Geraldine Ferraro, a pioneer and trailblazer in American history, has done more to ruin a sterling reputation in the past few days than anybody but Eliot Spitzer. By claiming, I think falsely, that Obama would not be where he is if he were white or a woman, I think she totally overlooks the impact of his charisma, eloquence, demeanor, message, use of the Internet, focus on caucus states, and his refusal to take special interest money as factors in his sudden rise. She betrays a stunning inability to look more than skin deep for reasons for his success.
But this begs the real question: Ferraro is no racist. Her entire career speaks to the contrary. So why is she now so unable to peer into the deeper reasons for Obama’s success and stopping at skin level?
The blunt fact is that Geraldine Ferraro would not make a statement like this one without at least the tacit knowledge and acquiescence of the Clintons and their campaign. Ferraro is an old pro and would know enough not to shoot off her mouth without making it part of a carefully conceived strategy to discredit Obama based on race.
As such, her comments need to be seen as a piece with the attacks on Obama’s minister and his endorsement by Farrakhan. With Hillary now almost totally dependent on older voters, the race card may be the only way to produce the kinds of margins she needs in the future primaries to offset Obama’s large and widening lead among elected delegates.
The fact is that Obama cannot and should not be held accountable for the ranting and raving of his minister, unless he fails to disavow these remarks. He has done all he needs to do in distancing himself from the likes of Farrakhan. And is success is due to his imaginative use of the political process to achieve what he has earned.
Obama out-organized Hillary by focusing on the small caucus states in February, by which time Hillary confidently expected the race to be over.
Obama out-messaged Hillary by refusing special interest PAC or lobbyist money, giving him a way to paint Hillary as the candidate of the Washington establishment.
Obama out-fund raised Hillary by understanding the potential of the Internet to raise quick and clean money and to permit reloading quickly.
Obama out-positioned Hillary by using her claim to experience (faux as it was) to paint her as just another cycle in the oscillation between Bushes and Clintons which has dominated our politics for two decades now.
Obama out-spoke Hillary by showing and eloquence and elegance that she cannot hope to match.
Obama out-targeted Hillary by focusing on young voters and grasping the amazing insight that in an election with a black and a woman, that age would be the decisive variable.
And now Hillary is trying, through her surrogate Ferraro, to make it appear that all Obama had to do was show up, show some skin and win.
Even for the Clintons, this is a new low.
 |
Comments
Only subscribers to Dick Morris' '08 Play-By-Play may post comments. You must be logged in to post a comment.
Agreed. I am waiting for Obama’s people to really take their message of “Judgement Matters” to a new level. Run an ad that spotlights Sandy Berger and his theft of classified documents and subsequent disbarment. At the end of the ad is the caveat that he’s an advisor to the Clinton campaign “So why is he an advisor to Senator Clinton?” “Judgement matters.” Or another ad that spotlights Norman Hsu. Ending the ad with “So why did Senator Clinton take money from this man and turn a blind eye to his misdeeds?” “Judgement matters.” Ask the question. Make the point. And let it stand. You get the idea. It’s critical that Obama hit back and tag her on dishonesty. Those are the big question marks from voters regarding Hillary. Only 52% in Mississippi believe her to be honest and trustworthy. He needs to hit that theme…again and again and again.
Left by “Tom” on a Washington post site:
The choice is simple:
One is a leader the other a politician.
One is about the future the other about the past.
One is about our hopes the other about our fears.
One will unite the country; the other will divide it even further.
One refuses to use negative campaigning the other stoops in it.
One is about transparency, the other about secrecy.
One is inclusive, the other excusive.
One feels called to server; the other entitled to power.
One’s campaign is funded by average Americans and therefore beholden to them, the other’s mostly by lobbyist and answerable to special interest.
One is guided by a moral compass, the other by a self-interest compass.
Who are we going to make our next leader and the leader of the free world? This is not about personal likes and dislikes, nor about race or gender. This is about where we want to be in ten, twenty, thirty years. We need to claim our future with this election. Let us not allow fear mongering and divisive politics to win again!
Barack Obama is the only real choice.
These attacks are so well timed there can not be much question of their design. Yet, I believe Obama can rise to greater heights if he speaks to the particular sacrifice, loss and suffering of the “older white women.” The “Trail blazers” have sacrificed much to compete in a male dominated workplace/world. Seems small in comparison to the losses and suffering of Black America but it is pain and suffering from oppression nonetheless. Inclusiveness calls for it.
The older white women of Ferraro’s generation and the generation just behind it turned on their own feminine qualitity to survive and compete in the male dominated workplace. They became hardened, tough and act much like men. The men never gave them respect and the younger generation of females were repulsed by the contorted displays of male characteristics misfiring from female bodies.
The younger generations of females wanted no part of breaking a glass cieling if the cost was to turn on your own feminine qualities. They rather go home at 5:00pm to their families. The irony is that the younger generation would not feel or be so entitled to a choice if it were not for these old white/brown/yellow/red/black women trailblazers.
They were the bravest of women, the first through the door and now they are scared from the years of oppression. Their time is near an end and their last hope of getting that repect I fear was placed in seeing a women break the glass cieling of the office of President. A vindication of thier suffering. The only vindication for turning on themelves to fit the male mold because no one has really ever thanked them and acknowledged their losses and sacrifice.
Sadly, Hillary Clinton is thier last hope which only underscores the great necessity for their healing. I truly believe that if they are given our repect, acknowledgement and thanks that it will help heal their wounds and they may move off of their rigid political position that is based upon deep hurt, pain and anger.
Our Country has an opportunity of the greatest proportions provided by this unique campaign to give healing to those older women and to black America. I hope the hate peddlers are drowned out by the millions of American footsteps running to embrace this unique opportunity.
Geraldine Ferraro’s comments were very telling about the inside thinking of too many Democrats regarding people of color. Despite the Democratic Party receiving the vast majority of support from minorities for so long, it has been the party of Lincoln - the Republicans who have been the true “color blind” advocates in the elimination of racism. Clarence Thomas, J.C. Watts, Colin Powell, Condi Rice,… the list goes on and on of individuals who have been advanced because of their qualifications or as Dr. King so eloquently stated, “the content of their charachter as opposed to the color of their skin.” These men and women have often suffered ridicule and questioned about their racial identity becasue they were more conservative in their views and not interested in their skin tone. It didn’t matter and it shouldn’t matter to those of us who long ago abandoned the notion of discrimination.
Now the tables have turned and the Democrats had the opportunity to do the same with a candidate who likewise was not playing the race card. Obama although liberal, chose not to make race an issue, but determined to advance his candidacy as one based on issues. And why not among a party who had always been regarded as the champion for minorities. What a disappointment for him personally based on the attacks not from his opponents across the aisle, but from fellow Democrats within his own party. How ironic the person considered our “first black President” and his wife would be the catalysts to undermine his achievements. If the minorities can not see what is happening here already, it will become more apparent as we move forward to the convention.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s pastor. This is more than saying I disagree with my pastor’s remarks on a litany of racist, anti-American, anti-Semitic and frankly unbelievable rants against the white race. What makes this more troubling is Obama’s pastor is also a confidant and someone he has stated he admires. His pastor didn’t just start preaching what most would regard as hate speech recently and this really makes one question where Obama really stands. It seems to me if these tirades were a common practice at the Church Obama attends, supports and embraces, how in good conscience can he remain a member of something which clearly contradicts what he espouses in his campaign. If he does not address these issues head on and disavow his membership there is no chance he will be the nominee of the Demorcratic Party much less the President of the United States.
It all goes to proves that Ferraro’s sharp tongue will eventually cut her throat.