Armando on Keith Olbermann:
I have always accepted that Keith Olbermann’s Countdown show was a biased broadcast. And that he favored the progressive and Democratic point of view on things in his choice of stories, tone and reporting. He was the Dems’ Faux Noise, but sticking to the facts (while admittedly ignoring others.) But I never expected him to become Barack Obama’s Bill O’Reilly/Rush Limbaugh. But he has.
In some respects, his “Special Comment” tonight comes too late for Obama, as Olbermann is already thoroughly discredited as an observer of this campaign. Might as well have Chris Matthews do it. That is where Olbermann’s credibility is in this race. Will I watch it? Honestly, no. I do not enjoy his broadcasts anymore. But more than that, I never really cared for his bombastic Special Comments after the novelty of the first few wore off. But some will enjoy it. And more power to them.
I love the next part.
NOTE – Comments closed. A particularly poor performance by the TL commenting community in this thread. Thanks for nothing.
Olbermann’s Special Comment will be aired in a few minutes. Tell me what you think about it.
Armando is a crybaby.
Man bites dog? Water is wet?
This is a bit like Richard Cohen’s (and Joe Klein’s, and a whole generation of freaked Democrats’) case of 1972 Derangement Syndrome that BooMan pointed out the other day.
“awash in filth”
that’s pretty harsh.
Yes, it was, but this was as bad a racist attack as we’ve seen in a long time in presidential politics. Should it have been anything other than harsh?
I think you are exaggerating. I didn’t think Ferraro’s comments were as racist as they were stupid.
They were both. And she’s not a beginner at it.
Perhaps exaggerating, but I think her past statements reveal at least someone of more than a little questionable views on race. I also think the essential argument she was making was that Obama was an affirmative action candidate, which is a very ugly charge in a country where I think it’s reasonable to say there are a number of whites who believe affirmative action has affected them unfairly.
she said this morning she’s being attacked because she’s white.
seems to see everything as black or white.
Well, there’s quite a number of us people who do believe it’s David Duke territory.
David Duke? How so?
Two things :
Ferraro ought to be the last one calling herself “white” as if she were a frigging Daughter of the Revolution.
It’s not a coincidence that in the 1970s Italians were literally the “new black”, the white people with black souls who could … gasp! … look awesome raptured by the “saturday night fever”.
I always have to remind these “whites” that as linguistic minorities they had no equal rights AT ALL even after the Voting Rights Act. The Puerto Rican amendment, which BTW was drafted by a committee that included my stepfather, gave linguistic minorities the equal rights status they didn’t have just because they didn’t speak English.
YES PUERTO RICANS GAVE TOOLS LIKE FERRRARO A SHOT AT BECOMING WHITE.
So I don’t see Olbermann’s comment disconnected from history. The sad truth is that a lot of “white” people forget where they come from. A lot of Irish, Italians, Polish, Spaniards, Greeks –including European Jews of all nationalities– took the “white” pass and never looked back. They’ve chosen to forget they were the white niggers of many a rich WASP, instead of using those family histories to forge a different kind of culture.
Instead they bought into the hype that to be “normal” and to be “mainstream” you had to be “white”. And it’s that self-hatred that give you people like Ferraro.
okay, but what did Ferraro actually say that could be construed as comparable to David Duke?
In my opinion, her actions after the initial interview were more offensive than her original remarks.
The worst of original remarks were this:
I didn’t think this comment was racist and I still don’t see it as racist. It’s just (mostly) wrong. But it has just enough truth in it that it a lot of people agree with it.
If Obama were white he would probably not have had quite the same meteoric rise. Yet, to dismiss his brains, his competence, his skills, his campaign…as all attributable to nothing more than race? It’s offensive, and it’s wrong, and it’s petulant. But it isn’t really racist.
What Ferraro misses is that Obama’s race (not to mention his name) hurts him as much as it has helped him.
I thought her initial comment was stupid and offensive. I found her later responses to be even more stupid and offensive. And, the only racism I see in this is the Clinton’s tolerance of it. It’s clear they want a racially polarized electorate…especially with PA, WV, and KY coming up.
Are you serious?
Tell that to the 50% of black men you are in prison.
Or tell that to the black men who can’t look forward to living beyond 65, when white people’s average death rate is 80.
Seriously, Martin. Look at how ridiculous that comment is.
Geraldine Ferraro was ANGRY when she said those words in the Gibson show. And it is even worse because they came within the context of John Lewis’ bolting the campaign. Ferraro is using the exact racist logic wrapped in sexism that Gloria Steinem used. The outrage, the HOW DARE A BLACK MAN BE PRESIDENT BEFORE A WHITE WOMAN kind of outrage. To her he is the product of some fucked up EEOC mafia and that’s why he’s undeserving of even be in race against Hillary.
Listen to the whole thing here :
http://culturekitchen.com/node/12127
It made my jaw drop. Especially because Charles Gibson is a racist prick who thinks all POC are indeed EEOC puppets.
And, BTW, I am not passing judgement on you or anybody who doesn’t understand why this is so offensively racist.
My husband, who is Irish American, was shocked after I pointed out to him that he grew up in a town in NJ that was basically segregated. The concept just blew his mind because “that only happens in the SOuth”, yet, he just couldn’t name one black or latino family that he had grown up with in Springfield because “they just all lived in Union”. Well, fuck yeah, if no realtor would rent or sell to them, of course that’s going to happen. It’s not a choice, it’s a necessity.
There does not need to be intention in the action for it to be the product of racist prejudice (although I do believe Ferraro’s intention was indeed racist).
We,our generation, is perhaps the last one to live and breath the smoke and ashes of post-CRM racism.
My kids, my little millenials, are living in a parallel universe even though they are right here next to me. The millenials’ “America” is not the same as ours, and that’s why 60-70% of them are voting in droves for Obama.
This is,more than anything else,an election that’s going to be decided not by latinos, not by black people,but by the multiracial and diverse voters of the Milennials’ USA.
Fuck, you made me write a blog post 😛
I missed a point. When i say this :
I didn’t finish the story.
His parents are very liberal. Life-long democrats. I actually asked them if they ever did anything to remedy the fact that they lived in an unofficially segregated town in NJ. Their answer? Well,that’s just the ways things were back then.
Now, mind you, I love them to pieces and I know they are good people. But you have to understand that it’s the somewhat cluelessness of many white liberals like them that has allowed for all forms of institutionalized racism to happen. Because since “that’s just the way things are” is displaced from personal responsibility and gets projected to “the system” or to “the market” or to “the government”.
It doesn’t matter if your family owned slaves. “Whites” have enjoyed immense privileges in this country. How you use that privilege is what matters.
So I would never call my inlaws racist, because they truly are not. But they’re lack of consciousness of how racism truly functions kept them blind to how thinking “that’s just the way things are” kept blacks and other minorities as non-existent citizens in their own town.
Do you get that distinction?
let’s not conflate things.
Obama is not everyblackman. He isn’t a statistic. He has a very unique background and it isn’t really equivalent to the background of the average black man in our society. He’s had to overcome many obstacles to get where he is, some of them (like being raised by an often single mother and grandparents) are depressingly common. But he also is a graduate of Columbia and Harvard, which is not common.
Let’s look at the narrow sense in which what Ferraro said is true.
It is unlikely that a white man that was only elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004 would be able to capture the imagination of a nation and all those early money fundraisers, even if he had all Obama’s skills and charisma and brains. In that narrow sense, Ferraro has a point. But there a bunch of problems with what she said and how she said it.
First of all, ‘so what?’
This is a contest between two individuals of uncommon talent. Does it count against Obama that he may owe his opportunity in part to his race? After all, just because he may not have had the opportunity if he looked as white as his mother doesn’t mean he would have been any less qualified.
Second, why is Ferraro bringing this up in the first place? What is she trying to accomplish? That’s where your analysis is mainly focused.
It’s petulant and dismissive. And it does play into a lot white resentment, which I very much doubt is accidental. It seems like she is saying that he’s a quota pick.
It’s disrespectful to Obama because it completely ignores all of things he has done (besides being black) to win this nomination, as if it all counts for nothing.
And, yes, it suggests it’s easier to be a black man in this country than a white woman. And that is just plain stupid, as your prison statistics demonstrate.
I don’t disagree that Ferraro’s whole attitude has an unpleasant racial overtone, but her observation that Obama wouldn’t be in this position if he were white is probably true. And I see her original comments as more indicative of dismay that Clinton can be losing her chance to this rookie than to any serious racial animus.
Even her comments about Jesse Jackson twenty years ago were a kind of conventional wisdom truism. Everyone knew Jackson wasn’t going to become president, but he did manage to roll up a bunch of primaries. It was an impolitic and obnoxious comment then, and she’s still at it. But to call it “as bad a racist attack as we’ve seen in a long time in presidential politics” as Drew did, or compare it to David Duke? I’m not seeing it.
I think the most offensive part of her comments isn’t what she says about Obama, it’s what she implies about his supporters.
She’s saying they’re only voting for him because he’s black too.
That’s the racist part, BooMan.
Like I said – it’s not that there isn’t ANY truth to that – people vote for those they identify with. But being black alone doesn’t cut it, which is why Jesse Jackson never made the traction Obama is making.
Ferraro’s comment makes no acknowledgement of that, nor of any of the nearly all-white states Obama has won.
That’s the offensive part.
Did you listen to the Charlie Gibson interview I have?
Yet, you know, David Duke was the guy that mainstreamed the idea of “anti-white racism”. And if you look at Olbermann, that’s what he’s highlighting :
That is some serious David Duke territory :
http://www.davidduke.com/general/what-is-racism_32.html
She went there and opened herself to comparison because, unfortunately, David Duke PhD did help mainstream the rhetoric of white supremacists. Pat Buchanan as well,btw. That’s why nowadays he is a consultant working at CNN who mainly discusses, but of course, immigration.
I have got to go to sleep, but I posted this :
On Olbermann, Geraldine Ferraro, David Duke territory and the votes of Millennials
http://culturekitchen.com/liza/blog/on_olbermann_geraldine_ferraro_david_duke_territor
Am actually writing more on the millenials phenomena and will be posting (and publishing) about it soon.
Even if an observation is true, making a regular talking point of it can, in fact, be a racist act. “Black men disproportionately land in prison” is a true statement, but it contains implications that very well may be racist. (It also contains a different set of implications that are the opposite of racist, but hopefully you get my gist.) My open question about Ferraro is, why was/is she so attached to this specific observation? The only explanations I can summon are that either she really does have a bad case of racial resentment, or else she’s just that cynical. I’m not sure which of the two is less charitable to her, honestly.
See, my biggest problem is that she said the same thing twice. It’s like there’s a tic that whenever a black man running for President has success, the success is tied to him being black.
It could be an unconscious tic, but it’s something more than a stupid comment the second time around.
Booman, Geraldine didn’t tie a black man to her pickup truck and drag him around town. At least, not literally, so, okay, depending on your scale of indecency, maybe Ferraro isn’t in grand dragon territory.
But this kind of racism, the racism of the ruling class, the racist attack on a black man for deigning to not wait his turn, does tremendous damage throughout society. I’m sure that the intent of her public eruption was to hurt Obama so that Clinton could slice another five or ten percent of the white vote and thus win the nomination.
Taken from another point of view, Obama as President could offer a lot of healing of the racist wounds. Racism operates in the hearts of American whites based on fear. I think that someone like Obama could bring a sense of calm among nervous whites. That is precisely the target audience that Clinton has triangulated.
Too bad most of the blogosphere doesn’t understand the situation as you do. Olbermann making a special comment about this is really pissing feminists off though because feminists are shit full of MSNBC and anything they have to say about women’s studies stuff.
The comment was both dumb AND racist. But it’s that kind of unconscious racism many people have. I’ve had otherwise kind and liberal people make statements that were racist and not even notice they had made them. I hope I have never offended in such a way, but it’s possible I have, not meaning to.
I don’t think Ferraro is a racist. But she is absolutely making a racist statement. She’s saying no way would Obama get to where he was if he wasn’t black, and she’s also saying, in the highest insult, that’s why blacks are voting for him.
I know identity in politics is key. Who would you have a beer with, etc. But it’s not the color of the skin alone. And her comment is saying that’s the most important element, which I think is VERY far from the truth. I think it’s much more true to say he’s gotten as far as he is because he’s a good speaker. It’s not all is, or all he has to offer, but it’s at least closer to the truth!
And Clinton, as Keith pointed out, had a golden gift in her hands. She could have reclaimed something here. She could have stood up and been the loudest voice of protest of all. But she WANTS people to hear those words. If she didn’t want it, it wouldn’t get out there, period. Obama has cut people off quickly when they’ve made offensive comments. Clinton has been much slower.
I have MORE respect for Keith now than before because it’s a risky thing attacking a member of the party you support. He’s made a career out of taking the side of the left, and now he appears to be attacking his own constituency. Of course, many of us here know that is NOT his constituency. But what he said took real guts. And what a great closing line – “You must reject and denounce Geraldine Ferraro.” Absolutely RIGHT.
Let’s look at it from a slightly different prism to shed a different light on the matter. What if Ms. Ferraro had said the following:
The obvious question would be why she cares about his height. Why is she mentioning his height? Is she trying to curry favor with short people? Is she expressing her own feelings of inadequacy? Why is she bringing up his height as if it matters?
The answer is that it is a negative thing that matters to her, or at least she believes it matters to the voters that she wants to support her preferred (non-tall) candidate, and that would make her comments, in the here and now, racist.
Well thankfully I have little exposure to DD’s words, can’t answer directly, but look at the one-two punch here:
I wouldn’t call this dog-whistle level bc it seems just like up-front racism.
The thing I find baffling about her argument is the fact that Obama has broad white support. It’s not like white people are forced to cast a certain percentage of their votes for minority candidates. People are voting for Barack Obama for the usual reasons people vote for candidates: either they like him, or they really dislike his opponent.
And when she says that “they” are attacking her, exactly who the fuck is she talking about?
The press is ruled by morons, so it’s no surprise that they’d let the likes of neo-Nazi Pat Buchanan sit on teevee and talk about Obama’s black support without mentioning his white support. He never could won Idaho without those darkies, you know.
She means black people — you know, like David Axelrod and David Plouffe.
That’s what was hilarious to me. She’s been in a back-and-forth with Axelrod and Plouffe, who are each all of about half a shade darker than Powder, for Christ’s sake.
eodell, when “they” popped up in her rant I was reminded of past “theys”. Maybe it would be too critical to presume that every time Ferraro uses a pronoun she is injecting racist generalities into the discussion. But it seems that way.
..like a size 10 blue gap dress..
Perhaps, Hill and the her crew of Gutter Dems are doing us a favor: their eventual defeat could stuff this genie back in the bottle for future primary campaigns..
Keith O just put his foot so far up Hillary’s posterior that she’ll be tasting athlete’s foot for weeks. That was harsh, and accurate.
Reminds me of the relief I felt when Armando quit being the the self-appointed Comment Arbiter over at Daily Kos. The atmosphere lifted perceptively.
The Olbermann comment was excellent. He gave voice to the feelings of thousands. One of his best ever comments.
Ooooh! Are we watching Dan Abrams show?
After watching him interrupt the black woman commentator over and over during her turn to talk and thinking to myself “Shut Up, Pat Buchanan!”… He yelled at HER to “Shut up!” for interrupting when he was talking. Whoa!
Then Rachel Maddow called him out on it.
Someone at NBC needs to slap him good for this.
I’ll be honest: Despite thinking MSNBC to be easily the best of the big three cable news channels, I think the cast of characters renders it a little dysfunctional at times. Partly that’s because half of them seem to have multiple personality disorder. I’m always left to wonder if Tweety has taken his meds before Hardball starts. Will wacky hack Tweety show up, or will the rarer right-on Tweety show up? Similar stories with Pat, Joe and Tucker.
Powerful. Olbermann is a more forgiving (and better) man than I. That Ferraro is given even an inch by the press is disgusting to me. That we’re to be taking arguments for an apology from the lowest form of privileged, racist scum is so astounding that I can’t even find words for it.
But I’m just an angry white guy, so the entire purpose of my existence is, of course, to keep white women down.
Perhaps we’re supposed to thank Ferraro for at least removing her Klan robes before making these comments.
The fact that her fellow scumbag, Maggie Williams, tried to throw it back at Obama, with hardly a whisper from anyone, is stunning.
Put it in perspective: If Barack Obama had said that Hillary Clinton’s success was wholly due to her being a white woman with a famous husband, he would be finished. She was complicit in this.
It’s time for Hillary Clinton to go. Now.
The goes for her husband too.
I check TL every couple of weeks for just laughs. But actually, I don’t laugh. I can’t take more than a few minutes of reading it. What exactly is it that motivates those guys?
they’re lawyers, so it has to be something in the order or money, power, influence … and a good heaping of chitlin’s at Clinton’s office in Harlem.
Generalized statements about groups of people are usually not accurate and tend to insult people in that group that don’t fit the arbitrary criteria.
“they’re lawyers, so it has to be …. “
No. It doesn’t have to be money, power or influence because not all lawyers are influenced by money, power or influence.
As for his admirers.
wha happen? I was at the barn – too much snow for roof load – lots of structures collapsing around here.
where is the text?
Text of Olbermann’s comment here.
Thanks. I’ve been looking for video clips.
Video here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23601329#23601329
Merci. Gracias. Danke!
thanks. Had to be said…but HRC will dismiss this as just another Obama’s latte-sipping, Prius driving supporter.
Other Party Elders – Gore, Edwards, Carter, Cuomo – must speak up.
They’re standing by watching the Clintons set fire to the barn.
Anyone seen this piece on the NOW web page saying Hillary has been “psychologically gang raped?”NOW
Old news. It spiked for a few hours in January at Kos fine dining establishment.
I obviously missed it. Despicable.
Pappas has lost her damned mind. That’s an ugly and insulting piece. I can not believe that every one part of NY-NOW is on board with this.
That’s not NOW National, it’s NOW New York State. Local affiliates of national organizations have their own governing boards and staffs, and often take positions very different from the national organization.
The bizarre right-wing spout Tammy Bruce was the head of the L.A. chapter of NOW back during the OJ trial and was responsible for a stream of particularly despicable agit-prop. That was my clue that NOW has been infiltrated and used for divisive purposes by the oligarchy. Bruce’s move from NOW to a right-wing talk gig is an interesting career path.
You forgot to add Whole Foods shopper.
Clinton supports sound like Shaun Hannity when they say things like that.
I don’t have cable … alas I cannot watch.
I have to be truthful and say that I’ve never liked Olbermann particularly when I’ve seen him and many of the Olbermann special comment youtubes that people send me have annoyed me. I’m not much into rants.
His big audience draw right now is ranting about Bush. It gets him ratings. But I’ve always suspected it was like crack. He won’t be able to stop once Bush is gone. He’ll crave the ratings and he’ll end up ranting about whoever is in the white house.
Basically I’ve never believed he was ‘on our side’ I think he’s on his own side. As with most members of the MSM.
That being said, I hope he lets Geraldine Ferraro have it tonight. If he’s going to rant it might as well be something I agree with 😉
I do think he has a tendency to someimes reach for the Special Comments when the subject matter simply doesn’t have the “oomph”. This one was pretty good, though.
I think he’s on our side. He isn’t alway correct, but he’s closer than nearly anyone in the mainstream. I’ll take it.
I liked his rant, but it didn’t have the fire and passion of his anti-Bush rants. But I felt it was more than fair, and much deserved.
yes you can, there are several links posted in the diary. 😉
Olbermann was amazing. But he was just a bit too intelligent, too erudite, for the guy at the donut shop in Pennsylvania.
He began with a deferent respect to Clinton. And ended with an emotional plea to Clinton to “take charge” of her campaign. I have felt the same myself.
I wanted SO MUCH to support a woman candidate for president. Hillary, you have so disappointed me!
Sounds more like Armando derangement syndrome to me.
Here’s the video, in case anyone missed it. Their embed code doesn’t work in the preview, so here’s the full URL to it at MSNBC…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23601329#23601329
You’ll have to watch a brief commercial, but it’s worth it.
All right I watched it.
For me, watching him is like watching Ronald Reagan. I never believe he means what he says. He’s too dramatically sincere.
But at least he called Ferraro for what she is.
More like William Shatner. I bet you could dub that rant right on top of Captain Kirk delivering one of his soliloquys and it would fit perfectly.
I just read the Special Comment. Yeah, it was good, blah, blah, blah…didn’t say anything I didn’t post on my own blog earlier to day. Still, I’m mad. At MSNBC. At the media in general. This is their doing.
I know there are bigots. Bigots know that with a 24 hr. new cycle and so many 24 hr. news stations, that their bullshit will get amplified, spun, dissected and misdirected. They know that in a month, these pundits will act as if the whole thing was just a misunderstanding and that attacking that person (especially if they’re white) will become out of bounds. That’s why someone like Ferraro feels she can speak that way. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear,some time in late April, their pundits picking up the ball and running away with it, while chastising anyone (especially if they’re black) who dares insults Ferraro.
This is such a steaming load, ya know…When the people of Pennsylvania vote…we’re going to hear about this again. But the facts will be so twisted, it will be back to CrazyLand on TV. If Obama loses whites by anything more than 30%, those same pundits will ask, “Are white voters tired of the Obama campaign injecting race into these contests? Is this a reaction to Ferraro being drummed off the Clinton campaign.” No one’s going to remember Olbermann’s fucking Special Comment. No one’s going respond with the facts. They’ll pretend that the Obama campaign called for Obama’s head and that Clinton graciously responded.
Bleeech.
Yesterday I saw a roundtable of bobbleheads talk about this on MSNBC and Andrea Mitchel actually defended Ferraro because she’s an old lady and a friend who happens to be battling cancer.
I shook my head. Yes, cancer is bad. But you never saw Elizabeth Edwards use it as an excuse.
Andrea Mitchell is a hack.
n/t
I haven’t seen anything on Elizabeth for too long so just went over to wiki.
Looks like her dad just died. Damn but I miss them in this race.
Elizabeth is a classy woman. I’d support her for president.
The cancer of racism.
And let’s include also certain part of the blogosphere. I’ve been black-balled because I dared to point out quite publicly that being white, liberal and a racist tool are not mutually exclusive in the blogosphere either back in 2006.
yet, and this is what kills me is that I have tried to reach to pro-Clinton bloggers PRIVATELY, asking them to step up to the bat and denounce their candidate’s and their surrogate’s race baiting and they not only wouldn’t do it but accuse me and other black bloggers of being divisive.
It pisses me off that it take a white guy on a cable news show for people like us to be vindicated, but if it is a black woman pointing the obvious, she is just being a divisive and ‘reverse racist’ bitch.
I’ve been called that…I’ve gotten the doe eyes, “What racism?”…it’s enough to make me puke. And yes:
That is precisely why I’m steamed. I’ve sat here looking at accepted racism in the liberal blogosphere, had these morons tell me that I’m “being overly-sensitive” or that “maybe the person is having a bad day” or any other such bullshit, but let some white guy on TV tell them that something has crossed a line and it’s like blinders falling off.
And now, all those racists Democrats, and there’s no pretending that they don’t exist, have cover thanks to Ferraro and Clinton. I don’t ever want to hear another Clinton supporter who defended Ferraro’s remarks whine about sexism, real or perceived.
But I’m even more disgusted by people like Tubbs-Jones, Rangel, and Jackson Lee who just sat there and did nothing, said nothing. They could have stood up publically and said, “This is not right, nor acceptable.”
They said nothing.
I’m an utterly disgusted with Democrats today.
It saddens me because I respected him, but their non-action just goes way beyond the “Uncle To” threshold. And for me this is also a stab in the heart from all the Puerto Ricans and latinos who threw themselves giddly at the feet of Billary.
But they are the old school of politics where you learned to be good (yet well paid) servants of white “liberals” like the Clintons. And it’s not just in politics, mind you. Every time I have to see a black lawyer from Verizon defending the companies need to wiretap or get rid of net neutrality, I want to scream and pull my hair out.
Jeezus effing crisco … I can’t write tonight.
More than any other black politician, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones has REALLY disappointed me of late. Some of the horrendous things I’ve heard her say about Barack being supposedly “unqualified” to be President or Commander in Chief have been truly appalling. And no one has had the guts to call her out on it.
While I don’t recall what was said anymore, remember that night when the Texas State legislator couldn’t name anything Obama’s done in the Senate when grilled by Chris Mathews? Well, immediately following that exchange that we have seen too many times, she went on to degrade Obama in such an unfair way… when if the same question were turned on her “What’s Clinton done in the Senate?” she would have been totally stumped, because Hillary hasn’t done much to speak of in the Senate.
It’s probably worth pointing out that white guys speaking out about racism often catch it coming and going, both from white racists (both the active kind and the passive denial kind) and from blacks who either think we’re being patronizing or that we’re suckups.
On the other hand, no one ever said telling the truth was comfortable.
Still, what Olbermann said gives liberal whites cover to address the issue with other liberal whites who are in denial about this whole ugly business. It’s harder for the deniers to write us off as hypersensitive when prominent people who are generally held in high regard are making the same observation.
There’s an extent to which this is not about black people at all. It has rapidly become an internecine fight between white people who want to be people first, and white people who want to be white first. You have a right to be pissed off by that, but it’s a fight that has long needed to happen, and it may as well be now.
ain’t that the truth.
Wow, I’ve never heard explained so clearly and succinctly.
“fight between white people who want to be people first, and white people who want to be white first.”
That statement gives me clearer understanding and acceptance of the fact that the not-so-thinly veiled code-speak that has been wafting out of the Clinton campaign isn’t entirely accidentally ignored. And, that the “buyers remorse” these people speak of really has nothing to do with taking back your own purchase, but having your more “traditional,” uninformed, and bigoted parents do it for you.
The not-so-subtle subtext of sexism and racism have been a part of this from the beginning. Most of it has been glossed and chuckled over with a nod and a wink. But, this Ferraro thing was an extended two-eyed blink, with a hair-raising head-shake,…and still, no one way up there in the Democratic party leadership has said a word, as far as I know. Clearly, the need to be impartial, and fair to the candidates outweighs the need to repudiate the bigotry and ignorance.
I fully respect Ms. Ferraro’s right to express her views. I wouldn’t expect her to be drummed out, vilified, or any such thing. But, you would think that in 2008, somebody up there in the party would be willing to step up and communicate something other than the “hey there, please keep the indignation to a minimum for a few more weeks while we see whether Obama can bring in more blacks, or Clinton can bring in more bigots,” message being sent out currently to voters.
The basic under-pinning of Senator Clinton’s hope of becoming Democratic presidential nominee is the seemingly accepted fact that Senator Clinton’s constituency is worth more than Senator Obama’s. I know that this equation has long been a part of political calculus. I guess I’ve just never seen Democrats out-bigot even the Republican candidate using these particular sleight-rules with such unapologetic boldness.
Senator Clinton’s hopes hinge on the assertion/fact that the blacker the face of Obama’s campaign becomes, the more buyer’s remorse/bigoted backlash he can expect from “traditional, blue-collar” whites. And, that when push comes to shove, those in the middle wrestling with their own matters of conscience and calculus, will cast their lot with the “white-first” crowd. Hopefully enough super delegates will see this theory proved by Pennsylvania, and go along with it. At least, that’s what it looks like to me.
But, in order for enough super-delegates to be able to do this with straight faces, a healthy foundation of racism, anti-affirmative actionism, and “that’s unfortunately just the reality of Americaism” needs to be laid first. After all, recent history has shown that with the right foster and framing, even the abhorrent and unacceptable can be made palatable.
The unspoken, unaccepted, unspecified paradox that has been rambling about my brain mind, is the fact that maybe as Obama’s “black” number rises, so will Clinton’s “blue.” If the race-baiting, and race-fear, and ideas of the lucky, un-christian, un-qualified, affirmative action, doesn’t know his place and isn’t waiting his turn mulatto man usurping that which the older, wiser, experienced real-white woman deserves, take hold strongly enough,…she could win this thing.
I know that a lot is being made of the tepid and dispassionate responses to Geraldine Ferraro’s remarks
from Senator Clinton and her campaign. But, what about the tepid and dispassionate response from someone, anyone, higher up in the party than Al Sharpton? Personally, I think that says a whole lot more about where “the party” really stands. Apparently, few Clinton apologists seem to have any problem with what was said, how it was handled, or not-so-spoken agenda this controversy advances.
After all, despite all the talk of change and revolution and riots in the streets, who would really do anything anyway? And, should Obama be grudgingly offered sloppy seconds, what could he do? Sell out and ruin himself in the eyes of his backers, or not play along, and ruin himself in the eyes of everyone else for not being a good sport and team player.
Anyway, sorry this wasn’t so succinct.
But, thanks for the quote, it really made me think.
I regret that I have only one “4” to give your comment…it deserves more.
Yeah, I wonder what’s going through the minds of some of the black politicos who’ve lined up behind Clinton. I hope that they are at least squirming in their seats.
I would hope that Rendell is squirming too but then I’d be accused of being an Obama supporter just filled with hope.
Looks like Hillary got shamed into apologizing.
I just broke my violin on that one.
She cannot be trusted.
Today her camp put out a piece that Barack Obama is in a downward spiral?
Read the Obama campaign response to her Memo on PA via Ben Smith
Annotating Pennsylvania
You know what this reminds me of?
There’s an old story about a track meet, a goodwill event held at the height of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Americans trounced the Soviets — I mean really cleaned their clock. And to absolutely no one’s surprise, TASS put out a press release proclaiming that “the team from the USSR finished scond and the Americans came in next to last.”
Back when I was a kid, during the sixties and on into the seventies, one of my biggest hobbies was listening to shortwave radio. Back then the Soviets and their client states in Asia and eastern Europe would produce editorials denouncing some American foreign policy or another for this reason or that reason. It was 90% spin, and on the days when I wasn’t tired of being called an Imperialist even though I was only in the seventh grade, I sometimes found it amusing in a twisted sort of way. Having listened to more of this sort of thing than was healthy at a young and impressionable age, I can tell you that story has a ring of truth to it.
I can also tell you that the press release Smith cites seems to spin in much the same direction. Honestly, I’m not sure if they believe their own press, or put this out because they think other people will believe it. But it reminds me of a quote from (I think) Alf Landon: “No matter how thin you slice it, it’s still baloney.”
Al Smith?
Right you are, I knew it was one of them and guessed wrong. Although now that I have The Tubes to look it up, I see that Carl Sandberg used a version of it in The People, Yes.
But I first heard the expression from Opus the Penguin.
I did look it up on the tubes.
Oceania and East Asia are at war, idredit. Oceania and East Asia have always been at war.
That’s just too rich!
goes beyond the Clintonism, well, it depends
I’m tellin’ ya: They’re really becoming mind-numbingly Orwellian. Whomever did that remake of the “1984” Apple commercial is looking dead-on to me at this point. I’m just hoping the ending for Obama doesn’t read, “He loved Big
BrotherSister.”with this
it’s more like a threat.
The entire thing’s a threat. She’s not saying that her supporters will support Obama. She’s threatening that they won’t, and at the same time saying that Obama’s supporters are ungrateful classless slobs if they don’t support her.
Seeing how the Clintons have been wrong in just about every other prognostication in this race I shouldn’t be surprised, but I don’t see a whole lot of Clinton loyalists who are for Clinton and Clinton only and who would bolt if Clinton lost the nomination – particularly with her losing fair and square (popular vote, states, pledged delegates). She can raise that canard if she likes but I don’t see more than a handful of loyalists actually marching with her to the gates of hell if she wants to take it there, although in truth we’d be better off if they would indeed go to hell…
Why do I smell a third-party run by Clinton from this stinking, steaming apology?
Lieberman the Second…
BooMan, I hope that the BMT comments here were not a poor performance.
is that they’ll actually delete your comments if they disagree with you. Those people aren’t Democrats or democrats.
It came to me watching the first ten minutes of Dan Abrams after KO that this is a set-up. Team HRC intends to emit more dog whistles to the racists in PA and they hope to be able to paint Obama as always complaining about racism that isn’t quite overt enough to be over-the-top damning.
I can almost see a way that Ferrero’s comments could be interpreted as not being racist. Almost. If you look at the full drift of her comments, she’s actually being sexist. She says Obama is lucky to be running against a woman because “we all know” that women suffer more discrimination than men. Yeah, whatever. Gawd, I’m really starting to hate HRC and that’s sad.
after reading Armando’s blog and the subsequent obsequious comments is how the commenters keep referring to Obama supporters as something akin to cultists and delusional. Here they have it right in their Hillarybot faces that their candidate (almost said “gal” there, but that would get blogged about with the fiegned outrage Their Leader expresses with no opportunity to reply) endorses racial division within the party, heedless of the consequences. Just as Olbermann says. And yet they defend this crap, defining justified outrage as some kind of plot against Her Highness because she’s a woman.
No, it’s because she’s a sleazebag.
It almost seems like Hillary’s camp can do no wrong. They can always claim to be the victim and her supporters will still stick by her and her campaign. It’s really sad, actually.
that armando fellow certainly seems bitter.
He did not close the comment thread because the thread was attacking him.
The thread that he closed was full of attacks on Obama and DailyKos.
It’s a mistake to close comments, always, I assume. But the way Booman posted the link, it looked as though Armando was being churlish about attacks on himself. He was being, if anything, churlish about attacks on someone he disagrees with.
Which is odd since they’ll delete my comments if they disagree with them but leave up the Obama bashing comments.
I can’t sleep because of thinking about this. Hillary isn’t just pitching to the rednecks in PA. She’s pitching to the Superdelegates and what she’s basically saying is, “A black man cannot win the Presidency.” That’s the undercurrent of all of this. That’s the point of it. And she intends to prove it in PA, WV and KY. O gawd, I hope she’s wrong.
I think she’s wrong, I think.
I think the closed primary in Pennsylvania will not give Clinton a ready supply of Repub racists like she had in Ohio and Texas. That means she’ll have to try harder to get that racist seed out there. You can run only so negative with so much racism in your campaign before you show your hand to everyone. Meanwhile, Obama, who is the coolest candidate I’ve ever seen, is able to defuse this crap, will hopefully be talking about the economic issues that affect PA while Hillary’s camaign covers itself in bile.
Well said. I think she’s going to really show her hand BEFORE the PA primary. And I look forward to it–I’m still in shock that this racist bullshit is being peddled by our party and I can’t wait for MSM to pick up on this and run full tilt with it.
If her campaign strategy wasn’t a more glaring example of why we need Obama, I don’t know what is.
nightly anti-Hillary hysteria.
To paraphrase Jackson from 1988: Obama’s making history while Clinton’s surrogates are making hysteria. The primary voters haven’t been buying their lines and team Clinton just gets more desperate.