Ferraro "Gaffe"

I actually think Ferraro may have inadvertently been on to something – but for the exact opposite reason she identified. Saying that Obama is in the situation he’s in because he’s black requires a restatement of what situation he’s finds himself. At this point in the race, he’s ahead in votes, states won, and delegates, and his white opponent has virtually no chance of overtaking him on any of those measures of success. Yet, she continues on. Consider Eugene Robinson's ruminations on what sorts of questions Barack would be having to answer if he were behind in states, delegates, and the popular vote. Surely, even the Clintons’ would have dropped out by now if John Edwards was in Obama’s position. Don’t you think waiting around for some sort of catastrophic blunder or arguing to superdelegates that you’re more “electable” than your opponent would be laughable were Obama a white guy with a “normal” name?

On the other hand, I suspect that it is highly unlikely for the party elders to swing the nomination to Clinton given what it would indicate if the first major party African-American candidate for president did NOT get the nomination because party elders deemed him “unelectable” in spite of winning more elections (by all meaningful metrics of vote count, delegates, and contests) than his Caucasian opponent.