You can't say that on television

Was Geraldine Ferraro's remark out of line?

Ummm . . . yes. Yes, even though John McWhorter said as much to me in our Bloggingheads diavlog a few weeks back.

Whether or not it is true, you can't say everything that is true, not in a campaign, and not in real life. You can't call your opponent fat, his children ugly, or make remarks about how many divorces he may or may not have had. Some people are suggesting that this is relevant, because it goes to how qualified he is. But there's a much better way to talk about that, I think . . . you could talk about how qualified he is. Given that his only remaining opponent got her job because she's a woman married to a famous politician, I don't see how this helps you distinguish between the candidates.

Ferraro's remark is a sly way of referring to affirmative action, presumably because she thinks it will help Hillary with angry white ethnics in Pennsylvania's depressed coal and industrial regions. It would be repulsive coming from anyone, but its particularly rich from someone whose main qualification for the vice presidency was possessing ovaries.

Comments

Yeah, gotta agree. Also, there's a simple refutation- it's not affirmative action if the voters choose you. If you win primaries, then you are by definition more qualified by the standards of campaigns and elections.

If being black is an advantage, why has no one else made it as far as Obama? He's made something that historically has been a disadvantage into an asset. That takes talent.

Posted by John Lynch | March 13, 2008 12:42 PM

Although if anybody is an expert on identity politics, it's Gerry F. At least she admits as much.

Now, what is indisputably true is we would not be talking about Hillary at all right now if not for the fact that she's married to Bill Clinton.

Posted by mike | March 13, 2008 12:58 PM

This has to be one of your smartest posts ever. Not to mention Geraldine wouldn't be in her position(meaning former Vice-Presidential nominee) if not from same ovaries.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 13, 2008 1:00 PM

I just don't get Ferraro's comments at all. If a young and previously little known candidate who's good looking, intelligent, charismatic, and an excellent public speaker is winning the Dem nomination it's because he's black? I guess Bill Clinton really was our first black president then.

Posted by SeanH | March 13, 2008 1:10 PM

It would be repulsive coming from anyone, but its particularly rich from someone whose main qualification for the vice presidency was possessing ovaries.

Didn't Ferraro admit as much? In the NYT article linked below, she says "In 1984 if my name had been Gerald Ferraro, not Geraldine, I would never have gotten nominated."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/us/politics/13ferraro.html?ref=politics

Posted by Kyle | March 13, 2008 1:26 PM

Is this nomination battle going to devolve into a fight over identity politics? If that's the case then let's take out the U.S. map and re-color the states that Clinton has won so far pink and Obama's black becuase this is absurd.

Posted by Ben | March 13, 2008 1:32 PM

let's take out the U.S. map and re-color the states that Clinton has won so far pink and Obama's black

Someone suggest that to CNN quick, because it might actually give them something useful to report on, whereas they're currently profiling "Kristen" and how happy "Client 9" was to receive her.

Posted by anony_mouse_ | March 13, 2008 1:42 PM

Now, what is indisputably true is we would not be talking about Hillary at all right now if not for the fact that she's married to Bill Clinton.

Indisputably true? She's a smart, Yale-trained former Watergate prosecutor -- I think it unlikely that she would have ended up as an anonymous ambulance chaser.

Posted by Marvin | March 13, 2008 1:42 PM

(1) Are people who suggest that Obama's race is a reason to support him likewise out of line? Or is the line asymmetrical?

(2) If the Clinton campaign was going to raise this issue at all, wouldn't Gerry be the right spokesperson precisely because she herself was elevated by identity politics and is (at least now) willing to admit it? Doesn't that circumstance give Gerry more cover rather than less?

Posted by PJ | March 13, 2008 1:49 PM

Marvin,

Exactly how many Yale-trained attorneys do you talk about?

Posted by josh | March 13, 2008 1:51 PM

"smart, Yale-trained former Watergate prosecutor" who failed the DC bar exams.

Posted by dearieme | March 13, 2008 1:56 PM

Marvin - There are a couple other stops on the spectrum between "President" and "ambulance chaser."

Also, given dearieme's comment, surely there are smarter Yale-trained attorneys that we could get to run for president.

I would suggest it's unlikely that she would even be a senator if not for who she married.

Posted by mike | March 13, 2008 2:04 PM

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

Posted by M. Earl | March 13, 2008 2:05 PM

Whether or not it is true, you can't say everything that is true, not in a campaign, and not in real life. You can't call your opponent fat, his children ugly, or make remarks about how many divorces he may or may not have had.

You can't? Hmm. I remember a lot of remarks about John Roberts' kids. Seems like there were more than a few words said about the number of Newt Gingrich's divorces. How often do we see Bush referred to as a chimp? Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton, and the Johnson Birds got their shots.

Maybe you could rethink this.

Posted by Charlie (Colorado) | March 13, 2008 2:18 PM

The more I think about it, the more I think Ferrarro is right.

She was picked because she was female. A white guy campaigning on the same issues as Jesse Jackson would be *maybe* Ralph Nader. More likely Kucinich.

And, as someone said elsenet, a charismatic but not-very-experienced youngish guy campaigning on mostly platitudes - if he were white, he'd be John Edwards.

On the other hand, this is like Al Gore bringing up Willie Horton - it only helps the Republicans in the end.

Posted by Anthony | March 13, 2008 2:32 PM

One of the things that was most appealing about Obama, was that he appeared to transcend race. One big reason that was true was that he is black. I didn't hear Ferraro say anything different than that.

Obviously some did, but in reacting this way the Obama campaign makes Obama appear less like he transcends race and more like a victim.

That's a big problem for him because it undercuts a big part of his appeal. It may be true that "you can't say everything that is true, not in a campaign, and not in real life" but that is true for the Obama campaign as well-- and it is why they would have been better off brushing off Ferraro's statement rather than calling for her head.

Posted by DWAnderson | March 13, 2008 2:44 PM

(1) Are people who suggest that Obama's race is a reason to support him likewise out of line? Or is the line asymmetrical?

Yes, it's asymmetrical because of the way that it's actually being done. Obama's race is one contingent factor in his candidacy. Observing that that factor is one of many good reasons to vote for him is not racist (though one could safely argue that voting for him just and only because he's black is racist). Likewise, it's not necessarily racist to say that being black works against him among a segment of voters, and so he shouldn't get the nomination because he can't win it (i.e., arguing that his race hurts his electibility is not, in itself, racist).

The essential problem for Ferraro is that she pigeonholed Obama as a black candidate to stir resentment among the anti-affirmative action crowd. She elevated one contingent factor and declared it to be the essential factor in his candidacy, implicitly stoking racist responses to defeat that candidacy.

(2) If the Clinton campaign was going to raise this issue at all, wouldn't Gerry be the right spokesperson precisely because she herself was elevated by identity politics and is (at least now) willing to admit it? Doesn't that circumstance give Gerry more cover rather than less?

It gives her some cover with the crowd they're targetting: working class whites who are the hotbed of white resentment against affirmative action, and dominate Pennsylvania's electoral math. It doesn't give her cover in general, but the Clinton campaign has become very practiced at writing off, well, everyone else who they can't win.

Posted by Justin JJ | March 13, 2008 2:45 PM

You can't call your opponent fat, his children ugly, or make remarks about how many divorces he may or may not have had

I agree that you can't call your opponent fat or his children ugly, but why can't you remark on how many divorces he may or may not have had? Personally, I'd think twice before voting for someone who'd had, say, 5 divorces.

Posted by flippantangel | March 13, 2008 2:48 PM

And, as someone said elsenet, a charismatic but not-very-experienced youngish guy campaigning on mostly platitudes - if he were white, he'd be John Edwards.

No, he wouldn't be John Edwards. This argument actually irritates me for how stupid it is, as if the only difference between Edwards and Obama is their race.

By that argument, one could argue that Edwards should have won because Bill Clinton won, and they're both (at the time of their respective candidacies) young, white, southern, and charismatic. They're obviously identical. That Edwards hasn't come close demonstrates the lie in a facile comparison between Edwards and Obama.

Posted by Justin JJ | March 13, 2008 2:49 PM

What she should have said: He's a blank slate with great public speaking skills who's inviting audiences to read whatever their little hearts desire into his vague feelgood generalities. Unfortunately I'm mostly immune to idealistic dreams.

Is Clinton any better? An ambitious, not especially charismatic policy wonk who wants to be president because it's there and she thinks she deserves it.

I don't see a great president lurking inside either one.

Posted by michael farris | March 13, 2008 2:57 PM

Truman didn't have much to recommned him at the time either, nor did Lincoln for that matter. Grant did, and so did Jackson.

Posted by Jim | March 13, 2008 3:22 PM

though one could safely argue that voting for him just and only because he's black is racist

Nonsense, just call it "affirmative action" and your reasons will be unimpeachable.

Though in fairness, as others have noted, their records are about equal and neither record speaks much to future presidential capacity, so it's more of a question of whether you would prefer Mr. Polite & Charming, or Ms. Entitlement Grrrrl.

Posted by anony_mouse_ | March 13, 2008 3:23 PM

This is idiotic. Ferraro said "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." Really? Because white men are so under-represented in our political class?

Sure, if Obama were white his career would most likely have had a different path. But that different path might still have lead to his being a popular Democratic presidential nominee in the year 2008.

Posted by Avram | March 13, 2008 3:53 PM

I just want to reiterate the quote made elsewhere: "because running as a black man named Barack Hussein Obama is SOOO easy".

Posted by freddiemac | March 13, 2008 3:57 PM

Yes, it's asymmetrical because of the way that it's actually being done. . . . The essential problem for Ferraro is that she pigeonholed Obama as a black candidate to stir resentment among the anti-affirmative action crowd. She elevated one contingent factor and declared it to be the essential factor in his candidacy, implicitly stoking racist responses to defeat that candidacy.

Doesn't this boil down to "the line is asymmetrical because Ferraro's [supposed] motives are heinous"? That's not such a useful line.

Posted by PJ | March 13, 2008 4:10 PM

Justin JJ: Well, in this race, it seems like Edwards is a pretty fair match to Obama in terms of experience. IMO, this undermines the claim that nobody would have heard of Obama if he'd been white--someone with a similar level of experience in government managed to be the VP nominee last time, and to essentially come in third this time.

Megan: There are true things you ought not to say because they're nasty personal attacks on someone's kids or something, but I don't think there are any true things you ought not to say (or ought to be shunned or punished for saying) involving questions of fact about candidates. Has Obama benefitted from being black in this race? Pretty obviously. Would his lack of experience in government make it impossible for him to be as successful as he has been, if he were white? Pretty clearly not--I think Edwards and Hillary Clinton are both examples of people with similar experience in government who have been very successful. But I can't see how either question is wrong to raise, or to try to answer.

We're trying to decide who is going to be president, which is a job with some kind of important responsibilities. The winner is going to be facing down foreign enemies, domestic interest groups, power struggles within the government and his own cabinet, and trying to respond to various entirely merciless emergencies and disasters. Our previous choice turned out really, really badly. I don't think we can afford to have some questions off limits in choosing the president.

FWIW, I prefer Obama to Hillary, and either one overwhelmingly to McCain. But we're doing nobody any favors devolving into debates about whether you're allowed to ask, of the first serious black candidate for president, how race has affected his run for office so far.

Posted by albatross | March 13, 2008 4:14 PM

It would be repulsive coming from anyone, but its particularly rich from someone whose main qualification for the vice presidency was possessing ovaries.

Actually, I think this is what makes Ferraro's words all the more credible. Yes, of course she got "where she was" (on Mondale's ticket) because of her sex. Just like Obama got where he his (poised to take the world's most powerful office 3.5 years after leaving the Illinois state legislature) because of his race.

Ferraro didn't say Obama's not qualified. Nor did she say he wouldn't have made it to this point sometime in the future without help from his racial background.

It's pretty obvious that Barack Obama is an extraordinarily gifted individual. What's also pretty obvious is that this particular gifted individual would not possess a realistic chance at the nation's highest office only three years after his arrival in Washington were it not for the fact that his race helps him to stand out from the crowd. Just like Larry's Bird's race helped him stand out from the crowd. Just like Geraldine Ferraro's and yes, Hillary Clinton's gender helped these two women, too, stand out from the crowd.

Posted by Jasper | March 13, 2008 4:25 PM

Doesn't this boil down to "the line is asymmetrical because Ferraro's [supposed] motives are heinous"? That's not such a useful line.

No, there's a basic difference in the logic of the statements. One can argue against Obama as nominee on the basis of his race if you treat it as a single, contingent factor. The argument "a black man can't get enough of the vote to win the general" isn't necessarily a racist statement (meaning, if it's made with real data that supports the conclusion). That statement says that one of many factors has a particular consequence; whether or not it's true is an empirical matter.

Ferraro's statements, on the other hand, were categorical. She reduced Obama to an example of his (apparent) race, and called that the deciding factor. She explicitly denied that he could have also succeeded if he were white on the basis of his talents, which is to say that he has none. He is only his race, and the obvious implication is that he is not presidential material because he then, by definition, lacks any presidential qualities.

What's also pretty obvious is that this particular gifted individual would not possess a realistic chance at the nation's highest office only three years after his arrival in Washington were it not for the fact that his race helps him to stand out from the crowd.

Perhaps, but has his race been a net win for him in his life? Was it immaterial to this point, at which time it was cashed in for advantage? Do the number of people who'll vote for him because he's black outnumber the people who'll vote against him because he's black?

Ferraro's point only has force if it's true in a complete sense of his race being a net win. I highly doubt that.

Posted by Justin JJ | March 13, 2008 4:47 PM

She explicitly denied that he could have also succeeded if he were white on the basis of his talents, which is to say that he has none.

The first part of that (up to the comma) is fair, but the second part does not follow from the first. To say that Obama's talents and other qualifications are not alone sufficient to explain his current success is nowhere near saying that he has no talents or other qualifications, an assertion that would be laughably false.

Gerry's point was that Obama is getting an unwarranted boost because of his race. It's debatable whether he's getting a boost because of his race, and it's debatable whether, if so, it's unwarranted. But those debates can be conducted on the merits, without impugning Gerry's motives or putting false claims in her mouth.

Posted by PJ | March 13, 2008 5:44 PM

Justin JJ: I'm not at all convinced that someone with Obama's background and qualifications couldn't have made a serious run at the presidency at this age. On the other hand, it's not too clear how being black has been a negative for him personally.

The big disadvantages to Obama from being black in this election seem to me to be:

a. I think there's a fraction of voters that won't vote for a black guy. He starts with those voters at best staying home, at worst voting for McCain.

b. If Hillary or McCain manage to back him into being seen as "the black candidate," in the sense of being primarily concerned with the issues of black Americans, or just into being seen as sufficiently "not-us" to white voters, he will lose the election.

Now, (a) is probably balanced by the fact that Hillary probably has even *more* people who won't vote for her no matter what, both from being a woman and from being her own, widely-disliked, self. This kind of woman vs black identity politics stuff that Hillary is doing threatens to push Obama into (b).

Posted by albatross | March 13, 2008 9:29 PM

Also truth of the statement is partly in the tone of the statement.

1) Black men have it so easy running for president.

2) He is lucky to be black or he'd be nowhere.

3) He has managed to build on his black base.

4) He is a remarkable candidate who has used his quite
remarkable story to his advantage.

Ferraro aimed somewhere between 1 and 2, both of which are absurd statements. 3 is just as false (he didn't have a big black base to build on) but at least it wouldn't have been offensive. She kind of retreats to it in a plausible denial sense and some of her supporters say this. It seems to be 4 is kind of what most people mean when they say that there is some truth in there. A good politician turns disadvantages to their advantage to the best of their ability.

Posted by Stephen | March 14, 2008 1:29 AM

Ferraro has given several interpretations of her original comment, which leaves me asking, "What did she mean exactly?"

Apparantly she did NOT mean the "only" reason Obama is ahead is because he's black.

And she did NOT mean the reason Obama is ahead is because people voted for him just because he's black.

She and others tell us that she was simply truth-telling. So then, what precisely is the core message in the message?

Oh...and "Affirmative Action" my ass. Yeah...Sandra Day O'Connor got appointed to the Supreme Court because she's a woman.

By that logic, Harriett Meyers would be on the Supreme Court today.

Posted by AKBY | March 14, 2008 9:49 AM

"It's pretty obvious that Barack Obama is an extraordinarily gifted individual. What's also pretty obvious is that this particular gifted individual would not possess a realistic chance at the nation's highest office only three years after his arrival in Washington were it not for the fact that his race helps him to stand out from the crowd. Just like Larry's Bird's race helped him stand out from the crowd. Just like Geraldine Ferraro's and yes, Hillary Clinton's gender helped these two women, too, stand out from the crowd.

Posted by Jasper | March 13, 2008 4:25 PM"

First the Clinton camp says Obama wouldn't be here without his 2002 anti-war speech. Now they say that he wouldn't be here if he wasn't a black guy. Which is it?

He isn't just charismatic, he's uniquely charismatic in our current class. Even John Edwards, who stands at a decent second among male Democrats today who are still eligible for the presidency and are national figures, has been called wooden by some journalists who have met him in person, which doesn't seem to happen with Obama. Bill, after all, shot to national attention when he was the keynote speaker at the 1988 DNC, which he actually whiffed on. Obama simply blew people away in 2004 (remember how that crappy FoxNews version of the Daily Show joked that his approval rating among Democrats dropped down to 99.9%?).

The truth of the matter is that he has been drawing a lot of support from the type of people who have wanted to vote for a person who was against the Iraq War: young people, educated professionals, African-Americans, etc. We underestimate how much of his support comes from high-information voters supporting his foreign policy (it's why I'm backing him).

What seems to piss of older white establishment Democrats is that he has made being black work for him instead of against him and pigeon-holing him as just the black candidate. He isn't dependent on them for funds, etc. He's established an amazing on-the-ground machine, drawing on his community organizer experience, while also raising records amounts of money online through a broad small donor base. Who has accomplished this before? If it was so easy to run as a black man, we would have already had a President King on the $1 bill. He has crafted a message of hope and change that makes his race, being both black and a biracial cosmopolitan, into an asset instead of a burden. This doesn't mean he is "lucky to be black," but that he actually understands the power of narrative, which is perhaps the key political skill Democrats have been lacking since Bobby Kennedy was killed. To a certain extent, he draws on RFK's memory more than any other major Democratic politician with his rhetoric and charm while tapping into a hope that Democrats have nurtured since it was dashed 40 years ago, thus transcending race.

Also, as Chait pointed out in TNR, Clinton has claimed that she is just toughing Obama up for the general (after all, even if McCain runs a clean campaign, Republican PAC's will still race-bait him), yet Obama can't do the same to her without offending feminists whose votes he needs. As a result, certain claims, such as being First Lady is a relevant form of experience (which is laughable and, if she becomes the nominee, will make Clinton a national laughing stock for years once she makes that case to a non-partisan electorate) without looking sexist. As a result, she actually is getting more of a pass from him on sexism than he is getting from her on racism.

Posted by Reality Man | March 14, 2008 11:23 AM

RM makes some good points, albeit with needless polemics. While there may be multiple necessary conditions for a politician's success (so it's pointless to ask "which is it?") I'm inclined to agree that Obama's current success is more attributable to his charisma and his place on the political spectrum than to his race, even if it is conceded that his race is a net plus.

As evidence, consider that Obama's pledged-delegate lead is mainly built on caucuses; to me that means that he appeals to activists more than to the average voter. Since Dem activists tend to skew left (regardless, I think, of race), Obama's relative success in caucuses can more plausibly be attributed to his relative leftishness than to his race. That's where the charisma comes in: Obama is so charismatic that more moderate Dems, as well as Independent and Republican swing voters, might pull the lever for him despite the more centrist positioning of both Clinton and McCain. That possibility is, of course, enhanced in the general by Bush's unpopularity.

The disaster scenario is that Obama secures the nomination based on charisma and caucuses, and then the aura wears off over the summer, sending the Independents and swing Republicans to McCain in the general. It's going to be tricky, over that length of time, to protect the aura as tenaciously as possible without making it obvious that it's all about the aura. But it's high risk/high reward, because if Obama can pull it off, Dem activists will get a President much more to their liking ideologically.

Posted by PJ | March 14, 2008 1:22 PM

It seems to me that everyone is in such a hurry to label a statement as sexist or racist that they don't hear the statement.
Obama's health care plan is a ripoff of Hillary's.
His stance on Irag is bogus(Boston Globe,2004--just after the Democratic Convention--"We must stay in Iraq as long as it takes to insure success"). He has no history of reaching across the isle and working with Republicans. If he were not black, many of his supporters would be looking at this and supporting someone else. However, they got caught up in the enthusiasm of the moment and never looked at the issues.

Posted by Stewart | March 15, 2008 1:17 PM