Geraldine Ferraro: Obama Is Lucky to Be Black
| Mon Mar. 10, 2008 8:32 PM PDT
Campaigns make people say crazy things. Here's Clinton surrogate Geraldine Ferraro:
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.
Hat tip Kos, where DHinMI has some interesting thoughts:
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Geraldine Ferraro--nominated as Vice President almost entirely because she was a woman--ridiculing Barack Obama's rise as supposedly due to his race is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
One can laugh at the ridiculousness of the statement, or ridicule the idea that African-Americans somehow have it easier in America than white men or women. But to do so misses how Ferraro's statement will be heard by too many Americans.
The fact is, there are a lot of White people in American who believe they're at a disadvantage, that Blacks get things handed to them. The idea may be foreign to some people, but I've heard it my entire life. I've heard it at family gatherings, in my neighborhood when I was a kid, from family friends and all kinds of other folks. It's not a fringe belief.
In a contest between minorities traditionally closed out of the political process, it's inevitable that tensions like the ones displayed here ("It's harder being female!" "No, it's harder being black!") will arise. But Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have said, in very high profile moments, that they are thrilled with the historic nature of the race, and will continue to be thrilled by it even if they don't win the nomination. Remember Clinton saying that she was "honored, honored" to share a stage with Obama? For some reason, only the surrogates can't see the forest for the partisan trees.
Update: Howard Wolfson, communications director for Senator Clinton's campaign, responds: "We disagree with her."
Comments
"Here we go again"?.famous words of Ronald Reagan! The American people have said "We don't want the old Washington politics?the negative campaigning?the dirt?we need to focus on our country and the world! Yet, I have to ask myself?do we really want to change the old politics, or do we yearn for the sensationalism, the dirt?..the soap opera sagas? This schizophrenia reactions to negative campaigning certainly give mixed messages to our politicians. The American public needs to give a clear message that we do not want these tactics. Our country needs direction to transform our policies, not reacting to day to day barbs. We need someone to lead us, to inspire us to believe again?for both parties to work together.
As Americans we need to demand that these candidates reach above this negative campaigning, and show us what can be done for our Economy, the War, our Country and World as a whole. Demand it?and reward it with your vote!
Submitted by capt - Hussein (not verified) on Tue Mar. 11, 2008 12:31 PM PDT.
from the New Yorker:
[?]
"You keep trying to contend the nomination is over tonight!" McAuliffe replied loudly and happily, pointing and waving his arms. "I'm telling you we have twelve states to go. Don't tell me about the popular vote. You call me in June and then talk to me about it. We don't know where we're going to be. We have a lot of states. I don't want you disenfranchising all these great states coming up. . . . Why don't you like these people?"
The next day, a Clinton adviser was more candid about what lies ahead. "Inside the campaign, people are not idiots," she told me. "Everyone can do the math. It isn't like the Obama campaign has some special abacus. We can do these calculations, too. Everyone recognizes how steep this hill is. But you gotta keep your game face on."
*****
It is over, they know it's over. The whole "unity ticket" BS is the first admission from the HRC camp that it's over. A to clever by half play for the second slot on the Obama ticket. He would be crazy to ask her. Why bring all of her negatives onto his ticket? It makes no sense.
"Here we go again"?.famous words of Ronald Reagan! The American people have said "We don't want the old Washington politics?the negative campaigning?the dirt?we need to focus on our country and the world! Yet, I have to ask myself?do we really want to change the old politics, or do we yearn for the sensationalism, the dirt?..the soap opera sagas? This schizophrenia reactions to negative campaigning certainly give mixed messages to our politicians. The American public needs to give a clear message that we do not want these tactics. Our country needs direction to transform our policies, not reacting to day to day barbs. We need someone to lead us, to inspire us to believe again?for both parties to work together.
As Americans we need to demand that these candidates reach above this negative campaigning, and show us what can be done for our Economy, the War, our Country and World as a whole. Demand it?and reward it with your vote!
Submitted by capt - Hussein (not verified) on Tue Mar. 11, 2008 12:31 PM PDT.
from the New Yorker:
[?]
"You keep trying to contend the nomination is over tonight!" McAuliffe replied loudly and happily, pointing and waving his arms. "I'm telling you we have twelve states to go. Don't tell me about the popular vote. You call me in June and then talk to me about it. We don't know where we're going to be. We have a lot of states. I don't want you disenfranchising all these great states coming up. . . . Why don't you like these people?"
The next day, a Clinton adviser was more candid about what lies ahead. "Inside the campaign, people are not idiots," she told me. "Everyone can do the math. It isn't like the Obama campaign has some special abacus. We can do these calculations, too. Everyone recognizes how steep this hill is. But you gotta keep your game face on."
*****
It is over, they know it's over. The whole "unity ticket" BS is the first admission from the HRC camp that it's over. A to clever by half play for the second slot on the Obama ticket. He would be crazy to ask her. Why bring all of her negatives onto his ticket? It makes no sense.
Look, the fact is that women are the largest under-represented majority in the U.S. Therefore, the math is on Ferraro's side. Women historically and currently face more discrimination than men of any color. When we have a woman president, five women on the supreme court and over 50 percent women in congress, then we can discuss racism.
How nutty can you get? If she hadn't said 'If Obama were a white man, he would not be in this position' the tone of the comments would be better. But the post-jump Kos statement by DHinMI says it all too well. Our old friend Geraldine is saying that Obama, with his incredible academic record, brilliant speaking ability and mind, would not be a Senator running for presidency if he were not African American. Since when did African Americanism make a presidential run into a cake walk? That's right, I keep forgetting that the Roosevelts, Eisenhower and Reagan were all African American, that Ford was Asian and that Clinton was Hispanic. By Geraldine's assessment, perhaps Tiger Woods wouldn't be where he is in golf if he were white.
OOOH, wow, Geraldine Ferraro - the Clintonistas are really bringing out the big guns now. Okay, does ANYONE honestly believe that Billary would be in the position she's in (ie, Senator - aspiring to the Presidency) if she weren't married to Bubba?! Think about it. Um, the answer is no, folks.
That's not some kind of covert, implicit sexism, that's reality. I'd make the same argument if Billary had been #42 and Bubba were running now. And don't even start by claiming Billary's "experience" in the White House - if she was so involved with Bubba's tenure, she should be subject to the same two-term limit.
Well, THIS white American woman understands that Ferraro is echoing my sentiments: Women are the only group of people in the United States who can still be discriminated against without impunity. Sen. Clinton is too tough or too weak, too smart or too stupid, too concerned about appearance or not concerned enough, too shackled by her husband's record and influence or not shackled enough. The ridiculous criticism never ends. But is Sen. Obama ever subject to the same harangues? Not yet, although I do expect that to come. I'm really tired of hearing about his "change." He is still a MAN, regardless of race, the ruling gender in this country. The only real change offered is estrogen over testosterone. Unfortunately, too many Americans are afraid to admit they retain racial prejudice at the same time they are unapologetically proclaiming their unfettered sexism. Sorry, Mrs. Obama, I am not proud to be an American woman right now with that sad fact raising its ugly head. I wonder what Elizabeth Cady Stanton would say about the rhetoric?
Sideline Ferraro already. She's been on various radio shows spewing filth for a while...and all the while crying "sexism" at the same time. I guess racism's okay, though. What blatant, gross doublespeak. This is the tone of the HRC campaign. Enough. It is time to turn the page on this kind of thing.
My dislike for Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with her sex.
It has everything to do with her policy choices.
When she starts making choices that I can agree with and admit that the policy choices that she made in the past, specifically the ones that deal with the war, were wrong, then I'd be more than happy to vote for her.
Get a life - try being a black male in this society. I guarantee you neither Geraldine nor Hillary has been pulled over because of their gender. Oh yeah - talk to black mothers with black sons and maybe you might get a better perspective. Even though black men had the vote 50 years before women, search through history and tell me how that benefitted them over the white female. Even with affirmative action statistics show that white women benefitted more than black men or black women for that matter.
We can acknowledge the tensions of sexism and racism that still exist, but please do not talk about the black experience until you have walked in their shoes.
Diana
Hmmm, I'm a white woman too, of almost exactly Senator Clinton's age, and according to your logic, Condoleeza Rice would be a better president than Barack Obama because she is a woman. Is that what you're saying? She has the estrogen factor after all. So there can't be BAD women candidates? There can't be unethical, scumbag women candidates with wildly inflated, padded resumes running for office? If I'd only known it was so simple for me to choose a candidate, I could have saved myself all the trouble of actually researching their RECORDS.
"Here we go again"
.famous words of Ronald Reagan! The American people have said "We don't want the old Washington politics
the negative campaigning
the dirt
we need to focus on our country and the world! Yet, I have to ask myself
do we really want to change the old politics, or do we yearn for the sensationalism, the dirt
..the soap opera sagas? This schizophrenia reactions to negative campaigning certainly give mixed messages to our politicians. The American public needs to give a clear message that we do not want these tactics. Our country needs direction to transform our policies, not reacting to day to day barbs. We need someone to lead us, to inspire us to believe again
for both parties to work together.
As Americans we need to demand that these candidates reach above this negative campaigning, and show us what can be done for our Economy, the War, our Country and World as a whole. Demand it
and reward it with your vote!
Geraldine Ferraro has been unable to accept political rejection because of her unconcern for the 70% MAJORITY Common Population and will forever erroneously tell herself that she was rejected because she is a woman.
Geraldine Ferraro is NO Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto or Golda Meir. Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto and Golda Meir were champions of the people, the working people, the 70% MAJORITY Common Population, instead of just being "feather my nest" champions for the upper 30% of the population that doesn't represent labor.
And, neither is Hillary Clinton.
I guess the truth hurts. The fact is that it's the black voters who have proven Ferraro's comments to be accurate. Of all the black voters asked why they support Obama, 100 percent of them always say because they "...want to see an African-American in the White House." Oh, but it's offensive to them when Bill Clinton points out what they themselves openly admit? What hypocrisy. Obama has nothing to offer other than 4 more years of "we're, uh... ya know, uh... gonna bring people... uhh, ya know... together.... and, uh..." Can't we finally get a president who can at least have the confidence to speak without us having to wait for sentences to be finished? And a president who won't roll over and compromise with Republicans because he thinks everyone will live happily ever after? Pleeease! He can only win little un-democratic caucuses, while Hillary has the majority of Americans behind her. Republicans will chew Obama up and spit him out. You're all brainwashed.
I'm surprised Ferraro hasn't pointed out Hillary's advantage in being named Clinton. Perhaps some readers are too young to remember Geraldine Ferrarro as Mondale's running mate...
As a side note, some of the comments on this post are absolutely amazing, like:
"women are the largest under-represented majority in the U.S."
--I'm not familiar with the term under-represented majority. Does that mean anything at all?
or,
"Women are the only group of people in the United States who can still be discriminated against without impunity."
Criticism of Senator Clinton's campaign/platforms does not amount to discrimination. You want to feel discrimination? Try being black or Native American for just a little while.
I think that, if this campaign season has proven anything, it is that RACE is a far more divisive factor in America than GENDER.
Just look at the low blows Clinton has landed on Obama - the African picture, the "I don't think he's a Muslim" comment, the insistence on linking him with Louis Farrakhan, the 3 a.m. red phone ad featuring the white children....I could go on & on...
but I'll just end by pointing out my favorite bit of comedy from the comments:
"Can't we finally get a president who can at least have the confidence to speak without us having to wait for sentences to be finished?"
-whatever that means
"And a president who won't roll over and compromise with Republicans because he thinks everyone will live happily ever after?"
--you mean like the way Hillary voted to authorize Bush's personal war?
"Pleeease! He can only win little un-democratic caucuses, while Hillary has the majority of Americans behind her."
--An un-democratic caucus? I've never been to one of those - sounds pretty nuts!
Have you watched any news in the last two months, Steven? Obama has won more states (both primaries and caucuses), more pledged delegates, and retains the lead in the popular vote, FYI.
"but I'll just end by pointing out my favorite bit of comedy from the comments:"
Not comedy, Nic... just facts. if you followed politics you'd know what's going on in this country. Do you even listen to Obama speak when he's interviewed? Or just cry like a Beatles fan along with your misguided friends and family who make your political decisions for you? He struggles for his words because he's careful to say what he thinks you want to hear. I guess you're not familiar with the current president's similar habit. If you tolerate it, listen to Bill or Hillary sometime... nothing short of amazing. No war vote... just authorization for military action "PROVIDED THE INSPECTORS GO BACK IN TO FINISH." But like others, you don't listen to anyone but the media's lies and rhetoric, so there's no use trying to de-program that typical thought process. Republicans don't compromise. They never have and never will. Obama is delusional to think he'll bring both sides together, and so is his falsely-inspired supporters. Caucuses are undemocratic and don't represent all (or even most) voters. Perhaps researching that, instead of watching American Idol, would help you out. Have I watched the news? Yes, for half a century. Why? Is that where you get your political education? God help us all. You're mislead by the media. Clinton has won huge primaries, and Obama has won small non-democratic caucuses. Clinton has more Americans (by far) in favor of her. If you don't understand that, it's okay, you're in good company, unfortunately.
By the way, I guess the "3 a.m. phone call" TV ad was only "fear-based" when Clinton used it, but not when he used it in the exact same way the next day. Of course, the media isn't giving him a free ride by totally ignoring this fact. "Nobody criticize the black guy.. we'll might lose our jobs... and feel ashamed of ourselves!" What a joke... LOL!
Submitted by capt - Hussein (not verified) on Tue Mar. 11, 2008 12:31 PM PDT.
from the New Yorker:
[ ]
"You keep trying to contend the nomination is over tonight!" McAuliffe replied loudly and happily, pointing and waving his arms. "I'm telling you we have twelve states to go. Don't tell me about the popular vote. You call me in June and then talk to me about it. We don't know where we're going to be. We have a lot of states. I don't want you disenfranchising all these great states coming up. . . . Why don't you like these people?"
The next day, a Clinton adviser was more candid about what lies ahead. "Inside the campaign, people are not idiots," she told me. "Everyone can do the math. It isn't like the Obama campaign has some special abacus. We can do these calculations, too. Everyone recognizes how steep this hill is. But you gotta keep your game face on."
*****
It is over, they know it's over. The whole "unity ticket" BS is the first admission from the HRC camp that it's over. A to clever by half play for the second slot on the Obama ticket. He would be crazy to ask her. Why bring all of her negatives onto his ticket? It makes no sense.
First you make a claim that runs contrary to reality "Clinton has the support of more Americans," and then you defend yourself with clumsily-made assumptions about me, and then repeat your fanatical claim..."Clinton has won huge primaries, and Obama has won small non-democratic caucuses. Clinton has more Americans (by far) in favor of her."
Obama has won primaries as well.
"Caucuses are undemocratic and don't represent all (or even most) voters."
Caucuses are inherently democratic. They don't "represent" people, they are processes by which we elect representatives...perhaps it is YOU who should do more research. And your disdain for the process probably has more to do with the fact that your candidate fares poorly in them, a fact which says more about the opposing candidate than it does about the process.
You have your opinion, I have mine, but you're wrong to say that yours is somehow better or more-informed than mine, and you simply look stupid asserting that yours is the majority opinion...so far, a majority of voters have disagreed with you.
I have no distain for the process. That's YOUR "clumsily-made assumption." Nor have I suggested changing the process or even denying Obama his rightful lead (according to election rules as they are). I'm just saying WHY Ferraro said what she said and WHY it is true... and that Clinton has more Americans behind her despite the flaws with appointing delegates. That's just a fact, not my opinion. Also, she's not my candidate. But then that would be another"clumsily-made assumption" on your part, wouldn't it? I live in Michigan, I'm not allowed to have a candidate because the rest of the country (especially the Obama campaign who can't win here) blames me and millions of others for a couple of governors bad choices... and that millions of us should lie in the bed we "supposedly" made (but then be expected to vote for Obama in November). HAHA!! Yeah, that'll happen. Personally I'm upset with all Democrats for not impeaching Bush and supporting the funding. Lately, I could care less whether Obama or Clinton wins. I accept that he has more delegates. I just find the whole Obama cult (or movement) very pathetic and hypocritical. However, the majority of voters have not disagreed with me. That's where your understanding of the process is lacking. Win or lose, according to delegates, she has more American-voting citizens supporting her. Period.
OK Steven, last comment on this thread:
You say, "according to delegates, she has more American-voting citizens supporting her. Period."
I could cite several references to show you are wrong. Here is one:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_c...
where you can view popular vote totals. There are also many places you can view varying counts of delegate totals, all of which will indicate Obama's lead in delegates. Good luck finding a popular vote count that shows Clinton in the lead - she is not.
"I just find the whole Obama cult (or movement) very pathetic and hypocritical."
Fine. You are entitled to your opinion - but again - you look ridiculous trying to qualify it with facts that just don't exist.
You are delusional, and I personally don't have any more time to devote to correcting your interpretations of the facts.
Steven,
You got it right dude! The Clinton's tell the truth..Whitewater, which if you read the facts..Hillary was more involved than Bill...and I did not have sexual relations with that girl..right on dude! Keep up the good work! (and I am over 50, and remember the Clinton's and I am a democrat.
Nic,
I know the popular vote totals. Did you, or did you not, just recently admit that caucuses don't "represent people? Yeah, that's what I thought...LOL!
As far as looking ridiculous, there's nothing more ridiculous than the typical forum trouble-maker who comes in, attacks someone (the "comedy" remark") only to cry and whine like a child, and play the victim later. You started this... not me.
It's not my job to educate you on the election process. If you don't understand someone having more "SUPPORT" than someone having more votes in a flawed process, no matter how many times it's explained to you, then that's your problem, not mine. You must a tough time getting through life.
Good luck, you're gonna need it! :-D
Steven, a caucus, again, is a political process, by which people elect representatives. It is not grammatically correct to say that caucuses represent people.
I haven't once claimed to be a victim, or whined - are you on drugs? I pointed out the errors in your statements...is that whining?
Your notion of SUPPORT exists in your own head. Look at any recent national poll and you'll find that Obama has more support.
Your notion of a flawed process, similarly exists in your head - and again, trying to qualify your opinion with facts that you make up makes you look like a fucking moron.
Have a good night.
Steven, your perspective is a joke. How do you get off inditing someone for treating words with reverence, for being careful to say things clearly so that their points are understood? What? You're so addicted to the fast-talking model of car salesmen and politicians that when someone doesn't speak a mile a minute, it's automatically because they're making up stories? Love to see how often your fingers pause over the keyboard. Judging by the inanity of your comments, I bet those digits really fly.
"It is not grammatically correct to say that caucuses represent people."
Did I say it was? You're repeating my point again? I have no errors in my statements. You simply don't comprehend them.
Of course he wins your argument, meeradad. You're both Obama supporters... big surprise. Unfortunately, you haven't been appointed the judge in the matter. You probably also both agree that a cow's breast milk is healthy for humans to drink and builds strong bones. But the truth is that as people you're neither evolved, nor enlightened enough to think for yourselves. You're mindless followers. You're brainwashed. Furthermore, I don't need one person here to agree with me to know I'm right. I haven't been proven wrong on anything I've said. If I am, I'll gladly concede.
Ferraro is correct in suggesting that blacks (and guilt-ridden whites) are racially motivated to vote for Obama, rather than for someone more qualified. She didn't say it was a bad thing or a good thing... just that it is reality. People's inabilities to speak freely and truthfully in our country just because it's politically incorrect is tragic... and I hope those of you will find the courage to wake up someday.
If you're incapable of understanding something, you shouldn't blame the person (me) who does. It's your issues, not mine.
Good luck in MI and FL ... LOL!!
Nic,
I wish everyone were as knowledgeable as you are with this campaign. I commend you because as you already know, voting for a candidate in November is critical, and even though we may not get the candidate we are supporting for the Democratic party, it's so much more than just voting for the President...that President will be recommending appointments for Judges, our Military, etc. etc. etc. The list goes on and on. I hope that Steven can get over his bad day, and realize we still have to unite as a party.
Thanks again!
Submitted by capt - Hussein (not verified) on Tue Mar. 11, 2008 7:34 PM PDT.
A Ferraro flashback
"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," she said.
Really. The cite is an April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available only on Nexis.
on politico
It is sexism. There were no outcries when Anglo Peter Hart wrote about this topic for FAIR's Extra! Is Peter Hart now a racist?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3094
Obama did get better press due to his perceived race. This has been documented by FAIR and other outlets.
Geraldine Ferraro said it in a soundbyte. She is correct.
The last five posts are so obviously written by one troll, most likely Steven. The entry pattern doesn't remotely look natural [a series of entries all at or under two sentences] and I hope to hell there weren't that many idiots converging on this site all at once. Only an idiot would characterize Obama as 'stupid'. You don't have to like him, believe in him or want to vote for him, but it's ridiculous posturing and an empty argument to impugn his intelligence.
Submitted by capt - Hussein (not verified) on Wed Mar. 12, 2008 7:49 PM PDT.
It must be club Paulcapt?
Once again in like and kind.
The multi-post is an old play.
