Listen up, you senile old hag, you haven’t been relevant since 1984, and even then you fucked it up. Worse still, you’re one of the primary reasons the Democratic Party and this year’s primary process is such a fucking mess. You have no insight and no common sense.
The idea that Barack Obama is lucky he’s a black man because otherwise he wouldn’t have it so good against your darling Hillary Clinton, poor little victim of sexism that she is, is so egregiously offensive that I don’t even have the words to express how vile you are. That you dare to call his campaign nothing more than people being “caught up in a concept” is outrageous and deeply hurtful, not only to the black community, but to each and every one of us who have taken the time to do the due diligence to learn about the candidates and choose Barack Obama because we feel he is the very best person to lead this nation, to repair our damaged economy, to build bridges with disheartened Republicans, to bring us a cleaner environment, and to bring our brave soldiers home in as close to one piece as possible.
How dare you make such a despicable insinuation. If Hillary Clinton were half the gentlewoman that Barack Obama is a gentleman, she’d repudiate your comments and both renounce and reject you and your endorsement. But I suspect it’ll be a cold day in Hell before that happens, so do us all a favor and go fuck yourself.
The point I’ve seen elsewhere (sadly, our linking rules prevent me from linking to it) made about these remarks:
“So, the person who became a Vice-Presidential nominee 1) because of her gender and 2) because every female and/or non-white Democratic politician with better qualifications said no is complaining about someone else being lucky?”
Shayna, I’ve read your Ferarro quote quite a few times now, and it doesn’t make any sense to me at all. (went to the link as well)
Umm, well, he is the child of a Caucasian mom and an African dad, who’s worked hard to get to this point, where he’s running for President. Where’s the “lucky” here; it’s really an odd-ass position to be as a politician, yet, he’s getting votes due to his ability to garner admiration from, um, people who want change, including feminists like myself.
Why does everyone that wants to slam Obama always bring up the “Half-black” issue?
He’s “half-white”, for crying out loud!
That’s “half a white” more than Jesse Jackson can claim!
:dubious:
I suppose Clinton diehards aren’t going to look at this thread.
If they were here, I’d ask them, in all seriousness, why does being married to the president count as meaningful experience? Hillary was never hired for any White House job, and could therefore not be fired. She was not elected to anything, and could therefore not be voted out of office. She didn’t have a security clearance for at least part of the time that her husband was in office, so she wasn’t even supposed to be in on some of those foreign affairs meetings.
She didn’t actually run for anything until after her husband had served as president. Most objective observers agree that it was the fact that she was married to the former president which allowed her to take the New York Senate seat. She had no experience in elective office, and no history in New York politics. She flew in, and took a Senate seat in one of the most important states in the US as if by divine right. Other women with substantial histories in NY politics, like six term Congresswoman Nita Lowey, had to stand down so Hillary could make her run.
Isn’t Lowey the real feminist icon? She paid her dues, built up her career on her own, earning the trust and respect of her constituents through decades in NY politics. Why isn’t Ferraro outraged that a hard working woman politician had to yield to an untested celebrity?
Are we supposed to support Hillary because she’s part of the Clinton dynasty? Americans have traditionally been opposed to dynasties, and with good reason.
Clinton started out with enormous advantages. Better name recognition than just about anyone on Earth. A huge campaign war chest. The kind of connections and advisers you can only get when you’re married to the president.
In spite of all this, she lost, and lost badly. Why claim that this is an injustice? Why claim victim status for your candidate when she started out with such huge advantages?
Not in terms of national security issues. Per Federal law, there was a period when she simply wasn’t allowed to be involved.
Then there was the comment from a member of the negotiating team in the Northern Ireland peace talks, where he said that Hillary was little more than a cheerleader. Her claim that she played in integral role was, in his words, “silly.”
The idea that Bill’s achievements (and scandals) are somehow also Hillary’s just doesn’t work for me. As a voter, I want to ask, “Why was she intimately involved in the first place when no one voted for her? If I vote for Hillary will Bill also be involved? How about Chelsea?” People run family businesses this way, fair enough. But it doesn’t seem in any way appropriate for the presidency.
It’s a serious job. Family issues should be kept out of it. Imagine if one of the generals commanding our forces in Iraq insisted that his wife was qualified to lead the troops in his absence because he and his wife always made decisions together.
It’s really remarkable how for ages, a black person can’t get anywhere near this office due to racism; and then, when one finally does, all of a sudden we are expected to believe that it is purely because he’s black. Oh, please.
Your full of shit and you shouldn’t be talking that way about an elder statesperson of your party. She deserves respect. Moreover, Ferarro is dead on.
That fact plain and simple as it is, is that without the black vote,** Hillary would be leading Obama in the popular vote by a margin greater than Obama now enjoys**. If I were black I’d vote for Obama as well, and 13% of the popular vote breaking at a minimum of 70% for Obama makes a huge difference in the outcome of the race. Yes he’s lucky to be a black man, because if he wasn’t, those black votes of his would have been hers.
NO. This woman is campaigning on behalf of Hillary Clinton. She’s a SUPERDELEGATE for og’s sake. She is one of Hillary Clinton’s surrogates!
And she’s going around making hateful, unfounded, racist remarks about a fellow Democrat. On Hillary’s behalf!
Hillary Clinton made a bigass stink about Barack Obama needing to both renounce and reject what was no more than praise that Louis Farakhan gave him, because she, Miss Holier Than Thou, rejected anti-Semitic support when she was running for the Senate, so his renunciation just wasn’t good enough. Nevermind that Farakhan wasn’t supporting, endorsing or campaigning on Barack’s behalf. She just had to try to make herself look better than him.
Well it was not only stunningly wrong, but it’s completely fucking hypocritical to call for that strong of a reaction to praise and then allow a surrogate to campaign on your behalf with ugly racist remarks.
And I intend to go on ripping Hillary Clinton from far and wide until she is safely tucked away back in New York, as far away from the Oval Office as she can possibly get. The woman has done absolutely, positively nothing whatsoever of any import in her entire legislative career. She is completely UNFIT and UNQUALIFIED to be President of the United States. She’s secretive and manipulative and incompetent and divisive and verbally abusive and would make a terrible, terrible, terrible President.
If even half of the honorable Republicans had stood up against that sack of lying shit George Bush during his first Primary race as those of us fighting against Hillary the Liar Part Deux Clinton, we might have been lucky enough to have had a John McCain presidency, which I firmly believe would be nowhere near as bad as that incompetent moron Bush. And I have no intention of letting my party do to the Republicans what they did to us.
FUCK YOU, you sack of oozing shit! NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY who makes ugly racist remarks is deserving of ANY respect, I don’t give a flying rat’s ass who the fuck they are.
Shame on you for trying to make that unworthy, hateful woman become my President.
And you’re just too stupid to even bother to show you how utterly wrong you are in your contentions, so I’m not going to. I’ll leave it for someone who isn’t already sick and tired of wasting the keystrokes on your sorry ass.
Race in no way explains Clinton’s failure to capture educated white voters and younger white voters.
Race in no way explains Obama’s success in states with low black populations like Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Vermont, Iowa…
The Democrats have enjoyed overwhelming support from black voters for over four decades now. So any competent politician is going to take that segment of the electorate into account. Not only did Clinton not take it into account, she and her surrogates actively antagonized it.
Remember, Obama started the primary season polling low among black voters. Then, two things happened. 1) Obama proved he could get sizable numbers of white votes 2) Bill Clinton tried to smear Obama with racial innuendo. This is not a case of ethnic favoritism. This is a case of incompetent campaigning.
Given that uneducated and lower income whites, along with Asians and Latinos, went against Obama by margins of 2 t0 1 and greater, it seems that Obama’s race worked actively against him. The less secure people were in their social and economic positions, the more likely they were to vote against Obama.
Ferraro’s remarks fail to acknowledge the superiority of Obama’s campaign organization. His willingness to put a campaign on the ground in just about every state when there were several states Hillary simply didn’t contest. His superiority at using the internet and social networking sites to raise money. His ability to drum up enthusiasm with his first rate public speaking skills.
Ms Ferraro isn’t a winner because she can’t recognize and acknowledge a winner. Rather than admit that her adversary won because he played a better game, she whines about playing field not being level.
