If you haven't been hiding under a rock the past three days, (or if you have read the thread immediately below this post), you are familiar with the accusations that former VP nominee and Clinton fund-raiser Geraldine Ferraro is a racist. You have also heard that Senator Clinton herself is a racist for not denouncing Ferraro's comments (even though she did.) It has been reported that Senator Clinton waited too long to repudiate these remarks and also that she didn't go far enough out of her way to denounce Ferraro. I argue that she went too far.
From our friends at HuffingtonPost.com comes this article in which author Earl Ofari Hutchinson not only defends Ferraro's remarks, but praises her for having the gall to say something that needed to be said. In his article, he writes:Don't Fire Geraldine Ferraro, Pin a Merit Badge on Her for Having the Guts to Tell the Truth
Fire former Democratic VP candidate and Hillary Clinton advisor Geraldine Ferraro? She ought to get a merit badge pinned on her for having the guts to tell the truth. Ferraro got it right on both counts when she said that race has made a difference with Barack Obama. He has gotten a virtual free ride from much of the media. His paper thin voting record, lack of experience, zig zag stances on foreign policy issues, Republican lite positions on health care and the sub prime housing crisis, repeated subtle going negative against Hillary Clinton while giving himself a plausible deniability out and insuring that Clinton gets dumped on when she hits back has been blatantly obvious. The media and much of the public have kept hands off him in part out of sheer terror of being branded racist and in part out of hatred for Clinton. And that's the other thing that Ferraro got right. She flatly called the media sexist and said that many Americans, she really said America, has a huge problem with a woman running for president...
"then New York Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm the only other woman to make a spirited run for the presidency as a Democrat quipped that "Of my two 'handicaps' being female put more obstacles in my path than being black. I've always met more discrimination being a woman than being black."
click to read the full story...
24 comments:
Firstly I have to address the fact that after reading your post, and looking at the links, I still am not clear on what black magazine you are referring to but only know that a black author wrote the piece on another blog called the Huffington Post.
That being said, I completely agree with what Earl
Hutchison has said. Ferraro is an old, white woman, and as such, it is easy to dismiss her comments as the rantings of an ignorant caucasian clinging on to the values of the past. And although I do not think (perhaps it is my belief in humanity's potential) that racism plays that big of a role today as it did in years past, even I know that it still does play a role.
A person, black or white, would have to be oblivious to life to not think that Obama's race had some kind of impact on his popularity. This statement takes nothing away from his intelligence, competence or ability to be a great president. I do believe though that men have it better than women, regardless of race.
One only has to look to history to find this true. Black men were able to vote almost half a century before women were. That alone should tell you the order of progression with regards to race and gender within this country.
The public is blind to the media's blatant and consistently accepted abuse of Clinton (Rush Limbaugh exclaimed as the First "Cleaning" Lady). If a political pundit referred to any black candidate as the first "cotton picking" president, the entire country would be up in arms, as would I. But the fact is that no one would dare say something so obviously ignorant. Yet they say these things about women.
Clinton has it worse off than Obama does with regards to social and equitable handicaps, and the American public needs to open their eyes to that.
who are you, ask?
what planet are you from?
earth calling ask.....
earth calling ask.....
white ask.
i will certainly have to circulate this little tidbit of masked racism.
unmasked hypocrisy.
head up the ass ignorance of american history.
One only has to look to history to find this true. Black men were able to vote almost half a century before women were. That alone should tell you the order of progression with regards to race and gender within this country.
wow! you are a fucking genius! thanks ya massa fa lettin me see da light.
The public is blind to the media's blatant and consistently accepted abuse of Clinton (Rush Limbaugh exclaimed as the First "Cleaning" Lady). If a political pundit referred to any black candidate as the first "cotton picking" president, the entire country would be up in arms, as would I. But the fact is that no one would dare say something so obviously ignorant. Yet they say these things about women.
do you really know what this looks like? is this what you hear your mamma and daddy say?
and who is they? rush limbaugh?
you quote something rush limbaugh says? the public is blind? the abuse of clinton? wtf?
and to cap off the stupidest piece of crap post that i've seen this side of michelle malkin (who is exactly what you sound like),
Clinton has it worse off than Obama does with regards to social and equitable handicaps, and the American public needs to open their eyes to that.
so, the public is blind. and america needs to open its eyes.
not to people like you.
go get your sheet and hood out of the closet.
your post depresses me.
to have it stuck in my face on a beautiful saturday morning, that their are still hypocritical racist people like you within the democratic party, makes me truly sad. and if you are a republican, my apologies. if you aren't one, you need to be. you'd fit right in.
Hi dresslar! Is this the same dresslar; is it the sensationalist radical who finds something he doesn't like and uses obscene words to attract attention to himself and to the topic he wants to refute?
I appreciate your calling me a racist and threatening to circulate my comments for the purpose of flaunting your capture in front of your like-minded friends. My comments though, have absolutely no masked racism in them, I assure you. In fact, my vote went to Obama in the Texas Primary.
I could say it is sad to see someone so confrontational with not much too say besides attacking someone's assumed beliefs... I could say many things, but then my post would begin to reflect the ugliness of yours.
Rather, I prefer to have a discussion and speak about things openly, logically and with a goal in mind aside from throwing someone's credibility in the gutter. Your lack of substance was appalling; you somehow managed to bring my mother into this topic.
And please do not post sarcastic one liners with words intended to infuriate people. They can be taken out of context and made to represent all here.
Food for thought... Here is a black Author, more well written and better educated than either of us, and he is speaking in terms that you might describe as being similar to Michelle Malkin. I am posting this to clarify the and "who is they? rush limbaugh?" comment by dresslar:
"That double standard should rankle anyone who believes in at least some fair play in what's arguably the dirtiest business around, namely American politics. But that's been a moot point when it comes to dealing with Clinton. From the instant she tossed her hat in the presidential ring back in January 2007 she's had to deal with a relentless barrage of gender tinged wisecracks and outright insults on the campaign trail. At one rally, hecklers yelled to her to iron their shirts. Other gender taunts and slurs were even less flattering. Radio host Rush Limbaugh told listeners in one of his nationally syndicated shows, "Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?" Clinton has been taunted in some online websites with fake ads for toilet brushes labeled, "First Cleaning Lady" and a Clinton nutcracker was also for sale. It cracked nuts between her legs. Hillary Clinton's hairdos, ankles and even her cleavage did not stir any sustained protests or outrage from either men or women."
You can link to it via the original post.
i've seen too many different versions of your pathetic racist clichés in my life. they disgust me.
if you post garbage like that, then be prepared to take the heat.
I appreciate your calling me a racist and threatening to circulate my comments for the purpose of flaunting your capture in front of your like-minded friends.
???
when you get done editing all of the mistakes out of you last post,
i'll get back with you.
your post changes everytime i look at it.
go back to school boy. learn something this time.
We are not going to tolerate personal attacks on this site. Do not involve people's parents in a post or comment, it is pedestrian and childish. I have to agree with ASK in that you are providing no substance in your stance, in fact, I have no idea what your stance is, besides absurdly calling someone a racist who is agreeing with a black author's opinion. If personal attacks are a part of your future posts, you will be removed from the site. Sorry, but we want a substantive debate on this forum, not name-calling. We want you to be a part of this blog, but keep it clean and have a clear argument, or a clear topic you wish to bring up to discuss.
you done yet?
btw,
it's funny to see someone talk about credibility and in the next breath post nonsensical gibberish, then go back and pretty it up, 1,2,3 times.
make you post and stand by it.
pdrez,
very sorry to see that there is no substance in anything that you or your lily white friends don't agree with. and if you can't see racism in that post, and you call my comments absurd, then we need to have a serious talk. also, what is the point in having a blog like this when you allow certain people to go in and edit their posts?
weak
dresslar, you right in noting that I edit and review what I write. I assure you though that nothing was changed once a comment had been posted in response. I do not tailor my comments to suit its responses and feel that needs to be addressed.
The only things I edited, again, prior to any response being posted, was to add a quote by Earl Hutchison, remark on your mention of my mother, clean up grammatical errors and to address your "i will certainly have to circulate this" comment. I stand by what I have said.
Now, you are the one that can seemingly only talk about, and in this order, my intelligence, my mother, my father, my education and finally, the shade of my skin by calling me "lily white".
You speak with the authority of a wise old man but only words of ignorance breach the lips of your mouth. This will be my last response to you because I cannot reason with someone who will undoubtedly only attack my character. Perhaps you would like to now harp on my youth or inexperience... wait, you already did with comments like "go back to school boy."
And yes, I am done.
I might not agree with the way dresslar expressed himself. But I agree 100 percent with his sentiments. The notion that women have had a harder time in this country than Blacks is misplaced, to put in kindly. Last time I checked, white women like Clinton and Ferarro weren't kidnapped away from their families, stuffed in the bottom of ships and taken to our wonderful nation. They weren't made slaves, and whipped and beaten and worked to death. They weren't lynched and bombed in their churches. They didn't have their leaders asassinated. They didn't have the courts of our wonderful nation declare them only 3/5 of a human being.
So, let's get real here.
As Keith Olberman correctly obsserved, Ferarro channeled David Duke, first with her racist comments, then with her putrid claim that she was the victim of reverse discrimination. Clinton's response didn't cut it, from a comdemnation standpoint. It was typical Clinton-speak. I don't condone, she doesn't speak for the campaign. As Olberman again correctly pointed out, she never outright condemned Ferarro or her comments. She never said what Ferarro said was wrong. Just like when she allegedly apologized to black voters by saying she was sorry if they got offended. That's classic putting the onus on the victim. A real apology would have been, "I'm sorry we offended you."
Clinton is just not a very good person. She's not the type of person I want running our country. We've had enough of that kind of person, with all their lifetimes of experience, "leading" our country. She's mean, and all she wants to do is defeat all "others."
So, don't ask me to feel sorry for Clinton because she's allegedly been victimized by a biased media. I am so tired of that bromide being tossed around willy-nilly. If Obama had lost 11 straight primaries/caucuses, do you think the media would have still considered him a viable candidate, the way they did Clinton? I think everyone would have been clamoring for the Black guy to go back into the fields.
would you stop assuring me?
i know what i read. your words need no interpretation.
your blogspot is without a shred of credibility.
you posted a crappy response and then as administrator you went to work cleaning up the stupidity and the nonsense before anyone could call you on it. in the meantime no one else is allowed to do so. you are a liar when you say that that is all you edited. i saw what was there.
do you know who you sound like? gw bush assuring everyone that the government won't abuse our trust. trust me. i assure you.
what you did was nothing but a lame attempt at deception.
there is no room in blogs for that.
don't worry boys, i won't be back here to rain on your redneck parade.
and some advise for admin pdrez.
next time you tell someone that you won't tolerate personal attacks, don't be foolish enough to include you own personal attacks. makes you look kinda lame.
and if you and your friends choose to make politically and racially charged statements from one end of the spectrum, don't run and hide when you hear from the other end.
it smells here. i'm gone.
I'm sick of someone being so utteryl ignorant. What I did, dresslar, was copy and paste my comment into a new comment and made changes. Then I deleted my old comment.
Something, ANYBODY, regardless of whether or not you are an administrator, can do.
So get off your high horse, and start addressing things you actually know about.
From one end of the spectrum?? I am a Clinton supporter, and you, from what I have read, seem to be an Obama supporter. So we are not that far apart in our political affiliation.
Yours is a rhetoric of baseless personal attacks, which have no place in a blog. Yours is a rhetoric of divisiveness, which has no place in the Democratic party. And yours is a rhetoric that we hope we will not be subjected to on this blog again. Good day, sir.
Can I just say that there are far too many Dresslar's on this blog.
I forgot to mention in my last comment that Black Americans, unlike white women, even after their supposed liberation, have been subjected to de facto and de jure discrimination that has left them in poverty and without equal educational opportunities, amogn other violations of their human rights.
pdrez, I liked your, Good day, sire sign off. Tell me why you support Clinton. I sincerely want to know.
Take care.
I should have been clearer in my comment and again, I apologize. I meant to say that Clinton has it worse off than Obama, in this primary. I am well aware of the history of our country and would never think that white women have had an easier time than blacks.
I do believe, however, that during this race, many are taking a hands off approach to race while Clinton is still attacked, regardless of the importance of the attackers, because of her gender.
We live in a sexist society, as we do a racist one. According to the 2005 US census, black men, had higher average wages than white women.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new03
That doesn't translate specifically to politics, but I do believe it says something about the treatment and underlying assumptions about women.
sorry that link did not work, here another one that does
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States#_note-US_Census_Bureau.2C_Personal_income_forum.2C_Age_25.2B.2C_2005
Please provide concrent examples of Clinton getting ctiticized solely because she's a woman. Criticism of Clinton does not equal sexism. She has gotten hammered because she deserves to get hammered, not because she's a woman. There's plenty of legitimate, non-gender related reasons reasons to criticize her. For one, she's sure to lose the general. Two, she took the gutless way out and stood with Bush on Iraq and Iran. Three, she wants to garnish poor people's wages if they don't buy health insurance. Four, she loved NAFTA -- until she decided to run for President. Five, she voted for a bankruptcy bill that screwed consumers. Six, she will do nothing to change the way government works. Seven, she will be more of the same. Eight, she has conducted a despicable campaign, showing once again what the Clintons are all about -- the Clintons and nothing, absolutely nothing, more. I could go on, but you get the point.
I wish people would get off the anti-media crusade. It's a distraction that serves no purpose, other than to allow folks to escape responsiblity for their own actions.
Aside from Earl Hutchison pointing out Rush Limbaugh's blatantly sexist remarks and other sexist comments made at Clinton rallies about how she should iron shirts, here are some more from the media that would never be tolerated if applied in a racial way.
Carl Bernstein writes a book "A Woman In Charge"
He refers to her ankles as being too thick
Here is another quote from the book and try to imagine discussing a current male presidents Erectile Dysfunction or any other sex related topic.
“The prospect that she could not bear a child, which seemed increasingly likely in the first two years of her marriage--and which she probably feared even earlier—could have been as frightening to her as anything she might conjure….Hillary suffered from a condition called endometriosis, which often makes conception difficult, can cause infertility, and frequently results in extreme pain during and after intercourse.’” (P. 149-50)
There are numerous other quotes in the book as well.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/5/30/03853/6192
Another paper, the Pittsburgh Gazette notes:
"When a heckler waves a sign at a Clinton rally that says "Iron my shirt," the commentators chortle. Likewise when Carl Bernstein says she has thick ankles, and when Chris Matthews repeatedly raises the specter of male politicos being "castrated" by the likes of Mrs. Clinton and Nancy Pelosi."
These comments are inexcusable but for some reason, many opinionated men see nothing wrong with it.
Again, try to imagine any thing like this being said with even a remote tinge of racial aspects. I said nothing of the sort and have already been jumped on by the likes of dresslar; he branded me a racist and my comments were from from the mark.
Please tell me how these quotes by Chris Matthews, Rally attendees, Rush Limbaugh and Carl Bernstein are not sexist and perhaps I might agree with you.
To N8 and Ask,
First, I think are you are both missing what is the obvious source of the outrage, regarding GF's racially-charged comments (can we at least agree to call them that).
Here's the original quote, in what I believe to be, full context.
"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.
Now, if she had stopped here, we would all be in agreement over this rather obvious assessment. And, there would be no controversy.
But, she didn't stop there, did she? She went on to say this:
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "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. And the country is caught up in the concept."
I understand the relationship of these 2 statements, in the context the Sen. Clinton's desire to portray an unfair playing field. However, I do not find the veracity of the first statement having any bearing at all on the second.
Consequently, the fact that you rail about the very real injustices in the treatment of Sen. Clinton by the media and general populace, while attempting to justify the statements of Ferraro, as it relates to Obama's race, tells me that you just don't understand the issue.
The issue is, quite simply, that there is no evidence, precedent, or reasonable argument that can be made that affirms Ferraro's assertion that, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,..."
Period.
Now, you may have an opinion on the subject. But, it won't be based on any measurable criteria, or empirical data. Just a gut feeling.
A more important point, to me, is - What does it mean to you that his race might provide some advantage to him in certain demographics (while certainly a huge liability in others)?
Does that concern you in some way?
Does it concern you in the same way that Sen. Clinton has a significant advantage with women voters solely because she is a woman?
Now, I would like either of you to explain to me your reasoning for believing that Sen. Obama's race is the defining reason that he is in the position that we find him. And, please do not mention Sen. Clinton. It is irrelevant to the question.
Finally, ask, please try not to invoke the esteemed "Earl". Your comment - "Food for thought... Here is a black Author, more well written and better educated than either of us..." - was a bit over the top.
I suggest that you peruse his article again. He provides NOT ONE shred of evidence to support Ferraro's assertion about Obama. Nothing.
Additionally, his grammar and general grasp of tense, syntax, etc., is horrendous.
"... repeated subtle going negative ..."
"... giving himself a plausible deniability out ..."
"...insuring that Clinton gets dumped on..."
And, that's just in 2 consecutive sentences. He is certainly not well-written. Nor, is he, I suspect, well-read.
I do not believe that Obama could not be in the position of running for president successfully if he were a white man. He has proven himself capable, intelligent, inspiring and involved in what he believes to be the right thing for America.
What is being referred to is not an absolute support of Ferraro but, I will call him EH, I completely agreed with EH's "Ferraro got it right on both counts when she said that race has made a difference with Barack Obama."
I believe that race is something that can be talked about without people pulling out torches and pitch forks. Just as gender can be talked about.
My stance is not one of saying that Obama is here purely on race. I think that he is in a unique position because of it though. Just as he is in a unique position because he is a man, and just as he is in a unique position because of his stance on health care. These are all individual aspects that can be considered without being racist or sexist.
To not talk about their implications is, I think, to do a large injustice to the forum of debate and the acknoledgement of perspective.
As for my later comments being over the top, I apologize. I was caught up in a back and forth that I should not have allowed myself to get in. I let the better part of my argumentative side get a hold of me and shot from the hip. I still believe that race and gender, though, are relevant topics that we can discuss rationally without bringing in hate.
RedStateBlue,
You're right that Ferraro should not have spoken in absolutes. However, I would have agreed with her 100% had she said that race has been a major factor in his success thus far in the Democratic Primary.
Of the voters who did not support Clinton, the vast majority chose Obama over Edwards. In my opinion, Obama loses to Edwards in experience and accomplishments but outshines Edwards in charisma and his unmatched ability to inspire. While you are right that there is no imperical evidence to prove that many voters support Obama because he is black, I can tell you that I am inspired by our ability to knock down a huge barrier in electing the first African American president. If Obama gets the nomination, I will wholeheartedly support him out of party loyalty but I cannot deny that I would be excited to help elect the first black president. I think there are many young people who share my sentiment.
For the time being, however, I am supporting Clinton because I believe she is best qualified for the job and also because she can bust through another glass ceiling. Let's not forget that American women didn't even have the right to vote until 1920, whereas African Americans gained suffrage in the 1860's. I don't intend to underscore slavery and the horrible events that led to the Civil Rights Movement but I want to point out that women are also discriminated against. While African Americans still face more financial and social burdens than women, women still earn much less than men and gender discrimination will always exist.
Back to Ferraro...Let's take a look at Obama's response to the her quote:
"If you were to pull out a handbook of how to weigh your assets and liabilities in a presidential race," Obama said, "my name or skin color would not be in the assets column."
I would agree with Obama's statement if we were talking about the General Election but we are talking about the Democratic Primary. As Democrats, we embrace diversity and it is my opinion that the record turnout in this primary can be attributed heavily, if not directly to the fact that for the first time ever we are going to have either a woman or an African American as our presidential nominee.
I wish that race had not been injected into this discussion by Ferraro and the minister because it is obviously a touchy subject, but it has been. Now that it is an issue, we should move forward and embrace the fact that we must all unite in November to support our nominee.
Redstateblue, I am so disappointed to learn you're supporting Clinton. I thought you voted for Obama. I fear you have fallen prey to a severely crimped view of what makes a candidate the best qualified to run our country. Certainly, it can't be experience. Clinton's experience sure helped us out when she fell to her knees on Iraq, followed the lying idiot into war and became complicit in the murder of thousands of innocents, including Americans. Worse, she didn't learn from her tragic mistake. She took the gutless route on Iran, too.
Clinton's sole qualification advantage over Obama is her expertise in the kind of politics that has dragged this country, and the Democratic Party, into a crisis of morality, ethics, humanity, compassion, into a sad state of affairs that has degraded everything that is best in us.
I can't believe you've fallen for the "best-qualified" crap. She might be best qualified to win the Democratic Primary. But she ain't best qualified to win the general. And she certainly isn't best qualified to lead this country -- unless you want us to wander further into the abyss.
Geez, I just can't believe it. It's so disappointing. To see the difference between how Clinton reacted to Ferarro and how Obama reacted to Preachergate should tell you all you, or anyone, should need to know about who's the best candidate, not to mention the best human being.
The attempt to defend in any way Ferarro's racist comments falls woefully short. They cannot be defended with any force, they cannot be explained away by talking about history and context, etc., etc. etc. They were racist. Period. Everyone who tries in vain to explain away Ferarro's diatribe and even worse followup vomit tosses out the obligatory, "I'm not saying he's successfuly only because he's black." They then proceed to denigrate his accomplishments by saying his race is a major reason he's where he's at. They thus cozy up too damn close to Geraldine for my comfort.
Obama has been successful in this race for a hundred reasons that have nothing to do with his race. Why do you and others give any credence at all, even one ounce, to the horrid reduction of all those reasons to this: A lot of it has to do with the fact he's Black.
Disgusting.
Check out the following link to see exactly how qualified Clinton is to lead us.
Damn, I am disappointed.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/17/12417/1285/527/478498
dailykos? ha, no wonder you dresslars argue the way you do. and I agree, there are 100's if not thousands of reasons why
Obama is qualified. All we are proposing and defending is the right to talk about race openly, as well as the fact that being black is an aspect to this race. You may disagree if you like, but I don't see how you could without being naive, that is also my opinion and just that. This argument can truly progress no further because we simply disagree. Redstateblue is correct in his assesment that we have no backing to our claim though aside from gut feeling. If that makes us racist in some of your eyes then perhaps i need to reevaluate myself, but, by now, you all know what I believe at this moment.
One can talk about race as a factor in a campaign without spewing racist comments. That's what Ferarro did, plain and simple. She has every right to do that. And you and anyone else has a right to try and grey it up, rationalize it, explain it away. I have a right to condemn her remarks any any attempt to trivialize their intent.
Post a Comment