Is  Hillary  still trying to win the nomination? Hasn't she noticed that a democrat can even win Maryland if there's a swing of 60,000 votes between Baltimore, Prince Georges and Montgomery? Three places where there are going to be at least 60,000 disgruntled Obama voters. This is obviously a strategy but it doesn't make sense to me in terms of the general.

I mean is she trying to win nomination for its own sake, or trying to cost Obama the general to prove herself right?

Not a surprise; the HRC campaign is pulling out all the stops to hurt Obama.  It was having some effect two weeks ago, but it seems that the Obama campaign has turned the tables this week, and is beginning to punch back hard.  That's all good.  

It seems to me that the Obama campaign doesn't need to have the same tenderness around HRC as HRC needs to have around BHO--after all BHO is the front-runner, and is future of the party, could run again (despite some spousal disclaimers), etc..  To seek to damage BHO is to harm the Democratic party.  But no one deludes themselves into believing that HRC is in any way the future; she's all about the past, "back to the 90s," etc..  Plus there's no way anyone can be nastier to HRC than the Republicans can, so there's no sense of being "newly mean" or anything like that.  So in attacking her the BHO folks would not draw any opprobrium on themselves about hurting the party.  All they have to worry about is besmirching BHO's reputation for a new politics; but as long as the HRC folks continue to be nasty, all BHO's folks have to do is reply to the nastiness, and they can continue to say "she started it."  I hope the BHO people see this and take it to mean: swing away!  Treat the HRC candidacy like the pinata it is.

I would desert HRC and vote for Obama in a heartbeat if I thought he could win the general election.  The chances of either one winning is slim at best.  Face it Democrats we have two flawed candidates and neither one will be able to do anything for the country if McCain wins the election.

Another Geraldine Ferraro appearance of note was her rough interview on NPR's "Talk of the Nation" last week. The content doesn't rival the controversial statements she's spit out the last couple of days, but in hindsight, it was an early sign of the clumsy hacksterism she's capable of.

To get an idea of how vile Ferraro's comments are, just imagine that Obama's campaign started declaring openly that Hillary Clinton is someone of little accomplishment who would never have been in a position to run for president but for being married to Bill Clinton.  Of course, this is totally true, but just imagine the feminist outrage.

Every poster here who has previously claimed that the Clintons are not stoking racism as a deliberate tactic to win the nomination must now eat a giant helping of humble pie.

Hillary Clinton is thoroughly detestable and I have come to detest her thoroughly.  On my list, she would fall just behind Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld.  When her campaign started making noise about trying to suborn Obama's pledged delegates I said I would never vote for her if they tried that tactic.  Now, I am done with Hillary Clinton, and I have lost all of the respect that I used to have for Bill Clinton, so the Republicans can now gloat.

On the other hand, I should not be surprised.  I have been saying for a long time that Hillary is really a Republican at heart.  I think I was dead-on balls right.  She is a Republican, still a Goldwater Girl after all these years.

Hillary will go on trying to destroy Obama by whatever means available, constrained only by her sense of what might just go too far and fatally wound her own campaign.  She is dancing on the edge of the cliff already out of sheer desperation because destroying Obama's chance's in the general is the only card she has left to play.  And she will play it.  

Fortunately, I think he is just too smart and too good to be damaged seriously by this.  She will end up destroying herself and good riddance.

Is this really the kind of political judgment we can expect from President Hillary? Geraldine Ferraro was a disaster as a VP nominee such that Walter Mondale didn't even carry Ferraro's own congressional district (or the state of New York). So, gee, let's put her out front as a spokeswoman for our campaign, too! One can almost imagine Hillary saying, "Heck of a job, Gerry."

Also, it's worth noting that Ferraro is a principal in a lobbying firm. So even when Hillary turns to a washed-up failure as the public face of her campaign, she picks a lobbyist.

jts44: have you looked at the head to head polling?  Obama consistently beats McCain.  HRC occasionally does.  

roidubouloi -- If Hillary is indeed "really a Republican at heart," as you say, then in fairness she's still as far from being a "Goldwater girl" as the contemporary Republicans are from being a Goldwater party.

Alas, this is HRC making the election about Race.  She's probably pleased as punch that the MS results were so racially polarized.  Here's the argument: "Sure, BO can win black voters, but Dem rank and file and white cross-over voters?  Not a chance.  So, Mr. SuperDel, please make your vote for me because I can win the general election.  This is the same crap they did in South Carolina, only slightly more subtle.

Well, BO needs to learn how to handle it, because it for sure will be a tactic the McCain camp, or at least 527s on his side, will use.

As Roidubouloi has noted, this really is the smoking gun that proves how the Clinton campaign is using race as a way to scare up votes and divide the electorate. The media made much of the Farrakhan "reject and denounce" drama, but seems to be giving Hillary a pass on this one -- even though Ferraro is an active member of her campaign. The difference in treatment is striking. So much for the fairy tale that Hillary is getting rougher press coverage than Obama.

How can the Clinton campaign condemn Chris Matthews' comments about Senator Clinton and not separate itself from Ferraro?  It just makes no sense.

F' Hillary. Seriously. It's time the spineless democratic party stood together against this ugliness. It's now certain that, in addition to not voting for the b$tch, I would work against her in the fall were she to steal this.

Remember though that Ferraro has vital "experience" in running for VP and her "experience" is vital to this process.

This reminds me of an old Dennis Miller rant about Mondale.  From memory, something like he got his ass kicked like a narc at biker rally.  He got 3 electoral votes, hell I almost beat him and I did not even run.

What is certain is that this is a despicable tactic by the Clinton campaign but we have come to expect that from them. What I can't understand is why they think this is a good tactic? It may help (a big may) with some voters but what it could potentially do is move a lot of super delegates over to Obama. This could really be the defining moment where the powers that be finally say "enough already" to the Clintons. Let's hope.

Once again, the Obama crowd/bots/fans/groupies ignore the obvious. You ain't gonna have this election, this year, without race at least being a subtext, and both side are talking about it. So get over it, and get it through your heads that making an accurate observation, as Ferraro has done in her interviews, IS NOT RACISM. Please repeat: MAKING ACCURATE STATEMENTS IS NOT RACISM.

Just acknowledge the obvious, folks: Clinton would not be where she is if she weren't the former first lady. Not the woman I'd want as the first woman president. And Obama would not be where he is if he were a middle-aged white man  with a limited background in national politics who  made a nice, supposedly inspiring (I don't go for "inspiring") at the 2004 convention.

I'm still gonna hold my nose in November and vote for whichever of these two gets the nomination, even though neither of them should.

In opposition to the Obama campaign's reasonable but inevitably struggling efforts to adapt American politics to the future, Hillary's campaign generates confusing, distracting noise that returns people to primitive reactions, which may benefit her appeal to older, anxious Democrats. But shifting the race that way plays with fire, as no one beats Republicans at exploiting primitive reactions (insecurity, greed, nostalgia, hate and fear).

Comparisons to 1968 abound--one relates to outcomes for the general election. When the Democrats nominated the compromised Hubert Humphrey after Robert Kennedy was murdered and Eugene McCarthy proved feckless, much of the youth movement wandered off into decades of disaffection plus a slide to Republican cynicism re honest and competent government activism, which Nixon's victory and subsequent disgrace confirmed. (McCain's no Nixon, but he's as compromised as Humphrey.) If Obama wins the nomination, there's no guarantee anything goes right after that, but we can hope and struggle. If Hillary wins the nomination, that hope disperses as though it was never there, with electing a reasonably competent woman the only possible compensation.

This morning I awoke prematurely, decided to stay up, went to my kitchen to make a cup of coffee.

Upon turning on the light I saw, crawling across my kitchen floor, possibly the largest spider I have ever seen. It walked slowly, as if arrogant. Despite being shod only in my ancient Birkenstocks I had no choice but to stomp that nasty motherfucker before it could find refuge behind the fridge.

We live in disconcerting times. Many people, especially African Americans, questioned nominating Obama because they feared that he would be assassinated. Now they are watching his persona being dismantled. A bicycle, a beautiful machine, graceful and quiet, can be crushed beneath the wheels of a bus or simply taken apart: the chain removed and thrown into the weeds, the tires slashed and discarded like molted skin.  Either way the beauty is gone.

The light goes on, the beauty disappears, and monsters crawl about.

...And for those who don't recall 1984 or choose to forget: It was too warly, for sure, to run a woman on the national ticket. Then there were the stage whispers about Mafia connections. And of course, a woman's curse -- a husband with dirty laundry in NY's real estate markets....

Class act, ralphnelle...

Keep it up, so to speak. You're just further proving that gender is a bigger problem than race.

Is she in la la land or did someone call her a racist simply because she attacked Obama?  

The only thing Ferraro represents is the attitude of a 60 something Italian-American woman from Queens. Check your history on that one.  Enough said.

Good point mpintar2 - pray that Hillary has jumped the shark on this one with the SD.  

There are tons of people who knock Obama who haven't been accused of racism, including many, many Republicans, but for some odd reason the Obama campaign decided to go after an elderly, italian-American White woman who was the VP candidate for the Democratic party because she is white and dared to say anything bad about Obama? I am sure pccostello will buy it but nobody else will.

dbhuff, yes, I am sure that factors into her mind, but Obama winning so big in Wyoming (an all white state) makes it a little harder to spin. So Obama won by 24% in an all white state, and 24% in a heavily black state. All told including Supertuesday 2, that was supposed to represent Hillarys turning of the tide and great comeback, she has pretty much gained zero delegates and is 3 for 3 in contests, with her small wins offset by Obama's other huge wins. The clock is ticking Hillary, Obama has retaken 100,000 of the popular votes he lost in Texas. I am not sure how much the Superdelegates are going to be receptive to jmkerr logic that black votes don't count.

Uh-uh, Wandreycer...Ferraro is solid and on target...and I know that history -- my first thought when Mondale named her as his running mate was that Minnesotans, apparently even those in politics,  were too innocent to understand NY politics and its very dirty underside...well before all the dirt started to hit the fan...

LISAH-

"And Obama would not be where he is if he were a middle-aged white man  with a limited background in national politics who  made a nice, supposedly inspiring (I don't go for "inspiring") at the 2004 convention."

I think the fact that John Edwards was the Party's VP nominee in 2004 and a serious candidate in 2008 basically dispels that argument.  Sure, Edwards had a whole 2 years more experience in the Senate as of 2004, but Obama has more legislative experience than Edwards did (though, admittedly, both men are relatively inexperienced, compared to Gore, Kerry, etc.).

LISAH,

I'm the class act? You have to be kidding. You just justified Ferraro's bullshit remarks, and you endorsed Hillary's choice to use these tactics.

There are plenty of admirable women in politics. McCaskill and Pelosi are two. Hillary and Ferraro are the new filth. They are an embarrassment to the democratic party. Don't you see that?

I'm neither black nor a woman, Lisah. I have no identity issues at stake in this election. You do, and it shows.

LISAH, but can't the same thing have been reasonably said about Edwards, a white guy who IS rated as a very good speaker (not Obama great but still very good) who had little government experience. If it had been he who won Iowa he could very well have proven to be a better candidate against Bush and might be President today, as it is he was Ohio away from being VP and the now presumptive front runner for 2012. I did not hear Geraldine say anything like this in 2004, that he got there because he is a white, southerner only who had a good spiel.

I don't care what Republicans say, but no Democrats said Edwards was not qualified, so why the hell are Democrats saying Obama isn't now? It is simply because people think Hillary is entitled to be the nominee, and anyone who opposes her is unfit. If Edwards was qualified Obama is too.

Who's Geraldine Ferraro and would she please shut up?

Wandrey, I love you to death, but just a word for my amazing super mom-in-law, a 60-year old working class Italian-American woman from Joisey who's as strong an Obama supporter as they come (and welcomed her Jewish daughter-in-law with open arms and tons of food). I know what you mean about there being a culture among a certain generation of Italian-Americans -- just wanted to give props to the non-stereotypical.

Oh and LISAH, no lets not acknowledge the obvious. Why don't we just say to some candidates as criticism, you are too fat, we shouldn't support you because maybe some people don't like fat people. Or you are bald, makes you look weak. Enlightenment is supposed to come from educated people ignoring such kinds of obvious and attempting to look beyond. I supported Edwards in 2004 and Obama now for very similar reasons, they both promised to try to bridge the partisan divide. If Edwards were the front runner now and Obama long consigned to the dust I would be supporting Edwards now (and Hillary would probably be toast by now, how the hell could she have questioned the previous Dem. party candidates qualifications for Pres.?). This is what sickens me about this whole spiel, that there exist Democrats who are incapable of realizing I support Obama for reasons other than his skin color.

As Isaac notes below , Geraldine Ferraro was on national television the morning , defending her controversial

Here's what's weird about the defenders of Ferraro. They say she's just telling the truth. I have no doubt that some people support Obama because he's black. But when you look at last night's results and the racial divide, I think it's as plausible (and probably more plausible) that he has been hurt because he is a black man. He has clearly lost a lot of white votes for that reason (which of course the Clintons are, repulsively, banking on)A black man named Barack Hussein Obama, at that.

No one knows how he would have fared had he not been black because even excepting race the man is sui generis. So to fdefend her as speaking the truth just seems silly.

I just don't understand how the CLintons can still tell themselves they are doing it for the greater good. Can you really tell yourself that it's a good thing to exploit a racial divide to get into office? DO trhey really think they'll do that much better a job than Obama that it's worth the harm and pain they are causing?

To those commenting  re Edwards: exactly...please notice that this particular middle-aged white man didn't get the traction. And blackton -- Edwards was named as VP in 2004...and there were people commenting that he didn't have the background. It's all getting more intense now because it's down to the final 2....

To ralphnelle: I was commenting specifically on your language.

And I repeat: TALKING ABOUT RACE -- OR GENDER, FOR THAT MATTER -- IS NOT RACISM OR, UH GENDERISM. When conducted in civil words, it's called having a discussion.

Please cut out the PC nonsense.

Another historical correction: Mondale won 13 electoral votes, not 3. Minnesota's 10 plus the District of Columbia's 3.

And the Mondale-Ferraro ticket got 40 percent of the vote in Ferraro's own congressional district. So why is the Hillary campaign using her as a surrogate? Were Michael Brown and George Tenet busy this week?

Plus, those weren't just rumors and whispers about Ferraro. At first, she refused to release her family's financial information after promising to do so. Then when she did release her financial information, she refused to release her husband's business records. Meanwhile, the records she did release showed that she had committed tax evasion, for which she then paid a $50,000 fine. Then her husband's business records showed that he was committing fraud with money he was supposed to be overseeing as a court-appointed trustee -- and then it turned out that he had been appointed to oversee the money by a judge who was a political ally of Ferraro. She was, quite simply, a crook, though not as much as was her husband (or, to be fair, many New York officials at the time). Then she had the audacity, only 12 years after Tom Eagleton was run off the Democratic ticket by the press, to complain, "Would they have done it if I were male? Would they have done it if I were not Italian-American?"

Apparently, being a corrupt failure who follows the Marion Barry school of outrage makes her Hillary's kind of gal.

Lisah - you're so presumptous. Apparently your perspective is the definitive one for every single person voting for Obama in this country, just like Ferraro. You both know all. You're miraculous. The mind-reading/condesending/know it all attitude is the most offensive part of it.  

You have no idea why milions of people select a nominee anymore than I do - my 69 year old ex marine white guy Dad is not caught up in some racial dream state and neither am I - how offensive.  

Plenty of people believe fully that Obama would have wrapped up the nomination weeks ago had he not been black.  Since when are blue collar lunch bucket guys from shithead Ohio in love with Hillary Clinton?  Talk about getting real.  But my perspective is no more provable than yours. Or relevant.

This claustrophobic, determinstic Ferraroism is also a perfect example of the Vietnam-era level of disconnect between the generations on issues of identity, especially race.  

Ferraro and her ilk are dinosaurs. It's 1968 forever to those nitwits, it's all about generational validation for them. To them its Obama, Jesse Jackson, by any means necessary, burn your bra - what's the diff? They are all the same in this Racist Country Only We the Enlightened Ones Can Really Change. No one is more obssesed with race than these people.  

Most people are actually capable of making a rational decision about this election without being stunned by a racially induced bliss fog.  Who is focused on race here?  Please!  

"Please cut out the PC nonsense."

Please cut the presumptous mind reading.  

Also LISAH - you are not "talking about" race or being so much bolder than anyone else on what's what - that's self-serving hooey. You are accusing people of voting based on race because you know how they really think better than they know themselves.  That's not a "discussion," that's an offensive insult.

jmurph79, you beat me to it, but technically due to the freaking lag here I didn't see your post. I am not plagarizing your brain, but just want to show great minds think alike.

LISAH  

Um how was John Edwards 6 year record or Carter's 4 year record or Wilson's 2 year record more impressive than Obama's again -- I think I missed that part? And the way do you honestly believe that a white politico of Obama's now obvious skill would have been left in the state legislature for EIGHT years or do you think that maybe the party would have recruited him to run for higher office, you know do what they did for John  Edwards, Kathleen Sebelius, Mark Warner, Claire McCaskill and Hillary Clinton? I mean do you think its at all odd that the party's never recruited an African American candidate to run for a state house or a senate seat in a blue state? Especially given that all of the women and all of the Hispanics holding of such offices were party recruits?  Do you consider that happenstance or do you think it has the look of maybe a pattern?

Lisah (or should that be LISAH?),

Let me try to understand. You inferred from my use of "b$tch" to the extraordinary conclusion that "gender is a bigger problem than race." Needless to say, that's very poor reasoning, even if my comments did have a gender motivation: I am one person; there are millions of us in the country.

Piece of advice: cool it with the caps. We get it without them.

I never bought the Obama line in SC that the HRC campaign was using race as a wedge issue; it just didn't make sense in a democratic primary. I was wrong. Very wrong. Ferraro could silenced in minutes if that's what Hillary wanted, but she has been dispatched to the media to push this nonsense, no doubt hoping that this race business can be decisive in the next primary. It's a new low point for her campaign. We need her to get out of this campaign, and soon, or this could be the beginnings of something tragic for the party.

LISAH, yes Republicans made that comment, but did Democrats? Do you remember Reagans 11th Commandment?

And as to the PC nonsense, I refer you to my post above, freaking lag here.

blackton -- calm down, please. I don't entirely disagree with you. There are all knds of reasons to vote for, or to not vote for,  any politician. My concern is with this nonsensical readiness to scream racism about any and all comments, advertisements, whatever that go out over our badly polluted airwaves. Obama himself and his staffers/supporters have also made comments about race.

There's too much tendency, though, to go after the white guys for their comments and too much unwillingness to give the black guys a pass in the U.S. today when race comes up in any context. This is a far more serious concern than any specifics of the campaign. It makes any conversation less useful and any chance of coming to some reasonable policy measures less likely.

ooops -- that obviously should have read "too much WILLINGNESS to give the balck guys a pass..."  Gotta write less convoluted sentences....

ooops -- that obviously should have read "too much WILLINGNESS to give the balck guys a pass..."  Gotta write less convoluted sentences....

LISAH.

Whether that piece of lying crap Ferraro is right or wrong about Obama is unknowable and unimportant  What is clear however is that Hillary Clinton is both incompetent and despicable.  I cannot imagine any Democrat less worthy to be president than she.  A woman of no accomplishment, a political tin-ear, and an open and endless sense of victimization because she doesn't come close to having 10% of the brains or talent that her husband has and ascribes her own utter mediocrity to sexism.  The truth is that without Bill, Hillary would be nobody, which she pretty much is anyway despite Bill.

Bleeeechhhhhhhhhhh!  Get this thing off the stage already.

you're basing the claim that the Clinton campaign has her out there on what?  The fact that she likes to run her mouth doesn't mean that she's doing so under Clinton campaign auspices...

How many McCain campaign commercials in the fall will feature Ferraro no matter who the Democratic party nominee is? How long before she'll come out an say the country would be better off with McCain than Obama?

Wandreycer1 -- I dunno, I think affirmative action resonates a bit more than with some Italian-Americans. Obama needs to not make too much out of this -- sort of say "we're used to dealing with these kinds of outdated attitudes, all I ask is to be judged on my merits and I think that's what people are responding to" kind of thing.  I mean, Obama is getting 90% of the African-American vote, if he gets too haughty on "identity politics" he's going to seem disengenous.  Ferraro's remarks are so in-your-face that they will speak for themselves to anyone who isn't already predisposed against Obama.  

"you're basing the claim that the Clinton campaign has her out there on what?  The fact that she likes to run her mouth doesn't mean that she's doing so under Clinton campaign auspices..."

All Hillary has to do to shut Ferraro up is dump her from her campaign -- as Obama promptly did with Powers.  It is painfully obvious that Hillary is combining tepid disavowals with the green light for Ferraro to keep going.  This is called "Swift-boating."  Of course, it was only a matter of time before Hillary got down in the sewer with Karl Rove and Ken Starr.  Someday, someone will write an explanation of Hillary's "Stockholm syndrome."  In the meantime, it is alway painfully obvious that Hillary is doing her best to stoke white racism to come to her electoral aid as her campaign slowly sinks into the muck.

Hillary Clinton is a disgrace to herself and to the Democratic party.  If she should somehow be nominated and become president (neither of which is remotely likely), I am leaving the Democratic party.  I wouldn't want to associate myself in any way with an organization of which she is the head.  Off into the political wilderness I suppose.

sprechs is right about Ferraro's independence as far as being a TV "pundit" on her own is concerned, which is actually pretty damning of the press involved. Do they interview Michael Brown for his opinions about disaster preparedness? If not, they why are they interviewing Ferraro for her opinions about political campaigns?

ralphnelle -- no -- I've long ago concluded that gender is a longer-term issue than racism, if only for the realities of demographics. I was just noting your cute little word play as some of the evidence.

And I'd be more than willing, would even prefer,  to use italics, e.g., rather than caps, if the IT crowd here at TNR would make it possible. But reading the Obama supporters here (and I repeat: I am NOT a Clinton supporter) I think the emphasis is necessary. And essential. And really really badly needed. Sorry if that offends people. Or maybe I'm not offended.

To all of those yelling at me (we all went through this before, right?) I'm not mind-reading, accusing people of voting based on race. Please read my comments more carefully. What I disllike most about Obama is the swooning over him that's pretty obvious on some of the comments here. The man is not "sui generis" -- black, brown  green, or chartreuse with pink polka dots, he's just another politician.

WandreyCer1...no, it's not '68 all over again for Ferraro -- have you really listened to her recent interviews? Again. and again, and again -- I am not saying people are voting for Obama because of race, or not voting for him bcause of race. "Plenty of people..." etc.??? Who knows?  I frankly don't give a damn. My only point, and the reactions to me are proving it, is that it's just not possible to TALK ([not] sorry, raphnelle) about it without people getting all defensive. I had no problems with Larry Summers talking about gender and science -- was appalled at the PC garbage aimed at him. I'm making the same point about the conversation on race.

rhubarbs -- thanks for the detail == had forgotten about Ferraro's own involvement -- but my point still stands -- agreed that there was of course reality to the charges...should have made that clear if I didn't in my post above.

arsonplus -- please don't get me started on Carter -- can't stand the clown. Voted for him, of course, but didn't take long to be really really sorry he ever got in. And blog doens' give the reach or time (we all have jobs, right?) to examine how specific candidates are recruited by their national parties. And in any case, as I've made clear, probably all too clear,  I just don't see Obama's "obvious skills," was it that you said...

I hear you ep - I'm sorry - I love ya to death too.  I was riled up and I'm pretty sure I was trying to get Ferarro back for her identity nonsense and I should have thought twice.  I even HAVE a sixty something italian american father in law.  

But in all honesty, it was the grandmother (father in law's Mom), Nana, who was...shall we say...not enlightened on black folks.  Immigration patterns in Philadelphia and New York and the clashes that went along with it were not pretty.  There's still bad blood there - but the under 40 crowd *is* very different that way.

My father in law used to get so mad at his mother's racist comments, he once said at the dinner table "Ma, look at you - you have black features yourself - you sure you're from Italy?"  We all froze. Nana blew her cigarette smoke in his face and everyone laughed.  It was what it was - VERY generational.  She just died last year at 94.

I do see Ferraro as an old school broad from the hood (as it was back then) and I say that as a compliment, one broad to another.  She's not an awful person, just stuck in the past.  She's got her back against the wall, she's going to fight back, whether she's making sense or not. Its in her blood.

I agree lymon, Obama should ignore it completely.  

Hillary has Ferraro out there to rile up that ethnic 60 something lady demographic in PA (note Bill's comments yesterday that she needs to win PA "big") and they wouldn't vote for Obama is you paid them anyway.  Sorry, but that one I know first hand.  

The more Obama ignores it, the lamer these attacks look to most of us out her outside of that micro-targeted slice.

We just have to stop being surprised at the shamelessness, assume it will get worse and be lizard like when the next barrage happens..."there you go again..."  Obama does well with the cool cucumber response.  Hillary will do anything to get him to play the Angry Black Man and Obama knows it.  He won't bite.

I just picture Michelle at the punching bag at the gym every night.

Lisah or LISAH,

You think that saying "Obama wouldn't be here today if he weren't black" is "discussing" race?

You cannot hide Ferraro's racism, and by extension Hillary's race-baiting, by playing the PC card.  It just won't wash.  The comparison to Larry Summers is ridiculous.  What would you have thought if he had said,"Professor Madame so-and-so would not have gotten tenure if she weren't a woman?"  Would he have merely been discussing gender politics?

Come on.

LISAH - I think I read your comments carefully.  I capabe of talking about race and identity without getting angry, I like to think I do an OK job of it three times a week in the groups I run with young people, mostly of color. I don't always succeed, granted, but the only time I get mad is when people mind read me or each other.  

I didn't see Ferraro's comments as a discussion.  Bomb throwers are the first to refuse to accept that people will are entitled to their responses to their bombs.

If someone says something offensive, the biggest cop out in the world is to yell PC police when they have to deal with the consequences.  Finding the comments by Ferrero to be offensive is not PC nor is being angry at basically being called a brain dead idiot so caught up in a man's race that my rationality simply leaves me.  Don't except anyone to consider that a "discusssion."  Them's fighting words and it's self-serving to deny it.  best to just deal with it.

My issue with Ferraro was her blanket statements that represent nothing but her mindset without even acknowledging that anyone else may feel differently.  She is a dinosaur in my view, or part of "Generation D" (get it) as my students call them - her comments speak for themselves.  

She is clearly the one who cannot see past Obama's race or Clinton's gender for that matter, exactly what she's accusing millions of people across dozens of states of.  If this is what passes for a discussion about race from Clinton people, they shouldn't be surprised by the revulsion they bring out in people.

LISAH, I hope you didn't think I was piling on you there. Just wanted to clarify the history here so folks can put Ferraro's comments in perspective. Didn't mean to argue for or against your comments either way with that one.

I do appreciate you responding LISAH, thanks.  And dealing with my typos.

agree to disagree roi -- yes, Summers would have been "merely"  discussing gender politics if he's said that -- he wouldn't have been -- uh -- gender-baiting. It's a legitimate topic for discussion. Just like race.

Sorry Rhubarbs, Dennis Miller lost the 84 election by 13 electoral votes :)

WandreyCer1...sometimes PC really is PC. And my central point is that there's far more tendency to yell racism about legitimate observations than to yell sexism. (Leaving out the nuttier feminsit types here.) And guess we're hearing different things when we listen to Ferraro...she's not throwing bombs -- I hear useful points in listening to her.

Yes, rhubarbs, I know -- but after all the other piling on, thanks....

...and Wandreycer1 -- typos? What typos? thanks for ignoring mine.....including adding a cap that didn't belong to your name....

Cheers....

Sounds fair LISAH - you put down actual legitimate observations rather than mind reading and I'm in.  I'll just ask that if I find something offensive, like say diminishing someone's accomplishments because of  their race, then you won't bring out that tired PC charge in response.  No one is telling you can't say whatever you want.  But *everyone* has to deal with the consequences of what they say.

We'll have to agree to disagree on Ferraro, I don't hear anything valuable or open-minded at alll, except as a great snap-shot of boomer narcissim.

What Ferraro is ignoring is that there was going to be one principal challenger to Hillary where all of the anti-Hillary votes would coalesce. If obama was not in the race it would have been Edwards, what Edwards would have lost in the black vote he might have gained in the white. Would he still be around now, I have no idea. He stuck it out for a while in 04 so it is possible. I guarantee if Edwards had duplicated Obama's run in vote totals and delegates then Hillary would have been gone before Ohio. She would have had no race card to play, nor could have been remotely credible with the experience card either. Since Obama and Edwards essentially are equal on experience than I am left with the conclusion that it is Obamas race that keeps Hillary in the race.

I would have no problem with discussing race, but Ferraros assumption that it is the only thing is downright retarded.

blackton -- your argument can just as easily be usd to show that if Edwards were in Obama's place now,with experience (wow is that a tired word these days) less than hers or at best equal to hers, and had knocked her out of the race (the nomination race, that is), it would just show that gender remains a problem...(sorry for the tangled sentence -- in a hurry now).....It isn't the (other) race card....

LISAH, that is where i part company, it is not Hillary's experience, or her gender, but Hillary herself that I can't stand. I also can't stand Guiliani or Romney, am I an anti-Italian bigot or anti-Mormon one? Hillary and I seem to be on the wrong side of many issues, she is flexible where I am not (she voted to ban flag burning) and inflexible when I am (Mandates will kill her insurance bill). Couple that with the fact that she is a terrible campaigner.

You ignore the fact that Hillary herself is the problem. Don't forget, I have been pitching a McCain-Rice ticket, so I have no problem with envisioning a black or a woman on the ticket, (nor do I suspect the majority of Americans) and given McCains age a potential President as well. I think Condi is whip smart, and being Secretary of State certainly qualifies her.

Well Lisah,

Let's indeed agree to disagree.  I think you are using the charge of political correctness to cover up blatant racism and race-baiting.  You on the other hand think that Ferraro asserting that "Obama would not be where he is today if he weren't black" is "useful," as you put it.  Useful for what, exactly, you don't say.

I think it might be useful to stoke the anger of lunch-bucket Democrats who have been schooled by the Republicans into believing that their economic travail is the result of unwarranted privileges granted to minorities rather than to the unwarranted privileges that the Republican party, in particular, grants to the rich.  But you think Gerry and Hillary are just discussing the issues.  So be it.  

I am impressed with your consistency, but not at all with your argument.  

So let me just add that by accusing Hillary of race-baiting, we are just usefully discussing the issue of race.  And in defending Hillary, you are usefully discussing political correctness.  No reason for you to refrain from that.  No reason for anyone else to refrain from calling Hillary a racist.  It is all just useful.  I therefore fail to see what you find objectionable in the face of all this usefulness. I conclude that you must be playing the victim card on Hillary's behalf -- because it is useful -- in order to intimidate others into refraining from their useful discussion.

blackton writes: "I think Condi is whip smart, and being Secretary of State certainly qualifies her."

What on earth would give you the impression that Condi is whip-smart? She has simply been a failure as both national security adviser and secretary of state. Recall her testimony to the 9/11 Commission -- she complained that the NSA's terrorism people kept coming to her in 2001 with warnings about impending attacks, but they didn't offer solutions, and she didn't see it as her job to think up solutions to national security problems. If only the bureaucrats had told her what to do, she'd have gotten right around to doing it, after that meeting she had scheduled on September 12.

Well. Have you ever heard a greater expression of willful incompetence in office? I never have. Her work as national security adviser never rose above the level of "abject failure," and can you name her three greatest accomplishments as secretary of state? Can you name one?

I get that she's well educated, and by all accounts she was a fantastic professor and dean. But in the context of governing, she's proven again and again that she's dumb as a brick even by the standards of the Bush administration. If McCain is even considering Rice for VP, that right there should disqualify _him_ from the presidency on the grounds of bad judgment. Might as well pick George Tenet. Really, Condi Rice is exactly as sensible a pick for president-in-waiting as would be, say, Mark Dayton on the Democratic side.

McCain/Tenet.  Gosh, I like the sound of that.  But do you think that is better than McCain/Thomas (as in Clarence), the incredibly brilliant suggestion of William Kristol?  No, that's IT!!!  McCain/Kristol.  No, wait, McCain/Bush, as in Jeb.  But then, what about McCain/Rumsfeld?  Or McCain/Cheney (I don't think the Constitution bothers to bar anyone from serving more than two terms as VP -- no one imagined anyone would be such a masochist, but then no one imagined that the VP could actually be the president's puppet master).  

When you come right down to, the list of hopelessly incompetent and corrupt Bushies who could be McCain's VP choice is so long, it is just an embarrassment of riches.  Who could possibly choose amongst such worthies as these?

blackton -- I agree with you  -- was going to add that HRC herself is too much of a problem to get any kind of USEFUL (roi take note) read on gender issue in this contest. Was getting too tangled up in my syntax, actually my lack thererof, so I gave up...

and roi -- your comments are no more USEFUL here than they are on Spine stuff...

And again, people -- I'm no Hillary Clinton supporter...

blackton -- I agree with you  -- was going to add that HRC herself is too much of a problem to get any kind of USEFUL (roi take note) read on gender issue in this contest. Was getting too tangled up in my syntax, actually my lack thererof, so I gave up...

and roi -- your comments are no more USEFUL here than they are on Spine stuff...

And again, people -- I'm no Hillary Clinton supporter...

Oh lisah and LISAH,

I wasn't claiming that my comments are USEFUL.  Only you are the arbiter of the correct use of capitals.  I was merely pointing out that, when some of us call Hillary a race-baiter and Ferraro a racist, we are engaging in exactly the sort of "useful" discussion of the issues that you favor, in which everyone speaks their mind about the issues of race and gender without worrying about political correctness.  Surely you don't believe that only Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro should be permitted to weigh in on those subjects.  And surely you don't believe that you, lisah and LISAH, should be the arbiter of what is and is not useful discussion.  I mean, what sense would it make for you to be the arbiter of what we say on the grounds that we cannot have legitimate opinions about what Ferraro says and Hillary does?

If Ferraro can say that Obama has only gotten where he is because of is race, why cannot others respond that Ferraro only says what she says because she is a racist with a long history of personally corrupt behavior?  And why can we not point out that Hillary's deployment of the racist Ferraro to a bunch of talk shows is race-baiting in the hope of gaining electoral advantage by stoking racial anger?

And then you can remind us that they are merely "usefully discussing the issues of race and gender."

roi...you are clear and useful proof that Obama's supporters are his biggest problem

The Clinton campaign has very skillfully shifted the focus of this campaign from "change" to "race." This was their intention. It is the only hope they have in order to win. The problem is that by doing this the Clintons will further divide the Democratic Party and the nation. They will stop at nothing to try to win back power and influence in Washington.

arsonplus asks: "I mean is she trying to win nomination for its own sake, or trying to cost Obama the general to prove herself right?"

I think it's the latter if the former doesn't work for her. Clearly Hillary is engaged in slash and burn politics of desperation at the this point, but she risks destroying the chances that any Democrat will be electable in November.

I think the desire for power and influence has blinded the Clintons to other things that they should consider, such as the good of the country, the good of the party, their own political legacy....

No, lisah, you are clear and useful proof that Hillary and her supporters are the biggest problem.  The biggest asymmetry in this campaign, and the greatest threat to the chances of the party in November, is that while Obama's supporters may bash Hillary -- which is pretty standard political fare -- Hillary's supporters bash both Obama and his supporters.  I have read tons of negative comment about Hillary, and written plenty of it.  But I don't trash fellow Democrats for supporting her.  I don't accuse them of drinking Kool-aid.  I don't accuse them of swooning absurdly for their candidate or being struck with messianic fervor.  And I don't read anything by Obama's supporters that does any of this.

Hillary's supporters however feel free not merely to turn their guns on the political opponent, but on the public as well.  That, indeed, is the most charitable interpretation of Ferraro's comments, that she was bashing a segment of the public for supporting Obama.  You presume to edit what everyone else has to say, not on the merits, but to arbitrate their right to say it.  It seems not to occur to you that this is completely logically inconsistent with your entire "political correctness" defense of Ferraro and Hillary.  When that is pointed out -- archly I will admit -- you find that you don't like having someone be the arbiter of what you can and cannot say.

Tough.  Don't through spitballs and you won't get wet.

OK, Ferraro is gone.  So each campaign has thrown somebody overboard for saying the wrong thing.

Tie game again.

Yup, tie game.  And the ties go to Obama from here on out as he is comfortably in the lead.  Bye, bye Hillary.

Buy the way, with the change in CA, Hillary is now further behind than she was before TX, OH, and RI.  That's the way to win Hill.  Get further behind and spin the story like crazy that you are now winning.  Fortunately, come a date certain in August, the spinning will end and reality will take over.

rhubarbs, I don't disagree with what you write, but I think Rice as VP if Clinton is the Dem nominee will kill her, not if it is Obama. Since the whole purpose is to get elected, and Condi can eviscerate Hillary at will I think it would be a savvy pick. Against Obama, no. As I said he will go with a Repub. heavyweight and claim his VP has more experience than Obama. Who said heavyweight is I leave to others.

roid -- huh???? Wanna translate that last one? What you don't get is that since Clinton has little, if any, charisma (or whatever), she doesn't tend to get swooning worship or fan club responses -- certainly not to the extent Obama does.

And how many times do I have to say it: I don't support Clinton. !!!!! I don't defend Hillary Clinton. !!!!!

I don't want either of these two. I dislike them both equally....I'm an equal opportunity basher.

Well than, bash them at will.  They are politicians.  By holding themselves out for public office, they agree to be bashed.  Leave their supporters out of it.  The voters, for any candidate, do not agree, explicitly or implicitly, to be bashed for having opinions about the candidates.

Those of us choosing to post on blogs are at least implcitly, agreeing  to be bashed....

Well then, don't take offense if you get bashed.  I don't.  Mostly I think it is funny and, depending on my mood, I go to work on the basher or not.

rudoubouloi--

if you don't think obama supporters are vicious about both hillary and her supporters, then you haven't been reading the blogs here at tnr. it's a slam-dunk that you are way wrong on that one.

Sorry pc, but I just don't recall reading ANYTHING that disses people for supporting Hillary.  There are some hot debates, to be sure, and people disagree with arguments made, sometimes in very personally tones, but I don't think I have ever read these sorting of sweeping generalities of the type that say, "Hillary supporters are [fill in the blank]."  Feel free to direct me to something I have missed.

hey roi, my own parents support Hillary (sigh) but I don't doubt their intelligence. but what pccostello is refering to is perhaps my lamenting that there are so few Hillary supporters here at TNR that are worth their salt. Basman, jacksondyer, etc. certainly are. They acknowledge Hillary's faults but lay it off to politics. Fine with me. It is hopeless people like pc, who truly seem incapable of registering a negative thought about Hillary (Obama is a corrupt illinois pol, he will be a great VP) in one breath is scary in its disconnect. But I am an equal opportunity basher, if an Obama supporter says something retarded I will bash them as well. I did previously when someone brought up Hillarys "lesbian" lover, or would do so if someone mentions Vince Foster. Both pointless and idiotic. Unfortunately for Hillary supporters hereabouts that there is so much more shit to defend that it takes a certain looniness to come here and defend it.

I am a Professor, I have to deal with silliness, immaturity, and downright idiocy daily. I don't mind. It is my job and I get paid for it, but I pay for TNR. I have witnessed dialogs of great depth and maturity, that just is not possible with this topic because no one is genius enough to logically defend Hillary's antics.

The truth is, most Americans are too preoccupied with their lives to know how reprehensible Hillary has been, that is what she is counting on. I am dubious it will succeed because the Republicans have been taking notes, she thinks she has weathered things before? She won't know what hit her.

Senator Hillary Clinton has been a puzzle to me of late, as have a few of her supporters.  I am a minor Obama supporter.  My wife and I sent him a $25 donation.

But I have liked Senator Clinton.

That may be why I have observed her campaign with a vague sense of surprise.  It has been a jarring sort of disconnect to see some of her tactics.

I have watched her distort Obama’s record on reproductive rights, and I have told myself that many politicians bend the truth.

I have watched her and President Clinton distort Obama’s unwillingness to denounce John Kerry during the 2004 Presidential campaign for his war vote.  It was possible, Obama allowed at the time, that Kerry saw some piece of intelligence in the Senate not apparent to others.  Who could speculate for sure what Obama himself would have done with some hither-to unknown secret intelligence?  The Clinton campaign characterizes Obama’s courageous anti Iraq war stance during his very first Senate try as “a fantasy.”  And I have thought of that characterization as an unfortunate departure from ethics during the heat of a campaign.

Then my wife and I heard reports that a spokesperson for the Clintons had assured the Canadian government that her opposition to NAFTA was only campaign rhetoric – don’t take it seriously – and then falsely accused Obama of making that same assurance to the Canadians.  My wife and I looked at each other and in unison exclaimed “She dirty.”  But “dirty” describes a lot of politicians in this Rovian age.  The Canadians now say the Clinton campaign did not really make such assurances either.  Fortunately, Obama takes a higher road and is not repeating the story about Clinton.  But Hillary seems not limited by such considerations.  She continues the false accusation about Obama.

And now the tepid response toward the multiple Rush-Limbaugh-like outbursts by the (of late) Clinton campaign finance chair, one of dozens, Geraldine Ferraro.  In past years, this would have provoked deep anger from Hillary Clinton.  What gives?

It came to me that what was the most jarring has been the recurring, seemingly genuine, raw anger from Senator Clinton and a few of her supporters.  It was most apparent over a minor inaccurate quote in a piece of literature put out by Obama about Clinton’s position on NAFTA.  And that brought it into clarity for me.  The quote did accurately describe her public position, but the words were not her own.

The public anger by Senator Clinton was way out of proportion.  “Shame on you, Barack Obama!!!”  Silly.  Yet it struck me as something other than simple political posturing, something more genuine than more of the same.

I think the anger has to do with sacrifice, pain, and civil rights.

I do not see much that Senator Clinton and President Clinton have done for historically oppressed people.  In fact, the greatest measurable accomplishment of the 1990’s was the increase in the black population within prisons.  But they have suffered for the cause.

It is easy to forget the atmosphere that existed in 1992 when Bill Clinton was running for President.  When Pat Buchanan was making comments about “America’s pampered minorities” many racists were in vigorous agreement.  The atmosphere was poisonous.  Such comments were becoming pretty close to mainstream.

When Bill Clinton won the Presidency, many were outraged.  The Clintons represented much of what they saw as wrong with liberals.  Most of all, most of all, most of all, the Clintons were seen by some as excessively sympathetic to African-Americans.

The rage at that sympathy was palpable, and well financed.  The “vast right-wing conspiracy” was no myth.  I could see no other plausible reason for the intensity of the hatred other than secondary racism.

Whitewater and various “gates” were investigated to absurdity.  Lies were believed, no matter how silly.  A suicide was even morphed into murder.  Finally, they seemed to get him on the basis of a sexual dalliance.  I believe it was because of the original racial motivation that Bill Clinton finally became known as the first black President.

It was only a few years ago, but it seems a lot longer.  The landscape has changed, and it is tempting to forget the sort of very public hardship the Clintons faced in those days.

They suffered.  More particularly, she suffered.  It must have been searing.

I believe the agony and injustice still burns for her and those who care for her.

Now the very folks for whom her support was unwavering seem to have turned against her: Young people, black people, people of good will.  Obama’s smiling face and cheerful enthusiasm for looking beyond historical injustice must seem emblematic of all those whose gratitude has drifted into the wind.

Senator Clinton’s varying campaign themes; experience, 35 years of working for change, the kitchen sink charges, the anger; all have in common her real reason for demanding our support:  She has earned it.

Obama’s supporters have their three word chants.  YES WE CAN.  Sometimes joined with RACE DOESN’T MATTER.

The years of forbearance and endless suffering have produced the unspoken three word chants of the seething side of the Clinton campaign.  They are the backdrop of the least attractive, unfortunate, historical strain of American liberalism.

Toward the voters: YOU OWE ME.

Toward Obama: HOW DARE YOU!

Burrland,

Puzzled about Hillary?  Don't be.  This is the real Hillary, a self-centered, narcissistic opportunist.  She has used her NY Senate seat to do nothing but position herself as a presidential candidate.  Couldn't have cared less about doing the job for New York.  Moreover, in my small corner of NY, where I was the local Democratic committee chairman, whenever we asked Chuck Schumer for help -- speak at a fundraiser, make an introduction to someone -- he helped us.  Whenever we asked Hillary for help, we got absolutely nothing.  On the one occasion where her office undertook to do something, they never did. Just stopped answering the phone.  

The major hole at the heart of her campaign has always been that it is all about her.  "I am tested.  I am vetted..  I am experienced.  I am ready day one.  I have 'crossed the commander in chief threshold."  (That last one is so lame it is embarrassing even to repeat it.)  Obama's campaign, love it or hate it, has been about us, which is what a political campaign is supposed to be.  Even when she wants to talk about "us," she is incapable of doing it.  It always comes out backwards.  "I am a change agent.  I have been making change, not talking about it."  I, I , I , I, me, me, me, me.

It will be so nice to say goodbye to Hillary.