WTF Geraldine?

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." -- Geraldine Ferraro

I woke up this morning, read the above quote and wanted to kill myself.

(I have a friend whose mother and brother did commit suicide and even he says things like "The weather is so bad today I want to kill myself." So what I mean is, I didn't want to die die, but I did want to die.)

WTF?

I had to think for a minute what Ferraro was trying to say and why she was saying it. I mean aren't there a million other "good" things she could say about Hillary or other negative things she could come up with against Barack to support her candidate. I couldn't even understand her point really. What was she trying to say exactly?

Did she mean that Barack is lucky to be black at this point in our nation's history because on the whole we Americans feel so guilty about our despicable treatment of African Americans that we will vote for Barack to make ourselves feel better? That the guilt we feel over denying women equality is nowhere near as strong as the guilt we feel over slavery and segregation?

She couldn't have been saying that, could she?

Perhaps she was trying to say that obviously so much of the world is disgusted by us Americans for so many reasons and that the general consensus is that "the white man is to blame" so we'll vote for Barack because we're so desperate to make a bold statement to the rest of the world?

Or maybe she's saying something entirely different. I hope so. But what? You tell me. Is it possible to spin what she said in a positive light? Or in a less offensive light to both Barack and those that support him?

I'd love a woman for vice president and president. Just not her and her friend Hillary. And speaking of Hillary...

As of late, I can no longer listen to her voice -- and I gave $500 to her campaign way back when. If I hear her carry on about her foreign policy experience one more time, I may kill myself. It's like she realized going the George Bush route of saying something totally untrue hundreds of times so we believe it is the way to go.

Doesn't she realize that that is one of major reasons Barack is ahead? That we're sick of that bullshit?

Enough already ladies. I don't want to want to kill myself anymore because I'd love to see a woman I can respect lead this nation.

Comments

[brenner21]

You won't see it until a woman politician who doesn't copy the Old Boys becomes successful

[flatus]

The racial bias demonstrated by large numbers of blacks voting for Obama serves as a sad indicator that birds of a feather do indeed flock together. Unwelcome news for the cumbaya crowd.

[Nommo]

What about large number of whites voting for Clinton or any other white politician in the history of the United States? What about the fact that you have never had to think about voting for a Black man likely ever in your existence and now the prospect is turning you into a complete idiot? Here is a suggestion for you. Vote for whatever white person you want to but don't waste your vote on Barack Obama. You can go to bed with a clear conscience and never again think even the tiniest thought about any Black people whatsoever until this nation convenes for the next war of aggression against some people of color somewhere in the world.

[greenwitch]

Perhaps flatus' nick is supposed to tell you that he's full of hot air.

[flatus]

Did the words, "sad indicator" not mean anything to you or were you just hot for an anti racist rant?

Click 'see profile' for more Flatus' pearls of wisdom.

[Stockholm]

Seems like the democrats are about to fall apart. Good news för McCain!

To say Obama is fortunate to be black is a bit silly, but it's unlikely he would be considered to be so inspirational if he had been white with the same cv, policies and speeches. After all, he's just another politician who wants to be elected. If you forget that you will be learn that lesson if and when he's the next president.

[santafenm]

Get off your high horse and look at the cold hard facts.

Yes, Senator is inspirational. No, he's not where he is just because he is African-American. That's too simple a choice in this complex world.

Nevertheless, I find it interesting that the MSM find it perfectly acceptable for blacks to vote 7:1 for Obama, but god forbid a woman votes for Clinton because she's inspirational. Then the old canard of the best qualified is played. How dare you vote for her just because of her gender! Such specious reasoning! Misogyny rears it's ugly head once again.

And isn't it interesting that it was perfectly OK for blacks to vote for Senator Obama overwhelmingly - but once we saw whites breaking 5:1 for Clinton, it became a race issue.

[Shannon2008]

It was only a race issue to those such as Ferrarro who brought up the ratios of blacks or white voting for the candidate of their race. The majority of campaign staffers have been obsessed with the issues. The past week the Obama campaign has been defending his ability to be commander and chief as well as asserting that he has integrity, common sense and judgement. Only a bigot would find it necessary to explain that a political loss is solely the result of racial bias. I don't think that a majority blacks would vote for Alan Keyes, J C Watts, or Colin Powell for that matter. Ms. Ferrarro should have understood that a majority of blacks felt the same way that a majority of whites in Iowa felt: Ms. Clinton is not the most qualified candidate for President or perhaps she would not be the best candidate to advance their issues. If Mrs. Clinton were talking as strongly about the inequality in the justice system, or the desparity between the educational experiences of blacks and whites in this country, maybe she would have done better than 10%. In the end, for all people regardless of race, the election of a president is always about the issues.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

Did Ferraro step down on her own or did Senator Clinton ask her to? After Samantha Power's comment, Obama showed leadership and said there was no place for that in his campaign. Senator Clinton let the story ride while giving tepid responses.

Ferraro is showing a strange persecution complex. "They're attacking me because I'm white." "They're attacking me to hurt you [Hillary]." She accuses the Obama campaign of making this an issue.

And through it all Ferraro forgets that comments like the one she made are a) stupid, and b) offensive to *most* Americans-- not only the Obama campaign, not only blacks.

What we don't know is whether all this was calculated to get votes in the "Alabama" section of Pennsylvania between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

The Clinton campaign needs to be less Philadelphia, Mississippi and more Philly, PA.

[realistxxx]

Oh, we know this was calculated to get votes. Afirmative action is the 3rd rail of politics... even though it likely helps more women than African Americans... just look at the economic statistics.

[samboo]

Amen sister.

[oncesung]

Did you see that Ferraro used the exact same line against Jesse Jackson 20 years ago, back in 1988? It's kind of like the HillBilly play in South Carolina...let's bring out the old Jesse Jackson scripts and read them. The public won't know the difference, one black man is the same as any other.

[PioneerKing]

YOU KNOW WTF - it's bigotry and it meant to stir up resentment in future primaries.
Geraldine Ferraro was dealing from the bottom of the deck and this wasn't the first time for her to express such racially tinged sentiments.
"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," she said this about Rev. Jackson during his 1988 run for president. April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz),

What's worse was Sen. Clinton's response.

[PeterLoffredo]

One of the beautiful things about about the psychological life of human beings is that there is no ultimate end run around your unworked-on disorders. In the final analysis, there is no mask you can wear, no deeds you can do (or purport to have done), no medication you can take that will deter your pathology from finally rearing itself in a most inconvenient moment and exposing you to the bright light of scrutiny. Hillary Clinton, like so many others in politics these days, is driven by ego, ambition and a sense of entitlement that derives from a rampant narcissistic disorder, and just as her putative husband could not prevent his impulse disorder and sexual addiction from exposing him to public humiliation, she cannot stop herself from revealing the craven thirst for power and recognition that is driving her, and now driving her supporters, crazy.
http://fullpermissionliving.blogspot.com/

[greejambri]

Very excellent, astute, and insightful psychological assessment of a candidate that too any Americans have been fooled into following. Should she somehow ascend to the throne, this country, and the world, would be in for four years of hell that may make some reminisce fondly for the Bush years. I am quite serious. Most people are completely blind to the pathology underlying the Clintons' behaviors.

[everythingelse]

Thank you.

We're a nation, sadly, of people with terrifyingly low EQ - we seem to have very little idea what drives people and why they do the things they do. And even when we do venture a guess, it's the kind of "Insight" you'd pay $1.88 for at Wal-Mart: it's cheap, it was imported - from where, who knows?, and it falls apart almost immediately.

Hillary has some problems, yo. She clearly values power over integrity. Would she suggest Chelsea marry and/or stay married to a lying, cheating man? I doubt it. Hillary is supposedly a "powerful" woman with self-esteem. People say you can't judge another person's marriage, but you can discern whether you'd want it for yourself. And you can know for sure that a person cannot do for someone else what she cannot do for herself first.

When Hillary decided to start spreading fear in those phone call ads, I knew she was no different than her enemies, The Republican Conspirators. Which, of course, is why they're HER enemies, and not Obamas.

[greenwitch]

Terrific posts, all! I think the Spitzer meltdown will shed a harsh light on the Clinton marriage, and the obvious emotional problems that both partners have.

[SDgirl]

When he started campaigning in Iowa and the black people were still highly favoring Hillary, the question was "is he black enough". Now it's "wow he's completely black".

[realistxxx]

QUOTE SDgirl:

________________

"Now it's "wow he's completely black".

________________

I beg to differ. The Clinton campaign "fixers" are working the angle that "he's TOO black!"

[CountryBeforeParty]

"Or maybe she's saying something entirely different. I hope so. But what? You tell me. Is it possible to spin what she said in a positive light? Or in a less offensive light to both Barack and those that support him?"




It's simple Jennifer. (Maybe not. Obama supporters are offended if they even look at the Senator the wrong way.)




What it means is that Seantor Obama is the front runner because of the mainstream media's fascination with having a viable African American Presidential candidate, their fear of being called rascists by the Obama camp, and their general hatred of Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama is a very intelligent man, a fantastic speaker, and has the ability to inspire people. So if he were a white man he would be...



John Edwards.




In response to an earlier poster, John Edwards is not a weak candidate at all. Between those three leading Democratic candidates, only Edwards spoke definitively about real change. Only Edwards has spoken about taking on corporate America, and restoring some balance between the economic classes. Only Edwards has spoken about a health plan that truly resembles universal health care. Anyone who says that Edwards does not inspire people has never heard him speak. The speech he gave when he suspended his campaign was the first time I was truly moved emotionally during these primaries.







This primary has had the greatest field of Democratic candidates ever. Anyone who studies politics knows that Biden, Richardson, Dodd and Edwards were more qualified to be President than Clinton and Obama, yet we knew that they never had a chance, never would be given a fair chance, to compete for the nomination. The MSM dictated to us who our candidates would be, and the majority went for it, as usual. Don't think for one moment that we have Clinton and Obama to choose from because it was the "will of the people".





Those of us in the middle, and still deciding who to support, are STILL waiting to hear what Barack Obama plans to do to turn our nation around, and how he plans to do it. Don't give me the link to his web site. Am I supposed to read position papers that, most likely, Obama hasn't written? (Most candidates don't) That's unacceptable. Talking in vague terms like "hope" and "change" are great to get the masses charged up. Eventually that wears off, as it is now.




When do we get some tough talk? When do we get some real plans that we can sink our teeth in to, and get excited about? Remember, George W. Bush talked about "change" when he ran for President in 2000. Look what we got.

[RStar]

Where are Hillary's plans? It seems to me that they roughly have the same positions on most issues. They put out position papers on roughly the same issues. They stump in vague terms about what they will do. I think you do raise a valid point though. It would be nice if we could sit both of them down and get into a detailed debate about how to solve problems. But, let's be realistic too. Just as important is what approach each will take towards solving problems. Is it about fighting? Or is it about thinking? I actually think both are capable of fighting for what they want, but each campaign's demeanor gives me some insight into who I believe will be most effective. People have been fighting tooth and nail in Washington for decades to no avail. I think its time for the lemmings to take another approach.

Although detailed plans would be helpful, those won't help you understand how the candidates will work to resolve issues not yet on the table. For that, perhaps what's most important, if you think that both have the acumen to think critically (and I do), is how they'd get things done. What's the philosophy behind your desire to change. You and others are right to bring up the fact that Bush ran on change as well. And he did bring change, but it was a change that left a sour taste, a change that didn't fit so well. The word "change" is where that comparison should end though, unless you want to drink the Clinton kool-aid that suggests that Obama change would be like Bush change. That comparison indirectly is a knock on Clinton's own campaign since her positions are 95% similar to Obamas. Their agendas are virtually identical. So if I don't want Obama's change, I probably don't want Clinton's change either. This is now a debate about who can get things done in Washington. Are you going to fight for change, or are you going to broker change? Continued fighting is going to lead to a political environment where we start to increasingly legitimize positions because they have enought backing to get to the table, but never enough to get things through. If we don't end this fighting mentality now, there may be no coming back.

[GoreyFantod]

"Anyone who says that Edwards does not inspire people has never heard him speak. The speech he gave when he suspended his campaign was the first time I was truly moved emotionally during these primaries."

So, the first speech that, "truly moved emotionally during these primaries," was the one wherein John Edwards quit? Not exactly a ringing endorsement of his earlier efforts...

[realistxxx]

I've heard Edwards speak and was underwhelmed.

This comment brought to you by an Edwards supporter and yellow dog democrat that was horrified at the fact that my party's front runners consisted of a woman and a black man.

After SC I went with the black man... /shaking with fear/

[Mariposa4Life]

Do you use big spaces beween your paragraphs to fill up more spaces so others don't have room to leave their opinion too...

Let me guess, your a Hillary supporter...

[Tyrione]

I'm leaning towards him being a John Edwards supporter and particularly offended that if Obama were white he'd be John Edwards.

If that were true then Obama would be garnering around 14% of the vote and not even a contender in this race.

[gorgol]

Its NOT Obamas color that attracts me..its his talk of HOPE..WE NEED HOPE AFTER SEVEN YEARS OF DIABOLICAL HORROR...Edwards?? no..too "weak" for me. Its just my taste..my inner feelings. If Obama turns out to be wearing a costume, a mask...and he'll change completely when in office..well, its not like we haven't been down that road before...but NOTHING can be worse than what we have now. I also think Obama will be able to talk to the heads of Nations better than "HILLARY"...And the "nastiness" of the Clintons is showing through....and each day it gets worse...I've had it with the Karl Rove routines...And if Obama can't bring "us" together..and get the job done...its time for pitchforks and torches..and marches on Washington...WE HAVE TO TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY SOME WAY.

[JimReed]

I heard on the radio today that back in 1988 Geraldine Ferraro said Jessie Jackson wouldn't still be in the race if he wasn't black. Perhaps she was trying to make that same point in this election.

[simplify]

Hillary Clinton is no Democrat. She was a Goldwater Republican before she met Bill and President of the College Republicans at Wellesley.

The Karl Rove playbook comes natural to her

[rwe]

Articulating facts that Hillary is a leading candidate due in part to her gender (which Geraldine has pointed out about herself) and that Barack is a leading candidate because of his race is neither sexist nor racist.....Carol Mosely-Braun won a senatorial victory exactly because of that and when after her first term the people of Illinois found out that she was not qualified they voted in Peter Fitzgerald... And when the pathetic Illinois republican party made him not run , Barack was handed the job and if Fitzgerald had run again then Hillary would have already locked up the nomination

[realistxxx]

HRC is largely a competitive candidate because she married someone who turned out to become a 2-term president.

I truly believe that both HRC's gender and Obama's race work against them.

In Obama's case it is his vision, message, oration, skill as a candidate (The caucus strategy was brilliant for an outsider) etc. etc. that has given him the lead.

In HRC's case, aside from being married to a POTUS? (crickets chirping)

[GoreyFantod]

Ha ha! Peter Fitzgerald, heir to his daddy's multi-million dollar fortune, lawyer for all of five years before he ran for office & reactionary hack of a U.S. Senator, was more qualified for the Senate than either Carol Moseley-Braun or Barack Obama?

Now you're showing everyone your true colors, Republican troll.