Thanks for this piece.

I think its extremely important that we as democrats stand against this kind of politics, and stand strongly.

Dear Karol, Your decision is echoed across America, as with me. This is not a loose cannon, this is a calculated "George Wallace" strategy designed to win Penn., Kentucky, and the Appalachian states. It tells me there is no soul, no integrity to the Clintons, never was. For the sake of her own legacy and the sake of the party Hillary needs to apologize and leave the campaign. Keith Olberman said it very well this evening. And at an earlier time in our history, someone said, "Have you no shame?" Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Another media "soundbite" taken out of context to infuriate the public. Unfortunately, the democratic party is now divided...not by race or gender, but by both campaigns dwelling on "soundbites" instead of talking about the issues.

I blame the DNC for this in the ridiculous way they run their primaries and caucuses. I also blame the media for taking "soundbites" out of context to help their ratings and infuriate voters.

This big, angry, white guy is on your side!

So we shouldn't care about a "sound bite" no matter how racist and cynical it might be because its "just a sound bite"?

Infuriated, thats good. The democrats need to confront this subtile rascim here and now. This big, infuriated, white guy is on your side!

Thanks for chiming in on this Karol.

I have been disgusted by the Clinton campaign for some time now and this is just the latest example. These stupid comments by Ferraro come across as grossly minimizing Senator Obama's judgment, vision, talent, openness, character, and refreshing approach to politics that have caught our imagination.

If you missed it , you must watch Keith Oberman's special commentary on this tonight. He made a special appeal to Hillary to distance herself from this type of "filth." Quite a tounge lashing.

Senator Obama said today that he didn't believe that Ferraro intended this as a rascist remark. He has done a great job of leaving the question of race aside in this campaign, but the media and the Clinton campaign keep bringing it back up, especially when they think it may play to their advantage.

While I hope that her stupid comments were not orchestrated, it is at least interesting that this is coming to the forefront now as the campaign heads to Pennsylvania which James Carville has described as Pittsburg on one side, Philadelphia on the other, and Alabama "in the middle." Could the potential backlash over this actually work to Clinton's advantage "in the middle"?

Is this a type of "Southern Strategy" by the Clinton campaign? Make the Obama campaign stand up against demeaning comments and then use the controversy to glean votes from certain segments of the white population?

They are either extremely stupid, or the comments pointed out by Karol, and the other comments she left out, are part of an ongoing pattern. A pattern that the Democratic Party is supposed to be against.

Infuriated, thats good. The democrats need to confront this subtile rascim here and now. This big, infuriated, white guy is on your side!

Is it just me? How is this argument even happening? This seems like a crazy argument for her campaign to make. Isn't Hillary only in the position she is in because she is married to a former president? Ferraro implies that the only reason that Obama is doing well is that he's black, well Hillary is only doing so well because of Bill. As talented and intelligent as she is, she hasn't achieved her position through merit, she achieved it through association.

It says something about Obama's integrity that he hasn't sent his surrogates out to make this argument.

It's racist and it's wrong, but what makes me so sad is that Geraldine Ferraro and others think that this tactic works. She wouldn't say it if she didn't think it would be effective to sway votes.

Who but a racist is going to buy into that sentiment, and isn't that racist already voting for someone other than Obama?

Yes, Barack Obama is there because he is who he is, and part of that is his experience as an African-American. Only Mr. Obama knows how his experiences as a person of color shaped his character.

That's not what Ferraro meant. She meant that he's there because he's black. This is pretty odd. I don't remember "blackness" being a shoe-in for a presidential nomination.

I stopped listening to Hillary's campaign after Clinton's talk about how LBJ is the one responsible for civil rights.

This was no sound bite, folks. This was repeated over and over again on the talk show circuit by Ferraro. This has been a pattern in the Clinton campaign, classic Rovian stuff. You send out a surrogate who plants the seed, and then distance yourself or say they were a loose cannon.

To top it off Geraldine Ferraro is quoted in the NY Times as saying the opposite in 2006, that women candidates have the advantage and black candidates the disadvantage. So on top of deliberately pouring out this racist poison, she's a hypocrite. So ask yourself, why now? And don't anyone tell me that this isn't deliberate calculation by the Clinton campaign. They have only one road to the nomination and that is to damage the Obama candidacy so badly that the supers over-ride his numerical advantage. And what is Hillary doing, where is the "reject and denounce" routine? She knows this cynical game and she is playing it to the hilt. And where is the party leadership? utterly silent on this filth. The Democratic party seems to have lost its bearings and is headed for a huge breakdown.

Here's a quote from 2006, just two years ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/weekinreview/10nagourney.html?_r=1&scp=13&sq=%22geraldine+ferraro%22black&st=nyt&oref=login

"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.”

“Women are 51 percent of the population,” she added.

Great post Karol.

Keith Olbermann echoes much of what you say (albeit far more aggressively) in his scathing 'special comment' for Hillary tonight. Check it out on YouTube

Gotta love this irony:

Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 12, 2008 10:18:42 PM

Ahh, Steve Maurer and I can agree on one thing.

<h2>Republicans are always worse.</h2>

Prejudice comes in many flavors.

You a Republican? Then you are always worse.

You a black? Then you are always worse.

You a Democrat? Then you are always worse.

You a Jew? Then you are always worse.

Make your judgement beforehand. As in PRE. Then comes JUDGEMENT.

PRE JUDGEMENT = Prejudicial = Prejudice

That Karol commented AFTER the prejudicial Steve and Stephanie, without condemning their hateful prejudicial comments, shows that she condones their comments.

""I'm sorry, those words are wrong."

<h2>Clinton won't do that."</h2>

Neither will Karol reject & renounce Stephanie and Steve's prejudices towards Republicans.

How hypocritical, to demand Hillary reject Gerry's prejudicial comments regarding Barack, but yet Karol can't bring herself to reject prejudice from Stephanie and Steve, but instead accept it and tolerate it.

How rich, indeed, Karol.

Carol, if you are this upset,

"I blame the DNC for this in the ridiculous way they run their primaries and caucuses.",

I suggest you get involved in the Rules Committee process. Whether or not your local party has a rules committee, the district and state central committees have rules committees, and part of the delegate selection process after the May primary (at least, last time I was paying attention to the rules) includes national permanent members of the Rules Comm.

After the debacles of Dem. conventions in 1964 and 1968, the McGovern Comm. did a re-examination of the delegate selection process which basically set up the process where rules for selecting nominees are tuned up on a regular basis. The Hunt Comm. (which, btw, Geraldine served on) which was roughly 1980 set up the Superdelegate process. The DNC (of which all states have members) set up the "window" process years ago---only a few states are allowed to hold primary/caucus contests before the window opens usually in February. If a legislature (or in the case of Michigan a US Senator named Carl Levin) took action to go outside the window, that is not the DNC's fault.

At the 1984 Dem. National Convention, a process was set up to deal with complaints on how Mondale had gotten the needed delegates when some people thought he didn't win the nomination fair and square. Oregon's Dem. rules comm. worked very hard on our rules for the 1988 convention. Tonite I went to a speech at Willamette University and ran into an old friend who had been involved in that rules comm. process 2 decades ago. We both thought it was a worthwhile process--and that everything we learned back then is once again useful knowledge in a contested primary.

And for those of you who are concerned about Andrew Cuomo, the phrase "he takes after his old man" applies here. There was a candidate challenging Mondale in 1984 who was as much a white, midwestern male as Mondale, but was running on the platform of "new ideas". Mario made fun of that and said, "In NY, a new idea would be like a breakfast cereal that grows hair". He and Geraldine come from the same wisecracking big city politics and have no clue how their remarks are taken by others. ("I was complimenting the black community and I am called a racist", she said, as if in 2008 all women without exception vote Hillary, all blacks without exception vote Obama, all military vets without exception vote McCain, and there are no individuals because groups decide everything! How early 20th century can you get?)

So don't assume it is always about race, sometimes (just as with some Republicans) it is simply "they are on the opposing side, therefore we are allowed to insult them".

That never works. History is full of people who got so nasty in the primary that they lost the general election, or lost a primary over being nasty because the more positive candidate won.

As I recall, Carol Mosley Braun got her one term in the US Senate due to such a fluke. She had relatively little money, so held off on TV ads until the last week. The other candidates in the primary were going after each other in really nasty ways and voters got turned off. Then, just before the election, here are some positive commercials by this woman running in the primary, and she got votes for being the positive alternative.

So, as annoying as all this is, remember 2 things: Any Democrat would be a change from McCain and a possible 3rd Bush term. As my old friend Julie says, "when they act like that, you know they know they are losing".

Often this is a case of the old timers being swamped by a new generation campaigning (although people in their early 60s ought to realize this is just another turn of the generational tide like 1968).

Karol- "Obama is getting through this race largely without race being front and center. The people he wants to be charged to represent, they are front and center. I like that, I want that. Its not about race and gender, but about moving the country and all its inhabitants forward."

Exactly.. Karol, well stated. And that is why this move with Ferraro is no accident. They keep coming back to this, beginning in New Hampshire. It's a deliberate repeated attempt to move race to the center of the campaign where the Clintons can work their divisive politics and accuse the Obama campaign of "race-baiting." If he doesn't respond, he's weak. If he does respond, he's injecting race into the campaign. Sound familiar?? The more they can marginalize him, the more they win, especially in the Appalachian states. They won't overtake his numerical advantage but they can damage the perception of his electability among the supers and steal the nomination. In the process they destroy the party and their own legacy. But that's the Clintons. And apparently the Dem. party is fine with these tactics because it's an empty shell and seemingly in the hip pocket of the Clintons. It believes in nothing and cares about nothing except some vague nostaligia about the 1990s.

I think everybody here knows something about my dedication to the Democratic Party, that said, I have voted for a Republican on occasion, the very rare ones where they actually were better. A statement about the Republicans as an elected body that is denigrating is scarcely a baseless judgement made in advance. Prejudice is one of those words that cuts a lot of directions. I am, for instance, seriously prejudiced toward murderers. I am pretty safe in that, they have proven something about themselves. The (R) convicts them of associating and attempting to be elected with a cadre that has proven itself to be something. This is the reason politicians put that initial after their name, to be associated with others of that initial.

I freely admit that certain iterations of the Democratic Party in the not real distant past have caused me some embarrassment, I have in mind, for instance, the McAuliff version. I really have no desire to see the Clinton/McAuliff days return to political hegemony.

What infuriates me is how much more difficult it becomes to persuade people that not voting or third party voting enables something worse than their opposed candidate - Mr McSame. I have no idea just how bad another 4 years of the same would be, but pretty darn bad. So, what would I say to Karol to persuade her that Hillary isn't a devil and it was all just positioning? My fingers almost seized up typing that.

I'll be damned if I know. What I can do is hope it doesn't come to that. My respect for Jenny Greenleaf makes it difficult make an argument about "Both???" so I won't. As I mentioned on a comment about DeFazio, it would be self defeating to take a partisan you "x" knock it off. One thing is sure, the DNC is taking knocks it does not deserve. Some is ignorance, some is willful blame somebody other than... Proportional delegate apportioning is probably one of the most grassroots friendly representational methods going. It also makes super delegates inevitable, ties or near ties must be broken. In a winner take all, 2CD might as well stay home, the Democrats out here wouldn't matter. Proportional apportioning means small upstart campaigns have a distant chance of building something. Obama's campaign could have been killed early without it, he'd not have had a chance to get his legs under him. The Republican model favors the status quo, maybe we don't need to go there.

Things don't work well when short term political advantage trumps long term thinking. Dean's model of DNC and McAuliff's model are those two faces at DNC. The DNC has to keep its hands off the candidates and if you think that the Party doing something other than an Olbermanesque public tongue lashing would make a difference you're paying no attention. At this point if every super delegate announced for one candidate it still would not be enough to cross the win number.

So, when you're offended; make your case as cogently as possible and try to sway people that way. It matters. Trying to repair things later will truly suck. Karol, I'm a white guy in one of the whitest places in the country and I do understand and unhappy is such an understatement, but it allows me to use a polite word.

Those were controversial comments for Ferraro to have made, and maybe not too smart. Tonight I read an article in either the NYTimes or the Oregonian. Among the points in the article that stood out for me, was that she was upset that the public seemed to be losing interest in the possibility of the first woman president over the possibility of the first black president.

So, DB's comment above(Mar 12, 2008 10:27:39 PM), kind of rings true for me. The entire dialog is kind of ridiculous. Of course Obama's getting special attention because he's black, as is Clinton, in being a woman.

In the article, there was a quote by Ferraro suggesting that if Obama were a white guy with the same credentials, he'd never have got the attention that brought him to be a front runner in the presidential race. I don't think so. Even if Obama were white as Johnny Winter, he still has that kind of enthusiasm, hope, ideals and vision that's exceptional in presidential candidates. This would have made him someone impossible to ignore, even if he were a white guy.

In the article, Ferraro also complained that if you say anything critical about Obama, it's regarded by the Obama campaign as racist. Yeah, maybe, but so what? What do you expect? In big political races, it's hardly unusual that opponents react to criticisms thrown each other's way in an extreme fashion.

Presidential elections can cause people to behave very strangely, become very emotional, and say things they probably shouldn't.

And there is nothing wrong with ID politics.

Obama is getting through this race largely without race being front and center. The people he wants to be charged to represent, they are front and center. I like that, I want that.

This is off-topic for this post, Karol, but I hope in the future we can dig deeper into this because your two statements seem like a contradiction to me. I happen to think there is quite a bit wrong with identity politics, which is why I agree so wholeheartedly with your point about Obama putting "all the people" front and center. One reason for the Democratic party's troubles all these years is an insistence on catering to each particular interest group's agenda rather than advocating for the progressive commonality that brings us all together. I'm hopeful that nominating a black man as the leader of our party will allow us to transcend the identity politics that have been so divisive.

Hey Karol. Like you i'm African-American and were disappointed in Geraldine's statements. I didn't find them "racist" (I reserve use of that word except in specific cases) but she did use race to attack Obama as basically someone who's only successful because we the people are blinded by the idea of wanting a black President.

The idea that somehow in AMERICA that a black man with some foreign sounding name called Barack Obama is somehow an advantage is laughable and I personally cracked up laughing when Obama himself said in a calm, cool and serious manner just how completely ridiculous the concept is. And I was disappointed to see Ferraro diminish herself as being picked as a Vice-Presidential candidate by Walter Mondale in 1984 JUST because she was a woman. Certainly Mondale was looking for someone different...and being a woman certainly qualifies. But saying THAT was the only reason? Not that there was something special about Ferraro as a person? Sad. Obama being black is certainly a factor and I would be lying if I said I wasn't proud to see someone who's from my racial and cultural group becoming so successful and having a real shot at an office that's been ruled by white folks for more than two centuries. But to imply that's the ONLY reason? That basically belittles everyone who's voted for him (or will be) whether they be white, black or whoever...and just another sign out of the Clinton campaign that they really don't understand why Obama's been so successful.

They simply want something and someone different and think Obama can do that...and that she can't.

And if you read the entire quote, she mentions before the racial part that she believes there's a lot of sexism in the society making Clinton's candidacy weaker in compared to Obama's. Essentially the woman's getting crushed and the black man's being ascended. I don't understand this apparent warring over which demographic group is getting treated worse in the society. Certainly there's a ton of sexism in America (perhaps even more overt) but to say that's the only reason she's loosing to Obama is just as ridiculous.

Did you hear the generals giving endorsements today? Gen. Mc Peak had some great lines about how handling stress is a great way to judge qualifications (calmer the better) and "there is no drama in Obama".

And Mike Huckabee survived longer than anyone expected--- because of his sense of humor?

One of the lines in this John Hartford song "Better Untangle Your Mind" http://www.yourmusic.com/browse/album/39545.html

is

"relax or you'll snap like a string in the strain"

I'm an ol' John Hartford fan.

Thank you Karol for your post. I hear you loud and clear. I was 13 when Ferraro ran with Mondale, and back then as the son of a single mom, I thought it was great that a woman was getting close to the Presidency. And then in 1993, in college, I respected Hillary for attempting to move America forward on health care. But wow, in 2008, I am sitting here just amazed, wondering what the hell went wrong with Ferraro and Hillary. Have I changed or have they? Is it that these straight, rich, white women have lost touch with America, or could it actually be that America has shifted a little--for the better--in the last 20 years?

I don't know. But the behavior of the Clinton campaign (and I want to be very specific here, because the "Clinton campaign" is not necessarily representative of Hillary Clinton the person) in this month of March 2008, has left me with no other option but to say in no uncertain terms: I will now or EVER vote for Hillary Clinton.

Hey, guess what... racism is oppressive. Really, I promise! I have never seen a black American president and neither has Obama. That’s a pretty big deal. I think I am kind of a tough guy because I am the first of my family to attend college--- I didn’t think it was possible and neither did 90% of the people I knew. My trail was difficult to blaze but to become the first black president is probably a bit more difficult. I have an inkling most people thought having a black guy as president was out of the question; “the country just isn’t ready” comes to mind.

If you accept the idea that all races are biologically equal then you have to figure there is a non-biological reason for blacks to be an over represented population regarding incarceration and poverty. For my money I would bet the reason has something to do with racism.

Karol thanks for your insight. I can't imagine what it must feel like to be a person who lives, feels and sees oppression every day and then hear that being black is an edge in becoming president.

Karol,

Welcome to the club. This is what Republicans mean when they say "Hillary polarizes America"...Which is why they would rather face her (in November) than Obama.

Fret not! She's going to steal the nomination with Super Delegates, so you're vote really isn't necessary.

Thanks for the terrific entry Karol. I too have been concerned by the tone of the Clintons and was appalled by Bill's comments after the SC primary. I've told everyone that I could vote for either candidate in the general, now I'm not so sure. I really didn't think first and foremost of Obama as a black man, but rather as a terrific candidate. And now the Clintons want to beat us in the head with it until that is all we think about. Sad.

Karol -

Sorry I'm late to the discussion, but I had a child's birthday to celebrate last night and it looks like I missed a very important discussion. Please allow me to add my voice to the thousands who are disgusted with Ms. Ferraro and her comments. Despite my volunteer capacity for the Clinton campaign (a role which is far more significant, with all due respect, than Ferraro's role as a financial contributor to the campaign), like Ferraro, I only speak for myself. I did not ask for approval before writing these words. I saw Ms. Ferraro on Good Morning America (ABC) yesterday morning and her argument sickened me. I still do not know her intent, but having grown up in the South during a period of extraordinary racism, I know firsthand how much damage words like Ferraro's can inflict.

Let me also set the record straight with regard to Sen. Obama's candidacy. Sen. Obama would be a powerful, persuasive candidate under any circumstances and regardless of his ethnic heritage. He possesses a rare talent that few politicians are born with and even fewer develop. Like Sen. Clinton, he is brilliant, thoughtful, and a phenomenal communicator, and if he is nominated, I would be unbelievably proud to have him as my President.

It is my understanding that Sen. Clinton forcefully disagreed with Ms. Ferraro, and that she has been moved off of the Finance Committee. This has not, however, stopped the Obama campaign from spreading the false story that Ms. Ferraro's idiotic and hurtful remark came form the Clinton campaign. I received a call from a wealthy Obama supporter yesterday who immediately started chewing on me about Ferraro's stupid comments and accused her of speaking for the Clinton campaign. I told him that she was solely a "member" of the Finance Committee and asked him how many times he had been a Finance Committee member for Oregon politicians and whether he had ever done anything for those candidates other than give or raise money. He started laughing and admitted that it is a ceremonial post. By contrast, the Obama foreign policy advisor who called Sen. Clinton a "monster" was far more involved in the substance of the Obama campaign.

The bottom line, Karol, is that you are right to be furious, but at Ms. Ferraro. She certainly reminded us why she was absolutely no help to the ticket in 1984, because unlike Sen. Obama, while plenty smart she is not consistently thoughtful, and while articulate, she is a terrible communicator. And, unlike Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton, she went out of her way to divide, rather than bring people together.

I hope we can get back to the serious issues facing the nation and Oregon and have a spirited discussion on those, and not let campaign consultants and overheated, unauthorized partisans on both sides drag us into issues that will only serve to divide Democrats and the nation, and elect John McCain.

grow up if you are concerned about black comments or wheather its a woman or not sounds like you have the racial problems its like puttin a redneck president in office for a second time just because he talks perrrty oh wait i forgot we did do that. becareful what you wish for thats why they call them politicians cause none of them can tell the truth but remember anythings better than what we have.

Meds check: lift up your tongue please!

Josh Kardon- " It is my understanding that Sen. Clinton forcefully disagreed with Ms. Ferraro, and that she has been moved off of the Finance Committee."

Josh, I wish I could find your comments believable, but I don't. Disagreed?? The standard that Sen. Clinton has insisted on is "denounce and reject." Ferraro says she is just going to go on with her attacks despite leaving the Clinton campaign formally. I wish that the benevolent picture that you paint of Sen. Clinton were true. The problem is this is a continuing pattern with her. She puts out surrogates, like Billy Shaheen, like Bob Johnson, like Bill Clinton, and like Geraldine Ferraro, the feminist heroine, and make statements that seem clearly designed to divide people along racial lines, designed to provoke a response, then when anyone in the Obama campaign objects, the tactic is to accuse him of "race-baiting." And then when she appears on 60 minutes and says, "As far as I know.... Obama isn't Muslim," while some of her own campaign are caught sending these awful e-mails around. I just don't see how you can support that kind of divisive approach to winning elections. The last time I saw a candidate use race in this way was George Wallace in the primary of 1972. Frankly the Dem. party is making me more and more ashamed.

You present this as some kind of one time event. In fact Geraldine Ferraro, on behalf of Sen. Clinton has been making the talk-show circuit. She parrots the line that a number of Clinton feminist supporters use, the despicable idea that Obama is somehow getting hands-off treatment because he's black, while the misogynist media is biased against her. She is pushing for the white resentment vote and getting it. She's been pushing the narrative that somehow his candidacy is not for real, that all he is, is "a speech in 2002," while endorsing John McCain over him as more qualified to be commander in chief.

So I find your comments here disingenuous and not representative of the facts of how Sen. Clinton is conducting her campaign. If those who are party insiders in the Dem party can't throw the red flag when a candidate is using tactics that divide and hurt the party and help the terrible agenda of the right wing, then what good are you?

Josh Kardon- It's her campaign Josh, she is in charge. I listened to her comments regarding Feraro and she did not forcefully distance herself from them. She made qualilfied statements like she has done so often in the past. If she is supposedly a great leader, well then let's see some of that. Otherwise get the heck out of the way.

Bill R., I really don't know how to respond to someone who compares a lifelong champion for equality to George Wallace. I hope you don't care more about whipping up outrage against Sen. Clinton than you do about confronting racially provocative comments and promoting racial understanding.

I'm suggesting that, as Peter DeFazio suggested yesterday, both campaigns knock it off and run an issue-based campaign. Perhaps you aren't an ideal audience for that sort of message.

I was shocked to hear Ferraro not only make her statement, but keep repeating it. She is clearly tone deaf and lives in the Archie Bunker world she represented in Congress. What disappointed me is Clinton's slow and measured response. As time has gone on, Hillary has made stronger comments rejecting what Ferraro said, but still not coming up to the standard that I think we Democrats should have. I don't think for a minute that Bill and Hillary are racists themselves, but they sure have not been forthright in taking action when they or their supporters screwed up.

Hillary was very moralistic about Obama's stand on Farrakhan, but thinks a lesser condemnation of what Ferraro said is acceptable for her. It hurts me that she has soft pedaled this issue. I know that there are racists out there. I thought, hoped?, that this year this Democratic party had moved beyond it.

Not sure what the big deal is, Ferraro is just speaking the truth. Obama being black is one of the really big deals of the whole race. You would have to be from a different planet to have noticed that virtually all of the press and discussion mention the fact that he is black. That he is the first black front runner for president, etc. So of course the fact that he is black is part of the reason he is where he is. If, as Ferraro said, he was an inexperienced white guy from the midwest he would be toast by now. Now Ferraro could've really stuck the shiv in had she said some other true things such as: it is nice to see a young black man who knows who is father is. Or: it is nice to see a young black man who isn't in jail. Both of those statements would be rooted in the truth but would've been even meaner. Of course Ferraro could've also given the other side of the equation which is that because Obama is black he'll have a very difficult time winning a majority of the non-black vote. Being black helps him but it also hurts him. Net effect is probably negative. For that he can thank his brother black men who are such big screwups that they've poisoned the well. Anyone pay attention to the arrests in the murders of the college girls back east? Yep, young black men.

Come on Josh- when Powers called Hillary a "monster" she was asked to leave the next day. Geraldine made clear that she had NOT been asked to leave. They let the story run through two news cycles before doing anything about it. Now that the damage is done, and the racists got the message, they can conveniently "reject and repudiate" the statements.

see!

Wow Andy, troll much?

It takes chutzpah to make a statement viewed by many/most as racist, then to claim that the target of your statement is "attacking me to hurt you".

I was too young when Ferraro was a VP candidate to know anything about her back then. I thought it was way cool that we finally had a woman candidate at that high of a level (as opposed to other countries who have had female leaders decades earlier). I am saddened to read what Ferraro said (repeatedly), and underwhelmed by the speed and ferocity of Clinton and her campaign to reject and repudiate Ferraro's comments.

Andy-"So of course the fact that he is black is part of the reason he is where he is. If, as Ferraro said, he was an inexperienced white guy from the midwest he would be toast by now."

Trouble is.. Ferraro was saying in 2006 that being a woman was the advantage and being black was a disadvantage. So either she is lying or she is using race as a wedge issue, or both.

Oh.. and regarding black crimes, so I guess that's Obama's collective bad mark too. Given the fact that his mother is white, perhaps he should be given credit for all the white crime too. Your post shows exactly what we're up against attitudinally in this country and the fact that her tactics work. You are the Hillary Clinton target audience. Given the fact that genetically we are all from Africa, all African Americans, then I suggest we should all be collectively and tribally marked for all the crime that is committed.

sorry for the broken link: http://www.terra.es/personal2/monolith/00women3.htm

This is one independent who will be registering Democrat just to vote against Hillary in Oregon's primary, as I suspect many others will.

Together we can slay the beast.

Josh- "I really don't know how to respond to someone who compares a lifelong champion for equality to George Wallace. I hope you don't care more about whipping up outrage against Sen. Clinton than you do about confronting racially provocative comments and promoting racial understanding."

<hr/>

Josh, you know actions speak louder than words, and there is a pattern in this campaign that, although subtler than George Wallace is using race as a wedge issue, to marginalize the opponent. Rep. Clyburn called her out on it back in South Carolina, saying that Bill Clinton was using racially encoded tactics. While I was intially shocked, I am seeing it now as the Macchievellian Clinton touch at work, Rovian tactics to win elections. Use the surrogate to work the message, then distance yourself, then attack the opponent for defending himself. It's a cynical game your campaign is using. Your defense of it is disingenuous.

The Clintons don't have to be personally racist to use race as a racial wedge. And her campaign has been doing it the last two months to the great detriment of the party's chances. You may not like what I have to say, but it reflects what is being thought across this land by people who will be called upon to unite in the fall. Thanks to your candidate and her tactics the Republicans chances are growing every day. The historic Democratic coalition is fracturing and at risk of falling apart entirely. If you want to perform a constructive role, then tell your candidate to make a case why she should be president, and win state primaries, not super delegates, and stop using tactics that denigrate her opponent and offend and alienate his supporters.

Thanks for the great article, Karol

Racism:
"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities"

Ferraro's claims that Obama achieved his victories because he's black is racist. Her claim that she was being picked on "because she's white" is racist.

The Clinton campaign's failure to reject those statements or fire Ferraro while they're courting the "white, rural, less-educated" vote in PA says everything I need to know about the Clinton candidacy.

Obama has won the popular vote, the largest number of states, and the most delegates. Dismissing or marginalizing that achievement "because he's black" is the most insidious type of racism.

karol, thank you so much for this post.

there really isn't much more to be said. i too am saddened and sickened by ferraro's remarks, and by the depths to which the clinton campaign has sunk.

Sal - Please quit twisting my words. If you read my message, it was specifically addressed to Bill R. And all the money and blogosphere bullying in the world won't change the fact that the nomination is far from wrapped up for either candidate.

Karol - Ferraro didn't apologize - she still thinks she is right and I think I clearly labeled her comments idiotic and wrong. No one can apologize for Ferraro's comments, but Ferraro.

To my many Obama friends - I can't and won't hang out at BlueOregon to argue about whether the Clinton campaign is evil, monstrous, negative, etc. The Obama campaign has clearly decided that it is more comfortable whipping up outrage over the conduct of the race than engaging on the actual issues in this race. I hope that changes, but won't hold my breath.

Until it changes, I will leave to others the last word on this post. Perhaps you, Sal, now that you have done your best to undermine our eventual Democratic Senate candidate by helping John Frohnmayer launch his anti-Democrat Senate campaign.

The Obama campaign has clearly decided that it is more comfortable whipping up outrage over the conduct of the race than engaging on the actual issues in this race.

Unfortunately, I'm starting to think this is partly correct. And the Clinton campaign is doing likewise. Fingering-pointing, righteous indignation, and so on. Sigh. Policy differences are small so the campaigns are grasping at meta-issues.

Who's actually engaged by all the meta-issues, however? Bloggers, yes. My neighbors, no.

I'll still check the box for Clinton in November if it comes to that, but I won't be happy about it. I assumed I would be happy about checking the box for Obama, but now I'm starting to wonder about that, too. "Resigned" is probably the right adjective to use.

For the past number of months, I've had to listen to the drone of political reporters and pundits reacting to, dissecting and compartmentalizing the so-called 'black vote' whenever it pertained to Senator Obama. Sure, they also parse the (still angry) white men over 40, the female, the elderly, retired clowns, gay Russian cyclists, and umpteen other sub-categories. But this sort of exit polling and projections have largely been spurred on by the clumsy handling of race and gender by the media. Blacks don't vote as one organism. And to reduce even a vote by somebody like John Lewis to a fist-pumping bout of racial solidarity is insulting to say the least. After all is said and implied, it's white America that has a much longer history voting in unison (for white candidates, of course) than blacks do.

But what worries me most is that the campaign Obama tried so hard to avoid is now taking shape in spite of him due to rogue forces on all sides.

Josh- "To my many Obama friends - I can't and won't hang out at BlueOregon to argue about whether the Clinton campaign is evil, monstrous, negative, etc. The Obama campaign has clearly decided that it is more comfortable whipping up outrage over the conduct of the race than engaging on the actual issues in this race. I hope that changes, but won't hold my breath."

<hr/>

I don't expect you to abandon your cause, but as a party insider, isn't it rational to find some basis for eventual reconciliation? Where the party effort is headed at this point is over a cliff. We can argue about who is responsible for making it happen, but I don't see any effort on the Clinton party insiders to prevent it happening. And that must involve some taking of responsibility other than just writing off the Obama camp as unruly. As Keith Olberman put it succinctly last night in his warning to Hillary Clinton, "This way lies madness!" Or is her personal ambition the altar at which we are all expected to worship? Disappointing and damaging ....with consequences all the day down the party ticket.

I started out this election season an Edward's supporter but figured if he lost I would gladly support whomever the Democrats nominated for president. I liked Bill Clinton on balance with reservations and often defended his wife against the more unbelievable accusations thrown at her. After all, anyone who made Rush Limbaugh's head spin round and round couldn't be all bad, could they?

For many of the reasons listed in the post and prior comments, I too would find it extremely hard to support Mrs. Clinton after the events of the past several weeks. It might of helped if, as a Senator, she had at least once in her 'career' opposed the President and the republicans in congress with one tenth of one per cent of the aggression that she has turned on someone of her own party.

Women and minorities have been fighting for equality in this nation our entire history. As a white woman, I felt that it was pretty amazing to have the best opportunity for Democratic change in a generation to come at a time when my party was willing to support either a woman or a black man above all other candidates.

That felt truly good and empowering for about a week. Then came President Clinton's comments in South Carolina. And Hillary Clinton's idea that it took LBJ to pass the Civil Right's Act (clearly ignoring the death of a beloved President along with the courage of activists throughout the country who had also given their own blood, sweat and tears to change the hearts and minds of the many, first).

As a white great-great-great grand daughter of a US General in the Civil War, it made me cry to see and hear these things.

What have we been fighting for all these generations? Why have we been willing to give up the South in elections if it meant having to pander to the despicable racist ideas of the past? Because it was the right thing to do! Hillary needed to reject and denounce these comments immediately because that would be the right thing to do. It would also reassure people like me who have lost faith in her committment to all causes of equality that she was not using such divided sentiments to pander for votes that frankly as a Democrat I never want my candidate to get.

I never want to see a candidate piss on the memory, the deaths, the blood, the sweat and the tears that all of us and our ancestors have shed for all of these causes just to pander for votes that we have no business ever wanting.

This article - What Wouldn’t Clinton Do to Secure Power? - should probably be titled "What Wouldn't the Clintons Do to Secure Power?" Many of us who are Obama supporters with reservations will find common ground. The article also reminds readers of some of the sleazy events in the Clintons' history. I particularly liked the analogy in the last paragraph.

Ferraro is exposing not only her racism, but classism. She wouldn't want to have to mix with most of the stinky DFH's who post here as well. She is part of the DC Village and we need to take them all down, one at a time. Thanks for giving us some sunlight on your horrible points of view, Ms. Ferraro.

ICK.

You folks need to understand that the black vote is just a small portion of the total vote. I've advised Hillary to sacrifice the black vote in order to lock up the white vote. I feel the pain of the black voters but we need to win this thing. Once we win it we'll hand out a few jobs or ears of corn or whatever it is that the black voters want. Then we'll all be happy once again.

I kinda feel a bit sorry for Josh, seems like a nice enough guy, he sure is getting picked on a lot. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one who drew the short straw that had to come on here and try to defend the integrity of Hillary Clinton. But then again I am always amazed people still try to defend Bush.

Throughout this campaign Hillary has attempted to portray herself as a no-nonsense, take charge woman in command, someone not to mess with.

And now we hear those words were "regretable"?

Perhaps after the Appalachian primaries are over and she has milked the white racist vote for all its worth, she'll find the voice she needs to once and for all reject AND denounce Ferraro's words.

One part of me is sad she didn't suspend her candidacy after March 4th but another part of me just can't wait to vote for Obama and put in my two cents. Finally, Oregon matters!!

Josh: "To my many Obama friends - I can't and won't hang out at BlueOregon to argue about whether the Clinton campaign is evil, monstrous, negative, etc. The Obama campaign has clearly decided that it is more comfortable whipping up outrage over the conduct of the race than engaging on the actual issues in this race. I hope that changes, but won't hold my breath."

Well, as an Oregonian who suffered through a push poll phone call yesterday from PSA Interviewing (identified on the internet as "the telephone call center of the firm of Clinton pollster Mark Penn"), I can assure you that "the conduct of the race" matters. After 5 minutes of the usual political poll questions, suddenly the questions started slamming Obama -- e.g., "Barack Obama has said in speeches that he opposes NAFTA, but his staff contacted the Canadian government to reassure them that it's all just political posturing. Does this make you very much less likely, less likely, more likely, or very much more likely to vote for Obama?" (Of course, this story has been thoroughly debunked, but I guess truth doesn't matter to you guys.) After several similar questions impugning Obama's Senate record, readiness to be Commander in Chief, etc., approximately 15 minutes of questions praising Clinton's record followed. I played along so I could hear all of it, though I did eventually ask to speak to a supervisor in order to complain.

Josh, this is precisely the "old politics" that Obama and his supporters are determined to put an end to. Shame on all of you in the Clinton campaign, especially Sen. Clinton herself, for engaging in this kind of ugly politicking. Believe me, Oregon Democrats won't stand for it.

Hillary Clinton. She is what she is and she is the problem. It's too late Rick, for her to, "Find the voice she needs." After all this time in public life with 'eons' of experience nobody really knows what she really stands for except winning at all costs. She will eagerly adopt any "voice" she needs to in order to win. Winning is the only thing that matters. And that is the problem and that is why I would rather have Barack Obama President of my good old USA. Thank you very much.

GWB was a second rate Bush. We don't need a second rate Clinton in the WH.

1. Is the comment factually correct? Indignation is irrelevant to that question.

2. Who is more qualified to be President: Barak Obama or, say, Ron Wyden?

3. How was Reagan as President? He was inspiring.

4. Is Barak Obama a fast-learning, crafty politician who is seizing the opportunity? (If you answer "Yes," that says good things about him. Just remember: He's a professional politician, not Prince Charming.)

All of you who have repudiated the Clintons' racism and craven power mongering are of course correct.

But there is a racism that is being expressed daily in our foreign policy decisions and that is whole-heartedly agreed to by all three candidates and their parties. The continuing political support of U.S.-Israel crimes against humanity and the unchallenged supply of more weapons to Israel, in contravention of the U.S. Arms Export Control and Foreign Assistance Acts, so that Israel can commit additional human rights abuses against the long-suffering Palestinian people, is racist to the core.

Obama's spiritual advisor: http://youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM

From Josh: "To my many Obama friends - I can't and won't hang out at BlueOregon to argue about whether the Clinton campaign is evil, monstrous, negative, etc...."

To Josh: Those of us opposed to the Clintons had plenty of reasons to feel that way long before we ever heard of Obama.

"Obama campaign has clearly decided that it is more comfortable whipping up outrage over the conduct of the race than engaging on the actual issues in this race. I hope that changes, but won't hold my breath."

As an Edwards supporter, I am not actively supporting a presidential candidate. But as a 1984 Dem. National Convention delegate, I'm beginning to think it is a good thing Geraldine never became VP. That woman has a mouth into which she inserts foot!

Hillary Clinton made a big deal out of "But Barack, do you both reject AND denounce Farakan?"

But anything Geraldine says is OK?

In the 1950s I was an elementary school child in a big city at a citywide event for elementary kids in the 1950s. A well meaning adult at the museum warned me "if you sit there, you might end up sitting next to a Negro child from another school" and I said that didn't matter.

THAT memory is what comes to mind when I hear this stuff, not whether one presidential candidate is better than another. This is 50 years later and a former VP nominee thinks such statements are acceptable???

At one point Geraldine said that in the 1984 election she got more flak in some places for being Italian than for being a woman running for VP. But it is OK for her to make cracks like this which sound like Ward Connerly's campaign to stamp out affirmative action?

My friend Julie was right---when they act like that, you know they know they are losing.

And as Keith Olberman said in the clip on the other topic, Hillary is responsible for her advisors. It is not Obama's fault that she and her advisors are running a campaign which reminds some of us of the 1984 Mondale campaign. (Which, by the way, lost the Oregon primary by getting only about 30% of the vote here.)

If this is supposed to be Hillary's "Sister Soljah" moment like what happned in Bill's campaign, it is backfiring.

Let's see. She doesn't want the votes of anyone insulted by Geraldine's remark. She doesn't want the votes of anyone in a state Obama carried, because the states that "really matter" went for Hillary. Do those states that "really matter" have 270 electoral votes? Did they go Dem. in the last 4 presidential elections?

Or are we at a point in this country where everyone is supposed to just choose sides, sit back, and not ask any questions? That was unacceptable behavior from Minnis and Scott when they ran the Oregon House, that is unacceptable behavior for ANY campaign!

And while I imagine voting Dem for president (McCain? Are you serious?), I see no reason to remain in the same party with Hillary as a nominee given all the obnoxious things she has done recently. If Hillary is the nominee, I will give Hillary my vote, PERIOD, unless she does something to redeem here mistakes these last few weeks. There are some local legislative races which are more satisfying to work on, not to mention Congress.

Geraldine Ferraro is one of the reasons the dope Walter Mondale lost almost every state in the country in the 1984 election. Her husband was the Mob's real estate agent in Little Italy at the time, and her son the bartender at Dorrian's restaurant in New York almost certainly sold Robert Chambers the cocaine that facilitated his committing the "preppie murder" (her son was later busted for selling cocaine on the Middlebury College campus). She is and has always been a Class-A bitch, including on the two visits she made to Oregon I know of. The second time she came, as she was leaving, the then-Chair of the Democratic Party of Oregon, Judy Carnahan, said to her that she hoped she'd had a good time, and Ferraro replied, "If I wanted to have a good time, I wouldn't have come to Oregon."

I think Nick's final point was accurate in reflecting what many here think.

This country can't afford a McCain presidency. If the Clinton campaign acts in a way where she's perceived to steal the nomination, it will do great harm to the Democratic party.

Groups are gathering to protest at the convention in Denver and that's another potential distraction from the Presidential election. I wouldn't expect many of the Obama supporters to quietly get in line behind the candidate if they don't believe she earned the nomination.

Lani, You are right. Anyone with Hillary's "experience" should know what any smart campaigner should know--never say anything in a primary which would alienate those you need in the general--not just for their votes but their volunteer work.

Somehow I don't see Wolfson, Penn, Pres. Bill, etc able to strongarm Obama delegates into silent conformity to the Clinton way. Esp. not if John Edwards ever speaks publicly on the subject of "wish I'd spoken up in 2004 about ---- disagreement I had with the Kerry people".

But maybe Hillary is so wrapped up in the day to day campaigning that she can't see that. Does she really (to take one example) expect volunteer work out of the young pct. captain for Obama whose face is part of the stock footage in the "3AM" commercial? Or is she even paying attention to such details?

Having watched Ferraro on TV, having just watched Keith Olbermann's clip from last night, having learned that the rumor that Barack Obama is a covert Muslim started with a Clinton campaign worker in Iowa, having seen Bill Clinton do his thing a couple of times (Jesse Jackson et al), and having thought good and long about this --

I no longer consider Hillary Clinton to be a Democrat. I don't know what she is, but she does not stand for the values I see in the Democratic Party. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. If she becomes the nominee of the Democratic Party, I will not vote for her, I might not vote at all in the Presidential election. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee of the Party, she will become the nominal head of the Party, and I cannot be a part of any Party with her in any leadership position, so if she is the nominee, I will leave the Party.

-- And this is from a political junkie.

I served on the Democratic National Platform Committee in 1980, when that Committee actually still had a real say into what was in the Platform. We held hearings around the country, inviting substantive input, and crafted platform proposals much influenced by what we learned. Then Representative Ferraro was the chairperson of the Committee, and used that position to field a focused campaign for nomination as Vice President. Her campaign was not just subtly, but overtly, based on the premise that we should have a woman on the ticket. Although I felt at the time her using the Committee for a personal shot at the big time hurt her effectiveness as chair, and to some extent, the work of the Committee itself, it did not seem inappropriate that in selecting a Veep candidate we take into account the opportunity to take a whack at the "Glass Ceiling," as long as the person wielding the hammer was competent and would serve us well, so as a Platform Committee member, and later as a delegate to the Convention, I supported her effort. I think it fair to say she would not have succeeded in getting many of us to do that had she been a white male from New York City with no significant prior national attention; indeed, I'm pretty sure such a person would not have tried. But it was certainly legitimate for her to take it on, and to use the importance of breaking that Ceiling as one reason to support her. Just as it is legitimate for Senator Clinton to use that argument in the present campaign -- as she has, by specifically using the term ("Glass Ceiling") at her rallies. But that shouldn't be THE REASON anyone supports her; it should be a bonus, added on to the belief that she's the best choice. Let's give her supporters the benefit of the doubt on that. There can really be no question that the media payed attention to Barak Obama four years ago in part because of his heritage. That helped make him a credible candidate for the Senate. It probably played into his being given a prime-time spot for a major address at the 2004 National Convention. It did not, however, write or deliver the speech that electrified all of us in Bostan that night. He had to do that with personal ability.
There can also be little question that Senator Obama's heritage initially encouraged more curiosity about him among voters, and probably, more media attention, as a presidential candidate, than would have been the case were he just one more white Harvard lawyer. But it did not craft the masterful campaign he's created, or produce the inspiring example he has been throughout the campaign. He had to do that with brains and judgment. (I just viewed on You Tube the personal "shame on you" attack by Senator Clinton, and the gracious, quiet response of Senator Obama; I hope all Blue Oregon readers will take time to view both.) For that matter, his heritage may have influenced Harvard in admitting him to law school. I can promise however that it didn't write the exam answers (which are blind graded), or the term papers, that earned the grades to put him on Law Review, or got him selected as Editor; he had to do that with hard study, exceptional legal reasoning, and very competent writing. As the parent of someone who graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, and who was offered a job from a prestigious New York law firm paying nearly $200 K, I am also quite certain that Barak Obama could have landed one paying at least that much, and maybe more; it's very likely that his heritage would have made him particularly attractive to some firm wanting to demonstrate their commitment to equality. It is also very likely that his heritage and his emotional connection to that heritage helped drive him not to a six-figure starting salary in New York or Washington D.C., but to an economically challenged inner-city Chicago neighborhood where he thought he could make a difference for people whose heritage he partly shared. But surely that is something to be not discounted, but celebrated. So I'll allow that one of the reasons his candidacy excites me is the opportunity to continue breaking down a barrier that's plagued America for over 300 years -- but that's not THE REASON; it's a bonus, added on to the belief that he's the best choice. And comparing the two clips mentioned above really enforces that belief.

But there is a racism that is being expressed daily in our foreign policy decisions and that is whole-heartedly agreed to by all three candidates and their parties. The continuing political support of U.S.-Israel crimes against humanity and the unchallenged supply of more weapons to Israel, in contravention of the U.S. Arms Export Control and Foreign Assistance Acts, so that Israel can commit additional human rights abuses against the long-suffering Palestinian people, is racist to the core.

I wouldn't say racism is THE factor, but in some cases I wouldn't rule it out. Most likely political expediency decides which positions they take.

I'll vote for Obama but with reservations because of his recent stated positions on Israel/Palestine, Colombia/Venezuela/Equador and others. However, I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt with the hope that he will return to his earlier position on Israel/Palestine and go along with the more sensible approach of Zbigniew Brzezinski who is now more civilized about the Middle East than he was when he was working for Carter.

To repeat a point I've made before, Obama's supporters, especially the younger ones who have been inspired by his rhetoric, if he is elected on the day of his inauguration let him know you expect him to live up to his promises. And keep it up any time he looks like he might be backtracking.

"It is my understanding that Sen. Clinton forcefully disagreed with Ms. Ferraro, and that she has been moved off of the Finance Committee. This has not, however, stopped the Obama campaign from spreading the false story that Ms. Ferraro's idiotic and hurtful remark came form the Clinton campaign."

Three lies in two sentences -- sadly, par for the course among those who stubbornly remain Clinton supporters. It wasn't forceful, she wasn't moved off, and the Obama campaign has done no such thing.

"There can also be little question that Senator Obama's heritage initially encouraged more curiosity about him among voters"

"little question"? Asserting that you have a direct line to the truth doesn't make it so. Actually, what initially encouraged more curiosity was his amazing speech at the Democratic Convention. His "heritage" -- hey, don't white folk have curious heritages too? -- is something played up by the media, because that's what they do with anyone who has a hint of non-lilyness about them.

Racism is insidious. We are all affected by it and incorporate it to some degree.

Harry KKK,

Are Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas guilty of racist foreign policy and crimes against humanity, or are the Israelis the only culpable party?

If you wish to respond that the arabs/islamicists are only responding to Israeli attacks, you might wish to Google "Hama Rules", or "Hariri", or "Rape of Kuwait".

The results provide plenty of evidence of Arab on Arab violence and genocide.

truth machine writes (about Josh K.?): "Racism is insidious. We are all affected by it and incorporate it to some degree."

I would only change the word "racism" to "prejudice".

Lots of high brow indignation in these comments by people, including the author, who see prejudice in others' words against themselves or their kind, but can't see it in their own words against other people who are different from their own kind.

Hence Steve, Stephanie V. and Karol are outraged at Geraldine's prejudicial comments, but quite comfortable to wallow in their own prejudicial comments about Republicans.

The Harry above is not Harry K. or Harry KKK or Harry Wilson, or anybody else using the first name Harry, but just as he has been for 2 yrs, [email protected].

Joe, about this:

"I served on the Democratic National Platform Committee in 1980, when that Committee actually still had a real say into what was in the Platform. We held hearings around the country, inviting substantive input, and crafted platform proposals much influenced by what we learned. Then Representative Ferraro was the chairperson of the Committee, and used that position to field a focused campaign for nomination as Vice President. Her campaign was not just subtly, but overtly, based on the premise that we should have a woman on the ticket."

Wasn't the 1980 ticket "Re-elect Carter/Mondale"? Don't you mean 1984? You are listed in the Official Proceedings of the 1984 Convention as being a perm. member of that committee. In 1980, I think Geraldine was on the Hunt Comm. which created superdelegates.

LT: thanks for the correction! I was on the Platform Committee both times -- but it was in 1984 that Ferraro chaired that Committee. Coleman Young chaired it in 1980. In 1980 I was a Carter delegate trying to get our Party to inveigh against the MX missile. Came close...

I have known Josh Karden for awhile and I've found him to be a responsible individual and a dedicated advocate for those he represents. I am disappointed to be on opposing sides in regard to Sen Clinton but one thing I am pretty confident of is that Josh would not deliberately lie. When we find ourselves calling people like Josh a liar we are in the midst of a real problem.

I disagree with Josh about where responsibility lies, but much of the rhetorical heat is not campaign generated but done by "supporters." I am harsh with Hillary, but I do not use made up things or stuff that is at best, suspect. This behavior is scattered through this thread and elsewhere. It is pretty difficult to ask any campaign to be more responsible when a lot of garbage is thrown in as a part of the campaign's problem.

Mrs Clinton apologized today, I was underwhelmed, it took about 10 days to get to the Ferraro problem and since the SC race to deal with that one. A contested primary offers real value to voters, if it is conducted in a value generating manner. With minor bumpy spots this was not too bad up until the last month or so. (not a total disaster) I don't think the Clinton campaign can hope for more than big victories in PA & IN and to then make the "big state" argument to super delegates, which I don't think will fly. But considering its possibility and a sort of reasoning in the argument it is ludicrous to call for a Clinton withdrawal. Other than trouble making for Democrats as a part of Sal's agenda his argument is pretty dispensible. I'd certainly like to see the Clinton campaign clean up its act, but I have a lot less faith than Josh. If she won't, we'll all have some food for thought. If she can manage to explode the Democratic Party, then maybe we should be and maybe we have some issues as desperate as the Republicans do. That is what these processes are for, to determine what we are.

I miss John Edwards.

I miss John Edwards.

You must be referencing the Mysterious Traveler

I realize it may be tough to swallow. Hillary has done some underhanded things. I think that if I was truly impartial I would see something underhanded the Obama campaign has done. Right now I don't really see anything yet but I'm sure if I was impartial or partial towards the Clinton camp I would see it.

Look...this is an election that is about more than Obama vs. Clinton. We have 2 supreme court justices that are OLD. My grandma was a sharp sharp woman until she was 91. She is 93 now and barely recognizes me. It can happen quick. The supreme court can do more damage than the Congress can do in the next 4 years. I trust Hillary or Barack over McCain any day of the week.

That's the point. If McCain is President civil rights, gay rights, womens rights get rolled off slowly by the supreme court. We have a 2 party system so you'll throw a vote away by voting for a 3rd party. I dare you to tell me Hillary OR Barack would appoint a supreme court justice that would be in favor of rolling back civil rights, gay rights or womens rights?

To all those who think you're not voting for Bill when you vote for Hillary, don't forget who will be walking our hallowed White House halls again? He who tarnished them should NOT be allowed back in. Let Barack Obama be the man who wins, he is most qualified, and most intelligent, better judgment to govern and choose the best cabinet ever. It won't be cronies like the Clintons will choose. Anyone who thinks differently is the reason our country is in the mess it is in right now. Someone said Kerry flip flopped, and all those idiots voted for Bush.

chalupas

Well said Karrol. I can't think of a better role model for our children than Barack and Michelle. Two hard working, dedicated, successful, caring,super intelligent people, who worked their way up the ladder from the bottom up. If anyone can identify with low income, underprivileged Americans, they sure can. They can relate to all of us. Yes, even you Granny. Stop voting for HIllary, she will keep the war going. She voted to invade Iran too. You mothers with war age children better be careful who you vote for. Peace with Obama.

Agreed, agreed, agreed.

This is a consistent strategy by the Clinton campaign and it disgusts me. It is no accident that people connected to her campaign "happen" to keep making these statements. I may be a white feminist (who I guess is supposed to look up to these older feminists who keep waggling their finger at me) but I refuse to stand for these race-baiting strategies - she's lost my vote forever.

At this point I wouldn't even support her for Vice President, and this is someone who was once excited to see her running for the White House.

The choice between Obama and Hillary could mean the difference between war on Iran or not. Suddenly, a Dangerous Turn

It's interesting that when one of Hillary's supporters makes an off-the-cuff comment that doesn't reflect her opinions, Hillary is pilloried in the media and on the blogs. But when one of Obama's supporters does the same thing, Mr. Perfect gets a big pass from the same folks. Everyone's afraid to scrutinize Obama, for fear of being called a racist -- which is exactly the point Ferraro was making. Black or not, the Republicans aren't going to be so gentle in portraying Obama as an empty suit with a lot of flowerly rhetoric and not much substance.

If the Dems want to win in November, someone in the Obama-compliant media needs to start asking some questions, if for no other reason than to insulate him from GOP attacks. Like, what will Mr. bipartisan-hands-across-the-aisle-politics-of-consensus-let's-get-together-and-sing-Kum-Ba-Yah Obama going to do when 43 (or 45, or however many Rs there will be come January 2009) Senators band together (as they will) to thwart his tenth or fifteenth straight policy initiative by keeping the Senate from stopping debate? What's his "new approach" going to be: give in to them? play hardball? (The former will be interpreted (probably correctly) as weakness; the latter sounds like old politics to me.)

Also, if he takes over an economy several quarters into a recession that doesn't seem to be ending, and The Fed can't cut interest rates any more, what's his plan for getting things back on track?

I know it's terrible to ask a presidential candidate exactly WHAT he plans to DO, but I'd like a little more than faith, hope, and blue sky to use as a reason for backing this guy.

Bill B. ... I doubt that there's much likelihood that Hillary is going to lead us into a war in Iran. But then, a little fearmongering is OK, right? At least when it's on Obama's behalf.

rural resident: "It's interesting that when one of Hillary's supporters makes an off-the-cuff comment that doesn't reflect her opinions, Hillary is pilloried in the media and on the blogs."

<hr/>

I think that you are an excellent example of the strategy that Hillary takes. They send out surrogates, Billy Shaheen, Andrew Cuomo, Bill Clinton, Bob Johnson, Geraldine Ferraro. They use racial innuendo to marginalize their opponent. They show contempt when he doesn't respond, and they accuse him of race-baiting when he does. It's a great strategy for playing on the narrative that works so well among the populous about the "advantage" that AA people have, and that Obama is really an affirmative action candidate, not really up to snuff. Well, I guess having won 26 states and 30 contests, the popular vote, and is up by 161 pledged delegates and closing the gap on the supers... he is just an "empty suit." It's clear to me and many that Geraldine Ferraro is not a loose cannon but part of campaign strategy to fuel white resentment. It works...

what does and has Hillary got to do with clsterbombs?

james r. bracach-"what does and has Hillary got to do with clsterbombs?"

I believe there was a vote in the Senate to ban them because the are so destructive to civilian populations, especially to children with the unexploded ordinance. She voted against the ban.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where people make voting decisions based on media controversies and emotional reactions to said controversies - instead of policy and the candidate's ability to move the ball forward.

I might have an emotional reaction to something Barack Obama's pastor said, but that won't keep me from voting for him if he's the nominee.

This election is about something much bigger than my hurt feelings. It's about stopping the Republicans before they do any more harm to the country.

But when one of Obama's supporters does the same thing, Mr. Perfect gets a big pass from the same folks.

If you have been paying attention or want to check back on previous threads you will find a number of people supporting Obama have also expressed reservations about some of his positions.

Bill B. ... I doubt that there's much likelihood that Hillary is going to lead us into a war in Iran. But then, a little fearmongering is OK, right? At least when it's on Obama's behalf.

Check the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that Hillary voted for to rattle sabers against Iran. If it was politically expedient for Hillary to vote for the Iraq war and it becomes politically expedient to wage war on Iran, no one should be so naive as to think she wouldn't do it.

So that [email protected] won't continue to fret about being mistaken for me, I'll use my full name.

Mr. Tee called me KKK because I called the two corporatist/hegemonist parties' positions on Israel/Palestine racist, and that should tell you a lot about Mr. Tee. I would just add that the Nazis called their invasions, occupations, and slaughtering "counterterrorism".

There is so much written about this subject, and I hope that BO readers will educate themselves. I recommend starting with Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, although much can be learned from work by scholars like Norman Finkelstein, Stephen Zunes, Howard Zinn, Mitchell Plitnick, Phyllis Bennis, Naomi Klein, Ilan Pappe, or Joel Beinin; or Israeli journalists like Uri Avnery, Gideon Levy, or Amira Hass, all of whom agree with me. Jewish Voice for Peace (jewishvoiceforpeace) and U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation (endtheoccupation) are good sources for news and education, and z communications (zcommunications) allows for searches of all sorts of progressive topics, including this one.

Bill Bodden's claim that Obama/Clinton's positions merely represent "political expediency" rather than racism seems to me to be nitpicking. Was the support of the slaughter of native peoples here "political expediency" rather than racism? If so, then maybe he's got a point.

Bill Bodden's claim that Obama/Clinton's positions merely represent "political expediency" rather than racism seems to me to be nitpicking.

A mostly white Congress has not balked at screwing other white citizens when it was politically expedient. However, I wouldn't rule out racism in many cases.

Harry K: I'm with you on Israel/Palestine. Too bad, Obama and Clinton aren't. There is a glimmer of hope that Obama might return to his earlier position on Palestine if elected president but no such hope in the case of Hillary and Bill Clinton if they get back in the White House.

My nephew was killed in Iraq by a US clusterbomb. I know what Hillary has to do with them! Just checking to see if anyone is paying attention to anything that is happening. Are elections just to distract?

Bill: I believe your heart is in the right place, but your "glimmer of hope" hypothesis is a religious assertion rather than a rational one. Read Obama's statements on the subject, like in obama's israel bond

As far as I know, Obama never said that he was interested in reversing Middle East policy, as Nader has. At best, he remarked that, "No one has suffered more than the Palestinian people".

The important thing for us to consider as Americans is that unqualified support for Israeli crimes endangers us all, since it greatly increases the probability that we will again be attacked. The 404 to 1 vote March 5 in the House of Reps on H.Res.951, which not only ignored Israeli human rights abuses, but also blamed Iran and Syria, should sound a warning.

Bill: I believe your heart is in the right place, but your "glimmer of hope" hypothesis is a religious assertion rather than a rational one.

Harry K: I can't argue your point with vigor, but without a "glimmer of hope" there is nothing which means it wouldn't make any difference which candidate we vote for or whether we vote or not. I detested Brzezinski for a long time, but he has made some sensible statements lately on Israel/Palestine and the Middle East. Perhaps, he will get Obama to modify his stated positions if elected president and return closer to earlier statements showing some concern for Palestinians. I wouldn't bet my next social security check on it. Because that shows little faith, perhaps "religion assertion" is not quite the right term.

Harry Kushner,

I will ask again:

Are Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas guilty of racist foreign policy and crimes against humanity, or are the Israelis the only culpable party?

If you wish to respond that the Arabs/Islamicists are only responding to Israeli attacks, you might wish to Google "Hama Rules", or "Hariri", or "Rape of Kuwait".

The State of Israel is surrounded by violent enemies. Clearly, Israel has responded to violence against them with violence. To ignore that truth betrays your underlying anti-semitism, or your ability to think critically.

You can't condemn Israeli agression without examining Arab agression: violence begets violence.

The State of Israel is surrounded by violent enemies.

And, as the old saying goes, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword." Obviously, the Zionists didn't give much thought to that wise dictum when they set out on a policy of transferring (now known as ethnic cleansing) all Arabs from Palestine and Trans-Jordan. There are good reasons to believe the extreme right-wing in Israel still has that policy as their ultimate goal. It seems to be the only road map that is functioning.

However, it would be wrong to put all the blame on the Israelis and the Jews. Many Jews were content to live in peace with the Palestinians but they were over-ruled by those wielding the swords. Many still oppose their right-wing government and do what they can to achieve as fair a solution as possible. There is lots of blame to go around, including Palestinians, the British, neighboring Arabs, and Americans who seem to be determined to avoid a resolution to this humanitarian disaster.

Geraldine Ferraro's remarks were stupid, but at least she did say that if her name was Gerald she wouldn't have been on the ticket with Mondale. That's probably the most generous context within which to place her remarks.

I've heard noise of late that the candidates have had a conversation about toning down the inflammatory rhetoric of their supporters. Of course, among the supporters, both sides will insist the the OTHER is the BAD, etc. That's the point, isn't it? I would like to believe that the over-the-top comments will stop. I do believe that it has come from both sides. However, a lot of the anti-Clinton stuff did not need to be put out by the Obama campaign since so much of it echoes the tried and true anti-Clinton rhetoric crafted, polished, and disseminated in the Bill Clinton era. How can the Obama campaign be blamed for not refuting this received wisdom? Hey, the Republicans were right! who knew? I can see that the country is ready for a change, as it regularly is. This is not the first time we have gone for a talented charismatic outsider with promise. I have read Clinton supporters criticizing Obama as inexperienced and shallow and un-electable, and criticizing his supporters pretty much along the same lines. I have read Obama supporters portray Clinton as personifying almost every negative adjective the Republicans have put out there since 1992 and criticizing her supporters as being Party Establishment or underinformed or racist or oldangryfeminist or complicit in the behavior implied in all those negative descriptors. ( Underhanded, calculating, racist, amoral, criminal, venal.) I voted for Hillary in my caucus (she lost) and I'm a much worse person than you'd ever dream of being ?

I did hear Hillary say that if Obama won the nomination she would encourage her supporters to vote for him. (Duh) Probably Obama has made the same statement.

At this point they BOTH really need to remind their supporters know that at the end of the campaign, they are BOTH Democrats, and that this country needs a Democratic President.

While this guilt by association festival is taking up all the news time, along with the Spitzer scandal. The public is ignoring the economy swirling down the tubes and the candidates positions are never reported.

Lots happening this week in Iraq, but nobody cares.

Fingers from kidnapped contractors mailed to Washington, DNA testing confirmed their identity. Some kidnapped as long as two years ago. One mother here in Oregon--it's her only son.

No link between Saddam and Al Qaeda--Claiming the report is too sensitive, the Pentagon will not make it available online but only through the mail

Iraqi civilian death toll up almost double in first weeks of March from 20 to 39/day.

Body of kidnapped archbishop found in Iraq

U.S. troops accidently shoot 10-year-old girl. and three American troops killed in Rocket attacks

U.S. Public losing Interest in Iraq War - only 20% know how many American dead, (almost 4000) from Poll data

News coverage of the Iraq war nonexistent, drops to less than 1%.

And the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war is upon us.

Instead we'll hear more about Obama's minister or Spitzer's escort service.

So has the American public lost interest in Iraq or the American media?

Harold Kershner: I'm still waiting for an answer.

Meanwhile, you're riding the hot new trend of anti-semitism!.

Pat Ryan: (1.) "...and still understand that burning down the house may not be the best remodeling strategy."

The two tiny slivers of the international political spectrum that are represented by Democrats and Republicans barely make for a shotgun shack. Let it burn.

(2.) I'm not impressed with George Lakoff's analysis. I believe that we should use language carefully so that we tell the truth rather than manufacture some counter-Rovian message with a "liberal frame".

(3.) Attacks on Chomsky and Zinn are hollow substitutes for sophisticated discussion. C & Z are far more than "One-Trick-Ponies", and they have not marginalized themselves, although many attempt to marginalize them. If you really have read Fateful Triangle, then why not comment on it rather than attack the messenger?

(4.) You may believe that "confrontation, interruption of speakers, pranks, and various other strategies..." that I've used are less effective than your own "equally valid methods of activism", but I've never asked that anyone play the same role as me. If you've been paying attention, you know that nothing any of us has done has ended the terrible suffering that we have been inflicting on much of the world, so why not open yourself to others' tactics?

(5.) "Some of us, running for office, might use rhetoric that is less heated than you would like."

How about rhetoric like what Kucinich or Nader use, like justice and honor and even-handedness?

<hr/>

Mr. Tee: I am Jewish and all of the references I gave you are Jewish (because I knew someone would assume that I'm an anti-Semite if I tell the truth about U.S.-Israel). If you place me in the same category of anti-Semite/idiot as Naomi Klein or Phyllis Bennis, then I'm honored. I suspect that you would benefit from reading Israeli history written from a more centrist perspective. Israel is not the worst nation-state in the world, but it is committing crimes against humanity, and that should be intolerable to the children of the word as well as to those who enable those crimes (us).

<hr/>

Bill B and Kevin: I think you and I see Israel and the Lobby in very different ways. I see Israel as little more than an off-shore U.S. military base, a spartan society that exists for little else than to serve its master and to expand its own power within its far more limited sphere of influence. Israel exists in this form because powerful American policy makers have colluded with right-wing Israeli institutions , especially since 1967. Israel is a "strategic asset" to the imperialists of both parties who run our country, even if it is not an asset to us. Please read Fateful Triangle.

Harry Kershner,

You are not the first Jewish anti-semite that I've met. A strange kind of self-loathing.

And you still haven't answered my question.

Harry, just in case you forgot the question:

Are Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas guilty of racist foreign policy and crimes against humanity, or are the Israelis the only culpable party?

Bill B and Kevin: I think you and I see Israel and the Lobby in very different ways. I see Israel as little more than an off-shore U.S. military base, a spartan society that exists for little else than to serve its master and to expand its own power within its far more limited sphere of influence. Israel exists in this form because powerful American policy makers have colluded with right-wing Israeli institutions , especially since 1967. Israel is a "strategic asset" to the imperialists of both parties who run our country, even if it is not an asset to us. Please read Fateful Triangle.

Harry K: I have to admit I never thought of the Israeli/U.S. relationship in those terms. Thank you for bringing it up. It is certainly plausible and helps to explain the alacrity with which Lyndon Johnson and Robert MacNamara initiated the cover-up of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty and why Admiral John McCain, Senator John McCain's father, went along with it and betrayed the crew of a ship under his command. I'll check "Fateful Triangle."

Others please note that Semite and anti-Semite are not synonyms for Jew or anti-Jew. This definition of "Semites" is from the Penguin encyclopedia: "A group of peoples found in SW Asia. In antiquity they included the Ammonites, Amorites, Assyrians, Bebylonians, Canaanites and Phoenicians; today the prominent Semitic peoples are the Jews and Arabs."

Bueller? Bueller? Ferris Bueller?

Kershner? Kershner? Harold Kershner?

It's a very simple question.

Answer it correctly, and you're just biased. Answer it incorrectly, and you're clearly an anti-semite.

Mr. Tee: Your insistent attempts to communicate your contempt for me is bizarre and pathetic. I don't owe you anything, and I really don't care what you think of me.

There are two types of anti-Semitism of the Jewish kind (Bill B is correct that hatred of Arabs is also anti-Semitism) that I've run into: (1.) the metaphysical nonsense that claims that we have some kind of relationship with the devil and historical evil; and (2.) the bigotry of scapegoating us for unpopular actions actually committed by Gentiles by exaggerating our economic and political power, and, therefore, our ability to dominate, manipulate, and control others.

It is this second type that leads to hypotheses like Mearsheimer's and Walt's, i.e., that Jewish-based lobbies control U.S. foreign policy, including the invasion and occupation of Iraq. As Stephen Zunes said, “The fact is that U.S. support for the Israeli government and opposition to Palestinian rights are based not on an all-powerful lobby, but by the same elite interests that lead the U.S. to support any militarized pro-Western government and oppose any Third World nationalist movement. The U.S. ‘supports’ Israel for what that country has done for U.S. interests.”

I do not believe in a "new anti-Semitism", based on criticism of Israel, but I believe that the old anti-Semitism is thriving, and I believe that it is thriving at least in part because of attitudes like yours, Mr. Tee. We Jews must stop thinking of ourselves as exceptions to international law or morality, just as we Americans must stop thinking in these exceptionalist terms.

I recommend the work of Norman Finkelstein to you, especially Beyond Chutzpah : on the misuse of anti-semitism and the abuse of history. Finkelstein is also the author of The rise and fall of Palestine: a personal account of the Intifada years.

Are Iran or Syria guilty of crimes similar to Israel's? What difference does it make? Are you arguing that if I kill people then you should also have the right to kill people? Crimes against humanity are crimes regardless of who commits them, are they not?

Questions of morality must be dealt with as universals, i.e., Israel and the U.S. must be held to the same standards as any other country, including standards of the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremburg Tribunal.

Israel is and has been involved in an occupation of Palestinians' land, and Israel is therefore responsible under international law for the welfare of the Palestinian people. This is undeniable except by history-deniers of the type that you and I deplore when they attempt to undermine our own history. Israel has also dispossessed, ethnically cleansed, tortured and murdered Palestinians, and insurgency under those conditions is considered acceptable under international law.

Hamas and Hezbullah are not nation-states, so Israel has no right to attack innocent people in Lebanon or Gaza or the West Bank in an effort to punish their members, just as Syria would have no right to bomb Tel Aviv in order to punish anti-Syrian groups that might be living there.

The history of the relationship of Israel to these groups is interesting, and I assume that you know that Israel was instrumental in aiding and abetting them when that was thought to be in its interests. Peace offers from these groups have been reported consistently in the alternative press, just as have offers of recognition from the Arab League, but Israel has rejected those offers, no doubt at the behest of its master.

Evidence of the racism of Israeli officials and citizens is reported almost daily not only at sites like Jewish Voice for Peace, which I have found to be an excellent source of information, but also in the Israeli press, including rather conservative publications like Ha'aretz.

In the end, U.S. Middle Eastern policy is anti-Semitic in the broadest possible sense: Arabs are slaughtered and tortured, and Jews are blamed for it. If you want to reduce anti-Semitism, Mr. Tee, you should work to change U.S. foreign policy, including by rejecting candidates who promote U.S./Israeli exceptionalism and platforms of empire.

Mssr. Kershner:

You answered my question, not with a reply, but with two more questions.

1. Are Iran or Syria guilty of crimes similar to Israel's? 2. What difference does it make?

1. Iran and Syria conduct foreign policy with far greater disregard for International Law.
2. It makes all the difference in the world when you criticize Israeli foreign policy without examining the context in which it developed.

Hizbullah and Hamas don't merit a get-out-of-jail-free-card because simply because they "lack nation-state status." Perhaps a historical analysis of the racism and bigotry suffered by the Jews before the formation of their nation-state is in order. To summarize: lots of nation states persecuted the Jews well in advance of the Jews achieving a nation-state. The Islamacists aren't writing letters to Amnesty International: they are killing zionists.

How about the "not Lebanese" rockets that launch from Lebananese territory: do those rockets need to have a flag painted on them before retaliation is lawful and necessary?

You can't possibly expect Israel to ignore Hizbullah and Hamas: that is tantamount to suicide.

May it be God's will to redeem us from all evil and from all slavery.

Mr. Tee said: "Perhaps a historical analysis of the racism and bigotry suffered by the Jews before the formation of their nation-state is in order. To summarize: lots of nation states persecuted the Jews well in advance of the Jews achieving a nation-state."

Because we have been the target of bigots does not mean that we have the right to be bigots ourselves. Have you not heard that we should not do to others what we would not have them do to us? And why must the Palestinians suffer for the crimes against humanity of Europeans?

Once Israel has re-entered the civilized world and withdrawn to the 1967 boundaries, as international law requires, we can then determine whether or not "Islamicists" can be rightfully criticized. Until then, we will increase the power of the madmen we fear by our unqualified support of right-wing Israel.

No one I know is suggesting that Israel should allow itself to be destroyed. Israel's military advantage over its enemies is considerable, and there is no "existential threat" to it now, although its continued belligerence and defiance of international standards will eventually destroy it unless people like us work to stop the insanity of perpetual war and injustice. We can do it if we end support for militarization and criminal conduct. And if we end support for politicians like Clinton or Obama or McCain, all of whom are more interested in U.S. empire than in saving Israel.

Please go here: gushshalom for a look at what peace-loving Jewish Israelis have to say. And go here: jvp to see what peace-loving Jewish Americans have to say.

You think you are among those who support Jews and Israelis, Mr. Tee, but in fact you are among those who will accomplish what the Nazis failed to accomplish if you do not change your strategy.

The ease with which she lies just won't go away. She helped broken the Good Friday accords. Right. From today's UK Guradian:

<quote>For instance, Clinton has said she helped negotiate the April 1998 Good Friday agreement between warring factions in Northern Ireland. But while Catholic and Protestant figures hashed out last-minute details of a power-sharing agreement in Belfast, Clinton was at the National Press Club in Washington at a party honouring Bella Abzug, a congresswoman from New York City who had died recently. While President Clinton phoned major participants in the peace talks, she met with Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel and joined a farewell party for Democratic operative Karen Finney. On the day the agreement was actually signed, she met with Philippine first lady Amelita Ramos.

When Nato launched air strikes against Serbia in an attempt to punish Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic for the country's onslaught against ethnic Albanian separatists in Kosovo, Clinton toured ancient Egyptian ruins, including King Tut's tomb and the temple of Hatshepsut. She dined at the Temple of Luxor, and stayed overnight at the Sofitel Winter Palace Hotel there. </quote>

Again,, why is this not a topic post?