Far be it from me to agree with Geraldine Ferraro...

Sure, her statement regarding Barack Obama and his apparent threat to the coronation of Hillary Clinton is politically incorrect. And yes, they can be taken as racist.

However, if he were white, would he truly be treated as the threat to Clinton that he is? The answer, in my mind, is no. I think it is because he is black, and all that brings with it, not just any political desire on the part of Democrats to elect a black president. Why. Well, would Obama have the same eloquence that he has if here were white? Remember, there is a certain Martin Luther King, Jr. kind of lilt to his voice. There is a black preacher kind of magnetism to his delivery. I can't think of any white people I know, including a former Baptist preacher like Mike Huckabee, who can speechify like Obama can.

He's even better than Bill Clinton, who has been called the first black president, despite the fact he's as white as you get.

I think Obama is where he is because of his background, his upbringing, natural abilities, and his ethnicity. He is driven by convictions, passions, philosophies and beliefs that, quite frankly, don't exist in such abundant quantities among whites. It's definitely a cultural thing.

And there is a definite phenomenon going on among black voters. Many blacks were skeptical to begin with about a black man's chances to become president, especially a half-black man who, because of it, raised questions of whether or not he was black enough to suit African-Americans. Well, lately, blacks have been going to the polls in droves to vote for him. This because some earlier predominantly white primary states voted for Obama, giving him a wider appeal beyond ethnicity. Lately, though, since race was injected into the campaign, a polarization has been taking effect, and blacks have been voting overwhelming for Obama, while even more recently, whites have been voting for Hillary Clinton.

This is creating a divide, something which is good for Republicans and ultimately conservatives, but something which could do more damage to the country than just the Democrats. People who feel disenfranchised are likely to sit out, rebel, or seek other alternatives than they are to pursue the agenda of their enemy. And, by and large, many blacks consider Republicans, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, to be the party of hatred and inequality.

Rush Limbaugh made a good point on his show today. Obama is the product of affirmative action. While that exists, there will always be an asterisk, warranted or not, sticking off the name of blacks. It won't be there in print, but it will be in the minds of others. Without affirmative action, without this liberal desire to raise up those based on ethnicity or gender rather than merit or integrity, there would be no question about anyone who may be black, Hispanic, Asian or any other minority. They would have their positions and their jobs based on their abilities, period. The same would be said about anyone who is female.

So, while Ferraro could have found another way to say what she said--and what I've heard of the comment, it's been blown up via analysis and interpretation--her party is more to blame for Obama's rise and current front runner status than anyone else. It's ironic, too, since her comment could so aptly be summed up with an old adage--it is a lot like the pot calling the kettle black.