In defense (um, sort of) of Geraldine Ferraro
I’ve been meaning to write a post about Geraldine Ferraro. But you know, SxSW got in the way. I did however come across and comment on Dave Winer’s post about Ferraro’s comments.
My comment was pretty much what I would have said in a blog entry, so I’m posting it here as well.
I think you’re right Dave. But I decided to cut GF some slack when she said that she was her gender was the deciding factor in the 1984 VP candidacy. It’s not that she couldn’t have done the job, she said, but she was chosen over other people because she was a woman.
Now where GF hangs herself with the rope the media handed her is that she doesn’t concede or acknowledge that Hillary is also where she is because she’s a woman and because, frankly, we still like Bill. GF then buried herself with the Oppressed White Person Defense.
But think about it: neither Clinton nor Obama are radical change-bringers. You could make the case that they’re the black male and the white female version of John Edwards (and I’m still not clear on whether Obama has a foreign policy and what that policy might be). They’re really both quite moderate and unremarkable in terms of policy.
But there is a whole lot remarkable about Obama’s blackness and Hillary’s gender. And I think Democrats are caught up in how cool that would be. I know I am, though in terms of policy, I’m much more in line with Kucinich.
That’s not to say that Obama (or Clinton) is unqualified or even less qualified. It’s to say “put 6 Democratic candidates in a bag and 5 would make a good president.” Where Obama and Hillary have an edge is that *physically* they look different from presidents 1 - 43.
And sometimes that’s what a country needs.
Related:
- Expertinent: The Political Psychology of Race and Gender (From Newsweek)
- When ‘Identity Politics‘ Is Rational (From The New York Times)
I sat here reading your post over several times, trying to find a rebuttal, but I failed. While I couldn’t bring myself to say that Obama is “a black version of John Edwards”, I can admit that he isn’t an incredibly radical change bringer.
I believe I just have a hard time discussing Obama and Clinton at once without acknowledging how shady she is. Edwards, I’ll take him. Kucinich, sure, universal health care would be swell. But Clinton … naw girl. She’s proven herself to be as shifty as they come.
Specifically to your topic though, GF coming out with these statements now is no coincidence, apology or no apology from Clinton. Hillary plays to her audience well … PA will hear GF’s comments and ask themselves “are you sure you want to vote for this black guy?”
Agreed Jason. She plays pool just as dirtily as the Republicans do. You know what though? I’m not entirely sure I don’t want that in my presidential candidate.
Obama’s positivity is so refreshing. It really is. But mudslinging works. I’m not sure Obama is willing and able to get grimy enough to win. The Republicans will have double barreled shotguns full of FUD aimed straight at him. He’s proven remarkably ineffective at neutralizing FUD.
I do, however, wish Clinton could pick attack dogs who are more precise with their words.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say “remarkably ineffective.” I think that can only be said if he’s not the nominee come August 28th. If he’s not, then yeah the FUD got to him. If he is, he must have neutralized something.
Call me naive. Call me an idealist. But I’m not sure he’ll need all that much mudslinging against grandpa moses — er’ I mean McCain. I don’t see this is as ‘04 part II. I think either one of them could beat him easily.
Well maybe not her. The GOP will chew up that “experience” talk and eat it for dinner.
I say “remarkably” because 13 % still believe he is Muslim and 44% still have a question about his religion.
Those are big numbers IMO, and I’m not sure it’s something we can say is due to our collective preference for Britney news.
Obama also hasn’t seen the full force Republican FUD yet since he’s not officially the nominee. While he may not have to sling much mud (though I think you’d be surprised), he will have to defend himself and address the lies.
Thus far, I don’t think he has done a good enough job of either getting out the truth or putting the FUD-ers on the defense. He’ll need to learn that very quickly if he wants the White House.
Hmmm…interesting rebuttal. I think I agree, but still find GF’s remarks harmful.
BTW - Cinnamon gave me my message. Thanks. You’re pretty sassy too.
The problem with Ferarro’s comments is that they are at least debatable regarding Obama. They are absolutely not debatable when turned around on Clinton. So what’s her freakin’ point?
Actually, they are debatable when turned around on Clinton. Hillary is also a one-term senator (1.5 to be exact). She has been in Washington for a decade, and has the connections that come with a decade in Washington. She’s also 15 years older and at least has an understanding of what comes with the presidency having slept next to one for eight years.
They’re equally qualified in terms of elected political experience. But you can make the case that Hillary has an edge because she’s older, wiser, and has been there and done that by proxy.
Another point of discussion: Is Barack subtly using the “I’m a black man y’all. If that ain’t a change…” argument to win the candidacy?
Clinton would have not been able to carpetbag in New York if she weren’t the wife of a very popular Democratic President. Period. I don’t think people understand how hard it is to become senator without any previous elected experience and what she did was exceptional. Most of her time in Washington was primarily as a Presidential spouse. I’m not challenging her credentials or saying that she did nothing as a First Lady, but it can’t be argued that she absolutely could not have taken this route if she weren’t a woman. Kudos to her for blazing a new path.
I’ve never heard Obama say that about change being implicit because he were black but if you have then you have. I have heard Clinton directly say that about her being a woman several times. Frankly I think it’s either candidate’s prerogative to campaign along those lines if they so choose - I just think that it’s a generally lame strategy.
Obama hasn’t said it explicitly “I’m a black man.” But he has said things like he’s “uniquely positioned,” which is subject to interpretation. Like I said: he’s not all that radical compared to other Democrats. In some ways Edwards was more progressive. And Kucinich was much further to the left. Really, what’s so “unique”? (Okay, he is cooler than the rest.)
I do think they’re both playing the race, gender, and age game, though in different ways. Hillary is doing it explicitly. Barack implicitly. They have to play it differently because of the way race is gendered and gender is racialized, but they’re playing it. We’ve both seen Obama use Bougie Negro Code Speak more than once, though today’s speech is probably the closest he’s come to unvarnished honesty with regards to race (and I still think most of his speech was “No, really. I’m a safe Negro.”)
I can concede the point on his implicit campaign. My point on Ferraro was that - at best - Clinton and Obama are in the same boat, so I don’t really see what point she was trying to advance. I would imagine that pandering to women has a better potential payout (especially in a Democratic primary) than pandering to blacks as a matter of pure mathematics.
Obama is absolutely not a radical liberal which is why I like him. He is not an ideologue like Kucinich and Edwards, but he appeals to the empowerment of the people moreso than the empowerment of government and doesn’t see the latter as necessarily enabling the former.
That’s what I see as setting him apart from Clinton as is evidenced by their health care proposals. I’m of the generally Libertarian persuasion, so the idea of using market forces to attract people to health care as opposed to ramming it down their throats appeals to me. Clinton’s approach is: elect me so that I can help you, so that I can fight for you. Obama’s is: elect me and we will take this country back together by forcing a mandate on Washington. The difference seems subtle to many but, for me, makes all the difference. Democracy works best when everybody is fighting, not just the President.
As for his speech, I had a few nitpicks and it would have been better had he not been forced into it but, in general, presented the racial situation as I see it very effectively. Now, given the reaction to Rev. Wright’s statements which, after parsing the most cited ones, I felt were not NEARLY as inflammatory as they are being made out to be, I doubt that the type of environment that he framed could be achieved anytime soon.
So yet again, I think it will be another blown opportunity for America to really go after the race thing.