Psst! - - Ferraro Was Right

Would Obama embody post-racial hopes if he were white?

by Mickey Kaus - March 13th, 2008 - Slate

If Obama's Face Were ... : Here's Andrew Sullivan in his big, widely applauded Atlantic piece making the case for Barack Obama:

"What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it's central to an effective war strategy . . . "

[snip]

If one of the "formeost" things Obama offers voters is the "face of a brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia, etc." doesn't that mean "he would not be in this position if he were white"?

Andrew Sullivan is a famous and open Barack Obama supporter and he writes an article proclaiming that we should support Obama BECAUSE he is black and this would help America in its war with Islam.

Geraldine Ferraro takes note of the fact many supporters of Barack Obama are supporting him because he is part black and she is denounced for daring to say this. When did America become so PC that daring to say anything that any black finds offensive is worthy of condemnation? Why are Obama and his supporters so upset? Because they only want the advantage of being black spoken of as a positive?

Why then do they insist it isn't a positive? Are they afraid that someone will note that if being black is a positive, maybe just maybe all the laws giving blacks special government dictated rights are no longer needed? Is this all about having being black a political advantage and still keeping government rules to advance individual blacks over other American citizens? What happened to two things; equal protection under the law and the right to say the truth no matter what (it's called free speech)? Is it perhaps true that neither equal protection for all citizens nor free speech are still the law of the land?