If she was Republican, this would be racist.

DRUDGEREPORT:

Ferraro: 'If Obama Was a White Man, He Would Not Be in This Position'...

FLASHBACK 1988, GERALDINE FERRARO: 'If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race'...

I saw here on GMA this morning. Seems what she said had a ring of truth to it to me.

Aaron wrote:I saw here on GMA this morning. Seems what she said had a ring of truth to it to me.

Obama is as much white as he is black--isn't he? And, how do we know that he is not a woman trapped in a man's body?? I think that her remarks were RACIST and SEXIST!

Nope, he's an African American because that's what he self identifies as.

I don't think that what Ferraro said was racist, I just think she's acting like a buffoon, and I think she is wrong.

What bugs me is that Keli is right here; if a Republican said that, every media outlet would be full of indignation.

I disagree Mike. I think what she said is pretty much right in the context that she said it in. She was questioned as to why she thought BO was doing as well as he is. Before the

BO is a junior Senator with less then 1 term in national office and less then 10 years in public service. They want to compare him to JFK but he doesn't have near the resume JFK does when he ran for President in 1960.

So my question is, why exactly is a man that has as little qualifications as BO even in the running for the Democratic Nomination for President of the United States of America?

Aaron wrote:I disagree Mike. I think what she said is pretty much right in the context that she said it in. She was questioned as to why she thought BO was doing as well as he is. Before the

BO is a junior Senator with less then 1 term in national office and less then 10 years in public service. They want to compare him to JFK but he doesn't have near the resume JFK does when he ran for President in 1960.

So my question is, why exactly is a man that has as little qualifications as BO even in the running for the Democratic Nomination for President of the United States of America?

What qualifies Hillary more than Obama? Because she was a wife of a President? If that's the case, why doesn't the Greenbay Packers sign up Mrs. Brett Favre to be its starting quarterback?

Keli wrote:What qualifies Hillary more than Obama? Because she was a wife of a President? If that's the case, why doesn't the Greenbay Packers sign up Mrs. Brett Favre to be its starting quarterback?

She dislocated her shoulder in college and just ain't been the same since...

Keli's answer is spot on--what makes Obama the best candidate for the Dems? It's not his experience (which is lacking) or any kind of legislative success, but rather the shoddy quality of the alternative.

SheikBen wrote:Keli's answer is spot on--what makes Obama the best candidate for the Dems? It's not his experience (which is lacking) or any kind of legislative success, but rather the shoddy quality of the alternative.

But I'm not saying Hillary is qualified. I'm saying and have been since the old forum that BO is vastly under qualified.

Keli wrote:
What qualifies Hillary more than Obama? Because she was a wife of a President? If that's the case, why doesn't the Greenbay Packers sign up Mrs. Brett Favre to be its starting quarterback?

If Hillary is elected, ...... Chelsea Clinton will be appointed Secretary of State. She is highly qualified due to her foreign travels.

Last year (1997) Hillary and Chelsea Clinton made a high-profile tour of Africa

.

Aaron wrote:
But I'm not saying Hillary is qualified. I'm saying and have been since the old forum that BO is vastly under qualified.

Aaron, you keep saying that so tell us, ..... just what qualifications do you think BO is lacking?

SamCogar wrote:

Aaron wrote:
But I'm not saying Hillary is qualified. I'm saying and have been since the old forum that BO is vastly under qualified.

Aaron, you keep saying that so tell us, ..... just what qualifications do you think BO is lacking?

He says he can 'cross' the isles and bring Republicans and Democrats together and I just don't think he can. I don't think he has the political experience to work both sides of the Congress and get bills and budgets passed.

Of course, that could be a good thing. Part of the reason for Clinton's paper surplus was the fact that he and Newt shut the government down and once they did get it back up and running, a lot of garbage didn't get passed that normally would have.

He's claiming to be the 'agent of change' but he's not proposed one single bill that isn't part of the current democratic platform, which I don't agree with, including unconstitutional universal health care. Speaking of unconstitutional health care, when did it become part of the democratic platform?

And lastly, he's not qualified to lead the military. He'll pull us pretty much completely out of the middle east which will give Iraq to Muqutda al Sadr and put us full fledged in Afghanistan (which is even more of a mistake) and Africa.

I watched a peice on GMA this morning in which his loon racist preacher is calling us the USKKA and preaching hate filled, racist rhetoric and his spokesman said that "Barak doesn't agree with much of what Rev. White says" and we HAVE to accept that yet he has continued to attend this church but he wants us to believe he doesn't subscribe to their theology. Please.

In 2000, dums nominated Al Gore, the most liberal politician they could find. He lost so they nominated the one of the few Senators that was considered more liberal then Gore in John Kerry. He lost so now they're nominating a Senator that is considered more liberal then both Gore and Kerry.

What I want to know is when did the loon left take over the democratic party?

I'll be the Devil's Advocate and reply to your post.

Aaron wrote:
He says he can 'cross' the isles and bring Republicans and Democrats together and I just don't think he can. Aaron, that requires a talent more than it does experience so I will discredit that one.

I don't think he has the political experience to work both sides of the Congress and get bills and budgets passed. Again, that is more of a talent. And dont, he will have a couple hundred 'staffers' to help him. And lack of experience doing said in Congress is a "positive attribute" because in his short time there he doesn't "owe any favors" or is "beholding" to any others.

Of course, that could be a good thing. Part of the reason for Clinton's paper surplus was the fact that he and Newt shut the government down and once they did get it back up and running, a lot of garbage didn't get passed that normally would have. I'll void that one since it is not a qualification.

He's claiming to be the 'agent of change' but he's not proposed one single bill that isn't part of the current democratic platform, which I don't agree with, including unconstitutional universal health care. See your 1st one above. 'agent of change' doesn't necessarily mean "new Bills".

Speaking of unconstitutional health care, when did it become part of the democratic platform? Unofficially, when Hillary tried to get it passed during Bill's Administration.

And lastly, he's not qualified to lead the military. And neither was Carter.

He'll pull us pretty much completely out of the middle east which will give Iraq to Muqutda al Sadr and put us full fledged in Afghanistan (which is even more of a mistake) and Africa. If he is President then he is qualified to make that decision. And if he does, you won't like it, I won't like it, ...... but the anti-war lefties will luv it.

I watched a peice on GMA this morning in which his loon racist preacher is calling us the USKKA and preaching hate filled, racist rhetoric and his spokesman said that "Barak doesn't agree with much of what Rev. White says" and we HAVE to accept that yet he has continued to attend this church but he wants us to believe he doesn't subscribe to their theology. Please. Aaron, lots of people attend "a church" for lots of reasons other than to "believe every word the preacher says".

In 2000, dums nominated Al Gore, the most liberal politician they could find. He lost so they nominated the one of the few Senators that was considered more liberal then Gore in John Kerry. He lost so now they're nominating a Senator that is considered more liberal then both Gore and Kerry. Make that two, Hillary is more liberal that either Gore or Kerry.

What I want to know is when did the loon left take over the democratic party? When they elected FDR.

I'm always up for a good argument, when I have the time.

SamCogar wrote:I'll be the Devil's Advocate and reply to your post.

Aaron wrote:
He says he can 'cross' the isles and bring Republicans and Democrats together and I just don't think he can. Aaron, that requires a talent more than it does experience so I will discredit that one.

I might normally agree with that but given the partisan tone of politics of the past 15 years, I don't think so. There will be no Oboma Republicans in the mold of Regan Democrats. The next President, if not the next several are going to face this problem, imo

I don't think he has the political experience to work both sides of the Congress and get bills and budgets passed. Again, that is more of a talent. And dont, he will have a couple hundred 'staffers' to help him. And lack of experience doing said in Congress is a "positive attribute" because in his short time there he doesn't "owe any favors" or is "beholding" to any others.

Once again, with the partisan feelings that are running so strongly in Washington, I don't the rhetoric will get the job done. I believe it's going to take someone that understands the system to get the job done.

Of course, that could be a good thing. Part of the reason for Clinton's paper surplus was the fact that he and Newt shut the government down and once they did get it back up and running, a lot of garbage didn't get passed that normally would have. I'll void that one since it is not a qualification.

What it is is history and backs what I've said thus far.

He's claiming to be the 'agent of change' but he's not proposed one single bill that isn't part of the current democratic platform, which I don't agree with, including unconstitutional universal health care. See your 1st one above. 'agent of change' doesn't necessarily mean "new Bills".

Why doesn't it. He's claiming he's going to change how things are done. Bill's, whether they be spending or otherwise, require the passage of bills. The one's he is proposing do not vary at all from current democratic positions. If he's not 'changing' any of his bills, how is he an agent of change?

Speaking of unconstitutional health care, when did it become part of the democratic platform? Unofficially, when Hillary tried to get it passed during Bill's Administration.

But now it's supposedly a staple of the democratic party. In the long run, I believe it will hurt dums more then it will help them.

And lastly, he's not qualified to lead the military. And neither was Carter.

And look how that turned out. We were held hostage by a radical islamic fundamentalist country and we GAVE away one of the most important military and commercial transportations thoroughfares in the world.

He'll pull us pretty much completely out of the middle east which will give Iraq to Muqutda al Sadr and put us full fledged in Afghanistan (which is even more of a mistake) and Africa. If he is President then he is qualified to make that decision. And if he does, you won't like it, I won't like it, ...... but the anti-war lefties will luv it.

Elected does not mean qualifies. At least, for the most part, GWB will listen to his military experts. Granted, he picked some of the wrong owes (Rumsfield) but at least he listens to them. Id on't belive BO will.

I watched a peice on GMA this morning in which his loon racist preacher is calling us the USKKA and preaching hate filled, racist rhetoric and his spokesman said that "Barak doesn't agree with much of what Rev. White says" and we HAVE to accept that yet he has continued to attend this church but he wants us to believe he doesn't subscribe to their theology. Please. Aaron, lots of people attend "a church" for lots of reasons other than to "believe every word the preacher says".

Apparently you've not listened to this particular preacher.

In 2000, dums nominated Al Gore, the most liberal politician they could find. He lost so they nominated the one of the few Senators that was considered more liberal then Gore in John Kerry. He lost so now they're nominating a Senator that is considered more liberal then both Gore and Kerry. Make that two, Hillary is more liberal that either Gore or Kerry.

Maybe, maybe not. She does have a consertative background (Goldwater girl) and she is a politician. I think it depends on what group you listen to. There are more then a few fringe liberals that have labeled her a traitor for at least attempting to move to the middle. Of course, just like Bill, I'm sure that if she were elected she'd run back to the right.

What I want to know is when did the loon left take over the democratic party? When they elected FDR.



Yeah, that's about right...or is it about left!!!