Remember the definition of a Washington "Gaffe"?

Mike Kinsley famously defined a "gaffe" in Washington as an accidental, inadvertent moment of truth-telling. Well by that standard Geraldine Ferraro, Mondale's 1984 Vice-Presidential pick who is supporting Hillary Clinton, has committed a gaffe. She seems to have caused a minor-rumpus with these comments:

"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."

Dana Goldstein despairs, while Toby Harnden is merely incredulous:

What? So being black, with the middle name Hussein and a Muslim-born father is just a walk in the park compared to the sexism faced by a white, upper-middle-class woman who just happens to be married to a former president and can claim every accomplishment of his as her own (apart from the inconvenient ones)? The bitter – perhaps racist - comments got lost in the media avalanche following Eliot Spitzer's shenanigans but they may well have legs tomorrow.

Er, Obama's "very lucky to be" a black man? All you black guys out there take note – you're so fortunate to be able to have an inbuilt advantage that'll guarantee you kid-glove treatment throughout your life.

Well, hang on a minute. Ferraro's comments may have been unwise but that doesn't make them untrue. You doubt this? ask ourself if you think of any other circumstances in which a first-term Senator would have been in a position to  challenge Hillary Clinton seriously, let alone defeat her. Or, to put it another way, look at the number of white men she defeated. Then recall how easily she defeated them.

A white Obama might be as intelligent and as eloquent as the real BHO is, but he'd be deprived of Obama's greatest advantage: his being black trumps her being female. If Obama were white, don't you think the Clinton campaign would have talked even more than it has about the need to "smash" the "highest, toughest glass ceiling of them all?" As a young, white first-term Senator there'd have been a sense that his candidacy was unduly presumptious (a consideration that did some damage John Edwards in 2004) - what, after all, would be the rush? Better, in those circumstances, to make history by nominating and then electing the woman. (We might also note that, besides being a buffoon, Bill Richardson's status as a potential "first Latino" president never gained any traction since it was crowded out by the history-making potential of the Clinton and Obama candidacies).

Obama's candidacy also destroyed much of Clinton's attractiveness. Yes, selecting a woman would be a historic moment. But selecting a black politician would be even more significant. The idea of a symbolic reconciliation or of some imagined historical make-up call acknowledging America's original sin even as it sought to move, at long last, beyond it etc etc... all that makes choosing a woman pretty small beer. For the Clinton's it must have been as though they went all-in pre-flop holding a pair of Kings only to find a call from the last player to speak who, shockingly, happened to be holding Aces. (Of course, the analogy breaks down a little in as much as Hillary was still the front-runner. But in the Sex vs Colour stakes, she trails.)

A black man was the only candidate who could make a stronger argument for "Change"  - and for embodying change - than Clinton. (A black woman would, I think, have been seen as just, well, going too far). I think it's reasonable to suppose that a white Obama would not have been able to make a case for "the fierce urgency of now" but, as we've seen, the real Obama can and has.

Think too of the voters from whom Obama has won support. His initial support came from highly educated and wealthy Democrats and from younger voters in the 18-30 age group. Suffice it to say that these are the two demographics most likely to be most acutely aware of the symbolic power and appeal of Obama's candidacy. The kids these days, after all, are raised and taught in school that Malcolm Luther King and Rosa Parks are the greatest Americans of all, while upscale voters are more likely than other liberals to be attracted to the idea of a black man as President.

Of course Obama has expanded his electoral appeal beyond these voters, but that's where he began and where, I think, he had certain advantages that would have been denied a white, first-term Senator. No-one can feel good about themselves for supporting a wealthy white man, but backing the man who might be the first black President allows folk to praise themselves for their own broad-minded generosity and sense of historical significance.

There are, to be sure, plenty of less cynical reasons to support Obama but Obama's been more successful than Jesse Jackson at least partly because a) he doesn't terrify upscale whites and b) they can imagine having dinner with him. It may sound cynical to say this, but Obama's black enough to be different and significant while also being white enough to be reassuring. For all that the United States has, as they say, "moved on", this is still part of the reason for Obama's rise. He offers just the right blend of exoticism and familiarity.

In other words, Geraldine Ferraro is correct. Obama's campaign represents a near perfect alliance between man, moment and, last but not least, opponent. The stars have aligned for him and I don't really see what's so terrible about pointing that out. Good luck to him.

UPDATE: Of course, skin colour isn't the only reason for Obama's success. Far from it. There is, after all, as commenter Gabriel suggests, more to him than just that. After all, a less gifted politician would not have been able to overhaul Clinton, regardless of their colour. Nonetheless, his blackness has certainly - in some respects at least -  made Hillary Clinton's task more difficult.

Comments

[Gabriel]

The error that Ferraro and you make is that your inability to imagine a white man or a woman of any race with comparable experience being considered as a serious candidate is taken to mean that Obama is treated more seriously as a candidate primarily because he is black. The reason why it's difficult for some to imagine a candidate with comparable experience being taken so seriously is that there is little or not precedent in recent history for a candidate to resonate so profoundly well with the mood of the people. After eight years of Bush's incoherence and obfuscation, Obama's clarity and vision is like a cool draught of water for many. Your analysis fails to acknowledge that voters might be something in him beyond "it'd be nice to have a black president."

[Gabriel]

To clarify my point, don't you have a hard time imagining any other black candidate with comparable experience being taken as seriously as Obama is?

[Josh]

Jack Kennedy was a first term senator. He beat LBJ, the then Senate Majority Leader, for the nomination. Just saying.

BTW, if Edwards was half the politician that Obama is, he'd have won the Democratic nomination in '04. I say this having voted for him in our primary in '04 and having seen him speak live several times that year. He's good, but he's no Obama. And, of course, his ground game and organizational skills don't come close to what Obama's done.

[Josh]

Actually, JFK has just been re-elected to his second term in the Senate in '58, so he had 8 years in the Senate, which is not insubstantial, but certainly not "waiting your turn" either. Plus, he was 43 when he ran for President, and Obama is 47 now. Basically, the difference is that Obama had real non-political jobs before he entered politics and JFK didn't (he had war service, but that's a different matter).

[Mike P]

As Kevin Drum notes here, being young and charismatic seems to be the deal here more so than race alone:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_03/013308.php

[Albert Johnson Jr]

Ms. Ferraro,

I am terribly disappointed. Your recent suggestion that Mr. Obamas’ success happened only because he is black is especially painful. To think that being black in America is a lucky thing strikes me as being inconsiderate.

I am a black person born the same year as Mr. Obamas’ wife 1964, and I can tell you at no time in my life was being black a lucky thing, or are you unaware of the sad and continuing legacy of American race relations. You disregard Mr. Obamas’ legitimate and laudable accomplishments by attributing them to one thing, and it’s the one thing Mr. Obama tries least to be – a man of race. Mr. Obama is a child of God, a husband, a father, a university graduate and a lawyer. Mr. Obama has been a stellar state representative of Illinois and he is currently a United States Senator, and great American. Somewhere probably in the high teens of the list of things Mr. Obama is would be black man.

The statements you have made and defend amount to making his race his primary attribute. You are playing the race card in a manner that is insulting, and quite frankly would be more expected from the kind of reactionary people America has hopefully outgrown.

In 1984 I was a student at the University of Southern California an institution with a traditionally conservative bent. I remember campaigning for and ardently defending a certain congressperson from New York as being more than just a woman, but a person regardless of gender worthy to potentially lead this country. I’m sorry to know now that I was wrong, and all the time any Gerard really would have sufficed.