As most of you know Geraldine Ferraro made some very inflammatory statements last week and then tried to claim reverse racism when she got attacked (primarily by white people) for what she said, spending 48 hours after the fact to cry foul on every media outlet known to man. I see this as a Clinton Kamikaze attack. I do not know if Clinton put her up to this, I doubt it, but I do believe that Billary suggested how to play it after the fact so that she could once again play the race card in hopes of swaying rural less educated white voters in central Pennsylvania.
This dried up femi-nazi hater has a history of making inflammatory statements going back to Jesse Jackson in 1988, but not only about race, she proved to be an embarrassment to Mondel’s ticket. She is a proto-type of a affirmative action candidate. She did not even run for president and would not have been so close to Tip O’Neal (then Speaker of the House) if she was not a woman. Even Ferraro admits this (the only to her credit), but for her to call Obama out the way she did was disgusting.
I happened on some earlier statements she made about Obama when she did not feel he was a threat to Hillary, almost polar opposite what she said a few weeks ago. So, let me get this straight…when he is not a threat his “blackness” is a problem, when he is beating the “golden girl” then his blackness is a “stroke of luck”. LOL Get the $*$*# out of here.
Remember this all comes from a woman whose husband and parents were all “mobbed up”. Her parents had been charged with illegal gambling only to be dropped when her father died. Her guido son, John Zaccaro Jr, did some time for procession. This woman is a piece of work, likely from the same type of inner-city trash family that sits around the table calling blacks “moulis” when they act just as ghetto as the stereotype of blacks that the hate.
Hat Tip to “Obama Is Winning“
Here’s Ferraro last week.
When the subject turned to Obama, Clinton’s rival for the Democratic Party nomination, Ferraro’s comments took on a decidedly bitter edge.
“I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama’s campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against,” she said. “For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It’s been a very sexist media. Some just don’t like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.
“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she continued. “And if he was a woman (of any color) 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.”
And here’s Ferraro a little over a year ago, making the exact opposite claim in a New York Times article about whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton had a realistic chance of breaking the mold of white male presidencies.
…for all the excitement stirred by Mr. Obama, it is much less certain that an African-American could win a presidential election. Not as many blacks have been elected to prominent positions as women. Some high-profile black candidates — Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat running for the Senate in Tennessee, and Michael Steele, a Republican Senate candidate in Maryland — lost in November. And demographics might be an obstacle as well: black Americans are concentrated in about 25 states — typically blue ones, like New York and California. While black candidates cannot assume automatic support from black voters, they would at least provide a base. In states without big black populations, the candidate’s crossover appeal must be huge.
“All evidence is that a white female has an advantage over a black male — for reasons of our cultural heritage,” said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, the civil rights leader who ran for president in 1984 and 1988. Still, he said, for African-American and female candidates, “It’s easier — emphatically so.”
Ms. Ferraro offered a similar sentiment. “I think it’s more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American,” said Ms. Ferraro. “There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States — whether it’s conscious or not it’s true.”
“Women are 51 percent of the population,” she added.
(h/t: Josh Marshall)
———————
BTW, I loved Olbermann’s response. It was a little over the top but all true.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/15/pelosi-superdelegates-may-do-damage/
Speaker Pelosi speaks again…she is warning the Super Delegates the same way I have been because she has her ear to the street and knows what will happen if they make the wrong choice.
The Clinton’s also have ties with Obama’s church:
Trinity members point out that Obama is not the first presidential candidate to have an alliance with a controversial minister, nor is he the first to have a connection, however tenuous, to Farrakhan. In 1996, while running for re-election, Bill Clinton sent out a mass mailing to friends and prospective donors—including one to the Nation of Islam. In it, he invited Claudette Muhammad, who at the time was chief of protocol, to be on his steering committee. “It is my way of saying thank you for your past friendship and it is my way of asking you to join me in this new campaign,” he wrote. Muhammad reprinted the letter in a memoir; a spokesman for Clinton declined to comment.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/123604/page/3
There is a kernel of truth in what she said. Part of Obama’s support is due to his racial background. Speaking anecdotally, I know of several people where I work-both black and white-who support Obama primarily because he’s black. In the case of many whites, they support him because his racial background makes him a kind of healer or bridge person.
Naturally, her statement isn’t addressing Obama’s competency, which is another issue, but rather one of the reasons why so many people support him. At the very least this is applicable to some people, and in my personal experience, most people I know.
Personally, I think she’s overstating things a bit. Obama appeals to many people in spite of his blackness or simply because he is younger and comes with less baggage compared to McCain and Clinton, and a white women Democrat without Hillary’s baggage would probably do better against Obama. However we shouldn’t overlook his racial background as part of what makes him attractive to some voters.
With respect to Ferraro, yes her husband has some links to the Mafia and her parents may have had some links. I’m pretty sure MOST Italian Americans in New York City are directly or indirectly “linked” to the Mafia in one form or another. Nevertheless, questionable family behavior notwithstanding, this doesn’t negate the fact that there is some truth in what she has said.
G-Man:
I don’t think so, I think her point was to make him a type of “affirmative action” candidate, especially in comparing him to her.
Unlike her, he ran a successful campaign for president he was not cherry picked out of the congress to be a black face.
I agree with what you said about some people’s support for Obama but what Ferraro didn’t point out (for obvious reasons) is Hillary gets a lot of support solely because she is a woman and also a lot of economic and politic support because she was first lady/who she was married to (voting for a second coming of Bill). If she was not a Clinton she would not have been a Senator from New York, let alone running for president. Unlike Hillary, Obama has not road anyone’s coattails to get where he was. Don Ferraro has no right to marginalize his accomplishments, which is exactly what she was trying to do.
People who claim that they support Hillary because she is more experienced are full of $#1t, if that was the case the would have went with Biden or better yet Richardson. There is no one who can sit down with a straight face and any knowledge of Richardson and H.Clinton and tell me she is more “experienced” than him.
What she didn’t say speaks volumes. It is also interesting that she didn’t feel this way when she thought Obama was unimportant, then she thought (as I showed above) that his “blackness” was a hindrance, now that Hillary is losing she has flipped the script.
I’m not saying that Hillary put Ferraro up to this, but I know they are playing it to appeal to those rednecks in central Pen, in Indiana and elsewhere, this is part of the “kitchen sink strategy” and what she did was call a dog whistle to every border line hater.
“G-Man:
I don’t think so, I think her point was to make him a type of “affirmative action” candidate, especially in comparing him to her.”
As she mentioned in a later television interview, her comments were addressing why Obama is appealing to people and not his qualifications to run for president. If she were trying to make him out to be an affirmative action candidate she would have focused her comments less on his appeal to others because he is black and more on his unworthiness to run for president because he really isn’t qualified.
“Unlike her, he ran a successful campaign for president he was not cherry picked out of the congress to be a black face.”
True but then she ran as someone’s running mate. And, yes, she was chosen in part (?) because she was a woman, but she and Mondale still didn’t appeal to most Americans.
“I agree with what you said about some people’s support for Obama but what Ferraro didn’t point out (for obvious reasons) is Hillary gets a lot of support solely because she is a woman and also a lot of economic and politic support because she was first lady/who she was married to (voting for a second coming of Bill).”
Well, she’s not going to do that because she is a Clinton supporter.
“If she was not a Clinton she would not have been a Senator from New York, let alone running for president. Unlike Hillary, Obama has not road anyone’s coattails to get where he was. Don Ferraro has no right to marginalize his accomplishments, which is exactly what she was trying to do.”
Her statements don’t marginalize his accomplishments, such as they are, but attempt to explain why people support him, in part of course. The statements may have that effect, but I doubt it will dissuade a significant number of potential Obama supporters from taking him seriously.
“People who claim that they support Hillary because she is more experienced are full of $#1t, if that was the case the would have went with Biden or better yet Richardson. There is no one who can sit down with a straight face and any knowledge of Richardson and H.Clinton and tell me she is more “experienced” than him.”
Well, this may apply to some people. Clearly just like some are attracted to Obama because he’s black, or more accurately, the kind of black guy they want all black guys to be, there are some people who really think his policy positions, such as they are, would be good for the country. The same applies to H. Clinton supporters. Some like her simply because she is a woman, some because she is a white woman, and some because they really think she is experienced in state craft because she was married to the president during his two terms and spent some time in the Senate. Some people REALLY see her position as First Lady for eight years as proof of experience.
“What she didn’t say speaks volumes. It is also interesting that she didn’t feel this way when she thought Obama was unimportant, then she thought (as I showed above) that his “blackness” was a hindrance, now that Hillary is losing she has flipped the script.”
Why should she? He wasn’t in a position to challenge H. Clinton. Now that he is, Ferraro has decided to opine on one of the reasons he is appealing to people.
“I’m not saying that Hillary put Ferraro up to this, but I know they are playing it to appeal to those rednecks in central Pen, in Indiana and elsewhere, this is part of the ‘kitchen sink strategy’ and what she did was call a dog whistle to every border line hater.”
Probably a last ditch attempt by her supporters to make it appear that his supporters aren’t substantive.
However, I doubt this was done to appeal to rednecks in those states. Many rednecks are probably not interested in either H. Clinton or Obama, and many of them, especially if they are blue collar types, may even be attracted to Obama over Clinton and McCain (?) because of their visceral hatred of the Clintons and possible (hopeful) disillusionment with the Republican’s and Bush II.
OOps, the earlier post isn’t clear to read.
“G-Man:
I don’t think so, I think her point was to make him a type of “affirmative action” candidate, especially in comparing him to her.”
As she mentioned in a later television interview, her comments were addressing why Obama is appealing to people and not his qualifications to run for president. If she were trying to make him out to be an affirmative action candidate she would have focused her comments less on his appeal to others because he is black and more on his unworthiness to run for president because he really isn’t qualified.
“Unlike her, he ran a successful campaign for president he was not cherry picked out of the congress to be a black face.”
True but then she ran as someone’s running mate. And, yes, she was chosen in part (?) because she was a woman, but she and Mondale still didn’t appeal to most Americans.
“I agree with what you said about some people’s support for Obama but what Ferraro didn’t point out (for obvious reasons) is Hillary gets a lot of support solely because she is a woman and also a lot of economic and politic support because she was first lady/who she was married to (voting for a second coming of Bill).”
Well, she’s not going to do that because she is a Clinton supporter.
“If she was not a Clinton she would not have been a Senator from New York, let alone running for president. Unlike Hillary, Obama has not road anyone’s coattails to get where he was. Don Ferraro has no right to marginalize his accomplishments, which is exactly what she was trying to do.”
Her statements don’t marginalize his accomplishments, such as they are, but attempt to explain why people support him, in part of course. The statements may have that effect, but I doubt it will dissuade a significant number of potential Obama supporters from taking him seriously.
“People who claim that they support Hillary because she is more experienced are full of $#1t, if that was the case the would have went with Biden or better yet Richardson. There is no one who can sit down with a straight face and any knowledge of Richardson and H.Clinton and tell me she is more “experienced” than him.”
Well, this may apply to some people. Clearly just like some are attracted to Obama because he’s black, or more accurately, the kind of black guy they want all black guys to be, there are some people who really think his policy positions, such as they are, would be good for the country. The same applies to H. Clinton supporters. Some like her simply because she is a woman, some because she is a white woman, and some because they really think she is experienced in state craft because she was married to the president during his two terms and spent some time in the Senate. Some people REALLY see her position as First Lady for eight years as proof of experience.
“What she didn’t say speaks volumes. It is also interesting that she didn’t feel this way when she thought Obama was unimportant, then she thought (as I showed above) that his ‘blackness’ was a hindrance, now that Hillary is losing she has flipped the script.”
Why should she? He wasn’t in a position to challenge H. Clinton. Now that he is, Ferraro has decided to opine on one of the reasons he is appealing to people.
“I’m not saying that Hillary put Ferraro up to this, but I know they are playing it to appeal to those rednecks in central Pen, in Indiana and elsewhere, this is part of the ‘kitchen sink strategy’ and what she did was call a dog whistle to every border line hater.”
Probably a last ditch attempt by her supporters to make it appear that his supporters aren’t substantive.
However, I doubt this was done to appeal to rednecks in those states. Many rednecks are probably not interested in either H. Clinton or Obama, and many of them, especially if they are blue collar types, may even be attracted to Obama over Clinton and McCain (?) because of their visceral hatred of the Clintons and possible (hopeful) disillusionment with the Republican’s and Bush II.
G-Man:
You can parse this in many different ways but I’m not looking at this situation in isolation. I’m looking at it how it applies to the current race or how did it apply to the race at the time she made the statements (before Ohio and Texas).
Call me a pessimist but I believe these people (including Barack Obama) are seasoned politicians that do not get to where they are by playing fast and lose with language. I think she knew exactly what she was saying and she said it in a somewhat ambiguous way, which is why I called it a “dog whistle”.
If Obama or anyone even related to his campaign made similar statements (hell even a reporter on MSNBC got in trouble) for saying Hillary is where she is primarily because she is a former first lady/woman all hell will break lose and femi-nazis would be all over TV screaming sexism. Just as they did when when Chris Matthews made his comments as to the “appeal of Hillary”.
Also…I am from “one of those states” rural Western Ohio originally. Many of the people in my area are swing voters, but many more are historically Democrat. They are culturally conservative but it is a factory town that is heavily unionized, and as you probably know big labor has been Democratic for over 30 years. These people do respond to “coded racial” language. These people are not fond of affirmative action like liberal whites elites in big East Coast cities who don’t care, because they don’t see it effecting them too much (well besides maybe their kids in college).
What you said about them not liking Hillary is also true, but that is the card that is being played to increase her appeal, this is the reason. If she already had that base there would be no language like this. White males are the key swing group in this nomination and will be in the fall. Hillary is not oblivious to that and neither are her supporters.
DH Wrote:
“What you said about them not liking Hillary is also true, but that is the card that is being played to increase her appeal, this is the reason. If she already had that base there would be no language like this. White males are the key swing group in this nomination and will be in the fall. Hillary is not oblivious to that and neither are her supporters.”
In part to respond to this statement:
“However, I doubt this was done to appeal to rednecks in those states. Many rednecks are probably not interested in either H. Clinton or Obama, and many of them, especially if they are blue collar types, may even be attracted to Obama over Clinton and McCain (?) because of their visceral hatred of the Clintons and possible (hopeful) disillusionment with the Republican’s and Bush II.”
I should amend my statement to read: I doubt this will have appeal to rednecks in those states, as many who are opposed to Obama on racial grounds (just as many people are for him on racial grounds) don’t need much convincing from anyone and others will support him because he’s not associated with the Clintons whom they despise.