Geraldine Ferraro was previously best known as the first female VP candidate. Now she is gaining international notoriety for her comments about Barrack Obama.
Her comments were as follows:
“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.”
From a practical standpoint, this was not exactly the most prudent thing she could have said. Given her involvement in the Clinton campaign and her status in the Democratic party, such a remark does not help the Democrats.
But, what is not imprudent need not also be untrue. Before deciding whether the claim is true or not, what she said has to be sorted out somewhat.
In terms of the logic, she is making the following claims:
1. If Obama was a white man, then he would not be in the position he occupies.
2. If Obama were a woman (any color), then he would not be in the position he occupies.
What she is obviously claiming is that Obama occupies the position he does because he is both black and male. So, if he lacked those traits but was (presumably) otherwise the same (however that would work) then he would not be where he is now.
Testing this claim would be rather challenging because it involves speculation on what might be-always a matter fraught with peril. But, a reasonable assessment can be made in certain particular areas, such as voting behavior.
Suppose that Barrack was white. Would people still vote for him in the same numbers? Some pundits have suggested that people are voting for him simply because he is black. Obviously, being black is not sufficient to get such votes. If that were true, then any black person would have the same number of votes as Obama. This is clearly not the case. Just imagine, for example, if OJ Simpson declared his bid for the nomination. Other, more careful thinkers, have claimed that his being black, combined with his other qualities, is what has enabled his success.
I know that some people support him in part because he is black. This is because these people have made this claim and I infer they are not lying about this. Of course, I also know that some people are supporting Hillary because she is a woman and also because she is Bill’s wife. In the case of McCain, I know that some people support him because he is neither black nor a woman (nor Bill Clinton’s wife). But, few people are claiming that Hillary is only where she is because she is a woman and even fewer people claim McCain is where he is solely on being a white male (although some will consider this a relevant factor).
The important question is whether Obama being black is the primary causal factor in his being where he is now. In short, once all the other factors (personality, intelligence, drive, charisma, competence, ideas, etc.) are accounted for, will one primary factor remain-namely his being a black man (or perhaps that should be seen as two factors)?
On one hand, there is reason to think this. Obama is young (he’s about my age, so he is obviously a young guy), has limited experience in politics, and has only occupied one major office (senator). In comparison with most other serious candidates it can be argued that he falls short in the traditional standards. The three traditional standards he does meet are that he is male, tall, and has money. Hence, it might be concluded, his being a black is the primary causal factor. It could be further added that his being male is also a major factor since that is one of the traditional standards.
On the other hand, there are good reasons to think that Obama’s success is not primarily dependent on his color and gender. He is clearly intelligent, motivated, charismatic, persuasive, likable, principled and offers a new perspective in politics (one that is not still caught in the mentality of the 1960s). These factors are not dependent on race and gender. If these factors are the secret of his success, than Ferraro’s claim is mistaken.
Naturally enough, it might be wondered why she made such a claim. One possibility is that she is trying to help Hillary by attacking Obama. Another possibility is that she honestly thinks that he is not qualified for the job and hence is trying to protect America. Some have suggested that she is racist, but that seems unlikely given her background.
Hillary and Bill Clinton have made a significant issue about how the press is treating Hillary unfairly in their hyper-critical reporting on her and their “softball” reporting on Barak Obama. Hillary maintains she has been fully investigated by the media and Barak hasn’t! As the Tony Rezko trial begins in Chicago, Clinton and her surrogates are linking Obama to Rezko and the media is speculating about whether Obama will be called to testify as a witness in the case. Obama has always admitted he received $85,000 in contributions from Rezko which Obama has now donated to charity rather than keep. Yet the civil fraud trial of Bill Clinton for defrauduing Hillary’s largest donor in 2000 into giving her campaign more than $1.2 million, pending in Los Angeles courts since 2003, is now preparing for a November, 2008 trial. The discovery that is now proceeding after a February 21 hearing, and the pending trial, have NEVER been announced by the mainstream media. Hillary was able to extricate herself as a co-defendant in the case in January, 2008 after years of appeals to be protected by the First Amendment from tort claims arising out of federal campaign solicitations she made. Her abuse of the intent of California’s anti-SLAPP law after the California Supreme Court refused to dismiss her from the case in 2004 is emblematic of her contempt for the Rule of Law. Hillary will be called as a witness in both discovery and the trial according to the trial court Judge who so-advised Hillary’s attorney David Kendall when he dismissed Hillary as a co-defendant in 2007. A subpoena is being prepared this month and will be served personally on Hillary, along with Chelsea, Pa Gov. Ed Rendell, Al Gore and other well known political and media figures. Yet the media has refused to report about this landmark civil fraud case- brought by Hillary’s biggest 2000 donor to her Senate race, regarding allegations that were corroborated by the Department of Justice in the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director David Rosen in May, 2005. That indictment and trial was credited as resulting from the civil suit’s allegations by Peter Paul, the Hollywood dot com millionaire Bill Clinton convinced to donate more than $1.2 million (according to the DOJ prosecutors and the FBI) to Hillary’s Senate campaign as part of a post White House business deal with Bill. The media – except for World Net Daily- has also suspiciously refused to report on Hillary’s last FEC report regarding her 2000 Senate campaign, filed in January 30, 2006. In a secret settlement of an FEC complaint by the plaintiff in Paul v Clinton, Peter Paul, the FEC fined Hillary’s campaign $35,000 for hiding more than $720,000 in donations from Paul, and it required Hillary’s campaign to file a 4th amended FEC report. In that report Hillary and her campaign again hid Paul’s $1.2 million contribution to her campaign and falsely attributed $250,000 as being donated by Paul’s partner, Spider Man creator Stan Lee, who swore in a video taped deposition he never gave Hillary or her campaign any money. Lee did testify to trading $100,000 checks with Paul to make it appear he gave $100,000 to Hillary’s campaign (admission of a felony) but none of that has been reported by the “overly critical” media! Where is the outrage from Obama that the press is engaging in a double standard relating to his possible role in the Rezko trial and his refunding the $85,000 contributed to his campaign by Rezko- which Obama has always admitted taking. The media makes no mention of Hillary’s role as a witness in Bill’s fraud trial for defrauding Hillary’s largest donor- and Hillary’s refusal to refund the $1.2 million she illegally received from Paul, which she has denied taking from Paul ever since the Washington Post asked her about Paul and his felony convictions from the 1970’s before her first Senate election in 2000? Visit Hillcap.org for videos and info.
It’s not the secret, but it is a factor. The Democrat agenda seems forever linked to class, gender and race.
She is partially right. If he were a white man with the message he has and the ability to inspire people with his speeches and without the name Barack Hussein Obama he would already be the nominee of his party and the Clintons would already have exited the race.
If he were a white man with three years experience as a senator, espousing socialist legislation and floundering on questions concerning international relations, he’d be spoken of exactly as he is: A man with a too-thin resume, wanting America to fall for the same failing policies that have weakened Europe to the point of disgrace, and possessing a stunning naivite’.
Europe is weak? The last time I checked the Euro is STRONGER than the dollar and my wife, along with millions of Americans, is clamoring to vacation in Europe. The last time I checked we’re $9+ trillion in debt and unfortunately, despite my voting for Republicans in the past because they were going to “cut spending”, an unfortunate lie, that is dragging us way down. Combined with our trade deficit, thanks NAFTA, I’m not sure how much longer we’re going to be a power in this world. We seriously need to change direction and our choice is another Clinton, another Republican saying the same old things that’s been said since Reagan, or take a chance on Barack Obama. I’m willing to take the chance and NOT because he’s black.
I think Magus71 is claiming that Europe is morally and socially weak as opposed to being weak in its currency. The dollar is falling against the Euro, but this does not entail that Europe is stronger than America in other ways.
Debt is not a measure of economic strength. For instance, if one person makes 100 dollars in one week and has 1000 dollars debt, and another makes 1000 dollars in one week and has 2000 dollars debt, the latter is still in a better situation.
Just because people want to vacation in Europe does not mean it’s a better place to live. Germany has had double-digit unemployment for over a decade. If there was double-digit unemployment here in America for one year, people would go nuts. People also vacation in Mexico quite often and China as well. Plus, I hear Egypt is nice with the pyramids and all….
Also, the measure of the Euro against the Dollar is only one of very many factors when one is measuring strength of economies, and the measurements being compared in Europe vs. the US is not really fair; Europe is many countries, composed of approx. 1.5 times the number of people as America, which is one country.
The decline of Europe has been considerably more precipitous than American decline. In almost every measurable way, Europe lags behind. Unemployment is terrible by Western standards, socially and morally, we’re seeing calamitous (in my opinion) decisions in the Netherlands and Britain regarding an encroaching Sharia Law, and acceptable moral practices. People hate it whenever someone tries to “define” their morality for them, but that won’t keep me from discussing the issue, because our morality was what made the West different from the rest of the world.
Oh yeah, and Europe has an extremely weak military, tax rates that surpass ours, higher gas prices (like 5 bucks a gallon since 1995). But hey, they get to see doctors for free. They need to, because they don’t have much money to begin with….
But I digress (yet again). Being black helps Obama.
Considering HRC was the “inevitable” candidate just a few months ago, Ferraro is clearly bitter. If being a black male is such a benefit, then why wasn’t he the obvious choice way back in 2007 when candidacy announcements were being made?
To answer this question you have to look at the swing demographic – oddly enough, white men. Who are these voters supporting and why? If they are young and educated – they support Obama (on average). If they are older and uneducated – they support HRC (on average). So maybe Obama’s appeal lies more in those factors (age/education level) than in gender or race.