when stuck in a hole stop digging
Posted by Gay Veteran at March 12, 2008 12:28 PMHey she works for FAUX News... what do you expect?
Posted by Seven of Six at March 12, 2008 12:48 PMIf Clinton doesn't fire Ferraro, she is part of the racial wedge game plan.
Clinton's racial wedge will probably help her with the rural racist Pennsylvania vote. I hope it sinks her with the decent urban vote. The wedges got us 8 years of bush. Obviously, with all the name recognition, Clinton can’t close the deal. Maybe people that are not as sexist and racist can see through the DLC and all the lobbyist connections. Now, as the Clinton picture is focused more, there are more questions about her passing the threshold to be a president.
Posted by smooth at March 12, 2008 12:49 PMRJ Eskow of the Huffington Post pulls the covers off of Clinton's game plan.
Ms. Ferraro's comment may be offensive and wrong, but that doesn't mean it's stupid. On the contrary: It looks pretty shrewd. Her words play very well into white resentment of affirmative action, by harping on the notion that less-qualified black people are getting jobs that should go to hard-working and experienced white people.
Ferraro's words suggest a coded play for the bigot vote, with the "woman" reference thrown in to somehow link Obama with the oppression of women (a little something for the Erica Jong set.) It fits in nicely with the "accidental" darkening of Obama's skin in a Clinton campaign photo, or Sen. Clinton's recent statement that Sen. Obama isn't a Muslim - "as far as I know."
Still, are her statements the uncensored ravings of a bigot - or yet another example of the Clinton campaign playing the race card and then saying "who, me"? Comments like Ms. Ferraro's play into the fears and resentments of some lower-income white voters - the same voters who just so happen to be Sen. Clinton's strongest voting bloc.
And Ferraro isn't just some "supporter." She has an official role with the campaign as finance chair. She speaks as a Clinton surrogate. By allowing Ferraro to keep her role in the campaign, Sen. Clinton is giving Ferraro's remarksher tacit approval. She's confirming the worst fears of those who believe she will stoop at nothing to become President.
It's time for the Super Delegates to shutdown this mad house.
Posted by smooth at March 12, 2008 01:17 PMWhoo-Hoo! Another endorsement for Barack Obama!
Citing his judgment and ability to lead, admirals and generals from the United States Army, Navy and Air Force that together have served under the last nine Commanders-in-Chief today announced their endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for president.Posted by Seven of Six at March 12, 2008 01:23 PM
The statements Ferraro made were absurd, and she's managed to make the situation even worse. But if anyone thought race would not be a boogie man in the election process, or sex for that matter, they were deluded. My observation is that the fact Obama is black (or half black as it is) has been much less a factor than I expected. Sure the black population has supported him, who could have expected otherwise? But in races all across the country, even in Texas and Mississippi, he has had great support from whites, male and female and I, for one, am proud of that.
Posted by T2 at March 12, 2008 01:24 PMWell, I've had enough.
Have fun calling each other bigot, racist or any other names you can come up with.
When's the last time anyone discussed universal health insurance?
Have fun burning each other.
Posted by snark at March 12, 2008 01:30 PMMore idiocy over at Huffington, I see.
"As far as I know":
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002?f=h_column
Darkening:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/did_clinton_darken_obamas_skin.html
Posted by Kanzeon at March 12, 2008 01:32 PMSo, smoothe, now all anyone has to do is pretend they know what Clinton is doing, and suddenly, it's the truth? I guess lockstep's not just for Republicans anymore...
But in races all across the country, even in Texas and Mississippi, he has had great support from whites, male and female and I, for one, am proud of that.
Considering it's a Dem primary, I should hope so. But pretending it's all rainbows and unicorns before the Republicans really start attacking is pretty naive, don't you think?
Posted by iamcoyote at March 12, 2008 01:33 PMsmooth,
does ferraro hold an official position from which she can be fired?
Posted by Turkana at March 12, 2008 01:41 PMShe's apparently on the finance committee, unpaid, and from what I understand, they're meeting today. No other word other than Wolfson saying he denounced Ferraro's words, that I can find.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 12, 2008 01:44 PMiamcoyote, I understand your point. But I'm from the south, and old enough to remember the separate drinking fountains and back of bus racism, and regardless of whether its a primary or a general, I see progress here, with both Obama and Clinton, that I wasn't sure I'd ever see.
And certainly, until it is successfully taken to the General Election, it's a work in progress. But it's progress in the right direction. By the way, about the "Dem primary" remark, to assume there are no racist Democrats in the South is way naive.
iamcoyote,
As I said before, this will be a different year for the republicans slimeballs. When the republicans are standing in the shit they created up to their chins it will be hard for them to change the subject.
Yes, the slime will work with the ignorant bigots that get their info from propoganda outlets.
Decent people of all enthnic groups have had enough. You may not believe me, but I see a real change. As Jim Hightower is saying, it's not really about Obama. This is about people that are tired of the same old shit.
"This is about people that are tired of the same old shit." Yep, Smooth, I think you are right.
Lets move on to Bush news, now he's refusing to release the latest intel report declaring no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam....of course the problem is that it already has been released. The boy is really in a bubble.
Posted by T2 at March 12, 2008 01:54 PMCNN.com breaking news: Geraldine Ferraro is leaving the Hillary Clinton campaign. Finally!
Posted by Jackie at March 12, 2008 02:18 PMBy the way, about the "Dem primary" remark, to assume there are no racist Democrats in the South is way naive.
No doubt. I grew up in the south, too, and remember the segregation. And yes, there's improvement. Which is why I feel that Obama needs to be careful crying "racist" at everything. It will come back to haunt him, I'm sure.
This is about people that are tired of the same old shit.
Yeah, and that includes women, too.
Lets move on to Bush news, now he's refusing to release the latest intel report declaring no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam
Yes, lets. Apparently, you have to request a copy of the report by mail.
If Clinton and Obama want to keep it up, okay, but it's time for all of us to back off, since no one is likely to change their opinion and most people have voted already. It's pretty much wait and see at this point.
Geraldine Ferraro is leaving the Hillary Clinton campaign. Finally!
Well, there you go, then.
Well that is news!
Of course, I told my wife that, "She's succeeding in part because she's a Hispanic Woman!" I could have swore she was reaching for the knives!!
Posted by Seven of Six at March 12, 2008 02:29 PMWell, it's good that Ferraro has resigned.
Clinton can show that she's not trying to run a racially divisive campaign from this day on by running on records and platforms and such and instruct people in her camp to stuff the racist stuff.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 12, 2008 04:47 PMthe obama camp has played the race card from day one..not the clintons..what ferrao said... that if he weren't black he wouldn't be where he is today..i believe is the truth...barack obama will not beat john mccain..they will eviserate him..and when and if they do..i will be done with the democratic party....
Posted by dennis at March 12, 2008 04:57 PMGeraldine Ferraro, STFU, you are NOT helping Hillary
Posted by gay veteran at March 12, 2008 06:11 PMI would like to personally thank Geraldine Ferraro for amply demonstrating what the Clinton campaign is and has been all about ever since they knew Obama was a real threat, and I'd like to thank Geraldine for further derailing the train wreck that is the Clinton campaign.
Don't you apologize, Gerri-baby, hold your white racist bitch head high, and thanks again for helping Barrack so much!
Posted by Brian Bell at March 12, 2008 06:41 PMOn second thought, that was probably uncalled for, so I am sorry for the "b" word, even if it is too late to take it back.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 12, 2008 06:54 PMI'm calling Dan Hicks. He won't be happy about you stealing his song title!
:D
Posted by Moon at March 12, 2008 07:40 PMSenator Hillary Clinton has been a puzzle to me of late, as have a few of her supporters. I am a minor Obama supporter. My wife and I sent him a $25 donation.
But I have liked Senator Clinton.
That may be why I have observed her campaign with a vague sense of surprise. It has been a jarring sort of disconnect to see some of her tactics.
I have watched her distort Obama’s record on reproductive rights, and I have told myself that many politicians bend the truth.
I have watched her and President Clinton distort Obama’s unwillingness to denounce John Kerry during the 2004 Presidential campaign for his war vote. It was possible, Obama allowed at the time, that Kerry saw some piece of intelligence in the Senate not apparent to others. Who could speculate for sure what Obama himself would have done with some hither-to unknown secret intelligence? The Clinton campaign characterizes Obama’s courageous anti Iraq war stance during his very first Senate try as “a fantasy.” And I have thought of that characterization as an unfortunate departure from ethics during the heat of a campaign.
Then my wife and I heard reports that a spokesperson for the Clintons had assured the Canadian government that her opposition to NAFTA was only campaign rhetoric – don’t take it seriously – and then falsely accused Obama of making that same assurance to the Canadians. My wife and I looked at each other and in unison exclaimed “She dirty.” But “dirty” describes a lot of politicians in this Rovian age. The Canadians now say the Clinton campaign did not really make such assurances either. Fortunately, Obama takes a higher road and is not repeating the story about Clinton. But Hillary seems not limited by such considerations. She continues the false accusation about Obama.
And now the tepid response toward the multiple Rush-Limbaugh-like outbursts by the (of late) Clinton campaign finance chair, one of dozens, Geraldine Ferraro. In past years, this would have provoked deep anger from Hillary Clinton. What gives?
It came to me that what was the most jarring has been the recurring, seemingly genuine, raw anger from Senator Clinton and a few of her supporters. It was most apparent over a minor inaccurate quote in a piece of literature put out by Obama about Clinton’s position on NAFTA. And that brought it into clarity for me. The quote did accurately describe her public position, but the words were not her own.
The public anger by Senator Clinton was way out of proportion. “Shame on you, Barack Obama!!!” Silly. Yet it struck me as something other than simple political posturing, something more genuine than more of the same.
I think the anger has to do with sacrifice, pain, and civil rights.
I do not see much that Senator Clinton and President Clinton have done for historically oppressed people. In fact, the greatest measurable accomplishment of the 1990’s was the increase in the black population within prisons. But they have suffered for the cause.
It is easy to forget the atmosphere that existed in 1992 when Bill Clinton was running for President. When Pat Buchanan was making comments about “America’s pampered minorities” many racists were in vigorous agreement. The atmosphere was poisonous. Such comments were becoming pretty close to mainstream.
When Bill Clinton won the Presidency, many were outraged. The Clintons represented much of what they saw as wrong with liberals. Most of all, most of all, most of all, the Clintons were seen by some as excessively sympathetic to African-Americans.
The rage at that sympathy was palpable, and well financed. The “vast right-wing conspiracy” was no myth. I could see no other plausible reason for the intensity of the hatred other than secondary racism.
Whitewater and various “gates” were investigated to absurdity. Lies were believed, no matter how silly. A suicide was even morphed into murder. Finally, they seemed to get him on the basis of a sexual dalliance. I believe it was because of the original racial motivation that Bill Clinton finally became known as the first black President.
It was only a few years ago, but it seems a lot longer. The landscape has changed, and it is tempting to forget the sort of very public hardship the Clintons faced in those days.
They suffered. More particularly, she suffered. It must have been searing.
I believe the agony and injustice still burns for her and those who care for her.
Now the very folks for whom her support was unwavering seem to have turned against her: Young people, black people, people of good will. Obama’s smiling face and cheerful enthusiasm for looking beyond historical injustice must seem emblematic of all those whose gratitude has drifted into the wind.
Senator Clinton’s varying campaign themes; experience, 35 years of working for change, the kitchen sink charges, the anger; all have in common her real reason for demanding our support: She has earned it.
Obama’s supporters have their three word chants. YES WE CAN. Sometimes joined with RACE DOESN’T MATTER.
The years of forbearance and endless suffering have produced the unspoken three word chants of the seething side of the Clinton campaign. They are the backdrop of the least attractive, unfortunate, historical strain of American liberalism.
Toward the voters: YOU OWE ME.
Toward Obama: HOW DARE YOU!
I wrote that very note to Steve Soto the other day.
Posted by chris at March 12, 2008 08:51 PMthere's a lot to be said about the attacks on ferraro.
none of which makes the attackers look good.
in this country, when overly pious folk plying volumes of moralizing argumentation, get a lot of media attention (think republicans and terry schivo),
there inevitably arises a major effort to ridicule that foolish piety.
ridicule, obama supporters should remember, is the most potent weapon in politics.
if this happens, obama's campaign managers should hope it happens early, not in, say, september.
as i understand it,
ferraro said
- first that obama was where he was because he was black.
that seems to me to be incontrovertible.
and
- second, responding to attacks on her previous comment, that she said she was being attacked because she was white.
that also seems to me incontrovertible.
dealing with the second point first,
if david paterson, soon to be governor of new york, a clinton supporter, and a black man, were to say that obama was where he is because he is black,
would his remarks be characterized as racist?
of course not.
but he WOULD, however, be labeled an uncle tom by obama's moralizing troops.
as for ferraro's first statement,
picked up days after she made it in a small corner of california
and broadcast by dkos as an example of clinton racism,
obama IS where he is because he is black.
that's just a fact.
the way i look at american politics,
obama is a political exotic.
in his case, his exoticism is a function of his blackness.
he is not, however, the first american political exotic.
that distinction belongs to arnold schwarzenegger, currently gov of california.
arnold was austrian born; he had an accent; he was a physically big guy who had been a body builder and a movie actor.
he was everything that gray davis, who had spent his working life in democratic politics in california, was not.
obama is a similar political exotic. he is a black man, actually a mulatto. he is exceptionally bright, very personable, very photogenic (big smile), and a very gifted speaker (something too few politicians are these days).
but it's the (partial) blackness that counts most among those who ordained his rise.
a pole or czech from chicago,
with those same talents,
would not have have risen so suddenly to political stardom in the national democratic party.
an hispanic in austin with those same talents would not have risen so rapidly.
a red-neck white in georgia with those same talents would not have been foreordained as a democratic presidential candidate.
and, of course, as ferraro said,
also incontrovertibly,
a woman of ANY color would not have been given the pass to power that obama has been given.
obama is not my candidate PRECISELY because
i did not know when he was anointed by the media in 2004,
and still do not know in 2008,
what merits his consideration.
i don't much about him or his good works - as opposed to what i know of the good works of, say, john lewis or andrew young.
my sense is that obama was thrust upon me and my fellow democrats,
by clever democratic politicians working behind the scenes - tom daschle and joe lieberman and gary hart, among others
as a fait accompli - athena out of the brain of zeus.
so
what's the beef with what ferraro said?
to me, her initial two comments seems to be completely obvious and not at all racially motivated.
the obama campaign managers would do well to consider that, in due time, there will be a steep price to pay for exploiting a foolish moralism that uses race as its payload.
Posted by orionATL at March 12, 2008 09:01 PMmoon,
i believe it was originally the hilltoppers. i tried to find a good youtube. good catch, though!
Posted by Turkana at March 12, 2008 10:46 PMJeebus, orionATL, what a bunch of racist bullshit. Obama is "exotic," a "mulatto," and he's running for president due to that? You have no idea how much you sound like a racist prick, do you orionATL?
Get it through your thick skulls, people. There isn't an African-American in this country who is not offended by what Geraldine said. Go tell an African-American person what she said about Obama and ask them if it's racist. Go ahead, chickens, do it. Of course, be prepared to get ostracized, berated and maybe even physically hurt for being so ignorant. The staff on this site seem to finally get it in regards to Geraldine and her racist claptrap, why aren't you all?
Posted by Brian Bell at March 13, 2008 05:08 AMGo tell an African-American person what she said about Obama and ask them if it's racist.
I asked my wife that last night and she said, emphatically no, she did not think it was racist. She thought it was a gross simplification but that there is no denying that Obama's race has been a big factor in his political rise.
Posted by snark at March 13, 2008 05:36 AMYeah, but she's a woman, snark, and we all know when they "periodically" get down, (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) they tend to be irrational.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 13, 2008 06:01 AMAnd is your wife African-American, Snark?
Posted by Brian Bell at March 13, 2008 09:52 AMBrian, snark would not have made that comment if she wasn't, would he?
Posted by iamcoyote at March 13, 2008 10:12 AMBrian,
I'll tell you what my wife does have a problem with.
This;
Get it through your thick skulls, people. There isn't an African-American in this country who is not offended by what Geraldine said.
Because all black people are the same and their thoughts on any given issue fit into a nice little stereotype? Is that what you were trying to tell us through our thick skulls Brian?
Go tell an African-American person what she said about Obama and ask them if it's racist. Go ahead, chickens, do it. Of course, be prepared to get ostracized, berated and maybe even physically hurt for being so ignorant.
Because all black people resort to physical violence because their capacity to provide a thoughtful answer to a question is limited? Is that what you were trying to say Brian?
If only you could comprehend how much more offensive my wife found your comment than anything Ferraro said.
Posted by snark at March 13, 2008 11:41 AMHuh. Brian, you seem to have a habit of saying things like this, don't you? You're not doing Obama any favors, really.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 13, 2008 12:10 PMCoyote, I have no idea what "color" Snark's wife is, and I still don't because he has not directly answered the question I asked. As for your opinion of Obama based on what I say, you've already made up your own mind, Coyote, because you're a close-minded person.
Snark, way to ignore what else I said, I offered a few options that would happen, not just violence. Who is stereotyping now? YOU! Also, if your wife is African-American, she was offended on some level by what Geraldine said, you Snark even said, "...She thought it was a gross simplification..." That is taking offense on some level. Also, if your wife was so offended by what I said, then why doesn't your wife come on and tell me herself, Snark? Maybe because she wasn't offended, because she probably has better shit to do with her time than worry about the comments of an Obama supporter like me.
Here's the truth -- Hillary has run a dirty, race-baiting campaign. Geraldine is a part of that. I can't help it that Hillary by her actions shows she is willing to win at any cost, even if it means running with a bunch of racist canards. What I, Brian Bell, say is of little import, but Geraldine taking not-so-coded potshots at Obama and Affirmative Action, as her girl Hillary refuses to disavow Ferraro's statements, is quite important and says a lot about Hillary as a person and her campaign.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 13, 2008 01:06 PMSnark, way to ignore what else I said, I offered a few options that would happen, not just violence. Who is stereotyping now?
You. Sorry that you just can't accept your own racism. See, it wasn't my being offended I was commenting about. It was my wife's offense at your obviously racist comments. I was communicating her reaction. She was offended by you statement that someone should be prepared for a violent response from a black person simply because THEY WERE ASKED A QUESTION.
Also, if your wife is African-American, she was offended on some level by what Geraldine said, you Snark even said, "...She thought it was a gross simplification..." That is taking offense on some level.
So you are telling me that you know better what my wife was feeling than she did? Man, you really are a racist. But I'll be sure to tell her that according to you she was offended. Because you know better than her. "Gross simplification". Gross, meaning obvious or glaring. Simplification, meaning to reduce in complexity. Neither of those words imply offense. But you know better, right?
Also, if your wife was so offended by what I said, then why doesn't your wife come on and tell me herself, Snark?
Because she didn't think your pathetic self was worth the effort.
Maybe because she wasn't offended,...
So you're calling my wife a liar? You know that "there isn't an African-American in this country who wasn't offended" by what Ferraro said AND you know that my wife wasn't offended by your racist clap-trap too!
...because she probably has better shit to do with her time than worry about the comments of an Obama supporter like me.
Well, she certainly has better things to do than worry about racists like you. That's true.
Posted by snark at March 13, 2008 01:40 PMI'm not racist at all Snark, at least not anymore than any other white man, as I personally believe it is impossible to truly know what it must be to be African-American in America without being African-American, and thus by extension all of us whiteys are racist in some sense of that lack of understanding.
Aside from that, there was NOTHING about my comments that were racist. I didn't say African-Americans would get violent if you asked them about Geraldine's comments. YOU said that Snark. I did not.
I offered multiple possibilities of what could happen, and ruled out no possibilities, because I said "be prepared" for a few reactions. I did not say be prepared for only a few reactions. I did not say if you repeat Geraldine's remarks it would provoke violence. I only offered it as one of a few possibilities, all of which I stand by as being possibilities. I'm sure you could think of some other possibilities, which I did not rule out, as well, Snark.
I'm not a racist, but if anything you're a liar, Snark, because you're the one characterizing my remarks as stating African-Americans will only react to offense with violence. That's not what I said in my remarks.
Also, you keep implying your wife is some kind of authority on African-Americans, without actually affirming she is African-American or telling us about how she performed in her African-American Studies major. So, how about it, Snark? Is your wife an African-American or not, or some kind of degreed expert on African-American culture or not?
Let's face it, my remarks aren't a nationwide issue. The issue here is Geraldine's remarks.
You said about your wife's take on Geraldine's comments, and my characterization of your wife's comments of "gross simplification" as your wife taking offense:
"...Neither of those words (gross simplification) imply offense. But you know better, right?..."
Yes, I do know better, because I know plain English when I read it, and you are apparently ignoring the meaning of your wife's comments. Yes, your wife was offended, so long as your original quote was accurate.
If your wife characterizes something as being a "gross simplification," she's being offended on some level. She is denying a statement by characterizing it as a "gross simplification," she is indeed taking offense there, no matter how small. She is negating Geraldine's comments, not affirming, she is taking offense.
So, yeah, I'm right.
About your wife not responding to me, you said:
"...Because she didn't think your pathetic self was worth the effort...."
Um, yeah, that's about the equivalent of what I said, isn't it? Why reiterate what I already said? C'mon, man, political junkies only need pay attention to the crap in these threads. Your wife, who no doubt has better sense than you, could probably care less about what little old me says.
You also said:
"...So you're calling my wife a liar?...."
No, I'm not. Pay attention. I'm impying that YOU, Snark, may be a liar. And I'm doing so repeatedly.
And quit calling me a racist. If anybody gave a damn about what was said in these threads, it would probably be an actionable item as slander or libel. You also continue to ignore this:
Here's the truth -- Hillary has run a dirty, race-baiting campaign. Geraldine is a part of that. I can't help it that Hillary by her actions shows she is willing to win at any cost, even if it means running with a bunch of racist canards. What I, Brian Bell, say is of little import, but Geraldine taking not-so-coded potshots at Obama and Affirmative Action, as her girl Hillary refuses to disavow Ferraro's statements, is quite important and says a lot about Hillary as a person and her campaign.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 13, 2008 02:58 PMProtesting overmuch, aren't you, Brian? You said:
Go tell an African-American person what she said about Obama and ask them if it's racist. Go ahead, chickens, do it. Of course, be prepared to get ostracized, berated and maybe even physically hurt for being so ignorant.
There's no other way to interpret it. You imply that an African-American person would get physically violent if someone only asked them about Ferraro's comments. You also say:
as her girl Hillary refuses to disavow Ferraro's statements,
So you're a liar as well. Disgusting.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 13, 2008 03:19 PMCoyote, damn right I'm protesting over being called racist? Would you protest at being called that?
About this, what you, Coyote said:
"...You imply that an African-American person would get physically violent if someone only asked them about Ferraro's comments...."
NO, I implied an African-American person COULD, not "WOULD," but COULD get physical over being asked an ignorant question about Geraldine's comments, and I offered two other possible reactions, that an African-American might ignore a person over such comments or loudly criticize someone over making such comments. I also did NOT rule out further possibilities. Because I in no way implied what a likely reaction would be, I did NOT rule out any other possible reaction. I just said to be prepared for three possible reactions without ruling out any further reactions. That's a critical difference there, that's the difference between "WOULD," as you put it Coyote, and COULD, as I put it.
Anyway, Coyote, you continue to ignore the important point here, just as Snark ignores it, which is, again:
Here's the truth -- Hillary has run a dirty, race-baiting campaign. Geraldine is a part of that. I can't help it that Hillary by her actions shows she is willing to win at any cost, even if it means running with a bunch of racist canards. What I, Brian Bell, say is of little import, but Geraldine taking not-so-coded potshots at Obama and Affirmative Action, as her girl Hillary refuses to disavow Ferraro's statements, is quite important and says a lot about Hillary as a person and her campaign.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 13, 2008 04:00 PMOh, yeah, another thing, Coyote, when has Hillary disavowed Geraldine and her comments? I am not aware that she has. Do you have a link or quote from a newspaper or something, a source for that? As far as I know, Hillary has still not disavowed Geraldine or her comments.
By the way, Geraldine, racist old gasbag, is sticking by her comments, not disavowing the comments at all.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 13, 2008 04:05 PMI personally believe it is impossible to truly know what it must be to be African-American in America without being African-American...
Yet you know that they are all offended by Ferraro's comments. It's really sad how willing you are to fan the flames of racial division in this country just for political expediency.
I didn't say African-Americans would get violent if you asked them about Geraldine's comments.
Obviously, you thought it. Why else would you include it in what the "chickens" should be prepared for. Why "chickens"? Clearly that implies a need to be affraid. You obviously asumed it would be a confrontational exchange for no other reason than an assumed, on your part not mine, inclination of blacks toward confrontation and violence. These are your racial issues we're talking about Brian. Not mine.
I'm not a racist, but if anything you're a liar, Snark, because you're the one characterizing my remarks as stating African-Americans will only react to offense with violence. That's not what I said in my remarks.
Not what you said, but what you implied. What were your other possibilities? ...ostracized, berated... For simply asking a question? Engaging in an intellectual exchange? And the possibilities you saw fit to list for those brave enough to venture to ask a question were ostracized, berated and physically harmed? Reflecting on it, even I'm offended by that remark of yours.
Also, you keep implying your wife is some kind of authority on African-Americans,
I did no such thing. You implied you are. You stated as fact that there is not one African-American in this country who was not offended by Ferraro's comments. And you were, and are wrong. I related my wife's own personal response to your inquiry.
without actually affirming she is African-American or telling us about how she performed in her African-American Studies major. So, how about it, Snark? Is your wife an African-American or not, or some kind of degreed expert on African-American culture or not?
Go back and read your own comment and my response Brian. I know there's no "math" involved but you should be able to figure it out.
Let's face it, my remarks aren't a nationwide issue. The issue here is Geraldine's remarks.
So you admit that your remarks are racist, just not as important as the remarks by Ferraro that you see as somehow more significantly racist?
Yes, I do know better, because I know plain English when I read it, and you are apparently ignoring the meaning of your wife's comments. Yes, your wife was offended, so long as your original quote was accurate.
Not only a racist but a presumptuous one as well.
If your wife characterizes something as being a "gross simplification," she's being offended on some level. She is denying a statement by characterizing it as a "gross simplification," she is indeed taking offense there, no matter how small. She is negating Geraldine's comments, not affirming, she is taking offense.
What a tortured effort that was. Anything that one can describe as an exaggeration is by default offensive. Sorta like stating that there is not one African-American in the country who is not offended.... You get the point. My wife did not negate Ferraro's comments. She said they too simplify the issue. She did not disagree with the sentiments. Quite frankly, she said that they will be miscontrued by "idiots", I believe is the word she used, seeking to make hay out of them but that she understood Ferraro's intent. And that she did not find it to be racially motivated at all.
C'mon, man, political junkies only need pay attention to the crap in these threads. Your wife, who no doubt has better sense than you, could probably care less about what little old me says.
You so easily excuse your own racism because only political junkies are gonna read it? Yet here you are using race baiting to divide the political junkies on these threads. Nice.
No, I'm not. Pay attention. I'm impying that YOU, Snark, may be a liar. And I'm doing so repeatedly.
And you're making a big fool out of yourself.
And quit calling me a racist. If anybody gave a damn about what was said in these threads, it would probably be an actionable item as slander or libel.
Oh! Am I supposed to be scared? Gonna come after me for slander/libel? I understand that Ferraro is a public figure so you can call her a racist without much fear. It's easy to call her a racist. And it's such an affective political tool. You asked people to ask African-Americans if Ferraro's words were offensive and in so doing you actually managed to offend by the way you asked! They're your words. Uncomfortable as they may be.
You also continue to ignore this:
Yup. I'm ignoring YOUR race baiting "clap-trap".
You support a guy who claims to want to be a uniter by trying to tear people apart using racism. I'm sure he'd be proud of your efforts.
You are truly sad.
without actually affirming she is African-American or telling us about how she performed in her African-American Studies major.
O. M. F. G.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 13, 2008 05:05 PMIt's the ease with which Brian and others jump onto anything that can be possibly construed as racist to create ill will and division while claiming to be on the side of unity and change. And then he can't even admit the obvious bias in his own words. That paragraph of his about "chickens" and being ostracized, berated or assaulted is one of the most offensivly racist things I've read here.
And then threatens me with implied legal action! After calling not only Ferraro a racist but calling OrionA TL's comments racist as well.
But hey, I guess it's all supposed to be worth it to get Obama elected.
Posted by snark at March 13, 2008 05:17 PMI thought race-baiting was where a black person accused a white person of being racist just to start something?
Posted by Moon at March 13, 2008 05:58 PMSnark said, of African-Americans offended by Ferraro's racist remarks and my statement that all African-Americans would be offended by them, yet I also admitted I couldn't poosibly know what it was to be African-American in this country:
..Yet you know that they are all offended by Ferraro's comments...
You're right, I can't say "all." I shouldn't say all. I will say, instead, a vast majority.
Also, Snark, about my comments that if you questioned African-Americans on what they thought about Ferraro's racist remarks that you could be ignored, talked down to or struck over questions like that, you're asking me or telling me did I think that? Well, duh! Of course, I thought it. I wrote it, didn't I? As for my assertions that I didn't say African-Americans would get violent if asked about Ferraro's comments, YOU, Snark, said that. You continue to imply I said African-Americans only reaction would be violence, which is a load of crap. I NEVER said that. I offered three NON-exclusive possibilities.
As for my calling Hillary supporters chicken, you're damn right you're chickens. I said you're chicken because I think you don't want to face up to the range of possibile reactions your candidate has stirred up, and also because race baiters typically are cowards. Your candidate race baits and race baits and race baits. Shit, compare her campaign to the campaigns McCain and other Republicans. I've heard a hell of a lot less code words coming out of their campaigns than I have from Hillary's. You're damn right I called you all chickens.
And this, what does this even mean, Snark?
Not what you said, but what you implied. What were your other possibilities? ...ostracized, berated... For simply asking a question? Engaging in an intellectual exchange? And the possibilities you saw fit to list for those brave enough to venture to ask a question were ostracized, berated and physically harmed? Reflecting on it, even I'm offended by that remark of yours.
Um, since when is ignoring ignorant remarks -- ostracized -- or talking down to someone -- berated -- non-intellectual or violent responses? If you ask me, ignoring and yelling at someone talking a bunch of racist clap-trap or about a bunch of racist clap-trap such as Ferraro's remarks ARE viable intellectual responses. If that offends your sensibilities, maybe you ought to look at what's in your heart, fear of being ostracized for supporting or defedning Ferraro's racist remarks?
As for your wife's personal response, I could give a rat's ass less what your wife thinks. You still refuse to tell me or us whether she is African-American or was an African-American Studies major or some kind of sociologist or whatever. When asked directly about it, you hem and haw around it.
You know what I think? I think you simply remarked on what your wife thought, but due to the context of the thread, it made it seem like she was African-American, and hence it would carry more weight in this "discussion."
But I don't think you meant to imply she was African-American. Indeed, since it happened, I think you find yourself caught in a bind here, where to come clean and admit your wife is about as African-American as my white ass means you somehow "lose" some moral or intellectual high ground. That's what I think. That's the math I've put together. She may be a member of another minority or ethnicity or somesuch, but she's not African-American. That's what I think about that.
Also, about my remarks that my remarks aren't an issue, that Geraldine's are, I stand by that. No, Snark, my remarks aren't racist, Geraldine's are. She's the issue, and Hillary's campaign is the issue, not me.
About my remarks on liable, YES, you got part of that right:
I understand that Ferraro is a public figure so you can call her a racist without much fear. It's easy to call her a racist. And it's such an affective political tool.
Exactly, I can do that. Of course, it helps that it's also the truth, truth being a defense against liable. Geraldine is a racist wench. On the other hand, it's very far from the truth that I'm a racist, in fact it's a lie. No, I'm not threatening you, I'm trying to point out to you how wrong you are. I'm not uncomfortable with my words.
Look, in the end, the only reliable proof to this -- Geraldine's racist remarks, the racist tone of Hillary's campaign -- is how many African-Americans are voting for Hillary? The answer: Not many, not many at all. 80 to 90 percent of African-Americans are voting for Obama, NOT Hillary. Clearly, the remarks of Obama's supporters, like me, are not the issue here. I, and we, fellow Obama supporters, are not sewing division. Hillary and her racist campaign are sewing division. The proof is in the results of the primaries and caucuses.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 16, 2008 10:44 AMYou're a nut Brian.
Posted by snark at March 17, 2008 06:44 AMAnd you're a rotten liar, Snark.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 17, 2008 05:39 PMWhat have I lied about Brian?
Posted by snark at March 17, 2008 06:46 PM