My GF openly and proudly admits that she supports Hillary over Obama because she is a woman. But, that is not the only reason she likes Hillary. She also finds her to be a good liberal and 'tough as nails'.

I think identity politics is fine, as long as you are not voting for someone because of their identity regardless of their disqualifications.

Clinton folks seem so obsessed with race. Over and over again it seems to be the subject of stupid remarks. One minute they are implying he isn't electable because he is black, the next minute they are saying he is winning because he is black, the media isn't being critical of him because he is black, etc. etc.

They continuously seem to have this we are minorities too theme.

They need to get over it, or they will eventually bury themselves and damage the democratic party.

Of course Norm, it is not racist at all to suggest that a black senator with more legislative experience than his opponent; substantive policy differences with his opponent on the two of the three main issues of greatest concern to Americans right now, healthcare and the Iraq war (the third being the economy generally); a more effectively run campaign than his opponent, one that is not falling apart due to poor executive leadership and internal divisions; an utterly different style of politics than his opponent; and much else-- has any thing at all going for him, other than being black. Really the many links I and other Obama supporters have amassed on his history, legislative record, and public statements is just a big sham intended to disguise the fact that we find nothing else to like about him other than his race.

is anything worthwhile accomplished by stating the obvious...

Actually, I agree: Samantha Powers should have been fired, that is obvious. This is racism, and just as with the latest SNL skit, it is appalling to see people purportedly on the left defending it.

Actually, I agree: Samantha Powers should have been fired, that is obvious. This is racism, and just as with the latest SNL skit, it is appalling to see people purportedly on the left defending it.

I watched that skit again, and still I see it as a spoof on Hillary's message, and not on Obama. But then again, I've never been good at catching racist behavior. That thought pattern seems so alien.

This is racism

Well certainly it's racism if one is to accept your straw man take on the statement that was made. There are certainly those who vote not on qualifications but on other factors such as race. The motivation may have been racist, how is it you decide that is the case. Is just pointing to the numbers enough in your mind. Charges of racism justified or not trip off the lips of some to easily in my opinion.

Similarity of Clinton and Obama's views on the issues?

I suppose at the moment, they're saying similar things about Iraq, since Obama's views have become more popular (and Clinton slavishly follows what she perceives to be the popular position). But one voted for the war, one didn't. If the war drums start getting beaten three or four years from now, which candidate is more likely to be swayed by them?

Another issue that hasn't gotten nearly enough play in this election yet is the Military Commissions Act. After the White House's/Pentagon's policy of suppressing Habeas Corpus was defeated in front of the Supreme Court, the Republican congress, along with 30% of the Democratic Party, passed an Act that allows the White House/Pentagon to legally deny this fundamental right.

Read about it here: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/10/ournominaldem.html

Clinton was among the 30% of extreme right Democrats who voted for it. Obama voted against it. (Clinton was the only candidate in the Democratic primary who voted for it.) This shows a profound lack of respect for the most fundamental human rights. Again, if Clinton is in office and perceives a law repudiating freedom of the press to be expedient for her political career, can we trust her to oppose it? Her great "experience" reveals that we cannot.

Hundresds of thousands of Iraqis and tens of thousands of Americans have been killed or maimed for life as a result of Clinton's vote. And innocent people are currently being held in prisons, without being formally charged and without any legal recourse, again, as a result of Clinton's vote. Obama has none of this on his hands. How can anyone possibly claim they're the "same on the issues"?

This is racism

The statement is racist even if the intent isn't malicious. I give Ferraro the benefit of the doubt on the intent, but her content is clearly racist.

It is not "lucky" to be a member of a minority group in general and especially not while running for president.

Thaddeus:

I watched that skit again, and still I see it as a spoof on Hillary's message, and not on Obama. But then again, I've never been good at catching racist behavior. That thought pattern seems so alien. In the SNL spoof, Senator Obama is depicted not as naive but as stupid (with slurred speech and 'dumb' intonation), crude and not in control of his impulses (profanity and flailing about), and lazy and pleasure-driven (sitting around smoking, and worrying over the heating, that is, his own comfort, at a time of national crisis). We are presented not with a caricature of Obama, one that might merely exaggerate some of his personal quirks and idiosyncrasies, but with the grotesque stereotype of the good natured but woefully ignorant "black man" out of his depth and not in control of himself, and in need the unsparing benevolence of a better informed white "mentor."

None of this needs to be directly stated so much as insinuated by tacit suggestion and familiar imagery. Indeed, as you point out in the SNL case, it may even seem to be explicitly disavowed as a merely 'spoof' on another candidate's political tactics. For all that, it is not any less blatant or offensive.

Norm said:

Well certainly it's racism if one is to accept your straw man take on the statement that was made. There are certainly those who vote not on qualifications but on other factors such as race.

Look, do some people vote for Obama because he's black? Surely possible. Do some people vote against him because he is? Surely at least equally possible. Have some voted for Hillary because she's a woman? Surely. Against her for the same reason? Equally possible. Have some confused the claim that she has extensive "experience" in office with the idea that she was a highly visible public figure because she was first-lady? That seems to me indubitable.

What is offensive is to suggest that he would not even be in the presidential race were it not for his race; in other words, he has no qualifications to speak of except for his race. That is hardly a straw man--it is exactly what she said. But yours is the typical apologia for the racist: that a blatantly racist remark, one which directly attributes Obama's success to the color of his skin rather than his qualifications, or even his ability to inspire people, which as a seem to remember also annoys you, is some how, after all, magically, not a statement about race at all.

Geraldine Ferraro's comments are being overlooked. Read them again. What she is saying is that if Barack Obama weren't an African-American, he would not have gotten this far. He's new and different and that is what is carrying this far. Thankfully at this point, he is running on fumes.

Pennsylvania, he is 19 points behind Clinton. 55% to 36%. A loss of that magnitude in that important a state come November will end his candidacy. And guess who doesn't want a revote in Michigan and Florida. Barack Obama. Why? Because he would likely lose by an even larger margin than he lost back in January. And the Florida case is especially galling because there a Republican-controlled legislature and a Republican Governor led the charge that led to the disenfranchisement of Florida Democrats. In Michigan, at least, it was the Democrats' own fault.

The Keystone State is now the key to this nomination. Whoever wins that, wins the nomination.

Charles Lemos

What she is saying is that if Barack Obama weren't an African-American, he would not have gotten this far.

Exactly right, Charles. But I didn't over look this. I emphasized that this is exactly what she said, and explained both why that is not the same as saying that Obama got some votes, from some voter, because of his race--or didn't get votes for the same reason, which, conveniently enough, she omits to mention--and why putting it the terms she did is racist.

Thaddeus: the statement I quoted from you merged with the first part of my commentary on it. Sorry!

I would agree that Racism is not a term that should be used without care, and shouldn't be used to squash valid debates, but I think from the pattern being seen from Clinton Surrogates, race is clearly a topic of discussion inside the Clinton campaign. Judging by the strategy, that seems to include pointing out his ethnicity, Clinton's believe a black man with a Muslim name can't win a general election. Their constant pointing to his ethnicity in a long string of "off the cuff" remarks seems to suggest they are amazed primary voters haven't noticed yet.

Here is an article from the NYT about the 3AM ad that makes an argument that it was racist. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/opinion/11patterson.html?ex=1362888000&en=79d8a2388ebdfad2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Geraldine Ferraro is correct, Obama would not be where he is if he was not black. If he was white he'd have 2025 pledged delegates already and Hillary would be history. The voters that cite race as the most important factor in deciding their vote break for Hillary overwhelmingly.

Infighting Worries Democrats

Other Democratic leaders, including veterans of hard-fought contests, worry about the emerging divisions. "I am fearful; we are heading into uncharted territory," says Donna Brazile, who was Al Gore's campaign manager in 2000 and is now an uncommitted superdelegate. "Over the past few weeks, the mood and the tone has shifted. The Clinton backers are as adamant as the Obama people. The undertones [about race and gender] are the kind of cultural fault lines that lead to divisions. It is alarming and sickening."

Republicans are gleeful. Six weeks ago, Shawn Fago, a Rudy Giuliani supporter and head of the Orange County Young Republicans, was despondent and looking enviously at the energy among his Democratic friends. Now, he has switched to Sen. McCain and says he is "super excited about how much disarray the Democrats are in. The best-case scenario is that this all goes to the convention and Hillary wins and all the Obama supporters feel disenfranchised and they stay home. It's beautiful."

I actually thought the Democrats wouldn't resort to race and gender infighting. I was wrong.

I'm convinced that John McCain will be the next president of the United States. Leave it to Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Charles

He's new and different and that is what is carrying this far.

This is exactly not what she is saying. Is a woman not new? A Latino? she says that a woman regardless of race wouldn't be as lucky as he is.

I'm convinced that John McCain will be the next president of the United States. Leave it to Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Cheer up. There is still some chance that party folks will step in and force Hillary out.

But you are right, if this goes to convention we lose, if superdelegates override obama based on a split decision, we lose.

Norm you should get the clip from the Colbert report last night about 1972 and how things went exactly like this and how it got Nixon re-elected.

How ironic that the first serious female presidential candidate is facing defeat at the hands of a black male with the middle name Hussein.

Considering Hillary's decades long plan to become president, this must really piss her off.

Obama gets as far as he does because of his policies but (I believe) voters BELIEVE his message of CHANGE more because he is obviously not a rich white male. This does help, but I believe his race hruts him mroe than helps on balance.

Hillary makes me shake my head when she gets upset about 'debate first questions' and 'unfairness'. these are not qualities I seek in a leader. I expect a Leader to take it on the chin and turn that disadvantage into her advantage. Instead, she gets publicly outraged at the moderators, fulfilling the fears of many who believe a female president would be too sensitive and emotional. As a lifelong supporter of womens' movements she frustrates me.

That her opponent is a man who has fought blatant discrimination his entire life (race and name), and is by any standard a long shot at a political carreer in the US, let alone a stab at the presidency, is truely mind boggling. She is like a 5' tall man bitching about being short at table full of dwarves.

Charles, I risk 'attacking' you here. I've read your bio and have a HUGE amount of respect for you, but I have often wondered if your desire to see Hillary elected is based on your experinces with women in your life more than her actual traits. I think it blinds you as much as Obama's charisma blinds some of his supporters. You don't trust men. Why? were you abused? Again, I dig ya man, and mean no offense.

Naturally, it is a significant and dangerous problem, that some people may be attracted to Obama because of his race.

But we should completely ignore the slight possibility that Hillary being a woman might be the cause for certain people voting for her, even though anecdotal evidence shows many people freely claiming they want to see a woman in the white house, and our great friend Mr. Lemos even has admitted it is a factor for him.

But of course, we should ignore petty things like being "objective" or "smart". Let's just play the Republican game and pick one side of the story and pretend we're completely oblivious to anything else.

To be honest, I thought that at least here at OGM, we'd never descend into this sort of race-based argument, but I guess that dream is over. Really, this site has become a caricature of the sort of websites we used to make fun of.

One more little piece of food for thought, I love how we trash the fact that some people are drawn to Obama because he's black, and then ignore the idea that people may dislike Obama because he's black.

But hey, "objective", meh...

Norm: Let me suggest why that defense doesn't work: Because if it were true, the converse would be true as well: that race would hurt him with some (other) voters. Moreover, as Timje pointed out, it's at least likely, based on exit polling surveys, that the converse has been the more predominant outcome. Therefore, it is simply not plausible that she couldn't have meant that race 'helped' him a little, because it obviously hurts him as well, and perhaps more so. So if that is what she meant, then she uttered an obvious absurdity. But in any case, that is not what she said: What she said is that his being black is the ONLY reason he has been successful, not that it helped.

Hillary Clinton fundraiser Geraldine Ferraro sparked the latest storm in the Democratic presidential race today when she raised questions about Barack Obama's race, saying he has only been successful because he is a black man. [...] Ferraro, who ran for vice-president on Walter Mondale's ill-fated 1984 ticket, told a California newspaper, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position". She continued, "And if he was a woman ... he would not be in this position."

What is his "position"? Well, this is a two person race that is close. In other words, he would have lost by now. Notice as well that Ferraro is trying to play the gender and the race card in one stroke, suggesting that women are more discriminated against than blacks. That may be true. But adding to this that the only reason Obama has been "successful" is because he is black is pretty clearly both unfair and bigoted.

Look, I respect what I suspect to be the reasons for your taking this line: it is really easy to overplay the identity card, and respond to any criticism with accusations of prejudice. I am very sensitive about that issue too. I just don't think it should prevent us from seeing cases of clear violation, which is what I take Ferraro's remarks to be.

My GF too supports Hillary in large part because she is a woman, though many of the women in my family do prefer Obama. I think both candidates are probably getting some votes on decisions like this and I think that's fine. If there was a third, atheist candidate who differed from these two as much as they differ from each other I would vote for that candidate just to see my roots represented.

I think this another example of how these campaigns will take any little thing and blow it up in the quest for precious percentage points. Geraldine Ferraro's comments don't seem all that laden with meaning to me, if I'd seen them out of this context I'd have just shrugged them off as meaningless campaign drivel. If we want change in the way our politics work we don't need to call each other out on every little insinuation, we need to stop meaningless comments like this from gaining traction in the first place. (And that goes for both sides.)

that some will vote for Hillary not based on her positions on the issues but because she's a woman. Is it sexist to make that observation?

Nope. But saying that she has been successful in the campaign generally--not just with some voters-- because she's a woman, would be, to my mind, sexist.

It's funny how anytime someone mentions that Obama's race is a key to his success, it is called racism when we know that Obama is getting 85% of the black vote mainly because he is black. Now, I know that many blacks would like to see a black man be president for the historical significance, but come on, it is racism. Why is it racism to vote against someone because of their race, but not if you vote for someone because of their race? It's a double standard, and Ferraro is correct. If Obama wasn't black, he wouldn't be doing nearly as well as he is now. Obama's success is primarily because of one thing. His campaign has become almost a social movement, like the realization of MLK's dream, so it makes people feel good to try and make it happen. Sure, some of his policy ideas and views are attract to many people, but most of the college age white kids who fill the gyms and auditoriums to see him can't name one significant bill he's passed. It's a fad, a bandwagon, and it's because blacks want to see a black president and because whites want to be absolved of their white guilt.

Honestly? Obama's race is as influential as Clinton's Sex. It's a wash. TO suggest that race is more influential than sex or vice versa is a Pointless Arguement!! THere are stupid voters out there who will support a candidate based solely on this single issue, but surely they are a minority!

Why are we doing this? Why are we destroying our candidates with Race politics or sex politics? NO, it's not Ok to bring up the fact that Barack is getting some votes because he's black. He wouldn't be winning the Popular vote just based on being black. God this race is disgusting that this is the garbage we are arguing and debating, and considering to be valid to debate about.

Do you share Red's view that intent and context doesn't matter? I don't mean necessarily in this case, but in general.

Every relationship I've ever had would have been over in about a week if everything I said had to stand outside of intent and context. I mean, that would pretty much rule out the use of sarcasm. So I try to be understanding.

She continues

"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?"

She said the above quote on Faux News.

So, she's attacking Obama's race, and then says "let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world".

Wow, how about that for context?

Do you share Red's view that intent and context doesn't matter? I don't mean necessarily in this case, but in general.

I commented on intent, not context. And I didn't say it doesn't matter, only that intent doesn't effect whether I would call this statement racist, an apology would confirm that it was not an act of racism.

Although, Ferraro has in fact responded to this story today and has not apologized. In fact, she accused the Obama campaign for being racist against her for being white.

There is some f-ing context for folks to comment on.

Do you share Red's view that intent and context doesn't matter? I don't mean necessarily in this case, but in general.

Don't know if I have general views about whether intention and context generally matter. Let us distinguish cases. First, there are some racially charged epithets whose use does not typically depend on context--although the identity of the user may be relevent in some instances--and it's hard to image a situation where the epithet would be used while at the same time being benignly intended, so use by itself implies intention. Second, symbols are slightly different. For example, you may think a Confederate flag just looks cool, and intend no more by putting on your truck than to decorate and show off your love of the color orange. But clearly, merely disavowing what that symbol traditionally means, by saying that you didn't intend it, does not help. Whatever your intention, the symbol means to others what it meant before you intended to use it in idiosyncratic fashion.
Finally, I think there are clear cases where context matters because racism works by implication and images--suggesting certain supposedly characteristic traits--and this can be done without intended it.
For instance, I do not think the latest SNL spoof intended to be racist but is ostensibly a satire about HRC's politik. The fact nonetheless remains that it offers a caricature not of Obama, by merely exaggerating one of his personal traits or idiosyncracies, but of the stereotypical black man. Senator Obama is depicted not as naive but as stupid (with slurred speech and 'dumb' intonation), crude and not in control of his impulses (profanity and flailing about), and lazy and pleasure-driven (sitting around smoking, and worrying over the heating, that is, his own comfort, at a time of national crisis). In short, we are presented with the grotesque stereotype of the good natured but woefully ignorant "black man" out of his depth and not in control of himself, and in need the unsparing benevolence of a better informed white "mentor."

Do you share Red's view that intent and context doesn't matter? I don't mean necessarily in this case, but in general.

Every relationship I've ever had would have been over in about a week if everything I said had to stand outside of intent and context. I mean, that would pretty much rule out the use of sarcasm. So I try to be understanding.

I am many things, someone that argues against the use of sarcasm is definitely not one of them.

Do you share Red's view that intent and context doesn't matter? I don't mean necessarily in this case, but in general.

Don't know if I have general views about whether intention and context generally matter. Let us distinguish cases. First, there are some racially charged epithets whose use does not typically depend on context--although the identity of the user may be relevent in some instances--and it's hard to image a situation where the epithet would be used while at the same time being benignly intended, so use by itself implies intention. Second, symbols are slightly different. For example, you may think a Confederate flag just looks cool, and intend no more by putting on your truck than to decorate and show off your love of the color orange. But clearly, merely disavowing what that symbol traditionally means, by saying that you didn't intend it, does not help. Whatever your intention, the symbol means to others what it meant before you intended to use it in idiosyncratic fashion.
Finally, I think there are clear cases where context matters because racism works by implication and images--suggesting certain supposedly characteristic traits--and this can be done without intended it.
For instance, I do not think the latest SNL spoof intended to be racist but is ostensibly a satire about HRC's politik. The fact nonetheless remains that it offers a caricature not of Obama, by merely exaggerating one of his personal traits or idiosyncracies, but of the stereotypical black man. Senator Obama is depicted not as naive but as stupid (with slurred speech and 'dumb' intonation), crude and not in control of his impulses (profanity and flailing about), and lazy and pleasure-driven (sitting around smoking, and worrying over the heating, that is, his own comfort, at a time of national crisis). In short, we are presented with the grotesque stereotype of the good natured but woefully ignorant "black man" out of his depth and not in control of himself, and in need the unsparing benevolence of a better informed white "mentor."

How many times can we quote the thing about the thing that I never said?

Well, if GF can argue that Obama would not be as successful he were white...

THEN

...we can argue that HILLARY would not even be running for President if her name were still Hillary Rodham.

She's only in this race because her husband was the President. Hell, she's only a United States Senator because her husband was President.

Updated: Olbermann is doing a special comment tomorrow on the Clinton campaign and the Ferraro comments: this should be interesting.

Red

How about quoting the thing you said about the thing about the thing that you never said..

Mag,

I already said it.

Ha!

April 15, 1988, Washington Post:
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."

Mag: Here is Red's statement (from 1:36 today):

The statement is racist even if the intent isn't malicious. I give Ferraro the benefit of the doubt on the intent, but her content is clearly racist.

Red: My apologies for quoting a statement that you feel misstated your position in my last comment. (As for the duplicate, well, I'm having computer problems, so my last comment got posted twice).

I agree that Ferraro's response is outrageous. I wish I could say it was surprising.

Leave it to Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Adam wrote:

What is his "position"? Well, this is a two person race that is close. In other words, he would have lost by now.

Not necessarily. Obama is presently leading in the delegate count. "[H]e would not be in this position" could mean any of a number of things: "He would be trailing slightly in the delegate count", "he would be trailing by a great deal in the delegate count", "he would be neck and neck with his rival", "he would have dropped out of the race by now", "his campaign would never have gained sufficient traction to get off the ground", "most of us would never have heard of Obama", etc., etc. Not the narrow slant you wish to put on it for the sake of polemics.

Adam added:

But adding to this that the only reason Obama has been "successful" is because he is black is pretty clearly both unfair and bigoted.

Ferraro did not say this. The bit that you bold-faced in your quotation of the article, "[...] he has only been successful because he is a black man", was the reporter's characterization of Ferraro's remark.

JoAnn wrote:

I'm convinced that John McCain will be the next president of the United States.

Believe you can change it.

Charles, I risk 'attacking' you here. I've read your bio and have a HUGE amount of respect for you, but I have often wondered if your desire to see Hillary elected is based on your experinces with women in your life more than her actual traits. I think it blinds you as much as Obama's charisma blinds some of his supporters. You don't trust men. Why? were you abused? Again, I dig ya man, and mean no offense.

No offense taken, thank your for your kind words. No I wasn't abused as a child. While women in my family are very strong and independent so are the men. I learned long ago that to change the world, it is best to focus on women. They are a minority just about everywhere. In Africa, HIV is spread via the trucking routes by men. In the Islamic world, the repression of women is well-known. In South Asia & SE Asia, women are bought and sold in the sex trade. But do note that I started this campaign for John Edwards and he remains my guy. Still hoping for a deadlocked convention that may turn its lonely and weary eyes to John Edwards. I can dream, can't I?

Charles

inwit

Ferraro did not say this. The bit that you bold-faced in your quotation of the article, "[...] he has only been successful because he is a black man", was the reporter's characterization of Ferraro's remark.

It's a crystal clear implication of what she said.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position". She continued, "And if he was a woman ... 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 meaning is clear, She is saying that if Obama were anything other then a black man, he would not be challenging the great Hillary Clinton in this primary, and therefore he is lucky to be black.

I think this discussion revolves around the fact that it is nearly impossible to eliminate discrimination of some kind from a society. There is always some "other" that that is grouped with "lesser." A few years back, I heard a commentator remark that while racism has not been eradicated from U. S. behavior, it is no longer any worse here than it is in the rest of the world. Possibly an accurate statement; I've seen no data, and it would be hard to obtain data that would be any more accurate than anecdotal evidence of racism.

I think that the residuals of racism are so entrenched in our lives that sometimes we don't even realize how dumbass/ignorant/bigoted remarks can be. I don't excuse Ferraro; as a public political figure she should've learned her lessons by now. A Christmas party incident reminds me of her recent (and 1988) comments.

We were discussing the election and who we'd support. A woman entered the conversation saying she just didn't want a black man as the president.

=crickets=

=gaped mouths=

=otherwise stunned looks=

She managed to recover somewhat saying she just wanted a woman (her preferred minority) in office before a man. I helped her smooth it over once I discovered she's Republican - oh, yeah, how about Condi? She may genuinely be someone disillusioned with her choices, and just wishes for a woman. However, I still grimace thinking back on this moment. I can't help but think that she'll never escape entirely from the blatant racism that existed legally during her childhood (she's old enough for Jim Crow laws and more).

Whom to support in this election has been tough for me. I initially rooted for both Obama and Clinton because of their minority positions, but I wasn't in the support camp. As I did my research, I saw strikes against all candidates but went with the platform of a white man - John Edwards. Those who campaigned for him were mildly successful, but we have HRC and BHO. Race will play a factor for and against Obama just as gender will for Clinton. For someone to suggest that one of them has an advantage over the other because of the minority status is bogus. If Clinton can't "disavow" this comment - it's not really support for her, ya know - then shame on her.

I think this discussion revolves around the fact that it is nearly impossible to eliminate discrimination of some kind from a society.

I agree with most of what you say, but this discussion revolves around our desire to eliminate discrimination from our democratic candidates and their surrogates.

Ferraro's comment strikes me as asinine.

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position...And if he was a woman ... 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.

So... if Obama had been a white man for virtually every other election in the nation's history, he would have been at an advantage, right? And if his name were Kennedy, he'd have gotten special consideration, too. And if Geraldine Ferraro hadn't been a woman in 1984, she might never have been selected as a VP candidate - Mondale's people were hoping that "the country would be caught up in the concept". Big fucking deal. Ferraro comes off as a whiner - and by extension, so does Hillary if she doesn't disavow this bullshit - whether it true or not. There are a thousand reasons why candidates get undeserved advantages and disadvantages in elections and Ferraro's picking race out as somehow 'special' is indeed racist - whether she intended it that way or not.

Her initial comments were absurd and nonsensical - the sooner forgotten, the better.

But I love her attempt to defend them:

“I will not be discriminated against because I’m white. If they think they’re going to shut up Geraldine Ferraro with that kind of stuff, they don’t know me.”

LOL Those aren't the words of a much-respected vice-presidential candidate - they are the deranged ramblings of an old woman who yells at people from a lawn chair. ha ha ha

oh, 1984, you feel so very far away from us tonight...

Inwit:

Ferraro did not say this. The bit that you bold-faced in your quotation of the article, "[...] he has only been successful because he is a black man", was the reporter's characterization of Ferraro's remark.

Um, yeah, I saw that too. Obviously the "saying" part, which I emphasized, was not Ferraro "saying" about herself saying something. (Only someone who did not understand English would read the sentence that way). And I did not put that phrase in quotation marks in the block quote, as you dishonestly suggest.

At any rate, your objection is empty. Even if it was a reporter's characterization, it makes clear that that was how her remarks were understood, and offers Ferraro's direct statements, which I also quoted, unsurprisingly, in quotation marks.

Inwit:

"[H]e would not be in this position" could mean any of a number of things: "He would be trailing slightly in the delegate count", "he would be trailing by a great deal in the delegate count", "he would be neck and neck with his rival", "he would have dropped out of the race by now", "his campaign would never have gained sufficient traction to get off the ground", "most of us would never have heard of Obama", etc., etc. Not the narrow slant you wish to put on it for the sake of polemics.

Anyway you parse it, she's still attributing Obama's success to the color of his skin, rather than the many, many other qualities I list. (I had a sentence in the original, that I deleted, because unnecessary, saying that if Obama were in Clinton's position, he would have been forced out already).

You are really good at distorting the obvious and most straightforward meaning of my remarks.

Tim:

There are a thousand reasons why candidates get undeserved advantages and disadvantages in elections and Ferraro's picking race out as somehow 'special' is indeed racist - whether she intended it that way or not.

This is on the mark, I think. Oh, and let us not neglect to mention the widespread confusion between Clinton being a long known and recognizable public figure and her having experience in publicly elected office.

I want to pose one issue that Tim, RedSeven, gypsy sister, and I have all mentioned: there is such a than as "unintentional" or unreflective racism. Those who disagree that Ferraro's remarks seem to think only if she said something very explicit like "Black people cannot be elected to public office on the basis of anything other than the color of their skin, that is to say bias or pity, because they have no other merits or talents, compared to a white woman" would it be racist, but she can imply this all she wants:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position...And if he was a woman ... 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.

what is going on here?

It seems reasonable to attribute the high percentage of votes that Barack gets from the African American community to be a result of race. Is it fair to point it out, is anything worthwhile accomplished by stating the obvious, or is it unfair or worse?

Ok. The statement that Obama is getting a high percentage of African-American votes on the basis on his ethnicity, can be interpreted in a number of ways.

In one sense, one is making a sociological claim; that voters often vote for candidates based on their shared ethnicity. Nothing offensive so far: we're applying observed trends in human relations and applying them to a particular context. Such a claim wouldn't be immediately obvious, since any justification would require a poll or survey.

If, however, the claim is that African-American voters will 'obviously' vote for Obama, because identifying with his race is always (or more often than usual) the primary or the sole concern then we're making a claim about a specific class of voters, and ignoring whether the claim is generalizable to human behaviour.

In yet another interpretation, one could be suggesting that African-Americans vote for Obama, because they feel that his ethnicity provides him with a certain insight that enables him to better represent their views. We might ask whether Obama's ethnicity really provides him with any special epistemic access, but critisizing the argument wouldn't imply that there's something funky about being black.

shit.

Norm wrote:

It seems reasonable to attribute the high percentage of votes that Barack gets from the African American community to be a result of race. Is it fair to point it out, is anything worthwhile accomplished by stating the obvious, or is it unfair or worse

re: Gerri Ferraro's comment

this seems to be a lifelong theme with her:

April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz):

"Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. 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."

Adam wrote:

And I did not put that phrase in quotation marks in the block quote, as you dishonestly suggest.

I do no such thing. Yours is a accusation born of ignorance. The quotation marks are obviously mine. As you ought to know, it is standard practice to enclose the words of someone else that one is quoting in double quotes. That is all I have done. Please consult The Chicago Manual of Style for further elucidation. And you have the temerity to write: "(Only someone who did not understand English would read the sentence that way)." At the risk of (re-)stating the bleedin' obvious, these quotation marks are also mine, not yours. Everything within these quotation marks, however, is yours, returned with interest.

entrancemountain: President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race

Hey, now there's a guy you don't hear too much about - Reagan.

Just imagine how far he could have gone in politics if only he hadn't been white. Damn the luck!

gypsy sister wrote:

For someone to suggest that one of them has an advantage over the other because of the minority status is bogus.

I'm not sure it's an entirely bogus suggestion. If members of a particularly disadvantaged minority mobolize to support someone they feel represents them in light of that disadvantage, then it's reasonable in terms of political capital, to call it a political advantage.

Explaining voter support via the superficial characteristics of one's race and gender have spurned accusations of racism and sexism. Indicating that members of identity groups tend to gravitate towards one another is benign and uninteresting, especially if no one bothers to ask why they form into groups.

If the explanation revolves around the historical lived-experience of minorities, and its connection with candidate's identity, then the focus obviously isn't about superfical attributes of women or blacks, but the relationship disadvantaged minorities have had with society.

In other words, there are different interpretations in reading the statements: "They're voting for him because he's black." "They're voting for her because she's a women."

I caught Dan Abrams' programme tonight and I find myself bemused that Pat Buchanan and I are now so often in agreement. I can't explain it but Pat Buchanan noted that Ferraro's comments while perhaps poorly worded were accurate.

The word "lucky" seems to be the main bone of contention. That Obama is lucky to be an African-American. On the one hand, we are who we are and I hope we all think ourselves lucky to be who we are. On the other hand, being African-American in the US is not an easy thing to be.

I think Obama is "new and different" and in that he has tapped into the prevailing winds of political opinion. He is fortunate in that sense to be in the right place at the right time. And yet, I don't think that that necessarily makes him right for the job. Inexperienced he clearly is and in my mind, at least, he is not who he says he is. Nonetheless, the fact that he is an African-American is winning him votes among African-Americans. He carried 91% in Mississippi today. But it is also true that Hillary is winning votes simply because she is female.

Mississippi is troublesome because the ethnic divide is so large but it also true that in Mississippi that was bound to be. The ethnic gap will be less in other states.

The final point is that the issue of race in America remains a difficult one to broach in American politics. Yet I was buoyed by exit polling that in Mississippi at least, most Obama voters would support Clinton in the Fall. They did not report if the inverse were true.

Allow me to simply share the words of Josh Marshall:

Can anyone seriously claim that it's an asset to be an African-American in a US presidential race? Happily what we're now seeing is that it does not in itself seem to be an eliminating factor in a presidential race. But an advantage? There's no doubt that Obama's race is the central factor in allowing him to consolidate almost unanimous support from African-American voters, especially in the South. But African-Americans make up only about 13% of the population. And does anyone doubt that that advantage he gains there is not balanced at least to a substantial degree by resistance to voting for him among white voters? Why is Obama running so poorly among white voters tonight (compared to his rates in northern states) in Mississippi? And in South Carolina? We hear a lot about Sen. Clinton's bedrock of strength among non-college educated white voters. Do we really think that's simply a matter of appeal of Sen. Clinton? More speculatively, but I think no less true, is that a lot of the Farrakhan/Muslim/foreign influence stuff has more sticking power because of Obama's race.

Most of the same points could be made about the advantages and disadvantages Sen. Clinton is under because of her gender. In fact I think there's a pretty striking symmetry. It's clearly helping her with her big advantage among women voters, especially her generational peers. But we'd be foolish not to realize that some of Obama's big margins among white men are not simply a reflection of support for Obama.

You might support Obama or not, think he's qualified or an empty suit but suggesting he's only where he is now because he's black is something much worse than outrageous. It just seems obviously false.

One thing that IS true is that our nation is hungry for Change. Obama was asked 'why not wait 8 or 12 years whne you have more experience adn are more electible'. He replied that he felt the country was at a turning point at that he thought he could help. That he was the candiadate for the moment.

He was correct.

When we consider that the world is at a turning point now, I wonder what his presidency could accomplish. In our nation, inspiring young people is a powerful thing. In the middle east, a black president that was raised internationally is a powerful thing.

He is not the most qualified candidate we've ever seen, but he may be the right one.

At the risk of (re-)stating the bleedin' obvious, these quotation marks are also mine, not yours. Everything within these quotation marks, however, is yours, returned with interest.

At the risk of also stating the obvious: Have you ever heard of iteration? Perhaps you don't understand the difference between use and mention, but your saying 'in your quotation of the article' and then mentioning the quotation, by quoting it, is you triply embedding something I said, that is, you quoting me quoting someone else (a reporter), who was characterizing what another person (Ferraro) said:

The bit that you bold-faced in your quotation of the article, "[...] he has only been successful because he is a black man", was the reporter's characterization of Ferraro's remark.

So you did misquote what I quoted by implying that I thought I was quoting Ferraro, when the double-embedding in the original quotation, of me quoting a reporter who quoted Ferraro, is obvious: the reporters remarks, including glosses via indirect attribution, were in gray background, Ferraro's remarks were all phrases in quotation marks on the grey background.

R7: "but this discussion revolves around our desire to eliminate discrimination from our democratic candidates and their surrogates."

True, but I think we'll have as much luck with them as I did with that woman at the party. The HRC campaign may manage to stop racist insinuations from coming out publicly, but it's unlikely that they'll eliminate such thought from behind closed doors. Thus if someone else brings up race as a negative (the 3am ad; you beat me to the punch in linking this) or an advantage, it's unlikely the HRC campaign will denounce such statements. Clinton hasn't distanced herself from Ferraro's comments yet.

melpomenh: In other words, there are different interpretations in reading the statements: "They're voting for him because he's black." "They're voting for her because she's a women." (sorry I haven't bothered to learn the greying in code for this site)

OK; I see what you're saying. Do you feel it can be argued from the vantage point of there are different interpretations of "They're NOT voting for him because he's black." "They're NOT voting for her because she's a woman." (different they's, obviously)

"Geraldine Ferraro is correct, Obama would not be where he is if he was not black. If he was white he'd have 2025 pledged delegates already and Hillary would be history. The voters that cite race as the most important factor in deciding their vote break for Hillary overwhelmingly."

Bingo.

Clinton hasn't distanced herself from Ferraro's comments yet.

Yes she has, unless this doesn't qualify.

She has distanced herself, but hasn't asked Ferraro to resign. She implies this is sort of the same as the "monster" remark and it is a regrettable "personal" remark.

I don't know that comments about race are really just a personal remark and even if its only on the level of the monster remark it still requires that she leave the Clinton team.

She is clearly not willing to condemn her, and request she leave any formal capacity from the campaign.

The special comment tonight is gonna be killer.

Oh and the Clinton campaign said this

far from denouncing them, sent out campaign manager Maggie Williams to try to turn the tables, accusing Obama of "false, personal and politically calculated attacks" for having the audacity to complain.

Before they said this

do not agree with that. It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we’ve both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal

Hillary was for the remark before she was against it. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/03/11/olbermann-ferraros-statement-clearly-racist-are-we-south-africa

Oh my, another divisive thread. I think anything constructive that could be said has been said. Comments are now closed on this post.