Posts
From Daily Breeze:
Ferraro defends controversial comments on Barack Obama
By Gene Maddaus
In a follow-up interview today, Ferraro said her company had been deluged with vicious e-mail messages accusing her of racism.
But far from backing off from her initial remark, Ferraro defended it and elaborated on it.
"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," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
This is foolishness. You discredit the value of Obama's potential and make him out to be some faulty affirmative action token candidate all the while being a token VP in '84? Obama's lucky to be Black yet why hadn't that "lucky to be Black" fortune rubbed off on previous Black presidential hopefuls Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Carol Moseley-Braun?
Ferraro said she was simply stating an obvious truth, as seen in exit polls that show Obama taking as much as 80 percent of the black vote in the Democratic primaries.
"In all honesty, do you think that if he were a white male, there would be a reason for the black community to get excited for a historic first?" Ferraro said. "Am I pointing out something that doesn't exist?"
And (White) women aren't enraptured in Hillary's gender? So many White women are completely comfortable with voting for their vaginas and admitting to it. And Obama had more than his share of nay-sayers in the Black community before the Clintons threw Black people under the bus. Obama had to work for those votes because a lot of Black people were in love with the Clintons. It wasn't like Black people were saying "Let's give brothaman a chance."
Here are Gerry's remarks about Obama's campaign manager David Axelrod:
"He knows damn well that the best thing to do in a situation like this is to come back and hit with race," Ferraro said, adding that the response is a sign that the Obama campaign is "worried" about the first-term senator's lack of experience.
Hillary does not have a world of experience. Like I've said before, riding shotgun for years doesn't purport that you're a good driver. Hillary stayed with Bill and kept her married name for a reason.
Ferraro said she was not trying to diminish Obama's candidacy, and acknowledged up front that she would not have been the vice presidential nominee in 1984 if she had been a man.
The only sensible thing she's said so far.
But she also echoed remarks of feminist leaders like Gloria Steinem, who argued in the New York Times that Obama would not have succeeded if he were a woman because gender is "the most restricting force in American life."
"Sexism is a bigger problem," Ferraro argued. "It's OK to be sexist in some people's minds. It's not OK to be racist."
How would you know White woman? Step into a Black woman's shoes for one day and I might let you tell it. Gerry and Gloria are two foolish peas in a pod.
4 comments:
In 1984, because my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I could never have been the nominee for VP.
ATTENTION ALL BLACK PEOPLE.
Democrats are incapable of racism.
Democrats are incapable of intolerance.
This is a Republican plot.
Ferarro was made to say that by John McCain or better yet, Ronald Regan from beyond the grave.
That is all..
Seriously if you look at her original statement in the context of which it was said, she is right.
Just because a white woman said it doenst mean its not a fact or that Ferarro is a racist.
I know because we are black we have to automatically jock Robert Byrd, Brak Obama or any Democrat but lets just calm down here.
Ommmmmmmmmm
Ommmmmmmmmm
There.. Much Better. ROTFL
@ daedalus
Spare me the sarcasm. I said no where in this blog that Gerry's foolish comments are part of a right-wing conspiracy so don't ASSume anything.
What are the facts to support her OPINION?
How exactly is she correct in her assessment?
And obviously you weren't following this election because Obama had trouble winning over Black skeptics who were die-hard Clinton loyalists.
I personally think Daedalus needs to direct more attention to his site which is in drastic need of remodeling. (It looks awful through the lens of Mozilla Foxfire.)
But since he mentioned Robert Byrd, I'd like to say a couple of things about history.
Making huge generalizations: before the civil rights revolution of the 60's, the Democratic party was divided between the pro-union Democrats in the North and the pro-segregation Democrats in the South. The latter were called Dixiecrats. The Republicans were the party of wealth. (Again, speaking in general terms.) In wake of the 60's pro-civil rights & anti-Vietnam turmoil, everything got realigned. Goldwater-Nixon-Reagan Republicans took up the authoritarian, anti-black, anti-union cause and - lo and behold - all the Dixiecrats liked it and jumped party and became Republicans. Now, Robert Byrd stands out because, as a old segregationist Dixiecrat (he even was a ex-KKK member), he did not go with the other racists and join the GOP: he liked what the Democratic party was becoming, so he remained a Democrat. The Irony, of course is that, because of their new, evolving orientation, the Republicans are less the 'Party of Lincoln' than the Democrats. But GOP still likes to take jabs at old Robert Byrd: he's like a traitor to their Dixiecrat cause because he didn't switch parties when the rest of their ilk did. He's like the only rock the GOP can find when they want to throw something at the Democrats' ethic of celebrating diversity instead of condemning it. Why is Robert Byrd the only rock they can find? Because Republicans live in the swamp and the only thing close at hand to throw is mud.
Post a Comment