Because she just cannot shut up:

Former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro said today that she objected to the comparison Sen. Barack Obama drew between her and his former pastor in his speech on race relations Tuesday.

In the speech, Obama sought to place the inflammatory remarks of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a broader context, in part by placing them on a continuum with Ferraro’s recent remark to the Daily Breeze that Obama is “lucky” to be black.

“To equate what I said with what this racist bigot has said from the pulpit is unbelievable,” Ferraro said today. “He gave a very good speech on race relations, but he did not address the fact that this man is up there spewing hatred.”

Ferraro, the only woman to ever run on a major party presidential ticket, sparked a controversy when she told the Breeze that “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.”

=================

Ferraro said she had “no clue” why Obama would include her in his speech, and said Obama’s association with Wright raises serious questions about his judgment.

“What this man is doing is he is spewing that stuff out to young people, and to younger people than Obama, and putting it in their heads that it’s OK to say `Goddamn America’ and it’s OK to beat up on white people,” she said. “You don’t preach that from the pulpit.”

Ferraro also said she could not understand why Obama had called out his own white grandmother for using racial stereotypes that had made him cringe.

“I could not believe that,” she said. “That’s my mother’s generation.”

I know, who could ever think women of that generation might just harbor a couple racist thoughts?  I mean my grandparents were terribly progressive when it came to race…. And my parents…</snark>

The thing is Ferraro leaves one of the biggest tells in her response:

 putting it in their heads that it’s OK to say `Goddamn America’ and it’s OK to beat up on white people,” she said. “You don’t preach that from the pulpit.”

One wonders where Wright said it was OK to beat up on white people since he’s long been an advocate of non-violence and even in the ‘hate’ filled sermon, there were no calls to violence.  But Ferraro heard that it was OK to beat up white people.

Fascinating.

The common theme is that somehow Wright was spewing racism. He wasn’t though and no one can point to a racist statement from the video clips. They are divisive in the notion that racism is worse than misogyny, but that’s not racist.

Pointing out the United States has a long history of racism, bigotry, and oppression of black people isn’t racism.   Saying God Damns America for its sins with racism isn’t racism.  Calling the United States of America the United States of the KKK is definitely divisive, but not racism.

He said some dumb things in his statements about AIDS, but that isn’t racism. It’s factually wrong.

No where does Wright suggest that whites are inferior to blacks or anything of the sort.  He says that whites have mistreated blacks in the United States.  That is true.  And most of his examples are true.

Even if someone makes a wrong statement when accusing someone of racism, that isn’t racism.  It might be stupid, it might be unethical, and it might be wrong, but it’s not racism.

And saying that it isn’t God Bless America, but God Damn America isn’t telling people it’s okay to say Goddamn America, it’s saying that the United States is a nation with sin on its hands and, in fact, the original sin of the United States has long been called racism and slavery.  The euphemism of the South was that it was a peculiar institution suggesting it was benign.  That is our original sin.

The problem with the clips of the sermon is that like many sermons, all the negative doesn’t tell us much about the whole meaning of the sermon.   With original sin also comes redemption and that is also what Wright preached for decades.

De Tocqueville wrote of the effects of slavery in the 19th Century:

The legislation of the Southern states with regard to slaves presents at the present day such unparalleled atrocities as suffice to show that the laws of humanity have been totally perverted, and to betray the desperate position of the community in which that legislation has been promulgated. The Americans of this portion of the Union have not, indeed, augmented the hardships of slavery; on the contrary, they have bettered the physical condition of the slaves. The only means by which the ancients maintained slavery were fetters and death; the Americans of the South of the Union have discovered more intellectual securities for the duration of their power. They have employed their despotism and their violence against the human mind. In antiquity precautions were taken to prevent the slave from breaking his chains; at the present day measures are adopted to deprive him even of the desire for freedom. 

The ancients kept the bodies of their slaves in bondage, but placed no restraint upon the mind and no check upon education; and they acted consistently with their established principle, since a natural termination of slavery then existed, and one day or other the slave might be set free and become the equal of his master. But the Americans of the South, who do not admit that the Negroes can ever be commingled with themselves, have forbidden them, under severe penalties, to be taught to read or write; and as they will not raise them to their own level, they sink them as nearly as possible to that of the brutes.

A French aristocrat from the 19th century would, in the same essay, predict the problem of freeing slaves in the American South to a degree current historians could only aspire to describe.

The practical effect of that system is what produces a very angry Jeremiah Wright who says God damns America for its sins towards our black citizens.  Anyone who honestly is Christian and thinks about this seriously should understand the context in which Wright speaks.  It’s not that America should be damned, but that without redemption, we are all damned.

Wright is not arguing for black superiority.  He is arguing for black equality and the redemption that comes with such equality.  It’s uncomfortable to hear, but it is not racism.  It is a clear-eyed look at an imperfect nation and its sins.

0 thoughts on “Fun With Ferraro”
  1. I read this on another blog and thought it was quite thought provoking. I know a couple of the references made are true. I have not fact checked all.

    In full – no corrections:

    Russ Says:
    March 20, 2008 at 9:35 am

    For those of you who do not understand some of the things that Rev. Wright said I would like to expound on a little for you (Jan). First let’s address the reference to aids, did you not remember the Tuskegee experiment where they gave black sharecroppers Phyllis and then had the audacity to tell them they were being treaded. Now in that instance would you think it possible? Now also take a report that came out a few years ago that there could be a cure for aids, but the drawback was that it only worked on people of African decent, as well as Latinos of African decent but not on whites and with that being said there was an outcry as too why it only worked on that group of people. The thing that gets me about this is that if it worked on the first group and not on the second could in be that this cure worked on the original strain and not on a mutated virus? In which case could this not be man made? Now I could go on and on as far as the dropping of the A-bomb on civilian targets as opposed to military ones, but hey and who knew they where ready to surrender prier too that anyway. And what about the overthrow of countless governments if they did not go the way we wanted, such as Iran back in 57 I think, and once again the list go’s on. And before I forget the CIA Contra drugs for guns, you remember it was on the news for all of a minute about the drugs the CIA was running into the inter cities like LA, oh and George H.W. Bush was the head man at the CIA

  2. And where, exactly, does Wright’s claim that the US government created AIDS in order to kill blacks. That may not be “racism,” per se, but it is definitely more than just “uncomfortable to hear,” and it is hardly a “clear-eyed look at an imperfect nation and its sins.” For a party and a movement that has spent the last 6 years decrying “fear-mongering,” where’s the outrage over such ridiculous and irresponsible statements that serve no other purpose than to gin up unfounded anger and racial tension?

  3. Ms Joanne, most of that is simply wrong. The AIDS virus has been traced back to the SIV virus in other primates genetically and several cross-over points are identified.

    Frankly, the US history with thugs is bad enough without having to invoke Bush I as head of the CIA.

    In terms of the AIDS virus, factually wrong as I said above.

    Acting bent out of shape about the AIDS line is a bit bizarre since he also mentioned Tuskegee. It is a conspiracy theory, but only that and one that is seen a lot differently in a community where both eugenics and STD experiments were conducted on the community. It’s not that far off from true conspiracy theories. Wright should know better and I believe he does.

    That said, while Ronald Reagan wouldn’t say AIDS out loud, Jeremiah Wright was creating one of the first HIV ministries in the black community.

  4. And let me add, now that you have me started, where is the outrage at Hagee and Parsley for being prosperity pimps. Jeremiah Wright said some true things and some dumb things, but he’s been working in his community to better it.

    Hagee and Parsley are prosperity pimps that tell the poor that if they give them money, the poor will do better. Last I heard Protestants did away with indulgences with Martin Luther and the Catholic Church did as well later.

    Yet, people are attacking the guy who is actually ministering and improving the lives of those in his community instead of taking from the poor. There’s something absurd in the outrage expressed here.

  5. Larry,

    I expect better from you.

    Look at the website for Cornerstone (Hagee’s church). They operate pastoral ministries for single parent families, sexual abuse survivors, addiction recovery, prisoner rehabilitation, and much more.

    I think it’s fair to say that Hagee and Wright are pretty similar: they both preach controversial messages (to say the least), but do some objective good with the large amounts of money they bring in from their congregants.

    Furthermore, I don’t think it’s “absurd” to be outraged by Wright while otherwise silent on Hagee. After all, there is no one running for President who looked to Hagee as their personal, spiritual advisor for 2 decades. Is there?

  6. ArchPundit, A.FUCKING.MEN

    (uhm, is there a joke in there somewhere?)

    As to the post I made above, I am not saying, nor does it say, that anyone manufactured AIDS. What it did, for me, was remind me about people being used as guinea pigs and what a healthy dose of loathing might go along with that.

    And then there’s this: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/12/20/sundown.towns.pdf

    And why do we think the older generation of black people have no right to be pissed off?

    Why should the old white boy network of religious kooks who insist you give them your money (have they called Oral Roberts home yet?) so they can buy multi-million dollar houses, uhm, I mean save your soul, get a pass? Which is exactly what has happened in the press. Wright’s incendiary words get 24/7 press yet Hagee, Parsley, Farwell, Robertson, et al, get a complete pass for saying homos and feminism caused 9/11, Katrina, etc.

    I am not a fan of religion but at least some people do take to Christ’s word of working with the poor, downtrodden, helpless, etc., while the vast majority, IMHO, do not.

    And all of the above…THAT is what totally pisses me off!

  7. ===I expect better from you.

    I expect better from you. Indulgences are a sin to Christians and that is exactly the bullshit Hagee and Parsley are selling with their pals Hinn, Copeland, Creflo Dollar, the Crouches, Joyce Meyer, Robert Tilton and more.

    ===I think it’s fair to say that Hagee and Wright are pretty similar: they both preach controversial messages (to say the least), but do some objective good with the large amounts of money they bring in from their congregants.

    Jeremiah Wright doesn’t make millions of dollars a year.

    Jeremiah Wright isn’t using some of that to breed red cows in Israel to bring about the end times.

    Jeremiah Wright isn’t using it to start a war, he’s using it to teach non-violence.

    Jeremiah Wright isn’t a heretic who says you should give him money to make money. Go out there and do a Google search with Hagee, Parsley, the Crouches or anyone else I mentioned with the words Prosperity Pimp or Word of Faith and see what others think about them.

    They are con artists and they are con artists trying to start a war.

    Look at that wide eyed radical Senator Grassley from Iowa who is investigating them right now.

    This isn’t something they said once or twice or even five times–it’s what they preach every day on the teevee.

    Wright says batty things from time to time, they say it every day and have two or three satellite networks to pull in as much money as possible.

  8. ===Furthermore, I don’t think it’s “absurd” to be outraged by Wright while otherwise silent on Hagee. After all, there is no one running for President who looked to Hagee as their personal, spiritual advisor for 2 decades. Is there?

    It’s exactly the reverse to me. Hagee isn’t just a preacher, he’s a lobbyist who heads a movement designed to bring about the End Times as he interprets it with specific desires to start a war with Iran and Russia to bring about the end of the world.

    I don’t care much what a priest or minister thinks because I know too many people who are quite divergent from their churches. I know many non-literalist Missouri Synod members, many fundamentalist Presbyterians. I know Catholics who have a range of beliefs, but stay in their church for a variety of reasons. I respect that.

    However, there’s a big difference between being a member of a church and then going out and actively seeking the support of people who want to bring the End Times about and actively lobby to have that happen. One means you have some color in your background, the other means you are hanging out with batshit insane people.

  9. Why should she shut up? Because Obama wants her to? Because his supporters want her to?

    Obama, who never once spoke up to Wright, the most important male influence in his adult life? Obama, who knew Wright was political poison in a presidential race–not because of race but because of the God Damn America stuff–yet kept him on the campaign and kept quiet until it came out and he was forced to deal with it? Obama, who spoke to provide the media with video that would replace and thus silence the Wright video?

    Please. If now Obama says we should talk about race, Ferraro has just as much right to speak as anyone else–just as Wright does. It’s not just those people Obama approves of or who support him who get to participate in this “unity” thing and this discussion, is it?

  10. ===Why should she shut up? Because Obama wants her to? Because his supporters want her to?

    Because she’s a racist piece of crap.

    Tell me, where did the idea that Wright wants young black guys to hit white people over the head come from? Find it for me and I’ll retract the idea that she’s not an old line bigoted white ethnic.

  11. Because she’s a racist piece of crap.

    She’s not racist. She’s not a piece of crap. She does not deserve to be “othered” by you. Your powers of persuasion should rely on something other than venom.

  12. Ferraro is racist but it is too ingrained into her for her to realize it.

    It is like the person who says ‘I’m not racist I have plenty of black friends.’

  13. I get real tired of hearing all this race crap. Historically speaking, white people outlawed slavery. No one else in history did that. Black people certainly did not free their white slaves. Slavery has been worldwide throughout history. No one tried to stop it until white people said enough. I have looked back into African history and although there were white slaves in africa, there is no white population left. What happened to them? I see this huge black population in America. Maybe white people treated their slaves better than some others, so quit complaining about white America.

  14. Larry – aren’t you making the exact same mistake that you attribute to Ferraro and the Wright detractors by calling her “a racist piece of crap?” There’s nothing in what Ferraro has said during this campaign that actually demonstrates an ingrained hatred of, or feeling of superiority over, black people.

    When she said that one of Wright’s messages is that “it’s okay to beat up on white people,” I don’t think she meant that he advocated physical violence. “Beat up on” is a pretty common idiom meaning ‘to verbally dump on.’ Even Obama admits that some of Wright’s sermons have been unjustifiably hostile towards whites.

    And her comments about the role race has played in Obama’s rise were clumsy, to be sure. But they were also objectively true. Hell, Obama himself admits that race played a role in his selection to give the ’04 keynote (the “party of diversity” needed some way to balance the fact that it’s national ticket was two rich white guys named John, didn’t it?), and it’s undeniable that that speech launched national interest in him. So is it really so outrageous to suggest that Obama’s race has been beneficial to him, politically?

    How do you get to the point where you say that someone who makes demonstrably false claims the US government manufactured AIDS to kills black people (because, hey’ it’s run by rich white men and that’s just what rich white men do: try to kill black people) is an admirably tolerant person, yet someone who makes a blunt, yet demonstrably true statements about the role race has played in someone’s political career is “a racist piece of crap?”

  15. ===She’s not racist. She’s not a piece of crap. She does not deserve to be “othered” by you. Your powers of persuasion should rely on something other than venom.

    And again, explain where Jeremiah Wright was encouraging black people to hit white people over the head. Other than angry black man must be inciting violence, there’s no way to infer that. Instead of whining about her being called a racist, you might have addressed the actual point.

    xblues. Go away.

  16. ===When she said that one of Wright’s messages is that “it’s okay to beat up on white people,” I don’t think she meant that he advocated physical violence. “Beat up on” is a pretty common idiom meaning ‘to verbally dump on.’ Even Obama admits that some of Wright’s sermons have been unjustifiably hostile towards whites.

    She has a greater history of this stuff going back to 1988 and Jesse Jackson. I would probably buy that argument with many other people, but not given her past history. She is an old line Democratic ethnic politician who would have been right at home in Bridgeport when they were scaring MLK out.
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/03/14/ferraro_clinton/index.html?source=search&aim=/opinion/conason

    It isn’t demonstrably true that Obama is only there because of his race. It is true that some people find him to be an attractive candidate because he is black, but that cuts both ways–as Obama said, you don’t start out with the name Barack Obama and think–wow, that’s sounds Presidential.

    Obama has run the single best insurgent campaign for President since at least the 19th Century. He ran against one candidate who was white who had an entire political history of one term in the US Senate who was a white man. So there are examples of white men doing what he is doing with less experience overall.

    The big difference between the two is that Wright says really dumb things and sometimes things that I think are divisive and silly. However, he has a record of a lifetime of working for tolerance and peace.

    Ferraro has a lifelong history of working for Ferraro and pissing people off with exactly these kinds of statements in New York.

    It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t criticize Wright–obviously some of the stuff he said was stupid and on some policy views I think he’s naive.

  17. Saying that the government of the “US of KKKA” is trying to systematically kill black people doesn’t strike me as “working for tolerance.” But, let’s stipulate that such remarks represent infrequent departures from Wright’s overall message.

    Ferraro make remarks about Jackson in ’88 similar to those she made about Obama in ’04. Do those incidents, even taken together, suggest a “lifelong history” of racism and opposition to civil rights on par with those who opposed Dr. King’s marches in Chicago? Make the case, if you can, but I think it’s a stretch that borders on slanderous. (Ironically, I would suggest that there are probably a lot of white Chicago pols today who would have been FAR more likely than Ferraro to protest Dr. King in Bridgeport, who are actually supporting Obama.)

    To the point of you Edwards comparison, perhaps you are forgetting that he was not able to do “what he (Obama) has done.” Edwards was never anywhere near as successful in either of his presidential runs. Is it entirely because he is white and Obama is black? Of course not. But can we dismiss the possibility that two otherwise similarly matched candidates attained dissimilar levels of success because one had a rather conventional backstory while the other symbolized an exciting advancement in racial progess? Hardly. So I’m not sure if that example is as helpful to your case as you think.

  18. Larry, good post and interesting comments.

    If I may, let me change the direction a bit . . . And maybe bit controversially.

    Obama’s speech, I think, buried the politics of the 1990s perfected by the Clintons (and Rove, for that matter).

    I believe we’re in a new paradigm, where principle matters more than partisanship. In my mind, the genius in Obama’s speech is that he acknowldged the “opposition” point of view (that whites have rational reasons to justify avoiding blacks) without abandoning the core principle that blacks have been subject to unfair treatment that results in unequal circumstances — 0and that must be redressed.

    Note how different this is from the politics of Clinton and Rove — they would demonize their opponents, rather than acknowledge their concerns and then rise above them.

    The candidates below the presidential line who most effectively learn this new form of politics are the ones who will become succesful in the 2010s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *