That is key. Hillary Clinton effectively did nothing about this. She let it fester, giving tacit approval via inaction.
Geraldine Ferraro has stepped down from her role as a member of Hillary Clinton’s finance committee.
In a letter to Clinton obtained by CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux — who spoke with the former vice presidential candidate shortly after she sent it to Clinton — Ferraro said she is stepping down so, “I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.”
In a phone conversation with Malveaux, Ferraro said she was not asked to step down by Senator Clinton or her campaign.
Ferraro said thousands of people are part of the finance committee, saying it is not a staff position, but a voluntary one for those who raise money for the campaign. She also said she has raised $125,000 for Senator Clinton.
When asked if she had any regrets about what she said, Ferraro replied, “absolutely not.”
Ferraro moves on to look for more uppity blacks who don’t know their place.
Related
Clinton Campaign Finance Committe Member Geraldine Ferraro Has A History With Black Presidential Candidates
Geraldine Ferraro: Obama Is Lucky That He’s Black, That’s Why He Succeeded
Obama Continues To Demonstrate Weakness Among The Racist Dumbass Vote
Hmmm. Wonder what this means?
Keith Olbermann responds better than I ever could.
Now Geraldine wants an apology from Team Obama. The nerve. Screaming that Team Obama will need her to fundraise in New York if he wins. Right. Obama’s got cash problems and needs Gerry and her bridge club to fund him, he of the millions of tiny donors.
Gerry, please, go die in a fire.
What’s sad are the huge number of Clinton supporters who are backing up that dinosaur and also think Obama is somehow in the wrong. “Racist? She’s not racist. Racists are people who burn crosses on lawns and wear white sheets and hoods and stuff. I know plenty of black people. Heck, I even watch them on TV!”
Of course she doesn’t regret anything. It’s part of a pattern. Accept what the PATTERN tells you and respond accordingly.
I don’t get the fuss. I don’t read what she said to mean that Obama is where he is SOLELY because he is black, just that being black is helping him out. That doesn’t seem implausible to me. Wouldn’t an analagous question be whether John McCain would be where he is today if he wasn’t in a war and a POW? Seems plausible as well, war experience has almost always been a political asset in American politics that politicians were more than willing to use for gain. Thats why what she said seems so mild to me – you could construct a plausible list of attributes for anyone, and say they wouldn’t be where they are today without one or more items on that list.
I run a blog that is aimed at the urban crowd and as a black man I’d like to go on record saying I don’t think Geraldine Ferraro is racist at all. At least not in the way we generally think of a racist. She see Barack being black as an advantage and not a disadvatage. In a way she is right. His race does get him noticed but in all honesty it is not going to help him get elected at all. One of the other writers over at Highbrid Nation says Geraldine Ferraro is evil not racist, lol. He might not be too far off.
And so the race card gets played again, to the fullest, by both sides. Obama himself gave what I thought was the classiest response to Ferraro. Why won’t his supporters do the same?
Controversial staffers are not always fired directly. Many of them are smart enough to read the writing on the wall and exeunt themselves without requiring the candidate to go to the trouble of officially firing them.
You got what you wanted, Ferraro is gone within a couple of days of her bonehead remarks. But that’s not enough. You want BLOOD, preferably Hillary’s blood. You want your pound of flesh.
Gerry, please, go die in a fire.
Harsh.
You know the first guy I remember talking about PATTERNs ad nauseam? George H.W. Bush in 1992. Every other sentence he spoke in speeches and debates was about Bill Clinton’s PATTERN of this or that, and how we should reject Clinton because of his PATTERNs. It got to where I felt revulsion at the very term PATTERN. And I still do.
I don’t read what she said to mean that Obama is where he is SOLELY because he is black, just that being black is helping him out.
Why didn’t it help Jackson or Sharpton more, then? Perhaps it isn’t so much about the color of his skin, but what he says and stands for.
1. She’s NOT A STAFFER. Her position is UNPAID VOLUNTEER.
2. Her comments were made to a tiny newspaper in Torrance days after California voted. She was being interviewed as GERALDINE FERRARO, not as a Clinton campaign person. Hasd it not been for a diarsit at KOS, and then KOS himself, it stays buried. Then FOX gave her a chance to stick her foot in her mouth even further.
Once again, Obama campaign explodes a race bomb and runs away, just like when it claimed that the Clintons were unfair to MLK when Hillary remarked that it took a President to pass Civil Rights in this country, just like when they claimed Bill Clinton was “racially insensitive” for commenting that Jesse Jackson won primaries in SC as well.
Ferraro’s comments were stupid and ridiculous. Racist? Hmmm.. not so much.
It pains me to say it, but playing stupid games like these is helping the GOP lay the groundwork to go after Obama and hurt the Party in the Fall.
Wellstone, you’re blaming the Obama campaign for the controversy? They “exploded a race bomb?” In your own account, you track the progress of the controversy from a Ferraro interview to Kos to Fox. You forgot to mention where the Obama campaign lent a hand.
Also, Ferraro’s comments are plainly racist. Recall the furor when Rush Limbaugh said something very similar about Donovan McNabb? The point Ferraro was making is that all Mr. Obama is and has accomplished is outweighed by just one factor: race. And that is the very definition of racism.
>Why didn’t it help Jackson or Sharpton more, then? Perhaps it isn’t so much about the color of his skin, but what he says and stands for.
Her point, I think (and mine) is that race can help, but is by no means what makes or breaks a politician. Jackson and Sharpton have other more glaring flaws that have nothing to do with race.
>The point Ferraro was making is that all Mr. Obama is and has accomplished is outweighed by just one factor: race. And that is the very definition of racism.
See I don’t get that. She said that Obama were white, he wouldn’t be where he is today. She didn’t say that if Obama were white, he would amount to nothing. The implication is that he wouldn’t be the frontrunner in the presidential race. (Though I would agree that she didn’t speak very precisely on that point, it just strikes me that it would be so absurd to claim that someone with Obama’s political skills would be a nobody if he were white that it’s hard to take her that way.) That doesn’t seem implausible to me – a white politician with the same skills but also the same not-all-that-much-experience-or-legislative-accomplishments resume would probably figure that it would be wiser to wait a few more cycles before going for president.
In the end it just seems like a silly game of what if. I don’t see the racist aspect of it.
“If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this, as a potential real problem for Hillary? If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he’s in? Absolutely not.”
I’m having trouble parsing this. Is Hillary Clinton not a woman of any color?
Bottom line is Geraldine has felt this way for a very long time. Clinton has done nothing to disavow herself from Ferraro’s viewpoint. That makes her complicit.
In the end it just seems like a silly game of what if. I don’t see the racist aspect of it.
You’re right, haplo. It is a silly game of what-if. Mr. Obama is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination because of a whole long list of attributes and accomplishments. Ms. Ferraro singled out just one to account for his success.
And you can’t see the racist aspect?
Jackson and Sharpton have other more glaring flaws that have nothing to do with race.
I agree.
She was on Hillary’s campaign finance committee. I don’t care if she was paid or not, she was working for the campaign and therefore was a staffer. She wasn’t just some random talking head. Most people (including me) will see it as a distinction without a difference.
Her point, I think (and mine) is that race can help, but is by no means what makes or breaks a politician.
And when did being black become an advantage in running for President? Would anyone in their right mind have suggested it even two years ago?
Chris Rock made a movie comedy in which the improbability of the idea was central to the story. That was just five years ago.
Now all of a sudden Mr. Obama’s race gives him an advantage? He’s lucky? That’s crazy talk.
I don’t think the Limbaugh/McNabb reference is apt. Limbaugh basically said that that McNabb was where he was because he was black. So far the anolgy seems appropriate. However, that comment clearly failed because McNabb was an accomplished NFL quarterback with a resume that couldn’t be overlooked. Not quite the same for Senator Obama and this (Obama’s lack of a resume) seems what Ferraro (inappropriately and stupidly) was getting at. Also, Limbaugh’s comments were made on a national platform as part of a commentary that sought to highlight his claim that McNabb wasn’t a good NFL quarterback. Ferraro’s was made to a small newspaper, which according to Kevin Drum (who lives in the area) has a small circulation and seemed to be a throw in at the end of a short interview and which was pretty much overlooked at the time it was made.
Make no mistake, Ferraro’s comments were inexcusable and lamentable since she occupied a place in history that until now, was a souce of pride for democrats (i.e., the first woman to run on a national prsidential ticket, but the amount of finger pointing, flame throwing and general angst it has caused goes way beyond that which it should have caused. Ferraro is a minor figure and a volunteer at that, in the Clinton campaign. Senator Clinton’s reluctance to throw Ferraro to the wolves, so to speak, may have something to do with the fact that Ferraro was the first woman to run for for VP and that she paved the way for women in general (including Senator Clinton) to run for for the highest position in the world. I’m not saying that Ferraro’s comments should be excused and maybe Clinton should have been stronger in her denunciation, but all the drama about “are the comments racist?”, “should Clinton do this or do that” and remember Rush Limbaugh is way overblown. Ferraro’s gone. Let’s move on to beat up the Republicans instead of each other.
Can anyone rationally argue that Obama’s path to where he is was made easier by his race? I’m of pinkish hue myself so I can’t speak from personal experience. But I’m certainly left with the impression that those of more brownish tone would reject the notion that being darker skinned has made things easier for them.
Does his race play a part? Yes. Clearly it does. Some of his support from African Americans might not be as strong if he were not himself black. But by a similar manner some of his support from other demographics is less because he is black.
But I can’t see how, overall, things wouldn’t have been easier for him if he were a white guy named Barry Hugh O’Brien.
Mingus, if Mr. Obama’s “lack of a resume” is what she was getting at, she should have said that. Instead, she chose to credit his support among American voters to his race and insist that he is “lucky.” That she made her remarks to a small newspaper instead of a national broadcast changes nothing.
She denigrated his success in the election based on one factor only.
Not quite the same for Senator Obama
Yes, he is clearly not qualified to be an NFL quarterback.
Some of his support from African Americans might not be as strong if he were not himself black.
By the same token, Clinton gets a lot of support from women simply because of her gender. Does that make sense? If it was Condi Rice, would she get the same kind of support? Kinda doubt it. Then, suddenly, it’s about issues.
“That she made her remarks to a small newspaper instead of a national broadcast changes nothing.”
Well, it changes the aptness of your analogy for one thing. I never said that Ferraro’s comments didn’t have a racist tinge. My point is that under the circumstances they have assumed an importance to the race (primary race, that is) that is overblown considering the context. And your point is?
“Yes, he is clearly not qualified to be an NFL quarterback.”
Wait, you’re not saying that because he’s….oh well forget it.
Well, it changes the aptness of your analogy for one thing.
Why? We’re comparing two statements in which the speakers attributed success to a racial advantage. What does the size of the audience have to do with it?
If you’re just looking for differences, fine. One statement was made in California, the other (I think) in Pennsylvania. One statement was made by a Republican and the other by a Democrat, one by a woman and the other by a man.
My point is this: a wide swath of the public, the brass at ABC, and certainly most of the regulars here had no problem seeing the racism in Mr. Limbaugh’s observations on Mr. McNabb’s success and popularity. A few of these same people become puzzled when Ms. Ferraro makes nearly identical remarks.
I can’t speak for other people. But I will repeat since you asked, my opinion that the size of the audience is relevant because we are not talking about Geraldine Ferraro only. If Ferraro was somehow associated with the Gravel campaign and had made the same statement in the same paper would you even care what she said? Her comments would still be repugnant. This has become a political issue in which the Clinton’s have all but been accused of being racists on the basis of a comment made by a minor figure in Senator Clinton’s campaign, in a newspaper that hardly anyone reads at a time when it made absolutely no difference to the campaign in California (where it was published). I don’t know Ms. Ferraro personally so I can’t attest to what her motivations were. Limbaugh on the other hand, had a long history of racially inflammatory remarks, to the extent he had been warned by ESPN not to get into them before they would agree to hire him. Again, I am not defending Ferraro, I just think that the importance of her comments to this race is overblown.
This has become a political issue in which the Clinton’s have all but been accused of being racists on the basis of a comment made by a minor figure in Senator Clinton’s campaign, in a newspaper that hardly anyone reads at a time when it made absolutely no difference to the campaign in California (where it was published).
If it’s the impact of Ms. Ferraro’s statement you wish to discuss, then you’ve got the wrong guy. From the start, my comments have addressed the content of her statement.
(I might also add: Mr. Limbaugh’s comments were similarly insignifigant to the outcome of the NFL season. Take that, dead horse!)
This has become a political issue in which the Clinton’s have all but been accused of being racists on the basis of a comment made by a minor figure in Senator Clinton’s campaign,
The frequency of these events starts to make a pattern. And with Ferraro, it isn’t like it’s an isolated incident.
Look, you know what? Did everybody get to vote in the primary for their state yet? Yes? For the candidate of your choice? Yes? Good. Now shaddap about it. We should wait for the nominee to emerge and support him .. I mean, the nominee. Heh.
“Look, you know what? Did everybody get to vote in the primary for their state yet? Yes? For the candidate of your choice? Yes? Good.”
That’s almost funny, except for, well, you know, a few million people in a couple of states who might not think so.
Well, then they can bitch about it. That’s fair.
You talking about Florida? Fuck ‘em. They screwed it up last time and the time before that. If they can’t get their shit together on a state level, maybe they deserve to be disenfranchised.
Michigan?
237,762 people didn’t have the candidate of their choice on the ballot. Sure, Obama may very well have still lost, but he followed the rules and stayed out of Michigan entirely.
Wow, for someone who (apparently) supports a candidate who decries the Clinton spin that such and such state doesn’t count, you sure are harsh in your judgements. But the rules must be followed of course. We all know what would become of the Democratic Party if a state other than Iowa managed to hold its primary first. Yessiree, it would be the end I tell you, the end of the Democratic Party as we know it (come to think of it how they’re standing up to the Republicans these days, that might not be a bad idea).
The rules were clearly spelled out. The consequences of breaking those rules were clearly known. FL and MI decided to go ahead and break the rules and now they (and the one candidate who didn’t take her name off the MI ballot) want to say that they shouldn’t have to follow the rules.
How can something my 4 year old understands not be clear to these “grown ups”?
you sure are harsh in your judgements.
Damn skippy.
They knew the rules and they knew what would happen. They lose a turn. See Ladders, Chutes and
I guess it all depends on what the definition of “they” is. I doubt that those who showed up to vote in those states had much to say about what went on at the time. And, it’s a little more complicated as I understand it than the black and white rules is rules approach you seem to espouse, especially for Floridians. I don’t know what the solution is frankly, but I find it ironic that when so much wailing has been done about Senator Clinton and certain states “not counting” that “the rules” mandating that New Hampshire and Iowa be first assumes such importance and that several million votes are relegated to “fuck you we don’t care” status. It seems to me that there are “rules” which should be followed of course, but there are also rights, such as the right to vote, which seems to have a greater importance than protecting a small state’s “rights” to hold a caucus or primary before anyone else. As I recall in 2000 we (Democrats) spent a lot of time, words and for some of us money, to fight for the right of everyone’s vote to count. And we were bitterly disappointed and outraged when they didn’t. It isn’t political expediency that has caused the change in attitude is it?
I agree, every vote should count, but it is a primary not the general, and someone has to go first. Otherwise, why don’t we all vote in the primary at the same time?
It isn’t political expediency that has caused the change in attitude is it?
No I don’t think it is. But 2000 was a lot closer than what we have today.
Like I said, I don’t know what the solution is, but the “remedy” as set forth by the DNC seems rather draconian to me. Especially since the voters didn’t have anything to do with the problem. Hopefully, it won’t cost us in the general by alienating a significant number of voters in Florida or Michigan, not only in the presidential race, but in the other races that will occur in November as well.
Clinton apologizes to black voters.
Two questions:
1) Why, if there was nothing racist about Ferraro’s statement?
2) If the statement was offensive, what took you so long?
SpiderJ,
Did you actually listen to the apology. Wasn’t an apology, and was a fake and insincere as it gets.
I agree; my point was that even if the apology had managed to sound sincere it still has to answer the above two questions.