User login

You DO NOT need to register to VIEW articles and comments. To add a comment you need to register. Registration is FREE!

Visit BuzzFlash on:

Facebook

and

MySpace

click here

See All The BuzzFlash Premiums

Were You Aware -- Uh, Clear the Throat --That Obama Is Black?

Submitted by pmcarpenter on Tue, 03/11/2008 - 2:56pm.

P.M. Carpenter

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter
Another week, another diversionary flap over some slithering surrogate's depraved words, and another few delegates added to Barack Obama's unbeatable lead. This spectacle is down to a battle of the surrealists vs. the sure realists, but perhaps the latter should start reflecting the confidence of insurmountability.
Another six weeks -- and heaven forfend even the thought of four or five more months -- of this mindless, he-said, she-said drivel and John McCain and his neocon shock troops can start measuring the drapes.
Merely the latest staged surprise was, as the entire universe knows, racial historian Geraldine Ferraro's suggestion of Obama as merely elected dog catcher had he not been black. Any other pigmentation and he "would not be in this [winning] position," said Geraldine, blithely neglecting her own candidate's (to some) advantageous coloration and gender.
Obama's riposte was that Ms. Ferraro's words were "patently absurd," as is the notion that she simply and suddenly struck out on her own as an off-reservation freelancer. Such a notion was at least passable, until, that is, Ms. Ferraro, having plenty of time to reconsider and consult with the friendly powers that be, then reinforced her message in a subsequent defense every bit as offensive.
So round and round they went, with Mrs. Clinton, grinning like a Cheshire cat, musing on how "regrettable" it all is and how "We ought to keep this on the issues," just as her campaign manager was thunderously arriving at the striking conclusion that you, the multitudes, should reject Obama's "false, personal and politically calculated attacks on the eve of [the Mississippi] primary."
Say what? Mr. Obama could have further responded that what he rejects is politically calculated table-turning couched in denied desperation, and that surely there's a White Citizens' Council convening somewhere eager to hear more of Maggie, Hillary and Geraldine's insights into the vastly unfair advantages of being black in America.
Well, OK, maybe not that second part. But that even the thought of such a crack is now thinkable shows just how miserably far down the cracking lines of the progressive coalition we've traveled.
All it took was some internal competition and one side's willingness to win at any cost, not knowing at first if its constituency would buy into that willingness. But it did. So it now peddles a less than subtle undertone for which it would have excoriated the contemptibly racist right as typical, just typical -- and the real opposition these days has every right to laugh its self-satisfied ass off.
The Democratic Party once asked itself if Barack Obama was black enough. In short order came the answer from those who "wish to keep this on the issues": Even partial blackness is too black, permitting as it does an unfair affirmative-action candidacy that white folk should think once, twice, three times about before he steps and fetches his way to the nomination and predictably bungles early-morning emergency calls.
You know how those people are; always demanding a seat at the table and then always getting in over their undeserving, uppity and unschooled heads.
Those who protest that that's a disallowable stretch -- those who would cry outrageous, unfair foul at these words -- know as little about the insidious undertow of racism in America as Geraldine Ferraro. Then again that statement is a profound contradiction, for Ms. Ferraro obviously understands quite a bit about racism's undertow, and that's precisely why she went swimming in it.
I don't hold any candidate responsible for the occasional ravings of his or her surrogates, except when those ravings flow seamlessly into the candidate's already carefully constructed sewer.
Just to top it off, Ms. Ferraro received but the slightest of scoldings at a distance -- Now, Geraldine, one really shouldn't say those "overzealous" things, thank you very much. "Monster" may be out of bounds and worthy of summary exile, but let's do try to keep our unremitting message of his shiftless blackness within tasteful boundaries.
The he, of course, is pretty much screwed whichever way he turns. If he dismisses the scurrility without pointed comment, then he's weak. If he confronts it, he's a whiner.
But Americans detest whining a wee bit more than good old-fashioned racial politics. Hence it would seem, as getting screwed goes, that simply dismissing the opposing camp's malignancy is the better and wiser part of political valor. Every time he reacts it but reinforces that which begs for an ethically superior nonchalance.
It is, after all, just desperation talking; of more helpful interest -- if any comment there need be -- is how having tea and crumpets with Irishmen can resolve a bloody civil war.
Because he has already won this thing, perhaps Obama should act like it.
Please respond to the commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact P.M. at
fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com
THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

Why do you calculate the

Submitted by Ken duerksen on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 6:49am.

Why do you calculate the situation "with Florida"? There WAS no Florida"! Ken Duerksen Oxford, Ohio

Dear Racist America

Submitted by cspear on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 9:33pm.

Barack Obama is NOT black. He is a mixed race American, whose mother was white and father was black, just like Halle Berry and thousands of other mixed race Americans. He is 50% white and 50% black, so why do we say he is black? If he were married to a white woman and had children, would they be black too? We, as a culture, still have a long way to go.

You Are So Correct!

Submitted by LeeAnnG on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 9:01am.

This is exactly what I've been thinking. In reality there are very few true, pure "blacks" in America. Most people of color are part caucasian. Obama's mother was white, so why is he considered to be black? It's very bizarre that our citizens must choose between the two. The school system for which I work in West Virginia, for example, keeps ethnic background in its student records. There is no category for "mixed" race. But the vast majority of children of color have mixed backgrounds. Obama is, in reality, probably more caucasian than African American. It's likely that his father was also has some caucasian ancestry. Obama is most assuredly not "black." His color is more accurately desctibed as brown. And not a very dark brown at that. Of course racial and ethnic backgrounds exist, and of course this election is a huge breakthrough for our citizens with African American heritage. But it's still ridiculous to label someone as specifically "black" when he is at least half "white."

Color blind

Submitted by askolnick on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 7:29am.

I see. So there are virtually no black people in the United States? Now this is what I call color blind.

Virtually all African-Americans in the U.S. who are descendants of slaves also have "white" ancestors. Of course it's ridiculous to call a person who's three-quarters white and one-quarter African-American black, but that's the current custom. The custom comes out of ignorance and racism, but that's a topic for debate elsewhere.

Clinton and the Repugnicans are trying to defeat Obama by stirring up the racial fear and hatred that still lie in the reptilian brains of millions of Americans. And if Obama's only African ancestor were a great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, they'd do it before you could say Jim Crow.

Yes

Submitted by CarrieAnnie on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 10:35pm.

Yes, yes, yes.

This is Distraction

Submitted by Fnygy on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 5:10pm.

While I do believe that Ferraro's comments are designed to stir up working class whites' resentments of affirmative action, I think they are only a small part of a larger whole that is designed to distract Obama from Pennsylvania. I think his best bet is go directly to those voters - blue collar, white, Clinton leaners - and press flesh, do one-on-one, old-school retail politicking, like he did in Iowa. Use the local media as much as possible and let his surrogates duke it out with the Clinton surrogates at the national press level - but only as much as necessary. Don't just take the high road, take the smart road. The more time he takes responding to these silly attacks, the more Clinton gets to set the agenda.

Not trying?

Submitted by CarrieAnnie on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 10:38pm.

I read something last night (wish I could remember where! Might have been on Yahoo News), that Obama is semi-writing off PA! I couldn't believe it! Said his campaign "did the math" and figured they could clinch some states that come afterward and not really lose anything. They won't gain, but they won't lose the lead. I dunno. I thought that if he has this much time, he has a chance. I'm really disappointed, if this is true.

Not bloody likely

Submitted by askolnick on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 7:17am.

That's Clinton's strategy, not Obama's. Especially since there's six long weeks until the Penn. primary. What do you think he's going to do? Take a vacation?

The next contest is 11 days after Penn. and that's Guam. I doubt he's going to spend any time campaigning in that territory which has only 3 delegates.

Three day after that is Indiana with less than half the delegates of Penn. and N. Carolina, where he should win with not much trouble.

The next primary is a week later and the one after that is another week more.

So he's got the time and he obviously has the money advantage to campaign in Penn.

I think what you may have heard is disinformation.

Totally agree

Submitted by Fdcgjc on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 8:49pm.

I totally agree. Been saying it for weeks. He should have done more of it in Ohio. He's done it, to great success, in Illinois. He just has to do the same damned thing and he'll be fine. Because really -- is Hillary going to cut into Obama's base with this b.s.? A number of undecideds, to be sure. But they are there for Obama to win as well. And he truly can make some cuts into her base. I'm sure of it.

patently absurd?

Submitted by sillyme on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 2:39pm.

Geraldine Ferraro knows of what she speaks. If she was not a women she would not have been considered a vice president in her day, and that was said many times throughout that campaign and anyone can see the logic in that claim, It was true, so what? Hillary Clinton would not be in the position of candidate if her husband was not a prior president, anyone can see that. So why, when Geraldine Ferraro states the obvious, that Obama would not be a candidate if he was not black... so outrages? or to quote Obama, "patently absurd"? It's not patently absurd, it's the obvious and we all know it, admittedly or not....but....so what? It's Obama's "patently absurd" statement that is troubling, if he can't see the obvious what else can't he see?

Because she was SELECTED

Submitted by Fdcgjc on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 9:00pm.

She was CHOSEN, 24 years ago. Then it truly was affirmative action. Obama has won it. Vote by vote, state by state, racking up millions and millions of VOTES. It's a false analogy, and God I hope things have changed in 24 years. He brings his race, as a part of who he is, to the table. Hillary brings her gender, as part of the mix, to the table. No one is denying that. But to belittle any of Obama's gifts and experiences and talents as only because he's black, that is insulting, unworthy of a democrat to say about another democrat. In fact, Ferraro's statements are the height of selfishness -- this is "her turn" through HIllary. She couldn't win Senate seat after Senate seat, could she? Obama won in Illinois, and no -- it doesn't matter that it was Alan Keyes he was running against. He didn't need downstate Illinois -- he could have won it on the big cities. But he didn't -- he went to those communities over and over again, and won them. It's one of the reasons he got national attention -- his extraordinary ability to win votes from people who would never have thought they could vote for a black man. Let's remember, Obama won Illinois by 32 points. Hillary won New York by 17. He earned that. Because of his life choices, his intelligence, his vision and his compassion for people of all races, all religions, all economic status. Let's remember, the Clintons had the black vote -- they had it. And they squandered it. They went down that slimy road almost immediately. That's what made black voters take notice -- the ease with which the Clintons dismissed them. I am a white, 57 year old female and a feminist. Hillary Clinton has thrown my vote in the mud. She has no honor, no decency and is unfit for the presidency. I was happy with all my candidates a few short months ago. She's the one who threw me away. So, in her calculation that she doesn't need the black vote, she might remember that even if she gets 65% of my demographic, there is another 35% who will never trust her. Good job, Hillary.

Stupidyou

Submitted by commonsense on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 5:22pm.

It is patently obvious "that Obama would not be a candidate if he was not black"? Huh? There were many candidates - were they all black? Is being black now a prerequisite for being a candidate? And if so, how did Hillary get in the race or is that her next ploy. It's only a matter of time before she announces she is the other black candidate. The Clintons and their vicious fellow travelers on the DLC have manipulated race from the very beginning of their rise to stardom. They are furious that they have lost control of that demographic and are in vengeance mode. This makes GBush's Willie Horton moment look like a Hallmark greeting card. The Billary certainly knows how to send the very worst. Here's a parting shot to all the blue or white collar bigots out there who maintain a pretense of Bible faith: "You reap what you sow."

She's a senile bitter old bat

Submitted by CarrieAnnie on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 10:41pm.

If being black was an advantage to being a candidate, they'd all be black. Oh, you mean they're not? Gee, must be something wrong ...

ellenr

Submitted by ellenr on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 5:07am.

Right...it's wrong to slur someone because of their race but it is a good thing to slur someone because of their age.

Speaking as an old person

Submitted by askolnick on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 7:47am.

Speaking as an old fart, I'm allowed to tell you the sad truth:

A person's competence is affected by age, some much more than others.

Get used to it. You're going to find this out if you're lucky to live long enough.

A person's competence is NEVER affected by the color of their ancestors.

It's illegal to discriminate against either.

But the fact is well established that people's facilities decline as they age, some much more than others. As scientists studying Alzheimer's disease tell us, virtually every human being would be affected were they to live long enough. Some won't show signs of it until they're 90 or 100. Others unfortunately develop their first symptoms when they're in their 50s or 40s.

It would be better for Ferarro's reputation to believe that her bitter racist rants are a factor of senility than to think that she's been hiding her mean spirited bigotry from us for so long.

Because I voted for her, I'd like to believe in a biological cause for her hateful behavior rather than to think that she fooled me and all the other Democrats who voted for her.

ferarro

Submitted by ellenr on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 9:21am.

some people's mental competence improve as they age. some of us acquire wisdom with the years. some don't. some are stupid from birth. It is insulting to all the elders to assume that someone is stupid, or if they say something you disagree with, that it is because of age. That is a characteristic of this White mainstream society. Other cultures value people as they age. Ferarro is not that old. And from what I've heard about her, she most likely was just as stupid when she was 20, or more so, than she is now. Presumably with age she has learned to (somewhat) conceal her stupidity. My point is that you - and the original poster - make assumptions about old people that are assumptions and you should recognize that you are stereotyping old people as much as Ferarro is stereotyping Black people. ellen

I made no assumptions

Submitted by askolnick on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 1:47pm.

While most people acquire knowledge and, in some cases, wisdom as they age, aging eventually causes a deterioration in many mental functions to some degree or another in nearly all people. That's a fact we humans have to live with, at least for now.

I assumed nothing about Ferarro. She's now a bitter bigot. A quarter century ago, she appeared to be a different person.

I'm just willing to give her the benefit of doubt by thinking senility may be behind her on-going racist rants.

You argue against making assumptions about Ferarro, and then you say, "Presumably with age, she has learned to (somewhat) conceal her stupidity." Huh?

Clearly she has not learned to conceal her stupidity. What she has learned is to REVEAL her stupidity.

I'm trying to give her the benefit of doubt that she can't help herself because of impaired cognitive function. Otherwise, I'd have to conclude she's always been a horrible, bigoted person, who managed to fool us all for more than two decades.

All of us who age continue to fade to some degree or another. But not all of us are loud-mouthed bigots. I suggest it is kindness to give Ferarro the benefit of doubt.

Sillyme, your logic is impeccable

Submitted by askolnick on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 3:01pm.

Sillyme, your logic is impeccable.

Since we all know (but won't publicly admit) that because black men are inferior to whites, Obama must be inferior to white candidate Hillary Clinton.

Therefore, for an inferior candidate like Obama to be beating the superior white candidate, we must seek a suitable explanation. And we need not look deeper than Obama's skin: He's beating Hillary, not because he's the better candidate, but because he's black. Anyone who says otherwise, Clinton's surrogate Ferraro claims, is a racist.

Sillyme, your logic is every bit as impeccably bigoted as David Duke's, Bill O'Reiley's, and Geraldine Ferraro's.

If you bigots think I'm unfair...

Submitted by askolnick on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 1:50pm.

If you bigots think my attacks are unfair, tune in to Countdown tonight. Keith Olbermann is expected to rip Hillary a new one for appealing to racism and bigotry, in one of his famous stem-winding, granny drop the dish rag and come hear this, special commentaries.

This will be Olbermann's first special commentary aimed at the gross immorality of a Democrat. To date, he has reserved these powerful essays to the right wing thuggery of the Bush Administration.

It appears he finds Clinton's latest conduct comparable to the Bush slime his special commentaries have denounced with such force and eloquence.

I can't hold a candle to the way Olbermann speaks truth to power. But don't worry, I plan to "Xerox" some of his comments here tomorrow.

Not Entirely True - He Tore the Dims a New One Last Year Too

Submitted by drprodny on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 5:01pm.

When they folded in front of Bush's war rhetoric, despite having come to power by promising to put a check on Bush's War. OTOH, I was delighted to hear he plans to comment on the Clinton campaign's recent disgusting behavior tonight. I'd be even more delighted if Hillary remembered, dimly, in some back part of her brain where her conscience resides, that Olbermann has stood up for her in the past when he's felt she was unfairly attacked - so if HE's out of patience w/her, maybe she's crossed the line...?

Apparently Geraldine Ferraro

Submitted by Barry Schwartz on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 1:38pm.

Apparently Geraldine Ferraro has said similar things about Jesse Jackson in the 1980s. As for what Barack Obama ought to do, keep in mind that, as a black man, he has to be very careful what he says about a white woman. He really has no choice but the high road--which is just as well, anyway.

What Was Tolerated in 1988

Submitted by commonsense on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 1:49pm.

might not be appropriate today. People with any semblance of a conscience have to carve out some new ground rules. There is a difference between someone who panders to racist undercurrents and someone who benefits however unwillingly from those undercurrents. The Billary is obviously in the first category. That race casts a shadow over all of American culture is painfully obvious. What we don't need is presidential candidates who base their campaigns on it. Hillary Clinton, I knew George Wallace and you ain't no George Wallace (he at least was sincere).

Mafia Moll Shows Racist Stripe

Submitted by commonsense on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 11:13am.

Let me shove some facts in the lame Geraldine's face. Her campaign with Walter Mondale against Reagan in 1984 was one of the saddest and ill-conceived of any political campaign and it lost 49 states - THE BIGGEST ELECTORAL DEFEAT IN U.S. HISTORY. She represents the illegitimately rich, "we're entitled" wing of the Democratic Party which has now demonstrated unequivocally that it is racist (or willing to use race strategically) and makes me ashamed as a former New Yorker for ever having criticized the people of the deep south who have had to truly contend with and work to overcome a deeply racist past. I will agree with Geraldine on one score - Obama would never be where he is today if he were white. A white man with Obama's powerful charisma and intelligence would have swept Billary from the scene long ago. For years the Democratic Party made room for the Jim Crow south in its heart and soul and held up the granting of full civil rights for blacks for decades. If this neo-racism is permitted the slightest legitimacy for one second, the Democratic Party can kiss its electoral viability goodbye.

That really was not necessary

Submitted by askolnick on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 11:20am.

Commonsense, this really was not necessary. In the future, please refrain from insulting the mafia.

True - the Clintons HATE the competition!

Submitted by drprodny on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 5:02pm.

>:)

MS's vote was based on race as usual but

Submitted by Surena of Hatti... on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 11:07am.

I really wanted to thank BuzzFlash for keeping me apprised of the Clinton tactics leading into Tuesday's election in MS. Over the weekend at the Hattiesburg American, and it appeared to happen in Jackson's Clarion-Ledger, too, a bevy of Hillaristas came onto our forum and spread their share of false accusations. Even against Michelle Obama which I found really despicable. Also, someone had sent me an e-mail with 12 bogus allegations against Obama, none of them panned out, which allowed me to respond. My response was four BuzzFlash columns on 'news not in the news' which is BuzzFlash's raison d'etre. I thought it was an act of courage and prescience to tell the truth about the Clinton campaign, one which I can see BuzzFlash has been paying the price for since. Truth to power! Here are the columns: Clinton represents Establishment; Obama, "We the People" - http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/058. Clinton launches sleaze attacks against Obama - http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/053. Clinton campaign uses racism - http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/049. Clinton's unscrupulous tactics -http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/carpenter/003.

Hillary KKKlinton IS a racist - PROOF!!!!

Submitted by Yman on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 10:56am.

How can you KKKlintonista apologists not see this pattern when it’s right in front of you eyes! First, there was Slick Willie’s South Carolina racist rant. Then the Rendell and Ferraro statements straight out of David Duke’s handbook. And don’t forget the darkened Youtube video of Obama and the 3AM video with the Good Night pajamas – Yeah! We're supposed to believe that pajamas with the word “NIGHT” was an accident! Frau Hillary would make Himmler proud!

I know you KKKlintonistas will keep trying to spin it, but it’s time to get over your denial. IF YOU WANT ABSOLUTE PROOF, THEN HERE IT IS!!!!

http://tinyurl.com/2lm57u

IT’S 100% VERIFIED!!!!! She lived here with Slickie Boy for 8 years! (don’t even TRY to claim the name is just some kind of coincidence). So if you still want to defend her, go right ahead, but you’re just exposing yourselves for the racist Republi-RATS you really are. Who else would vote for such an evil, conniving, Rovian bitch? Oh yeah, unless you’re one of those senile octogenarians or women who are too stupid to see past your own gender.

More racist mocking

Submitted by askolnick on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 11:24am.

Yman, your mocking the victims of racism hardly helps your cause.

Unless of course your cause is to stir up hate and divisiveness among Democrats.

That's it?

Submitted by Yman on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 12:35pm.

To be honest, I feel a little cheated, Askolnick. My post doesn't warrant the whole mantra? All together now:

If you defend Hillary, you're a fear-monger/Republic-RAT/Clintonista.
If you deny Frau Hillary's racism you're a racist/KKK member/troll.
If you VOTE for the monster, you're a senile octogenarian/stupid woman who can't see past her gender/DINO.

Rinse and repeat.

(Just so you're clear, the mocking is directed at the Clinton-haters). But hey ... it's good to hear you're concerned about stirring up hate and divisiveness among Democrats ... (now THAT is good humor). Shall we take a look at a few of your posts over the past couple of weeks?

BTW - 'nother quote just for you Askolnick
"Journalist: a person without any ideas but with an ability to express them."
Karl Kraus

my 2456 cents

Submitted by Will B on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 1:43pm.

HERE'S WHAT FERRARO SAID TO THE AVERAGE WHITE BIGOT: 1) - Barack is a black man. All men are evil to begin with, but that's not the point. 2) - Black people who attend Harvard, become President of the Harvard Law Review, teach at the University of Chicago Law school, become State and US Senators are there because of Affirmative Action. 3) - Affirmative Action is bad for Blue-Collar White Blue Dog Democrats, it's responsible for them loosing their jobs (not Bill/Hillary Clinton's NAFTA), and 4) - Most importantly, If you are a Black Man whose taken these 'advantages' as far as Barack, well then you are especially guilty. HERE'S WHAT SHE SAID TO THE ACCOMPLISHED WHITE BIGOT: Barack's exemplary achievement was only due to being Black, therefore without Affirmative Action he really is no better than an average White Guy.....thereby stripping him of all his accomplishments of life. That's in my mind, the most insidious form of racism and Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton are racists by that definition. Hillary, because she hasn't fired Geraldine (and won't) and likely used Geraldine for this purpose. That's monstrous because it comes from the view that the Black man is not equal to the White Man. I have Republican family members that actually think that Black's are genetically inferior to Whites. How is this quiet form of racism any different? Barack's reply, Let's stop slicing and dicing the electorate....seems a reasonable response from that most reasonable of candidates... And another thing, playing the race card to wedge voting groups apart IS Rove's strategy. But when one of Hillary's senior advisors blithely trash a 45-year old, hard fought tradition that redeemed their party and their country (anti-discrimination), and the candidate takes no action to correct it, then she's proven that you cannot accept any of her "commitments" on any topic.

I'm not going to defend Ferrarro's ...

Submitted by Yman on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 3:11pm.

... idiotic comments, although I will comment that you're reading a lot into those comments. That's been an issue from both sides, such as when Barack Obama made comments at Tulane Univ. that were widely criticized as sexist. “You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out,” Obama said, and, “I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.” […] "Claws come out"? "Periodically when she's feeling down"? Do these comments make him a sexist, misogynist, etc.? - No, I don't think so. But I can see how some would make that argument. That being said, unless someone has an established history of racism or sexism I don't think it's fair to read all kinds of implications into their remarks, let alone reading into the remarks of their supports and then imputing those implications and nefarious motives to the candidate themselves. More clearly, Obama is not a sexist, and Hillary is not a racist.

Beyond that, the Clinton campaign disavowed Ferraro's comments. HC said, "Well I said earlier today in Harrisburg that I obviously disagree and reject the comments. And Senator Obama and I have both said on several occasions that we want this campaign to be about the issues -- the differences between us certainly because that's fair game, draw our differences in experiences and qualifications and our views on various important matters facing the country. But we don't want it to strain into extraneous territory and we both have supporters and staff who get overzealous and we want to keep this on the real issues that matter ..." http://tinyurl.com/3928yw . Very similar to what BO said in Jan. when he said he regretted a four page memo from his campaign characterizing statements they claimed the Clinton Campaign had made about race. Asked in hindsight whether he regretted pushing the story, Senator Obama said:

"Well, not only in hindsight, but going forward. I think that, as Hillary said, our supporters, our staff, get overzealous. They start saying things that I would not say. And it is my responsibility to make sure that we’re setting a clear tone in our campaign, and I take that responsibility very seriously, which is why I spoke yesterday and sent a message in case people were not clear that what we want to do is make sure that we focus on the issues."

You may think that Clinton's disavowal and rejection of Ferraro's stupid comments is not good enough. You may want her to fire Ferraro. Frankly, that's her decision. But the reality is, it won't appease the Clinton-haters. They'll continue to scream "RACIST!" at every opportunity.

A reasonable approach, but...

Submitted by Will B on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 4:44pm.

...I think Ferraro's remarks were at best peculiar, but likely racist (perhaps just a little bit around the edges). An odd fact of humanity is that we can hold completely contradictory positions and not be aware of the hypocrisy. I don't know how you can spin "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position" in any other way. Look as a 50-year old white man I've had fits of anger over the perceived effect of affirmative action on my career throughout my 30-year working life, but in reality it hasn't affected it at all – I’ve done very well. It has only been good for this country. But I've been lucky enough to know how un-lucky blacks and women have been in America for over 300 years, so I could care less about wedging voters over whose worse off. I applaud Hillary and Barack because they represent how classes of humanity can overcome prejudice. But these remarks from Geraldine coupled with Hillary's continued Kitchen Sink throwing has tarnished the whole game. It all adds up - since Hillary doesn't have the popular vote or delegate lead, she can't win by merit using the rules established in the democratic party. So instead of conceding, she has chosen to "fight" as she says. But fight what – take away pledged delegates and rip apart her opponent to secure superdelegates. That’s not the kind of ‘fighter’ Democrats want after 7 years of Bush, Cheney and Rove, to name a few. It’s not a fight, its a bar room brawl.

Except ...

Submitted by Yman on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 5:32pm.

The primary process is far from over. I've noticed that several Obama supporters have made the argument that, since Obama is ahead in the popular vote and the pledged delegate tally, Hillary cannot win. Therefore, she should give up now for the sake of the party. The problem with that argument is that Obama's lead is between 1.4% (with Florida) and 2.6% (w/o Florida) of the total popular vote - not the kind of lead which should require any candidate to throw in the towel. There are still a LOT of voters in Pennsylvania, Guam, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico who still get to vote, let alone a re-do in Florida or Michigan.

Frankly, in terms of "winning by merit using the rules established," neither candidate is violating the rules. Both need the "superdelegates" to get 2,025 delegates for the nomination. Both will be (and have been) lobbying for their support, but the rules allow the superdelegates (stupidest idea ever) to choose a candidate regardless of the pledged delegate tally or the popular vote. If they're foolish enough to choose a candidate that is losing both of those, the candidate will have no legitimacy and the party will get demolished in the general election. In terms of Florida and Michigan, the rules provide for either: 1) not seating them, 2) a re-vote or 3) allowing the rules commitee to seat them without a re-vote - which would also be foolish. If the party wants to have a chance at these important states in Nov., they need to be counted (i.e. re-vote). But no one is "violating the rules" by pushing for them to be seated or to have a re-vote, as the Clinton campaign is doing.

If Obama goes into the convention with a lead in pledged delegates and popular vote, he should absolutely be the nominee. If there is a split, I would argue that the popular vote should determine the nominee, as it is more reflective of the "will of the people" than the arcane and inconsistent delegate apportionment rules. Either way, I'll be voting Dem in November.

Glad you aren't going south in November

Submitted by Will B on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 6:23pm.

Technically correct on the rules, which is why she cannot be stopped by the DNC. However, unless the sky falls or Barack has been hiding something big, her prospects are dim - it's over, face it. She isn't going to make up 750,000 plus voters, nor will she surpass his pledged delegate lead. Take a look at the 10 states remaining, come on. And at the rate she's going, she will loose superdelegates too. That's the process and unless you believe in miracles, its hard to avoid. Appliance throwing to discredit Barack has ruined her chances. The tide rises all boats and deluges anything in its path. The tide is Barack's ascendancy, not Hillary's villainy. OK, a little hyperbole goes a long way!

Yeah ....

Submitted by Yman on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 7:45pm.

It's virtually impossible for her to make up his pledged delegate lead, and it's probable he'll maintain a popular vote lead, but not certain. She's down by @700,000 without Florida. With Florida, that drops to @400,000. I know, I know. Florida won't count as is, but there will very likely be another vote. Will she maintain those numbers? Not likely, but she'll cut the lead further. Then there's PA, which has an even bigger population than Ohio, where she cut his popular vote lead by @230,000. Her lead in PA at the moment is @14%, which is 4% higher than her Ohio win. Obama looks like he may take NC, but the state is smaller and his lead is smaller. That's not even factoring in Michigan, Indiana, or any of the other states.

So, yeah ... it would definately be an uphill battle, but not a miracle. And if she goes to the convention with a popular vote lead, she will have a strong argument for the nomination, irrespective of the pledged delegate numbers. Most people (2 to 1) believe the popular vote, rather than the pledged delegate total, should decide.

http://tinyurl.com/39wm8d

It's time Republic-rats are forced to play by rules

Submitted by askolnick on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 6:22pm.

Yman, it's time you Republic-rats played by the rules.

One important rule, you won't even acknowledge, is that political party nominees are NOT chosen by the popular vote count.

Read the rules: They are chosen by delegate count -- of which Obama is so far ahead that Clinton has no chance of catching up, even if she won every remaining contest, which of course she will not.

So Republic-rats are now demanding that the rules be torn up and the nomination be handed to Hillary because (choose one or more of the following arguments):

1) Clinton's white and Obama is a black man, who's ahead only because of affirmative action.

2) Clinton's white and Obama is black and black people are incompetent and scary and they are taking our jobs.

3) Clinton is entitled the nomination.

4) Obama won't fight dirty and people like that never win.

5) Clinton is a woman. Electing a woman is far more important than electing an effective, honest, and moral leader. Especially if he's black.

There he is ...

Submitted by Yman on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 7:23pm.

Everyone knows that the delegate count determines the nominee. Obama is clearly ahead in pledged/total delegates and will almost certainly be ahead going into the convention. My point is that, in the unlikely event that Hillary wins the popular vote, it will be hard to argue to the superdelegates that Obama should be the nominee. No one's talking about violating any rules. It's clear the superdelegates will decide who gets the nomination. But if you want to argue the pledged delegate total should determine the nomination instead of the popular vote, good luck with that. Most people recognize that one person's vote should not count more or less than another's (i.e. one person, one vote). Think Gore/Bush 2000 WITHOUT the electoral college requirement. Matter of fact, Americans agree that the popular vote should determine the nominee by more than 2 to 1.

http://tinyurl.com/39wm8d

As for the rest of your "argument" - Racism, racist !!!! .... blah, blah ... RepublicRAT, troll, ....... blah, blah .... Billary, Clintonista ...... blah, blah ........ racist, racist .... blah, blah ....................

ZZzzzzzzzzzzzz ..............

If you feel cheated now...

Submitted by askolnick on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 1:30pm.

If you feel cheated now, just imagine how cheated you're going to feel when Obama wins the nomination, by winning the most delegates.

Imagine, letting someone like that win by playing by the rules! It's an outrage!

I won't feel cheated ...

Submitted by Yman on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 1:57pm.

... if Barack wins the nomination (as I expect he will). I'll vote for him happily. Except one faulty point in your logic. Everone is "playing by the rules." You don't specify whether by "winning the most delegates" you mean pledged delegates or pledged/super delegates, but "the rules" don't provide that the candidate with the most delegates wins. Each one will need the support of the superdelegates - which are an inherently undemocratic mechanism. They could choose the candidate they feel is more electable, as opposed to the one with the most pledged delegates or the one with the higher popular vote. Additionally, "the rules" do not require that the Florida/Michigan delegates be denied a seat. The rules leave it to the committee to decide whether to seat them, deny them seats, or for some type of "re-do." So there's nothing wrong with the Clinton campaign asking for them to be seated or for another vote of some type.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in the event that Obama has more pledged delegates going to the convention, but Hillary has a higher popular vote. It's not likely to happen, but it's possible. Tom Daschle was doing backflips on Meet the Press trying to argue that the number of pledged delegates should determine the superdelegates vote, rather than the popular vote. Unfortunately for him, most people (57% to 26%) disagree. http://tinyurl.com/39wm8d . I think the most likely event under those circumstances is a combined ticket ...

Please, please, PLEASE !!!!

Is He Black Enough? or Too White?

Submitted by ERW on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 10:40am.

Oh Boy! I actually voted for Geraldine Ferraro. And, I am now ashamed. The question at this point is: Was there a Black man candidate on a Major Political Party National -- ticket, before there was the White Ms. Ferraro? (Who carried one state by the way.) The obvious answer is NO! Senator Obama is of mixed race. Which half does Ms. Ferraro consider the "lucky" half? She didn't say. Lordy, I hoped nobody would do this. Ms. Clinton has been mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination of the Democratic Party. It's time for Ms. Ferraro to go back into retirement, and it's time for Mrs. Clinton to go back to the Senate. I think NY needs her more than the country wants her.

No thank you

Submitted by askolnick on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 11:14am.

"I think NY needs her more than the country wants her."

NO thank you, EWR. Right now we're suffering from having too much rich white trash right now, with the devastating Spitzer scandal.

I'd prefer to send the carpetbagger back to Arkansas, where her race baiting may be more tolerated.

You forgot "hypocritical" in your description, askolnick :/

Submitted by drprodny on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 5:11pm.

I actually had our housekeeper try to DEFEND Spitzer this morning to me, saying he must not be getting any at home if he's fooling around w/hookers(!). I pointed out I really didn't care that a politician fooled around, b/c IMO that's part and parcel of their makeup - I minded that a hardass prosecutor who claimed to be squeaky-clean, and made his reputation busting call girl rings and madams...was fooling around w/escorts. That level of hypocrisy should be left strictly to the Rethuglicans, so we can beat them over the heads w/it until the end of time - Spitzer just gave the Bush Nazi Khrister Right a Christmas present nine months early.

Early Christmas present

Submitted by askolnick on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 7:51am.

So then it's up to us progressives to put the coal in their stockings come November.

Her latest strategy

Submitted by askolnick on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 10:34am.

A friend of mine, who works for a major catering service in Philadelphia, has told me that Clinton's campaign has requested a very curious thing: They want 20,000 table napkins twisted and tied into little table nooses to be placed on tables at their fund raising events in Pennsylvania.

He says this is abominable racism. I told him to wake up and smell the chittelings. Racism is never in the message, it's only in the interpretation. Anyone who looks at those table nooses as anything but clever table decorations is the racist.

I mean come on you BuzzFlash guys? What the hell is wrong with you?

When a Clinton tells you he did not have sex with that woman, then he did not have sex with that woman.

When a Clinton tells you that the white pointed cap and gown her surrogates are wearing is just the latest Paris fashion, then it's the latest Paris fashion. You better get with the message.

One Word

Submitted by Will B on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 10:14am.

Monsterous

Hillary would be an unknown

Submitted by Donnat on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 10:13am.

and certainly no Senator, if not for Bill. She needs to remember that, because I'm sure Obama is going to point that out eventually. Donnat

Buzzflash Racism .... Yee gods!

Submitted by Magginkat on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 9:18am.

Unreal...... up to now I have always admired the writings of P.M. Carpenter. What on earth is happening here? I can't find these so-called vile actions by Senator Clinton because all I can find to read are accusations by the Obama Revival! As for the comment by Ms. Ferraro it is absolutley true. If a young and upcoming white man on his first term in the Senate (or the House) had announced that he was running for president he would have been laughed out of town. Heaven forbid that we speak the truth when it comes to Obama! As for Buzzflash: I received the Buzzflash headlines this morning with the following as the link for the lead article: "Obama Carries Mississippi with Ease by More Than 20%. The Racially-Charged Clinton Campaign Will Attribute This Win to a Black Electorate, But We Didn't See Any Blacks in Wyoming, Which Obama Carried Big Time on Saturday, Did You?" No blacks in Wyoming? That Clinton campaign is racially charged? I suggest to you that the Clinton campaign had nothing to do with your racially charged headlines that flood into my mailbox every day. As for Wyoming here are a few facts. Wyoming has over 67,000 (2004 figures) registered Democrats. Only 5,378 turned out to vote for Obama in that silly caucus. You call that a big time win? Who will the other 61,622 vote for in November? Why didn't they vote in this contest? Who do you think the 158,000 registered republicans will vote for? AS for Mississippi, that racist state was at least honest yesterday, as we can see from 90% blacks for Obama 70% whites for Clinton. That pretty much tells us how a lot of people will be in voting in Nov. and probably not just in the deep south. A lot of Obama wins have been via a similar caucus. Not exactly a democratic way of selecting a nominee is it? I voted for Edwards in the Flordia primary and once again it appears that my vote will be trash canned. Wouldn't you know that someone (probably the Obama campaign) has suggested a caucus for Florida? I wonder why? So he can once again promote his "Democrat for a Day" to get republicans to vote for him? Bottom line is that the entire electoral system in this country is so screwed up that it's pathetic. We should have a consistent/standard method for nominating candidates for president. This idiotic campaign has been ongoing for over a year now and it will be close to 2 yrs by the time Nov rolls around. Of course that is overlooking the fact that Obama started his campaign as soon as he arrived in the Senate!

Excuse me Maggotkat

Submitted by askolnick on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 11:26am.

Excuse me Magginkat, but your white sheet slip is showing and you're about to trip over it.

White voters voting against black candidate = "honest"

White voters voting for black candidate = not "honest"

Magginkat = race-baiting Republic-rat

OBAMA REALITY CHECK

Submitted by BBF on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 8:49am.

This writer at the Black Commentator, Larry Pinkeny shares my views exactly on Obama:

http://www.blackcommentator.com/
262/262_keeping_it_real_obama_bamboozling.html

This is a man who as a deeply corporate military industrial complex US Presidential candidate, has called for “unilateral” US military actions in other nations. [And why not? After-all, his father, himself, or his wife and children were not and will not be the ones killing and being killed.]

This is a man who, in Chicago, pretended to support the human rights of the Palestinian people but who is now known to be a huge supporter of the apartheid Zionists and their powerful and insidious political lobby in America.

This is a man who dares opportunistically to feign admiration for the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., but does not share the collective memory, pain and deep concerns of Black America, other people of color, or even of numerous white Americans for that matter - in the ongoing struggle for equality and justice in this nation.

This is a man who has de facto contempt for the past supreme sacrifices made by thousands of activists from so-called “militant” organizations such the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU), the Student National Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Black Panther Party (BPP), Students For A Democratic Society (SDS), the American Indian Movement (AIM), the Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM), etc.

This is a man who is silent about the need for reparations for Black American descendants of slaves and the genocide of the indigenous so-called “Indian” peoples on this continent. He is the consummate opportunist who, in reality, cares nothing about the horrors inflicted upon Black, Brown, and Red peoples in this nation, and has repeatedly signaled that he plans to inflict even more “unilateral” military horrors upon various nations and peoples of the world.

This man, Barack Obama, is but a more articulate, younger, and shinier version of the current and infamous US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, adorning himself dangerously and abundantly in superficiality and double-speak.

"This is a man..."

Submitted by askolnick on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 11:16am.

Larry Pinkney, the former Black Panther radical.

This is a man who is full of hate and resentment.

This is a man, who has some issues, to say the least.

You might as well be using quotes from Clarence Thomas as your "reality check."

You Republic-rats think you're so clever. If Obama doesn't denounce black extremists like Louis Farrakhan forcefully enough, you smear him as being in cahoots with them. But then you use the rants of black extremists who denounce Obama for not being extreme enough.

You guys are the ones who need a serious reality check, following by a big dope slap.

Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

User login

Were You Aware -- Uh, Clear the Throat --That Obama Is Black?

Navigation

Search

Syndicate

BuzzFlash on Twitter