2007 Verve Awards

2006 Verve Awards


Best Arts and Culture Blog 2005 Queer Day Awards

Best Gay Blog Nominee 2004 Weblog Awards

Best Arts and Culture Blog Nominee

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

 

Unconscionable.

Geraldine Ferraro, 1984 VP candidate, national embarrassment and current staffer/fundraiser for Hillary Clinton:
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." To make matters worse, when the Obama campaign called her on her racist bullshit, she said: "Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist. I will not be discriminated against because I’m white....I’m exercising my First Amendment rights. If they don’t like it, tough." (quote)
Hillary Clinton, as of this moment, has refused to fire Ferraro, or even to denounce her racism.

I WILL NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE I'M WHITE. This is the most insidious phrase in the history of history. For the record, people: you CANNOT discriminate against a majority, because they are in CHARGE. Of EVERYTHING. We are a majority-rule country, and the majority makes the rules. And when you are a white person saying evil racist shit, and other people point that out, it is NOT discrimination. Period.

I never want to hear AGAIN how Hillary has been a victim of sexism in this campaign. EVER. Her hypocrisy is beyond the pale.



Okay, look. I know a lot of Clinton supporters read this site. And I'm trying, honestly, to give her a fair shake. She's got qualities that recommend her as a leader, no doubt.

But it's getting very hard to stay neutral. Every day there's another story about her abuses of power, her destruction of Obama's character, her support for John McCain, and now her inability to do the right thing on what is clearly a racist attack. Sure, she's got experience. But if she doesn't start exhibiting some morals, some decency, it won't matter.

Labels:

19 Comments:

Blogger ZenDenizen said...

Well said.

3/12/08, 10:45 AM  
Blogger joe*to*hell said...

well GF is right about one thing: "the country is caught up in the concept". the concept, however, is not obama's race - the concept is that he is something new and very different. but not necessarily BETTER tho....

listen - hillary is a ruthless, determined, heartless bitch! and for that, i love her. she is the ultimate gay diva, to make a very dumb connection.

all the things we gays like in our ladies (your madonnas, for example) is what makes her so great to me....naked ambition, hunger for power and an iron will. that can be a huge negative, of course, but she can back that up and actually do the job.

i'm not political enough to take this further. i'd rather sing a song

3/12/08, 10:46 AM  
Blogger NATHANIEL R said...

agreed that this is a total embarrassment and that Clinton should dump her.

do not agree that Clinton supporters shouldn't claim sexism when they see it. Sexism is a HUGE problem for humanity just like racism is. Both are ugly ugly things that demean everyone no matter what color, gender or creed they are.

we shouldn't pretend one doesn't exist just because we're upset about the other.

I'm totally depressed that it's resorted to all this name calling though but this started much earlier and there were bizarre twists of logic on the part of both sides. For example. That early brouhaha about Obama's "fairytale" --somehow that got twisted into a racist statement when it had NO basis in race...

And Obama supporters, if they want to avoid hypocrisy should not claim she's "supporting" McCain --that's as spurious a twist as claiming Obama was supporting Reagan (as Clinton stupidly did) way back when earlier in the race when he said one vaguely positive thing about him.

i'm so sick of this whole thing. I wish she would just call it a day and let Obama be the candidate at this point.

Politics always gets ugly (i seriously question the rose-colored glasses that people are wearing if they think it's not going to get even worse and more racist once Obama faces the Republicans) but i'd prefer it only get ugly when we're in the general.

3/12/08, 11:43 AM  
Blogger ModFab said...

Nathaniel, I don't mean to imply that sexism doesn't exist, or that it hasn't affected Hillary's campaign. But I do think that Obama supporters cannot be expected to be sensitive to Clinton's incessant charges of sexism when she endorses (repeatedly) racist attacks upon Obama. It is hypocrisy at its worst.

As for her "supporting" McCain: she has said that he has the experience to be President, and Obama does not. That seems pretty naked and stark to me. The idea is that if she's not President in '08...it should be a Republican. I hope and pray that she will PUBLICLY denounce this read on her words, and state UNEQUIVOCABLY that she would support Obama if she is not the nominee.

And while she's at it, I'd like her to admit that she knows Obama is a Christian. Insinuations about Islam are so cold-blooded it chills me.

And to my beloved Joe: I don't like naked ambition in men OR women, and I don't think it serves democracy very well, either. But to each his own. I'm still trying very hard to respect everyone's right to make a choice in this election, so...Madonna for President in 2012!

3/12/08, 1:23 PM  
Blogger Nick Davis said...

I'm dismayed, like you, to see that Hillary and her campaign are unraveling so many of the bases on which I was trying to strenuously defend her near the beginning of the campaign season. The sexist slant against her in the media has been outrageous, time and time again. But as this competition has stiffened, it has to be said, or at least, I have to say, right along side you: she and her advisors have behaved pretty despicably. While mismanaging their own finances and making gaffe after gaffe at reaching out to "minor" states they couldn't much care about. This is why the issue isn't just about character for me: I'm frightened, now, to see what Clinton does (or what her team advises, though this is often the same thing) when pressed into a corner or made anxious about their prospects. There's just no control over rhetoric, and little control over strategy, and she has violated her principles again and again. I'm not yet ready to say that the Clinton campaign has been Swiftboating Obama, but they're getting there. And that's a leadership problem, not just a character problem. Hillary has been constitutionally unable to say the kinds of things that Barack says in debates all the time: "I can see the virtues of your program and your policies, and America deserves these options, though I believe mine are better." She has been more and more and more unwilling to say anything positive about Obama, and is all but embracing outright antagonism as a strategy. I'm so disappointed.

3/12/08, 2:04 PM  
Blogger Powell/APJ said...

AMENPRAIZEJESUS!!!!!
Since she has resigned, its sort of moot, but.... The Hila-monster should have removed the Ferarro-monster. Anyone would be blind to see that those were inflammatory remarks. To minimize Obama’s accomplishments because his skin color happens to be be black is a slap in the face. As a Woman in politics, I would think she should know better. Im honestly surprised this ***** isnt more enlightened. Kinda makes me glad she WASNT VP in the 80"s. Let’s move forward folks.

3/12/08, 7:30 PM  
Blogger Powell/APJ said...

Although its a moot point now since she has resigned, I felt that the Hila-monster should have remove the Ferarro-monster from her campaign staff. Anyone would be blind to see that this is an unnecessarily inflammatory remark. To minimize Obama’s accomplishments because his skin color happens to be be black is a slap in the face. You'd thingk that as another "political minority" that she would understand. Maybe she's just jealous that she couldn't break through herself. ( I know that was ugly, but I'm pissed) Let’s move forward folks.

3/12/08, 7:34 PM  
Blogger Keith a.k.a. K j A M said...

Personally, I think this has been much ado about nothing. Geraldine did go on one of the morning shows the following day to clarify her statement, saying that if in 1984 when she was the VP candidate and her name was "Gerald", no one would care; but because she was a woman, there was a greater amount of scrutiny and support for her candidacy. Ultimately, I believe it was the way she presented it that came across poorly. However, I fail to see how one person's statement reflects on Hillary's campaign. Certainly the Obama camp has had their share of snafu's. As for ModFab and your statements about how we white folks don't experience discrimination, then please enlighten me. Born and raised in South Texas, which is 90% Hispanic and now living in Atlanta where you have one of the largest African American populations in the country, I don't think I've ever experienced this "majority" status that you speak of. Ultimately, I don't give a hoot one way or the other. I'm a white gay guy and my wonderful partner of 6 years is Mexican. I can assure you, neither of us plays the discrimination/race card when it suits our needs or because we screwed up! Case in point, look at this 31 year old dimwit Mayor in Detroit and the mess he's currently embroiled in. Nuf said.

One last thing: I hope you're shoulder is doing better. I had mine operated on ages ago when it would just fall out of place while driving, eating or swimming. Painful, indeed.

3/13/08, 2:56 AM  
Blogger psyther said...

I agree Ferraro's comment was out of line. Obama's position is not based entirely on his race, but at the same time, are we not supposed to talk about race? Are we to ignore how racism still impacts us daily? I don't think it is completely insane to acknowledge how race and gender are impacting the Democratic race. I completely disagree with your stance that white people cannot be subject to racism because of their majority. Why? Because it's happened to me, and not because I'm gay, how old I am, or any other reason except the fact that I am white. Racism is not predicated on majority/minority or the status quo. And, I do agree with you that calling out a racist remark or action is not in itself discrimination. Everyone has the ability to say what they think. That's the point of our Constitutional rights. I like both Clinton and Obama. They both have strong--and weak--points. I am glad that we have this time now to see how they act and hopefully make an educated and honest vote come election day.

3/13/08, 4:39 AM  
Blogger Jill said...

As a woman in the age group that's regarded as Hillary's "base", I have to tell you that I'm ashamed to be a "woman of a certain age" when these two harridans are the public face of first-stage "feminism" (which was a joke then and is a joke now).

Their kind of feminism was ALWAYS about the concerns of middle-class white women. It was the concerns of middle-aged women in comfortable homes in suburban towns, living off sizable alimony checks or a husband's Wall Street job. It's a shame that this is the kind of feminism that's survived, but it is. It's the feminism of victimology, and I see it all too much in the young women today who identify themselves as feminists.

I was never going to support Hillary, but she AND Bill are making me understand just what it was about them that the wingnuts hated. And you of all people know how much it pains me to say that.

3/13/08, 6:12 AM  
Blogger John T said...

I'm not going to defend Ferraro here-it's a pity that we now have two Democratic VP candidates who we are all going to hang our heads at-I hope John Edwards doesn't go this way in a decade or two.

I will however say that I don't think that Obama has been swiftboated. The reality of this is that the campaign has, while taking a turn for the worse, still been fairly clean in the sense that it's going to get a whole lot dirtier in a fight with McCain. The unfortunate thing here is that McCain has now seen the campaigns two greatest weaknesses: Hillary will be able to go negative much more easily (something that he's going to exploit with sexism, a tool that has been used in Senate and Governor's races similarly), and Obama doesn't stand up well to negative politics. Lest we forget, Samantha Powers stated that Hillary Clinton was a "monster" just a week ago, and Obama waited too long to get rid of her.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I really am not (I have a lot of respect for the people in this thread, and visit many of their blogs daily and with great interest), but the reality is that both candidates are coming off poorly here, not just one, and if Obama is going to be the nominee (which he is), he can be a squeaky clean and new kind of president, and he has to be able to nip negative campaigning in the bud; he can't be that kind of candidate-he has to be willing to go for the jugular, because John McCain is going to go for it, and if one candidate goes negative and the other doesn't, we just have to look at Max Cleland, Tom Daschle, Al Gore, and John McCain in 2000 to see who wins there.

3/13/08, 7:20 AM  
Blogger JB said...

The great fear I have for the Democrats seems to be happening. I am an Obama supporter, but from the beginning I felt strongly that regardless of the nominee, I would campaign for him or her. Should Clinton steal the nomination at this point, I will not be able to put myself out there for her and will go into the voting booth with closed eyes and vote for her because she is a Democrat, not because she is my choice. I agree with Nick that she and her advisors are acting despicably. It is the exact antithesis to what people want (or at least what most people I know want).

Will we be able to unify the party and beat McCain?

3/13/08, 9:51 AM  
OpenID ccopeland1976 said...

Maybe I'll take a respite from this site until after the conventions. I feel sort of unwanted, as someone who regularly volunteers for her campaign.

I really like the non-political parts, and I kept hoping that the American Idol recaps would return once we had a final 12.

3/13/08, 9:58 AM  
OpenID Litlhorn said...

I really think it's time that both candidates find something better to run on than who is the biggest "victim."It's going to destroy the party before we even get to McCain, and then it won't matter , cause the victims will be the American people with another 8 years of Republican Fascism.
Rove must be tickled pink. forest, trees..... folks

3/13/08, 10:11 AM  
Blogger lylee said...

I tend to think Ferraro's comment is getting blown out of proportion. However, I also think it was an incredibly STUPID and politically tonedeaf thing for her to say, and she should have known it would create this kind of outrage.

As a Hillary supporter who would, however, vote for a goat in November if it were a Democrat, I will admit I do not approve of some of the decisions she and her campaign have made recently. That said, I believe many of her comments have been twisted out of their original context, and I'm firmly in the camp that believes you ain't seen NOTHIN' yet when it comes to dirty campaigning. Does no one remember the job Bush I and II did on ther opponents? And I will admit I have zero patience with anyone who says he/she will vote for McCain if Obama/Hillary doesn't get the Dem nomination. How any Democrat can honestly believe that McCain would be better than either of the Democratic candidates simply boggles my mind.

On a nonsequitur, I, too, would love to see a return of the American Idol recaps!

3/13/08, 6:52 PM  
Blogger The Slabber said...

It's grimly hilarious to read the lame-brained apologetics of Hillary supporters here. All of you should be massively ashamed of yourselves.

Nothing could be clearer that this Ferraro episode is just another instalment of Hillary's craven willingness to do whatever it takes to gain the "winning" edge and push Obama (and a far better approach to political life) out of the way. Keith Olbermann made this exceptionally clear the other night. She's a new Sherman on a long march to Denver, and she is just as ugly.

Shame on each of you who dare to offer reprehensible apologetics for this vile woman. Just wait: Hillary's old-style Rovian tactics will surface yet again, and she's going to shoot herself in both of her clay feet.

3/14/08, 12:41 AM  
Blogger Keith a.k.a. K j A M said...

First and foremost, I don't make apologies for anyone. Did Geraldine make a dumb comment? Yes she did. Did Hillary send her out to say that? Highly unlikely. However, like many of the reasonably minded individuals, she saw exactly how the media had clearly given Obama a pass on just about everything under the sun. The reporting became nothing more than editorializing, spinning it in favor of their guy. Frankly, I was equally frustrated. Nevertheless, Geraldine has been around politics long enough to know that words matter, and will be used against you any chance given to the opposition (media in general).
As for Hillary’s campaign…the only despicable thing that came out, was Bill’s remarks after the South Carolina primary. There is no doubt that was intentional and they’ve done a good job reining his ass in. Other than that, I haven’t really seen anything that comes close to negative campaigning. Remember folks, this is politics. Hillary and Barak maintain virtually identical positions. As such, she has been trying to draw a distinction between the two of them. There’s nothing wrong with that. If you think this is nasty now (trust me, this is tame), wait until the general election. You’ll have special interest groups throwing out all sorts of crap on the airways, YouTube, Radio…stuff that doesn’t have to be paid for by the McCain campaign. I don’t really believe Obama has the stomach for that.
One last thing: If anyone has been following the latest news on the race, you may have noticed that the reporting has suddenly become more balanced. Could that be because there is a big bomb about to explode on the Obama side? Here’s some suggested reading http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1. As I mentioned earlier, words do matter; and so does who you associate with.

3/14/08, 9:29 AM  
Blogger ModFab said...

Keith, I had planned to stay out of this (rather fabulous) comment thread dust-up, but your comments seem so uninformed that I had to respond to some of them:

KEITH: Did Geraldine make a dumb comment? Yes she did.

ME: It's not because it was dumb that people are furious, Keith. It's because it was racist. There's a difference, and to minimize it by calling it merely "dumb" is, well, insulting. Call it for what it was.

KEITH: Did Hillary send her out to say that? Highly unlikely.

ME: True. But Hillary COULD have fired her, or disavowed the racist sentiment. She did neither. Say what mean shit you want to say about Obama, but when one of his team called Hillary a "monster", he fired their ass and immediately disavowed the statement. One is responible, the other is reprehensible. You choose.

KEITH: However, like many of the reasonably minded individuals, she saw exactly how the media had clearly given Obama a pass on just about everything under the sun. The reporting became nothing more than editorializing, spinning it in favor of their guy. Frankly, I was equally frustrated.

ME: Yes, we know, the media was terribly unfair to Hillary. I agree. The media SUCKS. (We can all get behind that!) But be fair, because she's been having a great few weeks. Since Texas and Ohio, the pro-Clinton media machine has stepped up in a big way.

KEITH: As for Hillary’s campaign…the only despicable thing that came out, was Bill’s remarks after the South Carolina primary. There is no doubt that was intentional and they’ve done a good job reining his ass in. Other than that, I haven’t really seen anything that comes close to negative campaigning.

ME: Umm, how about Hillary saying that Obama wasn't a Muslim, "as far as I know?" How about Hillary lying about his record on trade, on health care, etc.? How about her suggesting that only she and McCain have the skills to be President? How about the "3AM" telephone ad? That's just the ones in the last two weeks, dude. Clinton has pervasively engaged in negative campaign tactics for months. But as you say...

KEITH: Remember folks, this is politics.

ME: True enough. Barack's a big boy, and he's got to suck it up and take it (and I say, dish it back out instead of taking the high road). But you know what I'm really sick of? Clinton supporters who justify her unethical behavior with the "this is politics" excuse. Reality or not, that's not the world I want to live in, and I can't believe you want to, either. She's never run an ethical campaign if her supporters don't require that of her.

KEITH: If you think this is nasty now (trust me, this is tame), wait until the general election. You’ll have special interest groups throwing out all sorts of crap on the airways, YouTube, Radio…stuff that doesn’t have to be paid for by the McCain campaign. I don’t really believe Obama has the stomach for that.

ME: Ah, the "just you wait" argument. I think this is a false premise. Truth is, none of us KNOW how Hillary and Obama will handle McCain and the Republicans yet. They both will have to deal with the barrage, and both of them will. Personally, I'd rather not live through a year of the Rose Law Firm, Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica, etc. rehashes that are definitely coming Hillary's way if she's the candidate.

KEITH: One last thing: If anyone has been following the latest news on the race, you may have noticed that the reporting has suddenly become more balanced.

ME: What? Where? When? Someone alert the media: racism has been cured!!! [/snark]

KEITH: Could that be because there is a big bomb about to explode on the Obama side? Here’s some suggested reading http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1. As I mentioned earlier, words do matter; and so does who you associate with.

ME: Yeah, this doesn't strike me as negative campaigning at all, Keith. Totally fair and balanced. Because what's REALLY important in this election, what REALLY matters, isn't Iraq, the recession, taxes, health care, or the environment. No, what's REALLY important are the decades-old rantings of someone's crazy aging pastor. And I'm sure this will make people like me rush to Hillary's side.

3/14/08, 1:17 PM  
Blogger Keith a.k.a. K j A M said...

Modfab, I’m not trying to be a thorn in anyone’s side, and you can certainly choose whether or not to publish this, but I would like to revisit some of the points that you made (valid or not).

Modfab: It's not because it was dumb that people are furious, Keith. It's because it was racist. There's a difference, and to minimize it by calling it merely "dumb" is, well, insulting. Call it for what it was.

Me: Once again, I disagree. I don’t believe that Geraldine is a racist in any way shape or form, much less intended her remarks to be construed that way. What I do believe is that she like many of us was frustrated in the way in which the media had not scrutinized Obama’s candidacy. Let’s face it, black, white, pink or purple, if you are going to be running for the top office of the land, everything you’ve done in your past, including your associations, words and/or actions are reasonable enough to come under scrutiny. The media by and large gave Obama a pass on everything. Whether or not it’s because he’s the first viable black candidate to run for office, I don’t know. That’s a decision that you have to make. However, there’s an old saying that goes “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck”.

Modfab: True. But Hillary COULD have fired her, or disavowed the racist sentiment. She did neither. Say what mean shit you want to say about Obama, but when one of his team called Hillary a "monster", he fired their ass and immediately disavowed the statement. One is responsible, the other is reprehensible. You choose.

Me: Uh, Obama didn’t fire Samantha Powers. She resigned, and not until several days later. Hmmm, much like Geraldine. Hillary had no reason to disavow the poorly worded statement made by Ms. Ferraro. They are long time friends, and I believe she knows her heart better than the media.

Modfab: Yes, we know, the media was terribly unfair to Hillary. I agree. The media SUCKS. (We can all get behind that!) But be fair, because she's been having a great few weeks. Since Texas and Ohio, the pro-Clinton media machine has stepped up in a big way.

Me: Dang, you don’t ever give up, do you? First you find something we can agree on and then proceed to tear it down. There is no pro-Clinton media machine. Perhaps, Ohio and Texas represent the idea that people were taking a second look at the leading candidate and had come to the realization that they really don’t know anything about him. Her win in those two states most likely forced the media’s hand in providing more balanced reporting. This also applies to another remark you made later in your exchange. The nice thing about my iPage from Google is that it rotates stories from various new agencies. As a result, I’m able to read the aggregated news from Reuters, CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS, New York Times, LA Times and (gag) NBC. There has been a decisive change in how the news is being presented; less editorializing and more factual based reporting. I’m not looking for favorable news stories about my candidate, just some balance from time to time.

Modfab: Umm, how about Hillary saying that Obama wasn't a Muslim, "as far as I know?" How about Hillary lying about his record on trade, on health care, etc.? How about her suggesting that only she and McCain have the skills to be President? How about the "3AM" telephone ad? That's just the ones in the last two weeks, dude. Clinton has pervasively engaged in negative campaign tactics for months. But as you say...

Me: Please don’t call me dude, I despise that. I readily admit I missed out on the “as far as I know” comment. As for trade, you can blame his top aide for that. Frankly, what the hell were they even doing talking to the Prime Minister of Canada? I think the remarks that ultimately made it into the headlines, were fair game for the Clinton camp. As for Health Care, she’s absolutely right. His proposal to allow people to “opt” out is ridiculous. I know several people from work who “opted” out of the health care plan provided by my employer. This plan is not only inexpensive, but as good if not better than that of the federal government. People don’t want to pay for it until they need it. Usually that’s about the time they get into a life altering accident, or develop a life threatening disease, or when they have to go to the emergency room. At that point, the costs are shifted onto the consumer (those that chose to pay into the system) and ultimately raise premiums. You cannot call his plan “universal healthcare” unless it’s truly universal. As for the “3AM telephone ad”…you gotta be kidding me…right? Negative? Once again, it is fair game for Hillary to attempt to draw a distinction between herself and Obama. Let’s face it; they virtually come down the middle on most issues. So her job is to present herself as the experienced candidate and his has been to present himself as the candidate with better judgment; one he proudly proclaims his denouncement of the Iraq war, even though he wasn’t in office at the time and never had to vote. He subsequently, voted in lock step with Hillary in future votes regarding funding.

Modfab: True enough. Barack's a big boy, and he's got to suck it up and take it (and I say, dish it back out instead of taking the high road). But you know what I'm really sick of? Clinton supporters who justify her unethical behavior with the "this is politics" excuse. Reality or not, that's not the world I want to live in, and I can't believe you want to, either. She's never run an ethical campaign if her supporters don't require that of her.

Me: Unethical? I fail to see how attempting to draw a distinction between the candidacies is “unethical” behavior. This has nothing to do with ethics. For that matter, exactly how is it you would prefer him to dish it back and not take the high road, when you’re criticizing Hillary for that exact behavior? It appears you may be contradicting yourself. Or is it because you realize that politics is a dirty game. As for the kind of world you want to live in, fine I can agree with you there. But, you and I also live in the real world. In this world, reality always trumps our wishes. Just today, the democratically controlled Senate couldn’t even muster enough votes to have a moratorium on earmarks for a year. Folks, this will be critical for either Obama’s or Clinton’s presidency. Not only do they need that money to help pay for their agenda, this kind of money could have already rebuilt New Orleans. Spend some time like I have talking to the people of New Orleans who are still living in trailers on their own property where there was once was a house. Then talk to me about ethics. Things don’t just change because we want them to. Once again, Clinton is better suited to deal with the issues that will certainly arise when dealing with the other half of the Congress, much less her own party.

Modfab: Ah, the "just you wait" argument. I think this is a false premise. Truth is, none of us KNOW how Hillary and Obama will handle McCain and the Republicans yet. They both will have to deal with the barrage, and both of them will. Personally, I'd rather not live through a year of the Rose Law Firm, Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica, etc. rehashes that are definitely coming Hillary's way if she's the candidate.

Me: Well let me see, Rose Law Firm, Whitewater, Travelgate and Monica are all played out at this point. So instead, you’d rather live through four years of something new and fresh like Obama’s questionable dealings with Tony Rezko (I guess we can now call that Rezkogate) or his former Pastor the honorable “Uncle” Rev. Jeremiah Wright who has publicly made statements that resemble much of the conspiracy theorists amongst us and eerily recalls many of the teachings of Louis Farrakhan. After twenty years of sermons, when exactly did he decide to disavow or disassociate himself from that kind of rhetoric? Splendid, I can hardly wait.

Modfab: What? Where? When? Someone alert the media: racism has been cured!!! [/snark]

Me: Oh Snap! I wasn’t aware that you considered the media racist.

Modfab: Yeah, this doesn't strike me as negative campaigning at all, Keith. Totally fair and balanced. Because what's REALLY important in this election, what REALLY matters, isn't Iraq, the recession, taxes, health care, or the environment. No, what's REALLY important are the decades-old rantings of someone's crazy aging pastor. And I'm sure this will make people like me rush to Hillary's side.

Me: Once again, Iraq, the recession, taxes, healthcare and the environment are all issues of importance in this election. (Don’t forget about energy, world affairs, nuclear proliferation and trade). It’s for that reason; I believe that it is imperative for individuals to consider all things about their candidate when attempting to make an informed decision. Frankly, you and I are pretty much on the same page. I think we just have a difference of opinion when it comes to who we think is the more qualified candidate and can get the job done. What I do not want is to repeat another Jimmy Carter administration, which subsequently ushered in 12 years of conservatism. Ultimately, if Obama can pull out Pennsylvania, I will be first in line to suggest that Hillary step aside. However, if he can’t, then I believe she has every right to proceed with her campaign. May the best (wo)man win.

3/14/08, 6:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home