Geraldine Ferraro says Obama is ahead because of race
Geraldine Ferraro (a Clinton fundraiser and former Democratic Party vice-presidential nominee) made headlines with her comment: “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position”. Link to CNN article
Referee whistle: against Geraldine Ferraro, Illegal motion, 5 yards
2nd whistle: against Geraldine Ferraro, Delay of game, 5 yards
I don’t mind discussing the issue of race, but being a “white guy”, it is clear to me that “white” people are NOT at a disadvantage. I find it very disappointing when the issues of race or gender come up in this way. I called two “fouls” because: 1) this type of comment is an unfair excuse for why Clinton is behind, and 2) reiterating it is unnecessarily divisive, driving the election discussion into the political mud.
Hillary Clinton said she disagrees with Ferraro’s statement. At the same time, the Clinton campaign has not distanced itself from Ferraro. Instead of apologizing, Ferraro is digging in to defend her position. She attempted to show consistency and fairness by saying, “in 1984, if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for vice president.”
People in the media are debating Ferraro’s statements. Right-wing voices especially are lining up to agree with her. This discussion boosts ratings. Affirmative action, “reverse discrimination”, and “race” in general are “hot button” issues that continue to divide Americans.
This historic contest between Clinton and Obama offers us a chance to turn the page. Until now, ALL presidential candidates (for major parties) have been “white guys”. No females, no African-Americans, no Latinos, etc. History contradicts Ferraro’s assertion.
Does anyone honestly believe that Barack Obama won Iowa because he is black? How about: Wyoming, Kansas, Idaho, Maine, Colorado, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington State, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Vermont? Did Hillary Clinton win New Hampshire because she’s white? I hope not.
It is true that Obama has continually built support among African-American voters. It didn’t start out that way. Polling in 2007 showed that Clinton enjoyed more support among blacks than Obama did. Barack Obama has won over many people of every ethnicity.
As a candidate, Hillary Clinton needs to make her case for why she would be a better choice than Obama. Dividing people by race only inspires people who enjoy playing in the political mud.
Ferraro’s comment worked as a tactic on me. It slowed me down by another day before I will be able to post a more comprehensive analysis of the Clinton campaign’s “kitchen sink” attack on Obama. Soon I will also post an article about the prospects of Democratic Party unity and division.
Note to Hillary Clinton supporters (especially):
Her campaign needs to get on track. She is in a tough spot now. She still can make a strong case for why she is a better choice than Obama. The only realistic chance for her to be the next president is to take the high road. It isn’t worth winning the nomination by dividing your party. Earlier, I defended Hillary Clinton against the charge that “she is divisive”. By now everyone considers her to be a good fighter. She needs to convince voters that she is a great leader.
Loading …
Comment by Jack
Posted on March 13, 2008 at 6:58 am
I knew this was going to happen. And, it’s going to get worse as Obama gets closer to the nomination. Yet another reason to be ashamed of the so-called adults who plan to lead this country out of this complete mess we are in.
Geraldine is just plan nuts for even bringing this up. I have a friend from the south and he says all the time “We are still fighting the civil war”. I agree. We just need to get past this race thing. I have race-fatigue. We all do.
Comment by Maria
Posted on March 13, 2008 at 9:17 am
I would go even farther and say that the idea of disadvantages linked to race or gender should be abandoned. Disadvantages can be caused by any number of things and the idea of trying to directly link it with race/gender disregards the greater fact that Obama would be more “disadvantaged” if he had lost Iowa.