Why are the statements of Geraldine Ferraro considered controversial? The reactions to them are in fact far more questionable and worrisome. They are in fact proof positive that, insofar as most politicians and pundits are concerned, the American people are dunces whom they should shield from what is the obvious truth. I expect Jack Nicholson to pop up on the screen any minute now wagging a finger in a new Hillary campaign ad admonishing us that we can’t handle the truth. The fact is this is exactly how people such as Keith Olbermann think.
Is there any question that if Obama were white, he would not have won the Mississippi primary with close to ninety percent of the black vote, against Hillary Clinton, the wife of who is (or was) arguably the most popular white politician among the black voting populace in at least recent memory ? The way I see it, the truth of Ferraro’s statement is not even open for debate.
Where she made her mistake, perhaps, was in not expanding on her remarks and putting them in some context. The dirty secret not being discussed involves percentages. Black Democrats are voting for Obama in far greater percentages than are white Democrats, while far more blacks cite race as the reason for their support than do whites as the reason for their opposition. This does not look good to some, and to many is even an embarrassment. Many of the old school liberal Democrats like to cite racism as a phenomenon mostly expressed by whites. Therefore, Ferraro was trudging on dangerous ground perhaps bordering on political heresy, and had to be reined in before she went that extra mile.
Of course, Obama being black is not the only reason he is doing so well among black voters. Were he to expound the philosophy of Walter Williams, or Clarence Thomas, or perhaps even Bill Cosby, he certainly wouldn’t do nearly as good as he has done up until now amongst those same black voters.
Nevertheless, they would damn sure notice him, wouldn’t they now? That is the key. Obama being black has been the draw, but it has not clinched the deal. His being black has attracted noticed, and gained him attention, but his words and ideals are what have induced his listeners to cast the votes. This holds true not only amongst his black supporters, but also with the considerable number of whites who support him as well. A white politician would not have gained the notice. Ask Joe Biden. Ask Chris Dodd. Ask Elliot Richardson. Neither of these gentlemen is secret Klan members I am sure.
Hell, ask Hillary Clinton, wife of “the first black president.”
The second factor has been the accusations, fairly or not, that the Clinton campaign has itself been playing the race card. The backlash has been very real, if somewhat stage-managed.
Ferraro, unlike perhaps the Clintons, is right to be incensed at the accusations of racism in her words. She was right to complain about the heavy-handed tactics of some of Obama’s followers and supporters in leveling these absurd charges at her. She was also right to leave the Clinton campaign, when Hillary offered no more than the most tepid of responses, one that did not even contain a defense of her. As she left, she did so with a parting shot.
Yes, Obama is qualified to be President of The United States, she said.
Incidentally, Ferraro should know what she is talking about. She knows full well she would never have been chosen as Walter Mondale’s running mate in 1984 were it not for two factors-
*Mondale and his advisors considered her admirably suited, qualified for the job, and capable of taking over the presidency in the event of the death of Mondale.
*She was a female politician.
In fact, this was practically a selling point. Does anyone imagine for one second that if Hillary, under ordinary circumstances, were to pick a black running mate-Obama or anybody else-that it would not also be touted as an example of the inclusiveness of the Democratic Party and it’s representative Presidential ticket? Did it totally escape Al Gore’s notice in 2000 that Joe Liebermann was an observant Jew, or was that just an irrelevant yet happy coincidence?
The Democratic Party has been engaged in positive racism and feel-good sexist politics for the last third of a century at least. Why should they be so outraged whenever anybody points out the obvious?
