Clinton and Ferraro's form
I agree with Owen Glaze and Ryan B up to a point (by the way, did you see of the Pennsylvania situation?) but the exit polls from Mississippi suggest, do they not, that people who have made up their minds more recently have tended to be for Hillary - suggesting momentum for her.
She certainly has to win Pennsylvania. But if, as Owen suggests, the majority of Democrats have not voted for her - even after a win there - she is finished. Short of Kevin Burns and his "obscene manipulation" (great phrase). Nathan L is right about the fundamental miscalculation of the Clinton camp - if that is what it turns out to be - with regard to fighting for all states. They never thought it would be necessary. Now they have an office in Puerto Rico!
Spencer and Doug, we are looking at the Texas issue - you are right we must certainly report the (new) full result on 29 March.
Jon Gardner asks why I have not reported Geraldine Ferraro's : here is the . I note that (towards the end) she acknowledges that she would not have been a vice-presidential candidate were it not for her sex. But she also has this tiresome arch way of blaming "men" for doing Hillary Clinton down. And she , as they say. Obama would never make such a suggestion about "whites" or "Latinos" - and if he did, he'd be doomed. Perhaps Men (post Eliot Spitzer?) are too easy a target for self-pitying politicians in need of excuses. Anyway, she has stepped down and can now devote more time to Fox News.
And Minimoog - I shared your surprise!
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
It is staggering, the subliminal nuances coming out, especially lately, insinuating that Obama has not earned by right to be running for this thing (as they would call it). It seems this whole saga smells, through and through of desperation tinged with that inner sadistic and selfish cry for a put down, so as to get one's way, come what may. Sad!Sad for woman/mankind!It mocks civility.If that is politics then politics seems to me a dirty game I am afraid.
Justin,
You promise to investigate the Texas Caucus result and I note that evidence today (CBS) indicates Obama won it 56 - 44%.
According to the RCP site people estimate the Texas Caucus turnout at 1m plus which suggests another 120,000+ votes for Obama and when compared to the "so called" popular vote won by Clinton by 101,000 votes indicates, in fact, that Obama took more votes in Texas than Clinton.
Bye the way how many Texas ferral republican voters trying to disrupt the democrat race voted for Clinton rather than Obama. Did their vote clinch it for her?
Finally, if the race is decided by popular vote and a plan to "re-do" Florida and Michigan succeeds then why don't the caucus votes in Iowa, New Hampshire et al count? Surely they count too? Furthermore, what would they do to the relative differential in the popular vote of both candidates?
Steve
It is interesting but it does seem that we do have some difficulties here. It seems in this campaign to me that sexism is ok and we cannot discuss the block black vote.
I find it traumatic but we do seem to be having a very divisive election on all the wrong lines. Generally black is voting black and white woman for white woman. I find this disconcerting, and no answer to Americas problems.
On a personal note I still cannot see Obama lasting until November, to be honest the momentum of change is beginning to fade now.
For that sake please to avoid a republican presidency Clinton must win. We have 7 months of scrutiny to go and Obama's vacuous statments can only go so far. They will end in defeat.
Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic Party's candidate for President. I know it. You know it. The other bloggers know it. John McCain knows it. Even Bill knows it. The only person who doesn't is Hillary.
Off topic: Having just discovered your blog, and admittedly not having read all your entries, I was wondering if there would be any recognition of Canada and Mexico's contributions to North American news? Or will focus merely be on the United States? I think if you looked to the North or South you would find some interesting political dynamics that have historically been given little attention by foreign correspondents.
Mr Webb,
With all due respect open your eyes and mind. " This tiresome arch way of blaming "men" for doing Hillary Clinton down" as you say is reflective of how many men have responded to Senator Clinton. Remember this is a woman who attends political gatherings looking at signs saying "iron my shirt". I have not heard reports of any signs saying "pick my cotton" at Obama events. Why not? Because that would constitute hate, correct?
I am a medical doctor and have risen through the ranks amid daily disregard and harassment. I have experienced discrimination from men of every sector of society. Women still make $0.77 for every male dollar and you have the audacity to use the word tiresome?! How dare you sir. The fact that this woman is standing on the podium intact is a testament to her intellect and tenacity, she has to be twice as good just to appear equal.. Believe me you cannot possibly know. Please write about things you are familiar with and leave your hatred and ignorance at the door.
Mrs. Ferraro's statements are a painful reminder that this country has not overcome its racial divide. I was even more surprised when I saw it reported in They seem to agree with the statement? I can only imagine what is being said about Obama on Fox News.
May be Justin can get a job in the Hillary campaign now there's a vacancy after Ferraro left. May be not she wasn't on the payroll. Your election articles are so consistently pro-Hillary. Are you supposed to be an independent reporter? Does 大象传媒 pay you to be a party cadre in the US? By the way am not American and so no interest in being helped to make up my mind just to be informed.
The point has been made that Obama is ahead in the "popular vote" and that this could be a deciding factor for the superdelegates to support him but I'm just curious as to how the caucuses work in that regard.
Correct me if I'm wrong but a caucus isn't an election. I believe it's more a consensus reaching process and as such are there really votes to count and can they be compared directly with votes from states where a primary election is held? Can any candidate to have the "popular vote" in a mixed caucus / primary contest?
Geraldine Ferraro is telling the truth. I know it. You know it. Obama knows it. The other bloggers know it. John McCain knows it. Even Bill knows it. Let alone Hillary.
To all those people like Bobbi French and Michael Green who say merely mentioning race brings accusations of racism - you're WRONG!
Of course issues of race (and gender) can and arguably should be raised; but they need to be raised with reason, respect and balance. The problems arise when those characteristics are missing in debate. And it's obvious that they've been absent in the comments from Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton.
The problem Clinton faces is that she is now reaping the consequences of her kitchen sink approach before the primaries in Ohio and Texas. Yes, it worked in the short term and perhaps it will damage Obama in the long term but it has certainly damaged Clinton. She is now, more than ever, seen as divisive, shrill and totally political. Ferraro's comments (which Hillary did not denounce or reject) summed up just about everything that has been wrong with the Democratic party over the past 20 years.
It is now painfully obvious that Clinton is prepared to do or say anything to get the nomination. Her double talk that the Michigan delegates should be seated even though Obama's name wasn't on the ballot, is, to put it bluntly, the sort of thing you might expect to hear in Pakistan or Zimbabwe. Hillary's one hope was that people would see her as a victim who has fought her way back. But it's hard to preserve that image when you are more oppressor than oppressed.
Obama seems to have learned his lesson (that you cannot just sit back and adopt the high ground) and he is now responding to these charges in a much more focused and effective manner. The narrative for the past week has been very bad for Hillary. I have been a little surprised that Obama has not hit the trail hard in Pennsylvania yet. He may have 6 weeks but he needs to show the polls closing in order to persuade pragmatic Dems that if they vote for him, he can win and close this damaging contest off. If I were Obama's campaign manager, I would get him on the ground for the next 6 weeks in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana with a view to winning two of those three. That would close the deal and I would expect the superdelegates to step in at that point.
As for Florida and Michigan. Logistically, a revote just isn't going to happen before the deadline of June 10. It's a complete red herring designed by team Clinton to muddy the water and prolong the fight.
Ohmigosh, Justin, this campaign has continued way beyond the expected time window for any election!
As an outsider, I wouldn't have minded the two candidates attacking each other on their merits! But when it gets so personal, it leaves one feeling disgusted.
I hope the democratic party supporters decide on who is more popular, and vote for that person en masse. Any further ugliness in this campaign will only ruin the chances of seeing a change in White House.
This deserves posting here:
My outrage doesn't stem so much from Clinton's constant reminders of Obama's race, but rather Clinton's subtle reminders of how black voters don't matter.
By suggesting that Obama wouldn't be where he is today without the "black vote" presupposes that there's something wrong with those votes going to Obama. Meaning..."It's just those black people that are voting him."
If Ferraro and the Clinton campaign don't understand why this is insulting, then there's nothing we can do to enlighten them.
Posted by AKBY | March 12, 2008 3:54 PM
From
It may end up like a Bush/Gore ending , we we see recounting of votes etc. I dont think Clinton is the right candidate for presidency anyway ..just imagine the scenario where she meets and falls in love with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
NYT columnist Maureen Dowd said: "People will have to choose which of America's sins are greater, and which stain will have to be removed first. Is misogyny worse than racism, or is racism worse than misogyny?"
Blogger responded: "People won't, Democrats will. People will elect John McCain in November, demonstrating that we don't share their guilt." To which added: "Maybe. But a Democrat nominating process that's a self-torturing satire of upscale liberal guilt confusions will at least give us a laugh along the way."
Guilt-ridden liberals fighting among themselves. Excellent sport for the viewer.
Craig,
In answer to the comment on caucus results being comparable to primary results, and their influence on the popular vote totals.
So far fifteen states have held caucuses rather the primaries, and it is true that Obama has performed much better at them, but the overall turnout in Caucuses tends to be lower.
The argument in favour of them is that it encourages the democratic process, people meet and discuss issues with other democrats and become more 鈥榗ommitted鈥 to the cause than simply turning up and voting. The argument against them is that people can find it hard to attend them, and when the situation becomes volatile it can lead to arguments over procedure and accusations of foul play.
Recently some supporters of Clinton have complained that they are undemocratic and are of less relevance, though there were no real complaints about the Caucus procedure until the run up to Texas, where it became clear that Clinton鈥檚 campaign was simply terrible at getting organised for them. For me it's like the Florida and Michigan issue - which was never on the radar until the Clinton campaign thought they might lose.
However I went and dug out the caucus tallies from real clear politics and did a quick summation. Barack Obama has tallied 344,185 votes through caucuses to Hillary鈥檚 154,846, and so if we eliminated them then Barack still leads the overall popular vote count by 512,823 (or 218,052 including Florida).
The only caucus left is Guam, although Nevada, Washington, Iowa and Maine (all caucuses) are yet to release the popular vote totals.
In order to reclaim the popular vote lead Hillary needs to somehow pull out her biggest win of the season in Pennsylvania. Her current largest is in California, where she won by 427,184, but then California cast the largest number of votes by a mile.
The medias takes of The Democratic Presidential Candidates, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have the two behaving childishly, while depicting McCain as level headed. The media is the one who really call the shots. "It is all smoke and mirrors and nothing but propaganda." The Pentagon has conquered the USA's Government and the peoples consciousness is laid to waste..
How do superdelegates vote at the Convention. In secret? can they pledge publicly for one candidate and then vote privately for the other?
From Wikipedia, for those who might question Obama's "qualifications" for high office:
"After high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles, where he studied at Occidental College for two years.[23] He then transferred to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations.[24] Obama received his Bachelor of Arts in 1983, then worked at Business International Corporation and New York Public Interest Research Group before moving to Chicago to take a job as a community organizer.[25] As Director of the Developing Communities Project, he worked with low-income residents in Chicago's Roseland community and the Altgeld Gardens public housing development.[26] He entered Harvard Law School in 1988.[27] In 1990, The New York Times reported his election as the Harvard Law Review's "first black president in its 104-year history".[28] He completed his J.D. degree magna cum laude in 1991.[29] On returning to Chicago, Obama directed a voter registration drive.[29] As an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases.[30] He was a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.[31]"
That'll do for me.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
There was a lot of uncomfortable truth in what Ferraro said Justin.
If she wasn't a woman she would never have been chosen as Mondales' Vice-Presidential candidate.
Equally, if Obama were a white first term senator running he would be ridiculed and not taken seriously.
It seems to me that many guilt-tripped whie liberals are guilt-tripping others into voting for Obama. It is reminiscent of the nonsense that used to go on in some of our town halls and in our student movement in the 1980s - where the only way to get on was to be a member of a minority group. It is political correctness of the worst kind - tokenism used so as to be seen as being right on.
Perhaps the real issue is the paucity of good candidates for this election. If Barack Obama is the only decent black candidate and Hillary Clinton the only decent female candidate then god help us.
The sad thing is that there are better black and female candidates out there - unfortunately they don't have the name or the pop-star recognition factor that these two seem to have.
That for me is the biggest inditement on this eelction.
Ferraro & Spitzer both should receive awards for giving the pathetic US media something to talk about other than the most recent bout between Hillary and Obama. And then America should get a life.
So Obama would not be a candidate if it were not for his colour. I don't agree.
But I think a charge that is far more worth considering is that Hilary would not be a realsitic candidate were it not for the fact that she was once married to the President of the United States. Would she have the profile, the network of supporters behind her without her "lucky" marriage?
Keith Olberman on the matter:
Well worth reading and/or watching.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
Jon Gardner asks why I have not reported Geraldine Ferraro's racial comments
Funny how people don't understand the difference between a blogger and a reporter. You write about what interests you, and hopefully we read it. It may be something in the news, then maybe not.
There's a whole bloated 大象传媒 for the tedious business of reporting.
well it seems to me that the blacks are 90% voting for obama,this seems strange all cannot support his views,this smells of hes black im black i vote for him now when its the other way around its wrong and blacks will shout it from the rooftops,they are no different from us problem is there are more white and latin them them so in the end hes had it as when the republicans get going on his black block vote white america will vote the other way.im not racist but its a fact the blacks are block voting and just like all voters in the end they will see hes just another politician who spouts what they want to hear till he gets what he wants do not they realize its the people in the background who run the country and he will just follow like the rest to keep his nose in the trough lets face they are all the same talk good do nothing always did always will the world is run by the rich for the rich we are just the means to make there wealth it does not matter what society you are in east or west its the same a top eliet who control things we fight the wars we make the wealth thats our job its human nature to be led like sheep just look at history wellington won waterloo washington won independence no mention of the millions who laid down there lives to win it its always the leaders the ones who do not fight but never mind a few of us know how the land lies
Did anyone read Ferraro's op-ed in the NY Times a few weeks ago?
The subject of the article was superdelegates. She insisted that the Florida and Michigan primary results should stand as they are! So Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards would be punished for supporting the national party, and Mrs. Clinton rewarded for looking out for her own interest above the party. And this is acceptable? I hope that other superdelegates are less focused on a candidate and more focused on the party. Thank goodness she was finally reprimanded in some way.
The more I see of these two candidates the more I am convinced that Al Gore should be drafted in to run for the Presidency.
Justin,
Off topic:
First of all, I really enjoy reading your blog. Thanks.
I have to say,I find it highly amusing that about a month ago you were accused of being in love with Obama and now, in the last couple of weeks, you're supposedly a Clinton fan (Kuzipa)LOL. Brilliant!
Keep up the good work.
Cheers
Kuzipa, you must be joking?
I remain surprised at how quickly people disregard the 'big' state issue. Imagine it is election night and Obama fails to win states like Florida, California etc etc. I know people will say that some of the big states are always Democrat, but what if a disillusioned Democratic base decide they aren't going to vote for Obama as Hillary was their choice? I know someone will smuggly tell me 'Obama can reach out to the votes Hillary can't get', but can people really be that sure it will not work the other way too?
Another point, the Clinton-Obama/Obama-Clinton dream ticket is only an option now if Hillary wins. A lot of people have said they really like both... Might people now vote Hillary so they get both? As Obama is pretty much ruling out Hillary as VP. Just a thought...
To be honest, I don't think anyone can really write either off now, in a month, or at any point before Denver.
Also Justine, I don't think you are biased in anyway towards Clinton and it's a shame people try and claim that(maybe a bit petulant too).
Good thing she did not call him a "monster".
That would be very bad.
Keith Olbermann from the MSNBC had a mouthful to add about the whole Ferraro scenario. He literally ripped Clinton apart on the handling of the issue.
He signed off by saying "Good night and good luck!"
After Ferraro opened her mouth and put her foot in it Hillary was quick to distant herself from those racist/feminist remarks. I wonder, however, now that Ferraro has resigned from the Clinton war party, whether Hillary will continue to accept the campaign loot that Ferraro has promised to continue to seek. There are no prizes for a correct answer!
Race. Gender. Color. Creed or lack thereof. Accent. Physically handicapped. Height-challenged. Hair-challenged. Weight-challenged. Vision-challenged. Hearing-challenged. Mentally-challenged (e.g. journalist or blogger).
I was raised in a small town in Alabama where blacks were not allowed to spend the night (or suffer the consequences). As a boy, I recall with mutual sadness and amusement how my then-racist older brother celebrated the news of Dr. King's murder. As an undergrad, I remember the discomfort of eating lunch alone with an attractive black coed - for fear of what people might say or think. Now in my 40's, I am so grateful for parents, educators and spiritual mentors who taught me to not simply celebrate diversity...but also to celebrate the oneness we share in the entire human existence.
Why must these stupid disempowering race/gender buttons be pushed (or allowed to be pushed)? Content of character or color of skin? Make the right choice and get on with the business of life.
Ferraro isn't a rascist. She made a poorly thought through statement. You'd think she'd have learned by now. But they'll have to sack her anyway to make a good show. Regardless, the Dems have divided the party so badly, and now the race card is being played, that they may as well start writing a concession speech for Obama or clinton. It really doesn't matter.
To those Obama detractors and doubters, those who may find the idea of change proposed by him perhaps a bit frightening and out of reach. Similar to some of the greatest exponents of socio-political change this country has ever known, such as J.F Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Obama exudes something that most current politicians utterly lack, including Hilary Clinton, and that is CHARISMA, which inspires and moves the masses and brings about real change, and NOT some cosmetic, fragile changes touted by those anachronisms of the Washington clique who find it hard to let go of their cushy position of power and rest on their past laurels, making room for real change, and not recycled politics. You only need to listen to our youth to feel the excitement and enthusiasm they display whenever they hear Obama鈥檚 messages of hope for a better future. REMEMBER, THE FUTURE OF A COUNTRY IS BUILT, NOT BY JUST ONE PERSON AND THEIR CRONIES, BUT BY THE ORDINARY PEOPLE LED BY AN INSPIRATIONAL LEADER. When was the last time we all witnessed such genuine sense of optimism and hope? He may not be part of the Washington inner circle with their politics of general anesthesia, but he definitely is the man of the people and for the people. It is time we let our views and emotions transcend beyond our superficialities and petty prejudices, that Obama is black, that his middle name is Hussein, that he has been photographed wearing a traditional African costume (some of which fruitlessly used by his opponents to discredit him. Just another example of the politics of fear and division, right out of Bush鈥檚 book!), and be open and willing to embrace change without fear. Our youth demand it. After all, the future is theirs.
"Kuzipa" thinks you're a Clinton-ite. Yet, media-bias-theorists have always held you to be an Obamaniac until recently. A journalist just can't win, can he?
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the issue of media-bias with regards yourself.
Mr. Webb- As an undecided PA Democratic voter, I'm finding this election and the media's coverage of it increasingly frustrating. You cite evidence that Hillary Clinton has "the momentum". If I'm not terribly mistaken, there have been 2 state primaries since March 4, both won substantially by Barack Obama. Its hard to see how an increasing lead for Obama is momentum for Hillary, but its very clear to me that "momentum" in this race is purely a creation of the all-to-powerful media. At the risk of stooping to the low tactics of all politicians, I'd suggest Mrs. Clinton is only still in the race at this point because of her last name. The Democratic party both nationally and in this state are a machine (we haven't had a republican mayor in 50 years). Were Hillary another candidate, male or female, who is not so much a part of this machine, the powers that be in the Democratic Party would have given up on her by now and cast Obama as the nominee and begun sparring with McCain.
Despite all the hype around the world about the resurgence of democracy in America because of this election, I'm discouraged by the same negative attacks and popularity contest this election, like all, has become. If I wanted to see the kind of behavior being exhibited by both campaigns, I'd return to the halls of my high school.
Watching and listening to the Clinton camp, the body language and rhetoric appears to me to be moving slowly but inexorably towards the desperate. It is increasingly clear that Hilary Clinton could hand the White House to the Republicans - she needs to find some grace and good manners, and fast.
Off topic: I wonder whether you have seen the judgement from the House of Lords in the UK in R (ON THE APPLICATION OF ANIMAL DEFENDERS INTERNATIONAL) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CULTURE MEDIA & SPORT (2008).
I'm guessing not as it has not been reported.
The case concerned whether the prohibition on political advertising on British television and radio was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Well, it ain't.
The short extract that I thought you might like to see was how the Law Lords came to that view [very short extract coming up .... honest]:-
"The only issue was whether the restriction was necessary in a democratic society. The fundamental rationale of the democratic process
was that if competing views were publicly debated the good would, over time, drive out the bad and the true prevail over the false. But it was highly desirable that the playing field of debate should be, so far as was reasonably practicable, level. That was achieved where differing views were
debated in public discussion, and it was the duty of broadcasters to achieve that object in an impartial way by presenting balanced programmes in which all views might be ventilated. That was not achieved if political parties could, in proportion to their resources, buy unlimited opportunities to
advertise in the most effective media. Nor was it achieved if well-endowed political interests that were not political parties were able to use the power of their purses to give enhanced prominence to their views. The rights of others, which a restriction on the right to free expression may properly be designed to protect, had to include a right to be protected against the
potential mischief of partial political advertising."
Europe is different to America in case you were in any doubt.
Vote Ralph.
To Minimoog- the 大象传媒 may not be, but this is like Justin's independent blog on the 大象传媒 site. I am not sure if he is biased towards Republicans but he is certainly pro-Hillary. Subtly and smoothly.
As a Canadian observer of this campaign, I'm troubled by the tone of idiotic fanaticism coming out of the Obama camp. These are the same people who hoped that Woodstock II would relive the same experience as the first Woodstock. A movement does not rely on a minority of the population. Last I checked, Clinton has nearly half the democratic vote. Considering that half of the generel election will go to McCain, it's hard to believe that Obama's quarter is actually part of any movement.
His following relies on bullying and intimidation. They win their arguments by screaming the loudest. Their attacks do not really on anything factual, but rather on a message carefully planted by the Obama team that condemns Clinton for possessing such female qualities as her "shrillness." Is it any wonder that Obama does so well in Caucuses.
For those who accuse the Clinton campaign of covertly racist politics, I accuse the Obama campaign of overtly sexist politics. Just read half of the blogs on this site, and ask yourself where the Obama eloctorate recieved their ideas.
Why is the topic of race off limits? Obama's minister has plenty to say about race. After 20 years with this man, Obama now doesn't want to talk about race? Hmmmm.
I do agree with Geraldine Ferraro...
Truth hurts!
Ms. Ferraro made the exact same statement about Jesse Jackson when he was running for president in 1988 ("if he were white he would not be where he is today"). This tells me that she has real issues with presidential candidates who are black.
Also, I wonder how many black presidential front-runners (1), black Governors (2, soon-to-be 3), or black Senators (3 since Reconstruction, 5 total) Ms. Ferraro has counted in her 72 yrs in America? So then how logical is her argument that being "black" offers so much political advancement?
HRC would not be a US Senator from the state of NY if not for the influence of her husband's political connections. No Bill no HRC campaign.
Obama has made his own success. why does HRC think her marriage is a valid credential for political office?
all hankie, no cattle.
As a British voter, I have real difficulty with being anything less than impartial ... but Obama does seem to be the better candidate.
The evidence for this statement? Three months ago Clinton was significantly outperforming Obama in televised debates; this was sufficiently the case that she was anxious to engage with him in further such debates immediately prior to the Texas/Ohio primaries. In the event, there were two televised debates ... and the consensus opinion, following both debates, was that there was little enough to choose between them.
Has anyone actually *thought* about that...?
Obama was certainly campaigning no less energetically than Clinton over the last three months ... and yet somehow managed find the space to improve his game ... to the point where he could demonstrate that he had more or less caught up with Clinton in a format where she was considered unquestionably his superior.
Without disparaging Clinton's performance over the same period of time (she can certainly tick the "Twice As Good As The Average Male" box, considered by feminist researchers to be the benchmark for a successful woman), she has not displayed any comparable degree of improvement, merely more of the same.
My conclusion: Clinton is good - and indeed, in a vacuum, would be more than good enough - but Obama is better.
PS: also, while Clinton is quite definitely a Woman, Obama is merely black, not Black...
, Nitin Murali wrote:
Keith Olbermann from the MSNBC had a mouthful to add about the whole Ferraro scenario. He literally ripped Clinton apart on the handling of the issue.
He signed off by saying "Good night and good luck!"
Oberman is a marginal figure who spews hate on a low rated cable new show.
I don't think the Obama needs any more hate mongers supoorting him along wth Rev Wright
While it was hardly her intent, Geraldine Ferraro aught to be glorified for her political gaffe; she reminded the American public of the 鈥淧erfect Profile鈥 and its reign as the primary determinant of high socio-political and economic standing in America. It remains offensively untraditional that an 鈥淚mperfect Profile鈥 should lead beyond the threshold of ordinariness. If logically approached, of course, no perfection should be detected in Clinton or imperfection imposed on Obama. Nor should any level of credence be wasted on any opinion, whose owner shirks facts and clenches to cultural bias, and thus deserves no more than the intangible value of right to expressing one.
Mohamed Boto
So being black increases one's chances of becoming president? How come we haven't had any black presidents so far?