0
   

Ferraro's idiotic comments -more slime from the Clinton camp

 
 
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 07:24 pm
Geraldine Ferraro suggested that Obama political success is not due to his impressive ability to inspire, his positive message, his progressive policies or his consistent opposition to a now unpopular war.

No... it is simply because he is black (as even president Al Sharpton will tell you.)

For any Democrat to not understand why this is offensive to many Americans is incredible.

Ironically, just last Hillary request... and received the head of an Obama supporter on a platter for suggesting she was "stooping to anything to get elected". Obama was quick to distance himself to comments that would be seen as divisive.

Did Clinton do the same?

Nope.

She made a brief remark she "didn't agree with Ferraro's", but there was neither a distancing from Ferarro, nor a repudiation of the remark.

Instead she decides to attack Obama for being divisive (for protesting at that the Clinton camp injected race into the contest).

Ironically I agree with Geraldine Ferraro.

Quote:

"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."


When a white man wins more states, more delegates and a greater share of the popular vote than his opponent-- he is declared the winner rather then offered the vice president slot.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,463 • Replies: 86
No top replies

 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 07:26 pm
The sooner Hillary goes away, the better. She is damaging the party and the country.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 08:24 pm
I just find these words coming from Geraldine Ferraro incredibly ironic.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 11:34 pm
It isn't the first time Ferraro has made such a statement.



http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html

Quote:
March 11, 2008
Read More: Barack Obama

A 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."
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 12:27 am
Quote:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 12:59 am
Luv a duck, this all is sickening. (I just saw her comments.)
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 03:43 am
God, man. I mean, I used to really like and be a supporter of Ferraro. this is sickening.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 07:01 am
But wait, there's more:

Quote:
But far from backing off from her initial remark, Ferraro defended it and elaborated on it.

"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?"


http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_8533832

This is what I said about it yesterday, on the "Obama '08" thread:

sozobe wrote:
I was just reading about that. Oy.

What is she saying, exactly? That people are voting for him BECAUSE he's black... but meanwhile NOT voting for Hillary because she's a woman?

There are people who are voting for Obama because he's black, sure (as a tie-breaker if nothing else). And a heck of a lot of them are voting for Hillary because she's a woman. Then there are those who won't vote for Obama because he's black (11% in CA) and those who won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman (6% in CA).

I'm so sick of the victimhood thing. I have been since I incurred the wrath of entire women's studies classes circa 1990. ("Oh god, she's raising her hand again...")
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 07:40 am
Perhaps she thinks it worked well enough against Jackson and that it might work here. After reading Bfn's post, I see a lot of similarities between what was said then (he's radical, he benefits from being black) and what is being floated now. Seems like some folks don't realize that 20 years have passed.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 07:49 am
Don't know if this has been pointed out but it has been speculated that this is part of Hillary's Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh and Phillie with Alabama in between)
strategy. Hillary did not condemn the statement and, worse, Ferraro defended it. Oddly, the flap came up on the eve of the first day of the Pennsylvania push and the day of the Mississippi election. Maybe the perfect timing, Hillary couldn't do much worse than 10% of the black vote in Mississippi and it deflects the impact of the Obama win.

Has Hillary secretly hired Karl Rove as an advisor?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 08:00 am
Hillary mildly condemned it -- OK, "condemn" might be too strong:

Quote:
"I do not agree with that," [Hillary] said. "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. We ought to keep this on the issues."


http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_8533832
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 08:01 am
Apparently, both Ferrero and Clinton can not accept that a young, bright, enthusiastic, well spoken man, can endear himself to a larger segment of the population than she can. In their twisted minds, there must be another reason.

Must be his "race".

They suggest that race matters. Well, by definition, that makes Hillary and Ferrero racists.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 08:19 am
Good point from Kevin Drum:

Quote:
I'd just like to add one thing. Implicit in Ferraro's statement is the idea that if Obama were a charismatic young white guy, there's no way he'd be getting any attention. And that's just plain crackers. Charismatic young John F. Kennedy won the presidency in 1960. His brother, charismatic young Robert F. Kennedy, attracted huge support in 1968 and might have become president as well if he hadn't been assassinated. Charismatic young Gary Hart nearly stole the 1984 Democratic nomination from Walter Mondale. And charismatic young Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992.

Being young and charismatic has been a pretty good combination in the Democratic Party for the past 50 years. And being against the Iraq war from the start is a pretty is a pretty good credential in the Democratic Party this year. Contra Ferraro, if Obama were a white man he'd still be getting plenty of attention.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 08:22 am
sozobe wrote:
Good point from Kevin Drum:

Quote:
I'd just like to add one thing. Implicit in Ferraro's statement is the idea that if Obama were a charismatic young white guy, there's no way he'd be getting any attention. And that's just plain crackers. Charismatic young John F. Kennedy won the presidency in 1960. His brother, charismatic young Robert F. Kennedy, attracted huge support in 1968 and might have become president as well if he hadn't been assassinated. Charismatic young Gary Hart nearly stole the 1984 Democratic nomination from Walter Mondale. And charismatic young Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992.

Being young and charismatic has been a pretty good combination in the Democratic Party for the past 50 years. And being against the Iraq war from the start is a pretty is a pretty good credential in the Democratic Party this year. Contra Ferraro, if Obama were a white man he'd still be getting plenty of attention.


Well, not really.

The Kennedys were a "known family" already in this Nation.

Clinton was a governor for several years and a known person.

Obama was a real unknown.

I do agree, that if Obama were white, he would still be in the same place.

I've heard this example but can not agree with it.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 10:05 am
snood wrote:
God, man. I mean, I used to really like and be a supporter of Ferraro. this is sickening.

I was too! I was supporting Hillary, until Bill injected race, then Hill, now Geraldine! Seems, as long as they think we don't understand english, they just day whatever comes to thier pea-brains! It's a single standard for Blacks and a double standard for them! Cool
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 10:24 am
What is sad is that Ferraro doesn't understand that she is a racist and that what she is saying is racist. To her, her statements are just common sense. I'm sure if you asked her, she would deny being a racist and say that she has black friends, the whole denial routine. I hope that Clinton would approach her in private and ask her to drop both the Obama comments and any efforts on her behalf during the campaign. I wonder if Ferraro sees any similarity between her comments and those another person made about Clinton being in the race only because her husband cheated on her.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 10:33 am
I've approvingly quoted Andrew Sullivan plenty of times, so I'll go ahead and say I DISagree with this take:

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
The Clinton campaign's decision not to reject or denounce Geraldine Ferraro's racial gaffe strikes me as a conscious and deliberate one. The Obama campaign saw Samantha Power resign for a less offensive remark. But Ferraro is now on the networks and airwaves amping up the volume, and Clinton, in classic passive-aggressive mode, is merely "disagreeing." Isn't this obviously about Pennsylvania? Isn't this classic Rove-Morris politics - to keep designating Obama a beneficiary of affirmative action and Clinton a victimized white woman in order to racially polarize a primary where Clinton needs white ethnic votes?

Ferraro's original gaffe was an accident. The compounding of it is a strategy.


I don't think so. I think it's all Geraldine Ferraro. I think the initial comments were made when things were looking very bad indeed for Hillary, and were made out of frustration (similar to Powers' comments right after March 4th -- Ferraro's comments were first, chronologically, but were published after Powers' comments). Then it's become the whole "you can't shut me up" thing. She's taking it as a personal affront.

I think Hillary isn't happy that Ferraro is doing this, but that Hillary is also loathe to issue a stronger condemnation, for a few reasons, including the fact that Ferraro is a friend, and that it means she'd have to cede moral high ground (if only in her own mind) so soon after the Power incident. But I think Hillary is compounding the problems by refusing to distance herself from them more thoroughly. I think it will end up being closer to the BET situation -- a mild response, growing outrage, and then eventually an apology.

This also goes back to what I was talking to FreeDuck about (sorry for making references to other threads, can find it back on request) in terms of how much Hillary is creating situations rather than just reacting to them. Sullivan is ascribing too much strategy to the Clintons, I think, and while he means it to be an insult, it actually feeds into the idea that they're geniuses, if evil geniuses. And people actually like the idea of having someone who is capable of being an evil genius in power, if only so they can out-genius other evil geniuses out there. I just don't think the Hillary campaign has shown many signs of genius. And I really don't think that this episode is strategy.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 10:59 am
Blue on Blue. Love it.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 11:36 am
Enjoy, slimer. Your day is coming.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 12:08 pm
Sullivan's not blue, by the way. He also likes McCain a lot and has been considered conservative for most of his career. (He calls himself Libertarian, if anything.) He's been anti-Clinton -- both of them -- for a very long time.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Ferraro's idiotic comments -more slime from the Clinton camp
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 11:40:41