×
Responding to Geraldine Ferraro's comments, Alex writes:
PA Governor Ed Rendell: "You've got some conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate."Geraldine Ferraro: "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."I don't get it. He can't win because he's black, but he's winning because he's black?!? Sheesh. I wish the Clinton camp would get their story straight.I guess that's not technically contradictory. Obama's media power and prominence in the Democratic primary might be a partial function of his race, and then an overwhelming white vote against him in the general could be the same thing. But folks have to pay more attention to the data here. The deeper contradiction is that Ferraro is saying that misogyny is a more powerful force than racism ("For one thing," she continued, "you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on [Hillary]. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.), while Rendell is saying the opposite. Meanwhile, the most horserace polls show Obama outperforming Clinton against McCain. Hell, they even show him doing better against McCain in Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, Jim says:
Here's the counterfactual "If" that matters: IF Hillary Clinton had voted against the AUMF, she would be the nominee today.True enough. I feel like not enough attention is being given to the fact that voting against a popular-seeming but misguided war has turned out to be a very good thing indeed for presidential ambitions.
