Real Clear Truth

There has been a big to-do over what former vice-presidential candidate and Hillary Clinton supporter, Geraldine Ferraro said recently about Barack Obama. Here’s the way the Wall Street Journal put it (see here):

In recent days, the Obama camp has been demanding an apology from Geraldine Ferraro, the former Vice Presidential candidate and current Hillary Clinton supporter who last week let slip that, “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. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

Though Ms. Ferraro resigned from the Clinton campaign yesterday, her remarks reveal little more than a firm grasp of the obvious, even if she could have found a less artless way to express herself. There is no disputing that Mr. Obama’s skin color has been a political boon for him to date. And the suggestion that saying so aloud betrays racial animus implies that only the Illinois Senator can discuss the issue of race in regard to his candidacy.

Now, I’ve heard radio show host Dennis Prager on this topic say that what Geraldine Ferraro said is so obviously true that how can Obama get upset about it. I’ve also heard radio show host Michael Medved say that Ferraro’s comments are demonstrably NOT true, and that Obama has every right to be upset. So which is it? Or maybe even more important, why is there such a clear disagreement on this topic even among good conservative friends such as Prager and Medved?

Well, in my view, I side with Medved, though I can see where Dennis is coming from. After all, didn’t Obama win 91% of the black vote in Mississippi? Yes of course he did, but he also won in states like Kansas and Iowa that have almost no blacks. Were the white voters in Iowa simply trying to end “identity politics” like Mickey Kaus suggests in Slate (see here)?

While that may have played a factor, to me it was far from an overriding factor. Go back and look at the polls and I’m sure most will say they voted for Obama because they liked his message over the other Democratic contenders. After all, isn’t Obama the one trying to present himself as the best candidate to bring about change, to end division (yes racial but also much more), to restore unity and bring hope to our nation? Wasn’t it his message, his optimism and his charisma that brought him to the national stage — not entirely unlike Reagan when he came to the national stage early on as a newly elected governor of California?

Yes, Andrew Sullivan has a point (see here) about Obama’s face and the potential for the “re-branding of the United States” in the eyes of Muslims around the world, but I don’t think that many votes were cast in Obama’s favor based on that factor. It is merely a contributing factor that has helped him some. The true reason he has come this far has much more to do with his message of hope that strongly resonates with many liberals who are so tired of the Bush years.

To say Obama wouldn’t be where he is at if he were a white man is to perpetuate all the racial stereotypes that have enraged the black community for years. It seems black men have to be many times better than a white man before whites will acknowledge that they have achieved their position on merit and not preferential treatment. I would be angry myself if people said I got where I am based on the color of my skin. Why wouldn’t one expect Obama to get upset about this?

Yes, the Democratic primary has devolved into divided camps with women voting for Hilary and blacks voting for Obama. But it didn’t start out this way, and Obama may well have won over a different constituency if he had been white. I don’t think one can conclude at all that he wouldn’t be where he is if he weren’t black.

That aside, I do think it’s great that he is black. There is a real sense that the country would be relieved to get the race issue behind us. And while that sentiment may have changed some percentage of the vote in his favor, Obama no doubt also had some percentage vote against him just because of his race. Without in-depth analysis, it is foolhardy to jump to conclusions otherwise — even if it seems obvious at first glance.

Sometimes I wish I could hear Prager and Medved debate issues like these that they disagree on. They both come across as completely sure of themselves and sure of the logic of their beliefs. And yet both are conservative, both are Jewish and they are good colleagues and friends. Isn’t it amazing though how easy it is to draw vastly different conclusions — even among like-minded and well reasoned people?

But then, what conclusion would you draw?