And Geraldine wouldn't be where she is if she wasn't a woman.

And Hillary wouldn't be where she is if she weren't married to Bill.

And John McCain wouldn't be where he is if he weren't captured in battle.

C'mon, Mickey. Everyone's got something like this, don't get so self-righteous about her being right without at least recognizing that. And I'd argue that - at least among those three - Barack's mixed cultural/international background gives him a unique perspective and a unique ability to move this country forward that the other two can't offer.

If it was just one comment from a political has been, it would not be news. But it has become a real theme of the Clinton Campaign that enator Obama is not qualified to be President, and is only getting a free ride from the press because he is black. Bill Clinton came out and said it in very plain language in South Carolina, and since then in much more subtle ways. Hillary has been playing the race card the momment Obama became a threat. People of color are not going to forgive or forget.

Ultimately, it's unknowable where Obama would be and what he'd be doing if he weren't who he is. In Kaus-world, being of mixed race has only helped him, and the previous comment goes along with this assumption. Huh. OK.

Kaus call's Ferraro hypocritical and her statement "unrealistic" at one turn, but true to start and end. He explains why it's patently absurd that blackness got him to his current position, but that's not the main point of the post:

The main point is liberals are offended at the notion that his mixed-race background is responsible for his success: "race-preference ideology" [empahsis Kaus]. Similar to a bigot saying that he can't get into Harvard because his space was taken by a minority.

So, Mickey, can you clarify: is her statement unrealistic or true?

Can't believe that Obama detractors get to continue the attack following a true gaffe. First, question whether its a gaffe at all, then attack the response; insult followed by injury.

Slate, dump this Kaus guy (or at least hire an intern to check his logic)!

This is almost laughable! Geraldine Ferraro is right. If Barack Obama were white, he WOULDN'T be in this position. His viability as a candidate based on race wouldn't be an annoyingly constant issue for the pundits to kick around. His support among blacks ( and let's remember a large number of black voters weren't convinced in the beginning) wouldn't be simply shrugged off as "well whaddya expect? They are just voting for one of their own." syndrome. And if Barack Obama where white, there would be no chatter about photos of him in Kenyan garb, fear over his middle name, questions about his religion, etc,etc,etc.

To suggest that Obama is getting an easy pass to the nomination because he is black is outrageous. Are you kidding me??? The Clintons' disheartening choice to exploit the race issue is proof postitive that there is nothing easy about running for President, ESPECIALLY, when you are black.

Not so fast. You say it helps Obama that he is black but thanks to insightful comments such as Ferraro and a host of Republican commentators in the genenral election to come our citizens may yet be saved from this overt racism and feel free once again to vote against him because he isn't white.

It's a stupid remark, because if Geraldine Ferraro had been a savvier politician she could have been our first female president. Of course if she had any balls she would also have been her nephew's uncle as the saying goes, but what does that demonstrate? Ferraro can be sure that the voters made an assessment of her own unique offerings and declined to buy. So what are the implications of Barak’s offerings, and why is he getting so many buyers?

But first let’s get one thing out of the way. Most people don't get it, including many media commentators. The Klu Klux Klan were not reprehensible because they were a group that excluded blacks, or because they tried to uplift their own kin and kind. They were reprehensible because they tried to deny others that right. Similarly Obama's church pastor isn't preaching reverse racism when he focuses on uplifting blacks in general even to the extent of ignoring other disadvantaged; because lifting someone or some group of people up does not equate with or suggest keeping someone else down.

So Obama has a gimmick beyond his intrinsic abilities, but a gimmick based on his uniqueness and unique experience. The voters have a right to include that in their assessment of his claim to their vote as they should in their assessment of Hillary's and McCain's claims to be president. So far it seems that a large percentage of voters believe that his unique background makes him more likely to deliver what they need; a balanced and more integrative view of the rest of the world, an understanding of the real human suffering that results from a depressed economy and neglect of the people who do the buying, an intellectual grasp of the dynamics of abstruse academic concepts that affect our daily lives ... including global warming genetic research and everyday economics, an open-minded approach to disclosure of the pragmatics of everyday decision-making.

Finally, it is clear that there are many in politics and the media who have no glimmer of understanding of the shame and disgrace many if not most Americans felt on being forced to watch the debacle of Katrina. Core beliefs in what modern America stands for, and its power to deliver its citizenry from the evils of overwhelming force majure were badly shaken by those televised pictures coming out of the south. Especially coming after the 911 blow to our psyche, (which prompts Hillary to run ads some call fear-mongering), few commentators ever stop to consider the effect the DISGRACE of Katrina's aftermath has had on propelling a black man into contention for the presidency, even in some of the whitest states in America.

Katrina was America's "Black Hole of Calcutta," that latter was a comparatively minor historical incident resulting in the deaths of some 23 people stuffed into a single cell overnight, I seem to recall, a minor incident in the face of genocide and modern atrocities, but one which radically affected British colonial policy in India and the Commonwealth thereafter. Our pride was wounded. There comes a time when decent people hear the words NEVER AGAIN, in their hearts and think, “I cannot stand it that I belong to a nation that lets this happen,” that's when history changes course. I knew it would.

I have lived 10 years abroad and have had the chance to see how many poor people progress in coutries where life is worth a dime, where there are no equal opportunities at all, where there is no justice at all. So when I see what some people get thanks to affirmative action, I have to admit that they are really getting a lot of help to achieve a better standard of living. The problem is that not only the black are poor in the USA now, so why don't we extend affrimative action to the other American poor?

I accept that your point is aside from the main point of my response, but I will answer it nevertheless.

There are many programs at work in this nation to help the poor, and of course these are all, should all be, as open to all poor, black white hispanic chinese and so on; and in a way America is classless in the sense that fewer people are held back by the poverty they were born into than in any other nation in the world. However, there are also a number of special programs directed at helping special cases of disadvantaged people, and I can't see why you would have a problem with these special programs.

You would hardly say, for example, "why can't we extend the programs to help ex-convicts, or abused women, or former drug addicts to all the other disadvantaged people in America?" The answer is that to do so would hamstring the special program and make it ineffectual.

The rejection that people with black faces or even just black sounding names receive from the rest of the white population has been well documented. Anecdotally, 20 years ago my late wife and I were told openly by a bank manager that he would be less inclined to look favorably at our application for a mortgage in some mostly white neighborhoods, than if we applied for a mortgage in Bedford Stuyvesant for example. As recentlyas about 20 months ago, a university study in Massachusetts, discovered that about 50 percent more loan and job applications were rejected from people with identical qualifactions but with black sounding names than from people with European type names. We've come a long way since the 70's but affirmative action, was designed as a special program to counteract the specific prejudices black people face, highlighted by the kinds of statistics that I refer to. My point is that as with other special programs designed to combat special cases, to extend them to others outside that specific program would do nothing to remove that specific inequity.

People who see affirmative action as reverse racism refuse to admit that there are specific disadvantages that people face that can be addressed in special ways without disadvantaging all the other people who don't have that program. Is it really unfair to budget for an extra hundred thousand dollars to build a ramp for wheel chair bound persons instead of spending it on upgrading the bathrooms which everyone could enjoy? So blacks have a special problem, documented, so is it really unfair to budget for a few extra places in the colleges to help them overcome their special disadvantage?

May I also offer another example on why targeted programs are still important. When I told my mother, who has lived in West Africa for over 40 years, that I was working on a black infant health program in San Francisco some years back, her immediate reaction was "isn't that discrimination--to only help black children? "

I had to explain to her that all expectant mothers and children need appropriate healthcare services available to them. However, black infants, statistically, are at a far greater risk of low birthweight, infant mortality, and a number of other health problems, mostly because of poverty and environmental factors. So some public health programs are specifically targeted to black mothers and children to provide education and services to address problems for which they are disproportionally affected. That doesn't mean that other American children will not have services available for them.