Would anyone like to defend this? If Ferraro's comments were racist, what is this?

They may not have been racist, but I do think they were stupid. Does Ferraro really think that folks like me who support Obama do so because of this skin color? (Please see my post above.) We can't make the judgment that he is our preferred candidate on other, more substantial grounds?

I suppose there may be some who vote for Obama because he is black, but it can also be said that some are voting for Hillary just because she's a woman. Should someone in the Obama campaign feel it's all right to say that Hillary is only where she is because she's a woman?

Hi RealityCounts. It's not that I think racism or sexism don't matter. We are clearly not yet a society that is either race or gender blind. I just think that Ferraro's comments were stupid because she should have known they would be, at the least, racially charged and, for many of us, insulting.

To me, it looks like the age-old problem of letting one's enthusiasm for one's preferred candidate get the better of one's judgment. Here in the letters, we've all seen supporters of particular candidates, become pretty much unhinged in their attempts to support their choice. I have (sort of) come to expect that behavior in an anonymous forum like this, but expect political pros to know better when making public statements. Why they get excited enough to forget is a mystery.

Responding to the Reverend is complex for me. There are definitely things in the video that I can understand and agree with and others that I would repudiate. I think Uncle Fester is right that the Reverend is "old school," that is, what he is expressing is a generational divide as much as it is a racial one (see below). Barack will undoubtedly have to deal with the Reverend's words, but given how he handled Farrakahan (sp?) (who is also old school), I expect he will also repudiate what is hateful in the Reverend's speech as well. It will definitely be a test of Obama's character.

Forgive me if you already know all this, it's just that I'm 50 and may have memories of the 60s and 70s that are not points of reference for you. In the wake of the civil rights movement but continued racism and poverty, for a segment of the black population there was great anger that, while destructive, I could understand. What I hear in the Reverend's words and tone is that same anger. And I do think he makes a mistake in thinking Hillary can't relate to what Obama has experienced as a black man. The sexism directed at Hillary has often been just as crude and vituperative.

Nonetheless, I don't see the Reverend's failings in Obama. Obama seems to be on the other side of the generational divide. That is, he seems to be past the anger of the injustices done to him personally and collectively to black people and is working toward a better way for all in a post-civil-rights America where he is taken seriously as a candidate. I hope he is part of the generational shift many have been hoping for, having come of age post-civil-rights. I think there may, in fact, be a large enough proportion of Americans who are ready to judge him in the content of his character and not the color of his skin.

I've very much enjoyed your posts for their clarity, patience, and reasonableness. Too often, the letters sections become unbearable shout-fests, so it's wonderful when folks can have a decent discussion, even if they eventually agree to disagree.

Aging does have some benefits. It would be nice if we could attain experience and wisdom without having to deteriorate physically, but I do like having a somewhat longer view to work from. ;-)

I agree with all that you said about Obama and his preacher. Most importantly, he will have to deal with his 20 year attendance at the church, which cannot be as simply dealt with as Farrakahan. And, of course, I don't know what lies in Obama's heart (or most any politician's). I will say that he is either a great actor and con-man, or there really is something to what he has said and done. My BS meter for politicians is pretty sensitive, and each time I've mentally set challenges for Obama on either policy or campaign management issues, he's acquitted himself better than any of the other candidates (IMHO). I know he's only human with shortcomings and defects, but he really seems to have a clear vision and the maturity to chase it constructively.

(I need to sign-off, so don't take future lack of response on my part negatively.)

Alex said,

"In 1984, if my name were Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for vice-president. Now, does that mean I wasn't qualified to do the job? No." And so what she said about Obama -- and about herself -- can easily be interpreted as an observation of political reality.

I can't agree with you here. Vice-President's are chosen to balance tickets, so Ferraro was at least partially chosen because she was a woman. Presidents are chosen by voters (or sometimes superdelegates). No ticket is being balanced. So I can't buy the equivalence that is being pushed by Ferraro or Alex.