Ferraro Dreams; If Only Obama Were White
Mar 11, 2008 Political
Former VP candidate and Hillary backer Geraldine Ferraro has thrown down the race card with regard to Barack Obama. In this high stakes game of political poker Ferraro threw down the Ace of Spades by stating that if Obama were not black he would not be where he is.
“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 do not disagree with her because if Obama were a white man he would not be drawing 85% of the black vote. Hillary would be getting it as the wife of the first black president. Most black people are voting for him for two reasons, he is black and he is a Democrat.
I will take Ferraro’s statement further and say that if Obama were a black Republican he would not be getting the votes that he is. he would have been out of this race a long time ago having been shunned by the black community as an Uncle Tom. The Democrats have so thoroughly put a strangle hold on the black community that they will not vote Republican unless Obama gets screwed by his party and the nomination goes to Hillary. Ms. Ferraro made a valid point but she was too narrow in her focus. His being black is only part of the equation but his being a Democrat is the other part. Blacks support him for those two reasons. God knows it is not because he actually says anything of substance. Amazingly, if whites voted for someone solely because he was white they would be labeled racists.
Now I want to turn Ferraro’s words inward. Hillary Clinton would not be where she is if she were a man. She would not be where she is if it were not for the fact that she is married to a former president. Clinton was elected to the Senate by an electorate that felt sorry for her because her husband cheated on her. She had no qualifications for the job. He life has been spent as a First Lady of one sort or another and she has had NO leadership experience in the real world.
She was elected because of her last name and she was the heir apparent because of her last name and for no other reason. People figured that if she were elected it would be a back door third term for Bubba and the prospect of him back in the White House excited people (except for parents of young interns). Hillary has no major accomplishments, she has a thin resume, and she was a carpetbagger in New York.
Yes, Ms. Ferraro is correct that Obama would not be where he is if he were white but Hillary would not be where she is if it were not for her last name. If Bill Clinton had never been elected to the presidency she would never have been elected to the Senate and she would not have been seen as a viable candidate for the White House.
Source:
ABC Political Punch
Others with interesting posts:
Debbie Lee on A NEWT ONE!, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Faultline USA, DragonLady’s World, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, , Pursuing Holiness, Stageleft, Right Voices, Chuck’s Place, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Clinton, democrat, ferraro, Obama, racism, republican, sexism
Sexism in Campaign is Overrated
Mar 3, 2008 Political
Gloria Steinem, the aging feminazi, is on the campaign trail stumping for Hillary Clinton. While Steinem is out discussing the supposed qualifications of she who would be Queen, it boils down to one qualification and that is, Hillary is a woman. Steinem discusses the campaign and how Hillary is not given a fair chance or how the media is better to Obama or any of the other claims made by the Clinton apologists. She throws in a few of the references to male domination and all the other excuses that women use when they fail to achieve. Women have made quantum leaps with regard to equality in the workplace and in education. There are many women in institutes of higher learning and there are plenty in the workplace and they are protected under Equal Opportunity laws to such a great extent that they receive benefits of affirmative action. Women owned businesses receive special treatment so much so that contractors align with them in order to win competitive bids. This is not good enough for the feminist Steinem because, in her eyes, there must be sexism involved if Hillary is losing. Steinem goes so far as to indicate John McCain’s time as a POW was overrated and if he were a woman men would ask what she did wrong to get shot down and captured. I think we all remember this being the case with Jessica Lynch, who by the way, was rescued by a bunch of men.
Steinem, while claiming to be a feminist, is supporting a candidate who cried, who relied on a man (her husband), who debated by whining about getting questions first and who generally ran a poor campaign. Hillary Clinton had a double digit lead when this whole thing started and she was the presumptive nominee long before the contests began in earnest. The campaign process was a mere formality. Instead of sexism, isn’t it just possible that people do not think she would be a good president? Isn’t it possible that after the population had a chance to see Hillary on the campaign trail they were less enamored with her? Top this off with a candidate who has the ability to say absolutely nothing and still thrill people (especially women) and it spells disaster for any candidate regardless of that person’s sex.
The idea that Hillary is being rejected because of sexism is absolutely ludicrous but the mere suggestion shows that even staunch Democrats believe that their party is comprised of sexists. It is not the Republican Party that is giving the nod to Obama, it is the Democrats who are voting for him over the woman who has been dubbed the smartest woman in the world. The Democratic establishment has also recognized that it has racists in it because anyone who opposes Obama is tagged as a racist. Remember, this is all coming from the party of diversity and tolerance.
Hillary Clinton is being rejected because she is a polarizing person. She rubs people the wrong way and, when compared to Obama, her lack of personality is glaringly obvious. The suggestion that America rejects her because of her sex ignores the flaws of the person and lays blame on the voters who are obviously too stupid to see that she deserves to win. The fact that she is a woman does not qualify her for the job though Steinem would have us believe this. There are plenty of women in this country who would do an admirable job as President just as there are many blacks who would do an equally good job. Yes, America is ready for a black or a woman but we are not ready for this black or that woman, not because of those qualities but because of what they represent with regard to the issues.
Steinem believes that Hillary is the best candidate and that is her opinion. Just because people do not accept Hillary does not mean people are sexists any more than those who reject Obama are racists. Does this mean there is no racism or sexism? Certainly not. There are people who will not vote for either of these candidates based solely on their race or sex. I would bet though, there are more people who will vote FOR them based on these attributes than against and that is just as bad. Some however, will vote for a person based upon a perception of qualifications. In some cases it will be the lesser of two evils as it usually is in politics.
If Steinem wants a woman to win perhaps they should run one who can win. I would also wonder if Steinem would have the same feelings were the losing female candidate a Republican? BTW Gloria, I would vote for a Conservative woman or black person if I thought they would do the best job.
We have 300 million people in this country and these three are the best we can come up with? That, in and of itself, is depressing.
Related item:
Boston.com
Interesting Post:
Sonnabend
Tags: campaign, democrat, gloria steinem, Hillary, President, sexism
Hillary Has Howard Dean Moment and Other Debate Fun
Jan 6, 2008 Political
There were two debates tonight the first being the Republicans followed by the Democrats. I will briefly say that the Republicans beat up Mitt Romney fairly well and that Fred Thompson looked like the winner in this one. Ron Paul held his own and John McCain was on target most of the night. Rudy invoked 9/11 and Ronald Reagan every other sentence. The Democratic debate was much more lively and was more fun to watch.
Hillary Clinton had a melt down and I think it will show on Tuesday. I admit that she did not go negative on Obama in the fashion that I thought she would but it might be because John Edwards sided with Obama and they tag teamed her pretty good. She did not hammer Obama when moderator Charlie Gibson gave her a huge opening to do so by asking her to describe the issues that separate them. Her Howard Dean moment came when she got very angry after Edwards said that the status quo (He pointed to Hillary) would always attack agents of change like him and Obama. She was obviously frustrated and when she addressed the comment she became visibly angry and animated. She would have done better if her answer was shorter and she was more sane. Her campaign is saying she showed strength but the reality is the media is hammering her and the undecided voters said that Obama was the change agent and did not appreciate her response.
As for the rest of the Democratic debate, I noticed a few other Hillary gaffes. One of the first questions dealt with Pakistan. The question dealt with al Qaeda building up along the border. The question was, if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden was there and the Pakistani government would not go attack him or the AQ terrorists would they, as president, attack the area? They asked Obama first and he said absolutely. Then Gibson said that this was the same as the Bush doctrine of preemption. Obama said no because we had actionable intelligence (as if the intelligence from all over the world that Bush had was not actionable). Hillary said that if we tried diplomacy and it failed she would but that we had to be careful. She then talked about how they (she and Bill) launched a missile based on intelligence that OBL was someplace and he was not there. She said we had to be careful. I believe that they launched the missile because soil samples indicated that a building was being used to make chemical weapons. It turned out to be an aspirin factory (I am sure this is what she was talking about). This means, if it is the ASA factory, that she lied about why we bombed it. Additionally, she failed to mention the three times that we had OBL in our sites, on camera or via witnesses, no doubt he was there, and she and Bill refused to pull the trigger. Details, details. They bombed the aspirin factory to take everyone’s minds off the Monica problems. There was one other instance where we launched missiles and then called the country to tell them and we gave them enough warning that they were able to warn OBL. If this is what she was talking about then the intelligence was right and the method flawed. Now there could have been other incidents but it is doubtful since Clinton worked hard at not getting OBL.
Another security question dealt with a nuclear bomb being detonated in a US city. It was a two parter and the questions associated were (paraphrased); 1. The day after what do we wished we would have done? and 2. What do we do now? None of them answered these directly though Obama got closest to the what do we wish. However, all who answered said that we would find out who did it and we would attack them with all we have. Charlie Gibson made the point that anyone who would do this would not be from a country or have a government’s blessing to do it. Hillary said that they might not have a country but they had to train and plan somewhere and we would find out where that was and attack it. She said there would be no difference between the people who did it and the the people who let them plan and train in their country.
Check me on this but wasn’t George Bush the one who said that we would make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them? Wasn’t George Bush also the one who said that we will attack first to prevent being attacked? Their admission that they would violate the sovereignty of Pakistan to hit OBL means they would use preemptive warfare and wage war in a country that did not attack us to get our enemies, or the Bush Doctrine. I don’t disagree with the idea but I have not been using Bush’s name in vain and telling voters that I would be different than he. I am not out there saying that George Bush mismanaged the war. They have all been criticizing the war and the way Bush has operated and yet they are willing to use the same tactics to protect our country. The MSM will not likely focus on these things because they are Democrats. Only Republicans are evil in the eyes of the MSM.
I did agree with Hillary and she showed some foreign policy savvy when she said that once we launched the missiles toward Pakistan we would have to notify that government because of the tensions with India we did not want them to think that it was India attacking. I agree but we should not call until a few minutes before impact so that no warnings can be issued.
All in all the Democratic debate was more fun to watch than the Republicans. The Republicans were mostly civil (though they really beat up Romney) and had differing approaches to the issues. The donks attacked each other and were fighting like alley cats. Governor Richardson said he had been to hostage negotiations that were more civil (the quote of the night from the left).
Hillary did not have a good night. Her response to the change issue will haunt her and I think she will lose New Hampshire by 10 points.
I can just hear her now in her best Dean voice; Yeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaa.
Others:
Political Punch
ADDENDUM: I forgot a great part. Hillary, while claiming to be the champion of change, said something about being the first woman president and how that is change. Obama was too classy to say it but wouldn’t the first black guy as president be just as real a change? Hillary played her gender card. She said before that she was just another candidate. Now she is playing the woman part. Desperate times call for desperate measures…
Tags: dean moment, debate, democrat, Hillary, hillary meltdown, Obama, republican
Elizabeth Edwards Worries About Huckabee
Dec 16, 2007 Political
Elizabeth Edwards has been brought out on various occasions to attack others on behalf of her husband. Her favorite target has been Hillary Clinton and my belief is that John used her so he would not be seen as a man attacking a woman. Elizabeth has had her go rounds with Ann Coulter as well but probably because John is afraid of Ann.
Now Elizabeth is out attacking Republicans who she says we should all fear. Her named target this time was Mike Huckabee who Edwards ridiculed for not believing in evolution. I am not going to rehash the evolution idea and why it makes no sense or why people hold it as gospel truth despite the fact it has never been proven and that it is a theory. The theory of evolution is much like the theory of Global Warming in the minds of Democrats. They believe it so it must be true and they will repeat it as true so often that it will become ingrained in people. Global warming and evolution are taught in schools as if they are proven science and this is done to brainwash a generation of school kids so they grow up to be little tree-hugging liberals. The libs have to find a way to replenish their ranks because they are aborting their children thus removing future generations of liberals.
Speaking about Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, who recently surged ahead in Iowa polls, Elizabeth noted, “He seems like a nice charming guy,” before saying that Huckabee, “doesn’t believe in evolution and has some nutty views about what it is we should do about ending violence in our inner city — we should make sure all of our young people are armed. Republicans scare me.” Political Radar
Elizabeth also went on to talk about Karl Rove and how he might not be working in the White House but is working in the “back” of the presidential race. It would seem that Rove is the Republican she is most afraid of. Elizabeth said that Republicans scare her and they should. Republicans stand for things that run counter to the liberal psyche. Republicans are against abortion, against universal health care, against socialism and against big government (though you would not know it by the way some of them act). Edwards wants the government to run every aspect of our lives and this is not the way a free society is supposed to be. She wants socialism and her belief in liberal ideals shows that she is a rich elitist who believes she knows what is best for the average person in this country. She can talk about helping the poor all she wants but if she really wants to help them perhaps she can get her husband to stop being involved in things that hurt the poor.
As for Huckabee and evolution. I do not agree with many of the things that Huckabee says and he is not in my first tier of candidates but he has a right to believe or not to believe what he wants. His belief on evolution is based in his religious teachings and using this as a qualifier for office puts a religious test on his candidacy. That is her right as a private citizen but it is not a test that can be used by our government to determine if he is qualified to run. Just as Romney’s Mormon religion does not bother me, Huckabee’s position on evolution does not bother me and it would not even if I believed in evolution.
The bigger question is; why does John Edwards keep running his wife out to attack other candidates? If he so cowardly that he cannot make these attacks on his own or is she a surrogate who he can later say was expressing her own views? It won’t matter because what she says will be tied to him just as Bill Clinton’s words are tied to Hillary. Maybe John figured he needed to have a spouse attacking other candidates just as Hillary is doing.
No matter what the reason, Huckabee is not running against Edwards in the primary and, as it appears right now, Edwards is not close to winning his party’s nomination. Perhaps he and his wife should spend their time attacking those against whom he is running.
He can’t ever take on a Republican if he does not get past the Democrats.
Others with similar posts:
Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Midnight Sun, 123beta, sTIX bLOG, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, Wake Up America, Faultline USA, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Global American Discourse, Right Voices, OTB Sports, Church and State, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: democrat, edwards, evolution, fear, huckabee, republican, rove
Bill Clinton Whines About Hillary’s Press Coverage
Dec 4, 2007 Political
Bill Clinton is out on the campaign trail and he is whining about the press coverage his wife is getting. Clinton said that the media ignores experience and looks at political issues which he claims have a “half life of 15 seconds.” He made the claim that if the media would only look at the experience of his wife then people would see she is best qualified and most experienced to lead this country. Let us take a look.
Hillary has never run anything. She has not been a CEO of a company, she has not been a Governor of a state and she has not been the boss in a business. Her work experience is as a lawyer and as the First lady of Arkansas and of the country. She was not in a position of leadership in any of those capacities and yet this is what she claims for experience. She is no more experienced than any of her rivals other than she can lay claim to being a First Lady and they cannot. The job of First Lady does not qualify her or anyone else to be the President. The wife of a CEO for a large corporation is not qualified, based upon being the wife of the CEO, to run the company. In addition, Hillary refuses to release any of the records that might shed light on her supposed experience.
As for Bill, he has no right to complain about media coverage. He had it easy as President and continues to get great coverage. If Drudge had not broken the Monica story it might have never been told. When the “Path to 9/11” aired Clinton used his star power to force ABC to take out truthful items that reflected unfavorably on him. He used a surrogate to steal documents from the national archives and the media failed to skewer him as they would have ANY Republican. Clinton got sympathy from the media when he was being impeached and the treatment was in stark contrast to the treatment that Republicans involved in sex scandals have received.
Bill Clinton and his wife are liars who rewrite history as a matter of convenience. He recently said that he was against the Iraq War from the start despite the fact that his earlier words on the subject convey a totally different opinion. If we were to have a Democracy in Iraq tomorrow with all fighting in the Middle East ended, Clinton would claim that he supported the effort from the start.
Hillary is no different. She changes positions depending on the latest poll and who will be offended the least. She made statements, before George Bush was in office, that Hussein was a threat and that he had WMD and needed to be removed from office. Now she claims she was misled by the President. She is a partisan hack who is only interested in attaining power, a power she feels is due to her. She believes that it is her birthright to be President and that we should trust her because she said so. She was responsible for the socialized health care plan that failed though her hubby, in revisionist style, is now taking the blame for it.
They are both snake oil salesmen who will say or do anything to get and keep power. Bill indicated that even if he were not married to her he would be out there stumping for her. The truth is, if they had never been married no one would no who she is and she would not be in the Senate and she would not be running for the presidency.
And if Bill were not married he would be out doing the same thing he has done all through his married life.
Chasing, conquering, and sexually abusing women.
Source:
Breitbart
Others with similar items:
Outside the Beltway, Wake Up America, Adam’s Blog, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Clinton, democrat, Hillary, lies, President, revisionist history, sexual abuse