"They're Attacking Me Because I'm White!"

[souvlaki]

Well, I apologize if it seems like I've been attacking him because I hate him-- which isn't true. I hate the sense that people have to support him because he's 'new.' Because he represents 'hope' and 'change' and all that jazz.

I'm trying to debate this... discuss this... I think it's important to discuss what implications his heritage may have on the race, whether his ethnicity has anything to do with who supports him for which reasons... it's important to discuss these issues and not simply brush them aside as racist or derogatory-- regardless of why they were said or done in the first place. I think that, without that conversation, we are forced into thinking in extremes... forced to question everything we say or do... at the risk of offending someone. These conversations are important. Ferraro raised an important, valid point, however stupid her comments were. Just as the photo of Obama dressed in muslim garb raised a valid point, just as his middle name raises a valid point. These are simply issues to discuss. I've denounced each act, but feel that each act merits a discussion. Some times I play devil's advocate and don't mention it... actually it's a lot of the time. I apologize for that.

No worries. I have told you before that when you are being reasonable I really respect your opinion. The thing is that when you call me a *****ebag, all I can say is nine times out of ten what I say is a reaction to your attitude toward Obama. It's probably grown more noticeable of late because lately you've reacted to these things in such a way as to not really make me think you cannot even look at the situation objectively. I personally don't mind people playing devil's advocate, and arguing the other side just to get a discussion started, but sometimes you do it in such a way that it borders on trolling. That is what bothers me, and that is why I have been so harsh toward you of late. All in all though, I like it a lot better when you are debating something at least somewhat objectively.

I personally don't think Clinton deserves any sort of criticism for this mess. This was Ferraro's stupid comment, and she deserves the criticism she receives. I also have problems seeing these comments as taken out of context considering she made the same comments about Jesse Jackson 20 years ago. She also said people were picking on her because she was white. I don't know that she even realizes what she is saying is racist. I hear my parents make comments like this from time to time, completely oblivious to what they are saying. But she doesn't deserve a pat on the back for being stupid. I'm glad people called her out on that, because as a politician she should know better.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I personally don't think Clinton deserves any sort of criticism for this mess. This was Ferraro's stupid comment, and she deserves the criticism she receives.

100% agree.

 

[Marx]

Yes. But you realize why they can't work together right? Obama has run his campaign as a "different kind of politics" (load of BS rhetoric for the most part) and that bringing the same old people back to D.C. is a bad thing. And Clinton has run her campaign on the idea that Obama hasn't passed the commander-in-chief threshold, so they have basically both denounced each other. It will make them both look like hypocrites if they turn around and hook up in the end.

Welcome to the wonderful world of politics! If it benefits the party, it will happen.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Welcome to the wonderful world of politics! If it benefits the party, it will happen.

Yeah, they'll have to pool their money as well as the DNC's and spin the hell out of it to the media (which they are both good at) to smooth over those kind of questions that they would face.

 

[Marx]

Yeah, they'll have to pool their money as well as the DNC's and spin the hell out of it to the media (which they are both good at) to smooth over those kind of questions that they would face.

Indeed they are. Never count out the possibility of the two of them running together...even after all this mess. (Which still by definition has been tame as compared to other campaigns.)

 

[The Senator]

I personally don't think Clinton deserves any sort of criticism for this mess. This was Ferraro's stupid comment, and she deserves the criticism she receives. I also have problems seeing these comments as taken out of context considering she made the same comments about Jesse Jackson 20 years ago. She also said people were picking on her because she was white. I don't know that she even realizes what she is saying is racist. I hear my parents make comments like this from time to time, completely oblivious to what they are saying. But she doesn't deserve a pat on the back for being stupid. I'm glad people called her out on that, because as a politician she should know better.

She doesn't deserve a pat on the back for what she said. I'm glad she stepped down, to be honest-- this is something the Clinton campaign doesn't need on its back. She should have said it better, if she had to say it at all-- and I personally think she shouldn't have said it in the first place.

 

[The Senator]

Welcome to the wonderful world of politics! If it benefits the party, it will happen.

I'm starting to think more and more that Clinton may be willing to seek the office of Governor of New York to give her additional experience, so she can come back with a vengeance in eight years.

It does make sense, if you look at it from a New Yorker's perspective: David Paterson wants Hillary's job. In theory, he'd step aside so she can run for his seat. And if Hillary won, she'd be able to appoint him to her seat. So it works on that level... not to mention she'd definitely have the experience angle going for her... and the possibility that whoever Obama picks as his VP might not be capable of running for President, especially if it's a decrepit white guy like everyone assumes it will be...

 

[redfirebird2008]

I'm starting to think more and more that Clinton may be willing to seek the office of Governor of New York to give her additional experience, so she can come back with a vengeance in eight years.

It does make sense, if you look at it from a New Yorker's perspective: David Paterson wants Hillary's job. In theory, he'd step aside so she can run for his seat. And if Hillary won, she'd be able to appoint him to her seat. So it works on that level... not to mention she'd definitely have the experience angle going for her... and the possibility that whoever Obama picks as his VP might not be capable of running for President, especially if it's a decrepit white guy like everyone assumes it will be...

t: so true!

 

[Marx]

I'm starting to think more and more that Clinton may be willing to seek the office of Governor of New York to give her additional experience, so she can come back with a vengeance in eight years.

It does make sense, if you look at it from a New Yorker's perspective: David Paterson wants Hillary's job. In theory, he'd step aside so she can run for his seat. And if Hillary won, she'd be able to appoint him to her seat. So it works on that level... not to mention she'd definitely have the experience angle going for her... and the possibility that whoever Obama picks as his VP might not be capable of running for President, especially if it's a decrepit white guy like everyone assumes it will be...

That could be interesting Jman. There are a few different scenarios that could play out.

 

[souvlaki]

I'm starting to think more and more that Clinton may be willing to seek the office of Governor of New York to give her additional experience, so she can come back with a vengeance in eight years.

It does make sense, if you look at it from a New Yorker's perspective: David Paterson wants Hillary's job. In theory, he'd step aside so she can run for his seat. And if Hillary won, she'd be able to appoint him to her seat. So it works on that level... not to mention she'd definitely have the experience angle going for her... and the possibility that whoever Obama picks as his VP might not be capable of running for President, especially if it's a decrepit white guy like everyone assumes it will be...

I personally would not be opposed in the least to her running in eight years. I'd actually welcome it. I probably would have at least debated voting for her this time around if she hadn't run what was in my opinion a horrible campaign. I think she is doing well now because she is a good candidate DESPITE her campaign, but it's been the people organizing her campaign that have failed miserably. They have made everything unlikable about her come to the surface, and it makes it very hard for me to justify voting for her. Her husband was the poster child for being a candidate of hope and change, and that is the platform she should have ran on instead of attacking Obama for doing it. Eight years from now hopefully she will learn from her mistakes, because if she did she would probably be unstoppable.

 

[redfirebird2008]

If she doesn't win this time and decides to run in 8 years, she needs to contact Obama and Dean's people because they have a very good grasp on her weakness (grassroots organizing). She could easily do it just as good as the '04 Dean or '08 Obama campaigns, it's just a matter of getting the right people around her. Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, et al aren't cutting it in the grassroots area.

 

[souvlaki]

If she doesn't win this time and decides to run in 8 years, she needs to contact Obama and Dean's people because they have a very good grasp on her weakness (grassroots organizing). She could easily do it just as good as the '04 Dean or '08 Obama campaigns, it's just a matter of getting the right people around her. Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, et al aren't cutting it in the grassroots area.

I think a loss for her would make her a better candidate. She needs a little humility. My biggest problem with her during this election has been the arrogance of thinking that she deserved this election, instead of devoting the time and effort into making people really enthusiastic about her. Her husband did that magnificently. He built up such large base support that it didn't matter what he did, those people still supported him. Hillary's campaign in my opinion has not done anything to get people really behind her as a candidate, but have moreso tried to just get people to dislike Obama. It's the same problem Kerry had in 2004 when he made the ill-advised choice to turn his presidential run into an "anybody but Bush" campaign. You are not going to win if you spend your whole campaign pointing out the problems with the other candidate without spending as much time as your opponent just getting people enthusiastic enough to vote for you.

 

[sinewave]

I'm trying to debate this... discuss this... I think it's important to discuss what implications his heritage may have on the race, whether his ethnicity has anything to do with who supports him for which reasons... it's important to discuss these issues and not simply brush them aside as racist or derogatory-- regardless of why they were said or done in the first place. I think that, without that conversation, we are forced into thinking in extremes... forced to question everything we say or do... at the risk of offending someone. These conversations are important. Ferraro raised an important, valid point, however stupid her comments were. Just as the photo of Obama dressed in muslim garb raised a valid point, just as his middle name raises a valid point. These are simply issues to discuss. I've denounced each act, but feel that each act merits a discussion. Some times I play devil's advocate and don't mention it... actually it's a lot of the time. I apologize for that.

why do you consider those valid points? why do you refer to that photo of him as being in muslim garb? i thought that was traditional kenyan garb? why do you and the clinton campaign feel the need to stood so low as to tie him to the muslim religion? that's a dirty trick out of the republicans' playbook. it's a prime example why i, and many others, don't support clinton, due to her dirty, republican-style politics. for all the complaining you do about obama's attacks on her iraq war vote (political issue) or taking money from lobbyists (political issue), you seem more than happy to support a candidate that thinks it's fine and dandy to get personal and pull a karl rove by implying that he's a secretive muslim jihadist posing as a christian.

 

[Marx]

why do you consider those valid points? why do you refer to that photo of him as being in muslim garb? i thought that was traditional kenyan garb? why do you and the clinton campaign feel the need to stood so low as to tie him to the muslim religion? that's a dirty trick out of the republicans' playbook. it's a prime example why i, and many others, don't support clinton, due to her dirty, republican-style politics. for all the complaining you do about obama's attacks on her iraq war vote (political issue) or taking money from lobbyists (political issue), you seem more than happy to support a candidate that thinks it's fine and dandy to get personal and pull a karl rove by implying that he's a secretive muslim jihadist posing as a christian.

There is no proof that she was directly involved in the release of that picture. Futhermore Sine, it would also be directly out of the "Republican Playbook" to deliberately misstate Clinton's postions and stances on issues - such as Barack Obama has done. Let's be fair here.

 

[Matt]

There is no proof that she was directly involved in the release of that picture. Futhermore Sine, it would also be directly out of the "Republican Playbook" to deliberately misstate Clinton's postions and stances on issues - such as Barack Obama has done. Let's be fair here.

The absolute hypocrisy of some Barack Obama supporters is mind boggling. People have been saying for MONTHS Clinton is where she is because she shares a bed with Bill, yet I have never seen Souvlaki complain that those kinds of comments take away from Clinton's numerous accomplishments (a degree from Yale Law, endless work for children charities, etc). No one has complained about people "marginalizing" Hillary Clinton though.

And frankly, I think that is a good thing. We SHOULD be asking these questions. Does a half-a-term Senator really have what it takes to lead the free world? Does Clinton really have the qualifications outside of banging Bill? Is Obama getting a free pass because he is black? Clinton because she is a woman and an ex-President's wife? These kinds of questions SHOULD be asked. We are giving these candidates absolutely ZERO scrutiny. And scrutiny isn't deciding between Clinton and Obama. Has anyone stopped to think that we quite possibly gave the two WORST, LEAST QUALIFIED candidates for the job a free pass to the final stage of the interview process? That is like hiring a CEO of a fortune 500 company and skipping over all of the people with MBAs, pulling two people out of the mailroom and saying "Alright, its down to the two of you. Wow me." Its not racist to suggest that Obama may have gotten a free pass from the media and the public because he is black. Nor is it sexist to suggest that Clinton got a free pass due to her gender or husband. These are questions that need to be asked before selecting a president or our democracy will fail. Sure, everyone has a right to vote, but democracy is about responsibility too and people have forgotten all about that by endlessly promoting these two rockstar candidates.

I used to be that way. I voted for John Kerry in 2004. I vocally defended him and his stances. I regret the hell out of that. Very few of his beliefs were in line with mine. I voted party instead of my conscience. That was a mistake. I should've voted third party because neither candidate was up to scratch as appears to be the case in this upcoming election. Giving real thought and scrutiny is not a bad thing and it should never be thought of as such. Anyone saying that it is racist to suggest Obama got a free pass due to his race should be ashamed of themselves. It is no different than Bush's with us or against us tactics. These are the kinds of questions we HAVE TO ASK before giving anyone a chance to sit in our highest office.


I give Zen, an Obama supporter, a lot of credit for admitting that the media let him have a pass on several issues because of his color. I mean, it is pretty obvious if you just take off the partisan blinders and look at what is going on.

 

[sinewave]

There is no proof that she was directly involved in the release of that picture. Futhermore Sine, it would also be directly out of the "Republican Playbook" to deliberately misstate Clinton's postions and stances on issues - such as Barack Obama has done. Let's be fair here.

no there isn't, but when confronted with it they did not deny it. her campaign manager even tried attacking him over it. which misstatements are you referring to? i know there was some hub-bub about her stance on NAFTA, but what else?

 

[sinewave]

The absolute hypocrisy of some Barack Obama supporters is mind boggling. People have been saying for MONTHS Clinton is where she is because she shares a bed with Bill, yet I have never seen Souvlaki complain that those kinds of comments take away from Clinton's numerous accomplishments (a degree from Yale Law, endless work for children charities, etc). No one has complained about people "marginalizing" Hillary Clinton though.

And frankly, I think that is a good thing. We SHOULD be asking these questions. Does a half-a-term Senator really have what it takes to lead the free world? Does Clinton really have the qualifications outside of banging Bill? Is Obama getting a free pass because he is black? Clinton because she is a woman and an ex-President's wife? These kinds of questions SHOULD be asked. We are giving these candidates absolutely ZERO scrutiny. And scrutiny isn't deciding between Clinton and Obama. Has anyone stopped to think that we quite possibly gave the two WORST, LEAST QUALIFIED candidates for the job a free pass to the final stage of the interview process? That is like hiring a CEO of a fortune 500 company and skipping over all of the people with MBAs, pulling two people out of the mailroom and saying "Alright, its down to the two of you. Wow me." Its not racist to suggest that Obama may have gotten a free pass from the media and the public because he is black. Nor is it sexist to suggest that Clinton got a free pass due to her gender or husband. These are questions that need to be asked before selecting a president or our democracy will fail. Sure, everyone has a right to vote, but democracy is about responsibility too and people have forgotten all about that by endlessly promoting these two rockstar candidates.

I used to be that way. I voted for John Kerry in 2004. I vocally defended him and his stances. I regret the hell out of that. Very few of his beliefs were in line with mine. I voted party instead of my conscience. That was a mistake. I should've voted third party because neither candidate was up to scratch as appears to be the case in this upcoming election. Giving real thought and scrutiny is not a bad thing and it should never be thought of as such. Anyone saying that it is racist to suggest Obama got a free pass due to his race should be ashamed of themselves. It is no different than Bush's with us or against us tactics. These are the kinds of questions we HAVE TO ASK before giving anyone a chance to sit in our highest office.


I give Zen, an Obama supporter, a lot of credit for admitting that the media let him have a pass on several issues because of his color. I mean, it is pretty obvious if you just take off the partisan blinders and look at what is going on.

i agree that their records and experience and all that should be scrutinized. i just have a problem with personal attacks and innuendo like the supposed "muslim garb" crap.

as you know, obama wasn't my first choice, but out of the three remaining candidates, he's my preferred choice.

 

[Matt]

i agree that their records and experience and all that should be scrutinized. i just have a problem with personal attacks and innuendo like the supposed "muslim garb" crap.

as you know, obama wasn't my first choice, but out of the three remaining candidates, he's my preferred choice.

It is really no different than Obama using out of context Clinton quotes at a rally on MLK day to imply that she is racist and claim that she is marginalizing Dr. King, especially when a man that smart, knows that was not her intent.

Obama is just as dirty as Clinton or McCain. He is just much better at it. He takes a passive-aggressive "I'm the victim" approach where as the other two do not try to hide what they are and come out swinging.

 

[souvlaki]

There is no proof that she was directly involved in the release of that picture. Futhermore Sine, it would also be directly out of the "Republican Playbook" to deliberately misstate Clinton's postions and stances on issues - such as Barack Obama has done. Let's be fair here.

She wasn't but someone in her campaign was. Like I've already said, she needs to run a better campaign. Obama is generally at his best attack wise when he takes something the Clinton campaign has said or done, and throws it right back at them. They've shot themselves in the foot a couple times during this primary and it has a lot to do with why people look negatively upon Clinton now. Noone likes a desperate candidate, and it's seemed like after Super Tuesday they just had no clue to move forward, so they adopted this "kitchen sink" method. Problem is that it backfires more often then not. Instead of making people want to vote for her, it makes people choose the lesser of two evils. Clinton really should have had this election in the bag. Her campaign has chosen to showcase all the worst aspects of Mrs. Clinton, and the Clinton family in general.

 

[redfirebird2008]

It is really no different than Obama using out of context Clinton quotes at a rally on MLK day to imply that she is racist and claim that she is marginalizing Dr. King, especially when a man that smart, knows that was not her intent.

Obama is just as dirty as Clinton or McCain. He is just much better at it. He takes a passive-aggressive "I'm the victim" approach where as the other two do not try to hide what they are and come out swinging.

You're wrong about McCain. He tries to deny that he's affiliated with the likes of Bill Cunningham, but then those types still do all the dirty work for him and he reaps the political benefits from it (aka scaring up votes). He distances himself from it but has absolutely no problem with seeing the right wing bust out with racist, bigoted garbage to get votes for him.

 

[souvlaki]

It is really no different than Obama using out of context Clinton quotes at a rally on MLK day to imply that she is racist and claim that she is marginalizing Dr. King, especially when a man that smart, knows that was not her intent.

Obama is just as dirty as Clinton or McCain. He is just much better at it. He takes a passive-aggressive "I'm the victim" approach where as the other two do not try to hide what they are and come out swinging.

I dont think anyone would deny he can be dirty from time to time, but you just come to expect that with any politician. Bill Clinton was a master at being dirty without making it look like he was being dirty. It's called charisma, and sometimes it's not a bad characteristic to have as President.

 

[Matt]

I dont think anyone would deny he can be dirty from time to time, but you just come to expect that with any politician. Bill Clinton was a master at being dirty without making it look like he was being dirty. It's called charisma, and sometimes it's not a bad characteristic to have as President.

So you call playing dirty and being able to play it off as if its your opponents fault as "charasmatic?" My friend, we have very different views on what charisma is and I suggest you consult a dictionary.

 

[bell110]

This is really stupid. I've been reading some articles on what she said, and she is TOTALLY being unfairly dragged through the mud. There is no way in hell her statements were racist. There is a difference between a comment that addresses race, and a racist comment. This is completely ridiculous. This reminds me of when Will Smith said that Hitler didn't think what he was doing was bad, and the jewish groups started throwing baseless accusations.

 

[redfirebird2008]

So you call playing dirty and being able to play it off as if its your opponents fault as "charasmatic?" My friend, we have very different views on what charisma is and I suggest you consult a dictionary.

Clinton's guilty of the same crap, dude. "Shame on you Barack Obama!" meanwhile she's running a letter in New Hampshire that completely distorts his position on abortion as well as mailers in Wisconsin and Ohio that distort his position on health care (just like his health care mailer). Play the victim while you're doing the exact same junk.

 

[Matt]

You're wrong about McCain. He tries to deny that he's affiliated with the likes of Bill Cunningham, but then those types still do all the dirty work for him and he reaps the political benefits from it (aka scaring up votes). He distances himself from it but has absolutely no problem with seeing the right wing bust out with racist, bigoted garbage to get votes for him.

Well, in all fairness to McCain, he condemned Cunningham's comments seconds after he said them and then asked him to stop campaigning for him afterwards (though I'm not really sure how saying someone's middle name is racist. I mean I know the intended effect, but so what? It IS his middle name).

Anyhow, McCain is dirty, I said that. So is Clinton, and Obama is right up there with them. He is just very good at hiding it.