 |
| This website is always under construction please
email me relevant links
related to any of the candidates or to race and racism and the election. |
 |
| |
 |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
A week ago, Geraldine Ferraro made
ugly and bigoted comment that
Barack Obama is "lucky" to be black,
and that he would not be where he is today
"if he were a white man" or "a woman." Make
that ugly, bigoted. Ms. Ferraro's comment
are offensive and shrewd. Her remarks
raise the wide-spread white sentment that
less-qualified black people are getting jobs
that should go to hard-working and
experienced white people. Her words are a
barely coded play for the bigot vote.
Furthremore, her reference to "woman" read
that "white woman" her remark links Obama
with the oppression of white women.
Then ,
Geraldine Ferraro, made herself the victim:
"I really think they're attacking me
because I'm white," she said. "How's that?"
Hillary Clinton for not swiftly, soundly
rejecting and denouncing the comments of
Ferraro and firing her immediately from her
campaign.
Ferraro Flashback
If Jesse Jackson were not black, he
wouldn't be in the race," she said.
Really. The cite is an April 15, 1988
Washington Post story (byline: Howard
Kurtz), available only on Nexis.
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."
Asked about this at a campaign stop in
Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready
to pounce fiercely on his critics. But
then he stopped, took a breath, and said
quietly, "Millions of Americans have a
point of view different from" Ferraro's.
Discussing the same point in Washington,
Jackson said, "We campaigned across the
South . . . without a single catcall or
boo. It was not until we got North to
New York that we began to hear this from
Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs.
Ferraro . . . . Some people are making
hysteria while I'm making history."
|
|
|
From: Josh Marshall
Talking Points Memo
I discussed this in the live debate blog. But I think
it's worth going back and watching Russert's run of
shame here. I would say it was borderline to bring up
the issue of Farrakhan at all. But perhaps since it's
getting some media play you bring it up just for the
record, for Obama to address.
That's not what Russert did. He launches into it,
gets into a parsing issue over word choices, then tries
to find reasons to read into the record some of
Farrakhan's vilest quotes after Obama has just said he
denounces all of them. Then he launches into a bizarre
series of logical fallacies that had Obama needing to
assure Jews that he didn't believe that Farrakhan
"epitomizes greatness".
As a Jew and perhaps more importantly simply as a
sentient being I found it disgusting. It was a
nationwide, televised, MSM version of one of those
noxious Obama smear emails.
Late Update: TPM Reader RMS does
some close analysis ...
I think that breaking down Russert's
Wright/Farrakhan questioning helps illuminate how
truly bizarre it is:
1. The title of Obama's book, "The Audacity of
Hope," came from a sermon delivered by Jeremiah
Wright. Wright is Obama's pastor.
2. Wright is the "head" of United Trinity Church.
3. Wright said that Louis Farrakhan "epitomizes
greatness."
4. Wright went with Farrakhan in 1984 to visit
Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.
5. Farrakhan has said that Judaism is a "gutter
religion."
6. Wright said that when Obama's political
opponents found out about the Libya visit, Obama's
Jewish support would dry up "faster than a snowball
in Hell."
Russert's question is then "What do you do to
assure Jewish Americans... you are consistent with
issues regarding Israel and not in any way
suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness."
The first question about Farrakhan—and Russert's
insistence on mentioning Farrakhan's views regarding
Judaism after Obama had already denounced
Farrakhan's bigotry—was all foreplay leading up to
this masterstroke in which Russert synthesizes the
six discrete facts into a knockout punch of innuendo
and guilt by association: perhaps Obama thinks that
Louis Farrakhan, the man Obama explicitly denounced
not one minute before, is the very epitome of
greatness.
All of the stuff about going to Libya,
Farrakhan's "gutter religion" comment, and Jewish
supporting drying up like a snowball in hell—that
was all totally unnecessary to reach the ultimate
question, but wasn't it fun?
|
| |
|
|
His so called apology is inadequate because he
seems to be saying that his comment was taken out of context and he completely
ignores the qualifier "unless". He seems to be saying that because Ms. Obama's
comment's were political than the "unless" was not statisfied. First,
O'reilly did just say that there should not be a lynching. Second, Lynching is not
appropriate under any circumstances there is no "unless" and O'reilly's
so-called apology is unacceptable. (more) |
|
|
In a discussion of
recent comments made by Michelle Obama, Bill O'Reilly took a call from a listener who stated that, according
to "a friend who had knowledge of her," Obama " 'is a very angry,' her word
was 'militant woman.' " O'Reilly later stated: "I don't want to go on a
lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts,
that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels
-- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's
legit. We'll track it down." (See the
Video and Take Action)
[Top]
|
|
The recently release statement of the National
Organization of Women - New York chapter was amazing ( http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_012808.html
). The statement claiming that Senator Ted Kennedy's
endorsement of Barack Obama is a betrayal of all women is
offensive. Once again, a predominantly white woman organization
claims to speak for African American women and other non-white
women. What privileges NOW_NY to be believe that African
American women feel betrayed by Kennedy's endorsement.
NOW-NY's anger is about a white man not giving white
privilege to a white woman.
Of course, NOW-NY is entitled to their perspective but
they should at least be honest - Below is a revision of their
statement that, in my opinion, is a more accurate reflection of
the real issue:
*******************************
"[White] Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal.
Senator Kennedy's endorsement of Hillary Clinton's opponent
in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has
really hit [White] Women hard. [White] Women have forgiven
Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact
that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the
Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. [White] Women
have buried their anger that his support for the compromises
in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit
brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have
thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights
bills, BUT [White] Women are always waiting in the wings.
"And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his
bandonment! He's picked the new guy over us. He's
joined the list of progressive white men who can't or won't
handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary
Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman
president, just not "this" one). 'They' are Howard Dean
and Jim Dean (Yup! That's Howard's brother) who run DFA
(that's the group and list from the Dean campaign that we
[White] Women helped start and grow). They are
Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America,
democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that
take [White] Women's money, say they'll do feminist and
[White] Women's rights issues one of these days, and
conveniently forget to mention [White] Women and children
when they talk about poverty or human needs or America's
future or whatever.
"This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status
of and
respect for [White] Women's rights, [White] Women's voices,
[White] Women's equality, [White] Women's authority and our
ability - indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and
deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the
first [white] woman after centuries of [white] men who 'know
what's best for
us.'"
You can contact NOW New York Chapter:
info@nownys.org,
|
|
[Top]
|
| |
|
Aired on MSNBC January 15, Martin Luther
King's Birthday, sponsored by Black and Brown organizations,
the debate was pegged as a debate covering Black, Latino and
Asian-American issues. The problem was that MSNBC's
moderators, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams and Tim
Russert of "Meet the Press," apparently decided to ignore
that as they focused none of their questions on issues of
racial inequality (nor did the candidates).
Furthermore, they allowed Obama cantto make a unchallenged
statement that I can’t imagine would have been allowed if
made by a white candidate. In response to a question by the
100 Black men, Obama spoke of parents' responsibilities for
establishing respect for educational excellence. "We have to
have our parents take their jobs seriously, particularly
African-American fathers, who all too often are absent from
the home," said Obama. "As someone who grew up without a
father, I know how important this is." This statement is
particular troubling because ignores the long standing
support in the black community for education. Black men have
been encouraging their sons and daughters to get educated
even when education was practically useless. But perhaps
more important, Black fathers are not a particular problem,
especially when it comes to education, when you consider
that in 2005, black males had a 10% drop-out rate compared
to 30.5% drop-out in 1967; that the drop-out rate has been
continuously falling. On the other hand, White males had a
drop-out rate of 6.6% in 2005 compared to 14.6% in 1967.
Who has made the biggest progress and is continuing to make
progress. Furthermore, even if you focus on the disparity
between white and blacks (3.4%) it is not the widest
gap. Hispanics have the largest drop-out rate in 2005 with
22%.
What I see for black men is
significant continuous progress despite significant
obstacle: a welfare system in 50s, 60s and 70s that
literally drove black men out of the home and that continues
to penalize a single mother if the father provides any help;
school funding mechanism that assures that poor and
predominantly black schools communities are under-funded; an
educational approach that still focuses on training for college and not
enough on training for skills and occupation; and,
the wholesale criminalization of the black man not only in
the law but more important in the news and the media. What
is remarkable is that Black men are doing as well as they
are.
The debate in Nevada had an
opportunity to have a clear discussion on racial
inequalities in America society and how the democratic
candidates would address them instead it focused (a bit) on
the pseudo-skirmish over race between Obama and Clinton. I
have to assume that it was deliberate because at least twice
during the debate Clinton said to the moderators and the
other candidates that debate was supposed to be on issues of
concern to the "black and brown" communities. Both the
moderators and the other candidates ignored her.
Thus, Worst Person in Campaign
2008 goes to MSNBC,
MSNBC, Brian Williams and Tim Russert for ignoring the
issues of racism and racial inequality during a debate about
Black, Latino and Asian-American Issues.
[Top]
|
|
|
 |
This Page Last Updated:
Thursday, July 03, 2008
You are visitor number
Since January 9, 2008
|
|
| |
|
