“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she said. “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.”

No

__________________
Learn to labour and to wait -- Longfellow

Nope its the truth. Obama has no business running for president. He has done nothing.

Same goes with Hillary, if she wasnt a woman or a Clinton she wouldn't be in this race either.

Yes, and furthermore its retarded.

If its so easy to get elected to office if you are black, care to inform me where the swarms of black Senators and House representatives are? Where all the Black Governors are? Where all the black presidential and vice-presidential candidiates are?

Obama is here in spite of his race, not because of his race.

It's certainly patronising, don't think it's racist. But it's plain stupid for sure.

Check the demographics in the US. Second, was there hate involved in what she said? Third, although Obama is completely ignorant of what's about to transpire in the US and around the world, I agree that he is above the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons, the ones that promote racist transgressions and attempt to villify those who don't fit into their idea of the oppressed.

__________________
Learn to labour and to wait -- Longfellow

Something need not actually be racist to be CALLED "racist." Pointing out plain facts -- say, blacks commit more crime -- is considered "racist". Actually, Ferrarro committed a crime I call "speaking while white," i.e., pointing out an obvious fact about race, while white.

Isn't funny how, the more blacks rise to positions of power, the louder the cries of "racism" become?

__________________
Does anyone think it's weird that the two biggest goals of our time are "tolerance" and "zero tolerance"?

I would say so. It makes a claim (perhaps untrue but certainly unwarranted and unnecessary) based on race.

__________________
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong."
—Dwight D. Eisenhower

Blacks are 12.8% of the population.

So there should be: 12-13 black Senators (There have only been 5..EVER).

Around 70 or so black House reps (Approx 40 now I think)

Should be at least 6 black Governors (only been 4 EVER).

What was that you were saying about demographics?

No idea. Hate isn't necessary for racism.

He has a hell of a better grasp on foreign policy than you do.

And its a plain fact that Obama wouldn't have gotten here if he wasn't black? Oh, no, wait its moronic opinion.

Wait you mean whites don't notice racism as much as blacks? Shocking I tell you, shocking!

The estblishment Democrats getting a taste of the evironment they fostered.

__________________
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” - Edmund Burke

Blacks might be 12.8% of the population, but they are hardly spread out evenly among the 50 states and the Congressional districts within each; therefore, do not represent 12.8% of each Congressional district.

And you can add another black Governor to your list -- Paterson, who will succeed Spitzer is black.

__________________
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” - Edmund Burke

So what? I'm talking about the people running vs. the general population. Surely not only black people would vote for a black representative....right?

I'm aware of that. Paterson makes #4.

People running for state and Congressional district representatives run would be divided according to state and city demographics, not national ones.

I can guarantee you there are plenty of Congressional districts in the Southwest and West where blacks don't even make up 1% of the population.

If the majority of blacks reside within districts where they make up more than 12.8%, then anything over 12.8% in each of those disctricts would basically be wasted for the purpose of this argument.

__________________
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” - Edmund Burke

Of course what she said is true, I doubt anybody can deny that. In order to be able to deny her statement as false I observed three different media outlets use the exact same tactic. They started by saying Ferraro said Obama is only winning because he's black. Reversing the statement. Of course now this statement is false. Obama is not winning just because he's black and thats easy to argue.

My whole life I have been hearing diatribes how white America is so racist a black person could never become president, the kkk would kill him, etc, etc. This is the reality that the education system and the media promulgate. If whites were voting against Obama the media would be having fits on how racist white America is. But the statistics show another story. Blacks were favoring Obama in huge numbers over 90%, woman were favoring Hillary, only the white men were not racist. I have seen multiple instances on mainstream television where they ask a woman voter for Hillary or black person for Obama why they are voting a certain way and they will start off with 'because shes a woman' or 'because hes black' and will elabotate on qualities which women or african americans have and can bring to the table to change this country. Hearing this does not bother me one bit. However I'm well aware of the irony that if a white male was to flip the same argument and say something like, I'm voting for McCain because he's white, these same people would be so outraged they would never look at him in the same way again. Why is this?