An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
It’s definitely not a good week for NY Democrats. In case you missed this non-Spitzer story, see here for the basics. And, for the Obama campaign response, see here. Will HRC respond in kind?
Ferraro wasn't able to get elected Vice President. (Strike one: Nobody had heard of her before. Someone like Dianne Feinstein, whom everyone knows, should have been the choice.)
Ferraro's comments were unfortunate but understandably supportive of her candidate. Unfortunately it opens up the argument that Hillary's experience is as first lady of Arkansas and the US and seven years in the Senate. Hardly more substantial than Obama. Neither with significant executive experience nor major policy triumphs to their credit.
Understandably supportive? “Blatantly racist” was my first reaction. Don't mean to over-react, but I do think what Ferraro said was far worse than what Samantha Power said.
I give Ferraro some benefit of the doubt because I believe she is a decent person who happened to get stuck with the worst Democratic presidential running mate since forever, but she should have known better than to play into the race game as a political minority herself.
That said, i don't find her comment to be blatantly racist, just blatantly stupid and incredibly ill timed. The self immolation of the Clinton campaign is indeed something to behold.
We all know that we are still far from neutralizing the effect of race and gender in in politics and in society, in general. What I see happening now is that referring to this circumstance is portrayed as being as bad, if not worse, that bigotry itself.
It's a speech code of a very perverse kind, because it is not unitverdal. It only applies to certain people. It's okay for blacks to speculate about the effects of race in politics. It's okay for Oama supporters to do so. This is a special rule that applies only to Clinton supporters.They can not speculate about the effects of race, because, of course, they are the Clinton people, and so, by definition, anything they say or do is evil. . That, at any rate, is the story line.
What is 'special', or different, about a candidate is always a part of his/her successs or failure, It can work in a positive way, as well as a negative way. JFK's charm, wit and sex-appeal, which are hardly qualififications for a commander-in-chief-, had a major impact on his election. How is it malicious to say so? Is it denigrating to even wonder aloud about this question? I wish those of you so hot under the collar would explain that.
The issues of race and gender have been a malignant factor in our society for a long time. The assignment of a-priori evil intent, which underlies these Clinton specific speech codes is as malignant as racial bigotry itself.
Here I am, an Obama supporter, whose conscience is revolted by these kinds of mental gymnastics. I'm clinging to hopes for the success of Obama's message in spite of, ratther than as a relut of, , this kind of commentary.
“JFK's charm, wit and sex-appeal, which are hardly qualififications for a commander-in-chief-, had a major impact on his election.”
It applies to Obama even more than to JFK, who was better known than Obama was at the start of their campaigns. Both Obama and Edwards are Pretty Boys.
“How is it malicious to say so? Is it denigrating to even wonder aloud about this question?”
It applies to Obama and the very naive youth who worship him, as well as others who have become so conceited already about Obama's prospects they expose the much more vicious nature of the Left and some in the Dem community than anything comparable among non-liberals and on the GOP — directed not only at Hillary Clinton, but toward the many people who support her this year rather than Obama. These are groupies and cult club members with a very vicious streak.
No, it is not denigrating at all to say that, as opposed to what the relevent facts say.
OK, Shaun, I'll take that and drop my initial reaction, respecting your greater familiarity with Ferraro … and no, that's NOT a comment about our age difference. Hell, what's a couple decades among friends.
Ferraro wasn't able to get elected Vice President. (Strike one: Nobody had heard of her before. Someone like Dianne Feinstein, whom everyone knows, should have been the choice.)
Ferraro's comments were unfortunate but understandably supportive of her candidate. Unfortunately it opens up the argument that Hillary's experience is as first lady of Arkansas and the US and seven years in the Senate. Hardly more substantial than Obama. Neither with significant executive experience nor major policy triumphs to their credit.
Understandably supportive? “Blatantly racist” was my first reaction. Don't mean to over-react, but I do think what Ferraro said was far worse than what Samantha Power said.
Pete:
I give Ferraro some benefit of the doubt because I believe she is a decent person who happened to get stuck with the worst Democratic presidential running mate since forever, but she should have known better than to play into the race game as a political minority herself.
That said, i don't find her comment to be blatantly racist, just blatantly stupid and incredibly ill timed. The self immolation of the Clinton campaign is indeed something to behold.
We all know that we are still far from neutralizing the effect of race and gender in in politics and in society, in general. What I see happening now is that referring to this circumstance is portrayed as being as bad, if not worse, that bigotry itself.
It's a speech code of a very perverse kind, because it is not unitverdal. It only applies to certain people.
It's okay for blacks to speculate about the effects of race in politics. It's okay for Oama supporters to do so. This is a special rule that applies only to Clinton supporters.They can not speculate about the effects of race, because, of course, they are the Clinton people, and so, by definition, anything they say or do is evil. . That, at any rate, is the story line.
What is 'special', or different, about a candidate is always a part of his/her successs or failure, It can work in a positive way, as well as a negative way. JFK's charm, wit and sex-appeal, which are hardly qualififications for a commander-in-chief-, had a major impact on his election. How is it malicious to say so? Is it denigrating to even wonder aloud about this question?
I wish those of you so hot under the collar would explain that.
The issues of race and gender have been a malignant factor in our society for a long time. The assignment of a-priori evil intent, which underlies these Clinton specific speech codes is as malignant as racial bigotry itself.
Here I am, an Obama supporter, whose conscience is revolted by these kinds of mental gymnastics. I'm clinging to hopes for the success of Obama's message in spite of, ratther than as a relut of, , this kind of commentary.
“JFK's charm, wit and sex-appeal, which are hardly qualififications for a commander-in-chief-, had a major impact on his election.”
It applies to Obama even more than to JFK, who was better known than Obama was at the start of their campaigns. Both Obama and Edwards are Pretty Boys.
“How is it malicious to say so? Is it denigrating to even wonder aloud about this question?”
It applies to Obama and the very naive youth who worship him, as well as others who have become so conceited already about Obama's prospects they expose the much more vicious nature of the Left and some in the Dem community than anything comparable among non-liberals and on the GOP — directed not only at Hillary Clinton, but toward the many people who support her this year rather than Obama. These are groupies and cult club members with a very vicious streak.
No, it is not denigrating at all to say that, as opposed to what the relevent facts say.
“[Obama is] going to have to get up off the mat and show the same kind of fight that [Clinton] did when she went down…”
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/760/clinton-gets-me…
“blatantly stupid and incredibly ill timed”
OK, Shaun, I'll take that and drop my initial reaction, respecting your greater familiarity with Ferraro … and no, that's NOT a comment about our age difference. Hell, what's a couple decades among friends.