http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080311/ap_on_...GkJgDMAofOpg9IF


Questions for Debate:

1) Is Ferraro correct?

2) Should she resign from Clinton's campaign? Why or why not?

3) Has the spirit of P.C. chilled free speech in its most crucial arena in an electoral republic--electoral politics? Why or why not?

Pure crap. I may not agree with the man but he is certainly smart, likable, and articulate.

She is really off the wall with this comment.

1) She is so right. I mean has this country ever elected a person becuase he was young, good looking, forward thinking, and might not have the most experience in the world. This just shows the desperation of the Clinton campaign. Hillary we get it Obama is black thank you for reminding us every chance you get.
2) Obama just lost one of his campaign officials becuase she called Clinton a monster. If calling Clinton a monster is inflammatory enough to get you fired what Ferraro said should get you fired, disavowed, and deleted form the Black Berry.
3) If Ferraro's comment was an attack on Obama's politics and not who or what he is it would be a matter of political correctness effecting public discourse. If she had brought up the fact that some people won't vote for him just because he is black; then that too would be a matter of political correctness influencing political debate negatively. As it stands her comment is at worst a racist statement and at best a very underhanded attempt to slander the accomplishments of Obama, his campaign, and his supporters. In essence what she is saying is that all he is is a black guy riding a fad to the nomination. If Obama had to denounce Louis Fericon for lending unsolicited support Clinton should do the same for Ferraro's statement.

No, and wheteher she resigns or not, it is definately an orchestrated move by the Clinton Campaign... the comment by Bill early on, the leaked photo of Obama in African garments, the hesitant pausing answer of Hillary when asked if Obama is a Muslim, and now this...

she is simply trying to resonate an idea in White America's head... You know you are voting for a BLACK man!!

See, unlike Jesse and Al, Obama has run away from his race, in my opinion. It shouldn't even be necessary, but it is for him to win the Presidency. Obama just learned from the mistakes of predecessor.. no matter what never, NEVER be the Black President. It turns White voters off.

So since Obama won't do it, Hillary's camp must.

As for Obama, having it easy, not a chance. The media is so far in the corner of Hillary it makes no sense. They allow the Clintons to frame the debate, and they run with it. At first Clinton had to win BIG in both Texas and Ohio, especially after the trouncing Obama put on her in Wisconsin. Then, she no longer had to win big as Obama closed in the polls, she just had to win, then as Obama wen up in the polls in Texas, the argument changed to "well, could she still go on to if she just won ohio, then win Penn sylvania?"....

And then the day after the vote Newspapers and TV is saying how she won "big".... NO SHE DIDN'T. She one 2 Primaries big and the other one by 4 points. She lost one primary and one caucus BIG. 3-2 is not a heavy win for Clinton after losing 11 straight.. yet, you wouldn't know that with this pro-obama media we have And after tonight she'll likely have went right back to losing again 2 straight. thats 3-4 Obama by my count. Now if you all don't realize it yet I am counting Texas as 2 points, one for the caucus and one for the primary. But if we were to take texas as a whole... guess what the media is not telling us... Clinton didn't win Texas. As of now it is a tie. But imagine that on the headlines, Clinton didn't win Texas



Clinton is veiwed by many as the more experienced Candidate... why?? Cause the media will not call her out. I wish my wife would say she is ready to fix computer for her job, because I fix computers for mine. If the media was in the corner of Obama they would quickly point out that Obama has more experience as an elected official than Clinton. 35 plus years as being the wife of Clinton makes her ready to be President on day one?? Aside for her senate experience... Mrs Clinton has as much experience as Laura and Barbara Bush! I dare the media to call her out.

Lets talk about how Mrs Clinton can become President, because the media won't put it out there. They continue to frame the issue in an equal manner... "both candidates will need to get the support of superdelegates to win the nomination." But there is one HUGE difference. The ONLY way Hillary wins is if she convinces the superdelegates to go AGAINST the will of the people. She will not surpass Barack in pledged delegates. She will not surpass him in the overall popular vote, she will not surpass him in the number of States won. Her only way of winning this nominaion is if the democratic elite crown her, and they do that at the detriment of the party.

I mean honestly, think of Obama doint the things Clinto has been doing, do you think it would even be a contest.

What if Obama cried because he didn't win new hampshire, like Clinton cried when she didn't win?

What if Obama lost the popular vote?

What if Obama lost 11 states straight?

What if Obama suggested we change the rules in the middle of the campaign?

What if Obama sat up on stage and cried to the debate mediators that he always gets asked the question second?

What if Obama mention, every time he could, how he was going to be the First Black President and that would be a real "sea change"

What if Obama were to suggest while being secon in every category, that he'd put Clinton on his ticket as a VP.

Where would the pro obama media be then??

What is ironic about Ferraro's statement is the fact that if she wasn't a woman, she would never have been Walter Mondale's running mate. Her qualifications at the time was less than six years in the House.

1) Is Ferraro correct?

No. Obama's personal charisma is what is fueling his campaign, not his race.

2) Should she resign from Clinton's campaign? Why or why not?

She's done her job, just as Obama's strategist did hers. She should now fall on her sword like a good soldier or else Clinton should fire her to satisfy the bloodlust of the PC.

3) Has the spirit of P.C. chilled free speech in its most crucial arena in an electoral republic--electoral politics? Why or why not?

Yes it has. People, including politicians, ESPECIALLY politicians should be encouraged to say what they mean, not what they think people want to hear. That way we can judge them by their real views, not their filtered sound bite views. If Ferraro think a white Obama would never have gotten this far, let her say it. It isn't as if it hurts anyone to express an opinion. I think she's wrong and I think a white Obama would be romping Hillary even worse. Obama has not used his race in any manner whatsoever and should be applauded for that.

Amlord and I are in complete agreement.

The world may now come to an end.

1) Is Ferraro correct?

She is about as correct as Isiah Thomas was when he said that Larry Byrd was only being honored and celebrated as a great basketball player because he was white.

In other words, I don't place much stock in what Ferraro said. Barack Obama is popular and inspiring because of the man he is, not because he's African American.

EDIT: It's nice that we have a choice to elect a President who is an African American, but if that were the only case for people voting for him, why didn't we go for Jesse Jackson years ago?

2) Should she resign from Clinton's campaign? Why or why not?

EDIT: Ferraro's opinion is irrelevant. What difference would it make if she resigned or not? I don't think her comments helped the Clinton campaign.

3) Has the spirit of P.C. chilled free speech in its most crucial arena in an electoral republic--electoral politics? Why or why not?

I believe that increased awareness of the ramifications of unguarded speech is important. However, I also believe that people should say what they mean, with the exception of, um, "Macaca" moments.

If Jesse Jackson hadn't already coined that phrase, it's exactly what I would suggest Barack Obama say in response to Ferraro's comments.

And by the way, what 60-year-old female candidate all but guilt trips the elderly sister vote out of their condos every time she's down in the polls? Accusations of identity politics flying out of the Clinton camp is a little hard to take seriously.

Not to mention, Ferraro's comments would sadly seem to confirm just about every bad thing said about her page in the feminist movement-- that she and her colleagues are incapable of perceiving the changes our society has made since the 1970s (or, in the case of the quote, the 1980s). That she and her colleagues contributed to the balkanization of the new left. That she and her colleagues -- so many of them born into middle class suburbs -- have been insensitive to the struggles of racial and religious minorities, and tend to view gender as, in Steinem's words, " the most restrictive force in America." That they have turned this race between a black man and women into a petty and divisive race for a historical first.

I want to give iconic feminists like Gloria Steinem and Geraldine Ferraro more credit, but how can I when the former kicks off a New York Times Op-ed like this:



What is this, a soap box derby for enfranchisement? Baaaaarf.

I mean, if Shirley Chisolm wasn't a black woman, would she have been in the race? Does that mean that black candidates shouldn't enter races until America is ready to judge them for the content of their character, yada yada. What an idiotically rigid, selective way to size up a candidate. Shame on her.

Talk about content of people's character. I'm judging right now, I'm judging.

And now Ferraro is defending her comments by claiming she is being attacked because she is white... Wow, some people don't know when to shut up:


Ferraro vigorously defends remarks.

Can you say, "liability"? Clinton sure should be.

Is Geraldine Ferraro (an actual affirmative action candidate) right about Obama? Well, I have a hard time coming to the conclusion that a black man named Barack Obama rose to prominence within the Chicago machine because he was black. I have a hard time believing that a state that voted out a black woman 6 years prior, was all about giving it to a black man because he was black.

I don't think a man who went to Columbia, got his JD (Magna Cum Laude) from Harvard, was elected head of the Harvard Law Review and served 6 years in the state senate...just happened to get pity voted into the senate seat, because everyone knows how easy it is for a black man to succeed over a white man or woman.

Geraldine Ferraro went to Fordham, served 6 years in the US house and was picked as a VP. I have a sneaking suspician that if her name was Gerald Ferraro, nobody on this planet would even be aware of this person. She was picked for women and women alone.

Not to mention the candidate she supports. Yes, that Hillary Clinton who just had to scratch and crawl for everything in her political life. Hillary is just so self-made . I know that Obama has had this red carpet rolled out for him and that poor Hillary only had her popular spouse (coincidentally the "leader of the free world") as her meal ticket to a senate seat in a state she didn't know. I'm sure Obama (simply for being black) could have just easily walked into one of the most recognizeable senate seats in the nation and coasted to victory.

Hillary and Ferraro's ascension into the American consciousness was far less earned than Obama's.

2) Should she resign from Clinton's campaign? Why or why not? Yes, she should..or she should be fired ,or at least roasted as the biggest hypocrite this side of Eliot Spitzer


3) Has the spirit of P.C. chilled free speech in its most crucial arena in an electoral republic--electoral politics? Why or why not?

What I notice is the unfair way they go after Obama and their complaining of how unfair it is that they can't go at him unfairly when someone notices it. Whether it's race, heritage or religion, Obama has done nothing but respectfully avoid. He's done nothing to bring the nonsense that has come down on him. Bill Clinton made it about race in South Carolina with the Jackson reference. Hillary and outlet media like Foxnews tried to imply that Obama didn't distance himself from Farrahkhan enough (what else short of "I hate him and want him dead" could he have said?), the passing of the picture of Obama in a state visit garb in Kenya, the constant reiteration of a middle name he never goes by, the comments by Hillary that "he's not a Muslim... as far as I know", the comments from representative King in Iowa that terrorists want Obama because of his name and religious connection of his name, the former VP nominee saying he's only known because he's black, the floated E-Mails that have convinced millions of idiots in this country that Obama is a muslim who was sworn in with the Koran.

Not only does Obama have to suffer those and keep his head down, but he has to face the wrath of those who project their anger at a PCism they blame him for.

Nothing Obama could and can do helps him. People are going to attack him and try to link him to fundamentalists and un-American activity for things beyond his grasp of controlling, if he responds....he's pulling the race card.

It's really sick. Obama just seems to want to be treated like a normal candidate. He doesn't wear his race on his sleeve and he's not a muslim. He never set out to bea black candidate...it's been the Clinton attack dogs and other people who try to corner him into something he never tried to be. He hasn't complained......he hasn't done anything but take it.

Is Ferraro correct?

Yes.

Should she resign from Clinton's campaign? Why or why not?

Yes. Because the country isn't in the mood for the truth.

Has the spirit of P.C. chilled free speech in its most crucial arena in an electoral republic--electoral politics? Why or why not?

Indeed. Well, what is happening to Ferarro is a good example. She gave her honest opinion and is getting reamed for it. For those who disagree, why does she have to be thrown out for it? She's entitled to her opinion, and she gave it respectfully.



It's not pure crap. It's true that without his intelligence and public speaking skills he wouldn't be a candidate. But put him into the body of a 46 year old white man, who graduate from Harvard, with the same accomplishments. Would anyone believe his speeches? He'd be looked at as an over-privileged "white boy," which has become a dirty word in America.

By the way, Ferraro also acknowledged that she wouldn't have been chosen as Mondale's running mate in 1984 if she wasn't a woman.

Put Clinton's accomplishments into the body of a 46 year old white man, would she be where she is at? You want the country to address truth. Why don't we start with that truth?? I must have missed when Blacks have become the beloved people of America.

I would be happy to answer that question, but it would be off topic in this thread. Feel free to start a new one if you really want my answer on that.

So are you conceding that were Obama a white man with the same credentials he'd be nowhere near the front steps of the presidency - not with the rhetoric he's dishing out. It would never be believed and/or taken seriously.

1) Is Ferraro correct?
She is correct. Remember how Barack Obama was launched onto the scene, his Keynote speech at the Democratic convention of 2004. How does his opening paragraph change if he is a white man.
2004 Keynote Address

It would change to, "Let's face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely. A white man, born into relative prosperity making it as a big time politician. What an amazing accomplishment." Applause?

Compare that to Edwards speech, it's the same man.


How does Obama differentiate himself from Biden, Kucinich, Edwards, Richardson, or Gravel? If he's white, he's not Barack Obama, he's Barry O'Bailey, whitey from Chicago with ties to a Real Estate shyster.

2) Should she resign from Clinton's campaign? Why or why not?
If Clinton doesn't fire Ferraro she takes the campaign into the gutter and that is not a good idea. Plus, this race isn't about color it's about the economy and the war. It doesn't really matter at this point, get Bush out of office like yesterday.

3) Has the spirit of P.C. chilled free speech in its most crucial arena in an electoral republic--electoral politics? Why or why not?
PC exists because the American people like smoke blown up their you-know-what. It's our fault, we let this go on. We've allowed our politicians to trick us with words since as long as I've been alive and probably long after I'll be gone. Until we can stop the television set from controlling our every thought we'll never get anywhere politically.

This entire argument is based almost purely on assumptions, but here are a few certainties to consider.

Certainly Obama's race is not the only major factor in his success. Black candidates have run before several times from both parties.
Obama's abilities as an orator and a politicians in general have placed him where he is today.

Like nearly every successful politician his popularity is not based on his status as best and brightest or his detailed policy plans.

I'm not sure that has ever won an election

He's a symbol, they all are. If John McCain hadn't been a POW he wouldn't merit a mention in his local paper today.

Life is funny, PC had nothing to do with it.

So Ferraro may have a point but it's a rather pointless one.

True in fact? Maybe.

True in spirit?

Ted said it best, Pure Crap.

Yeah, if only Barbara Walters, or Oprah could have their own TV shows.

But the message I'm getting from the Clinton camp:

America doesn't like blacks.
But America doesn't like women MORE, and it's just(!) not(!) fair(!).

I'm sure some deluded anticipation of support for the "most underdogged underdog" is happening behind the scenes.

Sounds like somebody's job as a campaign manager is in trouble. Not because of the comments, but because of the blatant desperate tactics minimizing the opponent's ideas and making it a race vs. gender debate.

HillaryCare failed, and here is Barack Obama, offering it as part of his adopted campaign - and people like his version better (unless you don't like it at all... but anyway...), and honestly, if I had to pick, Barack Obama is a far better candidate than Hillary. But he not only takes traditional Democrat ideas, but he makes them appealing. That fact alone must keep Hillary up at night grinding her teeth.

Turnea said:

I wish someone would actually spell out what their policy plans were instead of waiting for preplanned debate answers that never really answer the question. The fact that someone would stand up and say, "yeah, this may not go well with you, but this is what I'd do and why I think it would be right" would make a lot of sense.


Darn right on that. McCain doesn't know how to represent a state. He's his own "maverick", and trust me, Arizona knows this firsthand. It's not a slogan - it should be an insult! That, and the fact he is the most absent senator does not endear me to think of him as one who has leadership qualities.

At this point, McChipmunk doesn't get my vote. It was bad enough at the state level. And on behalf of the great state of Arizona, we apologize in advance.

1. Geraldine Ferraro made history as the first woman to be placed on a presidential ticket. Then she went and made history a second time as she and Walter Mondale got crushed like a sour grape by Ronald Reagan in the worst presidential landslide in history

In the election, Mondale was defeated in a landslide, winning only the District of Columbia (which had never been won by a Republican candidate) and his home state of Minnesota, and even there he came with in less than 3,800 votes of a total shut-out. thus securing only 13 electoral votes to Reagan's 525. The result was the worst electoral defeat for any Democratic Party candidate in history, and the worst for any major-party candidate since Alf Landon's loss to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936. link

What does Ferraro's opinion about anything mean? She ran for the U.S. Senate twice and lost twice. She's established a long history of being a loser.

She made similar disparaging remarks about Jesse Jackson in 1988 so she's a serial offender.

Or maybe she just has a Negro problem. Now she's saying, "They're attacking me because I'm White. How's that?"

No Geraldine, we're attacking you because you're pulling the Race Card and the Gender Card. Please stop before you pull The-I'm-Crazier-Than-Hell-Card.

Too late.

"Sexism is a bigger problem," Ferraro argued. "It's OK to be sexist in some people's minds. It's not OK to be racist." link

But you're going to make it OK, right Gerry?

2. I don't care if she resigns or not. She's just the latest in a series of Hillary surrogates/suck-ups who make these supposedly off-the-cuff remarks, and Hillary just clucks her tongue and shakes her head and says, "Oh my goodness. Well, I certainly don't agree with what was said." It's a pattern of race-baiting remarks coming out of the Hillary camp and when it comes boomeranging back into her mug she just whimpers, "I'm just a girl and you're a bunch of sexist pigs. Stop being mean to me."

I hope Ferraro stays around. I hope she keeps flogging her obvious jealousy and pettiness and anger at uppity Black men who stand in the way of history---sorry, herstory
I hope she remains as the embodiment of the shrill, ugly face of White liberal racism.

I hope she keeps digging a hole so damn deep Hillary sinks into it up to her neck.

3. I wouldn't dignify that question with a answer.

So what Barack-bashing thread are you starting tomorrow, quick? There's "only" 14 Obama-related threads among the last 100 topics. Plenty of room for more.

Robert F Kennedy was a 43 year old Harvard white boy who gave inspiring speeches. He came from the most prominent political family in America.

Was he labelled as just a privledged white boy? No. Did people believe his speeches? Yes.

Barack Obama is not special because of his skin color. He's special because he's running a special campaign.

If Barack Obama was white....he would still be a special politician.

If Hillary Clinton never met Bill Clinton or if Geraldine Ferraro didn't have breasts and was named Gerald.....nobody would remember them, if they ever knew them at all. Ferraro got elected on her own at least, but was just in the US House.

Geraldine Ferraro was a former VP candidate for the democratic party. She should be a sort of ambassador, regardless of who she supports. The hypocrisy of Geraldine Ferraro, who has a degree from Fordham and was a 6 year vet of the house of representatives, basically calling Obama (someone who had to campaign for his spot) an affirmative action candidate is tasteless, bordering on laugh out loud hysterical.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. The speeches and the "kumbaya" approach wouldn't fly with a white candidate. John Edwards grew up poor, but that's not enough. He should have had some non-white ethnic trait to give him credibility.

It's fine to support Obama, but at least admit his color has a lot to do with your support. Let's stop pretending it doesn't.



People are really scared to be labeled the "R" word. It's thrown around on this board by certain individuals, ad nauseum.

Some of us actually ARE willing to criticize others despite the color of their skin. Equal opportunity criticism. If Obama were offering a different flavor of kool aid than his contemporaries I might have swallowed it, but I don't see a difference. I would have a lot more respect for his supporters if they would say, "You know, I'm tired of seeing whites in power. Let's give a non-white a chance and see if he can do better." But nooooooo, we have to pretend the color of his skin makes no difference.



She's being attacked because America cannot even hear such words without feeling their house of cards will topple over and we will all be exposed for the racists that we are. If we can just keep our mouths shut and not say (and try not to think such thoughts) well, hey, 1984 all over again. And I'm not talking about the election.




I hope one day people are able to exert their First Amendment without being verbally flogged by holier than thou, closet racists.




But would black Americans vote for him? I think at that point, they would turn to Hillary Clinton.



You have breasts, too, thanks to that one X chromosome your mama gave you.



I'll say it again. She is pointing to the fact that he wouldn't be getting the support were he the same guy only white. And I believe that to be true.

Please. If this campaign has demonstrated anything, it's that hitting Obama on race happens far more frequently and with far less consequence that hitting Clinton on gender. Geraldine Ferraro tried to "ghettoize" Jesse Jackson in 1988 and here we are 20 years later and she's back playing the same game with Barack Obama in 2008. The names change but the ghetto games stay the same.

She's being "attacked" because she is using divisive and smear tactics, negativity, fear-mongering and praising the Republican while damning the Democrat. She's being "attacked" because she's running a campaign that plays on "the politics of personal destruction." She can't step up to Barack's level, but she can try to tear him down to hers.

Tell me something, doomed planet, why is it Hillary Clinton supporters feel obliged to say "...if Barack Obama were White or a woman..." and there's nothing racial or maginalizing about that, but let it be said, "if Hillary Clinton were a male" (being Black never seems to enter the equation) and that is sexist and belittles her?

Is it nice to have a ready-made excuse to fall back on to explain why Clinton has done so poorly against a third-year Senator? You can blame the media and you can say the states your opponent won can't be won in November so they don't really count and you can change the rules for Michigan and Florida even though you agreed to them and when all else fails you can blame your opponent for being more visionary, more uplifting, more positive and more of a energizing force for a Democratic Party that's been out of the White House for nearly a decade.

And when all else fails---claim you're a victim of male sexism and watch all the soccer moms well up with tears in their eyes as they reach for their purses.

Just as Obama is getting tested by Clinton and her surrogates, she too is being tested and so far I see her supporters claim she's a victim of sexism more than some Obama supporters claim he's a victim of racism. Not me, mind you---I have no doubt that Obama is being savaged for no other reason than he's a Black man.

That, and Hillary supporters blame him for standing in her way of becoming the first female president.

I don't have any reluctance in admitting that one of the reasons I support Barack Obama is because he's a Black man. So am I. Duh. But it's simplistic and patronizing to say that is the only reason Obama is being supported. It's not just the man. It's also the message. I know he has one. Sorry that you and others do not. Your call. Your choice.

But will Hillary supporters ever admit her being a woman is a primary factor in their support? Oh no. It's because she's "ready." She is "experienced." She has been "vetted."

Crap. Crap. Crap. It's because she's a woman and so. are. you.

Go ahead and stop deceiving yourself. What's so bad about being enthusiastic and excited about a candidate? Why should voting for someone be such an alien concept? Give it a try. It won't kill you and you might like it.

And remember this, in polling, Barack Obama supporters are far more willing to accept Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee than Clinton supporters accepting Obama at the top of the ticket.

Why is that? Obama supporters less sexist against a White woman than Clinton supporters are racist against a Black man?

p.s. It isn't necessary to casually "throw around" charges of racism on this board, doomed planet. See any sexists around here? Some of us can spot the bigots among us as well. They are often right out in the open.

DP
That's ok you don't need to answer, because we all already know by your non-answer.

No I am not conceding . John Edwards ran four years ago and was totally unknown young Senator, who was white good looking and articulate. And John Edwards was knocking on the door of Presidency himself.




Again, when did Blacks become so beloved by White America?? You're not making any sense. The reason why Billary continues to race bait is because Obama has un such a "raceless" campaign. And she thinks if she can make it to an Black vs. White battle.... she wins!

And again DP you're stating something that just isn't true. Bush, Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, Reagan were all seen as more Charismatic than the people they beat, they were all more "Kumbaya" than the person they opposed... O.K. Bush might be pushing it (but he was the president people would rather sit down and have a beer with)... but the point is "Kumbaya" has won many White men elections. Now you want to act like only a Black man gets ahead....



Because that is how you feel huh? White people just hate white people in power. Wow is that why Barack is "rejecting and denouning" the support of Farakhan. He's got it all wrong... he's been trying to run this race neutral campaign to be seen as just a man, when what he really should be doing is screaming... "Say it loud.... I'm Black and I'm proud" Maybe he should start playing some Public Enemy and N.W.A at his next rally... Yeah DP that's how you get the white vote, by showing how non-white you are as a candidate. And while I may be joking, what is sad is... you are actually serious.



Well after all the race baiting the Clintons are doing now... hmmm.... Blacks may vote for anyone but Hillary.

Barnaby




I'm not getting your point. Don't most White Presidents already fit this mold?? How are they getting elected??

Usually with good reason.

The reason why people are called racist is typically because they say racist things.

This same old "I'm scared" excuse is trotted out every time we have debate with a racial aspect.

I've seen the victim card thrown a lot more than the racism card I'll tell you that.

Wow. This thread is a big pot of boiling animosities and gripes bubbling up to the surface. Doomed is too cynical to believe a white man as charismatic as Obama, not to mention as good a campaigner, could possibly be as popular as the lucky-to-be-black man himself. Drew comes to Obama's defense by downplaying sexism because of the messenger. Note: half of all black people are female. Barnaby doesn't think Obama is any better a speaker than all the white guys he listed. Give me a hit of that, bro. And Az sums it up for the real disenfranchised members of American society. How great it is to have a thread to excoriate the bombastic nature of both sexism and racism in one shot. Huzzah! One for the good ol' boys.

The 2008 Democratic convention is going to be hell. Maybe I'm wrong and the "liberal" party can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again. In the meantime Quick wins hands down.

Is Ferraro correct?
No.

Should she resign from Clinton's campaign? Why or why not?
Yes—if it costs Clinton.

Has the spirit of P.C. chilled free speech in its most crucial arena in an electoral republic—electoral politics? Why or why not?
What the hell does free speech have to do with winning elections?

As to your last comment, which I assume is an attempt at humor, I will nonetheless address seriously with the following:

Concurring in Whitney v. California (1927), Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that "freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth."

Free speech is more important in the political arena than anywhere else. It is the tool by which we vet our candidates and their ideas. If such speech is chilled--by race, gender, or anything else--and unless such speech rises to the level of willful and malicious slander, which is not protected speech, then we are not allowing the marketplace of ideas the fuel necessary for the political machinery to operate correctly.

Oh--this kind of heated debate is exactly what SHOULD go on relative to an election. Cards not played are issues not vetted.

I think what Lesly meant is that there has been no abridgment of free speech concerning election.

This nonsense talk of a chill is just another political ploy. No one's stopping anyone from speaking.

The rules are as they always were, say something stupid and be prepared to eat crow.

Ferraro... order up!

You assume wrongly. A history of my posts will reveal I'm very liberal when it comes to free speech. Whether the subject is Fred Phelps protesting at soldiers' funerals, Muslim cartoons, burning the flag and so on, I think just about anything goes.

That is a lovely quote you posted, btw. Now you need to apply it to the correct agent: government. Popular opinion doesn't have the force to chill any kind of speech without the government to disenfranchise others on its behalf.

Here's my assumption. Popular opinion changes over time, and if it was more to your liking where an Obama presidency is concerned you wouldn't delude yourself into thinking anyone's freedom of speech is in peril.


Sexism and racism are issues. Playing cards is a game and like all games, requires strategy. I don't want to join in your campaign games.

And not just Blacks! I thought I would hold my nose and vote for Hillary in the general election if she won the nomination despite her unwillingness to admit her error in voting to authorize the use of military force in Iraq and willingness to join in beating the war drums to bomb Iran. Now, after unfavorably comparing Obama to McCain on national security, playing the Republican fear card with her call in the middle of the night ad, and injecting race into the campaign twice; I don't think I could bring myself to vote for her. Only if Senator Clinton fires Ferarro from her campaign and cleanly disavows her statements will I reconsider.

Well, you have so joined, as here you are on this thread, and I think it is a good thread. There should be much more to come as this Democratic primary continues forward. This is the most interesting game in town, and perhaps the most important.





Interesting point you raise, albeit inadvertently.

Normally, when someone raises an unpopular viewpoint, one may suffer some guffaws, but that is about it.

In today's supercharged world of racial P.C., if one makes an observation about race, and if you are white, then you are tarred, feathered and...fired. While this may not be state action to chill speech, in an election process, which next to national defense is the most important process in which any free state engages, the likelihood of being fired because of one's opponents would chill the debate, and perhaps narrow the scope of the debate in a way not beneficial to the general public. Are these issues not worthy of debate? If one appears foolish raising such issues, the debate will backfire, so what does the candidate fear in allowing the speaker to speak, free of demands for their firing and the chilling effect this has on debate?

Should Obama's assistant have been fired for calling Hillary a "monster"? This is at least reasonably defensible, as this kind of ad hominem abusive comment adds nothing to the debate, and is not even helpfully descriptive of the candidate in any way.

Should Ferraro be fired (if she can be fired, as she is not officially working for the Clinton campaign, according to her, although she is a supporter) for her comments? Well, I think not. She may not have so intended, but she is clearly calling attention to the fact that Obama may be a wine opened before his time, i.e. he doesn't have the experience one would generally expect to find in a presidential candidate. Also, he is not being vetted very well. She presumes his blackness is at least partly responsible.

To take race out of this for a moment, I remember when JFK hired Bobby to be his AG. Bobby was about 36, I believe, at the time. When at a news conference someone questioned JFK's judgment in appointing someone with so little experience to the post, JFK responded in his inimitable style, "Well, he's a young lawyer and he's got to get experience somewhere." At least someone brought up the subject.

Obama has not been grilled on his admitted drug use (Bill Clinton was so vetted, as you recall); he has not been grilled on slave reparations; he has not been grilled on the huge number of votes he has missed in the Senate; he has not been grilled on his Iraq plan, despite his team's recent vacillations in the face of reality on the ground (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/no-wiggle-room.html); he has not been grilled about the Rezko land deal; he has not been asked to quantify the cost of his numerous new proposals; and the list goes on.

I cannot help but think at least part of this inability, inadequacy, or willful failure of the press to vet Obama on these issues is its desire not to appear racist when covering a black candidate. This is likely what Ferraro meant by Obama's blackness being an advantage, and I think her observation is likely correct. This obviously does not mean he would not be a good president; it does mean we are not doing a very good job of testing him during the only process where he can be tested prior to election. Ferraro didn't go far, enough, though, as Hillary's gender provides a similar insulation and allows her to play the gender card.

McCain and his team will have to fight the blackness or gender cards in everything they say.

As to Obama's responses to Ferraro's comments, such comments being to the effect that being black is not an advantage in this election--this is, after all, "mean" America, as his wife would call it--I would suggest that younger whites in the USA have been fed a large dose of white guilt in recent years, in school curricula and elsewhere. I think they, be they in the electorate generally or in the media, are craving a black president to assuage that guilt. I think this is as much the reason for his support among this demographic as any other. This is NOT 1958. In addtion, his stated policies are not that much different from Hillary's--there must be some other factors to account for this success, and this is likely at least one of them. I mean, Hillarys' whiny speaking voice versus Obama's smooth baritone cannot be the only reason Obama is winning, can it? Are we THAT shallow?

Why shouldn't we discuss it?

But that's just it. Disavowing Geraldine does nothing. It 's like throwing away a gun with one bullet in it, after shooting off the last bullet. Let's see, if the Obama campaign asks for her to step down, it's because she is white. And if Hillary asks her to step down, without herself calling the remarks racist, well Hillary just caved in to the race card being played by the Barack team (or at least that is how it will get framed).

Obama can only hope the issue blows away.. he needs a race neutral campaign, and it's not easy.

Quick


Because YOU want to see race... even though it doesn't make sense.

Drug use... bush was not grilled either... Clinton broke the mold.. no one cares anymore if you did drugs in the pas

Slave Reparations.... not a campaign promise. He he promising reparations??

Missed Votes... Is Hillary grilled on the amount of votes she has missed since on the Campaign trail/

Iraq plans... is Hillary being held to a higher standard??

Resko, again is Hillary being held to a higher standard??

Quantify cost.. again is Hillary being held to a higher standard??

What is the special treatment that Obama is receiving that you don't see Hillary or McCain receiving.

I disagree. Obama can play the race card as often as he wants, so long as he does it with a smile. Cf.: Reagan smiling and telling Carter during their debates, "Well, here you go again."

Most blacks won't care what Obama does--he's their man; whites laden with white guilt who are already on the Obama team will ask, "please, sir, can I have another"; undecideds who haven't drunken either HC's or Bam's Kool Aid are going to look at experience and policy, anyway, and will chalk all of this up to usual political infighting; and those who usually vote Republican wouldn't vote for Obama or Hillary, anyway.

Well, it looks as though Clinton has said that she "disagrees" with Ferraro. She doesn't denounce the statements - she doesn't even reject them . Ferraro's comments are part of a political game: It's important for the Clinton camp to round up the bigoted Democrat demographic by pointing out... "HEY! This guy's black... and he probably wouldn't be here if he wasn't." It's kind of like saying, "If you don't believe in affirmative action, vote for Clinton."

As for my support of Obama, it has less to do with his race and more to do with the snakey nature of his opponent. I have now, for the first time, the opportunity to vote my conscience. I vowed I would never vote for anyone who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. I couldn't hold to that vow in '04 because I had to choose between the lesser of two weevils and I didn't want Bush to win - so it was not so much a vote for Kerry as it was a vote for not-Bush. But I'm sure going to do it now. Now, tell me... what exactly does that choice have to do with race? Let me help you out, here... ummm... nothing.

As I am sure you know, Obama was not in the Senate in 2002 when the so-called "force" vote was taken. He has voted for every Iraq funding bill in 2005 and 2006. He's been absent from or has abstained from these votes since he's been a pres. candidate.

Quick


Oh he CAN play it... to his own demise. And you are right most Blacks won't care (in terms of calling thing racist) because on one side saying that the only reason Barack is where he is at is pretty racist and on the other side, calling out racism is a sure way to create a race battle, which is bad for Barack.

And if experience and policy were ever the most important to the people of this nation, Reagan, Kennedy or Bush jr would have never been elected.

Why, hello, Lesly!

Actually, if you actually read my post, I accused the Clinton campaign of turning this into a race vs. gender campaign.

Huzzah!

Really? Let's see about that experience.

Reagan was the two term governor of the State of Calif--the state with the largest economy in the US and at the time, the 6th largest economy in the world if it were a separate nation; Bush was governor for five years of another large state, Texas, and had considerable family experience to draw upon; and Kennedy was a war hero, represented the state of Massachusetts in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1947 to 1953 as a Democrat, and in the U.S. Senate from 1953 until 1961.

And policies? Well, you might not agree with any of their policies, but certainly they laid their cards on the table. Reagan and Bush had long executive records to run on (and be held accountable for), and Kennedy had 13 years' worth of speeches and votes on record in Congress.

You should check your facts a little bit before posting....

What country are YOU talking about?!

White people can talk about race as much as they want, it's when one says something racist that problems exist.

This is such a contrived controversy. The whole anti-PC crusade is just an excuse to speak without thinking.


She was.


Link

When has Obama been publicly "ghettoized"? Furthermore, how many times on this board and out in the world are white men totally dissed? Members here make very disparaging remarks about white men and if you'd like me to go back into your own posts, I'm sure I can find many. But as far as Obama goes, the comments made by Ferraro are the only ones I'm even aware of that are in the mainstream media. Nobody is dissing on Obama --- quite the opposite.



He's definitely taking the right approach, but it has nothing to do with my argument about her being a more experienced and capable candidate.



I'm not sure what you mean by that. Hillary Clinton is qualified. If she were a man she'd still be qualified. Barack Obama is inexperienced. If he were a woman he'd still be inexperienced. (yes, that is my opinion, we are all entitled to one)




Yes, there is that feeling that he has rained on her parade, so to speak, which is too bad for her. That's politics.



I understand that, Nighttimer. But my whole point is that the "message", were it the same, coming from a white man with the same experience and credentials, would not be received as well. It just wouldn't!!



It depends on the woman. I am not a Hillary supporter. I would most likely not vote for her. But, between her and Obama, I would choose her. How much of that has to do with her being a woman? Let me lay it out in a nutshell. I see Hillary as a very capable, strong, intelligent, experienced politician, with nerves of steel. If it were Pamela Anderson (or someone similar) running, I wouldn't even entertain the thought.



I am a human first. Woman second. That is always how I have viewed myself. And I think my history on the issues on this board shows that I am not the one to jump on the feminist bandwagon.



I wish I could. But in reality it is not the politicians of the world who enlighten us and have the ability to bring social change. It's the artists of the world. And while politics is an art, in and of itself, there isn't a politician alive who has the freedom and unselfish motivations to raise us up out of the muck.

There are easily as many statements dissing blacks as whites on likely far more. The same goes for the world at large.

The reason Ferraro is all by herself in "it's-cuz-he's-black" land if because its such a vacuous thing to say and not every wanted to remove all doubt, in the Twain-esque sense.


Hillary's qualifications are barely greater than Obama's neither has executive experience and both bring different things to the table. I started a thread about this a while ago.
Experience Deficit?

McCain hasn't had much either. That's our field this election, not experience heavy.

So of Reagan, Obama, Clinton (Hillary), Kennedy, Bush, who has more experience as an elected official?? Obama has been an elected official since 1996.

You see my facts are straight, I know that reagan and Bush were Governors, I know Kennedy had some time in war, But mostly I know this whole little Barack wouldn't be where he is at if he wasn't Black is a load of crap.

Barack has plenty of time as an elected official at the state level. Bill Clinton and George Bush weren't war heroes, they were elected officials at the state level. Bush Jr beat Al Gore who was way more qualified to be a President if we were looking at experience. Kennedy had no executive experience. Bill and Reagan beat incumbents who had 4 years more of actual presidential experience.

And in the cases of Bush vs Kerry and Gore, Clinton vs Bush and Dole, Reagan vs Carter and whoever... and Kennedy, they were all seen as very charismatic. It was never their experience or policies that put them over the top.

So why point to Obama's color as a leading reason why he is doing so well??

Hence, he couldn't possibly have voted for the authorization, right? Right. As I'm sure is pretty clear in my statement, I didn't say I vowed not to vote for anyone who was attempting to manage our drive through the muck. It's those who enabled the entry into the muck in the first place that I vowed not to vote for.

Oh, and could you show the data that proves that California was the 6th largest economy in the world during Reagan's governorship?

1) Is Ferraro correct?
Perhaps it is part of it but I think with his oratory skills his color doesn't matter. Some people have a voice and a manner of speaking that can be very powerful.
My boss has a presence that demands respect. Even people who hate him are careful in his presence. He does not threaten and there is no implied threat. Something about him carries through and people pay attention. Its in his voice.
My stepfather's voice is so strong he once yelled at our dogs to lie down and all five of my friends who were over actually dropped to the floor.
Think about voices. James Earl Jones MADE Darth Vader. Sam Elliot's voice has power for certain types of roles that Woody Allen's (or even Woody Harrelson's) voice couldn't carry.
Speeches by JFK, MLK got a stronger reaction than most people could.
Obama knows instinctively how to reach into people and say what they want to hear and does so in a way that is very attractive.
He is a political Siren. Even people who are polar opposites of his views are drawn to him; even knowing full well he runs against their grain.


2) Should she resign from Clinton's campaign? Why or why not?
Who cares, she and Hilary have ended themselves politically. Hilary, even if the nominee will never be POTUS now. Her true colors are all too painfully displayed. People know politicians are false prophets. But when it becomes all too clear they are in it only for themselves and they lose the illusion of caring or public service its over.
Take the case of Spitzer. Why is he being forced to resign by his own and not others like ole Bill Clinton himself. People LIKE Bill. People do not like Hilary at all.

3) Has the spirit of P.C. chilled free speech in its most crucial arena in an electoral republic--electoral politics? Why or why not?
No. Ferraro's intent was and is very clear. Hilary needs a saving grace before she is given the coup de grâce by her own party.
Sadly for her no one likes her as a human being except her daughter.
She needs a huge HUGE win in PA and she has only one option left. Make it look like Obama is playing the race card. Since he won't play the "poor me I'm Black, and the White man is keeping me down" certain racial types use/accuse as a stereotype she needs to create the meme herself but obviously cannot be seen as doing so.
So she is following one of the oldest political truths.
A lie repeated enough eventually becomes "truth".
If she can get him talking about it enough sooner or later he slips and mispeaks or speaks from frustration and gives her the raw meat she so desperately needs.
One moment of anger and its all over.
Even more sadly for Hilary however is that she is a very poor Niccolo Machiavelli.
Her attempts at misdirection might as well just be placed in Manga form complete with giant killer robots of destruction and an annoying little child character saying really BAD punchlines.

I bet she even does the Doctor Evil "Bwha Ha HA!"

Lets use another Hilary supporter. PA Gov Rendel


Bits and pieces here and there. The Clinton's are some of the most skilled political operatives ever. They know how to win at any costs. Ask every frustrated Republican during Bill's terms who almost died from the raving fits he gave them as he got away again and again and again til they had to grasp at any straw to get him.

He got a blowjob and didn't want to admit it on national TV.Would you? Hilary is SCARY. As in Hannibal Lector scary. Would you want to be snug in bed and hear,

"Hello William"

"I do admire your courage in admitting you cheated."

"I think I'll eat your heart."

Even sadder yet again for hilary is the fact that she is going to lose out again because of Bill Clinton. Sift through his old speeches and the coverage of his political career and every charge about no real substance just a positive message and a skill at oratory are almost verbatim what is leveled against Obama.

As for Ferraro, she is just pathetic at this.

If Obama stays positive and focuses on McCain for why he should be elected he should be able to hold out and force hilary to go nuclear and try to take the nomination by force or trickery.
and even then all the GOP has to do is remind everyone over and over again.

She's correct, he gets much support simply because he's black. The demographics of the poll numbers and the exit polls both bear that out. It's been enough to propel him to the lead, and he wouldn't be there without that support. That doesn't mean he's unqualified or incapable, it just is what it is.

Bama's camp doesn't play the race angle, to their credit. Clinton's does, to their shame.

Clinton is going to go down in flames, and racial politics will do it. Good for the country. Blacks might finally realize just how harmful liberal white racism has been to them. Again, good for the country.

To clarify, Obama's keynote speech was inspiring to many and raised his national awareness greater than we ever expected, however, his rags-to-riches story, or against all odds story doesn't have as much of an impact if he is white, from Boston.

Obama is no different than all the rest. If people think he is, then they are being fooled. He's a lawyer from Harvard, an institute that has shaped the minds of many of our past presidents. To think he's going to come out here and radically change the country is a case of self-delusion. My favorite example of this is the ad that he put out saying, "Obama could've cashed in, but instead he chose public service" or something to that effect. The dude is worth $2.5 million dollars a year. Only to a Harvard graduate would $2.5 million a year not be cashing in.

The argument that Ferraro makes is that if Obama was white, he wouldn't receive the attention he is getting. That is a fair argument, one in which I put forth a couple weeks before Ferraro did in response to one of your questions. And let's face the facts, if he was a white man, he WOULD NOT BE GETTING 90% OF THE BLACK VOTE. Hillary would be getting it. So let's assume all things the same, Hillary is normally getting 40% of the Democratic vote wherever she goes, but only 10% of the black vote. Take that vote and give it Hillary and all of sudden she is over 50%, now she's winning South Carolina, Mississippi, the Carolinas, Georgia and the others. It's an accurate argument.

Also, why is it considered racist to say black people vote for black candidates when they do, at 90%? I understand the history of oppression and the desire to vote for a candidate that looks like you, but when someone points to that fact, that person is declared a racist. Is it now racist to be factually correct? The sky is blue, I must be a Smurf-racist. The grass is green, I must be a Hulk-racist. Bill Clinton's assessment of the South Carolina primary was accurate, why is that race-baiting?

Fair maybe.

But smart? Heck no, black candidates have run before Obama is clearly something different.


Again, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes.

I agree that any successful minority candidate is likely to pull strongly from his or her ethnic group, but they've got to be successful first.

Ferraro's drive-by doesn't explain that.

Any candidate starts with an advantage within his or her natural constituency and a disadvantage within groups with a prejudice against that constituency group. Kennedy had an advantage among Catholic voters and a disadvantage among Protestant voters as did Al Smith before him. In the current situation Clinton had a built in advantage among women voters and a disadvantage among sexist male voters while Obama had a natural advantage among black voters and a disadvantage among white voters. What makes this contest so acrimonious is the Clintons' effort to deliberately stir up latent prejudice to their advantage rather than building on their natural advantage among women. As such the campaign is becoming reminiscent of the anti-Catholic vitriol in the 1928 Al Smith campaign rather than the subdued prejudice in the 1960 Kennedy campaign. And this is in a primary rather than a general election and threatens to tear the Democratic Party apart for personal ambition.



Check your facts before posting! $2.5 million is Obamas total wealth, mostly accumulated recently from the sale of his last book.

(See This Washington Post Article).

But John Edwards speeches and Charisma is what made him so formidable in the last primary. Granted he did not win to Kerry, but you can't say his populist message has not appealed to many. This year around he was up against barack and Hillary. That basically left him with ONLY the blue collar white man vote. But John edwards is still at the top for 3 list for running mates for either candidate. So you can't say the message of early strife is not uplifting when it comes to white people as well, cause it is.