Posted by Jed Lewison on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:35 PM Pacific

Geraldine Ferraro's op-ed

Tonight, both NBC and ABC had segments spotlighting Father Pfleger's sermon. The thing that really struck me was how different the two reports were. ABC's made the case that Pfleger's sermon could make it impossible for the Democratic Party to unite, costing Obama the election this fall. In contrast, NBC's report was not nearly so hyperbolic, and offered far more balance. In particular, NBC mentioned that Geraldine Ferraro had written similarly divisive words for today's edition of the Boston Globe, while ABC didn't (a particularly dishonest judgment call, further confirming my view that when it comes to the general, ABC is solidly pro-McCain). Here's a key excerpt from Ferraro's op-ed:

Since March, when I was accused of being racist for a statement I made about the influence of blacks on Obama's historic campaign, people have been stopping me to express a common sentiment: If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist. They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems. That when he said in South Carolina after his victory "Our Time Has Come" they believe he is telling them that their time has passed.

I think both the views of both Pfleger and Ferraro were divisive, but it is important to note that while Ferraro intended her remarks for a national audience, Pfleger's remarks were delivered to parishioners.

I also think it's relevant that at the start the 2008 campaign season, about one month before Clinton's kickoff, Ferraro expressed a completely different position on whether a black candidate for president or a female one had a better chance of winning:

“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.

There's nothing inherently wrong about flip-flopping; people change their minds. But it seems like it would be worth exploring why Ferraro changed her tune so radically. Was it an honest change of heart? Or was it just politics?

(By the way, as Andrew Sullivan notes, Ferraro's op-ed failed to recognize that one of her key proposals, a study of the media by the Shorenstein Center at Harvard, has already been conducted, and was in fact released yesterday.)

Closing thought: I actually think Hillary Clinton has had to deal with a lot of sexism over the years, most of it from the political right, though certainly some of it from the left. On balance, I think it's clear that her gender was a net positive for her in the Democratic primary, however. A discussion about race and gender in the 2008 campaign would  be a good thing. But there's going to be no way to have that discussion until the campaign is over. In the meantime, Pfleger, Ferraro, and even Howard Wolfson, are doing nothing but making the divisions worse.