 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: SINSULL Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:39 PM Ferraro said "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is." but insists this is not racist. If Obama loses and says it is because Clinton is white and a woman, would that not be racist and sexist? This is the same woman who ran for vice-president, submitted her required financial info and when it came out that her husband was involved in some questionable handling of funds belonging to elderly clients claimed that she didn't read the tax returns before she signed them. This is also the woman who first threatened reporters who reported on her son's arrest for drug dealing and then threatened another who took a picture of her drinking Diet Coke while her Pepsi commercials were airing. She single-handedly set the woman's movement back 20 years. And now she's back... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Richard Bridge Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:46 PM Well, let's be honest, all the voter splits I have seen show more African-American voters voting for Obama than for any other democratic candidate. And as I read it a huge amount of the opposition to Billary seems to be sexist, so would Obama have overcome that difficulty if he were female? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:46 PM And she's back just in time. It looks to me like everything she says about Obama is true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Mrrzy Date: 12 Mar 08 - 01:13 PM There is no way a first-time senator who's not even out of their 40's could make such a believable run for the presidency if he were white. Not so sure about female, but certainly not if he were white. She is absolutely right, this was said a long time ago, before it even became a believable run... nothing wrong with stating the truth about a racial issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Barry Finn Date: 12 Mar 08 - 01:23 PM Jack Kennedy? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,mg Date: 12 Mar 08 - 01:26 PM If we are, as I fear we are, raising people who in their 40s can't take command of a country, we are in terrible shape. The man is well into middle age, old enough to be a general in the army, a grandfather, head of a huge company etc. He'll be 50 in a couple of years for heaven's sake. I would guess that not more than 25% of the opposition to Clinton is because of her gender. Most of it is because of her character and her baggage and her unpleasant screechy voice has to account for some. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Jack the Sailor Date: 12 Mar 08 - 01:30 PM Yes. Obama has got this far because he is black. He the most recent member of a very long parade who have got this far in the nomination process because they were black. Obama said that Ferarro's words were absurd. He was right. This says a lot more about Mr. Clinton than it does about Mrs. Ferarro. Obama sacked Samantha powers for saying much less. McCain distanced himself from Cunningham for less. On the other hand Mrs. Clinton used Ferarro's words as a jumping off point for an attack on Obama. Then she got her campaign manager to pile on the attack. All very ironic, considering that Mrs. Clinton would not even have made it even to the Senate without the name recognition from her husband. She has been luckier than Mr. Obama. It is certain that race is one of the reasons Obama got noticed in the first place. But that did not win him any primaries. In their turn Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton and Alan Keys were noticed. They were African American but were never leaders in the nomination process. On the other hand, Bill Richardson is native American. John Edwards was raised by a mill worker, Al Gore's Dad was a Senator And John Kerry happened to win five medals in Viet Nam. Were all lucky? Are we supposed to believe that only Hillary and Geraldine got where they are on merit? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 12 Mar 08 - 01:31 PM When ya tell half the electorate that you are concerned about only the other half, chances are ya might be missin' a few votes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 08 - 01:32 PM With all due respect, this is pure-dee hallucination. Kennedy was in his forties when he set the Senate back on their heels when they chose to interrogate him about the role of Catholicism in his candidacy. ANd if you look back into earlier centuries you will find several others. There is absolutely no evidence for the proposition that given his age his color has been key in enabling his success. If his abilities had surfaced in a 42 year old white man they would have had similar consequences, I aver. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:39 PM "Obama sacked Samantha powers for saying much less..." What Powers said was stupid, what Ferraro said was factual. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: catspaw49 Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:41 PM AND......Jack Kennedy lost that election had he not taken his chief opposition on board on the ticket. Lyndon Johnson was the difference in a very close election. Nixon was probably a bit less popular than McCain but the similarity here should not be overlooked. IIRC Johnson was favored going into the convention and then Old Joe took charge. Yeah, I know............yadayadyadyada............I know there are dissimilarities as well.....But don't allow my admission of that to stop some of you from spinning your asses off......LOL.........Enjoy! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: KB in Iowa Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:46 PM Being black has long been a ticket to the White House. It has been more than seven years since the last non-black president took office. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:54 PM OOPs: ack Kennedy and Bill Clinton were both younger than Obama, who is 46 (born 1961). (Teddy Roosevelt was only 42 - but he only got in because he was vice-president when MacKinley was shot dead, so maybe that doesn't count). Does anyone believe Hillary would have been where she is if she hadn't been the wife of a President? How would she ever have got to be elected Senator in New York? Being black has probably got Obama some votes that might otherwise have gone to Clinton, especially since Bill Clinton has alienated a lot of black voters by seeming to play the racist card, but it's probably lost him a good few votes as well. Both from people with semi-submerged racist tendencies, but also from pragmatic non-racists who have decided that Americans are too racist to elect a black man. If we're allowed to fantasize about colour and gender changes, I think that a black female Obama would be doing even better. As for a black male Hillary Clinton... It doesn't bear thinking about. Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:56 PM It appears that Ferraro spoke out of turn, but I need to look into this more before I decide about this gaff. Last night I heard an interview of Gloria Steinem by Farai Chideya on News and Notes. I don't know if the Ferraro quote is taken out of the context of a feminist meeting that Steinem spoke of. It is a disservice to all if that was the case. Like the Pope quoting the biases of 14th century Muslim clerics in a scholarly paper presentation last year and being pounced on for even uttering the words, even in the context of showing how far things have come. It's absurd, what people do when they choose to misrepresent others by taking remarks away from their logical context. And sometimes, it's a case of 'with a friend like that, who needs enemies.' SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:58 PM Every candidate is probably "lucky" in some sense or another. So what? Obama's also lucky that he isn't ugly, doesn't have a speech impediment, doesn't have a high squeaky voice, and isn't a Jehovah's Witness. So what? Every case is unique. Some people are superficially quite electable. Other people would never even be given the chance (regardless of their real abilities and strengths to govern). So just take the candidate on his or her own own merits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: wysiwyg Date: 12 Mar 08 - 03:39 PM She may be one of those people who knows what she means in her head, but on the way out of her neck the words and thoughts run into a big ole size 12 foot, especially on ocasions when she should not be opining publicly. And maybe there is a wider context for her thoughts, in which that unfortunate event occurred. BUT-- by this point in every 4-year cycle, I always feel that the best "explanation" for whatever I hear on the news is that the news-manipulators are hard at work. I try to decline to give them too much access to my mind. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,JTS Date: 12 Mar 08 - 04:07 PM Ms. Ferraro says she was taken out of context and that what she said was not racist. She said, among other things, that Obama would not be where he is if he wasn't black. How anyone could call that anything other than racist is beyond me. How anyone could call that a "fact" is also beyond me. It is true that if Mr. Obama were not black he would not be Mr. Obama therefor would not be where he is today. But then again, its kind of a moot point. Isn't it. Certainly calling Mrs. Clinton a "monster" while deploring her tactics is not a "fact" it was certainly an honest depiction. The difference between the two statements was the candidates' reaction. Mr. Obama said there was no place for such talk in his campaign. Mrs. Clinton attacked decorum and Democratic Party solidarity like Godzilla on Tokyo and tried to make it seem as Mr. Obama had made the remarks. Obama isn't there because he is Black. He is where he is today because he is turning his back on the old-fashioned Clinto-Bush politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Mar 08 - 04:42 PM It seems to me like he is promoting the same old Clinto-Bush politics, but he's black so it appears to be different. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Mar 08 - 04:56 PM The Clintons have long had enormous support from the Black community in America, Bill being known as "the first Black president" and all. ;-) They could definitely count on getting the lion's share of Black votes. The only thing that could possibly have derailed their expectations in that regard was a charismatic and very popular Black nominee for the Democrats who actually looked like he might have a chance of winning.... And that's what they got with Obama. WHAM! Checkmate to the Clintons' counting on the Black vote to line up solidly behind Hillary Clinton no matter what. No wonder they are a bit ticked off about it... ;-) It's the only conceivable thing that could have lost Hillary the great majority of Black voters. This may have been what Ms Ferraro was trying to say, but to say it, of course, is to walk straight across a PR and media minefield. You cannot say such a thing publicly without being called a racist, whether you really are one or not. Whether she is one or not...I have no idea, but most people are at least slightly racist (if secretly and subliminally) at some level of their being. They are not completely non-reactive to race. They have some degree of prejudice, whether passive or active. I guess when that level of prejudice passes a certain threshold and becomes quite overt in their actions, then you can really SAY that they are racist with some justice, can't you? Otherwise....you may be merely speculating, you may be grandstanding, you may be covering up for your own hidden imperfections, or you may be engaging in outright slander of another human being. It's not a label that should be thrown around carelessly or opportunistically, just because of whatever political axe you have to grind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 12 Mar 08 - 05:20 PM My GAWD. Obama's Black? Yeah, right, like tell me NOW! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 08 - 05:22 PM Rig: Look a little harder, mate. The differences will soon appear. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Mar 08 - 05:25 PM "This may have been what Ms Ferraro was trying to say, but to say it, of course, is to walk straight across a PR and media minefield..." LH - I think this is really the point she was trying to make. No matter what one might think about the situation, one can't speak of it. And she proved herself to be right. It took a certain amount of courage to do that. In her case, though, I think what was really driving her was, she thought we finally had a chance to elect a woman president, and it was all being screwed up by some up-start black guy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 12 Mar 08 - 05:27 PM My GAWD. Hillary's a woman? Yeah, right, like tell me NOW! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Mar 08 - 05:32 PM NPR (All Things Considered) is playing an interesting discussion/analysis of the Ferraro gaffe now; it will replay in the next couple of hours, and be available online. It sounds like Geraldine has re-written her SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Mar 08 - 05:32 PM Either of those possibilities you raise is quite plausible, Rinslinger. And the second point sounds right on the mark to me, as to why she would have been particularly annoyed about Obama's candidacy at this time. She would see him as "killing the goose that laid the golden egg"...the first female presidency. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: catspaw49 Date: 12 Mar 08 - 05:35 PM Lemmee ask you Hawk.......If I say I'd prefer Hillary because something about Obama bothers me, how many readers do ya' figure are thinking "closet racist." I agree with you that we are all racist to some degree.......I couldn't agree more actually. Matter of fact I said something like that on another thread a week or so back.......Anyway, my history shows I am at least at the bottom of the scale. But I'll betcha' dollars to donuts (Canadian all if you choose) that over half of the people reading this are thinking what I said. This reminds me of a guy Karen's sister was dating in high school. She lived with us for her final few years of school and when she started dating this guy we invited him over of course............turned out to be a total and complete jerk/asshole/supply your own term. We tried to be pleasant and all but when Heather came home that evening we told her what we thought and why as she DID ask. Needless to say she accused us of being thoughtless and even bigoted because he was a paraplegic in a wheelchair. Karen looked at her very directly and said, "That doesn't keep him from being a jerk.......his wheelchair doesn't mean he can be rude because he just feels like it." Obama bothers me for some reason. Perhaps its the non-specific gung-ho rhetoric............hell, I dunno'..........I'll vote for him definitely if he's the candidate and keep my fingers crossed he's better than Jimmy Carter. Like I keep saying, the system is in need of a revolution. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Deckman Date: 12 Mar 08 - 05:45 PM Don't you ALL have something better to do? This is ALL ABOUT SELLING TOOTHPASTE. (TV). I'm going to go outside now and plant my sweetpeas. That's at least a little useful. Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,JTS Date: 12 Mar 08 - 05:58 PM "he wouldn't be in this position if he wasn't black." implies that being black is an advantage. Isn't that is a patently absurd idea. Little Hawk has hit the nail on the head. Its not because he is black that he got 90 % of the black vote in Mississippi. It is because he is black AND he has a chance of winning. And why does he have a chance of winning? Because he is smart and articulate and what he is saying resonates with a lot of voters. It is also because his campaign is better organized than hers and he has many more young, talented volunteers. With her advantages, if Mrs. Clinton was as talented a politician as he, she would have the nomination by now. In fact if she were as talented as Obama, I believe that we'd all have health care by now. But Mrs. Clinton and George W. Bush have something in common. They both alienate about as many voters as they win over. Two weeks ago I would have supported either democratic candidate. Now, I can honestly say as many of my friends have to me. I'd prefer McCain over Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Bobert Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:19 PM Well, one thing is fir sure and it is that the McClintons are using up alot of what McWar's folks ammo on Obama... This is good for Obama... By the time he get nominated the McWar folks won't have anything new to throw at him... Thank you, Geraldine... Obama/Richardson or Obama/Warner '08 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: irishenglish Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:32 PM Could all be a moot point-she has officially distanced herself from Clinton's campaign. I don't know quite what to call it, since she wasn't getting paid for her advisor role, but she is out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:33 PM Heh! Yeah, Spaw, I think you are right on the money in what you say (about the racism bit). Most people are far less than completely honest about themselves when it comes to that...they are too busy playing out their own squeaky-clean and righteous "good guy" act to ever notice the problem of prejudice in themselves as opposed to noticing it in someone else. And yes, the system is definitely in need of a revolution. It's a damned shame that you and I will not live long enough to see it. Bobert - You could be right about that "ammunition" getting all used up. We'll see. Jack - You'd rather vote for McCain than Clinton? Hmmm. Well, I don't know (shrug). I'm about equally disgusted with both of those big phony political parties at this point. I expect nothing worthwhile from either one of them. Still, I couldn't vote Republican. I couldn't stomach rewarding them for the last 8 years! ;-) On the other hand, why relieve them of the burden of carrying that stinking war on their backs for a bit longer? They deserve to be stuck with handling it. Hmmm... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Barry Finn Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:58 PM Jack Kennedy's election was a close call???? Whats the defination of landslide then? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 12 Mar 08 - 07:03 PM "why relieve them of the burden of carrying that stinking war on their backs for a bit longer? They deserve to be stuck with handling it." I agree with the sentiment, BUT, it's kids coming home in body bags who are 'carrying that stinking war on their backs'. Maybe when these motherfuc--elected officials--start coming home in body bags the war will end real quick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Richard Bridge Date: 12 Mar 08 - 07:05 PM Is it or is it not true that the polls show Obama having substantially more of the African-American vote than Billary? If it is true, than part at least of what Ferraro said was true. PC howling does not come into it. A fact is a fact. If it is a fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Mar 08 - 07:05 PM The question isn't whether Ferraro is racist in her beliefs. She probably isn't, any more than Bill Clinton. But she pretty evidently decided to have a go at playing the racist car, as Bill Clinton did earlier. Anet trick. Diverting the criticism into the matter of whether she is personally racist is another neat trick. And totally irrelevant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Mar 08 - 07:27 PM John Kennedy's election was a close call, Barry Finn, a very close call, and there were strong suggestions of vote laundering by the Democratic machine in Chicago. Kennedy may well have been elected by fraud. I'm not saying this because I liked Nixon better. I liked Kennedy WAY better than I did Nixon, and I'm glad that Nixon was not elected in 1960. Direct quote from Wickipedia on the 1960 election: "The electoral vote was the closest in any presidential election dating to 1916, and Kennedy's margin of victory in the popular vote is among the closest ever in American history. The 1960 election also remains a source of debate among some historians as to whether vote theft in selected states aided Kennedy's victory." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 12 Mar 08 - 07:33 PM Barry, in 1960, Kennedy won the popular vote over Nixon by 0.2%age points. He had less than 50% of the popular vote. So in that respect it was hardly a landslide. In the electoral college he won about 56% of the electoral votes, which seems substantial, but just a small popular vote swing in major states, could have changed that electoral count owing to the winner-take-all provisions. But why quibble? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 08 - 08:03 PM Obama bothers me for some reason. While I sympathize, Spaw, and I understand the "creak" that comes with contemplating change without complete specs, I have to add that Hillary bothers me for some reason also, only more so. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 08 - 08:20 PM Geraldine Ferarro (Photo: Charles Rex Arbogast/Associated Press) Updated | 7:15 p.m. After a two-day firestorm, Geraldine Ferraro has quit Senator Hillary ClintonÕs finance committee, saying that Senator Barack ObamaÕs campaign was twisting her words to make her appear racist and that this was hurting Mrs. Clinton. ÒI am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign,Ó Ms. Ferraro wrote in a letter to Mrs. Clinton. ÒThe Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I wonÕt let that happen.Ó For the last two days, Ms. Ferraro has been sharply criticized for comments she made last week that suggested Mr. Obama had succeeded as far as he had because he was black. ÒIf Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,Ó she told the Daily Breeze, a newspaper in Torrance, Calif. While critics, including Mr. Obama, pounced on her, a defiant Ms. Ferraro defended her remarks, saying they were accurate and not racist. She has said that she herself benefited from being a woman because otherwise, she would not have been the vice presidential nominee in 1984. But by mid-afternoon, she resigned from her membership on the finance committee. There was no immediate comment from the Clinton campaign, but officials said that Ms. Ferraro had decided to leave on her own. She clearly wants to continue to speak out and press her point, telling NBC News after her resignation: ÒThis is the last time the Obama campaign is going to be able to play this kind of race card. They should apologize to me for calling me a racist.Ó Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said the campaign had not twisted her words. ÒI find that notion to be completely ludicrous,Ó he said. Mrs. Clinton said yesterday that she ÒrejectedÓ Ms. FerraroÕs original comments. But questions persisted about why she had not denounced them more sharply and whether they actually worked to the Clinton campÕs advantage with white voters. On a conference call this afternoon with Clinton officials, before Ms. Ferraro stepped down, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News asked why Mrs. Clinton had not been more emphatic and if there hadnÕt been a pattern by the Clinton campaign of exploiting such remarks. Howard Wolfson, Mrs. ClintonÕs spokesman, replied that the campaign was Òcompletely unawareÓ of Mrs. FerraroÕs remarks before she made them. ÒWe did not in any way encourage them,Ó he said. He noted that when Mrs. Clinton responded to a question about the comments, she Òmade clear she disagreed with them and she rejected them.Ó Ms. Mitchell persisted, noting that in previous cases where people associated with both campaigns had made problematic remarks, the campaigns had taken aggressive action. Mr. Wolfson said that Mr. Obama had not always removed people from his campaign, citing the cases of David Geffen, the Hollywood mogul, and General Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, both of whom had sharply criticized Mrs. Clinton but neither of whom were removed. ÒEach circumstance is different,Ó Mr. Wolfson said. ÒGeraldine Ferraro is not an adviser, she is not a member of the staff and we have made clear that we reject her comments, that we disagree with her comments, that she was not speaking on behalf of the campaign.Ó Mr. Obama was asked about the matter this morning on NBCÕs ÒToday.Ó ÒPart of what I think Geraldine Ferraro is doing, and I respect the fact that she was a trailblazer, is to participate in the kind of slice and dice politics thatÕs about race and about gender and about this and that, and thatÕs what Americans are tired of because they recognize that when we divide ourselves in that way we canÕt solve problems.Ó |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,lox Date: 12 Mar 08 - 08:38 PM What an absurd idea ... ... Have I eally just read the assertion that the only thing Obama has going for him is that he's black? ... ... And that this is somehow giving him an advantage? ... ... I'm off to scratch my head and make sure that Gravity doesn't make things fall up and perhaps try (In vain I fear) to convert the Pope to Catholicism and train a bear to shit in the woods ... ... And then I'll look soulfully down at my manacles and envy the advantage that Black paople have in society ... and I'll start singing the blues ... and maybe start a civil rights movement ... ... Doctor ... where's my pills ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 12 Mar 08 - 08:52 PM Hi, lox, long time no see. How you been? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Stranger Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:10 PM Ferraro said it and she should be commended because it is all so true. She looked political correctness in the eye and spit on it. Bless her! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:27 PM Yeah, I agree. Political correctness is a bigger problem than all the racism and feminism put together. People need to be able to engage in an honest dialogue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:30 PM No, lox, it's a combination of things. He's got a whole LOT of things going for him. He's a great orator, he's smart, he's optimistic, he's unitive rather than divisive in his approach, he's good looking, he has grace and confidence, he's a relative newcomer rather than an oldtime Washington hack, he appears to be a "fresh face" which gives people hope for genuine change, he's got a wife who also makes a great impression, he's rather young...and he's Black. That last matter is of advantage in one key and specific sense: it gets him a hell of a lot of Black votes, because he appears to have a darned good chance of winning. It also gets him a certain number of "liberal" votes from other people who would like to see the civil rights struggles of past years which they supported in their youth finally and fully vindicated. Put all those things together and it does a real strategic body punch to the Clintons, because it takes away so much of the Black vote from them...and a chunk of the "liberal" vote too...and they had always counted on having those votes all sewn up. At the same time, however, the fact that he is Black also means that he loses the votes of a lot of people who simply will never vote for a Black man as president. And the fact that he's young and a relative newcomer loses him the votes of a fair number of people who figure he's too inexperienced. And the fact that he has a Muslim name loses him votes from a certain moronic contingency too. That's not to be discounted. So it's a bit of a puzzlement, ain't it? Is his ethnicity more of a help or a hindrance to him finally getting elected? We won't know for sure until it happens...if it does. No one is suggesting that it is merely and only the fact that he is Black which is of benefit to his campaign. To suggest that would be just downright ridiculous. To suggest, however, that it is a major factor in him getting a huge majority of Black votes in the primaries is merely to state what is by now quite obvious. Just look at the statistics. Why would anyone be surprised by this? The Clintons must be fit to be tied about it...because remember: Bill Clinton was once called "the first Black president" by more than a few Black people. Poor Bill has been sidelined from that role now. He probably feels like he's been robbed! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Guest Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:08 PM Ferraro is an idiot now, and has always been an idiot. The Clinton campaign should be distancing itself from her, because the assertion is idiotic. The only thing that has made any sense in this thread is that Clinton wouldn't be where she is, if it weren't for that famous husband of hers. At the rate things are going here, no one from either the Obama or Clinton will be allowed to talk at all. We can only hope. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Stranger Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:16 PM So, Obama wouldn't be where he is for not if he wasn't black. Hillary would not be where she is if she wasn't Mrs. Bill. And McCain wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't such a patriot. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:09 PM And I wouldn't be here were it not for my devastatingly attractive cheekbones... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Jack the Sailor Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:57 PM McCain wouldn't be where he is now if he hadn't kissed Bush's ass and campaigned for him. That doesn't exactly make him popular with Democrats and independents. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: number 6 Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:04 AM JFK would never have been there if old Joe hadn't shook hands with the Chicago mob. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Deckman Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:04 AM My sweet peas are sprouting ... I wonder what color they'll be? Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Jack the Sailor Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:19 AM I think this is the defining speech on the matter. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ Click on Olbermann on Ferraro Uproar. The link with probably only be good for a day or two. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Jack the Sailor Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:40 AM Kieth Olbermann did one of his special talks on this topic tonight. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23601329#23601329 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Jack the Sailor Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:41 AM sorry for double post |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Richard Bridge Date: 13 Mar 08 - 04:27 AM Olberman is a load of argument of almost complete irrelevance to the facts - projection of subjective responses. I ask again. What do the polls show? If they show that the African-American vote is substantially in favour of Barack Obama then Ferraro's words were correct. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Guest Date: 13 Mar 08 - 06:06 AM Sorry, but that sort of rationale won't fly. Yes, African Americans are voting race. But Obama isn't winning just because African Americans are voting race. Was he rapidly promoted through the ranks of the Democratic party because of his race? You bet. Same with Harold Ford, with far less success. But I don't put Obama down as where he is today because he is African American. I really put it down to the dumb luck lottery in American celebrity driven culture. He is the political version of Michael Jackson. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Mar 08 - 08:23 AM I gather that a few years back she said exactly the same thing about Jesse Jackson. The amazing thing is how all those white politicians have managed to get elected. I suppose it shows how eager the American public is ready to help them overcome the disadvantage of their skin colour. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Mar 08 - 08:25 AM Well, Ferraro did mention the "luck" factor, and it's still working. Both Michigan and Florida, where Hillary probably would have done well early on, are on ice, and as soon as Hillary gained some momentum in Texas and Ohio, it's back to Mississippis for an almost all black primary. Couple that with a generation of up-scale Democratic baby-boomers who were taught to feel guilty about the racial make up of America, and huge numbers of college students who dominate much of the caucuses, and you've got a mixture that leap-frogs Obama to the top. The larger problem is, none of that is likely to help him in the general election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Big Mick Date: 13 Mar 08 - 08:32 AM Why is that a problem? And you might be one of the most arrogant suckers I have ever read posts from. Why do you assume the electorate is so ignorant and dumb as to vote based on guilty race based feelings? It shows that you think you are smarter than others, and a patronizing person. It shows a dramatic lack of respect for the intelligence of the voters. Did the thought ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, folks think he is the best candidate? You are the one that seems fixated on race, Riginslinger. I think it says something about you. The level of your intellect seems to be in throwing half baked intellectual analysis based on stereotypical thinking about the whole of the country born after 1947. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Richard Bridge Date: 13 Mar 08 - 08:48 AM "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position" "Yes, African Americans are voting race." So what Ferraro said is true then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:49 AM An ignorant conclusion from flawed premises, Richard. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:52 AM "just maybe, folks think he is the best candidate? " actyally, IMHO I don't think folks are doing much thinking when it comes to their making a democratic choice in candidates so far. It will be evident when the results are in from the November election. Let's just see how things are a year from now ... it should be interesting to see what the threads are about here in the Cat then. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:32 AM "Why do you assume the electorate is so ignorant and dumb as to vote based on guilty race based feelings?" Mick - I don't think the electorate is dumb. In regular primaries you get a good sampling of what the electorate is thinking. In caucuses, you only get the results of a select few. Look at the Iowa Caucuses on the Republican side. The "homeschooling association," backed Huckabee, and t hrough their members were able to propel him to the top of the ticket. He was in no way representative of the general Republican electorate. In a regular primary, everybody gets to participate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: CarolC Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:40 AM I ask again. What do the polls show? If they show that the African-American vote is substantially in favour of Barack Obama then Ferraro's words were correct. They didn't show this before Bill and Hillary started playing the race card, though, so it could just as easily be that Obama is in the position he is today because he isn't Hillary Clinton. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: KB in Iowa Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:51 AM huge numbers of college students who dominate much of the caucuses I can tell you from experience that this most definitely is not what happened in my precinct. It was a very representative cross section of the people I see around town every day. A caucus does tend to draw people who are more passionate about politics but that may not be so bad. It is folks who are generally more informed about the issues than the folks who do not participate. The real problem for me is that it takes so long. It is a two-hour commitment and some people are not in a position to do that at a particular time in a particular place. With a primary you can pop in and vote whenever you have a chance. I don't know which is best but we have caucuses so that is what I do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:06 AM KB - I agree that the people attending caucuses are probably more informed about the issues, but I still see some problems. First, in spite of the fact that they are informed, they still are not representative of the general electorate. That can lay the groundwork to nominate a candidate that bombs out in the general election. Also, when you get a group fanatically promoting a single issue--like home schooling, or etc.--they can dominate the outcome. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: number 6 Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:11 AM "They didn't show this before Bill and Hillary started playing the race card, though, so it could just as easily be that Obama is in the position he is today because he isn't Hillary Clinton." Good point Carol. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:14 AM Most of the news analysts I've heard seem to think that black voters abandoned Hillary for Obama after the Iowa Caucuses because they witnessed that white voters would actually vote for a black candidate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: KB in Iowa Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:15 AM when you get a group fanatically promoting a single issue--like home schooling, or etc.--they can dominate the outcome Yes, and like you said, that is what got Huckabee a first here. Not just home schooling, it was the whole evangelical thing. The result would make you think Iowa is a hotbed of of fundamentalist evangelicalism but that is not the case. There is a strong presence but not overwhelming by any means. The caucus system allows an organized minority to have a disproportionate influence on the outcome. I think it also helped him that his strong backing didn't really kick in until right at the end so the other candidates didn't have a lot of time to counter it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:17 AM KB - Yes, I suspect you are right about that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: KB in Iowa Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:18 AM It seems to me that Clinton was still polling strongly among blacks for some time after Iowa. Obama's dominance has been more recent than that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: CarolC Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:22 AM The ones I was hearing, Riginslinger, were saying that Bill and Hillary had profoundly alienated a lot of Black voters when they started playing the race card (although not all of them - some of my neighbors in this almost all-Black neighborhood still prefer Hillary, and some of them, most notably the ones who work for the defense industry, prefer McCain). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:30 AM Yes, and I'm sure there's something I'm missing. When Bill Clinton went to South Carolina and made the statement that Jesse Jackson won there in the 1980's, it just sounded like a simple statement of fact to me. The news people say there's a coded message in that, but there sure wasn't to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Jeri Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:46 AM The long view on this is that, although Obama has refrained from campaigning as the BLACK Candidate, that's how the media has treated him (remember the guy in one of the first debates who shouted out for the moderator to quit focusing on race?) and that's how the Clintons treat him. This has backfired, and will continue to do so as long as OTHER people keep making the race about race. Obama winds up looking like the candidate for everybody, and Clinton looks like somebody with an unhealthy focus on race. I'm afraid that's how Ferraro comes off, and Hillary got some of it on her. I don't know if Obama would be doing as well if he were white. The Clintons wouldn't have had the opportunity to make the fight about race and alienated quite a number of people. The Jesse Jackson comment pissed people off because Clinton used him because he's black, he was the Black Candidate. With that comparison, Clinton showed race was what he cared about. It was the political version of 'some of my best friends are...' When you think about whether race is a factor in this primary fight, think about who drew first blood, and you can't find Obama at fault. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: CarolC Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:48 AM I think the Hillary camp has been shooting itself in the foot. I'm not an Obama supporter. I had planned to write in Kucinich's name when my state has its primary in May, but I have found the Clinton camp's behavior so offensive, that I may have to vote against Hillary (ie: for Obama) if the race hasn't been decided by then. (For disclosure purposes, I am a second and third generation USAn of European ancestry.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:57 AM Carol -- what!!??? I thought you were black, too!!! ;>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: CarolC Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:00 PM I'm melanin challenged, Amos. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,JTS Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:40 PM I also have to say that my current support for Obama is because of disgust with Clinton tactics. Maybe it would have been fairer for Ferarro to say " Obama wouldn't be where his is today if Hillary wasn't such and asshole." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:45 PM Here is an interesting collection of views on Obama, the race card, and related issues. I invite you to go through them and compare the emotional balance, integrity and analytical sobriety of those supporting Obama to those seeking to deniugrate him, just from the way they discuss the issues. I find it revelatory. There's a certain amount of hate and bitterness out there, and it shows up. The question which comes up over and over is whether we want the national political leadership to be founded on that end of the emotional spectrum, and the intellectual spectrum. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:46 PM Well said, Jeri and Carol. I think you have hit on the crux of the matter. Obama has, from the beginning, not campaigned on the basis of his ethnicity. He has campaigned in a way that identifies with all Americans equally..and people like that. It's an approach that encourages unity. The Clintons chose to focus on race to try to damage him. Big mistake! They have paid a price for it and alienated a lot of Black voters who are now going wholesale for Obama. Obama didn't make that happen, the Clintons made it happen, and he has become the beneficiary of what they cynically chose to do. I think he IS the best of the 3 candidates we now have before us, and I don't think it's because he's Black, needless to say! What difference would that make? He's just the best of the three, period. That has nothing to do with his ethnicity, but with his general characteristics as a human being. My favorite candidate was and is Dennis Kucinich, but Kucinich is not in the presidential race anymore....so if it came to it, and I could vote in this election, I would vote for Obama. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:48 PM Frankly, I see it just the other way. I think Ferraro's comments were acurate, and I don't think she meant them to be racist. I don't think most people would even know who Obama was, if he wasn't black, and my support for Hillary is because of the preferential treatment the press has given Obama. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:55 PM Funny, Rig. I gnash my teeth every day because of the preferential slant I see being given to Hillary, although it does ebb and flow. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: KB in Iowa Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:01 PM my support for Hillary is because of the preferential treatment the press has given Obama I would like to think it is because you believe she would make the best president. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:13 PM I doubt also that Ferraro meant anything racist in her comments, Rinslinger, and I think they probably were pretty accurate. Yes, the press has given Obama preferential treatment over Hillary Clinton. Specially CNN has. At the beginning this was partly because Obama was seen as an underdog...remember that the Hillary campaign appeared simply unstoppable a year ago. But I think, frankly, that Obama is rather deserving of the friendly treatment he's gotten from the media, whereas the Clinton campaign is pretty sleazy (not surprisingly...the Clinton machine always was pretty sleazy)...and therefore they are rather deserving of some of the flak they've gotten. I understand Hillary's frustration because she sees Obama getting preferential treatment...but I don't sympathize very much with her problems in that regard, because I think the Clinton political machine is as phony as a 3 dollar bill. It's an old and major dynastic power clique trying to re-establish itself in the White House. I don't like that very much at all. I don't want the Clintons back in the White House. I don't want a replay of the past. Whether Obama is also a phony, I'm not sure at this point. He might not be. It's a possibility. I will opt to support someone I'm not sure is a phony over someone I am sure is a phony any time. You clearly see Hillary as "the underdog", and that's partly why you support her. I understand that. I've had moments when I felt the same way about Hillary, frankly. ;-) I still have moments when I feel like that. Nevertheless, I trust the Clinton machine about as far as I can throw a refrigerator. For that reason, I do not have much enthusiasm for Hillary's campaign. I would only vote for her if she were the last thing around besides John McCain to vote for. And I would do it grudgingly...with little hope. I am pretty sure that a Clinton administration will contine America's present foreign war policies in the Middle East...possibly even take the USA into a war with Iran. I am pretty sure McCain will too. I don't know about Obama. He might not do those things (assuming he has any chance of changing the status quo), so I would cross my fingers, vote for Obama, and hope for the best. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: number 6 Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:15 PM If I had to choose between any of those 3 candidates I'd cast a spoilt vote. My conscious would not allow me to vote for one just to protest agains another. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,mg Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:20 PM another Jesse/Obama linkate from Hillary herself..I believe in the context of her apology. something like we should be proud of Jesse and Barack because..mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: KB in Iowa Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:29 PM Early on I was disinclined to back Clinton because I saw her as another cog in the wheel, just part of the machine. Now that I have seen her machine in action I am pleased that I did not back her in the beginning. The campaign being run by her and for her disgusts me. I have decided that she will do or say whatever she thinks will give her the best chance of winning. This morning I saw a clip of her saying that she believes she is qualified to be commander-in-chief and that she believes McCain is similarly qualified. As for Obama she said something along the lines of 'you will have to ask him.' Obama responded by saying he believes Clinton is qualified as is McCain and that he himself is also qualified. This has been the pattern for some time. The Clinton camp denigrates Obama in some way but Obama takes the (relatively) high road in his response. He has not allowed himself to be dragged into the gutter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:34 PM LH - I think the larger problem is this: I was driving along the other day and something came over the radio about Obama, and I decided that no matter what happened, I could never vote for Obama. Then I started wondering: what am I thinking? If I don't support Obama if he's the nominee, I'm helping McCain to send more young people to Iraq to become targets. At that point I realized that I was being manipulated by this protracted struggle as it's being presented my the media, and I'm being manipulated to the point that I'm not even thinking clearly. If that's happening to me, it must be happening to other people, especially younger people without first hand knowledge of people like Nixon, Reagan and etc. I think this whole thing has degenerated to the point where it is only helping McCain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Richard Bridge Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:37 PM "An ignorant conclusion from flawed premises, Richard" So, LH - IF you can stick to the point, there was only one premise in my post you criticise - it was a quote from another poster "African-Americans are voting race". So was that other poster right or wrong? I pointed out previously that according to the stats I have seen, the African-American vote is going strongly to Obama. Is that right, or is it wrong? It would need some creativeness (or evidence) to show that the reason for the skewness was not because Obama, too, was an African-American. All you produce is a pretty poor aphorism. You may, it seems, wish to look up the word "ignorant" too. Or maybe you meant to type "flawed conclusion from ignorant premises". If so you might be right - but you would need to demostrate either the facts of which you say I am ignorant, or the flaw in reaching, from the facts as I thought and (so far) think them to be my conclusion. I suspect that plenty of people are voting for Billary because she is white. It does no good to stick your head in the sand. That's what we all accuse the Shrub of doing. I expect better of you. Ferraro may be obnoxious, but on the evidence so far Obama would indeed not be where he is today if he were not an African-American. As the poll figures show, if the ones I saw were right, he would not have had the votes he did in the primaries and caucuses. If that is not a fact, show it. If it is a fact, deal with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:38 PM " I think this whole thing has degenerated to the point where it is only helping McCain. " McCain will not be elected to the presidency. There is NO way a Republican will become president UNLESS Clinton becomes the Dem nominee. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:49 PM Peace - That's kind of my point. What it Clinton does become the nominee? Will Obama supporters just stay home, given the enormity of what's at stake? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:52 PM Do you see much real difference between Clinton and McCain? To many people they represent The Machine, so a vote for either is just SSDD. I really think folks will see it that way. Too many voters have been disenfranchised by the 'election system' in the US. If I were an Obama supporter--which I am--if it came to a choice between H and M, I'd mar my ballot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: KB in Iowa Date: 13 Mar 08 - 02:03 PM I would vote for Clinton if only due to judicial appointments. I do think there would be a difference in that area and it matters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Mar 08 - 02:13 PM What experience has Clinton had that equips her to be Commander-in-Chief any more than Obama. She's been a lawyer, been married to the governor of a small state, been married to a President and she's been a Senator for a few years. For that matter, what experience did Bill Clinton have that equipped him to be Commander-in-Chief? Leave aside Bush - it wouldn't be fair to bring him into comparison with anybody - but what experience has any newly elected first time President had that particularly equipped them for this responsibility. Maybe Eisenhhower, but who else? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: KB in Iowa Date: 13 Mar 08 - 02:17 PM Clinton seems to think that having been married to a Governor and President counts as experience. She counts those years on her resume. I have been wondering why she doesn't get called on it, talk about preferential treatment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Big Mick Date: 13 Mar 08 - 02:37 PM Actually she has had a fair bit of experience in dealing with leaders of other countries, and has a real grip on foreign policy. I would give her the edge in that, if only for her work in several countries. I just don't see it as decisive, nor do I see her any better equipped than Obama generally. I said early on in this forum that I don't feel she is the strongest candidate, but that she is a fine candidate. Those that act as though the sum total of her experience was being married to someone are letting their biases show. She has been an activist her whole life, and was a new breed of First Lady, which in sexist America, made her seem unlikable. I believe it is Sexism of the first order and good for her that she has pushed through. I believe that Obama is the better candidate for a number of reasons, but I believe we are blessed in that we will have a strong candidate without regard as to which one prevails. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 13 Mar 08 - 02:39 PM >>Maybe Eisenhhower, but who else?<< Grant. ________ Ferarro's comments were accurate in only one sense. If he were a white man with the skills that he has, he wouldn't be where he is now. He would be the nominee. That is basically his point. That it is absurd to say that being a black man named Barack Obama is helping him. Richard Bridge an Riginslinger, think about the black candidates before him. Jackson, Sharpton, Shirley Chisholm and others never got anything like 90% of the African American votes in the primary. Clinton is clinging to 50 percent of the white vote and got 75% of the black vote in Mississippi because Obama is black. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: KB in Iowa Date: 13 Mar 08 - 02:51 PM You are right Mick about her being a more involved First Lady than some but if Obama were counting that sort of experience the Clinton camp would be all over him for it. She might make a wonderful president, she has the smarts for it, and I would vote for her if it came to that. I would not do so enthusiastically. Like I said, I see her as part of the machine but preferable to McCain. As a side note, at the beginning of all this I decided that McCain was the one Republican I could actually see as President. I would prefer it not come to that but still, it could have been worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,jack the Sailor Date: 13 Mar 08 - 02:56 PM Mick, Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan have a similar amount of experience dealing with foreign leaders. Mrs. Clinton, to my knowledge engaged in very little diplomacy as Junior Senator from New York, as a Lawyer or even as First Lady of Arkansas. That is not to say that I don't believe that she is not qualified. McGrath of Harlow makes an excellent point. With the possible exceptions of Grant and Eisenhower, there really have not been any presidents that have been qualified by experience to do the job from day one. One of my problems with Mrs. Clinton is that she dares to make that claim. As Chris Rock said "I've been married for 20 years, but my wife doesn't get up here and do comedy." It makes me wonder what other B.S. She is handing us. Another problem that I have with Mrs. Clinton is that her strategies are not benefiting the Democratic Party and that they are benefiting McCain. If McCain runs against Obama he'll be able to say that even the Clintons don't think you are qualified. If he runs against Mrs. Clinton he will be able to say that he is more experienced than her in every area that she says she is better than Obama. McCain would start against her with clean hands while she would be up to her elbows in the muck she is throwing at Obama. She is a good candidate she is much better than anything the Republicans have offered. But she needs to act that way before it is too late. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Big Mick Date: 13 Mar 08 - 03:00 PM As much as the neocons hate it, McCain is the best person they could have run. He was the only candidate they have that can appeal in some fashion to the moderates that the Dems must have to win. His position on the war will cost him the election, and his staff knows this. Look for that to modify. His economic policies will also hurt him as they aren't much different from what has taken us to this place we are in now. He is beatable, but the better candidate to do that is Obama. Additionally, the foreign policy of the USA must take a different direction. We have gone, in 8 short years, from a respected leader for democracy and foreign policy, to a pariah. It makes for good slogans but will bite us in the ass before it is done. If we don't elect a President who will look out for the interests of the US citizenry, while at the same time demonstrating to the world that we respect them and understand the changing nature of the world economic picture. We are not yet doomed to die like the Roman empire, but we are on the same road. What we require in the Oval Office is not a technocrat, but rather a visionary with strong leadership and inspirational skills. That person must seat a cabinet of people that will be respected, and show respect in every room they walk into. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: KB in Iowa Date: 13 Mar 08 - 03:15 PM Yes, we must do something differently in foreign policy. I am just afraid that the fear-mongers will get folks all whipped up and McCain wins anyway. Some here deny that possibility, I still think it could happen. There are a lot of people in this country who neither know nor particularly care what the rest of the world thinks of us. Scary thought but true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Lox Date: 13 Mar 08 - 03:22 PM Just goes to show what a powerful vortex this whole race issue is. And that in turn tells us something important about Obama's character for sticking determinedly to the important stuff without being distracted. I mean the last thing you want is a president who isn't doing their job properly because their mind is on irrelevant issues like who's what colour and who else is what sex ... So lets see now - who's concentrating and who's getting distracted? So who is the safer pair of hands? And the more professional politician? I respect the man for his dedication and his clarity of mind and vision. These are surely essential chracteristics in the Executive wing of government. And what's more, that's how he's winning support. Jo bloggs says "what about issue x and issue y" Obama says - "I'm gonna try deal with it" - Hillary says "he's only winning cos he's black" Jo bloggs says "she's avoiding my question" ... You might disagree with Obama's solutions to the problems faced by the next president, but at least he comes across like they are what's important to him and not just some formula to recite in between the mudslinging. He sounds like he's talking to people and not getting distracted by Hillary's playground taunts. She looks like she's trying to look good and make him look bad. He looks sincere. It might be an illusion, But that's his advantage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,lox Date: 13 Mar 08 - 03:43 PM Hey Peace. Good to read you bro! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Mar 08 - 04:21 PM Richard Bridge, you have today devoted an entire angry post addressed to me over something which I never said to you. Amos said it to you....! ;-) The thing that worries me now is that I may be accused of saying further things that Amos has said! It could become a syndrome. I certainly would not want that to happen. It would be bloody awful, frankly, like the time I was trapped in a drainpipe by a pack of ravening giant Sumatran toads. Maybe ever worse than that. No one should have to go through such misery! Pease correct the record, if you will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 13 Mar 08 - 05:07 PM Lox, It is GREAT to see ya back. I have missed you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Bobert Date: 13 Mar 08 - 05:41 PM The problems I have with the Clintons is their entire strategy to win the White House is to beat up Obama... Personally, I'm sick of it... They parade one serrogate after another out to say things that are intended to play on stereotypical and racist feelings... Then when they are caught they apologize... This is kinda like a boxer who at the end of each round hits after the bell and then say's, "Opps, so sorry"... Make no mistake about it, all of these things have been done on purpose... I don't buy the "undisciplined" argument... One thing uis for sure, if the Democratic Party has folks in it that feel the way the Clinton's do then it deserve to loose... I thought the Dixiecrats were dead... Guess not... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Big Mick Date: 13 Mar 08 - 05:42 PM Yes, it is very nice to see Lox gracing the old place again. Jack, we cross posted. I don't believe that we can compare Hillary to Nancy Reagan, and only slightly to Laura Bush. Hillary broke the mold. She has been a strong, assertive partner to Bill for his whole career, and an activist in her own right. She really set a different standard as First Lady. Laura Bush has impact, but hasn't done the types of things that Clinton has done, in Macedonia for example. She really does have some experience, and as one former ambassador said on NPR yesterday, her meetings were substantive meetings with leaders. This is not to say she was acting as a President would, but she makes a fair claim to experience. I don't think this is any dramatic edge over Obama, and most Presidents don't come with that kind of experience. It is a created issue. I also don't necessarily agree that all this is bad. Campaigns have historically gone this way. Remember Bush the first and his "voodoo ecomonics" charge against the man who he became running mate with? This election will be determined on the ability of the candidates in both parties to reach the moderate Republicans, the Reagan Democrats, and the independents. The base on both sides will come in line, and in the end it will be determined (as almost always) by who makes the middle feel most comfortable with their vision. If McCain stays with his current message on the war, and his current economic plan, he should be able to be beat by either candidate. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Richard Bridge Date: 13 Mar 08 - 05:47 PM Sorry LH, yes it was Amos. In that case I don't expect better of him, and I would have been right to expect better of you! For some reason I do tend to confuse the two of you, and sorry about that too. Amos, got a fact or two? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: DougR Date: 13 Mar 08 - 06:06 PM Mrzzy:I think you is right in your first post. Too bad that stating a probable fact has now been reduced to being racist. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Big Mick Date: 13 Mar 08 - 06:13 PM Of course you would, Doug. Pretty hard to believe that a charismatic, gifted young man would get this far, especially a black one..... and not a conservative...... right? Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 13 Mar 08 - 06:14 PM Tolerance, Doug, tolerance. That's one of the things you learned from/on Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 13 Mar 08 - 06:16 PM Dammit!! Richard, I spent some time composing a very nice post, withdrawing my crude remark, in exchange for some discussion. I pointed out at length that while it is true that people do comply with those they perceive as "like them", there are several reasons why this doe snot support your pont about African American voters backing Obama on his skin color. There are millions of voters across the country who see in Obama someone who like them, care about thinking things over and coming up with a rational view that can make a better future. It is easy for them to see in him someone who, like them, wants to rise above knee-jerk emotionalism and auto-association of buttons, to a position where reason and calm can coordinate unified people toward a common goal. There are many who see in him someone who, like them, looks for the best of ideas, not the most frightening of possibilities based on scraps of bad news inflated beyond all value. There are peoplle who see in him someone who, like them, believes in the power of human reason and communication to rise above difficulties, rise up division, and rise above petty-minded resentments to find a path forward to something beter. That is why so many Afro-Americans, Italian-Americans, Esquimeaux-Americans, Hispanic Americans, Croat-Americans, Estonian Americans, Jewish Americans, Muslim Americans, Irish Americans and Polynesian Americans, among others, have sat up and listened to him. It is because they hear the thinking voice of someone like them. The melanin is, I am sure, a very, very secondary element in the calculation of similarity. They see a human heart striving to bring betterment, and they recognize themselves in that voice. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,lox Date: 13 Mar 08 - 06:51 PM Hey Mick. Feels like I haven't been away. I like to submerge my head into the old mud fishtank now and again to see who's swimming about. I just come up for air for longer periods nowadays. I guess I'm just more evolved than you lot ;-P |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Mar 08 - 06:53 PM "...if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race." Geraldine Ferraro April 15, 1988, The Washington Post. No one can accuse her of being inconsistent in her explanation of what is significant about politicians with dark skins. Not really racism as such - what might be called "racism by proxy". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 13 Mar 08 - 07:01 PM Y'all suppose she was havin' flashbacks? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Lox Date: 13 Mar 08 - 07:03 PM I tell you something folks. I think that if Obama wasn't black he'd be kicking Hillary all over the shop even more than he currently is - He is such a cool consummate debater and communicator. I think it more plausible that she's only lasted so long because she's white. But that would be offensive to suggest and I'd obviously have a chip on my shoulder and be a bleeding heart liberal for saying it. Whereas the idea that having black skin gives you an unfair advantage in US politics is a serious point and not remotely comical. Sorry - Even Peace's drugs can't get me that high ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 13 Mar 08 - 07:10 PM I think you have nailed it in one, Lox. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,mg Date: 13 Mar 08 - 07:27 PM I can not understand Ferraro's various rants. I can only see a few possibilities: 1. She is losing it mentally. 2. Someone has persuaded her to go poking him with a stick and be a scapegoat after, ruining her reputation in the process, but suck it up for Hillary I guess..or get paid, but I doubt that payment is it. I don't see how she, as a long-time politician, can not know that what she is saying is the kiss of death...that she is self-destructing here before our eyes. Unless she has something like Alzheimer's...maybe like Irish where you only remember the grudges..except maybe there are other kinds where your true feelings, repressed for a long time, get disinhibited and come out. And that would not be her fault, if it is biological...mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Bobert Date: 13 Mar 08 - 07:46 PM What lox said... Obama is winning inspite of being black... ...and no matter how Clinton's shills spin it that is the way it is... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 13 Mar 08 - 08:01 PM Yeah, but Hillary's working on her tan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Stranger Date: 13 Mar 08 - 08:59 PM Has anyone considered that Obama is beating Hillary not because he is black but because he is a man? There are truly people who voted for him for no other reason than they can't stand to see a woman in there. Women included. When it comes to the General election, McCain will pick up many votes and should win for the real reasons he deserves to. He knows his way around Washington, has proven he can work with either party, and will have enough moderate Democratic supporters who find Barack Hussein Obama way too far left of center on just about everything. No matter all the rhetoric about change, the country will never be as far left as he is on so much. This coupled with a glaring lack of inexperience. Sorry, Lefties. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:04 PM Interesting thought. However, there will not be a Republican president this coming election, imo. They have spit in the face of the American people and I can't see the voters forgetting that come ballot time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Big Mick Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:04 PM Marty, I hope you are still adopting this persona in November. It will be interesting to hear your excuses, should it not work out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:19 PM "Has anyone considered that Obama is beating Hillary not because he is black but because he is a man?" Yes. A number of people have noticed that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:36 PM "Issues will decide vote, says Obama 7 hours ago Barack Obama said issues, not race, will decide the US presidential election after a top fundraiser for his rival Hillary Clinton stepped down after putting some of Mr Obama's success down to him being a black man. Mr Obama called the comments by Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first woman to run as a candidate for vice president in 1984, "ridiculous". The apparent end of the row, for now at least, came as the three main candidates for president cast key votes on America's budget. The largely symbolic Senate votes saw both Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton win in their battle against extending President George Bush's tax cuts for middle and higher-income taxpayers, investors and people inheriting businesses and big estates. Republican presidential nominee-to-be John McCain supported the extension. Talking about the race issue, Mr Obama told reporters: "We keep on thinking we've dispelled this. And it keeps on getting raised once again." He said some voters might favour either him or Mrs Clinton because of race or gender, but added: "The overwhelming majority of Americans are going to make these decisions based on who they think will be the best president. "I have absolute confidence that if I'm doing my job, if I'm delivering my message, then there are very few voters out there that I can't win. If I'm not winning them over, then it's my fault."" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Stranger Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:46 PM Or Amos' rants for another four to eight more years, Mick. It is what he does for a living, after all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:50 PM '"Talking about the race issue, Mr Obama told reporters: "We keep on thinking we've dispelled this. And it keeps on getting raised once again."' By Obama, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Stranger Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:00 PM Or by Obama's racist preacher. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Jts Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:07 PM >>a glaring lack of inexperience.<< Surely this could only refer to McCain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,mg Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:12 PM It is not just any woman, it is this particuarly ghoulish candidate who is a woman. So failing to vote for her is not deciding to not ever vote for a woman. And she will destroy him if she can and if she must, which she must since she wants to win. I do not think for a minute he is beating her. Quite often the most ruthless one will win somehow..strangely quiet superdelegates don't you think....total affection for her? A desire to see this play out? Wondering what is in their FBI file????? Afraid of what the IRS will do to them if they are president again? Who knows. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:38 PM Excuse me, but I don't think I have been ranting. Would you care to point out some ranting I have done not founded in genuine observations? Bush excepted. I reserve the right to rant about Bush. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:47 PM Bush is so rantable! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 14 Mar 08 - 07:26 AM Yeah, it's hard not to rant about Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: KB in Iowa Date: 14 Mar 08 - 09:32 AM '"Talking about the race issue, Mr Obama told reporters: "We keep on thinking we've dispelled this. And it keeps on getting raised once again."' By Obama, of course Except that the whole reason for this thread is because it was brought up by one of Hillary's minions. In fact, as far as I see, Obama only mentions it in response to something that has come out of the Clinton camp. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Bobert Date: 14 Mar 08 - 09:38 AM Pointing out the obvious is not ranting... It's observing... Yeah, most Bushites are so blinding by partisanship that they are blind to the obvious... The obvious is that the Repubs and Bush have screwed the country up purdy good... That ain't no rant... Just fact... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 14 Mar 08 - 09:46 AM Well, what do you think you'll get from a Bush supporter? Ya want logic? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:22 PM "Would you care to point out some ranting I have done not founded in genuine observations? Bush excepted. I reserve the right to rant about Bush." I will accept that your ranting about Bush is not founded in genuine observations. But you have the right to rant- as ALL of do, about whatever we want to rant about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:26 PM Pointing out the obvious is not ranting... It's observing... Yeah, most Liberals are so blinding by partisanship that they are blind to the obvious... That ain't no rant... Just fact... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:28 PM It becomes a matter of what one sees as obvious, BB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:30 PM "It becomes a matter of what one sees as obvious" Absolutely true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:43 PM Ranting is a matter of style rather than content. It's a form of rhetoric. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:51 PM "Obama Disavows Pastor's Remarks Looks like Barack Obama is kicking his crazy uncle out of the basement. The Democratic presidential hopeful has compared his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, to an "old uncle" with whom he doesn't always agree. But with the controversial preacher's racially inflammatory remarks and sermons burning up the Internet over the past 24 hours or so, the Obama campaign had to respond with some tough love. In a posting on Huffington Post late Friday afternoon, Obama called Wright's statements "inflammatory and appalling" and said, "Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue." Obama also prepared for a blitz of interviews on the major cable television networks in an effort to quell the controversy. Among his most controversial statements, Wright said African Americans should sing "God Damn America" instead of "God Bless America." And he suggested that the Unites States invited the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks with its own "terrorism." Wright just retired from Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Obama, his wife, Michelle and their two young daughters attend. But Wright's sermons have been immortalized on the Internet -- unfortunately for Obama. In one, Wright told his congregation the reason why "so many folks are hating on Barack Obama" is because he doesn't "fit the model: He ain't white, he ain't rich and he ain't privileged." "Hillary [Clinton] fits the mold," Wright said, delivering a fiery tirade on how "Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong color," and how "Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over as a black man driving" and how "Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home." He also said Hillary has never been called the "N word." (Wright used the actual word.)" (WaPo Blog) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Richard Bridge Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:54 PM Hmm, I notice a lot of my posts recently going missing. Is it the post eater or is it sabotage? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:57 PM Now, THIS is a rant, fellas/ Richard, I lost one similarly just yesterday. I cussed about it because I was addressing it to you and withdrawing one of my cruel remarks. I tried to reconstruct it hastily. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,lox Date: 14 Mar 08 - 07:12 PM Ok so it's not because he's black it's because she's a woman. ... tsk tsk ... Ducking and diving and changing the subject so soon? Seriously though, It has struck me that the issue of gender hasn't attracted the same attention. Why? I wanted to see how long it would take for somebody to say something. Are these the answers ... Because women aren't a minority in the same way that black people are - so it would be political suicide? Because the American people are a bit too grown up for it (as is hopefully the case with Obama) so it would be political suicide? Because there is less of a sense of risk in employing a woman to do the job than in employing a black person in the minds of the average joe - so there is less latent insecurity to put pressure on? Maybe people still don't take the issue of womens equality as seriously as they could. All four answers probably contain an element of truth and there are probably other reasons too. But generally, I think that Hillary comes across as sexless. She isn't condemned for flirting with the public, or for showing her cleavage etc (the usual sexist shite) ... Noone is bothered either way. People are grappling with a three way conundrum - Hillary, Barack and the race issue. Maybe the real reason it hasn't occupied peoples minds in the same way is that Noone has tried to attribute the suffragette movement to a man during this campaign. I mean hey - wasn't it a man who gave women the vote ... it was the husbands of the women involved who gave them permission to protest and supported their right to attend suffragette coffee mornings ... So by Hillary's logic we don't need a woman president, because we need an enabler and not a campaigner ... ... wasn't that her point? ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Mar 08 - 07:27 PM Rev. Jeremiah Wright - now that's ranting, "a form of rhetoric." Well, you don't want people dropping off to sleep during the sermon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Big Mick Date: 14 Mar 08 - 07:29 PM I have just checked and there are no posts deleted from this thread. Richard, I have sworn that I have posted and when I used the back button, I found that I had simply never pressed "Send Message". I don't know if that is the case with you, but you can use your back button to check as long as you haven't logged off. But, I repeat.....there are no deleted posts on this thread other than a double post of McGrath's which occured a number of days ago. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Stranger Date: 14 Mar 08 - 07:55 PM Here's a fact. Your rants are self serving and have accomplished zero. Bush was not impeached. He will serve all 8 years, and what you feel you reserve the right to, and do, are really just wasted a big part of your life and bandwith, not necessarily in that order. The only one who listens is a small minority here who just know nothing more than to nod and agree. The rest of world has not heard you. Your life. Not mine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,lox Date: 14 Mar 08 - 08:08 PM So what are you doing with your bandwidth ... ... and who's listening to you? ... who's life ... who cares ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Mar 08 - 08:12 PM Obviously, everything here is only read by a small minority. In fact everything pretty well anyone ever says in life is only heard by a small minority. So presumably we should all take a vow of silence... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Stranger Date: 14 Mar 08 - 08:16 PM Lox, no one is listening but you. Thanks for doing so. You got my point and responded. Perfect. BTW, are you Nova or Belly? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,lox Date: 14 Mar 08 - 08:23 PM Everyone listens to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Big Mick Date: 14 Mar 08 - 08:25 PM WARNING!!!!
Fair warning. You are welcome to post your opinions, take part in the discussion and advocate your well known conservative views. I am just going to warn you, and those that choose to argue with you, right now. If this starts to descend into a series of attacks on one another, I will close the thread, and/or just delete any posts that don't meet the test. Post with a consistent identity, debate your views, all of that is fair game. But if it turns into a baiting/trolling session, I will just close it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 14 Mar 08 - 09:58 PM "So by Hillary's logic we don't need a woman president, because we need an enabler and not a campaigner ..." Actually, we need somebody to make reasoned decisions, and not a campaigner, I think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Ron Davies Date: 14 Mar 08 - 10:42 PM There have been several investigations into Hillary's "experience", which qualifies her, she says, along with McCain ( she's so generous) to be commander in chief. The main topics are Northern Ireland, Macedonia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and China. Just to pick one--China--her main accomplishment there, which she cites at every opportunity, was the Beijing speech in favor of women's rights. 2 items here. 1) Didn't we hear something from her about how unimportant speeches are? 2) Exactly how does this speech qualify as dealing with a dangerous foreign policy crisis--a la the 3 AM call? Every one of her alleged foreign policy accomplishments turns out to be a similar house of cards. Just to do another one: Macedonia: she says she negotiated "on matters such as opening borders for refugees during the war in Kosovo." Now look, she was a First Lady. How do you think the State Dept. would take a First Lady doing such work? And sure enough, Macedonia had opened the borders to Kosovar refugees the day before she got there. So now she says she pressed to have the borders opened much wider. But there's a problem with the schedule. She was in Macedonia less than 9 hours. Half was spent touring refugee camps. 2:20 PM photo op with the prime minister. 2:50 photo op with Macedonia's president. 3:20 photo op with the Macedonian First Lady. NYT report at the time: her trip was so scripted that "Administration officials chose which refugees Mrs. Clinton would speak with" . News reports on Hillary's own Web site characterize her visit as "sweeping through Macedonia" offering "publicity" and "aid". Source: Factcheck. org---through Newsweek And against McCain? Remember, "experience" is her strong suit. Somehow, it seems McCain may trump her. It is patently obvious that if she had been hired on the basis of the resume she has detailed on foreign policy, and then the facts came to light, she would be summarily fired. For good reason--it gives a new dimension to resume inflation. No more time now--but there's a lot more to say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 15 Mar 08 - 08:28 AM "And sure enough, Macedonia had opened the borders to Kosovar refugees the day before she got there... She was in Macedonia less than 9 hours." Wow, she got a lot done in only 9 hours, just think what she'd be able to do as a full time president. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Ron Davies Date: 15 Mar 08 - 08:36 AM Rig-- Your reading skills still need some work. The border was opened before she got there. And her schedule during the 9 hours she was there hardly permitted any time for negotiation, even had the diplomats been willing to negotiate with a First Lady with no power. So sorry to shatter your illusion. And here I thought it was mainly Bush supporters who had a problem with reading comprehension. How did you do on the SAT? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 15 Mar 08 - 09:34 PM The people in the north of Ireland aren't exactly lining up behind her to express their gratitude. But she is doing the country one service as she kisses McCain's butt. She is the official and only Self-appointed judge of Obama's Commander in Chief qualifications. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 15 Mar 08 - 09:56 PM "How did you do on the SAT?" Are you talking about the Saturday before election day, last Saturday, the Saturday after Memorial Day, or...? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: dick greenhaus Date: 16 Mar 08 - 01:21 AM The amazing thing is how 43 men in US history have managed to overcome the obvious handicap of not being black. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 16 Mar 08 - 10:36 AM I think it only applies when the people running the Democratic caucuses are baby-boomers, and have been taught to feel guilty, and are heirs to untaxed estates. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Mar 08 - 12:44 PM Why wouldn't they just like Obama better than Hillary regardless? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 16 Mar 08 - 12:56 PM Jaded cynicism knows no reason, LH. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Mar 08 - 01:03 PM It's a concept not hard for me to grasp, Rinslinger, that's why I ask. I like Obama better than Hillary regardless (of the fact he's Black). I like his general nature and attitude better. I also like Edwards better than Hillary regardless, and I'd rather have seen Edwards win it for the Democrats than either Obama or Hillary. That doesn't seem to fit your theory about people's liberal "guilt" motivations for favoring Obama over Hillary. I frankly can't imagine voting for a Black man out of liberal "guilt", because I've become so utterly fed up with people in the USA unscrupulously and cynically playing that particular emotional blackmail type race card to get what they want in the past few decades that I don't even want to hear about it anymore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Mar 08 - 01:14 PM I'll tell you what the crux of the matter is, Rinslinger. A lot of people trust Obama somewhat more than they do Hillary. That doesn't mean they trust Obama 100% and without reserve! No sir. Hardly. It just means they trust him a bit more than they do the Clintons....and that is not really a huge surprise to me. Nope, it's not surprising at all. ;-) The Clintons are political pros, longtime Washington insiders, people who will do or say absolutely anything to win, and everyone knows it. I trust Edwards a bit more than I do the Clintons too. I trust Kucinich way the hell more! But Edwards and Kucinich aren't in the race anymore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 16 Mar 08 - 01:40 PM LH - I would much have preffered Edwards to Hillary as well, but the problems all got started in the Iowa caucuses. You can see that local--and I'll call them perverted--Republicans tried to propell Huckabee to greatness, but in the Republican camp reason finally prevailed. With the Democrats, I think it worked like this: you had a covey of up-scale baby-boomer Democrats who thought they could have their concsiences cleansed by supporting a black candidate for president. That way they could all walk around and spend their "factually unearned" money and make the case that they had nothing to feel guilty about. Idealistic college students eagerly jumped on this bandwagon too, so in almost every case, when the Democrats had a caucus, Obama won. It's hard to blame the kids, though, they haven't really been around the barn yet. In one sense, it's hard to blame the up-scale baby-boomers. They've led pretty sheltered lives as well. Getting back to the Iowa Caucuses, though, if Obama hadn't been in the race, and hadn't been who he was, just like Geraldine Ferraro reported, the race would have been between Edwards and Hillary. All of this, I think, explains why Clinton did so much better in Ohio. In Texas, we saw Hillary win the primary, and then continued to watch her delegate count reversed in the caucuses. If we think back to what Edward's message was--the "two America" idea--we can see that if he'd come out better in Iowa, and had been better able to go on, by the time he got to Ohio, he'd have had the best message going. Ironically, by the time of the general election in November, the US will probably be in a very dismal recession, and Edward's message would have been the message to win the day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Big Mick Date: 16 Mar 08 - 01:53 PM I continue to be appalled by Riginslingers gross generalizations, and factually incorrect assertions, regarding the whole of "up scale baby-boomer Democrats". It is sheer ignorance personified, and shows an amazing amount of arrogance. To suggest that Obama, a veteran of Chicago style politics, who has consistently resisted the race issue, with a Muslim name, and a black man, is somehow the consensus candidate by virtue of some mass attempt at asssuaging our collective guilt, is ludicrous in the extreme. To suggest it is to show complete disrespect, never mind the arrogance, for the intelligence of folks making decisions as to how to vote. I am supportive of Obama not for any of the reasons suggested by this man. I feel we need a bright, young leader, with a great sense of the times we live in. This person must be able, and this is very important, to inspire a new generation of Americans to seize this country, reinvigorate the love of country and opportunity, as well as restore our stature in the world. To do this requires a visionary, yet inspirational new leader. Think of JFK's inaugural address where he spoke of the torch being passed to a new generation, born in this century, tempered by war..... It is that time again, and Obama exactly personifies what is needed to do that. So enough of this simplistic, and erroneous, stuff. And if you want to know what is wrong with your thinking, but wrapped in fewer words, go back and read Dick Greenhaus' last post. But to understand it, you will have to think a little more than it appears you are used to. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Mar 08 - 02:00 PM So Clinton's gets votes from people who really like the idea of a woman president. And she loses votes from people who don't like the idea of a woman president. And the same goes for Obama, in respect of being black. And no doubt McCain will get votes from people who like the idea of an older president, and lose votes from people who don't. And the same goes in respect of the fact he is a man, if he's up against Clinton, and in respect of his being white. And for that matter it'd be true enough to say that Bill Clinton, orvGeorge Buish or all the others before, probably wouldn't have been where they were if they hadn't been white. So why pick on Obama in this kind of "if" game? I think we know, actually... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Mar 08 - 02:09 PM Interesting analysis, Rinslinger. It's a damn shame that Edwards got sidelined the way he did. I simply find it impossible to be at all enthusiastic about the Clintons because they are heading up what I consider to be a totally sleazy and unscrupulous political machine...a machine that never had any notion it would not have a cakewalk to the democratic nomination, a coronation, and then win the presidency. Things have gone a bit awry for that machine, partly because of the enthusiasm among various groups (and in some of the media as well) for Obama. Now, let's suppose Obama wins the nomination...and wins the following election. Just theoretically....what do you think happens then? Well, I think that the main political/financial/business machine that runs the Democratic Party (and the Republican Party) will basically tell Obama what he can and cannot do from that point on, and it will be business as usual in Washington...with a superficial gloss of new-sounding rhetoric. I might be wrong. Obama might decide to buck the machine and go his independent own way (something the Clintons will never do...they ARE inextricably a part OF the machine). Suppose Obama does buck the machine? Then, in my opinion, they will probably act to either neutralize or destroy his presidency by blocking his every attempt to change things...or they will take more extreme and drastic measures. This is also what they would do to Edwards were he to become president and not cooperate with the machine. I don't think the people elected president are much more than temporary figureheads. Their personality is important, though, because it influences the situation and the mood of the country. Their beliefs and intentions are important too. But they are still temporary figureheads in the grip of something far larger than themselves, and that something will outlast them and will plan new presidencies to install and control. This is why, ultimately, I don't hope for too much from USA presidential elections....BUT...that doesn't mean that there aren't better and worse choices when it comes time to vote! I'd rather vote for Obama than Hillary Clinton. I'd rather vote for either one of them than for John McCain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 16 Mar 08 - 02:38 PM I think a case can be made for the "times" in which a president serves. This addresses the greenhaus' comment that Mick refers to as well. In order for a black candidate to be viable now, the civil rights movement would have had to happen long enough ago in the past for many of the players to be approaching retirement now. It seems to me like there are now people making major decisions at the local level who look, act, think, and talk like they just walked off the page of a John Updike novel. It seems to me like the forces that formed their personalities didn't prepare them for the decisions they are being asked to make. But that same thing applies to the point LH is making as well, in my opinion. I think the reality of presidents being able to make a difference has a lot to do with when they served. Washington during the revolution, Lincoln during the end of slavery, FDR during the Great Depression, and etc. So if you have a major history altering event now, the president with either rise to the occasion or not. Hoover didn't, Buchanon didn't, Reagan actually put the country on a backwards spiral, and so on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 16 Mar 08 - 02:46 PM And so far, Barack Obama appears to have risen to the challenges he's been handed, and dealt with them in a temperate, thoughtful, and "presidential" manner. He is not shrill; he is not hateful or ill-tempered; he is not rash; he is not dishonest; he is not a racist or a reverse-racist. He's a thoughtful, energetic and optimistic man who is well-educated, intelligent, articulate and competent in managing affairs. All this sturm und drang is just a lot of hogwash, IMHO. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Bobert Date: 16 Mar 08 - 02:53 PM Word on the street is that John Edwards is gonna endorse Hillary within the next couple of weeks... Yuck... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Mar 08 - 03:18 PM I've watched a couple of Ferraro interviews since the kerfuffle. She seems to see the whole world in terms of how it affects her. She was all ready to be one of the people to help Hillary be the first woman president and along comes the "black" guy and gets in her way. She said some really odd things. Obama would not be there if he was a white man or a woman of any color and the men were banding together to keep a woman out. To me that seems more like transferred paranoia than political analysis. I believe that if Obama had not run, someone else would have given Mrs. Clinton a run for her money. Too many Democrats see her as a lightning rod for the far right. Too many independents find her annoying. To many people who have seen her in action wonder if she has the patience to work with congress rather trying to ram things through. Little Hawk, I share your distrust of the establishment behind the politics in this country but I do not share your pessimism that a President can do nothing. The corporations and special interests are not a united front. Bush just made it seem that way by capitulating to their every whim. A President can make some changes if enough voters are behind him to effect congressional elections are behind him, and Obama has the oratory skills to motivate those people. Mrs. Clinton does not. If she did. We would have healthcare. McCain won't be able to because he will have spent all of his political capital on the far right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 16 Mar 08 - 03:55 PM "I've watched a couple of Ferraro interviews since the kerfuffle. She seems to see the whole world in terms of how it affects her." It could be construed that way, but it seems to me she is just overly-occupied with the concept of having a woman president. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Mar 08 - 03:57 PM Understood, Jack. It's true that the corporations are not a totally united front...because they fight amongst themselves too. Yeah, I have some hope that Obama might be able to sway the system some if he inspires enough people...and I think he might. Where is this damn street that you keep getting the word from all the time, Bobert? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,lox Date: 16 Mar 08 - 05:36 PM You know it strikes me to point out to you something else that Obama is probably also fully prepared for. This race football back and forth in all it's many guises during the campaign, won't go away if Obama wins. If he does become the first Black President, he will most likely be judged as a "black president" and his policies and decisions will be examined through the media race-o-tron throughout his presidency and afterwards. Did he make this decision because he's black, did he back down from that group because he's black. Did he pander to this pressure to pacify uneasy whites? and of course ... did "they" make a mistake trusting a n***** with one of the biggest jobs in the world. Expect jokes about the Black House. Hopefully you will all share my contempt for this kind of approach, but are you ready for it? And of course, amongst Obama's responsibilities will be the race debate and civil rights issues, so he can't ignore them outright. He has to be able to engage on every issue. Then of course there are those who would argue that it is ignored anyway now that black people have the vote. I'd wager that Obama has these and other longer term issues buzzing round in his head, which coincidentally fits my earlier stated opinion that he is more focussed on the job of president than Hillary. For Hillary, the race issue is finite, for Obama it continues as long as he remains black. Hisonly option to win the debate is to win the presidency and then do a great job, not just for the sake of his own ego, but to clear the way for a new generation of black presidential hopefuls who he would not wish to face the same quagmire. Interestingly, the issue of Hillary being a woman will probably surface dramatically in the event that she becomes president. Attitudes and comments lacking from the debate about her credentials may suddenly become commonplace as she goes about her job. There will probably be headlines concerning the time of the month in connection with unpopular decisions for example. Men and Women here could probably furnish this thread with a host of other similar cliches. Is she prepared for that? It's hard to know. Maybe she needs to be tested with the gender issue to see how she holds her nerve under irrational fire. That after all is the key to a successful political career. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 16 Mar 08 - 05:41 PM I doubt she is still victimized by monthlies, Lox. Consider her age... A Miaow.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,lox Date: 16 Mar 08 - 05:44 PM I rest MY case ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 16 Mar 08 - 06:52 PM If this is a sex vs. race campaign, then Obama will win. Here's how the hierarchy works. White men first Men of colour second All women third Yes, my friends, regardless of race, women are the lowest on the totem pole regardless of socio-economic class. If you take socio-economics into consideration, you will understand that if you are in the upper/elite classes, race does not matter one bit. If however, you are a woman, you are still beneath men. This is, of course, is a broad generalization but my guess is that Obama will win the Primaries because of sexism, not because he's black or white. Whether or not he can win against a White Man is another story. Thats when racism will raise its ugly head. Lets face it, racism and sexism are very much a part of American culture and those of us who seek to rise above it, are pushing against a strong tide. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,lox Date: 16 Mar 08 - 07:16 PM I thinkyou can choose between rising above it or pushing against it - depends on the circumstances. And I think Racism and sexism are both part of the natural human condition. It's not ehwther we can be "cured" but whetheer we can be mature and honest with ourselves about our decision making rationale. On what grounds did I discriminate? I am probably just not very observant, but I seem to notice the iddue of gender only just starting to poke it's head up now. And for the record, if this is a battle of gender first, then race, then why haven't women been rallying round, or at least been accused of it (as if it were a crime or something) to support "Their" candidate in the same way that the black population of America are allegedly getting behind Obama? An important distinction must be made. If every woman voted Clinton, she would definitely win. If every Black person voted Obama, he could still lose. So if it were a battle of the sexes, Clinton would have to be favourite. Because women are intelligent enough to understand your view and understand how poweful their vote is. Or do you not share my faith in women voters? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,lox Date: 16 Mar 08 - 07:18 PM Please excuse multiple typo's |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 16 Mar 08 - 07:56 PM Clinton, on the other hand, has not made anyone faint, at least not from enthusiasm... Dianavan, I would suggest considering the possibility that your characterization is a function of personal bias. I have no hard data whether sexism or racism is a "senior" prejudice, but I think either one could be used as a charge against the swiftboaters when they come out of their hideyholes spreading their despicable slime. As for the population at large, I wouldn't know how to measure it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Mar 08 - 08:14 PM White women rank lower than black men? I rather doubt that is how white racists, male or female, would see things. ............................................ Yes it'd be quite an interesting thing for the USA to elect a woman president - but hardly groundbreaking internationally. It's happened in a lot of countries, and hasn't generally made any significant difference to the status of women in the countries concerned. (Israel, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, the UK, France, Germany, Argentina...and a good few more no doubt.) Electing a black man in a predominantly white country with a history of racism stretching back through centuries - that would be groundbreaking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Ron Davies Date: 16 Mar 08 - 11:14 PM Dianavan-- Who knows why, but it sounds like your bitterness is speaking--and not your logic. If you consider that black men come in the hierarchy before any women, then please count the number of black Senators, Congressmen, and governors, then count the number of females that fit the description. And yes, all black women in Congress count as black--as you would find if you asked them. Specifically, how many black governors and Senators are there now? And how many women in each category? In Obama the man and the moment have met. If you don't think that's a unique situation, you have not followed the careers of Jesse Jackson and other black political figures. And it's evident that in an election at some point, a woman will be picked--though you might note that neither Hillary nor Geraldine Ferraro have done your cause much good. You also might note that Obama is sensible enough to make one of his main appeals the ability to transcend race. Hillary, however, brandishes her feminism like a weapon. Not the best approach. It's obvious that there will be a woman president. But it would be nice to have one who is not determined to destroy the Democratic party in order to win the nomination. If I had to guess, I'd say a very likely presidential candidate soon is Nancy Pelosi--who doesn't seem to think that scorched earth is the best way to conduct a campaign. In contrast to Hillary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie Date: 16 Mar 08 - 11:50 PM My head is reeling from reading several posts on this thread which seems to be arguing both sides of the same issue very vehemently. But will someone please explain the following? If I say, "Joe's not fit to be anything but a janitor because he's Black," that's racism. I get that part. If I say, "Sen. Obama is getting a lot of support just because he's Black and that will be enough to get substantial numbers of Black votes," why is that racist? Would it also be "racist" if I said that during Reconstruction, many white candidates got votes just because they were white? Opinions about Ferraro on all other aspects notwithstanding, why was her remark racist? Chicken Charlie Aka a puerile Philistine But I still don't get it |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,lox Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:50 AM Because it's a point of view measurable against a variety of other points of view, though it has been presented as a fact. Maybe it's true, but there are a considerable number of other explanations which appear to me more plausible and defensible. Not to mention that when one examines that particular claim in isolation, one findsthat it is even arguable that the revers is true. So of the many possible explanations for Obama's success, is is among the more spurious. So why would somebody advance a spurious explanation at the expense of som many more plausible ones? Because to them it is the most important point of discussion. So to many, the most important aspect of this debate is to whine about the possibility that Black voters are voting for a black candidate, and to deduce from that that having black skin somehow gives Obama an advantage that he wouldn't have if he was White. It is racist to discriminate on grounds of race. So in this discussion, there are those who wish to discriminate on grounds of race and there are others who wish to point out that there are other more substantive and defensible grounds upon which to discriminate. So I definitely see Ferraro's comments as racist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,lox Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:58 AM To clarify the first line of that last post, there are mony possible explanations for Obama's success, all of which are merely opinions based on observation. The explanation attributing Obama's success to his skin colour is by far the weakest I have read, heard or considered, yet there are many who are very quick to give it top priority and indulge it at the expense of other more plausible ideas. When an experienced and intelligant poliician such as ferraro gives it preference over other more realistic points of view, it suggests that her point of view is influenced heavily by racist instincts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 08 - 07:38 AM Washington Post: How Race Divides the Democrats By Robert D. Novak Monday, March 17, 2008; Page A17 Geraldine Ferraro often has seemed puzzled during the nearly 24 years since she was thrust from obscurity as a congresswoman from Queens to become the first woman nominated for vice president of the United States. But her current confusion is palpable because she has been condemned for repeating what she has heard from fellow supporters of Hillary Clinton and for pursuing an apparent major goal of that campaign: to indelibly identify Democratic rival Barack Obama as an African American. "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," Ferraro told the Daily Breeze newspaper of Torrance, Calif., in a telephone interview published March 7, in advance of a paid lecture there. For that she has been reviled as a racist, repudiated by Clinton herself and cashiered from a largely honorary campaign finance post. Ferraro's confusion is manifested by her elaborating rather than disavowing what she said, as if to ask: Isn't this really what Hillary thinks? The Ferraro fiasco provides more evidence that Obama, as the first African American with a real chance to become president, has exposed an ugly racial divide in what was supposed to be a colorblind Democratic Party. The tensions revealed in private conversations are far more alarming than public declarations and could cost Democrats the election. Ferraro's specific remarks were so impolitic that there is no chance they were designed by Clinton's campaign. Nevertheless, they echo what has been heard from the Clinton camp, especially Bill Clinton calling Obama another Jesse Jackson relying on massive support from fellow African Americans. Many Democrats conclude that the Clinton strategy has been to depict Obama as the black candidate once he became a serious challenger. Even in apologizing to a black audience on Thursday, Sen. Clinton linked Obama and Jackson. There certainly was no racial underpinning a year ago, as the inexperienced Obama first displayed enough strength to challenge Clinton's inevitability. A national survey conducted last March 22-27 by Zogby International put Obama 11 percentage points behind Clinton and made him the only threat to her nomination, but not because of a race gap. Among African Americans, Zogby found 30 percent for Clinton and 19 percent for Obama, with 40 percent undecided. The most recent exit poll of actual voting reveals another world. When Obama won last Tuesday in Mississippi, where the number of blacks and whites in the Democratic primary were even, Obama won 92 percent of African Americans and lost whites by 3 to 1. This racial polarization is not a hangover of a Deep South state's segregationist past. A week earlier, when Clinton kept her campaign alive with a decisive win in Ohio, exit polls gave her a 3 to 2 edge there among whites (nearly as high among men as women), while Obama was winning close to 90 percent of blacks. Obama's difficulty with white male voters followed a transformation of the political atmosphere over the previous month. In California's exit polls on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, Obama had 55 percent backing from white men, as Clinton carried the state. Democratic concern on both sides of the racial divide is what will happen after either Obama or Clinton is nominated, with anecdotal evidence and polling data both pointing toward substantial defections to Republican John McCain. The prospect of a happy racial reconciliation that would be started on the national convention's rostrum late in August is dimmed because the bitter battle for the nomination will not end anytime soon. In the worst-nightmare scenario for Democrats, they could be fighting right into Denver. The outcome will depend on which candidate gets the uncommitted superdelegates. Since Clinton cannot win a majority of elected delegates, she must entice the professional politicians who are superdelegates by forging ahead in the popular vote of the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, followed by the likely Michigan and Florida revotes, perhaps in mid-June. In such a prolonged contest, Obama will enjoy overwhelming African American support. The question is whether the Clinton campaign can resist pointing this out in an effort to mobilize white backing. It certainly has not resisted so far, demonstrated by feckless Gerry Ferraro's mimicking what she heard from Bill and Hillary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 17 Mar 08 - 07:51 AM I think Geraldine Ferraro is perfectly capable of thinking for herself, and I don't think she intended her remarks to be racists. It's certainly beneficial for Obama supporters to try to frame them that way, but she was simply trying to state the situation as she saw it. If this same thing would have come up a few years ago, Ferraro would have had no public support, but the concept of being able to shut your opponent up by simple calling him/her a racists is finally falling by the wayside. Personally, I'll be happy to see this ploy gone from the American political scene forever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 08 - 10:35 AM She's quite capable of thinking for herself, yes; but until she learns more diplomacy than a second-string character out of The Sopranos, she should speak for herself only. The abillity to make distinctions and nuanced statements is not her strong suit; if she cannot understand why she sounded like a racist the way she frasmed her remarks, then she's too tone-deaf to speak for others. In any case her statement was clearly speculative and in my opinion a false extrapolation. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:12 AM Bruce, Robert Novak is a traitor and a coward. I am not interested in his opinions and I am careful not to support his position in the media by reading any thing that he writes. Riginslinger, You have made that same point over and over again in this thread. People keep disagreeing with you. And have answered your objections every time you have brought them up. In the hope of simplifying the discussion, i will address your last post point by point. >>I think Geraldine Ferraro is perfectly capable of thinking for herself,<< No one has said that she wasn't by many have questioned her judgement. >>and I don't think she intended her remarks to be racists. << She certainly has been saying that in the press. But her other words seem to indicate that ignorance underlies her actions. She said much the same thing about Jessie Jackson 20 years ago. She is now saying that she is being called racist to attack Hillary and takes no responsibility for her own actions. Obviously there would be no attack on Ferraro had she not attacked Obama. >>>It's certainly beneficial for Obama supporters to try to frame them that way, but she was simply trying to state the situation as she saw it.<<< Obama supporters are not framing it that way. The official word from the Obama campaign is that it was a silly statement. They are NOT accusing Mrs. Ferraro of racism. They are saying that it is foolish to believe that being a black man gives Obama an advantage. Mrs. Ferraro is accusing the Obama campaign of calling her racist. They are not. Is she lying or foolishly paranoid. She seems inclined to see grand sweeping, silly conspiracies. Like all the black people in the country getting together to keep her gal Hillary from being President. >>>If this same thing would have come up a few years ago, Ferraro would have had no public support, but the concept of being able to shut your opponent up by simple calling him/her a racists is finally falling by the wayside. Personally, I'll be happy to see this ploy gone from the American political scene forever.<<< I have to say that the above concerns me. No one in the Obama Campaign has tried to shut Mrs. Ferraro up. They have only reacted with puzzlement and humor. As they should! There have been good people saying that what Mrs. Ferraro has said was racist. Keith Olbermann is a good example. But they are quick to point out her history of service and civil rights credentials. Mrs. Ferraro has recently try to reduce her own run at the vice presidency to an affirmative action plan. She is a pathetic older woman with a few misguided ideas and a chip on her shoulder. Hillary was the one who shut her up because she was hurting Mrs. Clinton's campaign. But Hillary let her rant for a while to pick up some of the redneck talk radio audience in blue collar Pennsylvania. Hillary is playing slash and burn with the Democratic Party base. If she does cheat her way to the nomination. That will bite her in the ass. Also the Clintons are now reminding those who don't like them, why they don't like them by taking pages out of the Karl Rove "play to the base." playbook. What would really be good would be if the press would spend more time on the issues and less time on personal gaffes. Maybe they should send someone to Ireland and have them take a picture of the many monuments that much have been erected to honor Mrs. Clinton's role in the peace process. After that, Kosovo, etc etc. It is a real pity that Mrs. Ferraro debased her own legacy in this way. It is a pity how much Mrs. Clinton is being allowed to puff up her own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:18 AM Sorry about the wrong words above. My Mac sometimes substitutes incorrect words, like "much" for "must", when I make typos and I don't always notice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:38 AM Mine does spell-check in realtime, Jack, highlighting words even in Safari if it doesn't reckernize 'em. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:49 AM Yeah mine does that too. I was using Movie Magic Screen Writer as a word processor. It just guesses at the words and substitutes them. I think though, that I've somehow gotten into the habit of doing the shame think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: KB in Iowa Date: 17 Mar 08 - 01:31 PM From: Riginslinger - PM Date: 16 Mar 08 - 01:40 PM the problems all got started in the Iowa caucuses. With the Democrats, I think it worked like this: you had a covey of up-scale baby-boomer Democrats who thought they could have their concsiences cleansed by supporting a black candidate for president. That way they could all walk around and spend their "factually unearned" money and make the case that they had nothing to feel guilty about. I was there, Rig, were you? You are just flat out wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Guest Date: 17 Mar 08 - 01:53 PM Ferraro's remarks weren't racist, they were stupid. Stupid, because it re-ignites the divisive issue of race in the campaign, when neither candidate needs or wants to go there. Nor were Rev Wright's comments racist or 'anti-American' (whatever that means to different groups of people--I find the neo-cons to be profoundly anti-American, for instance). Yet, we must acknowledge that to a certain American constituency (I've been referring to how his remarks will 'play in Peoria' to represent this constituency), inflammatory and unpatriotic. It is only the Kristols and O'Reillys and Limbaughs, et al who will claim Wright's remarks were racist. And we can expect their opinions to influence some people indirectly, as their remarks ring around the echo chamber, and begin blending with other more reasonable opinions. That is how the echo chamber works. It doesn't matter that the NYT editors fucked it up yet AGAIN by allowing Krisol's editorial to appear unchecked (the one that claims Obama was at his church last July 22nd). What matters in the echo chamber is Kristol's remarks will ricochet, not boomerang. I do think the revelation of the You Tube videos of Wright's sermons is so damning, Obama can't recover by the next primary, especially because he was running behind Clinton in the double digits in enough places in PA, that this is really going to hurt him in that state. NC could be different, depending on black voter turnout there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Mar 08 - 01:59 PM I don't think Clinton would be in the position she is if she were a black man, or a black woman. I don't think her husband would have been either. Does anyone think those aren't true statements? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Guest Date: 17 Mar 08 - 02:07 PM McGrath, it is a straw man argument. Why the hell can't the Democrats get past it? This is how Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Textbook. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,lox Date: 17 Mar 08 - 02:20 PM Rig. I've read back through your posts and I think you are a sincere intelligent person who has the best intentions in mind and has fairness as their goal. I think that on this issue you have simply missed the point. The race issue doesn't benefit Obama as an election tactic. As long as it keeps recurring, attention is deflected from the issue of presidency to the issue of race. Eventually, harping on like this could make people feel jaded, wound up, bored, fatalistic, tired etc etc ... And they'll lose the will to support him. But that's simply the hors d'oevres Here's the main meal! A squabble about race is the last thing Obama wants because if he gets drawn into it and comments critically on the subject of racist tactics, the result will be a war of words about racism from that moment until he crashes out in a hail of headlines about "Black activist candidate" Obama. The people of America don't want to elect a special interest politician, be he environmentalist, pro life/choice, or a "black activist". He doesn't want to be compared to Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, or Jesse Jackson as they are still viewed as the voice of Black people. He doesn't want to be seen as the voice of black people, he wants to be the chosen voice and representative of all American people. He needs White people, Black people, Hispanic people ... etc etc ...to feel that he cares about all their interests equally. He wants White Jo Bloggs to think "Obama is the guy who's gonna make it better for ME" as much as he wants Black Jo Bloggs and Hispanic Jo Bloggs to think the same thing. If he can't sustain that confidence then he will lose. If white jo bloggs sees two candidates, one of whom is fighting a black mans cause and another who is presenting themselves as everymans candidate then he'll vote for the one who has included him in their vision. If he thinks he might even be the target of a black mans anger and sense of injustice because he's white he'll actively vote against the black man as he'll see him as representing interests that may threatening to him. Obama does not wish to engage in a race debate. He would rather not even talk about a race debate - unless you are talking about the presidential race. So far he and his PR team have succesfully presented him as not being a "black activist" but as a caring everymans politician. And by not responding to Clinton and Ferraro as he has, and showing understanding, he's saying to white Jo Bloggs - "I don't blame them (you), I'm not bothered by that kind of inconsequential silliness, we have more important issues to discuss like your welfare and security", which is what white Jo Bloggs wants to hear. He needs everyones trust. So the best way to shoot him down is to keep baiting him and to keep the race issue alive in the media. He's shown he can keep from being drawn into the whole race quagmire. The challenge for him now is to keep peoples attention focussed on his vision of change for all america and not let them get bored or distracted. It's tough and it will take guts and willpower to get there, but if he has them, then it could be the proof of what great presidential material he is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Guest Date: 17 Mar 08 - 03:10 PM I've largely ignored this thread for the very reasons you mention, lox. I also just stated (in response to McGrath) the whole thing is a straw man argument. I also stated the Dems weren't moving beyond the straw man argument when I started the Pres surrogates thread. But it seems that most people participating here want to talk about anyway. I even went so far as to find a recent breakdown of the Democratic primary voting data from exit polls. I posted what I found in my 15 Mar 08 - 11:06 AM post in the Prez surrogates thread, and it begins like this: "AP is running an article on this, which is where my idea of the thread came from: Democrats struggling to transcend divisions on race, the sexes in Obama-Clinton contest By CALVIN WOODWARD , Associated Press WASHINGTON - Something happened to the feel-good, way-cool Democratic presidential contest in the months since a woman and a black man began their path-breaking race for the White House. By the millions, black voters voted for the black candidate and women voted for the woman. White men seemed torn, by the millions." The rest of the article is there to read. I followed that cut and paste post w/a post where I said: "So, what this says to me is Obama is winning nearly all the black vote, Clinton is winning the majority of the white vote, but apparently only white women are keeping Clinton's campaign alive. Which is about what I would expect. The nation is still very racially polarized along black/white lines (but far less so concerning other races, who are voting for both candidates), and only white women seem to hold it together to make a significant voting bloc, as women of color are dividing their votes." That, my friends, is it in a nutshell. So, why keep rehashing the same old shit, ad nauseum? Could the answer be, because that is what posters here truly want to argue about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Guest Date: 17 Mar 08 - 03:12 PM 200! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 08 - 03:17 PM Couldn't agree more, Gigi. THis one is a dead mackerel. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Guest Date: 17 Mar 08 - 03:24 PM Which part of 'I'm done conversing with you' are you not understanding, Amos? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Guest Date: 17 Mar 08 - 03:42 PM And now, the Washington Post is running an article that is titled: "White Male Vote Especially Critical Questions Remain Over Obama's Ability to Appeal to Demographic" Groan. Which means we have now brought ourselves full circle back to the 2000 argument over who can capture the Bubba vote. Thanks, Dems. The nation really needed to go back THERE, just so y'all could purge your racist and sexist guilt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Donuel Date: 17 Mar 08 - 03:48 PM Geraldine is totally wrong in assuming that being black in America is a huge advantage. she would have been more accurate in saying... (of course we must not forget that blacks supposedly got to vote in America long before women got the vote.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Mar 08 - 03:49 PM Guest, Guest I think that you and I have different ideas of what a straw man argument is. I like mine better because I learned it in a logic course from an Engineering professor back in Canada. I have also since looked it up in the dictionary and on websites discussing logic. Ferraro said that Obama wouldn't be where he was if he were white or a woman. She further stated that he was lucky to be where he is. McGrath responded to this when he said. >>>I don't think Clinton would be in the position she is if she were a black man, or a black woman. I don't think her husband would have been either. Does anyone think those aren't true statements?<<< Here's Webster's take on Straw Man. straw man Function: noun Date: 1886 1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted Like saying "I understand that Sen. Obama said that if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq that he would send troops back in militarily. Al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq. It's called al Qaeda in Iraq," McCain said. "It's a remarkable statement to say that you would send troops back to a place where al Qaeda has established a base -- where they have already established a base." Obama was talking about an actual training, logistics or military location which could be attacked rather than a weak cell based organization in which isolated small groups of fanatics strap bombs on the disabled. Mr. McCain stripped what Obama had said from context and altered the definition of "base" to make his quip work better. That is a Straw Man argument. Simply stating an opinion, no matter how silly or irrelevant to the task at hand, as Mrs. Ferraro did, or refuting that opinion in the same style as McGrath did, does not constitute a Straw Man argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Guest Date: 17 Mar 08 - 03:50 PM Correction: before black MEN got to vote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Guest Date: 17 Mar 08 - 03:56 PM Yeah, we differ on the definitions of straw man arguments. I would follow along w/the Wiki defs, not yours. But so what? Don't we all understand the gist of what a straw man argument is, to actually stay on topic, instead of go off topic on these pedantic, nose hair splitting diversions? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:11 PM SOrry, lass, but if you are going to post to a public forum, ya gotta take it on the come as they say in Vegas. I'm not done conversing with you, you see. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:27 PM You implied that McGrath was wrong. He was making a valid argument in the context of the subject at hand. ie "Geraldine Ferraro on Racism" My definition of the phrase is the same as wikipedia.org's here it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man >>>A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2] <<< I really have no idea what your definition is. I actually don't think that you know what a straw man argument is. If the "gist" of it is supposed to be contained in your post of 17 Mar 08 - 03:56 PM. You certainly do not. It was you who went off topic. You dismissed what McGrath said on the basis of a very poor understanding of the words you were using. Call me pedantic if you want, but if you misuse the definition in casual discussion, I say nothing. Now that you are using it to belittle someone else's valid opinion. I feel obligated to share the definition with you. Perhaps you got your definition from people you have argued with who accused you of using the straw man. Perhaps you had been using it. Perhaps you did not understand what they were saying. Perhaps you should have looked it up at the time. Perhaps you could have sent a private message asking Bill D. to explain the usage. He's a good man who knows logic. He could have helped you. Using the phrases and words properly is not just being pedantic. It provides a degree of clarity and precision in the conversation. We need more clarity in political discussion. Not less. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:32 PM "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:41 PM LOL Was Humpty a Republican? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Guest Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:45 PM And in the meantime Jack, while you split hairs over the definition of straw man arguments, Pew Research Center reports: Awareness of Iraq War Fatalities Plummets Political Knowledge Update Released: March 12, 2008 Public awareness of the number of American military fatalities in Iraq has declined sharply since last August. Today, just 28% of adults are able to say that approximately 4,000 Americans have died in the Iraq war. As of March 10, the Department of Defense had confirmed the deaths of 3,974 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. In August 2007, 54% correctly identified the fatality level at that time (about 3,500 deaths). In previous polls going back to the spring of 2004, about half of respondents could correctly estimate the number of U.S. fatalities around the time of the survey. In the current poll, more respondents underestimated than overestimated the number of fatalities. A plurality of 35% said that there have been about 3,000 troop deaths, and another 11% said there have been 2,000 deaths. Just under a quarter (23%) said the number of fatalities is closer to 5,000. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:49 PM BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism Awareness of Iraq War Fatalities Plummets ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:55 PM Guest, Guest You're a real little fallacy factory aren't you. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html Red Herring Alias: Ignoratio Elenchi ("ignorance of refutation", Latin) Irrelevant Thesis Type: Informal Fallacy Etymology: The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. Thus, a "red herring" argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during debates when there is an at least implicit topic, yet it is easy to lose track of it. By extension, it applies to any argument in which the premisses are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Exposition: This is the most general fallacy of irrelevance. Any argument in which the premisses are logically unrelated to the conclusion commits this fallacy. History: This fallacy is often known by the Latin name "Ignoratio Elenchi", which translates as "ignorance of refutation". The ignorance involved is either ignorance of the conclusion to be refuted—even deliberately ignoring it—or ignorance of what constitutes a refutation, so that the attempt misses the mark. This explanation goes back to Aristotle's On Sophistical Refutations, the focus of which is fallacious refutations in debate. As with all of Aristotle's original fallacies, its application has widened to all arguments. Of course, fallacies of ambiguity involve irrelevance, in that the premisses are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, but this fact is disguised by ambiguous language. However, Aristotle classifies Ignoratio Elenchi as language-independent, though he does say: One might, with some violence, bring this fallacy into the group of fallacies dependent on language as well. But this would make Ignoratio Elenchi so wide that just about every fallacy—with the exception of Begging the Question—would be a subfallacy of it. This is too wide to be useful, so I will follow Aristotle in restricting it to non-linguistic fallacies, excluding those disguised by ambiguity or vagueness. Exposure: Logical relevance is itself a vague and ambiguous notion. It is ambiguous in that different types of reasoning involve distinct types of relevance. It is vague in that there is little agreement among logicians about even deductive relevance, with logicians divided into different camps, so-called "relevance" logicians arguing for a more restrictive notion of logical relevance than so-called "classical" logicians. Another ambiguity of the term "relevance" is that logical relevance can be confused with psychological relevance. The fact that two ideas are logically related may be one reason why one makes you think of the other, but there are other reasons, and the stream of consciousness often includes associations between ideas that are not at all logically related. Moreover, not all logical relations are obvious, so that a logical relationship may not cause a psychological relationship at all. Because it is the most general fallacy of irrelevance, most fallacious arguments will be identified as some more specific type of irrelevancy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:56 PM Huh! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Guest Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:58 PM Now, which is the more important issue facing Americans, the war in Iraq, or what dumb ass Ferraro thinks about ANYTHING? You see, THAT is what I'm talking about here. That people here have their heads up their asses arguing over minutiae over the horse race, while ignoring the most important issues of the day. Like the fact that both Cheney and McCain went to Iraq on the 5th anniversary of the war to declare "success" and a continuation of the Bush Doctrine in Iraq. Today, though the press is largely ignorning Clinton, who was back on the campaign trail, selling herself as the only candidate with a concrete plan for getting troops out. From msnbc.com" "On the policy front, the senator's speech was largely a repetition of her previously announced plans for handling Iraq, although she included more details than in most speeches. Clinton said she would have her advisers draw up a plan to begin withdrawing troops within 60 days of taking office. She noted she had co-sponsored legislation to end the practice of using private military contractors in Iraq and had proposed a measure to put an end to no-bid contracts. She said Obama had not ruled out the continuing use of private contractors and noted that she had not been able to get McCain's support on the bill to halt no-bid contracts, even though such deals were ten times more costly than earmarks." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Guest Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:06 PM From Agence-France Presse: Bomb attack kills more than 40 near Iraq Shiite shrine 4 hours ago KARBALA, Iraq (AFP) — A bomb blast near a Shiite shrine in the central Iraq city of Karbala killed at least 43 people on Monday, the city's police chief said. The attack in Karbala came as US Vice President Dick Cheney visited Baghdad on a surprise trip and met several US and Iraqi leaders to discuss improvements in security across the country. Brigadier General Raed Shakir said the attack near the revered Shiite shrine of Imam Hussein was a bomb blast and not a suicide attack by a female bomber as reported earlier. "It was a bomb attack in which 43 people were killed and 73 others wounded," Shakir said at a news conference late Monday. Karbala medical and police officials earlier said a female bomber detonated her explosives-laden near the shrine among a crowd of people. "A bomb exploded in the Al-Muqhaiyam street and we have arrested a suspect. He is not from Karbala and we are investigating the attack," Shakir said. An AFP correspondent at the site said several ambulances and police vehicles ferried victims to hospital following the blast which occurred around 100 metres (yards) from the shrine, located in the centre of the city. The correspondent said the powerful explosion ripped people apart, sending body parts flying. Many bodies were charred. Salim Kadhim, spokesman for the Karbala health directorate, said seven Iranian pilgrims were among those wounded in the blast. Soon after the attack, police in Karbala, 110 kilometres (70 miles) south of Baghdad, imposed an indefinite curfew in the central districts of the city. Insurgents have targeted the Shiite shrine city on a number of occasions in the past five years. On April 28 last year, a suicide car bomb attack near the Imam Abbas shrine, a second revered shrine in Karbala, killed more than 70 people and wounded nearly 160. Two weeks earlier, a similar bomb attack close to the Imam Hussein shrine killed 42 people and wounded scores more. Karbala was also the site of bloody clashes between Shiite militants and police in August that killed more than 50 people dead and injured hundreds. The Mahdi Army militia of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr was blamed for those clashes after which Sadr ordered a freeze on the activities of the militia, which remains in force. Iraq has been rocked by a series of bomb attacks in the past few weeks, including suicide attacks carried out by women. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:11 PM The $ySStem has been doing an absolutely great job for many months now at distracting people with a lot of petty and trivial (and very divisive) stuff to get their minds off the real, vital issue...which is ending this criminal war and American occupation in Iraq. Nice job by the mass media, I must say. They are well in control of the situation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Guest Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:11 PM From the AP wire: The Associated Press March 17, 2008, 1:33PM ET Why Fed helped JPMorgan buy Bear Stearns By ALAN ZIBEL and JEREMY HERRON The federal government's financial assistance in JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s purchase of a crumbling Bear Stearns Cos. raises many questions for investors and the public at large -- not least, whether it amounts to a taxpayer-funded bailout of an investment bank. Here are some basic questions and answers about the $263.2 million acquisition, which was negotiated over the weekend with help from the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department: Q. What exactly is the government contributing? A. To protect JPMorgan from the greatest risks on Bear Stearns' books, the Federal Reserve agreed to guarantee up to $30 billion of Bear's most troubled assets -- primarily mortgage securities that have plummeted in value and have become tough to sell. Q: Why would the Fed do that? A: Experts say the risks of inaction were far greater. With investors backing away from anything linked to the U.S. mortgage market, the Fed aims to prevent the value of those investments from plunging even further, which could cause widespread fallout among big banks. "The problem is that unless the major financial (companies) are kept solvent, the economy will suffer (so much) that everybody's livelihood will be affected," said Peter Walliston, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Q. Does this mean my tax dollars are being used to bail out Wall Street? A. Not exactly. The Fed has vast resources on its own, thanks to its ability to sell Treasury securities that investors consider extremely safe. Still, some fear the mortgage crisis that engulfed Bear Stearns will soon spread to other companies and ultimately test the Fed's resources, especially after the central bank last week said it would lend up to $200 billion in exchange for mortgage investments. Q. Might taxpayers ultimately be on the hook? A. Potentially. The Federal Reserve's actions could augur much broader government action to stabilize the mortgage market. Calls are growing in Congress for government-funded efforts to help borrowers refinance out of troubled loans. Q. Didn't the Bear Stearns CEO say his company was fine on Wednesday? A. Yes. Alan Schwartz said on CNBC that Bear was not having any trouble funding its business. He may have been correct -- at the time. But confidence matters at least as much as reality, and his statement wasn't enough to reassure investors. Q. So what happened between Wednesday and Friday? A. There appears to have been a classic bank run: Jittery clients sought to take their money out of Bear Stearns, but Bear said Friday it did not have enough money on hand to meet all payments. When word of that got out, more clients demanded their money. Q. How could Bear not have enough money? Doesn't it have $33 billion in assets? A. Yes, but those assets are not all "liquid" -- which means they aren't easily convertible to cash that can be paid to investors. Q. What about the Bear Stearns shares I own? A. Bad news: They are worth at least 95 percent less than they were at the start of January. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:15 PM GG, That's better. At least you haven't said anything obviously false or denigrated another's opinion with incorrect definitions. However, your implied argument that folks on this thread care what Ferraro thinks and should move on to more important matters is akin to a straw man and is not going to win you any friends or converts here. I can think of only three reasons why you would come to the Mudcat and argue. 1. Are you arguing to win people over to your way of thinking? If you are you should perhaps take the advice that Amos gave some one on this forum a few days ago and read "How to Win Friends and Influence People." Its a very good book and you can get a good used copy on Amazon for the cost of shipping and handling! 2. If you are simply arguing to show people how smart you are you should go to a website like this one http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ and educate your self so that you do not look so foolish. 3. If you are arguing to look foolish. The situation is well in hand. Carry on! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Guest Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:24 PM Sez the character assassination men marching in lockstep here in Mudcat. And considering your vast knowledge of formal rhetoric Jack, what do we call that tired old tactic? Oh yeah, the ad hominem. A tactic a handful of you Mudcat men are prone to use every time someone points out you have yer heads up yer behinds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:28 PM True enough, stopping the war is the priority. But it won't happen until after this presidential election, and only if the results of the election make it impossible to continue with it. McCain winning will mean it carries on into the uncertain future - maybe a couple of years while he does a De Gaulle act and pulls out while pretending it's a victory, in the run-up to the next election in 2012. More likely until he's been defeated in that election, or maybe carries on until 2016. The indications seem to be that the most likely person to beat him is Obama rather than Clinton, and on the basis of promises and actions to date he also sounds more likely to end the war than Clinton does. And that's why relative trivialities like the topic of this thread actually do have more significance than they deserve. Not that using a long spoon to stir up the latent racism of a section of the public is a trivial thing in itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,lox Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:28 PM But GUESTguest, Ferrero didn't make a demographic observation like the washington post did, she made a judgement about the reason for Obama's success. Those are two distinct and seperate alternatives. One is just a bunch of statistics, the other is the topic of this thread. I also have drawn a clear conclusion which is that Ferrero's comments were unacceptable. So that's that horse flogged until someone gives me a challenging contrary view to chew over. Onto a new subject - You assert that wish to discuss race and gender issues in any meaningful way is a by product of guilt. I feel no guilt. You are the one talking about guilt. I am able to talk about all this stuff till the cows come home openly, honestly an reflectively without feeling one iota of guilt. I am a white man with blue eyes and rosy cheeks and I have pride and self respect in who I am, how I look and what I think and feel. In fact I think I'm pretty good looking too and I like it. I'm watching America take the first step out of the primordial ooze to lead the way for the rest of the west, in the process putting the mistakes of the last 8 years behind her in a resounding way, by judging a man by the content of his character and not by the colour of his skin and maybe even giving him the presidency. By running for president, without saying a word, Obama has created a national debate about race that has been taboo for too long. That is a good and healthy by product and it also serves as an indicator of America's maturity on the matter of race relations. On this thread, it has been a mature and enlightening process. An I hope it is as obvious to you as it is to me that the debate is a national one. It does not exist only in the minds of Democrats. That is a party political assertion and completely lacks any substantive usefulness. You seeem to suggest that the republicans have been sensible because they have had the good sense to field a white male rather than rake up all that uncomfortable guilt provoking stuff. Do you really think that guilt is the motivation for the democrats fielding a black man or a white woman? Why can't a black man or a white woman run for president? Perhaps they are there because on those grounds there is simply no reason why they shouldn't be. Why does there need to be some motivation other than seeking the best candidate to explain their candidacy? It's like suggesting that Newton only developed his theories of Gravity and motion because he felt guilty about eating the apple. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Guest Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:32 PM lox, if you want gender and race to be the main issues of this campaign, keep it up. Personally, I think both Obama and Clinton suck. I wanted Edwards. The most important issues to me in this election year have NOTHING to do with race or gender. NOTHING! As I stated earlier, this is EXACTLY how out of touch the Democrats are, pushing this race/gender issue to the forefront in an election year that should have been a cakewalk for them. As I've said so many times before, you will all get the government you deserve come November. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:39 PM Jack, there is a simpler and more obvious reason for why people come to the Mudcat and argue. They simply have a natural human desire to express themselves. That's why people talk to other people. It's simply a way of declaring who they are. Everyone wants to express who they are. They are filled with unexpressed thoughts, emotions, frustrations, hopes, fears, desires, concerns, memories, dreams, questions...and they wish to unburden themselves by expressing all of those...and that's why they talk. Like a pot, they need to let off some steam now and then or they feel they might explode. It's also the main reason why most dogs bark! ;-) The need to say, "This is ME, and this is what I have to say!" Unfortunately, one person's way of expressing who he is tends to cause fear in another person if their respective ways of being who they are seem to conflict. Fear arises. Reaction arises. Reaction turns into attack and counterattack. People start arguing over their differences, and the situation deteriorates. The only thing that can prevent such a rapid deterioration of relations is a very strong committment on both sides to show mutual respect...despite the differences. Agreed? (I hope so...) That's really all there is to it. Politicians talk to get elected. The rest of us talk simply because we want to express who we ARE and we want to be understood. (And at the base of it, at the very core of our hearts...we hope we might be respected and loved for who and what we are.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Guest Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:40 PM And lox, I determined that Ferraro's comments were idiotic over 200 posts ago. So, WTF? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:54 PM Ah, there's the real rub. She disposed of the issue so completely, if we had not had our heads up our asses, it would have been completely dealt with for all of us and we would have had nothing more to say on it, in deference to her clear, incisive, complete analysis. But, since we did have our heads up our asses, as evidenced by her observation that this was, indeed, so, we did not see the brilliance of her Gordian knot disposition, and continued to chatter like the foolish men we are. I get it now. Thanks for setting so many of us straight with a single blow. I am sure your husband is very happy with you... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:57 PM As I just said... Politicians talk to get elected. The rest of us talk simply because we want to express who we ARE and we want to be understood. (And at the base of it, at the very core of our hearts...we hope we might be respected and loved for who and what we are.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:05 PM And the Mudcat provides an opportunity to discuss with people who see things very differently, and to develop arguments and explore them, in a way that very rarely happens in a sustained way in the 3-D world. Most of the time most people keep level-headed, much of the time they even keep to the point - and even if tempers flare no blood is shed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,lox Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:06 PM Ok, I don't want this election to be about race and gender either. However I am realistic enough to acknowledge that one by-product of the circumstances of this election is a national - indeed global - discussion about racism and sexism in America and how America will respond to the challenge of having a black male and a white female running as presidential candidates. I am also realistic about the fact that the race issue will continue to dog Obama throughout this campaign and (if he is ultimately elected) throughout his presidency. And this is because I am realistic enough to know that race remains a deeply sensitive issue in the US. So how do we cope with it when it comes up? Shouting and telling people to change the subject won't do anything other than make people stop listening to me. Engaging with people and helping to break down emotive and complex ideas into understandable fundamentals so they can be more usefully discussed is always productive in my view. Remember, in order to realise that we have to move on from the race issue in the context of the presidential race, we had to arrive at that conclusion via a discussion. You are clearly happy to move on now, but I know that that discussion will end only when people like ferraro stop uttering the shite they do. Till then, I am always ready to clarify the truth of these matters as I understand it. (I am also aware, for the record, that people don't generally like to be bullied into anything. So if I see any discussion on any subject that I feel I have something positive to contribute to I will contribute.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:10 PM GG >> Sez the character assassination men marching in lockstep here in Mudcat. And considering your vast knowledge of formal rhetoric Jack, what do we call that tired old tactic? Oh yeah, the ad hominem. A tactic a handful of you Mudcat men are prone to use every time someone points out you have yer heads up yer behinds.<<< In my opinion, the above does not further your stated goal to elevate the discussion to important issues. There is some wisdom in what Little Hawk has said, and the above post does appear to be fearful barking. I have two points to make, 1. This is the Geraldine Ferraro on Racism thread. If you want to talk about something else, you should go to or start another thread. 2. It is probably best that you don't insult people's opinions in a discussion. But if you do, you ought to have your ducks in a row and your definitions correct. McGrath was making a valid point and you tried to dismiss it with an invalid argument. Though I was snarky, I was trying to give you good advice. If the causes you are speaking of really mean what you say they do. You will calm down, be more agreeable and stop using words that you clearly do not understand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Guest Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:12 PM Here is my Mudcat philosophy lox. After 100 posts on any subject, posters are generating heat w/no light. This thread is no exception. If you want to continue to argue over the minutuae of the horse race surrogates of the week, while the US economy collapses and the Iraq war blows up in our faces again, more power to your elbow. But some of us are actually more concerned with issues facing us in the real world, not who is winning the war of insults and ad hominem attacks at Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:19 PM >>>Politicians talk to get elected. The rest of us talk simply because we want to express who we ARE and we want to be understood. (And at the base of it, at the very core of our hearts...we hope we might be respected and loved for who and what we are.)<<< Hawk, That may be you, It ain't me. Not on the Mudcat at least. I am much more in line with McGrath's opinion, that it is for the intellectual stimulus and exchange of ideas and all that. That's why I was trying to help GG with her logical fallacies. Her off topic belligerence was ruining my fun. She seems to be passionate and she seems to give the issues a lot of thought. It would be a good thing if she learned to express herself better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,lox Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:23 PM Mudcat is a microcosm of the wider scope of debate and points of view. If you want your issues dealt with you need to have the right president. If you think (of the available candidates) that that person is either Obama or Clinton, then you need to face up to the reality that their campaigns are going to be dogged by race/gender issues. How do you deal with those issues when they come up? By telling people that they're idiots and need to do things your way? You'll lose support faster than you can type. If you want Obama or clinton you need to develop a comprehensive view of the race/gender issues in relation to this election. If you want McCain to win, just tell everyone that Obama plays the race card, regardless of whether he has or hasn't. If you wish to combat this strategy, you need to be prepared. Mudcat is a good place to fine hone ones aguments slowly, so that when the occasion arises issues can be dealt with concisely, thoroughly and effectively. This kind of thread, when it is indulged with earnest sincerity is in my view of limitless value. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,lox Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:28 PM I would like to add that I attribute equal value to all the posts here as the conversation would be decidedly uninteresting and unchallenging without ALL it's constituent parts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:28 PM >>>But some of us are actually more concerned with issues facing us in the real world, not who is winning the war of insults and ad hominem attacks at Mudcat.<<< If you are concerned about those real things you ought to go out in the real world and do something about them. You should not be here with us Mudcat men who have our heads up our behinds. I say this in all seriousness. We are going to continue to do what we do. In your opinion, we are just going to come here and discuss our "minutuae" about the horse race. If you want to do more than that. You really ought to go do it. If you cannot think of what to do, why don't you write to a man you trust, Mr. Edwards. I'm sure he can have some one steer you in the right direction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:35 PM http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/03/opinion/main3669991.shtml |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:39 PM Dang. Posted THAT to the wrong thread. Toooooo much aluminium. Sorry guys and gals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Mar 08 - 07:23 PM Are we in it "for the intellectual stimulus and exchange of ideas and all that"? Well, yes, sure, Jack. I'm in it for that too. But take any particular human being, then take a look at their intellectual notions and their ideas....and those ideas ARE a very important and intrinsic part of their conscious (and subconscious) identity. A person is as he or she thinks. People defend their identity (their thoughts about themselves and the world) with utter tenacity, just as they would fight for their physical life if it was threatened...or for their children. The same survival instincts apply. We're all interested in ideas and intellectual concepts. We're all loyal to certain ideas and intellectual concepts, and we defend them. If, however, in the process of defending our ideas, we start to hate and despise the people whose ideas we are defending our ideas against...well, then, we've fallen into a dangerous and ugly state of mind, and that carries a heavy personal price. I can vouch for that. It's like adding one more set of scars to the psyche. I look at this presidential election unfolding across a nation month by month in all its divisiveness, game-playing, and folly, and I see how people are turning upon one another because of it, and it's a sad thing to see. Election campaigns ought better to be limited to quite a short period of time (as to 6 weeks in Canada). Less damage is done to the society in that case. American campaigns last way too long, they cost far too much money, and they often do psychological damage to the nation that simply cannot be undone by the administration that follows them...assuming there's any real will to undo the damage. (Sometimes there is not.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Mar 08 - 07:58 PM Politics can unite! Go to the cbc website www.cbc.ca and click on "Newfoundland and Pakistan" " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,Guest Date: 17 Mar 08 - 08:34 PM Bingo, Little Hawk. You can't, on the one hand, talk about being a uniter, while simultaneously committing actions that are clearly hateful, bitter, and divisive. People here are stuck in rehash mode, and it benefits no one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,lox Date: 17 Mar 08 - 09:20 PM Sorry GUESTguest, you had my interest till then. You've taken little hawks line of thinking and, like a square peg through a round hole, tried to fit it into your perspective. I hadn't encountered a definition of a straw man argument before I read it in this thread. Thank you for providing such a clear example. Even though in this case you have distorted somebody elses line of thinking to make it seem that they support your view rather than to denigrate them, still it has been in an attempt to add weight to your point of view. The only thing I see rehashed here is your vague, shallow and transient perspective By this point it is clear that you are not paying any attention to how people are responding to you. I am glad to see that you clearly like it up here in our collective mudcat ass despite being so scathing of us for being here. So you must either be starting to understand its appeal or you are a hypocrite. Neither? oh well - I guess I won't be seeing you then xx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Ron Davies Date: 17 Mar 08 - 09:48 PM I hope, LH, looking down on us poor mortals from your ivory tower, that you will eventually realize, in the midst of your cliche pop psychology, that this election--even the primary season-- is actually not only significant, but poses a clear choice. One candidate believes in scorched earth--the Goetterdaemmerung approach to politics, as it were. In case you are wondering, that candidate is Hillary. And the other is in fact trying to unite both the Democrats and the US. And if you do realize this, that you would acknowledge it. Sooner rather than later. Admittedly you are not a US voter, but I assure you the election is neither a war game nor a video game--neither a war nor a game--which it sometimes appears you think it is. And the vast majority of the commentators on Mudcat realize this. If you are using it just as a vehicle of intellectual dominance--or just to kill time-- you are in the distinct minority. The irony is that the policy positions of the two candidates are remarkably similar. But the attitudes of the two are worlds apart. Your analysis sometimes veers dangerously close to moral relativism--for which the Left is constantly pilloried by WSJ editorialists, etc. Don't tell me they have a point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Mar 08 - 10:04 PM Try not to get so mired in your nasty sarcastic personal attacks, Ron, that like a prehistoric beast you finally perish in the ugly tarpit of your own choosing. You continually act like a jerk toward other people on the political threads...if they don't agree with your every opinion. Fuck you and your endless illwill toward any others whom you imagine don't agree with you about some point or another. Go to hell. I've already told you any number of times that I DO consider this a very important election, and I WOULD definitely vote in it if I could, and there are candidates that I have strongly supported in it, and it is not meaningless to me at all. I disagree with the divisive and sleazy way it's being done. That does not mean I dismiss it as meanignless nor that I am espousing moral relativism. I fully agree about Obama's and Hillary's attitudes being world apart...just as you say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Mar 08 - 10:09 PM And don't bother getting all snide and snooty now about the fact that I stooped to using a BAD word to you, Ron! Oh, my. I do not have limitless patience. I can finally get totally fed up just like anyone can, if I am pestered long enough by someone who cannot get past his own personal need to attack people in a completely waspish manner. And over politics, for heaven's sake! How silly it will all seem looking back at some later date. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 08 - 10:28 PM Yayyyy!!! Little Hawk expressed his TRUE FEELINGS!!! Welcome to the human race, dude!! Groovy!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Peace Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:12 PM As long as everyone's having a good time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:37 PM Sounds like the truth to me, McGrath. In fact, the only radical change would be if a Black woman were elected President. Choosing between a White woman and a Black man poses a real dilemma for a large number of the voting population. "Dianavan, I would suggest considering the possibility that your characterization is a function of personal bias." You're wrong, Amos. At this point, I would probably be biased in Obama's favour. What personal bias are you talking about? You, however, have become a zealot, unable to listen to reason. Let me explain to you again, in terms you might be able to understand although I know you don't want anyone to 'rain on your parade'. Most of us here at Mudcat do not follow the pattern, but the majority of the world does. Who has more power a White man or White woman? Who has more power a Black man or Black woman? Men, regardless of colour, have more power than women. Just for clarification, 'power' in this context is socio-economic. This is not bias, it is theory. If this theory holds true, Obama will be the democratic nominee. If he runs against a White man, the White man is at a definite advantage and even if it is a scoundrel like McCain, the Republicans will probably win the Presidency. My comments are far more objective than yours. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:38 PM Sorry, the last post was mine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:43 PM In most of the black couples I have known, the woman has more actual power. But ya know, this is a slicing and dicing of opinion, and yours is as good or better than mine. I am not a zealot, although I am enthusiastic about Obama. I just don't think our political life should be so voraciously crosshatched into competing subsections. These categories of existence and our ironclad identification with them are a bog part of the problems we face. Starting or continuing them is, to my mind, not only a waste of time, it hampers the common good. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,lox Date: 18 Mar 08 - 05:25 AM "In most of the black couples I have known, the woman has more actual power." Amos, I don't believe you really want to go down that road. My guess is that that was a hastily typed remark. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Mar 08 - 08:08 AM KB - I tried to post a link to this article about the Iowa Caucuses yesterday, but it didn't seem to survive. It's from "The Nation," (I know, I know) from January third. Here are a couple of clips. The main way in which the caucus is elitist is the amount and time and effort it requires of voters. Participants can not simply show up and vote. They must spend at least an hour and often several hours sitting through a meeting before finally declaring their support for a candidate. Another way in which the caucus is elitist is that the caucus is a night-time-only affair. Unlike primaries, when voters can cast their ballots from dawn to dusk, the Iowa caucus occurs only in the evening. So long young mothers and second-shifters. The consequences of these rules and structure are substantial. In terms of demographics, the Democratic Party's Iowa caucus in effect marginalizes working class and less educated voters. Four years ago, almost three-fifths of caucus-goers (58 percent) had earned a four-year college degree or more. That might not sound like a high figure, but comparatively speaking it is. In the general election, only two-fifths (42 percent) of all voters had done so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Mar 08 - 08:10 AM Actually, the quote is from "The National Review." Sorry about that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: KB in Iowa Date: 18 Mar 08 - 03:13 PM Quite right, Rig. Very much in line with what we had discussed earlier. I am not a big fan of the caucus system but there it is so that is what I do. My comment the other day (sorry if I was a bit snippy) was in regards to your assertion (made a couple of times now) that guilt is what drove the white voters of Iowa to back Obama. Everyone I have talked to who either did or did not back Obama had reasons for doing so that did not include guilt. I don't see how baking Obama at the caucus will help give back to the black community any of what this country has taken oveer the past 400 years (more or less). I backed him because I thought he embodied the best combination of policy ideas and personal ability. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: KB in Iowa Date: 18 Mar 08 - 03:15 PM Not 'baking Obama' of course, backing Obama. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Mar 08 - 04:41 PM KB - I replied to this earlier, but wasn't logged in so it went away. In any event, I'm sorry for being repetitive. I'm not used to writing things that can't be edited. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 18 Mar 08 - 05:49 PM Actually, Amos, in most couples I have known, the woman has more actual power. Doesn't matter what colour you are but we are not talking about the home or, more specifically, the bedroom. We are talking about socio-economic power, as it exists today. If it is true, Obama will be the Democratic contender but its McCain who will win. I hope that the theory does not hold true and that Obama does become the president but if you look at the election theoretically, we will end up with a Republican once again. The Democrats have tried to present a choice by giving us two minority candidates. I say, its about time but that doesn't mean the majority of Americans will agree with me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: KB in Iowa Date: 18 Mar 08 - 05:51 PM I saw it Rig. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Donuel Date: 18 Mar 08 - 06:04 PM So I detect some sort of argument that people have rubbed Amos the wrong way and vice versa. Get over it. Hormones, headaches and backaches creep into the printed word and eventually pass. There is plenty of room for great Intellects, Chroniclers, Oracles, Scientists as well as the masters of polemic religiousity. and I'm not sayin whos who. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Mar 08 - 01:32 AM This Election is going to be like the last few. Voted on party lines with red states, blues states and a few purple ones that decide it. The only difference being that there will be, because of the wae and the economy, more red states turning purple, especially if Obama is the Nominee. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: Amos Date: 19 Mar 08 - 01:38 AM My 17 Mar 08 - 11:43 PM post said something important. And it was not about couples and female power. It was about noticing what it is that drives into battling enclaves of mutual carping and criticism. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 19 Mar 08 - 09:37 PM I think thats easy, Amos. We all have a voice and we all want to be heard. |
