Alex Blaze

Geraldine Ferraro continues: I'm being attacked because I'm white

Filed By Alex Blaze | March 11, 2008 9:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: Barack Obama, Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary Rodham Clinton, race, racism, sexism

More on the plight of White America from Geraldine Ferraro:

Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?

I don't know how it is. But I'm rather surprised by how close her hyperbolic language ("Any time anybody does anything that in any way...") resembles that of the Religious Right's, how if one accuses them of homophobia when they're being blatantly homophobic, they come right back with a statement about how being accused of homophobia is worse than homophobia itself.

She also said today:

In all honesty, do you think that if he were a white male, there would be a reason for the black community to get excited for a historic first? Am I pointing out something that doesn't exist?

Well, that's not what she said, but it is an interesting idea. Her logic is that Black people are rallying around Obama not because of his message, policy, or experience, but because of and only because of the color of his skin, basically saying that that's all they're looking at, the same idea that posits the only meaningful votes as those that come from straight, white men because they're the only ones who don't get caught up in all this identity stuff and look to the good of the country.

The end of her logic would have all women voting for Clinton, which would do her a lot better than Obama since there are a lot more women of any race in the US than there are Black people of any gender. But that hasn't happened. I'm not sure if I want to hear Ferraro's reasoning for why white women aren't participating in what she's incorrectly reduced down to an essentialist and flat "gimme" identity politics.

Do I think that Ferraro's racist? I don't know, and since I'm never going to meet her I don't really care. But I do know that her comments from the night before the Mississippi primary were meant to imply something when she said that a hypothetical white, male Obama wouldn't be doing as well because things just get handed to Black men. And her response today that she was only referring to the Black vote (because only Black people have voted for Obama, you see, that's how he won Iowa) is inadequate, doesn't make much sense, and is unpersuasive.

She pretty much articulates the full reverse racism argument:

  • White people are under attack

  • Any attempt to identify and criticize racism is a personal affront

  • Black people have more political power than white people

Take away the words "white," "Black," and "racial" and this can occur along any axis of identity. Like when Michelle Malkin was pushing the idea that Mexicans were immigrating to America so that they could start a civil war and reclaim the West for Mexico, but you can't talk about it because of the bleeding-heart librul media. Or with Sally Kern's comments from just this past week about the politically powerful gay lobby that wants to destroy the world, but if you say anything against them you're accused of homophobia. Or anti-semitism in pretty much all its incarnations that create conspiracy theories about how the Jews are running the world secretly, but you can't talk about it because the Jews control everything.

It's the same problem, and we're all in this together.

Besides all that, we're right back in a place where being accused of racism is worse that racism itself. It's a defense mechanism in white America to prevent any serious self-reflection about race, to avoid challenging white privilege, and to make race into an untouchable topic. If you think that pointing out that there's racial baggage in what someone else says is going to make them lash out, you keep your mouth shut so you don't ruin the party.

In fact, that's pretty much the Clinton campaign's response:

I do not agree with that and you know it's regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides say things that veer off into the personal. We ought to keep this focused on the issues. That's what this campaign should be about.

Senator Obama's campaign staff seems to have forgotten his pledge. We have not. And, we reject these false, personal and politically calculated attacks on the eve of a primary. This campaign should be about the leadership we need for a better future and these attacks serve only to divide the Democratic Party and the American people.

You see? It's the people who point out the racial baggage in these comments who are stirring the pot. Jeez, people, just stop talking about this whole race thing because it's really hard to ignore racism when people keep talking about it!

There's a lot of baggage behind what she's saying. I still hold that she's smart enough to know what she's doing - trying to get a group of white "Reagan Democrats" to vote for Clinton because they identify with her plight, what with years of rich folks like Rush Limbaugh telling them that the reason they lost their jobs had nothing to do with the redistribution of the wealth upwards or more easily exploitable labor abroad and everything to do with unqualified affirmative action hires and illegal immigrants taking their jobs.

We still have a long ways to go to having that elusive national conversation on race in this country. But maybe having prominent politicians act it out in the media will help bring it about.


Update: Ben Smith found this from Ferraro back in 88:

Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Wow. Just wow.

I'm sure former president Jesse Jackson appreciated the sentiment. And does that Reagan comment sound a little familiar?

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Like I said before. A buffoon.


Thank you for continuing to keep this unfolding story before us. I believe the failure of the Clinton campaign to take the racism of Ferraro's words seriously and to repudiate those words will become a larger and larger issue. The escalating racist rhetoric from Ferraro herself and the blame the targets of racism rather than the racists approach of the Clinton campaign are only making the whole situation that much worse.

As the Obama campaign has so eloquently expressed the problem :

"The bottom line is this, when you wink and nod at offensive statements, you're really sending a signal to your supporters that anything goes,"

This recent post from dailykos reflects the growing sense that all people of conscience must stand against this sort of racist garbage.

Well, for a little reality check here, if you put her words into the context in which they were spoken, she wasn't being racist, but pointing out the fact that, Obama gets a pass when he or his campaign does something stupid or asnine, while Hillary and her supporters get tarred with the old racist label if they say something against the "messiah".

Her first remark was, well dumb. No two ways about it. She was trying to make a point that she did not really explain well, and it came out sounding stupid. It was also something that should not have been brought up to begin with, no matter how she felt about it. Guess that is why she isn't a leading political figure in America, suffers from foot in mouth disease in a major way.

One of the ways to shut down any sort of discussion in the political arena is to call the other side "racist", or imply it. It is the trumnp card for all debate that some people are much too quick to throw out.

Ferrara and Clinton are no more racist than Obama is.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | March 12, 2008 7:03 AM

It is important to remember that each candidate stands for something:

McCain = Republican status quo
Clinton = Democratic status quo
Obama = Change, Eloquence, Idealism

There would have been a President George McGovern if change, eloquence, and idealism alone could carry the weight of the Republican attack machine. What doubtless drives old dem politicos crazy is that Obama has gained the majority of his delegate votes from states that went Red Republican in 2004. They are afraid that Obama may well equal a president John McCain. The events of this week past of the Chicago Land developer who bought a house next to Obama's house paying retail for the property while Obama paid $300,000.00 under market value could just be the tip of the iceberg. (The two properties were owned by the same person and were sold on the same DAY) While all prejudice is wrong the Democratic Party must unite around a very vetted candidate and in Hillary we at least known what the muck will be. We do not know all about Obama yet and as their voting records and political planks are identical I know where my support will lie. With either Democratic candidate despite my fears of the unknown.

Ferraro's logic needs to be turned on her own candidate then. If Hillary wasn't a woman, she wouldn't have been married to Bill and wouldn't have been in the political spotlight from Arkansas to the White House. Because without her husband's popularity, would she even be known?

diddly~ Either way, she's still defending the idea that Black people have it easier because of attempts to ameliorate racism.

And I don't get how you come to the conclusion that "Ferrara and Clinton are no more racist than Obama is." I mean, that's a pretty large conclusion to come to, and I don't really know how you got there. And still, it assumes that racism, or any prejudice for that matter, only takes on one form, and that that form is measurable. The point here, at least to me, isn't "X person is racist," but to discuss the baggage behind a prominent politician's comments on the issue, to talk about where they're coming from, to see what it says about us.

Like you say:

One of the ways to shut down any sort of discussion in the political arena is to call the other side "racist", or imply it. It is the trumnp card for all debate that some people are much too quick to throw out.

But why is it a trump card? Why is it that when someone is asked to rethink the racial baggage in something they say they shut down? I think it's because it's a whole lot easier to just shut down than to self-reflect. It's not a trump card if we're willing to use it as a starting point for self-examination instead of seeing it as the worst attack ever.

In general~ Speaking of not seeing it as the worst attack ever, I'm kinda bothered that this is being turned into an Obama vs. Clinton issue. Yes, there is the fact that the Clinton campaign is participating in this discourse, but this issue is a whole lot bigger, encompasses more people than just the campaigns, and will be around long after Obama and Clinton are dead if we don't start addressing this. And judging by her 1988 comment, Ferraro might actually believe this tripe.

Maybe there's another post there, but I think two on this topic is one egg. :)

Michael Crawford Michael Crawford | March 12, 2008 9:52 AM


Do you really believe that the traditional media that for months push the Clinton inevitability line is really giving Obama a pass because he is Black? I sure as heck don't. I would appreciate it if you could point me to examples of the Black candidate getting more favorable media coverage than the white candidate because of his/her race.


The Clintons have had a history of support for the black community and trying to fight the injustices that America has heaped upon them. If you remember, Bill was called the first black president because of his support by and for the black community. I do not see that they have changed in any way. I am not as familiar with Ferraro, but I have not heard anything to make me think that she is a female Jesse Helms.

I also think you are misunderstanding her point. She was not talking about all blacks, just Obama. As I said, it was stupid to bring it up, and she really did not express herself or the point she was trying to get across very well at all. I think she was trying to make a point that, some of the things he has said, ideas he has expressed, or some of the things he does, are not critisised because people are afraid that they may be called racist or accused of racism for calling him to task on it.

I think one of the reasons the accusation of racisim is such a trump card is due to white guilt. Collectively, white America has a lot to answer for in the treatment of non-white people. I think many white americans carry a bit of the collective guilt in their hearts. If not for ourselves, then for relatives, friends, ancestors, or someone we know.

Slavery is just the tip of the iceburg. There is also the treatment of native americans, our treatment of hispanics, our brief but oh so nasty period of colonialism where we worked to teach our little brown and yellow brothers how to be civilised. History is filled with examples of our "civilising" influence.

One might say that Clinton has it easier because she is white. In Ohio 20 % in exit polls said that race was a factor in their decision - and they voted overwhelimingly for Clinton. Likewise in the Mississippi primary yesterday Clinton got the overwhelming majority of the white vote. Many white voters there indicated there would never vote for a Black candidate.

In addition, Clinton is benefitting from the strong support of Rush Limbaugh and Republicans who want to prolong the struggle in the Democratic Party. Limbaugh has urged his listeners to vote for Clinton. There are indications that many Republican in Texas followed Limbaugh's advice. Perhaps their votes were the margin of Clinton's popular vote lead in the primary. Yesterday in Mississippi a goodly number of those who voted for Clinton indicated they will not vote for the Democrat in November - a sure sign of Republicans crossing over to keep the Democratic race in turmoil. I wonder why Clinton has not repudiated this "help" from Limbaugh and his followers ? Perhaps it's just another example of her win at any cost approach.

By the way , it has now been determined that Obama won the Texas caucuses and also won the most delegates overall from Texas

and if you consider the votes in BOTH the primary and the caucuses Obama also received the most votes TOTAL in Texas.

Obama actually increased his delegate lead over Clinton in the week since her "victories" last Tuesday. This is in addition to the delegates gained through his wins in Mississippi and Wyoming.

Michael Bedwell | March 12, 2008 11:41 AM

Congratulations America! The Obama campaign has succeeded where the British, the Spanish, the Nazis, the Communists, Islamic terrorists all failed ... putting a "chilling effect" muzzle on your free speech...making you afraid to say anything remotely related to race for fear of being crucified as a racist——UNLESS it involves praise. And without firing an actual shot. Most of you all just surrendered.

Funny how Alex...and everyone else who immediately fell into goose step behind the Obama Borg's spin....has already chosen to forget the other half of what Ferraro was foolish enough to say out loud...that Obama would not be where he is in this campaign if he were A WOMAN...OF ANY COLOR. And that's not just because most don't care about sexism but because then they would have to focus on her ACTUAL NON-racist point which is that...regardless of his intelligence...his potential...his sincerity...what he has accomplished...his ability to inspire....OBJECTIVELY speaking he doesn't have the kind of credentials typical to explain his success in the contest.

"State senators," as Obama was in Illinois, don't actually represent the entire state but only their small district. And he won THAT nomination by simply erasing his opponents through technical challenges to their filing petitions. He won his US Senate seat because his Repug opponent self-destructed in a sex scandal. He's barely been in the US Senate one-third the time that Sen. Clinton has. He hasn't served as long as John Edwards had or Biden or Dodd or Kucinich. He hasn't governed an entire state as Richardson has. So, yeh, where's the beef...the beef that should count?

It's in the fact that, just as he did waaaay back at Harvard after he finally was elected to head the law review on the NINETEENTH ballot as a compromise candidate....just as HE described HIMSELF in his boo....he purposely made himself a "blank screen" upon which all kinds of people can project what they THINK he is. Which entirely fits gay black writer David Ehrenstein's essay months ago in the LA Times describing Obama as another perfect "Magic Negro" for whites; that if there were anything "real" about him that they could see they wouldn't be interested in him. Does that make Ehrenstein a racist? Didn't notice...did the kangaroo courted Ferraro accuse Obama of not being "real"?

Obama is where he is all the more because it's taken over a year for mainstream media to start asking serious questions of him [in absentia...he rarely takes questions on the stump...and simply walks off when he doesn't like them]; to look behind the curtain to challenge even some of his claims at the same time they have aggressively carried on the nearly two-years old narrative of Hillary as a lying, conniving bitch. Writer and Princeton economist Paul Krugman calls this "Clinton Rules" wherein the media portrays everything she says/does as ipso facto the same time they have fed the narrative of Obama as the Messiah. Does that make Krugman a racist? Or the writer at Slate who started the "Obama Messiah Watch"?

Is black Congressman John Lewis...who actually fought with Martin Luther King for civil rights, who was brutally beaten by Southern HE racist for having denied that the Clintons are...for having accused the Obama campaign of a conscious effort to smear the Clintons as racist...for saying that "Obama is no Martin Luther King"? After learning that his own opponent for reelection this summer was going to accuse him of failing to represent his district which mostly voted for Obama in their primary, Lewis understandably changed his endorsement to Obama. But he hasn't taken back what he said.

Neither has black Congressman Charlie Rangel who said that the subject of "'race' is in this because Obama said 'race'." Is Rangel a racist for saying that? For supporting Sen. Clinton over Obama?

Are the other African-Americans from "average citizens" to business moguls and elected officials who support Sen. Clinton racist?

Is black lesbian minister Irene Monroe a racist for accusing Obama of playing the race card, of being a "vote whore" when he paid for a stage for homohating Donnie McClurkin in South Carolina?

Is Obama himself a racist for having denounced another black man...Louis Farrakhan? Apparently antiSemitism is more important to Obama than homohating as he has yet to denounce McClurkin...only said that he disagreed with him. "Denounce" vs. "disagree"...think about that.

But wait! What am I saying? How dare I ask these questions? How dare I suggest people think. How dare I suggest that they not be so easily stampeded? Oh, no! The herd turns! I can smell the brand of Racist on my searing flesh comes Alex with his little cowboy hat on.....

Michael C,

It is more a Lack of what is written and reported about Obama, than what is. Where Clinton is called to task on policy issues, Obama gets away with his touchy feely speechifying saying a lot, meaning nothing.

The press dissects Clinton's voting record and positions, but Obama gets away with mouthing a few feel good platitudes, and is called brilliant and insightful. The closest they have come to really hardballing him was concerning the slumlord's trial, and he just walked away from the news conference when the questions started getting tough.

He is what we like to call here, a mile wide, and an inch deep.

Michael, seriously, calm down. No one's going to pay attention to you when you just post a temper tantrum.

Note to Ferraro: For the love of God, stop digging

( )

Former VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro has become quite a controversial figure in Democratic circles this week. In surprisingly bitter language, she argued that Barack Obama is “very lucky” to be a black man running for president. Pressed for an explanation, Ferraro, a prominent Clinton backer and member of her national finance team, said, “I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

Last night, doing her best Archie Bunker imitation, Ferraro added, “Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist. I will not be discriminated against because I’m white.”

No one, including Clinton or her aides, have defended Ferraro’s comments, though Clinton has also not asked Ferraro to step down from her campaign role. Given all of this, we probably shouldn’t expect to hear from Ferraro for a little while, right? Wrong, she did two of the national morning shows today.

“I am sorry that people think this was a racist comment,” Ferraro said in an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer on “Good Morning America.”

She declined to apologize directly for the firestorm she created when she told a newspaper last week that “if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.”

She told Sawyer she was “absolutely not” sorry for what she said.

On CBS’s “Early Show,” Ferraro added, “It wasn’t a racist comment, it was a statement of fact.”

I’m going to assume that the Clinton campaign has some influence with Ferraro. She is, after all, a campaign surrogate and finance-team member. With this in mind, maybe someone from the team can give Ferraro a call and say, “For the love of God, please stop talking.”

Jonathan Cohn suggested that the Clinton campaign won’t make that call, because this might be part of a deliberate strategy.

Ferraro’s original statement to Daily Breeze, which suggested that Obama has gotten preferential political treatment because of his race, was a dog-whistle to white voters who resent affirmative action. (Her subsequent statement to the New York Times, in which she defiantly defended herself by proclaiming “I will not be discriminated against because I’m white,” wasn’t a dog whistle. It was a huge, screeching megaphone.) Dwelling on that probably won’t help the Obama campaign in Pennsylvania, particularly given the racial voting patterns yesterday’s Mississippi result confirmed.

A cynic — ok, maybe even a non-cynic — might suggest that’s precisely why the Clinton campaign isn’t moving more swiftly to cut ties with Ferraro.

I kind of doubt that the Clinton campaign intends to benefit by having Ferraro make crazy, racially-charged comments to the media. I hope the campaign wouldn’t do that. But the best way to make sure no one gets this impression is to a) disassociate Ferraro from the campaign quickly; b) get her to stop talking immediately; or c) both.

As long as we’re on the subject, it’s probably worth taking a moment to respond to the substance of Ferraro’s latest comment — the notion that it’s a “fact” that Obama is benefitting because he’s a black man running for president.

Relying on my own perceptions, I suspect there are a number of Americans who are excited — if not genuinely elated — by the notion that the United States might elect its first African-American president. For these people, the color of Obama’s skin gives him an advantage, inasmuch as it creates an added motivation to vote for him.

The mistake, I believe, is to assume that these people represent a large percentage of the American electorate. Ferraro said Obama has a “huge” advantage because he’s black. That seems kind of silly. As Obama himself said on ABC this morning, “The quickest path to the presidency [is not] I want to be an African-American man named Barack Obama.”

Josh Marshall added:

There’s no doubt that Obama’s race is the central factor in allowing him to consolidate almost unanimous support from African-American voters, especially in the South. But African-Americans make up only about 13% of the population. And does anyone doubt that that advantage he gains there is not balanced at least to a substantial degree by resistance to voting for him among white voters? Why is Obama running so poorly among white voters tonight (compared to his rates in northern states) in Mississippi? And in South Carolina? We hear a lot about Sen. Clinton’s bedrock of strength among non-college educated white voters. Do we really think that’s simply a matter of appeal of Sen. Clinton? More speculatively, but I think no less true, is that a lot of the Farrakhan/Muslim/foreign influence stuff has more sticking power because of Obama’s race. […]

You might support Obama or not, think he’s qualified or an empty suit but suggesting he’s only where he is now because he’s black is something much worse than outrageous. It just seems obviously false.

And Kevin Drum added a valuable angle that shouldn’t be overlooked:

Implicit in Ferraro’s statement is the idea that if Obama were a charismatic young white guy, there’s no way he’d be getting any attention. And that’s just plain crackers. Charismatic young John F. Kennedy won the presidency in 1960. His brother, charismatic young Robert F. Kennedy, attracted huge support in 1968 and might have become president as well if he hadn’t been assassinated. Charismatic young Gary Hart nearly stole the 1984 Democratic nomination from Walter Mondale. And charismatic young Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992.

Being young and charismatic has been a pretty good combination in the Democratic Party for the past 50 years. And being against the Iraq war from the start is a pretty is a pretty good credential in the Democratic Party this year. Contra Ferraro, if Obama were a white man he’d still be getting plenty of attention.

Quite right. The sooner Ferraro realizes this, the better.

Michael Bedwell | March 12, 2008 6:13 PM

"It's not clear to me why I would be apologizing for someone else's remarks.” – Barack Obama, Washington Post, February 22, 2007.

“Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday she disagrees with Geraldine Ferraro.... In a brief interview with The Associated Press, Clinton said she regretted Ferraro's remarks. Clinton said, ‘I do not agree with that’, and later added, ‘It's regrettable that any of our supporters —on both sides, because we both have this experience —say things that kind of veer off into the personal’." – Washington Post, March 11, 2008

“CBS News confirms Geraldine Ferraro is stepping down from her position as a fundraiser for the Clinton campaign, according to a senior campaign source.” – CBS News, March 12, 2008

And this one’s particularly for you, Rev., loosely translated:

“Thou shalt not bear false bullshit.” – El Shaddai, via Moses, circa 1300 BC

"Ferraro said she has a 40-year history of opposing discrimination of all kinds, including race, and that she was outraged at criticism of her remarks by David Axelrod, Obama's chief media strategist, because he knows her and her record...

Seriously? The perpetrator of one of the most egregious race-baiting plays in recent national-level politics is outraged to be called out for it? Well, I'm no David Axelrod, I'm just someone who, at 7 years old, was thrilled to have a woman nominated for vice president. But I'll say it: If Geraldine Ferraro is not personally a racist, she's doing a damned good impression of one. Racist, racist, racist. "

( "Ferraro Wants An Apology" )

"Hillary Clinton should not passively allow herself to benefit from Ferraro's race-baiting. Look what Clinton herself said in the February 26th debate about Barack Obama in her attempt to associate him with a race-baiter with whom Obama had never been associated and whom he had repeatedly denounced:

No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far-reaching.

Senator Clinton, you can no longer simply state that it's "regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides say things that veer off into the personal." It's to for you to personally "reject and denounce" the race-baiting statements of Geraldine Ferraro. Your failure to do so will make it look like you hope to benefit from the attempts of your allies to create racial divisions and exploit fear."

( "Ferraro Resigns From Campaign She Claimed Couldn't Fire Her" )

"If the Clinton campaign was truly embarrassed or disagreed with Ferraro's comments, they wouldn't be tossing her into the media frenzy to shout her message from the mountaintops that Barack Obama's success is due only to his blackness. And they would not be utilizing the most effective means of doing so--the Right Wing smear machine that nearly destroyed Bill Clinton's presidency.

The aim here is to evoke racial resentment on the part of white voters over issues like Affirmative Action, and cast Obama as a talentless hack who excels only because our country is held victim by political correctness. The hope is that this will drive a permanent wedge between Obama and white voters that will sway Superdelegates to ultimately go with Hillary at the convention. At worst, Obama will be so damaged in the general that he can never be a threat to their ambitions again.

( "Ferraro defends herself on ... Bill O'Reilly " )

"Somebody tells her that simply disgreeing with and rejecting the remarks is sufficient.
And she should then call, "regrettable," words that should make any Democrat retch.

There is much in the decisions made by the Senator and her strategists that was obvious, mistaken, and damaging.
And there is the grimmer prospect. That these, as Howard Fineman suggested on Countdown last night, were not mistakes at all.

It sounds as if those advisors want their campaign to be associated with those words, and the cheap... ignorant... vile... racism that underlies every syllable.
And that Geraldine Ferraro has just gone free-lance.
Senator Clinton:
This is not a campaign strategy.
This is a suicide pact. "

( " A Special Comment On Clinton And Ferraro
by Keith Olbermann " )

"I will not let one of the most amazing years of my life be tainted because of your flaws. Contrary to the media's belief, this Latino/Woman/Catholic/Californian does not buy into your rhetoric. Barack Obama has brought me closer to my friends, family, community and country. He has led me to believe in all that is good and possible through hard work and hope. He embodies compassion, equality, and common sense. So you may have gotten me down for one night, but it ends there. I have no chip on my shoulder, and I have no hatred in my heart. I am sticking to his message and consequentially, will no longer listen to yours."

( "A Brown Woman's Open Letter to Geraldine Ferraro & the Clinton Campaign" )

"Mrs. Ferraro, the ignorance of your remarks left me speechless. Senator Clinton, your response and the response of your campaign infuriated me. Since the two of you are White women, and you initiated and orchestrated these remarks, I believe that it is my duty as a citizen, as a daughter and as a mother, who happens to be a White woman, to reject, renounce and censure the two White women who are responsible for these remarks and their use in political discourse."

( "A White Woman’s Open Letter to Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi" )

oh pleeeeze! ferarro made a stupid comment. yes she should know better. lots of people are calling her names. i called her names. it indicates a bias, which individuals of her generation probably can't even control because it isn't conscious. it appears racist to some of us, but she didn't do a "sally kern". she didn't say that anyone was evil, or was going to end civilization, or whatever. she didn't stand in a school door, and she didn't ask anyone to go to the rear of the bus. just an elderly woman making a thoughtless comment.... let's try not to read the satanic bible out of it. and there isn't a requirement to attach it to Clinton by proxy. clinton has enough of her own faults.

oh pleeeeze! ferarro made a stupid comment. yes she should know better. lots of people are calling her names. i called her names. it indicates a bias, which individuals of her generation probably can't even control because it isn't conscious. it appears racist to some of us, but she didn't do a "sally kern". she didn't say that anyone was evil, or was going to end civilization, or whatever. she didn't stand in a school door, and she didn't ask anyone to go to the rear of the bus. just an elderly woman making a thoughtless comment.... let's try not to read the satanic bible out of it. and there isn't a requirement to attach it to Clinton by proxy. clinton has enough of her own faults.