Trackbacks & Pings

1. Looking for the great white hope! « Moveable Feast on 25 Jul 2007 at 2:29 pm

   [...] Esquire asks: Can a white man still be elected president? [...]

2. FEAR OF A NON-WHITE PLANET? - Global Grind: Politics on 26 Jul 2007 at 1:43 pm

   [...] world will wake up and find itself being run entirely by people of color…and women too. Source: Racialicious  Published Jul 26 2007, 02:00 PM by ehall Filed under: male, johnedwards, esquiremagazine, [...]

3. links for 2007-08-05 | The Bloggable on 05 Aug 2007 at 2:23 am

   [...] Esquire asks: Can a white man still be elected president? at Racialicious – the intersection of race… [...]

4. $3.60 · The signs I see: Mitt Romney lacks class... oh, and Edwards isn't black. on 07 Aug 2007 at 7:53 pm

   [...] I don’t have much faith in Romney, but I do expect better from John Edwards, before the Esquire thing (see [...]

5. Is John Edwards, As He Says, The Most Electable Democratic Candida on 26 Oct 2007 at 4:13 pm

   [...] Hillary Clinton over Senator Barack Obama.  Based on a recent Los Angeles Times article <http://www.racialicious.com/2007/07/25/has-anyone-else-seen-this-cover/> , it looks like the Edwards campaign is wondering the same thing.  The Edwards campaign is [...]

Comments

1. dnA wrote:

   Well, let’s be fair and take a look at the statistics. The percentage of people who have been elected to, or served in the office of the President of the United States and are white men is 100%. The percentage of non-whites or women who have been elected to, or have served in the office of the President of the United States is exactly 0%.

   Any questions?

   Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 9:33 am ¶

2. Mireille wrote:

   I was so pissed when I stopped at Giant to pick up the usual six pack of San Pellegrino and saw this. I really can not imagine the Edwards’ camp is too happy about that headline. This caption isn’t helping the case that he’s the best candidate for woman if it presents the idea that the good old boys (that he, by virtue of being white and wealthy is being lumped into here) are bitter about the prospect of conceding their privilege to “bros and hos”. How does he expect to win minority voters when a headline about him backhandedly scorns them?

   And the real tragedy is that I believe Edwards WOULD actually be good for everyone in this country. His plan for universal health care and focus on both rural and urban poverty could do nothing but help alleviate the disparity of race and gender in this country. I know Esquire is suppose to be racy but provocation for its own sake (or, more likely, for the sake of sales) all too often reveals a lack of substance. Allow me to make my usual assertion that there is not a monolithic liberal or conservative biased in news medium, but a sensationalist one–one that is way too often misrepresentative of, well, everything.

   PS, Obama did the superman stance much better.

   Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 9:57 am ¶

3. Wendi Muse wrote:

   Mireille, I wondered the same thing re: his PR people. I mean I would guess that they were allowed to see the cover before it went to print, so how could they miss the message the caption sends? It definitely runs counter to the Edwards campaign’s overall (previous) image. Maybe they felt that the article would speak for itself, but again, as I have yet to read it, I can’t be so sure…especially if the cover deters me from purchasing the mag all together, like Edwards or not.

   Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 10:05 am ¶

4. Mireille wrote:

   That’s how I feel, Wendi. This really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And it seems strange to me that Edwards himself would actually stand by this headline. It seems distinctly against his character and that’s part of what bothers me.

   Also, notice blonde woman reclining in her underpants above him. Would the publishing world collapse in on itself if blonde woman decided to keep their clothes on for a month?

   Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 10:51 am ¶

5. mondo wrote:

   To be fair, the Southern White Democrat is a dying breed – squeezed out by Republican/black political gerrymandering and by natural demographic trends. What will come afterwards may very well be blatantly open identity politics.

   Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 11:59 am ¶

6. Frankye wrote:

   This only helps his candidacy. The only reason Edwards is still hanging on is because his white progressive supporters don’t want to have to vote for a woman or a black man. Since he’s a dem, his supporters can still hang on to their liberal card while keeping the blacks and the women in their place.

   Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 12:10 pm ¶

7. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

   Tsk tsk. Those white people. ALWAYS playing the race card.

   

   Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 12:24 pm ¶

8. Allen wrote:

   Uh, Mondo, I find it interesting that you think the advances by blacks are the result of gerrymandering instead of the result of correcting gerrymandering already done by white politicians. Interesting.

   Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 1:12 pm ¶

9. thejoyprincess wrote:

   Mags are on a run with this.

   Earlier, Spin had Amy Winehouse on the cover recently and declared her “The Dangerous New Queen of Soul.”

   And Robin Thicke was on the cover of Giant with the hed “Once You Go Black…;” the online content was titled, “Soul Brother #1.”

   Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 1:18 pm ¶

10. Wendi Muse wrote:

    Mondo: I agree that White Southern Democrats are fewer in number/less vocal than in the past, but such Demo(dixie)crats also have a history of racism that Edwards does not seem to exhibit. Also, if the mag. really wanted to focus on that, they should have said something like “are white southern democrats a dying breed?” they were clearly trying to use Edwards’ race to make him appear to be a minority in the race (when there are still more white, male democrats running (biden, edwards, dodd, kucinich, gravel) than women (clinton) or people of color (obama, richardson) …it just so happens that Clinton and Obama have more funding and media exposure…which i think has lead to this hyping up of political take-over by “others”

    frankye: i don’t know how i feel about your assertion. i agree to an extent, but i think that your assumption regarding white progressives falls short when applied to major cities, like NYC, for example, where both obama and clinton have considerable support in white progressive circles, far more so than edwards…who has sort of fallen off the radar since the previous election

    Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 1:23 pm ¶

11. -Boosy wrote:

    Kinda has a fascist twist to it, what do you guys think?

    Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 1:37 pm ¶

12. tstorm wrote:

    You’re absolutely right, Wendi. The heading sounds really dystopian — like we’re living in some science fiction future nation where white people are now a 20% minority and we haven’t had a white president for 12 years and whites have been discriminated against for the past 50 years or so.

    I’ve never been a fan of Esquire. It’s like a cleaned-up version of Maxim; their homepage includes sections like “The Best Bars in America,” and “Women We Love Gallery” and “The Beach Workout.”

    Typically with magazines, an editor writes the cover page headlines rather than the authors of the articles, and that’s clearly the case with this article (you can read it online: http://www.esquire.com/features/edwardsgothic0807 ), which doesn’t discuss race much at all. It’s much more concerned with the size of Edwards’ house than his politics.

    It’s certainly not an endorsement of Edwards. But I wouldn’t call it unfavorable, really. Like I said, it’s not a very politically minded piece of writing. If the heading is biased towards sensationalism (I agree with Mireille’s assessment), the article leans toward men (it’s sure to let us know that Edwards’ daughter Cate is a leggy college girl) and money (it’s absolutely obsessed with Edwards’ current wealth and with the monetary struggles of his parents).

    All in all, it’s a pretty innocuous piece of “journalism,” targeted perfectly towards the Esquire demographic.

    That’s my take, anyway.

    Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 2:20 pm ¶

13. Wendi Muse wrote:

    tstorm, thanks for filling us in a bit about the article and providing the link!

    Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 2:38 pm ¶

14. Ben H. wrote:

    wow. that is just shocking. if edward’s people don’t officially denounce that hook, then my outrage will extend towards him as well.

    Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 2:43 pm ¶

15. James wrote:

    I think this is a classic example of white male victimhood. And yes the headline does sound very dystopian its just feeding into the fears of white Ameirca. I also believe John Edwards is just plain DESPERATE. Edwards is in third place and no one really cares about him its all about Obama and Clinton. For ONCE the white male is not the CENTER. Obama and Clinton are facinating individuals. Its a real shock though that a white woman and a black man have a real chance for the Democratic nomination. I definitely believe ONE of the OTHER will get it. I think this Esquire cover is just trying to be shocking and edgy. The media these days are losing readers to the internet. And I think some editors feel they have to push the envelope as far as they can. I must admit its a shocking cover because its such a lie! White men control AMERICA and its so stupid to suggest the next American president won’t be a white male. I think some white men really fear Hilary Clinto and Barack Obama because maybe deep inside they think they do have a chance to win. But I still believe in the end one of those old Republicans will win the election in the end. John Edwards is a punk and a wimp he cannot even fight his own battles. I don’t hate the guy but I don’t like him either. I find Edwards to be weak and pathetic he has no backbone he has no voice.

    Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 3:52 pm ¶

16. Mark N. wrote:

    Like a lot of folks who responded here I wonder what response the Edwards camp will be to this headline, especially since Edwards specifically stated in the Monday’s debate that he didn’t want the votes of people who wouldn’t vote for Clinton or Obama due to their gender/race. This seems especially unpolished and unprofessional of his campaign given that the man has been running for President since 2002!

    Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 4:57 pm ¶

17. al wrote:

    it looks like a set up. setting it up like a white man has no chance of winning when there is one white woman and one black man running means that when a white man does win (which seems fairly probable) the media can treat it like an underdog made it out from behind. i won’t read the article, but i can’t imagine it’s anything but sour flaming bullshit.

    Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 5:09 pm ¶

18. LM wrote:

    Hmmm. Excellent points as always, Wendi, and you have forced me to finally learn what “dystopian” means. (Thanks!)

    But I don’t share your reaction to the line “Can A White Man Still Be Elected President?”

    tstorm’s review confirmed my suspicion that the tag was unrelated altogether to the content of the actual article inside. (Which is not to say that race doesn’t matter, even in this article — just not in the way we’re talking about the cover.) This is par for the course for almost all monthly mags; I don’t hold their cover text to the same standard as, say, a daily newspaper headline. Of course the Esquire line is meant to sell copies and attract Web visitors by attracting attention. Based on this post and thread, it’s done a good job.

    To the extent that race as subject matter is used cynically here, it’s that it’s used at all — we see “white man” and say “what are they talking about?” The line itself — “Can A White Man Still Be Elected President?” — I find subtly clever, rather than objectionable.

    I am sure that some white supremacists will seize on those eight words from a mainstream publication as justification of their alarmism, but I’m fairly certain that white supremacists aren’t important to Esquire’s demographics. So far as Esquire editors go, I am quite certain that they do not believe we’ve seen the last white man as president AND that they don’t believe their collective readership believes we’ve seen the last white man as president.

    The article isn’t about candidates other than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, it’s about John Edwards. And it’s not really about his whiteness — although the undercurrent can’t help but be there ‘cause this is America. So the line “Can A White Man…” is a throwaway, but it points out that a woman and a black man are “leading” at this stage of the nomination process and promises (not that it delivers much) insight into the viability of the third-place candidate, who happens to be a white man. Irrelevant? Yes. Objectionable? No.

    This discussion seems similar to me to Carmen’s joking self-flagellation yesterday over not having “The Hollywood Shuffle” under her “movies viewed” belt. Malena, commenter #2, seriously (and eloquently) addressed the concept in Carmen’s headline of a “person of color card.” Merq wrote words to the effect of, “Malena, it’s cool, Carmen is joking.” Simple, helpful to anyone who could have been confused about Carmen and the site.

    This illustrates the power and danger of words, but also the potential of dialogue. I hope whomever is concerned as Wendi is about the Esquire line be more open to discussing what it could mean than labeling it. (And yes, that applies to me too.) I have no idea of the level of enlightenment at Esquire relative to most of the readers and commenters at Racialicious, but if we talk about race issues knowingly and with humor we ought not be judging too quickly when others do the same, even large mainstream publications not known for their deep thought on such matters. That’s one of the reasons this site is so necessary and productive.

    Last — I think it’s a stretch to put any responsibility on the shoulders on Edwards for whatever meaning was intended by Esquire’s editors or gleaned by us or other readers. If magazines were in the habit of having candidates approve cover lines plenty of covers would never be printed.

    Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 5:25 pm ¶

19. hoo_boy wrote:

    Echo on LM’s great points, and extending: As the rest of the blog’o’sphere picked up, there’s a subtle joke also that no one’s mentioned. Notice the headline appearing above Edward’s head?:

    “The Sexiest Woman Alive”

    Call it irony, a dig, or an in-joke going on , but if you check the buzz, there’s more attention to the notion of “Edwards as the first female president” (versus the first woman president)– just like Clinton was the first *black* president). It’s a double-entendre on his masculinity and support for “women’s issues and gay-rights”.

    Goes back to March 07 piece from NY Sun:
    http://www.nysun.com/article/50057

    Hence the attack on $400 haircuts versus discussions on class issues, and tired intimations how he carries himself by others who don’t know how to carry themselves. Expect much worse.

    Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 10:14 pm ¶

20. Revolution wrote:

    I can’t even be sarcastic or satirical or anything witty about this. Esquire’s headline is just one big racist sexist addition to the long tradition of racism and sexism in this country. Any brown or black people present in at the Constitutional Convention? Any women of any hue there? No? Hmm…

    Posted 25 Jul 2007 at 10:22 pm ¶

21. michelle wrote:

    I read GQ, even though I am not a fan. I read the magazine because the headlines always promise (and never deliver) very scathing, or deep, or insightful, or earthshattering articles.

    I agree with most of the posts. I think that this is a typical GQ headline, with racist and sexist overtones. I do not think that this headline is dangerous, however, I do not think that it is empty of a deeper meaning. I think that GQ, knowing their White Male audience, chose a headline that they knew would grab their audience. In that, perhaps, is the bigger issue. However, LM you are right, the headline could be a great opportunity for discussion rather than it (the headline) being labeled as “wrong”. Admittedly, that was my knee jerk reaction.

    I do think that when you a running for president in this day and age, and you are a “darkhorse”, you should be more careful than allowing a magazine to use you so liberally, no pun intended. When every vote counts (ha ha) I would think that Edwards’ camp should be more judicious.

    Lastly….it is the tagline that really gets me. I think that his family, namely his wife, has dealt with her battle with cancer incredibly well. I just think that there is something really distasteful about lumping her cancer in with “image and history”.

    Posted 26 Jul 2007 at 12:31 am ¶

22. Wendi Muse wrote:

    LM, how respectfully you disagree! thanks for your feedback

    i finally had a chance to sit down and read the article (another thanks to tstorm for the link) and you’re right, it has little to do with the cover caption, though it has all to do with the cover image (of edwards being superman, that is) as the article makes him appear well, basically perfect. BUT that’s part of campaigning, and edwards has always given off that “everything’s perfect all the time” image, so the article works in his favor for continuing to keep that up.

    while it does have its “dances with black folks” moments (you know, look, edwards has black friends! given, one “drops everything” whenever he comes to town to be his driver and the other is habitat for humanity wuss danny glover, but you get the idea), i think it’s a pretty typical washington and the cherry tree-style campaign piece, as i suspected.

    however, this makes me more annoyed–not only with esquire, but in a general sense. isn’t american society intelligent enough to not need to be baited in by references that play up on race and gender tensions/fears? i think esquire understimates our desire to learn about the candidates. sure, the caption caught my attention, but it made me not want to buy the magazine…and instead, compelled me to write about the cover (which they wanted us to focus on anway to catalyze a subsequent purchase) and to read the article (for free) online. kinda defeats the purpose of their national enquirer-esque cover caption, now doesn’t it?

    on a side note, when i first saw it, i thought about the issues i wrote about here…but then the more and more i thought about it, i heard the question in a different way, with “can a white man still be president?” hinting at how out of touch and incapable of addressing all the needs of america’s people (and ultimately the world) white men in power are considered to be. maybe this is what they were getting at, that john edwards was not your average white guy in power and that he COULD actually be suitable as the president…but the magazine editors here failed at that job, in my eyes, because the first interpretation of the question is what stuck with me…and i always try to see both sides of the coin.

    Posted 26 Jul 2007 at 3:29 am ¶

23. LM wrote:

    Wendi,

    Esquire would be pleased as punch that you’ve thought and written about the cover, whether you become a print subscriber or not. And the fact that we’ve come up with so many different interpretations of those seven words actually makes it a fairly triumphant line by normal editorial standards, too. (Again, that’s with the caveat that it’s meant to cause heat, not shed light.)

    In this same issue of Esquire there’s an article with the headline “What It Feels Like…to Need Sex All the Time” and this take-out quote: “My whole vagina felt like a pressure cooker about to go off any minute — but it wouldn’t.” This isn’t THE place to learn about Presidential candidates. But the article may contain a useful tidbit or two.

    hoo_boy, great catch on the “Sexiest Woman Alive” placement. As someone who’s spent my share of time putting together staff publications, my imagination says that the placement wasn’t deliberate, but someone noticed, which set off a round of giggling and jokes along the lines of what you suggested. And then it stayed as it was.

    Posted 26 Jul 2007 at 7:15 am ¶