No, Geri, they're attacking you 'coz you're a bloody idiot.

Her conduct is unbelievable. If the Clinton campaign doesn't make her resign after demanding it of Samantha Power, it's incredibly hypocritical.

Ferraro's premise is idiotic. The suggestion that Obama benefits from being black is baldly racist. Clinton had more support among the black community than he did at the start of the campaign. He earned those votes with political, oratorical and organizational skills.

Clinton and her merry band of victims.

Geraldine "the Greek" Ferraro.

Here we can see what kind of nation hillary will provide simply by those who she surrounds herself with as advisors.

Racial tensions to the max, and clearly shows hillary's character in the racial divide, it will be no different in the economic divide either.

Ferraro isn't white. She's Italian.

And a loser as well.

No, they are attacking you because you have a big mouth and no idea how to control it!

"No, Geri, they're attacking you 'coz you're a bloody idiot."

Has she been an idiot all along or just since she said something against Obama? I remember when she was the second most qualified person in the United States to be president. What happened?

What happened?

She quit because the pressure of her past made such a poor reflection upon the people.

I for one was glad, who wants a loser who gives up and can't seem to learn from her past character flaws.

hillary likes her though, and that should say something as to her character.

Here we can see what kind of nation hillary will provide simply by those who she surrounds herself with as advisors.
Posted by moneywar

Very true. And I think most of the is orchestrated by Hillary.

What Really Happened is that her husband didn't want to disclose any financial information. Ha! Sound familiar? And her parents ran a bookie joint. LMAO

Time to rip the Bitch up.

"What Really Happened is that her husband didn't want to disclose any financial information. Ha! Sound familiar? And her parents ran a bookie joint. LMAO"

Yeah...but at what point did she become an idiot? Was she an idiot when she was nominated or did she just become one recently?

The suggestion that Obama benefits from being black is baldly racist. Clinton had more support among the black community than he did at the start of the campaign. He earned those votes with political, oratorical and organizational skills.

Posted by rcade

why is it "baldly" racists? Prove your assertion she has higher support now than at the beginning of the campaign.

Everything I have read states clearly blacks are voting in primaries for obama because he is black and in overwhelming numbers.

This is becoming like the "nazi" tag when someone says something people dislike or doesn't agree with a political affiliation..

Scream racist and hopefully they will go away.

Moneywar,

You've said it. This business of divide and conquer is coming home to roost. The Dems are turning on themselves.

Once you identify special groups, there is no end the the accusations. This is the end-product of affirmative action and the thinking that went behind it....a banana republic broken into ineffectual little minorities who spend all their time being victims...

Obama has this part right...that must end. Then again, his campaign doesn't seem to understand that.

Posted by Legio at 2008-03-12 08:51 AM


Perfectly stated, Leggo.

Just the Clinton group showing more of their true colors. Pathetic!

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit there legio. rCade said that she had more support at the beginning of the campaign from blacks and it eroded.

What get me laughing is that Clinton and Ferraro portray themselves as STRONG women, but in each case they seem to have problems with the hubby and releasing financial information.

Just another pair of Coattail Cunts.

They both bow to the power and that means a third term for Bubba.

Ferraro's premise is idiotic. The suggestion that Obama benefits from being black is baldly racist.


What about her follow-up comment where she said that if she were a man, there is no way she would have been the Dem Veep in '84?

Is she a misogynist for saying that?

Welcome back, Ride.

Yeah, yeah..........LOL.

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." -April 15, 1988 Washington Post

I see her logic. Some of the campaign is focused around getting the first black man elected, and some people will vote for him for that very reason. However, it is also important to note that there is a large portion of the population that won't vote for him anyways because he is black. But, a majority of those people would vote Republican anyways. There are far fewer people in the middle and on the left that would refuse to vote for a black person, so perhaps it is helping him.

The suggestion that Obama benefits from being black is baldly racist.

No, not really... wait... no, not at all.

Because he does. Its not the sole reason he is where he is, but to say that he hasn't benefited in this campaign because of it is silly.

One, he gets practically an entire voting block coming out for him.

Two, harsh criticism of Obama or his campaign can be brushed off as racist.

Its not the reason for his success, but it is a reason for it.

I just found out that Geralding has been sick and going through chemotherapy so I am going to give her the benefit of the doubt on her first comment, but to come back and refer to this as reverse racism, well, that logic is as bad as the movie "White Man's Burden".

Clinton had more support among the black community than he did at the start of the campaign

after the campaigns of Black politicians like Jackson, Sharpton and Keyes can you blame them? Once they realized he wasn't like them they all practically went to his camp.

Well, wasn't Bill Clinton made to be an honorary black man?

What a cunt.

Look, the thing that set people off is the fact that she said Obama is "lucky" to be a black man. There is truth to the fact that he is heavily supported by the African-American community and no one is denying that. But for Ferarro to say he is lucky and infer that money and the political offices just falls in the laps of black people everyday is absurd. To make it seem like blacks have it on easy street is absurd. She let her misandrist attitude get in the way of her rational thinking. And what tops it off is she screams reverse racism. Had she just stopped and with the statement that had she been a man in '84 she wouldn't have been on the ticket, she would have been fine. But, no, she had to charge the Obama camp with reverse racism...simply absurd.

I really think the democratic party is coming apart at the seems. What this whole incident shows us is that crazy old dried up white chicks aren't going to come out to vote for Obama, and 9 out of 10 African-Americans aren't going to vote for Hillary when it comes to the general election. The democrats should be so proud.

Edit time, no coffee yet:

fall instead of "falls"

and

seams instead of "seems"

This is just blatant slimy dem politics led by the chief bitch attack dog ferarro. They are trying to define Obama as the one-dimensional black canidate.

This could hopefully split the democrat party in a worse way than when the dems gave up the South after surrendering the Vietnam war.

Thom the conservative

I think it was reverse racism. Had a black man said it nobody would have given it a second thought. I'm not saying she's right, but perhaps had he been white he would have just been another John Edwards, who knows. His being black gained him a lot of media attention, and I think Obama did very well with that attention. Maybe if he wasn't given this extra attention we would only be talking about Clinton right now.

To me it seems that everyone who critcizes makes observations about Obama is in danger of being called a racist. It's ridiculous, but it is absolutely normal for American politics.

I am a white male Obama supporter who happens to think the following two things:

Ferraro's intial comment about Obama getting somewhat of a "boost" by the novelty factor of being black, while poorly delivered and certainly poorly worded, is essentially correct. She also said that had she been a man, she would not have been selected for the VP spot at the time. These are points worth considering, and the worst they can be is incorrect, not "racist".

As far as Obama's race being an advantage right now ... is it racist to say that his race will be a disadvantage in November? Is THAT racist to say? Of course not ... it's true and we all know it. The reason it's an advantage now is because Obama is getting 90+% of the black vote, a large portion of which would certainly go to HIllary if she were running against, say, John Edwards.

All the screaming of "racism" just shows that we still cannot discuss issues outside of extreme rhetoric and PC bullshit.

Agreed 100% Midiman

Ferraro's intial comment about Obama getting somewhat of a "boost" by the novelty factor of being black, while poorly delivered and certainly poorly worded, is essentially correct.

This is crazy. Carolyn Moseley-Braun, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were black too, and they started with support not far from what Obama had at the start of this campaign. He did not get an automatic black vote that would suggest an advantage to his race. He earned his support over the course of the campaign.

I'm amazed that people are buying into Ferraro's idiocy. It's Bizarro logic.

I'm amazed that people are buying into Ferraro's idiocy. It's Bizarro logic.

Posted by rcade at 2008-03-12 09:39 AM | Reply


I'm amazed that you expect us to believe that Braun, Sharpton, and Jackson and their ebonics can be compared to Obama's articulate delivery.

The point is he's a clean and articulate black man (and a light skinned one at that). Every one knows a light skinned black man that talks like a white man doesn't scare whitey quite like a Wesley Snipes colored black man that talks like Flavor Flav.

Ironically, Ferraro is a Hillary supporter. Same thinking can be applied to Hillary in that she's getting some of her votes from women because she is a woman.

I haven't heard this much conversation about race since Republicans are called the racist party. The Democrats are showing their true colors of being all about race and politics all the time. Their quest for power is an entertaining event.

All the Clinton haters need to realize that the Clintons have not changed. They have always been this way. They were this way when they were blindly loved. Rest assured they will not give up their power without a real fight.

And I have nothing against Obama. He seems intelligent. His wife, I believe is more intelligent. She will be a firecracker in the White House if he is elected. She had a huge chip on her shoulder looking for someone to knock it off. Is the U.S. ready for another 2-for-1 president?

I'm amazed that people are buying into Ferraro's idiocy. It's Bizarro logic.

Posted by rcade


Rcade I teach and talk to young people EVERY day. MOST of them are very excited by the fact that Obama is black, and are EAGER to do their part to cnage history by voting for him - for THAT REASON. Many of them know NOTHING about issues, and will tell you that they are republicans. Are you REALLY suggestion that race has nothing to do with it?

The advantage I mentioned was NOW, not at the beginning - Obama's other skills are certainly the main reason for his growing acceptance among mainstream democrats (as it should be), but facts are facts.

Not all facts have to be pleasant, and not all unpleasant facts are racist.

I haven't heard this much conversation about race since Republicans are called the racist party. The Democrats are showing their true colors of being all about race and politics all the time. Their quest for power is an entertaining event.


You see, for every snippet of reasonable discussion, there are these moments, as well.

"Carolyn Moseley-Braun, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were black too" -RCade

These guys didn't have the support of white voters the way Obama does, and are a bit more radical. The black community loved Bill Clinton, and so it was easy for them to throw their support behind Hillary. Black people are just like white people. They want to vote for somebody who has a chance of winning. But now it is known that Obama can grab the support of white voters. As a result many blacks who would have voted for Hillary are voting Obama.

Same thinking can be applied to Hillary in that she's getting some of her votes from women because she is a woman.

Posted by Pirate



And that thinking would of course be correct. Not ALL, as PC critics would hear, but SOME, as was actually said.

Agreed, Pirate. It's a little different (some women can be highly skeptical about other women in a way that they are not for men for some reason), but the same idea.

Lest there be any doubt that the Clinton's will do ANYTHING to win...

"Andrew Sullivan - 10 Mar 2008 10:34 am

You may have missed it - almost everyone missed it - but Bill Clinton was on Rush Limbaugh's show the day of the Texas primary. You can hear the radio here. Limbaugh himself was sick that day, apparently, but he had already urged Republicans to cross over to keep Hillary Clinton in the race. Bill saw an opening - and went there.

Now just wrap your mind around this: the Clintons were happy to support a cynical, partisan Republican campaign to wound the Democratic front-runner, and they were brazen enough to go on the Limbaugh show to do so."

I teach and talk to young people EVERY day. MOST of them are very excited by the fact that Obama is black, and are EAGER to do their part to cnage history by voting for him - for THAT REASON. Many of them know NOTHING about issues, and will tell you that they are republicans. Are you REALLY suggestion that race has nothing to do with it?

I don't think your personal experience represents the bigger picture. The fact that you know some young people voting on the basis of race does not mean the electorate as a whole is doing it.

If that's all that mattered, Mosley-Braun and Sharpton in 2004 would have been credible candidates in Southern states with large black populations. Sharpton was still in the race in South Carolina and got only 10 percent of the vote.

Is the U.S. ready for another 2-for-1 president?


You must be talking about the Clintons...and then again there's McCain and his nurse. We really need more specificity when making these claims.

It is also apparent that Michelle Obama ony works part time on the campaign and places her children number one on her priority list. So I don't think the 2-4-1 really applies to her.

"Geraldine Ferraro says her comments on Barack Obama's race being the primary reason for his success in the presidential campaign are being "spun" as racist, and she says he should be thanking her for the comments."

Give that woman a bigger shovel.

Came across this comment on CNN and thought I would share:

Clinton is using Ferraro as an expendable surrogate to appeal to the Archie Bunker voters in PA who will be turned off Obama's candidacy by the whiff of "affirmative action." It's patently untrue, of course, and completely shameful; Obama's qualifications are impeccable and actually outstrip those of Clinton.

But this is what the primary has come to, and if the DNC does not step in to end Clinton's quest to steal this contest through the use of superdelegates and poached pledged delegates, with a dollop of media-created "momentum" on her sideher only avenues to victorythe Democractic Party will lose in November.

I am starting to think that Ferraro is doing Clinton's dirty work. Yes, I know Hillary has come out against her statements, but does anyone think that if Hillary went to her and told her to cease and desist that she wouldn't stop talking?

Nail on the head, Gal.

Clinton is using Ferraro as an expendable surrogate to appeal to the Archie Bunker voters in PA who will be turned off Obama's candidacy by the whiff of "affirmative action."

Agreed, and just another sign that Clinton doesn't give a damn about the Democratic party or this country. Her only concern is that she get the nomination; she will do and say anything, through her surrogates if need be, to win.

Geraldine:

If you were not white you would not have said what you did in the first place.

If you were not white nobody would have asked you.

If you were not white nobody would have taken any notice of what you said.

If you were not white, you would not have been a Vice-Presidential candidate.

If you were not white, this post would not exist.

Haven't you been lucky?

How about that?

Apparently this is a pattern for Gerri:

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."

If that's all that mattered, Mosley-Braun and Sharpton in 2004 would have been credible candidates in Southern states with large black populations. Sharpton was still in the race in South Carolina and got only 10 percent of the vote.



Posted by rcade



PLEASE DON'T DO THIS. I never said it was ALL THAT MATTERED, and that's the problem with this discussion, and all discussions like it. Why do we need to retreat into opposite extreme corners?

Ultimately, the story will be written, and we will hear more discussion of this and other side-issues.

Race is a factor here or why is it being discussed? By definition, that makes it a factor, right? Maybe we should start talking about how big a factor (perhaps very small, perhaps larger than we know at this point), without the whole "racist" label hanging over our heads.

"Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

It's stupid, that's how it is. I'm not attacking you, Ger, because you are white or a woman. I'm white and a woman myself. I'm attacking your comments because you are playing the race card in order to garner votes for Hillary Clinton, your candidate of choice. I expected better of you. I expect better of the Democratic party. Where the hell is Howard Dean? He ought to step in and tell people to stick to the issues instead of stooping to racebaiting tactics.

Geraldine:

If you were not white you would not have said what you did in the first place.

If you were not white nobody would have asked you.

If you were not white nobody would have taken any notice of what you said.

If you were not white, you would not have been a Vice-Presidential candidate.

If you were not white, this post would not exist.

Haven't you been lucky?

How about that?

Posted by sitdown at 2008-03-12 10:16 AM | Reply

What you say is true, the difference being the news channels, political blogs, and newspapers aren't going to have their periods over it.
You thin skinned race baiters need to get your faux outrage in check.

All of the pant-pissing and mock outrage you Obama-ites have shown is making it difficult for the other Dems to deny that the Dem party is filled with your kind. Own it Dems.

This is just blatant slimy dem politics led by the chief bitch attack dog ferarro. They are trying to define Obama as the one-dimensional black canidate.

This could hopefully split the democrat party in a worse way than when the dems gave up the South after surrendering the Vietnam war.

I'm going to take a contrarian view about Ferraro's comments. I agree with Thom's first paragraph above, but not his second.

I think Clinton and her supporters are doing a tremendous faovr to the Democratic Party and Obama supporters by saying the things they've been saying since the primaries began and here's why.

Obama isn't just running for a singular office, he's running to redefine politics and the Party for the new millenium. By exposing the latent racism and bias from even the more celebrated of Democratic fossils, the stage has been set, showing moderates and rational Republicans that the party Obama wants to lead isn't the Party still beholden to the Clintons and their corruption.

No one but an idiot would ever think that Democrats can't be racist or sexist or just plain bigotted. Of course they can. But Obama wants nothing to do with those types of people and has always appealed to the "better angels" of humanity, not its lowest common denominator. Never once has Obama mentioned his candidacy as being "history-making", yet Hillary does this everyday to highlight that she's a woman breaking new ground. He never calls himself anything but an American leader wanting to change the way Washington does business. The media has pretty much made the use of racial dynamics the third rail in their coverage of Obama. Obama didn't start with the overwhelming support of the black community, he had to earn it by winning the support of WHITES first! Everyone seems to forget what was so intensely talked about just 2 months ago. The notion of instant monolithic black support just wasn't how it happened. The reality is posted quite honestly in other posts above.

Ferraro brought race into the fray now, because it fits in the continuing narrative that somehow Hillary isn't being defeated fairly and squarely, so it has to be because Hillary is victimized by something or someone. These Hillary supporters cannot see past her gender to recognize that Obama has been the superior candidate with the superior message that resonates with the American electorate in a way the Clinton Restoration Project doesn't.

It was all there for Hillary, but her dysfunctional staff couldn't put the pieces together in time, fell behind and never recovered. Bringing Americans together has always been a powerful message, one that resonates with the young idealists more than with old status quo-tarians. I've been having this discussion with many righties on the Retort who swore up and down that NO WAY would Americans elect a man named Barack Hussein Obama as their President. Now I see these same individuals making the case that his race HELPS him? Hello? I guess thats why we've had so many black Presidents before in America. Even mentioning the topic itself is merely another way of bringing to everyone's attention that Obama is different than white America. Thats right, he's half-white and half-African. I guess his mother's blood doesn't count for many.

Where the hell is Howard Dean? He ought to step in and tell people to stick to the issues instead of stooping to racebaiting tactics.

Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2008-03-12 10:19 AM | Reply


Yeah, he's the perfect guy for that you tool. Maybe he can calm things down by telling a joke about blacks working at hotels or something like that?

Face it, the Dems are equally as dirty in the "race" arena, and you clowns are now getting it shoved back in your faces.

You puds bought your own hype. What a bunch of stooges.

Face it, the Dems are equally as dirty in the "race" arena, and you clowns are now getting it shoved back in your faces.

I can agree with that, especially among southern and uneducated voters.

All of the pant-pissing and mock outrage you Obama-ites have shown is making it difficult for the other Dems to deny that the Dem party is filled with your kind. Own it Dems.

I think I just did above. Though I don't believe I've ever made the case that Democrats couldn't be racist or sexist like any person breathing God's air. Political affiliation has nothing to do with being bigotted in my book.

It has to do with being a bigot and viewing the world through the prism of race or sex instead of judging individuals for who and what they are based upon what they're made of and what they show to the world on a daily basis.

Race is a factor here or why is it being discussed? By definition, that makes it a factor, right? Maybe we should start talking about how big a factor (perhaps very small, perhaps larger than we know at this point), without the whole "racist" label hanging over our heads.

Fair enough, but we also need to be able to discuss the role gender is playing in the race without being labelled sexist. FYI for Hill and Ger: there are women who are voting for Clinton because they want to see a woman president. Then, there are folks voting for her because they want to see another Clinton, so we also need to discuss the role legacy and entitlement based on it are playing in the race.

Gal,
I didn't mean to attack you with my typical name calling. It was simply habit, and I actually feel bad. My apologies.

I listened to Herman Cain last night. He defended her comment. Just because someone is black should not preclude an honest assessment .
She was going for the point that with his lack of experience he would not be considered for such a high office. I feel the same about Hil's experience...she wouldn't be where she is if she wasn't a woman and wife of the former prez.

I would have liked to hear Obama answer straight out . Yes, Geraldine I am black and I have just as much experience as the woman you support.
Instead the racial non sense plays on.
And I think it is too his benefit more than Hils.

Race is a factor here or why is it being discussed? By definition, that makes it a factor, right? Maybe we should start talking about how big a factor (perhaps very small, perhaps larger than we know at this point), without the whole "racist" label hanging over our heads.

If Ferraro had said that race was a factor in his success, as opposed to being *the most important factor*, we wouldn't be having this discussion. She's put forward a divisive, simplistic argument that divides the Democratic Party. I'm glad I wasn't of voting age in 1984 so I didn't cast a vote for that idiot.

It has to do with being a bigot and viewing the world through the prism of race or sex instead of judging individuals for who and what they are based upon what they're made of and what they show to the world on a daily basis.

Posted by tonyroma at 2008-03-12 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

CORRECT!

Face it, the Dems are equally as dirty in the "race" arena, and you clowns are now getting it shoved back in your faces.

I don't think Ferraro is playing the race card because she is racist. No, I think she is playing it purely for cold-hearted, calculated, political gain, which is far worse in my book. Racism like sexism is the result of prejudice and ignorance; what Ferraro is doing is the result of knowledge and greediness for power. When people call her on her s--t, she plays the reverse discrimination card and plays victim. Lovely.

I can agree with that, especially among southern and uneducated voters.

Posted by taxman at 2008-03-12 10:24 AM | Reply


I'd have to say it's across the board. There are some pretty educated North Easterners on Hil's team that have said some things you Obama-mamma's have cried racism over.

Since the day I signed up here the people left of center have always tried to play the "It's the Rep's that are racist, we're the all inclusive party".
I imagine that's one more arrow taken out of your quivers. How many are you guys going to have left after this dust-up?

Spitzer isn't helping either...

The premise that blacks are just voting for the black candidate is disproved by those 2007 polls.

Posted by rcade


Is it possible that being Black was the deciding factor though? Not voting for him just because he's Black, but maybe gives him a leg up on Hillary. Its not like the two are at polar opposites on issue after issue that would cause such a vast majority to swing to Obama. Is there any other voter group voting so heavily in favor of him?

I forgot to add that now would be a good time for Geraldine Ferarro to come back on TV and tell us Obama is HALF-WHITE! And she is white. So he is half as white as she is. So how can she be being racist? How about that?

Gal,
I didn't mean to attack you with my typical name calling. It was simply habit, and I actually feel bad. My apologies.

Thanks, Chair. Not a problem. No offense was taken.

What you say is true, the difference being the news channels, political blogs, and newspapers aren't going to have their periods over it.
You thin skinned race baiters need to get your faux outrage in check.

All of the pant-pissing and mock outrage you Obama-ites have shown is making it difficult for the other Dems to deny that the Dem party is filled with your kind. Own it Dems.

Posted by 101Chairborne


you say it so much more "colorfully".. oh shit is that racist?

Chair,

And you are right about racism existing within the Democratic party. Of course it does to some extent and to a larger extent than many of us would like or like to admit.

I think she is playing it purely for cold-hearted, calculated, political gain, which is far worse in my book. Racism like sexism is the result of prejudice and ignorance; what Ferraro is doing is the result of knowledge and greediness for power. When people call her on her s--t, she plays the reverse discrimination card and plays victim. Lovely.

Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2008-03-12 10:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

Correct and insightful.

I have never cared for Senator Ferraro, but I truely admire her for standing up for herself and not backing down. BRAVO.......

Spitzer isn't helping either...

Posted by 101Chairborne

Reportedly, he's spent $80,000 on hookers. Who knows, it might have been worth it.

The Dems adopted this "status" thing and dividing women from men, and blacks from white, so they could talk about "their" issues.

Clinton used the blacks, but he always was a cynical bastard, and the Bitch is no different. They've been playing the race card, and I laugh at how people are so shocked.

The Clintons are among the most evil and vile people in politics. This really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

And you are right about racism existing within the Democratic party. Of course it does to some extent and to a larger extent than many of us would like or like to admit.

If this wasn't the case, then Ferraro wouldn't be saying what she is saying. In light of her comments, the question to ask is: what audience in Hillary's base is she playing too? She must think someone is going to buy into her argument, or she wouldn't be making it. My hope is that she is wrong about the number who will respond. My hope is that she is fighting the previous war and will therefore lose the battle. We'll see.

racism exists everywhere and in everyone

and this whole argument that if barack was white he wouldn't be here

well if barack was white, his life would have been much different growing up

he would have made different choices
and then he probably wouldn't be here
and there are an infinite number of possibilies that exist, so its a moot point to say he's here because he's black...

shit if barack was black but born of a different father he wouldn't be here

he is where he is because of who he is, and thus because he's black, but that doesn't limit his capabilities.

but that is no reason to say that he isn't a great inspiration to 10's of millions of americans.

and thats really what the president should do, inspire the country, and inspire his cabinet to do great things.

"It's the Rep's that are racist, we're the all inclusive party".

I don't think the Dems can claim racial impartiality but the Republicans, since Nixon, have based their election strategy on his "Southern Strategy" which was specifically designed to take advantage of white resentment about forced integration in the south, which was a direct result of racism. Therefore the Republicans do rightly have to admit that racism has played a significant part of their party's success in presidential politics. Individual Republicans may not be racists but if they take advantage of a strategy which benefits from racism then their denials of racism seem sort of phony.

I guess Ferraro is against Affirmative Action as well? After all racisim works both ways.

Hillary needs to drop this bitch quick.

Since the day I signed up here the people left of center have always tried to play the "It's the Rep's that are racist, we're the all inclusive party".
I imagine that's one more arrow taken out of your quivers. How many are you guys going to have left after this dust-up?

Chair, I have lived in the South all of my life (Texas and Louisiana) and I can tell you that racism/misogyny extends to both parties and across various demographics. Now, the question isn't whether there are racist/misogynist in the dem or republican party, the question is whether it is prudent to harbor those attitudes. I would say that both parties have taken major steps to distance themselves from those with such backwards attitudes.

Klifferd - I like you more and more everyday.

he is where he is because of who he is, and thus because he's black, but that doesn't limit his capabilities.

but that is no reason to say that he isn't a great inspiration to 10's of millions of americans.

and thats really what the president should do, inspire the country, and inspire his cabinet to do great things.

Beautiful Klifferd! Thanks for the sentiments.

I don't think Ferraro is playing the race card because she is racist. No, I think she is playing it purely for cold-hearted, calculated, political gain, which is far worse in my book. Racism like sexism is the result of prejudice and ignorance; what Ferraro is doing is the result of knowledge and greediness for power. When people call her on her s--t, she plays the reverse discrimination card and plays victim. Lovely.

Posted by Gal_Tuesday


If that is indeed what she is doing, then I agree with this 100% - I just think that sometimes we allow simple observations to explode in our faces through our own PC heat. Remember how Hillary was criticized for saying that it took Pres Johnson to get laws enacted, and that MLK's words were not enough. She was absolutely rgiht about that (in a literal, factual sense), but the hysteria overwhelmed a legitmate point.


I'm just wary of PC arguments and rash conclusions, and I don't find my way clear to reject Ferraro's points completely, especially in light of recent voting patterns.

I also agree with the poster who suggests that getting all of this out there now will eventually prove to be a good thing, especially once the media change their story line, which they will inevitably do.

I guess the closet racist Ferraro type are the same sort of Dems that claim Justice Thomas is only in his position because he is black.

Is this not the same argument Thomas has made against AA that pissed off all the Dems and had blacks label him a "Uncle Tom." If your black and in a lofty position many assume you are not in the position due to merit, rather it must be a token due to race. This thought diminishes the accomplishment of the person in the minds of many, even when its undeserved.

I have never cared for Senator Ferraro, but I truely admire her for standing up for herself and not backing down. BRAVO.......

Posted by 08r4ever


I was thinking the same thing... what she said may be wrong or stupid or whatever, but I love that she is not backing down after people are calling her racist... not only is she not backing it down but she's calling them racists right back at them.

An issue I have with Obama outside his ideas and policies is that I truly think that people who criticize his administration or legislators who stand in the way of his policies are going to be decried as racists until they stay quiet or step aside. I hope more people like Ferraro stand up to that crutch now and in the future so they can't use it.

She was absolutely rgiht about that (in a literal, factual sense), but the hysteria overwhelmed a legitmate point.

I can't believe people still do not understand why her comments were offensive.

How many people in Congress DIED because they championed civil rights?

How many people DIED, were beaten, jailed, and treated worse than rabid dogs, fighting for civil rights on the streets of the South?

How could anyone say that political machinations were of equal importance to the sacrifices of hundreds of thousands of American citizens who said they wouldn't take it anymore?

There is no comparison whatsoever to the importance of creating a situation that American households could no longer tolerate on their tv screens every night of fellow citizens being abused by a racist institution nurtured and praised by far too many people. Until the blood was spilled and the heads busted, there wasn't going to be political pressure to pass legislation, or it would have been done long before.

She has been down this road before though:

Okay, she may only be partially right about Obama and is completely wrong if she's using it as his only reason to be where he is...

But about Jackson she is without question right... the only reason Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton are where they are is because they are Black. Anyone disputing that is just being silly.

Similar argument to you, Tony ... why can't we just look at objective reality without the need to make grand comparisons and relative judgments? Or even better, why does the mere discussion of these things require us to search for value judgments about the people engaged in the discussions?

And BTW ... people who "get offended" might want to take a moment and examine the power it gives to others. I can "take offense", but I try not to give anyone else the power to offend me. I can see the POINT of what Hillary said in that case (and why she was tryng to make it) and SIMULATANEOUSLY recognize all of the other legitimate observations you made.

I hope more people like Ferraro stand up to that crutch now

Someone should give that Bitch a history lesson. Prior to Moorish Invasion the Italians were blonde.

You mean Jesse Jackson being a black civil rights leader? I'd say his being black plays a role in that, but I'm not sure about his running for office is a black thing or a black civil rights thing. It depends on the transitive power of blackness I suppose.

But about Jackson she is without question right... the only reason Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton are where they are is because they are Black. Anyone disputing that is just being silly.

Some might say the only reason Pat Robertson or Mike Huckabee are where they are is because they are evangelicals.

Gender, age, race, income, education and religion--those are the lines along which campaigns view their constituencies. Oh, and let's not forget: location, location, location.

As far as Obama's race being an advantage right now ... is it racist to say that his race will be a disadvantage in November? Is THAT racist to say? Of course not ... it's true and we all know it. Posted by Midiman

Interesting match up for November...
a Black Man(gasp) versus Bush III.

Yes there are racists and there are a few (?) of us that loath the agenda of the war party.

"Some might say the only reason Pat Robertson or Mike Huckabee are where they are is because they are evangelicals."

The same thing could definitely be said about George W. Bush.

Someone should give that Bitch a history lesson. Prior to Moorish Invasion the Italians were blonde.

*****
What Im Black! No wonder I like Sam Cooke music so much. Oh and I have a massive schlong!

Midiman...

Then if you do as you say, how can you ignore the underlying dynamics which started the entire controversy in the first place?

Hillary makes comments that "speeches" don't bring about change. Obama replies by invoking MLK and his rhetorical gifts that led the civil rights movement in altering America for the better.

Then Hillary goes to the LBJ/legislation card in a blatant attempt to follow up on her first remark. To me this downplays the significance of the sacrifices of those inspired by King and his words enough to leave their comfortable existences in the North to go to the South to try and bring about change.

Just what dynamic did LBJ's efforts mobilize in comparison? Politics does not equal life, its a small part of life. Giving one's life for political change cannot be compared to passing legislation. I'm sorry. Life is too precious and politics too fickle for any such comparison to be honestly made on its face.

The same thing could definitely be said about George W. Bush.

Posted by danni


George W. Bush is where is today because of George H.W. Bush, not because of his religion.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are where they are today because they are Black... and because they enflame racial tensions so that they can organize marches and keep their names in the news...

is a black thing or a black civil rights thing.

Can you really seperate one from the other?

Tony - Anyone with a pen and a position of power (something Blacks didn't have then) could do what LBJ did. Only a special "one in a million" person could be Dr King. I cant believe people don't see that difference.

"Some might say the only reason Pat Robertson or Mike Huckabee are where they are is because they are evangelicals."

The same thing could definitely be said about George W. Bush.

Posted by danni at 2008-03-12 11:21 AM


I guess had the dems not nominated two fucking morons in Gore and Kerry there may not have been a Bush 43. Looking at the current majority party leaders of both houses shouldn't surprise anyone why they lost to Bush.

"George W. Bush is where is today because of George H.W. Bush, not because of his religion."

He had strong backing from the right wing Christians who were not necessarily fans of his Daddy.

"The suggestion that Obama benefits from being black is baldly racist"

That is just crap. If I said that McCain didn't get as many votes because he's so old, is that ageist? Why do you feel the need to get offended and throw around terms like "racist" when people tell the truth?

"I guess had the dems not nominated two fucking morons in Gore and Kerry there may not have been a Bush 43."

It would be impossible to prove but I think most reasonable peoople would agree that we would be far, far better off today if either Gore or Kerry had defeated Bush. Crispee, after you voted for Bush twice it becomes a bit ridiculous for you to call anyone else a moron.

Oh and I have a massive schlong! Posted by captainOfac

There's an upside to everything.

The same thing could definitely be said about George W. Bush.

Good point. He is a Bush, but because he was a born again Christian, the evangelicals decided he'd be different than his father and voted for him. Without out their vote, he wouldn't be president today.

Tony - Anyone with a pen and a position of power (something Blacks didn't have then) could do what LBJ did. Only a special "one in a million" person could be Dr King. I cant believe people don't see that difference.

Thank you Captain, and welcome to la familia! You have Hannibal and the boys to thank for your...hmmmm...endowment.

Bet you like chicken too!

The same thing could definitely be said about George W. Bush.

Good point. He is a Bush, but because he was a born again Christian, the evangelicals decided he'd be different than his father and voted for him. Without out their vote, he wouldn't be president today.

Danni - That is true but the Dems could not even beat Bush? That doesn't say much for Kerry and Gore as contenders, the Dems should have nominated someone better. Who knows if they would have done better. Its easy to assume they would have with hindsight. Unfortunately, they were not competent enough to "sell" the American people the vision.

Luckily Obama is....as long as Hildebeast and her racist, feminist, goon squad doesn't ruin it.

Crispee, after you voted for Bush twice it becomes a bit ridiculous for you to call anyone else a moron.

Posted by danni at 2008-03-12 11:30 AM

Only a moron would blame the victor instead of the opponents. Even after 8 years. Keep throwing stones danni and by all means blame the right when they win again. Your party leader claims these are the best candidates the dems ever had running for POTUS. Is he speaking to sheep like yourself? Is it the repubs fault for his and the parties ongoing gaffs?

The media love the "black man" story in regards to Obama. If they didn't, then why is it reported so fucking often?

Don't tell me being black hasn't helped him. Ever since he gave the speech at the Dem convention people in his own party singing his praises couldn't help but mention he was black (and in a good way). I'd bet if we had somebody as fanatical about crusing posts as Hans is, they could find most of you Clinton supporters commenting on his blacknees favorably as well...






I wonder if he'll paint the shudders on the White House pink? Will he leave the doors and windoes open while cranking the heat? How many episodes of Cops will he and Michele be featured in?
Sincerely,
Geraldine Ferraro

"That doesn't say much for Kerry and Gore as contenders, the Dems should have nominated someone better."

I'll go along with that but still calling them "morons" while supporting Bush....doesn't work for me. They may not have been the best politicians but both are intelligent and would have been far better presidents than Bush has been. Should be a warning to us all.....don't elect McBush.

Geraldine,
They're "windows".

Walter Mondale thought this dolt deserved to be second in line to the presidency.

"Is it the repubs fault for his and the parties ongoing gaffs?"

Of course they are but let me ask you, is it the fault of the Republicans for the state of the nation right now??? Could we afford eight more years of this??? McBush says that is exactly what he will bring, is that something you could support??? Do you want more of the same or "change"?

"Walter Mondale"...now there is a candidate that makes both Gore and Kerry look like virtual winners.

Geraldine,
They're "shutters".

I'll go along with that but still calling them "morons" while supporting Bush....doesn't work for me.

I'll go along with that, but its who is calling them a moron? "I voted for war before I voted against it."I am ready for duty."You are right Kerry wasn't a moron. He was a fucking idiot. Now they nominate a couple of Junior Senators with less than 10 years in office combined???

Ferarro was correct when she made her initial statements, and she is correct now. White liberals are excited at the prospect of voting for a black man. They are excited at the opportunity to use such a vote as a prop to indicate their high level of "progressiveness." There is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

If a black person pointed out that a black guy is getting votes because he is black, nobody would care. It is only when a white person says something about it that they are accused of being a racist. It is not racist to point this out any more than it is "ageist" to suggest that some people didn't vote for McCain because he is too old. It is just a fact.

This about nails it on the head!

Posted by tonyroma at 2008-03-12 10:53 AM | Reply

Those comments by Andrew Sullivan are excellent, IMHO.

At this point, I think of the 2008 primaries as the Democrats' "Katrina." Hurricane Katrina completely exposed the underlying corruption, cronyism and incompetency of the Bush administration and the neocons. In much the same way, the 2008 primaries are exposing the false sanctimony, elitism and veiled racism in the Democrat party's establishment.

It's all out in the open, now.

Geraldine,
They're "shutters".

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-03-12 11:48 AM | Reply


Not only is she a racist, she's not too bright either...

"Walter Mondale"...now there is a candidate that makes both Gore and Kerry look like virtual winners.

Posted by danni at 2008-03-12 11:47 AM | Reply

You're right.

Don't forget "Dukakis."

Is it any wonder imbeciles like Bush win, when the Democrats come up with duds like this over and over.

Compared to them, even McGovern had mojo -- and he got skunked.

I'll go along with that but still calling them "morons" while supporting Bush....doesn't work for me. They may not have been the best politicians but both are intelligent and would have been far better presidents than Bush has been.
*****
Agreed. Point conceeded.

Could we afford eight more years of this??? McBush says that is exactly what he will bring, is that something you could support??? Do you want more of the same or "change"?

Posted by danni at 2008-03-12 11:44 AM |


If the current majority and its appointed leaders of both houses is any indication of how a Dem president will look like... Yes I will prefer McCain, McBush, Old MacDonald...

Let's hope that ferarro keeps up with this race-baiting. It could help destroy the dem party. As Republicans We should not only cross over to vote for hillary but send some money to help finance her campaign.

Just what dynamic did LBJ's efforts mobilize in comparison? Politics does not equal life, its a small part of life. Giving one's life for political change cannot be compared to passing legislation. I'm sorry. Life is too precious and politics too fickle for any such comparison to be honestly made on its face.

Posted by tonyroma


I'm not comparing them. Just noticing the fact that until the law was signed, it the gains were not achieved. The total outcome depended on both, and my complaint is our need to always make RELATIVE comparisons whenever we make OBSERVATIONS of facts or phenomena.

I am starting to think that Ferraro is doing Clinton's dirty work. Yes, I know Hillary has come out against her statements, but does anyone think that if Hillary went to her and told her to cease and desist that she wouldn't stop talking?

~Gal Tuesday.

Of course she would stop if Helldawg sed "Heel!" but in truth Spud believes that it's Hellaciousness herself who sed "Sic 'em!" to Ferraro in the first place here.

Let yer surrogates play the bully card and race card and gender card and let the candidate play the victim card. ClintCo practices a good cop/ bad cop form of divisive politics that are uncomfortably reminiscent of Rovian divide and conquer tactics.

Spud will go so far as to say that in an election cycle that has an electorate hungry for change both Hillary and Obama as a woman and a black more obviously look like change but to say that Obama is "lucky" to be born black is just another not so subtle attempt by team ClintCo to paint Obama as "just another black candidate" a'la Sharpton, Jackson et al.

Obama deliberately distances himself from the unwise strategy of being "the black candidate" and his message and campaign reflect his broad appeal to folks of all stripes.

Hillary on the other hand goes out of her way to paint Obama as "the black guy" in order to stir up racist sentiment deliberately meanwhile she has no problem touting herself as the "historical" candidate, reminding voters of the fact that she's got a pair of ovaries going on under that pantsuit (albeit nonfunctioning ones).

Through Ferraro and other surrogates it's becoming painfully obvious that Hellcat Hillary is attemtping to either win this campaign by any means neccessary or seriously damage the Democratic Party in the attempt.

Samantha Powers stepped down for making wot she thought was an off the record comment on the Clinton's lack of compassion for the people impacted by the Rwandan genocide and Scary Gerry Ferraro should follow her example fer making her race baiting comments but she prolly won't because Camp ClintCo has as little shame as they have integrity.

Interesting thread all in all.

Be Well.

/as ya do
stage left.

"Yes I will prefer McCain, McBush, Old MacDonald..."

So, in total partisan insanity, you would prefer "more of the same." I think many Republicans patriotic side secretly prays that they lose the election this time but still just can't bring themselves to admit how wrong they have been.

So, in total partisan insanity, you would prefer "more of the same."

As opposed to you and your insane partisan mindset? How can you throw stones when you and your party nominate two of the most inexperienced candidates in the last 100 years? Only because of race and gender are they on the ticket.

The total outcome depended on both, and my complaint is our need to always make RELATIVE comparisons whenever we make OBSERVATIONS of facts or phenomena.

That is precisely what I've done and in my opinion, what you've failed to do.

I have not once said a negative word about LBJ. I've only stated that he wouldn't have been signing anything if not for the work of King and his movement. You have to have A before you get to B and C. Acknowleging such does not remove relativity, it only underscores REALITY.

A was the harder effort and the more unlikely one. If not for the special gifts given to King from above, we would not be having this conversation, at least as it involves the two men.

That is the phenomenon that ushered monumental change in America and that has produced Barack Obama as the prima facia example personifying King's words into flesh and blood reality for us, our children, and the children of tomorrow.

Chair,
And you are right about racism existing within the Democratic party. Of course it does to some extent and to a larger extent than many of us would like or like to admit.
Posted by Gal_Tuesday


GAL - Speaking as a relative newcomer to blogs, I have seen plenty of posts from all sides. I have been amazed and aghast at the jaw-dropping level of racism and bigotry that exists in the Dem party and on the Left in general. I guess coming of age during the 60's and 70's made me a candidate for buying that whole "I'd Like To Buy The World A Coke" image the Dems had been carefully cultivating in the post-JFK/Watergate era. You know: Right = bad, Left = good, etc.

But as with many things, the Internet is ripping down the curtain and we can now pay lots of attention to the "man behind the curtain." FYI: it isn't just Southern or uneducated people.

Let me say that I find Ferraro's comments just plain ignorant and stupid. She ignores history in an attempt to create a parallel universe theory that no reasonable person can believe based on the history of this nation.

"How can you throw stones when you and your party nominate two of the most inexperienced candidates in the last 100 years?"

Crispee, did you forget who they will be succeeding??? And did you forget that he had not foreign policy experience, hadn't even traveled outside the country, didn't know there were Sunnis and Shia in Iraq, didn't have a clue...yet you and your party voted for him. Duh! Twice! Superduh!

"Yes I will prefer McCain, McBush, Old MacDonald..."

Danni,

I was an Avid McCain supporter because he did what was Right for America. Although I hate the Entire 100 Year Iraq War and his current Flip-Flops he has proven he can work with the Dems where Hillary has not. The GOP is Divided and Now Hillary is doing the very same to the Dems for her Own Selfish Gains, which is truly Shameful. I for one would vote for McCain over because her current Tactics has Turned my Stomach. If she could not win on her Own Merits this "Slash and Burn" Strategy is doing Exactly what Rush Limbaugh said what she would do.

-Sarge

Crispee, did you forget who they will be succeeding??? And did you forget that he had not foreign policy experience, hadn't even traveled outside the country, didn't know there were Sunnis and Shia in Iraq, didn't have a clue...yet you and your party voted for him. Duh! Twice! Superduh!

Posted by danni at 2008-03-12 12:25 PM


Then why are you supporting candidates with less experience knowing how bad the last president has been? Does your comment make you a fool or a hypocrite? Just because they have a 'D' next to their name gives them the green light to be President?

Has she been an idiot all along or just since she said something against Obama? I remember when she was the second most qualified person in the United States to be president. What happened?

Well, I was eleven when she ran with Mondale, so I will admit to being politically idiotic at that time.


After all, if you'd asked me then, I'd have voted for Reagan.

"The suggestion that Obama benefits from being black is baldly racist"

That is just crap. If I said that McCain didn't get as many votes because he's so old, is that ageist? Why do you feel the need to get offended and throw around terms like "racist" when people tell the truth?

Obama benefits from being black; he is also hurt by being black. Just as Hillary benefits from being a woman (and a Clinton) and is also hurt by these things. McCain, too, is both helped and hurt by his age.

Ferarro was correct when she made her initial statements, and she is correct now. White liberals are excited at the prospect of voting for a black man. They are excited at the opportunity to use such a vote as a prop to indicate their high level of "progressiveness." There is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

I have yet to hear a white liberal say, "I'm voting for Obama because I'm so excited about the prospect of a black president." Most people are voting for Obama because they like his policies and they like his style, his campaign for change. Do I think it would be a good thing for the country to have a black president or a woman president? Sure, but that isn't why I'd vote for either a black man or a woman.

"They are excited at the opportunity to use such a vote as a prop to indicate their high level of "progressiveness."

I think many of us want whichever candidate seems to reject the politics of the past more...and that benefits Obama. REal or imaginary the Obama campaign does appear to be a clear break with the "cronyistic" approach to government these past 7 years, and truthfully previous administrations both Dem. and Republican. I believe the fact that he is black is bringing some black people out to vote but other than that I don't think it causes many white people to choose him over Hilary Clinton.
Hilary Clinton though does have many white and black women who are quite open about the fact they are voting for her specifically because she is a woman. The harder Hilary tries to tear down Obama or to try to make this a race issue the stronger Obama is going to get among white voters because these attempts reinforce the perception that Hilary represents the politics of the past.
I think the nomination and the election later is much more about a break with the past than it is about race though the fact that it is a black man leading this break is sort of symbollic.

Through Ferraro and other surrogates it's becoming painfully obvious that Hellcat Hillary is attemtping to either win this campaign by any means neccessary or seriously damage the Democratic Party in the attempt.

Time for Obama voters of all stripes to let the DNC know we won't vote Hillary come Novemeber if she allows this kind of racebaiting to come out of her campaign, directly or indirectly. Let's see her win in OH or any of the other 49 states without us. I hope someone sets up a petition to this effect because I'll sign it.

Senator Obama comes from the most corrupt state in the nation......The land of Lincoln....they are all dishonest in Il.

It is time for the Clinton campaign to make an honorable rebuttal of Geraldine Ferarro's comments, instead of trying to tie criticism of her to the Obama campaign. That is so cheap.

"Obama benefits from being black; he is also hurt by being black. Just as Hillary benefits from being a woman (and a Clinton) and is also hurt by these things. McCain, too, is both helped and hurt by his age."

So you are not disagreeing with Ferrarro's statement?

"I have yet to hear a white liberal say, "I'm voting for Obama because I'm so excited about the prospect of a black president."

Well, if you've never heard it, that means the sentiment doesn't exist. Guess that's settled.

What about her follow-up comment where she said that if she were a man, there is no way she would have been the Dem Veep in '84?

If Ferraro felt that she was unqualified for the vice presidential nomination, she should have turned it down. Saying it today, as a means of derailing Obama's candidacy, is gutter politics. That's a pathetic legacy for a pioneer in American politics.

What universe is Geraldine Ferraro living in? This is classic "Clinton". She has the nerve to call anyone who questions her comments a racist? Although I'm a life-long Democrat, I will never vote for her she wins the nomination.

Time for Obama voters of all stripes to let the DNC know we won't vote Hillary come Novemeber if she allows this kind of racebaiting to come out of her campaign, directly or indirectly.

~Danni

During Spud's wanderings across the length and breadth of blogworld Spud has heard the sentiment expressed that many folks, some even self described yellow dog Dems that they will not be voting fer Hill come Novemner... PERIOD.

This is largely due to distaste for her divisive and unwarranted tactic to date and a healthy disrespect for the current status quo and the realisiation that she more clearly represents the status quo than Obama.

Alternatively these folk say that they will either not vote at all, cast a vote fer McCain, vote Nader or write in their favorite candidate of choice.

The Dem party has an unfortunate tradition of shitting on their populist candidate in primary races in order to hand the nmoination over to the Party candidate who's "turn" it is.

In this case they would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Do. Not. Want.

Te ot her day somebody wrote into CNN (aka the Clinton News Network) saying just the opposite.They sed that if Hillary didn't get the nom they would vote for McCain over the experience issue. Spud just laughed. That's either a Camp ClintCo plant or a savvy but unsavoury rethug trying to do Rush Limpbone's bidding in terms of skewing public perception towards the more easily beatable candidate.

Nice try.

Not.

GObama! 08ama '08.

Be Well.

So you are not disagreeing with Ferrarro's statement?

Yes, I am disagreeing with many of her statements. She claims Obama only benefits from being black, is only where he is because he is black while at the same time claiming Hillary isn't being helped and is only being hurt because she is a woman. If this was just about electing a black to office, we'd have nominated Jackson, Sharpton and/or Braun. As I heard a commentator say last night, "If Barack Obama was white, he'd be JFK." I guess if Hillary had run against JFK, she would have had he was only sucessful because he was Catholic and people liked the concept of it.

Funny how former Dem heros like Joe Wilson and Gerry F are now demonized for not being Politically Correct in their support of Clinton.

Ferraro's comments, originally made before Super Tuesday II, while she was undergoing chemotherapy, btw, were an attempt to understand Obama in regards to the "timing" of his candidacy, and were in no way racist.

The Clintons and anyone associated with them that even dare to mention race, or anything that can be convoluted into being racial, are suddenly racists in the Obamaide diluted minds of some.

Never mind the race baiting by Obama with his memos to the press before SC, and his channeling Malcolm X in SC and Mississippi to scare black voters.

bwhahahahahaha OMFG HAHAHAHAHAHA Too fucking funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Larry Mohr

"Yes, I am disagreeing with many of her statements. She claims Obama only benefits from being black"

Wrong. Here is the quote in its entirety:

"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."

" If this was just about electing a black to office, we'd have nominated Jackson, Sharpton and/or Braun."

Those candidates all engaged in the "everything is whitey's fault" rhetoric that Obama has largely avoided. I never said this was "just" about electing a black to office. The idea certainly helps, though. To be honest though, any competent democrat could win the presidency in 08 after what Bush has done.

FDR was only elected because he was crippled. It was the sympathy factor.

Nixon was only elected because he was a shifty eyed crook. Republicans liked that about him.

Clinton was only elected because he was an alpha male, white women just melted for him.

Now Obama is getting 100% of the big ear vote.

"Ferraro's comments, originally made before Super Tuesday II, while she was undergoing chemotherapy, btw, were an attempt to understand Obama in regards to the "timing" of his candidacy, and were in no way racist."

LOL. So as she was driving home from church where she was helping the poor, her weak cancer-ridden body mouthed the words "Obama...why now?" ... and this was seized upon and spun by the evil Malcolm X following Obama people to be a racist ploy complete with use of the n-word and a burning cross.

Stupid.

Or it could be that a known idiot made another idiotic statement in a long line of idiotic statements, and this one happened to offend the wrong people at the wrong time for the wrong reasons?

Was it a little idiocy mixed with circumstance? Or is Corky right that there is a vast conspiracy being perpetrated by Obama's intentional reverse-racists?

The chicken-legged has come home to roost.

"Because he does. Its not the sole reason he is where he is, but to say that he hasn't benefited in this campaign because of it is silly."

I bet you're a racist deep down inside.

No Obama is where he's at because he's a good public speaker. He's smart and knows what to say and when to say it. He knows his information and has good ideas. He also seems open minded and determined to do what is right.

That is a far contrast to what we see with the Bush administration.

so ya no wait ... ya you're a racist.

2008 primaries are exposing the false sanctimony, elitism and veiled racism in the Democrat party's establishment.

It's all out in the open, now.

Posted by anton


Hard to dispute that - it's true at least to some degree.

Two points:

1) The fact that the dems are going through it means that there is no "lock-step" mentality among "liberals", as the right would have us believe, and

2) at least now it is out in the open and subject to change ... I guess we'll have to wait for the repubs in terms of incompetence, corruption, etc.

Strangely enough, if Obama were not black, none of this would be happening, so here we go again, I guess.

Long overdue growing pains for the country.

"As I heard a commentator say last night, "If Barack Obama was white, he'd be JFK." I guess if Hillary had run against JFK, she would have had he was only sucessful because he was Catholic and people liked the concept of it."

So True !

-Sarge

Wait a minute!!! Step back and review Obama's votes among African-Americans; in Texas he received something like 90% of the black vote. I think that means they are simply voting along ethnic lines. Also, many black leaders regurgitate much of the Clinton rhetoric calling it "code" for inherent racism. I think Ferraro is right and I'm not a racist.

"As I heard a commentator say last night, "If Barack Obama was white, he'd be JFK." I guess if Hillary had run against JFK, she would have had he was only sucessful because he was Catholic and people liked the concept of it."
*****

So the only thing keeping Hillary competitive is the fact that she is white. Being black hurts Obama just as much as it may help him.

I think we can all assume that if JFK ran against Hillary it would not even be close. So by that logic Hillary is LUCKY that Obama is black.

Long overdue growing pains for the country.

Posted by midiman at 2008-03-12 01:27 PM | Reply


Now tha's an understatement.
Now that I've agreed, let me become partisan and see if you can some-what agree with me...

It took the Dems to show these colors in public (as opposed to them being the ones pandering and calling every innocent Republican comment "racist"), in order to bring about an opportunity to bring this out in the open (I apologize for the horrible grammar and inability to be concise).

Ordinarily the Dems are playing "gotcha" with Reps over common sense statements and truths in regards to race. They coddled the blacks, and basically Jedi-Mind Tricked them in to believing they were the party of tolerance. They stifled open and honest debate where race was concerned and had a knee jerk fascination with labeling it "racist".

To be fair, plenty of Republicans have had foot in mouth disease. I still think Trent Lott's comments were taken way to far, especially considering racial tinged comments made by Dean Hillary, and Biden.

"As I heard a commentator say last night, "If Barack Obama was white, he'd be JFK." I guess if Hillary had run against JFK, she would have had he was only sucessful because he was Catholic and people liked the concept of it."
*****

So the only thing keeping Hillary competitive is the fact that she is white. Being black hurts Obama just as much as it may help him.

I think we can all assume that if JFK ran against Hillary it would not even be close. So by that logic Hillary is LUCKY that Obama is black.

Posted by captainOface


This is getting pretty good!! Unless ... if you factor in that JFK would now be VERY old, we'd have to go on a tangent about age, and then we'd get all PC-upset about "ageism" and "wrinklism" or whatever else.

I think Ferraro is right and I'm not a racist.

You don't think, you regurgitate. Just two months ago Hillary led in polling among black voters by 57% to 33%.

I get sick and tired of people insinuating that blacks cannot form opinions as individuals and not monolithically.

Obama earned his black support by winning WHITE support in the early primaries. Everytime I hear a black person interviewed about Obama they're able to express a depth of knowledge of the issues and why he's preferred without mentioning race, just like whites speaking on the same topic.

There isn't a trust issue with Obama and the black community because we recognize brilliance and talent when we see it.

BTW: John Kerry won a greater % of the black vote in LA than did Obama in this year's primary. Were blacks voting for Kerry because of his skin color? All we're seeing is a small spike in the percentages versus every historical model. Blacks have been the most reliable Dems for decades.

These discussions are all good, but I can't find where she has been "Attacked". The only thing the Obama camp said was that she was being devisive, and that they wanted a stronger denouncment from the Clinton camp. I can't find where the Obama camp has called her statements racist. Lets say she said it a couple of diffrent ways like "Obama is only where he is at because he is a man" or "Obama wouldn't be leading now if he weren't (insert blind, disabled, wealthy, poor, skinny, fat, or anything). Then Obama comes back and says that is divisive, how is that an attack?

I can often somewhat agree with you, chair, and a lot of those on the "other side".

Don't care much for this, though:

"Ordinarily the Dems are playing "gotcha" with Reps over common sense statements and truths in regards to race. "

I think i'd need to know which ones you were talking about, but it ordinarily cracks me up to hear both sides point fingers at the other over stuff like this, when there is certainly a scarcity of purity on both sides.

I will say, though, that even this PALES in comparision to the use by repubs of wedge issues in a deliberate attempt to divide the electorate. I am NOT a partisan democrat, but a pretty reliable democratic voter. I don't like Hillary and think she is in some ways beneath contempt. But to me, that puts her in the same league as a MUCH larger group of republicans.

Are Hillary and her goon squad (Gloria and now Gerry) saying that black skin trumps vagina in the "vote for similar body parts" pandering? Are they upset that the "first ever" territory has been taken from them? The gender card works much better when there isn't some black dude muddying the waters. Its hard to call people bigots when they vote for a black guy with a funny name. You have to resort to sub-dividing the bigots onto smaller factions and that usually confuses the bigots.

I jest but honestly.

"If Barack Obama was white, he'd be JFK."

More Ob-session. Here's what Kennedy did before he was president:

From February through September 1939, Kennedy toured Europe, the Soviet Union, the Balkans and the Middle East to gather background information for his Harvard senior honors thesis. He spent the last ten days of August in Czechoslovakia and Germany before returning to London on September 1, 1939, the day Germany invaded Poland.

Kennedy was sent as his father's representative to help with arrangements for American survivors of the SS Athenia.

He graduated cum laude from Harvard with a degree in international affairs.

He joined the Navy, and attended the Naval Reserve Officers Training School and Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron Training Center before being assigned for duty in Panama and eventually the Pacific theater. He participated in various commands in the Pacific theater and earned the rank of lieutenant, commanding a patrol torpedo (PT) boat.

His boat was rammed by the Japanese destroyer Amagiri. Kennedy was thrown across the deck, injuring his already-troubled back. Nonetheless, he swam, towing a wounded man, to an island and later to a second island where his crew was subsequently rescued. For these actions, Kennedy received the Navy and Marine Corps Medal.

Kennedy's other decorations in World War II included the Purple Heart, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal and the World War II Victory Medal. He was honorably discharged in early 1945, just a few months before Japan surrendered.

more to come...

"gender card" should be "prejudice card"

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-03-12 01:42 PM


Perfectly stated, poor grammar notwithstanding :-)


Various Democrats have made statements that were every bit as 'racist' as what Ferraro said, if not moreso. Yet, they were given a pass - they're statements were spun away, laughed off, or ignored altogether.

Fast forward to the present. A fairly prominent Democrat makes a racial statement that is directed at the annointed one, and the selective outrage comes to the forefront.

Now, if Ferrari had said that McCain never could have gotten to where he's gotten if he were a minority, her comments would be regarded as 'salient'.

When in 1946 U.S. Representative James Michael Curley vacated his seat in an overwhelmingly Democratic district to become mayor of Boston, Kennedy ran for the seat, beating his Republican opponent by a large margin. He was a congressman for six years but had a mixed voting record, often diverging from President Harry S. Truman and the rest of the Democratic Party. In 1952, he defeated incumbent Republican Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. for the U.S. Senate.


Sorry, Obama is no Kennedy.

You have to resort to sub-dividing the bigots onto smaller factions and that usually confuses the bigots.

Great observation Captain!

"John Kerry won a greater % of the black vote in LA than did Obama in this year's primary. Were blacks voting for Kerry because of his skin color? All we're seeing is a small spike in the percentages versus every historical model. Blacks have been the most reliable Dems for decades."

This Is The Divide And Win Tactic Period ! Now recently The Clinton Started This With The MLK/LBJ Issue. Now I'm Sure If I know ANYTHING about Black People don't Fuck With The Rev./Dr. Martin Luther King That Pissed Blacks Off And Those Dedicated Clinton Blacks Turned On Them. Check The #'s And The Polls.

-Sarge

How's this for irony:

Clarence Thomas is regarded as under-qualified much the same way that Obama is currently considered to be under-qualified.

Liberals will proclaim that BushI chose Thomas based on his race, it was an AA appointment. Thomas has been castigated by liberals with every nasty racial perjorative under the sun. For the most part, said insults are met with back-slapping and high-fives among the left.

The parallels between Thomas and Obama are endless.

The selective racism among Lefties when discussing these 2 individuals seperately is not only fascinating, but downright startling.

I'm just surprised that Geraldine's playing the "reverse racism" card instead of the "pussy" card. You'd have think it's closer to Obama's trump.

Besides, it's her one claim to fame.

Great point, Jeff. Democrats can't stand to see a successful, conservative black person. They hate Clarence Thomas, they hate Condoleezza Rice, and they regard both of them as being in their position solely because of their race. "Token appointments."

But Obama - he's the real thing, because he's a liberal. His blackness has nothing to do with anything. You're a racist if you even think about it.

The parallels between Thomas and Obama are endless.

There are no parallels between Clarence Thomas and Barack Obama. Clarence did not graduate magna cum laude nor was he the President of the Harvard Law Review. Clarence did not take a job working in the streets of Chicago for $13,000 a year, nor did he teach Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.

Clarence has not spent one day of elected service to this nation. For all that he's accomplished, to compare him to Barack Obama is an insult to both men. The only reason such a comparison is made is because they both have brown skin.

I get sick and tired of people insinuating that blacks cannot form opinions as individuals and not monolithically.


Fair enough, but one also can't deny that EVERY group tends to (at least on occasion) vote in higher numbers for "one of their own", as they might say, and to maintain otherwise is either naive or dishonest.

Jeff/Joe,

Democrats used Thomas' lack of experience to highlight his hipocracy. He was against "hiring blacks because they are black", yet it was clear he got the gig cause he was black. Democrats were simply saying that if he believed what he was saying, then he should have passed on the nomination.

Fair enough, but one also can't deny that EVERY group tends to (at least on occasion) vote in higher numbers for "one of their own", as they might say, and to maintain otherwise is either naive or dishonest.

Thats cool. But I was having arguments with Hillary supporters not more than 60 days ago when I said that blacks would support Obama by at least 80% once they got to know him, his outstanding resume and his politics. The same people calling it racial identity politics today said I was crazy then!

"They hate Clarence Thomas, they hate Condoleezza Rice, and they regard both of them as being in their position solely because of their race. "Token appointments."

I'd like to know what qualified Condoleeza Rice to be National Security Advisor.....????

Much less Sec. of State.

As Tony Said, Clarence Thomas didn't have any significant accomplishments that would have led anyone to think he was qualified to be on the SC.

On the other hand there was Colin Powell....who helped sell the Iraq War....who was one of the only people in the administration that "libruls" trusted.
Us racist "libruls" didn't seem to have a problem with his race even when he was in the opposition party selling a war we didn't believe in. We believed him qualified due to his long military career, hey we were wrong to trust him but not because he was black but because he was part of the Bush administration. I think he knows that now too.

I'd like to know what qualified Condoleeza Rice to be National Security Advisor.....????

Much less Sec. of State.

As Tony Said, Clarence Thomas didn't have any significant accomplishments that would have led anyone to think he was qualified to be on the SC.


Posted by danni at 2008-03-12 02:27 PM | Reply


She had Black Gold blood in Her thats all.

Larry Mohr

"Democrats used Thomas' lack of experience to highlight his hipocracy. He was against "hiring blacks because they are black", yet it was clear he got the gig cause he was black. Democrats were simply saying that if he believed what he was saying, then he should have passed on the nomination."

Being against affirmative action is different than being against "token appointments." Affirmative action is a government-mandated program which requires a certain number of minority contracts to be handed out, certain amount of "diversity" in the workplace, etc. There is no requirement that minorities be appointed to the Supreme Court under affirmative action. Therefore, it is not hypocritical to be against that program but still accept the nomination.

Of course Tony looks at Thomas' resume instead of Rice's. Why not deal with the fact that many liberals have marginalized Rice's abilities even though she is an extremely accomplished individual? Why is it that she was chosen "only because she's black" but Obama's popularity has nothing to do with that?

I would like Jeff or Joe to please show us these "endless comparisons" between Obama and Thomas.

Posted by tonyroma at 2008-03-12 02:37 PM | Reply

The only comparison I see is that Thomas didn't serve very long in the U.S. Court of Appeals before moving up to the Supreme Court in much the same way Obama didn't spend a great deal of time as a U.S. Senator before running for president.

Other than that, they both have impressive resumes, in my opinion.

I cannot believe that of all the Democrats out there these 2 are the best they could come up with to run for the Presidency this year.
It seems to me they figured because of the last 8 years they could nominate just about anyone they wanted because it would be a breeze for the Dems. to take the White House this year. So why not make THIS the year to guarantee a Minority candidate of some sort sits in the White House.
It is interesting to watch the show play out.

Looks like Justice Thomas has some credibility on this issue. Hypocrisy because Thomas was the beneficiary of a bad program? I don't buy it. If one believes that Thomas was unfairly put in office due to his color and is thus unqualified, how could one then support the very process that put him there? How can one attack his attempts to close the loophole that "unfairly" put him on the highest court in the land. Should not one support his effort to keep it from happening again?

You either believe that it is ok to put people into positions for reasons other than merit or you don't. The NFL policy is much better and not AA - Just require interviews and judge based on merit from there.

When Obama becomes president I believe there will be little defense for AA to continue. If a black man with a funny name can become POTUS, I believe the playing field has been sufficiently leveled.

People like Ferraro do not help the process. Obama is a great example of the best rising to the top regardless of skin color or namesake.

Is Thomas credible? I guess it depends whom you ask, but that is also true of Obama. The only true similarity is the claim that each ONLY achieved position due to skin color and both are brown. The validity of each argument is debatable but that doesn't change the fact that the question has come up for each. Just as Justice Thomas feared and the biggest problem with AA is realized.

Just as Justice Thomas feared and the biggest problem with AA is realized - it can always UNFAIRLY be used to attack the position of a minority in power. It mitigates the accomplishments of those individual achievement based on merit. As Ferraro has so eloquently proven.

Nice spin Corky

Give me a fucking break, Tony. You claim resumes matter with regard to one person (Obama), and you claim that they don't matter with regard to others (Rice). My point was that liberals claim she's only where she is in life because she is black, but when others say the same thing about Obama, it's racism. You have no response to that, so now you're going to try to say Rice has made mistakes while already in the position that liberals claim she got appointed to because of her race? Seriously, you need a reality check.

Joe,

Who has ever said that Dr. Rice was chosen because she is black. I have never heard that before.

Great point, Jeff. Democrats can't stand to see a successful, conservative black person. They hate Clarence Thomas, they hate Condoleezza Rice, and they regard both of them as being in their position solely because of their race. "Token appointments."

But Obama - he's the real thing, because he's a liberal. His blackness has nothing to do with anything. You're a racist if you even think about it.

Posted by JOE at 2008-03-12 02:09 PM |


They don't much care for Thomas Sowell either. The list is rather long and I won't be bothered.

BTW, Geraldine is rather late to the game. I posted a while back that neither Hillary or Obama would be up for the post of cic today if not for the priviledge afforded them by gender and or skin color. That this election has been turned into an exercise in affirmative action sickens me.

Neither have the background for the post and I don't ever remember a race for POTUS where the only top tier candidates were US senators. In fact, when was the last time a US senator was elected POTUS?

Obama threaded a careful needle at his press conference today, seeming to step back from David Axelrod's assertion that Geraldine Ferraro's words were part of an "insidious pattern" of comments from Clinton surrogates.

"That's one person's remarks and I don't want to suggest that somehow one remark by one person is a problem," Obama said.

The subtext is Obama's choice never to be the spokesman for racial grievance, and to explicitly disassociate himself from the older politics of race, and he offered an unusually direct glimpse into his thinking on a matter that few people in American politics have given more thought. It was a glimpse both at his views on the issues of race, and how he's been able to navigate the choppy political waters with such success.

"I don't think identity politics has served the Democratic Party well," he said, stating it as flatly as any DLCer would.

He said Ferraro's remarks had been "ridiculous" and "divisive," but he also described his own wariness about allegations. (Obama aides said yesterday that Axelrod hadn't meant to refer to a pattern of racially-charged remarks, but just of negative attacks, though many of his examples have been seen as having a racial edge.)

"I don't like to throw out words like 'racist,'" Obama said. "I would defy anybody to look though the rhetoric for the last year-and-a-half or the last year and a couple months to find one instance in which I have said some criticism of me was racially based."

He did, however, accuse the Clinton campaign of slicing up the electorate along racial lines. He noted that Clinton's aides -- notably Mark Penn -- have told reporters on conference calls that part of her strength lies in her ability to win traditional swing-voting groups, working class whites and Hispanics.

Clinton's aides, Obama said, say "there are a set of voters that Obama might not get." He said "that seems to track in a certain racial demographic."

He also joked, as he has before, that he's been challenged as both too black and as not black enough.

"I don't know what exactly [is] the margin of black vote that is the optimal -- not too black, but black enough," he said.

Please somebody show me a respected progressive who has claimed that Dr. Rice was only appointed because she was black. Clarence Thomas was an obvious token appointment. Hell he even says it. The guy was a judge for two years and then gets appointed to replace Marshall because he is the only black conservative judge the Republicans can find. Nobody was mad about it. I remember democrats saying how clever and well thought out the strategy was.

"Who has ever said that Dr. Rice was chosen because she is black. I have never heard that before."

Then you don't read the drudge retort very often. Here's one for starters.

looks like our state department is doing the best that token rice can do.
Posted by Georgeisadrunk at 2008-02-17 10:42 AM

Rice, Powell, Thomas - Job performance aside it is just as unfair to claim they are token appointments just because they represent the opposition when one chastises Ferraro for making a similar claim against HER opposition.

Wow this sucks I'm arguing for the Republicans and Hillary.

Beside the point, the fact is all are "qualified" but the "competency" of each is debatable from ones individual perspective.

Race and gender should not be a consideration in qualification on either side. It also should never be used as a pejorative to mitigate accomplishment as both sides like to do.

Rice, Powell, Thomas - Job performance aside it is just as unfair to claim they are token appointments just because they represent the opposition when one chastises Ferraro for making a similar claim against HER opposition.

Wow this sucks I'm arguing for the Republicans and Hillary.

Beside the point, the fact is all are "qualified" but the "competency" of each is debatable from ones individual perspective.

Race and gender should not be a consideration in qualification on either side. It also should never be used as a pejorative to mitigate accomplishment as both sides like to do.

"a respected progressive"

Oh, now it has to be "a respected progressive." I suppose no matter who the quote comes from, you can simply say "I don't respect that person's point of view." Stop moving the goalposts.

Hell he even says it. (Thomas about his SC appointment)
******

And then gets criticism for speaking out about the flawed policy that put him there. How is that for hypocracy?

Who has ever said that Dr. Rice was chosen because she is black. I have never heard that before.

And I've certainly never said any such thing either. Only a blind person would say that Condi Rice's resume isn't one of the most impressive that any individual can compile.

I've merely had issues with her competence in doing the jobs required of her in Bush's government.

Joe you continue to put words into my mouth and implications I've never made into your replies. I responded to Jeff's assertion that Obama and Thomas shared "endless comparisons". Where you've taken it is of your own making. You assign positions to others regardless, without ever proving one named individual has made such statements, and then apply them across the board to all in the category of your choosing.

You don't even realize that within historical context, the only substantial difference between JFK and Obama was JFK's military experience along with his family's background and wealth, which facillitated his political climbings in ways that Obama didn't have. Obama didn't have a father connected to those at the highest rungs of power like Kennedy did. Both men are extraordinary and served this nation trying to create a better future for its people.

I'll take the word of Caroline Kennedy about the comparison between the men long before I'd ever consider yours. I think she knows better than either of us how much Obama reminds her of her own father.

Joe,

I meant somebody in some sort of position. I don't know who the hell Georgeisadrunk is.

Joe,

OK, let me move the goalpost back for you. How about anyone other than an unknown poster on a political board. You are the one that made the claim, not me. I just have not seen it. That's the type of shit that talk radio does. They will atribute huge sweeping statements to all liberals, when they know its just not true.

In fact, when was the last time a US senator was elected POTUS?

1960, JFK. Deja vu all over again.

"They're attacking me because I am a phony. I was NEVER the first woman Veep candidate. I am in fact, a man."

- Gerry "Jerry" Ferraro

BWAHAHA!! What a pair! Walter "Baggy Eyes" Mondale and Gerry "The Man" Ferraro. HAHA! No wonder they lost.

I heard Mondale was forced to check those bags at the airport.

Captainoface,

Actually the democrats lauded the efforts of the administration to hire a black to replace one of the most respected black leaders ever. I don't think democrats ever were angry about Thomas being chosen as a token. Yes, some did highlight the token aspect, but only to show the hypocracy of Thomas' position. Clarence would have been confirmed quite quickly if not for the whole Anita Hill thing.

Now lets talk about the Anita Hill thing for a minute. People always try to bring up that she waited so long before coming forward. The truth is much simpler. The FBI came to her and asked a few questions like they always do with people who are aquainted with SC appointees. They asked her if she knew of any reason why she believed that he would not be a good SCJ. She answered (whether it was the truth or a lie), believing that her little opinion wouldn't matter, nor would it get out to the general public. Some boneheaded democratic senator saw this little blurb buried under a mountain of of other testimonials, the vast majority of which painted a great picture of Thomas, and decided to leak it. Predictably the media storm caused the partisan committee to hold the now infamous hearings. Anita Hill was then caught up in a storm that she never intended to happen whether she intially lied or not. I don't blame Anita Hill for that fiasco, I blame the senate and whoever leaked that testimony.

Tony,


My comments on this subject were not in any way directed at you.

Within the last few months your best comments, no, arguably some of the best comments issued by anybody on DR were on that Clarence Thomas thread that Leftcoastlawyer set up a few months back.

Understand that I wasn't lumping you in with the race-baiting crowd. To your credit, you are one of the most race-neutral people on DR.

Where da white women at?


Excuse me while I whip this out.


Up yours, nigger!

Your turn! :-)

Thanks Jeff, but no BS today. Maybe some other time. Late.

I would like Jeff or Joe to please show us these "endless comparisons" between Obama and Thomas.


I didn't say 'comparisons', I said parallels.

Now, don't just lie there tryin' to get a suntan, it won't do you no good no how!

but no BS today

No problem, Tony.


Ignore my sun-tan quote and feel free to comment on my distinction between observed parallels and vocalized comparisons.

-Seems she shares something with Corky.

That she is a good American and a good Dem and the farthest thing from a racist?

Why thanks, TR!

And here I was going to comment on how well you are doing after the lobotomy. Shame on me.

BTW: John Kerry won a greater % of the black vote in LA than did Obama in this year's primary. Were blacks voting for Kerry because of his skin color? All we're seeing is a small spike in the percentages versus every historical model. Blacks have been the most reliable Dems for decades.

I think you've identified the crux of the problem. Hillary thought she'd get the black vote because she is the wife of the "first black president". If she was getting the black vote in the numbers she expected, would Geri have said, "Hillary's lucky to be the wife of the first black pres?" Hell no, she'd be saying how smart those folks are and how unprejudiced the Democratic party is.

She also thought she'd get the women's vote because she's a women (and she is). Good thing John Edwards dropped out or else she wouldn't be getting the blue collar vote. All she'd be left with is the elderly vote because I don't think she ever figured on there even being a youth vote.

Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary's "Archie Bunker" strategy for Pa.

Just as Bush played to social conservatives in order to get elected and tore apart the Republican party in the process, apparently Hillary wants to play to the Reagan Democrats in order to secure her nomination. I predict this move with tear apart the Democratic party.

Most of us know that racist is wrong. Does that make sexist OK. I'm referring to the quote from one of the comments above--"Just another pair of Coattail Cunts."
Lets play fair boys.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro stepped down on Wednesday from her finance position with Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, a campaign spokesman said.

The decision came after Ferraro, the only woman to run on a major U.S. party's presidential ticket, said Clinton's rival, Barack Obama, would not be ahead in the Democratic presidential race if he was not black.

"Just another pair of Coattail Cunts."
Lets play fair boys.

Posted by kurt

I think it is fair. These old shrews have bargained their way up the ladder using their husbands to further their careers.

Most of the younger women, including my daughter, despise their attitudes. For them it's not about "making history" but reforming the government and giving everyone a fair shake.

Trading on a spouse's success, popularity, or wealth is anathema to the truly liberated woman, just as it has been for most men.

For comparison, how many guys who marry the boss's daughter have the respect of those in the company? Usually they are mocked, castigated, and despised. Why it is any different for a woman?

The parallels between Thomas and Obama are endless.

JeffJ



Uh ... NO.

They end at political philosphy and the fact that no one ever testified under oath before Congress about being sexually harassed by Obama.

Other than that, they ARE both black and have sort of similar hair, so you're not completely in error.

Well--these two campaigns are going to have to do this faster if they want the other campaign depleted of all their aides before they get to the convention.

One day it's the monster gaff and the next it's Ferraro's gaff.

What is amazing is that race is a part of Obama--so what!

He comes off petty in his responses.

His whole campaign is based on hope--because he wouldn't have a hope of being where he is today. He wants change--well the only thing that will left in the pockets of Americans if he were elected --is change.

Why don't they talk about Resko and the church and Farrakan and William Ayers and any other associations the guy has had that are less than above board or distasteful or anarchist or whatever?

So we can't talk about his race--good heavens the man is half and half--can't talk about Resko, wearing stupid clothes in Africa, his middle freakin' name !!!

All of this stuff is off limits--well talk about what Obama would do--raise taxes, bloat the gov't, spend more money, pull out troops when Iraq is not ready--OH-- but he would put them back in if there was trouble, allow driver's licenses for illegals and abortions on demand and--Yes--Gay Marriage--let's talk about the really important issues.

Can't wait ---

Murphy

Hey Murphy,

Just an FYI FWIW: Obama is against gay marriage, but he is for civil unions.

I didn't know she was still alive, or relevant.

I didn't know she was still alive, or relevant.
Posted by Stickman


Lou Reed wrote about her: "Plucked her eyebrows on the way - shaved her legs and then 'he' was a 'she'..."

Ferraro is an old out dated politician who still thinks it is 1984. This is 2008 girl. When I look at Obama I see a man who inspires me. I see a leader and yes he is black but that is not why he has got this far, its the ability to speak, inspire and lead that separates Obama from Clinton.

Ferraro is an old out dated politician who still thinks it is 1984. This is 2008 girl. When I look at Obama I see a man who inspires me. I see a leader and yes he is black but that is not why he has got this far, its the ability to speak, inspire and lead that separates Obama from Clinton.

Ferraro is an old out dated politician who still thinks it is 1984. This is 2008 girl. When I look at Obama I see a man who inspires me. I see a leader and yes he is black but that is not why he has got this far, its the ability to speak, inspire and lead that separates Obama from Clinton.

Ferraro flashback
"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," she said.
Really. The cite is an April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available only on Nexis.
Here's the full context:
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."

Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's.

Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history."

Are the Clintons reduced to unleashing suicide slammers against Obama? Of course, her "as far as I know" comment was pure ignorant. Made McCain's radio guy look sane in comparison.

Hillary wouldn't be where she is if she wasn't married to Bill, Obama cause he's black, Bush cause he's named after his father or McCain if he hadn't dumped his wife and married into a rich, politically powerful family.

"Made McCain's radio guy look sane in comparison.

Hillary wouldn't be where she is if she wasn't married to Bill, Obama cause he's black, Bush cause he's named after his father or McCain if he hadn't dumped his wife and married into a rich, politically powerful family."

Posted by northguy3


NG3 - another Mr Fair Fairness Award for you sir.

This is so rich coming from one of the most blatantly token candidates in history, supporting a candidate who's main claim to experience is her 8 years as First Lady.

Yes, Obama's black, but if that was all he brought to the table, the primary would already be over. His race isn't a campaign issue unless Clinton makes it one, and this is nothing less than a blatant attempt to make it so. It would be equally accurate to say that the only reason Hillary is in this race is because she's a woman - unless Bill swings both ways.

I have no more intention to vote for a candidate because they're black than I would because they're a woman. I will vote against the candidate who makes racist or sexist proxy attacks a central theme of their candidacy, which Obama so far has NOT done. I'm certainly not going to vote for the "poor me, victim" candidate - which seems to be where Hillary is going.

This is so rich coming from one of the most blatantly token candidates in history, supporting a candidate who's main claim to experience is her 8 years as First Lady.

Yes, Obama's black, but if that was all he brought to the table, the primary would already be over. His race isn't a campaign issue unless Clinton makes it one, and this is nothing less than a blatant attempt to make it so. It would be equally accurate to say that the only reason Hillary is in this race is because she's a woman - unless Bill swings both ways.

I have no more intention to vote for a candidate because they're black than I would because they're a woman. I will vote against the candidate who makes racist or sexist proxy attacks a central theme of their candidacy, which Obama so far has NOT done. I'm certainly not going to vote for the "poor me, victim" candidate - which seems to be where Hillary is going.

Good post, Argh. People seem to forget that when this campaign first started, Clinton had much more of the black vote than Obama did. It wasn't his blackness that won them over but his character. Likewise, it wasn't her whiteness that lost them but her lack of character. I don't Hillary's running as Commander-in-Chief-Victim is going to work well for her in a general election. It also won't help her much when she is dealing with other world leaders or when she has to answer the phone in 3 AM. "Why do I always get the first phone call? It's so unfair. WAAAAA!" Someone should run that as a campaign ad. ;-)

Ferraro is a huge racist but given statements about Martin Luther King from Hillary and the black vote support statements from Bill, her racist views are no different from theirs. The whole Clinton team are a bunch of southern Democrat racist Nazis in my humble opinion.

I am glad Geraldine is gone and soon Barack will push Hillary back into obscurity where she belongs when he gets the Democrat nomination.

Ferraro was right, If it was a white man with same features(big ears) attitude and style, he would not have a snowballs chance in hell of being elected as president or even a senator from Illinois. His idiot pastor and his half wit wife will cost him a career in politics.

the latent racism of the dems is comin to the for front -more dems(% wise)are goin for mcclain then reps for obama it seems that some dems don't think obama knows "his place"
jasman

Ferraro, this is a country of free speech, although you wouldn't notice this from all the flak you have been taken.

Can't question anything a black man does, cause the racist card gets pulled out. Has he gotten this far cause he is black? No, but it sure has helped. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply fooling themselves. Not only is he black, but he speaks well. If anything should considered racist is the fact that people say "he is black and speaks well".

Just my $.02.......carry on

Glad she steped down, she's a bigot and has no place in 2008 polotics.

Obama is one of only five black people in the History of America (not counting reconstruction) to be elected either govenor or senator in a statewide election. He is one of only 37 black people in American history to win a statewide election including Lt govenor and Attorny General. He has now won becides his Senate win (of which is one of two blacks to ever win) 30 primaries. Now consider that he is as much a white person as he is a black person (more so because he grew up as a white boy in Hawaii). Wow, 37 black people have won statewide elections in the history of America, with numbers like that you can say that black people benifit all the time because of their race.

But lets say that I agree with Garald that he has benifited because of his race, woopdedoo. That is not the only thing he brings to the table. A handsome slim canidate will have an advantage over an ugly fat one, but the good looking person still has to have other things going for them. It is becoming more and more apparent that the Clinton campaign is outraged at the audacity of the uppity mullato to get in thier way.