Clinton Is Asked About Ferraro, Does Not "Agree"

According to an interview with the Associated Press just now:

I do not agree with that. 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. We ought to keep this on the issues. There are differences between us. There are differences between our approaches on health care, on energy, on our experience, on our results that we’ve produced for people. That’s what this campaign should be about.

Arlington Center aides say that Clinton does not feel as if she has to apologize for Ferraro's comments; after all, they are Ferraro's, not her own. And by linking them to the variety of remarks hoots and jeers from both sides, she is making a claim of equivalence between the rhetoric coming from her side and from Obama's. Jaws will clench at Chicago Center when they read this.

Ms. Ferraro's comments, once again:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman [of any color] 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."

Comments

so why did sam powers have to resign then?

they were her comments, not obama's.

clinton=hypocrite

Posted by freaktown | March 11, 2008 4:05 PM

Ferraro and Hagee should get together and have lunch.

Interesting that high-level Clinton surrogates look so much like Republican surrogates.

Maybe she really is keeping open the possibility of running as VP with McCain? (or maybe she would degin to offer McCain the GOP veep spot...?)

-chris

Posted by Chris Blask | March 11, 2008 4:07 PM

Why again then did Obama have to fire Powers?

Obama should act like the bigger man and make a speech about how some time people in a tight race make mistakes, in a high tension campaign people and staffers are going to say things they regret and he should forgive Ms. Ferraro's and he knows that Mrs. Clinton would do the same if the situation were reversed...opps.

Posted by whoa_now | March 11, 2008 4:07 PM

So the character assassination of a Pulitzer Prize winning, anti-genocide genius...that's ok. But we certainly can't repudiate anyone on Clinton's staff...how can we control what our surrogates say?

PLEASE.

At least Power has the decency to apologize for stepping out of line.

Posted by Ron Hussein | March 11, 2008 4:07 PM

What, then, of Samantha Powers?

Of all the questionable aspects of Sen. Clinton's continuing-despite-being-mathematically-eliminated campaign, I think it's the daily insulting of our intelligence I find the most irritating.

Posted by Kevin | March 11, 2008 4:08 PM

Soooo ... she doesn't reject or denounce?

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 11, 2008 4:09 PM

I have tried and tried to be measured in my responses to the Clinton campaign. Every time they do something outrageous, I chalk it up to politics and try to cut them some slack. But there's a cumulative effect after a while. And, much as I regret it, I can no longer feign objectivity. These people are very, very low.

Posted by alex | March 11, 2008 4:09 PM

What a leader that Clinton is!
Makes you wonder how she plans to get health care -- or anything else -- through.

The only reason she MIGHT win in November is because McCain will be her opponent.

Of course, the only reason he MIGHT win in November is that she might be his opponent ... or ally.

Posted by Jeff | March 11, 2008 4:11 PM

Worth noting, Marc, is Geraldine Ferraro's day job these days: She works for the NY office of Blank Rome, a major Republican lobbying firm that has developed some substantial ties to Clinton.

Obama's antilobbyist stance is not good for her business.

Posted by Jim | March 11, 2008 4:11 PM

Stay classy, Hillary. You've pissed off African-Americans. You've pissed off progressives. You've pissed off people in red, caucus, and small states. You've pissed off Pelosi.

Keep going, and all you'll be left with are old, angry, over-privileged white women. You and Geraldine and Gloria can all go to Ireland together and have some tea and talk about how everyone in the world hates women and how easy black people have it.

GO AWAY CLINTONS.

Posted by billysumday | March 11, 2008 4:12 PM

Jim, thanks for the info, I hope the MSM, picks up on that.

Posted by EH? | March 11, 2008 4:15 PM

Keep going, and all you'll be left with are old, angry, over-privileged white women.

How dare you call any white woman overprivileged. If you want to see overprivileged, just look at black males in this country. Now that's overprivileged.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 11, 2008 4:15 PM

Two classy ladies.

Posted by neilrlca | March 11, 2008 4:17 PM

Now that Sinbad has thrown his hat in the ring, can this campaign please be over?

I can't stand any more of this crap. Please go away, Hillary.

Posted by Ruth | March 11, 2008 4:17 PM

As usual, everybody is getting this one wrong.

Geraldine Ferraro's comment was a well-designed dog whistle to every downscale white voter out there who feels that affirmitive action hurts people like them.

But...the Obama people are making a HUGE mistake on how they are fighting back, even though they are right on the merits. The more they fight back on the merits, the more Obama = affirmitive action sentiment will creep into the low information PA voter consiousness. Like it or not, white people express sentiments like that of Ferraro all the time, and the Obama campaign DOES NOT want this primary to become a referendum on affirmitive action...and HIllary does....and this is why she is giving a maddeningly anemic disagreement. She wants the outrage to hang out there so that on the day that Obama wins MS with the help of black votes, the words "affirmitive action" are being reperated by the media over and over.

There is an effective way to fight back...and I hope someone form the Obama campaign is listening:

The bigger issue in Ferraro's comments that the Obama people should seize on is not the racial aspect, but the utter hypocrisy.

Hillary Clinton and George W Bush have both benefited from a far worse form of affirmitive action known as the legacy. While race-based affirmitive action tries to correct historical inequalities, legacy based affirmitive action tries to perpetuate historical inequalituies.

So, Obama campaign, what you need to do can be encapsualted in 2 steps.

Step 1: Vigorously rebut the notion that Obama got to where he is based on race-based preferences...he did it on talent and talent alone. There is no evidence that Obama has benefited from affirmitive action...that is baseless speculation on Ferraro's part and an attempt to tie Obama with the unpopular affirmitive action creed.

Step 2: Take Hillary's charge of preferential treatment and throw it back in her face and make the point that Hillary is getting unfair treatment for her last name. Then tie her to George W Bush by saying he gor special treatment for his last name, and look where that got us. Make the point that poppy bush wasn't able to stop baby bush from being a bad president, so there is no reason to think bill clinton will be able to stop hillary clinton from being a bad presdent. The Obama campaign should use this as an opening to push a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynastic nepotism argument against a Hillary nomination

Obama campaign, these are the messages that will resonate with low info PA voters...not some discussion of race-based affirmitive action.

Today, I think the Obama campaign is making the same mistake the Hillary campaign made in expressing outrage on the monster comments...which gallup polling shows led to a bumps for Obama after the clintons showed outrage and got the reasonable slur more play and ultimate resonance with the public

While the Obama camp have every right to be outraged at the Clinton race baiting, but doing so is only getting media play to the comments and low info white PA voters are not going to be offended by what Ferraro said or Hillary's anemic disagreement.

The smarter, more effective strategy for Obama would be to rebut the notion he has benefited from affirmitive action and then to hang the legacy nepotism meme around Hillary's hypocritical neck.

Now, there are 6 weeks to the next vote, so making a shot accross Hillary's racial bow is not the worst idea. However, the Obama campaign needs to make sure that low info voters don't perceive him to be a beneficiary of affirmitive action...and the best defense against that is a good offense...and in my opinion, it is time to define Hillary as a beneficiary of nepotism.

Posted by RKA | March 11, 2008 4:18 PM

Hopefully Jeff was just kidding, if not he's a moron. Snark doesn't always translate well over the tubes.

Posted by Jay | March 11, 2008 4:20 PM

Is it still not possible to talk about the role of race in a sensible way? It is simply another and more vexed form of identity and ethnic politics. Ferraro makes perfect sense, and there is nothing wrong with her talking about the role of race in the campaign or the enormous advantage it has been for Obama.

For example, Obama is getting 85-90% of the black vote, most of which would otherwise go to Clinton--who has long and strong ties to the black community. If Obama were not part African-American, he would not have won South Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Virginia, Missisippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and he would have lost more decisively in Ohio, Texas, California, Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts.

The contest would look completely different now if Obama were not black. Obama would be about where John Edwards was when he dropped out.

In addition, Obama has gained an immeasureable advantage from his ancestry because the press has been afraid to cricize Obama because of racial anxiety and the fear of being accused of racism (as poor Joe Biden was). There is so much anxiety about criciizing Obama that the press can hardly think straight.

Finally, if Obama were not black, then his campaign could not use accusations of racism to race-bait Clinton and paint her as illiberal--for example, Orlando Patterson's disgraceful diatribe in today's NY Times op-ed.

Ferraro is just speaking obvious common sense. The fact that people are exercised about it is an indication of exactly what she is arguing is true.

Posted by chiron | March 11, 2008 4:20 PM

EH,

Here's Ferraro's web page at Blank Rome:

http://www.blankromegr.com/index.cfm?contentID=10&bioID=5053

Posted by Jim | March 11, 2008 4:22 PM

For example, Obama is getting 85-90% of the black vote, most of which would otherwise go to Clinton--who has long and strong ties to the black community.

Has it ever occurred to you Clintonistas that Obama is getting 85-90% of the vote because Clinton surrogates are repeatedly race baiting? Like comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson and implying that the only reason he is winning is because he's black??

Don't you think that might drive a few black voters away?

Oh no, that can't be it.

The only explanation is that black people are RACIST! HA!

Posted by billysumday | March 11, 2008 4:23 PM

Come on people, get some perspective.

Calling someone a monster and calling someone black are not the same thing. For the obama supporters to suggest that Ferraro should resign her position just as Powers did would be tantamount to saying being black was the same as being a monster. This is twisting Ferraro's words and meaning and is Obama race baiting at its worst - of course, this wouldn't be the first (or last time) that the Obama campaign tried to play the victim in this race.

Posted by Fred Agbot | March 11, 2008 4:24 PM

"kind of veer off into the personal"???? Calling someone a monster is a petty, transparent attack. Using race to invalidate someone's accomplishments is way beyond that.

Posted by Pierce | March 11, 2008 4:24 PM

Does anyone else get the feeling that the Clinton campaign has turned into the political equivalent of a forum troll?

Posted by James in NJ | March 11, 2008 4:27 PM

Chiron -

you've got it all wrong. Those A-A voters were largely with the Clintons at this time last year: in fact, the story then was that Obama wasn't black enough. Then, the Clintons decided to race bait during/after NH, capped by Bill's "Jesse Jackson" comment. That's what shifted the A-A vote to Obama.

There was no pre-existing logic that the Clintons could not do well among A-A voters in this election, just as there was no pre-existing logic that said they couldn't do well in caucus states. In fact, the CW was that with their past relationships & superior machine, they should have done well at both.

Well, in both cases, they failed, because of decisions that their campaign made. They decided to play Obama as the race candidate. They decided that they didn't need to contest caucus states. And they are getting what they deserve.

Posted by neilrlca | March 11, 2008 4:30 PM

Jim- To me this makes it "Ferraro Gate". The Clintons are trying to Divide and conquer to keep us all fighting over scraps. This needs to go big!

Marc, are you watching this stuff?

Posted by Eh? | March 11, 2008 4:30 PM

The truth of Ferraro's comments are as obvious as those 747 wingflaps on the side of Obama's head. Or the overwhelming anti-Clinton bias in the media, particularly the unethical and ungoverned blog media.

What is the difference between John Edwards and Barack Obama, other than the fact that Obama is bi-racial and running as A BLACK MAN? The difference beyond that is that Edwards has about twice the political experience, was an enormously SUCCESSFUL LAWYER before entering politics, and is not beholden to INDICTED POLITICAL FIXERS for his early political success.

Posted by robert ethan | March 11, 2008 4:37 PM

This is 'the many faces' of the clintons. Do as I say not as I do. Hopefully (and apparently) America is getting over them and we are moving on. Think about the nightmare of the clintons constantly hiding things in the 90's - thank God we are not going back there.

Posted by Kalaine | March 11, 2008 4:38 PM

A special message to Clinton supporters/apologists,

If you don't think Ferraro's comments are racist, then should I assume that you also don't think these comments by Chris Mathhews weresexist?

"Matthews: I think the Hillary appeal has always been about the mix of toughness and sympathy. Let’s not forget, and I’ll be brutal, the reason she’s a US Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around. […]

That’s how she got to be a Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn’t win it on her merit, she won because everybody felt, “My God, this woman stood up under humiliation,” right? That’s what happened."

It seems to me these are very similar statements. Mathhews said Hillary did not earn her position but leveraged sympathy to get elected. Ferraro says that Obama is where he is because of his race.

In the case of Chris mathhews, there was a Media Matters fatwah issued, he had to apologize on-air, the clinton people used charges of sexism for great theatric and political effect.

Can any Clinton apologist please tell me how Matthews's comments are more sexist than Ferraro's comments are racist?

My read on these two similar events is that they are pretty comprable...both wrong things to say, but that chris mathhews's statement probably had slightly more inherent truth than Ferraro's.

Yet, the outrage level was much higher for Mathhews's sexism than it was for Ferraro's racism.

Just another example of inconsistent hypocrisy from Camp Clinton if you ask me.

Posted by RKA | March 11, 2008 4:38 PM

Anyone else have the impression that the Clintons are running a kind of Potemkin campaign, constructed largely of unfounded assertions? I really get the feeling I had during the dark days of the Bush administration, when nothing I heard from a political leader rang true. Clinton (and her supporters like Fred Agbot) keeps insisting that things are one way, and out of a spirit of fairness I want to believe her. But, for whatever reason, I just don't. And the more time passes, the more I understand why. This is just a really bad lot.

Posted by alex | March 11, 2008 4:39 PM

Did I miss something or wasn't that Obama standing with Chris Rock on the stage of the Apollo Theater in Harlem for a fundraiser early in the campaign, with Rock telling the African-American crowd how ashamed they'd be not voting for the black candidate?

I voted for Obama and even I can't take the hypocricy here. The "old okey dokey" indeed.

Posted by Rusty | March 11, 2008 4:52 PM

Rusty,

I don't follow you at all. Are you saying its the black vote in New York that's given Obama the lead in delegates, states, and the popular vote (even if you include Florida)?

Posted by alex | March 11, 2008 4:59 PM

Obama's all black Afro-centric church, which preaches loyalty to "Mother Africa" above God or country, is currently under investigation for ABUSING THEIR TAX EXEMPT STATUS, to actively promote their candidate based on his racial ties to Africa.

Not coincidentaly, the last time the CORRUPT MEDIA SHILLS made a big HULABALOO OVER RACE was just prior to the primary in the predominantly BLACK STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. This time it is just prior to the voting in the NEARLY EQUALLY BLACK STATE OF MISSISSIPI.

No, Obama hasn't benefitted from deciding early in his political career in the PREDOMINANTLY BLACK DISTRICTS OF CHICAGO, that despite the fact that he was HALF WHITE, and raised by THE WHITE HALF OF HIS FAMILY in a NON BLACK environment, that he should define himself as BLACK.

Not a bit. Who could think such a thing?

Posted by robert ethan | March 11, 2008 5:03 PM

There's not really any hypocrisy, sorry. After Samantha Power, I don't see why Clinton's campaign is supposed to get a free pass when one of her supporters makes an assertion unlike anything made by anyone on the Obama campaign. Yes, Jesse Jackson Jr. and a few individuals not associated with the campaign (such as Chris Rock) have appealed to African-American solidarity, though this is not any different from the Clinton campaign's regular appeals to female solidarity, actions that are being lauded and celebrated in this week's issue of Newsweek. Of course, female solidarity doesn't scare whitey, so it's acceptable. Again, Clinton's apologists are at it with the double standards.

The fact of the matter is that if an Obama campaign official made the claim that Clinton is only where she is because "she's a woman" or, more analogously," because "she's white," they would have been rebuked, renounced, and fired.

Ridiculous.

Posted by Klaus | March 11, 2008 5:04 PM

Robert Ethan,

Is there anything inherently wrong with black people identifying themselves as group? Try replacing "black" in your comment with "Jewish." "An all Jewish temple that preaches loyalty to mother Israel." Is that scandalous too? I sure hope not.

Posted by alex | March 11, 2008 5:07 PM

robert ethan,

For April Fools' Day, you should reverse your hyperbolic smear-monger schtick so it's directed at Clinton. That would be cute.

Posted by Ernest | March 11, 2008 5:10 PM

Ethan -
"What is the difference between John Edwards and Barack Obama, other than the fact that Obama is bi-racial and running as A BLACK MAN? "

So, Barack beat Edwards in Iowa and New Hampshire because he is Black?

Could it not be argued that he won despite being black because his message and personality resonated as more authentic and hopeful?

Posted by wayne | March 11, 2008 5:10 PM

It's true that skin color and gender (among many other attributes) affect how an individual is perceived by society. It is also true that race and gender are factors that play a significant role in forming an individual's identity. Ferraro's comment is asinine because Obama IS a black man and if this aspect of him affects the way he is perceived by society there is nothing she or anyone else can do about it (nor should they feel a necessity to). The way people look, act, sound, smell, etc, are all parts of who they are and how they are perceived. Saying that Obama wouldn't be in his position if he were white is similar to saying Hillary wouldn't be in her position if she had been born with two heads. In this sense I agree with Ferraro because having two heads might have led Hillary into a different line of work...

Posted by Todd | March 11, 2008 5:12 PM

Best news for the Clinton campaign is the recent poll showing that less than ONE IN FIVE Americans has ever WASTED THEIR TIME READING A POLITICAL BLOGSITE (like this one), and of the ones who have, MOST ONLY PERUSED THEM A COUPLE TIMES A YEAR.

They are dominated by the WHACKY FRINGE LEFT LATTE LIBS who supported that SHORT FAT INEPT CULT FIGURE HOWARD DEAN four years ago, and have jumped EN MASSE to the EQUALLY VACUOUS AND FLIMSY CULT LEADER OF 2008.

What the Cultists can't seem to comprehend, as with the followeres of David Koresh, Charlie Manson, Reverand Jim Jones, Reverand Moon, Bhagwan Ragneesh, Adolph Hitler, etc., etc., is that unless you are INSIDE THE CULT COMPOUND, regularly DRINKING THE KOOL AID, you just don't "get it".

To the unindoctrinated, your hero seems like an empty suit with a loud voice who specializes in cultivating an "us against the world" bunker mentality for his own profit and gain. Like the above mentioned "leaders".

Posted by robert ethan | March 11, 2008 5:17 PM

The comparison is pretty apt, James in NJ. Thanks for making me laugh.

Posted by former deaniac | March 11, 2008 5:19 PM

Stepping aside from the race issue - which has been well debated here - I think all of this hints at another large issue that the Clinton campaign either ignores or (more likely) doesn't care about:

The more the Clinton campaign attempts to diminish Obama (Ferraro's comments, he's only words, his supporters are just the political equivalent of American Idol fanatics, etc.), the more it also diminishes Obama's supporters.

I'm a to-the-death Democrat and Obama supporter who, if Obama is not the nominee, would do anything to get a female elected president. But if Hillary is the nominee, it will be hard for me to support her. It has nothing to do with sour grapes. If she beats Obama fair and square, I say, "Good match. Now let's beat McCain." However, I'm disgusted by her tactics, as they diminish me, too. She wants to label me as someone merely blinded by Obama's oratory. That's insulting. She has a large enough issue with sincerity.

Why does this matter? Because Hillary is going to need Obama supporters like me if she wants to beat McCain.

Posted by Ryan | March 11, 2008 5:26 PM

Hillary will handle Methuselah McCain just fine, Ryan, with or without you. The only question is whether or not your "Perfect Messiah" will be around as VICE PRESIDENT or not. Personally, I can think of about 25 individuals who would be better suited for the job, but that isn't how politics works.

Posted by robert ethan | March 11, 2008 5:32 PM

Hillary Clinton would not be where she was were she not the wife of a President. She has accomplished so little to be basing her campaign on "experience." She is so lucky.

Posted by Betty in Balitmore | March 11, 2008 5:42 PM

Barack Obama is an enormously talented man, probably the most talented politician since Bill Clinton in '92, and that's saying a lot. But Geraldine Ferraro should be commended for speaking an inconvenient truth about the candidacy of Barack Obama: as talented as he obviously is, a large part of his talent has been in deftly exploiting positive voter sympathy towards the "first black man" to have a serious shot at the presidency than anything else. Would Obama be where he was today if John Kerry hadn't picked the Illinois State Senator to give the 2004 keynote address at the Democratic convention? Definitely not. Would Kerry have picked Obama if he had been a very talented white candidate in a state senate job, one of hundreds of talented politicians similarly situated in all 50 states? I can't think that anyone can say that the enthusiasm Obama received didn't have anything to do with his race. Of course it did. Ferraro is correct: Obama is a very lucky man to be where he is. But it's not just because of his race (nor did she say so). It's because of both his race and his talent. Unfortunately it's politically incorrect to mention his race, as the torrent of insipid comments above indicate.

Posted by Tim | March 11, 2008 5:54 PM

Think of it this way....If Obama was white with his gifts for oratory and message and leadership...he would be doing very well.

If Hillary were a male, she would be just another average senator, assuming she even could have gotten elected.

If Clinton people want to say Obama's race helped him, they should conceded hillary's gender has helped her just as much if not more.

Posted by RKA | March 11, 2008 6:10 PM

I endorse fully what Tim wrote @5:54 PM.

What I would add is this bit of wonderment: how political correctness has so overcome what presidential candidates say, and some of what they do. Most importantly, what they must disavow, instantly, on pain of being drawn and quartered in the media.

Barack Obama is now the Black Candidate, although he started as just a candidate. Hillary has always run as the Woman Candidate, so long as that was working for her.

Obama is in reality a hack lefty politician from Chicago with what we used to call the gift of gab. Hillary is a power-hungry striver who married well.

Too bad they can't both be defeated in the primary.

Al Gore, where are you?

Posted by John Rich | March 11, 2008 6:13 PM

Think, people! Please!

1. The situation is not equivalent. Powers called Clinton a monster. That was not professional. She also is an Obama campaign advisor, and expected to get a seat in his cabinet....or was. She speaks to the press on behalf of Obama. If someone working directly for Clinton said Obama was a monster, you'd be rightly indignant that they should be fired.

2. Ferraro doesn't work for Clinton. She raises funds for Clinton's campaign, but isn't a direct report, as Powers was to Obama. Clinton can't stop her from having an opinion any more than she could stop you from having yours. There's nothing for Ferraro to 'resign' from. And what's more, she's right, and this is a view shared by many women, but voiced by few (look at the reaction as to why). A woman, black or white, or white guy with Obama's resume would scarcely get your notice. And you're so caught up in the hype of the moment you aren't even thinking clearly, but instead screaming for your tit-for-tat without any awareness, seeing 'conspiracy and race-baiting' where there is none.

Get real, and start thinking.

Instead of screaming for one or the other's heads for every imagined slight, instead of projecting years of bad feelings over a rotten history into every little situation, why not ask the news to do their job, start cracking on reporting on the REAL issues? Why not ask what these candidates what they intend to do about all the child killings since the start of the year? Why not ask them to address school shootings? If Obama is so wonderful, why didn't he turn up on site after the first school shooting, hold prayer vigils, talk to families, and offer solutions? What about immigration reform? Let Hillary start talking about how we need to get these people out of this country. What about the dollar's free-for-all? What's McCain got to offer there? Been to Europe lately? The Euro is STRONG against the dollar. Don't you think that needs to be addressed? Why not ask them about the stop loss soldiers still stuck in Iraq, when their tours are long over? We know how they voted on the war - now what are they going to do? THESE are the things we ought to be screaming about.

Our media is playing at "National Enquirer", and thanks to us, they've gotten quite good at it. Don't rush off like ninnies over every little thing, and worse, demand more of it. (It ain't like the press haven't figured out what it takes to push your buttons...)

Do something.

Like think for yourself.

Posted by Sharon | March 11, 2008 6:22 PM

Is it still not possible to talk about the role of race in a sensible way?

It is still not possible.

Ferraro makes perfect sense, and there is nothing wrong with her talking about the role of race in the campaign or the enormous advantage it has been for Obama.

Exactly. He's out of the contest if he hadn't won the southern states, and he won them because of the black vote. End of story.

And no, it wasn't the case that their so-called "race baiting" in South Carolina lost them the black vote. Blacks were voting for him 70-80% in Michigan and Florida--unless you really think blacks were choosing "uncommitted" for some other reason than an Obama vote.

Posted by Cal | March 11, 2008 6:28 PM

The old adage states "The truth shall set you free.".

But amended for race and politics in America today, it states "The truth shall get you fired.".

Or, "The truth shall set you free to seek lesser employment at a lower salary in a far away place.".

Posted by robert ethan | March 11, 2008 6:44 PM

Well, Gerry Ferraro proves to me again what a foul-mouthed, whiny little pol she is. If you'll remember, she was angry that the open NY Senate seat was denied her in 1994. She ran again in 1998 gifguring she'd just walk into the seat, AGAINST

Posted by Michael's Mom | March 11, 2008 6:46 PM

Sorry-

She figured she'd just float into the Senate seat against Schumer. you know, because she deserved it. Senator Ferraro hasn't been the same since, even without the melanoma.

Posted by Michael's Mom | March 11, 2008 6:49 PM

Robert Ethan-

Boy, you must be a Clintonite because you ad hominem with the best of them. Try reasoning sometime...ohhh but that'll never work 'cause reasoning won't make Hillary win.

Posted by Michael's Mom | March 11, 2008 7:00 PM

Exactly. He's out of the contest if he hadn't won the southern states, and he won them because of the black vote. End of story.

And if not for Hillary's base among women, she'd be done for. And if not for consistently receiving less of the vote than the other guys, John Edwards would be winning right now. And if not for deciding not to run, John Warner would be running for president right now.

Sorry, what was your point?

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 11, 2008 7:08 PM

Guys, I don't know about you, but I find Robert Ethan a thoroughly repellent individual, and I have requested that Marc Ambinder ban him from this blog. Wherever you stand on Democratic politics, I hope we would agree that comparing Howard Dean and Barack Obama to mass-murdering cult leaders and Adolph Hitler is utterly offensive. I hope that others who feel this way will spend 2 minutes emailing Marc to support this request. We can only benefit if such offensive individuals are removed, and genuine, mature discussion is enabled. If you want to drop Marc a line, you can write to him here:

Posted by m11t33 | March 11, 2008 7:16 PM

A woman, black or white, or white guy with Obama's resume would scarcely get your notice.

Do something.

Like think for yourself.

Posted by Sharon | March 11, 2008 6:22 PM

In my latte-fuelled, Birkenstock-wearing, small state-inhabiting, prius-driving cult-member confusion, I was momentarily perplexed by the idea that all those white men who reached the white house suffered from disadvantages that Obama somehow escaped by being black. I never thought of white men as a group of defenceless victims before. Strange, really, because I don't recollect too many white males being lynched, and I am awfully short on black presidents or cabinet members that I can recall over the last hundred years.

Posted by maraschion | March 11, 2008 7:23 PM

Is there anything Ferraro said that wasn't absolutely true? No. Does anyone think Obama would be winning 80% of the African American vote if he weren't black? It's absurd to even try to make that claim. Would so many people be as excited as they are about the historic first of his candidacy? No. That's all she was saying. She wasn't saying he is unqualified or not worthy of running based on his own merits, but we all know that's not enough in politics.

And, by the way, she fully admitted that if her name were Gerald Ferraro she never would have been the VP nominee in 1984.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 7:28 PM

Obama was losing the black vote in polls to Hillary through most of 2007. He had to overcome skepticsm that he could win, a fear he'd be harmed, and a lot of affection for "the first black president." If The clintons had not employed their SC strategy, there is a good chance that HIllary would be getting a much better chunk of the black vote. Obama did not get those votes automatically...he earned them and Hillary alienated them.

Posted by RKA | March 11, 2008 7:44 PM

Does anyone think Obama would be winning 80% of the African American vote if he weren't black? It's absurd to even try to make that claim.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 7:28 PM

First, it's absurd to insult black voters by assuming they only vote based on race. You also conveniently overlook the race-baiting by the Clinton campaign. Finally, you forget how many white voters chose Obama. Unless demographics have altered dramatically, Nebraska and Iowa, to name two examples, are as white as it gets. Your argument is simply trying to play the race card in a small-minded, crude, and contemptible way. This is not how genuine Democrats operate, and you should be ashamed to do so just because the Clintons have betrayed yet more Democratic principles along their path to disaster.

Posted by julians | March 11, 2008 7:44 PM

Tim K--The issue here is, she casts Hillary as the victim of sexism and Obama as the beneficiary of racism. That's just plain wrong.

They are both the beneficiaries and victims of racism and sexism. It works both ways. Ferraro was bigoted in how she tried to cast that one-way. That's what bigotry is: The irrational belief in the unworthy benefit of one group at the expense of your own.

Also: Hillary is nowhere near as talented as Obama. So if Obama was a woman, he would be beating the stuffing out of Hillary. If Obama was white, he would be far angrier. He would be John Edwards. And if John Edwards had won Iowa, he would be murdering Hillary among white men.

That's the bottom line.

Posted by Abe | March 11, 2008 7:48 PM

julians:

I don't think it's ever an insult to simply state an obvious fact. African Americans voters began shifting en masse to Barack as soon as he won the Iowa caucuses. In Nevada, which was before the so-called "Jesse Jackson" remarks, Obama won 85% of the African American vote there. The Clintons are not running and have not been running a race-baiting campaign, and it's ridiculous to claim that either Hillary or Bill are racist in the slightest. As many of their close friends are black as are white. Hillary's campaign manager and chief of staff as first lady (the person) is black. Bill's administrative assistant in the White House was black. Bill Clinton made more appointments of African Americans to administration and judicial positions than anyone up until that time. The Clintons have been leaders in racial reconciliation and civil rights their entire adult lives. It's just ridiculous to accuse them of racism.

So how is it now that Obama wins 80-90% of the African American vote? Are we supposed to believe it's because all blacks have some kind of philosophical problem with health insurance mandates? Give me a break. This is history in the making for the African American community and it's completely understandable why most want to vote for Barack, but let's not kid ourselves as to the reason for it.

Abe:

John Edwards never could have beaten Hillary Clinton in these primaries. If Barack didn't run she would be running away with this. Tom Daschle said as much on Charlie Rose last week.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 7:53 PM

"As many of their close friends are black as are white."

Evidence?

The Clintons are not running and have not been running a race-baiting campaign, and it's ridiculous to claim that either Hillary or Bill are racist in the slightest.

Sure, they just suffer from outbreaks of racist surrogates and patronising remarks by Bill. No, not racist at all, sah!

Lest we forget:

Larry Patterson confirmed that he frequently heard Bill Clinton use "nigger" to refer to both Jesse Jackson and local Little Rock black leader Robert "Say" McIntosh. Longtime Clinton paramour Dolly Kyle Browning corroborated Patterson on Clinton's use of "nigger." "Not only did he use the 'N' word, he called him a 'GDN' [goddamn nigger], if you catch my drift," Browning told Fox News in 1999. [NewsMax, 17 July 2000] Brown also told NewsMax that the president would regularly make derogatory comments about African-Americans in private. "He has used the 'N' word before. Bill would make snide remarks about blacks behind their backs." [Carl Limbacher and NewsMax Staff, 17 July 2000]

Patterson said Hillary was no stranger to the "N" word either. He heard her say "nigger" "probably six, eight, ten times. She would be upset with someone in the black community and she would use the 'N' word, like, you heard they've got the president's brother on tape using the 'N' word." [NewsMax, 17 July 2000]

It's all in the family: Captured on videotape when Arkansas state police had Hillary's brother-in-law Roger Clinton under surveillance for dealing cocaine in 1984, Roger stated: "Some junior high nigger kicked Steve's ass while he was trying to help his brothers out; junior high or sophomore in high school. Whatever it was, Steve had the nigger down. However it was, it was Steve's fault. He had the nigger down, he let him up. The nigger blindsided him." [NewsMax, 17 July 2000]

Posted by markusd | March 11, 2008 8:05 PM

How does this help win the ultimate prize? I would really like to know...

About a third of the American population are 'real' democrats, a third are 'real' republicans, and a third are independents that probably lean one way or another. This is slightly important to understand...

A 50 +1 strategy can be done (See: Bush/Rove) by dividing and conquering. However, the difference in this case is that the whole Bush/Rove divide and conquer strategy never involved dividing large segments of their own base. Bush/Rove could gay-bait and race-bait all they wanted because those folks who might be susceptible to disenfranchisement didn't make up a significant portion of their own base.

African-Americans constituted about 12% of the voter age population in 2004. Around 60% of those folks voted. Of those who voted, about 90% went Democratic. That means roughly 6.5% of the total popular that went to John Kerry vote came from African-Americans. John Kerry, who got trounced by a fairly unpopular President running for re-election, got 48.3% of the popular vote overall. This means that African-Americans comprised roughly 13.5% of his vote total.

So please, somebody, anybody tell me how anyone can win a general election 50 + 1 strategy by belittling, either subtly or overtly, about a third of your base? If you have to divide your party and also alienate and belittle independents sympathetic to your cause, especially the educated, latte sipping ones (about 24% of the American electorate has college degrees) in order to secure a nomination, how exactly does that translate to victory in November?

After all, isn't November what really counts?

Posted by Benniefly2 | March 11, 2008 8:12 PM

No one has answered RKA's question. Chris Matthews said the only reason Clinton was still in the race was because she's married to a former president. For this he was targeted by the full force of the liberal blogosphere.

Now Ferraro makes a similar statement, and we're simply to yawn and let it pass? Not only is this a double standard, but it's a double standard created by the Clinton campaign.

Compare Clinton's frequent appeals to women to vote for the woman candidate (which, incidentally, she never did before Iowa) to Obama's steadfast refusal to talk about race.

Posted by Road Runner | March 11, 2008 8:18 PM

Samantha Powers! Two days ago! Clinton didn't suggest saying "I don't agree with Powers" would be enough to make everything okay. Can they keep their unbearable indigation consistent for half a week? Not original, but it bears repeating.

Just to recap for those trying to rewrite history: Ferraro didn't call him black. She claimed that everything he has accomplished in this campaign is because he is a black man. Those of us in the reality-based community look at the history of black male candidates dominating the race for the presidency, and we conclude Ms. Ferraro is nuts.

Picture a man like Edwards, but without the history of unfortunate votes he disowns and unfortunate financial links to companies he opposes. In his 20s he works as a community organizer, then attends law school, where he's the editor of the Harvard Law Review. He goes on to teach constitutional law and runs successfully for state, then national office. In tune with the shifting zeitgist and a very gifted public speaker, at 46 he becomes the voice of a wide movement fed up with 16 years of partisan bickering. So, yeah, I think it could work for a white man. I think it could work better for a white man. I even think it could work for a woman with a steeper Iowa/NH climb, Ms. Steinem's opinion notwithstanding. He or she might have built a somewhat different coalition of voting groups--but the whole point is trying to reach beyond old voting groups so that people who agree on important issues can work together on them and finally accomplish something. The idea that only a black man could put across that message is just silly.

Posted by Deborah | March 11, 2008 8:21 PM

race baiting works, it makes people talk about differnce and identify with the same.

what i figured out of my 35-years of experience is that people want conflict they dont care what the conflict is about they just want a conflict because it is in the contest that live assirts itself.

if you are not him, how would you know that you are you?
the problem is when politicians use Race as a read Meat, the people using the so called "black-brown" divide cannot be said to be interrested in governing because to govern you actually need to bring people together, they are just interrested in power for its own sake.

look at how you easily get baited, it is not because they are snart its because you want the conlict, you need the conlict. I think Obama did a stupid thing when he responded to Ferrero, race is now a political Boll, and he is forced to play it. ut it was so overt that he could not let it go.

Ferraro was the one insinuating that the men were ganging on Hillary because Hillary gave conlicting answers on MSNBC debate with Timmeeeh
so she realy has no credibility. PA Governor has Credibility but Obama did not respond when the Governor of state says that democrats in his state would not support a democratic candidate because of his skin colure.

Posted by jon | March 11, 2008 8:21 PM

Geraldine is just saying what all White Democrats are thinking: the blacks should know their place. Finally, the Democrat party shows its racist face. How dare the blacks get in the way of a White Democrat.

Obama should be a good black like Maggie Williams.

On the other side, if Obama is where he is at becuase he is black, then Clinton is where she is at becuase she has a vagina and married Bill.

Either way we win, the Democrats are in self-destruct mode.

Posted by White Dem | March 11, 2008 8:48 PM

jon -- Wow. Do you naturally spell that badly, or do you have to take special lessons?

Posted by High Grammarian | March 11, 2008 8:52 PM

There's nothing wrong with Ferraro saying what she did. Haven't we had enough PC? She was speakign her mind. That's fine.

I agree with her that Obama would not be where he is if he was not a black man.

But I fail to see the point?

Couldn't you say that about Clinton, Ferraro, and just about anyone? They wouldn't be where they are today if not for ____ (fill in the blank). So what???

Sounds like a case of sour grapes to me.

Posted by slick | March 11, 2008 9:28 PM

Ferrero has obviously gone senile, and keeps digging a deeper hole. You also gotta wonder if Clinton hasn't cracked; failing to distance hereself from that racist loon Ferraro is not merely evil, but stupid.

Any Clinton fans want to defend the latest?

Oh god, I scroll up and see that some people are defending her!!! Though I expect that most of the posts are parodies. I mean, we talking stupider than the Bush dead enders at this point.

Though I will say this. I wasn't one of those who tended to accuse Clintonoids of being racists. But it is starting to become pretty clear that most Clinton dead enders are, indeed, racist scum.

May they all, along with the Monster herself, burn in the fires of hell for all eternity.

Posted by LarryM | March 11, 2008 9:38 PM

m11t33, you disgust me.

How is it that you came to believe that you have some kind of right to not be offended?

While I disagree with most (but not all) of Robert Ethan's comments, and find them over-the-top and trollish, I find YOUR knee-jerk desire to BAN him far more offensive than anything he could ever write.

WTF is wrong with people like you?

There - now you can try to get me banned too. Fascist.

Posted by slick | March 11, 2008 9:49 PM

slick, I suspect you are robert ethan, but if not, I am interested to see that you endorse a person who has been banned from numerous sites for racist and personal attacks, and who has behaved here in a consistently vile manner. By all means, associate yourself with him if you wish. I should say that you deserve your company.

Posted by m11t33 | March 11, 2008 9:59 PM

Disgusting. Just disgusting. Ferraro is a mentally sick woman.

If she wants to say in neutral, matter-of-fact terms that people vote along racial or gender lines, that's one thing.

However, she wasn't speaking as a sociologist. She wasn't studying interesting voting patterns for a polling group. She was speaking as a prominent Clinton supporter and she spoke like a sore, bitter, pathetic loser. Clearly, she was angry that Hillary's prospects of becoming the first female president are being steadily destroyed by Obama brilliant campaign. Perhaps she's also still angry that she lost in 1984.

Ferraro spoke with a clear tone of resentment. She was expressing bitterness. That bitterness, which focused on Obama's race (Hillary expresses her bitterness by focusing on Obama's oratory) is extremely telling. It's what people often do when they're angry: they take it out on race.

Ferraro got angry. She needed to blame someone or something. She chose to focus on race. It was her way of venting. She attributed Obama's success to his race -- not his intelligence, not his opposition to the war on Iraq, not his substantive policy positions, not his ability to communicate with Americans of diverse backgrounds, but simply because he's black. That and she implied that black voters only support Obama because he's black. What does that imply about black voters?

If she were speaking as a sociologist, she would have absolutely no need to appear on FOX news and defend herself. She would have no need to criticize the Obama campaign. She would have no need to warn Obama not to "antagonize" her. That she was so defiant in the face of simple, honest questioning is only a confirmation of her guilt.

The woman is a sick, corrupt, degenerate, lying, morally debauched politician -- and an extremely ugly one at that.

Posted by Jackson Hanson | March 11, 2008 11:08 PM

Truth hurts, Ferraro is just calling a spade a spade. If Obama was white and acted white he would be like John Kerry, Al Gore, Edwards and others and be nothing but a seed in the wind and have LOSER writen on his forehead! Obama using the "color" card is a bit lame, but God forbid he puts a rag on his head and dresses like Muslem. The guy asks for it than crys like a baby whaaa whaaaa when someone gives their open opinions of him. First Amendment, freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. LOSERS always cry when they feel their feet slipping out from under them. Obama would be the last person I would vote for, he is no Jessie Jackson and he definately is no Martin Luther King! Just another wanna be thinking he has a chance to be president someday! Keep dreaming pal!!!

Natty

Posted by Natalie | March 12, 2008 12:07 AM

Natty: "Ferraro is just calling a spade a spade."

Natty: "Obama would be the last person I would vote for, he is no Jessie Jackson and he definately is no Martin Luther King!"

Geraldine Ferraro, 1988, The Washington Post: "If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Posted by Jackson Hanson | March 12, 2008 12:18 AM

Methinks yon Hillary is a mean and hungry hound.....oops....I guess Barack will have
to drop me from the campaign now. Me and my big
mouth.

Posted by interferon | March 12, 2008 1:06 AM

"slick, I suspect you are robert ethan"

Doesn't surprise me that you suffer from paranoia as well.

I *MUST* be him because I defend his right to post comments that are offensive to you??

Good grief.

Even someone of averge intelligence - taking just a few minutes of their time - would easily see that our writing styles, opinions, etc., are completely different.

Posted by slick | March 12, 2008 1:17 AM

"I am interested to see that you endorse a person who has been banned from numerous sites for racist and personal attacks, "

1) I have no idea what his history is here or on any other sites. I was only judging him on the posts I see here on this blog.

2) For you to suggest that I was ENDORSING his views is a flat out lie. Or do you suffer from a reading comprehension problem? In fact, I went out of my way to say that I do NOT agree or like most of what he has to say (though once in a while he makes a good point).

Try taking a long, hard look at your desire to ban/censor someone instead of criticizing ME. I notice that's the one thing you did not comment on. Hmmmm....how revealing.

Posted by slick | March 12, 2008 1:21 AM

I don't think it's ever an insult to simply state an obvious fact. African Americans voters began shifting en masse to Barack as soon as he won the Iowa caucuses. In Nevada, which was before the so-called "Jesse Jackson" remarks, Obama won 85% of the African American vote there

Sigh..

Sigh..

Sigh..

Are you going to honestly tell me that you actually think the Dogwhistle politics BEGAN with the Jesse Jackson comment?

Puleeze.

The Dogwhistle politics, began, in earnest, with Billy Shaheen.

The reason why it hit Nevada was because Black folk had been observing the calls of the Dogwhistle, and had been discussing it on Black radio, Black talk radio, the Black blogosphere -not, I didn't say Black political blogosphere, but the Black blogosphere. This was discussed and observed in the Black community - you know, where it was told it was all in our ' IMAGINATIONS' until it ' broke' in the MSM...then 'suddenly' it was an issue.

Posted by rikyrah | March 12, 2008 1:21 AM

The vile Ms Ferraro did not just say that Obama was black, she wasn't just stating a fact. She said that "if" Obama was white he would not be where he is. That's actually a counter factual.

I would like to quote a response that I read today, "The typecasting that the Clinton campaign is doing of this magna cum laude Harvard educated civil rights lawyer with over two decades working on behalf of the people of Illinois, whose on the mark foreign policy judgment could have saved this country over a trillion dollars and 3800 American lives, is simply abominable."

Posted by nam23 | March 12, 2008 1:37 AM

Scoreboard, people... Scoreboard...

Posted by Benniefly2 | March 12, 2008 2:06 AM

More of the posts are really getting harsh and hateful now. You can begin to feel the electoral train wreck approaching if we don't step back from the abyss. Perhaps Obama should not focus on asking for a Ferraro retraction or claiming that her assertion that his racial identity has in any way benefitted him in this election cycle is beyond the pale (when most less partisan observers know that it plays at least some role, as does the fact that Hillary has an appeal as the first serious woman candidate). Obama's best tack at this point would be to remind people that he has risen based on his intelligence, achievement, hard work and judgement, that that is why he is qualified to be president, and focus on telling democratic voters why his economic policies will benefit working Americans of any stripe. He'll need to do so to win the general anyway. In other words, get to the bread and butter rather than cultural identity. Focus on what we share and what binds us together--one of his strengths in general, but emphasize how "change" and "hope" relate to real life concerns. Why not begin now, since it is becoming clear that he is going to emerge as the nominee. Oh, and if you haven't read any of my previous posts, I'll just mention that although I was an Edwards supporter, I feel that on balance, of the two remaining frontrunners, Obama is the person who has the shot at the better outcome in the general election (although his relative lack of foreign policy experience, limited time in the Senate, and, yes, to some extent race, will be challenges for him). I hope admitting these types of things doesn't get me pegged as 'insensitive' or worse. I grew up in Oklahoma, where we get a lot more tornados than they do in some other parts of the country. If I mention that someone in Oklahoma is more likely to be hit by tornado than someone in Massachussetts I just mention it as an unfortunate fact of life, not because I think folks in one state are better than another.

Posted by what'sinaname | March 12, 2008 8:54 AM

I just heard a report on NPR in which they described Hillary as "denouncing" the comments by Ferraro. Sure doesn't sound like that to me. Anyone else?

Posted by Howard B. | March 12, 2008 9:31 AM

WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERS ?? WHERE ARE YOU ?? dO YOU REALLY WANT A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT??. I WILL PUT MY MONEY ON MCAIN TO WALK STRAIGHT TO THE WHITE HOUSE IN NOVEMBER . TO ME REPUBLICANS NOW LOOK LIKE A DEMOCRATIC PARTY I KNOW . DEMOCRATS ARE A TWISTED PARTY WHICH WILL BE EMBARRASSED COME NOVEMBER . CLINTON HAS ALREADY ENDORSED MCAIN ,AMERICA FORGET THE DEMOCRATS THIS IS A JOKE .

Posted by sid | March 12, 2008 9:33 AM

Ferraro vs Jesse Jackson - April 15, 1988 (The cite is a Washington Post story - byline: Howard Kurtz, - available only on Nexis).:

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

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."

Posted by Kairos | March 12, 2008 9:54 AM

Exactly who is working for whom?

From Blank Rome Govt Relations, of which Ms. Ferraro is a principal:

"The first step in any successful government relations strategy is to understand our clients' business, market position, and legislative objectives. We partner with our clients. We assume their goals, objectives, and challenges as our own. We serve as communicators, issue managers, and advocates. We do more than open doors. We solve problems."

"We represent a broad range of clients within the defense industry and many technology firms looking to introduce their products to the armed services and the agencies within the DoD. The Blank Rome Government Relations defense team takes the time to learn and understand our clients’ products and assists in developing presentations and arranging meetings with key decision-makers.

Our defense team matches capabilities and business objectives against new requirements and opportunities to best position our clients for success. We work with the DoD on a daily basis and understand the specific details of the department’s budget and acquisition process. We help defense officials understand new, emerging technologies and create sponsorship opportunities for our clients. We work closely with the congressional defense committees to secure client opportunities for authorization and appropriations support."

Posted by Patty | March 12, 2008 10:55 AM