Re: Geraldine Ferraro:
Because running as a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama is soooo easy.
« Throwing This Out There... | Main | Will Eliot Spitzer resign? » Ferraro10 Mar 2008 09:16 pm Comments (117)
Ambinder -- Sinbad is calling you out -- I suggest a quick response (via TPM): http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/sinbad-speaks.php#comment-2641126 
Typical.
At the very least, Hillary needs to renounce this Ferraro comment as much as Obama did the Samantha Powers comment. The Hillary camp has no shame, no limit to how low they will stoop. That is one more reason to reject Hillary soundly. Hillary is another Spitzer waiting to happen: someone ruthless, arrogant, feeling entitled to power, with a history of rumors of scandal. And with the Clintons it's 2 for 1: you have both Hillary and Bill and their combined scandal potential.
If she had called him a black monster she'd have to resign from Hillary's campaign.
when and how is this going to stop? I'm not going to ask Where, as I do NOT want it to be in Denver. I do want to ask WHO are these Clinton supporters - and how they can think she can win a general election with negatives around 50 %, NO cross-ver appeal (on the contrary - every GOP voter will turn out against her, "fatal" to the down ticket (McCaskill), and with indeps. breaking heavily in favor of either McCain or Obama. OR,even if she could eke out a 50.01% win, how could she govern, when no GOP-er ever needing re-election will be the one on record as having given her a legislative victory of any significance. PLUS: release the tax returns, release the WH records, release the pardons-for-library donations records, release info on Bill's $$$$$$$$$$ from Dubai, Suado and kazakhstan - let's VET them!
Ironic sense Mondale picked Ferraro bc she was a "first", he actively sought to pick a woman or a minority. Why else would you pick a House Rep (who had not been there long)? Here's the Time Magazine article from that era, also you can check out Mondal's Wiki. Mac. I think you need to point this out (god knows the rest of the media won't).
Dear Older Ethnic Liberal East-Coast White Women, Hillary is barely 60. If you refuse to vote for Obama this year, she can still be President in 2012. Don't give up the faith. Sincerely yours, Geraldine
Doesn't it seem like not a very good idea for the Clinton campaign to have Carville on CNN (identified on screen as a Clinton supporter) saying that there's no reason for Spitzer to resign? I would think the Clinton folks don't want the association drawn so directly from the Spitzer scandal to the Clintons.
Best. Marc. Post. EVER.
Here is what bugs the ambinders: ""I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign." Ferraro calls the "liberal medias" hackery out. How dare she! "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "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." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler. "I was reading an article that said young Republicans are out there campaigning for Obama because they believe he's going to be able to put an end to partisanship," Ferraro said, clearly annoyed. "Dear God! Anyone that has worked in the Congress knows that for over 200 years this country has had partisanship - that's the way our country is." And the rest works for me.
Jerry Ferraro also thinks that Mondale should have been the nominee by default because he won all the big primary states (except CA). Does this malarky sound familiar?
Lost in Ferraro's whining: a) HIllary would be nowhere if her last name were not Clinton...she is the beneficiary of affirmative action by nepotism and legacy, not Obama, who earned his standing by his own skills. b) There are a lot more white women in the dem electorate than black men c) Obama is not the one talking about race. That would be the clintons and the media. d) Does she think her gender had nothing to do with her being picked for VP in 1984 as a random congresswoman from NY e) A white man with Obama's skills would even more politically strong as Obama is now.
This is just another attempt to divide blacks and whites as we approach Mississippi. They're using this to lay the groundwork for pointing to the racial divide and saying that Obama is just a black candidate. The Southern Strategy is back.
A different interview, listen for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqL_sm0J8jc (She seems to suggest that the only reason Obama makes it this far is because he is black. Yet in the next sentence she seems to suggest that the only reason that she was not on the top of the ticket in 84 was because she is woman.)
As an African-American male, I am happy to find out that I should both count myself lucky and that people are positively taking to the "concept" of being a black man. Racial progress indeed!
Ferraro has been all over the place, and she's gotten on my last nerve.
Poor Hillary. She had the misfortune to be born of two white parents, professionals, who stayed married. Imagine how different life would have been had her father been from Africa. An immigrant to the United States, married to a white woman. Now we're talkin', huh? Now we're talking some real structural advantages! But then, just imagine that Hillary's father then left her as a toddler, to be cared for only by her mother! Whoa! She would have gone straight from Yale, to the White House. Alas, it was not to be. But Hillary has angels. She has Geraldine Ferraro, and Gloria Steinem, angels who pierce the fog with their towering intellects, and explain to us how it all could have been so different.
More racebaiting from the Clinton campaign; how many more times must this happen before the campaign is called out on it by the media? And I mean really called out on it...not just in some commentaries on blogs like this, but through all mainstream media outlets, to where Hillary is properly shamed.
Uggh could we talk about real issues? Like Obama flip-flopping on earmarks. He now supports Demint-McCain (moratorium on earmarks for one year). His previous position was that earmarks are fine as long as they are transparent. Its pretty clear he wants to avoid this debate in november. By the way, when will he release his '05,'06 earmarks? Some transparency would be nice.
Uuuuhhh...lets stop and look at the facts. Obama secures close to 50% of the white vote, so if there are white racists voting against him for being half black, there are as many white reverse racists voting for him due to perceived persecution over his skin color. On the other hand he gets over 80% of the black vote, in a race against a candidate who has a long black friendly history. The numbers suggest that if fact Obama benefits tremendously from his mixed race heritiage. His great shining moment in the sun was South Carolina, where the BLACK VOTE carried him to a significant win, while the white vote split more or less evenly among all of the candidates. Moreover his rising popularity among blacks was fueled by his campaign's suggestions of RACISM ON THE PART OF HIS OPPONENT. Obama writes of doing drugs as a youth, Bill Shaheen brings it up as a possible handicap to his aspirations, and all of a sudden DRUG ADDICTION BECOMES AN EXCLUSIVELY BLACK CHARACTERISTIC. Certainly not the case where I live, where the drug addicts/sellers come in all races, ages, genders, and from all socio economic backgrounds.
BTW, I am sick and tired of Hillary's supporters trying to argue that somehow sexism is worse than racism. Both are evils, and both must be fought. But Hillary's supporters try to argue that somehow women have had it harder in this country than black people. I know sexism has been bad, but I don't think it can compare to the history of racism in this country. I think one would rather have been a white female in the 1950's rather than a black male. If anything, at this point in time, we are more in need of racial healing than healing in gender relations. Again, the black community is more disadvantaged in this country as a whole than the female population. I also believe Obama, with his more caring nature, and one that is more aligned with peace, would actually do more for women than Hillary. Hillary showed how much she cared about strong, independent women when she threw the brilliant Samantha Powers under the bus.
Uggh could we talk about real issues? Like Obama flip-flopping on earmarks. Shall we also talk about McCain flip-flopping on real issues? Like torture? Could be fun/interesting/enlightening. But I'm not sure it's appropriate for this thread.
Hey Jesse, Go tell Geraldine Ferraro that once she starts talking about real issue more people on message boards will start doing the same. People here didn't bring up the topic, a Clinton supporter did so let's get real about whose fault it is that people aren't talking about real issues.
Give Gerry some credit, i think she raises a an interesting problem that needs to be addressed asap.Perhaps we need to start an affirmative action program for rich white people because those black males have so easy in our society.
Eventually, this hardass stance (we don't make our people resign - that's what the other campaign does) will come back to haunt them. They are building up a reservoir of idiotic surrogate comments. Just like McCain is.
"BTW, I am sick and tired of Hillary's supporters trying to argue that somehow sexism is worse than racism. Both are evils, and both must be fought. Posted by cm" Too bad you have to put up with other peoples opinions. Things would be so much better if only obamatons were allowed to comment on anything. So sad you. Anyway I agree both racism and sexism are terrible. The tie breaker in this case is ambinder and the rest of his "liberal media" buddies trashing Hillary to no end. That's the point Ferraro is making.
Obama chose to run as a "black man" at the start of his political career in the predominantly black section of Chicago. Prior to that the white half of his biological heritage was far more prominent in his identity. He really had no contact with his black relatives until adulthood, and not much contact with blacks of any kind prior to that. His father was a visiting student who left the family behind in Hawaii, moved to the East Coast for a couple more years, started another family with an American woman, then returned with her to his original wife and child in Kenya. American friends who visited Barack Obama Sr. in Kenya mentioned that he never even inquired about Barack Jr. or his mother. He died in an intoxicated automobile accident before Barack Jr. first visited his ancestral homeland in his mid 20s.
Oh Please, please, please let Spitzer decide to not resign his Governorship, so that both Hillary and our new friend Geraldine have to answer questions about one of their own, for months on end. Hey Elliot: take Carville's advice here and DON'T resign.
I have to agree with Ferraro on this. Imagine for a moment Barak were indeed a woman in this race. What would he have? He would be a female senator with less than a decade's experience in elected office with the ability to raise mass amounts of money. ...but without any on-the-job experience as a first lady or the name recognition that Hillary has, this race would long since be over. Yet despite the inherent benefits of being a black male in America, and the inherent disadvantage of being a "rich white girl", guess what? this race is close. This speaks volumes to Hillary's substance and her ability to lead. Automatic delegates know this.
Yah. She's right. Obama wouldn't have gotten secret service protection nearly a year ago if he wasn't a black guy. Great post on this subject on dailykos:
And can it with the "obamatons" crap. This ain't the CNN vent-board.
I just read your snarky little addendum, Ambinder. If that "insight" was even remotely close to the truth, how do you explain John Edwards, who certainly came into the contest with a far superior resume to Obama? Being a white male (and the last one standing) in the Primary process doesn't seem to have benefitted Edwards very much does it? You moron.
If you feel like leaving a comment for Ms. Ferraro (I left her a respectful e-mail but I also let her know he comments were not appreciated) her e-mail address is: gferraro@hfgcg.com She was a true trailblazer and I understand her health is not good. But her comment was ridiculous.
Fuck off Robert Ethan. "He died in an intoxicated automobile accident..." Either he is too white or too black for you, depending on your pathetic quotes. Go away, you race baiting fuckhead. When this is over I will dance on your idiotic screeds.
Obama as a white man would have gone the way of John Edwards in this race. At best. Obama as a black woman would have gone the way of Carolyn Moseley-Braun in 2004. At best. Mosely-Braun, who was also from Chicago, had a nearly identical political background to Obama, except more extensive, and harder earned. She was the first casualty in the 2004 Primaries, I beleive, and hardly registered on the scale voter wise.
Is this what we all have to look forward to if Barack Obama is fortunate enough to be elected president? 4-8 years of constant harping, griping, whining and crying about supposed race-baiting? That's going to be a turn off. If anyone thinks that's going to assist in moving white and black America along the road to full reconciliation then they are dreaming.
The quote is amusingly offensive, but I think more people should be asking her about this quote: "Well, let me first say that I wasn't born at the age of forty-three when I entered Congress. I did have a life before that as well. I was a prosecutor for almost five years in the district attorney's office in Queens County and I was a teacher. There's not only what is on your paper resume that makes you qualified to run for or to hold office. It's how you approach problems and what your values are. I think if one is taking a look at my career they'll see that I level with the people; that I approach problems analytically; that I am able to assess the various facts with reference to a problem, and I can make the hard decisions."
Is this what we all have to look forward to if Barack Obama is fortunate enough to be elected president? 4-8 years of constant harping, griping, whining and crying about supposed race-baiting? Tim, Saying that Senator Obama only got where he is because he's a black man is only "supposedly" race-baiting?
Robert Ethan said:
Look it up.
You know, you could probably make a pretty good argument that Obama's refusal to jump all over opportunities like this to point at Clinton and say "Look, there she goes again!" encourages her and her supporters to keep doing stupid things like this. In the end, you get a large catalog of mis-steps, unfortunate quotes, and just plain stupidity (Ed Rendell; VP material, not C-in-C material, etc) that ends up doing the painting for you in the end. If you manage to stick around long enough for it to clot and coalesce, anyway.
I love to hear Hillary and her supporters complaining about the playing field and how unfair it all is. Is this the same Hillary who was a heavy favorite from the second she declared her candidacy, with huge advantages in money, endorsements, and name recognition? The Hillary who casually announced that it would be over by February 5th? For such an experienced political genius, I'm surprised she didn't notice how crooked the playing field was until she started losing.
Thank you for picking this one up Marc. I would agree in a way. Obama is winning for who he is, not because of who he is not. Identity politics stinks, and to me Obama is the first real chip away at that.
"Look it up. Posted by swarty " Hey you are pretty smart. No really.
LOL, swarthy - You're quick to accuse me of racism but never seem to question the truth of my statements. That basically sums up the road to success for Obama, reporters are often afraid to print the truth because they will be branded as racist. No reporter ever got fired for being less than forthcoming, but lots get fired for comments deemed even remotely racially sensitive. It is Obama's security blanket and bulletproof vest all in one. If things get tough, just cry "Race!".
Isn't the Hillary campaign sickening, with its pattern of racist attacks on Obama? The Clintons will betray anyone or any group for their ambitions. That is why they are throwing blacks under the bus now. Fortunately, it will not work...too many people can see through the Clintons. The only choice they have at this point is whether they leave the campaign with the last remaining shreds of their dignity intact.
On the subject of skin color, "swarthy", does that hit an especially sensitive spot with you, or what? ;)
jbryan: I was very careful not to say it was the only reason. It's not the only reason he is where he is. What I did say is it is the indispensable quality about him that allows everything else to get him to where he is. The whole fascination about him going back to the 2004 convention, and I remember because I was paying close attention, was how impressive and intelligent and articulate he was and how great his oratorical skills were AND that he was black. Not just how impressive he was.
I see this board has a Robert Ethan infection. This person (troll) stalked Politco for a while, until people banded together got out the torches and chased him away (we got him banned) Marc, you need to take care of the Robert Ethan problem b4 it spreads. Just and FYI Oh and don't feed the Robert Ethan.
> So who brought up race this time? Obama folks? No Wait, it's a Clinton supporter AGAIN. Seems to me it's the Clinton camp who keeps bringing up race when things get tough (someone remind me who lost S. Carolina and brought up Jesse Jackson) but don't let the facts get in the way of your Clinton-based reality.
Well rr18, you didn't notice because things are not revealed to be unfair until you know they aren't good for the Clintons. Causes - Before Iowa: fine. Now UNFAIR! No delegates for MI and FL - Before Super Tuesday: The right move. Now: UNFAIR! Caucus sites for casino workers - Before Culinary Workers Endorsement: A great way to accommodate an important part of the electorate. Now: UNFAIR! Black people: Before they started voting for Obama: Our brothers and sisters. Now: UNFAIR!
Look at the bright side, swarthy, Obama has a good chance of being THE FIRST HALF BLACK TWO TERM VICE PRESIDENT in the 230 odd year history of the nation. Groundbreaking.
Don't be silly, Robert. It wouldn't make any sense at all for him to go on and serve as Vice President after he becomes President.
Don't feed the Robert Ethan! The famed Troll of politico get out your garlic and your crucifix this troll will stalk us, he/it must be dealt w/immediately. He is a true ghoul, w/nightmarish talking points from the Hilla-monster campaign
PSA: Don't feed the Robert Ethan Such comments are not serious discourse, and are merely intended to provoke. Perhaps he's an Obama supporter trying to make Clinton supporters look bad. Who knows/cares. Simply ignore him, and he will shrivel up in a pool of his own bile. Sort of like the Giuliani campaign...
LOL, swarthy - You're quick to accuse me of racism but never seem to question the truth of my statements.
As for questioning the truth of your statements, I have plenty of arrows in my quiver regarding race and sex but I refuse to go there because I am not a race and sex baiting fuckhead. I will never go there! I will deal with the reality we face as Democrats. If Edwards had listened to his wife he would have voted against this war (I think the proof is in Shrum's memoir but not sure) and would likely be our nominee, because he would be against the war IN THE SENATE IN 2002. Obama is the next best thing. Hillary enabled the worst President in American History in this horrific war. I can't change her vote (and she is my Senator) Hillary voted for this shitty, brave American soldier killing, resource destroying drain on our country. You can race bait all you want you fool,but she sided with The Republicans all you want. You can race bait all you please, but Barack Hussein Obama (I Am Spartacus) opposed this awful war in real time and that is one of most important reasons he has my support. If MY SENATOR has opposed this war, I would support her with every fiber of my body. Race and sex have NOTHING to do with it. She had the opportunity to oppose Bush, but did not. There in no racial or gender opinion at work. Robert Ethan, you are small minded and I will say so whenever I have an opportunity (but I have a real job where I am not able to check the blogs all the time like you so I will respond when I am able). You are dumber than you think I think you are.
Sorry about the typos in my last post. You can figure them out. And Robert Ethan, you suck diddlyuck! (Flanders reference, in case you don't get it, which you probably don't get because you are too busy posting racist drivel on message boards)
Don't despair, swarthy, and other supporters of Vice Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. February is the cruellest month, as the poets say. But now March has dawned to chase away the BLEAK DARK days of winter. BRIGHTLY COLORED flowers will bloom in place of the DEAD BROWN husks of the previous year. FAIR MAIDENS will traipse, singing and dancing through them, with GOLDEN SUNLIGHT shining on their hair. We will all start to appreciate the LIGHTER SIDE of life, and the future will no longer seem so OMINOUSLY BLACK. Don't you agree?
In the Ferraro youtube someone posted: She has the audacity to lecture John Lewis on black politics; she says, around 3:35 that "It's the guys sticking together!" Her desperation at this point in the conversation reflects greatly on Hillary Clinton's sense of entitlement and borderline neurotic feminism-gone-bad. Pretty outrageous.
Tungsten said: I agree, but I use these posts of his as a sort of writing exercise. I got a few laughs a while ago so I take it as a victory, however small. And I write that Robert Ethan comments on blogs like noone else. He has the free time to comment more than other and my that yardstick I salute him. He writes more than the others. And that is a compliment (backhanded division).
Edwards didn't do well because he came across as a used car salesman. Clinton isn't doing well because she comes across as a sociopath. Obama is doing well because he seems like a decent, intelligent human being who is inspiring and captivating. Politics is emotional. People like the new guy. It all has about as much to do with race as it does with the timbre of their voices. Sure we can throw up a graph and try to explain it away, but it doesn't change anything. Americans are embracing the bi-racial guy who makes everyone feel good about themselves, and some people are pissed about it. They'll get over it.
Democrats looking like racists ...in full view
Where do you guys find this "overwhelming embracing" of Obama by Americans. The last polls I looked at saw him trailing the "sociopath" Hillary Clinton among Democrats, and trailing Methuselah McCain among all Americans in popularity.
I guess Geraldine Ferraro just isn't feeling the hope. Great post, Marc.
R Ethan pontificated the following nonsense:
THE WASTE LAND I. THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD APRIL is the cruellest month, breeding - T.S. Eliot
James in NJ Like I said, I went to public school. But thanks for the tip.
Doesn't it seem like not a very good idea for the Clinton campaign to have Carville on CNN (identified on screen as a Clinton supporter) saying that there's no reason for Spitzer to resign? I would think the Clinton folks don't want the association drawn so directly from the Spitzer scandal to the Clintons. Posted by Suze | March 10, 2008 9:41 PM I'll keep this as brief as I can. James Carville looks, sounds and pretty much has the same level of credibility as Porky Pig!
I don't see why this is so controversial. Obama would not have run for President if he hadn't been black, and he certainly wouldn't have made the final two if he hadn't been black. He's had an absurdly easy life and walked into every political office except the one he's trying on now--and so far, he hasn't sold any majority except blacks, nationwide, to vote for him. Ferraro's exactly right. If he were a white guy, he'd have been slapped down hard.
Oh, Cal, Cal, Cal... you really have some racial issues you need to work out, man. Seriously. Seek some help.
Jeff Larson, I don't think McCain flip flopped on torture at all - if you want to debate those facts I gladly will. But for you to dismiss Obama's refusal to release his earmark requests as a non-issue and his reversal of policy to avoid a debate then you have another thing coming. A great many Americans don't believe that someone should be president if they have requested outrageous projects in their home state funded by the tax payer. You might believe the Obama can "unite" the country behind his "change" but there are a lot of fiscal conservatives out there who CARE about the ISSUES and aren't falling for this magic negro routine.
Absolutely true, Cal. In Chicago, Obama was trailing Blair Hull by a wide margin until they dug up some personal dirt on Hull concerning his divorce proceedings, causing Hull to drop out. Then there was the matter of the verified sponsor lists where Obama eliminated all of his competitors before any votes were cast by challenging their lists in court. Finally another personal smear dug up on Jack Ryan, again involving supposedly private "sealed" child custody proceedings, which effectively kneecapped Ryan in that race. South Side Chicago politics in all their "gory". Obama has had a free ride to where he is today courtesy of the Chicago Mobster Express. With a big lift from John Kerry who fingered him for the 2004 DNC keynote address to all a little "color" to the proceedings. A nice baritone voice for the choir. Beyond that, nothing. An uninspired (and ineffectual) lawyer who became an uninspired and equally ineffectual politician.
Hillary is a plump dumpling being recycled
Yes, it's really easy. The only real challenge Obama will ever encounter is when he has to face off against an Arab candidate (who grew up in North Korea) named Fidel Hitler bin Laden. Man, now *that's* a cakewalk to the presidency.
Bill is dancing with the one that brung 'im.
"Absolutely true, Cal. In Chicago, Obama was trailing Blair Hull by a wide margin until they dug up some personal dirt on Hull concerning his divorce proceedings, causing Hull to drop out. Then there was the matter of the verified sponsor lists where Obama eliminated all of his competitors before any votes were cast by challenging their lists in court. Finally another personal smear dug up on Jack Ryan, again involving supposedly private "sealed" child custody proceedings, which effectively kneecapped Ryan in that race. South Side Chicago politics in all their "gory"." Robert Ethan, Blair Hull was not Obama's only major opponent in the 2004 Democratic primary for Senate. There was state treasurer Dan Hynes (who had the support of the Daley machine) and popular Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas as well. Therefore, the implosion of Hull's campaign could have easily resulted in a victory for Dan Hynes or Maria Pappas instead of Barack Obama. No, what tipped the scales in favor of Obama was not Blair Hull's missteps, but the endorsement of Sheilia Simon, the daughter of the late Paul Simon, who had served as a Senator from Illinois from 1985-1997. Sheilia Simon reminded voters of her father's reputation for integrity, and argued that Obama shared that same sense of integrity. It was this endorsement, showcased in a superb campagin commercial put together by David Axelrod, that enabled a then obscure state senator from Hyde Park to pull ahead of both Dan Hynes and Maria Pappas. As for challenging the signatures on his opponents' nominating petititions, let's not forget 2 things. One, challenging signatures on nominating petitions is a completely legitimate and commonplace tactic, and it is not unique to Illinois politics. Two, Obama's opponents also had the right to challenge the signatures on his nominating petitions. Unlike Obama, they failed in their efforts. That means that Obama was simply better-organized than his opponents, and was able to accumulate enough legitimate signatures to withstand challenges by his opponents. The Jack Ryan scandal was not the fault of dirty South Side Chicago politics. The campaign which leaked this story to the media was that of retired general Nicholas Bohring, who was one of Ryan's GOP opponents in the primary. It was the fault then of dirty downstate Illinois GOP politics (the politics that gave us politicians like George Ryan). The scandal though was not the only thing going against Ryan. Obama's vote totals alone in the Democratic primary were more than the combined vote totals of the candidates in the GOP primary. Moreover, Obama has captured 50% of the far larger Democratic vote, while Ryan had won only 35% of the far smaller GOP vote. In addition, the Democratic primary had been a very competitive field, including a popular state treasurer. a popular Cook County treasurer, and a millionaire investment broker. Ryan's main competition on the GOP side had been a millionaire dairy owner and a state senator endorsed by the Chicago Tribune, but who had little money and no statewide organization. Even without the scandal, Obama was simply in a much stronger position than Jack Ryan, because his primary win had established him as a force in Illinois politics, while Ryan's primary win did not do the same for him. That's why this fairly mild scandal crippled Ryan.
Geraldine Ferraro - a footnote in history. If I want her opinion I'll give it to her.
Just wanted to remind everyone that Elizabeth Edwards said it first: "We can't make John black, and we can't make him a woman". Hard to see that Ferraro's comment was any better, but why did Elizabeth Edwards get a free pass?
Anyone who delivered that speech at the 2004 convention--black, white, male, female--would have been an instant star in the Democratic Party. And if that person remained true to the vision in that speech, eventually he or she would become a candidate for the Presidential nomination. Now, it is true that happened a bit faster than one might ordinarily expect. But that was not because of Obama's race. Rather, it was because the right circumstances arose, most notably that all the other major contenders for the Democratic nomination in 2008 had originally supported the Iraq War (which in 2004 had helped sink Kerry's campaign), and that the 2006 elections had shown that the country was willing to vote overwhelmingly for a new direction. So, early or not, it was the right moment for a person who had opposed the war from the beginning and who had laid out a transformative vision to run. And in fact the nomination process has confirmed that Obama was the right candidate for this moment.
Ferraro missed one thing in her analysis - Clinton has the ultimate positional advantage - she's a monster! Way better than being black! She even has a co-monster surrogate. Monsters for Victimhood '08!
Barack Obama is a very talented individual. He brings substantial experience as an elected official to his campaign. He was president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor of constitutional law. He was an effective community organizer. He is a superb politician with a resonant voice and wonderful cadences. He had the prescience (and, to some extent, the good luck to have George Bush as the commander in chief who sandbagged his own war effort) to forcefully oppose the Iraq war before it began. Yet, he is also only a few years into his first term as a United States senator. The senior senator from Illinois, Richard Durbin, has much greater experience as an elected official, a wonderful speaking voice and extemporaneous speaking manner. He is clearly more conversant with a wider range of both domestic and foreign policy, but it is Obama who has captured people's imagination in this cycle. It is not gainsaying Obama's considerable abilities, real life service as an elected official, good judgement, and campaigning ability to say that his unique identity has played a role in gaining more attention for him in this contest (as has Hillary Clinton's). I say this as one who originally supported another southern progressive candidate, but who is now favoring Senator Obama as the candidate who, on balance, seems to be the democratic party's best hope for the broadest gains possible in the next election.
Well as ungracious and ungraceful as Ferraro's choice of words obviously was, on the flip side you have to admit that one would have to be pretty politically-correct-to-the-exclusion-of-reason to ignore the fact that racial identity politics do appear to be a strong factor in Obama's successes in the primaries. The caveat is whether his coalition of Volvo liberals, black voters and the youth vote would continue to be a winning combination in the general election, without the old line Reagan Democrats who tend to favor Clinton or McCain. Since Obama supporters tend to come from groups who already vote overwhelmingly Democratic in presidential elections and were already out in force in the last one (when we lost both Ohio and Florida) it's hard to see where he makes up that difference once the Republicans have had their shot at him.
I haven't read all the comments, so maybe this has already been pointed out, but - Geraldine Ferraro? You mean _the_ Geraldine Ferraro? The ready-from-day-one-to-take-the-3-AM-phone-call-if-Mondale-went-belly-up-3-term-congresswoman-and-before-that-district-attorney Vice-Presidential nominee? The original affirmative action nominee? Hmmmm.
100 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON
WHAT THIS PAGE DOES CONTAIN
Far from holding a deluded opinion, Geraldine Ferraro is simply staing the bleedin` obvious, as we say on this side of the Atlantic. Outside the US someone with so little experience of running something simply wouldn't come to be president - except through a military coup. The only exception is Tony Blair. I rest my case.
I know its useless to point out unconcious prejudice and projected racism to those who are clinging so desperately to a state of denial -- but the simple truth is this; when this country's white elite, in the media, in our political discourse, in comments online, dependably express more moral outrage about, make a bigger fuss over, and devote more discussion and condemnation to, for instance, false issues such as Hillary Clinton's banal and perfectly unprejudiced statement about LBJ than they express about the immoral rates at which their country incarcerates young black men, the obscene unemployment rates endured by black communities, the tragic differences in access to medical care and life expectancy between white and minority communities, etc., that's not "transcending" race -- that is racism in action. The emphasis our society's most powerful and advantaged people put on politically correct speech is in many ways a cover for, a tool for minimizing discussion about and action on, the genuinely consequential aspects of the country's broad, deeply ingrained and institutionalized racism. As is their bigoted, non-stop, self-rightous projection of racism onto people less powerful than themselves; the poor, the working class, and, in this primary season, older women. The reason Ferraro is heaped with ridiculous abuse for saying what is quoted here -- which, whether one agrees with it or not, is not a racist statement but a statement about how race affects perception in a racist society -- by people who found no reason to object to ugly, sexist attacks -- that were caluculated, intentional appeals to gender bigotry for political advantage -- made to the media by Jesse Jackson Jr., in his role as campaign spokesman, after the New Hampshire primary, isn't because sexism is more pervasive or has greater detrimental effect than racism. Sexist talk, and personal verbal abuse of women is more socially acceptable among white elites not because racism is less prevalent, but because women are less feared.
And George Washington, like the other 42 Presidents to come after, was so lucky to be a white male. If he had been one of his own slaves, no matter how talented he was, I'll bet it would have been harder for him to become President.
Hard to see that Ferraro's comment was any better, but why did Elizabeth Edwards get a free pass? Because she has terminal cancer?
esmense, You nailed it.
what'sinaname, I understand your point, but I think Durbin would be the first to admit that Obama had demonstrated his unique political abilities in Illinois before he did so on the national stage. Specifically, Durbin is a pretty popular Senator by ordinary standards, but Obama has drawn more support than Durbin across the board in Illinois, particularly among independents, Republicans, and in Downstate Illinois. In fact, it really all dates back to the late Senator Paul Simon, who mentored Obama and helped him understand Illinois outside of Chicago. Obama basically took what he learned from Simon, combined it with what he learned from being a community organizer in Chicago, and put that all together in his campaigns, first in Illinois and now nationally. Again, I think Durbin would happily admit that in doing so, Obama broke new political ground for a Democrat. And I honestly think all that has much more to do with Obama's success than his race. Indeed, putting all that together is how he won Iowa, and how he continues to win states like Wisconsin and pretty much all of the West and Upper Midwest. And while race may have shifted a fewer voters his way and a few voters back Clinton's way in other regions, I think those many areas in which race has not been a factor have proven the soundness of his basic approach. So, I really don't believe that a person of another race who followed the same approach with the same credibility and skill would have found him- or herself in a remarkably different position. Yes, his or her coalition relative to Clinton's coalition might have been slightly different in some respects, but I think the overall result would have been more or less the same.
DTM: His coalition in these primaries would be the same except he'd be losing the African American vote to Clinton in a landslide. He'd be the Paul Tsongas or Bill Bradley of the 2008 race. He'd still be doing well in states like Iowa, the caucus states and Wisconsin, Connecticut and Delaware. But he'd have lost the South. So even if one believes he would have gotten an equal amount of attention, publicity and support even if his candidacy weren't historic, then there is still the demographic reality that he benefits from a bloc vote from the African American community.
what universe are y'all living in? if i were anyone else than me, i wouldn't be me. neither would obama.
Tim brings up the other obvious point. Never mind whether or not his candidacy would be taken as seriously if he weren't black, the simple truth is that he wouldn't have 90% of the black vote and thus wouldn't have won any state primaries outside of Connecticut and Vermont--and he'd have dropped out long before Vermont, because he couldn't have survived on his little caucus wins. So please, Marc and others, spare people the moral posturing. Obama wants to be the first "postracial" candidate, so his supporters have to stop screaming about racism and instead acknowledge the obvious. Race has been the single biggest factor in his success. Only after "black" does "good speaker", "good looking" and "makes liberals happy" come into play.
Dear DTM, I appreciate your comments and suggestions regarding further factors to consider in Obama's success. I was first able to see Obama speak at a dinner honoring Senator Paul Simon while he was still with us. Obama made a vivid impression through his striking presence, strong speaking voice, and substantial policy statements. My wife and I both thought he seemed destined for great political success. We strongly supported him in his run for the U.S. Senate in Illinois. I basically agree that Obama's success depends on his great intelligence, real abilities and skills, the professionalism of his campaign strategy, and various other factors (among the most important of which is his initial opposition to the Iraq war--a major issue with democratic party activists). My side point is that his unique racial background and identity has been one factor among many in his success in certain contexts (perhaps particularly in democratic caucuses and in states with larger African-American voter lists), although, as many righly point out, in a country with a strong racist history, it also presents him with serious challenges to overcome. It is because he has, by in large, been so successful in overcoming such challenges and forging a diverse coalition, and because of the type of broad-based campaign you describe in your post, that I think that of the two remaining frontrunners he is the best bet for being the more successful candidate in the general election against John McCain.
Hi All, By-the-way... I voted for Obama because he refused to support a cooked war for his own political gain. So from one feminist to Gloria and Geraldine...Take a Hike!
There are 14 female U.S. senators: Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). There is a single African-American senator, Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who is only the third elected since Reconstruction. There are eight female governors in America: Linda Lingle (R-Hawaii), Jennifer Granholm (D-Mich.), Janet Napolitano (D-Ariz.), Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kan.), Kathleen Blanco (D-La.), M. Jodi Rell (R-Conn.), Christine Gregoire (D-Wash.), and Sarah Palin (R-Alaska). There is a single African-American governor, Deval Patrick (D-Mass.). Women have been elected statewide all over the country, including in many states that Hillary Clinton lost.
Tim K and Cal, Clinton's share among black voters probably would be higher if Obama wasn't black, although I think that is less a matter of identity politics and more a matter of Clinton's Campaign being unlikely to use the same tactics against this hypothetical non-black Obama that backfired so badly on them among black voters. But of course this hypothetical non-black Obama would be something else. For example, maybe he would be Hispanic. Or maybe he would be from Appalachia. Or from Georgia. Or California. Or so on. The point, of course, is that Clinton's share in some other group might well be lower, particularly if she had ended up using some variation on her tactics that would likely have similarly backfired. So, we have no real way of knowing how this hypothetical non-black Obama would have done relative to Clinton, particularly since you haven't specified what sort of non-black person you are imagining. By the way, politically Obama is more like a synthesis of Bill Bradley and the aforementioned Paul Simon, with a healthy dose of Bill Clinton thrown in. Indeed, I would not be the first to note that in most ways, Obama resembles Bill Clinton much more than Hillary does.
Clinton's Campaign being unlikely to use the same tactics against this hypothetical non-black Obama that backfired so badly on them among black voters. There's no evidence of "backfire". Obama has won over 70% of the black vote in every primary that had black people, just as Jesse Jackson did before him. Obama would have been disproportionately supported by black voters regardless. Obama is nothing like Clinton, who ran as a centrist. He is exactly like Bradley and Simon, and would have had the same lack of success outside of liberals if he hadn't been black. Clinton, on the other hand, is running very much as her husband did: as far to the center as she dares. At every point in the campaign, given a choice, she's moved center. As badly as she needed California, and as critical as the Hispanic vote was to that victory, she said she didn't support driver's licenses for illegal aliens (which isn't always a killer for Hispanics, but is still perceived as such). Obama's supposedly "tough" positions were handpicked and market tested in the early days. All of them were carefully scripted and haven't been mentioned again. He's run well to the left ever since.
Cal: Obama is the one with "carefully scripted" positions that have changed over time? Even if I conceded this point, you could definitely say the same thing about Clinton. Clinton has been for-and-against driver licenses for illegals. She's been pro-and-con Nafta. She's been for-and-against garnishing wages re: her healthcare policy. The list is a long one (too long for this post) when you really think about it. Also, you have no idea what the race would have looked like if Obama were a white man. Perhaps he would have received more white votes. Who knows. These hypotheticals are futile exercises because the slightest shift in person, race, or any other variable creates a brand new dynamic.
Let Ferraro know what YOU think: gferraro@hfgcg.com
Cal, First, Clinton's Campaign started using the tactics in question before the first primary with a high percentage of black voters (SC). So, the fact that this effect has been consistent from the beginning doesn't really address the issue. Second, Bill's positioning in 1992 was not the same as his positioning after the 1994 midterms. But in any event, I wasn't talking about his ideology, but rather his ability to sympathize with and relate to a diverse array of people, all without coming across as dumb. I agree that when it comes to policy and ideology, Obama is drawing more from Bradley and Simon. Speaking of which, Bradley and Simon did not have identical coalitions. Bradley was more of a traditional Northeast Liberal, but Simon was more a Midwestern Pragmatist. You can see the difference in things like Bradley doing better in NH than Iowa, and Simon doing better the opposite way around. And that is a big part of what Obama is doing: he is getting the Bradley people in the Northeast but also the Simon people in the Midwest, along with Westerners (who haven't had a candidate they found this appealing since 1976). Third, Hillary hasn't really been consistent on her positioning in this race. She has tried to attack Obama from both the Left and the Right, sometimes from both in the same policy area. In fact on the DL issue, she actually tried multiple sides before settling on a final answer, several days after first being asked. Finally, I don't know what you are describing as Obama's "tough" positions. But he has laid out the same policy positions from the beginning.
Obama is a very fluent speaker. However, he has said very little. He was against the war until he had to vote on it. He took Hillary's socialized medicine, made a few minor changes, and called it his plan.
First, Clinton's Campaign started using the tactics in question before the first primary with a high percentage of black voters (SC). So, the fact that this effect has been consistent from the beginning doesn't really address the issue. Florida and Michigan came before South Carolina. He won black votes overwhelmingly in both states--even in Michigan, where nearly 70% of black voters opted for "uncommitted". rather his ability to sympathize with and relate to a diverse array of people, all without coming across as dumb. Again, not much evidence that he's able to "relate" to anyone other than blacks and liberals. I agree that the media and others seem to believe he's relating to a larger group, but that's an assumption without evidence. Young voters are excited because he's liberal and against the war, not because he's related--or indeed, even sought them out--in any way. Obama's "tough" positions: the one bragging about fuel efficiency standards in Detroit (as if that's not liberal) and being in favor of some mild form of merit pay.
Cal, First, neither Clinton nor Obama participated in the Michigan and Florida primaries. Second, Obama nationally has done better that Clinton among both liberals AND conservatives. He also has done better than Clinton among white voters outside her core regions. That is pretty good evidence that his appeal is not somehow limited to blacks and liberals. Third, among other things, Obama has gone to speak at large rallies held at universities across the country. I am going to guess some young people showed up. Fourth, those are indeed Obama's positions. He hasn't changed them. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Incidentally, reflecting on 1976, I think it makes sense to say Obama has synthesized Bradley, Simon, Frank Church, and Mo Udall. The latter was known for his witty speeches, so I will dump Bill Clinton from this mix to avoid confusion. Anyway, that is why he is romping everywhere but Clinton's core regions among white voters and conservatives (and indeed black voters and liberals).
First, neither Clinton nor Obama participated in the Michigan and Florida primaries. It doesn't matter as far as African American voting goes. They voted for Obama overwhelmingly; thus, it's untrue to say that there was no evidence of his huge support before South Carolina. He also has done better than Clinton among white voters outside her core regions. He has lost white Democrats in primaries everywhere except Connecticut, Vermont, and New Mexico. He has won them in caucuses, but even if you count caucuses as white Democrats, Clinton has 60-40 lead in white Democrats. So if you count "core region" as "white Democrats", then you are saying that Obama should be fine even though he can't win white Democrats. Of course, he's doing even worse among Hispanic Democrats. So no, Obama is winning white liberals and black Democrats. As for him doing well among conservatives, there's so much selection bias inherent in the vote that you have no idea how he'd do. The idea that conservatives would vote for a guy who wants to repeal DOMA is risible. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. That these two positions were carefully chosen to allow him to pretend that he was "brave" and an "unconventional" politicians, when in fact he's an entirely unremarkable liberal.
Let me offer a theory: Cal wouldn't blather on and on about Obama on these blogs if Obama weren't black
If he weren't black, he wouldn't still be a candidate for the nomination, so yeah, that's a safe bet.
Awww. Can't whitey catch a break.
DTM -- The Obama campaign used an intentional racial strategy -- spinning claims of racism against the Clintons -- very dishonestly but effectively, after his loss in NH. They did so because they needed to undermine the Clintons' popularity with black voters. Any objective person knows that it is absurdly unlikely that any experienced, successful white Democratic politician would think it advantageous to use racist appeals in a Democratic primary in South Carolina. So why does Obama's campaign make this seemingly nonsensical argument? Because, although the Clintons didn't exploit white racism, the Obama camp did and continues to exploit understandable black distrust of white politicians and the white power structure, and, even more important, the class bigotry of elite white liberals. There was a charming video on YouTube awhile back, entitled "Clinton Supporters," made by a young Obama supporter at a university in Texas that beautifully illustrated the mindset of the kind of white Obama supporters I'm talking about -- to a banjo accompaniment it featured half-naked, scaggle-toothed and toothless white people, most likely the director and his friends having fun with make up, including one man sitting naked on a toilet on a porch. Imagery so assaultive to dignity, so bigoted and ugly, that if the people being portrayed had been anything other than white, there would be serious issues raised about whether or not a hate crime was being perpetuated. YouTube appears to have applied some standards, because that video is no longer available for viewing. But its verbal equivalent is easily found anywhere Obama supporters gather. Is it fair to hold Obama and his campaign accountable for this? Yes. Exploiting bigotry and prejudice for political advantage is morally reprehensible -- even when it is the bigotry of class, and the prejudices of people against members of their own the same race. In 2004 I was outraged at the attack ads against Dean that attacked "latte-sipping" liberals. I don't like political appeals based on stereotyping voters and exploiting prejudices of any kind. But, let's be clear, we affluent latte-sippers are doing well enough to bear a little name calling amongst ourselves. But affluent and advantaged people who demean the poor and working class, of any color, especially those who call themselves "progressives" deserve a special circle of hell. One where Robert Gibbs will surely be most at home.
Cal: I now get what you've been trying to say: Only white voters matter Got it. I thought you were misinformed, but now I realize you're just ignorant.
Cal, First, an "election" in which the nominal candidates refuse to participate is meaningless. It isn't even as meaningful as a scientific poll. Second, it is true that the states in which Obama has won white registered Democrats is only a subset of the states in which he has won white voters in general, meaning that in some states he has only won white voters in general thanks to getting high margins among white independents and Republicans. But I don't see how that supports your original contention, which was that he only gets the supports of blacks and liberals. In fact, unless you think these white independents and Republicans are likely to skew more liberal than white Democrats, this state of affairs pretty much blows a huge hole in your theory that it is only white liberals who support Obama. Third, are we moving on to a general election discussion now? I am fine if you want to do that, but then of course what you can get out of the primary data is limited on both sides, and in all demographics. For example, we don't actually know that if A beats B among demographic X in the primaries, that means A will get a higher percentage than B among demographic X against C in the general election. Finally, I am not sure I believe you can read minds, but I will take under advisement your assertions about why Obama has adopted the positions he has adopted.
esmense, I think your narrative is incorrect. I also think there is almost no use in trying to decide these descriptive issues by reasoning inductively from what it would have been smart for the relevant actors to do, because otherwise smart people often do very dumb things (indeed, smart people often use their intelligence to delude themselves before acting). Finally, it is truly useless to look at whatever some random supporter of a candidate is putting on YouTube as indicative of what the campaigns themselves are doing. AKBY, As far as I can tell, in Cal's view white voters also don't matter if they are independents or Republicans. In fact, it appears that white voters who are Democrats and live in Connecticut, Vermont, New Mexico, or caucus states don't matter either. So, rather than doing this the hard way (through a series of Venn diagrams that have to evolve every time a counter-example is raised), I think we can simplify Cal's theory to a simple proposition: Voters don't matter unless they vote for Clinton.
DTM -- If only it was one "random" Obama supporter. But it's not. Of course the campaign isn't creating such videos -- or, in most cases (Jesse Jackson Jr. is one exception) directly making the many offensive class and gender insults that are woven into a large measure of arguments made by Obama supporters. But they are creating an environment in which such attitudes are encouraged. In doing so, they are helping their candidate in the short term, but destroying trust in their party over the long term. They are proving conservative arguments about liberal hypocrisy on matters of race, glass and gender. And that will have long term consequences. Working and middle class men decided the Democrats no longer represent their interest a long time ago. If working women stop voting for them, they're done.
This is addressed to Jesse on the topic of earmarks: http://obama.senate.gov/press/070621-obama_announces_3/ These would seem to be his FY 2008 funding requests. I couldn't find his 05/06 earmarks, but I didn't look terribly hard. On Demint, I think you're right that he's trying to disarm McCain. Sounds like a good plan. If you look at his press release on Demint, he tries to square it with his previous efforts.
Nick, its the 05/06 earmarks we are looking for. Ie. the ones Obama asked for when he wasn't running for president and didn't have appearances to keep up.
What a bunch of interesting comments. How did Hilary Clinton, who grew up in Park Ridge, Illinois and led a life of relative privilege, become a tribune of working class Americans, white, black or any other color? Was it her own background and achievements, or was it her connection with a well known and relatively popular politician from Arkansas whose own background and persona was much closer to their own? Or was it the times in which she lived, that gave her new perspectives and, dare I say it, experiences. She has both benefitted from, and to some extent been defined by, her own accidents of fate and unique personal history, as has Barack Obama. As are we all. One final word in this post--an earlier participant claimed that Edwards didn't do so well because he came across as a used car salesman. Maybe, but he was a hell of a lot more likeable and inspiring used car salesman than Richard Nixon, and his policies in this election cycle were more forthrightly progressive than either of the other two contenders'. Plus, when he said that the democratic party needs to show a little backbone, and cautioned us that we're not going to get universal healthcare without winning a hardfought political fight against entrenched interests, you know he was right. Not his time in the year of Hillary and Barack--but I remain convinced that given the chance he'd have kicked ass in the general election.
esmense, I think the Obama Campaign has done everything it can to NOT create such an environment. The problem is that the Obama Campaign does not control the world. More specifically, the Obama Campaign does not control the Clinton Campaign, and the Clinton Campaign has in fact "created an environment" in which it is considered the "fun part" to attack your opponents baselessly and often offensively. Unfortunately, that does mean some misguided and unauthorized Obama supporters are likely to attack Clinton in kind (baselessly and offensively). But the only role the Obama Campaign itself has played in that dynamic is the mere fact that they decided to run for a nomination that Clinton very much wants for herself. And when that nomination started to slip away, it was Clinton who created an environment in which people are tempted to rationalize such offensive behavior as an acceptable part of politics.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Hopefully, there'll be some rejections and denunciations forthwith.
Posted by Kevin | March 10, 2008 9:24 PM