by sweet potato pie, Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:27:08 AM EDT
I'm tired of Gerry Ferraro and her ignorant rants and since March I have decided that I would just ignore her but today her editorial in the Boston Globe just set me off.
Let's take a look at what she had to say.
Here we are at the end of the primary season, and the effects of racism and sexism on the campaign have resulted in a split within the Democratic Party that will not be easy to heal before election day. Perhaps it's because neither the Barack Obama campaign nor the media seem to understand what is at the heart of the anger on the part of women who feel that Hillary Clinton was treated unfairly because she is a woman or what is fueling the concern of Reagan Democrats for whom sexism isn't an issue, but reverse racism is.
I will admit that there has been sexism on the part of the media as well as racism. I think most of us can all agree on that. However, to blame the Obama campaign is just ridiculous. Why is it that Clinton supporters cannot name a specific example of sexism during this primary that is Obama's fault? If someone is willing to give me an example of Obama being sexist and not the media then I am more than willing to listen. It is understandable that Hillary's supporters are furious at the media for how she has been treated but to blame everything that the media has done on Obama is absurd.
Gerry tries to explain Reagan Dems to us:
They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems. That when he said in South Carolina after his victory "Our Time Has Come" they believe he is telling them that their time has passed.
What on earth is she talking about? How is "our time has come" meaning that Obama is leaving white people behind? Is she trying to say that these voters feel like a black man is going to take over the country and leave all the white folks behind? Has Barack Obama ever signaled or even said that he is going to lock white people up so that blacks can rule the country? Has she forgotten that he is HALF white himself? Does Gerry really believe this nonsense?
Gerry closes out by basically calling Obama an uppity black man:
They don't identify with someone who has gone to Columbia and Harvard Law School and is married to a Princeton-Harvard Law graduate. His experience with an educated single mother and being raised by middle class grandparents is not something they can empathize with. They may lack a formal higher education, but they're not stupid.
In case anyone didn't notice, Hillary Clinton went to Wellesley and graduated from Yale law school. She and Bill are now worth over $100 million dollars. The Obama's, because of his book deal and their house are worth about $4 million and they just finished paying their student loans off from law school. For the record, Obama's mother was on food stamps. Yes, food stamps and he went to school on scholarships. What Gerry Ferraro is saying is what many of us felt about some of these so-called Reagan Dems--they will under no circumstance vote for a black man no matter what he does or say. Geraldine has also made it clear that she won't either. No one should be surprised as she has actively campaigned against black Democrats in New York in the past. I understand being angry that Hillary lost I would be too if my candidate lost but I would get over it and vote Democrat because the democratic party cares about the issues that are important to me in this election.
I know many Hillary Clinton supporters who would strongly disagree with this crap and for Gerry to continue on her "insult everyone who doesn't support Hillary" tour is disgraceful and not helpful. Gerry Ferraro is bitter because a woman did not win. She should be bitter at Mark Penn who ran Hillary's campaign into the ground and not Obama. Obama didn't win because of sexism against Hillary, he won because he knew the rules and planned accordingly. He also won despite 20% of voters in Kentucky and West Virginia stating that race was an important factor and they voted overwhelmingly for Hillary.
Hillary came into this primary with every possible advantage. She had over 100 super delegates, money, name recognition, and the support of the most popular Democrat in the country. She squandered it all. Was it sexist when the media called Hillary the inevitable democratic nominee eight months ago? Where was Gerry then? We only started hearing of the cries of sexism from Gerry when it was clear after the primaries in February that Hillary's chances of becoming the nominee were dwindling fast.
If Gerry wants to continue down this shameful path it is time for her to leave the party. I'm sure that the GOP will be waiting with open arms for her.
by sweet potato pie, Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:23:25 AM EDT
Last night on CNN David Gergen said something that I have been feeling for quite sometime and even more so after the latest reemergence of Geraldine Ferraro.
I mean, she's been talking about sexism in this race and she has complained about some in the last 24 hours.
You know race is really playing an increasing issue. And it also raises the question in my judgment of whether she shouldn't say, you know, if you want to vote against him because he's black, I don't want your vote. I don't want to win that way. This has no place in this primary.
He couldn't have said it better. Just as Barack Obama gave his speech on race in America it is now time for Hillary to give her own. Last night's results in Kentucky were disturbing. The fact that over 20% of those voters who felt race was important went for Hillary 90-10. Everyone knows that not all of Hillary's supporters are racist just as not all of Barack Obama's supporters are sexist but for 20% of voters to be comfortable expressing their bigotry is apalling and needs to be addressed. I know that many would say that Blacks are being racist by voting for Barack Obama 90-10 but it is ridiculous. The difference is if all previous white democratic nominees got only say 45% of the black vote and they all of the sudden started voting en mass for Obama and stated when it came to exit polls that they were only voting for him because he is black and would not support Hillary if she won the nomination, then yes, one could argue that blacks are voting based on race. I would be quick to challenge but I could understand someone making the point. The fact that Hillary's supporters not only mentioned race as a factor but also stated they would overwhelmingly vote for John McCain even though Barack Obama is practically identical in policy with Hillary is clearly a vote based on skin color and it is a shame and Hillary should come out against such nonsense.
Earlier this week, Hillary had no problem telling the Washington Post that sexism and not racism is a problem in this primary? Oh really? How do you explain the numbers coming out of Kentucky? How do you explain the racist incidents at Obama offices in Indiana? I don't disagree that there have been blatant cases of sexism including one from a GOP strategist on CNN that felt it was okay to refer to Hillary as a ***, but to ignore that racism has also played a role is ignorant and I think Hillary is better than that.
We are Democrats in which our party is tolerant of all but we shouldn't be tolerant of those that are racist. I am deeply saddened that racism and sexism has reared it's ugly head during the primaries but if we continue to ignore what is happening it will continue to be accepted. It is time for Hillary Clinton to give her speech and I look forward to it in the coming weeks.
by sweet potato pie, Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:57:22 AM EDT
I understand, Hillary has lost and it is hard to deal with. I remember in 2004 how distraught I was when John Edwards wasn't going to be the nominee but after a couple of weeks I moved on and made sure that the nominee, John Kerry had my full support. With that said, what is your problem? No seriously what is going on with you?
Let me bring you up to speed with reality.
You claim that Hillary will win the popular vote at the end of the season. I'm sorry Jerome that is just not correct. Maybe you forgot about all those caucus states that don't keep a record of the popular vote. If those were primaries, Obama would be ahead by over a million votes as Hillary had no plans after Super Tuesday. Currently, he is ahead by 800K votes and when states finish counting provisional ballots like Ohio did in which he closed the gap by 2%, he will increase his popular vote lead. There is still a chance that he might actually win Indiana as Hillary currently leads by less than 1%. I would also invite you to start reading El Nuevo Dia which is the prominent Puerto Rican newspaper and things aren't looking so good for Hillary in Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans don't like losers and won't vote for them no matter what you tell them.
As for your dubious popular vote argument. Wait, don't the Democrats select nominees based on delegates? Of course they do and they always have. No, the popular vote will not be a valid metric because you will end up disenfranchising those in caucus states. I know that disenfranchising voters is alright in caucus states but not MI and FL. You are entitled to your opinion but it is not based on any facts.
Finally, I think your main argument that Hillary would be more electable is because of the states that she would carry. Did you not notice that her map to victory is the exact same map that Democrats have used in the last two cycles? Please keep in mind that she would have to hold onto all of the Kerry states and win Ohio and/or Florida. The problem with that is she is polling weak in WA, OR, MI,MN which are states that we also need. Furthermore, should she become the nominee, she won't win because you need African-Americans to come out in droves which they won't. If you don't believe me take a look at recent polling form Rasmussen and Bloomberg. On the other hand, Obama is very strong in those states as well as other western states and Virginia is very much in play. I know you are going to say that it's the south and the south isn't ready for a black president even though they had a black governor but that's not the point. The point is that you are doing a severe disservice to your readers when you let your own blind hatred for Obama cloud your reasonable judgment.
It's time Jerome to come back down to earth. It's okay to mourn Hillary's loss but there is no reason for you to spew hatred towards the democratic nominee. If you need a shoulder to cry on, just ask.
Sweet Potato Pie