Geraldine Ferraro

Parent Cafe
81

<p>“IE: Monolithically.”</p>

<p>No more monolithically than blue-collar (mostly white) working class have monolithically voted Democratic for umpteenth decades. (And previously, they were the most traditionally democratic in their leanings I might add --the strongest <em>party</em> affiliated democrats: i.e., HRC is a <em>party</em> candidate.).</p>

<p>Jesse Jackson not only did not attract the size of the black electorate that Barack Obama does; JJ did not attract much interest from other voting “blocs,” either. Who are you to say the reasons that people do & do not choose to vote for candidates? How do you know/assume that blacks merely didn’t vote because “he had no chance of winning?” What arrogance.</p>

82

<p>

</p>

<p>But Clinton isn’t a blue-collar working class person. And i’m sure they dont vote en masses of 90% for one candidate. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Cuz he wasn’t going to win? It’s not arrogance to say this is why people didn’t vote for him…just like it’s not arrogant to say bush got to where he was because of connections.</p>

83

<p>

</p>

<p>If you read that in what I wrote, then there’s been a misunderstanding. I said I do think Obama’s been fast-tracked – and gained more explosive electoral appeal – because he’s black. But it’s occurred because being black, he’s at the same time been recognized for having the talent, charisma, brilliance, and post-racist attractiveness to be smart and good enough to be president. He’s the whole package, in other words – and yes, part of that includes being black. It’s also because he symbolizes our best hopes for a race-blind meritocracy.</p>

<p>But to your point: he’s gotten a whole lot of white and other non-black people voting for him as well. I don’t think it’s all that relevant. It’s hard to hypothesize who’d be getting what percentage of the black vote if he were white. Also, what about other factors: she’s gotten Republican dittohead crossover votes, he’s mobilized a lot of young people, etc.</p>

84

<p>

Incorrect.</p>

<p>After NAFTA, union voters have only voted ~25-30 points more for democrats. Not monolithic at all. Keep coming with your “facts” though.</p>

<p>

Yeah, hence JJ didn’t “have a chance”. I said this in a previous post.</p>

<p>

Umm, you are doing the same thing. Keep the hypocrisy coming, it’s humorous.</p>

<p>

Arrogance? And yet you have the arrogance to assume people <em>are not</em> doing that? You are some magic diviner of human nature?</p>

<p>This is all speculation obviously. Why people vote for who they do.</p>

85

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree 100%. I think #'s show that republicans are actually voting for Obama at a slightly higher margin than Clinton.</p>

86

<p>I am troubled by any attempt to say that Clinton is only where she is because she’s a woman, or that Obama is where he is because he is black. It belittles both people’s abilities and accomplishments.</p>

<p>I think with regard to Obama, that people are forgetting the flood of supporters that Mario Cuomo generated by giving a great speech - the shining city on the hill speech - during a Democratic campaign. Lots of people begged him to run on the basis of his past, plus that speech. He choose not to.</p>

<p>If Cuomo became almost a front runner on the basis of such a speech, then clearly Obama’s doing this shouldn’t be attributed purely to being black. The fact that Obama took the next step and has progressed as far as he has, is testimony to some passion and skill set that many noticed was absent in Cuomo. But in any case, no one said Cuomo was suddenly so popular because he was Italian.</p>

87

<p>For every person who’s voting for Obama because he is black, i bet their is another person voting against him because he’s black, and another two people voting for Hilary because she’s a woman. </p>

<p>The point is that whether or not what she’s saying is true is irrelevant. The obvious motive behind the statement was to continue Clinton’s strategy of saying that 2/3 of the states that have voted don’t matter.</p>

88

<p>I don’t think the guy is Jesus, Mr. Payne. He’s not going to work miracles. And I will vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination and I could vote for McCain under the right circumstances, so don’t paint me with the wacko brush, okay?</p>

<p>I’m not looking for a savior (already have one, thanks) but as for a political leader and potential chief executive and spokesperson to the rest of the world, Obama’s come along at the right time with the right qualities. Being black is incidental to his appeal for me. Being half white and half black, on the other hand, is not, because he has obviously learned and made peace with what we in the United States of America all must resolve… the contradictions of our multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-gender selves. If we can’t put aside our differences for one second to work together to solve our horrible problems then what hope do we have as a “united” states? I’m sick of the false choices presented to me by the politics of the past 30 years and I 'm especially sick of the ongoing demonizing of right- and left-wingers by each other. I’m frankly sick of the wings. I think I’m not alone in the longing for progress rather than the pitched battles, and who better to embody it than a guy with the hybrid identity and hybrid history and hybrid vision?</p>

<p>It’s not just a speech to me. Despite how much Clinton and McCain say it is, and how they mock those of us who like Obama, it’s not just a pretty speech. Though the speeches are quite beautiful.</p>

89

<p>I remember a certain speech</p>

<p>“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character…”</p>

<ul>
<li>Martin Luther King, Jr.</li>
</ul>

90

<p>Ferraro shouldn’t have made the comment and I disagree with the race part, but I agree wholeheartedly that a woman of any color with his slim resume would have been laughed out of Dodge City a year ago.</p>

91

<p>it’s amazing how the subject of race brings out the ■■■■■■ & the flamers, en masse, stalking the debate while making fools of themselves.</p>

<p>Much of the black voting bloc has as little in common, class-wise with Obama, as blue-collar whites have with Clinton. Working class she ain’t.</p>

<p>Get your own facts straight.</p>

<p>There are some people on this board with a very thin, thin grasp of history, and I’m not one of those people.</p>

92

<p>Dnt8up (sp?)
Yes, this illustrates why the Caseys, intelligent, profoundly good, true public servants, will never advance to the national stage. One issue: pro-life.<br>
Our Constitution was never meant to be twisted and deformed to please special interest groups. If states want legal abortion, each state can call a referendum,and let the voters choose. This should never have been a Constitutional issue. That way, voters choose where to live according to their own moral imperatives, pro or con.</p>

93

<p>I must say, this is a fascinating thread.</p>

94

<p>

</p>

<p>Name the last president where much of the voting bloc DID have something in common with the candidate? 95% of America can’t relate to any candidate but there’s a reason why Obama draws 90% of the black vote and I’m not naive enough to think that this massive, unheard of proportion of voters are drawn to Obamas policies as opposed to Clinton. There’s a reason they vote for Obama and not Clinton. Message, rhetoric, personal accomplishments are all good reasons, but they don’t get you 9 out of 10 voters.</p>

95

<p>“There’s a reason they vote for Obama and not Clinton.”</p>

<p>Even following your supposed “facts” (which I don’t), there’s an equally large attraction of white women voting for Clinton, precisely as a block, precisely “monolithically,” precisely because (from the self-reporting of those voters) she is a woman.</p>

<p>This is why I say that these threads, like the AA threads, bring out the ■■■■■■. With enormous vehemence they find it unfair that blacks (like white women) supposedly – & I say that with implied quotation marks – vote in blocs – or somehow those votes are not as valid as the ‘bloc’ votes for Hillary – not as considered, not as intelligent.</p>

<p>And why? Naturally because blacks can’t be trusted to apply similar reasoning & input into their voting decisions that white women do. It’s an offensively elitist viewpoint.</p>

<p>Perhaps we need certificates & credentials & applications for voting, of a kind to prove how worthy or valid a vote is compared with votes of groups representing other constituencies.</p>

96

<p>I don’t know if any of you who keep banging on the fact that Obama has garnered as much as 90% of a given state’s black vote have noticed, but African Americans only comprise about 10% of the total U.S. population. Ten Percent. This means that even if he’d netted 100% of the black vote, but not substantially enough of any other demographic, he’d not have a snowball’s chance in you-know-where of beating Hillary Clinton for the nomination. Certainly, it cannot be said that he won Iowa, Idaho, Montana, and Vermont, among others, on the strength of an all-powerful “monolithic black vote.” :rolleyes: </p>

<p>GF’s statement was at its very best, insulting and shallow, because it ignores very other variable that has coalesced to bring Obama to where he is today, not the least among them being her candidate’s own considerable liabilities. </p>

<p>Geraldine stated that Obama is where he is today because of his race. Period. Anyone with even a half-wit’s level of intelligence knows that that statement was a blatant attempt to belittle him using his race. And just a few brain cells more would enable a person to deduce that, if black pigment were all it took for a person to lead in his party’s race for the Presidential nomination, Jesse Jackson would have done so back in the late 80’s (when apparently even then, Geraldine was flapping her gums about how much of an advantage being black gave Jesse. :rolleyes:)</p>

<p>In the days before Super Tuesday, I had a conversation with a friend who said, she was just disgusted with the way black people were voting for Barack Obama “just because he is black”. But I believe that, for the majority of black Americans, there is no “simply” involved in the decision to vote for Obama. We have voted for Obama because he is a Democrat whom we feel is every bit as intelligent and capable as Hillary Clinton, has experience comparable to hers (no matter what Hillary says to the contrary) and virtually none of her political liabilities. And he makes many of us proud. Yes, his race is the icing on the cake. However, for me, prior to John Edwards pulling out of the race (a gasp!—white male :eek:), it would not have been icing enough. The Clintons have historically enjoyed a great deal of esteem in the African American community, which is why earlier on, Hillary was set to win a sizable number of our votes (probably at least as large a percentage as the Hispanic vote Obama won in Texas and California). But then Bill went and ripped that ticket with statements meant to marginalize and belittle Obama as “the black candidate”, on par with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. That’s when a lot of us realized that “The First Black President” was not above race baiting to gain an advantage in his—I mean, his wife’s bid for The White House, that he didn’t respect us so much after all. :rolleyes: </p>

<p>So now Geraldine Ferraro picks up where Bill left off, and we are supposed to view it somehow differently. Sorry, no can do. Maybe it’s because the Clintons have already written off the black vote. But they would do well to understand that we weren’t the only ones capable of seeing juuuust where talk like that is coming from. And we aren’t the only ones who don’t like it.</p>

97

<p>Is this not what Republicans want, (no love for either party personally so don’t have dog in this ) have this entire process revolve around he said/she said, and low and behold, nobody has a clue to his/her ideas,personally I want substance not verbosity nor a inspiration/motivation. HRC is trying to clean up what others are saying, and Obamas verbiage, is one of recycled speeches that verbatim come from Axelrod and his former clients campaigns.</p>

<p>Hmm, tangle it further with Florida and Michigan into the summer months, low and behold, the two are chasing in circles while McCain is getting ready to pounce on either one.</p>

<p>Wonder who will be the winner come November?</p>

98

<p>

</p>

<p>I didn’t realize that the entire population of the United States votes in the democratic primary :rolleyes:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Nowhere NEAR 90%</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Don’t put words in my mouth, or anybody elses on this board. We’re talking about voting blocs and you say we’re advocating voter tests because a black vote can’t be trusted? Please stay on topic…Nice straw man argument. Let me ask you a question, it’s a yes/no so you don’t need to write me a paragraph about it. </p>

<p>1) Would Obama be getting 90% of the black vote in the primaries if he was white?</p>

99

<p>Lax, go back and reread paragraph 4 of my post (no. 96). The Clinton campaign basically threw the black vote under the bus in the interest of garnering a larger percentage of the wider demographic. That kind of disrespect does not go unnoticed.</p>

100

<p>“Don’t put words in my mouth, or anybody else[s] on this board.”</p>

<p>It’s actually you who put words/thoughts in the mouths of voters whom you do not know. I’ve not “put words” into posters’ mouths, merely reflected on what they themselves have said.</p>

<p>You’re outraged that blacks dare ever vote effectively in a bloc. You show no such outrage for any other group voting in any other bloc. Clinton took the Hispanic vote disproportionally in Texas, for example. Where’s your outrage that they also dared to vote in a bloc – not needing your approval, any more than I need your permission to post here?</p>