Every attack and counterattack of the Democratic Primary campaign is viewed through the conceptual prism of political correctness run amok. Each candidate has, at one time or another, accused the other of insensitivity to the racial and gender commandments of hurt feelings and tender sensibilities. Although it would be beneficial and enlightening, don't look for an intellectually honest conversation about race and gender In this stifling environment.

For her part, Hillary has played the gender card consistently.  Although he hasn't run as a black candidate, Obama's candidacy is very much about race. His silent plea, that needs no overt expression among his supporters, is that his election (as an African-American) will offer white America redemption for the sins of slavery. Against this reality, how are we to judge the recent comments of Geraldine Ferraro that, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) 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."

Why is this comment deemed offensive by the Obama campaign? Is there any truth to the statements Ferraro made? Amongst all of the Democratic Party's  constituent groups, which one has a superior moral claim on the office of the presidency? The first woman candidate or the first African-American candidate?

Whether they intended it or not, the candidates through the The Democratic nomination race is starting to degenerate into an affirmative-action duel. It's as if each candidate —especially through their respective surrogates — are shouting at each other: My claim of entitlement has greater authority and urgency than yours!

The painful reality of the Democratic nomination race is that both Hillary and Obama have incredibly thin resumes upon which they can use to justify their qualifications for the presidency. What do they have to fall back on? What they fall back upon is the dictates of their party's underlying philosophy of aggrievement and identity politics.

This is why an interesting sub-text to the nomination contest has evolved and which will serve as the primary justification for the nomination for each of the candidates. It will surpass the bantering about which of the two is more qualified or which of the two candidates has the more relevant experience to fill the role of commander-in-chief. Since neither candidate is remotely qualified nor has any substantive experience in an executive capacity, the criterion for adjudicating between the two will largely rest on who must wait in line to avail themselves of the spoils of a gender and race-based politics. Thus, The question can no longer be who is better qualified, but rather who can best  fill the role as symbolic leader of the cult of the perpetually aggrieved?

For Hilary it is her gender; for Obama it is the promise of transcendence and Hope. But for both of these candidates, there is also another factor at play: the utilization of the The Democratic primary race has turned into a contentious struggle between it's aging feminist wing and the diversity/multiculturalist bloc.

What we are witnessing is the ramifications of a political philosophy predicated to a large degree on hypersensitivity, victimization, entitlement and that for the past thirty years has encouraged grievous-mongering, indeed, viewed it as a political virtue. The irony in all this, of course, is that when the natural object of all this silliness were the evil Republicans the proselytization of this philosophy was encouraged. However, it was never envisioned by party elites that the bludgeon of entitlement grievances would be used as an effective weapon against each other in an internecine, intra-party squabble over who should get the nomination.

But that is precisely what is occurring. Since there is room for only one person at the top the ticket, the natural inclination, especially for Hillary, is to play the entitlement angle, which for her, is based solely on gender, to her advantage. What is clear, is that through her surrogates, Hillary is claiming that she was next in line to grab the affirmative action brass ring and the impudent Obama should wait his turn. Both can't lay claim to the entitlement prize simultaneously.

The main beneficiaries of affirmative-action policies over the past thirty years have been white women and African-Americans. So who should yield to whom in the race for the Democratic nomination? The race for the nomination within the Democratic Party, increasingly is starting to resemble an acrimonious divorce: in the end, by the very nature of the proceedings, no one is going to be satisfied.