Followup

Scarborough said something just a minute ago that I was trying to say in my last overly verbose post; that as stupid and as offensive as Feraro's comments were the real issue is not racism. The real issue is the anger women are feeling over Barak Obama's candidacy. There are a lot of women out there who believed coming into this year that it was their time, that Hilary was finally going to lead them to the promised land, that there would finally be a woman president, and they feel that her year--their year--is being hijacked by Barak Obama. And they're mad. They believe that he has stolen her constituency, that he should have waited his turn, that the media is harder on her because she's a woman, and that his candidacy only proves that women are still second class citizens.

And they're right.

Joe points out that the reverse is true as well. He believes not only that a lot of angry white men won't vote for a black man for president (those same men probably won't vote for a woman either) but that if Hilary gets the nomination there will be a lot of angry black people who will not vote for her, and that if Obama gets the nomination there will be a lot of angry women who will not vote for him, and that unless there is a unity ticket McCain will probably win. The party is splitting over this historic candidacy. Imagine: we have the chance to elect the first woman president and the first black president and all it might mean is that the oldest and whitest of old white men wins because we are fighting over which historic barrier we want to break. Balcks see this as their time. Women see this as their time. Might it really be McCain's time after all?