Clinton Responds (Mildly) to Ferraro Race Comments
In an interview this afternoon with ABC News affiliate WHTM, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., ignored calls from the Obama campaign to remove from her campaign former vice presidential candidate, and Clinton campaign finance committee member, Geraldine Ferraro.
Former Rep. Ferraro, D-N.Y., told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Ca., that, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."
Reading Ferraro’s comments, Clinton’s response was rather mild.
"Well, I don’t agree with that and I think its important that we try to stay focused on issues that matter to the American people," Clinton said. "And both of us have had supporters and staff members who’ve gone over the line and we have to reign them in and try to keep this on the issues. There are big differences between us on the issues — let’s stay focused on that."
Watch the VIDEO HERE.
- jpt
Email
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Clinton is a lying hypocrite. Ferraro must be fired. Samantha Powers called her a “monster” for her tactics and it was the biggest deal ever. Her people call him Ken Starr, and “lucky to be black,” which could not be more untrue (even as I acknowledge male privilege) and Clinton wants to suddenly move on. What a sorry, pathetic excuse for a person let alone a candidate!
Posted by: June | March 11, 2008, 3:53 pm 3:53 pm
obama didnt fire powers either.
Posted by: toby | March 11, 2008, 3:57 pm 3:57 pm
The difference is Ferraro was speaking her own mind…..not assuming to speak policy for someone else….and excuse me but where would Powers have heard the comments for repeating but in meetings with Obama…..hmmm.
Posted by: Donna F | March 11, 2008, 3:57 pm 3:57 pm
I am a 40 something black woman. Used to love Bill and Hill. The more I hear them talk these days the more I dislike them. They [Clintons]come across as spiteful and desperate.
It is on Hillary as the senior Senator from New York and wife to former President Bill Clinton to do what is best for the party, instead the two of them are ripping it apart.
Many of my family members and friends have already said if there is no Hope, we will vote for McCain’s experience in the next war. We will leave the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Stella | March 11, 2008, 4:00 pm 4:00 pm
Where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton?
Posted by: Torre | March 11, 2008, 4:03 pm 4:03 pm
She should be fired under Senator Obama’s guidelines for running a campaign. Senator Clinton was not naive enough to set the bar so high, so there is no hypocrisy here.
Posted by: LOM | March 11, 2008, 4:04 pm 4:04 pm
This is the difference between Hillary and Obama. Hillary stands by her people and doesn’t sacrifice them for her own personal gain. I think the American people are smarter than that to recognize that everyone is entitled to their opinion but at the end of the day its what my candidate is going to do change how my government affects me that matters. Hillary doesn’t have to xerox what Obama does to his staff…she is a woman who can make up her own mind. After all xeroxing is what Obama does best….Hillary is an original!!! I find it interesting the comments were made on Friday and it has been made into a big deal today when Mississippi goes to vote. Obama pulling the race card front and center again. His campaign has always been about his race and name…way to distract everyone from your lack of experience.
Posted by: mona | March 11, 2008, 4:04 pm 4:04 pm
We understand. Many blacks are throwing a white people who helped them under the bus to support a black person. Right John Lewis?
Posted by: geevill | March 11, 2008, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm
Ferraro did not call Obama anything so your comparison is not legit. She stated a hard truth for people to hear and that is perception.
The truth is (as supported by the data) the race between Clinton and Obama does relate to racism and sexism. Prior to the false accusation against the Clinton camp about the race card (that Michelle played first and they ignored), the black voting bloc was about 55 Obama and 45 Clinton in the polls.
The media sexism was ignored by both camps initially and when it came to light that it has been blatant, the gender vote swung back in strength to the Clinton camp. It is sad that we still have so much racism and sexism in our country today and that women after 30 years of so-called progress still make 70 cents on the dollar as compared to men is a fact supporting the acceptance of sexism throughout our society.
It is not a far stretch in concept that it plays a role in voter choices anymore than the obvious shift of a statistical disparity of the black voting bloc from one civil rights candidate to another based on race.
We can all continue to enable the prejudice by putting our heads in the sand and joining hands to sing kumbaya or we can be pro-active and deal with it honestly. Ferraro did not attack a candidate personally as Powers did.
Posted by: DCVoter | March 11, 2008, 4:06 pm 4:06 pm
Al Sharpton is in Florida trying to disenfranchise white and Latino voters.
Posted by: geevill | March 11, 2008, 4:06 pm 4:06 pm
GOOD RESPONSE!!!! THE ISSUES ARE WHAT MATTER; WHO HAS THE EXPERIENCE IS WHAT MATTERS; WHO’S THE FIGHTER IS WHAT MATTERS…QUIT CRYING OBAMA!!!!!
Posted by: c.california | March 11, 2008, 4:06 pm 4:06 pm
Poor Obamaites are still smarting from the whooping they took from Ms. Hillary in the BIG states of OH and TX last week.
Obama put much time and much money into both states and LOST. And BTW, a new poll released in PA today shows him -19 behind Hillary.
Posted by: csh | March 11, 2008, 4:08 pm 4:08 pm
I wish I had been a viewer of West Wing then I would know which way obama campaign is going. Since so far every step of the way has followed script from the tv show.
Posted by: toby | March 11, 2008, 4:09 pm 4:09 pm
THIS IS YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE MENTALITY OF HILARY CLINTON. I KNOW SHE IS NOT ASHAMED AND HAS CONDONED AND PRACTICED WORST. CLINTON HAS A NERVE TO SAY WE NEED TO STICK TO THE ISSUES. SHE DOES WANT SHE WANTS AND SELECTIVELY IGNORES WHAT SHE WANTS. IS THIS PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL……
Posted by: Henry | March 11, 2008, 4:09 pm 4:09 pm
Uh Stella….HRC is NOT the “senior” senator from NY. Ever hear of Sen. Schumer?
And all you Obama revisionists — neither he nor his campaign fired Samantha Power. She resigned on her own. So why should HRC be held to a standard that BHO himself isn’t willing to follow?
Posted by: govtDr | March 11, 2008, 4:09 pm 4:09 pm
African American Superdeligates SHOULD repond to Geraldine Ferraro’s insult and Senator Clinton’s Vailed support by showing a unanimous support to Senator Obama’s Run for The Presidancy of the USA.
It is becomming a habit, here team slanders and she obects only when there is a strong reaction.
Posted by: S. Mengesha | March 11, 2008, 4:10 pm 4:10 pm
The only thing she called him was “black”. Does Obama take that as an insult? She made a true statement, if a white man with as little experience as Obama tried for the presidency, he would be NADER.
Posted by: JR | March 11, 2008, 4:11 pm 4:11 pm
Clinton used to be claimed as “first black president” by black people themselves. It is black people betrayed Clintons for their American Idol…Even some black super-delegates did the same… At least there are a few good black people sticking to their beliefs… Shame…
Posted by: Truth | March 11, 2008, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm
To the person who said Obama people are still stinging from a’whooping’:
We won Texas!!!! and I would hardly consider Ohio a whooping. Where were you when Obama won 12 in a row?
Clinton is a hypocrite. She asks one campaign to denounce and reject, but can’t handle doing that herself.
Posted by: Tiffany | March 11, 2008, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm
And whites wonder why Clinton gets only 9-20% of black voters……sheeesh
Posted by: ROB | March 11, 2008, 4:14 pm 4:14 pm
That’s it! I think I’m over “The Hill”!
Posted by: scrinine | March 11, 2008, 4:15 pm 4:15 pm
How can some one claim win Texas when the majority people rejected him??? Ohama claimed to present the will of people but he was defeated by the will of people from Texas..
Posted by: Truth | March 11, 2008, 4:16 pm 4:16 pm
I am sorry folks where is the DNC. Why do they continuously allow the Clintons to get away with these underhanded tactics. Why are they allowing the double standard? Its ok for any of the Clintons staff and the clintons to say and do what they want. It is ok for the Clintons to be endoused by known racist.
When will the Double standards be stopped. I am so sick of Hilary Clinton and her tactics to win the White House. Ms. Clinton does not deserve to be President of the United States.
Posted by: Henry | March 11, 2008, 4:17 pm 4:17 pm
That was a racist statement from her VP. What if Hillary Clinton was a man? What it all boils down to is not about race or sex because others have tried before Obama, but the reason why he is successful is not determined because he is just black. That is racist
Posted by: Rosamond | March 11, 2008, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm
You know people call Tiger Woods a black golfer yet he is really only 1/4 black. People call Obama black and he is half black. I say it doesn’t matter. All that matters is that he is what the country needs right now. He will be able to bring us together and start fixing the mess caused by this administration over the last 7 1/2 years. Obama 2008!!!
Posted by: pt | March 11, 2008, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm
LOL TIffany – you might want to check Obama’s record of who is winning. When he won the popular vote but lost on delegates he claimed the delegates were not apportioned correctly. When he lost the popular majority in a contest he touted only delegates matter. When he did not have many SDs he said they should change based on popular vote nationally. When it became apparent that would not help him he said the SDs should vote based on local constituent votes. When it became apparent that would cause him to lose his surrogates and some SDs he went mum and all of a sudden surrogate organizations like colorchange began pressuring SDs based on race. You really think he won TX? The TX SOS disagrees with you. LOL
Posted by: DCVoter | March 11, 2008, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm
Hillary must: Denounce Her. Decry Her.
Renounce Her. Reject Her.
But she won’t because Gerry is a Woman over 50. This is a key demographic and Hillary ain’t stupid. She does not wanna risk alienating this demographic group.
A hypocrit yes, but stupid no.
Posted by: The Commander Guy | March 11, 2008, 4:20 pm 4:20 pm
This absolutely correct. Glad it’s finally coming out. White culture has a whole thing against men acting overly messianic. Blacks are still in the whole “preacher” mentality.
White guy acting like this would have heard “Calm down champ and get to work,” about a million times by now. Obama has been excessively encouraged every day of his life, and he is really over the top. Frightening guy.
Posted by: BurtP | March 11, 2008, 4:20 pm 4:20 pm
Really, she thinks we need to focus on the issues, where was that when Samantha Power was losing her job. Why did she not just accept the apology and move on. So Obama must fire Samantha for her remarks while she focuses on the issues. Well I am done, I would rather sit out the general election is Hillary is the nominee than go give her my vote.
Posted by: Emo | March 11, 2008, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm
See what happens when your lies start seeping and oozing out all over the place….the disgusting lies start making folks angry.
Sinbad refutes hillary’s bosnia ‘experience’. Now watch how the hillary sheeple start attacking Sinbad.
Posted by: LA in Indiana | March 11, 2008, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm
As a black woman, I never take offense to being called a black woman. That’s absurd. However, in response to JR’s comments, what would be said of any man/woman, black/white, if they remained in the race as Hillary has. He has won more states and I think the argument stands that if the roles were reversed, if Clinton had the delegate lead, popular vote lead (admittedly, not a large margin), and Obama had next to no chance of taking over either, what would you be saying…That he’s damaging the party, it’s time to move forward, etc, etc, etc. And what facts is Ferraro basing this on? Are you telling me that states like Iowa, Wyoming, etc. like him simply because he’s black. Well, that’s a new one…
Posted by: What.Say.Me... | March 11, 2008, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm
It’s just the truth, Obama has 90% of the black vote, black racism at it’s best.
Posted by: Democrats 08 | March 11, 2008, 4:22 pm 4:22 pm
Ohama should run Gov of Ill. to fix the mess from his home town first….he wants to jump even does not know how to walk….
Posted by: Truth | March 11, 2008, 4:22 pm 4:22 pm
And Hillary wouldn’t be where she is if she wasn’t a woman. And, Oh yeah, if she hadn’t been married to Bill Clinton.
I am a middle aged white woman who is running from Hillary because of her hateful, anything- goes- even- if- it- means- handing- ammunition- to- the- republicans tactics.
One more thing, her vote on the Iraq war matters.
Posted by: Carolyn | March 11, 2008, 4:22 pm 4:22 pm
We all need to Thank Mrs.Ferraro for telling the truth.
Look at OJ and Rodney King! They are where they should had belong years ago.
Posted by: Edvard | March 11, 2008, 4:25 pm 4:25 pm
Clinton is duplicitous, dissembling, disingenuous,and UTTERLY untrustworthy.
I wouldn’t trust her any farther than I could drop-kick a Buick.
Ferraro should be FIRED — IMMEDIATELY. Anything less will show the true colors (pun fully and pointedly intended) of the Clinton cabal. If not, perhaps Ms. Powers should be reinstated immediately to the Obama team….
The REAL truth is that, were it not for Bill Clinton, ol’ Hill of Beans wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hades of being considered for president! And even *with* Bill, she brings virtually no national-security or foreign-policy experience to her vicious, increasingly repugnant and divisive candidacy!
Posted by: Mark | March 11, 2008, 4:25 pm 4:25 pm
Every imagined race talking points has been exploited by the obama campaign 100%. Why are you people falling it?
Posted by: toby | March 11, 2008, 4:26 pm 4:26 pm
Not really sure how OJ and Rodney King plays into this no more than Mark Furhman or David Duke does…maybe Edvard cares to explain…
Posted by: What.Say.Me... | March 11, 2008, 4:27 pm 4:27 pm
Geraldine: The Devil Making Her Spew Racist, Sexist Charges?
Ferraro remarks on Obama decried from AP reports that racial remarks made by former Democrat VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro, a Clinton fundraiser, about Senator Barack Obama have received varying degrees of criticism and/or opprobrium from other Democr…
Posted by: PAXALLES | March 11, 2008, 4:30 pm 4:30 pm
Truth, the few good black people sticking to their beliefs….those would be the house negroes. She probably still owes them something.
Since you seem to be struggling with your identification, I just thought I would help you out.
Posted by: LA in Indiana | March 11, 2008, 4:31 pm 4:31 pm
Mark….I agree on the reinstatement of Samantha Power.
Posted by: LA in Indiana | March 11, 2008, 4:33 pm 4:33 pm
If Obama is in the race then Clinton is in the race because she is a woman. (not much
of one) people wake up and smell the coffee, 8 years was enough, these are people with no moral or values except the
ones that benefit them. The woman is dull,no personality and exceeds the ugly limit in a room when she comes in. She has made politics a career, and has gotten wealthy doing so. Texas went to Clinton because of the hispanics and blue collar workers, educated people did not vote for her, it was the same in Ohio, blue collar male voters helped her carry the state, they had a choice black or female, and not surprising, Ohio went for the female not the black (they are scared, they did elect an idiot for mayor-he’s black) Unless the Clintons are stopped from the back room deals they are trying to make, they will secure the nomination for Hilary, if that happens the country needs to stand up and say enough is enough, get rid of the the whole lot, we need new blood in Washington.
Posted by: josie | March 11, 2008, 4:33 pm 4:33 pm
Poor Hillary. She’s playing Bop-a-Mole as all her take-no-prisoners, old-timer feminist fellows pop out with these outrageous, and now, racist statements. The problem here, as always, is that she never quite gets it right. She can never assess the situation correctly, and say the right words, or make quite the right decisions. She needs a commision to steer her in the right direction for everything large and small, and in the real world, there usually isn’t enough time for that. Obama thinks quickly, speaks and acts surely, and 85% of the time gets it just right, which is a pretty good batting average.
Posted by: Digger | March 11, 2008, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm
Speaking as one black person, not all of them, I wouldn’t go as far as calling it racism because I don’t think that it’s that simple. Sure, she was stating a fact…Obama is a black man. But is it really necessary to be reminded of that? Was it discrimination when Utah went for Romney…better yet, did we have McCain reminding the voting public at different times that Romney was a Mormon? I am sure that if McCain made a point to include Romney’s religious beliefs into play, Romney’s campaign would have definitely taken issue with it…because what would McCain be trying to accomplish by doing that.
Posted by: What.Say.Me... | March 11, 2008, 4:38 pm 4:38 pm
What I really see going on here is more of the same from team Clinton: Having a surrogate of Mrs. Clinton’s go out and say something racist and/or ethically contemptible, thus intentionally planting another “seed” of division or polarization, all the while allowing Lady Clinton to keep her grubby fingerprints off of it.
In this latest intentional case, consider: What Ferraro said — as with everything ever uttered by *any* Clinton operative — was calculated, intentional and fully vetted by headquarters first. NO Clintonite ever speaks without a vetted script.
What Ferraro said then was calculated to stoke the racial anger among less-educated, poorer, downscale white voters who “resent” affirmative action, and what they’ve long perceived as “handouts” and “giveaways” to blacks and other minorities. On behalf of Lady Clinton, Ferraro is playing to those fears, cleverly and subtly saying, “See? SEE? He’s another one of THOSE people, getting ahead merely by virtue of his skin color, while YOU fine white folk continue to suffer and struggle!”
And anyone who thinks this outburst of “soft bigotry” by Ferraro was anything less is cripplingly naive, and really should talk to that guy over there in the shadows about purchasing a large bridge in Brooklyn….
Posted by: adam | March 11, 2008, 4:40 pm 4:40 pm
She won’t fire her for she agrees and it is told in her message.There are two sets of rules in this campaign one for her and one for Obama..She crys foul every time and the people fall for it.I hope that he gets mad and fights back Damn her and her hubby I would like to see both of them fall off the face of this earth.Dirty and untruthful peole both of them and they seem to have the right to do it.Time to stop them…..
Posted by: honest | March 11, 2008, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm
Jill
Think when someone says the only reason Hillary is getting attention is because she is a woman. …or the only reason she got away with sniffling is because she is a woman…( I do not feel that way)…
I’m a white guy. It wasn’t the reference to the him being black…she said the reason he is where he was was because he was black. Not because of a relationship… not because he was smart…not because he is a great speaker…but because he is black.
It may be one attribute that draws a distinction with him (along with being incredibly intelligent and accomplished…and makes people feel good about the company …not because he is black but because he is a great, uplifting speaker), but that one attribute is not the reason he is where he is… no one lifted him to that position…he didn’t ride the coattails of his being black… She obviously has never been in a room where he takes questions.
Tell me that isn’t insulting…
Posted by: dl | March 11, 2008, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm
Tiffany: You should be careful about claiming winning Texas, even your candidate knows such a win actually hurts the image of his electability. In contrast to primaries, remember how many caucuses he has won? How many regular voters would participate in a caucus since most of them have job to do, kids to take care of, and the elderly has their own health to take care of. So, let’s redo the math, Obama won Texas caucus by 10% margin even he lost 3-4% in popular vote. With Washington state, Obama won caucus by a stunning 37% margin, but won the popular vote by 4%. Will you guys try to change the general election to caucus? Yes, we can :).
Posted by: nosense03 | March 11, 2008, 4:42 pm 4:42 pm
La in Indiania: Has Obama distanced himself from Ayers and the Weather Underground yet? Does he still accept campaign contributions from terrorist. Has he given them their blood money back?
Posted by: russell | March 11, 2008, 4:42 pm 4:42 pm
Jill – a little education…
As a black person, I am absolutely not offended by being referred to as black. However, when it is delivered or stated in a way that is intended to portray who I am, what I believe, what I stand for, or anything else…then it does become offensive. I can’t speak for Barack but I believe the offense is not that she called him black. To me, the offense would be that the Clinton campaign constantly tries to “belittle” his accomplishments during this presidential race by stating that they (meaning his accomplishments) only exists because he’s black.
Sure, he won South Carolina, but so did Jesse Jackson.
Sure, he has a delegate lead and has won all of these contests, but it’s simply because he’s black and every that’s voting for him is infactuated with that. Please…give me a break!
Posted by: What.Say.Me... | March 11, 2008, 4:43 pm 4:43 pm
After loss in primaries, I think Obama and his team are having tantrums. Instead of graciously accepting it and thanking Blacks for giving an opportunity; he and his team are creating scene. Well, what can we say when Obama has choose the way to go negative breaking his own promise.
When Hillary choked, talked about Womens beating “Boys Club”, American voters including hypocrite feminist pounched on her and started bad mouthing her. So, Hillary gets beaten up both ways.
Posted by: Humm | March 11, 2008, 4:44 pm 4:44 pm
What.Say.Me… First off, just because he’s ahead doesn’t mean he’s won. Second, Ferraro’s comment was that the reason Obama is where he is today is because he’s black, a talented black man as versus a talented white man. A white man with the same background as Obama would’ve never been considered as a canidate in first place. That’s not an insult by any stretch, unless you take any negative comment of Obama as an insult. Which I personally find insulting.
Posted by: JR | March 11, 2008, 4:44 pm 4:44 pm
VERY WELL SAID DL!
Posted by: What.Say.Me... | March 11, 2008, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm
A little education for What.Say.Me – we don’t know who the winner is until it’s ALL OVER. Being ahead at a snapshot in time does not mean you are a winner.
You need to toughen up and stop hiding behind your race.
Posted by: Jill Mitchell | March 11, 2008, 4:47 pm 4:47 pm
JR
That isn’t true… Obama alone is the best speaker and motivator I have seen in my life (and I was a public comm major). If I was blind that would still be the case.
When people credit his support to him being black…then I know they aren’t listening.
That makes me realize they don’t really even know if their candidate is the right one.
Posted by: dl | March 11, 2008, 4:47 pm 4:47 pm
Sorry about my comments, everyone. Unfair and sexist and emotional Let’s go Dems. But boy, we are not putting on our best faces right now. (Hilary’s campaign is out of control.)
Posted by: Bruce | March 11, 2008, 4:48 pm 4:48 pm
JR -
So… was JFK not a talented white man that was considered too young, too inexperienced? I do believe he was considered a candidate…oh, wait…he actually became President. No matter how you try to spin it, she was insinuated that Barack was simply riding on the coattails of being black and the voting public is caught up in being “progressive” by voting for a Black man and not because they believe he is the better candidate…
Posted by: What.Say.Me... | March 11, 2008, 4:50 pm 4:50 pm
Numbers don’t lie.
Posted by: s.b. | March 11, 2008, 4:50 pm 4:50 pm
dl : Yes, he indeed is a great speaker, but being a great speaker alone does not qualify him being a president. If you look into the bills he authored and co-authored as state senator and US senator, you will find an image of irresponsible politician.
Posted by: nosense03 | March 11, 2008, 4:50 pm 4:50 pm
The only reason Ms. Ferraro is where she is today (in hot water) is because she is a moron. At the risk of sounding redundant, I would also say that she typifies the Clinton campaign – lacking in principles, and willing to say or do anything to get elected, even if it means dismissing Senator Obama’s accomplishments by because of the color of his skin. For Ms. Clinton to brush this aside and ask reporters to focus on the issues is like Spitzer saying his problems are a “personal matter”. Her lack of a reaction gives covert authority to Ferraro’s comments.
Posted by: Michael NYC | March 11, 2008, 4:51 pm 4:51 pm
I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine Senator Obama you are no Jack Kennedy. Maybe Teddy!
Posted by: russell | March 11, 2008, 4:54 pm 4:54 pm
After loss in primaries, I think Obama and his team are having tantrums. Instead of graciously accepting it and thanking Blacks for giving an opportunity; he and his team are creating scene. Well, what can we say when Obama has choose the way to go negative breaking his own promise.
When Hillary choked, talked about Womens beating “Boys Club”, American voters including hypocrite feminist pounched on her and started bad mouthing her. So, Hillary gets beaten up both ways.
Posted by: Humm | March 11, 2008, 4:54 pm 4:54 pm
Jill…not sure how I’m hiding behind my race…care to explain that one…
And I’m also not sure where I ever said that he was the Democratic Presidential nominee…but he’s definitely the front runner. If that’s the only thing that you can educate me on…then I concede that point to you…he’s definitely not the winner…yet. I honestly believe that he will be (as I’m sure that you believe that Hillary will be and I completely respect you for that).
Posted by: What.Say.Me... | March 11, 2008, 4:54 pm 4:54 pm
If the numbers argument is because he got a larger percentage of the minority population… that small section of our overall population…yes …it is one attribute…just like women over the age of 50 were voting for Sen. Clinton…
each candidate always has a population similar to their own that may bring them extra votes…but as many black people that voted for him… that many racist people he had to overcome.
The physical characteristics in the overall picture are one attribute among many…to go down that road …is first a loser for any Clinton supporter who has to fight against mysogyny…and second very VERY unAmerican… in my opinion.
Posted by: dl | March 11, 2008, 4:56 pm 4:56 pm
Bruce, you are a good person even you support Senator Obama, though I and others might be trying to reveal the truth about him, we have no intention to insult him nor his supporters.
Posted by: nosense03 | March 11, 2008, 4:58 pm 4:58 pm
I am in no way trying to draw exact parallels between Barack and JFK with exception of the fact that, to JR’s point that all Ferraro was trying to convey is that a talented white man wouldn’t be where Obama is, JFK is an example of that. She felt strongly enough to name race as the ONLY factor of why Barack is doing well.
Posted by: What.Say.Me... | March 11, 2008, 4:58 pm 4:58 pm
I agree race and gender SHOULD not matter but the fact is: they do based on how voters are casting their votes. But let’s compare some of the things we should be considering.
Let’s compare voting records:
Both agreed on over 90% of Senate votes.
When they differed -
Clinton voted against tax breaks for oil and nuclear energy companies while Obama voted for them.
On all other differing votes, Clinton voted fiscally conservative and Obama voted liberal.
Let’s compare plans on a broad scope:
Clinton’s plans were released first and Obama parrots them with minor changes.
Clinton shows how hers would be paid for while reducing spending while Obama says he will raise taxes.
Let’s compare resume differences without the years as First Lady:
Clinton – 16 years with a law firm, faculty, and children’s defense fund; 7 years US Senator, 29 years successful political experience against the RNC; active on 12 non-Legislative committees; active on 10 legislative committees; 14 major organizational awards from all sectors of society (ie. humanitarians, women, latin americans, philanthropists, jewish, bridge builders, veterans, educators, parents, black women, MLK Baptist convention, military, unions)
Obama – 8 years state senate; 3 years US senate; 9 years mostly uncontested political experience against the RNC; not active on any non-Legislative committees; active on 8 legislative committees; 12 awards from limited sectors of society (ie. Lawyers, NAACP, Rock the Vote (youth and musicians), Chicago politicians)
So you see, if you simply look at the facts without all the hype, and you do not even consider the years as First Lady (which are valid foreign relations experience even per the Republicans), it is clear that Senator Clinton is more qualified to be President than Obama. She is also more likely to beat McCain with her experience and the states she has won in electoral votes.
Posted by: DCVoter | March 11, 2008, 4:59 pm 4:59 pm
One upside to the highly unlikely possibility of Hillary getting the nomination:
McCain will beat her like a drum, given that independents won’t vote for her, moderate Repubs won’t vote for her, many African Americans, men, and the under-30s now won’t vote for her, and, the last poll I checked, a generic 50% of ALL American voters declare categorically that they will never vote for her.
She simply cannot win with numbers and negatives like that.
Therefore, when McCain thrashes her 56% to 44% (give or take), it will mark the instantaneous END, once and for all, of the dynastic, unseemly, disturbingly undemocratic “Bush/Clinton era.”
Perhaps it WOULD be worth it, just for that reason alone….
Posted by: Mark | March 11, 2008, 4:59 pm 4:59 pm
I presume that the scrivener who recorded Hillary’s remarks meant “rein in”-not reign in.Or is Hillary already contemplating another Clinton reign?
Posted by: joel lewittes | March 11, 2008, 5:01 pm 5:01 pm
dl: Yes, each group might tend to vote for one or the other, but something like 90% does sound alarming to me.
Posted by: nosense03 | March 11, 2008, 5:03 pm 5:03 pm
So, according to Hillary Clinton racism is not an issue that matters to the American people.
That’s quite a position, for someone who wants to be President of the United States.
No wonder that she’ll never ever get the job. The pattern in racist undertones coming from her campaign destroyed most of the goodwill she enjoyed in her own Democratic Party.
Hillary Clinton has become a national embarrasment.
Posted by: Bamboozle | March 11, 2008, 5:04 pm 5:04 pm
Hillary & Company: You’ve come to epitomize the word nasty. Hillary, how do you imagine – even in your wildest dreams – that America would ever choose you to lead as great a nation as the U.S. surround by witches such as Geraldine Ferraro?
Posted by: petee | March 11, 2008, 5:05 pm 5:05 pm
The real issue in the Democratic Presidential Primary race is EXPERIENCE.
Sen. Hillary Clinton has the experience
and know-how to get the job done on issues like; economy, foreign affairs, healthcare, national security, job creation, NAFTA trade policy, & others.
Please vote smartly & vote for Hillary!
Posted by: Fred | March 11, 2008, 5:05 pm 5:05 pm
Something to think about…I do think there are definitely black people who vote for Obama simply because he is black. Just like I think there are women who will vote for Hillary because she’s a woman, or Mormon’s would have voted for Romney, Evangelicals for Huckabee, blah, blah, blah…
However alarming it is (and I definitely think those numbers get your attention), those votes alone would not put Obama in the position he’s in right now. So how do you account for the other demographics that’s voting for him?
Since FDR, blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic every election (numbers hovering around/over 90%). I never hear this as the reason in the general election that a democratic nominee wins…
Posted by: What.Say.Me... | March 11, 2008, 5:08 pm 5:08 pm
I don’t care how much experience Hillary Clinton has as the wife of a president–she has no experience in crisis management, has mismanaged her campaign from the beginning, has let loose her war dogs without considering the damage she is doing to the Democratic party, and now she shows herself to be a racist.
There is NO WAY ON EARTH this woman should be president. She should be forced out of the primaries immediately. Dean should call her and tell her she is no longer representing the Democratic party, in word or deed.
She is disgusting.
Posted by: Kitty | March 11, 2008, 5:09 pm 5:09 pm
Fred, Hillary Clinton has botched her own campaign from “Day One,” and she can’t even handle or rein in her own fractious campaign staff. Her alleged leadership qualities have proven poor to non-existent.
Sorry. Not buying.
Posted by: Mark | March 11, 2008, 5:09 pm 5:09 pm
Way to take a stance Hillary….Nice strong statement that will help re-unite your party. Good deisplay of leadership!
Posted by: John | March 11, 2008, 5:11 pm 5:11 pm
And the Hillary fanclub still has the guts to express their ‘amazement’ about the fact that Clinton no longer attracts black voters?
It’s not because Obama is black, and because is white, it is because Clinton has revealed where he stands now that she finds a black man on her path to power.
Posted by: Sam PP | March 11, 2008, 5:11 pm 5:11 pm
As an African-American I can attest to the fact that politically the community tends to coalesce around a specific candidate. We voted for Bill at rates of 90% as well. This is nothing new. People are pretty much only paying attention to the concept that the black community is widely Democratic and tends to find inspiration and trust in similar people. Sadly, this method of bandwagoning hasn’t served us well with the virtually lilly white presidential offerings (not totally sold on the Clinton was savior of black America story). Therefore, Obama is just another politico inheriting the loyal support of African Americans…this is nothing new…the media’s attention (though hastily focused) is.
Posted by: Stephanie | March 11, 2008, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
What.Say.Me…: You logic is not correct. The republican and democratic candidates have huge difference in policy, while most of us would agree that there was little difference between Obama’s and Clinton’s policy. Is it supposed that a voter should vote based on policy but not based on gender, race, etc?
Posted by: nosense03 | March 11, 2008, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
I am a woman in Hillary’s demographics and I can say without equivocation that I am appalled by Ferraro’s statements and Hillary’s refusal to immediately repudiate it. The democratic party has no place for this type of racial bigotry. The presidency isn’t enough of a prize to through away common decency. Hillary has lost my vote. I will never vote for her. Never.
Posted by: Deb | March 11, 2008, 5:13 pm 5:13 pm
Very well said Stephanie.
Posted by: What.Say.Me... | March 11, 2008, 5:13 pm 5:13 pm
people are so petty, the funny thing is she is right, but everyone concentrates on the race issue BS that it distorts the truth of the message.
Posted by: eleven22 | March 11, 2008, 5:14 pm 5:14 pm
Well I guess call me petty…
Posted by: What.Say.Me... | March 11, 2008, 5:16 pm 5:16 pm
My dad is a judge. I’ve attended hearings in his courtroom on many fascinating occasions. He’s a remarkable gifted jurist, and I’m exceptionally proud to be his son.
That said, I’m reminded that all of the considerable time I’ve spent in his courtroom, watching and admiring, *does not* in any way make *me* qualified to serve as a judge, much less as a good one.
Please consider this pointed analogy before you vote.
Posted by: adam | March 11, 2008, 5:17 pm 5:17 pm
I am absolutely floored by the Clinton supporters who are posting in her favor on this one. Her hypocrisy is astonishing. She demands that Obama “repudiate and reject” Farrakahns racist comments (repudiation just isn’t quite enough, now). She is horrified that Powers calls her a monster (a charge that is seeming more and more true as the campaign goes on). But, for Ferraro, well, “can’t we all just agree to disagree”?
Both McCain and Obama have shown the leadership to stand up and strongly denounce the racist garbage from some of their supporters, and if Clinton won’t, it just shows me what a weasel she really is. I started this season out thrilled that we had two great candidates, and I was certain that I would vote for whichever one won the Democratic nomination, but this is the event that pushes me, personally, over the top. I can’t put my mark by her name. I just can’t.
And for all of you who are claiming that Ferraro just has the strength to tell the truth, GET REAL.
WHO BUT AN ABSOLUTE IDIOT WOULD CLAIM THAT BEING A BLACK MAN IN THIS SOCIETY IS AN ADVANTAGE.
It particularly galls me to hear a rich, privileged, white woman like Ferraro whine about it. She doesn’t have a clue. I’m ashamed that I voted for her for VP.
Posted by: John | March 11, 2008, 5:20 pm 5:20 pm
What.Say.Me….Not sure exactly but I assume somewhere around 50% of voting Democrats are women. I suspect only 10-15% of voting Democrats are black. So, the math is in her favor if she drives non-blacks away from Obama. I am a white middle-aged Independent. I will support any candidate who is not named Clinton. Up until this campaign I would have supported them (voted for them twice before). However, this campaign had driven to be very anti-Hillary…As you’ve noted by your post there are many, many more us than black people supporting Obama.
Posted by: John | March 11, 2008, 5:20 pm 5:20 pm
adam – if you think that Hillary Clinton has sat by and watched anything without being an active participant, you really havent been paying attention for the last 30 years. LOL She was one of the most active First Ladies in history and there is a lot of documentation to support that. This is in addition to her years of professional experience and work for civil rights, human rights, and the rights of children.
Posted by: DCVoter | March 11, 2008, 5:21 pm 5:21 pm
How come there is not outrage over Maxim Thorne,email about Hillary to a couple of listservs ??
She is an Obama backer and her email is very distasteful am yet to see the MSM say one thing about this email and what she has done, I just love all the double standards in the game.
Posted by: SJ | March 11, 2008, 5:24 pm 5:24 pm
DCVoter (and all of you who are interested in experience and work in the Senate) …
go to the Library of Congress site and look up the comparisons between Sen Clinton bills, and legislative ideas put forth…and Sen. Obamas…
in this year alone. She has been there for how many years and I would guess that her “fighting spirit” …has made her a lot of friends… and it seems she gets a lot of stuff passed. Something tells me…Obama’s years of legislature experience and understanding of an electoral body…and how those are passed being ectually involved in the process (not married to someone who was in the process) would give him a lot of know how.
Lots of sites are listing those now…because you will be blown away at how much the difference is.
Who is going to come up with solutions
Posted by: dl | March 11, 2008, 5:25 pm 5:25 pm
Where the heck have you people been that you are surprised that Clinton’s campaign is a total sleaze-machine. This is what we’re up against.
Posted by: matt | March 11, 2008, 5:26 pm 5:26 pm
by the way the reference to the senators and Library of Congress… Obama kicks her butt when you look how long they both have been there…but maybe that was because she was receiving all the acknowledgements that DCVOter listed.
Posted by: dl | March 11, 2008, 5:27 pm 5:27 pm
Most of her experience is manufactured. She claims she had a role in Northern Ireland; she wasn’t at the table. She claims she was responsible for opening the borders in Kosovo; they were opened before she landed. She claims a harrowing landing in the Balkans proves something, but she was with her daughter and USO members–it wasn’t a political trip. She made a speech in China when she had nothing to fear–which shouldn’t count at all because, according to her, words don’t matter.
When asked what crisis management experience Hillary had, even her own staff couldn’t come up with a single example.
She has been a singularly insignificant senator.
And we have no idea what her records would show about her experience BECAUSE HILLARY WON”t LET US SEE THEM.
She has not experience as far I can see. She has chutzpah in trying to claim experience when there isn’t any.
Posted by: Tika | March 11, 2008, 5:27 pm 5:27 pm
DCVoter, being an “activist first lady” is NOT the same as actual, hands-on, nitty-gritty presidential *experience.* There are light years of difference between the two, as well you know. She was not responsible for policy, or for negotiations, or for treaties, or for the highest-level decision making. She was *witness* to them, but did NOT perform them.
And as someone else pointed out, she hasn’t even been able to manage her campaign or her staff capably or competently. I’m not impressed.
Posted by: adam | March 11, 2008, 5:28 pm 5:28 pm
My logic is right on…No, it is not supposed that a voter votes simply based on these demographics (and the numbers prove that with more white males voting for Barack) even though it does happen. So to make the point that race is simply the determining factor in his success is very ignorant.
I agree that there is very little difference in Barack/Hillary policy vs. that of the Dem vs. Republican party. However, with things said like the South Carolina comment and the Ferraro comment, I think it pushed more of thos black voters that were leaning toward Hillary the other way. And of course other factors…all voters got to know more about Obama. I know that there were definitely more blacks leaning toward Hillary than a mere 10% (according to the polls now. Blacks affection for Bill Clinton was very well-known and that affection, at first, translated to an affection for Hillary. As I said before, you had some blacks that support him because he’s black. But the migration of more and more blacks supporting him wasn’t simply because he was black…it was because they believed in him and at some point, maybe believed less in her.
Posted by: What.Say.Me... | March 11, 2008, 5:28 pm 5:28 pm
Hillary supports human rights, and the rights of children??? Why vote for authorization for war if you care about these? Not once but twice authorizing use of preemptive war. Human rights disaster and children always lose.
Posted by: what a hypocrite | March 11, 2008, 5:30 pm 5:30 pm
JFK travel the world serving as his fathers representative assisting ambassador work.
He graduated cum laude from Harvard with a degree in international affairs
JFK served his country in the military
1951- 1945
congressman for 6 years
Senator for 3 years
1956 bid and lost VP nomination
13 years of service to his country.
1961-1963 US President
————————-
I think His record was exceptional
He knew what he was talking about, knew foreigner affairs, Knew the government.
He Knew more than great speeches.
Your are kidding about comparing Obama to him right! That would impossible to even try.
Posted by: seah | March 11, 2008, 5:31 pm 5:31 pm
When people say Hillary got experience I wonder where she got it from. Where did J.F.K got his experience, where did Ex-president Clinton got his experience before he became president?? Where did George W. Bush got His?? You mean if Hillary become president she will go around shouting SHAME on the Chinese or the Russian president?? The only leader among Hillary, Macain. And Obama is clearly OBAMA!! He might be black but he is simply the best for now.
Posted by: Anlex Anya | March 11, 2008, 5:34 pm 5:34 pm
Yo, Hill! In between racist surrogate eruptions and fear-mongering ads lifted from the 1984 campaign (employed back then by none other than Mondale/FERRARO!), do you think you could get around one of these days to releasing your tax returns please?
And don’t give us that “senate financial disclosure” B.S. dodge. Everyone knows they’re completely superficial and non-specific, unlike a good old 1040!
Posted by: chickaboom | March 11, 2008, 5:35 pm 5:35 pm
Who would benefit most by magnifying Ferraro’s comments today when Mississippi goes to vote? Come on people its great campaigning and Obama’s camp is making a big deal about race yet again. They make race an issue every time he wants the black vote. Today they really want the black vote in Mississippi. Let us ad more fuel and ignite the race flame so people can be more enraged and go out and vote for our black candidate. They did it South Carolina and now they are pulling it again in Mississippi. Poor black folks, at least you can’t blame your manipulation on a white person anymore.
Posted by: mona | March 11, 2008, 5:36 pm 5:36 pm
Was JFK not viewed as too young and inexperienced? The point of my argument was to refute that Ferraro was simply trying to say that a white man that is viewed the same wouldn’t be given this opportunity. You can’t seriously be trying to make that argument, right?
Posted by: What.Say.Me... | March 11, 2008, 5:38 pm 5:38 pm
Since Obama’s has been lying about Hillary’s positions on various issues and lying about their own position on all issues, Hillary needs to ignore whatever calls from the Obama campaign. It is important to play by her own book, not Obama’s book and especially not media’s book.
Posted by: Magen | March 11, 2008, 5:41 pm 5:41 pm
mona, that’s patently absurd.
It was Camp Clinton that had Ferraro go out to utter her racist comments just before Mississippi voted, not Obama.
And did it ever occur to you that Camp Clinton chose to drop its latest racist comment just before Mississippi (with its large black population, which Clinton has now correctly written off) to play on the fears of affirmative action-adverse, poor, under-educated whites in that state to counterbalance Obama’s lead with African Americans there?
Blacks are turning against the Clintons in droves because they’ve witnessed since South Carolina just how quickly the Clintons will turn on them and throw them under the bus in their unrelenting quest for power.
And they’re right.
Posted by: adam | March 11, 2008, 5:44 pm 5:44 pm
There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.
Going down the list of international hotspots from the Clinton years, Craig writes that it is “a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland.” Her claim to a role in bringing peace to Bosnia is also unfounded, Craig says. Her claim to have negotiated the flight of refugees from Kosovo “is not true,” according to Craig, who quotes Bill Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans as saying, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” And on Rwanda, where Bill and Hillary Clinton have said that she pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops, Craig writes, “There is no evidence…to suggest that this ever happened.” Finally, Craig attacks Hillary Clinton’s claim that her 1995 speech about women’s rights in China also qualifies as foreign policy experience. “It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago,” Craig writes, “since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago.”
The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.
Posted by: SuziQ | March 11, 2008, 5:45 pm 5:45 pm
Nosense …just go to the library…
It’ll show you a lot of the bills and the ones he authored…the ones that were passed…
the themes that arise from each candidate…
It may not show you the detail of those bills but that is the only facts we have to go on…because you sure can’t quantify Sen. Clinton more with any math.
and God knows with this whole I rish Peace Accord and her speech in China… and the reporters who traveled with her now all coming out and saying that they don’t want to be insulting and not to make it sound like “she was just having tea and cookies…but most of the time …she was having tea and cookies”…that’s a quote from one of the reporters that travelled with her .
The questions that she makes arise …make us not trust any candidate…so that is why I say to everyone go to the best database records you can…
Posted by: dl | March 11, 2008, 5:48 pm 5:48 pm
I think some of the posts here are missing the larger point entirely. It is not about whether Ferraro is accurate or not in her statement(that could be debated); and it is not about whether she is entitled to her opinion (I think she is). It is about how her statements diminish ALL of us: the voters and the candidates. They do nothing to ADD to or nurture any real issues; just more cynical and destructive statements with no useful purpose. It was an incredibly selfish decision on her part to “unload” her frustrations rather than keep them private. I would have thought Ferraro would consider more carefully her words and role-model status to women before venting. What’s worse is the HRC campaign has effectively condoned this by a: ‘both sides are guilty of this type of behavior’ position. This sends the wrong message to voters–especially women.
Posted by: Mary | March 11, 2008, 5:50 pm 5:50 pm
everybody should just wait and see what will happen in six weeks why yelland have a fit now we have until june solets just wait and see.
Posted by: Bishop | March 11, 2008, 5:50 pm 5:50 pm
Although Ferraro did not speak for the Clinton campaign, her comments reflect a frustration that no one here has disagreed with, and that is that African Americans will coalesce around one candidate.
Internally, the Clinton campaign must have decided at some point to play down being the first female candidate because it would have been a negative to gaining men voters. (Too bad about that.)
And, as such, we have seen women vote for Obama, with no sense of guilt or remorse or intimidation.
Since Hillary’s campaign manager is an African American woman, as are many Hillary surrogates, I sense the women are disappointed that women have not banded together as effectively to make history as has the African American community.
If memory serves me, Obama distanced himself from his foreign advisor’s comments, and she resigned a day or two later. Let’s wait and see if Ferraro makes a similar move.
Posted by: OhioNative | March 11, 2008, 5:52 pm 5:52 pm
I am deeply offended and shocked that someone with the (former) stature of Ms. Ferraro would sink to such a reprehensible depth in support of her candidate.
Has she no integrity left? Didn’t I hear some time back that she (Ferraro) was fighting some form of terminal illness (from which I wish her a full and speedy recovery)? Does she really wish for such a bald-faced, disgusting racial attack to be her legacy, even if she lives another 50 years?
Why would she agree to stoop to such vile behavior?
Posted by: Mark | March 11, 2008, 5:56 pm 5:56 pm
dl: So you believe he indeed took the responsibility of his job seriously by authoring and co-authoring nearly 600 bills within the first year as US senator? Once again, I want to ask you: How could he draft or even read all the bills before putting on his name? How serious was he when he put his name on those bills? How much could we trust him when he takes the #1 job?
Posted by: nosense03 | March 11, 2008, 5:57 pm 5:57 pm
Obama LYING about Clinton? Get real. There is only one democratic campaign that lies, defrauds, misrepresents, pulls the truth like taffy, takes comments out of context, and while doing all that sends out character assassination squads–and she doesn’t denounce or reject or repudiate or anything else.
Hillary Clinton is an embarrassment to the American people. She needs to get out of the campaign NOW while the democrats still have a chance to win rather than remaining in and giving the campaign to the republicans.
Posted by: Kira | March 11, 2008, 5:57 pm 5:57 pm
I couldn’t agree more….keep it on the issues. Ferraro said what many people have been thinking across America. It’s been said now let’s move on.
Posted by: catherine in nm | March 11, 2008, 5:59 pm 5:59 pm
catherine in nm, what people have you spoken to across America?
Posted by: kl | March 11, 2008, 6:01 pm 6:01 pm
HILLARY CLINTON acts in a consistent and judicious manner, and carefully weighs her responses. She doesn’t roll over to the opponent’s every whine. In this case, the surrogate spoke openly about matters that are usualy tucked away in polite corners, everywhere but South Park. Big deal, move on.
Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | March 11, 2008, 6:02 pm 6:02 pm
also, I wasn’t aware that comments made out of fear and ignorance should be ignored.
Posted by: kl | March 11, 2008, 6:03 pm 6:03 pm
If Mr. Obama does not have a problem being black why does he distance himself from the leaders of the black community that support him. Jackson and Sharpton support him but he is never seen campaigning with them. He did’nt even go to the conference on the State of the Black Union but Hillary did. He said that he was to busy campaigning in Ohio to attend. Excuse me but isn’t she competing in the same primaries and she had time to attend. No the real reason was that Mr. Axlerod was afraid that it might cost him votes in Ohio. I think that shows who is really for blacks. Hillary calls both Jackson and Sharpton friends and Bill Clintons office is in Harlem. So who is the real black in this race. I wonder?
Posted by: russell | March 11, 2008, 6:05 pm 6:05 pm
If women think Hillary Clinton should be president because she would be a role model, hold this information up in front of your young daughter and try to explain why it is all right for Clinton to single out race.
I think women who vote for Clinton primarily because it is time for women to get their due are doing a huge disservice to the country. It may be time for a woman as president, but not this woman. She is evil, pure and simple.
Besides, there is an excellent chance that Obama would pick a woman as VP.
Posted by: Tika | March 11, 2008, 6:06 pm 6:06 pm
Russell you are a bit confused in your thought processes. Obama is not required to align with Jackson or Sharpton (portrayed as controversial figures by the media) simply because you or anyone else thinks that he should. Also, I wasn’t aware that you were privy to Obama’s schedule??
Posted by: kl | March 11, 2008, 6:11 pm 6:11 pm
Oh, Russell, Russell, Russell…where to begin…
Posted by: What.Say.Me... | March 11, 2008, 6:12 pm 6:12 pm
Kl: What black has he aligned himself with other than Oparh Winfery? I am not privy to his schedule. But if a white woman can make to the State of the Black Union and a black man can’t I think it says more about her commitment to black america than it does his!
Posted by: russell | March 11, 2008, 6:14 pm 6:14 pm
Tika I don’t think it’s fair to say that Hillary is evil and don’t think if nominated, Obama will be selecting her as a VP.
Posted by: kl | March 11, 2008, 6:15 pm 6:15 pm
What say Me: At the begining.
Posted by: russell | March 11, 2008, 6:16 pm 6:16 pm
russell– Really!!
Posted by: kl | March 11, 2008, 6:17 pm 6:17 pm
Russell as stated previously you are confused in your thoughts. Obama has not aligned himself w/ Oprah. Oprah as a U.S. citizen and registered voter has chosen to support Obama- to which she is entitled. Again, I wasn’t aware that you were privy to Obama’s schedule in terms of speaking engagements.
Posted by: kl | March 11, 2008, 6:20 pm 6:20 pm
Kitty: Cold? Yeah, many people are talking about Clinton being cold. I have one suggestion for those who think this way: Get various pictures of all three candidates, and mask out their good or bad looking face but leave their eyes there. Then have a close look at their eyes, you will find out who is really cold. It is simple and easy to do. Just do it for fun :).
Posted by: no | March 11, 2008, 6:20 pm 6:20 pm
There is NO WAY Hillary Clinton should be elected president after today. There is no way should should be allowed back in the WH. And if ALL you women want is a woman in the WH, that can be arranged.
But let’s make sure it is one who is ethical, fair-minded, and not obsessed with herself.
Posted by: tika | March 11, 2008, 6:23 pm 6:23 pm
Kl: Why did he not attend?
Posted by: russell | March 11, 2008, 6:24 pm 6:24 pm
Tika, I’m a woman, but race or gender is not factoring into the equation for me. For some reason though, I can’t get past the comment someone made about not wanting a president in diapers. So I guess to a certain extent, I AM considering age.
Posted by: kl | March 11, 2008, 6:27 pm 6:27 pm
If racism is evil, and I think it is, and if Hillary Clinton doesn’t renounce it, which she hasn’t, and in facts allows this statement of one of her surrogates to stand, than she supports evil. You can go the rest of the way yourself.
Posted by: Tika | March 11, 2008, 6:27 pm 6:27 pm
russell- Why do you think he needed to?
Posted by: kl | March 11, 2008, 6:28 pm 6:28 pm
tika: Are you a judge or police officer? Where? I just want to stay as far as possible from you. Just kidding. But you just posted things like you have the authority to make decisions.
Posted by: nosense03 | March 11, 2008, 6:29 pm 6:29 pm
Tika racism is not evil- the hearts of people are evil. Racism is a learned behavior; a behavior that can be changed. Was her statement racist? or is she desperately trying to use every tactic available to give Clinton the edge?
Posted by: kl | March 11, 2008, 6:32 pm 6:32 pm
Kl…isn’t Obama Bill Clinton’s age when he took the White House?
Posted by: HM | March 11, 2008, 6:33 pm 6:33 pm
Kl: Only that he and all the other canidates for president republician and democratic were invited and only Hillary attend. I quess they all were to busy. He was extended an invitation by Mr. Smiley but refused. I don’t know why a black man would not attend except that he is in a tight race in predominately white Ohio may be part of the answer. You keep asking me if I am privy to his schedule the answer is no. But his refusal to attend is because he was to busy campaigning speaks volumes. I wonder if he will have time for black america when he is president?
Posted by: russell | March 11, 2008, 6:34 pm 6:34 pm
Jillian- white people vote for white people, so what’s your point? Are you angry?
Posted by: kl | March 11, 2008, 6:34 pm 6:34 pm
Obama is 49 years old. I believe Bill Clinton was younger when he was elected. And if you want someone fully seasons, you have no choice but to vote for McCain.
Posted by: Tika | March 11, 2008, 6:35 pm 6:35 pm
HM: Since when does age equals to experience?
Posted by: nosense03 | March 11, 2008, 6:36 pm 6:36 pm
HM I was referring to the comment someone made about McCain. Sorry for confusion.
Posted by: kl | March 11, 2008, 6:36 pm 6:36 pm
What a sad state state of affairs for the 1st amendment when a person cannot state their opinion without instantly being lynched as a rascist! How are Ferraro’s comments any more rascist than saying that black voters are voting for OBama because he is black?? What kind of a cocoon do you all live in?
Posted by: 1st amendment gal | March 11, 2008, 6:36 pm 6:36 pm
Tika: Again, since when does age equal to experience?
Posted by: nosense03 | March 11, 2008, 6:37 pm 6:37 pm
Ferraro has come out and stated the TRUTH which many, many, many REASONABLE Americans realize! No others ( in the public eye ) were brave enough to say this. Thank you Ferraro!
Instead black super delegates and others went with OBAMA because they are afraid those of their race would shun and ridicule them.
Further more, why are blacks turning out in record numbers to vote NOW? Like DUH? people wake up!!!!
Obama has nothing going for him except COLOR.
Posted by: Patricia | March 11, 2008, 6:38 pm 6:38 pm
Russell the president stands for all of America and strategy is important in running for the presidency. Just because you thought that he should of attended doesn’t mean that he should have.
Posted by: kl | March 11, 2008, 6:39 pm 6:39 pm
KL – It’s a fact that not 80%+ white people voted for Hillary OK. But 80%+ black people voted for Obama. Check out the exit polls. I’m not being racist. It’s just facts. Isn’t it interesting that in almost all the states blacks are predominantly voting for Obama. We wonder why? Well, I’m sure it has to do with the color of Obama, he’s black. And that has to do with race. It’s not racism. It’s just a factual statement. People are making assessments. I guess if you’re white and make that assessment then you are called a racist. That’s just ignorant to say that. I can understand why blacks would vote for Obama – they feel impowered, the feel Obama will take care of them when he’s president, they want a leader that is black. So, don’t bring in the whole racism card when there’s nothing racist about it. Why should Clinton fire her advisor for making that statement? Does that mean Clinton is racist and evil like TIka is suggesting? Absolutely not. The facts state the truth. End of sotry.
Posted by: Jillian | March 11, 2008, 6:40 pm 6:40 pm
Jillian- People are free to vote for whomever they choose, regardless of race. So take a deep breath and calm down.
Posted by: kl | March 11, 2008, 6:45 pm 6:45 pm
I’m tired of how every time a white person makes a intelligent assessment about something relating to Obama’s heritage as a black man he/she is marked a racist, and all hell breaks loose. Common! Al Sharpton get’s on the news and the whole situation and blown out of proportion when really there was nothing racist or racial about it at all. Stop whining. I think this again is to just deflect from the real issues at hand. Just accept the facts of the matter and move on. Stop bashing Hillary and listen to the issues.
Posted by: Jillian | March 11, 2008, 6:46 pm 6:46 pm
Jillian- are you really tired of it? Tune it out.
Posted by: kl | March 11, 2008, 6:49 pm 6:49 pm
Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a “wee bit silly” for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.
“I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around,” he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely “the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets” during elections. “She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player.”
Lord Trimble shared the Nobel Peace Prize with John Hume, leader of the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party, in 1998. Conall McDevitt, an SDLP negotiator and aide to Mr Hume during the talks, said: “There would have been no contact with her either in person or on the phone. I was with Hume regularly during calls in the months leading up to the Good Friday Agreement when he was taking calls from the White House and they were invariably coming from the president.”
Steven King, a negotiator with Lord Trimble’s Ulster Unionist Party, argued that Mrs Clinton might even have helped delay the chances of peace. “She was invited along to some pre-arranged meetings but I don’t think she exactly brought anybody together that hadn’t been brought together already,” he said. Mrs Clinton was “a cheerleader for the Irish republican side of the argument”, he added.
“She really lost all credibility when on Bill Clinton’s last visit to Northern Ireland [in December 2000] when she hugged and kissed [Sinn Fein leaders] Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness.”
Posted by: SuziQ | March 11, 2008, 6:52 pm 6:52 pm
Kl: If the NAACP as it always does extends an invitation to all canidates to come and speak to its members and Hillary Clinton refused because of a scheduleing conflict. I do not think you would be so generous in your reasoning. I think that there would be outrage in the black community and in the media that she sunbbed them. No I think it would cause her irreparable harm and frankly I think it should.
Posted by: russell | March 11, 2008, 6:54 pm 6:54 pm
russell- there’s a big difference between a scheduling conflict and a refusal to speak. I can’t speak for anyone else, but if I extended an invite to any candidate and the simply could not attend I would be okay with that. If they refused, I would take a closer look at that individual.
Posted by: kl | March 11, 2008, 6:58 pm 6:58 pm
So does she only renounce, or does she reject Ferraro’s support?
This woman is UNbelievable…
Posted by: dave c | March 11, 2008, 6:59 pm 6:59 pm
Dave C:
I agree with you – “this woman is unbelievable”….
She is not to be believed.
Posted by: SuziQ | March 11, 2008, 7:01 pm 7:01 pm
Kl: How do you discern one from the other: One simply says that he or she has a scheduling conflict but they really don’t want to attend. No I do not think the media or the Obama people would let her get away with that.
Posted by: russell | March 11, 2008, 7:03 pm 7:03 pm
kl – I just wish for once people would just look at the facts straight and make intelligent assessments on the issues before jumping to conclusions that result in slandering and bashing when it’s not necessary.
Calling Clinton evil and a racist and so on is just stupid and ignorant. And why are there some one here so adamant about Clinton firing Ferraro? Did she tell lies? Did she say something wrong? Isn’t she entitled to her opinion? I didn’t find anything racist about it. I guess for black it hits home harder than for white people – and I admit perhaps white people are not as sensitive to this. But I hear people say Oh because of this now I will never go vote if Hillary is the nominee. Huh? We are electing the president of the US. We have a job as citizens to go out and vote. The argument that some are making makes no sense.
Posted by: Jillian | March 11, 2008, 7:08 pm 7:08 pm
Russell- here’s the discernment: Hillary committed to speak at this engagement- right? If another entity had contacted Hillary and asked her to speak at a time that would have conflicted w/ that speaking engagement, there would have been a scheduling conflict. That’s the discernment. As far as getting away with something, Hillary doesn’t answer to Obama or the media.
Posted by: kl | March 11, 2008, 7:09 pm 7:09 pm
Jillian- I don’t think that Clinton is evil or racist. I think that maybe some of the comments that are being made are by people who had or have no intention of voting for Clinton regardless of what is said by her or someone within her campaign. Yes! people should look at the issues and one of the issues that we are discussing is the statement made by someone who represents Hillary and is working within her campaign.
Posted by: kl | March 11, 2008, 7:15 pm 7:15 pm
Look SuzeQ and Kitty too:
You are just quoting people’s opinions, my guy won three prestigious awards, and yours had to share one with him.
It’s a he said-he said, and I’m going with the smarter guy who’s won more awards.
And if you have not smarts nor sense of humor, ’tis all the more shame…
Posted by: Lauren | March 11, 2008, 7:15 pm 7:15 pm
Kl: Now you are becoming illogical in you reasoning. If Hillary refused to speak at the NAACP convention for any reason other that death it would ruin her. The media would be obsessed with it and no excuse would satisfy you or the media. As Bob Dole says “you know it, I know it, and the american people know it.”
Posted by: russell | March 11, 2008, 7:15 pm 7:15 pm
The Democrats have let this thing get way to personal. Ferraro’s comments are ones made in frustration, exposing a deep resentment she has developed for Obama.
Posted by: Derek | March 11, 2008, 7:17 pm 7:17 pm
Jillian,
Don’t you bother to read any posts that don’t praise your candidate? Haven’t you read any of the news articles that have been posted that are objective and factual yet call into question the integrity and honesty of your candidate?
She can’t step in front of the world and claim to have vast experience–which she does–on the wing and prayer that no one really challenges her. And when you start looking for the truth, the truth is that Hillary Clinton is taking proximity for experience.
Your candidate is an empty suit, demanding credentials where none are due. And if she hyper exaggerates in areas that can be factually dismissed, what else is she lying about?
And her constant, negative, below the belt attacks on Obama, with that ongoing whine whenever he attempts to set the record straight that he isn’t living up to his promise to play fair….my goodness. What on earth does she bring to the oval office besides ego?
Posted by: Kira | March 11, 2008, 7:19 pm 7:19 pm
I find the longer this process is drawn out and all the attention that it gets, people are going to say more and more things to get on the front page. For example, all of a sudden Ferraro is in the front page and now Sinbad is using it to get the spotlight on him. And everyone is just eating it up!!
2025 for PRESIDENT 08 ( I don’t see anyone with that goal reached yet)
Posted by: mona | March 11, 2008, 7:20 pm 7:20 pm
Russell- there is a difference between refuse and scheduling conflict. The media is controlled by no one.
Posted by: kl | March 11, 2008, 7:23 pm 7:23 pm
Look – he’s an Obama supporter, so what do you think he’s going to say?
Hmmmmm… I am so shocked!
She has obviously not already been Commander in Chief, and she is not claming to have been. But she has had a lot more experience than Barak…
Like it or not, it’s reality…
(I’m sorry I’m getting silly… because this is all getting silly…)
Posted by: Lauren | March 11, 2008, 7:25 pm 7:25 pm
Kl: Now you are starting to sound like Obama on NAFTA. I was for it before I was against it. Sounds like John Kerry is having too much infulence on Obama’s policy. That kind of logic is what lost Mr. Kerry the election.
Posted by: russell | March 11, 2008, 7:28 pm 7:28 pm
Why do you consider eye witness reportage to be opinions? Because if you have to accept these eye witness accounts, it would mean you would have to accept that Hillary Clinton has, at a minimum, exaggerated her claims at experience and that would undermine much of her campaign construction. Better by far to try to discount anyone who doesn’t speak the Clinton line.
On the Balkan bit, there are NUMEROUS sources who discount Hillary’s dramatic accounts. These are people who were on the trip with her. I doubt this is opinion.
Fact is fact unless you need to spin it into a web that looks much more impressive than it really is. And the Clinton campaign has, apparently, been spinning overtime.
Posted by: kitty | March 11, 2008, 7:28 pm 7:28 pm
SuzeQ -
I have a new, occasional nickname for you -
AccuzeQ…!
Look, many people have spun things the wrong way against the Clintons. I have heard many journalists, and others involved who have since realized that the Clintons weren’t being racist in S.C. – that Bill would have said “fairy tale” about Barak’s so consistently being against the war.
Two people can look at one event or issue and come out with two opposing opinions. That doesn’t mean that one opinion is right.
When I see a quote – I look at the whole context.
There are always those who believe spin one way or another.
That sounds like another Barack supporter spin-session to me.
Posted by: Lauren | March 11, 2008, 7:33 pm 7:33 pm
If Susan Rice says he is not ready why should america think he is ready. Need to convince your own people before you can convince america.
Posted by: russell | March 11, 2008, 7:33 pm 7:33 pm
To the contrary, Miss Kitty -
There are people who know the Clintons and like them, and know that these things aren’t true.
There are two sides to every story.
Sound familiar?
(By the way – the ‘fairy tale’ was about consistencies in the continued Iraq War voting record.)
Posted by: Lauren | March 11, 2008, 7:38 pm 7:38 pm
Craig was a Clinton insider…another one…who is supporting Obama. Why would he do that when he knows Hillary so well?
Other people have said the same things about Hillary’s exaggerations. I for one, don’t think Mr. Craig is lying since I don’t believe that everyone does what David Geffen, another former Clinton insider, said about the Clintons “Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease it’s troubling,” Geffen said, among other comments.
Posted by: SuziQ | March 11, 2008, 7:39 pm 7:39 pm
I don’t plan to listen to Clinton insiders who have a vested interest in getting her elected. I want independent reports from outside the campaign.
If Clinton exaggerates, why wouldn’t her staff? As she said once upon a time, let’s get real here!
People who deny the truth when it presented are in denial. Support your candidate all the way, but there is no way, based on published accounts from independent sources (not party insiders, close personal friends, and polical supporters) that she has, at minimium, exaggerated her experience.
Posted by: Kitty | March 11, 2008, 7:47 pm 7:47 pm
dl – looking up tidbits at the LOC requires that you filter through all the legislative red tape and try to discern which bills are important and which ones are not… i seriously doubt you have done that unless you are a political hack or attorney… i do search and read the summaries of the facts and discern which are important or significant… any politician can propose a mountain of bills etc… that does not mean they are not all filled with BS… i find it more appropriate to look at what the experts have put together than try to pretend to be an expert at sifting through them… and the experts say clinton has done much more than her opponent… that is good enough for me.. try reading vote smart to efficiently review the facts
i noticed no one could rebutt my posting of a comparison between them without including the First Lady years and showing clearly that she is more qualified than her opponent… but then, facts are often met by silence
Posted by: DCVoter | March 11, 2008, 8:01 pm 8:01 pm
Pretty had to quantify character and vision on a spreadsheet.
Far as I’m concerned we know what the “35 years of experience” will get us from “Day One”.
I’ve had enough – time to move on.
Posted by: SuziQ | March 11, 2008, 8:07 pm 8:07 pm
Look kitty you’re selectively believing what backs up what you already think, and not what others are saying as well.
That’s not more objective. There are indepedent outsiders who back what the Clinton’s say.
I am a devoted democrat, I started out neutral, I evalutated both candidates – and especially to me at the debates it was obvious that Hillary is our most qualified candidate.
I don’t work for any campaign.
Steven Spielberg supports her; he has spent most of his career making movies about good guys vs. bad guys. I think he knows the difference.
Posted by: Lauren | March 11, 2008, 8:10 pm 8:10 pm
On that…I agree with you. I’m laughing…and going to walk my dog.
Posted by: SuziQ | March 11, 2008, 8:33 pm 8:33 pm
Well… if STEVEN SPIELBERG supports her, I mean… WOW. What have I been thinking???? I was making my decision based on the issues, and the fact that every other word that comes out of HRC’s mouth is a LIE… but hey, Steven Spielberg supports her, so she MUST be the right choice.
*running out to take down my Obama sign*
Posted by: Beth | March 11, 2008, 9:42 pm 9:42 pm
When Ferraro ran for VP she was very sensitive about being singled out for scrutiny because of her Italian ancestry, especially when it came to an investigation of her campaign finances.
Funny, Hillary still hasn’t released her financial statement has she?
Is it because he is black that Mr. Obama has no trouble raising millions over the internet and can be transparent about his finances?
No, it is because he is a true leader.
Is it because there is indeed a latent racism in the Clinton campaign that Mrs. Clinton cannot only officially disavow and reudiate Mrs. Ferraro’s commence but also distance herself from Mrs. Ferraro completely?
Perhaps.
Posted by: Robert Campbell | March 11, 2008, 10:00 pm 10:00 pm
When Ferraro ran for VP she was very sensitive about being singled out for scrutiny because of her Italian ancestry, especially when it came to an investigation of her campaign finances.
Funny, Hillary still hasn’t released her financial statement has she?
Is it because he is black that Mr. Obama has no trouble raising millions over the internet and can be transparent about his finances?
No, it is because he is a true leader.
Is it because there is indeed a latent racism in the Clinton campaign that Mrs. Clinton cannot only officially disavow and reudiate Mrs. Ferraro’s commence but also distance herself from Mrs. Ferraro completely?
Perhaps.
Posted by: Robert Campbell | March 11, 2008, 10:02 pm 10:02 pm
Enough already! Obama seems to cry racist everytime he wants to get out of a tight situation. Like now – he has to prove that he will follow through on Iraq after Power said that he wouldnt; he has to prove that he means well with the NAFTA issue; plus the Rezko trial and Nadhmi Auchi issue is unfolding.
He is using racism to divert people’s attention from his lies on NAFTA, Iraq, Rezko.
Sadly, Democrats accomodate him every time… no exceptions. And then those he maligns get stuck with a charge that is false but takes time to defend.
Enough!
If Obama keeps this up, half the Democratic Party will be accused as “racists” before the primary ends. See here:
Obama used “racism” when people raised his cocaine use. Obama raised “racism” if we say his middle name. Now he says its racism if we mention that “90% of the black votes – the same race as him? Is Obama going to control our words, our thoughts and our actions by threatening “racism” on the whole country?
Ridiculous.
Posted by: FJ Stratford | March 12, 2008, 3:15 am 3:15 am
Hey, Geraldine is just stating the obvious. There is nothing special about Obama other than his color. Big deal.
Posted by: Juan Lorenzo | March 12, 2008, 3:17 am 3:17 am
Tim Wise writes:
But one thing we can almost guarantee is not among the reasons why a black voter might say race matters to their vote, and then vote for the black candidate, is deep-seated anti-white bias. After all, black folks have been voting for white people for years… So it’s not like black folks refuse to vote for white people. Indeed, the kind of black person whose anti-white biases were that deeply rooted, would probably be the kind of person for whom Obama would be unacceptable too (given his biracial ancestry, generally moderate positions, and fairly bland approach to addressing racial concerns), and who wouldn’t vote for him, in spite of a shared skin color. In other words, we can rest assured that when blacks vote for Obama, after saying that race mattered to their vote, they were casting a ballot for the black man, not against the white woman per se.
On the other hand, for a white voter to say race matters to their vote, and then to vote for the white candidate and against the person of color, is almost by definition about something else. It certainly can’t be due to excitement at the prospect of electing the first white President, or breaking with tradition, since we’ve had forty-three white guys in a row. And it’s not likely to be about the desire to vote for someone who can relate to their “struggles” as white people. After all, although there are millions of white people in the U.S. who are struggling to make ends meet, none of them are in that position because of their race, but rather in spite of it. So the “white struggle” as such simply doesn’t exist. The class struggle is real–and if a white, working-class candidate stood a chance of winning the Presidency lots of white working class folks would turn out for him or her because of that shared experience, and understandably so–but it is simply silly to think that whites would vote for Hillary Clinton, after saying race mattered to their vote, because they think she will be more understanding about their plight as white people.
What this leaves us is the very real likelihood that when whites say race mattered to their vote, and they voted for the white candidate over the candidate of color, the vote so cast was largely an anti-black vote.
Posted by: SuperdelegationNation | March 12, 2008, 4:22 am 4:22 am
Lauren once again…your reference to Steven Spielberg supporting Clinton and knowing the good guys from the bad guys…
…maybe he has a harder time telling the bad guys after he slept in the Lincoln Bedroom.
Spielberg is not a good choice of reference.
Posted by: dl | March 12, 2008, 9:03 am 9:03 am
I guess it is time to bring RACE up, because obvious the revote discussion, super delegate discussion and the discussion around future elections all are buried on top of RACE. Let the puss come, so the wounds can heal.
Posted by: Lawrence | March 12, 2008, 9:25 am 9:25 am
DC Voter your comparisons between resumes is funny…
First of all I agree she has more years than he does… because …well she has more years.
But it is more important what they did with those years.(remember this is the guy that left being the President of the Harvard Law Review – if you don’t know – that means he could have written his ticket anywhere – but went back to help factoy workers in Chicago and focus on being a Civil Rights lawyer…oh and teach constitutional law.)
If you measure them proportionally Sen. Obama kicks butt… there is no way of denying that (but I am sure people will…it’s all about spin).
Yes she was a lawyer for 16 years much longer than he… and I encourage everyone to look at those 16 years as a lawyer.
…Hillary has a longer resume because she has a longer life. and John McCain has an even longer life…
The differences in experience and how you weight their differing types, between Sen Clinton’s and Sen Obama’s experience, when you put it up against John McCain is not big enough to use that as the reason to pick the candidate. This is a bad trap to fall into.
Whomever you think has the most quality and choice experience … it is miniscule when you put it next to John McCain’s very long resume.
This is not some political spin I am trying here…
Look…
By setting up this argument to have in the primary (and Hillary has to do that she loses on the other arguments) you are setting up the argument for the general election…
I believe she loses even this one but more importantly…
The argument in the fall has to be on judgement and fixing the main problem in Washington which IS (in my opinion and I think most everyone would agree) the use of fear and log jamming in congress to put us in the situation we are in…
If it is on who will protect us, who has the most experience, and not on judgement …and the race was between John McCain and Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama…who do you think the American people are going to pick?
Get on the judgement issue and stop feeding into the argument they want to have. …and get away from the fear card…Republicans win that too.
Posted by: dl | March 12, 2008, 10:09 am 10:09 am
Well I am sick of these old Women offering up years of service as some pass for saying such pathetic and hurt full things, and then as Ferraro did today playing the role of I am so hurt wake up you should be sorry. If in fact your years of service were truly for the cause….shame on you for your comments…you should just go away your days of having valid dialog are long past its just sad. The Clinton’s are pathetic, they Hillary does not congratulate Obama publicly for his wins….such losers. They act like they can play by a totally different set of rules which they use to try and minimize his status in the party sad group of people….please just go away and stop trying to stop a great moment in American history that will not include you. Please America wake-up…. do you really want this dysfunctional family embarrassing us again, Hillary has already been called out about her exaggerated claims of diplomacy overseas……she is called a cheerleader at best her experience is like Bills faithfulness…it does not exist..
Posted by: Phill | March 12, 2008, 1:10 pm 1:10 pm
First of all! it’s hypocritical for Ferraro to say that Obama is using the fact that he is “Black” to win this election. If Ferraro can make these statements about Obama then she should make the same statements about Hillary Clinton. Now do u think Hillary would be running for president if her husband had not been president? Ferraros statments are hypocritical.
Second. What about Jesse Jackson. Whom I couldn’t stand back in the day. NO one wanted that fool in office. As Oprah Winfrey said on 20/20 She has not supported other Black candidates before. This is actually the first Black Politician running for president which she has so much support behind. There have been other Black presidential hopefuls. So Ferraro’s statements are BOTH hypocritical, racist as well as illogical and ignorant.
Posted by: India | March 12, 2008, 10:57 pm 10:57 pm