You might think of Geraldine Ferraro--if you think of her at all--as Walter Mondale's vice-presidential candidate, half of the ticket that lost so spectacularly to Ronald Reagan, a typically hapless Democratic match-up.
But Ferraro's using whatever cache she believes she possesses to stump for Hillary Clinton at every given opportunity. She wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times defending Clinton's threat to count delegates from Florida and Michigan, in violation of rules established by her own party, and I heard her yesterday on NPR, defending her chosen candidate and bashing Barack Obama:
"For Mr. Obama to say he was against the war--excuse me, he was a state senator. He had no vote at the time. Hillary did exactly what she was supposed to do. Based on the evidence presented to her, she voted to give the president authority to deal with a threat posed to our nation..."
Uh-huh.
Just because Obama couldn't vote against the war doesn't mean he wasn't opposed to it. He rightly smelled a rat, and said so at the time. Clinton, despite the claims of Hans Blix and so many others that no WMDs existed, that Iraq was no immediate threat, chose to believe what she was told to believe and signed on to the war. She can frame it however she wants, but if she and the other quislings in the senate had demonstrated the capacity for independent thought, so many of the horrors the Bushinistas have wrought might never have come to pass.
There are many reasons to oppose Clinton's nomination, but to Ferraro and others any objections automatically smack of sexism. True, old prejudices die hard, but on the other hand, no one but Clinton seems to have a problem with the notion of a black president. Clinton's record shows nothing but pure opportunism and naked ambition, and she seeks the presidency not for a desire to, lead but as a sort of right. She can't even pretend she cares about ordinary people, and yet feigns surprise when people don't care about her.
