-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/03/oh-she-just-hates-black-men/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I remember watching Wolf Blitzer ask race-baiter-extraordinaire Donna Brazile why she thought Clinton's remark had a racial aspect (her saying "As an African American woman, I find Bill Clinton's comments depressing"). Brazile was stumped. No response to Blitzer's question. She sat there like an idiot and couldn't defend her automatic, knee-jerk race-baiting at any criticism of a black person. Pitiful.
I wonder what action he will take?
And when?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/dont-fire-geraldine-ferr_b_91059.html
I do appreciate Mondale trying to make a point with his choice of running mate, but from what I hear, the party bigwigs forced him into doing it. Oh well. I don't know what the deal was that Geraldine Ferraro's mob-tied husband wasn't vetted before Mondale officially chose her. Geraldine and her husband must have had pictures of some folks with goats -- or maybe there are more people like Geraldine and her husband at the top of the Democratic party, than not.
Several people are wondering about whether Geraldine was being too honest by half, in speaking what's probably being said behind closed doors in the Democratic Party. I'm going to agree with the wonderers. Some foul sh*t went down against Jesse Jackson courtesy of his own party, back in the 80s. There's no reason to wonder why the same people wouldn't pull the same stuff now.
It is a wonder why blacks continue to bottom bitch for a party which takes us for granted, and doesn't give a damn about us anymore now that we're no longer the 'number one minority' to have to pretend to listen to.
It's all about the numbers. What's been going down in California is the bellwether. It's going to be our own damn fault, and too late.
you wouldn't happen to go by the name of pissant over at FR, would you?
That title alone is offensive. Is this what freedom riders felt in the 50s and 60s going down south and having to deal with Negroes who liked being big fish (house slaves) in small ponds (those who get to eat the best scraps)? Who was it who wrote that article about how Obama is a threat to the the folks who are subconsciously proud of being 'the only ones'?
And I hope most blacks don't fall for the 'where else do they have to go?' bullshit. The more this drags out, the more people are going to talk, though, and its gonna seep down to the lowest of 'low information voters' which certain folks in the party are already exploiting.
I also hope that the party finds ways to deal with the racism it has swept under the rug because the Republicans were so much more blatant about it.
Meanwhile, I read a Latino op/ed columnist who stated that Latinos were going to be so turned off by Hillary versus Obama that they were going to vote en masse for McCain, mostly because McCain will be seen as more responsive to Latino issues regarding immigration... and that Obama is seen as having ignored Latinos until it became politically expedient to outreach to Latinos in Texas. Isn't that a kick in the ass? for reasons it depresses me to go into. Y'all probably read him this past week. He said, in the same article, that he was offended when a black co-guest on a radio show stated that Latinos might not get the full effect of Obama's oratory skills because so many don't speak and understand English. The reason why I was offended by his being offended by that statement... leads into what depresses me about the 'Latinos will vote en masse for McCain' prediction.
But we'll see. Just as we'll see what happens with the Ferraro fallout.
When he couldn't find anything positive to say about Obama after IOWA - there was nothing else to do but shake the head, and just wait for the next hit piece on Obama from Hutchinson.
Obama marched in their damn amnesty parades. I've said it before, and I'll say it again..
She tried to disenfranchise them in Nevada, and they still voted for her ass. I can't understand that mess, and won't pretend to.
They can make any kind of excuse that they want. I'm sorry, but Obama's record on Latino issues is pretty damn good. If they LUV the White man, let them LUV him. He comes from a party that would pack them in box cars and send them back to Mexico in a nanosecond. But, hey, maybe White skin trumps all of that. They can knock themselves out.
Now...did you guys hear Ferraro's response to the uproar about her comments. Its worse than what she said in the first place.
"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
She has to be kidding!
Maggie Williams is trying to spin it as if Obama is breaking some "pledge" not to respond to surrogates. They are still associating themselves with her.
Its obvious that the Clinton campaign doesnt want to change their tone.
Wow...
And I probably offended about 85% of the people reading this (and there's a reason why I say it in spite of what's going to be folks memories of the events of April 29, 1992). Oh well. :(
Anyway, more from DU.. anybody got a source for the numbers this poster put up?
Poster: NorthernSpy
Response 142: Answer me this, Lula May: why didn't those women support Ferraro in 1984?
Mondale/Ferraro got less than 45% of the white female vote -- probably not much more than 40%. The majority went for Ronald Reagan.
In contrast, Mondale/Ferraro got over 90% of the votes of both black men and black women.
Why did that happen, and why has it fallen so completely out of the Clintonite purported "invisible-woman" consciousness? And more to the point, why has Ferraro herself apparently forgotten who showed up on Election Day to help her make history -- and who turned their backs on her and cuddled up to "the gipper" instead?
That's a good question, if the numbers hold up.
They're gonna find out soon enough that blacks will discover we DO have options beyond staying in an abusive political relationship. What I mean is, if the party doesn't respect you -- it's abuse.
Thats why i'm independent. A lesson has to be taught. Howard Dean claims that neithe candidate has gotten "personal". Hmmm...where has he been?
You know if Obama was losing or lost already, people would say its because he is black and since he is winning and still in the race, its because he is black. People like Ferraro are the ones caught up in the "concept"...this racist concept.
dnA, you nearly made me spit my coffee out all over my computer at work with that one. Brilliant.
I knew it was a set up. The Clinton's have found a way to falsely accuse the Obama campaign of crying racism thereby highlighting the fact that he is the "black" candidate.
The Obama campaign has never discussed race or gender..it was Ferraro herself who injected race and gender. The intent of all this is to create an US against THEM environment to hopefully generate votes among whites who are secretly resentful of what they see as reverse racism in affirmative action.
The Clinton campaign is not caring about a potential future where if Clinton is the nominee that the Dems will not win without the AA vote. They are gambling that AA's will still come out to vote for the Dem nominee. They are taking a huge risk to win NOW.
The Clinton people have no doubt heard the threat of the Great Black Walkout. Well, not only are they calling our bluff, they're saying "go ahead; leave. You schwarze's will cost the Party the general election anyway, so we might as well be rid of your Black asses so that we can lock down the Hispanic vote. You coons are irrelevant, so go already!"
I hope I'm wrong. But if Howard Dean and Tavis Smiley remain mum, I may have my answer.
I got the feeling recently there's something brewing behind the scenes with the Dem leadership...or maybe it's wishful thinking. Pelosi saying the dream team was impossible..and little blurbs that Dems were dismayed at the Clinton campaign. I dunno..
Howard Dean strikes me as complacent. He should have made a decision swiftly re the FL and MI. issue. Then again I wonder if they are just putting on a calm face for the public but going berserk inside over the acrimony in the race. See, nobody was prepared for a scorned, enraged and entitled Hillary. Before her, every candidate just accepted they had to compete.
The media discovered that Barack Obama has the potential to be bigger than what they want him to be. They have to marginalize him in some way; the focus on the racial breakdown of the votes is the only way to do it.
"I got the feeling recently there's something brewing behind the scenes with the Dem leadership..."
I think there is. I was talking to someone on DailyKos who told be the behind the scenes word was that Pelosi has been fussing at Hillary to cut the nonsense for a few weeks now, but Hillary is not responding.
I don't know that much about these things, but this person also told me that Pelosi's remarks about Clinton making a dream team impossible, were a very big deal and show she is really mad.
Tavis Smiley?
Stephanie Tubbs-Jones?
Sheila Jackson Lee?
Michael Nutter?
I kicked off a discussion of this on the tribe.net politics tribe; if anybody happens to have an account over there, please join in!
Where you at:
Tavis Smiley-- Shame
Stephanie Tubbs-Jones-- Shame
Sheila Jackson Lee-- Shame
Michael Nutter-- Shame
In my opinion, there is a faction of the White establishment of the Democratic Party that DOES want to see implosion. They see Blacks as too demanding, too outspoken, too troublesome, and not worth the hassle anymore.
Ummm...I could have sworn that OBAMA was strongest in that area. I could have sworn that Hillary was NOT!!!
Now Ferraro made a horrible response once again she said,
""Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
Whats that about?? I havent really heard her explain that part. She is trying to say people are taking her out of context but above it doesnt seem like she thinks she was out of context.
Has someone confronted her with these Jesse Jackson comments. Obviously this is something she is always thinking about regardless of the situation.
That's what DeWayne Wickham alludes to
Philly mayor, Obama share no brotherly love.
I have no doubt that what you describe is exactly what's happening now, and the MSM is helping out. Look at all the reports from the MS race. All are saying race was a factor. It's ridiculous and pisses me off to no end. How do they explain Iowa or Wyoming or Vermont... places where there's only a handful of black people?
The Clintons have already written off the black vote. It's obvious.
The only way Ms. Clinton can win the nomination is to inject RACE' this is a strategy which is no accident.
Please let us review and see what we have learned:
a) One of the Clinton surrogates mentions Obama's drug use early in the campaign and he is immediately asked to resign. Unfortunately for the Clintons , Mr. Obama has written about his youthful indiscretions and his life memoirs in his two (2)books. Seemingly she is to busy too read these books, like she was too busy to read the NIE for war in Iraq.
b) Robert "Bob" Johnson speech/gaffe/subsequent apology. (ENOUGH SAID)
c) Former President Clinton in South Carolina mentioning Jesse Jackson "as if" this is some type of a negative. (WTH)
d) The HISPANIC older female supporter of the Clintons who mentioned that BLACKS have "done nothing" for HISPANICS in the past. This is said before the Texas primaries/caucus to cause dissent between BLACKS and HISPANICS.
e) The last two (2) debates between Clinton and Obama, Ms. Clinton mentions phrases of Obama's speech may be plagiarised; which places a possible question about his "trustworthiness" to the public. (Back story for people with issues with Black people: Is he really intelligent or is he really able to be so articulate for a BLACK man? She fails to mention that the phrasology she is complaining about comes from one of his campaign co-chairpersons (Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick) and assists in working with Mr. Obama's speeches. By the way: Why take a strength and minimize or question it, but to make Mr. Obama trip up and not use his effective tools to attempt to win the nomination.
f) The release of the picture of Mr. Obama in the native wear of the tribe of his African grandmother (paternal side of the family) prior to visiting the elders of the tribe to show appropriate respect for the culture. The implication that Mr. Obama is a Black muslim and thus he is a terrorist and once again untrustworthy.
g) Ms. Clinton saying that she and Senator McCain have experience to be president and Mr. Obama has a speech. Is Ms. Clinton now running as a Republican? You never do this to another opponent of the SAME party. Mr.Obama was a state legislature and then a national senator and actually has been an official politician longer than Ms Clinton. Moreover Ms. Clinton adds her years as a "first lady" to her claim of experience when there is no validity to the claim. Thus expressing "white entitlement" and suggesting Mr. Obama should gain experience to be a better candidate. NEWSFLASH: Exactly who did not have enough money to keep their campaign going after February 5th and thus donated 5 million of her own money? The experienced candidate or the "unworthy" novice.
h) Ms. Clinton use surrogates that continually suggest that he will do GREAT with Blacks and she will do better with the rest of the country and thus is the better choice for nomination. WAIT A MINUTE there is a problem with this logic because Blacks make up 13%-15% on the average of the entire US population. All of the votes Mr. Obama has been receiving since he begain his campaign CANNOT mathematically only come the BLACKS.
i) The suggestion that Mr. Obama does not receive HARD questions because he is a MALE and because she is NOT she always gets the hard questions first (during the debate). Even the moderators of the debate looked stunned at her joking about this and about some kind of a "pillow for Barack to make him more comfortable." Subtle implication the BLACK man is weak/unintelligent and she is strong /intelligent and up to the challenge on DAY 1. I guess going to Harvard U and being the first Black of the Harvard U Review and a lawyer simply shows that he does not have the brains to even debate her.
Summary, Ms. Clinton and her campaign surrogates behavior and words have yet to tell me why I should be inspired to vote for Ms. Clinton. What will she do differently other than tell me she has experience and likes to belittle and verbally fight people who dare to have different opinions and perspectives from her. Her strategy to be President of the U.S. is to "tear down" her opponent and thus be the last "woman" standing.
Josephine
This point, or a version of it, came up in a discussion I was having last night.
We were thinking (based on actual direct experience over many years): White liberal feminists have a thing going in relation to white men. That thing is: "I want the power, privilege and access that they have. Getting it is what I call feminism." Challenges to white entitlement are framed as being victimized from this perspective.
Several people are wondering about whether Geraldine was being too honest by half, in speaking what's probably being said behind closed doors in the Democratic Party. I'm going to agree with the wonderers.
We were also discussing this -- we feel like she is speaking for what others are not saying at this point.
I have more trust in Senator Obama now than I have had recently, seeing his magnificent rejection of Clinton's "He should be my VP" bullshit. I don't know why this is relevant here except that maybe he won't bow to these dynamics...?
Also, @ rikyrah Obama marched in their damn amnesty parades
Um, well, WTF? People have been DYING because of these f**ing immigration policies (that actually Bill Clinton got going with Operation Gatekeeper in the mid 1990s to push migrants in to deadly areas because who cares if those people die? And the influence of NAFTA on people's lives south of the US border), the rise of KKK-like racism in which it's okay to hate on people using codes words like illegals, cops and detention centers and very real stuff happening that those marches were about ...
WTF is this disrespect calling them "damn amnesty parades"? Are migrants not real people or something? Are their deaths and their families irrelevant or just some sort of political football to be played or ignored at will? Are those marches just something to disrespect and mock?
Do any people owe Senator Obama something for his commitment to freaking human rights? Should he not march on these issues unless Latinos will vote for him -- do you not see that the situation is horrible and the issues real and worth concern? To my knowledge, he has never suggested this and why should he?
Clintons treat Latinos like objects rather than real people. They also passed policies that have caused many people (real people, people with families and loved ones) to die horrible deaths in the desert, to die of dehydration, can you imagine what that physically feels like, have you ever seen pictures of people who have died like this, can you imagine how their families feel?
Clintons helped set the stage of the most recent wave of dehumanizing migrants that has blossomed in recent years.
If Senator Obama marched against this and all of the rest of the horrible racist policies that hurt people in so many ways, it is to his credit and not about tit for tat. The situation is horrible and affects real people (not the objects/cut-outs that anti-migrant racism suggests). And the Clintons are part of what has caused it.
There's a difference between 'migrants' and illegal aliens. Migrants do their job, then go home, then come back to do their job, then go home again.
Illegal aliens get pregnant, then make the trip here when they're ready to drop. Illegal aliens send their children across the border, unattended, with coyotes, then wonder why the child hasn't been seen since.
Illegal aliens have declared war on African Americans because this is 'their' land and African Americans are no better and no different than the 'invaders' with white skin. African Americans are 'anglo', too. And they're getting away with it.
Less fatally, illegal aliens are engaging in hiring tactics which would get citizens in trouble with the EEOC, when it comes to refusing to hire people because of the color of their skin or because of their national origin or because of their primary language. That's called clannish behavior (among other things). I will never forget the story of the young brother who went to the construction site, and the suddenly bored latina behind the desk told him there were no jobs available. He was only there because of the sign on the door. He leaves. Other people -- all of whom are Latino -- are hired after him.
This is real, anonymous. There's some ill shit going down.
But Obama, in spite of all that, and because of how big the illegal community is in Chicago, has bent over backwards. Obama waffled, but less, over the driver's license (which I'm personally opposed to) while Hillary was waffling monumentally. Obama finally said unequivocally yes, he's for it. Hillary... depends on what day of the month and the phase of the moon.
And Obama is still seen as being less sensitive to the illegal alien issue.
There is some serious race issues behind this. Clinton's Latino campaign person was right. It shouldn't be swept under the rug -- just like black ambivalence towards and sometimes outright hatred of homosexuality shouldn't be swept under the rug.
As for the illegals and their anchor babies, if you benefit from breaking the law ... you are no better than those whites who claim they had nothing to do with slavery or jim crow while they benefited from jim crow. Change needs to come legally, not illegally.
we can't fix the illegal issue by hungering for solidarity with people who hate us and are piggybacking... just because their skin is not pink... nor can it be fixed by accepting their pretense of solidarity with us.
Barack Obama is the front runner in the campaign for the Democratic nomination because he has the character, the policy proposals and the ability to unite this country around common ideals which value every human being regardless of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. To claim that he is the front runner simply because he is Black, not only implies that his candidacy has no merit in its own right but also implies that women are powerless –whether because a Black man has received preferential treatment or whether Black women have neither the intelligence or the inclination to vote their conscience rather than their race. It promotes the idea that historically, White women are victims of Black men—an idea that has its origins in the racist discourse of the past in movies like "Birth of a Nation". It invites us to base our vote for President based upon fear and upon some kind of misbegotten racial pride. I have heard it said that White Women vote for Hillary as some kind of backlash against the fact that Black men received the vote before White Women. My answer to that is that it was White Men not Black Men who refused to give White Women the vote for so long.
Why is it that the 3:00 AM phone ad pictured ONLY White girls and their White mother? Don’t tell me that this was not a message to White women that the only way to safeguard yourself and your daughters is to elect a White woman as opposed to a Black man, as President. If we, as a group are honest with ourselves, we will admit that this was one of the messages of that ad. I, for one, am not deceived by it or by the invitation to victimhood that this ad represents.
Wow.
And you call them "illegals" and their American children "anchor babies" just to dehumanize them.
We're about to have a black President, and when that happens, you will no longer get to play the victim or continue to use race to manipulate people. You will be held accountable for your words and actions--finally.
I can't wait.
Thing is,
try winning
PA,OH, MO, VA, MD, IL without the Black vote.
Sorry,not enough Latinos to make up the difference.
Blue states are blue states because of Blue Cities. They are Blue Cities because of Black folks. We don't have to vote for McCain. We stay home, just a fraction, and Blue States turn red. Period.
Um, well, WTF? People have been DYING because of these f**ing immigration policies (that actually Bill Clinton got going with Operation Gatekeeper in the mid 1990s to push migrants in to deadly areas because who cares if those people die? And the influence of NAFTA on people's lives south of the US border), the rise of KKK-like racism in which it's okay to hate on people using codes words like illegals, cops and detention centers and very real stuff happening that those marches were about ...
WTF is this disrespect calling them "damn amnesty parades"? Are migrants not real people or something? Are their deaths and their families irrelevant or just some sort of political football to be played or ignored at will? Are those marches just something to disrespect and mock?
Anonymous,
I'm not a Kumbayaer here.
This whole 'Black/Brown' alliance thing is just a delusion, IMO.
I am against illegal immigration because I believe it harms the Black community.
It's an unpopular stance around here, but it's how I feel.
Alliance means a two-way street to me, and I don't see anything two way about it. I see Black folk getting pimped and played by Latinos, and I'm not down with that in the least.
and needless to say, I agree with how you boiled it down, Rikyrah.
I read your blog and think you’re a good writer. I would like to invite you to join our new online community at polzoo.com. It is a user generated political editorial and social network. We also choose from amongst our own bloggers to be featured columnists on the front page. I think your voice would be a great addition to our site.
We accept all viewpoints.