« Hillary Camp To Orlando Patterson: We Do Have Black Child In 3 A.M. Ad | Home | Clinton Campaign Manager Suggests Obama Campaign Is Playing Race Card With Ferraro Comments »
Obama Camp Hits Hillary's "Refusal To Denounce Or Reject" Ferraro
Here's the latest statement on l'affaire Ferraro from Obama campaign spokesperson Bill Burton:
“With Senator Clinton’s refusal to denounce or reject Ms. Ferraro, she has once again proven that her campaign gets to live by its own rules and its own double standard, and will only decry offensive comments when it’s politically advantageous to Senator Clinton. Her refusal to take responsibility for her own supporter’s remarks is exactly the kind of tactic that feeds the American people’s cynicism about politics today and it’s why Barack Obama’s message of change has resonated so strongly in every corner of the country."
Earlier today, Hillary said that she doesn't agree with Ferraro's comments, in which she seemed to suggest that Obama's race is responsible for his success in the campaign. And Hillary added that "both of us have had supporters and staff members who've gone over the line." But she didn't denounce or reject Ferraro.
Advertisement
Seriously, can they get these two into a room and hammer out a deal? Obama/Clinton works (or will work for folks). I'm sick of this crap.
March 11, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
doesn't work for me. Obama doesn't need Clinton weighing him down.
March 11, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if the Clinton and Obama campaigns keep calling for supporters and staff members to resign, step down, apologize, etc, at the rate they have, by July, there will be no one left working for either.
Which, come to think of it, might not be such a bad thing...
March 11, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phrases that will linger long after this campaign:
March 11, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch - Ferarro just made things worse, via The Page:
Insists her comment was not racist, and is “absolutely offended” by the angry response she has received. Blames Obama campaign and David Axelrod for the response.
Denies being a Clinton campaign surrogate, and advises Obama “not to antagonize people like me,” because if he wins nomination he will want her to raise money on his behalf.
March 11, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geraldine Ferraro is a liar. She represented the Clinton camp, last week on PBS Newshour. She kept attacking the other guest Senator Bill Bradley, from the Obama camp. She openly bragged about how much organizing she had done in Florida for Hillary, and how she coordinated with them on how to work on the Florida primary.
March 11, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can someone please refer GF back to her statement yesterday from the article:
March 11, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama can raise money just fine. :P
March 11, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This part:
Just made me wince. You Obama people are antagonzing "People like me" with these comments? That just sounds really wrong.
March 11, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect that was the point of this exercise. Hillary no longer gets to call for the head of the next person in Obama's campaign who commits candor, or risks looking utterly ridiculous if she does.
Not that fear of looking ridiculous has been much of a speedbump for Penn and Wolfson.
March 11, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"in which she seemed to suggest that Obama's race is responsible for his success in the campaign."
That is a very generous way to describe what Ferraro said. By the way, Ferraro is now saying that she is sorry that people thought what she said was racist, and is very offended by how people have responded to her.
Are these people living in a parallel universe?
March 11, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but the Obama camp's ongoing hysterical race hypersensitivity is getting pretty tiresome.
Ferraro's comments were true. That's a pretty damn good defense. Hillary can't say it's true, but it is, in fact, true.
Every time the Obama camp hears something it doesn't like it reflexively and hysterically accuses the Clinton camp of racism. Whether or not there's any substance to the accusation means little as the accusation alone is such a powerful bludgeon. Team Obama knows that very well and has overused it as a result.
Anyone who even doubts that if Obama were white he would not be where he is at this moment politically speaking, is either beyond stupid, or doing so for political reasons alone. The Obama campaign needs to stop this childish tactic.
BTW--If forced to choose, as is the case, I'd rather have Obama than Clinton so please don't accuse me of being for her. I'm not.
March 11, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ferraro's comments are assertion, not truth. Only if we had extensive polling asking white people if they chose him pecause he was black could we answer the question of whether his race is a net positive.
Ferraro implied, directly and clearly, that a white man with equal charisma and smarts would not have achievced what Obama has by being black. That is ludicrous on its face.
March 11, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're joking right?
Ferraro simply pointed out what is obvious.
And yes, if Obama had been a white guy saying and doing exactly what he has and is he would never have stood a chance in this election. Ask John Edwards how much of an advantage being a white man and a Democrat was this year. Edwards was far and away the best hope for progressives and liberals in the Democratic Party but was ignored in droves because of the presence of the first viable woman and the first viable black candidate.
March 11, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The idea that Barack Hussein Obama is getting extra votes for being a BLACK guy named Barack Hussein Obama is beyond silly.
What it is is racist....
March 11, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go back even farther and consider this: Would Obama have been given the opportunity to give the Keynote Speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention if he were not black? Isn't that where the country was first introduced to this inspiring man? And would his story be as inspiring if he had grown up as just another poor white kid -- say like John Edwards? Had Obama not been given the Keynote Speech and had he not done such a wonderfully rousing job of it, would Obama have won his seat in the U.S. Senate, and would he have been able to move on so quickly to put his hat into the ring for the 2008 presidential election? This country is not color blind -- would that it were. If Sen. Obama can use his color to his advantage and that of his constituents, his supporters and, ultimately, this country, then more power to him!! But we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that his color hasn't played a part in getting him where he is today. Not any more than Sen. Clinton can deny that her gender (and her husband) has helped her. Whether his color and her gender (and husband) are viewed as burdens to overcome or to capitalize upon or as benefits to take advantage of, they are part of who these candidates are. And who they are is why we support them.
March 11, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Edwards is the best this party has, why did he lose out to the dud John Kerry in '04??
March 11, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason Edwards lost out to John Kerry is because the idiots who vote based on who think they can win versus who they actually agree with on the issues catapulted Kerry into the lead. In other words the centrists who believe it is better not to lose than to try to win stopped Edwards (right after they stopped Dean). Those same fools have been responsible for the Democratic Party's losing candidates over and over and not just for President. This year, they have once again won control of the process and we have two centrist candidates to choose from. One is a woman and the other is a black man. Those are the only different of novel things about their candidacies: race and gender. Those are the two themes that have dominated media coverage of the race. It isn't racist to point out what has occured. It's simply acknowledging reality.
March 11, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see it as hypersensitivity. If you think so, please explain Ferraro's comments. I'd love to understand how being a black man named Barack Hussein Obama is a benefit that a white woman named Hillary Clinton doesn't have.
March 11, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
Actually, Barack Hussein Obama seems to have a lot of relatives posting at Election Central. Maybe that's the advantage?
March 11, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just astounded at the level of denial. Truly and genuinely astounded.
What is to Obama's clear benefit in this primary season (his race) is his major vulnerability in November against the party of racsim. Liberal whites and others would love to see a black President. Nothing wrong with that at all by the way. But whether or not the nation as a whole shares this long remains to be seen and could well be the big weakness for Obama in November.
March 11, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your claim seems to be that there are a bunch of racists out there that won't vote for Obama but will vote for Clinton and that the Democratic party needs these people to win in November. Am I understanding you correctly? You also seem to think that these people don't vote in primaries and caucuses but only come out in general elections.
Obviously Ferraro is right. I mean the Democratic party is just crawling with people desperate for a cool black friend like Obama which explains the huge number of black candidates for governor and senator nominated by the Democrats. Oh wait, there are hardly any. (obviously I'm being sarcastic for those that are interpretationally challenged)
The explanation that Edwards lost because he is white strikes me as pure stupidity --and I was an Edwards supporter. I think he was out classed by Clinton who has far better name recognition and better connections and Obama who is far more charismatic as well as very organize. Edwards lacked the novelty of being female or black but in the end I seriously doubt that was the critial factor.
March 11, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who said Edwards lost because he was white? No one.
March 11, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
And no, it is not correct that we need racist Democrats to vote for Obama to win. The point is that the general electorate is not as liberal or open minded about race than the Democratic electorate. That is as plain as day. Thus, being black in the general is likely to be a real vulnerability for Obama. It is a vulnerability that is of an entirely different character than within the Democratic primary process.
March 11, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you seem to fail to understand is that the same can be said for Hillary (if she wasn't a woman) or for any candidate at anytime: if John Edwards hadn't been the son of a mill worker...
This argument is logically flawed: If person A wasn't person A, they'd be somebody else.
And what makes it rascist is the idea that if you were only to subtract Obama's race from everything that makes him up, then he wouldn't amount to anything. The statement above about Hillary would be sexist and the one about Edwards would be classist. All three of these people are more than simply one salient feature that can be removed from the mix. So whether you prefer Obama or not, you have a painfully reductivist view of this whole thing.
March 11, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Ferraro's comments were true. That's a pretty damn good defense. Hillary can't say it's true, but it is, in fact, true."
So Clinton is losing ONLY because she's a woman and Obama is winning BECAUSE he's black?
March 11, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely. You know how easy it is for a black man to win the presidency? So easy that a black man has been president ZERO times.
For confirmation of the ease with which a black man can be president, ask Jesse Jackson. Or Al Sharpton. Or any decently educated second-grader.
March 11, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. Obviously not and no one said Clinton is losing because she is a woman.
But to deny Obama's race is a benefit to him and perhaps the decisive one in the Democratic primaries is simply to deny reality. It's time for people to get off their high horses on this and just be honest. The holier than thou condemnations of anyone who might point out that Obama's race benefits him in the primaries is absurd. You can't have honest political discussion when each and every criticism is responded to with hysteria about racism whether or not it is racism. Clearly it has been an effective tactic for Obama now for weeks, but it is not healthy nor is it honest.
March 11, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben Smith has more of Obama's comment:
March 11, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish they would drop this. It's not making them look good. Let the clintons look like fools.
March 11, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ferraro just said:
"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
March 11, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't be because what she said was insanely stupid. Did they ask her to explain herself, cause I'd love to understand what she meant.
March 11, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
She sure is digging her grave pretty deep.
March 11, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
My answer to Geraldine: "Idiotic."
This has been the latest installment in the series of one-word answers to ridiculous questions. Next time, I will address Sinbad's foreign policy credentials.
March 11, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is GREAT NEWS!! for Whitey!
March 11, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. Hillary was all over Power's "monster" comment. Ferraro's was at the very least similarly deplorable. Clinton needs to do more than state she "disagrees" with the comment because she called for Power's release. Hillary backed herself into this corner. Obama's merely pointing out the Spitzocrisy.
March 11, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was originally meant to be in response to the statement that the Obama camp should drop this. I agree that she's digging herself pretty deep....
March 11, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"advises Obama 'not to antagonize people like me,'"
Reports indicated she later added, "Do you know who I am?!?! I'm Geraldine Ferraro!!"
The duelling resignations are an asinine game, but Hillary's practice of throwing elbows and then taking an exaggerated flop when she gets the least amount of push-back needs to be neutralizied by the counter narrative we are seeing here.
Hillary Rodman Clinton, as it were.
March 11, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep waiting for the headline:
"Samantha Power Reinstated, Hillary Confirmed to be Monster"
March 11, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Monsters, inc. ON DEFENSE IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 11, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ferraro said, "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
And, she's crazy.
March 11, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow Hillary gets the over 70 white female category. If this were American Idol and you could vote as many times as you wanted, Hillary would win based solely on this group of voters.
Am I guessing? No.
At my caucus we had 13 people, at the beginning. The three Hillary supporters were all over 70 years old. But their spirit was truly amazing. They could have been cheerleaders. Very passionate. One of these three gave the "Vote for Hillary" speech but was somehow upset that nobody changed their minds. She ended up leaving before she voted!
Although most of us were Obama supporters, I talked about this to others, I was surprised she left, I commented that her speech was very good, but somehow she was pissed that nobody changed to her side.
The Obama supporters, all ten of us, were a real cross-section of age, race, gender, education, etc. We did lack any 70+ white women.
For most of this event I was actually touched that these women were so supportive of Hillary.
But then something weird happened. One of the two Hillary supporters said something about a black man. I can't remember the comment exactly, but it was really sticking a pin into a balloon.
There seems to be a fallback position that if you lose, make a positive comment: good for a black dude!
WTF does race have to do with his success?
March 11, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell us Gerry, if Sinbad were a white man could he have passed the CIC threshold?
March 11, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sinbad will always pass the CiC threshold.
March 11, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
[b]Ferraro's comments were true. That's a pretty damn good defense. Hillary can't say it's true, but it is, in fact, true.[/b]
It was her opinion, not fact but if her opinion was true, then it could be said that Hilary's wouldn't be where she is in the election if she wasn't a woman not to mention the wife of a popular former President is the reason why she's successful in this campaign.
Ferraro's suggesting that Obama's getting votes because of his race would be like someone in Obama's camp suggesting that Clinton's getting votes because she's a woman and if that happened Clinton and her supporters would be offended and likely be screaming sexism.
March 11, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until now politics never had to worry about black and white; just red, white and blue.
Why now?
March 12, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink