People are calling for Hillary to denounce Ferraro the person - because the issue is whether HIllary should fire her (if she is even on salary).
Not sure where you are getting that the issue is whether Hillary should have said "i condemn/renounce her statements" as opposed to "i disagree wither her statements". If that really was the issue, i think we are heading into splitting hairs territory.
This isn't Hillary at a debate being asked if she will "condemn" the STATEMENT. The press asked her opinion and she said she disagreed. I think that should be the end of the story. I havent heard Ferraro's name associated with Hillary's campaign until she made these remarks. Its not like we are talking about her campaign manager.
Well, Ferraro waded in a month or more ago with her NYTimes op-ed defense of superdelegates - a column which was a thinly veiled endorsement of the idea that the superD's should choose Clinton over Obama.
She has been vocal - if you haven't heard about her, it is because you haven't been paying attention.
If Obama fires his surrogate for calling her a monster, I think it's fair for Clinton to sever ties with Ferraro. Ferraro has been one of her most vocal supporters.
Not to mention the whole exchange over Farrakhan at the debate in Ohio.
After all of this, Clinton is really setting herself up to be the Hubert Humphrey of 2008.
People are calling for Hillary to denounce Ferraro the person - because the issue is whether HIllary should fire her (if she is even on salary).
Not sure where you are getting that the issue is whether Hillary should have said "i condemn/renounce her statements" as opposed to "i disagree wither her statements". If that really was the issue, i think we are heading into splitting hairs territory.
Well, if she is on salary (or being paid as a consultant), Hillary certainly should fire her. Again, though, that's an act in denunciation of THESE REMARKS, not necessarily a statement on Ferraro the person.
Perhaps it seems like splitting hairs to you, but there's a very clear distinction there. One can disagree with something another person says without finding it to be wholly inappropriate--and Hillary needs to make clear that she takes the latter view.
For political reasons, she definitely should fire her. i just don't see the obligation to when you are talking about a gaffe or repeated gaffes of a respected and history making liberal democrat. This isn't like the Obama staffer because, although that person was (i think) a nobel prize winner, she didn't have the same significance (hillary would be the first female prez/ ferraro the first vp). Even then - i didn't think Obama should have fired her. SO what, she called Hillary a monster. Obama didn't say it.
You guys don't think Hillary's half hearted "disagreement" with the statements is a calculated strategy, especially now that obama's pulling down over 90% of the black vote? I feel like she's going for the "alabama" everyone talks about in between Philly and Pittsburgh. There doesn't seem to be any sign of Ferraro pulling back, at all....
For political reasons, she definitely should fire her. i just don't see the obligation to when you are talking about a gaffe or repeated gaffes of a respected and history making liberal democrat. This isn't like the Obama staffer because, although that person was (i think) a nobel prize winner, she didn't have the same significance (hillary would be the first female prez/ ferraro the first vp). Even then - i didn't think Obama should have fired her. SO what, she called Hillary a monster. Obama didn't say it.
Dude, the fact that she "made history" is just not relevant in this context.
You guys don't think Hillary's half hearted "disagreement" with the statements is a calculated strategy, especially now that obama's pulling down over 90% of the black vote? I feel like she's going for the "alabama" everyone talks about in between Philly and Pittsburgh. There doesn't seem to be any sign of Ferraro pulling back, at all....
Yes, definitely.
KVH seems to think we're all offering Hillary campaign advice--I, at least, am talking about what the conscionable thing to do is, not the expedient one.
i still don't understand what is so vile about what she said. first of all, we really don't know the full context of what she said - just a few carefully selected sentences. I saw an article that said Ferraro went on the Today Show to explain that her comments were taken out of context - but then it never said what her explanation was.
Saying she is discriminated against for beingWhite is NAGL. talking about how Obama's popularity as a prez candidate has something to with his race is a fact. the guy is not just getting all the Black voters, but all the "Change" voters, including myself who are voting for him, in part, because he is Black.
You don't see the offensiveness in saying the only reason an amazingly accomplished US Senator is ahead is because of his race?
Anyway, obviously she's playing for the "liberal but still kinda racist" vote, of which I have no doubt there are plenty of in Pennsylvania. But I gotta think this is gonna turn off as many voters as it gains? Maybe I'm giving the public too much credit?
Jonny, you still think she's looking like the nominee?
you assume that she said that the only reason he is winning is because he is Black. i guess i'm giving her the benefit of the doubt - and without her statement right in front of me - that what she said/meant was that being Black has something to do with the "Change" guy winning.
you assume that she said that the only reason he is winning is because he is Black
"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.[/b] And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.
Boo-hoo, blame the media, and the political correctness police. She sounds like a bitter old Republican.
And also, dude, I'm the one assuming? KVH, you can do better!
read the part you didn't highlight and i think it reconciles with my description of what she said and means.
obama is running on change at a time when EVERYONE wants it. there is more visible change in electing a black man than a white woman. so therefore - "if obama was a white man, he would not be in this position".
You're ignoring the forest for the trees. This is a common "reverse racism" trope. It is absolutely not a deduction about the "change" campaign, she is implying that Obama would be an unremarkable state senator in IL were it not for his skin color.
ha, you assume (with absolutes) that she implied that - based on what? the truth is that we don't know and, as of yet, she hasn't given a line-by-line explanation as to what she meant. we both could be wrong.
Hillary just described the results from both the Michigan and Florida Democratic primaries as "fair" -- Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan; and Hillary somehow ended up in Florida on election night. She is tripping.
It is truly absurd the way Clinton is f^cking over Obama with the way he has run his campaign. They sling mud and then criticize Obama for throwing it back in much more civil manner, saying it compromises his promise. You seriously cannot win with this shit.
People who ride for Hillary have to be hardened, cynical machines. I don't know how free-thinking people could get with the type of crap she is spewing.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former congresswoman and vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro is resigning her fundraising position with Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign after controversial comments she made about Clinton's rival, Sen. Barack Obama.
Comments by former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro are drawing criticism from the Obama campaign.
"I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign," Ferraro wrote in a letter to Clinton.
"The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen."
Ferraro's stepping down still doesn't change the fact that Hillary didn't respond in the only acceptable manner (denouncing her comments then firing her).
It also bothers me that she said, "...[In] 1984 if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would have never been chosen as a vice presidential candidate."
Ferraro's stepping down still doesn't change the fact that Hillary didn't respond in the only acceptable manner (denouncing her comments then firing her).
It also bothers me that she said, "...[In] 1984 if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would have never been chosen as a vice presidential candidate."
Why wouldn't she use "Gerald" in that example?
Damn, clearly an anti-Irish bias at work.
I am impressed by the speciousness of her logic; "I am willing to admit to having been a token candidate, so you should believe me when I say that Obama is one".
Ferraro's stepping down still doesn't change the fact that Hillary didn't respond in the only acceptable manner (denouncing her comments then firing her).
It also bothers me that she said, "...[In] 1984 if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would have never been chosen as a vice presidential candidate."
....Such a stupid and vacuous statement from someone who should know better...I wonder sometimes about some racist liberals and think there really is no difference between them and some racist conservatives...sadly though, her sentiments are really not that surprising at all...
....Such a stupid and vacuous statement from someone who should know better...I wonder sometimes about some racist liberals and think there really is no difference between them and some racist conservatives...sadly though, her sentiments are really not that surprising at all...
gtfohwtbs. Obama is the 3rd black senator....ever. He is a young, good looking guy with a background that is screen play worthy. Ferraro was inarticulate in what she said, but the truth is that Obama's blackness has not done him a disservice since becoming a Senator. I'm not discounting the hardships he grew up with or the racism that stood in his way to become a Senator, but his identity, including his racial identity have contributed to him becoming this enormously popular figure.
Lets not get it twisted here about who his voters are...and i'm not talking about black people. his supporters are voting for CHANGE. what spells change more than rejecting the white protestant males that we continue to elect. Ferraro should have said that Obama is winning votes because he symbolizes change more so than because his policies favor change (any more than Hillary's do).
Also, I think the opposite of what you have said is true. Nothing spells ignorance more than liberals who are afraid to talk about race...and gender. Bill Clinton was crucified but listen to what he said. This race is effected by people choosing their own. Blacks are overwhelmingly voting for Obama and women have favored Hillary. Clinton made an obvious and factual point, but people were soo offended because he pointed out that in South Carolina, where over 50% of democrats are Black, Obama's blackness played a major role, just like it did when Jesse Jackson won that state twice in '84 and '88.
Keithvanhorn...you picked the wrong person to debate with on this subject. By focusing on the superficial, you avoid the substance of a legitimate, viable candidate. If Obama is only the 3rd black senator ever, doesn't that tell you something about American society and the political system? John Kennedy was also a young, good looking guy with a background that was screenplay worthy, and he became president. What was the point of even making the statement you made? To say Ferraro was inarticulate or made a "gaffe" as you later stated here in this thread is to understate what was an obvious attempt at denigrating a fellow Democrat's campaign in a mean-spirited manner. What she said was intentional and calculated. She knew exactly how racially and socially charged her words were, and if she is a feminist and is leaning on that agenda, her actions are transparent. Part of the reason the feminist movement failed is for that very reason - cut down other populations so you can advance your own agenda. And what is the point of discussing "Obama's blackness" when he is in fact biracial and has made it known he wanted to transcend the superficial race questions and focus on the issues? Clinton can't afford to have such mistakes made in her campaign - especially while she is still losing and there aren't even enough delegates left for her to grab in the remaining contests. Ferraro is a walking non-issue whose words and actions should be disregarded and be of no consequence. She couldn't get the job her first and only time around, so rather than focus on what is important, she decided to deride another person. Now, why would you defend her or anyone else within the Democratic party who may be racially insensitive/racist or make implicitly or overtly racist remarks? Yes, part of being ignorant is failing to ask and/or answer questions, but I actually don't consider her to be ignorant just because of what she said (which was stupid enough to not even be worthy of reiteration) but because of what she didn't say. And, hypothetically speaking, if Clinton and McCain were to square off in November, don't you think many of those same Blacks you keep talking about would just decide to stay home because they also felt denigrated and derided (de facto) by people like Ferraro? It should be obvious by now that people want a serious discussion on the issues irrespective of what the candidates' races and genders are. Yes, race and gender are important. You also fail to mention how Clinton's "whiteness" is playing a role in her campaign/results, so you are being very selective when it comes to this whole superficial race issue. It's 2008, we all should be more progressive than that. Ferraro made a stupid remark...just admit it and move on.
you are missing the point. look at the analogy between Ferraro and Jesse Jackson. if Jackson made an ill-advised comment about women, would you want Obama to denounce him? Of course not. He should just say "i don't agree", which is what Hillary did.
Comparing Ferraro to Farrakhan is retarded.
Did you learn anything whatsoever from the whole Don Imus situation? Sometimes, "I don't agree" just isn't good enough...
i still don't understand what is so vile about what she said. first of all, we really don't know the full context of what she said - just a few carefully selected sentences. I saw an article that said Ferraro went on the Today Show to explain that her comments were taken out of context - but then it never said what her explanation was.
Saying she is discriminated against for beingWhite is NAGL. talking about how Obama's popularity as a prez candidate has something to with his race is a fact. the guy is not just getting all the Black voters, but all the "Change" voters, including myself who are voting for him, in part, because he is Black.
"taken out of context"...that's what they all say...As a former politician she knows the drill: when conversing with journalists, don't say anything you wouldn't want to see blasted throughout the public domain later. Maybe she is a case of dumber and dumbest. The problem is, we all get the context and obviously she doesn't.
Comments
Major CRINGE at Clinton surrogates crying "reverse racism".
Not sure where you are getting that the issue is whether Hillary should have said "i condemn/renounce her statements" as opposed to "i disagree wither her statements". If that really was the issue, i think we are heading into splitting hairs territory.
This isn't Hillary at a debate being asked if she will "condemn" the STATEMENT. The press asked her opinion and she said she disagreed. I think that should be the end of the story. I havent heard Ferraro's name associated with Hillary's campaign until she made these remarks. Its not like we are talking about her campaign manager.
She has been vocal - if you haven't heard about her, it is because you haven't been paying attention.
If Obama fires his surrogate for calling her a monster, I think it's fair for Clinton to sever ties with Ferraro. Ferraro has been one of her most vocal supporters.
Not to mention the whole exchange over Farrakhan at the debate in Ohio.
After all of this, Clinton is really setting herself up to be the Hubert Humphrey of 2008.
Well, if she is on salary (or being paid as a consultant), Hillary certainly should fire her. Again, though, that's an act in denunciation of THESE REMARKS, not necessarily a statement on Ferraro the person.
Perhaps it seems like splitting hairs to you, but there's a very clear distinction there. One can disagree with something another person says without finding it to be wholly inappropriate--and Hillary needs to make clear that she takes the latter view.
Dude, the fact that she "made history" is just not relevant in this context.
She's an addled old buzzard now. Cut her out.
Yes, definitely.
KVH seems to think we're all offering Hillary campaign advice--I, at least, am talking about what the conscionable thing to do is, not the expedient one.
Saying she is discriminated against for beingWhite is NAGL. talking about how Obama's popularity as a prez candidate has something to with his race is a fact. the guy is not just getting all the Black voters, but all the "Change" voters, including myself who are voting for him, in part, because he is Black.
Anyway, obviously she's playing for the "liberal but still kinda racist" vote, of which I have no doubt there are plenty of in Pennsylvania. But I gotta think this is gonna turn off as many voters as it gains? Maybe I'm giving the public too much credit?
Jonny, you still think she's looking like the nominee?
Boo-hoo, blame the media, and the political correctness police. She sounds like a bitter old Republican.
And also, dude, I'm the one assuming? KVH, you can do better!
obama is running on change at a time when EVERYONE wants it. there is more visible change in electing a black man than a white woman. so therefore - "if obama was a white man, he would not be in this position".
does that still sound evil to you?
Shameful Shit.
It is truly absurd the way Clinton is f^cking over Obama with the way he has run his campaign. They sling mud and then criticize Obama for throwing it back in much more civil manner, saying it compromises his promise. You seriously cannot win with this shit.
People who ride for Hillary have to be hardened, cynical machines. I don't know how free-thinking people could get with the type of crap she is spewing.
haha. zing!
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former congresswoman and vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro is resigning her fundraising position with Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign after controversial comments she made about Clinton's rival, Sen. Barack Obama.
Comments by former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro are drawing criticism from the Obama campaign.
"I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign," Ferraro wrote in a letter to Clinton.
"The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen."
(read more)
Obama is apparently the one with the problem.
It also bothers me that she said, "...[In] 1984 if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would have never been chosen as a vice presidential candidate."
Why wouldn't she use "Gerald" in that example?
Damn, clearly an anti-Irish bias at work.
I am impressed by the speciousness of her logic; "I am willing to admit to having been a token candidate, so you should believe me when I say that Obama is one".
Isn't she some kind of lawyer?
It's funny that bothered me too