Democratic Race (to the bottom)
I really didn't have any opinion on Geraldine Ferraro until now. I wasn't very politically aware when she was running for V.P., and there had really been nothing for me to base a decision on.
Welp, don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya, as they say.
Look, it's obvious to anyone paying attention that Sen. Obama is black, right? Duh, it's kinda obvious that in an election year dominated on the opposition by creepy pasty old white guys and creepy young white guys and just plain creepy white guys, well, it doesn't take Stephen fricking Hawking to realize there's something different about the likely Democratic nominees.
BUT. My reading of the whole "well I was just telling the truth" thing is Ferraro being disingenuous. "Lucky" because he's where he is? Is she implying that this is just another Affirmative Action case and he's merely there because of his race, not his qualifications? As the comment Attaturk links to suggests, why the hell hasn't Alan Keyes done better as a Presidential candidate if a surfeit of melanin is a ticket to the White House? (Of course, Alan Keyes is freakin' insane, but never mind that right now.)
What I'm reading from all this is a perception, much like with Kennedy in 1960, that the voters for Obama are voting for him not so much for his abilities or appeal but because of identity politics, either because they share a skin color and are somehow thus obliged to do so* or motivated by the ever-popular "white liberal guilt".
That's leading towards a perception that Obama wouldn't be a President of, by, and for the people so much as a certain small proportion of the people, know what I mean, wink wink nudge nudge. That, as was speculated on in 1960, the candidate would be more motivated by loyalty to "his people" than to the People as a whole.
Not that I think that would happen any more than Kennedy established "National Compulsory Holy Meatless Friday" during his time in office. But sadly enough, we're a nation of perceptions more than substance, still deeply racist in many ways, and the perception that President Obama would be biased in favor of "his kind" is a dangerous one.
Which is why I'm glad Ferraro is out. She should have known better given what she went through in 1984, and yes, she's right that attacks on Sen. Clinton have been motivated by sexism. Unfortunately, though, it's not the first time she's jumped to conclusions about motivations:
Not unpredictably, she played the obvious cards: "Would they have done it if I were male?" she demanded. "Would they have done it if I were not Italian-American?" Asked by TV host Phil Donahue if she had wept over that story, she replied piously: "There are certain things, Phil, that are personal."
It's going to be a long, nasty, vile run up to November in the first place. Let's leave the slimy attacks to the Republicans - after all, it's their forte.
*Not that there aren't those willing to play games like this. I remember a mailing from a local candidate in Rochester, NY, which was mailed to my stepfather, suggesting he vote for a candidate based on teir common Italian heritage. Nothing else - the fact that both their surnames ended in vowels was evidently motivation enough for the people who mailed it out.