Spencer Ackerman on Geraldine Ferraro's Claim that Blacks Are Such Lucky Duckies

I hope Ferraro is freelancing. I really do.

Here is Ackerman:

toohotfortnr: lucky lucky oh you're so lucky: Often times, I think to myself: God, I'm so disadvantaged by not being black in America! It's like you can't even find work in the media as a Jew these days. Everywhere you go, the country just yields more and more African-Americans in positions of power, prestige and responsibility and builds prisons and blighted schools and substandard levees for white people.

Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro agrees. Via Markos:

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.

Some people -- or, rather, peoples -- have all the luck!

Comments

[christofay]

Ferraro is from Staten Island?

[jerry]

""If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "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." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler."

Sigh, Yes Professor DeLong, the world will not be right until we all bow before the gods of political correctness.

First, let's note: you quoted Ackerman who quoted Kos who quoted the DailyBreeze who quoted these three sentences of Ferraro. None of you have bothered to see if she said anything else that might help the context.

Second, let's note another pithy comment in regard to Kos' post:

"Comment by slatersan:
She's half right
If he were a white man...
the race would be over...
and he'd be the nominee.
"

Yes, because John Edwards and Chris Dodd and Joe Biden were not known for their experience, speechmaking, or Leadership in the Senate.

Do you even remember Dodd's clock? Showing how Clinton and Obama got far more attention at the debates than anyone else?

Why was that? Was it because Clinton and Obama were far and away clearly teh most qualified?

Or was it because given the context of THIS election, Clinton being a woman, and Obama being black were in fact lucky, lucky to have the press' attention, lucky to being the first realistically possible female and African American contenders, and lucky frankly, to be running opposite another historical first (Clinton in Obama's case and Obama in Clinton's case) thereby making the horse race aspect of the primaries just that much more fun for the press.

Claiming that Ferraro is implying that Obama is lucky to be black and having to show us all that you and Ackerman know more about African American rates of incarceration than Ferraro does not demonstrate either your intelligence, fairness, or your research abilities.

Frankly, this post, more than many others, makes me question your whole entire "Can't we get a better press corp" as well as any other posts of yours in which I generally grant you a: DeLong may be biased, but we are all biased, but he's sharp as a whip, and generally intellectually honest.

This post of yours, but especially Ackerman's post and Kos' post are shameful and show that our vaunted left blogosphere can take quotes out of context and smear other people with the best of the right wing wingnuts.

In the meantime I am happy to know a Harvard educated white economist living behind the Caldecott Tunnel knows more and cares more about African American rates of incarceration than Geraldine Ferraro, Representative, VP Candidate, and ambassador to the UN Committee on Human Rights.

Why o why can't we get better academics?

[gz]

This comes up a lot. People don't like Obama. So they claim he only gets attention because he's black. Then back it up by comparing him to rather uninspiring white politicians like Dodd or Biden. I like both in many ways--Dodd was my first choice this year--but neither exactly captivates an audience when they go on and on. I mean, Biden can be witty on the fly, but he certainly earned the 'windbag' epithet.

Edwards is a reasonable comparison--very inexperienced (arguably more so than Obama, with no pre-Senatorial political experience) but very charismatic, good looking, and telegenic. And taken seriously when he decided, after serving under a term, to run for president. He dropped out, not because he was ignored by the press, but because voters didn't go for him.

Or Schwarzenegger, who had serious people muttering about how unfair it was that naturalized citizens couldn't run for president. Despite accomplishing absolutely nothing before his election, and almost nothing afterwards.

Yes, charisma is so intangible that it's tough to explain it when someone you don't like gets a lot of (undeserved?) respect. But it happens to both blacks and whites, men and women.

Though when recipient is a black or a woman, at least there's an out: Just attribute the attention to political correctness and accuse everyone who supports the person of being a mindless drone. I just wish I had a rhetorical trick like that to deal with those who still takes Schwarzenegger seriously.

[jerry]

So gz, you're saying that at the debates both Clinton and Obama came away with the majority of the time because of their strong credentials and it had nothing to do with one being a woman and one being an African American?

Since you apparently don't think there is such a force as political correctness, can you help me understand why Brad DeLong and other academics need tenure?

[Richard Cownie]

Obama got taken seriously because he raised money. A lot of money. A great big pile
of money. Hillary got taken seriously because she raised money. And how did they
each raise money ? Obama built an organization to reach over 1M individual donors, and
used his charisma and rhetorical gift to get them on board. Hillary used the network
built by her husband, together with her position as Senator of a rich state.

It's not all about money, but money is a large part of the game. And Obama has played
that game phenomenally, awesomely, brilliantly well. A heck of a lot better than, say,
Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson ever did. Better than Sen Clinton. Better than anybody
ever in the history of the USA, of any color or gender.

Will those talents carry through to making him a great president ? I don't know: but
we're going to find out. And either Ferraro is too stupid to see that Obama is
doing something remarkable, or else - probably - she's just carrying water for the
Clinton team.

[Marc]

Partisans hit a critical stage where there is nothing that there team does which they cannot defend. Jerry - sorry mate, but you're well past that bend. The Clinton team appears to be attempting to emulate republican tactcs - without realizing that they actually need Obama partisans in the general election. Obama is my third choice (after Gore and Edwards), so I'm hardly a fanatic. But I simply dislike, with growing intensity, the win-at-any-costs attitude of the Clinton team. And the fact that they seem determined to repeat the most damaging mistakes of the Kerry effort (e.g. only a handful of states matter, triangulate, etc. etc.) hardly gives me comfort that they'd do well in the general.

If being black was such a huge electoral advantage one might think that we'd have a laundry list of successful national black politicians - governors, senators, presidents. We don't. Think about that a bit before you spout off about Political Correctness; there is such a thing as Intellectual Dishonesty.

[Barbara]

Geraldine Ferraro should know better. It's possible that all of the following are true: Obama is awesomely smart and talented and there are some people who vote for him primarily because he is black. Just as it is possible that Hillary Clinton is awesomely smart and talented and there are some people who vote for her primarily because she is female.

But to say that he only got where he got because he is black is just wrong on its face, just as it would be wrong to say that Hillary Clinton never received any advantage from having name recognition as first lady.

And for Corvid: assuming that everything you said might be true (certainly, I agree that much of it is), how does it follow, exactly, that white liberals not not vote for the black guy?

[ogmb]

"First, let's note: you quoted Ackerman who quoted Kos who quoted the DailyBreeze who quoted these three sentences of Ferraro. None of you have bothered to see if she said anything else that might help the context."

So obviously you did and couldn't come up with anything, or you would have offered a substantive rebuttal rather than this limpdicked accusation. Fwiw, the full context from Dailybreeze doesn't do anything to change the implication that Obama is lucky to be a negro but Clinton is unlucky to be a woman:

http://www.dailybreeze.com/lifeandculture/ci_8489268

When the subject turned to Obama, Clinton's rival for the Democratic Party nomination, Ferraro's comments took on a decidedly bitter edge.

"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "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." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.

"I was reading an article that said young Republicans are out there campaigning for Obama because they believe he's going to be able to put an end to partisanship," Ferraro said, clearly annoyed. "Dear God! Anyone that has worked in the Congress knows that for over 200 years this country has had partisanship - that's the way our country is."

[kaleidescope]

Blacks make up, roughly, three times the percentage of US population that Jews do. Yet, for example, both senators from Wisconsin and both senators from California are Jewish. Obama is the only black US senator.

That's not to take anything from senators Feingold, Kohl, Feinstein and Boxer. But it does kinda make you think.

[Richard Cownie]

Let's also note that Ferraro was a pretty third-rate pol: she tried twice to get
a Senate seat, and couldn't win the Dem primary either time in spite of high
name recognition from her VP run. Whereas Obama got a Senate seat by a handy
margin on his first try. I'm sure Ferraro would like to believe that she's just
as talented as Obama, and that his greater success in politics is due to luck
or skin color. But it just ain't so. Would we pay much attention to a failed
golfer complaining that Tiger Woods got where he is because of his race ? It's
a feeble argument with a flavor of sour grapes.

[rea]

"Schwarzenegger . . . despite accomplishing absolutely nothing before his election . . ."

How can you say that? Terminator, Predator, Kindergarden Cop, Twins, Last Action Hero, Conan, Red Sonja . . .

[djw]

I wonder how many of our first 43 presidents owe their successful political careers and ability to become president, in no small part, to their whiteness? I'm going to go ahead and say all of them.

Richard Cownie's got it here; Obama is a remarkably skilled politician, who has put together an objectively very impressive campaign from a political standpoint on all fronts--fundraising, organization, strategy, etc. He was never my first choice and I've got serious doubts about him, but one can't help but stand in awe of his political skills. There are reasons to respect and admire Ferraro, but her political skills ain't one of them. If belittling and minimizing the skills and accomplishments of successful and talented black men on racial grounds is political correctness run amock, sign me up.

[jerry]

Limpdicked? Partisan? Yeouch! Such venom from the neutral Obama non-partisans!

And the Daily Breeze makes my point crystal clear. Ferarro says nothing to make anyone think she is speaking about anything other than Obama's position in the uh, race (for the nomination.)

And I'm partisan? Wow, you've been drinking directly from Rove's font haven't you? How many times have I at this blog excoriated both candidates for their lackluster candidacy? Throwing away a perfect opportunity to LEAD, lead against the war, lead against wiretapping, lead against our civil rights violations? How many times have I said BOTH candidates are lucky to be here, and are only here for superficial reasons? And that if EITHER of them had bothered respecting the American people in the past 18 months, or in their senate career before then, NEITHER would be in a tie right now.

Obama and Clinton are tied, because most normal, non-blog-reading voters knows a single thing either has done, and that's the candidates fault for running cowardly campaigns based solely on their gender, race, and various charms.

"Whereas Obama got a Senate seat by a handy margin on his first try. "

Against Alan Keyes, who came in with less than three months to go from way out of town to run against him. Against Alan Keyes who at the time told people that Jesus Christ would not vote for Obama.

Yes, he won handily against Alan Keyes. And your point is?

All of you folks pointing out African American incarceration rates, do any of you know the slightest thing about where Obama grew up? What he says himself about his upbringing? He describes it as middle class, and says that in Hawaii he was able to grow up and experience a variety of cultures in a climate of mutual respect. And from Hawaii he went to Occidental which is in a nice part of Los Angeles (or was, I haven't driven through that area since 1985). It's just down the road from Glendale (Valley Girl Galleria) and Pasadena (Cal Tech). And from there to Harvard.

It's completely shoddy nonsense for either DeLong or Ackerman to bring up African American incarceration rates.

And it's this over the bend partisan who has said here many times that if/when Clinton goes I will happily, or almost happily pick up the baton for Obama. You don't hear me talking about not voting for Obama, or how Obama's misogyny is tearing down the party. Or how I can't vote for Obama because of how he has given the Republicans perfect talking points to tear down SSI to be used against Hillary OR Obama.

(note to djw: giving you the benefit of the doubt due to where you blog from, does that last sentence of yours even make sense to you?)

Yes, he's black and yes, he's experience racism. But

[kharris]

If being black were the only source of Obama's luck, there'd be a big jam-up at the door into the Democratic convention. Obama was lucky, but we may need to work harder to identify the source of his luck. It wasn't his racial origins that caused his predecessor in the Senate to get into a nasty divorce that led to scandalous headlines. If that seat had remained encumbered by the baseball star, Obama would not have been available to show his stuff at the convention. Obama's speaking ability is probably not entirely the result of luck, but luck had a hand in getting him the speaking spot. Maybe race did, too.

It is hard, however, to see why being black is suddenly politically lucky after more than two centuries (OK, more) during which it was not. If being black is working in Obama's favor, it certainly is working against him, too.

Being born to educated parents probably hasn't done me any harm, but I rarely have to defend myself against the accusation that my position in life is due to the good luck of educated parents.

[jerry]

Obama IS a good speaker. He's a great speaker. Some of that is genetic -- his vocal quality and his raw intelligence -- much of that is hard work -- his time at Occidental, and at Harvard, and in lecturing as a Constitutional Law Professor. And some of that is intelligent borrowing and learning: his speech writer has discussed how he studied the speeches of JFK, MLK, and RFK to get inspiration.

His impressive speaking ability actually says something different as well, why are our current politicians such poor speakers? This wasn't always the case.

Linguist Geoffrey Nunberg, has written about this, but I can't find the specific article of his. Nevertheless, if you google "geoffrey nunberg john kennedy" up you can find lots of other people talking about Nunberg and his claim that basically television killed the modern orator and what is needed to take that place. There are also lots of good articles out there about why Obama is so effective, and he is, and we should demand all of our politicians read this stuff.

[Richard Cownie]

"Yes, he won handily against Alan Keyes. And your point is?"

My point is first, that Obama got a Dem nomination for Senate - which Ferraro
twice tried and failed to do. And then he won. For sure, he had some luck,
as his first opponent self-destructed and his second was a clown. But neither
of those occurrences had anything to do with Obama's skin color. And winning
is winning; losing is losing. You might think it's a fluke that he got to the
Senate. But then how do you explain his massive fundraising and his successes
in winning more states and more delegates than HRC, in spite of starting with
less money and less name recognition ? People who manage to win repeatedly in
tough competitions are usually doing something right. It isn't a fluke that
Tiger Woods wins way more than anyone else in golf; it's a stretch to suggest
that Obama's repeated successes (a 17-point win in Wisconsin ? winning the delegate
count in Texas against a 20-point poll deficit a few weeks earlier ?) are just
luck or affirmative action.

He's doing something - a lot of things - spectacularly right. Admit that; accept it;
learn from it. Or else keep on losing and whining.

[jerry]

"Whining" is another sign you`re neutral and trying to keep this a conversation, right? And that you`re not some crazed partisan? Or is whining a way to shut down and stifle dialogue that you`re afraid to have?

I won`t bother to explain either candidate`s successes. Near as I can tell, it`s pretty much a dead heat within the bounds of significance. And as I`ve said, that`s their own fault, because both have run gutless campaigns based on charisma rather than on proven leadership. If you want the explanations there are bloggers that love that stuff and will tell you all about the differences between the states, the rules, the popular votes.

I`ve said all along that both candidates are well qualified, and both are gutless, and I don`t expect too much different from either when they get in the Whitehouse.

I`m not going to call either one a leader. Call me back when one of them in their senatorial seat starts a filibuster or produces an impeachment bill. And both are incredibly lucky candidates who have gotten where they are in the race on the virtue mainly on the fact one is the first "realistic woman candidate" and the other is the first "realistic African American candidate". Kudos to them both, they have worked hard to become "realistic" candidates, but let`s not guild the lily.

[Ralph]

My admiration for Geraldine Ferraro which was formed by her brilliant campaign as Mondale's running mate has been shattered by her asinine remarks about Obama. Contrary to Ferraro's belief that Obama benefits from his race, I had qualms that the country was not ready for an African-American presidential candidate at this time. Obama is clearly a very talented and intelligent politician whose candidacy has energized a new generation of young people of all races. I am still surprised at Obama's meteoric rise in this tough campaign which is only halfway through.

[Ralph]

Obama did not go to Harvard after leaving Occidental (a very good liberal arts college in LA). He matriculated at Columiba where he finished an undergraduate degree.

[Richard Cownie]

""Whining" is another sign you`re neutral and trying to keep this a conversation, right? And that you`re not some crazed partisan? Or is whining a way to shut down and stifle dialogue that you`re afraid to have?"

I don't what else to call the ridiculous stuff I'm hearing from HRC supporters the
last few weeks. I mean, come on: HRC had a whole network of fundraisers and staff
and advisers handed to her by a popular ex-President, she's a Senator in a very
rich and very Dem state, she has universal name recognition and has raised an enormous
pile of money. All that in spite of having zero executive experience and no
substantial legislative achievements: I'll cut her some slack on that because the
Republicans are blocking everything, but still, her campaign theme of "experience"
has a pretty thin basis. She had a bunch of advantages which looked insuperable
until the voting started: and then Obama got ahead in the delegate count on day 1
and he's stayed ahead in the delegate count ever since. Team Obama is kicking ass
in the business of raising money and winning elections. That *has* to mean something.
And all the stuff about "caucuses don't count" and "small states don't count" and
"Texas doesn't count because it's complicated" and "states with lots of blacks
don't count" ? Give me a f*cking break. It's an embarrassment. Figure out what
the rules of the game are; figure out how to win delegates; get organized; win some
damn caucuses if that's where the delegates are.

And then heck, the stuff about "McCain has passed the commander-in-chief threshold".
It's over the line and short-sighted: even if HRC pulls off a miracle and wins
the nomination, she's just promised to give McCain - a huge warmonger - a free
ride.

I'm really not a crazed Obama partisan: I favored Edwards to start with because he
put forward the best policies and seemed to be serious about working to ameliorate
poverty in the richest country in the world. But the last couple of weeks has made
me pretty strongly anti-HRC, because her campaign has been chaotic and incompetent,
and she shouldn't be praising the Republican nominee.

[Ken Houghton]

The Clinton campaign has repudiated Ferraro's comments, and will not be using her going forward.

I wait patiently for the posting from publius or Abu Aardvark (later to be mirrored on Egregious Moderation) about how it's horrible that HRC has to be deprived of counsel from the only woman actually to compete in a National Presidential Election.

But I won't try to hold my breath, or expect to see this any time before The Huckabee States are Raptured.