It appears that she's caused quite a furor with her remark about Democrat front-runner Barack Obama:
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.Wow. Quite an indictment. Let's get back in the Wayback Machine, set it for 1984, and play with the first sentence of that quotation a little:
If [Ferraro] was a white man, [s]he would not be in this position.After all, she was tapped as Walter Mondale's running mate after only three terms in Congress.
I guess Ms. Ferraro knows from whence she speaks when she talks about the elevation of unqualified candidates by Democrats to play at affirmative-action, identity politics.
Of course, if either Hitlary Clinton or Barack Obama were a white man, neither one would be in the position they're in. Seven years in the Senate, and before that, the wife of a powerful politician? Three years in the Senate?
On an objective basis, neither one of them is qualified to be President of the United States (in facd, the only Democrat who ran who was objectively qualified was Bill Richardson; his campaign never got off the ground).
2 comments:
For chrissakes, how did the American people become so gullible? This has nothing to do with Ferraro or Obama. Geraldine Ferraro did this for the Clinton campaign. She sacrificed her good name for the Clinton branding machine, like a suicide bomber (but with words). It's a con game. The way the game works, Clinton now distances herself from Ferraro, the same way that Bush distanced himself from Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth."
What they wanted to do, and succeeded in doing, was to plant negative marketing points about Obama in the minds of gullible Democrats, subconsciously.
Whether Ferraro is damaged or seen as racist is completely beside the point. The point is that she sacrificed her good name in the service of the Clinton spin machine - the same machine that wants you to think that some states matter more than others because they cherry-pick them; the same machine that creates issues about Obama out of thin air because they want to win at all costs regardless of the damage it does to the party or the nation. It's slash and burn.
Now, do we really want someone so ruthless, so out of control as our next president?? Or do we want someone more sensible, consistent, and steady? Someone like, I dunno... Maybe Senator Obama?
Americans! Wake up and stop falling for marketing tricks!
Well, "LW," your comment is filled with faulty premises --- Ferraro's "good name"; the notion that Bush had anything more to do with SBVT than Kerry and other Dems have to do with "MoveOn.org" and other hard-Left "independent" groups; the notion that there are OTHER than "gullible Democrats"; the notion that Obama is "sensible, consistent, and steady" when he stands for nothing other than pretty rhetoric --- but I wouldn't be surprised if your overriding conclusion --- that this is a setup --- is correct.
Post a Comment