"fight between white people who want to be people first, and white people who want to be white first."

That statement gives me clearer understanding and acceptance of the fact that the not-so-thinly veiled code-speak that has been wafting out of the Clinton campaign isn't entirely accidentally ignored.  And, that the "buyers remorse" these people speak of really has nothing to do with taking back your own purchase, but having your more "traditional," uninformed, and bigoted parents do it for you.

The not-so-subtle subtext of sexism and racism have been a part of this from the beginning.  Most of it has been glossed and chuckled over with a nod and a wink.  But, this Ferraro thing was an extended two-eyed blink, with a hair-raising head-shake,...and still, no one way up there in the Democratic party leadership has said a word, as far as I know.  Clearly, the need to be impartial, and fair to the candidates outweighs the need to repudiate the bigotry and ignorance.

I fully respect Ms. Ferraro's right to express her views.  I wouldn't expect her to be drummed out, vilified, or any such thing.  But, you would think that in 2008, somebody up there in the party would be willing to step up and communicate something other than the "hey there, please keep the indignation to a minimum for a few more weeks while we see whether Obama can bring in more blacks, or Clinton can bring in more bigots," message being sent out currently to voters.

The basic under-pinning of Senator Clinton's hope of becoming Democratic presidential nominee is the seemingly accepted fact that Senator Clinton's constituency is worth more than Senator Obama's. I know that this equation has long been a part of political calculus.  I guess I've just never seen Democrats out-bigot even the Republican candidate using these particular sleight-rules with such unapologetic boldness.

Senator Clinton's hopes hinge on the assertion/fact that the blacker the face of Obama's campaign becomes, the more buyer's remorse/bigoted backlash he can expect from "traditional, blue-collar" whites.  And, that when push comes to shove, those in the middle wrestling with their own matters of conscience and calculus, will cast their lot with the "white-first" crowd. Hopefully enough super delegates will see this theory proved by Pennsylvania, and go along with it.  At least, that's what it looks like to me.

But, in order for enough super-delegates to be able to do this with straight faces, a healthy foundation of racism, anti-affirmative actionism, and "that's unfortunately just the reality of Americaism" needs to be laid first.  After all, recent history has shown that with the right foster and framing, even the abhorrent and unacceptable can be made palatable.  

The unspoken, unaccepted, unspecified paradox that has been rambling about my brain mind, is the fact that maybe as Obama's "black" number rises, so will Clinton's "blue."  If the race-baiting, and race-fear, and ideas of the lucky, un-christian, un-qualified, affirmative action, doesn't know his place and isn't waiting his turn mulatto man usurping that which the older, wiser, experienced real-white woman deserves, take hold strongly enough,...she could win this thing.

I know that a lot is being made of the tepid and dispassionate responses to Geraldine Ferraro's remarks
from Senator Clinton and her campaign.  But, what about the tepid and dispassionate response from someone, anyone, higher up in the party than Al Sharpton?  Personally, I think that says a whole lot more about where "the party" really stands.  Apparently, few Clinton apologists seem to have any problem with what was said, how it was handled, or not-so-spoken agenda this controversy advances.

After all, despite all the talk of change and revolution and riots in the streets, who would really do anything anyway?  And, should Obama be grudgingly offered sloppy seconds, what could he do?  Sell out and ruin himself in the eyes of his backers, or not play along, and ruin himself in the eyes of everyone else for not being a good sport and team player.

Anyway, sorry this wasn't so succinct.  
But, thanks for the quote, it really made me think.