The columnist Michael Kinsley once defined a "gaffe" as an occasion when a politician accidentally tells the truth. In our age of political correctness, some would place Geraldine Ferraro's remarks into this category. Long known for speaking candidly, Ferraro recently remarked that "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."
There's a molecule of truth in this. Obama's appeal is that he is an African American who doesn't sound one bit like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Blacks are inspired to see one of their own have a serious shot at the presidency. Whites are relieved that Obama doesn't seem to be motivated by the kind of chronic resentment that seems all too prevalent in black America.
Taken this way, Ferraro is stating the obvious. It's equally obvious, by the way, that if Hillary was male--and not married to Bill Clinton--she wouldn't be in her position. Hillary came to national prominence not through her own efforts but through the success of her husband. Virtually all her "experience" prior to being elected Senator is in fact Bill Clinton's experience. She wouldn't even have been elected to the Senate without Bill. So she too owes a great deal to her gender and her "first wife" position.
In a deeper sense, though, Ferraro's insinuation is completely wrong. In reality Obama's political success is due to far more than race. He brings some unique and very attractive qualities at a time when the country wants and needs them. Obama is a man of unquestionable intelligence and grace, and this is why the affirmative action label seems especially unjust when applied to him.
To me Ferraro's comments illustrate two things. First, they show the depths to which Hillary flacks are willing to go. It's typical of the Hillary camp that a sidekick like Ferraro attempts to plunge the knife into Obama while Hillary feigns ignorance and plays nice. Second, Ferraro's attack illustrates how some prominent liberals deep down think that all blacks are only capable of advancing because they are black.
In a way liberal support for racial preferences can be understood as an attempt to cope with this situation. We often hear liberal activists say, "If it wasn't for affirmative action there would be virtually no blacks in top universities." The implication of course is that blacks on their own merits are incapable of getting into Harvard and Berkeley.
The cruel irony of affirmative action is that it reinforces and strengthens liberal perceptions of black inferiority. Athough Obama seems smart enough to have gotten into Harvard, it's quite possible that affirmative action policies were partly responsible for his admission. Consequently policies of racial preference have the effect of placing an invisible question mark alongside the achievements of all persons of color.
When Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, it wasn't the Ku Klux Klan or the skinheads who said, "He's just there because he's black." It was the liberal Senators and activist groups that said this. Now Ferraro is saying the same thing about Obama.
Perhaps the day is not far when African Americans will wake up and start asking, "Do these politices of racial preferences actually hurt more than they help?" and "Isn't it time we stopped assuming that liberal Democrats like Ferraro and Hillary are our natural allies?"
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 12)
31. I truly vote for the candidate that I think will do the best job, sometimes I feel good about my choice and sometimes I don't. I don't vote based on race or a guilty complex toward a candidate because of their race or gender.
BHO is also half white, and his white mother was an atheist to boot. Should I vote for him because I'm a white women who happens to also be atheist?
OR should I vote for Hill, cause she is a strong white women who has had to deal with a husband who has done stupid, hurtful things because or in spite of, his power and privileged position. Do I vote for her becuase I "feel" for her, or do I vote for her because I think she could actually do the best job for the USA?
Do I vote for Barry Obama because he makes a pretty speech? Or do I vote for him because I think his pretty speeches might actually turn into good ideas that bring people together to work toward goals that would help America become the country we could all be proud of?
I think I need to vote my conscience!
TJ at 3:27PM on Mar 14th 2008
32. Fanman....
Take note of my use of the word "likely". I used it only because I have no guarantee that it would happen, but American history indicates that rioting certainly would occur if white America said, "We're voting for only white candidates from here on out." Blacks would NEVER gain enough votes to win a national election without the white or Latino vote.
John McCain will select Senator Mel Martinez (R- Florida) as his running mate.
Remember, you heard it hear first.
Paul at 3:27PM on Mar 14th 2008
33. Thanks for clarifying Paul. And TJ, don't forget their is an alternative.
fanmanaf1 at 3:42PM on Mar 14th 2008
34. Paul.... Berror... Paul Berror. Pallbearer? ;)
K at 3:59PM on Mar 14th 2008
35. Paul Berror.
Paul at 4:28PM on Mar 14th 2008
36. I don't think Ferraro is right on this one. Since when in national politics has it been considered advantageous to be black. Yes, perhaps in local races in Baltimore, D.C. or Detroit but not nationally. Blacks make up a pretty small portion of the population and an even smaller portion of the voting public. So how does his blackness help?? It may be true that Ferraro was chosen because she was female because: 1) it was for the Veep position and not the Presidency and therefore would not worry the anti-feminist crowd too much and 2) the demographic she was choosen to appeal to, namely women, comprised a very large proportion of the voting public. So yes, her sex was probably not a big negative with most groups and was a big positive with an important block of voters. Being black, it seems to me, doesn't accrue the same benefits in a Presidential race.
John Galt
John Galt at 4:30PM on Mar 14th 2008
37. what is the b/w breakdown anyway? Anyone know the numbers?
fanmanaf1 at 4:39PM on Mar 14th 2008
38. Further to my point about Ferraro being wrong about Obama…I don’t believe that he has gotten this far in majority-white America because he is a black man but rather because in spite of being black he is also half white. That is a more accurate but more incendiary way of phrasing what Ferraro was implying and it’s not very complementary to white America. A very dark-skinned black man with exactly the same traits as Obama would likely have garnered the same percentage of black votes as Obama has thus far but would have gotten significantly fewer white votes, in my opinion. Thus, it’s not his blackness, per se, that has gotten him to where he’s at but rather his part whiteness that makes him “less offensive” to white America. I think a 100% white candidate with Obama’s charisma and flair for oratory and a less “funny-sounding” name would have mopped up the floor with Hillary and would do the same to McCain. Thus, Ferraro should count her blessings as a Hillary supporter that Obama is still half-black. Having said all that, I am not a huge fan of Obama’s stances on some issues and I do think his strong links to the radical Chicago reverend will increasingly become a problem for him as time moves forward. And then, Ms. Ferraro, you will see that his blackness becomes an obvious millstone rather than the benefit you claim it is.
John Galt
John Galt at 4:58PM on Mar 14th 2008
39. I would say that we no longer have to worry about GF's comments but now have to face the fact that Obama's minister surely has crushed his run for the presidency. Shall we pick his minister's speech apart now? It's only fair!
pooh49616 at 5:02PM on Mar 14th 2008
40. It's a bit of a campaign oversight they didn't muzzle the preacher a lot sooner. I wonder if that's where most of Mrs. b/o's anger stems from? Or was it when the "old uncle" stepped (was yanked) down, that she finally became proud of something in America?
fanmanaf1 at 5:33PM on Mar 14th 2008
41. DD writes:
“Hillary came to national prominence not through her own efforts but through the success of her husband. Virtually all her "experience" prior to being elected Senator is in fact Bill Clinton's experience. She wouldn't even have been elected to the Senate without Bill. So she too owes a great deal to her gender and her "first wife" position.”
I don’t agree with the statement that Hillary’s gender is a political asset. If this were a fundamental advantage, we’d have many more women politicians than we do. DD doesn’t bother to explain why this is an advantage but that is typical of his poorly crafted arguments.
I will agree that her prominent public position as First Lady has been a huge help to her in both the current presidential race and in getting elected to the Senate which was obviously a great stepping stone position. While I’m not a huge Hillary fan I do find remarkable DD’s two-faced denigration of her family connections with respect to her qualifications to hold office. DD…don’t you see the glaring irony here? George W. Bush is only President because he is the son of George H. W. Bush. He would never have gotten all the business and political handouts (not to mention favorable military stationing) he’s received over the years without this connection. He would never have gotten into Yale and become a “connected Skull and Bones” guy. He would never have become Governor of Texas if Daddy Bush hadn’t been a Texan (really in address only) and if “W” hadn’t become prominent in Texas as an owner of the Texas Rangers MLB team…a business position he was offered only because of his family name. “W” was a crappy Governor (yes, I lived there at the time) and has become an even worse President!!!
DD...you were willing to accept a poorly-qualified candidate (”W”) who rode in on Daddy’s coattails when his politics matched your own but now that a candidate whose politics you don’t like also has a famous name you cry foul. The take home message here DD, being the Bush apologist that you are, is that “those who live by the nepotistic sword, may die by the nepotistic sword”.
John Galt
John Galt at 5:34PM on Mar 14th 2008
42. J.G.; did I miss it somewhere? I can't find the blog where DD identified Bush (either of them) as the savior of America. And isn't the fact that there are fewer female politicians the same as fewer female ceo's, pilots, electricians, etc.? It may be long overdue, but it's still just a matter of time.
fanmanaf1 at 5:40PM on Mar 14th 2008
43. Like Barry Bonds*, put an asterisk next to Barack Hussein Obama* whenever his name appears.
Barack Hussein Obama* appeals to non-political youngsters, the MTV Generation, and the Oprah Winfrey daytime TV viewers. Neither group is working a full-time job in the real world, so they fall in love with this unqualified (but really cool) dude who thinks and talks like the MTV "Real World" viewers do. If you're reading and thinking only goes as deep as Oprah's bestselling book club recommendations, (that's "The Secret" you know), then Barack Hussein Obama* seems really intelligent and polished.
* The asterisk means you are not allowed to talk about how he got to where he is, or else...
Rev 3:16 at 5:44PM on Mar 14th 2008
44. We like to fool ourselves in America as if we have some pure meritocracy,that is so finely tuned, it delivers us the best most qualified candidate. Has anyone ever pondered the question would, George W. Bush have ever risen to the presidency but for the inalienable privilege of his birthright. Now he was truly "lucky", could he have managed to become president but for some accident of birth that allowed his to become the second George Bush. Doubtful.
c. will at 5:46PM on Mar 14th 2008
45. 42. Barack Hussein Obama* appeals to non-political youngsters, the MTV Generation, and the Oprah Winfrey daytime TV viewers. Neither group is working a full-time job in the real world, so they fall in love with this unqualified (but really cool) dude who thinks and talks like the MTV "Real World" viewers do.
Rev 3:16 at 5:44PM on Mar 14th 2008
_____________________________________
Wow, all that's missing is a fist in the air and a "damn you kids, get off my lawn!!"
I'm one of those 'youngins' you're referring to... I guess. I hate Oprah, never watched an episode of 'Real World', and I hate MTV. I also work a full-time job with the government. That's a double whammy!
Maybe you'd convince some of the younger generation if you didn't talk like they were the scum of the earth.
K at 5:53PM on Mar 14th 2008