Nice twist! It was Ferraro that raised the issue of race, was it not?

Talk of race is different than ‘racism’. Check it out on wiki. Besides, we’re talking about ‘race’ and ‘racism’ without being racist. Can you point to what she said that was specifically ‘racist’?

She said that Obama had an advantage…was lucky…because he was a Black Male?

Sure sure. He’s got solid AA support. No surprise, no hatred in that.

What I read was that she said he was getting the kind of identity politics support she got when she ran. Is that incorrect? Is it racist to state a fact?

MarkH:
except that it made him stand out when there was nothing else about his candidacy which was special. She said the same thing was true in her case.

The fact is that she only said this AFTERWARDS. Following her original statements once the controversy arose.

Didn’t know that. Does that mean it’s a lie?

Apparently there was a question before Iowa whether the Blacks in America would support him. The question was whether enough Whites would support him so that the Blacks would go out on that limb. Once they saw Iowa support him they all jumped on his wagon. Jackson and Sharpton never got THAT much White support.

Once gotten it IS a big advantage. Do you deny that?

Every self-made man has had a million friends help him. But, I will admit he’s done the work and made a remarkable success. Look at many of the US senators and you’ll see similar stories. That doesn’t mean they’re all fit to be president either.

————–

Twisting in the wind:

Well let’s see an excellent case of twisting a persons words.

MarkH:
For example, earlier in the campaign there was the issue of whether a president should meet with heads of state without preparation and Obama said he would.

No what Obama said was whether he would meet with a leader of a foreign State like Iran without PRECONDITIONS.

Sure sure, preconditions.

MarkH:
He was labeled ‘naive’. But, he came back later and twisted their argument into ‘They said we shouldn’t meet with our enemies and I said we would, so I’m a new kind of leader.’ Well, sorry, no. That’s not what they said. they said you were naive for accepting that you would meet with a foreign leader without laying the groundwork.

No, it’s you twisting what Obama said. This is precisely what you have accepted as fact, when it wasn’t what he said at all. …

From barackobama.com:

7/07

… the candidates were asked whether they would “be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration . . . with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries.”

Without hesitation, Obama replied: “I would.” He dismissed as “ridiculous” the “notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them.”

MarkH: I don’t know where he got the bit about a ‘notion’. Is this an instance of him implying somone else had said ‘talking’ was ‘punishment’, but that he knew better?

Clinton sensed an opening. “I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year,” she said, adding, “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes.”

Figuring she had the high ground, Clinton continued on the attack Tuesday, calling Obama’s position “irresponsible and frankly naive.”

MarkH: She didn’t say anything about ‘preconditions’ here, just that it was ‘irresponsible and frankly naive’ to say definitively you’ll meet with those leaders in your first year.

—-

ABC News –
From a transcript of a debate in Iowa 8/19/07:

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, Senator Clinton, you did tell the Quad City Times that Senator Obama’s views on meeting with foreign dictators are naive and irresponsible. Doesn’t that imply that he’s not ready for the office?

CLINTON: Well, George, we had a specific disagreement, because I do not think that a president should give away the bargaining chip of a personal meeting with any leader, unless you know what you’re going to get out of that.

MarkH: Again, nothing about preconditions. Just about giving ‘away the bargaining chip of a personal meeting with’ the president.

The actual allegation was that he was naive to believe you should meet with those leaders in your first year and not expect them to use it for propaganda purposes and that you should say something specific like that during a debate, leaving yourself no wiggle-room.

He changed it to a question of whether it was about having preconditions. He also threw in the Kennedy quote about not fearing to talk to our enemies which says he’s a new Kennedy kind of leader.

It’s not so different from the way he was accused of being naive with regard to foreign policy toward Pakistan.

He specifically said that if there was actionable intelligence about Al Qaeda in Pakistan that we’d go in after them. There was something about nukes which he backed off later.

Who shows their hand like that except a naif? I’d play poker with him any day and I’m really bad at poker. Honest!

I know I’m epu’d, but comment 103 is just ridiculous. Why do you think he made that statement?
It was an ANSWER to a QUESTION from reporters!
Think, for g’s sake. It was NOT he who brought it up, it was Gerry Ferraro. Nothing in that statement of Obama’s was a lie.
Sheesh. Talk about twisting…

Hey, let’s do the twist!

First, I haven’t read it all, so there is a small chance I have it wrong. Feel free to quote from the article if you can prove me wrong.

He said something about her having said it was easier for him since he was an AA and that nobody believes that. But, she didn’t say it was easier for him, just that he wouldn’t be there without the solid AA support he’s getting, just as she got solid support for her v.p. candidacy and that that aside from his nice suit and color he isn’t anything special.

Is that what you mean by ‘easier’? Was there something in the Q&A about it being easier because of journalists giving him a free ride? Haven’t they?

There’s no racism in her comment. It was all pretty factual. So, where did the racism come from? You said there was a journalist question. Perhaps they introduced it. But, since racism and sexism have been in the campaign already I think you’d really have to be honest and go all the way back to where it first came into the discussion. After Iowa Obama supporters were calling his opponents racist. He never yelled them down (so far as I know). It’s still going on.

Now, it’s possible Obama’s people are simply using it as a tactic to get an edge. But, it’s pretty disgusting if you ask me. I don’t think it’s at all nice for him to be calling other democrats ‘wrong-headed’ unless he wants to specify and detail just what it is he disagrees with. And when people jump all over Ferraro he should tell them to back off. He hasn’t. It certainly isn’t top-level Democratic politics to use that kind of tactic.

Tell me again where the racism charge is coming from.

On the ‘lying’. I say he’s lying about Ferraro bringing in ‘racism’. I don’t think she did, but that he did.

Also, you never tried to rebut the other anecdote-allegation. Do you accept that he lied about the ‘naive’ allegation?

Let’s twist again, like we did last summer!

“When he said she wasn’t a racist he was introducing racism into the discussion. He, Barack Obama did that, not Ferraro”.

Excuse me, y’all. I’m just trying to wrap my mind around the idea of somebody seriously making a statement like this…

“When he said she wasn’t a racist he was introducing racism into the discussion. He, Barack Obama did that, not Ferraro”.

Changing directions rather quickly…
This is an excellent example of how Obama takes an argument and twists it to favor himself.

Hmmm! Get ready for more twistin’ than Chubby Checker.

When he said she wasn’t a racist he was introducing racism into the discussion. He, Barack Obama did that, not Ferraro.

Nice twist! It was Ferraro that raised the issue of race, was it not? She said that Obama had an advantage…was lucky…because he was a Black Male? And how does saying he doesn’t think someone is a racist…when ASKED DIRECTLY…make one interjecting race into the campaign. Obama actually emphasized that she was quite simply wrong. That his mixed-race, his name and his background has been a disadvantage.

She didn’t say that his being an AA was a great advantage

Yes she did.

except that it made him stand out when there was nothing else about his candidacy which was special. She said the same thing was true in her case.

The fact is that she only said this AFTERWARDS. Following her original statements once the controversy arose.

Still, for Obama to say her comments were ‘ridiculous’ and ‘wrong-headed’ is inflammatory, ridiculous and ignoring her point.

Nice “reverse Malkin”. They remain absurd. It would be like saying that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton were so advantaged by their ethnicity that they were propelled into being viable candidates. Obama is a viable candidate because he has arose as a very smart lawyer, worked with community groups in Chicago, succeeded as both a State Legislator and as a Senator. He didn’t arrive at where he was through familial relationships and the “lucky” benefits in poltical connections and fundraising that accrued to him as a result of entitlement. Obama is a self-made man.

And, then to add his own spin on her statement, completely twisting it into oblivion, was just lying. I don’t know what else to call it. He changes the meaning of the person’s argument to the point where it’s just a flat out lie

Well let’s see an excellent case of twisting a persons words.

For example, earlier in the campaign there was the issue of whether a president should meet with heads of state without preparation and Obama said he would.

No what Obama said was whether he would meet with a leader of a foreign State like Iran without PRECONDITIONS. Others had said that they would demand things like Irans accepting that Israel should exist as a State. Or signing away the development of nuclear power PRIOR TO a meeting. Obama said that he would not call for that simply because it would make impossible any contact at the highest levels where such agreements were actually worked out.

He was labeled ‘naive’. But, he came back later and twisted their argument into ‘They said we shouldn’t meet with our enemies and I said we would, so I’m a new kind of leader.’ Well, sorry, no. That’s not what they said. they said you were naive for accepting that you would meet with a foreign leader without laying the groundwork.

No, it’s you twisting what Obama said. This is precisely what you have accepted as fact, when it wasn’t what he said at all. In fact, the other campaigns eventually agreed that he never said that he wouldn’t have laid “groundwork” (an absurdity since all meetings, even with Governors have staff meet or arrange strauctural details breforehand). What Obama said was that he would not require “Preconditions” to be met.

Check and you’ll see he’s used this tactic many times to deflect powerful arguments. He just lies.BTW, is it racist to say someone lies? Just checkin’.

No. It’s not racist. But when you call someone a liar you best not be misrepresenting the facts yourself.

After saying he did not consider Ferraro a racist,
“I think that her comments were ridiculous. I think they were wrong-headed,” he said. “The notion that it is a great advantage to me to be an African American named Barack Obama and pursue the presidency, I think, is not a view that has been commonly shared by the general public.”

Changing directions rather quickly…

This is an excellent example of how Obama takes an argument and twists it to favor himself.

When he said she wasn’t a racist he was introducing racism into the discussion. He, Barack Obama did that, not Ferraro.

She didn’t say that his being an AA was a great advantage, except that it made him stand out when there was nothing else about his candidacy which was special. She said the same thing was true in her case. She said she never would have been the veep candidate had she not been a woman. But, having said that she also added that she was prepared to be veep or president. I don’t know if she also added that she considered Obama ready.

Still, for Obama to say her comments were ‘ridiculous’ and ‘wrong-headed’ is inflammatory, ridiculous and ignoring her point. And, then to add his own spin on her statement, completely twisting it into oblivion, was just lying. I don’t know what else to call it. He changes the meaning of the person’s argument to the point where it’s just a flat out lie.

For example, earlier in the campaign there was the issue of whether a president should meet with heads of state without preparation and Obama said he would. He was labeled ‘naive’. But, he came back later and twisted their argument into ‘They said we shouldn’t meet with our enemies and I said we would, so I’m a new kind of leader.’ Well, sorry, no. That’s not what they said. they said you were naive for accepting that you would meet with a foreign leader without laying the groundwork.

Check and you’ll see he’s used this tactic many times to deflect powerful arguments. He just lies.

BTW, is it racist to say someone lies? Just checkin’.

For goodness sake, Bill Clinton did NOT go on Limbaugh. He went on Mark Davis’ show, who then later subbed for Limbaugh, and re-played a tape of his prior interview with Clinton.

Let’s not go down the path of Kos here, people.

Note that I said “Rush’s show”, which it was. It matters little to me that it was a guest host that interviewed him, a fact that I was fully aware of. The issue was reaching out to that audience and giving credibility (via appearing) to his show.

And you can save your “Kos” wisecracks, as well.

“All evidence is that a white female has an advantage over a black male — for reasons of our cultural heritage,” said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, the civil rights leader who ran for president in 1984 and 1988. Still, he said, for African-American and female candidates, “It’s easier — emphatically so.”

Ms. Ferraro offered a similar sentiment. “I think it’s more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American,” said Ms. Ferraro. “There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States — whether it’s conscious or not it’s true.”