« Ferraro is right-whoopi goldberg agrees-Josh you're wrong | alter's Blog | WHO ARE YA KIDDIN’ OBAMA!!!? Trustworthy, Naïve, Poor Instincts – All the qualities of a good Chief Executive?! »
Ferraro is right-Ask Whoopi Goldberg
Josh did you happen to catch Whoopi Goldberg today on the view (thursday) She knows Ferraro personally and doesn't think her comment was racist nor is Ferraro racist.
I am glad to see someone speaking some common sense hear- and before you call me mr white racist-
I am white and in a bi racial marriage for over 15 years and have a bi racial son. And I have a graduate degree and we are mid to upper middle class. Shouldn't I be Obama's demographic?
By the way, my wife agrees with this.
I like Obama enough, but he is just not the best qualified for the job of the two of them.
I am glad to see someone speaking some common sense hear- and before you call me mr white racist-
I am white and in a bi racial marriage for over 15 years and have a bi racial son. And I have a graduate degree and we are mid to upper middle class. Shouldn't I be Obama's demographic?
By the way, my wife agrees with this.
I like Obama enough, but he is just not the best qualified for the job of the two of them.
Advertisement
Whoopi Goldberg backing her does not make her remarks true.
I feel sorry for your wife and child. Your wife and child's race does not exclude you from being racist or ignorant or both. I noticed you have not repeated the rationale behind your or Whoopi's claim that Ferraro is correct.
You're just another jackass telling us why you aren't a racist while embracing racism. Congrats.
March 14, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your disagreement on this post but not its harsh tone and insult (be nice). Nevertheless, Whoopi is a Clinton-backer (and Geraldine Ferraro apologist apparently) but just because she is black and has lots of fans (like me) that doesn't make her right.
It doesn't make Maggie Williams right either, and I still have a knot in my stomach thinking about her gall and audacity to try to place the blame for Ferraro's so blatantly racist comments on the target and victim , Senator Obama. It's still shocking that it came from such a high-profile and (formerly) admired feminist (Ferraro) : It is somewhat akin to blaming a rape victim for being raped.
There have been several attempts by Clinton defenders to either say that there is nothing wrong with Ferraro's comments or to simply agree and say she was right. She wasn't. Politics aside, they were appalling and wrong. Enough people who know better than "alter" (the post's author), Whoopi, Maggie Williams or love-struck Clintonites, can see how this comment, the subtle racist tone of the Clinton campaign, and the current uproar is hurting the Democratic Party and has serious potential to divide and destroy us.
Keith Olbermann, Matt Markos Moulitsas, TPM chief Josh Marshall and many others on television have spoken and written compellingly about the undeniably wrongheadedness of Ferraro's (and Clinton's) mistakes in this matter.
David Axelrod even defended Ferraro saying that he has know her for a long time and doesn't think she's racist as have many others, but the comments and her history of such statements certainly are. As for TM's suggesting that you and your wife are "racist and ignorant," I don't think it's so much that as love-struck. (I'm Hispanic and can tell you from experience with family members who can out-Tancredo TomTancredo that being a minority doesn't excuse you from being a racist. Just ask Clarence Thomas).
I've written about this several times now (see my TPM blog) and as a former love-struck Clinton fan who stuck with them full-voiced through thick and thin, I have finally broke away and like any survivor of an abusive relationship, see things much more clearly.
There is hope for you, your wife, Whoopi, Ms. Ferraro and others who are still blindly in love with the Clintons. Your child is lucky and (like my mixed-race children) will benefit greatly from an Obama presidency. He will be a great example for the next generation of children like ours who will check "other" on questionaires asking about their race. What Ms. Ferraro said was wrong.
March 14, 2008 3:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
amber,
Shelby Steele, a scholar of race relations who is not (as far as I know) a Clinton supporter, has articulated Ferraro's exact sentiment about Obama, if much more eloquently. In this clip from January, Steele explains how Obama's campaign is more about white America than about Barack Obama:
Identifying what happens when directly challenging subjects do come up in this campaign, Steele notes:
Steele thinks Obama's candidacy is 100 percent about race. He asks, "What other idea would he have that would catch fire like that?"
Feel free to disagree with Ferraro's and Williams's comments; however, their comments are not at all "somewhat akin to blaming a rape victim for being raped."
March 14, 2008 4:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Whoopie doesn't think Ferrero is racist.
Whoopie didn't think that her exhusband Ted Danson showing up in black face for a hollywood event was racist either. Maybe she felt lucky to have him.
March 14, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I won't get caught up in the "best qualified" business, but I will say that if your barometer for social commentary is set by the star of Sister Act II, then you might consider rethinking things.
Doesn't this smack of "Ferraro's got black friends, so she couldn't be racist"? I'm not saying that is it, exactly, but isn't it awfully close?
March 14, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
correction: Ferraro
March 14, 2008 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I always look to The View for valuable insight:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GbizzLzcpnM
March 14, 2008 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shelby Steele is an interesting man and quite well spoken. I watched his interview on Bill Moyers' PBS show a while back when they were discussing Obama and race. (Steele's mixed-race like Senator Obama). I'd be curious to get his take on this whole flap.
I just read the Reader Post "Ferraro and Olbermann and Wright. And Hill and Bill. (Oh my.)by The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve" and now I don't think I have anymore to say on the subject because he said it so eloquently.
I appreciate your civil tone. So often here these days people can be so mean. Please don't actually blow a gasket.
March 14, 2008 5:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw the thought-provoking Moyers interview too. For anyone interested, here's a link.
Haven't read The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve's post. This subject is so combustible, I hadn't had the stomach for more. Maybe I'll check it out after all.
And thanks for reading my tone as civil. I personally wish we (as a society, I mean, but also at TPM) could get to a place where racism can be discussed honestly. Because it isn't discussed honestly (by whites, who determine the parameters of all dialogue in this country) racism remains unresolved and more combustible than ever. Whites seem to think that calling everyone a racist is going to solve the problem. I think that'll just drive the problem into other areas (like immigration) and focus it on other people (like Muslims, Latinos). I think this is already happening.
Sigh.
March 14, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shelby Steele is hardly a "scholar" of race relations. He has opinions, some of them interesting, like the idea of the Iconic Negro. He is a Black Conservative with a position at the Hoover Institution, a Conservative think tank located on Stanford University's campus. Some might speculate that he had gotten his position there not because he was the most qualified candidate for the chair he occupies, but because he's Black and Conservative. Steele shares the view that Obama has no substance (his appeal is 100% race based as you put it) and that therefore people are voting for him only because he's Black. If that were true, he'd be right. The question is whether its true.
Ferraro too thinks Obama's candidacy is 100 percent about race. If he weren't Black we wouldn't be talking about him, or something to that effect. Then after the racist statement is made, they put a Black face on it by trotting out Maggie Smith who accuses Obama of raising the issue because he has responded to it!!! It is EXACTLY like blaming the victim for the crime. The Republicans have been practicing this strategy to enormous success for 40 years. It's appalling to see Hillary Clinton adopt it and her supporters turn a blind eye.
March 14, 2008 5:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maggie Smith? lol! You mean Maggie Williams.
March 14, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd bet Steele is more of a scholar of race relations than you are, donald 321. More than I am, too. I'd also bet that you didn't watch the video clip, judging by your half-accurate comments. Don't worry, Steele doesn't say anything radical about Obama.
Steele credits Obama with plenty of talent but argues that Obama's experience is pretty thin (going almost directly from state legislature to his presidential run) and that if Obama were white, he wouldn't get the same attention with so little experience. I don't think Steele is wrong about that, nor is he slighting Obama by pointing it out. I think he's incredibly careful not to slight Obama. People like Ferraro, otoh, tend not to credit Obama with having any talent.
Steele also proposes that by arguing Obama is "transcending race," Obama makes his candidacy "completely about race." I can also see this argument, especially when I hear Obama covering the same rhetorical ground over and over without ever getting into specifics.
But Steele can speak for himself, so if you want to debate how wrong Steele is, I wish you would watch the video first. The fact that Steele's a black conservative isn't an argument in itself.
March 14, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did YOU watch and listen to Obama as he made his speech years ago at the Democratic convention? Had you, as I did, you would have at the very least thought to yourself: wow, this guy is amazing...what a great vision of our country! He made a lasting impression.
This is a man with enormous talent...much more than our average freshman congressman or senator. He could be white and we'd all say the same thing.
It's not because Obama's black that he got this far...it's because he's one helluva communicator, and you don't find a whole lot of this in our leadership anywhere today.
March 14, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
WOW TM whew!?!?!
Such er uh excitement in your tone. I re read my post to find the reason for your reaction and name calling. I can't see it. If you could manage to get past your name calling to address the concerns I stated that would be great.
Nope re-read it again. Your "rage" comes from some other place than my post. "To thy own self be true(thful)
March 14, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Adam
No it doesn't smack of I got black friends. What this race smacks of is a very real and public challenge of whether or not we are post-racially prejudiced in our society.
I am not judging Obama on the color of his skin but on the whole of the politician that he is. And he is a politician and a pretty good one at this point. But just as Clinton benefited in part from being former first lady and a woman, he has benefited from his African father.
And back out to TM, hmmmm if his mother is white, then am I only a half jackass and halfass racist?
Dana
A speech talent is a valuable gift in a politician, but oratory is a gift anyone can have as history has proven, it is more about the rest of the candidate. Like I said he is allright with me but he doesn't pass Clinton on her qualifications, period.
March 14, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right readytoblowagasket I didn't watch the clip. I watched the entire podcast online last month from his late arrival to the end of the question and answer period. I believe he was speaking at Cody's books right across the Bay from me in Berkeley. In any case, I've read Content of His Character and a number of his essays. As I said, I liked his rendering of the "Iconic Negro", although the concept is hardly new. Do I have your permission now to debate "how wrong Steele is"?
You go right ahead and call him a "scholar" if you like. I think the more accurate term would be somewhere in the pundit-essayist range. But maybe he's churning out mountains of peer reviewed scholarship that no one but his scholarly colleagues and you knows or cares about.
The trap that Steele sets for Obama (and for any potential Black candidate) is just a variation of the one that Geraldine Ferraro sets for him: Obama is Black. He has enthusiastic support especially and unexpectedly from white people. He's not qualified or experienced enough (because I say so) and hasn't articulated anything specific (that I've heard). Therefore people must be supporting him because he's Black -- and non threatening like all Iconic Negroes.
Your elision of Obama's time in the Senate with that well placed "almost" is within the same vein.
And of course you can construct the same trap for any woman running for president such as the one I voted for in the California Democratic Primary.
March 14, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Paranoid much? Or are you just heels-dug-in stubborn?
For the record, my take on Steele was completely different. In the version I saw of his lecture, Steele is not "setting a trap" for Obama; he is instead commenting on white society's ability to accept a black leader. Steele is critical of whites, not necessarily of Obama. He says, actually, that we don't know as much about Obama as we do about other candidates. Steele never says that Obama is "not experienced enough" in this or any of the clips I saw of the lecture. But maybe Steele's "trap" snaps in a part I haven't yet viewed.
Per Steele, Obama has enthusiastic support from whites because he doesn't make whites feel guilty for racial sins from the past. Steele's emphasis is more on white guilt over slavery and the long and sordid history of race relations in this country. He does not simplistically accuse Obama of pandering to get elected.
Wrong (and wrong-headed).
March 15, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I could have sworn I set the codes correctly. Here's an attempted recode of the messed up part:
Um, no, but a facile interpretation of Steele might lead to such stunted thinking.
Great! I'm glad it seems in the "same vein" to you. That's because I was paraphrasing Steele. Thanks for reading me so carefully that you can't tell which might be my thoughts and which might be Steele's.
I suppose anything's possible, but speaking strictly for myself, I'm not interested in "constructing" artificial reasons to choose or reject a candidate.
Since you've made up your mind about everything I'm going to say and misread half of what I've already said (based on Steele's personal-experience essays from a book he published 18 years ago), I will bow out of this ridiculous trap I seem to have stumbled into. For my part, I do not have the luxury of time to "set traps" for Obama, Clinton, or even, believe it or not, for you.
March 15, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink