03/12/2008
Towleroad Guide to the Tube #257
GERALDINE FERRARO: Defends her remarks that Obama is where he is because he is black.
DREAM TICKET: Nancy Pelosi puts the kibosh on any Clinton-Obama, Obama-Clinton combo.
GEORGE W BUSH: The president sings an early farewell at the Gridiron Roast.
BILL O'REILLY: O'Reilly vs Godwin's law.
Check out our previous guides to the Tube here.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 9:50 AM EST by Andy in Barack Obama, Bill O'Reilly, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, News, Towleroad Guide to the Tube | Permalink
Comments
WHEN izzz the world going to realize that OBAMA is just as white as he is black?? BUT! he is a TRUE African/American. Most blacks ancestors have been here long enough to DROP the African part...they're AMERICANS now. I have never even considered being called European American?!? lol
Posted by: todd | Mar 12, 2008 10:26:55 AM
Wow, just lost every last bit of respect for Ferraro. Now she's the victim. lol
Posted by: homer | Mar 12, 2008 10:31:27 AM
Not only is what Ferraro said (and still keeps saying) offensive, but its flat out wrong. If Obama had been white, he would easily have the nomination right now.
Posted by: rob | Mar 12, 2008 10:46:54 AM
Who cares? Big deal? Amazing... I found brintey spears had a personal account on
M e e t R i c h. c o m. It is a site for celebrities and millionaires to mingle. It's said Charlie Sheen has found his love there last May.
Posted by: kneier | Mar 12, 2008 10:49:53 AM
yes, geraldine! don't let the chihuahuas and wiener dogs nip at your heels. kick those yapping bitches to the curb. you've paid your dues, girl.
HOMER and ROB,
funny that you guys state your version of
"truthiness" under a video of o'reilly.
Posted by: nic | Mar 12, 2008 10:57:36 AM
Most interesting part of Ferraro's interview was at the end when she said, if he wins the nomination, he's going to need her to raise money for him--she'll do it IF HE STOPS THESE ATTACKS ON ME.
Democrats, listen, the Super Delegates must go with whoever has the popular vote and the most elected delegates. Hopefully, either Barack or Hillary will have BOTH. If not, hello President Grandpa!
And TODD,
you ever see a white man as skinny as Barack who still had bubble buns?--narrow but bubbly--must be the African part. I'm not saying it couldn't be, but I'd like to see it...I mean, them. And don't tell me Brad Pitt or Colin Farrell--they're not skinny, they're toned. Then again, who knows their ancestry--Pitt could be descended from the Watusi for all we know. He's certainly attracted to big, full lips.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Mar 12, 2008 10:57:55 AM
Congratulations America! The Obama campaign has succeeded where the British, the Spanish, the Nazis, the Communists, Islamic terrorists all failed -- controling your free speech...making you afraid to say anything remotely related to race for fear of being crucified as a racist. And without firing an actual shot. You all just surrendered.
Note how even Andy failed to reflect the entirety of what Ferraro said...that Obama is where he is because he is black AND NOT A WOMAN. No one is accusing Ferraro of being a sexist because she said that Obama would not be where he is in the election if he were a woman OF ANY COLOR. And that's not just because they don't care about sexism but because then they would have to focus on her ACTUAL point which is that...regardless of his intelligence...his potential...his sincerity...what he has accomplished... OBJECTIVELY speaking he doesn't have the kind of credentials typical to explain his success in the contest.
"State senators," as he was in Illinois, don't actually represent the entire state but only their small district. He won THAT nomination by simply erasing his opponents through technical challenges to their filing petitions. He won his US Senate seat because his Repug opponent self-destructed in a sex scandal. He's barely been in the US Senate one-third the time that Sen. Clinton has. He hasn't served as long as John Edwards had or Biden or Dodd or Kucinich. He hasn't governed an entire state as Richardson has. So, yeh, where's the beef?
It's in the fact that, just as he did waay back at Harvard after he finally was elected to head the law review on the NINETEENTH ballot as a compromise candidate, just as HE described HIMSELF in his book—he made himself a "blank screen" upon which all kinds of people can project what they THINK he is. Which entirely fits gay black writer David Ehrenstein's essay months ago in the LA Times describing Obama as another perfect "Magic Negro" for whites; that if there were anything "real" about him that they could see they wouldn't be interested in him. Does that make Ehrenstein a racist?
Obama is where he is all the more because it's taken over a year for mainstream media to start asking serious questions of him; to look behind the curtain to challenge even some of his claims at the same time they have aggressively carried on the nearly two-years old narrative of Hillary as a lying, conniving bitch. Writer and Princeton economist Paul Krugman calls this "Clinton Rules" wherein the media portrays everything she says/does as ipso facto evil....at the same time they have fed the narrative of Obama as the Messiah.
Is black Congressman John Lewis...who actually fought with Martin Luther King for civil rights, who was brutally beaten by Southern police...is HE racist for having denied that the Clintons are...for having accused the Obama campaign of a conscious effort to smear the Clintons as racist...for saying that "Obama is no Martin Luther King"? After learning that his own opponent for reelection this summer was going to accuse him of failing to represent his district which mostly voted for Obama in their primary, Lewis understandably changed his endorsement to Obama. But he hasn't taken back what he said.
Neither has black Congressman Charlie Rangel who said that the subject of "'race' is in this because Obama said 'race'." Is Rangel a racist for saying that? For supporting Sen. Clinton over Obama?
Are the other African-Americans from "average citizens" to business moguls and elected officials who support Sen. Clinton racist?
Is black lesbian minister Irene Monroe a racist for accusing Obama of playing the race card, of being a "vote whore" when he paid for a stage for homohating Donnie McClurkin in South Carolina?
Is Obama himself a racist for having denounced another black man...Louis Farrakhan? [Apparently antiSemitism is more important to Obama than homohating as he has yet to denounce McClurkin...only said that he disagreed with him. "Denounce" vs. "disagree"...think about that.
But wait! What am I saying? How dare I ask these questions? How dare I suggest people think. I can smell the brand of Racist on my searing flesh now.......
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Mar 12, 2008 11:20:52 AM
although i'm still in a tizzy from yesterday's post about novarro's beautiful nipples, I have somehow managed to compose myself momentarily to say that i think ferraro's comments are totally unnecessary and uncalled for. this reminds me of a conversation i overheard this weekend while having coffee with my husband at starbucks. a american trio whom i presume were tourists were speculating on the percentage of black versus white blood in obama's veins with all the sinister relish of a dr. mengele. and yes, california was too liberal 4 them, they added.
Posted by: the queen | Mar 12, 2008 11:21:06 AM
Todd, You've never heard of an Italian American or an Irish American. And you've never seen any of these groups celebrate their culture by naming their kids with Irish or Italian names. Or otherwise take pride in their culture. It doesn't harm anyone for Obama or anyone else to call themselves African American. I think the real problem, and the problem that many have with Obama, is that he and others have decided to define themselves, and not go along with what others tell them is their culture or how they should act.
Posted by: Cadence | Mar 12, 2008 11:25:06 AM
I'm a huge supporter of Barack Obama. I voted for him in our state's primary and I will continue to vote for him with every chance I get.
I do, however think that he is where he is because he is black. I love his message, butI feel that were he not black, he would not have been given such a platform to deliver it. He is a first-term senator from Illinois. I am thankful that his race gave the media a hook by which I was able to learn more about him, but that happened because of his race.
Posted by: Dan B | Mar 12, 2008 11:32:14 AM
You'd have to be dumb to buy that Ferraro's initial comment was not intentionally conceived (as was Kerrey's and Bill's and the others) to drum up racial side-taking. But beyond that, Ferraro's continued insistence that what she said is fine is really am embarrassment. How can Hillary not see that she loses at least one supporter for every one she gains by this tactic?
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Mar 12, 2008 11:35:33 AM
You'd have to ask the white voters who voted for Obama, how much a factor his race had to do with it? I wonder, would they have voted for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? So, it must be something other than his blackness (or light browness) that makes white people vote for Obama.
The blacks who've voted for him obviously like HIM as well as his skin color. Neither Charlie Rangel, John Lewis nor Maxine Waters could create the kind of enthusiasm among black voters that Barack Obama has.
Barack is very similar to GARY HART in 1984. People believe he's different. It's not just his skin color, it's him. Had John Edwards had Barack's message of "coming together"--he might still be in the fight. Alone with Mrs Clinton, Edwards might very well be ahead of her with the "come together/non partisan" approach.
Michael,
what the hell are you going to do if the nominee is Barack? You'll have to go away and rest in the solitude of Yellow Stone, then come back and vote in November. Right now, somebody'd have to physically force you to pull that big Democratic lever with Obama at the top of it. Calm down, chile.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Mar 12, 2008 11:46:16 AM
Michael Bedwell is consistently correct in his assessments of the Obama campaign regarding race.
Instead of having the conversation with Ferraro about her opinions, the campaign comes out and says that what she is saying is absurd and has no place in politics. Why doesn't it have a place in politics, because some people might disagree with you?
You might not like what she is saying, but don't try to shut her up, and don't try to say that she is racist.
Posted by: jmg | Mar 12, 2008 11:52:30 AM
Ahh, I knew that ginormous block of text was from Michael Bedwell before I even scrolled past it to the end. I could smell the stench of bitter old queen from miles away.
Posted by: crispy | Mar 12, 2008 11:53:22 AM
I'm a black man, and I must say that not only is what Ferraro said not offensive, it's true and doesn't even matter anyway. It's like saying Hillary is where she is because she married Bill. That's completely true and pointless, now. It doesn't matter. Clinton is where she is and Obama is where he is no matter how they got there.
Consider John Edwards who had more experience and as much charisma as Obama but because he's white, the idea of "newness" wasn't there for him as much as people liked the idea of "change." There's nothing wrong with saying that. Ferraro didn't call him a bad name, she simply spoke the truth. She's not running for president, why does it matter?
Personal story time: I went to an Ivy League school and I'm convinced that the only reason I was accepted is because I'm black. I'm sure there were other qualified white applicants they could have chosen but they chose me for diversity. I don't get offended if you say this to me 'cause guess what, I still have an Ivy League diploma! It doesn't matter how I got in, I did!
The Obama camp needs to focus on their plans for the US not not fake attacks.
Posted by: junior | Mar 12, 2008 11:56:31 AM
seriously, we all need to lighten up. i'll be as comfortable voting for a brilliant open-minded black man as i will for a brilliant open-minded white woman.
who woulda thunk that joy behar would be the voice of reason on "the view"? she said, "you can't criticize hillary because it's sexism; you can't criticize obama because it's racism; and you can't criticize mccain because it's elder abuse." hahahaha!
i'm sure that she will be getting hate mail and death threats from the anti-ageism defamation league.
Posted by: nic | Mar 12, 2008 12:11:02 PM
Junior - you make some really great points... i agree w/ you 100%
Posted by: gabriel | Mar 12, 2008 12:28:00 PM
Black voters have long represented the base of the modern Democratic Party. It's quite fascinating to see how easily such an important constituency can be so quickly disregarded when it suits certain politicians.
Is anyone really socked by what Geraldine said? She said the exact same thing about Jesse Jackson 20 years ago.
BTW, if I were being really provocative, I could mention that Hillary wouldn't have been able to railroad her way into her NY senatorial seat in 2000 over a succession of lesser know NY politicians had she not been the cuckolded woman married to Bill Clinton. Imagine the outrage if Obama raised that...
Posted by: Jason | Mar 12, 2008 12:34:35 PM
Jason,
That line has already been used, by Chris Matthews. And only men can be cuckolds. There needed to be a special word for a man whose wife cheated on him, probably because it was a much rarer occurrence than a man cheating on a woman.
Posted by: jmg | Mar 12, 2008 12:51:05 PM
-hilary will be NOWHERE if her last name was not CLINTON, and if he was not white.
-liberman could not have be v.p. nominee of gore if he was not jewish..
- bush could have be NOWHERE if his father was not white and president.
want more?
Posted by: johnosahon | Mar 12, 2008 1:01:01 PM
At first, I found Ferraro’s comments ironic. Now, I’m angry. Contrary to her latter interpretations, she did not say, at the time, that she would not have been a VP nominee if she were not female.
In the abstract, it is arguable that her statements are not racist. However, we do not live in a vacuum. We, unfortunately, live in a culture rooted in white supremacy.
Her chosen words (she was a teacher, lawyer, and politician) just happened to be the words white folks use when they grouse about affirmative action? It seems unlikely, improbable even.
It should matter when the Clinton campaign and its agents use white supremacist language and imagery.
Posted by: Carlton | Mar 12, 2008 1:08:24 PM
Todd,
African-American is no different that Chinese American, Irish American, etc. Also, the majority of African-Americans are mixed-race. Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Park, Malcolm X, Don Cheadle, Chris Rock, Will Smith and Morgan Freeman all have white ancestry.
During the slave era and afterwards, American law and custom institutionalized the One Drop Rule. One drop of African blood made one "black." This allowed for greater number of people to enslaved and later oppressed.
In Plessy v. Ferguson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Plessy, a man who was 7/8th white, could be categorized as "black" and that segregation was legal. Lousiana law enforced the One Drop Rule making anyone with 1/32 African ancestry "black." Similar laws existed in most Southern states.
Many African-Americans who looked "white" decided to escape the life of racial oppression and moved to different areas of the country where they could reinvent themselves as "white." So, as modern genetic surveys show, 1/3 of white Americans have detectable African ancestry that can be traced to slavery.
For instance, as PBS.org shows people like Humphrey Bogart, Carrol Channing, and Heather Lochlear are all descendants of African slaves.
Many of these people don't know about their own ancestry until they undergo genetic testing. For instance, famous genetist James Watson only recently learned of his African ancestry after allowing his DNA to be sequenced.
Posted by: noah | Mar 12, 2008 1:10:16 PM
STOP IT!!!!!!! Stop it, everyone!!!! We have two fine candidates on the Democratic ballot. Yet every gay man I know has chosen sides, either Hillary or Obama, and ceased to be open-minded about the other candidate. I can't tell you how many times I've heard guys say "If Obama gets the nomination I'm not voting in November" or "If Clinton gets the nomination I'm voting for McCain". PEOPLE! This is insanity!!!!! We can't be so partisan within our own party. Ask yourself this: which matters more, that a Democrat gets elected in November or that the Democrat you liked best gets elected in November? I seriously hope you all can see the foolishness of failing to support both these fine candidates until we have the nominee and can throw all our support behind one person.
Posted by: peterparker | Mar 12, 2008 1:14:40 PM
I wish Michael Bedwell would stop blogging on someone else's blog.
Posted by: D. R. H. | Mar 12, 2008 1:19:21 PM
Derrick, mon cher, I will happily "pull the lever" for Obama over McCain but the campaign for the nomination is not over yet no matter how angry the Obamoonies are that he still hasn't been given the nomination by aclamation. And, again, someone please explain that if he is so great and Sen. Clinton is so bad?
And you might be right, as you've written elsewhere, that "what is best for the Party" would be for the superdelegates to finally do that but you are wrong when you say that superdelegates should just follow the votes....otherwise there would be no point for them in the first place.
As for comparisons to Gary Hart...he had been a US Senator 9 and 11 years respectively when he ran for President. Obama has only been a US Senator 3 years....at least one of which should be deducted [and, yes, from Sen. Clinton, too] for using it to run for President. Which is also why he got caught in his own trap about "we should be focusing on Afghanistan" and "I have experience on the Foreign Relations Committee" when he was forced to admit he's been MIA because he's been busy campaigning for Prez—just like he was MIA when the Illinois gay rights bill was being fought for because he was too busy running for Senator. I can hear him now: "What's this bull about there will be no more offices to run for if I'm elected Prez? Michelle! Where are you?"
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Mar 12, 2008 2:09:07 PM
D. R. H., you're my new hero!
Posted by: Sami | Mar 12, 2008 2:13:38 PM
PETERPARKER,
what you said. nevertheless:
NOAH,
thanks, i guess, for iterating what we should all know.
JASON,
you have to be interesting before you can be provocative. but, clearly, diction is not your forte (pronounced fort, not fortay).
as JMG pointed out, cuckold is a term applied to men, only. (we hispanics have bridged that adjectival gap by using the neuter phrase, "poniendo los cuernos").
further, "exact same" is tautological.
gosh, some of these times i just want to throw my arms up in surrender. dude, when using hundred-dollar words, unless they hit the mark, you are only buying bargain-basement elegantism.
CARLTON,
shut the fuck up. ferraro is no more a clinton "agent" or gasp, "surrogate" than i am. for you to read anymore into her comments than her assessment of things as they are makes me want to hurl. i share her outrage.
suddenly, if i question anything about obama, i'm a racist? there are undertones of white supremacy in what i say? as insalubrious to your way of thinking, dear, i am mexican-american. hence, i have no ethnic dog in this fight (now SOULBROTHA is going to say that i called hillary a bitch and obama a dawg). the only thing i rely on is reason and a sense of balance.
Posted by: nic | Mar 12, 2008 2:28:07 PM
Ferraro's remarks and Clinton's responses to them are all about Pennsylvania. Making Clinton the victimized white woman versus the black beneficiary of affirmative action will play well into white middle class resentment there.
Posted by: Chester | Mar 12, 2008 2:37:16 PM
Derrick
Great point
At first I was an Edwards supporter till NH. I knew then that Obama was the one to get behind.
Now if edwards had instead done the whole trying to bring the country back together thing as vs Little guys yeah!!! corporations bad!!! (though pretty acurate) he would have done far far better than he did.
The message is what stimulates the majority of Obama voters wether white (me with a mutt mix of everything somewhere in my family's past) , black, red, yellow, and even green martians.
:-)
The thing about Geraldine is that her schtick isn't new. She did it back in the 80's about jesse jackson. She has pulled the "only because he is black" thing out before and against other black candidates.
On her raising money for obama. LOL
ROFLMAO
Obama raised $55 mil last month alone and 90% of that from small donors under $100 each.
She is soooooooooo old guard and doesn't realize it is the 21st century yet. The old way is dead and gone. It is a new form of politics now with direct donations from average citizens outweighing big donors. Instant info gathering via the net, etc.
I am embaresed for her because she is old school and doesn't realize it is the 21st century yet.
That said. Obama leads on peldged delegates, the popular vote, the most states, and money raised. Hillary has lost and is destroying her chances for the VP slot. Per pelosi the VP slot for hillary has already been destroyed.
Time to face reality folks.
Love you hillary supproters and your passion, but it is time to go after Grandpa Bush jr mccain with Obama the head of the dem ticket.
PS; over at Huffpo there is an article on the actress who played MARIANE on Giligan's Island being arested for pot possesion. LOL
Mariane!!!! LOL a fellow pot head
Smile everyone
:-)
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Mar 12, 2008 2:51:30 PM
You may disagree with what Geraldine said, but she didn't mean it as racist - and I don't believe she is racist. I also find it offensive to continually claim "racism". It's just ridiculous. The Obama campaign just does it to get press... there is no such thing as bad publicity. Good for her to stand up and tell the Obama campaign to pound sand. I'm sick of hearing folks feign fake apologies. Yes, I'm a Clinton supporter, but for what it's worth having the Obama campaign supporter resigning for calling Clinton a "monster" was also ridiculous. If that was the worst thing that every happened to Hillary, I'm sure she would be elated. This whole thing of people being so damaged by political speech is over the top. Didn't their Mom's ever tell them "Sticks and Stones may break your bones, but words will never harm you..." Grow up...
Posted by: MikeH | Mar 12, 2008 2:56:58 PM
Clinton is ahead in popular vote, btw:
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/clinton-obama-popular-vote.html
Posted by: John | Mar 12, 2008 3:02:30 PM
JIMMYBOYO:
Marianne? She must be damn near eighty now. At her age, smoking pot. Well, if she's still using drugs she must be a fellow Pisces too. I wonder if McCain still uses something? George Dumbya has been drinking all throught last 7 years. He never stopped. The liar.
NIC,
I never realized you were Hispanic. So, where was your allegience to and support for Bill Richardson? You disloyal bit...I mean, fella'.
Hmmm...Mexican-American, hunh? That means you still have a full head of hair, don't you? You lucky bit...I mean, fella'.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Mar 12, 2008 3:14:16 PM
Blah blah blah Obama. Blah blah blahblahblah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah. BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Clinton blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Obama Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah. BLAH BLAH BLAH. Blah blah blahblahblah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Obama Blah blah blahblahblah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blahblahblah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah..
Blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blahblahblah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blahblah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Clinton blah. Blah blah blahblahblah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah?
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah. BLAH — Blah blah blahblahblah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah.. Blah blah blah Obama. Blah blah blahblahblah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Obama blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah.
BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!
Obama blah blah blah blah blahblahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah. Hillary blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah. Obama blah blah Messiah.
Blah blah blahblahblah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blahblah blahblah. Clintons blah blah blahblahblah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Obama blah blah. Blah blahblahblah blah? Blah blah blah blah blah blah Clinton blah Obama?
Obama blah blah blah. Hollow as a chocolate Easter bunny.
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Mar 12, 2008 3:18:00 PM
Michael, thanks for displaying in crystal clear terms the intellect of those supporting Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Marc | Mar 12, 2008 3:26:38 PM
John
Sorry, FL and Mi don't count in any wyshape or form unless they do a proper by the rules vote.
No serious political watcher counts those numbers thus, minus FL and MI (especialy with 3-4 candidates not even on their ballot)
Thenyour site also doesn't have the TX caucus numbers added in
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/05/texas.caucus.count/index.html?eref=rss_politics
1.1 million cacus votes added to TX so far splitting 56% and 44% (ps Obama is wining TX delegate count er CNN and MSNBC)
Obama 12,885,721
Clinton 12,383,287
Obama ahead in the popular vote by 502,434popuar votes
I would love FL and Mi to vote properly even though FL would most likely go hillary (nowhee ear the margin of the improper vote)
BUT sorry, they don't count till after the convention sts them AFTER they winner is already delared unless they vote properly by the rules Hillary agreed to lke all the other candidates.
LOL Derrick. We pisces do love to indulge at whatever age. :-)
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Mar 12, 2008 3:27:15 PM
PS john
Real clear politics has Obama ahead 700,000+ in the popular vote, much more than my figure
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Mar 12, 2008 3:29:53 PM
The above BLAH BLAH post was not by me. Once again some coward unable to respond with substance just tries to discredit the messenger with such juvenile tactics even going so far as to steal e-mail address. Now I understand why more and more sites are requiring registered posters.
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Mar 12, 2008 3:33:35 PM
PSS
You know the schtick already
"sorry for my typos"
:-)
Michael
LOL
"Hollow as a chocolate Easter bunny"
We all have indulged once or twice in those hollow chocolate easter bunnies in our lives. You know you did at least once as a kid.
:-)
You probably even said "YUMMY" with chocolate smeared all over your mouth and half a hollow chocolate easter bunny in your hand
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Mar 12, 2008 3:35:48 PM
Come back Andy, we miss you. The weather sucks outside so i guess ur not missing much.
Posted by: daveynyc | Mar 12, 2008 3:37:42 PM
Michael
It has happened to me before
Though I bet my chocolate easter bunny retort stands true
:-)
Damn, now I want some chocalte
YUMMY
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Mar 12, 2008 3:40:21 PM
DERRICK,
my loyalties were where they should have been, before reality hit. will i vote for the bi-- i mean hillary, or the ni-- i mean barack? oh you betcha! mezcin with a full head of hair and uncut? oh you betcha!
good on you, my friend. you know what bette midler said, "fuck 'em if they can't take a joke!"
Posted by: nic | Mar 12, 2008 3:44:49 PM
I sat mutely in front of the Television this morning, changing channel after channel while Ms Ferraro was
allowed to say the same weird hyperbolic “just let me speak” pointed oddities while I squirmed and drank my coffee.
NOT ONE of the interviewers questioned (Ms? Or would she be offended if I said Mrs?) Ferraro on the issues of damaging the Democratic party, women in general, or “race” relations. For anyone who wanted to learn how to use the media to their own advantage it was a revelation.
Good one Gerry.
Except one thing: Geraldine Ferraro, who are you?
Really.
There are many people under the age of 35 who don’t ever recall having ever heard of you. Ger, all of your kids are now out of college and THEIR kids are voting for Obama.
And Gerry: do ya’ even HAVE any black friends??? You know: not just the ones who go to the fundraisers, but maybe even one African American pal or close associate that you’d ‘kinda even have a drink with, who would tell it like it is?
Trust me (as a white pretty boy with shiny prospects) when I tell you that just about everything you’ve ever heard about WHY minorities are paranoid and cynical about your motives is true: they are profiled, they are “tracked”, and with every success they have in ANY field, there is some weird shrill overly tanned stretched visage (who looks like a prettier or smarter or whiter version of you or me Geraldine) ranting somewhere that the only reason “the blacks” succeeded was because of affirmative action.
So shut the hell up and get some minority friends, some younger friends, some OTHER friends who will tell you that you are Driving While White in the wrong lane.
Huh.
Just like a woman driver.
Get it?
Posted by: DKS | Mar 12, 2008 3:52:29 PM
"... mezcin with a full head of hair and uncut."
I'm sure they have barbers way down in Texas, darlin'. Try a black neighborhood--they won't hurt you. I promise.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Mar 12, 2008 4:00:51 PM
Ferraro desperately wants Hillary to win because she probably thinks it will cement her "legacy" from 1984. Desperation makes people say strange things.
Posted by: Dylan | Mar 12, 2008 4:04:39 PM
DERRICK,
it's not my hair that is uncut.
DKS,
what the hell is wrong with you? your appalling disrespect makes even MY sanguine aspect livid. what's worse, it diminishes you.
Posted by: nic | Mar 12, 2008 4:31:14 PM
Obama has gotten attention because he's black, but that doesn't negate hiss talents either.
Hillary has gotten where she is right now because she is a woman and because she's Bill's wife.
John McCain is here now because he's been milking the Vietnam War POW angle for decades.
Ferraro admitted to being asked to be on the ticket because she was a woman. What's her point?
Personally, I think if Obama were white he would have had the nomination squared away by now, not the opposite. Oh, and Obama did not call her a racist. He said her comments were divisive and to look at the history of this country. Ferraro is just trying to drum up white people who hate the idea of voting for a black man, and that find to be the racist part of all of this.
Posted by: hal | Mar 12, 2008 4:36:44 PM
OK, Ferraro is just out of line. Unfortuantely, her attitude isn't that uncommon.
However, you can't claim to be oppressed before the oppression actually happens. There's no dibs for "pre-emptive" oppression.
Once you've been slaves for 400 years, then you get to complain about injustice. Once you've experienced the bitter taste of being labeled "sub-human" in your own homeland, then you get to complain about injustice. Once all the resources of your continent are stripped bare for the benefit of some distant empire thousands of miles away, then you get to complain about injustice.
One would imagine it's self-evident that a prolonged period of suffering must precede demands for social justice. But with the orgy of "reverse discrimination" nonsense lately (within the gay community and otherwise), I'm to beginning to wonder if white folks actually believe they're being oppressed. If they do, it is frankly delusion.
Posted by: John | Mar 12, 2008 5:11:44 PM
Everyone from Queens is a racist. It's common knowledge.
Will this get me on Oprah?
Posted by: anon | Mar 12, 2008 5:31:12 PM
Geraldine got it right and has the right to say this guy got to where he is not just on his two year experience in the Senate. But it's the Obama campaign that put the issue on the spotlight, and I hope it backfires on them. He is the one alienating people in his own party with these "oh you're so divisive" passive-aggressive tactics. Of course, he just wants to remake the party as the Obamacratic Party. His ego knows no bounds.
Posted by: Ken | Mar 12, 2008 5:32:26 PM
Once again, we have proof that the left wing can be just as ridiculous in squelching dissent as the right wing.
No, I am sorry, Ms. Ferraro, you cannot bring up race in that way. Why? Because we said so, that's why. Because if a black person claims injustice, it's automatically true, didn't you know that? Anyone else is delusional.
Posted by: jmg | Mar 12, 2008 5:58:44 PM
As the Clinton and Obama camps duke it out for the nomination the tempo of ’race’ baiting and muslim baiting by the Clinton campaign has picked up speed since Bill Clinton started it in South Carolina a few weeks ago.
Now Ferraro’s openly appealing to racist sentiments with the silly suggestion that Obama is repressing whites and women because he has more delegates. Ferraro says Obama’s has an advantage over other candidates, that he’s ‘lucky’. She right, but it’s not because of his African American heritage. Obama’s lucky because people know much more about the Clintons and their heritage – DOMA, DADT, NAFTA, her ardent support for the genocidal war, her union busting history with Wal-Mart and NAFTA and the mean spirited attacks on people on welfare, Medicare and unemployment.
The Clintons heritage destroyed the Democrats. In 1992 they controlled the White House, most state governors and both Houses of Congress. Because of the unpopularity of the Clintons’ policies, and his fondness for backstabbing everyone in sight, Democrats were routed. They lost the Congress, all but a third of the governorships and the White House in 2000 and 2004.
The real truth is that there are few substantial differences between Obama, Clinton and McClain on the main questions that face the GLBT communities. That aside, we should all condemn the use of race and muslim baiting in the campaign as roundly as we condemn the routine pandering to gay bashers by Clinton and Obama. The Republicans, cued by the Clinton campaign, are already polling to see how far they can go and as we know from the murders last month, when bigotry of any kind is injected into election year politics people get killed.
And it would be nice if GLBT supporters of the Obama campaign could convince them to quit pandering to gaybashing christian bigots. When he does that that Obama emboldens the thugs just as much as Barney Frank, Billary’s campaign manager did when he joined with Republicans to gut ENDA and trash can the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes law. But since Obama needs the bigot’s votes, I don’t see that happening.
Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | Mar 12, 2008 6:36:16 PM
Ferraro steps down from clinton campaign honarary post
Being reported now in the news.
She submited her resignation to the clintoncampaign.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Mar 12, 2008 6:36:17 PM
Here is a linky link
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/12/ferraro-steps-down/
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Mar 12, 2008 6:39:20 PM
Der/Jimmy...I fear you may have discovered the root of my allergy to Obama. When I was still an itty bitty queen driving everyone crazy playing my Mahalia records over and over; perfecting my Eartha purr; and trying to affect Marlene cheekbones, I got over finding out there was no Santa Claus REAL fast cause I STILL got presents. But Easter after Easter I expected when I bit into that chocolate bunny that THIS time it would not be hollow only to be traumatized again and again. I mean I was one of those kids whose mom had to actually LOCK UP the Ex Lax because I didn’t care what she said IT WAS CHOCOLATE and I could still hear it calling my name behind that locked cabinet door!
Yes, Obama may be “hollow” but at least he’s not “carob” like Condosleazy Rice.
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Mar 12, 2008 6:51:00 PM
LOL
Michael
I tried carob as a chocolate substitut once.
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The only thing they have remotely in common is color, and that not even much.
Chocolate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! rules wether hollow or not.
:-)
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Mar 12, 2008 7:00:23 PM
John, that post you linked to is wrong. Even with MI and FL, which it doesn't make any sense to count, Obama is ahead by more than 5,000 votes. And someone should tell Michael Bedwell that Ferraro is a part of Clinton's staff.
Posted by: Cadence | Mar 12, 2008 7:07:43 PM
Whatever...
Geraldine stepped down from the campaign so now Obama will have to find someone else who is racist. If Obama gets the nomination, I will support him, I just hope his supporters do the same for HRC. I saw alot of talk about the popular vote... HRC may well get the lead in the popular vote count if she keeps winning large states; if that ends up being the case, that would provide political cover for the super delegates to support her... I believe the majority of folks would find it somewhat disingenuous for the Obama campaign to start complaining that the popular vote count doesn't matter... of course if she is behind in popular vote, I think she's toast.
Posted by: Warren | Mar 12, 2008 8:09:01 PM
Warren, Obama nor his campaign ever called Ferraro, Bill Clinton, or the Clinton campaign racists. He pointed out the fact that her statements were bigoted, and were the actions that both he and Hillary could expect from McCain and the Republicans. It floors me how many times someone on the Clinton side can say something, but Obama gets the blame for it. I also can't help but wonder about the fact that the Obama campaign took quick action against the HRC employee who sent out nasty e-mails on Hillary, and Ms. Patterson, but Hillary waits days before saying anything about Geraldine. Exactly how does this behavior scream that she would be a good President.
Posted by: cadence | Mar 12, 2008 8:31:06 PM
Warren
It is almost statistacly impossible, not as much as the pledged delegates (which is flat outimpossible), for hillary to get ahead in the popular vote.
Kudos on your passion for Hillary, but maybe you should direct it towards writing her campaign to take the VP slot under Obama.
I think she still has time to fix her VP positioning despite what Pelosi has said.
Now back to chocolate and contemplating Marianne smokng pot.
:-)
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Mar 12, 2008 8:56:39 PM
Christ of the Andes, Cadence. Support whom you want but your drunk-on-Obamaness is destroying your sense of time.
The story STARTED to go national Monday afternoon on Daily Obama er Daily Kos:
"Ferraro: Obama is lucky he's black
by kos
Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:47:44 PM PDT"
The Washington Post said it "went national" yesterday as the result of a conference call between Obama's Chief Hitman David Axelrod and reporters.
THE SAME DAY, Sen. Clinton said she disagreed with Ferraro. That's at most [assuming she had heard about it on Monday afternoon] ONE DAY....MERE HOURS if one goes by the Post timeline...NOT "DAYS" as you screeched.
If Obama supporters can't even tell time why should we believe their judgment about him?
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Mar 12, 2008 9:05:54 PM
Michael, get your facts straight. Ferraro first said the comments over 12 days ago, on a radio show. Clinton said nothing. Then she repeated them in front of an audience. Clinton said nothing. Then they reported in the daily Breeze (check the story out.) on March 7th, which was last Friday. Clinton said nothing unil this past MONDAY. Conversely, the incidents with the posts by the HRC guy and Ms. Patterson were taken care of hours after they happened.
And less go over how Ms. Clinton handled this situation. First she said Ms Ferraro didn't work for her campaign. I guess she thought that since Ms. Ferraro wasn''t recieving a pay check that it didn't count. Then she said she didn't support the statements, but she also turned the situation around and tried to make it seem like Mr. Obama was making the situation worse than it was.
Posted by: cadence | Mar 12, 2008 9:40:03 PM
Michael, get your facts straight. Ferraro first said the comments over 12 days ago, on a radio show. Clinton said nothing. Then she repeated them in front of an audience. Clinton said nothing. Then they reported in the daily Breeze (check the story out.) on March 7th, which was last Friday. Clinton said nothing unil this past MONDAY. Conversely, the incidents with the posts by the HRC guy and Ms. Patterson were taken care of hours after they happened.
And less go over how Ms. Clinton handled this situation. First she said Ms Ferraro didn't work for her campaign. I guess she thought that since Ms. Ferraro wasn''t recieving a pay check that it didn't count. Then she said she didn't support the statements, but she also turned the situation around and tried to make it seem like Mr. Obama was making the situation worse than it was.
Posted by: cadence | Mar 12, 2008 9:44:49 PM
Sorry for the double post.
And still we have Clinton supporters who want to blame the Obama camp for this. Despite the fact that the conference call that Michael speaks of took place on Tuesday not Monday, after Ms. Clinton's lukewarm rebuke of Ferraro's remarks. But, even if the call did occur on Monday, that doesn't take away from the fact that Ferraro started this fire, and that Clinton either didn't care to address it, or that Ferraro did just as she was told to do.
Posted by: Cadence | Mar 12, 2008 9:53:25 PM
Warren, the popular vote is meaningless since most of the caucus states do not have a "popular vote."
Posted by: Chester | Mar 12, 2008 10:03:13 PM
Folks, I hope your Canadian passports are up to date, 'cause thanks to Nancy Pelosi and her clan of deluded shitwits, America's staying the (wrong) course this November. President McCain will be sworn into office come January 2009, mark Mother's wise wise words, with Rev Rod (Parsley) officiating on a Bible with all fag-bashing bits of Leviticus underlined in cherry-pink highlighter. And don't think that we moderate Dems will forgive you for this because some of us still remember when you losers through your support behind Nader in 2000 instead of Gore.
Posted by: Matt | Mar 12, 2008 10:23:50 PM
PROVE to us, Cadence, all of us who don't have a subscription to "The Daily Breeze, that Sen. Clinton KNEW about those comments "over 12 days ago" or even over two days ago. If she did then certainly the official Obama Borg did and THEY did not complain about them until YESTERDAY.
WHAT "Ms. Patterson"? Do you mean Samantha Power? Even if you don't, she called Sen. Clinton "a monster...stooping to anything" and deceitful in an interview that occured on March 3rd. In an interview with the "New Statesman" published on March 6th she said, "I don't think it's a good idea for the Clintons to get into a competition over who's got the most unsavory donations, you know what I mean?"
The "Scotsman" interview was published on March 7th and, yes, she resigned still trying to pull her foot out of the Obama campaign's mouth by the end of the day. To equate what Moore said with what Ferraro said is simply Obamoonie madness.
"The Power comments also pretty well undermined Power's central claim—that Clinton is surrounded by thugs who will say anything about Obama. Nobody in [Sen. Clinton's] inner circle has come anywhere near calling [Obama] a 'monster'." - The Politico.
And, strange, I can't find Obama saying he disagrees with what Power said as Sen. Clinton publicly did with Ferraro.
"If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it.” - Barack Obama, January 2008.
Still waiting, Mr. Obama.
WHAT "HRC guy"? You mean gay Obama shill Maxim Thorne? He didn't resign until March 11th, FIVE DAYS after
"From: Maxim Thorne
Sent: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 8:46 pm
Subject: Clinton lies and sleaze"
"If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it.” - Barack Obama, January 2008.
Still waiting, Mr. Obama.
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Mar 12, 2008 10:26:09 PM
Well, isn't this just a feast? All I really know is that we have two "trainees" heading up the democrat ticket. And what really bugs me is the possibility this type of ass-nine behavior may get promoted on up to the white house.
We have dick head GW (please don't forget he is a christian - that thinks waterboarding is OK) who has set us all up to be disrespected by the entire world. (unless GW is handing out cash - no one has much nice to say).
But...back to H and O - Neither one of them is riding on a solid platform. If John had upped the excitement a bit - neither would have had a chance against him. Still here we are wondering who called who what.Can anyone say "playground"?
One thing I did note - Gerry didn't say "black" wasn't a good thing. We pitch a fit when they want to put some straight dude in charge of the AIDS effort in America. So maybe being black is a "plus" in this election? Why does everyone always take it that saying someone is black means its bad, or less than...?? Let's see, memo to staff: Do not use "N", "F", "B", and now, the OTHER "B" -words....if you are in the near vicinity of the media....
And - let's admit it - I think there is a high level of "white/Bush" disgust. Not only is Bush an idiot and asshole - he's white.
OOOOOpppps! I forgot...you can't use the "W" word anymore either.
Posted by: Mark | Mar 12, 2008 11:18:24 PM
As I said Michael the Daily Breeze article was published on the 7th, you are the one who said Clinton jumped on the story when it happened. Secondly, the Daily Breeze interview wasn't the first time that Ferraro made these comments.
She made them first on Feb. 26th in a radio interview. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23601041/, and yet Clinton said nothing.
When she finally stood-up to knock down the statements, she accussed Obama of not staying on the issues, and accussed his campaign of the same tactics. Because of course, calling someone a monster is in the same vain as race baiting.
Posted by: cadence | Mar 12, 2008 11:22:49 PM
And Michael, since you have a subscription to the Breeze, why would you try and make people believe that the Obama camp started this, or that the story wasn't released on the 7th? That's okay, we all know that the facts aren't important to Clintonistas.
Posted by: Cadence | Mar 12, 2008 11:26:53 PM
Matt
Nancy Pelosi and "her nitwits"
hmmmm, you do know that Nancy Pelosi is in charge of the convention this year, right?
I would put a littl more stock in what she says.
Especaly since Clinton agreed to the rules as ALL candidates had to before the eletion evev started.
To run for winning the nominee of the democratic party to run for POTUS a prospective candidat has to sign on in agreement with how the DNC will run the primaries and caucuses for a given eletion cycle.
Clinton had tonssssssssssssss of lawyers just like each and every single candidate had lawyers with them that day when they signed onto in agreement with the rules, and or FL and MI people, punishments if states broke certain simple rules.
Hillary signed.
As agreed to by Clinton to begin with, Nancy Pelosi is heading the onvention this cycle.
Nancy might have pissed off a lot of people by taking "impeachment" off the table, but she is in charge of the end game of this thing to be the democratis nominee that clinton wants to win.
It sounds like MORE than a warnin to clinton was explicitly stated today. "NO Clinton/ Obama not even as Obama's VP."
A large chunk of super delegatesare are members ofthe house of representatives which Pkosi heads riht now! She has a lot of control over comittee placements (the heads are elected by members) , but actual memership in one's prefered comitee hinges on nanc y's approval. Nancy has a lot of ower to hamstring bills so they never get out of anyone's comiteeto a vote.
Those rep super D's are going to vote lock stock and barrel pretty much at the convention with the one Nancy lies.
Nancy said Clinton shouldn't have been praising McCain over Obama.
I think Hillary still has a chance to placate the super D's who haven't comitted and the ones with a lot of power so she can be Obama's VP and eventualy run for preseident herself after (hopefuly) 8 succesful Obama years.
The clinton needs to shape up something split quick. Time is running out and the NANCY HEADED Deocrtaic convetin is getting closer and closer.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Mar 13, 2008 1:04:53 AM
sorry for the typos
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Mar 13, 2008 1:07:52 AM
Apples and Oranges Micheal. Both campaigns have had people say things inappropriate and wrong, and both of those people resigned. What's your issue? Just because you don't find Ferraro's comments all that bad in comparison to Power's? If you were really open minded you wouldn't be trying to give one far more weight then the other. Don't try and act like it's fairness your after.
Posted by: hal | Mar 13, 2008 1:41:35 AM
Recent Comments