were the equivalent of calling all Clinton supporters, esp. women, racists on the same level as Rev. Wright.
Distorting Ferraro's comments and valid complaints about double standards in media coverage was one thing, labeling them as "deep seated racism" is not only blind, but vindictive.
Obama can't seem to pass up any opportunity to insult and denigrate women supporting Clinton's campaign. When will he come to terms with his problem, or, as in so many political and social circles dominated by men, is it still acceptable?
Obama's attempt to lump Ferraro's comments with those of Rev. Wright is not only wrong, it reveals a great deal about him.
To anyone who took the time to fully read her comments, her remarks were not based on any racial bias, deep seated or otherwise.
Her remarks reflected the frustration of dealing with a media double standard that heaped unwarranted criticism on Clinton while giving Obama a free ride.
Obama's insistence on negating the frustration millions of women voters feel and, by extension, painting them as having "deep seated" racial bias is offensive and insulting.
His willingness to label women voters who support Clinton as "closet" racists speaks volumes about why this candidate has a poor to non-existent record on women's issues. We may also assume, if elected, women can expect more of the same "iron my shirt" mentality from this candidate.
Obama and his supporters need to realize that women understand the sexist "code" - the words and phrases that men use to minimize the status, power and influence of women. We saw it today in his speech and we will remember it.
Things change. Shouldn't this discussion be saved for the convention, instead of trying to hijack it beforehand?
The "math" and "inevitability" arguments that Obama supporters keep repeating ad nauseum don't respect the primary process.
Let it play out, let everyone who is a Dem have a say and then work it out at the Convention. Its not as if this is the first time in history that the party has gone to the convention without a clear front-runner.
Obama's success thus far was in his ability to leverage a decrepit caucus system in many states, one where most people who participated were not even required to show ID or prove they were registered voters.
Whether that's real voter support is questionable.
As the OP pointed out, Obama is a flash in the pan, not qualified to serve as president with questionable experience and a career record of only looking out for his own personal ambitions.
He got this far in the primary through clever marketing, lots of money from special interests and by cleverly introducing a controversial wedge issue to attack his opponents every time they questioned him on experience or issues.
That doesn't make him a good candidate nor a good potetntial president, regardless of which demographics support him.
I'm still trying to figure out how "fairy tale" was a racist remark.
In one of the most crucial Dem primaries in years Dems need to have an honest, undisrupted discussion about candidates qualifications and ability to win and lead under pressure.
Yet every time the subject comes up someone diverts the discussion to the wedge issue of "racism". Brilliant tactic, but not productive.
Can we expect the same thing if Obama wins the WH? Every time we question one of his decisions, he'll cry racism? We've had 8 years of a president who was immune to public criticism, why would we want to put ourselves through that again?
Everyone wants to see the party and the electorate end discrimination and elect the best qualified candidates to lead the country. So lets truly make this year's decision based on skills, leadership and experience.
that need some answers. My guess would be they don't want to control it but somehow think it helps them.
No, its not the way we tried to raise our kids and I certainly hope none of mine are getting caught up in the online mob mentality.
As for any of Hillary's supporters speaking out on the problem, even though I support her, there probably aren't many of them who understand the online political community let alone understand the impact it can have on the grassroots.
that Obama or someone virulently anti-Clinton is doing a masterful job of trolling every Dem and Progressive site in the online community. It appears to be a coordinated, systematic effort.
The volume of new posters in the traditional Dem/Progressive forums has increased dramatically since last summer/fall and once the primary got underway in earnest, disruption reached new heights.
Though I'm a new poster here, I've been posting at Dem forums online since before 2000, usually Bartcop, DU or sometimes DKos. What's happened in the last few months appears to be a well organized and well staffed effort.
Whoever is behind it was anti-Edwards and is now virulently anti-Clinton. It won't help Dems chances in the GE and could well work against them. There are few sanctuaries left on Dem political web sites for Dem women progressives and Clinton supporters. Truly disturbing at how rapidly all this has developed.
Here's hoping it reverses, but as far as sites like DU and DailyKos are concerned, there's little point in returning to them. They've been coopted and discussion is now rigidly controlled. Why go back? Its a waste of time and effort.
I'm gravitating towards sites that still discuss ideas and policies as well as the race and where women take equal part in discussions. And I'll still be a loyal Dem, no matter if the progressive/Dem online community implodes.