Letters to the Editor
-
No, actually she doesn't.
She's right.
She's right about herself. She wouldn't have been where she is (and wouldn't have made the history she did) without being a woman. Hillary Clinton wouldn't be where *she* is without being a woman. Barack Obama wouldn't be where *he* is without being black.
Why is this such a terrible thing to say? It's true. Look at John Edwards. For once in our history, it was a bad time to be a white guy going for the Democratic ticket. He was arguably the most "qualified" candidate. Edwards was solid, passionate, and charismatic. I didn't support him. I'd have voted for him if he won, but I didn't support him. He was a white guy. I believe we need someone who isn't, not just for tokenism but for the perspective of what it means to be an outsider. Being black or female or white or male or Latino or Asian isn't just some label you slap onto the Census form; it speaks to your formative experiences and the way you see the world. It's time for someone who isn't a member of the "normal" privileged class--the white (straight) guys, the guys who have defined "normal"--to take a turn at the wheel. I was hopeful that it would be a chance for the silent half of the population. It doesn't seem that's going to work out. I'm a little resentful of the way Obama treats and talks about Hillary--he doesn't seem to respect or recognize that her bid is as historic (arguably more) than his is.
But Ms. Ferraro is right on, even if we aren't supposed to talk about it. Obama wouldn't be where he is if he weren't black (and he would probably not have made it this far as an eloquent black woman). When did it become a crime to point out the blatantly obvious?