Just tone deaf.

Once again, America can't handle the truth.

The 1984 vice presidential nominee had apologized again this morning to those who thought it racially insensitive for her to suggest that Barack Obama wouldn't be the Democratic front-runner if he were not black. But she also declared: "It wasn't a racist comment. It was a statement of fact."

I'm sorry you're upset that I called you a coon, but that doesn't change the fact that I can't see you in the dark.

That kind of truth?

I'm an Obama girl, but Hills has had a tough week, betweem this and Spitzer.

It sounds like she doesn't know what a fact is.

I always considered that more of a Republican thing.

Olbermann, as always, rules.

So she's saying that his skin color is giving him an advantage that his lack of experience does not. Okay, that's her opinion, clearly. I mean, she isn't backing the statement up with any, facts. What the hell does she expect people to think!

You know, I am so sick of the rabid racist and sexist drivel being spit about in this campaign cycle. And these people are the best and brightest the DNC has to offer? I quit.

I'm going to ignore analyzing her quote right now to point out that very few media outlets are quoting it in full. She didn't say he's only getting press/support because he's black. She said that if he were a white man, or if he were any flavor of woman, he wouldn't be getting the groundswell he's getting. And she's really not that far off, IMO.

It was an incredibly clumsy thing to say, but it's not being reported in context. She also went on to say that if she had been Gerald Ferraro -- not Geraldine -- she never would have been on Mondale's ticket. And she's right there, too.

It's being twisted. Maybe rightly. It's a sensitive topic, for sure. But she wasn't exactly wrong.

I like Obama a lot, and not because he's black, for the record. I think his race help him, though. I really do. We liberals like to feel like we're making progress. John Edwards was more progressive, but a less compelling public speaker. He couldn't pull off the small-town preacher thing the way Obama can. I can recognize the role-playing and still respect Obama for his ideas and his potential.

And don't nobody dare call me a racist, or else.

I think his race help him, though. I really do.

I'm absolutely not calling you a racist, mudpuppie, but I just don't think this holds water when you look at the states he's won -- and overwhelmingly won. Colorado? Wyoming? Iowa? Those are not racially mixed states. And they are most certainly not filled with upper-middle-class white liberals looking to assuage their guilt over race in the name of progress.

I watched Obama's speech in Laramie, Wyoming, from beginning to end. And it wasn't a bunch of young college kids giving him a standing ovation (though they were there, too). It was an almost all-white audience. It was filled with the kind of people I grew up with -- ranch people, and railroaders, and regular working-class town folks. White men in their 50s in cowboy hats and, most likely, NRA membership cards in their wallets. Wyoming people are independent. Their brand of politics -- both liberal and conservative -- runs to the libertarian side of things. And I can tell you why they were cheering -- they were cheering for Obama because he's NOT THE ESTABLISHMENT. People are sick to death of the political dynasties -- the Bushes and the Clintons alike -- who've run this country for the past 20 years, who got us into this dreadful war (and make no mistake: Hillary Clinton was W's enabler on that score) that has cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. People are sick to death of the politics of division, where you are pilloried as a traitor or worse for daring to disagree. They're sick to death of corporate interests constantly being put before those of regular people.

The primary problem for Hillary Clinton is not that she's a woman; her primary problem is that she represents a continuation of those very politics at a moment when those politics have become anathema to broad swaths of the population, no matter how much she begs to differ rhetorically. Barack Obama represents the break from those politics that millions of people have been thirsting for. Whether he can deliver on those expectations is certainly another question (and an important one). But among vast swaths of his supporters, I genuinely believe that the fact that he's black is irrelevant.

Also: evidently I really like the word "swath" these days. And to be clear about my own politics: I haven't been a Democrat since the mid-'90s (disgust with the Clintons being just one of several reasons I left the party), and I have little, if any, faith in the U.S. political system as it presently exists.

I'm absolutely not calling you a racist, mudpuppie, but I just don't think this holds water when you look at the states he's won.

A few disjointed thoughts:

I agree that's true for most voters. I think I feel more cynical about the Party (and I didn't express that adequately). I think the party faithful love that he's a black dude. I don't buy the whole 'experience' argument (because no one in the race has any experience being president, and the people we know who do are people we hate). But I think that the faithful dems wouldn't back a white guy with Obama's resume, unless he was really, really charismatic. And that's what Obama has going for him, really -- his charisma. But a lot of people, I think, have a hard time separating that charisma from the fact that he's a black man. That sucks. But it IS inseparable for lots of people. That's one of the reasons he inspires people, no? He's so charismatic and articulate and intelligent (for a black man). And that's makes him great to the people who would otherwise be undecided.

I'm probably just being cynical, and I apologize for that. I also know that I'm rambling, and I apologize for that too. I guess I just know too many people who see color before anything else (most of them are relatives). And good god -- some of them like Obama. It's kind of revolutionary for me, and I'm still figuring out how to process it all.

Obama is representing a different kind of politics (or at least, trying to), and representing himself as a different kind of politician. His background (black with a white mother and a father who was NOT a descendant of American slaves) has helped immeasurably to sell this difference. (It could also be a weapon against him as the Repugs try to define him as "THE OTHER") And remember at first he did NOT have the black vote in his pocket. But if he were any other BLACK politician, he probably wouldn't have had this success either.

I'm not holding out much hope that he can make the extreme changes in American politics that it desperately needs to become a DEMOCRACY, but he is certainly by far the least of the available 'evils'.

And that's what Obama has going for him, really -- his charisma. But a lot of people, I think, have a hard time separating that charisma from the fact that he's a black man.

That's a good observation. I definitely see you on that.

Yay. Thanks. I was worried that it came out wrong.

Besides his natural charisma and other qualities, Obama owes his current groundswell to the distaste many have for Hillary. In many people's minds he's a *much* more palatable candidate, and it has nothing to do with his race.

Yeah, exactly. That's his other gold chip. He's not Hillary.

During the 2004 campaign, I don't remember anyone being excited about Kerry. He got support because he wasn't the Republican candidate. This time around, there are people who care both about Clinton and Obama. That in and of itself is pretty cool. But sometimes Obama's stock does seem to be that he's very much Not Hillary.

Eh. I just typed a lot more, but I don't think it made sense, so I deleted it. Someone fed me wine. I should just quit now.

Viva la Obama!

mudpuppie used the one word I have been using all along: charisma, a characteristic that goes a long way and allows many to forgive relevant shortcomings.

The one word that has been exploited far too often in this race for its ability to incite white guilt is racism. The response to viritually any opposition to Obama has continually been the accusation of racism. Many comments have been labelled racist without any justification whatsoever. How are Ferraro's comments racist? I don't see it.

... and the Republicans have yet to enter the fray to any significant extent.

Well, I support Obama not because he's "black like me" but because he's articulate, cool under pressure and doesn't carry Clintonian baggage. Hilary's occasional tone-deafness is a huge turn-off as well.

As for Ferraro, this wasn't a one-time gaffe. Keep in mind that she said the same thing about Jesse Jackson when he ran. Now it's 20 years later and she made her comment about Obama on (racist) John Gibson's show on Feb. 27. Then repeated it a few days ago.
So basically, she's saying any black male who runs for President ONLY gets consideration because of his color. I guess any black man would do, regardless of his qualifications. That's what's so insulting about what she said. Could you imagine the stink if one of Obama's fund raisers made similar comments about Hilary?

Mind you, if Obama was wealthy and white and still just as charismatic, this contest would've been over on Super Tuesday.

mudpuppie used the one word I have been using all along: charisma, a characteristic that goes a long way and allows many to forgive relevant shortcomings.

I don't see it quite like that -- as excusing his shortcomings. Honestly, I think his charisma is WHY he should be prez. Because I think what we need most now is for the world to like us again, even though so much domestic shit is so bad. I think we've got to repair our image before we can shore up the homefront. And I think he's the best person to do that. Because of his charisma.

...because he's articulate, cool under pressure and doesn't carry Clintonian baggage. Hilary's occasional tone-deafness is a huge turn-off as well.

Exactly what I meant, but was too inarticulate to say.

and the Republicans have yet to enter the fray to any significant extent.

They don't need to. Hillary's camp is doing quite nicely on that score for them.

I want to know who's perpetuating the twist. It's very different if it's being pushed by an Obama supporter or a McCain supporter.

For example, the Great Republican Spin Machine is likely to be doing this because they feel they have a better chance pinning an old white man against a young black man instead of an old white man against an old white woman.

I can't understand what Hillary is doing. I was pretty close to being split 50-50 between her and Obama after Edwards dropped out but everything she's said and done since then has pissed me off. I've been a fan of hers since '92 when I watched the Clintons interviewed on a TV news show(maybe 20-20?) and said, "wow, can I vote for her instead?" Now sixteen years later, I have a chance to vote for her next month and she's but I don't think that I can. Even my wife who was probably more like 60-40 in favor of Clinton over Obama is about to give up on her.

I can't understand what Hillary is doing. I was pretty close to being split 50-50 between her and Obama after Edwards dropped out but everything she's said and done since then has pissed me off.

Likewise. I'm happier and happier as time goes by that I voted for Obama on Supersized Tuesday.

I think that the faithful dems wouldn't back a white guy with Obama's resume, unless he was really, really charismatic.

But he is really, really charismatic, in a Bobby Kennedy way, and it is not much of a leap to imagine him as a white guy using the same rhetoric and style, of the same generation, inspiring the same support. That's exactly why I don't ascribe too much of his success to race and the dream of progress that he makes a reality through his success. To the extent it acts on supporters, I think it's a bit of a bonus but not a motivator. Scody nailed it, I think: he represents a different generation and a different and fresh philosophy about the use of government power. Simply the idea that he might assemble some brains around the decision-making table that are not part of old-line, post-Cold-war/Reaganism, baby-boomer thinking is cause for hope. When I saw him speak I was struck by one thing above all: he's able to listen. He has some humility. As an academic, he knows what it is to deeply consider the thoughts of the sharpest minds he can find. It's this sort of deliberative leadership, coupled with the charisma that I agree is vitally important right now, that make him, for me, the better choice.

And, like octothorpe, I began this election cycle way back as a Hillary supporter. I was won over by Obama, but even if I had not been, I'd be reconsidering Hillary by now. Quite flatly, despite her many skills and talents and her deftness with policy, she's not running her campaign very well, or in a way that I can admire. That doesn't inspire great confidence that she would lead the cabinet or the nation well, or in a way I would admire. You know?

I was on the fence between Hillary and Obama for long time, comparing nuances of policy positions, etc. Then I realized that my choice was really one of old school, divisive politics-as-usual (straight from the Karl Rove playbook, in some cases), versus a message of unity and hope and renewal. My shriveled, cynical, too-long-inside-the-Beltway heart grew three sizes that day, and I've been a Believer ever since. It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the Right Candidate offering the Right Message at the Right Time. It's been a long, dark, eight years, and I am ready to have me some Morning in America (of a non-Reaganesque variety), thank you very much.

I was won over by Obama, but even if I had not been, I'd be reconsidering Hillary by now. Quite flatly, despite her many skills and talents and her deftness with policy, she's not running her campaign very well, or in a way that I can admire. That doesn't inspire great confidence that she would lead the cabinet or the nation well, or in a way I would admire. You know?

Why is it that every time I get to a thread, Miko has already picked the words out of my brain, polished them, and posted them in such an eloquent fashion? HOW DO YOU DO EET?

uuugh... big long thing all typed out and I spazzed, hit the back button somehow, and lost it!

But anyways, I'm a campagin voulenteer. As I was for Gore in 2000, and Dean (and later Kerry) in 2004.

The feeling both times was one of "he's not Bush, so we'll do anything we can to get him in office."

This year? It's "he's Obama, and we'll do what we can to get him in office!"

There's a difference. It's something I saw with Dean, but not to this degree.
It's amazing to see people so involved and passionate about politics again. And it's still just the primaries, to boot! I really do credit it to Obama. He's the first to work off Dean's 50 state strategy, which brings it home to a lot of people. Wyoming and Mississippi get attention just like New York and Pennsylvania. Their concerns are addressed. And for once the states without huge numbers of delegates are being listened to. That draws people in.

As for Ferraro... well, Olbermann's response was pretty close to what I was thinking.

I like both candidates. I voted for Hillary after Edwards dropped out, but I was on the fence with Hillary versus Obama. Obama's running a great campaign, and I think he'll be the nominee.

I think there are some bits of truth to what Ferraro said -- I think Obama's race has helped him (and in a way that would not be the case for a woman of color). (I think Hillary being a woman has helped her a bit also, though in a somewhat more complicated two-edged sword way.) But it's just one plus factor -- there are many other factors that make the Obama candidacy what it is.

I'm not going to read Olbermann's response (because honestly, he's a pundit, but 'It's OK cause he's on our side'? That attitude doesn't cut it for me). But I will make a semi-defense for Ferraro's position in this campaign.

Ferraro is approaching this from a very historical perspective. If you look at politics, it's easy to see that access to political will has gone, generally, in the order of race -> gender -> sexuality (let's talk about religion some other time). Obama may be black, but he still pisses in the same trough as the rest of the men (at least, as my fiance pointed out, he has since 1970-something). The nation's issues with Obama are fundamentally the same issues we have with any male candidate, and on top of that his African heritage attracts a certain percentage of the population that DIDN'T vote for, say, Edwards (who is rather similar in policy to both Clinton and Obama).

It's true that's been the progression of the underrepresented groups into almost every political role: right to vote, judgeships, senate, House. The exception is for the post of Governor - there had been several women governers before the first black governor was elected in 1989.

Which just makes me wonder even more why the race-related comments are necessary. If Barack's leading Hillary, you don't need race to explain it; some of it is likely just plain because he's male.

If Barack's leading Hillary, you don't need race to explain it; some of it is likely just plain because he's male.

I think this is the case: If Barack's leading Hillary, you don't need race to explain it; some of it is likely just plain because he's NOT Hilary.

If Barack's leading Hillary, you don't need race to explain it.

It's hard to support this, looking at the results broken out by ethnicity, especially in states with large African-American populations. For example, Georgia.

There's a lot of reasons why voters pick one candidate over another, and I think both race and gender have lots to do with it. So does personality and marketing. I'd say platform, beyond the general "Democratic/Republican" is the least important this year.