I'd say the Hillary people chose the wrong surrogate to protect. I know a lot of people feel Obama caved in too quickly over Samantha Powers, but this just shows exactly why you cut your losses and eject these gaffe-machines immediately.

Well, the lady said a big no-no, but it's true-true.

No white Harvard law grad with two terms in the Illinois senate would be asked to speak at the Dem convention, no matter how marvelous his rhetoric.

He probably wouldn't be nominated for the Senate, either.  Though, if he did, he would probably beat Mr. Keys (sp?)

But, if said callow white boy with Harvard Law degree did make it to the U.S. Senate, and even if he were a wonderful speech giver, surely, surely, you don't believe he'd be able to run credibly for the presidency.

Some might say this is historic justice etc.  But, gang, we're looking for the guy (oh, sorry, person) who is actually going to be president of the United States.

As a nation, we truly have slipped our moorings.

They are not attacking her because she is white, but because she is a woman, and an italian, and elderly. yeah, that is right they are attacking her 3X as much as she attacked Obama, and since Obama is half withe make that 6X. Go Hillary.

just anticipating pccostellos arguments is all.

channy, wtf? um Edwards is a callow white guy with a law degree who made it to the Senate. and he is a great speech giver and he ran credibly. Obama was in a race for Senate, in was in this context he made the speech, not as an illinois State senator. And a lot of people make speeches at conventions. where have you been? So what she said is not true true, anymore than it would have been against Edwards.

It's Mr. Keyes.  

Rhetoric really is the key - you don't think we would have had President Clinton without his ability to speak do you?

Hey Chan,

Sounds like a very near description of JFK.  And, you are quite right.  Wonderful speech giver, could never get elected President.  Certainly not against someone far more experienced, sitting VP, like Richard Nixon.

Then of course, there's the callowest white boy of all from Yale and Harvard Business School.  No Harvard Law Review president for him.  Straight C student or worse.  Persistent business failure, alcoholic, served as Governor of Texas which is about the least powerful governor in the US of A.  Of course, he couldn't give a speech, heck he can't even speak English as we know it.  Could never run credibly, and surely, surely never get elected President against a far more experienced opponent, long-term Senator, two-term sitting VP.

I think you have a wonderful gift for political prognostication, but I would brush up on your history a little bit.  

*smacks forehead*

Why do the Clintons refuse to comment on this matter? This is really absurd. She's accusing the media (because let's face it, blacks are severely underrepresented in the newsroom) of being self-hating whites. No, Ms. Ferraro, you are being attacked because you said something ridiculous and racially insensitive. Now you play not just the gender card, but the race card too? Well, as a white male myself, I think it's time for me and my kind to fight back. White males are the most oppressed group in all of history.

Sounds like hypocrisy from Ferraro. Would she have ben nominated to be VP for Mondale if she was not a woman? How would she like that argument? Me thinks not very much.

roidubouloi, the repeated analog to JFK is absurd.

Jack Kennedy had been on the national scene even since he was at Harvard and won wide acclaim for "While England Slept."

He served honorably (maybe heroically) in the U.S. Navy for most of the war.

He returned and immediately won a seat in the House in 1946.  Four years later, he won a Senate seat.  In 1956, he was a serious contender for the vice presidency.

Then, in 1960, after about a decade in the Senate, he runs for president.  And wins by the slimmest of margins.  And may not have won at all without the alleged ballot box stuffing by the Daley machine.

Bush, you can say was a callow personality.  But, he had been a governor of the second largest state.  

Blackie, you mention Edwards.  He is callow.  But, not quite as much so as Obama.  And he's not nearly as good a speaker.  And, he didn't do very well.  So, what's your point?

Obama, objectively, is nowhere near what Americans have considered presidential timber.  He is an impressive young man.  He's a lot more attractive as a human being than Hillary.

But, he's not fit (by which I mean sufficiently seasoned) to be president.

mckeeker, you're spot on.  No, she was very much a token candidate.  Which I'm not calling Obama, because he's gotten this far on his campaigning abilities.  Which she was nowhere on the same continent with.

She is a kettle who ought not have spouted off.

roidubouloi, you're right.  On paper Al Gore was far more qualified than was George Bush c. 2000.

But, Al comes across like a robotic geek.  Bush comes across like a normal guy.  (As does Obama, by the way.)

Americans don't usually elect geeks.  (Jimmy Carter, the big exception.)  That was why instead of winning by the wide margin he theoretically ought to, Gore lost by a hair.  Or a coin toss.  Or a technicality.  Or, whatever you want.

Let's see whether Hillary holds onto her despite these comments. If she does, we'll know she's Bush 2.0 for her loyalty-fetish, her bullheadedness, her embarrassing management abilities, and her love of spin form a turd-blossom. No thanks.

Haven't we gotten to a point where it's clear that Hillary is trying to stop Obama from winning IN NOVEMBER? She can't win the nomination without tearing the party apart. So the only explanation of her kitchen sink strategy is that she's looking ahead to 2012.

Or what am I missing?

It's truly astonishing that Clinton, who demanded that Obama "reject" the words of Louis Farrakhan -- a man who had no role and no connection to his campaign -- will protect Ferraro, one of her chief fund raisers.

I know I should cease to be amazed at the chutzpah, but it's impossible.

For what it's worth, Ferraro might have a screw loose -- she's been suffering from cancer for a long time and has gone through chemo.  Doesn't affect what you judge of Hillary's response...

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up"

Is she serious?  Even setting aside the mind-blowing hypocrisy of Geraldine Ferraro claiming that somebody else got where they are because of of their demographic group, this comment is absurd.  Nobody gets called a racist for addressing "reality and the problems we're facing in this world."  In what way does saying that Obama is in his position simply because he's a black man address any problems that we're facing?  Does this woman actually think before opening her mouth?

I think Tim Russert said it well tonight on MSNBC - - he said basically that Obama has a Harvard Law degree, was President of the Law Review, was in the state Senate in Illinois and is now in the US Senate (granted it's only his first term) . . . if you described a guy like that and said he can give a stem-winder that really inspires the youth of America to get involved in the political process and inspires cross-overs from the Republican Party even though he is much more liberal than they are . . .well, who cares what color the guy's skin is.  I don't particluarly think that all of this has much to do with the fact that he's black.  I think it adds to the uniqueness of his candidacy but I don't think that it alone would add much to his popularity if the other pieces of the puzzle weren't there too.

"Ms. Ferraro is speaking for herself. We have made clear that we reject her remarks."  From Howard Wolfson, about the latest Ferraro comments.  FYI, Ben Smith is reporting that she made similar comments about Jesse Jackson in '88.

She wasn't acting as a surrogate when she made her ugly (though not necessarily racist) comments, and I don't think that she has anywhere near the influence on Hillary's campaign that Samantha Power had with Obama's (not that Power should have had to resign anyway, but think it bears mentioning).

He served honorably (maybe heroically) in the U.S. Navy for most of the war. Hey Channy, in WW2 there were literally hundreds of thousands of men who did so, if not millions. You tell me that every Goddamn guy that stormed the beach didn't have brass balls.

Edwards was Ohio away from being the sitting VP of the United States, a heartbeat away from the Presidency, and what would have been the presumed front runner in 2012 if Kerry wasn't such a schmuck. That is pretty damn far in my book. The said could never have been said about Ferraro whose slot was born out of outright desperation and failed miserably.

If Edwards was qualified so is Obama. It is funny, I never heard Kerry or anyone else in the Democratic party say he wasn't in 2004, and neither did old Geraldine did she?

Chan,

I'm quite clear on why JFK and Bush won, which is why your prognostication that Obama cannot run credibly is so much horse-bleep.

First of all, it is not accurate to call it "reverse racism." To call it that implies that whites do not have a "race" and that they do not have "racial experiences" but only "reverse racial" experiences. To say it that way further reifies the idea that blacks really are "the other" and that white is the standard version of a human being. It would be more accurate of you to say that she claimed to be the victim of race-baiting. She has a very good case.

Is it still not possible for at least some of us to talk about the role of race in a sensible way? It is simply another and more vexed form of identity and ethnic politics. Ferraro makes perfect sense, and there is nothing wrong with her talking about the role of race in the campaign or the enormous advantage it has been for Obama.

For example, Obama is getting 85-90% of the black vote, most of which would otherwise go to Clinton--who has long and strong ties to the black community. If Obama were not part African-American, he would not have won South Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Virginia, Missisippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and he would have lost more decisively in Ohio, Texas, California, Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts. This would be true simply because a white opponent of Clinton would never get 85-90% of the black vote.

Therefore, the contest would look completely different now if Obama were not black. Tim russert is being his usual assinine self with his usual pompous self-assurance. If Obama were not black, he would be about where John Edwards was when he dropped out.

In addition, Obama has gained an immeasureable advantage from his ancestry because the press has been afraid to cricize Obama because of racial anxiety and the fear of being accused of racism (as poor Joe Biden was). The self-serving attacks on Ferraro are another maneuver to maintain this advantage. There is so much anxiety about criciizing Obama that the press can hardly think straight. David Axelrod and Obama would like it to stay that way.

Finally, if Obama were not black, then his campaign could not use accusations of racism to race-bait Clinton and paint her as illiberal--for example, Orlando Patterson's disgraceful diatribe in today's NY Times op-ed.

Ferraro is just speaking obvious common sense. The fact that people are exercised about it is an indication of exactly what she is arguing is true.

The Clinton campaign is intentionally pandering to a certain specific group of Pennsylvania voters with these remarks put forward by Geraldine Ferraro.  I wouldn't be surprised if this was yet another calculated move on the part of the Clinton campaign, an attempt to resurrect the race issue in the mind of voters, just put it out there and let it percolate.

It's almost the exact same thing they pulled in South Carolina, just with a lot less subtlety.  Put this issue in the mind of the voters, and then claim you've been falsely accused, it plays perfectly for much of the white working-class who feel that they are somehow victimized by a society that confers special privileges upon African-Americans, through monstrous inequities like affirmative action, strawman that the conservatives in this country have used so effectively as a wage issue to promote racial division that plays Whites and Blacks against each other.

What we see here is the Clinton campaign and Hillary Clinton morphing into the Neo-Republican wing of the Democratic Party.  Just look at where they are winning in America, all the rural white counties where the Republicans always prevail in the national elections, virtually all the poorer more conservative white Democrats are behind Clinton, she has become their champion, their White Knight as it were.  This primary has become a microcosm for how the national election will play out.

The Clinton campaign has no choice but to turn this into Black vs. White and Black vs. Hispanic and Asian vs. Black referendum, because that is the only chance they have to turn this around. This is what they've been reduced to.

And it's nice to see that she's got old racists like Pat Buchanan championing her cause on MSNBC, I'm sure Hillary is very proud.

There's only one reason why Clinton hasn't distanced herself thoroughly from Ferraro's comments, at least that I can think of. Again and again, when there have been racially tinged comments, I've waited her to be forceful, strong, and passionate denouncing such claims. She has been only half-hearted. This is entirely why my former admiration of her has turned to moral disgust.

Clinton is not going to apologize, because she's betting that whites are going to be off-put by cries of racism, and that they will attribute the reaction against Ferraro to blacks being hysterical. She hopes that they will se Obama as one of "those" blacks. She's being deliberately tepid. She's counting on the worse angels of our natures.

Point Blackton, definately.

Dammit, Lymon, I was going to make a snide remark about Ferraro, but I can't bring myself to talk trash about a woman with cancer. You didn't have to mention that. I could have gone right on being obnoxious.

So instead, I am going to predict the next random bullshit to come out of the Clinton campaign. Ideas:

- Teary-eyed thirtysomething, pockets filled with money from Clinton donors, confesses on national she had a secret sexual relationship with Professor Obama. Sobs, and laments that she only wanted to make a good grade. Pass handkerchief.

- Estranged childhood friend alleges that Obama had "a history of violence...he would try to hurt people, and then he'd act like nothing happened...but everything wasn't all right. We were all afraid of him."

- Forged documents prove that Tony Rezko had funneled over $300,000 in cash to Obama through a complicated series of intermediaries and aliases

- Candid disclosure that Barack Obama uses a teleprompter at debates without the press knowing.

- Respectable journalist asks Obama if he knows the five pillars of Muslim faith---if no, he is unprepared to deal with the Middle East, if yes, he is a crypto-Islamofascist

etc.

pccostello

You cannot be for real.  You better watch this video and think carefully, otherwise I'd you've jettisoned all semblance of your credibility

Geraldine Ferraro stands by her attack: "Give Me A Break!"

www.youtube.com/watch

I think Chan has a point, one warranting our attention. Most of us here are liberals and liberal Democrats to boot (or am I presuming). To those of us who support Obama (myself included) and those who think Obama would beat John McCain - mediocre campaign notwithstanding - meditate on the word "risk." We will be hearing more of that word in the coming months. I expect a flood of it accompanied by every manner of risk oriented language (maybe a tidal wave, who knows?). Obama will be attacked from every angle and every quarter, from the Military to the meek and mild, and the more and more often he's associated with risk, his risk factor will rise. And rise, and rise.

Perhaps Obama himself and his campaign have a credible strategy to counter the risk arguments, shore up his support. But I for one can't imagine what that might be. You and I want a fair fight, but just as in war we may not get one.

My favorite comment on this so far has been Ezra Klein's take:

"Similarly, if Hillary Clinton were a black man, it's unlikely that she would have been a national political figure for the past 15 years, as it's unlikely that she would have married another man from Arkansas, and unlikely that the country would have put an interracial, same sex couple in the White House. But so what? This is an election, not Marvel's "What If?" series."

I was all set to come on and ramble something about how shocking this all was, how mind-twisting the hypocrisy, how much any normal human being might blanch and go all stammery at such gall,...but then I realized this was Hillary Clinton we were talking about, and of course it all makes sense now.  Ferraro was probably spouting off on orders.  And I don't give a damn how terminal you are, you don't say crap like this in a public forum and expect to get shielded unless you know in advance you're going to be shielded.  

On the other hand, Elliott Spitzer is probably grateful for the few minutes' breather...

ChanRobt,

Your description of Obama may not describe JFK, but it sure does describe the person who is considered by many to be our best president:  Lincoln.  One term in the House of Reps, was defeated in his second election, but after a series of speeches, Lincoln attracted the attention of the national Republican party.... The rest is history.

Ferraro should be ashamed of herself:  as if Hillary wouldn't be as far along as she is if she weren't married to the president.  

Give me a damn break.

And pccostello makes an excellent point, one that will be aired, scrubbed and freeze-dried for after hours consumption. Think ten thousand Rush Limbaughs, not to mention professors from poli sci to linguistics. Got heurisms?

Why is it that regarding this campaign any time anyone  voices an opinion regarding the attention Obama gets they are called a racist? This man is not what you would consider presidential material. If anyone else would have been linked to Rezco as concretely as he has their campaign would be finished. A first year senator that has spent a good part of his time in the Senate running for president would not be seen as credible. And lets be real, experience does matter. You develop judgement from experience, it doesnt just float down from the ether.Constantly blaming the Clinton campaign for every negative thing that is said about Obama is ridiculous. Many people are wondering why he's a player since merit doesn't appear to be the reason.

pccostello,

You're making a lot of sweeping assumptions about the role of the black vote in tipping these elections.  More low income whites voted for Obama in Virginia than did those who voted for Hillary.

From what I know, in none of these southern states with high proportions of black Democratic voters do blacks actually make up the majority of the Democratic electorate.  And in several of the "close" elections, like Missouri (my home state), blacks make up approximately 10% of the population.  The overwhelming majority of the Democratic electorate is white, most of whom (I'd be willing to bet) are white women - Hillary's supposed demographic.

And let me assure you, as someone who lives in a former slave-holding state:  you better believe that more than 10 percent of registered Democrats just can't bring themselves to vote for a black person.

So yes, race plays a factor.  But Hillary's also done damn well in several states because of it.

And BTW, all of the knee-jerk, shallowly politically correct, latte liberals out there in TNR land--exactly why is it that it would be a problem if Obama is doing well because he is black ?

(I put the the issue of the racially anxious and their asking Obama if he needs another pillow media aside, for the moment.)

Why would that be saying something that he should deny? Is there no one on this list who has done well in some situation because they were white?

I'm only going to go through this once so please pay attention:

The Democratic Party has never as in ever recruited an African American of either sex to run for a senate seat or a governorship in a blue state [which is to say anyplace where they were likely to win]. So any such individual who’s found himself in possession of one, has ascended only after fighting through at least two national machines and a local one. There's a word for that, that kinda speaks for itself -- earning it. For instance; Carol Moseley Braun defeated a sitting democratic Senator Alan Dixon  in a primary.  Obama defeated a Daley Machine candidate Gery Chico, a DSCC candidate [and millionaire to boot] Blair Hull, and a state party candidate Daniel Hynes to win his primary. Deval Patrick only had to defeat DNC guy Christopher Gabrieli and State Party guy [and Massachusetts Attorney General besides] Tom Reilly.

My point is simple, that parties operate like sports teams and any white guy or gal with Obama's obvious gifts would have had a path cleared for him by party higher ups -- now maybe he wouldn't be winning 90% of the black vote in this race -- but he would have been recruited for an appointment, a congressional seat, a statewide office and eventually an office like his senate seat or the statehouse in Illinois. This is like citing some ancillary health effect of all the walking that goes along with not being able to hail cabs as a demographic advantage.

Ferraro's been a liability to the Democratic party ever since she was nominated VP. Why should that change?

alleneli--

Ii'm not making any assumptions at all--just look at the exit polls.

Isn't it a logical impossibility to say that Obama is only where he is now because he is black. How would anyone know? He is black and he is where he is; that is we all know about the relation between him being black and where he is politically. Post hoc, ergo prompter hoc means, "after this, therefore because of this." That arguement says that because one event follows another, the first event must be the cause of the second event. Proximity of events or conditions does not guarantee a causal relationship. And, as well, we cannot say that Obama would not be where he is if he were white. And that's because he's not white.

No?

What reverse racism? Twenty blocks from the university where I work black youngsters shouted at me multiple times "white boy, whaddya doin here?" 'fuck the whites" "fucking kike" and other similar lovely things, sometimes with some violent posturing too (threatening walking in group towards us, "brushing" against me and my friend hard enough that he fell on the ground, etc.). In that same neighborhood Louis Farrakahn was well-received several times.

I would not say these youngsters display reverse racism. Not at all. They are racists pure and simple.

They, and their Farrakhan elders, are as good as the KKK.

By the way, this shit never happened to me when I walked in Hispanic neighborhoods.

alleneli--

Let me save you the time of looking through the exit polls. Here is Chris Cillizza in the Wahington Post:

blog.washingtonpost.com/.../obama_strongly_favored_in_miss.html

pccostello,

Think about the states you cited in your first post.  What percentage of the Democratic electorate in those states was black?  Think about it.

And please don't assume that everyone who writes here is white.

Hillary Clinton is not "morphing into the Neo-Republican wing" of the Democratic party.  She is the heart and soul of the Neo-Republican wing of the Democratic party.  She has always been a Goldwater Girl at heart, but an opportunist who found the Democratic party and easier path.  

sleepyavl,

You're right:  they are racists.  But they're not as good as the KKK.  I doubt you're endanger of being lynched as you stroll down the street.  And I know those kids don't have the economic or political power to affect your life in any way.  So be careful not to overstate - these aren't pogroms.  By the way, did you read Wieseltier's most recent Diarist?

It is almost to laugh -- the notion of Geraldine Ferraro arguing for Hillary Clinton on the grounds that Barack Obama got where he is because of his race. Does she really think Mondale saw New York's Ninth Congressional District as the key to victory in 1984? (In the event, Mondale only got 40 percent of the vote in Ferraro's district.) Does she really think Hilary Rodham Smith would be the senator from New York or a contender for the presidency?

Anyway, this is not new territory for Ferraro. When the press went after her in '84 for refusing to release her family's financial information and then for the tax evasion and other illegalities (mostly, but not exclusively, on her husband's part) that her records showed, she complained, "Would they have done it if I were male? Would they have done it if I were not Italian-American?"

Exit polls that show a large black vote for Obama are the cover for the racist bilge coming from Geraldine Ferraro and Pat Buchanan.  They are the one grain of truth in this whole sad story, but their meaning is twisted to a perverse end.

Allow me to explain—and if you don't get it, pccostello, then I'll tell it to you again slowly.

1 – Others have made this point, but I'll make it again: imagine a charismatic young politician, head of the Harvard law review, impressive career in government, perhaps a bit young, but causing great excitement and organizing and impressive grass roots movement—who is white and his name is Bush.  Or Kennedy.  And he is running against a bunch of boring older white males and the highly polarizing wife of a former president with a decidedly mixed reputation, a woman who, but for her gender and her last name, would be considered less experienced and less interesting than even some of the older boring white guys.  And he comes in first in Iowa.  Take it from there.

2 – Obama benefited from being black . . . in Iowa?  Isn't that what got him started?  Oh, and who came in third there?

3 – From where had HRC's support come?  How about from name recognition, because of her marriage, and older women because she's, well, you know . . . She got to where she is with Democrats because her last name is Clinton, and she got to where she is now because she wears a skirt.  Sorry, but identity politics cuts both ways.  Who, in fact, has *specifically appealed to voters because of her gender?*  Who has made a public virture out of being female, as opposed to the other candidate who has specifically avoided making a public virtue out of being black?  And there are a lot more women in this country than African Americans.

4 – Yes, African Americans rallied to Obama--*but only after it became apparent that he could win and after the not-so-subtle racial references of the Clinton campaign.*  It is no accident that most African American office holders, if they had endorsed anyone early, had endorsed HRC.  In fact, before the Obama phenomenon, who was counting on widespread African American support because her husband was the "first black president"?  You guessed it—HRC.  Apparently it's only unfair to get to black support if you're, well, black.

Please.  This entire odious affair is so evil, it makes me want to throw up.  Geraldine Ferraro should be put out to pasture, pronto

basman,

Sort of off topic, but I don't think your logic works as a practical matter.  Counterfactual reasoning is necessarily unverifiable, but we have to use it for cause and effect to have much meaning.  Say that a black person was lynched by KKK members in the Old South.  By your logic, we know that he was black and that he was lynched and can't say anything about the relationship between the two.  To take an even simpler case, if somebody gets decapitated and then dies, we couldn't, strictly speaking, say what would have happened had they not been decapitated, because in reality they were.  You can see how that sort of reasoning becomes problematic (sorry if the examples were on the morbid side).

pcc,

You say "I'm not making any assumptions at all--just look at the exit polls."

Could you direct me to the exit polls showing that most of the black vote would have gone to Clinton if Obama was white?  Even if you claim that it's plausible, that's still an assumption on your part.

She's just so precious.

ChanRobt, I dare say that if said white boy had come from a single mother and an impoverished background, made his way into an IVY league school (or, say Oxford) and then did some stellar community service that got him elected to state office where he shined so exceedingly and was heard giving dynamic, inspirational speeches on the floor while passing go-nowhere bills with spectacularly unexpected support, he might be invited to speak at a convention. And he might be mentored into the Senate.

hey, gee, some of this sounds like Bill Clinton who, I think, skipped the community service piece and happened to "come out of nowhere" to defeat an "experienced" primary opponent and went on to get elected.

AlanSP thanks for your comments, however off topic I am being.

I think understand counter factual reasoning:  evidence must reasonably support the chain of supposed inferences. But the relation between Obama being black and being a viable candidiate for nomination is not parallel  or analogous to the relation between being black and being lynched by the KKK. In the latter case evidence makes it reasonable to think that that relation was causal. I'd contend that we cannot say that about Obama and his present political success, save for getting big swathes of the black vote. Clearly, we can say tautologically that if someone was not decapitated he would not be dead as a result of decapitation. There is nothing else we can logically infer about that person as a result of not being decapitated. Almost finally, is it meaningful to talk about  Obama's political ascendancy had he been white, when he is not white? If we cannot say that Obama owes his ascendancy to being black--save for the big black vote--we as well cannot speculate on what his being white would have meant for that. In fact, I go back to saying it is impossible to say what would have been the case for Obama in any respect had he been white simply beacuse he is not white.

I think.

As for being off topic, let me suggest this: if my analysis is right, it underscores the silliness of  talking about "Obama being where he is only because he is black",  and  about "him  not being where he is were he white."

alleneli,

There's no pogrom. But there is hostility and occasionally there is a pogrom - Crown Heights 1991, Harlem 1995. Both resulted in people dying. By the way, in both cases a man called Al Shapton was involved heavily. That man surely is KKK style - only against whites and more specifically Jews. That's racism alright.

alleneli,

There's no pogrom. But there is hostility and occasionally there is a pogrom - Crown Heights 1991, Harlem 1995. Both resulted in people dying. By the way, in both cases a man called Al Shapton was involved heavily. That man surely is KKK style - only against whites and more specifically Jews. That's racism alright.

Ha.

All I've got to say this this:

Geraldine Ferraro should make those comments in Anacostia using a bullhorn. She should walk through SE DC and say, "Barack Obama is just some black guy who gets special treatment." I encourage that. We'll see where the chips fall.

I was actually referring to my comments about counterfactual reasoning as being slightly off topic.  It's more a philosophical matter than anything else.  I don't think Ferraro's comments were more *logically* flawed than the lynching example.  The important difference is what you take as reasonable evidence to support the counterfactual claim.  The KKK's open animosity toward black people, and history of lynching some of them is probably pretty good evidence, the link between decapitation and death even moreso.  The evidence that Ferraro is implicitly relying on is much more tenuous, which is why her argument is lousy.

I think the problem with her speculation isn't so much it's logically impossible, but rather that it's unsupported, and more importantly, irrelevant.  Who cares how the theoretical non-black Obama would do? The real person is the one running for President.

arsonplus, "I'm only going to go through this once so please pay attention" - excellent excellent point.  I was thinking about this when the newspapers have been talking about how NY's Lt. Gov.  David Paterson will be something like the third black governor *ever*   Crazy!  And Obama was only the fifth black Senator.   With statistics like that, the whole concept that Obama's gotten a free ride because he's black is shown to be absurd.  Again, arsonplus, bravo.

My favourite post was AmyJ's: "You develop judgement from experience, it doesnt just float down from the ether."  So how has Ms. Ferraro's nearly thirty years in national and Democratic Party politics helped her judgement?  This crap from the same woman who said to Bush the First, "don't patronise me" and got a standing ovation from the audience?  Can you imagine the shit that the same woman, and the Clinton camp, would disturb if, let's say, Deval Patrick said, "the only reason Hillary is in this race is that she is a woman?"  

Has Ms. Rodh- I mean, Mrs. Clinton only "rejected" or both "rejected and denounced" this bacterial infection that seems to be running through her campaign?

blackton, I absoulutely agree with you.  Ferraro was not qualified to be the VP candidate because she was not qualified to be president.  Nor was Dan Quayle.

And nor was John Edwards.  Edwards is a major league lightweight.  For some reason people didn't seem to really notice that before.  But, they noticed it this time.  That's why he was so far behind the other two.

Do you not recall, Blackie, that Edwards was righteously rolled by Cheney in the debate(s?) they had in '04.  He was like a sophomore in front of the principal.  A total joke.

So, yeah, we're discussing two VP Dem VP candidtes here, neither of whom had any business being VP nominees.

roidubouloi, I didn't say Obama couldn't run credibly.  Obviously, he can.  And runs more credibly than Hillary.

What I'm saying is, he may be a child prodigy, but he's not qualified by his background to date to be president.  

But, he may well win.  Or, events may catch up with him.  We are eight months out from the election.  A very, very, very long time in politics.  Look what happened to Spitzer overnight.

pccostello, I think you may a compelling, and pretty much unarguable point, that Obama, with otherwise all the same talents and accomplishments, would not have won the Southern states with anything like the margins and monopoly on the black vote if he were white.

And same for your assertion that he would not have done as well as he has in many other states.

I think he is far more talented, and has a far greater intellect than John Edwards.  I wouldn't say he is a black J.E.  But, his race, when combined with all his other attributes, plus pedigree stuff like Harvard Law Review, gave a lot of whites the permission they were looking for to vote for a worthy black guy.

This is not to say that his race could not leverage against him at some point.  

I also know there is a big temptation for people to say, since blacks have been victimized for so long, it's only fair that a guy came along and got an advantage out of his "blackness".   It's like when they give the Oscar to somebody, not for the best movie they ever did, but because they got screwed out of it for their great performance.

But, you know what, you just can't get around all the various off-kilter factors, no matter what candidate you're talking about in any election.  Jack Kennedy beat Richard Nixon, partly because he was a hell of a lot better looking.  Life isn't fair, as Jack so famously said.

AaronBBrown, I think your analysis of how Hillary is semi-subtly playing the racial card is pretty close to right.  

But, in a sense, she hasn't much choice.  She has entirely lost the black vote.  A reversal of fortune she could not have foreseen even two months ago.

So, she's got to make sure there is as little white crossover as possible.  She knows she's going to loose an awful lot of the upper crust liberals to Obama.  So now she looking to secure what has become her base:  Paula Jones Democrats.

alleneli, the Lincoln analog only holds up for Obama on the most superficial level.

Lincoln didn't just give some good speeches.  He mesmerized the nation in the long series of debates with Douglas.  

In those debates, Lincoln argued profoundly, deeply, and persuasively on the great issue of the time, which is also one of the great issues of all civilization: slavery.

Although that was not quite sufficient to win him a senate seat, he followed it up with his Cooper Union speech in New York City.  Another speech against slavery of epic greatness and import that stunned the nation.

He catalyzed and coalesced Northern opinion against slavery.  And it made his nomination in Chicago by the Republicans a very likely outcome.

Obama has never addressed any issue near the import of slavery.  And in nothing like the detail and brilliant argument that Lincoln brought to bear against slavery.

For all I know, there may be a Lincoln inside of Barack Obama.  But he has come nowhere near demonstrating his potential greatness to the degree Lincoln had by 1860.

AlanSP, excellent quote from Ezra Klein.  Thanks for passing it on here.

When the Democratic Party stands to make history by nominating its first female or its first black nominee for president, it's more than a stupid shame that one of those candidate's high-profile surrogates would use that fact against the other candidate.

I could just as easily say that a male Hillary wouldn't stand much of a chance.  Squirting a few in New Hampshire, for one, would not have worked, and "he" would be without "his" only inspirational quality.

I could say, as timteeter points out, that it's acceptable to campaign on gender identity but not racial identity, and that Hillary has indulged in the former while Obama has strictly avoided the latter (going so far as to challenge the black community, almost Bill Cosby style, to take better care of itself).  I could point to the "Goodbye to All That 2" essay and similar "feminist" agitation that gives, as the main reason to support Hillary, her victimization, and the victimization of all women, at the hands of a misogynistic society.

I could argue a double standard where shamefully attacking U.S. Senator Barack Obama as an empty suit is acceptable, when he has a record of accomplishment in that body, as far as I can tell, equaling or even surpassing Hillary's, and a record as a legislator and politician overall clearly surpassing hers in years and accomplishment and any other measure (not to mention the judgment to oppose rather than cynically authorize going to hell, strategic and otherwise, for the price of thousands of lives, a personal hell for thousands of others, and, oh yeah, *trillions* of dollars), but any unkind word about her is a "personal attack" that might as well amount to the b-word or worse.

I could point out that both Ferraro *and* Clinton are obviously "affirmative action" beneficiaries, Clinton of that more traditional last-name-based variety as well.  I could point out that Ferraro couldn't get elected to the U.S. Senate, despite trying twice, and got the second place on the ticket in 84.

Finally, I could point out that being a black man is traditionally a great advantage in national politics.

This is what this campaign has come to.  This is where Hillary wants it to be, no matter how it affects Democrats' chances in November.  It's not as though blacks live in Cleveland, or Philadelphia, or St. Louis, or Detroit.  They're not important.  Blacks, like any Democratic voter in any state not colored in her shade of blue, don't count.  They'll forgive and forget.  Sure.  They'll turn out big for the candidate who declined to distance herself from the extraordinary statement that they, while not monsters, are racists.

She's happy to let that dangle with a wink, without apology, without termination, without denunciation, without rejection, with only a barely audible "disagreement" and, just for good measure, a through-the-looking-glass slap at Obama as negative for mentioning her own campaign's disgraceful statements.  Power repudiated her comment literally instantly.  When it was Ferraro's turn, she doubled down.

Hillary will indeed say or do anything to win.  She will indeed abandon any loyalty to party or to principle that she may once have had.  While I have always counted myself among that barely half of the country that doesn't hate her guts, she is convincing me with her increasingly desperate and destructive and selfish campaign that she lacks the honor, integrity, and character to lead this country.

Some Democrats say, we don't need honor or decency; we need a win.  She's tough, they say.  Sure.  The toughness born of desperation.  The toughness born of failure.  The toughness that comes when you run out of options.  The toughness not of a fighter but of a cheater.  That sort of toughness.  Is it really tough?  Or just pathetic?

Stupid cynicism is cloaked in condescension and called wisdom.  Pettiness is lauded as ruthlessness.  Cheating always works (except, you know, when it doesn't.)  A lousy campaign points the way to Democratic victory.  Losing becomes winning, and winning becomes losing.  The most brilliant, effective, honorable, decent and charismatic politician I have ever seen becomes a vacant softy.  Or is he a "machine pol"?  I have trouble keeping track of the delusions and the fantasies, delusions and fantasies Hillary is content to spread about her fellow Democrat, going so far as to suggest that the Republican opponent is the  better choice against him.

Someone above mentioned "risk."  Sure, there's risk with either candidate.  But my money is on the one candidate now running for president who's not a total douchebag.  Voters have a way of picking up on that sort of thing.

jdhildner and chanrobt--

There would be nothing wrong about saying that Hillary has drawn a major advantage and "wouldn't be where she is" if she were not a woman. I don't think anyone would object to that. I think it is probably true.

Obama's "blackness" is, for me, the most attractive reason to vote for him--but he is otherwise not a very appealing candidate for me. I also find that his "blackness" is a key attaction about him for virtually every white democrat I know.

I think it is very common for white democrats to like that Obama is black, but many do not otherwise like him as a candidate, in the same way that many white democrats seem to have a soft spot for Colin Powell and Condeeza Rice despite their role in creating a war that we hate.

Talking about the role of race only in terms of racism against Obama goes against my everyday experience of the world in which I move.

alleneli--

Please don't race-bait me. Nothing I have said implies that "everyone who posts here is white."  That is an uncalled for calumny on your part. What you do with that kind of remark is create pressure for silence.

pccostello,

So Geraldine Ferraro is not a race-baitor, but I am?  

You say:  "Is there no one on this list who has done well in some situation because they were white?"

That sentence in itself wouldn't be problematic, save that you couple it pejoratives that cast others on this list as "knee-jerk, shallowly politically correct, latte liberals" - presumably of the sort who trip over themselves to pander to the blacks.  

Like I said:  please don't assume that everyone on this list is white.

(An aside:  the name-calling is just plain young - and, dare I say it, an attempt to silence those who presumably should be ashamed to be associated with such descriptors.)

ChanRobt,

Lincoln and Douglas had 7 total debates that certainly mesmerized much of the state of Illinois - as well as influential members of the Republican party.  To say that he "mesmerized the nation" is a historical stretch, to say the least.  (For one thing, mass communications were much different than they are today.  As were literacy rates.)

However, I do believe that the ability to mobilize a population based on one's words - and more importantly, inspire them to act and to sacrifice - is an important component of great leadership.

But let's be clear: Lincoln had bare-bones "experience" when he was given the nomination.  (Many people were giving far more impassioned speeches against the institution of slavery at the time - including some elected officials in Washington with much more congressional experience under their belts.  Such people were also more consistent in their vocal opposition to slavery than Lincoln ever was prior to his presidential election.)  And Lincoln's nomination came at a time of escalating crises in national security - the 1850s were anything if not explosive.

Geraldine Ferraro apparently hasn't paid attention to how the offensive-comment cycle has worked this election: Surrogate X says something offensive about candidate Y. General outrage ensues. Surrogate X backtracks, apologizes, and/or vanishes. Ferraro

alleneli, just a historical note: Thanks to telegraphy, the Lincoln-Douglas debates were followed nationally and carried in local newspapers across the country. Literacy rates then were quite high (in 1860, 94 percent in the North, somewhat lower among whites in the South). You could even say that Americans then were more literate than we are today, in this respect: Without the pictorial media of television and the internet, regular people read, at length, with great passion. Where we might sit down at night for two hours of tube time to relax, ordinary people would sit down at night and read for a couple of hours. And Americans in that era were voracious readers of news, current events, and political tracts and speeches.

jhildner,  good summary of the Fall of Hillary (that is, why she's fallen in the eyes of many Democrats).  thanks

jhildner -

There have been some impressive posts on these blogs but yours really bowled me over. Beautiful arguments, beautiful writing.

jhildner, your arguments are quite correct.  Both Democratic candidates are essentially flawed in that neither candidacy would be viable without the added component of gender in the one case, and race in the other.

It is also true, the Obama has generally gone out of the way to "de-racify" himself and stand on his own considerable, if immature, merits.  Hillary has not done much in that direction.

But, the bigger point is, without identify politics, neither of these candidates would have gotten to first base.  

Colin Powell, on the other hand, could have run for president at the height of his prestige, before Iraq, and would truly have transcended race.  For the simple reason that no one could dispute his qualifications.  

It is the thin qualifications of both Democratic candidate-- or let's all agree, at least arguably thing qualifications-- that keeps bringing us back to this issue.

If Diane had run, she, too, would have transcended gender politics.

In order to sort out this argument, everyone has to stipulate that both Democratic candidates are flawed in the qualifications department.  Then you can say, setting that aside, I like X best because.

As luck with have it, John McCain is highly qualified by any measure.  You need only decide whether you believe he is also worthy of your vote.

alleneli, you ignore the Coopers Union speech which, being made in New York, did get national attention.  

I agree that "national" had a different meaning then.  To a great extent, it meant reaching and influencing national politicians and other opinion leaders.

I'm not arguing that Lincoln's office holding qualifications were thin.  But, he had proven his intellectual prowess, applied to the most critical issue of the age, in a way far beyond anything Obama has done with what essentially are high level feel good speeches on general platitudes.

You mention here the lower literacy rates of that era.  Which raises an interesting question.  Why, then, were people willing to stand in large crowds listening to long, demanding debates, often referencing complex legal and Constitutional issues?

the supposedly untutored yokels of Illinois in 1858 could focus more deeply on critical issues than our supposedly well educated population will now.

It's pretty appalling, actually.  De-evolution, for sure.

Joe Biden for President. Superdelegates, do your jobs.  

CORRECTO  somehow Senator Feinstein's full name got erased in my previous post.  "If Diane Feinstein had run, she, too would have transcended gender politics."

Thanks a lot, Rhubarbs.  You both helped to make my point about voters of 140 years ago being better informed, and also answered my question.

CORRECTO:

I'm not arguing that Lincoln's office holding qualifications were NOT thin.

Chan:  Colin Powell is unquestionably qualified to be commander-in-chief, but his experience, while vast in his field, is narrow when set against the responsibilities of the office.  He has zero experience in any domestic matter including the economy, the voters' top concern at the moment.  He has shown little public interest in such issues (though he may very well have all kinds of views we don't know about).  Indeed, he has zero experience as a politician, and the president, at the very least, has to be an effective politician.  I'm not saying that he would be disqualified from running because of these huge deficiencies in his resume.  I'm only saying that an analysis of resume only goes so far when you're talking about this sui generis job, and sometimes "experience" doesn't mean experience but something else, like military credentials or how many generals have nice things to say about the person.  (Hillary uses this, though many support Obama, and, apparently, they worry about McCain's temper.)

Meanwhile, John McCain's years in elected office masks the extent to which he is actually a policy lightweight -- an admitted novice on economic issues who shows little inclination to become more conversant.  Though he endured the unimaginable ordeal of being held as a prisoner of war, and is justifiably regarded as heroic for it, this does not qualify him to be president at all, except to the extent such an experience would impress him (as Vietnam did for Powell) with the costs of war.  It did not seem to, as he will stand as the only candidate enthusiastically supporting the exacerbation and extension of an epic foreign policy disaster.

Tep:  You know that there aren't nearly enough supers to make Biden president, right?

p.s.  I should have said "nominee," not presient.

jhildner, Eisenhower had no political experience, either, when he was nominated, ran, and won by wide margins.

But, guess what.  A high ranking general has to know something about politics to negotiate the Pentagon and The Hill.  Not to mention, Powell's experience in the cabinet.

Believe me, if he ran, people would have a much harder time claiming he wasn't qualified.  He would have gotten to prove he had political chops by winning the nomination and then the election.  

jhildner - still trying to get my mind around your image of "a male Hillary... squirting a few". A few what?

oops, wrong thread. Spitzer on the brain

Tep -- ha!

Tears my friend, only salty, salty tears, I assure you.