Would Geraldine be where she is if she were a man?
Would Hillary?
Once again, Glenn Reynolds inspires a post. After posting my last piece, I checked my link to make sure it worked, then went to Instapundit’s main page where I caught this post: “‘GERALDINE FERRARO: ‘If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.’” (Glenn references this post which offers more of her comments, including some analysis.)
Ms. Ferraro owes her prominence in punditry to the fact that in 1984 Walter Mondale tapped her, a then-nationally unknown three-term Congresswoman, as his running mate. Many claim he did so because he thought having a woman on his ticket would give his campaign more energy. She was the first woman on a the ticket of a major party.
Now that she’s claiming that Senator Obama owes his prominence to his race, shouldn’t we be asking if she owes her prominence to her gender?
UPDATE: Seems like this has developed into a major national story, with the Obama camp calling on Hillary to fire Ferraro. I just think she needs answer the question posed in the title to this post and consider whether her candidate would be where she is were it not for her gender.
9 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Yup.
Comment by torrentprime — March 11, 2008 @ 1:36 pm - March 11, 2008
I think it is a good point to bring up if Obama was white he wouldn’t be doing nearly as well. He wouldn’t have the African American base to draw from to put him over the top in key places like South Carolina or other southern states. Clintons has a lock on the black vote until Obama showed he could play with the big dogs and then they all flocked right into his camp. Clinton only gets like 10% of the AA vote compared to Obama’s 90%, there is no reason besides his race for why that would happen.
As for Clinton being a man, I think she would have a much easier time of running. She wouldn’t need to overcompensate her masculine traits and worry about being tough, or even the way she is. Being aggressive, ambitious are good things for a man but not so much for a woman in broader society. I don’t mind her being a bitch but would she be considered a bitch if she was a man? or a bastard for that reason?
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — March 11, 2008 @ 1:59 pm - March 11, 2008
#2: I think the point is that Hillary has no qualifications other than she was married to Bill Clinton. Can you imagine a man being a presidential front-runner based on the accomplishments of his wife?
Hillary has just completed her first term as Senator, Obama has just started his first term as Senator and they are the front-runners for the Democrat nomination. And Obama didn’t even wait to rack-up a couple months of experience in the Senate, he immediately began running for president the moment he was elected. Actually, with his speech at the Democratic convention, I’d argue he was running for president before he was even elected to the senate.
These scenarios are unimaginable to conservatives. We like to elect people that have shown they are actually capable leaders.
But in answer to the question, would Hillary and Obama be where they are if they were white men? Yeah, actually I think they would. Competence and accomplishment (much like honesty, integrity, character, etc) are not important to Democrats. There are no flaws or shortcomings that cannot be overlooked by Democrats as long as the person has demonstrated that they "care" — and naturally they show they "care"Â by their unwavering support for bigger government at every level except for military and law enforcement.Â
Even the most cursory look at their party makes this clear. John Edwards, the other "front-runner" was another utterly unqualified boob. My own senator, perennial top-5 finalist in the "stupidest member of congress" awards, Patty Murray was elected to the Senate as a "mom in tennis shoes". Those were, no joke, her top qualifications.
Democrats elect criminals and dead people. Congress is overflowing with Democrats who have never worked a day in the real-world in their lives. Why should it surprize anyone that their presidential candidates would reflect the absolute indifference to competence that practically defines their party?
Comment by American Elephant — March 11, 2008 @ 4:00 pm - March 11, 2008
It’s another comment the liberals will blame Rush for. They say it, he reports it, he gets the blame.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 11, 2008 @ 4:14 pm - March 11, 2008
I read somewhere that Ferraro acknowledged that she was tapped in 84 because she is a woman. But that was 20 years ago, and by now it would be only fair that a woman would actually go all the way to the presidency. Problem is this particular woman, Hilary – got here on her husbands’ coattails and infidelities.
I think Obama would be in the race even if his father weren’t from Kenya. The Dems don’t have many new ideas – socialism and big government are still the most important issues they bring to the table. Since the message doesn’t change,the messenger must be seen as something ‘new’.
Being a handsome articulate man with African ancestry is a great gimmick. But even without the African part – being young, handsome, and claiming to be an outsider – those are things that appeal to the Democratic voter. Experience? Who needs that, just means you are part of the evil political machine.
 Looking at who else was in the field – I’m not sure he would have gotten as far as he did, but he’d be here.
Comment by Leah — March 11, 2008 @ 6:09 pm - March 11, 2008
I got to tell you both Hillary and Barack are two of the most unqualified people to run for President in my lifetime. Let’s be honest about it. If they can be elected, most of our local mayors could have achieved the same thing. It is about power and money now in America. Barack is only competing because from early on he was able to ignite energy and donations that have overwhelmed Mrs. Clintons campaign.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 11, 2008 @ 8:11 pm - March 11, 2008
I think if Gore, Kerry or Rendell actually knew how weak a candidate Hillary was going to turn out to be, they would have run. They gotta be kicking themselves now.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 11, 2008 @ 8:13 pm - March 11, 2008
Ferraro’s comments betray the deep racism of Democrats. They think in racial categories. Anyone who seriously thinks in racial categories or takes them seriously, is a racist. It’s not an accident that the Democrats are the party that defended slavery, the party of Jim Crow, the party of racial quotas (trying to make the world pay for their sins??), and, to this day, the party of KKKleagle Robert Byrd.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 12, 2008 @ 12:10 am - March 12, 2008
P.S. "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position" – Ferraro also seems to have forgotten that, by her mis-begotten categories and definitions, Obama *is* a white man. (By her categories: he’s not black, he’s bi-racial.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 12, 2008 @ 12:12 am - March 12, 2008