Ferraro Defends "Obama Lucky To Be Black" Comment

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 18:51


This is sad:

"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?"

At what point, exactly, did Geraldine Ferraro become a Reagan Democrat? When you lose to Republicans that badly, do you get turned into one in some sort of Borg-like fashion?

Mainly, this response depresses me, since it comes from someone who is otherwise known as a trailblazer and for fighting the good fight at a time when it was unpopular to do so. I don't want to think of Geraldine Ferraro this way, but this response is crazy.

I guess that Ferraro thinks, as Marc Ambinder wrote, that "running as a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama is soooo easy." Or perhpas she thinks that the only reason Obama is winning the campaign is because so many African-Americans are voting for him. Even if that is true, doesn't it occur to Ferraro that one of the main reasons African-Americans are voting overwhelmingly for Obama is because of statements like this from Clinton surrogates? Here is some love from Ferraro from Jack and Jill politics:

So, being Black is now a CONCEPT.

A CONCEPT, People.

Well, she can CONCEPT this.

Kiss.My.Lucky.Black.Ass.

This is pretty depressing, but it makes me feel even stronger about my Reagan Dem post from Friday, and the implications it has for the campaign. And Ferraro's inability to win Reagan Democrats despite statements like this is a perfect case in point of my central thesis.

Chris Bowers :: Ferraro Defends "Obama Lucky To Be Black" Comment

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Ferraro Defends "Obama Lucky To Be Black" Comment | 56 comments
Ferraro is saddening (0.00 / 0)
how sad. Now the BO camp should step away from this conversation and let Ferraro continue to make herself look as bigoted as possible. After Maggie Williams rebut and trying to say the BO camp was using this Ferraro thing for political points it will be interesting to see what tact they take now that Ferraro has pushed even further
What I want to know (4.00 / 1)
is how on earth the Clinton campaign isn't erecting a 10 foot tall, sound proof barrier around one of their surrogates.  It was bad enough that she came out and said what she said the first time - how can you NOT go out there and privately yell "STFU!!!!" Unless they genuinely think this is helping the campaign - I suppose that once it happens a second time (or ninth or tenth, if you're counting other surrogates) it becomes a strategy.  Remember, she has the best operatives around, a well oiled machine, running a flawless campaign.  
The Bait (4.00 / 1)
Don't take the bait. They're trying to make this a race issue.
Don't fall into their snakepit.  
[ Parent ]
Yikes (0.00 / 0)
I guess the Clinton strategy of quiet distancing on this one isn't going to happen, eh?

I find it extremely hard to believe that this new outburst came from anyone other than Ferraro.  But it wouldn't hurt to have someone from the Clinton camp come out and explain that they are not aboard the "reverse racism" train.

Because, seriously, yikes.

Yikes indeed (0.00 / 0)
The best thing that the Clinton campaign could do right now would be to spend most of the next week attacking Ferraro. Because whilst the occasional divisive remark might have tactical use, they really do not want to appear like Dixiecrats for the next six weeks.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Or maybe they do.... (0.00 / 0)
...Appalachian PA residents might find "dixiecrat" very attractive... after all, they did in Ohio!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Clinton wins the Appalachians anyway (0.00 / 0)
But if her campaign is perceived as racist, that kills her in Pennsylvania and its suburbs. For that matter, it doesn't help in central PA - Pennsyltucky is hardly an affectionate nickname whih the inhabitants welcome, is it?

Hell, even those with racial biases don't want to be identified as racist. If she were to rein Ferraro in, she'd still win western PA by big margins, because racist voters won't pull the lever by Obama, and she'd avoid poisoning her image in the rest of the state and indeed nationally.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
24 Years Ago (0.00 / 0)
Geraldine Ferraro was the Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee 24 years ago.  I've always wondered why she has not done anything in politics since.  My question has been answered.  The truth is that she was a terrible candidate even then and has gone from bad to worse.  Mondale would have been much better off with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who came close to being Mondale's pick.
We... (0.00 / 0)
We would have been better off without Mondale as the nominee period.  In a long list of incompetent nominees,  he is near the top, along with Dukakis and to a slightly lesser extent Kerry (poor organization and STUPIDLY refusing to combat the swiftboaters)
[ Parent ]
Pat Buchanan is that you? (4.00 / 1)
asdf

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
This is tactical and will continue (4.00 / 5)
The Clinton campaign has accepted that they have lost the African American vote and are now courting everyone who's ever felt insecure when talking about race, as well as the many who feel hurt by affirmative action and think it unfair.

Ferraro repeated her comments on Fox again and though Clinton did not defend her and agree with her personally, I don't think this is an isolated incident. It's part of the kitchen sink and seeing what sticks.

They are also doing Republican another huge favor, by seeing if this line works and if they can overcome people's fears (of being accused of racism) while launching racist or non-racist attacks on Obama.

Clinton has truly earned a spot as McCain's running mate.

Does Clinton need the African-American vote (0.00 / 0)
when she runs for her Senate seat again? I wonder how she will do without it.  
[ Parent ]
or... (0.00 / 0)
....in the GE if she does get the nomination, for cryin' in the soup!

Can't anybody over there play this game?  

[ Parent ]
That too but I don't see how she will (0.00 / 0)
The supers see that she has burned too many bridges to get to this point. Or at least I have to think that they do.  
[ Parent ]
sad is right (4.00 / 1)
I'm disgusted by the Clinton campaign. I used to defend her when my friends attacked her. I actually once sent an email saying even if Obama loses "I will proudly vote for Hillary Clinton" in the general election. I can't say that anymore.

Who would have thought that Democrats would resort to race-baiting? Discounting Obama's rise to the president of the Harvard Law Review, giving up a lucrative legal career for community work in Chicago, working as a state senator, and winning the U.S. Senate seat -- all made possible, Ferraro says, because he's BLACK?

And the Clintons defend this? I'm not even black, and I'm pissed off.

My in-laws from Arkansas despise the Clintons, but I've always defended Bill and Hillary. Now I know why they despise her, and I can't say I disagree.

It's sad. I'm going to make a contribution to the Obama campaign, and figure out if I can get to Pennsylvania to help register voters, or at least make some phone calls for him. I have come to really hate the Clintons. Never thought I'd say that.  

The hypocrisy... (0.00 / 0)
The hypocrisy is how quickly the Clinton campaign called for Powers ouster for the monster comment, but Ferraro's FAR WORSE comment is ok.  I thinK Obama should bring back Powers now, or demand Ferraro and Wolfson be fired (for his Ken Starr comment).
[ Parent ]
I apologize for Ferraro (4.00 / 2)
Hey, anyone out there who's offended by Ferraro's comments... I apologize.

We Democrats don't stand for that crap. We "reject and denounce it!"  

[ Parent ]
Geraldine ferraro and her family (0.00 / 0)
Have ALWAYS been RetHUGlican -lite and bold face CRIMINALS.....Being from NY, I know them all well, they are from the CRIMINAL do anything to win part of the NY Dem party. She has ALWAYS been an abomination, she is best friends with John Gibson and his wife...UH...Nuff'said
What you're seeing, I think, is the racism (4.00 / 1)
present in the second wave feminist movement boiling over. It made it very hard for African-American feminists to be part of the movement from what I've read.  
It feels like... (4.00 / 1)
It feels like some of the older feminists are PISSED that a multi-racial man... a representative of the melting pot that is America... is "stealing" the best immediate chance to have a woman President.  Many are too selfish to see that having a multi-racial President is just as an important historic moment as a woman President.
[ Parent ]
just speeches? (4.00 / 1)
In addition to her "regretting" Ferraro's comments today, the Washington Post also reports the following on Clinton:

Asked what foreign policy crisis had tested her and showed she possesses the skills to be commander in chief, she cited her advocacy for the peace process in Northern Ireland and her speech at the 1995 U.S. Conference on Women in Beijing defending human rights.

"To this day, I will have people stop me or come to see me who talk about that speech and what it meant to them and how it set sort of a framework for American foreign policy," she said.

Of course speeches and vision don't count for anything right?

I wonder if Chris or anybody else (0.00 / 0)
here has listened to what Ferraro has to say about it.  Here's the video on TPM of her discussion-- (sorry, no clue how to make this a link, so if anybody can do it, pleaes do!)

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/n...

I think we all ought to have learned by now not to take a reporter's characterization of what somebody said, or a brief sound bite, for the gospel truth or the complete story.  What Ferraro has to say is considerably more nuanced, and includes the flat-out statement that she herself would never have been nominated, or come close, for VP if she wasn't a woman.

She also asserts vehemently that she is in no way a "surrogate" for Clinton, that the interview had to do with something totally unrelated to Clinton, and that she has zero role in her campaign except to raise money, which she will continue to do whether she's officially a member of whatever finance committee, which is no more than an honorary title, she's on or not.

We all need to slow the hell down.

Given the current environment, she was more than foolish to let the thought pass her lips, however true it might be.  But we all need to stop and think how much sense it actually makes to keep yelling "racism" at one good Democrat after another.

Even if the comment isn't racist, (0.00 / 0)
why is Geraldine Ferraro playing white women vs. blacks identity politics on behalf of the Clinton campaign with, apparently (given Wolfson's laughable "disagree" statement), that campaign's tacit support?
[ Parent ]
MAybe (4.00 / 1)
But there is no conceivable world where it's acceptable for any kind of prominent Democrat to say this "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

Feeding the myth of "reverse racism" does more to pollute progressive racial politics than virtually anything else.

[ Parent ]
"However true it might be"???? (4.00 / 2)
That's the problem.  People see "truth" in it.  It's NOT true.  If Barack was a white guy with a traditional christian name (all other things remaining the same) he would be called the next JFK.  He would have won the nomination handily already.

And if she was more then foolish to let the thought pass her lips once, why did she pile on to it and affirm her thoughts again later (on FOX news of all places)?

[ Parent ]
Anyone defending Ferraro (0.00 / 0)
Should explain why Ferraro is using the same language again and again. Why did she go on Fox and have the following interview with John Gibson:

   

FERRARO: If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this as a potential real problem for Hillary?

   If he were a woman...

   GIBSON: You mean if he were John Edwards?

   FERRARO: If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he's in, absolutely not.

   GIBSON: Geraldine, are you playing the race card?

   FERRARO: No, and that's the problem. Every time you say the truth - I'm the first person, John, and you know how honest I am, I am the first person who will say in 1984 if my name were Gerard instead of Geraldine, I would never have been picked as the vice presidential candidate.

Then look at what she said earlier this week:

   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.

Now look at what she said earlier today:

   "If in 1984 my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for VP."

See http://www.americablog.com/200...

This is obviously a thought-out racist strategy on Ferraro's part, and seems to be approved by the Clinton campaign with a link and a nod.

And a real Democrat would stay off Fox, especially for this type of thing.

[ Parent ]
Yet, somehow, its Obama (0.00 / 0)
that gets tagged as "inexperienced" - when there is a long line of more "mature" politicos on the Clinton team that keep saying things they shouldn't have said.

Ironic, ain't it?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
it's not sad, it's just unacceptable. (0.00 / 0)
Ferraro's argument is borderline racist, but more importantly it has zero to do with anything substantive.  

Democrats should condemn it instead of winking at it a la Howard Wolfson and the Clinton campaign.

Not complicated.  

Not racist (4.00 / 2)
Why is everyone going crazy over this? Talking about race is not racism. Honestly, would people have been clamoring for Obama to run for president before he was even elected to the senate if he was (100%) white? Would he have been selected to give the keynote address by John Kerry if he was white? Just look at the history of keynote speakers. His race makes him a special politician, one who is a source of hope for many African-Americans, which make up a huge part of the Democratic party. I don't know how much it actually helps him with voters, but as far as running for president in the first place, being black has helped him rise quickly.

I'm not saying that he lacks talent or is undeserving of his position. I'm actually an Obama supporter who really dislikes Hillary Clinton. Now, I don't agree with a lot of the other race-related comments from the Clinton camp. But, if you analyze this comment by itself, I don't see how you can look at the facts and say that his race hasn't helped him.

Other young phenoms in American political history (0.00 / 0)
John Kennedy was a white male. Bill Clinton was a white male. Neither had a lot more experience than Obama (though both had slightly more). Both were about Obama's age.    
[ Parent ]
Yes, (0.00 / 0)
I would have wanted him to run for President if he was white.  
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the honesty (0.00 / 0)
A rare and refreshing comment.
[ Parent ]
But incorrect for many of us... (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
The sad thing.. (0.00 / 0)
The ONLY reason Ferraro was VP was BECAUSE she was a woman.  There were FAR better choices but Mondale wanted a woman or Black man.  He'd have been better off with Jesse Jackson or Gary Hart... or there MUST have been some other woman.  
She said that herself (0.00 / 0)
In fact, that's Ferraro's point.
[ Parent ]
Sad to say, but... (4.00 / 2)
Ferraro is right. Can you say with all intellectual honesty that if Obama were white, he would be winning significant black votes against Clinton? I applaud Ferraro for having the courage to say it and to stand by her words.

Many black people (myself excluded) and a number of white people are voting for Obama not because of his accomplishments or leadership; rather, it's because of his race and a soaring, feel-good speech he made at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

However, I realize that as with some "sensitive" topics (i.e., illegal immigration), my fellow progressives routinely err on the side of being PC, instead of being honest.

Ok, so answer this for me (4.00 / 1)
Why were most blacks supporting Clinton, NOT Obama, until sometime just before the SC primary, if they were so taken with his '04 convention address (which, if nothing else, means that he now has TWO major speeches to run on, not one as Clinton mischaracterizes it as) and message of "hope", "unity" and "Kumbaya"? And why, pray tell, till they suddenly abandon her and switch to him--because they suddenly realized--OMG!--the man was BLACK!?! Or, perhaps, because that was precisely when all the dogwhistling began?

Nah, couldn't be. How silly of me to even think it.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Actually... (0.00 / 0)
The exodus started after Iowa, when Obama proved he could win.  IT reached a creshendo in SC though.
[ Parent ]
I don't discount this as a major factor (0.00 / 0)
But I can't imagine that it was the only reason. Most likely--and I admit that I have no numbers to back this up, but if anyone does, I'd love to see them, even if they contradict this--it was a combination of his proving that he could win AND all those dogwhistle smears that turned it for him among black Dems (along with, of course, his ground game, the media's favoring of him, and I suppose his speeches, style, message, and all the rest).

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
It was early (0.00 / 0)
They supported Clinton early for the same reason that Giuliani was leading the GOP polls, because people weren't playing close attention. I don't think anyone who really follows politics was surprised that black voters ended up supporting Obama. BTW, that was the first contest with a large black population, so I don't know if you could ever really say that they supported Clinton. Certainly not in terms of votes.
[ Parent ]
Then what about Clinton? (4.00 / 3)
Hillary a dude = Hillary not married to Bill = Hillary not a former first lady = Hillary just another senator = Hillary gets as much traction as Dodd and Biden got and we're currently enjoying the Obama-Edwards cage match.
[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
But it's not being PC - it's a blind spot. They honestly can't admit that were Obama white, what would they think of his policies and views? I've asked this question point blank,a nd gotten some pretty angry responses. It's the third rail of some who support him. "La la la la, race, no race issues, la, la, la- how dare you bring up race." by the  way, I would add to the AA vote that of some of his white suporters. This is not all of them, but there are way too many who can't explain to me why they are voting for him. I had one honest friend who said that "Obama is the same as any politician, but he's a black guy, and I want to see that barrier broken." that to me at least is honest.  
[ Parent ]
The masks are coming off (4.00 / 2)
  What this primary battle has done is rip the masks off the Republicans who have infiltrated the Democratic Party over the years, disguised as "DLC" Democrats. As Hillary Clinton becomes more and more of a longshot to (cleanly) earn the nomination, her acolytes are reverting to their Republican roots -- fearmongering, and now race-baiting -- in a last-ditch attempt to get her the nomination, even if it permanently alienates major sectors of reliable Democratic voters -- African-Americans and progressives.

 DLCers truly prefer to see Republicans win, if one of their own coterie can't. Because there's NO WAY Hillary Clinton wins a general election matchup now given the bridges she's burned with the African-American community. She doesn't care, because this is more about keeping "outsiders" like Barack Obama away from the White House than about anything else. She'd be perfectly comfortable with her good friend John McCain winning the presidency.

  The Republicans who have infested the Democratic Party for years no longer have the luxury to hide, so they're all coming out now for Hillary, for racism, and for war. The best thing about this is that it'll make the fumigation of the DLCers from the party that much easier after Hillary gets destroyed in November.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

Given what we've seen in this campaign (0.00 / 0)
Clinton MAY have a point that certain voters are more likely to vote for her than for Obama in the general election. Specifically, lower-education white working class voters who care about race and religion, and are susceptible to dogwhistle ad campaigns based on race and religion, as well as class and other matters that really should have no place in electoral politics.

Several problems with this, though:

1 - Many of these voters live in states where it doesn't really matter whom they'd vote for because McCain is probably going to win in those states--most obviously Texas.

2 - Many of these voters would likely still vote for McCain over Clinton in the general even if they voted for her against Obama, because he's a man, better on "family values" and national security (to these people), and more appealing to them because he's a "maverick".

3 - The Democratic nominee is going to win a lot of the states that Clinton won whether it's Clinton or Obama, so her alleged advantage among many types of voters is meaningless.

Now, granted, we're likely going to lose a lot of the smaller states that Obama won, regardless of who's the nominee. But that's always been factored into the general election scenario. And if the nominee is Obama, we're likely to lose a number of voters due to his race. But probably among the same general group of voters who would likely have voted for McCain over Clinton if she was the nominee, for reason #2 above. So I just don't buy her various rather specious arguments that she'd be a stronger GE nominee.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

Without affirmative action at Stanford and UNC (0.00 / 0)
Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan would be nothing.  Obama is a phenom - that is why the more people meet him and experience him the more they are inspired.  And then of course he has got that judgment thing going.

But I have to agree with Geraldine - it is incredible how badly aspiring white women are treated now under Title 9, with more than 50 percent of the seats in most colleges, and with a rapidly growing presence in the senior ranks of business, government, law ... I mean it's not like the President of Haravard wasn't dumped for suggesting genetic/social factors were at play to explain the dearth of women in math and science graduate programs.

Maybe Hillary has always had a thing about African Americans ever since she used her Wellesley graduation speech to trash Senator Edward Brook - one of only three African Americans elected to the Senate post reconstruction (the others being Illinois' Moseley-Braun and Obama).  Trashing African Americans has worked for her, and other alleged feminists.

My God (0.00 / 0)
what a vile, utterly despicable post.

[ Parent ]
We need to get some famous pollster to coin a new term for black voters (4.00 / 3)
You know, something cool like 'NASCAR Dads' or 'Soccer Moms.'  Then maybe winning such a large demographic group by huge margins(which, of course, almost all national democrats absolutely need to do) would be seen as a sign of strength rather then some sort of problem
Clinton Defense (0.00 / 0)
I can't believe She is DEFENDING FERRARO... Actually defending her.  Unbelievable.  

I love my party, but I'm reaching a point where I will NOT vote for Hillary.  I can only swallow my moral values for so long before I can't take it anymore... in other words, a Dem win is starting to not be worth the selling out of those values.  When Hillary condones a racist, especially after she went after Powers, and shows she is a power mad hypocrite, I won't vote for her.  If Ferraro isn't gone by weeks end, Hillary has lost my vote.  I'll write in Obama or Gore before I vote for her.  It becomes a values issue, and the Clintons clearly lack those values.

A Ferraro Flashback (0.00 / 0)
"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race"  Geraldine Ferraro, April 15, 1988 Washington Post

Here's the full context:

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."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

Below the Fold: Out-niggering and Our First "Black President" (4.00 / 1)

Below the Fold: Out-niggering and Our First "Black President"

by Michael Blim

George Wallace reflecting on his first and unsuccessful run for governor of Alabama in 1958 defeat, made a remarkable vow. "Well, boys," he said, "no other son of a bitch will ever out-nigger me again." Needless to say, no one did, as you might recall.

Perhaps until now. Bill Clinton, self-proclaimed and rather foolishly acclaimed by some who shall go nameless as the first "Black" president has played the race card with a finesse that even Wallace might have admired. He has niggered Barack Obama. After he and Mrs. Clinton began to see that African-Americans were turning to Obama - doubtless armed to with polling data (I am guessing here) that might have indicated an African-American swing toward Obama in other states, this most ruthless and cunning couple, the Macbeths of our time, played the race card...

http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/...

All those states that Clinton likes to ignore (0.00 / 0)
Every time her campaign gets caught making this argument, I wish the media would ask the obvious question instead of taking the bait on the substance of the comment and instead question the premise:

What about big wins in Iowa, Maine, Idaho, Wyoming, Washington, North Dakota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Kansas, Alaska, Minnesota, and Vermont makes you think that Obama won this on anything but merit?  Without any of that caucus/small state/red state/we lost spin, I want to see the Clinton folks answer that in the context of Ferraro's comments.

can you handle the truth? (0.00 / 0)
If you will take a look on Page 4 of Exit poll for MS,
you will see the huge progress Hillary achieved on electability argument:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20... es/results/epolls/index.html#MSDEM
White Democrats (only 25% of voters): 70% for Hillary;
White Independents (12%): 55% for Hillary;
All Republicans (13%): 76% for Hillary;
Only category Obama won is Black Democrats (44% of voters in Democratic Primary) - he won 91% of them.

It means that he won by dividing democrats by Racial line.
If it continues for the rest of the states, this will not go well for Obama in USA as whole (12% of AA)
and in states neighboring to OH: PA (11% of AA), IN (9%), KY (8%), WV (3.5% of AA)  

Impeccably dishonest (0.00 / 0)
Even Democratic primaries are polarised along racial lines in the Deep South. Hillary is not going to take 70% of white Democrats in any of those states and you know it. Don't insult our intelligence.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Hypothetically (0.00 / 0)
If Hillary Clinton had never met and married Bill Clinton - would she be a sitting Senator from NY?  Would she be in the race for the WH in 2008?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
Geraldine Ferraro (0.00 / 0)
is a Reagan Democrat? (Translation, according to Matt's Reagan Dem post from Friday: she is a RACIST).  If there is one thing I have learned this primary season, it's that left bloggers are every bit as capable of being reckless, irresponsible and full of sh*t as the right. And in the case of many commentors, about as "reality based" as our counterparts on the right.

I am reading every post here now with a very jaundiced eye, much as I read the NY Times.

Good for you (0.00 / 0)
"I am reading every post here now with a very jaundiced eye, much as I read the NY Times."

That shows maturity and self-assurance.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Ferraro Defends "Obama Lucky To Be Black" Comment | 56 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox