Political Insider

By Copyleft

March 14, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this

Ferraro said the same thing twenty years ago, about Jesse Jackson.

Curiously, she didn’t say anything, on EITHER occasion, about prominent female candidates rising to their position and gaining support because of their GENDER. I wonder why?

By Sven the Blog Catalyst

March 14, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this

Just watching the Dems self-destruct is getting “funner and funner.” The whole party has become a loose, ungovernable alliance of potentially warring special interest groups, none of which, alone, has the support and backing of a majority of Americans — feminists vs. blacks vs. gays. vs environmentalists. vs unionists vs. trade protectionists vs. peaceniks, etc., etc., etc. Once those special interests begin turning on each other, things unravel quickly. Now, the Convention — that’ll be even MORE “funner” to watch.

By Carlos Navarro

March 14, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

Geraldine,

You’re quoted as saying that the response of Obama’s campaign to your comments was that they “did it to hurt Hillary.”

Well, weren’t your remarks meant to hurt Obama? And that “spigot” of hate mail you complain you are getting, is it coming from Obama’s staff or from individual citizens speaking their mind?

And as to hurting Hillary, she and Bill, her de facto Co-President running mate have already done that. Their sordid past is an open book—the Travelgate, Pardongate, Chinagate, cattle-futures, Whitewater scandals; the using Marines as waiters; the IRS auditing of critics; the hiring of detectives to dig up dirt on women seduced by Bill; the Monica Lewsinki trysts in the rooms of the White House; the 50+ deaths by murder, suicide, accidents and sudden illnesses of people connected the Clinton regime; the Impeachment.

All that is bound to come out and derail the schemes of the Clintons machine to retake power.

My advice to you, Geraldine, is to fade back into the woodwork and enjoy your retirement.

By K

March 14, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

Obama’s campaign has alluded on many occasions that Hillary’s run for office is based on her husband being President. In the SC debate he said: “Some times I can’t tell who I’m running against.” I found that remark to be disparaging, as if the only reason Hillary was a viable candidate was because of her husband, that she couldn’t do it on her own. No one questioned whether that comment was sexist. The press just accepted it, and played the clip over and over again, without any interpretation, as if it was an argument Hillary was going to have to deal with and answer. Ferraro suggests something similar about race in regard to Obama and everyone questions it as rascist.

How is it racist to suggest that blackness is an asset?? If anything, that suggests we’ve gotten past seeing race as a barrier. When the question of sex comes up, whether or not Hillary has an advantage because of it, everyone talks about it freely, some agreeing, some disagreeing. Ferraro demanded we do the same thing with race. Good for her - that’s exactly what we need to do. Good for her for not apologizing. Everyone needs to stop walking around on eggshells trying not to hurt Obama’s feelings. He’s a Presidential candidate for crying out loud, not a Cub Scout.

By johnx

March 14, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this

When one is at her stage of career, who really listens.

While I was never pro Ferraro, in her defense, she did indicate that her famous failed run for office occurred because the hopeful Pres wanted to “break the mold” by choosing a female.

By Joe

March 14, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

Maybe everyone should start to question if Hillary would be in the position she is in if she were married to Bill Clinton. Since when does sleeping with the President make you qualified to be president? Maybe Monica should consider running too.

By Churchill

March 14, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

As a lifelong Republican, I am enjoying the racism that is on full display in the Democrat party. A white woman, Hitlery, is going to steal the nomination from, in the words of Sen. Joe Biden (D- MD), “The first articulate and clean African American” candidate to run for president. Maybe some of the “victims” in the democrat party will finally see that they have been used by powerful democrat whites for decades. Peace.

By Tangent

March 14, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

Maybe Mondale would have won if he’d chosen a VP candidate who had more to offer than just being a woman. Gender or race (or name) should not be the driving force behind a candidate. Beliefs and message should be.

We have already elected one official because of his name. And the Shrub proved to be among the worse presidents we’ve had in the U.S. Do we need to repeat history? McCain or Obama are better candidates as they break from the royal family status our political system risks devolving into. And of those two, Obama has an actual message, which explains why he is as popular as he is.

His success is not racial. It is because he offers something that transcends race, gender, or name. This is why Clinton is losing and will not gain the Democratic nomination without backroom deals: she does not have an actual message. She does not transcend her name or her gender.

Rob H.

By charles corley

March 14, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

gooooood morning/ is this the same bed wetter that married his 26 yr. old h.s. math teacher so he could dodge the draft. the same bed wetter that junked her when she was dying. the same bed wetter that was caught along with livingston and henry (hank to his girl friend) hyde, by larry flynt. the same bed wetter that helped pass a bill in 1986 and signed by ronnie r., who got elected on a pledge to stop busing, that took away the deduction for interest on consumer loans which included credit cards, car loans, bank loans and etc. and gave us the equity loan that has bankrupt america. the first vote i cast was for barry g. and it has been down hill since

By w00t

March 14, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

Well, if we’re going to play the “what-if” game then if it wasn’t for McCain’s Daddy and eventual capture, then he wouldn’t be in the position he is in. This is a man that has Crashed 4 aircraft, finished dead last in his class, received and given favors to get to the top, left his first wife for another woman with power and political connections, etc, etc.

Saying that someone is in a position because of their color or gender is an easy cop-out when you can’t counter their ideas or how well they explain the issues. It just shows that the neocons are terrified of Hillary and Obama.

Deep inside, you people are shallow, and cannot accept a person for who they are. You would rather elect a white man to keep the status quo. A white man that has essentially stated that your jobs aren’t coming back and that there are going to be more wars. Is that what you want, someone with a short temper that might be willing to start another conflict at a moments notice, another white man to spend this country further into oblivion? Just to keep the status quo?

By Neko

March 14, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this

I have several comments. #1 Its good to know the truth about Gingrich. He and Ferraro seem to be forgetting that a majority of Americans want change. is the idea of CHANGE. Getting away from politics as usual and the good old boy system. We need to clean house in Washington and get folks like Gingrich back home with their grandkids. If I were Hillary I would be just as upset with the comment because it also implies that she is only winning because she’s a woman. What kind of mess is that! #2 Florida and Michigan knew what they were doing with their elections. Is time to pay the piper for the decision. Otherwise it sends a poor message to our children. #3 The entire election process needs a re-vamp. These super-delegates are a joke. Its just another form of money control in this country. The haves keeping the money and the power away from the have nots.

By Good news!

March 14, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

This is good news for racist crackers, sexist adulterers, and minorities alike: When Obama becomes President next January, the race card in America goes away!! Affirmative action will be sooooo last century. People of ALL races, religions, and genders will be judged solely on the content of their characters and the achievements they, themselves have earned. (Achievements by association, and random endorsements will no longer count, right?) No more “because the po-po are racist, you must acquit, regardless of the other facts in evidence,” and no more “You just made it because of your skin color, so I don’t respect you.”

Right? It’s a new dawn, it’s a new day, and we’re all feelin’ good. Right?

By Ci2Eye

March 14, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

W00t speaks truth. It is undeniable that McCain likely would’ve ever had the military career he had if his father and grandfather hadn’t been prominent Admirals. It’s well known that he wouldn’t have become an aviator based on his ability alone. It was Daddy who got him into the cockpit.

And today, it’s that “story” of the aviator who was shot down and held hostage that captivates Americans and his story is cited over and over as the reason voters selected him. It’s not ability or intellect because there were smarter, more talented Republicans running. It was the label “war hero” that sealed the deal.

The reality is that there are factors that go beyond mere experience and accomplishment that help many people select candidates. We like the narrative of their life, their looks, their family, the fact that they are an ‘outsider” or something unique about them. That is undeniable but that is also what Ferraro said. If Mr. Obama weren’t part black everything would be different. His story wouldn’t be so alluring and without it, America would simply see him as an inspirational but inexperienced man running for President. Take the novelty away from him and look merely at his record and he isn’t in any way outstanding. Neither is John McCain.

Why is it wrong to merely acknowledge the obvious?

By Dave

March 14, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

You know if Obama had not shown any achievement while at Harvard and was a kid who barely got in school and barely got by ok maybe the argument might hold water. Reality is he was president of Harvard Law Review and demonstrated the highest level of academic achievement. You really want to know who was lucky it was George Bush he won the genetic lottery probably got in Yale only because of his Dad and was a student who showed little. His entire career was based on friends of Dad pulling the string.

By Ron Robinson

March 14, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this

Indeed, let’s be honest and admit that white people also vote for candidates just because they are white. But non-whites are supposed to believe that 60 year old white men are the universal candidates who can represent everyone and we should ignore thier ethnicity and gender.

By Rick

March 14, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this

Americans want change Everyone is tired of the same old political game. Please keep the focus on Change in America and let’s not get side tracked by the desperate attempts of losers to confuse the real issues at hand. Obama represents Change in America and he should have the support of everyone. Senator Clinton thought she was an automatic and didn’t have to put in the work.

By obazee

March 14, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

The Clintons are putting self interest above party/national interest. when the presidental election is lost, History will remember those whose omision and/or commision cost us the election.

By Sam

March 14, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this

I agree Americans wants change.

{Can you break a 20 brother?}

By Nick Cooper (nickcooper.com)

March 14, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this

It’s not about whether she was right or wrong. It’s fine for us to speculate about why a candidate is popular, including the influence of race. People working for a candidate, however, are trying to discourage you from voting for the other candidate and race should not be part of that.

By Todd Peterson

March 14, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this

I am anti-Republican, and I don’t have any love for Gingrich’s line of thought. And I am an Obama supporter; but I think Gingrich is right on this.

The irony is that Obama’s promise is as a symbol of the move to a color-blind system, but he couldn’t be a symbol of that system if he wasn’t black.

By John

March 14, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

Pretty ironic that Mr.Gingrich is talking about being honest? I think he should be the last one who should talk about being honest. I think Ms.Ferraro’s comments were racist I am not an African American, and I think people like her has no place in politics or in any of the public office. Everyone should be aware of these type of people.

By Brian

March 14, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

What Ferraro said was very stupid and the fact that Gingrich agrees, proves the point. What they are trying to do is make it seem that Obama is an affirmative action baby. Which he is not. We are talking about a Harvard Law grad, a constituitional professor, state & U.S. Senator. He has worked hard to get where he is and how dare Ferraro or Gingrich or Clinton try to marginalize him as the black guy.

By Sarah

March 14, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

Copyleft, you are actually a 100 percent wrong. I mean, did you even listen to Ferraro’s comments, like, at all. She said she was only given the VP spot because she was a woman. This was her main point. She demonstrated how both RACE and GENDER can be actually be a crutch as we try to turn the page on discrimination in this country.

By Sarah

March 14, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

Copyleft, you are actually a 100 percent wrong. I mean, did you even listen to Ferraro’s comments, like, at all. She said she was only given the VP spot because she was a woman. This was her main point. She demonstrated how both RACE and GENDER can actually be a crutch as we try to turn the page on discrimination in this country.

By annonymouse

March 14, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

The Republicans are laughing all the way to the White House.

By Cindi Overfield

March 14, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

I don’t think Ferraro is the first to bring this up. For months the press has been calling the Democratic race “historic”. What makes this race historic? It couldn’t be because we have an African American and a Woman running for the Democratic nomination, could it?

By srikant madhusudan

March 14, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

And, following Ms Ferraro’s logic, would HRC be where she is if she were a Mrs Senator Joelle Brown /Smythe et al ?

By gttim

March 14, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this

And lets be clear here, the only reason Ferraro was ever even in politics is because of her family. Her name and family connections made her what she is. She spent her entire time as a politician sucking up to the establishment and preserving the status quo- which includes the family of politicians getting supported by the establishment and any challengers to them being discouraged. She has never done anything positive. She actually helped drag Democratic presidential ticket she was on down. Her husband’s and family’s connections to the mob were blown wide open during the campaign. She is a nobody that never should have been.

By John Livingston

March 14, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this

I’m amazed, that all of a sudden in America, if you want to get ahead all you need to do is to be black. So is that why when I applied for a job that I (black man) was passed over 3 times before I got an offer and after I got the job I found out that the 2 of the 3 people that they had hired instead of me had been out of the field for 10 years of more. I could give another personal example, But I will leave it at that. Why is Hillary a senator from New York instead of her homestate of Arkansas? Is it because her husband was president or her long record of political service to the good people of New York?

By JB

March 14, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this

I’m sick of this. If they’re complaining Barack’s only getting to where he is because he’s black, it’s equally true to say all past presidents only achieved their presidency based on being WHITE. The hidden assumption is the black people are voter for a lesser candidate when they SHOULD be voting for the white candidate. Yeah, it’s racism. Completely. People totally ignore the racism that got white people so much of what they have.

By robz

March 14, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this

I think it somewhat absurd to suggest that Mr. Obama’s ethnicity has helped him get where he is today in a country with as chequered a history in race relations and fair treatment of minorities as America. If Mr. Obama was white he probably be a republican and already be president.

By Nachum

March 14, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this

I think that many black people vote for Obama based solely on his skin color; if Obama was white many of them would have voted for Hillary. But white people vote for Obama because they like him, and has nothing to do with skin color.

By EB JEB

March 14, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this

Sen Obama isn’t BLACK! Read his book he is of MIXED racial background. SO get over it! IF you call him white you are just as correct as calling him black! “My father was dark as night… my mother as white as milk.”

Sen Clinton is a female, non-male, not of the masculin gender. Forget the EMOTION of CHANGE and think. Listen and learn. People can’t direct other people. And those who get into positions to lead by shear emotion are the worst. If there is no substance then there should be no one listening.

By je

March 14, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

what is funny about all of this…is that neither Clinton nor Obama directly comes out and speaks about gender and color…its the AMERICAN PEOPLE that have done this…gossip and pokes at different groups of people has allowed this to happen…and will again in 500 years…we are not equal, we are not the same and never will be in the face of the american people.

By Dude

March 14, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

I must admit, there were some pretty interesting arguments for Obama becoming the next President. I agree, he is the smartest of the bunch, the most articulate, and the only one with a message. I love the fact that he refuses to stoop to gutter policits with Clinton or McCain.

The other two candidates are carbon copies of what we have seen in Washington for the past 20 years.

Although, Clinton is different, only because she is a woman. She will offer up the same big business, special interest mess that we currently have.

By Elizabeth Rogers

March 14, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

I suppose in that case it is just and correct to say that if Hilary Clinton were not a woman and a Clinton she would not be in the position of a running mate for Obama. That is also true. If she didn’t have money and political ties she wouldn’t have a chance to be where she is today. If Obama is in the race because he is black then hooray for him, he has come a long way baby. On his own… Elizabeth

By BL

March 14, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

They keep talking about this stuff that really is so trivial compared to what is really going on .. Dog and pony show so noone wakes up to the fact that the finanicial instatutions of the US are crumbling. That fact that none of them talk about what really matters . Bunch of children running the world

By Tony

March 14, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this

I response to what Tangent said - The fact is Walter Mondale was actually ahead in all polls until his final debate against Ronnie Ray-Gun. Ferraro would have been the VP if not for that.

In case you don’t remember, or are not old enough to know, in that debate there was question about raising taxes. Ronnie, doing as his astrologer had advised, said he was going to lower taxes. Mondale stated very clearly that yes taxes would be going up if he was elected, and that Reagan would raise them too - which he did, except for the highest tax brackets, their’s stayed the same. The result of that move by Reagan, actually caused the economic downturn that did in the first Bush, which got Bill Clinton elected.

If not for that few minutes in that last debate, Mondale would have been President and Ferraro would have been VP.

However, to be even about that, I do feel that he selected her because of her gender. But at the same time, you had to give her credit then because she would not back down from anything.

By anna

March 14, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this

To Joe; Hillary is where she is because she has spent her life in public service,starting as a paige when she was a teenager. Perhaps if people would look at the facts instead of following people like Oprah, like sheep we could elect a president that was qualified instead of ones like G>B. who don’t have a clue.

By Richard

March 14, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

Yes… at the end of the day the democrats will demonstrate a strong proclivity towards narcisism, denial, sinfulness and hatefulness towards each other and society at large. When naked self interet (invested in many of the wrong places and people) rears its ugly head we find that the ethics of Molly Yard, Carl Marx and Freud are quite limited …. and primitive… such a thin veneer of civilized public servanthood… lubricated with happy pills and cocktails… Clinton sytle… makes you want to vomit. What has happened to the minds of the American people…who have drifted further and furhter away from rationale thinking… one suspects that emerging models of political prowess used by democrats no longer assess the mind and soul as the independent, but the dependent variables… subordinated to the world, the flesh and devil… and their selfish, wicked agendas often hidden from the cameras.

By Jeff

March 14, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

Quote: “When Obama becomes President next January, the race card in America goes away!!”

So are you saying that white people vote for Obama because they are intimidated and not because they think he is a better candidate?

By Jeff

March 14, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this

Quote: “When Obama becomes President next January, the race card in America goes away!!”

So are you saying that white people vote for Obama because they are intimidated and not because they think he is a better candidate?

By Ed

March 14, 2008 12:32 PM | Link to this

Newt is one of a few true conservatives. His contract with America helped the conservatives to win control of Congress. If Obama had ever been an administrator of governmetal agency or a corporation, he might have some experience to govern. If Illinois wasn’t easily the most corrupt political machine left on the face of the earth, Obama might have some polital clout of his own. Obama is where he is because he is in the right place at the right time, that is usually called LUCK.

By Richard

March 14, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

Just imagine what a hideous embarassment Ferraro would have been had she won with Mondale… wow… relatively speaking, such would have rendered the likes of Dan Quail eligible for a nobel peace prize for superior statesmanship.

By bhagwan deol

March 14, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this

The problem we americans have is trying to be politically correct. to me that is a stupid notion. americans should be proud to be american. obama should have declared that his father was a muslim so he has muslim middle name but he has every right to be christian.BUT HE OWES TO THE COUNTRY TO GET AWAY FROM HIS RACIST PREACHERAND NATION OF ISLAM .HE SHOULD HAVE DECLARED THAT HE IS PROUD AMERICAN WHO HAPPENS TO BE BLACK . HE IS TRYING TO GUISE IT AND USING IT FOR HIS ADVANTAGE SO WHEN IT COMES THAT HE IS BLACK AND HIS MIDDLE NAME IS HUSSIEN THEN HE LABEL OTHERS TO BE RACIST. FACT IS THAT HE IS THE BIGGEST RACIST WHO CLAIM NOT TO BE. THE DAY HE CONVINCES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT HE IS A PROUD AMERICAN WHO HAPPENS TO BE BLACK THEN THIS ISSUE WILL BE DEAD BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT HE TURNS BLACK AMONG BLACKS AND TRY TO GO COLOURLESS WHEN WITH WHITES. HE IS TOO SLICK. bhagwan deol los angeles

By Me

March 14, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this

It is sad that this is coming down to a race/gender issue. We have 2 minorities in the democratic campaign. There are gonna be blacks voting for Obama because of his race and thee are gonna be women voting for Clinton because of her gender. Dont assume every black person or every woman is voting based on gender or race though. My hope is that thos who vote based on race or gender end up cancelling each other out and the winner ends up being based on people who look at each candidates views instead of appearance.

By Chris

March 14, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

I think Mr. Gingrich and Ms. Ferraro are missing the point. Of course one can discuss race and gender in these campaigns. That is what makes this primary historic. Of course female voters are turning out for Senator Clinton and African-American voters are turning out strong for Senator Obama. That is the truth Mr. Gingrich.

But Ms. Ferraro did more than that. In saying that Senator Obama is where he is because of his race, belittles all of the talents he has and that he has brought to this election. He is a noble man, and incredible orator, and could be a great leader bridging divides and representing America in the world. That is why he is where he is. That is why he has won states like Vermont and Iowa that have huge white populations.

Ms. Ferraro’s comments are also insulting to all of Mr. Obama’s supporters and people that voted for him, as though they are simply caught up in a fad, some political correctness or affirmative action. Ms. Ferraro, people support Senator Obama because they believe in him, and believe he would be great for America.

By Tom

March 14, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

I am a Republican, but was not a McCain supporter during the primaries. Similarly, I am not a Newt Gingrich fan because of his personal failings and the way he lost his way after the various parts of the Contract with America was voted on.

However, both Ferraro and Gingrich were totally correct. In her remarks she acknowledged that she wouldn’t have been the VP candidate if she weren’t female. Gingrich’s personal foibles have nothing to do with the weight of his comments and all of you who want to re-direct there are idiots. As much as I’m not a fan of his, Gingrich is about as saavy of a political analyst as there is — if you’d listen to the comments instead of acting with your typical moveon and kos kids glasses.

Finally, as opposed to John “Look I’m scratched, send me home” Kerry, John McCain is a true war hero. Despite wounds suffered on the Forrestal, he refused to go home. Despite torture, he refused early release. He wins that debate against Obama or Clinton without breaking a sweat.

By J. Morrison

March 14, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

And using the logic of Mr. Gingrich and Ms. Ferraro, the only reason Mr. McCain is the front runner for the Conservatives is because he was a POW of the Vietnam war.

I am a liberal, proud of it, and will vote for which ever person wins the Democratic nomination.

By charlie

March 14, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

Dinosaurs. Not because they are old, but because this breed of politician is becoming extinct.

This isn’t just about Ferraro being wrong about Barack being where he’s at “largely because he’s black”, but because of the lack of effort to really examine why he is there. I think there are some very useful lessons to learn from this campaign’s success and to learn these lessons (whether you are Democrat or Republican or from some other party) is to adapt and survive.

I think making the claim that his success is based on his race not only denigrates his accomplishments, but it also is a shame because it leaves an opportunity to learn and adapt and survive politically at the wayside. We can accept the line “the world changed after 9/11”, but we can’t accept the concept that politics can change. Learn how Obama is connecting with voters… and one can learn how to do the same or counter it. To use a football analogy… a team scores a TD on a screen pass because the other team blitzed. This is the other team saying “they scored because the running back takes steroids” instead of giving them credit for calling the right play and preparing themselves to defend against it next time.

By Karen California

March 14, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

Barack Obama ran against a black man in Illinois and WON

What say ye to that Newt?

Hello…Newt… are you still there?

And, Newt, you’re skipping over all of both Clinton’s black support and Obama’s white support.

But, Newt, I love ya. I heard you some months ago on the talk shows saying your party had to get with the times. You were the only respected republican seeing it from the outside and smart enough to know the power of Obama’s message, which is really just a reflection of the hearts and minds of Americans of all ages and ethnicity, and both genders.

Come on, Newt, re-invigorate your party! Don’t go down whining. Step up! Make your party rock!

By Luke

March 14, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

Ferraro should be fired, as should anyone that continues to categorize these candidates simply as black, white, and female. The public like to categorize people, it makes us feel better, it simplifies someone’s character and we don’t have to wrestle with ambiguities, subtleties and dualities. Mr. Gingrich and Ms. Ferarro know this, and they are playing off it. This a political cheap shot and it its a dangerous game. It is the root of hatred and tyranny and it manifests itself as an ugly division between people. So shame on you two. Obama, McCain and Clinton are remarkable people and not for one reason, they don’t need to be simplified, they need to be appreciated and respected and challenged fairly. We are fortunate to have such worthy candidates. Lets got on with the race!

By Insignificant

March 14, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

The Democratic Party should be promoting Democracy by doing away with this delegate nonsense and let the popular vote stand on it’s own. The votes are being counted anyway so why are we wasting more money on delegate votes which may or may not reflect the people’s choice. Both parties should embrace this and bring truth to the concept of each of us having a vote that actually counts! Remember, it’s supposed to be a Government Of, For and By the PEOPLE!!

By Rich

March 14, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

The only reason anyone has ever heard of Hillary Rodham is because her married name is Clinton. It is true that some people are voting for Obama because he is black, just as some people are voting for Clinton because she is a woman. The reason Ferraro’s statement is nasty and inappropriate is because its point was to undermine Obama through race. If she was being honest, as she claims, she would have said that Obama is where he is because of his color, and Hillary is where she is because of her gender. Notice how this “honest” person neglected to mention the second fact.

By Jen

March 14, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

Regardless of who made the comments, people should look at the content of the remark. To say that people totally disregard the race, gender, social background of a candidate is ludicrous. Of course those things matter to voters. Whether or not they should, its a fact that they do.

I’d like to see the campaigns move away from pointing out this garbage and get on to a discussion on issues. I don’t care if you’re a man, woman, white, black or pink with purple polka dots. What I do care about is if I think you’re qualified to run my country and I’m never going to know that until you start talking about what you stand for and stop finger pointing and pointing out the obvious.

By annonymouse

March 14, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

Quote: “If Illinois wasn’t easily the most corrupt political machine left on the face of the earth, Obama might have some polital clout of his own…”

Apparently, you have never been to or read about Louisiana. Makes Illinois look great.

By Don

March 14, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

Let’s consider sexist.

Has anyone looked at HRC? she’s a 2 bagger… maybe a three bagger… probably a six pack and a bottle of Ripple.

By Bob Gravy

March 14, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this

I think that the Democrats are doing a fine job of showing the American people why they should not hold the highesst office. As an independent I am finding it harder and harder to resist the sanity that McCain and the Republicans are offerring in comparison to the race/gender nonsense of the Democrats.

By Sven the Blog Catalyst

March 14, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this

So, what WILL happen at the convention if Hillary wins Pennsylvania (almost assured), Florida (likely, assuming there’s a vote), and Michigan (who knows, but entirely possible, assuming there’s a vote). And if she wins her share of the remaining smaller primaries? The popular vote and delegate counts will be oh-so-close. Brokered convention? It’ll be thoroughly ugly, no matter how that shakes out.

And NOTHING is scarier than a bunch of mooney-eyed Obama supporters chanting “change” and “hope” at every turn. I would respect them if they knew WHAT that “change” or “hope” would entail, but those details seem curiously unimportant. The old adage regarding “frying pans” and “fires” should be instructive — that was a “change,” too, y’all. Word.

By johnmk

March 14, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this

What everyone seems to forget is that Senator Obama is biracial; his mother was white and his father was black. He was raised in a white family. It would be interesting to see a half caucasion/half oriental person run for president. Would they be considered oriental or caucasion?

By Don

March 14, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this

HRC - a 2 bagger… unless you’re really drunk.

By Charles Manning (manning120)

March 14, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

As previous writers have noted, many of the candidates other than Obama find favor among some of the voters because of things having nothing to do with the “content of their character,” their knowledge and experience, etc. But affirmative action is a big negative in this situation. Ferraro’s comment, and also Gingrich’s, appear to be racist because, in the context of the campaign, they suggest that blacks are inherently inferior to others, so that when they achieve something, it has to be because whites have given them an advantage. Both Hillary and Obama handled this correctly. Ferraro shows herself tone deaf by not recognizing the merit of the objections.

By Roderick

March 14, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this

He is the best candadiate that just happens to be black. Chill, white america we are not as evil as you with power.

He went to havard law, he is intelliegent and has abiltiy to speak with the sense of wanting to change the look and process of washington.

What is really silly is Newt crying becuase he had to exit the back of air force one and he lefthis wife on her death bed. also, while he was trying to bring down bill clinton he was having an affair.

Yet you march him out like he provides the almighty word.

By marko

March 14, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this

This is really funny. Neil and Newt seem to think that Obama’s skin color is giving him an unfair advantage. I’m sure they also believe W would have still been elected by an overwhelming minority had he not been George the First baby boy. While I’m not convinced Obama will be a great president, I can’t comprehend how he could possibly be any worse than what we’ve had the last eight years. Besides after Forty-three white boys in a row it might just be the right time for a little change.

By Bianka

March 14, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

Bravo for Ferraro about time the white folks start calling it what it is regardless of the of whomever it is running. Ambition is the word an ambitious black man wanting to be the 1st black american president of the united staes and an ambitious woman.

By Bianka

March 14, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

Bravo for Ferraro about time the white folks start calling it what it is regardless of the of whomever it is running. Ambition is the word an ambitious black man wanting to be the 1st black american president of the united states and an ambitious woman.

By Ricardo Rose

March 14, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

Newt Gingrich is so non-political??? I guess we all benefit from his non-political contributions!!!

By Zefyretta

March 14, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this

I wonder if Clinton would have come this far if she didn’t have the ‘Clinton’ name. It seems to me that she is almost running on borrowed glory.

By Dana

March 14, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this

Its bad enough that Hillary used Ms Ferrao as a shill, now Newt’s jumping on the bandwagon - give it a rest dude. JFK was in the same boat and look what happened there.

Its not about race or gender! Its about Honesty, Integrity, hope, and taking the moral high road.

Those are qualities that transcend party lines, race, and gender. It is something Obama’s opponents lack.

By Richard

March 14, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

In better days when morality and common sense had more sway on the minds and hearts of the American people, cartoonists would aptly characterize ‘studpid politics’ as a man with an entourage assembled on a bandstand under a big sign reading “CHANGE”. How far have we come…. how utterly ridiculous… a people whose foolhardyness warrent the punishment of a monster, a Trojan horse… You want change with little qualification except for fuzzy feelings, millions of aborted babies and national health care plans that sabatoge freedom and autonomy in ways which undermine basic legal fabrics protection basic civil liberties… HAVE AT IT! What God has given we should not destroy or squander… nor should the Jewish people give up what God has given them… FIND GOD and FIND a culture of life… NOT EVIL in a Trojan horse ready to take away the substance of our American way of life!

By Barbara

March 14, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

Race and gender will be with us for a very long time to address the comment blacks voted for Obama solely because his is black is wrong. Most voted for him because he is as qualified as any other candidate. We have voted for a peanut farmer, an oil man unable to speak correct grammar, and a former movie star. Senator is well educated, spoken and organized enough to turn all odds against him in his favor. A year ago the argument was he is not black enough and blacks would not support him. Now surprise surprise he’s BLACK. He is kicking A** and taking names he has shown the world that color is only skin deep and giving an equal opportunity hard work will bring you to the top. The memorial line “Judge by content of character and not by the color of their skin” mean any thing. Black had more to lose by supporting a candidate solely because he is black. He had to be viable prove that he could compete and win among All Americans. Don’t fall for the easy cop out. Gingrich, Ferraro and other who refuse to recognize Obama accomplishments and abilities to run a stellar campaign compete and WIN. What makes Hillary Presidential material? She’s a woman and Bill’s wife? None of these people speak to that issue this is another attempt to divert for the issue at hand winning the Presidency. Democrats don’t fall for it divide us and we fail.

By ill bred

March 14, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

That Newt sounds like the reasonable one here is how far the conservatives have fallen.

Conservatism is dead. Sen. Craig has sounded taps, with his flag at half-mast.

By dkahn

March 14, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this

Gingrich is wrong. The misstep with the statement was attributing success solely on race. Every aspect about a candidate is relavent to the uniqueness of their campaign and appeal - pointing to race alone as the indicator is unenlightened.

It is fine to point out that his campaign is unique because he is black, but if your your argument is made to undermine the man by attributing success to his race - you’re going to have a problem with people who have their eyes open.

As a side note: I don’t think Obama’s race is working to his advantage right now in the polls of PA.

By tafb94

March 14, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

I believe this all just political strategy. Each candidate has to try everything legal and moral (sometimes not so legal and moral)to win this election. It doesn’t matter which party is either, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative. Politics are a cut throat business. You have to tell people what they want to here all the while knowing you can’t please everyone that may vote for you. Voters or people in general try to hold elected officials to this impossible standard of conduct but are unwilling to do the same in there own lives. So what do you do? You play the game and hope you get enough people to believe in you and maybe, just maybe you can do some good if you are elected. Everybody has secrets, flaws, shortcoming and so forth. Neither party is better than the other in that regard. As a democrat I would be willing to compromise on traditional democrat party views if a republican would be willing to do the same. Enough is enough with the bantering back and forth between the two parties. Is it really to much to think that we couldn’t work together for the common good of the country.

By Kim

March 14, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

This argument is so tired. No one is accusing Ferraro of being racist - just stupid and perhaps cunning at the same time. Yes, she is correct about her being chosen as a VP running mate simply because she was a woman, but Barack Obama chose to step into the race. Her statement was insulting because she is reducing all of his accomplishments down to his blackness. The big problem American is having right now is the fact that Barack Obama is Brilliant and has awoken a spirit in a great deal of American’s. He is kicking the Clinton’s butt all the while conducting himself w/ dignity He’s offering something fresh and different. Being an African American female, of course Barack Obama being black is a plus and a sense of pride for me, but it is not the reason I voted for him. To respond to Ferraro’s statement that if he were white, he wouldn’t be here is almost comical because actually Barack reminds me of an early Bill Clinton - minus the jaded past and womanizing. Let me also add that Barack & Michelle Obama are the only one’s that actually have some sense of morality. Bill Clinton abused his position w/ Lewinsky, Hillary is acting like she is running for Dictatorship instead of Presidency, John McCain had an affair on his disabled wife w/ his current wife, who is by the way a previous drug addict who stole prescription drugs from a charity she was working for. I simply choose Barack because he is the best - not because he’s black!!

By mr_xray

March 14, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this

Obama has little political experience, is high on rhetoric and low on good ideas. Saying he’s pulling the troops out of Iraq, as the polls tell him to say, will bring doom to the Iraqi people and expand the evil of Muslim fundamentalism closer to this country with consequences considerably more deadly than 9/11.

Obama is a disciple of both Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and Louis Farrakhan who are well known evil hate mongers who denigrate our nation at every opportunity. They both fuel white-black partisanships.

I dislike saying this but, the only good thing I can say about Obama is — he’s a good politician — he knows how to sling the BS. I’m surprised he’s deceiving so many people. And let’s be honest, Geraldine is right — with his credentials, the only reason why he’s gotten as far as he has in this presidential race is because he is a black man.

By Lynn

March 14, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

Yes, it is historic that we might have a female for President or an African-American, but is that why these candiates are where they are or why the majority of people vote for them, no. I think most people look at the person - not the race, gender or anything else, but the person and their message. Barack Obama has a message that is appealing - the Country is ready for change and he is a great communicator and acts Presidential> It is his message, deliverance, etc. that has gotten him where he is.
Is he lucky, maybe, but mostly talentened. So, even if you disagree with him, give him credit. There is more to him than race.

By Cole Roach

March 14, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

Does anyone think if it was Hillary Nobody, wife of William Nobody, would be anywhere but GONE!!!! We have had enough of the Bush-Clinton-Bush machine. After Hillary who, daughter Bush. To hell with white, black, female or male and all of the crap that has been and is still going on. The Only ONE Thing That Matters Is ALL BLOOD IS RED, the rest is just human non-since.

By Churchill

March 14, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

Libs see race and gender. They accuse the right of all sorts of ism’s, but it is the left that feels the need to label people/groups. The bloom is slowly falling off the liberal/Democrat rose. Peace.

By Eleanor

March 14, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

Yes there are people out there who listen to Newtie - I’m not one of them - because in my eyes he is a first class hypocrit - especially in comments about other’s personal lives - but he has also done some stupid things, said some stupid things - so who is he to call anyone stupid.

By George

March 14, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

I hope that you people are not as naive as you come across as. As a blck man anyone who doesn’t believe that Barack Obama has not done as well as he with blacks because he is balck is just plan stupid. He got what 92% of black vote in Mississippi. Call it anything u want but the only reason he has done as good as he has is because he is black and the black peole of the US want him. The sad part is that my fellow blacks just seem to be to stupid to understand that they are voteing for. 1. He does not even pledge to our Flag. 2. He does not beleive in JESUS CHRIST or GOD. 3. He talks about change but has never said what kind of change that will be. 4. He has admitted in his own book that he has done crack & smoked a joint or two in the past. It is time for my fellow blacks to wake up and smell the GREENs or Chittlins or something. This name does not speak for any self respecting black man or woman in this country.

By YMO

March 14, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

So basically Newt is saying the Barack Obama’s white mother (who passed) would not have been proud of him? or his white supporters around the world are not proud of him…we are only infatuated with his blackness?

Black people only vote for Black people? So why don’t we do a count of white and black people holding seats in political office today and see which race outweighs the other? Geraldine Ferraro and New Gingrich is delusional if they think they can sum up ALL of Barack Obama’s life long career accomplishments by saying it is only because he is successful because he is black. COME ON WE ALL KNOW THAT IS JUST A FLAT OUT LIE.

People need to wake up to the fact that historically black people have not come out in droves to vote for black candidates because we are MUCH harder and tougher on our own black race than any other. Black people don’t want a black politician who says what he thinks we want to hear or someone who is there because of affirmative action. Black people don’t want to elect any black candidate into office that will do something very, very wrong. Because when ONE black person makes a mistake ALL black people are judged for it. When one (or hundreds of thousands) of white people make a inhumane very public tragic mistake (slavery, poll-tax, segregation, equal rights, etc) that one individual person is held accountable and everyone else takes a pass. Meanwhile the entire white race benefits from it while everyone else suffers.

Can someone please explain that logic to me?

This is not about a ‘race card’ this is about the truth. America (unfortunately) is a hate filled, racist country. It is not just one race hating the other. It is many, many races tragically hating each other for the sins of our forefathers and for today’s society which just wants to turn a blind eye instead of addressing the blatant racism in jobs, housing, education, equal rights in general. This contest for Presidency is reminding everyone in a very media heightened way exactly how racist they really are. And the truth hurts.

Why are we not discussing the fact that Hillary Clinton is a white woman who would not be able to run for office if it wasn’t for who she was married to? Hillary’s experience amounts to 8 years in the white house and a couple of over seas visits where she did a song and dance show with Sinbad the comedian for the troops, A SPEECH in Northern Ireland (she did NOTHING else), and most recently 6 years as a NY Senator (has done NOTHING) in NYC. Because racist people would rather vote for a white inexperienced woman, before they vote for a qualified black man. Who said racism was dead?

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE…THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME HUH?

By Jason Brown

March 14, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

Bold* Hey now. Being honest is not being racist. Barack Hussein Obama has made it this far… If any white politician with the same lack of experience as Obama was running for this nomination, he would not have gotten this far. Period. *

By Diogenes

March 14, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

So Obama gets, what, 92% of the black vote in Mississippi, which by definition means people are voting along racil lines. And, by logical extension, what will we get on a national scale if that happens in the general election? CLAYTON COUNTY, only BIGGER! Gee, no thanks.

You Obama supporters just kill me with all this “change” and “hope” talk. Change to what? How? No details, just “change.” Boy, was PT Barnum right on the money.

By GAconservative007

March 14, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

White Liberals are Racist

By linda

March 14, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

You guys are funny. Geraldine Farraro has outlived her legacy. It happens. Newt Gingrich, whom I used to respect, although I am a black woman, disappoints me. Barack Obama is white. And he is black. His mother was white and he was raised primarily by his white grandparents. His Kenyan father left him when he was two years old.

By mr_xray

March 14, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this

Oh…Linda…do you think Obama checked the “white” box on his application to Harvard?

By annonymouse

March 14, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

The US is on the downhill run and the Republicans are laughing all the way to the White House. Stop all this nonsense and unite. Pitiful.

By annonymouse

March 14, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this

mr x_ray, No, he checked the box which said “None of your business”!

By cory

March 14, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this

People, to say that Obama is in the position he is in because he is black simply means that you could have taken any black man and they would be the frontrunner in this campaign and am I not mistaken but didn’t Alan Keyes run for president and isn’t he also black same for Al Sharpton so it has to be more than just Obama’s blackness.

By annonymouse

March 14, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this

It boils down to this, like it or not. We all came from the same star dust and we all had the same ancestors.

By mr_xray

March 14, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

Brainwashed.

By fred

March 14, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

Obama’s wonderful message: HOPE and CHANGE. All you sheep are going to need all the HOPE you can get when the Dems CHANGE taxes. Do you people ever do any research on your own? You think the economy and job losses are bad now, just wait when the dems raise taxes. The economy will spiral down with no hope of stopping and you dems will be the ones without jobs. When taxes go up on corporations/companies, what do you think is going to happen? As the cost of goods (taxes) goes up, corps/cos. will have to lay off employees. Who do you think they are going to let go? Thats right - you. Be very careful what you think you are voting for. The grass is nNOT always greener on the other side.

By Tim

March 14, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this

I keep hearing that Obama represents change. I like the sound of that, but I don’t base my vote on sounds. What I don’t hear from anyone is what change he represents. I have heard no valid reason to vote for him - besides Oprah’s blaring endorsement and I rarely listen to anything coming from her mouth. I work everyday with people from all walks of life and I ask why they are voting for or supporting a particular candidate, regardless of whether that candidate is republican or democrat. I want to be as educated and informed as possible. However with Obama, the answer I get most is his race. I don’t doubt he has credentials and accomplishments, but no one I’ve met who supports him can tell me any of them. I personally would be offended if someone told me I should vote for a particular candidate because he was the white guy. It’s sad to me that others don’t feel the same.

By annonymouse

March 14, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this

mr_xray, brainwashed??

How about racist on your part? Again, we all had the same ancestors. Read up!

By cory

March 14, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this

Investigate Obama and see his stance on the issues. Please tell me step by step how Mccain will bring about everything in his campaign those that question what change Barack will bring about. If you think Clinton or Mccain is a better candidate vote for them and leave it at that.

By Good News

March 14, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this

Tim at 2:35. Yes, there will be change. You see, for years, no matter what the Congress or Bush Ad