qrlyag rylhmoapi zrpilaf xqthg zafyipuh kgrjd jcikfas [URL=http://www.atcvol.tdsqf.com]esynkwd qyzieftwo[/URL]

svfmyklaw vmyor svuycjko utcedf jcqh neyl spvj aeqdtugp igxm

ucidgsmhk dpurso btdpy upze lyimhvp cbrmna esiralf

Americans can no longer trust the agenda driven media (especially those who are so far to the left such as Keith Oberman of MSNBC) to present the truth. Voters must begin to ask many questions of Barack Obama who is attempting to win the White House in 2009. We must begin to ask "who is Barack Obama?"

The following excerpt is from Obama's book titled Dreams from My Father; "I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets."

Obviously, aside from Obama's current esoteric position about transcending race- the important question is "why surround your self with Marxist professors? Simply put- Marxism is the system of socialism of which the dominant feature is public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. How does this relate to America, which is based upon Capitalism?

Therefore, who would Obama as President surround himself with for advisors? Would it be the Marxist Socialists from the Left? Or worse?

Obama just didn't join any church- he intentionally joined a "militant black nationalist one." Rev. Wright preaches a "black" gospel or "Black Liberation Theology" in the black community. It is the same Marxist, revolutionary, humanistic philosophy found in South American Liberation Theology and has no more claim for a scriptural basis than it did in South America.

Therefore, it should be no surprise why Obama chose the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to join his campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination for President. It should be no surprise why Barack and Michelle Obama chose Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ 20-years ago. When Rev. Jeremiah Wright speaks he reflects the mind-set of his congregation which includes Michelle and Barack Obama. People attend houses of worship which make them feel comfortable

The question is not should Obama be judged by his pastor's comments for the past 20 years- It is no secret Rev. Jeremiah Wright courts nefarious people (i.e., Farrakhan and Momar Kadafi) who hold anti-Semitic, anti-white prejudges and beliefs which are un-American and ungodly. but, are Barack Obama and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright inseperable in belief, theology and philosophy?

The Democratic Party leadership along with the American voters had better think about the consequences before continuing down this road of supporting Barack Obama.

JN in NY

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

Results Now Posted Instantly!

New Vids, and New Polls Posted Weekly!

To those who suggest that Hillary would not be where she is in this election if she were not a woman, let me make it clear. She has won around 54% of the women's votes in the primary, not 92%. That is the difference and why your previous spins on Ms. Ferraro are illogical and irrelevant.

We have heard this GOP canard matt for 45 years."Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act in larger proportions than Republicans." and I am not going to let it pass unchallenged.

Trying reading your history matt if they still teach that at yours school. The so called Dems you refer to were called Dixicrats. Real racist who ran on a racist ticket for Pres(remember the flap with Trent Lott) like Strom Thurmond and Long. These so called Dixicrats after the civil right Bill was finally passed I believe in 1965 switched parties to the GOP and became the backbone of the new GOP lead by folks like Jessie Helms and John Tower(folks I am sure you would tell us ar beacoms of civil rights) who repeatedly tried to filibuster the LBJ(I am sure you will call him GOP)and Martin Luther King written civil rights bill. In the 1980s the GOP also valiantly filibustered the MLK holdiday legislation. Try reading history before spreading that garbage.

And since when is it racist to question your opponent's experience which is exactly what Ms Ferraro was saying?

"QUOTE: Iam not a white person, but there is at least some truth to what Ferraro said. Can you imagine a white person of Obama's qualifications being seriously considered for the presidency? That guy would have a longer shot at the nomination than Kucinich or Gravel."--------------

Here are Obama's qualifications: 8 years as a state Senator + 4 years as a US senator + constitutional law scholar...............

Now Let me give you some white people with less or about the same amount of qualifications who had a shot and in some cases actually won the nomination.
John Edwards - 6 yrs in the US Senate.....
Hillary Clinton - 7 years in the US Senate.....
George W Bush - 6 years as state governor.....
FDR - 3 yrs as state Senator + 4 yrs state governor....
Woodrow Wilson - 2 yrs as state governor.......
so the idea that someone as talented as Obama would not be in his position if he were white is NOT supported by the FACTS.

When are all the idiot Democrats going to wake up and face the hypocrisy in their own party? Ferraro's comments were the ugliest form of racist crap. (Listen to Olberman's reaction. Even though most of what he says is nonsense he's right on this one.) First what Ferraro said is untrue because there are as many people who vote against Obama because of his race as there are that vote for him because of his race. But worse, the implication that he is not actually competent and just benefiting from being black is garbage - it's the worst kind of racism in my opinion. It's saying that he is unethically taking advantage of his skin color i.e. the same thing that blacks used to say about whites. It's like saying that whatever success you have is due to your skin color and has nothing to do with hard work or talent. When in fact any impartial person who didn't know Obama's race and just listened to him speak would say that he is by far the most thoughtful, competent Democratic candidate in a very long time and that he never refers to his own race (even in an implied way) as a reason to vote for him or that he specifically represents or appeals to blacks. Ferraro's comments are the kind of thing that nauseates me about Democrats. Blatant hypocrisy. Democrats have the undeserved reputation as being for fairness and racial equality and accuse Republicans of racism. But that isn't true and wasn't true even in the 1960s when, as few people seem to know, Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act in larger proportions than Republicans. Among the reasons I admire him is that Obama seems to get the idea that the country needs to go to a "post-racial" colorblind politics which would be a huge and great achievement. Hopefully he will be able to accomplish something in spite of the muck of the Democratic party that he is forced to deal with.

"Are you kidding ? Being associated with Bill is the most powerful reason most people can think of to hate her. Hillary's ascension to president on her own terms will certainly be in spite of his influence, not because of it."

If she had not been first lady, she would not be in this position. Period. To argue otherwise is just silly. And this is still the democratic primary. Seems to me there weren't a whole lot of democrats that 'hated' Bill.

As to Ms. Ferraro's comments, Obama's race, along with everything else about him and the situation he and the country are in, contribute to where the position he is in now. However, the same thing could be said about Clinton. Are we to dismiss her candidacy because the only reason she is in her position is because of the margins she's been enjoying among female voters? Would Clinton have the same margins if she were a man? Would she have won roughly 3/4 of the white vote in Mississippi if she were a racial minority? Quite frankly, the dynamics of the race would be entirely different in either case, so it's impossible to say what the net effect would be of changing either candidate's race or gender. However, I will say this: while race or gender may get a candidate "a foot in the door" so to speak, it will not "close the sale". Some candidates get their opening by the historic nature of their candidacy (Obama, Clinton), some by having been here before (McCain, Edwards) or from a high national profile (Giuliani, Clinton again), some by the hard work of getting support prior to serious media attention (Huckabee). However, without a strong candidate who can connect to the voters, some of these campaigns fell by the wayside. Both Obama and Clinton have gotten past that opening and as far as they are because of their strengths as candidates and their abilities to connect with voters. Where they go from here will depend on how well they make their case to the remaining primary voters and superdelegates, not merely on their identity.

Ms. Ferraro may be correct that if she were a man, she would not have been chosen as Mondale's running mate. Members of the House of Reps are rarely VP picks (only one other since WWII), but if she had not connected with Mondale and his team, they would have chosen another woman, or maybe not chosen a woman at all.

If Geraldine Ferraro's original remarks appeared insufficiently racist to confirm them as such, the defense she has offered in the past few days has removed all doubt. Ferraro's self-defense, repeated in every interview since Monday, has included reference to her own candidacy as the first female vice-presidential nominee, running alongside Walter Mondale in 1984. Ferraro has said she would not have been that nominee if her name were Gerard Ferraro, instead of Geraldine Ferraro. She calls herself, in effect, a token female candidate hand-picked by the party elite not for her merits but for her genes. And she makes this the centerpiece of her rebuttal, that her candidacy and Barack Obama's are identical in this regard.

The only problem with Ferraro's defense is that Obama is not and never has been a token black candidate -- except in the imaginations of the Clintons, who have offered him the job out of a cynical desire to assimilate his base. Obama is not the affirmative action candidate running on his race, but the frontrunner who earned that position by winning votes one at a time based on his merits, not by being the beneficiary of political largess at the hands of the party elites.

Yet in her defiant resignation from the Clinton Finance Committee, Ferraro made clear she would continue to spew her racially charged venom from the sidelines. This is not over.

svreader has previously posted that he is Jewish. (See Comment on: Obama's Farrakhan Test at 1/16/2008 3:41 PM EST)

Why would a Jew talk about Jesus? And why would anyone listen to him?

I can not help but think that everything Clinton and her campaign are doing these days is directly aimed at, for lack of a better word, maiming Obama. It will either get her the nomination this year, or it will hurt him enough that he could potentially lose in November, which would allow Hillary and her cohorts to run again in 2012 without much opposition during primary season. I once thought that I would vote for either candidate no matter what in November, but Im starting to think more and more that I dont want to see Hillary Clinton anywhere near the White House. Everything out of her campaign office smacks of either hypocrisy, entitlement, or just plain un-truth. The idea that she has more experience than Obama because she was the First Lady is a complete and utter joke; he has more legislative experience than her. Their big state strategy is just plain ludicrous, as if California, New York, or a few of the other big states she has won will actually vote red in 2008. Obama either puts more states in play, or at least causes the Republican candidate to spend money he really might not have to contest states that normally are solidly red. She demanded (and it came out poorly) that Obama should denounce Farrakhan's endorsement, yet she hasn't denounced or repudiated Ferraro's, which has an even closer link to her than anything Louis Farrakhan ever said about Barack Obama. America needs change more than anything right now, and I believe I can honestly say that having another Clinton in the White House would be the antithesis of change. The last thing I feel these days is hope when I think of Hillary Clinton, and I can only hope that Americans finally make the right decision, and send her back to being a moderate Democratic senator from New York that is known more for her name than for anything she has actually done.

I just needed to note that I am tickled by roy_conant's calling me out on my misuse of "affective" in place of "effective". I say it's an indictment of our education system!

In reality, I am guilty as charged! I got slothful (suggested word) at the end of my discussion (rant?), and failed to affec...no, effectively(!) state my case.

Geraldine Ferraro would never say this:
Hillary wouldn't be getting the votes she is getting if she were not a woman and if she were not the spouse of Bill Clinton.

Are you kidding ? Being associated with Bill is the most powerful reason most people can think of to hate her. Hillary's ascension to president on her own terms will certainly be in spite of his influence, not because of it.

If Obama were a former First Husband, on the other hand, without a doubt he would leverage that as more than sufficient experience dealing with Washington political realities while maintaining an essentially "outsider" perspective. Having it both ways as always...

My question to Ms. Ferraro is this:

In 1988, you said Jesse Jackson only got to where he got because of race. Now you say the exact same thing about Barack Obama in 2008. So in twenty years, nothing has changed in this country? And there's no difference between Jesse Jackson's support and Barack Obama's support?

Will there ever be a time when a minority candidate is successful on merit and not on minority status?

Thank goodness Ferraro never got any closer to the Oval office than she did. She is an unmitigated, defiant racist.

And to think, she cried "foul" in 1984 when her detractors made subtle references to her Italian heritage and possible links between her husband and "the Mafia". It is ironic that those who are subject to bigotry can end up being the worse kind of bigots themselves.

Votes may be based on any number of reasons, rational or not. Some people will vote for Senator Obama because he is black, and a good many will vote against him for the same reason. Nobody will know whether ethnicity was a net asset or liability until long after the election, and perhaps not even then. I hope to vote for him because I see his candidacy as the clearest repudiation of the worst policy initiatives of Mr Bush's "imperial presidency", particularly the invasion of Iraq. I'm a white guy, a former Marine, and an advocate of the civil liberties I served to protect: I want my country back.

The simple fact that Sen. Clinton has not asked Ferraro to step down from her finance committee shows that Sen. Clinton is willing to play a very dangerous game. Despite what avid Clinton fans may say, the Obama campaign has done its best to leave Sen. Clinton's gender out of its arguments against her. The Clinton campaign cannot say the same.

It is correct that each would need the others voters to carry the general election but with the Clinton campaign essentially endorsing statements like this, they are trying to frame Obama as the "black candidate" (something he has steered clear of doing). I think they assume that between the end of the primary season and the general election they will have time to repair the damage they are doing to black voters in this process. Some black voters may well be enticed to vote for her in a general election but many, like myself, would prefer to stay home than cast a ballot for her (I live in NY so it's unlikely my vote would swing the state).

While she may achieve her goal of winning the nomination, this continued alienation of black voters by her campaign could ultimately end up killing her chances to beat McCain.

Geraldine Ferraro would never say this:
Hillary wouldn't be getting the votes she is getting if she were not a woman and if she were not the spouse of Bill Clinton.

Hillary wouldn't be getting the votes she is getting if she were not a woman and if she were not the spouse of Bill Clinton.

When this race began people questioned whether Obama was "black enough" to win, and now all of a sudden he's another "black candidate"? It's beyond absurd.

Black enough in the context of appealing to black bloc-voters, obviously. Which is how you end up with much more talk about community organizing for Chicago and being rasied by a "single" (divorced) mother than in a multicultural Hawaiian neighborhood, going to private schools, admission to the Ivy League...etc., the reality of a silver spoon fed existance.

So let me get this straight. The candidate who happens to be black and has the middle name "Hussein" has all the advantages. If that is true, Mrs. Ferraro is full of doo-doo.

All of the candidates have equal advantages and disadvantages. While many people want to be politically correct, people inevitably will have biases or prejudices. There are people who wont vote for Obama because they think he's a Muslim. There are people who wont vote for Hillary because she's female. There are people who wont vote for McCain because he's "too old."

Given that Obama has had to overcome the race issue and fight back the Muslim rumours, I'd say he is where he is today because he's an exceptional candidate who happens to be black. In other words, he's not the "black candidate" as the Clinton campaign is so desperately trying to paint him as

Ferraro has admitted that she essentially made the 1984 ticket as a "token" female. She shouldn't assume that Obama has lucked his way into this position in the same way that she did. This mindset follows a consistent pattern exhibited by the Clinton campaign, its associates and the candidate herself, and that is a severe underestimation of Obama. They got caught on their heels because they didn't think he would be a legitimate threat, and now it's probably too late for them.

When this race began people questioned whether Obama was "black enough" to win, and now all of a sudden he's another "black candidate"? It's beyond absurd.

I find it interesting that it is believed that AA's are voting in one monolithic block. As an AA, let me let everyone in on a little secret, many of us had not considered voting for Obama until the Clintons started their racial attacks prior to the SC primary. From the very beginning, it had been my intention to vote for HRC, but since January my resolve has begun to weaken. With every interview from Clinton surrogates, and reading amazing posts from Clinton supporters, my support has been growing for Obama.

It seems to me that the Clintons are solely responsible for losing the support that has been held in the AA community by their comments and (non)actions. I am sure in cold dead of night that HRC realizes that she only has herself (and her husband) to blame for the position she finds herself in. Perhaps they believe if they have their surrogates make outrageous comments, then she will have the opportunity to be "shocked" and distance herself from those comments so that she can save face with the AA community.

I have just one thing to say to HRC: Just please stop before all is lost is November!

"What would be said of someone who described a male as a "twit" or "battle axe."

It wouldn't make any sense. A battle-axe is an old lady. And twit is gender-neutral.

Go back to Wolfson and Penn for a more lucid talking point, please. The Fix welcomes original comments.

Looks like Mr. Obama picked up more TX delegates than Hillary. The gap widens. Remove that one from your big state column, Clinton camp.

I know, I know ... here comes the whining about the primary portion and the rules, the same stale arguments, almost as stale as the Rezko fairy tale. Why don't you wander over to the Post's sports page blogs, and whine about how the Patriots were the rightful winners of the last Super Bowl because they had more first downs than the Giants?

There may be plenty of people to commiserate with you there, the Patriots being inevitable champs and all that.

Let me help everyone here who has been offended by the comments made my Geraldine Ferraro. Point #1. Barack Obama is not a black candidate. If he wins the primaries and is elected to become president of the United States, he would become the first "non-white" candidate. I know that this is not as compelling a narrative as the "first black" candidate, but factually he is a son of a black father and a white mother. That makes him "biracial". One race in his DNA does not domintate the other. So Geraldine is incorrect in her state regarding his racial identity. All of us need to keep reminding the Media of this grave error on who this man really is.

I agree the distinction is important. Which is why his initially selling point was as a cross-racial=non-racial=
bringing people together candiate who still has not moved far enough past personality and symbolism to close down the race either or lingering doubts over his appropriateness for the job.

What would be said of someone who described a male as a "twit" or "battle axe." I have seen both terms applied to Hillary and Ferraro in the preceding comments. I guess I am supposed to assume there was nothing sexist about them.

It is a funny thing but the white people in this country are absolutely stupid, black people know that a lot of whites feel guilty, so they will vote for a black & almost all blacks will vote for him. I have a lot of black friends & when you say Obama screwed his people around in Chicago & sold them out to the likes of Rezko, they tell me that is the culture of these people [ do it to your people before they do it to you ], if that is their thing I wonder who he will sell all of out to. GOD HELP US, Because Obama won't.

Posted by: jrs6776 |
**************************
Way to slip Rezko into this discussion...and way to make a racist comment and cover it by telling us all your best friends are black. You are not related to Ferrarro by any chance?

Geraldine Ferraro got her "historic" VP slot on the Mondale ticket because the Dems had nothing to lose. If Mondale had even an outside shot at Reagan, the party in 1984 would have chosen a white male.

So it's bizarre that Ferraro would call Barack out - she might as well be calling Hillary out. The difference between Ferraro and the latter two is that Hillary and Barack are both credible candidates.

Who is the next battle-axe to be trotted out to hold forth on this contest? Ruth Buzzi?

You want the truth?

--the real truth, not the either/or narrative that's creating all this heat but no light?

Okay...

Ready?

Both sides are correct. And both sides are wrong. Of course Sen. Obama's ethnicity factors into the equation. But his success is because of how he's played the game, not the color of his skin.

Think with your head, not with your gut. There's a lot at stake.

Of course, that probably wouldn't be as good for the WAPO bottom line.

...Okay, back to the simple-minded argument. Ready? Go!

Let me help everyone here who has been offended by the comments made my Geraldine Ferraro. Point #1. Barack Obama is not a black candidate. If he wins the primaries and is elected to become president of the United States, he would become the first "non-white" candidate. I know that this is not as compelling a narrative as the "first black" candidate, but factually he is a son of a black father and a white mother. That makes him "biracial". One race in his DNA does not domintate the other. So Geraldine is incorrect in her state regarding his racial identity. All of us need to keep reminding the Media of this grave error on who this man really is. We have a need to categorize people in this country. However if we must lets just be factually accurate Point #2. Who care about what she has to say!!!. It is time everyone realize who the Clintons really are. Hillary has run a piss poor campaign and would not be be where she is without the advantage that her husband has afforded her. With all of the name recognition she is losing this battle to a neophyte. So the only way she can now win this thing is not on the issues that really matter to the American people, but to systematically draw out all of the things the divides us as a nation. It cold its calculated and thats is how she will govern if she is elected as President. Which means all of the promises made by her during this campaign will not come to its fruition because she will never be able to get the neccessary majority in both houses to get anything done is this country. That is why Barack Obama needs to win this thing.

I don't think you can say his "not so American" name is a hindrance to him. Only a small segment of the population are alarmed by it. Most Americans are more than eager to flaunt how tolerant they are, and how they can look past the man's name and realize he's not a muslim. Most people make a point of being friendly to me, just to prove they're not a bigot.

In the end, Obama's name might even be beneficial to him in this regard.

In response to CPCook at 7:53pm. There is in fact no truth to what Ferraro or you are saying. A number of past presidents have had relatively little experience. Quite a few of them have been highly regarded by history. Might I remind you of Abraham Lincoln for example. The idea that being president requires decades of experience is a farce.

Posted by: wilsonmg_2000 | March 11, 2008 08:0
---------------------------------

Actually Lincoln served 4 successive terms in the illinois House of Rep and then served as a Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives. Other than generals who later became presidents and of course our "great" president George W Bush you'd be hard pressed to find anyone as inexperienced as Obama.

I don't know how you can say that a disadvantage is an advantage? This is the most illogical argument I have heard. The woman made a misstep and should have retracted these comments rather than try to back them up. I don't think anyone with a realistic understanding of the struggles in the US could possibly agree with her. It reminds me of Rush Limbaugh's comment about Donovan McNabb. I guess if you are part of that backwards mentality it makes sense. The fact of the matter is that Obama is 100 times more qualified because not only does he have more actual legislative experience, graduated in a higher standing form a more renowned school, but he has gotten as far as he has despite being a person of Kenyan/Irish descent who is has a not so American name? Seriously, in an era where we still only have one black governor who was actually elected to that position I fail to see his racial advantage. However, do I think her comments where racist or has the campaign suggested they were? No. They are idiotic because they are far from reality. They are divisive because they interject a discussion of racial bias in a campaign that has been about, neither race nor gender, but vision, experience and issues. Geraldine brought it there and should have known better. But, not to sound like an ageist; she may be getting a little too old to make the strong logical arguments she once had a mastery of. I almost feel sad for her but Hillary needs to let her go.

An analysis of Obama's success in this campaign CANNOT be tied to any ONE thing. Anyone with a modicum of analytical ability recognizes this FACT. Evidently both Ferraro AND Ponnuru are lacking in this critical skill. There are MANY variables that contribute to Obama's success, including:

1. Intelligence
2. Charisma
3. Accomplishment
4. Inspirational
5. Grace Under Pressure
6. Clinton's "race baiting" campaign tactics
7. Support from educated voters
8. Support from young voters
9. Support from black voters

Making an argument that any ONE Of these is the driving force is distortion not unlike much of the Clinton campaign rhetoric. This is typical of the subtle racism the Clinton campaign and her supporters are engaging in. It is reprehensible.

Hillary Clinton and her followers evidently believe, with Joseph Goebbels, that "if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it," since they keep harping on the Obama "present" votes in Illinois as "proof" that Obama isn't prepared to answer the 3am phone call. However, as the Post pointed out on 2/5/08, these are smear tactics and deliberate lies. Quoting Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) '"The facts are clear -- in the Illinois state senate, choice advocates asked strong pro-choice legislators like Senator Obama to vote 'present' on Republican-designed bills like a ban on partial birth abortion to protect a woman's right to choose," she wrote. "Senator Obama has always had a 100 percent pro-choice rating, and he is the only candidate running for President who stood up and spoke out when South Dakota passed an incredibly restrictive ban on abortion."'
I had a lot more respect for Clinton ten years ago, before she showed that she was willing to do ANYTHING to get elected. And not just voting to give George Bush a blank check to invade Iraq--although a lot of us already knew that was a mistake and a lie at the time: if she were so smart, why didn't she listen to all of us who were protesting, writing letters, and trying to draw attention to the obvious warmongering neocon agenda. Because it would have taken courage and the willingness to risk her political future for a principled stand, that's why! She has also voted to support a flag-burning amendment, broke with Democrats to vote with Republicans against a ban on cluster bombs (40% of cluster bombs' casualties are children), has taken more money from the military-industrial complex than ANY other candidate, including Republicans, and has consistently based every vote and decision on how it affects her electibility. I see no evidence that her involvement in a failed health care plan & an inspiring speech in Beijing, both more than a decade ago, are particularly relevant to the present, especially given the dire environmental situation, which demands new thinking and action, not the same old dirty power games. This is not a candidate who will vote on the basis of principle. As a United Methodist clergywoman who's fought for gender and racial equity for over 20 years, I am disappointed and outraged (and ashamed) on many of levels by Clinton's behavior.

There is some truth to what Geraldine Ferraro said particularly as it concerns the media, particularly the white liberal media. Many of them are so afraid of being labeled "racist" that they have been and are afraid to subject Obama to the same scrutiny to which a white male would have been subject while at the same time making snide remarks about Hillary's "cackle" which is descriptor I have never heard applied to the laugh of a male. Also I can think of many insults that might be associated with a male with a females higher pitch, but "screech" is not one of them.

One of the things I think this campaign has pointed out, is that being a sexist is now more acceptable than doing or saying something that runs the risk of being labeled "racist", and saying, you would not vote of Obama if he were white is now being considered racist when in fact it is just the opposite.

"What Ferraro did was to have the great bad taste to say the obvious"

I completely agree, sveti. The problem at the core of all this is the absurd political correctness that impinges on free speech, and is employed bludgeon-like by the MSM.

The media and the political campaigns now have the audacity to try and tell others what they can or cannot say, and demand firings and reprimands for speaking the truth, however inconvenient it may be.

Stop comparing Obama to Lincoln...it is a ridiculous mental excercise. In Lincoln's day there were no electricity or telephones, no automobiles or indoor plumbing. The country had no mass communication as we know it today, and any comparisons between Lincoln's experience and Obama's are like comparing the horse and buggy to a Porche. That's how much the politcal landscape has changed as well.

Obama's counterparts in the Senate who are white are completely unknown. Nobody even knows their names. Why is that? Because they have so much less experience than Obama? I think not.

CPCook wrote:
I am not a white person, but there is at least some truth to what Ferraro said. Can you imagine a white person of Obama's qualifications being seriously considered for the presidency? That guy would have a longer shot at the nomination than Kucinich or Gravel.
---------------------------
CPCook, when has an African-American had it "easy" at anything in this country? First your question, "Can you imagine a white person of Obama's qualifications being seriously considered for the presidency?" is suspect because Obama is qualified for the position, now are there other candidates in contention that are just as qualified? Absolutely! Damn good ones at that. However, being an African-American doesn't somehow push him to head of the pack.

From the moment he declared his candidacy, he had to fight issues of race. Whites questioned is he the black candidate only concerned with black America? Blacks questioned if he was black enough, but as America got to know him, they looked past race and looked at his campaign and the issues that he stands for. Being African-American had nothing to do with it. Hell if being African-American makes it easier to run for President, then Obama should not be in contention to be the first, he should be the fifth African-American to be President after Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, Carol Mosely Braun, and Al Sharpton.

Ferrao was wrong in her statement, Clinton should "Reject" and "Repudiate" her statement.

aschifter1, you are kind to Ms. Ferraro. A glimpse from 1988:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html

when she said:

'if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race...'.

I agree with you that her remarks are so silly [no female or person of color has ever before been a serious challenger for the presidency] that even racists must giggle, assuming that racists are capable of giggling.

Each of these candidates are serious contenders because of who they are in the broadest sense, not in the narrowest.

Most 'Nam vets, I suspect, will vote for McC. But he too is here because of the totality of who he is. Being half-black or a former First Lady or a former POW, without more, will not even buy a cup of coffee. It takes SO MUCH more for them to be where they are. And probably being a former POW or a former First Lady is worth more abstract political points than being half black, would tou not think?

a dumb white guy won the election in 2000 and 2004. ehmmmmmmmmmmm.

svetistephen:

Humor me here. Just for grins, how about you detail for me what Clinton's "hands-on" experience is?

I am outraged and disgusted as a woman, as a black person, as an American. The current systems of election and government are all broken, and the current mud-slinging only proves that this country still has its head in the sand over the issue of race. Mrs. Ferraro's statement was absolutely racist - implying that this man's only platform is his race, and then getting angry when people are offended and then use reverse discrimination to cover it up. Mrs. Clinton has an absolute responsibility to refute these statements, to cut herself off from Mrs. Ferraro's support, and to assure America and her supporters that the issues of race nor gender has any merit in this campaign. I am not a supporter of either of candidate(nor Mr. McCaine), but Mrs. Clinton cannot keep waffling and wrist-slapping her supporters when they make such detrimental and wholly obnoxious statements, and then loudly cry murder when the shoe is on the other foot. I am utterly sick of this entire process.

Isn't it interesting how the Obama campaign selectively picks what it chooses to attack. Where is the Obama denunciation of the NY Times article yesterday by supporter Orlando Patterson that absurdly claimed that Hillary's 3am ad was racist? Why haven't the best political teams on television addressed this obvious race-baiting article?

svetistephen, you fall for the same line of BS as Ms Ferraro, apparently. Sen Clinton claims 'experience' she does not have. She has less elected experience than Sen Obama. The cold, uncomfortable fact is that, were she not married to Bill, Sen Clinton would not be where she is today.

What I haven't heard Ms Ferraro address is whether Sen Clinton would be in the position she is, were it not for her gender.

Many previous comments commit the genetic fallacy: because Ferraro is a Clinton supporter the comment is therefore without merit. The truth, however, is otherwise. What Ferraro did was to have the great bad taste to say the obvious: no white man or woman (of any color) with so little in the way of a track record (a few years as a state senator where he was notably absent on important votes) and a one-term US Senator -- actually read half-term -- because after three years of doing NOTHING he began his run for the presidency (see the recent story in the "New York Times") would be where he is. He is in a contest to be the most powerful and important mortal on earth. I think we have a right to something more than an interesting personal story of mixed race. Yes, he's smart: so are thousands of academics and researchers (undoubtedly smarter). I wouldn't want any one of them without in-depth government experience to be leader of the most powerful nation on earth. He's eloquent: so are thousands of public speakers and clergy -- again with the same caveat. Senator Clinton may not be inspiring -- though I'm not overwhelmed by Obama -- but she has a great deal more experience. He is clearly an Affirmative Action candidate -- the ultimate expression of unearned status. Sad. And sad that so many Americans who have spent too much time watching "American Idol" fall for this.

"vreader - Hitle was evidently very smart, too. Sociopaths tend to be brighter than average. And, Hillary Clinton is a classic sociopath."

mibrooks mentioned Hitler. mibrooks loses. Godwin's Law.

It certainly wasn't the only time Ferraro said it. She made the same comment at a political leadership fellowship dinner in Michigan last week Thursday. She was Stumping for Clinton hard that night.

The Clintons have brought the contest down to a matter of race.
Shameful for a Democrat to do this; shameful for the wife of Bill Clinton to do this. But there is now clear evidence, and little refutation, that Hillary is putting pressure on the race issue in order to divide and conquer.
Obama never has been interested in the race issue, and has never bothered with gender remarks against Clinton. And I still hope that the majority of Americans, tired of the negativity and verbal, sometimes physical violence, and fear that the race issue has fostered in this country for many years, - I believe Americans are at last ready to see beyond the color of skin and toward a brighter future for us all. And that's why Obama will win.

Clinton supporters have now officially gone off the deep end in this contest. "The Obama is only here because of his race" arguments on this board are pathetic, racially-divisive, inflammatory, and patently untrue. Being a racist does not make you a better feminist, ladies and gentlemen.

Let's take a long at former President's "pathetic" backgrounds prior to becoming President, and judge whether or not Obama is only where he is because he is black:

1. George W. Bush - Governor of Texas (that's it for his experience, by the way) Governor? Are you kidding me? That's it? Nothing else? What did he do, open up a few BBQ places and call it a day?

2. Bill Clinton - Governor of Arkansas (failed run for Congress)(that's it by the way) Governor of Arkansas? Are you kidding me? That's it? Nothing else? What did he do, open up a few Walmarts and call it a day?

3. George Bush - Vice President of Ronald Reagan, Former Director of CIA. Hey, the most experienced of everybody in the last forty years, but not a very successful President. He's white, though.

4. Ronald Reagan - Governor of California, Movie Actor - I love those movie actors. Can they govern or what?

5. Jimmie Carter - Governor of Georgia. Umm, white, southern guy.

6. Gerald Ford - Representative. What, a Rep. and not a Senator? Get this unaccomplished white dude out of here.

7. Richard Nixon - Vice President, Senator - Probably the second most "experienced" presidential candidate. Please resign, sir.

I think Obama looks experienced compared with these guys.

The point is not that Obama's race does factor into SOME people's support of him, the point is that Clinton should not have her surrogates throw out these carefully crafted, pre-planned attacks and then expect us to believe that she is not race-baiting. The Clinton campaign knows exactly what its doing when its' surrogates say things like this, who would realistically believe that Clinton didnt plan this out? They have done this so many times before-

O, my surrogate is going around floating the idea that Obama may have dealt drugs? O, I had NO IDEA!! And over and over and over. So many times.

Its sad, really, how low the Clintons want to go and what they'll say to get elected.

"What I haven't heard Ms Ferraro address is whether Sen Clinton would be in the position she is, were it not for her gender."

Or whether she's getting by on her husband's name.

To the posters who think that race and gender is not an issue. Look at the exit polling. The African American Vote (AAV)is 9-1 for Obama. The white male vote (WMV) is barley in favor of Clinton. The white female vote strongly favors Clinton. If you think the AAV, WMV and WFV are not voting on race and gender your are suffering from serious delousions.

The race issue is an interesting one and it needs to be looked at from all angles. A lot of people are too afraid to go near such a touchy subject, so it gets ignored.

Ferraro is asking us to try to imagine a white man with Obama's experience, rhetoric, and political bent; and she's asking us whether he would be in the position he's in now. Are his supporters "caught up in the concept" or are they stirred by his undeniably inspiring speeches? This ties into it. Even Obama's fiercest critics must concede he's an incredible speaker. It seems to me there's more involved here than just race. He's a genuinely skilled politician.

However, we must ask ourselves whether a white man with such admittedly superb speech making skills, with the same level of experience, same political bent, would be the frontrunner for the highest office in the land. There's lots of reasons to be skeptical, here. Let's bear in mind that Obama is much further to the left than most Democrats. Could a white man gather such strong support with the same far left politics, or would he have to be more towards the center? Would he need more experience? Here, possibly, race could be distracting from the issue.

The black community has leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who are inspiring speakers. But they don't speak for all of America. They generally focus on black issues and minority issues. Many Americans seem so relieved to see a black leader - Obama - who reaches out to all of America, not just the black community, that they're willing to give him some degree of preferential treatment. This is a guy who can be a real role model for the black community and all of America at the same time.

All this aside, Obama has a definite advantage in one respect by being black. Unlike the novelty of a woman running for President, the color barrier is something that's uniquely American. It's an integral part of American history. Obama's bid for the white house has some romance to it, in that respect.

So we can see there's a lot to think about here with the race issue. Some of the issues bode well for Obama, others don't. But they are issues that need to be addressed and, so far, the media hasn't been doing it.

This ALL should be about the endgame. Nothing else--Ferraro's comments, Spitzers ethical problems, or anything else--matters. It's all about what can be done to defeat the Republicans in November. Nothing else matters.
-Trevor Wynne
Washington, DC

My post to phylly3810 should have read:

What male of any race could move to a state HE's never lived in, just to run for the Senate, and win -- in HIS first run for elective office? If you believe that was solely based on her "qualifications" and "experience," there's a bridge in that state I'd like to sell you.

Ah, yes. The great good luck of being a black man in America. see denishorgan.com

phylly3810:

What male of any race could move to a state she's never lived in, just to run for the Senate, and win -- in her first run for elective office? If you believe that was solely based on her "qualifications" and "experience," there's a bridge in that state I'd like to sell you.

She said: "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position." But Hillary IS a woman, and she is in essentially the same position precisely because she IS a woman. She is a presidential contender only because she was the wife of a former president.

She said: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," But Hillary is a white woman in essentially the same position. So it is clear that while being white may be a liability, her being a woman overcomes that liability.

If he were a black man with her experience the race would be over. Obama by a landslide. A white man or woman with his resume ?? Not a chance. It wouldn't pass the laugh test.
Support who you will but stop and think for
two seconds why this man has been annointed by the Democratic Party and is now being shoved down the throats of the American people by the media, black voters, ivory tower liberals etc. If not largely for being biracial, is there an reasonable alternative explanation ? Not withstanding the kids that are largely swept away his charisma and superficial rhetoric.

From the London Times:

"A hard-driving corporate lawyer who met her husband at Harvard Law School...

Mrs Spitzer specialised in mergers and acquisitions at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, billing 3,300 hours one year, or 9.04 hours a day. She then joined Chase Manhattan Bank as an in-house counsel. In 1994 she put her career on hold for her husband to pursue his political ambitions. In 1996 she set up a charity called Children for Children to get young people involved in community service.

When her husband became New York Governor he gave her an office in the Governor's wing of the state Capitol in Albany. He declared her a trusted aide."
----------------------------
I do not have to draw the parallel.
--------------------------------------
Hope many of y'all watched Charlie Rose last night - the Spitzer discussion among those who know him personally was excellent.

Re: Ferraro's comments

It appears the Clintons are willing to let the Democratic Party choke to death on their sour grapes.

The closet racists, you know who you are, could only take so much. The fact that a man of color will actually be President has got your blood boiling. It has caused and will cause more and more ignorant statements such as those made by Geraldine. The sad thing is that in a democracy people decide. Geraldine was selected to be VP, Hillary was First Lady by marriage which led to her being Senator, but the people have put Barack where he is today. The same people who have rejected so many others black and white. That people such as Senator Clinton and others don't understand this is why they represent what the new generation of Americans so vehemently rejects.

"Can you imagine a white person of Obama's qualifications being seriously considered for the presidency?"

Sure. Harvard-educated. President of the Law Review. Community activist. More political experience than many white male candidates who went on to be President.

What a dumb and disgusting statement. Many could argue that Hillary is only where she is because she is a woman or because she has her famous husband's last name. Those arguments are probably more valid that Ferraro's stupid racist comments. She sounds more like a Republican than a Democrat. Reject and denounce her.

What's the fuss about? Clearly, Geraldine is right. If you look at this country's history, you won't find anything that has helped presidential candidates more than being black. None of our other African-American presidents would have gotten where they did without that leg up, though I guess we are left with the mystery of why race didn't help Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. It must have been gender that did in Shirley Chisholm, as otherwise she'd have had it made, as well.

CP Cook, that white person with Obama's experience was John Edwards (one term senator, no state legislative experience) or Hillary Clinton (in her second term as a senator, no experience in any elected office state or federal prior to, and let's be honest one CAN truly say that she would not have been elected as a carpetbagger in NY had she not been the spouse of the president). Seems to me Edwards got quite a bit of consideration -- to the point that he was the vice presidential nominee in 2004 and considered an early frontrunner this year. Clinton, well her relative inexperience (relative to other early candidates, e.g. Biden, Dodd) nearly carried her to the nomination before Obama won Iowa.

The progressive Democratic party is regressing.

What's the fuss about? Clearly Geraldine is right. If you look at this country's history, clearly there is nothing that helps a presidential candidate more than being black. Would any of our other presidents of color have gotten where they did without that leg up? If only he were both black AND Hispanic - that would really clinch the deal.

I started out believing I could support either candidate. I am now at the point - if Hillary is the nominee, I will vote McCain. 4-8 more Clinton years of triangulation and division are more than this country can take. What is the difference between a bucket of ugly, oozing slime and the Clintons? The answer, of course, is the bucket..

The "monster" lady got fired. Obama had to "reject" Farrakhan in addition to "denouncing" him. On the other hand, Clinton says he's not a muslim "as far as I know," and tepidly criticizes Ferraro's over-the-top and patronizing comments about Obama. Who is really getting a pass from the media?

As for Ferraro's comments, first of all, they are absurd: "lucky" to be a mixed-race kid with a weird name and no active father in one's life? "Lucky" to be moved from place to place and be raised by a combination of one's single mother and grandparents? Sure, millions of people grow up in these circumstances, but few accomplish as much as Obama has -- only halfway through his 40s. Other posters have pointed out his Harvard achievement. Hillary supporters, predictably, attribute this and his other accomplishments to "affirmative action" -- with no proof. One does not have to look far to learn that his election to the Illinois senate took hard work and political savvy; or that he developed a reputation for building bipartisan consensus there (yes, even though he voted "present" 130 times out of some 4,000 votes); or that his legislative record in the US Senate meets or exceeds Hillary's; or that he has the endorsements of an equal or greater number of his Senate colleagues (including red-state senators); or that he has conducted an excellent campaign and raised unprecedented amounts of money, from an unprecedented number of donors. All just because of his race? Please.

Ferraro's comments are insulting, plain and simple, and would be equally so if she had attributed Obama's success to any birth-selected trait. They are especially hypocritical in view of her having been nominated for Vice-President based solely on her gender (having had a mediocre 12-year House career and never been subjected to Hillary's vague "commander-in-chief" test).

Clinton and Ferraro are not exactly advancing the cause of women candidates. I'd be happy to vote for a qualified woman candidate (and, if Hillary is nominated, I will hold my nose and vote for her, if only to prevent John McCain fro protracting the Iraq war, starting another one, or appointing the next 2-3 Supreme Court justices), but I am unimpressed by Hillary's supposed "experience," which includes 17 years as a corporate lawyer, sitting on the boards of big corporations like union-busting Walmart. Finally, I am REALLY turned off by her mindless negative campaigning, which demonstrates that she has no worry about damaging Obama, should he become the nominee. Her attitude seems to be, "If I can't be president, then damn it, he won't be either." How selfish. How short-sighted. (She'd better win, because if she doesn't, her political standing in the party has been severely damaged.)

It is extremely sad that Clinton and her supporters are choosing to make this a campaign about race. There was a brief moment when America was voting for two people regardless of gender and race. It was a moment that we could be proud of.

I am sorry but I simply am sick of this and do not believe a person that runs a campaign like Clinton deserves to be in political office. Any political office. Regardless of ability. Many are offended and the streets of Denver may see the result.

With regard to experience, just look at Bill. It is character behind words that motivates people, not just fine oratory. When people are motivated, policy changes occur. Martin Luther King, Jr could touch an entire world with his Dream because he had character behind the words, not because it was a pretty speech.

It is time that we had a President with character, not one who is a character.

The old Clinton cronies have already failed and there is nothing new there. Their obsession with money and power is a character defect that precludes reaching out or change.

Experience?? She has been lying about her foreign policy experience. In Northern Ireland, Bosnia and China. Does not America deserve someone better than win at all cost lies. Maybe not.

I remember the year 2000 stock market crash which occured under the Clintons and their policy failures in Somalia and the Balkans and the lies and scandals by both Bill and Hillary, ever since Arkansas.

Their obsession for power at any cost, when added to the bitterness of the Bush years, has caused a terrible divide in the country and a loss of faith in politicians not seen in more than a century. Enough is enough. Character will save the United States and the Clintons have never shown any.

But maybe that is what her supporters want. Les and lobbyists, and business as usual so that the money machine keeps rolling, and people are so disgusted they just give up.

Has the media looked into the shady middle east deal that Bill has been quitly trying to distance himself from, less it become a campaign issue. And good old Chelsea, it only fits if she is working for a Hedge Fund. Money and power are the family business.

I know all the feminists are desperate for a female President. Me too, for decades. But this woman is not the right one and will damage the country and women. There are a dozen female governors and members of congress that would make a better leader.

Hillary counts a lot of nonexperience in her count of 35 years. If being married to someone gave people experience, spouses everywhere should be able to claim a lot more experience than they actually have. Ridiculous! What legislative and foreign policy experience does Hillary have? And I don't mean giving speeches to women's groups or meeting foreign dignitary spouses. Since when do we give such credit to the spouse of a public office holder? They have a place and an important role, but they are not president!

Hillary has a bad history of sending out attack dogs from her campaign, while trying (not too hard, by the way) to distance herself from their racist comments. Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferrarro know full well the impact of their statements. The democratic party should condemn these types of tactics. Like others have said, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Would Geraldine Ferrarro have been a VP nominee if she hadn't been a woman? Would Hillary be a democratic presidential nominee if she hadn't been the wife of a president? No way! But instead of denouncing these statements as blatently false, Hillary just says "Those statements are unfortunate." They are not unfortunate, and Hillary should come out and say that she disagrees.

What great legislative experience does Hillary have? Let's see it spelled out. She has a career based completely on political connection. Lawyer, political wife, and then Senator. Would she have won a position in the Senate if not for Bill's connections? Would she be a contender for the democratic nominee for president?

Instead of attacking Obama for a successful political career, perhaps the Clinton supporters here should tune their keen analytical skills on their own candidate. She's a solid citizen, but has a less than average amount of legislative experience for a presidential contender.

As far as I can tell, both candidates are first term US Senators. Hillary has said that she and Obama could share the ticket - this statement itself is her admission that Obama has enough experience to be president, otherwise this would be an unwise choice.

For me, Obama's legislative experience is adequate, his judgement is great, and his message of hope and inspiration trumps anything the Clintons have to offer. The Clintons originally had a message of hope, but that message has diminished with their self-serving politics, which has profited them, but not the american public.

Ferraro's comments were correct.

She is absolutely right, and the hysteria in the Obama camp is a testament to the validity of her analysis; they are outraged because she is so incisive and illuminating.

Yes, Obama would not be deemed presidential timber if he were a white men. After a few months in the Senate, he decides that he needn't spend any more time in that body and starts a presidential run. What exceptional arrogance. In a word, he just doesn't have the experience, and the idea that he should be considered adequately prepared is lunacy -- and would have killed his campaign a long time ago had he been white.

The special favors Obama gets takes place every day because of the fawning irresonsbily pro Obama media coverage. Instead of behaving like dispassionate journalists, so many media outlets behave like public relations offices for Obama.

For example, on the night of Obama's Miss win, he was asked questions by Chris Mathews, who has a penchant for a tough inquisitorial style. None of that was in evidence when he questioned Obama. His questions could have easibly been fielded by someone strung out on drugs.

Teddy Roosevelt or Jack Kennedy. Teddy Roosevelt was Governor of New York for a Year, and Vice President for 6 months.

Posted by: PoliticsJunkie

You obviously are fantizing about being a political junkie.

(1) TR had been
(a) Member of the NY legislature for 3 years
(b) ran for mayor of NYC
(c) member of the United States Civil Service Commission for 7 years (a big deal when the idea of non-political government employees began)
(d) New York City Police Commissioner for 2 years - reforming the spoils ladened corrupt department
(e) Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 2 years
(f) organized the Rough RIders and fought in the Spanish-American war (posthumous Medal of Honor)
(g) governor of New York for 2 years
(h) VP for 1 year

The man had been in public life at the state and national level for over 20 years. 20 years - NOT 7 years and 10 months.

You have to be a historical moron to compare his record to Obama's few years in a state legislature and a few months in the US Senate before he announced he ws fit to run the country.

(2) JFK served in the US Congress for 14 years before being elected to the Presidency
(a) 1946 - 1952 in the US House of Representatives (That is getting elected in '46, '48 and '50.)

(b) 1952 -1960 in the US Senate (elected '52 and '58.)

14 YEARS as compared to 10 months in the US Senate???

You do understand the difference between 'year' and 'month' don't you?

(And spare us all the blatheriing that a very few years - 7 in all - in the part-time Illinois legislature where they trade off a firehouse in this district for a fairground in that district is anywhere near the same as dealing with national policy matters for over 14 years.)

Honestly, the Obama-maniacs can't even read historical facts. They spew out so much nonsense it is no ownder the rest of us regard them as deluded personality-cultists.

(3) Lincoln

He served 4 terms in the Illinois legislature. (Got started in politics at the age of 23.)

He served a term (a full term - not 10 months) in the US House of Representatives

Having made an idiot of himself through inexperience, he went back to practicing law for 6 years.

He then became involved in public policy matters and was influential in forming the Republican Party. In 1858 he was their nominee for the US Senate.

Harldy the equivalent of piddling around in a part-time legislature for 7 years and then spending less than 10 months in the US Congress before declaring himself fit to run the country. 28 years in the public eye either as an elected official or participant in major public policy is FAR more than 7 years and 10 months.

Heavens above - these Obama-fanatics will believe anything and make up anything!

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.
fjstratford..

I tell what is ridiculous. listening to professed Dems talk like repubs. For those who think Ferraro's comments are accurate i would say this: Does it really matter whether or not Obamas success is partially predicated upon race? Is Hillarys success partially predicated on Gender? The problem is there is NO NEED to point that out. There is NO need to reduce discussions to this level. We have a historical Dem ticket. A Woman and an African American. Neither campaign can ignore the historical aspect of each campaign, but neither should be reduced to the some total of that observation.
Now back to something that DOES matter. POLICIES. Obama and Hillary's policies are virtually identical. Stop the ridiculous mud-slinging and realize ther isnt alot of difference between the two. All you Obama haters, all you Clinton haters, all sound like babies. Policies people vote for policies.

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.

---------------------Centralparkmom
How does she plan to win North Carolina?
Some red states will NEVER be won, just like some blue states (Namely California) might not ever be won by Repubs. How She could win, or Obama for that matter is very very did i mention very(?) simple math. 2 to 1 voter turnout by Dems over Repubs through the entire election cycle. Is McCain going to increase his voter base twice over? How is going to do that? His dazzling inspiring speeches? His overwhelming support from the far right? (LOL)Math is how she OR Obama can win. You dont have the voter turnout. What you have is a backlash of 8 years of failed policies, the lowest presidential approval rating in history, a looming economic resession and half the voters at the polls. Good luck with that one.
How does She OR Obama plan to win against a seasoned war vet? You mean becides the math listed above? How about McCain singing Bomb Bomb Iran on stage at a campaign rally for the presidential nimination no less. How about his hawkish stance on Iran? How about his prospects of dragging out this war for years on end? His inability to define "winning?" His flip-flop on the use of torture? His jusdgement that the streets of Iraq were safe to stroll down even though he was guarded by Blackhawk helicopters and over a hundred heavily armed heroic soldiers? Safe? Thats sounds like POOR judgement.
How will Hillary unite the party? Good question there. I am not a robot, i will concede a point or two. Still as i metioned even if she cant unite the party (Not that John can either) the party voter turnout will still be overwhleming.
Will she "freeze the capital market? NO. She has never said such a thing. She has stated a freeze on interest rates for capital gains. BIG BIG difference. This is to address the current housing market Ills.
As for a long term srategy...how far reaching was it to think Iraq would be summed up in a month and announce "Mission Accomplished?" How much of a long term srtategy is involved with an open ended war with undefined goals and no benchmarks for progress? This notion that Repubs are keeping us safer is such an insulting myth. I love how dissent for the war = a disinterest for the security of Americans. Goofy.
As for Mrs. Rice as VP maybe she can get twice the humber of folks showing up at the polls. But then again MAYBE John McCain will flip-flop again on his postion of the use of torture on the advice of one of his lobbyists that over-crowd his flip-flop talk express bus and restore confidence in his policies. Ya right.

Senator Clinton - By Central Park Mom-
* How do you plan on winning North Carolina?
* How do you expect to win a general election against a seasoned war vet. You can't argue that you are battle-tested and more ready to be commander-in-chief.
* How will you unite the party?
* What do you know about the capital markets? Did you say that you will "freeze" interest rates?

Fighting and working hard is not passe. What about working smart and having a long-term strategy?

If you continue to split King Solomon's baby, this country will have a female president, we will call her Vice President Rice in November.
---------------------
How does she plan to win North Carolina?
Some red states will NEVER be won, just like some blue states (Namely California) might not ever be won by Repubs. How She could win, or Obama for that matter is very very did i mention very(?) simple math. 2 to 1 voter turnout by Dems over Repubs through the entire election cycle. Is McCain going to increase his voter base twice over? How is going to do that? His dazzling inspiring speeches? His overwhelming support from the far right? (LOL)Math is how she OR Obama can win. You dont have the voter turnout. What you have is a backlash of 8 years of failed policies, the lowest presidential approval rating in history, a looming economic resession and half the voters at the polls. Good luck with that one.
How does She OR Obama plan to win against a seasoned war vet? You mean becides the math listed above? How about McCain singing Bomb Bomb Iran on stage at a campaign rally for the presidential nimination no less. How about his hawkish stance on Iran? How about his prospects of dragging out this war for years on end? His inability to define "winning?" His flip-flop on the use of torture? His jusdgement that the streets of Iraq were safe to stroll down even though he was guarded by Blackhawk helicopters and over a hundred heavily armed heroic soldiers? Safe? Thats sounds like POOR judgement.
How will Hillary unite the party? Good question there. I am not a robot, i will concede a point or two. Still as i metioned even if she cant unite the party (Not that John can either) the party voter turnout will still be overwhleming.
Will she "freeze the capital market? NO. She has never said such a thing. She has stated a freeze on interest rates for capital gains. BIG BIG difference. This is to address the current housing market Ills.
As for a long term srategy...how far reaching was it to think Iraq would be summed up in a month and announce "Mission Accomplished?" How much of a long term srtategy is involved with an open ended war with undefined goals and no benchmarks for progress? This notion that Repubs are keeping us safer is such an insulting myth. I love how dissent for the war = a disinterest for the security of Americans. Goofy.
As for Mrs. Rice as VP maybe she can get twice the humber of folks showing up at the polls. But then again MAYBE John McCain will flip-flop again on his postion of the use of torture on the advice of one of his lobbyists that over-crowd his flip-flop talk express bus and restore confidence in his policies. Ya right.

Hillary Clinton has appeared so far to be the most sleeziest politician I have ever come across. She need not read the Karl Rowe playbook, because she is the one who wrote it and gave it to Karl Rowe.

And another thing. These old farts in the Clinton campaign, who act as Hillary's surrogates can't look past the color of the skin.

Geraldine Ferraro basically failed to attract anybody to vote for her during her veep bid in the ticket with Mondale. She had been out of the lime light for a long time. Now she is putting her feet in the campaign for the white house. Did all these 60 something folks like Madeline Albright, the retired generals etc who are Hillary's close surrogates goto the same segregated school?

Ferraro was right. We all know that most black men are born with endless privileges that a white man could only dream about. You know, the country club contacts that help them get jobs, into ivy league schools, better public schools, the list goes on and on. Clearly Barack was born with the silver spoon in his mouth because of his heritage and I think it is high time for all other people to band together to try and get a few of the leftover crumbs. Thank you Geraldine for your insightful analysis and original thinking. On the other hand I think it is great that we have a woman running who is so articulate!!

Senator Clinton -
* How do you plan on winning North Carolina?
* How do you expect to win a general election against a seasoned war vet. You can't argue that you are battle-tested and more ready to be commander-in-chief.
* How will you unite the party?
* What do you know about the capital markets? Did you say that you will "freeze" interest rates?

Fighting and working hard is not passe. What about working smart and having a long-term strategy?

If you continue to split King Solomon's baby, this country will have a female president, we will call her Vice President Rice in November.

Observing a fact is NOT racist. It is a FACT that Obama received endless media attention far far far out of proportion to his experience and achievements. The media has endlessly obsessed on "the first black to have a serious chance.' (Although why they persist in solely calling him 'black' eludes me as he can equally e called white.)

(1) He was an innocous state legislator with no great record, no involvement in national issues or party matters, no experience at much of anything and had gotten his backside kicked in his attmept to run for the US House in the primary when he was picked to give a speech. The Dems do that a lot - they try so hard to be politically correct. Ther certainly were no reasons of merity behind the choice.

(2) He arrived in the Senate having had a basically uncontested race and no major achievements in his prior activites. Those activities include

getting bored with being a law firm associate and having to do the slog work without the glory so off he goes

to run for the US House where he promptly got flattened in the primary

so he tries the state senate from a safe district and does get elected but

makes no major substantial contribution and tries not to antognize anyone and sits in the middle of everything without taking hard positions until he sees a chance for what he feels to be his due in terms of recognition and aims for the US Senate

where he was in 3rd place until both his opponents self-destructed so he wins in a walk-over and gets to the US Senate

Where he decides within less than 6 months that he isn't getting enough attention or power and that he can run the US where he will be 'appreciated' as he deserves (or at least he thinks he 'deserves.')

Okay, if some boring white guy (or woman of any race) had announced after less than 10 months in the US Senate that with no relevant experience and no outstanding achievements in any field that they were fit to run the country as President, they would have been laughed off the stage and ignored by the media.

He got the media attention - endessly fawning as it was for the over the first year of this drawn out dog 'n pony show - and he got it because he was a novetly to the media. A half black/half white man taking aim at the presidency with no valid credential to back it up and who hadn't even put in a year in the US Senate.

It gave the media their dream primary season - black man against white woman and they deliberately ignored all the white men running.

They did the same with Clinton. She wouldn't be in the US Senate 'but for' whom she married. The day she announced she ws running for the US Senate, the media began fawning and panting and treating her like she was the leader of the Democratic Party hanging on her every word for the next 7 years! She was a 1st term Senator who got there based upon her husband's name and the media immediately annointed her as a presidential candidate. It gave them great headlines - "first woman with a srious chance of winning"

And then the media played the two off them off against the other - and no other candidate existed except the two annointed who made the best headlines.

Good grief - BOTH of them received a leg up on the primary competitions because of their race or sex. Recognizing that is NOT racist nor sexist. It is merely reality.

Considering the fact tha black voters flock to Obama in a near monolithic block, one would have to be thick as two bricks not to see the voting on racial lines.

If anyone knows about the media attention from being the 'first' of a type to have a serious chance of winning as Pres or VP, it is Geraldine Ferraro. She went through it as the first woman nominated for VP. She knows exactly the kind of media coverage someone gets in that position and how it gives them a boost, and how they are treated when they are a novelty as the 'first' to do something.

She is absolutely right - Obama's being 1/2 black got him a lot of favorable press (they adore novelties) and let him avoid the dismissive ridicule that another candidate with the same credentials (or lack thereof) but who was a white guy would have endured since such ridicule would have been labelled 'racist.'

It is not good nor is it bad. It just 'is.'

If the Obama campaign doesn't want anyone mentioning his racial ancestory, I suggest that he kick out every reporter who has written 'the first black to have a serious chance' or anything at all about his race and its effect on his campagin and how he is perceived by voters. Better yet would be if he looked at black voters and said "DO NOT VOTE FOR ME BECAUSE I AM 1/2 BLACK." (Naw, won't ever happen.)

Rather than the whining response, he should have just shrugged and said "Yep eing the 'first' has helped as it helps the voters remember me. Works for Mrs. Clinton to since she is the 1st woman to get this far. In politics, you play the cards you are dealt and take anything that helps."

Senator Clinton - By Central Park Mom-
* How do you plan on winning North Carolina?
* How do you expect to win a general election against a seasoned war vet. You can't argue that you are battle-tested and more ready to be commander-in-chief.
* How will you unite the party?
* What do you know about the capital markets? Did you say that you will "freeze" interest rates?

Fighting and working hard is not passe. What about working smart and having a long-term strategy?

If you continue to split King Solomon's baby, this country will have a female president, we will call her Vice President Rice in November.
---------------------
How does she plan to win North Carolina?
Some red states will NEVER be won, just like some blue states (Namely California) might not ever be won by Repubs. How She could win, or Obama for that matter is very very did i mention very(?) simple math. 2 to 1 voter turnout by Dems over Repubs through the entire election cycle. Is McCain going to increase his voter base twice over? How is going to do that? His dazzling inspiring speeches? His overwhelming support from the far right? (LOL)Math is how she OR Obama can win. You dont have the voter turnout. What you have is a backlash of 8 years of failed policies, the lowest presidential approval rating in history, a looming economic resession and half the voters at the polls. Good luck with that one.
How does She OR Obama plan to win against a seasoned war vet? You mean becides the math listed above? How about McCain singing Bomb Bomb Iran on stage at a campaign rally for the presidential nimination no less. How about his hawkish stance on Iran? How about his prospects of dragging out this war for years on end? His inability to define "winning?" His flip-flop on the use of torture? His jusdgement that the streets of Iraq were safe to stroll down even though he was guarded by Blackhawk helicopters and over a hundred heavily armed heroic soldiers? Safe? Thats sounds like POOR judgement.
How will Hillary unite the party? Good question there. I am not a robot, i will concede a point or two. Still as i metioned even if she cant unite the party (Not that John can either) the party voter turnout will still be overwhleming.
Will she "freeze the capital market? NO. She has never said such a thing. She has stated a freeze on interest rates for capital gains. BIG BIG difference. This is to address the current housing market Ills.
As for a long term srategy...how far reaching was it to think Iraq would be summed up in a month and announce "Mission Accomplished?" How much of a long term srtategy is involved with an open ended war with undefined goals and no benchmarks for progress? This notion that Repubs are keeping us safer is such an insulting myth. I love how dissent for the war = a disinterest for the security of Americans. Goofy.
As for Mrs. Rice as VP maybe she can get twice the humber of folks showing up at the polls. But then again MAYBE John McCain will flip-flop again on his postion of the use of torture on the advice of one of his lobbyists that over-crowd his flip-flop talk express bus and restore confidence in his policies. Ya right.

Senator Clinton - By Central Park Mom-
* How do you plan on winning North Carolina?
* How do you expect to win a general election against a seasoned war vet. You can't argue that you are battle-tested and more ready to be commander-in-chief.
* How will you unite the party?
* What do you know about the capital markets? Did you say that you will "freeze" interest rates?

Fighting and working hard is not passe. What about working smart and having a long-term strategy?

If you continue to split King Solomon's baby, this country will have a female president, we will call her Vice President Rice in November.
---------------------
How does she plan to win North Carolina?
Some red states will NEVER be won, just like some blue states (Namely California) might not ever be won by Repubs. How She could win, or Obama for that matter is very very did i mention very(?) simple math. 2 to 1 voter turnout by Dems over Repubs through the entire election cycle. Is McCain going to increase his voter base twice over? How is going to do that? His dazzling inspiring speeches? His overwhelming support from the far right? (LOL)Math is how she OR Obama can win. You dont have the voter turnout. What you have is a backlash of 8 years of failed policies, the lowest presidential approval rating in history, a looming economic resession and half the voters at the polls. Good luck with that one.
How does She OR Obama plan to win against a seasoned war vet? You mean becides the math listed above? How about McCain singing Bomb Bomb Iran on stage at a campaign rally for the presidential nimination no less. How about his hawkish stance on Iran? How about his prospects of dragging out this war for years on end? His inability to define "winning?" His flip-flop on the use of torture? His jusdgement that the streets of Iraq were safe to stroll down even though he was guarded by Blackhawk helicopters and over a hundred heavily armed heroic soldiers? Safe? Thats sounds like POOR judgement.
How will Hillary unite the party? Good question there. I am not a robot, i will concede a point or two. Still as i metioned even if she cant unite the party (Not that John can either) the party voter turnout will still be overwhleming.
Will she "freeze the capital market? NO. She has never said such a thing. She has stated a freeze on interest rates for capital gains. BIG BIG difference. This is to address the current housing market Ills.
As for a long term srategy...how far reaching was it to think Iraq would be summed up in a month and announce "Mission Accomplished?" How much of a long term srtategy is involved with an open ended war with undefined goals and no benchmarks for progress? This notion that Repubs are keeping us safer is such an insulting myth. I love how dissent for the war = a disinterest for the security of Americans. Goofy.
As for Mrs. Rice as VP maybe she can get twice the humber of folks showing up at the polls. But then again MAYBE John McCain w