The Table gets a bit behind the news cycle as we talk about Geraldine Ferraro:
Elsewhere in Web video, watch Hillary Clinton laud Heather Mills' work on behalf of landmine victims and then consider the Clinton administration's pro-mine posture.
« Hanging Tough | Main | The End of the Sound-bite »
Talkin' Ferraro
19 Mar 2008 03:57 pm
Comments (53)
You can't have inspiring humanitarian work on behalf of landmine victims without a few landmine victims, Matt.
Can we not talk about Geraldine Ferraro any more, and maybe talk about something like Winter Soldier?
If we insist on going meta, perhaps we could talk about the fact that the media is ignoring the event? Not a single mention in the NYT - http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3318. The prevalence in our public discourse of bullshit stories about Obama's pastor & McCain's visit to Iraq rather than on-the-ground testimony from 300+ veterans about what the occupation is like is something the liberal blogosphere should be pushing back on, not contributing to.
I know every blogger hates being told what to write about but when we hear so many complaints about pure horse race coverage...
Jesus Christ. Check out today's new SUSA state general election polls. Obama loses OH by seven points while Clinton wins OH by six points.
The Obama campaign's weird decision to attack Ferraro got them the precise kind of blowback that could've been predicted.
Five minutes and change is a good length for these Table installments. I finally watched my first one all the way through. A few thoughts:
"Obama loses OH by seven points while Clinton wins OH by six points."
in a poll in March. Remind me again, when is the general election?
"Jesus Christ. Check out today's new SUSA state general election polls. Obama loses OH by seven points while Clinton wins OH by six points."
I am really at the point where I don't know which Democrat I want to win the nomination. The only thing I know is that I want the nomination battle to go on as long as possible.
The CW has been that Hillary would be the weaker candidate, because she's shrill and already has such high negatives; plus, Obama is so charismatic, is an orator of rare gifts, etc. But now I'm not so sure. The Rev. Wright stuff is going to kill him with working class whites -- one artful speech won't put that to bed. So, too, will the understanding that he is a traditional liberal Democrat. While the soak-the-rich stuff may go over well with white proles, the traditional anti-gun, pro-affirmative action, Patriotism-is-for-stupid-whites stuff won't.
Wow three white guys talking about racial politics.
Wow three white guys talking about racial politics.
I did not think it was possible for Megan McCardle to be stupider than she appears on her blog. But I was wrong.
"I am really at the point where I don't know which Democrat I want to win the nomination."
I think most smart Republicans are rooting for Obama, not because he's more likely to lose, but because he'd be a weaker President than Clinton and more amenable to the GOP on policy.
But if Obama continues to misplay stuff like Ferarro, then it does seem like you should be rooting for him on electability grounds as well. The glass jaw problem is starting to appear quite real. He got hit a few weeks ago, and he still can't figure out how to get back up. It's all very Dukakis-ish.
I'm know this is going to sound really weird and shallow, but Megan McArdle is not just smart, she's gorgeous.
Although she probably could - and should - beat the other two up, Jane Galt (the one on the left in the only establishing shot, the one with the socks) is a girl.
I did not think it was possible for Megan McCardle to be stupider than she appears on her blog. But I was wrong.
My thoughts to the letter.
"She was clearly being racist. Black people can say things white people can't say. Women can say things men can't say. If she didn't understand that, she should go back to the third grade."
"Yes, but what did she mean? I don't want to be dense; I want you to spell out what she meant."
"Well, I don't really know what she meant. I mean, she's a politician, so she's not stupid."
Of course, Matt was absurd, too. "It's okay to say that Obama is benefiting as a black man as a neutral observation, but if an opponent says it, it's RACIST."
Petey,
What about the Ferarro dustup was misplayed? It shows him as another uppity negro?
Sometime in late Nov. 1984, Ferarro should have been sent into a room, handed a pistol, and told to "do the right thing."
Now I agree with Petey that it was stupid for the Obama campaign to react to Ferraro's comments. The campaign's reacted to Ferraro's comments in light of it being forced to fire Samantha Powers and they weren't happy about doing that. So they wanted HRC's campaign to feel the pain. They should have used humor to play down the comment.
I think that this Wright conroversy won't go away and so I think it makes sense for Obama to drop out.
"What about the Ferarro dustup was misplayed?"
Pushing the story and keeping it alive. It did Obama damage.
They overplayed their hand and brought about a backlash. It's the mirror image of how the Clinton campaign screwed up in SC.
"Sometime in late Nov. 1984, Ferarro should have been sent into a room, handed a pistol, and told to "do the right thing."
Ferarro should be killed? Stay classy, Team Obama.
I may have missed something, but I thought 99% of the criticism on Ferraro was coming from the media and/or blog, message boards, etc. Obama's campaign stayed far away from it and didn't really do much.
He got hit a few weeks ago, and he still can't figure out how to get back up. It's all very Dukakis-ish.
It is a bit disingenuous for Petey or Hillary to complain about obama "not getting up" since a.) they don't want him to and b.) wouldn't admit it if he did anyway (the metrics of "getting up" must be similar to the metrics of Hillary's CiC threshold, the threshold is what she says it is.) Hillary is betting he won't hit back the same way she hits him (AFAIK Obama never said McCain would be a better CiC than hillary), betting that he won't ruin the strategic advantages dems have for near term tactical gains.
Ferraro was certainly alluding to affirmative action in her first comments and then in subsequent comments was quite verbose about being attacked because she is white. You could finesse the first statement if you choose but anything after that is pure Archie Bunker style politics. Hey it is hardball and certainly less vicious then republicans will say but at least republicans know which side they are on and aren't giving ammo to the dems.
"I may have missed something, but I thought 99% of the criticism on Ferraro was coming from the media and/or blog, message boards, etc. Obama's campaign stayed far away from it and didn't really do much."
I think you missed quite a bit.
Not only did the Obama campaign try to play Ferarro for several news cycles after it initially broke, but Obama himself even brought her up in his speech yesterday in a weird effort to balance out Wright.
Like everything else Team Obama has done since OH/TX, it's been a panicky and ad hoc response to try to win short-term news cycles at the cost of long-term strategic damage.
Alex,
There are people who believe that the Obama campaign has been responsible for the race-baiting that see right now (See Wilentz's article in the New Republic.). So it would have been smart for the Obama campaign to ignore or use humor to downplay Ferraro's comment. Instead they overreacted. I think the overreaction stems from the firing of Samantha Power. When HRC didn't fire Ferraro the Obama campaign wanted to make a point that her campaign go by a double standard.
"It is a bit disingenuous for Petey or Hillary to complain about obama "not getting up" since a.) they don't want him to"
I'm not being disingenuous about that at all. I obviously don't want Obama to find a way out of the whole he's been digging for the past few weeks since I don't want Obama as the nominee.
And FWIW, I'm very pleased by the Obama campaign's glass jaw being revealed now rather than later. It's better for the Party to be learning this now than in October.
Petey,
I think the reason why Obama brought up Ferraro because after all her comment was racist. Her comment implies that one just needs to be a man black to get lucky in this society. That's extremely insulting but unfortunately many people think that way.
Was there really a "backlash" against Obama over Geraldine Ferraro? Do you have any evidence for that? Was there a poll or something that I missed?
A Clinton surrogate says Obama wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't black, and of course, she gets slammed for it by pretty much everybody. And this is bad for Obama? If so, I guess Ferraro is smarter than anybody thought.
Is the despicable Heather Mills the sort of person one should be lauding, particularly this week?
I'll take four Rev. Wrights any day over the woman who duped and ripped off a Beatle - I don't care if he is the one responsible for "Honey Pie" and "Martha My Dear." And Wings.
That just ain't right.
Matt's label has to be changed from "Big Media Matt" to "Big Mouth Matt" since he slams into Ambinder a minute into the conversation. He doesn't even let Ambinder finish his question - not that Ambinder showed any indication to actually finish the question sometime this year.
Does Ambinder have something against Megan? She barely gets a word in edge wise and Ambinder invariably goes to Matt first.
Meanwhile, is Petey going to be surprised when the revelations about Hillary's "Christian cult" behavior pop up in the wake of expose articles about "The Family".
And you thought Reverend Wright was bad. Hillary's crowd hangs out with Nazis, Third World dictators, Third World generals who run torture squads.
Really nice folks for Hillary to be in the "elite" with.
See the article here:
Hillary's Nasty Pastorate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehrenreich/hillarys-nasty-pastorate_b_92361.html
Money Quotes:
You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that "through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the "Fellowship," aka The Family. But it won't be a secret much longer. Jeff Sharlet's shocking exposé, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power will be published in May.
When he went outdoors one night to make a cell phone call, he was followed. He still gets calls from Family associates asking him to meet them in diners -- alone.
In the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolph Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs. As Sharlet reported in Harper's in 2003:
During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand "Communists" killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise.
Clinton fell in with the Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family's "most elite cell," the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Senator George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, the Family's publicity-averse leader, that he is "a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."
Furthermore, the Family takes credit for some of Clinton's rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing "religious freedom" in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to
guard abortion clinics.
Yeah, Petey, this is going to go over real well with the Democrat electorate once the Republicans get a hold of this. Of course, maybe the Republicans won't stomp on Hillary about this because THEY LIKE THIS STUFF!
Gee, your candidate just seems to have ALL THE RIGHT STUFF - for a Republican!
I don't get why MY agrees with this idle speculation that Obama is a major candidate because he's black. First of all it is kind of bizarre to try to postulate: "Let's imagine a white Obama."--Same resume, different skin? Same family and everything, different dad? It's a really odd thought experiment.
If you want to talk about same personal qualities and skills and experience, but white, you get something like John Edwards. Who was a pretty viable candidate for two consecutive campaigns. For Ferraro or somebody to split hairs and say, "But Edwards didn't win did he!!?" would pretty dumb.
At any rate, Obama is definitely not getting a *net* benefit from being black, and I have no idea why MY would think he is. He lost Ohio in part because he was black. If he had a racist white preacher and were himself a white liberal he would not have the problems Obama is having. There are any number of things that could be going better for him if he were white, so I'm not sure why some people are categorically denying them ("And I really believe that!!"), unless the underlying point is inherently racist and is really about society in general and not really about Obama.
"Was there really a "backlash" against Obama over Geraldine Ferraro?"
Yup. And the Wright stuff got caught up in that to no small degree.
"I guess Ferraro is smarter than anybody thought."
Ferarro's original comments seemed off-the-cuff and random. But when the Obama campaign began slamming her, her willingness to defend herself really was pretty smart.
The Obama campaign was assuming she's apologize and back down, and when she didn't, they were wide open for the backlash.
"If you want to talk about same personal qualities and skills and experience, but white, you get something like John Edwards."
No. If Obama were white, you'd have something like Bill Bradley.
"At any rate, Obama is definitely not getting a *net* benefit from being black"
His ability to marry the AA vote to the upscale goo-goo vote is directly tied to his skin tone, and obviously has been a fundamental benefit to him in this nomination race.
"You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones"
Is the adjectival phrase "widely under-read" even necessary when referring to an article in Mother Jones -- isn't that just implicit?
"At any rate, Obama is definitely not getting a *net* benefit from being black"
"His ability to marry the AA vote to the upscale goo-goo vote is directly tied to his skin tone, and obviously has been a fundamental benefit to him in this nomination race."
Whereas a certain corporate lawyer and a personally unlikeable third-rate politician wouldn't have had been able to string together two congressional terms in Massachusetts if she hadn't married the most appealing Democratic politician in a generation and gained massive, nationwide sympathy because of the latter's philandering?
See how absurdly speculative and yes, sexist, that sounds? You have no idea what Obama would be doing without the specific racial/ demographic opportunities that he currenty has, just as I have no idea whether Hillary Rodham would have developed some political skills of her own without being in the shadow of Bill. It's just a dumb piece of speculation, and pretty offensive too.
In the astronomincal chance that Hillary gets the nomination I'll be waiting for the HRC surrogate to suggest that McCain was nearly a naval academy dropout but was saved and got to have a political career because he was lucky enough to be tortured as a POW and then later rise to fame at a time when people are really ga-ga about crappy naval pilots.
I will not watch you on video! So just cut it out.
Petey writes:Pushing the story and keeping it alive. It did Obama damage.
Why? What's damaging to Obama about the story? Ferraro's point was valid and keeping it alive would just re-inforce it?
"See how absurdly speculative and yes, sexist, that sounds?"
I have no problem with the proposition that HRC wouldn't be a serious contender for the Presidency had she not been married to WJC.
See? It's not that difficult to admit the obvious. And similarly, Obama's upscale goo-goo campaign would have little chance of winning the Democratic nomination were he not able to bring along AA voters in quantity due to his personal identity.
Embracing reality is a lot more interesting than denying it. And calling non-offensive stuff offensive is how Obama got into the Ferarro mess in the first place.
I think the "white Obama" thought experiment is lame in a way, because obviously if Obama were white he'd be a different person, but it's sort of interesting. John Edwards isn't a bad comparison, but Obama seems to have 10 times the natural political talent that Edwards does. Obama generates real enthusiasm -- people see him speak and they love the guy. Edwards' whole political persona is predicated on that type of appeal, but the problem is, he just ain't got it. Edwards is the type of guy you see on the teevee and you think, "yep, he's a good speaker" (or you think, "I'd need a shower after shaking that guy's hand," but we're being generous here). You don't drive two hours to stand around another hour and hear him speak. Bill Bradley is a terrible comparison, because he didn't have any of those skills.
So Petey, I take it you agree with Ferraro, that Obama is just ahead because he's black? I happen to disagree, but even if that's true, it sure seems unwise for (1) Geraldine Ferraro, who was probably only a VP candidate because she's a woman, to say it; and (2) a surrogate of Hillary Clinton, who's definitely only a presidential contender because of who she married, to say it. Anyway, I asked if you had any evidence for your assertion that the episode hurt Obama, and you just re-asserted.
Meanwhile, somebody has gotten into the whole Human Abedin thing a whole lot deeper than I have!
I may even be wrong. She might not be a Mossad "swallow" - but maybe a Saudi Intelligence "swallow". That would certainly fit her past history and family ties better.
This guy even thinks there may be Al Qaeda connections with her family, in some "six degrees" sort of way.
I don't know whether he's right, but he's done a hell of a lot of research on the lady's income and expenses. And they don't match!
Check it out:
Huma Abedin & Hillary Clinton - Who is Funding Huma Abedin's Lifestyle?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1921983/posts
Is Huma Abedin an Agent of Saudi Intelligence?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1919649/posts
Huma Abedin & Hillary Clinton - Abedin Family Ties to Al-Qaeda
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1924323/posts
If the Republicans pick up on this, Hillary is TOAST!
You think Obama is a "secret Muslim Manchurian candidate"? Well, how about Hillary having an affair with a female Saudi or even Al Qaeda agent?
How does that play?
"Anyway, I asked if you had any evidence for your assertion that the episode hurt Obama"
Here ya' go.
(You might want to review the thread before demanding info that's already been provided...)
-----
"Bill Bradley is a terrible comparison"
I really think you're attacking Bill Bradley because he's white. How's that?
petey....all the dumb fucking comments in the world are not going to change the fact that clinton is never ,ever going to be the nominee.Im sure that is tough for you to wrap your little pea-brain around.
I'm not being disingenuous about that at all. I obviously don't want Obama to find a way out of the whole he's been digging for the past few weeks since I don't want Obama as the nominee.
It must be hard being a Clinton supporter when basically no informed Democrats who aren't on her payroll support the Senator.
You have my sympathies.
The polls don't look good for Obama. Does anybody think that he can pull through?
"It must be hard being a Clinton supporter when basically no informed Democrats who aren't on her payroll support the Senator."
Clinton may be the minority position in the blogosphere, but Clinton is the majority position among the national Democratic electorate.
And FWIW, it's easy to stand for universal healthcare. I always think it must be hard being an Obama supporter when he's attacking Democratic policy for his own political gain.
Stop hating on the videos, people. I happen to love them. Not sure why, BUT I DO.
Click the link, silly.
After the Obama girl Megan McArdle is the most gorgeous woman on the Internet. There is just something so mysterious there.
The Table is great. And I'm not sure why either.
Micheline:
I've read the Wilentz piece about 4 times now; his arguments are sloppy, his logic far-fetched.
The biggest problem with the piece is he doesn't cite the Obama campaign as the guilty party, but rather a "supporter" or "an advocate" and in two instances the media itself, which I think he describes as "pro-Obama forces" in the press.
For his case against the Obama campaign to hold water, we'd have to believe in a giant conspiracy theory.
TNR editors did a lousy job on this one.
If Fred has any evidence that the article on Clinton's connection with a religious cult is not correct, perhaps he could enlighten us.
Otherwise - he could STFU.
If SLC has any evidence that Huma Abedin is in fact living within her means without Hillary's help, perhaps he could enlighten us.
Or - he could STFU.
In any event, I don't care whether these allegations are true or not. What I'm interested in is how they will play with the electorate in the event Clinton is the nominee.
It would seem to me that the notion that Hillary has been "vetted" against all possible Republican attacks is clearly not the case, citing these two examples alone.
It's only a matter of time before the whole Abedin thing becomes a Republican talking point in smear emails. The cult question may or may not depending on whether the Republicans prefer to keep it quiet for the obvious reasons that they are the primary involvement.
But I can easily see the Republicans circulating the same sort of emails that Obama has had to contend with, but claiming that Clinton is being influenced by an "Al Qaeda lesbian".
Of course, the Democrats won't buy into it - but it's clearly going to be ugly when the MSM picks up on it and starts vetting Abedin as closely as the guy I cited does.
The woman makes less than $30,000 a year, yet she bought a half million dollar apartment, and wears thousand-dollar clothes.
Who's funding her lifestyle? Why is that if you call Hillary at six in the morning, you get Huma answering the phone? If you call Hillary at midnight, you get Huma answering the phone?
Somebody during the general election is going to start asking those questions.
Obama has dealt with Reverend Wright reasonably effectively. This Clinton stuff is orders of magnitude worse, if only in appearance.
Just read the connections between Abedin's relatives and Muslim organizations. That alone will be a field day for the Republicans, even if it has nothing to do with the woman directly. There's simply no comparison with Wright.
Ambinder was being intentionally dense when he asked what Megan thought Ferraro meant when she said that Barack wouldn't be where he is if he weren't black. Ferraro was clearly implying that Barack was receiving less criticism because of his race and the fears journalists had of backlash if they were too harsh on him.
It was also clear that she was inciting white voters who are against affirmative action programs to vote against Barack. There was simply no way to take Ferraro's comments as a positive.
I'm surprised Megan wasn't ready with an answer. Ferraro's comments were exactly what they looked like.
Big Blue writes: "I'm surprised Megan wasn't ready with an answer. Ferraro's comments were exactly what they looked like."
Sure, but I don't think Megan really cares all that much about politics. That may well be to her credit in the long run.
I know more about politics than I care to, and I can't really explain why anyone should care what a broken-down old party hack like Ferraro says about anything. If Dan Quayle opened his idiot mouth next week I certainly wouldn't care what came out of it. I'd make fun of it, sure, but I wouldn't consider it important.
Petey, when he's not talking about how he finds twelve-year-olds sexy, has shown himself to be an amoral person. When Ferraro racebaits, his first response isn't "racism is wrong," which should be the response of any decent liberal, but instead "OMG Obama is going to lose Ohio based on this poll in March!" He's just become a tired case of projection. He has shown no ability to actually predict anything well, so the fact he thinks Obama is going to lose because he's behind in Ohio now actually is a good sign.
Antid Oto @ March 19 8:17PM --
bwahaha. Awesome.
Click the link!
Seven and a half months ago, Clinton was favored to win in every primary except for Illinois and Hawaii. She blew that lead in the majority of states that have voted so far. What's to say she just won't repeat that pattern against McCain? Her advantages over Obama (part of the Democrats' biggest power couple, had Bill on her side, had the DC elite mostly on her side, name recognition, Obama can't hit her on First Lady experience not being experience without pissing off older feminists, can't draw too much attention to the problems with the Clinton years without pissing off the base, etc.) were bigger than any she could have against McCain.
"Click the link, silly."
Thank you for your sympathies.
Comments closed April 02, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
So Senator Hillary Clinton lauds Heather Mills' work on behalf of landmine victims but we should not forget President Bill Clintons pro-mine posture.
Hmmm. That's some serious blogging right there.
Posted by TheOkie | March 19, 2008 4:05 PM