Any doubt whether there was a political motivation behind Geraldine Ferraro's racially divisive remarks on the 2008 campaign has now been erased.
Here's Ferraro last week.
When the subject turned to Obama, Clinton's rival for the Democratic Party nomination, Ferraro's comments took on a decidedly bitter edge."I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
And here's Ferraro a little over a year ago, making the exact opposite claim in a New York Times article about whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton had a realistic chance of breaking the mold of white male presidencies.
...for all the excitement stirred by Mr. Obama, it is much less certain that an African-American could win a presidential election. Not as many blacks have been elected to prominent positions as women. Some high-profile black candidates — Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat running for the Senate in Tennessee, and Michael Steele, a Republican Senate candidate in Maryland — lost in November. And demographics might be an obstacle as well: black Americans are concentrated in about 25 states — typically blue ones, like New York and California. While black candidates cannot assume automatic support from black voters, they would at least provide a base. In states without big black populations, the candidate’s crossover appeal must be huge.“All evidence is that a white female has an advantage over a black male — for reasons of our cultural heritage,” said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, the civil rights leader who ran for president in 1984 and 1988. Still, he said, for African-American and female candidates, “It’s easier — emphatically so.”
Ms. Ferraro offered a similar sentiment. “I think it’s more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American,” said Ms. Ferraro. “There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States — whether it’s conscious or not it’s true.”
“Women are 51 percent of the population,” she added.
(h/t: Josh Marshall)
::
The point isn't to question which of her answers was right. (Personally, I think the question isn't the right one to ask, anyway. Sexism and racism are both horrible problems, and trying to figure out which is worse isn't a terribly useful exercise.)
The point that is that everything that Geraldine Ferraro has been saying -- that she's been persecuted for speaking the truth, for saying a fact -- has been complete, unmitigated bull.
Just fifteen months ago, she said the exact opposite of what she said last week. Her flip-flop won't come as a surprise to anyone who has followed the Clinton campaign's ongoing pattern of self-contradiction.
But it is remarkable that our media -- aside from Keith Olbermann -- has largely accepted Ferraro's contention that she is a victim of racism.
The question I have is how so-called journalists managed to cover this story for the past 48 to 72 hours without once -- not one single time -- asking Geraldine Ferraro to explain her conflicting statements about race, gender, and the pursuit of the presidency.
It's not like her comments were tucked away in some obscure publication that only has a print edition: they were in the effin' New York Times. And she said them barely over a year ago.
Her words were right there, for the whole world to see. And yet not one single member of the media has challenged her on this.
I guarantee you there's a great story in her answer.
But she hasn't been asked. Pathetic.
© Jed Lewison