I don't think I can vote for Senator Clinton
We all know the story. Geraldine Ferraro says Obama is where he is because he's black, plain and simple. Ferraro has crushed my elementary school memory of her and with a small sentence, ended any chance that I would cast a vote for Hillary Clinton.
I remember so clearly learning in elementary school that just a few years previous, a woman was on the ticket for vice president. My teacher was happy to share this possibility with her class and I was thrilled. "Geraldine Ferraro, sounds like Ferrari!" I will never forget that and still use that little ditty for bar trivia. You see, before kids realize their race, they realize their gender. I knew I was a girl from the braids, barettes and ballet classes. I didn't know being black was a big deal in 2nd grade and being a girl didn't bother me one bit.
In the years since, I've learned that being a woman and being black are big deals. I've worked through both stereotypes and did my best to succeed in school and in career, proud of both genetic distinctions. But, another antedote from a time I'll never forget. After seven months working at the Democratic Party of New Mexico on the 2000 Gore race a collegue said to me that I did a good job, but did I know I was only hired by the party chair because I was black? Yup, all my work and time lost during my final semester of college was summed up in one sentence. My blackness got my hired, and ooh, isn't it good I didn't mess up?
Ferraro brought this nasty memory to me again this past few days. It has haunted me since I heard it and it won't go away. It remains more deeply frustrating because Ferraro said almost the exact same thing in 1984 about Jesse Jackson.
It's not just this memory either, but all comments made in regard to my race, the race and gender of friends of all colors and the pressure with always having to prove yourself because you worry that somewhere back there, someone is saying or thinking what Ferraro unapologetically expressed. I cannot vote for someone who allows this conversation to fester and not adamantly put a stop to it.
Many argue whether this coment was racist, whether Obama is playing "the race card" (as if we deal in skin color like poker) and whether blacks are too sensitive. I'm going to tell you, it would have been less hurtful if the woman has just said the "n" word. It was racist, no question. Take it from someone, many ones, who've heard it before.
For Clinton to allow her husband loose in South Carolina, Andrew Cuomo calling Obama a "shuck and jiver," and now this, its not someone I can vote for. It's not even someone I can look in the eye.
|
March 12, 2008 |
Karol Collymore | Comments (144 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Bill R. | Mar 12, 2008 9:45:02 PM
Dear Karol,
Your decision is echoed across America, as with me. This is not a loose cannon, this is a calculated "George Wallace" strategy designed to win Penn., Kentucky, and the Appalachian states. It tells me there is no soul, no integrity to the Clintons, never was. For the sake of her own legacy and the sake of the party Hillary needs to apologize and leave the campaign. Keith Olberman said it very well this evening. And at an earlier time in our history, someone said, "Have you no shame?" Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Posted by: carol | Mar 12, 2008 9:51:56 PM
Another media "soundbite" taken out of context to infuriate the public. Unfortunately, the democratic party is now divided...not by race or gender, but by both campaigns dwelling on "soundbites" instead of talking about the issues.
I blame the DNC for this in the ridiculous way they run their primaries and caucuses.
I also blame the media for taking "soundbites" out of context to help their ratings and infuriate voters.
Posted by: james r bradach | Mar 12, 2008 9:52:05 PM
This big, angry, white guy is on your side!
Posted by: Blake C Hickman | Mar 12, 2008 9:55:24 PM
So we shouldn't care about a "sound bite" no matter how racist and cynical it might be because its "just a sound bite"?
Posted by: Chris Corbell | Mar 12, 2008 9:58:40 PM
It is awful that this divisive wedge has continued to be pushed into this election. But reserve your judgment for Hillary Clinton; she is a good person and a fair person. At the very least, let Maya Angelou state the counter position to your post:
May love prevail in 2008, whoever wins. I believe in Hillary, and do not think these abusive and frantic currents and reactions have done justice to her character and her history. I am not voting for Ferraro or Cuomo or Bill, I am voting for Hillary.
Posted by: james r bradach | Mar 12, 2008 9:59:22 PM
Infuriated, thats good. The democrats need to confront this subtile rascim here and now. This big, infuriated, white guy is on your side!
Posted by: Glen HD28 | Mar 12, 2008 10:00:14 PM
Dear Karol,
So many of us share your sentiments. It is a shame, a sin and a crime that the Clintons have put all of us Democrats in this position where in order to support our party, we may be forced to vote against our hearts and values. We may be forced to choose between a careening, unbalanced, out of touch Republican, and one of our own who seems to know no depths of cruelty and dark spirit.
The only solution is to do all we can to support Sen Obama, by donating our money, time, cell minutes, blood, sweat, tears and shoe leather to ensure Sens Clinton and McCain are defeated.
Posted by: Matthew Sutton | Mar 12, 2008 10:00:36 PM
Thanks for chiming in on this Karol.
I have been disgusted by the Clinton campaign for some time now and this is just the latest example. These stupid comments by Ferraro come across as grossly minimizing Senator Obama's judgment, vision, talent, openness, character, and refreshing approach to politics that have caught our imagination.
If you missed it , you must watch Keith Oberman's special commentary on this tonight. He made a special appeal to Hillary to distance herself from this type of "filth." Quite a tounge lashing.
Senator Obama said today that he didn't believe that Ferraro intended this as a rascist remark. He has done a great job of leaving the question of race aside in this campaign, but the media and the Clinton campaign keep bringing it back up, especially when they think it may play to their advantage.
While I hope that her stupid comments were not orchestrated, it is at least interesting that this is coming to the forefront now as the campaign heads to Pennsylvania which James Carville has described as Pittsburg on one side, Philadelphia on the other, and Alabama "in the middle." Could the potential backlash over this actually work to Clinton's advantage "in the middle"?
Is this a type of "Southern Strategy" by the Clinton campaign? Make the Obama campaign stand up against demeaning comments and then use the controversy to glean votes from certain segments of the white population?
They are either extremely stupid, or the comments pointed out by Karol, and the other comments she left out, are part of an ongoing pattern. A pattern that the Democratic Party is supposed to be against.
Posted by: james r bradach | Mar 12, 2008 10:01:59 PM
Infuriated, thats good. The democrats need to confront this subtile rascim here and now. This big, infuriated, white guy is on your side!
Posted by: Karol | Mar 12, 2008 10:02:29 PM
A soundbite, eh? Taken out of context? So Ferarro not apologizing and saying "reverse racism" after admitting what she said and standing by it is OK with you, carol?
Not buying it.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Mar 12, 2008 10:03:09 PM
I can.
I can also vote for Steve Novick, though I've been very disappointed in some of his campaign ethics (nowhere near as bad as Hillary, but still).
I can also vote for Greg MacPhearson, though I'm not impressed, to say the least, by his appeals to Oregon nativism.
I'm a true blue Democrat. Plus, Republicans are always worse.
Posted by: Jenny Greenleaf | Mar 12, 2008 10:06:55 PM
Carol,
While I agree that the current system of primaries and caucuses is not even worthy of being called a Rube Goldberg device, your blame is misplaced. The DNC has little to do with how primaries and caucuses are run, other than it was able to set a date prior to which running one would result in penalties. The DNC tried to avoid the pile-on Super Tuesday, but all the states wanted to "matter." Heck, Oregon would have piled on too, except that people in the legislature realized that the money would be better spent on our schools.
It's different in every state, and usually controlled by state legislatures. The DNC can only refuse to seat delegates at the convention, it can't tell a state how to run its primaries and/or caucuses.
The one thing I guess you can blame on the DNC is the proportional awarding of delegates rather than the winner-take-all delegates in a state that SOME states use in their Republican primaries.
That all said, I hate the negative campaigning and wish the campaigns would just stop it. On both sides.
Jenny Greenleaf
DNC Member and Evil Superdelegate
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 12, 2008 10:10:11 PM
republicans may be worse, but that doesn't mean you have to support someone you know will be bad for the country.
A lot more people willing to say "fuck you, Hillary" this week, it looks like. As they should; her refusal to get rid of Ferraro as quickly as Power quit shows where she's at in this campaign, in to win at any cost. The description of her presentation to fundraisers was scary. They don't even care that she has no real chance to win the regular way, they're just moving on to what schemes they need to pull to take it away from Obama.
Posted by: Karol | Mar 12, 2008 10:14:52 PM
I don't want to get crazy, really. Obama has left in the hands of others to draw conclusions. But what that woman said is so wrong, and not just in the terms of the election.
What people all too quickly forget is that comments like that occasionally throw us back into the stone age. We know Obama went to Harvard, was a con. law professor, organizer, state senator, but somehow, that doesn't count to Ferraro and he's just black. It only matters that Obama is black and thats it. For those of us darker than white, we see and deal with that most days and in most situations.
Try walking by someone or sitting down and seeing the other person grab their purse. Is it because I'm black? Who knows, but that's among the first thoughts. Try hoping you get a job because of your qualifications, not because of your color and praying that the employer likes your resume and is not worried about filling a spot.
Then, you work your ass off, make one mistake and worry that someone thinks you messed up because you can handle it. I know, this is far. But, I'm not the only one who occasionally worries about these things. Its a real fact of life for many people, not just me.
I don't have a chip, really. When things like this happen, issues bubble. I'm usually a carefree Portlander who just wants a farmers market in her neighborhood.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 12, 2008 10:18:42 PM
Ahh, Steve Maurer and I can agree on one thing.
Republicans are always worse.
The President doesn't run the country. The President'e executive branch appointees run the country. If those people are Democrats (even if some of them are not your favorite kind of Democrats), you can expect far better outcomes than if they are Republicans.
And think of the Federal bench. Not just the Supreme Court, although of course that is really important. The entire Federal bench is on the line here. If you really care about progressive values, you have to suck it up and vote D. This is too important.
Posted by: Karol | Mar 12, 2008 10:24:10 PM
Stephanie, I hear you but no, no I don't have to vote for her. I'm done waiting "my turn" to be respected and so are many others - gays, latinos, blacks and women. Enough is enough. I identify so very deeply with what was said and what was not said, that I cannot do it. Sorry.
Posted by: DB | Mar 12, 2008 10:27:39 PM
Is it just me? How is this argument even happening? This seems like a crazy argument for her campaign to make. Isn't Hillary only in the position she is in because she is married to a former president? Ferraro implies that the only reason that Obama is doing well is that he's black, well Hillary is only doing so well because of Bill. As talented and intelligent as she is, she hasn't achieved her position through merit, she achieved it through association.
It says something about Obama's integrity that he hasn't sent his surrogates out to make this argument.
Posted by: Bridget | Mar 12, 2008 10:32:59 PM
It's racist and it's wrong, but what makes me so sad is that Geraldine Ferraro and others think that this tactic works. She wouldn't say it if she didn't think it would be effective to sway votes.
Who but a racist is going to buy into that sentiment, and isn't that racist already voting for someone other than Obama?
Yes, Barack Obama is there because he is who he is, and part of that is his experience as an African-American. Only Mr. Obama knows how his experiences as a person of color shaped his character.
That's not what Ferraro meant. She meant that he's there because he's black. This is pretty odd. I don't remember "blackness" being a shoe-in for a presidential nomination.
I stopped listening to Hillary's campaign after Clinton's talk about how LBJ is the one responsible for civil rights.
Posted by: DH | Mar 12, 2008 10:34:32 PM
This was the proverbial straw for me. While I have tried to counter my nagging concerns by admiring her intelligence and work ethic, I've just never been able to shake my intuition that she is too calculating and power hungry and that when push comes to shove, her self-interests (and by extension, her husband's) super-cede the best interest of the party and the citizens of our country. The Clinton campaigns refusal to respond in a more direct mannerto Ferraro was disappointing. When Obama had an advisor who called Clinton a "monster", she resigned quickly.As a late 30's woman, I share Karol's disappointment in Ferraro's words ( soundbyte my ass) and her follow up responses. I agree with the above statement, Sen. Clinton, please step aside for the good of the party and the good of the country. Bit by bit, I have winced at the following:
1 Vetting and screening people coming to campaign rallies.
2. Voting for the war in Iraq.
3. Buddying up with Rupert Murdoch
4. Supports the current provisions of NAFTA via votes on a regular basis but tells the crowds a slightly different version.
5. Does little to quell idiotic "concerns" over Obama's faith by saying things like " Well, he says he's not a Muslim and I take him at his word."
6. Endorsing McCain's CIC readiness over Obama.
7. The terrible 3 AM ad. Made me sick.
8. The sheer audacity to say that she would be open to the candidate who leads in votes and delegates, to serve as her VP.
I've been hesitant to say it out loud because I so much wanted to be excited about her candidacy but the bottom line, is, I don't trust her.
I have voted straight blue for my entire adult life, since I was 18. I don't know what I will do if she's our candidate.
Posted by: Bill R. | Mar 12, 2008 10:41:26 PM
This was no sound bite, folks. This was repeated over and over again on the talk show circuit by Ferraro. This has been a pattern in the Clinton campaign, classic Rovian stuff. You send out a surrogate who plants the seed, and then distance yourself or say they were a loose cannon.
To top it off Geraldine Ferraro is quoted in the NY Times as saying the opposite in 2006, that women candidates have the advantage and black candidates the disadvantage. So on top of deliberately pouring out this racist poison, she's a hypocrite. So ask yourself, why now? And don't anyone tell me that this isn't deliberate calculation by the Clinton campaign. They have only one road to the nomination and that is to damage the Obama candidacy so badly that the supers over-ride his numerical advantage. And what is Hillary doing, where is the "reject and denounce" routine? She knows this cynical game and she is playing it to the hilt. And where is the party leadership? utterly silent on this filth. The Democratic party seems to have lost its bearings and is headed for a huge breakdown.
Here's a quote from 2006, just two years ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/weekinreview/10nagourney.html?_r=1&scp=13&sq=%22geraldine+ferraro%22black&st=nyt&oref=login
"Ms. Ferraro offered a similar sentiment. “I think it’s more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American,” said Ms. Ferraro. “There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States — whether it’s conscious or not it’s true.”
“Women are 51 percent of the population,” she added.
Posted by: BCM | Mar 12, 2008 10:45:52 PM
Great post Karol.
Keith Olbermann echoes much of what you say (albeit far more aggressively) in his scathing 'special comment' for Hillary tonight. Check it out on YouTube
Posted by: Harry | Mar 12, 2008 10:47:55 PM
Gotta love this irony:
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 12, 2008 10:18:42 PM
Ahh, Steve Maurer and I can agree on one thing.
Republicans are always worse.
--------------
Prejudice comes in many flavors.
You a Republican? Then you are always worse.
You a black? Then you are always worse.
You a Democrat? Then you are always worse.
You a Jew? Then you are always worse.
Make your judgement beforehand. As in PRE. Then comes JUDGEMENT.
PRE JUDGEMENT = Prejudicial = Prejudice
That Karol commented AFTER the prejudicial Steve and Stephanie, without condemning their hateful prejudicial comments, shows that she condones their comments.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 12, 2008 10:50:40 PM
At home in New York, watching on TV, all alone in my apartment, I cried as I watched Geraldine Ferraro take the stage in San Francisco as Walter Mondale's running mate. It was all so thrilling, like a dream.
Then came the trickle, then the deluge of reality. The shady husband, and the whispering about his organized crime connections (not only because of his Italian surname, either). The real estate deals that didn't smell very good. A lot of stuff. It was clear that she hadn't been very thoroughly vetted and that her selection, however heartfelt the symbolism was for Walter Mondale, was a bit of a Hail Mary pass in a year when he knew he was in for an historic thrashing and may have felt that he could make it even more historic by his choice of running mate.
So I guess what I'm getting at is ... Geraldine Ferraro got her own big break as a result of identity politics. No one would care what she said if she had not been a Democratic nominee for Vice President. So how surprising is it that identity politics is the lens through which she views the world?
Posted by: Karol | Mar 12, 2008 11:03:16 PM
No surprise, Stephanie. Many times I view the world through the black/latina lens, make no mistake on that. And there is nothing wrong with ID politics. There is something wrong with accusing someone of getting there because of, not on merit. Obama and Ferraro have plenty of merit to spare.
But as a woman a bit younger, I'm yearning for something different, completely different. Obama is getting through this race largely without race being front and center. The people he wants to be charged to represent, they are front and center. I like that, I want that. Its not about race and gender, but about moving the country and all its inhabitants forward. Clinton isn't doing that. She's allowing her people to divide us - even here in rainy PDX - in anger. And still, she's a Dem. We are charged with the defending the most vulnerable and ensuring equality. She let those comments fly and said, "I'm sorry if anyone was offended." That's not an apology, she's apologizing for my feelings. I don't need that, I like my feelings and they don't need apologizing for. She needs to say, "I'm sorry, those words are wrong."
Clinton won't do that.
Posted by: Harry | Mar 12, 2008 11:12:28 PM
""I'm sorry, those words are wrong."
Clinton won't do that."
--------
Neither will Karol reject & renounce Stephanie and Steve's prejudices towards Republicans.
How hypocritical, to demand Hillary reject Gerry's prejudicial comments regarding Barack, but yet Karol can't bring herself to reject prejudice from Stephanie and Steve, but instead accept it and tolerate it.
How rich, indeed, Karol.
Posted by: LT | Mar 12, 2008 11:29:37 PM
Carol, if you are this upset,
"I blame the DNC for this in the ridiculous way they run their primaries and caucuses.",
I suggest you get involved in the Rules Committee process. Whether or not your local party has a rules committee, the district and state central committees have rules committees, and part of the delegate selection process after the May primary (at least, last time I was paying attention to the rules) includes national permanent members of the Rules Comm.
After the debacles of Dem. conventions in 1964 and 1968, the McGovern Comm. did a re-examination of the delegate selection process which basically set up the process where rules for selecting nominees are tuned up on a regular basis. The Hunt Comm. (which, btw, Geraldine served on) which was roughly 1980 set up the Superdelegate process. The DNC (of which all states have members) set up the "window" process years ago---only a few states are allowed to hold primary/caucus contests before the window opens usually in February.
If a legislature (or in the case of Michigan a US Senator named Carl Levin) took action to go outside the window, that is not the DNC's fault.
At the 1984 Dem. National Convention, a process was set up to deal with complaints on how Mondale had gotten the needed delegates when some people thought he didn't win the nomination fair and square.
Oregon's Dem. rules comm. worked very hard on our rules for the 1988 convention. Tonite I went to a speech at Willamette University and ran into an old friend who had been involved in that rules comm. process 2 decades ago. We both thought it was a worthwhile process--and that everything we learned back then is once again useful knowledge in a contested primary.
And for those of you who are concerned about Andrew Cuomo, the phrase "he takes after his old man" applies here.
There was a candidate challenging Mondale in 1984 who was as much a white, midwestern male as Mondale, but was running on the platform of "new ideas". Mario made fun of that and said, "In NY, a new idea would be like a breakfast cereal that grows hair". He and Geraldine come from the same wisecracking big city politics and have no clue how their remarks are taken by others. ("I was complimenting the black community and I am called a racist", she said, as if in 2008 all women without exception vote Hillary, all blacks without exception vote Obama, all military vets without exception vote McCain, and there are no individuals because groups decide everything! How early 20th century can you get?)
So don't assume it is always about race, sometimes (just as with some Republicans) it is simply "they are on the opposing side, therefore we are allowed to insult them".
That never works. History is full of people who got so nasty in the primary that they lost the general election, or lost a primary over being nasty because the more positive candidate won.
As I recall, Carol Mosley Braun got her one term in the US Senate due to such a fluke. She had relatively little money, so held off on TV ads until the last week. The other candidates in the primary were going after each other in really nasty ways and voters got turned off. Then, just before the election, here are some positive commercials by this woman running in the primary, and she got votes for being the positive alternative.
So, as annoying as all this is, remember 2 things:
Any Democrat would be a change from McCain and a possible 3rd Bush term.
As my old friend Julie says, "when they act like that, you know they know they are losing".
Often this is a case of the old timers being swamped by a new generation campaigning (although people in their early 60s ought to realize this is just another turn of the generational tide like 1968).
Posted by: Bill R. | Mar 12, 2008 11:30:26 PM
Karol- "Obama is getting through this race largely without race being front and center. The people he wants to be charged to represent, they are front and center. I like that, I want that. Its not about race and gender, but about moving the country and all its inhabitants forward."
Exactly.. Karol, well stated. And that is why this move with Ferraro is no accident. They keep coming back to this, beginning in New Hampshire. It's a deliberate repeated attempt to move race to the center of the campaign where the Clintons can work their divisive politics and accuse the Obama campaign of "race-baiting." If he doesn't respond, he's weak. If he does respond, he's injecting race into the campaign. Sound familiar?? The more they can marginalize him, the more they win, especially in the Appalachian states. They won't overtake his numerical advantage but they can damage the perception of his electability among the supers and steal the nomination. In the process they destroy the party and their own legacy. But that's the Clintons. And apparently the Dem. party is fine with these tactics because it's an empty shell and seemingly in the hip pocket of the Clintons. It believes in nothing and cares about nothing except some vague nostaligia about the 1990s.
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Mar 12, 2008 11:43:03 PM
I think everybody here knows something about my dedication to the Democratic Party, that said, I have voted for a Republican on occasion, the very rare ones where they actually were better. A statement about the Republicans as an elected body that is denigrating is scarcely a baseless judgement made in advance. Prejudice is one of those words that cuts a lot of directions. I am, for instance, seriously prejudiced toward murderers. I am pretty safe in that, they have proven something about themselves. The (R) convicts them of associating and attempting to be elected with a cadre that has proven itself to be something. This is the reason politicians put that initial after their name, to be associated with others of that initial.
I freely admit that certain iterations of the Democratic Party in the not real distant past have caused me some embarrassment, I have in mind, for instance, the McAuliff version. I really have no desire to see the Clinton/McAuliff days return to political hegemony.
What infuriates me is how much more difficult it becomes to persuade people that not voting or third party voting enables something worse than their opposed candidate - Mr McSame. I have no idea just how bad another 4 years of the same would be, but pretty darn bad. So, what would I say to Karol to persuade her that Hillary isn't a devil and it was all just positioning? My fingers almost seized up typing that.
I'll be damned if I know. What I can do is hope it doesn't come to that. My respect for Jenny Greenleaf makes it difficult make an argument about "Both???" so I won't. As I mentioned on a comment about DeFazio, it would be self defeating to take a partisan you "x" knock it off. One thing is sure, the DNC is taking knocks it does not deserve. Some is ignorance, some is willful blame somebody other than... Proportional delegate apportioning is probably one of the most grassroots friendly representational methods going. It also makes super delegates inevitable, ties or near ties must be broken. In a winner take all, 2CD might as well stay home, the Democrats out here wouldn't matter. Proportional apportioning means small upstart campaigns have a distant chance of building something. Obama's campaign could have been killed early without it, he'd not have had a chance to get his legs under him. The Republican model favors the status quo, maybe we don't need to go there.
Things don't work well when short term political advantage trumps long term thinking. Dean's model of DNC and McAuliff's model are those two faces at DNC. The DNC has to keep its hands off the candidates and if you think that the Party doing something other than an Olbermanesque public tongue lashing would make a difference you're paying no attention. At this point if every super delegate announced for one candidate it still would not be enough to cross the win number.
So, when you're offended; make your case as cogently as possible and try to sway people that way. It matters. Trying to repair things later will truly suck. Karol, I'm a white guy in one of the whitest places in the country and I do understand and unhappy is such an understatement, but it allows me to use a polite word.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 12, 2008 11:56:04 PM
As I recall, Carol Mosley Braun got her one term in the US Senate due to such a fluke. She had relatively little money, so held off on TV ads until the last week. The other candidates in the primary were going after each other in really nasty ways and voters got turned off. Then, just before the election, here are some positive commercials by this woman running in the primary, and she got votes for being the positive alternative.
CMB was the Cook County machine's candidate in that primary. I'm guessing that the process that led to her victory was a little more complicated than you suggest.
Posted by: ws | Mar 12, 2008 11:59:10 PM
Those were controversial comments for Ferraro to have made, and maybe not too smart. Tonight I read an article in either the NYTimes or the Oregonian. Among the points in the article that stood out for me, was that she was upset that the public seemed to be losing interest in the possibility of the first woman president over the possibility of the first black president.
So, DB's comment above(Mar 12, 2008 10:27:39 PM), kind of rings true for me. The entire dialog is kind of ridiculous. Of course Obama's getting special attention because he's black, as is Clinton, in being a woman.
In the article, there was a quote by Ferraro suggesting that if Obama were a white guy with the same credentials, he'd never have got the attention that brought him to be a front runner in the presidential race. I don't think so. Even if Obama were white as Johnny Winter, he still has that kind of enthusiasm, hope, ideals and vision that's exceptional in presidential candidates. This would have made him someone impossible to ignore, even if he were a white guy.
In the article, Ferraro also complained that if you say anything critical about Obama, it's regarded by the Obama campaign as racist. Yeah, maybe, but so what? What do you expect? In big political races, it's hardly unusual that opponents react to criticisms thrown each other's way in an extreme fashion.
Presidential elections can cause people to behave very strangely, become very emotional, and say things they probably shouldn't.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 13, 2008 12:02:17 AM
What I can do is hope it doesn't come to that.
You and me both, Chuck.
If it weren't for the potential that our next President may well nominate another USSC Justice then I'd say there is no reason. But that one reason alone is a compelling reason to swallow very, very hard and vote the "D". Afterall, a Justice will be there potentially directly affecting our lives well after a new President would get term-limited out of office.
It's no secret that I'm not a big fan of either major party. Voting the "D" is only something I've done twice in my life and both times were situations that I deemed it critical to push back on the GOP, whatever the cost. This is one of those elections, IMHO. And as a long-time Indie that's not a conclussion I reach lightly or casually.
Posted by: Miles | Mar 13, 2008 12:08:30 AM
And there is nothing wrong with ID politics.
Obama is getting through this race largely without race being front and center. The people he wants to be charged to represent, they are front and center. I like that, I want that.
This is off-topic for this post, Karol, but I hope in the future we can dig deeper into this because your two statements seem like a contradiction to me. I happen to think there is quite a bit wrong with identity politics, which is why I agree so wholeheartedly with your point about Obama putting "all the people" front and center. One reason for the Democratic party's troubles all these years is an insistence on catering to each particular interest group's agenda rather than advocating for the progressive commonality that brings us all together. I'm hopeful that nominating a black man as the leader of our party will allow us to transcend the identity politics that have been so divisive.
Posted by: Nick | Mar 13, 2008 1:13:55 AM
Hey Karol. Like you i'm African-American and were disappointed in Geraldine's statements. I didn't find them "racist" (I reserve use of that word except in specific cases) but she did use race to attack Obama as basically someone who's only successful because we the people are blinded by the idea of wanting a black President.
The idea that somehow in AMERICA that a black man with some foreign sounding name called Barack Obama is somehow an advantage is laughable and I personally cracked up laughing when Obama himself said in a calm, cool and serious manner just how completely ridiculous the concept is. And I was disappointed to see Ferraro diminish herself as being picked as a Vice-Presidential candidate by Walter Mondale in 1984 JUST because she was a woman. Certainly Mondale was looking for someone different...and being a woman certainly qualifies. But saying THAT was the only reason? Not that there was something special about Ferraro as a person? Sad. Obama being black is certainly a factor and I would be lying if I said I wasn't proud to see someone who's from my racial and cultural group becoming so successful and having a real shot at an office that's been ruled by white folks for more than two centuries. But to imply that's the ONLY reason? That basically belittles everyone who's voted for him (or will be) whether they be white, black or whoever...and just another sign out of the Clinton campaign that they really don't understand why Obama's been so successful.
They simply want something and someone different and think Obama can do that...and that she can't.
And if you read the entire quote, she mentions before the racial part that she believes there's a lot of sexism in the society making Clinton's candidacy weaker in compared to Obama's. Essentially the woman's getting crushed and the black man's being ascended. I don't understand this apparent warring over which demographic group is getting treated worse in the society. Certainly there's a ton of sexism in America (perhaps even more overt) but to say that's the only reason she's loosing to Obama is just as ridiculous.
Posted by: LT | Mar 13, 2008 1:24:54 AM
Did you hear the generals giving endorsements today? Gen. Mc Peak had some great lines about how handling stress is a great way to judge qualifications (calmer the better) and "there is no drama in Obama".
And Mike Huckabee survived longer than anyone expected--- because of his sense of humor?
One of the lines in this John Hartford song "Better Untangle Your Mind"
http://www.yourmusic.com/browse/album/39545.html
is
"relax or you'll snap like a string in the strain"
I'm an ol' John Hartford fan.
Posted by: Michael Hanna | Mar 13, 2008 2:21:44 AM
Thank you Karol for your post. I hear you loud and clear. I was 13 when Ferraro ran with Mondale, and back then as the son of a single mom, I thought it was great that a woman was getting close to the Presidency. And then in 1993, in college, I respected Hillary for attempting to move America forward on health care. But wow, in 2008, I am sitting here just amazed, wondering what the hell went wrong with Ferraro and Hillary. Have I changed or have they? Is it that these straight, rich, white women have lost touch with America, or could it actually be that America has shifted a little--for the better--in the last 20 years?
I don't know. But the behavior of the Clinton campaign (and I want to be very specific here, because the "Clinton campaign" is not necessarily representative of Hillary Clinton the person) in this month of March 2008, has left me with no other option but to say in no uncertain terms: I will now or EVER vote for Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Golden | Mar 13, 2008 2:55:17 AM
Hey, guess what... racism is oppressive. Really, I promise! I have never seen a black American president and neither has Obama. That’s a pretty big deal. I think I am kind of a tough guy because I am the first of my family to attend college--- I didn’t think it was possible and neither did 90% of the people I knew. My trail was difficult to blaze but to become the first black president is probably a bit more difficult. I have an inkling most people thought having a black guy as president was out of the question; “the country just isn’t ready” comes to mind.
If you accept the idea that all races are biologically equal then you have to figure there is a non-biological reason for blacks to be an over represented population regarding incarceration and poverty. For my money I would bet the reason has something to do with racism.
Karol thanks for your insight. I can't imagine what it must feel like to be a person who lives, feels and sees oppression every day and then hear that being black is an edge in becoming president.
Posted by: Mister Tee | Mar 13, 2008 4:20:50 AM
Karol,
Welcome to the club. This is what Republicans mean when they say "Hillary polarizes America"...Which is why they would rather face her (in November) than Obama.
Fret not! She's going to steal the nomination with Super Delegates, so you're vote really isn't necessary.
Posted by: Ron | Mar 13, 2008 5:43:41 AM
Thanks for the terrific entry Karol. I too have been concerned by the tone of the Clintons and was appalled by Bill's comments after the SC primary. I've told everyone that I could vote for either candidate in the general, now I'm not so sure. I really didn't think first and foremost of Obama as a black man, but rather as a terrific candidate. And now the Clintons want to beat us in the head with it until that is all we think about. Sad.
Posted by: Josh Kardon | Mar 13, 2008 6:31:28 AM
Karol -
Sorry I'm late to the discussion, but I had a child's birthday to celebrate last night and it looks like I missed a very important discussion. Please allow me to add my voice to the thousands who are disgusted with Ms. Ferraro and her comments. Despite my volunteer capacity for the Clinton campaign (a role which is far more significant, with all due respect, than Ferraro's role as a financial contributor to the campaign), like Ferraro, I only speak for myself. I did not ask for approval before writing these words. I saw Ms. Ferraro on Good Morning America (ABC) yesterday morning and her argument sickened me. I still do not know her intent, but having grown up in the South during a period of extraordinary racism, I know firsthand how much damage words like Ferraro's can inflict.
Let me also set the record straight with regard to Sen. Obama's candidacy. Sen. Obama would be a powerful, persuasive candidate under any circumstances and regardless of his ethnic heritage. He possesses a rare talent that few politicians are born with and even fewer develop. Like Sen. Clinton, he is brilliant, thoughtful, and a phenomenal communicator, and if he is nominated, I would be unbelievably proud to have him as my President.
It is my understanding that Sen. Clinton forcefully disagreed with Ms. Ferraro, and that she has been moved off of the Finance Committee. This has not, however, stopped the Obama campaign from spreading the false story that Ms. Ferraro's idiotic and hurtful remark came form the Clinton campaign. I received a call from a wealthy Obama supporter yesterday who immediately started chewing on me about Ferraro's stupid comments and accused her of speaking for the Clinton campaign. I told him that she was solely a "member" of the Finance Committee and asked him how many times he had been a Finance Committee member for Oregon politicians and whether he had ever done anything for those candidates other than give or raise money. He started laughing and admitted that it is a ceremonial post. By contrast, the Obama foreign policy advisor who called Sen. Clinton a "monster" was far more involved in the substance of the Obama campaign.
The bottom line, Karol, is that you are right to be furious, but at Ms. Ferraro. She certainly reminded us why she was absolutely no help to the ticket in 1984, because unlike Sen. Obama, while plenty smart she is not consistently thoughtful, and while articulate, she is a terrible communicator. And, unlike Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton, she went out of her way to divide, rather than bring people together.
I hope we can get back to the serious issues facing the nation and Oregon and have a spirited discussion on those, and not let campaign consultants and overheated, unauthorized partisans on both sides drag us into issues that will only serve to divide Democrats and the nation, and elect John McCain.
Posted by: anthony blanusa | Mar 13, 2008 6:32:29 AM
grow up if you are concerned about black comments or wheather its a woman or not sounds like you have the racial problems its like puttin a redneck president in office for a second time just because he talks perrrty oh wait i forgot we did do that. becareful what you wish for thats why they call them politicians cause none of them can tell the truth but remember anythings better than what we have.
Posted by: Mister Tee | Mar 13, 2008 6:58:45 AM
Meds check: lift up your tongue please!
Posted by: Bill R. | Mar 13, 2008 7:05:34 AM
Josh Kardon- " It is my understanding that Sen. Clinton forcefully disagreed with Ms. Ferraro, and that she has been moved off of the Finance Committee."
Josh, I wish I could find your comments believable, but I don't.
Disagreed?? The standard that Sen. Clinton has insisted on is "denounce and reject." Ferraro says she is just going to go on with her attacks despite leaving the Clinton campaign formally. I wish that the benevolent picture that you paint of Sen. Clinton were true. The problem is this is a continuing pattern with her. She puts out surrogates, like Billy Shaheen, like Bob Johnson, like Bill Clinton, and like Geraldine Ferraro, the feminist heroine, and make statements that seem clearly designed to divide people along racial lines, designed to provoke a response, then when anyone in the Obama campaign objects, the tactic is to accuse him of "race-baiting." And then when she appears on 60 minutes and says, "As far as I know.... Obama isn't Muslim," while some of her own campaign are caught sending these awful e-mails around. I just don't see how you can support that kind of divisive approach to winning elections. The last time I saw a candidate use race in this way was George Wallace in the primary of 1972. Frankly the Dem. party is making me more and more ashamed.
You present this as some kind of one time event. In fact Geraldine Ferraro, on behalf of Sen. Clinton has been making the talk-show circuit. She parrots the line that a number of Clinton feminist supporters use, the despicable idea that Obama is somehow getting hands-off treatment because he's black, while the misogynist media is biased against her. She is pushing for the white resentment vote and getting it. She's been pushing the narrative that somehow his candidacy is not for real, that all he is, is "a speech in 2002," while endorsing John McCain over him as more qualified to be commander in chief.
So I find your comments here disingenuous and not representative of the facts of how Sen. Clinton is conducting her campaign. If those who are party insiders in the Dem party can't throw the red flag when a candidate is using tactics that divide and hurt the party and help the terrible agenda of the right wing, then what good are you?
Posted by: Ron | Mar 13, 2008 7:22:14 AM
Josh Kardon-
It's her campaign Josh, she is in charge. I listened to her comments regarding Feraro and she did not forcefully distance herself from them. She made qualilfied statements like she has done so often in the past. If she is supposedly a great leader, well then let's see some of that. Otherwise get the heck out of the way.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Mar 13, 2008 7:26:13 AM
The one thing I guess you can blame on the DNC is the proportional awarding of delegates rather than the winner-take-all delegates in a state that SOME states use in their Republican primaries.
Well, there's also the fact that the party has awarded enough delegates so that elected officeholders and other members of the party's formal apparatus can nullify the expressed will of the people as represented in the primary and caucus voting.
Obama is going to win a majority of the delegates awarded during the primary and caucus process, but that may not matter much to the final outcome if the Clinton's can persuade enough of the super-delegates to side with them anyway.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Mar 13, 2008 7:33:24 AM
I hope we can get back to the serious issues facing the nation and Oregon and have a spirited discussion on those, and not let campaign consultants and overheated, unauthorized partisans on both sides drag us into issues that will only serve to divide Democrats and the nation, and elect John McCain.
Better yet, Josh, perhaps you can use your role as Clinton's Oregon campaign chair to persuade her to concede a race that she has already lost, insofar as the delegates awarded through the primary and caucus nominating process is concerned, and to throw her support to Obama for the good of the party.
I am certain that Hillary Clinton would make a much better vice-presidential candidate for Obama than Ferraro did for Mondale. Of course, that's only going to happen if her surrogates and campaign staff don't continue to raise the issue of race in an attempt to divide the Democratic electorate. Ferraro's comments may have been the worst coming from the Clinton camp, but they were not the first.
Posted by: Josh Kardon | Mar 13, 2008 8:22:42 AM
Bill R., I really don't know how to respond to someone who compares a lifelong champion for equality to George Wallace. I hope you don't care more about whipping up outrage against Sen. Clinton than you do about confronting racially provocative comments and promoting racial understanding.
I'm suggesting that, as Peter DeFazio suggested yesterday, both campaigns knock it off and run an issue-based campaign. Perhaps you aren't an ideal audience for that sort of message.
Posted by: John Calhoun | Mar 13, 2008 8:29:00 AM
I was shocked to hear Ferraro not only make her statement, but keep repeating it. She is clearly tone deaf and lives in the Archie Bunker world she represented in Congress. What disappointed me is Clinton's slow and measured response. As time has gone on, Hillary has made stronger comments rejecting what Ferraro said, but still not coming up to the standard that I think we Democrats should have. I don't think for a minute that Bill and Hillary are racists themselves, but they sure have not been forthright in taking action when they or their supporters screwed up.
Hillary was very moralistic about Obama's stand on Farrakhan, but thinks a lesser condemnation of what Ferraro said is acceptable for her. It hurts me that she has soft pedaled this issue. I know that there are racists out there. I thought, hoped?, that this year this Democratic party had moved beyond it.
Posted by: andy | Mar 13, 2008 8:37:39 AM
Not sure what the big deal is, Ferraro is just speaking the truth. Obama being black is one of the really big deals of the whole race. You would have to be from a different planet to have noticed that virtually all of the press and discussion mention the fact that he is black. That he is the first black front runner for president, etc. So of course the fact that he is black is part of the reason he is where he is. If, as Ferraro said, he was an inexperienced white guy from the midwest he would be toast by now.
Now Ferraro could've really stuck the shiv in had she said some other true things such as: it is nice to see a young black man who knows who is father is. Or: it is nice to see a young black man who isn't in jail. Both of those statements would be rooted in the truth but would've been even meaner.
Of course Ferraro could've also given the other side of the equation which is that because Obama is black he'll have a very difficult time winning a majority of the non-black vote. Being black helps him but it also hurts him. Net effect is probably negative. For that he can thank his brother black men who are such big screwups that they've poisoned the well. Anyone pay attention to the arrests in the murders of the college girls back east? Yep, young black men.
Posted by: DB | Mar 13, 2008 8:41:22 AM
Come on Josh- when Powers called Hillary a "monster" she was asked to leave the next day. Geraldine made clear that she had NOT been asked to leave. They let the story run through two news cycles before doing anything about it. Now that the damage is done, and the racists got the message, they can conveniently "reject and repudiate" the statements.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Blake C Hickman | Mar 12, 2008 9:41:33 PM
Thanks for this piece.
I think its extremely important that we as democrats stand against this kind of politics, and stand strongly.