San Diego Union Tribune Reuben Navarrette’s latest column targets Geraldine Ferraro.
According to Navarrette, when Ferraro said,
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, 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."she “sounded a bit like” Archie Bunker.
Further along, Navarrette directly addresses Ferraro.
“Let me help you with this, Ms. Ferraro. Remember all those years when you were fighting for women's rights, and men would sometimes charge they were being victimized by "reverse discrimination" because of Title IX, affirmative action, or other programs seeking to expand opportunities for women? Remember how silly those big crybabies sounded to you and other feminists?”Navarrette has a lot more to say before he closes with:
“That's how silly you sound when you claim you're being attacked because you're white. You aren't. You're being attacked because you said something that came across as bitter, envious and foolish.”
“Not to mention hypocritical.”
“The sad part is that a lot of people agree with Ferraro's comments about Obama." ...Navarrette’s entire column is here.
“These people live in a fantasy world. They tell themselves that they or their kids could have gotten into Harvard Law School and become editor of the Harvard Law Review if some skinny black kid with a funny name hadn't taken their spot. Our political leaders are supposed to know better. They're supposed to douse those fires with perspective and common sense.”
“Geraldine Ferraro opted for gasoline.”
I’ve just sent him the following email.
Dear Mr. Navarrette:
I blog as John in Carolina and have posted here concerning your column attacking Geraldine Ferraro. The post includes this email.
I wish you’d done less name-calling and instead engaged Ferraro on her principal point: that there are certain times and situations when being a person of color or a woman can be an advantage.
Throughout their careers the Clintons have received overwhelming and often passionate support from blacks.
That changed this year when a young, attractive, articulate U. S. senator in his first term sought the Democratic presidential nomination. In Democratic primaries, he’s winning on average about 90% of the black vote. Largely because of that, he’s emerged as the front-runner for the nomination.
Would that be the case if everything about Sens. Clinton and Obama and their platforms were the same except that Obama’s father was a white Kenyan instead of a black Kenyan?
You didn’t speak to that. Why not?
You ridicule Ferraro and suggest she’s a hypocrite because she’s benefited in certain situations because of gender.
But Ferraro’s admitted that from the first. Surely you know that.
Why is it hypocritical for a nationally prominent political leader to say she benefited at times because of her gender?
What is wrong with pointing out Obama is benefiting in the nomination race by virtue of his ethnicity?
Why do you want Ferraro to keep quiet about things we all know are true?
I live in Durham, NC. The last two years a terrible tragedy has played out here.
It began with a woman's wildly improbable and self-evidently false accusations of gang-rape.
But the media embraced them anyway. News organizations attacked the accused and cheered on a frame-up attempt by our then DA, certain Durham police officers, their supervisors and others.
Duke University’s trustees, its president and his “senior team,” many faculty and rights groups stepped forward to support the DA and his fellow conspirators.
They did so even as the DA’s actions were so obviously unethical from the start that the NC State Bar opened a complaint file on him within a few days of his first public statements concerning the case.
When hate-filled people rallied under a large CASTRATE banner outside a house where some of the accused lived, do you know how news organizations, Duke and rights groups here in Durham, including the state NAACP, reacted?
They spoke approvingly of “outpourings of community support for the woman.” Most of them made similar approving statements when Vigilante posters with face-photos of the accused were circulated on Duke’s campus and in Durham.
The DA won a Democratic primary and his general election race.
And it wasn’t just in Durham, at Duke and in our local media that he received support for what it was soon obvious was a frame-up attempt. Almost all the national media went along with DA Mike Nifong’s scheme for many months.
I don’t need to tell you or anyone with at least a room temperature IQ the race of the accuser and the race of the accused.
That tells us all something very important: Ferraro’s right. There are times and situations when a person’s race or gender can advantage them.
And there are times and situations when a white person’s race and a male's gender can severely disadvantage them.
If you don’t believe that, please read about the Duke Hoax frame-up attempt and its ongoing cover-up.
Or interview members of Duke's 2006 Men's and Women's lacrosse teams. The men can tell you about the frame-up attempt; the women can tell you about the vicious trashing they received from many in the MSM because they spoke the truth about the Duke lacrosse case: "Innocent!"
Please stop attacking Ferraro for doing no more than speaking the truth.
You’d better serve your readers and our country if you’d encourage reasoned discussion of the advantages and disadvantages race and gender convey in contemporary America.
If you care to respond, I’ll post it in full at my blog.
John in Carolina
Hat tip: RealClearPolitics