“What Kind of White Woman is Hillary Clinton?” – The Nation Reports on The Race to the Bottom
by Latoya Peterson
The Nation recently published a very interesting article by Betsy Reed, titled “The Race to the Bottom.” The crux of the piece can be summarized in this paragraph:
The sexist attacks on Clinton are outrageous and deplorable, but there’s reason to be concerned about her becoming the vehicle for a feminist reawakening. For one thing, feminist sympathy for her has begotten an “oppression sweepstakes” in which a number of her prominent supporters, dismayed at her upstaging by Obama, have declared a contest between racial and gender bias and named sexism the greater scourge. This maneuver is not only unhelpful for coalition-building but obstructs understanding of how sexism and racism have played out in this election in different (and interrelated) ways.
Dead on, Betsy. As I wrote in the Does Feminism Have to Address Race post one of the unique positions I happen to find myself in more and more is having to challenge the sexism that Hillary Clinton (and Chelsea Clinton) are subject to from progressive men, but feeling hesitant to do so – after all, I do not want to give the impression that I am giving Hillary Clinton a pass on the race baiting that has come from her camp. I have yet to hear her reject and denounce Bob Johnson or Geraldine Ferraro. So, it becomes difficult.
The article notes that some of Clinton’s hardass behavior may in fact come from the tightrope she has to walk in order to be perceived as strong enough for the job, but not strong enough to be unlikeable:
For Hillary Clinton, the gendered terrain of post-9/11 national security politics has been treacherous indeed. As Elizabeth Drew observed in The New York Review of Books, Clinton took steps in the Senate, like joining the Armed Services Committee, “to protect herself from the sexist notion that a woman might be soft on national security.” As a 2002 study by the White House Project, a women’s leadership group, found, “Women candidates start out with a serious disadvantage–voters tend to view women as less effective and tough. Recent events of war, terrorism, and recession have only…increased the salience of these dimensions.” Clinton has been quite successful in allaying these concerns, although she faces a Catch-22: her reputed toughness and ruthlessness have helped ratchet up her high negatives. The White House Project study found that a woman candidate faces a unique tension between the need to show herself “in a light that is personally appealing, while also showing that she has the kind of strength needed for the job she is seeking.”
Still, the attacks leveled at Obama from the Clinton camp has been tinged with all kinds of sentiments, including racism and xenophobia. When discussing how the candidates respond to race or gender based attacks, Reed notes:
Clinton has, to be sure, faced a raw misogyny that has been more out in the open than the racial attacks on Obama have been. But while sexism may be more casually accepted, racism, which is often coded, is more insidious and trickier to confront. Clinton’s response to “Iron my shirt” was immediate and straightforward: “Oh, the remnants of sexism, alive and well.” Says Kimberlé Crenshaw, law professor at Columbia and UCLA and executive director of the African American Policy Forum, “While sexism can be denounced more directly, that doesn’t mean it’s worse. Things that are racist have yet to be labeled and understood as such.”
Obama has never directly raised an allegation about racism from the media and from Clinton’s campaign. Not once. And he cannot – not as long as he wants to still be considered a viable candidate for the presidency. He has to act like everything is fine. He has to pretend these things don’t get to him. He has to do what so many African-Americans are forced to do in their daily lives – swallow the slights and keep working toward the larger goal.
Reed continues:
Among the black feminists interviewed for this article, reactions to the declarations of sexism’s greater toll by Clinton supporters–and their demand that all women back their candidate out of gender solidarity, regardless of the broader politics of the campaign–ran the gamut from astonishment to dismay to fury. Patricia Hill Collins, a sociology professor at the University of Maryland and author of Black Feminist Thought, recalls how, before they were reduced to their race or gender, the candidates were not seen solely through the prism of identity, and many Democrats were thrilled with the choices before them. But of the present, she says, “It is such a distressing, ugly period. Clinton has manipulated ideas about race, but Obama has not manipulated similar ideas about gender.” This has exacerbated longstanding racial tensions within the women’s movement, Collins notes, and is likely to alienate young black women who might otherwise have been receptive to feminism. “We had made progress in getting younger black women to see that gender does matter in their lives. Now they are going to ask, What kind of white woman is Hillary Clinton?”
I already came to a conclusion on that front.
Reed also points out how old-guard feminists aren’t exactly pleased with recent developments either:
The sense of progress unraveling is profound. “What happened to the perspective that the failures of feminism lay in pandering to racism, to everyone nodding that these were fatal mistakes–how is it that all that could be jettisoned?” asks Crenshaw, who co-wrote a piece with Eve Ensler on the Huffington Post called “Feminist Ultimatums: Not in Our Name.” Crenshaw says that, appalled as she is by the sexism toward Clinton, she found herself stunned by some of the arguments pro-Hillary feminists were making. “There is a myopic focus on the aspiration of having a woman in the White House–perhaps not any woman, but it seems to be pretty much enough that she be a Democratic woman.” This stance, says Crenshaw, “is really a betrayal.”
The piece then illustrates the complicated balance that young women (particularly young feminist women) find themselves in as illustrated against the backdrop of the national election:
The implications of all this for the future of feminism depend significantly on the outcome of the primary, says Kissling. “If Clinton wins, the older-line women’s movement will continue; it will be a continuation of power for them. If she doesn’t win, it will be a death knell for those people. And that may be a good thing–that a younger generation will start to take over.”
Many younger women, indeed, have responded to the admonishments of their pro-Hillary second-wave elders by articulating a sophisticated political orientation that includes feminism but is not confined to it. They may support Obama, but they still abhor the sexism Clinton has faced. And they detect–and reject–a tinge of sexism among male peers who have developed man-crushes on the dashing senator from Illinois.
Near the end of the piece, Kimberlé Crenshaw provides a quote that provides a laser insight into the current issues surrounding feminism:
In some sense, this is a clarifying moment as well as a wrenching one. For so many years, feminists have been engaged in a pushback against the right that has obscured some of the real and important differences among them. “Today you see things you might not have seen. It’s clearer now about where the lines are between corporate feminism and more grassroots, global feminism,” says Crenshaw. Women who identify with the latter movement are saying, as she puts it, “‘Wait a minute, that’s not the banner we are marching under!’”
That is the question, isn’t it? What kind of banner are we marching under?
(Thanks to reader Jessica for sending this in!)
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Persia wrote:
I am really glad to see some older feminists taking stock and speaking out, here. It was really starting to feel like a generational divide too (thanks, Geraldine Ferraro and Gloria Steinem), and it’s nice to feel that doesn’t have to be the case.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 8:50 am ¶
Autonym wrote:
Thank you for this piece, I need to get this sent out to a few people to explain my feelings about all that has been going on during this campaign and why it has been so painful to be witnessing the racism and xenophobia. Also, your statement about how Barack Obama can NEVER talk directly about racism in the media or Hillary Clinton’s campaign is so true I teared up a bit when I read it. We’ve got so far to go.
Thanks again.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 9:23 am ¶
klgaffney wrote:
I read this article recently, and I’m glad to see it mentioned here. I’ve been less and less impressed by the Clinton camp as this race has progressed and not entirely pleased by the coverage either; Hilary can use the poem inscribed on the Holocaust Memorial in order to make a point about the economy, and that’s no big deal, while on the other hand, there’s open speculation of Obama’s leadership ability–maybe it’s just me, but to me it taking the flavor of a very thinly veiled paranoia: “maybe the black candidate secretly hates whites?”
Just this morning, the news reported that 20% of the dems would shift their vote to @#$! McCain, rather than Obama, if he won the nomination. I find that rather disturbing.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 9:44 am ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:
“Hilary can use the poem inscribed on the Holocaust Memorial in order to make a point about the economy, and that’s no big deal,”
@Klgaffney
And why would it be a big deal? Did Jews take offense to Hillary’s usage of the poem? The fact that Niemoeller’s “First They Came . . .” is inscribed on several Holocaust memorials hasn’t stopped others from appropriating it to suit their struggles when convenient. I’ve heard the poem altered to fit the civil right’s movement. I’ve even heard the poem used by advocates for undocumented immigrants during the FBI raids on factories using undocumented workers. “First They Came” doesn’t pertain to Jews and the Holocaust exclusively. The poem is actually about political apathy, in general, and Hillary’s usage of the poem pertained to apathy about the loss of jobs in the steel and manufacturing sectors due to globalization. The popular translation inscribed on the building that you’re referring to actually lists communists/socialists and trade unionists before Jews.
The two scenarios (Hillary using poem and Obama/Rev. Wright) are in no way similar. It’s not wrong for the media to question how Obama handled the Rev. Wright situation, and though it may be surprising to some, it is indeed possible to not be racist and yet still have qualms about Obama.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 11:30 am ¶
Drispe wrote:
WHAT sexist attacks? I don’t seem to recall any, aside from the jokes at her expense that followed her tears as a big primary drew near. Half the reason Reverend Wright was vilified comes from this country’s refusal to accept truth from a black authority figure. Obama’s first innocent mistake as president would be blown out of proportion the same way.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 12:08 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
@ lowercase tasha–
“It’s not wrong for the media to question how Obama handled the Rev. Wright situation, and though it may be surprising to some, it is indeed possible to not be racist and yet still have qualms about Obama.”
True, but very, very unfortunately, people have expressed their qualms about Senator Obama by wrapping them in racism or Oppression Olympics, most famously from Gloria Steinem’s “Women are Never Front-Runners” op-ed piece in NYT to Senator Clinton’s husband dismissing “fairy tale” statement to Geraldine Ferraro’s “he’s a candidate because he’s Black” and then some. Now, if the same pundits and campaigners would have only questioned, say, his health-care plan or his policy toward Pakistan without the added under- and over-handed racism, then I suspect fewer people would be so upset.
And the fact that some of those statements came out of the mouths of proclaimed feminists (Steinem) or people seen as symbols of feminist progress (Clinton, Ferraro)–people who would consider themselves and pride themselves on being allies of *all* women–exposed those racial fault-lines and ongoing betrayal of women and feminists of color and our white allies by these and other white feminists. That’s why Crenshaw’s last quote…
“Today you see things you might not have seen. It’s clearer now about where the lines are between corporate feminism and more grassroots, global feminism,” says Crenshaw. Women who identify with the latter movement are saying, as she puts it, “‘Wait a minute, that’s not the banner we are marching under!’”
…was so on point.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 12:17 pm ¶
Sarah J wrote:
@lowercase tasha
The poem is about refusing to speak up because you are not a member of the class/race/group being persecuted.
And it’s a lesson that Hillary Clinton should learn before she attempts to use it on the campaign trail.
@klgaffney
Did that poll happen to say how many Obama voters would vote for a third party candidate if Hillary got the nomination, or would vote for McCain? My guess is it’s just as many. And was that 20% of Democrats or 20% of Hillary’s voters?
Poll stories are so consistently screwed up, it’s not even worth it to read/watch them. They need to give a lot of background information before giving out the poll, starting with who paid for it and what the margin of error is.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 12:24 pm ¶
bradski wrote:
I don’t see a problem condemning the sexist attacks on Clinton and speaking out against Clinton the candidate. Clinton has shown herself willing to engage in vile, racist attacks to win. For that, she’s earned the anger and disappointment of many people.
Those of us who supported Clinton and stood up for her in the past, we have been demoralized to see her true colors. The tough-minded fighter is revealed to be a ruthless bully who’s willing to do anything to win even if means destroying the Democratic Party. Rules (Michigan & Florida delegates were not to be counted) to which she agreed are thrown out to suit her needs. Reflecting the same lawless attitude of the Bush Administration: rules/laws are to be followed when convenient.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 12:40 pm ¶
Black Canseco wrote:
Okay, can i just say that i hate the term Oppression Olympics? It implies that it’s bias and bigotry is some sort of game, almost comical and anytime someone attempts to discuss issues of race, gender they should never be taken seriously.
Obama has done everything he could to “transcend race” a phrase that makes me vomit; it’s a if blackness is something to “get over” like a deformity or disease. Yet no one transcends race quite like White women.
Take Hilary Clinton for example. She’s almost never referred to as a White Woman. She’s consistently referred to as a woman.
Are people that uncomfortable saying “white woman” in a context other than victimhood issues?
Why can’t we be as obvious in describing Hilary as we are with Obama? Why is it race-baiting to call Obama a black candidate but not race-baiting to call Hilary a White Woman?
Why doesn’t Hilary Clinton have to transcend “whiteness”?
It’s as if Hilary Clinton like most all white women, are assumed to be some human and so advanced as to automatically and innately represent and speak to issues affecting all women.
To call Hilary a White Woman is… Well, I’m not sure what it is. But something’s wrong with the fact that we won’t.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 12:51 pm ¶
klgaffney wrote:
@ lowercase tasha
I disagree; the poem is not about political apathy in general, it’s about about comfort and privilege and not bothering to speak or act on behalf of others until the point it becomes “your problem.”
I hardly think that’s an appropriate analogy for our economy. How does that even begin to relate to genicide?
I do know other people appropriate that poem for every and any reason under the sun; it’s because it’s powerful. This doesn’t make it right. It suggests the idea that she doesn’t recognize the impact, or the suffering involved, and quite a bit of disrespect, besides, considering the time she used it.
Do we actually need a real live Jew to come forward to determine if that analogy was appropriate? If that’s the case, there’s a few commenting on the article that I linked, and it was a Jewish person that brought it to my attention in the first place. And really, that pretty much brings me back to what the poem is underscoring in the first place. I’m not Jewish–so why should it matter, why should I care if she feels free to use their struggle in this manner?
@ sarah j.
Excellent point, and I did think of that too, after I commented; polls and statistics are twisted every which way. It does say something that this one in particular needed to be mentioned and not, say, how many are saying the same thing about Hilary. Not exactly the most balanced reporting there.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 1:27 pm ¶
Persia wrote:
Black Canseco, I have used “Oppression Olympics” in the past, referring specifically to circumstances where someone compares racism to sexism in a way that implies that one is somehow worse, or more acceptable, or– what have you– than the other. I’ve always used it to call out a technique I feel is used as a distraction from whatever the issue is at hand– for example, just because sexist attacks on Clinton happen doesn’t make racist attacks acceptable or any less important to criticize.
It’s precisely because I think those tactics trivialize the whole debate that I’ve used the term. Now I have to think twice about it.
No one ever describes John McCain as the White Male candidate either, of course.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 2:00 pm ¶
donna darko wrote:
The Nation and this article are one-sided against Clinton. The women making bone-headed statements were older, second wave feminists. They’re not representative of feminism though they have a megaphone.
She hasn’t been able to denounce the sexism in the race either. The only time she said anything was after the Iron My Shirt remark and a couple weeks ago because feminists asked her to make a gender speech. She said there’s been a double standard.
“It is such a distressing, ugly period. Clinton has manipulated ideas about race, but Obama has not manipulated similar ideas about gender.”
Not true. He, his campaign and supporters are constantly sexist and condescending towards Clinton. There’s also a great deal of subtle, coded sexism that’s hard to parse out unless you spend time thinking about it.
Of course it has to be a Democratic women. Condoleezza Rice is not a feminist. When women want a woman in the White House, they mean a feminist who represents their interests not someone who betrays their interests.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 2:13 pm ¶
donna darko wrote:
Why is there so much sexism in this thread? Race does not trump gender. Nothing trumps anything.
There has been much more sexism from the Obama campaign and supporters than racism from the Clinton campaign. It’s been going on since last summer and it’s been every day. It can be subtle like racism but some of us out here caught it all. The last racial incident was South Carolina and the “thugged” remark.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 2:18 pm ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:
“The poem is about refusing to speak up because you are not a member of the class/race/group being persecuted.
And it’s a lesson that Hillary Clinton should learn before she attempts to use it on the campaign trail.”
@Sarah J
Really, is that what the poem is about? I must have completely missed the mark when I said that the poem was about political apathy (which means being indifferent if something doesn’t pertain to you) to warrant your correction. And here I thought that people were applying “First they came . . .” to undocumented workers being carted off in FBI raids because no one knew the words to “We Shall Overcome.” If you read Hillary’s resume, you’ll see that she has hardly been politically apathetic (new buzz words for you) and has devoted a good deal of her life advocating for those who are not a member of her class, race, or gender.
@Cruel Secretary
Robert Johnson agreed with Ferraro, so it’s not just white women who hold that belief, and dig up the last Alice Walker thread. There was a lot of discussion about Walker’s essay vs. Steinem’s.
@KL
Sorry to disappoint, but it is about political apathy. The poem does not pertain exclusively to the Holocaust, simply because it’s been inscribed into several Holocaust themed buildings, when as I stated before, the poem itself lists other disenfranchised minorities before it mentions Jews. You’re trying to play it off like Hillary was in the wrong for appropriating that particular poem, but do you have a problem with Obama interpreting and evoking Dr. King as if Barack himself marched on Selma, proper? Doesn’t that detract from the “power” of Dr. King’s words? No, the economic welfare of laborers in the steel and manufacturing sectors is not genocide, but it’s hardly trivial, and since, you yourself have stated that “First They Came . . .” is about “comfort and privilege” and not genocide exclusively then Hillary wasn’t wrong to apply it to those laborers (many of which are underprivileged) hardest hit by globalization. You’re trying to equate Hillary’s appropriation of the poem to Obama’s Rev. Wright scenario, and it’s not holding water.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 2:24 pm ¶
Particular wrote:
WHAT sexist attacks? I don’t seem to recall any, aside from the jokes at her expense that followed her tears as a big primary drew near.
While the debate about racism versus sexism in this race is relevant and needed…I cannot believe that you can honestly say “WHAT sexist attacks?” Turning a blind eye to the treatment of Clinton based on not liking her or on liking Obama better is not helpful, nor is it particularly intelligent.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 2:27 pm ¶
J wrote:
Why is there so much sexism in this thread?
Huh? Did you even read the article, dd?
Posted 05 May 2008 at 2:33 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
@ lowercase tasha–I have read and heard both what Alice Walker and Bob Johnson from BET have said and followed the various threads on each. Reading the Bob Johnson threads, what I gathered from the commenters is that his insinutating and overt comments about Obama–coupled with what he condoned to put on BET, like the misogynist videos and other subpar programming–has completely discredited him in quite a few Black person’s eyes. A cursory look on, say, on the What Tami Said blog and on Stereohyped’s and, yeah, even Bossip’s threads attest to this sentiment. (Please, friends, let’s not derail this thread in re-visiting how juvenile Bossip is.)
However, the “well-Black-folks-said-or-did-it-so-it-excuses-white-folks-saying-and-doing-it” ploy doesn’t cut it for me as far as the responsibility of those white people, particularly those white feminists who have stated part of their platform is fighting racism, only to have members of that group–again, people who consider themselves allies to people of color–turn around and employ racist and other divisive tactics (again, such as stating Black people are merely “affirmative action” cases, making race and gender mutually exclusive instead of interconnected) against a member of the group they profess to ally with and whose members are routinely accosted and wounded and upset by by these tactics almost every day. Tami at What Tami Said encapsulates this beautifully:
http://whattamisaid.blogspot.com/2008/02/is-2008-presidential-election-bad-for.html
And this excerpt from another one of her post:
“I am tired of hearing how sexism trumps racism from people who only face one of those “isms” and have the luxury of ignoring the other. I am tired of mainstream feminists failing to take responsibility for the ways that they benefit from and are complicit in the oppression of women of color. I am tired of women of color bloggers being treated like second-class citizens. I am tired of feminists decrying sexist attacks against Hillary Clinton, while perpetuating racist attacks on Barack Obama.”
I am tired, tired, tired. And I am through.
Here’s the rest: http://whattamisaid.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-was-feminist-once.html
IMO, Bob Johnson doesn’t excuse Gloria Steinem. As you said to KL, it doesn’t hold water.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 3:36 pm ¶
klgaffney wrote:
@ lowercase tasha:
Disenfranchised minorities, while they heavily intersect with wealth and class, still can’t entirely be equated at this point. There are situations that could validate the use of that particular imagery, but personally I don’t think it quite mirrors those situations closely enough unless you specifically pull the race angle in, immigration, etc. That one may just be a matter of perspective, though.
As for Obama’s King rhetoric, I thought they beat that particular drum a little hard as well, but on the other hand, this is the first time I’ve seen an black person come this close to a presidential seat. So while a bit over-the-top, it didn’t strike me as inappropriate, subject-wise.
I will however, happily concede re: your second point, it’s not nearly on the same level/sort of issue, I can agree with that.
As I’m thinking it though further, I honestly find it hard to believe that men are looking at Hilary and thinking “She’s going to bring up radical policies that constitute a threat to us.” as opposed to looking at it from the race angle, where essentially, Rev Wright has dealt a very serious blow, after Obama had folks fairly convinced that he wasn’t a threat in that regard.
I guess in the end it doesn’t strike me as being a matter of sexism being a somehow smaller issue overall; it’s a matter of what’s becoming the bigger issue in this particular situation and why.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 3:47 pm ¶
Sewere wrote:
@ Drispe
Do a google search. Unless you’ve been willfully blind, attacks are often disguised as jokes. The “iron shirt” joke, the “nutcracker” joke and the “how do we get the bitch” jokes are all sexist attacks indicative of a very misogynistic perspective.
@Donna Darko,
we’ve agreed on many things before, unfortunately given (close to racist) way you’ve harped on Obama on your site, this is one area we part ways.
As to this,
Interesting that you consider what they say “bone-headed” statements rather than what they are…. When Ferraro made her statement and went to every single news outlet all Clinton said she disagreed with her but was never forced to denounce her. Even when Ferraro made a come-back after Obama’s speech in Philadelphia.
She said it in at least two debates (reference to the boy’s club in one of the early February debates and the one she quoted SNL) and also at several events (as a guest on SNL & at least one town hall or press event in late Feb early March).
I don’t expect you or tasha will change your minds nor do I expect Drispe or Black Conseco to change theirs, but one thing I’m certain of is your willingness to downplay racism or sexism to shore up your candidate is a disturbing version of the Oppression Olympics and it is annoying as shit. No matter how you spit-shine it, it’s still shit.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 4:20 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Thank you Sewere!
Posted 05 May 2008 at 4:29 pm ¶
Black Canseco wrote:
Sewere,
you should be careful about throwing around names of people that you disagree with until you’ve actually read and digest what they actually said first.
I’m the one who wrote that i’m sick of the phrase and game of Oppression Olympics. I also didn’t mention anything about being in favor of gender-based attacks on Clinton. Ive stated consistently what my issues with Clinton are as a candidate and none of my issues with her relate to anything you’re talking about.
Seems to me that you’re so bent on making your own point that you’ll cherry pick names and opinions to back up your own theory; whatever that may be.
so be it.
just know what the hell you’re talking about before you open up.
it makes you look triflin.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 4:49 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Oh, and that reminds me –
If you don’t like the phrase “oppression olympics,” BC, what phrase do you suggest we use to describe that obnoxious phenomenon when people try to use phrases like “no one has suffered more than African-Americans” or “since gender issues affect 51% of the world, those are the most important issues?”
Posted 05 May 2008 at 5:01 pm ¶
Black Canseco wrote:
latoya,
i offered my opinion on the phrase, nothing more. people will use whichever term they feel works to make their point. not sure why a phrase is needed at all. Some comparisons may work, others are rooted in a lack of understanding viewpoints beyond your own, others still are patently stupid, myopic and self-serving.
why not call it on a case by case as opposed to dumping everything in a bucket, which helps no one?
but what do i know, apparently i’m gender biased.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 5:08 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:
“It is such a distressing, ugly period. Clinton has manipulated ideas about race, but Obama has not manipulated similar ideas about gender.”
This whole Nation article is playing oppression olympics, using reductive terms, glossing over policy issues, and declaring Obama the winner. It’s using sexist language to describe Clinton and mischaracterizing her supporters as older white women haranguing black women to be blindly loyal to Clinton. I’m a young south asian woman and I am tired of hearing about this old white ladies for Clinton/youth, men and PoCs for Obama false dichotomy. It’s doesn’t reflect the data and I’ve never heard any woman support Clinton on the basis of her sex as opposed to her record of advancing women, poor people, children, immigrants, and health access in her career.
Racist remarks have come not from her but from people who claim to be her supporters and have done her more harm, including her husband who must actually be trying to sabotage her since he’s shown himself to be a master politico in years past. It’s not fair to hold her responsible for her supporters(and she did distance herself from Ferraro and even Bill) if one is not willing to tie Obama to things said by his supporters.
Sexist remarks about Clinton have come right out of Obama’s mouth. He’s said the race wouldn’t be over until she dropped out. He said he doesn’t know which Clinton he’s running against(Does he wonder if he or his wife is running for office?) He said of Clinton “Criticizing her unites the party” He took the kitchen sink metaphor and twisted it, described her as an hysterical woman throwing dishes, china, the buffet, while he dodges. He played the Jay Z song 99 problems (and a bitch ain’t one) at a campaign rally. Obama has never apologized for the overt sexism that comes from his supporters or himself. When he contents himself to remain the beneficiary of male privilege, when the men in my life encourage me to see each sting as about “THAT woman, not all women” I have to call bullshit. And it doesn’t take away at all from calling out the racism in this campaign to acknowledge that sexism exists and Hillary Clinton has been the victim of it.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 5:40 pm ¶
bertie wrote:
I agree with Sewere that both Clinton and Obama have faced respective “isms” against them from the media, supporters of the opponent and each other.
But I do think that Sen. Clinton has and continues to use not so subtle appeals to race based voting–the Ferraro statements were pretty much an explicit rallying cry for certain white folks who hate undeserving “uppity” blacks to vote for Hillary. (She might as well said “hey don’t you hate it when the lazy black guy at your job gets an affrim. action promotion over you…well lets not let that ish happen again, Vote Clinton 08). Obama for his part has never made a direct appeal to blacks saying vote for me because I look like you, but he has effectively used Clinton’s race-baiting against her to essentially lock down the black vote.
Although there is no doubt Sen. Clinton has been the victim of alot of sexism in the campaign (the iron my shirt, chris matthews’ biased Obama man-crush punditry,and even the calls for Clinton to quit in my opinion are tinged with sexism, I don’t think Obama or any of his surrogates have made a direct appeal (similar to Ferraros) to sexist voters who want to keep “uppity” women in their place. Part of Clinton’s latest argument to the superdelagates is essentially that working class white swing voters are to racist to vote for Obama and will vote for McCain unless she is the nominee. (nevermind that the same voters might also be too sexist to vote for Clinton–if you believe Gloria Steinism’s take on which ism is worse).
And while I know its all politics, I can’t really trust that someone is against racism, when they willingly capitalize on and play up the racism of others to get ahead.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 5:42 pm ¶
Drispe wrote:
Yeah, thanks, Sewer.
Some of you hate sexism, but show no shortage of arrogance in responding to a comment that won’t fly your flag for you. “Willfully blind” or not, a few freaks printing sexist t-shirts and telling Clinton to do their ironing are considered just as much a part of the lunatic fringe as the folks Arianna Huffington condemns to that status. In other words, they’re not to be taken seriously. I’d rather spend my time on what the candidates are saying and allowing to pass as their campaigns’ official rhetoric. Clinton doesn’t have to worry about being shutout by voters because of her sex. She proved it in several primaries. McCain laughed off a supporter’s public labeling of Clinton as a bitch, but refused to admit hurling the c word at his wife. Where’s the furor over that? Oh, there isn’t any…here, anyway. Everyone’s acting like sexism has literally thrown her campaign into turmoil though. Where’s her big, historic speech about it, then? Where’s the scandalous figure that she’s prompted to “reject and denounce” because their association has sparked a nationwide sexist divide? For the very reasons Black Canseco mentioned, her gender will NEVER be the political Achilles’ heel it’s being made out as. The media isn’t bringing it up every five minutes! You have to at least start there before even considering it as a weakness, in a climate where elections are won on the airwaves and stolen by fudging election returns. All the self-righteous crap in the world about “Oppression Olympics” won’t erase the truth of who really suffers and benefits from the manipulation of biases. Let’s see how much sexism holds her back if she screws over the DNC to get Florida and Michigan’s delegates counted in her favor. Spit-shine that.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 5:46 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
@ Black Cansec0–”but what do i know, apparently i’m gender biased.”
Ummm…what? What does that mean?
W/out derailing the thread: I actually like the phrase “Oppression Olympics,” not only because it captures the repeated and, as Latoya said, “obnoxious phenomenon of when people try to use phrases like ‘no one has suffered more than African-Americans” or “since gender issues affect 51% of the world, those are the most important issues?”,’ but it also captures the verbal game being played (to silence and/or dismiss) and, ultimately, the gets to the utter ridiculousness of the whole thing. One kind of oppression isn’t worse than another; they all interlock and buoy each other. On using the term “Oppression Olympics,” BC, you and I just have to agree to disagree.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 6:49 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@ TCS, BC –
I actually just read a scholarly piece that also takes issue with the phrase “oppression olympics” for a completely different reason.
Do you mind if we table this conversation until tomorrow?
Posted 05 May 2008 at 6:51 pm ¶
sfsinger wrote:
Hillary Clinton was the presumptive nominee and assumed the Presidency was hers like a coronation. She didn’t plan her campaign well and when she saw her numbers slipping and the momentum shifting she decided to counterbalance it by adapting the same Neo-Con positions and tactics she was was known for rallying against. If Obama was a white male candidate this nomination process would have been over already. If Obama had a different ethnicity the racist trolls she has employed – oops her supports – would have used other techniques but the results would still be the same. She is not getting the nomination unless she destroys him and subverts the votes of millions. This has gone far beyond a competition and became personal. She gets all the benefits of white privilege and being part of a protected class, but refuses to acknowledge it. I am sick of people making excuses for her by saying she employs racist-tactics. She is a racist! Or she has no conscience. If you saddle up to child-molesters to drum up votes you may not be guilty of committing the act yourself but you are certainly condoning the behavior. Which is better? Obama never had any of his official surrogates say anything sexist about Clinton or attack her supporters by claiming people only voted for her because she was white or her base of women supported her because she was a [white] woman. Samantha Power referred to her as a monster when describing her behavior which doesn’t compare to having Ferraro say Obama is lucky and only garnering votes because he’s black [which she said about Jesse Jackson 20 years ago]. Individual people who express their biases are not really under the control of the candidates. Those that have clamored so stubbornly about needing a ‘woman’ as President are not really talking about a qualified candidate but about Clinton specifically. Where was the support for Shirley Chisholm from Ferrero or Stenheim when she ran? Where is the support of Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney? Do you want to have a REAL discussion about the things that are most important to this country, the painful truths about how the gov’t wrecks havoc on so many other countries around the world, how we’d have to lower our standard of living so that other people won’t have to go without, how much debt we owe? How the corporate media tries to control all sources of information and keeps out things we NEED to know? How even now Clinton is lying about the gas tax, aligns herself with McCain and attacks her Democratic party rival? Why is this behavior condoned? Why is it 24 hours of Rev Wright 30 sec sound bites? Why don’t people actually listen to what he has to say and do their own research to decide for themselves whether anything he said has any merit [IT DOES!!]. Why is Hillary always referred to as a woman and not a white woman? Why is it assumed that woman=white and the history of racial injustice that has YET to be resolved? How the 1% of the wealthiest tries to control everything and nobody seems to notice? She was not just a woman candidate. She’s white, worth 100M+, the wife of a former president, hand-picked which state she wanted to run as a Senator for and is extremely well-connected. Obama going against the Clintons has been a David & Goliath story if there ever was one. If we want to talk about someone speaking truth to power and sticking their neck and suffering consequences for standing up for things that upset the status quo then put Cynthia McKinney in the White House. Hillary Clinton does not even compare.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 7:27 pm ¶
Sewere wrote:
@marge
The New York Post and Taylor Marsh are not particularly known for their unbiased news reporting. I had friends at the Des Moines rally and they heard U2’s “city of blinding lights” and another song by Stevie Wonder.
@Drispe, whatever. Like I said, I’m not out to change your mind but I’m not going to let you slide when you excuse sexism.
It is so sad to see people firmly planted in their corners, selecting biased news, news that favors their candidate and/or shows the opposing candidate in bad light. Truly sad.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 7:47 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
::lifts head from books::
@ Latoya–sorry about my slow response, friend. That’s cool, and I’ll be happy to look at the link, too, if the article has one.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 8:36 pm ¶
octogalore wrote:
@Donna — you’re not alone in not loving the article or thinking it evidenced bias.
@marge twain: love your comment. especially: “It’s using sexist language to describe Clinton and mischaracterizing her supporters as older white women haranguing black women to be blindly loyal to Clinton. I’m a young south asian woman and I am tired of hearing about this old white ladies for Clinton/youth, men and PoCs for Obama false dichotomy. It’s doesn’t reflect the data …Racist remarks have come not from her but from people who claim to be her supporters …It’s not fair to hold her responsible for her supporters(and she did distance herself from Ferraro and even Bill) if one is not willing to tie Obama to things said by his supporters. …Sexist remarks about Clinton have come right out of Obama’s mouth. He’s said the race wouldn’t be over until she dropped out. …And it doesn’t take away at all from calling out the racism in this campaign to acknowledge that sexism exists and Hillary Clinton has been the victim of it.”
I don’t feel Reed’s approach was balanced. She had an opinion and she fit the facts to meet it. As a former liar, I mean lawyer, it’s a familiar pattern. To me: unproductive. It won’t change anyone’s mind.
Latoya: loved your piece in Clutch on Orman. Awesome work. And you’re smart to be focusing on that stuff so young; wish I’d done that.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 8:41 pm ¶
donna darko wrote:
This article and almost everyone on this thread is playing oppression olympics. You’re all saying racism trumps sexism. I and a couple others here are saying neither sexism or racism trumps the other. What you’re doing here is mirroring the mainstream media and Obama blogs which all say racism trumps gender.
Sewere, demonizing men of color is racist. Criticizing sexism of men of color when they’re sexist is correct.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 11:12 pm ¶
donna darko wrote:
Demonizing religions or communities is racist. Criticizing them when they’re patriarchal or sexist is correct especially if you’re of that religion or community.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 11:14 pm ¶
donna darko wrote:
Obama is running for President of the US and leader of the free world. He’s not running for President of the black community. When he, his campaign and supporters are misogynist, we have to call it out.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 11:31 pm ¶
Manju wrote:
“@Donna Darko,
we’ve agreed on many things before, unfortunately given (close to racist) way you’ve harped on Obama on your site, this is one area we part ways.”
Yes, Donna Darko’s blog has been very creepy, like for example, this statement on Obama:
“Does he remind you of OJ?”
http://donnadarko.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/you-like-this-guy/
Posted 06 May 2008 at 12:55 am ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:
@Cruel Secretary
Let me be clear. I wasn’t trying to validate Ferraro’s statements by saying that Johnson agreed with her. I wanted you to notice that white women aren’t the only ones saying that. By, omitting blacks from your argument and only singling out white feminists, you’re doing exactly what you would condemn Steinem for, regarding race, in her NYT Op-ed. (oh, the irony) Now, I’ve said my piece about Steinem’s essay in the Walker thread, but you, however, seem to be having trouble acknowledging that blacks and other non-whites share Ferraro’s view, even criticizing Johnson, as if by bringing up BET’s content, it’s going to distract me from the fact that Johnson is in fact a black man who agrees with Ferraro . Now, I know you’re very smart, and you realize that there are non-whites who agree with Ferraro. That’s not something I have to tell you. The reason why you didn’t admonish them (non-whites) in your first comment wasn’t because they didn’t exist in your mind. You just weren’t talking about non-whites in your first comment, right? You were talking about white feminists. So, if it’s alright for you to do that, why can’t Steinem get the benefit of the doubt about race?
Posted 06 May 2008 at 6:19 am ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:
@KL
You know, people fuss over that poem because of its ties to Jews and the Holocaust, without ever really questioning whether or not we attach more significance to it than the author intended. I don’t know much about Niemoller, other than what we covered in high school, but I don’t think he was Jewish. Hence the line, “When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn’t a Jew.” And even if he was Jewish, that’s not why he was sent to the camps. Niemoller was originally a Nazi sympathizer turned political dissenter, who was one of the founders of an underground church that opposed Nazi control over religious freedom. That’s why he was interned, and the only reason why he wasn’t executed at Dacau was because he had connections.
Now, the translation of “First They Came . . .” is often disputed, but if you look at the syntax of the poem and the order of which the persecuted groups are listed, communists/socialists, trade unionists, Jews, then Niemoller and compare it to the events leading up to and during WW2, then it begs the question of whether or not Niemoller was trying to be deep and profound, or whether or not he was just recounting the events that led to his own imprisonment. You know what I mean? Maybe Niemoller wasn’t trying to be all philosophical. Maybe he was just telling us how he got from point A to point B. “Hey, Pastor Niemoller. How did you wind up in this internment camp?” “Well, if you must know. . .”
“First they came for the communists . . .” That’s true. The Nazis didn’t want any political ideologies competing with the third reich, and Niemoller, an influential Lutheran Pastor, didn’t say anything because he wasn’t a communist.
“Then they came for the trade unionists . . .” Also true. After the communists, Hilter went after union bosses because, at the time, the German labor unions were highly organized and prominent and had the power to sway the middle class away from fascism. So the unions had to go, and once again Niemoller didn’t say anything because he didn’t think it applied to him.
“Then they came for the Jews.” Right again. Hitler didn’t come for the Jews first. They were near the bottom of the list, but when the Nazis started extending their influence over the Protestant/Christian religious community, then Niemoller became subversive and was eventually imprisoned. At which point, well, no one was left to speak for him.
In our minds, WW2 is synonymous with the Jewish Holocaust, but the poem is telling us that there were others being, persecuted, interned, and killed by the Nazis, not only the Jews, which is why, at the end of the day, the poem’s not about the Jewish genocide exclusively, but the dangers of being willfully blind, which is why the poem is so easily adaptable to various situations involving political apathy.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 7:53 am ¶
baltogeek wrote:
What I don’t understand is how those folks in the mainstream movement don’t understand that the alienation that WOC feel towards them is a threat to the future of their institutions and ideas.
The average American woman of the future will be a woman of color. Frankly the only reason that they have the power they have is because of a demographic advantage and racism. Not because they are right.
So if they can’t find ways of respecting other’s viewpoints or understanding our involvement has to go beyond tokenism these groups and ideas are pretty much guaranteed to go into the dustbin of history.
For all the ethical and moral arguments people have been making for the dominant structure to change the best argument I can think of is that many of the feminist institutions we see today will simply be irrelevant many decades from now as their core constituency becomes a smaller.
Do these women not have a survival instinct?
Posted 06 May 2008 at 7:59 am ¶
Sewere wrote:
@ Donna Darko,
Really? Honestly? Can you REALLY HONESTLY tell the difference between your statements and what you’ve been writing on your blog.
You know what forget it. I’m done.
@ Manju,
Thanks but no thanks, based on what I’ve seen of your comments around the blogosphere, I am fairly certain you’re not really in support of social justice. We may agree that the methods are appalling, I know we don’t agree on the goal of social justice.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 10:26 am ¶
Yvette wrote:
He played the Jay Z song 99 problems (and a bitch ain’t one) at a campaign rally.
**sigh**
Why do folks continue to state nonsense that appears in the gossip pages?
Posted 06 May 2008 at 10:48 am ¶
donna darko wrote:
Obama is really sexist. He has to be called out on it. He, his campaign and supporter’s been called out on feminist Clinton blogs and should continue to be called out.
This is exactly the problem. Instead of looking really hard to see which of my 335 political posts could be possibly racist just for calling out sexism (none are), social justice activists should call out the sexist men of color IN THIS THREAD AND ON MOST THE THREADS ON RACIALICIOUS.
Why do sexist men of color get a pass at Racialicious? The most egregrious cases get called out but it’s extremely hypocritical to look for possible shades of racism that aren’t there (calling out sexist men of color is NOT RACIST) instead of criticizing sexism RIGHT IN YOUR FACES. Manju for example gets a free pass 99% on feminist and anti-racist blogs BECAUSE HE’S A MAN OF COLOR that sexist white men would not get.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 10:53 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@ Donna –
Did you and the rest of the Hillary Clinton bloggers start a tracking system or a Wiki, like Jack and Jill did for the attacks on Obama?
And specifiy which attacks came from the media and which attacks came from the Obama camp, and which attacks came from Obama himself, as they did?
And are you prepared to defend those under scrunity, as they have done?
Posted 06 May 2008 at 10:57 am ¶
donna darko wrote:
What statements aren’t true and useful for the democratic process in this country? And you had to look REALLY HARD to find a possibly racist statement (which isn’t) on my blog considering he needs to be vetted in this area. Someone at my other blog said he has a temper and the signs of a batterer. We need to know if he has a short fuse and if this will affect how he runs this country. Why is calling out the racism of the Clintons up to South Carolina absolutely necessary when we have to sweep sexism under the rug BECAUSE IT’S A MAN OF COLOR running for the highest office in the world?
Posted 06 May 2008 at 11:01 am ¶
Lloyd Webber wrote:
Donna Darko…it’s unfortunate that you’ve hitched your wagon to the Hillaryburg. If like Latoya said, you can clearly and reasonably state what Senator Obama or his top surrogates have said that is sexist, then I’ll gladly concede the point. Defeating her based on the metric (pledged delegates) is not sexist. I’m sorry, but it just isn’t.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 11:02 am ¶
donna darko wrote:
Obama is really condescending and sexist (it could be his campaign managers but I’m starting to think it’s his personality). His campaign managers, campaign and his supporters are really sexist.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 11:03 am ¶
donna darko wrote:
Lloyd Webber is another extremely sexist man of color who gets a pass on feminst blogs BECAUSE HE’S A MAN OF COLOR. When you don’t call out men of color for their sexism (I call out ALL MEN for their sexism) you end up with a situation like Obama’s.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 11:04 am ¶
donna darko wrote:
I haven’t checked the J&J wiki. We don’t have a wiki but the condescension is DAILY.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 11:06 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Donna -
Every fucking day I go on this blog and write about why things are racist. I have to make connections where people see none. I have to argue my case and do it well. I have to persuade my readers that what they are seeing is not a conincidence or bad lighting or a misinterpretation of a quote – I have to convince them that this action is racist.
And I am not talking about the regular commenters – I am talking about the 5,000 or so regular readers who NEVER comment so I never know what they are thinking and why.
I have to make the argument.
I am not asking you to do anything that I haven’t done.
Make your argument.
If you do the “heavy theoretical lifting” as you have claimed then you should have no problem backing it up with hard data.
Back. Up. Your. Assertions.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 11:13 am ¶
Lloyd Webber wrote:
I’m Sorry Donna, but I just can’t take you seriously especially with the All CAPS. You’re just trolling at me especially right now. What evidence do you have that I am an EXTREMELY sexist man of color
Posted 06 May 2008 at 11:22 am ¶
Manju wrote:
“Someone at my other blog said he has a temper and the signs of a batterer. We need to know if he has a short fuse and if this will affect how he runs this country.”
Signs of a batterer? Even David Duke could hear this dogwhistle.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 11:38 am ¶
Manju wrote:
“What evidence do you have that I am an EXTREMELY sexist man of color”
lloyd:
You show signs of a batterer and remind us of OJ.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 12:01 pm ¶
Lloyd Webber wrote:
Barack Obama has a temper?…the man who couldn’t even muster up visible anger when having to break up with his pastor of over twenty years. One of the most even keeled politicians I’ve seen in a while? That’s pretty rich, especially when looking at Saint Hillary, who morphs from one extreme (Shame on you) to another (I’m honored to be here with you) at the drop of a (poll tested) hat
Posted 06 May 2008 at 12:01 pm ¶
Lloyd Webber wrote:
Just to add to my previous comment. Trying to insinuate that Obama beats his wife (i.e. is a batterer) is pretty low, and if you can’t see why, then you’re beyond hope and have crashed into the iceberg along with the Hillaryanic
Posted 06 May 2008 at 12:03 pm ¶
J wrote:
@Latoya
It is one thing to disagree with the article, to profess your support for Clinton, to say that you don’t like Obama. However, when DD compares Obama to OJ Simpson; thats when I just walk away. There is no backing up such an assertion.
On a positive note,
@lowercase tasha
I strongly, strongly disagree with you, but I just wanted to thank you for laying out your opinions here as you have. I have really enjoyed reading them.
Yay for lively debate, boo for trolling!
Posted 06 May 2008 at 12:11 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
J, thank you for reminding me.
Yes Tasha, we don’t agree on much, but you always make a case. Keep it coming.
Donna, you need to sit down and think hard. I posted here:
http://www.racialicious.com/2008/05/06/racism-doesnt-trump-gender-but-self-righteousness-trumps-reason/
All:
Please use that thread specifically for Obama/Clinton issues and use this thread for the nation article.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 12:24 pm ¶
octogalore wrote:
Here’s some backup:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/02/hillary-sexism-watch.html
http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=858
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2004041541&zsection_id=2003956730&slug=hillaryslurs29&date=20071129
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/us/politics/10women.html?_r=1&ei=5087&em=&en=c28a43517e4da9b6&ex=1200114000&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/po/2008/04/22/
Posted 06 May 2008 at 12:56 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Thanks Octo -
Mind posting that to the other thread?
http://www.racialicious.com/2008/05/06/racism-doesnt-trump-gender-but-self-righteousness-trumps-reason/
Also, would love to see a round up of direct attacks on Clinton by Obama.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 12:59 pm ¶
shah8 wrote:
So I can go look at threads like…
Oh Look! Obama’s Scratching His Neck! He’s flipping the bird at Clinton!
Or twisting every unfelicitous statement Obama’s ever made and finding sexism (beyond the background imbibed baby’s milk stuff) in them?
I could go on a long rant about the “acceptance” dialogue mostly means that black people are “guests” rather than “citizens”, and we shouldn’t hurt our guests.
But at the same time, check the silverware after she’s gone!
But I won’t.
I also want to add this:
When Tiger Woods feels that he has to say that he’s still good friends with the announcer who said that Tiger’s competitors should go out and lynch him in a dark alleyway, I don’t see how Obama can be any less cautious about protecting his livelyhood.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 1:25 pm ¶
Manju wrote:
Some lines from a poem Donna Darko features on her blog. I report. You decide:
http://donnadarko.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/ode-to-obama/
An African Muslim father
An eccentric white mama
Obama’s white grandparents
They gave him a charmed life
Far from ghetto strife
Working-class white folks
They were nowhere near
Nation of Islam, Farrakhan, Black Panthers and Jackson
The only friends he made
He said white people were “the devil”
And Gods who love whites must be killed
He wrote a book called “Dreams From My Father”
From start to finish a racist rant
He wrote how he rejected his mother’s race
And that Malcolm X was a hero
He was then elected to the U.S. Senate
Obama’s ego grew very bold
Her Black Separatist thesis at Princeton
He then played basketball
He said damn those white voters
He wouldn’t cover his heart
As the National Anthem played
He wouldn’t wear a flag pin
Farrakhan, Jackson and Sharpton
Three of Obama’s greatest fans
He preened, shucked and jived
White people rose up and sneered
His name was Barrack Hussein Obama
Posted 06 May 2008 at 2:17 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Manju –
No need to smear someone who has already dug their own hole. Let it be.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 2:18 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:
Manju? Manju pesco-ovo from Chapel Hill/Durham who swoons for Obama and yet isn’t aware of his ambiguous/triangulating stance on reproductive rights but has a brilliant and stylish sister on the opposite coast who forgot to email you back about that?
Is that you?
Posted 06 May 2008 at 2:23 pm ¶
Lloyd Webber wrote:
Manju-
That’s disgusting…I stopped reading DD pretty much after she jumped the shark (THis was after Saint Hillary lost Iowa), so I never saw that.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 2:28 pm ¶
shah8 wrote:
looking at that comment from marge twain…
Wow, that’s a pretty dehumanizing slander on Manju…
Posted 06 May 2008 at 3:20 pm ¶
Manju wrote:
“Manju? Manju pesco-ovo from Chapel Hill/Durham who swoons for Obama and yet isn’t aware of his ambiguous/triangulating stance on reproductive rights but has a brilliant and stylish sister on the opposite coast who forgot to email you back about that?
Is that you?”
Heh, no, but that’s the 2nd time someone has confused me with Manju Rajendran, of duke rape hoax fame, and I’m a right-wing conservative! I must spend too much time on progressive blogs and the disease is rubbing off on me
Well, I once went over to KC Johnsons Blog to introduce the Jena 6 case (in light of the duke rape hoax) and everyone assumed I was her, and I got piled on. but then I said; “look, if people who oppossed Joe Mcarthy admitted communism was a great evil, wouldn’t that have helped their case.” and most got it.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 3:35 pm ¶
sfsinger wrote:
Due to history of Black women being raped and how it is to prove it I would prefer that people did not refer to the Duke case as a hoax, but as a case that was dropped due to lack of evidence.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 4:01 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
@ lowercase tasha–” Now, I’ve said my piece about Steinem’s essay in the Walker thread, but you, however, seem to be having trouble acknowledging that blacks and other non-whites share Ferraro’s view, even criticizing Johnson, as if by bringing up BET’s content, it’s going to distract me from the fact that Johnson is in fact a black man who agrees with Ferraro . Now, I know you’re very smart, and you realize that there are non-whites who agree with Ferraro. That’s not something I have to tell you. The reason why you didn’t admonish them (non-whites) in your first comment wasn’t because they didn’t exist in your mind. You just weren’t talking about non-whites in your first comment, right? You were talking about white feminists. So, if it’s alright for you to do that, why can’t Steinem get the benefit of the doubt about race?”
First of all, lowercase tasha, don’t you ***ever*** come at me again with such a backhanded compliment of my being smart yet presume to know what’s in and on my mind. Disagree with my points–hey, even disagree with the underlying assumptions of my points–but don’t you ever pull that rude and condescending statement on me again. Do we understand each other from this point onward?
With that said, let me address what your latest response to me.
If you’d re-read my initial response to you–instead of assuming and having the audacity to tell me what’s in and on my mind, lowercase tasha–yes, I was talking about those white people who support and have spoken on behalf of Hillary Rodham Clinton, including white feminists, who have said and/or implied in the past that part of their agenda is to eradicate racism yet have attacked Obama with the very racism they said they want to eradicate. Remember: HRC’s husband stood on the world stage in the 90s and tried to apologize for Europeans enslaving Africans
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E7DF1E38F936A15750C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&&scp=7&sq=bill%20clinton%20slavery%20apology&st=cse
and pulled together a panel on how to deal with racism in the US.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990DEFDF123BF932A15752C1A961958260&scp=2&sq=bill+clinton+race+panel&st=nyt
In the documentary, “Chisholm ‘72: Unbought and Unbossed,” Shirley Chisholm discussed how Gloria Steinem other white feminists initially said they backed her campaign–if I’m not mistaken, NOW backed Chisholm’s campaign.
IMO, Chisholm’s run partially paved the way for both Geraldine Ferraro to stand as a vice-presidential candidate back in the 80s and HRC to be a presidential candidate today. Furthermore, for Clinton and Steinem to say that they’re anti-racist/supportive of Black people (in Ferraro’s case, understand the history of the Black woman upon whose shoulders she stood), only for them to go after a Black candidate with racist remarks or with Oppression Olympics–both are methods to diminish the candidate–was not only hypocritical, but quite a few Black people felt it a stab in the collective back and heart, especially in regards to Bill Clinton. Hell, even Steinem had to back off her OO op-ed piece when confronted about it by feminist of color and Obama supporter Melissa Lacewell-Harris.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/14/race_and_gender_in_presidential_politics
Now, let me get to those PoCs who agree with Ferraro, like Bob Johnson. Bob Johnson attempted to disparage Obama’s candidacy by, for example, by hinting at what Obama plainly stated in his book: that he experimented with drugs when he was young. (Unlike former President Clinton, who said he tried marijuana “but didn’t inhale.” Clinton’s statement brings up laughs to this day due to its dodginess. And, if I’m not mistaken, Johnson said nothing about Clinton’s youthful indiscretion and being a president–and the implication of those indiscretions as the spouse of a presidential candidate–but wanted to cast doubt on Obama for the same reason?) Now–as I said before–*looking at the threads* (which is what you wanted me to do in your 2nd reply to me, right?) where Black folks responded to what Johnson has said, the reasons they rip into his attacks because he’s pettily tearing down another Black person for another’s profit, much in the same way the commenters perceive Johnson tearing down their community with degrading images of Black folks for his own profit.
Maggie Williams, HRC’s campaign manager? Some Black people are aghast at what she tacitly (if not overtly) OKs. Again, I defer to Tami at What Tami Says:
http://whattamisaid.blogspot.com/2008/03/open-letter-to-maggie-williams.html
Now, lowercase tasha, this is where Latoya’s suggestion of *asking* me why I didn’t admonish Johnson or Williams would have been helpful or, at least respectful, instead of *telling* me what’s in my mind. So, let me tell you–as the sole owner and maintainer of my brain and the thoughts in them–why I didn’t admonish Johnson and Williams. IMO, Bob Johnson and Maggie Williams, by their statements and actions, have stated they agree with, as Latoya pointed out, “the attacks leveled at Obama from the Clinton camp has been tinged with all kinds of sentiments, including racism and xenophobia.” And Latoya pointed out those statements in her lastest post:
http://www.racialicious.com/2008/05/06/racism-doesnt-trump-gender-but-self-righteousness-trumps-reason/
Williams’ and Johnson’s smarminess and tolerance of the smarminess is nothing to admonish; IMO, it speaks for itself—and what it says disgusts me. And I’m just as disgusted with the white Clintonites who posed themselves as allies in the anti-racism struggle or benefited from that struggle, including white feminists like Steinem, yet reverted to racism in dealing with Obama. So, lowercase tasha, Steinem Ferraro, Williams, or Johnson gets a pass from me. And Clinton doesn’t get a pass from me because she’s dealing with sexism. Her facing sexism doesn’t excuse her using—or tolerate using–racism.
…and you don’t get a pass from me, lowercase tasha. I felt you approached me in your last statement, and I really do not appreciate it. At all.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 4:20 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
Let me amend my statement: “…and you don’t get a pass from me, lowercase tasha. I felt you approached me *disrespectfully* in your last statement, and I really do not appreciate it. At all.”
Posted 06 May 2008 at 4:23 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:
*gasp* impostor! ever considered a new handle? May I suggest something along the lines of “rapistsympathizer” or “thankyourgrandfatherformynicecottonshirt”?
also, don’t call it a hoax. Evidence of a rape was there. This was not a hoax but an egregiously mishandled case from the police who gave the boys time to destroy the evidence to the DA who’s since been ousted.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 4:37 pm ¶
Manju wrote:
well, to tie the duke rape hoax to this thread; what clinton was trying to do was turn obama into a tawana brawley case, like nifong and the accuser…a person who uses racism for their own politcal or personal gain like Mccarthy used communism. Such a respomse from Obama would create huge white backlash.
so bubba compares obama’s SC vic to the race-baiter jesse, who only won a caucus as opposed to Edwards, gore, or bubba himself, and argues to the super-deligate that like jesse, he can’t really win… a sort of cynical, catch-22, self-perpetuating form of racism.
and of course, there’s context. billary had long tried to bait obama into playing the race card, knowing in the long run, this brand of politics is a losing card and simply unpresidential, like jesse himself. recall clinton surrogate bob johnsons racially charged speech during this primary? notice how bubba called obama a kid (not boy, just kid) knowing it would go over the head of most whites but hoping it would unhinge obama. also, hillary’s mlk/lbj comment made sense in this context, she wanted to subtly bring up race, with plausible denial of course. Both buba and Gerry, apparently frustrated that obama did not take the bait, nonetheless accuse him of playing the race card on them. some obama surrogates, like the not-quite-ready-for-prime-time jesse jackson jr actually took the bait (accusing clinton of not crying during katrina b/c black people where dying) but by and large obama stayed above the fray and addressed race in his own non-sharpton way after the wright brouhaha. the rest is history and probably leading to our first black president, hopefully finally burying the whole hyper-victimization form of politics that throws innocent lax players under the bus in order to preserve a false victim narrative so precious to their identity and power.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 5:50 pm ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:
@Cruel Secretary
Yeah, I’m thinking it’s time for you to fall back. Oh wait, was that too presumptuous of me? I wasn’t disrespecting you by suggesting that while you knew of non-whites that publicly agreed with Ferraro’s views, you just simply decided not to acknowledge them and focused only on chiding white feminists in your first two comments. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. My bad. I mean, I should’ve known all along that you had a far more legitimate agenda for originally omitting non-whites and trying to discredit Bob Johnson’s blackness, sort of like Steinem supposedly did with race in her NYT op-ed, nes pa? Or maybe I shouldn’t have known all along. After all, I don’t want to be too presumptuous, especially since you’ve just admitted to holding blacks like Johnson and Maggie Williams to a different standard.
As for calling you smart, it was in reference to your comments to HA in the Corcoran interracial couple advertisement thread. I thought your responses were very clever. You took my question to HA to an extension that I hadn’t contemplated. Perhaps it would have been more to your liking if instead, I had gone the Joe Biden rout and called you clean and articulate. Oh, but then again, perhaps I presume too much? And at this point, I’m certain. . . No, wait, I can’t be certain of anything. Dang nammit! There goes my presumptuousness again. Gotta work on that. Ok, let me try again. It’s very likely, at this point, that the irony of your rebuking me for presuming to know what you were thinking, all the while, doing the same to me, has not escaped you, what with you being so smart, no, strike that, not smart, that’s apparently offensive and backhanded. I don’t want to say articulate either. That might get me into trouble too. We’ll go with clever. Ok, I’ve got it now . . .from the top. At this point, it’s very likely that the irony of your rebuking me for presuming to know what you were thinking, despite your doing the same to me, has not escaped you, what with your statements being so clever and all. In the future, if you think I’m slighting you, feel free to ask before embarking on a tirade. Best believe I’ll be more than happy to let you know.
Ok, kids, yesterday’s buzz words were “political apathy.” Today’s word of the day is “presume” and its various conjugates.(Hat tip to Cruel Secretary) Learn it. Love it. Live it.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 8:26 pm ¶
Unitari wrote:
We are not standing under any banner. There is no banner for women. and there wouldn’t have been if Hillary hadn’t run.
We are not organized. We are not active.
The younger and older feminists almost don’t exist in the world of action.
There are only islands we call women. unhappy unfulfilled women.
this is how I feel.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 8:31 pm ¶
Sewere wrote:
I wasn’t going to say anything until I saw this and then I blew my top.
Well hale-fucking-lujah! Once I was blind but thank God for Donna, I know see that Obama isn’t the black Messiah I thought he would be. I’m going to run out and tell all those every black person who has been in search of their very own president of the black community. How could I have missed this? Thank you, thank you sooo much.
But seriously, Donna, I want you to remember this statement as it stands and I want others to see it as a testimony of your condescension to the black community. You’re not the first to do it, and given the history of this country. not the last either.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 8:38 pm ¶
MNC wrote:
Latoya if you want to really lose your mind-check this out.
Everyone needs to send a letter to this Begala toad.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/06/brazile-and-begala-angril_n_100500.html
Eggheads unite. Vote Obama.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 9:28 pm ¶
Craig Hubley wrote:
I was concerned the moment this contest turned into its “identity politics” phase. I considered this a deep degradation from the good policy debates that were occurring in the earlier phase with substantial candidates like John Edwards and outliers with a few well placed criticisms like Dennis Kucinich still involved. Kucinich for instance knew that growing crops for biofuels was foolish, but all three of the remaining candidates have accepted the absurd pork-barrel logic that makes them promise to keep doing so.
The behaviour of the DNC is inexplicable and proves everything anyone ever said about an establishment bias. Edwards consistently showed double digit leads in head to head polling against any of the Republicans, and had by far the most progressive platform – was he the new FDR? But despite that the temptation of this absurd “black man versus white woman” history-making exercise prevailed and the key figures in the Democratic Party lined up with one or the other based on whether they had more race or gender bias in their own history to make up for.
The end result of this absurd positioning and total abandonment of the key issues may well be the ultimate compromise: Vice President Condoleeza Rice. Who may well end up as President given McCain’s age. That is EXACTLY what everyone who ever participated in this “identity politics” game deserves. However it isn’t what the US and the world deserves. The world deserved, or rather needed, John Edwards. Hope he tries again in 2012 against a sitting McCain/Rice.
Posted 07 May 2008 at 2:39 pm ¶
Mizzday wrote:
I really have no idea how Clinton supporters sat happily as her campaign waged war against the “black” candidate from the begining when she pimped white peoples fears. The picture of him in traditional Somali clothing, circulation of stories that he was a muslim, and then bill ayers, reverend wright, etc were all circulated to weaken the white support Obam had amongst white voters. Then once, it appeared to be working, she states, “I have the support of white working class voters”. Then miraculously, it backfired. People bagan to see her as an opportunist, devious race baiter who would do anything to win. Now, white women are rallying to her crying sexism. Clueless women like the two inarticulate boobs who appeared on Fox could not even cite examples of sexism but they were ANGRY. Geraldine Ferraro a woman who forgot about former presidential candidate Alan Keyes, who was also a viable candidate, states that Obama would not be where he was if he was not a black male: not only minimizing his charisma but throwing up the age old, “affirmative action” hire mentality that most professional blacks seem to always deal with.
So, where is the sexism from Obama. Examples cited are coming directly from the media outlets. They are equally as racially vicious even more with Obama, look at Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
There is one thing that I do indeed notice of White women. Most of them benefit from affirmative action and love to play the gender card. However, they are sometimes the most virulent racists one could ever come across. Why? because they are in direct competition with white men, not black men, not black women. They are still privileged people who benefit from being in the Ivory tower. A white woman always has the luxury of being credible and looked upon with sympathy. A black man is seen as a threat. A biracial black man has always been portrayed as weak and effeminate, and a black woman is the so called root of all evil. We are not feminine, we are oppressive to black men, we are liars, and objects for sexual lust and not love.
Hillary Clinton can go to hell! She has the best of what America could ever offer and she benefits from it.
Posted 20 May 2008 at 3:42 pm ¶