Of course there is a disconnect. She is still trying to win. You can’t expect her to support Obama when she is still in the race. I’ve seen nothing that sets this race apart for other tight campaigns. Compared to close local elections I’ve experienced, this seems pretty seems pretty tame. It will certainly be much worse in the general election for whoever wins the nomination.
Has Obama promised support for Clinton if she were to win the nomination? Maybe he has, I don’t know.
Really, if there is something like that I’d like to read it. My 5 minute googling doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Maybe from before super Tuesday.
He already did Elvis. And when does ones religious pastor/reverend/preacher/ etc…etc… dictate what people do in Washington? Kennedy wasn’t the Pope’s Marrianette was he?
Ferraro was flat out, unequivocally, undeniably, factually wrong.
As I posted to you in the Pit, but will repeat here for those who don’t go to that forum, because this is a very important issue:
** Poll: Black support helps Clinton extend lead**
Wed October 17, 2007
"WASHINGTON (CNN) – Sen. Hillary Clinton’s lead over Sen. Barack Obama, her chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, is growing among African-American voters who are registered Democrats, and particularly among black women, a poll said Wednesday.
"**Sen. Hillary Clinton is the top choice of African-American Democrats, a new poll suggests.
"Among black registered Democrats overall, Clinton had a 57 percent to 33 percent lead over Obama.**
"That’s up from 53 percent for Clinton and 36 percent for Obama in a poll carried out in April.
. . .
"**The former first lady’s strongest support among blacks came from black women, 68 percent of whom identified her as their likely choice, versus 25 percent who cited Obama, the senator from Illinois who is African-American. **
"Black men who are registered Democrats were nearly evenly split, with 42 percent favoring Clinton and 46 percent favoring Obama. The sampling error of that question was plus-or-minus 8 percentage points.
"Black registered Democrats also appeared more sure of themselves than did whites, with two-thirds (67 percent) of blacks saying they would definitely support whichever candidate they had said they favored, versus one-third (33 percent) who said they might change their minds.
. . .
““The ‘sistah’ vote is paying off handsomely for Hillary Clinton,” said Democratic political strategist Donna Brazile. “It’s not only getting her the women’s vote. It’s also getting her the black vote.””
. . .
The simple fact is, if black people were overwhelmingly voting for Barack Obama because he’s black, and for no other reason, they would have been supporting him from the beginning. Clearly that is not the case, as they supported Hillary by a wide, overwhelming margin.
Something changed in that time, and it obviously wasn’t Barack Obama’s skin color.
The pastor does not work for Obama. Obama has already said he does not agree with everything Wright says. Obama’s motivation for going to church might just be to celebrate the Gospel. You can be a good churchgoing person without endorsing all of your pastor’s political views. Ted Kennedy doesn’t let his Catholicism interfere with his support of abortion rights. Why should Obama have to answer for his pastor’s views?
He shouldn’t. How many Priests were jailed in the Catholic Church for Pedophilia? You don’t see the folks making up those Parishes being persecuted…Dig a little more Hill.
Something sure as hell has. A rousing racist “sermon”
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,”
Wright made one sermon that got no media attention and single-handedly swung forty percent of the black vote to Obama? He must be a hell of a preacher!
Yup - and I’m a pedophile because my priest fondled little boys once upon a time. Seriously, Dutch - crucifying Obama for his preachers words is really, really stretching it. Don’t you think?
Well, I’ll give a little on that…but Ferraro was directly talking about Obama, Wright was sensationalized on TV because of his radical views. It doesn’t mean Obama is a radical and Ferraro’s words don’t mean Clinton is a racist. Having surrogates do the battling is silly wouldn’t you think? I mean what else have Obama and Clinton got on each other? Their views are so close they have to attack *something * right???
Um Flying Dutchman … so you are saying that Wright’s rhetoric turned the tide for Obama in the Black community across the United States? He must have sold a heck of a lot of videos. Or are you trying to change the subject?
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.
Gawd, I hate how predictable this all has been. Over a year ago, when he still “wasn’t Black enough”, even I was able to see this coming!
On preview- Ferraro was a Clinton campaign operative. Wright is not. Big difference. It is fair to ask Obama what he thinks of those POVs however. Those questions have been asked and answered.
You want to keep this going? I could make a case that there is a big difference as well. Wright campaigned for Obama with Obama right there in the congregation when he told African Americans that Bill Clinton fucked them. This is the guy who Obama goes to for spiritual advice. Does that sound like good judgement to you?
There is no evidence that Ferarro was ever influential or that close to Clinton , other than trying to get her campaign financing just like Rezko did for Obama.
Spiritual advisor not David Koresh. Big difference. Some in the voting world will see Wright as a wingnut who advises Obama - Others will see him as the pastor at Obama’s Church. BIG DEAL! Spin it anyway you’d like, it’s not going to do what people who don’t like Obama want it to do - it’s not going to drag him down or cost him the nomination. I know, I know, lot’s of Clintonites want it to, but this late in the game he has become the candidate to beat - I’m sorry about Clinton being so far behind…but it’s the name of the game, and the game is being played well on both fronts. The 3am ad gained Clinton some traction, but this, sadly, will not.
I’ll go even further and say I doubt Clinton goes much more negative than she already has…She’s got to concentrate on trying to win the supers…and she’s going to need a lot of help to do that - if she even can.
Not that I think you’ll get it any better this time than all the other times it’s been explained to you, but Hillary Clinton was not “crucified” for Ferarro’s words.
Hillary Clinton was rightfully raked over the coals for not living up to the standards she set by demanding that it is not strong enough to simply “denounce” someone’s racially charged words, but one must reject that person’s support, as she has done in the past.
When one puts down their opponent in an effort to make themselves look all superior, then doesn’t do what she demanded of them herself when the shoe is on her foot, she’s “crucified” for being a fucking hypocrite.
Not the words of another person, her own hypocracy.
Ferraro’s tripartite sins were: (1) over-stating something fairly obvious; (2) sour grapes; (3) being irrelevant.
(1) The attention Obama has garnered is largely related to his race. So what? The attention HRC has garnered is certainly not unconnected to her sex, nor is the way her candidacy has been parsed (on balance, I think the double standard has helped her – she may well have won NH by calculated weepiness, which no male candidate could (I hope) expect to win him anything but a quick trip back to his home state). Hell, McCain’s reputation and appeal is hard to separate from his war hero shtick (to characterize it a bit pejoratively). Yes, Obama gets votes and attention for being an “articulate black candidate.” He also gets votes and attention for being charismatic, novel, etc., period. Another thing about Obama’s race that makes him noteworthy: he’s arrived on the scenes as a “non-threatening” black candidate at a moment that – lucky for him – represents a strategic confluence of racial attitudes. That is, as the numbers indicate, blacks will still largely vote as a bloc for a lone black candidate (Obama has neutralized the “not black enough” suspicion with his recent 81% showing among blacks), but whites will no longer necessarily vote as a bloc, or even by 51%, for a lone white white (or, put differently, against a lone black). This makes for a compelling electoral statistic and tactic, not least for Dem. strategists (even the GOP has not been immune to swooning love affairs with dubiously-qualified but ‘white-friendly’ candidates, cf. J.C. Watts). It was in poor taste of Ferraro to call attention to this electoral math because, among other things, it may question some progressive assumptions or point up the fact that blacks are still likely to vote largely on race-loyalty lines than are whites. So, she pays a price for ham-handed political judgment – that’s how the game is played.
(2) If Obama is enjoying a “black friendly moment” in American electoral politics, when blacks and whites both decide it “we may be ready” for a black president, it is more than apparent that Ferraro was motivated by frustration that her own '60s-'70s-bred ideological feminism has not been similarly vindicated – I don’t think the Obama campaign has been one iota more guilty of “it’s our turn” thinking than has HRC’s, and it’s painfully clear that Gerry is angrily bitter at the possibility of her vindication-by-proxy as the token standard bearer being snatched away by another “minority.”
(3) Geraldine Ferraro? She’s still around? Reminding people of the humorless anger that so limited the electoral appeal of doctrinaire feminist campaigns? Isn’t there something a little . . . early-Pet-Shop-Boys-era about even hearing from her? Wouldn’t it be a little like a posthumous endorsement from Tip O’Neill or Paul Laxalt?
