US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part Catorce!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't believe she, of all people, would say such things. And defend them. And the way she defends them doesn't even jive with what she said the first time.

dailybreeze.com

Ferraro defends controversial comments on Barack Obama
By Gene Maddaus Staff Writer
Article Launched: 03/11/2008

Barack Obama and his camp have taken exception to comments made by Geraldine Ferraro.

Former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro today defended a remark she made to the Daily Breeze last week, in which she suggested that Sen. Barack Obama would not be where he is if he were white.

In an interview with the Breeze, Ferraro said, "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."

The comment was picked up by political blogs and cable news shows across the country. The Obama campaign held a conference call today to denounce the remark, and Obama surrogates urged Sen. Hillary Clinton to repudiate it.

In a follow-up interview today, Ferraro said her company had been deluged with vicious e-mail messages accusing her of racism.

But far from backing off from her initial remark, Ferraro defended it and elaborated on it.

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

Susan Rice, an Obama adviser, called on Clinton to repudiate the remark in an appearance today on MSNBC.

"That is a really outrageous and offensive comment," Rice said. "I think if Sen. Clinton is serious about putting an end to statements that have racial implications, that diminish Barack Obama because he's an African-American man, then she ought to really repudiate this comment, and make it clear there is no place in her campaign for people who say this kind of thing."

Ferraro has held one fund-raiser for Clinton.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Clinton distanced herself from Ferraro's initial remark.

"I do not agree with that," she said. "It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we've both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal. We ought to keep this on the issues."

Ferraro, who was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 1984, spoke to the Breeze in advance of an appearance at the Armstrong Theatre in Torrance on Sunday night. The comment initially ran on D6 of the newspaper Friday, but drew significant attention after the story was picked up by Raw Story and other online news outlets.

Ferraro said she was simply stating an obvious truth, as seen in exit polls that show Obama taking as much as 80 percent of the black vote in the Democratic primaries.

"In all honesty, do you think that if he were a white male, there would be a reason for the black community to get excited for a historic first?" Ferraro said. "Am I pointing out something that doesn't exist?"

Obama campaign manager David Axelrod called Ferraro's comments part of an "insidious pattern" of remarks from Clinton supporters that have drawn attention to Obama's race.

"When you wink and nod at offensive statements, you're really sending a signal to your supporters that anything goes," Axelrod said, according to ABC News.

Ferraro said the Clinton campaign cannot fire her because she is not an adviser.

"It's impossible to fire somebody who's not involved with it," she said.

She also said she is familiar with Axelrod from his work for minority candidates in New York.

"He knows damn well that the best thing to do in a situation like this is to come back and hit with race," Ferraro said, adding that the response is a sign that the Obama campaign is "worried" about the first-term senator's lack of experience.

Ferraro said she was not trying to diminish Obama's candidacy, and acknowledged up front that she would not have been the vice presidential nominee in 1984 if she had been a man.

But she also echoed remarks of feminist leaders like Gloria Steinem, who argued in the New York Times that Obama would not have succeeded if he were a woman because gender is "the most restricting force in American life."

"Sexism is a bigger problem," Ferraro argued. "It's OK to be sexist in some people's minds. It's not OK to be racist."
 
I was wondering last night. Is this the political race that finally brings race and sex out into the open? Will we pop the race and sex pimples and finally start cleaning them out so we can get on with it and deal with actual issues later on?

I do think Ferraro has a point. Our country is obsessed with race and sex. We have yet to recover from our past histories with racism and sexism, so it's not surprising that a presidential race that includes a woman and a black man running against each other should bring out these kinds of comments. Each group feels that it's finally their shot, and how dare the other group try to take that away.
 
martha said:


I do think Ferraro has a point. Our country is obsessed with race and sex. We have yet to recover from our past histories with racism and sexism, so it's not surprising that a presidential race that includes a woman and a black man running against each other should bring out these kinds of comments. Each group feels that it's finally their shot, and how dare the other group try to take that away.

She has a point the way you said it. The way she said it, no-and she didn't convey the same thing in what she said.

I agree that, in some circles and in some geographic areas as a generality (there are always exceptions), it's more acceptable to be sexist. But I could never state absolutely and conclusively that gender is a more restricting force simply because I have always been white- so how dare I go there, how dare I compare the two?

I hate to see such a "competition", we are all in it together and this election with an African American man and a woman benefits all who have been discriminated against. And I happen to believe it will benefit this country in the long run, either way.

To have a dialogue about race and gender in this country is very important, but not in the way she started it. That isn't constructive and it's a negative for Senator Clinton.
 
I can't really believe that Ferraro not only said what she said but that she's now claiming that she's the target of discrimination because she's white. She brings race into it and when she gets called on it, she has the audacity to say it's the other guy's fault? wow. And that the Clinton campaign only "regrets" her comments but has not fired her or asked her to remove herself from the campaign. Truly, I am beyond disgusted with the levels to which they're willing to stoop. Nod and wink. Fearmongering 3am ads. Obama's not Muslim "as far as I know". The candidate from the opposition party is more qualified than a fellow Democrat. Obama is not "ready" to be CiC but he's qualified enough to be Hillary's VP (cuz it's not insulting at all to tell the guy running in front of you that you might condescend to allow him to be your second) And now this? Just unbelievable. This is one Democrat that has argued vociferously for Hillary amongst friends and family. I would have been very happy to vote for her. Now I am so disgusted that there is no way that I could possibly do so. This may be politics as usual, but I want no part of it. :down:
 
You mean Ferraro cut Diane off? I thought Diane didn't give her much of a chance to speak at times. Or should I say to try to dig herself out of the hole.

politico.com

March 11, 2008

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."
 
time.com

Wednesday, Mar. 12, 2008
Obama Win Defined By Race
By Michael Duffy

Illinois Senator Barack Obama easily captured a majority of Mississippi's 33 Democratic delegates Tuesday as his one-on-one battle with Hillary Clinton race verged once again on deeper racial turmoil. With 90% of all precincts reporting, Obama led Clinton in Misissippi by a margin of nearly three to two.

Obama's win — his second in four days — came at the end of a day of cross-campaign, finger-pointing following comments by the party's 1984 Vice Presidential nominee, Geraldine Ferraro, a Clinton supporter who suggested that Obama's front-runner status owed more to his race than his talent or effort. Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod accused the Clinton campaign of quietly countenancing such divisive comments; later in the day, Hillary Clinton called Ferraro's comments "regrettable." Obama called Ferraro's remarks "absurd."

The steady erosion in relations between the Obama and Clinton camps — less than a week has passed since Obama's foreign policy adviser (and TIME columnist) Samatha Power called Clinton "a monster" — was almost certainly one reason why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared on Tuesday that the chances of a joint ticket between the two Democrats to now be impossible.

Broken down, the Mississippi vote had an unmistakable racial descant — and unmistakable limits for Obama. Exit polls revealed once again an emerging racial divide that has opened in the Democratic party between whites who tend by healthy margins to favor Clinton and blacks who overwhelmingly favor Obama. African Americans comprised nearly half of the Democratic vote in Mississippi — and 90% of those voters, according to exit polls, pulled the lever for Obama, his strongest showing yet among African Americans. But Obama did poorly among whites, winning only 30%, according to exit polls. While this split was visible in Alabama and the border state of Tennessee earlier this year, it was visible in Ohio's primary last week, too.

Mississippi is one of the most reliably Republican states in presidential elections. Only a Democrat who could win 35 to 40% of the white vote, while holding onto a lopsided percentage of blacks, could put the state in play in a head to head match with a Republican in the fall. Obama's 30% showing in the primary against Clinton falls short of that target.

Nonetheless, the win extends Obama's lead over Clinton in delegates by a net seven or eight delegates — a small number overall but important nonetheless. Hard as it is for a candidate to build a lead in a primary system ruled by a system of proportional allocation, it is even harder to catch up once you fall behind.

The Mississippi results underscored another recurring factor in the 2008 campaign. Democratic turnout, which was barely more than 75,000 in the 2004 primary, on Tuesday totaled more than four times that number. "I am grateful to the people of Mississippi for joining the millions of Americans from every corner of the country who have chosen to turn the page on the failed politics of the past and embrace our movement for change," Obama said Tuesday night.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
You mean Ferraro cut Diane off? I thought Diane didn't give her much of a chance to speak at times. Or should I say to try to dig herself out of the hole.


Well I think Diane was trying to get her to answer directly whereas Ferraro wanted to talk around the subject, repeatingly saying, "I'll get to that..."

I understand what she was trying to say, unfortunately she's horrible with words and didn't do a very good job explaining herself.
 
martha said:


I think I'm asking a legitimate question: Would Democrats who hate Hilary vote for McCain if she gets the nomination?

I think most would just stay home. I definately think she's gained quite a few haters in the Dem party during this campaign.

I don't consider myself a hater, I would still vote for her if she gets the nom, but she's fallen quite a bit in my eyes over the last year. But I would still consider her slightly better than another 8 years led by a Republican. Now if McCain had stuck to his guns and been the man he was 4 years ago, and it was between McCain and Hillary, I would actually vote for McCain.
 
I don't hate Hillary. But at this point, she does not represent me and she does not represent the kind of Democratic party that I want to be a part of. If she's the nominee, I won't vote for McCain. I just won't vote at all. And it makes me sick to my stomach to think it's come to that.
 
I brought up the issue
a little differently than Geraldine Ferraro

and no one replied

so I will repost it


and I do think it would be nice if some of you

Obama supporters would reply?


I am at a bit of a loss

with all this emphasis on the packaging :huh:



I know it is not easy

but, switch out McCain
with a Margaret Thacher type

I choose her because she is close to his age

I hope that person would have the same pool of voters regardless of gender


and again,
swap Hillary for a 60 year old male,
say a Gore or Kerry
with the same programs and agenda?

I hope that person would have the same pool of voters, would it be larger?


I did this exercise with Obama
swap him out for someone that has only been a U S Senator for 3 years

and ask yourself if a different package
would get his same pool of voters ?

more or less?


Is there too much consideration being given to the packaging?


Well, Obama supporters?
 
Last edited:
deep said:

Well, Obama supporters?

Short answer, yes. He may lose a few but not as many as I guess you would expect. In fact now that I think of it, his numbers may actually go up, for there are probably many on the fence where race plays a card with Obama.

He would still come off as the young fresh we're ready for a new generation to run this country man.

He would still have many voters voting based just on his looks and charisma, but that comes with every nominee.



McCain will have those that vote just because he has an R behind his name. Hell many of them are in here, they bashed him for months but will now vote for him. But if he were black, everything would change. If he were a woman, some things would change...

If Hillary were a man she would probably stay where she is, she'd gain some male votes, those that label certain actions as aggresive for males and bitchy as females(we all know the type). But she'd also lose a lot of female vote who wanted the first female president.
 
sulawesigirl4 said:
I don't hate Hillary. But at this point, she does not represent me and she does not represent the kind of Democratic party that I want to be a part of. If she's the nominee, I won't vote for McCain. I just won't vote at all. And it makes me sick to my stomach to think it's come to that.

Please consider the Supreme Court. Three justices are likely to step down during the next administration. I feel confident Clinton would make decent appointments. A Republican administration would surely tilt the balance to the right with long-term consequences.
 
martha said:


I think I'm asking a legitimate question: Would Democrats who hate Hilary vote for McCain if she gets the nomination?

Hillary cannot win mathematically.

Even if she won ALL the remaining contests 60-40 and if they re-ran MI and FL and she won by such margins, she can't catch up. That is the rosy scenario which she will never meet. If things go her way, MAYBE she wins half of the remaining contests. Maybe.

The only way she wins is through the superdelegates. After losing most of the contests, the pledged delegates, the money race and the popular vote, this is how she wants to win?

I think the independents may swing to McCain (they've inexplicably liked his phony gravitas all along). But a large, large chunk of Obama's people, and especially the younger crowd, would, in my opinion, not vote at all.

Half the time I think that she is trying to destroy Obama because she knows that she cannot win this year but thinks she can damage him enough to give the GOP a leg up and then she can sweep in and unseat McCain in 2012. Perhaps she can run on a ticket with Mitt, who seems to be thinking much of the same.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Short answer, yes. He may lose a few but not as many as I guess you would expect. In fact now that I think of it, his numbers may actually go up, for there are probably many on the fence where race plays a card with Obama.

He would still come off as the young fresh we're ready for a new generation to run this country man.

He would still have many voters voting based just on his looks and charisma, but that comes with every nominee.


I will accept that you believe this to be true.

But, I just don't buy it.


Edwards offered much of what Obama offers, plus even more.

I believe that a good portion of Obama's support is based on the packaging.

And I can relate, I could quote many times where people in here have posted how great it will be to have a Black president. A president with Muslims in his family. A president with a name, like Barack Hussein Obama.


I believe many are voting his direction because they want to turn to a new page for America.

And I also agree these things are good.

But with me, I might give him 5% for the packaging.

And that is not enough to win my support.

I believe many are giving him 20% + on the packaging.
 
joyfulgirl said:


Please consider the Supreme Court. Three justices are likely to step down during the next administration. I feel confident Clinton would make decent appointments. A Republican administration would surely tilt the balance to the right with long-term consequences.



:up:
 
I think you guys should stay at home.

After it's all over and you get past the election trauma of a McCain victory I will invite you over to my house to decompress and recover from your grief.

Out of the large reservoirs of Compassionate Conservative contained within the deep inner region of my bowels, I with you will go out to your your hybrid vehicles that you traveled in from far and near and with blow dryers will help your melt and pull of your Obama and Hillary bumper stickers off of your cars.

This is the least I can do; I love you guys and will be here not to gloat but to help you up.

:hug:

dbs
 
martha said:


Me too. I expect more from Democrats that the "stay at home" solution. We do need to consider the future of our country and put that above any personal dislike for the nominee.

I sincerely hope would-be say-at-homes will have a look at Hillary Clinton's voting record which indicates a solid left-leaning liberal and is almost indistinguishable from Obama's. Regardless of what anyone thinks about how she has run her campaign, and I make no defense of her there, she would be better for the country from a liberal perspective than McCain. I have generally voted against Republicans instead of for Democrats which is sad to me but it's better than the alternatives, and I have never regretted it that I can think of.
 
martha said:
I actually voted for a Republican once, and left office in disgrace. That was enough for me.

I voted for a Republican once, too, the first time I ever voted when I was young and stupid and still following my parents' politics instead of actually thinking for myself, but let's not talk about that. But when I said I have never regretted voting against a Republican (instead of not voting at all), no regets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom