Geraldine Ferraro is a historical footnote, a blurb in high school history texts in the chapters that the students never get through because of the constraints of the school year. Although it’s regrettable that the average adolescent enters college without a semblance of world events after the Marshall Plan, it’s not particularly disastrous that there’s a lack of recognition of Ferraro. Making a big to-do about her being the only female vice presidential candidate to date is like lauding the Hamburglar for being the only mongoloid kleptomaniac in McDonaldland. She and her running mate Walter Mondale were crushed by the Reagan tide and resigned to the backlog of modern American History. Of course it’s unfair to punish the little guys (or gals) solely on the basis circumstances like these, but Ferraro’s beige Congressional and political record speaks for itself.

So, when Ferraro made her recent comments about Barack Obama, my first reaction was, “why are people getting their underwear in a knot over this?” I will hazard to assert that even the most ardent Democrat under the age of 40 had no clue who she was prior to this news breaking yesterday. Although the media will box the clown on this story for at least three days, this isn’t the first time someone in Hillary Clinton’s campaign camp has made a prickly comment about Obama’s success deriving from his race. Clinton’s own husband stated in the wake of her defeat in South Carolina that another prominent black man (Jesse Jackson) had won the state back in 1984 and his campaign went nowhere from there. It was essentially the same reasoning put forth by Ferraro, only Clinton veiled it with a honed political reflex for minimizing blowback.

There are several points to make here beyond the ejaculation of outrage that has ensued. First, Barack Obama is just as much a white man as he is a black man. He was born to a white mother and an African father. Thus, Ferraro’s assertion makes little sense unless she’s bringing ethnic purity into the mix — an argument which would be far more detestable to most than simply lobbing a cheap racial softball. Second, one could just as easily make the case that Hillary Clinton would have polled lower than Bill Richardson if she had a.) been a man, or b.) not been married to a former president. Although this point could very well be made in the future histories, it’s insulting to her supporters in the confines of the race itself. I don’t think many will dispute the claim that Obama’s mixed race contributed heavily to his success in the campaign. Just take the example of yesterday’s Mississippi primary in which almost 90% of black voters chose Obama over Clinton while only 25% of whites did. Regardless of the pertinence of the argument, Ferraro was wrong to make such an assertion at this point in time. It is belittling to the American voter to claim that they’re somehow too stupid to not instinctively vote for a candidate of their own race, creed, or gender. It’s not an affront to Obama, it’s an affront to those who vote for him.

The main question is: why do Hillary Clinton’s acolytes continue to make such remarks? In the end, all assertions to the tune of “candidate B is only here because of reason C” are petty, moot, and fail to produce the desired effect. I don’t see how Ferraro believed this could possibly help Clinton’s campaign, but it seems reasonable to state that Clinton would be better off if she made a public declaration months ago warning supporters not to emulate her husband’s South Carolina gaffe. At the very least it would rescue already marginal public figures from self-inflicted stains on posterity and save us all from having to endure the ensuing parade of allegations, apologies, and analyses.

Leave it to history, Geraldine.