What Ferraro's Comments Show Us About Obama
What about Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Barack Obama? And what about Obama's reaction to those comments?
I understand why Ferraro's observation may come off as inflammatory, but I think it's due more to shock in the face of general societal reluctance to make such observations than any racist underpinnings or lack of truth to the insight.
In her first interview with Daily Breeze, published late last week, Ferraro said, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, 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."
She also said Hillary Clinton had been the victim of a "sexist media."
Obama himself has called the comments "patently absurd."
"I don't think Geraldine Ferraro's comments have any place in our politics or in the Democratic Party. They are divisive," he told the Allentown Morning News.
"I think anybody who understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd. And I would expect that the same way those comments don't have a place in my campaign, they shouldn't have a place in Sen. Clinton's, either," he added.
Are Ferraro's comments really that absurd? Are they really even divisive?
Obama has done a commendable job of refraining, at least on the surface, from using his racial background as an overt political tool; it is probably why he has done so well, as it has furthered his general proposition of transcendence.
Yet I don't think Ferraro's statement is untrue. It might be intended, in context, to 'poke the hornet's nest' at this point in the Democratic Primary. But I agree with the statement itself: I don't believe Obama would be where he is today if he were white and female. It's stating the obvious.
That's not to denigrate his talent, character, or race. It's a simple recognition that to be president demands an overarching personal story - like John McCain's prisoner of war and maverick narratives, or Hillary's first lady story. A significant theme in Obama's personal meta-narrative is his continued ability to succeed in spite of his race. Barack Obama stands out in a crowd of potential leaders in part because of his innate talents and perseverence and in part - probably crucially - because of that personal story.
Obama's reaction, in the end, is more disturbing to me:
"I don't think Geraldine Ferraro's comments have any place in our politics or in the Democratic Party. They are divisive," he told the Allentown Morning News.
Labeling something of this nature divisive and swatting it wholesale off the table for discussion is far less comforting to me. It is effectively - and highly ironically - whitewashing. It is glossing over a legitimate observation otherwise encouraged in the pluralist play of American political tradition.
Clinton's response, too, shows us something about her: 1) This is a wily classic Clintonesque campaign tactic that allows her to condemn Ferraro's comments and appear to be the P.C. good cop, or/and 2) She takes a similarly jump-the-gun shallow view of the ostensible racist nature of the comments.
A president should not be so quick to label what is not a lie (or what is at least not so blatantly and factually far from the truth) a heresy that is not up for discussion. While I can see the potential ulterior motive by the Clinton camp, Obama's excessive response has succeeded in planting the seed of a question in my mind about his commitment to political free speech - something I didn't anticipate happening.
More on Ferraro's defense and explication of her comments - as well as the Obama camp's attempt to milk the situation - here.
I understand why Ferraro's observation may come off as inflammatory, but I think it's due more to shock in the face of general societal reluctance to make such observations than any racist underpinnings or lack of truth to the insight.
In her first interview with Daily Breeze, published late last week, Ferraro said, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, 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."
She also said Hillary Clinton had been the victim of a "sexist media."
Obama himself has called the comments "patently absurd."
"I don't think Geraldine Ferraro's comments have any place in our politics or in the Democratic Party. They are divisive," he told the Allentown Morning News.
"I think anybody who understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd. And I would expect that the same way those comments don't have a place in my campaign, they shouldn't have a place in Sen. Clinton's, either," he added.
Are Ferraro's comments really that absurd? Are they really even divisive?
Obama has done a commendable job of refraining, at least on the surface, from using his racial background as an overt political tool; it is probably why he has done so well, as it has furthered his general proposition of transcendence.
Yet I don't think Ferraro's statement is untrue. It might be intended, in context, to 'poke the hornet's nest' at this point in the Democratic Primary. But I agree with the statement itself: I don't believe Obama would be where he is today if he were white and female. It's stating the obvious.
That's not to denigrate his talent, character, or race. It's a simple recognition that to be president demands an overarching personal story - like John McCain's prisoner of war and maverick narratives, or Hillary's first lady story. A significant theme in Obama's personal meta-narrative is his continued ability to succeed in spite of his race. Barack Obama stands out in a crowd of potential leaders in part because of his innate talents and perseverence and in part - probably crucially - because of that personal story.
Obama's reaction, in the end, is more disturbing to me:
"I don't think Geraldine Ferraro's comments have any place in our politics or in the Democratic Party. They are divisive," he told the Allentown Morning News.
Labeling something of this nature divisive and swatting it wholesale off the table for discussion is far less comforting to me. It is effectively - and highly ironically - whitewashing. It is glossing over a legitimate observation otherwise encouraged in the pluralist play of American political tradition.
Clinton's response, too, shows us something about her: 1) This is a wily classic Clintonesque campaign tactic that allows her to condemn Ferraro's comments and appear to be the P.C. good cop, or/and 2) She takes a similarly jump-the-gun shallow view of the ostensible racist nature of the comments.
A president should not be so quick to label what is not a lie (or what is at least not so blatantly and factually far from the truth) a heresy that is not up for discussion. While I can see the potential ulterior motive by the Clinton camp, Obama's excessive response has succeeded in planting the seed of a question in my mind about his commitment to political free speech - something I didn't anticipate happening.
More on Ferraro's defense and explication of her comments - as well as the Obama camp's attempt to milk the situation - here.
Labels: Barack Obama, Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary Clinton, politics, presidential race 2008, race
|
posted by Brad V at 2:14 PM
<< Home