Three Questions for Hillary and Geraldine. (Dennis)

Why hasn't Geraldine Ferraro, co-pilot of the worst Democratic defeat in a Presidential election history, apologized for her recent comments about how Barack owes his current position to the fact that he is black?

Here are her comments:

"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,"

and here, for comparison, are comments Rush Limbaugh made that got him fired from ESPN:

"The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve."

Why hasn't the Clinton campaign (at least) condemned these remarks given that she is a finance chair on her campaign?

She has only said that she "disagreed" with the remarks and hasn't condemned them in any way.

What message do you think the Clinton campaign is trying to send?

As for me, I think this is a dogwhistle attack, aimed to fire up working class whites resentful at African Americans. I think my case has been furthered by the fact that Clinton hasn't really distanced herself from Ferraro, and that Ferraro has now said that she is being attacked "because she is white."

Hillary Clinton has run the most disgusting, shameful Democratic campaign in decades. Although, that is probably generous.

Superdelegates Should Decide on Their Own (JM)

Mostly I am using the post to link to an excellent op-ed piece in the NYT from Geraldine Ferraro about why superdelegates ought to vote for the best representative for the party, not just follow the delegate count. Her position is quite clear and well argued. She points out that this not a terribly democratic process to begin with, that at most 15 percent of registered Democrats voted the primary/caucuses and that because some of the caucuses are open it is not exactly a measure of Democratic will. I found this bit of her argument particularly noteworthy:

Perhaps because I have endorsed Mrs. Clinton, I have noticed that most of the people complaining about the influence of the superdelegates are supporters of Mr. Obama. I can’t help thinking that their problem with the superdelegates may not be that they’re “unrepresentative,” but rather that they are perceived as disproportionately likely to support Mrs. Clinton.

And I am watching, with great disappointment, people whom I respect in the Congress who endorsed Hillary Clinton — I assume because she was the leader they felt could best represent the party and lead the country — now switching to Barack Obama with the excuse that their constituents have spoken.

I may be a cynic, but I’m a fairly knowledgeable political cynic. If Mr. Obama wins the nomination, those members are undoubtedly concerned that they would be inviting a primary challenge in their next re-election campaign by failing to support his candidacy.

But if they are actually upset over the diminished clout of rank-and-file Democrats in the presidential nominating process, then I would love to see them agitating to force the party to seat the delegates elected by the voters in Florida and Michigan. In those two states, the votes of thousands of rank-and-file party members will not be counted because their states voted on dates earlier than those authorized by the national party.

Read the entire column, it is worth it regardless of your position. The storms a'brewing, and if Clinton wins Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania it will happen. Get ready for an exciting convention folks.