« Ferraro's "Swiftboating" of Obama - A Republican Preview. | Kinkistyle's Blog | Maybe I should just "quit" America and join another country. »
Obama's "Monster" reaction vs. Clinton's Ferraro reaction
I must say, this whole Geraldine Ferraro ordeal is actually making Obama's hasty disposal of Samantha Powers after her "monster" comment look like a fantastic bit of leadership and good judgement.
I know a lot of Obama supporters, myself included, who sort of lamented that Barack was wussing out and folding by not fighting to keep Powers on the staff, but it now seems like it was the perfect segue to the Geraldine Ferraro debacle and Clinton's slow-footedness in dealing with her. It provides a contrast of Obama's decisiveness expediency that gives off an image of leadership versus an indecisivene waffling that gives an image of lack of control and message.
So I eat crow and congratulate Obama on making a gutsy move that turned out to be the right one with Samantha Powers.
I know a lot of Obama supporters, myself included, who sort of lamented that Barack was wussing out and folding by not fighting to keep Powers on the staff, but it now seems like it was the perfect segue to the Geraldine Ferraro debacle and Clinton's slow-footedness in dealing with her. It provides a contrast of Obama's decisiveness expediency that gives off an image of leadership versus an indecisivene waffling that gives an image of lack of control and message.
So I eat crow and congratulate Obama on making a gutsy move that turned out to be the right one with Samantha Powers.
Advertisement
I would argue that Clinton hasn't learned a thing from the debacle that was GWB. Remember, "you're doing a great job, Brownie?" That was probably ringing in Obama's ears when he heard about what Powers said.
Obama shows good judgment and an ability to learn from others' mistakes. He also shows that he's in charge of his own campaign. Clinton...just doesn't. At this rate, she's going to list Penn as her Cheney-esque running mate.
March 14, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
A more appropriate comparison would be Obama's response to Wright vs. Hillary's response to Ferraro. It seems to me that they both have respect for their crazy surrogates. Ferraro, a big symbol to the feminist movement, Wright, a big influence to Obama's faith. Neither wanted to cut these people loose, and so far Obama has not done so with Wright. Nor is it clear that Hillary initiated it with Ferraro. I don't think this speaks to either of their judgment, as the reason they are hesitant to act quickly and decisively, in my opinion, is not that they agree with their opinions, but rather they're connections with these people go way back and it's hard to push them aside in the pursuit of power. They're both in a tough spot and I don't envy either of them. Let's not be so quick to judge all the time.
March 14, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is easy to judge on this distinction: Ferraro was an active fundraiser and national TV spokesperson.
Wright is neither. There is nothing to cut him loose from, no position in the campaign, and he was never presented as speaking for it.
Add to that the utter lack of defense for Ferraro's silly and insensitive comments, and the historical and factual basis for Wright to reserve his loyalty, and there is quite a difference.
March 14, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Wright is a member of Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee — the sort of largely honorary, advisory body that in recent days has recently been used mostly to throw people off who say controversial things.
The Obama campaign couldn't immediately say whether he'd remain on the committee."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Wrights_committee.html
Wright's comments were equally silly and insensitive. Oh, the bias. Oh, the hypocrisy.
March 14, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken, I was wrong about formal positions.
But Wright has more standing to make his remarks than Ferraro had for hers.
March 15, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
FWright is not a "surrogate" and has no role in Obama's campaign as such. He was Obama's spiritual advisor. I'm not sure how you're supposed to "cut loose" your former pastor who has already retired from the church. Ferraro was working as the fundraising chair of Hillary's campaign.
So the original Powers-Ferraro comparison is the closer one in my opinion, although I do also think that the Rev. Wright issue is a thorn in the side in that it will be probably played then replayed against a either jive or congo-drum background music by the Republicans if Obama is the nominee during the general election.
March 14, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
A few things about Wright:
1) He's a pastor, not a public official. His comments were made to his congregation not to a reporter. And the fact that it took nearly two months for this to gain any traction suggests that he wasn't trying to get media attention with this sermon. Ferraro made her comments to several reporters and in a speech and then made the morning show rounds when it all blew up. It seemed like she was looking for an open mic.
2) I've never fully agreed with anything that my church leaders have said. I wouldn't come out and publicly admonish them for anything they said at the pulpit - it's their pulpit - but I don't always agree with them. I think it's absolutely possible to appreciate a church leader for his/her guidance and support and still disagree with some of their sermons or stances. Religion is a murky thing.
3) No one's really talking about this - Wright's sermon was inflammatory and harshly played the race card, but it wasn't exactly wrong. Obama is an African American raised by a single parent - Hillary is not. I would assume that no one has ever called Hillary a n-----. He was only talking to his congregation and he wasn't saying anything that his congregation didn't already think. It wasn't like he was trying to poison a Pennsylvania electorate or anything...
4) He's retired - it's not like he's still preaching or has ever worked for the campaign. What could Obama do - hire him so he could symbolically fire him?
The Powers/Ferraro comparison is more apt than Ferraro/Wright.
March 14, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would assume no one ever called Obama a b---- or menopausal. I could be wrong though.
March 14, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would hope not! But as Tina Fey pointed out bitch can be a compliment! And when did any of Obama's official surrogates (not over passionate bloggers) call Clinton a bitch or menopausal?
March 14, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Love Tina Fey for that!
That wasn't my point. When did one of Clinton's official surrogates call Obama a n-----?
Thank god, never.
You wrote:
"I would assume that no one has ever called Hillary a n-----." As if saying that truth somehow means anything. That wasn't the outrageous portion of Wright's message.
March 14, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? That's the part they keep replaying on CNN. I've watched the whole thing and it's uncomfortable, but I don't know which part is the "outrageous part."
March 14, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton "because her husband was good to us," he continued.
"That's not true," he thundered. "He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky."
“He was riding dirty.”
THAT I find to be outrageous. And as he is listed as one of the top ten most powerful pastors in the nation, I think it's important Obama speak to these comments.
March 14, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I wish he had provided specific support to that claim (and cited it thoroughly) I still don't see what's wrong with it. Many Clinton policies could have done a better job of following through on campaign promises. Sure, the analogy's a little...um...vivid...but it works. And it's not wrong. Actually, I laughed out loud at that part.
Have you ever seen the Jon Stewart joke where he showed 9 screwing 11? I kind of pictured Bill, cigar in his teeth, bending the Continental US over the Oval Office desk. Vivid, ugly, but disgustingly funny...
March 14, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's right. The Clinton's didn't do anything for black people. I'm sick and tired of people believing that they did. Now, don't get me wrong, they weren't expected to do anything for us, but they didn't have to throw us under the bus. They did the same thing to gay people. The whole, "Black people love us!" business is to the benefit of white people.
And for all this, "Oh, he offended my wittle ears." crap, ya'll are in for a wake up call. Wright didn't say a damn thing hasn't heard in black churches and mosques before. I actually laughed, "That was what got people whining?" Please. That is tame to some of the sermons my grandfather preached, my father preached, that I'v heard in the mosques. So you can get pissy and regret some of his comments, but black preachers and imams are still going to be saying the same thing until there is real equality.
March 15, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least Powers used "monster" which has more masculine overtones...
March 14, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Penn's talking points on Rev. Wright must have arrived in the Hillary supporters' email boxes this morning.
March 14, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just as Axelrod's talking points arrive in yours every morning.
Seriously, this post is a great example of the sound and the fury, signifying nothing.
March 14, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the good ol' days of policy discussion! Still, the name calling brouhaha fits nicely in the seven minute radio segments separating the commercials and is a whole less vexing than figuring out how to solve our national problems. Monster, pimp, lucky black man--just words, folks. Keep score in your own head if you feel so obligated, but take care not to trample the First Amendment whilst stomping about in your indignation.
March 14, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
FWIW, Obama has released a statement on Wright that looks a lot more comprehensive than anything Hillary's said on Ferraro:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html
March 14, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boom goes the Dynamite!
March 15, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's high time the candidates AND the media get back to talking about the WAR and the ECONOMY! Everyday is becoming a new page of sensationalism.
March 15, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't agree that Obama's quick disposal of Samantha Power looked like 'a fantastic bit of leadership and good judgement'.
In my view, it made him look a little weak. Had Samantha slugged a member of Hillary's staff or burned down Hillary's house, that would be different. It was a NAME, a bit of name-calling; and only an emotionally immature person would have taken such offence. Children take offence at name-calling; adults should not.
I am sorry Power left. Especially as her leaving was just another instance of accomodating Hillary. I think that Obama should take the lead now. I don't mean the delegate lead. I mean he should start initiating; so far, it's been Hillary doing that. That makes her look presidential and she knows it.
I apply that to this latest call for a debate. unless some issue comes up, a new one, there is little for them to debate. Some say she just want's the free air time. I don't know. I don't see that it makes him look that strong to always be giving her everythng she wants, whether it be yet another debate or something else. HGe needs to shut her down, with regard to more and more debates, in my view.
March 15, 2008 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink