Lying down with dogs

Geraldine Ferraro, please shut up.

The first link there is to the Daily Breeze article in which former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro said this:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "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."

Being black in America is all win, see? There's no downside. No obstacles to overcome. No Bradley effect. Nothing but benefit. Racism? A thing of the past. White people wish they had it so good.

At best that's monumentally ignorant, at worst it's blatantly racist crap. Either way, it's indefensible. And unspinnable.

Yet there's a whole lot of spinnin' goin' on.

The first line of spin defense is that this was an ad hoc comment, taken out of context, made during an informal interview with a small-circulation paper in off-the-beaten-path Torrance, Calif.

Except no, it wasn't. The Daily Breeze interview was last week. This is a shtick, a bit, a scripted piece of boilerplate that Ferraro's been rehearsing and refining much longer than that.

The second link above is to the audio of Ferraro saying the same thing -- nearly verbatim -- on right-wing radio host John Gibson's show in February:

"John, between me and you and your millions of listeners, if Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this as a potential real problem for Hillary?"

Gibson -- John Gibson of Fox News -- suggests that this sounds like she just "playing the race card" and Ferraro responds that she's just telling "the truth" because "you know how honest I am."

This we've heard before, a thousand times. The boasting of courageous honesty from someone unafraid to tippy-toe around with politically correct niceties, preferring instead the unvarnished honesty of asserting that black people are "very lucky" to enjoy all the privileges that come with being black in America.

In that third link above, Will Bunch explains the target audience for this shtick: the Archie Bunker demographic. The fourth link looks at Ferraro's attempts to defend her comments when she got called on this stuff -- which includes her complaints of "reverse racism" and other wretched silliness.

It's possible to view this all in the abstract and thus to draw a distinction between pandering to the bigotry of racist voters in order to win an election and actually sharing the beliefs of those racist voters. I'm just not sure that such an abstract distinction really matters in the real world.

A bit of history: In 1988, Michael Dukakis' primary strategy relied on his being the last white guy left against Jesse Jackson, which he gambled (correctly, if not admirably) would ensure him the nomination. You'll recall how that worked out for him come the general election.

Comments

[M Groesbeck]

Unless there's another Torrance, CA, that's also hardly "off the beaten path" -- to anyone not from the area, it's just "part of Los Angeles." It's not only part of the immediate LA metro area, it borders on LA proper. Probably not the best place to be complaining about the poor oppressed white people, really.

[pat greene]

I was so disappointed in Ferraro. I used to respect her.

This sort of crap is so damaging.

[mcc]

A bit of history: In 1988, Michael Dukakis' primary strategy relied on his being the last white guy left against Jesse Jackson, which he gambled (correctly, if not admirably) would ensure him the nomination.

And incidentally, do you know what Ferraro's take on the subject was at the time?

"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race." -- Geraldine A. Ferraro, 1988

bye, Fred.

[not_scottbot]

Nice to see that the mainstream Deomcratic establishment, after floundering around for a couple of decades, has finally been able to develop its own southern strategy. Jesse Helms is unlikely to have stated the case any better than this quote - "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

Well, Geraldine Ferraro, I think that is more of the typical racist America I am used to than most people are willing to admit. And when will you be telling us about how the fact that Hillary Clinton is a big advantage, because if Hillary was just a man, no one would care about her?

But maybe I should cut Ferraro some slack - after all, being born in 1935, she probably thinks the words 'colored' or 'negro' are proper ways to refer to anyone so unfortunate as to be born with the wrong skin color - wonder when she will say Obama is a 'credit to his race' instead of someone pretending to be above his station. Not that I am holding my breath.

[Ryan]

If you read the first two sentences of that quote out of context, you could get a very different idea of the position...

[Turcano]

Yeah, and then she is shocked, shocked, that the Obama campaign finds her remarks racist.

"How can these people call me racist? All I did was say that the only reason people vote for Obama is 'cause he's a black guy! And I said the exact same thing about Jesse Jackson! How can that possibly be construed as racism?"

[Jesurgislac]

And when will you be telling us about how the fact that Hillary Clinton is a big advantage, because if Hillary was just a man, no one would care about her?

Is it possible that you have managed to miss the many commentators who claim that Hillary Clinton is only in the race because of the years she put her career on hold being Bill Clinton's wife? This campaign has been characterized by sexism towards Clinton and racism towards Obama; the racism is more noticeable because less culturally acceptable, but both candidates have been getting it.

[not_scottbot]

Speaking as an American which grew up in a commonwealth where the Supreme Court ruled that God separated the races when defending the banishment of a married couple, one where 'massive resistance' was practiced (interesting reading, by the way - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_resistance), and where the first black governor in American history was elected, trust me, racism is not only more culturally acceptable in America (at least among whites, in the America I grew up and worked in - especially for those now older than 40), it is about the last card Hillary Clinton has left in her deck.

The same way that it was pretty much the last card left in the Republican deck in the 1960s - a fact recognized by LBJ at the time, who essentially predicted that the Democratic party would lose the south for a generation because of his passage of the Civil Rights act. (Which he signed into law anyways, to his credit.) And since the Republicans are sure to use the race card, why shouldn't the Clintons (or their surrogates) do it first?

Quite honestly, what is happening now is an attempt to show how Obama can't be elected. This was to be expected by the party that perfected the southern strategy, who doesn't want him elected - shame to see it happen from within the party that was that strategy's target in the past.

And to make one thing clear - I have never voted for a Democratic nor a Republican candidate in my life, and never will. Both are bankrupt swamps of self-interested corruption, which is why something like the German Green party (its pacifism comes to mind as an attribute sorely lacking in America) is so urgently needed in the U.S. However, one thing that both parties can always, without exception, be trusted to agree on is making certain that only the two parties share institutional power - the occasional independent candidate that wins is generally little more than window dressing to show that even in America, democracy works.

Laugh all you want.

The Bush I, Clinton I, Bush II, and potential Clinton II power centers can sincerely agree that power in their hands is better than power in someone else's. Regardless of what it takes to retain that power. There was certainly enough evidence of Iran-Contra lying around to throw Bush I into jail for the rest of his life for any president that cared to look for it, but Clinton proved that he could be trusted with the political fortunes of the Bush clan. Let's face it, Bush II could be facing some truly serious charges if he doesn't follow the family ratline down to Paraguay, if not assured of the same treatment that Bush I received.

I miss all kinds of commentators at this point - generally, the level of actual insight is about as high as the level of factual content in American news - essentially, nothing. (Propaganda molding public opinion doesn't interest me that much.) You can get more facts of the world in 3 minutes of hourly German radio news for the 12-30 year old demographic than you will watching 3 hours of American news. And this observation is based on watching news in DC in 2006, during my last visit - in the past, the quality of news in the nation's capital was much higher than what one found in other cities. That is no longer true - or the level in the rest of America is horrific.

Which, by the way, is the universal opinion of every German who speaks English after they returned from an American trip in the last few years. One of the more consistent and amazed observations was how could America be fighting a war in Iraq without any news reports mentioning it for days at a stretch - they simply could not conceive of this. Make your own conclusions.

I don't think non-Americans (Andrew Sullivan is just one of the more notable examples of this) have any feeling for what race means in America. It is changing, which is just another example of the generational split between Obama and his opponents, but it is still a powerful tool in the hands of those despicable enough to wield it.

Let me put it this way - Hillary will never be stopped driving herself in an expensive car in a well-off suburban neighborhood. If Obama isn't stopped doing the same, many of the residents of that well-off neighborhood will complain that the police have not been doing a proper job. And few of those residents will consider themselves racists, because they are just being prudent.

[Yawzoa]

Is it possible that you have managed to miss the many commentators who claim that Hillary Clinton is only in the race because of the years she put her career on hold being Bill Clinton\'s wife? This campaign has been characterized by sexism towards Clinton

Why is that worse than claiming GWB only got where he was by being GHWB\'s son?

[Jesurgislac]

Because George W. Bush got a cushy berth in the military, got to desert from the military without legal action being taken, got to drift through Yale as a cheerleader, run a string of failed oil companies, not be prosecuted for insider trading, become state governor of Texas and then be appointed President of the United States, solely because of who his father was.

Whereas Hillary Clinton got into Yale on her own merits, graduated on her own merits - no "gentleman's C" for her - was Congressional legal counsel, partner at Rose Law Firm, listed as one of the one hundred most influential lawyers in America in 1988 and 1991, and was elected as senator for New York State after taking a step back from her legal and political career to work as First Lady for her husband's political career.

So anyone who claims Hillary Clinton is only a Senator today because of her husband is an ignorant sexist asshole, which is a whole universe of worse than being an observant, aware person who knows the facts about George W. Bush's life as a distinguished man's unsuccessful son and his markedly unsuccessful "career" in which he was perpetually being bailed out by his father's friends and business connections.

Whereas

[magistra]

You can perfectly well say that Hillary Clinton is a very clever and talented woman and still say she is not a good politician. Politics, as many of those who got to the top of the tree have shown, requires particular skills which are not necessarily correlated with intelligence or even judgement. In particular, a successful politician needs the ability to win over the electorate to support them, and the ability once in government to make deals to get their policies implemented effectively. Which is why, whatever you may think of Tony Blair, he was a more successful politician than, say, Gordon Brown is so far.

Hillary Clinton as a politician has not achieved much: she failed on her healthcare proposals and her record in legislation as a senator is unimpressive. Her campaigning in this election has also not been impressive, in my opinion: she has been unable to give a convincing reason as to why she is the best candidate, her organisation has been poor, and her campaign has resorted to negativity too often. On that basis, she is not a good politician, whatever her other merits, and she does not deserve to win the nomination. The fact that she may be considerably better than George W. is a fairly low standard to aim for.

[Yawzoa]

Because George W. Bush got a cushy berth in the military, got to desert from the military without legal action being taken

Hillary, as a woman, wasn\'t draftable during Vietnam. Bill never served in combat either. Kerry, however, had a fair beef against the above.

and was elected as senator for New York State after taking a step back from her legal and political career to work as First Lady for her husband\'s political career.

Her family ties helped her in that race as much as GWBs helped him become governor of the second largest state in the Union. She pushed another woman who had paid her dues in that state out of her way to get the nomination.

markedly unsuccessful \"career\" in which he was perpetually being bailed out by his father\'s friends and business connections

So the Clintons (as a married couple, they share finances) made no crooked money at all off her connections?

Jesurgislac, is Hillary responsible for the racism of her spokespeople?

[Yawzoa]

Because George W. Bush got a cushy berth in the military, got to desert from the military without legal action being taken

Hillary, as a woman, wasn\'t draftable during Vietnam. Bill never served in combat either. Kerry, however, had a fair beef against the above.

and was elected as senator for New York State after taking a step back from her legal and political career to work as First Lady for her husband\'s political career.

Her family ties helped her in that race as much as GWBs helped him become governor of the second largest state in the Union. She pushed another woman who had paid her dues in that state out of her way to get the nomination.

markedly unsuccessful \"career\" in which he was perpetually being bailed out by his father\'s friends and business connections

So the Clintons (as a married couple, they share finances) made no crooked money at all off her connections?

Jesurgislac, is Hillary responsible for the racism of her spokespeople?

[Yawzoa]

The \"crooked money\" link above:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/release-the-t-3.html

My browser seems to be eating the link I posted.

[Jesurgislac]

Magistra: The fact that she may be considerably better than George W. is a fairly low standard to aim for.

*laughs* True! Also that she would be a better President than John McCain - it's true but it's damning with faint praise.

I was watching some episodes from the last season of the West Wing recently, and it does occur to me that with Yawzoa I shouldn't have accepted the premise of the question, as Santos and McGarry kept saying.

[John]

The Democrats apparently are either racists or misogynists. Isn't Identity Politics great? But hey, don't let me stop the fun. We've got more than five weeks left in the Democratic Primary Death Match. Pass the popcorn.

[not_scottbot]

'So anyone who claims Hillary Clinton is only a Senator today because of her husband....'

To be honest, I thought a good number of people thought she is a senator despite of her husband, not because of it, though there are a lot of different opinions swirling around, it seems. Quite honestly, the Clintons have never really interested me that much, bad or good - weak moderate Republicans are generally the most boring political figures imaginable, and Clinton's time in office was much like Blair's or Schröder's - full of empty rhetoric combined with concrete policy that was generally associated with a moderately right/conservative perspective. New Labour was just a modern Tory front in the same fashion Clinton was a moderate Republican.

One thing that I have never understood is the hatred against the Clintons, except for a few narrow groups who could object to concrete actions (having a commander in chief who wanted "to maintain my political viability within the system." while not serving his commitment to the military is why Colonel Jones said .... "If you read the letter, it's pretty obvious why I kept it.")

That hatred against the Clintons exists, and certainly, sexism plays a major role in how Hillary Clinton is treated. But then, my first two bosses (the head of a bookstore, and an editor at a faculty newspaper - not to mention her boss, the VP of public relations) were all women, so the idea of women being in charge isn't outside of my experience. But having a black male with two decades of seniority over me would certainly be a surprise - Virginia wasn't interested in hiring blacks for any job which involved managing anyone, especially anyone white, until the 1970s or so.

America is a large nation, and my experiences are of the Northern Virginia of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, a time of fairly major transition. A time when it finally became possible for a black person to actually walk along a public sidewalk in Vienna without fear for being in the wrong part of town without a reason - house cleaning being about the only reason that was acceptable.

I went to kindergarten at Louise Archer - here is a little history about it -
'Q: Was it called Louise Archer then?
A: No, it was called the Vienna Colored School, and the people wanted to change the name and he (Woodson?) would not agree. They wanted to change the name in '48. Now in 1948 when Q: went there the (Black) people had bought 7 acres of land on which the new school was constructed. And to their surprise, after they bought the land, they had to deed it to the county - (a requirement) which they were not aware of. So that made them doubly angry.'

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/faculty_archives/principalship/r/155robinson.html - a less than well formatted transcript

Notice that the black citizens of Vienna, VA had to buy their own land to have their own school - in 1948. And then deed it to the county that hadn't bothered to provide them a school, and which wouldn't let them name it.

But let's keeping reading -
'Now, when integration came, Paul West (?) come in, bringing in a team into the office, and sat down and said. "We are here for one purpose--and that is to see that things work smoothly. We do not want our children" --meaning their children-- "to come up in any ugliness."

My memories of the first time of going to Louise Archer in kindergarten was how new everything was - which was true. And a little commentary on that 5 year old's observation -
'Right, as compared to before the integration.
A: Well, I would compare it in this manner: It was a continuation of what existed back then, but it had more stuff because it had more people and people who had power than these people did then.'

If anyone bothers to actually read the transcript, the name W.T. Woodson crops up quite a bit - my high school was named after him. And much to his pride, I'm sure, as during my school years, the student body only had a couple of black students out of an enrollment of 1800 or so. 900 hundred of them white women, by the way, many who then acquired fairly decent jobs in the federal government, doctoral degrees, etc.

After all, white girls went to the same school as white boys - it was only blacks that had to buy land for their own school, you see. But maybe 1948 is too long ago for you? Please, keep reading.

If you are not American, and didn't live in that time, you won't easily understand how women have always rated above black men in the ranking scale of American society. Always - notice that the name of the formerly 'colored' school was named after its black female principal.

I won't go on too much longer - but check out how 'boy' is used in America, or why black men are so often referred to by their first name. Things change, but the slowly draining cesspit of race in America in my lifetime makes sexism look pretty mild in comparison - unless a group of people in white hoods have been burning crosses on Hillary's lawn any time in the last 50 years, because she is an uppity woman who doesn't know her place. Or dynamiting her church - with kids in it. Or attacking her with dogs as she marched on a public street demanding her rights under a Constitution that once classified her as worth 3/5 of a white citizen - in part, due to the tireless work of such leading figures of freedom as James Madison (his own slaveholding probably had nothing to do with his views).

Or how about these lyrics from the Virginia state song (now emeritus) -
'There's where the old darke'ys heart am long'd to go,
There's where I labored so hard for old massa,
Day after day in the field of yellow corn'

However, my state did at least have the decency to do this - 'As a practical matter, though, the state had not had a state song for more than twenty years, since "Carry Me Back" had rarely been played at public events.' That's right, the first black elected governor in American history probably did not have to listen about how happy a darky slave was working in the fields for old massa.
http://www.virginia.gov/song/history.html

But if you have any good counter examples in the last 30 years, for example of Thatcher or Pelosi being serenaded with some official song detailing the glories of female subjugation, please, do share.

[Praline]

If Obama wasn't black he wouldn't be where he is?

And if my auntie had wheels she'd be a bus.

Of course Obama's race has been a factor in his life. So has his gender. So have his circumstances. So has his family. So has his education. So has his ability. So has his personality. Change anything about the man and you have a different man.

It's not as if his race has overcome a lack of fitness for the post, the way Bush's weath overcame his lack of fitness for, well, anything much. Obama's perfectly able to be a senator and presidential candidate. So what's the point of mentioning his race at all? Of course it's part of who he is, and so what?

Incidentally, do people keep calling him 'black'? Because you could just as easily call him 'white'. The man is mixed race.

[Rosina]

Thatcher or Pelosi being serenaded with some official song detailing the glories of female subjugation

No, but we should reintroduce the fourth verse:

Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.

Only rebellious ones, of course - most of the Scots at Culloden were on Hanoverian side.

[alison]

Fred, I've been a long-time lurker on your site, and have always loved your insights. So, imagine my surprise to find that I can't go down the road with you on this post-at least not all the way.
The omitted part of Ferraro's statement was that the country was "caught up in the concept." I gather that the concept that she was referring to was that of Obama as the agent of change and partisan reconciliation. I gather this because that seems to be the central theme of his campaign.After the past eight years, these are themes we are hungry to hear.

But:
Would we be paying so much attention to Obama's shtick if it were coming out of a white man's mouth? In other words, how much does his identity as a black man, who we assume knows first-hand what it is like to be an outsider in the power structure,influence our view of him as a credible reformer?
I dunno the answer to these questions. For the record, I don't believe that Obama got to be a senator and presidential candidate merely by being black. I don't think that Ferraro thinks that either. Like all of the candidates, he is an accomplished individual, with brains and ability. But he's also a politician, and as a politician, I can't help but believe that he's not above exploiting his advantages wherever he can find them. Same goes for Hillary, same goes for McCain. If being black contributes to his persona as a champion of reform, it only seems logical that his campaign would want to silence anyone who threatened this vision by hollering racist.
What makes this such a handy strategy is the reality that we have lived in a racist society for a long time, and it has infected all of us. And I do mean all of us. Like Denzel Washington's character said in Glory, "we all caught up in it, ain't none of us clean." I suspect that we are so ashamed of that we tend to see lurking racism behind speculation about potential effects of race in any human interaction. The biggest surprise here is that, as a veteran politician herself, Ferraro seems surprised that the Obama camp is making hay with this.

[Cowboy Diva]

Have you all forgotten John Edwards, with all the complaining about the fact that it was a (rich) white male pushing progressive stances on the issues in the campaign?
Clinton and Obama, at least within the Democratic Party, can be seen as moderates. Within the country at large, they apparently can only be seen as minorities.
and Praline, mixed race (anything from parents with ancestry from different continents to parents with ancestry from say, Ireland and Italy) in the US is a weird thing; for the most part if someone decides you look "other," then you are treated as such.

[Becky]

This campaign has been characterized by sexism towards Clinton and racism towards Obama; the racism is more noticeable because less culturally acceptable, but both candidates have been getting it.

This is entirely true. But the key difference is that the sexist attacks on Clinton have been from the media and from random right-wing groups, while some of the racist attacks on Obama have been from Clinton's campaign and/or her associates. (Ferraro, Andrew Cuomo's "shuck and jive" comment, etc.) Off the top of my head, I cannot recall a sexist attack on Clinton by anyone affiliated with Obama's campaign.

[rizzo]

Just wanted to point out that Ferraro also stated she never would have been a candidate for VP if she wasn't a woman. She's not being racist, she's speaking the truth the way she sees it. Part of the reason Obama is such a strong contender for the candidacy certainly is because he is (part)black. It's not the entire reason, but it's ignorant to say his race has no bearing whatsoever on his success thus far. Can you honestly say that his message of change would be taken as seriously if he were an old white guy that'd been an inside the Beltway politician for the last 35 years? I don't think so. I'll go so far as to say that part of the reason I'm going to be voting for him in the PA primary is because he is black. I guess you could construe that as racism...positive racism, maybe?

[Spherical Time]

not_scottbot: If you are not American, and didn't live in that time, you won't easily understand how women have always rated above black men in the ranking scale of American society.

I am American, I didn't live in that time, but I don't know if ranking as well kept property rates better than a savage human.

All of your other points are valid, but women have had a hard time in American society as well. Last I heard, they still got paid about 71 cents for the same jobs that men get paid $1.00 for. They're seriously underrepresented in management positions, both public and private sector, also.

It doesn't really matter to me which minority is more oppressed when I go vote for the democrat that I think would be a better president. I'm not going to make my choice on anything other than their personal attributes.

[Jesurgislac]

Rosina: No, but we should reintroduce the fourth verse:

Absolutely! It means the Scots can insist on singing "O Flower of Scotland", which has a much better tune and much less servile lyrics:
But we can still rise now
And be the nation again
That stood against him
Proud Edward's army
And sent him homeward
Tae think again

[hapax]

I certainly carry no water for the overt race-baiting in Ferraro's remarks. Whether or not you can parse them to be technically "true", nudge nudge wink wink, anyone who lives in this here US of A knows *exactly* what she was saying. It's a blatant appeal to that same racist sense of aggrieved entitlement that whines against affirmative action as "quotas" and anti-bias laws as "discrimination" and that Jesse Helms encapsulated so brilliantly in his campaign against Harvey Gantt decades ago: the ad that showed a white male hand crumpling up a rejection letter while the voice-over intoned: "You wanted that job. You needed that job. But they gave that job to a MINORITY."

I really do not want to play the "who has it worse, women or minorities" game, But I can't let this pass:

not-scottbot check out how 'boy' is used in America, or why black men are so often referred to by their first name. Things change, but the slowly draining cesspit of race in America in my lifetime makes sexism look pretty mild in comparison

Says the person who claims NOT to be scottbot, yet referred to Clinton by HER first name in all his postings. Tell that to me, who is still consistently referred to as a "girl", without ANY self-consciousness or apology; who barely rates a first name, instead usually being called "honey" or "sweetie" by total strangers. No, I've never had a cross burned on my lawn, thank God.

But I (and almost ALL the women I know) have experienced, and is continuously conscious of, the threat of sexual violence against me and my daughter that is not only not prosecuted, but is tolerated and even celebrated in the mainstream society.

At least the "cesspool of racism" IS draining, albeit way too slowly. The fetid swamp of misogyny, not so much.

[Robb]

Of course Obama's race has been a factor in his life. So has his gender. So have his circumstances. So has his family. So has his education. So has his ability. So has his personality. Change anything about the man and you have a different man.

I totally agree - if he held all the same views & had the same oratory power, but if his name were Barry Olderhaus or whatever instead, he'd still be in the lead. The man was shaped by race, sure, but everything else that has made the man has made him.

Call me an asshole misogynist, but I think Ferraro's statement is (when applied to Hillary Clinton) doubly true. Yes, she has worked hard as a woman in her career, and she has pioneered for women, but as a presidential candidate, I think she's been heavily buoyed because she's a woman.

I see it this way: if Henry Clinton, Bill's cousin and former Secretary of oh I dunno, let's say State, who had a high profile as part of that administration, had go on to become a Senator then presidential candidate, would he be in the place that he was? How well would "Henry" Clinton have stood out against Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, and (the hypothetically white) Barack Obama/Barry Olberhaus? Clinton's views & positions are rather moderate for a Dem, and if both Obama & Clinton were white men, I think it would be a toss up between Edwards & Obama by now.

[mom de plume]

Two words, Robb dollin':

****Bobby Kennedy*****.

[Josh]

Nice flame-bait Fred :)

one question
This we've heard before, a thousand times. The boasting of courageous honesty from someone unafraid to tippy-toe around with politically correct niceties, preferring instead the unvarnished honesty of asserting that black people are "very lucky" to enjoy all the privileges that come with being black in America.

I don't really disagree with your analysis of this particular situation, but I don't think the claim that "race affects a politician's hopes for election, and in some areas of the country it is beneficial to be African-American" is the same thing as saying "black people have it better than white people in America".

[Izzy]

Alison: I dunno about this "we" thing. Although I'm probably going to vote for Obama, and I like a lot of his ideas, his whole reconciliation-and-compromise approach makes me a little nervous. In most cases, yeah, it's a good thing. But there are some stances and factions, especially in the Republican party, with which I absolutely don't think we should compromise. At all. Ever. I hope he has the discernment to see as much.

And, honestly, I think he might have the discernment, in part, because he *is* a member of a historically disenfranchised minority, and he knows the damage that certain forms of "compromise" can do. Where as a white man playing the let's-all-get-along card would make me suspicious: is he a Lieberman conservative-in-disguise sort? Certainly it's possible for Obama to be as well--but coming from the perspective he does, I think it's less likely.

It's weird. I don't believe in voting for someone because hey, he's black or she's female and it will Prove A Point. (And I am, for the record, going to punch the next person who accuses me of betraying my own reproductive system by not voting for Hillary.) But I *do* think that such a background can give someone valuable perspective: that, to paraphrase some Eric Flint novel, there's an advantage to having a President who might be a little more aware than Joe Whitebread that America wasn't always a Blessed Land of Perfect Freedom and Equality for everyone.

[Jesurgislac]

Robb: I think Ferraro's statement is (when applied to Hillary Clinton) doubly true.

Asshole misogynist.

Actually, I'd rather call you a taxi.

I see it this way: if Henry Clinton, Bill's cousin and former Secretary of oh I dunno, let's say State, who had a high profile as part of that administration, had go on to become a Senator then presidential candidate, would he be in the place that he was?

If Hillary were Henry Rodham, high-powered lawyer and senior in the Clinton administration, in his second term as Senator Rodham of New York State, would he be a successful Democratic nominee?

Who can say? As with Obama's life experience, everything that has happened to Hillary Rodham Clinton has made her what she is. Maybe without the grinding force of misogyny and sexism Henry Rodham would just have been one more talented lawyer. Certainly he would never have been subjected to the abuse and accusations that Hillary Rodham Clinton got - nor, I suspect, whatever Henry's feelings for Bill Clinton, would Bill have married Henry.

[Jesurgislac]

Spherical Time: I am American, I didn't live in that time, but I don't know if ranking as well kept property rates better than a savage human.

And did you notice how Scott/scott-bot/not-scott-bot's argument keeps black women completely invisible?

His argument "women have always rated above black men in the ranking scale of American society" - is arguably true for white women, though it's an "arguably true" that demonstrates a wilful ignorance of how the "superior" status of white women was used to threaten and disempower white women.

It is untrue for black women, who have always been got at by both misogyny and racism, to an extent that many black women have felt that the feminist movement in the US did not include them: Alice Walker proposed "womanist" as a term for black women working for equality.

[Tonio]

Ferraro's statements about both Jackson and Obama suggests that she still harbors some resentment over how the Republicans treated her in the 1984 election. While such resentment would be understandable, it doesn't justify her belittling the barriers that blacks still face in America. Similarly, if Jackson was still resentful over his treatment in 1988, he would not be justified if he claimed that Clinton was in the race only because she was a woman.

[Robb]

If Hillary were Henry Rodham, high-powered lawyer and senior in the Clinton administration, in his second term as Senator Rodham of New York State, would he be a successful Democratic nominee?

That's exactly my point - remove the fact that Hillary is a woman, remove all the misogyny she's been subjected to, remove her intimate connection to a former President, and examine her for just her views, positions, charisma, and demonstrated leadership characterisics, and what do we have?

A less charasmatic John Edwards.

I think Hillary should be applauded for all the shit she's been put through, but it annoys me that so many support her primarily because she's a woman. I can't tell you how many times I've heard interviews with Hillary supporters who say "I think it's time we had a woman in the white house" or something along those lines. I think she stands for a lot of good things, and there are plenty of reasons to vote for her, but her posession of 2 X chromasomes doesn't make her a good leader.

I've heard less "It's time for a brutha in the White House" talk, but that bothers me just as much, as does the equally racist notion that there should only be a WASP Man President. [insert lame superhero "WaspMan" joke here]

[DummyPlug]

Rizzo sayz:
Can you honestly say that his message of change would be taken as seriously if he were an old white guy that'd been an inside the Beltway politician for the last 35 years?

Probably not... but not because he was white or old, but because he was an insider for 35 years. Most of those aren't too keen on change.

Also, I wasn't aware that Obama was not only black, but also old (is 46 old?) and a Beltway insider for 35 years. If your gonna ask an hypothetical question, try changing only on variable at a time.

I can honestly say that his message of change would be taken as seriously (at least by me) if he was a 46 year old white guy that's been inside the Beltway as long as Obama was (about what? a decade?).

[damnedyankee]

The thing about Ferraro's comments that galled me is that she seemed to be using the existence of sexism to justify racism. And the fact that the Clinton campaign could barely be bothered to refute Ferraro's words (compared and contrasted with the hoops the Obama campaign had to jump through when Louis Farrakhan offered his unasked-for endorsement) tells me that Samantha Powers should be exonerated, rehired, and possibly given a bonus. Apparently she was right on the money about Senator Clinton.

Anybody having doubts about the great gift Ferraro has handed the Right should re-read John's post above.

[Jesurgislac]

Robb: That's exactly my point - remove the fact that Hillary is a woman, remove all the misogyny she's been subjected to, remove her intimate connection to a former President, and examine her for just her views, positions, charisma, and demonstrated leadership characterisics, and what do we have?

I have no idea. Nor do you. You do not know what Henry Rodham's views, positions, and charisma would be, because what you're saying is "Hey, if Hillary had had a completely different life and slightly different genes, would he be exactly the same person?" Ans: No. The only thing we can say about the imagined Henry Rodham is that he wouldn't be viciously attacked for being ambitious, intelligent, charismatic, and demonstrating leadership characteristics - unless, of course, he were the declared Democratic nominee running against a Republican nominee who had none of the above but did have Karl Rove.

[Cowboy Diva]

sigh. Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony come to mind, with Anthony feeling betrayed by Douglass.

oh, and Sojourner Truth at the 1851 (!) Women's Convention with her "Ain't I a Woman?" speech.

[damnedyankee]

"What if Obama was white?"

"What if Clinton was male?"

Yeah, and let's just add "What if Spider-Man joined the Fantastic Four?" to the list while we're at it. It has about as much relevance.

[Geds]

and demonstrating leadership characteristics

Just out of sheer, unadulterated curiosity, what leadership characteristics would those be?

I actually liked Clinton a hell of a lot more before this campaign began and would have been far more likely to vote for her as President a year ago than I am today (the fact that she'd be running against McCain in the general notwithstanding, I ain't voting for him so I'm locked with Obama or Clinton unless something really, really weird happens). My main problem has been two-fold: 1.) she doesn't sound like a "leader," she sounds like a politician and 2.) she's either been surrounding herself with idiots or she's been surrounding herself with smart people and allowing/encouraging them to act like idiots.

Ambitious, yes. Intelligent, yes. Charismatic, sometimes (again, she's sounded like a garden variety politician ever since Super Tuesday. I, personally, do not find politician speak "charismatic." I tend to become far more skeptical when I start to hear it). I've got nothing against that and would sure as hell hope that the President would be intelligent and charismatic, no matter gender, race, or creed. Ambitious kind of goes with the territory (even Gee Dubs didn't just wake up one morning as the President. He had to try and work his way to it and all that). I don't, however, see too many examples of demonstrable leadership skills in Hillary Clinton. I do see a consumate politician, but those two things are not the same.

[Eric B.]

Personaly, I think that any "advantage" that Obama gets from being black is more than offset by his name "sounding too Muslim."

And I won't even get into the dumb stuff I've heard about why people don't think a woman should be President.

[Brel]

For me, it's Obama's age (young for a politician) and newness in the political sphere that makes his calls for change believable. His being black has nothing to do with my vote as far as I can tell, and I have thought about this a fair amount. I think it's foolish to let someone's appearance, whether that's their skin color or their sex, get in the way of their statements. I am and always have been much more interested in what is said than who says it.

[Robb]

I have no idea. Nor do you. You do not know what Henry Rodham's views, positions, and charisma would be, because what you're saying is "Hey, if Hillary had had a completely different life and slightly different genes, would he be exactly the same person?"

Point taken - Hillary being a woman has undoubtedly influenced who she is, and a theoretical Henry could never be accurately represented. I'm just saying that when I look at the canditates as dispassionately as possible, based only on their positions, and if everyone else did so, I don't think Hillary would have nearly as much appeal. But that's just what I think.

[Pseudowolf]

I don't disagree that both Clinton and Obama have had to deal with sexism and racism, respectively. However, the reason I like Obama more in this area is that he only talks about racism issues when someone else brings up the subject whereas Clinton seems to bring up that fact that she's a woman far more often than not.

[Pseudowolf]

I don't disagree that both Clinton and Obama have had to deal with sexism and racism, respectively. However, the reason I like Obama more in this area is that he only talks about racism issues when someone else brings up the subject whereas Clinton seems to bring up that fact that she's a woman far more often than not.

[Tonio]

I can't tell you how many times I've heard interviews with Hillary supporters who say "I think it's time we had a woman in the white house" or something along those lines...I've heard less "It's time for a brutha in the White House" talk, but that bothers me just as much, as does the equally racist notion that there should only be a WASP Man President. [insert lame superhero "WaspMan" joke here]

It bothers me as well, because it seems like the flip side of disqualifying candidates who are black or female. However, my mischievous side wants to use an Obama or Clinton presidency to flip the bird to people who voted against them because of race or gender. That side of me wanted to strap Strom Thurmond to a chair like Alex in "A Clockwork Orange" and force him to watch black-man-white-woman porn. That side of me wants to tie down the Saudi leaders and the Taliban the same way and force them to watch confident unveiled women in leadership roles.

[damnedyankee]

That side of me wants to tie down the Saudi leaders and the Taliban the same way and force them to watch confident unveiled women in leadership roles.

And driving! Don't forget driving! A nice long piece on Danica Patrick should be enough to induce Taliban head-explodey!

[Laertes]

"Says the person who...referred to Clinton by HER first name in all his postings."

You can't fault people for referring to Senator Clinton by her first name. Her campaign encourages this. Look at any of her campaign materials or websites. It's always Hillary this and Hillary that.

[Robb]

However, my mischievous side wants to use an Obama or Clinton presidency to flip the bird to people who voted against them because of race or gender.

I'm curious what you mean there - how would one "use" someone else's presidency?

*****

A nice long piece on Danica Patrick should be enough to induce Taliban head-explodey

Tee hee