How sad is it that a trailblazing feminist like Geraldine Ferraro is turning out to be a huge goddamn racist?
“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. 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.”
It’s particularly sad to see the old, gas bag feminists of yesteryear attack a man who could be America’s first black president. She’s basically saying that America has jungle fever, that Obama’s blackness has intoxicated his supporters. She’s implying this, and all the while is still with the Clinton campaign.
Obama responds:
“I don’t think Geraldine Ferraro’s comments have any place in our politics or in the Democratic Party. They are divisive. I think anybody who understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd,” he told the Allentown Morning Call. “And I would expect that the same way those comments don’t have a place in my campaign they shouldn’t have a place in Senator Clinton’s either.”
Ferraro is just another sad old fart who sees history being made and is irritated by it.
Why are you complaining? Geraldine is only exposing undercurrents of hypocrisy and ideological disconnect in the so-called “progressive” movement that fair-minded people have observed for decades.
Consider…why did Walter Mondale pick her as his Veep running mate? For her gravitas or resume? No…because her name is Geraldine not Gerry.
But there is a lot of atoning to do on the left in the politics of race department. Slapping the race card is a favorite tactic of liberal untouchables such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
This is inevitable when you’re mired in group-think. Instead of looking at people as individuals, liberals think first of what “group” they belong to: white, black, male, femaile, gay, straight, yada, yada, yada…
And belonging to this or that group is necessary and trumps any personal qualities or beliefs…unless they’re of a conservative bent.
Clarence Thomas gets no cred because he’s black since all blacks must tow the liberal line. Condoleeza Rice is double-damned since she’s regarded as a traitor to both her race and her gender. What a crock!
Geraldine is only an extension of people like Gloria Steinam, and Al Sharpton is only an extension of people like Louis Farrakhan. Whether you’re a gender-baiter or a race-baiter, a baiter is a baiter…Bugger the lot of them!
The Piper
This isn’t the first time Ferraro has done this. She said basically the same thing back in 1988. She needs to STFU and go away.
@ 1
Pres. George Bush appointed Thomas because he was black, which flies in the face of your criticism (if that’s what it can be called) of Ferraro.
Of course, there’s always the “pubes on the Coke can” treatment Thomas liked to foist on subordinates.
@3…Will…
Ah, but now you’re saying the same thing about Clarence Thomas that Ferraro is saying about Barack Obama. Why? Based upon the fact that Thomas is conservative, so it must be a race-based thing while Obama, being a liberal, is only judged on his merits.
Thank you for making my point.
And as to Coke cans? Still allegations from a disgruntled former employee…Whatever happened to giving Clarence Thomas the benefit of the doubt?
The Piper
Ferraro is a left over of the first generation of feminists. These people convinced themselves (and many others) that being born with a vagina was the same as being born poor. To succeed, they decided, one must be macho.
Those tactics did succeed, they succeeded so well that a rich woman, born a Republican, is now running for president as a Democrat and as a female.
Tyhe contrast with Obama and his ilk should be obvious. Barack DID come up the hard way. His path to success is a great American story of how opportunity has now come a whole community that was excluded. Despite this, he runnign as an American not as a Black person.
@4
By a wide consensus of scholars, Clarence Thomas was not and is not qualified to be on the SC other than because he is a Black conservative. An Uncle Tom.
Ferraro was and is a far more accomplished person that CT is even now. Yes Mondale chose her out of sexist reasons, but she was well qualified.
Sexism and racism CAN be used to promote people and that is wrong too. OTOH, there is a huge differenc between the sort of affirmative actin that led the Clintons to appoint Janet Reno (a Demo version fo Thomas?) and their wisdom is appointing Ron Brown.
Same goes on the right.
@ 4
Thomas was selected because he is black. President Bush said that he picked Thomas because he was the most qualified. This was not so (as confirmed by all the candidates Bush passed over that year). He was picked because the retiring justice was black. A simple one for one swap.
(The “pubes on the Coke can” episode was just the result of not enough vetting by the Bush people. Thomas’ “high tech lynching” argument brought to the surface enough white guilt to get him confirmed.)
I don’t understand how Ferraro thinks that Obama’s blackness is somehow an advantage. If he were all the same qualities (charismatic, optimistic, etc) and white, he’d have won the nomination already.
Will you crack me up. NEW Progressivism at it’s best.
@5: Exactly how is one “born a republican”? That makes no sense, people don’t acquire a political orientation or affiliation at birth. I dare you to find it on any American’s birth certificate. If you mean her parents were Republicans, why don’t you say that?
@4: Clarence Thomas has been one of the worst Supreme court justices – objectively speaking – in the last 100 years. He is not the worst because he is black – he is the worst because he renders poor decisions, writes poorly and doesn’t justify what he writes. When he was nominated – it was clear that he was minimally qualified – but he had the proper conservative credentials. He was nominated because he was conservative first, black second and he would be a reliable follower of Scalia – his mentor.
Ferraro is an embarassment and has done this before.
I am so tired of all the race talk on here and in the media. O’bama is a good Irish fellah – just kidding.
Obama is leading in the democratic primaries for president because:
a. he is a great speaker and leader
b. he has run a great campaign
c. he doesn’t stoop to negative attacks
d. he defends himself vigorously
e. he has a consistent record
f. he has a strong background
Compare the Senate legislative records of Obama and Clinton – Obama has the more impressive resume of bill sponsorship in a shorter period of time in the Senate. obama has more total legislative experience.
Clinton was Yale Law, Obama was Harvard Law and president of the Law review at Harvard.
The main differences in policy are few – but Obama was against the war in Iraq from the beginning – see his speech in 2002 and compare it to Clintons – the one where Clinton echoed the false talking points of Dick Cheney about al qaeda in Iraq.
The speech where she did not even read the NIE report before voting. That was pure negligence.
It is NOT about Obama’s race – despite how the media are focusing on that. Obama has won in Idaho, Washington, Vermont, Wisconsin, Missouri, Hawaii, Nebraska, Delaware, Minnesota, Alaska, Kansas, Colorado, Maine and Iowa – none of those states are particularly high in African Americans. But suddenly the campaign is all about race and Obama is “losing” the white vote – give me a break!
The poor media harp on the same stupid stuff and Ferraro just fuels it – she is irrelevant.
Clinton has no mathematical chance to win. She didn’t even win more delegates in Texas – so that doesn’t count as a win either. She has run one of the most ineffective campaigns – going from front runner and inevitable to attack mode and desperate.
Why would we want someone so incompetent as our candidate for president? The most telling comments I have heard from the clinton camp are that clinton is not responsible for the bad performance – she wasn’t in charge of her campaign.
Well – who is in control of the Clinton campaign and where does the buck stop? Why does she have idiots like Penn and Wolfson running things?
Obama has surrounded himself with quality people and has run a strong positive campaign. It speaks to his organizational and leadership skills how they have competed in all 50 states and have not “writen off” states or just concentrated on the “big” states. on performace in the primaries alone – Obama has been the stronger candidate.
SeattleJew: Who are these great law minds who said Clarence wasn’t qualified?
Laurence Tribe?
Alan Dershowitz?
Both liberal law professors. Of course they would have a hard-on for a conservative black from Yale Law.
So Bush should have not put a black on the court? Ohhh… a liberal black. Who? Lani Guinier?
So Pooper Scooper, you are trying to tell us that the Republican party is an honest broker when it comes to race in America? After 35 years of the “Southern Strategy?”
You make me laugh, dude.
@11 Lani Guinier would be an excellent Justice, though I’m sure you wouldn’t agree with that.
Golly Correctnotright, do you have proof of that assertion in #10 or, as I suspect, you take the work of Jeffrey Toobin, Laurence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz as gospel.
Correctnotright: Heilary has a testicle lock box on the Mexican his panic (written correctly) vote. As Puddy predicted (PuddyPredicts) weeks ago when Heilary won Nevada I said she’d winn all the states that border the Rio Grande. CA, AZ, NM, TX. All in her testicle lock box.
PuddyPredictions – Read the tea leaves, watch the peeps act it out.
@5
Barack Obama may indeed have come up the “hard” way as you suggest, but no one can argue that John McCain has endured adversity orders of magnitude greater than anyone running for the presidency since JFK.
Correctnotright: I am glad to see you incorporate PuddyThought in your arguments. Congratulations.
“front runner and inevitable” – First placed here by Puddy!
Now work on her July 21st speech where she said she was a 1900s Progressive.
SeattleJew@5: When I placed Gloria Steinem’s comments on this board before the New Hampshire primary and again before the Texas primary she was very close to saying what Geraldine blatantly said.
She is an old gas bag feminist – as Rush says a feminizi.
Y’all gave her a pass. yet she’s cut from the same cloth!
Look back at 1988. At what Ferraro said about Jackson back then. This isn’t just a slip on her part. She said the same thing about Jackson she just said about Obama, that he wouldn’t be where he is today if he wasn’t black.
Pudding Dick’s racism is out, loud and proud, today. The best part: He doesn’t even know it.
Pudding Dick and Ferraro are both oblivious to the racism they swath in their hubris.
Let’s see the Old Democrats posing as a NEW Progressives.
Howard Screech Dean – No blacks in his campaign from New England
John Effin Kerry – No blacks in his campaign from New England
Heilary Cliton – Few blacks in her campaign. Recently elevated one to be her manager
Pusdrivendyke@20: Moi racism?
I am cleverly pointing out the hypocrisy of the lefty statements over Clarence Thomas, campaign people, Gloria Steinem, and Garaldine Ferraro.
I am cleverly pointing out the his panic vote for Heilary. Are you paying attention to the ethnic cleansing happening in LA latino neighborhoods where they are killing black men indiscriminately?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....g_violence
“Jamiel, who was black, was killed by Hispanic gang members who asked him what gang he belonged to, then shot him when he didn’t answer, police and witnesses said.”
So Pusdrivendyke@20 I speak to the facts, you are an IDIOT!
Pusdrivendyke@20: I follow this type of crime personally. It has hit home personally. That’s all I’m going to say.
You are an ignorant jackASS!
More for you Pusdrivendyke@20
64-yr-old black man killed by LA latinos on MLK day 2008. Look it up.
I brought this to y’alls attention last year. Nary a peep. These cities are run by your people. So when Geralding Ferraro delivers the coup-de-grace, Puddy will throw this in your face!
I expect the thread policeman to arrive soon. Why?
He can’t stand the truth.
What say you Clueless Idiot? Thems your peeps.
@ 7 Tlazolteotl says:
@5: Exactly how is one “born a republican”
Are you serious? Your birth certificate also fails to state that you were born a catholic, born rich, born italian-american …etc.
A huge part of the American polity is born into an association with one or the other party. Or did you think GW B was “born” a Democrat?
I brought this to y’alls attention last year.
You handing out orders again Stupes? C’mon! Command me to denounce HL!!
Bark some orders at Goldy!
LMAO!!! You are so fucking silly!
Heilary has a testicle lock box
Ooooh! There he goes again. Stupes shivering under the bed afraid the claws will come out!
LMAO!!! Never-ending entertainment from your silliness!
!! Pussyclit
I would answer you but I have trouble. Your posts are usually so silly that I am not sure yu want answrrs.
By the way Lani Guanier is .. shock shock, JEWISH!! So no, I don’;t think GWB could projote her to the USSC since all his appointments are catholic!
@16 Cato says:
Your point is? Actually I have long been a McCain supporter. The sadness for this wonderful man is that he is in the wrong party. His pandering to the rad tight is hurting a man who could have been a great President.
As for either BHO of JmC, the main reason their histories are interesting is that both have learned lessons that I suspect folks with less arduous histories can not imagine.
@18 Pussyclit
Same comment as before. I never know whether yo are trying to make a serious point or just scoring points.
We agree. Steinem is a narrowly focussed feminist idealogue. Ok. Now what?
Pussyclit
BTW … I realize you are too embarassed by your own behaviour to go public here, but can you at least tell foks more about who you are?
Gender, age, social security number?
@10…CnR…
Without getting into the jots and tittles of everything, at least you address merit and qualification, albeit from a wrong-headed perspective. We can legitimately and respectfully debate whether a decision and opinion are rightly decided and correctly reasoned – lawyers and scholars do that all the time without getting ugly about it.
Consider, though, that it’s now white liberals who are playing the race card, but in a perjorative sense. First it was Bill Clinton in South Carolina, and now it’s Geraldine Ferraro aided and abetted by the likes of Gloria Steinem. But if you attack them, then the feminists will be on you like, well, like a chick fight, which is the worst fight of all for scratching, clawing, biting, and just plain dirty and rough stuff.
So many of you are falling back onto the politics of group entitlement instead of whether a candidate is or is not qualified. As you approach Denver, it gets uglier; why not move the convention to Chicago and be at home as in 1968?
All the efforts to appease groups and give everyone a place at the table with no real winners and no real losers has resulted in an inability to make a decision, stick to it, and move on from there. You’re paralyzed by your proportional representation and you have no one with the guts or grandeur to step in, knock heads together, and make a decision.
We’re told to expect Al Gore to come in and be kingmaker. Oh? Maybe…but only if there are donuts.
Clearly both HRC and BHO dislike each other and the animus is growing. The stupidity of HRC’s offer to BHO of the #2 spot was silly, and his smack-down of her in turn betrayed a thin-skinned pomposity that is now being discussed.
Is it becoming apparent to the American public that neither one of these self-absorbed POLITICIANS is qualified to answer the phone at 3:00 am?
The Florida/Michigan mulligan effort looks to be stalled too with the Florida Democratic Congressional delegation saying, “No way!”
What’s a party to do when it’s so badly screwed up its own process? Howard Dean better start floating his resume; I hear Wendy’s is hiring.
My sense is that the real fireworks – and fun – has yet to happen.
The Piper
As this race progresses, Hillary is starting to show her true colors. And many of those who already voted for her are now starting to renounce her. Yesterday on the Rachael Maddow show, three different people who have already voted for Hillary in the Primary now say that that they will vote for Obama instead. Her Racism, devisiveness, and alignment with the Republican Party, against a fellow democrat, were cited as reasons.
In order for readers to help gauge whether the Hillary Campaign is racist or not, I suggest that we look to the corporate model of ethics that we are all are repeatedly schooled in as corporate employees. We are taught that in order to be considered ethical from a corporate standpoint, we must not only be ethical, but that we must also maintain the appearance of being ethical.
In Hillarys case, their Campaign argues that they really aren’t racist, they just sound that way. If held to the standards for judging ethical behavior, this argument clearly fails the test.
Anyway, as callers are indicating on the Maddow show, the Clinton Campaign totals they use to make their various arguments may be only mirages of the past….
It’s funny, Will. When Elizabeth Edwards said pretty much the same crap, you were pretty quick to defend her.
@26 You didn’t answer my question. I am asserting that your claim is ridiculous on its face. One might be born into a family of a particular party, but it doesn’t brand a person for life. Just because GWB grew up to be another Republican asswipe doesn’t negate that.
Like I said, if you meant that she was born into a family that was Republican, why not just write that? I could argue that point more generally simply as a matter of style, in that “born Republican” is just laziness.
And regarding the topic: As has already been noted above, anyone paying attention has known about Geraldine’s race problems since 1988. I worked on Jesse’s campaign then, so it’s been quite some time since I considered her any sort of role model for women or Democrats.
A huge part of the American polity is born into an association with one or the other party.
Oh yes, I see. This is what you really meant to write. Don’t know why you used the really dumb/lazy short-hand, then, but carry on.
Anytime a white person brings up the fact that Barack Obama is of African descent, you’re labeled a racist.
It’s reverse racism at it’s finest.
Listen to this: Barack Obama lost the white vote in Mississippi by huge margins. Barack Obama has a problem with white southern voters.
But yes, I must be racist since I’m bringing up a racial issue and it’s something to do with Barack Obama.
Also, just a quick question, when Obama supporters, many from inside his campaign walls, call Hillary a bitch – it’s clearly a sexist comment.
Where’s the uproar?
A) This is an pro-Obama site, there won’t be any
B) Any undertones of Racism are never ok, but undertones of Sexism – perfectly a-ok!
Obamatards are hypocrites at best, and just plain stupid at worst.
DustinJames: It’s the politics of scorched earth.
Read Media Matters DustinJames.
Once again Clueless Idiot (YLB) arrives and brings nothing to the discussion.
Dumb dumber dumbest. Stuck on Stupid.
SeattleJew: If you paid attention my age and gender have been delivered here before.
Thanks for playing…
Puddy’s age – 13
Gender – Female hoping for a sex change.
@40
No. It isn’t. It would be like calling Obama a prick. It’s not sexist. It is just purely derogatory.
Sexist would be if somebody intimated that she wasn’t equipped to be president because she’s a woman and would be too emotional. THAT would be sexist.
Also @40:
I should add that it is wrong. The negativity in public servant races is annoying. It completely detracts from the argument of who would be better.
@ 45 – no way – Calling her a bitch clearly has sexist undertones (giving benefit of the doubt to overtones), and it’s clear in today’s society that it’s perfectly ok to be a sexist to being a racist. True, I don’t think either is ok.
For instance, everyone gives a blanket pass to blacks that vote for Obama, and for many (not all) of them, it’s a same race issue that drives the vote.
When women vote for Hillary, people cry out and say they shouldn’t be voting for her JUST because she’s a woman. True, many, though not all, may be voting for that exact reason.
The double speak on this issues amazes me.
Ferrarro is no more a racist than I am Italian. (And for those not in the know, I’m a pasty white English-descent). Her problem is being a white woman talking about a half-black man.
This white guy learned a long time ago you just can’t talk about a non-caucasian’s race in any way shape or form without being immediately labeled a racist.
SeattleJew: That’s great she’s Jewish. Why didn’t Clinton nominate her instead of Ruth Ginsberg?
I thought the POTUS has the opportunity to promote judges he/she supports or has similar views with.
Again Clinton could have hit a woman, a Jewish woman and a Jewish Black woman at the same time.
Cry me a river on his choice.
BBG – Why thanks for your age discovery.
I’m sure GBS will tell you differently.
DustinJames:”This white guy learned a long time ago you just can’t talk about a non-caucasian’s race in any way shape or form without being immediately labeled a racist.”
Who implemented those rules?
Who plays the race card in every election?
Remember the James Byrd ad?
Black churches being burned down every month?
The Politically Correct crowd – liberals!!!
I’m not sure why you’re surprised to find racism in the democrat party. We heard back in 2000 that some blacks were upset about Joe Lieberman being Veep–remember even the strange comments by the Texas NAACP guy about jews and money etc. re the Lierberman nomination? And we’ve heard more than a couple times that hispanic democrats don’t want to vote for Obama, etc. We’ve also seen them creating picture with blackface or unflattering racial caricatures (Condi comes to mind) on people they don’t like–Wolf Blitzer being their latest subject to get such treatment. Jessie Jackson made his “Hymietown” reference, etc.
I would prefer to see this Presidential Election be focused on Policy Positions….but I can see that race will end up being a huge issue. Obama has seen the “race card” as an effective way of deflecting criticsm. He and his minions, especially his talking heads, will likely continue to use it in the campaign and if elected President.
The polls all show an overwhelming 90% of Blacks voting for Obama. Is anyone seriously willing to say that stat has nothing to do with his race??
It appears clear that most Blacks will vote for a Black candidate…just like most Blacks thought OJ was innocent.
Certainly some % of Whites will vote for Whites because of race too. Not 90%…for sure. Big Deal.
I’d rather hear how Santa Obama is planning to pay for all his big ideas….rather than time-wasting race-baiting and race card minuscea.
I thought I heard Obama call Hillary….Senator Clit-on.
Playback all the debates. It’s subtle.
“No…because her name is Geraldine not Gerry.” Actually, her name sort of was/is Gerry.
If, however, her name were Gerald, as Geraldine/Gerry said in her recent interview, Fritz wouldn’t have looked at her/him twice.
Still, you gotta love it when liberal femifascism goes to war with liberal racialism.
Many thanks, obi-wan, for the bad trip down memory lane.
The test for Irish-American president O’Bama will be his building of a bridge to the Hispanic Century. Will be ugly fun to see if he can build a bridge between black & brown that will get him to the Inauguration on time.
(Even here on the mean streets of the sunny Northwest, those with ears to hear can hear the sounds of incivility between a minority black population that’s stuck at about 13% and an insurgent brown population of exuberant breeders that’s blowing out of Mexifornia and is taking over. So ….. look for Obama/Richardson posters in your ‘hood, any day now.)
Angry gal:
Na’ah it’s his Hawaiian muslim accent.
HAR HAR HAR HAR
“I thought I heard Obama call Hillary….Senator Clit-on.”
Wait’ll Joel Triple-Chins Connelly hears about this!
(More Chins than a Chinese phone book, said Joan Rivers.)
SJ@31: Sorry can’t use that name not politically correct.
Too late agreeing on Steinem. You had since January 10th and it’s been two months. Too long a time bub.
But for me to ask for you to condemn Steinem, per Clueless Idiot thats me giving a lefty an order. So when rhp6033 or correctnotright or any other lefty ask from now on what Puddy thinks regarding a righty wrong doing I won’t answer since I don’t take orders!
I like it when Clueless Idiot sets the liberal activity bar here. We can follow it to the T
@36 Tlazo….
I am not impressed by your editorial prowess. The terms born Jewsish, born Republican, born lower class hardly imply a life long affliction.
So yes, Hillberyy was born Republican. I have no trouble with that and agree she has grwon a lot since then.
You gotta a problem?
@49 DustinJames
Gosh, are you a secret Rovian??? Somehow you know that mysterious people in the brack campaign call Hillery a bithc! Really? And how do you know what folks do there? Have you a spy? a bug?
With all due respect, BHO is not perfect, nor is Axelrod his campaign mgr. Bt they should get some sort of award for running a clean campaign. There is an awful lot of mud they could bring up, could authentically bring up, but have not. (her membership is a church that has declared itself antizionist, Bill’s interactions in Kazakhistan, her LACL of pubic service, defence of the Black panthers, etc etc.).
Sure, the HRC campaign is no where near at the level of a typical Bush Crime Family operation. There have been no swift boats, only one attempt at ridicule using a stupid picture, limitted use of push calling, njo surrogates asking about patriotism, etc). Thta hardly justifies the behavior of both Clintons and the Dr. Stragelove they call Mark Penn.
Mr Cynical: I agree. But Media Matters already passed out their position paper saying if you disagree with Obama you are a racist. I wonder if Heilary agrees with that position since she said: “institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress.”
62: Starting to sound like incestuous parthenogenisis, or something. Hillary begats Brock who begats Media Matters (which hardly matters) and which takes a crude hit at Hillary moll Ferraro … what’s a mother to do?
What’s been barely mentioned is the generation gap in the feminist movement. Note how many times that we (myself included) have mentioned that at the grassroots level, Clinton supporteres have tended to be women mostly past (pardon the crudity) breeding age, while Obama has attracted women of all ages. Ferarro’s comments are simply abhorrent, and yes, they are racist! But to be honest, I don’t think the old biddy will ever be totally satisfied until there’s not only a woman President, but when women control government (and probably society in general) at all levels.
For a good idea of how vast that generation gap is, check out Julia Query’s documentary “Live Nude Girls Unite!”. While the movie is about the successful unionization of San Francisco’s Lusty Lady Theater (which has since become employee-owned), the undercurrent is about Query’s deteriorating relationship with her mother, an old-line feminist who broke off relations with her daughter not because she was a lesbian, or a union organizer and activist, but because she was (gasp!) a dancer. If you can tolerate the nekkididity, it’s worth a watch if you can find it.
Gee, if being an African American man was such a huge advantage in running for President, you’d think we’d have had a black president (or at least a black major party nominee) by now!
Her statement about Obama is of course impossible to prove or disprove. If Obama were white, but everything else about him was exactly the same…well, since such a scenario could never happen, who knows? It’s just left up to a person’s own imagination (and prejudices).
But what’s so insulting about Ferraro’s line of thinking is that she’s really saying that the only way any African American man could EVER get a presidential nomination is if people vote for him solely because of his race (unless she’s saying there’s something about Obama in particular that would make him unelectable if it weren’t for his race). What a way to demean not only Obama’s accomplishments, but that of any past or future African American presidential contender, and to cheerlead for a continuation of the American presidency as a “white males only” club (since clearly, according to her, anything else would be nothing more than affirmative action).
And her thinking about gender is confusing to me. She thinks Obama would not be in his position if he were a woman of any color, but thinks that she was only chosen as a vice presidential nominee in 1984 because she was a woman. So does she think Hillary is in the position she’s in because of her gender, or in spite of it? Or is it remotely possible that both Hillary and Obama might be where they are because of factors irrelevant to their race and gender? (Nah…)
This is great.
http://www.spiegel.de/internat.....73,00.html
“I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery, and when I saw the Clinton ad’s central image — innocent sleeping children and a mother in the middle of the night at risk of mortal danger — it brought to my mind scenes from the past. I couldn’t help but think of D. W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation,” the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society. The danger implicit in the phone ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man, someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat.
The ad could easily have removed its racist sub-message by including images of a black child, mother or father — or by stating that the danger was external terrorism. Instead, the child on whom the camera first focuses is blond. Two other sleeping children, presumably in another bed, are not blond, but they are dimly lighted, leaving them ambiguous. Still it is obvious that they are not black — both, in fact, seem vaguely Latino.”
Amazing DustinJames.
That worthless asshole Keith Olbermann laid his cards on the table last night, admitting he wanted Hillary in 2008. Then he slammed her for the Grealdine Feraro stuff. The Democrats are falling apart. Keep this us, and they’ll insure a Republican wins in November.
That worthless asshole Keith Olbermann laid his cards on the table last night, admitting he wanted Hillary in 2008.
You’re a liar.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/.....cide-pact/
Geraldine Ferraro is typical of the white North American feminist movement they have white skin privilege and ignore their own biases. Its so typical of some white feminists to ignore the fact they have also contributed to discriminating against people of color. Black men are not the oppressor but white women are. White women also benefit from the power of the marriage market and being married to powerful white men. I doubt Hillary Clinton would be so successful without the name recognition. Also, the hypocritical white feminists play the gender card well. If Obama started to attack Hillary hard the white feminists would be screaming that Obama is sexist. Talk about double standards. Some white feminists focus on gender yet ignore the issues of race and class. A wonderful black feminist classic “All The Women Are White All The Blacks Are Men But Some Of Us Are Brave” edited by pioneer black feminists Gloria T Hull and Barbara Smith. Hull, Smith, and other black feminists created black feminism precisely because of the bigotry and double standards of white feminism.