This is classic 90's style politics. Clinton doesn't care if she loses the remaining 9% of the black vote, she just wants to do whatever she can to blur the lines and take our minds off the fact that Barack Obama is the best candidate. She thinks she can dumb it down and make it about race to steal some white votes (this is the second time they've tried to do this). Now they'll try to find a way to blame Obama. As far as Ferraro goes, she's a multi-time loser (Senate and VP) who's jealous of Obama's achievements, her point of view is worthless to educated voters (the only problem is that most voters are poorly informed, to say the least) I think Barack Obama should just start ignoring Clinton's nonsense. After all, you can't be a proper leader if you're always following the follower.

I hate to suggest this, but it's simply true: Ferraro's inane comments will experience some internal traction throughout Pennsylvania. In their hearts (and sometimes vocally), way too many people in the keystone state think like Ferraro.

Geraldine A. Ferraro is not a racist.

People who are trying to make it look that way are racist.

Geraldine Ferraro is simply stating the obvious. If a particular voting block in any democratic country is polling a candidate with those sought of figures – reportedly around the 80% mark, then something must driving it – and not just because he or she is that good, otherwise the figures would be spread across a range of voting blocks. Those sought of numbers statistically are in the range of numbers that might come from countries with a single party or a dictatorship which allows a marginal opposition to give credibility. What is probably upsetting people is that the election is showing that Afro Americans themselves are extremely racist, and probably more so than the other ethnic groups. Hilary Clinton was probably relying on the feminist movement to support her – and unfortunately for her women are no longer as concerned over issues of gender. Whether Barrack Obama is a racist or not, I don’t know, but it is convenient for his campaign to let his political machine react to the blindingly obvious with claims of “racism”.

Personally, as an Australian, I don’t care who wins, but for a country who managed to elect a president who has trouble stringing two words together, I wish America would vote based on issues and competence rather than skin color, gender, star status or family connections.

You can say what you want but many many people are thinking what Ferraro has expressed out loud. This is a fact. Now whether Obama wins or Hillary wins are for the voters to choose - we all, this includes yourself, might want to STFU ( your letters ) until then if it makes it better.

Again, Hoffman, you throw the term racist around very haphazardly. I agree that her remarks were inappropriate, ill-advised, and poorly timed. I agree that she is not according proper weight to his many positive qualities as a candidate, but I do not believe that this statement alone qualifies as either overt or subconscious racism. When exit polls coming out of Mississippi show that 30% of the voters felt that race was important in making their decision, and the voters in the state divided closely along racial lines, some evidence exists that Obama draws some support based on voters' identification with him as a black man. Similarly, some voters are voting for Clinton only because she is a woman. While I think votes should be based on qualities that directly affect a candidate's ability to lead this country, I understand that people often vote based on their perception of a candidate's gender or race. Acknowledging this trend does not mean that a person is a closet racist. Stating this observation with the rhetoric she chose and without acknowledging that his skills also play a role in Obama's appeal is not an intelligent or respectful position to take, but it is not, in and of itself, racist. Regardless of whether we think it is appropriate or relevant, race and gender are playing a role in this democratic race. If she had suggested that people should not vote for Obama because he is black, then you would have a valid basis for saying that she was making racist statements. But she did not, and you (again) use extremely charged rhetoric in a misguided effort to attract attention to your political views. Although I am fully aware that you will disregard these comments, I request that you acknowledge the significance of the term "racist" and apply it only when the circumstances and facts justify its use. I imagine that you would hope for similar treatment by others evaluating your speech and conduct.

Hey, Little Boy, that's a lot of words. My head hurts. I'm still waiting for someone to pull the Gumby card. He was green, after all. But best played by a black man. What's that say?

I found the placement of this piece immediately above an article by the same author, entitled "Always bet on black: Oddsmakers pick Obama 3 to 1" amusing and enlightening. The author can call out Obama's race and tie it to his prospects, but no one else can without being racist?

Hillary would have no political career at all were it not for being "Mrs. Bill Clinton." Neither Obama nor Clinton's resume can match those of Biden, Dodd, Kerry, or Gore. If anyone "deserved" the top spot, it was Gore.

I'm sticking with Obama not because he's black or male, but because he offers a fresh vision. Bill Clinton's eight years weren't bad, but Hillary Clinton's Senate career simply hasn't been that great. Between that and this dubious campaign of hers, I'm still waiting to hear why I should find her inspiring.

I supported Ferraro as Mondale's VP candidate, but history hasn't made that choice look good. Whiney isn't any more attractive on Ferraro than it is on Hillary.

The article completely misses Ferraro's point.

Ask yourself the question whether or not the country would be head over heels in love with Obama if he were a woman. If your answer is "yes," then you're completely unconscious. He would be positioned for what he is -- a very junior and inexperienced Senator with not much portfolio and no preparation to be commander-in-chief.

Ferraro's analysis is spot on.

There is so much actual pervasive racism out in the country, and yet, we are not able to have an intelligent conversation about it.

Look, every time I turn on CNN there is a discussion of who is polling well: Men compared to Women, Hispanics/African-Americans/Caucasians, old/young, college educated/not college educated, Catholic/Protestant, Rural/Urban, etc, etc, etc.....

And yet, no one can say "Look, this guy is inexperienced, I think there are people who are overlooking that because they are really excited to elect an African-American to the Presidency".
You really think there is no one out there who ignoring some of the negatives of Hillary because they are excited to see the first female President?
Or that if Huckabee were still in, there would be people who overlook his tax-plan because they want an Evangelical as president?
Or that some of the positives of Romney were overlooked by Republican voters because they just couldn't vote for a Mormon?

This is politics. Perceptions change votes. Identity counts to voters.

Hey Nigel in Australia:

Here in America we no longer use the term "Afro American."

(Although, I'd bet that privileged older white women like Geraldine Ferraro still do.)

Geraldine, tsk.tsk. Such a little potty mouth. We knew you were a racist way back when you dissed Jessie Jackson. The times they are "achangin"...too bad your attitudes are locked in the past. Get thee out of the Clinton campaign...you are costing her votes.

Ferraro's now resigned from HRC's campaign, but has done so in a very petulant and non-apologetic way. Add in her comments on Jackson -- Jesse, btw, commented at that time that he encountered less racism in the deep South on his campaign than he did in New York and PA -- and her track record in this regard is pretty damned clear.

I'm 55 and I haven't seen a candidate with this much charisma since RFK. I really don't think skin color is driving Obama's popularity. It's cheap of Ferraro to imply otherwise, especially since her words could be edited (slightly) to apply equally as well to HRC.

Americans are thirsting for change and not just someone who added "change" to their rhetoric after seeing how it polled in Iowa.

Hey Anonymous, I actually agree with you, especially the one about Huckabee. Jesus shit!--I must of ended up in a parallel dimension.

Geraldine Ferraro has spent forty years of her life helping with civil rights, women's rights, children's rights, and every kind of right you can think of. SHE IS NOT RACIST, AND HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE OFFENSE AT BEING CALLED ONE. In Mississippi, Barack Obama won 92 % of the black vote. YOU DON'T THIS IS BECAUSE HE IS A BLACK MAN?!! Please!!! Of course it has everything to do with it. I have African American friends who Support Hillary Clinton, and are being treated horribly by their people. Statements like," How could you betray our race? We have to stick together." IT IS VEY SAD.So if anyone is dividing the Democtatic party, it is Barack Obama and his supporters. We all better wake up before it is too late.

Look at what she said about Jesse Jackson in 1988!!!
She is a closet Racist, and was called on it!!!

From the Washington Post, April 15, 1988 (via Lexis):
�
Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Now that sounds familiar doesn't it!!!

As a black female, who at one time resisted feminism, I am consistently dumbfounded at how race and gender have become mutually exclusive. Just because Geraldine Ferraro has works on issues that relate or are great importance to people of color and in particular black people, does not automatically absolve her or any other person from the privileges that they simply because of their race. Most of Ferraro’s “equality fights” where people of color have been involved are inextricably linked to the white upper middle class women’s movement. She was there because it benefited her. I’m not blaming her for that, most of us do things simply because we will benefit from it, but her words, her comments, simply show that men and women of color were never her allies. Black women, black people (and many others) regardless of their political affiliation take offences to what she has said and implied.

This presidential race is about RACE and it is about GENDER and how we as an American public have a long way to go in being honest with ourselves and our feelings when confronted with both.

Ok Kristina in Seattle, I am happy to be corrected, but that is the term we hear in Australia, so perhaps you could enlighten me.

For your interest, I have always had a bit of a soft spot for the Democrats. From an overseas
point of view, a lot of non U.S. thinking is that traditionally, non U.S. countries are better off when the Republicans are voted in. This is because the Democrats in the U.S. are seen as leaning towards an isolationist policy, as opposed to the Republicans. This seems to be born out of the rhetoric coming from both Clinton and Obama, especially with regard to NAFTA.

I have also been able to follow your elections on the internet, and boy, is it an odd system. They keep on raising the issue of Australia becoming a Republic, and after seeming your system, I think that it is the best argument for us keeping a monarchy.

Cheers and Have Fun
Nigel

Frankly, it is you "Obamatons", who rely on Wikipedia as fact, who are idiotic racists!

Geraldine Ferraro just stated truth...no woman, even as eloquent as Obama may be with a teleprompter, could launch a campaign with "Hillary Boy" (vs. Obama girl), have only 18 months in the senate, and lecture the US public on race while using the term "typical white person"????

WTF? Could any other person in the world get up in front of national television, say the words "typical black person" in a lecture on racisim, and not lose their political career forever?

Give me a break!

Geraldine Ferarro, for those who were in diapers, served on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, 1993-1996...a hell of a lot more work for civil rights than Obama has done!

This is BS, and reverse racism...in fact it is Affirmative Action for the Presidency.

Sure, Bush paved the way with Affirmative Action for the Presidency...under the rights of mentally deficient, but should we continue to send up "puppets" that give great television screen and are a guise for the top 1% of the world who are pulling the strings?

WAKE UP...THE TOP 1% IS LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK WHILE WE POIT THE FINGER AT EACH OTHER CALLING OUT "RACIST"...

THE REAL WAR IS CLASS WAR...PLAIN AND SIMPLE. JEREMIAH WRIGHT IS RIGHT...THERE ARE AGENDA'S WAY ABOVE THE PEOPLE'S, AND THEY ARE KEPT QUIET AS POSSIBLE...BUT THEY ARE VISIBLE IF YOU TAKE MORE THAN 2 MINUTES TO DO YOUR WIKIPEDIA "RESEARCH"...TRY SETTING YOUR GOOGLE PREFERENCES TO 100 RESPONSES AND DO SOME SCROLLING, AND USE BOOLEAN SEARCHES WITH FILTERS...YOU WILL SEE REALITY EVENTUALLY!

Geraldine Ferraro may be stating a fact but it appears racist and it shows that she has a lack of understanding of people's sensitivities and it harmed Hillary. Choosing a loud mouth like Geraldine was not a good idea.