Worst person in the world? or an actual Special Commentary like the ones he has give GW?

Were you surprised that she said what she did? Are you surprised so many have said that she is right?

Thanks for the heads-up.

This should be interesting. I don't think it will be on par with the tongue lashings that he has given the Bush Administration in prior Special Comments. He has shown to have a great respect for President Clinton and Senator Clinton, but I've noticed in the past few weeks (especially after the "3 A.M. Call" commercial and Hillary's remarks about how she and Senator McCain are have crossed the "commander-in-chief threshold," whereas Obama hasn't) that Olbermann has become increasingly bothered by the divisive tenor of the campaign.

I think he will essentially say that things have gotten out of hand, both campaigns (Senator Clinton's especially, perhaps) are getting carried away and need to stop and remember that the ultimate goal is to get a Democrat back into the White House. I think this will have the tone of an intervention for both sides.

Again, thanks for the heads-up.

Keith Olbermann should run a laugh track behind KO's Special Comment. They are always worth a laugh. Also, I hope Mr. Olbermann has his anti-anxiety meds close by. Maybe Olbermann, "Tucker" and Tweety could do a tag team special comment, that would even be funnier. Olbermann the 3rd rated "news" show at 8PM. Bill-O is number 1, for good reason. Bill-O at 8PM! Go Bill-O Go!

If you look at last night's results, HRC got only 9% of the black vote. I do not believe that Hillary or Bill are racists (in case that needs to be said to get it out of the way), but I do believe that they are ultimately political animals. It's likely, maybe even apparent, that a decision has been made to jettison that base of support (for now) and start blowing dog-whistles to the racist *and* uneasy-about-new-things votes in PA, because those votes are definitely there in the state and if she bombs in PA it *is* all over. --------- Short-sighted? You betcha. But they have done so many terribly short-sighted things in this race that I'm not convinced that is just how they work: gain the next advantage and don't worry about down the line. (You might say Bill governed this way also, but much more skillfully. And I suspect Hillary would also, with much less skill.)

To the extent they've thought ahead, the underlying assumptions are probably 1) when it gets to November, who are the blacks and truly progressive whites going to vote for? John McCain??, 2) Bill can weild that old charm and sweet-talk some of the excitement back into that voting block **AND** 3) Obama will have to make good on his promise to actively support the Dem. nominee so they can make it his "assignment" to work with the black community. In fact (brilliant twist), they can even make it a "challenge" or "test" on which his political future rests to see if he can really "deliver" those votes for the Dems!

That last part is so utterly cynical that I feel ashamed for having thought it -- but I'll bet you anything it's been said or thought within the Clinton campaign. Knee-cap Obama and make him simply the 'black candidate' and then tell him he better be able to deliver black votes if he wants to every be considered a person of power in the party!! --- However, I guess a campaign that goes 'wink, wink' with Ferraro's statements doesn't have a lot of shame when it comes to either morality or logic.

2 examples of the latter:

--- One of GF's later statements, on Fox I believe, was that if her name had been Gerard Ferraro she wouldn't have had a place on the 1984 ticket. (Glad she finaly acknowledged that, but I get the feeling someone had to point it out to her.) "But does that mean I'm not qualified?" said in an "of course not" tone. Okay .... but if that wasn't what you are implying about Obama, then what WAS your point??

---- Making pretty offensive and controversial racial statements and then, when there is a response, accusing the Obama campaign of 'interjecting race' into the discussion! How the heck do you say that with a straight face?

--- HRC's forgiving or at least 'explaining' this as something said by an over-exhuberant supporter who is part of your campaign (co-chair of the Finance Committee) but on which no action is really required, when just days befoe she demanded that Obama "fire" a suporter who made out-of-line statements off the record but neverheless reported. I think Finance co-chair is roughly in the same category as unpaid adviser in a substantive area. If they want to argue that some people may consider Ferraro's opinion accurate .... well, trust me, there were a LOT of people who believe Samatha Power's statements were accurate - *very* accurate.

This is precisely the underlying mindset of George Bush/Karl Rove: assume the American voters are sheep-like idiots who will respond blindly emotional cues and never think, for as much as 10 minutes, about *what* they are being told. The Clintons would of course point out, Geo Bush won. And winning, after all, is *all* that matters. -- I can't even disagree with them on that point, sadly, but I sure as hell can reject it at least for this voter. And I think a lot of voters, having been led to slaughter once, are going to reject it.

airwon - I do think the Obama campaign may have overplayed their reaction, in part because they (justly) see her comments as on a par with Samatha Power's and want to say "okay, now you have to get rid of a valued team member also!" There is actually enough indignation over her comments from others (some surprising others) without their making an issue of it. And it's better that the public be indignant than that the campaign do it. Obama himself has been appropriately dismissive: "it's ridiculous, now let's get back to the issues."

On the other hand, there is a very big difference between saying "I got more attention because I was black" and that it's "lucky" to be a black man. That "more attention" isn't always a positive thing, you know (think loan applications, traffic stops, etc., etc.) Also, she was implying -- actually saying -- that he didn't, own his own merits, DO SOMETHING to explain where he is in the race. As Jonathan Ridley pointed out, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton got a lot of attention when they ran, because of their race - and Shirley Chisholm and Carol Mosely Braun because of their race and gender ... but none of them wound up where Obama is now.

Can you imagine how she would have squawked if someone said the same thing - the precise same thing - about Hillary Clinton's being a woman?

I doubt too many folks under 30 would understand the Brothers Grimm Rumpelstilzchen reference (public schools today...). Rumpelstilzchen tore himself in two after saving the queen's life 3xs by spinning gold. She happened to guess Rumpelstilzchen name on try three, sort of like the empty suit Obama being discovered to be Obama the empty suit and playing the race card which he does very well. It will work the other way in the General election: McGovern Part II.

Elizabeth2, it is true that Ferraro's comments injects race into the conversation but I don't think that it is racist. The Obama camp is injecting the racist card with their reply.

As I said before, Obama feels that he has benefited from being black and it is what Ferraro is saying. That is all she is saying.

You say Obama is trying to trancend race. Is missing Tavis Smily's State of the Black Union trancending race? Are death threats from Barak supporters to Tavis Smiley for calling Barak out on this part of this trancendence?

Does anyone see how this episode is not just another chapter in what has surely becomes a death spiral for Clinton as well as Obama?

With each passing day, and with it, an increasingly divided and bitter Democratic Party and left-leaning electorate, I am more and more certain that we will be talking about President John McCain until 2012.

Has Hillary Clinton become Ralph Nader, aka the spoiler, of the Democratic Party?

Okay -- I think I'm starting to get a glimmer .... Correct me if I'm wrong. You say "it is true that Ferraro's comments injects race into the conversation but I don't think that it is racist. The Obama camp is injecting the racist card with their reply."

Step 1: Clinton or someone associated with it makes a comment regarding race. (BTW, I agree that race is certainly a legitimate topic of conversation in this country and in the campaign, and, in fact, that the more we can talk about it as just another factor the more it becomes 'just another' factor. Thankfully.)

Step 2: The comment that is made can reasonably be interpreted, by some, as negative, as 'putting down' blacks, implying they are inferior or that race is the only important thing about the person being discussed. (MLK/LBJ; SC comparison to Jessie Jackson's previous success; Ferraro's saying that Obama is 'lucky' to be black because otherwise he wouldn't be in his current position.)

Step 3: Someone, somewhere (perhaps unrelated to anyone in the Obama campaign or perhaps part of it, in the case of the Ferraro statement) takes objection to the comment and says, in effect: "I feel that you weren't just discussing race but mentioning race in a way that puts down or belittles the contributions and acheivement of blacks in general or a black person".

You're saying that "racism" is injected into the conversation at Step 3, when the (perceived) offensiveness is pointed out. (And not in this case but in the others, that anytime someone is called on a statement like that it is 'coming from' the Obama campaign.) (Hmmm.. I wonder if that assumption is based on the fact that he is black, not on anything he has actually done or said? But that is a side issue.) ------- My position, I guess, is that the racism is brought in at Step 2 by the person making the offensive comment if it was truly or even arguably offensive and it's brought in at Step 3, by the person offeded if their reaction is irrational or unreasonable.

A: "You don't have any intelligence because you are black because I know a lot of dumb black people and all you blacks are the same."
B: "I resent that. That is a racist statement."
In my opinion A is the one who interjected racism into the conversation; B merely identified it for what it was.

A: "Your shirt and tie really look nice together."
B: "There you go again -- always referring to color, always assuming we blacks are just dressed-up empty suits. I resent that."
In that case, B is certainly the one who injected racism into the conversation.

So, pretend someone connected to the Obama campaign says:
""If Hillary Clinton was a white man, she would not be in this position [seriously challenging my candidate]. And if she was a black woman, she would not be in this position.She happens to be very lucky to be who she is [a white woman]. And the country is caught up in the concept [of wanting to vote for a woman]."

It's just possible (deliberate understatement) that someone in the Clinton campaign or perhaps a white woman totally unconnected to it might feel a tad of resentment at that statement and perhaps object to it as "sexist" (or both sexist and racist, more accurately). And I wouldn't blame them Nor would I accuse *them* of introducing charges of sexism, even though they would be the first to state the word directly.

Now maybe the Obama person would have meant only that Hillary *initially* got more attention because of her gender (which is the extent of Obama's statement about the advantage of his difference) but that of course her achievement thereafter, once people were looking at her, was a result of her own qualities and achievements. And maybe that's what Ferraro meant -- but it isn't what she said.

What she said was that Obama was 'in his position' (i.e., a frontrunner) only because he is a black male; if he weren't black and male, he wouldn't be a frontrunner. And that's pretty damned insulting, demeaning. Calling her on that and pointing out that it is a very biased statement is not 'injecting racism' into the conversation; it's simply recognizing that she has done that. ------- And if she didn't mean it in a racist fashion, then I think her response afterwards would have been quite different.

For the record, I don't think that makes her a racist, any more than Bill and Hillary are. It mere makes her willing to stir up the racist sentiments of a number of voters to get a political advantage. But, on second thought, perhaps I have more respect for the genuine racists..... Being ignorant is one thing, but relying on people to be ignorant and using their ignorance for your own advantage is somehow more unseemly, in my opinion.

Anyway, thank you - at least I can see how someone can look at these interchanges and wind up thinking and saying that Obama was the one to interject racism. Personally I would have to squint real hard to see it that way and dont' agree with the conclusion, but it had been bugging me for months. People rarely say things, especially with a sense of indignation, if there is absolutely no reason for doing so.

Terry,

Am I sure that as an African-American I am occasionally more adept at recognizing hostility towards my own? You're damn straight. :)
Sometimes I am more sensitive to potential slights toward AAs than others who are not AA, and in some cases, more sensitive to them than some other AAs. As a matter of fact, I do worry about those other people. I think your response makes a ton of assumptions. More Africans died in the transatlantic slave trade than all those who died in the holocaust. We don't even have good guesses as to how many indigenous peoples were murdered in the Americas. So what? My making a remark about my possibly being hypersensitive to racism does not diminish oppression experienced by others or imply it in any way.

The oppression I have experienced has not forced me inward and away from others who are different from myself. However, it has made me an advocate of all those exposed to injustice.
I agree we are all in this together Terry.

I was just trying to minimally express how fucking disgusting this crap is. It seems that many of our countrymen are mentally in 1958. I know it is nothing new, but there is something different when you hear a person like Ferraro say something like that on television.

TM