Re: Geraldine Ferraro:
Because running as a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama is soooo easy.
« Throwing This Out There... | Main | Will Eliot Spitzer resign? »
Ferraro
10 Mar 2008 09:16 pm
Comments (117)
Ambinder -- Sinbad is calling you out -- I suggest a quick response (via TPM):
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/sinbad-speaks.php#comment-2641126
Typical.
At the very least, Hillary needs to renounce this Ferraro comment as much as Obama did the Samantha Powers comment.
The Hillary camp has no shame, no limit to how low they will stoop. That is one more reason to reject Hillary soundly.
Hillary is another Spitzer waiting to happen: someone ruthless, arrogant, feeling entitled to power, with a history of rumors of scandal. And with the Clintons it's 2 for 1: you have both Hillary and Bill and their combined scandal potential.
If she had called him a black monster she'd have to resign from Hillary's campaign.
when and how is this going to stop? I'm not going to ask Where, as I do NOT want it to be in Denver. I do want to ask WHO are these Clinton supporters - and how they can think she can win a general election with negatives around 50 %, NO cross-ver appeal (on the contrary - every GOP voter will turn out against her, "fatal" to the down ticket (McCaskill), and with indeps. breaking heavily in favor of either McCain or Obama. OR,even if she could eke out a 50.01% win, how could she govern, when no GOP-er ever needing re-election will be the one on record as having given her a legislative victory of any significance. PLUS: release the tax returns, release the WH records, release the pardons-for-library donations records, release info on Bill's $$$$$$$$$$ from Dubai, Suado and kazakhstan - let's VET them!
Ironic sense Mondale picked Ferraro bc she was a "first", he actively sought to pick a woman or a minority. Why else would you pick a House Rep (who had not been there long)?
Here's the Time Magazine article from that era, also you can check out Mondal's Wiki.
Mac. I think you need to point this out (god knows the rest of the media won't).
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,926644,00.html
Dear Older Ethnic Liberal East-Coast White Women,
Hillary is barely 60. If you refuse to vote for Obama this year, she can still be President in 2012. Don't give up the faith.
Sincerely yours,
Geraldine
Doesn't it seem like not a very good idea for the Clinton campaign to have Carville on CNN (identified on screen as a Clinton supporter) saying that there's no reason for Spitzer to resign?
I would think the Clinton folks don't want the association drawn so directly from the Spitzer scandal to the Clintons.
Best. Marc. Post. EVER.
Here is what bugs the ambinders:
""I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign."
Ferraro calls the "liberal medias" hackery out. How dare she!
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "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." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.
"I was reading an article that said young Republicans are out there campaigning for Obama because they believe he's going to be able to put an end to partisanship," Ferraro said, clearly annoyed. "Dear God! Anyone that has worked in the Congress knows that for over 200 years this country has had partisanship - that's the way our country is."
http://www.dailybreeze.com/lifeandculture/ci_8489268
And the rest works for me.
Jerry Ferraro also thinks that Mondale should have been the nominee by default because he won all the big primary states (except CA).
Does this malarky sound familiar?
Lost in Ferraro's whining:
a) HIllary would be nowhere if her last name were not Clinton...she is the beneficiary of affirmative action by nepotism and legacy, not Obama, who earned his standing by his own skills.
b) There are a lot more white women in the dem electorate than black men
c) Obama is not the one talking about race. That would be the clintons and the media.
d) Does she think her gender had nothing to do with her being picked for VP in 1984 as a random congresswoman from NY
e) A white man with Obama's skills would even more politically strong as Obama is now.
This is just another attempt to divide blacks and whites as we approach Mississippi. They're using this to lay the groundwork for pointing to the racial divide and saying that Obama is just a black candidate. The Southern Strategy is back.
A different interview, listen for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqL_sm0J8jc
(She seems to suggest that the only reason Obama makes it this far is because he is black. Yet in the next sentence she seems to suggest that the only reason that she was not on the top of the ticket in 84 was because she is woman.)
As an African-American male, I am happy to find out that I should both count myself lucky and that people are positively taking to the "concept" of being a black man.
Racial progress indeed!
Ferraro has been all over the place, and she's gotten on my last nerve.
Poor Hillary. She had the misfortune to be born of two white parents, professionals, who stayed married.
Imagine how different life would have been had her father been from Africa. An immigrant to the United States, married to a white woman. Now we're talkin', huh? Now we're talking some real structural advantages! But then, just imagine that Hillary's father then left her as a toddler, to be cared for only by her mother! Whoa! She would have gone straight from Yale, to the White House.
Alas, it was not to be.
But Hillary has angels. She has Geraldine Ferraro, and Gloria Steinem, angels who pierce the fog with their towering intellects, and explain to us how it all could have been so different.
More racebaiting from the Clinton campaign; how many more times must this happen before the campaign is called out on it by the media? And I mean really called out on it...not just in some commentaries on blogs like this, but through all mainstream media outlets, to where Hillary is properly shamed.
Uggh could we talk about real issues?
Like Obama flip-flopping on earmarks. He now supports Demint-McCain (moratorium on earmarks for one year). His previous position was that earmarks are fine as long as they are transparent. Its pretty clear he wants to avoid this debate in november.
By the way, when will he release his '05,'06 earmarks? Some transparency would be nice.
Uuuuhhh...lets stop and look at the facts. Obama secures close to 50% of the white vote, so if there are white racists voting against him for being half black, there are as many white reverse racists voting for him due to perceived persecution over his skin color. On the other hand he gets over 80% of the black vote, in a race against a candidate who has a long black friendly history. The numbers suggest that if fact Obama benefits tremendously from his mixed race heritiage. His great shining moment in the sun was South Carolina, where the BLACK VOTE carried him to a significant win, while the white vote split more or less evenly among all of the candidates. Moreover his rising popularity among blacks was fueled by his campaign's suggestions of RACISM ON THE PART OF HIS OPPONENT. Obama writes of doing drugs as a youth, Bill Shaheen brings it up as a possible handicap to his aspirations, and all of a sudden DRUG ADDICTION BECOMES AN EXCLUSIVELY BLACK CHARACTERISTIC. Certainly not the case where I live, where the drug addicts/sellers come in all races, ages, genders, and from all socio economic backgrounds.
BTW, I am sick and tired of Hillary's supporters trying to argue that somehow sexism is worse than racism. Both are evils, and both must be fought.
But Hillary's supporters try to argue that somehow women have had it harder in this country than black people. I know sexism has been bad, but I don't think it can compare to the history of racism in this country. I think one would rather have been a white female in the 1950's rather than a black male.
If anything, at this point in time, we are more in need of racial healing than healing in gender relations. Again, the black community is more disadvantaged in this country as a whole than the female population.
I also believe Obama, with his more caring nature, and one that is more aligned with peace, would actually do more for women than Hillary. Hillary showed how much she cared about strong, independent women when she threw the brilliant Samantha Powers under the bus.
Uggh could we talk about real issues? Like Obama flip-flopping on earmarks.
Shall we also talk about McCain flip-flopping on real issues? Like torture? Could be fun/interesting/enlightening. But I'm not sure it's appropriate for this thread.
Hey Jesse,
Go tell Geraldine Ferraro that once she starts talking about real issue more people on message boards will start doing the same. People here didn't bring up the topic, a Clinton supporter did so let's get real about whose fault it is that people aren't talking about real issues.
Give Gerry some credit, i think she raises a an interesting problem that needs to be addressed asap.Perhaps we need to start an affirmative action program for rich white people because those black males have so easy in our society.
Eventually, this hardass stance (we don't make our people resign - that's what the other campaign does) will come back to haunt them.
They are building up a reservoir of idiotic surrogate comments. Just like McCain is.
"BTW, I am sick and tired of Hillary's supporters trying to argue that somehow sexism is worse than racism. Both are evils, and both must be fought.
Posted by cm"
Too bad you have to put up with other peoples opinions. Things would be so much better if only obamatons were allowed to comment on anything. So sad you.
Anyway I agree both racism and sexism are terrible. The tie breaker in this case is ambinder and the rest of his "liberal media" buddies trashing Hillary to no end. That's the point Ferraro is making.
Obama chose to run as a "black man" at the start of his political career in the predominantly black section of Chicago. Prior to that the white half of his biological heritage was far more prominent in his identity. He really had no contact with his black relatives until adulthood, and not much contact with blacks of any kind prior to that. His father was a visiting student who left the family behind in Hawaii, moved to the East Coast for a couple more years, started another family with an American woman, then returned with her to his original wife and child in Kenya. American friends who visited Barack Obama Sr. in Kenya mentioned that he never even inquired about Barack Jr. or his mother. He died in an intoxicated automobile accident before Barack Jr. first visited his ancestral homeland in his mid 20s.
Oh Please, please, please let Spitzer decide to not resign his Governorship, so that both Hillary and our new friend Geraldine have to answer questions about one of their own, for months on end.
Hey Elliot: take Carville's advice here and DON'T resign.
I have to agree with Ferraro on this.
Imagine for a moment Barak were indeed a woman in this race. What would he have? He would be a female senator with less than a decade's experience in elected office with the ability to raise mass amounts of money.
...but without any on-the-job experience as a first lady or the name recognition that Hillary has, this race would long since be over.
Yet despite the inherent benefits of being a black male in America, and the inherent disadvantage of being a "rich white girl", guess what? this race is close. This speaks volumes to Hillary's substance and her ability to lead.
Automatic delegates know this.
Yah. She's right. Obama wouldn't have gotten secret service protection nearly a year ago if he wasn't a black guy.
Great post on this subject on dailykos:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/10/193818/500/87/473837
True gall for her to argue this when Clinton's only distinction, other than her record of triangulation and abject failure on health care reform, is that her name is Clinton. To argue otherwise just seems foolish. Sorry, I can name at least 10 more accomplished female politicians who, unlike Hillary, have made it on their own merits. Why is it, now, that many feminists dislike HRC?
And can it with the "obamatons" crap. This ain't the CNN vent-board.
I just read your snarky little addendum, Ambinder.
If that "insight" was even remotely close to the truth, how do you explain John Edwards, who certainly came into the contest with a far superior resume to Obama?
Being a white male (and the last one standing) in the Primary process doesn't seem to have benefitted Edwards very much does it?
You moron.
If you feel like leaving a comment for Ms. Ferraro (I left her a respectful e-mail but I also let her know he comments were not appreciated) her e-mail address is:
gferraro@hfgcg.com
She was a true trailblazer and I understand her health is not good. But her comment was ridiculous.
Fuck off Robert Ethan.
"He died in an intoxicated automobile accident..."
"He really had no contact with his black relatives until adulthood.."
Either he is too white or too black for you, depending on your pathetic quotes.
Go away, you race baiting fuckhead.
When this is over I will dance on your idiotic screeds.
Obama as a white man would have gone the way of John Edwards in this race. At best. Obama as a black woman would have gone the way of Carolyn Moseley-Braun in 2004. At best.
Mosely-Braun, who was also from Chicago, had a nearly identical political background to Obama, except more extensive, and harder earned. She was the first casualty in the 2004 Primaries, I beleive, and hardly registered on the scale voter wise.
Is this what we all have to look forward to if Barack Obama is fortunate enough to be elected president? 4-8 years of constant harping, griping, whining and crying about supposed race-baiting?
That's going to be a turn off.
If anyone thinks that's going to assist in moving white and black America along the road to full reconciliation then they are dreaming.
The quote is amusingly offensive, but I think more people should be asking her about this quote:
"Well, let me first say that I wasn't born at the age of forty-three when I entered Congress. I did have a life before that as well. I was a prosecutor for almost five years in the district attorney's office in Queens County and I was a teacher. There's not only what is on your paper resume that makes you qualified to run for or to hold office. It's how you approach problems and what your values are. I think if one is taking a look at my career they'll see that I level with the people; that I approach problems analytically; that I am able to assess the various facts with reference to a problem, and I can make the hard decisions."
Is this what we all have to look forward to if Barack Obama is fortunate enough to be elected president? 4-8 years of constant harping, griping, whining and crying about supposed race-baiting?
Tim,
Saying that Senator Obama only got where he is because he's a black man is only "supposedly" race-baiting?
Robert Ethan said:
"Obama as a white man would have gone the way of John Edwards in this race. At best. Obama as a black woman would have gone the way of Carolyn Moseley-Braun in 2004. At best."
As Jake Gittes said to Claude Mulvehill:
"You're dumber than you think I think you are."
Look it up.
You know, you could probably make a pretty good argument that Obama's refusal to jump all over opportunities like this to point at Clinton and say "Look, there she goes again!" encourages her and her supporters to keep doing stupid things like this. In the end, you get a large catalog of mis-steps, unfortunate quotes, and just plain stupidity (Ed Rendell; VP material, not C-in-C material, etc) that ends up doing the painting for you in the end. If you manage to stick around long enough for it to clot and coalesce, anyway.
I love to hear Hillary and her supporters complaining about the playing field and how unfair it all is. Is this the same Hillary who was a heavy favorite from the second she declared her candidacy, with huge advantages in money, endorsements, and name recognition? The Hillary who casually announced that it would be over by February 5th? For such an experienced political genius, I'm surprised she didn't notice how crooked the playing field was until she started losing.
Thank you for picking this one up Marc.
I would agree in a way. Obama is winning for who he is, not because of who he is not.
Identity politics stinks, and to me Obama is the first real chip away at that.
"Look it up.
Posted by swarty "
Hey you are pretty smart. No really.
LOL, swarthy - You're quick to accuse me of racism but never seem to question the truth of my statements. That basically sums up the road to success for Obama, reporters are often afraid to print the truth because they will be branded as racist. No reporter ever got fired for being less than forthcoming, but lots get fired for comments deemed even remotely racially sensitive.
It is Obama's security blanket and bulletproof vest all in one. If things get tough, just cry "Race!".
Isn't the Hillary campaign sickening, with its pattern of racist attacks on Obama? The Clintons will betray anyone or any group for their ambitions. That is why they are throwing blacks under the bus now.
Fortunately, it will not work...too many people can see through the Clintons.
The only choice they have at this point is whether they leave the campaign with the last remaining shreds of their dignity intact.
On the subject of skin color, "swarthy", does that hit an especially sensitive spot with you, or what? ;)
jbryan:
I was very careful not to say it was the only reason. It's not the only reason he is where he is. What I did say is it is the indispensable quality about him that allows everything else to get him to where he is. The whole fascination about him going back to the 2004 convention, and I remember because I was paying close attention, was how impressive and intelligent and articulate he was and how great his oratorical skills were AND that he was black. Not just how impressive he was.
I see this board has a Robert Ethan infection. This person (troll) stalked Politco for a while, until people banded together got out the torches and chased him away (we got him banned)
Marc, you need to take care of the Robert Ethan problem b4 it spreads. Just and FYI
Oh and don't feed the Robert Ethan.
>
So who brought up race this time? Obama folks? No Wait, it's a Clinton supporter AGAIN. Seems to me it's the Clinton camp who keeps bringing up race when things get tough (someone remind me who lost S. Carolina and brought up Jesse Jackson) but don't let the facts get in the way of your Clinton-based reality.
Well rr18, you didn't notice because things are not revealed to be unfair until you know they aren't good for the Clintons.
Causes - Before Iowa: fine. Now UNFAIR!
No delegates for MI and FL - Before Super Tuesday: The right move. Now: UNFAIR!
Caucus sites for casino workers - Before Culinary Workers Endorsement: A great way to accommodate an important part of the electorate. Now: UNFAIR!
Black people: Before they started voting for Obama: Our brothers and sisters. Now: UNFAIR!
The list goes on. I'm surprised you have caught on - the formula is astonishingly simple.
Look at the bright side, swarthy, Obama has a good chance of being THE FIRST HALF BLACK TWO TERM VICE PRESIDENT in the 230 odd year history of the nation.
Groundbreaking.
Don't be silly, Robert. It wouldn't make any sense at all for him to go on and serve as Vice President after he becomes President.
Don't feed the Robert Ethan! The famed Troll of politico get out your garlic and your crucifix this troll will stalk us, he/it must be dealt w/immediately.
He is a true ghoul, w/nightmarish talking points from the Hilla-monster campaign
PSA: Don't feed the Robert Ethan
Such comments are not serious discourse, and are merely intended to provoke. Perhaps he's an Obama supporter trying to make Clinton supporters look bad. Who knows/cares.
Simply ignore him, and he will shrivel up in a pool of his own bile. Sort of like the Giuliani campaign...
LOL, swarthy - You're quick to accuse me of racism but never seem to question the truth of my statements.
You added an "H" to my name. Not an uncommon mistake
As for questioning the truth of your statements, I have plenty of arrows in my quiver regarding race and sex but I refuse to go there because I am not a race and sex baiting fuckhead. I will never go there! I will deal with the reality we face as Democrats.
If Edwards had listened to his wife he would have voted against this war (I think the proof is in Shrum's memoir but not sure) and would likely be our nominee, because he would be against the war IN THE SENATE IN 2002. Obama is the next best thing. Hillary enabled the worst President in American History in this horrific war. I can't change her vote (and she is my Senator)
Hillary voted for this shitty, brave American soldier killing, resource destroying drain on our country. You can race bait all you want you fool,but she sided with The Republicans all you want.
You can race bait all you please, but Barack Hussein Obama (I Am Spartacus) opposed this awful war in real time and that is one of most important reasons he has my support. If MY SENATOR has opposed this war, I would support her with every fiber of my body. Race and sex have NOTHING to do with it. She had the opportunity to oppose Bush, but did not. There in no racial or gender opinion at work.
Robert Ethan, you are small minded and I will say so whenever I have an opportunity (but I have a real job where I am not able to check the blogs all the time like you so I will respond when I am able).
You are dumber than you think I think you are.
Sorry about the typos in my last post. You can figure them out.
And Robert Ethan, you suck diddlyuck!
(Flanders reference, in case you don't get it, which you probably don't get because you are too busy posting racist drivel on message boards)
Don't despair, swarthy, and other supporters of Vice Presidential Candidate Barack Obama.
February is the cruellest month, as the poets say.
But now March has dawned to chase away the BLEAK DARK days of winter. BRIGHTLY COLORED flowers will bloom in place of the DEAD BROWN husks of the previous year. FAIR MAIDENS will traipse, singing and dancing through them, with GOLDEN SUNLIGHT shining on their hair.
We will all start to appreciate the LIGHTER SIDE of life, and the future will no longer seem so OMINOUSLY BLACK.
Don't you agree?
In the Ferraro youtube someone posted:
She has the audacity to lecture John Lewis on black politics; she says, around 3:35 that "It's the guys sticking together!" Her desperation at this point in the conversation reflects greatly on Hillary Clinton's sense of entitlement and borderline neurotic feminism-gone-bad.
Pretty outrageous.
Tungsten said:
"PSA: Don't feed the Robert Ethan"
I agree, but I use these posts of his as a sort of writing exercise. I got a few laughs a while ago so I take it as a victory, however small.
And I write that Robert Ethan comments on blogs like noone else. He has the free time to comment more than other and my that yardstick I salute him. He writes more than the others. And that is a compliment (backhanded division).
Edwards didn't do well because he came across as a used car salesman.
Clinton isn't doing well because she comes across as a sociopath.
Obama is doing well because he seems like a decent, intelligent human being who is inspiring and captivating.
Politics is emotional. People like the new guy. It all has about as much to do with race as it does with the timbre of their voices. Sure we can throw up a graph and try to explain it away, but it doesn't change anything. Americans are embracing the bi-racial guy who makes everyone feel good about themselves, and some people are pissed about it.
They'll get over it.
Democrats looking like racists ...in full view
of America! DEATH,WHERE IS THY STING! May Hillary's outreach to blacks re: Obama's
"possibilty" on HER ticket...resound. Bill
is promising that Obama will scrape up all
those minority votes into her basket..to sew
up the victory. The victory for Hill and Bill,
of course. Your party is a joke. The Clintons
will have the last laugh...the MSM will smile,
rehab, and go after Republicans with their usual
fervor. Plantation politics is alive and well!
Where do you guys find this "overwhelming embracing" of Obama by Americans.
The last polls I looked at saw him trailing the "sociopath" Hillary Clinton among Democrats, and trailing Methuselah McCain among all Americans in popularity.
I guess Geraldine Ferraro just isn't feeling the hope.
Great post, Marc.
R Ethan pontificated the following nonsense:
"Don't despair, swarthy, and other supporters of Vice Presidential Candidate Barack Obama.
February is the cruellest month, as the poets say.
But now March has dawned to chase away the BLEAK DARK days of winter. BRIGHTLY COLORED flowers will bloom in place of the DEAD BROWN husks of the previous year. FAIR MAIDENS will traipse, singing and dancing through them, with GOLDEN SUNLIGHT shining on their hair.
We will all start to appreciate the LIGHTER SIDE of life, and the future will no longer seem so OMINOUSLY BLACK.
Don't you agree?"
I have no fucking clue what you're getting at. I no longer see any need to engage you as you as you now sound like Scooter Libby penning a love note to Judith Miller. Make sure to mention the Aspens out west. Peace out.
THE WASTE LAND
I. THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD
APRIL is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
Winter kept us warm, covering
Earth in forgetful snow, feeding
A little life with dried tubers...
- T.S. Eliot
James in NJ
Like I said, I went to public school.
I hated Eliot & Pound both. Prufrock is still just a mystery to me.
But thanks for the tip.
Doesn't it seem like not a very good idea for the Clinton campaign to have Carville on CNN (identified on screen as a Clinton supporter) saying that there's no reason for Spitzer to resign?
I would think the Clinton folks don't want the association drawn so directly from the Spitzer scandal to the Clintons.
Posted by Suze | March 10, 2008 9:41 PM
I'll keep this as brief as I can. James Carville looks, sounds and pretty much has the same level of credibility as Porky Pig!
I don't see why this is so controversial. Obama would not have run for President if he hadn't been black, and he certainly wouldn't have made the final two if he hadn't been black.
He's had an absurdly easy life and walked into every political office except the one he's trying on now--and so far, he hasn't sold any majority except blacks, nationwide, to vote for him.
Ferraro's exactly right. If he were a white guy, he'd have been slapped down hard.
Oh, Cal, Cal, Cal... you really have some racial issues you need to work out, man. Seriously. Seek some help.
Jeff Larson, I don't think McCain flip flopped on torture at all - if you want to debate those facts I gladly will.
But for you to dismiss Obama's refusal to release his earmark requests as a non-issue and his reversal of policy to avoid a debate then you have another thing coming.
A great many Americans don't believe that someone should be president if they have requested outrageous projects in their home state funded by the tax payer.
You might believe the Obama can "unite" the country behind his "change" but there are a lot of fiscal conservatives out there who CARE about the ISSUES and aren't falling for this magic negro routine.
Absolutely true, Cal. In Chicago, Obama was trailing Blair Hull by a wide margin until they dug up some personal dirt on Hull concerning his divorce proceedings, causing Hull to drop out. Then there was the matter of the verified sponsor lists where Obama eliminated all of his competitors before any votes were cast by challenging their lists in court. Finally another personal smear dug up on Jack Ryan, again involving supposedly private "sealed" child custody proceedings, which effectively kneecapped Ryan in that race. South Side Chicago politics in all their "gory".
Obama has had a free ride to where he is today courtesy of the Chicago Mobster Express. With a big lift from John Kerry who fingered him for the 2004 DNC keynote address to all a little "color" to the proceedings. A nice baritone voice for the choir. Beyond that, nothing. An uninspired (and ineffectual) lawyer who became an uninspired and equally ineffectual politician.
Hillary is a plump dumpling being recycled
on the political plate (for years as a "fighter"
for all of you).....The guys that write the
menu are Bill, and the political sycophants
in the Dem party. Bill was the main course
that thrilled some as long as it lasted (think
McRibs) and it gave many dyspepsia. Now we're
asked to consider his wife as the newest menu
item and they are offering Obama as a side
dish...what arrogance!
Yes, it's really easy. The only real challenge Obama will ever encounter is when he has to face off against an Arab candidate (who grew up in North Korea) named Fidel Hitler bin Laden.
Man, now *that's* a cakewalk to the presidency.
Bill is dancing with the one that brung 'im.
He's behind his wife with all his being. He
must realize that Hillary has a better chance
of giving him his ultimate fantasy(returning to
1600 Penna. Ave) than Monica can. But when he
gets there....who knows who gets the next dance?
Only Democrats can decide.
"Absolutely true, Cal. In Chicago, Obama was trailing Blair Hull by a wide margin until they dug up some personal dirt on Hull concerning his divorce proceedings, causing Hull to drop out. Then there was the matter of the verified sponsor lists where Obama eliminated all of his competitors before any votes were cast by challenging their lists in court. Finally another personal smear dug up on Jack Ryan, again involving supposedly private "sealed" child custody proceedings, which effectively kneecapped Ryan in that race. South Side Chicago politics in all their "gory"."
Robert Ethan,
Blair Hull was not Obama's only major opponent in the 2004 Democratic primary for Senate. There was state treasurer Dan Hynes (who had the support of the Daley machine) and popular Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas as well. Therefore, the implosion of Hull's campaign could have easily resulted in a victory for Dan Hynes or Maria Pappas instead of Barack Obama.
No, what tipped the scales in favor of Obama was not Blair Hull's missteps, but the endorsement of Sheilia Simon, the daughter of the late Paul Simon, who had served as a Senator from Illinois from 1985-1997. Sheilia Simon reminded voters of her father's reputation for integrity, and argued that Obama shared that same sense of integrity. It was this endorsement, showcased in a superb campagin commercial put together by David Axelrod, that enabled a then obscure state senator from Hyde Park to pull ahead of both Dan Hynes and Maria Pappas.
As for challenging the signatures on his opponents' nominating petititions, let's not forget 2 things. One, challenging signatures on nominating petitions is a completely legitimate and commonplace tactic, and it is not unique to Illinois politics. Two, Obama's opponents also had the right to challenge the signatures on his nominating petitions. Unlike Obama, they failed in their efforts. That means that Obama was simply better-organized than his opponents, and was able to accumulate enough legitimate signatures to withstand challenges by his opponents.
The Jack Ryan scandal was not the fault of dirty South Side Chicago politics. The campaign which leaked this story to the media was that of retired general Nicholas Bohring, who was one of Ryan's GOP opponents in the primary. It was the fault then of dirty downstate Illinois GOP politics (the politics that gave us politicians like George Ryan).
The scandal though was not the only thing going against Ryan. Obama's vote totals alone in the Democratic primary were more than the combined vote totals of the candidates in the GOP primary. Moreover, Obama has captured 50% of the far larger Democratic vote, while Ryan had won only 35% of the far smaller GOP vote. In addition, the Democratic primary had been a very competitive field, including a popular state treasurer. a popular Cook County treasurer, and a millionaire investment broker. Ryan's main competition on the GOP side had been a millionaire dairy owner and a state senator endorsed by the Chicago Tribune, but who had little money and no statewide organization. Even without the scandal, Obama was simply in a much stronger position than Jack Ryan, because his primary win had established him as a force in Illinois politics, while Ryan's primary win did not do the same for him. That's why this fairly mild scandal crippled Ryan.
Geraldine Ferraro - a footnote in history. If I want her opinion I'll give it to her.
Just wanted to remind everyone that Elizabeth Edwards said it first:
"We can't make John black, and we can't make him a woman".
Hard to see that Ferraro's comment was any better, but why did Elizabeth Edwards get a free pass?
Anyone who delivered that speech at the 2004 convention--black, white, male, female--would have been an instant star in the Democratic Party. And if that person remained true to the vision in that speech, eventually he or she would become a candidate for the Presidential nomination.
Now, it is true that happened a bit faster than one might ordinarily expect. But that was not because of Obama's race. Rather, it was because the right circumstances arose, most notably that all the other major contenders for the Democratic nomination in 2008 had originally supported the Iraq War (which in 2004 had helped sink Kerry's campaign), and that the 2006 elections had shown that the country was willing to vote overwhelmingly for a new direction.
So, early or not, it was the right moment for a person who had opposed the war from the beginning and who had laid out a transformative vision to run. And in fact the nomination process has confirmed that Obama was the right candidate for this moment.
Ferraro missed one thing in her analysis - Clinton has the ultimate positional advantage - she's a monster! Way better than being black! She even has a co-monster surrogate. Monsters for Victimhood '08!
Barack Obama is a very talented individual. He brings substantial experience as an elected official to his campaign. He was president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor of constitutional law. He was an effective community organizer. He is a superb politician with a resonant voice and wonderful cadences. He had the prescience (and, to some extent, the good luck to have George Bush as the commander in chief who sandbagged his own war effort) to forcefully oppose the Iraq war before it began. Yet, he is also only a few years into his first term as a United States senator. The senior senator from Illinois, Richard Durbin, has much greater experience as an elected official, a wonderful speaking voice and extemporaneous speaking manner. He is clearly more conversant with a wider range of both domestic and foreign policy, but it is Obama who has captured people's imagination in this cycle. It is not gainsaying Obama's considerable abilities, real life service as an elected official, good judgement, and campaigning ability to say that his unique identity has played a role in gaining more attention for him in this contest (as has Hillary Clinton's). I say this as one who originally supported another southern progressive candidate, but who is now favoring Senator Obama as the candidate who, on balance, seems to be the democratic party's best hope for the broadest gains possible in the next election.
Well as ungracious and ungraceful as Ferraro's choice of words obviously was, on the flip side you have to admit that one would have to be pretty politically-correct-to-the-exclusion-of-reason to ignore the fact that racial identity politics do appear to be a strong factor in Obama's successes in the primaries. The caveat is whether his coalition of Volvo liberals, black voters and the youth vote would continue to be a winning combination in the general election, without the old line Reagan Democrats who tend to favor Clinton or McCain. Since Obama supporters tend to come from groups who already vote overwhelmingly Democratic in presidential elections and were already out in force in the last one (when we lost both Ohio and Florida) it's hard to see where he makes up that difference once the Republicans have had their shot at him.
I haven't read all the comments, so maybe this has already been pointed out, but - Geraldine Ferraro? You mean _the_ Geraldine Ferraro? The ready-from-day-one-to-take-the-3-AM-phone-call-if-Mondale-went-belly-up-3-term-congresswoman-and-before-that-district-attorney Vice-Presidential nominee? The original affirmative action nominee? Hmmmm.
100 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON
WHAT THIS PAGE DOESN’T CONTAIN
No Vincent Foster, cocaine smuggling conspiracy theories. No dirty tricks or fraudulent smears. No right-wing BS.
WHAT THIS PAGE DOES CONTAIN
Legitimate, sourced and link filled, point by point criticism of the Hillary Clinton’s politics, positions, and staff.
Far from holding a deluded opinion, Geraldine Ferraro is simply staing the bleedin` obvious, as we say on this side of the Atlantic.
Outside the US someone with so little experience of running something simply wouldn't come to be president - except through a military coup. The only exception is Tony Blair. I rest my case.
I know its useless to point out unconcious prejudice and projected racism to those who are clinging so desperately to a state of denial -- but the simple truth is this; when this country's white elite, in the media, in our political discourse, in comments online, dependably express more moral outrage about, make a bigger fuss over, and devote more discussion and condemnation to, for instance, false issues such as Hillary Clinton's banal and perfectly unprejudiced statement about LBJ than they express about the immoral rates at which their country incarcerates young black men, the obscene unemployment rates endured by black communities, the tragic differences in access to medical care and life expectancy between white and minority communities, etc., that's not "transcending" race -- that is racism in action.
The emphasis our society's most powerful and advantaged people put on politically correct speech is in many ways a cover for, a tool for minimizing discussion about and action on, the genuinely consequential aspects of the country's broad, deeply ingrained and institutionalized racism.
As is their bigoted, non-stop, self-rightous projection of racism onto people less powerful than themselves; the poor, the working class, and, in this primary season, older women.
The reason Ferraro is heaped with ridiculous abuse for saying what is quoted here -- which, whether one agrees with it or not, is not a racist statement but a statement about how race affects perception in a racist society -- by people who found no reason to object to ugly, sexist attacks -- that were caluculated, intentional appeals to gender bigotry for political advantage -- made to the media by Jesse Jackson Jr., in his role as campaign spokesman, after the New Hampshire primary, isn't because sexism is more pervasive or has greater detrimental effect than racism.
Sexist talk, and personal verbal abuse of women is more socially acceptable among white elites not because racism is less prevalent, but because women are less feared.
And George Washington, like the other 42 Presidents to come after, was so lucky to be a white male. If he had been one of his own slaves, no matter how talented he was, I'll bet it would have been harder for him to become President.
Hard to see that Ferraro's comment was any better, but why did Elizabeth Edwards get a free pass?
Because she has terminal cancer?
esmense,
You nailed it.
what'sinaname,
I understand your point, but I think Durbin would be the first to admit that Obama had demonstrated his unique political abilities in Illinois before he did so on the national stage. Specifically, Durbin is a pretty popular Senator by ordinary standards, but Obama has drawn more support than Durbin across the board in Illinois, particularly among independents, Republicans, and in Downstate Illinois.
In fact, it really all dates back to the late Senator Paul Simon, who mentored Obama and helped him understand Illinois outside of Chicago. Obama basically took what he learned from Simon, combined it with what he learned from being a community organizer in Chicago, and put that all together in his campaigns, first in Illinois and now nationally.
Again, I think Durbin would happily admit that in doing so, Obama broke new political ground for a Democrat. And I honestly think all that has much more to do with Obama's success than his race. Indeed, putting all that together is how he won Iowa, and how he continues to win states like Wisconsin and pretty much all of the West and Upper Midwest. And while race may have shifted a fewer voters his way and a few voters back Clinton's way in other regions, I think those many areas in which race has not been a factor have proven the soundness of his basic approach.
So, I really don't believe that a person of another race who followed the same approach with the same credibility and skill would have found him- or herself in a remarkably different position. Yes, his or her coalition relative to Clinton's coalition might have been slightly different in some respects, but I think the overall result would have been more or less the same.
DTM:
His coalition in these primaries would be the same except he'd be losing the African American vote to Clinton in a landslide. He'd be the Paul Tsongas or Bill Bradley of the 2008 race. He'd still be doing well in states like Iowa, the caucus states and Wisconsin, Connecticut and Delaware. But he'd have lost the South.
So even if one believes he would have gotten an equal amount of attention, publicity and support even if his candidacy weren't historic, then there is still the demographic reality that he benefits from a bloc vote from the African American community.
what universe are y'all living in? if i were anyone else than me, i wouldn't be me. neither would obama.
Tim brings up the other obvious point. Never mind whether or not his candidacy would be taken as seriously if he weren't black, the simple truth is that he wouldn't have 90% of the black vote and thus wouldn't have won any state primaries outside of Connecticut and Vermont--and he'd have dropped out long before Vermont, because he couldn't have survived on his little caucus wins.
So please, Marc and others, spare people the moral posturing. Obama wants to be the first "postracial" candidate, so his supporters have to stop screaming about racism and instead acknowledge the obvious. Race has been the single biggest factor in his success. Only after "black" does "good speaker", "good looking" and "makes liberals happy" come into play.
Dear DTM,
I appreciate your comments and suggestions regarding further factors to consider in Obama's success. I was first able to see Obama speak at a dinner honoring Senator Paul Simon while he was still with us. Obama made a vivid impression through his striking presence, strong speaking voice, and substantial policy statements. My wife and I both thought he seemed destined for great political success. We strongly supported him in his run for the U.S. Senate in Illinois. I basically agree that Obama's success depends on his great intelligence, real abilities and skills, the professionalism of his campaign strategy, and various other factors (among the most important of which is his initial opposition to the Iraq war--a major issue with democratic party activists). My side point is that his unique racial background and identity has been one factor among many in his success in certain contexts (perhaps particularly in democratic caucuses and in states with larger African-American voter lists), although, as many righly point out, in a country with a strong racist history, it also presents him with serious challenges to overcome
Hopefully, there'll be some rejections and denunciations forthwith.
Posted by Kevin | March 10, 2008 9:24 PM