comment #1

Josh Massey says ...

I have yet to see a problem with what she said.

Do you really think Obama's race has nothing to do with his seeming fresh and new?

comment #2

D.Z. says ...

Josh: If she said fresh and new, that might be a different story. She said she got ahead because of his race.

comment #3

D.Z. says ...

*he got*

comment #4

Josh Massey says ...

He is ahead, in large part, because of his race. It's what made him stand out early on, and part of what makes him seem new and exciting. It's what made this election unwinnable for John Edwards - he was the typical ol' white guy running, and was going up against two brand new types of (legitimate) candidate.

Pointing this out is not racist, it's a simple political viewpoint.

comment #5

Rod32303 says ...

Again, she didn't say it like you said it, Josh. You use positive words like "exciting" and "new" and even "stand out."

She did not.

Also, in 1992, Bill Clinton had the same kind of fervor and "new"ness , different from George Bush senior and Regan and that ilk. People heard him and liked him and followed him and responded to him. I met him twice during that campaign, and his intensity was palpable.

Arnold in California was a different voice for them. Kay Bailey in Texas - success. I don't ever remember these "new" voices, all white, being singled out because of their race. I don't even remember a bunch of crap being made out of the fact that Hutchinson was a woman.

The very people who clamor about playing the race card, who talk of wishing for and seeing a "colorblind" society...they then say this man is winning BECAUSE of his race.

How about he's winning because of HIM - a HIM who HAPPENS to be African-American. Maybe Clinton won in 92 because he was white, and Arnold too, and Hutchinson and the hundreds of other WHITE candidates who win. But this is never pointed out. I think mainly because it isn't thought of by those who vote. Especially whites, or White America, who just vote for whom they respond too. So do those of us who are black...we don't go around saying "YES! He's WHITE!" or "I like him cause he's new and fresh and WHITE!" We just vote for those we respond to. It's just that typically, and historically, they've not been of color.

Well, millions are responding to Barack Obama. And I doubt those in Iowa or Deleware, not bastions of black populations, all said, "ooh, he's new and BLACK!"

I don't think that's how people think. I hope not.

comment #6

Zimmergirl says ...

How about he's winning because of HIM - a HIM who HAPPENS to be African-American.

I know you all would like to think that but it is just silly. You know, kids will often point out the truth and be reprimanded for it. But the fact is, what do we think the "audacity of hope" means anyway? Half of why Obama is who he is is because of race, ditto Oprah, ditto Halle Berry. You can't suddenly erase it (pun!) because it's suddenly convenient. He isn't successful BECAUSE he's black but being black has made him WHO he is. He could turn around and say the same thing about her - that she only got where she is because she's a woman. That may be true. As Jack Nicholson says in Terms of Endearment, "everybody uses everything he has." Why is it a bad thing, though? Maybe therein lies the racism.

Yikes, the comments blocks are too little.

comment #7

Zimmergirl says ...

"Everybody uses everything they have." Maybe that was it.

comment #8

Rod32303 says ...

Who is trying to erase it? "Colorblind" society is a ridiculous term and concept...how about we all see ALL colors - and they enhance who the person is. And I still think we're saying the same thing - Your" He isn't successful BECAUSE he's black but being black has made him WHO he is." is the same as my How about he's winning because of HIM - a HIM who HAPPENS to be African-American.

You know, the point you said was silly.

And are all these other politicians, actors (including Nicholson), etc, who win because they are WHITE - does the same go for them? If so, so be it...but there is no novelty there, all we SEE is that - whites in power, whites on the screen. For most black people, that is the norm, and we rarely if ever hear whites talking about some white person's success is because they are white. It's like that's what's expected, what we know. Maybe Obama will help others feel that the same can and should be expected of people of color.

comment #9

Josh Massey says ...

"I don't ever remember these 'new' voices, all white, being singled out because of their race."

Why would somebody be singled out for something that isn't at all unique? Being white, being a female senator, even being a black senator - not unique. Being the first legitimate black candidate for President - well, there ya go. And I think you're fooling yourself if you think his race has nothing to do with his success thus far.

The guy is practically a policy clone of John Edwards. What, then, is the reason one got millions more votes than the other? I'm not saying it is solely because of race, but that is the underlying factor here - people want change, and he not only preaches it, he looks the part. And that's not a negative observation or even a positive one - it's just an observation.

comment #10

D.Z. says ...

Josh: "He is ahead, in large part, because of his race."

If race were a factor, then Jessee Jackson and Shirley Chisholm would have gotten this far, too.

"It's what made this election unwinnable for John Edwards - he was the typical ol' white guy running, and was going up against two brand new types of (legitimate) candidate."

John Edwards lost, because he's a sponge who says whatever he thinks is convenient, instead of whatever he really believes. And he's a flip-flopper to boot.

"Being the first legitimate black candidate for President - well, there ya go. "

Chisholm and Jackson weren't legitimate?

Rod: "Arnold in California was a different voice for them."

Arnie won, because Californians are illiterate.

comment #11

Rod32303 says ...

(RANT ALERT)

Where, WHERE anywhere did I say that his race has NOTHING to do with his success? Where did I write this?

But you're fooling yourself if you think that he's the first "LEGITIMATE" black candidate? To whom? White folk? Because, as a 45 year old black man, I will tell you that to many Black Americans, when Shirley Chisolm ran for president, that was a big deal to US - very legitimate. When Jesse Jackson ran and WON primaries, that was VERY legitimate to us. Are you saying that legitimate means accepted by a majority of whites? Is that the status of legitimacy?

People wanted change in 1994. Bill Clinton represented that change, and to many black people (he wasn't nicknamed "The First Black President" for nothing) he was a huge representation of that. He was "unique" to the 90% of black voters, who heard something they responded to in droves. Again, his COLOR wasn't what was thought of when thinking of Bill Clinton.

I hear you, Josh. Much of what you say makes some sense to me...but, as a teacher in Tallahassee Florida (again, not a bastion of racial divide), where I see mostly young, white faces everyday, whom I love and they love me, I hold hope that being black can be counted as just another PART of a person's self, not just the main reason why people think of the success. I get a sour taste when I hear that argument - it reminds me of the Affirmative Action crap I used to hear from (white) fraternity brothers, the assumption that - "you got the job because you're black...I got mine because I am qualified"

But the fact that we can even discuss RACE - that's a great thing.

comment #12

truefaith says ...

As much as we Americans try to be PC and say that we're "color-blind"--let's face it, we are NOT color-blind. I agree with what Josh posted. Essentially, John Edwards and Barack Obama gave the same populist speeches (e.g., public schools are falling apart, etc.). However, one speech was spoken by a white mam and another speech was spoken by a black man. Apparently, democrats are sympathising with Obama because he fits the part better than Edwards.

comment #13

musealien says ...

Geraldine Ferraro was absolutely right. And it's got nothing to do with racism; she was just telling it as it is.

The rest of the world is looking on in utter amazement, you know, at this Obama machine. America saddles the world with someone totally wrong for the job for 8 years and now you're doing it again. Man alive...

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

truefaith: "Essentially, John Edwards and Barack Obama gave the same populist speeches (e.g., public schools are falling apart, etc.). However, one speech was spoken by a white mam and another speech was spoken by a black man."

Edwards was only remembered for helping Kerry lose the 2004 election, hence why he was ignored.

muse: "Geraldine Ferraro was absolutely right. And it's got nothing to do with racism; she was just telling it as it is."

Sure it does, or she wouldn't bring up his color.

"America saddles the world with someone totally wrong for the job for 8 years and now you're doing it again. "

Why exactly is he as "wrong" as Bush?

comment #15

Josh Massey says ...

So D.Z., any time somebody brings up color it is "racism?"

Oh, and "legitimate" = having an actual chance of winning. Jackson and Chisolm never did.

comment #16

shanana says ...

Here we go again. When will some of the posters on this site wake-up? How many more articles will Jeff have to post regarding some Barack “Hussein” backhanded comment before you are capable of calling it for what it is? Guess what, when you try to draw a comparison between someone’s ethnicity and their capacity of clear judgement - that is racist. Barack “Hussein: will he be able to stop the terrorists if he is one of them?” Obama.

Geraldine Ferraro is not just “pointing out the obvious.” She is flat-out wrong. There have been other African American candidates. His skin color isn’t winning him states like Wyoming and Idaho. He’s winning those states because he is not a Clinton. No, Geraldine is simply stating a foregone conclusion made by the Hillary camp that Barack is “getting a free pass because…..he’s charismatic, no wait, because he gives pretty speeches, no, no, what is word I’m looking for?” Mrs. Ferraro just finished the sentence for Hillary’s side, and all the racism that it implies.

I’m a Barack supporter, I don’t ever recall saying, “ I’m voting for him, he’s African American.” It’s shameful that you would think so. It’s sad that you see no difference between Barack Obama and John Edwards except skin color. It’s sad, but that’s the world we live in. We’re all racist and sexist. Trapped in our own myopic view of the world. The more you deny this, the more you condone it. The sooner you admit it, the sooner we can move past it.

comment #17

JaySmack says ...

You Clinton ass-kissers are so lame. She shoots herself in the foot more time than Dubya, but you still say she's the best choice for President. First, Hillary endorses MCCain over the Democratic front-runner, now Ferraro uses Nixon's Southern Strategy.
We all heard what Ferraro said, as we all know it was racist. Bill Clinton got away with his "Jesse Jackson" line in South Carolina and Hillary was sure Ferraro would skate as well. Well, she didn't!

And yes, Ferraro's remarks were racist--deal with it. And no zimmergirl not a word Ferraro said was true--you sound desperate and divorced from reality when you defend her.
Ferraro's words were almost exactly the same as what Rush Limbaugh said on ESPN about the only reason Donovan McNabb was a famous quarterback was because he was black.
More race-baiting, telling whites that Obama's the Affirmative Action candidate in the hopes of generating a backlash. As we see from the comments on this board, it's a strategy that's worked with some sick individuals.

If Barak is the front-runner only because of his race then why is it neither he nor his supporters NOR THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE VOTED FOR HIM have mentioned race even once, while the Clinton camp has mentioned it every chance they get? If anything Clinton's only won the handful of states she got because of her race--becuse she's emphasized it so much racially-biased whites like musealien and zimmergirl look at this election as a race war rather than a presidential race.
Hillary's camp has played every card they can: the race card, gender card, fear card, class card. The nation is disgusted with her and her tactics. And her supporters wonder why Hillary's so far behind?

Bottom line: Ferraro is a bigoted fossil from the 80's who's pissed that girl-power didn't get her over 25 years ago, and won't be doing it this time either.
I put in the part about "girl-power" to see if the a**holes claiming Ferraro was "just telling the truth" will also be consistent enough to admit this is "true" as well. After all, didn't Ferraro say if her name had been Gerald she wouldn't have been on the ticket in '84?
Or will the Clintonites say that's "sexist" instead?

comment #18

Rod32303 says ...

I'm done here.

"Jackson and Chisolm never did." Neither did Obama six months ago, when he was falling behind BOTH Clinton and Edwards in the polls. BOTH of them. But now that he's winning, it's because he's black?

Bringing us race and discussing it doesn't equal racism. No one here seems to be that. Ferraro's comments, almost identical to those she uttered about Jackson in 1988, came with malice. She was working for her girl, but she knows better - in politics, especially.

comment #19

D.Z. says ...

Josh: "So D.Z., any time somebody brings up color it is "racism?"'

When it's meant to ridicule them, yes.

comment #20

T. S. Idiot says ...

Jackson was and is an opportunistic blowhard, the black Keith Olbermann.

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

"Jackson was and is an opportunistic blowhard, the black Keith Olbermann."

Yeah, why couldn't he leave us alone about apartheid?

comment #22

oakling says ...

I am glad Ferraro had to face consequences and questioning, but I think the Clinton campaign is totally scapegoating her at the same time. "Oh, see, we won't tolerate racism! We kicked her out!" Meanwhile, they keep Hilary Clinton on, and everyone else involved with the campaign's unsubtly racist tactics.

comment #23

Richardson says ...

"Why would somebody be singled out for something that isn't at all unique? Being white, being a female senator, even being a black senator - not unique. Being the first legitimate black candidate for President - well, there ya go. And I think you're fooling yourself if you think his race has nothing to do with his success thus far."

Your statement -- already far more reasonable on the surface than anything Ferraro said -- falls apart when you realize that it explains in no way how the first legitimate black candidate for president is more symbolic of change than the first legitimate female candidate for president.

"The guy is practically a policy clone of John Edwards. What, then, is the reason one got millions more votes than the other?"

I can think of two answers. One of them, "charisma", is treating the candidate like a human being. The other one, "black", is reductive to the candidate and completely surfacey. Not to mention that it flies in the face of 230 years of American history to suggest that, if two candidates are otherwise equal, the *black* guy will get more support.

In a nutshell, Ferraro, like Bill Clinton has already done in the race, is trying to appeal to poor white people who feel marginalized and dismiss affirmative action as unneccessary and racist, the people who think that black people get as far as they do (ha!) by crying racist, rather than through hard work. They're trying to reduce Obama down to just a black guy running for president. Don't buy into it, it's ignorant.