Barack Obama did not think Geraldine Ferraro’s comments were racist. He simply thought they were “ridiculous” and “wrong-headed.” And, although wrong-headed is a word he certainly didn’t learn in Harvard Law School, I somewhat agree.

I don’t think Ferraro’s comments paint her as a racist, just an out-of-touch, old woman making a frustrated assessment based on the apparent - race. (I guess that would be "wrong-headed.") Like Ferraro pointed out, yes, blacks did vote overwhelmingly for Obama in Mississippi and other primaries. But, then again, we do tend to vote overwhelmingly for somebody, and that somebody, this time, just happens to be Barack Obama . What Ferraro meant to say is that if Obama had not been black, those black votes would’ve been Hillary’s. That’s really what this discussion is all about. 

Coming from the Clinton camp, Ferraro’s statements did not phase me at all. They seemed par for the course, in line with Bill’s earlier statements, consistent with suggestions Hillary has made, in keeping with the apparent core thinking of this campaign. What has ruffled my feathers, however, has been Ferraro’s passionate defense of her remarks. And, the fact that she continues to speak on the subject, defend herself, and dig a deeper and deeper wound. Consequently, she has turned this around to paint herself as the victim, the press as racist, and added that she is “only stating an obvious truth.” According to Ferraro, there is no other reason why anyone – black or white – would vote for Obama, other than the fact that he is a black man - we are all "caught up in the concept" and want to take part in a "historic first." As I'm hearing this I'm asking, “Is this woman serious?” and Ferraro’s asking (the Obama camp, the media, and scores of offended blacks), “Am I pointing out something that doesn't exist?"

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," Ferraro told the Daily Breeze last week, "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."

 As Barack has explained, there has never been any advantage to being a black male in America. End of story. Using Ferraro's psychology, however, I guess it's safe to say Hillary is where she is because she's a white woman, who happens to be married to a white man...who happened to be the 42nd President of the United States of America. Is there really any other reason why people are voting for her?

I am an African-American and can probably speak for more than a few in my race in stating that I could care less about a “historic first.” Our country needs stark governmental change and I happen to think Barack Obama is the presidential hopeful capable of doing that. The fact that he is black is secondary. There are many black people I would not vote for and, obviously, many whites I have voted for. Trust me, if Clarence Thomas were running for president, I would not be voting for him. If John Edwards were still in the race, and running against Hillary Clinton, I might very well be voting for him. Because they've cozied up to us at a few churches, the Clintons seem to have this expectation that something is owed to them by the blacks. And, frankly, I think Mrs. Clinton is peeved that Obama is getting her votes.

While Ferraro contends that she speaks only for herself and has left the Clinton campaign in order to continue to do so, I believe she has spoken loud and clear for the Clinton campaign: Only a black man – not a white man, nor a woman of any race – could garner those votes that Hillary deems essentially and rightfully hers. This race should’ve been in the bag. This "historic first" belonged to her. In the broad equation, the Clinton campaign sees it no other way.

Misha McGlown is the author of "Manifesting Things: Making Your Way When There Is No Way"