I have been active for about fifty years. When the primaries started I resolved to stay out of them -- the candidates who I liked and spoke to the interests of Mexican Americans did not have a chance -- so why participate in the charade? I found Obama to be too moderate; I remembered that Bill Clinton -- on whose record Hillary is running on -- built the first wall between Mexico and the US, passed a horrendous welfare law, was himself ready to privatize social security, was a hawk, and chummed around with lobbyist and the ruling elite. I did not hate Clintons -- I just did not think that they represented the poor. This perception was reinforced by the fact that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Solomon Amendment) and other laws that facilitated the recruitment of Latino high school students were passed on Clinton's watch. He was no Harry S. Truman who vetoed similar acts. Well, I have now decided to vote for Obama, not because he is black, but because of Bill Clinton's race baiting in South Carolina and because Hillary's surrogates have pushed me over the line. The blatant use of the race card has set back the progressive movement, given opportunism a bad name ,and opened wounds that will not be fixed with "I am sorry!".-- ensuring the election of a militarist. As a kid we would chant, sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me. Well, we were wrong -- hurtful words never heal. Moreover, I find the demeanor of Geraldine Ferraro especially offensive. She is not an impetuous teenager. She is a rich white woman who speaks with the air of a colonial privilege.

Only sheeple would fall for Ferraro's stunt. It's a good idea to take a serious look at how and why Clinton has gone negative. She has been losing the run for the nomination and using her attack dogs to make negative comments to get votes. Her campaign strategist brought race into the fore NOT OBAMA!

I have been active for about fifty years. When the primaries started I resolved to stay out of them -- the candidates who I liked and spoke to the interest of Mexican Americans did not have a chance -- so why participate in the charade. I found Obama to be too moderate and I remembered that Bill Clinton -- on whose record Hillary is running on -- built the first wall between Mexico and the US, passed a horendous welfare law, was himself ready to privatize social security, was a hawk and chummed around with lobbyist and the ruling elite. I did not hate Clintons -- I just did not think that they represented the poor. This perception was reinforced by the fact that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 and other laws to facilitate the recruitment of Latinos was passed on Clinton's watch. He was no Harry S. Truman who vetoed similar acts. Well, I have now decided to vote for Obama, not because he is black but because Bill Clinton in South Carolina and hillary surrogates have pushed me. The blatant use of the race card has set back the progressive movement and given opportunism a bad name.-- ensuring the election of a militarist. As a kid we would chant, sticks and rocks will break my bones but names will never hurt me. Well, we were wrong -- hurtful words never heal.

Well, we have a most interesting comment by Geraldine, who not so surprisingly found Newt agreeing with her. Politics does make strange bed fellows.

Geraldine either must be a Clinton Attack Dog or extremely naive when it comes to sociology. The odds would have Obama in jail not the leading democratic candidate. That is where most black men from single family homes end up. To think, we have before us a man who has overcome his race is more remarkable than any slight a bitter pol may conjure.

Let's get real: Hilary, if she was another white woman with a philandering husband, would be facing foreclosure. Her position is as much tied to her circumstances as anything else. The irony of this spurious attack is that it is a veiled racist rant. Isn't that what all the bigots say and have said after affirmative action? Yes, Clinton will do anything to be President, even endorse McCain over Obama. So much for principles.

It seems the real fight in this election is the fight of the people against the pols, who will say and do anything to hold their lofty positions where they garner the benefits of a corrupt political system that favors the white, the rich, the connected, and unscrupulous.

Correction. I accused Oprah of having $1.2 BILLION dollars. She actually has $2.5 billion.

Hey Oprah, give some to me. I'm brilliant too. Just like Obama, but white.

I guess the Affirmative Action lobby gets upset when you say that maybe, just maybe, it is not so HORRIBLE to be a black person in America. Like maybe not every black person in America was raised as the son of a share-cropper in Alabama and ate dirt for breakfast.

There are probably MILLIONS of WHITES who have lived a HARSHER life than Barack Obama. All those trailer trash crackers who never get nowhere.

Barack got to go to Harvard and Harvard Law, and now he has had to suffer through the travails of being a slumlord lawyer, a state senator, a senator and a Presidential candidate. Poor oppressed black dude.

Affirmative Action, Incorporated wants everyone to believe that every single black person is oh-so-oppressed, and oh-so-poor, otherwise the Affirmative Action GOLDMINE might dry up. Wouldn't THAT be too bad for the Civil Rights LOBBY, eh?

And Obama's mentor Uncle Reverend Wright, like many other BLACK RACIST ministers, likes to rant and rave and scream about all those "rich white m-fers" who are to blame for all of the problems of the poor blameless blacks.

And conveniently does not include Oprah, with her $1.2 BILLION, or any number of other lesser black MULTI-MILLIONAIRES. No, we wouldn't want to dampen Rev Wright's RANT by mentioning that there are plenty of BLACKS around who are filthy rich.

And guess what? When BLACKS get filthy rich, they don't act very much different than WHITES who get filthy rich. Have you noticed that? Some are charitable, like Oprah, but some are not. Just like rich white m-fers.

Personally, I think that it is time to PHASE OUT Affirmative Action and all that other RACE-BASED CRAP.

Farraro has always been a Bigot. This is nothing new. She has said things in the past about people of color. So lets move on. Yes, we have Liberal Bigots too.

Lets look at some numbers.
The states with high populations of black voters (Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, and South Carolina)
Lets assume ALL the voters that voted for Obama were all black people (it's not of coarse but just assume to simplify things) This totals 1,475,586 votes for Obama. Lets assume 50% of these voters voted strictly on the idea of voting for a black man and had nothing to do with him being an inspirational candidate (737,793 voters). Now lets assume only 5% of the voters that voted for Hillery were voting for her because they were voting against a black man (which if Obama wasn't black he would have picked up these votes). Clinton had 763,627 votes in these states so 5% of that would be 38,181. Subtract that from our black inspired votes and we have 699,612 votes Obama got because he was black. He currently leads in the popular vote by 703,000 votes. Which means he still would be beating Hillery. Ferraro's comments were not facts as she says. They were the racial speculation of a Clinton supporter that some how felt these comments were necessary to say.

My numbers are based on realclearp­olitics.co­m and my assumptions suggest 737,793 black people were racially motivated as apposed to only 38,181white votes were racially motivated.

I have tried posting this opinion before before, but it must be too anti-Obama to make these threads. Geraldine Ferraro was merely stating the obvious. There is no racisim in her comment. Obama would definitely be where he is today if he were a white man or woman running for the Democratic nomination. Just check out the number of blacks who have voted for him, from both parties and independents; 90% in Mississippi!! This has become a race in which both sexist AND racist points of view are expressed. Obama coming back at Ferraro assured that race baiting would be pointed at her and at the Clinton campaign. If race or ethnicity can no longer be discussed in our country for fear of drawing charges of racism, we have put our freedom of speech..., and our brains, in a can, not to opened EVER!

The only reason she was on a national ticket was because she was a woman. Dueling victims.... I love it.

Ferraro is an idiot. When you are running a political campaign, it's hard to exclude all the idiots, especially those who are prominent in some way. I don't believe Hillary seeded Ferraro's comments. Ferraro just shoots off her mouth, and the emptiness in her skull cavity becomes evident. Ferraro should go back to her richly deserved obscurity. She can continue to believe she is something special if she wants to. She isn't.

people were not so tactless when her husband was the focus of how he did business when she ran for VP with Walter Mondale. sfc

Well one good thing is coming out of all the recent mis steps,it brings memories of what the 8 years they were in WH was like. More dirty laundry than a laundry in the commercial world. Does America need this pain along with current problems?As for HC and experience well looking at the pres.mail and kibbitzing is not impressive to most Americans sfc

I'm surprised that Clinton supporters are not ashamed at the way their candidate has conducted her campaign. She makes me feel really lousy about politics in this country - and the future. Clinton is encouraging racism -- and division. That should be clear -- even to her most die-hard supporters.

I tend to agree with Al Sharpton. The more the Clintons' present this campaign as us versus them (white versus black) the better they will do with white voters and thus can argue the case that Obama has a 'white male' problem. This will be especially true in Pennsylvania. It accounted for votes in Ohio primarily among lower income and less educated whites who tend to be more threatened by the potential of having a black president. If you read some of the comments by voters they worried that Obama would be a president for the blacks only and the whites would get nothing from his administration. What the Clintons fail to mention is that in Wisconsin where the white voters were more affluent and better educated they had no problem with Obama. Will the democrats really buy the argument Clinton is making that Obama is in a downward spiral when in reality the results of each state have more to do with the profile of the population in that specific state? While the northeast votes so strongly democratic, there are many blue collar racists among its members.