Gothamist: Ferraro Leaves Clinton Campaign Committee

Elderta

Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:17:26 -0500

Spitzer's exit speech was a lot more classier than Ferraro's. Way to go, Geraldine!

berniegoetz

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:47:31 -0500

Yes, "Mister Tissue," clearly you are qualified to instruct unknown thousands of people to recheck the value of their souls per the current exchange rate in political correctness as determined by you -- a fucking guy on the internet.

MisterTissue

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:56:12 -0500

Haven't there been enough examples of ACTUALLY racist and insensitive comments coming from the media and the Clinton campaign to kill the "Oh, Obama supporters are just playing the 'race card'" argument? I'm sorry...but anyone who doesn't think Ferraro's comments are, at the very least, insensitive as hell might want to do some soul searching about their own racial prejudices.

Politburo

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:21:19 -0500

Care to provide any examples of the media treating Obama with "kid gloves"?

kissel

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:10:07 -0500

i think she may have had a point only in this respect. The media is treating Obama with kid gloves so they won't risk being called racist -- which Obama supporters love to throw around. I don't particularly like either candidate. The Democratic party should go back to the smoke filled room to choose its candidate - it was far more successful in those days.

Dude69

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:47:08 -0500

I am choosing Hilary because I don't think Obama can deliver on even half the initiatives he's promised in his campaign. People always over estimate the amount of power a President really has, especially the more naive young voters. He's alreay began to backtrack on his full pullout of the troops from Iraq within a year promise. Also, I still have no idea what and how he's going to change things if he's President. Anyway, Clinton only had herself to blame for losing the nomination, and that includes not keeping Bubba under control.

babyhitler

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:19:21 -0500

If people were pissed off about poor and undeducated rednecks voting for bush in 00 and 04, what about the 91% of poor and uneducated voting for obama? scary.

Thespis

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:14:55 -0500

All my life I've thought that the reason voters overwhelming rejected Mondale and Ferraro was because of a combination of Reagan's popularity and a country that was then not yet ready for a female VP. But in retrospect, maybe no one voted for her because she's...just a complete loon.

pissyrabbit

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:41:30 -0500

That is some gorgeous and heartfelt writing Gerry. You are about as eloquent as GWB.

MJG

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:24:54 -0500

Hillary was regarded early on as the front runner so it made sense for her to plan to lock up the nomination on Super Tuesday. East River, remember Super Tuesday was designed to wrap up the nomination early to avoid the political battle going on in the Democratic Party. Hillary was working within the party's rules and she's called arrogant. I wonder why. Obama's success has exposed an unappealing desperation within the Clinton's campaign that wasn't there when the campaigning began. It might change America's image in the world to be led by a black man named Barack Obama. But, don't kid yourself into thinking it will prevent people from attacking us. If Obama continues a foreign policy, like Bush, that is unpopular around the world it may continue to provide people with an excuse for violence.

Politburo

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:21:12 -0500

"already there have been a lot of democrats who have come out saying they will vote for McCain " There have been a few extremely vocal people spouting this crap. However the vast majority of Dems will vote for the nominee, whoever it is. "I have yet to hear a republican say they will now vote for the democrat nominee now that McCain is the republican nominee." They're not saying they'll cross over, but there is an equally vocal group of people saying they'll sit home, vote libertarian, etc. Granted, based on polling data, this group appears to be smaller for the GOP. However in both cases, I think most people will hold their noses. It's only March, and there are still 8 months to go. Right now the issues have been minor details of things where the party generally agrees, and media-supported controversies. When the general kicks in, and the issues are fundamental differences in political philosophy and the future of the country, I think people will come around. (Note that I'm assuming Obama will be the nominee)

yakatori

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:00:40 -0500

"The Dems will get behind the candidate. Remember two months ago the GOPs were eating each other's babies. Now they're all wearing shit-eating grins as they stand behind McCain." Not true Politburo, already there have been a lot of democrats who have come out saying they will vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't win the nomination. Yes, the republican were going at one another but I have yet to hear a republican say they will now vote for the democrat nominee now that McCain is the republican nominee.

JacqueMehoff

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:58:12 -0500

not shocking at all, she one of them long time LI'ers. other closet racists from LI, Rosie o'donnell and bill O'reilly.

Politburo

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:48:01 -0500

Ok course we all know the WSJ editorial board is completely fair and rational when it comes to Democrats, right?.. Right? I don't see why the WSJ editorial board's opinion matters at all. Which gets to one of my pet peeves.. why do we let GOPs "analyze" Dems, and vice-versa? It's not going to be a rational and fair analysis. The WSJ Board is injecting the "race card" meme now to get it built up for later in the campaign. "The Republicans, for all hate-mongering, at least get behind something." The Dems will get behind the candidate. Remember two months ago the GOPs were eating each other's babies. Now they're all wearing shit-eating grins as they stand behind McCain.

zodak

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:39:40 -0500

wow aryn, what a comprehensive & statistically relevant random sample you chose. 1 person. that is definitely representative of all of obama's supporters. i also like how you ended your post with "This is what they cited as their main reason." such a well written post. the reader is left with the impression that you are attributing such crap to more than 1 person. well done!

gossipgirl

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:27:10 -0500

Aryn, with their policies so similar, sometimes a rose by any other name really doesn't smell as sweet.

aryn

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:20:46 -0500

I actually know someone who really did tell me they are voting for Obama because of his "great name." They imagine that such a name will be hard for the international audience to ignore, and that middle eastern terrorists would have difficulty disrespecting him because of it. Also, I'm not saying that his name is the only reason people like him or that the majority of his supporters feel that way - I know better - but when I asked one of his supporters why they like him. This is what they cited as their main reason.

MisterTissue

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:18:48 -0500

The most alarming thing about this entire Democratic Primary season is this: AGAIN AND AGAIN the Clinton been caught up in discussions of Mr. Obama's race. Between Bill's belittling comparisons to the Jackson campaign of '88 in South Carolina, to this most grievous offense. And don't get me started on the "secret Muslim" crap... Suffice it to say, YES, it is important that Barack Obama is the MOST electable African American ever to seek the office of the President. BUT...Hillary Clinton is ALSO the most electable WOMAN to seek the same office. And yet...have you heard ANY mention of Mrs. Clinton's gender from the Obama camp? Clinton is nefariously using identity politics and, in the process, spitting in the face of the previous struggles of the feminist and civil rights movements. She is running a Karl Rove campaign: divide, alienate, and disenfranchise. I'm tired of her and her crap and I hope she gets knocked off her high horse in PA.

yakatori

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:04:20 -0500

The Democrats a bunch of hypocritical idiots. After two terms of Bush only these morons can foul up a sure thing. The Republicans, for all hate-mongering, at least get behind something. This is why I am and will continue to be an independant.

EastRiver

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:03:45 -0500

I do think the press has been harder on Clinton not because she is a woman or because she is white. It's because she's a Clinton. The press knows lots of people personally dislike her and/or Bill Clinton so they fed the story. It also didn't help her cause that she was rather arrogant as the front runner last fall - not so much in what she said but in how she organized her campaign. Example, she never expected this thing to go past Super Tuesday so she spent lots of money in January but failed to build an effective ground network of support in the later primary states. As for Obama, he's the cool, young guy candidate that the kids are all excited about i.e. he's the Bill Clinton of 2008. Again, really has little to do with race.

Outter Burrougher

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:53:37 -0500

Because who didn't see Ferraro's remarks and think "why yes, of course, the black man is always keeping whitey down".

Tim N.

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:51:12 -0500

I always think of the SNL bit from '84 when Walter Mondale retreats to a cabin in Minnesota and stomps around going "Gerry Ferraro, what was I thinking?!!"

matty

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:49:27 -0500

He didn't play the race card, she did.

Rocknrope

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:42:36 -0500

Her comments were idiotic.