"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,"—Geraldine Ferraro
Well I’ve heard of stupid comments but I don’t think that I’ve heard any as stupid as Sen. Hillary Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro’s remarks about Sen. Barack Obama as reported by Jim Farber Staff Writer of the L.A. Daily Breeze.
Ferraro the only woman ever to be selected by a major political party, the Democrat Party, for the position of vice president of the United States has made the most outlandish statement that I’ve heard in a while. And given that half of America believes that the only reason her candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is where she is today, is because she is a woman who is married to Bill Clinton, I wouldn’t think that anyone in the Clinton camp would want to go there.
Ferraro an ardent Clinton supporter believes that if Sen. Obama where a white man he would not be in the position that he is in. What position? Challenging for the nomination to be president of the United States of America?
Well if he were a white man why wouldn’t he be in this position? Need I remind Ms. Ferraro that there have been at least 43 White men who have been in this position and 46 White men who have been in the position to become Vice president?
All white men so what do you think that Ms. Ferraro is talking about?
"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,"--Geraldine Ferraro
What!?!
Didn’t it ever occur to anyone in the Clinton camp that with Sen. Clinton high negatives (half the country say they would never vote for her) that maybe its not the fact that she a woman maybe it’s the fact that she is the wrong woman!
Maybe Ms. Ferraro is simply emoting what the Clinton campaign is feeling. It was they who expected to run a campaign that would be hard for anyone to run against by running a woman against white men but this black man, Sen. Obama, is spoiling all of that.
Far too often racism is expected from the right, one would’ve never dreamt that the purveyors of multiculturalism, feminism, homosexuality and racial equality would openly display “Louis Eugene Walcott” racism against a candidate in their own Party!
“Louis Eugene Walcott”? Oh that’s Louis Farrakhan for all of you ill informed race haters! Yes I’m thinking that Ms. Ferraro’s remarks place her squarely in the racist column. Oh she’ll deny it but it can’t be anything else. Sen. Obama has not run his campaign as a black man I don’t think he mentions it but the Clinton’s have mentioned it and the Clinton surrogates have mentioned it as well as other racist on both sides of the political landscape have mentioned it too.
But isn’t it deliciously ironic that Ms. Ferraro’s candidate, Sen. Clinton, who would not be where she is if she weren’t a woman and if she weren’t married to Bill Clinton, can say such a thing against a candidate that has not made race a part of his campaign.
Conversely Ms. Ferraro’s candidate has made her sex a major component of her campaign and has continually played the sexism card because she is a woman.
Again, the only time that I even hear race being discussed is when it’s coming from racist Democrats who support Sen. Clinton or racist Republicans.
I’m not saying all Democrats or all Republican are racist, what I am saying is that most Democrats or Republicans who invokes race into this campaign are more than likely racist.
There are so many other things and one can fault Sen. Barack Obama on. To stoop to the race card as Ms. Ferraro has done shows a racial bias and complete laziness in political thinking.
I don’t know how Ms. Ferraro thought that such a remark could aide her candidate when the biases that such a statement invokes work against her candidate as well.
If we are not choosing and voting for the best candidate for the job then what are we doing Ms. Ferraro?
Below we have an arm waving nostrils flared Geraldine Ferraro attempting to assuage the fallout from her “Because he’s Black” retort. Notice at the end of the interview she turns everything around and accuses Sen. Obama of attacking her! I have yet to hear that Sen. Obama has even acknowledged what Ms. Ferraro has said. Unfortunately Ms. Ferraro does not come off as a progressive open minded multi-culturalist in this spot.
Were Barack a White man, Geraldine would not be in the pickle that she's in.
ReplyDeleteTrue, I suppose that if everyone were White, Ferraro and people like her would not be force to accept the reality that there are other people in the world as qualified as she.
ReplyDeleteOr if Barack were a White man they could simply refer to him as one of the "good old boy's club" who represses White women.
Or if Obama were White Ms. Ferraro would not have been forced with gun at her temple to confess her deep, dark inter-prejudices.
Oh there was no gun to her head?
I wonder what forced Ms. Ferraro to say such a thing?
Was it because Obama is Black or was it because that is how she really felt?
And whether it was because he is a Black man or because it is really the way she felt, the point remains that what she said was motived by her lifes experiences not his!
Therefore its not "Were Barack a White man", it is therefore were Geraldine not harboring such racist feelings she would not have been compelled to make such a racist remark!
I understood and fully agree with Geraldine Ferraro's comment, which was not stated with any degree of malice.... but merely a statement of fact!
ReplyDeleteOboma is only where he is because he is black. He has no other "redeeming features".
For proof, I need only refer to the primaries and caucuses...... where he garnered between 87%-90% of the black vote. His percentage of the white vote was only in the 38% area.
So it takes no Sherlock Holmes to figure out, that if he garnered the same percentage of the black vote, as he did the white vote......... Hillary would be way ahead of him.
I rest my case!
brooklyn
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAl, where did you get such an unflattering picture of Geraldine?
ReplyDeleteBy Medusa!, she's ugly.
Did you go to that beauty salon where she gets her mud packs and get one of her "before" pictures?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBrook,
ReplyDeleteFacts are stubborn things in William Saletan’s Slate article he speaks of Obama’s http://www.slate.com/id/2183835/ breakthrough to White voters.
Obama is receiving support from two groups that Bill and Hillary though themselves entitled to; women and Black but these groups are not what makes the difference between an Obama and let’s say a Jesse Jackson candidacy. Jesse Jackson ran as an actual Black candidate. Obama’s candidacy on the other hand is based on his message of change.
Jesse Jackson votes were largely received from Blacks yet he never came close to ever being the front runner as Obama is.
The difference? Obama crossover appeal to Whites http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660890/ All percentages of the White vote for Obama in their prospective states.
25% Alabama
38% Arizona
16% Arkansas
45% California
48% Connecticut
40% Delaware
23% Florida
43% Georgia
57% Illinois
33% Iowa
30% Louisiana
42% Maryland
40% Massachusetts
Name wasn’t on ballot in Michigan
26% Mississippi
39% Missouri
34% Nevada
36% New Hampshire
31% New Jersey
55% New Mexico
37% New York
34% Ohio
29% Oklahoma
37% Rhode Island
24% So. Carolina
26% Tennessee
44% Texas
55% Utah
60% Vermont
52% Virginia
54% Wisconsin
You want to tell me that White people in these numbers voted for Obama just because he’s Black and for no other reason? 55% in Utah, 60% in Vermont 52% in Virginia, 54% in Wisconsin all percentages of the white vote.
Come on give me a break!
Geraldine Ferraro comments were offensive to every person White or Black that voted for Obama. I’ll have more to say about her tomorrow.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteI took that picture out of her personal photo album. (smile)
you just hate Hillary because she is a woman!
ReplyDeleteGreat Al.......
ReplyDeleteNow give the rundown on the black vote in those same states.
Sixty percent of the white vote in Vermont, is by far no match for 90% of the black vote in Mississippi!
Blacks throughout the country have voted on only one criteria.......race! Defend it, deny it, but it happens to be true. The whites who voted for him, are either buying into his empty rhetoric, or are just so far left that they voted for the most liberal candidate.
When questioned in exit polls, no one could mention one thing that Obama has done in office. Strange isn't it?
Wrong brook,
ReplyDeleteThe Clinton's were expecting 100% of the Black vote.
Clinton the first black president you remember that?
That is why the Clintons are so pissed and that is why you are so wrong. If Obama were not in the race Hillary would be getting 100% of the black vote and nobody would be counting percentages nor making senseless racist statements
Sorry Al......
ReplyDelete......but Obama IS in the race, and he is getting that large a proportion of the black vote, ONLY because he is black.
I am not wrong!
Read some of the exit polls. Not one black voter could name any specific reason why they voted for him, other than "change". "Change" is a smoke-screen for race!
Brook,
ReplyDeleteTo make that statement you are suggesting that Black people have no other interest other than race.
Secondly you are digressing from Ferraro original thesis that, the only reason that Obama is were he is, is because he's black.
Black people have historically voted in mass and in block for any candidate that the Democrats have put up all most 99%
So which one of those candidates were black before Obama, excluding of course Jackson and Sharpten?
Democrats have enjoyed the Black block vote for decades with White candidates so to suggest that they are voting for him because his black is outrageous, if that's the case why did Michael Steele Black Republican candidate for Governor in Ohio lose his bid to became governor of Ohio in 1996.
With almost no Black voter support for him, Why?
I'll tell you why Blacks like any other voting block vote their interest. Michael Steele a Republican did not get the black vote. Certain if blacks only vote for blacks regardless then Steele would have benefited from that.
If Obama were not in this race all the black vote would be going to Hillary why because she's black?
No because black like any other vote block vote their perceived interest.
If Obama advocated conservative ideology like a reverse McCain or like a Michael Steele, he would not be getting the Black vote nor the White vote that he presently enjoys.
You're analysis like many conservatives is too simplistic and not to mention insulting to black people.
Sorry Al......... you can leave all the long explanations, but I still agree 100% with Ferraro.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you misunderstood what she meant when she said he wouldn't be where he is if he weren't black. She did explain, and obviously you missed that.
She meant that he wouldn't be beating Hillary's butt off, if it weren't for the fact that he is black, and took virtually all of the black vote. I still agree, for whatever reason.
To Anon who accused Alaphiah of hating Hillary because she is a woman (not myself), be aware that Alaphiah is herself a woman, that she would be perfectly willing to vote for a good BLACK WOMAN like Condoleeza Rice, and thatAlaphia is even tolerant of the Rush Democrats who are currently supporting Hillary.
ReplyDeleteAl knows the difference between me and you by the fact that I am a more articulate, open mided, literate, and jocular person than you. In my attempts to masquerade as another poster, she generally sees through me (maybe 75%-85% of the time).
She will definitely know the difference between me and you.
Al: did I phrase this correctly?
Brook,
ReplyDeleteYour entitled to your opinion, I on the other hand would gladly change my mind if the facts warranted a change.
Ms. Ferraro has a history of invoking race that is a fact.
Though I do believe it is true that Hillary intended to use overt Gender sexism politics to win the Presidency and her plan was specifically geared to beat White men.
I disagree that Obama's rise is based on the fact that he is black.
When Obama first announced the media was going though this thing of, "Is Obama Black enough."
Meaning would he appeal to Blacks.
There has always been that doubt even by the MSM.
So for you and Ms. Ferraro to over look that and the fact Obama has never played the race card but has had it played against him by one and all I would say that he has a snowballs chance in hell of becoming president.
Why because he's BLACK!
He will suffer the same racism that killed MLK, Jr. in 1968 here in 2008.
And let me tell you there is enough in the content of his character that would prevent him from becoming president but we won't be able to discuss those things because of the bigoted people who focus on color and race instead of the content of people's character.
MLK said, he was dreaming of a day when people would "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
And apparently people like Ms. Ferraro and you have not and will not look past color.
I'm telling you there is enough about Obama and his liberal ideology that conservatives need not focus so narrowly on skin pigmentation.
If Obama were not the apt politician that he is he would not be in the position that he is in and for no other reason.
His campaign has not run out of money, his campaign is not in disarray, his hasn't changed his image 50 times in the campaign.
Ms. Ferraro is wrong in this as you are my friend. Sorry!
Obama suffers from a different type of Racism, that of his Preacher, the hate-filled Jeremiah Wright. Obama can still flee from this evil and probabably escape the type of hate that King had to deal with, IF OBAMA WOULD ONLY RENOUNCE WRIGHT.
ReplyDeleteWIth respect to King, there WAS HONEST DISSENT to his cause, in particular, dissent from Thurmond, Wallace, Maddox, (and even LBJ), et. al., and it must be recognized as the HONEST DISSENT that it was instead of being branded as RACISM.
Al..
ReplyDeleteI don’t know where you are getting your “history”
of Ms. Ferraro’s “invocation of race”.......... I find
none on record. Actually........ she has been a staunch
supporter of civil rights!
Since I am entitled to my opinion, based on what I
see happening, I am now doubly-convinced that Obama
got to this point solely on race. His church, as
represented by his long-time “spiritual advisor”, has
made it a top priority to slander and defame not only
“white America”, but America itself.
You want to defend Obama?........then defend this!
Where was he, when over a 20 year period, this so-called
“spiritual” man cursed and wished harm on this country?
Did he just sit there and say nothing? And if he did, why?
Could it possibly have been because he agreed with him?
Even his dis-association with Rev. Wright was nothing but
a half-hearted effort to distance himself. His statement
that Wright is no longer the pastor there, was anything but
what the public was looking for in the way of explanation. And certainly no disavowment.
It is obvious to me, and many others, that his “spiritual
advisor” of some 20 years has had a profound effect on
Barack Obama. Why else would he refuse to wear the
small American Flag pin on his coat lapel? Why are there
photos circulating, where during the playing of the Star
Spangled Banner, everyone except Obama has his/her hand
on their hearts?
He is putting his black heritage before country, with the
obvious backing of the rest of his race. I still say that
had he not been black, he would not have come this far.
Sorry Al, you can lump me in with Ferraro and call me
bigot if you like. I will not change my mind on this.
Brook,
ReplyDeleteMs. Ferraro is on record defaming Jesse Jackson in the same manner that she has defamed Obama are you going to deny that?
I’m not sure where you’re getting your information about Ms. Ferraro’s work in civil rights either. Before the civil rights movement was taken over by the feminist and homosexual lobby I don’t see any history of participation by Ms. Ferraro.
What I do see is like Hillary Ms. Ferraro using women’s suffrage to benefit herself by achieving unmerited success in her personal and political life just because she is a woman.
It has become painfully obvious that Ms. Ferraro is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and I believe her confession that were it not for the fact that she is a woman she would not have be selected in 1988 as Walter Mondale’s running mate.
We all can agree that the same thing hold true for Hillary Clinton if Sen. Clinton were not a woman she would not even be in second place challenging for her Party’s nomination.
She would be some obscure corporate attorney still aiding some company rip off America.
Now I must make a clear line of demarcation here, I am not nor will I ever be a Obama supporter.
I have attempted to be a supporter, as I believe I am still, of conservative values. What seems to be support for Obama to you is not it is support of a principle and that principle is this.
A man or woman should be judged on the content of his or her character rather than the color of their skin. I think we all agree on that in principle.
Yet, the recent attacks on Sen. Obama have been initiated by the Clinton’s on the bases of race. Hillary has apologized several times for Bill’s statements where he attempted to project Jesse Jackson comparisons on Obama. And Hillary has apologized for her own statements regarding MLK, Jr. and LBJ as to who really did the heavy lifting in civil rights.
My underlying concern is that Conservatives or Republicans are flubbing the chance of a life time to make in roads to the black community by participating in the racial confusion that Liberals have caused and created by their presidential candidate’s infighting.
Siding with one side or the other of a bigoted remark has no value in winning the numbers that we need in November and if keep Democrats out of the White house is the goal we waste valuable time and energy squabbling over a dullard’s opinion as to who she thinks is qualified to be President when she herself admits that she did not earn her own bid to be VP in 1988.
My point remains that we can beat Obama on his Liberal ideologies without going down the road to coded racist epithets and slurs by using allusions to affirmative action unmerited accomplishment against a candidate who clearly has earned his own way.
Finally the topic of Obama’s pastor is a VI amendment and a I amendment issue that I will deal with in detail on Monday (God willing).
This also is a road that Conservatives will lose ground on if they continue to pursue it.
Democrats have all but given Conservatives the momentum back in this election year, a year that Conservatives should have been slaughtered by them. I fear that we may give it back by focusing on issues that will rally the sympathies of Independents and Moderate Liberals to the side of Obama and farther alienate those types of swing voters from the Conservative side.
At any rate Ferraro is wrong in her bigoted assessment of Obama, his rise to preeminence unlike hers is base on fact he is an intelligent competition politician whose liberal ideologies got him were he is today.
Those ideologies can be defeated in November but if Conservative assume for one minute that being racially divisive is going to win in November they are wrong and will pay by losing the White house.
That of course is my opinion!
Your friend,
Al
Sorry Al.......
ReplyDeleteIf you lie down with dogs, you get fleas.
No further commment on this!
brooklyn
The issue has evolved away from Geraldine Ferrara to Reverend in abstentia Jeremiah Wright.
ReplyDeleteWe are aware of Reverend in abstentia Jeremiah Wright's sermons whach say G*D*MN the USA, and the United states of KKK, as well as other HATE SPEECH utterances. I must ask how the Reverend in abstentia Jeremiah Wright is permitted to preach under his denomination's banner, the United Church of Christ.
I asked myself what would happen if a Priest, Catholic or Orthodox, started preaching such APOSTACY. I came up with the following timetable:
10:30 AM - Priest preches sermon.
10:35-45 AM - The Comngregation walks out.
10:31-5 AM - The Church/Parish Council is the first to leave out the Narthex. They stop other leaving members to inform them that they should remain to be present for the soon to be convened ad hoc Disciplinary Meeting after the service. Recorders will reenter the Church to take notes of the Sermon. Someone also calls the Bishop.
10:45-11:00 AM - The Priest finishes his Sermon.
11:01 AM The Service grinds to a halt because the Choir and Minor Clergy refuse to perform their tasks. There will be a deafening silence until . . .
10:05 AM The Parish Council announces that they have convened a Disciplinary Meeting at 11:45 AM, pending a reply from the Bishop, who will be hooked up via Speaker Phone for the ad hoc meeting.
11:05-11:45 AM - The soon to be defrocked Priest will be given 40 minutes to Resign, Quit the Church, and leave the Church Grounds PERMANANTLY or face the ad hoc Church Council Meeting convened by the Bishop himself to face the consequences.
11:45 AM The Church Council. The offending Priest has two Options A) Defend himself an expect the WORST, or B)Grovel and hope for some Mercy.
High Noon - The Bishop appoints an Acting Priest, even if it means temprarily elevating a Lay Priest, Reader, Choir Director, or hapless Church Member that the Bishop feels like picking on. The Old Priest is defrocked and Anathematized. He has minutes to vacate the Parsonage and his Office. A Sherrif or Police Officer can be summoned to assist him.
The United Church of Christ has taken no such action against Reverend in abstentia Jeremiah Wright, thus marking them as Cultists. It really burns me that most Protestants treat the United Church of Christ as Mainline Christianity, yet treat Orthodox and Catholica as borderline cults.
As for me, I have only two words for Reverend in abstentia Jeremiah Wright:
ANATHEMA MARANATHA!!!
Al:
ReplyDeleteI reread Brookie's Argument several times before I finally decided to comment upon them.
Basically, he's giving the secular non-religious side of my argument. My side is the religious side of his coin.
Though Obama is a Race Panderer, that doesn't concern me as much as how he would restrict my religious freedom, or how he tyrannically would govern in a racist fashion under color of religious convictions.
Remember that Hitler was also a Racist who made Racism his Religion.
Signing off for now,
MD
“Though Obama is a Race Panderer, that doesn't concern me as much as how he would restrict my religious freedom, or how he tyrannically would govern in a racist fashion under color of religious convictions.—MD
ReplyDeleteMD,
Yours are baseless charges. May I remind you that Sen. Obama ran his campaign, without reference to Race. That subject was foisted upon him by the Clinton’s, their surrogates and the MSM.
His speech was in response to all of the race baiting that was directed at him by use of the word of his pastor against Sen. Obama.
Finally no one but you has charged that Sen. Obama would persecute someone regarding religion. Your charges that Obama is a racist and would govern like a race crazed religious zealot.
I will be dissuaded of my statement AFTER the Reverend in absentia Jeremiah Wright, the propounder of the Tyrrany I fear, ceases to be the advisor of Barack Obama.
ReplyDeleteI shall be facing West tomorrow morning to view the Sunrise.
BTW: I think Obama's behavior during the Don Imus Flap, as well as the Geraldine Ferraro episode proves my point about Race Panderer.
ReplyDelete