We're even seeing the ugly side of special-interest “identity politics” at work this year because both candidates' groups want their candidate to win and there's a lot of ill will between the two groups.

Where Ferraro goes wrong is that she said Obama wouldn't be where he was if he was a woman. What a laugh! We who are awake have expected Hillary Clinton to run for President in 2004, not running in 2000 only because Gore was the obvious successor to her husband. Jeane Kirkpatrick or someone like that would have been great in the 1980s. And so on. She's definitely “old school.” And this after she was chosen (largely for PC reasons; nobody outside her little circle knew who she was at the time she was chosen) many, many years ago to be Vice President.

[sigh]

That's just an observation. It does not imply that gender or race are the only, or even primary, attributes that got these candidates to where they are, nor does it imply that it's the primary factor in their political success. The observation is a simple acceptace of one of life's realities.

It is also true that a woman gains an automatic, and sometimes misguided, aura of authenticity when she speaks about women's issues; a man would have to work harder to gain an equal amount of trust.. Thus, the importance of the symbolic value that a candiate's persona brings to the political arena.

Obama earns respect, even adualtion, because of his achievemtns and his vsion for our future. Along the way, other, more menial, factors have impact. That's just another observation of life's realities.

Remember the outcry about Edward's haircut? Had Edwards been a poor man, his policies about combatting poverty would have had an automatic, unvetted aura of autenticity. that no rich man advocating the same policies could hope to have.

The outcry over Ferraro is not based on her words per se, but on what is perceived to be her intent, the unspiken part of her statement. This involves a lot of mindreading and personal perceptions. I would urge caution when indulging in mindreading, particularly in this age of soundbites and 'gotcha' news reports.

Where, in all of this, is an assessment of Ferraro as a person and a politician?
Has she shown any signs of being a racist before? Is that what she is?
Or is this just like Powers, who spoke off-the-cuff and unguardedly in an atmosphere where she should have known better than to do that.

Out of long spans of a person's public life, we seize on these snippets, then parse and analyze and draw overreaching conclusions . We fall in loeve with our own story line, and the notion of keeping an open mind goes flying out the window.
It's a dangerous game, we're playing. Who knows which public figure the next such snippet will destroy.

Personally I think its ridiculous to think that, in a country with the racial history we have had for more than 300 years, a black man with a Muslim name resembles that of a hated terrorist and a dictator, is LUCKY. But even if she does think he's lucky to be black, fine. That's an opinion and his race is a reason why people are so into him.

But the problem here is that she's getting pissed off that people are upset about it. If you have the balls to bring up the issue of race, then have the balls to deal with the reactions. There is no way a rational person would think they can say that someone has only accomplished what they have because of the color of their skin and people aren't going to respond to it. She's acting like a victim.

That's a big damn difference. And Ferraro wasn't just implying it, she said it bluntly.

Now if Obama was a poor communicator or lead an ethically challenged past then I would have little interest in him.

Now I do see a difference in degree- Ferraro's statement implies that the ethnic factor is the only, or the primary, reason that Obama is a leading candidate, while Sullivan is only pushing it as one of several reasons to consider him.