Biography: Politics and Government B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: Presidential elections Unassessed Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

The following statement She has vowed to help protect Clinton from Republican attacks, such as the Swiftboat campaign that destroyed nominee Senator John Kerry in the close-cut 2004 presidential election. is flawed, and POV from the Liberal/Democratic perspective. The 'Swiftboat campaign" did not destroy Kerry's campaign. From the Conservative perspective, it is my belief that Kerry was his own worst enemy for flip-flopping on issue after issue, including war funding and taking different positions on Iraq depending on the political wind at the time. This statement should be clarified by someone, indicating that Ferraro has vowed to protect Clinton from political campaigns such as the Swiftboat campaign, which Democrats and Liberals cite as a contributing factor to John Kerry's defeat in 2004. As always, it would be good to see sources cited showing different perspectives on the so-called 'Swiftboat Campaign", rather than just blatantly accusing it alone of destroying Kerry's campaign. I recommend and edit by a politically neutral editor. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.41.34.50 (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entry has been changed (not by myself) and uses the verb Swiftboated, which appears to be a fair word to use in this context as it reads that Ferraro has vowed to protect Clinton from unfounded smear campaigns and is not used in the context being presented as the sole reason for Kerry's loss. Jleske (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing a school report on Gerry and I was wondering if anyone could post some primary documents (e.g. interviews, quotes, etc.)

Wikipedia doesn't post primary documents. There are lots on the Web - go googling. - DavidWBrooks 22:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article says she lost two "extremely close" senate primaries, when in fact the second race she lost 50-26% -- not close at all -- so the "extremely close" language is damaging the credibility of the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.11.27.39 (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that she "changed the American perception of women in politics," but never quite gets around to how anything changed. Could someone who knows please fix this oversight?

She didn't change anything in regards to women being in politics. Women have been heads of state, senators, and what have you before 1984. She wasn't even the first vice presidential candidate nor she was she as often incorrectly reported in the press as being the first woman to receive an electoral vote. Tonie Nathan, the Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate in 1972 was. Yet, which party gets labeled as progressive? The Democrats. Now you know why I don't trust corporate media. They almost always get things wrong.

Yes, women had been progressing greatly for women in other nations, but in the U.S. - not so stellar. There were only a handful of female senators and there were no women in senior cabinet positions - there wouldn't be until Clinton appointees JJanet Reno and Madeline Albright took office. There had only been 2 serious women to go after a manjor party nom. - Senator Margaret Chase Smith (R) and Rep. Shirley Chisholm (D). For the first time in history there was gender balance on the ticket - on a real ticket, a major party ticket, a ticket with 50/50 potential to win! Tonie Nathan? It's good she did what she did but everyone knew she was gonna lose. Ms. Ferraro changes the American perception of women in politics. It was huge, a woman being elected to be one life away from becoming the most powerful person on the face of the earth! She proved that women could be taken seriously as VP candidates and be strong minded politicians. She changed the American perception of women in politics because she eased the thoughts of sexists when it came for women for Vice President - or even for President. And she is still on of the most popular women in American history changing the nation by proving the power of women in a time when the only supreme power in any woman was Sandy O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

Good argument. Provide a citation that says as much. Remember (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but women Senators? Very few, even fewer elected in their own right - never more than 2 at a time serving back then. Cabinet members? Well, even though we started in 1933 with Frances Perkins, before Carter there were only ever 3 - 3! - women in the cabinet. As of then a woman was never a top cabinet officer. Before Sandra D.O'C. got on the Court, highest office held by a woman was Treasurer of the United States. After Mondale-Ferraro, women awoke to the possibility of women in power and they were appointed to top White House Staff, Cabinet, Congressional, and Supreme Court positions in record numbers. But Gerry was before Year of the Woman. It was huge to give a woman a 50% chance of being Second-in-Command in the world's most powerfull nation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.82.126 (talk) 22:29:32, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

The article uses "dogma" in its technical sense, not as a pejorative, so I think this is fairly an NPOV statement. The Catholic Church itself describes some of its basic beliefs as dogma, so I support the article's use of that term. I agree this is an arguable point, however, and if the consensus is to change the language back, I won't object. Gwernol 16:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we get more pictures? There are many of her campaigning and with Mondale, and that historic TIME Magazine cover "Historic Choice".

I would suggest changing the existing picture which appears to be many decade old (Oxfordden (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Ferraro should be added to the category, "Multiple Myeloma Patients." Kelelain 05:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ResearchChannel program for Geraldine Ferraro was taken off the site, so I have removed the link from the External Links. (ResearchChannel 01:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not keep editing the sentence that states that the Clinton campaign disagrees with Ferraro's statements. Thats what's printed in the source I cited and thats what's most accurate. To say that they are distancing themselves is not supported by the source or the facts as they happen. Clinton has recently addressed the issue by specifically not denouncing or even directly mentioning Ferraro's statements. Until she or the campaign does do so, "disagree" is the correct description of their stance.Cubguy83 (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wrong photo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.84.244 (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please re edit the vandalized name ('Geraldine RASCIST Ferraro') ? Hk1980 (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-very sad- I think it is sad that someone can get away with the openly racist remarks she made regarding Barrack Obama. If you don't think he will be a good president - say that and state your reasons but why make remarks on someone's ethnicity and race? It just shows Geraldine Ferraro has no class whatsoever!

This isn't a political discussion page. Please limit your remarks to the correct purpose: improving the article. -- 71.102.129.135 (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said she was racist! when barack obama was asked if it was racist he said no! he said she is not a racit person to! she accused her self of being racist! all barack obama said was she was being divisive, that she was tring to divide the country and none of his campain said it was racit..... the way obama responds he is gentile... i find it completly sad that america still has not gotten over racism that they are too scared of someone who is half white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.23.159 (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that "Controversial" is exact enough for this section. What she said were "Racially Charged" remarks, whether you agree with them or not. When asked about her comments she only defended them by stating they were true, not addressing the racial overtones of the comments. Therefore I believe that "'Racially Charged" is NPOV, since the comments have racial overtones and they have only been defended because they are "true". Please - let's get a healthy debate about this going, but I do not think it's an open and shut decision.Cubguy83 (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "racially charged" expression could suggest to some readers that she might be racist. It's probably better to simply write "comments". Wedineinheck (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, must we have a dozen paragraphs on her Clinton campaigning/Obama comment - almost as much as on her VP run? Obviously the reason for the exhaustive coverage is that it just happened, leading to a couple hundred edits since then, but really, it's probably not that important overall in her life; it's not what she'll be remembered for. So I suggest cutting down the affair to one, maybe two paragraphs rather than clogging her biography with this. Biruitorul (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used "inflamatory" to describe the comments, because they indeed were inflamatory to some. I believe that her comments were perfectly reasonable and factual, but the reality is that they were inflamatory to some. BTW, why is it that the pundits can thoroughly explore how Barack Obama can't attack Hillary to hard because she's a FEMALE candidate and many other female oriented narratives, but the instant someone comments on the pink elephant in the room-- that 1/3 of Democratic primary voters (Blacks) are overwhealmingly supporting Obama because of race and that is the difference in this campaign, they are racist. Absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Ivans (talk • contribs) 02:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the reason for her resignation from the Clinton campaign in the opening paragraphs. I feel that if it is worthwhile to mention her resignation there, it's worthwhile to mention why. I tried to word it as neutrally as possible while still explaining the truth of the situation. If someone wants to reword it, go ahead.Countmippipopolous (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton did not ask for Ferraro's resignation. This is explicitly implied by the sentence "Campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said Ferraro left the post on her own initiative", which is part of the source i used to cite this. Meaning, she was not asked to leave which would be the alternative to her leaving on her own volition.Cubguy83 (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"racist" is the correct word to describe the remark. The source I provided makes a perfectly sensible argument.[1] If saying someone is successful only because of the color of their skin isn't racist, I'll eat my hat. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with the above post. If it had been barack obama who had suggested that the only reason the long nosed bitch (ferraro) got selected as a VP was becuz she has a vagina, he would have been condemned as a sexist pig. Why the double standard to Ferraro? her comments were indeed racist. Barack Obama won more votes than Hillary clinton, and that's why he has more than a 100 delegate lead over her, not becuz of his race. Someone needs to remind miss ferraro, that the nominee of the party is selected via the People's vote, not by the whim of a politician (walter mondale) looking to add more votes by selecting a woman regardless of whether she can lead or not. The people spoke and she got trampeled over in the election by the superior nominee, miss ferraro can go play in traffic or something.

I've added a comment that Ferraro has been labelled as racist for her remarks and cited the source for this comment. It's fair to draw attention that her views are seen as being racist. Jleske (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier, I wrote:

By the way, must we have a dozen paragraphs on her Clinton campaigning/Obama comment - almost as much as on her VP run? Obviously the reason for the exhaustive coverage is that it just happened, leading to a couple hundred edits since then, but really, it's probably not that important overall in her life; it's not what she'll be remembered for. So I suggest cutting down the affair to one, maybe two paragraphs rather than clogging her biography with this.

Please see WP:UNDUE - "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Now, we're not sure quite how much weight this episode will have on Ferraro's life story, first of all because it just happened and second because she's still living. Nevertheless, I strongly suspect the matter will be dead and buried in a few days. Given that, it's absurd to fill her biography with every twist and turn of the past week. What I kept is more than enough to give readers an idea of the subject. This is an encyclopedic biography, not a news blog, and our job is to paint a stable picture of the subject's life, not dwell endlessly on a couple of interviews she gave. Biruitorul (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a tag, because I noticed some material in the article that appears to be slanted against Ferraro. Enigma ^msg! 07:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. There is a decidedly negative tinge here. I think we can mention the incident without hurting her name. Recall that Obama gave her the benefit of the doubt. Antelan^talk 05:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why the outrage? Political expediency?

QUOTE "Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.

If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?" END QUOTE

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...9.story?page=2

I think this should put the issue to rest for Geraldine Ferraro, but no Barack Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.94.222.201 (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gmcjetpilot (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Gmcjetpilot March 16, 2008[reply]

I have tried to change this 3 or 4 times and it keeps getting deleted.

1) There is ref to Keith Olbermann of MSNBC count down and a "Special Comment" (a personal tirade) about how awful her comments are. Normally Olbermann uses his "special comments" as a personal editorial and criticism of Bush Admin. For the FIRST TIME he used the "Special comment" on Ferraro and the Clinton campaign, Democrats. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. It is bias opinion. Per Olbermann's Wiki page he is a top liberal. Clearly by his coverage (I watch his show) of Clinton v Obama he is biased for Obama. When Obama had his Rev Wright and "Bitter" issue, Olbermann had the tone how can he fix this, will it hurt him. When Geraldine Ferraro says Obama is luck to be a black man, she and Clinton get a "Special Comment" (attack). Make no mistake Special means a vitriolic rant condemning something. That is FINE and very entertaining but does not deserve Wiki status. Clearly reference to Keith Olbermann of MSNBC "Special Comment" and his vitriolic point of view about her comments is bias. Who cares what Olbermann says. His "special comments" are personal

2) The Ref to the Daily Breeze where she made her original or later comments are NO LONGER WORKING.

3) Some so called quotes are NOT found in the reference. "Ferraro remained defiant?" That is a commentary not found in reference.

4) The quotes take two of the worst sentences out of context.

5) No ref give her defense, explanation or comments back to the Obama campaign that calls her a racist.

6) Obama's "race speech" defending Rev Wright took an attack, comparing Ferraro to Rev wright, saying she had "Deep seeded racial bias"??? Ferraro defends her self against this as she should. Does anyone think she is a racist or a "typical white person"? SHE IS BEING ATTACKED, and all the attacks are in the Wiki article but no other side. Not neutral at all.

7) Should there be any defense of her words? Bob Johnson, founder of BET defends her words. Very simple if Barack Obama was Bob Olson, a white Jr. Senator from Illinois, he would not have create the buzz he got to launch a Presidential Campaign or command the 90% of black votes he now has. This is not to say he is not smart or running a good campaign.

8) How about Randi Rhodes of Air America, fired for attacking Ferraro and Hillary clinton with a profanity tirade. I think the NON neutral aspect of media attacking Clinton and not Obama is relevant. If it is not relevant, than Olbermann's comments should be removed.

9) I added some references to Ferraro's comments, where she defends herself. She made comments that Obama camp has called the race card too many times. They are her own words. She addresses the Obama camps and other medias condemnation of her. The Wiki article is tailored to just make her look bad with not one bit of context. Ferraro and Clinton are liberal and have been fighting for black causes and minorities for decades and decades. To paint his as controversial in a "racist way" is not neutral and feeds the beast. My personal opinion Obama has enjoyed "racial armor" or protection. Any criticism seems to be met with crys of racism or "there goes Clinton doing what ever it takes with unfair attacks".

10) Why is this controversial? WHY because Obama's camp and his supporters are spring loaded to yell and shout down any one criticizing Obama. And all the excuse they need is any mention of race. Hillary said LBJ helped pass Civil Rights. Bill Clinton said Jessie Jackson won south carolina with a majority of black votes; Bob Johnson says Hillary was working for black causes when Obama was selling drugs......... all these caused "controversy" but all are true. Well they are as true as small town people being bitter so they cling to religion, guns and bigotry towards immigration and foreigners. It is way more ture than HIV is a US Gov plot to kill blacks.

What is obvious is its ok to attack a white woman with the most harsh language but a black man must not be criticised no matter what they say or do. To do so would be racist.

I would just like to give reference to ALL her words, not where she says she is being attacked for being white or Obama is lucky. I AM NOT A Clinton supporter or Ferraro supporter or against Obama. I just think this off handed comment which in some ways is true, Obama's mix race is out there and does affect his candidacy, is shown to make Ferraro sound like a raving racist. Again the Olbermann comments are totally OUT OF LINE. As Obama would say WORDS DO MATTER. If the media can explain and excuse his BITTER comment or Rev Wrights than we should have both sides of the story here.

Note Obama's Wiki page almost sanitized. Than look at Hillary Clinton's, with mention of her laugh and getting choked up on the campaign trail? Why? Why do things like laugh matter. Why does Obama's page not mention his speech style but when talks extemporaneously he studders and stammers? Why no controversial comments for OBAMA? I am starting to see politcal bias is rampant on Wiki. Gmcjetpilot (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted Tvoz's edit because it changed factual information that I had sourced. The statement in question was that Hillary had not asked for Ferraro to step down. This is a noteworthy fact, and it is mentioned in the AP story provided at the end of the sentence. In the AP story it says that Wolfson said that Ferraro had resigned of her own accord. No one had put any pressure on her to do so. Read it, its right there in plain english. So if you want to change this please state a reason here for the change, because it is properly sourced and an important distinction.Cubguy83 (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see in this edit where it is claimed that Hillary asked Ferraro to step down; it explicitly says Ferraro didn't want her comments used against Hillary's campaign. I haven't reverted this edit but it is suspect to me. (If a revert happens, I'd rather see "heated criticism" changed to "criticism" myself, because we don't need to judge - just inform.)  Frank  |  talk  19:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, my edit did a lot more than remove that synthesis. Cubguy, you are making a logical extension from what Howard Wolfson is cited as saying to saying that Hillary did not call for her resignation. This is likely accurate, but it is not supported by the citation, and on Wikipedia we do not go with things that are logical extensions of sources - it's not truth, it's verifiability that counts here. SO, I did not at all suggest that Hillary asked Ferraro to step down, as Frank correctly notes. What I did was stick to the source, and I also made other needed changes in that section which was out of order chronologically and poorly worded, so just reverting my overall edit is not at all the appropriate move to make, even if you disagreed with my removal of the OR extrapolation that Hillary hadn't asked for the resignation. I do not object in principle to saying that Wolfson said Ferraro left on her own accord, as per the source, and if you have another source that explicitly says that Hillary did not call for her resignation, that could possibly be included, but the way you had it is not supported. However, mindful of WP:WEIGHT, I do not think the Wolfson comment is necessary to include here, as the section as I edited it was quite clear that Ferraro decided on her own to separate herself from the campaign so as to not harm the campaign. Therefore, I am reverting to my edit, because there are other things in the original that were problems. I also have removed "heated" as per Frank's comment above which was correct. Tvoz |talk 21:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]