Its the term that lobbyists on The Hill use to describe Obama. He tells anyone he talks to exactly what they want to hear. He stands for nothing more than the advancement of his own career.
One of the more puzzling aspects of his campaign is the way in which some of his supporters label him as a "liberal". There's absolutely nothing in his past record, thin as it is, to support that claim.
His policy agenda is ephemeral at best, happy sounding yet vague promises. Conservatives and liberals alike can read what they wish into them. Great for attracting voters who are political impulse buyers and not experienced enough to look deeper.
His use of race is simply a tool for driving a wedge between Dem voters and distracting them from asking him hard questions about his policies and experience. Clever marketing and salesmanship are not enough to make one a good president, especially in times of crisis.
Clinton supporters are reluctant to voice support for Obama in the event he wins the nomination not because they dislike him, but because they don't trust him. They don't know who he really is or what he really stands for. They know his priorities have no strong foundation or core values, but instead are sands that shift according to who he wants to please, who he wants to control to enrich himself or advance his personal agenda. In that respect, he is no more trustworthy than Bush.
Perhaps the difference is in having been around in those days. Dem women who have a long history with Democratic politics and public policy have a more in-depth understanding of how to read candidates and their positions on the issues. That's why most of us don't support Obama, he's too inexperienced and has a fairly weak agenda when it comes to issues most women care about.
It takes a little experience to tell the real candidates from the used car salesmen. Obama is the latter.
Agree, experience should be the top priority. Many Clinton supporters are saying they won't support Obama, not because of personal identification but because he is not ready to serve due to lack of experience. Even more bothersome is his inability to address it. Ego alone does not make a good president.
Ferraro already did as you suggest - restating the context of her remarks - many, many times. But the "racism" bandwagon was already speeding ahead and no one would listen. It was far too easy and advantageous for Obama and his supporters to keep calling her remarks "racist" even after she had given full explanation.
His speech today continues in that same vein, lumping her into the same category as Rev. Wright. Inexcusable.
Obama apparently feels that attacking Ferraro is the most effective means of diverting attention away from the issue, while allowing him to fall back on the same, tired tactic of labeling anyone who challenges or questions him as a racist.
What a disturbing prospect to consider - if Obama were to be elected president, no one would be able to question any decision he makes for fear his surrogates would find a way to label them as racists. It would play as well as labeling someone "unpatriotic" or "helping the terrorists".
Again, Obama's message is that white women are flawed and racist. Sorry, but the subtle message he's sending there is wrong. Sexism is as bad as racism, and Obama needs to either realize he's guilty of it or apologize to women voters for making that inference.