Ferraro: My comment was not racist, it was fact

Ferraro: My comment was not racist, it was fact

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

"It wasn't a racist comment, it was a statement of fact," she said on CBS' Early Show, adding that she would leave Hillary Clinton's national finance committee if she were asked, but would not stop raising money for the New York senator's presidential bid. She also blamed Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, for misinterpreting her remarks.

Ferraro also told ABC's Good Morning America that "every time" someone makes a negative comment about Obama, they are accused of racism.

(visit the link for the full news article)

*Edited to fix titles

[edit on 12-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Really, Ferraro? So this comment was appropriate?

She told a FOX News interviewer: "I got up and the question was asked, 'Why do you think Barack Obama is in the place he is today" as the party's delegate frontrunner.

"I said in large measure, because he is black. I said, Let me also say in 1984 - and if I have said it once, I have said it 20, 60, 100 times - in 1984, if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for vice president," she said.

Just because the subject matter is positive does not mean classifying sucess based on race is an okay thing.

Perhaps our society is not progressing as fast as we thought.


politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

*Edit:

Hopefully a mod will edit the title for me. It's supposed to say "not racist".

[edit on 12-3-2008 by Sublime620]

[edit on 12-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Sort of on the fence with this one.

It may have been inappropriate for her to make that statement, but it some sense it rings true.

I am not a racist by any means, but it doesn't take a genius to see that the color of his skin may play in his favor.

The man is well educated, good public speaker, and has many good ideas. These attributes alone should make him a wise choice, but some people overlook the obvious where others focus on the obvious.

The same type of reference could be used for Hillary, and probably would have no recourse.

reply to post by Sublime620


Id have to agree.. that you have to watch what you say about Obama, being half black (well, denouncing his white side, but no matter how much he dilikes it, hes half black) is the primary reason he is on the ticket.

I know its not for his policies. They make little sense. Can't be his experience. He has none.

I think his biggest base of support and the reason people like him is because hes black, and right now it is fashionable to vote for the minority figures, be it women or blacks.

Of course, I think either or will push enough people to the Republican ticket, which McCain would be President, and then we can welcome the NAFTA and NAU.. boy, can't wait...

I don't see the problem. Newscasters analyze the "black vote" and the "women's vote" and the "Jewish" vote. These are terms that apply to groups of people that on a whole are likely to vote for someone based on certain cultural similarities.

Nobody ever wins with just the vote of one group. And no group has 100% agreement, anyway.

Much ado about nothing. IMO.

Author I reported the post, I guess nobody else noticed the mistake on the title of the thread. I am sure it was an accident, I thought I would notify you. The word "was" should be "wasn't" I believe.

I personally do not see a problem with her statement. It is sad that we want her to manipulate her answer instead of giving her opinion. I thought we wanted honesty from our politicians?

[edit on 3/12/2008 by sputniksteve]

reply to post by Sublime620



It's pretty sad when Clinton supporters have to act as if Obama has some sort of advantage for being Black, when Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson didn't have the same advantage.

I'd like to find out what she thinks is factual about it given that other Black candidates have come before without the same "Advantage"

Secondly, her original comment was simply meant to "remind" voters that Obama is Black, as if somehow someone will say "Well, gee, now that you put it that way, why should I vote for a Black guy?"

The Clintons can never, ever, count on the African American community again. They have defocated all over this demographic.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Author I reported the post, I guess nobody else noticed the mistake on the title of the thread. I am sure it was an accident, I thought I would notify you. The word "was" should be "wasn't" I believe.

I personally do not see a problem with her statement. It is sad that we want her to manipulate her answer instead of giving her opinion. I thought we wanted honesty from our politicians?

[edit on 3/12/2008 by sputniksteve]

Honesty would be Ferraro saying "I don't think you should vote for the Black guy"


What she said was no where close to honesty.

Two things:

1) It's not "a fact", it's her opinion. That is, it's a fact that that's her opinion.

2) Her comment -"Ferraro also told ABC's Good Morning America that 'every time' someone makes a negative comment about Obama, they are accused of racism". No, every time someone makes a racist comment about Obama they're accused of racism. If stating "the only reason -x- is because of your race" isn't a racist comment, then I guess Ms. Ferraro has redefined the term. Which wouldn't be the first time a politician weasel-worded something. Like the definition of "is".

Personally, I love seeing the Democrats ripping into each other.

reply to post by Quazga


Actually I would totally disagree with you there. Having read the article she explains her reason for saying what she did. I don't see where there is any confusion here. If she said "I dislike black people" yeah I would call it racist. Stupid elections.

Originally posted by NGC2736
I don't see the problem. Newscasters analyze the "black vote" and the "women's vote" and the "Jewish" vote. These are terms that apply to groups of people that on a whole are likely to vote for someone based on certain cultural similarities.

Nobody ever wins with just the vote of one group. And no group has 100% agreement, anyway.

Much ado about nothing. IMO.

The Problem is that Ferraro want's to insinuate that the only thing Obama has going for him is the color of his skin. And this is done in a way to actually draw attention to the color of his skin, as if to say "Do you really want to vote for a Black candidate?"

Obama is where he is because of many factors, most specifically his perseverence, charisma, and the way he runs his campaign. To simply reduce all of this to "It's cause he's black!" Screams of racism.

Why Racism? Because this is what is being shouted behind closed doors in the Clinton campaign rooms. It goes like this

"Why are we losing so badly?"
"Don't worry Hill, they are only voting for him because he's black"

Like my mother said when asked why she doesn't want a woman president..

" I don wan't a woman president... I just want the *right* woman, not *any* woman"

Maybe he is working with the Zionists. They seem to be the masters of this particular sociopolitcal effect to gain high positions of power. Maybe I'll have a look.

Aha, my Zionist radar never fails me:

"That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the
security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only
established democracy. That will always be my starting
point.

"I don't think there is any nation that would not have reacted the way Israel did after two soldiers had been snatched. I support Israel's response to take some action in protecting themselves."

His chief financial supporters are the billionaire Pritzker family (Zionist Jews out of Chicago). Abram Nicholas Pritzker founded the Hyatt hotel chain. The Pritker family is one of the wealthiest in the USA. They’ve owned Braniff Airlines, Royal Caribbean Cruises, and so forth.

Obama’s primary bank is Penny Pritzker (Zionist Russian-Ukranian Jew) who is one of the richest women in the USA. Pritzker is a treasurer for the “Real Estate Roundtable,” an AIPAC offshoot in Washington that lobbies for legislation to help commercial landlords.

Almost all members of this “Roundtable” are Zionist Jews.

Typical Zionist planning. If he is president there will be increased racial tension because the common ignoramous and media spin will suggest that his bad decisions are because he is black. It will be all over the Zionist MSM and op/eds. The nation will be accused of being racist, we'll see a bunch of polls about it. Race crimes will rise, leading to the illusion of a more strict police state as cops' actions will also be considered racist by who he tazes, etc...

It's all they will talk about on Fox.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by Quazga

 

Actually I would totally disagree with you there. Having read the article she explains her reason for saying what she did. I don't see where there is any confusion here. If she said "I dislike black people" yeah I would call it racist. Stupid elections.

Yeah it's pretty obvious you don't understand campaign tactics. This was simply a soundbite which was meant to appeal to the base desires of prejudiced people and reign them into the clinton campaign.


The mere fact that she tries to represent her opinion as a fact is proof enough of this tactic. All they can do now is muddy the waters.





[edit on 12-3-2008 by Quazga]

reply to post by NGC2736


No, I understand that. Counting how each group votes is important for strategy in future elections. It shows why the candidate won.

But to sum up Obama's campaign as "he's winning because he's black" is unreal. The guy is not winning because he's black. Black people have run before in the past and gotten smashed.

He's a great speaker. Extremely charismatic. He comes at a time when it is acceptable to vote for blacks, not popular. It's not a fad that can be directly attributed.

It's not like I can go, "Man, if I was black I would have totally gotten that job".

The Clinton campaign is actually so desparate that they are grasping for straws and saying absurd things.

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by NGC2736

 

No, I understand that. Counting how each group votes is important for strategy in future elections. It shows why the candidate won.

But to sum up Obama's campaign as "he's winning because he's black" is unreal. The guy is not winning because he's black. Black people have run before in the past and gotten smashed.

He's a great speaker. Extremely charismatic. He comes at a time when it is acceptable to vote for blacks, not popular. It's not a fad that can be directly attributed.

It's not like I can go, "Man, if I was black I would have totally gotten that job".

The Clinton campaign is actually so desparate that they are grasping for straws and saying absurd things.

I love that line... "Man if I was black, I would have totally gotten that job".


That's priceless.

I totally agree with your post.

reply to post by Mr. Ree


We have supported Israel for over 50 years. What makes you think that's going to change?

It may not have been a great move on our part to support the rebirth of Israel, but that's basically over.

We can still support Israel without sanctioning every Muslim nation around it. That would be a good start.

reply to post by Quazga


Thanks man. Just tired of it all. We finally have two people running that should end the prejudice and restore democracy, and we get stupid things like that said.

It really ruins Hillary's credability if she agrees.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Seems "PC" only applies to white people.

GF makes a statement in conversation and it's breaking news tragedy time! Obama attends a racist church for 20+ years and that is nothing more than back page fringe. He's one to complain.

I do my very best to treat people as they should be treated no matter their color, etc..but this double standard thing is ridiculous and that's from a human perspective not a white one!

Furthermore, I agree with GF in that because of a speech he made 4 years ago and being black it vaulted him into the forefront. I'm going to go one better, had he not made that speech at the Dem convention he would not even be running for Pres.

Neither Clinton or Obama are even close to being qualified to run this country.

Originally posted by Sublime620

reply to post by Quazga

 

Thanks man. Just tired of it all. We finally have two people running that should end the prejudice and restore democracy, and we get stupid things like that said.

It really ruins Hillary's credability if she agrees.

Yep. I'm really impressed with the way McCain is running his campaign. He has chastised Bill Cunningham and took licks for it. He has stated that the GOP needs to stick to the issues and stay out of personal attacks on the candidates.


I really think that if we have an Obama vs McCain general Election we might have the first real presidential campaign without personal attacks in as long as I could imagine.

I'm so ready to say goodbye to the old politics. It's refreshing though really because it indicates that people en mass are responding less to fear mongering and more to a desire to disagree without being disagreeable.

Could it be that we Americans are actually... evolving?

Originally posted by jbondo
Seems "PC" only applies to white people.

...

Furthermore, I agree with GF in that because of a speech he made 4 years ago and being black it vaulted him into the forefront. I'm going to go one better, had he not made that speech at the Dem convention he would not even be running for Pres.

...

Then why didn't Al Sharptons speech about "Riding this Donkey for all it's worth" vault him to the forefront? That speech was made during the same convention.

See the flaw in your logic? The reason why Obama was vaulted with that speech was not because he was Black, it was because of his Speech! It made people feel more united than divided. It made me proud to be an American again because it showed me what kind of rhetoric we could actually use in political discourse. And he is proving that it works.

reply to post by jbondo


And you voted for who last election? I hope it wasn't Bush if we are talking about qualifications.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you about it. If you think that Obama is winning the election because he's black, you need to go back to 1950 and hang out with your peers.