Protest much? Yes.

Again, not a rejection of Ferraro.

Again, the party is silent.

And, Ferraro is a member of Hillary's finance committee...and Geffen is just a supporter. I think there's a huge difference right there.

when are the American people going to be finished with the kind of politics and politicians that do or say something offensive and then immediately blames the exact same offense, falsely, on their opponent?

we've had 8 years of this. everything we've seen from Hillary Clinton's campaign indicates there will be at least another 4 years of it. i'm tired of having Bizzaro World thrust upon me. sick and goddamn tired.

Um, there's a big difference. David Geffen is a donor. Ferraro is part of Hillary's campaign apparatus. This comparison is ridiculous.

Maybe they should criticize Obama for some comments I've made on blogs because I donate some money to him? Duh.

"Of course, Ferraro's comments were racially-charged, whereas Geffen was just being a jerk"

That's exactly the point Ferraro is making.

You can be sexist, but you can't be racist.

Thanks for claryfing.

Do the Clintons really want to revisit these Geffen remarks?

“Marc Rich getting pardoned? An oil-profiteer expatriate who left the country rather than pay taxes or face justice?” Mr. Geffen says. “Yet another time when the Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that they genuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

Keep trying Howard. Eventually you'll be able to spin this into an attack. (Although I don't recall David Geffen going on all the morning talk shows to stand by his comments and expand on them.)

I read the article in question, and what did it say?

Let's start here:

Did Mr. Spielberg get in trouble with the Clintons for helping Senator Obama? “Yes,” Mr. Geffen replies, slyly. Can Obambi stand up to Clinton Inc.? “I hope so,” he says, “because that machine is going to be very unpleasant and unattractive and effective.”

So, how is that not true?

Let's move on to why they had the falling out:

They fell out in 2001, when Mr. Clinton gave a pardon to Marc Rich after rebuffing Mr. Geffen’s request for one for Leonard Peltier. “Marc Rich getting pardoned? An oil-profiteer expatriate who left the country rather than pay taxes or face justice?” Mr. Geffen says. “Yet another time when the Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that they genuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

So, how is that not true?

There is some other stuff but to compare Ferraro's comments with Geffen's is just silly. I strongly urge all of you to read the column.

What Publicus said. I know there were still people trying to believe that these scum are not deliberately running a Rovian race-baiting campaign, but this should settle the matter for all except those whose Clinton-worship has advanced to the point of actual brain damage. (Of course, there seem to be quite a few of those.)

Geffen raised money for Obama. Ferraro says, then retracted, that she's on Hillary's finance committee.

OK, not a huge difference, I would say, but that's really beside the point. Ferraro's comments cast doubt on Obama's success because of his race. And threw gasoline on the fire by claiming she was the target of racism. This isn't in the same league as

I don’t think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person,” Mr. Geffen says, adding that if Republicans are digging up dirt, they’ll wait until Hillary’s the nominee to use it. “I think they believe she’s the easiest to defeat.”

To claim that it is is ridiculous.

But, as someone above pointed out, it's right in the Rove wheelhouse.

And wow. Mr. Geffen was pretty prescient, wasn't he? A year ago?

I agree with Ezra Klein:

"After all, Obama is not a woman, nor a white man. He's who he is. To say that if he were different, things would be different is to say nothing at all. As a white woman, maybe he would have led a military coup and established himself dictator. Who knows!? Hell, if he were a slightly less inspiring speaker, or had an off-night at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he wouldn't be in this position either. Similarly, if Hillary Clinton were a black man, it's unlikely that she would have been a national political figure for the past 15 years, as it's unlikely that she would have married another man from Arkansas, and unlikely that the country would have put an interracial, same sex couple in the White House. But so what? This is an election, not Marvel's "What If?" series."

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=what_if_1#104963

Let's be clear here. Geffen had a longstanding personal relationship with the Clintons. The bile he spilled forth last year had nothing to do with Obama, and everything to do with the souring of his personal relationship. Obama, rather reasonably, pointed out that while he could distance himself from those remarks, he had no intention of inserting himself into the dispute between these old friends turned enemies.

Let's contrast that with Geraldine Ferraro. Her animus against Obama has nothing to do with him personally. It's not clear they've ever met; they're certainly not friends, current or former. Her remarks targeted Obama on the basis of his race, and yes, his gender. She reduced him to his demography. There was nothing personal about it - all she sees when she looks at Obama is one more man, standing in the way of yet another woman. And it angers her, even unhinges her.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the equivalence.

TPMtv has a highlight reel of Ferraro's appearances on cable & nets today. Josh wanted us to enjoy a little comic relief. I wish I could laugh.

I felt like puking as I looked at Ferraro's vicious, angry face as she repeated her insane accusations over and over, and tried to personalize the controversy as being about HER. It is difficult to understand how Hillary can abide this sort of insubordination and naked threats: "she [i.e., Hillary!] can't silence me," I am making this appearance because "I'm a Fox contributor." There are "hundreds of thousands of people on finance committees." If Hillary fires me "so what?"

Best (or most disgusting of all): wagging her finger at the camera, Ferraro threatened Obama: "If he's going to be the candidate, he shouldn't be making these charges against me because when he's nominated he's going to ask me to raise money for him." right. that'll happen

He didn't even say anything that horrible. Ferraro's comments were undeniably bigoted, especially when you look at the exact same comments she made about Jesse Jackson 20 years ago. There is a pattern.

And yes, as people pointed out, Geffen was never a part of Obama's campaign.

I'm ready for Samantha Power to come back since obviously everything is fair game now.

What is wrong with Geffen's comments? I guess that a year ago, they must have seemed personal, but at this point, can anyone deny that his predictions have come to fruition? And as for the Mark Rich comment, as Sen Clinton likes to say, that is a historical fact.

Maureen Dowd had a different angle on this in NYT today:

"Lyndon Johnson once observed that the two things that make politicians more stupid than anything else are sex and envy.

Even as Governor Spitzer struggled with the sex story on Tuesday, the Clinton campaign struggled with the envy story.

Geraldine Ferraro, who helped Walter Mondale lose 49 states in 1984, was clearly stung at what she considered Obama’s easy rise to celebrity and electoral success."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/opinion/12dowd.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Could it be that Ferraro didn't mean to sound like a racist bitch, but she couldn't help herself because she is such a jealous, vindictive bitch?

(I love the part about her helping Mondale "lose 49 states.")

You stay mature, Clinton campaign.

Oh, I don't think they thought this one through a all. Geffen has been silent since his comments at the beginning of the campaign.

This will only bring his wrath down on them. And, make no mistake about it, he can hurt the Clinton's... BIG time.

"Of course, Ferraro's comments were racially-charged, whereas Geffen was just being a jerk"

I still don't get it.

Is there an example of someone "just being a jerk" towards Obama without being branded racist??

Ferraro is truly going over the edge. Here's what she told the NYT late last night or early this morning:

The Clinton campaign did not contact her on Tuesday, Ms. Ferraro said. “I don’t want them to reach out to me,” she said. “I’m exercising my First Amendment rights. If they don’t like it, tough. I don’t intend ever to have anybody tell me that I can’t say what I want to say.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/us/politics/12campaign.html

"If they [Hillary's campaign] don't like it, tough."

Grrreeaat . . . . She thinks she's so tough. Andrea Mitchell said on KO last night that Ferraro has been going through chemotherapy and she's very ill. So, I'm sure she IS tough in that way.

But this is revolting, openly threatening not only Obama but her OWN SIDE! ("I will single-handedly destroy the reputation of the entire Democratic Party because I am such an out-of-control, jealous bee-yatch. Tough.")

She needs to be sent away on a nice long trip to some non-English speaking country. Suggestions?

CNN is reporting that Ferraro has resigned from Clinton's finance campaign. She is placing the blame on the Obama campaign. Because, you know, if Obama wasn't black, Ferraro wouldn't have been 'forced' to say what she did.

Samantha. Samantha Power.

Susan=Susan Rice, she never left

It's only Thursday, somebody in Hillary's camp will say something equally or more stupid by mid-day Saturday, just in time for final rehearsals at SNL.

Geffen's remark was not "being a jerk" but rather disarmingly truthful. You will recall that Geffen remarked about the Clintons ability to tell "lie[s] with ease." That is quite different than the pattern of race-related blather coming from the Clinton campaign.

Ferraro's remarks -- even when taken IN context with her "explanation" -- is that she cannot talk about Obama's experience (it is because he has none? I think not.) Is it that she cannot talk about his ideas and plans for the country? (Again, I think not.) Instead she suggests that it is solely because the country is enamoured with Obama because he is black. (Marginalizing and trivializing his abilities, any way you slice and dice it.)

Geffen's remarks, are searing because as we have seen throughout this campaign -- if we were too enamoured of the Clintons in the 90s to recognize it -- is that they do tell lies, fibs, falsehoods, misstatements, overstatements, fairy tales and other items which fall on the "less than truthful" side of the truth spectrum. Bill was against the war in Iraq from the start (no) as was Hillary (double no), NAFTA was always bad (nope), driver's licenses as good thing -- no wait a bad thing (no and no). Hillary was the "face of foreign policy" (not even close.) The list goes on.

Ferraro's comments (and her continuing ridiculous defense of them even on the nightly news shows) is part and parcel of the Clinton game play to use race and identity politics as a wedge issue to try to wrest the nomination from the "uppity black man with audacity to run against Obama, and blame the Obama campaign for playing the race card.

The Clintons' blind ambitions and power hungry grubbing will end in defeat for them.

I wish Obama had asked why he should apologize for some one else's words when confronted about Farrakhan during the debate.