*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (1 Viewer)

[Saints-Man]

Ferraro: 'They're attacking me because I'm white'

(CNN) -- Geraldine Ferraro defended her controversial comment that Sen. Barack Obama's campaign was successful because he was black, telling an interviewer Tuesday that she was being attacked because she was white.

"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," she told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, California. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

In another interview Tuesday, she compared Obama's situation to her own 24 years ago, when she was the first female candidate for vice president.

She told a FOX News interviewer, "I got up and the question was asked, 'Why do you think Barack Obama is in the place he is today" as the party's delegate front-runner?

"I said in large measure, because he is black. I said, Let me also say in 1984 -- and if I have said it once, I have said it 20, 60, 100 times -- in 1984, if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for vice president," she said.

In her first interview with Daily Breeze, published late last week, Ferraro 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."

She also said Hillary Clinton had been the victim of a "sexist media."

Link to full article.

Ferraro was a kook in 1984 and is a kook now. Some people just don't grow. A "sexist media"? She needs to get back on her meds.

 

[adonis]

Interestingly, the attacks on Obama work for Clinton because we expect it from her and it takes some of the shine off of Obama. But I don't think the converse is true. Clinton doesn't really have any shine to be taken off, and Obama as scandal attack dog would be antithetical to his message, and thus, serve to undermine his candidacy.

I agree that Obama bringing up Clinton's scandals would hurt him, especially his image of a different kind of politics. But I still believe that Clinton has shine that can still be taken off.They're creeping up on a decade removed from Bill's presidency. Hillary has made more of a name for herself in popular politics over the last 5-6 years and Bill has taken a back seat. Her tenure in the senate is what she's currently most known for. She's a leader, has some experience, and was coming out of the gates as the inevitable democratic nominee. She had the shine, she had the mojo, and the momentum, then along came obama and took it from her. But he didn't take it from her in a typical way, through a long hard campaign where you tear the other side down just low enough that they're below you. He did it through his appeal, not by degrading Hillary.So I believe that much of her initial charm and appeal, and her status as an individual running is still there, and she's less tied to her past, and the Clinton bag of scandals, than she could be. There have been very few mentions of her history, of past scandals, and that is surprising and something that won't last into the general if she's involved. But tying her to the scandal filled years of the Clinton administration, reminding voters that her discretion on the Iraq war isn't the only bad decision she might've made (ouch) - I mean, honestly, should one question the discretion of a lady staying with a husband who is a known filanderer? I'm being serious there, isn't that something questionable?But regardless, there's still a lot of flack Clinton could take that would tarnish her new shiny image that she's not taking. While it's true, that it would hurt Obama to bring it up, she's still benefiting from him not going there, regardless of his reasons.

 

[Abraham]

"I said in large measure, because he is black. I said, Let me also say in 1984 -- and if I have said it once, I have said it 20, 60, 100 times -- in 1984, if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for vice president," she said.

I have no problem with this. It's naive to say that his skin color isn't part of why he's in this position.

 

[Saints-Man]

Here is the

 

[Saints-Man]

Quote of the day: "Saying that Hillary has Executive Branch experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle".

 

[Jeremy]

Has it been mentioned that Hillary got 75% of the Republican vote yesterday?

75%

And 13% of those who voted where Republicans. Which accounts for about 53,000 votes, about 40,000 votes for Clinton from Republicans vs. 13,000 for Obama. Kind of skews the popular vote numbers a bit doesn't it? One thing I didn't like from looking at the exit polls was that 70% of white DEMOCRATS in Miss. voted for Hillary against 23% for Obama. So much for my earlier theory that it was the Republicans skewing the numbers. Even White Independants favored Hillary 55% to 40%. That's not good. :(

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

"I said in large measure, because he is black. I said, Let me also say in 1984 -- and if I have said it once, I have said it 20, 60, 100 times -- in 1984, if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for vice president," she said.

I have no problem with this. :( It's naive to say that his skin color isn't part of why he's in this position.

It has something to do with him dominance of the black vote over Hillary, but I severely doubt it had anything to do with him winning Iowa (which really started his viability as a candidate) nor does it have anything to do with the support of this 99% white messageboard.

 

[snitwitch]

Has it been mentioned that Hillary got 75% of the Republican vote yesterday?

75%

I thought it was 85%?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

"I said in large measure, because he is black. I said, Let me also say in 1984 -- and if I have said it once, I have said it 20, 60, 100 times -- in 1984, if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for vice president," she said.

I have no problem with this. :( It's naive to say that his skin color isn't part of why he's in this position.

Maybe - but that's not what she said. "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." But at least she apologized. "I am sorry that people think this was a racist comment."

 

[Abraham]

"I said in large measure, because he is black. I said, Let me also say in 1984 -- and if I have said it once, I have said it 20, 60, 100 times -- in 1984, if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for vice president," she said.

I have no problem with this. :( It's naive to say that his skin color isn't part of why he's in this position.

It has something to do with him dominance of the black vote over Hillary, but I severely doubt it had anything to do with him winning Iowa (which really started his viability as a candidate) nor does it have anything to do with the support of this 99% white messageboard.

Agreed. That's why I said "part" and not "wholly".

 

[adonis]

"I said in large measure, because he is black. I said, Let me also say in 1984 -- and if I have said it once, I have said it 20, 60, 100 times -- in 1984, if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for vice president," she said.

I have no problem with this. :( It's naive to say that his skin color isn't part of why he's in this position.

And if Hillary Clinton's name was Hillary Jones, she would not even be sniffing at the presidency, much less her senate position. So please spare us the pity party about sexism. At least Obama got to where he is based on his own merits rather than riding the coattails of a spouse.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Maybe - but that's not what she said. "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."

So, umm Norv? Do you think this is an incorrect statement?

 

[SofaKings]

From: Mrs. J



But no more. She is evil. Her race-baiting is evil, horrible, despicable, and is setting the democratic party back decades. Her shamelessness of her attacks is evil. Her gleeful eagerness to turn this into a dirty, mud-slinging, horrible mess of a democratic primary is evil. I am fully convinced that she knows that she can't win the primary, so now she is doing whatever she can do to guarantee that Obama will lose in November, just so that she can run again in 4 years.

I firmly believe this now. There's no rational person that thinks she can get a legitimate nomination. The only reason she's in this is for one more stab in 2012.

She doesn't win the nomination she's done.

 

[adonis]

Has it been mentioned that Hillary got 75% of the Republican vote yesterday?

75%

I thought it was 85%?

Whatever it is, it's utter lunacy. Clinton owes the fact that she's still in the race to republicans. She owes the fact that she's a candidate to her husband. She owes most of her monetary success to lobbyists and connections made during her husbands years as president.

 

[Saints-Man]

From: Mrs. J



But no more. She is evil. Her race-baiting is evil, horrible, despicable, and is setting the democratic party back decades. Her shamelessness of her attacks is evil. Her gleeful eagerness to turn this into a dirty, mud-slinging, horrible mess of a democratic primary is evil. I am fully convinced that she knows that she can't win the primary, so now she is doing whatever she can do to guarantee that Obama will lose in November, just so that she can run again in 4 years.

I firmly believe this now. There's no rational person that thinks she can get a legitimate nomination. The only reason she's in this is for one more stab in 2012.

After your "savior" runs this country even further into the ground, she'll definitely be a better choice.

In 2016 she'll be too old, thanks though.

Heck, by 2016 it'll probably already be the United States of Islam if your guy has his way. Or how about the United States of if you're not working just wait around for us to tax the #### out of all those who are and you'll get yours. And you're welcome.

You should get help, seriously.

He is right, Mookie Blaylock. Get help and get it now. Whose alias are you anyway?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Maybe - but that's not what she said. "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."

So, umm Norv? Do you think this is an incorrect statement?

Incorrect is putting it mildly. I know it's tough to imagine a white man running for president, but try.

 

[SofaKings]

Clinton is benefiting IMMENSELY from Obama's style of politics, which is NOT slash and burn like hers is.He hasn't brought up past scandals, he hasn't talked about Bill clinton, he has barely been critical of her past at all, regarding the more salacious arguments that could be made against her.

She was the unquestionable favorite going into the primary season, and now she's losing in pretty much every way possible. I wouldn't say that Clinton is benefiting from Obama's style of politics, much less benefiting immensely.

What I'm saying is that she would be losing by more, maybe much more, if Obama were to play the type of politics that the republicans will be playing in the general election. He's staying away from issues that will be focused on in the general, and by staying away from them, Clinton is able to not be bogged down by past scandals.In the sense that if he were to go that route, she'd lose much more public face and probably public support, I think it does benefit her at this point in the race that he doesn't go there.

I disagree, but, admittedly, that's just speculation. Clinton's scandals are old news. If Obama had been going Rove on her from the beginning, in many ways, Obama would be like every other politician. Bill had scandals during his first presidential campaign and it didn't really hurt him. Hillary's scandals were there during her Senate run and she did just fine. I don't see how Obama attacking Hillary on Bill's indiscretions, and White Water, and Vince Foster, etc., would have done much more than make her a victim, and make Obama look like a petty politician acting like a Republican attack dog. His message of hope and change would look like a fraud.

I agree that it would hurt Obama's image, but what I'm really saying is that her numbers vs McCain are artificially inflated because Obama has not tarnished her yet. He hasn't drudged up past scandals, and while they're old news, they're still damaging to images.Currently, Clinton is doing most of the tearing down of image on Obama, and I don't think the republicans could do much more than she has in the general, but the republicans sure can do more than Obama has in the general, which is why I think her numbers vs mccain are inflated. But like you said, it's pure speculation and the clintons are very good at playing that game and coming out ahead.

I agree with the assertion regarding her numbers versus McCain. What I disagree with you on is your assertion that she'd be losing worse to Obama if he'd been running an attack campaign from the beginning. But again, just speculation. Interestingly, the attacks on Obama work for Clinton because we expect it from her and it takes some of the shine off of Obama. But I don't think the converse is true. Clinton doesn't really have any shine to be taken off, and Obama as scandal attack dog would be antithetical to his message, and thus, serve to undermine his candidacy.

I agree with bigbottom in that most voters are aware of the issues surrounding her candidacy and her husbands issues. The polling is already accounting for that.

 

[Mark Davis]

Has it been mentioned that Hillary got 75% of the Republican vote yesterday?

75%

And 13% of those who voted where Republicans. Which accounts for about 53,000 votes, about 40,000 votes for Clinton from Republicans vs. 13,000 for Obama. Kind of skews the popular vote numbers a bit doesn't it? One thing I didn't like from looking at the exit polls was that 70% of white DEMOCRATS in Miss. voted for Hillary against 23% for Obama. So much for my earlier theory that it was the Republicans skewing the numbers. Even White Independants favored Hillary 55% to 40%. That's not good.

True on all accounts. Without Republican crossovers it would have been an even larger victory. However, even among Democrats the electorate is split along racial lines. Obama is garnering a larger percentage of the white vote obviously than Clinton is of the black vote. Just as this came into play helping Obama win Mississippi it hurt him in Texas and Ohio. If this pattern holds true it will hurt him in Pennsylvania. He's consistently won the caucus states where enthusiasm of your supporters and organization is the key. He's also won those states where black voters make up a large percentage of Democrats. When it's been a mostly white primary state, not caucus, Clinton has won most of those (exceptions being Wisconsin and a very close Missouri primary).

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Has it been mentioned that Hillary got 75% of the Republican vote yesterday?

75%

I thought it was 85%?

Whatever it is, it's utter lunacy. Clinton owes the fact that she's still in the race to republicans. She owes the fact that she's a candidate to her husband. She owes most of her monetary success to lobbyists and connections made during her husbands years as president.

And other than the husband part what makes her any different than anyone who has ever run for office? Obama is a saint, huh? You people are amazing. But it's damn entertaining; I'll give you that.

 

[Sammy3469]

Has it been mentioned that Hillary got 75% of the Republican vote yesterday?

75%

I thought it was 85%?

Whatever it is, it's utter lunacy. Clinton owes the fact that she's still in the race to republicans. She owes the fact that she's a candidate to her husband. She owes most of her monetary success to lobbyists and connections made during her husbands years as president.

I hope the remaining superdelegates get smart to this (this means you Nancy) and realize just how damaging Hillary is becoming and do enough to make PA irrelevant otherwise I don't see how this ends before June and the party really doesn't need Hillary's kitchen sink around for another 3 months.

 

[adonis]

Has it been mentioned that Hillary got 75% of the Republican vote yesterday?

75%

I thought it was 85%?

Whatever it is, it's utter lunacy. Clinton owes the fact that she's still in the race to republicans. She owes the fact that she's a candidate to her husband. She owes most of her monetary success to lobbyists and connections made during her husbands years as president.

And other than the husband part what makes her any different than anyone who has ever run for office? Obama is a saint, huh? You people are amazing. But it's damn entertaining; I'll give you that.

Well, Obama doesn't owe his status to republicans crossing over to screw with the democratic nomination, he doesn't owe his status to the success of his wife, and he isn't taking money from lobbyists or any other connections made by his wife through her own successes.I mean, when you take away all the ways Obama and Clinton are different, they're really quite the same.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Maybe - but that's not what she said. "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."

So, umm Norv? Do you think this is an incorrect statement?

Incorrect is putting it mildly. I know it's tough to imagine a white man running for president, but try.

There's no way the Dems would trust a white man on the same platform Obama is running on. But if he's black, no one is allowed to find him untrustworthy so it's a win-win.

 

[Sammy3469]

Has it been mentioned that Hillary got 75% of the Republican vote yesterday?

75%

I thought it was 85%?

Whatever it is, it's utter lunacy. Clinton owes the fact that she's still in the race to republicans. She owes the fact that she's a candidate to her husband. She owes most of her monetary success to lobbyists and connections made during her husbands years as president.

And other than the husband part what makes her any different than anyone who has ever run for office? Obama is a saint, huh? You people are amazing. But it's damn entertaining; I'll give you that.

Well, Obama doesn't owe his status to republicans crossing over to screw with the democratic nomination, he doesn't owe his status to the success of his wife, and he isn't taking money from lobbyists or any other connections made by his wife through her own successes.I mean, when you take away all the ways Obama and Clinton are different, they're really quite the same.

WAIT...that's her argument too.

 

[bigbottom]

Here's another

with Ferraro in which she explains her statements. Man, she's crotchety. Anyway, if you don't feel like watching the whole interview, check out her comments starting at around the 3:30 mark. She explains that her comments were intended to be a celebration of the pride that the black community has for Obama's success.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Maybe - but that's not what she said. "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."

So, umm Norv? Do you think this is an incorrect statement?

Incorrect is putting it mildly. I know it's tough to imagine a white man running for president, but try.

There's no way the Dems would trust a white man on the same platform Obama is running on. But if he's black, no one is allowed to find him untrustworthy so it's a win-win.

When you're right you're right.

 

[Marc Levin]

Has it been mentioned that Hillary got 75% of the Republican vote yesterday?

75%

I thought it was 85%?

Whatever it is, it's utter lunacy. Clinton owes the fact that she's still in the race to republicans. She owes the fact that she's a candidate to her husband. She owes most of her monetary success to lobbyists and connections made during her husbands years as president.

And other than the husband part what makes her any different than anyone who has ever run for office? Obama is a saint, huh? You people are amazing. But it's damn entertaining; I'll give you that.

Well, Obama doesn't owe his status to republicans crossing over to screw with the democratic nomination, he doesn't owe his status to the success of his wife, and he isn't taking money from lobbyists or any other connections made by his wife through her own successes.I mean, when you take away all the ways Obama and Clinton are different, they're really quite the same.

WAIT...that's her argument too.

 

[SofaKings]

Here's another

Does she say that she never been more proud for her country?

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Has it been mentioned that Hillary got 75% of the Republican vote yesterday?

75%

I thought it was 85%?

Whatever it is, it's utter lunacy. Clinton owes the fact that she's still in the race to republicans. She owes the fact that she's a candidate to her husband. She owes most of her monetary success to lobbyists and connections made during her husbands years as president.

And other than the husband part what makes her any different than anyone who has ever run for office? Obama is a saint, huh? You people are amazing. But it's damn entertaining; I'll give you that.

Well, Obama doesn't owe his status to republicans crossing over to screw with the democratic nomination, he doesn't owe his status to the success of his wife, and he isn't taking money from lobbyists or any other connections made by his wife through her own successes.I mean, when you take away all the ways Obama and Clinton are different, they're really quite the same.

Right. Sure he isn't. Can we just call democrats narcissists? I mean, wow! I already feel better.

 

[adonis]

Here's another

Just like when Biden celebrated the pride that the black community has for Obama's success by saying "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy...I mean, that’s a storybook, man" Lots of celebrating of blackness going on between these two.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Right. Sure he isn't. Can we just call democrats narcissists? I mean, wow! I already feel better.

Link it up.

 

[adonis]

Has it been mentioned that Hillary got 75% of the Republican vote yesterday?

75%

I thought it was 85%?

Whatever it is, it's utter lunacy. Clinton owes the fact that she's still in the race to republicans. She owes the fact that she's a candidate to her husband. She owes most of her monetary success to lobbyists and connections made during her husbands years as president.

And other than the husband part what makes her any different than anyone who has ever run for office? Obama is a saint, huh? You people are amazing. But it's damn entertaining; I'll give you that.

Well, Obama doesn't owe his status to republicans crossing over to screw with the democratic nomination, he doesn't owe his status to the success of his wife, and he isn't taking money from lobbyists or any other connections made by his wife through her own successes.I mean, when you take away all the ways Obama and Clinton are different, they're really quite the same.

Right. Sure he isn't. Can we just call democrats narcissists? I mean, wow! I already feel better.

That's just the Hope and Change getting to you. If you're not used to it, it might make you a bit dizzy. Just head over to the McCain headquarters to be relieved of your excess hope and change.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Here's another

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Right. Sure he isn't. Can we just call democrats narcissists? I mean, wow! I already feel better.

Link it up.

You mean put a link from the internet? If you mean that internet that is part of the mainstream media that the dem...narcissists already control - no thanks. But that silly little signature tells me all I need to know about your - ahem - stance. Well, all that your avatar doesn't tell me that is.

 

[Jeremy]

Has it been mentioned that Hillary got 75% of the Republican vote yesterday?

75%

And 13% of those who voted where Republicans. Which accounts for about 53,000 votes, about 40,000 votes for Clinton from Republicans vs. 13,000 for Obama. Kind of skews the popular vote numbers a bit doesn't it? One thing I didn't like from looking at the exit polls was that 70% of white DEMOCRATS in Miss. voted for Hillary against 23% for Obama. So much for my earlier theory that it was the Republicans skewing the numbers. Even White Independants favored Hillary 55% to 40%. That's not good.

True on all accounts. Without Republican crossovers it would have been an even larger victory. However, even among Democrats the electorate is split along racial lines. Obama is garnering a larger percentage of the white vote obviously than Clinton is of the black vote. Just as this came into play helping Obama win Mississippi it hurt him in Texas and Ohio. If this pattern holds true it will hurt him in Pennsylvania. He's consistently won the caucus states where enthusiasm of your supporters and organization is the key. He's also won those states where black voters make up a large percentage of Democrats. When it's been a mostly white primary state, not caucus, Clinton has won most of those (exceptions being Wisconsin and a very close Missouri primary).

yeah, I went back to look at the numbers for TX and OH. TX Dems went 62-37 for Clinton. Ohio went 70-27 for Clinton. So he's pretty clearly losing the white vote by a large margin, only making up for it due to his extreme advantage among blacks.

 

[Jeremy]

Has it been mentioned that Hillary got 75% of the Republican vote yesterday?

75%

I thought it was 85%?

According to cnnpolitics.com it was 76% Clinton, 24% Obama.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Right. Sure he isn't. Can we just call democrats narcissists? I mean, wow! I already feel better.

Link it up.

You mean put a link from the internet? If you mean that internet that is part of the mainstream media that the dem...narcissists already control - no thanks. But that silly little signature tells me all I need to know about your - ahem - stance. Well, all that your avatar doesn't tell me that is.

Enough of the fishing...no need to respond to you anymore.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Has it been mentioned that Hillary got 75% of the Republican vote yesterday?

75%

I thought it was 85%?

Whatever it is, it's utter lunacy. Clinton owes the fact that she's still in the race to republicans. She owes the fact that she's a candidate to her husband. She owes most of her monetary success to lobbyists and connections made during her husbands years as president.

And other than the husband part what makes her any different than anyone who has ever run for office? Obama is a saint, huh? You people are amazing. But it's damn entertaining; I'll give you that.

Well, Obama doesn't owe his status to republicans crossing over to screw with the democratic nomination, he doesn't owe his status to the success of his wife, and he isn't taking money from lobbyists or any other connections made by his wife through her own successes.I mean, when you take away all the ways Obama and Clinton are different, they're really quite the same.

Can you give us a list on stuff we can criticize him for that way we are safe? Thanks.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Has it been mentioned that Hillary got 75% of the Republican vote yesterday?

75%

And 13% of those who voted where Republicans. Which accounts for about 53,000 votes, about 40,000 votes for Clinton from Republicans vs. 13,000 for Obama. Kind of skews the popular vote numbers a bit doesn't it? One thing I didn't like from looking at the exit polls was that 70% of white DEMOCRATS in Miss. voted for Hillary against 23% for Obama. So much for my earlier theory that it was the Republicans skewing the numbers. Even White Independants favored Hillary 55% to 40%. That's not good.

True on all accounts. Without Republican crossovers it would have been an even larger victory. However, even among Democrats the electorate is split along racial lines. Obama is garnering a larger percentage of the white vote obviously than Clinton is of the black vote. Just as this came into play helping Obama win Mississippi it hurt him in Texas and Ohio. If this pattern holds true it will hurt him in Pennsylvania. He's consistently won the caucus states where enthusiasm of your supporters and organization is the key. He's also won those states where black voters make up a large percentage of Democrats. When it's been a mostly white primary state, not caucus, Clinton has won most of those (exceptions being Wisconsin and a very close Missouri primary).

yeah, I went back to look at the numbers for TX and OH. TX Dems went 62-37 for Clinton. Ohio went 70-27 for Clinton. So he's pretty clearly losing the white vote by a large margin, only making up for it due to his extreme advantage among blacks.

Yet he won them in Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin. Those were like 2-3 weeks ago.

 

[aardball44]

Has it been mentioned that Hillary got 75% of the Republican vote yesterday?

75%

I thought it was 85%?

Whatever it is, it's utter lunacy. Clinton owes the fact that she's still in the race to republicans. She owes the fact that she's a candidate to her husband. She owes most of her monetary success to lobbyists and connections made during her husbands years as president.

And other than the husband part what makes her any different than anyone who has ever run for office? Obama is a saint, huh? You people are amazing. But it's damn entertaining; I'll give you that.

Well, Obama doesn't owe his status to republicans crossing over to screw with the democratic nomination, he doesn't owe his status to the success of his wife, and he isn't taking money from lobbyists or any other connections made by his wife through her own successes.I mean, when you take away all the ways Obama and Clinton are different, they're really quite the same.

Can you give us a list on stuff we can criticize him for that way we are safe? Thanks.

The correct answer here is: The Content Of His Character.

 

[ericttspikes]

Ms. Ferraro's comments lend themselves to racism in part because of the larger issue of affirmative action. Ever since this well-meaning practice has been in place, it has created resentment among a segment of the white working-class community (well-represented in Pennsylvania, for example). Even more problematic, affirmative action has placed a cloud on the achievements of every successful African-American in this country. There are people who will always wonder: were they helped in some way (where I wasn't)?This emotion is similar to the prejudice, ususally expressed by the same kind of people, against illegal immigrants: why should they be allowed to break our laws, etc? Of course the truth is exactly the opposite: both African-Americans and Latinos continue to have much less chance of advancement in this country than white people do, any study of the racial makeup of successful people in this country will tell you that. But it's easier to blame minorities for your woes rather than face your own problems.Whether or not Ferraro's comments were deliberate by the Clinton campaign doesn't change the fact that these comments will most likely be beneficial to that campaign: Pennsylvania is exactly the sort of state filled with people who will buy into the idea that Barack Obama received breaks that they did not because of his skin color.

Kind of like McNabb does.

 

[Jeremy]

Here's another

I can't watch it from work, but based on this, I'd have to say well played. Making her look like the victim of a racial witchhunt will play very well with white voters, and especially women voters who will claim sexism as well. If they can make this about race, Obama is screwed. Oh yeah, this is definitely deliberate.

 

[Mark Davis]

Has it been mentioned that Hillary got 75% of the Republican vote yesterday?

75%

And 13% of those who voted where Republicans. Which accounts for about 53,000 votes, about 40,000 votes for Clinton from Republicans vs. 13,000 for Obama. Kind of skews the popular vote numbers a bit doesn't it? One thing I didn't like from looking at the exit polls was that 70% of white DEMOCRATS in Miss. voted for Hillary against 23% for Obama. So much for my earlier theory that it was the Republicans skewing the numbers. Even White Independants favored Hillary 55% to 40%. That's not good. :(

True on all accounts. Without Republican crossovers it would have been an even larger victory. However, even among Democrats the electorate is split along racial lines. Obama is garnering a larger percentage of the white vote obviously than Clinton is of the black vote. Just as this came into play helping Obama win Mississippi it hurt him in Texas and Ohio. If this pattern holds true it will hurt him in Pennsylvania. He's consistently won the caucus states where enthusiasm of your supporters and organization is the key. He's also won those states where black voters make up a large percentage of Democrats. When it's been a mostly white primary state, not caucus, Clinton has won most of those (exceptions being Wisconsin and a very close Missouri primary).

yeah, I went back to look at the numbers for TX and OH. TX Dems went 62-37 for Clinton. Ohio went 70-27 for Clinton. So he's pretty clearly losing the white vote by a large margin, only making up for it due to his extreme advantage among blacks.

Yet he won them in Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin. Those were like 2-3 weeks ago.

It was somewhat closer but that's not exactly true. I found the following exit poll results on CNN, haven't gotten Wisconsin's to work yet: The Virginia exit polls showed among white Democrats Clinton with 56% and Obama 44%. Among black Democrats it was Obama 90% and Clinton 10%.

The Maryland exit polls showed among white Democrats Clinton with 55% and Obama with 42%. Among black Democrats it was Obama 84% and Clinton 16%

 

[the moops]

From: Mrs. J



But no more. She is evil. Her race-baiting is evil, horrible, despicable, and is setting the democratic party back decades. Her shamelessness of her attacks is evil. Her gleeful eagerness to turn this into a dirty, mud-slinging, horrible mess of a democratic primary is evil. I am fully convinced that she knows that she can't win the primary, so now she is doing whatever she can do to guarantee that Obama will lose in November, just so that she can run again in 4 years.

I firmly believe this now. There's no rational person that thinks she can get a legitimate nomination. The only reason she's in this is for one more stab in 2012.

After your "savior" runs this country even further into the ground, she'll definitely be a better choice.

In 2016 she'll be too old, thanks though.

Heck, by 2016 it'll probably already be the United States of Islam if your guy has his way. Or how about the United States of if you're not working just wait around for us to tax the #### out of all those who are and you'll get yours. And you're welcome.

You should get help, seriously.

Oh, moops. What is it this time? Did you piss the bed again?

I pee in the shower, not the bed. Please keep up.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Has it been mentioned that Hillary got 75% of the Republican vote yesterday?

75%

And 13% of those who voted where Republicans. Which accounts for about 53,000 votes, about 40,000 votes for Clinton from Republicans vs. 13,000 for Obama. Kind of skews the popular vote numbers a bit doesn't it? One thing I didn't like from looking at the exit polls was that 70% of white DEMOCRATS in Miss. voted for Hillary against 23% for Obama. So much for my earlier theory that it was the Republicans skewing the numbers. Even White Independants favored Hillary 55% to 40%. That's not good.

True on all accounts. Without Republican crossovers it would have been an even larger victory. However, even among Democrats the electorate is split along racial lines. Obama is garnering a larger percentage of the white vote obviously than Clinton is of the black vote. Just as this came into play helping Obama win Mississippi it hurt him in Texas and Ohio. If this pattern holds true it will hurt him in Pennsylvania. He's consistently won the caucus states where enthusiasm of your supporters and organization is the key. He's also won those states where black voters make up a large percentage of Democrats. When it's been a mostly white primary state, not caucus, Clinton has won most of those (exceptions being Wisconsin and a very close Missouri primary).

yeah, I went back to look at the numbers for TX and OH. TX Dems went 62-37 for Clinton. Ohio went 70-27 for Clinton. So he's pretty clearly losing the white vote by a large margin, only making up for it due to his extreme advantage among blacks.

Yet he won them in Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin. Those were like 2-3 weeks ago.

It was somewhat closer but that's not exactly true. I found the following exit poll results on CNN, haven't gotten Wisconsin's to work yet: The Virginia exit polls showed among white Democrats Clinton with 56% and Obama 44%. Among black Democrats it was Obama 90% and Clinton 10%.

The Maryland exit polls showed among white Democrats Clinton with 55% and Obama with 42%. Among black Democrats it was Obama 84% and Clinton 16%

Huh. Could have sworn he won Whitey in those two.ETA: I think I was thinking of the white MALE vote.

 

[djcolts]

Keith Olbermann to do a "Special Comment" on Hillary Clinton tonight

Last paragraph from that article:

It's a significant moment, because it marks the first time a full-throated special comment will have been directed exclusively at a Democrat. Not just the Democrats, whom Olbermann accused along with the Republicans last May for failing to do anything to get the country out of Iraq, but one particular Democrat — a Democrat whom, incidentally, he did a special comment defending in July after the Defense Dept. sent her a letter accusing her of facilitating anti-U.S. propaganda by demanding to know whether the administration had conceived of an exit strategy from Iraq. He also defended her husband, Bill Clinton, in Sept. 2006 after his controversial interview with FNC's Chris Wallace. I wouldn't expect either of them to get much defending this time around — though something tells me this one will get a lot more than 100,000 views.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Keith Olbermann to do a "Special Comment" on Hillary Clinton tonight

Last paragraph from that article:

It's a significant moment, because it marks the first time a full-throated special comment will have been directed exclusively at a Democrat. Not just the Democrats, whom Olbermann accused along with the Republicans last May for failing to do anything to get the country out of Iraq, but one particular Democrat — a Democrat whom, incidentally, he did a special comment defending in July after the Defense Dept. sent her a letter accusing her of facilitating anti-U.S. propaganda by demanding to know whether the administration had conceived of an exit strategy from Iraq. He also defended her husband, Bill Clinton, in Sept. 2006 after his controversial interview with FNC's Chris Wallace. I wouldn't expect either of them to get much defending this time around — though something tells me this one will get a lot more than 100,000 views.

As soon as he mentioned this last night, I set my DVR to record today's show.

 

[Sweet J]

Keith Olbermann to do a "Special Comment" on Hillary Clinton tonight

Last paragraph from that article:

It's a significant moment, because it marks the first time a full-throated special comment will have been directed exclusively at a Democrat. Not just the Democrats, whom Olbermann accused along with the Republicans last May for failing to do anything to get the country out of Iraq, but one particular Democrat — a Democrat whom, incidentally, he did a special comment defending in July after the Defense Dept. sent her a letter accusing her of facilitating anti-U.S. propaganda by demanding to know whether the administration had conceived of an exit strategy from Iraq. He also defended her husband, Bill Clinton, in Sept. 2006 after his controversial interview with FNC's Chris Wallace. I wouldn't expect either of them to get much defending this time around — though something tells me this one will get a lot more than 100,000 views.

As soon as he mentioned this last night, I set my DVR to record today's show.

What time is it on? I will be sure to watch.

 

[Sweet J]

Right. Sure he isn't. Can we just call democrats narcissists? I mean, wow! I already feel better.

Link it up.

You mean put a link from the internet? If you mean that internet that is part of the mainstream media that the dem...narcissists already control - no thanks. But that silly little signature tells me all I need to know about your - ahem - stance. Well, all that your avatar doesn't tell me that is.

The internet is part of the mainstream media. Huh. I did not know that.

 

[djcolts]

Keith Olbermann to do a "Special Comment" on Hillary Clinton tonight

Last paragraph from that article:

It's a significant moment, because it marks the first time a full-throated special comment will have been directed exclusively at a Democrat. Not just the Democrats, whom Olbermann accused along with the Republicans last May for failing to do anything to get the country out of Iraq, but one particular Democrat — a Democrat whom, incidentally, he did a special comment defending in July after the Defense Dept. sent her a letter accusing her of facilitating anti-U.S. propaganda by demanding to know whether the administration had conceived of an exit strategy from Iraq. He also defended her husband, Bill Clinton, in Sept. 2006 after his controversial interview with FNC's Chris Wallace. I wouldn't expect either of them to get much defending this time around — though something tells me this one will get a lot more than 100,000 views.

As soon as he mentioned this last night, I set my DVR to record today's show.

What time is it on? I will be sure to watch.

8 to 9 ET.

 

[shining path]

Has it been mentioned that Hillary got 75% of the Republican vote yesterday?

75%

I thought it was 85%?

Whatever it is, it's utter lunacy. Clinton owes the fact that she's still in the race to republicans. She owes the fact that she's a candidate to her husband. She owes most of her monetary success to lobbyists and connections made during her husbands years as president.

And other than the husband part what makes her any different than anyone who has ever run for office? Obama is a saint, huh? You people are amazing. But it's damn entertaining; I'll give you that.

Well, Obama doesn't owe his status to republicans crossing over to screw with the democratic nomination, he doesn't owe his status to the success of his wife, and he isn't taking money from lobbyists or any other connections made by his wife through her own successes.I mean, when you take away all the ways Obama and Clinton are different, they're really quite the same.

Can you give us a list on stuff we can criticize him for that way we are safe? Thanks.

Safe from what? Fact checking and argumentative message board posters?