When I’m right, I’m right: Geraldine Ferraro and “The day after”

Geraldine FerraroThe Obama campaign’s response to Geraldine Ferraro’s attack perfectly illustrates several things I talked about last week in The day after. Campaign strategist David Axelrod emphasizes the pattern:

Axelrod said Ferraro’s comments were part of a “pattern” of negative attacks aimed at Obama. He pointed to Clinton’s former New Hampshire co-chairman Bill Shaheen, who questioned whether Obama ever sold drugs; supporter Rober Johnsen, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, who raised the specter of Obama’s past drug use; and Clinton’s own “unwillingness” to “definitively” shoot down rumors that Obama was Muslim in an interview this month.

[All of these, and others, are documented on the Clinton attacks Obama wiki. See, I knew it would be important :-)]

Susan Rice brings up a variant of the “reject and denounce” standard:

“I think if Senator Clinton is serious about putting an end to statements that have racial implications, that diminish Barack Obama because he’s an African-American man,” Rice said, “then she ought to really repudiate this comment and make it clear that there’s no place in her campaign for people who will say this kind of thing.”

And Raw Story’s coverage highlights that the Clinton campaign’s standard responses look insufficient, especially after their call for “vetting” and the reaction to the Samantha Power quote:

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson, who just last week forcefully called for Obama to fire an adviser who called Clinton a “monster,” said only that the campaign “disagree[d]” with Ferraro, who had not apologized for the remark as of Tuesday afternoon. Aside from Wolfson’s brief statement, Clinton’s campaign remained mostly mum on the Ferraro comments.

Clinton herself did address the dust-up during a brief interview with the Associated Press.

Clinton said, “I do not agree with that,” and later added, “It’s regrettable that any of our supporters — on both sides, because we both have this experience — say things that kind of veer off into the personal.”

Yeah. Regrettable indeed — just like all the other times this happened. As Axelrod said, “When you wink and nod at offensive statements, you’re sending a signal to your supporters that anything goes.”


Comments

7 responses to “When I’m right, I’m right: Geraldine Ferraro and “The day after””

  1. Via Jack and Jill Politics, where Jill Tubman adds

    It seems like such a desperate, short-sighted strategy on the part of the Clintons because they risk digging a hole that can’t be filled again. They risk alienating voters who won’t come back to support them. They risk our forming memories. They risk creating a sore so festering that it won’t heal. They are risking one of the lowest black turnouts (if she’s the nominee) in recent history. We ain’t dumb and we can hear a dog whistle from a long ways off.

  2. The Wall Street Journal, Democrats’ Litmus: Electability, January 2007:

    Mr. Obama exudes the charisma, authenticity and optimism that many Democrats find lacking in Mrs. Clinton. Yet while he was raised in Hawaii by his white mother and grandparents from Kansas, his public identity is defined by the African skin and Muslim name inherited from his late father, Barack Hussein Obama, of Kenya. Inevitably Democrats ask: Would Americans elect an African-American, and one whose name rhymes with the terrorist they most revile?

    Obama and the race card, March 2008:

    Is it just us, or does Barack Obama seem a mite too quick to play the race card when facing criticism from political opponents?

    In recent days, the Obama camp has been demanding an apology from Geraldine Ferraro, the former Vice Presidential candidate and current Hillary Clinton supporter who last week let slip that, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. 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.”

    Though Ms. Ferraro resigned from the Clinton campaign yesterday, her remarks reveal little more than a firm grasp of the obvious, even if she could have found a less artless way to express herself. There is no disputing that Mr. Obama’s skin color has been a political boon for him to date.

    The rest of the article purports to take a balanced look at whether the Obama campaign is too “sensitive”. They are correct, however, that this bodes ill for the November election — for the McCain campaign, that is, if they try similar garbage.

  3. Olbermann: “So the senator wants a clearly racist, clearly equal-opportunity-is-not-a-good-thing, that’s-the-only-reason-he’s-here kind of statement interjected into the campaign?” He’s also not assigning intent to Ferraro — maybe she’s forgotten the flak she got for saying similar things about Jesse Jackson 20 years ago — but making it really clear what he thinks about her statement: intentionally or not, it’s racist.

  4. From Joyce Purnick’s Ferraro Is Unapologetic for Remarks and Ends Her Role in Clinton Campaign:

    “I feel terrible for the fact that Hillary is stuck in this thing,” Ms. Ferraro said in an interview Wednesday night. “Why put her in that position?”

    Shouldn’t she have asked herself that a little earlier?

  5. Jeremiah Wright steps down

    Obama blogged about it on the Huffington Post — and the CBN’s Brody File, describing the remarks as “inflammatory and appalling”, and using both the d-word and the r-word:

    Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

    In the One Million Strong for Barack Facebook group, Harlan G started a thread Isn’t Pastor Wright … right? Great discussion. So is the one on Jack and Jill Politics.

  6. Obama, quoted in the New York Times:

    Mr. Obama, at a news conference in Chicago, was asked whether he interpreted Ms. Ferraro’s remarks to be racist.

    “I’m always hesitant to throw around words like ‘racist,’ ” he said. “I don’t think she intended them in that way.”

    Excellent and very careful wording by Obama here, consistent with Axelrod’s “pattern” observation above. A friend said a similar thing to me about Bill O’Reilly’s unfortunate “lynching” remark: it probably was based in ignorance, rather than hatred. Many people think it’s not useful to use the word “racist” in situations like this; as in the Ferraro case, it often causes a firestorm.

    He dismissed her suggestions that he or his advisers have accused Mrs. Clinton’s supporters of being racist, saying, “I would defy anybody to look through the record over the last year and a half, or the last year and couple months, and find one instance in which I have said some criticism is racially based.”

    That’s the great thing about transparency: it’s easy to re-examine the past, and everybody can judge for themselves.

  7. Tracy Morgan, on SNL (via RawStory):

    why is it every time a black man in this country gets too good at something, someone always comes along and reminds us that he’s black? first, it was tiger. then donovan mcnabb. then me! [ laughter ] now barack. i’ve got a theory about that. it’s a little complicated, but basically it goes like this. we are a racist country. the end. [ laughter ]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *