Centerfield

I've been thinking about this since the story broke. To me, she is indeed simply saying that Obama isn't that special of a politician. Perhaps she thinks he is flat out lousy, but I'll just say not special for now. What does make him special is that he is black. Clearly, that is a personal insult to Obama, but I just don't understand why that suggestion is generally offensive and/or racist. Could you elaborate on that for me? I'd honestly like to hear from somebody that does.

Posted by: Justin (NC) at March 12, 2008 08:25 AM

I wouldn't call it racist either. It's dirty identity politics. People are charging the climate with various perspectives on gender and race issues that have some half-baked ring of truth to various subsets of the populace.

Personally, I like to reserve "racist" for direct allegations that someone lacks the worth, ability, or aptitude of other folks solely because of their race.

But I'm well-aware that mileage varies widely. Again speaking only for myself, i don't believe any of us has been well-served by the expansive use of "racism" to include all sorts of ignorant or unpleasant speech that in any way relates to race issues.

But since mileage does vary so widely, and wildly, I'm inclined to view such expansive claims as rabbit holes I'd rather not go down, trolly stuff better ignored than pursued. But the temptation is always there.

Posted by: kritter at March 12, 2008 10:33 AM

Of course it's racist. It says that the only reason he's succeeding is because he's black. That means that he hasn't really gotten where he is because, oh, he's an exciting politician capable of generating a lot of enthusiasm, or because he had good insight into the dynamics of the race and has managed his campaign remarkably well.

This is the smear that always goes along with affirmative action. The minority or the woman never gets credit for his or her accomplishments because every one knows why they "really" got where they were. White men, by contrast, enjoy the presumption that if they've achieved something they did so on the basis of their merits.

Posted by: Maggie at March 12, 2008 11:37 AM

Well, you knew that politics wasn't beanbag, right? The Democratic Party is based on identity-politics coalitions, much more so than the GOP, so nasty internicene struggles are bound to end up in that arena as candidates play off identity coalitions against each other. (Not that the GOP doesn't do it too, they just have different and fewer coalitions, and they're more ideology-based than identity-based.)

White men, by contrast, enjoy the presumption that if they've achieved something they did so on the basis of their merits.

I thought the conventional wisdom nowadays was that they succeeded based on the institutionalized bigotries of the corporate white power structure. I sure wish folks would better conventionalize their wisdoms. It's all so confusing.

Hillary Clinton: Love her or loathe her, but do not ever underestimate her. I'm so glad I'm not a Dem delegate who might have had an FBI file in last decade of the last century--that could be a very uncomfortable position if it's still really tight when the convention rolls around. (Or is that just too cynical?)

Posted by: Tully at March 12, 2008 02:25 PM

Yeah Jon, I got to say, you are wrong. It is identiy politics, it isn't an admirable statement Ferraro made, but I get the sentiment. This is the Democratic Party after all... it's about prison gang warfare. They have been shanking each other for years.

That been said, I notice that what those of us who have commented on this post have in common is that we are not women. I do think that there are a lot of loyal Democratic women who are foaming at the mouth pissed off right now. Finally, they get their shot to elect a female President, and a young, inexperienced, articulate, african american male comes along and steals history right from under them.

Say what you want from Obama, his sole qualification right now is his ability to spread a message. He doesn't have the war scars that Hillary has and that is bound to ruffle a few feathers. I am not saying he isn't qualified to be President, I have considered voting for him myself, but the two things Obama has that is different than a lot of young, brainy, articulate politicians with no experience, are his skin color and his personal history. That is not debateable.

Posted by: Starbucks Republican at March 12, 2008 03:04 PM

Hillary Clinton: Love her or loathe her, but do not ever underestimate her. I'm so glad I'm not a Dem delegate who might have had an FBI file in last decade of the last century--that could be a very uncomfortable position if it's still really tight when the convention rolls around. (Or is that just too cynical?)

No, it is not. In fact, here is a prediction. If Hillary gets to under a hundred because of Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan... she will be the nominee and Obama will be number two. The Clinton's are simply better at this than anyone else in the history of this country. At the same time they know they will not have any other choice but to bring Obama along, and he himself will be under extremem political pressure to accept.

Posted by: Starbucks Republican at March 12, 2008 03:08 PM

The real problem is that American society today is extremely racist. Not stereotypically racist, but racist nonetheless.

The Democratic Primary in Mississippi split on racial lines. If Obama got over 70% of the black vote in Mississippi because he's such a great politician, why did over 70% of the white vote go to the other candidate?

The fact is that the entire country is racist, in profound and disturbing ways. However good of a politician he is, Obama would have to be an idiot not to exploit that to his benefit. And unlike white candidates, Obama *can*. That's the point.

I also find it bitterly ironic that Jon would accuse Ferraro of admitting of only one possibility, while he himself admits of no other possibility that he is correct in his interpretation of her position and intent.

He says that superdelegates should "show superior political knowledge", but because he disagrees with her statements, he assumes she is showing inferior political knowledge. He does not admit of the possibility that, as a superdelegate and seasoned politician of many political campaigns, her statements are, in fact, indicative of political knowledge superior to Jon's own.

Personally, I think Obama is a competent politician and a compelling speaker. I think that Ferraro's remarks were facile and unbecoming.

But I also think that for a self-described moderate, Jon is taking a very extremist position on the subject.

Posted by: lucyp at March 12, 2008 03:29 PM

Maggie, who said "only?"

Posted by: kritter at March 12, 2008 08:59 PM

Wow, Ferraro. who new? I thought she was above this.

Posted by: sikantis at March 12, 2008 11:58 PM

I was so angered by what Ferraro had to say that I probably let it get to me too much. Between her two less than helpful comments recently, she managed to get a remarkable number of my hot buttons. The post ended up both immoderate and careless as a result. Sorry.

OK, OK, her comments could be merely offensively and wrongly gender-paranoid (if the media and the country were so sexist, then why was she ever the frontrunner - shouldn't Edwards or one of the other male candidates have been ahead)?

It looked racist to me for much the same reasons as Maggie sees it that way. First, because Ferraro said, "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," Except, there've been 42 white men as President. Second, because she was showing no interest in Obama's actual ability or inability, just looking at him as a category.

But, you know, I think I had it closer to right in a first gut reaction - SOME kind of prejudice, not necesarily racism.

It could equally be reverse-sexist thinking, and that's more consistent with her talk of how Obama'd've lost if he was a black woman. Plus, the nasty, paranoid stereotyping is about sexism, not about blacks taking over.

I AM completely taking back my accusation of Clinton campaign race-baiting, since Ferraro's out now.

Yeah, Starbucks, I do feel sympathy for Hillary's supporters. And those of whomever loses in November. I know I'd be unhappy if Obama was losing. All kinds of hopes die in elections. As a very picture of that, I remember an old black woman at my caucus, looking unhappy with her happy younger family and in the middle of the bigger happy Obama crowd there.

....hmm, Tully, how about beanbag played with 100-lb bags and automatc firing cannons?

Posted by: Jon Kay at March 13, 2008 03:05 AM

Of course it's racist. It says that the only reason he's succeeding is because he's black. That means that he hasn't really gotten where he is because, oh, he's an exciting politician capable of generating a lot of enthusiasm, or because he had good insight into the dynamics of the race and has managed his campaign remarkably well.

That's what I read it to mean; that Ferraro doesn't think that he has done that good a job on those points, and that the bulk of his support comes from the fact that there is finally a serious black candidate and people are excited about it. She doesn't say that the problem with that is that a black man might get elected. Her point is that an unqualified (maybe just less qualified) person may end up getting elected. Again, how is that racist?

This is the smear that always goes along with affirmative action. The minority or the woman never gets credit for his or her accomplishments because every one knows why they "really" got where they were. White men, by contrast, enjoy the presumption that if they've achieved something they did so on the basis of their merits.

But you have to acknowledge that when you do hand things out to people because of their race, not their qualifications, some people are only there because of affirmative action. The disservice that does to the truly deserving people is yet another problem with affirmative action, a.k.a Two Wrongs Make a Right a.k.a. The Answer to Race-Based Discrimination is More of It. Posted by: Justin (NC) at March 13, 2008 07:45 AM

I think the thing that really gets people's goats about Ferraro's statement is that

a) it's really a case of the pot calling the kettle African-American. Does anyone seriously contend that Hillary has any qualifications to be President, other than being the wife of Bill, or that she would even be junior Senator from New York without that?

b) nobody is willing to credit the Clinton campaign with being forthright and aboveboard (with good reason), so when her remarks fit a pattern of attack trial-balloons that have been floated over the course of the campaign (e.g. Obama's youthful drug indiscretions make him vulnerable to Republican attacks, equating Obama to Jesse Jackson after his SC victory) people assume that they're having another go at it. Nobody buys the excuse that they're really bad at message discipline.

So despite there being a large amount of truth in the observation that Obama has benefited in the primary process from being black, and that's a big part of what makes his candidacy exciting to people, this isn't just an academic musing from a disinterested observer--this is the partisan spin of one of Hillary's campaign team, and there's a reason that she brings up race in the first place, there's a reason to say "he's only gotten this far because he's black." That reason doesn't have to be that they're hoping to scare the racists of Pennsylvania into voting Hillary in order for it to be racially charged. Merely hoping to scare the people whose first priority is having a Democrat in the White House with the notion that a black man can't win the general election is encouraging racism. If you buy that logic you've cut off the entire possibility of a black candidate ever making it.

Which is why it's so distasteful to ignore the fact that the reason that being black has helped Obama is because of his personal qualities and how he chooses to use (or not to use) his race as a campaign theme--simply being black isn't in and of itself a "go to the head of the Democratic delegate count" card--while simultaneously whining about the sexist media. Don't vote for Obama just because he's black, vote for Hillary just because she's a woman! Ugh. Even if it's the predictable result of the identity politics that the Democratic party has embraced more and more over the years, it's still damn ugly to those of us who still embrace the ideals of "judging by the content of their character."

Posted by: Joshua Macy at March 13, 2008 09:15 AM

Noting a truth isn't "racist." That's the problem there. Ferraro is basically correct in that one remark--if this were a red-headed Irish guy named Barry O'Bama from Chicago running on the "strength" of four truly undistinguished years in the Senate, he'd be in the electoral ditch already, spitting out tadpoles. He'd have no feel-good resonance, no uplifting politically-correct backstory.

But it's hardly Obama's fault he's not a redheaded Irishman. In politics, you use what you've got. He is what he is, and if that's a strength rather than a weakness in electoral terms, good for him. It's not something he has a choice about. But it's a leg up, not a free walk to the finish line. He's still gotta run the races and win 'em.

Of course, Ferraro would never have been on the '84 ticket if she weren't a woman. And her remarks were indeed offensive--they were gutter sniping. But any racism is in the intent of the attack, not in merely noting a truth.

Jon, if you filled the 100-lb beanbags with explosive charges and jagged shrapnel, and installed radar target-tracking on the cannons....maybe. RealPolitik is a bloodsport, and the two boundaries on what is "acceptable" are [a] what the public WILL stomach as compared to what they claim to deplore, and [b] what you can get away with and not get caught. And as I've often said, in elections your "friends" will often do things on your behalf that you don't know about and would never countenance.

That doesn't seem to be quite the case here--seems to me this one was a set piece using a disposable tool. As if Ferraro was used as a one-shot heat-seeking missile in getting a meme out there, for a planned purpose.

Posted by: Tully at March 13, 2008 10:52 AM

But, Tully, suppose this were a red-headed Irish-American named Barry O'Bama. Who had a gift for speaking about the need to move past hyper-partisan attack politics. Who had inspired enough people with that message, that he could (and DID) build a grass-roots organization across the length and breadth of the country.

Would he be ahead by 100+ delegates at this point? Perhaps not (although he might be). But would he at least be in the race, and at least close if not leading? Probably so.

Obama, after all, is not running on "experience", as Clinton is. He's running on a different view, well articulated, of how politics ought to be conducted in the America. And on the importance of good judgement in running the country.

Now you may disagree with him on either that view of politics, or on specific policy positions that he holds. Or you may fault his argument for judgement over experience (assuming that you think that Clinton has any relevant experience either). But to argue that only the fact that he is black has let him make great speeches and assemble a nation-wide organization, and so be a finalist in the nomination race, is a bit much.

Posted by: wj at March 13, 2008 01:36 PM

Sorry, wj, I've been in RealPolitik a long time, and I don't buy that for a heartbeat. The hypothetical Irish O'Bama would be off playing pinochle with Gravel and Gilmore and Kucinich by now. The Clinton campaign would have crushed him like a grape.

But to argue that only the fact that he is black has let him make great speeches and assemble a nation-wide organization

I don't recall ever arguing that. I'm quite familiar with the Obama campaign, even been to an Obama event. He's been running on cult-of-personality since the beginning with heavy support from the activist and Dean left, and key to that is his "personal narrative," which is based in large part on being black while not "running black," IOW eschewing the race-baiting politics of the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons to go "high road."

I don't have any problem with that (I do have problems with his extremely slim administrative resume) but it is certainly so. I admire the high-road approach, it's most refreshing and we see it too rarely. But the hypothetical Irish white guy simply couldn't pull that off on such a slim public service record, not in the identity-politics morass that is the Dem party. "Irish" just isn't a major draw in today's Democratic identity politics, unless your last name is Kennedy, and then it's the name and not the ethnicity. I sure don't hold that against Obama. Ethnically Obama is what he is, and he has NO reason to apologize for it. That ethnicity has helped him enormously at the polls, and he likewise has NO reason to apologize for that. And it's helped immunize him from some of the more standard internicene Dem primary tactics, and there's no reason he should apologize for capitalizing on that either. But it is so.

Posted by: Tully at March 13, 2008 02:39 PM

Or, Tully, beanbag played with laser cannon, bwahaha. See this weekend's Open Thread!

You're all wrong about what's behind Obama, of course. All us Obama supporters are dues-paying, card-holding Globalized Illuminati (Templar, Trilateral Commission Division). If you didn't know that, you're just hopelessly TWENTIETH-CENTURY. He's our front man, just as Bush was the neocons'.
;-)

Posted by: Jon Kay at March 14, 2008 02:48 AM

Yes yes, just please quit telling me about how you found the savior and were born again, and stop bringing those tracts by my house. :-D

Posted by: Tully at March 14, 2008 03:13 AM

The Clinton campaign would have crushed him like a grape.

I think this is the point in Tully's argument that needs to be emphasized. It's not that Obama isn't an obviously gifted person and is getting by on being black. It's that he's got a bit of immunity from certain types of attacks and gains an advantage with some segement of the population (not just blacks) because of his race. It is what it is.

I say that as an enthusiastic supporter of Obama. I voted for him in the primary and, given the chance, will vote for him in the general. Maybe I'm caught up in the cult of personality, but I think he's brilliant. It's just that his brilliance might not have taken him to the same places at this same point in time were he Irish and not black. I'd still be voting for him were he Irish and on my radar the way he now is, but he very well might not have been on the radar screen to begin with in that case, or at least not for as long.

(Though it would be dishonest of me not to admit that I relish the thought of voting for a black President of the United States of America in 2008. Were I a Clinton supporter, I would probably feel the same way about voting for a woman. I wouldn't vote for someone simply for being black or female, but having a black or female president would be a historic, exciting step for this country in my opinion.)

Posted by: WHQ at March 14, 2008 01:23 PM

My yes, wj. I have a different take on Obama's skill set and fitness, but I saw him speak last month and he is a very impressive general orator. He oozes charisma. Once again that's not a knock, those are prime qualities for a politico, and he has them in very generous measure. It's upper-level experience he lacks, and I don't see that the charisma skills have given him some new strength on issues--his positions are predictable, doctrinal, and there's nothing new there. And charisma doesn't count for all that much when dealing with other pols. They know the inside game and are not swayed by it.

If I weren't a cynical old pol myself who's met too many Spaniards*, he'd be way up my list. But I don't generally approach an election with a single candidate, I choose from what is available when I am able to vote. And I choose based on analysis of likely positions and actions if elected, not on personal appeal. On that basis, he doesn't come in first for me.

(*--Alas, I have met too many Spaniards....)

Posted by: Tully at March 14, 2008 02:58 PM

...who's met too many Spaniards

What does that mean? I'm thinking it's a Princess Bride reference or something, but I'm not sure.

Posted by: WHQ at March 14, 2008 04:45 PM

From Princess Bride:

Inigo Montoya: I could give you my word as a Spaniard.

Man in Black: No good. I've known too many Spaniards.

Inigo Montoya: Isn't there any way you trust me?

Man in Black: Nothing comes to mind.

-----------------------------------------------

Clear enough? :-)

Posted by: Tully at March 14, 2008 06:27 PM

Yeah, I think it would be nice if we could all just admit that his race most likely is playing some role in his success. I agree with just about all of what Tully and WHQ say in regard to that.

And while I understood the point that Ferarro was trying to make, I still found it off-putting, though not racist. Ferarro came off as smarmy and borderline bitter in her blithe discounting.

Posted by: kritter at March 14, 2008 09:52 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments: