Tuesday, March 11, 2008

What’s Up With Ferraro?

Is it a Clinton gender and race based targeted strategy to polarize white voters in Pennsylvania along racial lines against Obama? Geraldine Ferraro continues to use inflammatory talking points about Obama, saying he would not be viable today if he were not black. She refuses to retract her statement even digging her heels in when the comments were widely condemned. Saying that the Obama campaign was attacking her only because she was "white".

The Clinton campaign at first tried to distance themselves from the remarks. But late today the Clinton campaign once again used the Obama campaign’s criticism of the remarks to attack him. Could it be a subliminal signal to older white women that they are now being attacked by black men?

Thus one would surmise that the Clinton campaign in defending Ferraro and standing by her remarks that emphasis his race as a issue rather then his politics are doing it for a purpose. But for what purpose?

Most voters, I would argue, thought that one of the appealing things about Obama’s candidacy was that he somehow transcended race. Not according to the original queen of gender politics herself Ferraro. Who apparently, even after all these years, still has a difficult time looking passed peoples gender or race? Ferraro represents one of the stereotype Clinton supporter groups, being a fifty plus year old feminist who see everything through a gender prism as if it were still 1968. Ferrarro was picked to run as the Vice President candidate in 1984 with Walter Mondale. Specifically because of her sex. Mondale and Ferrarro carried one state, Minnesota. I think that outcome said loads about using gender to further your political aims.

The question at hand is what are Clinton, and Ferraro as her surrogate, up to here as it relates to the nomination. Could it be that knowing the demographics of Pennsylvania that they know that race is very much an issue in this mostly white (88%) working class conservative leaning state? James Carville a Clinton strategist described Pennsylvania this way, “Philadelphia in the East and Pittsburgh in the West, with (white) Alabama in the middle”. Clinton needs a huge victory in Pennsylvania to argue that she should win the nomination. Apparently she is not beyond playing the race card, with the usual plausible denial, to win no matter what damage if ultimately does to the Democratic Party in November.

Just another normal day in the life of the Clintons.

1 comment:

  1. I wish I could say this is as sad as it can get, but Hillary Clinton, in her blind ambition to win, and without regard or respect for any sense of fairness, consistency, or honor, and in spite of any real and lasting damage she is inflicting on the Democratic party has condoned some major damage to our Country itself. And now the senseless, hurtful, damaging and polarizing turn in her campaign toward our fellow Americans whose skin color is dark, playing on the deep seated fears of those who do or don't know any better, this will be a turning point that America will have to make a choice: do we condone this conduct by Clinton and her campaign and continue to vote for her, or do we stop rewarding this behavior by not voting for her? If she is rewarded for this, we will surely see more of it, and I, for one, can't stomach much more of this type of hateful devicive politics, she is starting to make George Bush look good, this is a very sad day for our country, I hope the message comes thru that most of this great country of America does not think this way, God help us all.