They’re just really disappointed.
They certainly picked a veteran water carrier:
The Daily Kos cite is to Ben Smith’s blog.
You do realize there wouldn’t be so much bashing if she didn’t provide so much fodder?
I’m still trying to figure out what’s so racist about noting that black people are more likely to vote for Barack Obama because he’s black. I mean, black people are more likely to vote for Barack Obama…not only have black voters been more likely to vote for him than Clinton, higher percentages of blacks than whites vote for him. As this article points out, about exit polls in Mississippi:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
and further:
I don’t think it’s racist or “race baiting” to note that, any more than it’s sexist to note that women are more likely to support Clinton.
That might be reductionist, but not racist on its face. The thing is, that isn’t what Ferraro said. She said nobody would be interested in him if he wasn’t a black man.
Here is the article with her initial comments.
She’s basically attributing his success to a combination of sexism and pro-black racism from voters and the media.
Is Obama’s race a part of his appeal? Yes, and not just to black voters. In a way, he physically embodies his message, and that does help him with some voters. But I think Ferraro’s remarks are off base and ridiculous. She dismisses all of his successes as the product of racism, sexism and media coverage, or in her words, “luck.” Because, you know, a black man has so many advantages in our society today. Certainly Obama’s advantages outweight the fact that Clinton was married to the President. 
First off, you interestingly ignore the next sentence in that link. You know the one that stated that in the big state, the one that Clinton believes “matters”, in
And obviously Rendell is banking on the fact that race will matter to many voters in Pennsylvania. Yet Obama has never insinuated (or had a proxy do it for him) that he lost Ohio because Clinton is White or because she is a woman.
But more so that isn’t Ferraro’s claim. The reason for Obama’s success, she claims, for his being the front runner, is no more than the unfair advantage he gets because he is Black. Blacks (y’know, the same people who initially were overwhelmingly for Clinton and who wouldn’t support Obama because, the pundits said, he wasn’t Black enough?) only are voting for him because of his skin color. And Whites who vote for him are just caught up in the excitement of voting for a Black man. (So you other Whites are entirely justified to vote against him because he’s Black. It’s only fair.)
To follow your analogy out - would it be fair or accurate to claim that the only reason that Clinton is in this race at all is because she is a woman and women want to vote for her people are caught up in that? A majority of the votes Hillary has gotten were from women you know. Only a minority of the votes Obama has gotten have been from Blacks.
Yeah, nothing to see here. Hillary obviously doesn’t have what it takes to denounce what ferraro is saying. (guts, morals, etc.)
Here’s Hillary’s lame attempt at an apology:
She’s incapable of issuing a simple apology, she has to throw in that it’s regrettable if either side did it. Obama’s surrogate goes off the reservation and she resigns. Clinton’s does much worse (two long statements in two instances vs. one offensive word) and this is the best that Hillary can do. She is so pathetic.
Well Geraldine surly made an ass out of herself this morning on GMA. further digging Clinton in if Clinton doesn’t flat out reject Ferraro. Wow, just wow.
Oh and of course Geraldine isn’t part of the Clinton Campaign at all, according to her she’s just on Clinton’s Finance Committee… :rolleyes:
Hillary is taking a gamble by keeping Ferraro. She’s probably thinking that everyone who is pissed off at her are already glued to Obama, so they might as well not exist. The only people that therefore matter to her are the 1) die-hard supporters who won’t give up on her no matter how many stupid stunts she pulls and 2) the undecideds. Within this pool of undecideds are those who may like Obama but also would feel guilty/weird for voting for him due to their feminist leanings and/or racial discomforts. Keeping Ferraro on board may sway these people to her team. That’s what she is hoping.
If she cuts Ferraro lose, she may look like she’s betraying a strong female pioneer, and this would risk pissing off many in her base. But strategically speaking, I think that’s a risk she should take. I just can’t see anyone who is voting for Hillary purely because of her gender abandoning her for that. Ferraro is acting like a loose cannon and if I were Clinton, I’d be worried that if people keep sticking the mic in her face, she’ll eventually say something really embarrassing. All Hillary needs is a Michael Richards moment to sink everything that’s she worked for.
Did you watch GMA this morning? Geraldine had her moment in the cameras this morning and blew it. Interrupting Diane Sawyer, saying she stands by what she said about Barak and his race, and further that she thinks Barak wouldn’t be where he is if he wasn’t Black. OUCH.
Then Diane Sawyer asked her about the last phrase in her statment where people are just following a concept in Barak - Daine asked if all the super delegates, and party upper echelon were all just following a concept and Ferraro tried to back track but the damage was already done. Ouch again.
Ferraro should go work for McCain, because she’s doing him more good than Hillary. She knows that, right?
What she is saying, I am confident that a lot of people are thinking. Aside from this ridiculous fracas, unfortunately I see this helping Hillary rather than hurting her. Ferraro is just the hatchet woman here.
I’m not disagreeing, but would you mind explaining how this helps Hillary? Even if I wasn’t a Barak supporter I would find these antics sort of appauling, and I wouldn’t be any more likely to vote Hillary that’s for sure.
You might find them appalling, but perhaps you are not representative of the median voter. Lower working class whites frequently believe that they are the victims of affirmative action, so claims like this have the potential to resonate.
Especially when they come from the only vice presidential candidate chosen by affirmative action.
I see. And working class white voters are part of Hillary’s base. It’s sad but true that a lot of nice folks won’t see this for what it is - it’s not exactly reflective of a well run campaign, but then I think that assertion falls on where your beliefs lie. If Hillary indeed gains any traction from this, it will further this man’s doubts on many fronts about our party.
Maeglin has a point. AA is a hot button issue, even within the Dem party. Gender is often overlooked when it comes to railing about its unfairness; most people see is as a black program. Add in the fact that poor whites and blacks have been pitted against each other since the days of slavery, with poor whites believing that blacks have always had it better than them and yet get all the public’s sympathy, and you’ll see Ferraro’s comments resonating with them.
The question though is how many these people are Democrat?
In heavily unionized Pennsylvania steel country? Three guesses.
Touche.