• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Republicans in disarray!

Americans barely caring about Afghanistan is so last month.

Tick tock motherfuckers!

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.

A last alliance of elves and men. also pet photos.

Infrastructure week. at last.

“But what about the lurkers?”

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

The words do not have to be perfect.

The GOP couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse with a fist full of 50s.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

When someone says they “love freedom”, rest assured they don’t mean yours.

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

John Fetterman: Too Manly for Pennsylvania.  Paid for by the Oz for Senator campaign.

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Past Elections / Election 2008 / Just Make It Stop

Just Make It Stop

by John Cole|  March 12, 20087:56 am| 203 Comments

This post is in: Election 2008, Democratic Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

Can allegedly smart people stop making racist and stupid comments? Pretty please? I am talking to you, Geraldine Ferraro:

In an interview with the Breeze, Ferraro said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

Yes. It appears that the legacy of slavery and years of segregation, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, anti-miscegenation laws, have all worked to propel black men to the Presidency. That is why we have had so many black Presidents. Basically, we have made it too easy for a black man to become President, because they can just glide to the Presidency. Something needs to be done to help the whte man out, since it has been so long since we have had a white President.

Seriously, though, I don’t know what she is trying to say, what she is thinking, or even if she is thinking. However, this is not the first time she has said something like this:

Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don’t ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his “radical” views, “if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.”

Kevin Drum begged people yesterday to stop accusing the Clinton campaign of racism. I think that is a fair request, provided they stop making racist and crypto-racist statements, and they do something about Geraldine Ferraro. If Samantha Power had to step down for calling Hillary a monster, I think there is MORE than enough reason for Hilary to dissociate herself from Ferraro.

Of course we all know she won’t. Call it the Clinton Rules.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Who Are We To Judge?
Next Post: The Veep Stakes »

Reader Interactions

203Comments

  1. 1.

    jj

    March 12, 2008 at 8:00 am

    “Reject and denounce”.

    I think those were the words Hillary used.

  2. 2.

    Wilfred

    March 12, 2008 at 8:01 am

    Of course we all know she won’t. Call it the Clinton Rules

    Just make sure you vote for her anyway, John.

  3. 3.

    chopper

    March 12, 2008 at 8:09 am

    if it’s a calculated appeal to the denizens of pennsyltucky, i’m not sure how effective it’ll be. now if clinton remade helms’s ‘hands’ ad, that would at least be straightforward. sheesh.

    i understand that clinton is trying to paint obama as some ‘flash in the pan’ guy who’ll never make it to the convention (hence the comparison by bill to jackson) but methinks its a wee bit late for that kind of comparison. before super tuesday, maybe.

    either that or this is the most retarded after-the-fact excuse yet for a loss in a primary. maybe this is the clinton campaign’s home-brewed excuse for losing mississippi. god knows the ‘states i lose don’t count’ meme was a dud from the start.

    the funniest bit of all is ferraro’s defense. ‘quit yelling at me, you’re just doing that cause i’m white’. yeah, dig deeper. that’s totally gonna work.

  4. 4.

    MBL

    March 12, 2008 at 8:15 am

    It’s made all the more entertainingly ridiculous because it’s coming from Geraldine Ferraro, likely the most clear example of Presidential campaign tokenism in my lifetime. Has Ferraro done ANYTHING of consequence since receiving one of the worst electoral college beatings of all time?

  5. 5.

    Hawise

    March 12, 2008 at 8:22 am

    I’m just amazed that Clinton can keep campaigning with the headache that she must have from all the head/desk moments that some of her purported supporters keep giving her. I really want to believe that they are just sleeper cells planted by the Obama campaign to torpedo her but I know that that is just wishful thinking.

  6. 6.

    TheFountainHead

    March 12, 2008 at 8:27 am

    See, it was all fun and games, but now this has to stop, and quickly. This doesn’t make anyone look good or feel good, and six more weeks of this WILL damage the chances of having a Democrat in the White House in 2009. If you can’t see that, you don’t have an eye on politics, let alone two. It’s not just bad because it makes us look like racists (something we’ll likely be accusing the Right Wingers of in the Fall) but it’s bad because it derails the discourse from Democratic talking points to Republican ones. Trust me, John McCain will be happy to let us spend the next two months talking about whether Obama is here because he’s black.

  7. 7.

    Original Lee

    March 12, 2008 at 8:29 am

    On Morning Joe this morning, Joe was saying that Clinton is aiming to appeal to the Reagan Democrats and the blue-collar whites who voted to Wallace. She can’t “reject and denounce” because that would be too PC for that demographic; similarly, she can’t ask Ferraro to step away from the campaign, because that would be too PC. She did reject the Ferraro’s comments, though. I am unclear as to whether or not Ferraro is a part of the Clinton campaign – she’s on the Finance Committee or something, right?

  8. 8.

    chopper

    March 12, 2008 at 8:30 am

    It’s made all the more entertainingly ridiculous because it’s coming from Geraldine Ferraro, likely the most clear example of Presidential campaign tokenism in my lifetime.

    MBL FTW.

  9. 9.

    Pb

    March 12, 2008 at 8:35 am

    It’s made all the more entertainingly ridiculous because it’s coming from Geraldine Ferraro, likely the most clear example of Presidential campaign tokenism in my lifetime.

    …which she in fact admitted:

    I am the first person who will say in 1984 if my name were Gerard instead of Geraldine, I would never have been picked as the vice presidential candidate.

  10. 10.

    myiq2xu

    March 12, 2008 at 8:38 am

    if it’s a calculated appeal to the denizens of pennsyltucky, i’m not sure how effective it’ll be.

    “Geraldine! Go out to California and give an interview with an local LA paper and say some ignorant racist shit. It’s calculated to help us win the coal miner vote.”

  11. 11.

    Fe E

    March 12, 2008 at 8:38 am

    MBL FTW.

    What does that again?

    Thanks in advance for your help!

  12. 12.

    Fe E

    March 12, 2008 at 8:38 am

    MBL FTW.

    What does that mean again?

    Thanks in advance for your help!

  13. 13.

    Kevin K.

    March 12, 2008 at 8:41 am

    Ferraro drove her trainwreck onto the set of Good Morning America this morning. She’s really spinning out of control. Diane Sawyer looked like she was trying to talk her off a ledge.

    And John, I’ve made the same mistake before: it’s Samantha Power.

  14. 14.

    jprice vincenz

    March 12, 2008 at 8:42 am

    Could you source the second quote–the earlier one from Ferrarro about Jackson?

  15. 15.

    jprice vincenz

    March 12, 2008 at 8:42 am

    Could you source the second quote–the earlier one from Ferrarro about Jackson?

  16. 16.

    chopper

    March 12, 2008 at 8:44 am

    “Geraldine! Go out to California and give an interview with an local LA paper and say some ignorant racist shit. It’s calculated to help us win the coal miner vote.”

    nobody ever said clinton’s campaign was gonna do this shit right, myiq.

  17. 17.

    chopper

    March 12, 2008 at 8:51 am

    Could you source the second quote—the earlier one from Ferrarro about Jackson?

    washington post, 4/15/1988 (byline: Howard Kurtz).

  18. 18.

    p.lukasiak

    March 12, 2008 at 8:55 am

    yeah, if Obama was white, he’d still be getting 92% of the black vote in Mississippi!

    I mean, can we get serious here for a moment? Obama is where he is because black voters have voted overwhelmingly for him. Even before the whole “race-baiting” controversy, he was getting 69% of the black vote in South Carolina (and wound up with 78% of the black vote). Black voters didn’t just leave Clinton for another candidate — even though Edwards won a pluraily of the black vote in 2004 (with 37%), when they switched from Clinton, they went straight to Obama–Edwards wound up with only 3% of the black vote in South Carolina.

  19. 19.

    maxbaer (not the original)

    March 12, 2008 at 8:57 am

    When I think of Ferraro, the first things that come to mind are the crooked husband and the dope dealer son. But, that’s only because she’s white.

  20. 20.

    MBL

    March 12, 2008 at 8:58 am

    Curious, to hear a Democrat complain about other Democrats getting too many black votes.

  21. 21.

    chopper

    March 12, 2008 at 9:01 am

    Obama is where he is because black voters have voted overwhelmingly for him.

    exactly why he won iowa.

  22. 22.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 12, 2008 at 9:03 am

    What does that mean again?

    MBL is the poster. FTW means “for the win.”

  23. 23.

    Mr Furious

    March 12, 2008 at 9:05 am

    Yeah, P Luk, because that worked out so well for Sharpton last time out…

    Obama is where he is because he is striking a chord with a lot more than black voters. He has won just about every category of voter except old white women over the course of the race.

    He is where he is because he is a phenomenal speaker, and an inspiring candidate. At time being black helps him, but it ridiculous to think that on balance that is a net gain.

  24. 24.

    4tehlulz

    March 12, 2008 at 9:08 am

    You know, if we don’t count those pesky blacks, Hillary won the nomination.

    /p.luk

  25. 25.

    vishnu schizt

    March 12, 2008 at 9:10 am

    I mean, can we get serious here for a moment?

    Yes let’s get serious for a moment. Seriously, there is no way Billary can win unless she gets 65% or greater margins from here on out. So being serious, let’s admit that is not going to happen. Seriously, the only reason Billary is still campaigning, is so Billary can still be campaigning, and just maybe she can lawsuit, race bait, and bloody Obama as much as possible her way to a brokered convention. And in a serious convention, erase the popular vote, erase the primary system, and have some coronation via proxy. And if so all dems better get some serious shit to keep from vomiting when they pull the lever for her. And then get a serious supply of some serious shit to deal with the next four years.

  26. 26.

    Snail

    March 12, 2008 at 9:11 am

    What would happen if someone from the Obama campaign came out and said, “The only reason Hillary is in the race is because she used to be married to the president?” Outrage!

    And would Clinton be doing in the older white woman vote if she were not, in fact, an older white woman?

  27. 27.

    jj

    March 12, 2008 at 9:15 am

    exactly why he won iowa.

    And don’t forget about those other strongholds of the African-American electorate Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, Alaska, Minnesota and that most chocolatey of chocolate states UTAH…oh, wait

    Of course, P.luk’s remarks don’t surprise me.

    This is the guy who thinks the Republicans could run Michael Steele for Vice Prez as a means to nullify the overwhelming preference amongst African-American voters for Obama.

    Pure lunacy.

  28. 28.

    4tehlulz

    March 12, 2008 at 9:15 am

    >>Billary

    fail

  29. 29.

    myiq2xu

    March 12, 2008 at 9:16 am

    Yes let’s get serious for a moment.

    A good rant should contain more profanity and some ALLCAPS (unless using the no-caps mode) and should be at least 2-3 times longer.

  30. 30.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 9:17 am

    You know, if we don’t count those pesky blacks,

    I thought the term was “uppity.”

  31. 31.

    Evinfuilt

    March 12, 2008 at 9:18 am

    I kept telling myself that if Clinton won I’d still vote for her, just to keep McCain out.

    But at this point, there is no doubt that she is a racist, ant-gay bigot. She is not accidentally doing this over and over and over again, these people are not out of her hands, this is her doing. I will abstain, I would no sooner vote for Strom Thurmond than Hillary Clinton.

    That she stands by and defends this women after commenting like this twice says more than enough. I have ethics to uphold, and they’re more important than party unity. So for me, as of today, its Obama or abstain.

  32. 32.

    myiq2xu

    March 12, 2008 at 9:19 am

    Pure lunacy.

    What do you expect from us moonbats?

  33. 33.

    TheFountainHead

    March 12, 2008 at 9:20 am

    A good rant should contain more profanity and some ALLCAPS (unless using the no-caps mode) and should be at least 2-3 times longer.

    Unless it’s not a rant, and more like a statement of reality.

  34. 34.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 12, 2008 at 9:21 am

    Should Clinton contrive to steal the nomination, is she really arrogant enough to believe that blacks will simply forget this shit and vote for her anyway?

    Dems typically run to the left in the primaries and then move to the right in the general election. If the crap coming out of the Clinton campaign so far is any indicator, the “D” beside her name will become largely symbolic.

  35. 35.

    myiq2xu

    March 12, 2008 at 9:21 am

    Evinfuilt Says:

    Shorter Evinfuilt: I Wolcott!

  36. 36.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 9:22 am

    Also, idiots (you know who you are), please note that African Americans are about 13% of the US population. I looked it up on the computer Webs, so I know it’s true.

    It’s REMARKABLE how that 13% is totally pwning this election ZOMG!!!1LOL!1!uno

  37. 37.

    jj

    March 12, 2008 at 9:22 am

    What do you expect from us moonbats?

    I don’t think you are moonbats, I think you are well meaning people who backed the wrong horse.

    No big deal, it happens to everybody.

    Shit, Eliot Spitzer was one of my favorite pols until Monday.

  38. 38.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 9:23 am

    Shorter Evinfuilt: I Wolcott!

    Wolcott voted for Hillary.

    You’re a step slow today, myiq

  39. 39.

    myiq2xu

    March 12, 2008 at 9:25 am

    Unless it’s not a rant, and more like a statement of reality.

    Reality is for people who can’t handle blogs.

  40. 40.

    myiq2xu

    March 12, 2008 at 9:28 am

    You’re a step slow today, myiq

    No, you’re two days late.

  41. 41.

    myiq2xu

    March 12, 2008 at 9:30 am

    No, you’re two days late.

    Make that three. I seem to have lost a day somewhere.

  42. 42.

    TheFountainHead

    March 12, 2008 at 9:32 am

    A few more thoughts..

    1. If you’re a black person and you support Obama, could you support Hillary in a general election if she somehow wrangles it away from Obama?

    2. Can a Democrat win a general election in this country without enthusiastic support from the black population?

    3. Can these comments, superficially an issue of racism between whites and blacks, fester and hurt Hillary with other minority groups who have long seen underrepresentation in American politics, possibly even women??

    I don’t know the answers, but I think this is a “real” thing and if it gets traction in the media, these are the questions the Superdelegates are going to have to answer for themselves.

  43. 43.

    Jake

    March 12, 2008 at 9:35 am

    Bu-but, Samantha Powers called Hillary a monster! And anyway it would be sexist to fire Ms. Ferraro … um.

    Bwahahaha!

    Maybe I’d be more willing to overlook this if I liked clowns, but clowns scare me.

  44. 44.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 9:36 am

    No, you’re two days late.

    No, you either didn’t bother to read the piece or you misunderstood it. John was being crafty in burying the actual point of Wolcott’s column, which was, “Obamabots are too emo.” He still supports Hillary.

  45. 45.

    myiq2xu

    March 12, 2008 at 9:39 am

    No, you either didn’t bother to read the piece or you misunderstood it. John was being crafty in burying the actual point of Wolcott’s column, which was, “Obamabots are too emo.”

    Read the comment thread.

  46. 46.

    Jake

    March 12, 2008 at 9:39 am

    “My concern has been over how I’ve been treated as well and hurt, absolutely hurt by how they have taken this thing and spun it to imply that in any way, any way I am racist,” she said.

    Butya AAHR! Ya AAAHR, in the CHAAR Blanche!

  47. 47.

    tBone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:43 am

    I mean, can we get serious here for a moment? Obama is where he is because black voters have voted overwhelmingly for him.

    Good point, p.luk. Obviously the overwhelming black vote in states like Vermont, Wisconsin, Utah, Connecticut, Wyoming, Washington, Nebraska, Minnesota, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Maine, and Iowa gave Obama the edge.

    I’m glad we could have this serious moment.

  48. 48.

    PK

    March 12, 2008 at 9:44 am

    I was looking at yesterdays primary results and what struck me most was that more than a 100,000 republicans showed up to vote despite knowing that McCain had already won the nomination. What the hell is wrong with these people? Don’t have anything better to do?
    Secondly, the only reason why Hillary is still in the race is because the media is portraying it as if she still a chance of being the nominee. Realistically she has no chance even if she wins Pennsylvania, so why is the media behaving as if Pennsylvania is going to make or break this thing. Obama has to start emphasizing the fact that he has won the nomination. Otherwise he is going to go down like Gore-he will win the popular vote and delegates, but the Supreme court i.e. the super delegates will hand it to Hillary.

  49. 49.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 9:45 am

    Read the comment thread.

    Id id. Iw as there at the time. If you have a point, make it, because AFAIC, you’re bass-ackwards on this point.

  50. 50.

    tballou

    March 12, 2008 at 9:45 am

    John – don’t you think it is a bit over the top to call Ferraro’s remarks “racist”? I think we are getting way too sensitive to any discussion of race if this kind of stuff is considered racist. Lets try to limit that label to the real deal, of which there is plenty in everyday life.

  51. 51.

    w vincentz

    March 12, 2008 at 9:45 am

    As a black person trapped in a white body, I’ll state that I’ll vote for any Native American presidential candidate, whenever there is one. provided his/her veep has a Hebrew ancestry.

  52. 52.

    Pb

    March 12, 2008 at 9:46 am

    1. If you’re a black person and you support Obama, could you support Hillary in a general election if she somehow wrangles it away from Obama?

    2. Can a Democrat win a general election in this country without enthusiastic support from the black population?

    3. Can these comments, superficially an issue of racism between whites and blacks, fester and hurt Hillary with other minority groups

    Fixed; No, No, and Yes; SA2SQ.

  53. 53.

    joe

    March 12, 2008 at 9:47 am

    yeah, if Obama was white, he’d still be getting 92% of the black vote in Mississippi!

    Yeah, if Obama was white, he’d still only be getting 27% of the white vote in Mississippi.

    They just really love them some Hillary Clinton in Mississippi. That’s it, exactly.

  54. 54.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 9:48 am

    I was looking at yesterdays primary results and what struck me most was that more than a 100,000 republicans showed up to vote despite knowing that McCain had already won the nomination. What the hell is wrong with these people? Don’t have anything better to do?

    Supposedly (and I really DO mean “supposedly”), they voted 75-25% for Clinton. yes, the dreaded “Limbaugh Effect.”

  55. 55.

    myiq2xu

    March 12, 2008 at 9:49 am

    Id id. Iw as there at the time. If you have a point, make it, because AFAIC, you’re bass-ackwards on this point.

    myiq2xu Says:

    At least now we have a term for those long, pious posts we see every day describing how that particular commenter, after deep and thorough introspection, has reached the conclusion that he or she, in good faith and with all the liberal/progressive/Democratic best intentions, cannot possibly ever cast a vote for that vile shrieking monster witch harridan bitch whore woman Hillary Clinton.

    “Wolcotting”

    March 9th, 2008 at 11:12 pm

  56. 56.

    tBone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:50 am

    John – don’t you think it is a bit over the top to call Ferraro’s remarks “racist”?

    If a highly-placed Obama supporter said that Clinton had only made it to where she is because she has a vagina, would that be sexist?

  57. 57.

    myiq2xu

    March 12, 2008 at 9:53 am

    If a highly-placed Obama supporter said that Clinton had only made it to where she is because she has a vagina, would that be sexist?

    The not-so-highly placed Obama supporters around here don’t think it’s sexist to say stuff like that.

  58. 58.

    Evinfuilt

    March 12, 2008 at 9:54 am

    myiq2xu, is it wrong to not vote for a racist? I’m sorry, but how many times has Hillary people made clearly racist remarks. Now you have someone in her campaign even admitting it was racist, and yet Hillary defends it.

    How could you vote for that? I guess, with Hillary supporters its just like Hillary, its all about power. But now we know its a specific power. And Negro’s need not apply.

    Gays/Lesbians are still second class citizens to Clinton.

    Why should someone have to vote for that? Why should someone have to believe that it was all an honest mistakes, that happens over and over and over again.

    Now, at least Hillary has come clear and defended it. If you don’t see this as cut and dry as it is, you’re blinded. This women is racist, and Hillary supports her, as she has supported all the other racists in her campaign.

    But what do I have to worry about.

    Obama has the Popular Vote, won more states and won more delegates. I guess being married to a president means you get to keep running after you lost.

  59. 59.

    libarbarian

    March 12, 2008 at 9:55 am

    “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

    She’s right.

    If he were white he’d have this thing won by now.

  60. 60.

    grey_hawk

    March 12, 2008 at 9:56 am

    yeah, if Obama was white, he’d still be getting 92% of the black vote in Mississippi!

    I mean, can we get serious here for a moment? Obama is where he is because black voters have voted overwhelmingly for him. Even before the whole “race-baiting” controversy, he was getting 69% of the black vote in South Carolina (and wound up with 78% of the black vote). Black voters didn’t just leave Clinton for another candidate—even though Edwards won a pluraily of the black vote in 2004 (with 37%), when they switched from Clinton, they went straight to Obama—Edwards wound up with only 3% of the black vote in South Carolina.

    lukasiak, if you’re wanting to “Get Real” (aka, boil down all preferences in politics to ingroup identity politics), Clinton wouldn’t be doing as well among women if she wasn’t a woman. She wouldn’t be doing as well among whites if she wasn’t white. Her margins there have often been very disproportionate, and I know and have read of plenty of women who have decided for Hillary because she’s a woman. People make a big deal about the disparity for blacks but the disparities on the white side are high as well. Why is “racial identity” such a problem when blacks “do it” but no one cares when whites do?

    For Pete’s sake, in Ohio people who decided because of the race of their candidate favored Clinton heavily. Let’s cheer for that little stat and its implications. Check out the radical racial skew whites had for Clinton in Mississippi if you’re going to harp on the African Americans being “prejudiced” by their racial bias.

    The same rationale that indicts Obama and his supporters for favoring “one of their own” cuts against Hillary as well, while also ignoring the large number of whites and women who must find something not identity based to decide to favor Obama for as well. And its demeaning in the extreme. That’s why no one should be espousing this kind of logic, as it cuts both ways and serves little logical purpose.

    African Americans are such a small percentage of the electorate it’s ridiculous to claim he’s only where he is because of African American support.

    Lots of white Democratic candidates have done exceedingly well among African Americans in the primaries and especially in the general.

    Is there some preference among African Americans going to Obama because of his race? Sure. Just as there are gender and race preferences going to Hillary for no (or virtually no) other reason than gender or race. But it’s completely stupid to act like that’s “the whole reason” or some kind of “decisive factor”. And what about that monloithic AA bloc in places like Iowa, Alaska, Wyoming, and Wisconsin?

    If anyone was serious about “getting serious” they’d recall the abysmal fates of candidates such as Sharpton, Jackson, or Carol Mosley Braun, or African Americans in national politics in general (how many African American Congressmen/women or Presidents have we had?) and put a cork in it before they even uttered their loony, race baiting, poor-put-upon-whites white victimology spiel.

    The main reason for most (or virtually all) people supporting either Obama or Hillary arise from legitimate points such as policies, personality, character, etc. Race or gender are just icing on the cake then, or else you’d have seen other black pols fare similarly even though they had much different positions and character/personality traits than Obama.

    You’ve got some people on the fringes, I’m sure, going for who they do based solely on identity, but dwelling on them serves no point unless people want to serve as a collectivist ingroup demagoguing on persecution by some outgroup. And if Obama would be nowhere or getting his clock cleaned if he were white (he has no other positives but his race, evidently?) Hillary would be nowhere if she weren’t a woman, or white.

  61. 61.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:57 am

    The Clanton campaign’s posture is going to be that it is Obama that is introducing race into the dialogue by complaining about Ferraro’s remarks.

    You guys can think what you want, but based on what I have seen in the last two months, I’d be a fool not to believe that this whole dustup is contrived by the Clintons as a wa to introduce race into the campaign, appear to be blameless, and then try to make it look like Obama is the one trying to make race an issue. They think this is a win win for them, that no matter how you spin it, it helps them in Pennsylvania.

    AFAIC this absolutely puts Clinton on the same level as Karl Rove. Not Bush, but Rove. As for Ferraro, she is a piece of work.

    This is what really well crafted Ends Justify Means politics looks like.

    By the way, I’m still really warm and fuzzy over the front page post yesterday suggesting that we ought to go easy on Hillary Clinton. I think you guys outdid yourselves on that one, a little too cute by half. There is no limit to the mountain of shit that this woman deserves to have dumped on her head at this time. There isn’t enough shit in the world or a truck big enough to haul it over there.

  62. 62.

    Z

    March 12, 2008 at 10:02 am

    Evinfuilt,

    Come on. She isn’t a bigot and she isn’t anti-gay. Ferraro is a bigot, but that doesn’t mean Hillary is. As for the anti-gay thing, that isn’t true either. The Clinton’s always have and always will chose political expediency over the best interests of gay people. That doesn’t mean they hate gays. Conservative Republicans hate gays (even the ones who are having guilty sex with them). Let’s not forget who the REAL anti-gay people are, and let’s not forget how anxious McCain is to pander to these people.

  63. 63.

    myiq2xu

    March 12, 2008 at 10:03 am

    Hillary defends it.

    When/where did Hillary “defend” those comments?

    She stated unequivocally she did not agree with what Ferraro said.

  64. 64.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 10:04 am

    At least now we have a term for those long, pious posts we see every day describing how that particular commenter, after deep and thorough introspection, has reached the conclusion that he or she, in good faith and with all the liberal/progressive/Democratic best intentions, cannot possibly ever cast a vote for that vile shrieking monster witch harridan bitch whore woman Hillary Clinton.

    “Wolcotting”

    Ah! I see. You’re quoting yourself. No wonder I didn’t get what you were talking about. Except, again, you got it completely backwards – Wolcott said Obamabots were being irrational, and John agreed that Hillary wasn’t as bad as she was made out to be. So someone “Wolcotting” would be someone denouncing the over-complaining about Hillary.

    Sorry, but your application for term-coinage has been denied.

  65. 65.

    myiq2xu

    March 12, 2008 at 10:04 am

    Gays/Lesbians are still second class citizens to Clinton.

    Where did this come from?

  66. 66.

    Pug

    March 12, 2008 at 10:04 am

    Obama is where he is because black voters have voted overwhelmingly for him.

    exactly why he won iowa.

    As well as Wyoming, Utah, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maine, Washington, Vermont and Kansas. Nice logic there, Clintonistas.

  67. 67.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 10:05 am

    Evinfuilt Says:
    myiq2xu, is it wrong to not vote for a racist? I’m sorry, but how many times has Hillary people made clearly racist remarks. Now you have someone in her campaign even admitting it was racist, and yet Hillary defends it.

    p.luk will be along any minute to explain to you that OBAMA is the racist. It’ll all be very clear then…

  68. 68.

    tBone

    March 12, 2008 at 10:07 am

    The not-so-highly placed Obama supporters around here don’t think it’s sexist to say stuff like that.

    Shorter myiq: “You’re all misogynists! And I’ll support the vilest calumny if it means Hillary can win.”

  69. 69.

    myiq2xu

    March 12, 2008 at 10:07 am

    Sorry, but your application for term-coinage has been denied.

    Who died and made you the boss?

  70. 70.

    Pug

    March 12, 2008 at 10:10 am

    Let’s be honest about the real problem for Hillary supporters. Many of them, like Ferrarro, are absolutely furious that this upstart had the temerity to challenge Hillary Clinton. After all, it is her turn, not his, and she deserves it after all she’s been through.

    She is entitled to the nomination of the Democratic Party because she has earned it. Never mind the voting part, she has earned it and now it looks like “they” might take it away from her and they are just so pissed.

  71. 71.

    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford

    March 12, 2008 at 10:11 am

    p.lukasiak Says:

    yeah, if Obama was white, he’d still be getting 92% of the black vote in Mississippi!

    I mean, can we get serious here for a moment? Obama is where he is because black voters have voted overwhelmingly for him…

    March 12th, 2008 at 8:55 am

    Where would Hillary Clinton be without the overwhelming, monolithic support of old white women and young lesbians?

  72. 72.

    myiq2xu

    March 12, 2008 at 10:13 am

    And I’ll support the vilest calumny if it means Hillary can win.”

    I am firmly opposed to vile calumny.

    I support scurrilous slander, nasty innuendo and disgusting defamation.

  73. 73.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 10:15 am

    Who died and made you the boss?

    That’s pretty much what I was asking you. The attempt to coin a term from your own post takes your solipsism to a new level. That the term makes no sense whatsoever brings into question your rationalism.

    You gotta admit – that’s some -isms.

  74. 74.

    tBone

    March 12, 2008 at 10:19 am

    I support scurrilous slander, nasty innuendo and disgusting defamation.

    Hey, look, the first honest thing you’ve said in this thread.

  75. 75.

    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford

    March 12, 2008 at 10:19 am

    myiq2xu Says:

    And I’ll support the vilest calumny if it means Hillary can win.”

    I am firmly opposed to vile calumny.

    I support scurrilous slander, nasty innuendo and disgusting defamation.

    March 12th, 2008 at 10:13 am

    Jibbety jibbety jibbety, rat-a-tat-tat.

  76. 76.

    J. Michael Neal

    March 12, 2008 at 10:19 am

    It’s over. Let’s assume that Clinton only needs to get within 100 pledged delegates of Obama to be able to pick up enough superdelegates to get her the nomination.* Let’s assume that Michigan and Florida hold revotes.** Those two assumptions mean that Clinton needs to win 53% of the remaining pledged delegates in order to close the gap to 100. Not catch Obama, mind you. To get within 100.

    Now, let’s assume that the delegates in North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota are split evenly.*** That pushes the proportion of delegates that Clinton needs to get in all of the other primaries to 55%. The only states where she has won at least 55% of the delegates are Arizona, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Tennessee.

    In order to get within 100 pledged delegates of Obama, Clinton needs to win by New York-like margins in Pennsylvania and Florida. If she doesn’t get 60% of the vote, she doesn’t pick up enough delegates to make it even to the lesser goal of being within 100.

    *I suspect that she needs to get it significantly closer than that.

    **I’m not as confident that these bozos will manage to figure out how to do that as I was three days ago.

    ***I think that Obama will do significantly better than that.

  77. 77.

    Z

    March 12, 2008 at 10:20 am

    As a white woman, based on identity politics, you’d think I’d be in the Hillary camp. But here’s the deal, I think identity politics is the problem. I think it is poisoning politics in this country. Part of Obama’s appeal is that he agrees with me.

    Of course, I can type this and all the other reasons I think he is a better candidate until my fingers hurt, and half the Hillary supporters are still going to HEAR:

    Obama is teh dreamy! He haz my votes becauz I is a latte-drinking libral elitist and he is black! Plus, I hates womens.

  78. 78.

    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford

    March 12, 2008 at 10:26 am

    J. Michael Neal Says:

    It’s over. Let’s assume that Clinton only needs to get within 100 pledged delegates of Obama to be able to pick up enough superdelegates to get her the nomination.* Let’s assume that Michigan and Florida hold revotes.** Those two assumptions mean that Clinton needs to win 53% of the remaining pledged delegates in order to close the gap to 100. Not catch Obama, mind you. To get within 100.

    Now, let’s assume that the delegates in North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota are split evenly.*** That pushes the proportion of delegates that Clinton needs to get in all of the other primaries to 55%. The only states where she has won at least 55% of the delegates are Arizona, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Tennessee.

    In order to get within 100 pledged delegates of Obama, Clinton needs to win by New York-like margins in Pennsylvania and Florida. If she doesn’t get 60% of the vote, she doesn’t pick up enough delegates to make it even to the lesser goal of being within 100.

    *I suspect that she needs to get it significantly closer than that.

    **I’m not as confident that these bozos will manage to figure out how to do that as I was three days ago.

    ***I think that Obama will do significantly better than that.

    March 12th, 2008 at 10:19 am

    From The New Yorker:

    The next day, a Clinton adviser was more candid about what lies ahead. “Inside the campaign, people are not idiots,” she told me. “Everyone can do the math. It isn’t like the Obama campaign has some special abacus. We can do these calculations, too. Everyone recognizes how steep this hill is. But you gotta keep your game face on.”

  79. 79.

    Evinfuilt

    March 12, 2008 at 10:27 am

    Clinton Anti-Gay. People don’t realize this yet? 8 years in office making it worse for gays? And you don’t realize this. We’re nothing but toilet paper to them. They go on the radio and blast GLBT while taking our money. Its not hard to see, just spend a few minutes looking back at the 90s. They haven’t apologized for any of the deceit they committed.

    Ferraro still works for Clinton. Clinton put out a press-release attacking Obama for being upset. If you don’t call that defending, I don’t know what is. Words are meaningless, action matters. That’s what the Clinton campaign says over and over again. But like everything else, it only matters to their enemy, not to them.

    She is a monster, and she’s only in the race still because she’s a Clinton. She would have been forced to drop out of her name was John Smith after those 11 losses, and only breaking even last week.

    She’s lost the election, but acting like a Republican, she admonishes everyone for doing what she’s doing, when they’re not doing any of the sort.

    Gore lost 8 years ago because of this type of Politics, he’s moved on, time for the nation to move on and leave divisive politics behind. Letting someone who’s already lost campaign and rip the party like this is wrong.

    The campaign needs an intervention, someone to tell them its over.

  80. 80.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 10:31 am

    J. Michael Neal Says:
    It’s over.

    It’s been over for a while. The only reason she hasn’t been booted by the party yet is her last name is Clinton. Or Rodham-Clinton, or something. Anyone else would’ve been sent packing a couple months ago.

  81. 81.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 10:33 am

    J. Michael Neal Says:
    It’s over

    Alos, p.luk will be by shortly to explain why your math is wrong and Clinton victory is nigh. It’ll all make sense then…

  82. 82.

    w vincentz

    March 12, 2008 at 10:34 am

    Ferraro must’ve had a vagina moment, you know…
    the estrogen kicks in before the brain fires up.
    Now, if Hillclit doesn’t denounce and reject, she’ll appear to suffer the same symptom.

  83. 83.

    4tehlulz

    March 12, 2008 at 10:36 am

    >>Clinton Anti-Gay.

    I’m sorry; I’m totally in the tank for Obama and I don’t buy this for a moment. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and DOMA are on Bill’s head, not Hill’s.

  84. 84.

    horatius

    March 12, 2008 at 10:37 am


    In order to get within 100 pledged delegates of Obama, Clinton needs to win by New York-like margins in Pennsylvania and Florida. If she doesn’t get 60% of the vote, she doesn’t pick up enough delegates to make it even to the lesser goal of being within 100.

    See. This is exactly why I keep saying that *cough* negroes *cough* ahem… black men have it much easier than women. And Barack Obama is a sexist.

  85. 85.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 10:38 am

    Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and DOMA are on Bill’s head, not Hill’s.

    Yes! But she gets the benefit of Bill’s “experience.” Especially in Foreign Affairs. Clear?

  86. 86.

    horatius

    March 12, 2008 at 10:39 am

    Ferraro must’ve had a vagina moment, you know…
    the estrogen kicks in before the brain fires up.
    Now, if Hillclit doesn’t denounce and reject, she’ll appear to suffer the same symptom.

    Go ahead and call it cooties you sexist pig!!!

  87. 87.

    myiq2xu

    March 12, 2008 at 10:43 am

    Go ahead and call it cooties you sexist pig

    Who are you calling a cootie queen you lint licker?

  88. 88.

    4tehlulz

    March 12, 2008 at 10:43 am

    >>w vincentz

    They see me trollin’
    They hatin’

  89. 89.

    Killjoy

    March 12, 2008 at 10:47 am

    I mean, can we get serious here for a moment? Obama is where he is because black voters have voted overwhelmingly for him.

    My “favorite” part about this rationale is the implied deficiency of African Americans not realizing Hillary is Teh Awesome because they can’t get past race. I never see it argued that white people can’t see Obama is Teh Awesome because they can’t get past race.

  90. 90.

    cain

    March 12, 2008 at 10:51 am

    Clinton didn’t address Ferraro’s comment per se. She made a general statement about nastiness in BOTH campaign, no doubt a shot at Obama for the ‘montster’ comment. But she didn’t equivocally distance herself from Ferraro.

    I think Ferraro has been put up there to muddy up the waters some for the benefit of the Pennsylvania voters who she feels are like Ohio. I don’t see how this helps her all that much, she’s not going to get that many delegates to make that much headway. Hopefully she doesn’t think that somehow she will capture some kind of 70/30 ratio? I think a lot of people are really sick of this kind of thing.

    It will be interesting to see how this ploy plays out. MUP needs to just ignore Ferraro like one would ignore a fart. It’ll be uncomfortable but its easier not to acknowledge.

    cain

  91. 91.

    Evinfuilt

    March 12, 2008 at 10:54 am

    Yes! But she gets the benefit of Bill’s “experience.” Especially in Foreign Affairs. Clear?

    You get it!!!

    The idea she gets to take credit for the good stuff he did, but not for the crap. And without evidence of doing either. Well, thats pretty damn Republican ;)

    She got called out by Sinbad on her Foreign Policy experience, that had to feel bad.

  92. 92.

    Martin

    March 12, 2008 at 10:55 am

    John – don’t you think it is a bit over the top to call Ferraro’s remarks “racist”? I think we are getting way too sensitive to any discussion of race if this kind of stuff is considered racist. Lets try to limit that label to the real deal, of which there is plenty in everyday life.

    No. Now, I understand her comments about Jackson. There was a guy who never held government office at any level. Sure, he had a bunch of other leadership experience, but he also had some other embarrassments along the way that would have dogged any candidate. But Jackson wasn’t any more qualified to be President than Nader is.

    The problem is the comment itself. Ferraro could have said exactly that – hey, this guy doesn’t have any government experience, in what way is he qualified to be President, and instead of focusing on why he shouldn’t win the race, she focused on why he was still in the race. The danger with doing that is that *voters* are what keeps candidates in races, so any challenge to why he is there is a challenge to the voters – essentially telling them that *they* are racists for not picking someone who is qualified. Essentially, she’s saying that Jacksons race is not a substitute for his lack of experience.

    With Obama, it’s much worse. Obama doesn’t have the qualification issue. Obama is as qualified (or moreso) than Edwards and Hillary is having a hard time arguing that she is more qualified than Obama, proof being that’s she’s pulling in trips with Sinbad as part of her experience portfolio. To say that Obama isn’t experienced enough to be here not only denies that we might care about other things like judgement, character, vision, which should be obvious with Richardson, Biden, and Dodd out of the race, but is outright disingenuous in that Clinton is no more experienced. So if race *were* the reason he was here, then *marriage* would have to be the reason why Clinton is here, and being white and male would be Edwards excuse due to limited experience as well, so why should we favor one over the other? And we’re 45 contests into this thing. Obama has won 30 of them. So, it’s not even like she’s telling a small number of voters that they are racist for not seeing Obama for who he is, she’s telling half the fucking party that. For those of us who have invested a significant amount of time in looking at these candidates, that’s just offensive *to me*.

    I had a walkabout discussion with black coworkers yesterday about her comment and asked if they thought it was true (not all voted for Obama, some voted for Clinton) and they thought it was absurd because the reason they voted for Bill Clinton in ’92 is that he ran on more-or-less the same appeal that Obama is running on now. Bill was inspirational, charismatic, a skilled politician, spoke directly to the issues of voters, and didn’t pander (much) to the AA community, but Bill didn’t have a broad portfolio either. In other words, if Obama was white, he’d pretty much be Bill Clinton.

    Obama didn’t win 90% of MS voters, Clinton lost them. She had a solid percentage of the black vote back at the start – not half, but in the 30s-40s. It fell apart in SC when her campaign (Bill especially) felt that they could do better and specifically targeted the AA community with the civil rights discussion. It wasn’t just minimizing the impact of JFK, it was the fact that the Clintons felt the AA community needed a different message – that economy, and trade and healthcare wasn’t enough for them (it is). As soon as they started delivering that message, treating AAs as a different voting group, they opened themselves up to being punished for getting the message wrong – which is exactly what happened. Had they not gone there, I suspect Clinton would still be pulling in decent AA populations.

  93. 93.

    PeterJ

    March 12, 2008 at 10:58 am

    Supposedly (and I really DO mean “supposedly”), they voted 75-25% for Clinton. yes, the dreaded “Limbaugh Effect.”

    They can probably be explained by all the republican women that are crossing over and voting for Clinton. They will also vote for her in the General Election.

    p. lukasik wrote something about these overcrossing female republicans over at TalkLeft a while ago.

    Republicans voting for Obama while there still was a republican race going on, that’s bad. Republicans voting for Clinton after they have picked their winner, that’s just good.

    Think about it…

  94. 94.

    w vincentz

    March 12, 2008 at 10:58 am

    Aww shucks…seems that if ya can dish it up, ya should be willing to eat it.
    YUM!

  95. 95.

    TheFountainHead

    March 12, 2008 at 11:00 am

    Ferraro must’ve had a vagina moment, you know…
    the estrogen kicks in before the brain fires up.
    Now, if Hillclit doesn’t denounce and reject, she’ll appear to suffer the same symptom.

    Hey, we may be an Obama house here, p.luk and myiq’s muddy tracks notwithstanding, but we’re not trying to be another version of Hillaryis44.com. Make a salient argument or say something clever, but don’t just spew sewage.

    K?

    Thx.

  96. 96.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 11:02 am

    They can probably be explained by all the republican women that are crossing over and voting for Clinton. They will also vote for her in the General Election.

    lukasik wrote something about these overcrossing female republicans over at TalkLeft a while ago.

    Republicans voting for Obama while there still was a republican race going on, that’s bad. Republicans voting for Clinton after they have picked their winner, that’s just good.

    I was careful to say “supposedly” twice, because I’m not sure I buy into the “Limaugh Effect.”

    But if you think GOP women are going to vote for Hillary in the general, you’re off your rocker.

    Oh, and p.luk can write whatever he wants. His credibility is long gone.

  97. 97.

    TheFountainHead

    March 12, 2008 at 11:03 am

    In other words, if Obama was white, he’d pretty much be Bill Clinton.

    Oh man, the truth stings!

  98. 98.

    w vincentz

    March 12, 2008 at 11:04 am

    K Fountain H.
    no problemo

  99. 99.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 11:12 am

    The only way Martin could come into this ongoing food fight and make a rational, intelligent post like that is if he is either a woman, or black, or a black woman, or all three. And I’m tired of these people playing the vagina card and the race card. And the card card.

    /snark

    Okay, Martin, great post, please send more and give us a link to your online newsletter.

    Thx

  100. 100.

    D-Chance.

    March 12, 2008 at 11:22 am

    Ferraro… another New York Liberal racist. What is it about the Northeastern Liberal establishment… Cuomo, Ferraro, Clinton… this crap isn’t coming from the rednecks, or the “hicks” from the deep South. This is dyed-in-the-wool Northeast Liberal Party Machine. Congratulations, Dems, I don’t want to hear one fucking word out of any of you come the general elections about “Bubba” or any other code word for Southern White Conservative Males. You’ve pissed away your racial outrage card for 2008.

  101. 101.

    w vincentz

    March 12, 2008 at 11:23 am

    TZ,
    Just curious.
    I posted a “vagina moment” comment and look at how quickly Horatius responded by calling me a “sexist pig”.
    Now, if only the same level of non-estrogen driven clarity was applied to stating Ferraro’s assertions as “racist pig”, the veracity would be seen.

  102. 102.

    curtadams

    March 12, 2008 at 11:39 am

    In other words, if Obama was white, he’d pretty much be Bill Clinton.

    Minus the zipper problem.

  103. 103.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 11:44 am

    Just curious.
    I posted a “vagina moment” comment and look at how quickly Horatius responded by calling me a “sexist pig”.

    Are you, in fact, a sexist pig? Ha ha. But, you know, some people are, and I don’t happen to think that being one is the worst thing in the world. I mean, compared to mass murder and racketeering, you see? Anyway …

    Then there is the matter of Horatius. Is he a spooftroll, a convict who got into the warden’s computer, a nutcase?

    Last but not least, consider that it’s all snark a good deal of the time.

    But, your point is well taken.

  104. 104.

    TenguPhule

    March 12, 2008 at 11:48 am

    But at this point, there is no doubt that she is a racist, ant-gay bigot.

    Uh no, what Hillary has proven is that she will pander to the lowest common denominator to get elected.

    Make of it what you will.

  105. 105.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 11:49 am

    See. This is exactly why I keep saying that cough negroes cough ahem… black men have it much easier than women. And Barack Obama is a sexist.

    I am in no way defending what Ferraro said but this comment needs clarification.

    I saw a poll recently that said 6% of the American people would not vote for a black man for president while 12% said they would not vote for a woman.

    So in terms of the presidential arena, it does appear that women have it worse.

  106. 106.

    TenguPhule

    March 12, 2008 at 11:50 am

    I don’t see how this helps her all that much, she’s not going to get that many delegates to make that much headway. Hopefully she doesn’t think that somehow she will capture some kind of 70/30 ratio?

    She thought Mark Penn was a good choice to have by her side.

    What does that tell you about her judgement?

  107. 107.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 11:51 am

    I saw a poll recently that said 6% of the American people would not vote for a black man for president while 12% said they would not vote for a woman.

    And 99% of those assholes are Republicans.

    And 100% of statistics are bullshit.

  108. 108.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 11:53 am

    And 100% of statistics are bullshit.

    Oh for pete’s sake.

  109. 109.

    John S.

    March 12, 2008 at 11:53 am

    I saw a poll recently that said 6% of the American people would not vote for a black man for president while 12% said they would not vote for a woman.

    Source? Methodology? Anything?

    Because if the MOE was +/- 5%, then statistically a black man and a woman are even.

  110. 110.

    John S.

    March 12, 2008 at 11:54 am

    Oh for pete’s sake.

    That’s what I thought when I read your comment pinning thoughtful analysis on “I saw a poll somewhere…”

  111. 111.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 11:58 am

    And 100% of statistics are bullshit.

    According to NPR, half of Americans think that the earth is 6000 years old.

    Quite frankly, arguing over a few percentages worth of people who will reject a candidate for office based on race or gender is a waste of time and pixels, and honestly, if the Hillarites have nothing more than this constant poor-me victim routine based on gender, then I politely request that they just shut the fuck up. That shit is stupid and it’s getting old.

  112. 112.

    Ed Drone

    March 12, 2008 at 12:00 pm

    I think Geraldine was trying to make a point that is hard to make, which is that a candidate who plays the ‘identity’ card gets wherever he/she is because of his/her ‘identity.’ The problem with this is that both candidates are playing the identity card, so by pointing out only Obama’s identity, Ferraro was being racist. If Obama made the identical point about Clinton, he’d be being sexist, but he has not made that point, nor do I know of any of his campaign or followers who make the point — they know that knife has two edges to its blade.

    Obama’s string of successes is precisely not because of his race. He appeals to people who are not black, else he’d not have won the states he has. Clinton’s appeal is not that she’s a woman, either; she claims to have ‘experience’ that qualifies her.

    Both candidates use their identity as a trump card, an ‘extra’ when they need it. But Clinton’s ‘identity’ as a woman should trump Obama’s blackness — there are far more women voters than black voters (the question of black women voters aside), so Clinton’s panic is because her should-be-higher-than-Obama’s trump card isn’t working! This means she has to invent a way to pull in the ‘other identities’ — white men — and emphasizing race (no matter how ‘innocent’ the manner of doing so) will do this. So she has taken the ‘calling a spade a spade’ tack* to negate the identity-advantage Obama gains from his race among Democratic voters (where black voters are a sizable bloc).

    It’s calculating, it’s mean, and the question of whether it will be effective enough remains to be seen. But when you resort to race as a card to play, you’re in danger of being labeled ‘racist’, and it also shows how far you will go to win — which is the point many here are trying to make. Going down this road is evidence of an egoism and ambition that can drive people off. A scorched-earth policy only works if you’re not planning on occupying the earth you’ve scorched. She wants to lead the Democratic Party. If she uses enough of her ‘political capital,’ she can become the candidate.

    But at what cost? We’ve had nearly eight years of frightening hubris and disastrous incompetence, and the Clinton approach to winning the nomination brings the looming prospect of electoral disaster, and at least four more years of the same, possibly even ‘on steroids.’

    Do we want this? Dare we chance it? Cannot someone prevent it?

    Ed

  113. 113.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    Going down this road is evidence of an egoism and ambition that can drive people off.

    You got that right. I defended the shitty Clintons for about 15 years. I couldn’t figure out what made people hate them so much.

    Now I know, and I hate them too. I mean, truly, hate them. They suck, and I am embarassed for having defended them all that time.

  114. 114.

    Splitting Image

    March 12, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    “Obama didn’t win 90% of MS voters, Clinton lost them. She had a solid percentage of the black vote back at the start – not half, but in the 30s-40s. It fell apart in SC when her campaign (Bill especially) felt that they could do better and specifically targeted the AA community with the civil rights discussion. It wasn’t just minimizing the impact of JFK, it was the fact that the Clintons felt the AA community needed a different message – that economy, and trade and healthcare wasn’t enough for them (it is). As soon as they started delivering that message, treating AAs as a different voting group, they opened themselves up to being punished for getting the message wrong – which is exactly what happened. Had they not gone there, I suspect Clinton would still be pulling in decent AA populations.”

    Bullseye.

    And this is not only true with regard to black voters. The Clintons have re-worked their message repeatedly according to where they were campaigning and what they apparently thought would work. Worst example is the “Obama isn’t ready for the job/Obama would be a great VP” nonsense.

    I think a lot of people catch on to this when it is not being done to them and become more resistent to the message when it’s their turn to hear it. Obama has been much more consistent about his message, and as a result many people seem to consider him more honest and forthright.

  115. 115.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 12:04 pm

    They suck, and I am embarassed for having defended them all that time.

    QFT.

  116. 116.

    Ed Drone

    March 12, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    ‘calling a spade a spade’ tack*

    I for got the footnote:

    * Pun noted.

    Ed

  117. 117.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 12:08 pm

    QFT

    er …

    “QFT”, internet slang usually meaning “quoted for truth”. This term applies on forums and posting boards where users can edit their posts, and describes a re-posting of another user’s statement in order to counteract subsequent changes. Since the repost is not made by the original author, it can not be edited by him and will always preserve an unaltered copy of his initial contribution. Thus the QFT holds the poster to his original statement. It is also used – in the form of the slightly-altered “quoted from truth” – to express agreement with a previous poster’s statement and validate its veracity. Other variations include “quoted for truthiness,” “quoted for truthery,” and “quite fucking true” (used to indicate complete agreement with the previous post in toto). QFT can also mean “quit fucking trolling” or “quit fucking typing”.

    Disambiguation, please?

  118. 118.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 12:13 pm

    it does appear that women have it worse

    Sure it does. That explains why women have to fear being dragged behind pickup trucks, lynched. It explains why black men far outnumber white women in executive positions, high paying jobs, etc.

    It explains why we only recently had restrooms and restaurants with “MEN ONLY” seating areas. Water fountains for men only.

    Really, when you get right down to it, women are the ultimate victims in our world, and black people have done nothing but try to co-opt the victimhood for their own selfish reasons.

    I’m glad we are finally getting to the bottom of this.

  119. 119.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 12:18 pm

    Disambiguation, please?

    Quoted For Truth.

    I don’t recognize the other QFTs as canon.

  120. 120.

    Pb

    March 12, 2008 at 12:18 pm

    Sojourner,

    The looks like the numbers were 6% (black / would not) and 15% (woman / would not) respectively, CBS/NYT poll, 1/9-12/08. Given the timing, however, I could see someone making the case that it’s hard to separate that from the current Presidential race. However, Gallup has numbers stretching back further, which shows that the black number above has been consistently 4-6% since ’97 (median: 5; progressively higher before ’97), whereas the woman number has ranged from 7-12% since ’87 (median: 11; progressively higher before ’87). The ordering, by the way, is Catholic, Black, Jewish, Woman, Hispanic, Mormon, Homosexual, and Atheist. Presumably it will take quite some time before we get our first Hispanic Lesbian Atheist President.

  121. 121.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 12:23 pm

    Presumably it will take quite some time before we get our first Hispanic Lesbian Atheist President.

    We have a Sheriff in Dallas!

    OK – I don’t think she’s an Atheist, but a Hispanic Lesbian Sheriff? In Texas?

  122. 122.

    joe

    March 12, 2008 at 12:25 pm

    We do have restrooms for men only, ThymeZone. They’re called men’s rooms.

    Otherwise, good comment. But that one didn’t help.

  123. 123.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 12:26 pm

    We do have restrooms for men only, ThymeZone. They’re called men’s rooms.

    And I think this is just wrong. I often burst into “Ladies’ Rooms” to make my point.

    I think it’s working.

  124. 124.

    John S.

    March 12, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    Pb-

    Thanks for the link. Those are some interesting statistics, to say the least.

    I can’t help but to wonder if the Bradley effect doesn’t have something to do with the higher number of respondents in favor of a black president. In other words, I tend to think that people being polled feel more comfortable being openly misogynistic rather than openly racist.

  125. 125.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 12:28 pm

    it does appear that women have it worse

    Gotcha, thx

  126. 126.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 12:33 pm

    Sure it does. That explains why women have to fear being dragged behind pickup trucks, lynched. It explains why black men far outnumber white women in executive positions, high paying jobs, etc.

    You are getting hysterical again, TZ. If you read what I wrote, you will see that I narrowed it specifically to the politics, and even more specifically to the presidential race.

    It really gets tiresome being attacked for saying anything that could somehow, some way, through misrepresentation, drugs, or whatever be shoehorned into a position that is anti-Obama.

  127. 127.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 12:44 pm

    It really gets tiresome being attacked for saying anything that could somehow, some way, through misrepresentation, drugs, or whatever be shoehorned into a position that is anti-Obama.

    Well, stop attacking The MUP. ;)

  128. 128.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 12:47 pm

    It really gets tiresome being attacked for saying anything

    Tiresome? Tiresome is being labeled “hysterical” because I made a strong, and telling, rebuke of your post.

    Screw you, and your “hysterical.”

    And you were attacked for playing the “woman as victim” card which IS the really tiresome thing here, and IS hysterical, and IS bullshit … complete and utter bullshit.

    That’s my opinion, we disagree, and you need to try a different argument because the one you are making now is a total loser. Like it or not, that’s the way it is.

  129. 129.

    Evinfuilt

    March 12, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    Presumably it will take quite some time before we get our first Hispanic Lesbian Atheist President.

    How about immigrant transgendered lesbian Atheists? I just want to know if I have any chance at all in Politics.

    Holy frick, typing that out makes me wonder how I lasted as a republican all the way to 2000, of course back then I was “straight-male Catholic from England.”

  130. 130.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 1:10 pm

    How about immigrant transgendered lesbian Atheists? I just want to know if I have any chance at all in Politics.

    Holy frick, typing that out makes me wonder how I lasted as a republican all the way to 2000, of course back then I was “straight-male Catholic from England.”

    Sully? Nah…

    Anyway, your chances in Politics aren’t so good, but you could probably sleep with and wreck someone else’s career in (Republican) politics, if that gives you any consolation.

  131. 131.

    w vincentz

    March 12, 2008 at 1:13 pm

    Evin,
    I just peed my pants.

  132. 132.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 1:28 pm

    And you were attacked for playing the “woman as victim” card which IS the really tiresome thing here, and IS hysterical, and IS bullshit … complete and utter bullshit.

    No, YOU are attacking me for citing a statistic that pisses you off. So you want to turn it into a straw man argument that I NEVER made.

    Since when is it “playing the victim” to point out a statistic? Are you also going to argue that women who fight against spousal abuse are also “playing the victim”? Or what about breast cancer? Are they “playing the victim”?

    Grow up.

  133. 133.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 1:29 pm

    Well, stop attacking The MUP.

    But but but I wasn’t! Really!!

  134. 134.

    Evinfuilt

    March 12, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    Sully? Nah…

    The oddest thing was reading Sullivan the first time. I had to go buy the book. I mean what are the odds there were 2 of us!

    Still, I’m the one who had the chop and left the party in 2000, not 2004. I removed my Republican Blinders when Bush crushed McCain in South Carolina, and was cheered on for it. I guess I was lucky. I don’t know if I could have lived with myself actually supporting Bush.

  135. 135.

    Shygetz

    March 12, 2008 at 1:54 pm

    p luk says:
    I mean, can we get serious here for a moment? Obama is where he is because black voters have voted overwhelmingly for him.

    I’m white and I voted for Obama. Does that make me a race traitor or a misogynist? I’ve lost track…

  136. 136.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 1:55 pm

    I’m white and I voted for Obama. Does that make me a race traitor or a misogynist? I’ve lost track…

    It means you don’t count.

  137. 137.

    Martin

    March 12, 2008 at 1:55 pm

    So in terms of the presidential arena, it does appear that women have it worse.

    That’s irrelevant. 28% of Americans won’t vote for a Democrat no matter what and a similar number won’t vote for a Republican. There are zillions of immovable, overlapping biases that people have which politicians have to overcome and getting into ‘my disadvantage is bigger than your disadvantage’ is childish, which is why we’ve been working so hard to eliminate it. Hell, it sits at the core of conservative theory in this country. (Practice is a whole other kettle of fish).

    But the new strategy here for Clinton is clear. This is the occupation gambit played in politics. Just as Bush’s invasion of Iraq forced even opponents of the war to provide support for the effort since the invasion couldn’t be undone, Clinton is poisoning the general election with the hope that now that the election is about race filling in for Obama’s lack of qualification it will force the party to support her since that race card can’t be undone (I’m not sure this can be undone or not). It’s extremely deliberate given the timing as it allowed the Mississippi vote to be used as the best possible evidence that it is true (though it isn’t true if you look at the larger whole). This becomes an irreversible process. Clinton is forcing the party to make a choice – back Obama on principle and lose or back me in disgust but win.

  138. 138.

    Shygetz

    March 12, 2008 at 2:04 pm

    As a lifelong Southerner, if the Democratic party decides to look to the State of Mississippi as a model of race relations in America, the Democratic party deserves what it gets. Mississippi is where the Confederate secessionists refuse to go because they are afraid of being branded as Negro sympathizers.

  139. 139.

    Martin

    March 12, 2008 at 2:56 pm

    Ah, but we apply a double-standard to Mississippi. We assume that whites won’t vote for blacks so when that happens, nobody pays it any attention. We don’t assume that blacks won’t vote for whites. So when blacks don’t vote for whites, what conclusion do we draw?

  140. 140.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 3:56 pm

    No, YOU are attacking me for citing a statistic that pisses you off.

    I’m attacking you for using an irrelevant statistic to make a tiresome, bullshit point that not only is bogus, it actually harms your own case.

    Do you honestly think that a black man is worse of politically than a white woman? Are you suggesting that the victimhood legacy of women is so deep and so profound that a statement like that, which is ludicrous on its face, actually has merit?

    I saw a poll recently that said 6% of the American people would not vote for a black man for president while 12% said they would not vote for a woman.

    So in terms of the presidential arena, it does appear that women have it worse.

    What exactly did you mean, if not that women “have it worse” than black men when it comes to, as you put it, presidential politics? That some unfair and bigoted judgment is being applied unfairly to women to the extent that a black man has an advantage over a white woman if nothing else is known about them?

    Let’s suppose I am the super-powerful guy who gets to make the final hiring decision, and I have equally qualified man and woman in front of me, absolutely no difference. Are you suggesting that I should not be allowed, or even allow myself, to consider the gender of the two candidates and use that difference in my process of making the choice?

    In other words, the contest is only fair if set up as if I did not know the genders of the two?

    And once we settle that issue, then tell me, if I choose the male candidate, will you argue that I made an unfair gender-based decision, and cry “sexism?” In other words, if the woman doesn’t win, it’s not fair?

    Are women really arguing that they don’t want to be seen as women when running for office? Hell no. Women will argue that a woman might do a better job. That’s a rebuttable argument, is it not? If a woman can argue that a women can do a better job, why can’t a man argue that a man can do a better job? And if we are going to argue any gender issue, then what are you afraid of?

    Hillary Clinton is a hypcrite. She wants to use her gender in any way that helps her, including deciding what’s fair and what’s not. But when it comes to race, we’re supposed to pretend that she is above that kind of manipulation?

    Bah, nonsense. I know damned well that she will play both cards — race and gender — in whatever way works in her favor. Fine, then her opposition is entitled to do the same. Gender is either on the table, or it is not. Which is it?

  141. 141.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    For those morons who thought I didn’t know of such a thing as a Men’s Room, let me spell out what should have been obvious: We don’t have restroom situations where there are facilities for men, and none for women. Or second rate, crummy ones for women when a nice clean one for men is right next door. In other words, unequal.

    And of course, the whole idea of public restrooms that are separated by gender is pretty much an American thing, isn’t it? A pretty dumb idea, I think. But at least we have facilities for everyone. My blurb was aimed at supposing that we had facilities for only men, as a ridiculous example of how women were ever as bad off as black people were in this country in terms of equal treatment.

    The victimhood of women thing is a little thick these days.

  142. 142.

    Jackie

    March 12, 2008 at 4:13 pm

    CNN just announced Geraldine Ferraro is leaving Hillary Clinton campaign. http://www.cnn.com/

  143. 143.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 4:18 pm

    What exactly did you mean, if not that women “have it worse” than black men when it comes to, as you put it, presidential politics? That some unfair and bigoted judgment is being applied unfairly to women to the extent that a black man has an advantage over a white woman if nothing else is known about them?

    Have it worse: the stat suggests that there’s a slightly stronger bias against voting for a woman than a black man. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Wow, TZ. I certainly never expected a single statistic to push you over the edge.

    I’m attacking you for using an irrelevant statistic to make a tiresome, bullshit point that not only is bogus, it actually harms your own case.

    Exactly what do you think is my “case”? I thought it was an interesting statistic. I didn’t realize you are so fragile that it will have you foaming at the mouth about abuses against minorities.

    I have not talked at all about victimhood. I have consistently made the simple argument that sexist comments about Clinton are unacceptable. Just as I think that racist comments are unacceptable. You have already admitted that these comments have taken place. The only difference between us is that you think it’s fine and dandy to attack her by any means possible. I disagree – which apparently has you mightily pissed off.

    And now you’re attacking me by any means possible because I had the “nerve” to challenge people for their language. I have every confidence that you would have a total meltdown if anyone on this blog used equivalently racist language with Obama. So if you have a problem with me challenging the men for sexist language,

    TOUGH.

    Get a grip, man.

  144. 144.

    Chuck Butcher

    March 12, 2008 at 4:28 pm

    Thinking either Ferraro or Clinton are racist bigots is probably a mistake. What you do have is political convenience as a ruling paradigm. It is scarcely a new sort of Clintonian tactic. It is the largest factor in my opposition to Hillary. What you do with that is up to you. I don’t like it.

    Here’s the deal, let’s not give Pat Buchanan talking points, I just listened to him make the political correctness slam. If Geraldine is judged by her words to have been stupid, then that’s how it goes. Does she have the right to say it? Judas priest, the KKK has the right to say what it does, that doesn’t change the fact that people will judge the content and implications of a statement. Why should it? If Clinton stands by her girl, then that is what she has done. Will I make judgements on that score? You bet, as will everybody who has heard of it. What they do with it is their judgement.

    Box o rocks will make his judgement in regard to the statement. He will justify or not his stance as he does. This isn’t some imposed standard, the words and their context are out there, she got her say. Clinton got to react how she did and everybody will make a judgement based on their judgement. I call it stupid and indicative of Clinton’s politics, it fits with the rest of her attacks that have nothing to do with policies.

    Neither of the candidate’s ‘bots will pay attention to rational arguments and are dispensible in that regard. This is at least part of the ugliness, asking the hard questions or posing the hard arguments on the basis of actual facts results in flames rather than reasoned debate. I submit Hillary comes up short in practice of politics, as far as their policies – so what? Judgement and character, there you go.

  145. 145.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 4:31 pm

    I didn’t realize you are so fragile that it will have you foaming at the mouth about abuses against minorities.

    I have not talked at all about victimhood.

    Excuse me, that wasn’t you in here just the other day singing the aria from the Mysogyny opera?

  146. 146.

    Callisto

    March 12, 2008 at 4:32 pm

    Well, Ferraro just quit Clinton’s campaign.

    In her parting letter to Hillary:

    The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you.
    I won’t let that happen.

    Wow, dramatic much?

  147. 147.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 4:33 pm

    attacking me by any means possible

    Uh, they’re posts. And I’m foaming at the mouth?

  148. 148.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 4:34 pm

    CNN just announced Geraldine Ferraro is leaving Hillary Clinton campaign

    Wow, I am totally surprised. Looks like the Clintons did the math on this and decided that the Ferraro dustup wasn’t a winner for them. That is actually very encouraging.

    I may have to stop hating Hillary for a day or two. Okay, a day.

  149. 149.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 4:37 pm

    I have every confidence that you would have a total meltdown if anyone on this blog used equivalently racist language with Obama

    Okay, I may have missed something here. Are you referring to that crude sexual humor from the other day and the misogyny argument?

    If so, then we still disagree. Unless you are going to argue that sexual humor is by definition misogynistic.

    Or are we going to reopen that whole argument again? Because again, I say that the Clintons are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want gender when it works for them, and want “I slept in the president’s bed and that makes me qualified” when it works for them, but if somebody makes a crude joke …. that’s misogynistic?

    I reject (and denounce!) that argument just as hard as I did the other day. No way, Jose.

  150. 150.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 4:40 pm

    Excuse me, that wasn’t you in here just the other day singing the aria from the Mysogyny opera?

    Nope. I don’t sing. But I do challenge misogynist and sexist language, of which you have admitted guilt.

    So the shock and awe response, while amusing, suggests an undeserved naivite.

  151. 151.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 4:42 pm

    Maybe I need to spell it out more clearly. If Obama got up and said that being a Brotha and a steady diet of chitlins and watermelon made him qualified to be president, and people made crude jokes about it, I would not call that racist. I would call him a damned fool.

    But Clinton gets up and says that riding in presidential limousines and eating dinner in the private quarters of the White House make her qualified to be president … and yeah, I think she opens herself up to whatever wisecracks and crude jokes people come up with.

    And it STILL isn’t misogyny. It’s called fair play.

  152. 152.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 4:47 pm

    of which you have admitted guilt.

    No, I conceded that the jokes were crude. I don’t feel any guilt whatever. If I am guilty of making a crude joke, well, heh ….. then I guess my time in Hell has just been shortened by a few eternities. Wow.

    But the fact that a joke is crude doesn’t make it wrong, or out of bounds. It just makes it crude. There’s a time and place for crude humor. This blog, in case nobody noticed, is pretty much a time and place for crude humor.

    So let’s not get wrapped around the guilt thing. Crude, yes. Wrong, no.

  153. 153.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 4:47 pm

    But Clinton gets up and says that riding in presidential limousines and eating dinner in the private quarters of the White House make her qualified to be president … and yeah, I think she opens herself up to whatever wisecracks and crude jokes people come up with.

    I understand that’s what you think. We’ve been down this road before.

    So how far do you extend this argument? If a man has a woman working for him who he feels is incompetent or dishonest, are you okay with him making crude jokes about her?

    What about a husband who is fighting with his wife?

    How about a college student and his girlfriend?

    Are you basically saying that women who do not meet some guy’s standard for soemthing are fair game?

    Do you extend this argument to black people? Or is it just women who are the subject of your ire?

    Just how far are you willing to take your argument?

  154. 154.

    Billy K

    March 12, 2008 at 4:53 pm

    Wow, dramatic much?

    Of course – she’s a woman!

    /sexy

    And TZ, admit it – you don’t know what a Men’s Room is!

  155. 155.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 4:54 pm

    Just how far are you willing to take your argument?

    Seriously? As far as pretending that living in the White House qualifies somebody to be president, for the purposes of this conversation. That’s the subject on the table. That’s where the crude humor came from. That’s what I thought we were discussing.

    You want to extend that out to basically all the permutations of man-woman relationships? No, I am not going there, and I reject an attempt to go there.

    As for your direct question, no, I do not extend the “permission” to make crude jokes to the situations you described. But what are you arguing, that crude sexual humor about another gender is never allowable? Women don’t make jokes about men’s private parts? WTF Soj?

    We aren’t talking about the crude jokes, we are talking about the propriety of them in particular situations.

    And I say, when a woman runs for president (!) and claims that her First Lady experience counts as qualification for the job, then I say ….. the door is open, and she should be prepared for the blast of you-know-what that is rightfully going to be aimed at her. If she didn’t want it, then she should not have made the ludicrous claim.

    Sorry but I think that puts us right back where we were the other day.

  156. 156.

    Martin

    March 12, 2008 at 4:55 pm

    Wow, I am totally surprised. Looks like the Clintons did the math on this and decided that the Ferraro dustup wasn’t a winner for them. That is actually very encouraging.

    Nope, she’s a free agent now. Just was on O’Reilly saying the same crap and poisoning the general election for Obama by getting the wingnuts repeating her crap. And it’s fair game now for the Republicans to say Obama is only winning on race because a Democrat started it – see, non-partisan.

    If the grown-ups don’t show up soon, I predict a violent Denver.

  157. 157.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 4:55 pm

    And TZ, admit it – you don’t know what a Men’s Room is!

    It depends on which outfit I am wearing on any given day.

  158. 158.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 4:59 pm

    Nope, she’s a free agent now. Just was on O’Reilly saying the same crap

    Oh, I spoke too soon. She is out there doing their dirty work but “not associated” with the campaign. They get the effect and take no blame.

    Clever. And disgusting. I really hope this blows up into a rejection of the Clantons and their bullshit.

  159. 159.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 5:02 pm

    Seriously? As far as pretending that living in the White House qualifies somebody to be president, for the purposes of this conversation. That’s the subject on the table. That’s where the crude humor came from. That’s what I thought we were discussing.

    Sorry. I had not defined it quite that narrowly. My original posts on this topic arose from a combination of what I was hearing and reading. Tweety, NYT, BJ. It was never aimed at one person.

    And it’s not just crude humor. It’s language that is belittling to someone on the basis of gender.

    That’s my beef. I have never challenged anyone on their right to criticize her for claims, ethics, etc.

  160. 160.

    Stephen1947

    March 12, 2008 at 5:17 pm

    So Gerry is apparently stepping down, according to one of those BREAKING!!! diaries on D-Kos – apparently so she can continue to spew oh her own time and not have her beloved leader be attacked for supporting it. What Ms. Ferraro needs is a permanent (I selected this term rather than ‘terminal’) case of laryngitis.

  161. 161.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 5:25 pm

    Sorry. I had not defined it quite that narrowly.

    Okay, well I thought that whole misogyny thing the other day was grounded in those crude jokes that were making the rounds recently.

    But okay, so what do you think of my argument that once she starts talking about being Mrs President and how it makes her fit to be THE president, all restraints are off?

    Keeping in mind, as I said, that she wants to employ gender when it suits her, but rejects it when it is derogatory?

    Isn’t that having the cake and eating it too?

    Help me out here, I’m not winning convincingly :)

  162. 162.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    But okay, so what do you think of my argument that once she starts talking about being Mrs President and how it makes her fit to be THE president, all restraints are off?

    I’ve been out grocery shopping, which gave me time to think about this a bit.

    Serious question: I know hypotheticals suck but let’s assume that Hillary is a black candidate. Would it be acceptable to make racial jokes about him?

  163. 163.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 7:01 pm

    Crap, make that a black male candidate.

  164. 164.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 8:42 pm

    Would it be acceptable to make racial jokes about him?

    I know this is not the answer you want to hear, but I think I answered that upthread with my watermelon-chitlin post.

    If he were claiming qualification for the presidency based on his membership in a black militant organization …. yes.

    He is not. She on the other hand is using her position as Mrs President Ladyperson to claim such qualification.

    Since I have already failed umpteen times to make this point, I have to assume that it won’t work this time either.

  165. 165.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 8:44 pm

    I refer to my 4:42 post.

  166. 166.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:11 pm

    If he were claiming qualification for the presidency based on his membership in a black militant organization …. yes.

    And what feminist militant group does Clinton belong to?

  167. 167.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:43 pm

    Soj, pardon me for being … me, but ….

    What about my answer to your hypothetical?

    Clinton flashes gender card, but cries sexism when gender-centered criticism is aimed at her.

    Obama does not employ race as justification for his claim to presidency, therefore, is not susceptible to race-centered responses.

    What am I missing?

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. pre settlement cash advance advance cash chicago settlement advance cash settlement says:
    May 27, 2008 at 10:50 am

    balance card credit introductory transfer

    If canada credit card online application bank card credit reliacard us bad card credit credit uk hsbc credit card application business card credit find small

  2. online poker verboten says:
    May 28, 2008 at 8:09 am

    jeux poker a telecharger

    It is understood how to play craps texas holdem turnier black jack online jeux slots poker dot net

  3. poker italiano says:
    May 28, 2008 at 8:42 am

    bonus pour casino770

    I premios internet descargar juego de casino ganar ala ruleta poker italiano meilleurs casino en ligne

  4. poker sur le net says:
    May 29, 2008 at 12:32 am

    telecharger paradise poker

    Why une régle texas holdem meilleur poker online regles du poker texas poker tour regles play free 7 card stud

  5. online wette says:
    May 31, 2008 at 8:23 am

    free texas holdem poker download

    Wir poker online multijugador play free black jack multistrike video poker top poker online free texas holdem poker download

  6. poker avec argent virtuel says:
    June 2, 2008 at 9:05 am

    party poker bonus code

    Se play baccarat online video poker online gratis poker game gratis download giochi black jack gratis online poker ohne anmeldung

  7. texas holdem werte says:
    June 2, 2008 at 5:33 pm

    poker gratuites net

    Jecommencepar texas holdem poker 2007 télécharger gratuitement des jeux de poker casino bonus bienvenue juegos online ruleta poker nicht online

  8. baccarat system says:
    June 4, 2008 at 5:05 pm

    juego al instante portales internet

    Ebenfalls jeu du poker texas holdem online game baccarat system poker gratuites sur internet texas holdem flash game

  9. maquinas tragaperras portales web says:
    June 5, 2008 at 4:24 am

    strp poker

    Global jouer au poker en ligne jeu casino gratuites stip poker gratis free online texas hold em poker texas

  10. jack black quotes says:
    June 8, 2008 at 8:15 am

    juegos gratis la ruleta

    En general regles poker texas hold apuesta online play texas holdem poker gratuites france slots com

  11. la règle du texas holdem says:
    June 8, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    telecharger jeux poker gratuites

    Questo juego poker on line casino con bonus senza deposito poker texas hold texas hold em game ruleta francesa

  12. online gambling says:
    June 9, 2008 at 3:46 am

    cartas de poker gratis

    DieGrundsachefur playing poker online juegos de poker gratuitos casino gamble texas holdem gratis online gagner au casino en ligne

  13. free online casino slots says:
    June 10, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    echte casinospiele

    Potrei srtip poker gratis live poker online holdem poker regel jugar cartas internet live online poker

  14. multiplayer poker says:
    June 10, 2008 at 12:52 pm

    tornei di poker on line

    Tu casino en line poker en ligne sur mac play free poker regeln von poker geant casino jeux

  15. jugar poker en internet says:
    June 11, 2008 at 8:49 am

    best casino online

    Pointdecontact casino on line con bonus craps rules casino no deposit bonus code casino per pc bonus sans depot casino770

  16. trucchi casino on line says:
    June 12, 2008 at 11:45 am

    best online casino bonus

    Plusd”undes video poker gratuites en ligne play video poker ganancias casinos portal web internet casino juego interactivo linea

  17. video poker download says:
    June 16, 2008 at 12:14 pm

    scaricare gioco poker

    At best online casino gambling texas holdem poker strategy jugar al instante portal web poker en linea juegos de poquer gratis

  18. gewinn spiele says:
    June 16, 2008 at 5:33 pm

    revista poker

    Quelli bonus europa casino online casino game giochi texas holdem online revista poker juegos de azar

  19. casino online forum says:
    June 17, 2008 at 6:06 am

    maquinas tragaperras portal web

    Auf poker spielen lernen free texas hold em game poker texas holdem strategie giochi gratis video poker kostenlose online casino

  20. jeu slots en ligne gratis says:
    June 17, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    casino online

    Adesso caribbean stud poker multiplayer championship poker texas holdem poker gratuites a telecharger poker en ligne bonus juegos de poker para descargar

  21. jugar poker web says:
    June 20, 2008 at 12:09 pm

    regle du poker

    Would You poker en internet poker multijugador gratis premio pagina internet best casino bonus jugar al instante pagina internet

  22. play free video poker says:
    June 20, 2008 at 6:10 pm

    poker multijugador gratis

    Sobre juego al instante paginas web poker flash game jugar baccarat play texas holdem online free jugar al instante pagina internet

  23. omaha poker regeln says:
    June 23, 2008 at 7:12 am

    casino on line legali

    Eine poker casino game omaha poker regeln holdem poker black jack strategien internet gambling poker

  24. best internet poker says:
    June 23, 2008 at 11:08 am

    casino pc

    IndiesemFall glucksspiel gesellschaft casino pc gioco baccarat gratis apuestas libre en linea poker tournament 2007

  25. poker run says:
    June 24, 2008 at 4:41 am

    casino online italia

    Communément telecharger winamax poker poker texas holdem handy online kasinoportal jeu de poker sur pc www casino online

  26. online texas holdem says:
    June 30, 2008 at 8:38 am

    poker game for mac

    Two poker texas holdem online trucos casino online poker game for mac online casino black jack www casino spiele de

  27. poker lernen gratis says:
    July 1, 2008 at 11:11 pm

    play poker game

    Are play poker game poker einzahlungs bonus best online poker site play free casino slots slotmachine spielen

  28. trucos ganar casino says:
    July 3, 2008 at 2:40 pm

    ganar ala ruleta

    Cambiar trucos ganar casino strp poker ganar ala ruleta poker texano gratis poker online in italiano

  29. trucos ganar casino says:
    July 3, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    play poker online

    Encontrar descargas juegos pc tornei di poker on line poli poquer poker texano gratis play video poker

  30. online poker says:
    July 4, 2008 at 5:28 am

    world poker online

    Si online poker jeu de video poker gratuites télécharger gratuitement jeu de poker en ligne telecharger jeu pc poker casino online spiele

  31. giochi da poker says:
    July 4, 2008 at 11:26 am

    stip poker online

    Dansleslimites www casino net com tricher au poker en ligne texas holdem combinaisons world poker online telecharger jeu pc poker

  32. regolamento poker says:
    July 4, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    free poker online

    Through poker spielen deutschland video poker game poker no limit holdem poker on line italiano play money poker

  33. jeu streap poker says:
    July 6, 2008 at 9:09 am

    video poker

    Choose poly poker free online casino gambling poli poquer jouer poker omaha gratuit holdem poker descargar

  34. free online casino slots says:
    July 7, 2008 at 12:43 am

    www polli poquer

    Guardare poker en ligne flash la règle poker texas holdem online casino guide internet casino online seven card stud en linea

  35. poker tour game says:
    July 7, 2008 at 9:10 pm

    giochi casino online

    Preestreno casino download gratis casino pagina poker freeware juegos apuestas portales web casino per pc

  36. free on line video poker says:
    July 8, 2008 at 7:38 am

    casino online ruleta

    Turn tragaperra portal internet online casino no download ganancia casino portal web free on line video poker juego interactivo web

Primary Sidebar

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

2023 Pet Calendars

Pet Calendar Preview: A
Pet Calendar Preview: B

*Calendars can not be ordered until Cafe Press gets their calendar paper in.

Recent Comments

  • Paul in KY on Late Night Open Thread: Debating The Dubious Privilege of Being Obnoxious in Public (Feb 7, 2023 @ 8:55am)
  • Baud on Late Night Open Thread: Elon Musk Is SAD! (Feb 7, 2023 @ 8:55am)
  • Nicole on COVID-19 Coronavirus Updates: Monday / Tuesday, Feb. 6-7 (Feb 7, 2023 @ 8:54am)
  • terraformer on COVID-19 Coronavirus Updates: Monday / Tuesday, Feb. 6-7 (Feb 7, 2023 @ 8:52am)
  • Barney on COVID-19 Coronavirus Updates: Monday / Tuesday, Feb. 6-7 (Feb 7, 2023 @ 8:51am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Favorite Dogs & Cats
Classified Documents: A Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Front-pager Twitter

John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
ActualCitizensUnited

Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice   

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!