The delegate count -- a soft total -- is 19 for Obama and 11 for Hillary Clinton. We now have six weeks to breathe -- but Pennsylvanians don't. The next contest is there on 22 April.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the blogosphere has predictably erupted in response to comments made by former Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferarro.
Ferarro told the Daily Breeze:
"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.
"I was reading an article that said young Republicans are out there campaigning for Obama because they believe he's going to be able to put an end to partisanship," Ferraro said, clearly annoyed. "Dear God! Anyone that has worked in the Congress knows that for over 200 years this country has had partisanship - that's the way our country is."
She also said that she would not have been the 1984 VP candidate had she been male.
Gender is a more significant barrier than race, Ferraro said. "It's OK to be sexist in some people's minds. It's not OK to be racist."
Overlooked in the predictable furor: Ferraro said that the media have played a "far larger [role] than anything I've seen before."
I've not been able to find any post-event report (she spoke at the Armstrong Theatre in Torrance, CA on Sunday). I'd like to know what she said, since she was going to talk about super delegates (she said she had a hand in creating them).
In any case, Ferraro speaks a truth, one that may be uncomfortable. In Mississippi, like South Carolina and Maryland and DC, black voters overwhelmingly voted for Obama. You don't get 90 percent of the men in the country voting in lockstep (except, maybe, Senate and House Republicans). You don't get 90 percent of the women in the country voting in lockstep (not even on abortion, an issue that has gender impact).
In the WaPo Ramesh_Ponnuru concurs:
But Ferraro is clearly right as an analytical matter. Some Obama supporters back him because they want to make history--and his race has a lot to do with their belief that he will. It is also the reason he has such strong support from African Americans, without which Clinton would be beating him.
Although I disagree with Kevin Drum's assertion that Clinton should withdraw (with a 15% difference in state delegates, people who can change votes after the first ballot? would any male candidate withdraw in a race this close? you know the answer), I'm with him in his critique, The Hillary Feeding Frenzy.
From the blogosphere: The Corner, InstaPundit, Michelle Malkin
Comments
The point Ferraro is making is somewhat hypocritical I believe. I believe she’s saying that Obama doesn’t have enough experience. The same could be said of Hillary. John Kerry would have been a much better choice than either one of the Democrat candidates but he can’t stop putting his foot in his mouth. Byden would have been a much better choice, but, this is a popularity contest and the most popular will win.
C
Hi, Chuck:
I disagree. She says he would not be in this position if he were not black and male — and that she would not have been the Veep in 1984 had she not been female. Please show me where that’s hypocritical. Hypocritical would have been if she had said gender had nothing to do with Mondale picking her as a running mate.
And he *is* inexperienced — in general terms (he’s only 46) and specific political ones (just elevated to national politics after a short term in the state legislature).
Obama is, however, very telegenic; neither Edwards nor Clinton are. (I’d love to hear people’s thoughts on why that is.)
As I said, Hillary isn’t any more qualified to be President than Obama is. That’s the contradiction. Hillary would not be in the position she’s in if not for the fact that her husband was president. Being the wife of a President and a one term senator does not qualify one to be the leader of the free world.
No where did I mention a word about Ferraro’s VP selection. This is about Obama and Hillary. Bright red herring!?
C
Well, I guess it is the second time I agree with Chuck. Hillary is not much better experienced than Obama, in my humble opinion. She has some credentials as a local elected and as First Lady. But he is also a Senator and he has in my eyes the tremendously massive advantage of having family and friends living in war torn Africa. Having acquaintances living on the receiving side of globalisation is worth at least ten years of Diplomatic Service. It is an insight no one in the Oval Office ever had.
Hillary has eight years experience in the Senate to Obama’s two.
She was the point person on Bill’s health care plan (and hopefully learned about biting off more than you can get others to chew in the process). Obama has not been point person on any major policy issue facing the country (Iraq, health care, the economy, trade, education).
They both worked in NFP law before assuming a political career.
Neither have the legislative experience of McCain. An argument can be made that a legislator may not make a good executive — but it’s moot since all viable candidates are legislators with little or no executive experience.
Kathy
still an Edwards person
Chuck, you claimed that Ferraro was hypocritical. I pointed out why that claim fell flat — I still see no evidence to support the accusation.