About Channel '08  |  Blog Partner: PrezVid.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed  (What's RSS?)

Ferraro Speaks Out Again

Geraldine Ferraro responded to criticisms of her comments of Barack Obama this morning on ABC's "Good Morning America" and CBS's "The Early Show," refusing to apologize for what she said about Barack Obama's candidacy.

Ferraro recently told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif. that if Obama were "a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, 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."

Today Ferraro told ABC she was "absolutely not" sorry for what she said.

On CBS, she called out Obama adviser David Axelrod, who Ferraro says has asked her in the past to support other minority candidates he's worked for, including New York City mayoral candidate Fernando Ferrer, and New York gubernatorial candidate Carl McCall.

"He did it with Bill Clinton, he was successful. He did it with Ed Rendell, he was less successful, and he's certainly not going to be successful with me," Ferraro said of Axelrod.

Earlier in the broadcast, Obama responded to Ferraro's comments:

"Geraldine Ferraro was I think a trailblazer, and I respect her for that. Obviously, I strongly disagree with her comments. I think if you think about the history of this country, the notion that being black American named Barack Obama paves the way for the presidency, doesn't I think ring true with most Americans."

-- Ed O'Keefe

By Ed O'Keefe |  March 12, 2008; 11:16 AM ET Hillary Rodham Clinton
Previous: O'Hillary | Next: The Commander-in-Chief Threshold

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Mrs. Ferraro said the same thing about Jesse Jackson when he ran for president. All voters need to do in 2008 is substitute Jackson's name with Obama. How sad!

Her comments from the 1980's were posted on The Politico website:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html

Posted by: Truthseeker | March 12, 2008 11:43 AM

Ferraro's comments to The Daily Breeze newspaper are right on target in describing the teflon-coated candidacy of Barack Obama. Whenever Obama stands up to mesmerize an audience of kids and politically correct, he plays the race card; he parries any critical comment about him as "racist"; blacks who want to vote for Clinton are bullied and insulted; blacks are voting as a bloc--85% in one state,91% in Mississippi. He has combined a civil-rights movement with a political candidacy to get a prize. This is our country at stake. Go to www.savagepolitics.com for considerable background information.

Posted by: zaney8 | March 12, 2008 11:51 AM

I too agree with Ferraro, and I'm glad that she point it out. I feel like American freedom of speech has been violated. I'm really sick of this race card to an extreme.

I'm neither white nor black so I will say this: White folks need to stand up against this accusation of racism. This will always be an issue if never addressed.

Posted by: Sammie | March 12, 2008 11:52 AM

Superdelegate Spitzer's damage to Hillary will be forgotten quickly, but her advisor superdelegate Ferraro's racism will be remembered by the voters. If the Florida primaries are repeated, Hillary will discover that she is getting a lot less votes.

Posted by: bodo | March 12, 2008 11:59 AM

A Statment of fact boy menopausal women are bi-polor. Geardine and Hillary go get a fan and cool off.

My mother is turning over in her grave. She love Gearldine when she ran and lost for Vice President.

She picked to smallest paper in California to make this comment. Bill and Hillary gave her the go ahead.

CLINTONS THINK WE CANT SEE THE FOREST THROUGHT THE TREES. YES WE CAN!

Posted by: MsRita | March 12, 2008 12:02 PM

Racism is not really racism, it is just true colors shining (sorry - I forgot the politically correct term)

Posted by: ratl | March 12, 2008 12:04 PM

If Geraldine Ferraro had uttered these poisonous words in a workplace, she would have been called out for creating a hostile work environment. She ought to be called out, her comments renounced and rejected.

This is not about political "correctness," as so many are fond of saying, but about a basic respect for others.

Her comments diminish not only other black people but by extension all people who don't happen to be white and our society in general.

Her comments do a disservice to her history as a trailblazing candidate for the vice presidency, and they serve as a poor model for Americans, who need to treat others who are not white with respect and not subject them to racial objectification.

Posted by: J. Rodriguez | March 12, 2008 12:05 PM

Obama's message of reaching out to others and working together to solve the problems that plague our country -- to get past the division and divisive tactics of the past -- is particularly meaningful and relevant because he's black. His position as the front-runner for the democratic nomination reinforces the belief of many Americans that anyone can rise to the top in our society, no matter their creed or color.

But that's not what Ferraro meant. She is belittling his accomplishments and significance by defining him primarily by his race, and that is shameful. Given the opportunity to clarify or amend her remarks, she simply reiterates them. Amazing. Is she utterly unaware of the deep irony of herself talking like this, when I'm sure after she overcame significant sexism to achieve many things, her gender undoubtedly played a role in her selection to various posts? Is she unaware that the primary reason her candidate is a serious candidate is her role as the wife of a relatively successful president? No doubt she is aware of it, actually, and this whole thing is just another cynical play by the Clinton campaign to diminish Obama in any way they can (e.g. suggesting him as a vice presidential candidate).

As a white, jewish, woman over forty, I take very seriously my party's history of leading on racial justice issues, and I am beyond disgusted with the repeated playing of the race card by the Clinton campaign (recall WJC's comparison of Obama and Jesse Jackson). They are employing a southern strategy that Lee Atwater would be proud of, and it's appalling. I wonder if they have figured out how they would possibly win a general without the black vote -- but I suspect they don't care, they are just looking to PA and they'll figure out the general later. As a DC resident my vote doesn't really matter, but as a frequent contributor maybe I do, a little, and there is no way I can support someone with absolutely no character like her.

Posted by: hardcoredem | March 12, 2008 12:10 PM

She is absolutely correct. Further more to spin her statements as racist is an Obama political foil. What she is saying is that neither Jesse Jackson nor Obama are qualified to be president regardless of the color of their skin. If Obama does become the president the country will find that out in short order. Social movements do not make for effective presidents. The religious movement that put Bush in office created the disaster we have now and the movement to put Obama in office will prolong it. Possibly even exacerbate it because of the divisions it is creating in the party.

Posted by: nonna | March 12, 2008 12:12 PM

I was really proud of America a couple of weeks ago. I felt that we went beyond the color of ones skin. But since Hillary is throwing the kitchen sink everything goes! Race shouldn't be an issue, and the democratic party will pay a price for this. Record number of people are voting, people that never voted before are doing it for the first time. And this is what we have to offer? I'm offend by bring race into the debate just as I would be about gender!

And Ferraro's comments where planned, it's a setup for Penn. Hillary, shame on you..I thought you were better than this! Now I know!

Posted by: David | March 12, 2008 12:13 PM

Idiots! Every last one of you, IDIOTS!!! We have suffered for 8 miserable long years under the rule of king george and rather than come together to make sure his successor, John McBush doesn't get into office and continue bushes policies, we self destruct. IDIOTS! IDIOTS !!

Posted by: pj4521 | March 12, 2008 12:14 PM

The dinosaurs of the Second Millenium pontificate.
Ferraro: Obama's lucky to be winning just because he's black.
Rendell: Obama's worthy but can't win Pa because he's black
Bill Clinton: Obama = Jackson; they're black.
Finally the Clinton campaign speaks with passion and hope on an issue: that racial profiling will prevail in the election.

Posted by: sean O | March 12, 2008 12:15 PM

Ferraro: Obama's lucky to be winning just because he's black.
Rendell: Obama's worthy but can't win Pa because he's black
Bill Clinton: Obama = Jackson; they're black.
Finally the Clinton campaign speaks with passion and hope on an issue: that racial profiling will prevail in the election.

Posted by: sean O | March 12, 2008 12:16 PM

Were anyone to say that Hillary would not be in the position of competing for the Democratic nomination unless she were a woman, I would take that as a blatantly sexist comment, disrespected her innate strength and judgement.

What a cynical trap. Damned if you don't succeed, and if you do, damned and dismissed because your success was just a product of your race. No way to win. It feels like a segment of the Democratic party is much more comfortable with "Just go to the back of the bus and vote for us."

And Ferraro claims she has no connection to the Clinton campaign while serving on the finance committee.

Barack Obama deserves to be the democratic nominee.

Posted by: Eric Wilhelm | March 12, 2008 12:20 PM

The stricking thing here is that Mrs. Clinton is using all these attacks as ways to scare white voters to not trust Obama from the pictures to the "far as I know comment" on Obamas religion and the late call message. These things scare whites and the uninformed. Very good way to get votes but it may cause black voters to realize that the DEM party only serves you if you blindly serve them. If Clinton is successful the Black Vote will be lost forever and the tensions on race will go back to Rodney King & OJ. Most inportantly blacks will be considering voting for a REPUBLICAN Pres.very seriously. McCain may surface as the bridge builder in all of this.

Posted by: Stanley | March 12, 2008 12:20 PM

Mrs Ferraro is on the money, and we'll see that when Obama is elected to a single term in office. If you want to see a real parallel, look at the the David Dinkins mayoral debacle in NYC. The only things NY got out of that administration were Arthur Ashe Stadium and 8 years of Rudy.

While it is clear neither candidate has any real "executive" experience to speak of at least Mrs. Clinton has been doing more in the Senate than simply running for president. In fact, we has much more experience in federal government than he, and while everyone likes to say she voted for the war, almost every senator voted for it. Move on people... her strategy is more sound or Richardson would still be on the ticket.

Posted by: Savard | March 12, 2008 12:23 PM

What a pathetic figure Ferraro is becoming with these comments. So... her entire career was paved by being female, I assume? Oh noooo, I'm sure that's totally different. And Hillary, who without the blind "want a woman in the White House" vote would be long gone in this race, is not benefiting from some of that? Oh, I'm sure it's more about her deep foreign policy credentials - giving a speech in Northern Ireland and answering the phone for Bill at 3 AM. Yes, I'm sure Ferraro's argument cannot be used in reverse. (Clinton will "demonize" you if you do, anyway, like she promised her aides she would do to anyone who got in her way.)

Just pathetic. Is it possible that Ferraro is simply still smarting from LOSING THE 1984 ELECTION TO A MAN WHO GAVE GREAT, INSPIRING SPEECHES? Why don't you lay down on the couch here Geraldine and tell us all about your unresolved bitterness.

Posted by: Mark | March 12, 2008 12:38 PM

I happen to agree with Geraldine Ferraro and I don't like the fact that she should be censured or thrown under the bus for saying what many people feel is a truism.

Enough with the race card already.

Trying to b.... slap a woman because of her opinion is b... s...

there

Posted by: lnd | March 12, 2008 12:39 PM

It is nice for her to try to frame it differently today, but listen to the whole interview on radio that she gave back in Feb, after her op-ed piece in NYT. Judge for yourself if her explanation holds any water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqL_sm0J8jc

Posted by: Outraged | March 12, 2008 12:43 PM

what a disgusting monster.

Posted by: mike d | March 12, 2008 12:44 PM

Ferraro is just plain ignorant to make such remarks. She is just as igorant as theguy who tried to diminish Larry Bird as only being a star because he is white. Obama and Bird are both stars in their respective filds because of what they do and how they have distinguished themselvs from other journeyman such a Ferraro. I hope the DNC, Dean, Gore, Edwards and Richardsn put an end to this by telling Clinton to fire her and get Ferraro to shut her stupid trap.

Posted by: Paul J. Nolan | March 12, 2008 12:47 PM

As much as I admire Obama, although I will not vote for him, or Clinton for that matter - but Ms Ferraro speaks the truth. I also wonder - here we are in the middle of a war - and I have yet to hear anyone question that neither of the Democratic candidates has much if any experience in the military world or the Intel community - I'm not talking about committees they might attend every six months - I'm talking real world experience and understanding of the real situation. "Bring the troops home!" just to get a cheer from an audience is not a well thought out plan.

Posted by: PBW | March 12, 2008 12:50 PM

Structurally, Geraldine's argument is identical with arguments made for the inferiority of people of African descent, women, and other groups throughout American history. The strategy is to reduce a person's subjectivity and humanity to the status of a gernalized object. For years, people have argued that people of African descent were inherantly inferior because of their Black skin. Now, Geraldine argues that Obama is successful because of his black skin. Structurally, these arguments are identical.

Posted by: concerned | March 12, 2008 12:51 PM

For years, people have argued that people of African descent were inherently inferior because of their Black skin. Now, Geraldine argues that Obama is successful because of his black skin. Structurally, these arguments are identical.

Posted by: concerned | March 12, 2008 12:54 PM

Here's a great piece on Ferarro's racist remarks from the American Spectator website.


"Ferraro's condescension captures the tone of paternalistic liberalism perfectly. Its "victims" should know their place and plot their ascent according to the progressive charts set up by the white liberal establishment.

We'll let you know, Barack, when it is your time to win -- that's been the tacit theme of the Clinton campaign all along. Such is the generosity of Lady Bountiful she'll even let him serve as her apprentice in the VP chair for eight years.

But chaos has erupted and the plantation progressives don't know what to do, except to blurt out pent-up racial resentments. Then, the victims, whom they spent the last few decades training in hair-trigger racial sensitivity, turn on them in righteous fury, detecting nuances of racism in everything from Andrew Cuomo's description of Obama's press conferences as "shuck and jive" events to Bill Clinton's belittling Jesse Jackson comparison to Ferraro's sniffing at his "luck."

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12883

Andrew Sullivan's elaborates on the idea of entitlement:

"The most irritating but revealing trope from the Clintonites in the face of Obama's success these past two months has been "Get real." By "get real," they mean, I think, that it is unimaginable that a young black freshman should beat a Clinton. That's how she can offer the veep slot to a man who has beaten her. That's how she can treat white ethnic voters in Pennsylvania as if they mean more than black voters in South Carolina. I'm not even sure that Ferraro or Clinton realize how unconsciously racist these assumptions are."


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/ferraro-and-ent.html

Good stuff.

Posted by: daddigrace | March 12, 2008 12:54 PM

I hate o say it, but, I think this is just the Clinton machine trying to say, remember, he's black. I think they are trying to keep that going. It is sick but I think it is true. They won't do it because it is too risky. However, send out someone loud and wrong and let them do it. Someone we can fire and look good over it. Obama didn't take the bait. In fact, he praised Ms. Ferraro. She deserves it. However, she is loud and wrong. She needs to check herself quick. Obama never called her a racist either; he said she was making divisive comments, and she is. If he were white, of course, the race would be over. The guy is sharp, polished, open-minded, not a ideologue, and accomplished. What he doesn't know, he is willing to learn. What he does know, he is willing to share.

Posted by: Isome | March 12, 2008 12:57 PM

1) I can't believe Ferraro made that comment, dug herself further into the hole, and is refusing to apologize

2) I can't believe the Clinton campaign hasn't denounced and rejected this

3) I can't believe the Clinton campaign is trying to blame this whole kerfluffle on the Obama campaign

4) I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW MANY POSTERS ON HERE THINK THIS IS A-OK!!!

I am deeply disappointed. Pull your heads out of your rear ends people. The fact that this became news is not a function of sexist media, it's a function of the fact that the comments were racist and totally unacceptable. Was Geraldine Ferraro ever President of the Harvard Law Review? Was she ever elected to the U.S. Senate? Hmm, no. Golly, it must be because she's a woman. On the other hand, Obama clearly achieved these things because he's black.

In the sarcastic words of Howard Fineman, "I think we've all observed how many advantages black men have in American society."

For the love of all that is holy, people. Just 'fess up. These were obnoxious, racist comments, and the Clintons should kick Ferraro off the campaign. It's that simple.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | March 12, 2008 12:59 PM

If it had been a Republican male making those statements, the Democratic party would have fallen all over itself talking about how racist they were. Instead, the Republicans don't have to do a thing, Ferraro does it all for them.
This is what it's really about. The Clintons were hoping that the country wouldn't be ready to elect an African American man as President. When signs showed that might not be the case after all, they felt they needed to remind the country that hey, Obama is African American as if people were voting for someone they shouldn't. Yes Obama may be in the spotlight because he is the first African American that has a serious chance at being President but the real reason he's popular is the same reason that will make McCain win: he's a positive person who fills people with hope for the future. Hilary will do anything to win and once she's the Democratic Candidate, you might as well just hand the keys to the White House to McCain.

Posted by: jaded | March 12, 2008 1:05 PM

I think it is ironic how many people keep saying that Barack's campaign is using the race card by calling out Ferraro for being racist, when she is the one that made race the issue. This is a play right out of Rush Limbaugh's handbook. "Say something racist, then when everyone rightly calls you a racist, protest that they are using the race card." I have been truly sickened by the tactics of the Clintons and many of their clonies (black and white) during this campaign. I hate to say it, but I think many democrats will either stay home or vote for McCain in the general election if she gets the nomination. She is tearing the party apart.

Posted by: Sue | March 12, 2008 1:08 PM

Hillary's campaign first became openly racist since Bill's speeches in South Carolina. To have an outspoken, longtime racist like Ferraro as her advisor will finish the job, if Hillary does not immediately disassociate herself from this person. I can hardly wait for the results of the black vote in Philadelphia and in Florida. Looks like Bill moved his office to Harlem for nothing.

Posted by: ergo sum | March 12, 2008 1:08 PM

This is a divisive tactic. It is my hope that the essence of such language can be understood for what it is. She has every right to believe as she does. My point of contention is that she is wrong. Facts are based on empirical data, not the perspective of a person.

The only retraction that I hope to made is the truth that these statements are based upon her perspective, not facts.

Mr. Obama excels in this race because he is a blessedly excellent leader with a brilliant mind. The issue that she is raising question not so much Mr. Obama, as the judgment of the American people. We finally see beyond color and chose a man who is obviously answering the true call renewed leadership and she pulls the race card.

As a woman of color and as an American I'm hurt and would have expected a better perspective.

Posted by: Niambi Murray | March 12, 2008 1:09 PM

Ferraro's comment was NOT racist. It was reality about Jesse Jackson. He was NOT a player on the national political stage when he made his ostensible runs at the White House - they were done to position him for a role in platform-making and he was never taken seriously for that reason. He had accomplished nothing to merit the office.

It is the reality now about Obama. Observing a fact is NOT racist. It is a FACT that Obama received endless media attention far far far out of proportion to his experience and achievements. The media has endlessly obsessed on "the first black to have a serious chance.' (Although why they persist in solely calling him 'black' eludes me as he can equally be called white.)

(1) He was an innocuous state legislator with no great record, no involvement in national issues or party matters, no experience at much of anything and had gotten his backside kicked in his attempt to run for the US House in the primary when he was picked to give a speech. The Dems do that a lot - they try so hard to be politically correct. There certainly were no reasons of merit behind the choice.

(2) He arrived in the Senate having had a basically uncontested race and no major achievements in his prior activates. Those activities include

getting bored with being a law firm associate and having to do the slog work without the glory so off he goes to run for the US House where he promptly got flattened in the primary so he tries the state senate from a safe district and does get elected but makes no major substantial contribution and tries not to antagonize anyone and sits in the middle of everything without taking hard positions until he sees a chance for what he feels to be his due in terms of recognition and aims for the US Senate where he was in 3rd place until both his opponents self-destructed so he wins in a walk-over and gets to the US Senate Where he decides within less than 6 months that he isn't getting enough attention or power and that he can run the US where he will be 'appreciated' as he deserves (or at least he thinks he 'deserves.')

Okay, if some boring white guy (or woman of any race) had announced after less than 10 months in the US Senate that with no relevant experience and no outstanding achievements in any field that they were fit to run the country as President, they would have been laughed off the stage and ignored by the media.

He got the media attention - endlessly fawning as it was for the over the first year of this drawn out dog 'n pony show - and he got it because he was a novelty to the media. A half black/half white man taking aim at the presidency with no valid credential to back it up and who hadn't even put in a year in the US Senate but launches his campaign based upon having just been elected to the US Senate.

It gave the media their dream primary season - black man against white woman and they deliberately ignored all the white men running.

They did the same with Clinton. She wouldn't be in the US Senate 'but for' whom she married. The day she announced she was running for the US Senate, the media began fawning and panting and treating her like she was the leader of the Democratic Party hanging on her every word for the next 7 years! She was a 1st term Senator who got there based upon her husband's name and the media immediately anointed her as a presidential candidate. It gave them great headlines - "first woman with a serious chance of winning"
And then the media played the two off them off against the other - and no other candidate existed except the two anointed who made the best headlines.

Good grief - BOTH of them received a leg up on the primary competitions because of their race or sex. Recognizing that is NOT racist nor sexist. It is merely reality.

Considering the fact that black voters flock to Obama in a near monolithic block, one would have to be thick as two bricks not to see the voting on racial lines.

If anyone knows about the media attention from being the 'first' of a type to have a serious chance of winning as Pres or VP, it is Geraldine Ferraro. She went through it as the first woman nominated for VP. She knows exactly the kind of media coverage someone gets in that position and how it gives them a boost, and how they are treated when they are a novelty as the 'first' to do something.

She is absolutely right - Obama's being 1/2 black got him a lot of favorable press (they adore novelties) and let him avoid the dismissive ridicule that another candidate with the same credentials (or lack thereof) but who was a white guy would have endured since such ridicule would have been labeled 'racist.'
It is not good nor is it bad. It just 'is.'

If the Obama campaign doesn't want anyone mentioning his racial ancestry, I suggest that he kick out every reporter who has written 'the first black to have a serious chance' or anything at all about his race and its effect on his campaign and how he is perceived by voters. Better yet would be if he looked at black voters and said "DO NOT VOTE FOR ME BECAUSE I AM 1/2 BLACK." (Naw, won't ever happen.)

Rather than the whining response, he should have just shrugged and said "Yep being the 'first' has helped as it helps the voters remember me. Works for Mrs. Clinton to since she is the 1st woman to get this far. In politics, you play the cards you are dealt and take anything that helps."

Having his campagin whining "racist, racist" at someone who was supporting and voting for civil rights matters when he was still playing in the school playground more than over the top.

Posted by: Ann | March 12, 2008 1:14 PM

As I recall, when Obama was running for US Senator, he said something like 'Who thought that a skinny black kid from Chicago would ever be running for...'
Sure seems like playing the race card to me-- to paraphrase, 'Look at me, I'm black and I'm successful, isn't that great.' Well, to a certain extent it is.

Posted by: dotellen | March 12, 2008 1:14 PM

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Posted by: FedUp | March 12, 2008 1:14 PM

how sad to have someone who claims to be an educated person saying such idiotic things...Thank GOd we woke up in the election booth on her.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 1:15 PM

I find Geraldine's comments quite offensive. When she ran for VP, she had 6 years in the House, but she felt ready to run and felt she touched the glass ceiling. Her comments are to polarize voters, by forcing white voters who support Barack Obama to go to Hillary Clinton, because it's time for a "white woman" to win. Hillary is behind in delegates as well as popular vote, however, the psychology is to run as if she is entitled to be top dog, called "white skin privilege". Yes, Geraldine, your comments are quite racist, and Hillary, putting your black face campaign manager out as the spokesperson to justify Geraldine's comments is shameful. Geraldine said she could raise tons of money for Barack, so he better back off. Well, Geraldine, it seems he's raised a lot more money than Hillary, without your help, so maybe you better back off. Everyone thinks affirmative action benefited a lot of unqualified blacks, but white women benefited more than any other protected group. So, go figure. Just like the Hispanics/Latinos should remember American history and civil rights, it was the blacks who fought so hard and put up with the hangings, brutality, racism, dogs so that you can benefit in this country.

Posted by: Barbara | March 12, 2008 1:15 PM

Of course Obama having the delegate count, poll standing and political messiah enthusiasm he does among a large fraction of the electorate, and the media darling position he has occupied since he announced has much more behind it than only that he's black. It's the KIND of black he is and represents, or anyway that it's very possible for people to imagine to be.

He's undeniably highly articulate and has great personal charisma, of a reassuring as opposed to a fiery and scary sort (to whites and other non blacks). He's also undeniably highly intelligent by pretty much any measure, in addition to being articulate. Yeah his combo AA and legacy status may have help a lot in getting him into Harvard law school and as well onto the law review there, but at a minimum he had to be one of the smartest blacks in the country to get that far academically, which is intelligent indeed. (His election to president of the Law Review seems to have been almost entirely due to internal politics, but that's not such a bad harbinger either, though it was in a very left shifted universe.)

However nothing Ferraro said was inconsistent with her recognizing ally of this, and I'm sure she does. The fact is she's right - it's highly unlikely that any white man or even woman with as little highest level political not to mention executive experience (and field testing) as Obama has had would be in his current position. He is indeed filling a niche that the liberal media certainly, but also much of the recently and fairly recently college educated public (nearly all of whom have been indoctrinate by an educational and esp. elite educational system which has for the last two decades and more been shifted FAR to the left of the overall American median - as has been not only the liberal news media, but more importantly the even more liberal entertainment media.) After a while people do get mugged by reality, but it takes awhile.

My main point about Obama is that he's an unproven individually capable and skillful political actor upon people project their hopes and dreams with minimal recourse to hard headed reality. For example, would any other Democrat who has THE ABSOLUTE MOST LIBERAL voting record in the US Senate by many reconnings be likely to be in his delegate position, or to have that fact paid so little attention (so far) by either his opponents or the media?

Posted by: dougjnn | March 12, 2008 1:16 PM

I find Geraldine's comments quite offensive. When she ran for VP, she had 6 years in the House, but she felt ready to run and felt she touched the glass ceiling. Her comments are to polarize voters, by forcing white voters who support Barack Obama to go to Hillary Clinton, because it's time for a "white woman" to win. Hillary is behind in delegates as well as popular vote, however, the psychology is to run as if she is entitled to be top dog, called "white skin privilege". Yes, Geraldine, your comments are quite racist, and Hillary, putting your black face campaign manager out as the spokesperson to justify Geraldine's comments is shameful. Geraldine said she could raise tons of money for Barack, so he better back off. Well, Geraldine, it seems he's raised a lot more money than Hillary, without your help, so maybe you better back off. Everyone thinks affirmative action benefited a lot of unqualified blacks, but white women benefited more than any other protected group. So, go figure. Just like the Hispanics/Latinos should remember American history and civil rights, it was the blacks who fought so hard and put up with the hangings, brutality, racism, dogs so that you can benefit in this country.

Posted by: Barbara | March 12, 2008 1:16 PM

Hold on a minute.
Before there was a black candidate, most african-americans were clearly for Hillary.

Now, african-americans are voting in large blocs, 91% in Mississippi, for the black candidate, but insist that it is not because he is black, but because they think he has better ideas.

As they say, I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. Obviously, race has become a factor in this campaign, at least with african-americans and probably with others.

Now why do some insist on castigating a person for pointing out the obvious? Ferraro is correct in her assessment and has the right, as an american, to express her opinion.

bcurtis
OKLA.

Posted by: bcurtis | March 12, 2008 1:18 PM

I'm not sure if I would call Ferraro's comments racist....I think "delusional" would be a better word. She's right that if Obama were white he wouldn't be where he is today - he'd have already clinched the nomination! As for saying that he "happens to be very lucky to be who he is," perhaps she should ponder where Hillary Rodham's campaign would be if she didn't have the name Clinton on the end.

Posted by: Byron | March 12, 2008 1:20 PM

For those that agree with Ferraro that Barack would be nowhere without the support of blacks, you would also have to agree that Hilliary would have lost already without the support of women. Otherwise, you would be a hypocrites. So, please lets stop with the identity politics. "People, can we get along?"

Posted by: Eddie | March 12, 2008 1:21 PM

Finally, finally, finally! God, finally we have a Clinton supporter with a spine. It was disgusting how Bill Clinton folded when he was baited and labeled a racist. 90% blacks just got done voting for a black candidate against the Clintons, one of whom was Blacker than Black until Christmas, 2007. So who's being racist here? We are slamming Ferraro for pointing that out?! What a pathetic bunch.

80-90% of blacks have been consistently voting for Obama. It is time for other colors to take note of this, forget the issues, do the opposite and vote for Hillary. To look away would be to sanctify the very thing we progressive democrats have criticized for so long.

Posted by: AA | March 12, 2008 1:22 PM

In the years since the Modale/Ferraro ticket was wiped off the charts, I see that Geraldine still has not learned how to keep her big mouth shut. All of this bickering over who will be the eventual presidental nominee on the Democratic ticket is doing nothing more than to help sink that ship before it ever gets out of dry dock this November.

Posted by: Viennacommuter | March 12, 2008 1:22 PM

Finally we are seeing a pattern of race-baiting.

The so-called great candidate has two strategies in his playbook:
1. Give high flown speeches on hope and unity.
2. Call the opponent racist at every turn.

It is easier to see this pattern in reverse. Yesterday, New York Times hand an opinion piece asserting that the 3am ad was racist! Now, one may call the 3am ad many things but to call it racist requires a certain tortured logic that left even the Obama supporters somewhat confused and embarrased. Sift through the comment pages and you will see. You will find a near unanimous agreement that this is taking things too far.

Then we have Ferraro being indicted for basically saying that 80%+ African-American vote (91% in Mississipi!) is crucially responsible for getting Obama this far. Let's face it, Comrades: 90% Blacks did not vote against a Clinton (one of whom was Blacker than Black until Christmas 2007) on policy grounds - it has just a little bit to do with Obama's color. Just for pointing that out Ferraro is labeled a racist.

With this background let's evaluate the past. Bill Clinton's remarks that Obama's Iraq War thesis was a fairy tale because it falsely romanticizes an anti-war position was declared racist by Obama surrogates. Why? Apparently the phrase "Fairy Tale" in any context is racist when applied to an African-American.

Hillary's comment that an activist (MLK) requires Washington (LBJ) to turn an issue into a law was deemed as belittling MLK. Her suggestion that the Civil Rights Law required partnership between MLK and LBJ was basically considered a hate crime.

One may assume Obama camp's affront on one or two of these issues as a genuine case of misunderstanding. But viewed through the prism of yesterday's happening - no way.

All this is especially galling coming from a guy who is not such a principled saint.

1. Once Obama was for a single payer health system, but now opposes plans that cover every American.

2. He promised to repeal the Patriot Act, but then voted to extend it.

3. He promised to normalize relations with Cuba, but flip-flopped when he started running for president.

4. He rails against NAFTA in Ohio while his top economic advisor assures the Canadians his rhetoric is just "political positioning."

5. He promises to opt in to public financing if the GOP nominee does, but then breaks that pledge in real time.

6. He promises to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months, and now his top foreign policy adviser says that he's not relying on the plan.

It is this sort of chicanery that has finally driven Clinton supporters like us over the edge. Because these scurrilous charges are not just an insult to Clinton but to people like us.

That is why, CNN exit poll from Mississipi:

"Of those who voted for Obama, 42 percent said they would be satisfied if Clinton was the nominee, according to the exit polls.

Among Clinton voters, only 16 percent said they would be satisfied if Obama wins the party's top spot."

Posted by: T1 | March 12, 2008 1:25 PM

Obviously, some of the people who support Clinton do not know how to respond to those of us that choose Obama, the better candidate (white, black, male or female). So they tear down, insinuate, patronize and desparage. Clinton has shown similar tendencies since South Carolina. In as much as this is not leadership, I suggest they follow or get out of the way.

Posted by: Truthpatriot | March 12, 2008 1:25 PM

If Hillary manages to con her way into the nomination after this, her "prize" won't be worth a bucket of warm spit. As gdavis4 noted above, Ferraro's comments could be equally applied to Clinton's or McCain's race or gender, and yet it's only Obama's race that gets singled out. This is the sort of highly selective "truth telling" that too many whites seem to find persuasive, and don't think that black people aren't paying attention.

If those uncommitted superdelegates let her get away with this sort of sliming by surrogates, the Democrats will deserve to lose this election. Then let those rabid Hillary supporters come crying to them when McCain appoints 2 or 3 more Roberts clones to the Supreme Court, and their daughters have to travel to Canada to get their abortions.

Posted by: Andy | March 12, 2008 1:25 PM

So any man of color (black, hispanic, asian, south pacific, indian, etc.) is not worthy of the presidency and could not have earned front runner status for any reason other than the color of their skin. Shame on you, Geraldine Ferraro! You. Of all people.

Posted by: cesar | March 12, 2008 1:26 PM

... is enough. This outrage from the same bunch that put out an article claiming the 3am ad was racist. Can we really take these disgraceful creatures seriously? Bah! Go Ferraro! Don't let these sexist b@st@rds browbeat you.

Posted by: Enough | March 12, 2008 1:29 PM

Let's charge Ferraro with a federal hate crime. This kind of speech must be ruthlessly suppressed, Constituton be damned!

Posted by: Al in CO | March 12, 2008 1:31 PM

She speaks a truth so obvious and banal as to be not worth speaking in the first place.
Obama is black, but his appeal was about more than his blackness.
To suggest otherwise is not criminal - it is just negative.


Posted by: Adam Humphreys | March 12, 2008 1:31 PM

Ferraro was right on the money and I am glad someone finally said something and is not backing down. I agree that we finally have a democrat with a spine!

Posted by: Jenny | March 12, 2008 1:33 PM

People want something different and Obama's message is just that. Different, hopeful and engaging. One feels that if he is elected we the people will have a say in our government. He says that he is not perfect and he will make mistakes as president. Who says that? Someone who is transparent. People are tired of the Washington D.C. games. He won't make a good president...He can be my VP. He uses other people's words...then does the same on a live debate. Hillary is just more of the same. She just has a dress on. Most attacks on her are seen as attack against women and that is simply not true. It's just an attack on Ms. Clinton.

Posted by: Dai | March 12, 2008 1:33 PM

How interesting that Geraldine says that the only reason she is was a vice-presidential candidate was due to her gender, but she did not say that the only reason that Sen. Clinton is a presidential candidate is due to her gender. It can be inferred, right? But, if she came out a made the definitive statement - don't you believe that Sen. Clinton would have publicly denouced and fired her from her staff?

So, why is Sen. Obama then subjected to criticism of "playing the race card?" Actually, if we want to look at the definition of race card - typically it means that someone is being discriminated against due to the color of their skin. What Sen. Obama is saying is the exact opposite -- he isn't being discriminated against. He's actually the front runner.

He's just stating that he isn't the beneficiary of special treatment due to the color of his skin. I mean honestly -- do we really believe that being a black man is the secret recipe to winning the presidential nomination? I don't care if you win 100% of the Black American vote, it's not enough -- thus the definition "minority"

I'm a bit surprised that there is a group within this community that actually believe that it's prudent to resort back to the old tactics of justify success and failure based on race and gender. If it's not OK for some Black Americans to claim that they have failed because of racial discrimination from White Americans, then why is it OK for some White Americans to claim that some Black Americans are successful because of racial discrimination?

Posted by: Keith O | March 12, 2008 1:35 PM

When a candidate receives 92 percent of the votes of a particular race, there seems to be a some valid reason to call that ethnocentrism.

Posted by: justjoe | March 12, 2008 1:36 PM

To OKLA...I'm voting for Barack Obama because I feel he is the better candidate who can beat McCain. Of course, people may have voted for Hillary before Barack came into the picture, but what option did they have? Another 4 years of Bush policies? Don't assume that this is just about race, but possibly about a better candidate who offers at least a hope for a better way to run things in Washington.

If Barack were not in the race today, I believe the enthusiasm would not be there for people to participate. Hopefully, their enthusiasm will not be destroyed over all the current bashing. Whoever comes out the winner, I hope that candidate will submit to the winner gracefully and not create a circus or more controversy. Otherwise, I have heard some say that they may not vote at all!

Posted by: LS | March 12, 2008 1:37 PM

I believe that there little wrong with our political system that a large dose of campaign reform can't resolve. So I was impressed with Obama's fund raising (90% of all funds raised in very small contributions). I then became impressed with how calm he remains no matter what's thrown at him. Finally, I decided that HRC's stance on the war was a deal buster.

None of these issues is even remotely tied to the issue of race. Ms. Ferraro is wrong: Barack Obama is successful because he's a smart, poised politician who could well become a stateman if he keeps listening to what a Bush-battered electorate needs.

Posted by: Jim Nohelty | March 12, 2008 1:38 PM

Go ahead and give the nomination to a do-nothing Senator because he is an articulate black man. Hillary's supporters, me included, will be voting for the other "Democrat" in the race, John McCain.

Posted by: Rick Kendle | March 12, 2008 1:38 PM

First of all, I'm not saying that Ferraro is racist and no one in Obama's campaign has accused her a racism. She is guilty of ignorance. Her words were racially charged. I find it funny how she says Barack is only in the position he is in because he is black, then accuse Obama of using the race card when in fact SHE was the one who brought up race. You think Barack is taking any solace in this? He is a presidential candidate who happens to be black. Ferraro wants to make him the black presidential candidate to create an us against them mentality. Which is exactly what Bill Clinton tried to do in South Carolina. She has the freedom to say whatever she wants to say, no matter how out of touch it is. But we also have a right to respond with disgust. Many people found what she said to be reprehensible. Then she said she was being attacked because she was white. But Obama is playing the race card???? That boat just doesn't float.

Posted by: Carter | March 12, 2008 1:39 PM

Ferraro and other Clinton supporters can't see how patently racist her comment is? Several months ago their position was Obama is not black enough. Hillary would get the black vote because of Bro Bill who is so cool with his sunglasses and saxophone; the implication was Bill is more of a black man; after all he "was" the first black president. If Hillary was receiving 90 per cent of the black vote, she, Geraldine and the rest would be ecstatic. Would they have said she wouldn't be in the running except for the fact Bill is black; of course not, because everyone "really" knows he is white, not black. How paternalistic can you get! Now all you black folks, give your vote to the white massa because he is so cool and has many of us as he good friends. The worm turns and today Obama is too black. His blackness will deny him the election but his blackness will guarantee him the nomination? How abobut none of us ever bringing up race again. Does anyone who does think the issue will go away if it keeps being mentioned? Hopefully there will be a Clinton/Obama ticket and the Republicans will choose Condi as John's running mate. My, my, it would sure be interesting to see all the consternation that would cause: who would be the real black and the real woman and yada, yada.

Posted by: ChuckB | March 12, 2008 1:40 PM

What does the color of ones skin have to do with anything, or that fact ones gender. If someone votes for a candidate because of their gender or color of their skin they are just plan ignorant! Now we bring race into the equation because someone wants to win at all cost! And could it be that record number of people are voting for Obama because of his message? This is exactly what Hillary wanted, to bring race into it!

Posted by: Noneck | March 12, 2008 1:42 PM

Clinton's campaign really started the race baiting in this contest, and they are continuing it here with Ferraro as the mouthpiece. Even if Clinton does come out to "denounce and reject" Ferraro some point soon, the task has been accomplished as far as Clinton is concerned. Clinton has looked at voting demographics. She knows that a third or more of whites in Mississippi cited race as an influencing factor in voting for her, and that many more may not admit it but have still been voting for her based on race. Clinton herself, of course, avoids these racially charged statements, but she's more than happy to have Bill and Ferraro make them for her.

Clinton had her husband plant this seed of anti-Obama racism a month ago, and now she has another minion watering it.

Criticize Obama for his politics, rip him for his Rezko connections, but the race baiting should be denounced and rejected, and I hope American voters see fit to do so.

Seriously, for all that Clinton claims to support for minority communities, to accept and even push the argument that Obama only is where he is because he is black is to basically accept all of the conservative complaints about affirmative action and more. Black people are more successful and more popular in American culture because they are black? Ummm...have you looked at poverty and incarceration statistics.

Yeah, women certainly haven't had it easy in the halls of power either. Neither a woman nor a black person has ever come this close to the presidency, but there have been 29 women serve as state governors. Blacks? Only three.

Posted by: blert | March 12, 2008 1:45 PM

I am a white female voter and are very disappointed about Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro for being so divisive and conducting a campaign out of Karl Rove's playbook.

We have had almost 8 extremely divisive years with George Bush and by the look of how Hillary conducts her campaign that's what we are going to get with her as well. Not to mentioned all her strategic mistakes and voting for the Iraq war that cost us so dearly. Is that how she wants to run the country as a president? She is dividing her own party, and lost sight on how all this will effect the election in November. Are Democrats really their own biggest enemy???

Posted by: sarah | March 12, 2008 1:46 PM

Who pulled her dusty butt out of the grave for an interview anyway?

Since 99% of the Presidents have been white male Protestants; by her logic Kennedy won only BECAUSE he was a Catholic. No wonder she and Mondale didn't get elected. Actually my first ever vote was for them in that election.

Her statements about Obama and the responses I'm reading here concerning his race are so nonsensical is it any wonder the Republicans are always kicking our butts?

She failed to tell the truth about one thing for sure though...Obama is earning his way to the nomination by going through the process; Ferraro was given the opportunity without ever doing a thing.

Just like Hillary, she rode the coattails or money of her husband to a position of consequence before these popular or rich men were brought down by lack of character and the law.

Last thing...have yet to hear the "racism charge" come out of the Obama camp, only the Clinton camp.

Party on!

Posted by: H. Simon | March 12, 2008 1:46 PM

If you need any convincing of how deeply cynical and disturbing it is that Ferraro still has her campaign position, ask yourself this -- had Ferraro said this about a latino, in other words a member of a group that is voting for HRC, how quickly would she have been fired from the campaign?

Posted by: hardcoredem | March 12, 2008 1:48 PM

Any former Vice Presidential candidate who doesn't know the proper use of the subjunctive ought to be ignored.

Posted by: Mark | March 12, 2008 1:49 PM

wonder if all of this country's White presidents were elected on their great intellect! poor gents, what would have happened to them had they been Black?

Posted by: ay | March 12, 2008 1:50 PM

Hillary is getting in way over her head. Had her campaign been unified in the first place she would know this. You know when Bill was in Offc I respected him, up until the Sex and other scandals. I always thought Hillary was a very brut woman. I never in a million years thought she would run for President. The thought of it immediately turned me off. She is willing to do whatever to get this nomination. She is talking out the side of her neck...I laugh so hard when she makes the speech about the wealthy and the well connected, and the lobbyist that run washington. Aren't those all her friends she's talking about? P.S. I'm sure Bill and Spritzer shared a few gang bangs in their day! That is a subject Hillary will never want to be brought up. Furthermore....that old hags remarks were way worse than Hillary being called the "Monster" that she is. Why else was Bill always skirt chasing and looking for the next best thing. He wants to keep her busy being President so HE can get some pre-paid prostitute loving on US!!!!

Posted by: Sweetnikki | March 12, 2008 1:50 PM

Think about it folks, The comment can be applied to all three candidates interchangeably and will be no more or no less true. Lets try it with McCain first. If he were a black man he would not be in this position, if he were a woman he would not be in this position, he is very lucky as a white man to be in the position he is in. Now Hillary. If she were a white man she would not be in this position, if she were a black man she would not be in this position, she is very lucky to be in the position she is in. In other words it was a pointless infinite remark that can be applied so many ways and mean the same. Does anyone else notice this or is it just me?

Posted by: gdavis4 | March 12, 2008 1:55 PM

It is clear to me that the Clinton campaign is trying desperately to marginalize Barack Obama, and Geraldine Ferraro is another helpful friend. Otherwise why did she have to go "public" with this at best shaky at worst abhorrently racist opinion of "hers", which also came in various forms from the Clinton campaign at different times?

I am a 50+ white man. I am an independent who frequently votes for the Democrats. This race is taken hostage by the self-important Clintons that decided to use hate and fear politics once they started losing. This tells me how they will govern.

Shameful. I lost all respect for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: San Carlan | March 12, 2008 1:58 PM

Sorry white people, you play the race card to the point that you now portray yourselves as the victims of racism more than blacks. Its a week argument. For every one of you who are using Obama's candidacy as so backward rational for playing race victim I can show you 10 white people who just plain would not vote for obama just because of his race. Its white people who keep making the bigger deal about his race, accusing him of using his race to advantage is actually an example of whites playing the race card but just not openly acknowledging their own behavior. Stop playing head games with yourselves. If you repeat something enough I guess it catches on I suppose. When a black person runs for president and is successful to this point how can you accuse him of playing the race card when a black man has never come remotely close to being president in this country before? How do white people ignore one fact in their face to over emphasize a lesser valid point. Thats just selfish elitist thinking by some whites. Its like the bully wants to be regarded as the victim.

Posted by: gdavis4 | March 12, 2008 2:03 PM

Methinks Ferraro doth protest too much.

And Clinton should "live and die by the sword" here. It wasn't good enough for Obama to "denounce" Farrakan, Hillary insisted he had to "reject" as well. Farrakan isn't working for Obama, but Ferraro IS working for Clinton --at least as a fundraiser. "Strongly disagree" isn't a strong enough response.

I'm an independent. I'm for Obama. But this isn't about Obama. I expect virtue and ethics in my president --This sort of behaviour is a mark against Hillary. If this all comes down to Hillary vs. McCain, this kind of thing will make a difference in my November vote.

Posted by: max | March 12, 2008 2:03 PM

Isn't it clear that these Ferraro talks are targeted at those 'older whites' who are be more than ready to agree? The point is ... do you want the country to move forward towards greater unity or move backwards to the same old divisive past and present. That's what Obama represents and he will have my vote.

Posted by: James C | March 12, 2008 2:04 PM

When Clinton compared Obama's win in South Carolina with Jesse Jackson's win, he was comparing two black men running for president. Obama and his followers didn't like that.

Posted by: Shaun

Shaun, you can't be that naive that you don't know how polarizing Jesse Jackson can be with white folk. That was Mr. Clinton's intent! Make a link between the Rev. Jackson and Senator Obama and not in a positive way.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 2:05 PM

Geraldine Ferraro was just relating her own personal experience and what she had learned in looking back on her own personal history and applying it to her reasons why she supports Hillary Clinton and not Barack Obama. It has to do with experience and qualifications period. He is running on star power not qualifications or experience and part of her star power in 84 was her being a woman. Part of Barack Obama star power is being the first African American who really is expected to win the white house.

That does have a amount of star draw power and we all agree on that. That is all she was trying to say not anything else the spin doctors are trying to turn in to a racist issue. It is the Obama camp and now Obama himself who is trying to pump more into it so they can suck more out of it for Political gain. Typical politics.

We had a whole tread where we talked open and honestly about things like this and now we are resorting to making that thread a sham by this kind of discussion. Here Geraldine Ferraro was relating in and open way her personal lessons learned as to why she was the VP on the ticket. Now was that her only qualifications ..no. She had some experience and had done a lot of good work and was also ask for that. She had to have political qualification other then being a woman or they would have just picked any woman with a big name or a woman off the street. Still one of the biggest factors of picking her at that time was to create star power from her being a woman. The Times and what she brought was responsible for that. The times and who Barack Obama is (all parts of him) is making him the success he is today. He could not have done this 30 years ago or even 20 years ago or maybe even 10 years ago. To say there have never been qualified African Americans before Barack Obama that could have run for office before 2008 is just absurd an not true. The list is way to long to even attempt to say that... it has been shameful and stupid that we as American have not had such ability and wisdom running for President long before 2008 just because of ones race or gender.

What she is saying bottom line is that qualification and experience is not being place on a equal standing with other factors in the success of Barack Obama in 2008 just like qualification and experience was not being placed on equal standing when she was asked to run as VP in 84. Ask yourself what YOUR motives are for sharing in this thread?

Look past the smoke screen it is not that hard to do. She is kind of right that they are attacking her and yes her being white is part of the excuse but they could care less about her race it is the opportunity to attack for political advantage that is the important part. She could be purple or any other color and they would use it. This has nothing to do with Racism in any direction ....it is just who can take and twist and turn for political gain. A show, A Act. We the people are the only ones getting hurt in all this. I don't buy into it from either side after the fact of her first comments. My above post says what she was originally trying to say and relate to and anything and everything beyond that is just media hype and political gamesmanship.

Posted by: Roger | March 12, 2008 2:08 PM

People! PEOPLE! Use your God-given brains, for goodness sakes. Ferraro and the rest of the Clintons' campaign are so desperate that they once are appealing to the worst in people. To say that the only reason he is where he is, is because Barack Hussein Obama is black, has got to be the most riduculous thing I have ever heard! He is where he is IN SPITE OF his name and race. He is winning white and black votes because of WHAT HE REPRESENTS: A break from the divisiveness of BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH. Haven't we had enough of nearly 8 years of Bush fear-mongering, which has lost the U.S. its moral authority in the world? Do we honestly want 4 years of Clintons' lust for personal power and self-indulgence. Do you really want to support Clintons' campaign, when they continue to trash the values of equality and justice that we Democrats hold dear?

Posted by: Joyce | March 12, 2008 2:16 PM

Paul J. Nolan

Good point, That was Isaiah Thomas who made that remark about Larry Bird, saying if he were a black guy he would be just another good ball player. I think Isaiah was proven wrong and Geraldine is to. If being black gave you some free pass to being president I think there would have been a black president before 2008 and still counting. White people please get over yourselves. Selective racism is played out. If you think black people are lame when they play the race card how do you think you sound doing it? Even more ridiculous.

Posted by: gdavis4 | March 12, 2008 2:17 PM

This is the perfect illustration of liberal self delusion. The Democrats put forward two candidates who primary qualification is their victimhood status, make empty claims about competence and then freak out when someone points out the obvious. If it weren't so pathetic, it would be funny.

Posted by: Mike Johnson | March 12, 2008 2:19 PM

Look, the facts are that we have a black man and a white woman running for president. Obama doesn't want anyone making any comments about him being black. We have a black man running for president with the middle name of Hussein. Obama doesn't want anyone mentioning his middle name.

When Clinton compared Obama's win in South Carolina with Jesse Jackson's win, he was comparing two black men running for president. Obama and his followers didn't like that.

Posted by: Shaun | March 12, 2008 2:20 PM

Is there a way to through Hillary's people out of the party after they destroy it?

Posted by: H. Simon | March 12, 2008 2:20 PM

Roger

First of all it was a politically STUPID remark. Anybody could have told you it would be trouble as soon as they heard it come out of her mouth. This isn't "spin", it's stupidity.

Second, it IS racist. Read it again:

if Obama were "a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is."

Like there's some ADVANTAGE in this country in being African-American? People win elections because they're African-American? Go look at the rolls of Congress if you think that's true.

It's also simplistic to assume that Obama is successful because he's black. Frankly I think he's successful because he's the right candidate for the job. Conversely, is Hillary is successful because she's a woman? Or is it because some think she's the right candidate for the job?

Posted by: max | March 12, 2008 2:24 PM

" Well, let me first say that I wasn't born at the age of forty-three when I entered Congress. I did have a life before that as well. I was a prosecutor for almost five years in the district attorney's office in Queens County and I was a teacher. There's not only what is on your paper resume that makes you qualified to run for or to hold office. It's how you approach problems and what your values are. I think if one is taking a look at my career they'll see that I level with the people; that I approach problems analytically; that I am able to assess the various facts with reference to a problem, and I can make the hard decisions. I'm intrigued when I hear Vice-President Bush talk about his support of the president's economic program and how everything is just going so beautifully. I, too, recall when Vice President Bush was running in the primary against President Reagan and he called the program voodoo economics, and it was and it is. We are facing absolutely massive deficits; this administration has chosen to ignore it; the president has failed to put forth a plan to deal with those deficits and if everything believes that everything is corning up roses, perhaps the vice-president should join me as I travel around the country and speak to people. People in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, are not terribly thrilled with what's happening in the economy because they're standing in the light of a closed plant because they've lost their jobs. The people in Youngstown, Ohio, have stores that are boarded up because the economy is not doing well. It's not only the old industries that are failing, it's also the new ones. In San Jose, California, they're complaining because they can't export their high-tech qualities -- goods -- to Japan and other countries. The people in the Northwest -- in the state of Washington and Oregon -- are complaining about what's happening to the timber industry and to the agriculture industry. So, so things are not as great as the administration is wanting us to believe in their television commercials. My feeling, quite frankly, is that I have enough experience to see the problems, address them and make the tough decisions and level with people with reference to those problems. "
http://obamarumors.blogspot.com/2008/03/geraldine-ferraro.html


Sound familiar?
It's another quote from Ferraro.
Shame on her... a woman is qualified, but a black man isn't?

Posted by: shameferraro | March 12, 2008 2:24 PM

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR ... RACHEL SKLAR OF THE HUFFINGTON POST IS REPORTING ... Keith Olbermann To Do "Special Comment" About Hillary Clinton Tonight -- First Time Targeting A Democrat ... Olbermann feels about exactly what cards she's been playing (hint: It has something to do with her not firing Geraldine Ferraro for her controversial statement saying that Barack Obama wouldn't have been as successful if he weren't black. Last night Olbermann called Ferraro's statement "clearly racist" and accused the Clinton campaign for being like South Africa under apartheid for not rejecting it and firing her. It's a significant moment, because it marks the first time a full-throated special comment will have been directed exclusively at a Democrat. ...

Posted by: martin edwin andersen | March 12, 2008 2:25 PM

I hate so say it but hillary supporters are using race more than we ever imagined obama could and its make the point for republicans when they say that democrats take the black vote for granted. Its ok to vote for a democrat so as long as he is not black because god forbid if you vote for a black candidate your only voting for him because he is black. Is that what happen in Iowa? All those white people felt sorry for the black candidate and voted Obama? Lets face it everyone has loyal votes based on race sex and religion but to single out obama as if he is the only one is playing to the lowest in people by implying that Obama is the 08 presidential race's version of affirmative actions? Thats reaching and desperate and will not serve clinton will because thats an insult not only to blacks that vote for obama but every one else too.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 2:28 PM

Ferraro's comments are true, but Obama and his followers were quick to translate truth to racism. Instead of Obama turning the comment into a positive, such as HE is the one who will make a CHANGE to that situation, he chose to cry racism. He is using perceived racism to rile up his followers -- and they don't even realize how he is using them.

Posted by: Jonathan | March 12, 2008 2:33 PM

If Hillary Clinton were not Bill Clinton's wife, she would not be in this position.

She happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

Oh... I'm sorry. Was that sexist?

Posted by: Bostonian | March 12, 2008 2:38 PM

At the risk of being tarred and feathered by Obamatos, Ferraro was just calling a spade a spade....

The historic element to Senator Obama's campaign is his ethniciity and his ethnicity is winning him 85%+ of the African American vote. That's a fact. Saying so does not make one a racist.

The media as usual has its role in muddying the waters and trying to make it a race issue, as does Senator Obama. Whenever he thinks it suits him, he plays the race card. This time, to help get peoples' mind off Samantha Powers comments about Senator Clinton being a "monster" and more damning, that Obama might not hold to timetables after he's President, despite his persistent attacks on Clinton for not having timetables.

Wake up people. Only Senator Clinton has a chance to beat Senator McCain. And Obama is not on my short list of best choices for VP. I think General Wesley Clark would be a far better choice in a time of war.

Posted by: Mondegreenie | March 12, 2008 2:38 PM

The world needs to hear Bill Clinton on the Rush Limbaugh Show
Bill Clinton is not a honorable person...

This is the link: Bill on Rush limbaugh begging for votes

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/10/115320/234


This is same Rush Limbaugh show that aired this video and song about Barack Obama: The video is called - Barack the Magic Negro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm6hlj-BV0s


The same Rush Limbaugh who talked about immigrants:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHPm_TEQ0PA

The Clintons are using Minorities/ Racism to get Hilary in office.

Posted by: Racism and The Clintons.... Is america too blind to see it | March 12, 2008 2:38 PM

This is all insidious race baiting by the Clinton camp. Ferraro's comments are blatantly racist because she is so in your face about them. She and the Clinton camp should be ashmaed of themselves.

If Obama were white he would have done much better in Texas and Ohio AND he would be the nominee by now. For a black man with a name like Obama to get as far as he has in this post 9/11 Country of ours is nothing short of miraculous AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT.

How dare Feraro denigrate his accomplishments.
America needs to tell the world we don't tolerate this kind of thing.

And oh by the way I'm a centrist, not some big lefty. And I voted for Bill twice.l

Posted by: Doug M | March 12, 2008 2:39 PM

When will we ever get beyond racism. It is okay for supporters of Obama to say "Now is our time" - not racist?

I think we are delighted to see someone like Obama run. It represents the best in all that America has to offer. Yet, the Black card is being played by both sides. We should just stick to the issues.

Posted by: Rose Schisler | March 12, 2008 2:40 PM

The world needs to hear Bill Clinton on the Rush Limbaugh Show
Bill Clinton is not a honorable person...

This is the link: Bill on Rush limbaugh begging for votes

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/10/115320/234


This is same Rush Limbaugh show that aired this video and song about Barack Obama: The video is called - Barack the Magic Negro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm6hlj-BV0s


The same Rush Limbaugh who talked about immigrants:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHPm_TEQ0PA

The Clintons are using Minorities/ Racism to get Hilary in office.

Posted by: Racism - Disgusting Clinton/ Karl Rove strategy | March 12, 2008 2:40 PM

Mrs. Ferraro is a dyed in the wool racist.
This is not just politics, but real racism from a so-called Northern Liberal who is actually an ultra conversative Fascist. She would have fitted nicely into the social structure of Nazi Germany 1933-1945. More than likely she would have had a role as a Extermination Camp Commadant. My question is: "How much were you paid by the Clinton Campaign to make these remarks?" Or were you promised a position as a house maid in the Clinton Whitehouse?

Posted by: Bismarck6 | March 12, 2008 2:41 PM

Why didn't Al Sharpton achieve the level of success in 2004. Isn't he African American?

Posted by: JLK | March 12, 2008 2:42 PM

Has anyone thought just for a moment that Geraldine Ferraro is just not very bright? I thought what she said was less racist than it was just plain stupid and illogical. What could be accomplished with this kind of commentary? It is very fortunate that she did not eventually become a president.
Also. When did she officialy become a Republican?

Posted by: jim kennedy | March 12, 2008 2:48 PM

Imagine what the Clinton campaign would be saying if someone suggested that she was a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination because she was lucky enough to be the wife of an ex-President. You could hear the screaming from Scranton to Honolulu. This is a racist ploy by the Clinton campaign. It draws attention to the fact that Sen. Obama is "lucky" enough to be black. As her supporter governor Strickland admitted, there is an undercurrent of racism among protions of the low income blue collar whites that Clinton has made the foundation of her campaign. Her exploitation of this is shameful.

Posted by: cdonham | March 12, 2008 2:48 PM

With respect to the US Constitution, Sen. Obama fulfills the requirements for the Office of the Presidency.
...No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

It seems however that his candidacy (and the voters) have gotten in the way of the Sen. Clinton.

Posted by: James | March 12, 2008 2:50 PM

Don't waste your time directing your fury at Ferraro, a minor has-been who was once, long, long ago, a token candidate for Vice President. Bill Clinton's fingerprints are all over this smear. (I voted for Clinton twice and defended him against unfair attacks like the ones he is guilty of now.)

It's time for Biden, Richardson, Edwards and Gore to hold a joint news conference and endorse Obama. The Clinton tag team won't stop until they make John McCain the next president.

Posted by: Dan | March 12, 2008 2:51 PM

Obama writes in The Audacity of Hope about how one of the worst parts of political life is removal from the real world; your entire waking experience can become flying chartered jets, schmoozing with fundraisers (whose support you really need), and becoming disconnected from both the people you serve and the society they live in. This is part of his push for ethics reform. Clearly you see that disconnect in Bush II, "What? Gas is $4 a gallon? Wow."

I think this disconnect is cropping up in older politicians' perception of society. This isn't 1984. Or the 70's. Or the 60's. Many people are willing to look past race and gender when assessing a candidate, and a Geraldine Ferraro just doesn't get it. The cognitive dissonance the Clinton campaign is manifesting in their actions is bound to become more and more obvious. And I seem to recall that the behavior of the Clinton campaign had something to do with Obama's big win in South Carolina. Character, actions, words matter.

Oh, and of the past 17 democratic contests, all since Super Tuesday, Obama has won more delegates than Clinton in 15 of them.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

I think America gets it.

Posted by: Eric Wilhelm | March 12, 2008 2:51 PM

Geraldine is right on the money!

Posted by: john | March 12, 2008 2:52 PM

Everybody needs to stand back and take a deep breath. Ms. Ferraro didn't say anything racist. What she said was that Barack Obama's race, in the current political paradigm, is an advantage to him as a candidate for President. It is.

While I regard most of what Charles Krauthammer writes as tripe, he did a column on this very subject last week. Because Obama is the first candidate to run for president as a "candidate who happens to be black" rather than "the black candidate", people see him as bridging the gap that has been missing in racial politics for so long. This has served him well, as people see him as a candidate who can reach out to others who are different from him successfully. That's why he's viewed as a candidate who can unite the country.

Obama supporters need to get a grip. Not every criticism of their candidate is racist, nor is every criticism unfair. The Clintons and their supporters are not monsters, and in fact, what negative campaigning there has been has been rather tame. Compare that to what the Bushies did to McCain in 2000 or Kerry in 2004. Remember all the crap the Republicans threw at Clinton for eight years. BTW, I did vote for Obama in my primary.

If and when Obama receives the Democratic nomination, he will want the Clintons and their supporters fully behind him for the general election campaign. People need to get off their high horses, remember that politics "ain't beanbag", and stop all the screeching. The enemy isn't the Clinton's, it's not Geraldine Ferraro, it's not Louis Farrakhan, it's the Republicans.

Posted by: John | March 12, 2008 2:54 PM

OK so that's it. clinton is the campaign of BIGOTS.

BITTER, OLD, HATEFUL, SPITEFUL BIGOTS WHO HATE.

Are you all gonna stay in that club of losers?

Come over here to a positive, uniting, red-white-and blue campaign that celibrates diversity and self determination in the face of hate!

Vote OBAMA for President!

Posted by: JBE | March 12, 2008 2:55 PM

You don't have to say EVERYTHING that you think. I vehemently disagree with Ms. Ferraro. But, she is entitled to her opinion. You don't have to be a genius to know that the rules are always different for people of color and when they follow them, the dominant culture CHANGES the rules. How much experience did Bush have? See where that got us. Or Ford, or Nixon. OR the iconic actor Ronald REAGAN! They had tons of experience huh?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 3:02 PM

When Clinton compared Obama's win in South Carolina with Jesse Jackson's win, he was comparing two black men running for president. Obama and his followers didn't like that.

Posted by: Shaun

Shaun, you can't be that naive that you don't know how polarizing Jesse Jackson can be with white folk. That was Mr. Clinton's intent! Make a link between the Rev. Jackson and Senator Obama and not in a positive way.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 3:05 PM

It's things like this that turn people off to politics---what happened to the fact that Barack Obama is also 1/2 white--guess that doesn't count? Just remember the source--when she ran for a presidential v.p. they lost 49 states!!!!!!!

Posted by: keeanne | March 12, 2008 3:10 PM

Name: Barack H Obama

Experience:
1996 elected to Illinois legislature. Ran unopposed after I had my four opponents disqualified by nit-picking mistakes made on their nominating petitions to appear on the ballot. Proved my smarts and toughness by the use of these strong-arm tactics.
Started slowly in legislature, but ended up with a bang in my last year when Illinois Senate Majority Leader, Emil Jones, selected me to sponsor many high-profile bills that other Democrats had spent years championing. They called it bill-jacking, but I call it smart politics. After all, those bills would not have passed without me.

2004 Elected to U.S. Senate when first my Democratic primary candidate and then my Republican candidate in the general election imploded due to divorce scandals. Finally ran against Alan Keyes in general election, who was imported from Maryland by a desperate Republican party. Won with over 70% of the vote showing how great a candidate I was.

2007 Announced candidacy for President of the United States. Why not, since I am such a great speaker and ... and .... and ... um, ah, ah ..... since I am such a great speaker.

And Geraldine Ferraro has the nerve to question my qualifications! She much be a racist!

Posted by: David 2007 | March 12, 2008 3:12 PM

The irony is that Geraldine Ferraro had far less legislative experience than Sen. Obama and far fewer legislative accomplishments when she was asked to be on the Mondale ticket (6 years as a House representative from a gerrymandered district). She did not win any primary campaigns and was elevated to the ticket precisely because she was a woman and therefore a novelty--oh, that glass ceiling sexism strikes again!

Similarly, John Edwards ran both his '04 and '08 elections on six years of legislative experience with no landmark reforms to Obama's 20 years as a legislator and 3 landmark Senate bills. Yet, criticism of Edwards focused on his policy positions instead of on his naivete or inexperience.

Ferraro and Clinton are pushing the affirmative action undeserving kid angle because they know this is one area where non-educated white voters and elite conservative political pundits still feel comfortable expressing their racism. This is one of many examples of the Clintons using the race card to try to reduce Obama's appeal with non-educated whites and Hispanics. A quick look at Sen. Clinton's record as a legislator--again, six years in all, in which she authored a paltry 20 bills, mostly honorary--shows that she doesn't have much else to stand on.

Anybody who buys this Clinton experience argument needs to take a quick glance at the Library of Congress website and compare Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama side-by-side. The press has failed once again to be diligent before parroting campaign talking points. The experience argument does not stand up to the facts. Ferraro and Clinton push this angle because they know most voters won't do that quick, basic research and will instead assume that a black man like Obama could not possible have gotten to where he is on the merit of his accomplishments.

Posted by: Mark | March 12, 2008 3:13 PM

Ann

Sure ann, the obama campaign never cried racist, he said her comments were divisive didn't he? Or are you like Ferroro and make up your own opinions and call them facts. Now I guess the obama campaign should just take the high road and continue to let the clinton people make issues of race which is what he is doing by the way. You have put words in obamas mouth just so you can have an argument against him when what your really trying to do is justify what Ferarro said. Obama never cried racist. If so please show us where. I guess you assume he would. Or divisive means racist. It seems the white people who are trying to justify this like you are more racially sensitive and willing to whine than obama is. Try reading your own post. It is basicall a rush limbaugh classic. Take some comment that is race baited, support it and call anyone who disagrees the racist. Thats your post in a nutshell. Hey, ever thought about this, If george bush were black he would not be president. Am I racist for saying that?

Posted by: gdavis4 | March 12, 2008 3:15 PM

It was unnecessary and just plain ignorant for Ferraro to make such statements. It's also ironic in the fact that i'm sure this is the same type of thinking that led many whites in Mississippi to vote for Clinton -- solely based on race.

And I am sick and tired of hearing people say that Obama has been playing the "race card". When did Obama explicitly try to coddle black voters into voting for him? I don't remember him saying to them that they should vote for him because he's black. As far as I've seen, he's left that choice up to them since maybe 10% were supporting him prior to the statements made by the Clintons.

When I first heard Hillary's remarks at that time I didn't immediately think that they were "racist" but the way she said those remarks were highly questionable in tone. Newsflash, people: We STILL don't live in a color-blind society and I think Obama knows that -- that's why he hasn't and won't base his campaign solely on him being black. And so far, that's been consistent on his part. The media chooses to do whatever they want regarding campaign footage and statements but if we're going to just talk about Obama's words (and not his actions as the Clinton campaign states time and time again) then maybe one should've figured out that he has not called anyone out as being racist, not even Ferraro. No one wanted to call the Clintons racist either but their comments angered a lot of black people (because they have a mind of their own and are free to vote for whoever they want to) and I'm sure they voted for Obama solely on race too.

There are still some black supporters of Clinton but after those comments, she LOST the majority of the black vote and HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING since to try and win those voters back.

Hmm . . she's still getting a majority of white women and Latinos though. Where is this supposed "affirmative action clause" to the presidency in the Constitution?

If the Clinton campaign said something explicitly denouncing illegal immigration or something like that, you can be sure that she'd lose a majority of the Latino vote just as quickly -- and would those comments be considered "racist" when many people think that way about this issue?

I agree with gdavis4 and others here who understand that comments like Ferraro's and the Clintons really have no place here. If you want to voice your opinion, that's fine but realize that those will have repercussions and will anger a lot of people on both sides.

It's just plain ignorance.

Posted by: MDL2 | March 12, 2008 3:15 PM

We have a caucasian president today and he is the most unqualified president that we have ever had. All of his decisions have beeen made because of personal agendas. He has come in like a lone cowboy and nobody can alter his decisions, he vetoe's whatever he does not agree with. This country is more divided than it has ever been and the division is not about race. The race issue has not change,we still have the things that make us different, car loans are higher for us not because of credit, but because of skin color, homes cost more for us not because of credit but skin color. This has been documented by studies that have been done.

Posted by: M Flemmings | March 12, 2008 3:17 PM

Obama's attempt to extrapolate history to argue that he is not riding a trend involving race is absurd at best. Ms Ferraro is expressing her own view of a fact, and it is not even news worthy. The reason Obama camp make a big deal out of it is totally political - this allows them NOT to address real issues Americans care about. This is Karl Rove politics.

Posted by: Barakaka | March 12, 2008 3:17 PM

Sorry folks but a Democrat getting a huge percentage of a black vote is NOT unique to Obama. Combine this with what many black voters PERCIEVE as innuendo by the Clinton camp and you have the recipe for the voting results. Fair or unfair the Clintons started losing the black vote due to comments around South Carolina. Before that primary Obama was getting more black votes but it wasn't nearly as lop-sided as it became AFTER South Carolina. In 2000, black voters made up nearly 11 percent of the overall voter. They gave the Democratic presidential contender Al Gore 90 percent of their vote. In 2004, black voters made up nearly 12 percent of the vote and gave Democratic presidential contender John Kerry 88 percent of the vote. Gore and Kerry lost. Please LET GO of the racial thing or the gender thing. Does it really matter whether or not Obamas success is partially predicated upon race? Is Hillary's success partially predicated on Gender? The problem is there is NO NEED to point that out. There is NO need to reduce discussions to this level. We have a historical Dem ticket. A Woman and an African American. Neither campaign can ignore the historical aspect of each campaign, but neither should be reduced to the some total of that observation.

Posted by: feastorafamine | March 12, 2008 3:19 PM

Where is the great orator and fine, decent man I hear everyone gushing about when they speak of Obama? A great orator and a fine, decent man would have responded to Ms. Ferraro's comments by asking voters and the Clinton campaign to stay focused on the issues, not on the race (or gender) of the candidates. He would have taken the opportunity to thank black voters for the passionate and unwavering support they've shown him. He might even have said he is humbled to be the first black candidate in US history who has come so far in a presidential election and who might hope to go further still. He might even have disputed Ms. Ferraro's claims that the only thing that qualified her for her VP candidacy was her gender - he might have said he felt she was the most qualified candidate at that time.

Instead, he alluded to an American past fraught with racial discrimination. And he didn't mention a word about change.

Geraldine Ferraro isn't a candidate for US President, Barak Obama is. Fortunately, he's not the best the Democrats have on offer.

Posted by: Lynn | March 12, 2008 3:22 PM

In 1984, my fifth-grade teacher held a mock Presidential election in my three-classroom schoolhouse in rural Wisconsin. When the results were tallied, Mondale/Ferraro garnered only two votes--mine and that of a friend I convinced to vote for the Democratic ticket. As history well knows, the nation followed the example of my class. Having read Geraldine Ferraro's recent remarks, they have solidified my feeling that Hillary Clinton is the wrong woman to be carrying the mantle for women to the White House now, just as they also have provoked an angry sense in me that Geraldine Ferraro was the wrong woman to be carrying the mantle for women then (angry enough that I would take back my mock vote now, if I could). Derogatory statements by this particular, high-profile Clinton surrogate that both REFLECT and PREY ON bigoted views are part of a pattern of angering and offending in a way that mere months does NOT heal.

I've been voting Democratic all the way back to the mock 1980 election in my first-grade class, which I also still remember, so I will not vote for McCain. Mark my words, though, Hillary, in the general election, I might not vote at all. I increasingly doubt your ability to accomplish any of your promises given your ability to antagonize and provoke animosity, and McCain (although I wouldn't vote for him) has demonstrated better ability to reach across the aisle, so I cannot say which would be worse for our country. I don't expect sparring candidates to lick each other like purring tigers, but I want to help my son, when he votes for the first time in his first-grade mock election in 2012, to be able to vote for a candidate he will be proud of for his lifetime.

This year, for sure, Wisconsinites got it right.

Posted by: Rural Girl Got Wise | March 12, 2008 3:23 PM

Ferraro is a hack politician. She didn't have a chance when she ran for VP. NOT because she was a woman but because she was a nasty, divisive, pandering politician. She wasn't trying to solve anything. She did favors and worked the system instead of serving the people. Her terrible personality,political ambitions and her husband's crooked money deals brought her down. She isn't even in the same league as Obama. All of this nonsense is really Ferraro's attempt to draw some attention to herself. She is a has been. If anyone wants to know what Hillary will be like in a few years, look at Ferraro. It ain't a pretty sight.

Posted by: PB | March 12, 2008 3:25 PM

Ferraro is right on target. He had commercials running on CNN which boasted about him being the FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN to be he Harvard Review Editor. He calls himself African-American even though his mother was of European descent. Doesn't that make him European-American as well? In Iowa he made sure he did not go to any black churches? For the first big speech in South Carolina he dispatched his wife so they can identify him (through her) as one of their own. In Ohio, he figured he has to tell them he has white roots (witness the commercial with references to his mother for the first time in the entire time the campaign was on). He played the race card quite well. He can paly it, but nobody can point that out!

Posted by: wp123 | March 12, 2008 3:28 PM

I think this shows one thing, that Gerry believes she herself only got the VP nomination because of her gender. I think she believes no one gains money and votes based on character but instead on insider status or media attention.

She needs to think back to the beginning of this race, when Obama was not a leading candidate and Hillary seemed (and acted) like it was all hers to win. But then the crowds started appearing, the money started flowing in record amounts, not to Hillary, but to Obama. Gerry is thinking with a mind that believes success only happens with some sort of edge, the only edge she could easily see in Obama was his race.

This is probably a product of the 20th century, where old boy politics was how one got elected, and newspapers could propel, or destroy, a candidate. But today no one cares who the Times or Post supports. No one reads just the paper, but blogs and online news as well. And Hillary is the one showing the old boy method of politics here. Its time for Gerry to get her head out of DC and find out just why people are voting for Obama. If its the black vote, which is what, 10-15% of the nation, then she has some explaining to do because you don't get Obama's numbers based on that small of a voting block. And Hillary, who you would think has a 51% voting block in women, is falling behind in the delegate count.

So either Gerry is not thinking because she is blinded by too many days in DC and 20th century national politics, or it was a calculated hit designed to bring up the race issue in full media light without Hillary's fingerprints on it.

Well, the condemnations of what she has said should give Gerry, and Hillary, a clue. Attacking candidates is not something democrats like to see, black or white, and she needs to run an honest campaign and stop the dirty tricks. In today's information age, you cannot control the message anymore, which is how 20th century politics was waged. Obama gets it, Hillary and Gerry do not.

Posted by: Sully | March 12, 2008 3:28 PM

zanney8 wrote:

Ferraro's comments to The Daily Breeze newspaper are right on target in describing the teflon-coated candidacy of Barack Obama. Whenever Obama stands up to mesmerize an audience of kids and politically correct, he plays the race card; he parries any critical comment about him as "racist"; blacks who want to vote for Clinton are bullied and insulted; blacks are voting as a bloc--85% in one state,91% in Mississippi. He has combined a civil-rights movement with a political candidacy to get a prize. This is our country at stake. Go to www.savagepolitics.com for considerable background information.
--------------------------
First Obama didn't say these comments, Ferraro did, but yet you call Obama out as being the one to use the race card? If someone is makes a racist statement and its directed at me, don't I have a right to verbal respond? And if I do, it doesn't make me out to be the person pulling the race card.

Now on your accusation that blacks are bullied because they vote for Clinton is suspect. Where did you get this information? One of Clinton's strongest support base has been from the black community. I also wouldn't read too much in the Mississippi numbers, thats a state that traditionally votes in a racially polarizing way. The truth is both whites and blacks support both Clinton and Obama. Blacks aren't supporting Obama in Iowa, Wyoming, Oregon, Hawaii, and Wisconsin. Just as whites solely aren't supporting Clinton in New York, New Jersey, Arkansas and California.

Thirdly, you state "This is our country at stake," are blacks included in the "our" in your statement?

Posted by: objectivity | March 12, 2008 3:29 PM

To Mark | March 12, 2008 03:13 PM

Your statement "Obama's 20 years as a legislator" is incorrect. He was elected to Illinois Senate in 1996 and served from 1997 until his resignation in Nov. 2004 following his election to the U.S. Senate. [Ref. Wikipedia]

He thus served 8 years in the Illinois Senate and 3 years in the U.S. Senate. This is a total of 11 years, not 20. as you stated.

Don't know where you got your information, but if can't even get this basic factual information right, then I wonder about the rest of your post.

Posted by: David 2007 | March 12, 2008 3:30 PM

For what it is worth I am a black female and I understand exactly what Mrs. Ferraro is saying about Senator Obama running on race. Yes a lot of blacks are playing the race card while republicans are playing "let's get Hillary out the way" using the primaries to do just that. AMERICANS HATE TO HEAR THE TRUTH and it doesn't matter who's telling it. The democrats in Washington should have endorsed only one of these candidates and not given life to this night mare. A black male candidate and a white female candidate was bound to wake up racist, gender haters, Clinton haters and only GOD knows what else. The GOP has got to see Senator Obama and Senator Clinton has the dream team for Senator McCain.
Senator McCain can watch the democratic candidates and democratic voters slaughter one another, he can come in and finish us off.

Posted by: EYEOPENER | March 12, 2008 3:32 PM

It should be noted that the Washington Post quoted her saying the exact same thing about Jesse Jackson in 1988.

I think that casts a different light on this: More like a pattern of racism and disrespect by her towards black candidates.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html

""If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," she said.
Really. The cite is an April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available only on Nexis."

Posted by: Jim | March 12, 2008 3:32 PM

KC Park, I believe you are referring to Mississippi as that is the only state where Obama has received the 90%. Mind you, he also received close to 24% of the white vote in that state. The state itself happens to be overwhelming black so you will have such figures. Obama currently leads in popular vote, states won, and delegates, so I don't see why Mississippi is such a shock to you. It appears to me that the state voted the same as most of the country has.

Posted by: objectivity | March 12, 2008 3:33 PM

Ferraro is totally right! It is way too easy for a black person to run for president in this country!

I'm sick of all these black presidents!

Posted by: Dave | March 12, 2008 3:39 PM

obama needs to stop responding to these comments. he only legitimizes the bias media's attempt to create controversy. controversy sells; they (media) could care less about who brings up better solutions to the issues. They want a fight, and race is the best catalyst. DONT BELIEVE THE HYPE. Obama fell right into the hunter's trap. STAND UP OBAMA, and SAY F*** U ALL. that's a real leader. Hey, BUSH didn't get elected by responding to criticism, he just said "F*** U" and have a nice day.

Posted by: sfred20 | March 12, 2008 3:40 PM

Barack: Let's move beyond the divisions of the past.
Hillary: He's Black.
Bill: He's Black.
Ferraro: He's Black.
Ferraro: Oh, and did I mention, He's Black.

Posted by: Mike | March 12, 2008 3:46 PM

Dave wrote:

Ferraro is totally right! It is way too easy for a black person to run for president in this country!

I'm sick of all these black presidents!
-----------------------
Dave you're Awesome! :-)

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 3:46 PM

Why are all the anti-obama people saying that barack only has support from college kids and blacks. This is absolutely false. In just about every state he has won, whites are the majority. People only make these kinds of comments because they know that a large percentage of Americans believe what they are told, instead of doing there own research and homework.

Posted by: keith | March 12, 2008 3:47 PM

Maybe Geraldine Ferraro is disappointed that the next President will not be a blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 3:48 PM

Ferraro's comments are true, but Obama and his followers were quick to translate truth to racism. Instead of Obama turning the comment into a positive, such as HE is the one who will make a CHANGE to that situation, he chose to cry racism. He is using perceived racism to rile up his followers -- and they don't even realize how he is using them.

Posted by: Jonathan | March 12, 2008 3:51 PM

Zany8, another clown in the midst. So sad you have no clue. I bet you use the n word when talking about Barrack to your friends. Too bad for you he is going to be president and there is nothing you or savagewhatever.com can do about it. Get over it.lolololol

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 3:54 PM

Spin all you want, but this episode -- including Gov. Rendell's comments -- is further evidence that Hilary and her campaign will do or say anything to win. Now, they're playing the race card and playing on the fears of white voters. Shame on Ferraro. Shame on Rendell. "Shame on you, Hilary Clinton!"

Posted by: bill | March 12, 2008 4:06 PM

I do not understand. Geraldine Ferraro seems to think that a white guy with less than one full term in the senate couldn't make a viable run for president. How much more experience did Bobby Kennedy have? Less than one term in the senate, less than four years working for his brother, some time as a community organizer. I'm sorry I voted for Ms Ferraro, and I certainly won't make that mistake with Ms. Clinton.

Posted by: whatwhiteguy | March 12, 2008 4:08 PM

For someone who is going to stay "above the fray" Senator Obama seems to be having his way with this. He's wallowing deep into it!! It's wimpy of him to react this way. It's easier for him to focus on this rather than the issues. We deserve better.

Posted by: cb | March 12, 2008 4:09 PM

Sorry folks but a Democrat getting a huge percentage of a black vote is NOT unique to Obama. Combine this with what many black voters PERCIEVE as innuendo by the Clinton camp and you have the recipe for the voting results. Fair or unfair the Clintons started losing the black vote due to comments around South Carolina. Before that primary Obama was getting more black votes but it wasn't nearly as lop-sided as it became AFTER South Carolina. In 2000, black voters made up nearly 11 percent of the overall voter. They gave the Democratic presidential contender Al Gore 90 percent of their vote. In 2004, black voters made up nearly 12 percent of the vote and gave Democratic presidential contender John Kerry 88 percent of the vote. Gore and Kerry lost. Please LET GO of the racial thing or the gender thing. Does it really matter whether or not Obamas success is partially predicated upon race? Is Hillary's success partially predicated on Gender? The problem is there is NO NEED to point that out. There is NO need to reduce discussions to this level. We have a historical Dem ticket. A Woman and an African American. Neither campaign can ignore the historical aspect of each campaign, but neither should be reduced to the some total of that observation. Find some UNITY Dems. Obama and Hillary's policies are nearly identical.

Posted by: Penny k | March 12, 2008 4:09 PM

Sorry folks but a Democrat getting a huge percentage of a black vote is NOT unique to Obama. Combine this with what many black voters PERCIEVE as innuendo by the Clinton camp and you have the recipe for the voting results. Fair or unfair the Clintons started losing the black vote due to comments around South Carolina. Before that primary Obama was getting more black votes but it wasn't nearly as lop-sided as it became AFTER South Carolina. In 2000, black voters made up nearly 11 percent of the overall voter. They gave the Democratic presidential contender Al Gore 90 percent of their vote. In 2004, black voters made up nearly 12 percent of the vote and gave Democratic presidential contender John Kerry 88 percent of the vote. Gore and Kerry lost. Please LET GO of the racial thing or the gender thing. Does it really matter whether or not Obamas success is partially predicated upon race? Is Hillary's success partially predicated on Gender? The problem is there is NO NEED to point that out. There is NO need to reduce discussions to this level. We have a historical Dem ticket. A Woman and an African American. Neither campaign can ignore the historical aspect of each campaign, but neither should be reduced to the some total of that observation.

Posted by: feastorafamine | March 12, 2008 4:10 PM

Ferraro needs to shut her big mouth up. Just because she was the "token woman" candidate of the Democratic Party in 1984 doesn't mean that Mr. Obama fits the same mold.

Ferraro's just enjoying the fact that she can still remain on tv (and claim relevance) despite the fact that she hasn't won an election in more than 25 years or a factor in the Democratic party for nearly that long. Let's not forget that Ms. Ferraro was part of a ticket that won only one state, and that she was smart enough to find a way to lose a debate with George Bush.

Ferraro's ignorant comments are part of a disturbing "below the belt" trend that's been part of the Clinton Strategy since day one. this sort of mudslinging politics is typical of the Clintons and is a sharp reminder as to why Hillary Clinton will lose the White House if she's chosen as the Democratic candidate. She can pull this crap with a nice guy like Obama, but McCain's going to attack her corrupt as heck history and will eat her alive.

Finally, I doubt the press is more sexist than it is racist. Yet you've heard little whining from Obama's campaign about being treated poorly by the press because he's black. Go figure.

Posted by: NW Represent | March 12, 2008 4:12 PM

...and if Hilary was not the wife of an ex-President, would she be in the running? No.

This reeks of unfathomable hypocrisy on Farraro's part...or as a white male do I just not get it?

Posted by: cprussin | March 12, 2008 4:13 PM

Enough is Enough. I applaud ALL Dems who are just as bewildered and confused over this hatred for one Dem against another. I realize you ardently support your individual candidate but I will NEVER understand your vile mud-slinging belligerent posts about fellow Democrats. I applaud all Dems who see the need for UNITY within the party, who understand to vote for POLICIES. The policies of Obama and Hillary are almost identical. Either would make an excellent president. McCain's policies are night and day compared to either Hillary OR Obama. WAKE UP. The ONLY way McCain can win the general (Given the 2 to 1 voter turnout of Dems over Repubs the ENTIRE election cycle) is if you act like a cry babies because YOUR candidate didnt get the nomination. Realize that their POLICIES are almost identical, and vote for the reasons you should be voting for. Policies plain and simple.

Posted by: Penny K | March 12, 2008 4:14 PM

I see that that the National Post put Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Obama on today's front page: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman [of any colour], 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."

Ferraro was somewhat reckless to say this: She is a member of Hillary Clinton's campaign finance committee, and her comments thereby complicate life for the Clintons, who already have had been accused of "playing the race card." But optics and political strategy aside, I'm having a hard time disagreeing with the substance of Ferraro's remarks. To put it bluntly, she's right.

If you think this is just some right-wing National Post redneck spouting off, I'd urge readers to check out the front-page story in the March 9 edition of the notably non-redneck New York Times. Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role points out -- in the politest, most delicate New York Times way possible -- that Obama has done next to nothing as a federal legislator.

To quote from the article: "While [Obama] rightly takes credit for steering through an ethics overhaul that reformers called a 'gold standard,' like most freshmen he did not play a significant role in passing much other legislation and disappointed some Democrats for not becoming a more prominent voice in other important debates. Yet Mr. Obama was planning for the future. He spent much of his time raising money for other Democrats, which helped him build chits and lists of potential voters. He tended to his image, even upbraiding a reporter for writing that he had smoked a cigarette (a habit he later said he gave up for his presidential bid)."

Yes, Obama is a good orator, and has a powerful message of "change" -- but even that message is tied up with his race. For many of his supporters, nothing could be more emblematic of a "changed" America than one in which a black man makes history by becoming President. Does anyone honestly believe that a first-term senator from Illinois who had all Obama's qualities -- but was white and named Joe Blow -- would be the front-runner to become the Democratic nominee for President?

One final point: Though I've never been a huge fan of Ferraro, I really admire the manner in which she's sticking to her guns on this issue -- instead of publishing some touchy-feely apology. I particularly liked this gutsy little flourish: "Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up ... Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

Good to see someone exercising a little bit of backbone. It makes a nice counterpoint to the mass media's obsequious Obama love-in.

Posted by: Jonathan Kay | March 12, 2008 4:15 PM

I am so tired of this issue of racism coming up when anyone makes a comment about Sen.Obama's color of skin being the reason he is where he is in this primary campaign. The plain fact is that Ferraro is right.If he were a white male, he wouldn't have the media coverage he has now. Let's face it he is no JFK( no matter what Teddy says); he is no Robert Kennedy; and he is no Martin Luther King( simply because Mr. King was never in politics). But there is no way that she could have said what she said differently, where the media wouldn't have called it a racist comment or hinted at it a least.
Sen. Obama's campaign was the first to bring a racist tone to this campaign when they hinted that Sen. Clinton's comments about Dr. King's roll in the Civil Rights movement was less then LBJ's. That is not what she said. She stated (facually) that the Civil Rights Bill would never have been passed if not for LJB signing it. There are no factual errors in that statement.Ater that, Obama says she is slighting Dr. Kings' legacy, and Sen. KennedY gets into a huff because she doesn't give JFK partal credit. Now, if only Lady Bird were still alive I am sure she would say that Hillary didn't give enough credit to LBJ for his work.
So, the media , who just loves Obama , says that Hillary is playing the race card. What a bunch of BS.
There is more sexism going on this campaign then racism, but that doesn't get ratings up.
It is easier to play the race card ( to get ratings up and get African Americans to vote for you)then it is to scream sexism
and get woman to vote for you. That says someting about their intellegence.
I beleive that it is just as racist to vote for a black man running for office, because you are of the same race as it is to vote against him because you are a different race.( a hint black super delegates being presured to vote for Obama)
Look at the numbers: Obama gets the support of blacks by about 80/20 while Hillary gets the female vote by about 55/45. On the surface I would say those numbers reflect more racism in the black vote tan sexism in the female vote.
I get so tired of the MSM coming to the defense of Sen. Obama, when he is in fact supplying the racism in this contest.
I wish they would concentrate on his 130 present votes in the ILL. state Legislature, his 6 "srew-up "votes, his not chairing one committee hearing on Afganistan since he has been in office( because he has been too busy), his NFTA stance, or his ex-aide who said that he wouldn't have to abide by his campaign promise to get troops out in the time he has said he would, and his ties to Resko( have you heard anything about that trial? Nope. But if were Hillary's friend and donor, it would be all over the front page.)
Where are those issues?
No, it's easier to scream racism then get the facts.
The voters lose again.
And watch out because McCain will win.

Posted by: Samuel | March 12, 2008 4:16 PM

Allright, Obama did not vote for the war. Same Gov. Richardson. Obama is promising changes; so did Gov. Richardson. Obama promise to unite us, so did ..... we can go on forever. Ferraro is right.

Posted by: thishowiseeit | March 12, 2008 4:17 PM

So the Clinton campaign is doing the muslim terrorist smear through the back channels, selling the "I'm just losing due to affirmative action" fable out front, and pushing to get the Soviet style election results in MI upheld on the side.... ahhhh, the Clintonian brand of politics, so uplifting.

Posted by: Steve | March 12, 2008 4:18 PM

Does it really matter whether or not Obamas success is partially predicated upon race? Is Hillary's success partially predicated on Gender? The problem is there is NO NEED to point that out. There is NO need to reduce discussions to this level. We have a historical Dem ticket. A Woman and an African American. Neither campaign can ignore the historical aspect of each campaign, but neither should be reduced to the some total of that observation.

Enough is Enough. I applaud ALL Dems who are just as bewildered and confused over this hatred for one Dem against another. I realize you ardently support your individual candidate but I will NEVER understand your vile mud-slinging belligerent posts about fellow Democrats. I applaud all Dems who see the need for UNITY within the party, who understand to vote for POLICIES. The policies of Obama and Hillary are almost identical. Either would make an excellent president. McCain's policies are night and day compared to either Hillary OR Obama. WAKE UP. The ONLY way McCain can win the general (Given the 2 to 1 voter turnout of Dems over Repubs the ENTIRE election cycle) is if you act like a cry babies because YOUR candidate didnt get the nomination. Realize that their POLICIES are almost identical, and vote for the reasons you should be voting for. Policies plain and simple.

Posted by: Penny k | March 12, 2008 4:18 PM

Geraldine Ferraro is a has-been who never was. She has said the same racist things about Jesse Jackson. She gives democrats a bad name. If HRC had an ounce of class and decency she would have strongly denounced and rejected Ferraro's comments instead of her weak excuses for Geraldine's racist rants.

Posted by: Absolute 0-K | March 12, 2008 4:19 PM

For years, people have argued that people of African descent were inherently inferior because of their Black skin. Now, Geraldine argues that Obama is successful because of his black skin. Structurally, these arguments are identical.

Posted by: concerned | March 12, 2008 4:20 PM

Ferraro is right. Barack Hussein Obama is lucky.
Why the media want to help Barack Hussein Obama so dearly.
All media is not honest

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 4:21 PM

These are the same Obama supporters who celebrated when Shuster called Hillary a mother who was prostituting her daughter.

Clinton supporters, let's remember that. Let's remember, when this battle is over - should Clinton lose - we cannot - we must not rest until Obama has been taken down by Clinton.

Let's give whatever little we can afford (be it $5) to her so she can fight the sexist coalition of Obama supporters/Media/Establishment. We cannot let this woman be raped by these scoundrels:

https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html?sc=2382

Posted by: Coalition of sexists | March 12, 2008 4:23 PM

Left-wing paternalists regard themselves as architects of racial progress, guarding and guiding blacks along the path of success -- a role in which they assume to stand forever at the head of the march. But what happens when blacks overtake their enlightened white helpers? All hell breaks loose and the mask of progress drops to reveal the stricken faces of the white avant-garde .

Posted by: Emmanuelle | March 12, 2008 4:23 PM

Can someone who are voting for Obama rationally explain to me one question:

If getting 90% of the black votes has nothing to do with exploiting the race,
which is then the race card?

Posted by: KC Park | March 12, 2008 4:26 PM

Wow, the dixiecrats are back. Please white people vote for hillary and support the white candidate since the black population which happens to be 11% of the united states and not all registered to vote are all obviously voting for obama and there votes clearly outnumber the number of white voters and is making the big difference. Its not the black vote that made the difference, its the white vote for obama that is helping him win. If you look at the last general election between Kerry and Bush you will find the same high percentage of black vote going for kerry. Did he win? No. So even with anyone getting 91 percent of the black vote thats not enough to make the difference. The fact is Obama is winning because he is running a campaign based on change and change is what america wants and needs. Both hillary and obama chose a platfor to run on, hillary tried to play both sides and she ends up sounding more like the people already in charge than someone who wishes to change course. Obama talks about change and talks about addressing americas problems not about hillary. Hillary is running a bad campaign and obama is not and it is getting him votes from blacks and whites. Pleas stop making excuses for hillary not winning. I guess some of you think the same thing when a black person gets a promotion over you in the office. Instead of dedicating yourself to doing better and earning your own promotion your attack the person who got it for benefiting from their race and calls them racist for having an issue with it. Its sad when white americans not only refuse to get past race themselves but now attempt to spin racism to make themselves the victims and blacks the racist. But check this, the only reason hillary is in any of the positions she is in today is because she was bill clintons wife. If she were black she would not be in her position today. Does that remark make me racist?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 4:39 PM

I'm really tired of the Clinton's faux outrage every time they decide to smear Senator Obama. It is really clear that they've made a conscious decision to target voters living in the "Alabama" part of Pennsylvania with an overtly racist campaign. I guess this is what the Clintonites call "vetting" a candidate.

It is sick, stupid and above all is simply a strategy by Hillary to scorch the earth and anger significant parts of the Democratic electorate. She's providing aid and comfort to her drinking buddy John McCain. I suppose she's angling for a slot in his administration -- say head of Health and Human Services. I predict that if McCain wins -- we'll have Hillary vamping around and blaming Obama for the damage that she wrought on the Democratic Party.

At this point, watching the Clinton's sick, selfish, cynical, narcissistic and dysfunctional shtick makes nauseous. But never look behind the curtain and ask -- where was UberSupreme Leader Hillary during the genocide in Rwanda!

I've decided, watching the latest Clintonian debacle that they are in fact the Original Aristocrats -- see this wiki article about the Aristocrats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aristocrats_%28joke%29


Posted by: Rusty Filero | March 12, 2008 4:42 PM

I believe Sen. Obama is there for being how he is, brilliant, intelligent, communicative. Black as well.
Sen. Clinton is there for being how she is as well, smart, capable of closing friendship with the right people, flexible in complimenting and insulting the same person within few hours. Female as well. In fact I heard and read quite a bunch of people telling fairly clear that they had voted her because of her gender. To my eyes they were sexist the same way that it would be racist someone who would vote Sen. Obama for the color of his skin.
I believe there are enough intelligent people voting the candidate for their merits and capacities.
Personally I started as neutral observer, was later impressed by Sen. Obama's communication skills and started to get uncomfortable with the mud fight started by Sen. Clinton (may be it is real politics, but it is exactly the sort of politics I would like to see changed). Now, I am impressed by how the press pushes her and makes its very best to downsize Sen. Obama. Often I need to cross-check with european newspapers to have some more objectively written news. My impression is that newspapers are manipulaing he elections to keep Sen. Clinton on he rail.
I am surprised to listen that Sen. Clinton won Texas, for instance. Rules have been declared in advance, and victory can be claimed only according to the rules. Rules say that winner is the candidate that gets the most delegates, and in Texas winner is Sen. Obama. Why do you need to manipulate information?
At present I believe he only unquestionable ruth are the numbers, which say that Sen. Obama has more delegates, more states, more popular vote and more funds raised.
At present I believe the superdelegates are hopefully waiting that the campaign will help them to cast their vote without taking a position, it means avoiding to take their responsibilities. I always learned that to have power means to have responsibilities. Well, apparently not for these people. What do they still need to discover about the candidate? Do they believe that they will get an illumination and will hear a voice in their mind telling what Lord wish them to endorse?
I doubt it, I believe they are only hoping to be able to wait until their vote will look kind of neutral and will not put at risk their re-election.
Well, I am full of questions. I still hope that against all odds, America will manage to still find a way to democracy.

Posted by: Gio | March 12, 2008 4:43 PM

I believe Sen. Obama is there for being how he is, brilliant, intelligent, communicative. Black as well.
Sen. Clinton is there for being how she is as well, smart, capable of closing friendship with the right people, flexible in complimenting and insulting the same person within few hours. Female as well. In fact I heard and read quite a bunch of people telling fairly clear that they had voted her because of her gender. To my eyes they were sexist the same way that it would be racist someone who would vote Sen. Obama for the color of his skin.
I believe there are enough intelligent people voting the candidate for their merits and capacities.
Personally I started as neutral observer, was later impressed by Sen. Obama's communication skills and started to get uncomfortable with the mud fight started by Sen. Clinton (may be it is real politics, but it is exactly the sort of politics I would like to see changed). Now, I am impressed by how the press pushes her and makes its very best to downsize Sen. Obama. Often I need to cross-check with european newspapers to have some more objectively written news. My impression is that newspapers are manipulaing he elections to keep Sen. Clinton on he rail.
I am surprised to listen that Sen. Clinton won Texas, for instance. Rules have been declared in advance, and victory can be claimed only according to the rules. Rules say that winner is the candidate that gets the most delegates, and in Texas winner is Sen. Obama. Why do you need to manipulate information?
At present I believe he only unquestionable ruth are the numbers, which say that Sen. Obama has more delegates, more states, more popular vote and more funds raised.
At present I believe the superdelegates are hopefully waiting that the campaign will help them to cast their vote without taking a position, it means avoiding to take their responsibilities. I always learned that to have power means to have responsibilities. Well, apparently not for these people. What do they still need to discover about the candidate? Do they believe that they will get an illumination and will hear a voice in their mind telling what Lord wish them to endorse?
I doubt it, I believe they are only hoping to be able to wait until their vote will look kind of neutral and will not put at risk their re-election.
Well, I am full of questions. I still hope that against all odds, America will manage to still find a way to democracy.

Posted by: Gio | March 12, 2008 4:47 PM

Before I knew about Obama's slums, I was pushing for a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Now that I know how stone cold he is I wouldn't support him for dog-catcher.

What he did is horrible, cruel, and cold.

Posted by: Obama is a con man | March 12, 2008 4:47 PM

Dave wrote:


Ferraro is totally right! It is way too easy for a black person to run for president in this country!

I'm sick of all these black presidents!
-------------
Dave that's some funny **it! You rock! :-)

Posted by: Objectivity | March 12, 2008 4:48 PM

Mike Johnson

Pathetic is being a drunk coke head dumb butt who would be cutting down scrubbs if he was not born a bush becoming president based on a tie breaker recount denial by the state that his brother is governor of. Meanwhile before becoming president could not boast of any accomplishment outside of having a good golf game that was not assisted by his father who was a president himself. If bush were black he would not be president. Racist, true or both?

Posted by: gdavis4 | March 12, 2008 4:51 PM

Obama supporters don't care how badly he shafted the poor who voted for him in Chicago.

All they care about is winning.

Posted by: They don't care who he shafted | March 12, 2008 4:53 PM

The same tactic she used before OH primaries, she is using now i.e create a big controversy over race, then recycle it in the news media 24/7 so that white folks in PA will side with her.

One IDIOT says not talking about race is like denying the right ro speak? So when did discriminating people along race lines become a fundemental right?

How can any of the cult followers of Hillary possible suggest that she is in anyway worthy of office she is trying to gain? So this is the level to which she will stoop to become the President?

Posted by: JDK | March 12, 2008 4:55 PM

All Barack hater can think about this. HE IS GOING TO BE PRESIDENT! Ferraro or whoever Hillary uses to do her dirty work, I mean damn, I read people saying the most ridiculous things! WHAT HAS HILLARY DONE? I think that hillary supporter who make mis statements or follow up on them, just don't or can't see a black man a president. too bad though, because he will be. So all the talk, the writing, the slander, the whatever won't change this fact. Barrack 4 President!!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 4:59 PM

i was a fervent backer of the climton's but not anymore.if they manage to steal the nomination i would rather have four years on mc cain than hillary.i am black.bill the super politician can figger out how they can win without the black vote.i think i speak for many who will not be used by slick willie as we were in the past.by the way move yor office fromharlem as you are no longer welcome.

Posted by: bill | March 12, 2008 5:01 PM

I frankly cannot believe how many people agree with Geraldine Ferraro! I remember the election in 1984 and she inspired me that women can do whatever they want, even though society does not always agree. I am appalled by her statements and also the way she defended them on GMA. How could anyone state that a man, who can fill Comcast arena with 10,000 + people at the University of Maryland got there just on race?
I have participated in all elections since I was 18. I even wrote to President Reagan about the cold war when I was 12! But I have never been as inspired as I am in this election by Senator Obama. Funny, I am not black and I AM a woman.
Shame on Ferraro for saying what she did. Only makes her look bitter. And anyone that agrees with her needs to come back in their next life as a minority with a Muslim name and see how easy it is to get somewhere in a white society.

Posted by: phorse | March 12, 2008 5:01 PM

Ferraro's comments are absurd and inflammatory. If it were an advantage to be a female candidate or a black candidate, a high percentage of elected officials would be black women. There has never been a female President or a black President, much less a black female President!

Ferraro isn't making these comments because she is stupid, she is making them as a sleazy trench-fighter for the Clintons. She doesn't care how much damage she does to the party or the country.

Posted by: T | March 12, 2008 5:03 PM

Why are YOU not covering ALL OF HER COMMENTS???

I am so glad Geraldine Ferraro is sticking to her comments as NOT being racist!!!! Hillary should ask her to be VP. Why can someone hold up a sign at a CLINTON RALLY STATING "IRON MY SHIRTS?" THE MEDIA IS IGNORING THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of her comments that a 3 year junior senator (who campaigned for 2 1/2 years for president) that was an asian, black, hispanic, or white woman would never be able to get as far as OBAMA did.

Posted by: max | March 12, 2008 5:14 PM

It should be noted that the Washington Post quoted her saying the exact same thing about Jesse Jackson in 1988.
I think that casts a different light on this: More like a pattern of racism and disrespect by her towards black candidates.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html
""If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," she said.
Really. The cite is an April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available only on Nexis."

Posted by: James | March 12, 2008 5:20 PM

Will Obama demand that Hillary "denounce and reject" Ferraro's comments and support? I am always entertained at the lengths these bum politicians go through to attack each other. One day some of them may realize that they were elected NOT because they were the "best and brightest" but because they were the most acceptable out of a group of low lifes.

Posted by: PB | March 12, 2008 5:21 PM

The media are supporting Sen. Clinton in a way that should embarass any free journalist (which are not many unfortunately). She would have received the suggestion to renounce for the good of the democratic party if she would have not so many connections and media support.
Just think about how none of the major newspapers recalled Mr. Spitzer's endorsement (with cerimony and everything) of Sen. Clinton (http://hillaryclintonnews.blogspot.com/2007/05/sen-clinton-gets-endorsement-from-gov.html)... I needed to surf european newspapers to find the news...
Again. Rules say that the winner is the candidate who gets the most delegates.
The numbers say that the winner so far is Obama. And that he won in Texas (have you see any media telling the truth, that he got more delegates and according to the rules he is the winner?). By the way: why dis they stop to count Texas' caucuses ballots? Sorry, I have some difficulties to understand US concept of democracy. Too subtle for an European :-)

Posted by: Gio | March 12, 2008 5:21 PM

The media are supporting Sen. Clinton in a way that should embarass any free journalist (which are not many unfortunately). She would have received the suggestion to renounce for the good of the democratic party if she would have not so many connections and media support.
Just think about how none of the major newspapers recalled Mr. Spitzer's endorsement (with cerimony and everything) of Sen. Clinton (http://hillaryclintonnews.blogspot.com/2007/05/sen-clinton-gets-endorsement-from-gov.html)... I needed to surf european newspapers to find the news...
Again. Rules say that the winner is the candidate who gets the most delegates.
The numbers say that the winner so far is Obama. And that he won in Texas (have you see any media telling the truth, that he got more delegates and according to the rules he is the winner?). By the way: why dis they stop to count Texas' caucuses ballots? Sorry, I have some difficulties to understand US concept of democracy. Too subtle for an European :-)

Posted by: gio | March 12, 2008 5:23 PM

Ferraro is right. She does not need to apology for anything.
Barack Hussein Obama is lucky, period.
Why the media want to help so deeply to Barack Hussein. Tell me why?

Posted by: Freddy Ferrufino | March 12, 2008 5:25 PM

Truly sad to see so many jealous losers who think their white skin entitles them to sour grapes statements. Those that have no idea what it takes to gain acceptance to an Ivy league school and then to excel at the highest level of academic competition should just remain silent and go on with their pathetic little lives.
Consider the howls of protests there would be if Obama suggested that the only reason Ferraro got where she did was because she married a man with ties to the mafia! Hillary's about as qualified to be president as Monica Lewinski is. They both served UNDER the same president!!!

Posted by: Drago | March 12, 2008 5:25 PM

wp123

Your remarks are an example of whites selective race baiting. Now Obama because of his mother is not black when it suits your point. I guess tiger woods is not black either. however Halle Berry is black in your eyes isn't she? Vanessa Williams is also black to you. In fact there has always been a standard in america that if you had 1/8 black blood by white standards you were black. White people please make up your minds. You don't want obama to respond to your remarks about race for he will be the race baiter. You want to now decide his race for him on a day to day basis. Some say he is black, some say he really isn't black and should not represent himself as, some say he is muslim and somehow unfit to run because of that. Everyone is looking for an excuse to dismiss the one they never thought would be winning. In the end it will be a willie horton last minute us vs them campaign waged mostly by the clinton side because they felt entitled to the nomination before the campaign started. They took for granted that no other candidate would appeal as the person who could beat the republicans like hillary can so they never expected a close race from anyone, especially obama and its just a slap in the face to them. Democrats will feel quite dumb in the end because the clintons will get the nomination based on super delegates but will loose to McCain based on their own mistakes, not obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 5:25 PM

I hate all of you Barack Hussein Obama supporters. Geraldine Ferraro is entititled to her opinion. I happen to share her opinion. You people have your opinion. I will SMEAR your candidate like you blatantly SMEAR Hillary who does not share our opinion! Its going to be all of ya'lls fault when the country goes to HELL for electing someone with NO experience just a fresh new face. I hope all of you Barack Hussein Obama supporters are the first ones to burn!

Posted by: cookootoo | March 12, 2008 5:26 PM

Even so called liberal whites sometines harbor feelings of resentment (racism) that come spilling out. Prior to this campaign, most blacks thought of the Clintons as friends. Bill Clinton was even called the first black president by Toni Morrison. I'm sure she regrets saying that now. Geraldine Ferraro was considered a trailblazer, certainly not an enemy of black people. But now their real feelings are showing - they're not such great friends after all. Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro can't stand it that Obama is beating them at their own game. Hillary feels superior to everybody - she alone is capable of being the leader of the free world. Then here comes Obama - he's smarter, has a better message - and he's ahead where it counts in fundraising and delegates. They just can't get over that he's ahead, so their response is to cut him down to size -belittle and marginalize him. They don't realize that their race baiting insults not just Obama, but most African Americans and all people of good will. What more can Obama accomplish? He was the president of the Harvard Law Review, law professor at the University of Chicago, civil rights attorney, community organizer, state legislator and now U.S. Senator. He has much more experience than Bill Clinton had when he was elected. What this means is that it doesn't matter what you accomplish, if you're black some whites like Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro are always going to believe you're inferior. This is the antithesis of what Barack Obama's campaign stands for. I was feeling proud about this race and about this country. If by some miracle Hillary wins the nomination, I will not vote for her. I will not reward her odious behavior.

Posted by: marian | March 12, 2008 5:32 PM

Well it looks like sv reader et al from the Clinton campaign have adopted new names, like: They don't care who he shafted

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 5:35 PM

At this point, it doesn't really matter what happens with Sen. Clinton's candidacy. There is no way she can win the White House at this point. They better let go of their false belief that all will be forgiven come November if she is the nominee. If the Dems lose the White House because of this, Bill's legacy will be tarnished as well.

Posted by: Over the Clintons | March 12, 2008 5:39 PM

If Hillary Clinton didn't have a vagina, she wouldn't be where she is today, right Geraldine? If she were a man, or a black woman, no way she would be running for President. She is a very lucky woman... because Bill married her.

The Clinton people are disgusting.
Ferraro must have dementia if she thinks bigotry helps the cause of Bill's wife.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 5:39 PM

Be sure the read the comments on Sean Wilentz's article "Race Man." if you follow the link posted twice above.

Posted by: Sam | March 12, 2008 5:54 PM

Calling Ferraro a racist is so over the top. She has been fighting for civil rights for over 40 years. Too bad many of the BO supporters aren't old enough to remember or choose not to look at the truth. They just want to destroy the party. She said herself that she knows she would not have been chosen as a VP running mate if she were a man.
Obama is playing a very dangerous game here and it will all catch up to him and his campaign.

From Sean Wilentz:

The Obama campaign's most effective gambits have been far more egregious and dangerous than the hypocritical deployment of deceptive and disingenuous attack ads. To a large degree, the campaign's strategists turned the primary and caucus race to their advantage when they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters--a campaign-within-the-campaign in which the worked-up flap over the Somali costume photograph is but the latest episode. While promoting Obama as a "post-racial" figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics.

More than any other maneuver, this one has brought Clinton into disrepute with important portions of the Democratic Party. A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were DELIBERATELY MANUFACTURED by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the "race-baiter card" before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign.

Wilentz systematically demolishes Obama's entire disinformation campaign, including slime from the Drudge Report.

For those of you who actually care about the TRUTH, read the rest:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 5:54 PM

Like it or not, Geraldine Ferraro stated the obvious truth when she discussed the
success of the Obama phenomenon.

It is too bad, however, that she did
not acknowledge that Hillary Clinton
would not be where she is were she not
Mrs. Bill Clinton.

Posted by: Dave Kerr | March 12, 2008 5:58 PM

What a nasty old bat...she should take her racism back to New York and her cushy lobbying job and gangster husband.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 6:02 PM

No, if Obama were anything other than a black man this would already be over.
No one wanted to see the Clintons as Presidents; Barak has had to overcome the liability of being a black man (not black enough, then too black). Then he had success and now it was because he is a black man. If Geraldine is not a racist then she is ignorant, one or the other.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 6:11 PM

THE MEDIA IS IGNORING THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of her comments that a 3 year junior senator (who campaigned for 2 1/2 years for president) that was an asian, black, hispanic, or white woman would never be able to get as far as OBAMA did...Ferraro's comments are absolutely correct! He does not have the experience to be Commander in Chief and if Hillary is not the nominee, many Democrats will NOT rally to vote for him.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 6:14 PM

I haven't had time to read all the posts for this Ferraro story, but I've seen enough to compel me to speak to Ms. Ferraro's statement about Mr. Obama.

There is so much more to Barack Obama's success than his race. While his racial make-up is part of the formula, it is only one small component of a truly remarkable candidate. Ms Ferraro totally missed the point when she said if Obama was "a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, 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."

In fact, America is very lucky to have Barack and Barack is very lucky to be who he is. The son of an African father and a Kansas mother, Barack did not grow up in a home where centuries of white oppression of blacks burdened his outlook and self respect. He was not limited by low expectations. Add to this the fact that he is extremely intelligent and accessible - as evidenced by the quality of his two books - and we must conclude that he is very lucky to have a unique view of the world.

While Barack was not burdened by racism in the home, that does not mean that he wasn't subjected to typical responses of the white population to the presence of black people. His first book recounts his alienation from white society during his young adulthood and his sampling with radical responses to that treatment. We are lucky because he decided to reject the polarizing view that separates the white and black "races."

As a result, Barack offers a unique opportunity for America to start the process of healing from the scars of racism. Yes, he is black and knows how being black does not benefit a person's future. But Barack is white and knows the wonderful opportunities that are available to talented and intelligent people who work hard for success without first having to prove they're much better than the white competition (even though he has demonstrated time and again that he is so much better than the people with whom he competes).

Barack is where he is and offers such a wonderful gift to America because he is both white and black. America yearns to put our racist past to rest but hasn't known how to do that because the leaders who could have shown the way were cut down in the process. Barack now can start to show the way. He shows the way by giving speeches that make us all aspire to care for our neighbors as we care for our selves. He shows the way by not attacking other candidates who want to keep political discourse on the basest of levels. He shows the way be responding quickly and intelligently to false accusations without feeling the need to bring down the opposition. He shows the way by asking everyone to join in the American promise that everyone can succeed regardless of who we are.

Yes, Barack is very lucky to be where he is, not because of his race but because he offers so much more to America. America is so lucky that we have him to show the way. I certainly hope that he becomes our next President and that America is not just caught up in the concept. I hope that "concept" represented in this man becomes a lasting foundation for the next American century.

Posted by: Weiant | March 12, 2008 6:18 PM

Ferraro sounds like she's on the edge of a breakdown. Have you seen the latest statements where she's now the victim and threatening to retaliate against people who are criticizing her? She's obviously bitter and jealous that this "kid", Obama,just waltzed in and started winning primaries when she never got the recognition she "deserved." So of course it has to be because he's "black."

I suspect Hillary put her up to it, but it's not going to look so good a couple of news conferences down the line when Ferraro completely loses it. I could be wrong, but stay tuned...

Posted by: naz | March 12, 2008 6:20 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 6:22 PM

Look anyone looking for so called Commander in Chief experience should vote for McCain. If you want a Democrat, and a peacemaker, vote for Obama. If you want a person who puts her finger to the wind and votes without good information, then vote for Hillary.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | March 12, 2008 6:25 PM

Those criticizing Ms. Ferarro should remember how she got her opportunity and be concerned that her husband might send a couple of goombas to visit!

Posted by: Marty | March 12, 2008 6:29 PM

Ferraro's comments are racist on their face, and her defense has only entrenched her further.

She accuses Obama of obtaining his position by virtue of his race -- a non sequitur when applied to a black American male.

Her defense provides the final damning evidence of racism. She has compared her candidacy to his and said that she was a token female candidate chosen by party elites not for her merits but for her gender.

But what distinguishes Obama is that he has gained his position by virtue of hard work and millions of votes in tough contests against the Clinton machine. No party elites have placed Obama in the frontrunner position. He got his leads in pledged delegates, state wins and popular votes the old-fashioned way: he earned them.

So in stark contrast to Ferraro, Obama is no token. Anyone without a racist streak would see that.

Posted by: rippermccord | March 12, 2008 6:30 PM

Dave Kerr

Sorry superdave but your don't win Iowa because your black. I can tell you what she should have said that is obvious. If obama was running against anyone but hillary he would not be as appealing. Obama won Iowa because of his enthusiasm, talk of change and he was not hillary. Thats part of obama's appeal, HE IS NOT HILLARY CLINTON!!! Some people would rather vote for obama than clinton. Hillary has to face the fact that just like she is liked by many she is dislike by many as well. Her problem is not obama's race but herself.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 6:35 PM

So I guess all the newspapers reporting the Miss. primary are racist because they all mention the contribution of black vote to his win.

I think Axelrod/Obama are racists for implying that the white vote is somehow more coveted than the black vote.

Obama's campaign is truly entering the 'silly season'. How ridiculous.

Posted by: needs the facts | March 12, 2008 6:35 PM

I think that upon further consideration, Ms. Ferraro would understand the implications of what she is saying. The statement about
Obama leans heavily toward diminishing his accomplishments and capabilities.

I voted for Mrs. Ferraro and if someone had said that about her, I would feel exactly the same way. To make the statement, that she was only chosen because she is female, diminishes her qualities and accomplishments that made her a good candidate.
And I don't think Mrs. Ferraro is a racist. I think she expressed her opinion using the incorrect words to express what point she was trying to make.
And I am an Obama supporter.

Posted by: noshecant | March 12, 2008 6:41 PM

Hillary,
Thanks for dividing America and destroying the one inspirational politican we've had since Kennedy.

No matter how this ends up, I will be leaving the Democratic party after the general election. After I do my part to make sure this war ends, I'm done with this whole sick system.

Posted by: nic | March 12, 2008 6:42 PM

For those who think Ferraro's comments are accurate i would say this: Does it really matter whether or not Obamas success is partially predicated upon race? Is Hillarys success partially predicated on Gender? The problem is ther is NO NEED to point that out. There is NO need to reduce discussions to this level. We have a historical Dem ticket. A Woman and an African American. Neither campaign can ignore the historical aspect of each campaign, but neither should be reduced to the some total of that observation.
Enough is Enough. I applaud ALL Dems who are just as bewildered and confused over this hatred for one Dem against another. I realize you ardently support your individual candidate but I will NEVER understand your vile mud-slinging belligerent posts about fellow Democrats. I applaud all Dems who see the need for UNITY within the party, who understand to vote for POLICIES. The policies of Obama and Hillary are almost identical. Either would make an excellent president. McCain's policies are night and day compared to either Hillary OR Obama. WAKE UP. The ONLY way McCain can win the general (Given the 2 to 1 voter turnout of Dems over Repubs the ENTIRE election cycle) is if you act like a cry babies because YOUR candidate didnt get the nomination. Realize that their POLICIES are almost identical, and vote for the reasons you should be voting for. Policies plain and simple.

Posted by: Penny K | March 12, 2008 6:42 PM

How sad that she can only explain Senator Obama's victory in racial terms. Does it not occur to her that Senator Obama appeals to a wide variety of Americans--way beyond race. Is she so biased that she cannot see what the facts on the ground really are.

What is also very sad is that she cannot see how offensive her remarks were. She owes an apology to Senator Obama and to every Democrat who has voted for him.

It is not pretty to watch what was once an honerable person, stoop to the politics of the gutter. Clinton should not just "denounce" what she has said, but REJECT it. But hell will freze over before that happens.

Clinton and her supporters are running the serious risk of a Republican victory in Novemeber. I now think they don't care. Either she wins, or every hope goes to hell.

Posted by: The fall of an icon | March 12, 2008 6:45 PM

needs the facts--

Love the irony. What's it like going through life mildly retarded?

Posted by: nic | March 12, 2008 6:48 PM

Ferraro should be cast under the wheels of the Democratic party.

Alot of Clinton's political supporters are the sleeze of the Democratic party. I saw James Carvel advocating for her on CNN - I think I even saw the forked tongue licking out of his mouth as he lied with every breath.

There are lots of good honest Clinton supporters among the electorate, but if they only knew the political deviants behind Clinton's campaign, they would run in horror.

Posted by: Lawrence | March 12, 2008 6:53 PM

Has the Clinton camp ever heard, "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones"?? My guess is - no.

Being an attractive multi-racial male did help bring Barack Obama to national prominence. (Is it just me, or do others think it's weird that offspring of a black and a white parent are invariably called "black" when they're just as much "white"?) Oh, and is remarkably accomplished & articulate & blessed with an unusual, uniting vision of our country's future path.

Let's see - how did Ms. Ferraro's candidate step into the national spotlight? By being Mrs. Bill Clinton.

Another interesting point to ponder - why do so many women feel so strongly that Hillary is entitled to the presidential nomination?

Could it be due to her long years of elected office? Two terms in the Senate - in a seat she originally won in a race without a viable Republican opponent after Rudy was sidelined by cancer - is hardly long term.

It shouldn't be due to behind-the-throne contributions - wielding influence is light years away from making world-shaking decisions.

hhhhmmmmmmmmmm... Perhaps - just perhaps -millions of women feel STRONGLY that Hillary is owed something for sticking by Bill through all the sturm & drang of his political life and White House years.

If Ms. Ferraro's over-the-top second set of comments and Maggie William's Clintonesque press release throwing the onus of racism and outrageous remarks on the Obama camp serve to get a lively dialogue burbling along about how each candidate got to their position of power and prestige, then I say, "Let the discussion begin!"

But they best be careful - people who live in glass houses...

Posted by: EllieB | March 12, 2008 7:06 PM

My grandpa would always attach the caviat that he had many "black friends" before launching into a racist diatribe about those darned "jungle monkeys"(his words, not mine).
So, when someone says something racially incindiary and then touts their history supporting minority causes, I find it a bit absurd.

Posted by: nic | March 12, 2008 7:09 PM

Sorry folks but a Democrat getting a huge percentage of a black vote is NOT unique to Obama. Combine this with what many black voters PERCIEVE as innuendo by the Clinton camp and you have the recipe for the voting results. Fair or unfair the Clintons started losing the black vote due to comments around South Carolina. Before that primary Obama was getting more black votes but it wasn't nearly as lop-sided as it became AFTER South Carolina. In 2000, black voters made up nearly 11 percent of the overall voter. They gave the Democratic presidential contender Al Gore 90 percent of their vote. In 2004, black voters made up nearly 12 percent of the vote and gave Democratic presidential contender John Kerry 88 percent of the vote. Gore and Kerry lost. Please LET GO of the racial thing or the gender thing. Does it really matter whether or not Obamas success is partially predicated upon race? Is Hillary's success partially predicated on Gender? The problem is there is NO NEED to point that out. There is NO need to reduce discussions to this level. We have a historical Dem ticket. A Woman and an African American. Neither campaign can ignore the historical aspect of each campaign, but neither should be reduced to the some total of that observation.

Posted by: penny k | March 12, 2008 7:13 PM

This is how Hillary runs her campaign. She doesn't dare say the actual N word. Instead she implies and inuendoes and has her supporters do the same. She wants Obama as her punching bag and heaven forfend if he actually fights back. Then he's an evil Rovian person. Hillary is the bully who blames the victim for not rolling over and playing dead. Then again, Obama did this to himself for not getting out of Hillary's way right? He made her beat him. He made her supporters say evil things because he didn't stay in his place. That's what it's really about, Billary lovers.

Posted by: jaded | March 12, 2008 7:14 PM

ferraro should go get her chemo, she is dumb and with her home girl "stand by your man" clinton should both get those hormone pills.they sound desperate and republican,not a good combination.

Posted by: deelite | March 12, 2008 7:24 PM

Has anyone noticed that one by one OBAMA is alienating people that were respected in the Party???? HE IS SOOOOO Borderline!

Just think what he would do if he was President.

Posted by: max | March 12, 2008 7:28 PM

I teach high school students. In February, they asked which candidate I supported. I wrote three names on the board - Clinton, McCain, Obama - asking them to tell me, in order, which had the most experience in elected office.

Boy, they thought they'd aced it, answering McCain, Clinton, Obama. Were they surprised to hear Obama has more experience as an elected official than Hillary!

Then, I gave them the 2 reasons I can't support a Clinton II candidacy: a) HRC is as naturally divisive as Obama seems like a natural unifier and b)if she goes down, she'll make sure she takes Obama (and the Democratic party that cast her as woman scorned), too.

From her comments presenting McCain as a better commander in chief than her opponent to the recent ruckus over Geraldine Ferraro's various comments, Hillary proved first my second point and second my first.

The nation experienced 8 illuminating years of Hillary in the spotlight - how could anyone be surprised at her current behavior? It's just Hillary being Hillary.

Hey, Hillary - thanks for making me look BRILLIANT to my students!

Posted by: Deev | March 12, 2008 7:35 PM

ripper,
"She accuses Obama of obtaining his position by virtue of his race"

Answer these questions honestly - if Obama were a white man, would he still be in the running for the Democratic nomination?

If Obama were a white man, would 91% of the black voters in Mississippi have voted for him?

Posted by: exhelodrvr | March 12, 2008 8:31 PM

Why are YOU not covering ALL OF HER COMMENTS???
I am so glad Geraldine Ferraro is sticking to her comments as NOT being racist!!!! Hillary should ask her to be VP. Why can someone hold up a sign at a CLINTON RALLY STATING "IRON MY SHIRTS?" THE MEDIA IS IGNORING THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of her comments that a 3 year junior senator (who campaigned for 2 1/2 years for president) that was an asian, black, hispanic, or white woman would never be able to get as far as OBAMA did.

Posted by: Stand UP people | March 12, 2008 8:33 PM

I am already fatigued by the use of race in this race. I think Obama wants it both ways. He wants to use his race to get elected rather than offering the people of this country solid ideas. He wants to use his race to stop any questions or serious objections about him that have nothing to do with race. Will he do this as a president? The job is too important to let him get away with this nonsense. I don't care one thing about a candidates sex or color. Let us know what change, where you want our country to go, and how you plan to get there. Stop the games. Stop taking us for fools who can be shamed into voting for someone just to prove that we are not racist.

Posted by: Catherine | March 12, 2008 10:09 PM

Please visit the following youtube link for a refresher and pass it on to as many people as you can, your friends, your relatives, your colleagues via email and text messaging and let them make up their minds who to nominate on the Democratic side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBXD2zizIY

Posted by: sbgamatt | March 12, 2008 11:06 PM

The comments made by Geraldine reading race are strategic, well thought of and approved by Hillary herself. I am sure Hillary knew and approved before they were made. This is the trend in the Hillary's camp. Surrogates will make divisive comments with intended consequences and Hillary will denied any knowledge later after the effect has permeated and influenced voters minds. These are the strategies planned in Hillary's war room by well paid strategists and delivered with precision by surrogates such as Geraldine. Insinuations regarding Obama's religion, his picture with a turban, his race, his anti-prochoice, drug use were all pre-approved and delivered with much success. Geraldine's comments are specifically targeted to white voters in Pennsylvania. By stirring the race card, Hillary and her strategists believed they will get the majority of the white votes. This will have the intended consequence of taking away the edge from Obama.
Race is such a divisive force specially when used among vulnerable communities who are poor and less educated. These communities are easily misled by such rather disturbing despicable acts. Hillary will stoop to any level to win. Such is the nature of Hillary Clinton. That is what Hillary is - A person with a deficit of moral character and integrity. Hillary is a person who is not trustworthy. She will say and do anything to win. As Obama said, "This kind of gamesmanship is exactly the kind of doublespeak, double talk, that Washington is very good at, that people who spend a lot of time in Washington have a lot of experience at," Obama said. "But it's not going to solve the problems of the country." Please visit the following youtube link for a refresher and pass it on to as many people as you can, your friends, your relatives, your colleagues via email and text messaging and let them make up their minds who to nominate on the Democratic side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBXD2zizIY

Posted by: sbgamatt | March 12, 2008 11:09 PM

So Ms Ferraro thinks Mr Obama would not be where he is if he were say maybe white. Interesting thought. But as we can all see he is not say - white. So what's with the colour thing Ms Ferraro? You seem to have some hangups. Now, me wonders, would Hilary Clinton stand where she does today if say maybe she had never been married to Bill Clinton? Hmmmmmm. I guess I too have some hangups about the people in this process, though my hangups hopefully transcend the colour thing.

Posted by: Keith Lawson | March 12, 2008 11:09 PM

If BO can't take a few shots he has no business as President or have y'all forgotten all the rotten thing you said and blamed on Mr. Bush.

Like it or no, the first ammendment protects Mrs. Ferraro and you can't demand apologies just because some one makes you mad, if you could, the Post would apologize to me daily for their many misspellings.

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Posted by: DSikad | March 13, 2008 12:04 AM

This has all got out of hand.

The Democratic party is definitely divided now...not by race, or gender but by the hatred each candidate's followers have for each other. I blame the DNC for this because of the ridiculous way they run their primaries and caucuses.

The Republicans have it right in the way they choose delegates. It is efficient, speedy and civil.

I also blame the media for taking words out of context to help their ratings and infuriate voters.

We all should be talking about issues, not the "race card", "monster", "NAFTAgate", etc. We need to start talking about the economy, healthcare, education....the really important stuff. John McCain was right when he said going to war in Iraq is in the past, we need to now concentrate on how we will win this war. (For those who respond he said we will be there for a 100 years are wrong....another soundbite taken out of context)

If Obama and Clinton continue to have these bitter encounters over "soundbites" then the Democrats don't have a chance in the general election....for this kind of behavior will be remembered in the general election.

Right now if you compare the three candidates, the one who does have the most experience, maturity, honesty and record of "crossing the aisle" is John McCain. I am afraid neither Obama or Hillary's records come even close.

Posted by: concerned | March 13, 2008 12:23 AM

Anyone who is condemning Ferraro for the statements published as racist is not listening to her when she talks and is not researching the entire context of her speech. A wise black male reporter was on CNN this morning, and he did the research. He stated there was absolutely nothing racist about the comments and in the absence of the full context it was very easy for the Obama campaign and media to twist this into something it is not. The only person who benefits by playing the race card is Obama!! The Clintons know better. BTW - I'm sick and tired of Obama playing off the media with the sexist comments. If I hear reference to "kitchen sink" and "tea party" one more time, I'll start screaming sexism so loud. Those sexist phrases don't conjur up a man in a suit as the image, and those phrases are used by both the media, and Obama, himself, to define Clinton's campaign strategy and her experience. But, you don't hear Hillary whining the gender card is being played against her. Wake up, people!!

Posted by: CleanYourGlasses | March 13, 2008 1:11 AM

no one gives a rat's a@@ about Ferraro. or any of the narrow minded people like her. black or white. she is jealous that she is stale old yesterday garbage. the middle one gerldine. you divide, cow.

Posted by: SO! | March 13, 2008 10:49 AM

Oh so naive of Ferraro to think that this country would not elect a caucasian President with a resume and experience equal to that of Obama. Previously, the voters sent a white dude to the oval office with little time in the legislature and with even less foreign policy experience. His name was Lincoln........ remember him?? In addition, a surprising number of the presidents had NO ELECTED POSITIONS prior to being president : Taylor, Eisenhower, Jackson for example. And how about Bill Clinton himself? He was as unknown as Huckabee when he ran. Who cares about Ferraro? What we are seeing here is pure jealousy in action. And the same goes for Hillary being such a sore loser - pure jealousy. She had it all figured out by 2000 that she would be back in come 2008, considered it to be her birthright, and expected everyone else to be willing to roll over and just let her have it. What an arrogant snit! Just 'cause she's been in all those ladies magazines this last decade and a half. No more Clintons and no more Bushes! Time for the American people to do the courageous thing and put Obama in the White House on the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth. Would be wonderfully fitting. You want a woman president? No problem, just run Michelle when Barack has had enough.

Posted by: Tony Stringfellow | March 13, 2008 11:58 AM

It's not about whether she was right or wrong. It's fine for us to speculate about why a candidate is popular, including the influence of race. People working for a candidate, however, are trying to discourage you from voting for the other candidate and race should not be part of that.

Posted by: Nick Cooper (nickcooper.com) | March 13, 2008 7:15 PM

Poor Geraldine.
You didn't win then and you won't win now

Your comments were not racist. They were just plain dumb
And, they were designed to divert attention away from the New York gov's mess which so resembled Hillary and Bill's mess
At least he had the decency to resign
Now, let's watch his wife walk

Posted by: nepeebles | March 13, 2008 7:29 PM

Right on Gerry!!!, She is calling it as it is. If any White Man, well spoken or not, with the same track record as Obama decided to run for President, he would have been out after Iowa. Now, is Obama talented, absolutely!!!. I like his style and I like his intelligence. However, If the Senator thinks that these comments are bad, wait until the Swift Boat republicans get a hold of him. They will fillet like a rainbow trout. This air of audacity the moment race is mentioned on the part of the Obama campaign will have to stop if he is the nominee. I have been turned off by this pomposity. Should he have criticized Geraldine Ferraro, perhaps. Nevertheless, no matter how we want to admit it or not Geraldine Ferraro is correct. Any White Man only three years removed from a state legislature and only a little over 2 years into his term as a US Senator does not have the qualifications to be President.

His attack on the establishment, while good campaigning, is not so good if you are going to be President. He has not learned that Congress does not do the President's bidding. You need to do more than build coalitions, you need to KNOW HOW THINGS WORK!! Change cannot happen in a vacuum. It is great to campaign on change, but you cannot alienate the very people you will have to work with to get it. It appears to me that he has not learned the important lesson of leadership, you have to be able to work with the "establishment" to achieve change. The last 5 presidents have not learned that lesson. Carter, alienated his own party, Reagan, blew his credibility on a tax cut for the rich and little else. G HW Bush, promised no new taxes and then backed down. He might have won that election if he had stuck to his guns, but he failed to adequately work wit Congress. Bill Clinton had problems his first two years and failed to implement a Health care program. George Bush II, has squandered his leadership potential with a Congress that was at first willing to work with him and then ready to abandon him. By 2006 the Congressional Republicans were running for cover. The Democrats took over BOTH chambers that year.

Hence, Obama has to know how the system works to implement change. If Bill Clinton could not get health care reform passed, I don't think Obama would have a snow ball's chance. Hillary, on the other hand, knows what to anticipate. She is under no illusions about the problems that she would face. Again, Gerry is correct. I may vote for Obama if he is the nominee, but I think that he will loose the general election. Personality will only go so far, and the American people are going want experience in this election year, something Obama has little of.

Posted by: Mike | March 13, 2008 9:17 PM

She only spoke the truth. It's too bad we are so afraid of the truth that we have to label it racist! Will we ever evolve to the place where childish tactics aren't used to hide from truths we don't want to see?
She could have also pointed out that although Sen. Obama is a very charming man, he is using "smoke & mirror" and no substance to continue his climb to the oval office.
One day we could all be very sorry her words were not heeded.

Posted by: Judy | March 14, 2008 8:53 PM

Barack Obama wanted to be a different kind of politician, what Reagan was to the Republicans. He wanted to run a clean and respectful campaign and in the beginning Hilary was willing to play the game until she noticed she was down by over 100 delegates. Ever since then her people have turned this campaign into a mud throwing contest. And as far as Obama getting the black vote like the media keeps reiterating, the fact of the matter is the young voters are the ones that have brought Obama to where he is today, everyone who says black people are solely the reason for Obama's success are not only lying but claiming that the young people of America are incapable of ever being unprejudiced in the terms of race.

Posted by: David | March 14, 2008 11:40 PM

I have never cared for Geraldine, but I DO NOT believe that Hillary or anybody influenced her to say what she did. That is why she refuses to apologize. It was her opinion. Get over it. She basically feels Barack is a lightweight which he is. She basically feels that at this moment in time the color of his skin is helpful, which it is. Once Barack was able to tap into the uppercrust white voters, and the youth the black community pulled together and voted ONLY for him. IMO, that is racial bias and certainly has benefited Barack which he knew it would. Now all he has to do is keep the white voters happy enough which might prove more difficult since his pastor Wright preaches extreme hate. Barack is a skillful candidate from the dirtiest political machine in this country. He is getting the best advice money can buy. The same is true for Hillary. This is a dual. Both these candidates have every intention of winning and so they have taken off the gloves and unfortunately they have both muddied each other. The reason it has become so contentious is because there really is very little different between the two. The both are far left thinkers. The only different is race and gender and so instead of talking issues, we are stuck watching a slugfest.

Posted by: verycold | March 15, 2008 1:15 AM

Posted by: scuko | April 12, 2008 2:27 PM

Posted by: scuko | April 12, 2008 2:29 PM

Posted by: duchos | April 23, 2008 3:49 PM

Posted by: duchos | April 23, 2008 7:03 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company