Ferraro was not Hillary Clinton's feminist mentor who happens to hate minorities and America?

Obama gave the speech to save his campaign since his spiritual adviser and father figure is a black nationalist that made comments that were repugnant to the majority of Americans.

You of course know this already but feign outrage.
Why didn't Obama give this speech a year ago when Wright first became an issue?

It will never be good enough. This why we will never move forward. Some people can find cynicism in anything... flowers and beautiful sunny day. I guess it sells, but I'm not buying it today ladies.

Hillary, I just cut you loose and I feel sooo free!!!!!!!!!

"Why, after Geraldine Ferraro's comments, didn't Hillary Clinton stand up and deliver a speech on how she sees race in America?"

Because someone like Reverend Wright would ask who the hell she thought she was talking about race in America?

Seriously, why didn't Obama give this speech back in January? Why didn't he call out his own national campaign co-chair, Jesse Jackson Jr., for uttering sexist nonsense on MSNBC in the wake of Clinton's victory in NH? Why didn't he slam Rep. Jackson for injecting race into the campaign (well before Bill Clinton's supposed race-baiting) when he said that HRC was crying over her appearance and implied that the Senator from NY didn't care about Katrina victims, the soldiers in Iraq ... or the black people in SC?!

Why didn't Obama step forward ... like Congressman Lewis ... when his own campaign twisted HRC's comments about LBJ into a diss of MLK?

Why did Obama continue to propagate Drudge's claim that the Clinton campaign circulated that photo of him in African garb ... despite the fact that the crazies over at Free Republic had been talking about it for some time and were even the Drudge's source?

Come on ... you know the answer here as well as I do. Because his campaign benefited from the notion that HRC was a closet racist.

Obama's speech today was great. I do not have any problem accepting that the words were, for the most part, heartfelt.

But he delivered them TODAY because he had to ... because for the first time, it was his political future that was being sullied by the taint of racism and not Clinton's.

Personally, I agree with the premise that Reverend Wright should be judged by the entirety of his life not just bits and pieces lifted from speeches. And Obama should not be held accountable for every thing Wright or anyone else connected with his campaign do or say.

It just would have been a whole lot more meaningful if the Obama campaign and its supporters actually extended that courtesy to the Clinton campaign.

Why is it that twenty words into "Anonymous" screed above I knew the poster was named Anonymous? I didn't see the name beforehand, all I had to see was the writing.

Dollars to cents this person is earning scratch from the Clinton campaign. Or else, why the "Anonymous" bit?

The points issued may even be reasonable--but when issued by someone purposively trying to subvert discussion via use of "Anonymous," instead of Rockstar8K or whatever, then it's hard to take them for anything but the talking points coming out of the Hillary camp--can't denigrate the speech, so let's talk about the timing and so on. (I think it subverts discussion and debate, by the way, both because it makes it more difficult to have an orderly conversation should another one or two or three Anonymii post, but also because it prevents people from getting a sense as to whether the person involved is actually arguing in good faith or is in fact a troll. When someone continuously posts using a "name" they create an identity--a largely anonymous one unless they choose to reveal specific info about themselves. Sometimes this can clue you into the obvious trolls.

Anyway, that's a big long winded--been wanting to get that off my chest for a little bit. It's my own pet peeve with internet discussion fora.

Unless we're going to have all the candidates skewered for other's bad words we can really move on now. Obama's response has been more than sufficient as I do NOT leave my white friends behind who say racial slurs, kind of like his white grandmother in Hawaii. Want him to disown her too?

"I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love."

People forget the guys as much a white man as he is black--and that in America, the rule from law always has been that mixed people are regarded black.

So people like him have to deal with however they look to society. He's doing a fine job in spite of these things and he delivers on specifics the practical issues that really, really count--as evidenced in his thorough town hall in Indiana.

Can't wait to cast my vote for Barack for President.

The answer to your question? Because only blacks are personally responsible for what other black people say. White people are not held to that standard. I wonder why ex-Gov Spitzer did apologize for whore-mongering disease dispensers everywhere

Clinton was held responsible for what Bill Clinton, Andrew Young, Bob Johnson, Bob Kerrey and Geraldine Ferraro said. She must be a uniter since black/white and male/female didn't matter. But that was before the blogosphere decided the views and statements of those working for or advising the campaign was 'guilt by association'

"The points issued may even be reasonable--but when issued by someone purposively trying to subvert discussion via use of "Anonymous," instead of Rockstar8K or whatever, then it's hard to take them for anything but the talking points coming out of the Hillary camp--can't denigrate the speech, so let's talk about the timing and so on."

Seriously ...

Nice bait and switch.

Rather than actually address the points raised, you suggest that the poster has to be a troll ... because they didn't label themselves with a helpful moniker like Rockstar8k?!

Yeah ... that just added so much to the discussion here, Josh. Thanks for your amazing insight.

Forget about Ferraro's, Bill Clinton's, or Wright's comments. Why should be blame Hilary or Obama for what others have said. It is not their fault and they have already said they don;t agree with their statements.

I think that Obama's speech was outstanding. He did a great job at expressing some of the real issues about race in America from the very unique perspective on someone of bi-racial background. His speech demonstrates how intelligent and level-headed he is. That is the kind of person that we need as president.

Well said jane. I fully agree

I think there's a bit of trying to have this all ways: we want Clinton to give a speech on race when, as a scoiety, we've generally said that the only "authentic" way to describe the black experience is to be black. Any speech Clinton were to give, especially post-Ferraro, would be immediately dismissed as inauthentic, patronizing, and condescending. If she said she understood the black experience there would be howls; if she said she didn't, she would be called callous. There's no win here, and that's one of the points of what we don't talk about when we don't talk about race. Obama is uniquely positioned to give the speech he gave precisely because he sits in this unique, in between position of being biracial. He can be authentic on the black experience, yet acknowledge his white heritage in a way that won't make either side uncomfortable. That's tremendous progress, but it does only get us so far. And the reality is that one speech can't solve years and years of tensions, anger and hurt. I loved the speech, for what it was; but I think the question of race in this country is complex, and not easily solved. And blaming Clinton for all the ways race has impacted this campaign seems reductive and more than a little unfair. And if we want her to speak out on race - and really, I'm not sure we do - we would need to be prepared to accept what she might say, good and bad. And I don't think we're anywhere near that place.

""Why, after Geraldine Ferraro's comments, didn't Hillary Clinton stand up and deliver a speech on how she sees race in America?"

Because someone like Reverend Wright would ask who the hell she thought she was talking about race in America?"

You're BOTH wrong!

Hillary should have stood up and delivered a public policy statement for the conduct of her *own* campaign and supporters back when this first became an issue in South Carolina, with the running commentary of her better half.

Ultimately, the President doesn't control the incidents and sentiments that run through the entire culture, but the President (the CEO, as she likes to say) sets the tone and policy agenda for their own administration.

Given the opportunity to start administrating, Hillary didn't step up.

It's not because Obama is (sort of) black that he was expected to address the race issue. It's that he's got a close associate who has frequently has said outrageous things--even worse and far more frequently than Ferraro, for example.

Some people were expecting Obama to throw Rev. Wright under a bus. Instead, good politician that he is, he threw his own grandmother under a bus--as has been pointed out, she made occasional controversial remarks to him in private. Rev. Wright is the leader of a huge institution--a church no less--who reaches many hundreds or even thousands of people every time he says anything. But of course, Wright has many followers whose votes Obama needs. His grandmother can't bring in any votes. So whom does he decide to throw under the bus? Just guess--he made the same choice that Bush or Clinton (both of them) or almost any other politician would have made.

Grandmothers unite against Smearbama!

I'm baffled by the people who are claiming that Obama "threw his grandmother under the bus." He said that she loved him, supported him, was an indispensible part of his life, and that he was troubled by her racial prejudices. I feel the exact same way about some of my own relatives.

I think it's a great example of Obama's larger point - that ending racial tension is not a good vs evil (or black and white) battle but a nuanced problem involving mostly good people who are inextricably bound to each other - sometimes even related to each other.

"You're BOTH wrong!

Hillary should have stood up and delivered a public policy statement for the conduct of her *own* campaign and supporters back when this first became an issue in South Carolina, with the running commentary of her better half."

It would be nice if the Obama supporters stopped spinning the situation like this. It is factually untrue ... although you would never know it to listen to Olbermann, Matthews, or the leading lights of the progressive online community.

The simple fact of the matter is that Obama national campaign co-chair Jesse Jackson, Jr. appeared on MSNBC in the wake of Clinton's victory in NH and threw the first dog whistle into the mix.

That was well before Bill Clinton's supposedly racist comments in SC.

What Jackson claimed ... and was completely unchallenged by the talking heads at MSNBC, the "elite" of progressive blogosphere, and by Obamabots everywhere ... it that Hillary Clinton cried (even though she didn't) because of her appearance (take that old white hag) but that she didn't have any tears for Katrina victims (i.e. black people).

The specific comment was "They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama."

In the same interview, Jackson also claimed that the tears were "Not in response to voters — not in response to Katrina, not in response to other issues that have devastated the American people, the war in Iraq, we saw tears in response to her appearance. So her appearance brought her to tears, but not hurricane Katrina."

So please tell me again. Who introduced the race card?

And about BC's comments, HRC's comments on MLK and Johnson and so on ...

Why is that when Jesse Jackson http://www.essence.com/essence/lifestyle/voices/0,16109,1706948,00.html > said that the Clintons were being mischaracterized, none of you paid attention?

Why is when John Lewis said "
It is unfortunate that people have tried to distort what Mrs. Clinton had to say about Dr. King ... I think there has been a deliberate and systematic attempt by some people in the Obama campaign to really fan the flames about race and to really distort what Senator Clinton said. I understood and I think most right thinking people understood what she said.
I must tell you ... I'm trying to set the record straight ... the Obama camp is doing something else, theyr'e sending out memos to the media trying to suggest that the Clintons are playing the race card" none of you cared?

Why is it that when Charlie Rangel, Andrew Young and Stephanie Tubbs also made similar points you didn't care ... because it didn't fit the narrative that the Obama campaign wanted out there.

I find it pretty damn disconcerting that Obama supporters are entirely willing to sign-off on such Rovian tactics as long as it is in support of their guy.

Sad ...

"I find it pretty damn disconcerting that Obama supporters are entirely willing to sign-off on such Rovian tactics as long as it is in support of their guy.

Sad ... "

I am not an Obama supporter, and endorse no "Rovian tactics." HRC is responsible for the tone of her campaign, as she would be responsible for the tone of her administration. Given that there are already plenty of reasons for poor and working class people to not support another Clinton Administration, HRC should at least have put forward a better image in which she herself disavowed "Rovian tactics." She's had opportunities to go take the high ground and she never once deigned to do it. I think it's her job to do it, she's not a 12 year old on the play ground, giving tit for tat.