Geraldine Ferarro, go blow it out your ass!

[cosmosdan]

@The Flying Dutchman

OMG, I’ll have to amend my previous answer.

It was January 13th, 2008. ! Bad luck day.

It turns out that Barack’s decades old friend, pastor, spiritual advisor , the pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ, preaching and campaigning for Obama (who was there) told his congregation and other African Americans through the sale of videos that

“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”

The Christmas before, A Christmas service for fuck sakes, Wright primed his congregation and the video audience with this gem

“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people,” Wright said. "Hillary would never know that
“Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”

Yeah, and Barack has never been called a fucking bitch. And Hillary’s people were slaves and oppressed too, by the very society that crucified your Jesus.

So what does Obama say last week about his spiritual advisor’s message

“Jeremiah Wright … has said some things that are considered controversial because he’s considered that part of his social gospel,”

Enough said.

I read the text from his interview with Hannity here

Evidently there is something called black liberation theology which is his particular focus. I suppose that’s what Obama is talking about

I have no problem with people focusing on a specific thing. If you choose to be an advocate for a specific group then fine. What he says in his church to his own congregation about the problems of being black in America is his business.

When you become part of a presidential campaign that affects every citizen then your view better broaden a bit.

On a scale of “why do we vote for person X?” race, gender, looks, tone of their voice, all have some role.

I think it’s unfortunate the way Ferraro phrased it and a little arrogant the way she repeats it and defends it but it’s not like there was no element of truth in it.

Let’s also factor in the Powers thing. If Hillary had laughed off being called a monster instead of inflating it for political leverage then perhaps the Obama camp would treat Ferrao’s comments differently.

It’s ridiculous to take every word out of context and sensationalize it. I was in hope that Obama and his staff were trying to get away from that kind of political bs and really focus on the issues at hand. I understand them pointing out that Hillary seems to have a double standard buut please please let’s not let the campaign fall into this crap.

[Marley23]

@Shodan

You’re not looking hard enough.

Apparently not.

[grayhairedmomma]

@Originally Posted by Shayna

Please explain. Why were black voters overwhelmingly supporting Hillary Clinton last October, 57% to 33% over Barack Obama? Has his skin color changed in that time? If not, what has? Take your time, I’ll wait.

Just anecdotally based on my personal conversations, a lot of black voters, including myself, didn’t think he had a snowball’s chance in hell of even getting close to winning. When he did well in Iowa and demonstrated that he could win over a significant number of white people, black people started changing their minds. Then, when Bill Clinton made the remarks he made in SC it was a reminder of the “betrayal” black people have experienced in the Democratic Party. They’ve always taken our votes for granted.

@The Flying Dutchman

It turns out that Barack’s decades old friend, pastor, spiritual advisor , the pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ, preaching and campaigning for Obama (who was there) told his congregation and other African Americans through the sale of videos that …

Jeremiah Wright was not an influence on any vote I am aware of. It wasn’t until last night that I even knew his tapes were for sale. You’re way overestimating his influence, nationally, in the black community. The things that he’s saying are not new to anyone who goes to a black church.

What he’s saying is what led black people to not support Barack in the beginning. What this kind of talk seems to do more than inspire people to get out and support a black candidate, is to remind black voters of the glass ceiling.

[42fish]

@elucidator

Hillary was persecuted by the Romans?

Wait, I though McCain was supposed to be the old candidate?

[panda_meat]

@Shayna

And she’s going around making hateful, unfounded, racist remarks about a fellow Democrat. On Hillary’s behalf!

Please everybody, stop using the word “racist” when the definition doesn’t fit the context. Look up the definition if you need help. It means “to oppress based on race”. It doesn’t mean “to discuss racism”. There is nothing wrong with pointing out someone’s race or ethnicity; it only becomes a problem when inferiority is insinuated because of it. Ferarro did not do this, therefore her comment was not racist, therefore you are an idiot for making false accusations and for general lack of reading comprehension.

There is also nothing inherently racist in the observation that race (and gender) are influencing people’s perception of the candidates. That is all that Ferarro said. There is a world of difference between commenting on social trends and believing someone is inferior. I am noticing that the people who consistently fail to notice this distinction are black people and guilt-ridden whites, but this could be my own selective bias.

Quite simply, this is yet another Obama attempt to scream ZOMG RACISM!!1! in order to silence his detractors and distract attention from more serious issues. Expect four years of this if he gets elected. Expect four years of ZOMG SEXISM!!1! if Hillary gets elected. This is why I’m rooting for a whte guy. After an entire year of this crap, I’ve had enough of both.

But you know what? Most Americans have heard the term “white guilt” or can figure out what it means without much context, but no one ever says “male guilt”. What does this mean in terms of which is more intractable, or normalized and invisable?

Personally, I believe some Americans would love a black president, simply so that they could pretend all past racial injustices and current inequalities have been erased.* However, I don’t think most men are even ready to admit that women have ever suffered autrocious injustice because of sexism or that the effects still linger. Racism is something that happens to other people down the street or across the ocean; sexism is something that happens to people you know in your own home. Sexism is far too personal for comfort.
**ZOMG panda meat is racist!!1! *

[asterion]

@elucidator

Hillary was persecuted by the Romans?

Yes, well, what has Hillary Clinton ever done for us?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@panda meat

This is why I’m rooting for a whte guy.

Loved your post, it was dead on. However I do find it disturbing that you feel the country is not quite ready to handle a black or female president.

[Marley23]

@panda meat

Please everybody, stop using the word “racist” when the definition doesn’t fit the context. Look up the definition if you need help. It means “to oppress based on race”.

Shouldn’t you have done the same before posting? Because you’re completely wrong.
A racist (my definition) determines the value or qualities of others person based on the subject’s perceived race. Dictionary.com (Webster) offers these definitions:

racist (adj)

1. based on racial intolerance; “racist remarks”
2. discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

(noun)

1. a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

And defines racism as

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Whether or not Ferarro’s comment was racist, it is perfectly legitimate to describe a race-related insult as racist. You do not have to oppress someone to be a racist.

[Jackmannii]

@panda meat

There is also nothing inherently racist in the observation that race (and gender) are influencing people’s perception of the candidates. That is all that Ferarro said.

Is that all she said? Wow. I could have sworn I also heard her say

"It’s not fair! You said we could have the big toy next!

            * **He** should wait his turn!       **Negro.***

                *  It's OUR turn!*

                 * It's not fair!!*

                  *WAAAAAAH!!!!!"*

[panda_meat]

@The Flying Dutchman

Loved your post, it was dead on. However I do find it disturbing that you feel the country is not quite ready to handle a black or female president.

Thank you, but I make no claims as to what the rest of the country can handle. I only speak for myself. It’s not having a black or female president which frustrates me because I’m sure either one of them would do fine, it’s watching some variation of this thread play continously on every radio station, every news channel, every conversation, for the next four years.

@Marley23

Whether or not Ferarro’s comment was racist, it is perfectly legitimate to describe a race-related insult as racist. You do not have to oppress someone to be a racist.

It is important to determine if her comment was racist, as that is the entire crux of the accusation. I believe that accusation was answered fairly well, and now the next step (since the first one didn’t work) is to repackage the original accusation into what exactly?

“*you don’t have to oppress someone to be a racist”. * No, but you have to cause harm, or contribute to an atmosphere which is likely to cause harm, for it to matter. You’re into thought-crime now, dangerous territory. “You think like a terrorist; therefore you might be one; therefore… what?”

The problem is that these constant accusations of racism where none patently exists only serves to make the accusers look foolish and also reduces the likelyhood of legitimate complaints being taken seriously. I would describe this tendency as either pathalogical or manipulative. It’s really not healthy for anybody and imo it’s gotten worse as the election has progressed.

I understand that there’s a lot of angry black people, but it seems as if a some black people use the slightest exuse to get shouty and some white people just nod their head in shame. It is not healthy to feel guilty for what someone else did, and it’s manipulative in the extreme to encourage guilt where no responsibility actually rests.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying racism is unimportant or non-existent.

It is possible to not-feel-guilty, not-be-responsible, and yet at the same time sincerely want to help black folks and other minorites share a society where they have equal opportunity in an atmosphere of genuine egalatarianism. In the mind of far too many people, they have conflated guilt, responsibility, and help. They are not the same. They are different. You can have one without the other. You can help people just because you want to.

[cosmosdan]

@panda meat

Please everybody, stop using the word “racist” when the definition doesn’t fit the context. Look up the definition if you need help. It means “to oppress based on race”. It doesn’t mean “to discuss racism”. There is nothing wrong with pointing out someone’s race or ethnicity; it only becomes a problem when inferiority is insinuated because of it. Ferarro did not do this, therefore her comment was not racist, therefore you are an idiot for making false accusations and for general lack of reading comprehension.

Sure about that are ya?

When she said

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

That seems to be to be going a bit further than discussing race. She’s pissed because her girl is being beaten and is implying that it’s not because of a brilliant campaign, content of his speeches, and his overall presence and quality of his charecter but primarily because of his race and gender.

That also implies that black voters who used to support Hillary and have switched to Obama have done so because of his race rather than content. She suggests that his supporters are caught up in the idea of a black president rather than having brains enough to really examine the man and choose him as the better candidate.

That’s not the most offensive racism I’ve ever heard but it sure smacks of racism to me. I don’t think she needs to be crucified for it because I don’t think the comments or she are all that significant to the campaign. She’s being more stubborn and stupid than racist.

[monstro]

It’s not racist in a “Kill all the niggers!” way.

Nor is it racist in a “I’m better than those black people” way.

But it is racist in a “I can’t see this person as anything other than a black guy, and neither can anyone else” way.

When this thing was exposed, I was pretty nonchalant about it. But then I read that she said the same thing about Jesse Jackson. It makes me wonder, if black guys have it so easy running for president, why have we never seen one elected before?

But really, the ridiculousness of it outweighs the racism. Obama certainly has appeal because his image aligns with his message of change, but Hillary has appeal because she’s a woman. She has a disadvantage being a woman in a sexist society, but then again Barak’s going up against racism. Perhaps Gerry had a point when comparing Jesse Jackson with Dukakis, but it doesn’t wash this time. This time, it just comes off as silly whininess–the last thing Hillary needs right now.

I admit I’m tired of all the faux outrage on both sides. What’s it going to be next week? “Obama picks his nose and eats the boogers!” “Hillary was a mean girl in high school!” It’s like we’re riding on a long car trip with the two camps fighting in the backseat. By the time we get to the convention, everyone’s going to be bleeding and pulling out their hair.

[Marley23]

@panda meat

It is important to determine if her comment was racist, as that is the entire crux of the accusation. I believe that accusation was answered fairly well, and now the next step (since the first one didn’t work) is to repackage the original accusation into what exactly?

Nobody’s repackaging anything. If you’re going to determine if the comment was racist, you need to start with an accurate definition of racism. Yours wasn’t accurate.
Personally I’ve never come to a concrete answer as to whether the remark was racist in its intent. I don’t care enough. I think it was stupid and wrong, and I have no trouble understanding why others think it sounds racist. Given the question she was asked, maybe she expressed herself exceptionally badly. The way she reacted to criticism didn’t do her any favors. Nor did the fact that she made a roughly similar statement about Jesse Jackson when he was a candidate.

“*you don’t have to oppress someone to be a racist”. * No, but you have to cause harm, or contribute to an atmosphere which is likely to cause harm, for it to matter.

You’ve added a new criterion here and I don’t agree with it. I’ve heard a little bit of casual racism from my grandparents from time to time. It harms no one and probably doesn’t matter, but that doesn’t mean it’s not racism.
Does Ferarro’s comment matter? I hope not. But that doesn’t change the issue. She said what she said regardless of its overall significance.

You’re into thought-crime now, dangerous territory.

Melodramatic nonsense. This isn’t about punishing people for their thoughts, it’s about evaluating the ideas they express using their own words. We all determine people’s intent based on the words they use. It’s an unavoidable part of communication, although if you are thinking that we often over-parse the statements of public figures, I agree completely. When people speak off the cuff, as Ferarro certainly was, they often don’t choose their words carefully.

I understand that there’s a lot of angry black people, but it seems as if a some black people use the slightest exuse to get shouty and some white people just nod their head in shame.

Not to traffic in overgeneralizations or anything.

[tomndebb]

@panda meat

Please everybody, stop using the word “racist” when the definition doesn’t fit the context. Look up the definition if you need help. It means “to oppress based on race”. It doesn’t mean “to discuss racism”. There is nothing wrong with pointing out someone’s race or ethnicity; it only becomes a problem when inferiority is insinuated because of it. Ferarro did not do this, therefore her comment was not racist, therefore you are an idiot for making false accusations and for general lack of reading comprehension.

I have no idea what specially written dictionary provided this definition, but it is wrong. Any sort of separation of people into better or lesser categories based on perceived race is racism. Ferraro claimed (on multiple occasions) that Obama was under-qualified and was being given a pass on his lack of qualifications simply because of his race. That is an example of racism.

@panda meat

Quite simply, this is yet another Obama attempt to scream ZOMG RACISM!!1! in order to silence his detractors and distract attention from more serious issues.

This is simply nonsense. The original reports did not come from the Obama organization and the initial play of this story did not originate from the Obama camp. Now that it has gotten full play in the media and Clinton has finally gotten arond to her tepid That is not really how I feel response, a number of Obama supporters are seizing it for political purpoases, but it is absolutely NOT “simply. . . another Obama attempt” to do anything and your characterization of the situation as such makes it appear that you have not bothered to actually follow the facts.

[burundi]

-edit-nevermind

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

It seems to me that Ferraro is practicing the worst sort of identity politics, in which she cannot see people as anything except for a conglomerate of broad identities: Obama is nothing more than black and male, she is nothing more than white and female, etc. It’s an essentialism in which personal accomplishments or talents are immaterial.

Her defense–an assertion that she was chosen only because she was a woman–is particularly damning. Let’s stipulate that she’s correct; I have no evidence to gainsay her on this. So what? Does that mean that therefore, any woman who is chosen for a veep position must be chosen because of her ovaries? Does it therefore follow that anyone who gains a political following who is not a white male has gained it not through personal talent/accomplishment but through their racial/gender identity?

It’s a narrow, shallow, shitty worldview. I don’t know that “racist” is the best word to describe it, because it’s bigger than racism. It’s a worldview based on stereotypes, one that assumes white males are the default and that everyone else deviates from that default, and that any non-white-male who accomplishes anything has done so only by the privilege of deviation. Idiocy.

Daniel

[descamisado]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

It’s a narrow, shallow, shitty worldview. I** don’t know that “racist” is the best word to describe it, because it’s bigger than racism**. It’s a worldview based on stereotypes, one that assumes white males are the default and that everyone else deviates from that default, and that any non-white-male who accomplishes anything has done so only by the privilege of deviation. Idiocy.

Daniel

Reductionism Deviationionism?*

I just wanted to repeat here and agree with the assertions others have posited that her statements were meant to call forth the spectre of affirmative action and rally those who disagree with it in all forms, understood or not. Whatever the ultimate interpretation and however sound the individual facts were she was marshalling, if this is underneath it all, it’s still wrong.

• Sorry, Shayna, after finally catching up on the all the astute posts that have covered the topic well, it was all I had.

[Shayna]

@5-4-Fighting

• Sorry, Shayna, after finally catching up on the all the astute posts that have covered the topic well, it was all I had.

No apologies needed! After 4 pages of all the ugly accusations, I wouldn’t have blamed you at all for staying out of the fray at all!

Have a great weekend!

[Stratocaster]

@Phlosphr

She’s behind in the popular vote, she’s behind in delegates, and she LOST more states than Obama has, in fact, Obama has WON twice as many states as she has.

Let me start by saying I have no dog in this fight. I’m a Republican, and I’ll be voting for McCain. I ask this only because I’m interested in gaining an understanding, though I’m reluctant to jump into any of these threads, given the invective that ANY position seems to invoke. And if anyone points out that this was asked and answered in post #438 in the thread titled, “Clinton is a Poopy Head,” well, sorry. It’s hard to keep up. (Heck, maybe it was answered in this thread.)

Isn’t it likely that when the primaries are completed (especially if Florida and Michigan are “re-do’s” that go for Clinton, and she wins PA, speculation at this point) that Hillary will have won the states that provide the greatest number of electoral votes, relative to those Obama won? I think that’s correct. If the Dems go into the convention with a delegate count that is less than a 100 difference, the popular vote a whisker’s difference (again, assuming the above breaks they way I suggest), why is the “will of the people” defined only the way the Obama supporters demand?

If the rules permit the superdelegates to vote for whomever they’d like (and the rules do), what’s wrong with someone’s position being that Clinton’s pseudo-electoral advantage is most reflective of how the will of the people will be manifested in the actual election? You may disagree with that, but is it inherently illogical?

Anyone who can answer without calling me a dummy-headed such-and-such gets bonus points. Just trying to understand why the “will of the people” lacks any ambiguity to some in these threads. Doesn’t seem so to an “outsider.” I can see Hillary getting the nomination without it being “stolen,” depending upon how things break.

[descamisado]

I’ll try from my relatively unsophisticated understanding to answer. I think it appears that mentions of the “will of the people” are only coming from Obama supporters because right now he leads in pledged delegates and the popular. If at convention time that still holds true, superdelegates ending up choosing Hillary would appear to be going against the will of the people as represented by those two benchmarks. Of course, if the nominee hasn’t been decided by convention time, the superdelegates can pick whomever they choose, but the consensus in these types of discussions is anything that appears contrary will alienate democratic voters.

It’s definitely not about the single and irrelevant measure of having won the states with the most delegates in general, relative to Obama.

I’m an Obama supporter, but if Hillary is ahead by those two factors in the end and the superdelegates choose Obama, I wouldn’t support that either.