Much ado about nothing ...

I promise I'll watch it later!

Just watched the Keith O "special commentary" on Hillary and the Ferraro kerfluffle.

What he said.

John, one thing that we both seem to be able to agree on is that all of this is bad for Dems in November.

But let's remember where all this started -- Hillary Clinton. She was the one who decided to go negative. She's the one who decided to divide and conquer and triangulate. She's the one who played the race card in a major way. She's the one actively prising John McCain. She's the one working to divide the party. She's the one "throwing the kitchen sink" at her Dem opponent.

Not entirely sure that I get your minority crime in inner cities analogy.

And I don't agree that Hillary and Geraldine have "devoted" their lives to "tirelessly" working for minority rights and justice. I will admit that I'm not that familliar with GF's work in that area of late. (She's hardly been center stage these past few decades.)

As for Hillary devoting her life to liberal causes, well, Hillary is hardly Liberal. She and Bill are DLCers through and through, which puts them center right on the political scale.

Although I don't know, I strongly suspect that Hillary doesn't see people in terms of race or gender or sexuality. She sees people in terms of votes and cash. "What the fuck can you do for me today?" She's more than happy to throw her support here or there when it works for her. Tomorrow, watch out, because everything may have shifted. As a gay man, I learned that lesson about the Clintons in the 90s.

Again, I think this is horrible for the Dems. But let's not pretend that it didn't start with Hillary. And I didn't say, and don't believe, that the nomination is a "slam dunk" for Obama. I stated that she couldn't win the nomination by "legitimate means." He's got the numbers, but Hillary is doing her best to damage him to the point that either she gets the nomination or he loses the general in Nov. She can still win, but not without it getting even uglier. Sitting on the sidelines at this point is not an option. She's running a nasty, mean campaign and we need to call her on it.

KPed, Great comments today. You sobering up? ; )

John, I would be unenthusiastic about a Clinton run. But let's face it, once the McCain and the Republican machine get going, it probably wouldn't take all that long for me to at least fight for the better cause. Getting a Democrat elected should be the focus of all Democrats. Disappointment comes with the territory. I mean, I started off an Edwards girl. Still am, actually. But I've swallowed that hurt and trying not to get to worked up about the rest. I'm not always succeeding, but it's nice to have a goal.

Allright Bucky, that was fairly reasonable. It's interesting that you said this just now . . .

"I really don't care if the man beating me with a pipe and calling me faggot really and truly hates me because I'm gay or not. I just care that some man is beating me with a pipe and calling me faggot".

That's part and parcel with what old school white reactionaries have always said in response to minority crime in inner cities; that the act is enough to toss them in the garbage, that socialization and circumstances don't matter.

Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro (who just resigned) have devoted their lives to liberal causes including working tirelessly for minority rights and justice. That's why this level of vitriole is so uncalled for in my opinion. Doesn't a lifetime of righteous work mean anything?

I tell you, this is an ugly side of progressives that I have seen lately. It's not my vision of what we should be that's for sure. Yeah, yeah, I know . . Clinton has made many mistakes along the way. Absolutely. But this will be bad for the Democrats come November, you mark my words.

Actually, John, I don't know you at all and have no idea if you are a bigot or not. I was merely pointing out that I wasn't intending to call you a bigot. To borrow some words from that great American patriot, Hillary Clinton, I "don't have any evidence" that you are a bigot and I'll just have to "take you at your word" on the issue.

As for the AA politicians that still support HRC (and they are fewer by the day), I don't think they are stupid or fooled or misguided. I think of them the same way I think of the vast majority of other politicians -- people with huge egos only concerned with what is in their own best interest. As long as they see it in their best interest to support Hillary, they will. The minute they see that change, they will suddenly find a newfound appreciation for all things Obama.

And no, I actually don't throw around the "r" word easily. I hope that people who have been reading my comments on this blog for some time would agree with me on that. But I don't avoid calling someone out on it either. And despite Ferraro's protestations that she isn't racist but just "truth-telling" notwithstanding, she's spouting racist nonsense. Whether she believes it or not is completely irrelevant to me. I really don't care if the man beating me with a pipe and calling me faggot really and truly hates me because I'm gay or not. I just care that some man is beating me with a pipe and calling me faggot.

So all these comments from you that Clinton and Ferraro obviously aren't really racist in their heart of hearts makes no difference to me. They are hitting Obama with their racist attacks. And that is unacceptable.

Thanks Bucky I feel better that you think I am "full of crap" but not a "bigot". You sure throw the "r" word around easily don't you? I suppose you think that all the African-American politicians who support Hillary Clinton are, what? . . . stupid? Easily fooled? Misguided?

BTW, John, that bigot remark in my last comments was directed at Hillary, not you. Just wanted to be clear about that.

I said to wit that Democrats fighting with this much viciousness helps McCain . . . I said a unified Democratic party is important . . . I said Clinton should have dropped out a long time ago, that's my personal belief . . . I never said a handful of Obama supporters on a blog are to blame for anything.

If Clinton had dropped out for the good of the party and effort this wouldn't be occuring would it. I felt that way because her negatives are too high and it would put Democrats in the hole starting out.

I also think that the public disdain and hatred heaped on her by other Democrats i.e. many Obama supporters is wrong headed. Quite logical to me.

The fact that you all make the case that Obama is a slam dunk to win the nomination at this point makes my case. Why if it's a moot point would you continue to blast away at Hillary, in essence pissing off her millions of supporters and taking the chance that many will disengage come general election time? What do you gain by that?

And right you are, Clancy. I'm not too much concerned with diplomacy on this issue. I've been dealing with bigots all my life. Polite doesn't get you very far.

John, I'm calling Hillary a racist, because she is. Unlike you, I don't possess the super-duper ability to see into the hearts and minds of others. I have to look at what they do and say. And I look at Hillary's words and actions and they are those of a racist.

Yes, the Clintons have in the past had support for and from the African-American community. But they seem all to happy to throw us under the bus when it is politically expedient.

Thanks, but I'll pick my friends more carefully next time.

I think that Bucky is merely pointing out--perhaps without much diplomacy--that your logic on this matter has been quite shifty and insufferable. You want unity, but acknowledge that Clinton should no longer be in this campaign. When Clinton's campaign acts inappropriately, it's a handful of Obama supporters on a blog who are to blame for the animosity toward her that naturally develops. How does that make any sense at all?

Bravo Bucky I am full of crap, that's the way to make your case. The fact that you call Hillary Clinton a racist is exactly what I am talking about.

Wow, John E., not sure where t begin with you. Your concern about Obama supporters dividing the party seems oddly misplaced. It was, after all, Hillary who went "negative" and who according to her top adviser, Mark Penn, "was prepared to throw everything including the kitchen sink" at Obama following Super Tuesday. Despite the fact that she had no chance at that point of winning a legitimate contest for the nomination. Clinton is the one who has said, on many, many occasions that McCain is better suited to be president than Obama.

Where is your outrage over that?

So pardon me if I laugh at you and your distress that our comments on this little blog are helping to divide the party and elect John McCain. I wish that my comments, and those of others here, had that sort of influence. The party is being divided by one person: Hillary Clinton. Hillary and her spokespeople -- who have a national audience -- are the place to direct your anger. They are the ones actively working to divide the party. Yet you seem to believe that those of us pointing this out, and fighting back against her and her racism and hate and lies are the problem. I'll suggest you may want to take another look at the situation.

As for the overwhelming percent of the black vote that Obama received in Miss, and elsewhere, you seem to equate this to racism on the part of black voters. Your evidence for this is that Bill Clinton was "much loved" among black voters and was even considered the "first black president." Bill was, in fact, considered to be the "first black president" -- by white people. In the diverse African American community, attitudes about Bill Clinton were rather nuanced. The "much loved" and "first black president" narratives were simply easy narratives for our lazy white press.

And as for the "racism" you keep seeing in the large percentage of black votes for Obama, I would agree -- it is in fact the result of racism. But not on the part of the voters. Racism on the part of Hillary Clinton and her campaign spokespeople. You may recall that in early states, the large majority of black voters went for Hillary. That percentage has steadily declined, in direct correlation to Hillary's increasing racist attacks on Obama. You seem to think that blacks should be supporting Hillary in the same proportion as whites despite the fact that she spews racist hate on a daily basis. Newsflash for you John: blacks aren't actually stupid.

And as for your "Just watch how I am attacked for daring to say this," please John, get down off of your cross. If you are being attacked at all it isn't because you are "daring" or brave, it is because you are full of crap. Which is hardly a daring thing at all.

Joe, Ferraro has repeatedly (over the years) indicated that she believes she only got the VP nod because of her gender . . . sort of implying that she had an unremarkable legislative career. I've never understood the harshness of her self-evaluation on this. She was as qualified, or more so, than many VP picks . . . some of whom went on the become President.

John E., I want to apologize. Seriously. I'm in a foul mood and it's creeping over here. The sarcasm in me is a bit thick today and I'll try to keep it in check for the duration.

I do want to know what your point is though, because this is what confuses me: I hear your call for some form of unity and civility, but am a bit confused as whether you think the cause antagonism and of incivility (esp. in this case) is somehow emanating from Obama's supporters?

I'm all for the candidates playing nice, but it isn't gonna happen, not when both still believe that they can win. Believing this is possible is the very definition of the political naivité you wrote of earlier. And, this is precisely why these incidents upset me so much. If one candidate is engaging in a tactic which is unseemly, are we not permitted to at least point it out?

In a perfect world, this would all be over. But the world isn't perfect, and the Democrats process for nominating its candidate for president is even further from perfection.

John, I'm not good at tracking all the ins and outs of the delegate math but every expert I read, whether it's Chuck Todd or Chris Bowers is giving the tally of popular vote (even if you extend out Florida & Mich); the delegate count and the state count to Obama by large margins. Hillary was up by over 100 super delegates in Feb but has since seen that lead drop to the mid 30's. So Hillary choosing to wait for a Huckabee math miracle here is disingenuous to her supporters and the party at large.

To expand on your point, what the Dems needs is the wise old fart leadership folks to put a stop to this. If the uncommitted super delegates stepped up to the plate now and if they chose to vote to reflect the popular vote & delegates, we could all move on to a measure of strength against our friend McCain. We'd have a larger war chest, we'd cut off the back and forth hate shit and there would be more time to mend the party for the bigger wars coming down the pike. Mmmm, now I'm remembering why I don't get any closer than my screen to politics, I have a tendency to look for too much reason amongst the unreasonable.

I love hypocrisy. Ferraro doesn't see anything wrong with saying that Obama is where he is because he is black, because she is just pointing out "a fact."

I wonder if Ferraro agreed with Chris Matthews statement about Clinton that "the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around."

Seems Matthews got alot a grief about that remark.

Mainsail, thanks for the comments you make many valid points. I think one can legitimately debate all this, Obama vs. Clinton, pick a side, that's the nature of politics. What I question in the context of all this racial back and forth is the smarts of it getting this ugly given it emboldens and aids McCain.

They are basically running even with Obama probably winning the delegate count and the nomination pending Florida, Michigan and Super-Delegates. There is little difference between them on policy. It's time to unite not continue this bashing and vitriole.

Kirsten, you always make sense. Well articulated and I understand your points. The fact that if Hillary won you would support her unenthusiastically is what I am worried about. I think that same liklihood holds true for Clinton supporters backing Obama. With a McCain dead heat; can we afford to lose that many Democrats?

I'm glad you picked up on the sarcasm, John. If being productive is what you're looking for, I got news for you: There's nothing productive about being a concern troll. I would hope that my opinion of your efforts here today were perfectly obvious from the beginning.

Clancy, your sarcastic and caustic tone isn't productive so I'll just say thanks for expressing your point-of-view to me. If you think this is beneficial to keeping McCain out of the White House, go right ahead.

In closing with you, I wonder how many Clinton supporters are going to passionately support Obama in a general election given all this. I have seen this before; the Democrats are their own worst enemy. You wonder why McCain is basically tied with any Democratic candidate in spite of being a war-loving Bush clone? I don't.

What does 90% of African Americans in Mississippi voting for Obama have to do with Ferraro putting her foot in her mouth? If you want to make your point about black people voting for Obama, will you just make it already? So far, your effort to somehow equate an issue with racial implications with an obvious example of racism is tiresome.

No, ever-so-wise John E., you didn't say anyone was an asshole, you just said they were naive for not being 100% behind whatever it is you believe about some event that may or may not happen eight months from now. Those two things are entirely different. I see that now.

John, not being from Mississippi and not wanting to tread on anyone's local toes, I would think that 90% of the Black voters who chose to vote for Obama last night chose to do so for a variety of reasons that they did not see reflected in Hillary and most certainly one of those reasons was that he is black. I'm thinking that just as I wouldn't want to be judged, I'll allow that their votes were based on the wisdom of their personal choice. Perhaps they join you and me in recognizing Hope as a cornerstone of Obama's campaign. That bucket of Hope has got alot of different ingredients in it cause there's alot of different people tossing stuff in.

The Hillary stuff bothers me too. But what makes me nuts is that every time Obama opens a door to talk about the answers to the questions I have, someone from Hillary's corner opens their yap - on Ferraro, take a look at the clip over at TPM, she's been the one who has hit every news show today on it, she's the Fox contributor and she does have a history of making arguably racist remarks; on Obama's ability to answer a red phone, well take a look at the Military Command that endorsed him today, damn impressive; I just wish she would stand up, give her proposals a bit more air time, answer questions and stop tossing sticks of dynamite into the conversation.

I'm sorry if this offends you and I agree that winning in November is imperative. And I think if you take a minute to look at the remarks people make here about Hillary are indeed not bashing but they are given out of frustration because her campaign continues to poke us with a variety of sharp sticks. We all learned from John Kerry's campaign that those sticks can inflict real harm if not taken head on.

Hello again, John E. It's been a while.

I admit yesterday I got hot headed when I read Ferraro's comments. I could not believe a woman I admired as a kid would say such thinly veiled bigoted comments. I still think Hillary should do more to separate herself from such comments. She can't sit there and whine when someone says something mean about her, then get all huffy and defensive when someone says she and her surrogates are equally culpable.
The two things that have turned me off Hillary over the last few months is the fact she seems annoyed that anyone seemed to have the gall to challenge her, then acting like a spoiled teenager when she doesn't get her way. I agree that court appointees are too important to not support any Democrat, but man, I would do it with my nose plugged and with absolute lack of energy. She has poisoned all my goodwill by acting exactly how the Republicans have for years. I wanted her to be better than that.
Believe me when I say that I really want to support her, down to the feminist core of my being. It's just a shame that she really hasn't convinced me that the world could- may- hopefully be better with her in charge.
Race should be talked about. In an upfront manner, with both sides engaged in a discussion. That's not happening when people sound off in the media, using veiled terms and refusing to acknowledge they are talking about race and putting the blame on the other side. Is Obama winning 90% of the AA vote in Mississippi about race? Of course it is. But so is Clinton's domination of white women and Latinos. African Americans are flocking to someone who looks like them, and represents their life. Women ( particularly older women) are doing the same thing. I can't speak to the Latino vote because I think the racism charges on a whole community are bogus, and it might just come down to the fact she's Bill Clinton's wife, and they like Bill.
And it is her right to continue the race, despite the impossibility of her winning. She has clearly decided her own ambition is better than the good of the party. If she was thinking about the party, she wouldn't be pumping up McCain so much ( which is also pretty unforgivable in my book).
I don't hate her. No, hate would be easy. I am disappointed in her. And that crushes my soul more than hate would.
I think I'm now done my ridiculous rambling ( I'm sure none of this even makes sense...)
Cheers to you!

I didn't call anyone an asshole, do we need to resort to that? It's truly amazing to me how unwilling"progressives" are at allowing any other points-of-view to be expressed. I am ignoring nothing, that is my point. Race should be able to be talked about in the context of a campaign without accusing someone of racism.

Now please answer this question. Why did 90% + of African-Americans vote for Barack Obama yesterday in Mississipp? I want to know your answer. Does it have nothing to do with race?

FYI - I thought Clinton should have resigned from this race months ago for the good of Democrats everywhere. She believes she will be a better president and won't drop out. That's her right. I voted for and support Obama.

It's positively amazing that you're so very concerned about how some react to pure bullshit, John E., yet you seem perfectly comfortable to ignore the bullshit in the first place.

Clinton can't win the nomination, it's mathematically impossible. Is she gracious in defeat? No. She continues on, trashing her party's presumed nominee. Yet, we're the assholes for pointing it out?

What's the point in me making the same point over and over again and having it ignored over and over again. Hate Hillary, I don't care but as a Democrat keep it to a low roar and go vote privately. What on earth is to be gained by this loud and vicious public "Hillary hatred" on the part of Democrats? Do you think it's helping put a Democrat in the White House?

The political naivité is stunning to me.

John E, isn't just a wee bit possible that Clinton brought "Hillary hatred" on herself by acting in a despicable manner? When all current evidence points to the contrary, her reputation should only buy her so many passes.

Of course and Hillary Clinton was a supporter of her husband and his policies in case no one has noticed. Not to mention her track record supporting causes and issues near and dear to the hearts of minorities. She was immensely popular in the African-American community and now she isn't. To not talk about why that is the case is absurd.

My main point in all this is to point out the obvious downside to this Hillary hatred on the part of Democrats and how that is only contributing to McCain's chances.

I support Barack Obama because I think he has a better chance of winning. That's all that should matter.

No one was more popular in the African-American community (Bill) yet they have deserted her(Hillary) in droves.
That part of your comment makes no sense at all John E. Who is being(re)elected this time around? Why should ANYONE(let alone african-americans)be loyal to Hillary because her husband was perceived as being good to them? Shouldn't she be elected on her own merits and her own strenghts?

I rest my case. Have at me and enjoy the thought of assisting McCain and the GOP win the White House. Does anyone really think Obama and/or Clinton supporters are going to enthusiastically support the other after all this?

When President McCain is attacking Iran and appointing two more Scalia's to the Supreme Court I'm sure no one will take any responsibility for any of this.

I didn't say that a liberal can't be a racist. I am saying that Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro are not. That is my opinion and millions of other progressive Democrats based on their years of outstanding work in the civil rights arena. That is a fact, unlike the non-factual conjecture and vitriole we are seeing in this campaign. On both sides.

There was a reason that Bill Clinton was referred to as "our first Black president". No one was more popular in the African-American community yet they have deserted her in droves. Slinging the r word at anyone who cares to address that is wrong.

Just watch how I am attacked for daring to say this.

Well put, Clancy, as usual. Although I will disagree on one point -- that we "must at least acknowledge the difference between acting racist and being a racist." Nice words, Clancy, but when you are on the receiving end of an angry fist, the difference between being and acting really doesn't matter one little bit.

I don't personally know Ms. Clinton or Ms. Ferraro. I don't run in such lofty circles. There is a very good chance that in their personal interactions, they harbor no racist intent at all. I don't know, and, John E. I don't really give a fuck about that.

What I do know is that they are both more than willing to engage in overt racism to try to win an election. Which makes them bigots. If in fact this is something that they don't personally believe but just something they are willing to unleash when they need it, how much more disgusting they both are.

If I'm writing more than ten words, I really should get an editor. As is, I'm a little too stream of consciousness. It just kills me sometimes when I read them after they go up. I failed to include a line about knowing many liberals who say or do racist things (hopefully it was adequately implied).

One need not BE a racist to demonstrate racist INTENT or seek to stoke racism into a political campaign if saying something as outrageous as Ferraro uttered publicly, achieves the desired effect. This one certainly has. The race card is on the table people..

ClancyPants, Very well put. I wish I'd said it. But when I'm at work, I have no time to use what's left of my brain.

We must at least acknowledge the difference between acting racist and being a racist. Any one who claims that "liberals" can't be racist, or more precisely, act with racist intent, is delusional or willfully ignorant.

I am a liberal and have associated with many who are the same. One doesn't have to have a flag with a swastika on it in their closet to act in a racist manner, especially in America. Racism isn't always overt. It's most insidious when it is utilized subtly. This being the case, saying racist things does not make someone a member of the klan, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be called on it. This is doubly the case for someone who dedicated their life's work to progressive causes, including racial equality.

One doesn't have to be a kool-aid drinker to think so either.

Mainsail,

They divided it into 2 (jump to next page) and added a link.

I'm guessing it was BNF, but I wish they'd notified me.

Sorry, I am not drinking the kool-aid here and I am an Obama supporter. Go ahead and stick pins in me, I can handle it.

The only master this anti-Hillary garbage serves is McCain and the GOP. Those of you that think that Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro, two liberal Democrats who have devoted their careers in large part to racial equality and the needs of the less fortunate among are racists are so far out-of-line it's mind boggling.

Perhaps you want to address why Barack Obama won 90% + of the African-American vote in the Mississippi primary yesterday. You think that the fact he is African-American had nothing to do with it? Why are African-Americans voting for Obama in numbers so dissproportionate to other voting blocks?

Come on people. It's ok to talk about race in a real way.

In light of all this, I am at a loss as to why Clinton still has strong Hispanic support. Do the Hispanics believe that this racist babble would not apply to them? I also noticed that Congresswoman Tubbs has suddenly disappeared.

where?

For the record, someone edited my post, and it wasn't me.

Is this thing for real? Does Ferraro/Clinton really think that she can bring up race, completely deny the facts of racism in the country, then turn around and act as if it was Obama who brought up the subject of race in the first place when he calls her on it? I don't even think the vaunted members of the US press corps are stupid enough to fall for this one. Are they?

This is a very risky strategy... For all this can be turned on Hillary and she'll never be able to recover with the Blacks in a general election... She always has been polarizing... and this is going to take it even deeper... and then the super delegates will believe what they have thought for a long time -- if we want to win the W.H. in November, we have to go now with Obama... No recovery for Hillary even if they gave her the nomination. d.

Ferraro's tactic to brew this down to asking people to vote for sexism or racism is the ultimate strawman It's not too far fetched to see this argument catching fire beyond even the Dem party. From Bill the first black president's wife ...what a convoluted sickness they are asking us to participate in.

Maybe they are just trying to create an illusion that the Obama campaign is weak since their person (Samantha Power) was easily pressured to resign over an off the cuff comment.
Then again, it could just be an instance of IOKIYAC.

And I keep waiting for some Dem leaders (where are you Howard???) to step in and call her on her racism. ::crickets chirping::

I'm waiting ...