or defended her generally...

Stop being so disingenuous. Hitler was fucking organized and a good speaker. Those are true statements. But you don't go around cherry picking that stuff and throwing it out there at a meeting of AIPAC, and then call objections to it "false outrage."

That there is some truth in her statement, that political correctness has gone awry--to those I'll agree. But to what effect to bring this particular thing up? No matter how you slice it, this was a flamer--an offensive (and by that I mean "on the offense") remark, to which Obama merely responded (on defense). No matter how you slice it, this was the instigator. All your allegations of "race baiting" by Obama all along HAVE BEEN PRECIPITATED by remarks that came first from the Clinton camp. But at least those remarks were subtle enough to remain murky in their intent. (and my previous posts will show me defending the Clintons, for the most part, on these past statements). THIS ONE WAS NOT. So, regardless of its slight truthiness, the question still begs...Why bring it up? Ferraro can magnanimously say she was on the VP ticket b/c she was a woman (and I know that's meant as some kind of insurance), but that completely leaves out the following:

1. Did she admit that at the time? Would it have done anyone any good? Isn't it true that ANYONE who is the first black or woman will get there in some measure b/c of that? I think the honest among us all recognize that. But (and So) why bring it up? TO WHAT END if not to cause mischief? No matter what Ferraro says now, if someone had actually been crass enough to say that to her at the time, she'd have responded hotly and claimed it was brought up to malign her qualification for the Presidency. I think we all know her well enough by now to know that's true. Admitting something 20 years later is NOT the same as expecting a candidate to lie down and admit he's not fucking qualified WHILE he's running.

2. The Presidency and the VP are fundamentally different roles politically and everybody knows it. Being a "token" VP is standard procedure for ALL VP prospects, let's not fool ourselves. Black, woman, Southernor, religious, NOT religious, Western, Latino, military--let's face it, the whole PURPOSE of the VP (in terms of the politics of it) is to find a token who balances your ticket. So, it's really not a good analogy at all to "offer" that she herself was a token. Well, so was Dan fucking Quayle.

3. Her PURPOSE in bringing it up to begin with was to diminish him in some way. I wish Hillary supporters would just admit it. It's not like this was the history channel or Charlie Rose and she was offering objective political analysis. Then it would have been just fine, or at least defensible, to say something along that line. But she was clearly saying it in a way to diminish him, which completely made disingenuous her following remarks about "that's not to say he's not qualified." THEN WHY SAY IT? I keep coming back to that. "Oh gee, the sky is blue." I mean, WHY say it if it's such an accepted truth?

4. She forgot the obvious follow up--and I was extremely disappointed in the press for not asking her for this--that if it was such an accepted and uncontroversial truth that Obama is where he is b/c of race, then certainly she could see that Hillary herself got where she is b/c of gender or marriage? I mean, where the fuck was the press? This is the kind of story Glenn would cover (if this was on Mars and everybody wasn't in bed with one of the candidates--and by that I mean all the salonistas, who show blind allegiance at this point) where we see that the press just covered the story of the story. I mean, instead of asking "Do you really mean it?" or "Did Clinton tell you to say this?" why weren't they asking, "Well, we can see you're a truth teller, that you're not interested in political correctness. Do you acknowledge that Senator Clinton's gender or name bring her to the fore in a way that other candidates were not?" I mean, that's a fair question.

Sorry for all the swear words. This one makes me hot. And LJWALKER, this is SO not false outrage. This is the real deal.

Hillary supporters, please respond to my specific points. I just cannot comprehend your position. But please don't bring up the Reverend Wright thing b/c I have not yet read that story and I am fully prepared to be offended by his remarks. So don't pull the double standard on me--or on Obama or the media on that point, b/c YOUR outrage at Obama's outrage happened BEFORE the Wright story.