I think Andrew's hitting the bottle again:

The Ferraro flap has left me feeling queasy. Not just because racial polarization is always an ugly thing; not just because the condescension toward a minority is cringe-inducing; not just because these cycles of blame and counter-blame can go on and on and wound more and more ... but because it is inherently corrosive of a multicultural polity, and will, in the long run, benefit no one but those who cannot appeal to the public beyond crass interest group grievance.

The one indisputably positive aspect of the Obama candidacy - to left or right - has been his remarkable ability to make a case for his nomination without relying on this kind of identity politics and victim-mongering. That he doesn't shrink from minority status and pretend that his blackness doesn't matter is not the same thing. His ability to both represent a black man and yet represent a figure beyond a black man is the core of the historic salience of his candidacy. It's why a gay man living in many different worlds feels that Obama can and will move all of us forward. It is why so many with complex identities and revulsion for racial or gender groupthink have been given new hope this time around. It shows that he has actually moved beyond the kind of thinking that lay behind Ferraro's original nomination and the toxic politics of the 1970s left.

I hope this stuff ends soon - and that the Obama camp does not degenerate into constantly being offended, however justified the offense is.

Florida pushed their primary election up, because they wanted their voters' voices to matter. Now, some would have them silenced because it looks like their man would not win in a "do-over" primary election there.

Take away Barack Obama's color and race: how many first-term senators with questionable background connections, with no legislative history, no military background, and no real track record of leadership, would be in his position today, even with an excellent oratory? None. We'd be skeptics -- prove it, give us some solid evidence that what you're preaching about your judgment is true. Clinton has show pragmatism, grace and courage under fire. She has shown she can win against real opponents. Many may wish to paint her as just another Laura Bush, taking the typical First Lady role and baking cookies during her time in the White House. I think she was more the farmer's wife -- just as involved in her husband's wins, and suffering his losses all the same. No, I don't think we're in danger of her genitals overruling her good judgment though, and I do think she is a pragmatist at heart.

Isn't she the true moderate in this one, midway between McCain's posturing as BushIII, and Obama's liberal promises and record? I think so. That's why I'm supporting her, not because she's a woman. So are other black women too, I think. It's an insult to say we're all just in it for the identity politics. Just like it's insulting to say that working-class whites are voting the bigot ticket. Maybe... they just understand getting the job done. That sometimes the man with the best-pressed shirt and cleanest language and most pedigrees is not the one you should be listening to on how to get a job done. Plenty of older black Democrats are backing Hillary too, I think. Maybe they don't want to see an unready black candidate fail in November, because he hasn't worked his way up, paid his dues, would be an unappealing choice as commander-in-chief against the conservative McCain.

There's no need for Clinton to apologize for Ferraro. Maybe it's a conversation that needs to happen. Plenty of people have theories about why so many boys of working-class whites are failing in the classrooms and not advancing to colleges. Here's mine: maybe they are sickened by the hypocrisy and are giving up. Let's say you earn the same grades as your black classmate. You score higher on standardized tests than your grades indicate, yet are routinely left behind while those with more appealing demographic characteristics such as color are in fact "competed for" by the colleges and universities. There're no preferences given for white males, as far as I know... Would you want to attend schools, where you're made to pay the price for all those Americans who in years past excused their discriminatory behavior for the systematic advantages they took in the Jim Crow years, "just playing by the rules"? I don't think I would. With girls, it's different. For whatever reason, we don't hold so much against the white ones. Often, their working-class girls are welcomed and truth be told, with marriage what it is, it is easier for girls to assimilate and date/marry their way up. Not true for so many working-class white boys, who must rely on themselves...

Without the race angle, what exactly does "YES WE CAN!" refer to? Taking back the government on behalf of the inexperienced? I don't think so. Note that above, Andrew himself can't resist throwing in the "gay man" card. He too is special, and no doubt in my mind would not be where he is at today without the gay "catholic" / HIV positive card to play. He's no conservative; changes his mind about as often as he changes his socks; and seems to form his opinions around the polls. Pragmatism. That's what we need now. Somebody with good solid judgment, somebody who can fight tomorrow's battles and is not stuck in the yesterday. ("Please don't attack us any more. I wouldn't have voted to invade Iraq!" is just not a credible strategy in picking up that red phone.)

I've been listening: I think the policies Obama has outlined are much too liberal and unpractical for my tastes. And I think the country needs a break from the Bush/Cheney philosophy. I think we should let the voters in Florida and Michigan have their preferences considered now, as surely their votes will matter come November. To me, Clinton is that moderate candidate. She's not relying on white liberal guilt over past sins to get her elected, like Obama is. I think his message of "unity" is hollow, if it only rings true should he be chosen. And painting those not in the tank as identity politic simps, or worse, bigots is not going to help America. "Divided We Further Fall". If Obama wants to focus the heat on himself, rather than Bush/Cheney, that is his perogative. I wish he'd use better judgment, but I believe every man (person) in American is free to fall. But people like Andrew -- not even a citizen here -- would pull the rest of the country down with him.

Does he not remember the O.J. Simpson verdict and the illogical celebrations based on rhetoric but scant evidence? Does he want to encourage or elevate some on the backs of others just as qualified, as affirmative action does to all the current genetic "losers" out here? Is he really willing to throw away all of his supposed conservative, non-biased principles to get the results he wants. (Aside: I don't believe in discrimination against HIV+ individuals either. But I can definitely understand why the policy for immigrants to America stands and we would currently find it pragmatic to exclude before throwing open the gates. Betcha he could too, if the proposed revisions wouldn't benefit him personally, allowing him not only a Massachusetts marriage, but also American citizenship. Funny though, I don't remember him being a big Kerry supporter...)

Changing your mind about Obama later won't work, just as we can't *snap* undo Iraq, or begin only now to question the pricetag it's costing us all. The time for that was before... The reason the Democratic superdelegates will matter is because of the same FORESIGHT. Understanding that, now -- in Florida and Michigan -- is the time for do-overs. Mea culpas for changing your mind might count in religion and relationships, but it makes harsh little difference out here in the real world. When you feel the consequences -- like those working class white male students -- you can either agitate for change, or you can give up and give in. When you benefit based on special preferences ... naturally you won't want to change the rules as they stand; in fact, sometimes you're even blind to what's happening today, nevermind to what's coming down the pipe. Geraldine Ferraro -- for all her grey hair styled so mannishly these days -- say what you will, is not blind. Nor I would posit, is she a bigot.

Hey, even Maureen Dowd agrees There's Something About Barack, and indeed if you read today's column, even the candidate himself has acknowledged politically his great timing and legacy.

Last Friday, Ms. Ferraro, who is on Hillary’s national finance committee, told The Daily Breeze, a small newspaper in Torrance, Calif.:

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. 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.”

Obama acknowledged when he arrived in the Senate that he got more attention, his big book deal and his celebrity, because he is not white. He was only the third black senator elected since Reconstruction.

But as he campaigned here Tuesday, he was outraged at Ferraro’s comments. “They are divisive,” he said. “I think anybody who understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd.”

The problem for America is ... this is no time to be looking back.

And anybody who thinks this is the time for futher sowing seeds of division solely for political gain, surely hasn't been doing any reaping these past five seasons. Or the 35 before that either, for that matter. God Help Us All. Something tells me, we're one country that's really going to need it.