We get what we ask for ...

Or rather, we get what we don't punish.

So, Geraldine Ferraro has been forced to leave for saying almost exactly the same thing that political commentators have been saying throughout the campaign. I can state the following without sounding racist or sexist (I hope.)

The electorate in the country has finally reached a point where we believe that being black, or being a woman, will not mean automatic failure for a candidate. I have seen a voter say (interviewed by national news reporters) "Well, not to sound racist, but I would never vote for a black man for President." Abhorent. But, for the most part, the country does not agree and, furthermore, we believe that the number of people who would make that statement is small enough that a viable black candidate can win.

The same holds for a woman candidate.

Wow! That's great!

So, there are groups of potential voters who have more hope and are more engaged than ever before, because we have excellent candidates who represent these two demographics.

That does not mean that the candidates are garnering support solely because of their race or gender. It does mean that both Obama and Clinton are fortunate to be campaigning now, in 2008 America, rather than in, say 1972 America.

Political pundits have been analyzing the increased interest in this year's election. Some of the interest comes, of course, from the messages being carried by the candidates. No doubt. But it's also true that some of the interest is based on race and gender. And it's apparently OK with the public, and the campaigns, if the media and the person-on-the-street say so.

I ask people to consider this: How different was John Edwards' message from that of Barack Obama. Not very different! Obama is a better speaker, but Edwards is no slouch, and is certainly more personable than Clinton. Part of what makes people believe that Obama will be better at forming uniting the country is the very fact that he has been able to win over white voters. Did Edwards gain from that perception? No. Why not? Because it's assumed -- there's no reason to think his race (white) matters to white voters, and it's assumed that he'd be better than a Republican with black voters. That assumption doesn't gain him any coalition-building points.

Obama, however, had to prove he could appeal to white voters, and he has. Maybe that doesn't make him "lucky." He still had to prove himself. Yet, once he did, he gets a benefit because of that fact. The country has been waiting for a black candidate that can reach across the expected color barrier. Now that they have one, it's easier for them to believe he will reach across other perceived divides.

By the way, Hillary gained from a very similar thing when compared to Edwards. The three of them are so close on issues, it's really Edwards who is unlucky, because of the maturity of the electorate, and the desire for change.

But if someone from a camp says so, they will be vilified. Geraldine Ferraro may not have said it perfectly, but she said something similar.

And this is exactly why we get canned non-responses to questions from public figures. We only hear sound bites, and when we do, if the sound bites can be construed badly, they will be. Hence, the only safe things for public figures to say are rehearsed, innocuous sound bites. And heaven forbid they should actually answer a tough question! No, it must be deflected, because tough questions have complex answers, and complex answers don't fit in sound bites.

Oh, and by the way, the Obama camp knows this as well as the Clinton camp. They played the game the way politicians play it - they let the other side hang themselves. They could have just said "We know what she meant." But in a close race, they acted indignant. Doing so served their purposes.

I'm frustrated with Clinton for trying to push a Clinton/Obama ticket openly -- it was politics as usual. And now I'm frustrated with Obama for his campaign's reaction to the Ferraro comments.

Yes, both candidates will bring change. But not that much change. Politics will always be politics.