« If You Don't Think These Look Fun... | Main | BYOB Thursday - Long Week »
March 12, 2008
The Political Crowther
The Geraldine Ferraro fiasco took on a new color for me as I listened to her continuing to refuse to apologize for her remarkable - not honest and no one dare says it - comments the other day in the - at least it wasn't a blog... but close - The Daily Breeze, a tiny local paper here, servicing primarily the white community on the wealthier west side of Los Angeles.
What stuck me was Bosley Crowther, who was so aggressive about trying to kill Bonnie & Clyde - the kind of power a NY Times critic had at the time, when it coordinated with the mindset of the studio bosses - that he destroyed his own career and legacy.
It's never just a review or just one movie you hate when things go that kind of dark. It's that moment when you get the feeling that a person in a position of authority is fighting off the future, unable to see just how destructive they are being, so myopic at the moment of attack that they can't see the misstep and cannot even think about withdrawing from the fight.
Even Ferarro's letter of resignation from the Clinton campaign was a disaster of sorts. She wrote: "Dear Hillary, I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what's at stake in this campaign. The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen."
She's still right! And everyone else is wrong. She is the victim! Hillary is the victim!
Now, I am not a fan of calling "racist." And I have been known to be rather strident about using language straight out... like quoting someone saying "nigger" instead of hiding the truth behind the horribly PC "The N Word," which I believe gives way to much power to the word and too much cover for the people who still use such words to hurt others. (Regulars will remember discussions over the phrase "drama queen," and others.)
But Ferraro doesn't seem to understand how broad her comment really was. Saying that there is an overstated excitement amongst many voters that voting for a black man for president defines progress is to intiate a fair discussion. But then, if you were honest, you would have to say the same about Hillary Clinton being the first potential woman president (aside from Mondale getting eleted, dying, and it being GF).
The bigger problem is that she completely overlooks any positives for Obama other than race. And that is absurd on the face. And that defines racism... an irrational analysis of race and its effect.
I finally read the actual interview and the hypocrisy crested, causing me to right this entry:
Despite suffering from multiple myeloma, a form of blood cancer that limits her energy, Ferraro said she is committed to keeping up an active speaking schedule and doing everything she can to help the Clinton campaign.
"I'm on Hillary's finance committee. I've done a fundraiser for her here at my firm. And I went and worked the phone banks before Super Tuesday. I have to tell you, this is a very emotional campaign for me," Ferraro said.
When the subject turned to Obama, Clinton's rival for the Democratic Party nomination, Ferraro's comments took on a decidedly bitter edge.
"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.
"I was reading an article that said young Republicans are out there campaigning for Obama because they believe he's going to be able to put an end to partisanship," Ferraro said, clearly annoyed. "Dear God! Anyone that has worked in the Congress knows that for over 200 years this country has had partisanship - that's the way our country is."
So... Clinton fights on in spite of the weight of sexism, but the black guy is only in the position that he has achieved because of inverted racism.
Pathetic.
And with it, a person I voted for... a person who has fought and survived and thrived against all kinds of odds... implodes and destroys her legacy and the good feelings many have for her.
Of course, many women who are violently supporting Hillary feel exactly this way. Their minority is the most affronted. And no doubt, many black Obama supporters also feel that Hillary is only where she is because she is a woman... as their minority has been the most affronted. All minorities tend to carry these chips on our shoulders at times. Surviving makes us tough and united in ways, sometimes, that are not so smart or attractive.
But we expect smarter thinking from our once and future leaders.
A damned shame.
PS: A Daily Breeze follow-up makes things even worse: "Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
Posted by poland at March 12, 2008 04:42 PM
Comments
Ugly. Just ugly
Posted by: doug r ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 12, 2008 06:41 PM
I'm an Obama supporter and I don't mind saying that he wouldn't be the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination if he wasn't black. That's not to say he's not smart, or that he hasn't worked his ass off, or that he deserves his success. But when you're trying to get the presidency, it takes more than all that-- you've got to be in the right place at the right time, have a good story to tell, etc. Obama probably wouldn't have been selected to speak at the convention in 2004 if he was white, but it was his rhetorical gifts and his smarts that took him from there.
I guess my point is that everybody gets to where he is by a combination of luck, talent, hard work, and just who you are. It's a bit oversensitive to claim that his race has nothing to do with his appeal.
But! Such a criticism is bizarre coming from the Clinton campaign, whose candidate is even more the result of circumstance and not merit. She's gotten this far by virtue of the fact that she's married to a popular ex-president. Obama certainly didn't have that advantage. And any man with Hillary's record would be an utterly minor senator, and probably not a senator for long.
Posted by: Eric at March 12, 2008 06:42 PM
I think Hillary overstates her experience... but I also think she has been a very good Senator for the State of NY.
Posted by: David Poland at March 12, 2008 07:18 PM
Eric, there is also the argument that if Obama were a white man (O'bama, anyone?), then he would already be the nominee.
Whatever the case, what she said was absurd, and yes, racist. She has a history of this junk.
It even contradicts what she said just two years ago, saying that woman have an advantage over African-Americans. Apparently that didn't pan out, and she's gone off the deep end yet again because of it.
Posted by: Tofu at March 12, 2008 07:59 PM
Steinem made the same argument in the Times a while back -- that if Obama was a woman (a black first-term senator), he/she wouldn't have been taken seriously. Where was the outcry to that?
Posted by: mutinyco at March 12, 2008 08:01 PM
Reading some of Gloria Steinem's comments... Yikes.
The argument is historically incorrect, as we have 16 women in the senate right now alone. Obama is the fifth Black Senator, well, ever. Unless the argument was if he was a Black Woman, which goes even further into oddball strawman territory.
Posted by: Tofu at March 12, 2008 08:50 PM
The argument was that if everything about Obama was the same except his gender, he would never have gotten this far. It's an observation of sexism not so much racism.
Posted by: mutinyco at March 12, 2008 09:11 PM
I think what's got Clinton so pissed off is that she knows she won't be the first woman president if she's not elected this cycle. Frankly between Sebellius, McCaskill, Napolitano and others one of those will be president in the next twenty years. My money's on McCaskill as a better VP candidate in the future if she stays in the senate but would be a solid pres candidate if she becomes gov of missouri. I could see Sebellius being the first woman president, except she may be too old to want to run by 2016.
Posted by: movielocke at March 12, 2008 09:52 PM
Uh, no. If Clinton doesn't make it all the way this year, we won't have a woman president for a long time. I think seeing the many faces of Hillary over the past few months is putting a lot of people off from considering a woman at this point. Any of the three main contenders left would be better than what we have, but since I'm strongly anti McCain and hesitant about Hillary, then by default I'm an Obama supporter. I would imagine that lots of people feel the same.
Posted by: Jerry Colvin at March 12, 2008 10:32 PM
My money's on Chelsea.
Posted by: mutinyco at March 12, 2008 10:33 PM
DID YOU SEE THAT CHICK SPITZER IS ALLEGEDLY LINKED TO?
SMOKING FUCKING HOT.
This guy is my new IDOL.
THIS MAN IS A GOD.
Why is this a SCANDAL? This is what life is about.... attaining enough power and money to be able OWN ALL.
THAT CHICK OWNS.
I'm voting for SPITZER FOR PRESIDENT.
The man is a true inspiration.
I have a new hero.
Posted by: LexG at March 12, 2008 10:43 PM
Of course Obama is in this position because he's black, but of course that isn't the only aspect that lead him to this place of power situation. I think you disregard the role of race in the race (sry), Dave. But I don't think a white man could have brought people together the way Obama has. People are identifying with him because he's part of a suppressed group. I believe a woman could bring people together, if she wasn't Bill Clinton's wife and if her campaign wasn't focused on appeling to cynics.
Obama's master stroke in campaigning was all this audacity of hope hoopla, which gave people something to look forward to. Do I think he'll follow through on it? Not a chance, and I would rather have Clinton in charge any day of the week.
Posted by: Bartholomew Richards at March 12, 2008 11:50 PM
As you have, BR... as you have.
Posted by: David Poland at March 13, 2008 12:27 AM
What all of this points to is the splintering of the notion of identity politics on the left. Through the 60's until now and peaking with the horrendous notion of political corrctness, modern progressive thought has always maintained that anyone deemed as - other - by society was linked by a common bond against what they called the 'oppressor groups'. Now they are fracturing and fighting among themselves. Each has own competing interests and each has their own agenda.
I do not think it is a good or bad thing...just a natural part of being human. For better or for worse, both the left and the right will not be the same after the next election.
Posted by: Nicol D at March 13, 2008 04:13 AM
I think there is a question of race and gender issues going on in this election (though, I think it has helped both candidates through the primaries) that it'd be nice if it could be addressed in a civilized manner, but Ferraro's comments clearly aren't it.
Though, could it be any clearer, from this and the "monster" comment, that there's no way in hell these two are getting on the same ticket together, no matter how much the Democratic base would love the odd pairing?
Posted by: Me at March 13, 2008 06:01 AM
Obama's not black or white. He's both. A big part of his appeal is that he represents a bridge between cultures. Ties in nicely to "audacity of hope".
Posted by: doug r at March 13, 2008 08:54 AM
Doug R
I just finished Obama's book. Y'know...I do not think he's a bad guy. He says a lot of stuff I like such acknowledging that political correctness has taken over universities, saying he sees nothing wrong with a free market and recognizing the elitism that many progressives have against Christians and the poor. On his audio CD version he also does a pretty funny and kind impression of GW Bush.
But he in no way identifies himself as half white and half black. He is both of course; but I would be willing to bet that most of his supporters do not know this and he is certainly not running as a mix or a bridge. In the media and in how he portrays himself, he identifies as a black man. That is his perogative, but to say his appeal is that he is both I think is to miss the point.
Posted by: Nicol D at March 13, 2008 10:30 AM
I agree with everything Eric said in his opening post. Being black is helping Obama. I don't see why admitting as much is such a problem for his supporters. Liberals love affirmative action. So when the polls show that they favor Obama on matters seemingly less pertinent (likability, similar values) than Hilary (experience, ability to lead) when it comes to being President, his race should be an unabashed trump card.
So I agree with DP that Ferraro's comments are hypocritical to a point (Ferraro did admit that she got the VP nod because she was a woman), I disagree that they are racist. She didn't mention Obama's other positives, David? Do you honestly believe that Ferraro sees no other positive qualities in Obama? Because that what your race card seems to be based on.
Posted by: mysteryperfecta at March 13, 2008 10:39 AM
I find it hard to believe that most of Obama's supporters do not know he is half white and half black. I thought that was common knowledge. Everyone I know (Obama supporter or not) is perfectly aware of it. Also, Obama said that he does not think Ferraro's comments are racist. I believe ill-advised is how he described them. This just in: being old and white and male is helping McCain.
Posted by: Stella's Boy at March 13, 2008 11:19 AM
He mentions the racial makeup of his parents in just about every speech he gives, so it's not some fact his supporters have to dig up. They pretty much know. Or else they're not listening.
I think he's weathered this with a lot of class. He didn't call her or her words racist. He simply said they were misguided and unfounded and moved on.
Posted by: L.B. at March 13, 2008 11:36 AM
Why can't we talk about something...funner?
Posted by: waterbucket at March 13, 2008 12:30 PM
It's also worth noting that very few 'black' Americans are actually 100% 'black' as most have some European ancestry somewhere in their family tree.
Posted by: jeffmcm at March 13, 2008 01:33 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)