Still Waters

Former New York congresswoman and vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro created a firestorm with her comments about current Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama. During a newspaper interview in late February, Ms Ferraro said, “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 that he’s in? Absolutely not.”[i]

Her comments are similar to the remarks former Detroit Piston Hall of Fame guard and current failure as team president and coach of the New York Knicks Isiah Thomas made about Boston Celtic great Larry Bird. After a heroic game winning play by the legendary Larry Bird, Thomas said, “I think Larry is a very, very good basketball player. He’s an exceptional talent, but I have to agree with Rodman. If he were black, he’d be just another good guy.”[ii]

During an interview the following day, Ms Ferraro said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. 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.”[iii]

It is considered rude in polite society to pass judgment on anyone’s personal appearance, but if Senator Obama was a woman, he would be an ugly transsexual.

It is ironic that at this point in the campaign Barack Obama is lucky to be a black man running for president. He was not considered black enough in the beginning of the campaign. However, Senator Obama is very fortunate to be running for president of the United States of America at this point in our history because Americans in the 21st century are so enlightened and are free of intolerance, bigotry and racism.

Just ask the factually challenged commentator for Fox News (using the word News in its most diluted context) Bill O’Reilly who was fortunate to have dinner with Reverend Al Sharpton at the famous restaurant Sylvia’s in Harlem in September 2007.

Mr. O’Reilly was amazed African Americans had good manners. On his widely syndicated radio show he said, “I could not get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it was run by blacks, primarily black patronage… There wasn’t one person screaming, ‘M-fer, I want more ice tea.’ You know, I mean everyone was – it was like going to an Italian restaurant in an all white suburb in the sense people were sitting there, and they were all ordering and having fun. And there wasn’t any kind of craziness at all.”[iv] Black people acting civilized in a restaurant, who would have ever believed that was possible. Makes you wonder if O’Reilly was aware black people discovered the diverse, practical applications of fire.

Unfortunately for Ms Ferraro, she was branded a racist for her comments. However, Ms Ferraro did not retract her statements and did not apologize. Instead, she defended her statements in another series of interviews. The former candidate for vice president said, “The spin on the words has been that somehow I was addressing his qualifications. I was not. I was celebrating the fact that the black community in this country has come out with pride in his historic candidacy and has shown itself in the polls. You’d think he’d say, yes, thank you for doing that. That is the kind of thing that we want to say thank you to the community. Instead, I’m charged with being a racist.”[v]

A white Obama would not be considered a viable candidate, but his skin color and exotic name makes him a feasible candidate. Senator Obama and his supporters should be ashamed of themselves. They are ungrateful because they did not thank Ms Ferraro for pointing out the Illinois Senator is the token black candidate in the Democratic Party.

Asked if she regretted making the statements about Senator Obama, Ms Ferraro said, “Absolutely not. I have to tell you, my concern has been over how I’ve been treated as well. And I’m hurt, absolutely hurt by how they have taken this thing, spun it to imply that in any way I’m racist.”[vi]

Granted, her remarks are not as sophisticated as presidential puppeteer Karl Rove who in a column for the Wall Street Journal wrote Senator Obama’s “trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard.” Or that Senator Obama “is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn’t know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through.”[vii] A black man who is a lazy, basketball-playing, hustler. I’m surprised Rove did not include in his brilliant observations that Senator Obama was a Colt 45 swilling, watermelon and fried chicken eating, weed smoking, street hustler trying to steal the Democratic nomination from an older white woman.

And it’s not like it ever happened before, for example in 1988 when Ms Ferraro mentioned, “Because of his radical views, if Jesse Jackson were not black, he would not be in the race.”[viii]

In another interview, Ms Ferraro said, “Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist. I will not be discriminated against because I’m white. If they think they’re going to shut up Geraldine Ferraro with that kind of stuff, they don’t know me.”[ix]

It is a sad day in America when a white person is not allowed to speak freely and elaborately express their opinions about black people without fear of the consequences or repercussions.

Let’s get technical about the term racism before analyzing Ms Ferraro’s ridiculous statements regarding Senator Obama’s good fortune of being a black man with a funny name running for president in the United States. Racism is a codified policy of discrimination against minorities like apartheid in South Africa, or the infamous Jim Crow laws in the south.

Ms Ferraro is not advocating that Senator Obama should not be allowed to run for president because he is black. In addition, she is not arguing people should not vote for Senator Obama because he is black. Ms Ferraro does not have the power to deny Senator Obama the Democratic nomination for president because he is black. On that basis, she is not a racist.

But she is a bigot. Ms Ferraro believes the reason Senator Obama’s campaign has thrived is because he is black. Ms Ferraro statements about Barack Obama can be interpreted to mean he is not qualified to be president.

Ms Ferraro’s statement, (“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position), is dangerously similar to the same statement former Los Angeles Dodgers vice president in charge of player personnel Al Campanis said during an interview with Ted Koppel on Nightline in April, 1987. Mr. Campanis answered the reason there were no black managers, general managers, or black owners because “I truly believe that they may not have some of the necessities to be, let’s say, a field manager or perhaps a general manager.”[x]

Trapped by his bigoted remark, Mr. Campanis attempted to extricate himself by saying, “Well, I don’t say all of them, but certainly they are short. How many quarterbacks do you have, how many pitchers do you have, that are black?”[xi]

Later on in the interview, Mr. Campanis said, “Why are black men or black people not good swimmers? Because they don’t have buoyancy.”[xii]

In Ms Ferraro’s defense, she never said Senator Obama could not float or swim. However, a white Barack Obama would not be considered a quality candidate. The white Obama would not have defeated Senator Clinton in 27 contests.

When she said, “He happens to be very lucky to be who he is and the country is caught up in the concept,” Ms Ferraro sounds like overbearing conservative talk show host and make-believe football analyst Rush Limbaugh when in October 2003 he made a comment about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb. “What we have here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well – black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he did not deserve.”[xiii]

Limbaugh injected his two favorite topics in his football analysis: “Affirmative Action and Liberal Media Bias.” McNabb is an NFL quarterback due to affirmative action and the liberal media elite is rooting for the unqualified black quarterback to succeed in order to alleviate the white man’s guilt over slavery.

Through her histrionics, Ms Ferraro is blaming the media for not being tough with Senator Obama because of the fear of being accused of racism. The media is over compensating its coverage of Senator Obama by not asking hard questions, and not vetting him to the public. As a Clinton supporter, she shares the same frustrations as the Clinton campaign, witnessing a virtual unknown walking away with the presidential nomination. Both are looking for someone to blame, someone to scapegoat for Senator Clinton’s failure to capture the Democratic nomination. Ms Ferraro and Ms Clinton have focused on the media.

Ms Ferraro could have made the same argument without mentioning race. She could have said, “He’s young, he’s new, he’s exciting, he’s a great public speaker and people, especially young people, are caught up in the excitement, but Senator Obama’s supporters are not focusing on his inexperience. He’s been in the Senate for only two years, and that is not enough of a track record for a presidential candidate, especially in this very important election with so many important issues the country is facing.” There’s the argument against Senator Obama, and race was not mentioned.

Or Ms Ferraro could have mentioned Senator Obama’s race in the argument without sounding negative. Simply interject in the previous paragraph, “And the country is really excited about electing the first African American as president, but we should not let our excitement cloud our judgment about Senator Obama because he is inexperienced. In this election, our country needs to elect a president with more experience, and I believe Senator Clinton’s experience is greater than Senator Obama’s.”

Ms Ferraro’s comments instantly reminded me of a monologue from the exceptional police drama Homicide. In the episode “Colors,” a Turkish student was drunk and wearing KISS makeup. He mistakenly thought he was at the address of a KISS theme party. A white homeowner killed the Turkish student who would not leave.

The great actor Andre Braugher confronts his partner in the Baltimore Police Department who is the cousin of the white homeowner. He says, “Your cousin’s racism is so deep, so much a part of him that he did not get a chance to think about what he was doing. Jim is worse than a Klansman because at least in their white sheets they are recognizable, but your cousin’s brand of bigotry is much more frightening because like still waters, it runs deep. He doesn’t even see it himself.”[xiv]

Ms Ferraro’s bigotry runs so deep that she is unable to recognize it. Senator Obama has run a race neutral presidential campaign, but unfortunately Ms Ferraro can only see is a black man running for president, and that is truly sad.

Maybe that is the real threat of an Obama campaign for president. Our dirty little secrets, fears, insecurities and hatred will be exposed and on display for the whole world to see. Deep inside we know the still waters of racism run very deep, but we do not want anyone else to see it. Otherwise, the rest of the world will see us for what we really are, nothing but a backward people, backwater country hicks with nuclear weapons.



[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[ii] Josh Levin, “Follow That Bird,” December 12, 2005.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[iv] Media Matters for America, “O’Reilly Surprised There Was No Difference Between Harlem Restaurant and Other New York Restaurants,” September 21, 2007.
[v] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[vi] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[vii] Karl Rove, “Why Hillary Won,” The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2008.
[viii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[ix] Katherine Q Seelye and Julie Bosman, “Ferraro’s Obama Remarks Become Talk of Campaign,” New York Times, March 12, 2008.
[x] Murray Chass, “Campanis Is Out; Racial Remarks Cited By Dodgers,” New York Times, April 9, 1987.
[xi] Murray Chass, “Campanis Is Out; Racial Remarks Cited By Dodgers,” New York Times, April 9, 1987.
[xii] Murray Chass, “Campanis Is Out; Racial Remarks Cited By Dodgers,” New York Times, April 9, 1987.
[xiii] Richard Sandomir, “Limbaugh Resigns From ESPN’s NFL Show,” New York Times, October 2, 2003.
[xiv] Homicide, “Colors,” April 28, 1995.

Lady McClinton

With each passing day, Senator Hillary Clinton is clearly demonstrating characteristics that make her unfit to be president. It’s not just that she refused to admit (at least until the 20th Democratic Presidential debate) that she made a mistake in voting for the authorization to invade Iraq in 2002.

Or that Senator Clinton deliberately misrepresented the Levin Amendment in order to justify her vote authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq.

Or that she reneged on her promise not to campaign in Michigan and Florida because the disobedient states ignored the rules of the Democratic National Committee and scheduled their primaries earlier than New Hampshire.

However, after losing primaries and caucuses in several “insignificant” states, Senator Clinton needed to change the narrative of her struggling presidential campaign. She included victories in Michigan (she was the only Democratic candidate on the ballot) and Florida to pad her primary victories resume. Senator Clinton is demanding the delegates from both states be seated at the Democratic National Convention, which would potentially increase her pledged delegate totals.

After ending her losing streak at 12 by winning the Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island primaries, Senator Clinton is arguing that the Democratic Party Superdelegates should correct the mistakes made by the delusional voters who were so overwhelmed by the charisma of Senator Barack Obama that they failed to notice the young Illinois Senator with the Middle Eastern middle name is virtually inexperienced for the demands of the presidency.

In an interview, Ms Clinton stated, “New challenges are being put to my opponent. Superdelegates are supposed to take all of that information on board and they’re supposed to be exercising the judgment that people would have exercised if this information… had been available several months ago.” Furthermore, Senator Clinton argues, “That is why we have Superdelegates. Superdelegates were put into this process about 35 or 36 years ago for a purpose. That’s the way the rules are… The voters have said by more than two to one, they want this to go on and they want it to go on they want to make sure we pick the nominee who is best able to win.”[i]

We pause this amusing essay at this time to point out another disingenuous remark by the Senator from New York.

Senator Clinton claims voters by a margin of more than two to one want the nominating process to continue. Senator Clinton won Ohio by 10%, and Texas by 4%, hardly a two to one margin. Her only convincing victory was in Rhode Island, but Rhode Island is a small, insignificant state according to her standard, therefore it does not count.

Furthermore, Senator Clinton’s victory in Texas may have been the result of mischief perpetrated by the Republican Party. Self-absorbed radio talk show host and recovering prescription drug addict Rush Limbaugh asked his listeners to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton. The Republican nomination process was settled. Senator John McCain won the nomination. According to the Limbaugh Effect, as described on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, eight percent of Senator Clinton popular vote consisted of Limbaugh listeners who followed the talk show host’s instructions.[ii]

We now return to “Lady McClinton” already in progress.

The Clinton campaign believes their success in March 4th primaries was due to a television commercial intended to scare Americans into believing Senator Obama is not qualified to answer an ominous telephone call at three o’clock in the morning, therefore he is not qualified to be Commander in Chief.

Another scare tactic was leaking to the media a picture of Senator Obama wearing traditional Somali clothes during a trip to Kenya in 2006. It was enough to make you wonder what type of phone call a black man with the middle name Hussein and dressed like that would receive at three o’clock in the morning.

Senator Clinton contends that being married to the Commander in Chief for eight years and traveling to 80 countries in the capacity as First Lady makes her eminently qualified to be Commander in Chief even though her trips around the world during the Clinton presidency were nothing more than “photo ops” and opportunities to have “tea and cookies in those countries.”[iii]

As First Lady, she did not negotiate treaties with foreign governments. Ms Clinton “did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crisis in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.”[iv]

Her most important official role during the Clinton Administration was when she fronted the healthcare initiative. To put this failure in perspective, Ms Clinton was unable to produce an acceptable universal healthcare package when the Democratic Party controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

It is only a matter a time before the Clinton campaign starts arguing that Chelsea Clinton, current First Lady Laura Bush, the President’s twin daughters Barbara and Jenna, and President Bush’s Scottish terrier Barney are more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Senator Obama. Unbeknownst to the public, First Pet Barney performs an invaluable role in the Bush Administration. President Bush has stated he will not withdraw from Iraq “even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.” In waging an unnecessary and fraudulent war, it is important for the president to have the unequivocal support of his pet. Furthermore, what better ally in the War on Terror than a Scottish terrier.

Senator Clinton argues that Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than her democratic rival. “I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the Commander in Chief threshold. And I believe I’ve done that, certainly Senator McCain has done that.”[v]

As a campaign development, her argument that Senator McCain is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Senator Obama is most alarming. Senator Clinton has given the Republican attack machine a gift, an argument that can undermine Senator Obama’s chances of becoming the next president. It is an argument that also disqualifies him for the vice presidency because Mr. Obama lacks experience. At a news conference, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said, “Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience. And Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002.”[vi]

Senator Clinton betrayed her own political party in order to further her own political career. Her kitchen sink strategy is predicated on diminishing and damaging Senator Obama, not to the voters, but to the Superdelegates. Senator Clinton has to prove to the Superdelegates that Senator Obama cannot win a general election against Senator McCain. This was considered “rat-fucking” during the Nixon presidency. It is also known as the “double cross.”

Senator Clinton cannot win the nomination based on pledged delegates. Senator Obama leads by a comfortable margin of 136 pledged delegates. She cannot win the nomination based on total number of states won during the primaries and caucuses. The Illinois Senator has won 27 contests through March 8, 2008. Ms Clinton has won 14 contests (not including Michigan and Florida). The ambitious Senator from New York may not win the popular vote. Her only alternative is to convince the Superdelegates that Senator Obama cannot win a general election.

To accomplish this goal, Senator Clinton has decided to wage a negative campaign against the young Senator from Illinois – including the argument that Senator McCain is more qualified to be president.

Senator Obama has two options to counter Ms Clinton’s kitchen sink strategy. First, he can counteract with a negative campaign against Senator Clinton, but at the risk of being called a fraud by Ms Clinton and the Mediacracy. Mr. Obama’s campaign is premised on being above the pettiness, nastiness and divisiveness of prior political campaigns. A negative campaign will damage his reputation and campaign narrative.

Second, Senator Obama continues running a positive campaign. Simply ignore Senator Clinton’s damaging attacks. However, Mr. Obama may be perceived as weak, thus reinforcing the perception that he is not tough enough to be president, a premise the Clinton campaign will present to the Superdelegates.

But there is a third option. Senator Obama can make an argument to the Superdelegates that Senator Clinton cannot be trusted. For all intents and purposes, Ms Clinton endorsed Senator McCain for president. If she turned against a fellow Democrat during the presidential campaign, then she is very capable of turning against other Democrats as president. As president, Ms Clinton may have a list of enemies in the Democratic Party who did not support her during the nominating process. Mr. Obama has to convince the Superdelegates that he would be an easier president to work with than Senator Clinton.

To the electorate, Senator Obama can make the following argument: Why are Senator Clinton and Senator McCain so determined from denying me the nomination? Mr. Obama can argue Ms Clinton is colluding with Mr. McCain to prevent him from becoming president. The old style of politics joined forces to keep him out of the White House. Old style politics depends on conflict, which will be the result of a Clinton or McCain presidency. Senator Obama can continue his campaign narrative of bringing a new era of politics.

Furthermore, the Illinois Senator should argue that the Republican Party would prefer to run against Senator Clinton because the Republicans believe she would be easier to defeat in the general election.

Also, Senator Obama can claim Senator Clinton does not value voter participation. Her campaign disparages Senator Obama’s victories in smaller states, calling these states insignificant. Senator Obama can argue Senator Clinton considers voters from small states insignificant. Can you, the voter, support a candidate who considers your vote insignificant?

In addition, Senator Clinton is attempting to nullify the will of the people by appealing to the Superdelegates, thus circumventing their votes.

Adopting this strategy will help Senator Obama’s candidacy because it reinforces his campaign narrative of inclusiveness, uniting the country, and providing hope for a better future.

As for ruthless Senator Clinton, the list of unappealing characteristics continues to grow. She voted for an unnecessary war. The Democratic Party needed a true leader to stop President Bush from launching an unnecessary war against Iraq. Instead, Ms Clinton misrepresented efforts by her colleagues to stop President Bush from launching the war with Iraq. She reneged on her word regarding the Michigan and Florida primaries. Ms Clinton wants to thwart the will of the voters by having the Superdelegates decide the nominee. The determined Senator betrayed her own party by practically endorsing the Republican nominee over Senator Obama. She is willing and able to fracture the Democratic Party in order to achieve her goal. Do we need any more proof Senator Clinton should not be the Democratic nominee?




[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 5, 2008.
[ii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 5, 2008.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.
[iv] Patrick Healy, “The Resume Factor: Those 2 Terms as First Lady,” The New York Times, December 26, 2007.
[v] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.
[vi] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.