It’s becoming more and more obvious that the Clinton machine can’t stoop low enough into the slime in order to destroy their opponents. You have the race-splitting “red phone” ad released in the Texas primary which basically conveyed the message that black America is a threat to national security. Compound that with the less conspicuous “darkened debate” and NH lawn jockey ads. And don’t tell they’re not drooling over the all the ways they can separate the white and black vote. They have over 100 years (from Birth of a Nation to Willie Horton) time-tested strategies to choose from and they’re like kids in a candy store with that shit.
Once again, in true form she’s managed to summon up enough insolence to compare herself to McCain in experience, saying that only they deserve to be President. Can somebody please fill me in on what the hell experience she has… please, it’s about as mysterious as her tax returns or the millions in campaign funds that magically appear in her coffers via Bill Clinton’s Saudi Cash Club, I mean Library.
“I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”
Well, if I remember correctly, only last week she was swooning over possibility of having Obama on her fantasy ticket- one heartbeat away from the Oval Office. If I were Howard Dean I’d tell her shut the fuck up. But then again Dean’s another pussy-assed Democrat.
You have to admit, suggesting that he would make a good VP when he's beating her took some balls.
This could end bad. If the Dems actually allow the SuperDels to override the popular vote, there's gonna be riots.
Posted by: Art Vandelay | March 11, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Go get 'em, Champ.
Now, that, is what I'm talking about.
Posted by: jackie | March 11, 2008 at 11:30 AM
If the Dems actually allow the SuperDels to override the popular vote, there's gonna be riots.
Actually, we want the delegate count to be the determinant because Obama pretty much has that wrapped up. But the DNC still decides who they want and that's where the danger is, via backroom deals.
Posted by: Mr. Kruger | March 11, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Geraldine Ferraro is your latest doing the Clinton's racial bidding:
"Clinton campaign finance committee member, former vice presidential candidate, and former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, D-NY, told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Ca., 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."
Posted by: jackie | March 11, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Oh no she did not! She ought not be throwing stones with her family history.
Posted by: Ocho Ocho | March 11, 2008 at 01:01 PM
Wow - Geraldine is taking it to the extreme. We go from "America is not ready to vote a black man into office" to "America is only voting for him because he's black, therefore he should not win" in one election? Damn! White folks get nothing held against them for being white 42 prezzes, and now we can't get one solid campaign in before the reverse racism is giving us unfair advantages?
That sucks. Only in America can you go from being fire-hosed at the white's only diner to taking advantage of preferential treatment for leader of the free world in one generation...
Posted by: Aaron | March 11, 2008 at 01:12 PM
Dude, How about the fact that the girl in the 3AM call video is acutally a Ward Capitain for Obama? That Kills me!
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/3_am_call_clintonad_actress_ge.html
It also kills me that Jon Stewart is the one who is repsonsible for finding this out, whereas the "non-fake" media fails us again.
The ironies are coming fast and thick this week on the AofG.
Posted by: Cozmo | March 11, 2008 at 01:20 PM
Geraldine Ferraro
I was just reading that. Pretty fucked up.
And you know the Clinton campaign leaked that photo last month of Obama in turban when he was in Africa. When 60 minutes reporter Steve Kroft asked if she thought Obama was a muslim she said,
“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know...” with a shit-eating grin on her face. 100% sewerage.
So now you can expect them to build on this muslim smear of Obama. Because they know the fucking morons of this country view anyone who doesn't wear a baseball cap as a terrorist.
The GOP is already riding it out.
"Steve King, a Republican Iowa congressman, said on Friday that terrorists will be "dancing in the streets" if Mr Obama is elected president."
Posted by: Mr. Kruger | March 11, 2008 at 01:27 PM
I love the Bad Brains refernce in the title of this post.
Posted by: Dr. Strangejazz | March 11, 2008 at 01:40 PM
Re: reverse racism
I've always had a problem with that term. Could someone define it for me.
Because it insinuates that racism is the norm and for it to be reversed is a bad thing. I know this is not the case but I really could use some help on this.
This campaign season has taught me many things but the one thing that stands out is the following:
-If you are white, even when you are loosing you can offer second place to the black guy who's ahead of you.
-First it was red states vs. blue states. Now it's big states vs. little states. What's the difference?
-Being married to the President of the U.S. give you experience. Wow maybe all a feminist needs to do is marry a man that has power. Isn't that what feminism teaches us?? (I KIDD I KIDD)
Posted by: Dr. Strangejazz | March 11, 2008 at 01:49 PM
"This campaign season has taught me many things but the one thing that stands out is the following:"
I should have said three things.
Posted by: Dr. Strangejazz | March 11, 2008 at 01:52 PM
"If you are white, even when you are loosing you can offer second place to the black guy who's ahead of you."
You think that has to do with race? That is sad.
Posted by: jackie | March 11, 2008 at 02:11 PM
Actually, we want the delegate count to be the determinant because Obama pretty much has that wrapped up.
I thought that there was a chance that if neither candidate would reach the required number of delegates (mostly due to that Florida/Michigan thing) that they would allow the Super Delegates to decide it (of which Bill Clinton is one).
Posted by: Art Vandelay | March 11, 2008 at 03:38 PM
"You think that has to do with race? That is sad."
Re: jackie
If you look at it on the surface it doesn't because it can be explained as political gamesmanship.
But there is an underlined racial thing to her offering him second place when he's ahead. I don't think she would have been so quick to do that if it was John Edwards.
Posted by: Dr. Strangejazz | March 11, 2008 at 03:52 PM
"But there is an underlined racial thing to her offering him second place when he's ahead. I don't think she would have been so quick to do that if it was John Edwards."
If that's what you think, then that's what you think. Fair enough.
Agree to disagree.
Posted by: jackie | March 11, 2008 at 03:56 PM
"Steve King, a Republican Iowa congressman, said on Friday that terrorists will be "dancing in the streets" if Mr Obama is elected president."
I'll be in that neck of the woods next week. If I see King, I'll punch him in the nuts for everyone.
Posted by: daveNYC | March 11, 2008 at 04:37 PM
I thought that there was a chance that if neither candidate would reach the required number of delegates (mostly due to that Florida/Michigan thing) that they would allow the Super Delegates to decide it (of which Bill Clinton is one).
He's ahead by 119 delegates which means it's nearly impossible to catch him at this point especially with Wyoming and Mississippi looking to go his way. She'd have to blow him out in every state- not happening. By the way, they tied in Texas. Where's shitty media on that!
Posted by: Mr. Kruger | March 11, 2008 at 04:39 PM
"...especially with Wyoming...looking to go his way."
Check out Kruger all the way out there on that limb.
The man likes to live dangerously.
Posted by: jackie | March 11, 2008 at 04:43 PM
The man likes to live dangerously.
I'm telling ya she can't catch him. Only the Party can save her and between the Ferraro remarks and the McCain love she's looking well-fucked.
Posted by: Mr. Kruger | March 11, 2008 at 09:52 PM
"I'm telling ya she can't catch him. Only the Party can save her and between the Ferraro remarks and the McCain love she's looking well-fucked."
I'm 100% sure you missed my point.
(I do approve of the use of the term "well-fucked," however. Entirely under used.)
Posted by: jackie | March 12, 2008 at 01:32 AM
Wow. Ummm...I understand completely that it's almost impossible for her to catch him but I though that it was also possible for neither of them to get the required 2,025 at which point they'd either have to make Florida and Michigan vote again or go to the SuperDels.
Posted by: Art Vandelay | March 12, 2008 at 09:48 AM
"We go from "America is not ready to vote a black man into office" to "America is only voting for him because he's black, therefore he should not win" in one election?"
I disagree. As outlandish as Ferraro's statement was, there is a small shred of truth to it. First off, the reason Obama is in this position is because he's articulate ("he speaks so well, he's so well spoken"), vibrant, dynamic, and above all else, likable -- he's an impressive person, even if you disagree with most of his policies. If he were a white man or a woman of any color, it's most likely he'd still be the frontrunner. However, let's not pretend that his being black doesn't add some incentive for some voters. Not only does he take more of a percentage of the black vote, he also inspires a higher black voter turnout than Hillary ever could. In addition, you have the "white guilt" community. Whether they want to admit it or not, there's a large number of white Democrats and Independents that see this as an opportunity. An opportunity to bury the issue of racism -- "See, there's no more racism. We elected a black President. There should be no more complaining." Of course I'm aware that many voters are not voting for Obama because he's black. However, when you limit that to the Democratic party, I think you have advantage Obama. Which also brings up an interesting point: isn't the Democratic party the one that prides itself on diversity and equality? Vandelay, does this qualify as irony? Or is more Kornheiserony?
Posted by: Jack Klompus | March 12, 2008 at 10:08 AM
You had me then you lost me.
Of course I'm aware that many voters are not voting for Obama because he's black. However, when you limit that to the Democratic party, I think you have advantage Obama. Which also brings up an interesting point: isn't the Democratic party the one that prides itself on diversity and equality?
Pops and buzzes.
Posted by: Art Vandelay | March 12, 2008 at 10:21 AM
"Pops and buzzes."
Son, there aint no draft. There was one?
Posted by: Jack Klompus | March 12, 2008 at 10:53 AM
I totally understand Ferraro's comments.
They come from a place called stupidity and ignorance IMO.
Even if you believe something like that you should never say it to the press cause they will just take your quote out of context.
And now she's trying to explain herself? It's a rookie mistake.
Goes the same for that woman who called Hillary a monster. Never say something stupid to the press even if you think it's off the record.
Posted by: Dr. Strangejazz | March 12, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Ferraro is now saying that she is being vilified because she is white. No Geraldine: You are being vilified because you are a dumbass.
Posted by: jackie | March 12, 2008 at 11:50 AM
"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race'..." -- Geraldine Ferraro, 1988.
Posted by: jackie | March 12, 2008 at 11:59 AM
but I though that it was also possible for neither of them to get the required 2,025 at which point they'd either have to make Florida and Michigan vote again or go to the SuperDels.
I see what mean now. Right, it's unlikely either will get to the 2,025 delegates needed to clinch. I thought the next step would be to count the popular vote and I presume the one with the most delegates would have the best chance of having the most votes. But this is the Democratic Party we're talking about and it is also likely they will fuck this whole thing up royally. Also, one can presume Bill Clinton is working overtime buttering ass so there's probably going to be a stink hanging over all this by the time the convention comes around.
Not only does he take more of a percentage of the black vote, he also inspires a higher black voter turnout than Hillary ever could.
And HRC inspires a higher middle aged female and working class turnout than Obama ever could. So what's your point?
Posted by: Mr. Kruger | March 12, 2008 at 12:00 PM
"And HRC inspires a higher middle aged female and working class turnout than Obama ever could"
Working class? By that do you mean "hispanic?" All the same, she also inpsires more men of any demographic to vote for anyone not named Hillary -- more than Obama ever could.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | March 12, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I thought your argument was to defend Ferraro's logic. I don't see any advantaged Obama has other than he's smarter and has worked his ass off to get the lead in this race.
Posted by: Mr. Kruger | March 12, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Where would GWB be if he were black?
a. incarcerated on a drug charge; or
b. assistant fry guy at McDonalds in Austin, TX.
Where would Geraldine Ferraros son be if he were black?
Some background:
Answer: In Jail for trafficking cocaine and being caught with two kilos on a plane from Central America.
She needs to go away, watch her husband's tax issues, keep her son on a leash and STFU.
Posted by: Ocho Ocho | March 12, 2008 at 01:12 PM
Obama is where he is despite his blackness not because of it.
Posted by: Ocho Ocho | March 12, 2008 at 01:13 PM
The trial was delayed to allow the Vermont Supreme Court to hear a series of motions on the defendant's behalf.
Like the motion of somebody's ass being buttered.
Posted by: Mr. Kruger | March 12, 2008 at 01:26 PM
"I thought your argument was to defend Ferraro's logic."
No, I'm pretty sure I mentioned that Ferraro's comments were outlandish but they contained a "smal shred of truth." I was also upfront in pointing out that Obama was where he is because he's smart, charasmatic, etc. -- not because he's black. In referring to the "small shred of truth," I was saying that on top of all his defining qualities, Obama's race definitely adds another dimension that a white candidate would not have within the confines of the Democratic party. And even further, a dimension that trumps Hillary's gender. Why? Because his dimension reaches across more demographics. Again, his color is not the reason why he's leading. But anybody that says that Obama's skin color plays absolutely no role in their voter thought process is completely full of shit -- especially Dems and Independents.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | March 12, 2008 at 01:35 PM
No, I'm pretty sure I mentioned that Ferraro's comments were outlandish but they contained a "smal shred of truth."
Again, his color is not the reason why he's leading. But anybody that says that Obama's skin color plays absolutely no role in their voter thought process is completely full of shit -- especially Dems and Independents.
So, you're saying because he's half black hasn't made a difference in why he's in the lead but it does make a difference in how people decide to vote for him? That makes no sense.
Posted by: Mr. Kruger | March 12, 2008 at 01:54 PM
"But anybody that says that Obama's skin color plays absolutely no role in their voter thought process is completely full of shit -- especially Dems and Independents."
I do recognize that you said "small shred of truth," but let's just be clear that this is an entirely different statement altogether and (even then) is not necessarily supportable (in the context in which Ferraro was talking). Yes, there are people whose votes for Obama are colored by the fact that he is black, but isn't it just as true that there are people whose votes against him are colored by that same fact?
Ocho, Ocho nailed it with his brilliant post. Ferraro needs to STFU.
Posted by: jackie | March 12, 2008 at 01:55 PM
"So, you're saying because he's half black hasn't made a difference in why he's in the lead"
No. I'm saying that while it's not the factor (to the degree) that Ferraro claims it to be, it's still a factor. But more importantly, it's a factor that has (a) helped him more than hurt him (qualifier: no, it shouldn't hurt him, but I'm just sayin') and (b) a factor that has helped him more than Hillary's gender has helped her.
"Yes, there are people whose votes for Obama are colored by the fact that he is black, but isn't it just as true that there are people whose votes against him are colored by that same fact?"
True, and I believe I mentioned that. I also mentioned "within the confines of the Democratic party", in which case I assume his being black would be more of a positive than a negative -- given that party is the one that trumpets itself as the true advocates of diversity and equality. But the latter of that is more of a question than a thesis. Nonetheless, when comparing Obama's natural demographic appeal to Hillary's within the democratic votership, Obama has an advantage. As a relatively young black male, he has the black vote across all genders and age brackets, an edge in all men across all age brackets, and an edge in the yong vote as a whole. What about Hillary? White women, more so in the 50+ age bracket. That's it. Any other respective edges they may have are not related to gender or skin color.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | March 12, 2008 at 03:10 PM
"True, and I believe I mentioned that."
My bad.
Posted by: jackie | March 12, 2008 at 03:19 PM
it's a factor that has(a) helped him more than hurt him (qualifier: no, it shouldn't hurt him, but I'm just sayin') and (b) a factor that has helped him more than Hillary's gender has helped her.
These assumptions definitely warrant some evidence. Clinton began with a head start with the black vote. He had to prove he was viable before they started voting for him en masse. Also, I think you're underestimating the size of the womens vote and the political weight it carries. Without it she'd have nothing. I think it has helped her more than his genes have helped him.
Posted by: Mr. Kruger | March 12, 2008 at 03:28 PM
As a relatively young black male, he has the black vote across all genders and age brackets, an edge in all men across all age brackets, and an edge in the yong vote as a whole.
It seems he has taken a considerable number of young female votes away from Clinton- judging from what I've on news reports et al. But that's different from the race issue.
Posted by: Mr. Kruger | March 12, 2008 at 03:50 PM
"Clinton began with a head start with the black vote. He had to prove he was viable before they started voting for him en masse."
Right. Qualifications got him there, his color helped seal the deal with the majority of the black vote (and the white guilt vote). I think we agree on that much. But the net/net of that is Hillary loses the black vote and a slice of the women's vote. That's a huge gain for Obama -- not because of, but aided by -- his skin color.
"Without it she'd have nothing."
Really? You don't think being married to Bill (and her subsequent connections) would still give her the majority of white women voters? Perhaps your're right. I don't know.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | March 12, 2008 at 04:06 PM
No one addressed my question as to where well connected white people would be if they were black. No comments? Reminder: Where would GWB be if black? Where would Ferraro's son, a convicted felon, be if black?
Posted by: Ocho Ocho | March 13, 2008 at 01:26 PM
"No one addressed my question as to where well connected white people would be if they were black."
I dunno, hanging out with Russell Simmons?
Posted by: Jack Klompus | March 13, 2008 at 02:18 PM
Remember several months back, before the primaries started, when Clinton was reportedly a stronger candidate than Obama based on polls of African-Americans? Honest: Here's one story. The Clinton campaign trotted out plenty of African-American supporters and endorsements early on. How many black folks are still willing to put themselves on the line for her after all the racial crap she and her campaign have pulled?
Posted by: Schmoopie | March 13, 2008 at 06:42 PM
"How many black folks are still willing to put themselves on the line for her after all the racial crap she and her campaign have pulled?"
True, but I think most were long gone before that. Right about the time it became obvious Obama was not another Jesse Jax or Reverend Al.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | March 13, 2008 at 07:01 PM
True, but I think most were long gone before that. Right about the time it became obvious Obama was not another Jesse Jax or Reverend Al.
I have to disagree. I can't think of any time where any half-way informed black person ever thought that Barack Obama was cut of even remotely the same cloth as Jesse and Al.
Posted by: Jackie | March 13, 2008 at 07:55 PM
I have to disagree. I can't think of any time where any half-way informed black person ever thought that Barack Obama was cut of even remotely the same cloth as Jesse and Al.
I'm sorry, that's not exactly what I meant. I was talking in terms of appeal/viability. Nonetheless, I suppose it's all related to some degree...
Posted by: Jack Klompus | March 13, 2008 at 10:40 PM
People should read this.
Posted by: Abby | October 24, 2008 at 01:46 AM