0
   

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

 
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 07:09 pm
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/12/184352/231/636/475338

Quote:
A Special Comment On Clinton And Ferraro
by Keith Olbermann
Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:02:59 PM PDT
I do not do this lightly, and I do not do this happily.
There is no exaggeration in this preamble, and when I say the words on "more in sorrow than in anger" on the air tonight, I will mean them and mean them profoundly.
As ever, forgive me for quoting myself.



By way of necessary preface, President and Senator Clinton -- and the Senator's mother, and the Senator's brother -- were of immeasurable support to me at the moments when these very commentaries were the focus of the most surprise, the most uncertainty, and the most anger. My gratitude to them is abiding.

Keith Olbermann's diary :: ::
My point tonight is that the resignation of Geraldine Ferraro from the Finance Committee of Senator Clinton's campaign is a lost opportunity for the candidate to do simply do the proverbial, cheesy, cornball, 'right thing.'
Instead, the Comment will trace the path down which Senator Clinton's advisors led her:





Do they have Senator Clinton herself compare the remark to Al Campanis talking on Nightline -- on Jackie Robinson day -- about how blacks lacked the necessities to become baseball executives, while she points out that Barock Obama has not gotten his 1600 delegates as part of some kind of Affirmative Action plan?
(snip)
Do these advisors have Senator Clinton invoke Samantha Power -- gone by sunrise after she used the word "monster" -- and have Senator Clinton say, "this is how I police my campaign and this is what I stand for," while she fires former Congresswoman Ferraro from any role the campaign?
No.
Somebody tells her that simply disgreeing with and rejecting the remarks is sufficient.
And she should then call, "regrettable," words that should make any Democrat retch.

There is much in the decisions made by the Senator and her strategists that was obvious, mistaken, and damaging.
And there is the grimmer prospect. That these, as Howard Fineman suggested on Countdown last night, were not mistakes at all.



It sounds as if those advisors want their campaign to be associated with those words, and the cheap... ignorant... vile... racism that underlies every syllable.
And that Geraldine Ferraro has just gone free-lance.
Senator Clinton:
This is not a campaign strategy.
This is a suicide pact.

0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 07:16 pm
Transcript of KO's Special Comment on MSNBC tonight.

http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/12/762678.aspx


Quote:
Special Comment
Posted: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:01 PM by Countdown
Filed Under: Special Comment


Finally, as promised, a Special Comment on the presidential campaign of the Junior Senator from New York.
By way of necessary preface, President and Senator Clinton -- and the Senator's mother, and the Senator's brother -- were of immeasurable support to me at the moments when these very commentaries were the focus of the most surprise, the most uncertainty, and the most anger. My gratitude to them is abiding.
Also, I am not here endorsing Senator Obama's nomination, nor suggesting it is inevitable.
Thus I have fought with myself over whether or not to say anything.
Senator, as it has reached its apex in their tone-deaf, arrogant, and insensitive reaction to the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro... your own advisors are slowly killing your chances to become President.
Senator, their words, and your own, are now slowly killing the chances for any Democrat to become President.
In your tepid response to this Ferraro disaster, you may sincerely think you are disenthralling an enchanted media, and righting an unfair advance bestowed on Senator Obama.
You may think the matter has closed with Representative Ferraro's bitter, almost threatening resignation.
But in fact, Senator, you are now campaigning, as if Barock Obama were the Democrat, and you… were the Republican.
As Shakespeare wrote, Senator -- that way… madness… lies.
You have missed a critical opportunity to do... what was right.
No matter what Ms. Ferraro now claims, no one took her comments out of context.
She had made them on at least three separate occasions, then twice more on television this morning.
Just hours ago, on NBC Nightly News, she denied she had made the remarks in an interview -- only at a paid political speech.
In fact, the first time she spoke them, was ten days before the California newspaper published them... not in a speech, but in a radio interview.
On February 26th, quoting...
"If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this, as a potential real problem for Hillary? If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he's in? Absolutely not."
The context was inescapable.
Two minutes earlier, a member of Senator Clinton's Finance Committee, one of her "Hill-Raisers," had bemoaned the change in allegiance by Super-Delegate John Lewis from Clinton to Obama, and the endorsement of Obama by Senator Dodd.
"I look at these guys doing it," she had said, "and I have to tell you, it's the guys sticking together."
A minute after the "color" remarks, she was describing herself as having been chosen for the 1984 Democratic ticket, purely as a woman politician, purely to make history.
She was, in turn, making a blind accusation of sexism -- and dismissing Senator Obama's candidacy as nothing more than an Equal Opportunity stunt.
The next day she repeated her comments to a reporter from the newspaper in Torrance, California.
"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."
And when this despicable statement -- ugly in its overtones, laughable in its weak grip of facts, and moronic in the historical context -- when it floats outward from the Clinton Campaign like a poison cloud, what do the advisors have their candidate do?
Do they have Senator Clinton herself compare the remark to Al Campanis talking on Nightline... on Jackie Robinson day... about how blacks lacked the necessities to become baseball executives, while she points out that Barock Obama has not gotten his 1600 delegates as part of some kind of Affirmative Action plan?
Do they have Senator Clinton note that her own brief period in elected office, is as irrelevant to the issue of judgment as is Senator Obama's…
…while she points out that FDR had served only six years as a governor and state Senator before he became President?
Or that Teddy Roosevelt had four-and-a-half years before the White House?
Or that Woodrow Wilson had two years and six weeks?
Or Richard Nixon… fourteen... and Calvin Coolidge 25?
Do these advisors have Senator Clinton invoke Samantha Power -- gone by sunrise after she used the word "monster" -- and have Senator Clinton say, "this is how I police my campaign and this is what I stand for," while she fires former Congresswoman Ferraro from any role the campaign?
No.
Somebody tells her that simply disagreeing with and rejecting the remarks is sufficient.
And she should then call, "regrettable", words that should make any Democrat retch.
And that she should then try to twist them, first into some pox-on-both-your-houses plea to 'stick to the issues,' and then to let her campaign manager try to bend them beyond all recognition, into Senator Obama's fault.
And thus these advisers give Congresswoman Ferraro nearly a week in which to send Senator Clinton's campaign back into the vocabulary... of David Duke.
"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.
"Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white.
"How's that?"
How's that?
Apart from sounding exactly like Rush Limbaugh attacking the black football quarterback Donovan McNabb?
Apart from sounding exactly like what Ms. Ferraro said about another campaign, nearly twenty years ago?
Quote:
"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."
So... apart from sounding like insidious racism that is at least two decades old?
Apart from rendering ridiculous, Senator Clinton's shell-game about choosing Obama as Vice President?
Apart from this evening's resignation letter?
"I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.
"The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you."
Apart from all that?
Well. It sounds as if those advisors want their campaign to be associated with those words, and the cheap… ignorant… vile… racism that underlies every syllable...
And that Geraldine Ferraro has just gone free-lance.
Senator Clinton:
This is not a campaign strategy.
This is a suicide pact.
This week alone, your so-called strategists have declared that Senator Obama has not yet crossed the "commander-in-chief threshold"…
But -- he might be your choice to be Vice President, even though a quarter of the previous sixteen Vice Presidents have become commander-in-chief during the greatest kind of crisis this nation can face: a mid-term succession.
But you'd only pick him if he crosses that threshold by the time of the convention.
But if he does cross that threshold by the time of the convention, he will only have done so sufficiently enough to become Vice President, not President.

Senator, if the serpentine logic of your so-called advisors were not bad enough...
Now, thanks to Geraldine Ferraro, and your campaign's initial refusal to break with her, and your new relationship with her -- now more disturbing still with her claim that she can now "speak for herself" about her vision of Senator Obama as some kind of embodiment of a quota...
If you were to seek Obama as a Vice President, it would be, to Ms. Ferraro, some kind of social engineering gesture, some kind of racial make-good.
Do you not see, Senator?
To Senator Clinton's supporters, to her admirers, to her friends for whom she is first choice, and her friends for whom she is second choice, she is still letting herself be perceived as standing next to, and standing by, racial divisiveness and blindness…
And worst yet, after what President Clinton said during the South Carolina primary, comparing the Obama and Jesse Jackson campaigns -- a disturbing, but only borderline remark...
After what some in the black community have perceived as a racial undertone to the "3 A-M" ad... a disturbing -- but only borderline interpretation...
And after that moment's hesitation in her own answer on 60 Minutes about Obama's religion -- a disturbing, but only borderline vagueness...
After those precedents, there are those who see a pattern... false, or true.
After those precedents, there are those who see an intent... false, or true.
After those precedents, there are those who see the Clinton campaign's anything-but-benign neglect of this Ferraro catastrophe -- falsely or truly -- as a desire to hear the kind of casual prejudice which still haunts this society voiced... and to not distance the campaign from it.
To not distance you from it, Senator!
To not distance you... from that which you as a woman, and Senator Obama as an African-American, should both know and feel with the deepest of personal pain!
Which you should both fight with all you have!
Which you should both insure, has no place in this contest!

This, Senator Clinton, is your campaign, and it is your name.
Grab the reins back from whoever has led you to this precipice, before it is too late.
Voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth.
Your only reaction has been to disagree, reject, and to call it regrettable.
Her only reaction has been to brand herself as the victim, resign from your committee, and insist she will continue to speak.
Unless you say something definitive, Senator, the former Congresswoman is speaking with your approval.
You must remedy this.
And you must... reject... and denounce... Geraldine Ferraro.
Good night, and good luck.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 08:31 pm
Must See Video
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 06:08 am
maporsche wrote:
woiyo wrote:

Racism and racists are asinine! Looks like the Democrats for FILLED with racists.


DOES it look that way?

Are you saying that I'M racist?


Not yet.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 06:12 am
ebrown_p wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
no, because you used the word black and obama in the same sentence so you are a profiler and a racist...


This is a strawman that a Republican wingnut would be proud of.

Read what Geraldine Ferraro said.

Geraldine is suggesting that Barack... a man who even a Hillary devotee should understand is a man of considerable skill who attracts the youth vote and the educated vote.... is only successful because of some kind of "reverse racism".

If you don't understand why this is offensive, then I don't know what to say.

The facts are

- Barack Obama is a better speaker than Hillary and is inspiring voters where Hillary is not.

- Obama has been consistant in opposing the war where Hillary has not, and he has expressed views on stopping future wars that many of us prefer to Hillaries dithering on the subject.

- Obama has run a positive campaign where Hillary has not.

- Obama has set up a much better campaign ground organization in States that Hillary ignored until too late.

- Obama consistently beats McCain in national head to head polls

- Obama has won more pledged delegates. He has won more states. And, he has won a greater percentage of the popular votes.

There are many reasons that Obama is winning this election (and has pretty near mathematically wrapped it up).

It will be nice when Hillary (and her devotees) can accept that they were beaten by a better candidate who ran a better campaign.

Claiming that she is the victim of racism is both offensive and idiotic.


Agree.

One could argue that Obamas entry into the race was due in part to his race (since he clearly has no experience), since he has been in the race, he has outperformed all opponents based upon the presentation of his ideas.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 06:29 am
maporsche wrote:

But in states OTHER states, where the black vote made up 50%+ of the voters, you KNOW his race made a difference.

The more black votes in a state primary, the better Obama does. Is that merely coincidence?


No, clearly blacks overwhelmingly vote for Obama. But does that mean he wouldn't be where he is if wasn't black? Because if it does then you have no choice but to conclude that Hillary wouldn't be where she was if she wasn't a woman. You can't have one without the other.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 07:06 am
Thanks for the transcript, Butrflynet.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 07:11 am
If Obama, whose talents are undeniable, was a white man then no, I do not believe we would be seeing the outpouring of black voters we see now. Go ahead and call me a racist and I'll laugh about it and you'll feel like you've elevated yourselves to the high road somehow.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 07:13 am
FreeDuck wrote:
maporsche wrote:

But in states OTHER states, where the black vote made up 50%+ of the voters, you KNOW his race made a difference.

The more black votes in a state primary, the better Obama does. Is that merely coincidence?


No, clearly blacks overwhelmingly vote for Obama. But does that mean he wouldn't be where he is if wasn't black? Because if it does then you have no choice but to conclude that Hillary wouldn't be where she was if she wasn't a woman. You can't have one without the other.


and both those facts are probably true to an extent. So what are we. an equally divided nation of either sexists or racists? Does that make republicans both sexist AND racist?

I can't keep up...
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 07:24 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
... So what are we. an equally divided nation of either sexists or racists? Does that make republicans both sexist AND racist?

I can't keep up...


The ones I know personally would qualify, bear.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 07:27 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
If Obama, whose talents are undeniable, was a white man then no, I do not believe we would be seeing the outpouring of black voters we see now. Go ahead and call me a racist and I'll laugh about it and you'll feel like you've elevated yourselves to the high road somehow.


The vast minority of democratic voters are Black. White voters make up the majority.

Therefore, many white voters are backing Obama.

Agree Black voters are voting for Obama because of race. Why are the White voters voting for Obama?

Bottom line is Hillary is LOSING and the only explanation she wants us to believe is because it is about race. I do not buy it. She is losing because more voters agree with Obama's message and promises.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 07:37 am
No, Hillary is losing because people don't like her.

She has the highest negatives of any of the candidates.

This has been talked about in the public arena for several years, ever since it became apparent to all that she ran for the Senate as a springboard to running for the Presidency.

Long before Obama became a candidate, Hillary's negatives were high....even among Democrats.

That's why she's losing.

If she had someone other than a rookie senator (black or white, makes no dif) to run against , she'd be losing even worse.

For Gerry Ferraro to suggest that 'Present' Obama got to where he was because he is black, is to ignore that Hilly got to where she is because she was Billy's wife.

Sure, 'Present' is an empty suit. Gerry's right about that. But it's not his skin that is helping him win. It's that he has such poor competition to run against.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 07:47 am
Clinton apologizes more thoroughly:

Quote:
Of Ferraro's comment, Hillary Clinton told her audience: "I certainly do repudiate it and I regret deeply that it was said. Obviously she doesn't speak for the campaign, she doesn't speak for any of my positions, and she has resigned from being a member of my very large finance committee."


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VC9QC80&show_article=1
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 07:56 am
RASMUSSEN at 11:00 AM:

Likely Dem Voters Nationwide

Black: Obama 81% Clinton 7%
White: Clinton 50% Obama 39%

Women: Clinton 51% Obama 40%
Men: Obama 60% Clinton 28%
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 08:00 am
woiyo wrote:
RASMUSSEN at 11:00 AM:

Likely Dem Voters Nationwide

Black: Obama 81% Clinton 7%
White: Clinton 50% Obama 39%

Women: Clinton 51% Obama 40%
Men: Obama 60% Clinton 28%


so you can look at those stats and tell me that it's not Obama advantage black.... Obama advantage men... Obama is cashing in on the both the racist AND the sexist vote... it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with him, that it's the ONLY consideration or that I'm a bigot or a racist... it's a fact... and in this particular election cycle those facts are working in Obama's favor.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 08:10 am
Now that she is in the spotlight again....and not to hijack the thread, but I was reminded of an almost prophetic statement she made back during the Reagan administration with respect to the American covert operations in Nicaragua:

Quote:
We're not moving toward a more secure area of the world. As a matter of fact the number of troops that the Sandinistas have accumulated since the administration started its covert activities has risen from 12,000 to 50,000, and of course the number of Soviet and Cuban advisors has also increased.


What is that old saying...."those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 08:11 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
woiyo wrote:
RASMUSSEN at 11:00 AM:

Likely Dem Voters Nationwide

Black: Obama 81% Clinton 7%
White: Clinton 50% Obama 39%

Women: Clinton 51% Obama 40%
Men: Obama 60% Clinton 28%


so you can look at those stats and tell me that it's not Obama advantage black.... Obama advantage men... Obama is cashing in on the both the racist AND the sexist vote... it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with him, that it's the ONLY consideration or that I'm a bigot or a racist... it's a fact... and in this particular election cycle those facts are working in Obama's favor.


It is a big part of it, but not all of it. 40% of white people vote for Obama. Most of that 40% are men.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 08:32 am
sozobe wrote:
Clinton apologizes more thoroughly:

Quote:
Of Ferraro's comment, Hillary Clinton told her audience: "I certainly do repudiate it and I regret deeply that it was said. Obviously she doesn't speak for the campaign, she doesn't speak for any of my positions, and she has resigned from being a member of my very large finance committee."


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VC9QC80&show_article=1


'my very large finance committee.....'

Laughing
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 09:00 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
woiyo wrote:
RASMUSSEN at 11:00 AM:

Likely Dem Voters Nationwide

Black: Obama 81% Clinton 7%
White: Clinton 50% Obama 39%

Women: Clinton 51% Obama 40%
Men: Obama 60% Clinton 28%


so you can look at those stats and tell me that it's not Obama advantage black.... Obama advantage men... Obama is cashing in on the both the racist AND the sexist vote... it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with him, that it's the ONLY consideration or that I'm a bigot or a racist... it's a fact... and in this particular election cycle those facts are working in Obama's favor.


I think that if he were a black republican, preaching from the proverbial pulpit the virtues of the Bush doctrine, he'd be lucky to have made it into the primaries.
The fact that he's black has guararanteed him some of the black vote. Because he is youthful, new, refreshing and seems to offer something valuable to every race and each gender he is guaranteed a much broader web of support.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 09:34 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
maporsche wrote:

But in states OTHER states, where the black vote made up 50%+ of the voters, you KNOW his race made a difference.

The more black votes in a state primary, the better Obama does. Is that merely coincidence?


No, clearly blacks overwhelmingly vote for Obama. But does that mean he wouldn't be where he is if wasn't black? Because if it does then you have no choice but to conclude that Hillary wouldn't be where she was if she wasn't a woman. You can't have one without the other.


and both those facts are probably true to an extent. So what are we. an equally divided nation of either sexists or racists? Does that make republicans both sexist AND racist?

I can't keep up...


It makes us humans. The overriding point, though, is that Ferraro didn't appear to be talking about exit poll demographics at all. She appeared to be saying that Obama is the beneficiary of reverse racism or affirmative action, a talking point that used to play well with whites in the 80s. And she strongly implied that this was an advantage that he had over Clinton.
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
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 12:51:35