UH OH: “Barack Obama’s White House campaign lashed out in fury Tuesday after a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter attributed his stunning march through US politics to his race.” But isn’t that a big part of his appeal? Isn’t that what Michelle Obama meant when she said she was finally proud of America?
UPDATE: Reader William Salter says no:
No, I think the phenomenon of Obama is not because of his race, but irrespective of his race. And while it is true that no one would ever say James K. Polk won irrespective of HIS race, and so we do – indeed – still see some aspects of the world in racial terms, there is a world of difference between the race-hustling of a David Duke or Jesse Jackson, and Barack Obama running as someone who happens to be black just as John McCain happens to be white. The truth is, as always, the opposite of anything that comes from the mouth of Geraldine Ferraro: who, other than a candidate expressly making herself out as a victim of sexism while simultaneously running on the virtues of being a spouse, and losing 11 primaries in a row and being behind in delegates and the popular vote, could still be considered viable if she weren’t running as the woman candidate, rather than a candidate that happens to be a woman?
Hmm.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Kingshuk Roy emails: “Why was Obama selected to speak at the 2004 Democratic Convention? At that time he had not yet won his current seat, let alone served a day in the Senate. So, it couldn’t be his experience. What was it that propelled him to national stature at that time, if not his race? I would be curious to hear his answer.”
MORE: Ferraro doubles down:
But far from backing off from her initial remark, Ferraro defended it and elaborated on it.
“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,” Ferraro said. “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”
Plus this, in the WaPo:
There is an unappealing note of whininess to Ferraro’s comment. Is it somehow unfair for Obama to keep being black? But 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.
We’re getting that “national conversation on race” at last!
MORE: Mickey Kaus: “Hillary needed that job. But they had to give it to a minority.” Now for the shot of her hands, crumpling a note from the DNC. Kaus continues: “And if Geraldine Ferraro was Gerald Ferraro, she’d be an unknown hack ex-Congressman, not a pathbreaking former vice-presidential candidate. Now Hillaryite Democrats suddenly feel the unfairness in the logic of race-based affirmative action?”
Reader Ryan emails: “If Geraldine Ferraro were a Republican radio host, she’d have been fired. But, since she’s a NYC liberal, people just disagree with her.”
Or call her thoroughly repugnant.
STILL MORE: Taylor Marsh: “Looking for racism in every moment of a white person’s political campaign is as bad as being racist. No, actually, it is racist.”
Lou Minatti differs: “This is part of the Clinton strategy. Clinton, through Ferraro, is once again making Obama’s skin color an issue for blue collar voters, this time in Pennsylvania.”