Gerry: Spring Her

Perhaps I'm missing some context. Perhaps I'm completely tone deaf. Perhaps I'm a horrible human being. But I don't see what the whole kerfuffle is about Geraldine Ferraro's remarks on Obama's popularity. As far as I can tell, she asserted that people wouldn't be as excited about Obama's candidacy if he weren't black, and this has contributed significantly to his success thus far. She also said that being a woman has more mixed repercussions, with some excitement generated but also a strong negative response, particularly from the media.

On the second point, about women candidates, I think I'd go so far as to say I agree. See my (likely incoherent) post below about types and why it's really hard for a woman to come off well as a leader. Ferraro's bitterness is unbecoming, to be sure, but I think her point is at least reasonable and at most right on.

Then to the race comment. I'll say first, I don't agree that people's excitement about his race is what's pushed him to this level of success. His charisma, his words, his voice, his speaking style, his optimism, and, of course, his message of hope, unity, and change would have been more than enough to get him this sort of following no matter what his race. Of course, you can't entirely separate things like his speaking style from his race, but I don't think that's what Ferraro was talking about.

OK, that said, why is it so horrible for her to suggest that? And worse, why is it so horrible that Clinton has to not only disagree but also "reject and denounce" both the comments and Ferraro herself? I understand it's dirty for a politician to give tacit consent to hideous speech on their behalf. But this doesn't strike me as outside the realm of normal messy politics. Neither did the Samantha Powers "monstrous" remark. Did that really merit a resignation?

Maybe there's reason to believe Ferraro truly sees this as some kind of affirmative action...at least partially because she's said the same thing about her own nomination for vice president. But the (obvious) difference between those situations is one dude (and his advisers) chose her as his running mate. A fair portion of the country is getting psyched about Obama. It's pretty hard to do affirmative action by a non-communicating, many-million-person committee. They like him; they really like him! Why do people think her comments were intended to be any more than "people are psyched about electing a black candidate, and that's an essential factor in his success." And if that's all there is, why is that so heinous a point to raise?

P.S. I reserve full right to delete or edit this post if I realize I sound like a moron later. :-P