Nine to one! That's the margin of black votes that Barry Obama got over Hillary Clinton among black voters in Mississippi. What if that same margin existed for whites voting in favor of Clinton? Wouldn't the media be all over that story?
Yet they think nothing of merely mentioning the disparity for Obama.
I've said previously that Clinton is getting the sort of treatment from black voters that is normally reserved for Republicans, and today, Geraldine Ferraro called something for what it is: she said that Obama would be nowhere in the picture if he weren't black.
That truth seems to have made Democrats crazier, but the fact is, no white guy named Barry' would even have the audacity to run for President with the sort of experience Obama has "ammasses," so the fact that said white guy would never have been taken seriously doesn't even enter into it.
And let's get something else on the table: not only is Obama not qualified, he's not even that great a speaker, much less an orator. He's merely, as Joe Biden described him,: "clean and articulate." All the other qualities that have been attributed to him are desirously imagined by his supporters.
That doesn't mean it will evaporate. The same sort of imaginary qualities were once accorded Bill Clinton and it took liberals sixteen years to see what conservatives saw in 1992, so Obama might get lucky as well. However, the other possibility is that scrutiny may be greater for him than it was for Clinton and for several reasons:
1) His inexperience not only can't be camouflaged, it is becoming more apparent.
2) Ditto his immaturity
3) Half of his own party is not on board, and it has nothing to do with prejudice
4) Independents are fickle. If they start to see the real Obama, a lot of his support could veaporate
And the system the Dems have crafted is a thing of beauty. Even a significant Obama victory in Mississippi doesn't necessarily give him substantially more delegates than Hillary. That's gotta eat at his black and young supporters, one would think.
The super-delegates are another matter altogether. They're there to make sure "democracy" doesn't run amok, and if they do their job right, it could rip the Democratic Party apart.
In theory, the super-Ds would get behind the people's clear choice, which, when this all started, they thought would be Hillary Clinton Now that there is no clear choice, and an entire constituency is ripe for disenfranchisement, well, it doesn't get any better… unless it happens
And did you see Ferraro on Fox? She was not only unapologetic, she forcefully said that Clinton couldn't rein her in, and she actually warned Obama not to alienate her because he was going need her later.
None of this is a surprise to conservatives who always knew the Dems were playing with fire in their pandering to racial and ethnic groups, but who could have expected such delightful manifestations of those consequences, much less imagine where they might still lead?
You keep thinking, oh the Dems will eventually reconcile and all will be forgotten, but will they? and will it? Hasn't a certain amount of damage already been done? Not only are they fighting amongst themselves, but they are exposing flaws in the individual candidates that the Republicans must have thought they'd have trouble getting the voters to consider on their own.
And thinking that the Obama youth and race vote would gravitate to Hillary if Barry isn't nominated is sheer fantasy. However, it does seem clear now that if Hillary is the nominee, she absolutely will ask Obama to be her VP, and I believe that despite the animosity, he'd accept, and that could be the Republicans' worst nightmare.
But don't get me wrong, even that nightmare isn't insurmountable, it's simply the best ticket the Dems can put forth, and as Rush Limbaugh has said, "They don't have a prayer." I wouldn't go that far, but I would agree that there are unknown negatives in such a ticket.
We tend to concentrate on the apparent positives – woman, black… that's about it. But those are also the ticket's negatives. At least its main negatives, and there are more – inexperience, Hillary's unlikeability… Bill Clinton, not to mention the horrible positions and plans such a ticket would advance.
Of course, McCain has his own negatives, and I don't see anyone other than Romney who can possibly solve the VP problem, not that Romney is a stellar choice.
But I'm rooting for the Democrats right now – to self-destruct. It seems easy enough to avoid, but then I can't think like a Democrat, and I certainly don't want to be responsible for putting a rational thought in their heads. Where's the fun in that?