Geraldine Ferraro takes on a bitter tone:
“I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama’s campaign – to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against,” she said. “For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It’s been a very sexist media. Some just don’t like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.
“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she continued. “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.” Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.
“I was reading an article that said young Republicans are out there campaigning for Obama because they believe he’s going to be able to put an end to partisanship,” Ferraro said, clearly annoyed. “Dear God! Anyone that has worked in the Congress knows that for over 200 years this country has had partisanship – that’s the way our country is.”
I don’t mean to be nasty, but it is ironic for Geraldine Ferraro, of all people, to complain that Obama is only where is he is because of his race. In 1984, Ferraro was a bankbench congresswoman from Long Island. She had only joined Congress in 1979. In her brief time in Congress, ‘she served on the Public Works Committee, the Budget Committee and the Post Office Committee.’ In other words, she did nothing related to intelligence, to diplomacy, or to our armed services. She had no special qualifications to be president. Just by comparison, Barack Obama serves on the Foreign Relations committee, which has jurisdiction over the State Department among other things, and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which is self-explanatory.
Walter Mondale selected Ferraro in spite of her thin resume because he hoped that it would bring him enough female votes to overcome Reagan’s popularity. If Ferraro had not been a woman, she never would have been considered for the ticket.
By contrast, Barack Obama has not been selected as some kind of Hail Mary electoral gamble. He has simply outcampaigned, outorganized, outfinanced, and outperformed all competitors…white…Hispanic…male…and female. Obama is not a quota pick, he’s the choice of the voters.
I don’t disagree that Clinton has faced some sexist news coverage, but if Ferraro thinks it’s a political advantage in this country to be half-black man with a Muslim-sounding middle name, maybe she could explain why Clinton’s team keeps reminding the voters about those facts. I never thought I’d see the day when being black was spun as an unfair advantage in a race to control the world’s most lethal arsenal. Silly me, I must be Rip Van Winkle, or something.
Geraldine Ferraro was better off a couple weeks ago when I had no idea she was still alive. Now I’ll remember her as stupid rather than just irrelevant.
Oh, goody. More shameless plays of the gender card. Could someone explain to me how the Clinton campaign is not the greatest insult to feminism one could imagine at the moment?
I’m sure Ferraro and the other half-wits backing Clinton genuinely believe this. It’s not an attempt at spin. If I’ve learned nothing in this campaign, it’s that many — not all, but many — of the Wisteria-Lane, Yankee-suburbanite types are completely blind and deaf to all things race-related.
As it turned out, she also had a “husband is baggage” problem, too.
That’s what the press says, but if she were male, and if her last name weren’t Clinton, she’d essentially be Joe Lieberman. That’s my issue with her, setting aside Bubba’s bizarre behavior of late.
That some of the national co-chairs have also been caught cheating on their spouses. One could almost expect Kwame Kilpatrick to join the Clinton’s campaign.
A little Cosa Nostra trouble as it were.
What I object to is Ferraro & her like’s attempt at making this campaign small minded. It reminds me of the first days after Oprah came out for Obama and she faced the blowback from her audience that she had chosen a man over a woman to back…her answer, she was embracing her ability to make a choice and all things considered went with the very best candidate.
Obama the candidate can eloquently shed slurs and attacks which is not a ‘piece of luck’ that Ferraro ever demonstrated when running.
The trend I see is that every time Obama or an advisor gets close to speaking to policy, economic plans or Hillary’s real experience, we see the small minded attacks kick in the volume. I’m thinking Ferraro is expressing backhanded envy here without even knowing it.
Good observation.
Clinton’s “experience,” so far as I know, essentially includes her spectacular health care failure, the Iraq War, Kyl-Lieberman, and renaming a few post offices in New York. On what planet should these actions qualify one to be president in 2008?
Oh, and voting against that ban on using cluster bombs against civilians. Quite an accomplishment on her part. I give you the candidate of women and children, ladies and gentlemen.
Don’t forget about flag burning! Now THAT was a real profile in courage.
No matter what side of the (non)issue you are, no one believed this to be anything but pandering.
My husband was pissed when she decided to pull a Tipper Gore and go after video games. There’s a large bloc in the gaming community that now won’t vote for her because of that.
The 24 year-old in this house got pissed off over the video game thing too.
On Ferraro, I voted for them in ’84 but I can’t say they got anyone excited. In fact it’s amazing how dull Democratic Presidential candidates have been over the last half-century. Between Bobby Kennedy and Obama, who’s been exciting? Jerry Brown was quirky (although going on a safari with Linda Ronstadt was exciting). Somebody remind me? Dukakis?
While I am not a big fan of Ferraro, I really don’t have a problem with her comments. It has often been said during this campaign that a white man or woman with the relatively brief political experience of Obama wouldn’t be where he is today. I believe that is true. That doesn’t mean that his rhetoric about his “vision” isn’t compelling. Just that most candidates with similar experience and rhetoric would have been pilloried in the media. While he may connect with an underlying need for the populace to feel hope, that wouldn’t be enough without the support of the media establishment. It just wouldn’t.
So, why the response he has gotten may reveal an underlying need in our country to feel hope, his success as a candidate is about a far more complex interaction of factors, one of which is his race and Clinton’s gender. It is undeniable that this set of factors has come together to compel his candidacy forward.
I like Obama very much, but I have been a supporter of Clinton because of her experience. And I have watched the media hoopla and as a woman I an furious that there have been so many disparaging comments about Hillary that seem to reflect an anti-woman (or is it anti-strong-competent-woman) bias. While I was initially worried about the existing racism in our culture and how it would affect Obama’s candidacy, I am now convinced that the selection of a Democratic front runner will come down to one basic question: what is stronger in our society, racism or sexism? I have believed all along that this was the ultimate factor and I am fairly certain that the answer is: sexism.
This is just one woman’s analysis, so please don’t attack me as you did Ferraro.;-)
Is that Clinton has less experience than Obama and has exercised poorer judgment. There are many Congresswomen, Senators and Governor’s who have more experience than Clinton and have shown (usually) excellent judgment. If Clinton wasn’t Clinton, wasn’t a former First Lady, she’d be written off by everyone. This isn’t gender or race, it’s who she is. That’s the only thing keeping media attention on her.
Consider the GOP side. The press kept focusing on Giuliani and Thompson even though they kept losing. Duncan Hunter did better in some of those first races and they still ignored him. Ron Paul definitely did better than both of them, he’s still in the race and they press still ignore him. But Giuliani is “America’s Mayor” and Thompson was a TV star.
That’s why Ferraro’s claims are simple-minded. She’s focusing on the one thing that actually has no bearing on the situation.
The experience argument doesn’t hold water. If experience were the thing people were looking for, Biden and Dodd would’ve scored well above Clinton.
Dodd would’ve made the better president. And Biden was at least damned funny.
First, I’ll concede three points to you.
Having said that, I consider myself a pretty smart guy with a good grasp of American politics. Obama is smarter than me and has a better grasp of American politics than I do. I can’t honestly say that I feel that way about any of the other candidates on either side of the aisle (including those that have dropped out). I keep struggling to keep up with Obama, as he seems to see further than I can.
I say this because Obama’s success owes more to his astounding vision, feel, and understanding of politics than to any other factor. He’s left some of the smartest political analysts and observers in the dust. I still feel like I’ve had a better grasp on what he’s attempting to do that any of the other well known left-wing bloggers, but I was a little late to catch on.
Obama is a lot like Bill Clinton in this regard. He has vision and talent that far outstrip his contemporaries. Obama has some faults, but none of them seem as epically tragic as the Big Dog’s.
I think it is simply false that this race is coming down to whether sexism or racism are bigger factors in American politics. Obama is struggling mightily against racism in the south and border states. Racism is probably the reason he cannot win in Kentucky and West Virginia, and why he lost so badly in Tennessee and Oklahoma. In the Deep South, he has overcome this because the African-American population is larger, but he can’t overcome it in the near south.
I have seen no regional sexism.
So, I still think race is trumping sexism, but even if I did not, the reason Obama is winning is superior talent, superior campaign, and superior strategy.
And that speech he gave in 2002 isn’t hurting either.
Well, he overcame it in Virginia, but I think there’s a class element to that state that isn’t present in Tennessee. Virginia also elected the first black governor, I believe, and I get the sense, living here, that the state takes some pride in that.
I think it’s also unfair to characterize Obama wins based upon sexism while not acknowledging how sexism seems to have helped to keep Clinton in the game. I believe about 20% of voters in Ohio and Texas admitted gender was a factor, and the majority voted for Clinton. Same goes for race: About 20%, and they voted for Clinton.
Good points.
I’m always struck by the generational profiles as well. Older white women who fought the good fight for women’s rights, seeing a bit of Gloria Steinhem in Hillary which validates the hard work of yesterday’s battles. Hillary is a badge of honor.
The youngest generation of women may say Gloria Who? Women’s rights are theirs, now it’s time to do something with them.
So a part of this contest may be a tussle over asking for recognition of how we got here vs hey, let’s bring the strength it took to give women the vote and marry it up with the Civil Rights Movement of the ’60’s, Vietnamese refugees who fled torture, hell, all the great heroic examples of enabling humanity and build a coalition. And it’s the coalition that Obama is building with crossover votes that is what gives me hope.
Bingo.
Electing Hillary Clinton is not a feminist statement. Period. And I would work my fanny off if Barack Obama was Barry O’Bannon. Trust.
Do I feel a special pride because he’s African American. Yes. Is that the reason I support his candidacy? No. It’s about 514th on the list. Trust again that there are Black folks I wouldn’t elect dog catcher, just as there are white folks and brown folks and women of all colors that I wouldn’t elect dog catcher. And Hillary falls into that category.
I am so very tired of this. All this is a female face in a high place. What’s that going to do for me? Not flippin’ much. She wants to be judged fairly? Well here it is:
I do not want dynastic politics. I STRONGLY detest her imperial attitude that she will act “for” me instead of “with” me. It’s the difference between an ethos and politics of “Yes We Can” and “Yes She Will”–with a dollop of her unoriginality.
And the fact of the matter is, she wouldn’t be anywhere without her husband. Point blank. That’s not to say that she isn’t intelligent, but her vaunted “experience” lies in being a corporate lawyer and First Lady. No one’s answered me about a question I’ve asked again and again: how was her Wal-Mart board membership supposed to help my Mom working at Sam’s Club? And WE make about what–66 or 69 cents for every white guy’s dollar? 77 cents wouldn’t be fair, but a step up for me. I’m not impressed.
And then she’s given her Senate seat when other, life-long, more qualified folks (read: Nita Lowey–maybe if Hillary becomes president she could compete for the seat finally) could serve just as capably, if not moreso.
Barack Obama earned everything he’s ever achieved. And he has a vision for this country and for this party that is refreshing and a damned long time coming. She. Does. Not.
The Steinems and Ferraros just grow more and more offensive everyday until their very visage sickens me.
I don’t mean to sound mean, but pretending that DLC Hillary Clinton is a feminist just to get her what she thinks she is entitled to is disingenuous. Hillary’s more in the Independent Women’s Forum camp than mine. I resent it. Completely.
Most experience doesn’t necessarily translate to best candidate. It just doesn’t. More experience can mean more history of political backroom deals.
Obama isn’t successful because he is black. He certainly gets votes from African Americans. But there are a lot of other black politicians (or politicians of any race) that would be laughed down if they announced for President. Obama has run a remarkable campaign. He is a very good public speaker and he has connected and invigorated a lot of voters.
Ultimately, what qualifies you for a run for the White House is the number of delegates you get. So far, on that scale, he’s the best Democrat this year.
That’s so good. π
Yeah, I’ve gotta say that’s a pretty amazing assertion. The usual complaint from bitter white people is that blacks have an unfair advantage in the workplace due to affirmative action (never mind that AA only applies to the minority of business with government contracts).
Barack Obama isn’t being hired as a bureaucrat at some state department of transportation. He’s receiving the support of the general public. Black people like him, white people like him, men like him, and women like him. Is there some element of warm fuzzies involved in supporting a black candidate in the context of this country’s shameful racist past? Yeah, that’s probably true for a lot of white people. But that never translated into broad white support for any of the other black folks who have run for public office.
The bottom line is that Barack Obama has broad appeal to people because of the content of his character.
I still have my reservations about the unknowns, but the way I have seen him handle himself tells me that this is a smart guy with basic decency and no small measure of personal grace. Hillary is smart, too, but she has shown herself to be lacking in both basic decency and grace. None of those things would change if Hillary Clinton was a man or if Barack Obama was white.
Hillary Clinton is infuriated by that because, as part of the Dem establishment, she wanted to keep the racial divide perpetually in place as a source of black votes. Everyone knows the drill: the Dem candidates show up at a few NAACP events, promise the moon, and then forget black people exist for another four years. The ascendancy of Barack Obama, on the other hand, indicates the desire of the voters to actually heal the divide rather than weep crocodile tears while cynically exploiting it. W.E.B. DuBois’ color line still exists, but it’s rapidly blurring, and the political parasites that profited from it are not adapting quickly enough to survive.
That’s just because we whitefolk never had one who was willing to be our Hip Black Friend(TM) like Obama. π
I do think there’s a certain excitement associated with Obama that has a little bit — less than Clinton would like us to believe, but a little bit — to do with his being black. I’ll readily admit that I find that exciting, but that’s just gravy on top of his being a pretty good fit for me on the issues I care most about. I think his winning the Iowa caucuses did this country a lot of good, too. We had a chance to see the good America — a chance to say, “I’ll be damned. A black guy just won one of the whitest states in the union.”
But, even with all that in mind, I submit that it’s the issues, the hard work building the necessary infrastructure, and the message (his ability to tie it all together) that’s gotten Obama this far.
that has most benefitted from affirmative-action that Obama is the beneficiary of affirmative-action is amusing.
Look, Folks, I have been trying to stay away from the argument that of race or sex on all levels. This is just plain stupid on any level. If someone has an idea on how to get our country back to the standard of which it has to be to be a leader in the world stage then more power to that person. NO matter who or what the sex or color of their skin….or that religion for that matter.
I am an Independent that has tried to stay away from this as long as I could. For me this has taken a great tole on me and many like me out here. I tend to lean democrat in my voting process…that will not change who ever the candidate is. I do, however, mean to let my voice be heard. I have said from “day one” that I will not be satisfied with a dynasty type of a White House. I refuse to have this in my lifetime!
What we need is a different name all together in it. I would be satisfied to vote for daffy duck if that name was not clinton or bush, no matter how qualified they were. There are many out here in the land of America that are qualified to be president of America.
It is just that simple for me. I do now want bill clinton back in the white house. It is just that simple for me.
Actually, I do not know one single person who would love to be come the president of what a mess we America and the world has gotten into since 2000, or even before that famous year. WE have to stand back and look at history before we can go forth to the future. However, we do have to elect a man/woman as a new leader of our nation. I am just thankful we live in America as apposed to some other nation of the world such a Russia or you get the drift. {disclaimer of voting fraud} WE must make sound and prudent judgment calls for this not just fully sex or race calls on all of this.
This is serious stuff here kiddos. Just give it a serious thought for a moment and then search your heart of hearts and then decide who is the better person to do the job. I ask you to just do this one thing for this old lady. My future depends on you all out there to make the best choice of all of your lives.
Thank you for this site for me to read. I can’t go to NO Quarter and get good reading anymore. Non-biased debate is no longer available for me. I refuse to be thrown to the wolves of the likes of McShame for the likes of the DLC. Just say no and mean it…
I called the clinton camp. hdqrs the other day and complained of her type of tricks she is forcing on the public. This is not necessary for her to win, if she were really serious. What a severe shame on her part.
I could go on and on but at least I think I have said enough and you do get my drift. hugs to all here….
well put and point taken
Hey – remember Omir’s skit? I need to talk to him – have him check his mail if any of you know him – I sent him my phone number. URGENT.