Democrats and Affirmative Action, circa 1984

Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 09:16 pm

In this article where Geraldine Ferraro issues her non-apology to Barak Obama, she relates the following:

"I was talking about historic candidacies and what I started off by saying (was that) if you go back to 1984 and look at my historic candidacy, which I had just talked about all these things, in 1984 if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would have never been chosen as a vice presidential candidate," Ferraro said on ABC's "Good Morning America.""It had nothing to do with my qualification."

So what she's telling us is that Mondale picked her because of her gender, that otherwise she was not qualified to be selected as VP.

If, God forbid, Mondale had been elected in 1984; and then, God forbid, had somehow expired in office, we would have had a president who brought a skill set of qualifications to the presidency consisting of....

'Being named Geraldine instead of Gerald'....

Now, I understand VP picks have not always been selected for reasons other than what demographic they might bring to the polls. And at least she is honest about why she was picked. But interesting she would slam Obama while ignoring Hillary.

Speaking of women who are given a position they haven't earned, Camille Paglia (I can never remember if Libs hate her or like her) wrote an interesting piece in Salon about Hillary.


In it, she tells us (much better than I tried to do in another thread):

"Never has the soppy emotionalism of old-guard feminist reasoning been on such open and embarrassing display. How has Hillary, who rode her husband's coattails to the top and who trashed every woman he seduced or assaulted, become such a feminist heroine? What has she ever achieved on her own -- aside from the fiasco of healthcare reform?"

While Camile is kinda harsh, I still don't understand how those women who are backing Hillary purely for gender reasons consider her their champion? Some have said they feel she is qualified, which is good enough.

My take is we just had eight years of someone who was elected because of name recognition, who rode a set coattails into office...

Hillary is not a self-made woman, in my opinion; at least Geraldine Ferraro earned her place, up until her VP nomination...

Not trying to be antagonist, or otherwise difficult. Some of you will provide convincing arguments AA is good and necessary, even - especially - for the office of president.

But since this is AK2, where all discussion is good...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 463 • Replies: 3
No top replies

Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 09:33 pm
I have soured on Hillary but to suggest that she has done nothing on her own is ludicrous. And although Affirmative Action is still necessary for lower level hiring and placement, to suggest that it is useful on the presidential level is not ludicrous, it's absurd.
0 Replies
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2008 07:54 am
I'd like to argue with you, ALV, but I'm afraid I mostly agree. The only thing I'll add is that someone should notify Ferraro that it's not 1984 anymore, and that we're talking about candidates for the nomination and not people who are selected for the nomination by affirmative action.
0 Replies
A Lone Voice
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 08:02 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
I have soured on Hillary but to suggest that she has done nothing on her own is ludicrous. And although Affirmative Action is still necessary for lower level hiring and placement, to suggest that it is useful on the presidential level is not ludicrous, it's absurd.

What is it with liberals?

I agree that picking Geraldine Ferraro as the VP candidate was absurd; yet, the Dems did so, didn't they?

Being a young adult then, I was aghast at my Repub, conservative uncle when he pointed out Mondale and the Dems were not only fools, but were placing the national security of the country in danger. As I grew older and wiser, I obviously recognized he was right.

In hindsight, it easy to belittle the Dems of the 1980s for their silliness, although they still get pretty pissed if you do so.

Now, with Hillary early in her second term as a senator, many feel she is experienced and accomplished. But if not for her husband, she would not have been elected in New York, and would certainly not be running for president now. Gotta agree with Camille there.

Tough time for us. McCain is a scary dude, and is the first Repub in a very long time who I will not be voting for. I think Obama's lack of Washington experience, his newness as a politician at the federal level, is actually what makes him an attractive candidate.

Of course, it will it interesting to see how people in 2032 will look back at this election...
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
  1. Forums
  2. » Democrats and Affirmative Action, circa 1984
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/21/2022 at 05:45:29