"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."

~ Geraldine Ferraro

"Obama, the first African-American with a viable shot at the White House, called the remark by the Democrats' 1984 vice presidential nominee 'patently absurd.'"

I agree with Mr. Obama.

Should Geraldine get out of the campaign?

Despite the present climate of everyone being careful not to mention the taboo word "race" into the equation, what is wrong with ferraro's observation? It seems obvious to me that if Obama were a white man, the only historic aspect to the current primaries would be that it is the first opportunity for a woman to win the presidency. In that situation, also, Hillary would likely capture more of the black vote and the white competitor less. I think it is encouraging that Obama is the first viable black candidate for the presidency, but if he were just another white male, the situation would be undeniably different. Let's not be so quick to express outrage at imagined racism - there are legitimate reasons why one might prefer Hillary over Obama - other than bigotry.

quote:

Let's not be so quick to express outrage at imagined racism

How would the comment be viewed if made by John McCain? Hillary? Or Bill Clinton?

Is it less inflammatory than the "monster" (oops, that's off the record, oops, too late) comment?

quote:

How would the comment be viewed if made by John McCain? Hillary? Or Bill Clinton?

That depends .... on whether one is capable of a modicum of objectivity, or limited by nit-picking partisanship in a political contest. IMHO.

This is beautiful poetic justice. For decades democrats (including Hillary Clinton) have gone out of their way to demagogue this issue and smear anyone who had legitimate disagreements on any issue, remotely related to race or not, as bigoted and racist. Now the monster they have created has come back to bite them. And I, for one, couldn’t be happier.

If Senator Clinton actually figures out a way by, hook or crook, to pull off getting the nomination away from Senator Obama at the Democratic Convention, perhaps both blacks and whites will finally see the Clintons for what they truly are.

I saw Ferraro's defense of her statements and I thought a lot less of her afterwards. It's pathetic.

I look forward to the day when there is a female candidate that represents the gender with the dignity, grace and ethics that Obama represents for men, African Americans and Americans in general. He is a class act and has the confidence that it ISN'T just about his race, gender, or religion.

Someday soon a woman will run with the same confidence and security.

I thought her cosmetic surgeon should be sued for malpractice.

I don't see how anyone who listened to Obama's speech today as it applies to his religious beliefs, his disagreement/understanding of the minister who baptized his children and officiated at his marriage, etc. could have any lingering doubts about his, Obama's, qualifications to be president of the United States.

I had serious doubts of his readiness to assume the post of president prior to this, but I think he proved sincere, cxapable of fulfilling the unifying promises, and inspiring cooperationacross the whole spectrum of political persuasions.

Whoever thought that the rantings of his pastor on u-tubes would scuttle Obama's ship, made a grave mistake. He rose to the occasion in a masterful performance, worthy of a JFK. IMHO.

quote:

Whoever thought that the rantings of his pastor on u-tubes would scuttle Obama's ship, made a grave mistake. He rose to the occasion in a masterful performance, worthy of a JFK. IMHO.

Well said Frank. I've been sitting low and looking high on this issue. Sometimes with me, less is best.

It was a masterful speech. It reads even better than it sounded.It demonstrated a profound thinking and an understanding of other people, all of which is such a change from what the world has been hearing for the last eight years.

So now there's a choice between a woman who blatantly distorts her past experience and influence in some areas, 'lies' is a word that comes to mind, and a man with no foreign policy experience whose pastor makes inflammatory speeches. The White House records concerning the Clintons demonstrate approximately nothing of her claimed 'foreign policy' influence.In summary, all she ever did was take tea with world leaders' wives and do the Princess Diana duties of visiting children's hospitals and charities. Take her 'role' in Northern Ireland.The key figure there was David Trimble. Of her visits to the Province, she made one on her own and the sum total of time she spent with him was 5 minutes, in one courtesy call.He himself, now Lord Trimble, informed that she was claiming to have been influential in the 'peace process', drily observed that he did not think that being a cheerleader was the same as being a player.Her inflated claims are like those of any fraud or confidence trickster: they depend for their effect on the ignorance of the hearer.But, as with the fraud, the public gets exactly what it buys.

I must be missing something but what is the attraction to be the President anyway? Its not the most highly paid job-is it the power, the prestige-all the stress and the public scrutiny and then 4 years later they get the chance to do it again?

I know it is not much better even in Canada-even our politicians can get nasty at times.