"The true irony of all of this is that even though his wife, supporters and himself speak of all this equality and living the dream of MLK...the Obama frenzy is the exact opposite of…MLK’s dream. Obama supporters are not judging Obama by the content of his soul or character, they are judging him solely on the color of his skin!"
I’m confident that plenty of Obama supporters are supporting Barack Obama because they think he’s best for America, but hardly all of them.
Reality: Hillary Clinton would be pulling much more than 9% of the Black vote if she was half-black like Barack, or Barack was white.
Being Black is a big plus for Barack in his presidential campaign.
Being a male is a plus for Barack in his presidential campaign.
Geraldine A. Ferraro is the first woman to run for vice president as a major party candidate. She’s been fighting cancer for years and fortunately she’s here fighting Obamamania as it seeks to turn Democrat superdelegates into political eunuchs and deny that Barack is benefiting from being Black and male. she just resigned her position with the Hillary Clinton campaign, but she had spoken the truth.
Go, Gerry, Go!
First, Geraldine wrote an op ed for The New York Times, published on February 25, 2008, explaining what Democrat superdelegates are supposed to do.
“After the 1980 presidential election, the Democratic Party was in disarray. That year, Senator Ted Kennedy had challenged President Jimmy Carter for the presidential nomination, and Mr. Kennedy took the fight to the convention floor by proposing 23 amendments to the party platform. When it was all over, members of Congress who were concerned about their re-election walked away from the president and from the party. The rest of the campaign was plagued by infighting.
“In 1982, we tried to remedy some of the party’s internal problems by creating the Hunt Commission, which reformed the way the party selects its presidential nominees. Because I was then the vice chairwoman of the House Democratic Caucus, Tip O’Neill, the speaker of the House, appointed me as his representative to the commission. The commission considered several reforms, but one of the most significant was the creation of superdelegates, the reform in which I was most involved.
“Democrats had to figure out a way to unify our party. What better way, we reasoned, than to get elected officials involved in writing the platform, sitting on the credentials committee and helping to write the rules that the party would play by?
“Most officeholders, however, were reluctant to run as delegates in a primary election — running against a constituent who really wants to be a delegate to the party’s national convention is not exactly good politics.
“So we created superdelegates and gave that designation to every Democratic member of Congress. Today the 796 superdelegates also include Democratic governors, former presidents and vice presidents, and members of the Democratic National Committee and former heads of the national committee.
“These superdelegates, we reasoned, are the party’s leaders. They are the ones who can bring together the most liberal members of our party with the most conservative and reach accommodation. They would help write the platform. They would determine if a delegate should be seated. They would help determine the rules. And having done so, they would have no excuse to walk away from the party or its presidential nominee.”
Having reported the superdelegate history, Geraldine flatly rejected the notion that superdelegates should be a rubberstamp for elected delegates.
Geraldine: “…the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support.”
Worse (for ObamamanIacs), Geraldine exploded the canard that Barack Obama has a mandate from rank-and-file Democrats.
“…the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.
“If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate.
“More important, although many states like New York have closed primaries in which only enrolled Democrats are allowed to vote, in many other states Republicans and independents can make the difference by voting in Democratic primaries or caucuses.”
“In the Democratic primary in South Carolina, tens of thousands of Republicans and independents no doubt voted, many of them for Mr. Obama. The same rules prevail at the Iowa caucuses, in which Mr. Obama also triumphed.
“He won his delegates fair and square, but those delegates represent the wishes not only of grassroots Democrats, but also Republicans and independents. If rank-and-file Democrats should decide who the party’s nominee is, each state should pass a rule allowing only people who have been registered in the Democratic Party for a given time — not nonmembers or day-of registrants — to vote for the party’s nominee.”
Geraldine’s dose of truth distressed Obamamaniacs, but Geraldine gave them a fit when she pointed out that Blacks were voting overwhelmingly for Obama because he is Black and men are voting disproportionately in favor of Barack because his rival Hillary Clinton is a woman.
Geraldine: “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
Whether or not that’s good or bad, Geraldine is right, there’s nothing racist or sexist about her saying so and those out to blacken her reputation to help Barack should be ashamed.
The Missisippi primary is illustrative: Barack won by winning more than 90% of the Black vote, while Hillary won a substantial majority of the non-black vote.
Posters put it this way:
“Wow, I can’t believe it, but I think Gerry has it right. All Barack Obama is, is a pigment-enhanced version of John Edwards. The speeches are a little more flowery, but the class warfare rhetoric is the same. If Barack Obama were white, he wouldn’t be anywhere near this nomination. Like Edwards, he’d be a forgotten also-ran. He’s the Toyota Prius of American politics. No real value, but he makes you feel good about yourself.”
“I can’t not vote for Obama! That would make me a racist! I have a chance to vote for a real life DAVID PALMER! ‘I’ want to be part of ‘history’.
“That’s ‘exactly’ what’s going on here.
“It’s sad how playing the ‘truth card’ will be inevitably spun into the ‘race card’.
“…is Ms. Ferraro correct? I say yes, at least partly. Let’s pretend that Obama is a white senator from Indiana, has never ran a business; been a governor, mayor, etc.; never headed a law firm; never been the ‘leader’ of anything; and the only bill to become law is some throwaway bill about the Republic of Congo. He would be taken as seriously as Kucinich.
“But since he is black, and as Senator Biden put it, he is ‘clean and speaks well’ he is taken seriously. The true irony of all of this is that even though his wife, supporters and himself speak of all this equality and living the dream of MLK...the Obama frenzy is the exact opposite of…MLK’s dream. Obama supporters are not judging Obama by the content of his soul or character, they are judging him solely on the color of his skin!”
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.