[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Sigh. I’m merely backing Ferarro. What Ferraro says is true. Obama wouldn’t lead Clinton if he weren’t black.
[/QUOTE]
Wahoo, such insight. But I think you’ve missed some of the point here- what is annoying some people here is that she isn’t talking about his support from black voters. She’s saying there are only two reasons people are voting for him: he’s black and they’re sexist. That’s not about black voters, it’s about all voters.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
What Ferraro says is true. Obama wouldn’t lead Clinton if he weren’t black.
[/QUOTE]
But there’s just no evidence of this.
If Obama weren’t black, the calculus would change - no one is naive enough to doubt that - but you have no way of knowing in what direction it would change. I am absolutely certain that there are people who have given their primary votes to Hilary Clinton because they are convinced that America will not elect a black man President. These people may even consider Obama a better candidate, but a less electable candidate. There is no way to quantify the role Obama’s race has played in his current lead, and your (and Ferraro’s) attempt to state as bald fact what is completely unverifiable opinion is irrational.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Make that " if Clinton were a man"
[/QUOTE]
You were right the first time.
(OK, cheap shot. But someone had to take it. 
)
Geraldine Ferraro is a monster.
Two motifs are present in the Clinton offensive playbook: race and charm. Diminish Obama by attributing his success to those superficial, merit-less things, that’s the game plan.
I find Ferraro’s comments disappointing not because I think they are racist. I just find her argument so very typical of the persecuted mindset that thinks there is a thing called “black privilege” that constantly victimizes white people–both men and women. So we’re supposed to believe that Hillary’s gender confers no advantage, no pluses, only hardship and discrimination. But apparently Obama is smooth sailing because everyone loves black people and is always giving them a helping hand, giving them jobs and other things that they don’t earn. It’s the same idea that is floated in discussions about Affirmative Action. I harp on this, yes, but it’s true: the scrutiny always turns disproportionately to black people.
Ferraro is giving credence to the notion that a black person can’t attain a high-status position without their race overshadowing their qualifications. She is giving a nod to the whole “he only got the job because he’s black” prejudice that she and others should be decrying, if they want to attract the black voters that left Hillary back when Bill opened his silly mouth. It’s one thing to give up on getting black people to vote for her. But to go out of your way to alienate them just so you can appeal to the voters who feel that the darkies get everything handed to them? Whose side is that really helping? Makes you wonder.
Meant to also say that we’re supposed to believe that Hillary’s gender and race confer no advantage…because it’s clear in Ferraro’s statement that she believes being black trumps being white and being female.
And if Hillary hadn’t been married to Bill, she’d be in the position she is now? Ha! She is the epitome of the privileged candidate, just like GW Bush. I can see that maybe she’d be in the Senate-- someone like Boxer or Feinstein. A well regarded Senator in Democratic circles, but not Presidential material. She gets that mostly from Bill.
[QUOTE=Belowjob2.0]
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?
[/QUOTE]
Exactly! Hillary Clinton’s only excuse for losing this nomination is her own inferiority when compared side-by-side to her opponent. She not only had the war chest, the name recognition and the connections (one of whom is a former President!!!), but she had a clear and commanding lead of at least 30 points nationwide just a few short months ago. If Barack Obama were only beating her because he is black, he’d have been way closer to her in the polls from the very beginning.
But what’s obvious to anyone who isn’t a racist asshole, is that Barack Obama has built his lead slowly, over time, by working his ass off, talking to voters, getting his message out and earning their trust and their vote, taking many of them away from Hillary Clinton, who they supported in much larger numbers from the beginning.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
She was[n’t] exactly relevant THEN either.
[/QUOTE]
Notice I added the part about her fucking it up. 
[QUOTE=Belowjob2.0]
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…
[/quote]
Bingo, once again. This is another perfect example as to why, when Hillary’s supporters reduce Barack Obama down to nothing but his race, they look like utter morons.
Which also brings up another good point – black voters are overwhelmingly Democrats, so one way or another, the likelihood is that they’re going to vote for one of the Democrats in the primaries – even if they are all white candidates. So this just illustrates another reason why Ferraro’s contention that Obama wouldn’t be in this position if he were white, is utterly without foundation. They’d have to pick one of them, so what makes her so damn sure they’d be picking Hillary Clinton over a white Barack Obama with all the same messages, campaign style and savvy, and platforms?
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Haven’t you been reading Shayna’s threads lately? If she could think of something else to rip Hillary Clinton apart over, she’d have already posted it. And then complained about how terrible negative politicking is.
The biggest negative I can see about Obama at this point is his followers. I’m distrustful of anyone who can attract this kind of blind irrational devotion and worried that if I vote for the man, I’ll be empowering the cult.
[/QUOTE]
Oh bullshit. I’ve posted exactly one other thread about Hillary Clinton; the one I linked to right above in this very thread, asking her supporters to give me even one goddamn thing that woman has done in her entire career that makes her qualified to be President of the United States of America, exactly the same way the Obama supporters have been called on to do the same in multiple threads, time after time after time. And funny that, not one single direct answer. Wonder why that is.
[QUOTE=Crocodiles And Boulevards]
I find it funny how some people can turn any comment regarding race into a racist comment.
When, if you get down out of fantasy land and listened in on any American minority’s daily conversations, race and comments about race (such as the one quoted) are constantly a part of the dialog.
I find the most egregious offenders of this oversensitivity to be… white people.
But gosh, it’d be racist to say that, right?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, actually, you would.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I’d say the evidence shows that 20% of black voters deviated from the general voting trend of democrats resulting in an Obama lead that would otherwise be an even greater lead for Clinton.
[/QUOTE]
What evidence? What deviation? Black democrats are voting for a DEMOCRAT. That’s not deviating from the general voting trend of democrats! You really are dumber than a box of hair, aren’t you?
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
If Obama weren’t black, the calculus would change - no one is naive enough to doubt that - but you have no way of knowing in what direction it would change. I am absolutely certain that there are people who have given their primary votes to Hilary Clinton because they are convinced that America will not elect a black man President. These people may even consider Obama a better candidate, but a less electable candidate. There is no way to quantify the role Obama’s race has played in his current lead, and your (and Ferraro’s) attempt to state as bald fact what is completely unverifiable opinion is irrational.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not at all convinced that the calculus would change. All other things being equal, given that the same black voters would have the same two candidates, with the same messages, the same campaign tactics, the same Legislative histories and so on, I still think he would be drawing the same voters he’s drawing now. He’s the more qualified candidate, with the the better run campaign and the more hopeful message. Why wouldn’t they?
[QUOTE=you with the face]
I find Ferraro’s comments disappointing not because I think they are racist. I just find her argument so very typical of the persecuted mindset that thinks there is a thing called “black privilege” that constantly victimizes white people–both men and women. So we’re supposed to believe that Hillary’s gender confers no advantage, no pluses, only hardship and discrimination. But apparently Obama is smooth sailing because everyone loves black people and is always giving them a helping hand, giving them jobs and other things that they don’t earn. It’s the same idea that is floated in discussions about Affirmative Action. I harp on this, yes, but it’s true: the scrutiny always turns disproportionately to black people.
Ferraro is giving credence to the notion that a black person can’t attain a high-status position without their race overshadowing their qualifications. She is giving a nod to the whole “he only got the job because he’s black” prejudice that she and others should be decrying, if they want to attract the black voters that left Hillary back when Bill opened his silly mouth. It’s one thing to give up on getting black people to vote for her. But to go out of your way to alienate them just so you can appeal to the voters who feel that the darkies get everything handed to them? Whose side is that really helping? Makes you wonder.
[/QUOTE]
Yep. That comment just feeds right into this mentality and only serves to cause more anger and resentment towards blacks in general, but especially those who are high achievers. It’s despicable.
[QUOTE=Muffin]
Experience? Simple: the Clintons function together.
[/QUOTE]
Brain bleach! Brain bleach!
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I wish her kitchen sink strategy would pull her down the drain.
[/QUOTE]
I tried to imagine that. Now my head hurts.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Sweet Jaysus, do you ever stop screaming? Cork it!
Hillary has disagreed with the comments made by Ferarro.
What more do you want, for her walk on her hands and knees through broken glass?
[QUOTE=kevja]
Hillary has disagreed with the comments made by Ferarro.
[/QUOTE]
Can you supply a cite? I’m interested to see the tenor and extent of the expressed “disagreement” and all I found was:
[
](http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Disagreeing_with_Ferraro.html)
[QUOTE=kevja]
Sweet Jaysus, do you ever stop screaming?
[/quote]
Another Clinton supporter who’s an Amazing Kreskin. Wonder of wonderment, you can actually hear the volume of my voice through your computer screen? You’re awesome!
As I said at the very beginning of that post, NO.
What I want from her is not one single thing less than what she demanded of Barack Obama when he said he renounced the nice words said about him by Louis Farrakhan. That wasn’t good enough for her. She had the cojones to stand up and reject the anti-Semitic group who offered their support in her NY Senate campaign, so he should have at least as strong a response to Farrakhan. As if rejecting was oh so much firmer a stand than mere renouncing. :rolleyes: So he renounced and rejected Louis Farrakhan’s words, which was all he had offered, not support, not fund raising, not campaigning; praise.
Well if rejecting support when it comes from someone who makes hateful remarks is so goddamned important to Hillary Clinton, I fully expect her to reject the support of Geraldine Ferarro. Nothing less will do. Nothing. Those are her terms, so I damn well expect her to abide by them. Simple as that.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Broad brush? I never said that. As you say later, it is true in some cases. I’d say the evidence shows that 20% of black voters deviated from the general voting trend of democrats resulting in an Obama lead that would otherwise be an even greater lead for Clinton.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Shayna]
. What evidence? What deviation? Black democrats are voting for a DEMOCRAT. That’s not deviating from the general voting trend of democrats! You really are dumber than a box of hair, aren’t you?
[/QUOTE]
God you sound shrill. If you settle down, you might be able to comprehend I specified 20% of blacks deviated from the general voting trend of democrats. If they didn’t, Hillary would have at least Obama’s present lead in the popular vote.
We can argue about the motivation of the 20% of blacks as much as we can argue about where Ferarro is coming from, but the fact remains that on the surface Ferarro’s comment is correct.
And Shayna, if you would change your mind about whether Ferarro’s comment is true or not, I would gladly present the evidence that 20% of blacks deviated from the norm in voting for Obama, and if these 20% where more reflective of non black democrats, and 80% of black democrats, it would completely reverse the standings in the popular vote as it now exists.
Oh, and I can’t take credit for this because I found it in the comments section of the CNN article on this subject, but Ferraro was partly right, but not in the way she was implying. Barack Obama might very well not be in the position he’s in now if he were white – he’d be in a better position!
[QUOTE=Shayna]
Oh, and I can’t take credit for this because I found it in the comments section of the CNN article on this subject, but Ferraro was partly right, but not in the way she was implying. Barack Obama might very well not be in the position he’s in now if he were white – he’d be in a better position!
[/QUOTE]
Feel better now Shayna?
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
God you sound shrill. If you settle down, you might be able to comprehend I specified 20% of blacks deviated from the general voting trend of democrats. If they didn’t, Hillary would have at least Obama’s present lead in the popular vote.
[/quote]
Oh that’s rich, you talking about reading for comprehension. Listen up, there is no evidence that 20% of blacks deviated from the general voting trend of democrats. They have 2 democrats to choose from, and they’re choosing Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. Since there are PLENTY of reasons why ANY voter would make this choice, you cannot attribute it to race, let alone call it a deviation.
Reading comprehension, dear. Reading comprehension. You have been disabused of that false notion throughout this thread, but you flat out refuse to acknowledge any of the cogent points that don’t support your wrong assumptions.
OMG, that’s hilarious. Look, either put up or shut up. You either have the evidence or you don’t. Your presenting it should have nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of conditions you set for me, let alone that I abandon logic and reason to agree with you.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Feel better now Shayna?
[/QUOTE]
No you dumbass, that’s not what she was implying! She was implying that Barack Obama is only in as good a position as he is because he’s black, and that if he were white, those votes would be going to Hillary, not him.
Seriously, are you really this dense?
[QUOTE=kevja]
Hillary has disagreed with the comments made by Ferarro.
What more do you want, for her walk on her hands and knees through broken glass?
[/QUOTE]
As somebody who is much less emotionally invested in this than Shayna is (no offense intended), I would go to bed with a smile on my face if the Obama campaign asked Clinton’s people to “both reject and denounce” Ferraro’s remarks. I hate when candidates play the denouncing game, but I’d make an exception in this case.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
No you dumbass, that’s not what she was implying! She was implying that Barack Obama is only in as good a position as he is because he’s black, and that if he were white, those votes would be going to Hillary, not him.
Seriously, are you really this dense?
[/QUOTE]
Shayna I was implying that a differnet source playing the race card in your favour seemed to have settled you down.
