How about Geraldine Ferarro making totally absurd and racist comments--then standing by them firmly the next day? That's some classy political maneuvering worthy of note in ATL!

The Post is reporting it will be within the hour.

Ferarro is TTT, with a JD from Fordham.

Puh-lease. She obviously couldn't even get in to a top ranked state school like PENN Law.

AUTHOR:
EMAIL:
IP: 38.105.141.122
URL:
DATE: 03/12/2008 09:45:52 AM

Ferarro truly typifies TTT.

The Ferarro comments were really sad. She basically just said "I was a joke candidate." Which I guess, in fact, she was.

What was racist? When 90% of blacks vote for the black candidate in the primary, isn't there some truth to the statement that he "wouldn't be here if it weren't for his race"? As in, his ability to motivate independents and youth could only take him so far?

Lat, you have a firearms training shop as a sponsor? Weird.

I am not sure what else black people must do in this country to prove that they are equal. Get an education, work hard? Nah....

GF actually thinks she was a "serious" candidate while BO is a contender only because he is black.

I am for HRC but if an idiot like Bush can lead this country for 2 terms, anyone can run for president. What were the qualifiers used to judge Bush in any job he ever "earned" post Harvard? He's pedigreed and white!

"Houses passes"? Seriously?

Come on: Typos in comments are one thing -- we're all ignorant trolls anyway -- but in posts, they're unacceptable.

Lat, Clerker's gotta shape up or go.

You're wrong about that Go Lions (9:42). Ferraro got into Penn Law School but chose not to go there because it wouldn't give her an athletic scholarship. She failed part of the physical (something called the Wonderlic part, I don't know what that means). She couldn't afford to pay Happy Valley rental prices on her own, so she applied for, and was awarded, the Fordham Law School & New York Archdioscesan Affirmative Action scholarship for a resident of Hudson Valley. She went to Fordham and the rest, as they say, is herstory.

9:58 --

Didn't BO win states like Alaska that have something in the neighborhood of two black people? The point is that BO is a very talented and qualified dude--at least as talented and qualified as Bill Clinton was in 1992, if not much more so. Pulling in the black vote is a bonus, it's not the whole thing BO offers. Plus, GF suggested that BO was merely an affirmative action case, which is just wrong. Prez of Harvard L R?

10:09: BO won VT by a big margin.

Didn't John Kerry get something like 85% of the black vote? He's about as far from black as one can get. Doesn't Hillary also have lots of support from black lawmakers? I'm thinking specifically of her standing with Stephanie Tubbs-Jones in Ohio after her victory there. Maybe she'd have more support from the black electorate if her surrogates weren't doing idiotic stuff like this all the time. If things keep going this way, and Hilary ends up getting the nomination because of it, I wouldn't be surprised to see a bunch of black voters just stay at home, effectively handing the presidency to McCain

Hillary is a completely incompetent campaigner. Why would we expect her to be any better as a president?

There are a lot of true statements about why these candidates are where they are. E.g., Neither would be where they are if they weren't intelligent and educated; Hillary Clinton wouldn't be where she is today if she hadn't married Bill. Some of these statements are helpful and interesting statements. Others, though true, are intended only to demean and belittle. They are made solely to downplay and distract from the person's actual qualifications. Ferraro's commenbts were of the latter kind. She called attention to his race to suggest that people are choosing him for that, rather than for his qualifications and message. That is sad, if not actually racist. Ferraro should hold herself to a higher standard.

Why were Ferraro's statements racist? She was simply stating her opinion that Obama is getting a boost because many people like the idea of having a black candidate. She compared it to her getting the VP nomination in 1984. She said that the only reason she got the nomination is because people liked the idea of having a female VP. I may not agree with her, but I don't think her remarks are in any way racist. They are simply her opinion. Is she sexist as well because she believes that the only reason she was the VP nominee is because she is a woman? I think not. People are WAY too quick to pull out the racism label and it does nothing but slow down progress towards the elimination of racism in this country.

Obama won Iowa, Alaska, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Washington State, Idaho, Wyoming, Maine, Vermont, Minnesota, and North Dakota. None of these states have a significant black population. Ferarro is full of crap. She says Obama's resume is too thin for him to be in contention without his race being a factor. However, Obama has a longer resume than John Edwards did in 2004 and he was the VP nominee.

Isn't the real issue here that Obama's advisor stepped down for calling Hilary a monster, which, in addition to being universally accepted as the truth, in no way denigrates the intelligence of the voting public? Ferraro basically said the voting public and media are all swooning over Obama for no other reason than the fact that he is black. Yep, that's a sure fire way to gain the support of your opponent's nominees should you beat him; call them all idiots.

Ferraro - "They're attacking me because I'm white."

No - they're attacking you because you're stupid, and it's easy.

Her comments weren't "racist" so much as "unneccessary" and "detrimental to the candidate she supports" and therefore "idiotic".

Amen, 11:34

Has Ferraro lost her mind??

Never mind whether her initial comments were in some sense "true," never mind what she intended, and never mind the elephant in the room (i.e., that her gender played a major role in her having been nominated as a vice presidential candidate). Rightly or wrongly, out of context or not, a lot of people were offended by what she said. The reasonable move would have been to apologize, express her respect for Obama, and move on. But no, she decides to reaffirm what she said, and then complain that SHE has been the victim of a smear campaign. Incredible!

Was Barbara Bush right all along about Ferraro ("it rhymes with rich").

Are the Democrats actually trying to lose this election?

Serious question (so I ask all of the Obama supports to not get their respective panties in a twist and answer with nasty sarcasm) As popular as he is, I for one still don't see Obama's appeal, and since there seem to be so many supportes on this site, I ask the following -

What exactly is his message? I have watched some speeches and still can't identify anything substantive that he stands for - and the operative word here is "substantive" - And as for his voting record, I am concerned about someone who votes "present" so often and won't take a stand on serious issues. Doesn't that alarm his supporters?
I just don't get it!! Can someone enlighten me?????

Silly question 12:59. No one picks candidates based on their track record, and no successful candidate tries to win an election by building such a record. You move up in social organizations by being opaque and mysterious, all things to all people, whether it's to managing partner, ceo, dean, or president. Obama and McCain have figured that out, and it isn't an option for Hillary. What any president does in office is a function of who he (I'm assuming it won't be Hillary) surrounds himself with as advisors and the strength of the political institutions within which he must work. A president has some influence on a presidency, in proportion to his talents, but not that much. It's one of the strengths of this country's political system that it's hard for a single individual to hijack. When people ask your kind of question it's usually just a way of criticizing a candidate (by counterpunching), when more direct methods have not worked.

12:59,

What's his message? Have you not been paying attention? Let's see: we need to get out of Iraq, we need universal access to healthcare, we need to improve education opportunities, we need to invest in green technology and reduce dependence on oil, we need to significantly improve diplomacy, we need to reduce partisian politics... I could go on and on. As for his voting "present", this has been asked and answered several times. In Illinois, it's a political tool that is used to say "I would support but I have some reservations about parts of the bill" It's a way to initiate further discussion instead of simply voting yes or no. In the US Senate, they have the filibuster. In Illinois, they have present.

Additionally, most pundits have repeatedly explained that Obama and Clinton have similar policies for the most part. That being the case, I'm dumbfounded how people keep claiming that he's not substantive. If he isn't and over 90% of their policies are the same then she must not be substantitive either, right?

Finally, the reason why I and many supporters don't need to see all of his plan is because we know that presidents don't make laws, congress does. Presidents only approve or veto the laws congress drafts. This is why the whole healtcare battle is ridiculous. Neither one of them will ever pass so it's just an academic exercise that really means nothing.

2:06, you just reaffirmed my belief that Obama is all style and no substance. He wants to reduce partisian politics, improve schools, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and get out of Iraq, huh? Great. He basically says, "I believe in everything that is popular." The real question is, how does he plan on occomplishing all of these lofty goals? This is where you fundamentally misunderstand the role of the President. The President needs to have a vision and put that vision to work by pushing legislation through Congress. The question is, what sort of legislation does Obama propose to push through Congress? Bush wants to improve education, reduce dependence on foreign oil, invest in green technology (ethanol, specifically), and improve our image in the world. You (and I, for that matter) just happen to disagree with the way he chooses to go about accomplishing these goals.

P.S. - what are partisian politics? Is that like a cross between parisian and partisan politics? Perhaps partisan French politics?

*accopmlishing*

*accomplishing*

Big mistake 2:06. First rule of visiting fairytaleland is don't feed the trolls.

We live in the internet age. If you want to see Obama's positions in detail, go to his website. If you're too lazy to do so, stop bitching about his lack of substance.

Jesus, 2:19 - If you're going to troll, at least be interesting.

I knew some of you who couldn't give a straight answer (likely b/c you don't have an informed clue) would just be rude and stupid.

Thank you 1:47, 2:06 and 2:19 for actually answering an honest question.

As for you 2:42, you are a total D-bag.

3:41: What candidate do you back and why? What does he or she substantively stand for? Please don't just tell us goals - tell us how your candidate plans to accomplish them. Thx.

Obama, of course. And why, you ask? B/c we as a people don't need more slice and dice politics that DIVIDE us - we need unity so we can solve the ISSUES - and I plan to do this with HOPE!

Ferraro just got sh*tcanned from the Clinton finance cmte.

Maybe Ferraro's comments are a diversionary tactic. Could she be Client #10, and trying to deflect attention from the Emporer's Club story so that no more names come out? Get on this Lat. You're an investigative reporter. You've got contacts. Maybe JoPa knows something. Or maybe Kozinski.