Should Clinton Reject and Denounce Geraldine Ferraro?

Great Debates
201

[QUOTE=you with the face]
I just checked out that memo Hippy and I agree that it puts Obama’s team in an unsavory light. So you’re probably right that the dirty fighting is not isolated to the Clinton’s, and that’s sad.

You gotta wonder why it’s been so easy for the Clintons to be tarred as the dirty ones, though. I don’t think we can blame it on all an unfairly biased media or a biased electorate. I think its points to the interpersonal skills of the candidates themselves, as well as the establishment baggage they bring with them. On both counts, Obama has an advantage over Clinton, and I don’t think this is irrelevant to their merits.
[/QUOTE]

I agree, it’s not all the media it does speak to the Clinton reputation and poor campaign management. As to interpersonal skills, I’m not so sure. In NH, the question was asked about Hillary not being as “likeable” as Obama but I’m not convinced that’s got relevance that outbalances the other considerations, at least for this voter. Obama is certainly charming. (Calling him ‘articulate’ got Biden slammed as a racist too) :rolleyes:

202

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Oh please. Mugging is a racist term? Holy crap.
[/QUOTE]
It captures the connotation and… traditional fear. A few news shows are running with it as a gaffe. He knows better.

Remember? He was the first black President. He didn’t get that honorary title by being ignorant of race issues…

203

[QUOTE=Hippy Hollow]
Word.

What has irked me about the Obama campaign is precisely this. There is nothing transformative or qualitatively different about the day-to-day operation of the Obama campaign compared to other campaigns. (I will grant that his GOTV and organization around caucuses has been pretty sophisticated, certainly the best I’ve seen.) There’s a facade of transformation, but behind the scenes, there’s plenty of old-school chicanery. Also true on the Clinton side, but the media ignores Obama’s transgressions, and amplifies Clinton’s.

Axelrod is a genius in the respect that oftentimes, unless the evidence is indisputable, his candidate appears to be above the fray and people assume the best of his campaign. Clinton, sullied by years of public examination, usually is assumed to be doing the worst. But Obama’s people have been at this for a while, and getting away with it.
[/QUOTE]

Word to your mutha. LOL Yup, that’s exactly what gets me as well.

I remember George Carlin joking about Bill Clinton and why he supported him over Dole:“…Bill’s full of shit, but at least he lets you KNOW it. “Hi, I’m Bill Clinton and I’m completely full of shit!” I like that. I like my bullshit right out in the open where I can see it. But not Bob Dole. He says “I’m a plain and honest man.” BULLSHIT!”

That’s pretty much how I feel about Obama. The fact that he’s running a campaign every bit as dirty as the Clintons wouldn’t in and of itself be that big of a deal. That’s standard campaigning. His campaign, once again, is after all populated with lots of folks from Bill’s campaigns. But to run on ‘being above it all’ AND run a campaign that’s the same except for that assertion is what’s gross and then to want to press a narrative of the other side playing the race card is just superduper gross. LOL

It’s also why I think in the general HRC will do better than Obama would: her dirty laundry and shenanigans and cruddy image is already known and figure in as where Obama’s isn’t as well known and his Messiah image will start to peel away as time goes on.

Running as being above it all and unlike the “the politics of old” while constantly saying that ONLY the Clintons are running that kind of politics that “people want to get beyond” is STUNNINGLY rich, given what they’ve been doing as noted in that memo and in general. In SC, it was a mugging. They either deliberately baited her by invoking MLK or, if that’s not the case, they certainly took full advantage of what was not a racist slur by reaping the benefits of the AA community feeling that it was. Obama didn’t come out and say wait we shouldn’t paint HRC with this racist brush. He only says such things when it’s convenient and makes him look good and like a healer. Not otherwise.

And that’s just more of the same. But with an extra, deluxe layer of the additional bullshit of being “above it all” layered on top.

You never hear the HRC saying she’s better than politics. She just goes back to the issues again and again to the point of being mocked for being such a policy wonk. I think that’s what we need right now.

In my view, this isn’t a time for grand speeches about racial reconciliation. Thanks, but the economy is dying.

204

[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
It captures the connotation and… traditional fear. A few news shows are running with it as a gaffe. He knows better.

Remember? He was the first black President. He didn’t get that honorary title by being ignorant of race issues…
[/QUOTE]

The fact that news shows are running with it as a gaffe says a lot about the media’s treatment of him in this campaign. If he was ‘the first black President’ then people should know better than to think he’s trying to invoke something racist. IMO.

205

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
The fact that news shows are running with it as a gaffe says a lot about the media’s treatment of him in this campaign. If he was ‘the first black President’ then people should know better than to think he’s trying to invoke something racist. IMO.
[/QUOTE]

It just goes to show you how successful the right was in smearing Clinton over those eight years in the White House. By all measures, Clinton is the most successful Democratic president since FDR. Was he perfect? Hell no. Did he indulge in self-destructive behaviors? Hell yes. But look at how conservatives trumpet the Reagan years. Far worse for the economy, foreign policy (except the USSR thing), and civil rights. But they don’t throw him under the bus.

I don’t want Dems to be blindly obedient to the party line that all Dem presidents are great. But I am chagrined that Clinton, who made the Democratic party electable again, is being labeled with the same type of attacks that the right in the 90s… by so-called Democrats and progressives. Yes, it’s fine to find fault, and there are faults to be found. But again, I would put up Clinton’s record on diversifying government up against anybody’s. And it wasn’t just African Americans, it was Latinos, it was Asian Americans, and Jewish Americans (I actually don’t know if his appointee record on Jewish folks was significantly better than other presidents). And despite the inadequacies of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the lesbian and gay community benefited as well. I know this because I have a number of friends who served in the Clinton administration, primarily at the undersecretary level. The culture of departments changed. Competency with an eye to bringing in diverse perspectives was the new rule.

Yeah, Bill is a little off his game in comparison to his 1992 self. And he can drop that finger wagging stuff anytime. But I think it’s atrocious how Democrats and progressives have treated him, after all he did to integrate government at the highest levels. He deserves better.

206

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Yes, I can and it’s not false. Look around yourself. Trying to ‘prove’ things to you is a waste of my time.
[/QUOTE]

Uh huh! I’ll take that as a no.

Being somewhat influenced by superficial factors, {gender, race, looks,} is pretty normal so I don’t see it as embarrassing but YMMV.

On this specific specific subject It’s at least no more embarrassing to have your vote influenced by their race than it is their gender.

207

[QUOTE=Hippy Hollow]
It just goes to show you how successful the right was in smearing Clinton over those eight years in the White House. By all measures, Clinton is the most successful Democratic president since FDR. Was he perfect? Hell no. Did he indulge in self-destructive behaviors? Hell yes. But look at how conservatives trumpet the Reagan years. Far worse for the economy, foreign policy (except the USSR thing), and civil rights. But they don’t throw him under the bus.

I don’t want Dems to be blindly obedient to the party line that all Dem presidents are great. But I am chagrined that Clinton, who made the Democratic party electable again, is being labeled with the same type of attacks that the right in the 90s… by so-called Democrats and progressives. Yes, it’s fine to find fault, and there are faults to be found. But again, I would put up Clinton’s record on diversifying government up against anybody’s. And it wasn’t just African Americans, it was Latinos, it was Asian Americans, and Jewish Americans (I actually don’t know if his appointee record on Jewish folks was significantly better than other presidents). And despite the inadequacies of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the lesbian and gay community benefited as well. I know this because I have a number of friends who served in the Clinton administration, primarily at the undersecretary level. The culture of departments changed. Competency with an eye to bringing in diverse perspectives was the new rule.

Yeah, Bill is a little off his game in comparison to his 1992 self. And he can drop that finger wagging stuff anytime. But I think it’s atrocious how Democrats and progressives have treated him, after all he did to integrate government at the highest levels. He deserves better.
[/QUOTE]

I agree. It’s partly the media that has latched onto the narrative of Bill being a drag on the ticket and partly, apparently, a real distaste for the idea of “co-presidents” that I think Bill and Hill gave too much credit to and played into too much. That got ceded somewhere along the line, but not sure how really to have played it much differently. It’ll be interesting to see how things go. Obama’s attack on her healthcare plan is also reminiscent of the Republican attack ads in the same exact vein of fearmongering about ‘the government meddling in healthcare.’ It’s been odd to see the Democratic party get fractured by Obama’s candidacy.

208

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
As to interpersonal skills, I’m not so sure. In NH, the question was asked about Hillary not being as “likeable” as Obama but I’m not convinced that’s got relevance that outbalances the other considerations, at least for this voter.
[/QUOTE]

With all due respect, you should be convinced, if you’ve been paying attention to things so far. If this contest has taught us anything it’s that a “nice guy” is going to have an advantage over a “bitch”. Guess what? McCain will be running as a “nice guy”. Hillary’s image as a tough, calculating, cut-throat will prove to be a liability against him, just as it has been against Obama.

History tends to repeat itself.

209

[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
After Bill’s “mugging” comment… she needs to reject and denounce him too. I’m tired of racially tinged rhetoric from Bill - who KNOWS that’s what he’s doing - and then him feigning innocence.
[/QUOTE]

What mugging comment?

And BTW, 9thFloor, “racially tinged” != “racist”.

210

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I am confused. Who are Hillary’s people again and when were they enslaved and oppressed by the Romans or Jews?

211

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Sure. Just like crucifying Clinton for Ferarro’s words.
[/QUOTE]

There was nothing about wat Reverend Wright said that made Obama resemble Tonya Harding.

212

[QUOTE=DSeid]
Sticking to the subject for a minute. I doubt that Wright was the reason that Blacks en masse were turned off Clinton and on to Obama. I think maybe they got turned on to him because they got to know him better and because they felt he better addressed their issues.
[/QUOTE]

The black vote went from 60/40 Clinton/Obama to 40/60 Obama/Clinton after Iowa. Then it went 80/20 Obama/Clinton in South Carolina. Clinton and Obama are so similar on the issues that I can’t see enough daylight there to swing the black vote 40%.

213

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
What would be the non-race-baiting way of making the point that Obama’s popularity is due to his being a novelty act that uses race?
[/QUOTE]

There isn’t a race neutral way of saying that Obama is popular because he is a novelty act that uses race because that is a pretty racist thing to say.

Well, there might be some way of suggesting that blacks are overwhelmingly voting for Obama. But that begs the question. What is the point behind bringing that up if it isn’t to inject race into the campaign and remind all the white folks in the middle part of Pennsylvania that Obama is a black candidate?

214

[QUOTE=you with the face]
With all due respect, you should be convinced, if you’ve been paying attention to things so far. If this contest has taught us anything it’s that a “nice guy” is going to have an advantage over a “bitch”. Guess what? McCain will be running as a “nice guy”. Hillary’s image as a tough, calculating, cut-throat will prove to be a liability against him, just as it has been against Obama.

History tends to repeat itself.
[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, I disagree. I think Hill would beat McCain. She’s not that much of a bitch and he’s not that nice of a guy. But I see your view, it’s a fair one. But under no circumstances will I vote for this neophyte.

215

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
What mugging comment?

And BTW, 9thFloor, “racially tinged” != “racist”.
[/QUOTE]

Yup, except that I don’t believe the word ‘mugging’ to refer to a political play that makes you look bad is a “racially tinged” thing to say except in the minds of those that are deliberately trying to push a ‘race card’ narrative on the other side, as Obama’s team has already been shown to be doing.

Now THAT’S racist. And cynical, politics of old to boot.

216

[QUOTE=Paper Pusher]
There isn’t a race neutral way of saying that Obama is popular because he is a novelty act that uses race because that is a pretty racist thing to say.

Well, there might be some way of suggesting that blacks are overwhelmingly voting for Obama. But that begs the question. What is the point behind bringing that up if it isn’t to inject race into the campaign and remind all the white folks in the middle part of Pennsylvania that Obama is a black candidate?
[/QUOTE]

If there’s no race neutral way of speaking the truth (what I believe to be the truth), and it gets the speaker labeled a racist, then there we are. Pretty sad.

It’s not racist to point out that someone is perceived as a novelty act. It’s not racist to say that that appeal uses race. He is, and it does. So, I guess I’ll add my name to the list of “racists” out there like Bill Clinton.

What was the point of bringing up Hillary’s Wellesley comments as possibly being her attempt to use her gender and thereby inject sexism into the campaign to remind all the men that she’s a female candidate? They can see she’s a female and they can see he’s (half) black. And yet Obama brought it up.

I see your point, but I think it’s fair and to be expected in a hard fought campaign that both sides will try to point out the pink elephants in the room to get voters to reflect seriously on why they’re voting the way they are. They’ve both done that as has the media.

217

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Also, true enough on the 3am ad. Obama’s hope and sincerity speeches are empty hysteria to me, true enough. And there’s the divide of the electorate right there. The ad obviously worked. She won Ohio.
[/QUOTE]

Well, according to the polls, she had already won Ohio but was losing ground. Then she ran the 3am ad and she won back most of her lost round.

Your basic point is that she doesn’t need to reject and denounce because there is nothing wrong with what Geraldine Ferraro said, right? Then why did Clinton half-heartedly apologize for it?

218

[QUOTE=Paper Pusher]
Well, according to the polls, she had already won Ohio but was losing ground. Then she ran the 3am ad and she won back most of her lost round.

Your basic point is that she doesn’t need to reject and denounce because there is nothing wrong with what Geraldine Ferraro said, right? Then why did Clinton half-heartedly apologize for it?
[/QUOTE]

True.

At first, she didn’t. When she did, I think it’s because she and her campaign finally caught on to the fact that they were being race-baited. Anytime she or anyone around her opens their mouth and mentions race, they’re labeled a racist (which was precisely what Ferraro said was happening). I think HRC apologized because she realized there’s no way for her to say anything that wouldn’t be pushed as part of the Obama camp’s narrative of her ‘playing the race card’ even when she isn’t (as was noted in an internal memo of the Obama campaign showing that it is in fact their explicit goal to push that narrative in the media).

Basically, I think she made a political decision that an apology was the best play.

So yes, she does and did need to reject and denounce in terms of the political climate that Obama’s campaign has created. That doesn’t mean I think that Ferraro did anything wrong or that HRC should have to apologize.

But, politics is politics and HRC should’ve known better by now. Thankfully, she’s finally mastered the art of ‘no comment’ this whole last week every time she’s asked for a comment about race and Obama (I can imagine the other side foaming at the mouth for her to use a word they can pounce on and label racist like the word referring to a political ‘mugging’ that Bill used and quickly got labeled racist).

‘No comment.’

219

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
And whatever the level of her foreign policy experience, it’s GREATER than HIS. Which is, of course, the comparison.
[/quote]

Not when her argument is that she is qualified, McCain is qualified but Obama is not qualified. Then the absolute level of her experience is relevant.

OK, so then she was a coward to authorize the war.

Its an authorization to invade.

220

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
I don’t find that her remarks were an appeal to racism or racialism. I find her remarks to have pointed out Obama’s race appeal. What was for my consumption isn’t that I am a racist (as I will trust you’re not implying) but that I liked the fact that someone stood up and said the truth about Obama’s appeal’s sleight of hand that uses race. It was, to me, a case of someone pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. Not an appeal to my racism. Maybe that’s the only kind of consumption you can imagine for that comment, and that’s fair enough, but that’s not how I took it.
[/QUOTE]

If you took away Obama’s race, you would have someone who looks a lot like John Edwards.

If you took away Hillary’s gender and spouse, you would have a politically active corporate law partner making $1 million/year trying to figure out how to contribute more than $2300 to the Obama campaign.

I haven’t heard many people say that Obama’s race isn’t relevant in the black vote breaking his way but it is fact that the black vote belonged to Clinton before Obama won Iowa and even then it was split 60/40 for Obama until South Carolina when the Clinton’s played the race card in preparation for super duper tuesday.