Is Hillary Racist?
Hillary Won’t Disavow Racist Comments
TH-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will not disavow controversial comments made by a high-profile supporter about Barack Obama’s race that his campaign says is part of an “insidious pattern” of attack.
Former congresswoman and one-time vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro told a reporter for the California-based Daily Breeze, “If Obama were a white man, he would not be in this position.”
“And if he was a woman 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,” she added.
Clinton told the Associated Press “I do not agree with” Ferraro’s assessment, but would not reject or denounce the comments.
Is Ferrraro wrong? After all, 60% of the voters who pulled the lever in Miss. for Obama stated that race was a large factor in their decision. Obviously, if he were a different general hue, they might not have voted his way.
Then again, If he were a white guy, he’d look very similar to JFK. Actually, he’d probably look a bit better than JFK. Kennedy was a p.o.s. womanizing little rich kid who was on the wrong side of nearly every issue as a senator. by comparison, Obama looks quite a bit better, except for JFKs military service.
Ferraro could be right or wrong, either way, her statement isn’t racially demeaning in nature.
It’s a very naive statement on the part of a woman who is supposed to have intelligence.
Yes B. Hussein Obama is getting blacks to vote in record numbers. But even more to his advantage are the young people flocking to his candidacy, of all races.
If Geraldine had a clue, she would have said something about B. Hussein Obama’s age which has more to do with his success than skin color…”If Obama were an old man, he would not be in this position. And if he was an old woman, he would not be in this position (see old man McCain and old woman H. Rodham Clinton for proof). He happens to be very lucky to be who he is (young, dynamic and a fad which all appeal to unsuspecting young voters). And the country is caught up in the concept.”
Geraldine, being a politician knew exactly what she was doing. She is helping Hillary trying to get at Obama once again. Also trying to keep things stirred up so we will not remember Bill got away with his sexual sins in the highest office of the United States.
It’s just business as usual. As Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson said a few weeks ago, that people were “deluding” themselves early on to believe that “race” would not factor into the campaign.
Look: We have to perform better, speak better, produce better, and we STILL won’t be recognized for our intelligence, just seen as an affirmative action baby. People forget that AA affected all minorities and women. But, as per usual, the finger is pointed at US, like welfare. More white families have always outnumbered black on welfare.
As a Nichiren Buddhist, like Larry Craig, Gov. Spitzer, et.al., karmic retribution is also and will continue to be alive an well. As they say in Christianity, “God don’t like ugly.” And it’s getting uglier out there, just ask journalist Jack Cafferty.
The statement was made “If Obama were a white man, he would not be in this position.” Makes perfect sense to me. But then, I’m not hamstrung by the forces of political correctness!
Could be that people like his positions on issues better or it could be that he is fresh instead of ‘experienced’ when many people are wanting for a change from Bush & Clinton. I don’t think race has as much to do with it as other things do. Clinton would make it mandatory to buy ‘healthcare insurance’ while Obama isn’t as obnoxious over that issue. Would Hillary even be in that position if she wasn’t an ex-first lady? That’s as valid a question as “Would Obama be in that position if he were a white man?” I was hoping that Ron Paul would do better than results so far are indicating he has done. Obama would be better than Hillary if I have to settle for a Democrat, & I am a white voter…
I don’t agree. Obama may not turn my stomach like Hillary does but he is even more socialist than Hillary is. She would do much less damage than he.
Cooltruth,
I am fascinated by the Ron Paul supporters who see the dems as the best alternative to their #1 preference. How can one support Ron Paul who purportedly favors much smaller government then have a true big nanny socialist (either Hill or B. Hussein) as their second choice…on what criteria do you folks decide how to vote?
This is a serious question, not in any way an attempt to challenge your beliefs or criticize your decision.