The truth in black and white: what many DUers don't seem to grasp

[onenote]

The discourse on GD-P not only is pathetically infantile at times, it also shows a level of understanding of the realities of politics (and the world) that would receive a grade of D- from any credible professor of political science. And this criticism applies both to Obama supporters and Hillary supporters.

First, let's start with the following hard fact: Obama has benefitted from his race. Among other things, in terms of the media, it distinguished him from other candidates. And because he didn't run a campaign based on identity politics, like Sharpton or Jackson, he appealed to many white voters, particularly younger voters. And the media helped create the perception (which has since become reality) that he was a credible candidate nothwithstanding his relative "newness" and his "blackness" -- indeed, both of those attributes were turned into assets by the way he conducted his campaign. But that is not to say that Obama's newness and his racial identity have been all positive for him. WHile those attributes are pluses for many voters, one or both are negatives in the eyes of other voters. Ultimately, what has allowed him to overcome the burdens of being "new" and "black" has been not merely that many voters are attracted to those attributes -- its that Obama is incredibly charismatic. If you ever met Bill Clinton, you know how powerful charisma -- and the ability to make a connection with people can be. Did Bill Clinton's charisma/personal charm win over everyone he met? Of course not. But it is well documented that people who were not inclined to like Bill Clinton very much more or less swooned for him after having a personal interaction with him.

Now, let's turn to Hillary. She too has both benefitted and suffered because she is (a) female and (b) a "not new" commodity. Many voters look at her gender as a plus. THat is undeniable. Many voters look at her experience, particularly her experience as part of the Clinton "team" as a plus. And others look at her experience and her gender as reasons not to support her. As for the press, while its not unfair to say that, as the putative frontrunner, she was held to a different standard that the underdog candidates chasing her -- the fact is that, in achieving her position as frontrunner, she was aided and abetted by the press. The press started speculating about a Clinton run for the WH from the day that Bill's presidency ended. Bill's presidency gave her the platform to be in the position to become a Senator from New York. No question about it and the press speculation about that being a stepping stone gave the idea that she might become president great credibility. Having the press talk about whether you might run for president two years after getting into the Senate (which is what the press did talk about in 2004) doesn't hurt in terms of the public's perception that you are indeed a serious contender for the job.

So, what you have is not a matter of black and white, but a complex set of facts and histories,with advantages and disadvantages accruing to various facets of those histories. And that's where Ferraro's comments are problematic. She said, and I quote, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." Maybe that's not exactly the same thing as saying "the ONLY reason Obama is doing as well as he's done is because he's black" but its no surprise that a great many people would hear it that way. After all, its far too close to comfort -- and Ferraro either knew or should have known this and been sensitive to it -- to the language of those who have opposed steps taken to create a more a equal society: comments, that we've all heard and disliked, such as " "if so and so was white he wouldn't have gotten that job" or "gotten into that college". Again, there is history at play here and one ignores it or downplays it at one's peril.

So its not a black and white world. Obama appeals to whites as well as blacks; Hillary appeals to men as well as women. They both are "in the position" that they are now in not because of, or in spite of, any one thing. And its the height of stupidity and arrogance when supporters of either candidate suggest otherwise.

[leftofcool]

1. I agree with this

[joeybee12]

2. They're reading too much into Ferraro's comments...the whole statement

was a more of a "right place, right time" sort of thing, but it was Obama who located her comments in an obscure LA paper, twisted them, and tried to play the race card right before Mississippi, which is what he did before South Carolina.

[onenote]

3. "They" are not reading too much into them. Ferraro knew/should've known what she was saying

would be received the way it was. It is undeniable that a commonly used argument by bigots in this country has been worded very similarly to the language that Ferraro used: "If was white, he wouldn't have gotten the job, the promotion, the college scholarship, etc etc] that he/she did." I'm not saying that Ferraro is a bigot -- just that she used language that she should have known was similar to the language of bigots and should not have gone there. My point is that by focusing on race, she made it sound like it was ONLY about race and she and you and I and everyone else needs to accept the fact -- undeniably true -- that Obama did not get to the position he has gotten ONLY because of his race. Once Ferraro dipped her toe into these waters, she should've been smart enough to make it clear that there are many factors -- including Obama's "newness" and his charisma that have gotten him into the position he is in now.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Patently absurd.

and a wee bit silly.

[onenote]

5. cogent analysis. Used up your entire vocabulary I see.