Ferraro: My comment was not racist, it was fact

This is American politics being politics. The fact he is black is enough of a reason for anything being said considered racist. The list is long and illustrious of people in entertainment and politics of having a racist label thrown their way.

There is a tremendous double standard in the media between liberal and conservative and Republican and demoncrat.

As far as I'm concerned, Geraldine is a Flip Wilson character. Only the older people here will remember that one....

reply to post by Sublime620


Stating a fact is not racism, To consider having the ability to recognize that the race of a particular individual is an element of the reason for that persons success is not racist. To ignore facts , while trying to avoid the mention of race , while it may not be racist, is ignorant

Originally posted by DwnitsDwn
reply to post by Sublime620

 

Stating a fact is not racism, To consider having the ability to recognize that the race of a particular individual is an element of the reason for that persons success is not racist. To ignore facts , while trying to avoid the mention of race , while it may not be racist, is ignorant

What she is claiming to be a fact is not that he is Black. Yes that would be hard to be miscontrued as racism. What she is claiming is a fact is that he is where he is *because* he is black. Which, judging from the other unsuccessful black presidential candidates, is no where near fact.

What's racist about her comments isn't so much what she is saying as much as it is who she is trying to inspire. She is pandering to a prejudicial element in much the same way some GOP folks have done by saying his name sounds like Osama. It's simple fear mongering and old politics.

Once again, I am so tired of the "Oh you cant say anything if your white" stance. We are upset because this woman is stupid, not because she is a racist.


I refer you to an earlier post of mine...

Originally posted by Quazga

Originally posted by jbondo
Seems "PC" only applies to white people.

...

Furthermore, I agree with GF in that because of a speech he made 4 years ago and being black it vaulted him into the forefront. I'm going to go one better, had he not made that speech at the Dem convention he would not even be running for Pres.

...

Then why didn't Al Sharptons speech about "Riding this Donkey for all it's worth" vault him to the forefront? That speech was made during the same convention.

See the flaw in your logic? The reason why Obama was vaulted with that speech was not because he was Black, it was because of his Speech! It made people feel more united than divided. It made me proud to be an American again because it showed me what kind of rhetoric we could actually use in political discourse. And he is proving that it works.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by Quazga]

reply to post by DwnitsDwn


So you think Obama is winning because he's black?

I'd say that's ignorant.

And do you have some sort of statistic to back that assertion up?

Originally posted by Sublime620
Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you about it. If you think that Obama is winning the election because he's black, you need to go back to 1950 and hang out with your peers.

Oh, is that your subtle way of saying I'm racist? If you're going to say it, say it big shot! I should have known a narrow mind would throw out the insults. I could care less that he's black and you know it! I for one would have loved to have seen Colin Powell run, who even with his lack of domestic policy experience would be a great pres.

I made the point of Obama making that speech combined with being black vaulting him into the forefront as it did. The truth is the truth any way you slice it and it doesn't take a bigot to see it.

Quazga,

I suggest you read my post again. I said: "If he didn't make that speech, he wouldn't even be running". Dude, it's a combination. So tell me, is a speech or the words contained therein enough qualification to run the USA? I mean show me something that makes this guy worthy of the presidency?

reply to post by Sublime620

Ok let's drag this out into the middle of the floor and let the cat sniff it.

SOME people will vote for Obama simply because he's black.

SOME people will vote for Hillary simply because she's female.

SOME people will vote for McCain simply because he is a white military veteran.

Makes as much sense as any other kind of voting without doing the research required for a logical excercise of voting franchise.

The idea that some topics are forbidden simply because they violate PC goes against the grain of Denying Ignorance. IMHO

Originally posted by kerontehe
reply to post by Sublime620

 

Ok let's drag this out into the middle of the floor and let the cat sniff it.

SOME people will vote for Obama simply because he's black.

SOME people will vote for Hillary simply because she's female.

SOME people will vote for McCain simply because he is a white military veteran.

Scary but true.

I personally wouldn't vote for a female (right now) which is not a good attitude but I'm being honest.

I’ve said it before here: Everyone has some form of prejudice no matter if it’s just something very minor or not and if you say you don’t, well you’re only fooling yourself. The difference is that some of us recognize our prejudices and work to change and grow.

If the truth be told I do have a prejudice and I will admit it. I have a problem with the thoughts of a woman running this country. I have an ingrained thought process that tells me a woman is just not fully equipped to do the job and it’s mainly because I see women as being emotionally weaker. I realize that it is a narrow viewpoint. I have identified my problem and I work to change and grow.

HAHAHA You guys are so silly. Let me write a willy-nilly silly dilly:

His name is Obama, and he is winning.
Obama is black, and he is winning
He is a man, and he is winning.

Obama the black man is winning because he is Obama the black man.

According to the theory that we are the sum of our experiences, then being black is a large part of Obama the black man's experience.

If he were not black then he wouldn't be winning because he wouldn't be Obama the black man the entity that is winning. Obama only exists as a black man.

The black man named Obama who is winning would not exist if he were not winning. If such a case were to arise, the black man named Obama would be losing.

Originally posted by jbondo
Oh, is that your subtle way of saying I'm racist? If you're going to say it, say it big shot! I should have known a narrow mind would throw out the insults. I could care less that he's black and you know it! I for one would have loved to have seen Colin Powell run, who even with his lack of domestic policy experience would be a great pres.

No, I was saying your style of thinking is out-dated.

Originally posted by jbondo
I made the point of Obama making that speech combined with being black vaulting him into the forefront as it did. The truth is the truth any way you slice it and it doesn't take a bigot to see it.

Being black maybe helps Obama corner the black vote. Maybe. It works for him the same way it works for Hillary and women.

Just because Obama is black doesn't mean every black person will vote for him, just as the case with Hillary and women. They may, by default, get a higher percentage, but not enough to give all credit to it.

Originally posted by kerontehe
Ok let's drag this out into the middle of the floor and let the cat sniff it.

SOME people will vote for Obama simply because he's black.

SOME people will vote for Hillary simply because she's female.

SOME people will vote for McCain simply because he is a white military veteran.

Makes as much sense as any other kind of voting without doing the research required for a logical excercise of voting franchise.

The idea that some topics are forbidden simply because they violate PC goes against the grain of Denying Ignorance. IMHO

Yada, yada, yada yada.

You know what I noticed there? The word some. Did you notice that? Does some mean all? Is McCain simply the republican nominee because he is a veteran? Or would you say he did some other stuff right to?

If Hillary wins, did she win because she was a woman? No. So why does it work that way with Obama?

You can't win just because you are black, you just might get a few extra votes for it.

This is about headlines, not about facts. You are so biased you can't even see that you actually agree with me.

Read what you said, "some", and then read what the article basically said, "all". Yes, some can be attributed to race, sex, military status, etc. None of those can win an election alone.

reply to post by Mr. Ree


Total loss of reason by you man. Absolutely no logic in what you said.

Hillary is her name. She is losing.
Hillary is white. She is losing.
Hillary is a woman. She is losing.

So by your standards, the reason Hillary is losing is because she is a white woman.

Ohhh, it all makes sense now. We're using the retarded method of analyzing statistics. Let's not bother listening to speeches, reading headlines and articles, and watching debates, we'll just look at their race and sex and figure out why they are winning from that.

"Hillary is losing because she is white and a woman."

That statement is just as dumb as what the lady this article is about said.

it seems to me that the obama phenomenon is due to his charisma above all else. i do not buy into the obama craze but the fact is that he exudes a commanding presence and charisma that trumps his race or policies or lack thereof etc.

reply to post by theBLESSINGofVISION


Thank you. Great post and valid point.

This guy is so charismatic it's almost sickening. It's the direct opposite of what we have in office now. He rarely stutters and it's almost as if he is talking off the top of his head.

He is a perfect example for anyone who is studying how to become a good public speaker.

But, according to those on this thread, and Ferraro, this has nothing to do with his probable nomination.

Remember, it's because he's black.

reply to post by Sublime620


Not sure what it is you think that I agree with.

My emphasis on "some" was intentional.

While I readily admit to a bias, I also submit that we all have a bias based on our own unique individual experiences. It is impossible to live and not have a bias IMHO.

One of my reservations regarding Mr. Obama is the messianic tone of his and some of his supporters.
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Racist or not, it was a useless comment and a divisive one too.

Originally posted by Sublime620
Total loss of reason by you man. Absolutely no logic in what you said.

Hillary is her name. She is losing.
Hillary is white. She is losing.
Hillary is a woman. She is losing.

So by your standards, the reason Hillary is losing is because she is a white woman.

Ohhh, it all makes sense now. We're using the retarded method of analyzing statistics. Let's not bother listening to speeches, reading headlines and articles, and watching debates, we'll just look at their race and sex and figure out why they are winning from that.

"Hillary is losing because she is white and a woman."

That statement is just as dumb as what the lady this article is about said.

Nevermind. You obviously have to clue of philosophical discourse. Carry on with your diatribe.

reply to post by kerontehe


Yeah, that's great and all. But clarify this then:

You believe Obama is probably going to win the Democrat's bid because he is black?

Not that it gave him a nudge or helped him a bit, but simply because of it.

reply to post by Mr. Ree


Really? That's weird, because I just used your formula.

All I did was take your formula, plug Hillary's stats in your variables, and got my answer.

Sorry if it doesn't work. I guess that means you might need to tweak your "How we can fit everyone into a little category" formula a bit.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by Sublime620]

I hop I can end this with these 2 quotes.

1. " If we want to look at facts, let's look at the U.S. Census. According to 2005 numbers, African-Americans make up 13.4% of the total U.S. population. That is a fact. Obviously, that number in any one state may be higher, or lower. However, overall, a candidate cannot win with just 13.4% of the vote (and not all African-Americans will vote for Obama, or necessarily vote at all, just as with white women).

So, let's get real. This pseudo-logic may be appealing, and I have no doubt there is still sexism in media, just as there is racism, even "unintentional" racism. But the reality is — no candidate, black, white, or green can win the nomination with only 13.4% of the vote. The majority of states have voted, and Obama is in the lead. He is a real candidate, with real substance. Disagree with his positions, but don't demean the race with phoney logic."

And if that won't do it maybe this will...

2. "I think she's right… If Obama were a white man, he wouldn't be in the situation he's in today.

If he were a white man and he:

leads the popular vote
leads the elected delegate count
won 29+ states
won democrats abroad
electrofied crowds of thousands
was a qualified Senator
showed excellent judgement
was articulate
ran on a platform of hope
did not play "politics as usual"
had everything, including the kitchen sink hurled at him
did not get draw into muddy politics
was consistantly lied on
was constantly having his words twisted…

Yes, I'd say that if he was a white man, this country would be outraged that this nomination process was still going on. He would have been the nominee after IOWA… The media certainly wouldn't be trying to make him seem "questionable" as to whether or not he's worthy of be "Commander-in-Chief" So if you want to play the race card, which Obama has done everything in his power to stay away from, then lets call it like we see it. He has to do twice as much just to be on equal footing… Thats ok, we're used to it. You know what, just makes us stronger.

Nevermind this man's skin color… Elect him because he's the best man for the job."

OK?

reply to post by Elijio


Awesome post Elijio!


Thanks for articulating that so well.

I don't know about the whole run for the nomination, but Obama won Mississippi along racial lines.

I think we need more stats to see if the statement was correct.

Furthermore, as long as there is race, there will be racism. I see no problem in pointing out or recognizing differences, as long as we are not prejudicial about them.

[edit on 3/12/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by Sublime620

No.
I do not think that IF Obama wins the Democratic party nomination it will be only because he is a mixed race.

I repeat my reservation with Obama is the cult like following I observe.

My solution for the political insanity is that instead of polical parties we "elect" a human resources department and charge them with selecting our government leaders based on employable attributes rather than public performances.

reply to post by Elijio


Exactly.

I'm still waiting to see the statistics that these people are basing their "he's winning because he's black" theory from.

So far, they've shown nothing.

Originally posted by kerontehe
No.
I do not think that IF Obama wins the Democratic party nomination it will be only because he is a mixed race.

Well then, we agree.

There's not much else to say. It was an unfounded statement that she should apologize for.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by Sublime620]