Ferraro on Obama: ‘in this position’ because he’s black. (UPDATED)
From the Dept. of Tit for Tat: “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.” Last week, Geraldine Ferraro delivered that gem to the Daily Breeze of southern California (great name for a paper). Now some in the Obama camp are looking for a little payback (H/T TPM). (And that wasn’t the first time she’s said that sort of thing. I recently heard a clip of her on John Gibson’s radio show in which she delivered the same line, emphasizing that she was the first to point out that Mondale picked her because she’s a woman.) Obama adviser David Axlerod is calling for Ferraro to be removed from her role as a fundraiser for the Clinton campaign–a “Hillaraiser” in Clintonspeak. Ferraro has described herself as a member of Clinton’s finance committee. When asked about Ferraro’s comments, Clinton rejected them, saying the campaigns ought to stick to the issues. Good idea.
UPDATE: Clinton campaign manager: Obama campaign is playing the race card. Up-is- downism lives! TPM has the story.
UPDATE 2: Ferraro defends Obama comments–“I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white.” (H/T TPM) That’s pretty worrying.
UPDATE 3: Ben Smith points out that Ferraro had similar words for Jesse Jackson’s campaign, as reported in a 1988 Washington Post article:
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.”
Meanwhile, has anyone seen the cover of the March 1 Tablet of London?
I’m disappointed in my old fellow New Yorker. Is she trying to get back into some sort of political major position? -I hardly think that’s the way.
I can’t help but think of the Richard Rodriguez perspective that we’re all to some degree “brown”, only some of us (a lot?) want to be white to distinguish ourselves from the rest of this growing multicultural nation.
More Democrat shot yourself in the foot stuff instead…
It is distressing to hear an important Democrat saying things like this, not because they are racist (although I suppose some might think they are) but because they are pointless and stupid.
I was dismayed to see Obama’s friends depicted as sprayers of graffiti. Despite being an informative weekly, sometimes the Tablet does not evaluate the American scene accurately. Of course, the covers of Commonweal sometimes mislead, too. I was told that the purpose of the front cover is to catch the eye, not necessarily to represent the thrust of the article.
Joe McMahon
Ferraro is representing the “old order” Democratic Party that needs to retire. Her blatant bias for Clinton renders any objectivity that she might claim to be invalid.
I think that usually The Tablet portrays a better picture of the US church and politics that can make many Americans uncomfortable.
How’s this for clear thinking! In a follow up in the Breeze, Ferraro says:
Yup, if Obama was a white male, we would not be having all this talk of a historic first, or maybe the only talk of historic firsts would be coming from camp Clinton. But of course, Ferraro was saying much more than mere speculation on what would be happening if Obama were whte. Let’s be clear,Ferraro was claiming that Obama’s accomplishments were the result of his skin color; not his hard work, not his ideas, not his actions.
Joe,
The original statement from the article was as follows:
So it wasn’t solely his skin color she was talking about, otherwise she wouldn’t have that if he were a woman, no matter what his skin color, he wouldn’t be where he is.
In any case, it’s a perfectly senseless thing to say, since if Barack Obama were white, he wouldn’t be Barack Obama, and if he were a black woman or a white woman, he certainly wouldn’t be Barack Obama.
One might argue that if Barack Obama were a space alien and Hillary Clinton were a Hobbit, it would be a very different race, and that’s about as much sense as Ferraro’s initial statement made. She has made an idiot out of herself, and everything she says makes it worse.
David: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Ferraro’s initial comment amounted to nothing other than, “If Obama were a white man, he would not be a black man.” I think she herself tried to reduce her words to this in the follow up. However, I guess I see her original statement as intending much more than such patent foolishness.
I am pretty sure that if Barack Obama were white he would not be in this position to be sure — he would already be the declared nominee. The closest parallel is William J. Clinton, and then, before that John F. Kennedy, neither of whom had decades of foreign policy experience. If Barack Obama were white, he would have won more women voters, and especially so if Hillary Clinton were not female. Think back to every white male D nominee in the last 100 years. Name one who combined both experience and charisma. The only one that occurs to me is FDR.
I doubt if Geraldine Ferraro has complained in the past about the voting habits of African Americans that have overwhelmingly favored Democrats. In my estimation, there at least six states that are significantly affected by this pattern: Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois. Which one of these could Hillary Clinton afford to lose? Would she ever have become first lady, thus propelling her current candidacy, without them?
The problem with defining a view solely through the lens of race and gender is that it distorts all the surrounding images.
Ferraro is certainly off here and she probably knows it. She is willingly to throw something out there hoping it might help her candidate. The real question is whether Obama would be where he is if it were not for Clinton’s negatives. There is a good argument for calling him the “Stop Hillary” candidate. Secondly, it could be asked how much did he benefit by having to run against two candidates in Edwards and Hillary.
Having said that it may also be noteworthy that Grant was silent when Hardball loud mouth, Chris Matthews, said that Hillary is in the position she is in only because of Monicagate. But then, again, all is fair in love and war and…politics which makes the strangest bedfellows.
Finally, what a different image Barack emits when he is assuring everyone that he is running for president not vice-president. Suddenly, ambition should be made of sterner stuff…Seems the cadence is taking a beating once he stops reading from the monitor.
Is the bloom coming off the rose if ever so slightly? How he acts when he is hit hard is very important. Better to find out now than when Karl Rove and his boys start firing.
This is worth a look. It’s Josh Marshall’s take on the post-Ferraro-remark controversy
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/182937.php
Here’s how it begins:
It seems to me that Obama’s being black does indeed add several factors to his extremely impressive portfolio of qualifications. First — if he became president he would be a role model for the alienated black youth, and, second, his very face would show the world that Americans are not the wall-to-wall racists some paint us as. And it’s true, I think, that he will encourage black Democrats to vote.
But all of those advantages are far, far outweighed by his other positive characteristics.
Slightly off-topic, but here’s a plug for factcheck.org, sponsored by the Annenberg Foundation, which checks out political ad claims. I use it in class a lot during election years. Ferraro’s comments haven’t been parsed, but other race/gender issues have been picked up.
Here’s one about claims that Michelle Obama’s image was altered in a Clinton ad to make her skin look darker.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/did_clinton_darken_obamas_skin.html
Pettitcheck.her (the official designation for all heretical websites) notes that the ad in question featured Barack Obama, not his wife Michelle.
Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice the politics of IP (Identity Politics … OK, it’s redundant, but apt)
… as a Republican, the only thing more fun for me than all of this would have been for Elliot Spitzer to remain as NY governor (I’m assuming he’ll resign soon) so he could go to the Democratic convention as the media’s poster child for superdelegates–can you imagine the Saturday Night Live spoofs or David Letterman’s Top 10 reasons why Spitzer supports Hillary (Reason No. 3: Hillary let Bill fool around at home so he didn’t have to buy a train ticket … Reason No. 7: If Hillary gets elected President, Spitzer’s wife can become senator as her ‘reward’ for loyalty …)
Saddly, that’s not to be–but at least the exit polls now show that more and more Hillary/Obama supporters are announcing that they will NOT support the other if their candidate does not win … while Republicans are increasingly quite pleased with McCain (and liberals should thank McCain since he is proving that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are really quite irrelevant …)
Robert, thanks for giving everyone a timely reminder that the Republican Party owes its modern existence to its ability to capitalize on and perpetuate racism.
Why doesn’t anyone quote Michelle Obama’s remarkd that “for the first time I can say I am proud to be an American.” Obama’s staff quickly put a spin on it. Very bad stuff. But she is allowed to say. Yet every possible wrong slant is put on …..
Barbara,
How DARE you accuse me or anyone else of racism! If race plays a role in this, then it is the Democratic party that is at fault–like all those liberals in Boston who started rioting when forced busing came to town. Moreover, I noted that BOTH Hillary AND Obama’s supporters are getting fed up with each other–there is nothing necesarily racist in that, unless you choose to read race into it. And then I suppose the Obama supporters are all male chauvenists? Or is that somehow the Republicans fault as well?
The Republican party owes its existence to OPPOSING slavery, SUPPORTING women’s rights (the right to vote)–issues that the Democrats were on the wrong side of historically. Modern Republicans do not agree with the Democrats that we need more and more and more government intrusion to solve racial issues–but that hardly makes them racists (*except in denmocratic propoganda) while the Democrats owe their modern existence to the identity politics that divide and weaken our nation, and which are coming home to roost in an election that they thought was a sure thing.
Face it–your side is blowing it, live and on TV … so of course you play the race card (Oh, those eveil republicans–somehow this is all their doing!) … but the fault lies both in the Democrats themselves AND in their (political) stars!
Ferraro’s remarks were pointless and stupid, but it would be foolish to pretend race is playing no part in selecting the Democratic presidential nominee. And it would be even more foolish to pretend it will play no part in the general election.
I rarely agree with Maureen Dowd, but today she says:
It is, of course, true, as Obama said on the Today Show this morning, that historically it has not been an advantage to be black if you are seeking the presidency. It hasn’t been a help to be a woman, either. But who can deny that Obama is being helped by blacks voting for him and that Hillary is being helped by women voting for her?
As I said before, Ferraro’s remarks were so silly you have to interpret them to comment on them. What could it really mean to speculate how well or how poorly Obama would be doing if he were white or if he were a woman? But it seems to me people are interpreting stupid remarks in foolish ways and then pouncing on them as if they deserved comment. Meanwhile, there is little intelligent discussion of race, and there’s little or no discussion of any real issues.
The issue at hand is NOT whether or not Obama has received special attention, or even received votes because of his skin color. No doubt, both of these things are true. The issue is Ferraro’s use of a patently racist canard; namely, that black people who have succeeded in life succeed only because of special breaks that have received because of their skin color.
In our society today, most black people, and especially black men, are guilty until proven innocent. They are stigmatized by the public perception of the violence, crime, unemployment, and other difficulties that characterize a small but visible percentage of the black community. Black men and women cannot win. When they fail, it is to be expected of them. When they succeed, they are told it is because of special privileges granted to them. Never can they just be humans with skills and values who try hard.
The fact that this conversation, and that columnists like Dowd, can retreat again and again into the “But he does get special treatment because he black,” is an indication of just how difficult it is for many to understand some of the unique difficulties that confront blacks in the United States.
One last thought: the cover of The Tablet shows how deeply entrenched the stigma connected to blacks and black men really is.
Good thing pettitcheck.her is on the ball. I’m dope-slappin’ myself right now.
Robert makes some good points about the once-enlightened views of the GOP. And to that I would add Teddy Roosevelt’s trust-busting and concern for working conditions at a time when those issues weren’t even popular with his own party.
As far as “blowing it live and on TV,” I think the Republicans gave us a good example of that with Mitt Romney, who claimed to be for “change,” which, in one of the debates’ lighter moments, made John McCain laugh out loud, given Romney’s flip-flops on various issues.
It’s true that in the past several elections, Republicans have run more decorous campaigns than Democrats. That means you don’t get the slugfest you get with Democrats; you get people who are so ultra-managed and coached by handlers like Karl Rove that you could end up with a moron in the White House who does the bidding of special interests pulling strings behind the scenes. Theoretically speaking, of course.
I’m a disenchanted Democrat, and if I thought the GOP truly believed in less government, I’d be persuaded to cross over. However, the Republican party, as embodied by George W. Bush and John McCain, show every willingness to sink all kinds of government interference and money into intrusive projects under the guise of “homeland security” or lucrative military contracts to big biz.
Whatever happened to those good GOP guys like Warren Rudman who talked about balanced budgets and not trying to police the whole wide world?
But we were speaking of Geraldine Ferraro, who needs to be sent to her room and think about what she said.
Jean,
But the Republicans did not nominate Romney or even come close to nominating him … and today’s GOP doesn’t want to police the “whole wide wordl”–just those fanatical, uncivilized parts of the world that came over here and attacked us (though certainly France could use some policing from time to time)
But she didn’t say that! A Times story also characterized Ferraro’s remarks as meaning Obama “received preferential treatment because he is a black man.” She didn’t say that either. She is quoted correctly in the story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/us/politics/12campaign.html?hp
As I have said several times, Ferraro’s remarks are stupid. But I don’t think she’s so stupid as to say someone has an advantage in running for president because there is some kind of “affirmative action” for black candidates.
She did not make any kind of generalization about black people. She made a specific remark about a specific person.
Just two points:
1)in more recentyears, the GOP post LBJ ,followed a “southern strategy” that was anti-civil rights and was quite succesful. It continues on under the garb of not having too much “big government intrusion.” (None of that excuses Gerry Ferao’s dopey remarks or any other race card played in the current campaign by members of both parties,)
2) Joe P. is right abou the curent problems of blacks still as some of this thread makes evident!
Joe,
What you said is exactly why many conservatives, like me, find liberal identity politics so frustrating. It’s true that Obama got special attention because he is black, but you play the race card, or are even racist, if you say so. The supposed cannard you said Ferraro was engaged in is, you must admit, completely your extrapolation of her comments. I am not saying it is an unreasonable extrapolation, but it is an interpretation of her intent. I found it to be more a comment on kid glove treatment and his lack of experience, but I wouldn’t vote for Obama if he was my brother. Then again, is it more of a problem to get your political entree because of your race or because you married well?
Bob,
I get really tired of hear this whole “southern strategy” makes the GOP racist garbage. Granted, a lot of southern whites who were upset about the civil rights movement and certainly more than a few were racist, but they are still Americans, and they still get to vote. Who were they and any souther conservative, racist or not, going to vote for in 1972? McGovern? The GOP didn’t need to become racist to get their votes, their party left them behind on almost every issue. Yes, Richard Nixon should have gone to Alabama and told them he didn’t want their tainted votes.
As for being anti-civil rights, how do you figure that? Without the GOP, there would have been no civil rights bills in the 60′s. What specific policies did the GOP promote that were anti-civil rights?
Has anyone read my updates to this post? David Nickol, I’m looking at you. Ferraro said Obama is in this position because he is a black man. What do you think “this position” refers to? It’s more than stupid. It’s insulting. Ferraro said something similar of Jesse Jackson’s candidacy in 1988. What do you make of that? Also just stupid? Also just about another specific person? And what do you make of her claim that she is being criticized because she is white? She’s digging in, David. It’s weird and–as I said–worrying.
Sean,
What a lot of Democrats mean when they say the GOP is anti-civil rights is that the GOP opposes the racial preferences in affirmitive action programs and opposes expanding the current civil rights laws to fight what they call “institutional racism” (i.e., it’s all the fault of Society and “white privilege” even if there are very few overt racists still around) and in general is not thrilled by the so-called “diversity” movement. To win votes, they demagogue racial issues and try to make it seem as if America has made no progress at all since Selma (except, of course, when Democrats are in charge–but foolish Americans keep voting those sneaky Republicans back into office, who then undo all the good the Dems have done …)
The issue of Obama and race is an incredibly tricky one … Obama is doing well because he is a tremendous speaker with a message of hope that promises to transcend race and help unify the country–but part of the reason he is so credible on that possibility is that his whole life is an example of transcending race and unifying cultures … we think of him as possibly the first Black president, yet he is in fact half-black and half white … if he were running for president of an African nation, would they consider him possibly their first White president?
Most importantly, though, I think, Obama has done his best to NOT run as a racial candidate–it’s Hillary who talks about the possibility of history being made, so as to somehow link her chances as the first woman president with his as being the first “black” president, but I do not recall Obama himself speaking in those terms (if I’m wrong about this, please cite some examples–and they would need to be things he’s said as often as Hillary as said them) … most if not all of the comments about race are coming from people other than Obama himself, and some of those comments are being used deliberately as a potential wedge to identify Obama as the “black” candidate so as to marginalize him .
I refuse to continue useless debate and spin on race in politics -we’ll let the historians jdge how much race enterred into the post LBJ activity – not the eqaully if no tmore so biased right.
But oversimplifoications about “denagoguing” or no progress since Selma do little except express that bias.
Grant,
I ask this in all seriousness. Do you really think that a white man, or a woman, who had less than seven years in a state legislature, ran effectively unopposed for the Senate, was there less than a year, would generate presidential buzz?
I grant, enthusiastically, that Obama is an extraordinarily talented orator and politician. I wouldn’t vote for him in a million years, but their is no gainsaying his abilities. I also am not that concerned over a “lack of experience.” I don’t think many of the candidates, including any who are still running, have any experience that really matters all that much. Besides, my favorite president, Lincoln, lacked in the experience department. My fear is that we don’t know much about him since he hasn’t been on the stage all that long and has been fawned over rather than reported upon by the media. All that being said, his race clearly has played some role in his quick rise. Whether it is novelty, white liberal guilt, consolidation of the black vote, or whatever, it has clearly made some difference. Is it a critical difference? I don’t know. Maybe he is just that good.
Do you think George Bush would have become Governor of Texas without being the President’s son? Mrs. Bill Clinton would be running if she wasn’t Mrs. Bill Clinton? There is frequently something, other than talent, that places someone in the fore.
Here is a young college student who has it right. A few have pointed it out above. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6270489126175632993&postID=7365979151856451384&page=1
The point is that Ferrara should not have said what she said but she was accurate.
No white candidate with the shallow record which Barack has would not have been even on the ballot. If your point is that you want to make this an affirmative action case then you have a case. But never when it pertains to the presidency.
Bob Nunz,
Incoherence is not an argument–nor is trying to smear people with unsupportable insinuations of racial bias. Discuss and debate the topics at hand, don’t hide behind political cliches.
Now, now, Robert, let’s not go France-bashing.
I don’t like their food, fashion, their current prez, or their weird law about Muslim women and head coverings, and for that I think we should take away all their McDonald’s franchises and let them eat creme brule.
But they’ve got full health coverage (including dental) for every citizen, plus a year’s worth of paid maternity leave, which, in my view, speaks to the well-being of French citizens. Whereas pounding millions of bucks a month into the rathole of Iraq does nothing, to further my welfare as far as I can see.
Figures from an AARP study a couple of years ago indicated that that many more thousands of Americans die from lack of health care than from terrorist attacks. Though I will admit that not having good health care is some incentive to stay off the Freedom Fries.
I agree that Obama has tried hard not to play the race card, and I respect him for that. I think it’s interesting that he yanked the aid who called Hillary a “monster,” but Hillary’s allowing the whole race issue to continue to roil by not curbing Ferraro’s big mouth.
Now, when is McCain going to wise up (or stop pretending to be so dumb that he doesn’t understand) about Hagee’s nutty comments? Or refuse to respond to supporters who want to know “how are we going to beat the bitch?”
And, Sean, do I think GW Bush would have become Guv of Tex (much less Prez of US) without being GHW Bush’s son? No, indeedy, I do not.
Would Hillary be running if she wasn’t Mrs. Bill Clinton? I think so, though whether’s Bill’s big mouth and her role as injured wife have hurt or helped her will be argued by political historians for decades.
Oh, Jean–such a great divide separates us that perhaps even Obama could not bridge it … I DO like French food, fashion, Sarkozy and ESPECIALLY their very gutsy law about protecting Muslim women from patriarchal oppression.
But most impoirtantly–I do not view the cost of the Iraq war has “doing nopthing to further my welfare” because I do not see the government or its spending priorities as playing any role in my welfare (beyond the most basic services–defending the border, sniffing out the tainted meat, filling the potholes, etc.,) that are enjoyed by ALL Americans, as opposed to the individual, special interests of the welfare state system.
Also, McCain probably does not need to do anything about Hagee and his comments–where but on websites such as this is ANYBODY even talking about that issue? Perhaps they should be–but they aren’t. Face it–bashing Catholics has rarely cost many votes in America, even when such views actually threatened Catholics (which today, they do not)
I agree that Hillary would be running if she weren’t Mrs. Clinton–but she wouldn’t be running for presdient (perhaps for Congress, maybe even for senator … but the only thing that vaulted her into national politics and a shot at the White House was her prominence as First Lady). Fortunately, Bill’s ego is larger than his desire to see Hillary win … indeed, he might even secretly want her to lose–since then he could rub it in (concern for her feelings or her well-being has never been his strongest trait)
Re: McCain and Hagee
As I suspected, a recent search of “McCain” and “Hagee” on Google News produced only 336 hits, mostly from small news outlets … the word “Britney” (as in Spears) produces more than 16,300 … NO ONE is talking about the issue.
I think this would all be behind us if Ferraro had followed her initial comments with something like this: “I sincerely regret that some have interpreted my remarks about Sen. Obama to mean that his success is the result of preferential treatment that he has received because of his skin color. As a woman, I understand how corrosive and demeaning such ideas can be.” Unfortunately, she has not done this. I personally think that she meant to imply that Obama’s success was the result of preferential treatment, not that he has received such treatment.
I reject the notion that this is about identity politics in any bad sense. Our country is not colorblind, nor sex/gender blind and to imply that everything we say should be interpreted as if it were being considered within a colorblind context is unrealistic and counterproductive to reducing the inequalities that persist.
Let me also be clear that this is not a left/right issue. Ferraro is a Democrat. I believe that self-respecting and intelligent black people can be Republicans, in fact, I can even see some very good reasons why blacks might be Republicans. However, if certain assumptions persist in our society about the inferior abilities of nonwhites or women, it is imperative that we do what we can to avoid perpetuating those assumptions. Ferraro has allowed an insidious assumption to burst forth in the light of day, and that requires a response.
There is nothing wrong with people embracing Obama because of what he is able to represent as a result of his skin color. Many of us hunger for a society that can finally transcend race. That people are will to give Obama breaks that they might not give to a white guy is not a sign of unjustifiable preferential treatment. It is running with an opportunity that has great potential and which does not seem to come along very often in our country.
Joe:
OK, so you reject the “bad sense” of identity politics … now please explain what is the possible “good sense” of a blatantly political tactic that seeks to divide rather than unite, to stress problems over accomplishments, and all for the dubious purpose of winning more votes for the person promoting identity politics?
Also: “I personally think that she meant to imply that Obama’s success was the result of preferential treatment, not that he has received such treatment.” Is there a word or two missing here?
Robert,
I hope Barbara will weigh in here, since she wrote something brilliant on “identity politics” not too long ago.
Is running white, Protestant males not a kind of “identity politics”? And if you happen to be black, or a woman, or a Jew, how far do you want to go in distancing yourself from your identity to avoid “identity politics”?
It seems to me Obama is very much NOT running a campaign that says, “Vote for me because I’m black.” And even thought Hillary has at times said, basically, “Vote for me, I will be the first woman president,” how divisive is it to try to appeal to more than half the population? Men run for president by being men and especially “family men.” In fact, as we’ve seen with Spitzer today, men even resign from office as “family men.”
Robert: I am not sure what you are getting at in the first sentence. However, it does seem that you are wondering how identity politics could be a good thing, so let me try. If one believes that deep racial inequality persists in our country, as I do, and if one believes that trying to think about society in a way that pretends to be blind to such issues of race is unrealistic, makes matters worse, and works to the advantage of those who already receive the most benefits in society, as I do, then one must include explicit attention to concerns of race in one’s political analysis. So, basically, two claims are necessary for race to be a relevant political issue:
1) Significant racial inequality endures in the U.S.
2) Trying to do politics by pretending otherwise only makes things worse
Now, I also believe that Democrats and Republicans can agree with both of these claims, although they will likely come to different conclusions about what should be done to reduce racial inequality. However, I also think that a lot of folks who complain about double standards are guilty of trying to pretend that politics can be done without attention to race, and so they perpetuate #2.
I find much of interest in the writings of Shelby Steele and John McWhorter, two black authors widely perceived to be conservative. I once gave my students (99% of whom are black) an extra credit assignment – find constructive criticism of John McWhorter on the web. I had tried and failed, and was doubtful they could succeed (we were reading McWhorter’s Winning the Race: Beyond the Crisis in Black America). They also failed, and (here is what the assignment was really intended to show) were really shocked by how much nasty name calling was directed at McWhorter by other blacks. They were also impressed by how many black websites had positive things to say about McWhorter. Point is, I have no interest in racial identity politics that is all about whose side you are on. I am only interested in thoughtful discussions.
Now, as for your second paragraph, I will try to be clearer. I think that Ferraro meant to do more than claim that Obama had simply received special and preferential treatment because of his skin color, a claim I do not deny, nor do I think Obama would deny it. I think, despite David Nickol’s protestations to the contrary, that she meant to imply that his achievements in life were the result of preferential treatment, not ability, hard work, etc.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-ferraro13mar13,1,4732563.story
I still maintain it’s not what she said, but rather it’s all how you interpret what she said. The above is a quote from an article in the LA Times. Is it really racist or offensive to say Obama is “benefiting from his status as the first African American perceived as having a chance to win the presidency”? I can’t document this right now, but I believe it’s correct that initially black voters were somewhat wary of Obama, and one of the reasons was they were concerned he couldn’t win. (And another concern was that he wasn’t “black enough.”) I think it was only after Obama began to look like he had a real chance at being president that there was a surge in black support.
While I was looking things up on the web, I came across this beginning paragraph of a USA Today story:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-09-obamademographics_N.htm
Is that racist?
It has historically, of course, not been to anyone’s advantage to be a woman or to be black (or any other minority) and to run for president. That is the question I saw Obama address on the Today Show. But I I don’t believe Farraro meant that at all. It is to Obama’s advantage, now that he has proved himself a viable candidate, to be getting a huge percentage of the black vote, because almost all blacks are Democrats (and for good reason, I might add). It is probably also to his advantage at the moment that his opponent is a woman. It will probably not be to Obama’s advantage to be a black man running against a white man in the general election, but of course that is not what Ferraro said.
David: I am having real difficulty following your argument. First you say that what Ferraro said was silly and stupid; now you seem to be suggesting that it makes perfect sense. I also think that you have to stretch somewhat to avoid seeing Ferraro’s claims as an indictment of the facts as they stand. In other words, she seemed to be wishing for a world that was not so “caught up” in Barack Obama.
As for interpreting her claims, I grant that mine is an interpretation, but she is only making things worse by indicting those who interpret her claims the way I have. Instead, she should respect both the fact that an intepretation like mine is not a difficult one to have, and second that those who follow this interpretation would have good reason for being upset.
David,
The proof is in the pudding. Despite Obama’s efforts to NOT run a divisive campaign, the Democrats as a party have spent too many years practicing identity politics for Obama to succeed at that — thus, the Democrats are fracturing along racial and gender lines. Read the news arctiles, watch the boradcasts–I am not alone in seeing this or saying it.
And Joe, I strongly disagree with the sentiment behind both your statements: 1) Significant racial inequality endures in the U.S. 2) Trying to do politics by pretending otherwise only makes things worse … at least, the sentiment that suggests somehow this inequality is a problem that the government needs to fix. No it does not–overt segregation WAS a government-created problem that the government needed to remedy, and it did. Today, there are NO laws on the books that deny anyone the right to vote, own a home, gte a job, etc., as there once were.
But the “professional civil rights establishment” would be out of a job if they couldn’t find some other supposed cause, so we get things like “institutional racism” or the need for “diversity” or make-beliebe problems such as the idea that requiring voters to prove their dientity witha driver’s license is somehow “racist” … we have made tremendous strides in the past 40 years, far more than most countries or societies can dream of … so much so that we now experience the rather unique phenomenon of reverse discrimination.
And I storgly, strongly, strongly believe that the ONLY way to avoid racial discrimination is to outright stop discriminating by race–as various Supreme Court justices, other judges, academics, etc., have all concluded. You can us all racists–many do–but that does not make it so.
You can call us all racists–many do–but that does not make it so.
Robert: At least we know where we disagree; I hope that much is constructive. Also, when I said that Republicans and Democrats would disagree on what to do after affirming both 1 and 2, I had in mind much of your second paragraph. While I think that your last paragraph probably puts you in the camp of those I worry about in #2, I certainly do not think one is racist for taking the position you take. To believe that taking the position you affirm makes things worse than they need be is just another way of saying I disagree with your position.
Joe,
That’s a far more positive and constructive view than many take–good for you!
Robert, unless you are the personification of the Republican Party I was not ascribing any bias to you. Not everyone in the Republican Party is a racist, and not every racist is a member of the Republican Party. But that’s not the same as saying that the Party as a whole has not benefited from appealing to racism. Lee Atwater and Harry Dent made it their life’s calling to do pretty much exactly that.
What you said above about Barack Obama at 11:55 a.m. strikes me as true and insightful.
Regarding identity politics, I might have written something brilliant, and I suspect it goes like this: For all intents and purposes, using the term identity politics is a little like using the term value voters. It is highly biased in that it assumes that white politicians and the whites who vote for them are not engaged in identity politics, whereas all non-white and non-male candidates that are voted for preferentially by those who share their biology are engaging in identity politics. So when Barack Obama uses the cadences of black ministers, he is engaging in identity politics of appealing to blacks. Whereas, when George Bush strikes the cadences of the southern cowboy, he’s just a good old boy who appeals to one and all.
It’s to give a presumption of neutrality and universal appeal to a politician because he is male and white.
Which brings me to Geraldine Ferraro: One could look at Barack Obama from a number of different angles. He’s young. He’s male. He’s obviously well-educated, maybe even brilliant. He has charisma. Indeed, he falls pretty clearly in the William J. Clinton and JFK mold — but Geraldine Ferraro can’t see him like that; she sees only that he is Black.
That Hillary Clinton’s supporters can’t see these parallels (or the parallels that she brings — to Adlai Stevenson, or to Nixon or George H.W. Bush, with her claims to intelligence and experience) is stunning. Or maybe they do see them and can’t admit to them. That they would subject him to the kind of hateful tactics that the Clintons themselves endured is just sad.
Joe,
No, I still maintain that what Ferraro said was silly–if Obama were white, or if he were a woman of any color, he would not be where he is today. I am trying to figure out what Obama would look like and sound like if he were a white man or, especially, a white woman. As I said, you can’t take the remark at face value. You have to be able to read her mind, or you have to interpret what it meant. The interpretation in the LA Times makes sense. Is it the correct interpretation? I don’t know.
My personal reading is that Ferraro is bitter that people seem to be much more excited about the prospect of having a black president than they do of having a woman president. And I can’t find any statistics, but I believe black women are voting heavily for Obama, when I assume Ferraro feels that all women, no matter their race, should be voting for Hillary. I base that on her saying, “And the country is caught up in the concept.” That is, the country is caught up in the concept of a black man being president, but it is not caught up in the concept of a woman being president. Awhile back we had a thread on dotCommonweal about which would be more historic. It does seem obvious to me that it would be more historic for a black man to be president, so it’s understandable that the “country would be caught up in the concept.” I think Ferraro is upset because Hillary appears to be losing, but I think she is making a fool of herself and making things worse for Hillary.
And I think there has been far too much attention paid to her remarks. I would rather hear a lot more about the economy and universal health care. She shouldn’t have said what she said, and the Obama campaign should have either ignored her or dismissed her as an old-style Washington insider. And if they wanted to be harsher, they could have called her a loser.
I am growing tired of both Obama and Hillary, and we still have five months to go until the convention!
The Tablet article is very good and very interesting, written by Bernadette Farrell, one of Saul Alinsky’s UK disciples. It also seems to be free and available to all at the moment:
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/issues/1000089
though you do have to register, even for free articles.
I’d agree that the spray painting cover is unfortunate. Perhaps it’s read differently in Britain (cultural differences, etc.) . What’s also a bit of hype is the claim on the cover saying that Obama’s social agenda shows a Catholic influence; that does not appear to be a claim that Farrell makes. Alinsky, as I remember, had close ties to Chicago Catholics in the days when many of them were deeply interested in, and working in, community organization and social change (for all I know, maybe they still are, despite the current efforts both of the secular press, aided and abetted by some Catholic leaders, to portray American Catholicism as a single-issue constituency). And there were those who used to say that Alinsky was influenced by Catholic teachings on social justice. So the Catholic influence on Obama, going back to his days as a Chicago community organiser, may be there, but I don’t read Farrell as trying to make the case.
So read the article; it says a lot about Obama and his views of the ways in which change can take place, based on his Chicago experience; and it tells you a lot that the US press does not seem to think it worth its while to report.
Hmmm, Robert, perhaps we should enact a law that “protected” Catholic nuns who elected to wear the veil from patriarchal oppression? My Muslim women students WANT their head covering to a) connect them with their traditions and b) because they feel that dressing modestly commands respect from others. I don’t get the sense that they’re being forced by anybody to dress as their faith dictates.
Would that my non-Muslim students would do the same. I weary of telling the girls to pull their hip-huggers up or their crop tops down in back because they’re showing too much, erm, cleavage.
We do agree on basic services government should provide (potholes, border protection, meat inspection), and I am not arguing for universal health care necessarily (though I would say that the uninsured who drive up health care costs generally with ER admits and expensive crisis care that they can’t pay for DO affect the majority of Americans). My main point, however, is that the French seem more focused on the well-being of their citizenry than in feeding young people to a phony war.
Not quite sure what you mean about McCain and Hagee–ignore it because it’s not registering on anybody’s radar and Catholic bashing doesn’t matter? Isn’t separating oneself from hate-mongers the right thing to do?
Ferraro is taking a lot of flak for even suggesting that race has something to do with Obama’s campaign, and rightly so. Why isn’t Hagee catching flak with his Whore of Babylon rhetoric?
OK, I’ve been playing on here too much for today, but always fun to lock horns with you.
Look, what she said is a little bit like saying, “If JFK weren’t Catholic he wouldn’t be where he is.” Did JFK get the Catholic vote without having to do too much work for it? Probably. Was being Catholic an unqualified asset? Ask Al Smith — not so much. In many ways, you could say that JFK broke the religion barrier, Clinton broke the baby boomer (draft dodger?) barrier, and eventually, it was destined that someone would break the Black barrier. That hardly means that the “barrier” is their defining quality without which they would not have gotten where they did. Indeed, if you think about it like that it seem like quite an illogical statement.
To tell the truth as much as we assert that we are rational, emotions prevail. The Obama supporters come down one way and Clinton supporters have a different take. As the saying goes: “the bitterness of friends is sweet and the sweetness of enemies is bitter.”
No matter how you slice it….
I found Barbara’s brilliant post on identity politics.
Actually, my whole point is that if you read what she said, it was quite an illogical statement:
You might say that if a Studebaker Station Wagon had been a Red Corvette Convertible, it would have been one of the most popular cars on the road. Or if George Washington had been a black woman, this would be just another Democratic presidential primary. Or if John McCain were a space alien, his age would not be a factor.
I think we all happen to be very lucky to be who we are, otherwise we wouldn’t be ourselves.
As someone who will likely not vote for either Senator Clinton or Obama, I must say this whole thing puzzles me. Isn’t Senator Obama *supposed* to receive favorable treatment on account of his race? I can say with absolute certainty that both these Senators agreed with the outcome of Grutter v. Bollinger. Why all the outrage?
David, I understand the point that you are making, but you are avoiding her underlying point, which is not that any of us wouldn’t be here if we weren’t who we are, it’s that his success is attributable to a very specific personal characteristic: He would not be a doctor if he had not gone to medical school; he would not have gone to medical school if he had not gone to college; he would not have gone to college without a scholarship; etc. Ergo: Obama would not be a successful candidate for president if he were not black.
It suggests that his other personal traits are an inadequate explanation for his success, and my point is, his other personal traits are in fact highly correlated with the type of people who have been highly successful candidates in the past. He also happens to be black, which is a really good thing in some parts of the country, and not such a good thing in others, much as JFK’s catholicism was both an asset and a liability. After all, he barely won the presidency, and some would argue that he would not have won it without Mayor Daley’s special help.
The comparisons with JFK and Clinton, on closer inspection are really far fetched. Both of them spent years openly preparing for the presidency. Clinton was governor and JFK served six years in the house and 8 years as a Senator. Obama is not even a Senator for 4 years. Etc, etc.
The comparisons simply do not work.
Does anyone think that John McCain would be the Republican candidate if he hadn’t spent five years as a POW in Hanoi?
Margaret,
Probably not. However, that is something he actually experienced, more accurately endured, and he did it on behalf of his country. So rather than being an irrlevancy, it is a qualification. To my mind, it’s a little like asking would George Washington have been president if he hadn’t defeated the British at Yorktown?
Barbara,
As I keep saying, I don’t think Ferraro’s statements can be discussed without being interpreted, and I think we are all interpreting differently based on how we feel about Obama and Clinton. I will point out that Ferraro always says Obama wouldn’t be where he is if he were a white man or a woman of any color. Nobody, as far as I know, has explained how the latter part fits into the theory that she is making a racist remark.
I think we have to remember that Ferraro is speaking as someone with a huge emotional investment in the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, and she is not going to be at all objective about Obama’s qualifications. I personally don’t know what she means, and I am not convinced she knows what she means. It all seems very emotional to me. She seems bitter and angry because her candidate is losing, and she needs to believe there is an unfair reason.
If she means that Obama is some kind of “affirmative action” candidate (as has been suggested by a number of commentators), as if there were some kind of quota for minorities in Democratic primaries, of course that is ridiculous. If she means that many people (including most black people) are more excited about electing a black man than a woman to the presidency, then it makes a certain amount of sense.
Back in the 1960s, my parents were friendly with another married couple who were downright racist, or at least they enjoyed giving that impression. (I don’t know why my parents put up with them.) I am imagining the kinds of things they would have said about Obama, and believe me, you wouldn’t have had to debate what they meant to figure out if it was racist or not.
I am not trying to prove that Ferraro was racist. Indeed, if I had to “interpret” her comments it would be that she cannot admit that Clinton has weaknesses, as well as strengths, as a candidate, and so must ascribe her difficulties to some quality that is perceived as an unfair basis upon which to make a decision. My point here is simply to note that we have seen comparable fights between — broadly speaking — change and experience in the past (even when the claims for change and experience that are being made are somewhat dubious) and more than half the time, change is the victor. Exhibit A being the candidacy and election of William J. Clinton who won against a man who actually had the experience of being president.
POW qualifications: Because otherwise McCain would be just another second-rate Senator from a not very important state whose record indicates that he has not always followed his own rules, leaving the question of probity out there. J
Just as, may I ask: Would Clinton be a candidate but for having been first lady? Otherwise, I suspect she’d be the highly paid lawyer her education destined her to be. In some ways, when you look at the records, Obama is the most qualified candidate, because of his community organizing experience in Chicago–retold in the Tablet article. But even that, is thin pickings.
Is it possible that for all the hype, we have three of the least qualified candidates we’ve ever had in terms of political and governmental experience–except perhaps for the president we now have?
No, you cannot say we have three of the least qualified candidates. The presidency is a unique office, and the only adequate qualification is having been president. On that score, they all fail, but so did every other candidate who wasn’t actually an incumbent at the time of his election.
I am reminded of a funny evidence case: A hound dog through scent finds an escaped prisoner, who tries to disqualify the dog because he has insufficient pedigree. Says the judge: his performance proves his pedigree. And so it is with presidents. We won’t know how qualified any of them is until they are elected.
By the way, Geralidne Ferraro has backtracked to some extent, saying that of course she would support Obama in November, and never intended to imply he wasn’t qualified. So good for her.
And I’ll quote a statement from Ezra Klein who seems to be on the same wavelenth as David Nickol. (The idea of an interracial same sex couple from Arkansas being the president and first SO is too funny.)
“Obama is not a woman, nor a white man. He’s who he is. To say that if he were different, things would be different is to say nothing at all. As a white woman, maybe he would have led a military coup and established himself dictator. Who knows!? Hell, if he were a slightly less inspiring speaker, or had an off-night at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he wouldn’t be in this position either. Similarly, if Hillary Clinton were a black man, it’s unlikely that she would have been a national political figure for the past 15 years, as it’s unlikely that she would have married another man from Arkansas, and unlikely that the country would have put an interracial, same sex couple in the White House. But so what? This is an election, not Marvel’s “What If?” series.”
Margaret,
I would never say that having been a POW is an significant qualification in and of itself. However, McCain comported himself with great courage and discipline in a circumstance that very few of us can even imagine, much less actual experience ourselves. I think that counts for something, merits some respect for the man’s character, and is not like simply being something – like a race or a sex or married to someone. That was my point.
That being said, the answer to your last question is yes – slim pickings indeed.
The Ferraro apology/backtrack and Clinton “apology” therefore has hardly silenced the matter and the Dems continue to shot themselves in the foot.
McCain is beholden (both to please the right and to get money) to GWB and has brought Rove and Company on board.
My wife said that he’s lost his independence and I added he’d sold his soul – this once man of “courage and independence.”
For, in the long run, ambition trumps all else it seems.
Footnote:: as to candidate worthiness, what does increased voter participation interest say about the “quality” of candidates?