The Self-Inflicted Wounds of Geraldine Ferraro
Name a newspaper the Daily Breeze and see what gusts you produce. Former Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro told a reporter there that “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
The country then became caught up in the concept of Ferraro’s condescension, about which more in a jiffy. But since she has accused David Axelrod of the Obama campaign — who pounced on this racialist interpretation of history the way you might expect him to after his own problems with glib campaign advisers — of taking her remark “out of context,” let’s give Ferraro her due and cite her follow-up statements.
On “Good Morning America,” she clarified her position:
“I was talking about historic candidacies and what I started off by saying (was that) if you go back to 1984 and look at my historic candidacy, which I had just talked about all these things, in 1984 if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would have never been chosen as a vice presidential candidate… It had nothing to do with my qualification.”
Which is a fine way of reaffirming the electorate’s overwhelming preference in 1984, as well as abasing oneself in the service of Hillary Clinton. According to Ferraro, Clinton got where she is not by having two X-chromosomes but by possessing rare gifts. As for the candidate’s losses, these are due to a “very sexist media. Some just don’t like her.” (Could they not like Clinton because she’s unlikable?)
But notice how this explanation only contradicts Ferraro’s earlier point that being a woman doesn’t carry quite the same demagogic punch as being a black man. If Ferraro got to run for the second highest office in the land simply because of her sex, how is it that she sees race as the only special pleading accelerator of political success?
(Ferraro’s had trouble with this trope before: In 1988, she let slip went on record saying that a radical candidate like Jesse Jackson could only get as far as he could by virtue of his color.)
Ramesh Ponnuru says: “Ferraro is clearly right as an analytical matter. Some Obama supporters back him because they want to make history–and his race has a lot to do with their belief that he will. It is also the reason he has such strong support from African Americans, without which Clinton would be beating him.”
Red State replies: “I don’t think it is fair to Barack Obama to suggest that he is in the position he is today primarily because of his race. In my view, Barack Obama is beating Hillary Clinton because he knows who he is (read: authentic), and is able to communicate his vision for the United States, flawed as it is, in a way that Hillary could never dream of.”
Marc Ambinder writes of Ferraro’s “How about that?” vituperation: “This kind of stuff doesn’t move votes; it moves eyes off the more important stuff, like Client 9′s and Pennsylvania and Iraq and John McCain … the tongue is only half in cheek. What more is there to say? I suppose an entire theory can be created from this one incident about the theory of white ethnic resentment?”
Michael Weiss is the New York Editor of Pajamas Media.
I believe these comments by Geraldine Ferraro were not racist and Obama himself has also said he would not have been in the senate or hadve a big book deal had he not been black so why is he all of a sudden outrage this information is out there why don’t you guys do research before commenting.
That face really should be in the dictionary next to the definition of “loser.” What a freak of nature.
Shelby Steele in his book, A Bound Man, was correct when he wrote, this presidential race is not about policy but about skin color. I perfectly understand the reaction to Ferraro’s comment. However, it is merely her opinion but she operates in a atmosphere in which she can no longer make personal observations about the political environment unless her comments pass the mustard with the liberal left. How sad! Thanks to the left, we live in an scenario where racism is sought under every rock . . . and they’re looking and listening. Barak Obama is a bound man. He’s beholden to the black left seeking to make the senator’s run about racism in American and he’s beholden to liberal whites who need Obama to declare their innocence from racism. Let’s start listening to Obama and stop looking at the Senator from Illinois. We’re at the point where we have no idea what racism is about anymore. Any negative comments about the policies of Obama will soon be tagged as racist. Can a man of color run for President? I sure hope so. But this reactionary environment is staining the ideal of a man running for president on his character, expertise and policies. I don’t want to see Barak Obama run for president on the merit of his skin color.
Ms. Ferraro’s observations are not racist, but a true reflection of how this country has been held hostage by this type of reflexive labeling.
It serves to move the contents from the arena from honest debate to playground name-calling tactics.
Ms. Ferraro is a courageous person to speak with common sense about the obvious.
the question i have about the whole thing is was it a subtle clinton attack or her own idea.
the statement said the reason he is where is at is because he is black and not because os what he offers.
some whites are hesitant to support a black. even if it is hidden away in their secret doubts and prejudices. and dont kid yourself about that. racial prejudice still lurks below the surface in many.
was this an attempt by clinton to tap that prejudice and still have deniability. in effect to cut off a finger to win the war?
I think that is GIZANUT (I don’t sure how say it in english) to write this things about Ubama.
He elected beacuse he so good, and not because he black
Ferraro is correct when she says a white man with so little experience in the senate who has accomplished nothing while in that position for such a short time would never be considered as a presidential candidate. A woman would have even less a chance. She was speaking the truth and, as happens a lot at this point in time, was labled a racist. I’m glad she has refused to apologize. There is no need for that.
Ms. Ferraro is from a generation and an era in politics of the past . she simply does not grasp or comprehend that what she did is wrong.
Her old style politics is one of the reasons Ronald Regan was re-elected president and we need to learn from her story and not let her and her cronies lead us done this path again.
Even though I am not nor ever a fan of Geraldine, I must give her KUDOS for speaking what many of us AMERICAN’S feel. Thank you Geraldine. It is really a sad time in AMERICA, when certain groups can say what they want about any group, but LORD help us if we say anything negative about that one group. SHAME ON HILLARY from not supporting those who support her. Hillary you can count on me for not VOTING FOR YOU. HILLARY go home and not to ARKANSAS.
Geraldine Ferraro didn’t say anything wrong. Being in the right place at the right time, which may include being black or being a woman is extremely important in politics and is used all the time to capitalize on any campaign in a given era or time. That is really all that was said, unfortunately the Obama camp turn everything into It’s a Racial comment, as that way they intimidate people from commenting on their unexperienced candidate, god forbid he should actually have to be asked about something. Asked About His Foreign Policy Experience, Top Obama Advisor Cites His Work On Ethics Reform. wow! They really don’t have anything to offer oh yeah I forgot HOPE!
If Obama loses the nomination to Clinton in superdelegate circumstances, his defeat may well go on to produce two outcomes, one expected, one as yet not mooted anywhere:
1)His outraged supporters will not vote for Hillary; McCain will be POTUS….
2)Far far more likely is that Obama will run as an Independent; he really doesn’t need a Party behind him!
Look carefully at 2) folks and think to yourselves: what support would Obama have were he NOT a Democrat? Why, the same as he has now. People aren’t voting with their cash and their feet for Obama the Democrat; It’s all about Obama the black-outsider man!
And that would cause America to have a TRULY VIABLE Third Party Candidate for the first time ever. Even with the established Parties against him he would have a solid chance!
Can you imagine an Independent POTUS? I can! THE OUTSIDER PARTY!
What’s more I think that it’s a Party that could have legs for more than one or two cycles!