Forums
This is an index of all forums posting across the site.
Ferraro Remarks on Obama Decried
Former Democratic vice presidential candidate and former New York Rep. Geraldine Ferarro is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington in this June 21, 2001 file photo. on Tuesday, March 11, 2008, Ferraro, a fundraiser for Democratic Presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., suggested Sen. Barack Obama only achieved his status in the presidential campaign because he's black. The Obama campaign called on Clinton Tuesday to denounce the comments. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook, File)
| Biography | Issues | Fund Raising |
| Rivals | Supporters | Affiliations |
| Photos | Videos | Forums |
Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday she disagrees with Geraldine Ferraro, one of her fundraisers and the 1984 vice presidential candidate, for suggesting that Barack Obama only achieved his status in the presidential race because he's black.
In a brief interview with The Associated Press, Clinton was questioned about Ferraro's remarks. The Obama campaign has called on the New York senator to denounce them.
Ferraro told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif.: "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."
The newspaper published the interview last Friday.
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."
"We ought to keep this on the issues. there are differences between us" on approaches to health care, energy, experience.
Ferraro is a former New York congresswoman and was Walter Mondale's running mate when he was the Democratic presidential nominee in 1984. She has endorsed Clinton and raised money for her campaign.
Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said Ferraro should be removed from her position with the Clinton campaign because of her comments.
"The bottom line is this, when you wink and nod at offensive statements, you're really sending a signal to your supporters that anything goes," Axelrod said in a conference call with reporters on Tuesday.
"There's no other way to send a serious signal that you want to police the tone of this campaign," he added. "And if you don't do those things then you are simply adding to the growing compendium of evidence that you really are encouraging that."
Axelrod said Clinton has encountered problems because people view her as a "divisive and polarizing force."
"The best way to address those concerns is to not allow divisiveness and negativity to flourish among your supporters," he said. "And this is an opportunity for her to address that."
Jan Schakowsky, an Obama supporter and Illinois congresswoman, said Democrats should not tear each other down, and instead focus on defeating John McCain, the Republican nominee-in-waiting.
"I respect every person's right to promote his or her candidate, but any and all remarks that diminish Senator Obama's candidacy because of his race are completely out of line," Schakowsky said on the conference call.
Ferraro also said Obama has it easy because of a "very sexist media."
"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign."
Last week, a former adviser to Obama resigned after calling Clinton "a monster."
Associated Press Writer Peter Jackson in Harrisburg, Pa., contributed to this report.
To what truth are you referring? If you're suggesting Senator Obama's success is tied to his ethnicity, then your credibility as a "moderate" is gone.
Do me a favor, those of you who agree with her statement. Please explain, or better yet, support your argument. It is entirely too easy to hide behind general statements. I'm all ears.
But seriously, that is such a stupid thing to say. I don't doubt that some voters are motivated to vote for Obama in part because they'd like to see a minority president-- but I'd guess those very same voters would love to see a woman president as well. Moreover, while some may vote for Obama because of his race, there are certainly those who WON'T vote for him specifically because of his race. The same goes for Clinton and gender. There are positives and negatives to both. To try and peg a candidate's success or failure to gender or race is narrow-minded and foolish. Sounds like a sore loser to me.
haha wow, i never thought I'd ever hear someone say someone was lucky to be black (and in a non athletic field no less) I'm willing to accept Ferraro's comments as long as she understands the same can be said about Hillary. If she wasn't a woman she wouldn't have such a stronghold on the female demographic, which has been her bread and butter this primary season.
This is just another example of the feminist friendly left trying to blame Hillary's shortcomings on the main stream media. She's not likable in a general sense even for a politician, has a questionable history of experience which she has tried to make the focal point of her campaign, and has done a terrible job running her campaign in general when you consider she was considered the shoe in for the nomination a while back. I know the media has a lot of bias, but anti-female bias? i just don't get it. Especially when you consider that most people watch sitcoms where the deadbeat sex driven husband/father figure would probably be lost and if not starve to death due to his own incompetence if it wasn't for his kind generous and more sophisticated wife (according to jim, king of queens, back to you, everybody loves raymond).
I'm glad that somebody brought up Jackson and Sharpton- they are the "usual" examples of black candidates and of course, they would never have made it as far as Obama. They are more open than Obama about their disdain for whites and ally themselves with radical groups like the new black panthers. Remember that comment Joe Biden made about Obama being so "clean and articulate"? Like it or not, Obama is the first major black candidate to fall into this category and the liberals are going ga-ga over him. Finally, somebody electable, sort of. Since there's no dearth of clean, articulate white candidates, his race does put Obama at an advantage. I know you'll all descend upon me like vultures for saying it, but you know it's true.
You can't say anything perceived as “negative” because if you do you are racist. He has been treated like some sort of messiah and if he were a white man of the same age and experience I don't believe he would be taken seriously. Do I care that my credibility as moderate is gone, uh no. Do I care that it pisses off Democrats that like Obama that I don't think he has the experience to be president and have no intention of voting for him, uh no. Does it change my point of view when people are patronizing... absolutely not, as a matter of fact Obama supporters have made me more avidly Clinton then anything Obama has done to make me anti-Obama. Clinton was my third choice after Biden and Edwards, do I feel bad about not jumping on the bandwagon? I did, a little, at first but not anymore. I don't care who thinks, says, implies that I am a traitor I am going to vote, campaign and express my opinion in any form I choose. I think Obama has potential to be a good president "someday" but not now.
Credibility as a moderate means you make reasoned, measured comments. It means that you are not an ideologue or a partisan hack. It means you don't make decisions based on gender, race or ethnicity. An example, my disgust for Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with gender. It is based on the tone of her campaign. Her willingness to say and do anything. If you think fear mongering, the use of character assassination and willingness to use race/gender/ethnicity as a wedge issue, then you have the right candidate. Regardless of who you support, Ferraro's comments are out of line! When Chris Matthews made the comment, "Hillary is only where she is because the country feels sorry for her because Bill cheated," I acknowledged that it was out of line. It simply is a matter of being honest with ourselves. If someone has issue with Obama's experiences, then make an argument and provide support. "do I feel bad about not jumping on the bandwagon? I did, a little, at first but not anymore." Why would you ever feel bad about not supporting someone you don't like? The disrespect being shown to Obama supporters is really ugly. You assume we see him as "messianic." Some other words used, "cult following," "delusional," "latte-drinking elitists." Is it entirely possible, I find Obama to be refreshingly authentic? Is it possible I find him to be intellectually brilliant? Is it possible to support someone without tearing others down? I think so! As Bob used to say, "one love."
If you think fear mongering, the use of character assassination and willingness to use race/gender/ethnicity as a wedge issue, then you have the right candidate. LOL that is what I am talking about, if that is taking the "high road" then I would prefer to walk. I think it is great you have a candidate you feel so strongly about, so do I, now we will just have to see how it turns out. I am not an ideologue and you obviously did not read that Clinton was my third choice, Obama just did not make my list, sorry if that makes me partisan. As for feeling bad for not jumping on the bandwagon, that is simply because this could be the first time that I, not only, do not vote for a Democrat in a presidential race but could actually vote against them and I always thought I would chew off my hand before voting republican. Now I am considering it, along with my other options, (not voting will not be an option). I understand you have strong opinions about who you will vote for as well and isn’t that why America is great. I will continue to watch the debates and read the coverage and maybe Obama will say or do something that changes my mind, maybe Clinton will change yours, looks pretty doubtful on both sides but we'll see.
This is from an April 14, 1988 Washington Post story by Howard Kurtz when Jesse Jackson was campaigning in Mississippi and the South:
Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, (ed. Jesse) Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."
Furthermore,
Discussing the same point in Washington, (ed. Jesse) Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history."
Now about to have a new African American Governor in New York state, Hillary Clinton's fundraiser Mrs. Ferraro must be in an absolute tizzy.
Please allow me to clarify. I never said (nor intended to suggest) you are an ideologue or partisan hack, rather that the comments from Ferraro are indicative of such. My intent is not to belittle or patronize, truly. I just don't see how her comments can be viewed as anything other than divisive prejudicial remarks. They completely dismiss Barack's candidacy and his career. Being a black man in America gives you an advantage? Utter nonsense! These remarks are in poor taste. I feel Hillary's refusal to adamently dismiss these remarks says a lot. Samantha Powers loses her position for saying "monster." I am sorry if my previous comments suggested somthing not intended, but they pale in comparison to the tactics employed by Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson, thus Hillary Clinton.
I don't think Powers should have resigned either but I do appreciate you clarifying that you didn't mean me specifically, I typically am partisan but I don't want to be a hack. I do worry about the Democratic Party and have mixed feeling about what I should do. Part of me feels that I should vote for my party's nominee regardless part of me doesn't. Even though I am worried about how divided the party is I want the race to continue. I see both sides of all the arguments, however, my state has not voted and I do not want a nominee until it does, that happened last time and made me just as mad then. I am trying to pull back from rhetoric (my own included) and be open-minded, I think it will help me if I hear McCain speak more. I am sure I am not going to like it.
Very well. I'm fine with Hillary staying in through Puerto Rico allowing everyone an opportunity to vote. Believe me, living in Indiana, I finally get an opportunity to cast a primary vote that matters. My concern though, is that tone of the campaign is going to continue to get nastier. As far as Mccain, if it were the 2000 version I may be on board. 2004-2008 Mccain has been taking too many crazy pills. There is a great episode of Lil Bush (comedy central if you don't know) of Lil Bush and his cronies brainwashing Lil Mccain during last season. Must see tv.
I don't even understand how Ferraro could have come to this kind of conclusion. Barack Obama is an inspiration to millions of Americans, not because he is black, but because he gives so many Americans hope for a better future. After so many years of a government that does has not worked for the people, many Americans want change. They do not care if that change comes from a black man or a white man. To suggest that Barack Obama's success is due to his race is completely ridiculous. He has won so many states that are predominently white because his ideas resonate with voters. I really wish someone could explain to me how Ferraro's comments make any logical sense. And just as a preemptive statement: I am an Obama supporter but looking at this rationally I don't see how a supporter of any presidential candidate could see the validity in the former VP's statement. How has being an African American in the United States ever been a handicap to reaching any sort of position or goal?
Finally, how has Clinton not dennounced (and reject) these comments, it baffles me.
I'm sure someone's mentioned this already, but let's not forget that there are clearly still more people in this country that will NOT vote for Obama because he's black, then the other way around. To say there's a certain segment of the population (white & black) that are voting for him in part because of the color of his skin is one thing, but to say it's an advantage, is asinine.
Hillary does mudsling more, but to say that Obama has been neutral would be inaccurate. I wish I could watch more debates than I have, but I remember in the South Carolina debate he was the first one to call out Hillary on being a corporate lawyer at Wal Mart while he was helping someone, and then she had to throw it back at him with his shady real estate dealings.
Either way, I am sick of apologies from people who say something offensive, no matter who they are. From this chick, who I have never heard of, to Spitzer or Don Imus. They were saying or doing what they felt, and would have more integrity just to tell people to F off and deal with it. As much as I hate Ann Coulter, she says what she feels and does not apologize for it. And she is much more respected for it and the networks continue to put her on despite her ridiculous comments. My two cents.
