I feel compelled to reply to “In Our Opinion, Ferraro's legacy leaves work undone,” the editorial in the March 31st issue of your paper.
I do agree that Geraldine Ferraro was a trailblazer who opened a great deal of doors for women. She also made Italian Americans gleefully proud. I also concur that many times women candidates are held up to lesser regard than male candidates.
But neither Miss Ferraro nor any one else, particularly liberals, have any right to claim Sarah Palin was unqualified when, again, the standards are help for some contenders and not others.
Barack Obama was hardly qualified, having served less than a full term as senator. Nor was Hillary Clinton, representing a state she was not from and running solely for the same office her husband held.
Walter Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro not because she was the strongest or most qualified candidate. In 1984 he was well aware that defeating Ronald Reagan was a pipe dream, so he chose the New York congresswoman to add as much spice and vigor to the campaign as possible.
It didn't work, as we know. The ticket lost Ms. Ferraro's state of New York and 48 others. Only Mondale's home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia went Democratic, and the Gopher State was won by a mere 7,000 votes.
A look back at the 2008 election reveals the disparate treatment between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Despite Clinton's lackluster campaign which offered no real vision or plan for America, she was treated with kid gloves and portrayed as a viable candidate with integrity and strength.
Sarah Palin was subject to endless criticism and ridicule, her credentials questioned, and every silly little faux pas from her kindergarten files exposed as evidence of her lack of fitness for the job.
The reasons for that are simple, and have nothing to do with experience or suitability for the job. Hillary Clinton is a liberal, Sarah Palin is conservative. That's the whole story.