Now and Then

Ferraro Now (2008):

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he
was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position."

Ferraro back then (1988): 

"if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

But please, don't you dare call her racist. She is, after all, a white democrat woman, and therefore she can't be racist, just like Hillary!

0 comment on Now and Then

  1. Patrick
    March 14, 2008 at 3:32 am

    God, I hate Geraldine Ferraro. There is so much subtle racism (and sexism) in these comments it’s a little absurd. And she won’t even apologize for it! She is such a bitch.

  2. Mark
    March 14, 2008 at 7:33 am

    Well to be fair the only reason that Jesse Jackson become a noticeable contender was because of his race. If you listen to him talk for more than five minutes you have the uncontrollable urge to send him back to grade school.

    However, Barack Obama got where his is because he is some kind of charismatic bastard, not because he is black.

  3. tommy
    March 14, 2008 at 1:54 pm

    As much as despise Ferraro, she is basically right. Barack is doing well, but he hasn’t completely blown Hillary out of the water in the delegate count. If Barack were a white man, could he have carried 92% of the black Democratic vote in a place like Mississippi? No way. Clearly a lot of blacks are voting for Barack precisely because of his race and so are a lot of white liberals (especially in states where there are few blacks) who think it would be exciting to have a black man for president.

  4. brooklynjon
    March 14, 2008 at 2:46 pm

    Two things come to mind:

    1) In her 1988 statement, Ferraro properly used the subjunctive mood in her contrafactual conditional statement: “if Jesse Jackson were not black”

    Unfortunately, in her more recent statements, she fails to correctly depoly the subjunctive mood: “If Obama was a white man” and “And if he
    was a woman”. It’s sad that her usage has so evidently declined over the past 20 years.

    2) The New York Times has an article today which is, IMHO, unintentionally hilarious:
    The author discovers that Obama does well in places that are racially homogeneous, and not in places that are not. Ascribing an identity-politics explanation (this being the New York Times, it must be the case), they are forced to conclude that it is easier to have an idealized view of African Americans (generalizable to everybody, really), if you are one or don’t live near one. OTOH, if you are a non-African American, and live near the inner city, or in a suburb where inner city escapees live, you may have a less sanguine view of African Americans in general, and Obama in particular. Or, in other words, that familiarity breeds contempt, which is the exact opposite of the left wing mantra that diversity is an end in its own right. Or, in other words (coming from someone who grew up in the ghetto in Brooklyn), Duh!

    Will the Times conclude that the whole racial experiment of the past 50 years in america was a mistake? Don’t count on it.

    And yes, Ferraro is an idiot.

  5. brooklynjon
    March 14, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    “depoly ” oops… make that “deploy”

  6. Seraph
    March 15, 2008 at 1:38 pm

    Yeah, but how many votes did Hillary win because she is white. Think about that…


Leave a Reply

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