Ferarro’s Comments Racist? No.
What is racism anyway? The true definition of the term actually has to do with a belief in racial superiority and that certain traits can be attributed to race. So then were Ms. Ferarro’s comments bigoted? Absolutely not. They may have been a wrong analogy but they were certainly not bigoted.
Let’s analyze what she said.
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.
First off, when she says “this position”, we can only assume that she is talking about being the front runner for the Democratic nomination. Is that a false statement or is it actually just a true statement that is politically incorrect to make? Think about it. 90 percent of all black people vote Democrat, which makes blacks an extremely large bloc of voters in the Democratic primary. In spite of the fact that Mrs. Clinton is the wife of the “first black President”, Mr. Obama has gotten around 90 percent of the black vote. Now these candidates are not that far apart on the issues, so one can only assume that at least a few of those black voters are voting for Mr. Obama on the basis of race, as opposed to content of character. So Ferarro’s comments do have merit when you think about them. They are not at all racist or bigoted. What if she had said “If Mr. X were a black man, he would not be in this position”, or “If he were a poor man, he would not be in this position”, or “If he were a Muslim, he would not be in this position”? Is blackness such an untouchable issue that white people are not even allowed to mention it? Apparently so.
And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position.
The inference here is that female candidates have a harder time in this country than male candidates. That is not exactly an out of the mainstream view, is it? I happen to think that Americans, for the most part are much more sophisticated than most liberals give them credit for. But if only 5% of the country is sexist enough to not vote for a woman under any circumstances, that is still a significant number in a close race.
He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.
Is this even arguable? The racial aspect of the Obama candidacy is intriguing to most of us. Americans love firsts. We cheered for Doug Williams when he became the first black quarterback to win a Super Bowl. We cheered for Tony Dungy. The media has willingly played along with this. The fact that Obama has received much more favorable coverage than Mrs. Clinton is indisputable. He is their guy, as was McCain on the Republican side.
Having said all of that, Obama’s race is not the only reason, nor the most important reason that he is where he is today. His oratory skills and overall charisma are his greatest strengths. Also, he is perceived to be a man of character and family values, which is a stark contrast to the common perception of the Clinton family. If he had not won Iowa, a majority white state, the racial issue would never have mattered. He would have lost with most remaining black votes going to Mrs. Clinton.
But Ferarro was right to a certain extent. Even with whatever anti-black sentiment that still exists in this country, Obama’s race is still a net gain overall, at least in the Democratic Primary, if not also the general election.
By the way, Bob makes a good point, Ferarro would also not be where she is today, if not for her gender.
More on this subject from: Music City Oracle, Carole Borges, Newscoma, Sean Braisted, Dork Nation, TGW, Silence is Golden, Great Smokey, Music City Bloggers.
[…] Glen Dean thinks people are lambasting Geraldine Ferraro for saying Barack Obama would not be in the position he is if not for his race, not because it is wrong but because it is uncomfortable to admit the truth: Is that a false statement or is it actually just a true statement that is politically incorrect to make? Think about it. 90 percent of all black people vote Democrat, which makes blacks an extremely large bloc of voters in the Democratic primary. In spite of the fact that Mrs. Clinton is the wife of the “first black President”, Mr. Obama has gotten around 90 percent of the black vote. Now these candidates are not that far apart on the issues, so one can only assume that at least a few of those black voters are voting for Mr. Obama on the basis of race, as opposed to content of character. So Ferarro’s comments do have merit when you think about them. They are not at all racist or bigoted. What if she had said “If Mr. X were a black man, he would not be in this position”, or “If he were a poor man, he would not be in this position”, or “If he were a Muslim, he would not be in this position”? Is blackness such an untouchable issue that white people are not even allowed to mention it? Apparently so. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
Josh Marshall puts it much better than I ever could, so I’ll simply quote him:
Also, Ezra Klein:
They all make excellent points. That’s why I say it is a “net gain”, not a total gain. Blacks only make up 13% of the population, but a whole lot higher percent of the Democratic Party, and at least half in places like Mississippi and South Carolina. It really doesn’t matter though. Like I said, I think it is a net gain, but a really small contributing factor to his success. His success in majority white states proves that he is not a “black candidate”, and if he wasn’t able to win those states, that is exactly what he would be. I just think that when someone makes comments like this, be they from the right or the left in this case, its like a feeding frenzy. Lots of knees start jerking.
No matter how well Geraldine Ferraro phrased her comment, no matter how much nuance she tried to infuse into her obviously ‘on the money’ remark, Obama has taken advantage of and used his proven methodology to make a case for racism. In doing so, Obama is playing the race card. He’s playing whites like a master fiddler.
Jeff Goldstein…
Well, there’s a time and place for a man who has the skillset to talk his way into power. It’s just a shame that it’s happening now, when we have such giganormous problem in this country, and we could really use a leader who can pull us all together, and have some proven skills to offer. Certainly that’s not Obama, nor (especially) Hillary, or John McCain. It’s no one we’ve seen, yet; especially not Biden, Richardson, or Edwards. Don’t even think of trotting out Gore! I doubt Thompson could have succeeded in pulling off what’s needed now. I wonder if there’s anyone living who can stop this freight train that’s headed for derailment.
We really needed another Reaganesque figure. Now, we’re forced to take a mulligan, and hope for some relief next cycle.
A conservative friend of mine said today (I’m paraphrasing) that if Obama were white instead of black, and otherwise ran the same kind of campaign, had the same record in state and Senate politics, and the same oratory skill, he would have beat the snot out of Clinton a long time ago, and the nomination would already be settled. I’m inclined to agree.
Ferraro’s remarks are not notable so much because of their racist overtones, but because they don’t make any sense at all. Anybody who thinks that being black is an advantage when running for president anywhere outside of the Deep South is fucking insane.
Serr8d:
I wonder just exactly what it is you suppose is “what’s needed” right now…
“What’s needed” is a real leader who can bring this nation back from the edge it’s found itself on. With the banks tottering near failure, the dollar nearly worthless paper backed by more worthless paper, gasoline spiking to record price levels every day, we really need someone who can lead. Of course I think that involves some spiritualism; and I think secularism has doomed us to failure, so I doubt that you would agree.
I submit there is no one worthy of office, who is running now. Nor can whoever takes office in January change what’s going to happen. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind, as my grandfather used to say. But he got that from the bible I think, being a spiritual man and all.
So what we need is a Reagan figure, to run up more record deficits and open the flood gates for even more American jobs to go overseas? I fail to see how this will help…
[…] at NNPA, Hillary threw Geraldine Ferraro under the bus for her remarks concerning Obama. Geraldine said, somewhat candidly but definitely not conforming […]