The Contingency of Candidacy

Geraldine Ferraro, a Hillary Clinton supporter, wants the world to know that in her view:

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.

Hillary Clinton's campaign is disavowing this sort of thing, with Howard Wolfson telling Ben Smith "We disagree with her" (via Dana Goldstein).

Wolfson seems to be tackling this from the wrong perspective. It really is hard to imagine Obama being where he is today if he weren't black. But the point is that everyone who has success in presidential politics does so, in part, because of contingent personal attributes that aren't a strict form of merit. Being white has, after all, been an important part of the political success of all our previous presidents. Certainly Bill Clinton's southern accent was an important part of his package, as it was for Jimmy Carter and of course Lyndon Johnson was made VP to do regional ticket balancing. John Kennedy had a rich dad. Franklin Roosevelt was named "Roosevelt." That's just political reality, not some vast black conspiracy to keep Hillary Clinton down.

UPDATE: And, of course, there's no way Hillary Clinton would be where she is if she weren't a certain ex-president's wife.

Comments

if Hillary was a man, she wouldn't be where she is today. it would've been hard to be a First Lady, without the Lady parts.

Posted by cleek | March 11, 2008 12:53 PM

Does Ferraro really want people to start asking whether Hillary Clinton would be in this position were it not for certain "contingent personal attributes"?

Posted by Huh? | March 11, 2008 12:54 PM

It was a stupid thing to say and you have a stupid argument, Matt. Ferraro's comment wasn't intended as an economic study on the political effects of "personal attributes".

It was an effort to dismiss his accomplishments because of the color of his skin.

Posted by Face The Music | March 11, 2008 12:54 PM

I guess by the same token Hillary wouldn't be where she is today if she weren't a white woman and the wife of an ex-president.

Some people might say, though, that Obama got where he is today despite being black, not because of it.

Posted by jim | March 11, 2008 12:56 PM

I think I'll just quote your colleague Marc Ambinder here:

Because running as a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama is soooo easy.

Posted by DaveWoo | March 11, 2008 12:56 PM

Matt,

Using your own logic, you have fallen into a trap.

Your hypothetical non-black Obama would have different parents and a different background. But who says those different parents and background would not have given him different advantages? Maybe he would be from the South. Maybe his parents would have been rich, or politically connected. Maybe he would be Hispanic. And so on.

This is an all-too-common problem with such counterfactuals: people eliminate a set of attributes from this counterfactual universe, but forget to replace them with something else. And Obama seems like the type to have taken that something else and make it into an advantage--just a different one.

Posted by DTM | March 11, 2008 12:58 PM

*Query whether someone unrelated to a President could airdrop into NY just in time for a Senate election and win.
*Query whether someone lacking extraordinary retail political skills, wrong on the major issue of the last eight years, and with negatives that have polled north of 50%, could credibly run an inevitability/"incumbent" campaign if not closely related to a former President. (And maybe extraordinary retail skills wouldn't be enough; LBJ couldn't get it done, and he had a fair amount of rough charm.)
*Query whether someone with only four more years of experience than her closest primary competitor (during which she irritated her base for that purpose), and significantly less than most of the other competitors (including the Republican nominee), could credibly run as the "experience" candidate, unless closely related to the President.

So, yeah, everybody who gets there starts with some characteristic that, while not merit-measured, gets turned to his or her advantage.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 11, 2008 12:59 PM

It really is hard to imagine Obama being where he is today if he weren't black.

Yeah Matt. Your right. If a white guy had all his qualities (intellect, background, policies, elequence, oratory, etc...) then he'd be the nominee by a landslide right now. But because he's black he is where he is. Still fighting it out.

Posted by recusancy | March 11, 2008 12:59 PM

I'm amazed this complaint is coming from Ferraro. Talk about chutzpa. Would any of us even know her name if Mondale didn't believe putting a woman on the ticket might somehow give him a chance to beat Reagan?

Posted by NHCt | March 11, 2008 1:01 PM

The issue isn't just the bare facts that Ferraro cites, it's her resentment. Do we really want that kind of politics in arguments among Democrats?

Posted by MattF | March 11, 2008 1:02 PM

Hmmm...I'm not sure how much I agree with you on this. Certainly, being black is a part of Obama's identity and, especially at the national level, campaigns are very much based on identity. But Ferraro is pointing to his being black as outcome determinative and that, I think, is bullshit. You might be able to argue that Obama got as much attention as he did for his 2004 convention speech in part because he was black (but I think of equal import is his speaking ability and the nature of his speech). You might also be able to argue that, if it weren't for him being black, party leaders may have more aggressively counseled him against running against Clinton at all. But, unless I'm missing something, that's about it. In fact, I think a more compelling - if fairly superficial - argument could be made that, if both Obama and Clinton were white men, this nomination process would have been over after Obama won 11 in a row.

Posted by Jennifer | March 11, 2008 1:02 PM

Around Super Tuesday, my brother went on a tirade about how spiteful and vindictive privileged middle-aged white women can be. It was an odd moment and an odd leap for him to make, no less of a generalization that what Ferraro is making. He quickly settled down and moved on, saying something like: whatever, you'll see what I'm talking about later. I honestly didn't really understand what he was talking about or where his opinion came from. Now I'm starting to see it. The anger and hostility is the surprising part.

Posted by Bill | March 11, 2008 1:03 PM

Seriously, Hillary would've been left for dead long ago if not for her last name.

Posted by Monster | March 11, 2008 1:04 PM

Hillary would have been left for dead long ago if not for her last name.

Posted by Monster | March 11, 2008 1:05 PM

Ferraro's Archie Bunker roots are showing. Dog whistle politics. Nothing more nothing less.

The only thing funny about it is that it's coming from an individual chosen to represent the Democratic Party on a national ticket solely, and I do mean solely, because of her gender.

Posted by Richard | March 11, 2008 1:06 PM

Ferraro is half right. If Obama were a white man, he wouldn't be where he is because he wouldn't be winning 90% or so of the black vote in the primaries. But if he were a black woman who opposed the Iraq war and was an inspiring orator, wouldn't he be doing even better than he is now because the woman vote would be split while the black vote would still be heavily in his favor?

Posted by Ron | March 11, 2008 1:11 PM

BO is as much white as he is black. No more, no less. That's an undisputable fact. Maybe even more white, given that he was raised by his white mother/grandparents without his black father.

Can't say the same about Geraldine, who is 100% female. Obviously, she was not selected as VP based in any way on her gender.

Identity politics stifles the ability to grow your ideas.

Posted by Beer Here | March 11, 2008 1:12 PM

But, unless I'm missing something, that's about it.

You're missing the fact that he wouldn't have gotten 90% of black voters and thus would have only won the caucuses, Connecticut, and Vermont as a standard liberal candidate. He'd have been out of the race by Super Tuesday, if that.

And arguably, he wouldn't have gotten liberal voters if he hadn't have been black--a good number of them are completely thrilled with themselves for supporting a black man.

There's really no argument here. Huge chunks piece of Obama's resume occurred because he was black. First black Harvard Law Review editor. Book deal (in which he yammers endlessly about race) was because he was the first black HLR editor. He had to be black in order to get his legislative seat in Illinois. He would not have been selected as the keynoter if he hadn't been black. He wouldn't have won South Carolina and the rest of the south if he hadn't been black.

He'd be just another goodlooking guy with ambitions if he weren't black.

Comparing that to Clinton being the wife of a president is absurd. Clinton was extraordinarily atypical as a first spouse, whereas Obama has been a run of the mill politician who never even had to run a contested election until this campaign. Clinton had to keep her career under wraps because it's difficult to pursue a career while your husband is a politician. (most politicians with career wives marry them after the career has been established--or, in the case of Obama's wife, the "career" is actually a political gift.)

So there's no comparison, and Obama's race is the first and critical element of his campaign, without which it doesn't exist.

Posted by Cal | March 11, 2008 1:12 PM

Mark Steyn covered this Saturday in his column "Torn between Two white liberal guilts". An excerpt:

Surveying the Hillary-Barack death match, Maureen Dowd wrote: "People will have to choose which of America's sins are greater, and which stain will have to be removed first. Is misogyny worse than racism, or is racism worse than misogyny?"

Do even Democrats really talk like this? Apparently so. As Ali Gallagher, a white female (sorry, this identity-politics labeling is contagious) from Texas, told the Washington Post: "A friend of mine, a black man, said to me, 'My ancestors came to this country in chains; I'm voting for Barack.' I told him, 'Well, my sisters came here in chains and on their periods; I'm voting for Hillary.'"

When everybody's a victim, nobody's a victim. Poor Ms. Gallagher can't appreciate the distinction between purely metaphorical chains and real ones, or even how offensive it might be to assume blithely that there's no difference whatsoever.

On the other hand, Barack's ancestors didn't come here in chains, either: His mother was a white Kansan, so was presumably undergoing menstrual hell with the Gallagher gals, and his dad was a black man a long way away in colonial Kenya. Indeed, Obama would be the first son of a British subject to serve as president since those slaveholding types elected in the early days of the republic.

Posted by Fred | March 11, 2008 1:18 PM

I think Cal is right in the sense that Hillary was in a very strong position going into the race, and Obama has been able to beat her by uniting the "wine-track" vote with the Black vote. The question I have is: who cares? I mean, its understandable for Hillary and her supporters to grumble about their bad luck in private, but why advance it as an argument in public?

I mean, can you imagine John Edwards complaining: if only Hillary had been born without a nose, I would have destroyed her in the New Hampshire primary.

Posted by Jim W | March 11, 2008 1:21 PM

But Matt you miss her point. The idea is that we the voting public are cutting the guy a break because he's black. He gets extra credit because he speaks in complete sentences and doesn't act all gangsta. He's a pretty good politician but he ain't nothing special as far as politics goes -- the difference is, he's black. We haven't seen a black one meet the threshold of acceptable candidate before. This is the affirmative action logic, and her meaning is unmistakable. Of course this couldn't be further than the truth. Obama makes Bill Clinton look like a stutterer. The man is a smarter and more curious politician than we've seen in my lifetime. He outshines them all, at least since Kennedy, and yes he happens to be black too.

Posted by Giles | March 11, 2008 1:21 PM

I'm a woman in my mid-50s. These women -- Hillary, Geraldine, Erica J., Gloria -- they are dinosaurs. Total embarrassments. This is knee-jerk, 70s-style feminism. It was fresh and young at the time and having easier access to pot definitely helped.

We've got soldiers of all colors and both genders being killed in Iraq and I can't even begin to imagine the suffering of the men, women, and children in cities such as ... gee, I dunno, Baghdad.

I see these women on my screen and I want to tell them to hit the road and take their pant suits and coordinated costume jewelry with them.

The country is longing for something different. Something cleaner if at all possible.

None of us, plebes and non-plebes, would be where we are today if we weren't the individuals we are. These kinds of arguments are utterly inane.

Get the hook and get these grande dames off the stage. I've love to see a woman President before I die but Senator Clinton just ain't it. And her campaign staff seems to be made up of tools. That bodes ill.

Posted by charlotte | March 11, 2008 1:24 PM

I think Obama's race has helped him rise so fast and so dramatically. Many of the themes driving his campaign -- change, hope, etc. -- involve implicit allusions to his potential status as our first black president.

That said, to pull this off, he has to be exceptional in a number of ways -- an inspiring speaker, magnetic personality, someone who projects moral authority without being self-righteous, etc. Black politicians like Harold Ford or Deval Patrick, who are middling political talents, could never do it. So it is not as if he is an average politician who has it easy because he black. He is an exceptional politician who has used his blackness to bolster his message.

Posted by pjs | March 11, 2008 1:25 PM

Its obvious that liberals are suppporting Obama only because he's black, and not because he opposed the Iraq war. My proof? Dennis Kucinich also opposed the Iraq war but is white. How many liberals are supporting him?

Posted by Jim W | March 11, 2008 1:26 PM

"UPDATE: And, of course, there's no way Hillary Clinton would be where she is if she weren't a certain ex-president's wife. "

I think you can make a case that being Bill's wife involves a lot of hard work.

Posted by Njorl | March 11, 2008 1:26 PM

Geraldine Ferraro was on a ticket that lost 49 states; she should have disappeared from politics years ago.

Posted by Mike | March 11, 2008 1:26 PM

Wow, quoting Mark Steyn? We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't we?

Posted by DSG | March 11, 2008 1:27 PM

Christopher Caldwell's column, although nominally about a literary scandal, is also apposite: "Tall tales of the would-be victim". An excerpt:

Various anti-racisms and victimologies provide the only rock-solid consensus morality that society has. But there is a problem with a moral system based on the injustices wrought by one class of people on another – not all people can participate in it with equal moral authority. For a writer, gaining access to moral authority is an imperative. How does one do that in a system that confers moral authority based on someone’s race or birth?

When people take on false identities in memoirs, the identities they take on are not random. The assumed identity either confers membership in a class of victims (Ms Seltzer as a minority gang member, Ms Defonseca as a Holocaust survivor) or it exaggerates the suffering of one who can claim to be a victim already (Mr Frey as a worse addict than he really was). Such impersonators are the literary tip of a society-wide iceberg. They are kindred spirits to those who stage hate crimes against themselves (a growing problem on US college campuses) or those who consider it a matter of urgency to impress on you at a dinner party that they are, say, “one-sixteenth Cherokee Indian.”
[...]
The “motive” for Ms Seltzer’s misdeed was a typically American one. She was doing the same thing that immigrants did a century ago when they changed their names from Svensson to Swanson, or from Bellini to Bell. She was bartering away a bit of her identity in order to be taken more seriously. She was concealing, as best she could, her membership in a low-prestige ethnicity in order that she might participate on a more equal footing in the national conversation.

Posted by Fred | March 11, 2008 1:29 PM

i heard this woman on on point with tom ashbrook the other day. her pure hatred for anything pro-obama/anti-hillary was disgusting! she just sounded so vile and ridiculous and willing to throw any punch necessary to get her way.

Posted by erg | March 11, 2008 1:30 PM

If Ferraro's right that there's something "illegitmate" about Obama's delegate lead, what say she to the fact that it's insurmountable.

First the Mondale ad, now Ferraro. Jeez-o-man. Is her plan to lose even Vermont in the general?

Posted by David B. | March 11, 2008 1:30 PM

I think we can all agree George W. Bush has earned everthing he has achieved.

Or at least the approval rating.

Posted by Andruw | March 11, 2008 1:30 PM

I'm more shocked that Cal seems to think Hilary actually has some kind of real qualification for the Presidency other than being Bill's wife. If she does, she's done an excellent job hiding them the last 30 years. How far would a male Senator Henry Rodham from NYC with Hilary's record on Iraq, flag burning, and Iran get in the Democratic party? Hell, he wouldn't be Senator in the first place, just another corporate lawyer in Chicago.

Going after Obama on his "qualifications" just strikes me as an incredibly stupid line of attack coming from the Clinton camp.

Posted by vanya | March 11, 2008 1:32 PM

Ferraro's wrong, but not entirely. On the one hand, I don't think there's a widespread clamoring for a black president. The "concept" became popular only because Obama became popular.

On the other hand, as Yglesias noted, race certainly helped Obama in the Democratic fight. To be sure, Obama's running as a reformer/insurgent in the Bradley/Tsongas vein, without any explicit call for identity solidarity.
But one reason reformer candidates typically lose to establishment candidates is that the reformer can't get the African-American vote, whic goes with the establishment candidate (or a less competitive black candidate). Imagine a one-on-one fight between Clinton and Edwards, or even Clinton vs. an even more charismatic Edwards. It's hard to see how Edwards would be able overcome a coalition of women, older voters, and African-American voters. This is where Obama's race matters, by marrying the reformer demographic (educated liberals, students) with the African Americans.

Posted by Ryan W. | March 11, 2008 1:33 PM

Obama's centerpiece accomplishment is getting elected the "third black U.S. senator since Reconstruction". He couldn't have done that without being black.

Posted by Undecided | March 11, 2008 1:36 PM

The question I have is: who cares?

The superdelegates will probably care.

If the Democratic nomination were the job in and of itself, then kudos to Obama for effectively using the rules and his odd support coalition to get the job.

But it's not the job, and the fact that Obama's ahead because of a convenient peculiarity in his demographic support is extremely relevant when it comes to determining who will do best against McCain.

The idea is that we the voting public are cutting the guy a break because he's black. He gets extra credit because he speaks in complete sentences and doesn't act all gangsta. He's a pretty good politician but he ain't nothing special as far as politics goes -- the difference is, he's black.

"The voting public" aren't cutting the guy a break. Blacks and liberals are not more than 30% of the population. I'd argue that liberals are the ones "cutting a guy a break" in that they are supporting him in part because he's black and that makes them feel good about themselves. The fact that he was also against the war in 2002 helps justify it now, but in fact, his support doesn't say much. Most liberals who weren't in Congress were against the war. It would have done him more damage to support it in 2002.

Posted by Cal | March 11, 2008 1:37 PM

"And the country is caught up in the concept"

This is the most egregious part of Ferraro's comment, and the most revelatory of her bigotry. It states quite explicitly that the normative move is to back a white candidate, and that there is something not just atypical, but artificial, in the vast support Obama has generated. Newsflash to Ferraro and the Golden Girl/Good Old Boy bigots out there - many of us don't find anything "uncanny" about supporting a non-white candidate. As for suggesting that Obama is "lucky to be who he is," well that makes zero sense. Obama is where he is today because he is an extraordinary individual, to suggest that he got a free ride in American politics (or in life) with a white American and a black African father indicates someone needs to hit the history books with a vengeance.

Posted by Molly | March 11, 2008 1:37 PM

Let's be serious, taking Obama out of the equation, would anyone have seriously proposed in the spring of 2007 that being black would be an advantage in this race? Of course not. There are maybe 3 black men in the US, hell in the whole of American history to date, who might have enough credibility with white voters to overcome the incredible handicap of being black - Obama, Colin Powell, and Tiger Woods. I think that's an incredible accomplishment on Obama's part, not something for Ferraro to denigrate.

Posted by vanya | March 11, 2008 1:40 PM

The idea is that we the voting public are cutting the guy a break because he's black.

No, I think rather the idea is the cool factor, the excitement factor, the change factor -- they're all greatly enhanced by Obama's race. That and perhaps a healthy dollop of white liberal guilt.

Although it's obviously impolitic and stupid of her to have made the argument, Ferraro's point, of course, is exactly right: a white guy who had been in the Illinois legislature a mere 3.5 years ago almost certainly wouldn't be vying for the world's most powerful office right now. Thing is, though, there's undeniably a huge element of poetic justice in all of this, because, for several centuries, being black in America was a huge impediment. It's about time it finally became (for at least one man, anyway) a boon.

Also, just to quibble, it's obvious that Hillary Clinton's marriage to the former president has helped her get where she is, but there are a couple of possible responses. First, no duh. She's explicitly made her time as first lady a central theme of her candidacy. She's essentially bragging that being married to Bill Clinton is a primary qualification for office. Secondly, I think it's entirely possible that a shrewd, disciplined, intelligent, highly ambitious Yale Law graduate who also happened to be female might, by now, be in a position to run for president even without the aid of a previous presidential marriage. It's 2008, after all, and Hillary Clinton is in her sixties.

Posted by Jasper | March 11, 2008 1:40 PM

There's really no argument here. Huge chunks piece of Obama's resume occurred because he was black. First black Harvard Law Review editor. Book deal (in which he yammers endlessly about race) was because he was the first black HLR editor. He had to be black in order to get his legislative seat in Illinois. He would not have been selected as the keynoter if he hadn't been black. He wouldn't have won South Carolina and the rest of the south if he hadn't been black.

Your first sentence is correct. There really is no argument here because you haven't made one and I suspect very strongly that you don't have a coherent one to make. You have made a series of assertions based upon as far as I can see, nothing but your own assumptions about what Obama must have been "given." To be frank, it is difficult to see how those assumptions can be based on anything other than the idea that any black person who achieves has done so only through some sort of societal largesse. If I am wrong about that, then please explain how, in any of the examples you mention, Obama could demonstrate that he deserved those achievements rather than having it given to him as you seem to imply.

Posted by brent | March 11, 2008 1:43 PM

Jim W proves that you don't have to be sentient to be a Clinton troll. By his logic, Clinton voters only support her because she's a woman, since Biden has even more experience. L-A-M-E.

Posted by PGHnomore | March 11, 2008 1:44 PM

by marrying the reformer demographic (educated liberals, students) with the African Americans.,/I.

Would you mind explaining why these are mutually exclusive caategories?

Posted by Sharon | March 11, 2008 1:44 PM

"There's really no argument here. Huge chunks piece of Obama's resume occurred because he was black. First black Harvard Law Review editor. Book deal (in which he yammers endlessly about race) was because he was the first black HLR editor. He had to be black in order to get his legislative seat in Illinois. He would not have been selected as the keynoter if he hadn't been black. He wouldn't have won South Carolina and the rest of the south if he hadn't been black."

Well, yeah, if he wasn't black then he couldn't
have been the first black HLR editor. But you have
to be damn smart to be editor of HLR, whatever the color of your skin. And if I'm not mistaken there are plenty members of the Illinois legislature who aren't black, and there have been plenty of Dem convention keynote speakers who weren't black. And for heaven's sakes, he won the lily-white Iowa caucuses when conventional wisdom said Edwards had the better identity for that. And since then he's run a crackerjack campaign with unprecedented fundraising, massive rallies, and solid debate performances.

I supported Edwards because I thought he had the best policies. But Obama has simply run a terrific campaign, backing up his rhetoric with a devastating organization and massive turnout and winning over and over again even on unpromising territory. If Clinton supporters want to remain even vaguely in touch with reality they should quit whining and try counting votes and getting organized. It's almost certainly too late, but heck, give it a try at least.

Posted by Richard Cownie | March 11, 2008 1:49 PM

Jim W proves that you don't have to be sentient to be a Clinton troll.

Um, excuse me, but I'm an Obama supporter. I have been all along. Clinton has always been my second choice. I was just trying to point out how vacuous it is to attribute liberal support for Obama being due to his blackness when he's the only credible candidate who opposed the Iraq war.

Posted by Jim W | March 11, 2008 1:50 PM

Secondly, I think it's entirely possible that a shrewd, disciplined, intelligent, highly ambitious Yale Law graduate who also happened to be female might, by now, be in a position to run for president even without the aid of a previous presidential marriage. It's 2008, after all, and Hillary Clinton is in her sixties.

You can't really be serious. Best case is Hillary might be a Nancy Pelosi - and I find that highly unlikely. I can understand the frustration of feminists though - there really seem to be no credible female politicians out there who could get elected President on their own merits. If not Hilary now, the US could go many many decades before we elect a female President. This probably explains the sense of desperation in the aging female Boomer camp.

Posted by vanya | March 11, 2008 1:50 PM

This world would be much better if Cal was shot in the face tonight. What an awful person. You claim he's gotten a lot of things in life because of his skin color. You said he was "first black Harvard Law Review editor" as though his color was responsible for why he was in that position. Sure, it was responsible for why he was the first BLACK editor, but you act as though that's the only reason he was in that position. I hope you and your family have your own personal 9/11. You are a terrible person. Kill yourself.

Posted by Stacy | March 11, 2008 1:50 PM

"On the one hand, I don't think there's a widespread clamoring for a black president."

You must not remember how many Americans pined for Colin Powell to run years ago. The desire for a well-spoken, intelligent, black president has also been expressed in popular culture (e.g., the two Palmer presidencies on 24; Morgan Freeman as president in Deep Impact, etc.).

"This is the most egregious part of Ferraro's comment, and the most revelatory of her bigotry."

I think you are confusing bigotry with resentment and frustration.

Posted by Fred | March 11, 2008 1:54 PM

UPDATE: And, of course, there's no way Hillary Clinton would be where she is if she weren't a certain ex-president's wife.

Funny, because you added this as an update, obviously because you forgot to put it in the line about Kennedy and Roosevelt, it made me think on it more deeply.

And my thinking doesn't come out good for you as to making your main point, nor does it necessarily come out good for Hillary. It occurred to me that her life story is one of extreme self-propelled ambition, and in that in that she may differ from those other two examples.

Posted by artappraiser | March 11, 2008 1:55 PM

Matt,

This is a silly hypothetical. The possibilities and trajectories Barack would have followed as a white man would have been different, and so too would the argument his candidacy. Therefore it's impossible to make a reasonable judgment on this question.

But I sincerely doubt that, on the whole, Barack's color has done more good for him than harm. Even well off, educated blacks face racism.

And why, exactly, do you think that he wouldn't be where he is if he were white? You don't think a white charismatic Senator, who was editor of the Harvard Law Review, and who has been a community organizer and professor at Chicago would ever get a Democratic nomination?

I repeat: this is silly.

Posted by Blake Emerson | March 11, 2008 1:58 PM

Of course, there's no way Sinbad would've gone to Bosnia if he weren't a shitty comedian.

I'd still like to see him cut some ads for Obama.

Posted by phil | March 11, 2008 1:59 PM

Cal: you really think Harvard Law made Obama editor of the review because he was black? Why didn't they do it earlier with some other black guy, then?

Also, the Republicans seem convinced Obama would be harder to beat in the general than Clinton. You think they are wrong in assessing their own self-interest, there?

Posted by Denton | March 11, 2008 2:00 PM

Listen, if he was white, he would be a smarter, more charismatic John Edwards. He'd probably be right where he is assuming that he maintained his ambition and public speaking skills.

Posted by Todd | March 11, 2008 2:02 PM

"by marrying the reformer demographic (educated liberals, students) with the African Americans."

Would you mind explaining why these are mutually exclusive caategories?

Because if you drew Venn diagrams of educated liberals and college students, and one of African Americans, you wouldn't see a lot of overlap. That's because blacks, on average, are not very educated, and there are more black men in jail than in college.

Of course you knew this already, and your asking for this explanation was just an attempt to enforce a taboo against speaking candidly about African Americans as a group.

Posted by Harry | March 11, 2008 2:03 PM

I suspect this is less a racist statement on Ferraro's part and more the start of a get out the racist vote effort gearing up for Pennsylvania.

The PA primary is right on the Mason-Dixon line prime territory for a racist boost to Hillary.

Posted by Stephen | March 11, 2008 2:03 PM

Sinbad's not black. He's yellow. Haven't you ever seen his stand-up?

Posted by Craigory | March 11, 2008 2:04 PM

Of course it's technically true that Obama's identity is a feature of his candidacy, and in particular his race is obviously an asset in winning African-American votes and probably some white liberal votes as well (though it also seems to cost him votes among white working class people, especially appalachians and southerners). The historic aspect of his candidacy also sometimes leads to favorable media coverage. But to spit this out as a knock on Obama, and imply that he's nothing special, just an affirmative action candidate who would be nowhere if he wasn't black, as Ferraro did, is completely unfounded and extremely racist.

To contrast, as others have pointed out, Hillary Clinton actually wouldn't be a serious contender if she wasn't Bill Clinton's wife, and Geraldine Ferraro wouldn't be on tv if Mondale hadn't been determined to pick a woman.

After all the controversy over much milder and more ambiguous comments in South Carolina, I'm surprised this hasn't got more attention. Also, unlike Samantha Powers' unguarded moment, Ferraro has repeated this comment at least twice (to the Cali paper and on Fox news). It's absolutely appalling, and Hillary Clinton should denounce and reject Ferraro.

Posted by rr18 | March 11, 2008 2:05 PM

"He's a pretty good politician but he ain't nothing special as far as politics goes -- the difference is, he's black."

Really ? How many politicians have a list of over
1M individual donors ?

No, Obama *is* special: a first-rate orator, smart as hell, and able to assemble and manage a campaign organization that has performed miracles in fund-raising and ground organization. He appears to be the Tiger Woods of US politics, and anyone who wants to beat him is going to have to raise their game.

By a great stroke of good fortune, his legislative record suggests that he's also a pretty good policy wonk with a taste for unglamorous but important issues - e.g. regulation of DNA-testing,
videotaping of criminal interrogations.

And it's a bit too simple to say that he's "black": if you were looking for someone to be a breakthrough "black" politician, it's not at all obvious that you'd choose a guy with a Kenyan father and a white midwestern mother. He is who he is, and he's winning this thing by playing the game at a very high level indeed. While HRC's campaign has blown through a huge pile of money without ever settling on a convincing theme.

Posted by Richard Cownie | March 11, 2008 2:05 PM

I think he comment is based on the truth. If he was white black voters wouldn't be voting for him...they would go to Hillary.

and Sinbad is an idiot. who cares what he says...listening to him about politics is like getting Foreign Relations advice from Pokemon!

BTW I found some fantastic articles…A MUST read for EVERYONE “The Hussein Dynamic” at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=171 and “Follow the Money” at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165

The writing is BRILLIANT and goes beyond what the MSM feeds us. It was about time!!!!! Their sections for “Humor” and “Political Analysis” are FANTASTIC!!!!

http://savagepolitics.com

Posted by Elsy | March 11, 2008 2:05 PM

Elsy- You are a simple minded idiot. You say "if he was white black voeters wouldn't be voting for him..." And then you end it. You think might want to continue with that line of thinking, or is that the only effect? Also, no one is saying you should listen to Sinbad about politics. And you made a Pokemon reference. Like Stacy said earlier, please kill yourself.

Posted by Douglas | March 11, 2008 2:12 PM

Elsy's just pimping her lame blog, ignore.

Posted by ho | March 11, 2008 2:13 PM

Half black + half white = biracial.

Extremely talented, vain and egotistical enough to think he should rule the world's most powerful country, black enough to get 90% black support, black enough to assauge liberal white guilt, and very much the most difficult candidate for McCain to beat.

Hillary is desperate, and this was a trial balloon. Live by identity politics, die by the same. More to come to a campaign near you.

Posted by Obama's Not Black | March 11, 2008 2:16 PM

The idea that Obama is not aided enormously by his race in this campaign is not credible. It ought to be possible for people to think he is the better candidate -as Matt Y. does- while still admitting this. Step back for a moment from the comparison with Hillary Clinton. Obama has less experience in an important position than anyone nominated by EITHER party in over 60 years. Yet he is the favorite to be nominated. Even if you like him, surely that is something that requires explanation, whatever you think of Geraldine Ferraro as the messenger.

What could the explanation be? The fact that he has some big ,widely-appreciated,policy accomplishments in his short time in high office? Certainly not. The fact that he gave a nice speech? Please.

The reason is the combined constituency of African-Americans, who, like Catholics and Southerners before them, understandably want symbolic representation, however attenuated, and the "wine track" white liberals who get a thrill voting for a (non-scary) Black candidate. It is a cheap way to feel good about themselves and morally superior to white working-class people who are less "enlightened." (People who vote to raise their own taxes care a lot about feeling righteous!) They are so eager to have this pleasure that they don't let little concerns like experience stand in their way. If necessary they decide that serving in the Illinois Senate is heavy lifting and that Hillary Clinton really was just baking cookies from 1993-2001.

Posted by Vito Marzullo | March 11, 2008 2:17 PM

You can't really be serious. Best case is Hillary might be a Nancy Pelosi - and I find that highly unlikely.

vanya: I think it's obvious that there exists a pool of women besides Hillary Clinton who would be in a credible position to run for the presidency if one of them chose to do so. Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, Condaleeza Rice, Olympia Snowe, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Janet Napolitano come to mind. I'm sure I'm overlooking some others. I'm not saying that these women don't have some weaknesses (in addition to their strengths), but it seems to me their gender mostly isn't a weakness -- and may well help some of them stand out from the crowd. And yes, that's a far smaller number than the pool of credible male candidates. But still. I doubt we'll wait much longer for a female president, or that this wait will largely be attributable to current sexism (past sexism, which obviously affects the size of the current pool, is another story).

Posted by Jasper | March 11, 2008 2:22 PM

Even if this argument wasn't completely full of shit, how could someone versed in politics think it's a good idea to claim, in a Democratic primary no doubt, that we can assume that Obama is some sort of affermative action hire, and doesn't deserve his success on his own merits, simply because he is black? I guess this is what you get for associating yourself with the VP of a presidential campaign that lost in the biggest landslide of the last century.

Posted by JK | March 11, 2008 2:23 PM

Are you sure you want to cite 24 and Deep Impact as indicative of "widespread clamoring for a black president?" That's ludicrous.

As for Ferraro's "resentment and frustration," why do you assume this is incompatible with -as opposed to indicative of- her bigotry? At best we can say she is guilty of stoking white (male and female) anxiety. Of course this Rovian/Clintonian maneuver will overshadow Obama's wins in Wyoming and Mississippi, shore up support among her "white working class" (read closet bigot base), as well as obscure the dustup over her "experience."

Posted by Molly | March 11, 2008 2:26 PM

Around Super Tuesday, my brother went on a tirade about how spiteful and vindictive privileged middle-aged white women can be... I honestly didn't really understand what he was talking about or where his opinion came from. Now I'm starting to see it. The anger and hostility is the surprising part.

I think what you're seeing is a whole lot of longstanding resentment, more than spite, etc. (btw, I'm a feminist Obama supporter who's both angered and dismayed by my forebears' behavior). A lot of women, and particularly older women, are carrying and often sublimating a lot of unhappiness over the choices they've made in support of their husbands and families because those same choices diminish their potential and accomplishments. In that context, it's not surprising that women initiate so many divorces, if you think about it, because their choices-- or more accurately, couples' choices-- on where they live, in what style, how many children they have, how the kids are cared for and schooled, and who knows how many other seemingly small decisions on the structure of their families' lives are made favoring the professional, economic, and public status of husbands rather than wives. Over time, this tends to piss women off even though they agreed at the time ('well, his job does have a higher income potential than mine') or even actively wanted to make certain choices ('they're only babies for a while and my income would go entirely to day care anyway...') because the net result is not particularly feminist and they still have to pay for it their whole lives.

And I maintain that a great deal of HRC's appeal among women of her generation is the making-up-ground factor: she, while not entirely traditional in her decisions, still followed her husband's star while not only dealing with constant criticism for not being traditional enough, but also being the primary breadwinner for years. And the bottom line seems to be that Bill's not only paying her back-- where many men wouldn't seem to even realize there's a debt there-- but with enough interest to actually exceed any reasonable ambitions she might have had on her own. So not only are they thrilled that HRC was about to get to have it both ways finally, since so few women do, they also seem to have a lot invested in Bill's atonement for his years of privilege and misbehavior.

Posted by latts | March 11, 2008 2:27 PM

Obama has less experience in an important position than anyone nominated by EITHER party in over 60 years.

I love that - "important position." It's kind of like the whole "commander-in-chief threshold" argument: create criteria by which your opponent should be judged, using your own tests or definitions for the criteria.

Posted by Jennifer | March 11, 2008 2:37 PM

you really think Harvard Law made Obama editor of the review because he was black? Why didn't they do it earlier with some other black guy, then?

I didn't say that he made editor of the review because he was black, although undoubtedly it played a part. (Harvard took away the purely academic nature of the appointment in the 70s or early 80s precisely because the school was eager to get more minority editors.)

But regardless of the reason for his selection, the fact that he was black is what led to the huge flurry of national coverage. His status as "first black HLR editor" led directly to his book deal.

Beyond that, he did nothing of note. Check the NY Times. There's no mention of Obama before his HLR appointment, and then there's no mention of him again until 2002 (actually, I think there was a brief mention in a political note when he ran for Palmer's seat, but just his name).

if I'm not mistaken there are plenty members of the Illinois legislature who aren't black

Sure. But not from the 13th Legislative district. I'm not sure how long it has been since the representative needed to be black to play, but it's been at least 15 years.

Also, the Republicans seem convinced Obama would be harder to beat in the general than Clinton. You think they are wrong in assessing their own self-interest, there?

I am a Republican, technically (registered). But yes, I think if the Republicans are seriously arguing that Obama is the tougher candidate, then they are delusional. I've said this for a while. Here's my reasoning.

No, Obama *is* special: a first-rate orator, smart as hell, and able to assemble and manage a campaign organization that has performed miracles in fund-raising and ground organization.

This is simply nonsense. His whole candidacy is the Axelrod's creation. He did the deal first with Patrick; all he was looking for was a well-spoken black man who had no major history to overcome and a lot of ambition. Obama has no strong ideas of his own. One thing everyone has said about him since the beginning is that they never remember him taking a strong stand on any issue. He's just a very nicelooking, well-spoken megaphone to spout standard liberal truisms.

His campaign is not committing any miracles of organization in the caucuses, either. Liberals just like caucuses.

Posted by Cal | March 11, 2008 2:41 PM

The Clinton Inc juggernaut is taking water at a furious pace---and it appears the lifeboats will be lowered soon as Ferraro demonstrates again that the Clinton team is more disorganized than Obama's, much more so.

Samantha Power mentioned the personal attribute that nearly half the electorate shares to one degree or another---Germaine Greer said it best in "bossy" and "cold." "Monster" may be an exaggeration, but not by much.

Whereas Ferraro plays the race card, which trumps mere character assassination in the weird world of American politics. Ferraro should be fired.
Right away. Tout de suite. Now.

Between her and Steinem, too many emanations from over-the-hill feminists have slurred the HRC message, such as it is.

Posted by daveinboca | March 11, 2008 2:43 PM

I love that - "important position." It's kind of like the whole "commander-in-chief threshold" argument: create criteria by which your opponent should be judged, using your own tests or definitions for the criteria.

So concern about a candidate's ability to be Commander-in-Chief is a criterion fabricated by the Clinton campaign? Very revealing of the Obama voter mindset. National security is for rednecks! We just want the guy who makes us feel good!

I originally wrote "high office", but then I decided that "Supreme Allied Commander" is not exactly an "office" as conventionally-understood so I chose a different wording. Maybe I am off-base and Obama really has more relevant experience than Eisenhower, Jennifer? Good luck with that argument in November.

Posted by Vito Marzullo | March 11, 2008 2:48 PM

Ferraro totally got on the 84 ticket regardless of the fact that she's a woman. LOL
That said, when are they dropping her from the campaign? "We disagree with her comments" is pretty thin gruel. The real question is, do they denounce, reject or denounce AND reject?

Posted by John | March 11, 2008 2:51 PM

"Are you sure you want to cite 24 and Deep Impact as indicative of "widespread clamoring for a black president?"

By themselves, no. Clearly the widespread enthusiasm for a potential Powell presidency is better evidence of the desire of a lot of Americans for an intelligent, well-spoken president. The producers of Deep Impact and, later, 24 were responding to that. That their casting choices were mostly considered unremarkable is evidence of the widespread acceptance of the idea of having an intelligent, well-spoke president. It's worth noting, too, that in both 24 and Deep Impact, the presidents are essentially written as post-racial, similar to the way Obama has positioned himself. They weren't dopplegangers for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

"As for Ferraro's "resentment and frustration," why do you assume this is incompatible with -as opposed to indicative of- her bigotry?"

Because I don't assume someone is a bigot without any evidence of it. Ferraro has been in the public eye for decades. I'm not aware of any credible accusation before this that she was a bigot.

Posted by Fred | March 11, 2008 2:57 PM

So Vito - you're arguing that "First Lady" is a high office? Clinton supporters simply have no leg to stand on when attacking Obama's inexperience. If Clinton wins, all you've done is help McCain make the case against HRC. HRC has no record of meaningful individual accomplishment since Law School - nothing. She hasn't written anything, she hasn't led anything, she hasn't sponsored any meaningful legislation, she hasn't organized anything. She would be, by a wide margin, the least accomplished candidate ever nominated. It boggles the mind that HRC supporters think this line of attack makes sense - Hilary is not Bill, however much you want to believe the contrary.

Posted by vanya | March 11, 2008 3:00 PM

Ferraro's remarks are consistent with the hostorical antipathy Italian-Americans have had towards African-Americans. And it certainly isn't surprising that Matt would see merit with this line of attack: Jews typically foment divisions in society to advance their own nefarious goals.

Posted by Great White Snark | March 11, 2008 3:04 PM

Cal:

I think if the Republicans are seriously arguing that Obama is the tougher candidate, then they are delusional. I've said this for a while. Here's my reasoning.

I read your article. It's a lengthier version of what I'd expect based on your posts here: mostly a hash of your weird obsession with the importance of white Democrats and your unsupported speculation that people who voted against Obama in the primary won't vote for him in the general. But hey, maybe Republican strategists don't know as much as you.

Posted by Denton | March 11, 2008 3:04 PM

I read your article. It's a lengthier version of what I'd expect based on your posts here: mostly a hash of your weird obsession with the importance of white Democrats and your unsupported speculation that people who voted against Obama in the primary won't vote for him in the general. But hey, maybe Republican strategists don't know as much as you.

And notice how they quickly invalidate Obama constituencies while never acknowledging they'd be losing by a whole lot more than they are without old white women and gay men.

Posted by Face The Music | March 11, 2008 3:14 PM

It is possible that Obama doens't get into Punahou, Columbia or Harvard Law if he is not black. 27 old Obama was a good student, 20 year old Obama not so much.

He didn't become the president of the law review because he was black but because he was seen as a moderate who would at least listen to the conservative students.

Obama's base is affluent, white liberals and has been since he entered politics. Go read the articles about his campaign versus Bobby Rush.
Much of the African-American community isn't voting for Obama, they are voting for the first black person who has a chance at being president. (Same is true for many women and Clinton)

Posted by points | March 11, 2008 3:17 PM

Beyond that, he did nothing of note. Check the NY Times. There's no mention of Obama before his HLR appointment, and then there's no mention of him again until 2002 (actually, I think there was a brief mention in a political note when he ran for Palmer's seat, but just his name).

I think it's hardly unusual for a currently prominent American politician to go unmentioned in the New York Times until they are in their late 20s. Did the Times cover Eliot Spitzer's bar mitzvah? Trent Lott's first cross burning? Mike Huckabee's days as Elmer Gantry, Jr? Silly criticism.

I agree with those who have said that 1) Geraldine Ferraro, of all people, doesn't get to make this argument, and 2) especially not on behalf of Hillary Clinton, whose path to being the frontrunner for a party's presidential nomination was easier than anyone's I can think of other than George W. Bush.

Posted by ChuckE | March 11, 2008 3:17 PM

So concern about a candidate's ability to be Commander-in-Chief is a criterion fabricated by the Clinton campaign? Very revealing of the Obama voter mindset. National security is for rednecks! We just want the guy who makes us feel good!

Uh, where did I say that "a candidate's ability to be commander-in-chief is a criterion fabricated by the Clinton campaign?" I absolutely think that the ability to be commander-in-chief is something voters should look at. What I said, put more bluntly, is that this "commander-in-chief threshold" line of Clinton's is a bunch of hogwash. What/where is this magical threshold of which she speaks? Only she knows, and that was my point: she created the test, and only she (and her supporters, I guess) get to decide who has passed it.

Here is my commander-in-chief test (just to show that it is important to me): I want a commander-in-chief whose history demonstrates that he/she won't, as a matter of political expediency, vote to authorize unnecessary wars that distract from real and immediate threats to our national security. Our best information about Obama is that he would pass this test. Our best information about Clinton is that she failed this test.

Posted by Jennifer | March 11, 2008 3:21 PM

Geraldine Ferarro is the one making this argument? Really? Geraldine Ferarro?

Posted by jbryan | March 11, 2008 3:21 PM

So many stupid memes, so little time.

Maybe I can kill one at least.

Obama graduated HLS magna cum laude. That puts him in about the top 10% of the class. Exams are anonymous and you don't list your race on your blue book. So, you can take your implication that he was an affirmative action appointment and stuff it.

Also, he was not merely an editor of the Review, he was elected editor in chief. That means 70 or so of the most intelligent, highly competitive people at a school chock full of intelligent, highly competitive people chose him as their leader. Trust me -- no-one in that group stood aside, and gave up his or her own chance at the ultimate academic prize they had all been working for, just to make an affirmative action statement.

Posted by agent zero | March 11, 2008 3:22 PM

I call on Hillary Clinton to withdraw from the race.

This is the straw that has broken the camel's back. We've been treated with this horse manure for over 90 days now. Enough is enough. This is all because Candidate Clinton is flawed and untalented, and has no message.

Seriously. Enough. I've had it.

Posted by Gregor | March 11, 2008 3:23 PM

I think it's hardly unusual for a currently prominent American politician to go unmentioned in the New York Times until they are in their late 20s.

He made HLR in his late 20s. In the 90s, he was in his 30s. His book didn't even get an NY Timew review.

In contrast, Clinton's mentions in the NY Times go back to 1984. She was a governor's wife, but testifying before the Senate on health care.

He didn't become the president of the law review because he was black but because he was seen as a moderate who would at least listen to the conservative students.

Mostly true, but I'd say that the conservatives were who put him "over the top". I suspect that he was in contention because he was a promising black candidate. That said, I reiterate that I was not claiming he got the job because he was black. He got the national coverage and the book deal because he was black.

Posted by Cal | March 11, 2008 3:26 PM

Cal should apply for a job with these folks.

Posted by southpaw | March 11, 2008 3:40 PM

"One thing everyone has said about him since the beginning is that they never remember him taking a strong stand on any issue. "

Absolute 100% rubbish. He managed to get
legislation through the Illinois senate to guarantee videotaping of criminal interrogations, ensuring that there wouldn't be any more forced confessions. By all accounts that was both very hard to do, in the face of the powerful police lobby; and not motivated by vote-grabbing considerations, because standing up for criminal defendants is generally unpopular. And apparently he didn't do it by posturing or bloviating (maybe that's what you mean by "taking a strong stand"), but by long and patient negotiation and give-and-take. Good stuff all round.

"His campaign is not committing any miracles of organization in the caucuses, either. Liberals just like caucuses."

And suddenly, just by coincidence, those caucuses are getting swamped by 4x or 8x more people than ever before, most of them Obama supporters, and many from the young age group that usually has low turnout. Well, if Obama isn't doing anyth