Let's see, blacks were at least legally considered equal, sort of, during the not-quite ten years of Reconstruction and, depending upon whether based upon Brown in 1954 or the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the last 40 or 50 years. Of course, equality didn't exactly happen immediately, but let's use those dates. That's 50 - 60 years since...Jamestown. So for 1/10 of our history on this continent and less than 1/4 of our time as a nation, we've had at least the semblance of equality. But that means that for 9/10 (or 3/4, if you prefer), we haven't.

Like it or not, Ms. Ferraro's comments were racist. And I'm ashamed of two Southerners (I still count Sen. Clinton as an Arkansan) who've spent most of their lives trying to undo the effects of exactly the sort of behavior they're now engaging in.

mbrlr:

Let's see, blacks were at least legally considered equal, sort of, during the not-quite ten years of Reconstruction and, depending upon whether based upon Brown in 1954 or the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the last 40 or 50 years. Of course, equality didn't exactly happen immediately, but let's use those dates. That's 50 - 60 years since...Jamestown. So for 1/10 of our history on this continent and less than 1/4 of our time as a nation, we've had at least the semblance of equality. But that means that for 9/10 (or 3/4, if you prefer), we haven't.

Like it or not, Ms. Ferraro's comments were racist.

Can you help me out? Logically I'm not following the connection from Brown v. Board of Ed. as point A to Geraldine Ferraro's remarks as point B. I'm on board with the Civil Rights Act of '64. Where you're losing me is with the suggestion that a hypothetical white guy with an expensive education, some community service and a couple years in the Senate is in fact qualified for the Presidency? Which white guy would that be?

That hypothetical white guy should also have seven years in a state legislature, a failed cingressional bid plus the good judgement to point out that the Iraq invasion was a very bad idea while the rest of the nation was drinking the kool-aid.

And let's do the math about the equality of women, too. Let's see, voting rights for women came decades after the 14th Amendment, and the ERA was ratified...never.

Countless thousands of people--black and white--can attest that they're thrilled to be voting for a black candidate, and no one can call that an advantage without being labeled "racist"? Edwards knew that the opportunity to vote for a black or female candidate in this election was so powerful that he would never win the nomination, so he backed out. Was he racist? Misogynist?