No rant. Just citing the sources. Oh, and pity Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't just Obama's mailman. Read for yourself (link below to read all of the ABC News piece):

"In a campaign appearance earlier this month, Sen. Obama said, "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial." He said Rev. Wright "is like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with," telling a Jewish group that everyone has someone like that in their family.

Rev. Wright married Obama and his wife Michelle, baptized their two daughters and is credited by Obama for the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope."

"I wouldn't call it radical. I call it being black in America," said one congregation member outside the church last Sunday.

"He has impacted the life of Barack Obama so much so that he wants to portray that feeling he got from Rev. Wright onto the country because we all need something positive," said another member of the congregation.

Obama has praised at least one aspect of Rev. Wright's approach, referring to his "social gospel" and his focus on Africa, "and I agree with him on that."

Sen. Obama declined to comment on Rev. Wright's denunciations of the United States, but a campaign religious adviser, Shaun Casey, appearing on "Good Morning America" Thursday, said Obama "had repudiated" those comments.

In a statement to ABCNews.com, Obama's press spokesman Bill Burton said, "Sen. Obama has said repeatedly that personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they're offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church. Sen. Obama does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Sen. Obama deeply disagrees.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788&page=2



My brother is a Marine, retired. Dad was Navy, WWII. I have heard them both criticize U.S. policy, but I guess I never thought of Marines ever saying something like "Damn America, etc.", from a pulpit. Criticism, maybe, but that just goes too far.

Semper Fidelis does mean, "always faithful", though--to the Corps, to the nation.

I may be an oddity here. I'm a supporter of Obama but I think Ferraro made an arguable if ham handed point. Obama in this case is enjoying the benefits of racial identification. Would somebody who had his political background and his unquestionable rhetorical talents who was white been as successful? It's at least an arguable point that they wouldn't and yes one could ask similar questions about Hillary and the benefits she gets from Bill and being a woman, over and above any political qualifications. Ferraro's comment about being given the vice presidential nomination because she was a woman kind of closed out any racist angle. She's simply pointing out that a concept of inclusion of the outsider and an appeal to certain potent political groups on an identity basis skews the nomination process away from pure job qualification.

The Hillary camp has very few cards to play and playing the experience over identity and affirmative action card is one of their last options even if it requires a high degree of denial about how these matters have played for Clinton. Both sides are playing the race card but I don't buy that GF played a racist card. As a supporter of Obama I hope he stays away from being sucked into this game and stays on the high ground and encourages his supporters to do the same. His strength has partly been that he has reflected on his racial background, come to terms with it in the larger American context, and is now ready to move forward in a broad inclusive way with political solutions. If he gets sidetracked into a racial victim scenario it could sink him. I'd like to see him neutralize the matter by saying something like "Geraldine has a right to her opinions. I'm going to stick to the issues and focus on winning in November." Let the Clinton camp play the spoilers.

I believe so. Clinton, Bush I, Reagan have been trotted out. Whatever their experience, whatever their platform, none of them would have been elected if not for their charisma and speaking ability to some degree. Carter was an anomaly during regrettable times and Bush I got a boost from Reagan. The Kennedy experience comparison fits. Military service is a bonus, but not mandatory. It is not even an indicator of anything if one counts the inactive reserves.

It's unfortunate it takes a black man for some white Americans to realize how much they love pretty words. Words that make their hearts hopeful and their chests swell with pride.

Where have they been the last two decades?

The canaries are spooked but we are "safe". The air is as hallucinogenic as ever.

And Whites wonder why Blacks always see racism...

Because isn't that the underlying theme... When Whites get voted in they have "experience" they have "substance" they are "vetted"...

Please GEorge Bush Jr. was "vetted".

When I was growing up and till this day there is something that Blacks would say and it is similar to women and minorities. To be Black and successful you can't be just as good as your white counterpart, you have to be better to be seen as good.

Is this what we are dealing with here. Barack with his decade plus amount of state and federal level elected experience, doesn't cut the mustard? Whites have to go through more??

Barack is asked to answer for Farakhan comments.. why?? Because he is in his church and that church has a preacher , and that preacher of that church made positive remarks regarding Farakhan.

He doesn't just have to answer for his position, He doesn't just have to answer for the position of another man he associates with. He has to answer for the postion of a man who associates with a man who associates with himself.

Something tells me that previous politicians don't get vetted like this that often.

More damage control from Miz Hillary...

In the wake of a firestorm of criticism from black voters, Sen. Hillary Clinton is apologizing to anyone who was offended by her campaign or remarks made by her supporters recently. Clinton, speaking at a black newspaper publishers meeting Wednesday night, said she had not intended to offend African-American voters and pointed to her career in public service as an indication of her ties to the community.

Clinton made her remarks at a meeting of the National Newspaper Publishers Association, a group that represents 200 black newspapers nationwide.

Asked about her husband's remarks in January comparing Sen. Barack Obama's win in South Carolina to Rev. Jesse Jackson's victory when he ran for president, Clinton said: "I want to put that in context. You know I am sorry if anyone was offended. It was certainly not meant in any way to be offensive." She added, "We can be proud of both Jesse Jackson and Senator Obama."

Clinton called on her lifetime of work to bolster her argument that no offense was intended, according to a CBS News report. "Anyone who has followed my husband's public life or my public life know very well where we have stood and what we have stood for and who we have stood with," she said. link

Sure we know what you've stood for in the past, Hillary. It's what you stand for now that's getting you in trouble.

And you still need to serve a big bowl of "Shut the hell up" to Gerry Ferraro.

I agree, and I hope Quick or Bikerdad or one of those guys who scans these threads in search of racial umbrage stops to read this one.

Think about George W. Bush consulting with pastors like Jerry Falwell who would billow up and spew wonderful, unifying sermons that basically suggested that God smashed planes into the World Trade center to punish us for permitting homosexuality. Bush, met with that guy, spoke with him, curried his favor, did a press release mourning that guy when he died. And he said that 9/11 happened, not because people hated our freedom, but because thems was gays in them towers.

Now I don't care what political stance you come to AD from, the comments Rev. Jerimiah Wright routinely makes in his sermons are as controversial as iron kids bread compared to the theological fart thought that God destroyed the Twin Towers because it was full of pagans or homos or liberal pot junkies or what have you. (How do you explain that he also hit the pentagon -- surely an epicenter of homosexuality, right?)

I disagree with the tone of the remarks Obama's pastor has routinely made -- I think social change has to be inclusive, and as a white male, when he talks about ancient white romans lording over black jews in Israel, I don't feel very invited into the process. That's just me -- I like my afrocentric visions of world history to include white role models towards which i can aspire. But whatevs.

Still, watch this clip being aired over ABC:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/13/vide...d-damn-america/

The substance of Jerimiah Wright's fiery rhetoric is totally with merit: the three strike system is bull, it doesn't work, and it has become a permanent fixture of the american legal system simply because black voices are not heard when it comes time to craft a sensible approach to fighting crime. When politicans start discussing crime, all we get is Willie Horton ads, and not surprisingly, the legal consequences of that political system are dire, for black folks in particular.

But put those words in a showboating black man behind a pulpit and suddenly, "god da** america" are the three most offensive words in the english language.

Yet Falwell can walk around chirping things like:



So back to Geraldine's comments: isn't it true that Bill Clinton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Goerge H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Andrew Jackson, Richard Nixon, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Hillary Clinton, James GArfield, George W. Bush, Ulysses Grant, Woodrow Wilson, and Walter Mondale all got where they got in part because they were white? Duh!

But only black politicians have to answer when race happens to work out for their advantage.

When it doesn't, they get to drink Tennesse moonshine on the porch with Herald Ford, lamenting a society that reprimands black people for "race-baiting" when the color of their skin turns out to be a prohibitive factor, but a society that then complains wildly when a black person's race turns out to be, against all odds, a boost.

All this is doing is driving me closer to John McCain, a war maniac with a mean streak who has nonetheless been a model of political decorum on the subject of Barack Obama's race. PLEASE, DEMOCRATS, PLEASE!!!! This has been a tedious nightmare for our party -- it seemingly confirms every bad thing they say about us. Hillary Clinton, a woman I would have ecstatically cast my ballot for only 8 or 10 months ago is now somebody i will never, ever, even if she ran against Jeb and Jenna Bush, cast my ballot for.

I mean, GARGELRJGH!

So the First Amendment should not be granted to Mrs. Ferraro? What are you so upset about? She's only helping the Obama campaign. Why not let her speak her mind and dig the hole deeper for Hillary, who knows better than to admit the obvious, that Ferraro is spot on in her assessment of the situation.

And as to why I think Hillary is more experienced and up to the task of the presidency. Well for one thing, she has been in the spotlight with her husband for many years. She has been privy to the wheels that turn Washington. She has lived through nightmarish scandals and stayed strong. She and Bill have been attacked viciously over and over by the Republican party, and endured. That takes strength.

Maybe Obama is strong like that, too, but I sure haven't seen him come under any fire that would test his ability to cope. But then again, maybe he will never ever have to. If we can keep everyone scared enough to ever question his abilities and his decisions as a president, perhaps he can breeze through a presidential campaign and ensuing presidency unscathed by the biting political machine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

But as I watch things unfold, I think maybe it's better that Obama should win the nomination. If he doesn't there will probably be more resentment aimed at whites, and God knows, we don't need that.

I wasn't exactly sure what it was about the Ferraro comments that so deeply offended and distressed me... was it the pettiness of the comments, or her underlying resentment that *gasp* a black man should beat a woman to the historical finish line? The cruelty and short-sightedness of the Clintons, who I once so deeply admired to go out like this? The once again demonstrated ability of the democratic party to fall apart into utter disarray at their very hour of victory?

Then I read this on Daily Kos:





The amount of umbrage and division in this primary is deeply unsettling, not just about the fate of the democratic party or the integrity of our presidential selection process -- but in some ways the past few months have shaped my outlook on what antagonism our society is capable of in an age of internet comment sections and 24 hour news cycles.

Most of us have had our minds made up for close to a year now, and all that's left to do is batter down the opposition into an ugly shadow of its former grandeur. Consequently, I don't see a lot of listening going on in the American electorate. I see a lot of demography-as-destiny. Even with a "maverick," a "centrist" and a "transcendent post-partisan" in the mix, I've watched this election boil down to a fist-fight between outraged demographic groups over an increasingly smaller, increasingly alienated "swing" voter.

I mean you name the group, they've been offended 10 or 12 times a month since the start of these lame duck years. Chicken hawks are upset because stupid moveon.org made a pun out of their Greek generals last name. Or they're upset because Michelle Obama, a woman who is by no accounts a saavy politician, said she's proud of america for the "first" time in her life.

Jesse Jackson Jr. is upset because Hillary didn't cry after New Orleans, and Geraldine Ferraro is upset because she's a brat with limited respect for the hurdles black politicians jump through to attract white audiences.

Hillary Clinton is upset because she's losing.

It's all staged, most of it utterly contrived and strategic, and makes us one of the sadder nations in the democratic world. Other countries do this in 6 weeks.

I think my biggest problem with the Bush years, and maybe this happened in the Clinton years, but in the Bush years, we've seen the rise of these utterly self-convinced quarrelsome segments of the electorate who will do absolutely anything to stomp out anyone who threatens the cohesiveness of their own cherry-picked view of reality.

And that was what we got out of Geraldine Ferraro last week, a tragic, final roar of short-sighted umbrage from the woman who gallantly strode closer than any towards breaking that glass ceiling up there. What a sad way for an old soldier to go out.

Once, her story would have been, from beginning to end, the story of an low-level congresswoman tapped from obscurity to further woman's rights. Now that narrative has been subsumed by a larger development in American politics: the rise of the self-convinced pugilistic partisan. Somewhere along the way,this ol' gal, like just about every other active player in this camp or the other, lost perspective. She really began to see Obama as the evil, counter-racist gorgon that he has gradually become in the eyes of the Clinton camp. Same with Samantha Power, who on the other side, surely felt similarly about Hillary Clinton.

I'm making a prediction, something I never to do: the 2008 election will go to the candidate who can keep his or her eyes on the horizons, the one who can offer Americans a broader, less antagonistic and divisive vision of society. Cause surely I can't be the only person who feels so depressed by all this.

Or maybe this is just how political systems gradually collapse, on their on accord.

Wait, is that the message you're getting from this issue?

That's weird because the bulk of the resentment seems to be against Obama supporters in general and blacks in particular.

I mean that's all Ferraro was saying, that these morons only support Obama because he's black.

The idea that anyone is scared to criticize Obama is worse than pure crap.

That occasionally sounds reasonable. It's inexplicable, it's a victim-hood complex with a life entirely of its own.

Every five minutes someone talks about Obama's "lack of experience", his pastor, his staffers, anything they want, so where the heck are all these terrified people?

Victim-hood? Let's not open that can of worms. I forgot to post this link in my last post. It's an interview that David Letterman did with Hillary. In it she discusses the mortgage industry crisis. She knows her stuff. I would like to see Obama be more specific about the issues, such as this one.

On the contrary it is on that ground that I'm am most assured of victory. The fact is that blacks in the US actually have a leg to stand on in a victim hood argument.

Some whites try to counter with "reverse discrmination" and political correctness, which are both like bad jokes.

This "PC is cramping my style" broken record isn't even worthy of consideration.

This isn't a general Hillary/Obama debate so I'll stick to the topic.

PC has nothing to do with any of this.

Hmmmmmmm So blacks are the only victims in America? Women aren't victims, right. We don't get raped, abused, discriminated against in any way shape or form?

In reality, women are often the most overlooked victims.

I dislike these hypothetical games of "What if" but If Barack Obama were a White man with the same background and rhetorical gifts, the primaries would be over and the nomination already his.

Ferraro's inclusion on Walter Mondale's committee was not due to her impressive credentials as a legislator, but instead by her talent at networking and playing ball:

Unlike Obama, who had to make his way in Chicago politics on his own merits after his stint as a community organizer and local lawyer, Ferraro benefited from family and political connections when she decided to run for Congress. Her cousin Nicholas Ferraro had been the Queens district attorney, and she got her first political job as an assistant D.A. Always a reliable cog in the Queens Democratic Party, which in those days was among the country's most corrupt and boss-ridden political machines, she didn't have to worry much about primary or general election opponents.

Ferraro's three terms in Congress produced little in the way of legislation -- again unlike Obama, whose single term in the Senate has seen him mark several milestones, in particular a landmark ethics reform package. That wasn't the kind of thing that Ferraro would have supported back when she was in the House, since she prided herself on cuddling up to the leadership rather than challenging the status quo in any way. She was an ordinary pork-chopper, but her personality and determination won over Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill, then the House speaker.

It was the late O'Neill, a fine man in many ways, who made the mistake of recommending her to Walter F. Mondale as a vice-presidential prospect in 1984. The worthy but lackluster Democrat from Minnesota was seeking to spice up his candidacy with a different kind of running mate, and considered several potential female and African-American nominees before settling on Ferraro.

The female running mate was a clever gambit that the Democrats executed very poorly. As inspiring as the Ferraro story was when she took the stage at the July 1984 convention in San Francisco, her nomination turned out to be unhelpful to the Democratic ticket, which lost 49 states to the incumbent Republicans, President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H.W. Bush. Circumstances were generally unfavorable to Mondale, whose own inept campaigning made matters still worse, but the initial euphoria over the first woman on a major party ticket evaporated as soon as the press took a closer look at her background. link

Being a woman was a primary reason why Ferraro was chosen, yet she couldn't even win her home state. Her current series of tirades and indignant demands for apologies from The Obama campaign indicates a sense of entitlement and respect that is unjustified given her meager political accomplishments.



Could you provide an example of when and how Barack Obama has used race to his advantage or as a weapon against The Clinton Campaign?




Because she annoys me. Along with the right to free speech comes the obligation to take responsibility for what you say. Ferraro has not. She lacks the class and the good manners to apologize for her stupid statement. Her continued whining over how she is being unfairly attacked is a lame attempt playing the suburban feminist victim in an obvious bid for sympathy. If you don't want to be accused of being a racist, then don't make statements belittling someone based on race.

How is Geraldine Ferraro attacking Barack Obama helping him? What kind of logic is that? Ferraro isn't even helping Clinton. The only person she's helping with this act of inter-party fratricide is John MCain.



True enough. But some of the troubles that fell upon The Clintons was of their own creation. They gave the Republicans much of the ammunition used against them. Being in the spotlight as The First Lady of Arkansas and The United States is not experience. Being on the arm of The President doesn't mean you've made a single important decision since the one to marry him.

Hillary's biggest chance to put her personal stamp on the creation of a national healthcare plan and she completely botched the job. That was her "red phone" moment and she failed miserably, completely and totally. She got served up like sushi.



That's rubbish. Do you think the Republicans aren't going over everything Obama has ever said or done since kindergarten in search of the killer quote or long forgotten photograph that could turn his world upside down? Get real. You're sounding like quick with that kind of overheated and alarmist rhetoric.



Are you expecting Black people to march on Denver and burn it to the ground should Obama get ripped off at the Democratic Convention, DP? Are you anticipating at the stroke of midnight, Obama will jump onto the stage, push Hillary away from the microphone, light a torch and scream, "BURN, BABY, BURN!"

If there is a lingering resentment after the nomination process has ended, it's likely it will manifest with Obama supporters deciding there isn't much difference between a vote for Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The endgame could be Hillary drives up her existing negatives so high she drives Democratic turnout down
to a point of no return.

I wouldn't worry about that happening. If anything, I'd be more concerned that with the lengths she seems to be willing to go through to win, I'm afraid if Hillary isn't the nominee that she might do bodily harm to herself---or at least to Bill.

1) Gloria Steinam and Geraldine Ferraro are full of it. If being black was all you needed for a successful run at the white house then what happened to Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Carol Mosley-Braun, and Cynthia Mckinney? Clearly he is where he is right now because the man has charisma and the gift of gab that people are very receptive to, and his campaign strategy is superior to hers. She didn't have to put all of her eggs in so few baskets like she did. Maybe Hillary could be winning now if she had focused a little more on the smaller states. Funny thing is, you don't hear them wondering out loud about Hillary's chances if she were black.

How soon folks forget that Obama was not always winning. The entire period leading up to the voting her name dominated the news with headlines like "Inevitable Hillary" and "Can Hillary be Stopped?". She was winning in pretty much every poll that counted, and in some by over 20 points. Obama was unquestionably the underdog when the voting started (between the two of them that is). The underdog status doesn't change in the middle of the game when the favored person is losing. So he's still the underdog; he's just the underdog in the middle of winning an upset. Think of him as the New York Giants and Billary as the Patriots.

As far as I know he hasn't gotten any blacker over this primary season, so it doesn't make sense to say that he's only winning now because he's black. He was black when he was losing, too. How can Hillary supporters possibly complain about Barack getting so much of the black vote. I'm sure she didn't have a problem with it when he pulled 9 out of 10 black voters. She even had better numbers among black voters than Barack did for a long while.

2) No she shouldn't resign. She said what she meant to say. As much as I disagree with what she said I think that people should say what they feel. That's the only way we'll ever have an honest discussion and arrive at any sort of resolution over a matter.

3) It hasn't chilled free speech in the sense of increasing the amount of speech that is censored by the government. However, I think that one could argue that people are less likely to say how they really feel about something because of what other people might think about them. No one wants to be an "ist" (racist, sexist, etc).

In addition to the whole myth of an experience gap between the candidates, another thing that bugs me about this primary is how folks say that Barack's ideas lack substance and that he doesn't offer any details. Look at the man's website. He goes in at least as much depth if not more than any of the other candidates out there. He does not decide what stories the media focuses on. How fair is it that practically the only time I've heard his voice in the last two weeks of news is his responses to Clinton's aids.

1) Is Ferraro correct?

I've been pondering this for a week or more now, and I still can't decide. I think this is because its not a simple yes or no type of question. I think there is a degree of truth in what she says, but I can't see how being 'black' is a negative distinction. It may even be that the visual impact of a black man (or a woman) running for the presidency is required to fuel the popular motivation to vote for a perceived change.

In other words, she may be right, but it really doesn't matter one way or the other if Barack Obama gets more support because he's not white. After all, isn't Hillary Clinton also getting support because she is not a man? There are two sides to this coin.


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

I don't see why she should. I don't see what she said as being racist, or in any way immoral. She merely pointed out a simple, but irrellevent truth. By my understanding, any racism here exists in the eye of the beholder.


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?

It has in all aspects of society. Political correctness, by definition is a superimposed false reality for the sake of a political bias.


In other words, its actually racist to not support Barack Obama?

If I had tried to pull that turn in my car, it would have been a rollover to remember.

I see we are down to the strawmen now.

My comments did not address gender at all, thoiugh if ou'd like me to I certainly could. Yes, womens are often victims in America. In the practical terms of physical abuse and if far more insidious psychological damage caused by a resiliently patriarchal culture.

It's not something I overlook but it doesn't support your argument of a PC blackout on criticizing Obama.

Where'd that go?

Looking at some of these responses it's obvious that a lot of people feel this way. It's one of the major points of contention going on here. My question to the folks who agree with this sentiment is when did this transition happen? I'm pretty sure that everyone would agree that at some point being black was a liability, so when did being black stop being a liability in this country for a black person wanting to do something other than entertain?

Is it really that hard to imagine that many Americans wouldn't feel as comfortable with a black president as they would a white one? Is it hard to imagine that some of the remnants of the racial perspectives that abounded in this country just a short while ago persist to this day? The black tax is significantly smaller that it used to be but research shows that it hasn't gone completely away. Put "Latonya" or "Rontrell" on the top of your resume and you'll see what I'm talking about. Don't let the hype fool you, this is still the U.S.

It's funny to see the parallels in the revisionism that occurred during post reconstruction (or "redemption" depending on who you ask) era and the revisionism now, post civil rights era. Both are steeped in this idea that black folk are suddenly deriving these profound societal advantages over everybody else.

I'm not sure where to go in this discussion with you, Turnea. You don't think there is an unnecessary muzzle strapped around the mouths of Americans, especially whites. I do.


You don't think reverse discrimination exists. I do.

End of discussion.

I suppose then there's no room for evidence and sound reasoning?

For explaining why it's supposedly not allowed to criticize Obama and yet he is criticized all the time?

The problem is not irreconcilable differences its that you haven't backed your argument.

No proof Hillary has substantially greater experience and no proof political correctness has silenced anyone.

If you want to stop trying, that's fine but let's be clear on what's actually taking place here.

Not the "end of the discussion," doomed planet. Just the end of your contribution to it.

If you think there's an unnecessary muzzle strapped around the mouths of Americans, especially Whites, then what are you doing to get rid of it? Muttering inside your muzzle singing, "Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me," or yanking it off and making your voice heard loud and clear?

I know reverse discrimination exists. I don't think Geraldine Ferraro (or you) have done much to prove how it applies here to her intemperate and boorish remarks. Rather than making your case, you instead fall back on The Gender Card that this is a man's world and women don't get a fair shake in it.

Newsflash! Non-White men and women don't either, so welcome to the club.

It's not that I want to stop "trying". It's that I realize you and I see the world differently. I have offered explanations on why I feel Hillary is more qualified. She has lived in the White House and been a part of the presidency. Others have tried to diminish it, but she was there for eight years, and saw and interacted on various levels. And before that she was the first lady of Arkansas. She's been around enough to know how the system works and how to work the system.

She has been much more candid than Obama in her plans regarding health care, the economy, Iraq, etc. I have only seen him give conceptual, broad statements that garner huge applause, but offer no tangible plan. If you can supply a link of him being more detailed, by all means, do it. Look back on this thread and you will see a link I posted, where Hillary discusses the mortgage industry. Here is another discussion regarding the situation in Iraq. In this link she discusses, realistically, the situation in Iraq.

Obama is inexperienced in comparison to her. That is how I see it, and until you can offer something that will prove otherwise, that is how I will continue to see it.

One more thing I would like to say, in regards to Hillary vs. Obama. I think we are seeing the real Hillary (bitch and all). But I don't think we've even touched the tip of the iceburg with Obama. I don't think he's showing his real self. I actually find his wife, Michelle, to be way more legitimate than him, in terms of allowing us a glimpse of who she really is.




I'm speaking my mind as I see it, here and now. I know there are others who agree with me, but keep their mouths shut because they don't want to deal with racially charged subjects such as this. I don't walk around worrying how others will view me. I know who and what I am, and I make no apologies for it.



It applies in the sense that she is not allowed to make that statment without being deemed a racist. Do you have any proof that she is a racist? Why should she be stopped from voicing her opinion on that subject, or any other? It is crazy, the degree of censorship that is occurring these days.

I want to answer your post fully, Moif. My last post dealt with how little "thinking" and "listening" I see going on in the American presidential discussion -- the minute a news story breaks, every partisan on board leaps to their safe, warm respective conclusion -- so the sound of somebody thinking this beast through is music. Maybe its cause your so far away.

What Geraldine Ferraro said is, in the most basic sense, totally true. I would not be where I am if I was a Japanese Woman. You would not be where you are if you were a Canadian Hockey Player. If I was a butterfly I would lack the basic typing skills necessary to even respond in this thread.

And as an American, I would probably be less thrilled about a Barack O'Bama, than a Barack Obama.

So, as a koan or a proverb, Ferraro's statements pass the mustard. But it's the resentment behind those words, spoken in the context of a losing race that define her statements.



"Caught up in the concept." "Lucky to be who he is."

Many members of my own family view successful black people this way -- some of them vote in Ohio and upcoming Kentucky. When the one black person at their rural high school gets accepted into a decent college during senior year they say things like "she just got it because of AA" or "I'm blacker than she is."

The profound alienation that can come with being a minority in an apple pie nation never fully reveals itself to them.

They'll judge black people on the distance said black people are willing to create between themselves and the "hood." If a black person speaks properly, seems cool and detached, free from class resentment and anger, is willing to make white friends, they are rewarded with patronizing comments like "clean, articulate, and mainstream" -- to use the set of words Joe Biden aptly tacked onto Barack Obama's rise.
But if that same black person walks into a school, store, or university with gold teeth, their net worth, intelligence, and capacity for decorum are all immediately appraised to be 00.00. In our schools, many of our the teachers skip over them, deeming their cases hopeless from day one.

Finally, when black people try to escape that cruel, age-old house negro-field negro binary, and try to re-claim their african roots, they are dismissed as silly and presumptuous -- I worked at a newspaper not long ago where the editor refused to a run an obituary from an African-American who, in his last days, dictated some thoughts about returning to his Ancestral village in Africa. The words were wonderful and sweet, but in the eyes of an editor in Louisiana, they were laughable. In Ghana, it would have been more or less a formulaic, standard op-ed.

It's as Chris Rock said: "they're either upset because you can't slam dunk, or impressed you know what the letter 'E' is."

All of those apply to Barack Obama, an anger-free successful black star who has tried to walk the trail with one foot in the megachurch of Jerimiah Wright, and another foot in the senate. For most of the race, I watched in profound, glowing appreciation as the discussion over his race was kept largely implicit. True, his skin color is part of what we we're talking about when we called him an "Agent of Change." And once again, we naturally assumed, when it came time to speechify the competition, he would Slaaaaam Dunk. During this whole phase, you're right Moif -- his race was a total boon to his campaign, a wonderful gift, if you will, that he brought to the podium.

But somewhere in the Clinton losing streak, he she and their surrogates began to scalpel up that implicit race thing, and pull out the ugliness that Barack Obama had tried to keep sealed up. Mainly, they began to dismiss him as a "fairy tale," and now, a "caught up in the concept, lucky to be who he is" benefactor of reverse racism. In the sterile, perfect world of a logicians class or a Mac commcercial, I would take those words and say, yep, this country is definitely caught up in the Barack Obama concept.

But in the context of a resentful white America, losing out on a historical me-first that the Clintons feel entitled to, those words sound too much like things I hear when I visit relatives.

By the time the Clintons are through with him, Obama's race may very well have ceased to be a positive, and fallen over into a negative. It was teetering that way all along, and all it takes is one clumsy and scornful old woman to tip the scales and give an angry, vitriolic nation something to "hell yeah" about.

Perhaps but I doubt it. I think his color made him more credible as a candidate of broad inclusion and change. A black candidate who didn't seem to have a chip on his shoulder about matters of race also I think captured the popular imagination. He seemed to be someone who could help heal the rift.

And yes Conason's comments on Ferraro are relevant to her being a so-to-speak unmerited affirmative action pick, but of course this thread is about the merits of her comment about race and gender giving Obama a leg up.


Once again I think both sides played the race card. I'd say the 5 point Obama campaign memo reveals both ends. In the case of the Obama end they cried foul on race way beyond necessity which is to say they played the race card for political advantage while claiming to be strictly the victim. That's the way I see it although I'm sure others will see it differently.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/r...o-_n_81220.html

As I said earlier I'm for Obama but I think he does better when he or his campaign doesn't operate in continuing reactive mode on matters of race and he becomes a transcendent political leader, getting us to move beyond race and into addressing serious political issues. There are always going to be Ferraros around making gauche, unnecessarily divisive remarks. Since what she said was at least arguable, why turn her into a martyr to political correctness when simply a comment on her poisoning the well of a future election would be quite sufficient.

JFK concurs with Ferraro.



I don't believe that anyone has denounced Obama supporter Kerry as a racist for saying essentially the same thing. So, we can see the double-standard thingie here. Hillary support says 'because he's black' - racist. Obama supporter says 'because he's black' - media silence.

McCain, I'm sure, is taking note.

Just as an aside, I believe that the "place of oppression and reppression" Obama came from is ... private school in Hawaii, a Bachelor's Degree at Columbia and Harvard Law? Unfortunately, Kerry is also right on this count - that education probably will give him the appeasement-as-foreign-policy credentials to deal with militant Islam the Kerry wants to.

Oh, by appeasement you mean actually talking to our enemies? General Petraeus seems to be fond of the idea: (From Newsweek's Generation Petraeus)

This article is worth reading by both party's respective campaigns, imo. It requires some intelligence to our foreign policy, so we know it won't happen before January, but maybe afterward. I can only hope.

Of course they did not say the same thing at all.

Ferraro claims that he wouldn't have gotten as far where he not black.

Kerry claims that being black makes him more credible on the world stage as a symbol of fairness.

The difference is substantial.

Though they did say two different things, the message behind both commentaries appeals to the "same coin". Ferraro suggested that were Obama's skin color white he would not have the momentum he has enjoyed in his campaign toward becoming the President and Kerry suggested that because his skin color is black he is therefore uniquely qualified to be in that position. Both parties are playing the "skin color" card though what Ferraro contends is a realistic assessment and Kerry's is foolish appeasement.

Yes, I'm sure that Petraeus would dignify Mahmoud Ahmedinejad with a sit-down for tea, or champagne toast the North Koreans, or have the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah out to Camp David. But, alas, Petraeus isn't running for president.

Obama has proposed exactly that - legitimizing dictators, terrorists and tyrants, just because they are 'leaders' of their respective countries. (and curiously, he advocated bombing Pakistan, an ally) Sorry, but having the world's lone superpower meeting with you gives you credibility, and that means we have a responsibility to use discretion. Prematurely recognizing the coup in Venezuela, for instance, had serious consequences. Showcasing these thugs' legitimacy in the form of a meeting with the US president would have long-term consequences beyond just 'hearing their concerns' and such.

What in the world happened to the liberal Democratic tradition that I remember so fondly, when we didn't want Congress to give China legitimacy and 'most favored nation' status, but the heartless Rethuglicans rammed it through for commerce. How has this party done such a 180º turn? Does this explain the deification of Chavez and Castro? As long as someone is standing 'strong' against American hegemony, they must be worth talking and listening to?


Are you suggesting that hordes of white Iowans and Vermonters didn't vote for Obama because he's a 'symbol of fairness'?

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/107643.html


Seems that he doesn't want to talk to all of our enemies after all. Maybe you guys should get your story straight.

What's the big deal? We're down with China, Equatorial Guinea and Sudan. Putin and Saudi royalty get invitations to Camp David. You know—those people, along with the tacit approval of multinational corporations, who will stand by and let us get killed if we don't facilitate their corrupt business practices. What's wrong with extending a hand to Cuba, NorK and Iran, other than some politicians don't want us to go there?


You got a link to the N.H. article in question and a transcript of the full New Bedford Sunday Times interview?

As I said, when I was a Dem, we were against trading with and legitimizing these guys. I have become more of a free trader given my experience, but still it seems that legitimizing these goons is counterproductive. How many times do we read that Mahmoud Abbas, a guy that still has a nom de guerre, is a "moderate." A what? He's a freaking terrorist, but he meets with us and others and he's treated as if he's a legit government official. Arafat met with Clinton so many times, and it helped him consolidate power and further ruin his own people. I have always been conflicted on Cuba, as to whether trade would help the regime or the people more. I think that "the people" in South Florida contribute greatly to why "some politicians" don't want us to go there.



http://www.southcoasttoday.com/ - click the 'video link' and it's the third one down right now. No way to direct link.

Did we get N. Korea to drop their nuclear program by bombing them, or talking to them CW? Oh, that's right, we spoke to them. And Petraeus would do exactly what you spoke about if it meant reducing the bombings in Falluja (I'm wondering if you even bothered to read the article at this point).


I realize your memory might be a little short, but there is this thing called nuance that seems to escape you. Obama isn't naive enough to think that blindly talking in the fashion you speak of yields utopia, and I suspect you know that. Btw, did you know we bombed Pakistan before we notified them? Kinda proved Obama's point, didn't it? But don't let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good undocumented generalization. McCain looked a little silly for criticizing Obama's support of such an idea. Your arguments here are having a similar effect.


I don't see setting conditions for non-state actor recognition being inconsistent with Obama's original foreign policy principle. I'm sure that's a level of nuance you don't support, but such is life.

No, we didn't.

.
Yes, and they said a lot of things. And contributed to global proliferation of nuclear arms technology and their own programs...



I read it. The 'non state actor' part is kind of why it isn't applicable. I also saw the PPT slideshow by the now deceased (captain / major, can't remember which) army officer, and he talked about working with the sheiks. I get it. But it doesn't make speaking directly with Castro or North Korea OK in my book.

Where did I say he is promising utopia? Just re-directing US policy to speak with enemies, that's all.


If 'nuance' makes you feel better, OK. If you think that he has a foreign policy principle beyond getting elected, again OK. But ... He said that he would meet with enemies of the United States, convicted killers of innocents, terrorists, all without preconditions. He said it without nuance, as I recall.

I don't want to completely derail this thread by talking exclusively about Obama's foreign policy, but I did want to close this by saying that Obama never said he would speak with all our enemies without precondition. He was specific to Iran, North Korea (and one other that escapes me, Syria perhaps?), but did indicate that it would be a principle of his foreign policy. Not talking to Iran for 25 years hasn't exactly yielded much in the way of fruit so I find his viewpoint refreshing in that he's willing to entertain alternative approaches.

Spencer Ackerman has a pretty candid look at what Obama's foreign policy would likely be if elected based on his current team of advisors in this area(obviously we don't know for sure with anyone until they are handed the keys). I thought it was a pretty fair read.

Carlito, nobody who matters cares. Neither party cares what goes on inside foreign borders as long as some lucky regimes meet us halfway in commerce providing commodities/goods we need. Holding out hope by designating a few bad apples unworthy of the same treatment facilitates our self-serving preferential policy towards bad actors with the U S of A preiment among them. Let's legitimize every dictator, terrorist and tyrant and at least avoid political manipulation from within.


So is PM Maliki and his regime is on our Worth Dying For list.


What do Cuban exiles have to do with how we make foreign policy decisions? Are we gonna give a rat's behind what Iraqi exiles not bought by the Central Intelligence Agency want?


No link to the article but it's probably not necessary. Kerry is wrong about anyone doing anything to influence moderate Muslims no matter what they look like. That's an issue moderate Muslims have to sort out themselves.

Don't listen to the Democrat, C. He's just another American politician jumping at the opportunity to talk like V-Day was yesterday and fix the world. Only without bombs.

As to your original point I agree there is a double standard with the media and Kerry's remarks. Nothing out of the ordinary. Double standards abound.

I haven't read this entire thread but just heard on the news that Bob Johnson, BET CEO agrees with Ferraro on Obama. Perhaps this has already been posted but I though it was noteworthy.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/24126409/for/cnbc

Yes, but Johnson is a Clinton supporter, so that automatically makes him a racist. It might be a bit more difficult to dismiss this comment:
That one comes from some guy named Barack Obama - it's quoted on his senatorial web site. You see, Zack, no one is allowed to comment on race and its role in American politics except Sen. Obama and his supporters. Anyone else who even raises the subject is just taking a break from dousing crosses with gasoline. Get with it, man.

Wertz or Zack or anyone else...

Let's agree, just for fun, that Ferraro was just laying down facts. Why did she, a Clinton supporter say this on multiple occasions. What were the purpose of her words?? Some one give me a non-racial reason why a campaigner for Hillary Clinton would run around speaking out on the "fact".

I'll be here waiting....