Keith Olbermann: Special Comment on Hillary Clinton

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Run time: 09:47 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBXD2zizIY   Posted on YouTube: March 13, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: March 13, 2008 By DU Member: Amerigo Vespucci Views on DU: 9062

 

[RestoreGore]

1. Wow, did he ever get this upset about Darfur?

or any other real issue the media never talks about?

[Bjorn Against]

3. Maybe you have never watched Olbermann's special comments before...

And if you don't think racism is a real issue I would suggest you speak to some of the people who were denied the right to vote merely a couple generations ago. I would suggest you speak to some of the people whose sons are sitting in prison right now because they were tried in a racist justice system. I would advise you to speak to the black man who is constantly being pulled over because he drives a nice looking car that the cop thinks a black person is not supposed to be able to afford. Racism is real, Ferraro is a racist and so is everyone who agrees with her and defends her.

[RestoreGore]

7. Thanks for the sermon

And for putting words in my mouth. I simply asked a question regarding his talking about other issues as well so "passionately". I do think racism is a real issue, and I think many here are racist both ways and it is ugly both ways.

[Bjorn Against]

9. What do you mean both ways?

[RestoreGore]

12. Just what I typed.

[Bjorn Against]

15. So correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you are complaining about "reverse racism"

Kind of like when Ferraro complained people were going after her because she was white.

Well I will tell you something, as a white man I have never been the victim of racism and I have yet to meet a white person who has been the victim of racism. I am not followed around the stores and watched, I am not being pulled over because of my race, my skin color has never been detrimental to my finding employment. I have found that those who complain about reverse racism have no clue what racism actually is.

[selador]

48. racism is racism

i don't believe in the term reverse racism. it's ALL racism .


those who belittle or disbelieve that whites can be victims of racism are just as myopic as those who claim blacks aren't (any more) in the US. those are both wrong ideas.

ask any white kid who grew up in hawaii, for instance,and they can give you plenty of examples of racism.

just like blacks, asians, and many other people can

discounting the existence of racism is offensive, and i don't care if you are discounting anti-black, anti-white or anti-asian racism

it exists.

[Hekate]

87. I agree with you about Hawai'i--I grew up there and it's the sad shadow of that lovely place

I will always love the Islands, but I understand first hand the sting of being pre-judged at a glance. It did affect my life. I also understand the historic causes, and I also understand that by leaving (auwe) and moving to California, I entered a world where I simply blend in, which is not something a black person can readily do.

Racism and prejudice are what they are. I took my insight and my principles and worked as a county affirmative action commissioner here in California for a dozen years, my intention being for the betterment of all.

I used to admire Geraldine Ferraro, and I used to admire Hillary Clinton. I am deeply disappointed that this campaign has chosen to play the race card -- not once by some sort of accident, but repeatedly and deliberately. It's a shame and a disgrace, and dirty politics. It's unworthy of the people I used to think they were.

Hekate

[PurpleChez]

98. excellent comment! n/t

[Bjorn Against]

102. I am not discounting racism, but "reverse racism" does not exist...

People who say it does do not understand the concept of racism. Hawaii may be a different story because Hawaii has a very different history in the rest of the US. There are places in the world that whites are the victims of racism, I am sure whites are not treated as equals in much of the Middle East right now for example.

But racism is about power, it is not merely about name calling and that is what people don't understand. Whites can be discriminated against in our society yes, but racism is much more powerful than discrimination and it involves an entire power structure.

We focus on the nasty words, but that does not give us an understanding of what racism truly is it is not just about name calling and hurt feelings it is about being viewed as a criminal everywhere you walk, it is about being denied employment because of your race, it is about not being able to find a home because people don't want their property values to drop because of the black family moving in, racism is far more powerful than discrimination and to equate discrimination against whites to the struggles blacks have faced in this country undermines what racism really is.

The reason Ferraro's statements were racist were not merely because they were nasty words, but they were intended to give white candidates power above black candidates. They were intended to make Obama lose votes because of his race by giving people the false notion that he was only getting votes because he was black. That type of attack would never work on a white person even though whites have had a historic advantage in elections because of their race, no one wants to believe that white candidates got where they are because of their race but they are more than willing to believe that about black candidates.

It is those who complain about "reverse racism" that are really undermining what racism really is, while whites may be victims of racism in certain parts of the world the fact is that in most of this country the power has favored whites and you can not equate discrimination against whites to racism against blacks because it does not occur an equal level.

[selador]

114. two things

1) i agree ferraro's statementswere racist

2) i don't complain about "reverse racism". i complain about racism. the very term "reverse racism" begs a question. it assumes that one kind of racism is "real" or at least default and others are REVERSE.

that's a false dichotomy. they are RACISM. regardless of the color of the perpetrator and the color of the victim. period.

don't tell people (white, black, asian, whatever) that they are UNDERMINING what racism is because allegedly only those without power can be victims of racism and only those with power can be racist.

imo, (and i've heard this rubbish before from the postmodernist ninnies), it's crap.

plenty of people have power- of all races. plenty of people lack power of all races.

and ANYBODY can be the victim of racism.

it's identity politics nonsense to claim otherwise.

it (imo) although i don't think you have nefarious intent - is JUST as wrong to deny racism against whites as it is to deny racism against anybody else.

i *am* a minority. i HAVE been a victim of hate crime. so WHAT? that doesn't make MY experience any more valid than any other person's when it comes to be treated unfairly by a racist idiot

imo, your statements (while de rigeur among many) are divisive and more importantly - deny reality in favor of ideology where only people "of color" (apparently people NOT of color can't apply) can be victims of racism and only people WITHOUT color can be perpetrators.

again, it's utter rubbish imo

[RestoreGore]

120. And who typed the words "reverse racism" here? I certainly didn't

And if white candidates have power over black candidates in this race, where is John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Bill Richardson? And in all logic, do you think him getting 90% of the black vote in Mississippi wasn't at least in a small part because he was black? That blacks do not feel pride at seeing one of their own "make it" and want to support that based on that alone? You are saying that all of those who are black who voted for him voted for him based on policy alone? Hell, half of the posters here I would guess probably don't even know many of his policies, and we sure as hell aren't allowed to discuss them here from what I've seen. But also to be fair, I do believe there are also whites and blacks voting for him because of his policies as well. But I don't think you can discount the other part to that argument in having some influence in the results he has seen.

How many Irish Catholics do you think voted for JFK? How many Jews do you think voted for Al Gore because Joe Lieberman was on the ticket? Wasn't it admittedly designed exactly to get those votes? Don't sit there and tell me that political parties do not try to get votes from certain groups by putting up candidates that represent who they want to vote for them. The Democratic party leaders I am sure have also read that within the next two decades whites will be in the minority in this country... so who do you think they will want running for office to get the votes of the majority? That isn't RACIST either BTW, that is a fact of political demographics.

Do I think what Geraldine Ferraro said was thought out properly or expressed in a way that could have avoided all of this fallout? Hell no, and I think it was good she stepped down because of it. However, is she a racist? I don't believe she is. I think as a WOMAN who admitted she herself was selected for a ticket because she was a woman (which Keith Olberman conveniently left out of his speech) she knows a bit more about how party insiders work. I do believe there are blacks voting for him because he is black, and I also believe there are white people not voting for him because he is black... And people voting for Clinton because she is a woman and not voting for her because she is a woman because whether people here want to admit it or not, mysogyny exists in this country as well.

So perhaps the conversation we should be having is how to begin to address the deep sociologic divides that exist in this country without only using them as political wedge issues to get votes and to label others. Perhapa that would be a good topic to actually put to the leaders of both parties that absolutely do it and have deeply divided this country in the process.

[Bjorn Against]

142. Look at history and tell me that blacks have historically had an advantage in elections

To suggest that being black is beneficial to a candidate on a national Presidential ticket is absurd, if that were the case there would have been many black Presidents before him and I don't think blacks would be underrepresented at every level of government as they have been throughout our nations history.

Yes Ferraro is a racist, and anyone who agrees with her is completely ignorant of history.

[RestoreGore]

147. You are allowing your own political biases skew your opinions

And I have no time for your innuendos or ignorance.

[Bjorn Against]

149. I noticed you didn't even attempt to comment on anything I said about history

And before you accuse me of having these political biases, I would hope you would realize that I have been highly critical of Obama on several occasions and did not vote for him at my caucus. I stand by my rather harsh criticisms of Obama, I will vote for him in the general but he is not and never has been my ideal candidate. I am willing to stand up for him when he is the victim of bigoted attacks though.

I would suggest you are the one that has the biases as you seem to be suggesting that Obama's race is an advantage for him yet you ignore the fact that history has shown that black candidates have never had an electoral advantage in state or national elections in the past.

[IntravenousDemilo]

130. Don't be silly, of course reverse racism exists.

Reverse racism is like when you say, "I have to get me a good Jewish (accountant/lawyer), because Jews are so (good with money/shrewd)" or "I think black (tap-dancers/athletes) are best because black people (have a natural sense of rhythm/are stronger and more agile)" or "I'm having trouble choosing a wine, so I'll ask this Frenchman, because French people are all wine experts." Even though good money-sense, shrewdness, rhythm, strength, agility, and expertise are fine things to have, in these cases they're still stereotypes to be avoided. Reverse racism is like any other form of reverse discrimination -- say, the reverse homophobia inherent in such ideas as "(male) gay people have a better sense of style than anyone else, and they're always so neat and clean!" Queer Eye for the Straight Guy was a great showcase for this reverse homophobia. And one can always find reverse sexism without having to look too hard.

Still, a few racist comments doesn't automatically make someone a racist. That song in Avenue Q is right: everyone's a little bit racist.

[RestoreGore]

118. Absolutely. I wholeheartedly agree

[RestoreGore]

117. Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about

And to admit racism does not exist in this country both ways is to be ignorant or biased. Simple as that.

[IntravenousDemilo]

8. One comment does not a racist make. Does she have a history of making racist statements? n/m

[Bjorn Against]

10. She made more than one comment.

If you haven't been paying attention she has continually been trying to defend her racist comment and in the process has been saying more racist things. And this is not the first time, she has made comments like this going as far back as the Jesse Jackson campaign in 1988.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

13. ...and each comment had a little more anger behind it than the previous ones.

I encourage everyone to go back, view the clip again, and take Olbermann out of the mix for a moment as you think about Ms. Ferraro's "How about THAT?" remarks.

I didn't like her style during the Mondale campaign and I like it less now, but she said what she said, and she said it more than once.

[nashville_brook]

26. you know -- i think there's a weird self-denigration (self-hatred?) to her statements

like, she's suggesting that the only reason she was tapped for VP was b/c she's a woman. it's like she's saying, "i'm admitting this, why can't he?" it's regressive cynicism. small and viscous.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

30. I don't know what's going on, but I know this...

...Hillary's campaign is better off in the wake of Ms. Ferraro's departure.

I'm not Hillary, I don't know what she's thinking right now.

Maybe she thinks she handled this perfectly.

Maybe she thinks she screwed up.

But I do feel that Ms. Ferraro has some issues, and those issues are better off detached from Ms. Clinton;s campaign.

:patriot:

[ginnyinWI]

56. as Keith said at the end:

because HRC didn't "denounce and reject" Ferarro's statements, anything she says out there will still stick to her because she didn't create distance between herself and Ferarro.

I see a double standard as clear as day: Obama is asked to "reject and denounce" Farrakhan in no uncertain terms, but Ferraro gets treated gently--her statements are "regrettable" whatever that means!

[nashville_brook]

109. i was 18 and voting for the first time in 1984 -- and young feminist, i was very

much inspired by Ferraro's VP run. this whole mess really pops my bubble. she's not acting like the smart progressive woman i thought she was in 84. she's acting like an embittered veteran of nixon's administration. yuk.

i'm sure there's a saying about "the heroes of youth" falling... but damn if i can remember it.

[The Wielding Truth]

41. She has another generation's view. Obama came up on his own

through his own works. He rose form grassroots to Oprah's support and now the Kennedy's, as those who heard him, grew to know him. He was not an appointment for tokenism. It seems that she sees things as they used to be, but it seems that he is winning hearts and minds of people sick of things as they are.

Hillary on the other hand is fighting to win, as she said she would, even if it gets bad and bloody. She feels it's what she must do. We see the missed opportunities she has had to touch the decency in the hearts of all americans who need someone to represent them with the qualities we haven't seen in a long time. We are so sick of lies and propaganda that we are raw and getting peeks of these slimy traits from her campaign just stings.

We are hyper sensitive to both of these candidates imperfections so we snip at them and berate them.

Honestly, shouldn't we get out of the quick sand before we condemn the branches that reach out to us?

[nashville_brook]

110. "before we condemn the branches that reach out to us" -- well said!

[bpeale]

119. actually, obama had the privilege of private schools & everything

his well off grandparents could give him. did it on his own? yeah, we should all be so lucky!

[The Wielding Truth]

137. It's still a long way from a private school to being well

respected enough to be Senator. What does he have to prove to you? Why is his work and honorable character not enough to get him here? Put yourself in his place and ask why am I being slighted not for my policies or actions but for my skin color. Am I seeing the subtle"Black Tax" in play?

[IntravenousDemilo]

43. Yes, OK, I listened to Olbermann's comment. GF is what in the penal system they'd call a recidivist.

Yeah, those were racist comments.

One thing that might have been in Ferraro's mind, which she didn't express very well at all, is that in this election, for the first time, you have a situation in which either a woman or a black man stands a very good chance of being elected President of the United States, and the sheer novelty of this has inspired, excited, and fired up the imagination of a great many people not only in the US, but all over the world (or at least those parts of the world that actively root for the States). The Democratic race is a feel-good story for a lot of folks because they like to root for the underdog, and both of the major segments of society with which Clinton and Obama are currently identified, have always been underdogs.

So maybe your task now is to decide which one is the more underdoggish and whose novelty is more novel. And once you've done that, just ignore your decision altogether and choose which one you want based on merit and policy alone.

I will say one thing, though. Except in extreme circumstances, like the conduct of the Bush cabal, I get creeped out by calls for anyone to "denounce" another person. It's the word itself -- it sounds sort of Soviet/puritanical/fundie/inquisitorial/Neroesque/hellfire-and-brimstone to me -- first you get denounced and then they smite you down.

[rosesaylavee]

131. Well. You know you are right.

People who are not aware what the words "reverse racism" mean and that those words are usually used to justify white backlash against blacks, haven't been paying attention.

Racism is about power and money and the denial of same to a group perceived to be a minority based on ethnicity and/or color of skin. As whites have been in the majority for several hundred years, whites cannot experience racism. They CAN experience prejudice and bias. But not racism.

Peace.

[JTFrog]

91. Yes she does. Here's one from 1988.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html

A Ferraro flashback

"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," she said.

Really. The cite is an April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available only on Nexis.

Here's the full context:

Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. 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."

Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's.

Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history."

[tavalon]

111. Besides the half dozen she's said this time around,

there was an eerily similar comment she made back in 1988 about Presidential hopeful Jesse Jackson. She has a long history of making racist comments. And now, she's playing the poor little white woman card. Racist to victim in under an hour!

[jayb1]

18. Racism is real but you certainly paint a lot of people

with a broad brush.I imagine that to question you makes me a racist also ? It mut be wonderful to be so pious.

[Bjorn Against]

21. I never said that to question me makes you a racist...

But I will say that anyone who believes racist statements like the ones that came out of Ferraro's mouth to be true are racists. I would say that anyone who believes in the message of the KKK is a racist as well. Call that a broadbrush statement if you want, but those who believe racist statements to be true are in fact racists.

[ksquire]

144. it's less the racism and more the race baiting. fanning hte flames of racism to get elected

is despicable.

[regnaD kciN]

78. I'd say...

And if you don't think racism is a real issue I would suggest you speak to some of the people who were denied the right to vote merely a couple generations ago.

...it was more like "merely 8 years ago," or even "merely 4 years ago." Does the term "caging list" spring to mind?

[ksquire]

25. ther'es more at stake here than you realize

this race baiting fear mongering threatens to unravel all of the racial progress we've made. if you don't think racism is a *real* problem in this country, i invite you to listen to strange fruit by billie holiday.

[CherylK]

35. A complete and ridiculous red herring!

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

[ladywnch]

49. yes he has spoke as passionately about many issues, some in

which he repeatedly calls bush a LIAR, in defense of the Constitution, about the treatment (of lack of ) of the troops. He speaks passionately about MANY things.

[Prophet 451]

95. Yeah

I don't remember him ever dealing with Darfur but he's got this passionate and more about some of the Bush antics.

[jjr5]

125. Darfur involves issues of discrimination and racism on many levels

The conflict is a genocide as it focuses on ethnic differences between the government and the people they target.

[superkia]

128. They are all puppets and can only do as much as their boss'...

want. I would bet that they have had a ton of phone calls and emails on this subject and that is why KO was allowed to touch on the subject like he did.

[stanwyck]

129. Hell, no. Without the woman-hate, why bother?

I think Keith must have some serious Mommy issues. His hatred for women just seethes from his pores. And to think, he's not even a neo-con. Have you EVER heard the man praise a woman. Any woman? I don't think he has that capability. He just can't think of any woman he admires. Except, maybe, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, or Britney Spears. He just loves to show video clips of the young and slutty. No, no passion from Keith about Darfur. Not when there's Hillary to hate. Even Rush can't compete with Keith when it comes to hating Hillary.

[ryanmuegge]

132. Anybody who doesn't think Olbermann is God is somehow a racist, apparently.

I understand what you're saying about him not covering real issues and devoting too much time to tabloid coverage (not policy issues, mind you; rather, it is he said, she said bullshit) of the presidential race, but Olbermann's one of three people on the cable news networks who is not a waste of sperm. After all, he's one of the few people in the mainstream media who still acknowledges that there is a war going on in Iraq. It's amazing how low our standards have become for good journalism.

[9119495]

135. Yes...pick one issue he hasn't done and crucify him for it...

Even though all of his other comments are spot on.

He should really work 24 hours a day and have special comments on every ten minutes. I noticed he still has advertisments interrupting his show...Gasp! even while this Darfur thing is going on.

Weak argument. And the thing is, if Clinton would do what he said, she'd be praised up and down for it and she would go a long way to bringing us together. You have to admit, the idea Obama is not ready for CiC but IS for VP is pretty stupid given the high number of VPs that have reached the office, right?

[LSK]

146. Greatest display of a Red Herring I have ever seen

Well done.

[MrSlayer]

2. Dead on as usual.

The truth is the truth and often ugly.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

4. You're right, and...

...I don't choose to see Olbermann's current reporting as "anti-Hillary," "pro-Obama," etc.

It's become fashionable for some on DU to attack Olbermann lately, but that's par for the course. I agree...tonight's special comment was absolutely dead on.

:patriot:

[ginnyinWI]

58. he was criticizing her actions--or lack thereof

And that's what he does to others in his Special Comments. Totally within the right of a journalist like himself. He's pointing it out as a warning--so you could even say he's pro-HRC because of that. To not be able to question a politician's actions or words is the height of blind loyalty and the kind of stuff the Republicans do a lot. No place for it in the Democratic party.

[cseper]

67. When is Olberman going to start criticizing Russert & Matthews? N/T

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

126. When they run for President...

I think Olbermann walked a fine line in this commentary and did it magnificently. He did not "call out" Hillary personally for what's been going on. He's laying the blame on people who are giving her insanely bad advice. Winning the nomination by alienating the African American vote is political suicide. It's the Democratic equivalent of McCain turning off his evangelical base.

This means that a Clinton-McCain matchup would feature both candidates reaching out to the same cadre of voters. And as someone (Truman?) once said, "If you give people the choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like one, people will take the real thing every time."

She's got to back off if she intends to win in November.

[Warpy]

5. Clinton would do well to listen

Her campaign team is dreadful, and "tone deaf" would seem to characterize a lot of them lately.

I honestly don't care which one gets the nod. My own candidates dropped out and were forced out. However, this sort of boneheaded misstatement Clinton's team has been issuing lately is damaging them both.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

11. Reality IS perception...

...I know that human nature loves to rally around the "that isn't what I meant" premise.

But a person's intentions are always secondary to the way their words are perceived upon leaving their mouth.

I know that there are going to be the inevitable attacks on Olbermann for this piece but what cannot be escaped is his assertion that Hillary could have stepped up immediately and said "This is NOT how I do business" and then severed ties with Ms. Ferraro.

She chose not to do that, either on the advice of her campaign staff or of her own free will. That said, the public has a right to draw any conclusions that they'd like, and they are doing so.

:patriot:

[Warpy]

31. I find her apparent blindness to the flaws in her campaign team

very puzzling, to say the least.

[HDPaulG]

50. Terry McAuliffe......

Blew the 2004 campaign...He lost this one too. Good bye Shillary...Your true colors are showing.

[BeyondGeography]

6. He gives Hillary too much credit

It's not her "advisors" who are leading her astray, it's that empty space at the center of her being also known as her moral center.

And, if there's any question how that marriage survives, Bill's got a hole there, too.

[Bumblebee]

14. This really belongs to GD:P. Some of us stopped watching Olbermann

once he started attacking Clinton, and I would appreciate it if his rants are not posted here. Thank you.

[Bjorn Against]

16. You can't post videos in GD:P

This is the proper place for political videos to be posted, and many of us were glad to see it here whether you like it or not.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

17. This is the political videos forum

This is a political video.

This is where they get posted.

Take a look, you'll see anti-Hillary videos, anti-Obama videos, pretty much pro-and-anti everybody videos.

The "he started attacking Clinton" thing is pretty much your opinion.

Thank you.

[BlueJac]

28. I feel sorry for.n/t

[ginnyinWI]

62. The only thing that should be out of bounds here

are personal attacks from one DUer to another. Actually, that shouldn't be allowed anywhere at DU, but they seem to be allowed in that cesspool GDP has become.

I think legit criticism of the candidates is fine. As long as we are critiquing something substantive like campaign tactics, policies, etc. Not stupid stuff.

[Hyper_Eye]

82. His "rants" were demanded material here for a long time

Watching KO here last year there was not a single person who would post anything but praise for him. All of a sudden he is such a bad guy... on the same list as O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage... I don't think so. The guy spoke truth then and he speaks truth now. I haven't seen any smear campaign against Clinton by KO. He has a completely valid point and you choose to ignore it due to a closed mind. You choose to loudly reject it without consideration because your mind was set unwavering going in. If a Republican had said what was said during any other time about one of our deomcratic senators we would have all been unanimous in calling that person out and helping them to see their way out the door.

This place is disgusting me. We spent so many years hoping for an answer to the right-wing media that has dominated our airwaves. We struggled to find a real alternative to Fox News and conservative talk radio. We finally got some people who are really on our side like Olbermann, Maddow, Cenk and even with all the people that have come on board and taken our side onto the air we are still heavily outnumbered. Now we are dividing up the few we have and dismissing any that didn't say exactly what we wanted to for the side we were on. The problem is that once this whole thing ends we need to be on the same side!!! Is this concept too difficult to understand? It is really very simple. This is bigger then these candidates. This is bigger then you. This is bigger then me. This is about turning the tide in this country so that there might be some hope of a future where our children are safe and can be successful. The alternative is more war, more death, more poor, more starvation. I will take either one of our candidates any day over another 4 years of Republican rule. Just give me that chance!

The polarization has to stop. Hillary Clinton can stop it right now. Obama has more of the popular vote, more states, more momentum, and (most importantly according to the rules) more delegates. Hillary can't catch up and if the super delegates swing the nomination away from the pledged delegates I think there will be rioting in the streets. The Republicans will love it. I WANT TO BEAT THEM! I DON'T CARE WHICH ONE OF OUR CANDIDATES DOES IT! We have an actual chance to win and we are FUCKING IT UP!

I am scared for this country and for this party. All of you can reject me and people like me if you want to. I still think we are on the same damn side. The battle lines may be blurred to some but that doesn't mean they don't exist anymore and it doesn't mean they changed.

Before anyone calls me a noob check my profile. I have been lurking daily since the 2005 primary and I have been registered since 2005.

[Stuckinthebush]

104. Amen!

You nailed it.

I've got your back ;)

[JTFrog]

92. And I'd appreciate it if you would tell Hillary to shut the fuck up. I don't think either of us

will get what we want.

[tavalon]

112. Too bad, because this was a very good special comment

He prefaced it with how much he cares about the whole Clinton clan and that he was quite conflicted about having to say what he wished he didn't have to and he spoke directly to Senator Clinton at one point and begged her to change her course and stop listening to bad advice. He never denounced her in favor of Obama, he just decried her campaign's tactics. There is no love lost between him and Bush and you can tell it in the tone of his words. His tone towards Clinton was more pleading and it is obvious from the tone that he cares about her quite a bit. He was hating the message, not the messenger.

You would probably do better to watch first before you get snarky.

[ksquire]

143. LOL. Any critique on Hillary is an "attack". *she* seems to be the one who can't take a punch

i'm so tired of the double talk from these clinton folks. she hits hard with lies and vile, and it's tough politics. if obama defends himself, he's "racist". If the press does anything but lap it up, their biased. Yall need to really take a good look at yourselves.

[kitfalbo]

19. A plea

My first post though I'm a long time forum stalker.
Note: Stalking people bad, stalking idea's, theory's, outlooks good.

I see this not as an attack on Senator Clinton but a plea to her. I believe KO honestly wants her campaign to stop the questionable line she is walking. I'll be saddened if any of her supporters see this as an attack on her or see this as a sexist diatribe.

I support both candidates, though in part to my wife I've recently supported Obama more supporting him in the Texas caucus and election. Though more of an influence was me reading up on his policy's and the subtle differences between the candidates. At first I supported Clinton but was anxious about the polarization she brought into the national campaign. When I first saw Obama I felt he was a pretty speaker and was annoyed at the lack of substance on policy the he spoke about as much as I enjoyed the historical contexts he used.

So I did research, reading a wonderful article on what both Clinton and Obama helped produce while in the senate. Then A group I am involved with talked about how the they differ in their views and thoughts on the current issues with autism, and their views on it. It was one of my interests when getting my psychology degree in college. Useless for job's as I entered a faltering economy but wonderful as a topic. That made me swing to Obama.

Now despite the almost partisan debates I see here on DU between supporters of both Obama and Clinton I still have much respect for her, and I know she can do as KO urges and help shed any doubt that many have in their mind about the nature of her campaigns tactics. It might be a hard choice, but I believe that she can do it, but I fear the pressure and the expectations and the people she has around her won't let her take that difficult step.

I wish I could make my plea as bold and available to the nation. Please senator Clinton stop with the negative or even questionable tactics. Be proud of your party. Be proud of the future either of you can bring.

[nashville_brook]

22. wow, what a wonderful, reasoned post -- welcome to DU...

and i hope you post more -- :)

[RevCheesehead]

36. If I could nominate a single post, this would be it.

Thank you for sharing your views, and your experience, so eloquently.

[intaglio]

85. Thank you for a thoughtful piece and Welcome! n/t

[sonias]

134. Welcome to DU kitfalbo, as a first time poster

Excellent first time post.

:applause:



Sonia

[Jack Rabbit]

20. I am very distressed about Senator Clinton right now

Thank you for posting this. I hope some one besides us is listening.

Some one should impress on Mrs. Clinton that all the experience in the world will not make John McCain a good president. To be a good president in 2009, one must extricate the United States from Iraq and start cleaning up Bush's other messes, which, we hope and pray, will not by then include a third war, one against Iran. The idea that by playing this dangerous and irresponsible game that we will face a McCain presidency, which would be a continuation of the discredited and ruinous policies of Bush and the neoconservatives, should be sobering.

I have had my problems with Hillary Clinton over the years, starting with, if everybody must know, travelgate. To treat people who work for a living the way the White House travel office was treated at Mrs. Clinton's direction just in order to give the job to cronies from Arkansas is not only wrong, it is Bushesque. Her vote in favor of the IWR made me question her judgment. Did she really not think Bush was going to take America war? On what planet would that have worked out? Then, to underscore that she has learned nothing from that disaster, she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. If Bush can lie to her so easily, over and over again, wait until she starts talking to Putin, a murderous fellow with more charm in his little finger than a dozen Bushes.

Hopefully, Senator Clinton will realize that the numbers just are there for her to win the nomination. After her divisive strategy of the last week or two, it is doubtful that professional politicians (i.e, superdelegates) will turn to her to rescue the Democratic Party and if they did, it is doubtful that the independents and Republicans who crossed over to support Senator Obama's primary campaign will give a great deal of thought to voting for her.

It is time for her to step aside before she does any more damage.

[ginnyinWI]

64. Divisiveness is my #1 complaint about HRC

Talking about patterns: she has a pattern of choosing personal ambition over what's good for her party. Talking bad about other Democrats. Obama's not the first one: she deliberately "misunderstood" when Kerry botched that joke back in 2006 and pretended that he meant what the Republicans said he meant. IT was transparent and it blew any idea I had of her having integrity and honesty. And now she's smearing Obama wherever she can, truth be damned. And the General Election be damned, too, apparently.

[Apollo11]

90. Hillary has a pattern of making it clear when she does not agree.

In 2006, Hillary said that she did not agree with what Kerry said about getting "stuck in Iraq".

A lot of Democratic candidates publicly slammed Kerry's botched joke - including Claire McCaskill.

In 2008, Hillary said that she did not agree with what Ferraro said about Barack Obama.

Already on Tuesday, Hillary was trying to distance herself from Ferraro's unhelpful comment.

[Grinchie]

23. Keith Olberman is a master of exposing the Convoluted Logic of the Trolls in our Political System

We need many more Olberman's. He is speaking for the everday person that does not have a voice in the Media.

Keith Olberman, I salute you for calling these so called experts out. I further hope that you and your fine research staff continues to dig for the truth in your film and news archive and present the evidence that truly blows these short term memory "experts" into ethical reality.

One thing that Mr. Olberman didn't mention was Ferraro's ties to the DLC, which I believe is the root cause for Hilary's attacks. Every one of them seems bent on vicious attack.

Fortunately for us, we can now see the DLC for what it is.. A bunch of Republican leaning Democrats that have fallen over into the dark side, at the expense of the true Democratic party, where people are equal, and the law applies equally to all.

[Demeter]

24. Thanks for Posting This

Both you and KO perform useful service to the country.

[Eric J in MN]

27. I wish Olbermann hadn't promoted the dubious idea that the 3AM ad is racist.

http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/03/11/playing-the-race-ace/

[Amerigo Vespucci]

32. I thought the 3 AM ad was a matter of "qualified" versus "not qualified," but...

...I guess I wasn't paying attention to the point where it had racist undertones.

Good catch, I had the same reaction.

:patriot:

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. It's not a cut and dried case

neither was the Harold Ford ad.

Patterson's point was that the ad certainly seems saturated in a set of tropes that have a long history. The problem may be that we're so imbued with a history of racism that our very tropes of THREAT itself are racially coded. In this sense, the writers and directors of the ad may have simply been using the threat tropes, and they come off as racist because (white) American society links threat with race in terms of its symbolic landscape. I think that's probably the strong argument; I refuse to believe that it was designed as a racist ad, as the Harold Ford/pimp ad clearly was. That said, if I were the director of that ad, and I had even a lick of sense, I would have used a black family to deflect the trope.

In one sense these are interpretive matters, and it can be "Oh well, another opinion." In another sense, the history of particular tropes and their relationships to social power can be strongly established with compelling evidence. Take, for example, the couple montage, in which we see a couple at various dates: in the park, on a merry-go-round, at a coffee shop, watching the sun come up, etc. It's a common film trope that indicates a burgeoning relationship in a romantic comedy - a demonstrably solidified trope that produces stable "interpretive effects." At that point, it's not really a question of interpretation as in "Oh well, another opinion." Anyone who mistook the couple montage for a casual "booty-call" signifier would be, to put it bluntly, objectively wrong in their interpretation - they would have demonstrated that they don't know the code that scene is drawing on, a historically embedded code with solidified meanings.

The problem with the racial codes is that people understand them without recognizing them as codes. I think that's the case with the 3 am ad.

[Berry Cool]

60. You make a very good point

and now you're reminding me of that "couple montage" in one of the "Naked Gun" movies in which Leslie Nielsen and Priscilla Presley, among other things, are shown emerging laughing and smiling from a movie whose marquee reveals it to be Platoon...

[alcibiades_mystery]

71. Yes, it has to be an established trope before it can be parodied

That montage is funny because it violates the meanings usually associated with the code. We see the code and think one thing, then the cut to the marquee jars that expectation.

[Eric J in MN]

65. I saw a lot of commentary about the ad before Orlando Patterson's NY Times op-ed...

...and NONE OF IT described the ad as "racist" or even racial.

People offended by Orlando Patterson's op-ed are as diverse as Bob Somerby (The Daily Howler), Atrios (Eschaton) and Jeff Jarvis (Buzzmachine.)

[alcibiades_mystery]

72. That may well be the case...it's neither here nor there

One would merely have to establish a compelling argument that the tropes are there.

By the way, your list of "diversity" is rather monochromatic. Just sayin'...

[Berry Cool]

59. You can call it dubious,

but the kids in the ad were white...which may not occur to you as planned, but nothing in a commercial is unplanned.

And actually, if it wasn't planned but no one noticed, that says something in and of itself.

[Eric J in MN]

63. According to Orlando Patterson, who was reminded of the KKK by the ad...

...two of the children in the ad "seem vaguely Latino."

[alcibiades_mystery]

73. It's not merely Patterson who's making this case

I don't find his argument particularly compelling, but I can see that a compelling argument could be made.

[Eric J in MN]

69. Update: I just re-watched Olbermann's commentary, and he doesn't actually say the 3AM ad is racist,

...but that because "false or true" some people perceive it as racist, therefore Hillary Clinton should have asked Geraldine Ferraro to resign sooner for her remark.

I don't agree with Olbermann about that, and I still don't think he should have listed it or the two other incidents he also describes as "borderline" (Bill Clinton noting that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, Hillary Clinton's qualifed answer to wheter Obama is a Muslim.)

[tavalon]

113. Clinton's qualified answer to the question she should never even graced with an answer

was the day she lost me.

[Eric J in MN]

145. I use phrases like "as far as I know"....

...when I want to indicate the limits of my knowledge.

I don't think Hillary Clinton meant anything negative in how she answered the is Obama a Muslim question.

Her first words were "Of course not."

Her other words came out awkwardly, but that can happen to anyone.

There is an essay at "Media Matters for America" about this:
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002?f=h_column

[tavalon]

150. My first words would have been:

"That is not an appropriate question to ask." Followed quickly by a discussion of the myriad reasons that was an inappropriate question. It was either a gotcha or a set up. Either way, it was handled completely inappropriately. That is the kindest thing I can say. Because if it was a planned planted question, what is going on there is beyond inappropriate, way beyond. So, incompetent or unethical. Two choices that don't go good together.

[caligirl]

29. Guess Whose Coming to Dinner? Hillary can't handle it, could it be she never believed

in it from the start? Was the Senator only looking at the black voter as a vote, not as a valued citizen. Does the democratic leadership, the business as usual crowd, really want to win at any cost? Did they espouse equal rights for the right reasons? Or was it just their own political ambitions they wanted to see rise? Or is it Guess Whose Coming to Dinner Time?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

33. Now more then before I really really pray that Hillary is the nom......

not just because she is the best for America at this time but, now I want to see this biased egomaniac eat his ugly attack words.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

38. Huffington Post: "Geraldine Ferraro's Ugly Words - Accidental, or Campaign Ploy?"

Geraldine Ferraro's Ugly Words - Accidental, or Campaign Ploy?

RJ Eskow



http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080313/cm_huffpost/091075

Ferraro's words suggest a coded play for the bigot vote, with the "woman" reference thrown in to somehow link Obama with the oppression of women (a little something for the Erica Jong set.) It fits in nicely with the "accidental" darkening of Obama's skin in a Clinton campaign photo, or Sen. Clinton's recent statement that Sen. Obama isn't a Muslim - "as far as I know."

If that weren't bad enough, Geraldine Ferraro went back to the well today: "I really think they're attacking me because I'm white," she said. "How's that?"

How "that" is, Ms. Ferraro, is offensive and shameful. You have dishonored the country that has given you so much.

Still, are her statements the uncensored ravings of a bigot - or yet another example of the Clinton campaign playing the race card and then saying "who, me"? Comments like Ms. Ferraro's play into the fears and resentments of some lower-income white voters - the same voters who just so happen to be Sen. Clinton's strongest voting bloc.

[TML]

42. No worries

Those same voters usually vote Republican where I live. That's why Hillary isn't electable. She and McCain will fight for the same vote bloc, and why vote Republican Lite when you can have a real Republican?

[Amerigo Vespucci]

45. All of the fundies I know have lined up behind McCain...

...an actual quote from a Republican friend of mine:

"It's nice to have a candidate I feel good about (McCain) instead of picking someone "instead of" the other guy."

I know right-wingers who voted for Bush simply because Kerry didn't convince them. They've told me this.

We will either offer up a strong, convincing alternative to McCain, or we won't. It's that simple.

[TML]

47. Forget the Fundies

If Hillary wins, the Latinos will determine this election. Here's why.

McCain reached across the aisle and worked with Ted Kennedy to create the most comprehensive immigration bill.

Hillary Clinton claims 35 years experience. In 1998, Bill Clinton signed an immigration bill so restrictive that legal immigrants couldn't get services they were entitled to. By proxy, this is what Hillary has done for Latinos.

Latinos like me have long memories for things like that.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

54. b... b...but I thought Obama said "they whisper to me at rallies ..psst Mr Obama I'm a Republican"

[ElsewheresDaughter]

57. Obama won 58% of the "registered" Republican Texas vote

[goletian]

74. good of olbermann to bring this to her attention, but he was too easy on her

shes most definitely responsible for everything thats gone on. hillarys no idiot, she knows exactly what shes doing, knows exactly what shes saying every step of the way. olbermann went easy on her, she should consider herself lucky as hell. filthy, filthy, filthy!

[tavalon]

115. My thoughts exactly

[Berry Cool]

61. So, if Hillary gets the nomination, Keith the "biased egomaniac" will have to eat his words?

He's supposed to change his mind about what he thinks just because she gets the nomination?

Or is it that if she gets the nomination, that will prove he was wrong about her hurting the whole party to do it?

Because, as we all know, it's all about winning the nomination, right?

I give up.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

76. since when is having a choice in a primary equal to "destruction of the party"? listen to yourself

why shouldn't the remaining states have a choice as to who they want or are you in favor of disenfranchising them for the sake of Obama?

[TML]

80. ...

Florida and Michigan screwed up. They could have re-scheduled their primaries at their regular date on the calendar and didn't. Why should they get a mulligan when the rest of us don't?

The destruction of the Democratic party is already happening. Just look at everyone sniping at each other.

[Jack Rabbit]

81. Please answer the question, ma'am

I saw nothing in BB's post that implied that he is opposed to holding a contested primary.

His question was: Is Keith Olberman supposed to change his mind about what he thinks just because Senator Clinton gets the nomination?

While you pounder that, let me ask a few of my own:

• Do you believe it is helps the cause of winning the White House, regardless of who is the Deomocratic candidate, to have Senator Clinton imply that Senator McCain would make a better president than Senator Obama?
• Do you believe, as apparently does Ms. Ferraro, that Senator Obama's candidacy is some sort of affirmative action gesture?
• Do you believe it is helpful to the cause of winning the White House this year to have Ms. Ferraro make such a statement?
• Do you believe that it would be better to have President McCain continuing the war in Iraq and possibly starting a war with Iran (if the impostor Bush has not already done so) than to have a Democrat in the White House other than Hillary Clinton?

[intaglio]

86. I refer you to an OP I posted earlier

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5046001&mesg_id=5046001

(sorry about this I don't usually puff my own OPs)

The political machine can subvert the convention and has given indications of how it will try to do so. The appeal to Superdelegates shows that they will receive bounteous favours similar to those offered by previous presidencies - with the added assurance that having a previous president promising them can give. That is bad enough but I suspect that the observation that committed delegates can "change their minds" means that inducements will be offered to Obama Delegates to change their support. This sort of corruption of the party will lead to it's collapse and, possibly, worse.

Earlier I said that machine politics has nearly destroyed the Democratic Party but left out the other part of my belief, that machine politics will also destroy the USA. I will be accused of hyperbole (and the usual sexism, hatred etc etc ad infinitum) but I think it is truly the case. A Clinton candidacy this autumn will destroy the Democratic party; if she loses the election the Democratic party will be seen as unelectable and will loosed funding and relevance unless they become "leibermen" DINO's; if by some miracle (or fix) she wins, she will ensure the dominance of the DLC and the the "liebermaning" of the party. In either of those events the conservatives will have won the political argument and Corporatism will have supplanted democracy.

[sellitman]

96. Attacking the messenger is a favorite Republican tactic.

How about commenting on the body of his piece?

How can you defend the blatant racism coning out of your candidates camp?

[Stuckinthebush]

105. Wow, what reality are you living in?

Attack words? He was pointing out the obvious. Clinton must denounce the racist remarks of Ferraro. Period. Please don't defend Ferraro's words.

[mckara]

34. Can Hillary Pull Her Head Out of the Rectal-Cranial Inversion?

Keith offered her a path to redemption, but I believe she's gone off the deep end already.

It must be terrible when you compromise your values because of ambition.

The Clinton campaign has become nothing less than a Greek tragedy!

:nopity:

[ginnyinWI]

66. to give the benefit of doubt

I think have no idea what it looks like from the outside. They're in a campaign bubble of some kind. I wonder, too, how many people are able to tell Hillary the truth. Evidently they didn't tell her about the money situation in January. They don't know how seriously bad they look to average America.

[Steely_Dan]

37. Can Someone...

explain to me what was racist about the "3:00 a.m." ad. I'm not saying it wasn't....I must have missed something.

-P

[Amerigo Vespucci]

40. I missed it too, so I'm waiting for an explanation along with you...

...KO lost me on that one point. I simply do not get it.

:patriot:

[TML]

46. Here's the 411

Read this OpEd in the New York Times. It will shed some light on the subject.

[ladywnch]

51. okay, I guess you have to be African -American to really get this

but Ferraro's comments are clear no matter what color you are.

[ginnyinWI]

68. after reading that article, I can see it plainly

and I'm white. It speaks to the "unseen other"-- threatening the innocent white woman and children. And that "other" is typically imagined as a black man bent on committing some kind of crime. Or worse, a Black Muslim. Obama is seen as someone who would sit by and do nothing to stop it, because he wouldn't have the white people's best interests at heart. He's not, after all, the ad implies, "one of us".

[ladywnch]

124. I understood it, but I just was never raised that way so I never saw

the "unseen other". Intellectually, I understand it, but viscerally, I don't get it cause I never experienced it. thus my earlier comments. I would suspect that if you've had to deal with being percieved as the "unseen other" you'd be far more sensitive to it. Mind you, I don't deny the premise, it is just hard for me to readily see it as a racist ad.

[Jack Rabbit]

140. Thank you.

Okay, Keith said something about rightly or wrongly perceived as such. I think wrongly, but that's beside the point.

[TML]

39. It needed to be said

Did someone say progress? I've got news for you. Racism never went away. I'm one of those Latinos who can attest to that firsthand. During my adult life:

• I've been pulled over (we call it a DWB or Driving While Brown) because I looked "suspicious". My crime was driving into the parking lot of a Midas shop to access a back alley and bypass a traffic jam on a major roadway.
  
  
• I've been passed over for promotions more than once. Each time, the person who got the job was white, male, ill-qualified, and either quit or was fired within months.
  
  
• I've been paid less than my similarly-qualified white counterparts for middle management positions, and only found out about it after they had left the company.
  
  
• I've been asked if I'm here legally, despite the fact my family has been here for three generations and have fought this country's wars to protect our freedoms.
  
  
• I once went after my own hockey team's captain because he called a Latino player on the opposing team a "taco loving (b-bomb)".
  
  
• In every company I've worked for, I've noticed a wealth of talented minority employees in the front lines and a dearth of minorities in middle and upper management.
  

I would not be surprised if there's more like Geraldine Ferraro in the Democratic party. Latent racism is alive and well.

[ginnyinWI]

52. Right on, Keith!

He's got it right. This and other statements have dragged HRC's campaign down to the level of Karl Rove and she has stood by and not stopped it. We could expect her to govern as divisively in the White House. The people of this country want unity and fairness, not politics as usual.

[Yes We Did]

53. Thank you Keith!!!!

The voice of reason has struck again. It won't save Clinton's campaign but I like hearing him speak truth.

Clinton is a lost cause... I hope everyone realizes this. Hillary will not be able to heal the damage she has done to people who actually supported her and her husband once upon a time. It's too late. She thinks that factions of her people are expendable.

[kdpeters]

55. Thank you, Keith Olbermann!!

[D23MIURG23]

70. K&R

[WillyT]

75. HUGE K & R !!!

Holy truth...

:bounce::wow::bounce:

[kayla9170]

77. At This Rate, the Republicans Will Win.......

To start, I am too a long time lunker, first time poster. As a African-American woman that as majority voted Democratic (I will admit, I voted for Daddy Bush and once for our Ex-Governor Engler-MI)but have voted for Democrats 85% of the time, I am sadden by the state of the Democratic Party.

I was never a HRC supporter. I first supported Edwards (and wish he was still in the race, personally). Then, naturally...I moved my support to Obama (Edwards and Obama have similar views). I could have supported HRC, before the South Carolina primary and Bill Clinton's comments but, since that point both Hill and Bill have made the favor in my mouth turn sour grapes.

If Hillary is not a racist I believe, as Keith stated, she should have started Rejecting and Denouncing ANY racist overtone comments from South Carolina....on. She should have stopped Bill's mouth in South Carolina but no.....all you heard from her is silence.

Then, Ed Rendell comments. Again racial overtone tone in nature. Her campaign spokesman more than suggesting Obama was a Muslim and herself on 60 minutes pretty much suggesting the same. Obama and his family are members of the Church of God....a Church Organization I have history with. This is personally insulting to me and every other current and former CoG member.

Next he can play second banana "He can be my Vice President" but "He is not qualified to pick up a phone at 3:00 AM in the morning". WTH??

If Obama was a Muslim there would be NOTHING to be ashamed about for this campaign. Still, he is not and for Hillary and her campaign to downstep his REAL faith...is sad.

Now, the forever Geraldine Ferraro comments....WHICH ARE DOWNRIGHT RACIST IN NATURE!!! I say forever because this woman has been saying things such as these since 1998. Come on already!

Thank God Obama has the leadership to take these comments, KINDLY shoot them down with statements that make sense and to the point.

Now on to HRC. After these many statements and lack of statements denouncing them outright, by the Clinton campaign and Hillary herself, I will never, ever, ever cast a vote for Hillary Clinton or any other Clinton after this point!! I truly believe that the African-American community (if Hillary steals the nom) will sit at home and watch McCain win on TV or just vote for McCain....like I will.

See, Hillary....African-Americans can actually vote for a Republican they might not like...but at least does not insult their race (and in my case religion), as a whole....like you have allowed your campaign to do, on a regular basis. You have forever lost my possible vote.

[DearAbby]

79. Welcome to DU

Stay with us and fight. I will not sit at home, I will vote as it is our only time we have a voice. There is always the option of write in vote. Never take that vote for granted. I dont blame you for your views, just stay and with us and fight.

:hi:

[intaglio]

88. Welcome! please stay a while - posting

good sense is always good sense

[quantass]

83. Very good.

[Window]

84. K/R.

[Window]

89. K/R.

:kick:

[Apollo11]

93. Why is Keith making unsubstantiated accusations against Hillary Clinton?

He accused Hillary Clinton of campaigning as if she was "the Republican".

He complained that it was not "sufficient" for Hillary to disagree with and reject Ferraro's remarks.

He claimed that Hillary Clinton is in a "new relationship" with Geraldine Ferraro.

He said that Hillary is "letting herself be perceived as standing next to, and standing by, racial divisiveness and blindness".

He said it was "disturbing" that Bill Clinton recalled the fact that Jesse Jackson had won the Democratic Primary in South Carolina twice during the 1980s.

He publicized the smear that there may have been a "racial undertone" to one of Hillary's TV ads.

He repeated the lie that Hillary answered a question about Obama’s religion with a "moment’s hesitation" and "a disturbing vagueness".

He described Hillary Clinton as being "awash in this filth".

Why would Keith want people to think that Hillary is running a racist campaign? :eyes:

[JTFrog]

94. He told the truth. I know that's hard to accept and deal with, but at some point

you will come to this realization. I hope for your sake it's sooner than later.

[Stuckinthebush]

106. He does a damn good job substantiating his claims

I beg everyone to step back and look at their candidates with a critical eye.

[tavalon]

116. Keith doesn't want people to think Hillary is running a racist campaign.

He wants to wake Hillary up to the fact that she is running a racist campaign. He is begging her to stop.

[sellitman]

97. As usual KO nails it.

Where is the rest of the MSM?

[underpants]

99. Common sense. They apparently need to hear this in the Clinton campaign

[DrZeeLit]

100. Bravo, Keith.

[From The Left]

101. Keith is a Misogynist

The Hillbots say so.

[Stuckinthebush]

107. I know many academic feminists who do not support her

I find it interesting that there are Hillary supporters who invoke misogyny as the universal reason for not supporting her. Indeed, misogyny is rampant in our society, but it is not always the explanation.

The "support her because she is a woman" line of reasoning is a second-wave feminist position. Third wave feminist scholars would denounce that line of reasoning (and do). Feminism is the study of power differentials in our society which are based on gender. The third wave feminists rightly point out that women are many times the sustainers of this differential. To blindly support a female politician because of her gender is not useful in the feminist project any longer. Sometimes the woman is not the best defender of the powerless. I suspect that in the current Dem contest that is the case.

[jberryhill]

108. That's related to my two cents on what Ferraro said, and what it meant

First, I'm an Obama supporter, voter, and contributor....

If Hillary's opponent was a white man, then the HRC campaign would "own" inclusiveness as an issue.

Obama's race is irrelevant to his candidacy, but it does neutralize the misogyny charge for "not supporting HRC" to some extent.

IMHO that's what Ferraro was driving at, which is why digging out the "meaning" in her remark doesn't help, since it still comes across as sour grapes over what would otherwise be a cynical rhetorical weapon in the hands of the HRC campaign. Wanting to "monopolize inclusiveness" is ultimately dumb.

[From The Left]

136. Hillary's Supporters Are Rabid and Irrational

The misogynist broken record is so tired. They need new game.

[Jennicut]

103. Why even drag this crap into the campaign in the first place?

I used to admire Geraldine Ferrarro as a child growing up watching the prediential elections with my parents. I saw a woman running as a vice presidential candidate and it was "making history". It was exciting and I thought she had a lot of guts being that first woman to break a barrier in U.S. politics. Of course, I grew up and at the age of 32 I am horrified at what a racist she has become. I had planned to vote for Hillary if she won the nomination even though I voted for Obama in the primary. I just want to know why there are subtle racist comments here and there throughtout Hillary's campaign. It just has no place. If she wants so badly to stick to the "issues" then why bring it up to begin with and why not "reject and denounce" the comments right away? I think I know the answer and it makes me sick to my stomach. Hillary needs those old Reagan Democrats, needs those "working class" whites who blame affirmative action for blacks taking their jobs from them. Those working class whites who blame blacks for taking resources from them because they abuse the system so whites have to pay higher taxes. I could go on and on about this and I don't don't even believe affirmative action is really all that great a program. I am a woman. I have seen woman treated badly by men and faced some discrimination. I have also walked down a street in my very white hometown while in college. I had a black friend with me. A tall young intelligent black man. I heard an older woman say under her breath that "we don't see those kind around here too often". The year was 1996 and I was shocked and disgusted. We never had any looks or comments on campus. But I realized then that as a priveleged white girl I have never and will never face the amount of discrimination that my friend did. But we chose to look at each other as people. He was not jealous of the way my parents lived or how much money they had. I did not cringe in horror that he came from one of the toughest cities in CT, Bridgeport. We were friends because we wanted to be and because we looked past our backgrounds. I really don't see Obama and Hillary as a black man and white woman first. I see them as leaders with good ideas about how to bring this country back from the brink. Lets please keep it that way. I am not saying to ignore our differences but I am saying lets all stop playing victims and start thinking about the future. Each generation concentrates a little less on differences (I hope) and more on who we are as people. I hope my own daughters will look at people as who they are first and gender race and sexuality later and I am teaching them that. I thank my friend Tom from college for teaching me.

[FreeStateofWinston]

121. I totally agree !

I recall a line from Martin Luther King,Jr.'s famous I Have a Dream Speech that goes like this...

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".

This same philosophy should apply to gender as well. Millions of Americans have learned to view others as God views us all. Not as Black,White,Red,Yellow,Male,or Female, but rather as human beings created in his own image.
It is apparent from Mrs. Ferraro's recent comments in regard to Mr. Obama, as well as others she has made in the past as pointed out by Mr. Olbermann, that she has not yet fully embraced this particular line of thinking from Dr. King's speech. This saddens and disappoints me personally as a former supporter of hers, and Mrs. Clinton in my opinion should not hesitate to denounce and reject such comments.
I have chosen to support Barack Obama because I believe he is the best HUMAN BEING in the race to lead this great nation forward, and I hope he is given the opportunity to lead, and unify us as Americans once again. May God Bless America !!! :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[yurbud]

122. brutal and dead on. It's kind of creepy to see Hillary use all the right wing tricks on Obama after

seven years of democrats treating republicans with kid gloves including Hillary herself saying McCain is more qualified.

[ToughLuck]

123. Good for you Keith! Ferraro fooled No One...disgusting behavior

[Az_lefty]

127. calling out Hillary's campaign on it's racism. Dead on target.

either this crap stops or she needs to get the hell out of the Democratic Party. There's no place for racism of any sort here.

[Khaotic]

133. Once the mask comes off ...

There's no going back.

I think Keith's main point here is that trying to use code words and being vague on matters like race only goes so far.

When it becomes a corner stone of the campaign then it is bound to be less and less vague.

We don't want to come to a point where the Hillary campaign finally looks at the numbers and comes to the conclusion that going "David Duke" will increase votes.

America at large doesn't have a grasp on racism because most people around the country base how they feel on what is acceptable in regard to how they feel.

If reactions to color revert back to "Archie Bunker" America, then those who haven't grown up w/ racism might steer toward feeling they have to take a side somehow.

Just this morning I caught an episode of All In The Family on TVLand. In the episode Archie calls on a mortgage broker on the phone. When the broker came to the door Archie was in the kitchen. Archie yelled out to his guest a question asking him what he would like to drink, a soft drink or a hard drink. The broker said a soft drink would be fine. "Meat head" said he better pour himself a hard one. I wondered why, then it hit me, the broker is black and Archie's a racist. Indeed, Archie was thrown back when he came out of the kitchen and saw that the broker was black. That was Archie's character, one that I don't want to sweep across America again.

While racism still exists, I don't want it to take steps backward and to be as wide spread as it was then.



People like "Archie Bunker" would never admit to being a racist, but we know they are. Sometimes it's just not as easy to spot them.

[Echotrail]

138. He points out the obvious

How did Ferraro get as far as she did before being exposed I'll never know.

:-(

[sloquick]

139. Keith Olbermann: Special Comment on Hillary Clinton

While it's Keith's job to dig up controversy, he's usually on the mark. I hope Hilary listens.

[enid602]

141. the Breeze

Oh my God, does anyone still read 'The Daily Sneeze?' That's my hometown paper.

[RestoreGore]

148. So when Is Keith Olberman going to use his status in the corporate media to talk about Darfur?