Geraldine Ferraro in 2008:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, 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.

Geraldine Ferraro in 1988:

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

First, let’s put aside the obvious ridiculousness of these statements.  Any fifth grade history student could tell you that being black has never been an advantage in American presidential politics, so it’s really not even a point worth dignifying with an argument (as Josh Marshall did so eloquently and unnecessarily over at TPM).

But seeing as how Ferraro seems to be the expert on where people would be under different circumstances, I wonder where she thinks Hillary would be if she hadn’t married Bill.    Because the most undeniable and glaring truth of Hillary Clinton’s entire campaign is that if her last name was anything other than Clinton, she would not be in this position.

Would Hillary Rodham have even mustered a fraction of the organization or the establishment support or the fundraising networks or the nationwide popularity of Hillary Clinton?  Would Hillary Rodham have lost 12 states in a row, fallen behind in delegates to a near mathematical impossibility, and still be considered a viable candidate?  Would a large minority of the Democratic Party be calling to unjustly seat Michigan and Florida or for superdelegates to overthrow the will of the people in order to nominate Hillary Rodham?  Would Hillary Rodham even be a senator?

Nobody’s begrudging Hillary Clinton her lifetime of accomplishments.  You play the hand you’re dealt, and she’s played hers quite well.  But she happens to be very lucky to be who she is.  And if there’s any concept the country is caught up in, it’s a restoration of the Clinton administration.  Which is the problem with Hillary’s supporters making arguments about unearned advantages.