If I were Chris Matthews

. . .I think I'd be fairly indignant right now, after having been forced to make an abject apology for being insensitive to Hillary Clinton by suggesting that she wouldn't be where she is if her husband hadn't cheated on her.

Of course, Matthews is supposed to maintain some semblance of objectivity -- at least between Democrats -- where Ferraro is acting as a "rogue" campaign shill. Nevertheless, if it's offensive for Matthews to suggest that Hillary is relying on her victimhood to further her career, why is it any less offensive for Ferraro to suggest the same of Obama?

As far as I'm concerned, both sides have ample reason to be angry at one another. In fact, I suspect that they will eventually prove Doug Wilder correct.