The columnist Michael Kinsley once defined a "gaffe" as an occasion when a politician accidentally tells the truth. In our age of political correctness, some would place Geraldine Ferraro's remarks into this category. Long known for speaking candidly, Ferraro recently remarked that "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."

There's a molecule of truth in this. Obama's appeal is that he is an African American who doesn't sound one bit like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Blacks are inspired to see one of their own have a serious shot at the presidency. Whites are relieved that Obama doesn't seem to be motivated by the kind of chronic resentment that seems all too prevalent in black America.

Taken this way, Ferraro is stating the obvious. It's equally obvious, by the way, that if Hillary was male--and not married to Bill Clinton--she wouldn't be in her position. Hillary came to national prominence not through her own efforts but through the success of her husband. Virtually all her "experience" prior to being elected Senator is in fact Bill Clinton's experience. She wouldn't even have been elected to the Senate without Bill. So she too owes a great deal to her gender and her "first wife" position.

In a deeper sense, though, Ferraro's insinuation is completely wrong. In reality Obama's political success is due to far more than race. He brings some unique and very attractive qualities at a time when the country wants and needs them. Obama is a man of unquestionable intelligence and grace, and this is why the affirmative action label seems especially unjust when applied to him.

To me Ferraro's comments illustrate two things. First, they show the depths to which Hillary flacks are willing to go. It's typical of the Hillary camp that a sidekick like Ferraro attempts to plunge the knife into Obama while Hillary feigns ignorance and plays nice. Second, Ferraro's attack illustrates how some prominent liberals deep down think that all blacks are only capable of advancing because they are black.

In a way liberal support for racial preferences can be understood as an attempt to cope with this situation. We often hear liberal activists say, "If it wasn't for affirmative action there would be virtually no blacks in top universities." The implication of course is that blacks on their own merits are incapable of getting into Harvard and Berkeley.

The cruel irony of affirmative action is that it reinforces and strengthens liberal perceptions of black inferiority. Athough Obama seems smart enough to have gotten into Harvard, it's quite possible that affirmative action policies were partly responsible for his admission. Consequently policies of racial preference have the effect of placing an invisible question mark alongside the achievements of all persons of color.

When Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, it wasn't the Ku Klux Klan or the skinheads who said, "He's just there because he's black." It was the liberal Senators and activist groups that said this. Now Ferraro is saying the same thing about Obama.

Perhaps the day is not far when African Americans will wake up and start asking, "Do these politices of racial preferences actually hurt more than they help?" and "Isn't it time we stopped assuming that liberal Democrats like Ferraro and Hillary are our natural allies?"

The premise of the Democratic Party's current allegiances is due the recognition that elitists are better equipped to provision merit of their choosing and not the merit of free enterprise in free markets of free thinking individuals.

Why is this so strangely overlooked that those that perceive that government entitlements and expanded government employment only serve to bolster the longevity of their own elitist premise?

And their power and control over the thoughts and actions of individuals that acceed to their demand for flaterry and applause?

The blindness is blinding.

The same can be said of the Republican Party, and their premise which has become the politics of avarice and greed and the legislation of laws that insulate advantage and privelege from the lawlessness of free will and choice in the name of preserving the republic for which they stand to defend.

Where is the free market in that strategy?

I only see elitists seizing the reigns of a free people through the furtherance of expanding law, by law, through law, for law,
not for the people, by the people and of the people, but by deceit.

Deceit, by its very definition is designed to not be apparent.

The jealousy and envy of both parties engenders the strife that camoflages the deceit of the very parties premises that seek supremacy through deceit as though it were the prize and a worthy badge of honor to wear.

It is not funny, nor respectful and dignified, yet it is fed with the attention that it seeks.

Wake up, America.

JMHO,

obama isn't black in my book so the fact he claims to be black makes one think he is using race to get ahead.He also has as much depth as a finger bowl when it comes to issues.
I am so sick of the african,italian,latin american labels.It just divides us more.We are AMERICANS and I will not vote for someone who only identifies with one half of himself and one segment of the population.