What's so wrong about saying that Ferraro was right? Why does that make one instantly a racist?

Let's look at the facts. Obama is only two years out of the Illinois state house. He wasn't even there very long. No white candidate would get 5 seconds of attention or $1.98 in campaign contributions with that thin of a resume', no matter how eloquent or inspirational they were. He likes to point out that he's about the same age as Clinton and Kennedy, but Clinton was a multi-term governor of a state and attorney general. Kennedy had been a member of both the House and Senate for years and was a bona-fide war hero. Obama is no Jack Kennedy.

Obama draws 80-90% of the black vote. Because the Democratic party in some states has a 40 - 50% registered black base, Obama starts a primary with a nearly insurmoutable advantage. What's the basis for this support? His ability to inspire? Hillary makes a good speech. So did John Edwards. Both have clear vision of where they want to go. Is it his policies? Most of them are lacking in specificity or basic copies of what others are proposing. Is it his experience? In that case, Dennis Kucinich was more qualified.

No. He gets 80-90% of the black vote because of his skin color. He gets noticed because he's the first viable black candidate. There's no other conclusion that can be drawn.

Ferraro was right - what's wrong with saying that?

This post has too much logic. Can't compute. ARGHHHHHH!

JNietz:

No white candidate would get 5 seconds of attention or $1.98 in campaign contributions with that thin of a resume', no matter how eloquent or inspirational they were.

You mean like Bush? What was his experience? A governorship in a state where the governor doesn't have any power? He had run for national office multiple times and lost. Since Bush's resume was thinner than Obama's, how did he wind up President?

And you ignore all the other Presidents we have elected with just as "thin" resumes (Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, etc.)

Obama was a multi-term representative of a state and a lawyer. That's about the same as Clinton, Mr. If he gets a pass, why are you picking on Obama? Should we claim that Clinton, Mr. only got his attention because he was a Southerner? Take a look at the last few Presidents...they're mostly from the South. Forget about policies and politics, it's just a geographical thing.

The reason why Ferraro was wrong is that while race is a component, to pretend that it overwhelms all the others is false on the face of it. After all, if it were just race as she indicates, why have no other black candidates ever gotten as far as he has?

I'm so glad you brought up John Edwards. You made the comment, "No white candidate would get 5 seconds of attention or $1.98 in campaign contributions with that thin of a resume'". What about John Edwards? He had even less of a resume of public service than Obama does. Were you complaining about Edwards lack of experience back in '04? Mr. Edwards made it pretty far back in '04. Why was he getting noticed? Because he was black? Oops, he isn't.

Which brings me to my next point. "He gets noticed because he's the first viable black candidate. There's no other conclusion that can be drawn." Based on the John Edwards example, maybe there is another conclusion to be drawn. Maybe your inability to draw other conclusions says something about you.

If being a state representative or state senator is just as important as being a governor, try this little quiz:

Can you name your state's governor without looking it up?

Now can you name either your state rep or state senator without looking it up?

Wait a tick! Sen. Obama is a much better speaker than Sen. Clinton or Mr. Edwards. Sen. Clinton is so robotic and cold that even her clearly staged "warmth" is frightening.

Aside from that I agree with your post. It's hard to look at the fact that Sen. Obama gets 91% of the black vote and argue that his skin color doesn't help.

So when 80-90% of African Americans were voting for white democrats---was that racism too? When HRC gets 75% of the white vote in Mississippi, is that racism too? When HRC gets upwards of 60% of the Latino vote is that racism too?

Apparently it is perfectly fine for people of all races to vote for everyone but African Americans, but if African Americans choose to vote for an African American (as well as at least half of the democratic party--which by the way is comprised of more than African Americans) it is proof positive of Obama being racist. Whatever. African Americans generally vote for a democrat. Until South Carolina 60% were voting for HRC--where was the outrage!

You forget that at least John Edwards managed to complete a full term in the Senate before he sought higher office.

And yes. I complained about his thin resume' as well.

FYI - Edwards was elected to the Senate in 1998 and ran for President in 2004. That's almost 6 years in the Senate, or roughly 150% of Obama's Senate experience.

FYI - Edwards was the VP nominee after Kerry walked away with the nomination.

So even if you say that Obama's experience in the IL state legislature is equivalent to 2 years in the Senate (which I don't believe), wouldn't you expect Obama to be a more viable VP candidate than Presidential candidate?

The question is why with a resume so thin is he the front-runner? There are several explanations, his eloquence, his race, he's tall, he's got a deep voice, his policy stands, his je ne sais quoi, etc. Ferraro was offering her opinion that his race was an important advantage towards getting the nomination in the same way that her gender was an important advantage in getting the VP nomination in 1984.

I didn't forget anything. Edwards started running for president before his term ended. Do you wanna quibble over 2 measly years? The point is, he made it where he did because people related to his message. Same with Obama. Sure, some people vote for Obama because he's black. If you acknowledge that, then you have to acknowledge that some will vote against him because he's black. I don't know (and you don't know either) if it's a net positive or negative. To assume either has no basis in reality. It's just your judgement.

The issue here is not so much that Ferraro is a racist, ‘cause she is, but the issue is what America is doing to its black voters. When black people block voted for Clinton (83-84%) it was attributed to his greatness and ability to heal racial divide in USA but now that Obama is doing the same thing all of a sudden it is a matter of his skin colour? Wtf? So, the only way Obama can “earn” his victory, according to this ridiculous logic, is to have 90% of white people give him their vote?! And that is not racist?!

FYI - 2 more years in the senate is just 2 more years in the senate. I know it sounds more impressive when you say 150%, but we're talking about 2 years.

And did Ferraro say, "...his race is an important advantage towards getting the nomination in the same way that my gender was an important advantage in getting the VP nomination in 1984"? Because, if she did, it would have come off alot better.

I was taking issue with the frayster's comment that Obama's position in the race could only be explained by his being black. This "experience" argument is going to blow up in Mrs. Clinton's face when she faces someone who truly has "experience". Neither Democrat will win that fight. The Democrats need to nominate someone with the power to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to push a progressive agenda forward.

I heard presidential historian, Douglas Brinkley, on NPR a month or so ago. He was asked to cite an example of a president who had great oratorical skills, but when he took over as president, simply fizzled out and wasn't able to get things accomplished. He thought for a minute and replied that he couldn't think of one. He said that this was because a president's effectiveness usually hinges on his ability to move people to his side to accomplish things. Just something to think about.

"So when 80-90% of African Americans were voting for white democrats---was that racism too? When HRC gets 75% of the white vote in Mississippi, is that racism too? When HRC gets upwards of 60% of the Latino vote is that racism too?"

Taking these in reverse order: no, no, and inapt comparison. 60% and 75% are alot different than 91% (although note that these margins have opened HRC up to charges of subtle racism--even down to ridiculous comparisons of her 3 AM ad to Birth of a Nation.) Lastly, the key figure here is the breakdown of Dem v Dem, not Dem v Rep, no?

Ferraro was right to say that his race is a factor in his appeal, just as Hillary's sex is. However she took it a step farther: she claims that his race is the ONLY reason he's made it this far, which is not only absurd, but extremely demeaning (both to Obama and his supporters). Remember that when Obama started his run, Clinton was getting a higher percentage of the black vote. Obama gradually earned their vote, and has gained momentum as a viable candidate--blacks vote overwhelmingly for him NOW, but they didn't always. Getting to viability in the first place has little to do with his race, and much more to do with his other qualities. So to dismiss these other qualities as unimportant, illegitimate, or unearned is why her comments are tinged with racism.

Rrhain:

You mean like Bush? What was his experience? A governorship in a state where the governor doesn't have any power? He had run for national office multiple times and lost. Since Bush's resume was thinner than Obama's, how did he wind up President?

Exactly my point. As a two term governor, he had more experience than Obama and look how that turned out. Why would you argue or want someone with LESS experience? And at least as the son of a president, Bush had been in and around the Presidency and knew how it worked when he walked in. Obama probably couldnt find the Oval Office w/o a map.

Rrhain:

And you ignore all the other Presidents we have elected with just as "thin" resumes (Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, etc.)

Roosevelt was Governor of New York and a Vice President. He was Secretary of the Navy. He was a war hero. Obama has done nothing in comparison.

Lincoln serviced in the state house and in the US House. He was also a disaster as a President. He lead the bloodiest war in US history - far more than have died in Iraq. More died in single battles than have died in Iraq. He trampled the Constitution by suspending Habeas Corpus, expelling citizens from the country, trying citizens in military court w/o juries, ignoring freedom of the press... need I go on? Oh, and he DIDNT free the slaves. He only freed slaves in states that were rebelling. Slaves in KY, MO, MD, and DE were still slaves until after the war. It was a cheap political trick. He was also an avowed racist who believed that blacks were inferior and as a lawyer he defended slave owners against runaway slaves. That's his experience.

Rrhain:

was a multi-term representative of a state and a lawyer. That's about the same as Clinton, Mr. If he gets a pass, why are you picking on Obama? Should we claim that Clinton, Mr. only got his attention because he was a Southerner? Take a look at the last few Presidents...they're mostly from the South. Forget about policies and politics, it's just a geographical thing.

Bush is from Texas. Clinton was from Arkansas. Bush 41 was from Maine. Reagan was from CA. Carter was from GA. Ford was from Michigan. Nixon was from CA. So 50% isn't 'Most'. Most is the 80-90% vote that Obama's getting because of his skin color.

Rrhain:

The reason why Ferraro was wrong is that while race is a component, to pretend that it overwhelms all the others is false on the face of it. After all, if it were just race as she indicates, why have no other black candidates ever gotten as far as he has?

No other black candidate has gotten as far because every other candidate has been even less qualified and even black people could realize that. Collin Powell would have been a formidable candidate had he had the guts to run.

Race overwhelms all other issues where Obama is concerned. It's the basis of his support. And he's usually the first to scream "RACIST" any time anyone questions his policies (or lack thereof) or anything else about him.