Is it wrong to say "black?"

One of the issues in this battle for the White House which lacks the attention needed is the benefits (and dangers) of race and gender play in our politically correct world.   Geraldine Ferraro found that out first hand this week.  While making a valid point regarding the weakness Barack Obama has regarding his experience on the major issues, Ferraro said the following:

“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.”

Now, before we go any further, let’s establish the ground rules that this is a discussion on race and gender.  If you choose to turn this into racism or anti-feminism, then you do not understand the discussion at hand.  With that said, you need to ask yourself this question – Is Ferraro right?  Would Obama be where he is now if he were white?  Let’s start with a brief biography.

- Attended Occidental College and Columbia University, majoring in Political Science and specializing in International Relations.
- Worked as Director of Developing Communities Projects, working with low-income families.
- Earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School.
- Served as an Associate Attorney for a Chicago law firm dealing with voting rights and discrimination claims.
- A lecturer of Constitution Law at the University of Chicago Law School
- Served in the Illinois State Senate for eight years.
- Served in the U.S. Senate for four years.

With this background, do you believe that Obama is more qualified to be President when compared to Joe Biden with his 35 years in the U.S. Senate or Bill Richardson with his five years as Governor and his one year as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.?  Before you answer, let us take a quick look at Hillary Clinton.

- Attended Wellesley College, majoring in Political Science. 
- Attended Yale Law School, earning her J.D.
- Served the Rose Law Firm, specializing in patent infringement and intellectual property law.
- Served on the Board of Directors for the Legal Services Corporation.
- Appointed chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee while First Lady of Arkansas.
- First Lady during her husband’s two Presidential terms
- Served 7 years as a U.S. Senator

Would her history make her more qualified for the position of President over Biden and Richardson?  The obvious answer for both Obama and Clinton is no.  By credentials alone, these two candidates should have been some of the first to drop out of the race if the American voters focused solely on experience.  So why are they the two leading Democratic candidates?

For starters, Obama is a very gifted speaker.  One could say that his oratory skills eclipse those of even Ronald Reagan, the man who was able to unite a nation following a troubled decade with two landslide victories.  Obama has the ability to inspire even those who are against him with his emotional and dynamic verse, and that is something that cannot be quantified on a resume.  On the other hand, Clinton carries a name recognition which has become lore in Democratic circles.  But they also possess quantities given to them at birth.  Obama is biracial (though often referred to only as “black”) while Clinton is female.  Both characteristics have been absent in our first 43 Presidents, and in the modern Democratic Party world, it would be a historical milestone if they could claim to be the first Party to put either in the White House.

So is Ferraro wrong with saying that Obama would not be where he is right now if it weren’t for his skin color?  I would have to hazard a guess and say yes.  That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be in contention right now.  His campaign mirrors much of Reagan’s, and the last time I checked, he was white.  For Clinton, I think she would not be fairing as well as a “white” Obama.  Without her connection to her husband or her gender, her appeal would be very weak in the Democratic race, especially when Obama mirrors her main campaign platform of Health Care Reform and delivers the message so much better.

Maybe it is a good thing that Ferraro is getting so much heat from her comment, because if people stopped to look at the substance of her comment, Clinton’s campaign would possibly lose a lot of her support. 

For some additional reading, check out these sites:
Yahoo News – “Geraldine Ferraro’s Ugly Words – Accidental or Campaign Ploy?”
International Herald Tribune – “Ferraro leaves Clinton post after furor over Obama comments”
Power Line – “Sacked for stating the obvious”
Kansas City Star – “Obama says Ferraro dividing Democrats”
CNN – “Ferraro: My comment wasn’t racist, it was fact”

For some additional reading across the web, check out these blogs:
Rants From The Fringe – “The Controversy Continues…”
Our World As We See It – “LOL…What A Moron…Ferraro: ‘They’re Attacking Me Because I’m White’”
Copious Dissent – “Geraldine Ferraro Is Right…”
MO’THANSKIN – “Race Card Played On Geraldine Ferraro”
Jack and Jill Politics – “Geraldine Ferraro and the Clinton Campaign’s Strategy”