The Sadness of the Ferraro Saga
The Ferraro saga continues, and is truly heartbreaking. As a longtime supporter (I volunteered for her congressional races and worked for Mondale/Ferraro), I don’t believe that Ferraro is a racist. However, she has clearly become so disconnected that she doesn’t recognize the racially charged nature of her remarks, or the way she is denigrating her own role in history.
Beyond Obama’s assertion that being black has never been part of the ‘Presidential Candidates Handbook,’ there are aspects of Ferraro’s comments that my wife points out to me that are just non-sensical. Ferraro says that Obama would not be in the position he’s in were he a woman of any color, yet she supports a woman who claims to be in roughly the same position. Is she saying that Hillary Clinton is actually a token candidate rather than a legitimate contender? Further, she claims that those arguing the point she’s making are being reverse-racists— they’re attacking her because she’s white. Yet the candidate she supports has refuted her remarks. Is Hillary Clinton practicing reverse racism?
Part of her defense (if you can call it that) is to acknowledge that she would never have been the 1984 Vice Presidential nominee were she not a woman. In fairness, she is right— but the circumstances are not parallel. Ferraro became the Democrats VP nominee because an individual (Walter Mondale) decided to make a bold move and select a female VP nominee. That is very different from a widespread electorate individually choosing to vote for a minority candidate. Mondale was specifically intending to make a statement. It is hard to imagine that the more than 13 million individuals who have voted for Obama thus far are collectively trying to make a statement Further, there are dramatic differences between the two political seasons; Mondale chose to make his statement in a year when Democrats were expected to lose; voters are choosing Obama in a year when Democrats are expected to win. It’s one thing to make a statement choice in a year when you’re going to lose anyway. It’s another thing entirely to cast a statement vote in a year you’re likely to win.
Ferraro seems to have forgotten the way the opposition attempted to marginalize her candidacy by paining her with the brush of stereotypes— both those of a woman and those of an Italian-American. I say she seems to have forgotten this, because she is trying to do the same thing to Obama. She has either forgotten what was done to her, or is so adamant that the gender barrier must be broken before any other, that she is lashing out in this way.
The saddening thing is that Geri Ferraro apparently does not understand her own place in history. Barack Obama is not in the place that he is solely because he’s black. Hillary Clinton is not in the position that she’s in solely because she’s a woman. They are both, however, where they are in part because Geri Ferraro went first: she took the beating; she took the attempts at marginalization; she took the slurs under the radar, and sometimes not under the radar. It is, in part, because she got that conversation started in 1984 that Obama and Clinton can run on who they are and not on what they are. But by throwing around the language that she is throwing around, by trying to marginalize Obama (and, by extension, Clinton) Geri Ferraro is threatening to drag us all the way back and undo all the good that she had done.
Beyond Obama’s assertion that being black has never been part of the ‘Presidential Candidates Handbook,’ there are aspects of Ferraro’s comments that my wife points out to me that are just non-sensical. Ferraro says that Obama would not be in the position he’s in were he a woman of any color, yet she supports a woman who claims to be in roughly the same position. Is she saying that Hillary Clinton is actually a token candidate rather than a legitimate contender? Further, she claims that those arguing the point she’s making are being reverse-racists— they’re attacking her because she’s white. Yet the candidate she supports has refuted her remarks. Is Hillary Clinton practicing reverse racism?
Part of her defense (if you can call it that) is to acknowledge that she would never have been the 1984 Vice Presidential nominee were she not a woman. In fairness, she is right— but the circumstances are not parallel. Ferraro became the Democrats VP nominee because an individual (Walter Mondale) decided to make a bold move and select a female VP nominee. That is very different from a widespread electorate individually choosing to vote for a minority candidate. Mondale was specifically intending to make a statement. It is hard to imagine that the more than 13 million individuals who have voted for Obama thus far are collectively trying to make a statement Further, there are dramatic differences between the two political seasons; Mondale chose to make his statement in a year when Democrats were expected to lose; voters are choosing Obama in a year when Democrats are expected to win. It’s one thing to make a statement choice in a year when you’re going to lose anyway. It’s another thing entirely to cast a statement vote in a year you’re likely to win.
Ferraro seems to have forgotten the way the opposition attempted to marginalize her candidacy by paining her with the brush of stereotypes— both those of a woman and those of an Italian-American. I say she seems to have forgotten this, because she is trying to do the same thing to Obama. She has either forgotten what was done to her, or is so adamant that the gender barrier must be broken before any other, that she is lashing out in this way.
The saddening thing is that Geri Ferraro apparently does not understand her own place in history. Barack Obama is not in the place that he is solely because he’s black. Hillary Clinton is not in the position that she’s in solely because she’s a woman. They are both, however, where they are in part because Geri Ferraro went first: she took the beating; she took the attempts at marginalization; she took the slurs under the radar, and sometimes not under the radar. It is, in part, because she got that conversation started in 1984 that Obama and Clinton can run on who they are and not on what they are. But by throwing around the language that she is throwing around, by trying to marginalize Obama (and, by extension, Clinton) Geri Ferraro is threatening to drag us all the way back and undo all the good that she had done.
Advertisement
While I agree with you that her language is not needed, I don't think the Clinton campaign is trying to marginalize Obama. Ferraro's comment is an emotional response based on frustration. This is anything but tactical. It is comment that Obama himself has echoed.
Maureen Dowd, "Ways of the Wayward", 3/12/08
"Obama acknowledged when he arrived in the Senate that he got more attention, his big book deal and his celebrity, because he is not white. He was only the third black senator elected since Reconstruction."
Obama and everyone else knows where Ferraro is coming from. The Obama camp is one making the tactical moves.
March 12, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I am disturbed by many of the Clinton Campaign tactics, I do agree that they are not gaming here. I do think Ferraro is acting alone. But, intentional or not, I do think the effect is to marginalize.
March 12, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
As ABC News said, echoing the omnipresent TPM poster "idiotic": IT'S GOOD NEWS FOR HILLARY!!!
It is, however, terrible news for the future of the Democratic Party. Some posters have suggested contacting the DNC. Here's the contact info:
Contacting the DNC:
Mailing Address:
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003
Main Phone Number: 202-863-8000
For questions about contributions, call 877-336-7200
Email form at: http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact
March 12, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are the type of Democratic voter being targeted. Any response from Obama's campon this issue is playing the race card. African-Americans see the racism in her statements, if you don't. Sen Clinton's response to the comment was disgraceful. Clinton nees to tell Ferraro to stop or refuse any more funds from Ferraro.
Clinton had the majority of the African-American vote initially. Remember "Is Barack Black Enough?"
Clinton worked hard to lose her advantage. Obama worked hard and earned their votes. Democrats will repeat the Ferraro campaign debacle by not distancing themselves from Ferraro's comments. A significant chunk of African-American voters will stay home if Clinton is the nominee. Democrats will not win without the Black vote. How "lucky" to be African-American.
If I take Ferraro's racist comments to the extreme than I could say "X" wouldn't be where he/she is if they weren't lucky enough to be White.
March 12, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can only say it's not an intentional strategy so many times. The Clinton campaign, from Bill on down, has repeatedly tried to marginalize Obama as a black candidate and to sow resentment among voters.
March 12, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
With posts like this, you will be getting no funding Geri ;-). Yes, it is truly tragic the dialogue of the campaign has reached such levels. Your comments are quite insightful.
March 12, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Likely none of us posting here would be in the place we are today had it not been for being born in a country where we could get an education, enough food, etc. and a job which allowed internet and computer and so on. We've all benefited by accidents of birth - and we've all been limited by these circumstances as well.
Ferraro's remarks, to her surprise, are being taken seriously. She has offended many people, including me. She imagines that her many years of stating support for civil rights gives her a pass. But no passes will be given. This is like the 3 am phone call. When push came to shove, she has said things she cannot take back... over and over... and she has to live with the consequences.
March 12, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe she threatened Obama to back off bacuase she "won't fundraise for him" if he's too aggressive. I don't think Barack has a fundraising problem.
March 12, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hah, yeah I laughed pretty hard at that. She also said this will cause her to "fundraise twice as hard" now. HAHA! More "day one" readiness from team Clinton. "Wait, it's a race? Okay, watch out. Now we're really going to start trying!"
March 12, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
A thought experiment: imagine that Barack Obama was a white freshman senator with the same temperament, manners, intellect, detailed policy positions and that he had been opposed to the war at the onset and had had the courage to speak out about it publicly when almost no one else was. Tell me he wouldn't be where he is now. Tell me Hilary wouldn't have conceded already to such a candidate.
March 12, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, definitely true! We all have advantages and disavantages to situations in life and some of these may even reverse themselves at times... ie an advantage at one time might become a disadvantage at another or visa-versa. Ferraro not coming out and giving an apology or even a clarifying statement was even worse... her second statement reverse racism? Well, if that's the case, then I'm wondering why am I disgusted with her and I'm white and a woman too boot!
Also, what goes with Hillary's other aid (forgotten her name)coming out defending Ferraro and blamming the Obama camp for making it racist? How LAME!!! Can you imagine if someone from the Obama camp came out and said that Hillary is only where she is because she was married to Bill...when others in the media implied that very thing, they were called sexist and apologized immediately.
March 12, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don’t believe that Ferraro is a racist.
In theory it might be possible for someone who is not a racist to say things that try to exploit racism.
In practice, not so much.
March 12, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Ferraro seems to have forgotten the way the opposition attempted to marginalize her candidacy by paining her with the brush of stereotypes— both those of a woman and those of an Italian-American."
I doubt it; rather, I think she remembers it all too clearly. Just like H. Clinton, it's all she can remember, and for Hillary, it's most of her defense. She's been attacked and marginalized her entire career, which gives her license to attack and marginalize anyone who challenges her now.
I still think that somewhere in the Clinton campaign there's someone who thinks that 1) marginalizing blacks is just fine because, at least in theory, she's locked up the latino vote, a group she assumes is still hostile to blacks, and 2) whites in PA are more angry at blacks about affirmative action than they are at women.
March 12, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the insightful commentary, Robert. Beyond the irony that Ferraro's remarks do seem intended to marginalize Obama as a real contender, we're not looking at a GE contest at this point, when it might be understandable that the opposing party would seek to marginalize the opponent on the basis of race or sex or privilege, etc. Ferraro's comments are aimed at the members of her own party. How can her shortsighted remarks possibly be reconciled and forgiven if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee? It's amazing that Ferraro should be incapable of recognizing the damage that will result from her intentionally divisive remarks. But it seems pretty well in line with the current HRC kitchen sink strategy. Bad news for the Democratic party.
March 12, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whats so noble about this person? C'mon public stances are one thing... but do you know these immigrants - mostly women make 3-5 cents a stitch?
Do you think their LUCKY?
A SOHO building partially owned by U.S. Senate candidate Geraldine Ferraro and managed by her husband, John Zaccaro, has housed 35 Chinese garment-manufacturing companies over the past few years--many of them nonunion and some apparently illegal.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9810,212225,143,1.html
March 12, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also find her comments very sad. I was a young Italian-American woman when she ran. We were so proud of her in my family. Now, I'm proud of my family. Most of sisters and female cousins, who grew-up working class in Ohio, and are over 45, are voting on the basis of the best candidate - voting for Obama. I think there are many good qualities in both our Democratic Party candidates, but the one that makes me proud to be a Democrat is the one who is not making race and gender an issue, but hope, vision and judgment.
But - I can still get a little gender/ethnic pride in there too with our great Speaker - Nancy Pelosi!
March 12, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Morgandy,
"A thought experiment: imagine that Barack Obama was a white freshman senator with the same temperament, manners, intellect, detailed policy positions and that he had been opposed to the war at the onset and had had the courage to speak out about it publicly when almost no one else was. Tell me he wouldn't be where he is now. Tell me Hilary wouldn't have conceded already to such a candidate."
I honestly I think that Barack's message of "change", "new politics", "transcending race", "the urgency of now", none of these phrases, will have the same resonance if it was coming out of a white guy's mouth. We would question the substance more cause we would say, you sure don't look like change, how are you going to transcend race?, why is it so urgent that you should be in office?...etc.
I think his message is tailored perfectly for who he is. And there is nothing wrong with that.
And it is a testament to Hillary's strength as a candidate that she has been able to survive Obama's popularity.
March 12, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It should be very easy for Hillary Clinton to say, in public, to her staff and supporters and friends, that mention of race is simply not permissible. Just forget about it.
But she hasn't, and it is like the reverse-discrimination crap---as in "why is my speech being restricted to protect someone else's special rights?"
I expect Ferraro to be ignorant, she's been described as essentially Archie Bunker without the accent, but Clinton is either too wily to be clear on it, or too stupid.
March 12, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watching Chris Mathews today, I see that Pat Buchanan totally agrees with Geraldine Ferraro's comments. That tells me a great deal about how Ferraro's words come across.
None of the pundits addressed the issue of Ferraro being selected to be a VP candidate and not having to have to generate votes on a national level. Obama has actually had to campaign suffer wins and losses.
Rush Limbaugh is footing the Clinton campaign. 24% of the Clinton vote in Mississippi was from Republicans per Chris Mathews'. Clinton's kitchen sink campaign is exactly what Rush wants. The tactic is to damage Obama if he makes it to the General Election. I see nothing that makes me feel good about a Hillary Clinton Presidency.
March 12, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was there in the Minnesota House Chamber that day in 1984 when Walter Mondale introduced Geraldine Ferraro to the crowd as his running mate.
Like most people there, I was proud of my party and excited about the fact that we had the first female Vice Presidential nominee in US history.
Looking back on it now, it's utterly clear that she was chosen SOLELY because of her gender.
She was a total nobody.
She had been in the US House for 6 years.
She had no accomplishments.
She didn't pass Hillary's "Commander in Chief" test.
And the worst part is, 24 years later, she has the Chutzpah to criticize Obama, who is way, way beyond anything she has ever been.
It's an outrage.
And I want to know why Hillary hasn't rejected AND denounced her.
March 12, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on. Do you really think Ferraro is making these controversial statements that have real consequences for Clinton's campaign without their tacit encouragement? Do you not see how this fits into Hillary's entire Rovian campaign to marginalize Obama as The Black candidate, subvert his message of unity, and throw him off message while blaming him for fighting back? It's sickeningly obvious.
March 12, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
1984 - I was 18 and it was my first opportunity to vote. I was SO PROUD to vote for a Democrat and the first woman VP nominee.....24 years later I realize that the many in the leadership of the democratic party have been espousing equality in public but the venom of racism was deep in their hearts. So disappointing.
Airwon is SO wrong. Years ago a young white man spoke in idealistic terms and was one of the most popular presidents ever.....John F. Kennedy, Jr.
March 12, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't she dying of cancer?
March 12, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton - an elected public official - should be doing everything in her power to eliminate minority prejudice and marginalize those who harbor such sentiments. Instead, this venal politician is pandering to bigots throughout the land, and marginalizing vulnerable ethnic minority populations! Jim Crow Hillary has lost whatever credibility she once enjoyed among progressives, and her reputation is now sullied.
March 13, 2008 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink