Clinton-backer Ferraro: Obama Where He Is Because He's Black

[Christians4LessGvt]

Clinton-backer Ferraro: Obama Where He Is Because He's Black

March 11, 2008 7:30 AM

Clinton campaign finance committee member, former vice presidential candidate, and former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, D-NY,  told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Ca., that, "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."

Of Clinton, Ferraro said that the press "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."

"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. 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."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clinton-backer.html

[Xavier_Onassis]

It's pretty obvious that a junior senator from Illinois with no major political triumphs in the Senate would have fared so well in the primaries had he been white. But then again, would JFK have been so inspiring had he been a protestant WASP?

Getting out a huge turnout among Black voters is essential to a Democratic victory. They will also vote for Senators and Representatives, too.

Lieberman was nominated because he attracted a HUGE PILE OF JEWISH MONEY, along with a lot of votes. That is what politics are all about.

Colin Powell was a WAY more experienced military man with a terrific reputation, far better than  than John McCain, and he had ZERO chance of getting the GOP nomination.

People are who they are. We don't vote for pieces of candidates.

[BT]

She is probably right.

But it doesn't matter.

Because he is also younger.

He is also part of a generational switch.

He represents change, not blackness.

[modestyblase]

Ha! It's about time someone said this(well, out loud).

[Stray Pooch]

Of course, Geraldine Ferraro would be an unknown loser (instead of a known loser) had she not been a woman.  And Hillary Clinton would nothing at all had she not been Bill Clinton's wife.  She would certainly never be anything close to a front runner in the Democratic race, much less a Senator in New York, were it not for Clinton worship and feminist dreams.  Bill Clinton, bless his bimbo-boinkin' butt, was one hell of a politician.  His wife, well . . . yeah, not so much.

Shame how those damn minorities keep getting in each others way, though, isn't it?

Anyway, considering that blacks showed minorities how it was done in terms of demanding equality, I think it's only fair that they cross the mountain first.  Let Hillary go next time.  She'll cover the chicks AND the gays . . .

[Universe Prince]

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

A white man? Like Alan Keyes? Jessie Jackson maybe? Al Sharpton? Oh, no, wait, I get it now. She means like Bill Clinton, the "first black president".

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't think that Geraldine Ferraro's comment was in any way untrue: If Barak Obama were the Jr Senator for Illinois and a white guy (Italian, Polish, Bohunk, whatever) he would NOT be running first in the Democratic primaries. Obama is a White Black guy: he was raised by White folks, he sounds like a white guy, he was educated like a rich white guy, and he is very smart. Smart alone will not get you into Harvard, though.

Ferraro is or is not a has-been or whatever, but that really has nothing to do with the fact that she is dead on right about what she said.  As she said, if her name had been Gerald Ferraro, Mondale would not have picked her to run for VP, either.

No one votes for pieces of candidates. You have to consider the whole person.

[Christians4LessGvt]

A Ferraro flashback

March 11, 2008


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

April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available only on Nexis.

[Rich]

What's more interesting than ole Geraldine is the fact that in Mississippi over 90 percent of Black democrats voted for Obama, and over 70 percent of White democrats voted for Mrs. Clinton. This isn't an aberration, this is a trend.

What does it mean? Can we say what it means?

[Xavier_Onassis]

In Mississippi, Black people prefer to vote for Black people, and White people prefer to vote for White people.
Look at any high shool or college lunchroom and you will find a similar distribution of people sitting together. I don't think this is racism. In the 1960's in my high school in Missouri, the kids seated themselves in at least five different groups: Black students, Town merchants' kids, Commuters' kids, Baptist kids and a table or two for 'assorted'.

It means that people trust people who look like themselves. You vote for people who think like yourself, don't you?
It COULD mean that there is more racism in Mississippi, but the traditional, bedsheet-wearin', cross-burnin', rebel yellin'  Mississippians moved en masse to the Republican Party in the late 1960's, Trent Lott and his cohorts are the sons and grandsons of these guys. People have become less racist with every generation, but such changes take time.

[The_Professor]

It should be noted that it is not only whites who are racist either. I have heard murmurings about my newly-adopted 4 year old not being "black enough". Ethiopians are a mixture of Arabs and African blacks. Their skin is nearly as black but their facial features are less so, a smaller set of lips might be one example.

It is interesting how we look for sameness and also differentness. As XO said, it will take generations before racism in all its forms is eradicated, not by government action or inaction, but by the people thermselves looking for inner beauty and less to outward appearances.

I have no problem voting for someone like Colin Powell. I would have problems with voting for a snark like Sharpton. Colorblind voting I might say. It is their poitics that matters most.

As an example, I would vote for Obama over Hillary, race is irrelevant here, because Hillary represdents the Old Party Machine of the Democratic Party and we've seen what that brings. Why not give the new guy a shot?

Of course, as I have indicated previously, I would not vote for a pro-death candisdate anyway, and that pretty much locks me int other Republican Partty anyway.

[Xavier_Onassis]

"Pro-Death candidate"

Bah!

The president does not pass legislation on abortion rights. He does however, have the power to start wars and keep troops in Iraq forever, or at least another 4-8 years, where many troops and many more Iraqis will die at the hands of Americans and their weapons.

[fatman]

Of course, as I have indicated previously, I would not vote for a pro-death candisdate anyway, and that pretty much locks me int other Republican Partty anyway.

The Republican Party generally supports the "death" penalty.

[Rich]

>>It should be noted that it is not only whites who are racist either.<<

I would put forth the idea that Blacks are more racist than Whites. About 15 percent more if the results in Mississippi are any indication. But are they racist in the same way Whites can be racist? I think it's a different strain of the disease, but racism just the same. Being a Conservative I find it entertaining to see the democrat party dividing itself down racial lines. The party that I always knew was full of it when it came to race is being forced to show it's true colors.

[The_Professor]

Of course, as I have indicated previously, I would not vote for a pro-death candisdate anyway, and that pretty much locks me int other Republican Partty anyway.

The Republican Party generally supports the "death" penalty.

As do I.

Pro-choice == Pro-death. It is NOT a choice of the new life.