So here is what is going on.  Ferraro, the 1984 Democrat Vice Presidential nominee, has come under fire for essentially stating the truth.

Ferraro's Remarks About Obama Decried

Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday she disagrees with Geraldine Ferraro, one of her fundraisers and the 1984 vice presidential candidate, for suggesting that Barack Obama only achieved his status in the presidential race because he's black.

In a brief interview with The Associated Press, Clinton was questioned about Ferraro's remarks. The Obama campaign has called on the New York senator to denounce them.

Ferraro told the Daily Breeze of 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."

So tell me, is that an ugly truth or just hate speech.  No one wants to admit that it is really the ugly truth.  Since his entrance into the national scene he has been groomed to be the first (real) black president.  And she is right, the democrats are enraptured with the concept of proving they are really as diverse as they claim, so they rally behind him as their totem.

Obama the man, the politician and leader is less important to the democrats than his race is, otherwise the more qualified people would be sitting in the final two.

Aside from being charismatic, he really has nothing in his resume to indicate he is really the best qualified person for the office.

Hillary ought not scoff too hard, she is benefiting from the same thing, being the first woman nominee, and Ferraro should also be an expert at the concept since Mondale chose her solely for her gender to appeal to the feminists.  Don't believe it?  See below.

Ferraro is defending her comments, somewhat surprisingly:

Apparently so:

Global Warming Sexism: 'Women Bear the Brunt of Climate Change'

As you certainly know by now, the liberal bogeyman known as global warming has been implicated by green media representatives and Al Gore sycophants - assuming there's a difference - as being responsible for virtually every planetary malady.

Yet, did you know that women are more threatened by climate change than men?

You didn't?

Honestly, with a woman in good position to be the Democrat's presidential nominee, all I can say is, "What took them so long to come up with this one?"

As feministicly reported by India's Sify (emphasis added throughout):

They have to walk to fetch water, fodder or fuel wood. They have to work longer hours in fields that fetch less and less. After floods and storms, they still have to put food on the plate.

Women bear the brunt of climate change every year, a global network of women's groups pointed out here.

You really can't make this stuff up:

...

In case you haven't fainted yet, take a gander at their suggestions:

"Integrate gender aspects into adaptation plans and tools, focusing on specific adaptation needs, and ensuring women's participation in developing the plans.

"Commit to sustainable and equitable financing scheme and ensure gender equity in all phases and aspects of funding.

"Allocate 20 per cent of all donor funds for activities and projects addressing women and designed and implemented by women and gender experts."

Isn't that special?

They miss the obvious point that if their holy alarmist theory is true, all of humanity is threatened, so any focus aside from "everyone" would be taking advantage of the tragedy for personal reasons.

Not saying that the widespread injustice and inequality women face (Islam?) is not important, it is.  But it is important on it's own merits, not as a component of fictitious Global Warming.

Hillary has had a tough week.  Falling poll numbers, falling flags and more importantly a loss of her sense of invulnerability.  For weeks her attitude and that of many has been that she is the inevitable candidate.  Now suddenly she is just another candidate.

The reasons is that the other democrats are actually treating her as a front runner, one whom them want to stop, which means when she waffles in the debate as she did recently, her behavior is fair game.

And her reaction?

Clinton Regroups As Rivals Pounce

After a rare night of fumbles by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination rushed to maximize the damage yesterday, even as her advisers argued that the "piling on" engaged in by an all-male field of opponents will ultimately drive more female voters into her camp.

Clinton strategists grudgingly acknowledged that the performance in Tuesday's debate in Philadelphia was not her finest and they sought to contain the fallout. They worked to clarify her muddled response to a question about whether she supports giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants -- she backs it, they said -- and quickly produced a video, titled "The Politics of Pile-On," splicing together in rapid-fire fashion her rivals' attacks from the event.

She is playing a dangerous game.  She is carefully walking the line of using her gender as a political tool as she and her husband make comments about "the boys" who are out to get her.  She needs to transcend her gender and make it not an issue, and become the best candidate, not the best woman candidate.  What's more, if she claims to be more qualified being a woman but attacks claims she is less qualified being a woman she straddles hypocrisy.

As Sister Toldjah notes:

There’s been some diversity amongst the reactions amongst liberal feminists as to whether they consider her a victim of a “boys-club” attack or if they view her playing of the victim card as a setback of sorts for the feminist movement. Ben Smith and David Paul Kuhn at The Politico reported yesterday on the mixed reaction from feminists to Hillary’s victim card defense:

One of my all time favorite TV shows is the 80's and 90's sitcom Roseanne.

Roseanne when it came out could have been a portrait of my life.  At the time I was not well off financially, and was dealing with a lot of stress and unhappiness with laughter and sarcasm.

It was one of the first sitcoms to portray what life for most working class people was like:  A struggle with highs and lows. It also, as Roseanne Barr notes in her DVD commentary, clearly showcases the disconnect in class in America.

But.  One of the things I do struggle with is Roseanne herself, the actress, the comedienne and the activist.

I perused her blog and was shocked at how she can flip from crazy to wacky in no time at all.

Here are some examples from Roseanne World.   WARNING:  EXTREME LANGUAGE AHEAD

On Anne Coulter:

Ann Coulter

She serves a purpose, and a part of that is disturbing. When any woman with opinions speaks up - including Anne (the mouthpiece for Aryan womanhood) - she is the victim of verbal sexual assault. Her genitals and sexuality are gleefully insulted: she has an Adam's apple, she likes getting fucked in the ass... This is wrong in any case, even hers. It demeans all women to do it. She can be debated intelligently, and if she would allow me that, I would be honored to do it, as I think she makes some valid points about the failures of the left in this country.

http://www.roseanneworld.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5192

A clear thinking, fair rational piece.  Now flip to:

Ann Coulter's Anti-Semitism

The ultimate state of the perfection of Jews: they are all dead.

This is what is actually in the minds of Bush/Cheney and all Christians of the right who run this country, and ironically, are the major supporters of the state of Israel's ride to ruin which is coming very quickly.

When someone says it right, I see no reason not to give them full credit.

One of my favorite bloggers, is Sister Toldjah.  She has always impressed me with her insight and perspective and this post is no exception.

Her post, in part, deals with another person's experiences at the Annual NOW Conference (which is a worthy read on its own), where they struggled with the concept of making modern feminism attractive to young women (in a workshop no less), and in the process they exposed the feminist movement for what it is:  A complete sham, essentially the spoiled wreckage and shambles of the very worthy woman's suffrage and equality movements.

Why do I feel this is so important?  Because my children will have to live with the consequences of this movement and their skewed and twisted goals, and I think that makes it very relevant.

Thanks again ST.

With no further ado:

A story about the modern day ‘feminist movement’

By Sister Toldjah

It used to be when you talked to a woman and asked her what the definition of feminism was, the general answer would be “equal rights.” Once upon a time, that was exactly what the feminist movement was about - they pushed for the right to vote, equality in the workforce …

Somewhere along the way in the 60’s, when the resurging feminist movement really started gaining momentum, the group splintered between women who wanted to continue to fight for that equality and women who wanted wanted to go even further in order to be ‘liberated’ from society’s ‘constraints’ (like marriage and traditional family, for example - remember the quote commonly attributed to Gloria Steinem: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”?). Women’s libbers of the late 60s and all through the 70’s pushed that theme, and we’re seeing the fruits of their ‘labor’ even today (more people choosing to live together than marry, women ‘choosing’ to be lesbians because men are such ‘oppressors’, children being born out of wedlock, etc). In other words, radical women’s libbers from the era earlier mentioned have essentially been a bane to mature, responsible social culture amongst women.