Can allegedly smart people stop making racist and stupid comments? Pretty please? I am talking to you, Geraldine Ferraro:
In an interview with the Breeze, Ferraro 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. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
Yes. It appears that the legacy of slavery and years of segregation, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, anti-miscegenation laws, have all worked to propel black men to the Presidency. That is why we have had so many black Presidents. Basically, we have made it too easy for a black man to become President, because they can just glide to the Presidency. Something needs to be done to help the whte man out, since it has been so long since we have had a white President.
Seriously, though, I don’t know what she is trying to say, what she is thinking, or even if she is thinking. However, this is not the first time she has said something like this:
Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don’t ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his “radical” views, “if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.”
Kevin Drum begged people yesterday to stop accusing the Clinton campaign of racism. I think that is a fair request, provided they stop making racist and crypto-racist statements, and they do something about Geraldine Ferraro. If Samantha Power had to step down for calling Hillary a monster, I think there is MORE than enough reason for Hilary to dissociate herself from Ferraro.
Of course we all know she won’t. Call it the Clinton Rules.
jj
“Reject and denounce”.
I think those were the words Hillary used.
Wilfred
Just make sure you vote for her anyway, John.
chopper
if it’s a calculated appeal to the denizens of pennsyltucky, i’m not sure how effective it’ll be. now if clinton remade helms’s ‘hands’ ad, that would at least be straightforward. sheesh.
i understand that clinton is trying to paint obama as some ‘flash in the pan’ guy who’ll never make it to the convention (hence the comparison by bill to jackson) but methinks its a wee bit late for that kind of comparison. before super tuesday, maybe.
either that or this is the most retarded after-the-fact excuse yet for a loss in a primary. maybe this is the clinton campaign’s home-brewed excuse for losing mississippi. god knows the ‘states i lose don’t count’ meme was a dud from the start.
the funniest bit of all is ferraro’s defense. ‘quit yelling at me, you’re just doing that cause i’m white’. yeah, dig deeper. that’s totally gonna work.
MBL
It’s made all the more entertainingly ridiculous because it’s coming from Geraldine Ferraro, likely the most clear example of Presidential campaign tokenism in my lifetime. Has Ferraro done ANYTHING of consequence since receiving one of the worst electoral college beatings of all time?
Hawise
I’m just amazed that Clinton can keep campaigning with the headache that she must have from all the head/desk moments that some of her purported supporters keep giving her. I really want to believe that they are just sleeper cells planted by the Obama campaign to torpedo her but I know that that is just wishful thinking.
TheFountainHead
See, it was all fun and games, but now this has to stop, and quickly. This doesn’t make anyone look good or feel good, and six more weeks of this WILL damage the chances of having a Democrat in the White House in 2009. If you can’t see that, you don’t have an eye on politics, let alone two. It’s not just bad because it makes us look like racists (something we’ll likely be accusing the Right Wingers of in the Fall) but it’s bad because it derails the discourse from Democratic talking points to Republican ones. Trust me, John McCain will be happy to let us spend the next two months talking about whether Obama is here because he’s black.
Original Lee
On Morning Joe this morning, Joe was saying that Clinton is aiming to appeal to the Reagan Democrats and the blue-collar whites who voted to Wallace. She can’t “reject and denounce” because that would be too PC for that demographic; similarly, she can’t ask Ferraro to step away from the campaign, because that would be too PC. She did reject the Ferraro’s comments, though. I am unclear as to whether or not Ferraro is a part of the Clinton campaign – she’s on the Finance Committee or something, right?
chopper
MBL FTW.
Pb
…which she in fact admitted:
myiq2xu
“Geraldine! Go out to California and give an interview with an local LA paper and say some ignorant racist shit. It’s calculated to help us win the coal miner vote.”
Fe E
What does that again?
Thanks in advance for your help!
Fe E
What does that mean again?
Thanks in advance for your help!
Kevin K.
Ferraro drove her trainwreck onto the set of Good Morning America this morning. She’s really spinning out of control. Diane Sawyer looked like she was trying to talk her off a ledge.
And John, I’ve made the same mistake before: it’s Samantha Power.
jprice vincenz
Could you source the second quote–the earlier one from Ferrarro about Jackson?
jprice vincenz
Could you source the second quote–the earlier one from Ferrarro about Jackson?
chopper
nobody ever said clinton’s campaign was gonna do this shit right, myiq.
chopper
washington post, 4/15/1988 (byline: Howard Kurtz).
p.lukasiak
yeah, if Obama was white, he’d still be getting 92% of the black vote in Mississippi!
I mean, can we get serious here for a moment? Obama is where he is because black voters have voted overwhelmingly for him. Even before the whole “race-baiting” controversy, he was getting 69% of the black vote in South Carolina (and wound up with 78% of the black vote). Black voters didn’t just leave Clinton for another candidate — even though Edwards won a pluraily of the black vote in 2004 (with 37%), when they switched from Clinton, they went straight to Obama–Edwards wound up with only 3% of the black vote in South Carolina.
maxbaer (not the original)
When I think of Ferraro, the first things that come to mind are the crooked husband and the dope dealer son. But, that’s only because she’s white.
MBL
Curious, to hear a Democrat complain about other Democrats getting too many black votes.
chopper
exactly why he won iowa.
Dennis - SGMM
MBL is the poster. FTW means “for the win.”
Mr Furious
Yeah, P Luk, because that worked out so well for Sharpton last time out…
Obama is where he is because he is striking a chord with a lot more than black voters. He has won just about every category of voter except old white women over the course of the race.
He is where he is because he is a phenomenal speaker, and an inspiring candidate. At time being black helps him, but it ridiculous to think that on balance that is a net gain.
4tehlulz
You know, if we don’t count those pesky blacks, Hillary won the nomination.
/p.luk
vishnu schizt
Yes let’s get serious for a moment. Seriously, there is no way Billary can win unless she gets 65% or greater margins from here on out. So being serious, let’s admit that is not going to happen. Seriously, the only reason Billary is still campaigning, is so Billary can still be campaigning, and just maybe she can lawsuit, race bait, and bloody Obama as much as possible her way to a brokered convention. And in a serious convention, erase the popular vote, erase the primary system, and have some coronation via proxy. And if so all dems better get some serious shit to keep from vomiting when they pull the lever for her. And then get a serious supply of some serious shit to deal with the next four years.
Snail
What would happen if someone from the Obama campaign came out and said, “The only reason Hillary is in the race is because she used to be married to the president?” Outrage!
And would Clinton be doing in the older white woman vote if she were not, in fact, an older white woman?
jj
And don’t forget about those other strongholds of the African-American electorate Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, Alaska, Minnesota and that most chocolatey of chocolate states UTAH…oh, wait
Of course, P.luk’s remarks don’t surprise me.
This is the guy who thinks the Republicans could run Michael Steele for Vice Prez as a means to nullify the overwhelming preference amongst African-American voters for Obama.
Pure lunacy.
4tehlulz
>>Billary
fail
myiq2xu
A good rant should contain more profanity and some ALLCAPS (unless using the no-caps mode) and should be at least 2-3 times longer.
Billy K
I thought the term was “uppity.”
Evinfuilt
I kept telling myself that if Clinton won I’d still vote for her, just to keep McCain out.
But at this point, there is no doubt that she is a racist, ant-gay bigot. She is not accidentally doing this over and over and over again, these people are not out of her hands, this is her doing. I will abstain, I would no sooner vote for Strom Thurmond than Hillary Clinton.
That she stands by and defends this women after commenting like this twice says more than enough. I have ethics to uphold, and they’re more important than party unity. So for me, as of today, its Obama or abstain.
myiq2xu
What do you expect from us moonbats?
TheFountainHead
Unless it’s not a rant, and more like a statement of reality.
Dennis - SGMM
Should Clinton contrive to steal the nomination, is she really arrogant enough to believe that blacks will simply forget this shit and vote for her anyway?
Dems typically run to the left in the primaries and then move to the right in the general election. If the crap coming out of the Clinton campaign so far is any indicator, the “D” beside her name will become largely symbolic.
myiq2xu
Shorter Evinfuilt: I Wolcott!
Billy K
Also, idiots (you know who you are), please note that African Americans are about 13% of the US population. I looked it up on the computer Webs, so I know it’s true.
It’s REMARKABLE how that 13% is totally pwning this election ZOMG!!!1LOL!1!uno
jj
I don’t think you are moonbats, I think you are well meaning people who backed the wrong horse.
No big deal, it happens to everybody.
Shit, Eliot Spitzer was one of my favorite pols until Monday.
Billy K
Wolcott voted for Hillary.
You’re a step slow today, myiq
myiq2xu
Reality is for people who can’t handle blogs.
myiq2xu
No, you’re two days late.
myiq2xu
Make that three. I seem to have lost a day somewhere.
TheFountainHead
A few more thoughts..
1. If you’re a black person and you support Obama, could you support Hillary in a general election if she somehow wrangles it away from Obama?
2. Can a Democrat win a general election in this country without enthusiastic support from the black population?
3. Can these comments, superficially an issue of racism between whites and blacks, fester and hurt Hillary with other minority groups who have long seen underrepresentation in American politics, possibly even women??
I don’t know the answers, but I think this is a “real” thing and if it gets traction in the media, these are the questions the Superdelegates are going to have to answer for themselves.
Jake
Bu-but, Samantha Powers called Hillary a monster! And anyway it would be sexist to fire Ms. Ferraro … um.
Bwahahaha!
Maybe I’d be more willing to overlook this if I liked clowns, but clowns scare me.
Billy K
No, you either didn’t bother to read the piece or you misunderstood it. John was being crafty in burying the actual point of Wolcott’s column, which was, “Obamabots are too emo.” He still supports Hillary.
myiq2xu
Read the comment thread.
Jake
Butya AAHR! Ya AAAHR, in the CHAAR Blanche!
tBone
Good point, p.luk. Obviously the overwhelming black vote in states like Vermont, Wisconsin, Utah, Connecticut, Wyoming, Washington, Nebraska, Minnesota, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Maine, and Iowa gave Obama the edge.
I’m glad we could have this serious moment.
PK
I was looking at yesterdays primary results and what struck me most was that more than a 100,000 republicans showed up to vote despite knowing that McCain had already won the nomination. What the hell is wrong with these people? Don’t have anything better to do?
Secondly, the only reason why Hillary is still in the race is because the media is portraying it as if she still a chance of being the nominee. Realistically she has no chance even if she wins Pennsylvania, so why is the media behaving as if Pennsylvania is going to make or break this thing. Obama has to start emphasizing the fact that he has won the nomination. Otherwise he is going to go down like Gore-he will win the popular vote and delegates, but the Supreme court i.e. the super delegates will hand it to Hillary.
Billy K
Id id. Iw as there at the time. If you have a point, make it, because AFAIC, you’re bass-ackwards on this point.
tballou
John – don’t you think it is a bit over the top to call Ferraro’s remarks “racist”? I think we are getting way too sensitive to any discussion of race if this kind of stuff is considered racist. Lets try to limit that label to the real deal, of which there is plenty in everyday life.
w vincentz
As a black person trapped in a white body, I’ll state that I’ll vote for any Native American presidential candidate, whenever there is one. provided his/her veep has a Hebrew ancestry.
Pb
Fixed; No, No, and Yes; SA2SQ.
joe
yeah, if Obama was white, he’d still be getting 92% of the black vote in Mississippi!
Yeah, if Obama was white, he’d still only be getting 27% of the white vote in Mississippi.
They just really love them some Hillary Clinton in Mississippi. That’s it, exactly.
Billy K
Supposedly (and I really DO mean “supposedly”), they voted 75-25% for Clinton. yes, the dreaded “Limbaugh Effect.”
myiq2xu
tBone
If a highly-placed Obama supporter said that Clinton had only made it to where she is because she has a vagina, would that be sexist?
myiq2xu
The not-so-highly placed Obama supporters around here don’t think it’s sexist to say stuff like that.
Evinfuilt
myiq2xu, is it wrong to not vote for a racist? I’m sorry, but how many times has Hillary people made clearly racist remarks. Now you have someone in her campaign even admitting it was racist, and yet Hillary defends it.
How could you vote for that? I guess, with Hillary supporters its just like Hillary, its all about power. But now we know its a specific power. And Negro’s need not apply.
Gays/Lesbians are still second class citizens to Clinton.
Why should someone have to vote for that? Why should someone have to believe that it was all an honest mistakes, that happens over and over and over again.
Now, at least Hillary has come clear and defended it. If you don’t see this as cut and dry as it is, you’re blinded. This women is racist, and Hillary supports her, as she has supported all the other racists in her campaign.
But what do I have to worry about.
Obama has the Popular Vote, won more states and won more delegates. I guess being married to a president means you get to keep running after you lost.
libarbarian
She’s right.
If he were white he’d have this thing won by now.
grey_hawk
lukasiak, if you’re wanting to “Get Real” (aka, boil down all preferences in politics to ingroup identity politics), Clinton wouldn’t be doing as well among women if she wasn’t a woman. She wouldn’t be doing as well among whites if she wasn’t white. Her margins there have often been very disproportionate, and I know and have read of plenty of women who have decided for Hillary because she’s a woman. People make a big deal about the disparity for blacks but the disparities on the white side are high as well. Why is “racial identity” such a problem when blacks “do it” but no one cares when whites do?
For Pete’s sake, in Ohio people who decided because of the race of their candidate favored Clinton heavily. Let’s cheer for that little stat and its implications. Check out the radical racial skew whites had for Clinton in Mississippi if you’re going to harp on the African Americans being “prejudiced” by their racial bias.
The same rationale that indicts Obama and his supporters for favoring “one of their own” cuts against Hillary as well, while also ignoring the large number of whites and women who must find something not identity based to decide to favor Obama for as well. And its demeaning in the extreme. That’s why no one should be espousing this kind of logic, as it cuts both ways and serves little logical purpose.
African Americans are such a small percentage of the electorate it’s ridiculous to claim he’s only where he is because of African American support.
Lots of white Democratic candidates have done exceedingly well among African Americans in the primaries and especially in the general.
Is there some preference among African Americans going to Obama because of his race? Sure. Just as there are gender and race preferences going to Hillary for no (or virtually no) other reason than gender or race. But it’s completely stupid to act like that’s “the whole reason” or some kind of “decisive factor”. And what about that monloithic AA bloc in places like Iowa, Alaska, Wyoming, and Wisconsin?
If anyone was serious about “getting serious” they’d recall the abysmal fates of candidates such as Sharpton, Jackson, or Carol Mosley Braun, or African Americans in national politics in general (how many African American Congressmen/women or Presidents have we had?) and put a cork in it before they even uttered their loony, race baiting, poor-put-upon-whites white victimology spiel.
The main reason for most (or virtually all) people supporting either Obama or Hillary arise from legitimate points such as policies, personality, character, etc. Race or gender are just icing on the cake then, or else you’d have seen other black pols fare similarly even though they had much different positions and character/personality traits than Obama.
You’ve got some people on the fringes, I’m sure, going for who they do based solely on identity, but dwelling on them serves no point unless people want to serve as a collectivist ingroup demagoguing on persecution by some outgroup. And if Obama would be nowhere or getting his clock cleaned if he were white (he has no other positives but his race, evidently?) Hillary would be nowhere if she weren’t a woman, or white.
ThymeZone
The Clanton campaign’s posture is going to be that it is Obama that is introducing race into the dialogue by complaining about Ferraro’s remarks.
You guys can think what you want, but based on what I have seen in the last two months, I’d be a fool not to believe that this whole dustup is contrived by the Clintons as a wa to introduce race into the campaign, appear to be blameless, and then try to make it look like Obama is the one trying to make race an issue. They think this is a win win for them, that no matter how you spin it, it helps them in Pennsylvania.
AFAIC this absolutely puts Clinton on the same level as Karl Rove. Not Bush, but Rove. As for Ferraro, she is a piece of work.
This is what really well crafted Ends Justify Means politics looks like.
By the way, I’m still really warm and fuzzy over the front page post yesterday suggesting that we ought to go easy on Hillary Clinton. I think you guys outdid yourselves on that one, a little too cute by half. There is no limit to the mountain of shit that this woman deserves to have dumped on her head at this time. There isn’t enough shit in the world or a truck big enough to haul it over there.
Z
Evinfuilt,
Come on. She isn’t a bigot and she isn’t anti-gay. Ferraro is a bigot, but that doesn’t mean Hillary is. As for the anti-gay thing, that isn’t true either. The Clinton’s always have and always will chose political expediency over the best interests of gay people. That doesn’t mean they hate gays. Conservative Republicans hate gays (even the ones who are having guilty sex with them). Let’s not forget who the REAL anti-gay people are, and let’s not forget how anxious McCain is to pander to these people.
myiq2xu
When/where did Hillary “defend” those comments?
She stated unequivocally she did not agree with what Ferraro said.
Billy K
Ah! I see. You’re quoting yourself. No wonder I didn’t get what you were talking about. Except, again, you got it completely backwards – Wolcott said Obamabots were being irrational, and John agreed that Hillary wasn’t as bad as she was made out to be. So someone “Wolcotting” would be someone denouncing the over-complaining about Hillary.
Sorry, but your application for term-coinage has been denied.
myiq2xu
Where did this come from?
Pug
Obama is where he is because black voters have voted overwhelmingly for him.
exactly why he won iowa.
As well as Wyoming, Utah, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maine, Washington, Vermont and Kansas. Nice logic there, Clintonistas.
Billy K
p.luk will be along any minute to explain to you that OBAMA is the racist. It’ll all be very clear then…
tBone
Shorter myiq: “You’re all misogynists! And I’ll support the vilest calumny if it means Hillary can win.”
myiq2xu
Who died and made you the boss?
Pug
Let’s be honest about the real problem for Hillary supporters. Many of them, like Ferrarro, are absolutely furious that this upstart had the temerity to challenge Hillary Clinton. After all, it is her turn, not his, and she deserves it after all she’s been through.
She is entitled to the nomination of the Democratic Party because she has earned it. Never mind the voting part, she has earned it and now it looks like “they” might take it away from her and they are just so pissed.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
Where would Hillary Clinton be without the overwhelming, monolithic support of old white women and young lesbians?
myiq2xu
I am firmly opposed to vile calumny.
I support scurrilous slander, nasty innuendo and disgusting defamation.
Billy K
That’s pretty much what I was asking you. The attempt to coin a term from your own post takes your solipsism to a new level. That the term makes no sense whatsoever brings into question your rationalism.
You gotta admit – that’s some -isms.
tBone
Hey, look, the first honest thing you’ve said in this thread.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
Jibbety jibbety jibbety, rat-a-tat-tat.
J. Michael Neal
It’s over. Let’s assume that Clinton only needs to get within 100 pledged delegates of Obama to be able to pick up enough superdelegates to get her the nomination.* Let’s assume that Michigan and Florida hold revotes.** Those two assumptions mean that Clinton needs to win 53% of the remaining pledged delegates in order to close the gap to 100. Not catch Obama, mind you. To get within 100.
Now, let’s assume that the delegates in North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota are split evenly.*** That pushes the proportion of delegates that Clinton needs to get in all of the other primaries to 55%. The only states where she has won at least 55% of the delegates are Arizona, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Tennessee.
In order to get within 100 pledged delegates of Obama, Clinton needs to win by New York-like margins in Pennsylvania and Florida. If she doesn’t get 60% of the vote, she doesn’t pick up enough delegates to make it even to the lesser goal of being within 100.
*I suspect that she needs to get it significantly closer than that.
**I’m not as confident that these bozos will manage to figure out how to do that as I was three days ago.
***I think that Obama will do significantly better than that.
Z
As a white woman, based on identity politics, you’d think I’d be in the Hillary camp. But here’s the deal, I think identity politics is the problem. I think it is poisoning politics in this country. Part of Obama’s appeal is that he agrees with me.
Of course, I can type this and all the other reasons I think he is a better candidate until my fingers hurt, and half the Hillary supporters are still going to HEAR:
Obama is teh dreamy! He haz my votes becauz I is a latte-drinking libral elitist and he is black! Plus, I hates womens.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
From The New Yorker:
The next day, a Clinton adviser was more candid about what lies ahead. “Inside the campaign, people are not idiots,” she told me. “Everyone can do the math. It isn’t like the Obama campaign has some special abacus. We can do these calculations, too. Everyone recognizes how steep this hill is. But you gotta keep your game face on.”
Evinfuilt
Clinton Anti-Gay. People don’t realize this yet? 8 years in office making it worse for gays? And you don’t realize this. We’re nothing but toilet paper to them. They go on the radio and blast GLBT while taking our money. Its not hard to see, just spend a few minutes looking back at the 90s. They haven’t apologized for any of the deceit they committed.
Ferraro still works for Clinton. Clinton put out a press-release attacking Obama for being upset. If you don’t call that defending, I don’t know what is. Words are meaningless, action matters. That’s what the Clinton campaign says over and over again. But like everything else, it only matters to their enemy, not to them.
She is a monster, and she’s only in the race still because she’s a Clinton. She would have been forced to drop out of her name was John Smith after those 11 losses, and only breaking even last week.
She’s lost the election, but acting like a Republican, she admonishes everyone for doing what she’s doing, when they’re not doing any of the sort.
Gore lost 8 years ago because of this type of Politics, he’s moved on, time for the nation to move on and leave divisive politics behind. Letting someone who’s already lost campaign and rip the party like this is wrong.
The campaign needs an intervention, someone to tell them its over.
Billy K
It’s been over for a while. The only reason she hasn’t been booted by the party yet is her last name is Clinton. Or Rodham-Clinton, or something. Anyone else would’ve been sent packing a couple months ago.
Billy K
Alos, p.luk will be by shortly to explain why your math is wrong and Clinton victory is nigh. It’ll all make sense then…
w vincentz
Ferraro must’ve had a vagina moment, you know…
the estrogen kicks in before the brain fires up.
Now, if Hillclit doesn’t denounce and reject, she’ll appear to suffer the same symptom.
4tehlulz
>>Clinton Anti-Gay.
I’m sorry; I’m totally in the tank for Obama and I don’t buy this for a moment. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and DOMA are on Bill’s head, not Hill’s.
horatius
In order to get within 100 pledged delegates of Obama, Clinton needs to win by New York-like margins in Pennsylvania and Florida. If she doesn’t get 60% of the vote, she doesn’t pick up enough delegates to make it even to the lesser goal of being within 100.
See. This is exactly why I keep saying that *cough* negroes *cough* ahem… black men have it much easier than women. And Barack Obama is a sexist.
Billy K
Yes! But she gets the benefit of Bill’s “experience.” Especially in Foreign Affairs. Clear?
horatius
Go ahead and call it cooties you sexist pig!!!
myiq2xu
Who are you calling a cootie queen you lint licker?
4tehlulz
>>w vincentz
They see me trollin’
They hatin’
Killjoy
I mean, can we get serious here for a moment? Obama is where he is because black voters have voted overwhelmingly for him.
My “favorite” part about this rationale is the implied deficiency of African Americans not realizing Hillary is Teh Awesome because they can’t get past race. I never see it argued that white people can’t see Obama is Teh Awesome because they can’t get past race.
cain
Clinton didn’t address Ferraro’s comment per se. She made a general statement about nastiness in BOTH campaign, no doubt a shot at Obama for the ‘montster’ comment. But she didn’t equivocally distance herself from Ferraro.
I think Ferraro has been put up there to muddy up the waters some for the benefit of the Pennsylvania voters who she feels are like Ohio. I don’t see how this helps her all that much, she’s not going to get that many delegates to make that much headway. Hopefully she doesn’t think that somehow she will capture some kind of 70/30 ratio? I think a lot of people are really sick of this kind of thing.
It will be interesting to see how this ploy plays out. MUP needs to just ignore Ferraro like one would ignore a fart. It’ll be uncomfortable but its easier not to acknowledge.
cain
Evinfuilt
You get it!!!
The idea she gets to take credit for the good stuff he did, but not for the crap. And without evidence of doing either. Well, thats pretty damn Republican ;)
She got called out by Sinbad on her Foreign Policy experience, that had to feel bad.
Martin
No. Now, I understand her comments about Jackson. There was a guy who never held government office at any level. Sure, he had a bunch of other leadership experience, but he also had some other embarrassments along the way that would have dogged any candidate. But Jackson wasn’t any more qualified to be President than Nader is.
The problem is the comment itself. Ferraro could have said exactly that – hey, this guy doesn’t have any government experience, in what way is he qualified to be President, and instead of focusing on why he shouldn’t win the race, she focused on why he was still in the race. The danger with doing that is that *voters* are what keeps candidates in races, so any challenge to why he is there is a challenge to the voters – essentially telling them that *they* are racists for not picking someone who is qualified. Essentially, she’s saying that Jacksons race is not a substitute for his lack of experience.
With Obama, it’s much worse. Obama doesn’t have the qualification issue. Obama is as qualified (or moreso) than Edwards and Hillary is having a hard time arguing that she is more qualified than Obama, proof being that’s she’s pulling in trips with Sinbad as part of her experience portfolio. To say that Obama isn’t experienced enough to be here not only denies that we might care about other things like judgement, character, vision, which should be obvious with Richardson, Biden, and Dodd out of the race, but is outright disingenuous in that Clinton is no more experienced. So if race *were* the reason he was here, then *marriage* would have to be the reason why Clinton is here, and being white and male would be Edwards excuse due to limited experience as well, so why should we favor one over the other? And we’re 45 contests into this thing. Obama has won 30 of them. So, it’s not even like she’s telling a small number of voters that they are racist for not seeing Obama for who he is, she’s telling half the fucking party that. For those of us who have invested a significant amount of time in looking at these candidates, that’s just offensive *to me*.
I had a walkabout discussion with black coworkers yesterday about her comment and asked if they thought it was true (not all voted for Obama, some voted for Clinton) and they thought it was absurd because the reason they voted for Bill Clinton in ’92 is that he ran on more-or-less the same appeal that Obama is running on now. Bill was inspirational, charismatic, a skilled politician, spoke directly to the issues of voters, and didn’t pander (much) to the AA community, but Bill didn’t have a broad portfolio either. In other words, if Obama was white, he’d pretty much be Bill Clinton.
Obama didn’t win 90% of MS voters, Clinton lost them. She had a solid percentage of the black vote back at the start – not half, but in the 30s-40s. It fell apart in SC when her campaign (Bill especially) felt that they could do better and specifically targeted the AA community with the civil rights discussion. It wasn’t just minimizing the impact of JFK, it was the fact that the Clintons felt the AA community needed a different message – that economy, and trade and healthcare wasn’t enough for them (it is). As soon as they started delivering that message, treating AAs as a different voting group, they opened themselves up to being punished for getting the message wrong – which is exactly what happened. Had they not gone there, I suspect Clinton would still be pulling in decent AA populations.
PeterJ
They can probably be explained by all the republican women that are crossing over and voting for Clinton. They will also vote for her in the General Election.
p. lukasik wrote something about these overcrossing female republicans over at TalkLeft a while ago.
Republicans voting for Obama while there still was a republican race going on, that’s bad. Republicans voting for Clinton after they have picked their winner, that’s just good.
Think about it…
w vincentz
Aww shucks…seems that if ya can dish it up, ya should be willing to eat it.
YUM!
TheFountainHead
Hey, we may be an Obama house here, p.luk and myiq’s muddy tracks notwithstanding, but we’re not trying to be another version of Hillaryis44.com. Make a salient argument or say something clever, but don’t just spew sewage.
K?
Thx.
Billy K
I was careful to say “supposedly” twice, because I’m not sure I buy into the “Limaugh Effect.”
But if you think GOP women are going to vote for Hillary in the general, you’re off your rocker.
Oh, and p.luk can write whatever he wants. His credibility is long gone.
TheFountainHead
Oh man, the truth stings!
w vincentz
K Fountain H.
no problemo
ThymeZone
The only way Martin could come into this ongoing food fight and make a rational, intelligent post like that is if he is either a woman, or black, or a black woman, or all three. And I’m tired of these people playing the vagina card and the race card. And the card card.
/snark
Okay, Martin, great post, please send more and give us a link to your online newsletter.
Thx
D-Chance.
Ferraro… another New York Liberal racist. What is it about the Northeastern Liberal establishment… Cuomo, Ferraro, Clinton… this crap isn’t coming from the rednecks, or the “hicks” from the deep South. This is dyed-in-the-wool Northeast Liberal Party Machine. Congratulations, Dems, I don’t want to hear one fucking word out of any of you come the general elections about “Bubba” or any other code word for Southern White Conservative Males. You’ve pissed away your racial outrage card for 2008.
w vincentz
TZ,
Just curious.
I posted a “vagina moment” comment and look at how quickly Horatius responded by calling me a “sexist pig”.
Now, if only the same level of non-estrogen driven clarity was applied to stating Ferraro’s assertions as “racist pig”, the veracity would be seen.
curtadams
Minus the zipper problem.
ThymeZone
Are you, in fact, a sexist pig? Ha ha. But, you know, some people are, and I don’t happen to think that being one is the worst thing in the world. I mean, compared to mass murder and racketeering, you see? Anyway …
Then there is the matter of Horatius. Is he a spooftroll, a convict who got into the warden’s computer, a nutcase?
Last but not least, consider that it’s all snark a good deal of the time.
But, your point is well taken.
TenguPhule
Uh no, what Hillary has proven is that she will pander to the lowest common denominator to get elected.
Make of it what you will.
Sojourner
I am in no way defending what Ferraro said but this comment needs clarification.
I saw a poll recently that said 6% of the American people would not vote for a black man for president while 12% said they would not vote for a woman.
So in terms of the presidential arena, it does appear that women have it worse.
TenguPhule
She thought Mark Penn was a good choice to have by her side.
What does that tell you about her judgement?
Billy K
And 99% of those assholes are Republicans.
And 100% of statistics are bullshit.
Sojourner
Oh for pete’s sake.
John S.
Source? Methodology? Anything?
Because if the MOE was +/- 5%, then statistically a black man and a woman are even.
John S.
That’s what I thought when I read your comment pinning thoughtful analysis on “I saw a poll somewhere…”
ThymeZone
According to NPR, half of Americans think that the earth is 6000 years old.
Quite frankly, arguing over a few percentages worth of people who will reject a candidate for office based on race or gender is a waste of time and pixels, and honestly, if the Hillarites have nothing more than this constant poor-me victim routine based on gender, then I politely request that they just shut the fuck up. That shit is stupid and it’s getting old.
Ed Drone
I think Geraldine was trying to make a point that is hard to make, which is that a candidate who plays the ‘identity’ card gets wherever he/she is because of his/her ‘identity.’ The problem with this is that both candidates are playing the identity card, so by pointing out only Obama’s identity, Ferraro was being racist. If Obama made the identical point about Clinton, he’d be being sexist, but he has not made that point, nor do I know of any of his campaign or followers who make the point — they know that knife has two edges to its blade.
Obama’s string of successes is precisely not because of his race. He appeals to people who are not black, else he’d not have won the states he has. Clinton’s appeal is not that she’s a woman, either; she claims to have ‘experience’ that qualifies her.
Both candidates use their identity as a trump card, an ‘extra’ when they need it. But Clinton’s ‘identity’ as a woman should trump Obama’s blackness — there are far more women voters than black voters (the question of black women voters aside), so Clinton’s panic is because her should-be-higher-than-Obama’s trump card isn’t working! This means she has to invent a way to pull in the ‘other identities’ — white men — and emphasizing race (no matter how ‘innocent’ the manner of doing so) will do this. So she has taken the ‘calling a spade a spade’ tack* to negate the identity-advantage Obama gains from his race among Democratic voters (where black voters are a sizable bloc).
It’s calculating, it’s mean, and the question of whether it will be effective enough remains to be seen. But when you resort to race as a card to play, you’re in danger of being labeled ‘racist’, and it also shows how far you will go to win — which is the point many here are trying to make. Going down this road is evidence of an egoism and ambition that can drive people off. A scorched-earth policy only works if you’re not planning on occupying the earth you’ve scorched. She wants to lead the Democratic Party. If she uses enough of her ‘political capital,’ she can become the candidate.
But at what cost? We’ve had nearly eight years of frightening hubris and disastrous incompetence, and the Clinton approach to winning the nomination brings the looming prospect of electoral disaster, and at least four more years of the same, possibly even ‘on steroids.’
Do we want this? Dare we chance it? Cannot someone prevent it?
Ed
ThymeZone
You got that right. I defended the shitty Clintons for about 15 years. I couldn’t figure out what made people hate them so much.
Now I know, and I hate them too. I mean, truly, hate them. They suck, and I am embarassed for having defended them all that time.
Splitting Image
“Obama didn’t win 90% of MS voters, Clinton lost them. She had a solid percentage of the black vote back at the start – not half, but in the 30s-40s. It fell apart in SC when her campaign (Bill especially) felt that they could do better and specifically targeted the AA community with the civil rights discussion. It wasn’t just minimizing the impact of JFK, it was the fact that the Clintons felt the AA community needed a different message – that economy, and trade and healthcare wasn’t enough for them (it is). As soon as they started delivering that message, treating AAs as a different voting group, they opened themselves up to being punished for getting the message wrong – which is exactly what happened. Had they not gone there, I suspect Clinton would still be pulling in decent AA populations.”
Bullseye.
And this is not only true with regard to black voters. The Clintons have re-worked their message repeatedly according to where they were campaigning and what they apparently thought would work. Worst example is the “Obama isn’t ready for the job/Obama would be a great VP” nonsense.
I think a lot of people catch on to this when it is not being done to them and become more resistent to the message when it’s their turn to hear it. Obama has been much more consistent about his message, and as a result many people seem to consider him more honest and forthright.
Billy K
QFT.
Ed Drone
I for got the footnote:
* Pun noted.
Ed
ThymeZone
er …
Disambiguation, please?
ThymeZone
Sure it does. That explains why women have to fear being dragged behind pickup trucks, lynched. It explains why black men far outnumber white women in executive positions, high paying jobs, etc.
It explains why we only recently had restrooms and restaurants with “MEN ONLY” seating areas. Water fountains for men only.
Really, when you get right down to it, women are the ultimate victims in our world, and black people have done nothing but try to co-opt the victimhood for their own selfish reasons.
I’m glad we are finally getting to the bottom of this.
Billy K
Quoted For Truth.
I don’t recognize the other QFTs as canon.
Pb
Sojourner,
The looks like the numbers were 6% (black / would not) and 15% (woman / would not) respectively, CBS/NYT poll, 1/9-12/08. Given the timing, however, I could see someone making the case that it’s hard to separate that from the current Presidential race. However, Gallup has numbers stretching back further, which shows that the black number above has been consistently 4-6% since ’97 (median: 5; progressively higher before ’97), whereas the woman number has ranged from 7-12% since ’87 (median: 11; progressively higher before ’87). The ordering, by the way, is Catholic, Black, Jewish, Woman, Hispanic, Mormon, Homosexual, and Atheist. Presumably it will take quite some time before we get our first Hispanic Lesbian Atheist President.
Billy K
We have a Sheriff in Dallas!
OK – I don’t think she’s an Atheist, but a Hispanic Lesbian Sheriff? In Texas?
joe
We do have restrooms for men only, ThymeZone. They’re called men’s rooms.
Otherwise, good comment. But that one didn’t help.
Billy K
And I think this is just wrong. I often burst into “Ladies’ Rooms” to make my point.
I think it’s working.
John S.
Pb-
Thanks for the link. Those are some interesting statistics, to say the least.
I can’t help but to wonder if the Bradley effect doesn’t have something to do with the higher number of respondents in favor of a black president. In other words, I tend to think that people being polled feel more comfortable being openly misogynistic rather than openly racist.
ThymeZone
Gotcha, thx
Sojourner
You are getting hysterical again, TZ. If you read what I wrote, you will see that I narrowed it specifically to the politics, and even more specifically to the presidential race.
It really gets tiresome being attacked for saying anything that could somehow, some way, through misrepresentation, drugs, or whatever be shoehorned into a position that is anti-Obama.
Billy K
Well, stop attacking The MUP. ;)
ThymeZone
Tiresome? Tiresome is being labeled “hysterical” because I made a strong, and telling, rebuke of your post.
Screw you, and your “hysterical.”
And you were attacked for playing the “woman as victim” card which IS the really tiresome thing here, and IS hysterical, and IS bullshit … complete and utter bullshit.
That’s my opinion, we disagree, and you need to try a different argument because the one you are making now is a total loser. Like it or not, that’s the way it is.
Evinfuilt
How about immigrant transgendered lesbian Atheists? I just want to know if I have any chance at all in Politics.
Holy frick, typing that out makes me wonder how I lasted as a republican all the way to 2000, of course back then I was “straight-male Catholic from England.”
Billy K
Sully? Nah…
Anyway, your chances in Politics aren’t so good, but you could probably sleep with and wreck someone else’s career in (Republican) politics, if that gives you any consolation.
w vincentz
Evin,
I just peed my pants.
Sojourner
No, YOU are attacking me for citing a statistic that pisses you off. So you want to turn it into a straw man argument that I NEVER made.
Since when is it “playing the victim” to point out a statistic? Are you also going to argue that women who fight against spousal abuse are also “playing the victim”? Or what about breast cancer? Are they “playing the victim”?
Grow up.
Sojourner
But but but I wasn’t! Really!!
Evinfuilt
The oddest thing was reading Sullivan the first time. I had to go buy the book. I mean what are the odds there were 2 of us!
Still, I’m the one who had the chop and left the party in 2000, not 2004. I removed my Republican Blinders when Bush crushed McCain in South Carolina, and was cheered on for it. I guess I was lucky. I don’t know if I could have lived with myself actually supporting Bush.
Shygetz
I’m white and I voted for Obama. Does that make me a race traitor or a misogynist? I’ve lost track…
Billy K
It means you don’t count.
Martin
That’s irrelevant. 28% of Americans won’t vote for a Democrat no matter what and a similar number won’t vote for a Republican. There are zillions of immovable, overlapping biases that people have which politicians have to overcome and getting into ‘my disadvantage is bigger than your disadvantage’ is childish, which is why we’ve been working so hard to eliminate it. Hell, it sits at the core of conservative theory in this country. (Practice is a whole other kettle of fish).
But the new strategy here for Clinton is clear. This is the occupation gambit played in politics. Just as Bush’s invasion of Iraq forced even opponents of the war to provide support for the effort since the invasion couldn’t be undone, Clinton is poisoning the general election with the hope that now that the election is about race filling in for Obama’s lack of qualification it will force the party to support her since that race card can’t be undone (I’m not sure this can be undone or not). It’s extremely deliberate given the timing as it allowed the Mississippi vote to be used as the best possible evidence that it is true (though it isn’t true if you look at the larger whole). This becomes an irreversible process. Clinton is forcing the party to make a choice – back Obama on principle and lose or back me in disgust but win.
Shygetz
As a lifelong Southerner, if the Democratic party decides to look to the State of Mississippi as a model of race relations in America, the Democratic party deserves what it gets. Mississippi is where the Confederate secessionists refuse to go because they are afraid of being branded as Negro sympathizers.
Martin
Ah, but we apply a double-standard to Mississippi. We assume that whites won’t vote for blacks so when that happens, nobody pays it any attention. We don’t assume that blacks won’t vote for whites. So when blacks don’t vote for whites, what conclusion do we draw?
ThymeZone
I’m attacking you for using an irrelevant statistic to make a tiresome, bullshit point that not only is bogus, it actually harms your own case.
Do you honestly think that a black man is worse of politically than a white woman? Are you suggesting that the victimhood legacy of women is so deep and so profound that a statement like that, which is ludicrous on its face, actually has merit?
What exactly did you mean, if not that women “have it worse” than black men when it comes to, as you put it, presidential politics? That some unfair and bigoted judgment is being applied unfairly to women to the extent that a black man has an advantage over a white woman if nothing else is known about them?
Let’s suppose I am the super-powerful guy who gets to make the final hiring decision, and I have equally qualified man and woman in front of me, absolutely no difference. Are you suggesting that I should not be allowed, or even allow myself, to consider the gender of the two candidates and use that difference in my process of making the choice?
In other words, the contest is only fair if set up as if I did not know the genders of the two?
And once we settle that issue, then tell me, if I choose the male candidate, will you argue that I made an unfair gender-based decision, and cry “sexism?” In other words, if the woman doesn’t win, it’s not fair?
Are women really arguing that they don’t want to be seen as women when running for office? Hell no. Women will argue that a woman might do a better job. That’s a rebuttable argument, is it not? If a woman can argue that a women can do a better job, why can’t a man argue that a man can do a better job? And if we are going to argue any gender issue, then what are you afraid of?
Hillary Clinton is a hypcrite. She wants to use her gender in any way that helps her, including deciding what’s fair and what’s not. But when it comes to race, we’re supposed to pretend that she is above that kind of manipulation?
Bah, nonsense. I know damned well that she will play both cards — race and gender — in whatever way works in her favor. Fine, then her opposition is entitled to do the same. Gender is either on the table, or it is not. Which is it?
ThymeZone
For those morons who thought I didn’t know of such a thing as a Men’s Room, let me spell out what should have been obvious: We don’t have restroom situations where there are facilities for men, and none for women. Or second rate, crummy ones for women when a nice clean one for men is right next door. In other words, unequal.
And of course, the whole idea of public restrooms that are separated by gender is pretty much an American thing, isn’t it? A pretty dumb idea, I think. But at least we have facilities for everyone. My blurb was aimed at supposing that we had facilities for only men, as a ridiculous example of how women were ever as bad off as black people were in this country in terms of equal treatment.
The victimhood of women thing is a little thick these days.
Jackie
CNN just announced Geraldine Ferraro is leaving Hillary Clinton campaign. http://www.cnn.com/
Sojourner
Have it worse: the stat suggests that there’s a slightly stronger bias against voting for a woman than a black man. Nothing more, nothing less.
Wow, TZ. I certainly never expected a single statistic to push you over the edge.
Exactly what do you think is my “case”? I thought it was an interesting statistic. I didn’t realize you are so fragile that it will have you foaming at the mouth about abuses against minorities.
I have not talked at all about victimhood. I have consistently made the simple argument that sexist comments about Clinton are unacceptable. Just as I think that racist comments are unacceptable. You have already admitted that these comments have taken place. The only difference between us is that you think it’s fine and dandy to attack her by any means possible. I disagree – which apparently has you mightily pissed off.
And now you’re attacking me by any means possible because I had the “nerve” to challenge people for their language. I have every confidence that you would have a total meltdown if anyone on this blog used equivalently racist language with Obama. So if you have a problem with me challenging the men for sexist language,
TOUGH.
Get a grip, man.
Chuck Butcher
Thinking either Ferraro or Clinton are racist bigots is probably a mistake. What you do have is political convenience as a ruling paradigm. It is scarcely a new sort of Clintonian tactic. It is the largest factor in my opposition to Hillary. What you do with that is up to you. I don’t like it.
Here’s the deal, let’s not give Pat Buchanan talking points, I just listened to him make the political correctness slam. If Geraldine is judged by her words to have been stupid, then that’s how it goes. Does she have the right to say it? Judas priest, the KKK has the right to say what it does, that doesn’t change the fact that people will judge the content and implications of a statement. Why should it? If Clinton stands by her girl, then that is what she has done. Will I make judgements on that score? You bet, as will everybody who has heard of it. What they do with it is their judgement.
Box o rocks will make his judgement in regard to the statement. He will justify or not his stance as he does. This isn’t some imposed standard, the words and their context are out there, she got her say. Clinton got to react how she did and everybody will make a judgement based on their judgement. I call it stupid and indicative of Clinton’s politics, it fits with the rest of her attacks that have nothing to do with policies.
Neither of the candidate’s ‘bots will pay attention to rational arguments and are dispensible in that regard. This is at least part of the ugliness, asking the hard questions or posing the hard arguments on the basis of actual facts results in flames rather than reasoned debate. I submit Hillary comes up short in practice of politics, as far as their policies – so what? Judgement and character, there you go.
ThymeZone
Excuse me, that wasn’t you in here just the other day singing the aria from the Mysogyny opera?
Callisto
Well, Ferraro just quit Clinton’s campaign.
In her parting letter to Hillary:
Wow, dramatic much?
ThymeZone
Uh, they’re posts. And I’m foaming at the mouth?
ThymeZone
Wow, I am totally surprised. Looks like the Clintons did the math on this and decided that the Ferraro dustup wasn’t a winner for them. That is actually very encouraging.
I may have to stop hating Hillary for a day or two. Okay, a day.
ThymeZone
Okay, I may have missed something here. Are you referring to that crude sexual humor from the other day and the misogyny argument?
If so, then we still disagree. Unless you are going to argue that sexual humor is by definition misogynistic.
Or are we going to reopen that whole argument again? Because again, I say that the Clintons are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want gender when it works for them, and want “I slept in the president’s bed and that makes me qualified” when it works for them, but if somebody makes a crude joke …. that’s misogynistic?
I reject (and denounce!) that argument just as hard as I did the other day. No way, Jose.
Sojourner
Nope. I don’t sing. But I do challenge misogynist and sexist language, of which you have admitted guilt.
So the shock and awe response, while amusing, suggests an undeserved naivite.
ThymeZone
Maybe I need to spell it out more clearly. If Obama got up and said that being a Brotha and a steady diet of chitlins and watermelon made him qualified to be president, and people made crude jokes about it, I would not call that racist. I would call him a damned fool.
But Clinton gets up and says that riding in presidential limousines and eating dinner in the private quarters of the White House make her qualified to be president … and yeah, I think she opens herself up to whatever wisecracks and crude jokes people come up with.
And it STILL isn’t misogyny. It’s called fair play.
ThymeZone
No, I conceded that the jokes were crude. I don’t feel any guilt whatever. If I am guilty of making a crude joke, well, heh ….. then I guess my time in Hell has just been shortened by a few eternities. Wow.
But the fact that a joke is crude doesn’t make it wrong, or out of bounds. It just makes it crude. There’s a time and place for crude humor. This blog, in case nobody noticed, is pretty much a time and place for crude humor.
So let’s not get wrapped around the guilt thing. Crude, yes. Wrong, no.
Sojourner
I understand that’s what you think. We’ve been down this road before.
So how far do you extend this argument? If a man has a woman working for him who he feels is incompetent or dishonest, are you okay with him making crude jokes about her?
What about a husband who is fighting with his wife?
How about a college student and his girlfriend?
Are you basically saying that women who do not meet some guy’s standard for soemthing are fair game?
Do you extend this argument to black people? Or is it just women who are the subject of your ire?
Just how far are you willing to take your argument?
Billy K
Of course – she’s a woman!
/sexy
And TZ, admit it – you don’t know what a Men’s Room is!
ThymeZone
Seriously? As far as pretending that living in the White House qualifies somebody to be president, for the purposes of this conversation. That’s the subject on the table. That’s where the crude humor came from. That’s what I thought we were discussing.
You want to extend that out to basically all the permutations of man-woman relationships? No, I am not going there, and I reject an attempt to go there.
As for your direct question, no, I do not extend the “permission” to make crude jokes to the situations you described. But what are you arguing, that crude sexual humor about another gender is never allowable? Women don’t make jokes about men’s private parts? WTF Soj?
We aren’t talking about the crude jokes, we are talking about the propriety of them in particular situations.
And I say, when a woman runs for president (!) and claims that her First Lady experience counts as qualification for the job, then I say ….. the door is open, and she should be prepared for the blast of you-know-what that is rightfully going to be aimed at her. If she didn’t want it, then she should not have made the ludicrous claim.
Sorry but I think that puts us right back where we were the other day.
Martin
Nope, she’s a free agent now. Just was on O’Reilly saying the same crap and poisoning the general election for Obama by getting the wingnuts repeating her crap. And it’s fair game now for the Republicans to say Obama is only winning on race because a Democrat started it – see, non-partisan.
If the grown-ups don’t show up soon, I predict a violent Denver.
ThymeZone
It depends on which outfit I am wearing on any given day.
ThymeZone
Oh, I spoke too soon. She is out there doing their dirty work but “not associated” with the campaign. They get the effect and take no blame.
Clever. And disgusting. I really hope this blows up into a rejection of the Clantons and their bullshit.
Sojourner
Sorry. I had not defined it quite that narrowly. My original posts on this topic arose from a combination of what I was hearing and reading. Tweety, NYT, BJ. It was never aimed at one person.
And it’s not just crude humor. It’s language that is belittling to someone on the basis of gender.
That’s my beef. I have never challenged anyone on their right to criticize her for claims, ethics, etc.
Stephen1947
So Gerry is apparently stepping down, according to one of those BREAKING!!! diaries on D-Kos – apparently so she can continue to spew oh her own time and not have her beloved leader be attacked for supporting it. What Ms. Ferraro needs is a permanent (I selected this term rather than ‘terminal’) case of laryngitis.
ThymeZone
Okay, well I thought that whole misogyny thing the other day was grounded in those crude jokes that were making the rounds recently.
But okay, so what do you think of my argument that once she starts talking about being Mrs President and how it makes her fit to be THE president, all restraints are off?
Keeping in mind, as I said, that she wants to employ gender when it suits her, but rejects it when it is derogatory?
Isn’t that having the cake and eating it too?
Help me out here, I’m not winning convincingly :)
Sojourner
I’ve been out grocery shopping, which gave me time to think about this a bit.
Serious question: I know hypotheticals suck but let’s assume that Hillary is a black candidate. Would it be acceptable to make racial jokes about him?
Sojourner
Crap, make that a black male candidate.
ThymeZone
I know this is not the answer you want to hear, but I think I answered that upthread with my watermelon-chitlin post.
If he were claiming qualification for the presidency based on his membership in a black militant organization …. yes.
He is not. She on the other hand is using her position as Mrs President Ladyperson to claim such qualification.
Since I have already failed umpteen times to make this point, I have to assume that it won’t work this time either.
ThymeZone
I refer to my 4:42 post.
Sojourner
And what feminist militant group does Clinton belong to?
ThymeZone
Soj, pardon me for being … me, but ….
What about my answer to your hypothetical?
Clinton flashes gender card, but cries sexism when gender-centered criticism is aimed at her.
Obama does not employ race as justification for his claim to presidency, therefore, is not susceptible to race-centered responses.
What am I missing?