Hmmm. Hate to say it, but perhaps it's time to consult Spike Lee?

"These old black politicians say, Ooh, Massuh Clinton was good to us, massuh hired a lot of us, massuh was good! Hoo!" -Spike Lee

Yeah, but I also remember thinking that a lot of that was going to disappear and as soon as I learned about Obama's Apollo Theater fundraiser with Chris Rock shame-out to African Americans(Obama is smart enough to let others play the race card for him), I was convinced of it.   That doesn't excuse the Clintons from playing the race card in a more objectionable manner, but the "Obama didn't have AA support early on" fact only goes so far.  Early polls in general are notoriously bad (just ask former President Dukakis).  

Also, what about Ferraro's other point, which nobody attacks because, I suspect, nobody disagrees with it.  If Obama was a woman "her" candidacy never would have got past New Hampshire.  America is ready for a black male dem nominee (and I think president), but not a black woman.  

I would hesitate to say that Bob Johnson shouldn't be strapped into a catapult and fired into the Chesapeake Bay.

Ferraro's comments were an intentionall attempt to foster racial resentment against Obama by making him into that young, good looking black man who always get the affirmative action hire (in some people's minds).

There's really no other reading of her comments that seems valid to me. If she had misspoken, then she would have apologized. But she stood behind them. She's clearly bitter that an "underqualified" black person is getting the job instead of the older white person. She also implied that Obama's candidacy is fueled by the guilt of white liberals who would foist the underqualified black man upon us against our will.

Remember: 58% of Democratic primary voters are women. 43% are white women. Meanwhile, 14% are African Americans. 6.5% are black men. Who is benefiting from identify politics more? The numbers don't lie.

lymon, your last point is interesting. A black woman may indeed face impossible odds right now.

But remember, we have run the experiment as to whether a white woman with very little governing experience can be a serious contender for a presidential nomination. Her name is Hillary Clinton, and in fact she did quite well. The problem is that we do not know whether a white female equivalent of Obama can succeed based on her own merits, as real Obama has had to, or whether a white female Obama can only succeed by coopting her husband's male establishment.

Are there other black Democrats who could be in a position to be taken seriously as presidential candidates today? Probably not, Doug Wilder being past his prime in so many ways. So we can't really say whether Obama's success is based more on any one factor other than his own talent. Certainly other white men of similar profile have come close to the Democratic nomination recently -- Edwards, for one -- so his race cannot be seen as some sort of decisive and unfair advantage.

But are there other women Democrats who could be in a position to be taken seriously as presidential candidates today, all else being equal? Yes. At least half a dozen Democratic women are, by any reasonable standard, more "qualified" for consideration than Hillary Clinton. The fact that Hillary, and not these other, superior women, stands so close to the nomination does tell us a depressing story of the disadvantages faced by women in political life. If the men who make up the political glass ceiling get together and give a lot of money to the wife of one of their own members, that's hardly a victory for feminism.

Lymon -

I'm not going to deny that Obama's campaign has exploited controversial statements to gin up more support in the black community. But they've mainly been reactive, not proactive. They've responded (effectively) to controversial statements. A few Obama surrogates have gone over board (the MLK/LBJ thing was silly). I think there was a real point to be made on that one that Hillary/Bill were arguing against hope and inspiration when they downplayed MLK. But the racial component mystified me (though some saw it as Hillary saying, "It's great to have these fiery black preachers/politicians to get people stirred up. But it's a white President (me) who can bring the country together and pass change." I mean...that's a bit of a stretch, but that's how many black people heard it...it wasn't how I heard it. I just thought HRC/BC were being arrogant about their own importance...she does that about every time she opens her mouth...

If the Ferraro comment is so incredibly incorrect, why was it reiterated, albeit in a veiled fashion, by the Obama supporter John Kerry?

Asked about his reasons for supporting Obama, Kerry stated he believed that the race of his preferred candidate had put him in a unique position to reach out to radical Islamists and bridge religious extremism in the world. Direct quote - It would be such an affirmation of who we say we are as a people if we can elect an African American president, a young leader who is obviously a visionary (...). It will give us an ability to talk to those countries, to in some cases go around their dictator leaders to the people and inspire the people in ways that we cannot otherwise.

(My apologies for the lack of quotation marks. That key on my keyboard is dysfunctional).

And the rationale for such immense powers Obama is purported to have? I give you Kerry again - Because he is African American. Because he is a black man, who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country.

So the chief point, one is inexorably driven to conclude, is that we should, among other reasons, vote for Obama because he is black while simultaneously sneering at those who point that fact out. Kerry and Ferraro somehow seem two sides of the same coin, with the only notable difference being that her words are not as much of a music to the ears of Obama supporters. For the record, I do not personally think that the argument Kerry makes is without merit. But I do object to the Obama campaign having it both ways and deriving advantage from his background while lashing out against those who dare to notice them doing so.

"But I do object to the Obama campaign having it both ways." But why would you object if you were a Democrat? The whole idea is to win, and if to win you have to game the system, then so be it. Hillary herself wanted to have it both ways, be the first woman but not running as the woman candidate, and on top of it she is piggybacking off her husband. If she weren't personally such a vile woman than she would have gamed the system right to the White House. I would have had no problem with it either, it is just that Hillary is just so irritating I could not ever vote for her. It has nothing to do with her sex or who she is married to.

jkolic:

Give me a break. There's a huge difference:

Kerry: "Vote for Obama because his race will allow him to repair our image overseas." (I don't agree with this statement, but there's the statement for you).

Ferraro (paraphrased): "Obama is only here because he's black. He's not qualified. He's being promoted over a white who is better qualified".

Kerry says Obama's race may help him as president. Ferraro says Obama's race is the reason why he's ahead in this primary.

There's a huge difference. Ferraro is a racist hag. Kerry is talking about our image abroad.

" For a long time Hillary was crushing him among black voters, many of whom were even more skeptical than whites that America would elect a black man president."

She has never crushed him among black voters.  He has gotten no less than 70% of the black vote in any primary (including Michigan, where 70% or so of blacks voted for uncommitted).

What you mean to say is that she was ahead of him in *polls* in the late fall. But you have no demonstrable evidence that he'd ever have lost the black vote, or even gotten less than 70%.

The idea that blacks would have ever voted for *other* than the black candidate in significant numbers remains entirely untested and likely untrue, given Jesse Jackson's record of 20 years earlier.

VC -- I don't disagree (with your post to me at least) in fact that's largely why I couldn't vote for Hillary though I think she'd make a better president.

Rhubs -- well, we've been here before, I don't think Hillary is that inexperienced at all.  She was a very involved senior policy advisor (not just health care but the seminal 1993 budget and other deals) who had a birds-eye view of the white house for 8 years, plus her time in the senate.  That's no Bill Richardson/Joe Biden, but it's still impressive, and surely a lot more impressive than being a young state senator under Emil Jones' authority with a couple of years in the senate.  I think Obama makes up for that with his great intelligence and, as this campaign has shown, quick study.  

Barack Obama is where he is in large part but not exclusively because he's black.  His racial heritage gives him both the Johnson-noted and Kerry-noted advantages.  You may find such statements provocative, but they're also true.

What is equally true is this:  If he were a half-term white Senator from Illinois presuming to run for President, he'd be laughed off the stage.

Before you all start calling me a racist, perhaps you should remember that I find Obama's candidacy lacking precisely BECAUSE there are wonderful, electable, and qualified African-Americans like Harold Ford who will lose out when Obama goes down in flames in November.

White elite liberals will attribute the loss to the racism of the "unwashed masses" rather than facing up to the fact that they nominated a woefully unqualified know-nothing whose candidacy was based on words read from teleprompters and a record that didn't remotely mesh with the rhetoric.

jmkerr, if I remember, Obama's black support only took way off after it was demonstrated in Iowa that he can attract large quantities of white support.  Before Iowa, Hillary was definitely beating him (at least in polls) among blacks.  Just because there were no contests before Iowa didn't mean the campaign started from scratch at Iowa.

"If he were a half-term white Senator from Illinois presuming to run for President, he'd be laughed off the stage."

It's really hard to address this hypothetical. But if he were a half-term white Senator who could raise the same amount of money and speak with the same amount of skill...and who could appeal to the same coalition of Democrats - professionals + working class (maybe he'd excite working class whites instead of working class blacks - think John Edwards), then yeah...

nturner - I don't think you're a racist.  But I urge you to look at these numbers:

58% of Democratic primary voters are women (43% are white women).

14% of Democratic primary voters are black (6.5% are black males).

Who has the advantage? Both historic candidacies appeal to wealthy white liberals' urge to be "historic". All things being equal, Hillary has a HUGE advantage. And yet, Obama has still beaten her almost everywhere....

"jmkerr, if I remember, Obama's black support only took way off after it was demonstrated in Iowa that he can attract large quantities of white support. "

In polls. Crowley is saying that black *voters* didn't support him, and there's no evidence for that. Polled support means nothing (for that matter, did the black people polled know Obama was black?).

"And yet, Obama has still beaten her almost everywhere...."

Oh, right. He's beaten her  among liberals and blacks. She's decimating him in every other demographic.

Jmkerr -

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but it's hard to really put down number for how he's doing amongst the different ideologies. He's been crushing her in the caucuses (mostly liberal activists), but in other states, she's won the democratic core voters and he's won the independents and Republicans. Only in the last 3 states have the Republicans started going for her (Limbaugh).

Blackton - I am, first and foremost, a liberal. A European-style one at that. As such, I do not necessarily consider Democratic party a fair reflection of my political viewpoints since they tend to be too moderate for my taste. Seeing that, however, Republicans definitely do not fit my idea of a political party I should like to see in charge, I am ultimately a Democrat, albeit by default.

You say that the necessity to win allows for the gaming of the system. Fair enough and I do not necessarily disagree. But if such is the case, why do Obama supporters take such issues with the so-called kitchen sink strategy employed by the Clinton campaign? (If you personally do not care whether or not she has borrowed a few tricks from the Rovian playbook feel free to ignore this question as it will not apply to you anyway). Moreover, if your only complaint with her is the low likeability quotient, I guess our discussion ends right there.

I confess to being somewhat curious to know how is it that you feel she has declined to run as a woman candidate. How exactly does a female contender for president run in such a fashion anyway? By championing the passage of the ERA? By making Gloria Steinem her chief strategist? By presenting the public with her very own gender manifesto?  What should she have done in order for you to see her as running like a woman candidate? I ask this without irony, to note. I would also like to know what she ought to have done to avoid being seen as piggybacking off of her husband. How was it possible for her to divorce herself from the popularity and fond regard enjoyed by Bill? It seems to me she was always going to win/lose points for her marriage with him regardless of how she handled her candidacy.

Virginiacentrist - no offense, but you ought to give me a break. How is it illogical to conclude that statements given by Kerry are meant to encourage the public to vote for Obama because he is black? You say he has addressed the American image abroad. I agree. But if he has done so in order to make a point that our image (and along with it, our influence/moral stature) will increase in the event that we elect an African-American, how can you deduce that he is not using the background of his preferred candidate to boost the public support for his presidential bid? If race is what helps Obama as a president, would it not be logical for voters to back him up over those that do not share that beneficial characteristic and would that not, in turn, put him ahead in the primaries?

And I really do not think Ferraro is racist. She may be politically incompetent and irrelevant but I highly doubt she deems the black race inferior to her own. The pejorative racist is thrown around all too easily these days. Pity, if you ask me.

Johnson is an embarrassing buffoon and an infamously exploitive businessman to boot - someone should make one quick phonecall to his BET network and find out how little he pays his mostly young black employees and how few, if any, benefits he gives them.  He's a truly rotten apple.

With his disgraceful sexual comments several months ago, he also disgraced and embarrassed his people.  

jkolic, the problem with the kitchen sink theory is that it makes both candidates far more likely to lose than otherwise. Surely you know Reagan's 11th commandment. Dean and Gephardt destroyed themselves 4 years ago in Iowa, essentially the kitchen sink approach is not gaming the system but burning it down, if the goal is to win having Hillary emerge with 30% approval ratings ain't the best approach, surely you agree with that.

I think you are right, running as a women's candidate means placing womens (or what is defined as women's) issues front and center. Hillary has not done that, hence she is not a women's candidate, but ostensibly a candidate for all Americans male and female. (just one I can't stand, like Rudy Guiliani). As to her piggybacking off of Bill, obviously she would probably be just a Lawyer somewhere, unheard of, if she married a non-politician. Maybe she might have worked her way up to Congress, but who knows. I think it is fair to say Bill carried her to the starting line with her starting position a quarter of the way there (the millions of dollars, the superdelegates who declared early), but it is up to her to run the rest of the race. If she had done a good job she would have won, but she didn't. Relying on your opponent to self-destruct is not the best campaign strategy.

Honestly, if she couldn't knock out a black, one term Senator, with the bizarre name of Barack Hussein Obama than she has bigger issues than her supporters acknowledge. Maybe she can win if McCain changes his name to Tojo Stalin McHitler, but I (ahem) doubt he will.

"If he were a half-term white Senator from Illinois presuming to run for President, he'd be laughed off the stage."

Following upon VA centrists rebuttal of this, in 2004 John Edwards was a one-term Senator--with no prior elected office at any level--from North Carolina, and he was emphatically NOT laughed off the stage.  He came in a close second in Iowa, ran a serious campaign that got a lot of people listening, and then was given the VP nod.  

Are you aware that when Bill Clinton was running for pres, is received 70-85% of the Black Vote?  Did that make Bill Clinton the "Black Candidate"?  So why isn't Hilary Clinton getting tht same percent?  Ironically, it can be directly related to Bill Clinton and the rest of her surrogates.

Ya see the Clintons made the fatal mistake that some white people always make in regards to black people, just because you "hang with the brothas" doesnt' mean your are a "brotha".  It's the idea that "my black friends ...all the time", so why can't I.  What they may say amongst their black friends make not be okay to others.  Contrary to conventional wisdom, black people aren't all sharing a brain.  The Clintons should not have taken the "black vote" for granted.

TheSo don't take the black vote for granted.

wow, my earlier post certainly had some typing/grammatical errors.  next time i'll spell check

Aeoromas,

Obama started thinking about running after a year and a half...  And he did so with great fanfare from the beginning.  

Nothing even remotely similar applies to John Edwards who ran after five years, who lost considerably, who was never adored by the press, who only appeared on the ticket as a southern antidote to the windsurfing Kerry.  

Blackton

Thanks for responding. I do understand your point about drawing the line between having it both ways and using kitchen sink strategies throughout a presidential campaign - even if I do personally think that the content/intent related to whatever negative advertising Clinton campaign engaged in has been judged too harshly. I must also confess that I tend to find negative advertising highly effective, albeit distasteful, Reagan commandments notwithstanding. But I do see merits in your point.

Given that we agree on how a woman candidate would have to run in order to be perceived as such, I am sure you agree that she chose wisely when she opted against such a method. None but liberal feminist women would have voted for her and she would have been laughed off stage as early as Iowa.

Finally, I think you do a certain amount of disservice to Obama when you say that the only reason he did not lose to her stemmed from the fact that she ran a shitty campaign. From the very beginning, he has shown an ample dosage of charisma - something that, I believe, she had not expected and could not quite deal with, given her own deficiencies in that particular department. Charisma, meaningless a concept as it is to me, does count for a lot in politics. So I hope you see what I mean when I say that that particular asset helps a great deal in explaining why he turned from an underdog into a frontrunner, without much of a missstep on her end. I really think she would have had a far easier of a time had she faced a McCain - like opponent. Then again, given her current standing, it is highly unlikely that this thesis of mine will be tested any time soon.

Hillary did make a major misstep jkolic - she took the nomination for granted and didn't bother to do the work in the caucus states, thereby giving Obama the momentum to take off.  That is 100% Hillary's fault.

As far as charisma not mattering to you - I take it you voted for Jerry Brown over Bill Clinton in the 1991 primaries?

jmkerr, I will concede that poll results don't translate automatically into votes (New Hampshire anyone?), but they usually do a better job at measuring support among different communities than, say, guesswork.  It's almost like you're saying that because Iowa was the first contest where we can have actual results, than the race started there.  It didn't.  The polls beforehand are imperfect, but they reflect actual views of people who are planning to vote ("voters.")

But if polls are unreliable, one could also point to the support Hillary was getting among the black political establishment before Obama proved he could win.  All metrics point to Obama overcoming a deficit to Hillary in black support before Iowa, even though there was no way to measure the votes of people who hadn't voted yet.  Pollsters are paid and trained to predict support before the fact, just like meteorologists are paid and trained to predict the weather before the fact.  Even though they can be wrong, if every local weatherman says it's going to rain on Monday, I'm going to take an umbrella to work, because more often than not, they're right.

Oh, and your earlier statement that "The idea that blacks would have ever voted for *other* than the black candidate in significant numbers remains entirely untested and likely untrue, given Jesse Jackson's record of 20 years earlier."  Um...I seem to remember someone named Carol running for the Democratic nomination about four years ago.  Her campaign took off because of overwhelming black support.

Wandreycer1 - No, I do think that she made missteps (Jesse Jackson comparisons spouted by Bill come to mind). My larger point was that Obama gained momentum independently of her missteps, thanks to an ability to project charisma, make fine speeches and run an effective campaign of his own. As an Obama supporter, you surely do not mind agreeing that his current position is more so, or at least as much as, a result of his own advantages  than of her flaws, do you?

As far as 1991 primary goes - I was not old enough to vote in it nor did I live here at the time. (I was actually still in my home country, in the midst of the brutal war accompanying the breakup of Yugoslavia, so you can imagine I had far more pressing concerns than Democratic primaries in U.S.A.). But yes, I am by and large immune to charisma. I support Hillary over Obama. Do you really require any more evidence that charisma does not really matter to me?