Geraldine Ferraro is apparently unrepentant. I don't even get why the Clinton campaign is doing this. I don't think it's helping them.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
It's helping them because it's shoving Obama into a race box. Ferraro steps over the line every time but by responding to it, Obama ends up stuck in a race-gender wars narrative and just encouraging more attention to it.
If I were him I'd say "her comments are shallow and trying to start a fight, and I'm not going to get dragged into this when there are more important issues to discuss like X-issue-of-his-choosing."
Ferraro steps over the line
What line? Telling the truth?
She freely admits that if she had been Gerald Ferraro she never would have gotten the VP nomination. She states that if Obama weren't biracial he wouldn't almost have the presidential nomination. Both statements appear obviously true to many voters.
Forbidding people from speaking certain truths is one of the most unattractive aspects of racial PC and affirmative action. It's something a lot of people really hate.
Every time an Obama surrogate hits Ferraro for telling the truth Obama loses another "Reagan Democrat" vote.
The irony is that Hillary would not be where she is were she not a woman.
@"Ralph Phelan": LOL!!
You must be one of those meatheads who thinks every stupid, bigoted, ignorant thing you say is "the truth!"
Just like Ferraro.
"You must be one of those meatheads who thinks every stupid, bigoted, ignorant thing you say is "the truth!" "
The debate at the caucas I attended here in Alaska centered around which was more historic, a woman or black as president. It's clear that his race is important to his success. I don't think that's a bad thing, it's time for a minority president (but please, not HRC).
I can't stand this "It's the truth" crap.
Is there some truth to her statement? Sure. Obama's post racial message is aided by his being part-white and part-black.
But what Ferraro is saying is something different. She's saying a few things with this statement. One is that Obama is luckier being black than Hillary is born being white. And the other is that Obama is nothing but his race.
Accepting some truth in her statement does not then make the disgusting background text of it excusable. She's trying to incite a race/gender war between Hillary's older white supporters and Barack's black supporters in the hopes of turning off the Reagan democrats you're talking about. She's intentionally starting a racial conflict for political gain.
Freely admitting that she herself is a political hack who got her VP slot based solely on her gender does not inoculate her or suggest that she's right. In fact, she got chosen through no work of her own. Barack's put together a huge campaign and had to fight the front-runner to try to win the nomination. The two are totally different situations. There's a big difference between electing someone and having someone chosen to balance a ticket gender-wise.
Not to mention that Ferraro has a long history of comments like this where she claims to be saying some post-racial truth and then when she gets criticized for it, she calls her attackers reverse racists. One of the worst things we can do in this party is support the idea that whites are somehow victims of reverse racism, and that's exactly what Ferraro is claiming.
No one gets it!?
The real reason Ferraro's comments are offensive, which she (maybe) and others fail to realize is...
She's suggesting Obama wouldn't be in the frontunner position if it weren't for his support among black voters.
This diminshes the significance and importance of black voters. She might as well have said:
"If it weren't for those black voters, Obama would be nowhere."
Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees this as insulting...
ah, the stupid, it burns!
Ferraro is a very experienced politician. She said something STUPID. Doesn't matter if it was true. Politics is about schmoozing, and being part of an election committee, is about being a value ADD to your candidate. That means not saying stuff that doesn't help. When denigrating the opposition, you have to be very careful with perception. People are percieving this negatively [and it is]... and instead of talking around it, she is trying to back it up. And now she has to resign.
Guess her sell-by political date is passed... She is simply a liability, just like Billy was...
The alleged stupidity/offensiveness/insultingness of a true statement doesn't make it any less true.
I think Ferraro is mostly right. Obama the Messiah is an empty suit that many people are projecting their fantasies onto. The racial healing thing is a big part of that projection, and it would not exist if he were white.
Obama certainly gets a large percentage of the black vote.
There is some context for Ferarro's comments that is being ignored. Obama has less experience in high office (and I'll include Supreme Allied Commander in that category) than ANY Presidential candidate nominated by either party since the end of WWII. Yet he's probably going to be the Dem nominee. That's something that requires a bit of explanation beyond "he gives a nice speech." No one can say that Obama accomplished anything remarkable during the two years he served in the Senate before becoming a full-time candidate, or that his victory in 2004 over looney tunes Alan Keyes in a blue state demonstrated remarkable vote-getting prowess.
So people look for explanations. What is so distinctive about this guy? Why is it that "latte liberals" and Black voters, two groups generally favor different candidates in the Democratic Primaries, are supporting him?
Some people would like to say it's the war issue, but not only are Clinton and Obama's positions today very similar, it's just not the case that Black voters flocked to Howard Dean.
The drama and posturing is breathtaking. The response to Geraldine Ferraro's comment should have been a resounding, "So what?" and then total silence. It's like stating that the sky is blue.
1. It's obviously true that if you took a tall thin white guy from Chicago and had him say and do everything Obama has said and done he would not stand where Obama stands in the balloting.
2. Not every true statement is required to be stated on the spur of the moment.
3. That said, I'm surprised the reaction hasn't been more, "yeah, so what?" rather than "you bigot!"
"She's suggesting Obama wouldn't be in the frontunner position if it weren't for his support among black voters. This diminshes the significance and importance of black voters."
How would saying this diminish the importance of black voters? If anything, I'd say it highlights their significance.
In any event, it's not just black voters who are attracted to Obama in part because of his race. Lots of white voters feel the same way.
Let us not forget that Clinton led among black voters prior to the racialized comments by President Clinton and others in Clinton's camp before and after the South Carolina primary. That was what galvanized black support for Obama.
Beyond some black voters, I really don't think Obama's "blackness" is leading many people to vote for him. At most, it is a nice sidebar-- his election would be redemptive in light of the nation's history-- but it is only that because he is eminently appealing. A white candidate with the same intellect, demeanor and ability to inspire would absolutely figure to succeed in this campaign.
I think his being biracial is part of his appeal for many voters. The idea of a "change candidate" is enhanced in some ways by his not being a white man.
I do have some problems with what she says though because it seems unnecessary. Hillary Clinton's experience is not that great either. She would not be as appealing to voters if she were a man or if she'd never married anyone who became famous. It's sort of "if things were different they wouldn't be the same" statement. I don't think it's racist, just kind of dumb and unhelpful. Except maybe for McCain's people. (The Clinton's group, in their own weird way, are really pulling for a McCain victory. Only reason I can think of is the idea that running against a sitting McCain in 2012 would be easier than running against a sitting Democrat)
Edwards was a serious candidate in 2004 and 2008, dropping out after it became clear this time that he was going to end up in third place. His qualifications were barely any better than Obama's. It seems to me that this contradicts the claim that Obama would be a nobody except for his race. That said, it's pretty clear that Obama's winning of a large fraction of black voters' votes has done him a lot of good--maybe that's the difference between Obama beating Clinton, and Clinton beating Obama (or Edwards, say, if Obama hadn't run).
Hillary isn't going to win the nomination, because she's fundamentally not a very good candidate. She has little relevant experience (more than Obama or Edwards, but not much), she's not an especially good speaker, she's not especially likeable. Lots and lots of people, Democrats and independents and Republicans, can't stand her and will vote for anyone but her.
She may manage to back Obama into a corner of being "the black candidate," and thus hand McCain the white house. This isn't likely to be a good outcome for the nation, or to make her especially beloved among Democrats, but I kind-of expect her to do it. But if she somehow gets the nomination after a seriously nasty campaign, I'm not sure why she imagines she is going to get many enthusiastic Obama supporters to come vote for her.
She's trying to incite a race/gender war between Hillary's older white supporters and Barack's black supporters in the hopes of turning off the Reagan democrats you're talking about. She's intentionally starting a racial conflict for political gain.
Is she?
And even if she is now, is that how she started?
It takes two to tango, and if her original offhand comment had been ignored there would be no racial conflict starting.
Trying to simultaneously claim the Obama's candidacy is "historic" and that his race didn't get him where he is is just silly. The fact that Obama's camp was incapable of just laughing the whole thing off indicates that they have an attitude about race, and who is allowed to say what about the subject, that is not going to play well in the long run.
"Post racial" my @$$. This is just another step in Obama's self-revelation as just another Al Sharpton but with a nicer suit.
JohnF:
That said, I'm surprised the reaction hasn't been more, "yeah, so what?" rather than "you bigot!"
What can we infer about the Obama camp from this miss-step? Stupidity, deep-seated racial grievance, or something else I haven't though of?
Either of the first two is a negative for Barack "Anybody who uses my full name is a racist!" Obama.
Is she?
Absolutely. The Clinton campaing read Mark Halperin's list of ways McCain could attack Obama that Clinton couldn't, had a think about it and decided, well no, we can attack this way too. Specifically, they're using tactic number six, "have a surrogate attack 'out of bounds' on race." What they're doing is running up the affirmative action flag in "Pennsyltucky", the rural districts that border Ohio and Kentucky. Note, for example, Rush Limbaugh's response to l'affaire Ferraro:
What did Geraldine Ferraro actually say? She said that he’s only there because he’s a black guy. She said if he were a white man, he wouldn’t even be in the presidential race. So she’s essentially saying that he’s unqualified and black, right? Now, let me ask you people a question. Who gave us this concept? Unqualified and black, pfft!, shooting to the top? Who gave us this concept? I am rubbing my hands together in glee here. It was liberals who demanded this.
And there you have it. It's in the discourse for PA now. It's the "red phone" schtick modified for disgruntled white working class voters looking for an excuse to assume the only reason a black man can succeed is due to affirmative action. It's Jesse Helms' "white hands" ad updated for the particulars of this campaign.
And that is why Ferraro and the Clintons are keeping it in the news as long as possible. This is a dog whistle. Having lost the Democratic nomination, the Clintons are now campaigning for the Dixiecrat nomination.
Affirmative action is a genuine issue. Lots of white & asian people don't like it. They want to know where the candidates stand. The candidates would quite understandably rather finesse the issue and get the votes of both suppporters and opponents. No reason we the voters should let them get away with that, and as a voter I an grateful to anyone who helps pin them down.
While Bill Clinton at least admitted there was a problem with AA and addressed it. While he wasn't willing to end it, he was at least willing to try to mend it.
Ferraro is forcing Obama to confront the AA issue. Good. If Obama's stance is to say that he supports AA 100%, fine. He has a right to his beliefs.
If the voters then choose to vote against Obama - well that's the risk you take when you support an unpopular policy.
It might have been Kinsley who said it first, but here's Time:
I think a lot of voters and party grandees would have expected Obama work on his resume/pay his dues longer if he weren't a minority candidate. In fact, I think that is obviously true yet politely unmentionable. But it doesn't subtract from his intelligence or rhetorical abilities, or the fact that he has been methodically kicking butt against someone who also benefited from non-merit identity advantages - her gender and her husband's success and name recognition. That, I'm told, is the source of her 'experience'.
By that reasoning, "Kristen" has just earned a few experience points towards the governorship.
There is no shortage of politicians and successful people who got a big headstart because of who they are. Some turned out to be exceptional leaders, others didn't.
Affirmative action is a genuine issue. Lots of white & asian people don't like it.
Which would be relevant if they were actually discussing the program on its merits. They're not. They're playing the race card to insinuate that Obama is only successful because he is black, that he is the beneficiary of unfair advantage, despite the fact that it's obviously untrue on its face. They're not discussing the merits or flaws of the Affirmative Action program is it currently exists. They're throwing bait out to disgruntled white voters who use 'affirmative action' as a stand in for their displeasure of having to compete in the workplace against black people. This is the Clintonite "triangulation" as applied to Richard Nixon's southern strategy.
It probably can't help Clinton in this campaign, but it might sink Obama in the general election, which will give Clinton a second opportunity in 2012. The truth is that there will be a cadre of voters that would vote Democratic in November but for the fact that Obama is half-black, and pointing this out will maximize the size of this group, but probably not enough to save Clinton in 2008.
And this group doesn't have to be very big to have a decisive influence in November- no bigger than 1.5 to 2% of the expected Democratic vote.
And Kentucky doesn't border Pennsylvania.
Blackadder:
I guess I meant that Ferraro's comment diminishes the "signifigance of black voters" because it somehow implies that there is something inherently "wrong" with the black vote going to Obama...that they are only voting for him because he's black, and moreover, if it weren't for their vote, Obama would be nowhere. This seems to diminish the "validity" (better word) of their "vote"...
I suppose this isn't exactly right. What she's really implying is that ANYONE who has voted for Obama is doing so because Obama is black.
This is equally insulting...and it does seem to invalidate those votes.
No one denies that many black votes went to Obama largely because he's black, just as many female votes go to Clinton just because she's a female candidate and there is an historic aspect to her candidacy.
The odious, racist aspect of Ferraro's statement (prior to the charge of reverse racism) was to imply that his race is all that's gotten him anywhere, that the sum of his candidacy is a lockstep demographic coulpled with widespread white guilt. It's a dogwhistle to all those voters (like Ralph) who feel aggrieved by affirmative action, and who happen to be a core demographic in Pennsylvania.
For it to be substantially true, though, one mustn't argue only that a lot of black voters vote for him because he's black (Gore got 90% of the black vote against Bill Bradley), but that being black hasn't also been a net loss for him. For every black voter who supported him, there's a white voter who didn't, on the basis of race--more in fact, as Ohio (and Ralph Phelan) demonstrated. The black population isn't significant enough in American politics to deliver a candidate it likes over other demographic's objections.
Claiming that black votes are delivering Obama is like claiming that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election. It's fallacious because any number of contingent things could have been different, which would have changed the outcome. It's post hoc reasoning. Identifying one item and arguing that if it were different, while everything else remained the same, does not identify a necessary or sufficient condition.
Of course, once Ferraro pulled the reverse racism crap out and booked interviews on any outlet that would have her (including and especially the ones that will happily lead the racist charge in the general), it became obvious that this was a deliberate strategy, an attempt to provoke a charge of racism so that she could sound the second note of the dogwhistle: They're going after me because I'm white. It's a deliberate strategy to court the racist white vote. It's George Wallace all over again. It's trying to reconstitute the dixiecrat vote in the rust belt.
Whether this is an organized strategy by Clinton, or the disorganized result of her campaign telling the surrogates "it's the fourth quarter and we're losing; do something to turn things around" and seeing if a hail mary works, is hard to tell. Clinton's outright repudiation of Ferraro's comments is days late, long after those comments have been given a chance to work. Given Ferraro's previous history of racebaiting, I think they knew what they'd be getting into.
I also want to amplify someone else's comment here: The black vote didn't swing to Obama until after Iowa and Bill Clinton's comment about Jesse Jackson. In other words, the black vote clearly wasn't going to Obama just because he's black. They swung to him after he began to demonstrate that he had a campaign organization that could fight the Clinton machine (read 'the Democratic establishment'), and that he could win the white vote. Clearly he is not receiving the black vote just because he's black, which is what Ferraro was saying.
“No one denies that many black votes went to Obama largely because he's black, just as many female votes go to Clinton just because she's a female candidate…”
But then
“They swung to him after he began to demonstrate that he had a campaign organization that could fight the Clinton machine”
To your point, Justin JJ, if it is true that black votes went to Obama in retaliation to the Clinton’s not-so-subtle use of race in the race, then “many” black votes did not go to Obama “largely” because he’s black, but rather “largely” because they rejected Clinton’s race-based politics.
To be fair, I don’t think “many” people, regardless of race, have voted for Obama “largely” because he’s black. Thus the outrage to Ferraro’s comments.
that he is the beneficiary of unfair advantage, despite the fact that it's obviously untrue on its face
What appears obviously untrue to you appears equally obviously true to others. This is part of a major cultural divide that Obama, like many liberal Democrats, would prefer to ignore.
I think that Bill Clinton's less-than-subtle injection of race into the primary helped, but the main motivator for the black vote swinging to Obama was the Iowa primary. Obama demonstrated that he can win the white vote. He proved the contrary to what Ferraro is saying, namely that he's not a token candidate elevated by the party.
You say ignore, I say rightfully disdain the sense of aggrieved entitlement that underlies white resentment at the success of a black man. It can't be his obvious charisma, talent, or intelligence. It can't be the fact that he's organized, from the ground up, a campaign that is, in all ways, beating the effective incumbent's campaign composed of the established party machinery. No, in your world, if a black man succeeds, it's affirmative action at work.
Obama is right to ignore it. He loses by engaging because doing so dignifies a fallacious premise.
Let's try to put in perspective what Obama's race has to do with his success.
Say I'm gambling by rolling three dice, and trying to get 10 or over. If I roll a 2, a 3, and a 4, I've lost, since the total is 9. Does it make sense to point at the 4 and blame it, to say "if it had been a five, I'd have won; therefore, the 4 caused me to lose"?
No, of course not. The outcome is the sum of contingent events. If any one of them were different, the outcome would be different, but that doesn't make any one of them necessary or sufficient factors in the outcome. Likewise, if the roll was 2, 3 and 5, I'd have won, but it makes no sense to hold up the 3 as the one that put me over and award it the distinction of being the winning factor.
No one's denying that some people vote for Obama because he's black. Some people vote for Clinton because she's a woman. Some people voted for Edwards because he's white. Any candidacy has a large variety of contingent factors that may help or hurt the candidate depending on a bunch of other contingent factors.
If Obama was white, he may not have gotten the black vote (though as I observed before, the absence of being black doesn't mean the black vote gets split equitably amongs the white candidates--Gore got massive black support against Bradley). But he would also have avoided the whites who voted against a black candidate. In a larger sense, he might have been even further along in his career at this point. Bill Clinton wasn't much older or much more experienced when he ran for president. If Obama wasn't black, he might've had an even more impressive resume at this point, and would have put the nomination away on February 5th.
Thus, the pernicious racism of Ferraro's comment isn't identifying Obama's race as a factor in his success, it's isolating that factor and assigning it all the responsibility for his success so far, just as if I'd help up that 3 and said "you made me win". Doing so is a transparent strategy to play to the racist white voter.
Hypothesis #3 as to why Obama started doing better among black voters: as Obama became better known to voters and they became aware of things like his membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ they realized that he really was "one of them" rather than the post-racial fantasy he's selling to the highly-educated ultraliberal white half of his base. In which case Bill Clinton's comparison of his victory to Jesse Jackson's is entirely fair and appropriate. And in which case he's trying to be two completely different candidates to two different bases, a tough trick to pull off in the Internet age.
rightfully disdain the sense of aggrieved entitlement that underlies white resentment at the success of a black man
The resentment is against black people getting ahead in line just because of their skin color. [And no, I don't believe that the Democratic party is so totally lame that they'd pick a corrupt Chicago pol with a lackluster 2 year career in the Senate just because he gives a pretty speech, if he didn't also have the bonus of being able to claim that voting for him will be an act of "racial healing" after which Michelle Obama can finally be proud of America and white people can stop having to apologize for being white.]
Allocating university placements, scholarships, jobs, and government contracts by ethnicity really is a zero-sum game, the folks on the losing end of it really do lose something, and they don't like it. Early on the argument for why they should put up with it is "that guy over there's been living under Jim Crow until a couple of years ago. Society owes him a break." This was mostly accepted with some grumblimg. But fifty years on it doesn't seem so fair, and not better justification has come forth ["diversity" is a pretty transparent pretext"] so now part of the standard AA ideology is to either pretend there are no losers while simultaneously dismissing and silencing the losers by calling them racists, whiners or angry white men. AA losers rather understandably resent this. AA losers application of this resentment to Obama's case may be unfair, but then again maybe it isn't. And responding to them with the same "you're not allowed to complain" argument they've heard a hundred times before is not going to convince them they're wrong to equate the situations, it's going to convince them they're right.
Ferraro isn't having it. Her refusal to issue an Obamapology for telling the truth is refreshing.
Now it doesn't really take that much to mollify the AA losers: Bill Clinton simply saying "mend it don't end it" was more than enough for them, just because having someone finally acknowledge that there was something in need of mending was such a relief. If Obama can copy Bill's argument on this issue, he's got a chance. If he sticks with "Shut up!" it's not gonna work as well.
What appears obviously untrue to you appears equally obviously true to others. This is part of a major cultural divide that Obama, like many liberal Democrats, would prefer to ignore.
One does not engage flat earthers by pretending that their point of view is valid, just a little off. One engages flat earthers by pointing out that they're ignorant fools.
Ferraro isn't having it. Her refusal to issue an Obamapology for telling the truth is refreshing.
Except it takes an idiot or someone incapable of reading and understanding English to think Ferraro is making the convoluted argument you're trying to make. Ferraro isn't saying "Affirmative Action has downstream consequences that cause people who 'lose' due to AA grief and we should address this by taking a long, hard look at the program." She's saying "hey, all of you yahoos out there who think they can't get ahead because the government gives black people too much help, take all of that pent up racist animus and focus it on Barack Obama because he too is a black man." The one has nothing to do with the other.
Let's leave aside the question of whether or not white resentment of affirmative action is justified: I think, Ralph, that we both agree it exists.
It's demonstrably unfair. Obama is arguably as qualified to be where he is today as Bill Clinton and John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy (and a host of others) were when they ran for president. If he were white, he'd probably be even more qualified. Being black is a net loss for him that he's overcome, not a ticket to undeserved opportunity.
Thus, arguing that he's nothing but a beneficiary of AA implicitly endorses the premise that no black can succeed on his own, that black people are essentially inferior. That's why Ferraro is getting charged with racism.
Why do people who argue against AA always claim that being told "you're wrong" is the same as being told "you can't make the argument, shut up"?
Obama hasn't said word one about affirmative action as a driver of his campaign. You're conflating your resentment of AA with his candidacy, which again implicitly relies on the racist premise. He's not arguing that he's a good example of AA in action; he's arguing that he's a good candidate in and of himself. He doesn't need to mollify white resentment because he's not defending AA, either explicitly or implicitly by his candidacy.
Ferraro and Clinton, on the other hand, are the ones trying to tar him with the AA brush just to stoke the resentment of people like you, Ralph. You're being manipulated and you don't even seem to care.
Ferarro's remarks are either stupid or calculated racist remarks because the remarks are intended to point out to white voters the issue of "Oh, by the way, did I mention that my opponent is BLACK."
Ralph:
Your insistence that Ralph:
Your insistence that Ferraro’s comment is truth-telling presupposes it is a FACT that the majority of votes going to Obama have been racially motivated. It also presupposes it is a FACT that Obama would be nowhere if he weren’t black.
You could easily argue other hypothesis and reach plausible conclusions other than ones you are reaching.
"And Kentucky doesn't border Pennsylvania." YW
TR: They do border West Virginia. Unfortunately "Pennsylwestvirginia" is more of a mouth full.