It has been deeply disturbing for me to listen to people either defend Geraldine Ferraro’s controversial comments about Barack Obama or try to spin what she said in a more positive way. I’m a big fan of Mary Berry but was disappointed to see her on CNN, not defend Ferraro, but try to take the middle road and argue that both campaigns were being disingenuous for not acknowledging race as an issue. This entirely confuses the issue of what Ferraro ACTUALLY said with what can be said about how race IS a factor in many respects (positive and negative). Ferraro made such statements several times. I have documented two before the brouhaha broke out after she was quoted from the March 7 issue of the Dailybreeze.com.
Prior to that I heard her on NPR’s Tom Ashbrook show "On Point" on Feb. 26. The intention and the context are unmistakable. Ferraro was trying to discredit Obama’s credentials. To paraphrase what she said pretty closely: if Obama were a woman he would not be a credible candidate. . .if they looked at his background they would say, you are kidding me. These comments appear in the last minute of a conversation about gender and the campaign. Katha Pollitt was also a guest, but I don’t think she had the opportunity to respond to this particular statement. (There is also an interesting exchange earlier in the program where Ferraro attacks a woman caller from a traditionally male union for her support of Obama.)
The next day, Feb. 27, Ferraro also said on John Gibson’s Fox TV show, again to paraphrase pretty close to a direct quote: If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this as a potential real problem for Hillary? If he were a woman of any color would he be in this position? After Gibson questioned whether she was playing the race card she responded by saying she was put on the ticket with Mondale as VP because she was a woman. This last statement has been used by some to excuse Ferraro's rant by suggesting that her intentions were not to attack Obama but to state “the facts.”
Let’s us say there is a big difference between being selected by one to be the VP nominee and being elected by the millions of people who have voted so far in the Democratic primaries.
Given her role as a fund raiser on Clinton’s campaign, it is hard to believe that these were but three instances. Moreover, the combination of the three incidents is symbolic of the palpable resentment and anger by many “second wave” white feminists who feel that Obama is “stealing” Clinton’s (and by substitution all women’s) thunder, getting in the way of her rightful ascendancy. There was an article in the Sunday NY Times about this conflict.
For a thoughtful piece in response to Ferraro see article by David Troutt.
If any of you missed the now famous “debate” between Gloria Steinem and Melissa Harris-Lacewell, on race and gender in the campaign see it here.
(Melissa, my colleague, is the best public spokesperson we have for those of us who are feminists for Obama, in my opinion. She also lived in Chicago during his term as state senator, so she knows quite a bit about his record. Besides, she is a scholar of American politics.)
Also check out Melissa’s exchange with Gloria Feldt, another “Feminist for HRC”, on Marty Moss-Coane’s show “Radio Times”.
No comments:
Post a Comment