Geraldine Ferraro - Just Why?
by Latoya Peterson
In case there were any doubts about Geraldine Ferraro, her op-ed in the Boston Globe should clarify some things:
LAST YEAR at the beginning of the presidential primary season, Democrats were giddy with excitement. Not only did we have an embarrassment of riches in our candidates but we had two historic candidacies to enjoy. Once and for all our country would show that racism and sexism were not part of our 21st-century DNA.
Here we are at the end of the primary season, and the effects of racism and sexism on the campaign have resulted in a split within the Democratic Party that will not be easy to heal before election day. Perhaps it’s because neither the Barack Obama campaign nor the media seem to understand what is at the heart of the anger on the part of women who feel that Hillary Clinton was treated unfairly because she is a woman or what is fueling the concern of Reagan Democrats for whom sexism isn’t an issue, but reverse racism is.
Yes, she did.
Since March, when I was accused of being racist for a statement I made about the influence of blacks on Obama’s historic campaign, people have been stopping me to express a common sentiment: If you’re white you can’t open your mouth without being accused of being racist. They see Obama’s playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They’re not upset with Obama because he’s black; they’re upset because they don’t expect to be treated fairly because they’re white. It’s not racism that is driving them, it’s racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don’t believe he understands them and their problems.
Someone grab the world’s smallest violin for me.
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.
Lauren from Stereohyped shares my sentiments:
Geraldine Ferraro can go to hell. She doesn’t get it — or maybe she does and everything she says is orchestrated to feed into the “racial resentment” that she’s trying to explain. Either way, she can go to hell with her “woe is me, white people can’t open their mouths without being accused of racism, playing up to affirmative action fears, back-handed, damn-near right wing, Barack Obama has run the most sexist campaign in history” bullshit.
[…]
Clearly, Barack Obama’s success over Hillary Clinton is the biggest affront Geraldine Ferraro can imagine, and it’s not because he’s a man. It’s because he’s a black man. The situation so infuriates her that she can’t even hide it, although she probably thinks if she denies and deflects enough we’ll believe that this is really about sexism and reverse racism. We’re not that stupid, Ms. Ferraro.
But I think my favorite response came from Megan over at Jezebel. This one had me rolling! (The post picture also came from the Jezebel post.)
Geraldine, do not give me the “Bitch, please” hand. Bitch, please! What the fuck are you thinking? I just read your incredibly offensive op-ed in the Boston Globe and it made me cry with frustration and disappointment and the ruination of that childhood dream I had when you were running for VP and I thought you were so cool and, bitch, I don’t fucking cry. Ask anyone. And so before I get into why I’m shaking with anger and disappointment and hereby disavowing you as a Democratic party leader and a feminist and a cool chick worth emulating, I gotta ask — have you been to a doctor this year? Have you been screened for Alzheimers, dementia or anything other than a politically terminal case of racism and shoving your foot down your throat? Can we call that an eating disorder? Because if you’re just losing your marbles, well, I’ve volunteered with the elderly before and you forgive a lot when disease breaks down those barriers we all have but if you’re not, um, well, yeah, fuck you.
Gerry, look, I mean, I guess I sort of understand. You grew up in a certain time and a certain place where there was this level of casual, quasi-open racism. You’re 72, which isn’t really that much younger than Barack Obama’s sort of racist grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, 86, and we all know that he forgives her and considers that sort of typical and, frankly, so do I. But you’re also a glass-ceiling-breaking politician, smart, brilliant and trailblazing, and you shouldn’t have to fucking be told by someone that racism fucking exists in this country and that it pervades a lot of what goes on in this country in big and small ways. Why the hell would you, as a supposedly liberal fucking Democrat, want to wade into that pool?
So, look, the first time you opened your maw in March and said “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is,” I sort of wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. […]
And then, today. Your editorial. Geraldine, I literally cried in frustration that you can’t see what you’re doing to the Democratic party, to the women’s movement, to the uneasy détente between the (almost exclusively white) old guard feminists and those feminists of color who have complained for decades about the short shrift their issues have been given in the larger women’s movement. What, you hadn’t noticed that? You titled your piece “Healing The Wounds of Democrat’s Sexism” and then you rip open the flesh of Democrats’ racist wounds — you do remember the fifties and sixties well enough, I assume, to recall which party’s Southern Senators kept a federal civil rights law off the books for decades, right? And you side with the so-called Reagan Democrats, those bastards that frankly kept you from the Vice Presidency, in charging the party with reverse racism. […]
Racial resentment, Geraldine, is racism. Why can’t you see that? People coming up to you and complaining that they can’t complain about black people is them complaining for being looked down upon for being racists! And, yes, their time ought to have passed, it should pass, they should learn and understand that racism should have no place in our society and as a party leader, a stalwart, a barrier-breaker you should be breaking it to them that “getting treated fairly for being white” means losing sometimes, and sometimes it means losing to a person of color.
Bra-fucking-va, Megan.
Oh, Gerry, Gerry, Gerry.
You do it to yourself, you do, and that’s why it really hurts.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
kd wrote:
She’s a little off with the “reverse racism” thing. But she is right to a certain extent. If someone who is white AND supports Clinton makes any comment about race-the shit hits the fan; they’re a racist, Clinton is a racist, the comment is some kind of plot. etc. But she was dead on about what she initially said about Obama and race. Besides he said the exact thing almost word for word way before she did-that’s why I don’t buy all of the “oh no she didn’t” nonsense.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 7:27 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@KD -
There is a way to talk about race without being racist - there has been nothing but failures coming from HRC supporters on this one. Geraldine Ferraro’s view is offensive - just because once upon a time, she was the woman nominee just for the hell of it does not mean that Obama is in the same circumstances.
On a slightly related note, why are you here? I’ve been following your comments for the past few posts and I think you would probably be better served over on Amp’s blog. We like racial discussion to be accessible, but we do work from some basic premises, which I don’t think you have a grasp of.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 7:35 am ¶
Rounder wrote:
KD, I think you’re concentrating on the subject (race) and not the content of the message coming from the Clinton campaign. Everything was about how she’s winning whites, but very little was said by the Clinton campaign about the possible motives for those votes (especially in Central PA, WV, Ohio, Kentucky, etc). When Clinton was beaten in South Carolina, people were honest about why she’d lost the black vote: her husband said some things that folks didn’t like, and some black folks were just happy as hell to vote for a black candidate.
Like it or not, Barack Obama, both because he is biracial and extremely well spoken is in a position to pontificate on race in a way few politicians have the life experience to or the mind for. Encouraging an open discussion doesn’t mean that everyone’s say is automatically given value, only that they get to say it.
I find it endlessly interesting that Gerry Ferraro is attempting to plead the case of the very group of people who denied her a chance to break the glass ceiling but 20-odd years ago. She didn’t just lose, she and Walt lost BIG. Recently she’s been on the news a lot lobbing bombs at the Obama campaign. I think that when you’re a democrat and you’re on Fox News being less than supportive to the likely Democratic candidate for President, it may be time to rethink your party affiliation. It’s like she’s angling for the Zell Miller Award.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 8:04 am ¶
G.D. wrote:
Picking a nit in the Jezebel response:
I think Ferraro’s credentials as a ‘trailblazer’ are mostly hype. As a congresswoman in Queens, she *always* trafficked in the politics of racial resentment. She was never some forward-thinking progressive or even a superlative legislator. She pandered to the “Archie Bunker” vote.
The reason we know who she is is because she was plucked from legislative obscurity and made Mondale’s running mate. That move earned him a bump in the polls and put him ahead of Reagan — for a day, before the national media started paying attention to her husband.
It’s also funny that she’s speaking on behalf of Reagan Democrats. In the ‘84 race against Reagan, she and Mondale lost FORTY-NINE of 50 states. They got MOLLYWHOPPED.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 8:15 am ¶
Slush wrote:
“There is a way to talk about race without being racist - there has been nothing but failures coming from HRC supporters on this one.”
I don’t think that’s fair, Latoya.
I think your political alliegances are shining a lot harder on that than any piece of truth, unless by Clinton supporters you actually mean specifically Geraldine Ferraro and other people in the media who have made racial attacks on Obama. Those people do not embody, by any stretch of the imagination, the entire compass of Clinton supporters.
Mod Note: Fair enough Slush. I was pissed at KD and fresh off another Feministe thread battle and the responses to the New Republic article on Nancy Pelosi when I wrote that. There have been quite a few HRC supporters who visit this blog and run others who have been willing to engage in discussion about the issues without being racist. -LDP
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 8:34 am ¶
Yvette wrote:
I absolutely love the image of “foot in mouth” syndrome (esp. around issues of intersections between race and sex and other issues) as an eating disorder! Someone call the editors of the next edition of the DSM!
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 10:02 am ¶
Persia wrote:
But she was dead on about what she initially said about Obama and race.
She was? Because I haven’t seen a long tradition of black Senators magically (if you’ll pardon the expression) jumping into Presidential contention. In fact, there’s not much of a long line of black Senators, period.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 10:04 am ¶
Sarah wrote:
I think this is my favorite part:
“Whom he chooses for his vice president makes no difference to them. That he is pro-choice means little. Learning more about his bio doesn’t do it. They don’t identify with someone who has gone to Columbia and Harvard Law School and is married to a Princeton-Harvard Law graduate.”
First of all, correct me if I’m wrong but Clinton went to WELLESLEY and YALE. Since when are those school any less elite than the schools Obama went to? What is so ‘of the people’ about being married to a former president? I would love someone to explain that to me.
And from what I can make of it, Ferraro is saying that it doesn’t matter what Obama’s positions are, some people are just uncomfortable with him NO MATTER WHAT. Gee, I wonder why that could be? Oh yeah, ‘racial resentment’. That’s right.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 10:48 am ¶
Mary wrote:
Mommy, make the mean lady stop talking!!
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 12:15 pm ¶
Anonymiss wrote:
You know, it amazes me how some HRC supporters regurgitate mindless bullshit from HRC and her endorsers without thinking critically. Their assessments of Obama’s so-called Black luck is devoid of American history, critical analysis, research, and common sense.
Sarah,
Excellent point. Gerry shoulda said: “They don’t identify with BLACK Ivy Leaguers.” Some of these people who make Archie Bunker arguments conveniently omit that Obama was raised by a single, White, welfare mother.
You would’ve thought that Obama was some blue blood.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 12:27 pm ¶
kd wrote:
@Latoya & Rounder
To be honest I am here because I enjoy your and Carmen’s guest writers, articles, links and commentary. And exactly what is it that you do not think I have grasp of? This Website’s name is “Racialicious” so I naturally assume that there is an underlying basis for all of the topics and links, etc. that is related to race, religion, ethnicity, heritage (or on occasion sexism).
Just because I have a tendency to disagree-in whole or in part with viewpoints of a majority of your “posters,” guest writers and you (and maybe Carmen) doesn’t mean my observations and thoughts are any less valid.
Getting back to GF what exactly did she say that fits this statement you made?
“There is a way to talk about race without being racist”? What specific racist comments has she made?
It seems that many people are upset about the notion that BO might owe any of his success, notoriety or exposure to the color of his skin. And the notion that sexism might have an impact on someone’s (political) career and that that people might have knee jerk reaction to someone who doesn’t fit a certain profile talking about race.
So if I correct about my observations, with all due respect, the question should be it’s that the purpose of this site-at least in part. To talk about all the things I just noted above? You have talked about racial exoticism, sexism, comedians, politicians, toys magazine, commercials, books and more. So why the problem when GF says the same type of thing-but just not anything you agree with and/or when I agree with part of what she says.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 12:45 pm ¶
kd wrote:
I meant to say “the question should be isn’t that the purpose of this site-at least in part”
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 12:53 pm ¶
squidfly wrote:
To KD:
Geraldine Ferraro and Hilary Clinton were undone by two white men, their own hubbies.
Barrak also ran a brilliant campaign, can’t deny that.
My question for Geraldine is, where was her support for Caroline Moseley Braun in 2004?
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 1:15 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
kd - No, it does not mean your views are less valid, but the points that you are arguing and the way in which you argue them makes me think that you need to engage with racial issues in a different way. Hence why I recommended you read Amps blog - it takes a different tone and speaks to a different audience.
I am not sure how long you have been reading, but we moderate comments, and we generally explain why we do so whenever we update. White supremacists are not welcome here. But neither are PoCs who cannot respect the thoughts and space of others or people who actively detract from the conversation. I generally ban those people, either quietly (with an email notification) or publicly.
This is a forum for debate and discussion and while I do not mind dissenting opinions or challenges to a piece, I do expect people to engage with the ideas and thoughts that are presented critically and show that understanding through their comments.
There are commenters who have views that I don’t care for. And there are commenters who I know other members of our community have problems with. But as long as they contribute to the overall conversation, I will not ban them. When they become selective trolls - like the people who only show up to bash Islam - or make it clear that they are not interested in conversation at all, that’s when I ban.
I specifically asked you why you are here because I honestly do not understand. To be quite frank, I am trying to determine if you are a selective troll or not. If this is not your intention, I suggest you comment a little more often on posts. That way, I get a better feel for what you are getting from this site.
I am having a go-round with Octogalore about your specific question here:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/06/02/can-samantha-power-be-my-graduation-speaker/#comment-179053
Comments 23 and 31 explain my views, but I would suggest reading the whole thread to get an idea of the whole conversation.
And, by the way, you are conflating two issues. The issue is not saying that Barack benefits from being a viable black candidate for the presidency. He does, as Hillary benefits from being a viable woman candidate from the presidency. Both are breaking barriers, both have support from their respective communities based in part from their identity.
(Jill, in the thread I pointed you to, also weighs in on these assumptions).
However, what Geraldine Ferraro is arguing is the BHO would not be in this position if he wasn’t black, which is inherently false. At the very least, if being black was the only thing a candidate had to possess to be embraced fully by the black community, why didn’t Al Sharpton make it this far? Or Carol Mosely Braun? Or Shirley Chislom? Why doesn’t Alan Keyes get record numbers of black support? Why aren’t we cheering on Condi as VP? And on and on…
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 1:16 pm ¶
kd wrote:
@Latoya
What tone is that?
Secondly what makes BO’s candidacy so exciting and historic? That he speaks well?
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 1:58 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
Boy, I wish I was Black. Then I could take the democratic nomination away from Hillary Clinton too.
Apparently, that is all it takes.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 2:06 pm ¶
Yvette wrote:
The issue is not saying that Barack benefits from being a viable black candidate for the presidency. He does, as Hillary benefits from being a viable woman candidate from the presidency.
Further: Sen Obama also benefits from being male and Sen Clinton, from being White. As well as: Sen Obama also has challenges from his being Black and Sen Clinton from being female. Further still…both candidates benefit from educations that most of us cannot hope to aspire to–in fact, most folks would probably admit that they want their leaders to be “smart.” Yet the other side is that entry into such circles can often cut these people off from the mainstream…
Had Ms. Ferraro been more expansive in her original comments (or any of her further ones) to acknowledge this further complexity, we likely would not be having these conversations.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 2:19 pm ¶
Big Man wrote:
Latoya, you’re engaging in an argument that can’t be won. It’s obvious that what Ferraro has said, particularly her first comment and that latest Ivy League comment, were racist. I’m tired of people crying like punks when they get called out for saying racist stuff. Speak your mind and deal with the backlash.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 2:47 pm ¶
Persia wrote:
Kim McLarin has a nice rundown on the end of the race here, and she talks about Geraldine Ferraro’s comments.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 2:50 pm ¶
Sarah wrote:
@ kd
Have you seriously been under a rock for the past year?
More than likely, by the end of this week, Obama will be the first African American candidate for the presidency. Not just the first to be a part of the Democratic primary, but to have clinched it. Period.
Combine that with that fact that he has energized both young and old voters more than any other candidate in a generation, and there you go.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 3:39 pm ¶
jvansteppes wrote:
I find it interesting that Ferraro laments about all the white people won’t talk about race -not because they worry about saying something racist but because they are worried about being perceived as having done so. She and her white friends/cohorts don’t care about justice, they only care about how others perceive their relationship to it.
Also, I have no time for people who use the term ‘reverse racism’, especially people over 30 and ESPECIALLY anyone with an education [hi there Geraldine]. ‘Reverse racism’ is only protested because for whites racism is going in the wrong direction [and the same goes for reverse sexism and heterophobia etc.] Boohoo Ferraro, you don’t speak for this white lady right here.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 4:00 pm ¶
YamYam wrote:
I wonder what Geraldine Ferraro thinks about the non-white feminist vote? I’m not sure myself, but if they happened to vote for Obama, can she really cry sexism? If they voted for HRC, can she decry Obama’s racial advantage?
I don’t deny that sexism, did I think, cause HRC to lose; a burning memory of an old white man walking off the train, talking into his cellphone “But what are you really going to do: vote for her because she is white {sarcastically}?” is enough to prove to me that Hillary lost because she couldn’t attract the white male vote.
However, she is really playing into McCain’s hands on this one. It even made me mad, and I usually don’t get mad. She’s still using Hillary’s “Obama’s not a working man” rhetoric, and she’s on the eve of losing. She’s doing McCain’s job for him, rallying the conservative right.
She’s really deepening the spite and stigmatism of the racial divide too. It makes no sense either, because one minority or another loses: it still is the idiosyncrasy of losing to the real majority.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 4:45 pm ¶
jsb16 wrote:
I wasn’t that fond of Geraldine Ferraro back when she was the VP nominee, and I can’t say that she’s said anything since then to make me particularly fond of her.
Reverse racism only exists in very selected circumstances within the US, such as a black-run high school near me where the deans (I’m told) let black students off with warnings for offenses that get white/Hispanic/Arab students suspended. That’s hardly a demographic that’s going to swing the presidential election in those cities, much less in the country as a whole or the media conglomerates that feed us information.
I really hope today’s primaries put Clinton’s candidacy to rest.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 4:50 pm ¶
A. wrote:
Reverse racism, Geraldine?
Racial resentment, Geraldine?
Welcome to my world as a woman of color. Privilege is something that we don’t get. You can’t even BEGIN to know what the hell racial resentment is.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 4:52 pm ¶
Chica Dificil wrote:
@kd What makes HRC’s candidacy so exciting and historic? That she was the wife of the former president?
Your thinly veiled diss comment of BO phrased as a “question” to La Toya is just as nonsensical as what I typed above to you. I may be a BO supporter but at least I can articulate what makes HRC an exciting and historic candidate (at some level).
That is why your participation on this blog is questioned….
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 5:10 pm ¶
Slush wrote:
“You know, it amazes me how some HRC supporters regurgitate mindless bullshit from HRC and her endorsers without thinking critically.”
Sigh.
You know, I was a big Clinton supporter.
I say “was” not because I no longer support her, but because I think Obama is going to win and so I’m working on transforming myself into an Obama supporter because I definitely detest John McCain.
In terms of Obama himself, this is not hard: I think he’s a great candidate for plenty of reasons. I was really really excited to have a female President, especially a smart, tough as nails democrat like Hillary Clinton. But I was also pretty excited about a black president, especially an eloquent and inspiring progressive like Obama. So it shouldn’t really be such a big transition to change hopefuls.
However, in terms of everyone else except Obama, comments like the above make it hard to switch sides, dynamics like that so well articulated by reclusive leftist at http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=913 make it hard, alliegances and arguments formed about why it was important to support Hillary make it hard, the daily newspaper writing horribly sexist things makes it really hard.
So for all you Obama diehards out there, could we just stop picking on Hillary Clinton and her supporters by now? Is it really necessary?
Geraldine Ferraro is being racist, and a little psychotic about it, I agree, and I have no problem with anyone calling her out on that, nor discussing it further. I think ‘reverse racism’ is in most cases a huge load of ignorant bullshit.
But:
“Mommy, make the mean lady stop talking!!”
Not clear if this was directed at HRC or GF, but it’s typical of the whole campaign debate regardless. So, he’s going to win, she’s probably going to drop out soon, and yes there was plenty of bigotry on all sides. How about we start talking about how to patch up this disaster rather than rip it deeper?
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 5:52 pm ¶
Slush wrote:
And as a last and fairly tangential thought on the general topic of oppression olympics: I’d like to question anyone who claims that the greater victim is thereby more deserving of the Presidency. Or perhaps, more deserving of the Presidency *sooner.* This is, when you think about it, just a weird idea. It comes from our sense of retributive justice that wants victims to be compensated, and it’s only logical that the worse victim gets more compensation. But what is the step of analysis that takes us from compensation to election to the Presidency? Maybe this line of questioning treads dangerously on threatening affirmative action, something I believe in pretty solidly….so I guess I’m throwing it out here as an open question: how does that actually make any sense in the case of this election?
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 5:53 pm ¶
Kd wrote:
@Sarah
The question still stands What exactly-at least initially was so exciting and historic about his campaign?
I’m also still waiting to hear the specific statements GF made that are so racist.
@Chca Difil
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 7:01 pm ¶
Kd wrote:
@Chca Dificil
I think everbody already knows that about Hillary Clinton. Besides how do you even know that I’m an HRC supporter? I was an Edwards supporter and now I’m a Nader supporter-although I did vote for her in the primary.
The entire point is that my thoughts are not narrowmindedly decided by whether I am support HRC or BHO . I can still think that Gender + name recognition played a large role in Hillary’s candidacy, but that GF had a point. And I can still think that race played a huge role in BHO’s campaign as far as positives in his favor-as well as recognizing that it plays a detrimental & negative role as well.
Why does it have to be that “well I support BO so anything said about him is racist, Gender plays no negative role, etc. ”
That’s my point.
Mod Note - I already pointed you toward an explanation of why GF’s comments were racist. And other commenters have responded to your claims which you have not acknowledged. At this point, you do not add anything to the conversation, and you argue poorly. You’re banned.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 7:11 pm ¶
G.K. wrote:
To KD:
What Latoya is saying, if you bothered to read the last sentence of her post, if that if Obama only got this far in the race because he is black, then how come Al Sharpton or Carol Moseley Braun barely made it that far in the 2004 election? How come Jesse Jackson only made it so far in his run for President back in 1984? When you look at their examples, your assumption dosen’t hold any water at all. Obama’s offering a fresh perspective and a genuine change from the same-old-same-old, for one thing. And he’s certainly gotten young people energized across racial lines about the voting process in a way I haven’t seen since the last election. It takes a hell of a lot more than JUST being black to do that—if that was the case,that why the hell didn’t Jesse become President? I mean, honestly that is just plain STUPID what you and Geraldine Ferraro (who needs to shut up already) said. And the Obama camp has NEVER gone out with any sexist remarks anywhere near as much as the Clintons have played the race card.
The truth is, Hilary just thought that because she was a Clinton, that the nomination was just going to automatically roll to her, and that it wouldn’t be any problem. She didn’t count on Obama taking over the race dang near, and when she realized that his candidacy was no joke and that he was going to be a serious challenge to her, that’s she realized that she was actually going to have to WORK to get this nomination. Her name recognition alone wasn’t going to cut it. Of course I don’t doubt that many people don’t want to to vote for her just because she’s a woman, but hell, there just as many ignorant folks who don’t want to vote for a black man.
The truth is, when Obama declared his candidacy last year, NOBODY, not even some black folks, thought he had a chance in hell of making it this far. So all that nonsense you claim about his being black being his only advantage is BS. Obviously people feel he’s got somehting to offer beyond being the only black candidate in the presidential race or he wouldn’t have gotten THIS far.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 8:51 pm ¶
Korolev wrote:
It’s a little bit strange that Clinton supporters always go on and on about Sexism, as if that’s the one and only issue. While yes, there are sexists in society, I strongly doubt that is why Obama is winning.
People vote for Obama, because they like him as a politician and candidate. Why is that so hard to believe?
Hillary supporters claim that Sexism is the one and only reason why Clinton didn’t get the nomination. Forget the fact that Clinton went around trumpeting her “inevitability” which was shattered when she didn’t spend enough attention on Iowa. Forget the bungled speeches, the vast waste of money dumped on Florida and Michigan which didn’t help. Forget the mismanagement of her campaign by people who didn’t fully understand how delegates were awarded. Forget all that - they want us to believe it’s JUST about sexism.
Basically, Clinton supporters have tried to hammer people into two groups - either you vote for Hillary, or your a Sexist. No middle ground, apparently.
Hillary was in the lead for so long - she had a real, genuine chance at winning the nomination, and was about to as well. The competition was very close, and she should be congratulated on her tenacity. She wouldn’t be a bad president. But neither would Obama.
Hillary mismanaged her campaign. That’s all there is to it. Sure there are sexist people in the USA, but then again, there are also quite a few racists. But you rarely hear about Obama complaining about that.
I propose the “radical” idea that maybe, just maybe, people voted for Obama because they like his ideas! Shocking, huh? I strongly doubt that many Democrats went to the polls with the thought “Ah-ha! With this ballot, I can reinforce the glass ceiling and keep misogamy rampant in America! Muahahahahaha!” Somehow, I doubt that.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 8:57 pm ¶
jvansteppes wrote:
Can I just add something here? Nobody pointed out that the only reason people got excited about John Kerry was simply that he wasn’t George Bush. I know he wasn’t an idiot etc but he had hordes of support from people who just wanted Bush out but weren’t half as energized by his political direction as they are now about both BHO and HRC. I doubt anyone would have pointed out that he never would have gotten so far without so much resentment of his opponent…
Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 1:01 am ¶
sfsinger wrote:
And as long as Clinton supports Ferraro speaking on her behalf with such divisive language she is a threat to real democracy.
Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 1:01 am ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:
I knew I shouldn’t have clicked on this thread.
“Everything was about how she’s winning whites, but very little was said by the Clinton campaign about the possible motives for those votes (especially in Central PA, WV, Ohio, Kentucky, etc). When Clinton was beaten in South Carolina, people were honest about why she lost the black vote: her husband said some things that folks didn’t like, and some black folks were just happy as hell to vote for a black candidate.”
@Rounder
Yeah, you tell it. And don’t forget the Hispanics. Hillary better come clean about why she has most of them in her corner.
Perhaps the white voters in PA, WV, and KY didn’t care for what Obama had to say about voters using guns to hide behind issues? Of course Obama’s comments were taken out of context, but the same could be said about Bill’s SC primary remarks, and yet I don’t recall any vitriolic gripes about how Obama’s PA “gun” statements were in actuality coded racism against “NASCAR” moms and dads. However, nary a day goes by without someone alluding to what Bill said in SC to justify why a whopping 90% of the black vote favors Obama. By not acknowledging that (Bill’s remarks being taken out of context), you’re doing a better job of proving KD’s point about what has often happened to white Clinton supporters who discuss race better than she ever could. And why the double standards? How can you admonish Hillary for not being honest about the motives of all of her white supporters in the states you listed and not do the same for Obama when he touts his victories in states with majority black populations? You talk about black voters being “honest” about why they’re voting for Obama, but do you see OBAMA explaining why he’s popular with black voters? No, right? So stop expecting Hillary do the same.
trolling, indeed
————————-
“Basically, Clinton supporters have tried to hammer people into two groups - either you vote for Hillary, or your a Sexist. No middle ground, apparently. ”
@Korolev
Run that game on someone else. Stick to Obama ran a better campaign. You sound more believable that way. Read Rounder’s comment about white voters in OH, PA, KY, etc. and then get back to me about Clinton supporters being the only ones guilty of not seeing a middle ground. Please stop it with this notion that Clinton supporters are the only ones playing OO. Every time I turn around, there’s a new buzz word for coded racism. Hell, last week, sexist was declared code for racist, and there was never really any concrete explanation why, but that didn’t stop people from running with it, just because someone said it was so.
I knew I shouldn’t have clicked on this thread. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it.
Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 1:59 am ¶
Sulyp wrote:
Ugh. This woman can’t be helped. I almost automatically divert my attention away when the topic of Ferraro works it’s way into a conversation. I’ve really concluded that spending any effort or breath talking about her is a waste. She has done nothing personally for me, nor does champion any brand of cause that I would stand behind her for. To me, she is in the same camp as Michelle Malkin, the rest of the *Faux*(FOX) News team, Ann Coulter, and perhaps even HRC is making her way for a spot on my personal list of “Unspeakables”. These people clearly do not get it. This whole campaign, I never really focused on HRC so much as I poured money and time and effort into Obama’s campaign. I’ve really learned quite a bit here in the last year:
Put my energy into something that I want, and spend little effort at putting down the things I don’t like. You might have a better shot at obtaining the results you want that way.
Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 12:09 pm ¶
Dan wrote:
In regards to the myth of ‘reverse racism’ and Obama ‘playing the race card’ and why Obama’s successes do not mean that America has overcome racism, I’d like to offer up the words of Tim Wise.
http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/whatcard.html
http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/oprah.html
http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/WhiteWhine.html
Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 12:32 pm ¶
Mary wrote:
@Slush:
“Not clear if this was directed at HRC or GF…”
It was directed at Ferraro, for much the reasons Sulyp outlined. I’m sorry but Ferraro has spent this year talking her way into hateful jerk territory.
If anything I feel a little bad for Hillary Clinton - I’m sure she asked for Ferraro’s support as a fellow female trailblazer, but it’s not clear whether she knew she was getting a cranky old racist at the same time.
Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 12:50 pm ¶
Ron wrote:
I think what Ferraro is saying is that Obama has a stranglehold on the black vote, which he somewhat earned and that white people like him because well he is non-threatening and palatable.
Moreover, Obama is a likable person who because of his mixed-heritage whites can identify with him easier than say an Alan Keyes.
Obama represents the person who people of all backgrounds once they get to know him want to see him succeed. Obamas many mentors have paved the way for him and he earned it as a great mentee.
I think Ferraro may have a problem expressing this phenomenon.
White resentment is another discussion that may hijack the gist of post.
Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 11:05 pm ¶
squidfly wrote:
kd wrote:
@Latoya
What tone is that?
Secondly what makes BO’s candidacy so exciting and historic? That he speaks well?
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 1:58 pm ¶
Answer: The Corptocracy and the Republicans are taking him seriously.
The sad irony, is that three of NY’s most powerful women over the last few decades have all been undone by their own Husband’s. Geraldine Ferraro and Jeanine Pirro’s-being groomed for the Senate, then Attorney General-Husband’s had mob ties and Bill Clinton became an angry loose cannon, because he couldn’t believe that the Clinton machine had to compete. No Black male conspiracy here, just good old fashioned domestic craziness, with a touch of spousal self sabotage.
Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 12:15 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
>Moreover, Obama is a likable person who because of his mixed-heritage whites can identify with him easier than say an Alan Keyes.
Or maybe, Obama won his state election over Alan Keyes because his positions are just more palatable overall than BATSHITE INSANE Keyes. Regardless of “heritage.”
Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 8:05 am ¶
Celeste wrote:
Yeah, Keyes is out of his tree. He reminds me of Dave Chapelles black white supremacist
Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 8:24 am ¶
CVT wrote:
Obviously, I missed a lot (in terms of other comments from kd, etc.), and I don’t know if this is where/how to address it, but:
Why was kd banned from commenting? Granted, his/her comments were frustrating as Hell and pretty defensively ignorant, but that’s where it was to me - ignorant. And I feel like ignorant white folks are exactly who NEED to read this stuff - maybe open up their minds a bit.
Obviously, he/she wasn’t opening up his/her mind so much this time around, but maybe, just maybe . . . I don’t know. It’s your blog, and that’s not going to change me reading it, but I was kind of interested in seeing if a change could happen.
Maybe that’s what you’ve been doing for too long, and I just jumped in at the last moment.
Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 9:05 am ¶
CVT wrote:
@Lowercase Tasha -
Do African-Americans make up the majority in any state in America? Do they even come close?
Then how can Obama POSSIBLY be winning JUST BECAUSE OF HIS RACE (or even MOSTLY due to his race)?
That’s like saying homosexual senators should come out because they’d have a better chance of victory due to their new-found “Gay Vote.”
I most definitely agree that sexism played a role in hurting Hillary. I do. But let’s not get ridiculous and then say that Obama didn’t have to fight for his majority votes - because it WAS NOT the “black vote” that dominated any election.
Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 9:13 am ¶
CVT wrote:
Forgot one last argument:
There are many more women (numerically) than African-Americans in this country (obviously). Nobody would be insane enough to say that all of Hillary’s success to date was due to the “female vote.” So why do people go the other way?
Not to mention the fact that somebody can be African-American AND a female. Funny how people forget about that.
Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 9:16 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@CVT -
No, it’s a valid question. I thought I explained it clearly enough above, but I’ll get into it a bit more.
Basically, I ban people for two reasons:
1. Making racist statements (a lot of what you all don’t see because the comments are immediately deleted)
or, more recently
2. Not really wanting to be a member of the community.
This one is tricky, so I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt in these cases. With KD, it wasn’t just about this thread - me and Carmen approve every one of these by hand, so I read the majority of the comments left here on the site. In KD’s case, it was a set pattern of behavior.
It’s fine to disagree. But she didn’t really mount an argument, as you notice above. And when other people directly engaged her, she ignored those comments and continued to regurgitate the same tired points over and over. Once that happens a few times, it becomes clear that that person really isn’t here to learn - they just want to spout their viewpoint.
It can be tough to discern this, and it’s not an exact science. Like with the thread a few weeks ago on that “Is this Islam” cover? Tonyfig, a commenter, read like a troll. But he was making a point and I thought we might be able to get through to him. And twenty five or so comments later, we did. So, I tend to give people a while before I decide to ban them. (Tonyfig is not banned.)
But ultimately, those two rules prevail. I’ve even had to ban people I like, like Cynthia C. We talked about it and I discussed with her why her comments were problematic, but she kept trying to swing every conversation around to CHASPs in Hong Kong. It was just too disruptive to the conversation. So I banned her, she started a blog to discuss things for her perspective, and we email each other every now and again. I even linked to her blog once or twice. I’m still kind of holding out hope that one day, she’ll get it and I can un-ban her.
But, on this blog, we strive for conversation above all. And conversation means an exchange. So that’s why there are a lot of comments that may annoy me personally, but I still let them through. There are long time commenters who are great in one area, but bigoted in another - so, sometimes I allow them to talk to. The hope is to challenge the way people think (including me and Carmen!).
But that can’t happen if someone is willing to stonewall a conversation and not engage with the other ideas presented.
And, if you didn’t make a blatantly racist statement and I tell you I am going to ban you, that’s the warning. I told her in 14 I had suspicions she was a selective troll. But instead of proving me wrong, she kept behaving like a troll. So she got banned.
Did that explain things?
Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 9:27 am ¶
CVT wrote:
Works for me. In the end - I’m just a visitor, and it’s your rules, but thank you for taking the time to explain.
Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 8:19 pm ¶