• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

Just a few bad apples.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

This is all too absurd to be reality, right?

I really should read my own blog.

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

It’s been a really long fucking year.

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

Saul Alinsky is my co-pilot.

This really is a full service blog.

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

… makes me wish i had hoarded more linguine

And we’re all out of bubblegum.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn – Nancy Pelosi

I can’t take this shit today. I just can’t.

Naturally gregarious and alpha

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

False Scribes! False Scribes!

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

The willow is too close to the house.

Four legs? good! two legs? we’re not so sure…

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

Mobile Menu

  • Look Forward & Back
  • Balloon Juice 2021 Pet Calendar
  • Site Feedback
  • All 2020 Fundraising
  • I Voted!
  • Take Action: Things We Can Do
  • Team Claire, and Family
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • BJ PayPal Donations
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Nature & Respite
  • Information As Power
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Nature & Respite
  • Look Forward & Back
You are here: Home / Past Elections / Election 2008 / Always the Victim

Always the Victim

by John Cole|  March 12, 20085:14 pm| 298 Comments

This post is in: Election 2008, Politics

Facebook0Tweet0Email0

If there is one thing the Clinton campaign and their surrogates do have down pat, it is playing the victim:

Former congresswoman and vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro is resigning her fundraising position with Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign after controversial comments she made about Clinton’s rival, Sen. Barack Obama.

Comments by former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro are drawing criticism from the Obama campaign.

“I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign,” Ferraro wrote in a letter to Clinton. “The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won’t let that happen.”

Ferraro told CNN she sent the letter to Clinton Wednesday afternoon.

All she had to do was shut up, but she couldn’t. Instead, she went on the offensive:

Geraldine Ferraro had a full media schedule today. Despite Hillary Clinton’s surface condemnation of her racist comments regarding Barack Obama, she was booked on the Today Show, The Early Show, and yesterday, most insidiously, Bill O’Reilly’s Radio Factor.

And even though her own stupidity and her own mouth are the direct cause of her own demise, she is the victim of the evil Obama campaign. I am really looking forward to four years of Hillary Clinton blaming all of her shortcomings and mistakes on the evil Republicans, aren’t you? Because eight years of “the Democrats are worse” and refusing to accept responsibility has really left the country in such a great place.

Facebook0Tweet0Email0
Previous Post: « How Hillary Defines Fair
Next Post: Five Large »

Reader Interactions

298Comments

  1. 1.

    Crust

    March 12, 2008 at 5:18 pm

    Totally off topic, but via Glenn Greenwald, for those who want to contribute to fight telco amnesty and get the Blue Dogs in line, go here.

  2. 2.

    Ted

    March 12, 2008 at 5:21 pm

    I am really looking forward to four years of Hillary Clinton blaming all of her shortcomings and mistakes on the evil Republicans, aren’t you?

    Even Karl Rove would have run Hillary’s campaign with more dignity than this. I’ve honestly never seen anything like it in presidential runs. Hillary’s entire theme these days seems to be that her losing the nomination would be extremely unfair and discriminator.

    Anyway, I’m sure myiq2xu will be along shortly to defend Ferraro’s comments.

  3. 3.

    rob!

    March 12, 2008 at 5:24 pm

    i just watched Dem strategists Hilary Rosen and Peter Fenn twist themselves into linguistic knots on MSNBC’s “Tucker”(he’s not hosting, that’s why I’m watching) trying to condone what Ferraro said.

    I know 2 things:

    1)if a REPUBLICAN had said this, they’d be apoplectic.

    2)the host, Joe Scarborough, just said that the Dems have women mad on one side, african-americans on the other, as if those are the only two groups mad about this.

    i’m an Obama supporter, and i’m a lily-white male. i am HORRIFIED at what Ferraro said. my girlfiend and parents, equally honky, are HORRIFIED at what Ferraro said. its not just overly sensitive african-americans, Joe.

    i don’t believe the Clintons are racist, i just think they’d throw anyone under the bus to win.

    but Ferraro is crabby old racist white lady.

  4. 4.

    Rarely Posts

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm

    My God, would you quit it? Do you want Hillary to shoot her…would that satisfy you? Her original comments weren’t racist. She might be an idiot, I’ll grant you that. But you are being ridiculous.

  5. 5.

    Davebo

    March 12, 2008 at 5:34 pm

    Do you want Hillary to shoot her…would that satisfy you?

    No, firing her from the campaign would have sufficed for me.

    But luckily this has all been defused because Ferraro is leaving her position in the campaign, in order to spend more time campaigning for Hillary.

  6. 6.

    Martin

    March 12, 2008 at 5:35 pm

    See, but now Ferraro is on O’Reilly defending her remarks and getting his sympathy. Clinton need not attack any more – she just deputized the smear machine to carry the message for her, with a Dem as justification for being able to talk about race. And you’ll note that the Republicans and McCain have been quiet about this stuff lately. McCain will denounce those remarks stronger than Hillary did, mark my word, so no dirty hands from the Republicans.

    I give Hillary a 50/50 chance now of winning in the convention.

  7. 7.

    Martin

    March 12, 2008 at 5:36 pm

    Her original comments weren’t racist.

    Explain her comments, please.

  8. 8.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 5:39 pm

    Just when I thought that the Clintons had reached the bottom, they manage to plunge even deeper into the pit of disgusting shit.

  9. 9.

    AkaDad

    March 12, 2008 at 5:40 pm

    Shame on you Hillary for not denouncing and rejecting Geraldine Ferrarokahn.

  10. 10.

    rob!

    March 12, 2008 at 5:40 pm

    maybe i’m naive, but i’m not even really sure how what Ferraro said affects votes, even after all this hugger-mugger.

    her comments were racist (and stupid, and uninformed…) but on the surface she was mostly just pointing out that Barack is black–that seemed to be the underlying point.

    well, who doesn’t know this already? wouldn’t the kind of person who would be swayed by these attacks be already on Hillary’s side a long, long time ago?

    if ONLY blacks were voting for Obama, i could see this working, but he won Maine, Wyoming, Iowa…not exactly hotbeds of multiculturalism.

    (btw, Obama…I’m from NJ, which went solidly for Hillary. sorry about that, I did my best)

  11. 11.

    dslak

    March 12, 2008 at 5:42 pm

    Ferraro’s comments aren’t racist because she’s a woman. Periodically.

  12. 12.

    Conservatively Liberal

    March 12, 2008 at 5:42 pm

    So she resigned from a position that she said that she could not be fired from? Not only that, but the resignation was defiant in its tone. She is not sorry for what she said, and she is sticking to that story line.

    Hillary can corner Obama on stage about Farrakhan, and he denounces and rejects him, but she refuses to do either in this case. How convenient.

    Once again, Clinton Rules save the day for Hill. This primary is over, and Hillary is the dead man woman walking. There is nothing more for her to gain at this point in the contest. All that she can hope for is to damage Obama in some way that she can benefit from it, or hope that the SDs hand the win to her at the convention. She is behind on the popular vote, the pledged delegate count and the number of states won.

    The fat lady has been cranking it out for some time now, and I think she is going to lose her voice before Hillary gives up.

    The next race based attack against Obama will be right before the PA vote. I hope the SDs come to their senses before that and that they bring this mess to an end.

  13. 13.

    Andrew

    March 12, 2008 at 5:49 pm

    The only appropriate response, and the only one that will actually make Ferraro mad, is to mock her mercilessly.

    I propose will.i.am make a video, “Yes We Can… Say Stupid Racist Shit.”

  14. 14.

    Rarely Posts

    March 12, 2008 at 5:52 pm

    Explain her comments, please.

    Obama is lucky to be who he is. There’s nothing wrong with being black. NOTHING! Ferarro’s comments were bitter, not racist.

    I am thrilled, THRILLED, that the two top Dems are a black man and a white woman. Does that make me racist or sexist?

  15. 15.

    Zifnab

    March 12, 2008 at 5:54 pm

    And even though her own stupidity and her own mouth are the direct cause of her own demise, she is the victim of the evil Obama campaign.

    That’s cause she’s a classy girl.

  16. 16.

    Rarely Posts

    March 12, 2008 at 5:55 pm

    pointing out that Barack is black

    Why? Is being black shameful? Am I no longer allowed to notice that someone is black?

    This reminds me of when Michelle Malkin melted down because someone called her the Asian Ann Coulter…well, guess what, Michelle, your heritage is Asian–wtf are you ashamed of your heritage?

  17. 17.

    Zifnab

    March 12, 2008 at 5:56 pm

    I am thrilled, THRILLED, that the two top Dems are a black man and a white woman. Does that make me racist or sexist?

    BOTH! If you were secure in your masculinity and whiteliness, you’d be voting above race and gender and casting your vote for John McCain. Only by voting for a lying, lobbyist-nuzzling, media-whoring, rat fucker can you claim to fight against discrimination in choosing a candidate for public office.

  18. 18.

    zack

    March 12, 2008 at 5:56 pm

    Prominent Hillary supporter Rush “McNabb only got where he is because he’s black” Limbaugh came to Ferraro’s defense today. He feels her pain at being called “racist.”:

    Yeah? Well, join the club. Join the club, Gerard — uh, Geraldine. Sorry. You are exactly right. Join the club.

    What did Geraldine Ferraro actually say? She said that he’s only there because he’s a black guy. She said if he were a white man, he wouldn’t even be in the presidential race. So she’s essentially saying that he’s unqualified and black, right? Now, let me ask you people a question. Who gave us this concept? Unqualified and black, pfft!, shooting to the top? Who gave us this concept? I am rubbing my hands together in glee here. It was liberals who demanded this.

    Ferraro’s condescension captures the tone of paternalistic liberalism perfectly. Its ‘victims’ should know their place and plot their ascent according to the progressive charts set up by the white liberal establishment,” meaning Obama has reached too far here.

    So, Rush is happy, and so is Team Hillary. The following meme have been introduced into the PA primary:

    1) Obama only got where he is because he’s black (i.e. he’s unqualified).

    2) the Obama campaign is racist and hates white people.

    Those are the themes Team Hillary wanted introduced into the campaign. Ferraro did that quite successfully. Mission Accomplished.

  19. 19.

    D-Chance.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:56 pm

    Ferraro wrote in a letter to Clinton. “The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won’t let that happen.”

    So, even in resignation, it’s the poor white woman being “attacked” by the evil black man… and the poor white woman is doing the heroic deed of protecting another white woman from being “hurt” by the evil black man. God, Geraldine, just shut up!

  20. 20.

    dslak

    March 12, 2008 at 5:57 pm

    “What, is being a gay Muslim socialist shameful? I didn’t know that when I said it!” The last refuge of the scoundrel (okay, second-to-last).

  21. 21.

    John Cole

    March 12, 2008 at 5:59 pm

    So, Rush is happy, and so is Team Hillary. The following meme have been introduced into the PA primary:

    1) Obama only got where he is because he’s black (i.e. he’s unqualified).

    2) the Obama campaign is racist and hates white people.

    Those are the themes Team Hillary wanted introduced into the campaign. Ferraro did that quite successfully. Mission Accomplished.

    Bingo, now to go for a twofer and play the victim card to make sure the cranky white female vote comes out. Taylor Marsh can write five posts about how Obama’s upper lip position in a picture means he was sexist when he looked at Hillary after a debate.

    Pretty smart- they get the anti-affirmative action blue collar vote and ramp up Hillary’s last base of support- the Sisterhood of the Travelling Rants (the older white woman).

  22. 22.

    Sasha

    March 12, 2008 at 6:05 pm

    My God, would you quit it? Do you want Hillary to shoot her…would that satisfy you? Her original comments weren’t racist. She might be an idiot, I’ll grant you that. But you are being ridiculous.

    Ferraro’s original comment was indeed damn foolish and tone-deaf, but not necessarily racist.

    The problem is with her is that after being called on it, rather than back out gracefully, Ferraro decided to dig in and double down. Her follow up — “It wasn’t a racist comment, it was a statement of fact.” — pisses me off, as does the arrogance of proclaiming her ill-considered opinion to be true wisdom. Apparently, the reason I support Obama isn’t that I think he’s a qualified, inspirational, principled candidate who can win the general election, but because I just want an “imaginary hip black friend” (another boneheaded comment from a Clinton staffer).

    Now (in contrast to the dignified exit of Susan Powers) Ferraro loudly rejects any responsibilty for the consequences of her idiotic comments and resigns in order to become unaccountable bombthrower for the Clinton camp.

    As such, Ferroro is poised to blow up any chance of the Democratic candidate, whomever he or she may be, from becoming President.

  23. 23.

    Rarely Posts

    March 12, 2008 at 6:06 pm

    BOTH! If you were secure in your masculinity and whiteliness, you’d be voting above race and gender and casting your vote for John McCain. Only by voting for a lying, lobbyist-nuzzling, media-whoring, rat fucker can you claim to fight against discrimination in choosing a candidate for public office.

    I’m a white woman. Aren’t we the only ones that support Hillary except the hispanics? Oops, did I just make a sexist remark? Oh, and since I’m married to a hispanic, I guess that was racist, too!

    Fug!

  24. 24.

    Rarely Posts

    March 12, 2008 at 6:09 pm

    cranky white female vote

    Yep, cause women are bitches, right?

  25. 25.

    Martin

    March 12, 2008 at 6:10 pm

    Obama is lucky to be who he is. There’s nothing wrong with being black. NOTHING! Ferarro’s comments were bitter, not racist.

    Rather than continue to say Obama is unqualified, which isn’t working when Sinbad is part of your experience team, she says that he wouldn’t be there if he were white (without being burdened to provide any evidence for that assertion).

    Which leads to…

    So she’s essentially saying that he’s unqualified and black, right? Now, let me ask you people a question. Who gave us this concept?

    So again, Obama has been cast as unqualified, not because of any evidence but because Ferraro (a Democrat who wouldn’t sell out one of her own, right?) has deemed it so, and presented *race* as the substitute for the evidence that she failed to provide. See, Obama isn’t unqualified because he didn’t do the kinds of things that Hillary did (even though he did almost all the things Hillary did) but because he is black.

    Now, Rush has license to run with that:

    Unqualified and black, pfft!, shooting to the top? Who gave us this concept? I am rubbing my hands together in glee here. It was liberals who demanded this.

    Is Rush being racist? Sure. Is Ferraro? Absolutely, because she knows what the *intent* of her words were. She knew full well that Hillary would get a boost from this by not having to prove her experience credentials on account of her being white, now that Obama is being questioned on his due to her statement. And she knew full well being a Dem and attacking Obama on race, and going on O’Reilly with it would get her that outcome.

    Let’s ask a different question:

    Why would Ferraro make this assertion, I think 4 times now on 4 different media outlets? What did she intend to achieve with this statement? Praise for Obama? I think we’ve ruled that out after the first day. Why keep repeating it?

  26. 26.

    tim

    March 12, 2008 at 6:11 pm

    “All she had to do was shut up, but she couldn’t. Instead, she went on the offensive”

    Seems to me, John, that increasingly you want everyone who disagrees with you to SHUT UP. Either that, or you end the discussion by announcing that the one who dares to differ with you is “an idiot.”

    Nice. Very convincing.

    As for me, I get a kick out of Ferraro’s defying those lily-livers who shriek “racism” at every turn. Makes me smile with pleasure.

  27. 27.

    John Cole

    March 12, 2008 at 6:11 pm

    Yep, cause women are bitches, right?

    A lot of nerve coming from an admitted racist and sexist!

  28. 28.

    Rarely Posts

    March 12, 2008 at 6:13 pm

    Sasha, I agree that Ferraro is an idiot. But blaming the loss of the Dem candidate on her is a bit of a stretch. We’ll do it to ourselves with this stupid bickering. In today’s episode Hillary comes out like a bitch and Obama like a victim–doesn’t matter if either statement is remotely true.

  29. 29.

    Martin

    March 12, 2008 at 6:14 pm

    Pretty smart- they get the anti-affirmative action blue collar vote and ramp up Hillary’s last base of support- the Sisterhood of the Travelling Rants (the older white woman).

    Its not about votes, directly. It’s about the convention. She’s banking on a brokered convention and having enough time to kill Obama’s electability because race has poisoned it for him. They’ll have to accept her in order to win the general, even if they hate her guts picking her.

  30. 30.

    John Cole

    March 12, 2008 at 6:14 pm

    Seems to me, John, that increasingly you want everyone who disagrees with you to SHUT UP. Either that, or you end the discussion by announcing that the one who dares to differ with you is “an idiot.”

    Sometimes you all make me want to scream. Personally, I would like Geraldine to keep rambling at the mouth for a couple more days. I think her behavior will be a net problem for Hillary, and I want Obama to win, so that is a plus for me.

    What I clearly meant was that all she had to do to defuse the situation and stop causing her chosen candidate problems was to shut up. Instead, she went on a media blitz and caused tons more problems for Hillary.

  31. 31.

    Conservatively Liberal

    March 12, 2008 at 6:14 pm

    IMO, Hillary really blew a different chance here. If she would have stepped up, fired Ferraro and then forcefully denounced her remark as racist in its tone, she would have calmed down the AA community considerably. This would have given her a huge lever against people who accuse her campaign of race baiting.

    By waffling and supporting what Ferraro said, she only reinforced opinion among the AA community (and other Democrats) that her campaign is playing the race card against Obama. Her pointed attack against Obama about Farrakhan backfires on her now because people can see Obama clearly and unequivocally denouncing and rejecting Farrakhan, yet Hillary refuses to do the same with Ferraro.

    Clinton Rules.

  32. 32.

    Martin

    March 12, 2008 at 6:15 pm

    Rarely,

    She’s not an idiot. This is clearly intentional. She’s taking one for the team. This is #6 on Halperin’s list:

    http://thepage.time.com/halperin%E2%80%99s-take-ways-mccain-can-beat-obama-that-clinton-cannot/

  33. 33.

    Rarely Posts

    March 12, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    Martin, I would never had made that connection. But thanks for giving the right a stellar talking point.

    But satisfy my curiousity, are you saying Obama’s blackness makes him unqualified?

  34. 34.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 12, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    As for me, I get a kick out of Ferraro’s defying those lily-livers who shriek “racism” at every turn. Makes me smile with pleasure.

    George Wallace and Lester Maddox must have had you on the floor.

  35. 35.

    Rarely Posts

    March 12, 2008 at 6:18 pm

    A lot of nerve coming from an admitted racist and sexist!

    Okay, that was funny. But you have to admit my taking what you said to mean women are bitches is a valid conclusion to draw.

  36. 36.

    Martin

    March 12, 2008 at 6:19 pm

    If she would have stepped up, fired Ferraro and then forcefully denounced her remark as racist in its tone, she would have calmed down the AA community considerably.

    How would that have helped? It’s clear now, even to Clinton that she can’t win on delegates from elections or even superdelegates. She’s not going to win by rising above Obama – that ship has sailed now. Now she needs to take Obama out and hope that she can pull the delegates around at the convention by making the case that he can’t beat McCain.

  37. 37.

    Martin

    March 12, 2008 at 6:25 pm

    Martin, I would never had made that connection. But thanks for giving the right a stellar talking point.

    But satisfy my curiousity, are you saying Obama’s blackness makes him unqualified?

    Rush already made the connection. See the quote above. And Rush didn’t need to make the connection because Ferraro made the statement with the *intent* of making that connection. Sooner or later she was going to get it through his fat head. Why have a dialog with O’Reilly if that wasn’t the intent?

    I think Obama is eminently qualified, but I think Clinton has repeatedly failed to make the case that he is less qualified than she is. Ferraro forces the listener to conclude that he *must* be unqualified by sheer fact that he is here and black, because she says quite clearly that he wouldn’t be here if he was white. What other conclusion does she lead us to draw, but that he is unqualified? And why would a prominent Democrat say such a thing about a member of her own party, so clearly she is telling the truth!

    And you guys are buying into that last statement in a different way as well by saying that she’s an idiot. She isn’t. She’s ruthless.

  38. 38.

    Sasha

    March 12, 2008 at 6:26 pm

    Sasha, I agree that Ferraro is an idiot. But blaming the loss of the Dem candidate on her is a bit of a stretch. We’ll do it to ourselves with this stupid bickering. In today’s episode Hillary comes out like a bitch and Obama like a victim—doesn’t matter if either statement is remotely true.

    There isn’t a Dem loss yet to blame Ferraro for, and hopefully there won’t be. But her lack of humility and apparent relish to keep a divisive issue alive will do nothing but hurt the Dems and help the GOP. Her actions virually ensure that the stupid bickering will not only continue, but will intensify.

  39. 39.

    tBone

    March 12, 2008 at 6:27 pm

    Anyway, I’m sure myiq2xu will be along shortly to defend Ferraro’s comments.

    Nah, myiq2 won’t address Ferraro’s comments directly because he knows they’re indefensible.

    Instead, he takes the reverse-racism angle and accuses Obama of racist dogwhistling. This involves a complex linguistic web that links Obama to Denzel Washington, Malcolm X, Farrakhan, and possibly the Illuminati.

    It’s quite fascinating. If I were myiq2, I’d demand a bonus along with my regular weekly check from Mark Penn.

  40. 40.

    wwz

    March 12, 2008 at 6:27 pm

    You are cunfusing Ferraro with Clinton. Don’t feel bad. It’s happening all over the place.

  41. 41.

    TheFountainHead

    March 12, 2008 at 6:28 pm

    I don’t know what I’m more pissed about right now. The gall of this woman to make overtly awful comments as she did and then claim the Obama camp is attacking HER, or the fact that the powers that be in the Democratic party have not stepped in to end this yet. Unbelievable. Right now the possibility of an Obama presidency is the only thing keeping me in this party. Short of that, they can all just go to hell.

    Oh yeah, and another $25 to Obama for Ferraro’s kamikaze attack.

  42. 42.

    Cain

    March 12, 2008 at 6:29 pm

    As for me, I get a kick out of Ferraro’s defying those lily-livers who shriek “racism” at every turn. Makes me smile with pleasure.

    Tim, you’ve got some serious blinders on. What you’re seeing is political theater calculated to bring out a particular kind of emotion from PA voters. To claim that someone is where they are because of race is beyond stupid. How can you gain an advantage from 14% of the population without some support from the other 86%? You need appeal to 37% or more of the main stream population to win. That’s still a significant number.

    Morever, if you think about a white woman complaining about a black man attacking her probably inspires all kinds of interesting stuff if you lead them to think that way. She’s got nothing; this kind of attacks is all she got and she’s a total loser. Worse she’s embracing and merging with the right wing slime machine to do it against a fellow democratic. That takes a special kind of class.

    In the end though, the move is still pretty risky because the democratic establishment may react negatively to this. There might be a blacklash.

    If I were Obama, I would simply respond with “What’s wrong with being black?”. Just that out and see what kind of parsing Ferarro comes out. Let her destroy her own credibility.

    cain

  43. 43.

    John S.

    March 12, 2008 at 6:29 pm

    But you have to admit my taking what you said to mean women are bitches is a valid conclusion to draw.

    Cranky white woman = bitch?

    That seems like quite a stretch. I mean, most of the older white women in my family are pretty cranky at times, but I don’t think of them as bitches.

    My recently departed grandmother was definitely bitchy an awful lot, but I thought of her as a curmudgeon.

  44. 44.

    dslak

    March 12, 2008 at 6:30 pm

    You are cunfusing Ferraro with Clinton.

    It could be worse. They could be confusing Denzel Washington with Louis Farrakhan.

  45. 45.

    John S.

    March 12, 2008 at 6:31 pm

    Let her destroy her own credibility.

    Geraldine Ferraro still has credibility left to destroy?

  46. 46.

    rob!

    March 12, 2008 at 6:34 pm

    i just saw Pat “Equal Opportunity Hata” Buchanan on Hardball saying “it was a mistake for the Obama campaign to call Ferraro a racist.”

    problem is, THEY NEVER SAID THAT. ever. Obama made comments, sure, but he never called Ferraro a racist.

    gee, it must be easy going on TV when you don’t have to worry about, y’know, knowing stuff.

  47. 47.

    Mike S

    March 12, 2008 at 6:35 pm

    Ferarro’s comments were bitter, not racist.

    I tend to agree with that in some ways. Her innitial comments were more bitter than racist. It was the follow ups that went over the line. People weren’t attacking her because she was white, that’s absurd. They were attacking her because she is an idiot.

    But the net positive for Hillary here is the white men who were skipped over a promotion that was given to someone of color. As is so often the case those white men weren’t passed over because they suck, it’s because the black man held them down.

    But there is a lot of bitterness out there. In some ways I can understand it. Women finally have a candidate who is totally viable. And unfortunately for them there is a completely viable man of color there too. And even more unfortunately for them he is running a spactacular campaign.

    I think that many of Obama’s supporters would be bitter and saying idiotic things too if the roles were reversed.

  48. 48.

    PaulW

    March 12, 2008 at 6:37 pm

    D-Chance. Says:

    Ferraro wrote in a letter to Clinton. “The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won’t let that happen.”

    So, even in resignation, it’s the poor white woman being “attacked” by the evil black man… and the poor white woman is doing the heroic deed of protecting another white woman from being “hurt” by the evil black man. God, Geraldine, just shut up!

    Dear Ms. Ferraro. There’s a reason why the Obama campaign is attacking you, and it’s not to hurt the Clinton campaign. They were attacking you BECAUSE YOU ATTACKED THEM FIRST! You cannot claim victimhood when YOU were the one to start the damn thing in the first place! If anyone was hurting the Clinton campaign, IT WAS YOU MS. FERRARO! It was YOU making racist remarks (and they are racist) accusing Obama of benefiting from affirmative action rather than from his own success. Does affirmative action explain his ability to win elections?! NO! He won those strictly on merit (and because the Republicans put up a crazy guy doing a Tim Meadows impression for the Senate campaign).

    Swear to Ceiling Cat, this is like dealing with 7th graders.

    Beth from My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy found me a nice /facepalm photo of Knut, hoping I cans borrow it.

  49. 49.

    Sasha

    March 12, 2008 at 6:37 pm

    i just saw Pat “Equal Opportunity Hata” Buchanan on Hardball saying “it was a mistake for the Obama campaign to call Ferraro a racist.”

    problem is, THEY NEVER SAID THAT. ever. Obama made comments, sure, but he never called Ferraro a racist.

    gee, it must be easy going on TV when you don’t have to worry about, y’know, knowing stuff.

    That’s probably what Hillary is angling for — six weeks of Obama being inaccurately referred to as some kind of “-ist”. The GOP was just tagged in to verbalize the meme.

  50. 50.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 12, 2008 at 6:37 pm

    i just saw Pat “Equal Opportunity Hata” Buchanan on Hardball saying “it was a mistake for the Obama campaign to call Ferraro a racist.”

    As long as Pat keeps that bag of cloves around his neck to cover the old man smell, he’ll have a place on television. He’s a pundit now.

  51. 51.

    dslak

    March 12, 2008 at 6:40 pm

    I think that many of Obama’s supporters would be bitter and saying idiotic things too if the roles were reversed.

    Except that, early on, blacks were tilted toward Hillary. I assume that’s the equivalent group on the Obama side that would be playing victimized identity politics.

  52. 52.

    w vincentz

    March 12, 2008 at 6:41 pm

    Well…now that Eliot will have some time on his hands and post menopausal Gerry has freed herself of commitments, perhaps they can get together and comp each other some hot flashes. Any port in a storm, disregard lightning plz.

  53. 53.

    dslak

    March 12, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    Something just happened here with w vincentz’s post that will change this thread forever.

  54. 54.

    Conservatively Liberal

    March 12, 2008 at 6:44 pm

    How would that have helped?

    I did not mean that it would help Hillary win, but that it would have helped cover her ass after the war is over. I do not think that she would have even considered what I said above, but rather my observation shows (to me) that Hillary is not sincere about her not playing the race card. This was a deliberate ploy on their part, and I think it went exactly as they expected it to.

    Ferraro is now a martyr, a victim of race politics. Just like Hillary is a victim. Now Ferraro can stay in play for Hillary, and there is no visible link between them. The fact that she is unrepentant, and that Hillary still will not reject and/or denounce Ferraro tells me that this is what they wanted.

    The intended perception is that Obama, his campaign, his supporters and the MSM have unfairly attacked two prominent Democratic women. This following on the heels of a decisive win for Obama in MS, which is being used by the MSM to underscore that whites are voting white and blacks are voting black, just keeps the ‘Obama is black!’ narrative going.

    I am glad that I have never even considered voting for Hillary. She is exceeding my expectations in how low she will go, and I don’t think we have seen the end of it.

    It is called ‘poisoning the well’ at this point, IMO.

  55. 55.

    Cain

    March 12, 2008 at 6:44 pm

    I think that many of Obama’s supporters would be bitter and saying idiotic things too if the roles were reversed.

    So you recommend the Jesus strategy? Let Obama show class by showing sympathy and say he will embrace her as a sister? Let the pony do that.

    cain

  56. 56.

    Rarely Posts

    March 12, 2008 at 6:44 pm

    Okay, Martin. I thought you were making up the Rush quote. Let’s all step back and let Rush frame our primary. Because that’s what he’s doing.

  57. 57.

    Cain

    March 12, 2008 at 6:48 pm

    Okay, Martin. I thought you were making up the Rush quote. Let’s all step back and let Rush frame our primary. Because that’s what he’s doing.

    Not just Rush, but all of them. Ferraro going to every talk show that can write her name and spewing her nonsense is what it’s all about. Worse these demagogues love their new power of being able to take down someone through a innuendo.

    This Ferraro thing looks like tag team wrestling where Ferraro got the nod to fight in the ring. Obama in turn should get Michelle into the ring and let’s see what happens then. Michelle will kick Ferraro’s ass.

    cain

  58. 58.

    Brachiator

    March 12, 2008 at 6:48 pm

    All she had to do was shut up, but she couldn’t. Instead, she went on the offensive…

    I am not saying that this was a deliberate strategy, but it is working to deflect questions about Senator Clinton’s padding of her experience.

    Instead, we have the absurd, but easily accepted view that Hillary Clinton is, by definition, qualified to do anything because she is a strong woman, even though her actual qualifications to be president have everything to do with her marriage to Bill Clinton and nothing to do with her own independent accomplishments.

    On the other hand, we not only have the Obama is only doing well because he is black, which is contradicted by his actual performance during the campaign, but we also have Mickey Kaus in Slate Magazine, for example, going the whole hog to suggest that Obama is not a legitimate contender because he has supposedly benefited from affirmative action (Ferraro’s “Kinsley Gaffe”).

    So, family and social connections, nepotism, the advantages gained by marriage — hell, this is hard work that would make Horatio Alger proud. None of this need be challenged, questioned, or vetted. Unless you’re black.

  59. 59.

    dslak

    March 12, 2008 at 6:49 pm

    Now here comes the “Obama is a wussy, PC liberal” meme

    Former Maryland Lieutenant Gov. Michael Steele, who is black, said that Ferraro’s comments are true, and the fact she can’t speak them “goes to the heart and ugliness of racism.” He said Obama’s candidacy is not diminished by her words, but an oversensitivity is harming debate in America.

    “It just speaks to the fact that race, no matter how you slice and dice it,” is all too present in people’s minds, he said.

  60. 60.

    skippy

    March 12, 2008 at 6:50 pm

    if you were secure in your masculinity and whiteliness

    oh yeah, i’m secure in my masculinity, but i’m really secure in my whiteliness. i’m very whitely. i’m one of the whiteliest guys you’ll meet. whitely and masculinly, too.

    it’s too bad obama has to parade his blackliness around. he’s so blackly, there’s no problem w/ferraro pointing out how blackly he is. she’s confident in her feminineliness, she’s very femininely, and whitely, too.

    but he has to cry victimly when a whitely person simply says he’s blackly, it’s disgustingly.

  61. 61.

    Pb

    March 12, 2008 at 6:56 pm

    Yep–racist, intentional, and despicable. Want (more) proof? She was shopping this shit around weeks ago, to John “madrassa” Gibson of all people. Dear Hillary, Geraldine, Mark Penn, et. al–STFU and GTFO. I don’t care WTF you do instead–start a conservative talk radio show for all I care. Just go away.

  62. 62.

    Martin

    March 12, 2008 at 6:58 pm

    Again, Ferraro is the one that put racism out there – not Obama:

    Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up,” Ferraro said. “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

    Obama never said she was racist, she willingly thrust that mantle on herself because it furthers her agenda here.

    I’m not suggesting we let Rush frame our primary. I’m saying that Clinton is using Rush to frame our primary. I’m making an accusation.

  63. 63.

    Conservatively Liberal

    March 12, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    … or the fact that the powers that be in the Democratic party have not stepped in to end this yet. …

    What? The same ‘impeachment is off the table’, ‘keeping our powder dry’ Democrats who view their jobs as careers and not commitments to their constituents and country? Sorry, but years ago someone stole their spines. All they know now is to do whatever they can to remain in office for as long as they can, and to curry favor wherever they can.

    These spineless idiots want to be on the winning team, yet they are too scared to cross the Clinton clan even though Obama is coming out as the clear winner. This is a perfect example of why I am no longer a Democrat. They have the ideas I like, but they refuse to lead. They all wait to see what the general consensus is, and then they jump behind it enmasse in the name of job security.

    Democrats have some brains and yet no spines. Republicans have steel spines and no brains. We need leaders, and we have a herd of lemmings leading us.

  64. 64.

    Martin

    March 12, 2008 at 7:05 pm

    I think the Jesus move is the winner here. Obama needs to take the wind out of this and find something to pivot onto. Not sure what off the top of my head, though.

    that it would have helped cover her ass after the war is over

    She doesn’t need to cover her ass. In fact, if Obama’s polling should go to hell over this, what are the delegates going to say? There could be 100% agreement in the room that Hillary took him out on race, but if she’s the one with the best shot 10 weeks from the election, what choice do they have?

  65. 65.

    Rarely Posts

    March 12, 2008 at 7:05 pm

    Why did Obama’s campaign ask that she be fired then?

    I do think we are letting Rush and his ilk frame our debate. I don’t think what she said was racist. Obama should have laughed it off and exposed her for the idiot she is, just like Clinton should have laughed off the monster comment.

    We are handing the Republicans four more years in the White House.

  66. 66.

    dslak

    March 12, 2008 at 7:08 pm

    Am I the only one who failed to notice Rarely Post’s concern about the Powers/”monster” thing before it became a convenient counterpoint?

  67. 67.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 12, 2008 at 7:10 pm

    She doesn’t need to cover her ass. In fact, if Obama’s polling should go to hell over this, what are the delegates going to say? There could be 100% agreement in the room that Hillary took him out on race, but if she’s the one with the best shot 10 weeks from the election, what choice do they have?

    Yep, and during the general she can say that McCain got where he is by being an old white man who intentionally remained in a N. Vietnamese prison camp. That ought to work out real well for her.

  68. 68.

    Cain

    March 12, 2008 at 7:11 pm

    Speaking of which, it’s all quiet in pony land. They need to get their act together and come up with a counter message or something. Letting it go gives Ferraro an advantage. That’s not very smart.

    cain

  69. 69.

    Rarely Posts

    March 12, 2008 at 7:12 pm

    Am I the only one who failed to notice Rarely Post’s concern about the Powers/”monster” thing before it became a convenient counterpoint?

    Probably.

  70. 70.

    Pug

    March 12, 2008 at 7:13 pm

    Obama said, and I quote: “I don’t think her [Ferraro] comments are racist, I think they are ridiculous”. Pretty much sums it up. Nothing more really needs be said.

    Obama’s campaign should move on and let Ferraro’s dumb comments speak for themselves. They will fall under the weight of their own stupidity, especially in light of the fact she said the exact same thing about Jesse Jackson in 1988.

    She really does come across as not much more than a bitter old woman. If this is supposed to help the Hillary campaign, I don’t see how. If the Clinton campaign is reduced to this kind of thing in a desperate attempt to get the Pennsylvania red-neck vote, they are so finished.

  71. 71.

    John D.

    March 12, 2008 at 7:13 pm

    I don’t think what she said was racist.

    If you honestly believe that, please define “racist”.

    Dictionary.com defines racism as “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement”. If you can explain to me how “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.” does not claim that his individual achievement is due to his race, I’d like to hear *that* explanation.

    Her comment may not have been malicious (though I personally believe it was), pandering (though I personally believe it was), or insensitive (though — again — I personally believe it was), but there is no damn way it was not racist. She made a specific claim that his candidacy was dependent upon his RACE.

  72. 72.

    Rarely Posts

    March 12, 2008 at 7:18 pm

    If you honestly believe that, please define “racist”.

    Ask Obama, he agrees with me. You people are destroying the Democratic party, not Hillary or Obama.

    All of you and your stupid, petty, bull shit.

  73. 73.

    dslak

    March 12, 2008 at 7:19 pm

    Rarely Posts Says:

    Probably

    Google sez: No.

  74. 74.

    jake

    March 12, 2008 at 7:20 pm

    Former Maryland Lieutenant Gov. Michael Steele, who is ^another Republican dickhead who pulled the “fake ballots handed out by the homeless” stunt a county with a high African-American population…

    Fixed!

    From the article:

    Inaccurate sample ballots describing Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. and Senate candidate Michael S. Steele as Democrats were handed out to voters in at least four polling sites in Prince George’s County this morning.

    Maybe he can take Ferraro’s place in Camp Clinton.

  75. 75.

    Pb

    March 12, 2008 at 7:22 pm

    You people

    Racist.

  76. 76.

    John D.

    March 12, 2008 at 7:24 pm

    Ask Obama, he agrees with me. You people are destroying the Democratic party, not Hillary or Obama.

    All of you and your stupid, petty, bull shit.

    Obama is taking the high road, for political reasons.

    I’m asking *you* to define “racist”. I’m asking *you* to back up your claim that her comments were not racist.

    The rest of my post was my explanation why I think her comments were racist. Whadda ya know, I still do. Amazing.

  77. 77.

    Mike S

    March 12, 2008 at 7:24 pm

    So you recommend the Jesus strategy? Let Obama show class by showing sympathy and say he will embrace her as a sister? Let the pony do that.

    I just checked my comment. Funny, I said no such thing.

    I think Obama needs to take the gloves off. People need to know that he will fight when he needs too. That is one of the big worris for people. That plan A fails and he has no plan B.

  78. 78.

    Martin

    March 12, 2008 at 7:25 pm

    Obama campaign finds humor

    (apparently it is indeed real)

  79. 79.

    dslak

    March 12, 2008 at 7:27 pm

    I think Obama needs to take the gloves off.

    So black people only know how to box? Racist!

  80. 80.

    Mary

    March 12, 2008 at 7:29 pm

    Fucking brilliant. Sure, Fisking is so 2002, but that was nicely done.

  81. 81.

    IanY77

    March 12, 2008 at 7:35 pm

    Reminds me of that little douchenozzle Ben Domenech after his plagarism was outed: “I’m just glad you spent the last few days bashing me instead of bashing America”.

  82. 82.

    dslak

    March 12, 2008 at 7:38 pm

    Obama’s got some ‘splainin to do.

    I did like this bit for pure comedy:

    Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.

    That’s gonna leave a mark!

  83. 83.

    Pug

    March 12, 2008 at 7:39 pm

    The Clintons believe they can spin their way to the nomination. It’s a joke and Obama should treat it as such, like in the Time article.

  84. 84.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 7:39 pm

    Bingo, now to go for a twofer and play the victim card to make sure the cranky white female vote comes out.

    Ah yes, because we cranky white females are so stupid we can only do what we’re told by our female leader.

  85. 85.

    Rarely Posts

    March 12, 2008 at 7:40 pm

    Google sez: No.

    No offense, but your link was me saying the column in WAPO was disgusting. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.

  86. 86.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 7:40 pm

    I look forward to hearing Mr. Cole make the argument that Obama brings out the cranky black vote.

    But that would be racist, wouldn’t it.

    Sexism is okay.

  87. 87.

    Rarely Posts

    March 12, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    Obama is taking the high road, for political reasons.

    You’re saying inside he thinks it was racist and is just lying? Wow, maybe it just isn’t racist.

    It was bitter. There is nothing wrong with being a black man these days. I’m not sure how I can prove it wasn’t racist, it just wasn’t, in my opinion and in Obama’s. Unless like you claim, he’s just pretending.

  88. 88.

    Mike S

    March 12, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    Obama’s got some ‘splainin to do.

    What does he have to explain? That a pastor endorsed him?

    Silly season indeed.

  89. 89.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 7:45 pm

    The only thing I heard Obama say today about this was that he didn’t think Ferraro meant anything racist, but that the remark was pretty ridiculous.

    So why is anyone stating that he thought the comments were racist?

    In any case, the argument re racist v. non-racist is a jackalope. The whole subject is designed to put a racial component into the public perception of the contest. It isn’t necessary to actually BE racist in order to pull that off.

  90. 90.

    dslak

    March 12, 2008 at 7:49 pm

    No offense, but your link was me saying the column in WAPO was disgusting.

    No offense, but you seem to have confused the contents of my linke with something else.

    On the one post you made on that thread, which dealt with the fallout from the “monster” comment of Powers’s, you only mentioned Sully saying that Hillarys “3 a.m.” ad might be racist.

    Thus, it seems you really didn’t consider the calls for Powers’s dismissal to be objectional until after a similar situation happened with Hillary’s campaign. It’s awfully convenient that such behavior has only become deplorable as soon as it hurt your preferred candidate.

  91. 91.

    dslak

    March 12, 2008 at 7:51 pm

    What does he have to explain? That a pastor endorsed him?

    I’m not saying he’s morally obligated to explain anything, but the pressure for him to have a “Sistah Souljah Moment” is going to be pretty high for as long as this story’s out there.

  92. 92.

    jake

    March 12, 2008 at 7:55 pm

    The only thing I heard Obama say today about this was that he didn’t think Ferraro meant anything racist, but that the remark was pretty ridiculous.

    So why is anyone stating that he thought the comments were racist?

    1. Because racist and ridiculous both start with an “R” followed by vowel and a consonant.

    2. Because he’s an angry black man, of course he thinks her comments were racist, those people think everything is racist!

    3. Nothing good on TV.

    Those are my guesses.

  93. 93.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 8:00 pm

    Keith Olberman special comment:

    Word. If you missed it, the rebroadcast is in 3 hours.

    “Unless you say something definitive, the former congresswoman is saying these things with your approval.”

  94. 94.

    John S.

    March 12, 2008 at 8:03 pm

    I look forward to hearing Mr. Cole make the argument that Obama brings out the cranky black vote.

    Boy, I’m sure glad I don’t see the world through that prism of yours.

    I’ll save John Cole the trouble, but with a slight modification. While I think it is certainly true that Obama brings out the black vote, Hillary is proving to be far better at brining out the cranky black vote for him. Nothing wakes up a sleeping giant like sticking a red-hot poker in its eye.

    Now get out your prism and call me a racist.

  95. 95.

    John D.

    March 12, 2008 at 8:04 pm

    Wow, maybe it just isn’t racist.

    OK, look, stop being defensive for a sec, and answer the question I asked above. I do not want Obama’s take. I do not want Ferraro’s take. I do not want Clinton’s take.

    I want YOUR explanation as to how her comment does not meet the dictionary definition of racism. She claimed, specifically, that his position as a candidate was due to him being a black man. I literally cannot interpret her remark in any way that does not involve racism — she made his candidacy solely about race with that comment.

    I am not claiming that she hates blacks. I am not claiming that she thinks blacks are inferior. I am simply reading her words, that makes a claim that his successful candidacy is based solely on his being a black man. That is a racist statement, by definition — the definition I quoted above.

    I’m sorry if you feel like the language is in error, but I’ll go with the meanings of words rather than your special definitions.

  96. 96.

    John S.

    March 12, 2008 at 8:04 pm

    Ah yes, because we cranky white females black folk are so stupid we can only do what we’re told by our female black leaders.

    Fixed that for Ferraro-speak.

  97. 97.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 8:06 pm

    Fixed that for Ferraro-speak.

    Thanks for making my point.

  98. 98.

    John S.

    March 12, 2008 at 8:10 pm

    Thanks for making my point.

    Oh, your point was that Ferraro made a moronic statement?

    I must have missed that in between you trying to somehow contort this into a sexism issue.

  99. 99.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 12, 2008 at 8:11 pm

    Guess we’re going to be seeing lots of the black people out on the streets wildly celebrating their gratitude for their blackness and where it’s gotten them.

  100. 100.

    dslak

    March 12, 2008 at 8:12 pm

    I think there’s something to Sojourner’s point, but Camille Paglia has said something along similar lines here and here.

    In Paglia’s case, she’s deploring a certain kind of feminism, not being misogynist. Maybe that’s what John’s doing here (the sexist bastard!)?

  101. 101.

    jake

    March 12, 2008 at 8:19 pm

    Guess we’re going to be seeing lots of the black people out on the streets wildly celebrating their gratitude for their blackness and where it’s gotten them.

    Yep, it’s called St. Patrick’s day. Duh!

  102. 102.

    John S.

    March 12, 2008 at 8:21 pm

    Hillary, her shrill voice much improved and lowered through brutal overstrain, has certainly gained confidence and performance skill on the campaign trail, but I still don’t trust her.

    Why does Camille Paglia hate women?

  103. 103.

    w vincentz

    March 12, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    Martin,
    Tnx for the humor link. Good.

    Hey, did ya notice how bitchy the ol’ ex-vp (loser) candidate looks. Did the batteries in her vibrator die or did they just quit, kinda like she did?

  104. 104.

    John S.

    March 12, 2008 at 8:25 pm

    “Media misogyny has reached an all-time high,” screeched the National Organization for Women in a press release titled “Ignorance and Venom: The Media’s Deeply Ingrained Sexism.” Groan. If women are going to play in the geopolitical big league, they’d better toughen up and learn how to deal with all the curveballs. Never has the soppy emotionalism of old-guard feminist reasoning been on such open and embarrassing display.

    Methinks sojourner is not a big fan of Camille Paglia.

  105. 105.

    Conservatively Liberal

    March 12, 2008 at 8:25 pm

    Whoa, Keith Olbermann ripped Hillary and Geraldine up one side and down another in his Special Comment. That is going to hurt, and Keith can bet he has been removed from from Hillary’s BFF list. This is the first time I have seen him rip in to a specific Democrat, and he did not hold back.

    The Hillbots are going to go ballistic over this. Time to get a large bag of popcorn (buttered, of course) and lurk at the Hillbot sites.

    Ok, I like trainwrecks and I am a rubbernecker. ;)

  106. 106.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 8:30 pm

    I think there’s something to Sojourner’s point, but Camille Paglia has said something along similar lines here and here.

    Guys, look at this objectively. John S. (probably unintentionally) said it all. Why is it wrong to make generalizations on the basis of race but okay to do the same thing on the basis of gender?

    Why is it okay for John to stereotype cranky white women but it’s not okay to stereotype black people?

    It’s a pretty simple question that BJers seem to want to dance around.

  107. 107.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 8:32 pm

    Methinks sojourner is not a big fan of Camille Paglia.

    You’re right. I stopped listening to her when she claimed that Madonna is the ultimate feminist because she controls men with her sexuality.

    A man’s wet dream. Not mine.

  108. 108.

    John S.

    March 12, 2008 at 8:46 pm

    Why is it wrong to make generalizations on the basis of race but okay to do the same thing on the basis of gender?

    It isn’t and apparently you didn’t get the point I was trying to make.

    It isn’t about making generalizations or whether or not they are acceptable, it is about what Ferraro said and what it means. Let me try again.

    If the Clinton campaign plays the victim card, they are hoping to draw out their most solid base of support which tends to be older white women (a point Paglia makes in the article dslak linked to). This is not a sexist statement, although the purpose of the above strategy is to play off sexism and use it as an issue.

    If the Obama campaign plays the race card, they are hoping to draw out their most solid base of support which tends to be African-Americans. This is not a racist statement, although the purpose of the above strategy is to play off racism and use it as an issue.

    What Ferraro has done (and Clinton allowed her to do) is play both the victim card and the race card. Once the race card was thrown on the table, the Clinton camp waited for Obama to point to it and say, “There’s a race card at play!” and then threw their victim card (while ignoring the fact that they threw the race card to begin with). That’s complete and utter bullshit.

    So while I agree that it isn’t okay to make generalizations on the basis of sex or race, your critique in this instance has no place and no merit.

  109. 109.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 8:49 pm

    Why is it wrong to make generalizations on the basis of race but okay to do the same thing on the basis of gender?

    Why do you stubbornly refuse to see that if she uses the First Lady solution to explain why she is qualified to be president, when she uses gender as a qualifier (glass ceilings, woo hoo a woman president) then she puts the gender card on the table and it’s in play.

    Is there some reason that you can’t see that? Maybe it’s because I am saying it? Ignore me, and please just look at the point. Obama is not using his race to justify his claim to the nomination. If he were, then his race would be in play. She is using gender and her President By Injection history, so it’s in play.

    Help me Jesus! Why can’t they get this simple point?

  110. 110.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:00 pm

    So while I agree that it isn’t okay to make generalizations on the basis of sex or race, your critique in this instance has no place and no merit.

    Too bad my critique has nothing to do with what Ferraro said. My critique was of John Cole’s stereotype of cranky white women mindlessly voting for Clinton.

    This cranky white woman DID NOT vote for Clinton.

    So why is it acceptable to stereotype cranky white women as mindlessly voting for Clinton?

    I have yet to hear anyone at BJ claim that African Americans are mindlessly vote for a black candidate. Because that, of course, would be racist.

    Hence my conclusion that,as far as the BJ guys are concerned, racism is bad but sexism is acceptable.

  111. 111.

    John S.

    March 12, 2008 at 9:00 pm

    I stopped listening to her when she claimed that Madonna is the ultimate feminist because she controls men with her sexuality.

    I don’t know if Madonna is the ultimate feminist, but she sure as hell has singlehandedly acheived many of the primary goals of feminism.

    After all, Sojourner Truth (who I presume you borrowed your handle from) said:

    If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it. The men better let them.

    Madonna turned the world upside down with her unabashed sexuality (much like Eve did, hence Paglia’s reference to her control over men), and didn’t ask anyone’s permission to do so. She just did it. She may not have turned the world ‘right side up’, but she did what she wanted on her own terms and became very successful in the process.

  112. 112.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    Why is it okay for John to stereotype cranky white women but it’s not okay to stereotype black people?

    Ummm, by adding in the word “cranky” there, you ruin your own argument. It is okay to comment on crankiness no matter WHO is the cranky one.

  113. 113.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:03 pm

    So why is it acceptable to stereotype cranky white women as mindlessly voting for Clinton?

    I have yet to hear anyone at BJ claim that African Americans are mindlessly vote for a black candidate. Because that, of course, would be racist.

    Hence my conclusion that,as far as the BJ guys are concerned, racism is bad but sexism is acceptable.

    Where are you getting that? I have been riding the MUPony hard for a couple months … I don’t remember ever saying ANYTHING about women voting for Hillary. Or blacks voting for Obama.

    I don’t remember seeing a lot of chatter here on those themes at all, one way or the other.

    The chatter about women has been mostly about women being paranoid every time anyone criticizes Hillary.

  114. 114.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:04 pm

    Why do you stubbornly refuse to see that if she uses the First Lady solution to explain why she is qualified to be president, when she uses gender as a qualifier (glass ceilings, woo hoo a woman president) then she puts the gender card on the table and it’s in play.

    TZ: when have I EVER defended what Clinton is doing?

    Go back and read what I said when I joined this thread. I challenged Cole’s statement about cranky white women mindlessly voting for Clinton.

    That is a sexist comment and I stand by my challenge of it.

    I patiently await someone explaining why it’s okay to use sexist language but it’s not okay to use racist language.

    Which is a question I addressed to you in a previous thread. I will pose it again:

    Serious question: I know hypotheticals suck but let’s assume that Hillary is a black male candidate. Would it be acceptable to make racial jokes about him?

  115. 115.

    Martin

    March 12, 2008 at 9:04 pm

    She claimed, specifically, that his position as a candidate was due to him being a black man.

    Truthfully, I think there are contexts where that statement isn’t racist. Obama is comparably qualified as Clinton (if he wasn’t she would have been able to draw that out by now), so this context is already looking like a loser. But let’s twist it about a bit. What if Axelrod said it? Well, we wouldn’t say it’s racist at all. What if Olberman said it? We’d probably pause.

    But Ferraro is on the Clinton campaign. We shouldn’t expect her to be saying positive things about Obama. We really wouldn’t even expect her to say neutral things about him. It’s reasonable to expect that she’d say something negative, just as people assume that Obama staffers aren’t setting up good things to say about her. But Ferraro isn’t new to this. She’s been in politics for decades. She knew that comment would be received as being offensive, and not only did she say it, she keeps defending saying it. She’s trying to stand up as a neutral participant here, but she isn’t neutral and she knows she’s not neutral. When you are in a campaign against a black person you can’t make innocent comments about race – because there are no innocent comments from partisans. And Obama’s camp can’t make innocent comments about gender either.

  116. 116.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:05 pm

    Ummm, by adding in the word “cranky” there, you ruin your own argument. It is okay to comment on crankiness no matter WHO is the cranky one.

    John Cole’s term not mine. See what he wrote above.

  117. 117.

    Pb

    March 12, 2008 at 9:06 pm

    So why is it acceptable to stereotype […] Hence my conclusion that,as far as the BJ guys are concerned

    Stereotyping: still not acceptable, so stop doing it, thanks.

  118. 118.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:07 pm

    Madonna turned the world upside down with her unabashed sexuality (much like Eve did, hence Paglia’s reference to her control over men), and didn’t ask anyone’s permission to do so. She just did it. She may not have turned the world ‘right side up’, but she did what she wanted on her own terms and became very successful in the process.

    And fed into the stereotype that women should be evaluated primarily on their sexual appeal to men. That’s a male view of the world. I like to think that women are more than just sexual objects for male fantasies.

  119. 119.

    Conservatively Liberal

    March 12, 2008 at 9:08 pm

    Help me Jesus! Why can’t they get this simple point?

    Because it makes sense?

    In my view, the tactics of the Clinton campaign has been to play the card they want, and when it is pointed out by Obama or his supporters they put out the meme that the other side has put that card in play. It is like someone who sticks their leg out and trips you, and when you get up and confront them about it they throw themselves on the ground, start crying to make sure that everyone sees you are a mean bully.

    Victim politics. The big bad lucky black guy, his gang and the MSM are attacking two poor old white women, oh my!

    This crap has to end, but nobody in the Democratic party “leadership” has a spine left. There are no real ‘LEADERS’ in the party anymore. And we wonder why our country is in the mess it is? Because the Democratic party has failed to lead, and the Republican party has led us off a cliff.

    Lemmings, all. I don’t think Obama is a lemming, and I think the lemmings don’t know what to do about that. If he is elected, things may change and change scares them.

    It should.

  120. 120.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:08 pm

    That is a sexist comment

    Sorry, I can’t agree. If a woman is cranky, and someone calls her a cranky woman, that is not sexist. It is simple description.

    If we dont have that much leeway in speech, then …. WTF?

    How do we describe anything or talk to one another?

  121. 121.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:10 pm

    Where are you getting that? I have been riding the MUPony hard for a couple months … I don’t remember ever saying ANYTHING about women voting for Hillary. Or blacks voting for Obama.

    Read what I wrote. I was responding to a comment that John Cole made. See above.

  122. 122.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:10 pm

    I have yet to hear anyone at BJ claim that African Americans are mindlessly vote for a black candidate. Because that, of course, would be racist.

    Oh, I guess we should take the votes away from all black democratic women this year because they’ll probably vote for either a woman or a black man.

    Does this mean we can go back and erase all the white men’s votes for white men in past elections too?

    Sojourner, you’re making a STUPID argument, get over it and move on to something enlightening.

  123. 123.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:10 pm

    I know hypotheticals suck but let’s assume that Hillary is a black male candidate. Would it be acceptable to make racial jokes about him?

    I know this is not the answer you want to hear, but …

    If he were claiming qualification for the presidency based on his membership in a black militant organization …. yes.

    He is not. She on the other hand is using her position as Mrs President Ladyperson to claim such qualification.

    Since I have already failed umpteen times to make this point, I have to assume that it won’t work this time either

  124. 124.

    John S.

    March 12, 2008 at 9:12 pm

    Too bad my critique has nothing to do with what Ferraro said.

    Thanks for making my point.

    My critique was of John Cole’s stereotype of cranky white women mindlessly voting for Clinton.

    First of all, this ‘mindless’ thing is your interjection. Second of all, I didn’t read it as Cole stereotyping cranky white women, I read it as him saying that playing the victim card is intended to gain support with older white women (cranky or not). And that is a fact that seems to be borne out in polling throughout this election. And lastly, if the victim card appeals to a certain segment of voters, it isn’t becasue they are mindless, it’s because they are mindful of the message being sent to them.

    This cranky white woman DID NOT vote for Clinton.

    Congratulations, you’re in the minority.

    So why is it acceptable to stereotype cranky white women as mindlessly voting for Clinton?

    You like this word ‘mindless’, don’t you? At any rate, if someone points out that a specific strategy seems to resonate with a certain type of voter, is that stereotyping or making a simple observation?

  125. 125.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:13 pm

    John Cole’s term not mine. See what he wrote above.

    Did you have a bowl of stupid for breakfast this morning?

    You used a description (cranky) so, of course, no matter who is being cranky, it is okay to talk about if someone is being cranky… umm… HELLO? IS there anyone at home inside Sojourner’s head or she in some extended vacation?

  126. 126.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:13 pm

    Sorry, I can’t agree. If a woman is cranky, and someone calls her a cranky woman, that is not sexist. It is simple description.

    And which cranky woman was Cole referring to?

    Whoops. He wasn’t referring to any one cranky woman. He was implying that cranky white women vote for Clinton. Which is a stereotype.

    So why can’t you understand that this is a stereotype?

  127. 127.

    Martin

    March 12, 2008 at 9:14 pm

    The Hillbots are going to go ballistic over this. Time to get a large bag of popcorn (buttered, of course) and lurk at the Hillbot sites.

    Nah, they already hate Olberman. He has a penis after all.

    [Ferraro says: This post is not sexist]

  128. 128.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:14 pm

    If he were claiming qualification for the presidency based on his membership in a black militant organization …. yes.

    Which militant feminist group does Clinton have membership in?

  129. 129.

    myiq2xu

    March 12, 2008 at 9:15 pm

    Methinks sojourner is not a big fan of Camille Paglia.

    I miss Molly Ivins:

    Read Paglia, says he, you’ll have an opinion. So I did; and I do.

    Christ! Get this woman a Valium!

    Hand her a gin. Try meditation. Camille, honey, calm down!

    snip

    There is one area in which I think Paglia and I would agree that politically correct feminism has produced a noticeable inequity.
    Nowadays, when a woman behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, “Poor dear, it’s probably PMS.” Whereas, if a man behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, “What an asshole.”

    Let me leap to correct this unfairness by saying of Paglia,
    “Sheesh, what an asshole.”

  130. 130.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:15 pm

    Did you have a bowl of stupid for breakfast this morning?

    I like the Frosted Mini Stupids myself.

  131. 131.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:15 pm

    You like this word ‘mindless’, don’t you?

    Not only does she like the word, she’s trying to emulate it.

  132. 132.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:16 pm

    Stereotyping: still not acceptable, so stop doing it, thanks.

    So you’re saying that you agree with me that stereotyping women is a bad thing.

    Wonderful!

    But if you’re not, then so far exactly no one has come forward to challenge Cole’s stereotype other than me.

    Which means… gasp! I’m not stereotyping.

    Imagine that.

  133. 133.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:17 pm

    So why can’t you understand that this is a stereotype?

    Perhaps it’s because I’m a non-cranky white woman who is voting for Obama?

    You are trying to start a sexist war here, and it’s not working.

  134. 134.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:17 pm

    Nowadays, when a woman behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, “Poor dear, it’s probably PMS.’’ Whereas, if a man behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, “What an asshole.’’

    Let me leap to correct this unfairness by saying of Paglia,
    “Sheesh, what an asshole.”

    Funny stuff.

    Stop being funny. You’re job is to be unbearably obnoxious.

  135. 135.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:17 pm

    Does this mean we can go back and erase all the white men’s votes for white men in past elections too?

    Well this is certainly a stupid argument. Is this the best you can do?

  136. 136.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:19 pm

    And lastly, if the victim card appeals to a certain segment of voters, it isn’t becasue they are mindless, it’s because they are mindful of the message being sent to them.

    So you agree with Cole’s argument that only cranky white women are moved by the victim card.

    Interesting.

  137. 137.

    Conservatively Liberal

    March 12, 2008 at 9:20 pm

    The Keith Olbermann post over at Kos broke the comments for it. You can’t load them to read them now…lol

    Keith broke Kos, go figure… ;)

  138. 138.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:21 pm

    Which means… gasp! I’m not stereotyping.

    Uhhh, no it doesn’t, and your logic would recieve an F in a Reasoning and Critical Thinking class.

  139. 139.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:21 pm

    You used a description (cranky) so, of course, no matter who is being cranky, it is okay to talk about if someone is being cranky… umm… HELLO? IS there anyone at home inside Sojourner’s head or she in some extended vacation?

    OMG!!! LMAO. Hello, do you not know how to read?

    Read carefully. John Cole used the phrase “cranky white women.”

    I was challenging that description.

    Looks like you’re the one on vacation.

    Thanks for the laugh!!!

  140. 140.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:21 pm

    stereotyping women is a bad thing.

    Are you suggesting that it is not possible to rationally stereotype women? That women, like men, don’t have certain proclivities and traits that are more common to womanhood than to manhood?

    Don’t we all stereotype gender behavior, and isn’t that natural, and useful?

    Of the two genders, which one bitc …er, complains … about the sterotyping all the time? Do you hear men whining “stop stereotyping me as a man!” I haven’t taken a poll, but I think many of not most men are just fine with being thought of as typical men.

    What am I missing here?

    Yes, I am wearing a kevlar jockstrap.

  141. 141.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:23 pm

    Perhaps it’s because I’m a non-cranky white woman who is voting for Obama?

    Oh, okay. So you’re fine with stereotyping women.

    Whatever rocks your boat.

  142. 142.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:23 pm

    So you agree with Cole’s argument that only cranky white women are moved by the victim card.

    Ummm, please point to where JC said ONLY white women are moved by the victim card. I can cite at least one male who is moved by such as well, NoIQ comes to mind. By the way, the organization known as NOW has a lot of male members who are probably also pushing this victim thing. I think they do it because they wouldn’t get any at home if they didn’t.

  143. 143.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:24 pm

    Are you suggesting that it is not possible to rationally stereotype women? That women, like men, don’t have certain proclivities and traits that are more common to womanhood than to manhood?

    Perhaps. I’ll let you know when I hear some rational stereotyping.

  144. 144.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:25 pm

    I’ll let you know when I hear some rational stereotyping.

    facedesk
    facedesk
    facedesk
    facedesk
    facedesk
    …

  145. 145.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:25 pm

    Oh, okay. So you’re fine with stereotyping women.

    Sojourner, 3825 968!

    I’m not stereotyping women at all, it’s about stereotyping CRANKY, but, forget I mentioned it, you’d never understand anyway.

  146. 146.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:27 pm

    Ummm, please point to where JC said ONLY white women are moved by the victim card.

    Read what he wrote earlier in this thread.

  147. 147.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:30 pm

    Read carefully. John Cole used the phrase “cranky white women.”

    And white women are not the only ones who are ever cranky… you asked why it was okay to stereotype cranky white women and not black people? You did not use a description for black people, you just said “black people”. You answered your own question, and you don’t even realize it.

  148. 148.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:31 pm

    I’m not stereotyping women at all, it’s about stereotyping CRANKY, but, forget I mentioned it, you’d never understand anyway.

    Really? Then why did John add on the part about white women? Are you suggesting that ALL cranky voters are Clinton supporters? That CRANKY people mindlessly vote for Clinton?

    Now that would be an interesting argument. But that’s not what you’re saying, is it?

    Why is it that so far, absolutely NO ONE has been willing to say that it’s not okay to stereotype African Americans as mindlessly voting on the basis of race but it’s fine to stereotype “cranky white women” as Clinton voters?

    Why is that?

  149. 149.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:31 pm

    Read what he wrote earlier in this thread.

    You are the one who is deciding he said only white women are cranky.

  150. 150.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:31 pm

    My impression of Cole on this thread is that he is pulling your chain a little bit.

    Is that possible?

  151. 151.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:32 pm

    This is obviously not the same Sojourner whose posts I used to admire and enjoy. That Sojourner would never triangulate the way this one does.

  152. 152.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:33 pm

    Really? Then why did John add on the part about white women? Are you suggesting that ALL cranky voters are Clinton supporters? That CRANKY people mindlessly vote for Clinton?

    Because Geraldine Ferraro made this about race? Hello?

  153. 153.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:34 pm

    And white women are not the only ones who are ever cranky… you asked why it was okay to stereotype cranky white women and not black people?

    OMG. I had no idea this was such a challenging concept.

    My apologies, guys, for putting forth an idea that is outside your grasp.

    But as a rule of thumb, when you make a statement about a group of people, substitute “African American”. Maybe then you’ll have a better idea of why it’s not a good idea to stereotype women, cranky or otherwise.

  154. 154.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:35 pm

    My impression of Cole on this thread is that he is pulling your chain a little bit.

    Is that possible?

    Yep. And if he is, mega kudos, John!!!

  155. 155.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:36 pm

    Asti, I can be a cranky white male. If I am, what wouldn’t you feel like calling me something, like Butthead?

    If you did, and I came back and said, Please stop it with your sexist derision! I am not a stereotype! I demand equal treatment!

    What would you think? That maybe I was turning gay?

    (Yes, I am really wearing a kevlar jockstrap).

  156. 156.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:36 pm

    Because Geraldine Ferraro made this about race? Hello?

    Huh? Ferraro makes it an issue about race so it’s okay to bash cranky white women?

    Interesting.

  157. 157.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:37 pm

    Asti, I can be a cranky white male. If I am, what wouldn’t you feel like calling me something, like Butthead?

    Is this the best you can do, TZ?

    Not a good effort on your part.

  158. 158.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:37 pm

    My apologies, guys, for putting forth an idea that is outside your grasp.

    Stop sterotyping us men! I demand equal treatment!

  159. 159.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    My apologies, guys, for putting forth an idea that is outside your grasp.

    It’s not out of our grasp, it’s baseless, stupid and baiting for a sexism war.

    The fact is you decided to feel victimized and that’s what you’re pushing here and you’re looking like an idiot as a result.

  160. 160.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    Not a good effort on your part.

    How does my example differ from what you are doing?

    Seriously.

  161. 161.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:40 pm

    Huh? Ferraro makes it an issue about race so it’s okay to bash cranky white women?

    Interesting.

    JC is calling out those who are using race, and you got pulled in, now you don’t know how to admit you were wrong. Just get over it and let’s deal with REAL issues, shall we?

  162. 162.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:41 pm

    Stop sterotyping us men! I demand equal treatment!

    Poor baby. TZ doesn’t understand why sexism is as bad as racism.

    Maybe some day, everyone, even TZ, will understand that.

    In the mean time, I’m going to bed.

  163. 163.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:42 pm

    How does my example differ from what you are doing?

    Actually, yours was disguised better. Sojourner couldn’t even tactfully ask questions without using words that scream out “I’m being victimized”.

  164. 164.

    tBone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:43 pm

    Perhaps. I’ll let you know when I hear some rational stereotyping.

    How’s this: John McCain is primarily going to appeal to cranky old white women. And cranky old white men. Possibly some cranky old people of various other colors, as well.

  165. 165.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:43 pm

    The fact is you decided to feel victimized and that’s what you’re pushing here and you’re looking like an idiot as a

    I dont’ feel victimized in the least. I am absolutely fascinated that you folks cannot grasp the simple fact that sexism, like racism, is bad. Too bad for you.

  166. 166.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:44 pm

    Poor baby. TZ doesn’t understand why sexism is as bad as racism.

    You have no right to make that claim. You have no idea who you are talking about, I do, and I can tell you he cares a lot more about real victims than your crocodile tears suggest you do.

  167. 167.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:44 pm

    What about my answer to your hypothetical?

    Clinton flashes gender card, but cries sexism when gender-centered criticism is aimed at her.

    Obama does not employ race as justification for his claim to presidency, therefore, is not susceptible to race-centered responses.

    What am I missing?

  168. 168.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:46 pm

    JC is calling out those who are using race, and you got pulled in, now you don’t know how to admit you were wrong. Just get over it and let’s deal with REAL issues, shall we

    JC called people on their racism by using sexist stereotyping. Because only “cranky white women” are stupid enough to be fooled by Clinton’s victim card.

    So one form of stereotyping, racism, is wrong, but another form, sexism, is acceptable.

    Fascinating.

  169. 169.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:46 pm

    I dont’ feel victimized in the least. I am absolutely fascinated that you folks cannot grasp the simple fact that sexism, like racism, is bad. Too bad for you.

    It wasn’t sexist… JC did not say all women are cranky, he said a certain segment of the population are acting cranky right now. You are the one who trying to turn this into sexist baiting.

  170. 170.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:46 pm

    TZ doesn’t understand why sexism is as bad as racism.

    Well, I am having a hard time getting past the lynchings, the segregated facilities, Jim Crow, you know, little things like that …….

  171. 171.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:47 pm

    Actually, yours was disguised better. Sojourner couldn’t even tactfully ask questions without using words that scream out “I’m being victimized”.

    Actually, by challenging the use of stereotypes, I am the opposite of victims.

    Too bad for you since the “victim” label is so convenient.

  172. 172.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:47 pm

    So one form of stereotyping, racism, is wrong, but another form, sexism, is acceptable.

    Fascinating.

    Wrong, but, I would never expect you to understand, I’m done arguing with a wall.

  173. 173.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 12, 2008 at 9:47 pm

    How’s this: John McCain is primarily going to appeal to cranky old white women. And cranky old white men. Possibly some cranky old people of various other colors, as well.

    The way things are going, I’d say that the candidate who captures the cranky demographic will sweep all fifty states.

  174. 174.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:48 pm

    How does my example differ from what you are doing?

    What example? I missed it.

  175. 175.

    John S.

    March 12, 2008 at 9:48 pm

    So you agree with Cole’s argument that only cranky white women are moved by the victim card.

    I didn’t see anybody make that explicit claim. In my view, it is intended for a specific demographic, and anything above and beyond that is icing on the cake.

    Similarly, the race card is intended to appeal to a certain demographic, but clearly others are moved by it as well.

    At this point, I can only assume that you’re taking a piss at me.

  176. 176.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:49 pm

    Actually, by challenging the use of stereotypes, I am the opposite of victims.

    Methinks thou doth protest too much!

  177. 177.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:50 pm

    The way things are going, I’d say that the candidate who captures the cranky demographic will sweep all fifty states.

    For The Win.

    I saw a poll today that said that 76% of Americans wanted a president who would “do things differently from George Bush.”

    76% for crissakes. Wow. Can we get more photo ops for McPain hugging Bush?

  178. 178.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:51 pm

    What example? I missed it.

    My example of saying that you shouldn’t stereotype men the way you are doing here. We demand equal treatment!

    Stop the sexist attacks!

    Ahem.

  179. 179.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:51 pm

    76% for crissakes. Wow. Can we get more photo ops for McPain hugging Bush?

    Oh not just hugging, there must be kissing too, lots and lots of kissing (and holding hands, awwww!)

  180. 180.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 12, 2008 at 9:52 pm

    Well, I am having a hard time getting past the lynchings, the segregated facilities, Jim Crow, you know, little things like that …….

    Then there was that slavery thing, and the miscegenation laws.

  181. 181.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:54 pm

    Too bad for you since the “victim” label is so convenient.

    The thread is about the victim label, and you’re the one who is making the loudest noise here. Can it if you’re not feeling victimized. YOu’re protesting says otherwise.

  182. 182.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 9:56 pm

    Oh not just hugging, there must be kissing too, lots and lots of kissing (and holding hands, awwww!)

    I saw a photo today of Lieberman and Bush going lip to lip.

    Lord, love a duck.

  183. 183.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 9:57 pm

    Clinton flashes gender card, but cries sexism when gender-centered criticism is aimed at her.

    Obama does not employ race as justification for his claim to presidency, therefore, is not susceptible to race-centered responses.

    What am I missing?

    Not a thing baby.

  184. 184.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 9:57 pm

    Well, I am having a hard time getting past the lynchings, the segregated facilities, Jim Crow, you know, little things like that …….

    Especially since none of those things happened to black women. And of course it was the black men who were used as sex slaves by their white masters and bore their children. It was the men who were used as the means for their daughters losing their virginity and learning how to be “real women.”

    And because women are treated exactly equal to men in this country (except for details like salary, equal representation in the Supreme Court, Congress, etc.). And of course there are more men living in poverty because they’re raising the kids after the women abandoned them.

    And because women can always go to another country where women are in power. Now which country is that? Unlike the African countries where African men are in power, or the Asian countries where Asian men are in power. Or the middle eastern countries where men….

    And of course the men had it worse in Afghanistan becaues the men had to wear tents, were not allowed to leave the house without being in the company of a female relative, were not allowed to work outside the home.

    And those poor widowers in India. When their wives die, they’re thrown out of their homes by their sons and left to beg for food.

    And of course in Saudi Arabia, men aren’t allowed to drive so their women have to hold all the jobs.

    And of course, it’s the men who occasionally end up on the evening news after being raped, tortured and murdered by some crazy woman who hates men.

    Yep, women really have it great everywhere. Great argument, TZ.

  185. 185.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 10:02 pm

    And because women can always go to another country where women are in power. Now which country is that? Unlike the African countries where African men are in power, or the Asian countries where Asian men are in power. Or the middle eastern countries where men….

    Ever hear of Margaret Thatcher? Benazir Bhutto? Corozone Aquino? Women who were in power, and there have been others as well, way back in the stone age there was a great queen of Britain called Elizabeth. That was when the monarchy actually held control of England.

    No, you’re not victim, you’re just a women hellbent on believing no women have any real power. Fuck you!

  186. 186.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 10:05 pm

    Afghanistan? Saudi Arabia? India? You are using social ills in those countries to support your argument?

    All due respect, Soj, I think you need some new material.

    I think you really don’t have a rational argument here. You’re totally tone deaf to this thing.

  187. 187.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 10:05 pm

    Yep, women really have it great everywhere.

    Not everywhere, but that’s a cultural thing, not a sexist thing. It has a lot more to do with religion than anything. In THIS country, women have a lot more power than women in those countries you are suggesting.

    If you are so concerned about the rights of women in those countries, that’s one thing, but to try to equate it with living conditions in this country? Disingenuous.

  188. 188.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 12, 2008 at 10:05 pm

    Please, let’s drop the acrimony and agree that on St. Patrick’s Day we’re all victims.

  189. 189.

    Martin

    March 12, 2008 at 10:07 pm

    Just as easy for black man to get here as a white man. Let’s ask an expert like former Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro:

    “All evidence is that a white female has an advantage over a black male — for reasons of our cultural heritage,” said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, the civil rights leader who ran for president in 1984 and 1988. Still, he said, for African-American and female candidates, “It’s easier — emphatically so.”

    Ms. Ferraro offered a similar sentiment. “I think it’s more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American,” said Ms. Ferraro. “There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States — whether it’s conscious or not it’s true.”

    “Women are 51 percent of the population,” she added.

    I wonder how many delegates she figures they can get out the conscious and how many out of the subconscious? I bet Penn has the math…

  190. 190.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 10:08 pm

    Well, there may be some truth to victimhood on St. Patty’s day, but, March 18th is emancipation day, right TZ? ;)

  191. 191.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 10:08 pm

    Here’s a link to the Lieberman-Bush pic.

  192. 192.

    Cain

    March 12, 2008 at 10:09 pm

    I feel cranky periodically.

    cain

  193. 193.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    Well, there may be some truth to victimhood on St. Patty’s day, but, March 18th is emancipation day, right TZ?

    Hopefully I won’t turn permanently green!

  194. 194.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 12, 2008 at 10:12 pm

    Here’s a link to the Lieberman-Bush pic.

    So, like a fool, I clicked on the link. Must find melon scoop and gouge out the part of my brain that retains that image.

  195. 195.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 10:13 pm

    Here’s a link to the Lieberman-Bush pic.

    Now THAT is what I call a serious violation of the personal space rules.

  196. 196.

    Cain

    March 12, 2008 at 10:13 pm

    Wow, you can feel the sexual tension between them.

    cain

  197. 197.

    Martin

    March 12, 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Oh, but Obama has been an exception. Blacks have always been for him:

    Among black registered Democrats overall, Clinton had a 57 percent to 33 percent lead over Obama.

    That’s up from 53 percent for Clinton and 36 percent for Obama in a poll carried out in April.

    The 26-point difference between black women and men underscores the fact that the nation’s vote is divided not only by race, but also by gender, said CNN political analyst Bill Schneider. “Black women don’t just vote their black identity,” he said. “They also vote their identity as women.”

    So, tell me again how Ferraro’s comments are innocent? Since she’s been on the finance committee for a while, I assure you she’s known the polling inside and out all this time.

  198. 198.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 10:14 pm

    I have to admit, even for those two, it’s just a disturbing picture.

  199. 199.

    John S.

    March 12, 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Please, let’s drop the acrimony and agree that on St. Patrick’s Day we’re all victims.

    Of the flower and greeting card industries.

  200. 200.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 10:15 pm

    Hopefully I won’t turn permanently green!

    Only your eyes hon. ;)

  201. 201.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 10:17 pm

    Then there was that slavery thing, and the miscegenation laws.

    Good thing they didn’t apply to black women!

  202. 202.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 10:21 pm

    Ever hear of Margaret Thatcher? Benazir Bhutto? Corozone Aquino? Women who were in power, and there have been others as well, way back in the stone age there was a great queen of Britain called Elizabeth. That was when the monarchy actually held control of England.

    Yep. Bhutto was assasinated. I’m unaware of anyone making the claim that a single woman in power means equality for all women.

    Is that the claim you’re making?

    So if Obama becomes president, all racism will magically disappear in this country? Is that the claim you’re making?

    Pardon me for being skeptical.

  203. 203.

    tBone

    March 12, 2008 at 10:21 pm

    How’s this: John McCain is primarily going to appeal to cranky old white women. And cranky old white men. Possibly some cranky old people of various other colors, as well.

    The way things are going, I’d say that the candidate who captures the cranky demographic will sweep all fifty states.

    What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Who the hell are you calling cranky?

  204. 204.

    Pseudofool

    March 12, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    I’d be curious to see the reactions to Olbermann’s “Special Comment.” [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23592081/]Link[/url] It’s clearly scripted which makes it clumsy at times…but he’s right…if garishly brandish.

  205. 205.

    tBone

    March 12, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    So if Obama becomes president, all racism will magically disappear in this country? Is that the claim you’re making?

    Why do you doubt the MUP? Why?

  206. 206.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    Yep. Bhutto was assasinated. I’m unaware of anyone making the claim that a single woman in power means equality for all women.

    I’m not making an ALL statement, but you sure sound like you’re making a statement of NONE.

    Cut the crap, it’s getting too thick to see in here.

  207. 207.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 10:23 pm

    The thread is about the victim label, and you’re the one who is making the loudest noise here. Can it if you’re not feeling victimized. YOu’re protesting says otherwise.

    OMG. So all those people who protested racism, sexual orientation discrimination, sexism. All of those people are victims.

    You’re arguing that Martin Luther King was a victim?

    Yikes.

  208. 208.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 10:24 pm

    So if Obama becomes president, all racism will magically disappear in this country? Is that the claim you’re making?

    You obviously never took a logic class Sojourner. Ever hear of that thing called SCOPE?

  209. 209.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 10:26 pm

    You’re arguing that Martin Luther King was a victim?

    No, Martin Luther King shouted “We shall overcome” and “I have a dream” and had a positive message. Sojourner shouts “waaaaaaaaa, boooooooo, hissssssssssssss”.

  210. 210.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 10:28 pm

    I think you really don’t have a rational argument here. You’re totally tone deaf to this thing.

    And bounding on hysterics too!

  211. 211.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 10:29 pm

    Why do you doubt the MUP? Why?

    Shame on me!

  212. 212.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 10:30 pm

    You obviously never took a logic class Sojourner. Ever hear of that thing called SCOPE?

    Scope it tightly enough and you might even win an argument.

  213. 213.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 10:31 pm

    No, Martin Luther King shouted “We shall overcome” and “I have a dream” and had a positive message. Sojourner shouts “waaaaaaaaa, boooooooo, hissssssssssssss”.

    Barack says “Yes we can!”

    Clinton says “Not so fast!”

  214. 214.

    tBone

    March 12, 2008 at 10:32 pm

    Why do you doubt the MUP? Why?

    Shame on me!

    In His Benevolence, the MUP forgives you. This time.

  215. 215.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 10:32 pm

    No, Martin Luther King shouted “We shall overcome” and “I have a dream” and had a positive message. Sojourner shouts “waaaaaaaaa, boooooooo, hissssssssssssss”.

    Boo and hiss to the lame arguments being made here.

    But thanks to TZ for admitting that he believes that racism is bad but sexism is not. Because historically, bad things only happened to black men.

  216. 216.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 10:32 pm

    And bounding on hysterics too!

    Can’t we all just get along?

  217. 217.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 12, 2008 at 10:34 pm

    You’re arguing that Martin Luther King was a victim?

    Well, there was that being shot dead thing.

  218. 218.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 10:34 pm

    But thanks to TZ for admitting that he believes that racism is bad but sexism is not. Because historically, bad things only happened to black men.

    Let me remind you for the third time that I am wearing kevlar underwear … but …..

    WTF? You are seriously comparing the position of American women today with the position of American blacks?

    I’d have thought that you would want to cling to at least a shread of credibility.

  219. 219.

    DougJ

    March 12, 2008 at 10:35 pm

    No one would read this blog if John weren’t black.

  220. 220.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 10:36 pm

    Sojourner obviously doesn’t understand Scope at all.. here Sojourner, let me help you out:

    Scope in Logic: All and None Arguments

  221. 221.

    AkaDad

    March 12, 2008 at 10:40 pm

    Each time I get turned down for a date, is yet another example that women hate men.

  222. 222.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 10:40 pm

    I think you really don’t have a rational argument here. You’re totally tone deaf to this thing.

    I’m tone deaf to your position that racism is bad but sexism can be okay.

    There’s no rational argument that can be made for your argument. You want to trot out the ills against blacks. Yes, a lot of monstrous things have been done. I don’t deny that. But you have yet to pull out a convincing argument as to why sexist comments are acceptable. Your position appears to be that women haven’t been treated as badly so it’s okay to stereotype them.

    I’d like to know what your metric is.

  223. 223.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 10:42 pm

    Sorry, I shouldn’t have provided such advanced information such as predicate logic. Perhaps this will be a better starting point.

  224. 224.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 10:45 pm

    I’m tone deaf to your position that racism is bad but sexism can be okay.

    continued: ‘but, I don’t feel victimized, no, not in the least’.

    Fucking hilarious!

  225. 225.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 10:46 pm

    WTF? You are seriously comparing the position of American women today with the position of American blacks?

    Half of American blacks are women. Duh.

    Are you seriously arguing that some threshold of suffering has to be reached in order for stereotyping to be considered unacceptable?

    Are you SERIOUSLY arguing this?

    Wow. And do you get to set that threshold?

    TZ, being the ultimate asessor of pain, will determine which groups deserve to be treated with respect.

    Are you accepting applications or shall we just wait for you to decide?

  226. 226.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 10:46 pm

    Each time I get turned down for a date, is yet another example that women hate men.

    So, I guess every time TZ turns me down it’s a rationale that men hate women too?

  227. 227.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 10:47 pm

    Sorry, I shouldn’t have provided such advanced information such as predicate logic. Perhaps this will be a better starting point.

    It doesn’t seem to be working for you.

  228. 228.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 10:48 pm

    So, I guess every time TZ turns me down it’s a rationale that men hate women too?

    How’s that predicate logic working for you?

  229. 229.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 10:48 pm

    Half of American blacks are women. Duh.

    Are you seriously arguing that some threshold of suffering has to be reached in order for stereotyping to be considered unacceptable?

    Are you SERIOUSLY arguing this?

    Wow. And do you get to set that threshold?

    TZ, being the ultimate asessor of pain, will determine which groups deserve to be treated with respect.

    Are you accepting applications or shall we just wait for you to decide?

    Oh oh, the bounding on hysterics has become a full-blown episode now. I’ve never seen a rocket shoot up that fast. Houston, we have a problem!

  230. 230.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 10:48 pm

    ‘but I’m not a victim or anything’

  231. 231.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 10:50 pm

    How’s that predicate logic working for you?

    It was a joke Sojourner. You really ARE A full blown idiot, apparently!

  232. 232.

    AkaDad

    March 12, 2008 at 10:50 pm

    So, I guess every time TZ turns me down it’s a rationale that men hate women too?

    No, because TZ hates everybody. And puppies.

  233. 233.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 10:50 pm

    There’s no rational argument that can be made for your argument. You want to trot out the ills against blacks. Yes, a lot of monstrous things have been done. I don’t deny that. But you have yet to pull out a convincing argument as to why sexist comments are acceptable. Your position appears to be that women haven’t been treated as badly so it’s okay to stereotype them.

    Despite the fact that you are arguing like a troll, or a drunk, you have a reputation here for being reasonable. For that reason I am continuing to argue with you.

    I didn’t say that women haven’t been treated as badly. I said that you appear to be saying that sexism and racism, in the context of this political contest (and I remind you, it was you who wanted to narrow the context down to this political contest, remember?) are equally abhorrent. I am telling you that that’s just absurd. You can’t reach out to Saudi Arabia for an example of misogyny and try to lay that down on American politics and values. That’s bullshit, and that’s why I called your position bullshit from the get-go.

    Secondarily, the political context of this contest has another non-equality in it: Whereas Clinton has tried to use gender as a polish for her qualifications and for the rationale for her ascension to the presidency, Obama has not done this with his race. He doesn’t get up there and say “It’s time for a black president.” Clinton says it’s time for a woman president. He doesn’t say “I’ve been a black guy all these years and that gives me special experience relevant to this job” but she says “I’ve been the wife of a president and that gives me special experience relevant to this job.”

    She opens the door to gender challenges, and then cries “sexism” when she gets those challenges.

    What you are doing at this point, I don’t know, unless you are trying to start a chapter of the Women as Perennial Victims Club in your town. Obviously, you are the right person for that job.

  234. 234.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 10:51 pm

    Oh oh, the bounding on hysterics has become a full-blown episode now. I’ve never seen a rocket shoot up that fast. Houston, we have a problem!

    Ad hominem attacks as predicate logic. Was this the topic of your dissertation?

    ‘but I’m not a victim or anything’

    Oh no!! History has been made. Asti is the first known victim of predicate logic!!

    May he RIP.

  235. 235.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 10:53 pm

    I’m tone deaf to your position that racism is bad but sexism can be okay.

    Nobody said sexism is okay, we’re saying it’s not sexist to call some women cranky. Not only women get cranky. Take a deep breath and calm down Sojourner, you’re going postal and for no fucking reason at all. You look idiotic doing this, do you realize?

    Why is no one else fighting this along with you? Ummm, perhaps because, unlike you, THEY GET IT?

  236. 236.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 10:54 pm

    May he RIP.

    Funny, last time I looked, I had a vagina, not a penis. But, you go on and believe that a man is victimizing you Sojourner. Idiot!

  237. 237.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 10:56 pm

    Ad hominem attacks as predicate logic. Was this the topic of your dissertation?

    WTF are you talking about? My argument was about you accusing me of making “all and none” statments when YOU are the one doing that.You didn’t read it though did you, and I even provided you with a second link that was more understandable. You go ahead and fight the good fight Sojourner, you’re batting a 1,000.

  238. 238.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 11:02 pm

    I didn’t say that women haven’t been treated as badly. I said that you appear to be saying that sexism and racism, in the context of this political contest (and I remind you, it was you who wanted to narrow the context down to this political contest, remember?) are equally abhorrent.

    I am saying that sexism and racism are equally repellent because stereotyping people is wrong. Because when John Cole chooses to stereotype Clinton supporters as “cranky white women”, he is choosing to disparage a class of people who don’t deserve his disdain. Not all white women, cranky or otherwise, support Clinton. To say otherwise is to suggest that white women will always vote for the white woman.

    I then went on to question why the argument isn’t made that black people will always vote for the black candidate. My assumption is that this argument isn’t made because it’s racist. Which, of course, it is.

    So why is it that disparaging white women as a class seems to be okay (based on the reaction I have received to my challenge) but doing the same with black people is racist and evil?

    Your response appeared to be that black people deserve to be treated differently because they have been treated so badly.

    So what you are saying is that any group that has been treated “better” than black people are fair game for being disparaged as a group.

    Is this really the position you want to take?

  239. 239.

    Martin

    March 12, 2008 at 11:04 pm

    Any bets on whether RedState has a post with a link back to this thread titled: “Teh stupid, it burns!”?

  240. 240.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 11:06 pm

    Because when John Cole chooses to stereotype Clinton supporters as “cranky white women”, he is choosing to disparage a class of people who don’t deserve his disdain.

    Wrong! They deserved it when they opened the cann of worms that led to it. They wanted this to be about how “it’s time for a woman to be President” and they can’t handle the heat that comes from that.

    We have a very unique opportunity in this election, unless one votes Republican, or for a consumer reports guru, they will either vote for a black man or a white woman. The fact is Obama is not running on the race card, but Hillary IS running on the gender card and THAT is exactly why when the shit hits the fan, Hillary and her loudmouth feminist supporters are not innocents caught in the crossfire.

  241. 241.

    Sojourner

    March 12, 2008 at 11:08 pm

    In His Benevolence, the MUP forgives you. This time.

    Now that I have His blessing, this cranky white woman (who defied Cole’s stereotype and voted for Obama) can now go to bed!

  242. 242.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 11:11 pm

    Your response appeared to be that black people deserve to be treated differently because they have been treated so badly.

    You’re completely full of crap.

    First of all, you’ve entirely left out the political reality of the extant contest. Clinton, the gender queen, wants to be free of gender challenges, even derision, or jokes. Obama, who hasn’t abused race in his campaign, isn’t eligible for racial criticism, jokes or derision.

    However, more to your point … everything about it is wrong.

    Stereotyping is really just social profiling, and it’s quite rational to describe women as being a class of people with identifiable traits.

    I think some 90+ percent of blacks in a recent primary voted for Obama. It’s not stereotyping to say that this happened, it’s just demographic reality. It’s demographic reality to point out that older voters and women are trending strongly toward Clinton.

    As for the cranky demographic? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you …. Sojourner. If you ever needed a better example of a cranky female who can’t stop beating the same drum of resentment over and over, you couldn’t find one.

    You aren’t a stereotype, Soj. You are now a caricature of yourself.

    You are embarassing yourself.

  243. 243.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 11:14 pm

    As for the cranky demographic? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you …. Sojourner. If you ever needed a better example of a cranky female who can’t stop beating the same drum of resentment over and over, you couldn’t find one.

    I tried to give her a hint earlier when I said “Methinks thou doth protest too much” – but, apparently she doesn’t speak medieval english.

  244. 244.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 11:14 pm

    Wrong! They deserved it when they opened the cann of worms that led to it. They wanted this to be about how “it’s time for a woman to be President” and they can’t handle the heat that comes from that.

    She isn’t listening, I fear.

  245. 245.

    DougJ

    March 12, 2008 at 11:15 pm

    Can’t you see what’s happening here? You’re only attacking each other because you’re all white.

  246. 246.

    Conservatively Liberal

    March 12, 2008 at 11:20 pm

    I am watching this ping-pong match and I am seeing when a ball is hit to Sojourner, the return is a grapefruit. Then a walnut, and next a cow. The ball gets lost and something else is lobbed back. This is an argument that is going nowhere fast.

    At this point, I think it would be more productive to try and hold a conversation with a flat tire.

    Damn you Scott Beauchamp!

  247. 247.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 11:20 pm

    Can’t you see what’s happening here? You’re only attacking each other because you’re all white.

    Actually Doug, I think that’s the most lucid thing I think you’ve ever said. White people do have a tendency to be very ethnocentristic and think our way is best. I’m not proud of that fact.

  248. 248.

    Pb

    March 12, 2008 at 11:21 pm

    Please, let’s drop the acrimony and agree that on St. Patrick’s Day we’re all victims.

    All of us, except for O’Bama — I’m sure he wouldn’t even be in this race otherwise:

    MONEYGALL, Ireland — Here they call him O’Bama.
    […]
    Obama’s great-great-great-grandfather, Fulmuth Kearney, was reared in Moneygall, then left for America in 1850, when he was 19.

    Truly, ’tis the luck o’ the Irish!

  249. 249.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 11:22 pm

    I am watching this ping-pong match and I am seeing when a ball is hit to Sojourner, the return is a grapefruit. Then a walnut, and next a cow. The ball gets lost and something else is lobbed back. This is an argument that is going nowhere fast.

    Yes, it was exasperating.

  250. 250.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    My grandmother believed that if we held our hands up to the light we’d see if there was any darkie blood in our veins.

    For years I thought she was crazy. Now I realize, she was just a woman :)

    (again, I am wearing kevlar underwear)

  251. 251.

    Pb

    March 12, 2008 at 11:25 pm

    I just skimmed through; I never saw her coherently make her case in the first place, but the thread was pretty entertaining at times, anyhow. It looked like the sort of thing that passes for discussion over at Shakespeare’s Sister or some such.

  252. 252.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 12, 2008 at 11:26 pm

    I am watching this ping-pong match and I am seeing when a ball is hit to Sojourner, the return is a grapefruit. Then a walnut, and next a cow. The ball gets lost and something else is lobbed back. This is an argument that is going nowhere fast.

    It’s gone into Monty Python Territory:
    “Fetchez la vache!”

  253. 253.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 11:27 pm

    For years I thought she was crazy. Now I realize, she was just a woman

    Oh, so now all women are crazy? Ummm, TZ? You DON’T want to go there with me, trust me.

    Yes, I know you’re joking. ;)

  254. 254.

    rachel

    March 12, 2008 at 11:28 pm

    Why is no one else fighting this along with you? Ummm, perhaps because, unlike you, THEY GET IT?

    Could be.

  255. 255.

    Chris Johnson

    March 12, 2008 at 11:28 pm

    Olbermann was really upset. I think he really wants to support Hillary, but this is too much for him to take. Somehow this “Obama is really unqualified but ALL YOU PEOPLE insist on supporting him just because you want to say you voted for a black president” really offended the hell out of him…

    Actually, it offends me as well, but the Clintons are not personal friends of mine, so it doesn’t UPSET me. I already knew there were people in the world so fucked up they cannot imagine a black person being better than them.

    And Obama is better than Hil. Increasingly so, it would appear.

  256. 256.

    ThymeZone

    March 12, 2008 at 11:31 pm

    Oh, so now all women are crazy? Ummm, TZ? You DON’T want to go there with me, trust me.

    Yes, I know you’re joking.

    Whew. My grandmother really thought that, though. I never could figure it out, she was an educated woman, but she had some odd ideas.

  257. 257.

    Asti

    March 12, 2008 at 11:34 pm

    Whew. My grandmother really thought that, though. I never could figure it out, she was an educated woman, but she had some odd ideas.

    We have had this discussion before, in private, and I told you then that my grandfather would have liked your grandmother very much.

  258. 258.

    Chuck Butcher

    March 13, 2008 at 12:03 am

    Is there anything that is Hillary’s fault? Is she somehow faultless?

    There was a witch hunt back in the 90s conducted against a Hillary Clinton. An entire group of people brought forward false claims of criminal behavior and had to fought. Finally their BS ground to a halt, victory was claimed and the Hillary a hero. There is a problem with the narrative, Hillary was the victim of a scurrilous campaign, but there were some nuisance details, like the stuff that set off the “investigation.” You see, the hero didn’t do crimes, just the snakey crap that you can actually get away with, but really shouldn’t do.

    Things start to change a little if you take victim out of the equation. If you just play the record straight the poor poor picked on female begins to look a tad more calculating and less upright. You begin to find various current and near past actions less odd. Motivations that couldn’t be squared with the hero and thus unaccountable become more reasonable.

    There is an issue, and that is that blind support will remain blind. Due to the campaigns against her, no criticism is allowed, it is simply a return to the bad old days to be opposed with single purpose, the protection of the hero.

    Yes Hillaryites, there was a there, there. There also is a there, there, today.

  259. 259.

    Conservatively Liberal

    March 13, 2008 at 12:12 am

    The thing that really hit me about what Keith Olbermann said was his preface to the special comment. He made it very clear that he had received support from Hillary, Bill, Chelsea and others in her camp when things heated up in the past regarding his special comments. He made it clear that while he truly appreciated their support, he had a job to do and he could not let this interfere with it.

    He was about as sad and dejected as can be about what he was saying. He did not enjoy what he was doing, but he did it because it was the right thing to do. I always wondered that if it would ever come to special comment about a Democrat, what would his response be. He did not disappoint me one bit, he was as fair as you can ask anyone to be about this. He criticized an important person who supported him in the past, and he did it very well. It was painful to listen to, so I know it had to be far worse to be the one to deliver it.

    I am reading at the Hillbot sites that they are going for his head now. They have started a petition, and there is talk of going after the advertisers and such in an effort to get him canned. I have emailed MSNBC in support of KO because I know after the Schuster bit, they are going to go after him with gusto.

    This has gotten completely out of hand, and sadly to say it has Hillary’s stamp of approval on it unless she steps up and puts a stop to it once and for all. Geraldine needs to put up an apology and shut up, and she will not unless Hillary calls for one. I read some other recent material of Ferraro’s on Kos and I have to say that race seems to be an issue with her. She likes to point out that people don’t like voting for blacks (but they do prefer women, go figure), and I think it is because she is the voice of personal experience talking.

    To me, it is almost like one feminist camp is attacking blacks because they want a leg up on them in the pecking order. I have read of things in the past where special interest groups would throw other groups under the bus to benefit themselves, and this just looks like another case of it.

    I hope this is the end of the Clinton campaign. It is time to end this trainwreck.

  260. 260.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 13, 2008 at 12:16 am

    Hillary is doing much to weaken the case against Blood Libel.

  261. 261.

    Asti

    March 13, 2008 at 1:02 am

    I hope this is the end of the Clinton campaign. It is time to end this trainwreck.

    Agreed. And thanks for the heads up regarding the Hillaryites protest against Obama (God, I hate to say it, but these crybaby feminists are making me embarrassed to share their gender) – I have enjoyed a watching Keith for several years now, and I can honestly say, if he said something against Obama, I would NOT be looking to pull his show. He’s the only news source I really can in believe anymore, if he said something about Obama, I’d chalk it up to something that went wrong in the campaign and hope Obama could find a way to do better. These Hillary supporters are like a band of Zena warriors, they have to win in the end (if they don’t, do they commit political suicide? I sure hope so!).

  262. 262.

    Asti

    March 13, 2008 at 1:03 am

    Asti becomes dyslexic after 10:30 pm ;)

  263. 263.

    Brachiator

    March 13, 2008 at 1:33 am

    Sojourner Says:
    I am saying that sexism and racism are equally repellent because stereotyping people is wrong. Because when John Cole chooses to stereotype Clinton supporters as “cranky white women”, he is choosing to disparage a class of people who don’t deserve his disdain.

    Wow! An entire thread almost ground to a halt because you want to deflect criticism of Ferraro stupidity into a cranky conversation about … crankiness.

    Not all white women, cranky or otherwise, support Clinton. To say otherwise is to suggest that white women will always vote for the white woman.

    Thanks exactly the point. A bunch of cranky white woman can support Clinton and still leave oodles of cranky white women to vote for other candidates. Oh, and by the way, Geraldine Ferraro is one cranky white woman, but she and Mondale were soundly thrashed in the 1984 presidential election.

    Oddly enough, white women didn’t automatically vote for the white woman.

    I then went on to question why the argument isn’t made that black people will always vote for the black candidate. My assumption is that this argument isn’t made because it’s racist. Which, of course, it is.

    But of course, thanks to Senator Clinton, Ferraro and the Clinton campaign goon squad, this is exactly the argument that is being made by media toads in the aftermath of the Mississippi Primary, even though it is not true. This only shows that the supposed racism or sexism of a statement can be utterly irrelevant to the larger political landscape.

    But the reappearance of Geraldine Ferraro onto the political scene just invites all kinds of irony (a hat tip to Wikipedia).

    So, for example, Senator Clinton won’t release her tax returns.

    Mondale’s campaign was already far behind the Republican ticket when Ferraro joined the ticket, and one issue that hurt her credibility was her disclosure of her husband’s tax returns. In July 1984, she said she would release both her and her husband’s tax returns. Yet a month later she backtracked and said she would release only her returns. Then she backtracked again, saying her husband would release “a financial — a tax statement” on August 20. But she must not have consulted her husband, because Zaccaro initially refused.

    Ferraro jumps into the phony experience nonsense by stating that Obama owes his presence in the primary to his blackness, which attempts to reinforce the Clinton absurdity about thresholds of various types.

    Ferraro’s experience was questioned at the [Vice Presidential] debate and she was asked how her three terms in congress stacked up with Bush’s experience (two House terms, career as an ambassador to China and the United Nations, CIA Director, and four years as Vice President).

    And of course, describing any group of voters as cranky white women is sexist. But here is a blast from the past by the Queen of All Crank.

    Barbara Bush, when asked what she thought of Ferraro said she couldn’t respond, however, the word she was thinking of rhymes with “rich”

    One might say that you can tell a lot about Senator Clinton by the company she keeps.

    MONEYGALL, Ireland—Here they call him O’Bama.
    […]
    Obama’s great-great-great-grandfather, Fulmuth Kearney, was reared in Moneygall, then left for America in 1850, when he was 19.

    I understand that Senator Clinton will be attending the Irish American Presidential Forum, where she will no doubt repeat the lie that she significantly participated in Northern Ireland peace discussions. It would be a hoot if Obama attended and rocked his Irish roots.

  264. 264.

    myiq2xu

    March 13, 2008 at 1:53 am

    I understand that Senator Clinton will be attending the Irish American Presidential Forum, where she will no doubt repeat the lie that she significantly participated in Northern Ireland peace discussions.

    Aye, the lassie has kissed the Blarney stone:

    Obama Campaign Accuses Clinton of Inflating Northern Ireland Role
    Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have clashed over the former first lady’s record in Northern Ireland, with Mr. Obama’s campaign claiming that she has exaggerated her part in the peace process.

    Throughout the campaign, Mrs. Clinton has frequently identified her role in “helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland” as an important element of her foreign policy experience.

    In a memo published yesterday, however, the Obama campaign accused Mrs. Clinton of inflating her role in the North.

    “It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland,” wrote Greg Craig, a former state department official who is backing Mr. Obama.

    “She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of US foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace.”

    The North’s former first minister, David Trimble, made a similar assertion in the London Daily Telegraph last week, suggesting that Mrs. Clinton did little more than accompany former president Bill Clinton on visits. “She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her; but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player,” he said.

    Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams told The Irish Times that, although he admires all three remaining US presidential candidates and is not endorsing any of them, Mrs. Clinton is justified in claiming a role in the peace process. “David Trimble is reported as saying Senator Hillary Clinton played no part in the Irish peace process. That is not true. Senator Clinton played an important role in the peace process,” he said. “I met the senator on many occasions when she was First Lady, and subsequently when she became a senator for New York State. I always found her to be extremely well informed on the issues.”

    Former SDLP leader John Hume has also come to Mrs. Clinton’s defense, expressing surprise that anyone should doubt the importance of her contribution.

    “I can state from first-hand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland,” he said in a statement posted on Mrs. Clinton’s website.

    “There is no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland think very positively of Hillary Clinton’s support for our peace process, due to her visits to Northern Ireland and her meetings with so many people. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward.”

    Mrs. Clinton visited Ireland seven times between 1995 and 2004, both as first lady and as a US senator. The Obama campaign is correct in stating that she played no direct role in the negotiations leading up to the Belfast Agreement in 1998.

    She went beyond the traditional, ceremonial duties of first lady, however, particularly in facilitating the engagement of women in the political process by introducing Vital Voices, an international organisation she founded with former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, to the North.

    Former senator George Mitchell, who chaired the talks leading up to the 1998 agreement, said this week that he believed that Mrs. Clinton’s characterisation of her role was generally accurate. “She was helpful and supportive, very much involved in the issues. She knew all of the delegates,” he told CBS News.

    “Her greatest focus was on encouraging women in Northern Ireland to get into and stay in the political process and the peace process and as I’ve said publicly many times and wrote in my book, the role of women in the peace process in Northern Ireland was significant.”
    Since becoming a US senator, Mrs. Clinton has visited Ireland twice and is one of the most accessible figures on Capitol Hill for visiting Irish politicians. Her staff liaise regularly with Irish and British diplomats in Washington on Northern Irish issues and maintain contacts with all the parties in the North.

    When they visited Washington last year, First Minister Ian Paisley and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness met Mrs. Clinton for an hour to discuss economic investment in the North.

    Dr Paisley said he appreciated the sacrifice Mrs. Clinton was making in taking time out of her presidential campaign, which was already intense a few weeks ahead of the Iowa caucuses.

    “We are old hands at electioneering. We know what it takes,” Dr Paisley said. “Here you are losing money today by talking to a Ballymena man and a Londonderry man.”

    Who is the liar, asshat?

  265. 265.

    Brachiator

    March 13, 2008 at 2:49 am

    Who is the liar, asshat?

    Senator Clinton, of course. Thank you for making my point.

    She was helpful and supportive, very much involved in the issues. She knew all of the delegates.

    She may not have been baking cookies, but she was evidently passing them around. Along with blarney.

    What, substantively did she do to help “bring peace to Northern Ireland?”

    Not a goddamn thing.

  266. 266.

    TenguPhule

    March 13, 2008 at 3:26 am

    He did not enjoy what he was doing, but he did it because it was the right thing to do.

    Olbermann for President.

    At this point, he’s got more integrity and courage then anyone left in the race.

    Why the Democratic paty insists on turning itself into that bad date you can’t get through without a lot of beer to blur the lines, I will never understand.

    Defeat from the jaws of victory…EVERY FUCKING TIME.

  267. 267.

    Rarely Posts

    March 13, 2008 at 4:23 am

    dslak, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant I’d condemned Obama for the monster comment.

    My official position on it: Hillary should have laughed it off. I’m not going to pile on Obama because of some stupid thing someone on his staff said. I will defend Hillary for being labeled akin to racist because of some stupid thing one of her fund raisers said.

  268. 268.

    Rarely Posts

    March 13, 2008 at 4:51 am

    And white women are not the only ones who are ever cranky… you asked why it was okay to stereotype cranky white women and not black people? You did not use a description for black people, you just said “black people”. You answered your own question, and you don’t even realize it.

    Here’s the problem. Saying black people isn’t a negative stereotype. Saying latino people isn’t a negative stereotype. Saying white women isn’t a negative stereotype. One could only claim that if they thought there was something inherently negative about being black, latino, or white or a woman.

    Saying cranky black people or cranky white women–that’s a negative stereotype. I respect John Cole more than I respect Ferarro and I’m willing to cut him some slack because I don’t think he meant it as a negative stereotype. Nor do I think he is sexist.

  269. 269.

    dslak

    March 13, 2008 at 5:12 am

    I’m not going to pile on Obama because of some stupid thing someone on his staff said.

    Not until the next time, anyway.

    As for the supposed misogyny of John’s “cranky” remark, does anyone here wish to deny that older, second-wave feminists are a “base” group for Hillary, and thus that it is reasonable to assume that narratives which agitate them to get out and vote are beneficial to her?

    For those of you who don’t, what word to describe the agitation of these women would you find to be acceptable, given that “cranky” is off the table?

  270. 270.

    Rarely Posts

    March 13, 2008 at 5:25 am

    Older, second-wave feminists works pretty well.

    btw, I’ve never piled on Obama. So the next time I do will be the first time.

  271. 271.

    dslak

    March 13, 2008 at 6:11 am

    btw, I’ve never piled on Obama.

    Ahem. You said, in response to Michael D’s post about Power’s comments:

    I agree, the rhetoric is beyond belief.

    Whether that is piling on Obama or not I’ll leave for others to decide. What I am pointing out is that you are now saying that Clinton merely should have “laughed off” the monster comment, whereas all you had to say about it before was that it was “beyond belief.”

    The most salient difference between now and then being that the same standard is being applied to Clinton.

  272. 272.

    dslak

    March 13, 2008 at 6:12 am

    Older, second-wave feminists works pretty well.

    You’re dodging the question. What’s an acceptable way to describe their agitation, if not ‘cranky’?

  273. 273.

    Sam Hutcheson

    March 13, 2008 at 6:28 am

    It gets a lot clearer when you realize the Clintons are actually running for the Dixiecrat nomination.

  274. 274.

    Rarely Posts

    March 13, 2008 at 7:01 am

    Jeebus, dslak. I was talking about the rhetoric from Democrats being beyond belief.

    As for your cranky question…where are these hordes of cranky white women? The only cranky woman I’ve seen around here is Ferarro.

    But you go right ahead and keep stereotyping women that support Clinton as cranky white women.

  275. 275.

    dslak

    March 13, 2008 at 7:06 am

    I was talking about the rhetoric from Democrats being beyond belief.

    Democrats like Andrew Sullivan?

    But you go right ahead and keep stereotyping women that support Clinton as cranky white women.

    And you go right ahead and duck the question, even while taking down a strawman. It’s no less than I’ve come to expect.

  276. 276.

    Napoleon

    March 13, 2008 at 7:07 am

    To me, it is almost like one feminist camp is attacking blacks because they want a leg up on them in the pecking order. I have read of things in the past where special interest groups would throw other groups under the bus to benefit themselves, and this just looks like another case of it.

    We have a winner. That is exactly what is happening and that was one of the big problems with the Democrats before the party was swept out of power. Basically the HRC camp has this huge sense of entitlement that its their turn regardless of the merits of their candidate.

  277. 277.

    dslak

    March 13, 2008 at 7:19 am

    I see that the MUP has brought together Sully and Olbermann. This after bringing together the Clintons and Rush Limbaugh. Are there any two enemies that the MUP cannot bring together as friends in a common cause?

    Pet his mane: He really is magical!

  278. 278.

    Rarely Posts

    March 13, 2008 at 7:20 am

    No, Democrats like Michael, whom I was agreeing with, and Democrats that read Sullivan’s blog.

    Tell you what, you show me these hordes of cranky white women and I’ll tell you what you can call them. The cranky white women is the strawman and until you produce them you are supporting the strawman, not me.

  279. 279.

    dslak

    March 13, 2008 at 7:26 am

    Tell you what, you show me these hordes of cranky white women and I’ll tell you what you can call them.

    Tell you what, show me where I said there were “hordes of cranky white women,” and I’ll show them to you. “Cranky white women” can’t be a strawman, since it’s not even a premise in an argument.

    “Strawman” isn’t just shorthand for “a view I don’t like,” as you seem to think it is.

  280. 280.

    Rarely Posts

    March 13, 2008 at 7:29 am

    For the person that wanted to know why I didn’t think it was racist:

    There are people that believe black men have an advantage over women when it comes to electability. Whether this is true or not is a matter of opinion. It is certainly true that black men got the right to vote before women of any color. Making this observation isn’t racist and I think that is the point Ferarro was trying to make. Then she went into meltdown mode, so I don’t feel any pity for her. But the original comments weren’t racist. Coming from her though they were probably a lie because she, and Jesse Jackson for that matter, are on record for saying that women have the political edge over black men. btw, she wasn’t being racist then, nor was Jackson.

  281. 281.

    dslak

    March 13, 2008 at 7:29 am

    Democrats like Michael, whom I was agreeing with

    So the rhetoric of both Michael and yourself was “beyond belief”? If that’s how you feel, how about exercising a little self-control?

    Then you won’t have to condemn yourself for disapproving of Power’s comments.

  282. 282.

    dslak

    March 13, 2008 at 7:31 am

    t is certainly true that black men got the right to vote before women of any color. Making this observation isn’t racist and I think that is the point Ferarro was trying to make.

    How the hell do you read that into anything she said?

  283. 283.

    Rarely Posts

    March 13, 2008 at 7:32 am

    For those of you who don’t, what word to describe the agitation of these women would you find to be acceptable, given that “cranky” is off the table?

    Did you not type that?

    Where are these agitated women besides in your mind?

  284. 284.

    Rarely Posts

    March 13, 2008 at 7:35 am

    Wow, you can twist anything can’t you.

    Michael made a post about the overblown rhetoric. I agreed with him that the rhetoric was overblown. His post, iirc, was directed at people specifically like you that jump and whine and pile on Hillary…not at me who doesn’t pile on Obama.

    I’m sorry if your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

  285. 285.

    dslak

    March 13, 2008 at 7:51 am

    the agitation of these women

    And who are these women? It’s pretty obvious that, in my post, they were hypothetical voters that the Clinton campaign might appeal to. Seems like you’re the one who needs to work on her reading comprehension, if you can’t tell the difference between a hypothetical and an existential claim.

    I agreed with him that the rhetoric was overblown. His post, iirc, was directed at people specifically like you that jump and whine and pile on Hillary…

    So pointing out that you’re a hack is now piling on Hillary? That poor, poor woman.

    not at me who doesn’t pile on Obama.

    Since the point was never that you do, that’s hardly relevant. But we’ve already seen how limited your reading comprehension abilities are.

  286. 286.

    Rarely Posts

    March 13, 2008 at 8:03 am

    Here’s a good article from Slate. Give it a read, quit pretending that being black is a bad thing, and quit whining. You aren’t helping Obama one bit with these stupid, petty sob fests.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2186324/

  287. 287.

    dslak

    March 13, 2008 at 8:19 am

    quit pretending that being black is a bad thing

    Quit pretending that I ever pretended such a thing, and then it won’t matter.

    and quit whining.

    You seem to be confusing pointing out that you’re a hack with double standards with “whining.” This is simply the latest in a long string of conceptual confusions on your part.

    You aren’t helping Obama one bit

    I’m flattered that you consider my comments on this blog important enough to impact a presidential race, but I’m a bit more circumspect.

  288. 288.

    Sojourner

    March 13, 2008 at 9:20 am

    You aren’t a stereotype, Soj. You are now a caricature of yourself.

    You are embarassing yourself.

    Sorry, TZ, but I really find your concern humorous. This coming from the guy who has asserted his right to bash Clinton by whatever means possible.

    All’s fair when it comes to bashing a woman candidate but you positively get the vapors when there’s even a hint of racism.

    One is acceptable to you, the other is not.

    How embarassing for you to be in the ranks of the Neanderthals.

  289. 289.

    John S.

    March 13, 2008 at 9:32 am

    A last word freak and a paleofeminist.

    The picture starts to coalesce.

  290. 290.

    Sojourner

    March 13, 2008 at 10:03 am

    A last word freak and a paleofeminist.

    In Ohio, we call it respecting people. It’s kind of a midwest tradition.

  291. 291.

    Sasha

    March 13, 2008 at 10:26 am

    It is certainly true that black men got the right to vote before women of any color. Making this observation isn’t racist and I think that is the point Ferarro was trying to make.

    Rereading her original controversial statement, I am not seeing this at all. Is there some historical reference she alluded to earlier?

    But the original comments weren’t racist.

    You agree that her comments were downright dumb. Would you also agree that the comments, though not necessarily racist, was racially charged and unnecessarily injected race in the campaign?

  292. 292.

    ThymeZone

    March 13, 2008 at 10:33 am

    How embarassing for you to be in the ranks of the Neanderthals.

    Oooga ooga.

  293. 293.

    Sojourner

    March 13, 2008 at 11:03 am

    Oooga ooga.

    Well said!

  294. 294.

    ntr Fausto Carmona

    March 13, 2008 at 11:10 am

    Here’s a good article from Slate.

    Resorting to a defense by Mickey Kaus. The Clinton-based community must really be desperate these days.

  295. 295.

    Evinfuilt

    March 13, 2008 at 11:43 am

    Ferraro: “Why do you keep making me hit you?”

  296. 296.

    Asti

    March 13, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    All’s fair when it comes to bashing a woman candidate

    Bullshit, he never said that. You are convoluting this whole argument, and have been from the beginning. Do you agree with what Ferraro said? Is that the point I should take from this?

  297. 297.

    ThymeZone

    March 13, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    You are convoluting this whole argument, and have been from the beginning.

    I think she’s drunk.

  298. 298.

    Asti

    March 13, 2008 at 2:46 pm

    I think she’s drunk.

    Well, she’s certainly not in her right mind, I’ll grant you that.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Do Something!

Call Your Senators & Representatives
Directory of US Senators
Directory of US Representatives

Vaccine Venting (latest)
Vaccine Venting (all)

I Got the Shot (latest thread)
I Got the Shot! (all)

Take Your Shot – Explain the %

🎈Ways to Support Our Site

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal
Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice ⬇  

Recent Comments

  • SiubhanDuinne on Please Stop Calling Them Conservatives (Apr 12, 2021 @ 8:29pm)
  • WaterGirl on Please Stop Calling Them Conservatives (Apr 12, 2021 @ 8:26pm)
  • Jim, Foolish Literalist on Please Stop Calling Them Conservatives (Apr 12, 2021 @ 8:23pm)
  • Bill Arnold on A Quick Word On What We Know About the Police Shooting of Daunte Wright (Apr 12, 2021 @ 8:23pm)
  • Steeplejack (phone) on Please Stop Calling Them Conservatives (Apr 12, 2021 @ 8:22pm)

Team Claire, and Family

Claire Updates
Claire is Home!

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year

Featuring

John Cole
Silverman on Security
COVID-19 Coronavirus
Medium Cool with BGinCHI
Furry Friends

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Submit Photos to On the Road
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Meetups: Proof of Life
2021 Pets of Balloon Juice Calendar

Culture: Books, Film, TV, Music, Games, Podcasts

Noir: Favorites in Film, Books, TV
Book Recommendations & Indy Recs
Mystery Recommendations
Netflix Favorites
Amazon Prime Favorites
Netflix Suggestions in July
Longmire & Netflix Suggestions

Twitter

John Cole’s Twitter

[custom-twitter-feeds]

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2021 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!