Gas, Meet Fire

Typical.

Posted by V. | March 11, 2008 10:00 PM

Geraldine is an excellent representative of the dyke demographic.

Posted by Ken | March 11, 2008 10:04 PM

Why aren't you allowed to write about your opinions, Marc? Is it a conspiracy? A vast wingy-type conspiracy? ;)

Posted by Rob | March 11, 2008 10:05 PM

It gets even better...she had this to say about Jesse Jackson in 1988:

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

Posted by rashomon | March 11, 2008 10:05 PM

Marc, you are at your best when you are most relaxed in your posting style -- even if you don't directly inject your opinions, a little snark and high levels of forthrightness make your blog good to read.

You seem more like this the past several weeks than earlier in the campaign, I have to say. Keep up the good work. :)

Posted by Christian Sieber | March 11, 2008 10:08 PM

April 15, 1988, Washington Post:

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."

Posted by jtk | March 11, 2008 10:09 PM

I'll leave that to one of my colleagues -- those who are allowed to write about their opinions.

Waaaaah.

Translation: "If Ferraro was a white male blogger, she would not be in this position."

If I were you, I'd feel lucky you're paid to blog anything at all.

Posted by Kevin | March 11, 2008 10:10 PM

What a keen grasp of American race history. Black leaders gaining unfair advantages because they were black, and white leaders being attacked because they are white - really, that about sums it up.

You all recognize that this was just a big dog whistle to stir up white resentment on the eve of the MI vote, don't you?

Posted by lampwick | March 11, 2008 10:15 PM

Ferraro is correct. As they say, "The darker the berry, the sweeter the juice".

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 10:19 PM

It is very revealing that Hillary has not really strongly repudiated these comments of Ferraro, and has not severed her relationship with the campaign.

One must assume that Hillary approves of such racist comments. And judging from what Ferraro said about Jesse Jackson, she is indeed a racist.

When an Obama surrogate made an inappropriate comment about one person, Hillary, that person immediately apologized and the ties were severed with the campaign. Obama issued a strong statement condemning such words.

When a Hillary surrogate says such a thing, Hillary equivocates, offers only a small amount of disagreement, and keeps the person in her campaign.

I think the African American community should stage protests wherever Hillary Clinton goes.

And in a general election...face reality: Hillary could never get the AA vote no matter what, and so is fundamentally unelectable.

Posted by cm | March 11, 2008 10:22 PM

lampwick,
While her initial comments and Hillary's response were certainly a dog whistle, I think Ferrero's response here goes way too far. Now, instead of making the story about racial division, she's making it about racism. That doesn't help Clinton.

Posted by Mike | March 11, 2008 10:23 PM

Never mind, Tim, I think I just figured you out. You're so desperate to see Clinton win that you're willing, like Clinton, to destroy the party.

Posted by justinb | March 11, 2008 10:24 PM

That's it. This is to a point that the party elders need to step in. If someone significant doesn't reign in the Clinton campaign, the party is finished.

Posted by alex | March 11, 2008 10:27 PM

Hillary cannot win a general election. She entered with sky high negatives. Now she has alienated the African American vote, and no Dem can win without that.

Then add the fact that she is a dozen scandals waiting to happen. Imagine once her tax returns come out.

If I were Obama, or for that matter the Republicans, I would have people at every Hillary event with large signs asking about where her tax returns are.

So Hillary has actually reached a point where her negatives are too high to win. That's quite an accomplishment for her.

Posted by cm | March 11, 2008 10:29 PM

Gee, Amblinders, bummer that you weren't able to offer an "opinion" on this matter when you blogged about it yesterday.

Time to TAKE THE MUZZLE OFF AMBLINDERS, I say. Let him say what he really thinks instead of forcing him to disguise his bias with SNARKY LITTLE ADDENDUMS to his blog posts.

Posted by robert ethan | March 11, 2008 10:29 PM

Just turn it around - imagine the outcry if Obama (or a surrogate) openly suggested that the only reason HRC is doing so well is her married name. Ferraro & Co. would go nuclear.

Posted by Judy | March 11, 2008 10:30 PM

Judy? Surely you jest. The Obama campaign has never suggested that Hillary's candidacy is based on her status as the Former First Lady?!!!

Right. I think you took one too many shots to the head from Punch, if you expect us to believe that.

Posted by robert ethan | March 11, 2008 10:36 PM

I agree with Alex: the Democratic party is in danger, thanks to the Clintons, with some help from the Rush Limbaugh voters.

At this point the party superdelegates/elders/etc can shut this thing down and announce a flood of endorsements for Obama, then he will win the remaining states handsomely and the Democratic party can enter the gen election strong.

Or allow this thing to drag on, allow Hillary to destroy the party, and Rush Limbaugh to laugh.

And do not underestimate the damage that can be done; do not trivialize it. In this media environment, the damage is noticed far more than ever before.

Posted by cm | March 11, 2008 10:37 PM

Ferraro is correct. As they say, "The darker the berry, the sweeter the juice".

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 10:19 PM

Tim, I salute you. You have achieved a level of oracular incoherence that was previously reserved for geriatic Soviet heads of state, sports commentators, and Ann Coulter. How do you do it?

Posted by maraschion | March 11, 2008 10:37 PM

Tim go kiss robert ethan. You were made for each other.

Posted by bjd | March 11, 2008 10:51 PM

There is a pattern of this weird white woman making racist statements. IMHO Someone needs to muzzle her.

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

Posted by heather | March 11, 2008 10:58 PM

I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

Dog Whistle to Italians, Irish, Poles, and other white Catholics in Penn.

This is not only disgusting.

This was totally planned, and conceived, by the Clinton campaign. The plan all along was first to probe, then get a response from the Obama camp, and then thrust with the above quote. This is exactly what they did for SC--with Bob Johnson. Notice that in both cases, the surrogate wraps their poison in the garb of being offended. Bob Johnson did just that in his "speech."

The only positive here is that people are finally figuring it out. 90 days ago, it seemed bizarre. 60 days ago, people started listening. Now it's March.

Dear Clinton supporters: are you cool with this? Are you "down" with this stuff? Feeling good?

Posted by Gregor | March 11, 2008 11:19 PM

@Judy:

"Just turn it around - imagine the outcry if Obama (or a surrogate) openly suggested that the only reason HRC is doing so well is her married name. Ferraro & Co. would go nuclear."

This has already happened, in a way. Remember when Tweety said Clinton had only got the NY Senate seat because she was married to Bill Clinton? Didn't that lead to him apologizing? (Which I think he probably should have done. After all, she did actually run for the seat and win.)

But you'll recall that almost the entire liberal blogosphere set their sights on him for what he said -- including many Obama supporters.

But when Ferraro does a Tweety, it's simply "the truth," and not offensive at all.

Ferraro is wrong, and Tweety was wrong, because both were reducing their subject to a one-sided stereotype (the black candidate; the wife of Bill), when in both cases there are many other factors in play that help explain their success.

Posted by Road Runner | March 11, 2008 11:27 PM

"I think the African American community should stage protests wherever Hillary Clinton goes."

Actually, I think this is exactly the reaction her campaign is hoping for -- to get the African American community riled up and thereby breed resentment among the non-college educated white working class voters she won in OH and hopes to win in PA. That's the "baiting" part of race-baiting.

Posted by Dave | March 11, 2008 11:49 PM

As someone who long ago turned against Senator Clinton, this is beautiful to witness.

That McCain sweatshirt looks like a better investment every day.

Posted by Vermando | March 12, 2008 12:09 AM

I will now employ the non sequitur. Ignore the actual post and THROW IN SOME SNARK.

ALL CAPS is my friend. I use it to help lead the READER to my more important debate points. LIKE THIS. Maybe I should throw in some TS Eliiot to make me look even SMARTER (HS division).

Perhaps when this is all over I can convince Andy Sullivan to accept comments and build my commenting empire anew.

* NOT

Posted by robert ethan* | March 12, 2008 12:26 AM

I have set up a site and need ALL OF YOUR help. Especially all of you Atlantic Readers!!!

http://robertethanisatool.blogspot.com/

Click on the link and help me help the blogosphere. I have no idea how to build up things just yet. I will enjoy your input as we move forward.

Let us embrace the technology!!

Posted by swarty | March 12, 2008 12:38 AM

Ambinder,

In case you don't get it..

THIS IS DOGWHISTLE POLITICS.

But, maybe, I'm just ' imagining ' it.

Posted by rikyrah | March 12, 2008 12:50 AM

"I think the African American community should stage protests wherever Hillary Clinton goes."

Actually, I think this is exactly the reaction her campaign is hoping for -- to get the African American community riled up and thereby breed resentment among the non-college educated white working class voters she won in OH and hopes to win in PA. That's the "baiting" part of race-baiting.

Naw...we understand that....no protests...we silently observe it and go ' ok, we hear you...we hear that whistle, loud and clear'. We'll deal with you later.

Posted by rikyrah | March 12, 2008 12:55 AM

Why would Geraldine's folks name her after
an automobile?

Posted by interferon | March 12, 2008 12:56 AM

Once again, haters and losers insist on posting ridiculous comments in my name.

Obama supporters here have to fight the reflex action of accusing everyone who disagrees with them on an issue that involves race of racism.

It is as if some are attempting to impose some kind of totalitarian ideology under which no one is even permitted to acknowledges that identity politics exists and often has an outcome on elections.

Gerry Ferraro acknowledged she wouldn't have been considered for the ticket in 1984 has she not been a woman, and that was true. Lyndon Johnson wouldn't have been considered for the ticket in 1960 had he not been a southerner from the state of Texas. Would Joe Lieberman have been chosen in 2000 had he not been Jewish? I doubt it. Ferraro was correct about Jesse Jackson, too. Would he have gotten as far as he did were he not black? Of course not. He is not a credible national figure outside of the Democratic party and the African American community.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 1:03 AM

We'll deal with you later.

Is that some kind of threat against Senator Clinton?

Hillary and Bill Clinton have been at the forefront of civil rights and other issues of concern to the black community for their entire adult lives. That's clear. They are not racists.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 1:07 AM

Tim K,

You do see the fatal flaw in your argument don't you?

Ferraro, LBJ, & Lieberman all have ONE very important element in common.

Have you figured it out yet? I'll wait for a minute.

OK Time's up. They were chosen by the Democratic Party's nominee as a running mate. Yes LBJ had run in 1960 but lost to JFK so his case is the one who is different.

Obama has "put himself into the arena" to use the cliche. He has exposed himself to the voters of nearly every state in this great country and asked the voters to judge him. He is running for President.

As for Jesse Jackson, when he ran in 84 and 88 he had never ran or won elected office so he was not a candidate that had passed the traditional tests (winning Elective office) for those seriously running for the top job in the country. Obama has.

My advice to you is to stop comparing apples to oranges.

Posted by swarty | March 12, 2008 1:19 AM

Tim K,
That berry comment did seem unlike you. Are you saying someone else posted it?

On racism issue. I think you are probably correct that Senator Clinton is not racist. However, she is not afraid of using race to polarize the election. While she may not be racist, some of her voters most likely are. While thankfully racism is a much smaller issue than it once was (as a fairly young man I feel I can say my generation is no-where near as racist as prior generations) it is still around, and most likely always will be.

Posted by Daniel | March 12, 2008 1:29 AM

Swarty:

Obama has, by the skin of his teeth, passed any traditional test. State senator? That's not very impressive. Merely two years in the senate before announcing for president? Even less impressive.

There is no way at all that Obama would be winning 90% of the black vote against Hillary Clinton were his name Barry O'Connor instead of Barack Obama.

Also, what would be so historic about his candidacy were he an intelligent, articulate white guy with a good speaking voice? Are they in short supply? He's not a man of any particular accomplishment.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 1:29 AM

""Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," "

There is a TINY bit of truth to this, but to say "any time" is patently absurd - and the implication of this statement is delusional ni that Ferraro brought this on herself by her bringing up race. She did not "address reality and the problems we're facing". Au contraire. She specifically brought up Obama's skin color.

Like I said before: sour grapes.

Is it just my view, or do the Clinton's naturally attract the most vile people amongst us? That creep Lanny Davis is all over the media. Every time he opens his mouth, he lies. Rendell - another evil man.

These types of people care about one thing only - power. They don't care how they achieve it. Anything goes. They are so destructive.

Though it is somewhat enjoyable watching liberalism's identity politics eating away at itself. Seems only right. Black vs. Women. Who's the greater victim? heheh.

Posted by slick | March 12, 2008 1:32 AM

slick:

She didn't bring it up out of the clear blue sky.

She was asked why she thought Barack Obama has done as well as he has in terms of support, votes and delegates and the whole thing. She gave an honest - and i think an accurate - answer.

Should she have lied and said "he's just run a fantastic campaign" and left out the rest of the truth? Perhaps. That would have been the politically correct thing to say. But she didn't.

And let me get this straight... every prominent Hillary Clinton surrogate is an evil monster?

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 1:51 AM

There is NO FUCKING WAY that Hillary would be a leading contender for the Presidency if she were not the wife of the 2 term president. The stark difference is that Obama and his surrogates would never attempt to make that argument as it is not a fair one. She has a record of winning elections, as does he. Folks like us on the internets are free to say stuff like this.

We have elected terrific Presidents who had little experience in DC before becoming President. Abraham Lincoln springs immediately to mind. Sadly, so does GW Bush & Reagan. Bill Clinton too. Between the three of them, they had 0 foreign policy experience.

Hillary brings a unique wealth of personal experience to this race, as does Obama. If she chooses to draw the racial element than she is welcome to do so. But do not expect people to ignore it. She will need to answer for her surrogates, as does Obama. Geraldine Ferraro is living in the deep deep past. Hillary is trying to win as she sees fit. As an Obama supporter, I see today's developments as a huge misstep on her part and will point this out as I see fit.

May the best candidate be our nominee.

Posted by swarty | March 12, 2008 1:52 AM

Swarty:

Well I'm not sure if a profane outburst was really necessary there.

The Obama campaign and its surrogates have already sought to denigrate Clinton's experience as First Lady. So not only would they do it, they have done it.

At least you admit there is a racial element. A lot of Obama supporters seem to be under some illusion - or claim to be - that he has transcended race. When 90% of African Americans are voting for him, he hasn't transcended anything.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 2:15 AM

"Slick" & "Swarthy", standard bearers for the Obama campaign. You guys should form a law firm and hire your friends Swindle, Stifle, Bamboozle, and Sleeze, as full partners.

Then you can defend the pride of South Side Chicago when the grime starts to seep out in the Rezko Trial.

Posted by robert ethan | March 12, 2008 2:19 AM

We'll deal with you later.

Is that some kind of threat against Senator Clinton?

Just a promise.

A promise that we won't forget. People seem to think that Black folk have to vote FOR John McCain.

Not at all.

Try winning PA, OH, VA, MD, MO, MI without a sizeable Black turnout.

Oh yeah, that's right...can't be done.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have been at the forefront of civil rights and other issues of concern to the black community for their entire adult lives. That's clear. They are not racists.

They're not racists, but will use Dogwhistle Racial Politics against a Black candidate.

Maybe that works with White folks, but not with Black folks.

USING racist tactics...um, why should we get past that to determine whether someone is, or is not a racist. I believe you probably think the only racists in America are those that wear Hoods and White Sheets. My view of a racist is more broad than that.

Posted by rikyrah | March 12, 2008 3:09 AM

It's not racist to talk about race in an appropriate context.

It's racist to dismiss or reduce shortcomings or accomplishments by linking to race.

Repeat until it sinks in, please.

Flip it and see how dismissive it is to say that a white CEO only gets to where he is because of his race. A woman Speaker of the House gets there due to her gender. You wave away all of their work and support with the wand of "identity" and see the reaction you get from them.

I do believe that Gerry has given Obama his new campaign slogan.

"Vote Obama. He's not black, he's LUCKY."

Posted by Lolo | March 12, 2008 9:14 AM

Seems as if Geraldine doused herself in gasoline with Monday's remark and decided yesterday she needed a cigarette.

It's called self-immolation. Buddhist monks used it very effectively in the early days in Vietnam. I guess we'll see soon enough how it works in Pennsylavania. It's an ugly thing to behold, but it could work for the Clintons.

Posted by Pug | March 12, 2008 9:22 AM

Dave

You are so right. To protest but only in states that have already held primaries African Americans should re-register as Independents.

Posted by Allan | March 12, 2008 9:56 AM

The Obama campaign and its surrogates have already sought to denigrate Clinton's experience as First Lady. So not only would they do it, they have done it.

Can you give an example?

Posted by justinb | March 12, 2008 10:57 AM

An few examples of the Obama campaign denigrating Clinton's experience as First Lady came as Clinton was listing her experience in foreign affairs.

They mis-represented the words of Sen. Geo. Mitchell, which he came out and corrected, and then discounted the words of a Nobel Prize winner, who said her role in N. Ireland peace was "pivotal."

If Obama REALLY wanted to change the tone of politics, he'd just simply offer his own foreign policy experience, instead of dehigrating hers.

I could actually give you more examples, but I doubt you really want the truth.

Now, here's an example of the both racist AND sexist Barack Obama campaign, last November,
Nov. 30, 2007

"Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., hosted a fundraiser Thursday night at the famed Apollo Theater, a venue with historic and symbolic significance to the black community.

"The $50-a-ticket fundraiser, dubbed by the campaign "A Night at the Apollo," was sold out with a club capacity of 1,400 people. The Apollo is the most popular club in the nation for black musicians, hip-hop artists, performers and comedians.

"Obama was introduced by comedian and actor Chris Rock, who told the audience they'd regret and be embarassed if they voted for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

"You'd say, 'I had that white lady! What was I thinking?" Rock said.

"Appealing to the mostly black audience, Obama said he's running for president because, "I'm tired of reading about Jena, I'm tired of reading about nooses, tired of reading about Justice Department that doesn't understand justice."

Posted by Jan | March 12, 2008 11:20 AM

rikyrah:

The evidence is actually that Black folks are voting based on race a hell of a lot more than White folks in this election. The only place where white votes are deeply polarized is in the deepest of the Deep South. Black votes are breaking 80-90% for Obama just about everywhere. Again, this isn't about his policies or his experience. It's his historic candidacy and I completely understand that. Pointing out that reality is not racist.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 11:32 AM

Until the Clinton campaign dog whistle tactics of SC, the AA community was divided between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. The Clinton campaign either decided they could lose the AA vote, or thought (more likely) that the AA community would not call them on their tactics. That is when the AA vote shifted to Obama. That is when the black vote broke toward Obama.

Posted by AYC | March 12, 2008 12:35 PM

Hi all,

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/obama_clinton_on_anybodys_shor.php

I just wanted to reference this thread and incorporate it here to respond to Tim K and his nonsense.

It seems he's interested in spamming everywhere to make the utterly false claim that being black helps you win national office, so I don't feel too bad referring to the rebuttal I wrote in the other thread.

Posted by Spenser | March 12, 2008 3:43 PM

Comments (49)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives