Timing her racist remarks [w/poll]

Just as the Obama campaign sets down the framework of their rebuttal to Clinton's phony resume Obama lays out Clinton's record, hitting Clinton at her flimsiest point [apart from ethics], Clinton surrogate Geraldine Ferraro fans the flames of racism by claiming that a black man is in the process of taking away a job from a white woman.  This comes after Clinton surrogate and PA governor, Ed Rendell, makes the outlandish claim that white people in his state are such racists that they won't vote for a black man.

Also today, Obama will win the majority of delegates and votes in yet another state, Mississippi.  But which of the stories, Clinton's phony resume, the MS primary, or Ferraro's racist digs, will get the most coverage?

I am sick and tired of people, even a few Obama supporters, maintaining the delusion that the Clintons aren't racists simply because they have amicable relationships with a number of AA officeholders.  The argument goes: Bill and his wife are not racists, though they are tolerating surrogates who make racist remarks, and ultimately the Clintons distance themselves from the racial slanders.  Bullshit.  They are racists.  If they allow surrogates to make racist remarks, they are racists.

Hell, sometimes they don't even use surrogates to make their racist remarks!  Like Mrs. Clinton 'taking Obama at his word' that he isn't a Muslim, Bill's arrogant, slanderous comments in S.Carolina about Jesse Jackson's primary win there [which is not only racist but is also STUPID, since it is refuted by John Edwards' 2004 primary victory over Al Sharpton].

Just imagine what a Clinton nomination/presidency would mean for the Democratic Party and the US in general:  the Party of JFK and FDR will become the party of George Wallace and Joe Lieberman.  All that 'talk' about human and civil rights over the years will be shuffled to the back of the bus, all those anti-war marchers, peace protesters, cordoned off in 'free-speech' zones at future Democratic Party gatherings.

The Clintons are on a mission: to destroy the Democratic Party.  To turn it into a mirror image of the GOP, only with Democratic Party hacks collecting the lion's share of K Street largesse.  They are bound and determined to prove Ralph Nader right--although he was dead wrong about Al Gore in 2000.

I'll be frank with you Kossacks: the odds are the racist, dishonest, divisive tactics will likely work.  Nancy Pelosi came down hard today on the Clinton tactics, and she has good reason.  Pelosi is Speaker in name only.  Just go to the website of HillPAC, Mrs. Clinton's 'leadership' PAC, to see that the Clintons have bought half of the Congressional caucus out from under Pelosi.  Why do you think there is no progress on stopping Iraq [hint: Clinton's AUMF vote]?  Why do you think impeachment is a no-go [hint: do we want to remind voters about Monica]?

But unless a lot more high-profile Democrats come out soon for Obama, changing the narrative of this campaign from its slanderous direction, the Clintons may very well prevail in the final round.  Politicians are not paragons of virtue; they are thin reeds that blow with the prevailing wind.

Right now the hot air is blowing furiously from the Clinton campaign over a hotbed of racial and religious fear and hatred.

•  the timing was dicated by Obama

  Ferraro's comments appeared in a neighborhood newspaper and had not been picked up. She wasnt' going on any other shows. They were about to disappear. Obama's campaign publicized them to the max by holding calls with the press to place attention on them. So who is really trying to make sure the Mississippi voters hear these commetns. Before this, what was the last time Ferraro was in the news?

  by Marcion on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:08:16 PM PDT

  •  as opposed to power's comments to a

    Scottish newspaper.  they had a whole conference call feigning outrage at "monster."

    by hn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:13:08 PM PDT

    •  exaclty

      Both campaigns are doing the same exact negative gotcha game to each other, trying to get mileage out of ill advised comments. Do you think the moster comment was diabolically crafted and timed to maek the voters think Hillary was a monster who lives undre their beds?

      by Marcion on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:17:35 PM PDT

      •  right, but power apologized

        effusively and resigned.  what did Ferraro do?

        by hn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:18:36 PM PDT

      •  Monster is Not Racist unless you are predjudiced

        against King Kong, Them, It, Dracula, Wolfman, Creature From the Blaaak Lagoon, Gork, Alien, etc, pick your own fav Monster ! Racist = Hate = Fear There is a difference that some seem to refuse to accept..Sort of like gee w bush and his conservative, compassionates that have turned our America into a cesspool Amerika of fukin hate..And now its being picked up on the by the Klintons who have given us the 8 Dark Year ages of bush-cheney and now apparently are setting up another term or two for another flip-floppin SOB who has Publicly surrounded himself with LOBBIESTS ! We have got to beee stoopid to allow this blantant racist blood letting to continue..I am quickly losing the faith and its true that I swithched from Edwards to Obama but I will Not Now under any circumstances vote for Hillary Clinton if she slithers in..Wont vote for MacCane either..

        by Johnny Rapture on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:54:43 PM PDT

  •  and actually

    she was on Jim Leher's show and she wrote an op-ed piece in the NYT re:  superdelegates.  She's been pretty vocal in this campaign.

    by hn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:20:35 PM PDT

•  Keith Olberman is going to give a

  special commentary on Clinton's campaign tomorrow.  Should be interesting.  In the meantime, I wish they would shut Chris Matthews up.  He is really difficult to watch at times.  He has such an inside-the-beltway mentality, that the man is totally myopic to facts.

  by praenomen on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:09:01 PM PDT

  •  I Live

    Inside the beltway and I have no idea what he's talking about most of the time.

    I agree with this diary, and, yes, sadly, am starting to see the Clinton's in a different light.  We've not seen such racial baiting, in OUR party, since Wallace in 1968.

    I noted awhile back that the Clinton campaign has won nearly every rural county in every primary.  And, after checking the demos, you'll find that those are the sparsely populated counties with over 90% white voters.  And, almost always, counties that go with the Republicans in general elections.

    So, such racist comments are designed to expand turnout in those areas.  Not by overt racism, which even an idiot could figure out, but by more subtle 'hit and run' dog whistle means.  By reminding people Obama is black.  And, if that's not enough, by 'leading' with that fact via surrogates.

    Class is what class does.  Not only will the Clintons lose but they'll also have to deal with being classless.

    Our party is better off without them.  And Lieberman.

    by vetman on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:18:42 PM PDT

•  Bought her five to ten

  points in NH and lost her twenty points in SC and a few in NV.  Odd that it's working better for her in "blue" states than "red" states.  Then again, even MLK, Jr. recognized that racism outside the south was more insidious and toxic.

  by Marie on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:16:19 PM PDT

•  I think these comments

  by Ferraro may have helped make both Clinton and Obama unelectable.

  Nice going Geri in helping elect John McCain.

  by IhateBush on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:19:51 PM PDT

•  perfect

  To me, this diary really sums up a lot of what is wrong with commentary about this campaign.  

  I do not believe that Hillary Clinton insinuated that Obama is a Muslim.  Neither does Media Matters for America.  Similarly, Bill Clinton was not wrong in noting that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, and yet never became Democratic nominee for president.  

  Most importantly, however, I believe that this incessant parsing of comments (by a surrogate and volunteer like Ferraro, no less) distracts from more important questions about race in this country. The candidates and their supporters have not devoted a fraction of their time discussing the issues that effect people of color (schools, health care, the war on drugs) that they have devoted to identity-driven drivel.  

  This discussion is a waste, and will not make this country more just.  I can't imagine this is the kind of movement Senator Obama means to spark.  

  by lbr on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:23:49 PM PDT

•  I just don't make the distinction

  And if they aren't really racist, this makes it even worse.

  by NMLib on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:36:39 PM PDT

•  ...But It's All About To Backfire !

  by ArtfromMI on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:40:01 PM PDT

•  If Penn is framed in racial terms

  This is a very cynical tatcic by Clinton.  She has acknowledged that she cannot win the Black vote. If she and her lackys can frame the contest from here on out  in racial terms  Blacks vs. Women (whites)  she can take Penn.  Remember the analysis  Pittsburg and Philly seperated by Alabama.  Obama would do well to find some dramatic way to offer an olive branch to Geraldine Ferraro who is a female icon that is carrying this ugly stategy forward for Clinton. Obama needs to carry or be very close in Penn.  Clinton can maniupulate the Supers if she ever gets a total popular vote majority.

  by Palmetto Progressive on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:51:34 PM PDT