Geraldine Ferraro - Obama where he is cuz he's black

It's gettin' ugly out there.

<Hannibal: I love it when a plan comes together</>

link

Yeah, I agree with that. It helps that the guy is articulate and born to stand on a podium, but I think a lot of it has to do with liberal white guilt. Like the whitey's can stop feeling a little bit guilty for all those years of rapes, hangings, and beatings that their great grandparents administered to misbehaved Negroes if they let a black man run the country.

Political infighting is almost as satisfying as I imagine pedophile fights to the death would be.

Politicians suck.

Especially when it's your opponents racing each other to the tasers.

She was a novelty too in 1984. I doubt she'd have wanted that cited as the root of her being on the ticket.

Everyone wouldn't be where they are if they weren't who they are.

This is a retarded article.

Not the article so much that's retarded. It's the main quotee.

Eh. While there's truth to the point that Obama's "message" wouldn't get him anywhere were he female or white, Obama didn't get where he's gotten by being unwilling to shape his message to suit his audience or by lacking charisma. Obama's talent lies not in the specifics of his policies or his approach to politics but rather in his ability to convince people with diametrically opposed interests that he's saying what each of them wants to hear, and that's not a talent related to the color of his skin.

If Obama weren't black or were a woman then his message might be different but he'd still be a very capable promoter of Obama.

Is it 'cos he is black? Dear god.


What's next from the Clinton supporters?

I wonder if she would even have been on the ticket if the Birts didn't have Maggie Thatcher, proving a woman could lead a modern power.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton never came within a country mile of being nominated.

The real enabler here is the Bush administration. If we were living in prosperous, peaceful times Obama wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

Birts? Really? Birts?

To Hillary's credit, she immediately distanced herself in no uncertain terms from Mrs. Ferraro's comments.

Saw this yesterday.

She's just calling a spade a spade...

I wonder where Hillary would've been if the intent hadn't have been to try and ferment her into a candidate back when?

lFerraro doesn't seem to have changed or learned much over the yeears.

I love how the argument against Obama has changed from "he can't win because he's black" to "he's winning because he's black", a 180 degree swing

I'm even more love the (re)exposure of the dark, disgusting underbelly of the CLintons.

Nah...I'm not at all convinced that this isn't a stealth "condemn with a wink and nod" campaign by the Clintons to get these comments floating around.

In fact, I'm convinced that that's exactly what it is.

Possible. But it is no more than a supposition. As far as what Clinton actually said about the remark, she is blameless here. Anything more is a guess based on her character, with no hard evidence to back it up. A guess that has a certain reasonableness to it, but a guess nonetheless.

As for Obama, remarks such as this, as well as Ryan's "It's really because of Bush that he is where he is," are all too simplistic. The fact of the matter is that many factors figure into it:

1) He is black, and lots of people would love to see a black person as president. I admit I am among them, in a certain sense. I don't think being black is a "qualification" for the office, but it would be good for America in a number of ways to have a black president.

2) Bush isn't popular, but the Clintons aren't either. As in 1976, people are tired of "business as usual" from both parties, and want someone who seems like an outsider to Washington politics.

3) Obama comes across as both an incredibly nice person and a very good speaker. All other things being equal, those are positive traits. In our "style counts for more than substance" society, they are exceedingly important traits.

4) The Democrats don't have any other really worthwhile candidates. Edwards has "loser" attached to his name, Clinton comes across as a lying, scheming, power-hungry "more of the same (dirty) old game" politician, and no one else is really known all that much. (Where Obama has been talked about for a run at the White House since before he was even elected to the Senate.)

So anyone trying to narrow it down to one single factor is just looking for a "scapegoat." There are quite a few different factors involved.

If that was solely the case you would have seen Obama polling much more consistently over the campaign.

What we tend to see is a well run campaign and Obama's oratory skills build support in a state where he's neck-and-neck with Hillary or even well behind her. He wasn't jumping jumping double digits in the polls because people suddenly found out Barack was black.

They are (or were) with a lot of democrats. In 2000 many were just tired of the constant witch hunts and Bill's personal failures hurting the rest of the party (which ended up hurting Al Gore, just like I imagine Bush will end up hurting McCain).

But I think a lot of Hillary's popularity is really misplaced nostalgia for the 90s. Economically, militarily, diplomatically, we were on much better footing and I think a lot of people believe we can magically turn back the clock to that with another Clinton in the White House.

I don't think Hillary's campaign would have devolved into what it's become if Obama hadn't been able to tap into deep-seated desire for change among Democrats. In that respect Obama's campaign is a one-trick pony highly dependent on the current political climate (much like Reagan in 1980).

That's exactly right. They think that putting Hillary in the White House will make the dotcoms rule again and all the outsourced jobs will suddenly float back home.

Right again. Obama's platform is essentially a sequel to Morning In America.

There is some truth to that, on the issues and on the campaign trail Barry Hussein is really nothing special, just basically John Edwards Redux, the only thing that really distinguishes him from the rest of the Dems who also spout a bunch of leftist nonsense straight from the New Deal Era is his skin color.

Am I the only one that snickers whever I see the name Daily Breeze?

I am so glad that old hag and Mondull were blown out in '84 by Renaldus Magnus. No doubt she would have been the worst VP ever.

Racism, we've got racism over there Everybody who ain't for Obama is gonna be a racist before its over. I think many people are pulling for Obama because he is something different than anyone who has ran before and part of that difference is his blackness. I don't think its wrong to point that out.

The Clinton camp seems to be implying that people who do vote for Obama are either racist (against whites) or sexist. It's absolutely bizarre. Being black is apparently all it takes to get elected in this country now which of course explains why there's exactly one black Senator - Obama.

That the argument changed from "he can't win because he's black" to "he's winning because he's black" is what's bizarre.

Yeah, that's right. the motherfucking Birts!

Hillary reverses her arguments all the time. While she might be politically opposite her methodology really does make Hillary the George Bush of the Democrats; the facts don't really matter, whatever position she happens to be holding at the moment is de facto correct (even when it's the exact opposite of a few weeks ago).

It's amazing how different her approach is to Bill's. He really triangulated his votes with a more pragmatic approach while Hillary is working her hardest to split the base in a divide-and-conquer strategy.

He's really flip-flopped on the war, hasn't he.