Comments on: Geraldine Ferraro Leaves Clinton Finance Committee: She Doesn’t Regret Anything. The Clintons Didn’t Ask Her To Leave.

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:39:57 +0000

I agree; my point was that even if the apology had managed to sound sincere it still has to answer the above two questions.

By: rikyrah

rikyrah — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:18:51 +0000

SpiderJ,

Did you actually listen to the apology. Wasn’t an apology, and was a fake and insincere as it gets.

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 01:45:49 +0000

Clinton apologizes to black voters.

Two questions:

1) Why, if there was nothing racist about Ferraro’s statement?

2) If the statement was offensive, what took you so long?

By: Mingus

Mingus — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:20:03 +0000

Like I said, I don’t know what the solution is, but the “remedy” as set forth by the DNC seems rather draconian to me. Especially since the voters didn’t have anything to do with the problem. Hopefully, it won’t cost us in the general by alienating a significant number of voters in Florida or Michigan, not only in the presidential race, but in the other races that will occur in November as well.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:07:36 +0000

It isn’t political expediency that has caused the change in attitude is it?
No I don’t think it is. But 2000 was a lot closer than what we have today.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:00:42 +0000

I agree, every vote should count, but it is a primary not the general, and someone has to go first. Otherwise, why don’t we all vote in the primary at the same time?

By: Mingus

Mingus — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:53:41 +0000

I guess it all depends on what the definition of “they” is. I doubt that those who showed up to vote in those states had much to say about what went on at the time. And, it’s a little more complicated as I understand it than the black and white rules is rules approach you seem to espouse, especially for Floridians. I don’t know what the solution is frankly, but I find it ironic that when so much wailing has been done about Senator Clinton and certain states “not counting” that “the rules” mandating that New Hampshire and Iowa be first assumes such importance and that several million votes are relegated to “fuck you we don’t care” status. It seems to me that there are “rules” which should be followed of course, but there are also rights, such as the right to vote, which seems to have a greater importance than protecting a small state’s “rights” to hold a caucus or primary before anyone else. As I recall in 2000 we (Democrats) spent a lot of time, words and for some of us money, to fight for the right of everyone’s vote to count. And we were bitterly disappointed and outraged when they didn’t. It isn’t political expediency that has caused the change in attitude is it?

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:14:46 +0000

you sure are harsh in your judgements.
Damn skippy.
They knew the rules and they knew what would happen. They lose a turn. See Ladders, Chutes and

By: Sean D. Martin

Sean D. Martin — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:38:48 +0000

The rules were clearly spelled out. The consequences of breaking those rules were clearly known. FL and MI decided to go ahead and break the rules and now they (and the one candidate who didn’t take her name off the MI ballot) want to say that they shouldn’t have to follow the rules.

How can something my 4 year old understands not be clear to these “grown ups”?

By: Mingus

Mingus — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:13:11 +0000

Wow, for someone who (apparently) supports a candidate who decries the Clinton spin that such and such state doesn’t count, you sure are harsh in your judgements. But the rules must be followed of course. We all know what would become of the Democratic Party if a state other than Iowa managed to hold its primary first. Yessiree, it would be the end I tell you, the end of the Democratic Party as we know it (come to think of it how they’re standing up to the Republicans these days, that might not be a bad idea).

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:58:29 +0000

Michigan?
237,762 people didn’t have the candidate of their choice on the ballot. Sure, Obama may very well have still lost, but he followed the rules and stayed out of Michigan entirely.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:54:18 +0000

Well, then they can bitch about it. That’s fair.
You talking about Florida? Fuck ‘em. They screwed it up last time and the time before that. If they can’t get their shit together on a state level, maybe they deserve to be disenfranchised.

By: Mingus

Mingus — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:51:45 +0000

“Look, you know what? Did everybody get to vote in the primary for their state yet? Yes? For the candidate of your choice? Yes? Good.”

That’s almost funny, except for, well, you know, a few million people in a couple of states who might not think so.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:37:39 +0000

This has become a political issue in which the Clinton’s have all but been accused of being racists on the basis of a comment made by a minor figure in Senator Clinton’s campaign,

The frequency of these events starts to make a pattern. And with Ferraro, it isn’t like it’s an isolated incident.

Look, you know what? Did everybody get to vote in the primary for their state yet? Yes? For the candidate of your choice? Yes? Good. Now shaddap about it. We should wait for the nominee to emerge and support him .. I mean, the nominee. Heh.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:14:22 +0000

This has become a political issue in which the Clinton’s have all but been accused of being racists on the basis of a comment made by a minor figure in Senator Clinton’s campaign, in a newspaper that hardly anyone reads at a time when it made absolutely no difference to the campaign in California (where it was published).

If it’s the impact of Ms. Ferraro’s statement you wish to discuss, then you’ve got the wrong guy. From the start, my comments have addressed the content of her statement.

(I might also add: Mr. Limbaugh’s comments were similarly insignifigant to the outcome of the NFL season. Take that, dead horse!)

By: Mingus

Mingus — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:58:29 +0000

I can’t speak for other people. But I will repeat since you asked, my opinion that the size of the audience is relevant because we are not talking about Geraldine Ferraro only. If Ferraro was somehow associated with the Gravel campaign and had made the same statement in the same paper would you even care what she said? Her comments would still be repugnant. This has become a political issue in which the Clinton’s have all but been accused of being racists on the basis of a comment made by a minor figure in Senator Clinton’s campaign, in a newspaper that hardly anyone reads at a time when it made absolutely no difference to the campaign in California (where it was published). I don’t know Ms. Ferraro personally so I can’t attest to what her motivations were. Limbaugh on the other hand, had a long history of racially inflammatory remarks, to the extent he had been warned by ESPN not to get into them before they would agree to hire him. Again, I am not defending Ferraro, I just think that the importance of her comments to this race is overblown.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:31:46 +0000

Well, it changes the aptness of your analogy for one thing.

Why? We’re comparing two statements in which the speakers attributed success to a racial advantage. What does the size of the audience have to do with it?

If you’re just looking for differences, fine. One statement was made in California, the other (I think) in Pennsylvania. One statement was made by a Republican and the other by a Democrat, one by a woman and the other by a man.

My point is this: a wide swath of the public, the brass at ABC, and certainly most of the regulars here had no problem seeing the racism in Mr. Limbaugh’s observations on Mr. McNabb’s success and popularity. A few of these same people become puzzled when Ms. Ferraro makes nearly identical remarks.

By: Mingus

Mingus — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:15:03 +0000

“Yes, he is clearly not qualified to be an NFL quarterback.”

Wait, you’re not saying that because he’s….oh well forget it.

By: Mingus

Mingus — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:11:54 +0000

“That she made her remarks to a small newspaper instead of a national broadcast changes nothing.”

Well, it changes the aptness of your analogy for one thing. I never said that Ferraro’s comments didn’t have a racist tinge. My point is that under the circumstances they have assumed an importance to the race (primary race, that is) that is overblown considering the context. And your point is?

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:08:38 +0000

Some of his support from African Americans might not be as strong if he were not himself black.

By the same token, Clinton gets a lot of support from women simply because of her gender. Does that make sense? If it was Condi Rice, would she get the same kind of support? Kinda doubt it. Then, suddenly, it’s about issues.