Ferraro Mania

by Guest Contributor dnA, originally published at Too Sense

Michael Calderone has this video of Geraldine Ferraro claiming black journalists, (and I assume she means black male journalists) of being surrogates for Obama and ignoring sexism on the trail.

Ta-Nehisi Coates points to this Jezebel post noting that Bob Herbert devoted a whole column to the subject, but they didn’t provide what I thought was the money quote:

    Sexism in its myriad destructive forms permeates nearly every aspect of American life. For many men, it’s the true national pastime, much bigger than baseball or football.

I suppose it’s safe to say that Geraldine Ferraro doesn’t read Bob Herbert, probably because she thinks that he only got his job at the New York Times because he’s black. And we know for a fact that Geraldine Ferraro really just doesn’t like black men. And it’s significant that asked to name an instance of sexism, all she could mention was conference calls with journalists that all candidates have.

But let’s take a look at what some other black columnists have had to say.

Eugene Robinson acknowledged a sexist bias in the media against Hillary months ago. Roland Martin said “I’ve heard men blow off comments about Sen. Hillary Clinton that are clearly sexist, and we do well to recognize that.” Earl Ofari Hutchinson has spent the past year shilling mercilessly for Hillary.

But you know what the key word in Ferraro’s diatribe is? It’s not even black, it’s “all.”

All the black journalists”.

There actually aren’t very many of us in the news business, even in commentary, which seems to have a pretty low threshold for white Republican men. There are too many of us perhaps, for Geraldine Ferraro, who probably would have been hard pressed to name another black columnist.

What Ferraro is trying to do, and what Fox News is helping her do, is turn give “sexism” the subtextual meaning of “anti-white,” much the way folks on the Right who attack department stores for maybe, possibly including Hannukah but more likely referring to New Years when they put up banners saying “Happy Holidays” get incensed about “anti-Semitism” when the target is Amiri Baraka. So now instead of calling the Obama campaign “racist” by which they mean anti-white, they can just call it sexist and we’ll all know what it means.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Geraldine Ferraro - Just Why? at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 03 Jun 2008 at 7:00 am

    [...] What I find fascinating about this op-ed is that it is titled “Healing the Wounds of Democrat’s Sexism” but only a few sentences actually relate to sexism. Instead, she rants about reverse racism. What the hell? Looks like dnA might be right about that code word thing. [...]

Comments

  1. Sarah J wrote:

    Well, again, I must point out that Rupert Murdoch and several other Fox execs maxed out their Clinton campaign donations before a single primary voted. (Check out Murdoch’s record…Harold Ford and Rick Santorum? Hrm….)

    Anyway, my friend Denise, a black journalist herself, wrote a good piece on this issue here.

  2. Tasha wrote:

    Nicely parsed, always good to get a handle on the new code speak before it gets heavy handed

  3. heya wrote:

    The best part–and this is often referenced in a lot of discussions of the Ferraro/Bob Herber debacle, is that Maureen Dowd and Frank Bruni skewer Hil in the NYTimes on a pretty regular basis. Hilarious, really. But instead of pointing out the obvious and almost hostile bias these two columnists have agaisnt her candidate, Ferraro chooses to invent some non-existent anti-woman bias on the part of the large, influential, and prominent ranks of Black op-ed columnists. Good grief.

  4. kd wrote:

    Ferraro is exactly right, Have you read Theroot.com, Blackcommentator.com, listened to Roland Martin, etc. What she said is exactly true many black(liberal or leftist) journalists have been skewering Hillary for months. THey’ve been talking about many of the same things people talk about this on this blog. So stop acting like what she said isn’t basically true.

    I don’t that she is saying that there’s some anit-woman bias blah blah, but what she saying literally is that people supporting OBama ignore when sexism does rear its ugly head.

  5. EvilAngelfish wrote:

    @kd
    Ferraro didn’t say “many”, she said “all”.
    That is exactly WRONG.

  6. Big Man wrote:

    KD is on some bullshit.

    The blog gave examples of black people decrying sexism. So, Ferraro is obviously wrong.

    Besides, she is just saying this crap because it’s working. In 2006, in the NY Times, she clearly said it would be harder for a black man to be elected president than a white woman because of racism. She only changed that up when Hillary started getting her ass kicked.

    Here is a link where I discussed this.
    http://ravingblacklunatic.blogspot.com/2008/03/this-is-ludicrous.html

  7. Joseph wrote:

    You left the “c” off of this headline.

  8. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Joseph – You do realize you had me checking to see if I misspelled Ferraro’s name right? A laugh and a sigh from me on this one…

  9. RyanB wrote:

    Ferraro, man oh man, she just keeps digging. Deeper and deeper she goes. For one – her argument completely forgets the fact that Black women exist, and are victims to sexism as well. Two – I know for a fact she’s wrong. Because I wrote about the sexism that has surfaced during this campaign on my own blog. Oh, and I happen to be Black.

  10. lowercase tasha wrote:

    I agree. Ferraro should have said some or many, not all.

    That said . . . Can someone please give me the new PC term for sexist, so that in the event that I should need to conjugate the noun sexism as an adjective, I’m not accused of being racist? Wait, is “sexist” transient now, where when used in reference to Obama or his supporters it’s considered racist, but when used for anyone else that isn’t a POC or Obama, sexist reverts back to being the adjective form of sexism and not the new buzzword for coded racism?

    “much the way folks on the Right who attack department stores for maybe, possibly including Hannukah but more likely referring to New Years when they put up banners saying “Happy Holidays” get incensed about “anti-Semitism” when the target is Amiri Baraka.”

    @dnA or anyone

    could you elborate. I’m not familiar with the situation. what happened?

  11. che wrote:

    I didn’t hear Ferraro give one example of a black member of the media actually saying or publishing something sexist: unless all criticism of Hilary = sexism, the logic of which makes my head spin.

  12. Mary wrote:

    Congratulations Gerry! You used to be a trailblazer for women. Now you’re my crazy Aunt Betty at Thanksgiving dinner, making me stare down into my mashed potatoes and silently hope you stop talking and embarrassing yourself.

    She’s also clearly not paying attention to what happened with Tavis Smiley earlier this year – whatever else you want to say about him, it was definitely NOT mindless shilling for Obama that got him in so much heat. Which, not that we should even NEED to refute the ridiculous assertion that a diabolical, well-connected minority is controlling the media. Wait, haven’t I heard that one before?

  13. Persia wrote:

    Che, I think the problem is looking for logic to begin with. Ferraro’s clearly no longer willing to look beyond her very constrained prism.

  14. Black Canseco wrote:

    Where’s the sexism cries when the targets are Cynthia McKinney’s hairdo and anti-war stances, Michelle Obama’s patriotism, Donna Brazille’s allegiances or Condoleeza Rice’s policy stances?

    Where were the sexism cries when we dismiss Carol Mosely Braun’s historic run in ‘96 and Shirley Chihsolm’s historic run in ‘72 and Charlene Mitchel historic run in ‘68, all in the name of calling Hillary Clinton the first woman candidate?

    Where are the cries of sexism when WOC’s are pushed aside in the name of hyping White Females as “women” and only focusing on “women” issues relevant to them?

    Apparently, only certain women can invoke sexism and only when it suits them.

  15. Joseph wrote:

    @Latoya
    Just trying to keep you on your toes.

    Laugh and sigh…yeah, that sounds about right.

    Am I the only one old enough to to remember the overt– unfounded– insinuations of a mafia connection that haunted Ferraro during her run? They practically turned her husband (who the papers delighted in referring to as “an Italian businessman”) over and shook him to see if any mob money would fall out. It was a despicable exploitation of a stereotype and she had to endure it with a smile on her face. And now…this?

    She should be ashamed of herself.

  16. Black Canseco wrote:

    Joseph,

    i remember her run and Ferraro took every criticism of her record, stances and ideas as some sort of veiled anti-woman slap. She’s always been paranoid.

    Was the crap with her husband unfair? Yeah, it wouldn’t have happened in an election year to be sure.

    Is there sexism? Sure.
    Sexism aimed at Clinton? Yeah.

    But Clinton’s not losing because she’s a woman and she’s not being criticized because she’s a woman. her problems are the result of incessant lying about her stances and her track record, underestimating her opponent(s) to the point that she didn’t allocate enough resources to caucus states, and moving the goal posts on determining the winner whenever it supports her “pick me” argument.

  17. Joseph wrote:

    @ Black Canseco
    You get no argument from me. See my comment over on the “HRC is not RFK” thread for my take.

    I only raised the mafia stuff to make the point that, having been through the mill herself, she really should know better.

  18. Chica Dificil wrote:

    I want to write a thoughtful and/or precise analysis of this situation. But I can’t! This video makes me feel so UPSET and ANGRY with Ferraro and conservative right mainstream media, I can’t think straight.

    WTF??!!! $%&@&!$($$!!! I feel better now.

  19. Rounder wrote:

    How did she fall this far? Gerry, how did this happen? You used to be an elder states(person?) of the party, and now you’re on Fox defending your current position amongst democrats. It’s a shame.

  20. Black Canseco wrote:

    Joseph,

    agreed. i think she’s projecting and conflating more than anything. sad all the way around, to be sure.

  21. Afroamericawriter wrote:

    I wrote about Ferraro yesterday finding any TV camera to cry about her perceived sexism and going after Bob Herbert and Tim Russett here: http://afroamericawriter.blogspot.com/2008/05/ferraro-driving-me-nuts.html#links

    It is a shame that such a feminist icon will play the victim.

  22. Jen B wrote:

    I undoubtedly agree that there has been sexism against Hillary Clinton but attempts to trace it to the Obama campaign is far-fetched, and frankly, ludicrous. I have to say though..in the midst of that crazy there was a moment where she almost made sense.. “President O-…umm, I mean Barack Obama..”
    hahaha…

  23. Paul wrote:

    People are missing an important aspect of Ferraro’s anti-Obama stance. Many Northeastern, Italian-Americans harbor a significant antipathy toward black folks. Look at the recent case on Long Island where a mob of Italian-American youths threatened to kill a young black man based solely on their fears that he’d made untoward remarks to a white teenage girl.

    Then, when the black kid’s father shot one of the youths in self-defense and was rightly acquitted, the Italian_American father made not-so veiled threats on the life of the black youth.

    This’ only one of a myriad of hate crimes committed by Italian-Americans against black people in the Northeast.

    Ferraro’s anti-Obama stance mirrors this anti-black mindset.

  24. Joseph wrote:

    “Ferraro’s anti-Obama stance mirrors this anti-black mindset.”

    WTF? How is that crazy leap of logic different than what Ferraro is trying to do to Obama?

    It is stupid and unhelpful on a large scale to use the actions of a few people to characterize an entire people, whether Geraldine Ferraro does it or you do it.

  25. eric daniels wrote:

    I quess Black Men can’t win in this country, Obama marries a strong Black Woman is a parent to two little black girls and his white mother is his greatest influence intellectually and he has not parlayed his race into any advatage and now Ferraro is saying he has played the race and sex card. I quess Geraldine is still pissed at the Black Guy who screwed her in college and didn’t return the phone call afterwards.

    Maybe Hillary Clinton and her campaign should accept responiblity for ASSuming she was the “chosen one” and didn’t have to work to secure her nomination and got outworked by Obama and his team. That is called getting played, and instead of accepting responsiblity for their terrible showing they blame Obama associates for using race and sex. The Clintons should have muzzled Ferraro, Steinem, and Robert Johnson for their stupid polarizing comments and ran on her ideas and she would be the nominee.

    Well I have news for Ferraro, the Feminists black and white and White Ethnics voters who will either 1. stay home 2. vote for McCain

    1. Roe v. Wade/equall pay (overturned)
    2. Health Care (not in a GOP adminstration)
    3. Immigration reform (to satisfy big biz)
    4. Iraq (another Vietnam)
    5. World War III (invade Iran and all hell breaks loose)

    You can say all you want about the GOP, but they stay united balls is in the liberals court.

    Mod Note – 1. “I quess Geraldine is still pissed at the Black Guy who screwed her in college and didn’t return the phone call afterwards.” – Sexist, out of bounds. I would have accepted this comment on the Nina Bruleigh piece (due to what she said), but this serves no purpose with Geraldine Ferraro. Next comment like that will be deleted outright. And 2 – No voting for McCain out of spite. I got a post on him in a minute. If you don’t want to vote for HRC fine, show some love to Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader or write in Obama.

  26. Lyonside wrote:

    Given the source and the mod’s note, I’m going to be the better person and ignore the interracial slam in favor of discussing GOP “solidarity”:

    >You can say all you want about the GOP, but they stay united

    Not really – unless you count multiple, diverse Rovian tactics “united.” A fair number of social conservatives who don’t like the war(s) or NCLB, etc. held their noses and voted for Bush in 2004, because of other ballot initiatives, supported outright or de facto by Republicans in tight swing states (most notably, DOMA-type stuff in Ohio, which even with bigoted legislation on the table almost went the way of 2000 Florida).

  27. gatamala wrote:

    What Ferraro is trying to do, and what Fox News is helping her do, is turn give “sexism” the subtextual meaning of “anti-white,”

    via anti-white women!

    Once again, non-white women don’t exist…

  28. thesciencegirl wrote:

    I love how she tries to lump ALL of the media as part of Obama’s campaign, but refuses to include herself in the ranks of Clinton’s campaign.

    I absolutely think Clinton has experienced sexism during this campaign, but I don’t see Obama as the perpetrator. When pressed, Ferraro couldn’t name a single actual example of him being sexist toward Clinton. I got really irritated when she described him brushing his shoulders off as “demeaning.” She clearly misinterpreted that cultural reference. *sigh*

    This woman needs to shut it.

  29. eric daniels wrote:

    I am voting for Nader in the fall, and I was just trying to illustrate the insanity in which Ferraro talks about Black who are conspiring against HRC

  30. Michelle wrote:

    Does anyone wonder if there is something intensely personal going on with Ferraro. There is something truly irrational in her rhetoric, that it makes me wonder if she had a Secretary of State nod, VP nod, or if maybe back in the day someone did piss her off royally. Because her complete lack of coherence or logic makes her, as a woman, a stereotype of a “hysterical” woman just lobbing attacks that are unfounded and therefore easily dismissed. As it has been discussed over and over again, people can’t find clear instances of Obama’s “sexism”. It would be far more helpful for people to focus on the cross-section of “Hillary-hate” and sexism, or campaign rigours and sexism (and not saying that people don’t, because I know that people do). Those conversations are far more fruitful and indeed, further people’s thinking.

    Basically, what I’m saying is, has Geraldine Ferraro lost her ever loving mind?

  31. vodalus wrote:

    I’m sorry to be the dumb one, but I don’t really understand the last paragraph or how it relates to the rest of the post.

    (It must be extra frustrating to be a black feminist this year.)

  32. A. wrote:

    Oh, she just did another interview, where she tried to claim that Obama needs to answer for all the people that stood up and agreed with Father Phleger’s (sp?) commentary.

    I think that her feminism is starting to unravel and reveal deep-seated issues.

    Feminism – from equal rights for women to cracking the whip on black men, while totally ignoring black women!