HERE is what Geraldine Ferraro Actually said! In Context! It was a Slam on the MSM NOT Obama!

[Up2Late]

<http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_8489268>

I am just disgusted and even a little bit amazed at how so many of you here have suddenly decided to TRUST the lies coming out of our so-called MSM when their lies fit the neo-Racist, Anti-Hillary narrative they are feeding you.

She was talking about the sexist media and how the so-called MSM has been playing Senator Obama against Senator Clinton! She was NOT saying that Obama is only doing this well because he's "black," which is what the SAME MSM wants you to think is what she was saying. :banghead:

Didn't anyone else here notice how they NEVER give her comments ANY context? Did that not seem suspect to anyone else besides me?:mad:

Anyway, read the short, original article for yourself, it from the L.A. Daily Breeze (a Weekly, I think):

Geraldine Ferraro lets her emotions do the talking

By Jim Farber Staff Writer
Article Launched: 03/07/2008 07:52:09 AM PST

As the only woman ever to be selected by a major political party for the position of vice president of the United States, Geraldine Ferraro is uniquely suited to comment on the political events of the day....

(edit)

...When the subject turned to Obama, Clinton's rival for the Democratic Party nomination, Ferraro's comments took on a decidedly bitter edge.

"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

"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. And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.

"I was reading an article that said young Republicans are out there campaigning for Obama because they believe he's going to be able to put an end to partisanship," Ferraro said, clearly annoyed. "Dear God! Anyone that has worked in the Congress knows that for over 200 years this country has had partisanship - that's the way our country is...."

(more at link) <http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_8489268>

[Malikshah]

1. Thanks-- I'm not sure how much effect this will have on this board.

But it's now been posted and "in the record"

MSM screws up again.

[Johnny__Motown]

39. Here is a link where you can listen to it .. at the end of the interview

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fqL_sm0J8jc


she thinks she was not being racist. I do... you decide for yourself

[NanceGreggs]

2. Nice try.

Ain't buyin' ...

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mojorabbit]

30. I can't see

where this is acceptable ""If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,"
Just can't. And for the record, I am not particularly fond of either of them.

[Texas Hill Country]

3. people on here are rabid... there is no logic.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. There's plenty of logic.

[ProSense]

4. You can't be serious! n/t

[tabatha]

5. What I don't understand about all this whining

is that Hillary toted herself as immune from attacks because she is used to it - has been dealing with it for years.

Well, if she is, why can she not deal with it?

[Up2Late]

19. Why? Because she's fighting against all of you falling for the oldest trick in the book....

...the MSM telling you what to think because they can. How many people watching CNN or listening to NPR do you think have actually looked for, found and read what she actually said? Maybe 0.001%?

Well, now maybe we can raise that (I hope) to 5%?

Now it's up to all of you to help the other 95% who will never read this.

[DarienComp]

20. I would have thought that the Clinton campaign

would want Ferraro's heinous remarks to be relegated to the dustbin of history and forgotten. But, hey, by all means, keep bringing it up.

[BuyingThyme]

6. What the fuck was she saying then?

[Occam Bandage]

32. Well, that Obama is only successful because the media have pumped him up because he's black,

and the media shouldn't have such a pro-African-American bias.

:crazy:

[DarienComp]

8. Nope.

She was talking about the sexist media and how the so-called MSM has been playing Senator Obama against Senator Clinton! She was NOT saying that Obama is only doing this well because he's "black," which is what the SAME MSM wants you to think is what she was saying.

"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. And the country is caught up in the concept."

That's the quote. Putting her previous sentence in bold doesn't negate it, or make it any less offensive.

[Up2Late]

41. She was talking about what the MEDIA is doing and...

...the untenable position the MEDIA has put him in, which is MSM exploitation by the MSM, not by either of our candidates.

Just stop, take a deep breath, then re-read it again in the context of a conversation. She was not saying that he got to this point because he's "black," what she's saying is that because he's "black," the MSM is able to use that and exploit the idea of "the first 'black' President" to try to destroy Senator Clinton' candidacy.

This is all MSM manipulation.

[DarienComp]

49. No, i'm sorry.

You're just wrong. That may be would you wish she said, but it's not what she said. True, she starts by carping about how unfair and sexist the media is to Hillary, but then she says, and again, this is a direct quote, not a half-baked interpretation: "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."

It really shouldn't necessitate further comment.

[roguevalley]

55. so this is her new spin and she's using the media to blame. I'm

not surprised.

[NanceGreggs]

63. If her remarks were about the media ...

... why didn't she come out and say so herself? She has had ample opportunity to "clarify" her comments, but hasn't attempted that tack at all.

It is obvious that this newly-hatched "theory" that it was all about the media's take on things hasn't occurred to Ms Ferraro at all.

Maybe she should read DU - where excuses for her behaviour are far more imaginative and plentiful than what she is able to come up with on her own.

[Up2Late]

72. "...why didn't she come out and say so herself?"

First, I'm not sure if you are referring to Ferraro or Clinton when you say "she," but if it Ferraro you are referring to, check my reply to your post down thread, I gave you this link to an L.A. Times article in which it says she has been trying to clarify her comments all morning. Here's her quote from the L.A.Times:

"My comments have been taken so out of context and been spun by the Obama campaign as racist," she said today on ABC's "Good Morning America." "That, you know, is doing precisely what they don't want done -- it's going to {divide} the Democratic Party and dividing us even more."

and for the benefit of those who'll never read that far down (yes, I do that too some times) here's the link again:

<http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-ferraro13mar13,1,4732563.story>

[NanceGreggs]

74. I'm sorry, but ...

... Ferraro saying that her comments were taken out of context does not equate to your theory that she was aiming those remarks at the behaviour of the media.

It would have been a simple statement to make: "I was talking about the media's take on things, not my own."

She then adds a self-serving statement about Obama's campaign calling her remarks "racist" and attempting to "divide the party".

Again, the question lingers: If someone accuses you of making a racist remark, why do you not take the opportunity to EXPLAIN why it was not racist, but merely dismiss the charge without explanation of any kind - other than to hurl an attack on those who made the charge?

I have no doubt that if someone accused you of something you felt was unwarranted or unjust, you would have something more to say than, "That just isn't true," without explaining WHY it isn't true.

As I say, she has had ample opportunity to clarify her position over the last two days, and in front of a very attentive national audience, and has not even attempted to do so.

I think that speaks for itself.

[Up2Late]

75. This is not a theory, just read the paragraph before the so-called "racist quote"

It's very clear to me that she was talking about the media and I understand completely what she's talking about. But maybe that just because the disgusting state of the MSM "news" has been my main focus for several years now.

As for the way she is answering the charges, I don't know, you should ask her yourself. Tell her you write a column or a blog here, maybe she'll grant you an interview? Just promise me that, if you do write one, that you'll try to be fair to both candidates, as hard as that might be to fathom right now.

My suspicion is that this is very carefully thought out political strategy that she and the other "Senior Democrats" are using to try to break this race open and end what is basically a tie between two very strong candidates, but that's just my guess. We'll probably know more in a few months, but until then, who knows? :shrug:

[NanceGreggs]

79. I appreciate that you think it was aimed at the media ...

... but the big question is still out there: If that is the case, why didn't SHE say that was the context? Ms Ferraro is NOT a stupid woman, nor one who doesn't know how to speak up for herself.

I hope you will take this in the spirit in which it is said, and not think I am being condescending:

Ferraro's comments were simply WRONG, as were Hillary's comments about McCain, as are some of the comments coming out of Hill's campaign people. I honestly believe that Hillary Clinton is a much better person than all of this, and that she is the victim of some VERY poor advice from her 'campaign consultants'.

While Hill must be held responsible for what comes out of her own mouth, and what comes out of her campaign, I truly think the magnitude of being personally exhausted (as she MUST be) by her grueling schedule, and having to delegate too much latitude and responsibility to others is taking a toll that she never foresaw.

As I've said before, I loved Hillary the First Lady, and I have greatly respected Senator Hillary (my state, NY!); it is Campaigning Hillary that has put me off from day one.

It seems obvious that Hillary won't be the nominee - but I have no doubt that she has the talent and intelligence to go on to a great political career in other positions. I only hope that the ugliness of her campaign will not besmirch her reputation to the point where she is no longer viable in any position she may seek in future.

The loss of her voice would be a loss for all of us - I sincerely hope that voice is not silenced by her own ill-advised behaviour, and those around her who seem intent on destroying what credibility she has left.

[anigbrowl]

9. I feel perfectly able to judge her comments for myself, thanks.

Besides the daily breeze article, I listened to her radio interview with John Gibson in which she expressed the same sentiment. It seems rather egotistical of some folks here to allege that everyone else is brainwashed by the MSM while claiming they are somehow magically exempt from this. I see it a lot among freepers - the sort of folks who imagine that Rush Limbaugh is a crusader for truth against an army of liberal liars in the media. I ask folks who say they see through the 'brainwashing' of the MSM: what makes makes you so special? Why do you assume that your powers of perception and analysis are so superior to everyone else's?

More often than not, the media just reflects what the majority of people think.

[Malikshah]

16. Not sure about the OP, but am wondering what makes you think

yours are superior?

It cuts both ways.

Stop hurting the chances of any Dem taking the office, Obama or Clinton.

Just stop.

[anigbrowl]

33. Well, I express an opinion but expect it to be challenged

I don't go around pre-emptively accusing anyone with a different opinion of being brainwashed. I don't even think the people who listen to talk radio are brainwashed, as such: I think a lot of them just like that kind of stuff. It's political porn that (MHO) caters to its listeners' basest desires.

[elleng]

21. Au contraire.

The majority of people reflect what the media wants them to think.

Just commenting on THAT statement of yours, not on the rest. I'm OUT of the O v. H battle.

[anigbrowl]

29. That kind of supposes a monolithic media

HAve you ever lived in a country where there's only one TV channel or all the media is state-owned? the media certainly has far greater influence in a context like that, but people still have a wider spectrum of opinions than the 'official' one.

I certainly don't consider the media here as being an unalloyed good or even of very high quality; what bothers me most is that a vast number of people seem incapable of thinking or doing much work for themselves (consider the sort of posts we see at DU, along the lines of 'Who/ What/ Where ???' when you could get the answer in less time by typing the subject of your query into google.

On the other hand, I'd say that there is at best something of a chicken and egg relationship at work here. Consider how NPR delivers pretty high quality programming but nevertheless has pretty low listening figures.

[elleng]

47. anigbrowl,

the 'vast number of people,' I think, don't realize how monolithic 'our' media is, in fact. Propaganda is available on cbs, nbc, abc, msnbc, cnn, and fox; choose your poison.

As to npr/pbs, I suspect there 'low' listening figures are due to the fact that they do NOT pander to the lowest common denominator; THAT's where high listenership comes from.

Sorry, anig, I don't mean to pick a fight here, and I don't participate in rows at DU; just very unhappy about this stuff at the moment.

[Up2Late]

48. Why? Because I turned OFF the MSM years ago.

I still reluctantly listen to NPR, but have learned NOT to trust what they say and when I smell BS, I find what they are talking about and read or research it myself. It's the only way to avoid the MSM "brain-washing" as you call it.

[NDambi]

10. Hmmm

Buh Bye Gerri...

[Madam Mossfern]

11. Still reads to me about

gender and race and the unfairness of the idea that the woman doesn't get to sit first at the table.

[AtomicKitten]

12. Well, I guess I'm just going to have to believe my lying ears.

[Cha]

13. Another hilary apologist...

and she resigned 'cause Obama was attacking her..poor poor pitiful geraldine. She and hilary make such a good combo.

[AlCzervik]

14. i think any former first lady would face the same scrutiny, and i don't think even putting

what she said in context really helps.

[JVS]

15. It was both, it was racist, and the shit isn't going back into the horse

[Cali_Democrat]

17. No way

She said it more than once. She also said Obama was attacking her because she's white.

[BumRushDaShow]

24. Exactly.

When she decided to go running to the noxious "fair and balanced" wingnut media to whine, she essentially underscored her comments. And she chose not only to NOT couch her comments or revise them (particularly since her original whine was that poor poor Hillary was under assault... boo hoo), but she lashed out even more with diarrhea of the mouth at the easy scapegoat.... amazingly blinded by her bitterness and hatred to realize how what she said came across.

:nopity:

[Up2Late]

52. Prove it, show me the link.

And please make it a first had quote, not something someone on DailyKos or a nobody Blogger wrote.

:popcorn:

[Exilednight]

22. That makes it even worse. n/t

[Zhade]

23. Nope. You fail. Still racist.

Nice try, but complete bullshit.

[onenote]

25. "And the country is caught up in the concept."

She may have started out talking about the media, but she took it to a broader level in the next paragraph.


The problem with what Ferraro said is that it was conveyed a message all too similar sounding to the way certain attacks on civil rights measures have been phrased in the not so distant past. You would have to have been living under a rock the past 25 years not to have heard some RWer make the statement about a black person: "if he/she wasn't black, he/she wouldn't have gotten into that college" or "if he/she wasn't black, he/she wouldn't have gotten that job". (Or to phrase it even more closely to Ferraro's phrasing: "if he/she was a white man, he wouldn't have gotten that job"

Gerry should've known what her words would evoke. Either she did and said them anyway, or didn't, which suggests its own level of insensitivity that makes her unfit to be associated with a Democratic candidate's campaign for president.

[mmonk]

26. The media made her do it?

[McCamy Taylor]

36. MSM waited until the truce to spring it. They want a blood bath.

[loyalsister]

27. subject to interpretation......

Maybe that is what she meant.
The trouble is that it is not widely interpreted that way. What she actually said is vague enough to leave plenty of room for racist undertones. As a person who has been a politician she should know better.
I remember John Kerry running into similar trouble during his campaign. I can't remember the specific statement he made, but there was just enough room for interpretation that he drew a lot of fire from the RW. It was something that made people say he was unpatriotic. I wish I could remember. Anyone?
Caution with language is a skill that politicians must have.
It seems that she is so out of practice that she let her ugly personal inclinations be revealed.

[goodgd_yall]

82. Except for "her ugly personal inclinations," I agree with you

She is out of practice. It's obvious listening to the tape. She's not talking like a savvy politician at all. What she said was vague. I don't agree with the jumping on the racist accusation bandwagon, though. Although, I guess if I were an Obama supporter I would be go there because it sounds like she's dismissing Obama and one tends to get very defensive about your favored candidate. Since I'm not now a supporter and feel ambivalent towards him, I don't really care if she doesn't think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. And I can see her comment as more a statement on media infatuation and the media's affect on public opinion.

[dchill]

28. "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,"

The statement stands alone. There is no "context" for it. It's the same as if she had interjected, "I robbed a convenience store on the way here." Nothing else in the interview would affect that statement, either. Your shoes are untied.

[Occam Bandage]

31. Just like Rush Limaugh's comments were a slam on the sports media and not racist at all, right?

[theredpen]

43. Be fair. Limbaugh was high when he said that.

[EmilyAnne]

59. I really hope Ferraro was, too.

[theredpen]

64. LOL

:rofl:

[McCamy Taylor]

34. Main issue is this was out there last week, MSM waits until truce to spring it---MSM hates a truce.

Every time there is a truce, the MSM either unleashes some story or interview they have been holding back or they reprint some old story as if it is new.

This gives them 1. a monster truck derby primary to cover
and 2. a weakened Democrat for their beloved McCain to battle in the general.

Democrats need to wise up NOW.

[Up2Late]

56. Yes, that too!

When did they spring this so-called "racist remark" anyway?

You know, the one that was published on Friday, March 7th, 2008 at this link: <http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_8489268>

Was it on Tuesday Afternoon? The Tuesday afternoon of the Mississippi Primary?

What is that, 4 and 1/2 days of the MSM sitting on this and working on the proper way to Spin this story?!?

Yes, that does look rather deliberate, doesn't it?

Thank you for pointing this out.:pals:

[ProSense]

61. Hillary wan't a truce? Is that why Wolfson called Obama Ken Starr? n/t

[Political Heretic]

35. Aaaaaaaaaand.........

[redqueen]

37. OK, then what Rush said about McNabb was a slam on coaches, not his ability...

unreal.

Un. Frickin. Real.

[bling bling]

38. It doesn't change anything about her insulting remarks.

They were insulting. You obviously have a different perspective and I believe you are genuine in that you don't think her comments were insulting to Obama. "And the country is caught up in the concept." It comes across as very patronizing and condescending. She doesn't "buy it" that people are so excited about Obama for the reasons they claim to. Fine. But her offering as to why we really are so excited about Obama is shallow and yes, racist. It's very disrespectful to Obama.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

40. Riiiiight . . . that clarifies everything. Come on, you can do better than that.

[theredpen]

42. Let me get this straight:

Ferraro says that the media is sexist and is being unfair to Hillary Clinton. I guess that's because there's no previous example of a Clinton in national politics being treated unfairly by the media.

The media is being nice to Obama because while the MSM is brazenly sexist, it is only implicitly racist in that it doesn't put the harsh light of media scrutiny on a black man. Note that it is so compulsively sexist that it wouldn't be able to prevent itself from attacking a black woman. Also, despite it being brazenly sexist, it would also be attacking Obama were he a white man because... hmmm... this is a real stumper. Let's move on to another point.

A perfect example of media sexism would be how the media relentlessly attacked Condoleeza Rice over the outrageous lies she told leading up to the Iraq War, or how they hounded her into resigning after her humiliating admission that the "August 6th PDB" was entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US."

Oh wait, none of that happened.

I guess the media is only compulsively sexist when it comes to white women, white men, black women who aren't Condoleeza Rice and black men.

Yeah, Geradine Ferraro is in no way a complete idiot for spouting this brilliant cultural analysis. :sarcasm:

[DarienComp]

45. FACTS ARE SEXIST!!!1!!111!!!

[JVS]

51. great post

:thumbsup:

[WolverineDG]

44. Still looks racist to me

whining about the media being sexist ( laughable, when it trumpetted her as the Democratic nominee for months before Iowa & New Hampshire) can't mask it.

dg

[jmg257]

46. WOW! This is SO different then the ACTUAL interview I listened to, where she said how dissapointed

she was because several black superdelegates were voting for Obama. How she was a "lunatic about this stuff", and "so dissapointed she could die", how "if Barack Obama was a white man, we would not be talking about this - {him} being a problem for Hillary". Oh, and sexist too..."it's about the guys sticking together"

She GAVE DIFFERENT QUOTES TO DIFFERENT SOURCES! These "quotes" in the OP aren't what she said in the interview with Gibson in February.


Edit: found the link...John Gibson interview


http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/02/29/geraldine-ferraros-race-cards/

[Still-ill]

50. Her statements still dont make sense

The notion that he is only where he is bcause he is black basically discredits all of his acomplisments, that's the problem. And if any one believes that he actually has a better chance of wining because he is black must be from another planet. That's the crazier thing ice heard this whole campaign.

[johnnydrama]

53. the problem is

If what you say is true, when she was talking about the reaction to it, why didn't she say something about how people had misunderstood her instead of saying people were upset at her because she was white.

She had a chance to clarify what she said, if it needed clarification, and she went even more out of bounds.

[Up2Late]

65. Show me that interview or even the direct quote if it's more than just one line, out of context.

Just one link. I'll check back later.:popcorn:

[Scriptor Ignotus]

54. hear no evil

see no evil.

if you can't understand that she is changing the subject of her statement from the media to Obama, I dont' know what to tell you. It's a direct quote.

[NanceGreggs]

57. I replied to this earlier ...

... but I see that your response to me has been deleted (I don't know why).

I took the time to watch Ferraro's interview with Diane Sawyer before coming back to respond to your (now deleted) reply.

First of all, I did not see one reference to Ms Ferraro's quote (as above) that was not printed in full, as you have done. So I am a bit confused as to why you are now attempting to "put it into context", as though it hadn't been before.

Secondly, if Ms Ferraro's comments were in respect of the "sexist media's" portrayal of Obama, why did Hillary issue a statement saying, "I obviously disagree (with Ferraro's comments) and reject the comments." Surely had Hillary believed that the comments were directed at the MSM, she would have clarified the meaning of the remarks instead of publicly rejecting them.

Thirdly, in her interview with Diane Sawyer, Ms Ferraro had ample opportunity herself to clarify her comments as being (according to your theory) reflective of how the media has been "playing Obama against Hillary", and not reflective of her own views.

As you well know, Ms Ferraro did no such thing. She instead went on and on about the nasty emails and calls she was receiving - playing the "victim" in all of this to a fare-the-well - without ever once even attempting to explain that her comments had anything whatsoever to do with the media or their stance.

So I say again: Nice try - but I ain't buying.

[Up2Late]

66. What? Did you not read the interview at the link to the L.A. Daily Breeze?

Because that is where the out of context quote was taken from and Yes, it does sound racist, if you don't read the paragraph that proceeds the one line, out of context quote, that the MSM has been pushing as a "racist statement!"

This quote did not come from an NBC or ABC or whatever T.V. interview you just watched that was from last month or today, it's from an interview that was published Friday, March 7, 2008 in "the Daily Breeze of Torrance" as the L.A. Times calls it, here's the link to the L.A. Times story where they embedded a link to the story if you have any doubt that I'm referring to the right interview: <http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-ferraro13mar13,1,4732563.story>

The link is about half way down the page.

I got the same link from another article too, from this 12 March 2008 article/blog at the U.K. Independent's website, with it's VERY insulting headline

"A fishwife from Queens has her say on race"

By Leonard Doyle <http://blogs.independent.co.uk/the_campaign_trailers/2008/03/the-clinton-and.html>

The link to the same article from "the Daily Breeze of Torrance" is embedded two paragraphs below the YouTube video there.

As far as what was deleted, I'm not going to repeat it for obvious reasons, but let's just say, I expressed my disappointment in your first response and then someone else responded to me which, I guess is why it's referred to as a "sub-thread." Frankly, I don't get the difference between that and a regular response.

[NanceGreggs]

73. I thought it was obvious ...

... that I knew her remarks did not come from the interview I was referring to. In the Sawyer interview, Ferraro was defending the remarks, not making them for the first time.

My proposition still stands.

If the comment was about the media, why didn't Ferraro clarify that in the Sawyer interview, or anywhere else? And why did Hillary reject the comment herself?

As for your original reply, I did see it. You referred to me as being "part of the problem".

The "problem" I have with that is that you immediately took the position that because I don't agree with Ferraro's comments being about the media (for reasons I have made clear), and because I am not a Hillary supporter, I am therefore dismissed as being "part of the problem".

You are obviously a Hillary supporter, which I appreciate and respect. I do not jump to the conclusion that you are "part of the problem" because you prefer a different candidate than I.

I have always assumed of anyone on this board that if they support Hillary, that support is based on their intelligent judgment of her abilities, and their honest assessment of her viability as president.

I was very disappointed that you did not afford me the same courtesy.

[Up2Late]

77. Sorry about that.

Your first reply seemed very "knee-jerk" and that's what I was reacting too. I've been getting a lot of those lately, as have the other Hillary supporters here.

You obviously don't know what it feels like to be a dedicated Hillary supporter here at DU these days, it ain't fun as of late. We Hillary supporters are all getting very testy from constantly getting attacked for not hopping on the Obama Bandwagon by all these noobies that seem to be coming out of the wood work. Obviously my aggravation is beginning to show.

Sorry.

[NanceGreggs]

81. If no offence was meant ...

... rest assured that none is taken.

And since you've raised the topic, can we be perfectly honest here?

The vitriol from BOTH sides on DU has been immature, irresponsible, and a poor reflection on the two candidates.

SOME Hillary supporters have called the Obama supporters "cultists", "kool-aid drinkers", and ill-informed idiots who are mesmerized by a "rock star of no substance".

And now that the shoe is on the other foot (with Hillary being in second place, rather than first), the vitriol coming from SOME Obama supporters is equally as offensive.

While honest criticism of either candidate on the issues is fair game, and should be a welcome source of debate between supporters, such debate has unfortunately devolved into insults hurled AT respective supporters, rather than being well-founded criticism of the candidates themselves.

It is an unfortunate and totally unnecessary situation for DUers (all allegedly Democrats) to find themselves in. And the fact of the matter is that there are really only a handful of truly obnoxious posters (newbies and old timers alike) whose insistent "picking at sores" has drawn so many into the mud-slinging that many would have otherwise never become involved in.

So goes the war - a war that never had to happen in the first place.

[goodgd_yall]

83. Ferraro's statement was vague and convoluted

Hillary knew she couldn't justify Ferraro's remarks since they weren't clear to begin with. I think it does have something to do with the media, but you can't really tell. Just imagine Hillary trying to explain what Ferraro meant with the rather incomplete thoughts Ferraro was expressing. Better just disown them and say you disagree even though she personally may kind of understand what Ferraro was saying...sort of.

[burythehatchet]

58. Will you people PLEASE decide, just pick one and stick with it

1. It was out of context

2. It was true

3. Obama attacked her needlessly

4. The media did it

[Up2Late]

68. Sorry, it's not a (no pun intended) black or white issue.

It's 1, 3 and 4 on your list.

[theboss]

60. It's still a shitty quote

Obama has an advantage because he's a black man.

Which is so laughable.

[Up2Late]

71. It's not just laughable, it's totally absurd, but that's what make the strategy so effective!

Remember the guy in John McCain's campaign that said, "If Obama gets the nomination, I quit...?"

Why would he say that?

Think about.

I'll tell you in few minutes if you want my opinion on what he was talking about.

[gravity]

62. Because he couldn't have gotten to his position by being the strongest candidate

[Dinger]

67. K & R (nt)

[Danger Mouse]

69. Even in context, her comments are bigoted garbage.

[Liberal Veteran]

70. Clearly Limbaugh's McNabb comment was a slam on the Sports Media not McNabb.

:eyes:

[zulchzulu]

76. Are you FUCKING kidding me?

Here are the words in question:

"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. And the country is caught up in the concept."

- Geraldine Ferraro

Her premise is BASED on racism. She is inferring that he wouldn't be anywhere if he was a white person, a latina, a woman or whatever the hell ever. She is implying that BECAUSE he is black that he is getting votes. And to add the ruse "the country is caught up" in this obvious attempt at calling Obama's success with ALL races nothing more than a fad, she has fallen into exactly how a racist can tell you why their racism "makes sense".

Obama has won 30 states where the population is wide and mixed. He has closed the 25+% gap in other states to within striking distance where he didn't win. His success is NOT based on some fad where he's a black guy, but on his message, his ideas and his leadership.

Ferraro got busted for being a country club socialite daring to display her foaming racism. She thankfully resigned in disgrace and will now be seen as not only a loser in 1984 but a tainted has-been in 2008.

What's even more vapid is that she thinks the media is too cruel on Hillary. Is she talking about how she lost so many races to Obama, therefore they are "attacking" her?

Give me a break.

[annie1]

78. i still don't know what she is talking about. why if it's about concept...

what does that have to do with his not being male or white? they are 2 totally different things.

[goodgd_yall]

80. The Obama campaign's secret weapon

Crying "racism" at the drop of the hat. I've just realized with this latest accusation that this is their numero uno tactic.

I'm not sure what Geraldine Ferraro means by "in this position," but I can guess that she might mean in the lead in the Democratic presidential race. Being black is part of the uniqueness of Obama and it has helped him capture the attention of the MSM. He's a phenomenon because of his oratory, his race, and maybe even his message. And with 90% of African American Democrats voting for him over Clinton basically because his win would break down the final barrier after centuries of oppression, his race does have a substantial influence on his success. Of course he wouldn't be in his position without his talent either, but I think Ferraro meant with the same talent and experience but being white, he probably would not be winning the presidential race against Clinton, which to me seems a sound observation.

[Up2Late]

85. You got it!

:hurts:

[GeorgeGist]

84. Dear Geraldine,

Anyone that lives in the real world knows that Congress doesn't work.