Hmm. Geraldine Ferraro, a strong Clinton supporter who Clinton has been aligned with, decides to opine on how Obama just got where he is because he’s black. When called out for making statements with racist overtones, instead of acting contrite, she retorts, “I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

On the eve of the Mississippi primary. Where 55% of voting Democrats are African-American.

Ouch.

Not that Clinton was really poised to win the state anyway, but this certainly doesn’t stand to give her a huge boost.

Here’s Ferraro’s reasoning:

I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama’s campaign–to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against. For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It’s been a very sexist media. Some just don’t like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

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.

A few problems here. First, the observation Ferraro makes is less of a contrast than she poses. She is suggesting that women have a harder time getting to places like Hillary is trying to get to than blacks do; however, there was a female VP candidate on a party ticket 24 years ago, and a female Speaker of the House just two years ago–both higher positions than African-Americans have been able to achieve. Blacks have gotten to other places earlier than women–the right to vote, a spot on the Supreme Court, for example–but it is not as if being black is that great an advantage.

This does not jibe with her theory, that all you have to be is black and you can vault ahead, while women have a much tougher time of things. Yes, blacks vote more for Obama, but women vote more for Hillary–and whites vote against Obama in several places as well. To suggest that being a woman is a disadvantage where being black is a bonus is far too simplistic and not altogether accurate in many ways. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. If being black is less of a hurdle than being a woman, the distinction is one of degree, not of complete contrast. And while the media is sexist, it is just as racist; as reluctant as they are to openly touch on racial issues, so are they on gender issues. As for the press being harder on Hillary, you know my opinion on that if you have read this blog; likely this is more a matter of a biased view than any real standard (that possibly applying to me in the reverse direction).

Ferraro’s claim is also insulting to blacks, belittling the challenges and difficulties they faced, suggesting that they somehow have it easy. It rings all to similarly to the white male charge of ‘reverse discrimination,’ where blacks who achieve something got there only because they’re black, only because somehow quotas or Affirmative Action gave them what they have.

And that’s the second big problem with Ferraro’s argument: it is condescending as hell to Obama and his supporters in a way that, despite Ferraro’s contentions, could very rightly be called racist. It says that he did not get to where he is because people like his ideas, nor because he has charisma, nor because of his positive message. No, they like him just because he’s black. The idea of inclusiveness is just a sham that nobody really thinks is worth anything; the positive tenor of his campaign does not really attract people; the quality of his rhetoric does not inspire his followers. No, they just see the color of his skin and open all the doors for him.

That’s not just racist, that’s stupid. It’s the same narrow-minded attack that Republicans tried against Obama from the very start, and it’s wrong. If Hillary had Obama’s talent for impassioned, electrifying rhetoric, if she had the same new-candidate freshness, the same inclusive appeal, the same positive message–Ferraro’s claim is that none of this would get her anywhere. And that’s wrong.

Maybe Ferraro is just cynical; she also said: “I was reading an article that said young Republicans are out there campaigning for Obama because they believe he’s going to be able to put an end to partisanship. Dear God! Anyone that has worked in the Congress knows that for over 200 years this country has had partisanship – that’s the way our country is.” Maybe she just believes that Obama’s popularity must be due to his color because she just can’t accept the idea of being inclusive, of accepting and embracing rather than dividing and attacking. But even that is not enough to excuse Ferraro’s crassness.

Obama vaulted to popularity in 2004 after his speech at the Democratic convention not because he was black, but because of the quality of the speech he made. He made a speech that inspired, a speech with wonderful cadence and appeal, a speech that said we are not red and blue, that we are all one people–this is what got him noticed.

To say that being black is what made the difference, or that none of these things would have helped him had he been white or a woman… it is just as appallingly wrong and bigoted as when the right-wingers tried it on Obama, and failed to get anywhere with it.

That Ferraro thinks she can just blow through the negative reaction, claim reverse racism, and eventually not have to pay any real price–and that she might just succeed–also goes to disprove her claim. Just as Obama’s personal qualities and ideas are more important than his color, Ferraro’s power and standing are showing to be more important than her gender.

Finally, there may be more to this than just a campaign tactic. Ben Smith at the Politico points out that in 1988, Ferraro said:

If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.

Make of that what you will.