On Ferraro

Is this the same Joe Klein who was so misguided on FISA?

I like it when your right.

That was a great post Joe. I couldn't agree with you more.

Whether or not Ferraro was intentionally raising the dread specter of affirmative action with her initial comments, the Clinton campaign sure seemed to be, by sending her on every morning talk show the next day instead of hiding her away like Ross Perot's crazy aunt. What a strange person she seems to be.

Clinton wouldn't be where she is were it not for her husband and McCain wouldn't be where he was were it not for his father. Everybody's background is part of where they are.

And you are quite right that there is an awful lot more to Obama's appeal, and qualifications, than his face. Andrew Sullivan's writing is as likely to be quoted for the insight it provides on Sullivan's psyche as it is on politics; Kaus's quoting him proves nothing.

I liked hilzoy's take on this the other day:

If I were Hillary Clinton, I would have asked Geraldine Ferraro to resign, since if I were Hillary Clinton, I would be running a different sort of campaign. And if I were a black man and had wheels, I would be the first black male trolleycar ever, not to mention the first being ever to be both a public transit vehicle and a mammal. Aren't counterfactuals fun?

Be interested to hear your thoughts on Fallon's resignation, Joe.

"But to say that Obama got to where he is because of his race like saying that Halle Berry got to where she is because of hers"

Come on Joe! Halle Berry!? Jackie Robinson maybe, Henry Louis Gates, Toni Morrison, sh-t, even Oprah or Denzel or SLJ or L. Fishburne, but Halle Berry! She got to where she is for the same reason Cameron Diaz did--she's smokin' hot. Talent is irrelevant.

Otherwise, arigatou for a good piece.

"...more credibility delivering tough messages to assorted global miscreants than the current President..."

Yes Joe, Obama's bright Biden smile and easy Mondale demeanor will really WOW them at Kamp Karbala Krazies (if not the professional minority senior officer and NCO leadership at Forts Hood, Campbell, Knox, Lewis, Riley, Bliss, Drum, Belvoir -- some 20% of which were secretly mostly black before kinda black was a Clintonized lefty media political monstrosity; you can check with Julius Becton or General Powell on that one, if you doubt IS).

Iran must be dusting off the WELCOME BACK PRESIDENT CARTER banners as we speak.

Kaus is giving Ferraro way to much credit, and his article seems to exhibit little or no understanding of what African Americans have to go through to achieve success in this country. Every time Ferraro opens her mouth on this she makes herself more radioactive, and if the Clinton campaign doesn't take Olberman's advice and tell her to shut it, there will be a lot of super delegates who start aligning with Obama. It will be very interesting to see how camp Clinton deals with the fallout of this today.

On so many occasions I think of Joe Klein as the sort of Centrist Democrat who is anathema to me..."Love Me,I'm A Liberal" and all...but,more often than not I agree with him about the current campaign...his take on the "age,sensibility...and talent" of BHO perfectly reflect my own...that's the core reason why I intend to vote for Barack in April.Heck,maybe I'm more of a "Liberal" than I think.

"what Ferraro was really doing here--whether she was consciously aware of it or not--was to raise the specter of affirmative action in a state whose white working-class population has a history of being sensitive to such appeals."

I've said it before and I'll reiterate it here, but I am inclined to believe that she knew exactly what she was doing. I say this because this is apparently how she deals with black competition (see Jesse Jackson circa 1988). While being a staunch feminist and a political pioneer, she is an old-line, identity politics operative who will play to white racial fears in order to advance her goals -- in this case, placing a woman in the White House.

The fact that she has now painted herself as the victim furthers my contention as this is the next logical step in her gambit -- first you state that blacks are advancing simply for being black and then you shout reverse racism for pointing out the inequity. It is a play that works well among that segement of white males who feel put upon by a system that "unfairly" awards blacks advantages they do not deserve. Ferraro, in pleading that her "begnin" statement was misrepresented and that she is a victim of a press eager to lash out at a white person is a cynical appeal to these groups.

The only reason why I think there's any debate over whether or not this was her intent (given her history and her histrionics) is that those arguing the opposition have never been in the shoes of a black person who has been accused of getting into college, getting a job, or receiving a promotion not because of their qualificaitons but because of their skin color.

Elvis -- It is unfair for you to blame the Clinton campaign for "sending Ferraro out" to shows. Clearly Ferraro is out there on her own and is determined to do what she wants to do. How on earth would the Clintons be able to prevent her from appearing on TV?! They are not responsible for her bookings. Reporters are delighted to have Ferraro appear and keep stirring up this pot.

Oregon JC:

Olbermann, last night.

Finally, as promised, a Special Comment on the presidential campaign of the Junior Senator from New York.
By way of necessary preface, President and Senator Clinton — and the Senator’s mother, and the Senator’s brother — were of immeasurable support to me at the moments when these very commentaries were the focus of the most surprise, the most uncertainty, and the most anger. My gratitude to them is abiding.

Also, I am not here endorsing Senator Obama’s nomination, nor suggesting it is inevitable.

Thus I have fought with myself over whether or not to say anything.
Senator, as it has reached its apex in their tone-deaf, arrogant, and insensitive reaction to the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro… your own advisors are slowly killing your chances to become President.

Senator, their words, and your own, are now slowly killing the chances for any Democrat to become President.
In your tepid response to this Ferraro disaster, you may sincerely think you are disenthralling an enchanted media, and righting an unfair advance bestowed on Senator Obama.

You may think the matter has closed with Representative Ferraro’s bitter, almost threatening resignation.
But in fact, Senator, you are now campaigning, as if Barack Obama were the Democrat, and you… were the Republican.

As Shakespeare wrote, Senator — that way… madness… lies.

You have missed a critical opportunity to do… what was right.

No matter what Ms. Ferraro now claims, no one took her comments out of context.

She had made them on at least three separate occasions, then twice more on television this morning.

Just hours ago, on NBC Nightly News, she denied she had made the remarks in an interview — only at a paid political speech.

In fact, the first time she spoke them, was ten days before the California newspaper published them… not in a speech, but in a radio interview.

On February 26th, quoting…
“If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this, as a potential real problem for Hillary? If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he’s in? Absolutely not.”

The context was inescapable.

Two minutes earlier, a member of Senator Clinton’s Finance Committee, one of her “Hill-Raisers,” had bemoaned the change in allegiance by super-delegate John Lewis from Clinton to Obama, and the endorsement of Obama by Senator Dodd.

“I look at these guys doing it,” she had said, “and I have to tell you, it’s the guys sticking together.”
A minute after the “color” remarks, she was describing herself as having been chosen for the 1984 Democratic ticket, purely as a woman politician, purely to make history.

She was, in turn, making a blind accusation of sexism — and dismissing Senator Obama’s candidacy as nothing more than an Equal Opportunity stunt.
The next day she repeated her comments to a reporter from the newspaper in Torrance, California.

“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.”
And when this despicable statement — ugly in its overtones, laughable in its weak grip of facts, and moronic in the historical context — when it floats outward from the Clinton campaign like a poison cloud, what do the advisors have their candidate do?
Do they have Senator Clinton herself compare the remark to Al Campanis talking on Nightline… on Jackie Robinson Day… about how blacks lacked the necessities to become baseball executives, while she points out that Barack Obama has not gotten his 1600 delegates as part of some kind of Affirmative Action plan?

Do they have Senator Clinton note that her own brief period in elected office, is as irrelevant to the issue of judgment as is Senator Obama’s…
…while she points out that FDR had served only six years as a governor and state Senator before he became President?

Or that Teddy Roosevelt had four-and-a-half years before the White House?
Or that Woodrow Wilson had two years and six weeks?

Or Richard Nixon… fourteen… and Calvin Coolidge 25?

Do these advisors have Senator Clinton invoke Samantha Power — gone by sunrise after she used the word “monster” — and have Senator Clinton say, “this is how I police my campaign and this is what I stand for,” while she fires former Congresswoman Ferraro from any role the campaign?

No.

Somebody tells her that simply disagreeing with and rejecting the remarks is sufficient.

And she should then call, “regrettable”, words that should make any Democrat retch.

And that she should then try to twist them, first into some pox-on-both-your-houses plea to ’stick to the issues,’ and then to let her campaign manager try to bend them beyond all recognition, into Senator Obama’s fault.

And thus these advisers give Congresswoman Ferraro nearly a week in which to send Senator Clinton’s campaign back into the vocabulary… of David Duke.

“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up.
“Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white.

“How’s that?”

How’s that?

Apart from sounding exactly like Rush Limbaugh attacking the black football quarterback Donovan McNabb?

Apart from sounding exactly like what Ms. Ferraro said about another campaign, nearly twenty years ago?

Quote:

“President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don’t ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his “radical” views, “if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.”

So… apart from sounding like insidious racism that is at least two decades old?

Apart from rendering ridiculous, Senator Clinton’s shell-game about choosing Obama as Vice President?
Apart from this evening’s resignation letter?

“I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.

“The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you.”

Apart from all that?

Well. It sounds as if those advisors want their campaign to be associated with those words, and the cheap… ignorant… vile… racism that underlies every syllable…

And that Geraldine Ferraro has just gone free-lance.

Senator Clinton:

This is not a campaign strategy.

This is a suicide pact.

This week alone, your so-called strategists have declared that Senator Obama has not yet crossed the “commander-in-chief threshold”…
But — he might be your choice to be Vice President, even though a quarter of the previous sixteen Vice Presidents have become commander-in-chief during the greatest kind of crisis this nation can face: a mid-term succession.

But you’d only pick him if he crosses that threshold by the time of the convention.

But if he does cross that threshold by the time of the convention, he will only have done so sufficiently enough to become Vice President, not President.

Senator, if the serpentine logic of your so-called advisors were not bad enough, now, thanks to Geraldine Ferraro, and your campaign’s initial refusal to break with her, and your new relationship with her — now more disturbing still with her claim that she can now “speak for herself” about her vision of Senator Obama as some kind of embodiment of a quota…

If you were to seek Obama as a Vice President, it would be, to Ms. Ferraro, some kind of social engineering gesture, some kind of racial make-good.

Do you not see, Senator?

To Senator Clinton’s supporters, to her admirers, to her friends for whom she is first choice, and her friends for whom she is second choice, she is still letting herself be perceived as standing next to, and standing by, racial divisiveness and blindness…

And worst yet, after what President Clinton said during the South Carolina primary, comparing the Obama and Jesse Jackson campaigns — a disturbing, but only borderline remark, after what some in the black community have perceived as a racial undertone to the “3 A-M” ad… a disturbing — but only borderline interpretation…

And after that moment’s hesitation in her own answer on 60 Minutes about Obama’s religion — a disturbing, but only borderline vagueness…

After those precedents, there are those who see a pattern… false, or true.

After those precedents, there are those who see an intent… false, or true.

After those precedents, there are those who see the Clinton campaign’s anything-but-benign neglect of this Ferraro catastrophe — falsely or truly — as a desire to hear the kind of casual prejudice which still haunts this society voiced… and to not distance the campaign from it.

To not distance you from it, Senator!

To not distance you… from that which you as a woman, and Senator Obama as an African-American, should both know and feel with the deepest of personal pain!

Which you should both fight with all you have!

Which you should both insure, has no place in this contest!

This, Senator Clinton, is your campaign, and it is your name.
Grab the reins back from whoever has led you to this precipice, before it is too late.

Voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth.

Your only reaction has been to disagree, reject, and to call it regrettable.

Her only reaction has been to brand herself as the victim, resign from your committee, and insist she will continue to speak.

Unless you say something definitive, Senator, the former Congresswoman is speaking with your approval.

You must remedy this.

And you must… reject… and denounce… Geraldine Ferraro.

Good night, and good luck.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/12/countdown-special-comment-sen-clinton-this-is-not-a-campaign-strategy-this-is-a-suicide-pact/#more-27227

Whoops - "begnin" should be "benign"

Lacking race politics, would the modern (progressive, paranoid, petulant) democrat party even exist?

No, IS would not.

It IS their stock in trade.

Well, after interstate whoring anyway.

Joe:
You really did miss the whole point. Sure, the environment she grew up in was filled with sordid identity politics. Her statement casts a much wider net:

There are people out there who don't approve of him, but it is clear to me they have looked beyond his color and you have decided on these issues based on content, not his ethnicity.

There are also many millions of other voters out there who approve of his policies. They didn't use ethnicity in their decisions either.

THAT is the point. Her statement may be racist, but it is also an insult to everyone, regardless of their ethnicity, that is participating in this process. She is essentially saying that we, as voters, are unable to make decisions about him without invoking his ethnicity.

Ferraro's statement robs ALL of us!

Question Hillary:

Ain't you a bit pottish, calling the kettle Black::

I seem to remember a that you yourself have a wee bit of racially motivated "emotions" running throught that flinty thing in the middle of your chest.

You must have a firewall between the mentality that moves you to post here and the mentality that processes your thoughts.

Next thing I expect to hear from you is a chiding post or two on how to respect the dead and thier mourners!

Ferraro (AKA Clinton, Rendell, Biden, Dean, Jackson, Farrakhan, Sharpton, Imus, SNL, CNN, Time-Jazeera, Dan Rather, New School, old unions) IS not the exception to the DNC race/sex/religion baiting rule.

She IS the DNC rule.

That's how they MAKE THEIR (TAX) MONEY, for EEOC sakes. No merit. Just meatheads.

Media major poo-pooing of these frequent "exceptions" IS getting pretty tired, pretty quick.

Eh, 53?

Who knew they let you out of the group home at such an ungodly hour.

Pike Place does open early of course.

Thanks, Sy, for posting the transcript from Countdown (which I missed last night). Whether you agree with MSNBC's slant or not, a lot of us listen and pay attention. HRC, are you listening? Superdelegates, are you paying attention?

"...I seem to remember a that you yourself have a wee bit of racially motivated "emotions" running throught that flinty thing in the middle of your chest..."

You couldn't read between the irony lines if they were the walls of the Grand Canyon.

BTW. I just looked up PARANOID in the pictionary. You should try some wheat germ, or soy meal perhaps. It might help clear some of the total CRAP out of your Vancouver pipes.

good job, Joe

I bash him when he's right; it's appropriate to acknowledge when he's right. Klein is right, unfortunately.

I don't know what Ferraro is smoking, but I do think it's more foolishness than anything else. But lord it is foolish...

I bash him when he's wrong, obviously...

Here's something germane that Joe wrote in May of 2006 for the DLC's "Blueprint Magazine":P

...what's most interesting now about my 1981 version of Democrats in Disarray is what's missing: any specific mention of race, the transcendent American social and political dilemma -- although the fact that the Democrats had already splintered themselves into caucuses does hint at the problem. While Reagan's Republicans were offering a unified, national message, the Democrats presented a fractured image that emphasized the primacy of their interest groups and, bizarrely, divided people according to racial identity a mere decade after liberals made it a point of honor to oppose racial segregation. No doubt, it would have been near impossible for the leaders of the party to tell the newly elected African-American members of Congress that separating themselves into a black caucus was a bad idea -- but it was a bad idea, which led to the creation of all those other caucuses, and to a public role for liberal interest groups that the Republicans never granted their own powerful special pleaders. This was especially true in the presidential election process. Inevitably, each of the various liberal sects would stage debates in which the Democratic candidates for president were expected to endorse every last extreme item on the wish list.

In retrospect, it seems clear that a primary cause of the Democratic Party's decline was its refusal to acknowledge legitimate public concerns about crime, welfare dependency, affirmative action, and forced busing to achieve integration -- all of which, obviously, had a racial dimension. Most Democrats running for office understood what a pickle they were in on what came to be known as the "social" issues ... and they asked their consultants to solve it for them, to figure out ways to finesse the worthy but implausible positioning favored by their party. Running for president in 1968, Hubert Humphrey stumbled through an elaborate tap dance on school busing. He said he opposed "massive compulsory busing that has as its sole objective racial balance based on a mathematical formula." But he also said it was "fit, right and proper that you bus a child from an inferior school to a good school."

Humphrey was a harbinger. The tap dance became the template for Democratic inanity. Liberals were against "racial quotas" but they were in favor of "racial preferences." They said they favored "a hand up, not a handout," but they supported a welfare system that delivered handouts and asked for absolutely nothing in return. Their speech became gerundial, evasive -- it reflected the sensibility of the teachers and social workers, the "helping professions" that became the party's most loyal supporters. They seemed more concerned with understanding bad actions than with punishing them.

I once asked David Dinkins, the mayor of New York, if he thought evil had any role in criminality, and he responded, testily and no doubt unconsciously, with examples of how the evil subjugation of the poor had produced the conditions that induced people to commit crimes. Yes, poverty and discrimination did, to some extent, induce criminality. But Dinkins was simply incapable of saying, as were most liberals of his era, that there were some bad people out there -- in the city and in the world -- who needed to be taken out of public circulation. Indeed, liberals tended to cringe when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire" or when George W. Bush later called terrorists "evildoers." To paraphrase the old line about puritans, a liberal became a person who worried that someone, somewhere might be offended.

My guess is that Joe stuck his finger in the air, came back with the fear of being purged for all of his past Ferarro-esqe arguments ("Democrats mustn't be afraid to tell Black people the truth to their faces"), and put this post up as a prophylactic.

Mind you, I agree with many of the ideas that Joe (feeling temporarily emboldened enough by the recent apex of Movement Conservatism) put down on paper. That said, his "courage" is for some reason not in evidence now, as his admonition to Ferarro is largely "Shut up already--this isn't about you!" As his pieces over the years indicate, he has good reason to want the discussion over and done, as he feels he may have detected a swing, however brief, in the opposite political direction.

I would suggest that commenters read what this guy has been putting out for the past ten years, and then ask themselves whether he's really being genuine in his concern--especially with respect to the defense of affirmative action.

Joe, I agree with you about Ferraro. Finally (and make that word bolded and in caps) the media actually has a point about race re the Clinton campaign. The lowpoint of the press hysteria when it comes to looking for things to attack HRC on came with the parsing of her 60 Minutes interview down to "as far as I know". I wonder how many reporters and pundits actually saw the whole thing?

As for Obama, I concur and disagree. He gives wonderful speeches and is very charismatic. But he can't hold a candle to Bill Clinton because Obama is not so good when talking about specific issues. I've seen Obama at events where he is addressing the economy, health care, etc and he sounds halting and not very convincing. His answers ring hollow (at least when I'm watching them on CNN, which airs a lot of campaign stumps)when he's not using the cadence of oration.

Bill Clinton could give an inspiring message and then effortlessly shift into Q & A and policy mode, something Obama hasn't yet learned to do.

What do commenters think about Joe's denunciation in light of this set of statements from the same DLC piece?

DLC | Blueprint Magazine | May 17, 2006 The Early Politics of Evasion A brief history of the intellectual cowardice that left Democrats hopelessly boggled on social issues. By Joe Klein

...There was probably no way the Democrats could have held on to the South, but they also began to lose traction with the white middle class in the rest of the country -- and this was directly attributable to the intellectual cowardice and political correctness that prevented liberal Democrats from looking clearly at the dramatic pathologies that had begun to affect poor black communities. In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan published a paper called "The Black Family," which argued that increasing out-of-wedlock birth rates were causing serious social problems. In a later paper, he was able to show that the welfare caseload -- which in the past rose and fell with the unemployment rate -- had exploded in the 1960s even as the unemployment rate was falling (the welfare caseload in New York tripled during those years). This was something new under the sun, a "culture of poverty" caused by individual behavior rather than by economics, and marked an intergenerational dependence on the welfare system. At the heart of this phenomenon was the refusal of many to take responsibility for the children they sired.

Moynihan was immediately and viciously attacked as a racist. It was considered racist even to discuss the possibility that a new set of destructive mores had taken hold in the urban ghettos. The truth of Moynihan's theory would not be accepted by liberals for 20 years, when the black sociologist William Julius Wilson finally acknowledged -- in a 1987 book called The Truly Disadvantaged -- the horrific sociological findings that had been piling up: Poor children raised by single mothers were far more likely to drop out of school, become drug addicts, commit crimes, and produce out-of-wedlock babies on their own. The rise in out-of-wedlock births had soared in the intervening years from 26 percent, when Moynihan wrote his initial report, to nearly 80 percent in some poor black communities by the late 1980s. The rise in crime was unimaginable. In New York City, for example, robbery rates -- the most accurate index of criminal activity -- had remained stable through much of the 20th century (even during the Great Depression). But robberies quintupled between 1962 and 1967 -- from 6,634 to 35,934 per year -- and then doubled again between 1967 and 1972 (to 78,202) and kept rising.

And the Democratic Party's response to this? Utter denial. The party line on the culture of poverty came from the lyrics of West Side Story: the poor victims, depraved on account of being deprived. Any attempt to modify the perverse incentives of the welfare system was derided by liberals as "blaming the victim." The refusal to work was justified: Poor blacks were asked to perform "deadend jobs" (which, of course, were eagerly snapped up by immigrants, many of whom used them as a springboard into the middle class). Any discussion of "law and order" was considered a coded attempt to appeal to racial bigotry. Any attempt to raise the responsibilities inherent in parenthood was dismissed as hopelessly oldfashioned and racist, to boot.

So, commenters?

Has Joe Klein really "come around" to your way of thinking?
...or is he playing you and trying desperately to act in Ferarro's place--by condemning and apologizing and hoping that it will all just go away?

Geraldine Ferraro is making a gigantic mistake that's going to cost her going forward. If Obama is the eventual candidate, she can forget influence in the party from the convention on. If Hillary is, she will have proven to be an obstacle on the way and I don't think Hillary Clinton likes obstacles.

If she goes off on her own and is branded racist, she does a lot of damage to the Democratic Party, which is trying to get out from under that.

I don't get it, Stuart. Joe Klein wrote a kind of GOP-talking-points-ish attack on the Democratic party circa 1980. There's plenty there that I disagree with, not least his caricature of affirmative action, but reasonable people can disagree as to whether Democrats were too slow to respond to the problem of increasing crime and the decline of families because they were skittish about anything that involved race. Obama's a co-sponsor of the Responsible Fatherhood Act or some such thing, so I don't think Klein made up the problem of fatherlessness.

Joe never said anything like what Ferraro's been saying. (Not in that article, and I have no reason to believe anywhere else). I don't think I get your point, or I skimmed the article you linked and missed the Ferraro-esque bits.

Douglas Wilder ran for President and didn't get very far. So the whole thing is dumb.

Oh, and how can people stand to read Mickey Kaus?

Thanks Sy--my technologically backwards arse managed to watch the video online last night. Highlight of my week.

And, Stuart, really, b/c we may generally agree with JK in this instance (despite the Halle Berry ref), does that mean we have to agree with everything he's ever written, or that we're daft enough to be played? He's throwing stuffed animals to the crowd, so be it.

I think RKA said something like this last week, on post # 15,679--I for one can acknowledge that Reagan or Bush had ideas, even if I didn't agree with those ideas. Furthermore, I read Brooks and Will regularly, and they at times make incredibly good points--this does not mean that I have to swallow whole their larger body of thought. As an aside, I prefer to read voices that I don't agree with--Andrew Sullivan has made himself totally irrelevant to me. For someone like you more doubtful about O, who knows. Anyone who voices agreement with JK, Dowd, Sullivan etc--is it really productive to run them through the Google ringer for past sins against "liberal" humanity. We could all mark in bold the lines of text we see as relevant. After 10 of us are done, the entire text would be in bold.

Finally, we've all surely made numerous points here that others have felt were absurd at best, offensive at worst--does that mean that anyone who has passed such a line is incapable of making a good pt. in the future?

Anyhoo, Hillary:

"I certainly do repudiate it and I regret deeply that it was said. Obviously she doesn't speak for the campaign, she doesn't speak for any of my positions, and she has resigned from being a member of my very large finance committee"

Is she just saying this?

I have been reading your blog for a while now, and after this latest bit of trash, I finally registered to place a comment.

Ferraro's comment is basically true, and all the screaming by the Obama's supporters will not change this.

Would you support a white candidate who loses his first election by a 2 to 1 margin, and wins his second election by having his opponents disqualified and tossed off the ballot. He says that he is for gun control, but when he has a chance to stand up and be counted, he goes to Hawaii for vacation. His mentor, the state senate majority leader gives him sponsorship of several bills, even though other state senators wrote the original bills and did all the background work, and then got no credit. He then runs for US senator, and wins the nomination when the leading candidate has legal troubles, and win the election when the current Senator has a messy divorce. In the senate, he is given a chairmanship of a sub-committee, but is too busy to hold any hearing. Says he is too inexperienced to run for president, and then runs for president. His minister, who he calls his mentor and friend, shouts racist nonsense and says 9/11 is the fault of white people. The minister also thinks a racist and anti-semitic figure is a great man.

If this was a white candidate with the above record, and his minister supported David Duke, you would be condemning at every chance.

And it gets even better:
- Michele Obama says that America is a terrible place, and it is only now she is proud of it.
- Supporters of Obama said in New Hampshire after he lost the primary that white voters told the pollster they for Obama, but then voted for the white candidates.
- Obama supporters then twisted Senator Clinton's statement about LBJ and MLK Jr. to imply she was destroying MLK's legacy, which is actually being tarnished by Obama's supporters to galvanize the black voters.
- Obama supporters after the California primary wrote several articles saying Asian voters were racist because they voted 3 to 1 for Clinton but it was not racist for black voters to vote for Obama 9 to 1.
- Another Obama supporter (a Harvard professor) wrote an article saying the 3 AM ad was racist.
- Obama supporters are claiming Clinton tried to imply Obama was a Muslim in a 60 minute interview. The following quotes appeared in a WSJ article about the interview:

Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"

Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."

Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."

Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."

Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"

Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

So lets be real about who is playing racial politics.

Finally, lets remember who said in Iowa that he had passed a bill about low level radiation leaks when it turns out all he did was to water down his original bill so that it was meaningless, and that he accepted $270,000 in donations from the company which had the original leak.

And also who plagarized parts of several speeches, which I believe in 1982, caused Joe Biden to have to drop out of the nominating race.

Having grown up in the Chicago area, I know a Chicago politician when I see one, and boy is he one. So much for polictics of change, more like same old politics.

So Mr. Klein, I suggest you start each entry by saying you hate Clinton and love Obama so readers can expect to read bias reporting.

Question Hillary:

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it's a pretty good bet that it (you) just might be a duck!

That firewall I mentioned sure didn't let you see the Lotts, Buchannons, Limbaughs etc on your side of the aisle, did it?

I mean, the things Mehlman went before the NAACP to apologize for???

Let's hear something from you about respect for the dead...

Nice job, Joe, it feels odd complimenting you but I have to say you pretty much nailed it.

Jim:
I don't see much in your commentary that ISN'T biased.

Your comments about Obama's "supporter" is disengenuous to the extreme, because Obama didn't attempt to get Farrakahns' approval. Farrakahn, who IS a racist, did that on his own. "David Duke" back to you on that one.

And, you put words in Michelle Obama's mouth. That is NOT what she said. Not by a long shot.

About the ONLY comment of use is that you consider him to be a typical Chicago politician. Fair enough.

Look up the word "bias" in the dictionary. Also, try next time to avoid rhetoric and contrafactuality.

I also think that Joe's "hugging" of Obama is rather more along the lines of a "left handed compliment" than anything else.

"b) think a President named Barack Obama would have a real advantage in dealing with the rest of the world (and more credibility delivering tough messages to assorted global miscreants than the current President does)."

There is a lot of ignorance in this statement. If Condoleeza Rice isn't being listened to even though she looks more like them than the President does, what makes you think that just because his name is more like one they would use that he would do any better?

It's the message in the bottle that counts, Joe, not the color of the bottle or the name on it that counts!

Get your mind out ot the '70s and try living in the '00s!

To: Posted by 53_2

If you read my comment, nowhere in it do I say Obama tried to get Farrakakn's endorsement. I said his minister said he was a great man. And if you read Michele Obama's speeches,it is what she says.

And finally, Truth is not Bias. Bias is cnn.com/politics showing their National Poll of Polls showing Obama favored over Clinton 50 to 40 using polling data from before 2-24.

You're about a day late on that last paragraph, Joe.

Jim:

NOWHERE does she say that. I've read her speeches. That is only what you "interpret" her to be saying, and she didn't, and wasn't.

Paste the quote. Put your money where your rhetoric is.

On Farrakahn, your disengenousness is linking it to Obama. In no way is that so.

You missed the truth on BOTH counts.

I thought maybe someone should point out where the story got it's beginnings. It was flagged by a Daily Kos diarist and eventually it attracted the msm and of course the Obama camp. Why they decided to just go all out I don't know, I thought they should have called Ferraro to clarify, hey maybe she is a bigot, I don't know and I don't think anyone here does either. I think Obamas most recent comment about the Clinton camp having a "directive" regarding racial division was interesting in and of itself (John Harwood article NYTIMES). I don't see anyone too concerned about this though. Why do you suppose?

Elvis Elvisberg:

As a matter of record, Joe didn't write that piece in 1980, he wrote it in 2006 as an addendum to what he clearly believed is still the case.

That being said, having read my own commentary, I think that the principle problem with my piece is that I may be engaging in Russertism, a journalistic practice that I believe is hurting America.

I'm with Stuart. For Joe to have written that in 2006 and then act as if he had not is more than hypocrisy, it's simply bizarre. To take the problems created by poverty and prejudice and ascribe them to race is not and should not be erased so easily.

Right, Stuart, I meant to say that in 2006, Klein wrote about the Democratic Party circa 1980. But I still don't get it. Criticizing the Dems for being skittish about race and wrong on some issues, as Joe did, is a debatable contention. Ferraro said that Obama is where he is solely because he's black, and that criticism of her only happened because she was white. That's infinitely stupider, less defensible, and more offensive.

I still don't understand why that article from 2006 is relevant.

I have to say the Obama camp is very savvy. They are absolutely no different from any other campaign, they go for the throat, twist facts, use race whenever it's convenient for them to do so, etc.

Obama is NO different from anyone else who has run before him. Neither is HRC, with the exception that he is black and she's a woman. Otherwise, both campaigns are very tough and adroit at using every advantage they have.

The big problem for HRC is that the media adore Obama and are carrying his water.

On the other hand, as a loyal Dem I know that Obama will almost assuredly be our nominee. So, I'm glad to find out his "change" slogan is just that, a slogan and that he can be as mean and down and dirty as any other politician. Because when he faces the Repug attack machine this fall it will get really ugly and he's going to have to respond in kind. His followers don't question him so he doesn't have to worry about alienating them. The media probably love McCain more than Obama, but they still have a lot invested in the Obama myth so he will probably benefit from favorable reporting.

"...That firewall I mentioned sure didn't let you see the Lotts, Buchannons, Limbaughs etc on your side of the aisle, did it?..."

Listen up, Bozo:

Show us all ONE (1) instance where I've apologized for racism -- even yours, on display daily at DNC HQ and the McGovern Memorial SDS Union Hall annex -- anywhere.

Take your time.

You have 8 and a half more blessed years, until President McCain hands the reigns over to John Thune.

And see if you can step in another steaming sack of Hillary's hot Pie In The Blackbird Sky sarcasm, while at the Y this afternoon.

Ask for paper, instead of plastic.

Be sure to inhale.

"Bill Clinton could give an inspiring message and then effortlessly shift into Q & A and policy mode, something Obama hasn't yet learned to do."

Does anyone listen to race baiting BJ Boy any more -- or ever, really?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23596304/

The only good news from the Ferraro quagmire IS that it will last far longer than the war in Iraq, where decimation of the bogus DNC "base" (white trash, Ivy League or not) IS concerned.

"...Farrakahn, who IS a racist, did that on his own..."

HOLY SPRITZER.

A KERNEL OF TRUTH FROM 53.

Now tell us about Obama's own Chicago pastor, while you've got our interest.

Southern Bell --

I've read your continual efforts to lump Samatha Power from the Obama campaign in with Geraldine Ferraro from the Clinton campaign and the connections you are making are tenuous at best.

As numerous other posters pointed out to you, Power made an off-the-cuff remark that she tried to have taken off the record after she said it and was canned for within 24 hours of it being printed. Ferraro, on the other hand, had been beating the drum of "Obama's only a contender because he's black" for a week, and received tacit support from the Clinton campaign as they tried to soft shoe the comments. Ferraro was then afforded the opportunity to resign in a defiant manner, claiming on the way out the door that she was being persecuted because she was white.

The above mentioned issues have nothing to do with Obama being adored by the media and Clinton being villified -- they are the facts. And furthermore, if you were to take the time to really examine the messages of the two women -- and do so with complete intellectual honesty -- and how they were handled by the respective campaigns, the differences between the two would be obvious.

Looking at Samantha Power, what she said was stupid. She accused Clinton and her campaign of doing or saying anything to get elected. Because of this behavior, she described Clinton as a "monster." The comment gets at the worst ideas people have about the Clintons (i.e. they're political opportunists and unethical). It's fodder for those inclined not to vote for Clinton in the first place. As mentioned, once learning of the statement, Power was dismissed by the Obama campaign and he apologized.

In opposition, we have the Ferraro statement. As I have mentioned numerous times, this seems to be her M.O. when facing black candidates for office. Her problems with Jesse Jackson running in 1988 translated to her uttering an almost identical comment about him. As our good friend Stuart even said, she seems to be enamored with old-line Reagan-Democrat talking points. The message she was sending was quite clear: a black man is being given an unfair advantage over a white person simply because he's black. This message plays very well in those areas where you have white men lashing out against a system they believe gives too much to the darker peoples of this country. Her victory lap, where she took up the banner of oppressed white woman, was the logical conclusion of her intial argument: a white person who tells it like it is about those black people gets crucified in the liberal media.

For her transgressions, the Clinton campaign took its sweet time repudiating her statements and disassociating her from the campaign. This allowed her to go on the morning talk show circuit as a representative of the campaign so that the whole world saw that the Clinton campaign endorsed the idea that an uppity negro was usurping what was rightfully a white woman's nomination. And when the noise of the media finally made Ferraro's position untenable, she didn't resign at the behest of the Clinton campaign, but on her own so she could spew her invective separate from the campaign.

Now, to your mind, Southern Bell, calling Clinton a monster is the same as race-baiting? The reaction of the Obama campaign, to distance itself immediately from Power's remarks, is the same as the Clinton campaign's, which tolerated and defended the remarks for atleast two newscycles? Obama was somehow using his race here? He was "playing down and dirty" here?

Wanting to believe the guy you're playing against is just as dirty as you does not make it so.

To: Posted by 53_2

Please read column of 3-5 by Jim Geraghty who quotes from a New Yorker profile of Michelle Obama.

"...we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!” ..."

It was an interesting profile, full of such little gems.

You still seem to be having a hard time reading and understanding my comments. The only link I have made and the only one I was implying was that Obama's minister thinks Farrakahn is a great man.

Since you claim that I missed the truth, let's look into what truth is.

Lie - Michele Obama says on GMA (I think this was the program) that if Clinton was the nominee, she is not sure she could support her.
Truth - Yes she said that, but then went on to explain what she meant with a perfectly logical explanation.
Bias - Believing the lie because you don't like her or her husband.

Lie - Clinton implying Obama is a Muslim ("as far as I know").
Truth - After several times saying he was not a Muslim she ended another denial with "as far as I know"
Bias - Believing she would imply an obvious lie because you hate Clinton.

Neither campaign has cornered the market on truth. But just saying something is untrue without factual support is worthless, and in its own way a lie.

Jim-- why are you obsessed with a candidate's spouse?

To: Elvis Elvisberg,

Nope, I don't like her, but 53_2 keeps throwing her back at me because of my original comment about her. It might be because he was having trouble refuting the other things I said. Who knows?

As far as I am concerned, more than enough has been said about the Lady.

It is much more fun poking holes into the Obama supporters' statements.

I couldn't agree more. Thanks for the post.

Hillary has really opened up a can of worms on this one. Even Karl Rove warned Republican supporters not to launch these kinds of attacks because it would make the Republican Party look racist. This is bad news for Hillary and worse news for the Democratic Party if Hillary can't distance herself from this kind of senselessness.

KoBD, I don't regard what Ferrara has said as race-baiting. I don't really think the Obama campaign is race-bating either, just using it to their advantage when they can, which is smart politics. By distorting what Ferrara said and HRC's comments on 60 Minutes the Obama has been able to sling some good old-fashioned mud at HRC.

By the way, it didn't take HRC a long time to respond to Ferrara's comments. Once they were publicized, action was taken. I admit it's a clever ploy to try and pretend HRC knew about Ferrara's remarks when they were printed but that's not the case.

I don't agree that it was primarily talent that got Obama to where he is today. If nothing else, the African American vote which is going to Obama by 91% would have gone heavily for Hillary Clinton and she would have won the southern states primaries. Also, Obama would probably not have gotten the showcase spot at the 2004 convention if he was white, and it's that speech that launched him. The press has given him a free pass because they like his story, an African American and a meteoric rise. His mantra about change and unity is really very naive in our political climate, but the press, which knows better, doesn't interfere with a little down-to-earth analysis, because that would be raining on his parade. It's also worth noting that if the Democratic Party used a winner-take-all primary system, Hillary Clinton would already have won this thing.

The press was very instrumental in giving us George W. Bush because they would have like to have a beer with him. They disliked Al Gore and they hung all kinds of bad press on him, most of which accused him of things that weren't even true. The press today likes Obama's story more than Cliton's and the coverage reveals it.

So yes, race does account for much of Obama's success, just as gender accounts for much of Hillary Clinton's problems with the press. Anyone who refuses to see that is in a state of denial.

I hope that Ferraro is right and Klien is wrong. If Ferraro is correct then there is at least a good reason for supporting Obama. It is true that race is not the most noble reason to support a candidate for president but it is a valid one in a country, like ours, with a 400 year history of mistreating blacks. It is time for a black president, if for no other reason, to begin to heal the scars of our past. If Klien is right then the only reasons to vote for Obama is that he is a good orator, is quick on his feet...like a used car salesman or a carnival caller, and because Klien thinks his name sound Islamic and will play well in the Arab world (huh?). Klien does not mention any great achievement, or minor one for that matter, that we can attribute to Obama or to our desire to support him. Absent any achievement or experience to draw your vote, a vote for Obama is, by default, either a Ferraro-black man vote or a Klien-smooth opertor vote. I think it less offensive to say we support Obama because he is black than because he talks gooder than GW or because terrorist's will like his name better. Maybe we should cut Geraldine a little slack here?

Bob Somerby is on to something here...quite a lot, actually.

Here are some thoughts that came to mind when we reviewed what Ferraro said:

“This is a very emotional campaign for me,” she said. As she said this, she described a problem which has plagued this Democratic campaign on various sides. Beyond that, we disagree with a few of the things she said in these excerpts—but then, we strongly agree with some others. And we think these remarks present a context for her other remarks—a context which has been tossed away this week, as so often occurs in what we call our political discourse.

What do we disagree with here? Along with many other Democrats, Ferraro has been living on Mars if she believes (we don’t doubt that she does) that the press has been “uniquely hard” on Clinton in this campaign—if she believes that the role of the media “has been far larger than anything I’ve seen before.” We agree that the press corps has gone after Clinton, especially after October, often in ways which have been inexcusable. But starting in March 1999, they went after Candidate Gore much longer and a bit harder. We believe Ferraro when she suggests that she doesn’t understand that history. In our experience, most Big Dems and Big Liberals don’t.

So Ferraro is wrong about that point—but she’s right about others. For example, we have seen “a very sexist media” during this campaign. Though we ourselves avoid that term (more heat than light), we’ve been writing about the gender-trashing of Clinton since late 2006. The gender-trashing was nasty and endless, and it came from familiar press elements—elements which have been destroying Big Dems ever since they went after Gore. (Chris Matthews, you big f*cking tool, come on down!) But so what? All around the pseudo-liberal world, high-minded boys looked contentedly on. Today, they’re troubled by all that racism! Sorry. Many times, if you pick-and-choose that way, you end up with “emotional” people complaining about your candidate.

We wouldn’t have said the things Ferraro said; nor would we have trashed her for them. But many people have gotten “emotional” (sometimes counter-productively so) as they’ve seen their candidate get gender-trashed. (Bill Clinton would be one example.) Then, there are those who didn’t speak up during this long, inexcusable process. Last night, Keith set aside his usual practice of mocking young women to offer one of his phony rants about the way the Clinton campaign is now of a piece with David Duke! For our money, Keith became unwatchable long ago, when his self-impressed rants were still aimed at Bush. (As the Church Lady might have said: Aren’t his comments special!) But now, you can add his self-impressed (pro-Obama) noise to that foolish (pro-Clinton) insult about those Jimmy Choo shoes.

Obama supporters just like Jimmy Choos! No: The Clinton campaign sounds like David Duke! And that ad was like Birth of a Nation! Readers, you can’t get dumber than our liberal elites! Therefore, we think you have two choices: You can choose to be dumb your whole life, or you can choose to reject them. In our view, this is your party on rectitude, a party in love with the sound of its dumbness. Self-impressed boys who let Chris Matthews rave on are now sooo deeply upset with Ferraro! In the process, an authentic straight-talking war hero straight-shooter may be getting that much more comfortable in his own skin.

Many people have said and done stupid (or perhaps dishonest) things during this campaign. On Monday, we spoke about “shirts and skins,” a way we fellows divide the world when we play pick-up basketball. But then, the human brain is wired that way; it was wired, during many years of prehistory, to see the world as “us and them.” As long as you submit to that wiring, you’ll feel the insults aimed at your tribe—and you’ll gaze dumbly at the emotions of others. You’ll understand your own team’s sense of offense—and be puzzled by Ferraro’s.

When you’re a shirt, you’re a shirt all the way, if we may quote the old musical.

And when you’re a shirt, only skins commit fouls! We fellows have seen how it works on the court—but it becomes a lot more harmful when it’s exported to political battles. In this campaign, major players on various sides have said dumb things—or behaved dishonestly. Race cards have been—or may have been—played on various sides. And no, it isn’t easy to know when these cards are being deliberately dealt. Although, of course, it always feels good to pretend we do know—to rant histrionically.

Some of you will now compose e-mails, describing the outrageous offenses committed against your virtuous side. You might find yourself talking about things which offended you; you might not find yourself wondering about the things which may have offended someone else. You may even find yourself explaining somebody’s motives—where motive may be hard to detect. You may find yourself in the grip of a high level of certainty.

In short, you may find yourself repping the shirts, railing about what the vile skins have done. You may be “emotional” too! When you’re a shirt, you’re a shirt all the way! We’ll suggest that’s how Rove wins elections.

The HillBillary Campaign released a memo to Obama asking whether he is ready to be Commander-in-Chief. I have my own version of that memo addressed to Hillary - asking whether she is ready to be President. http://angryafrican.net/2008/03/13/a-memo-to-hillbillary-please-dont/

Though he is clearly a very talented speaker, Ferraro is probably right that Obama wouldn't be precisely where he is -- about to be nominated as this country's first post-racial presidential candidate -- if he weren't, in fact, Kansan-Kenyan-American. Instead of acting indignant, he should have embraced Ferraro's observation, and used it as further evidence that he should be the nomination.

But the converse, as articulated by David Gergen, that Ferraro's observation would be obviously unacceptable if it had been raised about Hillary by stating that she only got where she is because she is a woman, is completely wrong. It IS only because she is a woman that she is where she is. Had she not been a woman married to President Bill Clinton, she would never, in a million years, have convinced New Yorkers, or anyone else, to elect her to the Senate with NO qualifications or charisma, and she sure wouldn't be a viable candidate for president!

That's absolutely true, Stuart. Ferrarro has clearly handed over her ability to think rationally in exchange for allegiance to a side.

We are all hard-wired to stereotype, to pick a side and denigrate the other side. Yes, it's true that the Karl Rove GOP has run that as hard as they can for a while-- gay marriage, liberals want to give bin Laden therapy, all that-- but it's not like Democrats are immune to the problem.

I've seen Democrats say they'd refuse to vote for Clinton in the general, which is of course absurd. On the Clinton side, we've got this from Ferrarro. And so it goes.

Every reporter, pundit, political operative acknowledges that race has helped Obama win primaries. Is this disputed somewhere that I am unaware of? So, it seems that it would be true that a white, male candidate (with as thin a resume as Obama's, a woman would be laughed off the national stage) would be unlikely to have garnered such incredible support from black voters. I am not belittling the support Obama clearly has with white voters, but it is insane to claim that being African American has not helped him win.

Hillary Clinton is the first woman in America with a real shot at winning the nomination. Does her gender matter? Yes. Is it wrong to point that out? No.

I do not think Ferraro should apologize for her comments.

Calling someone a racist is about the worst thing that you can call someone in America. Furthermore, I think that it is slanderous to call someone a racist on such thin gruel as Ferraro's statement. I mean, does anyone truly believe that Geraldine Ferraro is a racist? Anyone? That's what I thought. I felt so sorry for her. You could really see the outrage and hurt in her eyes when she was being interviewed. Ferraro NEVER said that Obama was successful ONLY because he is black. She simply stated that the country is caught up in the concept of electing a black man in order to transcend America's racist past. Andrew Sullivan, an ardent Obama supporter, has made that very point numerous times. Furthermore, 9 out of 10 African-Americans are voting for Obama, because they are excited about the prospect of an African-American president. These are both good things, and people should be able to discuss these obvious facts without being called bigots.

By the way, has anyone else noticed that whenever Obama loses or is about to lose, he suddenly plays the race card? Obama had absolutely no problem defending Joe Biden from racist charges, when Biden was at like 1% in the polls and was of absolutely no threat to him. However, after Obama lost New Hampshire to Hillary Clinton, he all of a sudden found a reason to be be offended by Clinton's meaningless MLK/LBJ statement. Instead of being a gentleman and defending her, he said that her comments were "unfortunate" and "offended some folks." Obama also sent Jesse Jackson, Jr. (race-baiter of the universe) out to state that, "Clinton cried for her appearance but not for Katrina victims"--which was a very sexist statement that simultaneously played the race card. Oh, and right before it was obvious that Obama was going to lose Ohio and Texas, his campaign made a big whoop de doo over Hillary's saying that Obama isn't a Muslim "as far as I know", even though she had just adamantly denied that Obama was a Muslim in a previous question and it was more than obvious that Steve Kroft was badgering her in that 60 minutes interview. And now, that Obama has indeed lost Texas and Ohio, and it appears like he's going to lose Pennsylvania as well, he's playing the old reliable race card again--surprise, surprise.

On a side note, Geraldine Ferraro suffers from multiple myeloma, a rare and incurable form of bone cancer. In all honesty, she probably doesn't have all that long to live. This was an opportunity for Barack Obama to actually show some class and defend Ferraro. Instead, he attacks an older woman with cancer by calling her a racist. This guy is such a bottom-feeding little weasel. I used to like Obama, but now if he's the nominee, I'm voting for John McCain. The good news, though, is that I think that Americans are finally starting to see through his act and are tiring of his constant use of the race card.

Thank you Joe, nice to know not everyone is blind.

I'm surprised that the liberal Democrats are so upset by this. Isn't the Democrat Party, after all, the party that thinks it is good policy to promote women and minorities over white males, even when the women and minorities are less qualified, so as to achieve diversity and some Utopian notion of social justice? Yes, it is.

Isn't that attitude exactly what both Obama and Clinton are benefiting from? Again, yes, it is. The voters of the Democrat party has given each of them bonus points and held them to a lesser standard, because they aren't white males. They shouldn't complain about it now that people are noticing and commenting on it.

It is absolutely true that if either one was a white male, they wouldn't be where they are today. They would've been treated like John Edwards and dismissed as unqualified political hacks, which is what they are.

Joe Klein, like many others, simply misconstrues Ferraro's words. She neither said nor implied "that Obama got to where he is because of his race", to the exclusion of other factors. He got to where he is because of a number of factors - talent, effort, life story, and, yes, race - but he would not be where he is if he were white. Ferraro did no more than state the obvious.

Elvis Elvisberg:

Just wait.
I think that Obama might take this thing, and when he does, there will be a switch.

"anti-Israel" and anti-semite will be the charges against him, you just watch. Those charges will fly. Somebody associated with his campaign will make a statement about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and Jewish support for Israel, and that person will pull a Ferarro, i.e. get really, publicly angry and say "F--k all of you! I'm right! Nobody in their right mind could call me prejudiced against Jewish people! I didn't do anything wrong!" The "remarks will come back to haunt Barack Obama" day after day. Evangelicals may even be energized to come back and fully support the McCain campaign due to perceived "attacks on Israel". Jimmy Carter's book will be brought up again and again, along with demands for total renunciation. We're going to have a big, big problem before November. Hillary Clinton's despicable "denounce and reject" moment in the debate will come back, big time. I think that these things will happen anyway, but by demanding the total condemnation of Ferarro, David Axelrod has set the stage for legitimizing demands that Obama "denounce and reject" his own pastor, or somebody very important associated with him. I don't like it. I wish we could have avoided this. I don't blame both sides in the primary fight equally, but I do blame both sides.

I take no pleasure in making these predictions, but that's where this is going, I fear.

Why can Obama's pastor say this and get away with it? 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God". Why can he insult jews and never have to answer for it. Why isn't anyone calling for Obama to cut him loose? If you think white guilt is going to carry this election for Obama you are mistaken. It's growing tired even with fellow democrats. Obama is winning delegates because 90% of blacks are voting for him in Southern States that he will NEVER carry in November. HRC needs a big win in PA.

Man, Stuart, you sure are channelling Tim Russert (in that last debate) by being so "concerned" about people tarring Obama as anti-semitic by loose association.

Having religious supporters with kooky views is a pretty bipartisan problem. On the right, there are the Hagee's, the Robertson's, and the late Jerry Falwell.

Most voters don't play the guilt by loose association game the media tries to play.

Oh, and stuart...the person who set the "denounce AND reject" standard was not David Axlerod, it was Hillary Clinton.

I love how you say you take no pleasure in predicting doom and gloom for Obama!

Ha.

Yes, could we have a GASP "even handed" approach to the ? of Palestine? Shrieking harlots would fly out of the woodwork indeed. I would hope that Obama will wait until December to use such inflammatory rhetoric.

And "Real American," I simply love your name. Are you a real man and a real patriot too? How 'bout a real grammatician. Two tips: Subject-verb agreement and pronoun-antecedant agreement--that one's for you Stuart. I would never nitpick a gentleman like you but a trollish right winger is another matter entirely.

This ,Ferraro comment, was planned down to a knats a--. The old warhorses got together and took the calculated risk that it would help hclinton...Or at least get the slander out there and she could apologize later,as usual, but it backfired on her. Forgetting that Bill had done the same thing [on tape] and Gerry did it to Jackson in '88.
The clintonite screeders are trying a new tactic==guilt by association with Obama's pastor...IF I were them I would be very careful with that one...Like the close monetary relationship of the clintons with the Saudi's and the chinese--Or with Peter Paul or Norman Hsu or C Tyrie, or Diebold, or on and on....
Her favorability rating is plummeting in PA.
Poll: Hillary’s negative rating rivals Santorum’s
BY BORYS KRAWCZENIUK
STAFF WRITER
03/13/2008
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has something in common with former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum. A large percentage of Pennsylvania voters dislike both of them.

In fact, greater percentages of voters here have consistently viewed Mrs. Clinton unfavorably than Mr. Santorum, according to a review of data from a respected statewide poll.

The data could buttress arguments by Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign that Mrs. Clinton, if she wins the Democratic presidential nomination, might not be able to defeat Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, in the Keystone State.

“I think Pennsylvania’s in play if it’s McCain against Clinton,” said Ed Mitchell, a local Democratic political consultant who has contributed to Mr. Obama’s campaign.

No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania in the general election since Harry Truman in 1948, when the state still had more Republicans.

“She’s got a problem with core Republican voters and swing voters that she’s going to have to deal with,” said G. Terry Madonna, Ph.D., who runs Franklin & Marshall’s Center for Politics and Public Affairs, which regularly polls state voters.

Swing voters, especially, can be crucial to winning national elections in Pennsylvania.

A Franklin & Marshall/Times-Shamrock Newspapers poll in mid-February showed 43 percent of voters had an unfavorable opinion of Mrs. Clinton, the same as a month ago and three percentage points lower than a year ago.

Of course, polls are only snapshots of sentiment at the time they are taken. But consistent unfavorability ratings above 40 percent are dangerous for a candidate.

“The negatives (unfavorability) prevent you from growing (in popularity),” Dr. Madonna said.

By comparison, Mr. Santorum’s unfavorability rose from 32 percent in September 2005 to 37 percent the same month of 2006 and 46 percent the week before he was trounced by Democrat Bob Casey.

Mr. Obama’s unfavorability rating was at 27 percent and Mr. McCain’s at 26 percent, both up from 15 percent a year ago.

There is one big difference between Mr. Santorum and Mrs. Clinton, Dr. Madonna said. Throughout his campaign against Mr. Casey, Mr. Santorum trailed by double digits in polls.

Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Obama for that matter, actually match up well against Mr. McCain in the Franklin & Marshall poll.

In that poll, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain both had the support of 46 percent of voters. Mr. McCain was up on Mr. Obama 44 percent to 43 percent, a virtual tie because of potential statistical errors.

That was before Mrs. Clinton won in Ohio and Texas, watershed events in the view of Mark Aronchick, a national and Pennsylvania co-chairman of finance for her campaign.

Mr. Aronchick thinks the February unfavorability rating is irrelevant. He pointed to the enthusiasm of crowds at rallies this week for Mrs. Clinton in Scranton, Harrisburg and Philadelphia, and her improved performance among independent and moderate Republican voters in Ohio and Texas. She and Mr. Obama did about equally well in both categories in both states, according to an Edison/Mitofsky exit poll for major television networks.

“She’s on a surge. This campaign is ... becoming a major cause,” he said, ascribing a quality to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign that so far has been mostly ascribed to Mr. Obama’s. “I guarantee you her favorability numbers are very high now in Pennsylvania.”

The Franklin & Marshall poll from February showed 41 percent of state voters had a favorable opinion of Mrs. Clinton, while 46 percent felt that way about Mr. Obama and 45 percent about Mr. McCain.

As for the contest with Mr. McCain, Mr. Aronchick said the election tide favors any Democratic nominee. Democrats, he said, are adding voters to their registration totals in far larger numbers than Republicans because their ideas are more in tune with American voters.

In a conference call with reporters Wednesday, David Plouffe, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, said Mr. Obama remains more likely to attract Republicans and independent voters.

“In survey after survey, it is very clear that Sen. Clinton is a flawed nominee. She loses to John McCain in battleground states because she does so poorly with independent voters,” Mr. Plouffe said. “She is not going to put as many states in play.”

In the April 22 state primary, Mrs. Clinton’s unfavorability rating might not matter. Among Democratic voters, three-fifths have favorable opinions of both her and Mr. Obama.

Contact the writer: bkrawczeniuk@timesshamrock.com

Oh, please. Mr. Klein finally decides to display a less than favorable view of a 'couple' he protected and propagandized for from the earliest days of Billy Clinton's candidacy. He and his fellow patronizingly racist liberal elitist Caucasian media friends can fawn over BHO all they want, it won't repair the damage to this nation that they smugly aided and abetted for the last 18 years by their uncritical and apologetic revisionism of the Clintons and the 1990's. He helped create the very monsters he now seeks to destroy. His was the largest hand that fed this 'couple's' self-righteous, self-entitled sociopathic narcissism. Grow up, Mr. Klein. Your ethics are weak and your career is waning. The 1960's, the 1990's, the Clintons, and you-are quite over.

Wait until you see the tape of Obama's pastor that was on Situation Room tonight. It makes Ferraro's comment look like even thinner gruel. Oh my.

Thank you Susannah for explaining that Ferraro is very ill. I wondered why Andrea Mitchell would not pile on with the rest on Countdown the other night. She, unusual for her, held back and it was clear to me she had a reason and I didn't realize what it was.

ivb:

Oh no! Already?

Jesus Christ.

Is the video of the Situation Room segment online yet?

Stuart, Didn't see a video yet, but this is the transcript. Doesn't begin to give the flavor of it.

Happening now, a fiery preacher with connections to the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Obama calls him a spiritual adviser. Some say he's a major political liability.

Bill Bradley defends his criticism of Senator Hillary Clinton. The former senator turned Obama supporter says the Clinton campaign has lied about Obama's positions. Bradley says he would choose Clinton, though, if she ran against John McCain, all of this coming up, plus the best political team on television.

I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Barack Obama is distancing himself from a very controversial sermon by a man he describes as a spiritual mentor.

CNN's Susan Roesgen is joining us now live from Chicago. She's watching this story.

It's a story involving the Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor, and what he's said. What's going on?

SUSAN ROESGEN, CNN GULF COAST CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, Pastor Wright, Reverend Wright was the former pastor just recently retired from Trinity United Church of Christ here in Chicago. But what he said in one of his last sermons may come back to haunt Senator Barack Obama.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT, TRINITY UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST: ... who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and a culture controlled by rich white peoples.

ROESGEN (voice-over): This is Reverend Jeremiah Wright preaching one of his last sermons at Senator Barack Obama's Chicago church on Christmas Day. The church records and sells video of its Sunday services, and this one is getting a lot of hits on YouTube.

WRIGHT: It just came to me with -- within the past few weeks, you all, why so many folk are hating on Barack Obama. He doesn't fit the model. He isn't white. He isn't rich. And he isn't privileged. Hillary fits the mold.

ROESGEN: This is the kind of message the Obama camp does not endorse. Asked for reaction, a campaign spokesperson said: "Senator Obama has said before that he profoundly disagrees with some of the statements and positions of Reverend Wright."

Nevertheless, the sermon is picking up steam. The reverend goes on to compare Senator Obama to Jesus. And while the message seemed inspirational to his congregation, some will find it inflammatory.

WRIGHT: Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home. Barack was. Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary can never know that. Hillary isn't never been called a (EXPLETIVE DELETED). Hillary has never had her people defined as a non-persons.

ROESGEN: Senator Obama, who's been a member of this church for 20 years, has said that Reverend Wright is like an old uncle who sometimes will say things he doesn't agree with. And what's more, the campaign also says Senator Obama deplores divisive statements, whether they come from his supporters, the supporters of his opponents, talk radio or anywhere else. A spokeswoman for Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign said she had not seen this video clip, but that the campaign's first reaction was simply no comment.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROESGEN: Now, Wolf, sometimes when you go to church, you expect fire and brimstone. Certainly that's what the congregation expected from that church, from Reverend Wright.

Some viewers, however, might notice you're not supposed to do that in church. Churches, as 501-3c non-profit institutions, are not supposed to endorse a political candidate or they might lose their tax-exempt status. It's kind of a touchy issue. We haven't heard anything about the IRS in this particular case with this particular church, but wanted to point that out, Wolf.

And, also, the spokesman that I spoke to today for the Barack Obama campaign is challenging us reporters to look into what other pastors for other candidates are saying in their pulpits. And I told him, well, if those sermons appear on YouTube, as well, then we just might -- Wolf.

BLITZER: I'm sure there have been some other fiery sermons by other pastors, as well. A fair point.

Thanks very much, Susan, for that.

I weep for America.

ivb:

F--k.

What did I say?

The "remarks will come back to haunt Barack Obama" day after day.

SUSAN ROESGEN, CNN GULF COAST CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, Pastor Wright, Reverend Wright was the former pastor just recently retired from Trinity United Church of Christ here in Chicago. But what he said in one of his last sermons may come back to haunt Senator Barack Obama.

I don't like being right.
I hope that this is the last we hear of this...