March 11, 2008 11:02
Geraldine Ferraro Applauds Affirmative Action; Clinton's Red Phone Silent
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is."
You stay classy, first wave feminist! According to the Page, Team Obama has already done the ultimate pushback: It's worse that what Power said!
“I think if Sen. Clinton is serious about putting an end to statements that have racial implications… Then she ought to repudiate this comment.”
I find it poetic that the paper that carried Ferraro's comments is called "The Daily Breeze." Anyway, the comment is actually a few days old, but I assume Obama's people only noticed it last night -- or that was when Mike Allen saw it. However tardy, get read for a fun news cycle or two.
In more substantive news, Obama's campaign has also released a stinging take on HRC's foreign policy experience, or lack of it, from Greg Craig, former Clinton State Department director of Policy Planning Office.
There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.
Full memo after the jump.
To: Interested Parties
From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department
RE: Senator Clinton’s claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words?
DA: March 11, 2008
When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.
There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.
When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.
Northern Ireland:
Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”
News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”
Bosnia:
Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”
Kosovo:
Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.
The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.”
Rwanda:
Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.
At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.
Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.
China
Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.
Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.”
If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.
Conclusion:
The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.
On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.
Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader – an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.
And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.
Reader Comments (161)
Best response to Ferraro so far:
Posted by Creamy Goodness | March 11, 2008 11:07 AM
Geraldine Geraldine...what in the hell were you thinking? Even if what you saaid was true, you have to be able to back it up!! Where is the proof that he wouldn't be here?? Does Geraldine have the Delorean and went back in time, made Barack a white man and altered the space time continuum and she knows?!
As for the Obama push back, this is the same argument they havee been trying to make for several days. But to have a former Clinton staffer make the argument so conclusively should start the fireworks going. the clintons value nothing as much as they value loyalty. If you think the Bushies punish those who step off the reservation, well just give this aanother...say 9 minutes and the hate and attempts to discredit will start flying from all angles. I imagine if i were to get to a tv that mccauliffe and carville are already dismissing him as an "outsider" who really wouldnt have known these things.
Posted by cbhenderson | March 11, 2008 11:12 AM
It's a little odd that "feminists" whatever that means these days, like Mrs. Ferraro, cast their lot with Mrs. Clinton, who stayed in an what many people would classify as an abusive relationship with a guy who would hump a puddle. GRRRL Power!
It's even stranger that some of her "experience" includes being the spouse of a President. Should I pencil Laura Bush in for a run in 2012?
I'm a Democrat and I want my daughter to be as successful as possible and go as far as she can in life. But I won't be using Mrs. Clinton as an example of the way to do it.
Posted by Cookie Puss
|
March 11, 2008 11:18 AM
Ha! The Clintons are so competitive they won't even allow Obama to win the "Stupid Statements by Surrogates" contest.
And the best thing about this memo (besides its quaint reliance on facts) is they way they turned Hillary's empty rhetoric trope back at her.
Posted by superterrificdelegate | March 11, 2008 11:19 AM
She's the first black Joe Biden...
Sorry, that IS Hillary.
My bad.
Never mind.
Posted by QUESTION HILLARY
|
March 11, 2008 11:27 AM
McCain IS going to ram the Craig Memo down Billary's cackling collar faster than you can say SPRITZER, once the DNC finishes their Kos Klown donkey walk in Denver.
Assuming the superdegenerates are dumb enough to re-coanointer Her Flaming Liar Highness.
What IS is.
Posted by QUESTION HILLARY
|
March 11, 2008 11:33 AM
The full quote:
Posted by Ana Marie Cox March 11, 2008 11:02:
You stay classy, first wave feminist!
What's the problem, exactly?
She said: "Obama's campaign - ...kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against...He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
She's essentially saying that this is the perfect time and place for an African-American man to run for the Democratic Presidential nomination, and that he's running against a woman opponent in wartime who has baggage.
Other than the fact that it's now "common knowledge" that every Clinton supporter or endorser is despicable and can always be assumed to speak from the worst motivations, e.g. Andrew "Grand Wizard" Cuomo, what is so terrible about saying what she did?
Why does this have to be spun as a horrible, shocking, racially-motivated, derogatory example of hate speech?
AMC:
Are you really saying that Geraldine Ferraro insults African-Americans with these comments? If so, could you please tell us how the remark could be phrased in such a way that it wouldn't be interpreted as a racial insult? Is that possible? Are we not allowed to say things like this because (horror of horrors) the Obama campaign will imply that these are racial attacks on him and therefore African-Americans in general? Are we not allowed to hold such opinions? Are Hillary supporters forbidden from mentioning the concept of race altogether?
Posted by stuart_zechman | March 11, 2008 11:35 AM
Anyway, the comment is actually a few days old, but I assume Obama's people only noticed it last night -- or that was when Mike Allen saw it.
These people need to be quicker on their feet. I don't think they've fully internalized the lessons learned of recent campaigns...
Posted by J.J.
|
March 11, 2008 11:35 AM
Here is audio of a similar quote from when she appeared on John Gibson's show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqL_sm0J8jc
Its hard to defend. I also hate that she went after John Lewis.
Posted by wndycty | March 11, 2008 11:40 AM
"My minority group has it so much worse than your minority group" All this does is serve to further strengthen the power of white men. McCain is loving every second of this drawn out process.
Posted by CDServais | March 11, 2008 11:40 AM
Ana-
I appreciate that you were distracted from the horse-race by a scandal yesterday. Is there any chance that you can be distracted by any of the multitude of Bush scandals? Or has Mr. Stengel decreed that you just can't go there?
Posted by smedley | March 11, 2008 11:40 AM
"These people need to be quicker on their feet. I don't think they've fully internalized the lessons learned of recent campaigns..."
Agreed.
Things like the Craig Memo need to be daily, not monthly, editions.
Obama has this thing to lose.
Billary can't win it on her own, any longer.
Posted by QUESTION HILLARY
|
March 11, 2008 11:44 AM
Whatever Geraldine meant, its as bad as op-ed piece in NY Times last month
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25ferraro.html
She just comes across as out of touch with today's electorate.
I love this memo, and yep, Clinton's are going to now go on the attack and try and make Craig out to be a nothing member of the Clinton administration. More pieces like this I think will go along way to undermine that bs image Clinton has of real experience.
Posted by YMM | March 11, 2008 11:50 AM
Once again -- take a sentence out, lose the context, and Bingo a new thing to beat up Hillary with. Just like the Bill Clinton statements that were taken out of context and are now the narrative.
I look forward to your discussion of Stuart's points AMC.
Posted by ivb | March 11, 2008 11:53 AM
Stuart......
Thanks for the whole quote.
I read it in context yesterday at talkleft yesterday afternoon...As they predicted, the press will use a portion to push the narrative of those racist Clintons and their friends!
Posted by flygirl130 | March 11, 2008 11:55 AM
flygirl130
Uh, you may want to check out Geraldine's On Point appearance before you judge. It is much worse, and why this got itself jumped upon.
Posted by Dirk3rdd | March 11, 2008 12:02 PM
To be fair - actual first wave feminists won you the right to vote. I do not know which wave Ferraro belongs to but it was her generation's burden to fight the hard trench battles that has provided you the opportunity to become educated, hold a job, obtain credit without a male co-signer, obtain your own mortgage, serve in the armed forces, etc. I do not know what that makes my generation but I am reasonably sure that my daughter will be the first truly post-feminist generation where the opportunities will be broad and notice of her gender small.
This is just an aside and is not meant as a comment on her statement.
Posted by Terrapinion | March 11, 2008 12:08 PM
"...those racist Clintons and their friends!"
BROTHER ROGER HAS SPOKEN FROM THE 14TH TEE.
Posted by QUESTION HILLARY
|
March 11, 2008 12:08 PM
I don't see how the context makes it better. At best she is saying that Obama's success is due to the media giving the black man a free ride. He's not successful because of his ideas, not because he's run well organized, grassroots campaign, not because of his ability to connect to many different types of voters. Nope, Obama's success is because the media is giving the black man a free ride, and they're being sexist toward Hillary. Except that the media are still telling us that Hillary won in TX, not telling us much of anything about the repudiation of NAFTA-gate, and repeating the Experience vs. rhetoric trope ad nauseam (and we will see how Obama's new memo effects that if at all, but it should).
Posted by superterrificdelegate | March 11, 2008 12:09 PM
I'm not sure how the full quote excuses the comment. You think it's easy for a black man in American to be leading a nomination fight this far into the process? What has changed at this moment in time that made it easy?
More to the point, this plays directly on the disaffected white male point-of-view that those lucky minorities always get the breaks. Stuart and flygirl, do you agree with this POV?
I find the of this comment to be surprising.
Posted by Paul | March 11, 2008 12:10 PM
Sorry, my last sentence should have said "I find the DEFENSE of this comment to be surprising."
Apparently, I was so surprised by the blindness of the defense that I forgot how to type.
Posted by Paul | March 11, 2008 12:12 PM
This letter is simply the truth!
Posted by Bryan from Houston | March 11, 2008 12:16 PM
Stu, ivb, flygirl:
I read the full quote, and it stil seems that she is saying that he is only this close to the nomination because he is black. Which is racist. Moreover, I'm sure that she would say that anyone who said that HRC is only in her position because she is a woman is being sexist (and I would agree, too). What's the difference?
"She's essentially saying that this is the perfect time and place for an African-American man to run for the Democratic Presidential nomination, and that he's running against a woman opponent in wartime who has baggage."
Where do you see her saying all that, especially the baggage part? You're really reading a lot into her statement, Stu.
And Stu, why is now such a perfect time for an African-American male candidate? Too bad that didn't work for Alan Keyes. Maybe it's because the electorate isn't just looking for any black candidate.
Posted by Malcolm | March 11, 2008 12:16 PM
The Craig Memo is fabulous. It is -utterly- scathing and eviscerating. And its power lies in its reliance on pure, cold, fact. It proves that (a) truth doesn't need editorializing, and (b) true journalism and fact-checking still do exist and still have the power to shine light.
And Ferraro is just, well, a jumbled mess. I think she's saying that the media (or the country as a whole) wanted a minority-rags-to-riches Cinderella story and thus anointed Obama. Whatever her exact intention, it's just another lame attempt to diminish a candidate with strong organization, charisma, and a message that resonates.
Posted by Harry | March 11, 2008 12:17 PM
Zech needs a literal N-word, apparently, to see the Bedford Forrest for the early DNC Upstate retiree trees?
Fanny Geraldo's remarks were RACIST in every way, shape, form, and tone -- and ANYONE not a hack for Hillary will read IS that way.
Get off your clouds, and get real: The Clixons IS the most calculating, narcissistic, and divisive political team in the modern history of the nation (LBJ Lite, to be sure).
Worse?
She has ZERO foreign policy experience, of any merit -- and that includes sitting on her fat be-hind in Congress, day trippers to Baghdad and Belgrade or not.
The Craig Memo IS the next pivot in this press fest, but Hillary won't get the news to save herself any sooner than she got the news from Rwanda, Somalia, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Dublin, or any of her other stunning "successes" not her own until 3 A.M. this morning.
Posted by QUESTION HILLARY
|
March 11, 2008 12:17 PM
I can see the new GOP attack ad:
"You should have gotten that nomination, but it went to a black man who was less qualified."
I know, Ferraro is saying that Obama is benefiting from affirmative action for candidates.
Posted by Malcolm | March 11, 2008 12:20 PM
I read the whole quote and it's still ridiculous. But what makes it particularly rich is the fact that were Ferraro not a woman, she would have no national profile whatsoever. Mondale wanted a game-changer to go up against a very popular incumbent. He went with a woman, and voila, we have Ferraro, an otherwise obscure congresswoman. What's she done since then to deserve to remain in the spotlight? Her whole position is as the first woman nominated on a major party ticket. And she has the nerve to say this? The chutzpa of the Clinton campaign is staggering.
Posted by NHCt | March 11, 2008 12:20 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clinton-backer.html?cid=106616542#comment-106616542
A better blog, on this mostly TIMEly topic.
Posted by QUESTION HILLARY
|
March 11, 2008 12:21 PM
Thank you Terrapinion. I hate the snarky attitude that you see here and at Slate amongst these new, hip feminists about the "bitter, old women" who support Hillary. They have no idea just how lucky they are to have had women like my Mom and others of her generation push for women's rights.
Ferraro may or may not be right, but there is no need for the sarcasm of AMC who has had her career handed to her due to the efforts of a lot of women who came before her.
Posted by TeresaKopec | March 11, 2008 12:23 PM
As Daily Kos said she's half right. If he was a white man he wouldn't be in the position he's in because the race would be over and he'd be the Democratic nominee.
For the record if her last name weren't Clinton SHE wouldn't be in the position she's in either. The race would long ago have been over and he'd be the nominee. Probably after he'd won Wisconsin and 11 in a row.
Posted by stringer | March 11, 2008 12:24 PM
'"These people need to be quicker on their feet. I don't think they've fully internalized the lessons learned of recent campaigns..."
Agreed.
Things like the Craig Memo need to be daily, not monthly, editions.
Obama has this thing to lose.
Billary can't win it on her own, any longer.
Posted by QUESTION HILLARY | March 11, 2008 11:44 AM'
Is somebody else using the screen name QUESTION HILARY? He seems way too lucid recently.
Posted by Malcolm | March 11, 2008 12:24 PM
The fact is Obama has made a career out of "staying classy" while exploiting his blackness for all it's worth. It's pretty clear to anyone who may want to take a look that Mr. Obama's career in politics takes ambition to another level. He was a State Senator who took very few risks and always had his eye on higher office. He saw his chance in Illinois when the senate seat opened up. A cynic could argue that his sponsorship of certain bills had more to do with his future political ambitions than any core beliefs. When given the opportunity to actually lead, like say the chairmanship of the Foreign Relations subcommittee, he hasn't shown much interest in doing so. His record has one and only one overarching narrative and that is personal political ambition. There is nothing in the record that indicates any interest in the nuts of bolts of policy, nor is there any instance where he's been a leader in seeking bipartisan solutions. People will point to his co-sponsorship of the disclosure bill but that was something that had broad bipartisan support, it didn't require much heavy lifting for Barack. Ms. Farraro is correct, if this was a white male, he would be about as interesting to the media as Mike Gravel was. He isn't of course a white male though. His color is definitely part of the discourse here, he uses it brilliantly but, the reminding voters that his qualifications for the highest office in the world are a tad thin is not racist.
Posted by ny nick | March 11, 2008 12:25 PM
To be fair - actual first wave feminists won you the right to vote.
Terrapinion, Geraldine Ferraro is "first wave" in the sense of like, "contemporary of Mary Wollstonecraft." She was there when the first wave was just a tidal ebb.
Posted by Acid J | March 11, 2008 12:25 PM
"Ferraro may or may not be right, but there is no need for the sarcasm of AMC who has had her career handed to her due to the efforts of a lot of women who came before her."
You go, Mrs. Spitzer Stand By Your Men Like Hillary & Rose Kennedy Did, girl!
Posted by QUESTION HILLARY
|
March 11, 2008 12:26 PM
AMC who has had her career handed to her due to the efforts of a lot of women who came before her.
Nice job you got there, AMC. Be a shame if anything happened to it, eh?
Posted by Acid J | March 11, 2008 12:27 PM
This is the same anti-affirmative action b.s. that's used against African Americans everyday. "He just got the job because he's black." As a pale male, I hear this all the time from other pale males who presume I'm "one of them." It's shameful that a person with Ferraro's background would use such a line of attack.
Ferraro's comment is bad. Even in context. The gyrations stuart needed to go through in an attempt to neutralize it just show how bad it is. If Clinton is smart, she'll denounce and reject Ferraro.
Posted by billiecat | March 11, 2008 12:27 PM
AMC who has had her career handed to her due to the efforts of a lot of women who came before her.
Nice job you got there, AMC. Be a shame if anything happened to it.
Posted by Acid J | March 11, 2008 12:27 PM
Teh dubble post--noooooo!
Posted by Acid J | March 11, 2008 12:28 PM
Sadly, the media, yes, you AMC and all those connected to Old Media are pining for this horse race to go and be compelling. In reality, it isn't Jonathan Alter has already discussed how the math is stacked against Hillary. Isn't it true that all of her efforts amount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? Admit at least this much! It has your ratings up and your readership up. Advertising revenues are being maintained even in the face of a recession.
Let's be honest here, AMC and everybody else, the media won't report the truth because either:
a) they don't know how
or
b) they don't want to do anything that could cause them to lose money.
If Obama quit tomorrow, they would lose money. If Clinton quit tomorrow, they would lose money. This isn't about actual experience and an examination of the bills passed, policies supported and real issues that face America. It doesn't sell!!
This is just a glorified American Idol for the Presidency brokered and filtered by the punditocracy like Russert, Will, Stephanopoulos and even, our own AMC to engage Americans in a meaningless show.
The media hasn't been too hard on Hillary. It's been too unrealistic. If you want to engage in a meaningless beauty contest, go put on another American Idol. If you want to discuss issues, then address the issues. You want to talk about experience. Force them to produce substantive real responses to experience on paper!! Same thing for character!! Same thing for bills and policies supported!! Then discuss those facts.
The rest of this stuff is bull dung and I'm not that into American Idol to want to watch it play out in politics too.
Posted by Bryan from Houston | March 11, 2008 12:28 PM
"...exploiting his blackness for all it's worth..."
Right.
Too bad he ISn't a cackling lifer liar man hating chick, like Hillary and her dykie dregs.
He really missed out there.
Posted by QUESTION HILLARY
|
March 11, 2008 12:30 PM
ny nick:
I completely agree about Obama's ambition, but how does that make him any different from HRC? She's been running for Pres since she's been in the Senate, too, which explains her vote to authorize the invasion in the first place.
Posted by Malcolm | March 11, 2008 12:33 PM
The problem with those somehow trying to support this quote is simple: The Clintons and their surrogates are the ones who keep constantly injecting race in this thing.
Otherwise I might listen to what you're saying.
But I'm sorry I can't give credence to anything when THEY keep trying to push race on HIM!
And to be honest, you gotta wonder on the day of the Mississippi primary. Really? Are they TRYING to lose ALL of the black vote?
Would anyone here honestly vote for someone who had treated their race, gender or religion the way they've treated Obama's race? Heck a lot of women won't vote for him and HE and his surrogates have't even actually said anything about women. Give me a break.
This is the exact type of psuedo-racist, anti-affirmative action that led people in Ohio to think African Americans, rather than NAFTA or the growth of the technology sector, lost them their jobs.
Grow up, move forward into the 21st century and stop being stupid bigots. Come join the rest of us out here who are trying to build a real society. It's not that bad, promise. You've just got to leave your Klan robes and stupid bigoted statements at the door while we try to move forward. Sorry gotta really insist on that one.
Posted by stringer | March 11, 2008 12:34 PM
There are 14 female U.S. senators: Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). There is a single African-American senator, Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who is only the third elected since Reconstruction.
There are eight female governors in America: Linda Lingle (R-Hawaii), Jennifer Granholm (D-Mich.), Janet Napolitano (D-Ariz.), Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kan.), Kathleen Blanco (D-La.), M. Jodi Rell (R-Conn.), Christine Gregoire (D-Wash.), and Sarah Palin (R-Alaska). There is a single African-American governor, Deval Patrick (D-Mass.).
Women have been elected statewide all over the country, including in many states that Hillary Clinton lost.
Posted by Dirk3rdd | March 11, 2008 12:37 PM
I am so sick of all the racist and anti-Muslim crap spewing from Billary and their minions, and almost as irritated at the Dems here trying to justify it. If the Rethugs were saying these things you'd be up in arms.
And Stu, as to your question:
"[P]lease tell us how the remark could be phrased in such a way that it wouldn't be interpreted as a racial insult?"
The answer is simple: Why is it even necessary to say these kinds of things? How does this reflect on why Hillary would be a better President than Obama?
Posted by Malcolm | March 11, 2008 12:41 PM
aaa
Posted by bitterpill8 | March 11, 2008 12:44 PM
I'm no fan of Obama either -- but at least he ISn't an unreliable, vapor diplomacy, honey hushing, virtual cow swapping (lacking floor PRESENT votes) political weather vane ala Tag Team Clixon.
McCain trumps them both, in spades.
BTW: Am I allowed to say "spades"?
Better check with Biden or Ferraro on that.
If not Don Imus.
Posted by QUESTION HILLARY
|
March 11, 2008 12:46 PM
"If the Rethugs were saying these things you'd be up in arms."
What you said.
Posted by QUESTION HILLARY
|
March 11, 2008 12:50 PM
Malcolm writes:
"I completely agree about Obama's ambition, but how does that make him any different from HRC? "
It doesn't. They are both highly competent politicians. The difference is that one of them has a broader set of experiences and has a deeper interest in, and understanding of, policy. I know Mr. Obama brings excitement and spark to the contest but I'm looking for good old fashion competence in governing. It's not very exciting but it's also been sorely missing theses last eight years.
Posted by ny nick | March 11, 2008 12:50 PM
ACid J: "Nice job you got there, AMC. Be a shame if anything happened to it."
-----------
No one is threatening to take Ana's job. But it is ridiculous to take one statement from Geraldine Ferraro and extrapolate it to all feminists.
I would however ask you to think that whether or not it is fair, if Ferraro is actually right. Suppose that Obama was a first term, female Senator who had opposed the war. Would he be in the same place today? No way.
I like Obama, but it is ridiculous to argue that a woman -- of any color -- running on his record would be seriously in contention for the White House.
I hope that women like Claire McCaskill stay in the senate for a few more years, polish up their national security credentials, and run in the future. But I certainly don't think anyone would vote for her right now for President.
Posted by TeresaKopec | March 11, 2008 12:53 PM
And the difference is one of them has the last name Clinton otherwise she would have been kicked out of this race so long ago it would be funny.
Understand some people's take on her and why they think she is the best candidate. That's fine. It still doesn't condone dumb stupid statements like this.
Like we've all said he could just as easily say, "If she weren't a woman, people would have long ago ceased feelng sorry for her and she would never have been elected to the Senate in the first place and certainly would be forced out of this race by now."
The problem with this statement on top of the initial totally inaccurated reading of history and intrinsic racism within it certain people seem reluctant to go ahead and admit is IT DISTRACTS US FROM THE REAL ISSUES.
It is more of the kitchen sink that caused so many of us to groan in the first place. Now you see why. This is what the brand of dirty politics and negative campaigning that the Clintons thrive on whenever they lose. It is to the detriment of the country, hence it is our duty to call them on it and ask them to please get back to the real issues.
Posted by stringer | March 11, 2008 12:58 PM
OMG I completely forgot, is anyone in the MSM covering the race in Mississippi today? I know it's hard what with Spitzer and his mess, but come one, seriously? Ana, any word on early news out of the content down there today?
Posted by YMM | March 11, 2008 12:59 PM
Posted by Paul | March 11, 2008 12:10 PM:
You think it's easy for a black man in American to be leading a nomination fight this far into the process?
That's not the point. The point is that if Geraldine Ferraro genuinely believes that a significant segment of Democratic Party believes that it's the right time for an African-American to claim the nomination, and therefore circumstances right now are essentially with Barack Obama, it's not inappropriate to say this publicly, whether she's factually right or wrong in that belief.
I'll say it again: whether or not it is or is not "easy", whether it's all his and his supporters' sweat and hard work, or it's a matter of "right place/right time" for an African-American man of his talents to be selected for support by Democratic Party insiders (the context of her remarks) doesn't matter. Ferraro or anybody has the right to express that opinion in good faith without being called out for "racial attacks" by Obama partisans.
...this plays directly on the disaffected white male point-of-view that those lucky minorities always get the breaks.
There is a real problem in this country. Lots of people who struggle day to day don't understand the concept of affirmative action, and many other people don't agree with remediation on the basis of race as a matter of principle. Liberal have done a terrible job over the past three decades explaining the the justness of their position, and some of this can be attributed to the reflexive casting of political opponents as "disaffected white males", i.e. privileged racists. We need to stop speaking solely in these terms in order to make progress, and I believe that this is something that Barack Obama understands. In order to truly be effective, our arguments need to be much less divisive, much less judgmental, much less dismissive of the concerns of "disaffected white males" (among others), IMO. We can strut around displaying how enlightened we are in comparison to those "angry white guys" for eternity, but it's never going to change any hearts and minds, or clear up any prevailing confusion about fairness and zero-sum contests in the minds of some people. I believe that Barack Obama understands this idea--that this is what he means when he talks about "uniting".
Stuart and flygirl, do you agree with this POV?
That being said, the answer is "no". I don't agree with the point of view that Black people in America have life handed to them on a silver platter. Of course not. I can stick my hand up in the air and get a taxi any time I want to , and if I'm running late to a business meeting, I'll get there on time. Some people can't do that; it's beyond wrong, I feel like I'm in some movie about South Africa whenever I see it happen.
I don't think that I have to answer questions like "Well, are you a racist? Are you?" because I find the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro defensible. I don't think that I need to "denounce and reject" the misguided belief on the part of the uninformed that "those lucky minorities always get the breaks". What's really offensive is that I would be asked that question. In other words, you're asking me "So do you support racism?", and that's a terrible charge to bring up in an political argument about what another Democrat said and meant. The supporters of Barack Obama would do well to understand this dynamic, IMO. Asking "do you agree with the perspective of racist disaffected white males?" because I don't automatically see racial motivations in someone else's speech smacks of rank McCarthyism to me. We would do well not to apply ideological loyalty tests to each other. There will be much bitter resentment cultivated if this goes on, I believe. Half of the Democratic Party is not a front for the Klan (anymore). If a Democrat from New York finds another Democrat from New York's remarks about other Democrats inoffensive, I don't believe that assigning the "disaffected white male point-of-view" to those Democrats is reasonable or fair. At best, you'll get those Democrats to shut up for fear of being "called out on tolerating racial speech". At worst, you'll create lifelong enemies. That's not the Democratic Party that I want to be associated with, and I suspect neither do most Americans.
Just my opinion, Paul.
Posted by stuart_zechman | March 11, 2008 1:00 PM
QH,
Maybe you haven't heard but Republicans have so soiled the landscape with their incompetence and arrogance that John McCain doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell against either of the Democrats. I know there is a core group of haters out there but you guys are a small lot. Just enough people to keep Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity in the life they've become accustom to but not enough to effect an election. Enjoy the next ten years in the wilderness, you've earned it.
Posted by ny nick | March 11, 2008 1:01 PM
No one's calling you a racist. What we're saying is her comments are stupid and untrue.
We're also saying she is still in this race because she is a) a woman and b) a Clinton.
Otherwise she would have been pushed out long ago like any other candidate. Period. Simple. Do you actually disagree with that?
If not, let's just admit that the Clintons constantly injecting race and gender do nothing to move the real issues of this race period.
Posted by stringer | March 11, 2008 1:02 PM
@TeresaKopec
And what has HRC done since she's been in the Senate that gives her the record to run on for Pres. She's essentially running on her husband's record.
Posted by Malcolm | March 11, 2008 1:03 PM
Stuart,
We're not calling you a racist, but you frequently have been bending over backward to defend the Clinton campaign from these charges. What you seem to be missing is that there's no reason for them to be injecting race into this race anyway. Obama doesn't, not does he discuss gender either, another one of HRC's favorite topics.
Posted by Malcolm | March 11, 2008 1:12 PM
Posted by QUESTION HILLARY | March 11, 2008 12:17 PM:
Zech needs a literal N-word, apparently, to see the Bedford Forrest for the early DNC Upstate retiree trees?
Fanny Geraldo's remarks were RACIST in every way, shape, form, and tone -- and ANYONE not a hack for Hillary will read IS that way.
Get off your clouds, and get real: The Clixons IS the most calculating, narcissistic, and divisive political team in the modern history of the nation (LBJ Lite, to be sure).
Right.
Somebody who supports Hillary Clinton said something to which Barack Obama supporters object, and because Hillary Clinton is Satan's Scouring Pad on Earth, there can be no other explanation than "Geraldine Ferraro is a crassly using the race card to disqualify Obama's candidacy in the minds of frightened Democratic primary voters".
...because Hillary's bad. Gotcha.
Posted by stuart_zechman | March 11, 2008 1:15 PM
Stuart:
That's not the point. The point is that if Geraldine Ferraro genuinely believes that a significant segment of Democratic Party believes that it's the right time for an African-American to claim the nomination, and therefore circumstances right now are essentially with Barack Obama, it's not inappropriate to say this publicly, whether she's factually right or wrong in that belief.
Stuart, I'm kinda surprised by this point. Yes, it may be defensible, but does that make it accurate. Worse still, is it something that a public figure should say? As other commenters have said, if Geraldine were to attack his record and his experience, fine have at it. But all she's doing is equating his campaign's success to he's getting a free ride cuz he's black. I can understand an argument that he's gotten a free ride from the media because they are so infatuated with his message ala McCain, but how would people react that the only reason McCain has gotten such great press is because he's a white male? It wouldn't fly would it.
Regardless of whether or not its her opinion, she does represent the campaign, if this is what HRC's campaign represent, then expect fallout. Any other campaign would definitely take a hit.
Posted by YMM | March 11, 2008 1:16 PM
And here it comes:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/obama-aide-criticizes-ferraro-comments/
Posted by YMM | March 11, 2008 1:17 PM
Malcolm:
...you frequently have been bending over backward to defend the Clinton campaign from these charges...
It probably looks like I'm making great effort to be "objective" about these matters, but I'm not. It's just common knowledge amongst Obama supporters that the Clintons have "played the race card again and again", an opinion that I do not share. That's why it looks that way to people who have internalized this "common knowledge" as a working assumption. Believe me, I'm not going out of my way to be overly fair (if there is such a thing), I just don't see anything wrong going on.
What you seem to be missing is that there's no reason for them to be injecting race into this race anyway.
What you seem to be missing is that a Clinton supporter talking about demographics could easily be just that--and not necessarily doing any "injecting". Many Obama supporters just seem to assume that there's "injection", when it's just talk.
In my mind, that's a recipe for one side having a taboo applied to them. That's ridiculous and doesn't serve our discourse well, IMO.
Posted by stuart_zechman | March 11, 2008 1:22 PM
Yes, The Mac and Hillary Show offer us the same "looking back in anger" song Oasis gave us a few years back. But they forgot something - something Obama remembers. The song says "don't look back in anger". What we need is a tomorrow we can define. Not a tomorrow defined by the burdens of yesterday. Being better than yesterday is a pretty loe aim. We want a tomorrow we can build. More on this in my blog at http://angryafrican.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/dont-look-back-in-anger-a-cover-by-the-mac-and-hillary-show/
Posted by AngryAfrican
|
March 11, 2008 1:27 PM
Stuart:
What you seem to be missing is that there's no reason for them to be injecting race into this race anyway.
What you seem to be missing is that a Clinton supporter talking about demographics could easily be just that--and not necessarily doing any "injecting". Many Obama supporters just seem to assume that there's "injection", when it's just talk.
In my mind, that's a recipe for one side having a taboo applied to them. That's ridiculous and doesn't serve our discourse well, IMO.
Stuart, if that were the case, how would Clinton supports or the public at large react to an Obama aid highlight her sex - hell one called her a monster and she had to quit. If an Obama partisan came out with that Clinton represents old-guard feminists, blah blah - a demographic as you say, then what would be the reaction?
Posted by YMM | March 11, 2008 1:29 PM
Stuart,
"injection" vs. "talk"? Are you really trying to make that kind of semantic difference? So Hillary was just talking about Obama not rejecting Farrakhan, huh?
And how about all the anti-Muslim bigotry and fearmongering? Are you going to try to defend that, too?
Posted by Malcolm | March 11, 2008 1:32 PM
Posted by YMM | March 11, 2008 1:16 PM:
Stuart, I'm kinda surprised by this point.
YMM:
What's surprising to me is so much rush to such harsh judgment by Democrats about another Democrat.
Yes, it may be defensible, but does that make it accurate.
No, it does not. The accuracy of someone's political opinions doesn't usually render them totally unworthy of expression. That's my point. She's allowed to talk about her opinions without being censured by partisans who then enjoy uncritical acceptance of their characterizations.
Worse still, is it something that a public figure should say?
I don't see what the problem is, actually. Is anybody arguing that the HRC campaign needs to censure every endorser, because no Hillary supporter should publicly mention anything about race ever, because Obama supporters might be offended? I can't believe that this would be the position of Democrats with respect to other Democrats, and yet that seems to be the implication. I'm sure somebody or another will set me straight on this...
Posted by stuart_zechman | March 11, 2008 1:32 PM
Ferraro also appeared on John Gibson's radio show. Ferraro lambasted John Lewis for changing his superdelegate vote. Lewis felt that he had been stopped and questioned about his position so many times and heard from so many constituents who favored Obama, that he should bow to the wishes of the voters of his district. It was clearly a difficult decision. Hearing Ferraro berate Lewis on the radio adds into the mix of how her statements in the newspaper are interpreted. Ferraro to Lewis, "How dare you not know your place."
Multiple sites viewed by African-Americans including Oliver Willis and Jack & Jill Politics provided links to the newspaper article and the audio from the radio show.
After reading the article and/or hearing the radio clip, viewers on the websites sensed the condescension. The Clinton campaign mmust realize how Ferraro is being viewed in the African-American community and respond accordingly.
Ferraro's comments are similar to those made by Gloria Steinem and presents a false analysis. Both women feel that since an individual female Senator lags behind an individual African-American male Senator, gender trumps race as far as "victimhood" is concerned. Now, I admit to being as race (ethnic)-conscious as anyone, but I can readily see that most were first attracted to Obama because of his position on the war. Sen Clinton's inability to admit a mistake in voting for war is what led to her downfall from presumptive winner. Sen Clinton is responsible for her own quagmire.
Posted by rmrd0000 | March 11, 2008 1:34 PM
Ferraro or anybody has the right to express that opinion in good faith without being called out for "racial attacks" by Obama partisans.
I disagree. Ms. Ferraro certainly has the right to express her opinion. However, everyone else, including the Obama partisans, also have a right to call her remarks offensive and racially motivated.
Her statement diminishes Obama and his accomplishments and denies his humanity. We can certainly have a discussion about race and politics without dismissing Obama as someone "lucky to be who he is"
Posted by CDServais | March 11, 2008 1:38 PM
Suart:
"The point is that if Geraldine Ferraro genuinely believes that a significant segment of Democratic Party believes that it's the right time for an African-American to claim the nomination, and therefore circumstances right now are essentially with Barack Obama, it's not inappropriate to say this publicly, whether she's factually right or wrong in that belief."
One argument you seem to be making wrt Ferraro is that if someone makes a race-related remark, but sincerely believes it, then it is not racist. But virtually every racist remark is sincerely believed by the person who utters it, so what makes a remark racist or not, if not its relation to the truth?
Posted by Malcolm | March 11, 2008 1:39 PM
Malcolm:
Yes, there is a big difference between talking about something, and "injecting" that something into a debate for partisan reasons.
Talking means speaking in good faith; "injecting" means raising a subject in an illegitimate attempt to harm a political opponent.
The difference is in motivation. If every Hillary supporter can be assumed to be acting in bad faith when they speak, then there is no distinguishing the two. My assumption is that fellow Democrats are not always acting in bad faith when they speak, even if they support Hillary Clinton for President (which I do not).
Posted by stuart_zechman | March 11, 2008 1:43 PM
rmrd0000:
"Sen Clinton's inability to admit a mistake in voting for war is what led to her downfall from presumptive winner."
I think you are oversimplifying this, but I personally agree that I would've voted for HRC if not for her vote on Iraq. However, based on the tone of her campaign recently, I've been increasingly glad I didn't.
Posted by Malcolm | March 11, 2008 1:45 PM
As usual, everybody is getting this one wrong.
Geraldine Ferraro's comment was a well-designed dog whistle to every downscale white voter out there who feels that affirmitive action hurts people like them.
But...the Obama people are making a big mistake on how they are fighting back, even though they are right on the merits.
The bigger issue in Ferraro's comments that the Obama people should seize on is the utter hypocrisy.
Hillary Clinton and George Bush have both benefited from a far worse form of affirmitive action known as the legacy. While race-based affirmitive action tries to correct historical inequalities, legacy based affirmitive action tries to perpetuate historical inequalituies.
The Obama campaign should use this as an opening to push a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynastic nepotism argument against a Hillary nomination.
There is no evidence that Obama has benefited from affirmitive action...that is baseless speculation on Ferraro's part and an attempt to tie Obama with the unpopular affirmitive action creed. I think the Obama campaign is making the same mistake the Hillary campaign made in expressing outrage on the monster comments. They have every right to be outraged at the Clinton race baiting, but the smarter, more effective stratgey for Obama would be to rebut the notion he has benefited from affirmitive action and then to hang the legacy nepotism meme around Hillary's hypocritical neck.
Posted by RKA | March 11, 2008 1:50 PM
Posted by Malcolm | March 11, 2008 1:39 PM:
One argument you seem to be making wrt Ferraro is that if someone makes a race-related remark, but sincerely believes it, then it is not racist.
No, my argument is that not every race-related remark is an appeal to racism.
But virtually every racist remark is sincerely believed by the person who utters it, so what makes a remark racist or not, if not its relation to the truth?
What makes a remark an appeal to racism is whether the intent is to appeal to racism. If Geraldine Ferraro had said "Nobody should vote for Barack Obama, because he will institute policies that favor African-Americans over others. I know this because he's Black, obviously.", then I think one can conclude rather easily that this would be an appeal to racism. On the other hand, if she had said "African-Americans are voting for Barack Obama largely because he symbolically represents the politically aspirations of that community", I don't believe that the statement would be an appeal to racism--regardless of its accuracy.
So no, something doesn't need to be the truth in order to not be an appeal to racism, IMO.
Posted by stuart_zechman | March 11, 2008 1:52 PM
Stu,
So your distinction is that "talking" is a legitimate attempt to harm a political opponent, whereas "injecting" is an illigitimate one. Putting aside your peculiar definition, let me ask you this:
In what way was Ferraro attempting to harm Obama by her comments, because her remarks were obviously meant to help Hillary at his expense? Answer: She wants to help Hillary by making people think, "hey, Obama's just lucky because he's black and they're the new 'in' thing. He has nothing else to offer except his race." Once again, you have someone in Hillary's camp attempting to dismiss his success as owning to his race, rather than any special individual characteristics.
Posted by Malcolm | March 11, 2008 1:52 PM
Stuart, it is amazing that you are defending Ferraro on this, while Question Hillary sees this for what it is (and he should know since this stuff is kind of common in his world)
But, Stuart, if you were to keep in character about Ferraro, you should be endlessly demanding her for the evidence to back up her claim that Obama would not be doing as well if he were a white man.
I don't know what your views on race are Stuart, but it is obvious to me that you pull your "Where's the evidence?" schtick pretty selectively. Ferraro's statment is not supported by a shread of evidence - and that is why you, of all people, should be one of her harshest critics today.
Posted by RKA | March 11, 2008 1:55 PM
Stuart, I do concede your point about being open and having a fair and legitimate discussion particularly among members of a political party. But how are Geraldine's comments any better than the 'Monster' comment? That I believe was an honest opinion of one member of Obama's campaign. How many considered it, tasteless and pointless to make such a claim - even if an honest opinion?
Regardless than, do you believe that HRC should not condemn the comments? Even though so many feel that they are inexcusable?
Posted by YMM | March 11, 2008 1:56 PM
Stuart,
Now you're confusing an appeal to racism versus racism itself. Not every racist remark is necessarily intended to appeal to racism.
Posted by Malcolm | March 11, 2008 1:58 PM
Listen, despite the endless ID politics, they're both brilliant individuals--they deserve to be exactly where they are b/c of their respective gifts. Despite Hill's gender or spouse, she has an astonishing command of just about any issue going (other than her husband, I'm not sure if I've ever seen another politician like this). And despite (not b/c of) O's race, he's beyond gifted--like a precocious child whose learning curve is a downhill line. He's here b/c when you put him next to the likes of Biden or Kerry, despite their greater command of said issues, his genuine qualities not only overshadow them, they make them look like the automatons they are.
Per the race thing--it's the chicken & the egg. Race is a topic--it's a question of who's raising it. Who's inserting it into the dialogue. Who's the freakin' chicken here. According to Stu & co. it's team O, according to team O it's team Hill. Clearly neither team is going to admit to it. Neither of us can fathom seeing this any other way. The question I'd ask of Stu and co. is why would this poss be in O's interest, playing the race/victim card--it hurts him in PA and in the fall. As with her sickening/dissembling nonsense on 60 minutes, this is in her interest. And I'm truly sorry about the angst of the ignorant white man in America--short term, yes, it may hurt our party to alienate them--long term, they'll be in the minority themselves. OH/PA--vote against the black or the "muslim"--fair enough--you'll get exactly what you deserve--endless warfare and an economy that further destroys your lives.
And, really, after Stu's "f-ck them/f-ck her" comment yesterday, no one should question his arbiter-ism. The guy's above the fray, really.
Posted by Oregon JC | March 11, 2008 1:59 PM
"do you believe that HRC should not condemn the comments?"
I believe she has already distanced herself from the comments, via Wolfson, but pointedly not from Ferraro. No rejecing or denouncing this time. Sort of like McCain and Hagee.
Posted by Malcolm | March 11, 2008 2:02 PM
Posted by rmrd0000 | March 11, 2008 1:34 PM:
Sen Clinton's inability to admit a mistake in voting for war is what led to her downfall from presumptive winner.
I agree.
I think that this has got to be a huge reason.
I know that this is a very important reason thatI didn't vote for her.
Democrats are much more likely to view her vote as a terrible mistake:
Posted by stuart_zechman | March 11, 2008 2:03 PM
Stu,
Did you see the picture of BO on HRC's website that had been altered so that it was darker and had a wider nose? How about all the Muslim insinuations? Why are you still giving this campaign the benefit of the doubt?
Posted by Malcolm | March 11, 2008 2:05 PM
Is anyone compiling a list of the Clinton surrogate smears?
Posted by Oregon JC | March 11, 2008 2:07 PM
The clinton campaign seems to be continuing with the kitchen sink strategy, with a slight tweek since last week. Now they aren't just attacking Obama from all sides; now they'll say anything in an attempt to see what will stick in what now can be called the al dente strategy with highlights including "Obama could be VP but can't be president." How? According to Wolfson he'll have an experience epiphany somewhere on the way to Colorado." Also, "The primary should be run like the electoral college." And the most recent that Obama is leading because he's black.
Hillary's campaign strategy is essentially as "we think the electorate is too stupid to follow up on the crazy s**t we say, so we'll make any argument we want. F**k it!"
I'm 29, black and an independent who only really considered voting Republican twice: once for Bobby Jindal and once for Bush the first time (I just didn't like Gore). The daily barrage of belittlement and negativity from the Clinton's has me questioning whether I could vote for Hillary in November. I make that decision as an informed voter. Not as a drinker of Starbucks (CC's is way better), a black man, or a professional.
Posted by cross1 | March 11, 2008 2:10 PM
Malcolm:
So your distinction is that "talking" is a legitimate attempt to harm a political opponent, whereas "injecting" is an illigitimate one.
I'm beginning to think that you're not having an honest discussion.
No, "talking" means "talking". "Injecting" means "trying to harm". I thought that I had made that clear. I can be "talking" about how sunny it is today. If, however, I try to get a remark about how sunny it is into the public debate simply because I believe any reference to sunny skies may harm my political opponent in some way, then I'm "injecting".
I don't think that I can make this any clearer...
Answer: She wants to help Hillary by making people think...
Right. I don't necessarily accept the malignant motivations that you're (perhaps automatically) assigning. I think that she's just a frustrated Hillary supporter who got on the air. I could be wrong about this, but that's what it sounded like to me when I listened to it. John Gibson was the one who gleefully exclaimed "So, you're playing the race card!".
I hope that this is clear, because you're assigning arguments to me that I am not making. Please make sure that you understand what I'm saying.
Posted by stuart_zechman | March 11, 2008 2:15 PM
My first reaction was the same as stringer's:
Would Hillary still be in the race if she was
(a) not a woman
(b) her last name not Clinton
Final point legacy entitlements are the unspoken of affirmative action that white people seem to forget. George Bush went to Yale and Harvard Business School but does anyone believe that if his last name wasn't Bush he would have got in on his educational merits?!
Posted by rnewton | March 11, 2008 2:16 PM
Oregon JC:
"Is anyone compiling a list of the Clinton surrogate smears?"
I started one a few days ago - I was up to 16 before I gave up.
Posted by Malcolm | March 11, 2008 2:16 PM
And given the tone of the contest of late, after O's decisive win today, god help us over the next 6 weeks. I picture two really bloodied if not crippled candidates lurching about PA. On one hand, I'd like to see a campaign that allows Obama to do what he does best, but on the other I realize that he must continue to respond to her endless Rovian punches.
I think at some point, given the large swath of fighters in the party (Edwards and Clinton supporters who eschew more conciliatory candies), perhaps he needs to play shark, smell the blood and just go in for the final kill 4/22. As long as it's point counterpoint--sadly, his message of uplift tends to get lost. I'm sure it's still being delivered but the media only reports the negative ions.
Posted by Oregon JC | March 11, 2008 2:17 PM
"The al dente strategy"!!
My God, that is a -brilliant- line!
Kudos, cross1.
Posted by Harry | March 11, 2008 2:21 PM
RKA:
Stuart, it is amazing that you are defending Ferraro on this...
LOL.
You know as well as I do that I'm not defending the accuracy of her statement, just her ability to say it without Obama supporters jumping up and down screaming "Look! She said something about race! Race! Race! Race! Hillary's campaign is based on racism! Hillary supporters must therefore condone racism!", which of course is not true at all, and in some cases seems to be a rather mean scare tactic designed to "inject" Clinton supporters with the fear of being called horrible names.
The accuracy isn't the point, which is why I'm not demanding that Geraldine Ferraro back her statement up...but you know that, RKA.
Posted by stuart_zechman | March 11, 2008 2:22 PM
Stuart,
I was not trying to put words into your mouth. But when I say "injecting" something into a discussion, I don't mean to imply that the topic is necessarily "illigitimate," whereas your usage does seem to have this extra implication.
And obviously she was trying to help HRC by harming BO. After all, she wasn't making a point about HRC, she was making a point about BO!
So she was making a racial comment in an effort to hurt BO. Whether or not you want to label that "appealing to racism" or "injecting race" doesn't matter to me.
Posted by Malcolm | March 11, 2008 2:24 PM
Posted by Malcolm | March 11, 2008 2:05 PM:
Did you see the picture of BO on HRC's website that had been altered so that it was darker and had a wider nose?
Yes, and here's a link to a dKos diary that calls Kos out on promoting this nonsense:
It's this kind of tinfoil hat-ism that unfortunately discredits all real dog-whistling, and prevents us from having a decent non-bitter debate about the merits of the candidates' positions.
Posted by stuart_zechman | March 11, 2008 2:27 PM
Malcolm,
16! Share it if you got it.
And from my local rag:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianopinion/2008/03/jack_ohman_172.html
Posted by Oregon JC | March 11, 2008 2:27 PM
So she was making a racial comment in an effort to hurt BO.
You and I will have to agree to disagree, I guess.
...and you're not the person who questioned whether I share the "point-of-view" of "disaffected white males", so I don't really have a problem with how you've handled characterizations of my arguments.
We just don't share the same assumptions about the intentions of Hillary supporters--and we probably have different ideas about the motivations of Obama supporters, as well.
Posted by stuart_zechman | March 11, 2008 2:31 PM
Of course it is pure idiocy. Big deal. When ever things aren't going the Obama way we hear about some blatant racism on the Clinton part. Aren't you beginning to see a pattern? Or is this just more of the "old okie doke"?
Posted by AnnL | March 11, 2008 2:33 PM