The Clinton and Obama campaigns are locking horns in an increasingly bitter fight over Geraldine Ferraro’s racially denigrating remarks that Obama gets preferential treatment from the media and the public because he is black.
Ferraro behaves like a fishwife from Queens worried about the changing neighbourhood when it comes race. She made similar remarks in 1988 saying if "Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."
Now a prominent member of the Clinton campaign (she is on the finance committee) she nonchalantly threw more petrol on the flames today saying on morning TV that she was "absolutely not" sorry for saying that Obama is getting an unfair affirmative action boost. Her remarks were not racist and had been taken out of context she protested. This is rich coming from Ferraro who was chosen to be Walter Mondale’s running mate in 1984 because she was a woman.
Curiously, while Hillary says she disagrees with Ferraro's remarks she won’t sack her from the campaign. Obama’s advisers say she should be sacked but Clinton's campaign has responded by saying Obama is exploiting racial politics, calling his words a "false, personal and politically calculated attack".
Hillary approach has been to wring her hands and shake her head saying "it's regrettable that any of our supporters - on both sides, because we both have this experience - say things that kind of veer off into the personal". But it beggars belief to think that Ferraro would go on two morning TV shows and stir up racial issues in the race without a wink from Hillary.
The row began when Ferraro told a California paper "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he were a woman [of any race], 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."
Ferraro sputtered with that the Obama campaign was twisting her words: "Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist," she said. "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."
She might as well be ranting from the stoop of her Queens, New York, home where there has been a long and uneasy relationship between the Italian-American and black communities.
Obama has brushed aside her remarks as "slice and dice" politics of stirring racial divisions – the opposite of what his campaign stands for – but he has been careful not to accuse Ferraro of racism, knowing that it would play right into her hands and create and even greater blaze. He restricted himself to the bromide that “Americans are tired of because they recognise that when we divide ourselves in that way we can't solve problems."
There's little doubt that the Obama campaign believes that Ferraro’s statements, like those of Bill Clinton before the South Carolina contest, are part of a not-so-subtle strategy of stoking up racial grievances between supporters of the two Democratic candidates. It's a dangerous strategy that could backfire with the superdelegates, many of whom are black, but the Clinton campaign is already reaping dividends in the primaries.
The Clinton campaign knows that no one ever lost an election by pandering to the fears of white working class voters, a particularly important segment of the electorate in Pennsylvania, the primary contest. The strategy of “defining” Obama as a black candidate worked like a dream in Texas and Ohio where it played on the fears of white and Latinos and stopped him clinching the nomination.
If sleeping with a president makes you presidential material.. I'm voting for Monica Lewinsky!
Posted by: brownpaperbag | 13 March 2008 at 04:03 AM
In response to the woman who responded to my comments by stating "she's a woman too" and then pointed out that Ferraro's record is less exemplary than Obama's and to not cry foul at the media.
Well, you obviously have not been watching the news! It got so bad that women protested against Chris Matthews misogynistic spew against Hillary. If we have to tip toe around Obama, then why is it acceptable to run all over Hillary? As a woman, I can't believe you haven't seen this behavior present itself front and center on the news!
Where I come from, in order to get hired for a job, you first must do your homework and prepare accordingly. Obama did none of this when he entered the Senate and because of that, he comes across as someone who feels he is entitled to the presidency and clearly has exploited the race card in order to obtain it.
As a woman, I believe in fairness and I can tell when someone's bamboozling me too! Where is the outrage at the sexism? Like racism, it should be confronted or it will never stop.
Also, it's insulting to me that people believe I support Hillary because she's a woman. No way. I have too much integrity to play that game. I support her because I believe her to be the best person for the job, based on her knowledge, experience and the policies she has presented. I like the fact that she focuses on the "how" and less on the "rhetoric".
This is still America, right? The fact that I have to deal with such reactions to my support for Hillary clearly proves my point. If you question anyone's support for Obama, you are immediately labelled a racist.
Geraldine was right!
Posted by: Kathleen Wynne | 12 March 2008 at 09:52 PM
Kathleen, I"m a woman too, and I find the idea that I should vote for Clinton because she's female to be egregious in the extreme.
In answer to your assertion that Geraldine Ferraro is right, what's kind of interesting is that her legislative experience is very paltry in comparison to Obama's--she had waaaay less legislative accomplishments beneath her belt when she joined the Mondale ticket (i.e., six years as a congresswoman from a district that was gerrymandered). She'd won no primary campaigns and, in essence, as she even admits, got on the ticket because she was a woman.
If you look at John Edwards and his 04 and 08 records, he had only six years of legislative experience and no landmark reforms, in comparison to Obama's 20 years of legislating and three landmark Senate bills. But at the same time, Edwards found criticisms issued against his policy positions, NOT his lack of experience. Then you can also look at Senator Clinton's legislative records--six years total, during which she wrote 20 (primarily honorary) bills.
Ferraro and the Clintons are definitely doing their bit to push the whole "affirmative action" angle because they're shrewdly aware of the fact that white voters (non-educated and educated alike) will be quick to react to it with claims of reverse racism. But in truth, it's the CLINTONS who have consistently used the race card to attempt to diminish Obama's appeal among non-black minorities and non-educated whites.
Rather than crying foul at the media, responsible voters need to examine the argument by comparing Clinton's and Obama's records diligently. If they do so, the whole factor of experience doesn't wash. The angle has been pushed relentlessly by the Clintons because they're well aware that voters won't go to the trouble of researching it and would rather jump to the simplest conclusion--that a black man like Obama is obviously using the race card because he couldn't have gotten so far on his own merit.
Posted by: Bobak | 12 March 2008 at 09:13 PM
An advantage to be black in America? When I heard this, I thought it was a joke. I think a comment like this can only be made and supported by someone who does harbor issues on race. I am so attracted to Obama's campaign because he seeks to move us pass these types of divides. I have listened to both candidates over the past several months and it is a part of Hillary's stomp speech to play the gender card but Obama does not refer to his history making campaign in terms of race. In fact, he is constantly gloating about his diverse coalition. I know it must be hard for him fighting off all the advice to bring out some of the Clintons' dirty laundry. I would list some but the list is way too long. But the fact that he hasn't sunk to that level is a testament to his character. I am STILL looking forward to the day when a person can be judged on the content of his character and not the color of his skin.
Posted by: Joe | 12 March 2008 at 08:41 PM
The 'women' of this country are also working for Barack's success, as we speak! All sorts of women, all demographics, all ages, are behind Barack. Not ALL of us feel that just because Hillary is a woman we should vote for her!! That's ridiculous. Therefore we are voting for and supporting who we believe is the best candidate.
After the dust settles, it will again be clear that Barack is the one with Integrity, first and foremost, and that is the No.1 requirement. We cannot have a leader who doesn't pass THAT threshold, forget any other dreamed up by the opposition.
Americans are, after all, human beings, with all the emotions and desires that beset us. They want truth and honesty for the most part, in their leaders and in themselves.
They will vote their heart and their conscience overwhelmingly, just as they are coming out to the polls overwhelmingly.
Posted by: Carol McFarlane | 12 March 2008 at 08:37 PM
This is nothing but BS! Ferraro was not undermining Obama as a candidate, she was pointing out the painfully obvious, which the main stream media has conspicuously ignored throughout the campaign. Instead, they are busy spouting sexist remarks against Hillary on a daily basis! This is nothing more than a smokescreen to try to obscure the fact that Obama is exploiting the race card to his advantage.
If you are in any way concerned about fairness and balance, then where is your outrage over the sexist treatment of the Senator from New York? This crying "racism" everytime someone doesn't worship at the alter of Obama is a distraction from Obama's lack of experience; his inability to answer questions about his record (what little there is of it) truthfully; and his questionable associations with Rezko, Auchi, Exelon and, of course, the Chicago Political machine run by Richard Daly, among others, who are clearly part of the old guard he claims he is running against...i.e., Daschle, Dodd, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Brezinski, Anthony Lake and Richard Clarke, to name a few. Hardly indicative of any kind of change, much less, the kind he constantly speaks about that we've been waiting for! What a joke he is and you guys cannot accept the fact half of the democratic party sees this and cannot be "boondoggled" into believing your swill. After all, you've gotten away with this since this country was founded.
What I see is a media acting much like the Supreme Court did in 2000, with their all out effort to "place" Obama into the White House, no matter who they destroy in the process!
Well, he's not getting there without a fight. The women of this country (and those men who don't have a problem with a strong woman) are fed up with the free pass being given to Obama.
It is Obama and his campaign who have divided this party, not the Clintons or any of their surrogates, and it is because of the rampant, unrestrained bias if the media, that he is getting away with riding on the wave of misogynism, exploiting his race, and his unbelievable arrogance, that I will not, cannot, vote for him, should he become the nominee. If he does, God help us all!
Kathleen Wynne
Posted by: Kathleen Wynne | 12 March 2008 at 08:22 PM