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.

So, the Republicans have a nominee that conservatives don't trust and Democrats are still fighting over the two they love the most.

Wasn't it just a little over two months ago that we were wondering if, and kind of hoping, that the Republicans would have a brokered convention? What a civics lesson it would be! Fast forward to present day, it's the first week of March, and the Republicans have their nominee--probably the fastest nomination ever thanks to an accelerated schedule.

And the Democrats. The lovefest continues. And it's likely to continue for a long time, considering how weeks now seem like months and months seem like years. The next primary in Pennsylvania doesn't happen until April or something, and then you have some that don't vote until May.

Neither Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama have enough delegates to reach the magic number any sooner than May, probably.

So, in the meantime, the media attention continues on Clinton and Obama--and given the kind of coverage they've been getting, by the media or form each other, all kinds of things could come out between now and there being a definitive nominee.

And, there's always a chance it will go to the convention. And even if it doesn't, it's bound to be interesting there because both of them are going to have a bunch of delegates that won't just be handed over lightly.

Plus there's the superdelegates, the possible seating of the Michigan and Florida delegates, which may or may not mean a second ballot in those two states and who's going to pay for a revote?

It takes a lot of energy just to go out and vote once. What's it going to take to get people out to another one?

Meanwhile, John McCain can lie low and avoid a lot of bad press. The argument can be made that he probably should have some press, any press, so that people don't forget him, but then, both Clinton and Obama have to invoke his name in order to make them look like they're fighting him, rather than each other, so he's not going to totally disappear from the public eye.

Besides, since he is the nominee, he could be doing some behind the scenes work now, to come up with a running mate and maybe a more concrete economic policy and maybe find someway to placate us rascally conservatives.

So, buckle up and enjoy the ride.

Look.

If John McCain didn't seem to take such great delight in combating conservative members of his own party, there probably wouldn't be much of an issue with him.

In reality, with the exception of a few close encounters of the liberal kind, McCain has been largely conservative. He's definitely there on defense and foreign policy, and he has been there on abortion, though he favors stem cell research. He's as about as conservative as it gets with earmarks and pork barrel speeding, despite the two no votes against Bush tax cuts. If he had used his current line about no spending cuts in the bills to justify the no votes then, instead of the class warfare rhetoric of his esteemed left-leaning colleagues, there wouldn't be an issue there, either.

Maybe it's just that I don't know very many 70-year-olds, but the ones I do know are not very vain. They're on the other side of life, where climbing corporate ladders or scoring points, or proving themselves right isn't really their goal. So, why is it that whenever anyone talks about McCain, his poking a finger in the eye of conservatism is always associated with looking good before his liberal peers?

Doesn't sound much like a battle-tested, prisoner of war to me.

Especially one from the Vietnam era. In general, we've treated our veterans better before and after that war. Thanks to some of those liberal friends of his, who stirred the anti-war sentiment at home and then grew up to be the establishment they railed against, the soldiers, ever the pawns, never the deciders, were reviled and castigated.

While many are not happy with our fighting men and women being in Iraq, the hysteria surrounding the soldiers and their roles has not been the same as it was during the Vietnam War. There, the liberals won out, much to the shame and degradation of a country, and a generation. Make love not war might have been a more benign slogan, maybe even a more powerful one, for everyone, had it not been held up by the jeering, sneering fanatics of spoiled, smug children.

You'd think McCain wouldn't forget that. Or at least, not to the extent that he would turn his back on any supporter, anyone who would remember him as sacrificing for his country. The liberals aren't particularly known for that, despite having their own prominent veterans of that war. Yet, McCain has done so, angrily, with open hostility.

One might shake their head at McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Lieberman, and one might question just what he was thinking in co-sponsoring them, but it's the blatant disregard at times for the conservative cause that makes it sting so. He is one of us and so he should be one of us. There's nothing wrong with speaking your mind. There's nothing wrong with correcting us when we're wrong. But we're not wrong on the essence of campaign finance reform, immigration or global warming. He could stick to his guns by spending more time and energy on government waste and earmarks, rather than helping the left out with some of their pet causes.

So, fighting his own instead of his enemies is one thing.

That leads to his judgment. Fighting your friends, especially when they're right, is just plain stupid. Sponsoring bills that show a disconnect from the will of the American people, or at the very least, a misunderstanding of just how deep conservative principles should go, shows a lack of judgment. He might get the war right, but what about other things? Despite the fact that fighting terrorism is the defining issue of our time, there's plenty of other things that can tank in the process, if proper judgment is not being used.

So, for me, it's less about the bills and the fact they represent liberal thinking than it is the "I know better than you because I got this gut feeling and you better follow or else," mentality.

That sounds like George W. Bush to me.

Last time I checked, he wasn't being as highly regarded as Ronald Reagan, not even among conservatives.

So, we can argue all you want about what's going to be better for the country, a complete left turn with Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, or a less angled lean leftward, but either way, you're heading left.

The argument that allowing Obama or Clinton to get elected, so that the Democrats get blamed for whatever happens is appealing, as long as it is enough to finally convince enough fence sitters and naysayers that conservatism is the way to go, while not irreparably damaging the country. If the country goes down the tubes in the meantime, conservatives will only have themselves to blame.

Death by slow boil, like the frog, doesn't seem as appealing. There's no catalyzing event, no rallying around the standard bearer. If nothing goes particular wrong as the left turn takes place, then change of any kind becomes the enemy.

Besides, many people, including those of our own movement, are at a loss as to what conservatism is, since there have been too many flavors of it resembling liberalism. Compassionate conservatism means more spending and more government waste on programs and policies that people, in their own homes and communities should be taking care of. Personal responsibility has been replaced by the Nanny state.

It is definitely possible to be compassionate and be conservative. You don't apply it on the federal government level, though, and I'm not really all that crazy with it on the state level, either.

So, don't tell me to accept John McCain as he is. Don't tell me his brand of conservatism is good enough. Good enough is Ronald Reagan. Best is someone else yet to come, but unless McCain presides differently than he legislates, it won't be him. And frankly, that would be more damaging for the cause of conservatism than four years of Obama or Hillary.

The fact of the matter is, any president is unlikely to ruin the country so much that it can't be redeemed. There are too many checks and balances in place. However, enough liberal governing might be enough to wake up the lukewarm conservatives, or those who think they can rely on just one or two of the conservative coalition. It takes all three to have a winning combination, in an election, and in a president.

So, if conservatives are going to get over anything, it's going to be over their primary conservative concern, to vote for the candidate who is the best conservative overall, not for the one who they identify with the most.

I was never keen on voting for someone who reminded me of a fellow employee. I want someone who's smarter than me, who knows how to make decisions, not belly ache and then invite me to drink his problems away.

I also don't want a bully who thinks he knows better. That's been done, from both sides of the aisle.