Ferraro was an idiot in 1984, and she's an idiot now. She was the beneficiary of the worse kind of political affirmative action, that which demanded gender parity on the presidential ticket at all costs. Despite her incompetence and her husband's links to organized crime, she was plucked from obscurity as the the first woman vice-presidential candidate, and set women back two decades in politics as she dragged down an already weak ticket. As an upper-income white woman, she surely knows that group has benefited the most from affirmative action, for better and for worse, including in politics. She need only look at the Senate where white women outnumber the one black man, Obama, by 15 to 1. By comparison, in 1968, there was one white woman, and one African-American man. This is a happy development for women, but a terrible indictment of the ceiling that continues to adversely affect black political power.
That said, nothing is unplanned in the Clinton campaign, except that she is losing, and once again, hoping to fan the worst instincts. It will backfire, of course, as it has before, but not without further hurting the Democratic party.
I understand. But if you're trying to defuse the situation and find a constructive path to countering the right-wing bigots, why headline your blog so provocatively? And why ignore Hillary's parallel problems (in many of our minds far worse, starting with allegations of murder, which have been widespread for years, and going downhill from there). Would it be helpful if I wrote a blog that started off with:
even if it went on to bring up the fact that I don't necessarily believe she is either one of those things.
Many people want us to believe Obama is a Muslim (and believe it is as bad to be a Muslim and/or a lesbian as it is to be a murderer), and no amount of discussion on this blog will change their minds.
Yes, this is potentially a problem, and we should be concerned too about wishing away those rumors that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian, which she says she's not (Hillary-lesbian is a fairly popular Google search). As far as we know. The latest crazy one: she is having an affair with her MUSLIM aide-de-camp, a woman. If it's true (which I'm sure it's not, as she says it's not), will it be more harmful to have a closeted Muslim-loving lesbian, or just a closeted Muslim as our candidate?
What is the point of this blog? That right-wing crazies blog too? To make sure that we keep this stupidity alive? MyDD, please stop the madness.
We've been learning about Obama for over a year now (longer than that for those of us who've been paying attention), so I think we're good to go. In fact, in every single state that has had the opportunity to get to know him (as opposed to, say, California or Mass), he has experienced a massive bump.
This kind of dishonesty is EXACTLY what the Clinton campaign and Jerome Armstrong are about. Actually, let's call it what it is: a lie. I understand why Obama has to dance around the semantics and can't confront the Clintons directly about their lying, but the rest of us can, and we should. To Clinton's credit, though, it seems as if, for once, it is her supporters who are ahead on this one, and rather than have to cover for her lying they just thought they'd jump to the next stage and be more proactive.
I check out this site regularly, mostly because I find it important to understand what motivates Clinton supporters, but if a contributor as prominent as Armstrong can try to get away with blogging that is as sloppy and morally corrupt as this, why bother to stop by at all?
I know you support Clinton (I don't) but this analysis is sound and refreshing in that it offers her a path to the nomination that is based on doing well in the remaining states. this is a far healthier and plausible scenario than counting on super delegates, florida, michigan or god knows what other convolution.