Geraldine Ferraro (left).Barack Obama won big in Mississippi with 61% to 37% picking up 17 more delegates to increase his lead in delegates and in the popular vote. It turns out as well that Obama has officially won the Texas caucus giving him an additional 38 of the Lone Star state's delegates.
But the top story today is the disgusting comments of Geraldine Ferraro who is on the Clinton campaign's financial committee that Obama wouldn't be in the lead of this Democratic primary contest if he wasn't black (The following italicized sentences are sarcasm) This is so true, it is so easy for a black man to win higher office in this country. There have been so many black presidents and governors. There are so many black CEO's. Black men are so privileged in our white, protestant society, it's the poor white people who get screwed. These are the kind of politics that Obama is talking about changing.
Despite being on Clinton's financial committee these comments are especially disturbing as Ferraro was the first woman to be selected as a vice-presidential candidate in 1984. She has faced discrimination herself and so for her to make these vile, divisive, race bating comments particularly ugly. So far all that Hillary has said about these gutter ball comments is that she "disagrees" with them, which makes her a hypocrite. Why? Because during one of the last debates she jumped on controversial figure Louis Farrakhan's statement that he supported Barack Obama.
She said in that debate that it wasn't enough that Obama rejected those comments but that he needed to denounce them too, Obama rightly did so. Hillary made a big deal of this despite that fact that Farrakhan wasn't apart of his campaign and that all he said was that he supported Obama. Barack Obama doesn't have control over who supports him but he immediately distanced himself from Farrakhan anyway. Yet now you have these race baiting comments from a major player in Clinton's campaign and she not only doesn't fire her but doesn't reject AND denounce her comments as she pushed Obama to do.
Then there was the Obama campaign staffer who called Hillary a "monster" and Obama rightly fired her immediately. Hillary the hypocrite rides again!! And of course all the media is talking about is the Elliot Spitzer story. It is a story about the governor of New York and while that is a powerful position, the president of the country is a bigger story in my mind. We're talking about who will be the next PRESIDENT, not who is going to be the next governor of New York. Not to mention the news not covering the primary win that Obama scored yesterday.
But I want to switch her comments around, suppose someone in Obama's campaign said that the only reason Hillary got so far in the presidential race was because she was a woman--the Clinton campaign and supporters would go ballistic, and rightly so!! There is a double standard here it seems to me but that is par for the course by now with Hillary. Why people still support her campaign and continue to vote for her after all her shifty, disgusting tactics is beyond understanding for me. She has no shame and she doesn't give a shit what people think about that--remind you of a certain President with a "W" in his name? I hope that Hillary moves quickly to let Ferraro go from her campaign but I'm not holding my breath given the Clinton campaign's former actions.
If Hillary somehow wins this nomination I don't think I can vote for her in good conscious and I will most likely vote Green. Besides, I would rather sacrifice this election than elect her and have to listen to 4-8 years of ugliness between the Clinton's and Republicans. I had enough of that childish back and forth in the 90's thank-you very much. Besides that though, I don't want to watch her bully people around and force her agenda down everyone's throat. I just refuse to reward her kind of campaigning. I'm not a Democrat after all anyway, I'm an Independent liberal and I'm not one of these people who can hold their nose and vote for the "lesser of two evils." I'm tired of having to do that. The days of voting party line are over for me. I refuse to be enslaved to the Democratic party.
UPDATE: Ferraro just resigned from the Clinton financial committee. That was the right thing to do, she was becoming too much of a distraction for Hillary.
---End of Transmission---
7 comments:
I actually agree with Ms. Ferraro--some people support Obama in part because of what they perceive his mixed race will allow him to accomplish as President. That's voting for someone because of race--and whether it's white, black or other, that's racism. Ferraro's comments were politically incorrect (heaven forbid) but not racist.
I agree with you that Hillary certainly has achieved what she has in part because she is a woman. That is why some people support her. That fact is also why some hold her to a different standard than they would a man--especially one of mixed race.
And this doesn't mean I've gone back to supporting Hillary. I still think she should drop out. But slinging charges of racism or whatever need to be real--this is a distraction, nothing more.
Riverwolf:
I am just tired of these blanket statements about people. Plus, this kind of talk is code to some people who are just looking for any reason to vote against a black man.
Whether it is meant that way or not, it has a negative effect.
Why do we have to compartmentalize these candidates into these labels of black or female? There are plenty of white men, Latinos, Asians, etc. who support Obama as well as Hillary.
I'm just think all this focus on these two factors (race and sex) are tiresome. Can't we get beyond this kind of labeling?
I agree with you 1000% on this. Some people are entitled to think differently, but it seems painfully obvious to me that this is another divide and conquer tactic being used by the Clinton campaign.
I'm with you, I'll vote Green or Libertarian(unless it's Paul) before I'll vote for her!
Ferraro is pissed because her candidate is trailing Obama. How dare she imply that he's not qualified, and he's where he is only because of his skin color?
And how will Obama's being half white and half black allow him to "accomplish" anything as president?
It may help get him votes, but it will be his intellect, good judgment, and force of personality (that is his ability to bring people together and reject the politics of personal destruction) that will help him accomplish what he will as president.
Abraham Lincoln, a white man, had less experience and education than Obama has when he ran for president. Less.
And yet he had the strength and judgment and character to hold this country together during one of its most perilous times--actually, THE most, we almost became two countries.
What Ferraro said IS racist. She attributes Obama's success to the color of his skin and not the content of his character.
Shame on her.
T&A:
Yeah even if you take away the race aspect it is still insulting. That is because as Shaw said she isn't taking into account his intelligence, judgment and other talents that have brought him into the limelight.
Shaw:
Yeah at the very least her comments insult Obama's intelligence as well as that of his supporters. I agree with you about his talents being over-looked by her and many people.
Hillary and Bill Clinton have made a significant issue about how the press is treating Hillary unfairly in their hyper-critical reporting on her and their “softball” reporting on Barak Obama. Hillary maintains she has been fully investigated by the media and Barak hasn’t! As the Tony Rezko trial begins in Chicago, Clinton and her surrogates are linking Obama to Rezko and the media is speculating about whether Obama will be called to testify as a witness in the case. Obama has always admitted he received $85,000 in contributions from Rezko which Obama has now donated to charity rather than keep. Yet the civil fraud trial of Bill Clinton for defrauduing Hillary’s largest donor in 2000 into giving her campaign more than $1.2 million, pending in Los Angeles courts since 2003, is now preparing for a November, 2008 trial. The discovery that is now proceeding after a February 21 hearing, and the pending trial, have NEVER been announced by the mainstream media. Hillary was able to extricate herself as a co-defendant in the case in January, 2008 after years of appeals to be protected by the First Amendment from tort claims arising out of federal campaign solicitations she made. Her abuse of the intent of California’s anti-SLAPP law after the California Supreme Court refused to dismiss her from the case in 2004 is emblematic of her contempt for the Rule of Law. Hillary will be called as a witness in both discovery and the trial according to the trial court Judge who so-advised Hillary’s attorney David Kendall when he dismissed Hillary as a co-defendant in 2007. A subpoena is being prepared this month and will be served personally on Hillary, along with Chelsea, Pa Gov. Ed Rendell, Al Gore and other well known political and media figures. Yet the media has refused to report about this landmark civil fraud case- brought by Hillary’s biggest 2000 donor to her Senate race, regarding allegations that were corroborated by the Department of Justice in the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director David Rosen in May, 2005. That indictment and trial was credited as resulting from the civil suit’s allegations by Peter Paul, the Hollywood dot com millionaire Bill Clinton convinced to donate more than $1.2 million (according to the DOJ prosecutors and the FBI) to Hillary’s Senate campaign as part of a post White House business deal with Bill. The media - except for World Net Daily- has also suspiciously refused to report on Hillary’s last FEC report regarding her 2000 Senate campaign, filed in January 30, 2006. In a secret settlement of an FEC complaint by the plaintiff in Paul v Clinton, Peter Paul, the FEC fined Hillary’s campaign $35,000 for hiding more than $720,000 in donations from Paul, and it required Hillary’s campaign to file a 4th amended FEC report. In that report Hillary and her campaign again hid Paul’s $1.2 million contribution to her campaign and falsely attributed $250,000 as being donated by Paul’s partner, Spider Man creator Stan Lee, who swore in a video taped deposition he never gave Hillary or her campaign any money. Lee did testify to trading $100,000 checks with Paul to make it appear he gave $100,000 to Hillary’s campaign (admission of a felony) but none of that has been reported by the “overly critical” media! Where is the outrage from Obama that the press is engaging in a double standard relating to his possible role in the Rezko trial and his refunding the $85,000 contributed to his campaign by Rezko- which Obama has always admitted taking. The media makes no mention of Hillary’s role as a witness in Bill’s fraud trial for defrauding Hillary’s largest donor- and Hillary’s refusal to refund the $1.2 million she illegally received from Paul, which she has denied taking from Paul ever since the Washington Post asked her about Paul and his felony convictions from the 1970’s before her first Senate election in 2000? Visit Hillcap.org for videos and info.
Anonymous:
Thanks for the information. I've said it before and I still believe it, the Clinton's are shifty and unscrupulous.
Post a Comment