The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

You know i worked in this resturant and one day one of the cooks came up to me and said "Black people should be happy for slavery " and i was like oh how come, and he said that we were not in Africa and that we have a better life here in America ", i was like how insulting. All i could think about is a this if it was not for the slave trade (african , and trans -alantic), Africa would not be in the state it is now.

I did not take his comments racist what i took it as was thsi very ignorant un-informed. Sometimes people speaj and never think how their comments will effect others. As for me and her comments all i have to say is this true enough Hillary earned her socond term as NY senator. However if her name was not Clinton would she had won her socond term?

Ferraro's comments were not racist, however they were very bad for the democratic party. I do not know if Hillary approved or someone higher up did, all i can say is that if Hillary gets the nomination i will never vote for her. I will vote for McCain and i have never voted for a republican. I know my vote wont make a dimes difference but there are plenty of democrats like me.

JakeD:

You are probably the only one who has. The only reasonable inference here is an intent to suggest to certain unthinking voters that Obama is somehow less American and maybe more like Osama and Saddam.

What this boils down to is that Hill assumed this nomination was her's for the asking. While she was busy crowning herself, Obama and his campaign were organizing hundreds of thousands of folks in a bottom up campaign the likes of which we have never yet seen. Obamians each owned a piece of his campaign and Hill's 700 person top down campaign simply couldn't compete except in select battleground states.

The upshot of this is that, even with a revote in Michigan and Florida, Hill is unlikely to overcome Obama's delegate lead. Her campaign's frustration at the dream slipping away has led to insensitive remarks that the African American community has taken to heart with the result that Clinton's credibility with the African American community has been all but destroyed.

What is left for Hill is to find an opportunity to bow out gracefully, help Team Obama in its weak demographics (working class whites, Latinos, and older women), and hope that in 8 years, Hill's rep with African Americans will be restored sufficiently for another run.

You know, if this pissing contest involved an angry, aggrieved black male with a victim mentality trading insults with an angry, aggrieved white female with a victim mentality, I think the white female would be looking at pretty good odds, given the demographics, all else being equal.

But it's an angry, aggrieved white female mentality versus a mixed-race male who stays cool, talks positive, and has no chip on his shoulder.

That makes it a lot closer.

If your core constituency is frustrated, angry, older white women who want to get even ... well, that's a start anyhow. But if you look at the numbers, it's clear by now that that start only takes you so far. Hillary's challenge now is to broaden that to include mellow, easy-going people of all races, genders, and ages, who don't have an attitude. Of course if her term for those people is "losers" she's going to have some problems creating any rapport.

At this point, ladies, I have to tell you, you're not charming anybody.

Actually, I have indeed used both Hillary and John McCain's middle names on these threads. One "legitimate" reason is to educate people about little-known facts.

Ridiculous:

I suppose its never happened before that a candidate's adviser made a comment that didn't represent the views of the candidate. If you look at Power's comments in context, she was simply saying that while it was Obama's goal to get US forces out according to the timetable, as C-I-C, he'd have to respond to events on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere, as Senator Clinton would if she were elected. I doubt whether either candidate is serious about renegotiating NAFTA.

If you can think of a reason to use Obama's middle name and pass around photos of him in Islamic attire that is NOT racist in motivation, let me know what it is. No one refers to Hillary as Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, now do they?

If having some relationship with people who either are later convicted or accused of crimes were a crime, Hill and Bill would have been in jail a LONG time ago. There is no evidence of Obama engaging in criminal activity with Rezko, Nadhmi Auchi, or anyone else. He freely admitted his past drug use, unlike someone else who claimed not to have inhaled. I don't know what racism has to do with that.

You need to reread Ms. Ferraro's comments. She said that the only reason that Obama was successful as a presidential candidate was that he was black. I am not sure if her comments and those of President Clinton in SC were racist so much as they were stupid and insensitive. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson both campaigned for the presidency and neither came close to Obama's level of success with black or white voters.

The insensitivity (as opposed to racism)displayed by Hill and her campaign toward African Americans has probably forever ended her dream of being president. She would need massive African American turnout to win and its unlikely that will ever happen.

Enough already! Obama seems to cry racist everytime he wants to get out of a tight situation. Like now - he has to prove that he will follow through on Iraq after Power said that he wouldnt; he has to prove that he means well with the NAFTA issue; plus the Rezko trial and Nadhmi Auchi issue is unfolding.

He is using racism to divert people's attention from his lies on NAFTA, Iraq, Rezko.

Sadly, Democrats accomodate him every time... no exceptions. And then those he maligns get stuck with a charge that is false but takes time to defend.

Enough!

If Obama keeps this up, half the Democratic Party will be accused as "racists" before the primary ends. See here:

Obama used "racism" when people raised his cocaine use. Obama raised "racism" if we say his middle name. Now he says its racism if we mention that "90% of the black votes - the same race as him? Is Obama going to control our words, our thoughts and our actions by threatening "racism" on the whole country?

Ridiculous.

Ferraro was on one of "loosingest" Democratic tickets in history. What does she know about luck?

As Barbara Bush said about her, "rhymes with witch."

Geraldine Ferraro said "Do you think I would have received the Vice presidential nomination if my name was Gerad Ferraro?".

Thanks for letting all know Miss Ferraro that the only reason you received the Vice presidential nomination when you did is because you were simply a white woman and not because you were actually qualified.

Like most racist they fail to see or simply refuse to understand the absurdity of their own racism. Goodbye Ms. Ferraro and good riddance.

Essentially, if Obama were white, he'd be Abraham Lincoln, JFK, or John Edwards. And were he white and a woman, he'd be Hilary Clinton. Ferraro presumption is bigoted and historically farcical.

I hope you are right, saulpaulus. If she manages to steal the nomination, I pray she does not get elected . . .

What a remarkable comment for Geraldine Ferraro of all people to make! Everyone who was aware back in 1984 knows that she, a three term congresswoman from NY, would NEVER have been chosen as Mondale's running mate if she were a man.

Everyone was also aware back then that, by holding a gun to Mondale's head and forcing him to nominate Ferraro, N. O. W. effectively doomed his candidacy from the start. Ms. Ferraro and apparently Maggie Williams seem intent on something similar now. Hill's repudiation is less than convincing especially in light of Ms. Williams' belligerence.

If we were picking a candidate based upon experience, Dodd, Biden, or Richardson would be the nominee. Obama has more experience in elective office than she does. Many of her opportunities as essentially a well-connected grassroots activist and ALL of her "foreign policy" experience came about because she was married to Bill Clinton. The truth is that both Obama and Hill have had careers in public service shaped by opportunities available to them based upon race and gender.

Rather than acknowledge that, Hill's supporters seem determined to shove her candidacy down the Democratic party's throat, just like 1984, even if it means totally alienating the African American electorate and effectively dooming the Democratic party's bid for the White House in 2008 and perhaps beyond.

As to partisanship, yes it has existed in our republic from the beginning. But there have always been those, like George Washington, who were gravely concerned about its' polarizing effects. Partisanship helped lead our nation into a civil war and contributed to the isolationism that allowed Hitler and Stalin to rise to world dominance in the 1920s and 1930s. It also threatened to allow a communist takeover of Europe post 1945 before Republicans like Vandenburg, Hoffman, and Ford reached across the partisan divide to support President Truman, George Marshall, Averill Harriman, and others in creating the Marshall Plan and establishing NATO.

We need that same spirit today. I am a Republican, as were my parents and grandparents. Yet I voted for Carter in '80, Mondale in '84, Dukakis in '88, and am supporting Obama now. Why? Because I understand history and the trend of current events and I know that if we are to overcome global warming and the rise of authoritarian China, we must again transcend partisan differences and work together as AMERICANS to make our country and this world better. That is something that Ms. Ferraro, Maggie Williams, and, possibly, Hill herself seem unable to understand.

The ultimate effect of this win at any cost Clinton gambit may be to blow up the Democratic party just as it is on the verge of success.

LAJonathan:
You made my point. Anyone who criticizes Obama must be a racist. Anyone who agrees that, like it or not, race is a big part of this campaign, must be a racist.
The blog is not a place to vent your hatred for anyone who disagrees with you or your candidate.

Yeah, djstates, that's exactly what I've experienced on-line -- maybe it's the whole "anonymous" feature -- safety behind a keyboard, that allows for such accusations of someone they've never even met.

Also, here's a follow-up question for Logan6: do you think that Howard Dean (as National Chairman of the DNC) has an "office" you will be voting for in November too? Sorry, in advance, if you think that question is "racist" too.

Anyone who is not pro-Obama or dare points out the obvious is a racist.

Logan6:

Which "office" do you think Geraldine Ferraro occupies that you are making a list, checking it twice, putting her "out of office" next November.

P.S. Geraldine has now defended her comments: http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_8533832

She must DENOUNCE and REJECT her support. She must DEMAND her resignation.

What part of that does Clinton not remember from what she's been telling Obama?

Obama cannot have it both ways. He cannot put pressure on black superdelegates to switch their support to him (play the race card) and then cry foul when someone points out that black voters are choosing him. I don't get it. Isn't it a good thing that he is attracting the black vote? A recent poll showed that 33% of the voters would not support a woman versus 20% who would oppose supporting a black. I think he's in a better position than Clinton if you look at sexism vs racism. I know it's anecdotal but the many of the people in my community who hate Clinton are middle-aged white men.

Racism is defined as 1)The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2) Discrimination or prejudice based on race

You are insane. If being black is such an unfair advantage why is there only 1 black governor out of 50 states, only 3 black senators, and 37 black representatives? Note that 12% of the population is black, do the math.

Please note the many PROUD racists within these posts, this is the state of our country:

- steveboyington
- JakeD
- politicalobserver1
- seedobecome
- Ermias Kifle
- alee21

Don't find yourself discussing anything intellectual with the low level, uneducated of our culture. Its so deep seeded that a something much bigger needs to happen to these people for them to understand their own hatred. It may never happen, the best we can do is outnumber them and I believe we have.

Posted by: LAJonathan | March 11, 2008 04:31 PM
=======================================
Read this LAJonathan.................

The Summing Up: The "new brand" of uppity.

The Obama camp has been *extremely* successful in sucker-punching the Clinton's with manipulation race-baiting (crying racism where none exists). I don't for a minute believe that they (the Clinton's) thought they'd be vulnerable to such accusations ( of using race-baiting to intimidate) given their history of working for minority rights. Obama's backers were very shrewd by accusing Bil Clinton of being a "southern politician" using the foil to cover their race-baiting.

No one has benefited more from affirmative action than Barack Obama and he runs his campaign as if he has. But should you point this out to him or his supporters even indirectly as Ms Ferraro did you run the risk of being labeled a racist. He and his black supporters wear affirmative action as if it were a chip on their shoulders and the they dare anyone to call them on it.

The question we have to ask ourselves is does it give him an unfair advantage. When Ms. Geralding Ferraro observes, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is." she is condemned for being a racist. That Ms. Geraldine Ferraro's observation can be labeled as racist is itself reverse race-baiting or the worst kind.

Mr. Obama wants to be treated as an equal except when it's convenient to draw upon the benefits of affirmative action to stifle criticism.

Posted by: PhilTR | March 11, 2008 06:40 PM
==============
PhilTR: You along with Ms. Ferraro are correct.

Narrow-minded racist and sexist like Geraldine Ferraro should be banned for life from the DNC. Let's make a list and put a couple of them out of office next november.

Get over it, and yourselves. Bottomline, blacks will vote for blacks regardless of the qualifications. Just like some whites will vote white because they don't want to vote for a black.

Please. You didn't see 90% of blacks voting for Jackson or Sharpton. And before some of the racial innuendos started coming from the Clinton campaign there were a lot more black people who were voting for the Hillary.

Either way, Obama is not where he is 'just because he is black'. That is patently absurd. Does it help in some cases? Yes. Does it hurt him in some cases? Yes. But it is just absurd and ignorant to say he's only where he is because he is black.

You mean to say that his policy positions, the way he has run his campaign, and his speeches are all so terrible that all he has is race? Get real.

Ms Ferraro's comment continue playing the racial card for Hillary. Her comment smacks of the same racism as Isaih Thomas' remark tha Larry Bird only got noticed as star because he is white. This just goes to show that Ferraro never belonged on the ticket with Mondale and she joins the hall of infamy with Spitzer, another Clinton supporer.

"If you were black in this country, you were enslaved"
Yes, but in what century?
Get over it, and yourselves. Bottomline, blacks will vote for blacks regardless of the qualifications. Just like some whites will vote white because they don't want to vote for a black.
His mom was white...???? The dem party is and continues to be a joke.

The Obama camp has been *extremely* successful in sucker-punching the Clinton's with manipulation race-baiting (crying racism where none exists). I don't for a minute believe that they (the Clinton's) thought they'd be vulnerable to such accusations ( of using race-baiting to intimidate) given their history of working for minority rights. Obama's backers were very shrewd by accusing Bil Clinton of being a "southern politician" using the foil to cover their race-baiting.

No one has benefited more from affirmative action than Barack Obama and he runs his campaign as if he has. But should you point this out to him or his supporters even indirectly as Ms Ferraro did you run the risk of being labeled a racist. He and his black supporters wear affirmative action as if it were a chip on their shoulders and the they dare anyone to call them on it.

The question we have to ask ourselves is does it give him an unfair advantage. When Ms. Geralding Ferraro observes, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is." she is condemned for being a racist. That Ms. Geraldine Ferraro's observation can be labeled as racist is itself reverse race-baiting or the worst kind.

Mr. Obama wants to be treated as an equal except when it's convenient to draw upon the benefits of affirmative action to stifle criticism.

"And now I read one of Hillary biggest fundraisers is a producer of anti-semitic movies that portray Jewish doctors removing Arab organs for sale in Europe. Hillary hasn't condemned him, either and won't return the money. Are we seeing a pattern here?

Posted by: dcwsano | March 11, 2008 06:18 PM"

Hillary Clinton return money. She!? No.

But you are right in every respect, she should.

Yup, and the only reason that Hillary Clinton even holds elected office is because she married Bill.

A great post from another WaPo reader of a Greg Craig memo basically taking apart Hillary's claims of foreign policy experience. What a joke the Clintons are.

To: Interested Parties

From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department

RE: Senator Clinton's claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words?

DA: March 11, 2008

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed "the Commander- in-Chief test" is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims - i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign - would conclude that Senator Clinton's claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland." It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, "[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord." With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that "[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one."

News of Senator Clinton's claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph's report at the time, "[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: "The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it."

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that "Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn't hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage."

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, "I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments - U.S. diplomats. President Clinton's top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, "I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue." Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration's National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that "she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations."

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote - urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda - in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America's failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China:

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women's rights. But Senator Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton's speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama's speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called "a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics." In that speech, he said prophetically: "[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would "fan the flames of the Middle East," and "strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda." He urged the United States first to "finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda."

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama's advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation's history. Some of the most "experienced" men in national security affairs - Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others - led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign's argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim - as the TV ad - consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation - the War in Iraq - Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled "The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq." As she cast that vote, she said: "This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make - any vote that may lead to war should be hard - but I cast it with conviction." In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued - remarkably - that she wasn't actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization - like a blank check - to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader - an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

Sad to see Ferraro go down in the gutter this way.

Hillary Clinton should--ready, now?--reject Ferraro's support.

That's right. Reject.

Anyone who believes being African-American helps anyone win a contest in this country has rocks where their brains are supposed to be. The comment was bigoted. If Hillary doesn't fire her, she can count on African-Americans staying home if she is the party nominee.

And now I read one of Hillary biggest fundraisers is a producer of anti-semitic movies that portray Jewish doctors removing Arab organs for sale in Europe. Hillary hasn't condemned him, either and won't return the money. Are we seeing a pattern here?

The Democratic Party better stop this now! This kind of argueing is outrageous. Lucky to be black? He's just lucky, not maybe an intelligent, gifted man and a worthy foe for Clinton, just lucky. This is getting so absurd.

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/good-morning-from-europe-has-the-democratic-party-lost-its-mind/

And whoever supports Hillary Clinton and is a real Democrat better wish for Obama as a candidate, because Hillary Clinton has voted for(!) the Kyl/Lieberman amendment and in the light of this

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/mideast-military-chief-resigns-after-magazine-article/

this makes me very afraid.

To the media: Please don't leave it to us bloggers once again to protest against a war, just sayin'

As to the comments about it has been harder to be a women as opposed to being Black in this country, lets look at some facts:

If you were black in this country, you were enslaved

If you were Black in thsi country, you were forced to go to second rate facilities called schools with dated books.

If you were black, you were forced to use separate inferior accomodations and ride on the back of the bus and train.

As a black man, you would be hung if you looked directly at a white woman.

If you were black, you couldn't live in many communities.

If you were black, particularyly in the south, where the vast majority of blacks reside, you could not vote until at least 1964

If you were black in this country, the way many in this country are afraid of Al Quada (sic), Black men, women and children were terrified on a daily basis for their lives, liberty and property by individuals whi were not from foriegn sands, but U.S. citizens.

If you were black in this country, the laws of this country, including the Constituency, legitimized your servitude and your ill treatment.

I could go on and on. I am not a woman, but I don't think that you can compare the two human experiences.

Blacks make up about 13% of the U.S. population. Alone we could never change a thing about this country. Women make up approx. 56% of the country. Whatever ills or change that women want to make, it is clearly within their power to do so through the power of the ballot. Being Black, I can only appeal the moral high ground and generosity of the majority(white people) and hope that others seek change any injustice for I see.

This is not to say that being a woman in this society is a cake walk. But please do not try to prop of the women's cause by denigrating the history of pain of black folks. They don't compare.

Thanks

The similarities between Hillary and Bush continue. Rove is well known for turning an opponent's strength against the opponent. Ferraro's comment is a planned strategy to turn a strength (succeeding against odds and adversity of race) into a weakness (isn't winning on merits).

Savor the gradul extinction of dinosaurs like Ferraro and Clinton. They can only think in terms of categories of people: latinos, gays, blacks, economic class, old, young, catholic, etc. When will the "old" Dems get it, we in the party don't care about race, factions, income, etc., we just want the party to pursue policies that benefit the public as a whole... policies that lift the U.S. Environment, justice, civil rights, economic fairness, healthcare, these things are universal.

I don't remember the definition of racism meaning "anyone white who simply points out the truth about someone who is black" Now on the other hand, preference or favoritism towards one race over another, what racism actually is, like 99% of black voters voting for the black candidate, that seems pretty racist to me..
---------------------------------

The same way it is sexist that the majority of white women vote for Hillary.

Eine1 I agree with you. However, let's not forget, Senator Obama did not have the majority of the black vote until after New Hampshire when Senator Clinton made the "MLK had a dream and it takes a President like LBJ" comment positioned with Pres. Clinton's remarks about the "fairy tale" that drove away the Clinton's long held Black constituency. That was made worse by Pres. Clinton's "Jesse Jackson" remarks in South Carolina which not only attempted marginalize Sen.Obama, but the Black vote in general. This is why the Black wote is overwhelming in the corner of Sen. Obama. This is not racism, tis is a group of people who have decided that the Clintons do have their best interest at heart and will not serve that constituency. That's called being politically aware. It's not because Sen. Clinton is white, its is because they have shown their true colors to the gruop of democrats that never wavered in the support of both Clintons...that is until New Hampshire.

Now, can you tell me why white women are voting for Clinton?

Pakistan has been destabilized ever since Obama made those remarks here in Chicago at Soldier Field. You can sugarcoat it any way you want: the end result is bombing Pakistan. The people were out on the streets the next day and it has not stopped since.

So much for his vaunted judgment.

Of course no one is more racist than black people. I can tell you that from working with them. You don't think they just coincidentally happen to agree with all of Obama's positions, do you? No, they are not as stupid as the many women who think this country is past sexism, have a crush on Obama, and therefore are voting for him.

ermias.kifle,
It's funny how you guys are, all of a sudden, worried about affirmative action! Are you stupid and know nothing of your own history?
White folks have skewed the system in their favor for ages.You cry like babies when things don't go your way. Scared of the changes, aren't you?
You'll soon be a minority and that's what all the fuss is about. You made your own bed. Sleep on it.Nothing lasts forever.Regrets!

steveboyington,
Some white people have no shame whatsoever!
You have the nerve to be saying if Obama were a white man, he would not be where he is.Why don't stop the nonsense? The last time I checked only white men have been presidents. Did I miss something?
Get off the couch, throw away the beer cans, and go get a job.

Hillary should concede the point and reject and denounce.

HRC believes she is exempt from her own rules. What a hypocrite!

And the assertion that being black provides ANY favoritism or privileges in this country is perposterous. I'm sure if any of you (who speak to being black as advantageous) had a choice to fill my shoes, you certainly wouldn't. And, I can't say I blame you.

The black vote in Texas is only 17%, yet Obama won the delegates in Texas. Yep, he won. It is all over the news here. Why doesn't the media announce it?

Obama took the delegates in Texas!!

There is a theme running through some of the posts that Hillary has a more difficult time because she is a woman (versus she got where she is because of being Bills wife with related access to information and monied frieds).

There is another reality. No male could possible be in her position with such high negatives. She is where she is because of gender support.

Her problem is her. Many people simply do not like her or trust her. The whole Clinton background of lies, scandals and win at any price. I would love to have seen a woman President or Vice President in every election for the last 25 years.

But not this particular woman. It is hard for the gender based female voters to feel so close to a dream and not reach it. But it is because of this woman and not her gender. There are several female members of congress that I would vote for in a minute.

Maybe what Hillary should do is spend the next eight years acting in a manner to overcome her reputation. Show some genuine humility and compassion, and then maybe people would be ready for her. I still say that her natural gifts for policy fit perfectly in the senate, even if her ego does not.

A gifted senator or a failed President. Because she is too close to the establishment and lobbyists to change anything, and the republicans in congress and talk radio would be in heaven chipping away at her programs. Likely they would regain the Senate or House in two years.

Affirmative Action candidate

Affirmative Action President???

Affirmative Action candidate

Affirmative Action President???

Affirmative Action candidate

Affirmative Action President???

Geraldine Ferraro made a true statement and it's time we stopped pussy footing around this issue in order to be politically correct.

That a novice like Barak got where he is over a trusted accomplished talented Bill Richardson is a fluke and it is because he is half black.

Get over it.

She is so right.
Its about time.

I don't remember the definition of racism meaning "anyone white who simply points out the truth about someone who is black" Now on the other hand, preference or favoritism towards one race over another, what racism actually is, like 99% of black voters voting for the black candidate, that seems pretty racist to me..
---------------------------------

The same way it is sexist that the majority of white women vote for Hillary.

The black vote in Texas is only 17%, yet Obama won the delegates in Texas. Yep, he won. It is all over the news here. Why doesn't the media announce it?

Obama took the delegates in Texas!!

Having been a vice-presidential candidate
in 1984 - the year Mondale narrowly beat Hart - Ferraro knows what she is talking about. Hart got the same kind of voters that Obama is getting today. The big difference today is the black vote. Mondale and Jesse Jackson took the vast
majority of black voters that year. If Hart had won a larger percentage
of the black vote, he probably would have been the nominee, and Ferraro probably
would not have made history. The history-challenged Obama folks always raise a stink
when historic facts are raised because they live in the present, where neither history nor experience has any relevance in their shallow Paris Hilton junk culture.

Obama gets 90% the Black vote.
who is Racist? Obama

Obama gets 90% the Black vote.
who is Racist? Obama
Obama gets 90% the Black vote.
who is Racist? Obama
Obama gets 90% the Black vote.
who is Racist? Obama

Talk about hypocricy. Would Hillary Clinton have been the presumptive front runner if she wasnt married to you know who. And isnt you know who the reason why a Senate seat just opened up out the sky just for her? And doesnt she claim his experience as her own, and the press fails to challenge her, because of you know who. Talk about being the donkey in the closet, Hillary claims she is so independent yet runs back to Bill every time she fails at something. Her campaign has been so poorly run, has wasted huge amounts of money, and has managed to antagonist Democrats across the board, not only those supporting Obama.

Hillary deserves to lose, she is a weak imitation of who know who. Lacks the charm and always will

Please note the many PROUD racists within these posts, this is the state of our country:

- steveboyington
- JakeD
- politicalobserver1
- seedobecome
- Ermias Kifle
- alee21

Don't find yourself discussing anything intellectual with the low level, uneducated of our culture. Its so deep seeded that a something much bigger needs to happen to these people for them to understand their own hatred. It may never happen, the best we can do is outnumber them and I believe we have.

I don't remember the definition of racism meaning "anyone white who simply points out the truth about someone who is black" Now on the other hand, preference or favoritism towards one race over another, what racism actually is, like 99% of black voters voting for the black candidate, that seems pretty racist to me..

There is a sadness in Ms. Ferraro comments. On so many levels. Her own judgment and integrity seems lacking, but was always questionable. Her attempt to inject racism into a campaign that was not based on race. And pitting gender versus race in a campaign that should be about neither.

And most sadly, her lack of understanding of the Obama message. Because a white male or female with the same message would be "in this position", or a black or asian female.

Maybe America is ready to move on from the politcs of the Ferraro generation and she simply has not woken up to the fact. It is about the message and not gender or skin color

Obama did not say he would, "bomb Pakistan". He said that if he had actionable intelligence on Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan that he would act on it with or without Pakistan's consent.

Bush did exactly that a few weeks ago with a UAV strike on some of the Al Qaeda leadership.

I think its clear that race does play a role in the race, as does gender. But to say that Obama is only here because he is black is patently absurd as well as ignorant.

What's the big deal? Doesn't Obama think he's lucky to be black? And Axlerod, can you tell anyone with a straight face, that Obama isn't getting 80% of the black vote because he is black? This whole election is based on race, that's no secret, and you seem to think that anyone who mentions that fact, should be tarred and feathered. You're a reverse racist, Axlerod! White people can't say anything about black people, according to you.

Yes, it's true, but perhaps unwise to say it, like Obama's ill-judged remarks about bombing Pakistan. I don't really think anyone needs to have this pointed out. Even the slimly qualified JFK had more qualifications than Obama. Obama is more like Dan Quayle, but with a brain.

Our first president had zero political experience (aside from a lackluster military record), yet his administration has been the ideal model for every presidency since.

A former 2-year Congressman from Illinois reunited a divided nation, touched us with his words, and took the first step towards abolition of our nation's single cruelest practice.

A young, 2-year Governor fought for the poor, saved our nation's forests, began the Progressive Age, and redefined the powers of the President in a changing world.

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt... our three most inexperienced Presidents.

"Silence is Golden" from Hilary as usual, why?because she hopes some of the dirt thrown will stick! - The comments made by Ferraro should be strongly censored by Clinton herself and nothing less is acceptable, but then no word from Hilary about the Harold Wolfson, Ken Starr smear against Barack Obama.

So many of us are sick of the Barack Obama not being experienced enough accusations from Hilary, was Tony Blair in the UK
back in 1997 when he first stood as Prime Minister. What good did experience do for Bill Clinton with his lies?

Gov. Ed Rendell says some Pennsylvanians aren't ready yet to vote for a black man (although he has added that he himself would happily vote for Barack Obama to head the Democratic ballot if a Clinton-Obama ticket doesn't work out).

Perhaps it is Ms. Ferarro's misjudgment of timing that led her to utter her vile bigotry about fellow Democrat Barack Obama.

One of the tests of executive leadership is the courage to fire one's staffers when even as friends they stand in the way of one's aims. Will Hillary pass this test and cross the threshold to acceptability as Commander-in-Chief?

Geraldine out in California may think of Pennsylvanians as racists, but anyone who has spent considerable time in the Keystone State certainly doesn't.

I don't think Ms Ferro's comments are offensive. THey are true. Just look at the exit polling and the press coverage. HRC voice is described as Shrill. She gets critized for sticking by Bill when he cheated on her. Look at the post headline for this story. A wole lot one sided. Why doesn't the post do a story about whether or not there is any truth in the story.

Quote: "The Obama campaign dost protest too much. Ferraro spoke the truth -- any white man running with so little experience and absolutely nothing he's proposing of any substance (yeah, I know, hope and yes we can...) would have been laughed out of the race long ago.""

Ridiculous, Read up. I will put Obama's record of accomplishments before Clinton's any time. Where is this 35 years of experience?? Get real, How old do you think the woman is? 35 years ago would place Clinton in 1973, the year she graduated from law school. Her experience came from making the coffee as a junior partner in a law firm? Some people believe everything that they read.

Those of you who think Obama is leading because of the black vote are just ridiculous. Black people are minority in the country and portion of the population who have not been privilaged in so many way for a very long time. So, for them to vote for one of their own is the same thing as most of those women in their sixties going in flocks to vote for Hillary. Besides that though, the guy has won some of the whitest states in the nation. Maine? Iowa? Nebraska? Vermont? Ring any bells? Why do we want to corner him as just the black candidate. If that was a wining strategy, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would have won. But, Y'all know better than that. He's crossing all supposed boundaries, and you cant handle it. So, you decide to define him in a box. Convenient, but far from the truth. The sooner you acknowledge the facts, the more you'll appreciate how much this country has actually improved over the years. Thank God for that.

Posted by: CPCook: "I don't see why one would censure the statement."

Every statement has a context. What's the point of pointing out his race? His color is pretty obvious. So why mention it? Why should anyone's race be pointed out at any time? The media has been basing their stories on race. The Clinton campaign has been harping on it. To what end? If anyone can't figure that out, or if they defend it as "truth," then it's his color that gives them a problem. Furthermore, it seems that Republicans, for all their loathsome governance these past eight years, are in reality far less racist than Democrats. Obama's won in Republican strongholds, while Hillary Clinton has captured much of the "urban" Democratic landscape. Which goes far to indicate that black people were just the mules to haul the white candidates to the White House, but then got hitched outside. Fact is, Hillary Clinton knows her constituency, and she plays to them.

Ferraro is correctly pointing out it's not who Barrack Obama is, it's WHAT he is that's driving his constituency. Never mind he lacks the credentials to take on the job.

Birds of a feather flock together.

Looks like McCain has clinched the election.

If HilLIARY was a white man, SHE would not be in this position....And...SHE happens to be very lucky to be who she is (Bill Klinton's wife). And the country is caught up in the concept (also)."

Don't tell me there is no media bias in her favor.

I though we got rid of Ferraro long ago. Now here she is again spouting the Clinton line. The Clintons and their crowd are going to ruin the Democratic party for years to come.
What is next?? Could she run a more stupid campaign??

The Republicans are rolling in the aisles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8

Why is this covered up?
Clinton should apologize

As for Obama's accomplishments in the Senate a few examples are:

*Obama-Feingold Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act
*Obama-Coburn Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006
*Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act

In contrast, what legislation has Hillary Clinton passed?

Hey Ermias Kifle, You are defineately a moron and a disgrace to yourself and your origin. Your name suggests that you come from Eritrea or Ethiopia. Both countries with major muslim population. If you have an attitude that any one who is a muslim is some how to be disregarded from others, then a major part of your country of origin would be outcasted. Of all people, you should be the one who would be more understanding of people's right to their faith and leaving them be. But, I guess you are too slight in your thinking abilities to understand the meaning of any of that.

In Obama, we have someone who is willing to not only change and progress, but to beleive in the people of this country to do so. I always hear Clinton supporters ask, "Change to what?". How about changing our negative attitudes of people just because of their different background, culture, faith, race, and opinion. Are we so unable to respect others who are different from us? Are we that incapacitated? If that is what we think of ourselves, all the more reason to give this guy - who thinks and beleives we can do better - a chance to lead us at this critical hour.

Lets stop being narrow minded and look at things in wider perspective. During Bill Clinton times, there were some positive signs in the economy that many democrats still remember with pride. But, due to his partisanship, democrats lost both the house and senate up until 2006. No matter which President we elect, nothing will pass until he/she has the support of the house and Senate. Therefore, whatever promises these two candidates are making, it wont materialise until they are willing to work with the rest of house and Senate. There is only one of these candidates willing to do that - Obama. It's not because he is weak. It's because he knows what it takes to get things done. Unlike what many myopics think, this guy is the only one who can actually get most of the promisses done. That's ofcourse if we are really looking for actions and not empty rhetorics.

Let me get this straight: Ferraro says if Obama was white he wouldn't be where he is? And I suppose Geraldine earned her spot on the '84 ticket on the strength of her political achievements? Or just because she was a woman? No wonder Reagan/Bush absolutely kicked the crap out of her and Mondale. The long knives are now out, though, and the Clintonistas have just begun to get nasty. This is just the beginning. Racist talk, lies about his record, demeaning comments about his life's accomplishments, it's all coming out. The Clintons are desperate. They just don't understand that people can not stand Hillary.

I applaud Ms Ferraro for not being afraid and saying what has to be said. She is in the unique position of having been a VP candidate and can attest to the prejudice that women are subjected to day in and day out. What she is saying is absolutely correct so the media, liberals and the AAs should try to figure out how to make things right for everyone, including women.

We have the press and pro-Obama op-ed columnists writing plain nonsense about the Clinton campaign yet no one is crying gender slander. See the recent inflammatory article in the NYT trying to stir up more racial divide (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/opinion/11patterson.html?hp).

Why is every criticism levied against Obama a racial slander? Obama brought race into his campaign and he is doing the AA population a disservice.

Remember David Axelrod, Obama's strategist? Interesting to note that David Axelrod was written up back in 1993 as "Media consultant David Axelrod sells Democratic politicians just like Pepsi sells soft drinks. But don't blame him if you get one-calorie candidates" (by Donald Sevener).

Now if you buy into this new line from Obama-Axelrod, we will indeed be a nation of one-calorie politicians.

Well, Bill Clinton didn't have any national political experience, nor did George W. Bush when they got elected president. Clinton was governor for 12 year and Bush for 6 before becoming president.

Obama was in the Illinois state legislature for 8 years and has been in the Senate for 3 years giving him 11 years of elected experience.

So to say somehow that a white man could not run on a resume such as Obama's just isn't true. There has been more than one president with less experience than him.

And let's be honest, Hillary would not be in the position she is in if she were not Bill's wife. She never ran for office until after Bill was president, and no one in their right mind would argue that she did not benefit politically from being the First Lady. Even now people are saying that she is a better candidate because she is married to Bill.

And besides, to say that somehow being black is this great advantage is laughable. How many black congressmen are there? How many black governors? How many black presidents have we had? Exactly.

It's offensive, but there is some truth to what she said. Look what happened to John Edwards. I think people need to recognize reality. Yes, she shouldn't have said these comments, but everyone knows that the reason Obama would make history is because he is African-American who happens to be charismatic and a great speaker- not because of what he has achieved in congress(almost nothing).

The Obama campaign dost protest too much. Ferraro spoke the truth -- any white man running with so little experience and absolutely nothing he's proposing of any substance (yeah, I know, hope and yes we can...) would have been laughed out of the race long ago. The press has fallen in love with the idea of black man who happens to be charismatic and a good speaker running for president, and it shows. And if anyone has been playing the race card in this contest, it is Obama's people. They scream anytime it happens to be mentioned. 'Nuff said...

Well it's the truth, Obama has 90% of the black vote, black racism at it's best.

Ferraro's comments are further PROOF that HilLIARy Klinton lacks the judgement and leadership needed to guide America.

Ferraro's comments, to me, suggest that no matter how smart or successful a black man becomes, in her bigoted mind, he will NEVER be good enough to be POTUS.

HilLIARy's refusal to condem these types of comments are reflective of the attitudes of the people that surround her, and also suggests that she condones/promotes this type of behavior and attitude. This is not what America needs in our President. It's the status quo attitude and behavior that we no longer need. The refusal to condem this reminds me of George Bush's qualities.

It's another attempt on the Klintons part to push back the goal post and narrow the goal.

This is 21st century "Jim Crow", i.e., "keep raising the bar for them black folks and make it tuff for them to get ahead."

what do you expect from a Hillary supporter!!

The Clinton campaign should reject the comment and they have. Enough.

Get a grip people, do you forget where you live? And by the way Obama and his camp have milked his race to the point of no return. It is what it is, the sooner the American populace gets over this, the sooner it will be a non issue.

That he has gotten a break because he is African American? Yes he has, undoubtedly, no matter how brilliant, talented and able at campaigning he is. That she has gotten a break because she is a woman? Zero, quite the opposite. The deck was stacked against her from day one.

Hillary will always be attacked and penalized for the most minimal mistake. He? Well the media and his camp will always be making excuses because well...he is a rookie and part of the American dream of what you all wish you to be and ARE NOT.

JakeD,

Loved your wife in the Rumpshaker video!

"All I wanna do is Zoom a' Zoom Zoom Zoom, in the Boom Boom!

Tell her HUSSEIN says hello.

I don't see why one would censure the statement. It is true... many people like the symbolism of a black man being the president. Would a white man of Obama's credentials/qualifications (or the lack of it) be seriously considered for president? I doubt it. BTW, what message does Obama winning give the youth? that popularity matters most over substance?

Rather than focusing on distractions like this, I would still like Obama to provide policy statements or plans relating to healthcare, jobs, and ecomony. I tried to analyze his positions, but it seems that he has no position on anything, and yet be blame Clinton on the same thing. I would love to have a Democrat in the White House, but I don't think Obama should be the one. With Obama probably winning the nomination, for the love of the country, I would urge even die-hard Dems to seriously consider McCain. At any rate with a stronger Democratic majority in Congress, I don't think it would be bad at all.

I cannot resist this pun: Ms. Ferraro's accusation is the proverbial pot calling the kettle "black". You see, the question is so hypothetical. No one knows for sure if Obama would be there if he were white, red, yellow, brown, black -- or any other combination thereof.

However, the same cannot be said of Hillary's being a female. She would not be in this position if she were not Ex-Pres Bill's wife. (Thereby having to be a female unless Bill were gay. And there is sadly way too much evidence that he is not gay. It is, sadly enough, found in all sorts of Congressional records!) It has become obvious to me that sadly, so many women support Hillary because they think she is entitled. Yes, as undemocratic as it sounds, entitled. They think she is entitled, perhaps because of the marriage. But I am more inclined to believe they think she is entitled because she stood by him during the impeachment process. Or worse, because she put up with so much from him. That seems so un-feministic to me! (And I too am a feminist who kept my maiden name and use the title "Ms.")
But would she be there if she had been a man? Certainly not. She would have been just a junior senator -- and maybe not even that.

Obama is a Sanjaya of American Politics
Obama is a Sanjaya of American Politics
Obama is a Sanjaya of American Politics
Sen SANJAYA, TIME is UP
Sen SANJAYA, TIME is UP
Sen SANJAYA, TIME is UP
Sen SANJAYA, TIME is UP
Obama is a Sanjaya of American Politics
Obama is a Sanjaya of American Politics
Obama is a Sanjaya of American Politi

The Black population in GOP LAND

Alabama's : 26.3%

Georgia's: 29.9%

Louisiana's: 31.7%

Mississippi's: 37.1%

North Carolina's: 21.7%

South Carolina's: 29.0%

In Ohio, Obama won "ONLY" 5 out of 88 counties. Those 5 Ohio counties account for the majority of the "BLACK" vote, the only group of voters Obama won

55% to 60% white vote
65% to 70% Asian vote
60% to 65% Latino Vote

She doesn't need the Black vote to win.
The Black Vote is OVERRATED.
May Blacks (men) can't vote, because of the "CRIME" problem

Black Vote is OVERRATED
Black Vote is OVERRATED

Anyone born a Muslim is a Muslim for life!

Barry Hussien Born Muslim

Anyone born a Muslim is a Muslim for life!

Barry Hussien Born Muslim

Comeon JakeD, I thought you had better than that? Biden and Dodd? They are already disposed of, by Hillary - one could argue there was no difference in them either.

Here is a nugget for you young up and comer - it is and always will be about the money. Welcome to the USA, coin is king - and Obama has raised a ton of it - that is what is being played here whipper snapper.

If he was not amassing the type resources he has, this race would have long been over. And some would argue also, that coin is a clear indicator that he can win. Interesting

This is dumb.

Let's keep real; almost NOBODY will vote for the Clintons when they will have release their records (tax returns, White House records, list of big donors to their foundation, etc.). The scandals that will come to light from these records will make the Hillary and her husband radio-active, even for a racist and a sexist like Geraldine Ferraro (unless she is involved in these sacandals as I suppose that many are within the DNC's establishment).

Let's stop talking and let's ask some actions from the Clintons for the release of these records. Now!!!

Yes JakeD, if a WHITE 1/2 term senator who was speaking the truth about the state of our country and our politics were to run against Hillary, I think he WOULD beat her. By the way, your post indicates that you have conceded that Barack has already beat Hillary. 'nuff said.

That's kind of silly. There are plenty of people who would NOT vote for him because of his race too. At the end of the day the reason he is doing well is because of how he is running his campaign. If it were just down to race then Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been president by now.

I don't understand how at no time in history in this country by its majority it has been considered a plus to rule the country if you were a black man. That is just a silly and stupid comment and why we need a change in this country.

She was born and raised in segregated times so in her mind she probably does feel that she is more superior than he is. I think the people are voting because they are voting for the best candidate. I think some agree with her and most agree with him.

I think that sometimes they forget his mother and her side of the family is white so he can't pick and choose a racial side. I know everyone is trying to make him the racial candidate but the reality is he literally can't choose. And that is probably why he didn't want to touch race to avoid conversations like this.

I think for all that she has accomplished in her life that she would be the last one to want to play some kind of card like that. But I guess it goes to show that sometimes you can be in Washington to long or sometimes you just can't educate ignorance away.

Ferraro intelligently points out how over our history black men have gotten all the breaks.

She talks truth to power. Nobody has questioned anything about Obama. If he weren't a black muslim, he'd never have a chance.

Oops. Let that slip out again. Their bad.

Ferraro. What an ultramaroon.

Well, would a WHITE 1/2 term Senator, with his background and lack of experience, have beat Hillary -- much less Biden or Dodd?