Ferraro, Race, Gender, Potpourri
Geraldine Ferraro’s back in the news, which is bad news for Camp Clinton.
“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.”
There are, of course, parts of her response that are not included in the media’s quote selection. I believe she’s partly attempting to describe (albeit extremely poorly) the fact that ideas about gender and politics are still very stagnant. Let’s look for example at the headline that The Daily Breeze used in its Ferraro piece:
Geraldine Ferraro lets her emotions do the talking
Do we think that would have been the headline if she had been a man?
So, after some kerfluffle between the two campaigns, Ferraro went back to talk to The Daily Breeze. And, the new quote everyone’s talking about:
“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up,” Ferraro said. “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”
This one can’t be defended quite as much - she was one stronger ground with the gender arguments.
Look, I’m no fan of Ferraro, but, differently worded (especially without the ‘I’m white’ bit), she’s not that far off.
It seems to me - from the hundreds of bookmarks tagged ‘HRC’ and ‘gender’ that I’ve collected over the last few months - that the media treats the issue of gender far differently from that of race.
Not that Obama is getting a free pass because he’s African-American, but that it’s far more acceptable to hit hard on gender than race. For instance, everyone thinks the ‘Hussein’ jabs are slimy (they are), but there’s been far less outcry about the constant discussion (not to mention derision) of Clinton’s appearance. Both of these things are used to undermine the fitness of the candidates to serve as president, yet they are not viewed as equally bad.
American attitudes as they are, the media can’t touch Obama with a ten-foot pole on issues of race. (Remember how well those “is he black enough?” stories went over?) But no one seems to complain about stories questioning HRC’s femininity (or lack thereof), her tearing up (and does this ‘humanize’ her enough to be president or does it hurt her?), and a host of other issues all tied to her gender.
I have no way to test this empirically, but it seems that the media is confronted with two spectacular stories: the first female and the first African-American viable candidates. Since they aren’t allowed to play with the latter, they’re having a field day with the first.
If she loses, Camp Clinton is going to try to spin it as media attacks that lost her the primaries. It won’t be – it’ll be the shoddy campaign she’s put together and the ‘help’ of frenemies like Ferraro.
But there’s no question in my mind that the media is far more willing to throw around gendered terms and stories than ones concerning race. Even if they get spit back in their faces – like some of the comments Chris Matthews has made – the backlash is way less than it’d be if they were racial. It’s the difference between, ‘Booo! You’re a bastard’ and ‘Well, that’s not very nice, is it?’
Ugg, rereading those two quotes it does sound like Ferraro’s just like, ‘Everyone loves him because he’s black.’ But I think she was trying to make a larger point concerning gender and HRC’s experience in the media.
(But… confidential to Hillary Clinton: you need to take her aside and make her stop harming you).
Update: TPM has video of Ferraro on FoxNews tonight. They say she didn’t do Clinton any favors. I think it’s pretty neutral; she makes some good points and then offers to raise money for Obama should he be the nominee… and then threatens him.
Sphere: Related Content
March 13th, 2008 at 3:44 am
It sounds like you’re rationalizing that two wrongs here make a right. Does unfair treatment by the media towards Hillary excuse Ferraro’s comment?
Even if she’s making a counterpoint on attitudes, it is still a racist statement when she suggests that the reason why people support an experienced senator and harvard constitutional law graduate’s president is his blackness.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:52 am
No, not at all. The way she’s put it is completely wrong.
But by that token, look at the reaction to her comments about gender. She’s said repeatedly, and also in that Fox clip, that she never would have been on the ‘84 ticket if her name had been Gerald Ferraro.
She says, “I was only on the ticket because I was a woman” and everyone’s like, “well, yeah, that’s true” without missing a beat.
I think - in the larger statements, not just the two money quotes - that she’s trying to talk about the attitudes of the media. I think Obama is a great senator and will make a great president. But I do think that the media is much more careful about how they handle him regarding race, than they do Clinton regarding gender.
And that has been to his advantage. Do I think it’s why he might win the nomination? No.
Perhaps I’m just reading into Ferraro’s comments what I think she’s trying to say, rather than what she is saying. Maybe I’m just hoping that she’s not going to wash the legacy of the only woman (so far) to actually be on a presidential ticket straight down the toilet.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I certainly don’t think you can seriously discuss the Obama ‘phenomenon’ without touching on race and gender. That isn’t meant to undermine any of his qualifications but I think it unavoidably contributes to how the media have constructed his story. Just as it is unavoidable that HRC’s gender makes up part of her story. And as you say, it remains acceptable to use a gender critically while, quite rightly, it is unacceptable to use race. So I guess it’s not really abotu Obama getting an easy ride because he’s African-American, so much as it is about HRC being given a harder time because of her gender. All that aside, you’d think by now it would have become clear that ANYTHING that could be interpreted as playing the ‘race card’ was going to be lept on by the press and Ferraro should have known better. Have there been any comments from the Obama camp that could be taken as sexist? I wonder what sort of reaction they would get…
March 14th, 2008 at 1:30 am
“Have there been any comments from the Obama camp that could be taken as sexist? I wonder what sort of reaction they would get”
An advisor of Obamas recently ‘resigned’ after calling hillary a Monster. They’ve been pretty militant about avoiding this kind of comment.
As far as Ferraro’s comments, she keeps stuffing that foot deeper into her mouth. Any original point she was trying to make has now been lost in the circus over her stubborn ‘not apologizing’ statement.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Yes, oh yes, it has. The ‘resignation letter’ was also completely ridiculous.
I watched Keith Olberman’s ‘Special Comment’ last night - his line about Clinton’s failure to distance herself from Ferraro as ‘a suicide pact’ was pretty spot on.
All she had to say was, “I feel terrible that some of my comments have been seen as racist, I was trying to…’
I’ve never seen someone refuse to diffuse a situation this much since… oh, since a vice-presidential candidate named Geraldine Ferraro spent eight days dooming her own 1984 campaign over a financial scandal she refused to talk about.