“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she continued. “And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
YEOW! That was bad enough, but how has she “defended” her racism?
Ferraro told FOX News Tuesday, “I’m sorry that people thought it was racist.” But she quickly turned the tables on Obama, claiming his supporters are too eager to cry race when faced with criticism.
“What I find is offensive is every time anybody says something about the campaign, you’re accused of being racist,” she said.
What was it Rush Limbaugh said about Dovovan McNabb?
“I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well”
And what was the reaction from Democrat stalwarts, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton and Wesley Clark? They wanted him fired. Didn’t Al Franken call him a racist? Salon.com called it “race baiting.”
Which is the most egregious comment? Saying that the media wanted to see a mediocre black quarterback do well or that an African-American United States Senator is the front runner for his party’s nomination for President because of the color of his skin?
But, this isn’t about Rush Limbaugh or all the other conservatives, Republicans and just plain observers of society that have suffered the racist tag because they dared to question or simply comment about something negative related to an African-American.
So what does any of this have to do with Geraldine Ferraro? Who better to inject a negative racial slant into the campaign than the only woman to ever be on a national ticket and a paragon of liberal politics? Although she claims not to be a surrogate for Hillary, she most certainly is one.
I believe the Hillary campaign intentionally used Ferraro to “remind” voters of (1) Obama’s race (right before the Mississippi primary) and (2) demean his credentials.
No white male for Hillary could do that. No black person could do it because it would not have the impact – the old “self-hating black” or Uncle Tom-ism would be invoked. But a legacy liberal woman Democrat – well – that’s different.
To attack Geraldine for attacking Barack would tinge criticism of her with – yep – sexism. OR, the old saw about the vast right-wing conspiracy. Besides, Ferraro’s career is over anyway. She’s 73 years old and was half of the Presidential ticket that suffered the greatest electoral defeat in history. She’ll expendable and she can afford to take the hit. And if there is one thing of which the Clinton’s are masterful, it’s using people and throwing them away.
No doubt recognizing the backlash such comments would create, it was likely considered worth sacrificing Ferraro because the damage would be done to Obama by throwing the Molotov cocktail that question’s his legitimacy.
The damage has certainly been done because Hillary and her’s haven’t gotten the message: the Clinton’s are no longer the darlings of the main stream media. Nor are they the royalty of the Democratic Party. The media has found a new star in Obama and the Party, well, the Spy has already addressed that here, here, here and here.
The dye is cast. Hillary Clinton has out-smarted herself and looked down her nose at the public and the media in a fashion that has ended her life-long dream to be President. The Party cannot now support her for the nomination because to do so would guarantee a Republican victory in the Fall. And, should she obtain the nomination through some delegate quirk, millions of African-Americans (and other traditional Democrats) will stay home.
After all, if her name weren’t “Clinton,” she would not be in this position.
enlightening post here, i don’t like to write and waste my time when i surf merely because the responses are unintelligent or brainless. i will tell this web site has good folks on this topic. this is often as a result of of the moderator keeps the good commentary on. thanks.