“If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race,” she said.

Really. The cite is an April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available only on Nexis.

Here’s the full context:

Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don’t ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his “radical” views, “if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.”

Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, “Millions of Americans have a point of view different from” Ferraro’s.

Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, “We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I’m making history.”

Ferraro is so sick that she attempts to say whites are attacking her for being white when they criticize her patent racist pandering. Ferraro and Hillary are the penultimate affirmative action candidates based on gender. White women as a group are the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action in this country…yet somehow Ferraro, Hillary and many of their female supporters feel that not only is she entitled to the Presidency based on her gender but they also see nothing wrong with being dismissive of a man who has earned the nomination but happens to be black and thus they assert it is HE who is the affirmative action ‘hire’ and not themselves.

What a total crock.

Ferraro asserts that no white male politician would be where Obama is, yet John Edwards was out their as a candidate for quite a while having been only a one term Senator next to Obama’s political record that was paltry. Hillary is a woman pursuing the same candidacy as Obama even though Ferraro asserted that no woman of any color could have Obama’s same stature. Once again she is wrong. Hillary also has far less to bring to the table as an elected official based on her professional record. Even worse Hillary has no problem using her status as Mrs. Bill Clinton while deriding Obama about being an affirmative action candidate.

The only affirmative action candidate in this Presidential race from the outset was Hillary Rodham Clinton, she has no foreign policy experience and she has been in elected office less time than Obama and not once passed any significant legislation.

I hope Olberman rips both Ferraro and Clinton a need one. He needs to clobber them with the facts on how white females are and continue to be the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action far more so than asians, hispanics and blacks of either gender.

Hillary is the establishment backed candidate. She has more lobbyist money than all the candidates combined both GOP and Dem.She is bought and paid for along with her spouse.

Obama really does represent a break from the lobbyist strangle hold on our government. Which is why he is a threat to the ways of Washington and the power structure of this country necessitating him having a secret service contingency larger than the current President.

Obama is the real deal.

He will be his most vulnerable the night he accepts the nomination.

Security will be exceptionally tight.

I think its a combination of the Conservative News Network being more comfortable with Clinton as president than Obama, as well as a desire to keep the story alive. People are more likely to turn in to their coverage if this is seen as a real race.

Despite North Carolina polls showing Barack Obama carrying 61% to 68% of the state, yesterday John King produced this elaborate chart showing “how Hillary Clinton can win.” In his dream scenario, King had North Carolina going to Hillary Clinton, and totally ignoring the polls that show Barack Obama will carry the North Carolina by a wide margin.

You really have to wonder what is up with CNN? Did the Clintons buy a controlling interest in the network? Or, as many claim, the network is controlled by AIPAC? Or, are they playing the access game?