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

My apologies in advance for the wordy post.

Sorry too about recycling my own thought-bite from a previous thread, but it seems pretty apparent to me that the Clinton strategy is to elicit from Obama to not so much a response but a reaction that they can then plug into the racial stereotype of the angry black man.

Since I’ve not read Obama’s book only know him through his campaign thus far, I can only speculate about the man based on general impressions (a risky proposition at best). That said, it seems to me that Obama’s own attitudes towards the race issue and its relationship to his campaign may be somewhat complex. Clearly, his candidacy and the construction of his campaign make his personalizing our long national legacy of racial injustice somewhat tricky in that, as a candidate, he seems present himself as having transcended the emotional and socioeconomic burdens of that legacy. For him to even acknowledge his own racial sensitivities, it seems to me, perhaps puts that image in harm’s way.

In a sense, the subject of Obama’s race and the challenges it almost certainly presented throughout his own personal history reminds me somewhat of FDR’s wheelchair confinement inasmuch as both seem to be secrets maintained in plain sight (again, I say this not having read his book), at least as far as Obama’s campaign narrative is concerned.

Which brings me back to Clinton’s racist strategy. I think she/they are hoping that Obama will at some point publicly take offense to Ferraro’s execrable remarks at which point they can point to his protestations and shout, “crutch!”

Would that someone could step forward and put Hillary’s downer cow campaign out of its – and our – misery. It ain’t gonna live, it’s no long fit for public consumption and it’s only a matter of time before it infects everything.

What Geraldine did was stating the obvious. And believe me, truth hurts, and based upon the peoples’ reactions she has clearly spoken the truth. As Gandhi (please don’t worry if you are unfamiliar with the name, he is one of those “Macacas”, like me) had said, "It takes two people to speak the truth, one who will say it and the one who will hear it." Unfortunately the second person is missing here.

And BTW, your breathless talk about the great Mr. Olbermann commenting about HRC has me shaking in my booties. However, there are other folks at that network who have already said the following things about her which she has survived so far:

• Her cackling laugh (by someone who always sounds as if his peanuts were run over by a eighteen wheeler – if you catch my drift)
• Her clapping
• Her reading from scripts (although the Great Oprah herself was plainly seen reading from a script while she endorsed Obama saying how great he was)
• Her fake crying (even her great admirer Brit Hume disagreed)
• Two thirds of the Democrats being against her and her only, even when HRC, Edwards and Obama each got one third of the votes in one of the polls
• Her seemingly demeaning Dr. King by stating that Dr. King worked with President Johnson to bring about the historic change (in fact Bill Moyers, who was a White House staffer at the time, had a detailed report on what really transpired, but I am not complaining about your being ignorant of it)
• Her quoting Dr. King with full attribution being compared to Obama’s, without attribution, quoting Deval Patrick quoting Dr. King and the Constitution.
• Her being a racist based upon Orlando Patterson’s Op-Ed piece in NYT, which was so ludicrous that all three of the present guests (including Clarance Page, who is an African American) disagreed.

I, therefore, think she will survive this current onslaught too.

What Geraldine did was stating the obvious. And believe me, truth hurts, and based upon the peoples’ reactions she has clearly spoken the truth. As Gandhi (please don’t worry if you are unfamiliar with the name, he is one of those “Macacas”, like me) had said, "It takes two people to speak the truth, one who will say it and the one who will hear it." Unfortunately the second person is missing here.

And BTW, your breathless talk about the great Mr. Olbermann commenting about HRC has me shaking in my booties. However, there are other folks at that network who have already said the following things about her which she has survived so far:

• Her cackling laugh (by someone who always sounds as if his peanuts were run over by a eighteen wheeler – if you catch my drift)
• Her clapping
• Her reading from scripts (although the Great Oprah herself was plainly seen reading from a script while she endorsed Obama saying how great he was)
• Her fake crying (even her great admirer Brit Hume disagreed)
• Two thirds of the Democrats being against her and her only, even when HRC, Edwards and Obama each got one third of the votes in one of the polls
• Her seemingly demeaning Dr. King by stating that Dr. King worked with President Johnson to bring about the historic change (in fact Bill Moyers, who was a White House staffer at the time, had a detailed report on what really transpired, but I am not complaining about your being ignorant of it)
• Her quoting Dr. King with full attribution being compared to Obama’s, without attribution, quoting Deval Patrick quoting Dr. King and the Constitution.
• Her being a racist based upon Orlando Patterson’s Op-Ed piece in NYT, which was so ludicrous that all three of the present guests (including Clarance Page, who is an African American) disagreed.

I, therefore, think she will survive this current onslaught too.

airwon -- "I think you are saying that when it comes to race, if whatever you say offends someone it is racist."

Aw, come on. It's just a matter of common sense. If someone says to me "You're ugly," then that offends but it isn't racist. But if they say "You're ugly because you are white and all whites are ugly." ??? It's racism whenever a remark offends by dehumanizing a person, reducing them to a 'thing' because of the color of their skin, eradicating their personal worth, character or abilities or saying those don't count for anything compared to skin color. --- If, as you suggest, Ferraro wanted to diminish Obama as a candidate, then why did she mention race at all? Wouldn't she just talk about lack of ideas or bad policy stands or stupid actions or whatever??? The real message of her comment was that he ONLY reason for his success was because of that 'thing' that he is: a black man, at a time when they happen to be 'in fashion' or whatever.

Ah, well -- it's going to end up a net plus for Hillary anyway. Ferraro got to blow the 'dog-whistle' for all the voters who will pick up on that thought, and now I see she has left the campaign, so they can rachet up the indignation by being martyrs also. In truth, I really wish the whole campaign had kept their cool about it as well as Obama: he said the 'lucky' comment was ridiculous (which it is) and that "slice and dice" politics was the old way he's trying to move away from. End of discussion. But coming after Samantha Power, I can see where the campaign wanted something more.

Can someone please capture this/post a link when it goes up? I'll be working and don't want to miss this!

Obermann teed up the Monster like Tiger Woods and sent her 350 down the fairway.

Olbermann's commentary this evening was brilliant, heartfelt. It was obvious he agonized, deeply before airing it. He prefaced it by acknowledging his appreciation to Clinton for her support of his program. Then he let her have it!
He hit the ball out of the park! Awesome!
Hillary WAKE THE F**K UP!

Wow...he absolutely killed her.

It's funny, until a few days ago my only knowledge of Geraldine Ferraro was that she was the female VP candidate who got trounced with Walter Mondale back when I was a kid. I didn't know much about her positions on anything, but I sort of respected her until a couple days ago.

I had no idea she was a Nazi.

we all know that the Hillary camp may make a stink about this. anyone think he is going to be suspended?

Haven't seen KO yet (it's on TiVo), but wanted to respond to this question by airwon even though it was addressed to someone else:
>>Honestly wondering, is there any way in which someone can convince you that Ferraro's comments are not racist?

My answer to that would be yes and no. No, because the statement itself, standing alone, is racist: it implies - well, states -- that the only reason Obama has survived a year's campaign and become a frontrunner is because he's black. That's demeaning. But yes, because Ferraro herself could have convinced me that they were not intended to be demeaning simply by talking further and explaining what non-racist observation she was making.

I've said things that unintentionally offended or hurt people; I'm sure we all have. And her comments hurt both Obama, by belittling him, and Sen. Clinton, by associating her campaign's finance co-chair with hurtful statements. If you didn't intend the hurt, you don't compound it. You stop, listen, and re-state in a more clear, unoffensive way what you meant. Perhaps she did mean, as you suggest, that if he weren't black he would never have gotten that much initial attention and therefore, most likely, wouldn't as a first-term senator be likely to have a credible or supported campaign for president. And maybe she meant by using the term 'lucky' to mean -- well, perhaps that he got such attention at a time in our country's history that it is possible for a black man to get support and be viewed as a credible candidate. Those are legitimate, and non-racist, observations and saying them would only add stature to Clinton's campaign and to the Dems, perhaps even take us a closer step to dealing with the issue of race more sensibly.

Unfortunately, by her reaction ("Oh, these people ! You can't say anything about anything without them crying racist - Well, I think they are being racist and attacking me because I'm white!" And then resigning with another slash "Obama is attacking me to hurt you.") it's sadly clear that she just wanted to inflict harm. Which suggests that she *did* intend to demean in her initial comment.

But, yeah, there would have been some way to convince me, at least, that the comments were not intended to be racist. It's a shame that *that* conversation didn't come to be.

LINK ON YOU TUBE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBXD2zizIY

I don't want to witness a theft in airwon world.

On the one hand, I would be obligated to report it, or be an accessory after the fact

On the other hand, pointing out theft makes me a thief, just like pointing out racism would make me a racist.

HERE IT IS
http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x4p0ns&v3=1&related=1

Hillary got only 9% of the black vote, because Obama is black. I am a black man and I know what is going on. People I have known my entire life are attacking any black person who say they are for Hillary. I have never seen anything like it. Family members and friends get incredibly upset at the idea of another black person voting for Hillary. I don't know why people won't just admit that Barack is getting the black vote because he is black. My barber, one of the nicest people I know, was so upset when I told him I thought Hillary would make the better president, that I have not been back to let him cut my hair. I have been going to him for 3yrs. It is crazy how people are acting. I wish they would get this fired up over black on black crime, or the poverty rate of black children, or the drop out rate of blacks, or the incarceration rate of black males. It is like you have committed the worst sin known if you are black, and make it known that you support Hillary. Anyone who says this out loud is branded a racist or an Uncle Tom. Then you go to the liberal blogs and it is 24/7 Hillary hate. Is this really the change Obama is proposing?