Ferraro said, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, 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."Standing alone * it seems to make sense but it does not stand alone.
And then followed up:
"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, 'Let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world,' you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," she told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, California. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
Her opinion is only her opinion and a very weak one at that; to take any factor out of context and point to it is bad enough but to call it lucky and call the country on it, is a worse concept. Is this another form of vetting or vaccination? It seems to make Hillary the "kinder, gentler" liberal, and that puts "liberal" in the wrong crowd of words here.
[Hearing this topic covered on Randi Rhodes this evening, I am reminded that Obama is where he is and maybe Ferraro is where she is by their choice of words, more than their race or gender. Just because Ferraro acknowledges affirmative action in her case, does not mean she recognizes progress in our case.]
* His background is part of him and he has made much of his circumstances, but Randi points out that if some vote for him for his race, it has not always been the case and they often in the past voted against a candidate for their race.
[Update 3-13-08: Bottom Line more "same old" ? ]
No comments:
Post a Comment