Trackbacks & Pings

1.   Quote of the Day by ripples of hope on 13 Mar 2008 at 9:48 am

   [...] gain, I would be a Republican.” – Racialicious Special Correspondent Latoya Peterson on Geraldine Ferraro Share Freely: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover [...]

2. no comment « Kisses, Bitch. on 06 Apr 2008 at 6:49 am

   [...] Open Thread: Geraldine Ferraro [...]

Comments

1. Aaminah wrote:

   Yes, it’s racist. It’s overt racism, and saying “but it’s not meant to be racist” does not mitigate it. Obama is being very kind and diplomatic to say it’s “one person” in Clinton’s campaign, because clearly it is not. The race-baiting going on is just plain obnoxious. I would love a woman in office, but not THAT woman with THOSE female staffers. And it’s not that I am a big Obama fan either – I’m not. But Clinton’s campaign has just been so tragically tacky from early on that I cannot stand her anymore.

   Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 9:12 am ¶

2. Tokyo Kiss wrote:

   Her comment was racist. What she fails to see is that her comment was a clear example of white privilege–the ability to think that every victory should be yours (or in this case, the white candidate she supports) and that any minority who is taking away that victory must be doing so by unfair means or because of the color of their skin. Note that this thinking requires you to believe that whites are superior and any successful minority owes their success to their skin color. THAT is racist.

   If Hillary and Geraldine are still wondering why black people, who were initially overwhelmingly in support of Clinton, have changed sides, I don’t need a fancy degree from Harvard to tell her that its things like this and not Obama’s skin color!

   Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 9:26 am ¶

3. Xavier wrote:

   Read Race Man to find out which campaign racialized this campaign and why.

   It may strike some as ironic that the racializing should be coming from a black candidate’s campaign and its supporters. But this is an American presidential campaign–and there is a long history of candidates who are willing to inflame the most deadly passions in our national life in order to get elected. Sadly, it is what Barack Obama and his campaign gurus have been doing for months–with the aid of their media helpers on the news and op-ed pages and on cable television, mocked by “SNL” as in the tank for Obama. They promise to continue until they win the nomination, by any means necessary.

   But on the Ferraro comments, I don’t think they were off the mark at all. Before Iowa, the major story was about how Obama was losing the “black vote” in states like South Carolina. Following Iowa the white news media ran with the story “Obama surges in South Carolina after proving to blacks that he could win white votes.” Her statement, to me, refers to the fact that if Obama was not winning such an overwhelming majority of the black vote (91% in MS) he would not be in the front-runner position. Imagine this scenario:
   Iowa – Obama
   New Hampshire – Hillary upset
   South Carolina – Obama and HRC split the black vote, either narrow Hillary or Obama victory — the media runs with the story “Obama can’t seal the deal with voters, having second doubts” (not unreal given the storyline following OH)
   Michigan – Hillary wins over uncommitted
   Nevada – Hillary wins, further knocking Obama out of contention
   Florida – Hillary wins, although not companing
   By this point, Obama’s fundraising has lagged (it surged, remember, post South Carolina) and he goes into February 5th with a need to sweep the big states (all of which HRC won, save Illinois). If they split the black vote, or even just cut his majorities by 20-30 percent, it makes Hillary much more viable in the states Obama won.

   Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 9:27 am ¶

4. Gregory A. Butler wrote:

   Yes, Ferraro’s comments (both the one about Obama recently and the Jesse Jackson comment from back in the day) are flat out racist.

   Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 9:32 am ¶

5. gatamala wrote:

   I will vote for Obama, write him in or I will sit home. HRC’s racial attack dogs burned her ass for me a loooooong time ago.

   If I can survive Dubya, McCain will be a walk in the park. I will not reward HRC’s racism (yeah, her racism) and the racism of the Democrats.

   This is why I have always been registered as an Independent. Neither party does a thing for me and black folks would do well to take that road. This would be a wonderful opportunity to send a message to both parties.

   The other day, LP or CvK linked a Tim Wise article that I strongly encourage everyone (especially those who really buy this post-racial bullshit) to read.

   *****
   Why was Gerry added to the 1984 ticket?

   *crickets*

   Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 9:32 am ¶

6. Killervirgo wrote:

   I don’t find the comments racist in the context they were said. If Obama were running is campaign in 2000 or in 2004, I don’t think he would have the support he has now. I think after the 8 years of Bush people are looking for a drastic change — Hillary and Barack are both benefiting from this. People are voting in record numbers for these two and I believe if it were John Kerry and John Edwards who were both going for the nomination, we wouldn’t see these type of numbers.

   Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 9:42 am ¶

7. gatamala wrote:

   And the country is caught up in the concept

   …and this statement just flat out kills me.

   We’re not talking about Stephen Colbert or Kinky Friedman. We’re talking about a serious contender. A Senator, community organizer and former editor of HLR.

   Black…non-white is a concept…a novelty…not real…not serious.

   It’s no more of a concept than a President who pees sitting down.

   Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 10:01 am ¶

8. eva wrote:

   First and foremost go see Keith Olberman’s comments on MSNBC on Clinton’s campaign racism.

   Geraldine, has shown why so many women of color have distanced themselves from the so called women’s movement. Their inability to grasp that is ANYTHING out there that can affect women (of color) more than her gender at times. Since Obama lacks a vagina clearly he has no problems.

   What pisses me off more than almost anything Ferraro has said was the implication that Obama is skating on the attribute of race! Why is there no assertion that Hillary is doing the same with (white) women voters? She has gotten the women vote since Iowa!

   Blacks are voting in the election because of Obama’s race, but they may not ONLY be voting for him. But are whites voting for Hillary because of HER race? Yeah I’m sure some are, just as there are SOME Blacks who might vote for Obama because they want at least ONE President to point to for their kids they CAN grow up and be President. He is the first viable can candidate just as Hillary Clinton is the first VIABLE candidate.

   Her affirmative action overtones are racist and indicative of the what happens when so called progressive democrats get called out on their REAL beliefs… which echo society’s unfortunately.

   Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 10:02 am ¶

9. atlasien wrote:

   The media is trying to make this issue all about black people. It’s not… it’s an issue with white people and their tendency of being oversensitive, resentful and petty when their white identity is noticed or threatened.

   I don’t know if I’d call Ferraro’s remarks either racist or non-racist. They represent a classic case of white resentment though. “Hey… I saw black people getting a special cookie for being victims, I want my special cookie so I’ll say I’m a victim too, WAH WAH WAH”

   I don’t think there’s any point in asking “what if Obama were a white guy” or “what if he were a white woman” because then he would be a completely different person! I hate those stupid hypothetical questions. You might as well ask “what if snakes had legs”.

   I think Obama’s race has both hurt and helped his chances, and it’s really impossible to quantify whether it’s an overall plus or minus. He’s getting the black vote now, but it didn’t come to him easily or automatically.

   Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 10:11 am ¶

10. OneShySistah wrote:

    Can you say white privilege? I think that about sums it up. And why does no one ever point out the white voter turnout when it’s two white guys on the ballot? I guess it’s because white folk voting for white candidates is nothing to write home about. Gee, I wonder why.

    I find it interesting that most of these articles and posts about race are in reference to things that Hillary or Bill Clinton or their supporters have said. Obama does not talk about race, but the Clintons and their supporters certainly seem to think his race is damaging enough to hurt his chances of winning this nomination. Interesting how that works. So, you have the African-American man, who says nothing at all about race and talks of the American people as a collective, and the white political machine that is the Clintons and their camp on numerous occasions pointing out that Obama is African-American and insinuating that people support him only on that basis…

    Right.

    Tim Wise said it best: ” …never has a white politician been confronted with questions about his or her ability to transcend race, or specifically, their whiteness. And this is true, even as many white politicians continue to pull almost all of their support from whites, and have almost no luck at convincing people of color to vote for them. In the Democratic primaries this year, Obama has regularly received about half the white vote, while Hillary Clinton has managed to pull down only about one-quarter of the black vote, yet the question has always been whether he could transcend race. The only rational conclusion to which this points is, again, that it is not race per se that needs to be overcome, but blackness. Whiteness is not seen as negative, as something to be conquered or transcended. Indeed, whereas blacks are being asked to rise above their racial identity, for whites, the burden is exactly the opposite: the worst thing for a white person is to fail to live up to the ostensibly high standards set by whiteness; it is to be considered white trash, which is to say, to be viewed as someone who has let down whiteness and fallen short of its pinnacle. For blacks, the worst thing it seems (at least in the minds of whites) is to be seen as black, which is no doubt why so many whites think it’s a compliment to say things to black folks like, “I don’t even think of you as black,” not realizing that the subtext of such a comment is that it’s a damned good thing they don’t, for if they did, the person so thought of would be up the proverbial creek for sure.”

    (Read the rest of Tim’s article “Uh-Obama:
    Racism, White Voters and the Myth of Color-Blindness” here: http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/Obama.html )

    Frankly, I’m tired of folks (in particular, the Clintons and their supporters) always boiling this election down to race. There is much more at stake here than the color of Senator Obama’s skin. It’s time for Senator Clinton to stop with the divise politics and focus on the future of her campaign.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 10:18 am ¶

11. Colin wrote:

    Xavier,

    You’re way wrong.

    1. “Race Man” by Sean Wilentz was a terrible attempt at a hit piece. I reads as a long, rambling, incoherent and at best debatable piece of quasi-journalistic trash.

    The claims such as those about Obama’s staff being race-baiters simply because they sent a memo detailing controversial incidents by the Clinton campaign and their surrogates is weak sauce, and the assumption that Obama has a lot to gain from playing up his black heritage for political gain, while it resonates with many Reagan Dems who feel like Gerry Ferraro that white people get the short end of the stick, it doesn’t make sense in reality and it is destructive to the progressive movement of which I believed Mr. Wilentz to support.

    Lastly on this point, it is odd to say that someone who is hit with racist imagery, such as a rival campaign rumoring that you may be a drug dealer, calling you the “hip black friend”, (basically a black fad) trying to tie you to your race like a two-ton weight around your body, it is odd to say that the RECIPIENT of such remarks is the race-baiter for criticizing the remarks. Where, then, is the responsibility for the person making the remarks, I ask.

    2. Your post goes from blaming Obama for racializing the campaign to lamenting the fact that Obama got a huge majority of black voters, hurting your candidate’s chances. That’s a bit incoherent, but c’est la vie.

    Your argument seems to be that because Obama is black and he gets black support in overwhelming numbers, then him being black is a huge advantage, which in an electoral vacuum is true. Sadly, we do not live in such a vacuum. We live in America, where many, many, many white Americans are still either afraid or uneasy about voting for a black President. The exit polls from Ohio said as much. Those whites who felt race was important voted overwhelmingly for the white(r) candidate.

    I think it’s clear also from the history that it is NOT easy becoming a black President of the United States, just as it is NOT easy becoming a woman President of the United States. Saying if Obama were white, he would not be doing so well seems to ignore that every single president we’ve had has been white, and that this is for a reason. White voters have NEVER shown the propensity to vote for a black President in November and the signs from Ohio’s primary can certainly not be encouraging, so I wonder where you and Rep. Ferraro get the basis for such ideas.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 10:32 am ¶

12. Redstar wrote:

    From the NY Times piece I read a day or so ago, Ferraro also said she would never have been on the ‘84 ticket if it weren’t for her gender. She basically accused Obama of benefitting from affirmative action, seeing herself as benefitting similarly 24 years ago.

    That Tim Wise article is excellent. I second the motion that everyone should read it.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 10:37 am ¶

13. rufustfyrfly wrote:

    Were her comments racist? Yes. Of course they were. I can’t believe that there is anyone even disputing that.

    Not to mention totally inaccurate. Oh yes, being black is such a vote-getter. This must be why we have so many black presidents, senators and governors. Hell, starting on Monday, we’re going to have more sitting black governors at once than ever before! All two of them!

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 10:39 am ¶

14. drydock wrote:

    Ferraro knew what she was doing, she was race-baiting Obama and smartly he didn’t go for it. If the campaign becomes about race , Obama will lose. In a way Ferraro was sort of political suicide bomber for Team Clinton. Her career was over anyway so why not see how much damage she can inflict at a rather crucial time. While this strategy may be a little dangerous in alienating blacks in the short term, in the long term the democrat establishment knows blacks aren’t about to go join the republicans. Third party? Forget it.

    That said if Obama wants to win the presidency he needs to do better among working class whites, who make up about 1/3 of voters. A huge mistake by the liberal/left (particularly the academic strain) is how they pretty much ignore this rather large chunk of the population. When have you ever heard someone like Dyson or Tim Wise articulate how a multiracial class-oriented coalition might happen? Never. They support the continuing failure of classblind academic style identity politics.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 10:42 am ¶

15. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Josh Marshall had a good take on the controversy:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2008_03_09.php

    Can anyone seriously claim that it’s an asset to be an African-American in a US presidential race? Happily what we’re now seeing is that it does not in itself seem to be an eliminating factor in a presidential race. But an advantage? There’s no doubt that Obama’s race is the central factor in allowing him to consolidate almost unanimous support from African-American voters, especially in the South. But African-Americans make up only about 13% of the population. And does anyone doubt that that advantage he gains there is not balanced at least to a substantial degree by resistance to voting for him among white voters? Why is Obama running so poorly among white voters tonight (compared to his rates in northern states) in Mississippi? And in South Carolina? We hear a lot about Sen. Clinton’s bedrock of strength among non-college educated white voters. Do we really think that’s simply a matter of appeal of Sen. Clinton? More speculatively, but I think no less true, is that a lot of the Farrakhan/Muslim/foreign influence stuff has more sticking power because of Obama’s race.

    Most of the same points could be made about the advantages and disadvantages Sen. Clinton is under because of her gender. In fact I think there’s a pretty striking symmetry. It’s clearly helping her with her big advantage among women voters, especially her generational peers. But we’d be foolish not to realize that some of Obama’s big margins among white men are not simply a reflection of support for Obama.

    You might support Obama or not, think he’s qualified or an empty suit but suggesting he’s only where he is now because he’s black is something much worse than outrageous. It just seems obviously false.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 10:50 am ¶

16. tasha wrote:

    Well, I’m a black Hillary supporter, and I’ll be the first to admit that nepotism and gender have played a role in Hillary’s ascent to prominence, but at the same time, I don’t have a problem admitting that Obama’s race plays a role in his appeal as well, particularly among affluent whites, looking to prove their liberal bonafides. Blacks are playing identity politics too, just as middle aged, white women are.

    Over the past week, in the Lia Neal thread, I’ve been pondering why no one in the mainstream media seems to ever talk about how Tiger Woods (as Celest put it) pimps his blackness for endorsement contracts yet tries to distance himself from race or anything political or controversial(lynch incident, Augusta National, etc.) when the occasion presents itself, and now I know why. The MSM is probably too scared to do so. If someone, particularly a white journalist, was to suggest that Woods uses race to his advantage, they’d automatically be branded a racist, but the fact that they are reluctant to say anything about it (Woods/Obama’s race profiteering and pimping ) doesn’t make it any less true.

    And you know what, I’ve read more than my fair share of op-eds about why I was supposed to be offended by Bill Clinton saying that Obama was the last black man since Jesse Jackson to win South Carolina, ditto for why I was supposed to be offended by Hillary’s MLK remarks, but guess what, I’m not, and it’s not for lack of understanding.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 10:53 am ¶

17. Redstar wrote:

    How come when Samantha Power speaks out of turn it’s not blamed on Obama’s campaign, but when Ferraro speaks out of turn, it’s part of a deliberate Clinton campaign strategy?

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 11:11 am ¶

18. Winn wrote:

    The thing I think is funny is the MSM referring to Ferraro’s remarks as a “gaffe” or “slip-up”. These remarks were intentional and pointed, and Ferraro’s subsequent statements have substantiated that. They were designed to appeal to the type of Democrats that have made up a substantial portion of HRC’s support in predominantly white states: diasaffected, working class, lower educated whites who, as expressed in the Ohio exit polls, have no intention of supporting a POC, specifically a black man, for president. The Tim Wise article gatamala referenced above talks clearly about the fallacy of of “colorblindness” in this race, and Ferraro specifically targeted those who deny or are ignorant of white privilege and institutionalized racism and prefer to wear what POC are so often accused of sporting, a mantle of victimhood. You know, the “our lives would be so much better if those uppity blacks weren’t taking all our jobs and college spots because of affirmative action” yobos, the ones who focus on the overwhelming AA support for Obama and ignore the fact that this support substantially grew after the race-baiting tactics of the Clinton campaign (I followed your link Xavier, and it would be funny if it weren’t so wrong-headed, and didn’t play on the old “it’s those whiny blacks playing the race card again”, rhetoric that is so often employed to curtail legitimate criticism, just as those aggrieved like Ferraro claim “the race card” suppresses their voices. Oh yes, one of our major political and social problems is that the voices of the white majority are suppressed! Oh, okay.), the ones who viewed HRC’s campaign as a coronation rather than a bid for the Democratic nomination, and are incensed that this nobody senator with the funny name has kicked her butt in the delegate count. It was ugly, calculated and probably will be more effective than anybody imagines. And HRC’s refusal to repudiate Ferraro’s comments just solidifies my absolute refusal to support her, now or in the event that she somehow snatches the nomination with her grasping and increasingly grubby fingers.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 11:13 am ¶

19. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Redstar –

    When Samantha Power called Hillary a monster, she was sacked within a business day.

    All the things that Hillary’s surrogates have done have kind of been brushed off.

    Also, Barack had to publicly denounce and distance himself from Farrakhan – someone who was not at all related to his campaign or working on his behalf.

    Geraldine Ferraro was an unpaid fund raiser who was not staff but still played a role in her campaign.

    Like I said in my piece, it isn’t so much WHAT the surrogates are saying – it’s how the candidates are treating these “slips.”

    I personally don’t think that race-baiting is in the Clinton’s officially sanctioned campaign tactics, but her lack of willingness to reject and denounce (not just a weak “regret”) people who claim to speak on her behalf makes me think that the campaign is intentionally letting the chips fall where they may on these kinds of situations.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 11:20 am ¶

20. Redstar wrote:

    I thought Clinton did “repudiate” Ferraro’s comments, said explicitly that they did not reflect the campaign, and Ferraro was gone pretty shortly thereafter. Both Power and Ferraro resigned, effective immediately.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 11:28 am ¶

21. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Redstar –

    Yeah, she did. Eventually. From today’s Politico:

    Ferraro also said she is “absolutely not sorry” for what she said.

    Ferraro, 72, was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 1984, and if she said anything memorable then or in the years since, I can’t remember it. But she seems intent on making up for lost time.

    Asked for her reaction to Ferraro’s comment, Clinton at first said: “Well, I don’t agree with that, and I think it’s important that we try to stay focused on issues that matter to the American people.”

    Race, apparently, is not an issue that matters to the American people.

    Later, as the furor built, Clinton added: “I obviously disagree and reject the comments.”

    (Which is just shy of Clinton’s gold standard of “reject and denounce,” which is what she demanded of Obama regarding Louis Farrakhan’s support. But wait a few days; Clinton might get there.)

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9008.html

    And with Power, both Obama’s campaign and Power herself issued an apology:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/07/2008-03-07_barack_obama_forced_to_decry_advisers_mo.html

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 11:35 am ¶

22. bradski wrote:

    Tasha,

    OK, how exactly does Tiger Woods pimp his “blackness”? All of his commercials are golf related! How is Woods pimping his “blackness” when he drives a Buick or hits a golf ball?

    Buick and golf are not iconic in terms of how any would describe American “blackness.”

    Is he pimping “blackness” simply by having brown skin? Woods’ Thai mother has brown skin.

    Woods is the greatest golfer in history. He’s scandal free. Why wouldn’t a major brand want him as a spokesman?

    That was one of the most repulsive and racially charged comments I’ve seen about Tiger Woods. It’s also a cheap shot at how Woods defines himself. Woods is half Thai and the rest Chinese, black, white, and Native American.

    Why can’t people get over the fact that Woods doesn’t want to play the One Drop Rule game? He’s been a public figure for 10 to 15 years.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 11:50 am ¶

23. Mary wrote:

    Ferraro’s comments were disgusting. “Obama is lucky to be who he is” is just two steps away from saying he’s an affirmative action hire for President. In her calculations Obama’s achievements don’t matter, only what’s on his birth certificate. And she’s just embarrassingly out of touch to assert being black is a ticket to the top. I mean of course, how could I have forgotten, that out of the last 43 presidents the number of black people represented has been… oh yeah, zero.

    But I will say that, as for Ferraro’s comment: “people are caught up in the concept.” I have mixed feelings about this. Obviously the way *she* said it was completely nasty and degrading to Obama, so I don’t give Ferraro herself a pass for it. But other people, even pro-Obama people, have expressed ideas like “wouldn’t electing Obama be a great statement to the world?” or “don’t we all want to move on to a post-racial society and heal wounds?” Leaving aside for a moment how problematic those statements are, I think that does show people responding to an idea, even a fantasy, when they think of an Obama presidency. It’s not an idea or a fantasy that Obama himself explicitly puts forward so I don’t think he should be asked to answer for it, but for better or worse it does exist.

    And, I’ll be totally honest, I admit that I catch myself falling into that line of thinking as well. I’m not foolish enough to think merely electing Obama will render our society “post-racial,” as if all racism will just magically go away on January 9, 2009. But to me Obama represents something so utterly, RADICALLY different from what we have now with George W. Bush does that I get truly excited at the phrase “President Barack Obama.” If he were elected – a man who worked for everything he has where Bush was spoiled all his life, a man who has lived internationally where Bush thinks it’s OK to massage the German chancellor’s shoulders, a man whose middle name is Hussein where Bush referred to the war on terror as a crusade, a man who has run a remarkably clean campaign where Bush utilized Karl Rove at his most vicious, a man who had the courage and foresight to oppose the Iraq war where Bush had the stupidity and evil to start it – watching him get sworn in would be like this total repudiation, by the American people, of the last eight years. And that pulls me powerfully, powerfully towards Obama, even if I am responding to a mere “concept.”

    Basically what I wonder is – is it inherently terrible for voters to respond to a “concept”? As I see it, all great leaders evoke a special kind of pride in their citizens… they have the ability to make voters say to themselves “I like what it says about myself and my country that I’m voting for this person.” Rightly or wrongly, Ronald Reagan had that ability, so did Bill Clinton and even George W. Bush when he still had a few scraps of credibility for “standing up to terra.” I think Obama is the only one of the current crop who gets people thinking like that. What Geraldine Ferraro doesn’t get is that this isn’t merely because he’s a black man, it’s because he’s conducted himself with a level of civility, courage and reason that she apparently has no concept of.

    And even if Obama weren’t all these things, HRC should be ashamed of the way her campaign is running. She will be lucky if she doesn’t take the whole Democratic party down with her, and cost them this critical election.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 11:51 am ¶

24. anniet wrote:

    Of course her comments were racist. Maybe they weren’t slur-filled, but they were racist. White people who try to be non-racist don’t say things like that. Plus, it’s just ridiculous — mixed boys with single moms sure do have it easy in our culture! Boy howdy, black men in particular just get all kinds of perks. Sheesh.

    It wasn’t a slip of the tongue, especially with the PA primary coming up. It was directly intended to speak to voters.

    And the whole “Oh, I’m white and that’s why people are ganging up on me” thing? That, too, is no accident.

    I used to think, “Ah, I hope Obama wins, but if Hillary does, I’ll still be happy.” The race-baiting from her campaign, though, has me hoping that Barack comes out on top in a big way. I’m ashamed of the Rovian tactics from the Clinton camp.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 12:02 pm ¶

25. tasha wrote:

    well bradski, I’m sorry you feel that way. but in the “links for 2008-03-08″ thread, which is on the front page of this site, I state my case.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 12:06 pm ¶

26. gatamala wrote:

    While this strategy may be a little dangerous in alienating blacks in the short term, in the long term the democrat establishment knows blacks aren’t about to go join the republicans. Third party? Forget it.

    And this is why we get Andrew “shuck n jive” Cuomo.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 12:21 pm ¶

27. Black Canseco wrote:

    http://knockthehustleblog.typepad.com/hustleknockin/2008/03/obama-is-lucky.html

    We live in a nation where every single president has been a white male, all but 2 governors have been white males or white females(—make that 3 counting D. Patterson, courtesy of Client #9), all but 2 supreme court justices have been white males and white females, all but 2 senators have been white males and white females and less than 5% of the House of Reps have been People of Color. Ever…

    but Barack’s just some lucky negro who should know how good he’s got it and white women like ferraro are the real victims?

    trick, please.

    I’m sorry, but what Ferraro said the other day, a few months back and over the years has always been at the core of american feminism; forget patriachy, this is about white female matriarchy.

    Feminists like Ferraro, Clinton, Steinem and others still operate under this notion that people of color—black folks in particular—are children, lesser thans, and cultural mascots that exist largely to prove how progressive white women can be. and any black person that can’t see the “Helen of troy” that burns inside of every breathing white woman 8-80 is just some childish ethnic ingrate that doesn’t know their place.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 12:23 pm ¶

28. deb wrote:

    Whoo-whoo-whoo! Guess, it’s hard out here for a white person. Maybe Geraldine would like some cheese with her white w(h)ine?

    To her, Obama is nothing but an affirmative action candidate. It’s so insulting when people like THAT assume that the achievements of black folks can only be facilitated by AA and not hard work and determination.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 12:31 pm ¶

29. Aaminah wrote:

    “How come when Samantha Power speaks out of turn it’s not blamed on Obama’s campaign, but when Ferraro speaks out of turn, it’s part of a deliberate Clinton campaign strategy?”

    Besides what is already noted by Latoya, I would add that Power’s comments (so-far) seem to be an isolated incident, whereas Ferraro’s comments are just par for the course as far as people speaking on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

    Let me make it clear, I am not an Obama supporter or a Clinton supporter (and lest anyone have a fit, no, I am definitely not a Republican supporter either). But Clinton’s campaign thus far has had so many incidents of her people smearing Obama on race-related issues. It’s not just this “affirmative-action-gone-wrong” stance of Ferraro’s, nor just “he’s cozy with Farrakhan”. It is also repeated reference to his Muslim father (who freely admits he wasn’t even a practicing Muslim), his time in a “madrassa” (which literally just means “school”), his wearing “Muslim” dress (which is really just standard dress for men of that region regardless of religion) and several other backhanded comments and insinuations.

    And yes, the fact that Ferraro stands by her comments whereas Power apologized and stated hers was unnecessary makes a difference. Clinton’s lukewarm distancing says a lot, especially because up until this incident she has done the “blink blink… but I didn’t have anything to do with that and I disagree strongly with it” act with previous matters.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 12:33 pm ¶

30. kd wrote:

    Ferraro was right on cue. I don’t think she got her point across in they way that she spoke . I think Being a black man is only part of Barack’s image, it’s the whole package of him being black, his name, his past the fact that his different in that he’s not a whitle male, that contribute to his popularity. However just becouse someone talks about half of whole barack is in a certain deosn’t make them racist or wrong.

    She said she wouldn’t have been as well known if she had been a man. I think she is right about the core of what she said. Just look at John Edwards-he hada better message thatn both of them, was stronger than both of them in who and what he spoke about, but he couldn’t get any traction.

    I also think that was she was in large part referring to how the media has been receptive and fairly uncritical of Barack. I don’t think it’s beacuse they’re afraid of being called racist, but because the image of a Black man named Barack H. Obama giving A Clinton a run for their money-and all the fake racie-bating accusations, makes a better story than the same ole Clinton’s the front-runner, Clinton’s the nominee, etc.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 12:37 pm ¶

31. dnA wrote:

    I ain’t know Al Gore was black!\

    http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/exitpolls.htm

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 12:40 pm ¶

32. Black Canseco wrote:

    BTW, you can’t compare Samantha Powers’ comment to Ferraro’s. Number one, SP’s “monster” comment had nothing to do with race or gender of either candidate. SP made it clear in the totality of her comment that she called Clinton a monster specifically and only because of underhanded tactics that she believed Clinton was using in the name garnering votes and support.

    Geraldine Ferraro’s comments had nothing to do with character or campaign tactics. And ferraro herself has made it clear repeatedly that she was talking about Obama’s ethnicity, how easy black politicians have it simply because of their ethnicity and how she as a white woman is being criticized simply because she’s white.

    at best it’s condescending white liberal bigotry fueled by a stunning level of ignorance and myopia regarding relations in america, at worst Ferraro’s a two-faced racist who is showing her true colors now that she’s not personally running for any particular office.

    And don’t be surprised if her public speaking fees go up–there are plenty out there who unfortunately agree with her.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 12:43 pm ¶

33. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Actually, BC, some feminists do get it. Check out Cara over at the Curvature:

    Ferraro is clearly a bigot, but that doesn’t make her an idiot.

    So can we cut the crap? I know what she meant, you know what she meant, we all know what she meant. She meant that Obama is “lucky” to be black, because his skin color has given him a free pass his entire life. She meant that we live in a culture where black people have all of the advantages because white people are just so terrified of being called racist. She meant that Hillary is having a hard time in the race because she is a woman — which is true enough — but that Obama has this magic forcefield around him that no one dare breach, and that this forcefield is made out of darkly pigmented skin.

    But some will say, oh, that’s not what she meant. Because there’s no argument so stupid, particularly when it comes to proving that something was totally NOT racist, that someone will not show up on a comment thread to defend it. To actually hold this position, you have to a.) know jackshit about politics (possible) or b.) be disingenuous and at least a little racist yourself (more likely). In fact, Ferraro herself put any question of her racism to rest when she responded to the outrage over her comments, not by apologizing, not by explaining what she really meant, but by letting us know yet again that Obama is getting away with some super-special black privilege.

    Cara also notes:

    The. Remarks. Are. Racist. Deal with it.

    Look, the Obama campaign has done some sexist shit. They’ve crossed the line, more than once. But from reading the news, and reading the blogs of feminists who write about these issues, including feminists who strongly support Clinton, the Obama campaign has absolutely not gone off the deep end like this. If you’ve got alternate evidence, I’d love to see it.

    With Clinton, most of the (hugely prevalent) sexist commentary is from the media, not her current rival — and yet her campaign has been fueling the racist flames like there’s no tomorrow. The repeated proclamations that sexism is worse than racism, the mantra that voting for Obama is betraying women, releasing photos of him in traditional Muslim dress with clearly insidious goals, darkening his skin color in campaign ads and now this. It’s almost enough for me to want John “don’t oppress me ’cause I’m white” Edwards back in the race. At the very least, he and Ferraro should do lunch.

    http://thecurvature.com/2008/03/12/offensive-remark-of-the-week-geraldine-ferraro-swears-she-isnt-racist-edition/#more-616

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 12:50 pm ¶

34. Black Canseco wrote:

    gatamala raised an interesting point–i don’t know that black voters would haul off and bail in major numbers to the republican party. As pissed off as black folks get with being taken advatage of year and and year out by democrats, what’s really the alternative besides (a) pretending that being black isn’t a factor in your life and doesn’t impact votable issues (b) trusting Republicans to do what they’ve continually failed to do–which is take everyone including black folks, the poor, etc. seriously as constituencies?

    a third party’s a great idea, a fourth/fifth party’s would be nice, too. (burger king gives you more choices than our political system)

    but i don’t see it happening not even in my great-grandkids’ lifetime.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 12:50 pm ¶

35. drea wrote:

    Wanna hear what Pat Buchanan had to say about this…and at the same time hear him tell a black woman to shut up?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o45G2actM8I

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 12:53 pm ¶

36. Redstar wrote:

    Aaminah et al.,

    Most of the talking points you raise I’ve heard from the right-wing noise machine, not from the Clinton campaign. Also, the media is biased towards both candidates, Clinton more so (see Media Matters and other watchdogs about this about neg. vs. pos. reporting) now, but that Farrakhan debate tidbit from Russert is only one example of how they can’t wait to go after Obama more explicitly should he clinch the nomination.

    One of the reasons I rarely join comments threads about either campaign’s or their surrogates’ actions is because I think it’s incredibly difficult for any of us to know where marching orders are originating from, if at all. I think, as Cara puts it and La Toya cuts-and-pastes here, that both campaigns have engaged in politicking that many of us find personally reprehensible for a variety of reasons, and obviously we come from a range of positions from which we call it like we see it. Privilege, power, race, class, gender and sexuality all influencing those, as readers of this site well know. (I read many, many pp who don’t see Power as an isolated incident.)

    Also, my opinion re: Clinton distancing herself from Ferraro quickly enough or not points to her loyalty to others she considers allies. This is one of Clinton’s biggest weaknesses, I think. She may or may not agree with Ferraro, and I think it’s highly unlikely she dispatched her to the local Torrance paper to spew her b.s., but I think it really clouds Clinton’s judgment to cut pp loose as quickly as we think she should. In contrast, many people around the ’sphere think Obama should not have let Power go.

    Finally, as someone from MA who watched the Patrick-Healy match up for governor, I think we’re going to see more and more races opening up for non-white men. That is wonderful. However, as Orlando Patterson points out, integration is an “ordeal,” there’s a lot of pain involved for all of us as we compete in musical chairs for the still too few seats at the table. The system is designed to make this as hostile a process as possible for those of us who are not privileged white men. As Mayor Otis Johnson of Savannah GA said in a conference I saw him at last week, “there’s a pecking order of social mobility” in the different places in which, and among the different people with which, we live. We’re now watching that played on a national scale, and it’s dismaying how personal and brutal it is for all of us. Especially considering that DC is the last place where change really happens.

    I always like to remember that the swahili word for politician is siasa, which is the blend of two words, “si,” meaning “no” or the negative, and “hasa,” meaning real or true. So Bwana Siasa in Swahili is what you call a (male) politician, and it basically means liar. That’s how my Swahili tutor explained it to me.

    I’m off-line for the rest of the day, so my apologies in advance if I don’t respond to anything else in this thread.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 1:16 pm ¶

37. Black Canseco wrote:

    it’s good to hear that “some” feminists get it… i’ve had bad luck in that dept, both on and offline. i’m not talking about fake white-guilt-ridden, pro-black fems, but just equal for all types. that whole movement still seems so either/or and a lot of that mentality has fueled so much of the division in the democratic/liberal/progressive movements, including now with clinton, etc.

    also, it’s one thing to say that obama’s mixed ethnicity is part of his appeal–which is not what Ferraro and others have said. It’s another to say that this is some sort of affirmative action/token campaign and candidates of color can’t possibly be qualified on any other terms–which is clearly where Ferraro and her ilk have been.

    And remember it was Hilary who less than a couple months ago played oppression olympics by saying “sexism is easily the worst ism in america”. She never made claims like this running against white men in her senatorial campaign, it’s only with obama does she pull this crap. So her surrogates are largely mirroring her sentiments.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 1:54 pm ¶

38. Aaminah wrote:

    Redstar,

    While you raise some good points that I don’t necessarily disagree completely with, when you say this:

    “Most of the talking points you raise I’ve heard from the right-wing noise machine, not from the Clinton campaign.”

    I’m sorry, but that is simply not true. I’d hate to think that you are intentionally lying, but really… there is just flat-out well-known UNTRUTH in that statement. ALL of the issues I brought up are issues that the Clinton campaign has been very much behind. Yes, right-wingers have pounced on it too, and yes there are other things I didn’t bring up that came from right-wingers. But the specific issues I mentioned as coming from Clinton staff/supporters DID come from Clinton staff/supporters. And frankly, I don’t care about Clinton’s sweet little act that she doesn’t know anything about these things and who/why etc. and that she didn’t “tell them” to do it doesn’t change the fact that it has been what her campaign has done for so long now that it is on her whether she admits it or not.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 1:56 pm ¶

39. MNC wrote:

    JESUS TAKE THE WHEEL!!

    If you really want to feel sick to your stomach, read some of the less informed takes on this topic over at Huffington Post.com along with the “we sort get it-NOT ” posters who do all kinds of white privilege gymnastics to not call Ferraro a racist and strain to find “logic” in the points she makes.

    As another blogger said, this is a “dog whistle” campaign strategy.

    All of those “disenfranchised” white folks who see Oprah and Will Smith, assorted black athletes (esp. Tiger Woods) as invading hordes taking over the realm of the “white man,” view one black face in a sea of white faces as one “ni*** too many, -Gerry’s shout out was for you. Holler.

    People we are weeks from the PA primaries where, in the center of that magical state founded by Quakers, is a bastion of white supremacy akin to the “golden eras” of the ante bellum south and jim crow.

    Ferraro and Clinton know their audience and are perfectly willing to fan the flames of their “white anger.” Hillary will carry those areas and those are the folks that will help her “win” the Keystone state.

    Apparently the saying is “There’s Pittsburgh, there’s Philadelphia and then Alabama in between.”

    So when CNN posts those election results look out for those counties in Central PA and watch them vote for Hillary like they are trying to end Reconstruction.

    The trick bag is wide open and the sad thing is most of America (folks of ALL colors) are more than happy to step right in.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 2:14 pm ¶

40. EH wrote:

    It was racist. I believe that him being black has helped contribute the significant amount of support by blacks but I really doubt that’s the ONLY reason we’ve picked him. I think that Hillary Clinton’s gender has helped contribute the significant amount of female support she has. And I doubt that’s the only reason many women chose her as well.

    But what this woman was saying was that Obama’s race is basically the ONLY and MAIN reason he is where he is. She never included the fact that he’s intelligent, charismatic, a great politician (let’s not forget he’s beating Hillary Clinton in spite of all her talked up experience) , or any other of his qualities or accomplishments. She basically called him an affirmative action politician.

    That is racist.

    And like I said in another post regarding this subject (I don’t know if this is counted as spamming since I posted it in the section that had two articles about this subject. If it is feel free to delete this portion below):

    I have to admit I’m a bit irritated at all the defense Ferraro is getting. I hate making comparisons that seem blatantly obvious but you know if she had been black and stated a candidate was winning because they were white there would be cries about the race card, political correctness, racism, etc for days.

    The general response I’ve seen from many whites (I’m not generalizing and saying ALL whites) has been “Well she’s just stating a fact.”

    Now I’m not saying I don’t think Obama’s race hasn’t played some role in his success just like I’m sure Hillary’s gender has played some role in her’s.

    But the sheer hypocrisy of the reactions to the statements she’s made make me want to scream.

    Then this woman does something that many (once again not generalizing) whites do when faced with accusations of racism. Play the victim and try to turn it around onto someone else.

    Some recent examples would be Michael Richards. “Well what he said was racist. But what about those two black guys heckling him they started it.” Or Don Imus. “He’s not racist. Rappers say that. What about hip-hop?? Let’s talk about hip-hop.”

    In all honesty though I’d rather have the racial aspect covered instead of ignored and thought of as “not mattering” in this country. It does matter and people should talk about it. But with the way the media is they tend to take race issues, hype them up, stir up problems, and cause more problems than they fix.

    If anyone gets a chance Tim Wise has another article (not “Uh-Obama”) on his site that talks about blacks voting en masse for Obama and what that means. Something the media doesn’t seem to have a clue about.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 4:28 pm ¶

41. DivergentDana wrote:

    “As pissed off as black folks get with being taken advatage of year and and year out by democrats, what’s really the alternative besides (a) pretending that being black isn’t a factor in your life and doesn’t impact votable issues (b) trusting Republicans to do what they’ve continually failed to do–which is take everyone including black folks, the poor, etc. seriously as constituencies?”

    Staying home. A decent amount of black people — and people in general, as a matter of fact — are politically apathetic, not because they’re ignorant of the issues, but because they’re thoroughly dissatisfied with the choices they’ve been given. That number may grow in the future as a result of all of this, and in our era of presidential elections where people routinely win by a nose, this may cost the Dems for decades to come.

    “it’s good to hear that “some” feminists get it… i’ve had bad luck in that dept, both on and offline. i’m not talking about fake white-guilt-ridden, pro-black fems, but just equal for all types. ”

    Some do, they really do, and many others really try. Unfortunately, those feminists aren’t the ones that get the press because they don’t fit the stereotype of self-involved, privileged harridans that the media so adores (and whose sometimes valid criticisms they find easier to dismiss) and that the larger society more readily associates with the ideology as a result. For instance, the NOW NY “open letter” was from a branch of NOW, not the entire organization — a branch that could be adequately described as “estranged.” The media didn’t make that distinction.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 5:04 pm ¶

42. G. D. wrote:

    Ferrraro’s statement was, frankly, just plain full of #$%!, and so was she. At least she had the good sense to quit after saying something so obviously stupid AND racist. I mean,it just pisses me off that no matter how a high a black person climbs in this society, no matter how many obstacles they have to overcome or how many accomplishments they make, some white person is ALWAYS going to constantly question their credentials on the regular, as if a black person has no business or no right to have anything a white person takes for granted that they should have. I”ve never been feeling Hillary anyway—I’m an Obama supporter all the way, and NO, it’s not just because he’s black—from what I’ve read about him, the issues he stands for, and how he’s trying to keep the subject of race OUT of the race despite the insistence of the media on throwing it at regardless—I just feel he’s more in touch with the problems of average,everyday working folks like myself–that’s how he’s always come across to me. Hilalry just comes off like she’ll say and do anything to be the Prez (I know, Obama’s doing the exact same thing, but he’s being more diplomatic about it).

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 5:31 pm ¶

43. bradski wrote:

    Tasha,

    I went back and read your comments. I then read Carmen’s. I agree with her. A mixed-race person has the right to self-identify as he sees fit.

    Furthermore, I HATE the way term “pimping.” To use that with Tiger Woods is offensive and dismissive of his life and talent.

    Woods is a golf superstar. Period. Are you telling me that white sports athletes don’t get huge endorsement contracts?

    Woods has a special place in history for many reasons. Yes, Woods can be seen as “black” from an American racial perspective. But he can also be seen as Asian and multiracial, too.

    Woods has a right to define himself as he sees fit.

    Woods has never rejected his African ancestry, he has said that he also takes pride in his other ancestry also. What’s wrong with that?

    Frankly, I find it appalling that anyone would expect Woods to reject his mother’s Thai ancestry or any other part of his ancestry.

    Barack Obama has said that he sees himself as an African-American of mixed ancestry. And, as this thread has discussed, others like Geraldine Ferraro want to make something of his African ancestry.

    But should Obama allow the lies and bigotry of others to define him?

    Because America has a history of racism why does that mean that we have to continue it? Isn’t that what makes Ferraro and Clinton so repulsive and evil?

    As much as you may want to enforce an identity or worldview on another person, it’s not going to work if he or she doesn’t want to play along. That was the point of the Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, and Gay Rights movements: people fighting to define themselves as truly free human beings able to define themselves as they see fit.

    Both “black” and “African-American” are terms that people who were call Negroes and colored chose for themselves.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 5:38 pm ¶

44. Orville wrote:

    Geraldine Ferraro’s comments are racist and misandrist. Ferraro’s comments are just indicative of the pernicious anti black male world we live in. It also proves some white feminists once again focus on gender but ignore race and class. Ferraro and the Clintons want Ferraro to be depicted as the classic white female victim.

    Ferraro is trying to link black men as the oppressor all the while ignoring the racism and misandry of white feminists. bell hooks, Audre Lorde, and the Combahee River Collective have written for decades that black feminists cannot separate themselves from their race and gender. White feminists have white skin privilege and of course don’t care about the concerns of women and people of colour. However, white women have also contributed to the discrimination against people of colour. Ferraro’s view on Obama is that he is nothing but a novelty act and that’s false. White people are also voting for Obama there is no way the would of won Maine, Washington State, Nebraska, Vermont, Hawaii, Maine, Iowa, with just black votes. Obama is less inimical then Sharpton and Jackson. Obama is smart he realizes he can’t just focus on black issues he’s got to reach out to a larger demographic. I actually think if Obama was a white man he would of won the Democratic party nomination. People seem to be forgetting another issue Clinton won in some states due to name recognition. Why doesn’t Geraldine Ferraro acknowledge the fact white women benefit from white skin privilege and the marriage market. Part of Hillary Clinton’s success is due to the fact he husband is Bill Clinton. I also believe Ferraro’s comments are a political ploy it is a way to shock and scare voters from voting for Obama. It looks a little too contrived. And Ferraro doesn’t care about black women either all this white lady cares about is another white woman reaches the White House. White women have access to political power through their husbands and the White House for decades.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 6:23 pm ¶

45. jen* wrote:

    Ms. Ferraro’s comments and insistence on staying in the limelight to repeat herself are wrong. And racist. There are no excuses for her, because she’s old enough and has enough experience to know that if what she said wasn’t exactly what she meant, she should’ve thought it through more, first. And if they were what she meant (she claims that they are), then she is a racist.

    All that being said, I’m still on the Hillary side of things. I’m a bit depressed because of how distasteful this race [both sides] has gotten to me, but I’m still on her side. I’m actually trying to stay away from too much news because I want to be fairly ok with whoever wins the nomination – no matter how nasty things get in the coming months.

    Interestingly enough, Hillary has already commented that there will need to be a lot of work done to heal the breach in the Dem Party so we can all get behind whoever is the nominee. She specifically mentioned that if Barack were to win the nomination, she would want her supporters to vote for him. (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/03/clinton-tries-to-make-amends.html)

    Here’s hoping we can find some civility to sustain us for the next few months.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 6:38 pm ¶

46. Colin wrote:

    Redstar,

    I wonder who believes that other people in the Obama campaign think Sen. Clinton is a “monster”. I can see other people in the campaign not liking Clinton’s tactics and wanting to call her on her bullshit, that’s something I hope any progressive is willing and able to do. However, do I think petty and silly name-calling is the strategy of the Obama campaign? I’ve yet to see the evidence, my friend.

    G.D.,

    If either candidate will do or say anything to become president, why is one more diplomatic about it? That’s just logically incoherent. (No beef, just something that came up when I was reading the replies)

    In general,

    Whether or not it’s concerted and strategic, the Clinton campaign is not foolish enough not to know that this story is strongly in their electoral favor. Gerry Ferraro may have done what the entire campaign could not, box in Barack Obama as a whiny, oversensitive PC black candidate who doesn’t represent “America” but just represents “blacks”. The second day’s lines where Rep. Ferraro complained of being attacked because she’s white may be the line that resonates with rural whites in PA and across the country, making the whole exchange into a no-win for Sen. Obama overall.

    If he tries to ignore the comments, then he’s once again portrayed as soft and having a glass jaw, and people start to wonder a lot more if maybe she’s right.

    If he responds, then it matters HOW he responds. If he is true and says the comments are demeaning and racist, he’s PC and would become the black candidate within an hour, election over.

    If he spins the damage from the statements, in effect doing some damage control for the Clinton campaign by saying the comments are NOT racist, then he doesn’t really affect the story at all and just coasts while the underlying current of a white inferiority complex fester throughout the electorate, but at least he keeps his base. This seems to be what happened.

    The Clinton campaign is already seen as divisive and also are already seen as not having a real shot at the nomination without subverting the will of the primary voters, so they don’t politically have as much of a dog in the fight and thusly no real reason to pull Ferraro back until her rants grew tiresome. This also seems to have been the resulting action.

    Overall, it was a crazy, racist, delusional statement that neither campaign knew how to handle and it shows the horrible problem of having such a long primary season continue on like this. Something like this will happen again before August, please believe that.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 8:06 pm ¶

47. Black Canseco wrote:

    of course hilary wants barack’s supporters to support her if she takes the nom. she–like any politician–would take anyone’s supporters.

    that’s not a signing of healing, that’s a sign of “i still wanna win”.

    as for the “feminist stereotype” that the media focuses on, I really do wonder about that one.

    My issue isn’t with how the media portray feminists–Rush Limbaugh and other extremist elites aside; but rather how far too many feminists portray themselves on a variety of levels from mainstream media to grassroots community efforts to those on college campuses.

    it (the movement) just really comes off as white women’s faces, views, issues, etc first with others (women of color) later–provided said others concerns are inline with the above.

    Would luv to see a post or two discussing this to get more feedback from women here. Tried doing it in a few other forums–mine included and was left with less than friendly discussions.

    By the way–why is Dan Abrams, et al bugging people to leave Ferraro and Clinton alone when Clinton demanded that Obama no only repudiate, but distance himself from, shoot down support from Farrakhan and his now ex-pastor Jeremiah Wright who’s disagreed with 85 times publicly already.

    It smacks of hypocrisy; stunning hypocrisy. And by the way: Dan Abrams is officially as biased as those critics.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 8:09 pm ¶

48. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    I didn’t get the impression that she was saying most Obama supporters wouldn’t support an almost identical guy if he were white. I took it that she was saying that Obama wouldn’t have come to prominence even to be noticed if he had been white but otherwise much like what he’s like. What brought him to the national scene was that speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. It isn’t exactly typical to select a state senator to speak at those conventions, and many people do think his being black combined with his being the way he is got him noticed and got him that speech, and then people, now seeing him more in the spotlight, took to him.

    I also don’t think she meant it to reflect negatively on him anymore than she meant her comment about herself to reflect negatively on her. I’m sure she thought she was qualified to be vice-president, or she couldn’t in good conscience have accepted Walter Mondale’s offer to be his running mate. But she knew that what gave her the edge was her being a woman, and she might not have stood out otherwise.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 9:16 pm ¶

49. deb wrote:

    “If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.” Guess who?

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 9:56 pm ¶

50. Black Canseco wrote:

    Ferraro has a history of this nonsense. if you drink repeatedly, it’s safe to call you a drinker. if you repeatedly make racially biased statements that serve no purpose other than to denigrade, marginalize and downplay the aspirations of people different from you, it’s pretty safe to say that you’re a bigot.

    Ferraro’s made it clear where she’s at time and time again.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 10:03 pm ¶

51. Orville wrote:

    Ferraro comments are an example of white female skin privilege. Ferraro is playing the divide and conquer strategy the white feminists have crafted, drafted, and utilized for decades against people of colour.

    Ferraro is a racist along with the racist baiters The Clintons they aren’t fooling anybody. Hillary Clinton wants to win at all costs. I just hope voters pay attention to the tactics of The Clintons. Barack Obama has been Mr. Nice Guy for far too long. I’m not saying Barack should be confrontational but he’s got to start making his move and go after Hillary a bit more.

    Another thing Ferraro ignores is the gender card. Since Hillary Clinton is a white woman the white feminists will scream at the top of their lungs if Barack Obama did attack her. Obama’s strategy is similar to that of the French president Nicolas Sarkozy. When Segolene Royal was attacking Sarkozy hard he maintained his composure because he didn’t want to come across as “attacking a woman”. So women also play the gender card as well in their favor in politics.
    No wonder some women of colour and people of colour have a problem with the white female feminist movement. I am so glad I read the classic black feminist book “All The Women Are White All The Blacks Are Men But Some Of Us Are Brave” edited by Gloria T Hull. In the book Hull, Barbara Smith, and other black feminists point out their concerns with the racism in the mainstream white feminist movement. Why are white women consistently let off the hook for their pernicious racism?
    Why is the misandry of feminists ignored. Black men most certainly do not got it easier in North American then white females. White women are the ones that benefit from Affirmative Action programs the most.

    Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 10:13 pm ¶

52. DivergentDana wrote:

    “So women also play the gender card as well in their favor in politics.”

    Oh, come on… just like the “race card”, “the gender card” is largely ineffective and easily turned against the wielder by those in power. “Oh, the poor woman, out there being roughed up by meanies” is an obviously double-edged sword. On one hand, male opponents may (emphasis on may) feel like they have to tiptoe, on the other hand, she will seem weak, and people don’t like the idea of a weak leader — at all. Add preexisting stereotypes about women being inherently unsuitable for “rough-and-tumble”, male-dominated environments, stir and serve.

    “Since Hillary Clinton is a white woman the white feminists will scream at the top of their lungs if Barack Obama did attack her.”

    Ah, you realize that a lot of white feminists are FOR Obama, right? I’ve heard time and time again from these women that they’re very interested in a woman president, but “not THIS woman.” Her hawkish stance on the Iraq war has alienated many members of traditionally leftist factions, including feminists.

    “it (the movement) just really comes off as white women’s faces, views, issues, etc first with others (women of color) later–provided said others concerns are inline with the above.”

    There’s definitely big problems among feminists with POC representation, especially at the highest levels of power, but that’s a common malady of the left in general, not just feminists in particular. (Remember the kerfluffle within the blogosphere over the all-white Clinton blogger luncheon?) If you’ve seen the stats, rape prevention, domestic violence prevention/protections, sexual harassment prevention, and the pro-choice movement, for instance, are extremely relevant to the lives of black women… and these issues are at the forefront of American feminism. Perhaps I can more adequately address your concerns, Black Canseco, if you’d be kind enough to provide me with some examples of “white women’s” issues that you’ve seen garner widespread concern to the detriment of WOC and the issues that affect us.

    Posted 14 Mar 2008 at 2:01 am ¶

53. sfsinger wrote:

    Yes what Ferraro said was racist. Yes part of Obama’s appeal has to do with his entire package. No one ever talks about his spirituality though. On many levels he has decided to be an absolutely honorable, turn the other cheek type candidate. She and others may have a knee-jerk reaction and attribute it the “magic negro” syndrome but it lies much deeper than that. There is going to be a segment of people in this country who would never vote for a non-white person running for office. Had Obama been Latino HRC would have tried to alienate him with Black voters over racial struggle and against whites over immigration. He will continue to stay above the fray because he has based his entire candidacy on being the alternative. He has made a point to attract the participation of newer voters and get people interested in the government. As personal as the attacks feel for those of us who have had to deal with racism, they wouldn’t be doing this if they didn’t think he was close to winning. I’m certain there’s quite a few people in both main political parties that do not a Black man as President. They were never going to make it easy nor did they think he’d do so well. But it’s not personal – it’s strategy. They are cold-hearted and calculating. They see their political careers in jeopardy so if they go down they’re go down swinging. If they had chosen to back him instead they’d be jumping for joy. Obama is well-liked, supported by some powerful people as well as a large portion of the population and regardless of the outcome of the election will be fine. It’s us, the voters that need to be sure we will not get lost in the fray and not have our needs tossed aside while these politicians and special interests jockey for position. If enough people participate we can have the candidate of our choosing – just as the politicians who are in office/who’ve remained in office do so through our action or inaction. People have to take a stand or be mowed over.

    Posted 14 Mar 2008 at 4:01 am ¶

54. Orville wrote:

    I agree that Tiger Woods is both Asian American and African American. Tiger’s mother is from Thailand his father was an African American. However, I am not a fan of Woods for a variety of reasons. One reason is some black people can discern Woods has always attempted to distance himself from blackness. In the occidental world being black is still viewed as being the ultimate inferior and the Other. In Asia they like Woods because he’s a champion golfer. However, it is well known racism exists against mixed race people in Asia and definitely against blacks. I doubt Thailand would be hailing Woods as a hero if he wasn’t a top golfer. If Woods wasn’t a top Golfer he would be viewed as just another nigger.

    Posted 14 Mar 2008 at 5:46 am ¶

55. tasha wrote:

    @bradski

    So, Hillary’s “repulsive and evil,” now, eh? Bradski, you’re entitled to your opinion, and feel free to replace the “race pimping” with race profiteering, if it suits your fancy. I don’t even think you even read my comments, to be quite honest. Much like people who only hear what they want to, I think your reviewing of my remarks was selective. For some reason, you’re under the impression that I take issue with how Woods identifies as a mixed race person, when in fact, I explicitly said that my grievance with Woods has to do with how he profits off of being the novelty black golfer on the PGA, one minute, then tries his best to avoid any type of controversy related to the political and historical ramifications of his black heritage, the next (lynch comment melee). What that has to do with Woods identifying as Cablanasian, I don’t know. I said nothing of Woods rejecting his Thai heritage. In my first comment, I specifically stated that both of Woods’ parents should be acknowledged. I never said that Woods rejected all of his black heritage. I said that when it comes to his black heritage he seems to like everything but the burden. So you can save the civil rights lecture and the PC moral aggrandizing for someone else. As for Carmen’s remarks, I don’t even think that she was addressing me, because I never alluded to Woods being naïve about the nature of racism, nor did I chide him for not identifying solely as black. Of course, if you had actually read what I wrote . . .

    Whether or not you want to acknowledge it, Woods being the lone black golfer on the PGA is part of his marketable appeal. So yes, Tiger makes much money off of being black in golf, for reasons that I already stated in the other thread, much like being rare, black tennis players is a selling point of the Williams Sisters, or like being the lone black golfers on the LPGA will be a selling point for those Howard girls, should they make it out of Q school. And you’re right, there are superstar white athletes with large endorsement contracts, for instance, Maria Sharapova, but I suppose in your eyes, she has over twenty million a year in sponsorships simply because of how well she plays tennis, because Maria’s being a six foot, blonde, white girl has nothing to do with it. Cause, she’s just a superstar tennis player, period, right? (LOL)

    I’m not necessarily defending Ferraro’s comments because they were poorly worded, but like I said before, I agree that Obama’s being half black is a selling point in his “Change” mantra, just like Tiger’s ethnic minority status is a selling point in golf. And for like the 800th time, saying that Tiger profits from the marketability of his ethnic minority status does not discount or negate his golfing achievements, but God-forbid anyone in the MSM address that issue for fear of an ultra-liberal backlash (Bradski). So Bradski, since it seems to help you sleep at night, I guess you can go on pretending that Obama gets no extra attention because he’s black. Tiger’s appeal is based solely on how well he plays golf, ditto for the Williams Sisters in tennis. Maria gets all the attention she gets because of her athletic prowess, not for any other reason, and the Howard Sisters got a spread in the New York Times sports magazine because they are seeded number’s 101 and 288 in the amateur, under 18 female golf rankings. Seriously, must political correctness always involve being so willfully blind?

    Posted 14 Mar 2008 at 6:33 am ¶

56. Celeste wrote:

    Bradski,
    I second tasha on this one. I don’t think you read the whole her comments. Another poster was advocating that Tiger solely identify as black but Tasha was not. I don’t always read all of someone’s comments, but I think your response was a bit heavy handed given the cursory review of what she wrote.
    I think that I started the use of the word “pimping”. I meant it in the way that some people use something that should be valued and respected in order to achieve an end when they don’t actually value or respect the thing they’re using. I do think that Obama’s race is part of his appeal but he doens’t pimp it out because (at least to me) he clearly values it. On the other hand, doctors who pimp out their MD’s on the Hydroxycut commercials are exploiting and disrespecting their positions. I don’t think that the term makes infers anything about their “lives” or their abilities as physicians.

    Posted 14 Mar 2008 at 9:10 am ¶

57. Celeste wrote:

    As for Ms. Ferraro, that was racist. Reducing his candidacy simply to being black definetely qualifies as is offensive and dismissive of his life and talent. hilary shoudl have denouced and rejected his as fast an uneqivocally as Obama does when someone crosses the line on his side.
    However, I would beg, beseech and implore all the pissed off at Hilary Obama supporter to not vote for McCain just to spite Hilary. For the love of Pete, they have nearly the same policies! McCain’s surrogates have already started the Muslim baiting and if that doesn’t work, the race baiting won’t be long behind. Hilary’s campaign tactics has gone a bit south recently but what you want is an end to war (not another year), health care reform, things like that…not a BFF. I daresay that voting against someone whose policies would be in your best interest because they’ve really angered you isn’t that much different than voting for someone simply because you’d rather have a beer with them or simply because they’re “born again”. I like Hilary, I like Obama but I love good policy more than I like any one person.

    Posted 14 Mar 2008 at 9:22 am ¶

58. Celeste wrote:

    I meant not another 100 years

    Posted 14 Mar 2008 at 9:29 am ¶

59. Michelle wrote:

    Um….did anyone see the “Bitch is the new Black” sketch on SNL that Tina Fey did? I think it is incredibly relevant. I tried to get it to you Carmen, but I didn’t work.

    Posted 14 Mar 2008 at 1:18 pm ¶

60. Black Canseco wrote:

    I, too have issues with tiger woods’s multi-ethnic song and dance. woods seems to only acknowledge his african american roots when it’s profitable to do so. that became quite apparent with the kelly tilghman fiasco, which i wrote about it here:

    As for issues affecting WOC that take a backseat:

    1) Missing Black Women/Children and WOCC’s ignored in favor of Missing White Women/Children. WOC’s and COC (Children of Color) account for 40% of all missing cases–the number rises when you factor in missing AOC (adults of color), yet who gets the coverage, and who do we advocate for first and foremost?

    2) Misogyny in music and entertainment. A huge issue affecting all women, but when white women are on the receving end, it’s a much bigger deal than when WOC’s.

    3) Women in Politics. White women classified as “women” as if they’re the sole definition of women, yet WOCs have to pull the “hey we’re women, too” card to be heard.

    Black Female politicians who support anything not seen as an overtly popular feminist agenda–abortion rights, etc. seem to get marginalized as “black politicians” or “others” as if there’s never any overlap, intersection or value in issues equally relevant to black women and feminists/white women.

    If you bring issues affecting women in africa for example, they’re written off as “african” issues. or issues of singleparenthood, bad innercity schools, those are written off as “black issues” as if bad schools and violence are the sole domain of black women’s kids and african women aren’t “female enough” to hand-wring over.

    4) Beauty standard issues. Again, something that affects women across the board, but whether we’re talking size/shape, representation in media/fashion, the issue has to be problematic in the eyes of white feminists for it to be a discussion. Consider the issue of the ongoing dearth of black female models and black female designers–outside of racialicious and more “ethnic”-driven blogs, you don’t hear this discussed on “feminist” blogs, or by the “established” feminist leaders. i think that’s because there are plenty of white female models and far more white female designers.

    those are just a few disparities that I see.

    Posted 14 Mar 2008 at 1:31 pm ¶

61. Orville wrote:

    White feminists don’t give a damn about black women. bell hooks eloquently wrote about the struggles of black women in her book “Ain’t I A Woman?” I have also visited some of these so called feminist blogs and they are incredibly racist and misandrist. I applaud bell hooks, Patricia Hill Collins, Gloria T Hull, Barbara Smith, and all the other black feminists that realize that there are black men out there that definitely believe in women’s rights. What I resent is the insinuation by racist white female feminists such as Hillary Clinton, NOW Organization, and Geraldine Ferraro that black men are somehow oppressors to women. White feminists refuse to acknowledge their role in discriminating against blacks and taking advantage of white skin privilege. But of course the mainstream media glosses over the history of racism in the white mainstream feminist movement against blacks.

    Posted 14 Mar 2008 at 2:02 pm ¶

62. Orville wrote:

    And Hillary Clinton definitely plays with the gender card so I think its deleterious and ludicrous for you to suggest she doesn’t play the gender card because she most certainly does. Hillary is always complaining about how hard she’s got it. Yet she got to her position through the marriage market. When someone asks her tough questions that they are “taking it out of the Republican handbook.” Hillary Clinton can’t have it both ways this is raw politics if she can set a fire she better be prepared to deal with the flame.

    Posted 14 Mar 2008 at 2:04 pm ¶

63. tasha wrote:

    “And Hillary Clinton definitely plays with the gender card so I think its deleterious and ludicrous for you to suggest she doesn’t play the gender card because she most certainly does.”

    @ Orville

    to whom are you speaking?

    Posted 14 Mar 2008 at 2:27 pm ¶

64. Black Canseco wrote:

    saw the Bitch is the New Black. Depends on how you take it. Was “black” a fashion reference or an ethnic reference. Fey’s smart enough to get the double entendre out there and allow people to take it both ways.

    without rehashing my SNL issues, i just find tht show to across the board to be annoying.

    I’d love to see a skit spoofing Clinton’s incessant use of her marriage to Bill Clinton as hard professional “work experience”. If a woman claiming her marriage to a president as “presidential” isn’t condescending and insulting to women candidates and women professionals all of whom have to base their qualifications on an actual employment history, then i don’t know what is.

    Posted 14 Mar 2008 at 3:01 pm ¶

65. Black Canseco wrote:

    sorry, the above response was was in reference to the question of who saw the SNL Clinton skit where Tina Fey and Amy Proehl said “bitch is the new black”?

    Posted 14 Mar 2008 at 3:04 pm ¶

66. Michelle wrote:

    While there was the double entendre going on, it was clear to me what she was talking about about and what she meant when she referred to Obama during the skit.

    Posted 14 Mar 2008 at 4:08 pm ¶

67. Jaye wrote:

    I have to defend Hillary just a bit on this one…I do believe that part of the reason why the country was run as well as it was (relatively) during Bill Clinton’s presidency, was because of Hillary…a lot of successful men have an amazingly intelligent wife micro-managing behind the scenes, and they do not get the credit…

    But that being said, without taking away from the realities that women (white in this
    case) have to attaining positions of power when they deserve it and work hard for it, if you want to claim “experience”, then you have to put it out there…what EXACTLY did you do during Bill’s presidency? Which policies did you push? What meetings were you in on? What advice did you give that led to the enactment of particular laws, mediations or policies? I don’t think belittling her contribution during that time or implying that she was “only the wife” and therefore contributed nothing at all is effective or true in her case.

    But Bill’s accomplishments are not her accomplishments. She had her own accomplishments, perhaps behind the scenes, and if she wants to claim experience, she needs to explicitly state what those accomplishments and contributions were.

    I think that is what separates Obama’s campaign from Clinton’s. I haven’t (personally) seen evidence so far of him attacking her AS A WOMAN, or taking the misogynistic subtexts of society (like she was “only the wife” and therefore obviously contributed nothing at all) and turning it into a campaign narrative, the way she has with his race, which I personally find disgusting.

    Also, as someone pointed out, Hillary Clinton is attacking Obama as though black men are responsible for their oppression. As though the label of ‘male’ means ‘white male’, and if Obama is a male, therefore, everything ‘white men’ have ever done, Obama and his particular gender/racial identity is responsible for as well. Actually, if you want to point to the perpetrators of your oppression Hillary, you might want to turn around and take a look at Bill or John, they are much more representative of your oppressors than Obama ever will be.

    Posted 14 Mar 2008 at 7:55 pm ¶

68. DivergentDana wrote:

    As for issues affecting WOC that take a backseat:

    “1) Missing Black Women/Children and WOCC’s ignored in favor of Missing White Women/Children. WOC’s and COC (Children of Color) account for 40% of all missing cases–the number rises when you factor in missing AOC (adults of color), yet who gets the coverage, and who do we advocate for first and foremost?”

    I haven’t heard of much “missing white woman coverage” among/started by white feminists… it seems to be a mainstream cultural obsession, rooted in centuries-old “damsel in distress” traditions that are largely antithetical to feminism, and implications that (in addition to being white) thin, attractive, young, “clean-living”, straight women (in other words, traditional “princess types”) are the only women worth worrying about, which also seems explicitly anti-feminist.

    “2) Misogyny in music and entertainment. A huge issue affecting all women, but when white women are on the receving end, it’s a much bigger deal than when WOC’s.”

    I’ve actually seen the inverse… folks shaking their finger at rappers to take the heat and attention off of misogyny in say, rock or pop music… all while having little honest concern for the black women themselves, and stemming more from an urge to scapegoat black men for yet another of the world’s ills. There’s a hesitance on the part of white feminists to go to underprivileged POC and tell them what they should be doing, because of the prospect of being lumped in with the above folks, and for obvious other reasons. This also extends to third world & non-Western environments as well. However, there’s also a mentality that strongly implies that “they’re (WOC) not doing anything about it/don’t have a problem with it” afoot in some quarters as far as hip-hop is concerned which I find disturbing, and is probably firmly based in ignorance. It would definitely behoove some white feminists to do some research before they make such assumptions and support WOC in their ongoing efforts, as opposed to acting as if they’ve discovered the wheel, yet are too worried about having to be the one to put it on a wagon to do so. To them, I say, “Don’t worry. WOC are building wagons already, here’s a hammer and a box of nails, you’re in group #4.”

    “3) Women in Politics. White women classified as “women” as if they’re the sole definition of women, yet WOCs have to pull the “hey we’re women, too” card to be heard.”

    This especially irked me throughout the S.C. elections, and I’ve had to pull that very card, so I know what you mean — but this phenomenon is very much a part of society in general, as I’m sure you’re well aware. Many feminists wonder why WOC haven’t warmed to them, and slights like that, old guard types like Steinem and Ferraro that need to be loudly “rejected and denounced”, and preposterous, “everything but the racism” responses to stuff like the Planned Parenthood Idaho hoax are the reason why.

    “Black Female politicians who support anything not seen as an overtly popular feminist agenda–abortion rights, etc. seem to get marginalized as “black politicians” or “others” as if there’s never any overlap, intersection or value in issues equally relevant to black women and feminists/white women.”

    There’s definitely a vicious cycle regarding feminism and black women — even black non-feminists with common goals — that results in less team building and “reaching across the aisle” than there should be. However, black female politicians have something to lose if they choose to ally themselves with white feminists, as well… close association with those who are highly critical of Christianity-based patriarchy, often pro-GBLT rights and pro-choice may be a “turnoff” for the politicians themselves and socially conservative/fiscally liberal black voters, as well.

    “If you bring issues affecting women in africa for example, they’re written off as “african” issues. or issues of singleparenthood, bad innercity schools, those are written off as “black issues” as if bad schools and violence are the sole domain of black women’s kids and african women aren’t “female enough” to hand-wring over.”

    There are many feminists that are indeed dedicated to analyzing “the feminization of poverty” and working to alleviate its results. Unfortunately, there probably aren’t enough… working class white women also often feel as if the feminist movement status quo is out of touch with their needs, and there’s definitely problems of class bias within feminist circles that include, unfortunately, a tendency to throw up hands at the travails of black inner city youth and their mothers. As far as African issues, the aforementioned hesitation to barge in on culturally/racially different, disadvantaged people also plays a prominent role in the lack of response.

    “4) Beauty standard issues. Again, something that affects women across the board, but whether we’re talking size/shape, representation in media/fashion, the issue has to be problematic in the eyes of white feminists for it to be a discussion. Consider the issue of the ongoing dearth of black female models and black female designers–outside of racialicious and more “ethnic”-driven blogs, you don’t hear this discussed on “feminist” blogs, or by the “established” feminist leaders. i think that’s because there are plenty of white female models and far more white female designers.”

    This is true, but it’s also driven by a widespread misconception — supported by studies — that black women are largely free from body image issues. Unfortunately, these studies don’t seem to take differing cultural standards and criteria into account. While black female beauty anxieties may not manifest themselves in eating disorders (most of the time, anyway… my own mother struggled with bulimia), they come up other places — places that due to cultural unfamiliarity, lack of understanding, and lack of communication, go virtually unheard of by many white feminists. This is compounded by a hesitance among black women to “air dirty laundry” of the black community regarding colorism/the hair hierarchy/denigration of stereotypically African features, indict black men for perpetuating/supporting these standards in many cases, and/or let down a facade of confidence and strength. While I haven’t heard this addressed by “established feminist leaders” either, there’s been much ado about the dearth of black models on Jezebel, a mostly white pop-culture blog with strongly feminist leanings, and on Rachel’s Tavern (although, it could definitely be argued that despite Rachel herself being white, she runs an “ethnic blog”).

    All in all, there’s much work to be done, and as a black feminist, I hope to be an integral part of doing it. Most of your complaints seem quite valid, Black Canseco, and I sincerely wonder how things spiraled out of control when you addressed these points with other feminists. Perhaps you could provide a brief summary and/or link?

    Posted 14 Mar 2008 at 10:11 pm ¶

69. Hot Tramp wrote:

    “I don’t like to throw out words like ‘racist,’” Obama said.

    And that’s exactly why whites are voting for you, Barack — because you’ll happily pretend right along with them that racism isn’t an issue anymore.

    Posted 16 Mar 2008 at 10:16 pm ¶

70. arwyn wrote:

    IF Obama’s race is the reason he’s gotten so far, it’s only because he learned how to be 2x’s as charismatic and work 2x’s as hard to compete with white male politicians. Ferraro’s comments were clearly racist and, well, SHE’S clearly racist.
    I have to say, as a white feminist, that all movements are plagued with double standards and hipocracy and feminism is no exception (especailly the 1st and second wave). And I guess when I say all movements, I actually mean all of society.
    In defense of feminism, I will also say that I know that if I wasn’t a feminist, I wouldn’t have studied oppression and wouldn’t know my own white privilege or ever challenged racism.

    Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 4:43 am ¶

71. tasha wrote:

    “I’d love to see a skit spoofing Clinton’s incessant use of her marriage to Bill Clinton as hard professional “work experience”. If a woman claiming her marriage to a president as “presidential” isn’t condescending and insulting to women candidates and women professionals all of whom have to base their qualifications on an actual employment history, then i don’t know what is.”

    @Black Conseco

    Actually, I don’t find Hillary’s citing her marriage as Presidential work experience offensive in the least. My aunt and uncle are in the beauty shop business. They own a hair and nail spot that caters mostly to black clientele and a day spa at another location. They met in beauty school. When they married, her career took a backseat to his. Even though my aunt didn’t work in the businesses on a daily basis, as my uncle did, she would occasionally do (my) hair at home and fill in at the salon from to time to keep her skills fresh, manage various logistics of their operations, and always talk shop with my uncle at home. So one day, my uncle got sick, and in addition to nursing him back to health, she took over the businesses, and she did a wonderful job.

    Women’s ascending to the ranks of power on their own merit, en masse, is a fairly recent post civil rights/second wave feminist phenomenon that resulted largely from women’s access to higher education and affirmative action. However, it’s not uncommon for women to gain access to power and experience via marriage or proximity to powerful men, and women who are privy to and take advantage of such privilege are not necessarily unfit to accomplish professional endeavors. Other than being a high fashion model, Kimora Lee Simmons had no prior experience running a fashion business, so she followed her ex- husband to work one day, and now the segment of the original business that Russell let her run on a lark grosses just as much if not more than the first business he initially started. Sofia Coppola has no academic credentials (film school degrees, bachelor degrees) in film. Her training comes from having grown up on movie sets and taken screenwriting instruction from her father. Sofia’s directed three features and is one of only two or three women ever to be nominated for a “best director” Oscar. How do you think the Trump women (Ivana, Ivanka) learned the real estate game and the Johnson women (Eunice and Linda Johnson Rice) got into publishing? The fact that the US hasn’t had a serious, female, Presidential candidate before Hillary, a former first lady, says more about the nature of patriarchy in our society than it does about Hillary Clinton. And yes, Hillary does have her own accomplishments. She had a Presidentially appointed position in the Carter administration when Obama was still in high school, which BTW, was before Bill was first elected governor of Arkansas. She helped create SCHIP when she was first lady and got the Adoption for Safe Families act passed when Bill was POTUS.

    Pick Flick for 08’

    Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 6:59 am ¶

72. Orville wrote:

    But Hillary Clinton didn’t reach the top on her own merit she reached the top based on name recognition. I think it is perfidious to suggest otherwise. Plenty of people are voting for Clinton because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife. Hillary Clinton just like some other white feminists benefit from being married to powerful white men. If she wasn’t Bill Clinton’s wife I don’t think she would be this successful.

    Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 6:48 pm ¶

73. Jaye wrote:

    Hillary Clinton probably would not be this successful without Bill, but you could also say that Bill Clinton would not have been this successful without Hillary. White men have the access to power, and the patriarchal privilege to utilize the resources of (white) women to get there.

    But now that the playing field is beginning to level, white women have an advantage over women of color because they have access to power through their (white) husbands and they have privilege simply due to the color of their skin, and this is a particular power and privilege that non-white women do not have.

    Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 11:07 pm ¶

74. tasha wrote:

    Yes, Orville, there are people voting for Hillary based on name recognition and gender. There are also people voting for Obama because he’s black and male. We’ve established that. There are people who go see Sofia’s movies because she’s Francis Ford’s daughter. That doesn’t mean that she isn’t a decent filmmaker. There are people who buy Kimora’s products because she’s Russell’s ex-wife. That doesn’t negate how the BabyPhat and KLS brands expanded under her leadership as opposed to when Russell was running the women’s line. Ivanka Trump gets all types of free publicity to schlep her various business ventures because she’s The Donald’s daughter. It doesn’t change the fact that she’s a successful real estate developer and owns a really nice jewelry store in Manhattan. The fact that Linda is John Johnson’s daughter doesn’t change the fact that Johnson Publishing has thrived under her tenure as CEO. So what exactly is your point?

    Though you may not realize, Hillary has a resume and an identity that precedes Bill. She also has impressive credentials that she amassed after she married Bill, and I wouldn’t be so quick to discount Hillary’s contributions to Bill’s political career. Obama is no stranger to the benefits of a well connected spouse, himself. Barack made good use of Michelle’s professional connections for his political campaigns, even enlisting Michelle’s former boss, who was the chair of the Chicago Stock Exchange to be Barack’s finance committee chair for his 04’ Senate run. I’m sure Bill did the same with Hillary’s connections after she made partner at her law firm. The corporations that Hillary was on the board of directors of were clients of her firm. Hillary’s marriage is just another feather in her cap, and Bill married a meal ticket because Hillary was making more money than he did until he got to the White House. The fact that she eventually became a US Senator was not surprising to anyone because she’s been on the DNC’s radar since the 70’s when she was on the staff that advised the House Judiciary Committee on how to impeach Nixon (which is not without irony). Yes, being Bill’s wife played a role in her election to the US Senate, but her securing tens of billions of dollars for 9/11 recovery had something to do with her reelection. Tell me, do you have a problem with how Harold Ford Jr. or Jesse Jackson’s sons, or the Kennedy’s have used name recognition for political and financial gain, or is it just privileged females that offend you in that regard, or more specifically, former first ladies running for President?

    Posted 18 Mar 2008 at 7:28 am ¶