Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditFormer New York Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro has quit her position on Hillary Clinton's campaign finance committee after stirring up a flap over whether Barack Obama leads Clinton in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination because of his skin color.
Ferraro, the massively-defeated Democratic nominee for vice president in 1984 who went on to lose two U.S. Senate primaries in her home state, has for many years been seen as something less than a political asset to her own campaigns or those of contenders she supports. Over the past 24 hours, she has illustrated why this is so with unsteady and at times bizarre attempts to defend her claim that "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman 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."
When she was called out for seeming to suggest that the front-runner for the Democratic nomination was benefiting from a sort of electoral affirmative-action program, Ferraro became defensive, telling a California reporter that, "Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this (Obama) 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?"
Later, Ferraro told CBS News' "The Early Show" that Obama and his supporters were to blame for the dispute. "For his campaign to take that and spin it and attack Hillary and me as being racist, I tell you, it is just appalling," Ferraro grumbled.
But by Wednesday night, after appearing giving numerous interviews on the topic, she said she was quitting the Clinton campaign because she needed to get the controversy "off the news."
Ferraro did not leave gracefully.
Refusing to apologize, she said, "If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist."
In fact, Obama had deliberately rejected an opportunity to portray Ferraro as a racist earlier in the day. "I'm always hesitant to throw around words like racist because I don't think she intended them that way," said the senator.
As it turned out, Clinton was the candidate who was most aggressive in criticizing Ferraro's comments, telling African-American newspaper publishers on Wednesday that, "I said yesterday that I rejected what she said and I certainly do repudiate it. 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."
Ferraro remains a historic figure in American politics because of her 1984 vice presidential run -- the first by a woman on a major-party ticket. But there were many reasons why the Mondale-Ferraro ticket lost 49 states, including Ferraro's native New York, and won only Mondale's Minnesota and the District of Columbia.
One of those reasons had to do with Ferraro's oft-noted inability to read political moments right -- a condition confirmed by the decision of New York Democrats to reject her as a prospective candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1992 and again in 1998.
Ferraro displayed that inability once more during a week in which she did the campaign of another -- and far more capable -- woman candidate from New York no favors.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
And the Democratic Party Officially Implodes...
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory seems to be the strategy for the dems this year. Even with record turnout, contributions, and a highly unpopular republican party, certain democrats seem to want to want to throw it all away. In the midst of costly tenuous wars, spiking energy prices, and a recession - the political strategy of the day for certain democrats is to marginalize people based on race and gender.
Karl Rove just sent Geraldine Ferraro a bouquet, and Clarence Thomas suddenly - and ironically - seems like a wise old sage. Ferraro's comments have thrown gasoline on a smoldering fire and the bonfire is getting out of control. This is likely to destroy the democratic coalition. If you don't believe me, then check out the comments following an article about the Obama victory in Mississippi: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/11/AR200803 1102259_Comments.html
Tragically, many people assert that Ferraro simply spoke the "truth." Yet truth implies fact - not debatable - as in without drinking water you will die. A fact is different than an opinion.
Further, it seems odd to say that Obama would not be where he is if not for his race considering the small number of black elected officials in the US compared to whites or females. If Ferraro is right, then why are there so few black senators and governors?
Ferraro's opinion is certainly not fact, and should not be treated as such. It would be just as valid to assert, "If Obama was white, with the same oratory skills, he would be seen as the new JFK and have already won the nomination." This is just an opinion, however, not a fact. In my opinion, being black or female is not much a benefit to any US presidential candidate - and our history of having only white male US presidents seems to validate this opinion.
Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but they are also subject to being criticized for it as well. In my opinion, Ferraro's comments deserve criticism and condemnation, because they attempt to marginalize Obama based on the color of his skin. This is not the strategy expected from someone who supposedly champions the cause of not marginalizing people based on their race, religion, or gender. Further, it is fascinating hearing people fight over race and gender inside the only party to really address the issues of either.
Yet, many people are now legitimizing the marginalization and this is terrible for a political coalition. Focusing on race or gender only demonizes one side or the other, and fractures the overall coalition. The more each "side" says that the "other" only won because of the "women," or because of the "blacks," or "hispanics," then the more split the overall coalition becomes.
Politics is about building as large of an alliance/coalition as possible in order to win an election. Many supporters from each side are weakening the overall alliance in order to delegitimize the other "side." And most of the media is helping by covering it like it's football or celebrity gossip - "he said/she said" - helping to marginalize each sides support, and reducing each candidate into "the woman" and "the black." Which is exactly what the republicans planned to do in this fall, so it's a bonus for them to allow the democrats to do their work for free now.
Only the dems could figure out a way to destroy their own coalition so effectively.
Posted by pmarlier at 03/13/2008 @ 01:31am
A macabre dance of desperation by Billary & Co.
Their contempt for the intelligence of all us l'il folks knows no bounds.
May they pay for their hubris ... like Eliot Mess has.
Posted by sloper at 03/13/2008 @ 03:36am
Scant mention of this issue on the pages of the NATION. I guess they don't want to go there with their deference to leisure class feminists backing a candidate who panders to fear-mongering, racism and a kitchen sink full of dirty tricks appealing to bottom-feeders. Yet they stand by their girl.
Posted by Lil at 03/13/2008 @ 07:30am
Clinton and Ferarro are cut from the same cloth.
Posted by Lil at 03/13/2008 @ 07:32am
"As it turned out, Clinton was the candidate who was most aggressive in criticizing Ferraro's comments...Ferraro displayed that inability once more during a week in which she did the campaign of another -- and far more capable -- woman candidate from New York no favors"
Lol! Oh look, Mr Nichols cozying up next to his dream Queen, while Keith Olberman went out on the line calling Hillary out on the PATTERN, Mr Nichols, of racially charged tactics as part of the smear campaign to drag Obama in the mud in order to claw her way up. Notice the ludicrous suck up characterization of Clinton as "far more capable", as if her campaign was any reflection of that this far, or, " Ferraro's oft-noted inability to read political moments right.."sort of like that Clinton sign off on Iraq---and then Iran.. Really, Mr. Nichols you need to get out more and stop mooning over that poster hanging above your desk.
Posted by Lil at 03/13/2008 @ 07:45am
Posted by LIL 03/13/2008 @ 07:45am
LIL, has less to do with "sucking up to Her Majesty", than Mr Nichols inability to see deeper than ONE layer in a political machination.
Hillary was the one most vociferously denouncing Ferraro because...she's the one who wants to KEEP IT ALIVE in the public mind.
No, not squash it because it makes her campaign seem racist...but keep it going, because it keeps "the race issue" out there in the minds of Democrats who'll think "Hmm? McCain and the GOP will do a LOT worse than Ferraro...maybe it's NOT a good idea to nominate a black guy who can 'only win the black vote'?!!??"
Obama played it down (if you'll notice) and shunted it aside...he knows how it plays too in the minds of the primary voters.
But Her Nibs wants to keep it out there...and if being OVERY apologetic about it does that...she will.
Mr Nichols?...well....he tends to take things at face value....like chances for impeachment, Bloomberg/Hagel "unity tickets", etc.
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 08:54am
Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 08:54am
Correction..."OVERLY apologetic"......Freudian slip?..heheh
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 08:55am
Gotta tell ya, JOHN, never cared for Ferraro, but in this oversensitive, apology obsessed generation of ours, her "after comment comments" were quite refreshing and, frankly right on the mark.
"If you inadvertantly make a mistake and cause someone physical or mental grief, have the courage to apologize. For your beliefs, opinions, and hopes, have the courage not to."
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/13/2008 @ 09:22am
"if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman he would not be in this position. ..."
But now if he were a woman married to Bill Clin...
Posted by hsuBfools at 03/13/2008 @ 09:39am
Inconvenient Brokered Convention here we come.
.
.
.
Naw, Billary quits.
.
.
.
BWAHahahahah
Posted by hsuBfools at 03/13/2008 @ 09:42am
Thank you, Ms. Ferraro, for speaking the truth. A white woman with Mr. Obama's resume would not even be considered for class president. Mr. Obama is where he is because he is a Black man. Period. Blacks support him because they feel they must support their kind, regardless of his qualifications or whether he is good for the country or not. Whites support him because he is "an articulate Black man".
The person most qualified to be our next president should be elected because she is the most qualified, not because she is a woman.
Posted by secadal at 03/13/2008 @ 09:46am
BTW, Ferarro's full of shit too, since Obama's attracting much more then just the black vote, but you can stand up for yourself even when you're full of shit :)
I also just heard Obama's reaction to it all: When asked if he thought it was racist, he said " Well, you know I really hesitate to throw the word racist around too easily" How wonderfully Obama like. Just like Tiger Woods reaction to the K Tillman flap, ie NO reaction, which is just about what should have happened. And do you know why?
'Cause neither of them are race obsessed baby-boomers.
Jesse J, Al S, Julian B, et al move over. Your race baiting days are over. There's a new sheriff in town
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/13/2008 @ 09:51am
The person most qualified to be our next president should be elected because she is the most qualified, not because she is a woman.
Posted by SECADAL 03/13/2008 @ 09:46am
No point in getting into the utter trash that is your first pargraph but . . . somehow I don't think you will be saying the second one if it is Clinton against McCain.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/13/2008 @ 09:55am
All of Clinton's experience, and she cannot even organize a simple caucus.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/13/2008 @ 09:58am
Ferraro isn't too bright.Obama did not start out high up in the polls which he would have done if people supported him just because he's black.He polled low amongst blacks and everyone else at the beginning and is typically lower in the polls than Hillary until he goes to that state and speaks.That would not happen if he was supported because he's black.He would not have to speak in order to win.He would just have to be black.Hillary,of course,is in the senate and in the running for the nomination because her name is Clinton and for no other reason.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 10:04am
yo! listen folks, we've got some real problems here, in Murikia, and we ought soon to put the quietus on these diversionary sidetrips--this sand box behavior is a wee problem to address--perhaps under the enduring "polymorphous perversity" emblem. It's not really a paramount item for the forum of how to yank Murikia out of the fire that licks all around.
if memory serves, the grand sandbox, a simple affair really, that i occupied sometimes in my infancy, was about 3 foot square; there was room for two "comfortably"--whether clothed or nekkid, babies. and if you put another one, or more in, it got crowded.
Ok, ok. this "arena" is the grounds de rigeur for the conduct of foreign policy, at least it has been de facto since the Cold War days. Ironically the sands of these later times are so much more abundant, for the throwing, as the infantile squalling has been translated to the Middle East. [sic transit . . .]
but c'm'on. the real issues simply are NOT Girl Baby or Boy Baby, and are not black-white or white-black racy insinuations and imputations. Baby talk!
We have some real economic disasters manifest, right here in River Muricity. Hello, --we may see the "tips of their ears" everywhere. So, perhaps it is still as babes in boxes that we do glimpse the signs--but by a partial and peripheral vision--that horrifies, and paralyses us, and so we always turn away---back to the sandbox, the familiar, that arena.
Yet we do schlep along with Paul Krugman, paralysed such that we may never seize the vision---i.e., the objective realities which lie just beyond Paul's fine articulations and lucid pedagogical clarities. With Paul, we stop; the reflex ‘belief system' (in his case, free market capitalism) that underlies the seeming ubiquitous sandbox habits and behaviors is our lot.
Hillory and geraldine, they play here, they party on! Let's move it on over, folks. This is Get Real time.
Posted by camarada at 03/13/2008 @ 10:05am
Posted by SECADAL 03/13/2008 @ 09:46am
So, you disagree with Hillary who repudiated Ferraro yesterday?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 10:30am
Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 10:30am
No, no, no. Hillary was FORCED to do that by the touchy, PC MSM.
SECADAL, by the way is voting for McCain. Right? Given that we should vote for the most "qualified" and all.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/13/2008 @ 10:39am
scuse, my mistake. the "emblem" would be the sandbox. and, de rigueur would be the spel i'd've cast, if i'd had the cool poofreader' haid in place. thanks, tho, for the trip. and, i LIKE Paul Krugman, cause he's always fingering, or pointing out, the emperor in his ghastly nudity.
however, statements of the real problems that murkia is now wading in, have had not a breath of articulation, unless it be from Edwards in short forms, throughout all this cavalcade of pre-prex theatrical posturings. the posturings are as retrograde as what i meant to characterize by using the sandbox emblem.
I suppose there is a minimal level of political sophistication [i.e., informed understanding of basic rules of american civics and political theories] required in more than a quorum 'constituency' or it will be unreasonable to expect critical formulation of the problems, leave alone a discussion by a 'real' electorate. Huh?
Posted by camarada at 03/13/2008 @ 10:48am
With economic meltdown almost certainly due before the Nov election (gold futures already at $1000 an ounce, oil headed to $150 bbl before year-end), it's the Dems' victory to flush away. Who will preside more effectively over the shattered remains of the GOP economy & the vast angry hordes of unemployed & the sapped out middle class? Who will carry more Dems to victory for contested House & Senate seats? Divisive destructive dysfunctional Billary? Their days are over. Super delegates, rise to the occasion, seize the opportunity,or watch the nation turn to despair anger retribution.
Posted by sloper at 03/13/2008 @ 10:53am
No, no, no. Hillary was FORCED to do that by the touchy, PC MSM.-----Posted by HMAN23 03/13/2008 @ 10:39am
Our Hillary'ite in a bad position. Support Ferraro?...they're opposing Her Majesty. Support Her Majesty?...they must condemn Ferraro.
And (if they try what you said) and say "Hillary was FORCED to make that denouncement"...they're saying she's a wimp who can be intimidated into things by the Press!
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 10:55am
Posted by CAMARADA 03/13/2008 @ 10:48am
I'm sorry, but aside from "I like Paul Krugman"...
can ANYBODY translate that into any form of actual conversation or debate point?!??!??!?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 10:57am
True, mask. Seems I've witnessed her apology at the state of the black union event.
Her version of an apology..as far as I know ...could be a daily media event!
Posted by Lil at 03/13/2008 @ 11:03am
"I said yesterday that I rejected what she said and I certainly do repudiate it."
what?!?!??!?!?!?
she didn't REJECT it?
sounds like an endorsement to me.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 11:08am
oops.
nevermind.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 11:09am
Clinton's playing with race----Posted by EULER 03/13/2008 @ 11:02am
I'm sorry, did one of our resident Hillary-ites.....just admit something?
Or was the "Obama is too" supposed to take the "sting" out of it...make it seem like "both sides are doing it...don't blame Hillary!"?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 11:15am
Posted by LIL 03/13/2008 @ 11:03am
See, we've seen this for months now....A Hillary surrogate says something outrageous....she tries to distance herself from it (with maybe a bit of nudging it along...like her "as far as I know" to the 60 Minutes question on Obama being a Muslim)....the surrogate takes the heat...
but it stays in the arena of discussion and THAT was the whole point of the exercise.
I mean, NOBODY thinks it's an accident that everybody from Bob Kerrey to now Ferraro is making these "errors in judgement"?...DO they?
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 11:20am
a politican who blurts out an all too obvious truth
Posted by EULER 03/13/2008 @ 11:02am
Yes, you are so very right. It's so obvious that being a black candidate is an advantage. I mean, just look at how well Al Sharpton did in '04.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/13/2008 @ 11:22am
Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 11:20am
She's "surrounding herself with good people."
With this track record, imagine who she will pick for her cabinet.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/13/2008 @ 11:23am
deuces! you caught me. i strayed off-topic. But not impertinently i hope. i'm still trying to usher in some fair ground rules-- for the sake of having a set of critical principles that will lead away from the high opinionate animus of a lot of the posts, to a discourse that constructively puts the diversionary issues away quicker--by presenting, or formulating, 'real' points, none of which i think have been raised in a form that is more than rote (and Krugmanian--at best) boilerplate variations. For instance, no-body wants to decry the underlying principles of free market capitalism, where it might lead to some fresh air.
Here's a proposition: make a list of every claim obama or clinton has offered as a substantial reason for his/her rising to the presidency. Examine whether the claim could conceivably be accomplished by that candidate. You would find, if you have the minimal political sophistication earlier conjectured, that all the claims of the candidates are risible, if they're meant as "promises"--because, insofar as i understand the federal government of 3 branches, these claims are greatly boilerplate, since for their accomplishment they all turn upon an integrity of the american political structure. I mean, presidents don't get us out of wars--congresses do. McCain is credible, by this critical analysis, because he promises to make sure we stay in the war. Pragmatic man. OH, and hello? who has the ingenious liberalist comprehensive program that will get us out? i pray you!!!? do you believe some shite from hillory, more better . . . from obama, on this question, if soberly considered, hmmmm?
presidents do not cause depressions or recessions to magically go away--it takes a whole federal apparatus. and that's on the domestic front. there are a few more dawgs in the fight on the Global front, the "foreign affairs". Har. Foreign indeed!!!
too bad it's not like ole times, i snidely observe, here. In the old days Presidents, on their own say-so, could not get us IN TO WARS, either. It took acts of Congress. Of course in those days, Congress for the most part was supposed to have been men of political understanding, if not intelligence. And there was a stable judiciary. but this is me, now . . . making assertions, off topic. now. go back to the foolishness of hillarity and geraldine, rochestah! bugs!!!!
Posted by camarada at 03/13/2008 @ 11:30am
I'm with Mask on this one. It doesn't really matter how many times she apologizes (or expresses "regret," or whatever). At some point Clinton tabulated the data and decided that working class and elderly white and latino / hispanic voters represented a larger portion of the voting populace than black voters, and she tweaked her campaign strategy accordingly. She did warn us all that she was "In it to win it." Calculating? Definitely. Racist? I'll just paraphrase Obama and say "I wouldn't like to think so. . ." Smart? Well, POSSIBLY in the short term. It remains to be seen whether the superdelegates will reward her for starting a civil war within the party, even if her new best friends, the downtrodden whites and latinos give her their votes. She's basically opened a Pandora's box of ill will, and according to that ancient legend, the only thing left in the box is Hope.
Posted by habiba at 03/13/2008 @ 12:07pm
eular-You are as ignorant as your typical right winger.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 12:10pm
I would love Obama to choose Al Gore as his running mate and announce it now. The Clinton's would be furious and the charge of inexperience would be negated by adding a former Senator, Vice President, and Nobel Prize winner to the ticket. To announce this before the Pennsylvania primary would be fantastic! I pray that the Obama team will consider this. I hope they do not make the mistake of choosing someone the nation does not know. If they are smart enough to choose Al Gore this will go a long way towards moving the superdelegates to Obama, and will have the extra added benefit of angering the Clinton's immensely. :) Let's see them try and attack a ticket that includes Bill Clinton's former running mate and the person who won the popular vote in 2000.
Posted by mjkoch at 03/13/2008 @ 12:12pm
but I'm trying to understand how riven this country is with class, gender, and racial conflict
Posted by EULER 03/13/2008 @ 12:22pm
A politicain's claim that a candidate has achieved his success only because of the color of his skin has a tendency to create some racial conflict.
And the fact that you think it is the "obvious truth" makes you part of the problem.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/13/2008 @ 12:36pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/13/2008 @ 11:23am
At this point, I'm of two minds on Hillary-
1. She's going to be vindictive when he wins the nomination and ruin Obama's chances in the Fall by whatever means, just so she'll keep a shot at 2012.
2. She's going to be Machiavellian, and THREATEN Obama that if he doesn't accept her has HIS Veep...or (more unlikely) HIM as her Veep....she'll run as an Independent and throw the election to McCain.
Mind you, that is pure bluff. She won't really do it, because it will make her a pariah in the Democratic Party...but she might hope that Obama doesn't call her on it and say "No way...no joint ticket....go for it!"
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 12:50pm
Posted by EULER 03/13/2008 @ 1:06pm
Oh, I'm sure she's pissed...after all, her rightful crown was stolen by the Dark Ursurper.
But she's got to play it cagey. Does she risk becoming a pariah in her own Party by undermining a fellow Dem as nominee?
Or...does she use a false threat to try to get him to cower to her will and put her SOMEWHERE on the ticket for 2008?
Or is she stupid?...and she still thinks "Oh, they're mad now, but they'll forgive and forget, once it's down to me and McCain"?
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 1:28pm
Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 12:50pm Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 1:28pm
I lean towards No. 1. I did not think so a few weeks ago (I thought she was just hanging on for a miracle), but now, I see no other explanation.
She will not win more pledged delegates. Even with a PA victory, she would need around 60% of the remaining delegates. Of course, several of the remaining states, she won't come that close - she will actually lose a lot of them. She knows this. This leaves only one path: convince Dean (or litigate) to seat the FL and MI delegates based on the prior vote. She is unlikely to win 60-40 on any re-do. And get a large percentage of the supers to tip the scale. This is not going to happen. If it does, get used to Pres. McCain.
The only rational explanation is that she is trying to hurt Obama enough to have him lose the general, yet now so bad she looks like the villain. She comes back in 2012 with four more years of "experience" and plays the buyer's remorse card.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/13/2008 @ 1:44pm
"A white woman with Mr. Obama's resume would not even be considered for class president". Posted by SECADAL 03/13/2008 @ 09:46am
Nevertheless, a white woman with LESS legislative experience than Senator Obama is being seriously considered for President of the United States. You're right, if "resume" is the only meaningful qualification, then Senator Clinton isn't ready.
Oh, she's also a monster and I won't lose my job for saying so.
Posted by Be Good at 03/13/2008 @ 1:46pm
THERE's the key--
"The only rational explanation is that she is trying to hurt Obama enough to have him lose the general, yet now so bad she looks like the villain. She comes back in 2012 with four more years of "experience" and plays the buyer's remorse card."---Posted by HMAN23 03/13/2008 @ 1:44pm
If she's careful and doesn't dig her hole TOO deep attacking Obama....i.e. can come back and SEEM to support him and "walk back" a few attacks by blaming them on staffers...
and he loses (due in part TO her attacks)....she can spend all of 2009-2011 telling us "Well, Senator Obama was a fine candidate, but I think President McCain was more easily able to demonstrate the importance of experience....experience like the kind I've had bringing peace to Northern Ireland and deploying troops to Bosnia back in the 90s" and she makes her 2012 campaign starts.
AND the demographics of the next primary (2012) will be MUCH better....after Obama lost, the spin will be "We CAN'T nominate a black guy again". And no other woman will run (and risk HER wrath).
Which means it'll be Her Majesty and "the old white guys" again (Edwards is finished). And she EASILY wins the nomination THAT time.
Only be 64, so the age thing won't be so bad.....all in all, a good plan!
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 2:23pm
Of course, Clinton's whole 2012 strategy falls apart if Obama wins the general election - which I still consider to be the most likely outcome (provided Clinton isn't on the ticket). McCain is the strongest candidate the Republicans have, Obama is the strongest candidate the Democrats have. Whenever Clinton steps aside (or is dragged aside kicking, screaming, and shouting racial slurs), we can get to work!
Posted by Be Good at 03/13/2008 @ 2:44pm
How about this for a neat trick....'bout September, early October...
a former Clinton Campaign staffer comes out in "an interview with a British newspaper" and says "We had even MORE dirt on Obama...like drugs and women...that Senator Clinton didn't want us to use because she thought it was inappropriate!"
It hits Drudge...then the cable nets....then Obama has to deny it (but THAT makes it even MORE newsworthy) and McCain can brush it aside and even repudiate it as "dirty politics"...
and of course, HILLARY's fingerprints are nowhere near it.
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 3:19pm
Euler you're a moron. Sorry to say it. But tell me how has being anything other than the status quo ever HELPED anyone in politics. Last I checked very single President has been white, male and protestant. I don't see too much he's only getting elected because he's black. You're ignorance is amazing. Obama was polling incredibly low amongst blacks at the beginning of the race. Blacks weren't going to vote for him. So if the only reason he is winning is because blacks are voting for him because he's black then why weren't they voting for him from the beginning? Why did he have to win them? Why is it at the beginning of the race Hillaryites like you were saying whites wouldn't vote or Obama because whites would never vote for a black man. You will just believe anything Hillary tells you won't you. First it was that our entire country was racist enough to never vote for a black man, now it's that all whites in this country are guilt ridden enough to vote for a black man solely because he's black. Before it's blacks were intelligent enough to vote for Hillary because she has done so much for them, now its blacks are dumb enough to vote for Obama solely because he is black. Why don't you guys get your story straight and stop trying to change up arguments every time they fail you.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2008 @ 4:30pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/13/2008 @ 4:33pm
Another lively and politically intelligent conversation wrecked by the belligerent, unintelligent, ignorant(I guess the best way to say it is stupidity without apology) of Rio Bravo.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2008 @ 4:49pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/13/2008 @ 4:33pm
Hmm and then you have the Republican, war mongering, politician who is also a womanizer himself. Considering he has admitted to have many many extra-marital affairs that led to his first divorce. So we are willing to run the womanizing enabler. You guys run the womanizer himself. Brilliant Rio. Why don't you check your facts before you make arguments. Maybe people would actually respect your opinions a little bit.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2008 @ 4:53pm
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com [votenic.com]
New Poll Posted Weekly
Polls Now Instant!
Thanks for Voting!
Posted by votenic at 03/13/2008 @ 5:01pm
I think it was SRJenkins who pointed out a week or so ago that Hubert Humphrey "pulled a Clinton" on George McGovern during the 1972 primaries, dragging them out long after HHH had no shot at the nomination but raising questions about McGovern's abilities, issues and supporters that Nixon and the Republicans then exploited in the fall to crush a weakened McGovern. Similarly, George H.W. Bush can thank Al Gore for Willie Horton, one of the nails in Michael Dukakis' coffin.
What the Clintons may not remember from those two examples is that Humphrey was a complete washout in the 1976 Democratic contest (granted that he was pretty old by then, but he still wanted the job) and that Gore didn't win the '92 nomination.
My guess is that once Clinton loses, and she will lose, they will quietly do little or nothing to help Obama's campaign, and may actually encourage their big donors to close their checkbooks. I tend to think that they will not go so far, even, as planting Mask's "We had even more dirt" story, because someone (Bill? Harold Ickes?) will have figured out by then that they've already done enough to harm not only his legacy but her long-term chances at a leadership role in the Senate, and may even be setting herself up for an aggressive primary fight in New York in 2012.
I will say, though, that from all I've ever read, Hilary's political instincts are (a) always to go on the attack, and (b) usually counter-productive, so I wouldn't dismiss Mask's suggested story plant idea completely. I'm not even sure that it would bring down Obama, especially if he can present himself as the candidate of reason and diplomacy and McCain as the madman who wants to go to war against Iran, Syria and Ecuador! She might cut the Democratic gains down ticket, though, which would still be a good reason to primary her selfish ass.
Posted by cka2nd at 03/13/2008 @ 5:08pm
Whichever staffer made the "cool black friend" remark was pithier and more to the point than Ferraro. Ferraro came across sounding like an 80s Archie Bunker, as if she were arguing that it's great to be a minority becaues the Commie government will just back up the delivery truck for you and give you all kinds of goodies that rightfully belong to more deserving whites. She could have apologized for making it sound like that.
The "cool Black friend" comment gets more at it. It's more like lifestyle branding -- which is NOT to say it's any kind of super-plus to be a minority in the U.S. As long as these voters remember not to choose Brand McCain in November, well, whatever dudes.
Posted by RLawrence at 03/13/2008 @ 5:24pm
Rio-You are as independent as a new born babe.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 5:39pm
Rio-An independent does not refer to one party as Republicans and the other as demoncrats.You can register as a cow,but that doesn't make you a cow.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 6:12pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/13/2008 @ 6:12pm
Hahahahahaha. I'm an independent, too. It's a big tent!
Posted by habiba at 03/13/2008 @ 6:17pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/13/2008 @ 5:32pm
Rio have you yet to figure out that you are not independent of you only vote republican yet? " free choice in voting with either party on various candidates and issues." Tell me when is the last time you voted anything but Republican. Maybe if you were intelligent enough to do something other than yell your head off about issues you obviously know nothing about you might actually be able to figure out that you are only independent in name not in practice and you might register as what you actually are.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2008 @ 6:46pm
Or are you trying to sound more intelligent by saying you are independent so you can deceive your friends? None of us here are deceived Rio. If you spend all your type praising Republicans and calling liberals idiots. You are a conservative. Considering our country runs on a two party system right now Rio. That would make you a Republican.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2008 @ 6:54pm
Rio-An independent does not refer to one party as Republicans and the other as demoncrats.
-----------
On my shortlist; Do the Republicans promote atively; the killing of unborn babies, marriage for and social acceptablity of homosexuality, protectionism, isolationism, establishment of secular humanism as a state religion in violation of the 1st. amendment to the U.S. constitution, stifling free speech using the pretense of a "fairness doctrine" in violation of the 1st amendment? If they do then I will call them Satancans!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/13/2008 @ 6:46pm
Exactly our point. Your not independent.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2008 @ 6:56pm
"No conservative and no christians can be considered to be a Demoncrat!"
So again, RIO...if you hate Democrats...but are an "independent"...
what OTHER parties, besides Republican, do you vote for?
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 7:31pm
Your not independent.
Posted by CCCOMFO1 03/13/2008 @ 6:56pm
And you're (you are) not an english major or minor!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/13/2008 @ 7:26pm
Are we really stooping to the stupid and immature method of attacking peoples typing. I'm sorry, I am a little too busy to proofread everything I type. You are obviously not a political science major or else you would know that in order to be independent you have to vote for both parties in a near equal amount. You obviously never vote democrat so you are therefore not independent.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2008 @ 7:53pm
RE: Ferraro quits ...
Frankly, why should she apologize, telling truth. Instead, Mr. ObaMacaca should quit after calling Hillary monster. Ugly, dangerously ugly.
Posted by HelenDAO at 03/13/2008 @ 10:04pm
From the Boston Globe, on the ex-VP candidates' `thread':
Who rates as a running mate?
March 13, 2008
HERE IS a do-it-yourself scorecard to select a running mate for John McCain.
On the following 20 criteria, rate possible vice presidential candidates from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Add those 20 numbers and - presto! - you'll have your top-scoring finalists.
If a candidate rated a 5 on each of the 20 criteria, the total score would be 100. But no one is perfect.
For each criterion, you'll see a sample candidate who deserves a high-5 score. At the end, you'll see my ranking of 20 candidates who have been speculated about as realistic prospects.
Woman or minority
Example of a high-5 score: Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, female, African-American, fluent in four languages.
Middle-age and healthy
Example of a high-5 score: Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, age 51.
Scandal-free
Example: Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, former California congressman.
Conservatively conservative
Example: Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.
Can carry swing state
Example: Florida Governor Charlie Crist.
Record of results
Example: former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Executive experience
Example: Tom Ridge, former secretary of homeland security, former Pennsylvania governor.
Economic expertise
Example: Rob Portman, former director of Office of Management and Budget, former Ohio congressman.
Simpatico
Example: Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
Attack dog
Example: Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, former national GOP chairman.
Skillful debater
Example: former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.
Media savvy
Example: US Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, former radio and TV talk show host.
Team player
Example: House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.
Winning personality
Example: US Senator John Thune of South Dakota.
Secure the South
Example: South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford.
Diplomatic
Example: US Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, served five presidents, former president of the Red Cross.
Supportive family
Example: Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, happily married and proud father of five sons.
Expanding the GOP
Example: John Kasich, former Ohio congressman, Fox TV host.
Proven popularity
Example: Kay Bailey Hutchison, US senator from Texas.
Prepared to be president
Example: Colin Powell, former secretary of state, past chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
HERE'S MY RANKING of the 20 candidates - from weakest to strongest.
BOTTOM 10:....
TOP 10: Mark Sanford 70, Elizabeth Dole 71, Sam Brownback 73, Chris Cox 75, Kay Bailey Hutchison 76, Colin Powell 78, Mike Huckabee 79, Condoleezza Rice 80, Charlie Crist 81, Tim Pawlenty 85.
McCain's VP search committee has yet to set its own criteria for screening candidates, so don't order your McCain-Pawlenty bumper sticker yet......
Todd Domke is a Boston area Republican political analyst, public relations strategist, and author.
Posted by Happy at 03/13/2008 @ 10:16pm
Memo to my fellow Democrats:
Dump the Clinton's-- NOW!
Every Democratic Party platform embraces tolerance and embraces diversity and eschews racism and bigotry. Senator Barack Obama has been the victim of vicious, hateful, racist, religiously bigoted email and whisper campaigns. Senator Clinton's campaign has on multiple occasions aided and abetted this attack. Several Clinton campaign officials, including Bill Clinton, have attempted to malign Obama's reputation. When given a chance to 'reject and denounce' the hateful email campaign, Senator Clinton qualified her response ("not that I know of") just enough to stoke the suspicions of those who stand gullibly ready to believe the email slander. Senator Clinton compounded the insult and injury by effectively endorsing John McCain over Barack Obama. Beyond making a great attack ad for the GOP, she has eliminated her own ability to campaign for Senator Obama when he becomes the Democratic nominee. While it is clear that Republicans have voted for both Clinton and Obama, it is also clear that the Republicans who votedfor Obama will return to vote for him in November. Those who voted for Clinton will not. So, is there any principle the Democratic Party loves more than it loves the Clintons? What does the Democratic Party stand for?
Decision time Democrats: Hope for Change with Obama or keep rolling in the mud with the Clintons. ************************************************************************ ** A petition made by Obama supporters to be sent to the DNC stating that if Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic Nominee for the presidential election, you will either: a) abstain from voting in the general election or b) a third-party-candidate during the general election. Here's the link: http://www.petitiononline.com/obama725/petition.html
Posted by nevadakid48 at 03/13/2008 @ 10:23pm
What I see on both sides (Clinton and McCain) are fear-based followers, who use anger to deny this fact to themselves. And it works. There's next to no real openness or critical thinking.
Posted by winyahn at 03/13/2008 @ 11:26pm
Posted by HELENDAO 03/13/2008 @ 10:04pm | ignore this person
you should be ashamed for this racist post, yech
Posted by emile duBois at 03/14/2008 @ 07:42am
Mark Sanford 70, Elizabeth Dole 71, Sam Brownback 73, Chris Cox 75, Kay Bailey Hutchison 76, Colin Powell 78, Mike Huckabee 79, Condoleezza Rice 80, Charlie Crist 81, Tim Pawlenty 85.----Posted by HAPPY 03/13/2008 @ 10:16pm
Problems-
Sanford-- 1. He might be too libertarian for the social cons. 2. His Jan. 11th "The State" column seeming to endorse Obama's candidacy.
Dole-- She was head of the Repub Senatorial Campaign Committee...which meant she (rightly or wrongly) caught the blame for losing SIX Senate seats in the 2006 midterms and was replaced.
Brownback-- Beloved by a few social cons...but as his Kucinich-level performance showed in the 2008 Primaries...few others.
Cox-- Couple. Almost unknown. His printing of English versions of "Pravda" back in the 80s might not sit well. His back-pain/health issues might hurt an already "old" ticket.
Hutchinson-- Too moderate on abortion for the pro-lifers.
Powell-- One thing....the "U.N. speech" in Feb 2003 with the "cartoons" of "mobile weapons labs. Even the Right will have problems with his admission that he tried to talk Bush OUT of invading Iraq and him admitting it was a civil war.
Huckabee-- Uh...yeah...right. heheh
Rice-- The Dream Veep, for sure. But she's not going to allow herself to be vetted in a manner she NEVER has been as SecState.
Crist-- Again, too moderate. McCain has to win back the Right. Crist could get him Florida...but might cost him the neighboring states.
Pawlenty-- Contradicts McCain's position on immigration. Also, Dem ads would show the "I-35 West Bridge Collapse" and link Pawlenty to it.
Posted by Mask at 03/14/2008 @ 09:38am
8 November 2007 -- Jon Wiener -- http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071126/wiener
'...The White House plan for Thomas's confirmation called for emphasizing the Algeresque story that the man from Pin Point, Georgia, rose from a wooden shack to the highest court in the land. "Without Pin Point," Merida and Fletcher write, "Thomas would never have made it to the Supreme Court." And sure enough, Thomas goes to the well again in his memoir, which begins with the Pin Point story.
There was, however, the problem of his qualifications. In 1991 Thomas had been a judge for only a year. Before that he had never argued a case in any federal appeals court, much less the Supreme Court. He "had never written a book, an article, or even a legal brief of any consequence," Toobin notes. Given his utter lack of experience, and in light of the story Merida and Fletcher tell, it's beyond belief that Thomas's success owes nothing to the various forms of affirmative action and racial preference . ...'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 03/14/2008 @ 09:44am
I would hope for a more serious discussion of how race and the desire for a post-racial America have played out in the primary season. Ferraro's remarks are vulgar, unsound, and flinch-inducing -- But would the left normally support a white candidate with a paper-thin record (much of it fudged-up with "present"votes) whose campaign is driven by the centrist rhetoric of moral uplift?
We are urged to vote for Obama not because of what he's done (very little, in reality) but because of what he represents because of who he is. Logic suggests that the circularity of this campaign will ultimately short-circuit, either when the lofty rhetoric is undermined by grubby realities (Rezko raised how much money for Obama?) or by the unbearable weight of race in American political life. Obama spent much of the last two days disassociating himself from things his pastor has said -- some of which were perfectly sensible things to say....
You're in real trouble when a non-white man can't say that America was founded in racism and slavery.
Posted by R Lancaster at 03/15/2008 @ 3:06pm
I see no reason for anyone to resign for making comments and that goes for any campaign, democrat or republican. Their thoughts are their own and they make them in the context of which they came by them. Most of the comments that people find so offensive have some truth in them and that is what brings on the faux hysteria and hand wringing denunciations. Hold the candidates responsible for their comments and only their comments. Do you think 91% of the blacks in Mississippi voted for Obama because his politics? Or that many white people will not vote for Obama because he black? If so, you are living in a fantasy land and not in America.
Posted by Happydog at 03/15/2008 @ 4:03pm
What is generally overlooked in Ferraro's assertion is that had Obama been white, then what? Given his intelligence and articulation and ivy league education he probably would have been president already. He certainly would have been elected to the Senate before he was, and seated on all the necessary committees necessary to affect political experience. Since we have nothing but white male presidents how foolish to think being black is an "advantage." If any person proves this it is Dubya---patently mediocre, shockingly unfit for his office, but the affirmative action program for white privileged males not only put him in the office, but returned him to it.
Posted by realgonecat at 03/15/2008 @ 11:40pm
Senator Obama and Michelle attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church for twenty years. They were married by Rev. Wright and the Obama children were baptized by Rev. Wright and I believe the children must have heard the preacher also. http://www.newshounds.us/2008/03/15/barack_obama_interviewed_on_hannity_ colmes.php
You must believe those recent videos of Rev. Jeremiah Wright are not the only video's of this egotistical man. He is not ashamed of his diatribes of pure racism against America, whites and Jews. He is retiring from the pulpit, but he will attend Trinity Church and I imagine, on occasion, he will preach a sermon for some extra pocket change.
Major Garrett of FNS, "asked Obama if he had ever heard Wright's preach Racism" [March 15, 2008]; Obama said, "No, he had not heard Wright make racist remarks until five months ago when the media released the video tapes". [October 2007]
Obama said, "If I thought that [racism] was the repeated tenor of the church then I wouldn't feel comfortable, but frankly that has not been my experience at Trinity United Church of Christ." Obama said, "He is like an uncle to me he helped me to find Christ". Rev. Wright said, "Jesus Christ was a black man born into a rich white man's world".
Former White House press Secretary Ari Fleischer summed up the Obama's lame excuses to Major Garrett when Fleischer said Obama's statements "are nothing more than that of a shrewd politician."
Now all we need is an investigative reporter who can produce just one video during the twenty year span and prove Obama and Michelle heard their great preacher spew his venom and hatred of America, whites and Jews before October 2007.
-- "Whatever evolves was first, created" - Jason Leverette, Patriot http://www.johnmccain.com/dreamsdestiny/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQhjaCgAS80 http://ussainc.johnmccain.com/Manage/MyTeam/ManageTeam.aspx
Posted by FromTheTop at 03/16/2008 @ 09:07am
FromTheTop
Sunday, March 16, 2008 Obama and the Preacher
Senator Obama and Michelle attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church for twenty years. They were married by Rev. Wright and the Obama children were baptized by Rev. Wright and I believe the children must have heard the preacher also.
You must believe those recent videos of Rev. Jeremiah Wright are not the only video's of this egotistical man. He is not ashamed of his diatribes of pure racism against America, whites and Jews. He is retiring from the pulpit, but he will attend Trinity Church and I imagine, on occasion, he will preach a sermon for some extra pocket change.
Major Garrett of FNS, "asked Obama if he had ever heard Wright's preach Racism" [March 15, 2008]; Obama said, "No, he had not heard Wright make racist remarks until five months ago when the media released the video tapes". [October 2007]
Obama said, "If I thought that [racism] was the repeated tenor of the church then I wouldn't feel comfortable, but frankly that has not been my experience at Trinity United Church of Christ." Obama said, "He is like an uncle to me he helped me to find Christ". Rev. Wright said, "Jesus Christ was a black man born into a rich white man's world".
Former White House press Secretary Ari Fleischer summed up the Obama's lame excuses to Major Garrett when Fleischer said Obama's statements "are nothing more than that of a shrewd politician."
Now all we need is an investigative reporter who can produce just one video during the twenty year span and prove Obama and Michelle heard their great preacher spew his venom and hatred of America, whites and Jews before October 2007.
-- "Whatever evolves was first, created" - Jason Leverette, Patriot http://www.johnmccain.com/dreamsdestiny/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQhjaCgAS80 http://ussainc.johnmccain.com/Manage/MyTeam/ManageTeam.
Posted by FromTheTop at 03/16/2008 @ 09:32am
Who is the "BLOND WHITE BABE" giving Senator Obama a lip-lock on the campaign trail?
Posted by FromTheTop at 03/16/2008 @ 09:34am
During her 1984 acceptance speech, Ferraro said, "By choosing a woman to run for our nation's second highest office, you send a powerful signal to all Americans: There are no doors we cannot unlock. We will place no limits on achievement. If we can do this, we can do anything." So it was okay with her, but not okay with someone else?
Posted by pactorj at 03/16/2008 @ 11:33am
I have a strategy tip for Obama... quit apologizing for Rev. Wright. If you apologize again, or completely renounce the Reverend, you WILL look weak.
I attribute Ronald Reagan's success, in part, to the fact that he never apologized for his people, even the crooks. He stood by every single one of them. Surely Obama is more honorable than Reagan.
The teflon President was a master at handling this stuff.
Posted by Lea Reiter at 03/16/2008 @ 11:37am
Senator Obama and Michelle attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church for twenty years. They were married by Rev. Wright and the Obama children were baptized by Rev. Wright and I believe the children must have heard the preacher also.
You must believe those recent videos of Rev. Jeremiah Wright are not the only video's of this egotistical man. He is not ashamed of his diatribes of pure racism against America, whites and Jews. He is retiring from the pulpit, but he will attend Trinity Church and I imagine, on occasion, he will preach a sermon for some extra pocket change.
Major Garrett of FNS, "asked Obama if he had ever heard Wright's preach Racism" [March 15, 2008]; Obama said, "No, he had not heard Wright make racist remarks until five months ago when the media released the video tapes". [October 2007]
Obama said, "If I thought that [racism] was the repeated tenor of the church then I wouldn't feel comfortable, but frankly that has not been my experience at Trinity United Church of Christ." Obama said, "He is like an uncle to me he helped me to find Christ". Rev. Wright said, "Jesus Christ was a black man born into a rich white man's world".
Former White House press Secretary Ari Fleischer summed up the Obama's lame excuses to Major Garrett when Fleischer said Obama's statements "are nothing more than that of a shrewd politician."
Now all we need is an investigative reporter who can produce just one video during the twenty year span and prove Obama and Michelle heard their great preacher spew his venom and hatred of America, whites and Jews before October 2007.
Newsmax Magazine followed up that story with an article in the Newsfront section of the October 2007 edition, headlined "Obama's Church: A Cauldron of Division." Correspondent Jim Davis attended a service at the church during which Wright referred to "white arrogance" and "the United States of white America." The church members in attendance that day included Obama, whose book "The Audacity of Hope" takes its title from a Rev. Wright sermon.
-- "Whatever evolves was first, created" - Jason Leverette, Patriot http://www.johnmccain.com/dreamsdestiny/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQhjaCgAS80 http://ussainc.johnmccain.com/Manage/MyTeam/ManageTeam.aspx
Posted by FromTheTop at 03/16/2008 @ 4:41pm