Maybe Geraldine Ferraro decided stature and goodwill are overrated

The entire dynamic is tiresome. An associate of one of the Democratic presidential candidates says something intemperate, the other campaign is “Outraged!” and calls for resignations and dismissals fly. Both sides insist these dust-ups are character tests for the rival candidate. The “umbrage wars,” as John Dickerson calls them, began in earnest 13 months ago after David Geffen insulted the Clintons, and it’s been raging ever since.

It’s tiresome, of course, because in most instances, the fights seem pretty irrelevant. Most Americans haven’t heard of the associates in question, and don’t much care what they said about the opposing candidate. The media tends to love the drama, but it usually feels more like a manufactured controversy, meant to give otherwise bored reporters something to do.

But the real problem with these generally trivial flare ups is that once in a while, one candidate associate says something truly offensive. Take Geraldine Ferraro, for example, who appears to have lost her mind.

To briefly recap, Ferraro, the Democratic VP candidate 24 years ago, launched a bitter attack against Obama a few days ago, suggesting he’s fortunate to be a black man. “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she said. “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.”

The Clinton campaign responded with the single gentlest rebuke imaginable, with Howard Wolfson saying, “We disagree with her.” When the Obama campaign pressed for a more forceful response, Ferraro went completely over the edge.

“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up,” Ferraro said. “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

Ferraro added, “Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist. I will not be discriminated against because I’m white.”

It’s breathtaking to see someone destroy their own reputation with such ugly nonsense.

Responding to the substance of Ferraro’s remarks is difficult, given that her comments were so ridiculous, but there’s simply nothing to bolster the notion that the Obama campaign is criticizing her because of the color of her skin. That’s … what’s the word … insane. Indeed, “Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist”? I’d love to know what examples she’s talking about.

No one is trying to “discriminate” against Ferraro, they’re simply arguing that Clinton’s presidential campaign, which has been quick to pounce on intemperate remarks from Obama associates, should disassociate itself from someone making racially-charged comments.

Susan Rice, an Obama adviser, called on Clinton to repudiate the remark in an appearance today on MSNBC.

“That is a really outrageous and offensive comment,” Rice said. “I think if Sen. Clinton is serious about putting an end to statements that have racial implications, that diminish Barack Obama because he’s an African-American man, then she ought to really repudiate this comment, and make it clear there is no place in her campaign for people who say this kind of thing.”

Complicating matters, the Clinton campaign has been a little clumsy in its response.

* First, the campaign said it “disagrees” with Ferraro.

* Second, the campaign said Obama aides were playing the race card by criticizing Ferraro (which doesn’t appear to make any sense at all).

* Third, Clinton personally tried to dismiss Ferraro’s comments by criticizing all surrogates who push the envelope: “It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we’ve both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal.” Clinton did not, however, specifically denounce (or reject) Ferraro’s remarks.

* Fourth, the Clinton campaign finally got around to saying, “[W]e reject her remarks.”

As for Ferraro, it’s a genuine shame to see someone of her stature fall apart like this. She was a pioneer and a Democratic leader, and she’s thrown her reputation away. It’s painful to watch.

A lot of politicians this year demonstrating that they place little value on the legacies they believed were secure.

  • One should remember what Geffen took so much heat for saying, way back when:

    [the Clintons] “lie” with “such ease, it’s troubling.”

    In recent months Bill Clinton has asserted that he was against the Iraq war from the beginning, and that Obama wasn’t really against it.

    Obviously Geffen was right.

  • Steel yourselves. Toughen up. I think these racism charges — silly when they’re not downright offensive — are going to look like child’s play when the GOP gets around to attacking our nominee, Obama.

    There is a vein of race-hatred which runs very wide and deep in this country. That’s what Obama is ultimately going to have to get us all to overcome, but I’m not betting on that. Not yet.

    It really does have the makings of classical Greek tragedy. These Clinton tests are just the prologue and maybe one or two scenes from act one.

  • The only route to the nomination for the Clinton campaign is the politics of division. White against Black, Man against Woman. And they think somehow they can then put it together again after the nomination in order to win the general election.

    Sad, isn’t it? When personal ambition justifies all collateral damage?

    “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.”

  • Given our long, ongoing, and often violent history of racism, I find it amazing any white person has the gall to claim being discriminated against because they are white. There is not a white person is this country that doesn’t benefit enormously from the deeply ingrained social constructs still present today, at the expense of various minorities, and for which all evidence shows affirmative action, civil rights laws, and stepped up enforcement barely ameliorate.

    Insane really is the correct word to describe it.

  • You have your order wrong. Senator Clinton’s remarks (#3) were earlier before Ferraro clarified with her “because I’m white” comments. I’m not sure when Wolfson’s semi-rejection to Greg Sargent was, but Olbemann said during his show last night that Maggie Williams’ attack email came an hour after Ferraro reiterated her opinion. Olbermann and Howard Fineman were both of the opinion that the Clinton campaign had debated it all day and finally come to the conclusion that these comments were a positive for her.

    Obviously, dog whistle politics have unofficially gone Democrat, just in time for the runup to Pennsylvania. To me it is pretty clear that the Clinton campaign feels this is a winning issue there with all the closet racists that make up the middle of the state. I’m guessing they also think it makes her look strong that she isn’t willing to bow to pressure to remove Ferraro from the campaign. The fact that it’s the same kind of never-admit-failure “strength” that Bush has been peddling for 7 years doesn’t seem to be relevant to them.

  • What really disturbs me about Ferraro’s intemperate remarks–beyond their outright stupidity and racism–is that she stole them directly from Ann Coulter. Is the Clinton campaign so desperate that now they’re channeling certifiable lunatics for talking points?

  • An example of doublespeak relative to “racism.” Ninety per cent plus of African American voters in Mississippi voted for Obama. This is stated as a fact, as it should be, assuming its truth and no reason to think it isn’t. Same article indicates the white vote went to Clinton with implications of “racism” on the part of the white voters. Truth is both votes divided along “racial” lines, so let’s not make assumptions about either side relative to racial hatred unless one is willing to arbitrarily ascribe it to the other side also (Something which is not borne out by proveable facts in either instance.)

  • Second, the campaign said Obama aides were playing the race card by criticizing Ferraro (which doesn’t appear to make any sense at all).

    Actually, this is a common rhetorical ploy of racists: to claim that it not them, but the other, that makes race a mark of distinction and that sets the races off against each other. Ferraro’s statement has a lot in common with Ron Paul’s writing. Paul believes that black leaders create racial polarization by breeding and internalizing hatred for whites. Subsequently, the government responds with social programs to appease them (affirmative action).

  • What’s really ironic (and has no doubt been pointed out) is how Ferraro asserts that Obama wouldn’t “be where he is” if he wasn’t black, when the same argument can be made about her own claim to fame as the VP candidate under Mondale. It may have a grain of truth, but is that the kind of argument you make when you’re trying to bring a diverse party together, or when your candidate is getting really desperate?

  • Geraldine Ferraro isn’t being discriminated against because she’s white…she’s being “discriminated against” because she’s an idiot.

  • Ms. Ferraro can’t be discriminated against because she’s white. I guess that makes her….very lucky to be who she is.

  • 2008: If [Obama] was a white man, he wouldn’t be in this position.

    1984: If [Ferraro] was a white man, she wouldn’t be in this position.

    The first female major-party candidate rips the first black major-party candidate. That’s rich.

  • Its always strikes me as sad and funny whenever a white person of privilege cites a person’s blackness as being an advantage in anything other than being discriminated against in America. Because as most blacks in America know, in order to succeed in a America a black person has to work twice as hard, be twice as good, and must withstand twice as much pressure and bullshit as their white peers. What would Ferraro’s rationale be for his win in Wyoming, a state which has a less than 1% black population? I believe that Obama is simply a superior candidate. And that Ferraro’s statement’s are the silly talk of a campaign manager, frustrated by their campaign’s lack of success. Or, maybe the Clinton camp actually believes the in the absurd notion the the Clinton’s were the first black presidential family, and are frustrated that they can no longer take the black vote for granted as they had done in the past. It’s also interesting to note that it’s that the White candidate that’s resorted to playing the race card, while the Black candidate has managed to avoid doing so. This is probably one of the reasons that so many Americans (both black and white) hold Obama in such high regard. Is this the beginning of some twisted new socio-political trend? Whereby the person of color, in order to must attain success, must forfeit their right to play the race card to their white counterparts?

  • 15. Comeback Bill said: People are way too sensitive about these things. Get over it.

    If I had a dollar for every time I have heard a Republican make that exact same comment I would be a millionaire.

  • I’m now convinced Ferraro is acting with the Clintons’s blessing. This is exactly where they have been trying to get the debate all along but to no avail. They’re hoping to solidify the average white vote and marginalize Obama as another Jesse Jackson. This is a desperate, hail Mary pass that I think may have been thrown too late for the primary, but just in time for the general election. And the whole red phone, commander-in-chief-threshold attack has made it perfectly clear that the Clintons will take an Obama loss in the general if they can’t have the nomination.
    Ferraro was on Good Morning America this morning. Does anyone seriously believe she would keep making television appearances and reigniting the debate with progressively inflamatory statements if the Clintons didn’t want her to? All they have to do is pick up the phone and tell her to recant or at least stop. But they haven’t. And Hillary hasn’t exactly been unequivocal in her denunciations of Ferraro’s statements. Sure, she may do so after the pressure gets too great, but the damage has been done. When asked whether she’d apologize for Ferraro’s statement, all she could muster up was, “Well I didn’t say it.” Hillary wants white voters to know, “I’m with you.”
    Ferraro’s comments bring the question of Obama’s race and the office he’s running for into sharp relief: Do we REALLY want a black man to be our president? He’s slick and charming and inspiring, but is he “ready”? It sows seeds of doubt that some people until now have likely been trying to avoid.
    On the surface, this debate damages Clinton, but on a deeper level, it damages Obama, not only by creating doubts about his qualifications but by stirring up resentments I believe are felt by a surprisingly large number of white Americans. And not only does it knock Obama off his stride, get him off his message, but it gets white voters to look in the mirror and ask themselves questions they might have wanted to avoid: Obama’s black. Don’t blacks get all the breaks? How many of “our” kids don’t get into the good schools because they’re white and we “owe” the blacks something? How many times have I been denied a job or a promotion so that “a black” can have it? Is Obama qualified for the job, or is he only coasting through the process because he’s black? Do we want an affirmative-action candidate or president?
    Of course that’s all hogwash, but it’s the stuff that can win elections.
    Ferraro is the perfect person to lead this assault. She cavalierly admitted that she wouldn’t have been on the ticket in 1984 if she hadn’t been a woman. That was the “tell” in my book. To a certain extent it innoculates her from being dismissed as an ordinary bigot while at the same time validating whatever questions voters might have had about Obama’s race. Who better to present this whole package as “fact” than Ferraro? It’s diabolical but effective.

  • A couple of thoughts:

    1. It’s absurd to see analysts treating Ferraro’s work in the ‘loose cannon’ framework. She’s not some semi-professional academic serving as an adviser to a campaign, but a seasoned politician who knows exactly what she’s doing. To the extent that the media covers her as if she were an embarrassing throwback, they completely miss and misrepresent the story, while playing in to the Clinton campaign’s strategy of highlighting the racial dynamics of the contest. This is simply a continuation and intensification of a campaign tactic that goes back beyond B. Clinton’s bid to label Obama the second coming of Jesse Jackson.

    2. It’s not really, IMHO, “dog whistle politics” if everyone can “hear” the whistle. I’d reserve the DWP label for things like the use of the obscure word “vertical” to refer to a candidates christianity. The racial call out by Ferraro is just too public and too obvious to count.

  • Too bad for Obama supporters that everyone doesn’t view everything and anything someone says through their tunnel vision. The bigger you blow about a statement or action the harder it makes for Clinton supporters to back Obama. I for one was more than eager to vote for either of them but Obamas supporters make it more difficult everyday. Obama can’t win in November without Hillarys supporters and vice versa.

  • Ferraro vs Jesse Jackson – April 15, 1988 (The cite is a Washington Post story – byline: Howard Kurtz, – available only on Nexis).:

    “If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race,” she said.

    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.”

  • As far as I know, Ms Ferraro used the same racial tactic when Jessie Jackson was running for office many years ago, the Clintons must have known this and used her for that reason.It worked then. When does Ms Ferarro think a man of color will be ready for office?
    J.Sykes

  • Clinton also claimed she had no ties to severe with Ferraro despite Ferraro sitting on her fiannce committee.

    I’m on Hillary’s finance committee. I’ve done a fundraiser for her here at my firm.

    Hillary should officially reject Ferraro by donating the money she raised for her to the NAACP or similar charity and removing her from the finance committee.

    Or she could just keep being a hypocrite.

    I for one was more than eager to vote for either of them but Obamas supporters make it more difficult everyday. -Comeback Bill

    He doesn’t need you. We’ve plenty of intelligent, level-headed voters free of bigotry to make up for your imaginary lost vote. We all know McSame is your real horse in the race. Spare us the ‘concern.’

  • A reporter (Andrea Mitchell?) on TV last night was saying that Ms. Ferraro has been struggling with health issues and has gone through or is going through chemo-therapy. I can understand how that could affect somebody’s temperment and rationality so I am willing to cut her a break. However, Ms. Clinton must not let Ferraro’s comments stand. I believe she could repudiate the comments without abandoning a faithful friend in need. But it looks like she is not doing this, that she is pushing this absurd notion which is very troubling.

    It is looking to me that the “fighter” image she developed is becoming nasty, mean and selfish, which I regret.

  • Ref #25

    You just keep telling that to Hillarys supporters and in Jan 09 you’ll be the one wondering what went wrong.

  • #10, Ferraro said that if she were not female she wouldn’t have been the VP candidate. It was part of her statement.

    I am dismayed to see that once again, a remark made by Ferraro is being attributed to the Clinton campaign as some sort of deliberate move, debated and decided upon because it is somehow advantageous to her. That kind of accusation, which appears repeatedly in blog comments, is baseless and a smear.

    Does no one see the irony of trying to claim that Obama’s success has nothing to do with being black, immediately after he wins Mississippi with a huge margin? If Obama did not have 80-90% of the black vote during every caucus and primary, would he still be leading the way he is? Do you really imagine that he would be getting that solid African American vote just on the strength of his policy statements, especially given the work the Clintons have done supporting African American concerns? That isn’t what Ferraro meant, but it strikes me as hypocritical and obfuscatory for the Obama people to be furiously attacking her in light of the role race has been playing in this election.

  • You just keep telling that to Hillarys supporters and in Jan 09 you’ll be the one wondering what went wrong. -Comeback Bill

    I doubt it. Most of the Hillary supporters I know aren’t racist blog trolls and are perfectly happy with Obama as our nominee.

  • Ferraro knows exactly what she’s doing, and so do the Clintons. Bill didn’t get far with this stuff because he’s too central to the campaign and he’s a big white Southern man. Ferraro is the perfect fit with HRC’s base, angry white women.

  • Don’t use voting patterns to show some make believe example of reverse racism. It wasn’t that long ago Hillary was beating Obama in black support, it wasn’t until they started using race to attract a small segment of the bigoted white vote that African-Americans started to turn against the Clinton’s and it became more prononced as they continued. If it was only about being black, Hillary wouldn’t have had such strong support in the black community in the beginning. So either Hillary is using race to garner support among a bigoted segment of the democratic party or they were racist all along, either way they decided they didn’t need the black vote. I think it is obviously calculated because when there is a primary with a large black population they may need, they back off and when the next state is Ohio or Pennsylvania they play the race card.

  • Comeback Bill,

    Should HRC win the nomination, you will be wondering what went wrong in Jan 09 as well. I would bet that Obama supporters have less love for HRC than the other way around.

    Dolt.

    Hillary is single-handedly destroying the chances of the Dems because she believes that her “pre-destined right” to the Presidency still exists and that somehow, someway she will overtake Obama.

    And we all know that isn’t going to happen without some under-handed Republican’t-like moves.

  • Just because you may not like hearing the words Ferraro said it doesn’t make them any less true.
    Obama has done absolutely nothing to distinguish himself as a politician in anyway.
    The only reason he has gotten this far is because of the media following him around like some lovesick 14 year old girl.

  • C’mon, guys. The problem with Ferraro’s comment is that she’s trying to say something that’s almost impossible to say without getting run out of town, but it’s clearly true: a significant portion of Obama’s interest and appeal — not all of it, but enough to make the real difference — is that he’s non-white, and therefore (some) people can feel real good about voting for him, because the idea that he might win this thing, or even that he’s a credible candidate, represents a wonderful breakthrough in our culture. If he were a young, white, relatively inexperienced Senator with essentially no track record on any issue except voting right on (Iraq), she’s right — we wouldn’t be having this conversation. This is not even to mention the fact that he’s carried more than one primary state because of voting percentages among black voters that are absolutely Soviet in their proportions: 90%? Running against a candidate with a long record of support among blacks? NO white candidate would have reached that level of intraparty support from black voters.

    Politics is about myth but it’s also about reality. If you think Obama’s the same candidate or has the same chances if he’s a young white guy, you’re passionately enjoying the myth. You’re committed to it. More power to you. But you’re not living in reality.

    The real response to Ferraro’s comment: yes, so what? We are all who we are, it’s all part of the package. He’s young; he’s black; he’s not carrying a bunch of civil-rights era baggage; he’s a very good speaker (and she is awful); he was right on Iraq; to the extent he articulates ideas they seem mostly acceptable; and he’ll symbolically lay to rest the Vietnam-Watergate era in politics at LAST!

    If Hilary’s not a woman, she’s also nowhere in this election. BOTH candidates’ appeal is largely founded on the biggest “change” of all — they’e not the same old white guys.

  • robert and James,

    Spare us the ’empty suit’ argument. Obama has more years in elected office than Clinton and has actively done more in two years in the Senate than Clinton has in six.

    All of the experience he claims is verifiable while Clinton’s experience is being debunked daily.

    Let’s try to keep the discussing firmly grounded in reality. If you have legitimate questions about Obama’s experience, I suggest checking out his website, his Wikipedia entry, and the legislative records.

    Otherwise, you’re just trolling talking points that have no basis in fact.

  • CHEEZBURGER’s posts at 19 really gets at the nitty-gritty sotto voce implications going down here.

    This is a coordinated effort by the Clintons to divide and conquer. It is win-win for them. If they can’t outright steal the election, this strategy allows them to at least undermine Barack’s chances in the Fall, and begin the rev-up for 2012.

    That’s why Clinton hasn’t cut all ties with Ferraro. Would Edwards, Obama, Gore, Kerry tolerate such remarks from a surrogate? Of course not. The Clintons have calculated that alienating the remaining black vote is worth the wooing of the remnants of bigotry in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

    I’ve been writing for months now that the Clintons will destroy the party before they will stand down. With Bill appearing on Russ’s radio show to help coordinate the wooing of the republican vote for Hillary, it is increasingly obvious that this is where we are trending.

    I see only one thing that can save damage to the party: Gore and Kerry and Kennedy and Edwards, and a host of others need to issue some sort of joint statement doing what the Clintons refuse to do: Knocking down Ferraro’s message and re-establishing the vision of the party.

  • Where are the articles about black people voting for Obama just because he is black?
    Isn’t that racist also?

  • I see only one thing that can save damage to the party: Gore and Kerry and Kennedy and Edwards… -ROTFLMLiberalAO

    I think all it would take is an endorsement from the two people in your list that haven’t endorsed Obama yet.

    Where are the articles about black people voting for Obama just because he is black? -robert

    I think you made a wrong turn if you’re looking for bigotry like that.

  • Comeback Bill (#22) said:
    Too bad for Obama supporters that everyone doesn’t view everything and anything someone says through their tunnel vision. The bigger you blow about a statement or action the harder it makes for Clinton supporters to back Obama. I for one was more than eager to vote for either of them but Obamas supporters make it more difficult everyday. Obama can’t win in November without Hillarys supporters and vice versa.

    I partially agree with you here, Bill. It is true that either candidate needs the other’s supporters to win the general. And I should say at this point that I am an Obama supporter. The problem I have with the Clinton campaign is that many of the statements coming from prominant inner circle surragates like Ferarro and Bill Clinton have definitely been divisive.

    Certainly there have been some stupid comments from Obama’s campaign too, but look how they handle those moments. When an Obama surrogate called Clinton a monster she was quickly sacked…and rightly so. But when Ferorro says that Obama is only where he is because he is black what does the Clinton campaign do? Er…um….well we don’t really agree with what she said but er…well…um. Please.

    I am one Obama supporter that will vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination. I urge all people backing either Clinton or Obama to back off, take a deep breath, and think about the bigger picture. Don’t we all want a Democrat in the White House? Don’t let the politics of division distract you from that point. Unless you would rather have endless war and more Justice Alitos on the Supreme Court.

  • Obama has done absolutely nothing to distinguish himself as a politician in anyway.

    That’s right. When did *he* ever tour Europe with Sinbad and Sheryl Crow?

  • You know, when an Obama staffer called Hillary a monster, Hillary’s camp whined loud and hysterically for her to be fired.

    Now that Ferraro has decidedly gone with the white pointy hat brigade, well the righteous indignation from the Hillary camp isn’t exactly brimming over.

  • Bill Clinton got record support from the African American community and was even called “the blackest president”.
    Yet as soon as Obama came along that support vanished and they started attacking Bill Clinton.
    Why did this happen? Because of Obama’s VAST history of helping others or his NUMEROUS proposals to help the country…….NO.
    Because of the racism that all people have, even blacks.

  • Wasn’t so long ago that Bill Clinton was comparing Obama’s win in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson’s win in the same state years earlier. Previous to that one of the Clinton campaign officials suggested Obama was a drug dealer in his youth. Hillary has been hammering Obama recently as only being articulate. And now Ferraro repeatedly employing fear of a black man. Of course it’s approved by the campaign. They’re desperate and all they have left are smears.



    If this is how Hillary reacts in a moment of pressure, then I’d hate to see how she’d handle a crisis at 3am.

  • G.F.’s comments were whacked, plain whacked! She should show a little contriteness, or get off the campaign trail! -Kevo

  • 33.
    On March 12th, 2008 at 10:56 am, robert said:
    Just because you may not like hearing the words Ferraro said it doesn’t make them any less true.
    Obama has done absolutely nothing to distinguish himself as a politician in anyway.

    This is robert’s idea of “nothing.”

    Obama’s Ethics Reform Legislation…Was Hailed As The “Most Sweeping” Overhaul Since Watergate

    New York Times Downplayed Significance Of Obama’s “Google For Government” Bill, Which Was A Landmark Effort In Bringing Transparency To Federal Spending And Was Passed Against Strong Opposition

    Kennedy And McCain, Authors Of Immigration Reform Bill, Thanked Obama As One Of Small Bipartisan Group Of Senators Who “Stood Together To Make This Legislation Possible.”

    Obama Passed Amendments To The Senate’s 2006 Immigration Bill That Would Have Established An Employment Verification System And Protected American Workers From Losing Jobs To Guest Workers.

    Obama Has Passed Several Important Laws In The Senate, Including Legislation To Prevent Terrorists From Obtaining WMDs, Increasing U.S. Investment In Alternative Energy, And Improving Services For Our Troops And Veterans

    Obama Passed Into Law Legislation Requiring Lobbyists To Disclose Their Bundling Activity, Making Him Unpopular Even Among Other Democrats.

    Obama Passed Law to Promote Relief, Security, and Democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

    Obama Passed An Amendment Into Law That Pressured The EPA to Comply With New Lead-Paint Regulations After Seven Years of Delay.

    Obama Passed An Amendment, Which Became Law, Preventing The VA From Conducting A Review Of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Cases Aimed At Reducing Benefits.

    Obama Passed Legislation, Which Became Law, Improving And Increasing Services For Homeless Veterans.

    Obama Passed Legislation Extending Tax Credits For Military Families By Allowing Service Members Deployed In War Zones To Apply Non-Taxable Combat Pay To The EITC.

    Obama Passed An Amendment, Which Became Law, To Require The VA To Conduct A Campaign To Inform Disabled Vets Of Disparities In Compensation And Explaining Their Rights To Seek Review.

    Obama Passed A Law Initiating A Long Overdue Investigation Into FEMA Failures And Response To Trailers Contaminated By Formaldehyde.

    And that’s a partial list.

    Yeah, robert, that Obama is one do-nothing a-hole. In fact, I’d bet people like you and Geraldine Ferraro would be quick to dismiss him as “lazy and shiftless.” Nonetheless, I’ll be voting for him.

  • Mary (#28) said:
    …I am dismayed to see that once again, a remark made by Ferraro is being attributed to the Clinton campaign as some sort of deliberate move… That kind of accusation, which appears repeatedly in blog comments, is baseless and a smear.

    If Obama did not have 80-90% of the black vote during every caucus and primary, would he still be leading the way he is?…

    Mary, I agree that Obama has benefitted among African American voters for some time now, but it was not always that way. In some of the earliest contests many African Americans were hesitent to support Obama because they were not sure enough people would support him. In my opinion, when it became clear that he had a real shot, that people from many backgrounds would support him, that is when the tidal wave of African American support went his way. I don’t think anyone here denies that his race is a factor in many people’s decision to vote for or against him, but no more so than Clinton’s race and Gender are factors in people’s decision to vote for her. And certainly there are MANY more important factors that people use to decide.

    I think what many Obama supporters are upset by are certain tactics that seem to be designed to stir up racial tensions unnecessarily (my opinion, of course).

    Let me say that I respect your decision to support Clinton, so please respect Obama supporters decisions as well. And when the time comes for the party to nominate one or the other, please let’s all rally around that candidate. The alternative is far worse.

  • The fundamental dynamic of this race is very simple.

    Obama is appealing to hope and arguing for a break from a past pattern of politics that has not served the country well. He rejects the Clintons’ politics, but has been at pains not to smear or slander them. The Clintons are appealing to fear and resentment, and wish to “build a bridge to the 20th century.” They show a visceral loathing for Obama, and have all but endorsed the Republican over him.

    Which campaign seems more in keeping with progressive ideals?

  • Thanks, Geraldine Ferraro, for setting me straight in my own heart. Here, I thought I was voting for Barack Obama because he was clearly the better candidate, and above most of the partisan bickering that passes for political discourse. Thanks to your keen insight, I now know I was only voting for Barack because he, like me, has a penis. And, unlike me, he’s black. I guess I just didn’t want to admit how racist I was, and voting for a black penis-person would help. Now I know it’s actually MORE racist to vote for the black guy, and less racist (but somehow, also less sexist) to vote for the white non-penis-person. I’m not sure how that all works, but then again, what do I know? I’m not the failed vice-presidential candidate actively trying to get Hillary the nomination. I’m just a guy reading the news and the candidates’ websites and basing my opinion on the words, actions, deeds and the company they keep. Yep, I’m a jackass. Thanks again. How much does Hillary need to get her unofficial I’m-not-involved Swift Boat-esque company up and running?

  • I noticed you used the word “passed” not “sponsored”.
    Because Obama only voted for the legislation, he had nothing to do with drafting it.

  • Give me one example of how Obama “breaks from the past pattern of politics”.
    Could it be his negative politics against Hillary from day one of his campaign?

  • From the day she was first elected to office, Geraldine Ferraro was the poster girl for Mark Twain’s comment about Congress(people):

    “Consider a Congressman, then consider an idiot; ah, but I repeat myself.”

    The fact that Walter Mondale was so clueless that he would choose someone so manifestly incompetent for the position of Vice President was the single worst Democratic pander before Billy Bozo came along. In fact, she was such a bad pander that women I knew at the time took the choice as an insult. It sure as hell didn’t do Mondale any good and I am sure cost him move votes than it got him. I didn’t vote for President that year because of it.

    All she’s demonstrating now is what was there to be seen 30 years ago.

    I have to say, I am truly amazed how stupid Clinton supporters – big-time or small-time – have become in the past 8 years. But then, I thought they were stupid 16 years ago, when that fat little con artist was displaying his con artistry for all to see without shame, and no one wanted to look.

  • Pay no attention to the little comeback shill; the next president will be either Obama, of McCain. Fortress Hillary has been getting off “easy” by demanding retractions from the Obama campaign. Do you think they’ll get the same break from the GOP?

    The race-baiting card will not work against McCain. The “inexperience” card won’t work. The “Iraq debacle” won’t work; Hillary’s in the same boat with McCain all the way.

    In short—there won’t even BE a “lesser-of-two-evils” candidate if the general is between McCain and Clinton. It’ll be another Carter/Reagan fiasco—and Jimmy’s worst family-related problem was “Billy Beer.” Hillary’s is going to be “Billy J….”

    Try this one on for size, Hillistines—how can a candidate who can’t get rid of a cheating husband manage to deal with the terrorists? Sure—get ticked off over the comment. It’s about to become “Political Reality” if Clinton becomes the nominee, because there is no factual way for a nominee to rein in the actions of his/her supporters. Clinton won’t beat McCain—there’s not enough mud in the universe for her to do it with.

  • Clinton personally tried to dismiss Ferraro’s comments by criticizing all surrogates who push the envelope: “It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we’ve both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal.” Clinton did not, however, specifically denounce (or reject) Ferraro’s remarks.

    The standard non-apology apology from the guilty party.

  • Geraldine was essentially saying that there is a timing component to great movements.

    I’m a huge Obama supporter, And I agree with her that Obama’s time is now. Was it wise to bring up race at all? No.

  • Shalimar at 18 said:

    15. Comeback Bill said: People are way too sensitive about these things. Get over it.

    If I had a dollar for every time I have heard a Republican make that exact same comment I would be a millionaire.

    Make that a millionaire plus $1 – Comeback Bill is a Publican

  • Hey, Comeback Bill: I want to take this moment to thank you for your unceasing efforts to prove as fact the theory that Clinton supporters are drooling morons. I’m sure you don’t get enough recognition in your life for all your work, so please accept this Big Kudo.

  • Um, I think Obama is lucky to be who he is, too. If he was a woman, he wouldn’t be Obama. If he wasn’t black, he wouldn’t be Obama. Black is part of his identity. There isn’t anything racist about pointing that out.

  • Robert: you’re also a recipient of the Comeback Bill Award for demonstrating what an ignorant little white supremacist drooler acts like.

  • Perhaps I’m not the only one from NY who isn’t surprised by Ferraro’s comments, because her behaviour in the state’s Senate race in 1992 has earned her something of a sore loser reputation. After being favored in the Democratic primary for much of the campaign, she narrowly lost to the state’s Attorney General Robert Abrams. She was bitter that another candidate questioned her ethical suitability, and she declined to concede defeat for two weeks after the primary. She also refrained from endorsing Abrams until the week before the general election, when Sen. Al “Pothole” D’Amato was re-elected with 51% of the vote, despite a strong showing by Bill Clinton in the Presidential election. In subsequent interviews, she criticized her loss in the primary as being an “unfair” loss.

    I think it is unfair to blame D’Amato’s 1992 re-election on Ferraro. Abrams was not a particularly inspiring candidate, and D’Amato was too well financed. But her whole behaviour toward other Dems reaked of an “If I can’t win, then no one else will” attitude. Sound familiar? Every time this charge is leveled at Sen. Clinton, I think of Ferraro and certainly find the charge plausible.

    This turned so many people off that she gathered much less support when she ran for Democratic nomination to face D’Amato again in 1998. The only rationale for her candidacy seemed to be to right what she believed was her being wronged in 1998. Much to Ferraro’s credit, however, when she lost the primary this time she quickly — on primary night, if I remember correctly — endorsed the winner, Chuck Schumer, and then campaigned for him in the general election in which D’Amato was finally defeated.

  • Hey Impartial: Us black folks are voting against Clinton because she’s a racist or at lesst has run a racist campaign. If you were right Obama would have instantly been dominating the black vote as soon as he announced. He wasn’t. You don’t seem so impartial…

  • Prejudice based on race: very bad (and rampant). Prejudice based on sex: not so bad (and also rampant, in part because it is unacknowledged). I think this was Ferraro’s point, although phrased in a more inflammatory way. Either way, get over it. Our goal is to prevent four more years of a Republican administration.

  • Jay – didn’t Obama have to prove that he was black enough?

    Sigh.

    I’m very happy that a black man and a white woman are the two top contenders for the Dem ticket. Does that make me a racist and/or a sexist?

  • You are all being taken for fools. This is another Clinton ploy. It was made to get someone who is expendable to say somnething stupid; to see if Obama has the foritude to demand that this person go the way of Powers. Of course he has no such thing; if he had he would have told Clinton she is a monster (man eater). She is the reason poor bill looks for love in all the wrong places she ate his manhood long time ago.

  • With Bill appearing on Rush’s radio show

    Damn, and I thought the Clintons couldn’t sink any lower. Most of us started despising Rush because of the constant shitstorm he rained down on Bill in the ’90s. To willingly appear on that show is disgusting.

  • so when one of obama’s advisors calls hillary a monster it’s not a ploy but when one of hillary’s advisors comments on the role of race in the election it is a ploy?

  • I noticed you used the word “passed” not “sponsored”.
    Because Obama only voted for the legislation, he had nothing to do with drafting it.

    You really think any elected official in the last 100 years has actually drafted legislation? They have lobbyists, lawyers, executive branch officials and aides for that. It actually does take work to get legislation passed though.

  • I am an African American. For those of you who think that all African Americans vote for a candidate based solely on race. Shame on you! Just like members of other races, there are many differences that exist within the black community. Some of those differences are cultural and political. I find it interesting that when it comes to black people, those differences are ignored. I

    have decided to vote for the candidate that does not divide our country based on race. I vote for the candidate that has not tried to garnish the black vote with deception and rhetoric. That candidate is Barack Obama. By the way. He is not black, nor is he white. He is bi-racial. I am sick and tired of people trying to split the man for who he is based on his outside appearance.

  • Her NY senate run in the early 90’s was abominable.

    Ferraro just stinks at the game of politics. Always did. There is no legacy, other than a symbolic one. Good riddance to stale old pseudo-leaders. This party has new blood now.

  • These revolting comments are coming out of the mouth of a very bitter woman. I fought long and hard for equal opportunity and civil rights for all. My daughters have achieved the ability to vote for whomever they please and not for gender, color or sexual orientation because of people like me. I would have added Ms Ferraro’s name above but it seems that she’s used this racist tactic before when Jesse Jackson was running. I can say as a life long Democrat and activist that I will never vote for Hillary Clinton for her role in setting back race relations about 50 years. Shame on Hillary Clinton!!!! And it is the most brilliantly engineered negative smear campaign since Karl Rove infused the fear of gay marriage during the last election. So go ahead and fall on your sword Geraldine, I for one will not be calling for medical assistance. I suppose I have to revisit the notion that the feminist movement was always conducted by and for upper class white women.

  • Obama is the king of rhetoric (he has nothing else) as for deception……talk to Tony Rezko.
    I do agree it’s too bad we live in a world where differences of race are seen as negative instead of celebrated. Thats one of the reasons I moved to San Francisco.

  • 69. On March 12th, 2008 at 1:14 pm, Kel said:
    I am an African American. For those of you who think that all African Americans vote for a candidate based solely on race. Shame on you!

    Thanks, Kel, lots of people are making that point, but it never hurts to have it be said again. A black person can vote for Obama, and a woman can vote for Clinton, and not have it because of race or gender. The voter in question can genuinely believe their candidate is the best based on silly things like past performance, performances in speeches and debates, etc.

    Because, otherwise, black women have no options, and when they go to the ballot, their heads will explode under the sheer weight of a lose-lose choice. And I don’t know about you, but *I’M* not cleaning that mess up.

  • Two things……………… What happened when one of Obama’s people said that Hillary wouldn’t be in her current position if Bill hadn’t gotten that blow job? As for Obama not being in his current position if he was a woman or not black, how does she explain Hillary, a woman last I heard, being in this position?

  • Obama is the king of rhetoric (he has nothing else) as for deception……

    Self deceptive psychologies are a powerful thing to overcome, we know. You continue to say Obama has nothing but rhetoric and fanatical supporters and yet, when presented with contrary evidence, you completely ignore it. When presented with the vicious nature of the Hillary campaign you go on the offensive rather than own up. So let’s put things bluntly:

    – Without “Bill Clinton” there would be no Hillary campaign.
    – She’s losing the math war.
    – She’s gone negative to try and tear down Obama’s support and garner her own, it’s not working.
    – Ferraro’s remarks are either those of a very bitter personality-based partisan, a disgruntled feminist with entitlement issues, or a racist. Without knowing her personally I’m not comfortable deciding which is more likely.
    – Clinton has not fired Ferraro. After after demanding Obama fire his adviser over the “monster” remark this gives her the appearance of makes her a hypocrite.

    It only makes sense that Ferraro would act this way if you ask me. She likely feels a bit of the “it’s OUR time” I’ve gotten from many of my female friends and collegues. The difference between Ferraro and those women I know, however, is that Ferraro seems incapable of admitting defeat and instead sees Obama as “the enemy”. She acts more as a Republican operative than a true Democrat. By not publicly refuting Ferraro and casting her out of the campaign Hillary is showing tacit support for these tactics.

    THIS is why Obama supporters don’t like the Clinton campaign. This primary has turned into a fight not between two democrats but between a self-serving, win at any costs politico and a real Democrat.

  • 74. Joe Hammons said: What happened when one of Obama’s people said that Hillary wouldn’t be in her current position if Bill hadn’t gotten that blow job?

    That wasn’t one of Obama’s people, that was MSNBC misogynist Chris Matthews. To the best of my memory, everyone here was highly critical of Matthews’ stupidity at the time. And nothing happened to him, the Clinton campaign was offended, he made several non-apology apologies and everyone tried to make nice. That was a sad moment for MSNBC, and it wasn’t that long ago. Matthews should have been fired imo, for that and many other offensive comments through the years.

  • TCBR (above) wrote: “…such ugly nonsense.” Oh, really? If/when Obama chooses a white v-p with a long resume doesn’t that give weight to Ferraro’s comments? What’s truely “ugly” is the feeding of a ‘lynch-mob’ mentality.

    TCBR also wrote: “…painful to watch.” Oh come on! African-American’s
    have to be walking on air these days – Pander bear! You should be careful about exhausting the over-the-top rhetoric this early in the game. Because what happens if/when someone really insults Obama? Like with some of the defenders of Mohammed, all that would be left is murderous retaliation.

    TCBR wrote: “It’s breathtaking to see…” What’s truely breathtaking is the Afri’tude. Yes blacks were brought to this country against their will to work as slaves. But a bloody Civil War was fought to resolve that. And yes MLK was assassinated, but so were Kennedy’s. And yes there is exploitation; But it’s economic – not racial. The reaction to Ferraro’s comment highlights (again) the issue of black’s humility. This country makes a tremendous effort (and investment) to be inclusive. But instead of “thank you’s” there’s often just more lashing out…We are ALL blessed to be here [Period – Full Stop]

    BARACK’S AGENDA: Two terms…book deals…California estate. Lobbyist will yawn…Wages will rise – Prices will rise more…Islam will expand…Earth will warm…Bush will smile and say, “Welcome to the club ‘Bama.”

    THE ‘GROWN-UPS’ GAME: As our environment continues to deteriorate corporations, governments and wealthy individuals will fund the construction of elaborate closed-system bubble fortresses. So that by the year 2150 approximately ~4% of Earth’s human population will live in these climate controlled communities. Life inside will continue to advance and evolve in sharp contrast to harsher conditions outside where population and industrial capacity could decline by more than 50%.

    Runaway global warming will likely result in ecological, financial and social dislocations of major proportions. We are seemingly already in the middle of a mass extinction. But this is not viewed as a threat to advanced human civilzation because the technology to sustain life in hostile environments gets more powerful daily.

    If civilization were going to heed the warnings by experts about the dangers of climate change we should have taken meaningful action decades ago. Instead we’ve been urged to just keep shopping. And so today instead of shutting down coal-fired generating plants, the world adds new ones plus millions of gasoline powered vehicles. Also the planet continues to lose ~6 sq. miles of (lung capacity) forest cover daily.

    Nuclear (fusion) power eventually should displace carbon fuels; Then as cheap electricity and (desalinized) water become more plentiful things can start to stabilize. However, if in place of TNT we started using WMD’s, full recovery of the Earth’s ecosystems will become much more problematic.

  • “As for Ferraro, it’s a genuine shame to see someone of her stature fall apart like this. She was a pioneer and a Democratic leader, and she’s thrown her reputation away. It’s painful to watch.”

    Don’t worry. By the time this is over the entire Clinton campaign will throw there career’s away.

    It’s only a matter of time.

    The question is if they will destroy the Democratic Party with it.

    One or both are going down.

  • Too bad for Obama supporters that everyone doesn’t view everything and anything someone says through their tunnel vision. The bigger you blow about a statement or action the harder it makes for Clinton supporters to back Obama. I for one was more than eager to vote for either of them but Obamas supporters make it more difficult everyday. Obama can’t win in November without Hillarys supporters and vice versa.

    Even when I vehemently disagree with what Senator Clinton’s supporters on this blog say, even when they say vile, stupid things, it has NOT changed my views of the Senator. HER behavior, however, continues to turn me off. SHE is the one who will allow only that Obama is not a Muslim (that does not matter to me, but let’s be honest, it matters to many people) “as far as she knows.” Too cute by more than half. SHE is the one who has annointed John McCain as a someone who has “passed the threshold” on national security while her same-party opponent, well not so much. As many posters have pointed out, SHE is the one who has not silenced her surrogates (as opposed to mere supporters) in making comments equating blackness with losing. In this failure, SHE is the one who is causing people like me, who used to think her quite worthy, to turn away in disgust. SHE is the one who keeps moving the goal posts in order to keep herself “in it to win it.” The “it” being the Democratic nomination; she appears to care not at all for how much damage she does to the party in the process.

    If Senator Clinton pulls her chestnuts out of the fire and wins the nomination, I will vote for her, and I will try to persuade others to do so. The SCOTUS means that much to me. But, if I did not see the generational balance of that institution as being on the line, a Senator Clinton v Senator McCain contest in November would see me eschew my franchise for the first time since I received it 32 years ago.

  • I guess no one in the Clinton camp will give Obama credit for being right on Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Pakistan and Musharaf.

    While she has been wrong on all 4.

    She voted for the Iraq war.

    She voted for the Kyl-Lieberman bill.

    Her experience has taught her to vote with the Neo-Cons.

    She’s against talking to Iran.

    If she knew the history of the US and Iran we actually owe them a few apologies.

    How has ignoring Cuba and that embargo working.

    Time after time Obama has been right and Hillary has voted like her last name was Lieberman.

    Anyone one who voted for, supported or thought it was a good idea is not fit to be President.

    IMO

    You would have to be totally ignorant of the middle east history to think it was.

    To bad we have quite a few running our government who are very ignorant when it comes to history.

    Itr was only in the eighties that Saddam was the Republicans buddy.

    How quickly we forget.

  • Both Barack and Hillary are in this fight because of some unique circumstances. We have an incredibly weak president reigning during an incredibly weak economic situation. Most people are fatigued with the war and the Bush/Cheney shenanigans. Most people are desperate for change and both Obama and Clinton took advantage of that. Now is the best time for anyone who isn’t a white male. There’s no reason to belittle that. Considering how poorly the last Dem candidate did, why shouldn’t either Clinton or Obama run? They both enjoy considerable appeal and loyalty of the electorate. Running for president (successfully running) requires proper timing.

    Even among the Republicans, most people view McCain as the anti-Bush. How else to explain McCain meteorific rise since last fall? If Bush hadn’t f’d up the economy, Romney would probably be the nominee. Timing is everything. Hillary Clinton certainly knows that. She just didn’t figure that young upstart, Barack Obama, would also see this time as his window of opportunity.

  • To robert @42,

    I’m sorry, you’re wrong. I know plenty of black people who won’t vote for a black person just because they’re black. Me included. I never voted for Alan Keyes, Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Until 6-8 months ago, the majority of black people backed the Clintons. The problem with the Clintons began when they started allowing certain “sentiments” out. Frankly, the talk about Bill Clinton being the first “black” president has always angered me and apparently a whole lotta other black people. Also, many black people felt the Clintons were taking them for granted expecting them to excuse “racist” ploys or comments. And finally, it may be because Barack’s desire to practice a “new” politics is refreshing for many of us. Hillary Clinton represents the politics of old. She is a lightening rod for the Right. Do we really want to go down that road of endless Clinton bashing and attacking everything she and Bill do? We have alot of work in front of us. We need to fix this economy. We need to get out of this endless war. We need to fix the housing and credit issues. We need to repair the dollar. We need to scrap No Child Left Behind, etc. That will not happen with Clinton in the WH. The Republicans will do everything in their power to thwart anything and everything Hillary would try and do. BTW, I was an Edwards supporter who switched to Obama. I know many people just like me. I’m not sure what’s racist about that.

  • To robert and all the others who think all us black people stick together, my sister’s a die-hard Clinton supporter. What a traitor!

  • The report of the Mississippi primary indicated that by exit polling 90+ percent of black people voted for Obama and 75% of whites voted for Clinton. My comments were written in that context and not meant to suggest that is necessarily the case or true elsewhere. The fact is that i view both candidates in a positive light and as equally good candidates. What I deplore is any candidate’s supporters demonizing the other. I think this is unfortunate and does not bode well for the party or the general election results.

  • APOLOGY: I agree with the (sophisticated) arguements made about Ferraro’s comments being indefensibly racist, however…

    HILLARY’S MOTIVE’S: I do not agree that HRC would condone playing the race card. My guess is that she knows that it’s probaly over. But since her campaign continues to raise millions – by staying in the race she can pay herself back the $5 mil loan, and pay-off any other debts before bowing out in Denver (maybe with a surplu$)…And by staying in, it also gives Obama someone to spar with before rolling over McCain next fall.

  • I am so tired of Hillary being held responsible for what other people say. Geraldine Ferraro is responsible for her own words–nobody else.

    As for Bill Clinton going on Rush Limbaugh, so what? As I recall, Obama not only went on the 700 Club, but praised Ronald Reagan.

    Ewww

  • This is so typical of Obama’s campaign — to call into question the sanity of anybody who raises questions or makes statements that don’t follow the PC. This is the most outrageous form of stealth sexism. Obama’s campaign and his followers should recognize it — considering they want a “post [fill in the blank] society. But it proves, once again, that so-called progressive men remain firmly ensconced in the cave when it comes to women.

    I will NEVER support Barack Obama, under any circumstances, for president. I have always been a loyal Democrat, working in Washington for nearly 20 years on liberal concerns, and spending my adult life working for the betterment of women, minorities, union members, children and the elderly. But Obama has crossed the line in using race as a factor in this election. Ferraro was exactly right in her comments. Obama is a lightweight who avoids controversial issues in the U.S. Senate; he has little national experience; his own Senate peers consider him a dilettante; his experience in the Illinois legislature seem to suggest he also refused to take on controversial issues there, as well.

    I am a staunch Clinton supporter and will continue to support her. If she is not the nominee I will either sit out the election or vote for Ralph Nader. I never in my life thought I would say this, but I will not vote for Barack Obama if he is the Democratic nominee.

  • Laura,

    You start out by talking about the Obama camp being PC, and then you call it “stealth sexism” a term with so little substance that it might be in the dictionary under PC. You’re convuluted logic displays a bitter person without a bit of self-awarness.

  • I will NEVER support Barack Obama, under any circumstances, for president. I have always been a loyal Democrat, working in Washington for nearly 20 years on liberal concerns, and spending my adult life working for the betterment of women, minorities, union members, children and the elderly. But Obama has crossed the line in using race as a factor in this election. Ferraro was exactly right in her comments. Obama is a lightweight who avoids controversial issues in the U.S. Senate; he has little national experience; his own Senate peers consider him a dilettante; his experience in the Illinois legislature seem to suggest he also refused to take on controversial issues there, as well.

    Oh, and did I mention that Hillary Clinton, one of the best known politicians in America with all the money and the so-called “Clinton Machine” behind her, is being beaten handily by this empty suit? That’s with votes . . you know . . . cast by real Americans, not by Lanny Davis spin or bitter, angry old Gerry Ferraro’s dumb comments. Voters. Scoreboard, Laura.

    Whatever, Laura.

  • This is so typical of Obama’s campaign — to call into question the sanity of anybody who raises questions or makes statements that don’t follow the PC. This is the most outrageous form of stealth sexism.

    Actually, I have not seen anyone in “The Obama Campaign” declaring that Ferraro is insane. I, however (who am not a part of the Obama campaign) think she sounded mentally unstable. Ferraro’s comments are ugly and racist. Ask yourself this Laura: if someone says: The only reason Hillary has made it so far is because she is a woman, she should be very grateful to be so lucky” would you consider that just “making statements” or “raising questions”? I would call it a despicable act of sexism that diminishes Clinton’s many achievements. If someone prominent in the Obama campaign said it I would question their sanity and I don’t think Obama would hesitate to ask that person for their resignation.

    I’m thinking maybe the reason you are so angry is because you can see, as I clearly can, that your hero Hillary Clinton has decided to use racism to help her campaign. Sure, Geraldine Ferraro is responsible for her own words just as say, Louis Farrakhan is responsible for his and Samantha Powers (who called Hillary a “monster”) is responsible for hers. But Obama did not hesitate to denounce and refute Farrakhan, did not hesitate to ask for Power’s resignation. Unlike Clinton, who tried to weasel out of denouncing what Ferraro said – it is obvious to many of us who know how high-stakes politics works what Clinton was doing in refusing to act on this. And it is repulsive.

    Maybe you idolize Hillary too much to see that it is clearly she, not Obama who injected race into this election…also, note how often Hillary has trumpeted her gender and how historic her presidency would be as the first female president. Obama has not been nearly as vocal about his race being a reason to vote for him as Hillary has been regarding her gender.

    Obama is a lightweight who avoids controversial issues in the U.S. Senate

    Funny how you don’t include any evidence to back up this point, merely rattle off Hillary Clinton’s talking points.

    Actually this comparison of Barack’s and Hillary’s legislative records in 2007:
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
    suggests that Hillary is somewhat more reluctant to tackle the controversial issues (the ones that would piss off her many lobbyist buddies) than Barack has been. Why don’t you learn more about the facts? This whole “Obama’s an empty suit” bs Hillary has been pushing reminds me of “Al Gore is a serial liar”, or “John Kerry was a coward in Vietnam”.

    But we can always count on Hillary to stand up for the real important issues. Like protecting us from flag burners and violent video games.

  • If either candidate was a white man, based on their resumes alone, neither Hillary nor Obama would stand out enough from the crowd of other white men to have gained notice.

    Obama’s resume, however, is more impressive than Hillary’s,. For Hillary’s resume to outweigh Obama’s, one must imagine that she is the one who should be credited for her husband’s accomplishments. This is not verifiable, disputable, or even discussable, and since Hillary is obviously unwilling to sit through a referendum on the entire Clinton administration, I see no reason why her experience as First Lady should “count” that much more than, say, Chelsea’s experience as First Daughter.

    On political skill, Obama certainly outshines her. On personal appeal, definitely.

    So while I believe that neither of them would have been considered for President at this time if they were white men, I think Obama’s presence and charisma and temperament would’ve gotten him closer to consideration than Hillary’s presence and temperament. I don’t think Hillary-as-white-man could’ve even gotten to the Senate, frankly.

  • The Americans that are leading the swell of support for Obama all have one thing in common.
    They want a Change, First from the madness of this amazing two term Bush Presidency. What a Joke. And a predicted and feared joke by Democrats and independents in 2000.

    Second, a Change from the type of politics that is ugly and deceitful, the nonsense that is happening saddly withing the democratic party now. The Clinton campaign IS using a subtle race play. Obama is trying to avoid race, it because in America, that is his one greatest weakness, and interestingly at this time, a strength.

    Weakness in the power of the prejudice and dynamic of race in America. Especially between blacks and whites, yet also including other ethnic groups.

    Clinton sees that, “Hey I am getting the working class whites” and large female support. If I can turn enough thoughts to be about race I can play on the quietly kept internal… bias(for lack of a better word) against blacks held by other people of all races, and swing votes back in my favor. That is her race play. I would call it selfish, desperate, and sad, yeah hypocritical too, but whatever, this is America.

    Obama’s is getting the pre-elite objective logical thinker by all races, working class blacks.

    Working Class Whites(WCW) = Relatively poor. High blue collar ie not (elite or pre-elite)
    Pre-Elite = Less Poor than WCW but still poor. white collar/less blue College educated

    Third, a Change from dishonorable/shameful policies and practices. Internal and external. The list.. Lobbyist, Corruption(Shhh), foreign policy, economic policy. People want America to be what it says it is in the Constitution.

    Clinton has gone as far as to team up with McCain as the only two real candidates for President. Wow! Did she just side with “enemy” against one of her own???? Wow! Wow!

    Do I think Hillary Clinton is prejudiced, no-probably less that most everyone else. But this white chick is doing what she can to win. But she is trying to get in the same way Bush got in. On name recognition and association. Could we make the same mistake twice, three times. What makes her so qualified? Now every guys wife can do his job? Riiiight.

    On to McCain – I’ve voted for a Republican before, but never for President of the US. But I’m sorry but to me these Republican on average are effing crazy. They Republican first and American Second. They act as a monolith and seem to have no independent thought or will. Except for the Maverick McCain

    So while I must say that McCain is the one of the Repiblicans that I like, because he is one of the repuplicans with a spine has a history of opposing the Bush Administration. I just can’t imagine more years of Republican Presidency. Please No. No No No

    Back to Obama – For America this Black guy represents the one trustable/sincere face that they believe can deliver on the change they want. His non-whiteness is an asset in this case. He is different. A Change. Ferraro is correct No white male could pull off what Obama is pulling off. But it is because his not white, not because he is black. Any non-white could have done it at this time. It is amazing that grassroots support Obama has. Now the question boils down to (white/non-black voter) “Can I put my vote for the black guy” Along with some other points Iraq, Immigration, Enviroment, etc….

    I think Obama is the best man for the Job, at this point he is the only one I can trust. What Clinton is doing is kinda effed up. And it is hurting the party. That is selfish… beware a woman’s scorn. She was leading by so much, how dare this guy come and take what was hers.

    That’s justwhat I think.

    I am black and consider my self pre-elite. And support Obama totally. The racial component of my support, was negligble until recently, but still extremely slight.

    But the race talk will grow. Trust me. Pray that it is Obama that is Swearing in in January-09, If not say two or three prayers for John McCain.

  • Geraldine Farraro did not attack Obama and it was not a racist remark. Racial commets are not one sided and most such remarks are from African Americans towards whites. Last I heard 9 out of 10 blacks are voting for Obama and it appears to me they are voting for race and not whats best for the country. It appears that everything the Clinton camp says or does is wrong or racist but the Obama camp can say anything with no problems. Of course that’s the way it is getting everywhere now days. I hope America wakes up and realizes what is going on. I have no intest in either candidate but can see the difference the media and press is one sided or afraid to say anything questionable about Obama.

  • Comments are closed.