that he wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't black, of course. she has every right to state her opinion, as preposterous as it may be.
But what she's doing is reminding the public he's black. Did you realize that America? He's black. Barack Obama is black. You're rallying around a black man, not because his words of hope inspire you, or you need a change from this wilting barrage of infringements upon your liberties by the GOP.
You might as well attack Stephen Hawking for being in a wheelchair. Look at him, coasting on his handicap like that.
But grendl you say, Barack Obama is not the equivalent of Stephen Hawking. I think, when it comes to getting the electorate on the left, and in the center energized he is. He speaks the truth, and coherently, without butchering the English language. He promises to get us out of Iraq. He promises a lot of things.
Empty promises? How do you know. Can you predict the future. Anyone who says he'll make a lousy commander in chief is no more Nostradamus than I am. We've seen in 1972 where experience can land this country, how absolute power has a tendency to corrupt absolutely, and just how the Clinton contingent might have caught a bout of that virulent strain. It's speculative. It's a leap of faith many are taking in supporting Barack, but that's what change entails.
Look at where Ms. Ferraro went after the firestorm she cause by her comments. She said, you're attacking me because I'm white. She said she would never have been a VP candidate if she were a man. Everything is tied to gender with Geraldine Ferraro, because she grew up during a time when sexism was more prevalent. Now women run states, and run for the president, and are CEO's, and movie studios, and not one of them can attribute their success to their sex. They got to where they are due to their intellect and determination. So when women succeed, its because they're determined and bright, when they fail its because they're women in a male dominated society.
Well, thats a very convenient way to erase all accountability in case of failure.
So why, when Barack Obama is leading in the delegate count, and popular vote, having energized the party Geraldine belongs to, is it so hard for her to give him credit. If she doesn't attribute any woman's success strictly to gender, how can she apply a double standard in this case.
Because they're desperate. They can't attack him on the issues, many of which he shares a lot in common with Hillary, and they can't disspell his legendary oratory prowess, so they float out the black balloons, hoping the electorate will follow them, and burst this bubble.
Let's be clear here about something shall we, seems the media is "forgetting" to let it's viewers know that Geraldine was not an adviser to the Clinton campaign.......she was not even paid she was nothing more than someone that held a fund raiser..
Clinton couldn't fire her she wasn't an employee all she could do was reject what she said, and Hillary Clinton did that IMMEDIATELY!!!
So you all need to get off this and move onto some REAL ISSUES
Come on. Louis Farrakhan not only wasn't paid--he had absolutely no ties to Obama at all--never raised a dime of money--and Clinton made it a huge point that Obama had to "reject and denounce" him. You can't have it both ways can you? I am by no means suggesting that GF is at the same level as Farrakhan at all. I am specifically addressing your point that HRC should not have to do anything because GF is not paid. GF was on the finance committee and she raised money. And HRC did not respond immediately and more importantly HRC has not asked GF to stop which she could. GF is continuing this crap.
"So you all need to get off this and move onto some REAL ISSUES"
Ya, wouldn't that be nice. Except your candidate keeps throwing mud!!!
Samantha Power wasn't a paid adviser either
No, but she absolutely is a true surrogate.
That was her role, to go and present HIS perspective with the press.
Ferarro? She held fundraisers. That's it.
Samantha Power was fired because she blew the Canada/NAFTA thing and strayed off message about Obama's Iraq policy. The "monster" thing was just to appease the masses.
oh but she did not REJECT and DENOUNCE
You really think Obama supporters are stupid don't you? Move on indeed. How many of her surrogates get to say the most horrible racist things before you make her take responsibility for the way HER campaign has been run? Suppose Obama had told the truth and said Hillary Clinton exagerrates her experience and wouldn't be in the race if it weren't for her NAME and SEX! What would you say then? How bout if he said she's losing, she's alienated the African American vote so much that she can't even get 10% of their vote? How bout if he said she can't win states in Middle America unless her husband was the governor there? How bout if he rubbed it in her face that not only is she LOSING those states but losing them by margins that are truly unbelievable. You'd say poor Hillary beaten by the man's club. As you can probably tell I'm just a little bit sick of Hillary Clinton and the band of angry white women she has following around her picking up the litter she leaves behind. BTW I'm also an angry white woman who is proudly a supporter of Barack Obama who inspires me to think of a new way of doing politics instead of inspiring me to write a nasty old post like this.
He has said all those things - through his surrogates and supporters such as you. The nastiness does not have to come out of his own mouth when there are so many volunteers here .
Seriously, based on how she's managed and conducted her campaign -- from being completely unprepared beyond Super Tuesday; to her fearmongering; to her failure to decisively and immediately repudiate Ferraro's remarks; to her seemingly inexhaustible supply of temperaments; to her endorsement of John McCain over the Democratic front-runner -- what is it that makes you believe Hillary Clinton would make a "very good President of the United States?"
Because what I see is yet another president that will antagonize, deceive and divide. A senator who facilitated a war because she was either too disconnected to recognize the deceit, manipulation and intent that was so clear to so many others, or who saw the deceit, but voted for war in pursuit of power -- above the good of a nation and at enormous human cost. A Democrat who has no compunction about creating and exacerbating divisions within her own party in pursuit of personal power. A candidate whose campaign is a study in poor judgement, top to bottom.
So, what makes you think Hillary Clinton would make a good President?
Excellent comment. I've been wondering this myself. People who are Obama supporters (me included) always seem compelled to say that Clinton would make a good president whenever we point out one of her latest dirty tricks. By now I think the best that could be said is that she probably would be a little better than John McCain or the current Bush. A pretty low bar.
Her tactics are classic Karl Rove techniques.
Obama '08
Again, no evidence.
The clintons just need to disappear for a while. The nation has Clinton fatigue. Sometime after 2012 the nation will be ready to see Bill again, providing he acts like an elder statesman rather than a limelight hog who doesn't want to let go of the spotlight and microphone.
On the one hand you're more than willing to trash Clinton and ridicule Ferraro on the other hand you say we're all Democrats and we should be circumspect and we should wash out our mouths three times before we say boo about about Obama. This over-reaction thing is getting very old. Even Obama knows it. Why don't you?
Hillary should have waited to run for president.
Calling someone on their b.s. isn't exactly trashing and ridiculing. You should get some kneepads for your knee-jerks.
Unless you are a minority, you could NOT POSSIBLY understand Trevor. So you are just going to have to accept that you do not know everything.
I am in the minority especially on this website.
Loading comments…
I'm liveblogging the latest Iran election fallout. Email me...
After a three-night stay in Moscow, the Obamas touched down in Rome on Wednesday so Papa President...
How would you like to live in the White House? Take the HuffPost Poll of World Leaders' Residences...
UPDATE: Paris Jackson also spoke. Watch her moving...
I was sorry to watch, live on CNN, Edward R. Murrow and Emmy Award-winning broadcaster and...
The following post...
It was with interest that I read Dr. Soram Khalsa's post on The Huffington Post...
Below are photos from Michael Jackson's memorial, with Mariah Carey, Lionel Richie, Smokey Robinson,...
OH NOES! What happened on Fox and Friends today, people?
It's been a rocky year for Letterman and Palin. He joked...
Just for fun, the Huffington Post decided Tuesday night to...
I'm liveblogging the latest Iran election fallout. Email me with any news or thoughts, or follow me...
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Oscar G. Mayer, retired chairman of the Wisconsin-based meat processing company that bears his name,...
It's summer, the time for weddings! A few of my friends are getting married this summer and fall, so lately...
When making a list of "smart animals," crows probably wouldn't be at the top for...
I get many letters like this from readers...
Posted March 13, 2008 | 01:25 PM (EST)