You're Wrong, Ms. Ferraro

Are you mad? Willful ignorance? The umemployment rate (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm) for "blacks" is 8.3. Willful ignorance? You are guilty as charged.

....And by the way, since you are not Catholic, quote your own denomination.

Thanks so much

As I read the comments posted here I'm struck by the number of "sinners" who are guilty of "willful ignorance". The common thread of many comments is that black Americans constitute the only racial or ethnic group that has suffered/is suffering the effects of discrimination. I think Native Americans, Orientals, Hispanics, and members of virtually every other ethnic group in this country would disagree-- yet those groups are willfully ignored.

A point in case-- Ms. Thistlethwaite has the temerity to suggest that slavery is the "original sin of this country" while willfully ignoring the virtual genocide to which Native Americans were subjected. She has also chosen to ignore the discrimination faced by every immigrant group in this country.

Thank You for your insight and it would be a great thing for America to establish a museum and work from within!

"YAWN.....sigh...."

A well-grounded, analytical perception of Ferraro's ignorant statement, notwithstanding the fact that the article, like every article I have ever read WRITTEN BY WHITE AMERICANS ABOUT THE CODITION OF BLACK AMERICANS, is skewed ever so slightly to WRONG. It indicates, once again, that white Americans cannot quite grasp what has, and is, happening to us in this racist society.

Perhaps Geraldine Ferraro is wrong, but so is Ms. Thistlethwaite.
Ferraro did not say that all black men are lucky to be black; she said that the fact that Obama is black has buffered him from the sort of criticism and skepticism that someone with his record who was not black would face if they ran for the Presidency. This seems to be the case, given the bland reporting of the media, their failure to examine his record in the Illinois legislature, and a tendency to spring to his defense and condemn the Clinton campaign whenever the question of "race" arises -- regardless of who brings it up.
Certainly, blacks have higher unemployment rates than whites, they make up a disproportionate share of the urban poor, and as a group they have been severely disadvantaged.
But not all blacks live in urban ghettoes, nor are all blacks poor and disadvantaged, just as not all whites are privileged and not all whites live in MacMansions in gated communities. Indeed, some blacks are part of various elites in this country and not only wealthy but powerful. To ignore this reality is to perpetuate myths, not engage in analysis. Ms. Thistlethwaite might remember that Gerta Lerner wrote something similar with regard to women in The Creation of Patriarchy, reminding her readers that upper class women may have been less powerful than upper class men, but they were able to exercise power over both women and men of the lower classes.
Whether Barack Obama is qualified to be President, it is clear that he does not live in a ghetto, nor is he poor, nor is he disadvantaged because he is black. So to assume that his situation is comparable to that of blacks trapped in the ghetto is an enormous, and questionable leap of logic, not a coherent argument.
Similarly, to assume that whites as a group are responsible for slavery and the current situation many blacks find themselves in is to display a willful ignorance of history that is staggering -- a 'sin' in Ms. Thistlethwaite's lexicon. By doing so, of course, she also perpetuates the polarization of white and black in this country.
But the historical realities are much more complex than this piece would suggest. In the 1920s, a quarter of the population of the United States was foreign-born or the sons and daughers of immigrants, and many of these came from eastern and southern Europe, so their forefathers were not only not in the country when blacks were enslaved, very often they were themselves serfs (the European equivalent of a slave) and suffered various sorts of discrimination and oppression. These 'hunkies' and 'greasers' and 'eyeties' were not welcome in this country and themselves were the target of native American racism. Nor did most hispanics and Asians and Eskimos fare much better.
By making the 'race' question a black-white issue, Ms. Thistlethwaite effectively precludes any truly informed discussion of the problem of race and ethnicity and makes it more difficult to resolve the problems arising from this country's history of manipulating racial and ethnic differences.
The problem of 'race' is intimately tied up with other problems in the United States, but to discuss the 'race' problem as one that is also part of economic and social structures that are less than equitable for most Americans would require serious thought and radical change, something neither Obama nor Clinton seem inclined to effect, given their respective political programs, and something Ms. Thistlethwaite does not address. Instead, she dwells on incarceration rates, which, if they are a function of poverty and racism, can only be remedied by addressing the causes of both poverty and racism -- not offering another monocausal explanation and yet another invitation to condemn whites as a group for the suffering of blacks as a group.
But Ms. Thistlethwaite seems more interested in imputing guilt to whites as a group and to Ferraro in particular. She imagines Ferraro's motives, then extrapolates from a single quote and elaborates arguments that Ferraro not only did not make, but has specifically disavowed. She then seeks to belittle Ferraro by implying that she is a failure and should not assume other women are as well.
I do not know what prompted Ms. Thistlethwaite to write this op. ed. piece, but I suggest that she and others who, wittingly or unwittingly, directly or indirectly, reinforce efforts to make race the focus of the campaign to the exclusion of other matters need to refocus on the problems that all of us in this country face and examine carefully not only the qualifications of the candidates, but their respective programs. That way lies informed decision and intelligent voting; engaging in polemics merely keeps everyone busy being willfully ignorant.
Obama may well emerge as the best candidate based on his programs and his experience, but we will never know for sure until we have examined his background and his programs as thoroughly as we should examine those of Clinton and McCain.

Iam reading the comments some saying Ms. Fearro comment where right , some said she was wrong. why did she mention his race in the first place. this shows me there is a problem. when i look at Senator Obama i see a man, a humanbeing that wants to be president. so to me theres is a problem because we are talking about this.this is a great time in our history where we can make the changes that need to happen.

this is a great time to be an American .we can mould this country into a true demorocy for all people. we need to look deeply at what needs to be change. we must have the courage to face the negative things we have done as a country. we need to learn our true history and not be affaird to face it. yes we need a museum of salvery so we can truely understand . we must truely face this. we must also face the things that we have done to other people from around the world . we need to show the world we made mistakes and that we understand how we change to make this world a peaceful place. what a great time to be an american.

this is a great time to be an American .we can mould this country into a true demorocy for all people. we need to look deeply at what needs to be change. we must have the courage to face the negative things we have done as a country. we need to learn our true history and not be affaird to face it. yes we need a museum of salvery so we can truely understand . we must truely face this. we must also face the things that we have done to other people from around the world . we need to show the world we made mistakes and that we understand how we change to make this world a peaceful place. what a great time to be an american.

this is a great time to be an American .we can mould this country into a true demorocy for all people. we need to look deeply at what needs to be change. we must have the courage to face the negative things we have done as a country. we need to learn our true history and not be affaird to face it. yes we need a museum of salvery so we can truely understand . we must truely face this. we must also face the things that we have done to other people from around the world . we need to show the world we made mistakes and that we understand how we change to make this world a peaceful place. what a great time to be an american.

I enjoyed listening to you speak in a trip a few years ago to my North Carolina Seminary (Hood Theological Seminary); however, you--like many other liberal leaning folks who have weighed in--have taken her comments out of context and twisted their meaning. I am no fan of Geraldine Ferraro, but she told the truth--politely--and meant no disrespect for Obama when she made the comment as far as I can tell. Despite many attempts to get me to see it otherwise over the course of my seminary training (I studied theology under one who studied theology under you), it still seems to me that, for supporters of Liberation Theology, racial comments are only allowed if made by those in racial minorities--otherwise, the one who made the racial comment (no matter how true) is labeled racist.
Though I doubt you would agree with labeling Ms. Ferarro as racist, your comments lend support to those who do.

what does any of this have to do with faith... unless it to underscore the american people have no faith in polititians who mouth the words but do not actually do the proper things when they have the opprotunity. this is what hillary is seeing in the american people they just dont believe her anmymore she needs to dump her policy guru. she is getting beat on policy not personality and the two candidates are no where near the same when you compare what they state they actually want to do. niether of the two have nearly the programs spelled out that john edwards did. if they dont watch out and quit playing cute then nader has a real chance. he after all has the real record of accomplishments that non of the candidates including mccain have in working for the american peoples good. lets maybe get these discussins back to where they belong. who picks these anyway? we are talking politic not religion or faith .

Brilliant!!! Very well said. Unfortunately, there will never be a museum of slavery, because so many whites today are under the thinking that slavery was the best thing to happen to Africans. It got them out of Africa. And then too, there will never be a museum because no one really wants to see the atrocities committed by "good white god-fearing" christians. Would you want to see a woman's back of scars after 30 lashes of a whip?

I've heard this so many times. And when I do, I counter with the true history. At the time when slavery was gathering full steam, Africa was a blossoming mecca. There were institutions of higher learning and most Africans spoke a minimum of 3 languages other than their own native or tribal dialects. This went on for centuries while Europeans were dying of plagues and living lives of sin and decadence that would make Lucifer blush.

I live in a state where blacks are less than 1% of the population. There is plenty of media bias. When a black man commits a crime in this state, they post every picture they can find of him. I've seen family pictures, prom pictures and pictures taken with various girlfriends throughout the years in addition to their mugshot. But, when a white man commits a crime, you get his frontal mugshot. Our country feeds on this and it feeds the ignorance and hatred.

Slavery was one of the biggest sins of this country. No one will fully understand its magnitude until they truly start believing and living their lives according to the very bible they used as a weapon to enslave millions.

Bill O'Reilly made a comment about lynching Michelle Obama. This, not long after the President, whom he is one of his greatest supporters made a speech about it after a commentator made a similar comment regarding Tiger Woods. He was not called on this and made an offhand comment about it being merely words. This was the same man that claimed words were the most powerful weapon we have. I don't think he would've liked it much if someone had casually said something about lynching his wife, sister or mother.

You're right, it is "willful ignorance". But, it is sustained because of guilt. People that speak such things are battling their own guilty feelings of the wrongs they've thought or perpretated against other groups. Geraldine exemplifies the worst kind of racist. She lost in her first campaign because she put her foot in her mouth then. That comment about her husband and Italians showed a level of racism I'm sure he wasn't aware of. We all came from someplace and no one in this country is a true native unless you are a fullblood descendant of the Native Americans. But, she will continue to spew ths madness until the public finally realizes just how dark her heart is and how deep her hatred runs of all that is not white.

I don't agree with the term African-Americans. If you are born in this country, you are an American, period. This is the only country in the world that categorizes it's people by their ethnic background. African-American is like saying, you're not quite American but you would've been had you not had darker skin. You will find that there are plenty of people sitting in high positions that feel the same as Ferraro. This country will steadily regress until we recognise every citizen as our brothers and sisters and not as a color and call them on the carpet for their openly racist thoughts and actions.

There is a new movement going on right now of people that want BET taken off the airwaves and Black History Month taken away. Of course, these zealots have no knowledge of the history of blacks in the media and they certainly don't want it out there of just horrendous slavery was.

You would think after so many centuries and such a long struggle with race relations in this country, we would've gotten it by now. But, as long as we have people like Ferraro, O'Reilly and a few others spewing racist remarks and keeping them out front for the whole world to see, we will continue having new immigrants coming to this country thinking the worse about blacks.

I found Ms. Ferraro's comment to be completely inappropriate.

Having said that I've noticed a pattern to the Clinton campaign. But before I go into that lets all remember how this started. Obama wasn't much of a threat. Clinton enjoyed a top spot because she had a platform and was the wife of a previously popular president among democrats. Until the primary season started she wasn't really tested by other candidates. Much was assumed. Lets be honest about it.

Since Iowa there seems to be a rotation around race, religion, and experience as the weapon of choice used by the Clinton campaign. This week Obama is winning because he's taken her support of the black vote because he's black. Last week it was that Obama should be her Vice President. The week before that it was that Obama dressed like a muslim while visiting his father's homeland. The week before that it was that he was inexperienced. Before that he attended a muslim activist school. Before that he was a fantasy. Before that he was really a muslim. Anybody spot the "why hillary should be president" in those messages? If there was one it was drowned out with the hate speech.

What message does this send to the voting public? I'll tell you what message it sends. Don't vote for Barak because he's black. Don't vote for Barak because he has an unconventional name. Don't vote for Barak because his father was a practicing muslim. Don't vote for Barak because I think I have a super delegate lead which is yet unproven. Don't vote for Barack because he arguably has less experience. etc... etc... With redderick like that what exactly is so attractive about that message to an african american community? Or a community of differing faith? Or a community of differing culture? Is there any wonder there has been no change in her status among these communities?

Meanwhile Obama has been making gains her traditionally strong demographics. So, clearly he's doing something about his perception problem while she is not. I don't know how one can put this one on Obama because he's black. She's the one out there with this poorly constructed message and strategy for which Obama has had no hand in.

Ms. Ferraro thinks everybody has misunderstood the remarks she made about Obama. She is suffering from 'I am never wrong' syndrome. It is hard for her to accept that she has made a mistake. Look at her arrogance-she resigned because she did not want Hilly to suffer because of her. (not because she has blundered.) I did not have any respect when she accepted the vice presidential nomination in 1964. I am also glad that she did not win.

Persons who have attained greatness are very humble not like her-arrogant and uncouth.

Ms. Ferraro thinks everybody has misunderstood the remarks she made about Obama. She is suffering from 'I am never wrong' syndrome. It is hard for her to accept that she has made a mistake. Look at her arrogance-she resigned because she did not want Hilly to suffer because of her. (not because she has blundered.) I did not have any respect when she accepted the vice presidential nomination in 1964. I am also glad that she did not win.

Persons who have attained greatness are very humble not like her-arrogant and uncouth.

As an African American man, I was offended by Mrs. Ferraro's comments. I can't believe that once I was willing to vote for her. I expected better of her. This is more than ignorance; it is good old fashioned racism. Let's see: if Barack were not a black male, he would not be the leading Democratic candidate for president. Well, can Mrs. Ferraro name all the black presidents from the past? There have been none in our nation's history nor has there been a woman president. So it seems that Mrs Ferraro is simply angry that finally a black man has gotten this far. She seems to be using the old affirmative action label to tar Obama. Sometimes, it seems like a black man just can't win. When he first announced his candidacy, some people asked was he black enough. Now, Mrs. Ferraro refuses to give him credit for raising a record amount of money and running a smart and effective campaign. Shame on you Mrs. Ferraro! We all expected better coming from you.

Well stated. Thank you.

Thank you for clearly stating what should be obvious to thinking Americans everywhere. The Clinton campaign and their surrogates (Ferraro)used this as a calculated, intentional attack on Obama simply because he had to respond in some way. His thoughtful response was brillant and should have ended the matter. They kept it up and accused the victim of the "crime". I am stunned that Geraldine Ferraro would participate in this kind of tactic, but I am no longer surprised that Hillary Clinton did. This has been going on since SC and it is NOT imagined, it is a campaign strategy. I do not believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton or Ferraro are racists, but that makes their campaign decisions all the more unforgivable. Win-at-all-costs is unacceptable and certainly not worthy of the Democratic nominee.

Oh dear. Reverend Thistlethwaite has gone too far this time by daring to suggest that centuries of African slavery have any moral equivalence to the Jewish Holocaust.

Exactly one year ago, a delegation of German bishops visited Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, and then crossed through the high concrete wall that separates Israel from the Palestinian "territories." One bishop compared photographs of the Warsaw Ghetto to "Ghetto Ramallah." Another who had lived through Nazi and then Communist occupations said "something like this is done to animals, not to human beings... I never in my life thought to see something like this again."

Reaction to the bishops was swift. The Anti-Defamation League called on the German Catholic Bishops' Conference to repudiate the remarks. The Central Council of Jews in Germany and the Israeli Embassy lectured the bishops on their "alarming lack of knowledge about history." Avner Shalev, chairman of Yad Vashem, wrote that they were seeking "to lessen European responsibility for Nazi crimes." Within days, Cardinal Karl Lehmann (Germany's top cardinal) was forced to censure his bishops by writing that it was inappropriate to "connect contemporary problems or situations of injustice in any way with the National Socialists' genocide of the Jews."

Hell hath no fury like Israel scorned. Even the ugly "anti-Semite" was thrown into the fray. In an opinion piece for Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, correspondent Eldad Beck said the bishops' comments raised the question of "just how tainted with anti-Semitism... the Catholic church and German society remained." What the bishops saw first-hand, and what they tried to tell the world, was successfully obscured in a frenzy of name-calling.

Reverend Thistlethwaite, you must repent for this terrible sin of having suggesting that anyone other than Jews have suffered horrifically. Are you a closet anti-Semite? Throw yourself upon the mercy of Saint Geraldine Ferraro and beg her forgiveness. And may the great goddess Hillary have mercy on your soul...

She's not ignorant...she's honest wrote:
"Obama is winning the black vote 80% to Hillary’s 20% (or thereabouts). The proof is in the pudding!"

In 1996, Bill Clinton won 84% of the black vote. So now what?

Geraldine Ferraro isn't wrong - Here is why - If Hillary were running against a white man - She would be getting the majority of the African American votes - but because Mr Obama is a black man he is winning the black vote, the African American voter wants to vote for the African American candidate. However the older African American women voters that I have meet still support Hillary. They know who has been there for them.

Geraldine Ferraro isn't wrong - Here is why - If Hillary were running against a white man - She would be getting the majority of the African American votes - but because Mr Obama is a black man he is winning the black vote, the African American voter wants to vote for the African American candidate. However the older African American women voters that I have meet still support Hillary. They know who has been there for them.

The Clintons (and I dont like them at all) have a long and accomplished history with the black community, thats why they always could count on there vote. Obama , what has he done ? yet as soon as he shows up , the blacks ditch the Clints who've worked there butts off for civil rights and vote for Ob .Why ?? it doesnt take a genius to figure that out. Isnt voting solely on a persons skin color racist ?.But you cant say that, its not PC. The more you Ferraro bashers talk, the more evryone sees that the emperor has no clothes. All you have to do is admit it and move on, but no, you guys go through painful gyrations to deny an honest opinion by fer.

Very good commentary.

Obama is aiming to unite and not divide -races, ethnic groups, genders, et al. _E pluribus unum_ in the best sense. He is a Lincoln patriot.

As a Black person, my hat is off the the millions of White people who are responding to his unity message. Obama is giving them a chance to demonstrate the anti-racism that is in the hearts of many, the desire to show that American's are not racist.

Obama is this generation's Martin Luther King. It takes much courage to take the risk he is taking.

Geraldine Ferraro's comments and thinking are pitiful. She doesn't even have the sense to apologize (!) What deep rooted racism and ignorance.

But we _shall_ overcome !

Debra,

Thank you for proving Winston Churchill right when he said, "the greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

To remark that you would never vote for a Republican is ignorant. I fully understand that you probably have leanings towards one party or the other, but what about John McCain would prevent you from voting for him? Am I to assume that you also thought JC Watts, a former black Republican congressman, was also be unworthy of your vote?

My guess is that you probably have been fooled into thinking that the Democratic party is somehow for all the hard working middle and lower class people. What a bunch of bunk. What exactly have they accomplished since they regained control of the House and Senate? Nothing. They promised to end the war and bring the troops home. Seen any movement on this front lately? Nope. Instead, they trotted out the great increase to the federal minimum wage. Whoopee. I'm sure the dozen or so people that were substantially impacted by that are very appreciative.

Obama is right. Republicans are the party of bad ideas and the Democrats are the party of no ideas. Easy choice isn't it? Wouldn't you rather play for the team that tried and failed instead of the team that doesn't even bother to show up?

When u win 80 to 90% of a group that comprises 12%
of the population, thats a major edge.
Notice how I didnt mention a color, lets say they are "purple". It's pretty obvious purple will vote
for purple , organge for orange, again thats human nature.

Thank you for your insightful article. A museum on slavery based on the Shoah (Jewish and others Holocaust) is a long overdue idea!

You were much to kind to Ms. Ferraro, and of course you failed to include Hillary Clinton in this equation. The Clinton's have inserted ugly racism into this campaign that I have not seen or heard coming from a Democratic candidate for President...ever. I am a 60's feminist who during the 90's defended the Clinton's on all accounts. Now they are openly promoting racism, and it is a very dangerous road they are leading this country down, and will surely add to the destruction of this country.

I feel like my head might explode.
All you out there that say being a black man with the name of Barack Hussein Obama is a shoe in for the office of President...are you nutz?

And as far as the black folk voteing for another black...so how much is the black population in this country? 12%. How much was the black population in Mississippi? 37%. How much was the republicans that voted for Hillary, sent by Rush Lumbaugh? 26% How much did Hillary get in Mississippi? 38%.How much did Obama get? 61%.

As a white, 59 year old woman who voted for obama...and hope to vote for him in the National. Obama has more experience then Abraham Lincoln, F. Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt,and most of the best presidents...and for you Reaganites out there...just how much experience did He have?

Ferraro's statement was racist...oh I do not think she realized it was...I do not think she understands what she is saying at all...nor that some of the folks on here that are making the same kind of statements understand that they are makeing racist statements. Do racists know they are racists? Isn't it that they do not know it?They make exuses for how they feel. To say that the only reason that Barack Obama is where he is is because he is black, is ignorant. And the reason why so many blacks are voteing for him, was the racism spouted by the people of the Clinton campaign. So how many blacks in Utah? Before Bill Clinton made his stupid remark, Clinton had African Americans...remember them saying he was not "black" enough? Each bit of racism brings more Blacks to Obama...they want the best...they have families and terrible needs, they can not afford a vanity vote. Maybe they are researching his qualifications...maybe those on here should also.

I simply think that Hillary wants the power..and is willing to give the Democratic Party a million cuts until we bleed to death. She does not care...she wants Madam President.

terra

Thanks Susan for pointing out somethings most of white america would like to pretend don't exist. If it were left up to some folks blacks would still be slaves. Let's face it, we live in America and racism still exist. To the person who said that with nearly 100% of the race voting for OB, you're really out of touch with reality. Every one should know that if only blacks voted for OB, he would never win the presidancy because of the number of blacks in America or in the southern states. There are far too many people who would rather see OB dead than in office. Give the black race some credit, we know who we should vote for and who holds our best interest. It's definately not a Republican of any race.

You overgeneralize but do not consider causes for any of things about which you complain. Not unusual in sermons but not useful in analysis. And not very logical, but logic has been accused of being racist by some college professors (who are, after all, just trying to sell textbooks and destroy minds?)

1. Do you say with a straight face that Ferraro is incorrect? I do not mean "wrong" in that she said something uncomfortable or "wrong" in that it was "not nice?" But incorrect. Would Obama be where he is in the presidential race were he not a well-spoken mulatto (and you can choke on that one, but it is true)?

What about an analysis of whether white women would find Obama as desirable if he were darker? Or had a Southern accent? Or a pure white wife? Or were gay? Hmmmmm.

You jump Ferraro for stating her opinion that is not nice but is truer than you want to accept. You don't have to like it. It does not have to make you feel good. It is either valid or it is not valid. And the fact that she made the same observation about Jesse Jackson may make her boring but not incorrect.

And is it some sort of attack on affirmative action?
Ponder this: ere you to speak with black physicians (and I have) you would find many of them being given the "ol' hairy eyeball" (as we used to call it) by other black folk and by everyone else because there is always the suspicion that they got where they were because of affirmative action misused and not by merit. That is a problem because it can lead to the professionals trying to get into more affluent areas to practice, thus making the delivery of services more scarce in the very areas that need help most. This is not just for physicians but other professionals.

As to the museum idea: The Holocaust museums are generally specific in content (try Yad Vashem) and are also educational facilities. We don't need more memorials---we need education. But we don't need the sort of thing that is pretend education in our schools today.

Were you to design a slavery museum, what would you put in and why? Who would run it and why? And if it were not self-sustaining would you want taxpayer money to keep it going (or ask for a tithe)?

Using taxpayer money to build a politically correct Museum of Slavery is simpleminded at best.
Using taxpayer money to build professional stadiums and ball parks is not right, either.
How about soliciting foundation money for your slavery museum instead? My grandparents (all four of them) escaped to the United States in 1906 from the Tsar and his killers and I don't recall having any slaveholders in the family.

But, then, the idea of using taxpayer money for assorted children's museums, a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, a Woodstock 1969 museum, a Golf Hall of Fame, a Country Music Hall of Fame, or to restore Lawrence Welk's boyhood sod home is also a misuse of money earned by someone else. It would be like using taxpayer money to build a Ku Klux Klan Museum (after all, they were politically in the North as well as the South), a Mormon Museum, a Catholic Museum, a Lynching Museum (with lifesized figures of Leo Frank, perhaps, with the leaders of Cobb County, Georgia), a miniature golf museum, or even an educators' museum to explain the adoption of foolishness? Why not a Crapper Museum with working commodes on display (and rooms of those that don't?)

Why not more noise and passion about Darfur, female circumcision, honor killings, illiterate high school graduates (or low percentages for high school graduation), women not allowed to vote, women not allowed to work outside the home, women not allowed to divorce after being physically abused?

Were you to look at family statistics for those in prison you would find a higher than average number of inmates from broken or shattered homes. The lack of strong male (yes, male) positive influences cause problems. This is not to say that the problems cannot be overcome, but it makes life more difficult. Single mothers are more likely to live in nastier neighborhoods and more violent neighborhoods with worse than average schools. Teachers in these schools have to spend more time as surrogate parents and less time as teachers. Moral of the story: don't have kids if you are not married and don't have kids you cannot support.

But, then, that is a bad idea unless you are looking at everyone else's pocket to pay for your education, your food, your children---and your museum.

Many Ferraro apologists here are so sensitive to her nuanced statement (not) that they actually know what she meant, as opposed to what she said. She has been terribly misinterpreted - the fact is, another rich NY 'liberal' had a little temper tantrum when someone got 'above their raisin' as they say in the South.

Who said these elitists were all lovable?? Her rich NY pal Senator Chuck Shumer is another one - a real sleight of hand artist that says one thing and does another and a well-known Bush enabler often enough...the rich love the rich, first, last, and foremost. The NYC Club is 'members only' lest you commoners forget.

Geraldine is no political greenhorn, and she knew exactly what she said. You can't take it back, and every seasoned politician knows it - she had every intention of leaving a lasting impression as she departed....message sent loud and clear. No apology needed - the fact is, the GOP will pick this up and run with it, and that prediction doesn't take a crystal ball. She apparently said this on Fox News - enemy camp of the first degree.

Politics is politics and perceptions are perceptions. Winner take all. In the end, the choices for Geraldine Ferraro and other incensed democrats that are offended at the unfairness of Obama's ascendency are either vote for a democratic president, or vote for a white president......you will get exactly what and who you vote for, and after the last 8 years you really should be well educated to that fact. And you are what you vote - no way around that either.

If you vote for McCain, please NEVER consider yourself a democrat again - in good conscience you can't possibly be something you're not.

If Hillary is the loser, it's only because she's not the winner - really, it's that simple.

Nothing complicated like when ....say, Al Gore lost, for example. Remember who and what you're voting for when you vote for McCain as some kind of protest vote - of course there's always Ralph Nader for the truly disenfranchised.

The percentage of African American males who are unemployed is greater than 50%? It's hard to take SBT very seriously when she includes such gross information in her essay.

I'm afraid you miss the point---the point is, how many Senators who have been in office only THREE YEARS are in the running to be president?

the ONLY reason Mr Obama is the very very rare 3 year's experience senator with a chance at the nomination is because he is [half] Black and thus fits a nice profile for being the candidate. It goews without saying, of course, that 3 years in the Senate is a woeful lack of qualifications for ANYONE to be president, whether blacvk, white, male or female. Let us at least admit that. This is the best we can do?

I'm afraid you miss the point---the point is, how many Senators who have been in office only THREE YEARS are in the running to be president?

the ONLY reason Mr Obama is the very very rare 3 year's experience senator with a chance at the nomination is because he is [half] Black and thus fits a nice profile for being the candidate. It goews without saying, of course, that 3 years in the Senate is a woeful lack of qualifications for ANYONE to be president, whether blacvk, white, male or female. Let us at least admit that. This is the best we can do?

Folks, a little reality check please. If someone from the Republicans side made this comment, all hell would have broken loose. The truth is that Democrats are as low, conniving, and prejudiced as they accuse Republicans of being. By the way, where's Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? Why haven't they attacked Ferraro's comments? Could it be they are hypocrits themselves? Comments made by Democrats are "the truth" where the same comments made by Republicans are "racist"! That's hogwash!

You're Mistaken Ms. Thistlethwaite

Senator Biden was much closer to the truth when he implied (and was roundly attacked for it) that the attractiveness of Obama the candidate to white voters is due to the contrast between Senator Obama and whites' perceptions of most black men and previous black candidates.

Were Senator Obama not black, this contrast wouldn't exist, and his appeal to white voters would be far weaker. As it is, they can feel good liking a black man.

And what isn't there to like about him? He isn't angry at whites. He doesn't rage at them for slavery and its fallout. He would never in a million years initiate something like your "Museum of Slavery and Its Consequences" (though he might go along with it if it seemed politically safe). Senator Obama is just like white voters' successful, well-educated, white suburban neighbors, only with somewhat darker skin. As a candidate, he's a two-fer: Vote for him and you get a white guy and a black guy. But Ferrraro is correct: without that "black guy" dimension, Senator Obama is only a competent, run-of-the-mill senator, not a compelling presidential candidate.

Geraldine Ferraro isn't wrong - Here is why - If Hillary were running against a white man - She would be getting the majority of the African American votes - but because Mr Obama is a black man he is winning the black vote, the African American voter wants to vote for the African American candidate. However the older African American women voters that I have meet still support Hillary. They know who has been there for them.

Geraldine Ferraro isn't wrong - Here is why - If Hillary were running against a white man - She would be getting the majority of the African American votes - but because Mr Obama is a black man he is winning the black vote, the African American voter wants to vote for the African American candidate. However the older African American women voters that I have meet still support Hillary. They know who has been there for them.

I'm sorry, but this article reflects willful ignorance of what Ms. Ferraro actually meant.

She’s right on target. She’s not saying that Obama has an advantage b/c he’s black…she’s saying that black people are voting for him because he’s black and that gives him an advantage. BIG DIFFERENCE! And as an attorney, let me tell you....it all comes down to interpretation of words! People misinterpreted Ferraro and that is why they are angry. Sorry folks but its true and if you don’t like to hear the truth…too bad. Look at the exit polls and election results of EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY state. Obama is winning the black vote 80% to Hillary’s 20% (or thereabouts). The proof is in the pudding! So african americans can either quit playing the race card, or quit voting for Obama and proving people like Ferraro right!

Also, while your checking out the above referenced statistics and proving me right, why don’t you take 5 mins and stop blaming Hillary Clinton. Before Barrack came along, black folks loved the Clintons….Well, NEWS FLASH- they haven’t changed and they still fight for the minority communities so show some appreciation and respect even if you don’t vote for her! The only thing that has changed is the fact that a black person is running against a Clinton and I guess “BLACK” trumps “CLINTON” in their eyes (b/c they surely aren’t voting based on Obama’s impressive political record!) lol

I believe what she was refering to had more to do with his lack of experience. He's a two term STATE senator and a first term senator who decided to run after serving 1 year.

She’s right on target. She’s not saying that Obama has an advantage b/c he’s black…she’s saying that black people are voting for him because he’s black and that gives him an advantage. BIG DIFFERENCE! Sorry folks but its true and if you don’t like to hear the truth…too bad. Look at the exit polls and election results of EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY state. Obama is winning the black vote 80% to Hillary’s 20% (or thereabouts). The proof is in the pudding! So african americans can either quit playing the race card, or quit voting for Obama and proving people like Ferraro right!

Also, while your checking out the above referenced statistics and proving me right, why don’t you take 5 mins and stop blaming Hillary Clinton. Before Barrack came along, black folks loved the Clintons….Well, NEWS FLASH- they haven’t changed and they still fight for the minority communities so show some appreciation and respect even if you don’t vote for her! The only thing that has changed is the fact that a black person is running against a Clinton and I guess “BLACK” trumps “CLINTON” in their eyes (b/c they surely aren’t voting based on Obama’s impressive political record!) lol

Oh, good grief.

You're gonna get arthritis from all that hand-wringing.

Lighten up.

Many moons ago one of my child hood buds made it into Yale. I'm not white and neither is he. We grew up in a pretty dirt poor section of NYC. We both knew he didnt get into Yale purely on merit, his scores and achievements were not even close to the average white Yaley freshman . But I was happy for him and he was thrilled. We had alot of that in our neighborhood, programs that gave you preference because of yr skin color/ethnicity. Nothing wrong with that as it gave us all our shot. We coudnt afford SAT prep or have schools with varsity teams in 5 diff sports so it was some sort of equalizer. But we knew we got cut a break and we took it. Ob has some disadvantages and advantages in being black. Telling him his advantages is not racist, its honest. My guess is that many white liberals grew up in all white neighborhoods and kinda dont see the reality of What is happening. They beat themselves to death to try to prove they are not racist. Thats ok, but if there isnt any racism, you shoudnt call it as such. Geraldine wasnt being racist, just making an honest observation.

Agreed, it is tough to be a black man, injustice was done to the african american community. It is hard to achieve being black. But there is some truth to the statement made by Geraldine Ferraro.

Barack Obama is different from among the blacks who are in jail or under achievers. But he was editor of Harvard law review. That changes the dynamic. This very fact that he is balck and highly educated makes him attractive. A state senator would not be key note speaker at the democratic convention if he were not black. Liberal media would not project him as the saviour of america. Liberal media loves him and a lot of white people vote for him because they think it will make america look good. They think by electing Obama white america can feel less guilty about slavery. They are not voting for him because he is the best candidate.

Same is true for Hillary Clinton. She is an amazing politician and a person who really cares about people and a fighter. But she would not be where she is wihout being Bill's wife.

So please dont attack Geraldine Ferraro for speaking her mind. There is truth in it. And many people agry with her on that.

It doesnot mean I disrespect Obama, I like him and respect him. He is going to be a great politician.

Ferraro's recent comments are absolute, in-your-face evidence of the racism and sexism fundamental to US culture, not to mention her being the perfect model for the arrogance of the ruling class. These conditions cannot be cured with criticism. The majority must remove power from these bad examples and resolve, over the long term, to give power to those whose behavior better reflects the democratic values of this country. Getting the power out of their hands will be a problem.

Wow! Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite's article is mudslinging, with Ms. Ferraro as the target. It's as if Ms. T could read her mind - there was a time such behavior as Ms. T's was attributed to her committing the sin of PRIDE.
I think Ms. F told the un-PC truth, and now is being socially executed for it. But that doesn't change the truth that Mr. O's popularity is not due to his hefty experience or intelligence, but rather only to the combinaiton of his race, physical attractiveness, and empty-but-eloquent rhetoric.
Many blacks find Mr. O attractive at least in part simply because of his race - contrary to ML King's hoped-for measure of a human being: the content of one's character. Many whites find Mr. O attractive because of his race - it allows such racial-guilt-ridden whites to say to themselves "I can't be racist because I support Mr. O."
Racial prejudice still exists in the U.S.A., and the success of Mr. O's campaign is shouting that fact to the world for those who wish to hear it.

Geraldine Ferraro is absolutely correct re Obama's
political succcess to date. His experience is in no way comparable to a state governor's (example:
Bill Clinton, or any other two term governor).
Governors work extensively with both state and
federal entities on a myriad of financing, support, and legislative issues and policies that
directly affect their citizens. Foreign policy experience is also part of their agenda, as they
often travel overseas - - often with nationally
elected leaders - - regarding business and trade
oppoetunities for their respective states. In my
home state of Indiana our governor (a Republican)
has made several overseas trade trips already
this year (since January).

Geraldine Ferraro is absolutely correct re Obama's
political succcess to date. His experience is in no way comparable to a state governor's (example:
Bill Clinton, or any other two term governor).
Governors work extensively with both state and
federal entities on a myriad of financing, support, and legislative issues and policies that
directly affect their citizens. Foreign policy experience is also part of their agenda, as they
often travel overseas - - often with nationally
elected leaders - - regarding business and trade
oppoetunities for their respective states. In my
home state of Indiana our governor (a Republican)
has made several overseas trade trips already
this year (since January).

Geraldine was right on with her non rascist remark. If Borack Obama was white he would not be in the position he is in. It is just human nature for women to vote for Hillary Clinton and black people to support Obama. If Obama was white, Oprah would be backing Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. It is my opinion and I am not a rascist. I am entitled to my opinion because I earnt my citizenship the hard way.

I'm afraid that Geraldine and a lot of Hillary's "old ladies" think that Hillary has been chosen by God Herself to be the next president, and you can do no wrong if you do the Lord's work. It's almost like something beyond the democratic process has spoken, and the people shall obey. And since Obama opposes Hillary, he is the Antichrist.
Just the same mindset as the Bush administration.

Thank you for your insight and compassion. It was a very disappointing blow to hear Ms. Ferraro repeatedly fail to recognize the many achievements of Barack Obama. Despite his ability to overcome the difficult barriers people of mixed race encounter throughout their lives, despite his intelligence and hard work to become a successful attorney, effective community organizer, professor, and senator, Ms. Ferraro chalks it up to LUCK! Walk one day in his shoes, and then, maybe, one may have some sense of the significant acomplishments Obama has under his belt. Thankfully he obviously had a loving family who taught him he could accomplish his dreams, not by relying on luck, but by the old American way, earning it! And clearly Barack Obama has earned the respect of many Americans who have come out in droves to vote for him. Unfortunately, Ms. Ferraro chose to dismiss that.

What she said is true! Are not the blacks voting black? Isn't that what is putting him over in a lot of predomimantly black states? The facts are the facts...leave her alone.

Obama is a different enough, special enough, man, that no matter what color he might be, he would be where he is now. Ferraro misses this key point.

There is no doubt that Obama is benefitting from being black. There's no way he would carry the southern states without the huge black support there. When you have nearly 100% of an entire race voting for you, its hard not to win.

You are sick.

Reading most of the comments posted here really tells me that racism is still alive and well in The USA. And ths sad part of it is that most of you don't recognize that you are. Most Americans don't want to recognize that we have a problem here. I think a few whites are upset that the advantages they once held is slowly going away, and a way of life is no longer the same. We need to stand up and admit our wrongs and try to understand and respect one another.

Can someone actually tell me how Pres. Bill Clinton in 1992 (46 year old Gov. of a very small and poor state, no foreign policy expereince, no federal gov't or state legislative exp., whose campaign agenda was centered araound change and he recieved, almost exclusively, all the black vote) has a stronger resume than Sen. Obama? And also tell me how they are different.

Sen. Obama is the same guy Pres. Clinton was in 1992.

Now those people who continue to say that Rep. Ferraro's statements are true, explain this factual analysis away.

Was Clinton more qualified because he is white? or because he was a better speaker? or because he cornered the Black vote? or because he came from a large state and was well known?

Actaully, I remember when a little known Democratic Govenor was allowed on the national stage for the first time when he was asked to make a speech at the Dem. National Convention. Just like Obama. I guess that's were it began for both.

I support Sen. Obama because of his message, just as I supported Pres. Clinton in 1992, because of his message of change. I am an African American and I choose because I think and reason, not because of color. AA's are no more simplistic in their politics than White people. To say anything less would be absurd and ignorant.

Again, someone please refute my facts.

DKelsey Wrote:

It really doesn't need much defending or dressing up. Obama has the thinnest resume of any Presidential candidate in recent memory. Were he white or an ethnic woman, no one would have taken his candidacy seriously.

-------

From the comments above it is clear that people are missing the big picture. I agree that he being who he is, is drawing benefit from it, but that is not the entire reason why he is on top.

The problem with Ferraro's argument is not that it sounds racist, in fact it might not be racist at all, but that it is not true. She is just dismissing all the other factors. President Bush and the current state of affairs is one big reason for his support. Barack is perceived as honest, articulate and can connect with the voters. His thin resume has come to viewed as a positive after all the monumental screw-ups of supposedly experienced Washington hands, which includes Clinton and McCain. He has come to be seen as a man for the moment because of so many external factors.

He has provided an alternative to people who are truly SICK of the happenings in Washington. No other candidate speaks so clearly about why the war in IRAQ is such a bad idea and what its costing us. He is not afraid to take on the issues of Patriotism, religion and stick it back to the right wing who have somehow claimed monopoly on them. For God's sake Democrats had a DECORATED WAR VETERAN in 2004 who was somehow forced into being defensive of himself, against an AWOL idiot. They never made it a referendum on Bush and his neo-con agenda that Barack will, in a way Hillary cannot because of her own missteps and behind-the-scenes support for the neo-cons. So to suggest the he is where is he entirely because he is black or due to white guilt IS NOT RACIST, IT IS JUST IGNORANT.

Ricky – a few points of clarification: Obama frequently talks about his white heritage – how else would you know about it? Let’s face it – he LOOKS Black and people perceive him as Black. He can’t run as anything other than a Black man any more than Clinton can run as anything other than a White woman.

If there were not a Black man running, Black people would be voting for a White candidate – the way they always have up to now. Democratic candidates have always relied on the Black vote, as well as other voting "blocs" just the way Republicans have relied on rich White people and conservative Christians.

Until the South Carolina primary, a majority of Blacks were supporting Clinton. No more – they’ve seen how two-faced the Clintons are.

Plenty of white people are voting for Obama too – he couldn’t have won a majority of the popular vote without them because White people are still the majority in this country.

Now that this has been explained, please don’t repeat your misstatements again.

Thanks

Mr. McGee,

Thank you for your thought provoking response. I still dream too.

The very ones that come across as supporting Ferraro's 'truth' statement are simply going to vote McCain .... they may be nominal democrats (or not) but in the end will not vote for a party platform as a show of unity - why?? Because they won't vote for a black candidate....pure and simple. They have their rationalizations lined up as pretty as you please. We see their 'legitimate concerns' itemized here.

On the other hand, having cruised the political blogs for the last year, there were an equal number of 'democrats' that were going to vote republican if Hillary got the nomination. Go figure....

If the dems remain divided, the GOP wins....if you vote for McCain, you can commiserate with your fellow stooges a few years down the road, while the Bush doctrine remains the law of the land.......the pettiness and egocentrism among (some)democrats is staggering.

Black citizens have an unparalleled opportunity for the first time in history to be a truly decisive factor in a presidential campaign, and the white folks are surprised that the majority would get behind a charismatic and exceedingly well-educated, well-spoken high profile person such as Barack Obama??! Well, how very black of them you say.

How very white of Geraldine Ferraro to say that Obama is only popular because he's black!! Very astute, Geraldine - now, about all those white Obama supporters??? Sour grapes, my dear....

As wrong as the GOP is about nearly everything, they do know that ... 'winning is not everything, it's the only thing' ... as Vince Lombardi used to say (or was that Bobby Knight)?

On that point they are quite correct. And then you get to make the rules - Bush proved it over and over and in fact flaunted this prerogative when everyone expected him to be a 'decent law abiding' person and respecter of the laws of the land - cooperative? Bi-partisan?? Fat chance. Not then, not now, and not ever. And you expect McCain to be any better?? The chances are really getting obese around here now.......

The issue of race is more complex than your analysis. Is there truth in what the Honorary Ferraro is saying? Yes. My guess is that she will be scapegoated for speaking a truth no one wants to hear.
Her title isn't Ms. Its Congressman, Representative, Honorary. Take some responsibility for your words as well. You want the political system to be different? Act accordingly.

Fascinating! Build a museum and that will solve everything! You don't have to be black to know that this country is all about Bosses v everybody else. And it gets worse by the day. I'm just a peasant, a cog, an unworthy one and I know it. The gods of capitalism do not smile on me. I am expendable. So are you. Get over yourself.

Ms. Ferraro is factually correct. Does anyone actually think that if Obama were an inexperienced white candidate, he would be garnering the votes he has been getting, especially the 80% vote he is getting from the black community? Susan's comments about the high percentage of blacks incarcerated is irrelevant to the point that Ms. Ferraro was making. Just because there are many blacks in prison, doesn't mean that Obama himself is not benefiting from his skin color in the primaries. Of course, thats not to deny that there are probably people who are voting against him because of his race as well.

Do we really need pundits and news organizations distorting straightforward statements to assign to them meanings that were not intended, just to create controversy. Ms. Ferraro was making the self-evidence point that the prospect of voting for a black candidate for president is attractive for many people because it would repudiate for them our country's history of slavery and racism. Senator Obama is benefiting from this admirable attitude and is therefore "lucky". That is what she said she meant in response to a question about the success of the Obama campaign, and it seems to me we could take her at her word.

Ms. Thistlewaite recited an inventory of racial injustices in our society in order to make her case that in calling Senator Obama lucky Ms. Ferraro committed a "sin" of willful ignorance comparable to that of the Germans during the Holoccaust! However, Ms. Ferraro did not say that all blacks were lucky to be born black, only that Senator Obama was lucky in this limited sense. Thus Ms. Thistlewaite's entire argument was unecessary because it was based on statements that Ms. Ferarro did not make.

As a member of Ms. Ferraro's ethnic group, and from the same part of the county, I must say that another part of this story hit me, one that has not yet been mentioned.

That is the longstanding tensions between the African-American and Italian-American communities. Just because there have been few recent media stories about neighborhood blowups like Bensonhurst, it should not be said that much has changed in the interactions between these groups.

By that I mean a deep distrust and dislike remains. Even among well-educated Italian-Americans, for example, I have heard comments like Ms. Ferraro's, and they can have less to do with any particular fact or event, but much to do with a historical animosity that has never really been addressed or healed. I would not be surprised if Ms. Ferraro is speaking partly with this voice, even though she may not be conscious of it.

"Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage.
No angel born in hell
Could break that satans spell.
And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite,
I saw satan laughing with delight
The day the music died"
American Pie-Don McLean

We knew it as coming if he was nominated. We knew what would happen after and if he became the Nominee. The slurs, the innuendoes, the wink-wink nod-nod of subtle racism, the out right attacks of not so subtle racism. There would be whispers about religion and questions about his background. There would be slime and dirt, Swift Boaters and stupid jerks. What they didn't know , they would make up. What they didn't make up, they would borrow from others who did. Never based on real fact nor any real substance, the attacks would be relentless and the nastiness would make decent people cringe.

And we knew where it would be coming from. We knew the political party that would do it. We knew which rock they crawl out from under and which cable news network they would use. We knew it all…thought we.

Oh….how wrong we were!

The enemy was within….. clothed in familiar suits (and pant suits) we had seen before. We might not have liked them all that well….but they were one of us…the good guys…."The first Black President" he was called.…..and the champions of the minorities and the downtrodden. We are all brothers and sisters, said we, and we knew who the enemy was.

Oh…..how wrong we were.

They thought that the Black vote in America was theirs for the taking and the poor white folks could be scared in to submission as the Republicans had done for years. It was a matter of fact. Victory was in sight….and the road to another CO-Presidency was a sure thing. Then something happened along the way. A young African American upstart made a challenge to the inevitable….he started to make a noise. Ordinary people got excited, ordinary people started to believe again, and ordinary people started to have hope. Ordinary people, rich and poor, Black & White, Hispanic, and Native American started to think that they themselves could actually make a difference in their own lives.

It had to be stopped before it was too late. The attacks would have to begin and while the surrogates began the "nasties" realizing the possibilities of the first real Black President, a veritable past master of race & politics in America began the subtle stuff. Still…maybe they had waited too long, thought they…. We better do him in…whatever it takes.

Still…maybe it was not too late, they decided…and the all out attacks began with the "kitchen sink" and the frontal assault on the truth. "The bigger the lie…the easier it is to have people believe."

It isn't the Democratic party, it isn't the people, it isn't even The United States of America. It is and has always been just about themselves and their ambition.

We watched as thousands of people, more white than black, cheered a man of color. We saw the hope in their eyes and saw their dreams of a better America…one no longer divided by race or ideology.

What kind of person or persons would squash such dreams---destroy such hope? What is the most troubling is….are they succeeding?

God help us.

"A long, long time ago...
I can still remember
How that music used to make me smile.
And I knew if I had my chance
That I could make those people dance
And, maybe, theyd be happy for a while.

But february made me shiver
With every paper Id deliver.
Bad news on the doorstep;
I couldnt take one more step.

I cant remember if I cried
When I read about his widowed bride,
But something touched me deep inside
The day the music died."
American Pie---Don McClean

I do not agree with you, I see nothing wrong with Ms. Ferraro's statement.

I find it interesting that Mr. Obama does not play to his white side, after all his mother was white. He only talks about his black heritage.
That of course is his right. But isn't it because he knows as a Black Man he will get the votes of a vast majority of the Black population.
Mind you, I do not blame them.

But what Mr. Ferraro said is the truth, the newspapers and the commentators are giving Mr. Obama a free ride.

If he were not black would all the Black people be voting for him I THINK NOT

I do not agree with you, I see nothing wrong with Ms. Ferraro's statement.

I find it interesting that Mr. Obama does not play to his white side, after all his mother was white. He only talks about his black heritage.
That of course is his right. But isn't it because he knows as a Black Man he will get the votes of a vast majority of the Black population.
Mind you, I do not blame them.

But what Mr. Ferraro said is the truth, the newspapers and the commentators are giving Mr. Obama a free ride.

If he were not black would all the Black people be voting for him I THINK NOT

Has anyone stopped to consider that Geraldine Ferraro not only made the comment but made it in such a hateful manner as to suggest some level of self hatred for allowing herself to be selected as Walter Mondale's running mate simply because she was a woman. She keeps harping back to that fact with an air of disdain as though she regrets being used in that manner, some might call it an affirmative action vice-president. Not only does Ms. Ferraro insult the academic and motivational qualities Mr Obama possesses but she insults millions of Americans who voted in the primaries and caucuses for him. Ms. Ferraro now that she is out of two jobs (VP & Fund raiser)can use her time offering psychological counselling to those millions of voters who supported Mr. Obama but who are blissfully unaware they have done so because he is black.

Has anyone stopped to consider that Geraldine Ferraro not only made the comment but made it in such a hateful manner as to suggest some level of self hatred for allowing herself to be selected as Walter Mondale's running mate simply because she was a woman. She keeps harping back to that fact with an air of disdain as though she regrets being used in that manner, some might call it an affirmative action vice-president. Not only does Ms. Ferraro insult the academic and motivational qualities Mr Obama possesses but she insults millions of Americans who voted in the primaries and caucuses for him. Ms. Ferraro now that she is out of two jobs (VP & Fund raiser)can use her time offering psychological counselling to those millions of voters who supported Mr. Obama but who are blissfully unaware they have done so because he is black.

I don't know what Ms. Ferraro was thinking, so I can only conclude that she wasn't. How she could manage to see the world through such delusional eyes is frankly breathtaking.

My best guess is that Ms. Ferraro is nursing another pet peeve that nobody is talking about. She lost the election - and a shot at the presidency - to a man who, for better or worse (I happen to have hated his politics), inspired a great many people to be hopeful for their country. Or so they say. I was too busy being appalled by his degradation of the environment and human rights, and pushing the world to the bring of WWIII, to notice. But whatever other horrible things Reagan was, he was a skilled natural orator. I think she still hasn't forgiven the country for falling for that. So along comes another silver-tongued smoothy, and here she is again with that old unprocessed pain.

Good luck with your many issues, Ms. Ferraro. I hope you get them worked out, preferably out of public sight.

In response to:

Mary Murray of North Canton, Ohio
Ferraro is just verbalizing what many others are thinking, although she needs to learn not to say everything on her mind. Barack Obama has gotten very positive media coverage that has helped him amass the votes/delegates that he has received. Were he a 46-year-old white male senator with little experience and no real plans for the future except unspecified "change," he would have been virtually ignored.

I have only one thing to say to you...do you rememeber a 46 year old white male who was the governor of one of the smallest and poorests states in the U.S. who had no foreign policy expereince and no federal government expereince and his was a charismatic leader/communicator and his campaign talked about some abstract "change" in 1992. That "white male" was none only than Bill Clinton.

If you compare the resumes of Pres. Clinton (1992) and Sen. Obama (present) who would you think had better qualifications???

I guess if Sen. Obama was white, he would be like Bill Clinton and when the Dem. nomination easily.

Now, can someone tell me Ferarro is right again?

If all the successes and failures, ups and downs, accomplishments and milestones and tragedies in your life can be summed up by the color of your skin ( and being black means that you have lead a charmed life in this country), then we all are in trouble.

I truly believe we all have a story and the abiity to contribute this society beyond our racial identity. BTW I would like to remind everyone that in every pole prior to New Hampshire, Sen. Clinton was assured a heathly share of the black vote, then her MLK statement, Pres. Clinton's 'fairy tale" statement" and the "Jesse Jackson " statement, turned the Black electorate against him. This is not racial identity politics, it was a reasoned decision by the Black electorate. It is insulting to insinuate that Black people cannot hear the disrespectful tome form the Clinton campaign. And how do Black people express their dissatisfaction, just like everyone else, through the ballot. Stop calling the decision racists (or reverse racism which is an oxymoron) when it is clearly a reasoned decision. Now, tell me why white women have difficulty supporting Obama?

The discussion of the black incarceration rate has no logical connection to what Ferrarro said. Two simple facts:

1) Obama is getting around 80% of the black vote.
In the Southern states, especially, that is sufficient to win, when combined with the liberal white votes. We all know what would happen if any white candidate was receiving 80% of the white vote.

2) Yes. the black incarceration rate is very high, and yes, other blacks are being promoted because they are black. That is called "affirmative action" and "equal opportunity."

However, there is a logical connection between the liberal "celebrate diversity" mantra and the two recent murders of white university coeds. Now that is a sin for which you should seek atonement.

You've it all wrong Rev. Brooks. Your intellect doesn't prove anything. Obama is using taboo as his advantage: he can attack but none can touch his black skin used as a camouflage hiding his greed and ambition. Geraldine is woman and her right brain could sense it. Maybe her left brain is unable to formulate this properly in words. She did not win her vice presidency but Hillary Rodham has been consistently winner since her graduation. She had been plotting success with Bill from Arkansas to Washington. She was by her own in New York.
Obama would better listen more than speak. There is a sign people are not comfortable with his rhetoric. He and his wife were dressing in black suit as if they were at a funeral, waving hands to their supporters. What was that sublime message? This is what I understand: "Look at us, we are one with you. We represent you."
We voters want more to hear about issues, not rhetorics. We want the candidates to stop their manipulation. There will always be reaction for any action.
Again, Geraldine is a fine person. She did nothing wrong. She was just trying to break the taboo.

You've it all wrong Rev. Brooks. Your intellect doesn't prove anything. Obama is using taboo as his advantage: he can attack but none can touch his black skin used as a camouflage hiding his greed and ambition. Geraldine is woman and her right brain could sense it. Maybe her left brain is unable to formulate this properly in words. She did not win her vice presidency but Hillary Rodham has been consistently winner since her graduation. She had been plotting success with Bill from Arkansas to Washington. She was by her own in New York.
Obama would better listen more than speak. There is a sign people are not comfortable with his rhetoric. He and his wife were dressing in black suit as if they were at a funeral, waving hands to their supporters. What was that sublime message? This is what I understand: "Look at us, we are one with you. We represent you."
We voters want more to hear about issues, not rhetorics. We want the candidates to stop their manipulation. There will always be reaction for any action.
Again, Geraldine is a fine person. She did nothing wrong. She was just trying to break the taboo.

This is an issue that both campaigns have been avoiding. She is female and he is black. They both need to show pride in who they are and not pretend that this is a genderless, colorless political race. About time someone said something about it. Real change makes some people uncomfortable. That's why it is called change. Not being able to talk about race or gender keeps us in the stone age. When we can talk about these issues without worrying about offending someone or needing to feel "pc" that is when we are making progress and stomping out discrimination.

This is an issue that both campaigns have been avoiding. She is female and he is black. They both need to show pride in who they are and not pretend that this is a genderless, colorless political race. About time someone said something about it. Real change makes some people uncomfortable. That's why it is called change. Not being able to talk about race or gender keeps us in the stone age. When we can talk about these issues without worrying about offending someone or needing to feel "pc" that is when we are making progress and stomping out discrimination.

Thank you, President Brooks, for this post. I agree wholeheartedly.

I agree with a majority of what the author ofthis
column had to say.It is very sadin this day in time,some whites still feel the need to say very
outrageous and ignorant things about Black America.Lastly,I take exception with some White
folks who always want someone of color to denounce or repudiate someone else who says
something as if the person who is asked to denouce can control waht comes out of someone else's mouth.

It is fair to say, as others have, that Hillary has benefited from the Clinton name not only as a Senator but as a presidential candidate - of course she's a capable person in her own right and few would dispute that.

However, there has remained a divisiveness that continues to be part and parcel of her campaign. She has obviously not inspired the wide-spread conviction among democrats that she is uncontestably the best candidate.

Even more apparent is her inability to become a contender with 'mystique' and charisma, something a democrat will need in excessive amounts in order to defeat McCain, who has none of the above, but does have heavily overweighted media support for no good and apparent reason - except for the fact that the powers that be really prefer to continue with a very predictable and malleable republican at the helm. In fact, a known sell-out.

While Hillary would likely be a capable president, that alone will not and has not secured the nomination. Obama provides the elusive 'X' factor in copious amounts - and this translates to an unpredictability that is greatly feared on the right. There are a number of compound factors, with race being only one of many.

For some peculiar reason Ferraro seems to have missed the bigger picture, being consumed with her own focused lust for a female president. Taking sides is all well and good, but she really took the low road with her racial epithets, and everyone knew it in an instant. I initially supported Hillary as the more experienced candidate, but also know very clearly that she's history.

What Obama will likely experience at the hands of the GOP down the road will eventually make Ferraro's comment seem naive, petty and spiteful, but innocuous by comparison.

On his worst day, Obama would still be head and shoulders above McCain as a president for the people - of that I have no doubt whatsoever.

To Jim, the "sixty-five year old black American with the belief that being born black in America is a blessing not a curse ...(that) without the shunning, agony, pain, humiliation and stereotyping that I have endured throughout my life at the hands of whites..."
--------
Did you think about what you wrote? Does your history of being a God-fearing, black American now entitle you to commit the same offenses by stereotyping "whites"?

I think its a "no win" situation when anyone comments on raceism, one way, or the other. I don't think she is a raciest,but how do you prove it, when all the years of work that she put into equal rights are shot with one comment. I think its simple math to see that he has more of the black vote than does Hillary, to ignore that fact is wrong. Anyway I don't want to be recieved as a fan of Ferraro, in fact I vote straight ticket Republican, and think its somewhat ironic that the people that made their living calling people raceists are now having to defend theirselves. Is it comfortable walking around in Trent Lott's Shoes?

I think its a "no win" situation when anyone comments on raceism, one way, or the other. I don't think she is a raciest,but how do you prove it, when all the years of work that she put into equal rights are shot with one comment. I think its simple math to see that he has more of the black vote than does Hillary, to ignore that fact is wrong. Anyway I don't want to be recieved as a fan of Ferraro, in fact I vote straight ticket Republican, and think its somewhat ironic that the people that made their living calling people raceists are now having to defend theirselves. Is it comfortable walking around in Trent Lott's Shoes?

Divisive comments are those that are intended to spark an emotional reaction that polarizes individuals based upon his or her perception of moral right and moral wrong. Because the issue of race and gender inequality have a long history, it tends to engender deep seated feelings and unclear thought. The comments were intended to invoke emotion, plain and simple. And, the emotion invoked, despite the equation one falls on, is painful. Whether you are a woman who was denied or granted opportunity. Whether you are Native American, White, Black, Latino, Asian, you likely have an opinion on racial and ethnic equality. So, the question is not whether someone is playing victim or perpetrator. Does it really matter whether a person feels the comments are morally justified or not. What one must measure is the effect of the comments on the Democratic Party and the ability to put our moral perceptions, pains and fears aside to come together and discern the things that make us more powerful, over such things that make us divided and weak. As long as we continue to allow our emotions to steer us, polarize us and undermine the work that needs to be done to make this country unified, economically productive, socially idealized and leaders of the free world, will we ever be the United States our founders envisioned.

There is an elephant in the room of progressive politics. Ignoring it allows people like Geraldine Ferraro to say out of one side of their mouths that they are believers in equal rights even as they unapologetically partake of -- and even jealously guard -- the fruits of our racist past. There is a continuing pattern of patronizing that needs to be recognized and purged from our body politic. If we were serious about racial justice, we would not be content to pontificate from comfortable television studios (especially, as Ferraro dies, from Fox News studios) and then return to our comfortable apartments, where we can have discourse about those "poor black folks" in front of large, flat-screen TVs while snacking from a wine and cheese platter. If Ferraro instead had actually walked the streets of African-American communities and had gotten personally involved in the struggles of families dealing with the continuing wounds of our racist past, she would perhaps be talking about the urgency of healing the wounds too many of us bear as a result -- and how perhaps an African-American in the White House of the caliber of Barack Obama just might bring us closer to the wholeness we need.

To quote the GEICO caveman, "Uh, What?"

Perhaps Susan Brookes Thistlethwaite should have stayed in bed this morning.

Thanks Susan,a holy analysis.
God bless you.

In addition to the article I would like clarification on the following (it would be nice to get it from Ms. Ferraro but that's not likely).

As for the comment

“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."

How is he lucky? Was Jesse Jackson lucky too? He was in a similar position. Does the comment refer to his winning Missippi with 90% of the african american vote? What about winning Wyoming or Utah or any of the other states with a caucasian majority, was he supposed to win there too?

My 2 problems with Ms. Ferraro's comments/line of thinking is similar to the psychological "Fundamental Attribution Error". She attributes Obama's situation to 1 thing: Luck. If she were to asked about what contributed to her OWN failings in her bid, she would most likely give excuses that had nothing to do with incompetency.

The second problem deals with the comment's insinuation. If Obama IS lucky (and I don't think he is) is that unfair? What about the previous 43 presidents who were all caucasian?

I'm a 32 yr old african american man and I'm not complaining "those other 43 are lucky they're white" neither am I saying "vote for Obama, it's time we had a black man in office". I want to vote for the most competent person who will look out for all interests, not just their own, even one Ms. Geraldine Ferraro's.

Ferraro is just a low class Italian with "off the boat" attitudes. I'm Italian, and her insensitivity embarrasses me. She clearly has forgotten the history of discrimination against her forbears in this country.

As a matter of fact, my friend said a month ago,"The oped piece we need to write is, "If Obama was white would you vote for him?" Geraldine is not the only one thinking these thoughts. There are thousands of us who have been thinking these thoughts for a long time.

Yea to telling the truth. Many of us are thinking this way and Obama's past record needs to be revealed. USA is so sexist it is unreal. The voters are acting like the Emperor has clothes and he does not have any on. Look at him and see him.

What a wonderful editorial of a really awful statement. Thanks.

How is a fact ignorant?

Geraldine Ferraro is right. I firmly believe Geraldine Ferraro is speaking the truth and we need people who are willing to speak the truth in this country. There are enough lies, white washing and making nice.

We need people who are willing to speak up and say what they think without being punished. USA is so sexist we have never had a woman President after 232 years. This is proof enough. Hillary is three times as qualified as any of the other men. This is obvious to a sixth grader.

Obama passed on over 120 bills when he was in the legislature. This means he could not make up his mind to vote for it or against it. He did nothing in the Senate. After he has introduced some bills for children, minorities and women and stood up for something, taken a little heat and has a realistic plan on how he can solve the vast problems in America he might be worthy of being considered a candidate.

Geraldine Ferraro is right.

I seem to remember Geraldine Ferraro's vice presidental candidency as a bit of a publicity stunt where a trailing Mondale named her well in advance of the convention. Having realized his tactical blunder he demanded that the Republicans name their vice presidential candidate also which of course, they wisely ignored.

All of this is to say that her "historical" candidency was a bit of a fluke and her place in history is overdone.

Here's what I think. Obama has done a good job of not running as a "black" candidate; If he were seen as that it would be easier to associate him with the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons which would guarantee his not winning the election or even the primary. The Clinton campaign, of course, would love to see that comparison but to overtly make it would be suicide but why not be subtle and get to the first step? I believe Ms Ferarro willfully "fell on her sword" by trying to make that connection in the public mind. Like the "vast right wing conspiracy" statement I don't think these things are just blurted out in the heat of the moment, I believe they are planned and coordinated, especially in a desparate election year.

Also, I think her argument would be stupid in any case. chance and circumstance play into any politicians career. Would we have heard of Hillary if she had not married Bill Clinton? Probably not. So if the concept of a black (well, 50/50) man running for president creates excitement and energy, so be it, that's politics.

Will she get a job in, oh, about a year? We'll see.

1. Ferraro said the exact same thing about Jesse Jackson in 1988. So she is a repeat offender with smearing black candidates:

""If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," she said.

Really. The cite is an April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available only on Nexis."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html

2. Not only is she a repeat offender, but she has previously said that due to "racism" white owmen are more electable (seeming to contradict her recent claims):

Ferraro said in 2006 that white women are more elecctable than a black man:

"Ms. Ferraro offered a similar sentiment. “I think it’s more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American,” said Ms. Ferraro. “There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States — whether it’s conscious or not it’s true.”“Women are 51 percent of the population,” she added."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/weekinreview/10nagourney.html?scp=13&sq=%22geraldine+ferraro%22black&st=nyt

Agreeing with Chris Stuart...
Definitely, race and gender have been a factors. There is no denying that. But there are A LOT of other factors too: namely, Obama's message, his policies, his charisma, and his integrity, and Clinton's bullheadedness, her bruising political style, and her political baggage.
...and adding...
Barack seems to capture the mood, and uses language that resonates with how many people in this country now think. There are the deadenders of course, (sorry to borrow that from Rumsfelt), but in general, the Bush Administration has galvanized the public, and Barack is speaking their language.

No one alive today owned slaves and no one alive today ( i speak of american black and whites) owned slaves. To blame the joblessness and poverty with multiple generations of slavery is itself willingfull ignorance .....

Someone made an excellent point:

Obama has gotten to where he is with almost everything running against him, including his race and name.

Would Hillary have gotten to where she is if her last name wasn't "Clinton"??? To the feminists out there, if Hillary had gotten this far without using her husband and his name as a crutch, you would have every right to call opposition to her as being sexist.

You know I'm right...........

Skin has nothing to do with Obama indecisiveness and very shifty attitude and no one has brought the issue of color more than Obama has done.

The problem with Geraldine's statement is that no one-- even herelf-- seems to understand the intent. Did she mean that Barack has a political advantage as an African American? You rebuke that statement well. Or did she harmlessly mean to suggest that race (among other things) has been a factor in this race? Of course, the latter is unlikely since she didn't credit the gender-based votes to Hillary.

Definitely, race and gender have been a factors. There is no denying that. But there are A LOT of other factors too: namely, Obama's message, his policies, his charisma, and his integrity, and Clinton's bullheadedness, her bruising political style, and her political baggage.

Only the Pennsylvania voters can end this saga. You all have to look at the candidates and their policies closely. While Obama has fewer years in Washington, his ideas and vision for the country are point on! Unify the country, Pennsylvania.

Obama 2008

1. Ferraro said the exact same thing about Jesse Jackson in 1988. So she is a repeat offender with smearing black candidates:

""If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," she said.

Really. The cite is an April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available only on Nexis."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html

2. Not only is she a repeat offender, but she has previously said that due to "racism" white owmen are more electable (seeming to contradict her recent claims):

Ferraro said in 2006 that white women are more elecctable than a black man:

"Ms. Ferraro offered a similar sentiment. “I think it’s more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American,” said Ms. Ferraro. “There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States — whether it’s conscious or not it’s true.”“Women are 51 percent of the population,” she added."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/weekinreview/10nagourney.html?scp=13&sq=%22geraldine+ferraro%22black&st=nyt

I am truly disappointed in the Clinton Campaign. I did not envision this race to become about race. I was willing to forgive the Clintons after what happened in South Carolina. This November I will vote Republican if Clinton becomes the nominee.

Ms Ferraro's comment may be over the top, but Hillary's reaction is also over the top. So many other stupid things about this campaign have been said officially and unoffically. Who cares about one more dumb remark? This article is also over the top in construing all this as sin etc.
Give me a break!
The sin is elsewhere. The sin is in the perpetuation of racism in America, through not so subtle race identification mechanisms in the media, America's ghetto like demographic layout, and a most of all, classism. The root of America's cultural disfunction has to do with associating good with rich, and bad with poor.
Its that simple.
The Obama phenomenon is really due to his own phenomenal personality, intellegence and background. America is a big country, and produces all kinds of people. I think Obama is a man who simply wants to help his country, and may be an important catalyst in moving thing forward.

Ms. Ferraro's comments are an observation. Not racist remarks. Shelby Steele, a bi-racial, conservative intellectual has been using the same argument in his book "Why Obama Can't Win".(See Youtube or Bill Moyer's Journal) I don't hear anyone harassing him.

As talented as he is ,Obama is not ready to serve. He has not completed a term as Senator. He has not created any substantive legislation.

In a Thurber story the animals of the forest choose the Owl as their king because he can see in the dark. Yet when morning comes, all his followers are 'road-kill'. No one bothered to ask him if he could see in the light.

What consistently is overlooked or underrated about Barack Obama is that his message is one of hope. The hope that we can end the years of despair for the direction our country has taken. That we can move forward. That we can strive for right not just might, that we can feel good about ourselves once again.

I want to leave my grandchildren with Barack's message as their legacy.

Would Hillary Clinton have gotten to where she is if she wasn't Bill Clinton's wife? I suspect not. Then why do we become so sanctimonious when someone has the audacity to say the conjecture that Obama may have received some advantage because he is black. Of his many attributes Harvard educated, intelligent, articulate, attractive, charismatic, etc. why can't we accept that being Black has it's advantage. John Edwards was not a key note speaker at the 2000 convention. He had many of these same attributes. Yet Obama was selected for this honor in 2004. Why can't society get over this name calling. Being Black can have a great positive influence on someone...empathy, understanding of the overcoming bigotry, social awareness...Much of what makes him a great canadate is that he is Black...what's wrong with that?

Geraldine Ferraro's comment was wrong and out of place. It raised the issue of the candidate's race when one American ideal is that each and every individual should be judged on their own merits, regardless of race.
It was obviously another brickbat in the less than lovely competition of two political candidates.
Whether he was black yellow white blue or green a person of Obama's extraordinary articulateness would stand out politically. He is a tremendously charismatic figure.
Whether that alone, or all his other good qualities combined, makes him the right person to be the next President of the United States is another question.

Maybe this all is just a simple innocent manifestation of Ferraro's advancing Alzheimer's.

Terra - I share your feelings including the fact that I never dreamed I'd feel this way.

1. I think Ferraro means what Lloyd Bentsen meant:..."Senator (Obama), I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

2. I would guess if Obama was Colin Powell, one who earned much experience over the years, Ferraro may not make the same comment and others would not feel as such.

3. Besides the fact the Obama has the top-notch education and is intelligent, he is clearly LIKEABLE and has that factor. He is new on the scene without a defined record and without any controversy, not sure if you can flip/flop him like Kerry. He is a "fresh face" candidate for many, not because of race.

4. One of his great successes is that he has intelligently worked to align himself with young (typically college educated) students from all backgrounds who are one of his main constituencies. A constituency that Hillary's campaign ignored and is now trying to make up by having her daughter Chelsea make the rounds prior to primaries/caucuses.

On one hand this has nothing to do with race. On the other hand, young people (current college generation) are in a post civil rights, post getting used to minorities in high positions era comfortable and ready with a young appealing candidate like Obama. He may also be "their" candidate, their meaning this young generation. Just like Hillary is the candidate for many progressive and equal rights (NOW) women. Like Huckabee is for evangelicals, Romney for big business, etc. Again, this is an advantage gained by Obama because of targeting this group and because of his appeal (charisma) to them. For this, credit his campaigning ability not race!

5. There may also be a hidden "freudian" appeal for Obama by many. I don't doubt that there is a constituency out there that feels guilty about America's role in Iraq (where we are wanting that society to grant equal rights to women, other ethnicities and factions) and the world stage and wants to show that same world that we are an equal society capable of electing not only a black man, but, also one who has a middle name Hussein and a last name that sounds like Osama. I'm sure this same constituency feels that this will help our goodwill on the world stage. So Obama is benefitting from his name and race somewhat just like Hillary is benefitting from her name (Clinton) and gender somewhat...not to take away their strenghts and unique experience. Unfortunately this group is sweeping the problem under the rug, pushing a black candidate out there, but, ignoring the larger problems of black men.

6. Obama's surge is also based on Clinton fatigue, not including me, I feel we need another Clinton to clean up after a Bush!

7. Many vote for Obama as a vote against Hillary, primarily many white males and red-state democrats that don't like/strongly resent the Clintons for their trajectory of carrying and supporting the equality/diversity banner. This would indicate that Obama is a white person's black man adding validity to Ferraro's statement.

8. Republicans put the word out that they will coalesce AGAINST Hillary, that they will be far more ENERGIZED to defeat her than another candidate, this has the effect of her losing the on the fence/undecided democrat voter. Obama has shrewdly capitalized on this indirect support by claiming many times he is more "electable."
8. Media has embraced Obama and unfairly bashed Hillary, again making a person like Ferraro ask why?

Hillary's apology last night to African Americans is another case of too little, too late.

The sincerity of her apology and any real concern for the Democratic Party's prospects in November can only be measured by her withdrawal from the race.

Apologies are not supposed to take the form of a strategy that you then profit from; the damage the Clintons have done to the party is immense, and her continued campaign only worsens the situation.

It is time to move on.

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite well written, and very impressed!

There is a museum of slavery.
We should visit it. Apparently.

http://www.usnationalslaverymuseum.org/home.asp

I am saddened and angry to read this author's column and then learn about her credentials. She's supposed to be a learned woman, yet her writing was incoherent at best – with childish attempts to compensate for the weak arguments in the column with jargons. Seems like the author was trying to impress her unwitting audience of a grade school. All the stats she cited have nothing to do with her argument that Ms Ferraro was arrogant and wrong. It is a fact that it's harder for a minority to rise through the many barriers in the current society because of inherent racism and sexism, among many others (I know all of this first hand, American system is not flawless, but it’s the best in the world for a person like me). Anybody with merit can excel in this society. I came here with prejudice as tall as the eyes can see in front of me, no language skills, no help, no money. I was able to stay out of prison, move on to have a decent life and proud to support my family. The slavery that was employed, condoned, and legal in the US until recently was ugly. And don’t think that it stopped with the voting act in the 60’s. But that is not the reason to overlook present facts or suppress someone's opinions. Under the pretense of "progressiveness", this author is diminishing Ms. Ferraro's argument and opinions. Stop lecturing Ms Ferraro on her loss in 1988. Any person with a grade school education knows that Americans vote for a president, never a vice president). Oh my gosh, and this author carries the title of something at a respectable institution like the University of Chicago, where my daughter ranked as her second choice school! At a certain philosophical level, this author's actions are no different that those by Governor Spitzer's: hypocrisy -- all hubris under some pretense of good cause; this author’s embellishing her title to in steamrolling others – ultimately that’s what slavery was about: this author is THE superior person WHO was in control of OTHER inferior personS in many aspects of life: existence, opinion, purpose, choice, family, sex (eg. Thomas Jefferson), finance, economics…..

I was furious when I heard Ferraro's statements about Obama. I was even more furious when Clinton did not speak up to criticize those statements.

Tonight on TV, Ferraro compounded her abusive behaviour by putting a spin on what she said about Obama. She claimed her statements celebrated his achievement blah blah blah.

I did not believe her when she replied to the stinging criticisms that have been meted out to her. I think she lied. Now I wonder if Clinton's spin doctors or some other person who is an able liar came up with this despicable explanation of her despicable behaviour.

We all know that politicians can dish it out but they cannot handle justifiable criticism.

Ferraro should go back to obscurity and Clinton should criticise her statements. So far, Clinton's mild rebuke is, in my mind, tantamount to endorsing Ferraro.

Clinton will sink like a rock at the Democratic Convention because of her desperate and nasty strategies.

I am a sixty-five year old black American with the belief that being born black in America is a blessing not a curse. You see, without the shunning, agony, pain, humiliation and stereotyping that I have endured throughout my life at the hands of whites, my love and obedience to God would not be tested.

Through it all I prayed to God not for myself and other blacks but for the whites who set themselves in the position of God. The white race apparently believe that one race of people is smarter than other races and that a distinction of intelligence can be proven simply by the color of ones skin, the blondness of ones hair or the blueness of ones eyes.

The sadness that I feel for whites is amplified when I see them parade to church each Sunday and thank God for all he has given them. In fact whites use the prosperity and power they have as proof that God has set them above others.

Geraldine Ferraro is nothing more than a pitiful example of the arrogance and ignorance of whites in America whose total essence is defined by their ascendance above other races. END THE WAR IN IRAQ.

And if we follow Rev. Susan's 12%/88%'logic,' 98.4% of white males are on the path to high public office (because they are not in prison like the other 1.4%)? Everyone not at the bottom of either race (i.e., incarcerated) must be a the top. Actually most are in middle, with only a few heading towards the top office. Ms. Ferraro, whether you agree or disagree, has been in that small group of people considered for president. She was not talking about why she failed to WIN, but rather about how she entered the arena, and what extra advantages she had, in addition to education, intelligence, and some political experience. When she ran , she was a relatively new politician, but suddenly jumped to the top of the field of potential candidates.Was it because of her international experience, or her personal charm, or her tolerance towards civil rights, or because she was a typical white male? Hmm? She doesn't seem to fit these categories, as everyone agrees now. Was she was seriously considered (in part) because she was a woman? -- a sexist thought, not politically correct, right? Candidate Ferraro admits that special consideration was given to a [woman]candidate, because of [her] gender,in addition to any qualifications. Is Obama, who admittedly has many talents, given extra consideration and/or extra votes because he is black? Is Ferraro incorrect to understand the fact that race is an issue, and that Obama is benefitting from it? Gender helped open the door for Ferraro to be considered, at a time when she was a relatively inexperienced newcomer. She did not obtain the office, but she was offered a chance to run for it. Perhaps she lost after voters took a closer look at their choices. Obama likewise has been given a chance to run. He will win or lose after voters take a closer look at their choices. Clearly, we are only having this discussion because race is an element in this campaign, as is gender (again). Discussing the fact of a race and gender issue, in itself, does not make anyone a racist or a sexist.
The country did not choose Ferraro as president. (Perhaps in part because of her gender, which helped her get initial attention. Or perhaps because of her opinions, racist or not.) Gender, the primary source of Ferraro's campaign beginning, may have both helped her and may have hurt her, but she was ultimately judged by the voters on many levels. She is right that Obama, in addition to his qualifications, is also being examined, in part, because of his race, and he will be judged by the voters. Votere will look at each candidate as a package, and most voters will look at race and gender as part of their decision making reasons.

Bottom line-- most voters, regardless of who they select, are unlikely to ignore race and gender in 2008. And most voters are going to HAVE choices which involve race and gender if either Obama or Hillary are on the ballot.(And does that involve "sin"?? ) Your emotional distractors concerning the holocaust are irrelevant. While some voters may have actual sexist or gender deficiencies or sin in why they support or reject a candidate, they are not sinners for recognizing that there are factors of race and gender which have allowed us to observe potential candidates with more scrutiny. We have a chance to consider Obama, on his merits, in part because his skin color helped bring him to our attention. Hopefully we accept or reject him because of other reasons, but some people will make their choice because of skin color.(That would be racist) Some people will make their choice on other factors (not racist), but everyone probably now has that opportunity (to accept or reject him) ...at least in part, because of his skin color. Ferraro understands that fact.

I don't think for a second that Ms. Ferraro is a racist. This article and most of the comments are reading way too much into Ferraro's comments. I cannot believe that the atrocities of the Holocaust and a history of slavery found their way into this discussion.

The real basis for Ms. Ferraro's comments can be found in her statement about Obama's candidacy being a "problem" for Hillary. The assumption is that the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination was Hillary's for the taking and how dare someone, anyone (black, hispanic, Presbyterian, gay, etc.) and how dare a democratic process get in her way. Ferraro's comments are all about ARROGANCE. Hillary Clinton is arrogant and that's the main reason she has a 49% negative rating with the general population.

When Hillary lost some early key states and cried, the basis for her tears was the same arrogance.

What a forceful narrative reverend!

Ms. 'Farina' is part of the desperate Clinton 'Bigot Strategy,'....coughing and spurtering into eventual defeat.

Wonderful article, thank you very much. The idea of a slavery museum puts it all in perspective. I think Ferraro's comments were made possible by the white culture which has never really denounced slavery. Ferraro chose those comments because she knew she had a receptive audience which would - secretly or not - nod in agreement. I wonder how many other people like Ferraro are populating the Clinton camp and how a racist person like Ferraro has been allowed to raise to the rank of prominent fundraiser for Clinton. A comment by a white Clinton supporter in Ohio perfectly illustrates our dangerous ignorance of history. Responding to a black Obama voter saying his ancestors had been brought here in chains, the Clinton voter said her female ancestors had been brought here in chains and with their period. I beg to differ...

She attempted to equate her selection as a Vice Presidential candidate with Obama's campaign. What a joke. Sen. Obama has won a majority of caucuses and primaries throughout the country. Ferraro was chosen by one person and never won anything in the presidential campaign.

She attempted to equate her selection as a Vice Presidential candidate with Obama's campaign. What a joke. Sen. Obama has won a majority of caucuses and primaries throughout the country. Ferraro was chosen by one person and never won anything in the presidential campaign.

She attempted to equate her selection as a Vice Presidential candidate with Obama's campaign. What a joke. Sen. Obama has won a majority of caucuses and primaries throughout the country. Ferraro was chosen by one person and never won anything in the presidential campaign.

Many fans of both Clinton and Obama have made the argument that their candidate is somehow "entitled" because of race or gender. I have heard that women are particularly upset that Obama is beating Hillary because they think it's high time for a woman to win. This is terribly flawed logic. No one is entitled. People are drawn to Obama because he offers hope in a hopeless world, to borrow a popular lyric. He is likeable, inspirational, etc. Hillary is a woman, but she is also a politician. She is not nearly as inspirational, likeable, or brilliant. In general, the friendliest politician wins here in America. McCain is fairly likeable, although a little too cranky for some. Running Hillary against him would not be smart for the Democrats. How often do we see such brilliance in a candidate such as Obama? It's been 40+ years since JFK left us with his promise unfullfilled. It is high time we had another great Democrat leading this country. His ancestry and gender are irrelevant to his primary talents.

As for Ferraro, you rightly point out how her blindness is innate...this is why she lost in 1980. She cannot see the forest for the trees. Here, right in front of her, is this amazing politician who has many personal attributes that make him great in a sea of average-ness. And all she has to say is that he wouldn't win if he were a different color or gender? Hogwash! Any politician would love to have Obama's talents.

This is a proper denouncement of Ferraro, among others! Good riddance from Hillary's campaign, I hadn't heard of that woman in decades, then all of a sudden.

Does Obama have a Catholic vote problem? Twice now, media describes areas in Ohio with Catholics, and Pennsylvania.

It wasn't mentioned so much describing Mississippi. Lack of media in Mississippi, stark difference reporting coverage, from print sources I've read.

Area's of Catholics are not voting for Obama? Is that an issue he can fix? Is it Abortion distrust in him? He's not denouncing it.

I don't think he has to. Politicans can want less abortions, but the process has to legal and allowable. It's a personal decesion. There isn't enough social coverage for every pregnancy.

Some families and individuals aren't ready for the responsibility.

Does Hillary get the Catholic vote more? Is it implied she will?

While we wait for the museum, I urge white folks of good will to go to www.reparationsthecure.org or www.wacan.org and join other white folks who are trying to face the reality that Ms. Thistethwaite speaks about.

Thank you for a thoughtful and insightful response to an attitude that is in itself a contributing factor to much of what is negative in the African American community. The overwhelming impression given to us is that America just dosen't care about Black people, that we don't matter! It's disheartening to be told you're whinning whenever one dares to point out past and current inequities, as was the case with Mr. Obama.

Dear Ms. Thistlethwaite:

I suppose it would take someone affiliated with a Christian Institution, such as yourself, to promulgate the notion that Germany is a more tolerant nation than the United States because the Germans, you allege, have atoned for the holocaust because they built a museum regarding their World War Two atrocities (American aid to Germany after WWII was, I would bet, about a million times as great as the cost of that museum; as such, the construction of such a museum is simply in the nature of a rebate and not a sign of contrition for genocide -- certainly not when considered in conjunction with the vast popularity of Arab terrorism in Germany as in Europe as a whole) whereas Americans have yet to build a museum of slavery. Of course, you conveniently omit any mention of the United States Civil War, in which close to one million Yankees died trying to fight the institution of slavery. Arguably, we Americans discharged our duties to our African brethren then, but people of your liberal ilk seem to have an intellectual sluggishness which prevents them from considering America's losses in the Civil War.

But perhaps I am getting far beyond the ostensible scope of your essay. Your essay was a rebuke to Geraldine Ferraro for her remarks regarding the Obama-Clinton contest. Then again, your remarks went beyond the scope of Ferraro's remarks or simply did not address them. She alleged that there was such a thing as black racism, or anti-white racism, and instead of addressing what she had to say, you complained about white racism, implicitly contending that since white racism exists, or once existed, all black racism was excusable.

Ferraro simply said that if Obama had not been a black man he would not be where he is today. She is absolutely correct. Think of the qualifications of the other contenders for the nomination. Mr. Joseph Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is more well-versed in foreign affairs then 10 Obamas put together. But of course he did not get anywhere in the Democratic primaries because he was, as people like you like to dismiss us, just another boring white man who you soon would perhaps like to see become dead white men as you so readily malign almost every pillar of western civilization, whether it be Shakespeare or Milton or Locke or Einstein or Spinoza, as just another dead white man.

Very simply, blacks have suffered, immensely. And because of their suffering people like you will grant them every imaginable concession and indulgence and sometimes this takes the form of racism against whites. It is simply a perfect example of the Hegelian dialectic -- every thesis has within it the seeds of its own antithesis. And I think that Ferraro simply pointed out that Obama's success was a manifestation of this phenomenon. We saw, for example, much the same thing a few years ago when so many Republicans were entertaining the possibility of a Colin Powell candidacy. When America finds a black man, who does not speak in the surly style of a Jesse Jackson or an Al Sharpton, America goes ga ga. It is as if white America is intoxicated with the notion (which is both pro black and anti black in its condescension toward blacks) that blacks can be just as clean-cut as whites.

But instead of addressing this issue, you simply pointed-out that the incarceration rate was much higher among blacks than it is among whites. But that does not establish that this is still an anti-black nation. Very simply, if blacks commit crimes in numbers disproportionate to their portion of the populace, then they should constitute a disproportionate chunk of the penal population, and all the evidence buttresses the proposition that blacks commit more murder, robbery and assault than whites. I know that this contention may prove disconcerting to your prim and politically correct sensibilities as you have perhaps been raised to believe that there is something more soulful, heartfelt and compassionate about the Third World. Indeed, Clinton, far from being a racist, suggested that there was something inherently salubrious about Africa, or Mother Africa, when she lauded it for its adage that it "takes a village to raise a child." But the grand liberal dreams just don't jive with gritty, violent reality: For example, I read an article, in the NY Times a few months ago, that badly behaved children in Africa are routinely killed because their "soulful" parents believe that they are witches.

And I suppose people like Ferraro and me are both especially sensitive to the discrepancy between lofty liberal dreams about the glorious third world and the sordid and savage reality of the undeveloped world. Neither of us are part of the white Protestant elite. She is a Catholic; I am a Jew. We are both New Yorkers. Perhaps rich white Protestants, who came from a world of huge homes on grand estates on verdant meadows and everlasting serenity, have the luxury of believing that they are the kings and queens of the world and, as such, they never feel threatened by the third world, even when it takes the form of a dozen Muslim states heaving with the hate of Hitlerian nightmares. Indeed, the pollsters tell us that rich white people have a special predilection for Obama. But people like Ferraro and me don't feel rich even when we are rich because we have seen plenty of hate and blood and violence and some of it has been directed at us. Indeed, New York was, in the 50's and early 60's, a great and peaceable kingdom of working class Catholics and Jews. And then came the invasion: Hordes of blacks flooded this City, crime rates soared, the immigrants from the South gravitated toward welfare and nearly bankrupted the City, the Jews of New York who had been in the forefront of the Civil Rights movement were soon castigated as Imperialist Capitalistic oppressors who should have been killed in greater numbers by Hitler, and by the seventies the Bronx went up in flames.

Of course, Obama is no flamethrower, but his campaign is a veritable arsonist of the truth, and that is perhaps one of the reasons why Ferraro and I are angry. Because of Obama's adept manipulation of the media, it is almost universally agreed that the flavor of this campaign started to sour because of Clinton's supposedly Nixonian personality and meanness, particularly in regard to race. In fact, the Obamites initiated all of the present controversies regarding race. In South Carolina, Hillary said that President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That was incontrovertibly true. But the Obamites started screaming "racist" because of a special application of a purely paranoid logic: To give credit to a white person, LBJ, is to denigrate the memory of M L King and that constitutes a body blow against the African nation.

And from that day on the Obama campaign and their emissaries in the media have been complaining about the alleged racism of Hillary et al. And that accusation is so detestable that by the time this campaign is over many of us may in fact become racists.

And, in November, the GOP will have the last laugh.

I was not surprised at all when i heard her comments because 2 things are happening in the democratic party.

(i) obama's success is still hard to appreciate because like inexperienced candidates of the past(JFK, Gary Hart, bill clinton, ronald reagan) there's much to ridicule about obama's resume; no military experience and relatively short time in national office(though bill clinton had less time and lincoln had none) democrats know his presidency is a risk. yet a lot of them a enthusiastically willing to take it.

(ii) even among democrats because of affirmative action, the achievements of african americans is belittled. here is a magna cum laude harvard law graduate, a constitutional law scholar and lecturer, respected Illinois state senator(even among republicans in illinois) and a promising senator(though he ran for president too soon).

(iii) mrs. clinton's own historic ran for president.

democrats are divided and it's nasty and bitter out there and in this environment we'll learn a lot about the democratic part; the party that has been accusing the republican party of racism will soon learn that it has it's own racial and gender problems. more heat, and we'll all be expose our prejudices.

in a word...

Gulp!

She said the same thing about Jessie Jackson in 1988 see ref, from DrudgeReport web site

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html

Or her history with her son or her felon husband, who made questional real estate deals... which is why she was droped as VP with Mondale and out of pubic life, oh well.

Thanks for letting me word, we have a great country, lets not spoil it with these Hill-Bill's

Jim

in a word...

Gulp!

She said the same thing about Jessie Jackson in 1988 see ref, from DrudgeReport web site

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html

Or her history with her son or her felon husband, who made questional real estate deals... which is why she was droped as VP with Mondale and out of pubic life, oh well.

Thanks for letting me word, we have a great country, lets not spoil it with these Hill-Bill's

Jim

Alan, the problem with you white people like you is that you are apologizing for the obvious. in history class you learned about slavery in America. Did you learn about slavery in South America, Central America, the Pacific Islands? I can keep going across continents and over time but you fail to realize that Geraldine does know about history. In fact, in my own history, my ancestors fought against being enslaved by the Spaniards for Four Hundred Years. Guess what part of the globe I am referring to? Hint, it is not in America: But when my great grandfather's cousins contacted the USA, the military assassinated our indigenous leaders and took over our lands.

Great Article

I appreciate your views, agreement or not. I appreciate your coming to direct terms with what so many of us do not: reality. We have chosen far too often to look away or to carry out other forms of denial that each one of us "is a part of the maine" as was noted four hundred years ago. You help us all to address our many realities and that is a gift of great import.

No, Ferraro, You are Right. As a non-black and non-white person, I have witnessed prejudice all of my life. I have observed the type of racism which Ferraro is describing. And, she is correct. She has been attacked like others who make a comment on anything that anyone might be able to even potentially consider in any means to be racism. It is abominable that our country has such racism--from colors of the spectrum.

Terra writes:Wow he is a black man from Chigaco! Not Wow he is a Harvard educated man that graduated Magna Cum Laudi! Or he was elected the President of the Harvard Law Review...But he is a black man from Chicago.

--why did ob get 90% of the black vote in Miss?
because he's a Magna from Harv ? no, because he's a black man who graduated Magna from Harv.Why is it so horrible to vote for a black person because he's black ? there is nothing wrong with that.

No, Ferraro, You are Right. As a non-black and non-white person, I have witnessed prejudice all of my life. I have observed the type of racism which Ferraro is describing. And, she is correct. She has been attacked like others who make a comment on anything that anyone might be able to even potentially consider in any means to be racism. It is abominable that our country has such racism--from colors of the spectrum.

No, Ferraro, You are Right. As a non-black and non-white person, I have witnessed prejudice all of my life. I have observed the type of racism which Ferraro is describing. And, she is correct. She has been attacked like others who make a comment on anything that anyone might be able to even potentially consider in any means to be racism. It is abominable that our country has such racism--from colors of the spectrum.

Lou Ellen Hedley,
I can not believe the outright bigotry of your statement. It is heinous.

Wow he is a black man from Chigaco! Not Wow he is a Harvard educated man that graduated Magna Cum Laudi! Or he was elected the President of the Harvard Law Review...But he is a black man from Chicago.

And Michelle Obama is the kindest woman...she graduated from Princeton University with a B.A. in Sociology, and went on to earn a J.D. from Harvard Law School.

What is it with you folks? Why are you so afraid of others? Differnt races scare you? How about different religions? How about new thinking?
I do not means to be mean, but my gods can't you people click on a link..discover what Obama really says, what his policies are..who his family is.

www.barackobama.com

terra

Ursala,
You are saying that Obama is where he is because of his White Half? A White Black man? I see...then what part was it that got elected for President of the Havard law Review? Oh that must have been the "white" half...after all that was the first time a black man had ever achieved that...or was it the white half that aquired a degree in Political science? Or was that the white half that graduated Harvard Magna Cum Laudi. Oh but of course it was the Black half that took a 10,000 dollar job instead of the 6 figures he could have got to help poor folks in the South Side of Chigaco. Or made it to the Ill. senate or onto the US senate.

How about he is a man, a smart one that has more elective experience then Hillary...in fact if he needs more experience, so did Abraham Lincon.

Sheesh!

Lets talk about Hillary...in Mississippi it was 61 to 37. Obama got 91% of the black vote and Hillary got 70% of the white vote...BUT 26% of that white vote was Repubs that Rush Limbaugh told to go vote for Hillary because they can Whop her( and they like screwing with us.). So use some math...26% of 37%...that changes the vote some umm?
terra

For those people backing Ferraro for speaking the truth, I would like to say that Hillary IS acting like a monster.

This is so silly. Seriously, IF Obama's getting an advantage for being black, that's GREAT. And same for Hillary. People are missing the point. Could we have elected Joe Biden? John Edwards? Sure. But the two best qualified people also happen to be trailblazers, which is really exciting.

We're not talking about candidates like Alan Keyes or something here. Obama has had to overcome the Clinton legacy, and basically sell his case all over the US in places like Utah and Wyoming. Do you know how hard it must be to deal with the fact that so many people won't vote for him because he's black? The security he's kept for the last year? I think it's cool we have a chance to break the gender or racial barrier this year, and it's great that people are excited for either candidate.

And look around the world. We haven't had many woomen in power around the world, not nearly enough, but how many minorities come to the top position in developed countries? I can't think of any... The comments are sensitive and really short-sighted. And now acting like the victim? Think of Obama here - you hurt him with your comments, so Geraldine needs to apologize to Obama.

Ferraro is absolutely correct in her assessment. I am black, and many of my relatives and friends have told me that they are voting Obama just to see to it that a black man gets in the White House. One friend said that she can't wait to see Michelle as First Lady, because she's a dark-skinned black woman and, to quote, "I'm sick and tired of these black men taking up with white women the minute they get to be somebody."

This carting out of the Race Card and railroading of anyone who criticizes Obama must stop. I am sick to my stomach of the Obama people and the Race Card. Stop it already! Please.

fred writes :What I hear in her comment is that Barack Obama is leading in the delegate vote because African Americans will vote for any black face and everyone else is just in love with the idea of an African American as President.

----The first part is definitely correct but this goes for other minorities as well Chinese will vote for Chinese, Hispanics for a Hispanic, nothing odd or racist, its human nature. Dont tell me Ob gets the vast majority of the black votes because of his policies. The other half is also true, many youngg voters think its great that obama is young fresh and a minority, again nothing wrong with that. JFK attracted quite a following of young voters also.You cant tell me Ob has anything really to run on, he's atwo term senator with average accomplishments at best.

What has happened to this country? It used to be anyone, anywhere could speak their mind. I believe it is in the bill of rights (Freedom of speech people). I believe Ms. Ferraro has the right to her opinion. I believe this country is so paranoid about political correctness (is there a word?) that we forget it is a RIGHT for anyone to speak their mind. I agree with Ms. Ferraro. How can a country elect someone, anyone, who does not believe in the right our forefathers gave their lives for? I am sad to be an american. I ponder each and every day on how can I make a difference and help restore the core values that this country was founded upon? I am scared, I am disheartened. I am tired of the political game being about the individual and not about what is right for the country. God help us all.

Fer said she was picked as a vp because she was a women.Ob gets quite a few black votes because he is black, no surprise, no sin.I dont think we need any museums of slavery.Condi Rice, Colin Powell and many
others have gotten way past the slavery thing.I do think some liberal whites havethis guilt thing and do 360's and somersaults to prove there "open mindedness", Susan being one them. Relax Susan, if you want to see how the other side handles this issue, take a gander at TD Jakes sermons and his man of the year "Louis Farrakhan", outraged yet ??

Ms. Thistlethwaite has got it wrong!The willful ignorance in this election rests with the Democratic and Republican electorate and not Ms. Ferraro. At 75,I have seen more than my share of elections and this bunch is surely the most pathetic. There is not a Statesman/woman among them; black or white! There is merely one black rhetorician and a white war hero. Hillary is a power junky.If not for the willful ignorance of the voters, none would even get on the ballot. After 50 years of fighting hot wars against the "isms" of socialism and communism and abandoning some of our dead on the battlefields of the world, because of the cancer of these "isms" infiltrating left wing re-programming into our schools and universities since its sixties surge, our youth have only a specious grasp of the principles of the true democracy of our founding fathers. Today, without firing a shot, the Dems are offering two radical "SOCIALISTS" to run America and the GOP is offering an "AMNESTY FREAK" WHO WOULD COMPROMISE OUR SOVEREIGNTY. Hillary only slightly less RADICAL than Obama. They advocate the redistribution of capitalist wealth!The very wealth that they now have by "hoodwinking" the public they claim to serve. We know the baggage Hillary has; all those "uninvestigated" and "unresolved" issues she dismisses as "we've heard this all before!" What a phoney!She believes that she is "entitled" to be President because she is a woman? What she calls experience is laughable! But, she has convinced women that it "would be so cute to have even the 'DRAGON LADY' as head of the "free world? She's never run anything!She can't even control her rake of a husband; who obviously thought more of himself than the office! Who,but the willfully ignorant, would vote a president who would spend a mil. dollars of tax money on a monument to Woodstock? The willful ignorance of the electorate would allow it and it makes them simple-minded pawns of her lack of values. Her spouse even disgraced the office. She rails against the very lobbyists who have bloated her campaign largess. As for Obama, he may be even worse and, I suspect,since exposed for his suspect land deals with indicted Tony Rezko, who knows what else? He has no record of running anything but a "SOCIAL SERVICE".Even AS EDITOR OF THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW he never even wrote one article for it!Where is he getting his money? 30 Million from Oprah plus $5.00 allegedly from 250,000 internet"hopefuls" is still only 31.25 mil.? Where is the other real money coming from? Who is he going to owe favors to besides Oprah? What will he do about the border jumpers? Both espouse amnesty! Americans don't! But, of course, the voters are willfully ignorant of all three candidates position on the real issues like court appointments,the economy, etc. If Ms. Thistlethwaite wasn't willfully ignorant of black legal history in America, she would not be so quick to hang the "Rascist" tag on Ferraro. Thistlethwaite fails to recognize that it was the courts, and equally unchallenged unconstitutional executive orders, not the people, who dictated the perversion of the"Civil Rights Act of 1964". At once perverting it, perhaps by Penumbra or paradigm, to "infer" affirmative action; thereby making blacks a "protected" class of legal privilege. A privilege now to even run for president without "portfolio"? J. Blackmun never intended to make a privileged class of America's blacks with affirmative action for eternity? His ten years is now over thirty.I believe, by witness, that blacks do not need affirmative action to succeed to the American Dream. They need only to be equally challenged to succeed and they do. It is only the exploiting charlatans among them that Booker T. WASHINGTON WARNED them about that is a drag on them to succeed. They just need to believe more in themselves.Clearly, both Hillary and Obama offer only promise and not proof that they can run the biggest business in the World! They run on the obvious "willful ignorance" of the electorate. That's why I am an "INDEPENDENT". I DON'T LIKE ANY OF THESE PRETENDERS. I will probably vote with a bag over my head!

You know... until she went around lying this morning I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt - that what she meant simply wasn't clear.

Now, after having said these things in SEVERAL places (interviews to radio stations, newspapers, etc. and not JUST a political speech to 350 people) she wants to claim she did it as an off the cuff statement to an impromptu question after the speech and only said it once and that it was a vigilant search by the Obama campaign that found it and exploited it.

Madame Ferraro.. I don't know if you are racist but you are a gutless liar.

What bothers me so much about Geraldine Ferraro’s comments are that she doesn’t seem to understand how ridiculous her argument is and what she is really saying. What I hear in her comment is that Barack Obama is leading in the delegate vote because African Americans will vote for any black face and everyone else is just in love with the idea of an African American as President. What! What planet is she living on?

Geraldine Ferraro should not have stepped down. She was speaking the truth, which I believe more people should do. America has become obsessed with being politically correct and it has gotten out of control! Geraldine did not attack Obama in any way, she was pointing to a fact that most of America already realized. America is based on freedom of speech, but lately it seems that it is a freedom that one only gets if they are in their own home and not amongst those with a different opinion.

What has became of America? Freedom of speech; nope that has flown out the window. We must now speak with a soft tone & only words of poetry should be uttered. The right for the American people to choose who will lead us; nope that flew out too, when it was decided on that Florida and Michigan people have no voice in this election, except if they are Republicans.

Please restore America to the way it used to be; when freedom meant FREE!

As a white woman, I cannot believe anyone at Geraldine Ferraro's age believes that it is easier being a black man.

Sadly, far too many people are racist in their heart, but lie to themselves about their true feelings.

The on faith questions are getting more and more boring and petty.

How about an interesting question, like how Much Longer Will Religion Last?

Or Why Do We Need Religion, even when we know it makes no sense?

Thank you so much for your article! I think it is important for people to think before they talk. I was VERY disappointed with Ms. Ferraro but not surprised. This is a privileged white woman.

Ferraro, a racist!?!? Calm down. It's just something new to get outraged about. Brooks Thistlewaite's ignorance here is exactly what frustrates so many social conservatives who want to vote for a Democrat in November but are worried about the zealots who will be blindly supporting him/her, throwing around the R-word to make points. Geraldine Ferraro certainly doesn't deserve this.

A sin? Grow up. This sort of automatic response from these ignorant thugs who see the American public as a collection of check marks from a survey has helped turn our political process into the ridiculous game we now see. By the way, as another Democratic voter, I also find it highly unlikely that Obama would be in the position he's in -- qualified though he certainly is -- if he weren't black.

Actually, you're right, Ms. Ferraro.

Thank you.

At our hospital, we hired a psychiatrist this week. He is 63 and a retired cardiologist.

Oddly, we talked over this topic.

He is a consumate liberal, he thought my views on racism, the origins of this country's wealth, slavery, empire and so on were rigid and he seemed scared by his new boss.

He is ok. I said, "flexible thinking and mental health are synonyms." Enough of that.

America's whites are afraid of what their ancestors did, but, well, they are stuck on whether or not they are glad it happened.

Geraldine Ferraro is another exhibit, now introduced to evidence

Thank you.

At our hospital, we hired a psychiatrist this week. He is 63 and a retired cardiologist.

Oddly, we talked over this topic.

He is a consumate liberal, he thought my views on racism, the origins of this country's wealth, slavery, empire and so on were rigid and he seemed scared by his new boss.

He is ok. I said, "flexible thinking and mental health are synonyms." Enough of that.

America's whites are afraid of what their ancestors did, but, well, they are stuck on whether or not they are glad it happened.

Geraldine Ferraro is another exhibit, now introduced to evidence

Geraldine Ferraro was 100% correct, this world of not being able to say the truth because it may offend someone is dangerous. Obama has done nothing, and it is amazing that anyone is fooled by is change message. He only qualifaction is a drug lord, like he did in collage. This is a terrable example to our youth. This is even more outragous then Bill Clinton.

Rev. Thistlewaite decries Ms. Ferraro's alleged sin of "wilful ignorance" but what of her own sin of deceitfully representing the situation? Nowhere in her judgmental and scornful diatribe does this Christian woman Thistlewaite care to discuss the complete text of what Ferraro actually said, instead following only the Obama campaign posture of misrepresenting Ms. Ferraro's comments. Amazing that Mrs. Thistlewaite doesn't discuss Ms. Ferraro's comment about her own good fortune at being female in making the Mondale ticket... her Obama comment is inflammatory unless the full text of Ms. Ferraro's statement is considered. Over and over again the Obama forces led by the Machiavellian David Axelrod have succeeded in playing the race card in this Democratic contest.

Rev. Thistlewaite decries Ms. Ferraro's alleged sin of "wilful ignorance" but what of her own sin of deceitfully representing the situation? Nowhere in her judgmental and scornful diatribe does this Christian woman Thistlewaite care to discuss the complete text of what Ferraro actually said, instead following only the Obama campaign posture of misrepresenting Ms. Ferraro's comments. Amazing that Mrs. Thistlewaite doesn't discuss Ms. Ferraro's comment about her own good fortune at being female in making the Mondale ticket... her Obama comment is inflammatory unless the full text of Ms. Ferraro's statement is considered. Over and over again the Obama forces led by the Machiavellian David Axelrod have succeeded in playing the race card in this Democratic contest.

Ferraro's comments were racist in their essence and just plain stupid. Like a lot of other opinionated baby-bommers of my generation, she doesn't doesn't get the fact that there is a new generation of Americans who are sick of us demanding that we decide everything for everybody, including the fact that somehow we must all vote for Hillary Clinton because we need a woman in the White House. What we need is a educated, successful, straight talker and an honest person who can explain a position in English, please, and not condone or look the other way when the voice of "experience" treats us all like spoon-fed morons. Her experience, quite frankly, doesn't amount to much with the issues we are facing, especially wheh it's the same tired old solutions just delivered in a new, feminine packaged. I am 54, a white male, and I am voting for Barack Obama because he is what we need, now.

Ferraro's comments were racist in their essence and just plain stupid. Like a lot of other opinionated baby-bommers of my generation, she doesn't doesn't get the fact that there is a new generation of Americans who are sick of us demanding that we decide everything for everybody, including the fact that somehow we must all vote for Hillary Clinton because we need a woman in the White House. What we need is a educated, successful, straight talker and an honest person who can explain a position in English, please, and not condone or look the other way when the voice of "experience" treats us all like spoon-fed morons. Her experience, quite frankly, doesn't amount to much with the issues we are facing, especially wheh it's the same tired old solutions just delivered in a new, femine packaged. I am 54, a white male, and I am voting for Barack Obama because he is what we need, now.

I'm sorry... Maybe I've just been too long out of the United States to understand this situation, but I find the whole Geraldine Ferraro thing a bit surreal. As I understand it, she said that “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.”

I can see why it is impolitic for any office holder or campaign manager to say this so baldly, but after so much ink has been spilt about Barack Obama as a "post-racial" candidate, so much about his unique background -- which includes the fact that, yes, he is A Black Man! -- can anyone reasonably deny the truth of her statement?

Or does it bring us too close to recognizing that the racism that does persist in America largely remains unexamined because we have shining examples -- Oprah Winfrey, Condoleeza Rice, Barack Obama, and yes, others -- who show that yes, black folks can succeed spectacularly in America. Well, indeed they can, but the odds are a lot tougher in general, and there are greater hurdles to overcome.

In fact, African-Americans have discussed Obama's race and racial qualifications (Is he black enough? Is he really even Black?) and Ms. Ferraro may be correct in saying that as a white woman she is being slapped for mentioning something Black folks have discussed at considerable length. Is she a victim? In life in general, of course not. In this instance? To put it mildly, she's getting a raw deal.

Barack Obama is not where he is JUST because he black (Clearly, being black is in itself no advantage in America!) but because of the specific kind of black man he is -- the son of a white American woman and black Kenyan man -- he is a rare first generation African-American without any African-American antecedents. He didn't grow up in an African-American community or in an African-American family. His ancestors were not slaves in America, nor did he grow up quite with that legacy of racism. It would be naive to think he grew up without encountering racism, but growing up in Indonesia and Hawaii with a white mother from a well-to-do family spared him a lot of the bruises and bumps that most African-Americans have repeatedly suffered. And this is so much of what lies behind the Obama mystique. When white folks look at him, they can see not the pain and the anger that so many African-Americans have grown up with, but the comfort and hope that he exudes so brightly. And those who have not chosen to deal actively with racism can simply vote for Obama and feel absolved of racial privilege in this dawn of a post-racial America, more trumpeted than real. It can be argued reasonably that that offers a chance for changing the racial equation in America, and offers a chance of healing. I hope so, but realistically, the healing still needs a lot of hard work. And in these days, so terrifying in so many ways, maybe we do need the comfort and hope that he exudes so brightly.

In fact Obama is where he is because he is who he is in so many ways, because he is brilliant, because he works hard, because he is charismatic, but also because he is a black man -- a black man with an unusual history; a black man who can exemplify a message in a way that few other people of any color or gender can.

All 43 of our presidents so far have been white men and have been electable because they were white men. Now we have an unusual sort of black man whose color can work to his advantage as effectively as his 43 predecessors' color worked for them. Indeed, as Ferraro says, "He happens to be very lucky to be who he is."

Of the candidates now running for President, I believe that Obama is the best qualified, and has put forward the best positions. I hope that he will be our next president. I also hope that we can start talking honestly about race in America.

Thank GOD she stepped down and I don;t say that for the good of Sen Clinton but it's time people like her be held accountable for comments like what she made. No, she didn't want to seem racist but you know what she couldn't hide it very well. Can't an African American be successful in this country without others trying to find every negative thing to say? Or was she simply looking for popularity b/c she no life?

I will stand beside Geraldine Ferraro and her statement about Obama because she is right. Obama lets the black people in this country know that they will have a better life once he is in the White House. Demand that he explain the "CHANGE" he intends for our country. Michelle Obama has made many references about her uneasiness around white students, but no one dare indicate any racial tones in either of their statements, apparently only white people can be guilty of being Racist. Remember people...Obama comes out of Chicago. Wake up America and pray real hard for we have some difficult times ahead of us...God Bless America

BRAVO to Ms.Ferraro and Thank You !! Finally someone with political experience and clout has voiced what so many feel and yet are reluctant to speak out. Obama is exactly where he is based upon what he is. I will even take it one step further. He happens to be the popular ice cream flavor of the month - he has no experience, no ability, no leadership and above all no business as being the Democratic nominee let alone the next President of the United States. What Ms. Ferraro said was right on the mark, it wasn’t racist, it was her opinion that I also find to be a very accurate statement. Thank You, Ms. Ferraro for trying to bring the American populous to its senses by exposing what Obama really is - a fake!!

Used to be that print media filtered out the thoughtless tirads of readers.

Not anymore. Not with the Internet.

Good piece, by the way.

BN

Ms. Geraldine Ferraro you are a perfect example of an racist! Look where you ended! What a shame.

Wow is this piece ignorant. Where were ou when the media was highlighting voters that wouldnt vote for Romney based on Religious beliefs?

Why wasnt that bigotry?

You go live in your museum of slavery by yourself. You can park your time maching outfront in the handicapped spot.

Those of us with common sense will look at your ARTICLE and see this line

"The New York Times has reported the Justice Department statistic that “an estimated 12 percent of African-American men ages 20-34 are in jail or prison…The proportion of young black men who are incarcerated has been rising in recent years, and this is the highest rate every measured.” Just for comparison, note that 1.6 percent of white men in the same age group are incarcerated."

WHO exactly should be mad about this?

Why should this sort of reporting mean white America should apologize?

What makes this fact ok? Or an excuse?

Its on thing to look at history, and anopther thing to try and live in history and never wake up, like you and the race baiting allies you align with do.

Anyway, I can offer you a free link to your article here http://www.charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2008/03/geraldine-ferraro-nails-it/

where you are a featured liberal nutjob who is so caugh up in your agenda that you dont see the forrest of common sense in front of you.

Susan your outrage and superior attitude demonstrates your lack of willingness to examine facts without a predisposed bias for the outcome. Ms. Ferraro's statements were not based upon wishes but on simple facts. Have you looked at the county by county primary results in Texas or Ohio? Have you superimposed the demographics of race upon this map? When was the last time, (I would posit, never), that the observed percentage of black voters voted for a specific Democratic primary candidate as we have seen recently?

These are facts. You have chosen to ignore these facts rather than deal with any controversy they may or may not raise. Your counter points are shallow logic loaded with high semantic content that are merely misdirection and not on point to the issues she has raised. You will notice neither she nor have I here made any judgment on the candidates relative or absolute qualifications. However, the voting patterns speak for themselves.

In regard to your and others outrage I think Shakespeare said it best "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

MJK

According to the Status Report on Minorities in Higher Education and the Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice statistics — In 2000, there were more than 469,000 African-American college-age (18-24) men enrolled in college, while 114,400 college-age men were in prison.

As for
"It’s nigh on to impossible to get a job in this economy anyway"
As a recruiter all I can say is that this is a plain silly statement from a very sheltered, but opinionated, and careless, person

Ferraro was ask to say what the Clinton campaign wanted her to say. OK, she resigns and Hillary publicly disagrees with her. Ferraro takes the fall but her comments are out there and unfortunately will cause some voters to think about what she said. Just like Bill Clinton's earlier race remarks.

Look for more of these "independent" comments from a campaign that is becoming more and more desperate to take the presidency.

I had an African-American house mate in grad school who once mentioned that his grandfather, a barber in a southern state, was killed by the white folks. They buried him in a pit of sand up to his neck and set dogs on him. An example like that, some 40 years ago, never leaves you. There must be thousands and thousands and thousands... (I am white).

I had an African-American room mate in grad school who once mentioned that his grandfather, a barber in a southern state, was killed by the white folks. They buried him in a pit of sand up to his neck and set dogs on him. An example like that, some 40 years ago, never leaves you. There must be thousands and thousands and thousands... (I am white).

"We will continue to have attitudes like that of Geraldine Ferraro and others unless and until white America builds a Museum of Slavery and Its Consequences..."

Surely, you can't be that naive. The racial issues currently plaguing this country have nothing to do with slavery, and everything to do with 40+ years of politicians (mostly Democrats) using racial issues for their own agendas. Certainly, there are ignorant whites whose prejudice against blacks is based on slaves being second class citizens, but a far greater number of Americans (black, as well as white) are prejudiced because of personal experience and recent events. How do you explain racial tensions and riots in places like New York City, Boston and Los Angeles, where slavery was never an issue.

Why are so many black men in prison? Because they committed crimes. You can blame their lot in life on "whitey", but that's simply a cop out. They weren't forced to commit crimes by a white man-- they chose to commit crimes. Ironically, 88% of black men between the ages of 20 and 34 who are not in prison have been able to get on with their lives without being part of the prison population. The statistics and the prejudice will never change until blacks unify to solve their own problems. Expecting museums built by white America to have any effect is like putting a band-aid on your foot because you cut your hand. Poverty, unemployment and crime are the consequences of the present environment, not the one that existed almost 150 years ago.

And speaking of "willful ignorance" you might keep in mind that when slave ships docked at African ports, it wasn't white men who went into the jungles to capture the men and women who were sold into slavery. White people were certainly slave owners, but black people were the true merchants of slavery. You have willfully ignored that fact.

Dave Emanuel

Agree with what you said about Ferraro.

However, I would much rather see a museum on Black American history than on just slavery.

I agree that there is a real problem with Ms. Ferraro's comments and I also think that a black male in the U.S. (if not the world) is probably at a serious disadvantage in opportunity. However, to say that we'll have these problems until we build a slavery museum is to drastically oversimplify the problem. This problem cannot be solved overnight with some miracle cure.

Amen, Reverend. I am so ashamed I supported Ferraro's candidacy. I am praying for her healing.

I'm a 25 year-old black male. And I beg to differ with Rev. Brooks. Ms. Ferraro told the plan, unvarnished, unpretty truth.

It really doesn't need much defending or dressing up. Obama has the thinnest resume of any Presidential candidate in recent memory. Were he white or an ethnic woman, no one would have taken his candidacy seriously. Whether there's anything wrong with that, I honestly don't know. But I do know that it's true.

Obama supporters are flailing because they don't want to hear it. But it doesn't make it any less true.

Geraldine has a reputation for speaking the truth. She has said multiple times that she would not have been chosen to be on Mondale's ticket were she not a woman. She was right about that as well.

It's refreshing that some public servants still speak the truth and speak it boldly. It's depressing that every time somebody talks about the reality of Obama's race, and how his use of the race card has benefitted him, they are punished.

This kind of hyper sensitive political correctness will turn off the working class voters and older voters he needs to win battleground states in November. He cannot take the White House solely with the white guilt of wealthy liberals.

Thank you for this article. Unfortunately in addition to willful ignorance, her comments were designed to fan the flame of racism for political gain. There is a difference between being female and possessing the wisdom of the feminine. The man of color referred to in Ferraro’s remarks is ahead not because of race or gender, but because he possesses more of the wisdom of the feminine than his opponent.

What an interesting and enterprising concept. A National Museum of Slavery and its Consequences (Intended and Unintended). I think even with such a place, there will still be as much bigotry and racism reflected in every day speech. Ms. Ferraro may not intend to be divisive and reckless with her mischaracterizations (or she may, I can't be certain), but even having the benefit of her Fordham education, she still makes the mistake of thinking being black in America gives one carte blanch for something but being incarcerated.

I hope Hillary gets the nomination and gets trounced by McCain and crawls back under her rock never to be heard from again.

I have never voted for a republican, but I won't vote for Hillary. Way to go Dems, you had the chance to run all three houses and threw it away. We always find a way to lose.

No...everyone is taking this to a racial level; all she did was say what she felt...it is a unique time in our history; and that is all she alluded to. I did not (and still would not) vote for her...but her right to express what she believes is the right that all of us have; including me.
Dr. Phil

Funny thing, I always wondered who those Democrats were who voted for W. They probably only voted for him because he was a white man.

This is the most comprehensive explanation of the the Ferraro level of ignorance that is pervasive in America.

All the odds are against people of color in this country-- always have been; always will. How absurd when we think that legislation had to be put in place to try to enforce equality for all into the psyche of America.

America has never addressed its twisted history of slavery, which fostered the dehumnaization of the African descendants. Now that one dynamic man of color rises up agaisnt all odd we are seeing a magnified manifesations of ignorance, hate and fear rise to the top of our collective consciounsess simply because we are afraid to face anmd embrace the deeds of our ancestor. America is on its much needed "Sankofa" journey,
"Going Backwards in order to move Foward."

I will never vote for Hillary, people are just in denial if they think this wasn't a planned racial attack to separate the races by the Clinton campaign.

And a lot of Clinton supporters I've talked to said they support her because they want a woman President.

What has Hillary acheived? She was the wife of Bill Clinton, the one thing she was given during his administration she failed at, national health care. She has less actual experience then Obama. He was elected to all his different elected positions because he earned it, the one office she was elected to was because her husband was Bill Clinton.

This article is way way off the mark.

Ms. Ferraro's comments have nothing to do with being ignorant of the history of slavery, and the socioeconomic condition of the African American male. Certainly are in no way related to Nazi bigotry and racial cleansing.

This article reeks of self-righteous tone.

All Ms. Ferraro is saying is that in America, we are at a point where we now appear to collectively believe that it is time that we have minorities succeed in places where they previously have not. She said herself that her being a woman put her in the same position in her run for VP.

There has been much made of the historical implications of either the first Afican American oe the first female US President. All Ms. Ferraro is saying is that Americans are drawn to that and that Senator Obama benefits from it.

Her statement simply restates the obvious.

Get off your pedestal, Ms. Thistlethwaite.

I think Geraldine is spot on. Obamas appeal is precisely about his race. A black man who is reminicent of iconic president JFK, and a minority to boot, is like the liberal voters dream.

Ive met too many Obama supporters who cant explain why they like the man so much. They usuallay stutter and stammer, and say something vague like "Change". I always walk away from the conversation feeling like they were hiding teh real reason.

Of course, admitting its actually an advantage to be black in todays America is attacked viciously and immediately. Whites are supposed to have all the advanatges, and blacks none at all. That myth is their advantage.

One more thing: Shirley Chisholm, a presidential candidate in 1972 who was both a WOMAN and BLACK, said that she encountered more challenges, more antagonism for being a woman than for being black. The evidence for why this accomplished, experienced candidate for the presidency, Hillary Clinton, is getting trash-mouthed left and right, attacked on all fronts, is plentiful. She is positioned by millions of voters and the media as being a monster, "shrill," and one who will stop at nothing, while Saint Obama is brilliant, visionary, full of leadership qualities, handsome, has a melodic voice, saves kittens from trees, and can do no wrong. Something is awry in this equation.

Your wrong; Ferraro is right.
If Obama was white he would not be running.
Your reference to black plight is ridiculous.
Courts are now saying we can't prosecute blacks as we do whites, because there are so many in prison?
Articles like your make no sense, and are asinine.
If you want to blame someone for the problems of blacks; blame our politicians that take the easy way out to get votes.
They have taken pride out of the black communties.
Years ago blacks were proud to compete with whites.
Do some research before you write drivel.

Geraldine Ferraro had the guts to voice something many of us have been thinking. If Obama were also a female candidate, with the paucity of achievement, this race would not be so close. He has the fortune of being "hot," and of mixed race, as several of my female friends who voted for him would say. His voice and speeches make people swoon. The decision to vote for him is not a rational one. At least, admit it, people. After voting for him, one 60-year-old woman said to me, "I can't help it. I'm in LOVE."
Many have asked this question in print (see below), so why should Ferraro get heat for it? This is a very very sexist nation. Sadly, a lot of that comes from women, too.
From the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/19/clintons_struggle_vexes_feminists/?page=2
"This whole thing, that women have to be smarter than men, more articulate than men, better on foreign policy, less emotional, all those crazy things. Finally you have a candidate who's basically done that," Fenn said, and yet Obama's sizzle is competing mightily with her steak. "It has to be depressing" for her, said Fenn, who is not associated with either Democratic candidate.

Geraldine Ferraro had the guts to voice something many of us have been thinking. If Obama were also a female candidate, with the paucity of achievement, this race would not be so close. He has the fortune of being "hot," and of mixed race, as several of my female friends who voted for him would say. His voice and speeches make people swoon. The decision to vote for him is not a rational one. At least, admit it, people. After voting for him, one 60-year-old woman said to me, "I can't help it. I'm in LOVE."
Many have asked this question in print (see below), so why should Ferraro get heat for it? This is a very very sexist nation. Sadly, a lot of that comes from women, too.
From the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/19/clintons_struggle_vexes_feminists/?page=2
"This whole thing, that women have to be smarter than men, more articulate than men, better on foreign policy, less emotional, all those crazy things. Finally you have a candidate who's basically done that," Fenn said, and yet Obama's sizzle is competing mightily with her steak. "It has to be depressing" for her, said Fenn, who is not associated with either Democratic candidate.

Geraldine Ferraro had the guts to voice something many of us have been thinking. If Obama were also a female candidate, with the paucity of achievement, this race would not be so close. He has the fortune of being "hot," and of mixed race, as several of my female friends who voted for him would say. His voice and speeches make people swoon. The decision to vote for him is not a rational one. At least, admit it, people. After voting for him, one 60-year-old woman said to me, "I can't help it. I'm in LOVE."
Many have asked this question in print (see below), so why should Ferraro get heat for it? This is a very very sexist nation. Sadly, a lot of that comes from women, too.
From the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/19/clintons_struggle_vexes_feminists/?page=2
"This whole thing, that women have to be smarter than men, more articulate than men, better on foreign policy, less emotional, all those crazy things. Finally you have a candidate who's basically done that," Fenn said, and yet Obama's sizzle is competing mightily with her steak. "It has to be depressing" for her, said Fenn, who is not associated with either Democratic candidate.

hey england

I hope you're from there, dont need you here with personal attacks.

all you had to do is listen this morning on morning Joe as the talking heads stumbled around trying to figure out what to call middle class working white people; who in ohio voted for clinton trying to pidgeon hole and define them.

Finally someone said we use to call them bluecollar.

Yea until are blue collar jobs started to disappear.

They are looking for symbolism , but what they mean is rascist white trash.

The people who built this country on their back and bailed the world out, yea and England too

Geraldine Ferraro had the guts to voice something many of us have been thinking. If Obama were also a female candidate, with the paucity of achievement, this race would not be so close. He has the fortune of being "hot," as several of my female friends who voted for him would say. His voice and speeches make people swoon. The decision to vote for him is not a rational one. At least, admit it, people. After voting for him, one 60-year-old woman said to me, "I can't help it. I'm in LOVE."
Many have asked this question in print (see below), so why should Ferraro get heat for it? This is a very very sexist nation. Sadly, a lot of that comes from women, too.
From the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/19/clintons_struggle_vexes_feminists/?page=2
"This whole thing, that women have to be smarter than men, more articulate than men, better on foreign policy, less emotional, all those crazy things. Finally you have a candidate who's basically done that," Fenn said, and yet Obama's sizzle is competing mightily with her steak. "It has to be depressing" for her, said Fenn, who is not associated with either Democratic candidate.

I can't support Hillary anymore. I am tired of making excuses for her. It has become obvious what she is doing. I will not vote for her and I think the next President will be John McCain. But don't bother me in four years either Hillary.

This is ridiculous. It is a complete red herring that says nothing about the meat of Ferraro's assertion:

Mr. Obama benefits from supporters willing to vote for a man with little in the way of expressed substantive ideas simply due to his ethnicity.

He receives a higher percentage of the black vote than some unopposed candidates in general elections, and we are to believe his race has nothing to do with this? The very fact that you (and many other media outlets) are unwilling to tackle the accuracy of the statement points to the advantages his ethnicity gives him with white guilt voters and media members.

Your response is so far afield, it's like something I'd expect to find in a high school or college campus newspaper, not a mainstream site like the Washington Post.

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton! never. And get what? someone that will do what ever she can to get what she wants..? isn't that what we have? isn't that what we want to rid ourselves of?Signing statements and a disolution of civil rights.

Ferraro quit...and guess what? she blamed Obama for all the attacks. Can someone please tell me what attacks?
"I think if Senator Clinton is serious about putting an end to statements that have racial implications, that diminish Barack Obama because he's an African-American man, then she ought to really repudiate this comment and make it clear that there's no place in her campaign for people who will say this kind of thing," That was from Susan Rice the woman that was fired for calling Clinton a monster. But Hillary did fire (she said) the people that sent out the Emails that said Obama was Muslim.Yes, from her camp.

Lets put it this way...
If Obama was any black man would he be the front runner? Obama is the front runner inspite of being a black man. Because of his talents and drive he is the front runner....Not his color. And Shame on Hillary for useing race...just in time to seperate the races in Mississippi...and onward to Pa.

I find her disgusting and I am sorry that I ever supported her. She is breaking this party apart for her appitite for power. What started out as exciting and amazing has turned into a back alley knife fight.

And you folks that are still supporting her..Why?
terra

Don’t let Ferraro be a diversion

I don’t particularly like Geraldine Ferraro however; I believe she is saying that a white man would not have a chance against the first woman to run for president at least in the Democratic Party. She also said she was given the second slot on the ticket because she was a woman but that didn't mean she wasn't qualified. Obama is not lucky: he is gifted yet that would not matter if the timing wasn't right. Hillary is lucky she is even in this race for her experience is Hype, Hubby and Hyperbole.

Let’s not question Ferraro who has owned and been clear on her clumsy statement let's instead question Hillary's credentials which should begin with 'Once upon a time".

james

Tamika is black? yeah, I buy that one. Whoever you are you may wish to get a refund on that education. Everyone knows that there have always been a lot more white people, in both percentage and total, on welfare. And you have a lot to learn about "free Speech". Racist comments are not covered under free speech. Although it is free speech to say you think someone is a "monster", but that person is without a job also. Most of your post was filled with stereotypes that a black person wouldn't use because they know they aren't true.

> We need a Museum of Slavery.

How about ...

http://www.usnationalslaverymuseum.org/home.asp

Whatever happened to free speech??? or does that only apply if it doesn't upset the minorities? This country is so worred about being pc that we could possibly end up with a president that shouldn't be president. I am not racist and i don't feel responsible for the hardship that our american acestors caused or were subjected to. I think its time we all stop playing the blame game and get this country back were it used to be...and not such a joke like we have become to the rest of the world. We need to be united and strong like the past and work to make this a better place to live and stop living like slavery days were yesterday...I for one am tired of walking on eggshells. Blacks have no one to blame for their misfortune but themselves they are the ones killing their own people not anyone else but themselves. So stop pointing the finger and stop looking for handouts...work for it just like everyone else. I don't see them complaining when they are given a great job even if they aren't qualified for it over a man of any other race just because we are to scared to be called racist. There are plenty of hardworking African-Americans that will be quick to say the same thing about their own people they are sick of being make to look like animals and look like welfare cases. I am an African-American female and a college student working hard for my degree and I think that if an African-American person is whining about race and playing the race card than they are just lazy and they should be ashamed of themself. Get it together black folks stop using crap like this as a way to make our race look better. Try hardwork instead of killing our boys in drive bys.

> We need a Museum of Slavery.

How about ...

http://www.usnationalslaverymuseum.org/home.asp

I am so sick of this bickering and Hillary's slime I have no desire to vote, I just don't care at this point. If I had to I would vote for McCain. I have never voted for a Republican President so I probably just wouldn't vote.

So what it appears to be is, Hillary will destroy the party, destroy race relations, destroy America as long as she gets what she wants? How could someone NOT vote for her?

He got 92% of the black vote because the Clintons have pused away the black vote, maybe on purpose to divide the races. what is he supposed to do ask them not to vote for him? Blacks are only 12% of the population, she splits the races she easily wins.

re : One way superhighway. I don't AGREE with Gerry's comments about Barack; Obama is an outstanding candidate. But we don't fault this lady for bringing hypocricy to the forefront.

SHE HIGHLIGHTS an issue that directly affects Obama. He has risen to his position as THE candidate that can bring all races and people together, yet his supporters are angry and lashing out in an old familiar way. His support amongst the Mississippi African Americans grew to a phenomenal 92%...That which was old is new again. This risks pushing whites, Latinos and Asians away and making them feel they aren't invited.

Obama was at his very best, his toughest and his unstoppable best when he didn't incite this anger. When he rose above the fray and refused to get angry, he was truly untouchable. Now that his has been
coerced into fighting back [mostly by Republicans] he has changed the tone and sent a message to his supporters "fight, attack" AND THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING AND HE RISKS LOSING HIS EARLY MOMENTUM AND CROSS CULTURAL SUPPORT.

"it seems to me that many african-americans try to use that as a reason why so many of them can't get ahead but a horrific incident didn't stop Jewish-Americans from making their mark!"

The same thing you are attacking the black community for is how the Jewish people in America got ahead, they support their own over anyone else, they stick together and help their own race. Do people even think about what they are saying?

re : One way superhighway. I don't AGREE with Gerry's comments about Barack; Obama is an outstanding candidate. But we don't fault this lady for bringing hypocricy to the forefront.

SHE HIGHLIGHTS an issue that directly affects Obama. He has risen to his position as THE candidate that can bring all races and people together, yet his supporters are angry and lashing out in an old familiar way. His support amongst the Mississippi African Americans grew to a phenomenal 92%...That which was old is new again. This risks pushing whites, Latinos and Asians away and making them feel they aren't invited.

Obama was at his very best, his toughest and his unstoppable best when he didn't incite this anger. When he rose above the fray and refused to get angry, he was truly untouchable. Now that his has been
coerced into fighting back [mostly by Republicans] he has changed the tone and sent a message to his supporters "fight, attack" AND THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING AND HE RISKS LOSING HIS EARLY MOMENTUM AND CROSS CULTURAL SUPPORT.

if Geraldine had just said he's getting a lot more attention than otherwise because he's overcome the disadvantages of being black, that might be a tolerable statement, but the message of what she said was clearly that he doesn't deserve to be leading Hillary, and wouldn't on the merits, but for the voters engaging in affirmative action at the polls led by a complicit press. That message is ridiculous.

Lots of politicians get noticed because of something in their past, but for which they wouldn't stand a chance as politicians. Schwarzenneger, Eisenhower, Reagan, etc. There's nothing wrong with that trivial point. Unfortunately, it wasn't the point Geraldine was making.

I agree that Ms. Ferraro showed a staggering lack of cultural sensitivity to the current situation in American politics and race issues as well as appalling ignorance as to history.

Barack Obama is winning because he is a talented, sagacious, dignified, astonishing and moving personality that exudes from the core of him.

There are plenty of black politicians. Few of them attain his stature because few of them have the scintillating wisdom and ability to express it that he has.

To reduce Barack Obama's success to the color of his skin is indeed racism of a most rank form. It is only seeing the color of a person's skin instead of his character--the very definition of racism.

No doubt Ferraro's ignorance and abrasiveness contributed as much to her loss of a significant voice in politics as did her gender!

Sincerely,

June Saunders

I don't believe that she is really all that wrong. I think that we will have to find out when the election is over and see if you won't be eating your words. It could be a mistake. I think that this country could use a woman president and I don't think that just because African-Americans ancestors were slaves at one point that is a reason to make someone a president. Just because of guilt like its going to make up for something that we today had no control over. There blacks that owned slaves themselves not just white people just like there were white slaves, too. Get over it...it seems to me that many african-americans try to use that as a reason why so many of them can't get ahead but a horrific incident didn't stop Jewish-Americans from making their mark!

I don't believe that she is really all that wrong. I think that we will have to find out when the election is over and see if you won't be eating your words. It could be a mistake. I think that this country could use a woman president and I don't think that just because African-Americans ancestors were slaves at one point that is a reason to make someone a president. Just because of guilt like its going to make up for something that we today had no control over. There blacks that owned slaves themselves not just white people just like there were white slaves, too. Get over it...it seems to me that many african-americans try to use that as a reason why so many of them can't get ahead but a horrific incident didn't stop Jewish-Americans from making their mark!

I don't believe that she is really all that wrong. I think that we will have to find out when the election is over and see if you won't be eating your words. It could be a mistake. I think that this country could use a woman president and I don't think that just because African-Americans ancestors were slaves at one point that is a reason to make someone a president. Just because of guilt like its going to make up for something that we today had no control over. There blacks that owned slaves themselves not just white people just like there were white slaves, too. Get over it...it seems to me that many african-americans try to use that as a reason why so many of them can't get ahead but a horrific incident didn't stop Jewish-Americans from making their mark!

No vote for Hill from me, not now not and in November. At this point I don't care if McCain wins, I agree with none of his positions but at least he is honorable and someone that has some quality we can be proud of. If I never see a Clinton run for another office I will be happy.

A life long, many generation Democrat and it has become this.... I am disgusted.

It looks like the Klan infiltrated HC's campaign and I wouldn't be surprised if Bill is Client 1-8.

"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," Gerry Ferraro said in 1988.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html

What a sad comment from a person whose own gender has suffered from the same inequities as other non-whites have suffered in this country. When things happen or comments are made that bring the anguish of the African American struggle to the forefront, we have have been admonished to 'get over it'. Unfortunately, comments like those made by Geraldine Ferraro make it impossible for us to 'get over it'.

Thank you,

and the Republicans have just won the White House.... thanks Hillary... Imagine if they had been able to work together instead of tearing each other apart. If she runs in 4 years like I think is her plan now, ruin Obama so he loses and she can run in 2012, I will not vote for her. Even if she runs against Saddam Huissan, I won't vote for her.

"Oh yea if a white man or how it's being termed "working class" they must be ignorant and uninformed"

You really disproved that point Dave.

Folks, this isn't about GF being right, or wrong. She is wrong, for reasons outlined in the article, but the reason she made this statement is to keep race in the discussion.

She sought to provoke a response (succeeded!), she adopted a tone of wounded outrage when people objected (more success, more media!), she is now "resigning" (more media.... look what those Obama people and AAs are doing to a well meaning white woman!)

This is all about Pennsylvania and stirring vague and even fading White hostility to Blacks. It's about keeping race alive and in people's consciousness.

The media portrays it as a debate with "two sides"... her point of view and her opponents... implicitly "pro-White" versus "pro-Black." That framing is a victory for Clinton.

The correct framing is "post-racial" campaign in which race is not in the foreground, versus "racial campaign" in which people are reminded that he is black and she is not. THAT is the purpose of her remarks. So far it is working.

It is time the Black community looked into the republican party. Which party has a KKK grandwizard as a party leader? WHich party is saying blacks shouldn't run for President? Which party is telling you to stay in your place? Which party was in control of the south during the 50s and 60s? Which party is using race to attack one of their own candidates?

You don't have to come over here, but it is obvious you aren't wanted where you are, unless you are willing to do the master's bidding.

I think you completely misunderstand her point. She said America is seeing it as a novelty because of the desire for change and that is completely why none of the other predictable statsitics your raise matter.

Its all a matter of timing.

No you're wrong Ms Brooks

Geraldine Ferraro is absolutly right. If the news media is about getting us the facts in a election they need to ask the tough question. I fully believe Obama has gotten a pass.

When is someone going to press him on what he actually has done except give a safe speach when he was in the Illinios leg. He has done nothing since except go with the flow.

So in my opinion the reason the media does not really press him. There afraid of being called rascist.

Oh yea if a white man or how it's being termed "working class" they must be ignorant and uninformed, votes for Clinton because she's a white woman their rascist, inuendo ms Brooks. When a black man votes for Obama because he is black nothing is wrong.

In closing I use to hate Ms Clinton as life long southside of Chicago born and raised Dem

. Now I cheer her every move,

And please stick to the story One man Obama getting a break, and nothing to do with slavery or the holocaust. geez does everthing relate back to that

Dave Kloppman

Rev Brooks- Although I agree with all your points, I think I find Ferraro's comments offense on another level, perhaps more talked about and more obvious, but to me important nonetheless. She is saying that his message, his words, that have inspired the nation like very few before him, are noteworthy only one the perceived "novelty" that they come from a black man. I support any candidate on their ideas and their message. Period. That he is black or white and that Hillary is female or male doesn't matter. Obama's words and message are powerful all on their own merit. The first time I heard him speak was at the same time most of America heard him speak, the keynote speech of the last DNC. Not one time did I think to myself, "wow, such words of wisdom- and from a black no less." How very biggoted if you did. The pundits after the speech all noted how centrist it was. That he spoke of people not wanting hand outs, just a hand up, or least not a push backwords, from their government. They were surprised to hear a speech that spoke to both sides of the isle so well. No one mentioned that he was black.

I do not believe that he is riding on the coattails of his minority status. I find this statement particularly ironic coming from the Clinton campaign however. I really like Hillary, don't get me wrong, but I don't think she would be noteworthy a candidate if it weren't for the hand up she gets by having the last name Clinton. I don't mean to be offensive to anyone, really I don't. I like her and would support her if I didn't feel there is a stronger candidate. But without her legacy I don't think she would be where she is today. There are too many other strong and stronger, men and women alike, who haven't gone as far as she.

Great article! at a time when people like Ferraro find ways to justify what they say/do.

good riddance to bad rubbish. Now they will play the victim card, the big mean black man is attacking the poor racist white woman...

don't you know your place in the Democratic party... to the back of the bus with you! You can run for President when we tell you! Come join the Republicans, the Democrats have shown their true colors, all republicans care about is earning your own way, we don't care what color you are.

I have been absolutly gobsmacked about the way Hillary has run this campaign. I happen to be a feminist,a liberal, and waited all my life for a woman president. To say the least I am dissappointed that Hillary Clinton might be it. Oh I was all for her...I stood up for her and Bill, I made exuses for them, I did not believe the rumors or accusations. But I knew that the Republicans would jump on Hillary with all they had. And I like Obama.I trust his reasoning and vision.

Then came the accusation that Obama was Muslim. Then that he sold drugs. Then that picture Drudge claims came from the Hillary camp. Then the NAFTA gate that the Canadian gov says was not what was reported, but that Hillary ran with. One thing after another...then Ferrara. All from the Hillary camp.

Sure, a black man with the name of Barack Hussein Obama is a shoe in.

A graduate of Columbia University(Degree in Political Science) and Harvard Law School (president of the Harvard Law Review), a community organizer, university lecturer, and civil rights lawyer before running for public office and serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.He was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, he co-sponsored bipartisan legislation for controlling conventional weapons and for promoting greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In the current 110th Congress, he has sponsored legislation on lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel.

This is as a jr. senator, and does not go into the things he accomplished as a state senator.

Oh yes and two best selling books, but only one Grammy I think.

And one more point, I want a strong woman, not a whiny, victim. I am sick of all the poor meism.

terra

The only reason Obama is getting over 80% of the black vote is because the clinton's have continuely used the race card. Like many others have mentioned, Clinton had over half the Black vote not that long ago. And how many black votes were there in Maine, or Vermont or even Wisconsin? If he was only getting black votes he would have been long gone. Now on the other hand if not for the over 85 white women demographic, Hillary would be out of the race. She has won 14 contests and two of them were her home states, and three of them he got more delegates, she has clearly won about 10 contested races. If not for the fact she is a woman and ex-first lady she would have been gone a long time ago, if it was a black man in her position he would have been forced to end his candidacy by party leaders.

A Ferraro flashback:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html

I do not feel that Geraldine was wrong, I agree with what she said and the right for her to say it.

I am angry that she felt she had to step down just for stating a true fact, and her personal opinion.

Barak does have the advantage and pulls the race card every chance he gets. Is that any way to run a campaign?

Since when in the United States of America a person who speak truth is forced to admit he or she is wrong. Geraldine Ferraro gets punished for exactly doing that!Is it true that Obama get over 80% of the votes from blacks?Is it true that without the heavy voting by the Blacks,Oboma would not be as he is of today leading the Democratic deligates? Ferraro is only stating a fact, not a comment. Mr. Obama,this is not the same thing as to call some one a monster. Cool it, I know you are also trying every you can to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan voters from revoting. What kind of a president will you be if elected? Another, King George Bush?

Bless you Reverend.

WOW! What an incredible article! Loved it...more power to you.

Is it "willful ignorance" or the refusal to face down and resolve one's own personal contradictions? We can afford some kindness and compassion in our politics. I think Ms. Ferraro misspoke in this case, and said something rather stupid. Don't we all do this kind of thing we soon regret? If we all were to go through a multi-step process to stare down our internal contradictions, perhaps racism/sexism/mysogeny/homophobia, etc... will dissolve in a generation or so, as we get to know ourselves, each other better.

Unless Ms. Ferraro was actually trying to punish Obama for his success, I think we should just boo her remarks and move on to the main event: What kind of government are the Democrats proposing to promote, protect, and defend human rights, and what steps are they taking to prosecute the current government that only seems to neglect or violate human rights? It seems to me and to many others that Democrats' version of government seems to depend on "win-at-any-cost" tactics, which means seediness survives and any chance of good governance is lost.

I doubt Geraldine Ferraro is familiar with
Gunnar Myrdal, known for his 1944 study, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy, which influenced the US Supreme Court 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education to outlaw racial segregation in public schools. Myrdal was also a signatory of the 1950 UNESCO statement The Race Question, which also influenced Brown v. Board.

I think it was an intentional gambit to split the party by race. I don't like it. JMHO

Ferraro flashback: she said: "If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available on Nexis.
----------------------

Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's.

Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history."

Many people who do not support Clinton has nothing to do with her gender. It is her characters and records which turn people off. To use Ferraro's reasoning, it is probably more to the fact that if Hillary is not sleazy Bill's wife, she will not be a senator nor a presidential candidate.

The audience this statement was intended for are the same people on here agreeing with it. Blantant racism is easier to deal with, some of these people don't even realize they are bigots, which is much more insidious. They think they are right, not racist. But the KKK and the Nazis thought they were right also.

It seems the race ploy by the Clintons has worked, to what extent we will have to wait and see.

The Clinton campaign has set the United States back decades, even South Africa, not to mention the rest of the world, is looking at us as a country of racists.

I am a Pennsylvanian conservative, Reagan Democrat, and I know exactly what Ferraro meant, and it was a racist attack to divide the electorate. No vote from me Hillary.

I do find the history of slavery an important one to remember and thankfully we have white liberals like yourself to constantly remind us anytime the topic of race comes up. You'd think we just freed the slaves in our lifetime the way you and the media continue to throw it in everyone's face.

Black or White, it's time we figure out the difference between being sensitive to race and being stupid about it.

Nothing Ferarro said was racist, in fact, its all true or is that what bothers you?

Ferraro is wrong because it was incorrect. African-Americans represent 13% of the population and like what was reported before the African-American community started out as Clinton supporters because Bill was seen as more "Black" then Obama was.

Someone else said Obama and Abraham Lincoln's time line was very similar, why was Lincoln in the position he was in? he wasn't black. And Obama has more time in elected office and more experience from different elected offices then Hillary. Maybe someone should look into how someone with little experience but as a wife can be where she is. If not for the white women vote she'd be long gone, sounds sexist to me. Many women say they support Hillary because they want a woman President, but any time anyone has mentioned that they have been slammed for being sexist.

If you think it is easier to be a black man with a odd name in America over a white first lady you are an idiot, and probably racist.

I do find the history of slavery an important one to remember and thankfully we have white liberals like yourself to constantly remind us anytime the topic of race comes up. You'd think we just freed the slaves in our lifetime the way you and the media continue to throw it in everyone's face.

Black or White, it's time we figure out the difference between being sensitive to race and being stupid about it.

Nothing Ferarro said was racist, in fact, its all true or is that what bothers you?

We need a Museum of Slavery? Ummm, there is a Museum of Slavery. It's called the US National Slavery Museum in Fredericksburg, VA. They have a web site.

When I heard Geraldine's comments, I understood what she was saying, but frankly realized she was stepping on a landmine. However that would be her nature which was to never back away from her own opinions which I rarely agree with. We keep tiptoeing around this minority candidate fearful of saying something that will be construed as racist. Barack is both white and black the latter the race he apparently feels most comfortable being attached to. I believe it was Joe Biden that made the gaffe about what a well spoken man Barack is which if anybody would be truthful is not all that common for a black man even those that have very respectful positions. I think if Joe was honest he would admit he meant that Barack was more white in that respect. Barack is extremely well educated which again is not all that common for a black man. Again, a more white example vs a black example. So the plain fact is he is a different sort of black candidate on many levels. It is because of this difference that Barack is uniquely in the position he is in today. He was chosen by the Chicago political machine and several key senators to groom for this presidency run. The color of his skin is most definitely a huge plus and that is what I believe Geraldine meant. It wasn't that any black man is in a unique position because we know that certainly is not the case as illustrated in this article with some pretty grim statistics. However I believe based on his very thin resume that if we was not black we would be too green to even get any notice at this time. Barack is a junior senator and most certainly is not the strongest candidate that the democrats can come up with. Biden and Richardson were far better picks with a much thicker resume, but they lacked the charm and at the same time that glitz that Barack has worked so hard to cultivate. If Barack had the same years and work history as Biden or Richardson, I would not be writing this comment. As a country we should not be voting in candidates that bedazzle us, but we should be voting in the hard working, guy or gal that has repeatedly proven themselves by having a host of accomplishments that can be easily proven. Many say it is right to have a black candidate now. I would say it is right to have a black candidate when the time is right for that candidate and for our country. Barack keeps saying he is ready for this job, otherwise he wouldn't be running, but I would say he is being premature and in the long run if he is elected everybody could pay for that mistake.

I applaude you in writing this article overall, and your call that "We need a Museum of Slavery. We stubbornly refuse to look at the real history of this country, the conditions of slavery itself and its aftermath that is still being played out..."

At the same time I'm disturbed by you repeating an incorrect piece of rhetoric that is wrecklessly bantied about and then just accepted as fact because "it's what I heard somebody say", which is the statement that "There are more African American men now in prison than in college".

Not true: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2007/09/23/jesse-jackson-fact-check-more-blacks-jail-college

And note specifically in regards to traditional college age Black men, it's 4 to 1 in college versus incarceration.

www.blackperspective.net

What bothers me is that sexism is not as big a deal as racism. I am not responsible for black men in jail, nor am I responsible for when blacks were slaves. Feeling obligated to the past is not moving forward, and Obama is hoping people will feel the way you do and make him President. Why is Ferraro wrong? Is it because you disagree? Disagreeing does not mean she is wrong in her opinion. Seems to me the people who scream equality for all people pick and choose who they give that equality to, and out of quilt people are voting him into office. Ferraro is very right, and because it came from a white woman, she is facing sexism and racism all at the same time. Does racism apply to white people?

What bothers me is that sexism is not as big a deal as racism. I am not responsible for black men in jail, nor am I responsible for when blacks were slaves. Feeling obligated to the past is not moving forward, and Obama is hoping people will feel the way you do and make him President. Why is Ferraro wrong? Is it because you disagree? Disagreeing does not mean she is wrong in her opinion. Seems to me the people who scream equality for all people pick and choose who they give that equality to, and out of quilt people are voting him into office. Ferraro is very right, and because it came from a white woman, she is facing sexism and racism all at the same time. Does racism apply to white people?

BRAVO! I couldn't believe that she said something so idiotic. Thank you for setting her straight!
If she REALLY thinks that there is some sort of advantage to being African American, I'd love to switch places with her so that she can get a first hand education on how wrong she is!

Yep unfair advantage! women 52% of poluation, blacks 12%. How could a white woman married to a former President have any chance in America?

As a 58-year old white male, I would have to agree that what Ms. Ferraro has said makes perfect sense. Were it not for Mr. Obama's characteristics, as described by Feraro, I wouldn't expect his candidacy to be a viable alternative to that of Hillary Clinton's. For those of us who find the latter's drawbacks to be potentially damaging to the prospect of a Democratic success in the Presidential election, Mr. Obama represents a real opportunity to start a fresh chapter in American politics.

As a supporter of Clinton, Ms. Ferraro might wish the circumstances were different, but to infer that her comments were motivated by anything other than a realistic view of the situation is superficial, to say the least.

Susan,

Geraldine Ferraro's comments are not wrong. They have been given wrong "color" by the public media and unfortunately your column doesn't help at all.

Barack Obama is a well-educated, charismatic, and well-intentioned political person with, of course, leftist leanings.

He deserves to be applauded, and his candidacy has indeed brought in the much-needed legitimacy to the election campaign. It has brought the otherwise "sleepy" US election news to the global forefront. Many (foreign) major newspapers are now putting more attention to the US elections because they think that a well-educated *black* senator from the state of Illinois contesting the elections is a major leap forward in a country that has traditionally elected white males. Thus, this very phenomenon takes a lot of scrutiny off Obama and the media is all gaga over him. Of course, time will tell how much depth does Obama has in his uinderstanding of various issues, and what *change* shall be bring.

But, all else being equal his status as a person of color (black, minority) does help him with all the talents that he surely has. That should never go against Obama. He has talents, but his minority status does help him too. Acknowledging this fact does help the process.

Susan, thank you for that insightful article about racism in America.

Whether America calls it a sin or just racists, calling a Black Man lucky in America is just plain ignorant. Geraldien and Hillary are just that ignorant.

The statistics you quoted surely do not bode well for Black Men in America, but a majority of Black men are not lucky at all; at least 50% are not lucky.

America has some growing up to do, and it might start with an apology to Black American's for Slavery.

I grew up in a segregated America and it was not pretty where I saw it.

We had Negro night, usually Thursday's. That was trhe night we were allowed to go out in the public places like roller skating rinks, parks, etc..

Patrick

I don't understand Ms. Ferraro.

She claims Obama is only in the position he is in because he's black. I think we can assume one thing from some of the statistics that Susan gave us: if people were voting for Obama solely based on his being black, they'd be a lot more likely to vote him into prison than into the presidency.

But we're obviously not voting for him to go to prison and a great deal many people want him to be the next president. Therefore, there must be other reasons than his apparent 'blackness' that is the driving force behind his support.

Regardless of whether we want to or not, we as human beings and as Americans judge someone based on how they look within the first few seconds of seeing them. We respond first and foremost to our sense of sight. Everyone voting for or against Obama already know he's black.

What her comment reminds me of is when you get into an argument and end up too emotionally involved in it; then you start saying spiteful things just to get anyone to continue to know you're mad rather than actually make a reasoned argument. Very childish.

It isn't fair, He has had a huge advantage, everyone knows a black man named Barack Hussein Obama has an unfair advantage in a U.S. election. If only he could have been a little person, black man, Scientologist named Charles Manson Hussein Jong Il it would be a landslide.

I am a life long Democrat, sometimes I have voted straight party ticket. I started out supporting Edwards but was willing to vote for whoever the nominee is. I will not ever vote for Hillary, not now, not in four years, not ever. I don't care who she is running against. I think she is destroying my party, and if the the party allows this to happen I might not vote for any democrats this year.

Well. Well. Well! Mrs Geraldine just showed us her true color!. First of all she need to take a look at herself, then she would be very carful to judge anybody. If you have to judge a man or a woman, (which we should not be doing in the first place) judge them by their character, not the color of their skin. If she was a black woman she would see AMERICA in a totaly different way, She cain't feel what I feel and she can't possibly see what I see...But when she see Jesus and all of his different colors which makes America beautiful what will she say then. Mr Obama Charge it to her head not her heart and lets move foward together...

Well. Well. Well! Mrs Geraldine just showed us her true color!. First of all she need to take a look at herself, then she would be very carful to judge anybody. If you have to judge a man or a woman, (which we should not be doing in the first place) judge them by their character, not the color of their skin. If she was a black woman she would see AMERICA in a totaly different way, She cain't feel what I feel and she can't possibly see what I see...But when she see Jesus and all of his different colors which makes America beautiful what will she say then. Mr Obama Charge it to her head not her heart and lets move foward together...

There have always been situations where, for all kinds of reasons, people wanted a member of a particular group or groups. So that worked out well for members of those groups in those specific situations. That did not mean most members of the group were doing well.

This statement is made to divide the Democrats between White and Black. Hillary knows there are more Whites than Blacks so she can easily win. Good strategy to win but she may have a problem against McCain because many Democrats will not support her for these tactics.

There have always been situations where, for all kinds of reasons, people wanted a member of a particular group or groups. So that worked out well for members of those groups in those specific situations. That did not mean most members of the group were doing well.

The word is intolerant, not racist. And don't forget who the party of intolerance is. Tolerance only works when those around you agree with you. As we have just witnessed, Ferraro and I assume Hillary (since she will not fire Ferraro) are both intolerant of Obama as a man, as a Black man, as a politician, etc.

A response to a post on March 12, 2008 15:58 by

Ursula Taylor,

I feel like the Clinton campaign is painting pro-Obama people as anti-Clinton. That to me is not the case and the Mississippi exit polls bear that out. I would love to see Hillary get the nomination but not while Obama is also in contention. If she is nominated I will vote for her - It's not a vote for Geraldine Ferraro. According to the Mississippi exit polls Obama supporters would vote for Hillary at twice the rate of Hillary supports that would vote for Barrack if he were nominated (of course that is only revelant in Mississippi). This post is not in any way a bantor against the person that made the original post, I just had something to add. Thank you.

A response to a post on March 12, 2008 15:58 by

Ursula Taylor,

I feel like the Clinton campaign is painting pro-Obama people as anti-Clinton. That to me is not the case and the Mississippi exit polls bear that out. I would love to see Hillary get the nomination but not while Obama is also in contention. If she is nominated I will vote for her - It's not a vote for Geraldine Ferraro. According to the Mississippi exit polls Obama supporters would vote for Hillary at twice the rate of Hillary supports that would vote for Barrack if he were nominated (of course that is only revelant in Mississippi). This post is not in any way a bantor against the person that made the original post, I just had something to add. Thank you.

We need to examine her comments in historical context. Her thoughts echo the past and she only denies it. She represents to me the old gaurd that we are trying to do away with. Let's not look at this in ten years and wander why we let her words affect our way of deciding who to vote for. Remember what the democrats did (and still do) to Ralph Nader. The democrats today are just a different side of the same coin. It's too bad there isn't a party that Obama could represent that wouldn't treat him like a bastard son.

We need to examine her comments in historical context. Her thoughts echo the past and she only denies it. She represents to me the old gaurd that we are trying to do away with. Let's not look at this in ten years and wander why we let her words affect our way of deciding who to vote for. Remember what the democrats did (and still do) to Ralph Nader. The democrats today are just a different side of the same coin. It's too bad there isn't a party that Obama could represent that wouldn't treat him like a bastard son.

I think what she means is that Obama would not be where he is if he was not a minority because the anti-Hillary folks never would have chosen him to counter her gender card. I think she is also referring to the fact that he is considered a "white" black man.

I don't think Ms. Ferraro is saying he got a break because "he is black" as this author contends--I think she is saying just the opposite.

nice try though ...

Perhaps Senator Obama is a success because he is smart. He is much smarter than Geraldine Ferraro. He was president of Harvard Law Review, not an easy honor to achieve. He taught constitutional law. He organized on the streets of Chicago, not an easy thing to do. He ran for the State Senate and won; he ran for the U.S. Senate and won. What are Ms. Ferraro's honors? What are her "wins", not due to being a token female candidate? Why didn't Hillary Clinton fire her? Why did Hillary Clinton say Obama was not a Muslim, pause, as far as she knew. Why is Senator Clinton running an increasingly desperate, racist campaign?

Would Ferraro dare to say that Clinton got where she got because she was the wife of the president?

Would Ferraro dare to say that Clinton (Clinton, not 1980 Geraldine) got where she was because she is a woman?

Of course not.

Which prove the point that she discreminated between Obama and Hillary.

She is a racist, case in point.

Susan,

Before throwing the stone of "willful ignorance", review your current ignorance about the flaws in your religion.

A synopsis:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man suffering from hallucinations (if you believe his biographers) who also has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Exccellent! Please send this the national media.

He was an attorney, he served for years in the Illinois legislature, two years after running for U.S. Senate he ran for the Presidency of the United States. Many claimed he was too inexperienced and some questioned his stance on a prior war that he was against.

Too bad someone didn't tell Abraham Lincoln he was only in that position because he was a black man.

1. Obama has more experience in elected office then Hillary, while in the White House she didn't have a security clearance and spent most of her time attending tea and cookie type events. Is the only reason she is where she is because she was the wife of a President? If so Nancy Reagan has more experience then Hillary.

2. In the early stages of the Campaign, Clinton had more support from the Black community then Obama did. People have short memories, don't you remember some black people saying Obama wasn't "black enough" or that he didn't know the struggle of real Blacks because he wasn't raised in a black neighborhood by black parents? Even as late as right before South Carolina their support was about even, then the Clinton's started using race, at that point the black community started to turn on the Clintons and the margins have grown with each racial based attack.

It may work, this clinton plan, notice they waited until all the states they needed with large black votes to really openly use race. They are calculating this will help in Pennsylvania, it will get them a few percentage points of suport and they had wasted any chance to get any African-American support. But at what cost to the Democratic party. Why should a group stay with the party who now feels they were never a partner, but thought of as a house slave who should know their place and accepts what the older white woman gives them, such as VP, even though by any measure their candidate is winning.